Towards or away from: the two directions of every decision

People decide from two directions: towards something or away from something. If you hear both, you no longer have to sell.

A managing director is sitting with his bank’s corporate relationship manager. He says: “We want to set up a second production line next year.” The relationship manager hears a goal, and he has a solution for it. Investment loan, term, conditions, carefully prepared, technically flawless.

The conversation ends on friendly terms. And then nothing happens.

Not because the offer was poor. But because the decision lay somewhere else. The managing director wanted the second line, yes. But even more, there was one thing he never wanted to go through again: a financing that, like last time, hangs in approval for three months while the supplier waits for the down payment. He said nothing about that. And nobody asked.

The example is constructed. The pattern behind it I know from the financial sector, where I have worked since 1990 – on both sides of the table.

Two directions, one decision

Every decision has a direction in which it pulls. One is towards: a goal, a gain, a state you want to reach. Growth, a new market, a better margin. The other is away from: something you want to avoid or leave behind. The risk, the trouble, the repetition of a bad experience.

The distinction is not new. In neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) it has been described since the late 1970s as a so-called meta-programme, and in sales training it is standard material. You do not have to follow NLP in everything – its scientific basis is disputed – to find the core useful.

Because the core matches one of the most solid findings of decision research: Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky showed that losses generally weigh more heavily than gains of the same size. Someone who wants to avoid something is often more determined than someone who would like to achieve something.

For the conversation, this means: towards is usually what gets said. Away from is often what decides.

What lies behind both directions is described in my thinking model ZPW-SAN: Why decision-makers hesitate – on one side goals, plans, wishes, on the other worries, fears, distress. And why away from grows stronger the more responsibility someone carries.

How to recognise the direction

The direction lies in the language. If you listen closely, you need no model for it, only attention.

Towards sounds like this:

• “We want to …”, “Our goal is …”
• “More market share”, “grow faster”, “get better”
• Pictures of a future state

Away from sounds like this:

• “Never again …”, “Not one more time …”
• “Last time …”, “The problem is …”
• Memories of something that went wrong

Hardly anyone thinks purely in one direction. But in a specific decision, one of them usually prevails. And the second often lies beneath the surface, because people would rather talk about goals than about scars.

Why advisory conversations often hear only one direction

Many sales organisations are built for towards. Products are described by their benefits, conversation guides lead from need to solution, targets reward the closed deal. That is not wrong. It is just half of it.

A relationship manager who has learned to argue benefits mainly hears goals. As soon as he has found one, he presents. That feels competent, and it is – it just misses the decision when the customer is in truth running away from something.

Conversely, there are conversations made up of nothing but away from: risks, safeguards, what-ifs. That moves nothing either, if the customer actually wants to move forward and is looking for a partner who shares the goal.

The best solution goes nowhere if it answers the wrong direction.

Three questions that make both directions audible

I have made a habit of asking three questions in first conversations before I propose anything:

1. What do you want to achieve? That is the question about towards. It is asked almost every time.
2. What do you on no account want to go through again? That is the question about away from. In my experience it is the one asked least often. And often the conversation turns at exactly this point – from presenting to listening.
3. How would you know it had worked? This question connects both directions and makes the result verifiable.

The second question takes some courage, because it leads into uncomfortable territory. But it shows the other person that you are interested not only in their goal, but in their situation. That builds trust – and trust sells better than any argument.

What this means for sales leadership

For sales managers, this is not a question of individual relationship managers’ conversation technique. It is a question of steering.

• Conversation guides: Do they contain only questions about needs and benefits, or also the question of what is to be avoided?
• Coaching: In accompanied conversations, does anyone look only at the close, or also at whether the relationship manager heard both directions?
• Key figures: If you measure only closed deals, you reward quick presenting. If you also look at follow-on business and referrals, you reward listening.

Where your sales organisation stands here, you can assess yourself in four minutes: the sales check uses twenty statements to ask about steering, leadership and execution – no registration. How I support sales organisations in this is described on the Sales Force Effectiveness page.

The same pattern in transformation

This does not only apply in customer conversations. I come across the same pattern in change programmes. The target picture is explained at length: where the organisation wants to go, what is supposed to get better. The workforce often only starts to move once it becomes clear what can no longer stay, and why.

If you communicate a transformation only through towards, you get agreement in the workshop and standstill in day-to-day business. If you talk only about away from, you create fear instead of direction. Change takes effect when both directions have been spoken out. More on this in the article Why transformations fail: 7 patterns you can spot early.

If you hear both, you no longer have to sell

Selling in the bad sense means talking someone into something they do not want. That becomes unnecessary once you have understood where someone wants to go and what they want to get away from. Then the solution is no longer persuasion, but an answer.

That is exactly how my first conversations are structured. Thirty minutes in which you talk first and I listen – for both directions. At the end, you know where you stand.