|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
We all know one. Someone who asks for a proposal, ideas or help. Urgently. You shift things around to make space. Sacrifice weekend time. Deliver as asked.
Not another word. Even after follow-ups.
The trend seems on the up. Apparently, Gen Z are the worst. Over the past months, I’ve had heated debates about whether this sort of behaviour is OK. According to my better half, my values are my problem. And judging others’ behaviour on the assumption that my values are universally held is setting myself up for disappointment.
I buy the broad principle. Makes psychological sense. But surely acknowledging effort you’ve specifically asked for is a basic and common courtesy? Of course, no one is obliged to say yes because you put in some time. But why don’t people feel a need to reply?
Some clues to apparent disdain lie in behavioural science.
A reason may be how the receiving mind interprets the ‘transaction’. It’s possible that the person getting asked sees time and effort specifically requested of them, with an answer part of the implied deal. The receiver sees a fair-game pitch for their business. No obligation to reply implied.
Another reason for not responding might be avoiding the discomfort of an obligation. Replying means actively disappointing someone and acknowledging fruitless effort. Silence is the offramp from that niggly highway.
Personality theory offers another explanation. People higher on the conscientiousness scale tend to take duties and follow-through seriously. Those higher in agreeableness tend to be more concerned about others’ feelings. Both traits strengthen the sense in some that a reply is owed. It’s possible that those who don’t sense a need to respond (even after follow ups) sit lower on one or both scales.
I have another science-led hypothesis.
Asking for help feels easy at the time. Receiving it can turn it into an unanticipated uncomfortable debt. The mind’s strong tendency towards reciprocity creates a felt obligation to acknowledge it. But that very self-induced obligation also fires up a perceived reduction in agency. And the subconscious system reacts to avoid it.
Two motivations collide: I should respond. And I don’t want to feel compelled to respond. The dilemma unfolds beneath conscious awareness. Minds more prone to reactance will feel the pressure more strongly. If protecting autonomy wins out, silence wards off a sense of loss of control. Even though the other mind initiated the exchange. (Not necessarily a calculated power play. The conscious mind may barely recognise the feelings driving it. You become the receiver of an internal struggle you never signed up to be part of.)
Whatever subliminal forces are at work, people might think twice about ignoring others if they understood what alchemy their silence really sets off. And why
Every mind, to a greater or lesser extent, needs evidence it’s valued. Our evolution as social beings helps explain why belonging and being useful to a tribe matter. Ignoring people signals diminished value to the tribe. And, if unwarranted, breaks a mentally embedded fairness code. Research suggests that feeling undervalued or excluded triggers a strong emotional ‘away’ response with anthropological roots. Stronger still if it feels unfair. The mind learns from the experience, shaping expectations and defensive responses to future encounters.
But the chemistry worsens.
Research shows that the mind stores experience and emotions together. Strong emotions influence memory recall. Negative emotions get retrieved faster and more often. Meaning that a negative experience (like being ignored) gets glued to the personal or business brand causing it. It comes quickly to mind when cued. And very hard to unstick. Negative experiences also get talked about. The mind remembers how it was made to feel. About seven times more if bad. So perhaps a result to avoid. Especially if it’s not too hard to do.
There’s always a slim chance that people will adopt values they don’t have. Or shift behaviours because it makes business sense. Or because they get that, in the modern neurally intertwined world, tribes are much bigger. And their drums beat everywhere.
But in case my hopes for a general behaviour change don’t materialise, there is a science-led tactic that offers a better chance of getting a response in the future. It’s called commitment bias. Behavioural economic research shows that the mind values consistency because it makes the world more predictable. So, every mind feels an internal pressure to behave consistently with self-made commitments.
You apply the bias by making the informal ‘transaction’ clear and agreeing its terms upfront. Its simple application sounds a bit like this: “I’m happy to work something up by Monday. Will you give a yes or no answer by Thursday?”
The tactic replaces an assumed expectation with a shared agreement and a commitment the subconscious is coded to honour. That significantly improves the chances of being answered.
And cuts the chances of being disappointed.
Disclaimer. This article was human authored. Proofread by AI
About
Jonathan Hall is the founder and CEO of ThinkWorks, a behavioural science and brand story consultancy. He combines art and science to help organisations create brand story strategies and communications that stand-out and influence decisions. Jonathan is the author of Brainsell and the Power of a brand story: books on applied behavioral economics.
To find out if ThinkWorks can help your organisation influence the minds you target, contact ThinkWorks for a no-obligation exploration.
jonh@thinkworks.co.za | +27 83 251 0716 | www.thinkworks.co.za
