The Small BIG: Small Changes That Spark Big Influence (16 page)

F
or worshippers gathering for weekly prayers at St. John’s Church in the parish of Kirkheaton, a Yorkshire village in Northern England, it seemed like any normal Sunday morning. Even the November weather was typical—the sky was clear but the temperature cold, signaling the onset of a rapidly approaching winter. Removing hats and coats as they entered the church, some regulars nodded in polite recognition to fellow churchgoers as they took their seats. For many it would be the same seat that they had occupied in previous weeks and months. Even years.

Nothing at all appeared to be out of the ordinary.

However, for the rector of the church, the Reverend Richard Steel, that Sunday morning in 2012 was going to be anything but ordinary. He had a challenge on his hands. For the past seven years he had been leading a campaign to raise money for repairs to his Victorian-era church. It was a campaign that had been pretty successful, generating almost £500,000 ($750,000) through a variety of donations, charity appeals, and fundraisers. But old churches are expensive to maintain and tend to soak up funds at a rate that even the most tenacious and persuasive of clergy will struggle to replenish. Reverend Steel knew that despite his best efforts, half a million pounds, although impressive, was sadly not enough. The time had come to lead another push to raise more money. But how? What could he do to persuade his congregation, a group that had already contributed so much over the years, to pull together again in a concerted effort to raise the funds required to complete the restoration?

The strategy he adopted was both inspirational and extraordinary. It was a strategy that not only provided his church with the cash it needed to continue its restoration efforts, but also provided a wonderful demonstration of how to successfully deploy a fundamental principle of influence.

Reverend Steel decided that he was going to
give away
the church’s money.

Tradition holds that at some point during a church service, members of the congregation will be expected to delve into a pocket, purse, or wallet and place a contribution into the collection box or on the collection plate being passed around. But, as the reverend explained to his bemused audience, today’s collection would be rather different. Instead of asking his congregation to make a contribution to the collection plate, he requested that they make a
withdrawal
from it. And at that point, to the astonishment of almost everyone, a collection plate full of crisp £10 bank notes (roughly $15) was passed around the church and all in attendance were invited to take one.

At the end of this extraordinary “uncollection,” having given away £550 (about $825) of the church’s money, the reverend told his congregation that they were free to invest the £10 in any way they saw fit in the pursuit of generating a return that he hoped they would choose to give back to the church at a future date.

It takes a brave rector to give away his establishment’s resources. It also takes an insightful one to do so in the way Reverend Steel did.

The act of providing resources to others first activates a fundamental principle of the influence process—namely, reciprocation. As we have already discussed in previous chapters, the principle of reciprocity evokes a powerful sense of obligation that recipients feel to repay, in kind, what has been provided to them first—a sense often accompanied by a healthy return. Marketers know that the offer of a free sample can lead to a larger purchase that more than compensates for the cost of their initial “gift.” Smart leaders recognize that, by being the first to listen, offer assistance, and proactively identify those that they can help rather than those that can help them, they can increase the success of future influence attempts. Consistent with the theme of this book, these initial actions can be small, often costless. However the return on these small investments can be disproportionately large, stimulating loyal customers and productive colleague relationships primarily due to the creation of a network of willing others.

It’s not just savvy marketers and managers who understand the powerful sway of the reciprocity principle. Sociologists too have recognized that in every society there is an obligation to give, to receive, and to repay. It is an expectation founded in society’s golden rule, which, as part of the socialization process, advises that we all “give unto others as you would have them give to you.” Notice that the golden rule doesn’t state “Give unto others as
they
have given to you.” Tellingly, the rule advocates that the influencer always take the first step. It was this first step—the action of giving first rather than taking—that Reverend Steel ably demonstrated in his expertly executed influence strategy.

But there was something else, crucial to the success of his strategy, that Reverend Steel recognized.

Although it may be the case that society obliges all of us to give back to others in the form of behavior, gift, or service we have first been given, it is also true that modern life is so overcrowded with experiences that it can be difficult to distinguish among the many different resources we have been afforded in the first place. The ubiquity of free trials and samples will often crowd out other free trials and samples. Valuable information can quickly be overshadowed by other valuable, and competing, information. The provision of help and assistance to a customer or a coworker might quickly be trumped by help and assistance provided by a competitor or a colleague.

In such a context it is both saddening and sobering to recognize that, nowadays, simply being the first to give often just won’t be enough. Increasingly an additional ingredient is needed in order to bolster efforts so that they rise above the efforts of others. What’s remarkable about this key ingredient is how small and underutilized it can be, sometimes going completely unrecognized while generating large payoffs.

That key ingredient is
unexpectedness
.

The impact of giving a gift, service, or even information first and in an unexpected way can have a huge impact. In our earlier book,
Yes!
, we described one study that demonstrated how food servers in restaurants could modestly increase the level of gratuities they received (by 3.3 percent) by leaving a candy for each diner when they brought the bill. If they leave two candies, tips increase further (by 14.1 percent). But a third approach showed that doing something unexpected could lead to even more impressive results. After leaving a single candy for each diner at the table, if that same server returned with a second candy
a few moments later
, the unexpectedness of this extra gift led to an impressive 21 percent increase in tips.

It’s not just food servers who stand to benefit from the powerful influence of an unexpected gift or favor. A study conducted by consumer researchers Carrie Heilman, Kent Nakamoto, and Ambar Rao found that supermarket customers spent an average of 11 percent more on their shopping when they were offered surprise coupons after entering the store compared to coupons provided beforehand. It would seem that retailers might stand to profit handsomely simply by changing the timing of when vouchers or coupons are distributed. The unexpected nature of this “gift” serves to amplify a customer’s positive response.

It was recognizing this important shift, from giving first in an
expected
way to giving first in an
unexpected
way, that served Reverend Steel so well. Sure, he could have invited some of his congregation to a meeting to brainstorm new fundraising ideas, making sure to provide coffee and cookies first in an effort to oblige more people to attend. Such an approach could be considered an example of reciprocity in action yet would have been unlikely to match the kind of response that his strategy ultimately generated.

The lessons seem clear. Although being the first to give or offer help will likely carry some sway, the optimal use of this fundamental principle of influence lies in ensuring that what you give first is unexpected relative to the norm. Writing a handwritten note rather than a typed one. Sending a personalized “Looking forward to doing business with you” card to a new client. Proactively asking if you can help your colleague on an important work assignment.

These may seem like small changes, but they can very often lead to much-improved results.

Speaking of results, what came of Reverend Steel’s initial £550 ($825) investment? Six months after that unexpected Sunday morning service, a local BBC news team that had covered the original story returned to Kirkheaton to find out. What they discovered was nothing short of astonishing. Pretty much everyone who accepted the £10 had put the money to good use, some in extremely enterprising ways. One group used the money to buy ingredients to bake cakes and then held a bake sale. One person used the money to advertise a dog-walking service, raising funds in the process. A group of children from the local school pooled their money to buy seeds and then sold the resulting produce at a nice markup. Others used the money to buy goods from eBay that they resold and then returned their profits to the church. In just six months Reverend Steel’s initial investment in his congregation yielded £10,000 ($15,000)—an almost twenty-fold return!

That’s a pretty impressive return on investment. And a wonderful example of a
SMALL
BIG.

T
he answer is…just ask!

That may seem like an enormously obvious assertion, but consider some research conducted by the social scientists Frank Flynn and Vanessa Bohns. They suggested that people who are thinking of making a request have a tendency to underestimate the likelihood that the recipient of their request will actually say yes. They conducted a number of studies to test their idea.

In one study, participants were told that their task was to ask strangers if they would be willing to fill out a questionnaire. Before the participants went out to complete this task, they were asked to predict the likelihood that a given person would agree to the request. Specifically, they had to estimate how many people they likely would have to ask before five people agreed. Although, on average, participants estimated that it would take asking just over 20 strangers, in fact it took just over 10. In essence, the participants underestimated the likelihood of agreement by about half.

Flynn and Bohns found similar results with lots of other types of requests, including asking strangers to walk them to the local gym and to lend them their cell phones to make a quick call. In another especially interesting study, the researchers selected a group of participants who were going to raise funds for charity. Before the fundraising began, Flynn and Bohns asked the participants to estimate the likelihood that the people they approached with a donation request would give. Once again, the fundraisers underestimated by nearly half. In fact, they also underestimated the average amount that each person would donate by about 25 percent.

The authors collected additional data to determine exactly why people have this strong tendency to underestimate the likelihood that a person will respond affirmatively to a request for assistance. In brief, they found that requesters tend to focus on the cost to the potential help-provider in terms of time, effort, or money if he or she says yes, while giving less consideration than they should to the “social costs” (in terms of the difficulty, awkwardness, or potential guilt/embarrassment) the potential help-provider will experience if he or she says no.

The implications seem clear. When trying to decide whether to make a request of someone, it’s important to recognize that you might be underestimating the likelihood of hearing yes. This underestimation, if left uncorrected, could therefore potentially stymie your productivity or the accomplishment of your goals.

Moreover, for those in managerial and team leader roles, the results of these studies should be particularly startling because they suggest that there may be situations when members of your team need help on a critical project but they may incorrectly assume that you are unlikely to give that help if they ask. To reduce the likelihood that this will occur, you would be well advised to make certain that your subordinates, coworkers, and team members are aware of your willingness to give them assistance where needed. How? By describing the findings of Flynn and Bohns and telling team members that you want to ensure that this kind of misperception doesn’t undermine anyone’s performance in your group.

In another set of studies, Bohns and Flynn suggest an additional reason why needed help often doesn’t occur. Not only is it the case that requesters tend to
underestimate
the likelihood that a request for help will result in a yes, those helpers who are standing ready to help tend to
overestimate
the likelihood that a person will ask for help if they need it, leading to a double whammy that only has downsides. Those who need help don’t ask. Those who can help don’t offer, because they wrongly assume their help isn’t needed simply because it wasn’t asked for.

As a result, a common trap that managers and team leaders must avoid when communicating their willingness to help is not just to emphasize the practical benefits afforded to those who ask for help. They should also take steps to assuage in advance the potential feelings of any discomfort or embarrassment that help-seekers might experience by having to ask. Astute managers will do this by pointing to a past situation when they were glad they asked for help, ensuring that they also report how asking wasn’t anywhere as embarrassing as they thought it would be. Healthcare professionals, keen to encourage their patients to continue seeking help and information, should find that adding to their offer of help a small signal of reassurance—like “There are no silly questions”—could make a big difference.

You might even decide to send them a copy of this chapter, remembering how the
SMALL
act of personalizing it by hand-writing their name across the top could lead to an even BIGGER difference.