OU blog

Personal Blogs

Chris Colquitt

Living Psychology (and bidding)

Visible to anyone in the world

Between now and May 2019, I'll be studying the next stage in my Psychology (Hons) with Open University - DD210: Living Psychology. Along the way, I'll be trying to write a (short) weekly blog post discussing some of the reading and applications, and trying to frame it in the context of bid and proposal management. I may not always succeed - but I'll try!

For now: week one is the introduction. So I'll start with the course overview and some of the areas I'm most looking forward to.


Between now and November, we'll be considering 'minds'. How do we know the people we speak to have a mind? What evidence is there that the mind exists in animals or even in Artificial Intelligence? And what happens when we experience issues with the 'mind' -specifically autism and psycopathy.

From a proposals perspective, mind is a permanent consideration. We must be practiced mindreaders, understanding both the explicit and implicit needs and desires of our customers. We play with design in an attempt to make our message more accessible. And we engage on a daily basis with wide teams in a highly social environment: how do bid and proposal managers function with challenges like high level autism?


Through to the end of the year, we'll then look at self-esteem. We'll investigate how our actions in the social world reflect in our relationships, and some of the core theories of conflict resolution. We'll investigate what it means to 'belong' - especially from a perspective of nationalism and immigration.

Like any sales profession, bidding is a game of highs and lows placing constant pressures on self-esteem. If you win: you've done your job. And losing can carry multiple connotations. We may avoid blame, or we may absorb it. Conflict of personality, of interest and of method in proposal construction can be rife, and it's what makes the social aspect of our profession so rewarding but so challenging.


In January, we'll investigate our evolving relationship with the natural world. We'll consider how we react to urban, constructed and natural spaces. And we'll start to investigate how we make sense of the world around us.

As a primarily corporate profession, bid and proposal managers are highly used to designed, urban environments. However we evolved in conditions radically different to those we experience on a daily basis. What can our evolved preferences tell us about design, about empathy and about our health and wellbeing? And why do we have such trouble taking positive action to support the global environment - even when we know about the damage we do.


Fourth, we'll consider how we perceive and construct the world around us. We'll look at the filters we put in place, and the mistakes they sometimes drive. We consider extraordinary claims and extraordinary beliefs, sometimes completely irrespective of the evidence visible before us. We'll also consider the psychology of extreme circumstance, and look at how conspiracy theories are constructed and why they become so appealing.

As human beings, and as proposal managers, we construct the world in which we live. Biases of availability, representation, neglect and confirmation all work to mean that the way you see the picture in front of you may differ from the next person. To what extent can we find 'truth' through processes such as debriefs and statistical analysis? And how can knowing about some of these failures help to stop them happening next time?


Finally, we'll consider a number of living psychological issues. We;ll consider some of the roots and impacts of sexuality, and how we adapt to live in an increasingly online world. Finally, we'll look at the self-help industry and scrutinize some of the claims it makes, as well as looking at some of the personalities that it attracts.

Development, learning and bettering yourself should be a core pursuit of every senior professional, and sales and business managers are a core demographic for self-development books. But do they work? In addition, how can we take responsibility for the hours we work, the challenges we endure and the outcomes at the end of the day?


I hope I manage to find something interesting to say each week. If there's anything here you'd like me to dig into as part of the post: drop me a note below. I'd be particularly interested in interviewing bid, proposal or sales managers who work with high-functioning autism disorders to give a perspective on the challenges and the rewards. I'll try and keep everything applicable and approachable and I welcome questions and challenges along the way!


Permalink 2 comments (latest comment by Simon Reed, Sunday, 4 Nov 2018, 19:47)
Share post
Chris Colquitt

We're not mindreaders (or are we?)

Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Chris Colquitt, Friday, 2 Nov 2018, 15:42

Before we start, I'd like to say thanks for taking the time to read this post. I know yesterday was a pretty tiring day for you and certainly didn't finish the way you expected it to start! But hey, sometimes people can surprise you - no matter how long you've known them, I suppose!

Barnum statements similar to these ones can become something of an art. Used well, they can elevate a mentalists stage show or turn a mediocre executive summary into a good one*! But knowing exactly what's going on in the mind of the person opposite us isn't a party trick - it's a well evolved set of mechanisms that we're still only beginning to understand.

Since Premack and Woodruff (1978) coined the term, 'theory of mind' has been used to describe a human's ability to understand the view and beliefs of others, even if we do not share them. Applied by Baron-Cohen, Leslie and Frith in 1985, theory of mind became one of the leading (though not only)** explanations of the social deficits most commonly seen in sufferers of autistic spectrum disorders. Here, the authors described, people with autism found it increasingly difficult to understand the alternative viewpoints and beliefs held by others. Instead, they saw knowledge as a shared commodity, experienced by all as soon as it was experienced by one.

Most commonly shown through 'false belief tasks' such as the Sally-Anne doll test or the Maxie test, we regularly see autism expressed as an inability to see another's point of view. In the Sally-Anne test, autism sufferers suggested the dolls could magically understand where the marble had been moved to. In the Maxie test, others magically knew a tube was full of pencils and not chocolate. All the time, this knowledge was 'shared' to naive participants because the autistic participant is unable to apply a mental separation between themselves and others.

The biological basis of Theory of Mind

Current research into the causes of individual difference in ability within theory of mind is underway and a large area of focus. Schulte-Ruther, et al. (2006) showed how 'mirror neurons' in a number of brain regions correlated well with use of empathetic skills. These mirror neurons are commonly implicated in learning motor skills from others, but we're now understanding that they have additional responsibilities for the understanding (and replicating) of the emotions of other people. This is a core facet of empathy.

Theory of mind, proposals and bidding

Little research has been done in the area of empathy, theory of mind or the effects of autism in the world of corporate sales. For my colleagues at the APMP and London School of Economics, this presents a valuable line of enquiry, asking questions such as:

  • Are individuals with autism disorders such as Asperger's fairly represented in the bidding and proposal community? Does autism represent a blocker to the bidding profession, or are there processes we can put in place to facilitate effectiveness of autistic individuals within the industry?
  • To what extent does competitive intelligence require a theory of mind? How is ToM used in negotiations, in competitive pricing scenarios and in forming strategic partnerships with other organizations?
  • To what extent to other disorders of empathy or ToM affect senior sales professionals (such as psychopathy***).
  • How can proposals better support an alignment of minds through design, writing, mirroring of goals and aims and more.
  • To what extent should proposals stay away from ToM processes? When should a good proposal stick to the facts instead of trying to mind-read it's buyer?

Are you a successful (or unsuccessful) salesperson with an autism or empathy disorder? If so: I'd love to have a brief chat with you for a future edition of these blogs.

What applications for Theory of Mind do you see in corporate sales, bids and proposals? How often do you need to read the mind of your buyer, or even your seller? I welcome you to leave a comment below!

*Note: to turn a good executive summary into a great one, avoid Barnum statements altogether and use true facts that show a demonstrable understanding of your customer and their objectives!

**Note: There are numerous gaps in the ToM explanation of autism that are still debated to this day. ToM does not explain the physical characteristics of autism (such as repetitive behaviour), nor does it provide a suitable neurobiological mechanism for the disorders. Other disorders, such as developmental disorders, can produce similar lapses in interpersonal abilities as autism.

***Note: Much has been written in the pop-sales community about the presence of so-called 'psychopathic traits' of salespeople and senior executives. These narratives are rarely based around good science and tend to use misinterpreted definitions of psychopathy. For a good summary of the medical definitions of psychopathy, and how they apply to interpersonal relationships, please see my blog coming in a few weeks).


References:

Baron-Cohen, Leslie & Frith (1985), 'Does the autistic child have a "theory of mind?". Cognition v.21. Issue 1. pp. 37-46

Premack & Woodruff (1978), 'Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?'. Behavioural and brain sciences, v1. issue 4. pp. 515-526

Schulte-Ruther, et al. (2007), 'Mirror Neuron and Theory of Mind Mechanisms Involved in Face-to-Face Interactions: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Approach to Empathy'. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, v19. issue 8, pp.1354-1372

Wimmer & Perner (1983), 'Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception'. Cognition, vol.13, pp.103-128


Permalink Add your comment
Share post
Chris Colquitt

Artificial minds - An interview with Tony Birch (Shipley Ltd) on theory of mind, executive summaries and 'Rose'

Visible to anyone in the world

This week, I sat down with Tony Birch, MD of Shipley Limited, to discuss their Executive Summary support tool 'Rose' and how it can help salespeople to craft better, more empathetic executive summaries in sales proposals.

 Tell us a little more about Rose

 Rose works predominantly with salespeople to help them in creating an early draft of the Executive Summary(1). It does this by prompting them through a series of questions, rather than asking them to sit down and write on a blank piece of paper. When there's no structure, it can be really hard to write a powerful document like the executive summary. Using these prompts, Rose partially automates information into Shipley's 'four-box' template to help create a persuasive and exciting executive summary.

To what extent does ROSE try to apply theory of mind(2) practices in writing an executive summary? What elements does it try to avoid?

 Rose doesn't directly try to present a theory of mind. There's a good chance that systems like Rose 'trying to be a person' will come eventually, but it's not there yet.

 There are subtle developments that can help systems like Rose in being more accessible and more lifelike, such as voice interaction and mimicking human behaviours. The next generation of something like Rose may be driven by voice and, whilst it's already trying to 'have a conversation' in the passive sense, there's good opportunity to develop this into a more literal conversational process.

Ultimately, Rose provides a format to prepare an executive summary that will allow the decision makers to select you and your solution. It does this through asking questions that guide the writer and helping them to consider the buyer, anticipating what questions they may ask. If you did this early enough, Rose could potentially listen and collate, providing near real-time updates along the way. There are often complaints [in the buying cycle] that people didn't have a conversation. More often, it's a case that the seller or the buyer didn't know how to articulate that information back to the writer. Rose helps to bring these elements together.

John Searle wrote a famous essay about his Chinese Room(3) where he could be passed instructions in Chinese from the outside and, following a set of written instructions, could respond and make it look like he could speak Chinese – though he’d always just be following instructions. His argument is that AI will always just be following instructions and never have a good ‘theory of mind’. Do you think attempts like Rose support his argument and are limited to their programming?

There's been a number of attempts to introduce more empathy into these types of processes, and many of them are just algorithms and playing back words. However, it turns out we can be pretty impressed by these! Sometimes we don't need to be the best - we just need to be better than the rest. Based on our experience at Shipley, we tend to see there are a finite number of reasons why people want to buy ('hot buttons'). Usually less than 40.

Rose sits in the middle of these viewpoints [weak AI and strong AI4], supporting empathy by providing a library of hot buttons for salespeople to choose from. Ultimately, it can help to prompt empathy and alignment - but this is something that good salespeople tend to do. Ultimately it helps to reduce accusations of 'you didn't listen to me' inside the process.

When was the last time AI surprised you by tricking you into thinking it had a theory of mind (Alexa, Google, chatbots, etc.)

I recently ended up searching on a set of symptoms [ed. Nothing serious, hopefully!] and ended up on an American 'WebMD' style site talking to, what I assume, was a chatbot(5). It was obviously working down a decision tree, but prefixed a few pieces of advice with 'now, you're not going to like this'. I thought that was really clever. We'd like to integrate those types of natural language algorithms(6) into proposal automation one day.

Finally, to get the most empathetic executive summary, should salespeople start it with 'we'd like to thank [customer] for inviting us to tender'?

No. Never - unless it's culturally dictated by the region you're tendering in. Ultimately, everyone involved in your process will read the first line of the executive summary. Do you want everyone to know that you're pleased to be invited? Or do you want everyone to know how you're going to help them?

 Calls to action and next steps

  1. Does empathy matter in an executive summary? A study or literature review on the effectiveness of salespeople as correlated to empathy would be welcomed (for example, see Dawson et al (1992), Pilling et al (1994), McBane (1995)) from an interested APMP member or Business School student.
  2. How is theory of mind being integrated (or avoided) in AI, especially as it pertains to corporate sales? We welcome views from technology companies and sales enablement firms on this process. We'd be particularly interested in any attempts to pair guided writing with chatbot and machine learning technologies.

About the contributors:

Tony Birch is founder and Managing Director of Shipley Limited, and a Fellow of the APMP and a Certified Professional under the APMP Certification Programme. As one of the founders of APMP UK, Tony’s mission is to ensure that the role of a bid or proposal manager is recognised throughout the world as a profession - and not just a job. You can find out more at https://www.shipleywins.co.uk/bid-tools

Chris Colquitt is Manager of Global Proposal Management at Clarivate Analytics and a student in Psychology, currently studying with the Open University in the UK.

You can hear the recording of the interview at this link

Notes:

1 - Executive Summary

For readers from outside of the sales, bidding and proposal world - the Executive Summary is a short chapter in a sales document, usually towards the front, that explains the key aspects of your solution or offer, and why the buyer should select you. Good executive summaries will explain the buyer need alongside the solution you are presenting. Poor executive summaries will tend to be one-sided, concentrating on the features of a company's own products rather than applying their benefits to the buyer. For example, think of buying a new laptop and the salesperson only talking in terms of GB Ram and GHz clock speeds, rather than asking you if you want to use it for watching films and checking emails vs. editing photos and playing games.

2 - Theory of Mind

Theory of mind is defined as: 'the ability to attribute mental states—beliefsintentsdesiresemotionsknowledge, etc.—to oneself, and to others, and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.' From <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind>

 Note: For this article, empathy and theory of mind are used largely interchangeably. However there are subtle differences.

3 - Chinese Room

Searle, J. (1999) 'Chinese room argument' in Wilson, R. A. and Keil, F. C (eds) The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences, Cambridge, MA and London, MIT Press. See a summary at Chinese room

4 - Weak AI and strong AI

Weak AI (or narrow AI) is AI that is focused on a single narrow task, irrespective of how complex that individual task is. Most current AI operates as weak AI. A summary is available at Weak AI

Strong AI (or Artificial General Intelligence) is AI that could successfully replace a human being in a specific task. As such, strong AI needs to include cognitive capabilities such as empathy, problem framing, imaginative problem solving and more. A summary is available at Artificial general intelligence

5 - 'What, I assume, was a chatbot'

The fact that this statement is an assumption means we're already incredibly close to passing the Turing Test, one of the previously assumed barriers between weak and strong AI. See a summary of the Turing Test at Turing test

6 - Natural language

You may be interested in seeing Google's latest use of natural language in AI which stunned me. See a summary at https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/8/17332070/google-assistant-makes-phone-call-demo-duplex-io-2018


Permalink Add your comment
Share post

This blog might contain posts that are only visible to logged-in users, or where only logged-in users can comment. If you have an account on the system, please log in for full access.

Total visits to this blog: 3822