If you would all just come this way

Robert Cialdini is a professor of psychology at Arizona State University. He has become famous for his research into persuasion. He has synthesized his advice into 6 principles.

1. 1. Reciprocation – the business dinner principle

   2. Consistency – the “walk your talk” principle

   3. Social proof – the “everybody’s going!” principle

   4. Liking – the Tupperware party principle

   5. Authority – the “I heard it from a guy who works there” principle

   6. Scarcity – the “only a few seats left” principle

Delivering a challenging message

There are times when we have to deliver a message that departs from conventional thinking. It’s helpful if it is delivered by someone in whom we have confidence and is likeable. The emotional response to a communication colours how we receive it, for good or ill.

This phenomenon is a prominent feature of the movement for “inclusive” language. For example, “handicapped” could conceivably be offensive to someone who is “differently abled”. “Oriental” resonates with the era of European dominance on the Asian continent and should be avoided. “Chair” has replaced “Chairman” and “Chairwoman” – following a logic I certainly can’t grasp.

When we try to persuade people, we have to make assumptions about how they will receive our message. Sometimes that can go horribly wrong.

Getting it wrong

In 2003, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) mounted a public awareness exhibition that equated the treatment of animals by the food processing industry to the Nazis’ attempt to exterminate European Jewry. The campaign was called Holocaust on Your Plate. The objective was to re-frame peoples’ idea of food processing as an ethically unacceptable activity.

The public’s response, however, was largely negative, forceful, and unanticipated. PETA’s President, Ingrid Newkirk, was reportedly surprised by the strength and extent of the criticism. She insisted the comparison was appropriate and that animal farming practices are indeed morally equivalent to killing 6 million people because of their race. The idea was, as far as we can tell, to use an original, shocking comparison to get people to re-think the way they see animal welfare.

What the campaign overlooked was that the general public not only didn’t appear to consider animal slaughter and the Holocaust to be morally equivalent, but that they were aghast that anyone would dare suggest it. PETA had assumed the campaign would open people’s eyes to a great moral wrong. In fact, the campaign was perceived as tasteless and insulting.

The divide between PETA’s view of morality and that of the general public was so wide that the organization risked its credibility. If it could make such an outlandish comparison, should we take anything they say seriously? Or perhaps, how can we continue to see the organization as a moral authority?

In the mid-2000s the then-CEO of BP Group, Tony Hayward, and possibly his communications advisors, failed to grasp how the persuasion principles work and ultimately paid a price. In 2007 Mr. Hayward became Chief Executive Officer of the international oil and gas company, BP. Shortly thereafter he announced a review of operations and resource requirements. It would result in the elimination of positions in the company. 

Mr. Hayward spoke about the review in a town hall meeting at the company’s research facility in south London in late fall. About 500 people attended and a video recording was posted on the company’s website. During his talk he used the phrase surfing the wave of the future. He then digressed and said that his teenage daughter had convinced him to take surfing lessons with her during their upcoming Christmas vacation.

Mr. Hayward was probably trying to connect with his audience by way of a personal anecdote (i.e., using principle 4, Liking). What he didn’t seem to realize was that the review he ordered would result in a portion of his audience losing their jobs. In that context, the anecdote was insensitive, at best. No one knew whether they would still be employed when the CEO was enjoying his surfing holiday.

Mr. Hayward repeated this gaffe in April 2010, in answering a journalist’s question about the Horizon drilling rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Hayward said that he was highly motivated to fix the problem and limit the damage because I’d like my life back. Once again, this seemed an attempt to relate to people on a personal level. However, given that 11 people died in the accident and those families would never get their lives back, he left the impression of being self-absorbed and callous. In July 2010, Mr. Hayward resigned as CEO of the company.

Getting it really wrong

Mr. Hayward should count himself lucky. In December 1989, Nicolae Ceauşescu, President of Rumania, began an address to a mass rally in Bucharest. It was not well-received. The less said about the fallout from Comrade Ceauşescus’s talk, the better.

Surf’s up, dudes!