News – What? Did You Really Say What I Think I Heard?

As an original thinker, I think in systems or, as some systems thinkers say, ‘thinking in circles’. The main difference between systems thinkers and serial thinkers is the scope of what we notice.

Standard thinking is sequential. One idea follows the next and appears logical as per the person’s knowledge of the situation and similar experiences. It 1. restricts possible choices to the person’s assumptions, history and beliefs; 2. notices what’s deemed relevant; 3. may overlook factors that might enhance understanding or outcomes. Sequential thinkers have a relatively straight path to their outcomes and may not recognize the need to bring in additional data.

Many leaders are sequential (transactional) thinkers. When resolving a problem they may speak only to other leaders; consider actions based on intuition and available information; invite other leaders to create and deploy a solution they’ve developed amongst themselves.

Systems thinking is circular. Systems thinkers hear, think, notice a broad range of factors on many levels – data points, connections, relationships, juxtapositions, patterns, repetitions, gaps – simultaneously, making it possible to compile an expansive data set from a broad array of elements. With more good data to weigh, with more components available, there’s a high probably of more creativity, more choice, less risk, less resistance, more collaboration, more efficiency and a greater possibility of attaining excellence.

A systems thinking (relational) leader seeks out a broad scope of ideas and people to ensure inclusion and maximum understanding and creativity. To assure there’s collaboration, agreement, and acceptance, and to gather the full fact pattern, they assemble (representatives of) all job descriptions touching the problem and the solution; trial several workarounds; lead the group to discern if the risk of change is manageable; promote group buy-in to integrate the new solution.

I’ve developed a 13 Step model that facilitates systemic change and captures the full set of elements necessary for resistance free, easy to implement change.

WHAT SYSTEMS THINKERS DO

People at top of their fields, such as historic geniuses Steve Jobs, Nikola Tesla, Cezanne, incorporate the ‘whole’ – the entire system – within their choices. In modern sports, Roger Federer, Tiger Woods, and LeBron James are systems thinkers as well, employing the same comprehensive practices: They become one with the ball, their implement (racket, club), the court/course, their hands, their legs, their grip, etc. and continually (re)adjust their position according to their opponents. It’s all one system.

When Federer, Woods, James are not ‘one’ with all, they miss the shot. My son, a medaled Olympian at 3 Olympics (Nagano, Salt Lake, and Vancouver), says he excels when he’s ‘one’ with his system: his skis, the snow, the poles, his knees and boots, his arms, the gates, the run, the turns. Without all operating as one, he falls.

Here’s a breakdown of the systems artists think in while making a painting. They simultaneously:

see the paint, the canvas, the brush, the stroke, the color, the mental vision of what they’re painting, the emerging patterns and a shifting minds-eye visual as the picture emerges.
feel the emergence of the vision from their mental picture, the brush, the hardness of softness of how the brush meets the canvas, their hand/arm as they apply color to the canvas.
hear the whisk of the brush on the canvas, the creak of the floor or chair as they move toward and away from the canvas.

I believe that adding systems thinking to transactional activities will make results more efficient and their outcomes more successful, collaborative, and creative without resistance.

HOW DO BRAINS THINK?

Everyone naturally thinks in both systems and sequences at different times and for different reasons. Here’s a simplistic explanation of how we end up doing and thinking as we do.

We’re all restricted by how our brain stores our history. Everything we see, hear, feel is a translation from our existing neural circuitry and, by nature, subjective. In other words, what we understand, act on, notice, and even hear is something we’ve understood, acted on, and heard before. We do what we’ve always done, triggered by our automatic, mechanistic, meaningless, electrochemical brain. [Note: learning has a specific modality to generate wholly new neural circuits with new triggers. I’ve invented a Learning Facilitation™ model that generates new circuits.]

We actually know – and sense, and understand, and intuit – a lot more than we use due to the way our brain stores stuff.

Fun fact: our brains collect millions of bits of information PER HOUR and sends them whizzing around our 100 billion synapses as we make decisions, write reports, and turn on the dishwasher before going to bed!

Our conscious thoughts are a fraction of the full data set we’ve got stored in our unconscious. Sequential thinkers will likely access more of the automatic, habituated superhighways that carry our historic (biased, subjective) expressions. Systems thinkers make decisions from a broader fact pattern from the data stored in several parts of their brain and not automatically accessible, providing more elements and less bias in each decision.

Here’s the problem when we need to make a choice: due to our brain’s laziness, our standard thinking automatically triggers what we already know and what have become our assumptions and biases clearly restricting our choices.

Obviously we’d prefer the broadest range of data for decisions making. How, then, do we access our unconscious to retrieve more of what we’ve got stored? This is the question that has led me to my life’s work: developing models that employ systems as the foundational framing factor.

Using my systems-thinking brain, and with decades of research and study on where/how brains store our knowledge, thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and assumptions, I’ve developed decision facilitation models for Sales (Buying Facilitation®), Learning, Change, Leadership, and Coaching that enable Others to get to their trigger points (neural circuits) where their decisions emanate from and from where change must be triggered.

I’ve written a book on how I employ systems in my inventions:

Sample

HOW I THINK

For those interested in how my brain thinks in systems, here’s how I access data beyond my brain’s automatic choices. Maybe you do some of this naturally?

During conversations or when helping someone resolve a problem, several layers of data show up simultaneously as I listen:

I am detached (in Observer/witness/coach) from any outcome, making it possible to notice more and gather a broader scope of data with a minimally-biased brain.
I detect the underlying intent. A speaker initially offers a simplified version of a goal or problem, often unaware of the complete fact pattern. The ultimate goal is often unspoken, unknown, and unconscious until it’s fully uncovered. Too often sequential thinkers assume the initial disclosure is accurate; it’s where I begin accessing patterns.
I hear the underlying message which I call a metamessage. Again, this is largely unspoken – a belief, or bias that isn’t specifically mentioned but rules the entire interaction.
I can detect disparities, incongruences, between the metamessage and the stated (but often incomplete and possibly incongruent) intent. Too often, sequential thinkers only notice incongruences after they’ve become a problem.
I notice patterns, what occurs repeatedly. So if I see someone regularly taking action on a subset of data before uncovering the full data set (i.e. FIRE, excluding the ‘Ready, Aim…’), I assume that’s a typical behavior.
I can hear the underlying systems and assumptions that influence the goal. How did X become the ‘logical’ conclusion? Why is Y the response to Z?
The person’s tone, tempo, pitch, and affect point me to congruence or incongruence in their goal.
I notice word choices. How the chosen words correlate with the stated goals and problems lead me to underlying assumptions and where something’s missing.
I only attend to what’s relevant to understand the system. Neither details nor story line are relevant at the beginning.
I notice if a problem can be fixed from previous successful fixes. Note: among a brain’s 100 trillion synapses there are often existing neural circuits that were used successfully before. I always ask: ‘Have you successfully resolved this before? If so, what’s stopping you from using the same methods now?’ Otherwise I help them generate new neural circuits for a new solution.

Thinking in circles, I hear/notice all this simultaneously. When one of the factors doesn’t match the goal or intent, it lights up in my head telling me there’s an unresolved issue, or a systems problem.

Unfortunately, sequential thinkers often resolve problems in ‘logical’ steps and are surprised when they later discover the goal, as stated, is wrong, or they’ve gathered an incomplete set of problem factors, or not included all necessary stakeholders, or missed vital factors that conclude with failure or resistance.

I believe that anyone can add systems thinking to their standard thinking.

USE YOUR SYSTEMS THINKING

Thinking in systems provides a broader scope with which to think and plan. Beneficial for inspiration, resourcefulness, accuracy, unbiased responses, and creativity, for writers, artists, musicians, inventors and original thinkers to name a few. I also believe that corporate management, healthcare providers, coaches and trainers would benefit from an unbiased, broad, inclusive understanding of the entire scope of a situation. Of course listening without bias and posing non-biased questions are skill sets everyone needs.

For those times you need a bit of inspiration or seek a more complete outcome, it’s possible to add some systems thinking practices. Here’s an exercise to express your systems-thinking brain.

EXERCISE

Remember a time you considered making/creating something. Painting, knitting, whittling, woodworking. Let’s see if you can capture what you did in creation mode to see if any of your actions are worth adding to your current way of thinking. And grab a sheet of paper to write down your answers to the questions below.

To begin your project, you might have had pictures in your mind’s eye as you played with ideas. Maybe you made some sketches. Or just trialed different things knowing you’d fail a few times. You probably sat quietly to think and let your mind explore possibilities from all sides. Is this the right angle? What will adding this color do?

Notice how you’re thinking, how the ideas are emerging. Are they similar to things you’ve done before? Wholly new? Do they have sound? Colors? Can you feel any of them? How many different versions are showing up? How do you know which ideas are ‘good’ or relevant, which won’t work? How many different things did you come up with? How many of these did you try? How did you choose which ones were ‘good’ and which were ‘bad’? How did you notice what you needed to alter – did you feel it? See it? When did you decide you needed some additional research? How did you know you were finished? Did you complete? Why? Why not?

Now, what’s different about the way you thought of those things vs the way you go about resolving a problem? Is there anything you can add to your daily choices that would expand what you notice? What you consider? What you do?

I believe that all of us could benefit from systems thinking for activities that demand we show up with minimal bias. Listening to strangers, or people not in our general life path (i.e. unhoused people; elderly people; disabled people) without bias or judgment. Recognizing a problem that needs resolution. Making life decisions that affect others.

Try it. You’ll expand your world.

____________________

Sharon-Drew Morgen is a breakthrough innovator and original thinker, having developed new paradigms in sales (inventor Buying Facilitation®, listening/communication (What? Did you really say what I think I heard?), change management (The How of Change™), coaching, and leadership. She is the author of several books, including her new book HOW? Generating new neural circuits for learning, behavior change and decision making, the NYTimes Business Bestseller Selling with Integrity and Dirty Little Secrets: why buyers can’t buy and sellers can’t sell). Sharon-Drew coaches and consults with companies seeking out of the box remedies for congruent, servant-leader-based change in leadership, healthcare, and sales. Her award-winning blog carries original articles with new thinking, weekly. www.sharon-drew.com She can be reached at sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com.

Sharon Drew Morgen April 13th, 2026

Posted In: News

Leave a Comment

Your important nonprofit or exciting startup will help the world be a better place. But now you’ve got to raise money. You’ve created a terrific pitch deck; have a highly competent management team and terms; have access to good outreach lists; are sending out slick marketing missives that show your professionalism and integrity; and have identified donor prospects with major gift potential. You’ve designed a multi-channel approach to build relationships with small investors and donors to excite them to give more.

Why aren’t you raising all the money you deserve?

It’s not you, your message. or your organization;
It’s not the strength of your relationship or who you ‘know’;
It’s not the market, your competition, your return potential or your marketing materials.

It’s a decision issue. Somehow your investors must choose between giving their money to you or putting it somewhere else that seems equally promising. With a finite amount to invest, they must decide where to put their funds. How will they decide?

CRITERIA VS. CONTENT

Ultimately, people choose to invest based on their own choice criteria and beliefs. While your purpose is undoubtedly important and your pitch deck substantive, unless a startup matches an investor’s criteria and they know the risks involved with investing in you, they will do nothing, regardless of how compelling your goals, marketing, market share, or growth potential.

Funds, after all, are not sitting there waiting for you to show up. You may be requesting money that

competes with other investments in their portfolio;
represents some sort of risk to them;
is earmarked for something/someone else;
needs stakeholder buy-in;
may be outside their stated goals, relationships, strategy, beliefs or agreements.

For the most part, decisions are made unconsciously before content is directly considered, not to mention you have no access to the hidden or historic events, political mind-fields, or unconscious biases that dictate someone’s choice criteria.

By including some new thinking, it’s possible to enable prospective investors to uncover and share their criteria within your session, providing you the opportunity to discuss any objections right away, then offer them the exact pitch to match their needs.

HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE

Sadly, regardless of your worthy cause or important product, people won’t give you money unless it meets their unspoken criteria. It’s here you unwittingly lose investors.

Outsiders (sellers, fundraisers, etc.) can never understand the behind-the-scenes, idiosyncratic criteria used to decide. Each person, each group has their own unique sets of rules, beliefs, values, vision they choose from;
Until the personal choice criteria are factored and resolved, until it’s determined that donating or investing in one group vs another does not put the investor at risk, no decision to invest will be made regardless of the importance of your offering or your marketing or outreach efforts;
Our information is only relevant after it fits into the potential investor’s defined initiatives and parameters. And when you offer it before they’ve recognized their choice criteria. They can’t even hear your pitch accurately.

There’s one more factor to consider: Who decides?

While you won’t have access to anyone’s personal decision-making strategies, it’s obvious that unless it’s a small ask, there’s usually a decision team who decide together – several people or just a spouse – and may not be in the room with you.

These people also have unknown criteria that govern their choices – political, humanitarian, profit, trust, etc.; there are personal standards that must be met; and there’s a risk to each choice that must be ascertained. Content details are only useful once primary choice criteria are met.

FACILITATE CRITERIA DISCOVERY BEFORE PITCHING

Instead of assuming the compelling solution you believe details investors should know and developing pitch decks based on these assumptions, begin by leading people directly to their unconscious choice criteria.

I’ve developed decision facilitation models used by many sales professionals to facilitate buying decisions called Buying Facilitation®. It includes the elements involved in how buyers decide, using a form of question I invented [Facilitative Questions™] that enable unconscious criteria to emerge for discussion. Here’s a few to use for fundraising:

What investment risks do you seek to avoid? How will you know upfront that investing with us would avoid these risks?
How will you choose between causes to give money to? What criteria will you use? What flexibility do you have?
How will you and your decision team decide on the amounts and types of groups or organizations to invest in?
What would you need to see from a group you’re considering investing in to be certain our group meets your criteria?

Sample

These questions make it possible for potential investors to find their unconscious criteria beyond their automatic choices. So if I never contribute to causes that involve for-profit business, if a small software group is fundraising to give their employee’s children better healthcare I might go beyond my unconscious criteria and invest.

At my suggestion, one of my clients posed this Facilitative Question™ as her first statement when seeking Round B funding, before pitching. As a woman, she understood she had less than a 4% chance of getting funded and hoped to trigger the investor’s better angels.

What would you need to know about me, my level of skill and professionalism, and my ability to manage a start-up, to trust that as a woman I was worthy of your investment?

Two of the ten potential investors walked out. The other 8 actually applauded, saying they hadn’t realized they had an unconscious bias against women before they even walked in. She had no problems getting funded.

REPEAT INVESTORS

For people who have donated to you or invested with you previously, begin your meeting with a discussion on how they’ll decide to invest or donate again. These folks seem to be obvious patrons, but unfortunately not all recommit.

While we assume we can encourage them to donate or invest more, we might not know what they need to hear from us to do so: What do they need to know about what we’ve accomplished in the meantime? Are they looking for some sign of ‘success’ or to know if we’ve made the change or addition they were hoping for? Do they still trust us? Again, we can assume, but we don’t know for sure.

Good questions might be something like:

What would you need to see from us to be willing to donate/invest again this year?
Due to the political climate and our dedication to an agenda that supports equality, fairness, and food/shelter for all here in Portland, we are asking our current patrons to increase their contribution this year if possible. How will you know that we will use your funds to meet the goals you espouse?

Ultimately, investors and donors need to know they’re giving money to groups that match their goals and beliefs. Giving money is a choice that involves personal criteria: don’t assume people will invest or donate merely because you’ve got a great idea.

____________

Sharon-Drew Morgen is a breakthrough innovator and original thinker, having developed new paradigms in sales (inventor Buying Facilitation®, listening/communication (What? Did you really say what I think I heard?), change management (The How of Change™), coaching, and leadership. She is the author of several books, including her new book HOW? Generating new neural circuits for learning, behavior change and decision making, the NYTimes Business Bestseller Selling with Integrity and Dirty Little Secrets: why buyers can’t buy and sellers can’t sell). Sharon-Drew coaches and consults with companies seeking out of the box remedies for congruent, servant-leader-based change in leadership, healthcare, and sales. Her award-winning blog carries original articles with new thinking, weekly. www.sharon-drew.com She can be reached at sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com.

Sharon Drew Morgen April 6th, 2026

Posted In: Communication, News

‘Change is hard,’ says the adage. Well, yes, but there’s a reason: when the potential risk of a change is unknown, it presents a possible disruption to the culture. Indeed, no change will be implemented – regardless of the needs of the group or the efficacy of the solution – if the risk of change might be higher than the risk of staying the same.

Currently, change management models overlook risk management and end up incurring resistance when the people with hands-on or customer-facing jobs – with their pride, egos, relationships, knowledge, habits, daily schedules – are excluded from the process and given activities they weren’t a part of generating.

Indeed, when companies fail to assemble and hear from those who currently touch the problem and will touch the new solution, they end up with two types of risk: an unforeseen and costly problem popping up during a project; a project that doesn’t meet its goals, is over budget, and/or doesn’t get implemented.

In this article I’m going to focus on what I see as the main risk in all projects: overlooking the inclusion of the full team at every stage in the process. When leaders assume they know enough to set objectives for a project, they are at risk of failing on both counts.

SOLUTION DESIGN MUST BE SYSTEMIC

Without including the voices of those who are or will be involved in the problem and/or potential solution, a new initiative is at risk regardless of the problem, the need, or the efficacy of the solution. The full complement of voices are necessary to

gather information and understand the full problem set;
design solutions for the needs and goals of all;
set goals that all agree with and will maintain the change;
recognize and manage the risks of change that must be understood at each level;
design paths forward to implement and maintain the new;
achieve buy-in that all are committed to;
set up a core team to supervise and support the new initiative through time.

Without including these steps, leaders cause their own resistance. When people are told what to do without having been part of the process, they resist. No one likes being told what to do without being part of the decision. Not to mention it’s possible they weren’t hired for the job they’re being asked to do and wouldn’t have chosen to do it.

WE CAUSE OUR OWN RESISTANCE

I believe the job of leadership (corporate, healthcare, coaches, managers) is to facilitate excellence amongst their teams, not the ones who must have the answers and set objectives. Without teammates and management collaborating, sharing ideas for better outcomes and developing new goals together that serve all (including the company), the success of any proposed change will be at risk.

I was recently asked by a group of System Dynamics (SD) practitioners to help them with client implementation. Seems they were paid millions of dollars and spent months developing solutions to large scale problems, only to have these be ignored. What was going on?

When I asked the group who set the goals for the project and who they gathered information from to understand the full scope of the problem, the answer to both was ‘leadership’. And therein lie the problem. Because practitioners set goals and objectives without buy-in, without the full data set, they were at risk of failing right from the start.

Here’s a dialogue I had with a SD practitioner working on a problem for the U.S. Army Corp:

PR: Yesterday I interviewed five Generals!

SD: Did you also interview five Privates? Five Majors?

PR: No. Why would I do that?

SD: It’s the only way you can collect an accurate data set, include the voices and needs of everyone involved in maintaining the problem, and help them set appropriate goals and understand the risks inherent in the solution implementation.

PR: Oh. I assumed whoever set the goals had the full data set. Besides, is it really my responsibility?

SD: It’s only your responsibility if you want them to implement.

Here’s a link to that implementation seminar. It offers a model for change projects that begin by first understanding and managing the risks:

I’m also currently working with a now-demoralized sales team that’s suffering the aftereffects of massive restructuring from a new CEO whose goal is to enhance revenue. He’s reorganizing teams, developing new departments, and changing reporting and commission structures – all without a single conversation with the sales team that faces real – and fixable! – marketplace problems that have nothing to do with any reorganization. It’s like spending resource to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

AVOIDING RISK AND RESISTANCE

I’ve spent my adult life unpacking the 13 steps to change that occur in all decision making/change management processes. Here are some thoughts on understanding risk and avoiding resistance before starting a project:

Everyone who touches the problem and/or solution must be included in information capture and goal setting. Note: there are bottom-line risks if only a subset of necessary information is captured, or projects are set by the goals, assumptions, needs of a small percentage of the representative population.
The risks of change must be enumerated and understood, with policies in place to manage before any implementation begins.

Sometimes it’s less biased if an outside consultant facilitates the change. I’d be happy to coach your company to facilitate any type of change, and ensure all risks are managed, permanent solutions are implemented, and there’s no resistance. sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com

________________________

Sharon Drew Morgen March 23rd, 2026

Posted In: News

Do you ever wonder why so few prospects close when it’s obvious they need your solution? Why even after meetings (that took untold tries and so much wasted time to set) you close only 5%? The problem is simple: sales is not a prospecting tool.

Sales is a solution-placement model that provides details – features and functions – of your solution so people know how it fits with their needs. I call this the Sell Side. While vital, it doesn’t find, or facilitate buyers. In fact, selling (in and of itself) doesn’t cause buying.

It was initially developed by Dale Carnegie who, in 1937, had many good reasons to seek Others with a need: prospects were neighbors who had few other options and no ways to compare product details; their risks of change were minimal; and they had no ‘buying decision teams’ per se.

SALES DOESN’T FACILITATE THE DECISION PROCESS

While that’s all changed in the past 90 years, the sales model continues to use the same toolkit and goal: sell. But with so many providers offering similar solutions and the technology to compare options; with alternatives (workarounds) to your solution; with unknown decision makers and risks to be managed, the standard sales model doesn’t have the tool kit to facilitate the prospect’s comprehensive decision process.

The time it takes people to assemble the right decision makers, get buy-in, and figure out the elements involved in their risk of change, is the length of the sales cycle. Regardless of the need or the efficacy of the solution, a buying decision will not risk disrupting the system. Until or unless the risk of change is less than the risk of bringing in a new solution, they will not buy. A closed sale occurs when all decision makers buy in and risks are known and addressed. This is the Buy Side.

The focus on ‘selling’ puts sellers at a profound disadvantage: since it focuses on placing solutions, and uses ‘need’ as the justification, it can only succeed

with folks who have already done their internal decision making
have gotten buy-in from those involved (i.e. the Buying Decision Team)
recognize the risk of change to be minimal to their culture to bringing in something external.

And the sales model was not developed to do that.

Unfortunately, with only the solution-placement model at hand, sellers are stuck wasting their time trying – and spending vast amounts of resource – looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack, using content promotion (marketing), brand placement (advertising), seeking appointments (the decision makers don’t show up and it takes vast amounts of time to get one) and pitching to find those relatively-few folks who have done their internal change/risk management work, and are already ready, willing, and able to make a purchase.

DO YOU WANT TO SELL? OR FACILITATE BUYING?

Of course, sales is a necessary element in a buying decision. But to find and serve folks on route to a buying decision it’s necessary to use a different goal and toolkit to find and facilitate prospects through their messy and over-long decision-making process.

Right now, sellers use their product as the reason to buy, and dangle information, with price as the bait. But entering with product content and a solution-placement goal ensures there’s no way to

generate a real relationship achieved when you facilitate people quickly through their steps of their change/risk decisions;
find people on route to buying but not self-identified as prospects yet;
close more than 5% (those ultimately ready to seek an external solution)
compete against similar products, causing you to compete with price.

It’s like a construction worker with only a hammer. Without the full tool kit, it’s not possible to build a house. The hammer is necessary, but not as the only tool.

TWO BUYING PROCESSES

Obviously, with the ultimate goal to place solutions, it’s necessary to find people ready to buy them. But the sales model falls short and tries to sell to people who aren’t ready when it could be seeking people on route to becoming prospects and lead them through their change issues. They must do this anyway, and we wait – and wait, and offer lower pricing – while they do.

Right now, you’re using a ‘need’ filter to find prospects. But ‘need’ won’t find people already attempting to solve a problem internally (actual prospects) because they start off assuming they can solve their own problem and will ignore your outreach. Remember: external fixes carry the unknown baggage of risk and buy-in issues.

To avoid the pitfalls of wasted time and overlooked (actual) prospects, an additional set of goals and skills are necessary: shift your initial goal to seeking folks in the process of solving a problem your solution can solve, then facilitate them through their change/risk decision issues. I call this the Buy Side. And you’ll close triple what you’re now closing as you’ll be offering real support since all potential buyers must, must do this.

Sample

I’ve invented a decision facilitation/change management model (Buying Facilitation®) that begins by seeking folks already IN their process of trying to solve a problem (i.e. not needs based) your solution can resolve (people not yet self-identified as prospects) and facilitate them through their change/risk management, THEN sells when they’ve gotten buy-in.

Of course, during the facilitation process some people will discover that the risk of change is greater than the risk of staying the same and will never be buyers. Obviously, these folks aren’t your buyers, but you will discover this in minutes, and you will have developed a real servant-leader relationship with a chance they’ll come back later.

But ignoring these folks assures you of overlooking the 80% actual prospects that are on route to becoming prospects. It’s certainly better than filling their spam folder with your ‘reminders’ and pitches or finally getting a meeting with just one or two ‘prospects’ who won’t ever buy.

If your job is to sell, find folks on route to self-identifying as buyers – those who WILL buy instead of those who SHOULD buy. Learn Buying Facilitation® and a new set of skills (Facilitative Questions™, the 13 steps of change etc,) to first assemble and facilitate the Decision Team, then help them find and manage their risks of change to stimulate buy-in for an external solution.

Then, when everyone is ready and in agreement, sell. Just stop using sales as a prospecting tool. It doesn’t work.

________________________

Sharon Drew Morgen March 16th, 2026

Posted In: News

As an inventor of systemic decision-making models, I’ve worked with well-meaning leaders, coaches, sellers, and managers who frequently end up with inadequate decisions and difficult implementations. There are several reasons for this:

Too often incomplete information is collected because leaders define goals without including the voices of those directly involved with the problem/solution, causing incomplete data collection, time delays, resistance, or results that either can’t be implemented or maintained over time.
Sometimes faulty assumptions end up misrepresenting important data sets; risk management is frequently overlooked.
Far too often, standard decision-making processes consider and weigh options too early in the process.

I’d like to share what I think are the often-ignored initial stages of decision making that would make it possible to achieve successful, timely, risk free, and successful outcomes that are implemented easily, with buy-in; evade resistance; and are maintained over time.

STEPS OF DECISION MAKING

Stage One: Assemble or represent (in large organizations, it could be a representative of a group) those currently involved with the problem as well as those who will ‘touch’ the ultimate solution. Excluding any of these folks means

the originating problem cannot be fully defined and incomplete data is collected for goal setting;
ownership (buy-in), creativity, consensus, and a full set of solution ideas won’t be obtained;
resistance, implementation issues, and failure are possibilities;
risks won’t be recognized and addressed in a timely way;
human issues – trust, fear, ego slights – won’t be noticed until too late;
data gathering, research, weighing, and choice will be limited or unreliable;
time delays and inefficiencies become probabilities;
difficulty making accurate, long term decisions that get maintained.

Rule: Buy-in, risk management, and a complete data set is needed to accurately define a problem and set the stage for efficient implementation and maintenance. This requires leaders to begin projects by including, as part of the initial discovery and goal-setting, the full representation of the people who have been part of the problem and will touch the final solution.

Stage One concludes with a complete, accurate, stated goal that includes the values/beliefs of the system, agreement to manage any unforeseen risks that must be managed and buy-in by all who will use the final output.

Stage Two: The system and risks that underlies the problem/solution must be understood and managed by all before going forward toward resolution. Questions to be answered:

Are there alternative solutions that can be tried (workarounds) before anything new is considered?
What has prevented the problem from being resolved until now (current systems, politics, rules, relationships, money, technology)?
What must be managed to set the stage to do something different and ensure buy-in, ownership, creativity, idea generation, and transparency?
Are the full set of the risks of change understood and steps put in place to manage beforehand?
What plans are in place to resolve any obstructions?
Is the system set up for change? What systems are in place for the new solution to be created, implemented, and maintained optimally? Are all representative people included at the time of the goal definition?

Rule: Because outputs are restricted by the input, before the formal change process commences, it’s necessary to manage whatever has kept the problem from being resolved so flawed elements can be reviewed and new systems can be put in place to represent the new solution.

Stage Two concludes with an understanding of, and plans to resolve, the systems that have maintained the problem and replaced with new systems to generate, implement, and maintain the new solution.

Stage Three: Once goals have been set with all representative voices, workarounds have been found insufficient, the risks of change known and managed, and there’s buy-in from all who will touch the new solutions, standard decision-making models and processes take over.

SKILLS FOR STEPS

To accomplish these early-stage decision making steps, you’ll need these skills:

Collaborative leadership skills to ensure all voices are represented and included to avoid restricted goal-setting.
Self/Observer/Choice. The ability to move between Self (our natural, unconscious, automatic, restricted, biased state) and Observer (our on-the-ceiling, dispassionate, rational, conscious viewing of a broad set of possibilities).
Rules of trust agreed upon in group.
Understanding the Steps of Change.
Risks defined and plans to address agreed upon.
Willingness to give up early biases.
Facilitative Questions™ to ensure data gathered is unbiased.
Listening without bias. Natural listening involves distortions, deletions, and biases from our brain causing listeners to hear and interpret incoming data uniquely. Extra steps must be taken to verify accuracy.

Sample

Too many decision-making processes start by being defined by leaders who assume needs and overlook assembling a full representation of stakeholders, causing flawed data collection, no awareness of the risks of change, difficult goal setting, and difficulty implementing, not to mention the probability of resistance and struggle over time.

If you would like help ensuring these early steps get done completely, I’d love to coach you and your team through the process. sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com

___________________

Sharon Drew Morgen March 9th, 2026

Posted In: News

I recently heard a project manager in a software services company mention a ‘very important’ book on persuasion that she passed on to her team. I was curious why she liked it

S: It’s vital we persuade our clients. My team must learn to use the right words to convince them they’re wrong, and get them to change their thinking so we can do what we need to do.

SD: You convince your clients they’re wrong and want to change their thinking even if they don’t agree? And use persuasion strategies rather than maybe facilitate them through a collaborative decision making process and find ways to meld ideas and agree together?

S: They don’t want to agree and we don’t want them to collaborate. They start off wanting it their way. From years of working with these sorts of problems, we know what they need better than they do. That’s why we need to use the best persuasion techniques to change their minds.

I found the conversation unsettling.

WHAT IS PERSUASION – AND WHY IS IT DISRESPECTFUL?

When I looked up persuasion, seems Aristotle defined it with the terms Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Google defines it as an ‘act of convincing’ ‘to put his/her audience into a state of conflict’. The concept has been around a long time – probably since God persuaded the Serpent to eat the apple.

But I suggest that persuasion tactics do not cause change or facilitate others in making good decisions. Indeed, influencing and attempting to persuade others merely causes resistance: since all change occurs from beliefs, attempts by coaches, leaders, sellers, etc. to do what the practitioner prefers largely fail.

Sales strategies employ persuasion to convince people to buy; doctors and healthcare professionals employ biased stories and facts to encourage patients to act, or behave, in ways the docs consider beneficial; coaches use influencing strategies to persuade clients to make the changes the coach recommends.

But these strategies are largely ineffective: Not only will people not do what the influencer wants them to do, they’ll most likely distrust the influencer even if it turns out the influencer is accurate.

By attempting to persuade another to do what you want them to do (even if in their ‘own best interests’), you’re assuming your ideas are right for them, taking away their agency, their personal power, and usurping it for your own need to be right. Not to mention preventing a more robust, and dare I say more creative, outcome to emerge.

My definition is a bit different: persuasion is an influencer’s attempt to get another person to do what the influencer wants, regardless of its efficacy, regardless of the omission of a potentially more creative solution, and even when it goes against the person’s beliefs and wishes.

In fact, people will only change if their values are incorporated into the change. And if an outsider seeks to prompt action without agreement and values alignment, resistance and sabotage will result.

PERSUASION BREAKS SPIRITUAL LAWS

For me, trying to convince another to do what you want them to do breaks a spiritual law: everyone has the right to their own opinions, beliefs, choices, and actions, and the right to behave according to their own self-interest and values.

I believe it’s disrespectful and an act of hubris, even if I think – especially if I ‘know’! – I’m right. No one, no one, can be ‘right’ for another person. Not to mention being ‘right’ is subjective and not necessarily ‘right’.

I looked up ‘persuasion strategies’ to learn what ‘experts’ suggest. They all include finely honed tactics and subliminal convincer strategies:

* Find common ground! * Use their names often! * Prepare for arguments! * Make it seem beneficial to them! * Be confident! * Flatter them and appeal to their emotions! *Motivate action!

Ploys to manipulate, to influence at all costs.

But what’s the cost? A disgruntled, resentful buyer. A client or patient who won’t use your services again or is resentful. The loss of collaboratively thinking together that can discover an outcome that’s win/win for both and potentially even more effective over time than the influencer’s suggestions.

Regardless of the outcome, win/lose just doesn’t exist. It’s either win/win or lose/lose. If everyone doesn’t win, everyone loses. By using force instead of real power to enable the Other to discover her own route to excellence, you’re disrespecting them.

Why, I ask, would anyone want to persuade another to go beyond their own beliefs, or choices, or intentions? Maybe because it’s the only way they can get what they want? Maybe because they believe the other is harming themselves? Maybe because of a political, or scientific, argument? Whatever the case, persuasion is not only disrespectful, but ineffective.

An ‘I’m right so you should listen to me’ framework operates from win/lose, disrespect, and distrust (‘I obviously know better than you’).
Persuasion uses judgmental language based on an ‘I know/you don’t’ framework, making the other person ‘stupid’ or ‘unaware’ – certainly ‘less-than’.
Persuasion ignores another’s needs, feelings, and considerations, and offers no room for a more robust solution based on the knowledge the Other has of their own environment.
Persuasion assumes only one person understands the full fact pattern of what’s going on, thereby ignoring the Other’s knowledge and reality that can never be fully understood by an outsider. Indeed, the only person who understands the full fact pattern is the Other.

Persuasion is one-sided and makes false assumptions when influencers believe their suggests are the best options; that the internal relationships, politics, values, history, of the Other are not worthy of consideration; that the persuader ‘should’ be heeded because they’re ‘in authority’; or – worse of all – that the person isn’t capable of figuring out their own route forward.

CASE STUDY

My neighbor Maria came to my house crying one day. Her doctor had told her she was borderline diabetic and needed to eat differently. He gave her a printed list of foods to eat and foods to avoid and spent time persuading her to stop eating whatever she was eating because his list of foods was essential to her health.

She told me she’d been trying for months, lost some weight, but finally gave up and went back to her normal eating habits and gained back the weight. But she was fearful of dying from diabetes like her mother did. She’d tried to listen to her doc, she didn’t want to be sick, but she just couldn’t do what the doc requested. She asked if I could help, and I told her I’d lead her through to finding her own answers. Here was our exchange.

SDM: I know your doc wants you to change your eating habits for health reasons. I’ll ask you some questions that might lead you to ways to help you figure out how to eat healthier. I’ll start at the very beginning. Who are you?

Maria: I’m a wife, mother and grandmother.

SDM: As a wife, mother and grandmother, what are your beliefs and values?

Maria: I believe I’m responsible for feeding my family in a way that makes them happy.

SDM: What is it you’re doing now that makes them happy?

Maria: My family all live nearby. Every morning I get up early and make 150 tortillas. When they go to work and school in the morning, they stop by and I hand them out to each for their breakfast and lunch. I always make enough for me and Joe to have for breakfast. The doctor says they’re bad for me with all the lard in them and that I must stop eating them. I’ve tried to stop, but they’re a big part of my diet. When the doctor said to stop eating them, I felt he doesn’t want me to love my family.

SDM: So I hear that tortillas are the way you keep your family happy. Is there any other way you can keep your family happy by feeding them without putting your own health at risk?

Maria: Hmmmm… I could make them enchiladas. They don’t have lard, and my family loves them. And my daughter Sonia makes tortillas almost as good as mine.

Then we figured out a terrific plan. Maria invited her entire family for dinner and presented Sonia with her tortilla pan outfitted with a big red bow. She told her family she couldn’t make tortillas any more due to health reasons, but Sonia, the new “Tortilla Tia,” would make them tortillas every day just like Maria did, and she’d make them enchiladas once a week instead. Maria then proceeded to lose 15 pounds, kept the weight off, and is no longer pre-diabetic.

WHAT PERSUASION MISSES

In this case study, the doctor attempted to persuade Maria to do what he thought best with a conventional one-size-fits-all food plan. Yet with the proper questions, an intent to facilitate collaboration and discovery, he could have led her to figure out for herself how to solve the problem her own way, using her own history and values. The diet the doc gave her went against her lifestyle, but he was so intent on doing what he thought ‘best’ he overlooked Maria’s own power to figure out her own solution. Ultimately, she didn’t need persuasion, she needed a facilitated conversation that enabled Maria to discover her own best choices.

Imagine your job is to facilitate folks through their own route to Excellence.

Persuasion tactics seek to meet the needs of the persuader, without accounting for the Other’s discovery through their personal beliefs and lifestyle realities:

the questions persuaders pose are biased by their own needs and omit/ignore large swathes of potentially applicable, and certainly private, data points that are important to the Other;
listeners interpret what they hear as per historic matches in their brain circuits (see my book What? Did you really say what I think I heard?) causing a limited and biased understanding, regardless of what influencers are trying to share;
persuaders work from subjective criteria and don’t take into account the values, beliefs, lifestyles, of the Others, unwittingly causing the Other conflict that the persuader cannot know, and overlooks more creative and workable options that they could discover together.

Regardless of how ‘right’ you or your solution might be, if the Other feels like you’re pushing, or forcing, or manipulating; if you’re asking biased questions based on YOUR need to know so you can use it against them; it’s pretty hard to persuade anyone without there being resentment. Not to mention can you truly believe that YOUR way is the BEST way for another person, and they have no agency to figure out their own route?

COLLABORATIVE CONVERSATION

Here are a few tips to guide an unbiased conversation that eventually leads the Other to discovering a path forward using their own values.

Goal: your goal is to help the Other discover their own criteria and actions for change, NOT to get the Other to do what you want!
Intent: your job is to facilitate another through to their own discovery by directing them down their own trajectory of change, not toward the result the influencer seeks.
Understanding: you can never, ever, understand what’s going on for Another. Ever. But you can lead them to understand themselves through facilitated discovery.
Questions: I invented a form of question called a Facilitative Question that walks Others down the trajectory of their own self-discovery with NO bias from you. They are based on the steps people go through when deciding to change and NOT based on your need-to-know, assumptions, or curiosity. Properly formulated, they have no bias but enable bias-free discovery in a way that the Other’s system will not reject.

Instead of trying to persuade, why not try collaborative conversation and facilitated questioning so you both can discover, together, a win/win that serves you both. Instead of it being either/or, why not both/and? Why not trust Others to discover their own answers.

_____________________________

Sharon Drew Morgen March 2nd, 2026

Posted In: News

When I started up my tech company in the UK in 1983, I wanted a company that served both clients and staff with kindness, honesty and authenticity, a bit of fun, and lots of learning. I set about hiring employees that would support those values. They became the glue that held us all together.

My first job was to serve my employees so they could then serve our clients. After all, these folks would be the touch point between the people who would buy my product and the company. My employees were my first customers.

EMPLOYEE CARE

To ensure employees remained creative, loyal, and engaged, especially those in the field and who I didn’t regularly see, I called each of the 48 techies monthly to check in and held monthly meetups at a pub (Darts was my Waterloo. I think one needs to be British to win.); weekly, I sat down with the 8 managers, the receptionist (who knew EVERYTHING) and my secretary (ditto) to catch up. And my door was always open.

To keep managers inspired, I gave them an all-expense paid week off a year (besides their annual holiday) to take any course of their choosing (not work-specific). And when I noticed them lagging from working too many intense hours (it was hard to get them to take vacations!) I sent them home for a few days for some ‘mental health’ time after calling their wives (in those days in the UK, men worked, women did childcare) to keep them ‘in bed’ for a while. I even sent meals from a local restaurant. I took care of them with the same thoughtfulness and care I did my clients.

We did well. In just under 4 years, we had a $5,000,000 gross income – with no computers, no web, no email, no urls, no online anything. Just me, a phone, in-person meetings, and my wonderful team who kept clients happy and called me when they heard of a lead within the client’s workplace.

I’m certain our success came from my team: much of our growth came from happy clients giving us repeat business and referrals. We doubled our business every year. That was 40 years ago, and the company is still in business.

In the 5 years I ran the company only one person left, due to a cross-country move. I learned afterwards that most of my folks had been approached by competitors and offered double the salary, but they wouldn’t leave due to the respect and hands-on care I gave them. Plus, they found it great fun to watch me attempt to play darts every month.

HAS IT CHANGED TOO MUCH?

It seems to be different now. Money seems to be an overriding criterion and people don’t seem to matter.

A client recently told me of a colleague – a long-standing sales team member and good producer – who quit due to the disrespect she felt from her manager and COO.

I asked if she’d explained her reasons at her exit interview so the company could fix their internal issues and stop others from quitting also. Seems she was just asked to complete a survey and was not given an exit interview. And, according to my client, he and several team members are looking for jobs due to the disrespect rampant in the company.

Seems the company has no criteria around improvement, obviously committed to maintaining the status quo.

Have times changed and people have become a commodity? Currently only 50% of companies offer an exit interview, while 75% offer a survey. That leads me to wonder how many companies don’t achieve their potential due to unhappy employees or disrespectful management. I can’t understand why they’d prefer to go through the time and expense to rehire and train new employees than fix the problems that caused them.

EXIT INTERVIEWS

Obviously, exit interviews that ask hard questions (“Is there something we’re doing as a company that should be improved? That, if fixed, would have enabled you to stay?”) would offer meaningful insights that could illuminate underlying problems in the culture, employee satisfaction, and the employee lifecycle. But that’s not happening as often as it should.

I’d like to offer a few Facilitative Questions™ to help companies currently not offering exit interviews reconsider their employee practices in hopes they’ll be more aware of their responsibility around serving employees well. After all, they’ve spent time and money hiring and training folks to represent them. Might as well keep them and simultaneously run a respectful company.

What would you need to know or believe differently to be willing to add respect, communication and servant leadership to the skills necessary for management – and include these values in hiring practices?
How will you know if your managers have the skills to enable employees to thrive, be creative, and feel good about working for you? And how do you ensure they’re supervised around these skills?
What practices must you put in place to

o Have continual checks on management skills to ensure employee happiness?

o Offer management training programs to ensure respect, collaboration, communication, and kindness are part of their daily practice?

o Put required exit interviews in place led by HR professionals?

o Develop hiring practices that sort for managers who put employee respect and growth as necessary skills?

What supervision practices must you maintain to ensure management provides respect, acceptance, and communication with all employees?

I would like to think that employees aren’t considered a commodity, or that companies aren’t above self-examination or willingness to improve. Do your company a favor: make employee retention, satisfaction, respect, and creativity part of your company identity. And commit to doing exit interviews to discover your weaknesses so you can improve your bottom line.

_________________________

Sharon Drew Morgen February 16th, 2026

Posted In: News

Imagine being in a strange country where you don’t understand the mores – and aren’t aware you don’t understand them. Say, waiting for scrambled eggs to show up for breakfast in Tel Aviv (They eat salad for breakfast), or saying a friendly “Hi” to young indigenous men in the jungles of Ecuador, wondering why they then followed you in a pack (Looking into a man’s eyes means a woman is ready for sex.).

Because events get interpreted uniquely by different cultures, people like me on the Spectrum are sort of stuck: NeuroTypicals (NTs) make the rules. And from my vantage point they are crazy.

DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS

As an Aspie, my internal rules, my assumptions, my responses, and my perceptions are different from a NTs. I hear metamessages (unspoken assumptions) primarily and content secondarily; I respond according to what the Speaker intended (often unspoken) rather than what my (biased) ears interpret. I think in systems, in wholes and experience the world in patterns, not sequences and details as NTs prmarily do.

NTs seem to operate using rules that fit a norm I cannot fathom. Yet somehow, with the majority of humans on the NT scale, there’s agreement that those rules make sense. In my mind, they don’t.

Why should I reply “Fine, thanks. How are you?” when someone asks how I am? It’s a real question that should be answered with how I’m faring, right? If they don’t want to know how I am, why did they ask? And how did it get agreed that a meaningless exchange is an authentic greeting? I’ll never understand.

Why am I labeled inappropriate when I respond to something differently than ‘expected’, and sometimes an interesting add-on to what’s been said? Who says NTs are the ones who understand accurately? Maybe my references and responses are the correct way of seeing. Maybe my references and responses are a great ‘add’ to a conversation that expands the scope of the subject. Maybe my comments are worthy of curiosity.

Why am I the one being too direct? Why aren’t NTs more honest?

Why am I the one who’s deemed too intense? Why are NTs so superficial?

I recently watched my 7 year old friend throw a small toy across the room where his four younger sibs played on the floor. Stop throwing that, said Dad, afraid the little ones might get hurt. My friend again threw the toy. Stop, or I’ll take it away, said Dad. Again, the toy went across the room. Give me that. No more toy.

I said to my young friend, “Your dad was afraid the toy might hurt your brothers and sister. What were you hoping to accomplish by throwing that toy?”

“I wanted to understand how it was spinning.”

“So next time, tell Dad what you want to do and he’ll let you go outside to throw it.” Why didn’t Dad get curious? Why was removing the toy without understanding the reasoning the only option? This was a clear case of NT’s and Aspies considering different aspects of the same problem – something that happens far too frequently in my world.

THINKING IN SYSTEMS LEADS TO MORE CREATIVITY

My Aspie brain perceives a wholly different culture from the world of NTs, with different expectations, referents, assumptions, thinking systems, rules, and interpretations. My systems thinking and different understanding of what’s happening has enabled me to develop new models for conscious choice, different from the long-held biases and assumptions built into behavior change-based conventional business, personal, and healthcare models.

Indeed, with my ability to see, hear, and notice largely unconscious systems, I have devoted my life to unraveling, (de)coding, and inventing models for change in a way that gets to the unconscious systems that generate values-based decisions so change becomes easy and everyone can make congruent choices.

- I recognized that selling doesn’t cause buying and the sales model merely places solutions, overlooking the Pre-Sales change /risk management issues involved when anyone seeks to resolve a problem. I invented Buying Facilitation® 40 years ago to enable sellers to find and lead prospects through their decision making (13 stages) before selling.
- Because of the way I listen I clearly recognize the gap between what’s said and what’s heard. I developed a road map so people can hear each other without bias and wrote a book on it.

Sample

People make decisions via their unconscious mental models and habitual neural pathways. Yet influencers merely lead Others to where the influencers think they should look, rather than where in their brains Others hold their own answers. I developed a new form of question (Facilitative Questions) that facilitates others through to where their own values-based answers are stored.
I noticed that people seeking to change behaviors had trouble maintaining their changes because real change involves generating wholly new synapses/pathways. I’ve successfully trained many thousands of people to change habits and behaviors permanently via discovering, and consciously managing their unconscious brain circuitry.
The training model offers content, assuming, incorrectly, that learners will accurately hear, understand, and store the incoming knowledge. I designed Learning Facilitation, an addition to standard training that enables brains to house, retain, and understand the new knowledge.
I noticed how change agents, healthcare providers, coaches and leaders posed biased questions to promote change and modify behaviors. I developed a model that enables Others to change habits and behaviors permanently by getting into their own neural systems to make change.

Thinking in systems has it possible for me to develop models I’ve trained to 100,000 people globally. Yet I continue to be judged negatively against the norms of the NT world.

How, I wonder, does the world change unless the outliers like me instigate radical change? You can’t do that from the middle. And if more NTs were willing to be curious, look through a different lens, it wouldn’t take people like me decades to instill productive ideas.

RIGHT VS WRONG

So that brings me to my question: How do Aspies end up being the ones who are wrong or on the wrong side of normal? Why? Because my ideas, my speaking patterns, are different? Because they challenge the norm? Why isn’t that exciting? Or fun? Or interesting?

The good news about Aspies is that we’re often pretty smart. Because we think in systems and can see all aspects of something we often are the innovators, the visionaries, who notice, invent, code stuff decades before academics or scientists.

In these days of more openness and a real desire to accept minorities, to communicate and live without bias, maybe it’s time that Aspies are acknowledged as well.

Maybe when NTs hear someone say something that’s a bit off the mark, or rattle on about a topic that’s interesting albeit a bit long winded (We get SO excited by our topics!), maybe they can just say, ‘Hm. Sounds like an Aspie. I wonder what I can learn here. I wonder if I can be curious about something new.’ Then we, too, can have a voice. And just maybe we can become a welcome addition, add our two cents, and maybe make the world a better place because of our differences. Just sayin’.

_____________________________________

Sharon Drew Morgen February 9th, 2026

Posted In: Communication, News

Where does ‘common knowledge’ come from? I began wondering when writing my book on the gap between what’s said and what’s heard. I had thought I was an attentive listener and heard everything perfectly because, well, obviously, we all hear precisely what a speaker shares! Nope. Turns out we only accurately ‘hear’ 10-35% of what’s been said! My goodness! If that bit of common knowledge was wrong, what else was wrong?

With my new awareness I began keeping a list and found many common assumptions that we’ve all perpetuated. I’d like to share some – by no means a complete list – that we take for granted that have been proven untrue or at least face reasonable doubt as fail rates prevail in habit change, weight loss, implementations, selling, coaching, etc.

Sample

WHY NOT USE FAILURE AS A REASON TO CHANGE?

These erroneous norms (below) have been handed down for decades and built into many of our (business) practices. Sadly, due to their ubiquitous nature, they continue without even casting doubt (i.e. false assumptions like ‘people will buy once sellers find prospects with need’ – 95% failure; ‘habits can change permanently with behavior modification’ – 97% failure.).

Why is failure merely built-into the bottom line (hire 9x more sellers, i.e.) rather than changing assumptions? If we realize that change models achieve resistance in almost all projects, and over 70% of project fail, why not do something different and alleviate it by ensuring and managing buy-in before a project commences?

As you read these and find yourself resisting, remember: your assumptions are the norms through which you translate what’s been said and restrict your curiosity, your behaviors, your choices. We are all hampered by their universal repetition and imbedded use, following us into daily life: scientific research, college programs; healthcare, behavior change….

This article will hopefully broaden your world view, inspire further thought, or at least cause you to do some research. Or maybe just make you angry.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Behaviors are standalone events and pop up as needed.

Resistance is a natural element during change.

Selling causes buying.

People don’t consider the risk when making choices.

You can change a behavior with habit change and behavior modification.

People who are homeless got that way through mistakes they’ve made.

A reduced calorie intake maintains weight loss.

Good information will produce a new decision, cause learners to learn, people to buy, and patients to change their behaviors.

Statins are the only way to reduce cholesterol and there are no natural remedies that are more effective (Hint: Red Yeast Rice).

The toilet seat should be down.

I am speaking with the decision maker.

Choice comes from conscious decision making.

Sellers can understand what buyers need; meetings are important to the sales process.

Implementation occurs when clients are given a good solution.

Learning occurs when new information is presented.

Neuroplasticity occurs when the brain experiences new inputs.

Doctors have the answers. We will heal if we follow their suggestions.

Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

The only remedy for a bad, painful hip is a hip replacement.

Agave is healthy. Butter, ice cream, and fats are bad for you. Eggs have too much cholesterol.

Mick Jagger is the leader of the Rolling Stones.

Castor oil makes you healthy.

If we listen intentionally/carefully/attentively, we will accurately understand what’s been said.

Eye blinks are so short they don’t affect our vision.

Everyone interprets specific words the same way.

There’s such a thing as objectively rational.

The role of a coach is to impart knowledge/wisdom.

Leaders understand enough about a problem to set the goal for a project.

We can figure out what’s really going on by noticing behavioral problems.

Mind and Brain are interchangeable.

Our curiosity is infinite.

We can learn and retain new knowledge when we hear it.

Good questions elicit good, accurate answers.

Permanent, resistance-free change is possible when good information is known and practiced.

When we believe/recognize an idea/answer to be a good one, it probably is.

Intuition is not restricted.

People over 70 aren’t horny anymore.

We interpret words according to their meaning.

People will buy when they’ve understood how a specific solution will fix their problem; an appropriate solution will generate a buying decision.

If you hunch over and raise your shoulders you’ll get warm.

Voice bots and virtual receptionists can take care of customers as well as live receptionists.

Memories are accurate renditions of what occurred.

It’s possible to accurately hear what Others say.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I hope these cliches prompted some thoughts! And for being so supportive and reading this far, here two gems: a present: the amount of time football players actually physically play is 11 minutes; If you add up the time you’re functionally blind when you blink, you’ve been unsighted for 23 minutes a day. SD

__________________________

Sharon Drew Morgen January 23rd, 2026

Posted In: News

After having several conversations with a new prospect and his team in 2015 we all decided to move forward and get them trained in Buying Facilitation® so they could not only close more/faster but use the telephone for the initial prospecting, risk management, and team assembly.

I sent a contract to Joe including the agreed-upon dates and the team’s requirements. I then received an email from him saying he needed to put the program on hold for six months so his new hires could prove their value and start earning money – very different from our agreement. I called him.

“I’m confused. How can your new hires start earning money if they won’t get their training for several months? And how can they prove their value selling the mainstream way when you want them to learn to first facilitate the Buy Side (Buying Facilitation®)?”

WHO IS THE BUYER?

My prospect said that the COO (Frank) called him in when my contract came over his desk saying that if they were going to spend ‘that kind of money’ on sales training they had better have a team in place that had earned it.

Joe was both angry and embarrassed: he had thought he was the decision maker given it was his own budget, the team had agreed to the training, and his boss hadn’t exhibited any interest in sales training before this. He felt his boss didn’t trust him.

What appeared to be a ‘closed’ sale had just become a money objection from a “C” level executive who had no idea who I was, what I was offering, or how to put a value on it, and he was overriding his own Sales Director and the entire sales team. And money seemed to be his only criteria.

But I knew that money is rarely the real objection. I had to find out what was going on and see if I could facilitate the COO to a different decision.

Joe and I put our heads together and decided to have Frank call me to discuss it. We believed that if I could lead Frank through the Buying Facilitation® Method and he could experience it personally, he’d be able to decide for himself.

Sample and Purchase

I knew I’d have to handle both money and phone objections as Frank believed no business could be handled on the phone. I also had to walk an interesting line: not only was Frank superseding Joe’s authority and disrespecting him, his discomfort came from faulty assumptions: I wasn’t delivering ‘sales training’.

CASE STUDY: THERE ARE NO REAL MONEY OBJECTIONS

Below is a transcript of the actual call that employs Buying Facilitation®. It includes commentary on the specific tools I use to help Frank examine, and possibly expand, his own criteria; notice his own incongruences; trust me and trust Joe; and give the green light to the training.

As you read this, note: Buying Facilitation® uses a different set of tools than standard for sales: Meta Listening, Facilitative Questions™, Presumptive Summaries, and the sequence of unconscious decision making and change. It offers no information or pitch; and has a different goal – to facilitate people through their unconscious to their own answers.

Sellers often forget they have nothing to sell if someone has nothing to buy. And since the risk of change is one of the main factors in a buying decision, Buying Facilitation® facilitates people through their hidden risk factors as well as helps them discover their unconscious values and criteria and self-identify as buyers.

As per arrangement, Frank called. His voice was tough, crisp, and in charge.

Frank: I understand you’ve been speaking with Joe and the team about doing some training. I’m OK with that [So why are we having this conversation?]. He’s got his own budget, but with so many new folks, it’ll have to wait until they prove themselves. And if you want to have a discussion with me about it, you’ll have to come here to visit us (A three-hour drive each way.). It would probably be a good idea for us to meet anyway. I’m curious to meet someone who charges that much for a training program. [He obviously has no idea that Buying Facilitation® is original IP and I’m the inventor.]

SDM: Gosh, I hate to drive. Hmmm. How ‘bout if we meet halfway – we’ll each drive one and one half hours?

F: You want ME to drive?? [It’s ok for ME to drive??]

SDM; Oh. You hate to drive also [This puts us on equal footing,]. Hmmm. I have an idea. Since neither of us want to drive, how ‘bout if we spend a few moments on the phone and see where we stand. We might end up hating each other and there won’t be any need for either of us to drive.

F: Sounds reasonable. [I just helped him overcome his objections to using the phone AND his insistence I drive to him. He’s also ceding some control.]

SDM: I hear you are having thoughts about my prices. [I’m now taking over the conversation and starting the Buying Facilitation® process.]

F: Well, they are higher than I’ve ever heard of for sales training. But of course, if we end up getting fair value for it, it would be worth it. [But he objected before he knew that. Obviously money isn’t the issue! And he’s begun trying to sell the idea to himself. Not to mention I’m not running a sales training program.]

SDM: Given you don’t know who I am, what your folks would learn, what about my original model might be worth more than conventional training, or how to know upfront if you’d get value from it, you must be uncomfortable. [Presumptive Summary that names his objections and throws in a bit of information he wasn’t aware of.]

F: Not uncomfortable, exactly, because I trust Joe’s decision making [Really?]. But you’re correct. I’m not happy spending that kind of money for something I believe I can get cheaper. [Good for him. He’s put his cards on the table. But he assumes he understands what I’m offering without considering the possibility that maybe he doesn’t.]

SDM: So how would you know that Buying Facilitation® – the model I’ve developed that facilitates the Buy Side decision-making and will be teaching [Words chosen carefully to build in my presumed contract] Joe’s folks – offers a new set of skills that would actually give you the type of ROI that you’re seeking? [Facilitative Question™]

F: I wouldn’t. I’d just have to take Joe’s word for it. [But he already didn’t, so that’s not the real answer. He’s showing no curiosity or interest in understanding what I’m offering and doesn’t offer any opening to change his opinion. Holding his cards very close to his chest. But I’m still in control of the call.]

SDM: I wonder if there is a way that you could learn enough about Buying Facilitation® to give you comfort, get you to recognize its value, and see if it’s the sort of Model that would get your numbers up to where you want them to be. [That’s all the pitch I need.]

F: I suppose I should know something about the Model. Is there something you can send me so I can learn about it? [He’s now doing business on the phone AND being curious! Not to mention he didn’t ask me – the inventor, who is on the phone with him! – to explain anything!] Obviously if Joe is willing to use his entire training budget to bring you in, it must have value and it would probably be good for me to learn about it. [Note it took only minutes to get here.] What else would you suggest I do? [He’s trusting me! But I must take care to continue helping his decision-making process and avoid saying anything that would bias him. If I pitch now his brain will compare his initial – faulty – assumptions against what I say, and the work I’ve done so far in this conversation to enable his personal discovery would be wasted and I’d have lost the job.]

SDM: I can send you some essays, and Joe has a copy of my book you can read. I understand that before we move forward, you’ll need to figure out what my value is. [I’ve moved the conversation from ‘trusting Joe’ to the real issue: why would he be willing to pay a lot for something he perceived he could get cheaper?] How would you know that my program is worth what I’m charging?

F: I probably wouldn’t know until after the program.

SDM: Then it becomes like a Bungee jump – you won’t know if it’s going to work until after you’ve jumped. And then it’s too late.

We all laughed.

SDM: So, what would you need to know about Buying Facilitation® that would help you understand that it would give your people a new set of tools to double their numbers as you’ve required? [A small pitch that offers reasons working with me would avoid risk. Notice I’m still not trying to sell him as he still doesn’t know what he wants to buy and he’s not aware that I’m the inventor and trainer. Most inventors don’t train their inventions personally.]

F: You’re saying that it’s a different model from sales? That’s interesting. [I hadn’t said that, but my Facilitative Question™ implied it.] I guess if we kept using the same selling model we’d keep getting the same results. [He’s selling himself now.] Different from sales, and yet it will close more. Hmm. Will I be able understand the Model from what I’m going to read? [I was dying to give a pitch somewhere in here, but Frank never asked me to explain anything. All of his learning criteria were based on reading something, not hearing something.]

SDM: Correct. Just to sum this up: you’d like to understand the Model and how it’s different from sales, how it will give you the results you require, and who I am.

F: You’re right. But I bet Joe did his homework already and has this under control. [Seems he’s sold himself and has alleviated his risk.] Besides, it seems the reps want to learn from you. [His level of trust was now pretty high for both me, Joe, and the team. And notice he’s now sold himself… and I’ve given him no pitch!]

SDM: I think we all hope you’re right.

We all laughed again.

SDM: What would need to happen for you to get comfortable enough for us to move forward in the time frame that best suits your company given the revenue increases you’re seeking for next year? [Notice I keep facilitating him toward his own unconscious decision making so his fears of risk are alleviated. And I’m not biasing his response – he can still respond that he wants to read the material and meet me before going forward.]

F: Tell you what. I’ll read whatever you send me. An article would be great. If it’s as good as I assume it must be for Joe to go out on a limb like this, given that he’s had to do some hard thinking to figure out how to meet the objectives I’ve given him, and that the team is excited to learn from you, I’ll give Joe a tacit agreement to move forward. [It seems I’ve proven myself, and the money objection is gone. Note: he still doesn’t know what Buying Facilitation® is, what the values is, or who I am! And I haven’t sold a thing, although I’ll pitch when we meet.] But I’d like to call you with questions if you don’t mind. And, when we’re ready to sign the contract, let’s do it over lunch – my treat – and we’ll each drive and meet halfway.

Joe and I burst out laughing. After a moment Frank starting laughing too. Frank had figured out his own solution, sold himself, trusted both me and Joe, used the phone for business, and had no more objections. He even was willing to drive halfway to buy me lunch!

F: I suppose you just used the model on me, right?? You haven’t sold me a thing – no pitch, no presentation. You just helped me decide how to choose you and manage my own objections. [Smart man.]

I hope this is what you’re going to teach my folks as I see how it will shorten the sales cycle and capture folks who don’t think they need to buy anything. Not only did I not want to sign the contract when I began, I didn’t believe it was possible to use the phone for anything more than getting an appointment. Thanks, Sharon-Drew. I’m excited. I can’t wait to meet you. And I can see this model isn’t only for sales, and more of us in the company could learn your model for difficult conversations with each other and with clients.

MONEY OBJECTIONS

Objections happen only when someone’s criteria are being pushed against their will; money objections occur when folks don’t understand value, or as a stop gap to change (i.e. not about money itself). And explaining value by pitching what you believe needs to be pitched, handling objections the way you think they should be handled, or presenting the information you believe needs to be presented, only presents the seller’s biased viewpoint doesn’t help.

When two things appear equal, the only differential is money. When value is understood, money is not the criteria.

Of course, I still needed the sales model, but only later, after he’d already figured out his own criteria. In this conversation, I did several things to help him decide to buy:

Frank was smart. He figured it out himself as I guided him through his unconscious concerns. I didn’t pitch, present or propose. I didn’t have to handle objections or prove my value. I used the phone to help him make a six-figure decision and didn’t have to meet him in person to do so. All I did was lead him through his own decision criteria to his own best decision.
Frank’s fear of spending ‘that kind of money’ on something he thought should cost ‘a lot less’ (He was comparing me against traditional sales programs which do, indeed, cost a lot less than bringing in the inventor of original IP) and over-rode his trust in a senior executive;
Because Frank couldn’t say that he didn’t trust Joe, he used the excuse of money and proven value – but then they’d be using the same sales skills they used when they weren’t getting the success he wanted;
Frank hated doing business on the phone and didn’t understand why Joe’s team would be learning how to prospect using the phone;
Frank had no idea who I was and assumed his comparison of the pricing of Buying Facilitation® with sales (different pricing structure), he wouldn’t be able to figure out the program’s value. There was a good chance he wouldn’t have let the training go forward.

If you go back to the conversation, you’ll note I kept enabling Frank to figure out for himself how to choose me and my material. And the sequencing and wording of my Presumptive Summaries and Facilitative Questions™, both enabled by me listening for systems and patterns instead of content, led him to understand that what I was selling would meet his criteria. Plus I’d proven my value as a Partner because I respected him.

This, btw, is the difference between facilitating the Buy Side and sales. I would still have to ‘sell’ Frank my training over lunch, but I wouldn’t need to offer as much content or manage objections.

Also it was a very ‘pushy’ dialogue. The conversation might appear at first glance to be soft, but indeed it was very controlled and relentless: I kept leading him into making the decisions he needed to make and avoided any pitch or contradiction to his objections.

At no point did I defend my price or change it. Note that if I started pitching product and defending price, the conversation wouldn’t have gotten very far. Price wasn’t the issue: it was his discomfort not knowing how to spend ‘that sort of money’ for something that was new to him.

FRANK MADE HIS OWN DECISIONS

In conclusion: as I led Frank through his own issues, he figured it out himself. I didn’t pitch, present or propose. I didn’t have to handle objections or prove my value. I used Buying Facilitation® on the phone to help him make a six figure decision that he was initially opposed to: He had to recognize his own criteria and make a judgment call as to whether or not it was being met.

Remember: Frank’s criteria were not only hidden from me, but initially hidden from him! Even if I understood what was going on it wouldn’t have mattered. HE needed to understand for himself. And he did. And I didn’t sell a thing. All I did was lead him through his own decision criteria to his own best decision.

I believe that before we sell – the Sell Side, based on placing solutions by finding folks with ‘need’ and introducing relevant product details – we must facilitate buyers through to their own best decisions, using their own criteria, and the internal, unique decision criteria that outsiders can never understand – the Buy Side.

Selling doesn’t cause buying. But it’s possible to facilitate prospects through their change management, risk management, buy-in, and unique cultural impediments, we can position our product as their own solution. It’s ethical, based on win-win, truly supportive of a collaborative Partnership, and uses no manipulation or influencing strategies. Ultimately, it trusts that the Buyer will come up with his/her own best answers, and if me and my product fit into the Buyer’s solution, I’ll be chosen.

Would you rather sell? Or have someone buy. If you wish to learn Buying Facilitation®, please contact me: sharondrew@sharondrewmorgen.com

_______________________

Sharon Drew Morgen January 19th, 2026

Posted In: News

Thinking in Systems: the difference between sequential thinking and systems thinking, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

Successful Fundraising: beyond persuasion, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

Risk: the essential, yet largely overlooked, element in successful change, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

Sales Is Not A Prospecting Tool, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

Overlooked Steps in Decision Making: how to avoid resistance and encourage buy-in, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

Stop Trying to Persuade; Facilitate Decision Making Instead, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

The Importance of Exit Interviews: a way to maintain excellence, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

How Aspies Think, Why We Do Weird Stuff, and Why We’re Important

Common Knowledge and Perceived Wisdom are Often Inaccurate: a list of common, incorrect assumptions we all unwittingly perpetuate, by Sharon-Drew Morgen

It’s Never About the Money: a case study on facilitating (buying) decisions