Tag Archives: driver

The 5 Personal Persuasion Styles

Can you imagine a world where everyone was inspired to go to work? Do you inspire your team to greatness as a leader, or are you one of those leaders who are quite comfortable with your staff coming to work every day without any sense of purpose? The No. 1 problem facing many organizations today is leadership.

A Simon Sinek YouTube video titled “Why Good Leaders Make You Feel Safe” tells the story of a group of Marines that came under heavy fire from three sides in an ambush in Afghanistan, when one Capt. William D. Swenson repeatedly ran into the line of fire to bring injured men to safety and saved at least a dozen lives. A GoPro on one of the medics captured Swenson and a comrade carrying a wounded Marine to a helicopter for evacuation. After putting the man down, Swenson gave him a kiss on the forehead and then ran back into the kill zone.

I said to myself, wow, if a man is willing to give his life for me, I will follow him to the ends of the earth. (Swenson received the Medal of Honor.)

While a business environment is obviously not a war zone, even though we sometimes use war as an analogy, the sort of deep-seated love that Swenson showed needs to be present in a workplace, and it is missing in many organization today. People don’t feel safe, and they do not believe their leaders will have their backs when they are in the line of fire.

The greats of leadership have a persuasion style that allows them to sell their ideas and inspire people to follow their vision. One of the most critical skills in the repertoire of any leader is the power to inspire and influence people by their words and actions rather than coercion.

See also: How High-Performing Salespeople Persuade  

In a fascinating book, The Art of Woo, Using Strategic Persuasion to Sell Your Ideas, by G. Richard Shell and Mario Moussa, the authors discuss five different leadership personality approaches to persuasion: Driver, Commander, Promoter, Chess Player and Advocate. Some people are comfortable using three or four of these styles, while others prefer to play only one or two.

This book draws from many other brilliant authors and expertly highlights the value of authenticity and self-awareness in your ability to persuade and influence. The book says you need to make two basic choices: Are you other-oriented or self-oriented? (In other words, are you going to tailor your messages for your audience, or are you going to make unmodified announcements rather than spin them for each audience?) And, will you be loud or quiet?

The book then goes through five styles; one of the keys to great leadership is understanding your unique persuasion style. While you are reading, consider your present environment, your employees, values, etc. and ascertain which communication approach is best aligned to your natural persuasive leadership personality.

Driver (Higher Volume and Self-Oriented Perspective)

According to Shell and Moussa, when individuals are high-volume and prefer to announce their perspective without a lot of adjustment for their audience, other people are likely to experience them as demanding. They can be overly one-dimensional and prefer to persuade people by saying things like “Do this my way, the right way or you can hit the highway.”

I remember working as a plumber’s assistant in my younger days, and all the employees called the founder of the company Frank Sinatra — because he liked everything his way.

But if drivers are dedicated to the organization mission, they can be effective persuaders. The book mentions former Intel CEO Andy Groves, who personified a high-volume, self-oriented CEO and was hugely successful.

Grove kept a wooden bat near his chair. One day, just after a meeting had gotten started, several executives slipped into their seats. Grove fell silent at their arrival, then grabbed the bat, slammed it onto the table, and shouted, “I don’t ever, ever want to be in a meeting with this group that doesn’t start and end when it is scheduled!” Intel was subsequently famous for on-time meetings.

See also: Should You Use a Coach/Mentor?  

Grove wasn’t a nut; he was very aware about his communication style and the culture he wanted to create at Intel.

Commander (Low Volume and Self-Oriented)

A commander speaks from a position of quiet confidence and authority, using expertise combined with finesse to make a point in an understated way. The book highlighted J.P. Morgan as someone who conducted himself from a position of quiet confidence and credibility.

You don’t have to be an aggressive Driver when you want people to know exactly what you think. Indeed, a quiet, understated demeanor can often be much more efficient. People listen. The Commander keeps his counsel and puts a premium on maintaining as much control over decisions as possible.

In a financial panic in 1895, Morgan played the Commander with finesse, saving both America and his financial empire from a fiscal catastrophe.

The Promoter (Higher Volume and Other-Oriented Perspective)

Promoters are outgoing, optimistic and assertive. They are friendly. When played well, this role features a gift for gaining and maintaining a wide circle of relationships. The CEO of SAP, Bill McDermott, immediately comes to mind.

During his 17 years at Xerox, where he became the youngest divisional president, he was assigned to turn around the Puerto Rican unit, which was ranked 64th out of 64 divisions in the world. The following year, that same division was No. 1 in the world.

When asked about the spectacular turnaround, Bill McDermott said that he listened to the people, because they know why things aren’t working. McDermott said people told him two things:

  1. They wanted a vision, so they could be inspired when they came to work.
  2. The staff wanted their holiday party back.

When the division went from 64th to 1st in the world, they got their holiday party back, at the Old San Juan Hotel.

The Chess Player (Lower Volume and Other-Oriented Perspective)

The Chess Player style involved plotting a set of moves that brings about the desired outcome. Leaders with this type of personality prefer to operate in more intimate settings, quietly managing strategic encounters behind the scenes. A Chess Player is an effective strategist who is less extroverted than the Promoter but shares with the Promoter a keen interest in what makes other people tick.

Shell and Moussa point to John D. Rockefeller. In 1865, Rockefeller wanted to end a partnership with four men, but the firm could be dissolved only if all the partners consented.

Rockefeller went to work behind the scenes, lining up support from some banks. When he got the support required, Rockefeller provoked a quarrel over an oil industry investment and quietly extracted himself from the unsavory business partnership. If Rockefeller was more prone to a driver personality, he may have engaged his partners in a shouting match or threatened litigation, demanding they release him so he could follow his dreams. However, Rockefeller took the path of the Chess Player by carefully plotting a set of moves behind the scenes.

The Advocate – Moderate Volume and a Balance Between Self-Oriented and Other-Oriented Perspectives.

The Advocate uses a full range of tools to get her points across. The Advocate strives for balance — persistence without shouting, being mindful of the audience without losing perspective. A classic example used in the book is the founder of Wal-Mart, Sam Walton.

Walton visited one of his stores and noticed someone at the front greeting customers. Walton was fascinated with the idea and told his team that all the stores should have greeters. Now, Walton could have simply ordered people to do what he wanted. But he was seldom the Driver that Andy Grove was and instead relied on a more moderate combination of vision, persistence, relationships and reason to get people to see things his way.

There was a lot of conflict over this new initiative, and Walton went to lengths to explain why this greeters program would be good for the company. He let the debate go on in an attempt to fully explore all the ideas. After 18 months of discussion and experiment, Wal-Mart finally adopted the practice company-wide.

Walton did not dictate or say things to his executives such as “Don’t you trust my judgment?” or “Don’t you think I know a thing or two about what is good for Wal-Mart?” Instead, Walton sold his vision, and his team eventually brought into the concept.

As a leader, you need to be aware of your strengths and weaknesses in persuasion. You need to understand your preferred communication channels, and likewise, you must take into consideration the dynamics of your environment, your organizational values, culture, people, etc.

Some companies are fierce guardians of their business values, and if there is a misalignment it can cause havoc within the company. For example, you cannot be an Andy Grove in a culture that promotes family values, teamwork, collaboration, etc. The culture is completely different.

See also: Systematic Approach to Digital Strategy  

Woo-based persuasion is all about aligning interest, values and relationship as people find it easier to say yes rather than no. Regardless of your personality, when your team trusts you, when you figure out which channels of communication your counterparts are best attuned to, your will gain tremendous credibility within your company.

My personal persuasion style is more of a Chess Player. I prefer to quietly managing strategic encounters behind the scene. What is your personal persuasion style?

Driver Safety Ratings Add Sophistication

According to patent applications recently filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Allstate is planning a driver safety scoring system that will take into account speed laws, road signs, traffic signals, weather and possibly even biometric data such as your heart rate. These driver safety ratings would then be used to determine what kind of car insurance you can buy and how much you’ll pay.

Allstate’s plans are part of a wider effort in the industry to gather telematics data from today’s advanced vehicles, smartphones and other devices. Many insurers already offer “usage-based insurance” programs that set rates based on actual driving behavior, such as Allstate’s Drivewise, Progressive’s Snapshot and State Farm’s Drive Safe. If you tailgate, speed, drive through high-crime neighborhoods or even drive at night, insurance companies might be able to justify charging higher rates, regardless of whether you get a ticket or cause an accident. You’ll probably find yourself getting a driving score for each trip, even paying different insurance amounts each time you go out.

Filing a patent application doesn’t guarantee that a plan will ever be used, but, within five years, it might be hard to find an auto insurance company that doesn’t have a plan to score your driving and use that score for setting your rate, says David Lukens, director of telematics at data analytics company LexisNexis.

If insurers don’t want to develop their own scoring system, they can buy one. LexisNexis, which has tracked and analyzed more than a billion miles of driving behavior based on data from insurers that have telematics customers, has developed its own system for scoring driving behavior and offers it to insurers.

Allstate declined to comment on details of its patent but said it “is committed to shaping the future of insurance to add more value and best serve customers’ changing needs.” The company’s statement to NerdWallet added that “Allstate treats this information confidentially, enabling customer control over the distribution of their personal information.”

Allstate’s system wouldn’t necessarily operate silently while you speed and blow through stop signs. The patent application describes incorporating real-time feedback such as warnings that you’re driving over the speed limit or approaching a stop sign—much like a spouse who yells “Watch out!” from the passenger seat.

This is similar to a system being developed by State Farm (first described by NerdWallet) that would measure driver emotions and respond with in-vehicle stimuli such as music and even fragrances to improve driving.

Allstate’s proposed system for rating drivers could incorporate more than just data from the car. For example, the insurer is considering monitoring and evaluating your heart rate, electrocardiograph signals and blood pressure through sensors embedded in the steering wheel.

According to another patent filed in 2014, Allstate is also working on a game-like system where groups of drivers would encourage each another to drive better to improve the overall driving score of the group. Allstate calls it “geotribing.” Allstate imagines this as a kind of high school scenario where the baseball team is competing with the basketball team to see which group can capture the better score to earn rewards.

Real-time driving scores could be monitored remotely by all members of the group. Allstate’s hope is that this “creates a self-policing atmosphere.” The sense of always being watched should make drivers “more conscious of practicing safe driving habits,” according to the patent.

Lukens says such group encouragement can make a big impact on driving habits—if done the right way. “It gets iffy when it comes [down] to allowing people to comment on other people’s behavior,” he says. “You can’t control the way people talk to each other.” Encouragement could devolve into bullying.

Many consumers seem interested in getting driver scores and improving their own driving. In March 2015, LexisNexis asked slightly more than 2,000 consumers whether they would be interested in a smartphone app that measures their driving score and offers ways to drive better, without any insurance discount. Fifty-nine percent said it would be nice to know their score, and 50% liked the idea of improving their score. But only 28% said they were interested in comparing their scores to others.

Although you might not be forced into a scoring program, Lukens says you should expect to pay higher rates in the future if you opt out. Allstate says, in one of its patent applications, that drivers who decline to participate might be signaling concern “that the information would demonstrate less-than-ideal [driving] behavior.”

Allstate is also considering how to leverage all this data for additional business opportunities. For example, it says a person who has a specific spending and credit profile—and who refuses to share her driving data—“may be particularly receptive to an ad campaign for luxury sports cars or certain vacation travel.” Similarly, NerdWallet has previously reported that State Farm has made plans to collect customer data for targeted advertising.

Driving scores aren’t on the horizon; they’re already here. Insurance companies are, right now, internally testing them. In fact, Lukens says, if you are a customer of a usage-based insurance program, you already have a score, even if your insurer hasn’t told you about it.

New Questions on Uber and Lyft

One of the more interesting and challenging issues to surface is the status of drivers at transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft. Are some or all of them employees? A federal court in California just ruled that this issue may be resolved in a class action (although this is subject to appeal).

That, alone, is a difficult call. Here are two web sites discussing the issue.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/06/gigs-with-benefits

http://www.thelegalintelligencer.com/latest-news/id=1202730474534/Avoiding-Penalties-When-Classifying-Independent-Contractors?slreturn=20150602053546

Commentary addressing this issue has focused primarily on the added expense created by employee status. “For an employer, the main difference between contractors and W-2 employees is that employers have to ‘withhold income taxes, withhold and pay Social Security and Medicare taxes and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to an employee,'” according to the Internal Revenue Service.

Apart from these added expenses, status as an employee creates some difficult insurance challenges. Here a few:

–If you write a workers’ compensation policy for the TNC’s employees, how many employees are you insuring? Only those who work in the office, or the hundreds or thousands of drivers on the road?

–Most statutes or regulations covering TNCs such as Uber and Lyft require them to carry insurance on their drivers in various amounts — e.g., $1 million from from the time of agreeing on a ride to after the dropoff. Usually, there is a lower amount required for the time the driver is cruising with the app on looking to connect with a fare ($50,000 primary and $200,000 “excess” in California).

If the driver is an employee, these limits become largely irrelevant because the TNC, as the employer, is liable without limit for any injuries caused by an employee driving within the scope of employment. Put another way, the injuries are backed by all of the TNC’s assets, including any insurance it may carry.

–But the issue is more complex than that. What if the driver has a collision on the way to the city, but before turning on the app? Usually, when one is going to or coming from work, the commute is not considered to be in the scope of employment – i.e., no liability on the part of the employer. This “going and coming” rule changes, however, when the employee must use her car in the work. Obviously, TNC drivers must use their cars.

Take the case of Judy Bamberger. She used her car during work to visit clients and carry out other work-related chores. On her way home, she decided to stop for yoga and yogurt. As she made a left turn, she collided with a motorcyclist. Is the employer responsible? “Yes,” said the California Court of Appeal. In Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc., 210 Cal. App.4th 886 (2013), the court held that her driving fell within the scope of her employment because, since she used her car in her work, going to and from work conferred an “incidental benefit” on the employer.

Thus, the TNCs’ liability may extend well beyond the “app on-app off” brackets.

–If this is not complex enough, consider this. Many drivers keep several apps on as they cruise. If a driver keeps three apps on and has a collision, is the driver an employee of all three TNCs? Does that change once the driver accepts a fare? What about the going and coming rule? If the app is not yet turned on, is the driver an employee of each company for whom the driver has an arrangement to drive?

One may imagine other “shared economy” scenarios where status as an employee will affect not only expenses line benefits, but also liability and related insurance issues.