Neo-Sage Nickel

Is it OK to cheat on your wife? When did you do it?

It seems like every month we hear about a “scandal” regarding some public figure having an affair or sleeping with prostitutes (male or female). Then they have to make the mandatory public apology, somehow invoke God and ask us to give them privacy and to forgive them.  Then they “fall on their sword” and resign.  If they don’t resign, the public outcry is deafening and their ability to function is severely impeded.  But the only reason why we are upset is because they did it NOW and we found out NOW! 

 

Think about how many of our GREAT men have cheated on their wives or slept with prostitutes!  We know that Thomas Jefferson was an adulterer with slaves, Benjamin Franklin was a notorious patron of prostitutes, Andrew Jackson was a bigamist, Eisenhower slept with his secretary, Kennedy slept with who knows who and it’s rumored that Martin Luther King Jr, cheated too.  So, why aren’t these men considered pitiful and sorry excuses for men? 

 

Because we, the public, found out about these events after the men had done their good deeds.  Now it’s sort of OK.  Think what would have happened if these men had existed in a society like today (with the Internet and 24 hour news channels) and the public found out.  None of their deeds would have come to pass. Because they would have done the public apology for being human and then resign.  Think about it for a moment…there would have been NO:

 

French Alliance in 1776 (Benjamin)

Successful D-Day landing or coordination of Allies against Hitler (Ike)

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but for what you can so for your country!” (JFK)

 

“I Have a Dream!” (King), etc…

 

But today, with the Internet and 24 hour news channels, we find out right away and throw away our public leaders regardless of their actual talent or our possible future benefit.  And the biggest issue:  If they did it BEFORE their public life, it’s OK!!  No judgment gets passed.

 

Yes, that’s right.  Just be sure to be a “bad boy” before you enter the public eye and you are fine.  Be on your second wife, after cheating on your first (Newt Gingrich, John McCann, Dr. Phil, et al.) and it’s OK. Not only is it OK but, you can be a hypocrite and even criticize those who do cheat on their wives!  But, get caught now (Mark Sanford, John Edwards, et al.) and you are evil!  New York Governor Elliot Spitzer had to step down for cheating, but the current Governor Patterson openly admits that he cheated on his wife and did drugs, but it was a while ago!  So, it’s all good and NY losses Spitzer for Patterson!  Maybe Spitzer could have served us better than Patterson.  Maybe Mark Sanford would have been a great South Carolina Governor.  We’ll never know.

Does this make any sense?  Actually, YES!  It makes complete sense.  It’s called the law Contrast!  We are hard-wired to see things differently through the prism of time. 

 

As time passes, everything (memory, emotions, connections, etc…) is diluted and dulled. It is natural healing.  The saying “Time heals all wounds.” comes from this concept.  This is usually a very good thing.  It allows us to heal from almost anything.  But the bi-product of this is that even the bad things that people do are diluted and dulled.  So, yes!  It is OK to cheat on your wife, as long as it was awhile ago and after we’ve seen you do better.

 

But why does this matter to you?  Because this affects your daily life!  How?  Here are examples:

 

Personal: 

 

1 - You ask someone for a favor and then, they “hem and haw” and complain.  You are upset, because you helped them out in the past.  But what you’ve failed to take into account is that your good deed was years ago and now the value of that deed has been diluted in their minds.  They may not be selfish, they may just be human. 

 

So, to mitigate this affect, you must FIRST talk about the time that you helped them and talk about it in vivid detail, almost re-living it.  The better you paint a picture of that time, the more the event will be re-lived and more power it will have in persuading your friend to act accordingly.

 

2 - The reverse is also true.  When you’ve done something bad – NEVER bring it up again, ever!  Let time dilute the impact of your action.  This will give you the better relationships.

 

Business:

 

1 - You want a referral from you customer.  You need to ask right after you’ve provided some value for your client.  Ask right after your product or service has given them a benefit or right after you’ve done a personal favor.  This means that your deed is at its most powerful in their minds and increases the chances that you’ll get a favor. 

 

If you’ve waited too long, just ask them about the last benefit that they’ve received from you, and ask THEM TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT!  This will make it vivid in their minds.  Then immediately ask for a referral.

 

2 – The reverse here is also true.  If you have failed your client (once you’ve made it right) – NEVER bring it up again.  Only talk about the successes.   This will give you the better relationships. 

 

Good luck!

 

 

Larry

 

Republican Tea Parties are a good idea! Or are they?

Republican Tea Parties are a good idea! Or are they?

 

Since last year’s election, the Republican Party has been in disarray.  So, how can they get back together?  Rally around an idea or cause!  Sure!  How about taxes?  Sounds good, and let’s make it Patriotic. 

 

The reality is that these Teas Parties look good to Republicans and they are backed by many Republican celebrities.  The base is rallied and the people are moving.  They are getting press and are acting in unison and it looks like a real grassroots movement. 

 

The truth is that it’s a disaster for them!  It is misguided, a waste of time and resources, and is moving the party backwards.   Why?  “We’re mad and we’re not gonna take it anymore” is a negative message.  The people look angry and they look like oddballs.  This is actually hurting the image of the movement.  This will only rally the base and NO one else.  If it only rallies the base then it’s no good!

 

In addition, anger rarely attracts people!  So, those who have moved to the Obama camp are unlikely to come back.   Any people, who are on the fence, will not be attracted to the negative message either.  Also, once the base is riled up they will naturally begin to spew more negative vitriol and continue to alienate the deserters and fence-sitters.

 

How have the Republicans engineered comebacks in the past 30 years?  Only one way - with positive messages!  When Reagan took office, it was “Morning in America”.  When Newt Gingrich and his crew took over the Congress they had a “Contract with America.”  Even when the last Bush took over the White House he was a “Compassionate Conservative” and a “Uniter, not a Divider.”  These positive messages draw people in.  These can bring back deserters or fence-sitters as it did in all the above situations.

 

Shame on the Republican leadership (to include the pundits who make their living supporting them) for letting this negative message out just to gain more personal visibility and to solidify their personal supporters for their pet projects and media programs, at the expense of the party.  Without question, all the “Hosts” of the Tea Parties will do well from the publicity, but the movement will go nowhere.  Republicans should be worried.  Democrats should encourage the “tea-baggers” to keep it up.

 

So, why does this matter in your everyday life?  Because when you are around people that you want to rally, you may think that a common enemy is all you need.   While a common enemy is a good idea, you MUST add a positive message with it if you want to draw others in.  This applies to business and personal life.

 

Sales Event:

            “Look, your competition is beating you up in the market!  Aren’t you tired of losing to them?  Let’s get ‘em.” - Fair

            “Look, your competition is beating you up in the market!  Aren’t you tired of losing to them?  Let’s set up a program that will make you number one and then everyone will be looking at you as the industry leader.”  - Much better

 

 

Office Politics:

            “This new lunch policy is terrible.  This is just another way that ‘the man’ is taking away our time.  Don’t you think we should let him know that he needs to make some changes?” – Mediocre at best

            “This new lunch policy is terrible.  This is just another way that ‘the man’ is taking away our time.  Don’t you think we should let him know that this de-motivates us and that with a different policy we would be both happier and more productive?”  - Better

 

In each case, starting with creating a common enemy is an effective way to get your target’s attention and maybe even establish a bit of commonality and rapport.  But if you follow this with a negative message, you run the risk of NO ACTION or even isolation.  Therein lays the problem.  To be effective you must inspire action.  Positive messages are FAR more likely to inspire action, especially if you want a large group of people to act.  This is particularly true if you want them to maintain continued support during a long and/or arduous time.  

 

Just keep in mind, that starting with a negative, “Let’s get them - common enemy” idea is often effective, BUT YOU MUST immediately follow with a positive “Look what good we can do” message if you want anyone to truly “Stand” for something.

 

The Tea Party people aren’t standing for anything.  Therefore, no one who isn’t already in their club will join them and accordingly, soon the Tea Partiers themselves will sit back down too.

 

Bottom-line: Don’t let your team sit down.  Give them something positive to stand for.

 

 

Good luck!

 

 

Larry

The bailout plans are missing something critical!

With the economy the way it is, there are three major ideas for a Government influx of money.  One is to “Bailout” specific industries that the nation needs (Banking, Automotive, etc…).  A second is to invest in infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc…).  The third is tax rebates/reductions (lower taxes, tax holidays, tax rebate checks, etc…).  All of these will fail unless we deal with the most important issue in our downturn, - consumer confidence! 

 

This is the critical piece that very few are actively discussing.  We need to feel confident enough to start spending, investing and building.

 

DISCLAIMER - THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT CLAIM TO HAVE THE SPECIFIC ANSWER FOR THE DOWNTURN.  HOWEVER, IT DOES CLAIM TO HAVE THE RIGHT CONCEPT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE STRATEGY.  WE MUST DEAL WITH THE “FEELING” OF THE DOWNTURN AS MUCH AS THE MECHANICS OF IT.

 

So, what should we do?  We should bailout Americans.  Here’s one concept:

 

The bailout number over the next couple of years will be several trillion.  For this idea we’ll use 1.5 trillion of that.  This amount should be set aside in two separate funds: 1 trillion for year one and ½ trillion for year two.

 

These funds will be accessible by US businesses, specifically small and medium-sized companies.  Each business can petition for funds to supplement the payroll of full-time employees only.  Each company may only supplement a certain percentage of their full-time employee base, say 33%. Example:  A 15 person company can supplement 5 full-time employees.   As a company grows, so does it’s authorization for supplementation

 

How much should each company get?  Just to illustrate the point, each employee salary may be supplemented by up to $50K, in year one and up to $25K per employee in year two.  So, that’s 20 million jobs supplemented for up to $75K over two years. 

 

1.  Why is this better than the other three ideas?

 

Industry Bailout:  Government will gain control of these industries; perhaps to the point of nationalizing.  In addition, this tactic is inherently unfair to those not bailed out.  Why Automobiles and not Peaches?   Finally, Americans SEE NOTHING and therefore feel nothing. – BAD.

Company/Employee funding: The private sector retains control of the businesses. In addition, all industries may petition equally – much fairer.  Finally, Americans will see people all around them (20 million – in this case) being directly effected.  They will feel better, more confident and spend! - GOOD.

 

Infrastructure Investing:  Spending money on infrastructure will take years to implement and therefore may be too late.   In addition, once it’s done, we have lots of unemployed workers and no new jobs!  Finally, we have built no “business equity” in our private sector.  – BAD.

Company/Employee funding:  Funding companies/employees can be implemented right away getting dollars into the system now.  In addition, the employees will be working for private companies building business equity and growing industries.  Finally, after two years, we’ll have created some growth and hopefully the majority of supplemented employees will have shown/built value so that most will stay employed.  Knowing this rosy looking future, they will feel more confident and spend! – GOOD.

 

Tax rebates/Tax Holidays:  These are single hits.  They are nice, but not ongoing, so we’ll feel like we’ve received a temporary reprieve only.  We’ll still feel like the world is ending.  Lowering taxes is also nice, but we still feel like we may lose our jobs.  No confidence. – BAD.

Company/Employee funding:  Funding companies/employees for two years will allow employees to believe that their job is secure for at least two years and therefore they will feel more confident and spend.  – GOOD.

 

2.  Why small and medium-sized businesses?

 

            For these businesses, a payroll supplement of $75K for up to 1/3 of their fulltime workforce over two years will save lots of jobs!  In addition, many will actually hire more: administrators, sales reps, IT staff, managers, and other middle class jobs.  If the company can’t afford $90K per year for talent, maybe it can afford $40K (with the $50K supplement from Uncle Sam) for that talent.  In addition, that employee has two years to earn their keep while the company grows. - GOOD

 

3.  Won’t there be corruption? 

 Of course!  There is in all bailouts.  Does anyone know exactly where the first $350 billion went?  The difference is, since each business has to petition, we can track all the money, find and punish offenders – this in itself will lessen the amount of corruption.

In addition, how bad could it be?  It’s $75K over two years.  If some business owners just use it to supplement their own salaries, they’ll still spend it anyway (and probably on their businesses), which is what we want! - GOOD

 

4.  How will the petitions be answered, who gets selected, how do they pay it back?

            That’s what actuaries and bureaucrats are for!  They’ll figure out the details of whom, why, when, etc…

 

By supplementing payroll, even current employees will feel safer.  Now, even those currently employed are scared of losing their income and have stopped spending. 

 

But the best part is that this plan is targeted at individual Americans, it is limited in money, limited in time AND allows the government to step away and not grow.  With that, it does what it must and that is: it influences us to act not wait – like the other plans!

 

Is this the answer?  Maybe - what we are doing now is surely NOT the answer.

 

In any case, the idea is to stop trying to just fix the boat.  We need to get the people on the boat to stop trying escape or hide and to start bailing and navigating.  This is an emotional issue.  As silly as that sounds, it’s the most important item for turning this thing around quickly.

 

“When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion.”

– Dale Carnegie

 

Good luck in 2009!

 

 

Larry

 

If He wins the election, the country is doomed!

You must have heard this type of rhetoric before!  After almost two years of campaigning, we have heard more negative rhetoric than ever.  And we will hear more in the coming elections for many more years.  It’s not going away.  The question is, “Does is work?”  The answer is…

 

YES.  That’s why we use it.  But, there is a caveat.  Finding the flaws in the “competition” can be effective, as long as there is only one competitor and the flaws are huge.

 

DISCLAIMER- THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT TAKE A STANCE ON THE CAMPAIGNING OF EITHER CANDIDATE NOR ON THE ETHICS OF NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING IN GENERAL.  THIS IS TO SHOW HOW NEGATIVITY, IN THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT, CAN INFLUENCE THOSE AROUND YOU. 

 

There are many ways to get someone to “pick” you, whether in a political campaign, a sales event, deal making or in your personal life.  We can show our value, we can use guilt or we can show the horrors of not picking us.  Negative campaigning is a form of showing the horror.  All can and do work, but here are the issues with negative campaigning.

 

1 – It works well when there is only one other option.  Examples:

 

          You are the obvious choice in a sales event, so it’s you or no one.

          There are only two choices at a movie theater at your time slot.

          The two party political system.

 

2 – The negativity MUST be harsh AND/OR personal, otherwise it isn’t heard.

 

          If the prospect doesn’t pick you she may lose her job.

          If you see movie A, you’ll never see movie B in the theater because it’s the last day showing.

          If Candidate X wins, your family will be directly affected negatively.

 

In the case of a sales event, if there are many vendors available and you are able to show the flaws of the current vendor, (as many sales trainers teach), you have only proven that the current guy is no good - NOT that you are good.  The prospect will probably link the negativity to you (feel badly about you), take your advice and go with someone else.

 

However, if you are the only competitor (either you’ve been vetted through proposals or RFPs, OR you are the only one who currently provides the service, OR you are the obvious choice for some other reason), then showing the flaws in the current vendor WILL shift opinion in your favor.  In fact, if the flaws are major, it will help alleviate hesitation and speed up the selection process.

 

Example 1:  “Bob, your competition has used your current vendor, ACME, and because of the lack of XYZ technology, he has been caught in this economy and is going out of business. If you don’t get XYZ technology now, you may follow him.”

 

If you are the only other option, this is VERY powerful. 

 

In the case of a personal situation, if there are many options at the theater and you show the flaws of your partner’s selection, she will surely NOT just agree to your movie.  She may actually purposefully chose another movie that neither of you will be happy with!

 

However, if you are already at the theater, unwilling to travel someplace else and ONLY two movies are playing at this time, then showing the flaws in her original choice WILL shift opinion in your favor.  In fact, if the only other option is to go home, your odds have just gone up even further.  

 

Example 2:  “Sue, the last time we saw a movie with Jane Doe in it, the movie was so bad that we got upset and went right home.  The night was ruined!  Do we really want to see a movie with her in it again?”

 

Again, if the movie you want to see is the only other option, this is VERY powerful.

 

In the case of a political campaign with many choices (most primaries, for example), if you are able to show the flaws of one candidate, you have only proven that one candidate is no good, but NOT that you are good.  The populace will probably link the negativity to you (feel badly about you) and vote for someone else.

 

However, if there are only two choices (most general elections, for example), then showing the flaws of the opponent WILL help shift opinion in your favor.  In fact, if the flaws are major AND personal, it may cause parts of the electorate to ignore ALL other aspects of the election!  

 

Example 3:  “Phil, the last time Candidate Y was in charge of anything, there was terrible corruption.  Wasted money, investigations, embarrassed employees and the entire budget was broken.  Not just that, he cheats on his wife and his taxes.  Can we trust a man like that?  Who would put their trust in him?”

 

Yes, when there is only one other option, this is VERY powerful.

 

In each of these cases, the prospect has to choose the lesser of two evils.

 

NOTE:  We must realize that this is NOT the only way to influence someone. Nor is it the only aspect that influences people. MANY other items will influence the prospect; this is just one (of many) powerful tactics.  In addition, this does not ensure that you will get your way.  It adds to your odds and helps stack the deck in your favor.  Any good influence process must use many tactics and strategies.

 

So, if you find yourself in any of these situations, understand that “negative campaigning” can work for you OR may be used ON YOU!

 

Hopefully this helps you to see it.

 

Good luck!

 

Larry

$700 Billion Bailout – Should McCain and Obama have voted “Yes”?

Was the passing of the Bailout Package the right move?  Did either McCain or Obama believe it to be?  What will be the final outcome?  More importantly to them - how will their vote affect their careers?  The reality is that for their personal good, NEITHER should have voted for it!

 

DISCLAIMER - THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT TAKE A STANCE ON THE VALUE OF THE RECENT BAILOUT PACKAGE.  THIS IS TO SHOW HOW YOU MUST SERIOUSLY CONSIDER YOUR PUBLIC STANCES IN BOTH YOUR BUSINESS AND PERSONAL LIFE OR YOU MAY FIND YOUR INITIAL THOUGHTS CAN REALLY HURT YOUR SUCCESS IN THE FUTURE.

 

Here is why for McCain.

 

Everyone in Congress knew that some kind of bailout would go through.  Therefore whether McCain votes Yes or No, it would still pass.  So:

 

If McCain voted “Yes” and:

            The package works – he is lumped in with everyone else – no big deal. In fact, some would criticize him because of the “Pork” in the bill that he voted for.

            The package fails – he is punished because he was wrong, had bad judgment and wasted the taxpayer money.

            Little upside, and big chance for downside - bad idea!

 

If McCain voted “No” and

            The package works – the whole thing is basically forgotten because things are better and we can focus on other matters.  If it does come up he can stand on his ethics of “NO PORK” that’s why it was a bad bill.  Some would still praise him.

            The package fails – he gets to say “See, I told you so.”  He is seen as a cost cutter and true statesmen who cares about the American taxpayer.  His next idea has automatically more merit.

            Little downside and chance for big upside – the better choice!

 

Here is why for Obama.

 

Again, everyone in Congress knew that some kind of bailout would go through.  Therefore whether Obama votes Yes or No, it would still pass.  So:

 

If Obama voted “Yes” and:

            The package works – he is lumped in with everyone else – no big deal. In fact he may be criticized because of the “Corporate Welfare” in the bill that he voted for.

            The package fails – he is punished because he was wrong, had bad judgment and wasted the taxpayer money.

            Little upside, and big chance for downside - bad idea!

 

If Obama voted “No” and

            The package works – the whole thing is basically forgotten because things are better and we can focus on other matters.  If it does come up he can stand on his ethics of “No Corporate Welfare” that’s why it was a bad bill.  Some would still praise him.

            The package fails – he gets to say “See, I told you so.”  He is seen as a cost cutter and true statesmen who cares about the American taxpayer.  His next idea has automatically more merit.

            Little downside and chance for big upside – the better choice!

 

Their handlers were not thinking clearly.  Both candidates could have told key party members privately that they support it, but need to back away because of the election.  No issue.  Is this always the way?  No, but they should have considered this situation very carefully.

 

So, how does this affect you?  You MUST draw a clear, solid, thick line in between your stances in public and behind closed doors.  You MUST also take a stance, NOT only on the issue, but on the relationships involved.

 

Business Example 1 – You know that the CEO and CFO are going to move forward with a plan for the company that is bad.  Should you say so at the weekly meeting?  Many would say companies do not need YES-MEN, so you should stand up.  In addition, you want to be on the record in case things go badly.  THIS IS COMPLETLEY WRONG!  If you have a problem, go to the CEO and CFO separately and in private and express your concerns.  In the meeting nod your head and smile!  

 

If you speak your mind in the meeting and:

 

The plan fails – even though you were right, you’ve embarrassed your bosses.  You can announce “I told them so!” to you NEW boss as you get passed over for a promotion or you can tell your career counselor at the unemployment office.

 

The plan works – you’ll lose all credibility in the future and your career at that company is now stifled.

 

LOSE – LOSE!  Put your ego in your pocket! 

 

Business Example 2 - You are part of a team of managers under a Director.  You are all competing for promotions/raises.  One manager has an idea to move the company forward.  If it is risky at all, you may want to be against it unless you are really confident that it will work.  

 

If it works, he’ll get credit anyway and you’ll need to find an excuse and then create something great yourself.  If it fails, you can now move your agenda forward, because you were right.

 

 

Family Example – Your significant other gets into an argument with someone at a store.  You saw it start and KNOW that he/she is completely in the wrong.  The right thing to do is to try to talk it out, get your significant other to see what really happened and clear it up maybe even with a n apology.  NO WAY!  Just jump on his/her side!  It doesn’t matter who was right, just support him/her.  Later at home, in private, tell him/her what happened.

 

If you don’t and try to “make it right”:

 

She/he finds out that she/he was actually wrong – They feel dumb in public and you were the messenger.  Oh yes, we love to shoot the messenger.  You can “feel good” by yourself since you won’t be talking at all on the way home!

 

She/he finds out that she/he was actually right – Hopefully you have close friends, because you’ll be sleeping with them that night!   They will feel completely betrayed and that “sting” will last a long time.

 

LOSE – LOSE!  Put your “righteousness” in your pocket.

 

As silly and simple as these sound – WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES LIKE THIS!

 

The most important idea to remember here is NOT whether the idea or argument is right or wrong, but what will the outcomes be when you take a stance.  Otherwise, we as humans are prone to try to “Be Right”.  While that sounds great, it will ensure that we will have poor relationships.  

 

The true secret to a successful life is good relationships (business and family).  So lets’ do what we can to be successful.

 

Good Luck!

 

 

Larry

 

 

Obama and a "Clintonian" VP?

Many have commented on the April “Obama to Step Down?” Blog. The outcome was incorrect, but the analysis was right on. With an unpopular president, this should be an easy victory for the Democrats, but it isn’t shaping up that way.

Obama must realize that his victory in the Primary was far from Decisive. In the last big primary in Pennsylvania, after EVERY media outlet proclaimed him the Democratic nominee and after he outspent Hillary 3 – 1 - he still LOST! His campaign announced that the country is clamoring for Obama?! Not even close. In an election that should be a walk in the park for the Democrats, Obama is barely ahead of McCain.

-

DISCLAIMER - THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT TAKE A STANCE ON THE CHARACTER OR VALUE OF ANY CANDIDATE. THIS IS TO SHOW HOW TACTICS CAN WORK TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE�(FOR OR AGAINST US) IN�OUR EVERYDAY LIVES, AS WELL AS IN A MAJOR POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.

-

The Obama team is making the common mistake of marketing to his mirror. His team is acting like everyone thinks the same way they do. They are still in Chicago Primary mode.

-

Going to Europe and trying to make amends for our country's previous actions should go over pretty well in the solid blue states, but it will go over poorly in the swing states of Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania – none of which he won in the Primary! This makes him look radical.

-

What are the Democrats thinking? They have put up a candidate that lost CA, NY, TX, PA, FL, NJ, MI, OH and now they are doing nothing to fix this except spending money. That didn’t work in PA and won’t work in the general election. Acting like you are the winner IS important, but it’s not enough.

-

In addition, many voters still see McCain as the “Straight Talker” from years ago. Accordingly, a lot of (moderate) Democrats won’t be too upset if McCain wins. While many Republicans would have been unhappy about a Hillary win, they are SCARED TO DEATH of an Obama win.

-

This election has gone from a referendum on Bush to a referendum on Obama!

-

So, what can he do? Well, he can change his campaign leadership, restart and shift to the middle. If he can act like he was always the President, he can act like he was always in the middle.

-

In addition, he needs to pick an executive “Clintonian” VP. This means a Governor, from a key state, who supports Hillary. Examples are:

-Phil Bredesen from TN

-Michael Easley from NC

-Ted Strickland from OH

That will give him a more moderate look with more perceived experience. It will also take some wind out of Hillary’s sails and hopefully get more of her supporters to jump on his side with vigor.

-

He must keep all his radical friends/family members OUT OF THE SPOTLIGHT. This reinforces his past – so they need stay away. This may help quell the key states get him the win.

-

But why does this matter to you?

-

In any social group, family, company, nation, the only people who want “the radical change of a newcomer” are those who wanted it BEFORE the newcomer. Therefore the radical does not gain the mainstream by preaching radical change. He simply picks up those who are already predisposed to his side.

-

People tend to avoid big change any way they can - even if it’s good change! When Obama first came on the scene, the change idea seemed interesting. But now that it seems real, the rhetoric is becoming scary. He must tone it down and surround himself with some moderates.

-

This is true for us in our lives too! If we preach major change, our leaders, co-workers and associates may say, “Sounds great!”, but they will rarely implement. It’s good until it is about it become real.

-

The most savvy change brokers preach results with minor change until they get into power then they can begin real change if they need to.

-

But, when you market to your mirror, you begin to think that everyone wants the same radical change that you do – they don’t. They are afraid. Your marketing/pitch will begin to scare people and they will join the other side.

-

If you want radical change, you must tone down your rhetoric and surround yourself with more conservative seeming people. This will get people to trust your product, service or idea.

-

Example 1 – “This will change everything!”

BAD, BAD, BAD! People will either believe you and be scared, or they won’t believe you at all! People will either freeze or actively stop you.

-

Example 2 – “This will modify the current system so you can get ………”

This seems far more reasonable AND believable. You can move someone into action and/or build consensus.

-

It’s easy to make this mistake when we are very excited about our idea/issue. In addition, when we forget that everyone doesn’t think like we do, we market to the mirror (ourselves).

-

“Preach the need for change, but never reform too much at once.”

-Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power

-

This applies to sales, marketing, family, friends and office politics!

-

Good luck.

- Larry

Neo-Sage – Stop Iranian Nukes? Impossible and silly!

But don’t we want to stop Iran from getting nukes?  Isn't Iran a great threat to us?  It doesn’t matter.  We cannot stop them.  It cannot work.  However, we can do something that is much better. 

We can get Iran to not want Nukes.  This is the ultimate form of negotiation.  Dr. Wayne Gertmenian, author of “Everything’s Negotiable” says negotiating is the art of “letting the other guy change his mind.”

DISCLAIMER - THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT TAKE A STANCE ON THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ANY GOVERNMENT.  THIS IS TO SHOW HOW INFLUENCE TECHNIQUES WORK IN BOTH MACRO AND MICRO ASPECTS OF OUR LIVES.

 

Shaking our fist and threatening Iran will NEVER scare them into stopping their nuclear program.  It didn’t stop North Korea, and will never stop any country that is seriously contemplating a Nuclear Program.   We either have to physically invade the country and topple their regime (something that most of us would agree the US is currently simply NOT going to do right now) or we can show them the error of their ways.  

 

We must realize that gaining nuclear weapons is like smoking.  What?  Yes, smoking.  As countries become more and more developed, nuclear weapons seem to be the way to go.  All the cool developed countries have them, so they should too.   It’s like parents telling a teen that smoking’s bad, and that they will punish him for doing it while they light up in front of him.  Will that stop a teen from smoking?  No way.  They will simply find a way to smoke.  They’ll hide it and even if they get caught and punished, they will still find a way to smoke.  The difference is that they will now resent the adult!

 

Developing countries are the same.  Many want nuclear weapons and when the countries telling them to stop, already have them, it doesn’t land well.  In fact, it breeds resentment.  We can strategically bomb them and/or use precision raids, but that will only slow them down.  Just like grounding a teen.  That means by being the “tough guy”, not only will they eventually find a way to get nukes, but since they resent us, the odds of them pointing them at us are increased!  Not the best result, for sure.

 

How about sanctions and isolation?  Let’s not talk to them at all?  The way the world is today, the only people that won’t be talking to them is us!  Europe, Russia, China and India (and many others) will all still talk and trade - so that won’t work.  

 

So, what will work?  We should let Iran know that we will NOT stop them from getting Nukes. We will just make it a whole lot better for them if they don’t.  This nuance is critical.  President Bush has just shown this to work with North Korea.  For many years we’ve been shaking our fist and they kept moving forward.  Now we are back to talking and we have some progress.

The same is true for Iran and any other “rogue” nation.  Our influence must come from:  Here is why it makes sense for you to be Nuke-free.  Here are the benefits from us and the world.  Here is what we promise to do and how our relationship will be better.  But, if you want them, go ahead.  These benefits just won’t be there for you.  They only go to nations that stay Nuke-free.  Otherwise, as so many nations become more and more developed, we run the risk of have having dozens of resentful nations, slowly, secretly creep to nuclear weapons.

How does this translate into our daily lives?  We must be the same way with our business relationships.  If we are prepared to destroy our broken relationships with legal and/or PR action (equivalent of an invasion of a country), then we can if we want to.  If we are not, then threats and posturing rarely work.  We need to show them the value of doing what we want. 

 

Example 1: A client will not pay a bill.

 

Option 1 – “You better pay or I’ll see you in court!” 

 

            Unless the client REALLY believes you’ll sue (invade) you’ll get NOTHING!  And if the client does fear you and does pay, you’ve just broken the relationship, probably forever.  Resentment will ensue EVEN if you were completely in the right!

 

Option 2 – “Look Bob, we have so much more to do together.  We have more business; let’s just get past this bill, so we can move forward.”

 

            Next you have to prove that there really is something else there!  Maybe have a referral from you call him and request a proposal.  Maybe show him a resource that you have for him, etc…  But nothing will “Close” until we get the bill out of the way. 

            This process takes time and will require many contacts, just as the “I’ll sue you!” option does, but it tends to be much more effective in the long run.

             If he doesn’t pay, you can always resort to the “I’ll sue you!” option.  But if he does pay, you can retain the relationship if you want to or remove your referrals and resources and walk away – but with your money.   You can control resentment.

 

Example 2: A client will not complete tasks required to complete a deal.

 

Option 1 – “If you don’t do X, then this isn’t going to happen.  I’m done, this is over.”

 

            Unless you are the only game in town and the client sees this deal as critical right NOW, you will get NOTHING!   And if the client does begin to act, they will feel coerced and threatened and your relationship will suffer.  If the deal goes bad in any way they will blame you.  Again, regardless of whether or not you were in the right, you have fostered resentment.

 

Option 2 – “Look Bob, this deal is critical for you because of AB & C.  You’ve mentioned this several times, right?  Good.  Then to make the next step, WE must ensure that X happens by Y, OK?   So, how can we be sure it will be done?  Great!”

 

            Again, this may take several contacts, just like the “this is over option”.  Both require persistence.  The difference is the “this is over” option will only annoy your client, damaging your relationship.  The “how can we ensure” option will also get him to feel like he should do it, not that you want him to do it.  You can mitigate resentment.

 

As always, keep it about THEM, not about YOU, and you’ll be better able to control your relationships.  The stick works ONLY when they really believe you are ready to swing it, otherwise, use the carrot.

 

As Machiavelli says, “men must be either treated well or destroyed, as they can get revenge for lesser injuries.”

 

Good luck!

 

Larry

Obama to step down?

Obama to step down?  But, he's winning in every way!  He has more money, more delegates, more states and more of the popular vote.  True.  But unfortunately for him, that may not be enough.  He will probably still step down.  There are many other issues affecting him.  Here's the way things could play out.

DISCLAIMER - THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT TAKE A STANCE ON THE QUALIFICATIONS OF ANY CANDIDATE.  THIS IS TO SHOW HOW WE ALL DEAL WITH POLITICS IN OUR OWN LIVES.

First, Hillary will win the next couple of state primaries and get some momentum.  At that point the Democratic Party will rethink strategy.  They'll realize that Obama didn't win any of the critical states that will probably decide the November General Election (Florida, Michigan, Ohio & Pennsylvania). 

Not just that, the attacks on him grow stronger every month, and the full brunt of the Republican assault hasn't been released yet.  They haven't dug as deep as they can.  They WILL find more on Obama, his family and his associates.  This will be even more devastating to his campaign and then, by default, the Democrats chances for victory.

Hillary has her baggage too, but this has already been outed over the last 16 years of her being in the spotlight.  In addition, she has withstood the BEST the republicans can muster.  Obama's local campaigns as well as his senatorial campaign were relatively easy.  Presidential politics is when both parties give it all that they've got.  His campaign was not ready for this.

The Democratic leadership will realize that Obama may actually lose in November.  They'll believe that his campaign will probably collapse under the pressure of a concentrated attack and that he will NOT win the critical states. The Democrats should also realize that if they don't win this election they might as well just disband the party and build a new one from scratch. 

What will they do?  The super-delegates could just vote for Hillary.  But, if they did so, they'd look bad.  They would be "flip-floppers" and they would be voting "against the will of the people", even though that's what they were created for.

So, the super-delegates will offer Obama a combination of incentives to step down, such as, a prominent speech at the convention, a powerful senatorial committee chair, a possible cabinet post, etc.  If he refuses, they may just threaten him with a "back stab" vote at the convention, maybe even by "secret ballot".

If Obama goes to the convention leading and then his party still selects Hillary, his career is devastated.  If Hillary then wins the Presidency, his career is over.  But, if he accepts whatever incentive is offered and then drops out for "personal reasons" or for "the good of the party", he can easily run again in 2012 or 2016.  So, he will.

Does the Hillary campaign know that Obama may drop out?  Why else would they still be in this race when it is virtually impossible for Hillary to win?

So, why does this matter to us in our daily lives?  Because we are often in the same position.  It looks like we are going to: get the job, get the deal, get the sale, get the raise or get the promotion.  We are in the lead and no one can stop us, but in the end, someone does!

We must remember that the "organization" (be it a company, political party, association, etc.) will always do what is it feels comfortable with for the FUTURE, whether that is fair to us or not. And that feeling may be whimsical!  Being the best qualified or having the best record/experience for the job is ALWAYS secondary.  Having the organizational leadership see their future in you is PRIMARY.  Even though you may be senior, or have the best education or credentials, can they see their future success in you?  If not, your position may be short-lived.

A year ago Hillary was the assumed choice for the Democrats.  It felt right for success.  Nine months later is was Obama fever and he felt right for success.  That will probably change again.  Have any credentials changed?

In whatever organization you are working with, NEVER think that your position is safe.  It isn't.  You must constantly show your FUTURE value.  What you did in the past is nice, but what you can achieve in the future is what the organization cares about.  Whether asking for the deal, a job, a raise, a promotion, a sale, never think that you deserve it or that you have earned it.  They don't care.  What will you do in the future?  Credentials and experience are very important.  They simply aren't always enough.  In the long run, making them see future success in you will always benefit you more.

Larry

Selling War?

With the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, many people are really unhappy.  The polls show that a large majority of Americans are not happy with the war or President Bush now largely because of the war.  It's actually called "Bush's War" in much of the media.  Could he have done a better job selling it, so that less Americans would be as unhappy?  Sure!

DISCLAIMER - THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT TAKE ANY STANCE ON THE WAR!  THIS IS TO SHOW HOW INFLUENCE TECHNIQUES CAN AFFECT EVERYTHING.

After 9-11, President Bush had most of America on his side.  We all knew that something had to be done.  His response to us was basically, "They attacked us!  We'll get them!  I've got it covered!  You just go shop!"  Surely this seemed like a great idea to his advisors.  Americans won't get too worried and we'll deal with it.

With Iraq, again, Bush still has most Americans (not as many, but still most) on his side.  As soon as the war started, most talking heads on his side basically said," This is a critical war that must be fought.  We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here.  It's world war 3!"  But, Bush said the same thing as after 9-11, "They attacked us!  We'll get them!  I've got it covered!  You just go shop!"

Now, 6 1/2 years after 9-11 and 5 years after Iraq, with no Osama and our troops still in Iraq, Americans are not happy.  What should he have done?  This is actually classic over-promise/under-deliver!  It also doesn't treat the prospect (us) as an equal or the project as an equal exchange of value! This is not the way to manage expectations.

Here's a much more effective way.  After 9-11, he should have starting telling us that this is World War 3 (whether you personally believe that or not is not the point here).  And that we may need to sacrifice and pitch in, but together we would prevail.  With talking heads telling us that this is WW3, but him not asking us to sacrifice, the message was incongruent and began to fail.  It's like someone saying that becoming a doctor is hard, but don't worry, med school is a breeze, you don't have to prepare at all. It doesn't fit.

With Iraq, the same idea works.  He should have talked about a draft.  He should have told us that the economy might waiver, that we may be in this for a long haul.  After all, this is WW3, right?.  But he didn't.  He still said, "Don't worry, I've got it covered, everything is fine."  This incongruent message has come back to hurt him. 

You may be saying to yourself, NO WAY.  How could he know?  OR Maybe he thought it would be easy?  OR Maybe he was scared?  This is all irrelevant.  Why?

If he had a congruent message at the outset, telling us about our heritage of sacrifice (Success Stories from our past), that we must all sacrifice and that things may get bad, but we will prevail in the end (Bad news with good at the end) AND KEPT ON THIS MESSAGE, then we would have been expecting a tough time, with some light at the end of the tunnel.  This is a great way to manage expectations. 

So, if after that, we had actually caught Osama already and if Iraq was completely stable by now he would be a Hero! U-S-A! U-S-A!  Classic under-promise/over-deliver!

But, if after that, it was a disaster, as it has been with both Osama and Iraq, we would still just waiting for the minimum promised, a hard slug fest with some light at the end of the tunnel.  Talking heads would be saying, "He told you. Come on America, stand with us during these tough times."  Many would be far more accepting of our lagging economy as part of the required sacrifice.  Now, instead most talking heads and most politicians avoid him completely unless they are attacking him!

Now does that mean he'd have approval ratings of 90%?  Of course not.  It does mean he would have higher approval ratings then he has now!  In addition, the services would have an easier time recruiting and the country would have more political will for fighting the war in Iraq.  Instead of it being called "Bush's War" it might be called our war.

It just shows that in EVERY aspect of our lives (from selling a widget to selling a war), how things are presented can make a huge difference!  His advisors should have realized that.

Larry

The Tet Offensive is coming to Iraq

What does that mean?  It’s a prediction based on my completely biased view of History.  In 1968, after about 5 years of a HOT war with American Military in their country, the Vietnamese decided to make a major offensive and cause as much damage as they could.  It was called the Tet Offensive (from the Tet Holiday).They had hoped to rally all the South Vietnamese and drive the Americans out.  The offensive had initial success, but ultimately was a military failure.  However, it was a political success and was the beginning of the end of America in Vietnam. 

The Iraqi insurgents must have History books.  Well, if they are Muslim Extremists, at least the men must.  So, this portends a plan to do this within the next six months or so, in an attempt to affect the elections and to get America out of Iraq. What will their Tet Offensive be?  Who knows, but the casulties in Iraq will climb significantly.

Why post this?  Because many of my Marine brothers are over there now.  The Marines took the brunt of the Tet offensive 40 years ago and they’ll probably take the brunt of it now.  Hopefully they will listen, stay on high guard and prepare appropriately.

Actually, hopefully this is all a just more ravings of a madman and is completely wrong.

Semper Fi

Larry