Category Archives: persuasion

Enchantment: the Start of Art

Guy Kawasaki, American venture capitalist and ...

Image via Wikipedia

I had the pleasure recently of reading Guy Kawasaki‘s Enchantment, and it is a different type of fare from the stuff I read these days; despite this, I enjoyed it wholly and just breezed through it in a week . It is not a difficult read at all , as compared to some of the academic or popular psychology textbooks, and to say that it is lucid and well written is an understatement. It is the best of advice, self-help and practical commonsense and has already made it to the top of NYT bestseller list in some of these categories,  though that is not a genre which I study exclusively and could be authoritative about.

The basic premise of Enchantment is that you need to wield direct and indirect influence to make your great cause a success, perhaps by becoming likeable and trustworthy,  and that there are experimental tips that you can play with to help you achieve that aim of making your cause and yourself an easy sell and enticing enough.

The approach Guy takes is that of breaking down the enchantment process into different aspects (like how to overcome resistance , how to prepare and launch your cause, how to enchant your boss and employees) and via anecdotes, tips from personal experince or geleaned form other sources and at times recourse to psychology experiments and authority , make a case of how best to go about that enchantment process.

At the outset he cautions that you need to play around yourself and see what works and what doesn’t and most of his advice is pretty practical and time-honored. I am a software development manager in a large Software giant and having played with entrepreneurship a while back , I can connect with and empathize with much of the advice he has for managers, employees, leaders and entrepreneurs. It is all solid and worth heeding, coming from someone who has a lot of experience behind him as an evangelist and entrepreneur.  Not much of the advice however is surprising or offbeat and perhaps there are good reasons for that. As this NY times article on Googles leadership and management data-driven approach shows, management/influence/enchantment doesn’t seem rocket science and whether you arrive at it via data crunching or form interaction with others and your own personal experience,  the advice that you have to share with the world is almost what your grandmother (had she been an entrepreneur) would give.


That said there is a lot of tripe that goes under the rubric of advice and self-help in self-help/management books; this book stays clear from it and tries to substantiate or base the tips around psychological principles and results. Cialdini seems to be an influence and some principles form ‘Yes!’ are quoted at couple of places. However, Guy has a sort of cautious approach towards the psychologists and their theories; at many a point when a psychology substantiated tip/ research is introduced, a rider is put in place that, that may be a circumscribed result applicable only in lab conditions and perhaps may not work that well in real world (for eg when discussing the heavier resumes/ clipboards lead to considering candidates as serious or holding warm cups increases warmth, there was this air of caution and slight hesitancy) .

Identifying myself more with the psychology community rather than the managerial community (though I tread both worlds) I found that a little discomfiting. I undesrtand and appreciate the caveats, nuances  and non-generalizability of many studies that Guy discusses, but still I value them more and like to read them more rather than tips based on anecdotes/ personal experience- the fault lies with me -not Guy…I am more of a theoretician than an applied guy – and thus was left a bit underwhelmed by the book as I thought it was being marketed as a psychology book (persuasion, influence etc) but did not had that much faith in psychology based findings or did not dwell too deep into those findings and how they can be applied to workspace and the enchantment process.


That said, enchantment is an immensely practical book and would be a good read for any person who wants to enchant another or garner support for ones cause and the book manages to get the psychology findings right (that itself is an immense achievement for someone whose primary domain is not psychology) – but may not be that enchanting to hard core psychology fanatics like me who would be knowing most of the quoted studies and results by heart. I approach enchantment as a science and want to focus on replicable results no matter how trivial or confined to the laboratory; Guy is a go-getter and  conceives of enchantment more as an Art- a lifelong process that may start with the reading of the book, but never ends and needs to be practiced and fine tuned. Of course I am not as pig-headed a scientist as I make myself look out to be, neither is Guy a wooly artist talking in vague, hazy language and tips-  he is smart, spot-on and very relevant; its just that I wished there more of a  backdrop of psychology in the entire book and rather than supporting crutches the research stood tall and center – but then that’s me!

My advice to you- buy it, read it and experiment with the tips Guy provides- it is some of the best advice you are going to find around- and remember that though your grandma never had exposure to psychology research findings, she was more often than right with her advice!


full disclosure : I received a free copy of Enchantment for review and my blog ‘The Mouse Trap’ is, at times, listed on Guys’ in psychology section.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Psychology of Facebook: chance to participate

Dr. B J Fogg, who teaches the Psychology of Facebook course at Stanford , has kindly written by way of a comment to an earlier post, that Mouse Trap readers who wish to know more about the project and want to participate, can join the Facebook group for that course. They keep everything updated on the group page and you can read about what they are doing and how you can participate there.
I, myself, have subscribed to the group as I being a web 2.0 enthusiast too, find the topic to be pertinent and interesting.

They also keep a blog and it is worth checking out. For example one of the recent entries shows how the facebook community is a sucker for apps titled “Share the Love”; but are put off by apps titled ‘Declare war’. Apparently web2.0 is all about sharing, caring and making love and not about making war or competing.

By the way, I have seen a trend among bloggers to have a group page on facebook regarding their blog. I’m not sure of the utility of such a page, but an opportunity to connect is always welcome. In case some of you are keen, we can start a mouse trap community on facebook.

Drug usage likelihood and Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive Dissonance (as per say Aronson instead of say the original Festinger definition) is a phenomenon whereby if one indulges in a behavior that is not inline with one’s normal schema about oneself, then the discrepancy between the actual behavior and one’s own self-perception leads to a dissonance (or state of unrest/anxiety), such that one modifies one’s internal schema/ self-perception to make it inline with outwardly exhibited behavior. The classical case is a celebrity (who normally smokes) endorsing a public commercial for ‘no smoking’. Just after publicly asking others not to smoke, the celebrity would feel a Cognitive Dissonance and to reduce that uneasy feeling may decide to change his/her self-image to be that of non-smoker and this may lead to him/her smoking less in future. If the incentive to indulge in the hypocritical behavior was less (say the endorsement of commercial was for free and the celebrity did not take an excessive amount of money to endorse the ad, then this would lead to more dissonance and vice versa.

There is an article on BPS related to an observation that drug usage likelihood increases subsequently if people are asked about drug usage likelihood earlier
This study leads to several questions.

How does this observation relate to Cognitive Dissonance effect? When the respondents were asked about likelihood of drug usage and (supposedly) they replied in the negative (to please the surveyor), then this small incentive to lie should have ideally led to a large Cognitive Dissonance and prompted them to stop using drugs and led to change in drug-usage behavior to overcome the dissonance experienced. Is some data available as to whether those who reported more drug usage later had replied in affirmative or in negative to the earlier drug-use-likelihood question? Is there a priming effect so strong that it is shadowing the cognitive dissonance effect? This study raises more questions than it answers!