by Justin Collinge
“Whenever free choice is limited or threatened, the need to retain our freedoms makes us desire them (as well as the goods and services associated with them) significantly more than previously”. This is an excerpt from Cialdini’s “Persuasion”, quoting psychologist Jack Brehm’s work on Psychological Reactance.
What this is saying is that whenever our access to something is interfered with in any way we will react against the interference by wanting and trying to possess the item more than before.
How interesting!
So that’s why I want to walk on the grass only when I see the sign telling me I can’t.
That’s why so many people told they can’t surf the web at work insist on doing so more than before the ban.
That’s why so many adverts have time limited offers. They know how hard it is for us to feel we’re ‘losing out’ – even if we didn’t know we needed it before we thought we might lose it.
The fact that people react so strongly to losing something they never valued beforehand may well be fanning the fire of so many workplace conflicts. Most of us have noticed examples of this: like the team who are told they only have 15 minutes for a coffee break suddenly becoming much worse at returning to work than they were before the imposed limit. Or the manager challenging the whole system when he is required to share his parking space – despite the fact that he’s happily shared it for the last five years.
This information has two obvious implications:
1. We need to be very careful about making new rules. They may cause a backlash worse than the problem they were intended to deal with. So when framing some new initiative (e.g. to increase productivity by shortening coffee breaks) we need to be very aware of the perceived impact on freedom it may have. So, instead of creating a new rule (Everyone only takes 15 minutes for coffee), we may consider framing it around offering new freedoms.. (Anyone who hits their targets can have as long for coffee as they want) The focus becomes a perceived gain in freedom rather than its loss.
2. We can use this for good if we’re careful. Since we want something more when we can’t have it, what about removing the easy access of something worth having? For example, supposing you wanted to encourage healthy snacking? The normal response to this is to provide a bowl of fresh fruit in the workplace. But this can cause all sorts of issues: Health & Safety may get involved; who’s going to remove aging fruit?; who’s going to keep the bowl clean?; who’s going to pay for it? What about putting up posters that said people could ONLY eat fruit if they brought it in themselves? Perhaps this apparent loss of freedom would cause people to bring in more fruit to snack on?
Finally, it may be worth keeping an eye on your own reactions to things. Understanding that you only wanted that laptop when you discovered there were only 2 left in stock may be quite helpful.
This week’s call to action:
- Read Dr Robert Cialdini’s book “Persuasion” – a really fine read
- Look for three examples of Psychological Reactance at work today – it really is all around you all the time
- Investigate Kaizen’s workshops on “The Secrets of Influence”. Contact kim@kaizen-training.com for more information
- Watch this amusing and fascinating TED Talk by Laurie Santos on how much of human decision-making is completely irrational – and why monkeys are the same! Go to www.ted.com and search for Laurie Santos.
