How to use the "Is it your intention NOT to do {X}" tactic properly

Over the past couple years, there have been a number of times where I've seen emails that deploy the same tactic, which is some variant of the following:

"Is it your intention to not do {X}?"

where {X} is usually something like move forward with a purchase or further engage with an opportunity.

I've been witness to this tactic yielding amazing results (such as bringing opportunities back from the dead). I've also seen this tactic being used laughably incorrectly.

So, what makes a situation ripe for using that tactic, vs a situation where it barely moves the needle?

To understand the difference between the two situations, it's helpful to go back to Chris Voss' explanation of why the tactic works in the first place (Chris Voss is the person from whom I first heard of this tactic, and is a former FBI hostage negotiator - he knows a thing or two about influence).

There are two main reasons why the tactic works when it does:

• It puts the other person in the drivers seat by giving them an opportunity to say 'no'. Think about this for a moment, and the situations where you've had to say 'no' to something. Would it have been a lot easier or more comfortable to just 'go along' and say yes, even though you didn't really mean it? Saying 'no' inherently puts a stick in the ground, and helps put the person saying 'no' back into a position of control. The question 'Is it your intention NOT to do...' is designed to elicit a 'no' response.
• Loss aversion. People, in general, do not like to lose something they think they have, even if they don't own it yet. To illustrate this, think about the feelings people had in March 2020 when the market tanked, vs the reality of most peoples situation when it came to the value of their investments vs the original cost basis (read: they were still doing OK - the 'losses' were on paper only). The question 'Is it your intention NOT to do...' puts the possibility of NOT having the deal go through into their psyche, which triggers the loss aversion response.

So with the explanation of why the tactic works, we can look back at situations where it is effective, and where I've seen it used completely ineffectively.

Effective

In order for the loss aversion response to get triggered, the person receiving the 'Is it your intention NOT to...' line has to feel they have something to lose by responding in any way other than 'no'. Usually, that occurs when they have already put some sort of investment in, or they feel they are just a 'yes' response away from realizing a benefit. In other words, when a proposal or quote that they have been a major part of is on the table, and has been for a period of time.

I have seen this tactic used, and garner a response back within an hour (after weeks of silence), in situations like that.

Ineffective

Promotional or unsolicited emails or other communications. I've been the person receiving a solicitation email out of the blue from some vendor. Then, a week later, a follow up with 'I reached out to you last week' blah blah blah. Then, a week later, an email asking 'Is it your intention NOT to move forward?'

In these cases - yes, it is my intention to NOT move forward. I never asked for the product and I have no interest. I have zero investment of my time in pursuing said product, so there is no loss aversion response to be triggered.

Closing Thought

The other thing this illustrates is that one can read about strategies and tactics in a book (really, about anything - from sales to parenting), but deploying them effectively is a whole other ballgame, and this scenario with this particular negotiation tactic was one where I've seen it attempted in multiple scenarios and it really illustrated how there are certain times and situations where a tactic can be used effectively, and others where it completely falls flat.

Do you want to keep your audience engaged? Stop asking loaded questions

At some point or another, everyone ends up in a situation where they are explaining something to an audience. That audience may be a bunch of anonymous people, or it may be direct reports. And during such situations, it's not uncommon to pause, and ask if there are any questions.

The problem is, the way this inquiry is posed, is loaded.

Take a moment to think about the phrase 'Are there any questions?' It sounds inquisitive, but think of yourself as being a member of the audience - is it an inviting question? It is an open question that makes you feel comfortable raising your voice?

Usually, the answer is 'no'. Raising your hand, asking a question - both those actions subtly go against the grain. The phrase 'Are there any questions?' sets the grain in such a way that it's far more comfortable, as an audience member, to stay quiet.

It takes a lot of self confidence to go against the grain. What happened with me early in my career - and what I assume happens to most people (since I am nothing special) - is that asking questions or asking for clarification, is perceived as a weakness. Maybe we have trauma from grade school when we asked questions and were made fun of for not 'getting it'. But that was grade school - by the time we get to a career, its a whole other ballgame.

I may be stating the obvious, but sometimes it's nice to hear someone else acknowledge, reiterate, and justify the obvious.

The point is - even as we get older, we still have questions, but we are often held back by previous experiences that have marred us. We have a deeply ingrained desire to appear so intelligent or strong that we resist asking a question.

On the other hand - what goes through your mind when someone else asks a question? At least in my case (and again, I assume in others' cases as well, since I am nothing special), if I hear someone else ask a question, its either 'Ah, yes - I was thinking the same thing', and I am happy someone else brought up the topic, or I think 'Wow, that person is really engaged - they are thinking on a level I didn't even consider', I take it as a learning opportunity to expand my thought process, and I am appreciative of the opportunity. In either case, it's a positive situation.

But that is the perspective of the audience member. If it takes two to tango, it takes both sides of the situation to foster as fully an educational experience as possible - meaning not only does the audience member have to muster the guts to ask a question, but the presenter can also help the situation by inviting questions.

So, for example - after presenting a chunk of material, the presenter may say:

"OK, that was a lot of information. Now is a great time to ask any questions you may have"

- OR -

"I'm sure there are a lot of questions, so lets pause a moment to address them"

There are a couple subtle messages in those.

• In the first instance, there is the acknowledgement of a lot of information. This helps the audience member feel validated that they (potentially) just absorbed a lot of information, may feel a bit overwhelmed, and needs time to process. It helps pave the way for the statement that if there are questions, this is an appropriate time.
• In the second instance, by stating that they are sure there are questions, the presenter is expecting there to be questions. When the presenter expects questions, and that is conveyed to the audience - it's a whole lot easier for the audience member to ask them.

Now, note the difference between those two potential statements, and the following:

"OK. That was a lot of information. Now is a great time to ask any questions, if there are any."

Ask yourself - doesn't that feel just a bit less inviting? The qualifier 'if there are any' at the end almost completely nullifies the opening offered by the 'Now is a great time to ask any questions'.

These are subtle wording differences, but they make a huge impact on how likely it is that an audience member will raise their voice to ask a question.

As someone who spent a large portion of my career where I was a technical instructor - I can tell you that an audience that asks questions is engaged, and an engaged audience is always preferred to a silent audience, and one way to keep the audience engaged is to be mindful of how you ask if there are any questions.

This post was inspired by Ozan Varol.

Project Execution Flywheel

 Last year, I listened to an episode of The Tim Ferriss Show where he interviewed Jim Collins, and Jim mentioned a concept that I've been semi-obsessed with ever since - the flywheel. Basically, a flywheel is a set of systems where, once initiated, a large amount of the momentum for moving forward is self-sustaining, because one step inherently leads to the next.

If you've never heard of Jim Collins - he is one of the most influential business minds out there, and his group has done decades of research into what differentiates 'good' companies from 'great' ones (thus, the title of one of his books: Good to Great).

BUT - this is not a post about Jim Collins. Ever since I heard that episode (and read his monograph: Turning The Flywheel), I've been thinking about ways the flywheel concept can be applied to both business and personal life. One of the ways I started mulling the idea over was in regards to how a project is executed, and I started realizing that, when I looked back over my career and examined successful projects and compared them to ones that were not so successful, some patterns started coming into focus.

Before I dive in, I'll point out that I am speaking of project execution from my perspective as a Data Center consultant/engineer, where I am part of a team responsible for implementing a new technology solution within a customer environment. Projects take many forms - this is just my reflection on the kinds of projects I happen to work on.

When I think of the projects I work on, there are four primary roles - sales, design, implementation, and management. Usually, in my industry, the titles for people filling those roles are something like Relationship Manager, Solution Architect, Professional Services, and Project Manager. Note that in some cases, a single person may be fulfilling multiple roles.

While each role has the obvious end-goal of making the customer happy, I realized that each role also had their own set of internal motivations. Furthermore, I realized that at each step of the process, each person has the ability to make things easier for the next person. In my mind, this realization is the fundamental thread that makes the flywheel possible, and differentiates it from the typical sales cycle graphics I'd seen before.

Here is the flywheel I came up with, with the various roles and individual motivations included:

So, lets walk through this, step by step.

Relationship Manager (RM)

The primary individual motivations for the RM are to make a sale, and generate repeat business. There is a (resource) cost associated with acquiring a new customer, and acquiring a net-new customer is more expensive than an existing customer - so the repeat business prospect is very important.

So, once an RM has a potential customer, how can they best assist in contributing to the flywheel? By doing a good job of identifying and qualifying any opportunities. How this is done is up to the person and the end-customer - after all, their title is Relationship Manager for a reason. But the point is that by finding well qualified opportunities, time is saved further down the line because the SA is not burning cycles on a bunch of opportunities that do not convert to actual projects.

Solution Architect (SA)

Once an opportunity is identified, it is typically handed off to an SA. This person scopes out the project, and comes up with a cost estimate. Their primary individual motivation is to come up with something that the customer is willing to bite on. This is a delicate balancing act between detail, timing, and expense - sometimes customers need something on a budget, and sometimes they need an estimate yesterday.

Yet, the best way an SA can assist down the line is to have a very focused SOW that contains a clear execution plan. It does no one any good for professional services to show up onsite with a vaguely worded SOW and no information about the customer environment.

Professional Services (PS)

Once an engagement has started, the PS person wants to get the work done as quickly and cleanly as possible. This is best done by knowing what needs to be accomplished, and how to systematically move through the tasks to complete the project. Preparation here is key - information about the environment in general, information about the primary motivating factors for the chosen technology, specific technical information that will be needed for a deployment, uncovering environmental constraints and obstacles that will need to be addressed - all are critical parts of executing through an engagement in an efficient manner.

Which leads into the best way that PS can assist with keeping the flywheel turning - doing everything possible to wrap up an engagement with as few loose ends or zombies as possible. Anything that is not tied up in a nice bow requires re-engagement down the line, which depletes cognitive cycles. This can be a vicious cycle, because that downstream re-spooling can often come at the cost of something being worked on at that time - so it's actually a double tax.

Project Manager (PM)

The PM is often in the unenviable position of being tasked with keeping a project running smoothly and finishing within a timeframe that they did not have a lot of input on. With larger projects, there are a lot of people involved, and this role can become quite complex, very quickly. Yet, at the end of the day, they always have to have an eye on how much time has been spent on a project and trying to keep things moving in an efficient manner.

While one may think that the PM is at the end of the line for a project pipeline, since tasks such as closeout and billing are handled by the PM - the reality is that they are also just another piece of the flywheel. If the PM is able to herd all the cats in the implementation bag and keep a project moving in a way that instills confidence and trust in the customer, that is a HUGE factor in the customer coming back to the RM with a potential future engagement. And thus, the cycle begins again.

One final thought:

I did not include a specific how-to for each step because everything is situationally dependent, not the least of which is the people involved in each step! Everyone has their own way of working with other people - the specifics of how each role executes their portion of the flywheel is less important than the people involved coming to an agreed upon method of working together that works for each person and also keeps the flywheel moving. Otherwise, it's not a flywheel - it's just a big grinding stone.

Why "That's right" is better to hear than "You're right"

Imagine you are in negotiations with someone. Obviously one of the objectives is to establish some sort of common thread, or come to some sort of understanding, with the other party. It is part of establishing empathy and trust.

But how you go about establishing that common thread is extremely important, and in subtle ways.

A lot of people would say that if you can get the other person to agree with you, such as by agreeing that the services or product you are offering is better, or meets their needs - then hearing them say "You're right" is money. Whatever the case may be - selling a solution, or negotiating for a raise - you'd understandably be happy to hear that phrase come from the person on the other side of the table, because it would seem like you are well on your way to getting what you want out of the negotiation.

Am I right?

Actually, no.

Hearing the words "You're right" in a negotiation setting is actually not a good thing. More often than not, when someone says "You're right", it is a defensive posture. It is a way for the other person to give themselves some distance, and many times, it's a tactic to get the other person (you) to go away.

To illustrate this, think about times you've muttered the words "You're right" to another person - for example, a significant other (perhaps during an argument). Why did you say that? If you are like most people, and chances are, you are - it was because you were just done talking about the topic at hand, and wanted to generate space for yourself. It's true that there are times when "You're right" is actually spoken in an authentic manner and is genuinely meant in the way that it sounds - but far more than we realize, it's actually a sign that one side is mentally exhausted and wants/needs some space. And in negotiations, that method of generating space is not favorable.

Instead of "You're right", the real aim is to get the other side to "That's right". When you hear "That's right", the subject matter is separated from the person, and there is acknowledgement that the "thing" being discussed is correct. In turn, that is a sign that an epiphany, or that some sort of bond of shared vision, has occurred.

How do you get from "You're right" to "That's right"? While the subtleties and nuances of negotiation are far beyond the scope of this article (or entire blog), we can look at an easy example scenario, which is when one person brings facts and reasonable logic to a discussion. At first glance, this seems like a good idea - but we've all experienced situations where we try to convince someone of something using facts and logic, and they only dig their heels in further as a response. It's easy to simply cast that off as the person being obstinate or not rational - but the news flash is that everyone is susceptible to the confirmation bias that leads to that defensive reaction. Not just the other person who didn't 'understand' your logic and reasoning - but everyone, you and me included.

It all comes back to what we really want in a discussion - which is to be heard. To be seen. To have our concerns acknowledged and validated. If, during a negotiation, we brow-beat the other side with our facts and figures and logic, they will either walk out in frustration (and it will be obvious that things have gone south), or they will acquiesce just to get it over with, and say "You're right". But, ask yourself - does that sound like the reaction of someone who is going to be happy continuing to do business with, or work, with you? Most likely not.

On the other hand, if, instead of beating the other side down with your argument, you are able to discuss, acknowledge, and address their concerns by asking validating questions ('So, if I understand things correctly, the primary issue you want to address is X, Y, and Z. Is that right?') - you will have established a common bond between you and the other person and will be moving the needle in a significant way. They

That bond is favorable in negotiations, and why it is better to strive for "That's right" instead of "You're right"

This piece of wisdom shamelessly stolen from Chris Voss' book 'Never Split the Difference'