It is rumored that Mr. Obama will Surge in Afghanistan with tens of thousands of more American troops while not Surging in Afghanistan with new Afghan police.  In other words, he’s rumored to send more American boys and girls to fight a War while not asking for more Afghan boys and girls to police that War.

The argument for this is that the Afghan government cannot properly train their boys and girls, even with the assistance of our boys and girls (and NATO boys and girls).  Don’t waste time, money, and effort on something that won’t work.

This inference better be stronger than kryptonite.

Please consider the attributional implications of this.  Talk about making something My Responsibility.  Hey, Obama’ll do it without You or Them.  Mr. Obama is doing everything he can to allow outside observers, especially American citizens, to make External Attributions to him.

Why are we fighting this War – Because of the Devil Mr. Obama!

As I closed an earlier post, isn’t it possible to achieve your goals and to get your allies (Afghans, American citizens) to make Internal Attributions (It’s Our War), too?

Mr. Obama is sowing the seeds of his own destruction even if he wins the Long War.  He is allowing everyone else to wildly over attribute the Long War to his responsibility and is blocking anyone else from making commitments for themselves to the Long War.

It is simply too easy to position an “Afghan Police Surge” as an important and valuable element of a strategy even if it doesn’t work well on the ground.  Politicians do it every year with the budget and earmarks.  Obama can define a simple program that merely has to have a pulse to be successful and then label this as an Ally Surge.  In other words even if the program won’t work (think about the wildly popular but proven inert intervention called D.A.R.E), it still has important persuasion effects of maintaining support for a complex, dangerous, and long term effort.

And, Mr. Obama is running away from this.

For now.

a Big P.S. I posted this on November 30, noting it as a “rumor.”  Well, now we know.  The reporters of this article clearly got it wrong.  Obama does want serious training from the Afghans and expects larger efforts from everyone on this.  The persuasion point remains, but does not apply here because it was just a rumor.  Don’t believe everything you read, even from me!

The Wall Street Journal carries an opinion piece on executive bonuses (ban them!) in a nicely written and well argued essay.  I’ll compliment the writer and spin off from it two powerful persuasion principles that form the backbone of the argument.

Both Wall Street and Main Street are concerned over the consistent poor correlation between executive compensation and company performance.  (Please read more about this from your own search if you aren’t up to speed on this.)  From a common sense application of For Me? and the well known principles of reinforcement theory, it should seem that the more incentives you offer people, the better performance you should get.  Yet, this proven piece of persuasion science often fails to translate into practice.  So, the science must be wrong, right?

No.  People aren’t applying the science correctly.

As documented in a long line of research (which I’ve used in my Persuasion Guide and blog on frequently here), the combination of the For Me? of reinforcement theory and the Why? Because from attribution theory, demonstrates that just dropping incentives on people rarely produces the common sense expectation of “more incentive, better performance.”  In quick review, when people, say executives, ask themselves, “Why do I do this?,” it is possible for them to answer, “Because of the bonus,” an external attribution and not, “Because I do good work,” an internal attribution.  This difference tend leads to predictable motivation differences.

People in general and highly paid executives in particular are likely to form stronger external attributions when incentives are aimed at products – outcomes, goals, end states, etc. – rather than processes – methods, procedures, habits, etc.  Stated another way, if you get rewards for getting gold, you’ll tend to go external whereas if you get rewards for making gold, you’ll go internal.  Thus, incentives that focus people on what they do, how they do it, how they monitor and control their actions, in other words the Process, the incentives will tend to lead people to say, “I do it because I want to.”

Thus, the combination of For Me? and Why? Because explains both why the problems with executive incentives exist and why the common sense expectation is wrong.  The folks providing the incentives do not understand reinforcement and attribution fully.  And, it is not that tricky.  Goodness, this isn’t Rocket Science, Brain Surgery, or Climatology.  But, it does require considering the persuasion psychology a bit more closely.

I would therefore tend to disagree with the opinion writer’s argument that we should ban executive compensation.  Rather, it is possible and likely that targeting compensation to the desired process of the company, the day in and day out methods, habits, and procedures instead of products like stock price or profits, would lead to better executive performance.

Wow.  Over 100,000 apps for the iPhone.  How can you possibly find the next killer app needle in that haystack?  How about Chorus?

Chorus, which is developed by envIO Networks, is sort of like a mobile social network based around the apps that your friends have downloaded. The app features real-time feeds from your designated friends (those who have also downloaded Chorus and whom you have friended) displaying the apps they are downloading, and what they are saying about them in the app.

Chorus uses a proprietary Social Genome technology to match your favorite apps against those your friends use, building a personalized and relevant list of recommended apps. Chorus will also ask your a series of questions to determine the types of apps your like. And you can share your favorite apps through social networks such as Facebook and Twitter and also invite them to test out Chorus.

What a great idea!  Grab this app, provide a list of friends, and voila.  You find the New New Thing.

My hat’s off to envIO, but I’ve got to clue you in, my little pretties.  envIO is after you like the witch on the broom.  Think about the persuasion implications of this application.

You download Chorus and give it access to your iPhone and how you use it.  You provide a list of your friends (and with their agreement) they download Chorus and give it access to their iPhones and how they use them.  envIO through Chorus tracks your iPhone activity within the network of your friends and accumulates all that data.  Part of this accumulation they share with you – what apps your circle is using – but the rest they keep for themselves.  What do they do with this?

They develop continuous profiles of you and your friends.  Remember, they get information about how you use your iPhone.

They sell this information to other marketers who have your name and phone number as ID markers to connect you with other sources of information they have.  Those marketers combine Chorus data with other databases to refine their profile of you.

They use this information to target ads on you and your friends.  Not only do you get snipered, but your friends do to, creating a circle of multiple sources, all being exposed to the same New New Thing, but not realizing it.  This is how you create a false Echo Chamber or Fake Buzz.  “Gee, everyone is talking about this New New Thing, it must be cool” is what you’re thinking when all that’s happening is that Chorus is sending the same ad to everyone you know.

I’d also recommend that you visit envIO’s website and check them out as models who understand the Rule, All Bad Persuasion Is Sincere.  They offer an app that finds cool needles in the iTunes haystack, when they are really setting up a marketing network that flies under the radar.

We are inventing a new form of delivering persuasive messages.  Smart devices like the iPhone are the friendly recorder of our daily lives.  One day you are going to be surprised in a Bad Way.  But for persuasion guys, it is all good.  Hey, you signed that legal glop page, remember?

P.S. Imagine doing this with a potential Al Qaeda recruit.  What’s a catchy name for “Islamic posse” or “Taliban crew?”  And, the FBI has got to be using something (legal) like this to catch Bad Guy Gangs, don’t they?

At the risk of beating a dead drum, I’d like to again focus on Attribution Theory and the Why? Because play.  Where’s the nexus of causality, baby?

Attribution looks at how people explain the world and then how these explanations drive future thinking, feeling, and acting.  When asked, “Why?” people use one of two attributions (explanations):  Internal (I did it) or External (The Devil made me do it).  Anyone who’s faced failure and success understand Why? Because.  “Geez, I got 58% on the test . . . why?  This lousy book and this lousy teacher and this lousy blog . . .”  Then, “Geez, I got 95% on the test . . . why?  When you’re hot, you’re hot, some people are born great.”

Persuasion and life are this simple.  Now, let’s work.

Consider this well known quote, at least in military circles, from T.E. Lawrence, better known as Peter O’Toole in “Lawrence of Arabia” by the rest of us:

“Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.”  T.E. Lawrence, Twenty Seven Articles, Article 15

Now, the main thrust of this quote is You Are Not Always the Smartest Guy in the Room.  Sometimes your ally actually knows more than you do and if you’d take your face out of the mirror, you might see that.  And the source offering this quote does a great job illustrating the main thrust.

The persuasion point of the quote goes deeper (of course, I’m a deep guy offering deep thoughts, right?).  If you do everything, all in the pursuit and demonstration of “perfection,” and make your ally sit and watch, how does your ally play the Why? Because Game?  Right.  They make External Attributions.  The Devil, the nexus of causality in this instance, is you, not them.  They do not make Internal Attributions, do not take internal responsibility for either the process or the product, and everyone knows what happens next.  You bust your tail while your ally always waits for the Devil.

Sure, you may achieve perfection or maybe something less than perfection, but certainly better than the process and product of your ally, and in war, it’s better to be better than everyone else.  But, do you want to be solely, exclusively, and always the Force of Causality?  Wouldn’t it be polite, cooperative, and maybe even successful, if your ally believed he had skin in the game?

Okay, everyone knows that there are exceptions, exemptions, and excuses here.  All Persuasion Is Local and all that persuasion prophecy fal-de-ral. But, stay on the Main Point of my Deep Thought.  People think, feel, and act differently when they believe they make It happen rather than when they believe they don’t.

You have to know how the Other Guy thinks and play accordingly.  So, if you’ve got millions of dollars riding on a movie, do you cast a guy like this?

. . . even though he doesn’t look like this guy:

Can’t you figure out how to do two things:  1) Accomplish the goal and 2) Get your ally to make Internal Attributions?

I give thanks for my wife, Melanie, and our happy marriage; for the love and friendship of our families; for those who protect and defend our world; and to God who gives me life and faith, hope, and love.

I wish you peace and prosperity in this holiday season!

And, let’s Go-oooooo, Mountaineers!  Beat Pitt!