Today I’m the Persuasion Prophet who knows all the Laws that mere mortals will never understand.  I’ve intuited that Mr. Obama seeks inspiration on the Long War and leading the American people through It.  He has one large goal:  Persuading Americans to fight the Long War.  Mr. President . . .

. . . the facts on the ground compel you to do what George Bush did:  Fight the Long War.  You see that the Long War is more similar to the Cold War than any hot war and therefore requires a longer and wider approach to the problem.  The Long War, like the Cold War, will demand an enduring, persistent, and committed effort from a large majority of Americans.

All polls now show retreating support for the Long War and no matter what specific policy you follow, you must reverse the ebbing tide.  You know that your policy in the Long War will not produce a victory march down 5th Avenue, so if you do not build a strong consensus behind the Long War, you will deserve the beating you get before 2012.  Pursue, then, two aims:  Affirmation and Attribution.

Before you announce any policy on the Long War, spend time affirming the core beliefs of those citizens who are against the Long War.  You know what these beliefs are because most of the people against the Long War are in your party and probably voted for you in 2010.  You know the key values, attitudes, and beliefs that form the core of their self concept and self esteem and drive their actions.

Affirm those beliefs first.  Describe them with poetry.  Make your listeners feel those beliefs.  Congratulate them on those beliefs.  Make them think about those beliefs and why they are important.  Make them think about times in the past when they’ve stood up for those beliefs.  Make them affirm for themselves those beliefs.

Now that you have affirmed them and they have affirmed themselves, you can do what you know how to do:  You can explain the rationale and the policy they now resist.  Describe your careful and thorough analysis of the Long War.  Explain why the Long War will be fought and won.  Tell them the specific actions needed right now.  In other words, give the speech.

But, affirm them first and have them affirm themselves.  You are telling them to change and as my Rule states:  All People Always Resist Big Change.  They resist because no one like change and change implies prior stupidity, foolishness, or error and no one wants to admit living a mistake.  You are disputing their fundamentals and if you do not make them strong on their core values through self-affirmation, they will not be strong enough to change with you.

Now . . .

. . . you must change people’s attributions for the Long War.  People have come to view It as someone else’s responsibility.  It was Mr. Bush’s War and It now is becoming Mr. Obama’s War.  This is the wrong attribution of causality.  It should be Our War.

You want to avoid using referents to yourself (“I am directing the Secretary of Defense . . .”) as much as possible.  Sure, you need to take public responsibility for your actions, but you do not want to make it appear that your listeners are not active participants in the decision.  The more often you say or imply “I” with a belief or action, the less committed and responsible your listeners will feel.  “Hey, it’s his job and his decision.”

You want your listeners to not just accept your decision, but to take it as a joint action.  “We” are fighting the Long War.  Therefore, focus your “I” statements for the largest decisions, and use “we” and “you” language to attract, commit, and bind your listeners with you and the decisions.

“As we now prudently consider the facts on the ground just described, we know that when we go forward we go forward together.”

“You have taken the past few weeks to think about this issue and you now listen and reflect on these words.  You know that this is a great issue that requires your commitment, that you cannot simply stand on the sidelines and watch others act.  You are a part of this issue.”

“We do not take these actions lightly or for selfish benefit.”

You must use the language of inclusive responsibility, of shared commitment.  Where it is only and exclusively a President’s choice, you say “I” or “Me.”  Otherwise and at every opportunity the words are “you” and “we” and “us.”  Connect the American people to this issue or else make it for yourself alone, Mr. Obama’s War.

Through the aims of affirmation and attribution you can achieve the goal of bringing Americans together to this challenge.  You can make people strong enough to change then strong enough to claim the Long War.

Just a thought from the Persuasion Prophet!

In earlier posts, I predicted that President Obama would pursue a Long War strategy virtually indistinguishable from his hated predecessor, George W. Bush.  Further, to cover the political consequences of this with his base, I predicted Mr. Obama would: 1) bash Bush, and 2) rally the Nation.  It now appears highly likely that Mr. Obama will pursue an Afghan Surge much in the manner of Mr. Bush and that he and his allies have bashed Bush through this decision.

But where’s that Rally the Nation stuff?

Mr. Obama must pursue the Long War much like Mr. Bush because that’s where the facts take us.  The base Left thought the problem was Bush and with Their Guy in the White House, things would change.  They are wrong.  Bashing Bush buys time for Obama, but it does not solve the ultimate problem:  the Long War is every one’s war, not just running dog capitalists like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Obama has not yet mounted a serious persuasion campaign to get his base and other large sections of America to understand the problem and rally to the solution.  Contrast the vigorous persuasion campaign for health care reform with the very quiet campaign about the Afghan Surge.  Obama knows how to bring it or at least try as the health care issue demonstrates.

Wars require a different kind of political leadership than domestic issues, even one as large as health care.  Wars produce considerably more surprise, suffering, and sadness and there’s still a chance we will fail at it.  If Mr. Obama does not persuade the Nation that we must fight the Long War AND does an Afghan Surge, he may face the horrible political situation President Lyndon Johnson confronted.

If Obama is going to Surge (and look like Mr. Bush) he must mount a sustained, long term persuasion campaign to rally the American people.

USA Today noodles over the perennial conflict:  Being nice to the Boss.  Should you or shouldn’t you?  Won’t you look like you’re sucking up, brown-nosing, fawning, and polishing the proverbial apple?  But, isn’t it polite, if not smart, to be nice?

Let persuasion principles ride to your rescue.

Consider the ELM and dual process.  Any communication can function as a WAC:  WATTage, Argument, or Cue.  Consider the communication of “praising” the Boss in each function.

WATTage:  Your compliments can serve to activate alertness with your Boss.  She’s just sitting there running the meeting when you start talking nice.  That could easily turn her High WATT and make her pay careful attention to what you then say or do.  And, this High WATT switch could be either Objective (follow the facts to a conclusion) or Biased (make the facts fit a conclusion).  In either event, she thinking carefully about what you continue to say and do.  Here, your praise does not directly change your Boss’s attitude, but just affects the processing state of High or Low WATTage.

Argument:  Your compliment provides crucial information to your Boss about her performance and she then thinks carefully about your claims, elaborates upon them, and engages in that “long conversation in the head.”  If your claims generate a favorable conversation, your Boss will feel good about herself.  If your claims generate an unfavorable conversation, the Boss will be unhappy about herself and probably you, too.  And, she’ll remember this.  Note, that the quality of the Argument depends upon your Boss’s point of view, not yours.  What does your Boss believe to be compelling information about her work on the job?

Cue:  Your Boss is Low WATT when you deliver your praise and she feels a momentary burst of pleasure, satisfaction, or approval about herself and by extension, you.  It doesn’t last long.  As soon as the Next Thing arises, she forgets the compliment, loses her good feelings about herself and you, and moves on.  Here, your praise functions as the Liking Cue from CLARCCS.

The crucial element here, as always, is your receiver.  Remember the Rule:  It’s about the Other Guy, Stupid.  Your praise can hit your Boss as WATTage, Argument, or Cue.  It depends on her current situation (Rule:  All Persuasion Is Local).

If you want to make your praise function effectively from a persuasion perspective you need to worry about two things:

1.  Is the Boss High WATT or Low WATT?

2.  Is the praise a strong Argument from the Boss’s perspective?

If you deliver a compliment that is accurate, appropriate, and truly a compliment to a High WATT Boss, you will tend to communicate effectively.  Your Boss may be mildly skeptical, but if you are accurate with the praise, it should work out.

Now, of course, outside observers who watch you with the Boss may likely fall into the actor-observer problem from Attribution Theory and view you as a suck up when you are not.  You might handle this by not praising the Boss in public situations.  Just avoid looking like a brown-noser with your others by not praising the Boss in front of them.  Anytime you communicate toward one person while others are watching, the persuasion context is always more complicated than if it was just the two of you.  Simplify things.

Compliments are such an obvious persuasion ploy that most of us soon learn to be wary of them, especially with people you see frequently and in highly role bound situations.  The best persuasion advice is to just keep it simple and direct.  Save it for face-to-face with no observers.  Make the praise accurate and appropriate which means make it about the business.  For example, praising personal appearance is usually off-key unless personal appearance is a crucial part of the job.  Most of the time it isn’t.  But factors related to performance – great leadership skill, strong business sense, facile problem solving– are in the ballpark.

Have no doubt.  Compliments are highly effective persuasion tactics.  Properly done, they generate positive feelings, strengthen relationship commitment, and do not harm performance.  The persuasion nuance here is not the praise itself, but the persuasion of praise.  Or not what you say, but how you say it.

The Wall Street Journal provides a great example of my Rule:  All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.  It documents the use of spray tanning to change the appearance of dancers on the show “Dancing with the Stars.”

See, the fake spray tan not only provides a tone change, but it can also be used to create accent lines and shades that enhance the appearance of muscles.  It’s makeup for the body just like makeup for the face.

To quote Elaine Benes on that memorable Seinfeld episode, it’s all, “fake, fake, fake, fake.”  (And Elaine’s performance is another great example of the proper understanding of the Rule.  See it here with Spanish subtitles, too!)

Hey, It’s About the Other Guy, Stupid.  And if they believe the body paint, it’s persuasion, baby.

Great story about companies attacking competitors over advertising claims.  It’s well written and a quick read.  Check it out.   Or, here’s the key quote.

Companies that were once content to fight in grocery-store aisles and on television commercials are now choosing a different route — filing lawsuits and other formal grievances challenging their competitors’ claims. Longtime foes like Pantene and Dove, Science Diet and Iams, AT&T and Verizon Wireless, and Campbell Soup and Progresso have all wrestled over ads recently.

. . . Funny, huh?  These great persuasion talents completely lose their minds and break most of my Rules.

It’s about the Other Guy, Stupid.

All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.

Power Corrupts Persuasion.

If you are a great persuader, you don’t sue your competitor over advertising (i.e. persuasion).  Your competitor is not the Other Guy.  The customer is the Other Guy.  Focus on the customer, not the competitor.

If you are a great persuader, you don’t sue your competitor because it makes you look sincere.  Of course your competitor’s advertising hurts your sales.  When they do a better job on the Other Guy than you do, your sales will go down.  That’s business.  Complaining in court reeks of sincerity.  You’re a big kid.  Persuade back.

If you are a great persuader, you don’t sue because it corrupts your persuasion skill.  When somebody kicks your butt in persuasion, how do you respond?  Do you run like a candypants ponce to your parents?  Yeah, that’s how a Big Kid Persuader handles it.

If you are a persuader all you need is words and the skill to use them.