Sophia Exintaris : Experience Architect

“Choice Architecture” is a new word for me, and a big topic in Behavioural Science, because the decisions people make have patterns, and changing the architecture (wording, order, defaults, options) of a choice does, in fact, nudge people towards the choice architect’s preferred outcome. The patterns have been studied and documented. And every day companies offering benefits, governments offering public services, and political parties campaigning use the lessons of choice architecture to shape outcomes. And of course Ethics peeks around corners very quickly in those conversations. A good (but so lengthy!) book on this topic is Nudge.

Now I don’t want to talk about Choice Architecture precisely, but about a small part of it.

As someone who shapes systems that humans will use, I always need to consider how I am presenting information, and I do not mean stylistically, I mean structurally, architecturally. What are the defaults? The options? In which order?

Combining my years in consulting and my experience of having to present, influence, negotiate, and get directors to open purse-strings to get things fixed or to innovate – in other words, to pitch – I have noticed an interesting pattern.

In a pitch setting, a consultancy must offer one solution to the problem the RFP (Request for Proposals) has posited. If the team is competent and lucky in their timing, this will be perfectly aligned to corporate strategy, economical, impactful, and somehow unique, helping the consultancy stand out, and so win.

What nobody talks about is that the ideal number of options to offer a client is three. Not solutions; options.

Faced with one option, a Director can only give a go/no-go. They cannot contribute. So what often happens is that they request refinements and additions to this one solution, as they cannot feel it is perfect the first time they see it.

When offered two options, a Director has an A or B choice to make. It may end up being obvious, and so reek of “pick this one”, or neither of the options may appeal enough that they send the team back to expand them and refine them.

Now picture three options. Maybe one is not too great, but there is a smart element in it. Another might be nearly perfect, but not quite fit in the budget. And a third ticks the basic boxes but isn’t enough to give a “go” to.
Well, the instinct of every single human confronted with three options is to ask questions, to discuss the options, alternatives, and possible recombinations of elements from each of them… putting themselves in a position to be having a conversation with the pitching team. Refinement will of course also be required here, but there are enough building blocks in the three options that the refinement is happening in that conversation right then!

So you often end up with a 4th option, made up of the building blocks of the original three.

And that is why three is a magical number.

Because as a consultant, the key to your success doesn’t lie with your technical skills or in having the right answers. Those are par for the course, expected, of everyone able to deliver work independently. No. The key to your success is whether your clients trust you, talk with you, and feel comfortable engaging in a debate with you. This is easier in some cultures than others (easier for Dutch, Greek, and French – debate is growth – harder for British, Indian, Japanese – where debate can infer disrespect) (cf. the Culture Map by Erin Meyer). But if they do not feel comfortable to discuss things with you, you will lose them as a client to someone they can do that with.

So the next time you want to ask a boss or client to let you do something, the next time you pitch, consider pitching three options and opening the door to a conversation with them, rather than closing it with a permission (1) or a choice (2). They do say that one should go to one’s bosses with a proposed solution to the problem they have discovered. Well I am arguing that one should go with THREE solutions, and have a conversation with them.

Of course you should be prepared to answer the classic “and which one do you recommend”, not only by saying A, B, or C, but by articulating why that one is your choice, what context it is best for, and what are your strategic criteria for picking it over the others. (e.g. spend less now, because budget is tight vs. spend less over 5 yrs, because we have long-term plans vs. spend a bit more for features giving a competitive edge, because we need to gain market share right now).

This also works with friends. Try it. “Shall we go for a burger” could be an immediate yes… or a slow “not feeling up to that” that stalls the decision. But “We could go for… a sloppy burger, some sushi on a rotating belt, or a caesar salad in a french bistro”, might reveal “oh! French bistro! Maybe they have steak frites! Shall we try that?”, and then you’re having a back-and-forth, incepted by the original three ideas you suggested.

Try it. And let me know how it went.