59 Seconds: Think a Little, Change a Lot (5 page)

Why did this happen? According to Lepper, the children who were offered the medals thought something along these lines: “Well, let me see here, adults usually offer me rewards when they want me to do something that I don’t like doing. An adult is offering me a gold medal for drawing, therefore I must not like drawing.” The effect has been replicated many times, and the conclusion is clear: if you set children to an activity that they enjoy and reward them for doing it, the
reward reduces the enjoyment and demotivates them. Within a few seconds you transform play into work.

It could be argued that this outcome applies only to activities that people enjoy and that rewards actually encourage people with respect to tasks that they dislike. To test this theory, a few years ago I ran a study in which two groups of people were asked to take part in an experiment spending an afternoon picking up litter in a park.
²
Participants were told that they were taking part in an experiment examining how best to persuade people to look after their local parks. One group was paid handsomely for their time, while the other was given only a small amount of cash. After an hour or so of backbreaking and tedious work, everyone rated the degree to which they had enjoyed the afternoon. You might think that those clutching a large amount of well-earned cash would be more positive than those who had given their time for very little money.

In fact, exactly the opposite happened. The average enjoyment rating of the handsomely paid group was a measly 2 out of 10, while the modestly paid group’s average rating proved to be a whopping 8.5. It seemed that those who had been paid well had thought, “Well, let me see, people usually pay me to do things that I don’t enjoy. I was paid a large amount, so I must dislike cleaning the park.” In contrast, those who received less money thought, “I don’t need to be paid much to do something I enjoy. I did the cleaning for very little, so therefore I must have enjoyed cleaning the park.” According to the results of this study, it seems that excessive rewards can even have a detrimental effect on tasks that people don’t enjoy.

These findings have been replicated time and again. Almost regardless of the nature of the rewards or tasks, those who are offered a carrot tend not to perform as well as those who don’t expect to receive anything.
³
Some of the studies
have shown short-term boosts in performance, but over the long haul rewards tend to destroy the very behavior they are designed to encourage.

As we’ve seen, what does
not
work is to motivate people with the promise of a reward. So what form of incentive does work? To encourage people to do more of something they enjoy, try presenting them with the occasional small surprise reward after they have completed the activity or praising the fruits of their labor. When it is something that they don’t enjoy, a realistic, but not excessive, reward is effective at the start, followed by feel-good comments that encourage them to pursue the activity (“If only everyone was a good park-cleaning citizen like you”).

However, there are methods of persuasion other than praise, modest rewards, and cheesy comments. For quick and effective techniques, whether in negotiations or help in an emergency or getting the odd favor or two, think about putting your foot in the door, understanding groupthink, and realizing why it really is better to give than to receive.

GIVING THE PERFECT INTERVIEW

Just how do you go about trying to persuade someone to offer you a job? There is an old joke about a man being interviewed for a new job and being told, “You know, in this job we really need someone who is responsible.” The man thinks for a moment, then replies, “I am perfect for you. In my last job lots of things went badly wrong, and they always said that I was responsible.”

Unfortunately, disastrous replies are common in actual interviews—but help is at hand. Over the past thirty years, psychologists have investigated the key factors that impress
interviewers, and the work has resulted in several quick and effective techniques that can significantly increase your chances of being offered your dream job.

Ask any employer to explain why they choose one applicant in preference to another, and they will tell you that it is a matter of which candidate has the best qualifications and personal skills for the job. To make the process as rational and fair as possible, many draw up a list of key skills that the successful candidate must possess, study each applicant’s résumé for evidence of those skills, and then use a face-to-face interview to discover a little more information. But research conducted by Chad Higgins from the University of Washington and Timothy Judge from the University of Florida suggests that interviewers are often deluding themselves about how they make up their minds. In reality they are unconsciously swayed by a mysterious and powerful force.
⁴

Higgins and Judge followed the fortunes of more than a hundred former students as they tried to obtain their first job after college. At the start of the study, the researchers examined the résumé of each student, measuring the two factors that interviewers consistently claim play a key role in separating successful and unsuccessful candidates—qualifications and work experience. After each job interview, students completed a standard questionnaire about how they had behaved, including whether, for example, they made the most of their positive points, took an interest in the company, or asked the interviewers about the type of person they were looking for. The research team also contacted the interviewers and asked them to provide feedback on several factors, including the candidate’s performance, how well they would fit in with the organization, whether they possessed the necessary skills for the job, and, perhaps most important of all, whether they would be offered the job.

After analyzing the mass of data, the research team exploded some of the myths about why interviewers choose candidates for a job, discovering a surprising reality. Did the likelihood depend on qualifications? Or was it work experience? In fact, it was neither. It was just one important factor—did the candidate appear to be a pleasant person? Those who had managed to ingratiate themselves were very likely to be offered a position, and they charmed their way to success in several different ways.

A few had spent time chatting about topics that were not related to the job but that interested the candidate and the interviewer. Some had made a special effort to smile and maintain eye contact. Others had praised the organization. This barrage of positivity had paid dividends, convincing the interviewers that such pleasant and socially skilled applicants would fit well in the workplace and so should be offered a job.

Higgins and Judge’s study clearly demonstrates that in order to get your dream job, going out of your way to be pleasant is more important than qualifications and past work experience. However, try explaining away twelve counts of murder and two convictions for major corporate fraud, and you will quickly discover that such ingratiation has its limitations. With respect to your weaknesses, then, what is the best way of dealing with the less-impressive side of your résumé? Should you mention weaknesses toward the start of the interview, or hope to make a good first impression and introduce possible problems only at the end?

This issue was investigated in an important study conducted in the early 1970s by psychologists Edward Jones and Eric Gordon from Duke University.
⁵
Participants were presented with a tape recording of a man (actually an accomplice of the experimenters) talking about his life. They were then asked to rate the degree to which he sounded likeable. During
the interview the man told how he had not completed a school semester because he had been caught cheating and had been expelled. The researchers edited the tape so that half of the participants heard this bombshell toward the beginning, while the others heard it toward the end. This manipulation had a large impact on how much the participants liked the man. When the cheating was mentioned toward the start of the tape, the man appeared far more likeable than when it was mentioned toward the end. Additional work has confirmed exactly the same effect in other contexts, with, for example, lawyers being judged to have a stronger case when presenting a weakness in their argument at the beginning of a trial.
⁶

It seems that presenting weaknesses early is seen as a sign of openness. This is a lesson that many politicians, such as Bill Clinton, have yet to learn. Interviewers believe that they are dealing with someone who has the strength of character and integrity to bring up potential difficulties at the outset, and they therefore conclude that the applicant is not attempting to mislead them.

Can the same be said of the more positive aspects of your résumé? Actually, no. In another part of the same study, participants heard a positive reason for the skipped semester (“I was awarded a prestigious scholarship to travel around Europe”), with the information presented either early or late on the tape. Now the effect was reversed, with the man appearing far more likeable when he mentioned the award later. It seems that modesty, rather than honesty, is critical for positive aspects of your past. By delaying mention of such details, you appear to prefer letting your strengths emerge naturally, while playing your cards early is seen as boastful.

So, you have polished up your ingratiating skills, are willing to declare your weaknesses early, and intend to leave the best till last. Does that mean that you are guaranteed to be a
success? Unfortunately, no. Despite the best of intentions and the most extensive preparations, we all make mistakes. Perhaps you will knock a glass of water into your lap, inadvertently insult your interviewer, or give an answer that is as bumbling as it is unconvincing. The fact is, you need to be able to cope with the odd unexpected disaster or two. To help, Thomas Gilovich of Cornell University and his colleagues undertook a series of studies in which they forced people to wear Barry Manilow T-shirts.
⁷

In a typical study, Gilovich arranged for five participants to arrive at the same time at his laboratory. Everyone was led into a room, asked to sit along one side of a table, and to complete a questionnaire. The group began to check off various boxes, unaware that the researchers had arranged for another participant to arrive five minutes late. This latecomer was met before entering the room and told to wear a T-shirt bearing a large picture of Barry Manilow. Why Manilow? Well, the study was about the psychology of embarrassment, and carefully controlled pretesting had revealed that the majority of Cornell students wouldn’t be caught dead in a Barry Manilow T-shirt. Moments after putting on the T-shirt, the latecomer was bundled into the room, only to be confronted by a row of staring fellow students. After a few moments, the experimenter explained that it might be better to wait outside for a while, and promptly escorted the latecomer out of the room.

Two things happened next. Everyone in the room was asked if they had noticed the image on the latecomer’s T-shirt, while the latecomer was asked to estimate the percentage of students who would have noticed the embarrassing image. The results from a series of experiments revealed that on average about 20 percent of the people in the room noticed Barry. However, the latecomers were convinced that the image had been far more eye-catching, and they estimated that on average
about 50 percent of the group would have noticed the T-shirt. In short, the latecomers significantly overestimated the impact of their embarrassing encounter.

This bias, known as the “spotlight” effect, has been found in many different settings. From assessing the effects of a bad-hair day to performing poorly in a group discussion, those who feel embarrassed are convinced that their mistakes are far more noticeable than they actually are. Why? It seems that we focus on our own looks and behavior more than on those of others, and so we are likely to overestimate the impact of our situation. So, if you make a mortifying mistake in an interview, think about the man in the Barry Manilow T-shirt and remember that it probably feels far worse than it is.

IN 59 SECONDS

Increase your chances of giving a great interview in three easy steps.

First

Remember that likeability is more important than academic achievements and work experience, so …

• find something that you truly like about the organization, and let your opinion be known
  

• feel free to give a genuine compliment to the interviewer
  

• chat about a non-job-related topic that you and the interviewer find interesting
  

• show interest in the interviewer. Ask what type of person is being sought and how the position fits into the overall organization
  

• be enthusiastic about the position and the organization
  

• smile and maintain eye contact with the interviewer
  

Second

When you do have weaknesses, don’t wait until late in the interview to reveal them. Instead, give your credibility a boost by getting them into the conversation toward the start of the interview. And remember, for positive aspects, modesty is vital, so retain something strong until the very last minute.

Third

If you make what seems like a major mistake, don’t overreact. The chances are that it is far more noticeable to you than to others, and your excessive response or apologizing could just draw more attention to it. Instead, acknowledge the mistake, if appropriate, and then continue as if nothing has happened.

   
THREE QUICK TIPS FOR PERSUASION

Choose the Middle Way
. If you want to increase your chances of making a good impression in a meeting, sit toward the middle of the table. Psychologists Priya Raghubir and Ana Valenzuela analyzed episodes of the television game show
The Weakest Link.
⁸
In the show, contestants stand in a semicircle, and during each round one contestant is voted off by the other players. Contestants standing at the central positions in the semicircle reached the final round, on average, 42 percent of the time and won the game 45 percent of the time. Those standing at the more extreme positions reached the final round just 17 percent of the time and won just 10 percent of the time. In another experiment, participants were shown a group photograph of five candidates for a business internship and asked to choose which candidate should be awarded the position. Candidates in the center of the group were chosen more frequently than those at the edges. The researchers, labeling the phenomenon the “center stage” effect, concluded that when looking at a group, people use a basic rule of thumb—“Important people sit in the middle.”