The Conditioning of Man

Most of the “skills” we possess are merely patterns of behavior to which we have intentionally conditioned ourselves.   We learn that a given behavior is connected to a given outcome, and this becomes part of our mental programming.  It is not always intentional: connections are formed based on experiences, whether or not we mean to make associations, they are made.

There was an experiment (Razran) in which a group of students was treated to a series of luncheons.  For the test group, the same music was played each time.   Later, the students were asked to evaluate a number of pieces of music and indicate what the music made them think of – naturally, the group associated the music that had been played at the luncheons with food or eating.  It is because the two coincided that the connection was made, even though there was no intent or overt awareness.

However, it’s noted that conditioned reflexes are a temporary adjustment that requires reinforcement.   Once Pavlov’s dog had been conditioned to associate a bell and food, it would salivate at the sound of the bell even if no food was presented.  But over time if the bell was sounded and no food was presented, the association would in time be broken.   It is not a matter of a coincidence always/never occurring, but an assessment of the probability of a coincidence.   While it is highly unlikely that dogs can consciously calculate probabilities, they may be unconsciously estimated according to the  recentness, frequency, and intensity of the association and related stimuli.

In more complex behavior patterns, a person develops skill at a task my learning a pattern of activities and behaviors that lead to success.   He continues to follow the same pattern in the past, expecting the same outcome in the future.   If he fails to receive that outcome, he tries the same activity again, assuming he did something wrong.   It takes a few attempts for it to dawn on him that the procedure that worked in the past is no longer working (under new conditions) and to consider a different approach to achieving his goals.  The more complex the pattern or the more protracted the process, the more difficult it is for the individual will recognize the connection, hence it is harder to train and harder to break training for complex tasks.

And so, conditioned behavior is part of human life, and is often used in obvious and beneficial ways.   We develop good habits and learn skills by conditioning ourselves – and when we raise a child, teach a student, or train an employee we are leveraging the exact same mechanisms to condition them.   It is even being leveraged when we attempt to learn something by trial and error: the natural consequences of action being the reward or punishment that reinforces or discourages behavioral patterns.

On an ethical note, there is some argument to be made whether this conditioning should be considered education or brainwashing – but the difference is entirely political: it depends on whether we agree to the end to which these techniques are used.  Parents and teachers “trick” children into developing good habits and the “treatment” given by therapists can be intentionally done without informing the patient of their intentions. 

Haphazard Training

The unfortunate truth is that practices in teaching workmen skills is very haphazard.   Schools teach students the skills they might need in an abstract form, often buy rote and with little to no practical application.   When a new employee is hired he is sent to the shop with little instruction, expected to observe and figure out the job with little guidance.

This is even more so of the knowledge workers than laborers.  An individual who is meant to fuel an engine is shown how to shovel fuel into the boiler, but one who is meant to sell a product is simply told to “go sell” without any instruction.   It is to his credit that, by some haphazard process, workers can teach themselves to do a task with some level of proficiency – but this ability is too much relied upon by the vast majority of employers.

For employers, this leads to employee turnover. Employees who might have become competent with instruction are unable to figure things out on their own and leave in frustration, or are dismissed for being less productive than needed.   As such a person may learn a piece of the job in one shop, another piece in another shop, and over the course of several years come to develop competency in his trade.

Learning by experience means learning by mistakes and successes – which carries with it the necessity of making mistakes, and some of them quite serious.  “The burnt child avoids the fire” summarizes the issue of haphazard learning: it would be better if the child were taught to avoid the fire without getting burned.

This is not merely a theoretical consideration of what might happen – looking at the high turnover rate in businesses in general, and certain industries and positions specifically, it is a widespread problem.

Knowledge and Motivation

I've seen the same basic analysis done in three different topics I often read about (leadership, training, and selling) and am presently struggling to piece it all together, so what lies ahead may be fractured and highly speculative, but here it is ... when influencing human behavior to whatever end, an important consideration is the level of knowledge and motivation the subject brings to the process. If your strategy does not account for these factors, and account for it accurately, it is doomed from the start.

Knowledge

Knowledge pertains to the information a person has about a given subject and the certainty that they feel in that knowledge. There is some disagreement over whether it is important for that knowledge to be valid, though "validity" tends to become subjective beyond the basic observable facts, and it seems reasonable to make some distinction between a person who has a head full of disinformation versus a person who has valid information.

Perhaps this would lead to a different analysis, but for the present, it's neither here nor there. The correctness or incorrectness of knowledge is often highly subjective: one person accepts as true what another dismisses as false. The important thing in this consideration is whether their knowledge, fact or fallacy, is in line with your own knowledge.

A misinformed person is worse, and more dangerous, than a completely uninformed person. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - to which I would add "... good intentions of half-witted and misinformed people." But whether a person is ignorant or misinformed, the task of a person who means to exert influence requires considering the degree to which the subject shares knowledge with the influencer.

On the basis of knowledge alone, exerting influence or introducing new information requires a careful consideration of the knowledge the subject has. Presume that the subject has more knowledge than he does, and you may fail to provide adequate direction to undertake the desired course of action. Presume that the subject has less that he does, and he will be annoyed and offended by your approach, and in a less-than-compliant state of mind.

Motivation

Motivation pertains to the intrinsic desire of a person to undertake an action. In general, it pertains to the way in which he believes that undertaking a given action will serve his personal interests. Even when a person is, or claims to be, acting for the benefit of others, the emotional/esteem reward of being an agent that delivers the benefit to another person is still the personal benefit of the agent himself.

As with knowledge, motivation has its negative side: a person may be highly motivated to refrain from undertaking an action that someone else may wish to influence them to undertake. The suggestion may be undesirable in itself, or given that there are limited resources, the subject may acknowledge the value of the action but feel that their time and money is better spent on other things.

On the basis of motivation alone, gauging the subject's level of enthusiasm is also a critical element of influence. Presume a person to be motivated when they are not, do nothing to motivate them, and they will remain inert. Presume a person to be unmotivated when they are motivated, and the effort you put into motivating them is unnecessary and frustrating, as your attempt to motivate them is actually impeding them from taking immediate action.

High Knowledge, High Motivation (HKHM)

Considering the two factors together: influencing a person who has high knowledge and high motivation is not merely easy - it's altogether unnecessary. Such a person knows what he wants to do and very much wants to do it, and your task as an influencer is moot. The best thing you can do is shut up and step aside and let them do what you were going to attempt to influence them into doing in the first place.

Arguably, you can act as a facilitator: help them to do it or remove any obstacles that may be in their path. However, this can be counterproductive if you are too proactive. A knowledgeable and motivated individual will find their own path and circumvent obstacles to their goal, and if any well-meaning action you undertake to facilitate ends up creating an impediment, you're doing more harm than good to their cause and your own.

High Knowledge, Low Motivation (HKLM)

By contrast, the subject with a high level of knowledge and low motivation is likely the hardest person to lead, teach, or sell. They feel, right or wrong, that they are very well aware of the potential benefits of taking an action, but do not believe the benefits to be worth the cost and effort of undertaking it. And as such, they remain stubbornly resolved to refuse.

The approach to dealing with HKLM subjects generally assaults their knowledge: convince them that they are wrong and what they know is false, replacing their invalid knowledge with valid knowledge, and it is presumed they will then find the motivation to undertake the desired action (now that it is, indeed, desirable). This is a difficult proposition, as many people are very guarded of their beliefs and any suggestion they may be incorrect will be met with resistance.

However, this approach is based on the premise that the subject's knowledge is, in fact, wrong. Perhaps an important question to ask, even before considering the task of changing their perception, is whether your own perception (or the one you wish to instill in them) is correct. There are many instances where a given product is legitimately of no value to a given customer and it would be unethical to attempt to convince them otherwise.

Perhaps the best approach, in this instance, is not to approach them at all - to be watchful for a time at which their attitude changes or, gently and in small doses, wean them away from the contrarian point of view.   Even so, it may in some instances be impossible (or at the very least, have an abysmal ROI) to do so.

Low Knowledge, Low Motivation (LKLM)

At the opposite end of both spectrums, the subject who has low knowledge and low motivation requires a great deal of effort to influence. This is a common quandary for salesmen of unwanted products, but it's actually a great deal easier to address than the previous category because it deals with awareness.

That is to say that the subject is not resistant to a proposition because he (feels that he) knows it to be undesirable as would the HKLM subject, merely that he does not know why it should be desirable. If given the knowledge, he may recognize the value and his motivation will be kindled.

This is not an instantaneous solution because the tactic works only one of the vectors, and placing too much emphasis on knowledge can shift this individual into the HKLM category, which is simply dreadful. The knowledge that is imparted cannot be information for information's sake, but tied to a purpose, the benefit to the personal interest of the subject.

This seems to be the approach that most personal selling takes: it is assumed that a person will be amenable to buying a product if you provide information and connect it to personal interests. Both are necessary to gaining compliance, but chances are that one or the other may not be necessary to a given customer who is already knowledgeable or motivated.

Low Knowledge, High Motivation (LKHM)

The LKHM subject seems a paradox - how would a person have a high level of motivation to undertake an action that he does not understand? However, it's quite common. Consider the behavior of most teenagers and young adults, who are strongly motivated towards things they do not understand (sexuality being the most obvious example). Consider the behavior of an adult who has only a vague notion of what to do about a need he does not understand (medical care or insurance). It's not as rare as it might seem.

Unlike the HKHM subject, the LKHM cannot be left alone to act on his own because he does not know what to do. He is in a state in which assistance is necessary and very much appreciated, and it is this kind of person who will be eagerly malleable by a leader, teacher, or salesman who offers assistance in discovering a solution he does not understand to a problem he is keenly aware of.

Success in motivation to the immediate action is unnecessary - this individual is already highly motivated - but should not be done with reckless abandon because of after-action remorse. If you consider immediate success only, it's simple to con the LKHM subject into doing whatever you suggest - but if you are seeking to have an ongoing relationship with them, you must cautiously refrain from encouraging them to do things that will be more harmful than helpful in the long run: the subject will eventually reflect on the encounter, and will be filled with hostility and resentment to an influencer who took advantage.

Caveat

Finally, a caveat: I'm not sure if this schematization is quite right. In mulling over the four categories, there is a lot of interplay between knowledge and motivation, and it occurs to me that knowledge might be seen as a component of motivation rather than a separate factor. It could be that the terms are not as well defined as they ought to be, or a closer analysis of the phenomena could reveal that they are entirely correlated. However, it seems for the present to be sensible.

Phases of Customer Support

I've been studying methods for training employees, and it's occurred to me that there are a striking number of parallels between the way in which a new employee settles into his role in the workplace and the way in which a new customer settles into a long-term relationship with a vendor.   I'm not sure I've got it quite worked out, so this is very early thinking on this topic and likely needs further refinement:

The Phases of Learning

The material I've been reading has focused on a model that defines four phases of learning.   It's widely used, and there isn't a reliable indication of the original source, but the various sources I've seen generally align to suggest that a person who is learning goes through four phases:

1. Unconscious incompetence - The trainee doesn't know what he needs to learn in order to be successful, and experiences a great deal of confusion and frustration.
2. Conscious incompetence - The trainee has a sense of what he needs to learn to do, but has not yet learned it and cannot do it, and begins to learn parts of the task.
3. Conscious competence - The trainee has learned all the things he needs to know and applies them, but a great deal of conscious and meticulous effort.
4. Unconscious competence - The trainee knows all the things he needs to know and applies the effortlessly - the task has become "second nature" to him and training can be considered complete.

In terns of training employees, a trainer can be more effective at training by having an awareness of the trainee's mental state and adapting his approach to accommodate it: for example, a trainee in the "unconscious incompetence" phase experiences a great deal of confusion and frustration and needs intensive support, both functionally (telling them what they need to know) and attitudinally (helping them cope with their frustration).   A trainer is less effective at training if he withholds the kinds of support that are needed at a particular phase, or provides the wrong kind of support at any given time.

It seems to me that the same process is followed by a customer when entering into a relationship with a supplier.  In a very literal sense, they are learning how to interact with the supplier to get what they want, as well as learning how to interact with the product or services provided in order to get the benefit/value they wished to obtain from it.

Unconscious Incompetence

The unconscious incompetence phase is characterized by a customer who doesn't know what he needs to learn in order to be successful.   It's likely true that this phase may have two steps - the first of which is a period in which the customer does not have a sense of what it means to be successful at all and may not consider success to be worth the effort, and a second in which he has the notion of success and a desire to be successful, but does not know quite how to go about it.

The first step is shortcut in a training situation because it is assumed that the trainee understands the value he will obtain from the training.  Especially in employment situations, the fear and uncertainty is overshadowed because he is under duress: most employers have an extended "probationary period"  that constitutes an implicit threat of termination to the employee, and that threat is highly effective in motivating them to overcome their uncertainty and frustration.

When it comes to customers, suppliers generally cannot leverage the ability to threaten them - though some have leveraged the notion of an implicit third-party threat to scare the customer into engaging with them: promotional messaging communicates the harm a person will suffer, or at least the benefits that they will not receive, if they fail to engage with the vendor.   Consider marketing messages sent by firms to sell insurance, home security systems, preventative healthcare, and the like.

The second step in this phase is an orientation period: the customer is presumed to be interested in engaging, but is not sure what engagement entails: what will he be required to do?    By giving him the sense of what is to come, a supplier can provide a clear path to success and make the task seem surmountable.   The supplier must provide a great deal of functional support (informing the customer of what needs to be done) as well as emotional support (assuring them they are capable of doing it, and encouraging them to start the process).

Conscious Incompetence

In this phase, the customer has a clear understanding of the big picture and each step in the procedure, but still has uncertainty about how to perform each step.   It seems to me to be very similar in nature to the previous step, just at a more granular level.

That is to say that the customer may perceive the benefits he can obtain by purchasing a product and have an interest in obtaining those benefits.   He is likewise aware of a specific task he must perform in order to get through the process, but does not know how to get through it.  He may not know how to complete a given step at all (place an order) or he may have a sense of what the step entails but get hung up on a granular detail (specify the color he wants).

An engaged customer might be inclined to ask questions that will help a vendor guide him through a specific task.  How do I place an order?  At what point in the process do I give you my credit card number?   How do I tell you what size I need?   Serving the engaged customer is relatively easy: the seller simply waits for a question to be asked, and then answer it.

However, a customer might not be fully engaged, and may still have difficulty verbalizing the concerns he has.   This seems less likely at this point, as the customer is engaged in a process he understands and needs to know how to do something that is relatively simple, but it can't be taken for granted.  For example, the metrics on a Web site might indicate that customers tend to exist an ordering flow when they encounter an obtuse question, rather than searching for information that will guide them to answer it.

My sense is that this is a difficult phase for the vendor.  If the vendor is too passive and waits for the customer to ask a question before providing information, he takes the risk that the customer will bail out rather than soldier on.   If the vendor is too aggressive and is constantly providing information that the customer does not need, the customer may feel hectored and lose interest in proceeding.

Conscious Competence

In this phase of learning, a trainee knows what he needs to do to succeed, but does so slowly and in a very meticulous manner.   He feels that he is competent, but has a great deal of self-doubt and the slow pace at which he proceeds reflects a degree of uncertainty in his own capabilities.

This seems to me to be identical to the "engaged customer" in the previous step - a person who has a sense of what they are doing but pauses.   It seems likely that this overlap is inevitable: even if a task is completely new to a person, there are likely parts he does not need any help with (he may never have filled out an order form for your product, but he doesn't need you to tell him how to enter the quantity) and even if a task is unfamiliar to a person, there will be parts in which his uncertainty gets the better of him, or for which his memory fails him, and he will need a reminder.

In any case, a customer who is in the conscious competence phase likely does not need much support from the vendor - and would be particularly resentful of a seller who constantly interposes himself to tell the customer how to do things that he already knows what to do.   And as mentioned, passive support is likely the best approach: to wait for the customer to ask a question before providing information.

It may not be particularly difficult, but it is delicate, to passively observe a person perform a task in a slow and deliberate manner, seeming to be uncertain of himself, without inflicting unneeded and unwanted instruction.

Unconscious Competence

The final phase of learning occurs when the trainee has the knowledge and the confidence to proceed, and performs tasks as if they are second nature.   Arguably, this isn't part of the learning process at all, but the state at which the learning process has been complete - the person is no longer "a trainee" but is "trained" and competent to proceed without the assistance or guidance of an instructor.

In terms of customer service, this would be analogous to the "regular customer" who knows what he wants and how to get about getting it, and seeks to do so with minimum of hassle and interruption.  Generally speaking, the most appropriate way for a vendor to interact with a customer in the unconscious competence phases is "hands off."   They know what they are doing, are intent on doing it, and any interference comes at the risk of offending or annoying them.

However, some firms see this phase as an opportunity to upsell and cross-sell: to suggest that the customer who is intent on making a purchase either select a different item or add other items to their order.   This is a delicate proposition, to be approached with care and reluctance, because there is a high chance (100% in fact) that the intrusion is unnecessary, and a very low chance that the interaction will have a positive effect on the consumer's behavior.

It is also a reason that firms should be reluctant to make changes to their processes - or where change is necessary, to understand the impact it will have on a customer and  revisit the level of support that is provided.  In effect, changing the order form for a product is jarring to a customer because he is proceeding on his unconscious competence.  When he encounters a change, he is jolted back from unconsciousness into consciousness; and when he doesn't immediately understand the change, he is likewise jolted from competence to incompetence.

It's a bit distressing how often companies will inflict an unannounced change upon customers under the assumption that they will know what to do instinctively, or will soldier through it in any case.   The potential for damage, and the need to proceed with extreme caution, should be evident, as reflected by the number of customers who change providers because the firm they had done business with for years changed the way they do business.

It seems to me that the level of discomfort that arises when a once-familiar procedure suddenly changes is likely higher than that which arises when a person is doing something for the first time and expects there to be uncertainty.   But likely, this is getting off track.

***

Again, these are early notes and considerations and there are likely some flaws or holes in them.

Chiefly, it occurs to me that the learning process is most applicable to complex products and relationships.   If you're selling soda pop out of a vending machine, the learning process isn't as complex - but I'd suggest that it is still present in a highly abbreviated form.

In any case, it's likely well worth considering in the context of customer experience - to consider the processes by which a customer is engaged and their mental state during each phase of engagement as a means to discover opportunities for improvement.

Why E-Learning Sucks

I originally started this off as a post to summarize a book(let) I recently read on the topic of Mobile Learning - but immediately went off on a rant that took me in an entirely different direction: the egregious quality of e-learning. While I think it's great that instructional designers are excited about using the next generation of information technology (mobile), they have demonstrated profound incompetence in using the current generation (Internet), and never did make effective use of the last generation (computer-based training), so my expectations are very low.

I can likely omit a description of the hideous experience of training in the digital channels, because anyone who has taken a computer-based training module or Internet course has likely been deeply disappointed by an experience that seemed a frustrating waste of time that taught them very little. The average training module is little more than a forced march through poorly-organized information, in a slide-show presentation interrupted periodically by a few hokey animations to make it seem "fun" and a quiz at the end whose answers are so blatantly obvious that it can be passed without having paid any attention at all to the material.

And while the author of the booklet concedes, at times, that digital training leaves much to be desired, and makes a few suggestions as to how it can be leveraged more successfully, the most interesting parts of the book are the editorial passages that seek to lay the blame on anyone but the instructional designer for the sorry state of things - and with good reason: there's ample blame to go around:

The Sponsor

The sponsor bears much of the blame for the poor quality of digital learning - because he pays for it, gives it direction, and ultimately signs off on it. As such, the chief problem with digital courses is a sponsor who simply does not care, or cares too much about the wrong things, such as wanting the greatest benefit for the least cost.

Arguably, the sponsor is handed the task by an organization that provides him with inadequate resources to accomplish the task, and he must do the best that he can. And in many instances, training is intentionally a token effort - the company is required by law to inform its employees of something, or it can get a break on its insurance premium if it provides training to its people. It is merely seeking to meet a requirement to deliver training, to prove to another party that its people have taken training, and is not at all concerned whether it is effective.

The Student

Students also bear part of the blame for the failure of learning experiences - as it's entirely impossible, whatever the enthusiasm or resources of the instructor, to teach anything to anyone who does not want to learn. This is not unique to the digital channel, but the poor use of the digital channel has exacerbated the problem greatly. When presented with a learning opportunity in the workplace, the attitude is generally dreary - "I have to take a class" - and it is seen as an ordeal that will have to be endured but will ultimately yield little benefit. Some have enthusiasm about live training events, but very few show the same enthusiasm about a computer-based training module.

Again, the student can pass along the blame, as their negative attitude at the prospect of a new opportunity stems from their negative experience of similar situations - though I have seen situations in which the trainees at a course reversed their negative attitude within the first few minutes of a (live) class where the instructor was especially skilled in engaging them in the subject, that instructor must overcome the misdeeds of all the ones before him who failed to do the same.

The same burden is laden upon any "opportunity" to take digital training - poor experience in the past creates low expectations of the future - and it's likely more difficult to overcome than in an interactive situation, where the instructor can read and respond to the general mood of the student body. Because a pre-programmed course is static, it does not adapt itself to the level of interest of the student - theoretically, it should be possible to do so, but I've never seen it done.

The Programmer

The author lays a heavy blame on the technical staff who program interactive training experiences, and again with some validity: a good developer, one who seeks to meet or exceed expectations apply his skills to deliver better than what is required, is very rare. Many developers are only marginally competent in their core skills, at their attitude seems to be one of refusal and resistance to any challenge that takes them out of their comfort zone - they prefer to code what is easy to code, and balk when faced with a problem that requires them to invest much thought or effort in discovery or innovation.

The problem is further compounded when vendors are used to do programming work, which is commonplace. Vendors are in the habit of low-balling bids to land a contract - and when they have won a project, they operate much as any other business: to seek the greatest revenue at the least expense. Since "expense" is the time that their staff devote to doing a task, they seek to do it as quickly as possible to maximize their margin - and so long as it meets the (poorly) documented requirements of the contract, they see no reason to deliver one iota more.

The Instructional Designer

The author carefully avoids blaming the instructional designer, likely because it is the author's own chosen profession, as well as the business of the trade association that sponsored the booklet. So it's likely that if there was ever any intent to share any burden of the blame, it was quickly squelched.

But in my experience, instructional designers are guilty of the very same failures as they lay on the programmers: they lack competence (which is why most online courses are poorly organized and conceived) and are unmotivated to do anything that is unfamiliar (which is why the training modules resemble slide presentations). And when a "professional" is engaged as a contractor, they fall into the same mindset of profit maximization by delivering the very least possible.

The instructional designer can lay the blame on the other parties, mentioned above, and is likely justified in doing so if they interfered in the process of instructional design - put constraints on what the designer is permitted to do, or failed to deliver what was designed. I have the sense that this is often the case, but I also suspect that in a great many cases, the designer was not constrained and their design was faithfully executed, and they are merely seeking in arrears to lay the blame on someone else for their own poor work.

***

All things considered, I don't share the author's enthusiasm for the mobile delivery method. It presents new capabilities, not the least of which is being able to be constantly available to the learner, but given the way in which training and support have been poorly handled in the existing digital channels, I have little hope that mobile will be leveraged with much competence, either.

Mobile Sales Support

Jotting down some thoughts on a discussion about the use of mobile as a resource to be used by live salespeople ... my sense is it's not terribly good for that purpose, and can even be counterproductive.

The idea is a that a company can shorten sales training by providing each salesman with access to information about merchandise on a mobile device, so that he can access it while interacting with customers rather than having to commit it to organic memory. On the surface, this seems entirely rational and plausible, but I see a few problems:

Primarily, if being able to reference product information on a device was sufficient, there would be no reason to have a live salesperson. Instead, the firm could simply give the customer direct access to the same information resource (at a kiosk, or a mobile device of their own) and let them browse it for themselves - they don't need a salesman to run the search for them and read what he sees on a screen.

This is the common practice for electronic commerce, and its greatest weakness: it places on the customer the burden of finding product information for himself, which presumes that the customer has sufficient knowledge of the product line to conduct a search that will lead him to the right product. For a customer who is already familiar with the inventory, and has a relatively good idea of what he needs, an online catalog is entirely sufficient. It's especially good for routine reordering of products with which the customer is already familiar.

The value of a salesman, however, is in making recommendations of products that a customer is not already aware of. This may occur when the customer is buying a given item for the first time, and it may be valuable to up-sell the customer on reordering by suggesting they try a better product "this time." In that way, it may even help to retain the business of a customer who wasn't satisfied with the item they purchased previously. But this seems like a digression.

The novice salesman is faced with the same problem as the utterly clueless customer - he has no knowledge of the product line. He is further handicapped because he also does not have knowledge of the customer's needs - which puts him in the unenviable position of identify a good match between two unfamiliar bodies of information (product inventory and needs).

Giving such a person a mobile device loaded with product information merely makes him a wetware proxy to a search engine, which contributes little value and instead makes the process all the more difficult. Especially given that American culture values self-reliance and independence, his position is one of an unnecessary person that is making it more difficult for the customer to get what he wants.

The value of a salesman is his familiarity with products, and the ability to identify a selection that best meets the needs of the customer. The discussion leading up to the sale is one of discovery - the salesman knows his products, but must learn his customer's needs. In this way, it is matching a known factor to an unknown factor - which requires much less effort and has a higher probability of success than situations in which both are unknown.

But more to the point, matching known to unknown requires something to be "known" - in this case, the product line, which must be committed to human memory for it to be known at all (data accessible on a device is just information, not knowledge).

With a product inventory in memory, the salesman will be able to make a product recommendation quickly, revise it when the customer provides additional details, explain the reason for his recommendation, and remain constantly engaged in the conversation with the customer.

By contrast, a salesman who lacks product knowledge must gather information, then take his attention away from the customer to search for products, then repeat the search if the customer provides more information, and would have little ability to explain the reason a given product was recommended.

The situation would be damaging, if not devastating, to the customer experience. The customer would have only intermittent communication, and would have to wait periodically while the salesman interacted with his mobile device - which brings both the frustration of "down time" in the process, and the psychological effect of being repeatedly ignored. He would also have the sense that the salesman was not very competent, having to rely on his device to provide information and being unable to offer any rationale for recommending an item aside of stating that the system returned it it as a match.

All in all, I don't see such a mobile application as being much different than having a salesman carry around a binder of product information and constantly refer to it during a sales encounter - this has been possible for years, but I'm not aware of any instance in which it is a common practice.

And in that sense, there may be some utility in using a mobile device to contain product data - but in the same way that a binder of product information: as a training aid for salesmen to help them learn the product line, and perhaps as a reference the salesman could use if he was unable to answer a question. I think that a customer would tolerate a salesman who could answer most of their questions from his own memory, but would periodically need to check a reference to be sure of his facts.

But in terms of the suggested practice - to cut short sales training and make salesmen entirely reliant on product information stored (or accessed) on a mobile device - it seems fairly clear that this is unlikely to be a successful practice.