Unless an option a part of your evoked set, it doesn’t have the possibility of being selected. That’s why marketers spend millions to simply expose you to their products. Thirsty? Well, Coca-Cola spends millions to make sure you think about Coke before you decide on a product. But what about on the receiving end; is your evoked set going to lead to a better decision?
Of course, it depends. If the best option of all possible alternatives is a part of your evoked set, then the mental shortcut will lead to the optimal decision with the least effort. It’s when the best option is not a part of your evoked set that it becomes a problem. Marketers spend millions putting the potentially wrong solution into your evoked set, making it necessary to consciously reflect on whether making a choice from the set will lead to the best decision. Most people are thorough in evaluating the options that come to mind, but don’t actively seek out alternatives.
The key to better decisions is to recognize when referring to your evoked set is insufficient. Considering what to have for dinner? Consulting your evoked set is a smart move. Considering what Business Intelligence Suite to purchase? Your evoked set likely doesn’t include some options worth investigating.
Want to keep your evoked set from leading you astray? Simply research the options that might not be coming to mind.
Posted by herwin on May 14, 2010
Marketers have done a phenomenal job of popularizing and leveraging the idea of an evoked set. The application of this powerful concept beyond marketing, however, has been neglecting. Actively applying this concept in your professional life has the potential to advance and accelerate your career.
A quick primer; simply put, an evoked set is the list of options that come to mind when considering a course of action. For example, when you think of beverage options, you might simultaneously think of Coke, Pepsi, Orange Julius and Dasani. And from that evoked set, you’ll make a selection. And that’s the foundation of marketing – making different brands/products part of your evoked set and influencing your ultimate choice.
The most significant benefit of being part of an evoked set is that unless an option is part of the evoked set, it doesn’t have the possibility of being selected.
When your manager, VP, CEO, or whoever you report to is deciding who to allocate a project or responsibilities to, he too has an evoked set of employees that come to mind. Your duty in developing your career is to identify strategies to remain a part of his evoked set for the types of projects you are most interested in pursuing. Unless you’re a part of the evoked set, you don’t have the possibility of being selected.
Posted by herwin on May 7, 2010
Most businesses aren’t aware of it, but marketing plays an important role in the psychological well being of society. Being made aware of this role gives businesses an edge in marketing even commoditized products.
It’s easy to understand why someone who doesn’t already have a strong identity would buy into a product that communicates a favorable identity; for example the iPhone communicating an identity of being young, trendy and savvy. But yet even consumers with strong self-identities seek out products that communicate an identity. Why?
Years ago, psychologists gave us the idea of cognitive dissonance – the uncomfortable feeling people experience when they hold contradicting ideas about themselves. For example, John thinks he’s a sustainable person, but doesn’t do anything that demonstrates being sustainable. Unconsciously John experiences a slight discomfort and, though it may be subconscious, he looks for ways to close that gap. Conveniently, while he’s shopping for light-bulbs, he sees a LED light-bulb shown to be significantly more sustainable and makes the purchase. The purchase closes the gap between what John thinks of himself and what he’s demonstrated to himself. That’s cognitive dissonance in action, though in this case the marketer and product passively closed the cognitive gap. Is it possible for a marketer to actively mobilize customers to make purchases through the application of cognitive dissonance?
Yes and here’s how: First, the marketer shares an identity that consumers can relate with and then reveals how the product is an expression of that identity. Doing so will highlight the cognitive dissonance between the identity and what the consumer currently does while providing a means to fill the cognitive gap. Over time, cognitive dissonance will creep back into the consumer’s mind as he starts thinking “I haven’t expressed being trendy in the last 6 months; am I really a trendy individual?” A marketer can assist consumers by periodically exposing them to products that provide a means of filling the gap.
Selling an identity works because it highlights the existing cognitive gap between what consumers believe about themselves and what they demonstrate through products and purchases while providing a solution to close that gap.
Posted by herwin on April 30, 2010
It’s easy for marketers to focus efforts on a product and its features. It’s easy to brag, for example, that your new mobile phone is WiFi enabled, has a touch screen and a built in camera. But as soon as you reduce the product down to its features, you’ve entered a crowded marketplace, a marketplace where consumers are better off choosing the market leader. But luckily for marketers, there’s something much more powerful than the product itself that they can market.
They can market an identity. What remarkable marketers do instead of stressing product features is sell consumers identities. They communicate to the world that a certain type of person buys this product, so if you see someone carrying this product you know that they have certain key traits (their identity).
Case in point: What would happen if Palm marketed abandoned marketing the Pre as a “vivid touch screen phone with a slide-out keyboard” and instead marketed it as the phone for hip, young business professionals who find the Blackberry too square or formal and the iPhone too junior or entertainment focused? It would send a message to the world that hip, young professionals use Palm Pres, and those that want that identity would give the phone serious thought. My bet is that many more consumers would stop and think “that phone was designed for me”, despite similar features being available in many other phones. Your product too might benefit from a shift from marketing features to marketing an identity.
In a world where features quickly become commoditized, it’s futile to differentiate solely on product features. Unless your products’ features are radically innovative, spend some time deliberately designing the identity you’ll sell your customers.
So there you have it, there’s something much more powerful marketers can sell consumers than the product itself and that something is an identity. So don’t just sell the product, sell an identity.
Posted by herwin on April 23, 2010
Whether we’re discussing mediocrity or a remarkable focus on doing what’s right for the customer, most business professionals don’t have trouble identifying where widespread organizational traits come from; most professionals attribute widespread traits to corporate culture. But that begs the question, where does culture come from?
Culture arises from what psychologists refer to as “social proof”. The concept is simple: Imagine you’re new to a work place and you don’t know what the policy for lunch is; is it at a set time? Or can you take it when you wish? As a keen observer, you look around to see what your co-workers do and likewise. That’s social proof: when you don’t know how to behave, you observe and take similar actions to those around you.
The above example was on a conscious level. Now imagine making hundreds of daily decisions, over months, all on a subconscious level. Does it matter if I’m on time? Do I really have to go out of my way for the customer? Do I simply patch the problem or solve the root cause? All those daily decisions influenced by what everyone in the work environment does all adds up to what we call culture. It’s because culture arises from how employees decide to behave and because decisions are influenced by social proof that it’s so difficult to change a company’s culture.
If you’re an entrepreneur, pay particular attention to social proof. You need to note that thousands of micro-decisions that form your company’s emerging culture will be based on the traits of your initial employees through social proof. Don’t take this lightly; be 100% certain you have the right people on the bus.
So where does culture come from? Culture comes from social proof.
Posted by herwin on April 16, 2010
Who sets the performance standards in your company? Managers? Human resource specialists? Chief level executives? Nope, none of them do. It’s the lowest performing employee who sets the acceptable standard in your company.
Regardless of what the formal performance guidelines are, employees observe others and subconsciously (and consciously for slackers) determine acceptable standards. That doesn`t mean your employees won`t perform beyond acceptable standards, but it does mean they know they can perform as bad as your lowest performing employee without being shown the door.
With this in mind, the best weapon in a battle against a culture of mediocrity isn`t hiring superstars but instead focusing on improving the performance of low performing employees while being ready to cut them loose if necessary. This is especially important if you have employees that tend towards the lowest common denominator.
Posted by herwin on April 9, 2010
A simple goal setting exercise changed my life. It demonstrated how I could achieve more than 30 of my 45 goals with a simple psychological shift.
The exercise asked me to list the details of my ideal life. Where would I live? Who would I spend time with? What would I eat, wear and listen to? What would my job be like? What would I learn, know and be? Then it asked me to cross off anything that wouldn’t improve my happiness significantly. Nothing particularly ground breaking.
As subtle as it may be, the next bit changed my entire perspective on goals. The author asked me to cross off all of the details that don’t cost money or that I could already afford. He bet those ones would be the most important goals. He was right. “Permission Goals” such as these are ones we could have right now, but haven’t given ourselves permission to go ahead with. We might think we don’t have the time, don’t deserve them, or just haven’t decided to move forward on them. These goals are the fastest route to your ideal life.
How many permission goals could you cross off in the next couple months to move rapidly towards your goals? Could you start spending time with the people from your ideal lifestyle? Could change your priorities at work closer to your interests? Could you become the expert you strive to be?
Well, go ahead, give yourself permission.
Concept from A Simple System to Achieve Your Goals
Posted by herwin on February 6, 2010
Conventional HR has it all wrong. You don’t want the lowest employee turnover possible. Yes, it costs money to recruit and train talent, but there are also costs of lengthy tenures.
What negative consequences could a low employee turnover possibly have? Ever seen an employee come into a company and question why it’s doing things the inefficient way? Ever notice that employees who have been in the company a long time compare the current situation to where it was 5 years ago instead of comparing it to others in the industry (who are likely outperforming it)? Ever notice how meritocracy is replaced by politics as long term employees attempt to rise based on who they know instead of the skills they bring to the company?
The cost of low turnover is forfeiting excellence.
Though, turnover isn’t essential; it’s a tool for mature organizations. If your organization is rapidly growing, then new employees will provide fresh insights and external comparisons. But if you’re a mature organization, the only way to bring fresh minds into the organization is to have reasonable turnover.
Too often HR professionals focus on the direct costs of hiring and training new employees but neglect the costs of a creating a culture of complacency. To build a great company, one has to look beyond the immediate costs and consider the eventual consequences.
Inspired by conversation with Cody Watson
Posted by herwin on January 3, 2010
<p>Conventional HR has it all wrong. You don’t want the lowest employee turnover possible. Yes, it costs money to recruit and train talent, but there are also costs of lengthy tenures.</p>
<p>What negative consequences could a low employee turnover possibly have? Ever seen an employee come into a company and question why it’s doing things the inefficient way? Ever notice that employees who have been in the company a long time compare the current situation to where it was 5 years ago instead of comparing it to others in the industry (who are likely outperforming it)? Ever notice how meritocracy is replaced by politics as long term employees attempt to rise based on who they know instead of the skills they bring to the company?</p>
<p>The cost of low turnover is forfeiting excellence.</p>
<p>Though, turnover isn’t essential; it’s a tool for mature organizations. If your organization is rapidly growing, then new employees will provide fresh insights and external comparisons. But if you’re a mature organization, the only way to bring fresh minds into the organization is to have reasonable turnover.<p>
<p>Too often HR professionals focus on the direct costs of hiring and training new employees but neglect the costs of a creating a culture of complacency. To build a great company, one has to look beyond the immediate costs and consider the eventual consequences.</p>
<p>Inspired by conversation with
Cody Watson</p>
Posted by herwin on
Some employees are better adept at creating change and facilitating innovation. The key to understanding why is to understand how poor, developing countries leapfrog the inferior technology of wealthy, developed nations.
“Leapfrogging” refers to countries skipping inferior technologies and moving directly to the most advanced technology. For example, developing countries leapfrogged wired telephony and jumped directly to mobile telephony. Consumers didn’t need to be persuaded to switch to mobile phones; instead they simply adopted the current technology because the old technology was never available.
What does this have to do with employee? Well, certain employees will naturally leapfrog old, inefficient processes. To them, the old way of doing things was never available. So where do you find these employees? Outside of your organization. If you give new, talented employees the autonomy to decide how to carry out a desired objective without giving instructions, they’ll invent their own process using current technologies and techniques.
The next time you’re considering filling a position internally, consider the innovation an external candidate might stimulate by leapfrogging old processes.
Post inspired by Chris Bayly
Posted by herwin on November 30, 2009