Interesting Link: Improving your Powers of Persuasion

Bonus link for Christmas:

http://blogs.wsj.com/atwork/2012/12/21/improve-your-powers-of-persuasion/

Parminder Bahra of the Wall Street Journal interviews Steve Martin (no, not that one) about the power of peer pressure as a persuasion tool (i.e.  all of your neighbors are doing x...)

Have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, everyone!

Interesting Link: Failed New Year's Resolutions

As the last person with a print subscription to Newsweek, I though I would share an article I ran across. It's about New Year's resolutions, and motivation in General.  The Author, Oliver Burkeman, theorizes that the self-help industry is based on (and requires) our difficulty making major changes.   He mentions the idea of willpower as a finite resource, and proposes "small wins", or ridiculously minor goals, as a way to make progress while not tapping into the willpower reserve.

Interesting Link: Back to Work

Now that my musical tastes are pretty much stuck in my early-90s college era, I've found myself gravitating more toward podcasts for entertainment.  One that I've found particularly interesting/entertaining is Back to Work.  The hosts are Dan Benjamin, who is the Rupert Murdoch and common thread of the 5by5 Network and acts as the straight man to Merlin Mann, who made a name for himself in the productivity arena.  I had been a casual follower of some of Merlin's earlier work, like 43 Folders and stumbled across this show by happy accident.

The basic format of the show is a collection of tangents with a theme/topic thrown in at some point.  Dan and Merlin let their geek flags fly proudly, discussing Star Wars, Comic Books and Software Development Tools with equal ease.  The side discussions are entertaining on their own, and the hosts bring their own insightful and often counter-intuitive views on various life topics like persistence, productivity, etc.  They tend to be long shows (90 minutes is not uncommon), and riddled with inside jokes, but are definitely worth a listen.

Book Report: Carrots and Sticks

In the spirit of trying to re-kindle my blogging and do more reading, I'm going to start doing periodic "Book Reports" on topics I find interesting.

One of the topics I've always found interesting is What Motivates Us.  I'm still holding out some hope that there's some secret button I can push on myself to motivate me to lose weight, save money, and launch my career ad Football Player/President/Astronaut.  I've taken a crack at a motivation theory myself, base on my own observation and experience.

In his book Carrots and Sticks, Ian Ayres presents a more refined view of how incentives motivate our actions.   He pulls a lot of his ideas from Behavioral Economics and backs up his ideas with experimental results. He's also the co-founder of StickK.com, which uses these principles to help people reach goals. (He does make a point of mentioning his site, but not to the degree that the book reads as a commercial..)

Main points:

(of course the book has a lot of examples and explanation not covered here)

• Because we have time-inconsistent preferences, we place a larger value on things we can enjoy now, as opposed to more of the same in the future (aka Hyperbolic Discounting).  This goes beyond rational discounting.  This difference is larger the closer to the actual "now" the decision is made, and is generally regretted after the fact.
• Your present self (who wants to lose weight, save money, etc.) is often at odds with your future self (who makes the decision to have dessert, buy unneeded shoes, etc.)
• Commitment devices (like a large cash penalty for "cheating") can take bad options away if set up correctly.
• Anti-incentives, such as the famous Zappos offer to pay their trainees to leave, can create a greater commitment for those who turn it down.
• Penalties are usually more cost effective that rewards, as they don't require payment normally and people count losses more heavily than gains of the same amount.
• People have a strong urge to conform to what others do.  This can be used as an incentive.
• We have a finite supply of willpower, but this can be increased through "exercise".
• We have a limited capacity to change, but resetting our "normal" can be the basis for further changes.

My opinion:

I think this book is somewhat underrated based on the Amazon reviews.  It covers a lot of the same ground as Daniel Pink's Drive, but on a more personal level.  I would recommend it.

Interesting Link: Data Analysis Using *gasp* Math

Kalid at BetterExplained has an excellent article on the various flavors of "averages" and their uses.

http://betterexplained.com/articles/how-to-analyze-data-using-the-average/

He runs a very informative and interesting blog that explains a variety of concepts in a the-light-bulb-over-my-head-is-finally-glowing way. I recommend it for just about anyone who wants some insight into the world around them.

BTW, to better appreciate the quality of BetterExplained's take on statistics, just compare it to my attempt:

http://thebusinessofhavingalife.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-you-mean-mean.html

(Please give me bonus points for the catchy title, though.)

Interesting link -or- BATNA isn't a Figment of my Imaginiation

Penelope Trunk at Brazen Careerist gives an excellent example of negotiation in the writer's market, complete with BATNA analysis.

http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2007/06/18/how-to-negotiate-when-you-have-nothing-to-leverage/

Overall, I like this blog. I find myself disagreeing with the authors (she often has guest writers) pretty frequently, but in an I-can-see-their-point way.

Negotiation Part 3 - Think Win-win

If you've read my previous negotiation posts (here and here), it's easy to get the impression that I see negotiation as an adversarial encounter. The truth is negotiation does not exist in a vacuum, but within the context of a relationship.

The four types of negotiations are

low stakes, low relationship:
This is something like two strangers deciding who will enter an elevator first. There's no relationship at stake, and nobody particularly cares about the outcome. Just decide these quickly and move on.

low stakes, high relationship:
This is where you are dealing with someone who you want to maintain a connection with (or at least not annoy), and an outcome that doesn't matter that much. An example is who would pick up the tab for lunch (unless you've got expensive tastes). Anything that seems fair to both parties is fine here.

High stakes, low relationship:
This relationship may be short-term to nonexistent, such as selling a house. In these cases, getting the best possible outcome (ethically) will be the priority. You can pull out all the stops here, almost.

High stakes, high relationship:
These are the most difficult types of negotiations. The relationship is as important as the outcome, but both will have a large impact on your future. If you are discussing your starting salary with a prospective employer, it does not make sense to poison your relationship over a few dollars. In cases like this, it is important for both parties feel like they have been treated fairly by the other.

One concept that helps in these scenarios is win-win. In other words: how can both sides get as much of what they want at the same time? The key here is to focus on what matters most to each group. The prospective employer may be willing to pay more if the candidate can start immediately. A candidate may be willing to take less pay for a more flexible schedule. These kinds of trade-offs have to incorporate something other than the pay, so they work best when there are multiple variables to talk about. It's even more important to know yourself and your opponent as much as possible, beyond the BATNA.