0:00

There's a lot of evidence that

0:02

our minds would rather feel right

0:04

than be right. How

0:06

then do you influence someone when

0:08

they're really convinced of their position?

0:11

In this episode, the initial steps that

0:13

help in changing people's minds.

0:16

This is Coaching for Leaders, episode 676. Produced

0:22

by Innovate Learning, maximizing

0:24

human potential. Greetings

0:30

to you from Orange County, California.

0:32

This is Coaching for Leaders, and

0:34

I'm your host, Dave Stojoviak. Leaders

0:38

are born, they're made. And

0:40

this weekly show helps you discover leadership

0:42

wisdom through insightful

0:45

conversations. One

0:47

of the challenges that we all

0:49

have as leaders is influencing

0:52

others. Some constant challenge that we have,

0:55

of course, as leaders also just in

0:57

our personal lives too. How

0:59

do we approach situations where maybe

1:01

we're trying to get someone to

1:03

change their mind on something? That

1:06

is always a really tough conversation.

1:08

One that brings doubt in

1:10

so many of our minds and something I

1:12

think most of us struggle with in some

1:14

way. Today, I'm glad to have an expert

1:17

with us who's going to help us to

1:19

think about this a little differently and

1:22

enter into a place where we can

1:24

come to a conversation, a

1:26

dialogue that helps both

1:28

parties move forward. I'm so pleased to

1:31

introduce Michael McQueen. He has spent

1:33

the past two decades helping organizations

1:35

and leaders win the battle for

1:37

relevance. He specializes in

1:39

helping clients navigate uncertainty and stay

1:41

one step ahead of change. Michael

1:44

is a bestselling author of nine books

1:46

and a familiar face on the international

1:48

conference circuit, having shared the stage with

1:50

Bill Gates, John Maxwell, and Apple co-founder

1:53

Steve Wozniak. McQueen formerly

1:55

been named Australia's keynote speaker of the

1:57

year. He has been inducted into the

1:59

professional speakers Hall of Fame. He

2:01

is the author of Mind Stuck Mastering

2:04

the Art of Changing Minds. Michael what

2:06

a pleasure to have you here. Likewise,

2:09

wonderful to spend some time. You

2:11

and I are both fans of Dale

2:13

Carnegie's work and I couldn't

2:16

help but notice what you

2:18

quoted from him. You write, as Dale

2:20

Carnegie famously observed in his iconic bestseller

2:22

How to Win Friends and Influence People,

2:25

a person convinced against

2:27

their will is of

2:29

the same opinion still and

2:32

yet we do try to convince

2:34

people all the time don't we?

2:37

Because there is that sense that if I present you

2:39

with really great logic and you just raise the

2:41

white flag of surrender, it's like okay I'm

2:44

just gonna say what you want me to

2:46

say then we think we've won but actually

2:48

if you if they leave the conversation and

2:50

don't feel they've had agency or some degree

2:52

of control over the process of changing their

2:54

minds, if it's been done against

2:56

their will, it's entirely unlikely their mind has

2:58

not changed at all. The moment you turn

3:00

your back, the moment you're not watching,

3:02

I'll just go back to doing whatever they were doing

3:04

or thinking whatever they were thinking and so as leaders

3:07

the question then is how do you actually

3:09

influence change in a way that sticks?

3:11

Because otherwise if the change only lasts

3:13

as long as you're incentivizing it or

3:15

there's a fear of consequences involved, the

3:17

change is not a sustainable change and

3:20

so a lot of what I look at in the book is I

3:22

guess this question of how do you preserve people

3:24

with dignity and agency and a lot of

3:26

that is through giving them choice. I'm

3:28

Sheena Iyengar who's a professor at Columbia

3:30

University in the psychology faculty says that

3:33

and she's so right she says our

3:35

brains basically equate choice with control. If

3:37

we don't feel that we've got a choice in

3:40

the process of change we will dig our heels

3:42

in even if deep down what's

3:44

been said to us what's been suggested to us

3:46

is something that we think is probably right and

3:48

actually a helpful thing useful for us will

3:51

become stubborn and resistant just because we feel

3:53

like we've been told that it's something we

3:55

have to do that's just so often a

3:57

part of human nature and I guess that

4:00

is about how do you work with human nature rather

4:02

than try and fight against it or just pretend

4:04

that it doesn't exist. Yeah and

4:08

as you were saying that I was thinking our

4:10

tendency to like try and convince someone

4:12

and show them facts and yet

4:15

I don't think it's ever happened to me where

4:17

I've gone down that route and someone

4:20

has said, oh well thank you so

4:22

much for sharing the facts with me now I've

4:24

completely changed my mind. I'm going to sound so

4:26

ridiculous saying that out loud and yet we try

4:28

to do that. So I really was struck also

4:30

by something you wrote in the book just one

4:32

example of this. You write, when

4:35

people who were hesitant to take the

4:37

flu vaccine were shown irrefutable evidence that

4:39

the immunization does not give you the

4:41

flu, their degree of

4:43

willingness to get vaccinated dropped by

4:46

half. In other words, vaccine

4:48

skeptics were so entrenched in their

4:50

belief that immunizations are bad that

4:52

even if one reason for this

4:55

belief was elated, other assumptions immediately

4:57

swung into action to reinforce the

4:59

originally held ideology. And

5:01

I think about that like how we

5:04

see this play out in our personal

5:06

lives, in the media, in the news

5:08

that when you try to force

5:11

and push and convince and even when

5:13

the evidence is there, people

5:15

will often entrenched they don't go the

5:17

way that we want them to go

5:19

do they? That's right and because

5:22

we have this assumption, it would be a nice

5:24

assumption if it were true that

5:26

typically people don't see reason or change their

5:28

mind. It's because of a

5:30

knowledge or an information or an education

5:33

gap. And so if you could

5:35

just see the evidence and if you could just

5:37

understand the effects, if I could just present to

5:39

you the data, then you would see

5:41

the light and change your thinking. And yet what

5:43

we see is that so many of the other

5:45

forces apply that stop people from being able to

5:48

not just consider change or consider

5:50

different opinions or ideas, but it's almost like they're

5:53

unable to hear it. It is just too confronting

5:55

to take on board. And I think one of

5:57

the things is that the human mind would actually

5:59

rather feel right than be right. And

6:02

so we've got to be very mindful that one of

6:04

the things that when you try and suggest to someone

6:06

they change their perspective, it's actually a big ask. Because

6:08

it's not just about adopting a new viewpoint or a

6:10

new idea or a new way of doing things. It's

6:12

about abandoning an old one. And for

6:15

human beings, that is a frightening

6:17

prospect. And as humans, we tend to cling

6:19

to certainty because certainty gives us a

6:22

sense of safety. And so we've got to be

6:24

always mindful of when we're asking people to change.

6:26

It's not just a case of adding to the

6:28

ledger of information that it passes. It's magical, fresh,

6:30

oh, well, you know what? I've got enough information.

6:32

I will now change my view. There are so

6:34

much more, there's so many fears that are involved

6:36

in the process of change that we'd be

6:38

naive to not take those into account. It

6:42

really invites us to look

6:44

at, yes, of course,

6:46

the logic, but also the other side

6:48

of this too, the emotion, the humanity

6:50

in this. And yes, of course, there

6:52

are just people who are trying

6:54

to be difficult in the world. But

6:57

actually, most of the situations I can

6:59

think of where I've tried

7:01

to convince someone's mind or someone's been trying to convince

7:03

me, I think that most

7:06

of the time people are not trying

7:08

to be difficult. This is just how

7:10

we tend to respond as human beings

7:12

when someone pushes us on something. And

7:15

you make the distinction in the book

7:17

between the inquiring mind and

7:19

the instinctive mind, which I think speaks to this.

7:22

Could you share a bit of that distinction

7:24

and how you think about this in the context

7:26

of changing minds? Yes. So,

7:29

we often use that phrase that I'm into

7:31

minds or I'm off to minds about a

7:33

certain decision and we use that to describe

7:35

being indecisive. But there's actually something profoundly true

7:37

about that. You know, as humans, we spend

7:39

our lives always into minds. So,

7:41

the first mind that we use in any

7:43

given moment or any given day is what

7:45

I refer to as our inquiring mind. And

7:47

the inquiring mind, in terms of geography

7:50

in the brain and our cognitive hardware, it

7:52

lives in the frontal lobe. And it's the

7:54

part of our brain that is from an

7:56

evolutionary biology standpoint the latest to develop

7:58

in human beings. But it's

8:00

also, it takes a lot of energy, a

8:03

lot of self-discipline to use, but it's

8:05

very methodical and logical and reasonable and

8:07

rational. All the things that we'd like

8:10

to think we're really good at doing as humans, we can

8:12

do, but it's only a part of

8:14

our brain that does as well. Now the challenge is

8:16

we tend to only use our inquiry mind, forget

8:19

this, 5% to 10% of our decision

8:21

making and perception formation. And yet most

8:23

of our appeals to people in an

8:25

effort to change their view, appeals

8:28

to the inquiry mind. That's where

8:30

the decision making is happening. When most of

8:32

our thinking happens, is in what

8:34

I refer to as the instinctive mind. And this

8:36

is near the top of the brain stem often

8:38

in the part of our brain that's grouped together

8:40

as something called the limbic system. And this is the

8:42

part of our brain that's really good at emotion

8:44

regulation, processing and emotion is

8:46

that where our tribal instincts live. One

8:49

of the big parts of this brain region is something

8:51

called the amygdala. And the immediately

8:53

is what regulates our fight and flight functions.

8:57

Those protection mechanisms. And the challenge is

8:59

this, our instinctive

9:01

mind responds to psychological

9:03

threats the same way it

9:05

does to physical ones. And this part

9:07

of our brain has kept us alive and

9:09

safe for millennia because if a target jumps

9:11

out, we react fast, which is great. The

9:13

challenge is when we're confronted with an

9:15

idea or a piece of information or a perspective

9:17

that is also a little bit threatening to who

9:19

we are and the way we've always thought, our

9:22

instinctive mind responds the same way as it was

9:24

that physical threat. And so we instantly go in,

9:26

we go into defensive mode or we just go

9:28

into denial. It's like we just don't want to

9:30

hear it. It's always too confronting for us to

9:32

hear. And so the reality

9:34

is, and Jonathan Swift, the 17th century

9:36

essayist put it well, he said, you

9:39

can't reason someone out of a position

9:41

they never arrived at by reason. And

9:44

so you're asked giving evidence and logic

9:46

appealing to the inquiring mind does

9:48

little when it's actually the instinctive mind you've

9:50

got to change. And that's often where stubbornness

9:52

tends to reside. And so a lot of

9:54

the book looks at firstly, what

9:56

is it that causes our instinctive mind to

9:58

get very stubborn to feel... threatened and to

10:00

lash out and to react. But

10:02

also then how do you speak to that mind

10:04

in particular? And a lot of what we've discovered

10:06

even in the last few years from a neuroscience

10:09

perspective is a bit counterintuitive because it goes against

10:11

what we thought really since the early

10:13

days of the enlightenment, the things that are effective

10:15

in persuading humans, we've discovered a lot of them

10:17

actually they're not true. And in fact,

10:19

the opposite is true. The harder you push, the more

10:21

evidence you give, the more you try and appeal to

10:23

the inquiry mind, the more the instinctive mind closes

10:26

down, shuts down, locks down and is

10:28

unwilling to think or consider. Yeah.

10:31

And it's like we were just talking about a

10:33

moment ago, whether it's the vaccine or it's something

10:35

else. As soon as you

10:37

push back on facts and dig in on

10:39

that, people are very

10:42

likely to push back and in

10:44

fact dig in further. And so

10:47

how interesting that we've known this since

10:50

the 17th century, right? That

10:52

doesn't work. And yet we all have

10:54

experience trying to do this and trying

10:56

to like speak to people's logical senses.

10:58

And so the invitation you make really

11:00

clearly in the book is speak

11:03

to the instinctive mind first.

11:07

What does that sound like? Well,

11:09

that sounds like essentially allowing for

11:12

and recognizing the things that cause

11:14

that defensive reflex to kick off

11:16

the things that mean that we're

11:18

not thinking reasonably or calmly

11:21

or openly. Often this is where again,

11:23

if you if you encourage on

11:25

people's agency, if there's a sense that their

11:27

dignity will be at risk if they

11:29

change their mind, that's when someone's

11:31

like they just can't afford to hear what it

11:34

is you're suggesting because the cost of consideration is

11:36

just too high. One of the themes I talk

11:38

about in the book is this idea of the

11:40

unraveling effect. This idea that when you ask

11:42

someone to change their mind, it's almost that

11:44

concept of taking a thread, a key thread out

11:46

of a garment. If I change my mind about

11:48

this one thing, What else have

11:51

I assumed is true? That's actually not true. And

11:53

So bearing in mind that that's a real fear

11:55

that often for the instinctive mind, that's unsettling notion

11:57

that I might have to rethink a whole lot

11:59

of things. If it is one

12:01

new ideas whenever things I look at it

12:03

is mostly psychological sunk costs. And. This

12:06

is really tasty. Instinctive mind because we

12:08

know about economic sunk costs that Id

12:10

that you'll stick with. A. Course of

12:12

action something you've chosen to do. even if

12:14

you you know it's not gonna end well

12:16

as not going to why you would have.

12:18

An. Effort to better off a better option

12:21

as come along. you stick with the original

12:23

bad option because he boys spent so much

12:25

money and so much time as much energy

12:27

on and you'll see it through even though

12:29

that kinda beat your detriment. We did same

12:31

thing psychologically and I will have beliefs and

12:34

assumptions, world views, mindsets that that you know

12:36

even are better. Idea new. a new upsetting

12:38

for my sins come along and changing I'm

12:40

I'm actually benefit us if we did as

12:42

will stick with an original bully four months

12:45

it because we've spent so much of our

12:47

self so much about money, so much. Bad

12:49

times must set ego our reputation. Maybe

12:51

you have been an advocate publicly for

12:53

this particular view. Do and say now

12:55

for me to change that few this

12:57

acosta sunk cost involved that you to

13:00

factor in when you're asking people to

13:02

kids who reconsider that so that self

13:04

an instinctive and that's where those points

13:06

to stubbornness lights around fi eager even

13:08

tribalism. That idea of if you're asking

13:10

me to change my mind in a

13:12

way that is not lock step with

13:15

people I see you're like me and

13:17

my tried that yet instinctively scary. Because.

13:19

We as humans love to do things that meeting

13:21

we're going to be safe and protected and accepted

13:24

by add five he fired up to view that

13:26

people like me don't have. That. Things

13:28

are an Era Signal Knew logically that you're

13:30

not safe. Now you may be adjusted from

13:32

the tribes of these role of things we

13:34

need to factor in. That begins: different people

13:36

not to give evidence is going to touch

13:38

those things. As a comedian, us. Everything

13:41

you said makes me think wow. It's

13:43

just me. So much sense and yet

13:45

to our tendency is not to do

13:47

that when we get into these conversations

13:50

and the emotions there since you said

13:52

a word, Dignity already a

13:54

couple of times in this

13:56

conversation and. I. since there's a

13:58

lot there that A big part

14:01

of this is how do I

14:04

in the pursuit of maybe trying

14:06

to influence, maybe trying to shift someone's opinion

14:08

or mind on something that I

14:11

better as the other party be

14:13

thinking about how do I maintain

14:15

the other person's dignity, help them save

14:17

face. That's key in this, isn't it?

14:20

Oh yeah. And one of the

14:22

simplest ways we can do that and it's so

14:24

obvious when you hear it and it's the thing

14:26

that most leaders when they're honest

14:28

don't do enough of and that is listening.

14:31

The act of listening to

14:33

someone dignifies them. It's that

14:35

I'm going to create space and time. I'm not

14:37

going to jump in. I'm not going to be

14:39

listening with the intent to reply as Stephen Covey

14:41

warned us. I mean, actually listening with the intent

14:43

to understand and validate you. Even

14:46

if your view, for instance, is something that I

14:48

can't relate to, I think it's actually ludicrous. I'm

14:50

going to listen to you. I want to hear

14:52

you out. I love that insight from Oscar Trimboli

14:54

in his book around the value of good

14:57

listening, active listening. And I've never thought

14:59

of this before. That's so true. He

15:01

said, never overlooked the fact that the

15:03

word listen and silent are made

15:05

up of the same letters. I'm like,

15:07

that's profound. And it's so true. Like,

15:09

do we actually create enough

15:11

silence to let people speak?

15:13

And there's something not just about dignity that comes with

15:15

that, but when you really listen to someone, you actually

15:18

might learn something. You might learn that actually you're

15:20

sort of on the same page that you're just

15:23

using different language to describe the same issue. And

15:25

so you're, you're wondering into an argument or something

15:27

that's fractious or difficult needlessly. Because

15:29

actually there's a lot you share in common until

15:31

you listen to them and understand the terms of

15:33

reference they use in the way they understand the

15:35

issue. And then suddenly, okay, there's a lot we

15:37

have in common here. Let's start there as opposed

15:40

to going and making assumptions about what the other

15:42

person is thinking or what their worldview is. So

15:45

there's a lot you can learn, but also

15:47

listening because it gives dignity to the other person.

15:49

The reality is that people who listen to

15:51

are more likely to listen. And so just

15:53

creating that space is such an essential part

15:55

of persuasion. And yet many of us go

15:57

into high stakes conversations with everyone. are

15:59

really well worth arguments and if they say this, I'll

16:01

say this and we've got it all mapped

16:04

out. And so have you actually taken the time

16:06

to have a posture of

16:08

humility and curiosity to genuinely understand?

16:11

And there's a beautiful invitation in the

16:13

book right along with that to lessen

16:16

the loss that someone

16:18

might be feeling if

16:20

they are going to change their mind.

16:22

And you write contrary to conventional wisdom,

16:24

we are not actually afraid of change.

16:27

It is not change but loss that we

16:29

fear the most. This is

16:31

an enormous implication for the process of

16:33

persuasion. As American writer

16:35

and political activist Upton Sinclair observed,

16:37

it is difficult to get a

16:39

man to understand something when his

16:41

salary depends upon his not understanding

16:43

it. It's a

16:46

great quote from Sinclair and it's

16:48

so true, isn't it? If

16:51

me shifting my mind

16:53

means I lose something,

16:56

prestige, power, my job,

16:58

my salary, my influence,

17:01

even if we know that it may

17:03

be right, we're so likely

17:06

to push against it, even subconsciously, aren't

17:08

we? Yes. And

17:10

this is what's interesting is I think for years and

17:12

many of us have operated with the assumption, I know

17:14

I certainly have, I've written about this in books and

17:16

I'll speak about it from stage,

17:19

this idea that humans are just afraid of

17:21

change. We've said that so often for so

17:23

long, we just assume that it's true. And

17:25

yet the last few years from a neuroscience

17:27

standpoint, what we've discovered is that it's not

17:29

actually the case. People, they're not afraid of

17:31

change, they are afraid of loss. And the

17:33

three losses, the big ones are status, power

17:35

and uncertainty. The moment we feel like there's,

17:37

we've got to step into uncharted water, uncertain water,

17:39

that again is where we get those error signals

17:42

in our instinctive mind that we are not solved.

17:44

And so rather than trying to upsell the benefits

17:46

of change, how do you try and lessen that

17:49

loss, make people feel safe in the process of

17:51

change? And so sometimes this can

17:53

be as simple as showing that the change you're

17:55

trying to get them to make is something that

17:57

already aligns with what their values are, what they

17:59

feel. think is important or even stuff they've

18:01

done in the past. If you can frame

18:04

the change in terms of how it's an

18:06

extension on what they've already been doing as

18:08

opposed to something that's a complete shift away

18:10

from what they've been doing, it's amazing how

18:13

that allays that fear of uncertainty. And so,

18:15

think about examples of this. One of the

18:17

ones that I love in the book that

18:19

I shared was this notion that when James

18:21

Watt in the 18th century, in the development

18:24

of mechanical steam turbine engines, talked about their

18:26

horsepower output. That was genius because of course,

18:28

people were naturally going to be skeptical

18:31

or suspicious of these new machines. And so,

18:33

if we're going to try and get people

18:35

to embrace this new machinery equipment, how do

18:37

we put it in terms they understand everyone

18:39

knew what horsepower was? So, if you use

18:41

that as a common reference point, even that

18:43

language meant that people were more open,

18:46

they could make sense of it and therefore someone embraced it.

18:48

And I think we need to do the

18:50

same thing when we're asking people in the workplace to change. How

18:52

do you use language in the past,

18:54

symbols from the past, things that feel familiar

18:56

so that it's like a completely new thing

18:59

but rather again an extension on the past.

19:01

But then also that loss of dignity

19:04

is critical. And I think sometimes we

19:06

unfortunately are unconsciously even back people into

19:08

a corner and basically leave them with

19:10

no option but to have to say they

19:12

were an idiot in order to say

19:14

that they've changed their mind. And of

19:17

course, no one wants to do that. You know, they

19:19

would give people that ability to as you say, save

19:21

face. And sometimes it's almost like

19:23

you're going to give them the narrative, the narrative

19:25

of, I thought this but now I've

19:27

learned this and now I think something different. And

19:29

so now it's not that I was wrong in

19:31

the past, it's that I've learned something new. And

19:33

so sometimes you need to forgive people that space

19:36

to sort of have that narrative in their own mind,

19:38

be able to share that narrative with others. Therefore,

19:41

it's not a case of weakness like I was

19:43

wrong and now I've seen the error of my

19:45

ways and I've repented psychologically and now a difference.

19:47

I don't know, I've grown. I've seen something new,

19:49

I've seen something different and I was the one

19:51

in charge of that. Again, if people feel like

19:53

it was their idea or something they

19:55

came up with or a process they were in

19:57

charge of and at the end, they change. that's

20:01

a narrative that allows them to save face. So these

20:03

are all simple things we can do to lessen that

20:05

loss and the people don't feel they're

20:07

losing so much in the process, they're far more

20:09

willing to consider change. Yeah. There's

20:12

a couple of questions that you

20:14

invite us to ask as well too. And

20:17

I've been thinking about

20:19

them a bunch and one of them is, ask

20:22

a question that allows the other

20:24

person to listen to themselves, which

20:28

is not normally when we think of when we ask

20:30

questions. Tell me about what that is

20:32

and what's important about it. Yes.

20:35

I mean, I think the example of this and it's

20:37

sort of one of these famed examples that you read

20:39

about in many textbooks around persuasive communication was back in

20:41

1980, that famous debate,

20:44

the election debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald

20:46

Reagan, where Reagan said, just all you need

20:48

to do is ask yourself, are you better

20:50

off today than you were four years ago?

20:53

And I mean, this is a televised debate. It

20:55

was an inherently rhetorical question because there was no

20:57

ability for people to actually answer it. They

21:00

were on the television screen. But

21:02

in that moment, people answered themselves. And even

21:04

if it wasn't out loud, once the question

21:06

was posed, people were forced to

21:08

go, well, am I or not? And the very

21:11

way they answered that question, that was the primer

21:13

that meant that they were open to thinking, actually,

21:15

maybe change is necessary. Maybe

21:18

a shift in presidents required. Like, the asking

21:20

of the question gets people to a point

21:23

where they get curious. They step back from

21:25

the status quo. They don't just operate on

21:27

instinct or autopilot. But step back and go,

21:29

that's interesting. I hadn't thought of

21:31

it that way before. And so asking questions

21:33

that allow people to reconsider

21:35

is half the battle when it comes to

21:37

persuasion. And I think one of the best

21:39

tools I've come across, and I refer to

21:41

it briefly in the book, is this notion

21:43

called motivational interviewing. And so motivational

21:46

interviewing as an approach to asking questions

21:48

is actually about asking two very different

21:50

questions in a specific order.

21:52

And if you look at the research that

21:54

underpins this, it's been looked at by probably

21:56

researchers, hundreds of different researchers, and tracked

21:59

over the last few years. last two or three

22:01

decades, it's the most scientifically reliable behaviour

22:03

change approach there is. And so the

22:05

way it works is these two questions.

22:07

First question is you ask someone, hey,

22:09

on a scale of one to ten,

22:12

how likely or willing are you to

22:14

and then fill in the blanks. So

22:16

you ask them, let's say whatever the issue is you're

22:19

trying to get them to consider and you're thinking, you're

22:21

doing things, you're asking to write from one to ten,

22:23

how likely or willing or open are you to that.

22:26

And typically if you're dealing with someone who is

22:28

stubborn and this is very, can you speak to

22:30

that instinctive mind, you're giving instinctive mind the ability

22:32

to feel it's got agency and dignity here. So

22:35

I'm not being railroaded here, I can give you a low

22:37

number. So if they're stubborn, they will. I'll say like a

22:39

two or a three hour four out of ten. And

22:42

so sometimes you get someone say a one out of ten because

22:44

it's being incredibly difficult and there's a whole different approach that works.

22:46

But let's say they give a two, three or four out of

22:48

ten. The next question then in

22:50

this technique is the key one because then you

22:52

say, hey, that's interesting. How come you

22:55

didn't give a lower number? If you gave

22:57

a three, how come you didn't give a lower number?

22:59

And the framing shifts now like, well, what there must

23:01

be a part of you that thinks this is a

23:03

good idea. Let's start there. Let's look at

23:05

what your inherent motivation, what your openness

23:07

to change might be rather than focusing

23:09

on the seven out of ten reasons

23:11

why you wouldn't want to change

23:13

and why you don't want to change. You think

23:15

this is a dumb idea and all the rest

23:17

of it. And honestly, I've seen this, I've used

23:20

this myself numerous times, I've said this played out.

23:22

And in that moment, the entire posture, the conversation

23:24

changes, the tone shifts because now it's not defensiveness.

23:26

It's not me thinking of all the reasons I

23:28

don't want to. It's starting with, okay, well, okay,

23:31

it's not a completely dumb idea. I suppose

23:33

there are some things that are worth considering

23:35

and almost the other person starts settling the

23:37

perspective back to you. So these are simple

23:39

ways to use questions that allow people to

23:41

pause and reflect and see things from a

23:43

different perspective. It's them listening

23:45

to themselves versus you

23:47

telling them what's the

23:50

truth or the logical or getting back

23:52

to like we were talking about earlier,

23:55

the inquiring mind, right? It's leaning in

23:57

on that instinct of mine. Yeah,

23:59

definitely. And the other thing

24:01

you can do with questions, I think this is

24:04

important, is look at how do you clarify why

24:06

there might be resistance already in the other person's

24:08

mind. Now for instance, if someone's

24:10

stubbornly resistant to what you're suggesting, it's going to

24:12

be too expensive or it's going to take too

24:14

long or whatever it is, you say, you

24:17

might be right. That could be true. Just like

24:20

what do you think would be a reasonable price

24:22

to pay? Why, how long do you think this

24:24

should actually take this particular project? And interestingly,

24:26

by then getting people to then speak out

24:28

loud themselves, what their unconscious expectations were,

24:30

sometimes honestly, they'll go, well,

24:33

I don't know. I don't know how

24:35

much I imagine it would cost actually. Or they'll say,

24:37

you know, it really should have cost this and I

24:39

really lowball the number. And even as they say, they

24:41

realize what they're suggesting is really unreasonable. And in that

24:43

moment, what you do is you open their mind just

24:45

a little bit to considering that maybe something

24:48

they've never said out loud, a deeply held

24:50

assumption isn't actually realistic. And just

24:52

by getting them to speak that out loud, it just,

24:54

it softens the ground. It makes them more

24:56

willing and open to consider a different view

24:58

rather than just, again, bombarding consistently with all the

25:01

logical, good reasons why what you're suggesting is

25:03

a great idea and they should get on

25:05

board. Yeah. And so the distinction

25:07

I'm hearing there is versus coming in

25:09

and addressing or

25:11

maybe refuting points they've made. You're

25:14

actually getting back to

25:16

what you said, Oscar Trumboli's invitation for us

25:18

listening, deep listening, right? Yeah. And

25:21

you're actually listening to their arguments,

25:24

the points that they're making and you're

25:26

asking a question that clarifies that a

25:29

bit. And maybe you're even asking like

25:31

how they came to that conclusion and

25:33

where does that come from and clarifying

25:35

that. By doing that, then you're

25:38

giving them agency and dignity like

25:40

we were talking about. Yeah. And

25:43

all of this is about your tone as well. One of

25:45

the things I encourage in the book is this, and this

25:47

again, this is counterintuitive. You

25:49

should put your best foot forward when you're engaging with

25:51

other people. If you want to be credible

25:53

and compelling, you've got to speak

25:55

well, you've got to put your arguments

25:58

forward in a coherent way. And

26:00

interestingly, what the research has showed in

26:03

the last few years is actually sometimes

26:05

the opposite is more effective which is

26:07

self-deprecation, self-disclosure, just being really vulnerable, almost

26:09

putting your worst foot forward. And so

26:12

when you're approaching a conversation with someone,

26:14

to approach that sort of tone of, you know,

26:17

this is how I think we should do things and here's all

26:19

the reasons why I think it's a good idea. You approach it

26:21

with, hey, look, I might be way

26:23

off here but, or look, my sense is

26:25

dot, dot, dot or, you know, I could

26:27

be wrong. Well, feel free to ignore this.

26:29

And what you do is you preface it

26:31

with that sense of openness that means the

26:33

other person feels like they don't have to

26:35

adopt the opposite position unconsciously and argue

26:38

against what you're suggesting because you've approached

26:40

it with openness. And interestingly, there was

26:42

some great research done by Kip Williams

26:44

who's a social psychologist and he looked

26:47

at across the board a

26:49

meta-analysis of court cases and the

26:51

key moments where juries favoured

26:53

one side's arguments versus another in a

26:55

court case. And this research was

26:58

fascinating. What he found is that in

27:00

any situation, the solicitor, the attorney who brings

27:02

to the table, brings to the jury information

27:06

that works against their own case that

27:08

may actually disadvantage their case. As long

27:10

as you bring that to the table

27:12

first and bring it into the light

27:14

before the opposing side has a chance

27:16

to do so, instantly that makes you

27:18

more trustworthy in the eyes of the

27:20

jury and typically statistically, jury, the verdicts

27:22

were given in favour of the party

27:24

who bought that unhelpful information,

27:26

the information that might discredit their

27:28

own case to the table first

27:31

because what it is, is it disarmed the listener. Because

27:33

now I wasn't here listening thinking, okay, you're saying all

27:35

this but what's the other side? What's the other element

27:38

of the argument you're not telling me? So

27:40

almost like that part of their instinct in

27:42

mind is looking for perhaps the areas where

27:45

I'm not being shown something or I should

27:47

look for the loophole, that gets

27:50

neutralised. Now I'm actually almost unconsciously arguing

27:52

your argument for you because you've been

27:54

open, you've been honest. So when

27:57

we're approaching people, even when we're asking some of

27:59

those very questions, tone with which we do it can

28:01

make all the difference in vulnerability,

28:04

authenticity, transparency, self-deprecation. These things

28:06

all go a really long way. There's

28:09

a line in the book, speak

28:11

like you're right, listen like

28:14

you're wrong. What does that look

28:16

like? I think at

28:18

the core of it, it's a sense

28:21

of openness, an idea that if you

28:23

go into every situation assuming that you're

28:25

right, but you don't couple that

28:27

with that humility of listening like you're wrong,

28:29

firstly you won't learn anything. It also does set

28:32

up that posture where people will fight back

28:34

just because they don't feel heard.

28:36

This is not to say you should just be, I

28:39

have been about everything and not have any convictions.

28:41

I think convictions are necessary. I was chatting with

28:43

a colleague recently and the way she described it

28:45

was so apt. She

28:47

said it's almost like having a spine. If you

28:49

don't have a spine and things that

28:52

you know are true, that you build your life

28:54

and your ideology and your values on, without a

28:56

spine, you're going to be a wobbly

28:58

mess. You need to have a spine to

29:00

give you structure and to give you support

29:02

and strength, but you can't be so strong

29:05

to the point where you're rigid and your

29:07

spine is flexing moving and it doesn't. If

29:09

you're too rigid and unwilling to listen or

29:11

change, that sense of rigidity

29:13

actually makes you incredibly fragile. That's when

29:15

you break. How do you

29:17

have things that you're sure about? Speak like you've

29:19

got certainty and know a few things, but also

29:22

have that posture of curiosity that you're always willing

29:24

to learn. Because the old saying is true. The

29:26

moment you think you've made it, you've passed it.

29:28

We can never approach life and work

29:31

even if you're incredibly experienced, like you've

29:33

got it all figured out. Partly because

29:36

that means you're not in a learning posture which

29:38

is dangerous for any leader, but it also means

29:40

those around you, in many cases,

29:42

will challenge you just because

29:44

they feel like there's that sense of

29:47

unyielding, unwilling openness in you. There's often

29:49

that illicit stubbornness from people around you.

29:52

Because I think the other thing about this is going

29:54

into any interaction or engagement with a

29:56

willingness to listen and to engage and to learn

29:58

from the other person rather than to beat

30:01

them. We often have this notion that

30:03

argument or debate is about conquering and

30:05

victory. The challenge is, Andy

30:07

Stanley who's a great leadership author and expert

30:09

there in the States, he puts it beautifully,

30:11

he said, in any relationship, and this can

30:13

be a married relationship, a

30:16

parent-child relationship, a boss-worker relationship, whatever

30:18

it is, in any relationship when

30:20

one party wins, the relationship

30:22

loses. I reckon that is so fundamentally true. Do

30:24

we go into every interaction with the explicit goal

30:27

that I'm going to walk out of this the

30:29

winner? Because if I do, if that's the

30:32

posture of the approach, if there's

30:34

not the speck like I'm right coupled with

30:36

a listen like someone, like curiosity, where I'm

30:38

open and willing to listen, then

30:40

typically people feel railroaded. Firstly, they'll be stubborn

30:43

and certainly right back to where we started.

30:45

If they're convinced against their will, they probably

30:47

haven't changed their mind at all. They're just

30:49

saying what they think you want to hear

30:51

you. I am struck

30:53

by how often I'll have

30:56

a conversation with Bonnie or one of

30:58

our kids or a session

31:01

in our academy talking through a

31:03

problem or situation. And

31:06

my first instinctual belief

31:09

that I'm right is almost always

31:12

wrong. Like whenever I feel

31:15

confident, the more confident I feel that I'm

31:17

right on something, I've

31:19

almost always substantially either

31:21

I'm wrong or I've missed a key

31:24

point of it. Like whenever I get

31:26

caught up in that emotional piece. But

31:30

the opposite is also true. Like when

31:32

I approach with more humility and listen,

31:35

more often

31:38

we get to some shared agreement

31:40

or next path or something way

31:42

faster. And it's counterintuitive. But boy,

31:44

it's so consistent

31:47

in so many interactions. Yeah,

31:49

I can relate to that. 100%.

31:53

So this is a book about changing minds.

31:55

You know, I ask people all the time what they've

31:57

changed their minds on. So I'm curious as you...

32:00

wrote this book. I mean the research you get

32:04

into it, I mean you're looking at like centuries

32:06

of information. It's really, really fascinating. Thank

32:09

you. As you got into this, as

32:11

you've now been out talking about the book, speaking

32:14

about it, coaching people on this,

32:16

I'm curious, what's something you've changed

32:18

your mind on? I've always been

32:21

a fairly, last day fair, don't lock the doors,

32:23

she'll be right, very Australian approach to life really.

32:25

I didn't grow up in a big city, I

32:27

grew up in a country area where no one

32:29

ever locked their cars or their doors at home

32:31

at night and so I'd have talked at it

32:33

as an identity. I'm not someone who'd lock the

32:35

door at night. I don't live in fear, that

32:37

whole sort of thing and I had

32:39

a conversation a few weeks together with a friend who's a

32:41

police officer and he grew up five streets from where we

32:43

now live in Sydney. So he knows the area, he knows

32:46

the suburb, he knows the crimes that go on here which

32:48

I don't know and he said when

32:50

I told him we don't lock our doors, his face, he

32:52

was like, are you serious? What do you mean? And I

32:54

said, yeah, I just sort of feel that we're

32:56

in a pretty safe area and I like to live life

32:59

in a trusting sort of way. He said, okay, so here's

33:01

some of the stuff that's happened the last few months in

33:03

your area and he started to go through

33:05

a few of the things that had gone on and like

33:07

he's also not someone who's super safety conscious, he's a fairly

33:09

relaxed sort of guy. So I'm like, I've had so many

33:11

people over the years say, you really should lock your doors

33:13

at night and I never listened. I changed

33:16

my mind after this conversation and there was so

33:18

much about it that was just different because of

33:20

who said it, how they said it, the way

33:22

they approached it, the stories they told, stories speak

33:24

to the instinctive mind and I'm like, every night

33:27

I'm a locking the door person now which is

33:29

just something that four months ago I would never

33:31

have imagined doing. So even little things like that,

33:33

I've just, I noticed what it

33:35

is that happens in my own mind and when

33:37

I do change, why I change and then what

33:39

are those points of resistance where I push back

33:41

and then I try and ask more questions, get

33:43

curious about those. And how

33:45

interesting as an example of

33:47

just what we were talking about, like his

33:49

ability to speak to your instinctive mind versus

33:52

just saying, oh you should do something, changed

33:55

your opinion on it almost immediately

33:57

after years of other people trying

33:59

to. Who didn't? Yeah,

34:02

yeah, it's exactly it. I

34:04

think all of us, we can be

34:06

stubborn and some of us by temperament are more stubborn.

34:08

I'm probably quite a stubborn person and for me, one

34:11

of the tells that I have that my instinctive mind

34:13

is in the driver's seat in a way that's unhealthy

34:16

and I don't know, everyone has their tells. Some

34:18

people get flushed around their cheeks or their neck. For

34:20

me, the hairs in the back of my neck stand

34:22

up when I start to get into that defensive mode

34:24

and I've just learned over the years when that happens,

34:27

stop. Take a breath, take a beast and

34:29

just step back from the emotion because often

34:32

that is our instinctive mind going into battle

34:34

mode or want to go into defensive mode

34:37

and that's when you're never making very smart

34:39

choices. Michael McQueen is the

34:41

author of Mind Stuck, Mastering the Art

34:43

of Changing Minds. Michael, thank you so

34:45

much for your work. My pleasure,

34:47

thank you. If

34:54

this conversation was helpful, three related episodes

34:57

I'd recommend to you. One is episode

34:59

450, The Way to Influence Executives. Nancy

35:01

Duarte was my guest on that episode

35:03

and we talked about the reality that

35:05

almost all of us need to do

35:07

which is to influence executives in our

35:09

own organization whether they be peers or

35:11

people we report to and

35:13

often also influencing executives at other organizations.

35:16

There is absolutely a right and wrong

35:18

way to approach that and Nancy has

35:20

a ton of experience on how to

35:22

do that not only herself but if

35:25

teaching leaders how to present well and

35:27

influence executives and yes be able to

35:29

change minds. Episode 450 for a roadmap

35:31

on that. Also you heard

35:34

echoes of the importance of listening in this

35:36

conversation. Our resident expert on listening who's been

35:38

on the show many times over the years,

35:40

Oscar Trimboli, author of the book Deep Listening

35:42

and How to Listen. Episode

35:44

500 we talk about the four habits that

35:47

derail listening. When you listen to that episode

35:49

for sure you're going to hear at least

35:51

one of those four habits that and

35:54

traps that you likely fall into. I know there's

35:56

one for me and Oscar and I talk

35:58

about that in that episode and highlight common

36:00

traps we fall into so that we can all do

36:02

better. Again, that's episode 500. And

36:04

then finally, I'd recommend the work of William

36:07

Urie, episode 669, three practices

36:10

for thriving in negotiations. William, just an

36:12

expert at negotiation for many decades, has

36:15

done a ton of work, both as

36:17

a practitioner and as a researcher, tons

36:19

of books, getting to us for the

36:22

best well-known. And William and I had

36:24

a conversation that lines up so well

36:26

with this conversation, which is of course

36:29

when you're negotiating, oftentimes you are trying

36:31

to influence the other party, sometimes change minds

36:33

a bit, find a resolution that works well

36:35

for both parties, some key principles in

36:37

episode 669 that will help you out there.

36:40

All of those episodes you can find

36:42

on the coachingforleaders.com website. And if you

36:44

haven't already, I'd invite you to set

36:46

up your free membership so that you

36:49

can search for exactly what you need

36:51

by topic. All of the

36:53

podcast episodes I've aired since 2011 are

36:55

freely available on all the apps and

36:57

all the directories but the apps and

36:59

the directories don't give you an easy

37:01

way to be able to search by topic.

37:03

So we've made the website your portal to

37:06

be able to do that so you can

37:08

find exactly what you need right now. The

37:10

entry point for that is our free membership.

37:12

Go over to coachingforleaders.com, set up your free

37:15

membership. You'll be able to search by topic

37:17

plus have access to all the other benefits

37:19

of free membership, including my book and interview

37:21

notes. I've highlighted a bunch of key quotes

37:24

from Michael's book. I've detailed out the notes

37:26

that I used when I was talking with

37:28

him today. All of that's available

37:30

to you as well as all the

37:33

resources from many of the past interviews

37:35

as well inside of the free membership,

37:37

just one of the benefits there. And

37:40

if you're looking for a bit more

37:42

perspective, one of the regular practices that

37:45

we have here in our community is

37:47

inviting guests who've been on the podcast

37:49

into conversations with our members and listeners

37:52

directly. Once a month I make an

37:54

invitation to one of our past guests

37:56

to come and join in with us.

38:00

live and most recently that was Kuzho

38:02

Teshner, a former US Air Force fighter

38:04

pilot also oversaw debriefing for the US

38:06

Air Force program and was taught us

38:08

a few months ago on the podcast

38:10

how we can do a better job

38:12

at debriefing in our organization so we

38:14

don't make the same mistakes twice and

38:16

we learn from our mistakes. So

38:19

few organizations do that well and

38:21

recently I invited Kuzho to sit

38:23

down with our members and have

38:25

a conversation with them directly. We

38:27

record those conversations every single month

38:30

and they're available to all of our members

38:32

inside of Coaching for Leaders Plus. If you

38:34

would like to get access to that recording

38:36

in addition to all the other recordings in

38:38

the last three to four years of guest

38:41

experts talking with our members directly it's one

38:43

of the key benefits inside of Coaching for

38:45

Leaders Plus. For more go over

38:47

to CoachingForLeaders.plus. Coaching for Leaders

38:49

is edited by Andrew Kroger.

38:51

Production support is provided by

38:54

Sierra Priest. I will be

38:56

back with you next Monday

38:58

for our next conversation. Have

39:00

a great week and see you back then.