Susan Pendergrass speaks with Josh Bandoch, author of “How to Get What You Want: Mastering the Art and Science of Persuasion,” about why leading with data and logic is often the wrong approach to changing minds. Drawing on more than a decade of research across psychology, neuroscience, economics, and political science, and experience writing speeches for senior government officials and advising executives, Bandoch explains how the human brain feels before it reasons, why persuasion is about shared action rather than winning, and what policy advocates get wrong when trying to move legislators. They also discuss the Granny Test, how to frame arguments around your audience’s moral values, the role of storytelling, and more.

Find the book

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

 Episode Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00): So excited today to talk to Josh Bandoch, author of the soon to be out — or maybe by the time this airs, out — book “How to Get What You Want: Mastering the Art and Science of Persuasion.” I want to say it correctly, which is awesome. I was thinking about this topic — we were talking about this a little bit before we started recording — because we’re both right in the middle of legislative sessions. And in addition to being an author, you work in the policy advocacy space. Is this book meant to sort of address that space, or is it for a more general audience? Because we all want to get what we want, right?

Josh Bandoch (00:37): Absolutely. The book is written for a general audience. It will help folks in the policy space, but also in business, sales, or marketing. The goal of the book is to help people get what they want through persuasion. And for me, persuasion is the difference between having a good idea — whether it’s a good policy idea or a good product idea — and having others embrace that idea.

Susan Pendergrass (01:02): Yeah, I think that’s so important because oftentimes — well, speaking for myself — I come up with policy ideas that I think are great ideas, but I come from data, evidence, research. Let me write a 20-page paper on it and do a statistical model to convince you. And I think that based on what I’ve read in your book, you would say that might not be my strongest approach.

Josh Bandoch (01:24): Well, those things are necessary. Data is necessary, and folks who work at think tanks are paid to do research. I work at a think tank — the Platte Institute — and that is what we’re paid to do. But when I think about persuasion, I start by trying to understand the contours of how the human brain actually operates.

The challenging reality for a lot of folks in the think tank space who are paid to think — maybe you’re a consultant or whatever — is that since we’re paid to think, we think that means logic, data, and reasoning are the way to get what we want. The most challenging reality I’ve encountered is that this is how the human brain is wired — not just my brain or your brain, Susan, but all 8 billion of us on this planet. We feel first, then reason. Sometimes it’s feel, and we never even get to the reasoning. We’ve all been there. That means persuasion actually starts with feelings.

I know the folks in your audience who love the work you do — and you guys do great work — and love the research are going to say, no, that can’t be true. Well, it’s what all the neuroscience says. So it actually means that the logic-first approach to persuasion, whether in policy and think tank land or in sales or anything, is actually illogical — because that’s not how the brain works. The brain works feel first, then reason. We do reason. It’s just that we have to start with feelings.

Susan Pendergrass (03:06): So give me an example. We’ve been working for several years on a policy in Missouri that would allow parents to choose where their kids go to public school — just public school, open enrollment. And we get so much pushback from legislators and others who say this is going to lead to basically the destruction of the public education system. That’s their feeling. And I can provide a lot of evidence from other states that have done it for decades — even our neighbors in Kansas, not so much Illinois — and say it hasn’t happened, but they still believe it. I feel like I can’t put the words in the right order to make them understand what I’m trying to do. So what do I need to do differently?

Josh Bandoch (03:47): Yeah, so there are two parts here. First, you just observe what somebody’s feeling. Because if somebody’s feeling great and they’re inclined to do what you want to do, it’s easy, right? In this case — this is a perfect example — they have negative feelings towards the policy you want to advance. So the first thing you have to do is observe, understand, and address those feelings directly. When you’re in these conversations, what is an example of a raw, visceral negative feeling that somebody expresses?

Susan Pendergrass (04:19): They’ll say in our small rural communities, the high school is the center of it — it’s the heart and soul of the community. And if we let kids out — even though it’s the heart and soul — they’ll all want to leave. And if that happens, not only will the school close, but that will kill the community. That’s what they believe. It’s not reality, but I struggle when I go to testify at a legislative hearing to not sound like I’m just putting facts in front of them and ignoring what they feel. I don’t know how to counter that with reassurance and say, that’s just not true.

Josh Bandoch (05:09): So let me briefly walk you through the process so your audience can follow along. Start with feelings — and what you have to do is generate persuasive feelings. What feelings are persuasive? Ultimately, I think it’s positive feelings. Every time I ask an audience who the most persuasive people they can think of are, a couple of people come to mind: Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King Jr., JFK. They generated positive feelings. And you do that especially by appealing to your audience’s moral values, which in this case might be different from yours. And then the most effective way to wrap it all up is a story.

So how do you start this process? When you’re talking to folks in the community, or to lawmakers, or to local elected officials who you’d like to see change their stance, start by asking them how they feel. It just unlocks a totally different pathway in the brain.

Susan Pendergrass (06:05): But when you’re saying this — and when I was looking through your book — I was wondering: in today’s political environment, I feel like persuasion is being used a lot less, and people are just making statements and not really defending them, just saying that’s the fact because I said it. Especially with how vitriolic our politics has become in the last decade since you started this research, do you think there’s still a good solid place for the art of persuasion? Or are we just going to stand with our arms crossed and agree to disagree?

Josh Bandoch (06:35): So at one level, the answer is absolutely yes, because humans haven’t evolved radically over the last 10 years. Everything in the book is backed by a tremendous amount of research, largely based on how the human brain works, and then lots of practice. At another level, we do have real reason to be concerned, which is what you just pointed to — is persuasion still possible in today’s political environment?

Look, there are only two paths forward. One is that we continue to relish in all the negativity, toxicity, and polarization, or we step back from it. I don’t think, aside from a couple of folks who spend their lives on X, that anybody is really going to say our politics are healthy. So it’s incumbent on us to have better methods to walk back from that, as opposed to just running down that toxic lane even further.

Susan Pendergrass (07:41): So in addition to what happens in state and federal legislative bodies, where I spend a lot of my brain power, how does somebody take the principles of your book and apply them in their personal life? Is this about manifesting goals, or how do they apply those same principles?

Josh Bandoch (08:00): Well, maybe I can sketch out briefly what some of the principles are so we can talk about them. The first step for persuasion — well, I guess two things. One is understanding what persuasion actually is, and I think even this is a mindset issue. We oftentimes think persuasion is about winning. And Susan, if I win against you, what does that make you?

Susan Pendergrass (08:17): A loser.

Josh Bandoch (08:18): That’s terrible, right? You’re a loser and you don’t want to work with me. So persuasion isn’t about winning. It’s not just about launching your logic at people — we’ve discussed that already. It’s not simply about convincing somebody. The Latin root of the word “convince” means to vanquish or to conquer, and conquest is barbaric. So what is persuasion? It’s about shared action — something we voluntarily do with others. That’s the shared part, and it’s action — it’s about getting things done. That’s already a much different understanding of persuasion.

When you bring that approach to your personal and professional endeavors, it’s different because you’re really trying to work with people and figure out how to move forward together. The first step of persuasion for me is adopting what I call the persuader’s mindset — it’s about them, not you. That’s why when we talked about school choice in the community, it’s like, okay, what are their concerns? Take their concerns seriously. That applies in your personal life too — maybe you’re having a debate at home with your spouse or a friend or a child. You have to understand who they are and what they care about, and to the extent possible, proceed on their grounds, because they’re much more comfortable there. This applies to any situation you’re in, no matter what it is.

Susan Pendergrass (09:32): That’s awesome. And you mentioned professionally — sales. I feel like there are a lot of books on how to sell. How does your book differentiate from what’s come before?

Josh Bandoch (09:47): Well, a lot of folks — keeping it in the policy space — are trying to corner people into saying yes to something they otherwise wouldn’t say yes to. What I’m really trying to understand is what would motivate and excite somebody to work with me on something. And that requires generating the positive feelings I talked about, appealing to their morals, telling great stories, and some of the other things I get into in the book. But those are some of the big ones. And it all has to happen simply.

Susan Pendergrass (10:31): In a simple way, right? I’m not going to hold this against you, but I am a grandmother. And I did see the Granny Principle in the book — so explain what that is, because I want to remind myself of this principle a lot. I have a PhD in public policy. I’ve put a lot of years into studying what’s good and bad public policy. And every single year in the halls of Jefferson City, I just see bad public policy happen in the hallway. They’ll say, well, we’ll just give that part up and add this part. And I’m like, no, no, no — you basically just blew up the quality of what you were trying to do. And I see that if I’m coming from up here and things are happening on a completely different level, I’m spinning my wheels. I’m not furthering my goals of getting good public policy passed — which I believe, no matter who’s in the governor’s mansion or the White House, good policy is good policy. And I struggle to make it happen in Missouri. I think the Granny Principle could be part of my problem, so would you please explain what that is?

Josh Bandoch (11:32): Totally. The last chapter of the book — in some ways the least exciting but the most important — is called “Ace the Granny Test.” And what’s the Granny Test? Would your granny understand what you’re saying? You assume granny is a smart lady who is not an expert in any particular thing. So you have to explain things with clarity, simplicity, and precision.

One of the troubles we encounter in think tank land is that we love to dump tons of data and logic and reasoning and examples on people, and it’s overwhelming. We also encounter the curse of knowledge — we know so much that we kind of assume our audience does too. And we oftentimes think, well, they just don’t understand me, that’s their fault and their problem. No, no, no, no. It’s your fault and your problem, because they don’t understand you and they just move on with life.

When you talk to an elected official, you have about 60 seconds to capture their attention. Maximum. So if you’re not crystal clear and simple in how you explain things, they say in that typical apologetic way, well, thank you so much, I’ll take that into account — and then they move on. Clarity and simplicity are premium virtues in communications, and they require a lot of hard work to achieve. Can you distill your 30-page white paper into 30 seconds?

Susan Pendergrass (13:01): Yeah. I’m trying to do cards now — the most simple four-by-six with colors. And in their defense, I’m not coming down hard on legislators — they’re not specialists, they’re generalists. It might be education committee and transportation committee and appropriations, whatever. They have to know a lot of different areas, and even though Missouri and Illinois have long sessions — like five or six months a year — they have other lives much of the time. It is hard for them to grasp things in a short amount of time. I’ve had some back and forth with my colleagues who say we should still write high-level academic papers. I’m like, I’m doing four-by-six cards now. I’m sure there’s a middle ground there, but it’s hard to find.

Josh Bandoch (13:59): Well, the four-by-six is a great place to start. What’s your thesis? What are you trying to say? Can you get that into one sentence? Do you have a couple of key points you’d like to make? But then how do you turn that into something compelling? I would say you do at least one of two things. Ideally, you would have a story. If you’ve got 30 seconds to pitch school choice, you might start by saying, let me tell you a story about little Bobby or little Sally — this is what it meant to him, he was here and now he’s here — and you condense that story. Or you make a moral claim that’s going to grab their attention. People’s morals differ based on, roughly speaking, their politics, but you have to make a moral claim that’s going to resonate with them.

So if you’re talking to somebody on the left, their morals are sensitive to claims over equity. If you were talking to somebody in an urban school district and you wanted to get them to support school choice, and let’s say they’re on the left, you might say, look, our school system is deeply inequitable and we need to fix it. And they’re like, huh, yeah, it is — tell me more. You’ve got to figure out what you want to say, but then make sure you’re framing it in a way that is compelling for your audience.

Susan Pendergrass (15:15): So if folks want to find your book and learn how to get what they want, when and where will it be available?

Josh Bandoch (15:22): It’s available April 21st, and it’s available anywhere you can buy books — Amazon, Barnes & Noble.

Susan Pendergrass (15:24): And you said you spent 10 years researching this — tell me about it.

Josh Bandoch (15:33): Yeah, a combination of research and practice. Ten years of on-and-off reading as much as possible — psychology, neuroscience, primarily.

Susan Pendergrass (15:41): Yeah, that’s fascinating. It is — surprisingly, for what I do full time — an easy part to forget. I’ve always felt like if I just lay out facts and fair arguments, the rest will take care of itself.

Josh Bandoch (15:58): Well, those things are necessary, but they’re not sufficient. They’re necessary because our job, working at think tanks, is to make sure the foundation is strong. We have a policy recommendation, and we have to make sure we have really good reasons to think it’s going to be effective — that it’s been tested elsewhere, or all the data indicates this is probably going to work. That’s necessary. It’s not sufficient. The persuasion layer on top of that is what takes your good idea to a good idea somebody else wants to embrace.

Susan Pendergrass (16:30): Yeah, I think it’s great. Like you said, it’s helpful in so many parts of your life. It comes right up to the very edge of manipulation, but pulls back a little bit. It is helpful for getting what you want — whether you’re buying a car or agreeing with your spouse on the paint color for the wall. It’s a really smart approach.

Well, thank you so much for joining us today on the podcast and telling us all about it. It’s fascinating stuff and I really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks, Josh.

Josh Bandoch (16:58): It’s a pleasure, thank you so much.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post How to Think About Persuasion in Public Policy with Josh Bandoch appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

From harnessing solar energy to launching the first privately funded rocket, SpaceX founder and PayPal cofounder Elon Musk is a doer.

When something is broken, the billionaire doesn’t sit back and wait for change. When he didn’t think that payment over the Internet worked optimally, he created PayPal. When he saw that the U.S. space program had stalled, he founded SpaceX. When he drove on the highway and saw too few electric cars, he started Tesla.

Recently, Musk turned his attention toward a new market—education. Dissatisfied with what he saw, the inventor did what comes naturally to him, he built something better—Ad Astra.

While Ad Astra (Latin for “to the stars”) sounds more like a cutting-edge technology startup than something to do with children, it is a private school that enrolled over a dozen students during the 2014-15 school year, including Musk’s five sons and children of other SpaceX employees.

Enrollment is only expected to grow to 20 students next fall, but the school’s mission to eliminate assembly-line learning is gaining momentum. Ad Astra functions without grade levels and focuses on the individual needs of students.

“Some people love math. Some people love music. . . . It makes more sense to cater the education to match their aptitudes and abilities,” he said in an interview for Chinese television.

This concept is not new. In fact, De La Salle Middle School, a private school in Saint Louis City, also organizes students based on ability, not age.

Additionally, four states have adopted Education Savings Account (ESA) programs to both give schools more autonomy and parents more flexibility to find the educational model that best fits their child’s needs. Families like the Vissers and Ashtons have benefited from Arizona’s ESA program. They have been able to develop a unique educational program for their children, and their stories are worth watching.

Unfortunately, burdensome state regulations and inflexible funding streams often prevent innovation in education. I hope seeing what is possible in the private sector through examples like Ad Astra will encourage state leaders to allow for more specialization and experimentation. Finding a school that best fits a child’s needs should not be limited to the uber-wealthy and smart.

Whether Musk is sending people on the 140 million mile journey to Mars or attempting to reform education, I wish him luck! One of these will prove to be a less difficult challenge, and I hope it’s the latter.

To watch Musk’s interview about Ad Astra, click here.

The post A Private School That’s Out of This World appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That which we call an unaccredited school by any other name would perform as well.  William Shakespeare spoke of roses, but his four-century-old logic applies to Normandy Schools Collaborative’s “nonaccredited” status.  The Missouri State Board of Education’s decision to give Normandy a “nonaccredited status” allowed the Board to take control of operations.  It essentially gave the district a do-over, but left many with questions concerning the legality of subsequent decisions:

1. Can the Missouri State School Board set a tuition ceiling?
2. Can receiving schools reject transfer students?
3. Can Normandy prohibit new students from transferring?

These questions stem from the transfer law’s wording regarding unaccredited schools.   The law refers to a “district not accredited”.  According to the state board, Normandy’s new unclassified status of “nonaccredited” is somehow different than “unaccredited” (even though, non is Latin for not, non making this up).  Because of the new classification, schools like Francis Howell decided not to allow transfer students to return.   Using the same rationale, Normandy Schools Collaborative might not receive extra money from the 2015 state budget.  The additional funding is earmarked for intensive reading instruction and pre-K programs, programs meant to help low-performing, unaccredited schools like Normandy.

Normandy has a history of low-performance—low-achievement, high drop-out rates, and low college readiness.  If the goal of the state Board of Education is to give Normandy students access to high-performing, quality schools, calling the district by another name is not the answer.

The post What’s in a name? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The typical public education model restricts most families from having much say in the type of education their child receives because children are sorted by attendance catchment areas. The traditional model does have school choice; but those choices are, for the most part, limited to moving to a better neighborhood or paying for private school tuition. Many families do not have these options. In Saint Louis, this is changing. Charter schools are giving more and more families educational opportunities for their children.

I recently took a tour of six of the 22 charter schools in Saint Louis and was amazed at the differences among the schools. Gateway Science Academy students are focused on developing their expertise in math and the sciences through innovative programs. Preclarus Mastery Academy students are learning Latin and preparing for college success while students at Saint Louis Language Immersion Schools are immersed in Spanish, French, or Chinese. Grand Center Arts Academy students in one class were acting out scenes they had written, while students in the next room were learning a dance routine. Students at City Garden Montessori were spread out, working on self-directed learning projects as teachers provided guidance.

Each school focuses on academics, but each also has a unique niche, offering something distinctive to students.

The conversation about schools often focuses on standardized test performance. We ask how charter schools are doing compared to the district, or how the district is doing compared to the state. Those are worthwhile questions, but schools are doing more than preparing students for tests. The schools I visited offer students something very unique that may or may not translate to gains on a standardized test, such as learning a new language or developing creative skills. When we focus solely on a school’s performance on standardized tests, we miss a big part of the picture. We miss the variety and options that these schools provide to families.

Critics of school choice often argue that families will not know how to make good choices or that students who remain behind will somehow be hurt by other students leaving. Both of these claims are unfounded. First, parents are very savvy and are capable of making choices for their children. I know nothing about the medical profession, but we were able to choose a great pediatrician. If anything, parents lack experience, but experience comes from having the opportunity to make those decisions.

Secondly, most of the scholarly evidence suggests that the traditional public schools are no worse off, and in some cases, are better when they face competition. As school choice has accelerated in Saint Louis, the St. Louis Public School District has also been improving. The district appears to be responding to the increased competition, opening innovative magnet schools, focusing on teacher quality, and exploring opportunities to improve. As they do, the portfolio of quality educational options in Saint Louis will continue to grow.

Robbyn Wahby, deputy chief of staff for Saint Louis Mayor Francis Slay, says three more charter schools are slated to open next year, and she expects that trend to continue in the foreseeable future. With more schools comes more opportunity; more opportunity means finally being able to ask, ”Which school would best meet the needs of my child and my family?” That is what school choice is really about, giving families options.

If you have not had the opportunity to visit any of these unique schools, I highly recommend you do so.

James V. Shuls is the education policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Charter Schools Are Giving Families Options appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The kicker here is that this is not an isolated incident — all unaccredited districts and districts with provisional accreditation for two years are required to pay for these courses for their students. Unfortunately, few districts make this readily known. What is more, all school districts have the option to offer MOVIP courses to their students.

As Show-Me policy analysts have noted (here and here), virtual education has tremendous potential to improve and broaden the quality of education for Missouri students. Schools should be lining up to partner with MOVIP.

Imagine a classroom full of students on computers, each taking a different virtual course. One student is making up English I, which he previously failed, while another is taking a course on web design. Other students are taking foreign language courses that the school could not offer, perhaps Chinese, German, Japanese, or Latin.

We are in a tremendous age, where technology is transforming how we operate in our daily lives. Now, technology has the potential to change how we educate our students. By partnering with MOVIP, schools can expand options for students. More students in Kansas City — or even Appleton City — should enjoy greater educational options. It is time we demand more.

The post Virtual Education, Real Opportunity appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I hope the charter school approval process in Missouri will remain friendly to single-language charter schools, so that a school like the New Jersey charter would be welcome here. There are many languages besides Hebrew that could possibly be studied for their religious significance. Religious texts have been composed in Greek, Latin, and Arabic, to name a few — yet all of those languages are taught in public schools. It’s unfair to single out Hebrew or any of those languages as unsuitable for specialization, when students’ reasons for studying them are as varied as the words in a dictionary.

The post Language-Specific Charter School to Open in New Jersey appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As it turns out, Norm is a big fan of Show-Me Daily, and has linked to us from the Tertium Quids blog for quite a while. At any rate, in today’s SPN conference session about blogging, at which Norm was a panelist, he singled out Show-Me Daily as one of the best think tank blogs he’s seen. That’s no faint praise, because there are a lot of groups out there doing excellent work.

It’s been awhile since I spent much time in Virginia, although I did live there for a couple of years during my DC Beltway days. It’s good to know folks like Norm Leahy are holding down the fort.

The post Shout Out From Nasturtium Squids appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Schlafly, a history buff, noted that legislators took this action in the presence of of the Great Seal of Missouri, on which the state’s offical motto is written — in Latin — Salus populi suprema lex esto (The welfare of the people shall be the highest law.)

How would a proposed amendment effect (sic) Missouri’s official motto?

Despite the fact that our state motto is in Latin, we don’t see legislators conducting debates or cities holding meetings in Latin. They use English instead.

The post The Proposed Official-Language Amendment appeared first on Show-Me Institute.