Book review – The Human Element – by Loran Nordgren and David Schonthal

How would it be if you could make everyone change their mind and agree with you? If you started to smile and your imagination is already running various scenarios in your head, I’m not necessarily the one saying this, but you might have the ambitions of a dictator. Even so, sometimes, especially in professional life, it feels like we lack the tools to demonstrate to the people we work with and for, situations that are obvious to us. This ends up being a problem, especially when we know that topic a bit better than our interlocutors do. Or, from another angle, we can look at the relationship we want to have with our clients, a relationship in which we want to make our clients happy after they’ve bought from us. If we take these two contexts individually, it’s like we give ourselves permission to use our powers as little dictators. Well, this is the reason I ended up with the book The Human Element by Loran Nordgren and David Schonthal in my hands. Obviously, I picked up this book recommendation from one of my MBA professors.

Now that I’ve touched tangentially in the opening on the morality of the power to make people change their minds, the authors start the book with this disclaimer, asking a very good question: where is the boundary between influencing someone and manipulating someone? We assume that influencing someone is not necessarily an evil thing, while manipulating someone is a very bad thing. Well, the authors of this book draw this boundary at the point of disclosing intent. If an individual wants to make me change my mind and honestly tells me what their interest is and why they want me to change my mind, then that’s called wanting to influence me and they’re not headed to hell. If another individual wants to make me change my mind and doesn’t tell me why they want me to change my mind, or maybe lies to me about their interest, then we’re dealing with odious manipulation. My advice, but also the authors’, is not to try to manipulate people and especially to be careful not to let others manipulate you.

Further on, the question that sets off this book’s story is: how do you get people to accept a different, new idea? When you propose a new idea to colleagues and you run into a refusal and you start pouring in bucketfuls of rational arguments, details, specifications, use cases, what ChatGPT said? Well, the authors call this class of elements “fuel.” This book shows us something else, claiming that people don’t reject the idea because of a lack of fuel, but because of four psychological frictions that pull back: inertia, effort, emotion, and a reflex of rejection (reactance). From the moment you start looking at things from this perspective, the game changes a bit and you stop adding arguments and information, focusing instead on the frictions that need to be removed.

Let’s talk a bit about these four frictions and especially what you can do to manage them and remove them from the path of your noble goals. The first friction, and one of the nastiest, is called inertia and is confused with that status quo that some of us accept in our lives here and there. How do we realize that inertia is the problem? Well, we get an answer like “why break something that works?” or “what you’re saying sounds good, but now is not the time…”. There’s no point in unleashing arguments here, you’ve got no one to talk to, our brain loves to stay engaged with what is familiar. To try to overcome this friction, the book recommends two types of tactics: some to get people used to the idea and others to make the idea acceptable by presenting it in relation to other elements. To help people get used to the idea, you can do this:

repeat, repeat the idea at every opportunity you have, until it becomes part of the landscape and no longer seems like a new and foreign element; here we’re dealing with a solid principle very often used in history by those who handled propaganda;
start with a very small change in the direction of the idea you are proposing; the book gives us the example of a person who has a terrible fear of snakes and tells us how that person can start to overcome that fear simply by spending 15 minutes a day in a room with a snake locked in an aquarium;
associate the idea with a familiar face; if the person communicating the idea enjoys the public’s trust, the idea has a much better chance of being adopted;
start with a prototype, or more plainly, dress your new idea in the clothes of an already familiar idea; in the book we get the example of Tesla when it launched its first major fully electric model, the Model S, which was an electric car but looked from the outside like any other car;
use analogies, presenting your idea using concepts already agreed upon by people, such as “It’s like an Uber for dog owners.”
Next, another set of tactics meant to help you overcome inertia are the tactics that help you present your idea in a favorable light compared to other concepts. Here we are presented with the following tactics:
add an extreme; we often encounter this tactic in restaurant menus; in the book we’re given the example of a wine list where 8 out of 12 wines cost around $25, one costs $17, two others cost $45 and $50, and the last one costs $125; practically, the extreme option of $125 makes it more human to decide to buy either the $45 or the $50 wine, just like that, after the layout on the page;
highlight undesirable options; again, a principle very often seen in cinemas, where you have three sizes for almost any type of popcorn or soft drink, the small version costs $3, the large version costs $7, and the medium version costs $6; it’s quite clear that no one will choose the medium version in this context and will rather go for the large one; but if the medium version were removed from context, then the split between the small and large versions would harm consumerism; this principle is also known as the “decoy effect”.

Now let’s recap using a few questions: how could you overcome the friction called inertia using the two sets of tactics presented in this book? First, how do we acclimate the idea:

Can we increase the time interval between the moment when people hear about the new idea and the moment when they have to make a decision about the new idea? The more time people have to analyze the new idea, the more familiar it will seem to them.
How often is the new idea reminded to people? Repeated exposure to the new idea makes it become more familiar. By finding opportunities to plant the seeds of the new idea, we will end up building an attitude of acceptance.
Can we make the transition process gradual and not abrupt? When innovation asks people to change how they operate, small steps are the most effective path to change.
Does the idea fit a prototype already known to people, or is it something they’ve never seen before? Innovation requires things to be done differently, but that doesn’t mean every aspect of the idea has to be a radical difference from the current way of working.
Who represents the face of change? An ambassador who shares the same past and the same experience with the audience that is to be changed is much more effective compared to a new figure. If the face of the person proposing the change is actually liked and appreciated by the audience, all the better.
Does the way you present your new idea speak the same language as your audience? Adopting a style and language similar to that used by the audience you want to influence increases the chances of making the new idea familiar.
If people are not familiar with your idea, what other ideas familiar to them can you use to present your new idea? Using analogies favors the perception of familiarity toward new ideas.

Then, how do we present the new idea using the principle of relativity:

Are we providing people with more than one option to choose from? If the answer is no, it is very possible that inertia will work against you. It’s recommended to create multiple options to shift attention away from the status quo.
Can you add an extreme option? Such an extreme option helps the rest of the options seem reasonable by comparison.
Can you use an inferior option as a reference point? By highlighting an inferior option, we help the rest of the options look much better by contrast.

The second friction addressed by the book is generically called effort and is mainly related to the presetting of our brain obsessed with saving resources, which translates into the human inclination to always follow the path that offers the least resistance. This friction usually appears when, in calm and settled discussions, people tend to agree with everything you propose in terms of new ideas, but when the tragic moment of implementation comes, things don’t happen. And they don’t happen for a host of reasons related to the novelty of the process, the difficulty of adapting to the new stages of the process, and sometimes even the lack of knowledge of a process. All these obstacles can, of course, be overcome, but they require a certain investment of effort from the interlocutor who is trying to change something. That’s why fast-food businesses are successful, because cooking healthy meals at home requires effort.

To overcome this friction, the book proposes that we look at effort from two perspectives. One perspective refers to the amount of energy needed to implement a new idea, and the second has to do with the lack of clarity about the process, it really is hard to start doing something if you don’t know how to get to that something.

To manage the effort required to implement a new idea, assuming the entire process is already clear, the person managing this change needs to look very carefully at the process to identify the points where the energy invested peaks. Usually those are the points at which the individual in the process gives up on implementing the change. If those stages can be identified, the next step has to do either with eliminating those blockages if possible, or with developing solutions to bypass those effort peaks. This process is called “streamlining,” and if I were to use a parallel with motorsport, it’s similar to the aerodynamic development process of a Formula 1 car, or for enthusiasts, it’s similar to using the DRS (Drag Reduction System), also from Formula 1. When a Formula 1 driver opens the DRS flap, the car sheds part of the air resistance and can reach higher top speeds.

For the second perspective, the one related to the ambiguity of a process, in theory things seem simple. The person who wants to implement a change needs, besides the idea, to present their interlocutors with a roadmap, or a clearly staged process, that removes any trace of ambiguity related to the question: how will we implement the new idea? I say it seems simple because, from my short experience, I’ve learned it isn’t. Many times I’ve met managers or clients who simply demanded results, not being aware themselves of the process required to be followed to reach those results. Not to mention that often the necessary resources weren’t present either. And from there, go ahead and explain to an angry boss/client who’s demanding results that, in fact, they have no idea how those results are obtained; and if, let’s suppose, thanks to talent you manage that, ask them for the necessary resources to deliver what was requested. Maybe about this topic in another blog post in the future.

Further on, I suggest, also through a series of questions, that we see how we can fight these two faces of the friction generically called effort. First, let’s see how you can create a roadmap:

Can you show people how to implement the new desired behavior? If the implementation of the new idea is shrouded in mystery, providing people with a step-by-step description of the process helps the new idea be adopted much faster.
Do people know when exactly to implement the new desired actions? Defining a clear moment in time, agreed upon together with those who have to implement, helps complete the process efficiently.
Can you create an “if–then” trigger? An important reason people don’t adopt new ideas is that they forget, in the sense that daily routine captures much more attention. An “if–then” trigger helps counter this effect by creating a clear link in people’s minds between a future moment and the correct behavior at that moment. If situation X happens, then I will do Y.

Next, let’s see, again through a few questions, how we can optimize a process to reduce the effort required to go through it:

What are the steps (including the tiny and seemingly unimportant ones) that a person must go through to implement your new idea? A timeline of the experience to be followed can reveal key relevant points that work against the adoption of the new idea.
How can you make the new idea easier to implement? Note that by eliminating seemingly tiny steps, you can produce remarkable results.
Can you make the alternative to adopting the new idea harder? The activity of streamlining aims to make a new process easier than the previous one. A viable option, however, is also to make the old process harder, or to increase the cost of refusing to adopt the new process.

The third friction analyzed in the book is represented by emotion. More precisely, the emotion that a new idea usually manages to generate, which can be enthusiasm or anxiety. Enthusiasm can be seen as a catalytic emotion that can make you move in the direction of the new idea, but along the way it can be replaced by anxiety. How does anxiety manifest in this case? Usually through doubts and all sorts of questions for which of course you have no answer, the only way to find out the answer is to try the new idea. More plainly, fear of the unknown keeps you stuck.

Here the subject is slightly more complex, and I recommend you read the book to gain a better understanding of how emotions arise in the case of new ideas. To fight these emotions, I’ll leave you with the following brief questions:

Why do people need your idea? What kind of functional, social, or emotional value does your idea create? It’s important to understand that these three dimensions of value are present in every decision we make. By identifying the needs your idea addresses, you will manage to identify the emotions that work against you.
Are you focused on managing the symptoms of emotional friction or the root cause? When trying to convince someone of a new idea and the response you receive is a simple “no,” that can’t help us. We need to understand what generated that “no” to find the reason for the resistance. The “five whys” method is an effective remedy in these contexts.
What are you actually selling? Many companies confuse their businesses with the products or services they promote. The truth is that in customers’ minds those products and services have a certain role in achieving a certain objective, and that objective is actually the “business” of each company.
How could observing someone’s behavior help you better understand their emotional frictions? Quite often people say one thing but do another. As a result, a simple conversation can’t always help you get to the main causes of emotional frictions. Observing someone’s behavior in their natural environment could provide much more valuable clues.
How well do you understand the context of the audience you are trying to convince? Behavior doesn’t happen in an isolated environment; it takes place in a complex environment made up of rich social, emotional, and physical contexts. Observing people in their natural context can provide relevant clues about their needs and the trade-offs they are willing to make to achieve them.
Do you have the opportunity to involve people in the process of developing new ideas? By convincing people to participate actively in the innovation process, you can more easily find out what fears they hide in relation to new ideas.
Can you engage your clients? In an organization, to make sure you continue to innovate with empathy, consider turning the people you have today as clients into permanent members of your teams.

The last friction analyzed in the book is also the hardest to define in my opinion and has to do with an automatic reflex to reject new ideas, called “reactance” in English. The most relevant example to explain this reflex is the situation generated by the introduction of three-point seat belts in cars in America in the 1980s. Volvo Cars invented the three-point seat belt in 1959 and made the patent public so that absolutely all car manufacturers could use the new invention. Well, 25 years later, in the United States of America, the press, along with a good part of society, decided to declare “war” on seat belts in cars. In 1984, New York became the first American state to adopt mandatory seat belt use in cars. A number of other American states followed suit. That’s how it all started; from that moment on, more and more people began to oppose seat belts on the grounds that they restricted your freedom. In the state of Massachusetts, a group called the “Seat Belt Crusade” gathered enough signatures to organize a referendum to abolish the law. Despite this, from 1959 to 2020 the seat belt saved over one million lives, and the effects of this reflex of rejection were tragic for many American drivers. Again, the concept of this friction is very interesting, which is why I recommend reading the book to understand it as well as possible.

Further on, how do we gauge the intensity of this reflex of rejection in relation to our new idea:

Does the proposed new idea threaten any deep belief of the public? This question can confirm whether your public is open to change. If your new idea touches on topics you avoid at Christmas family dinner (politics, religion, social equity), it is probably a deep belief.
Does your approach put pressure on people to change? When people feel pressured to change, their instinct is to reject the change with a force proportional to maintain their autonomy. Pressure comes in many forms. Penalties for lack of change, time pressure, or a strongly assertive message, all generate reactance.
Has the public been excluded from the process? Is the idea presented entirely yours, or did the public also play a role in determining the final form of the new idea?

Next, again through a set of questions, I suggest we try to understand how we can manage this reflex of rejection:

Do you ask people questions, or do you simply tell them what to do? When you tell people what to do, you create pressure. When you use questions to get to the same point, you eliminate the reflex of rejection.
Do you start with a question that gets a “yes”? Often our instinct makes us start the conversation exactly with the point of disagreement. New ideas can be more easily accepted if we start the conversation with questions that highlight tolerance and things we agree on.
Can you create public commitments? Autosuggestion becomes even stronger when a person takes on a certain commitment in public.

In closing, I must admit that this book helped me realize why I sometimes meet new ideas with a certain resistance. The idea is that each situation is specific, but with the fresh filter of this theory, I can now better evaluate the frictions encountered in operationalizing a particular new idea. In some cases it’s just emotional resistance; in other cases inertia is very strong and is complemented by the friction of effort. Having this analysis tool at hand, you can more easily identify the deep causes of refusals and also work actively to overcome those blockages. For me, this theory, this concept, seems extremely useful especially in internal company communication. If a good part of those who need to collaborate understand these concepts, I believe it will be a bit easier for them to communicate with each other, thus managing to save important resources. Of course, the same concepts are extremely useful in external communication when you want to communicate a new product or service to your clients. I can say that I also see usefulness for these concepts in personal relationships, but we should always remember the difference between influencing and manipulating.

The book can be bought from here: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Element-Overcoming-Resistance-Awaits/dp/1119765048/