Proposal Psychology - FEDERAL SECTOR REPORT - a newsletter for government agencies, contractors, and grantees

FEDERAL SECTOR REPORT

August 1996
(c) P2C2 Group, Inc.

PROPOSAL PSYCHOLOGY

PROPOSAL PSYCHOLOGY. Seminars and books about proposal writing usually focus on issues like clear writing, presentation and publishing style, compliance with specifications, proposal management procedures, and strategy. All of these are important, but "proposal psychology" is a neglected topic, and I will focus on it in this newsletter.

I first became interested in the psychological dimension of communication while taking a college course in advertising psychology ... followed by graduate classes in audience research, media research, and market research. I have attempted to apply what I learned (and keep learning) during 30 years of proposal writing. Here are some thoughts.

READERSHIP. As magazine and newspaper publishers discovered 70 years ago, people do not read everything in a publication. They skim quickly, focusing on headlines, visual cues, and text that interests them. The same is certainly true for proposals where a reviewer may have a stack of 10 or 20 proposals from different competitors.

On each proposal page, you have several seconds to grab the reviewers or lose them. There needs to be a heading or visual image that anchors attention and makes a point relevant to the evaluation criteria or subjective factors. If you think most readers will struggle with dense, convoluted text to decipher a meaning, you are mistaken.

The impression that reviewers have about your proposal and your organization is based on their SELECTIVE perception about your document, usually only a fraction of the information you poured onto the pages. This means that you need to provide a clear framework for their forming positive perceptions ... quickly.

Be aware that, just as with magazines, most reviewers do not read a document in a linear fashion from cover to cover. On projects requiring a high level of technical or scientific competence, a reviewer may turn immediately to the resumes--focusing on the principal investigator or program director ... and a few other key leaders. On projects that are mission critical, reviewers may jump to project summaries to check for similar experience and accomplishments. In other situations, your proposed "technical solution" may be the first section read.

Your proposal must be designed for "start anywhere" readers. Moreover, the table of contents must be a quick and clear road map for a reviewer who is searching for specific information.

READABILITY. There are well-established measures of readability, going back to the work of pioneers like Rudolph Flesch. Essentially, keep sentences short and use simple words whenever possible. Use active rather than passive voice. Be as concrete and specific as possible. Avoid text lines that are more than 65 or 70 characters wide.

Even in technical and scientific procurements, not all of the reviewers will be familiar with all of your jargon. Take the time to explain the terminology, but do not "talk down" to them when doing so. You can also provide a glossary if explaining terminology becomes too cumbersome.

A frequent problem in proposals developed by committees is that lazy or inexperienced contributors will interject boilerplate with terminology that they themselves do not understand. It's an old tactic: "If I cannot answer your question, then I'll snow you with b.s." The proposal manager or editor needs to remove this kind of garbage, because it reduces your credibility and may even run the risk of presenting erroneous information.

Remember also that reading comprehension has fallen at an alarming rate in the United States. Peer review panels composed of Ph.Ds may still be able to read scientific proposals at the 12th grade reading level or better, but you should not expect many government bureaucrats to have a reading comprehension level beyond the 10th grade at best. A college degree doesn't guarantee much literacy anymore!

ATTENTION. We humans do not always concentrate very well. During the 1970s, Children's Television Workshop would test whether Sesame Street could hold the attention of kids who were in a room filled with toys and games. The program had to compete for attention ... just as your proposal must do.

Sure, the proposal reviewers may not be in a room filled with toys. But the phone, the window, conversation, or drowsiness after a big lunch will compete for attention, and a dreary proposal is a big snore. Therefore, one of the duties of a proposal writer is to keep the reviewers awake. There are various tactics for accomplishing this:

* Use publishing techniques, appropriate illustrations, photographs, highlighted key phrases, and good page layout.

* Write an important point in an unexpected or dramatic style occasionally.

* Use interesting and point-making headings.

* Change the writing style for a key bit of information: Run it as a sidebar article in a special column/box on the page. Sometimes Questions and Answers work. Sometimes an interview with the chief science officer or chief engineer. Sometimes a check list or fact sheet.

Reward the reader for turning each page and paying attention.

RECALL. Has your proposal made 5 or 6 points so memorable that the reviewer can recall them 48 hours after reading your proposal? Many proposals are only "me too" documents and fail this test.

The information recalled should support your winning the contract. Therefore, you must communicate your competitive themes very clearly.

PERSONALITY. People are not all alike, and they have different needs when reviewing a proposal. Different researchers use different labels and definitions, but here are some basic personality types:

The Perfectionist: Wants everything to be perfect. Hates loose ends. Needs for work to be done correctly. Wants assurance that the methodology proposed is the best choice. TACTIC: Explain your work methods precisely. Be as concrete and specific as possible. Explain how you chose your technical and management solutions ... and why they are better than the alternatives. Describe how your quality program will avoid problems. Provide the detail to prove that your personnel have the skills and experience to do work correctly the first time.

The Power Personality. Wants to be in control of the situation. Hates surprises that threaten control. Wants to be the leader. Wants to make certain that the awardee is supportive and loyal. Expects to be in charge. Sees projects as a way of extending his or her own agenda. TACTIC: Explain how you will keep the agency decision-makers informed through briefings, reports, and convenient communication. Describe how the project can be a strategic tool for agency leaders, project officers, and managers. Discuss how you will obtain input from the agency for project decisions. Emphasize that your agency manager or agency leader will be fully involved ... so there will be no nasty surprises or misunderstandings.

The Live Wire: Likes to be in the spotlight. Likes interesting and exciting ... and hates boring. Wants a project that gains personal recognition. Dislikes detail and red tape, but wants to be protected from embarrassing situations. TACTICS: In your proposal, give the customer representatives opportunities to gain recognition and to be in the spotlight. Propose a retreat or workshop in an interesting location. Explain how your approach will make exciting contributions. Let the reader know that working with you technical team will be interesting and stimulating.

The Tranquility Seeker: Wants the project to be smooth ... with no hassles or complications. Hates confrontation. Wants to avoid headaches.

TACTICS: Describe how your project approach will save the agency time and trouble. Emphasize teamwork with client representatives. Let it be known that your project manager and key personnel can work harmoniously in the customer's environment. Build the conviction that you will be on top of all situations and can resolve problems. You will probably have reviewers with several types of personalities. Your background market research should help you determine the predominate personality types, and you should slant your proposal in those directions.

There are other ways to look at individuals. For example, some are visual learners, while others are auditory learners. The visual learners need to be able to reach a conclusion about you proposal through the charts, tables, and other visual images. On the other hand, your auditory learners will rely more on words and your headings and text style will be important. For auditory learners, text should also have a conversational style (but without becoming casual or unprofessional in tone). A few others learn by doing, and giving them an exercise or puzzle to solve can be a plus.

THE MEDIUM. Proposals are a form of specialty publishing, and proposals compete on the basis of the medium, in addition to the other psychological dimensions.

When I first wrote proposals, we were happy if we could produce clean typewritten text. Corrections were made by using an X-acto knife to slice out an erroneous line, stripping in the replacement with great care. Illustrations and charts were laboriously developed by a graphics person and pasted onto the page. Lengthy flow charts and budget ledger pages were Scotch-taped together.

Today, specialty publishing is different. Your competitors are using desktop publishing software and graphics. If you continue to submit pages of solid text, you are at a severe disadvantage for most competitions. However, desktop publishing alone does not address the psychological factors that I have outlined in this newsletter. DTP does not guarantee good graphics or headings, nor does it address most of the other issues described above.

DANGERS OF TEMPLATE MENTALITY. I talk to some people who hope that I have a Universal Killer Proposal that I have done and can re-sell on the cheap. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Each proposal needs to be an original. Partly because the requirements and evaluation criteria are different. But partly also because "proposal psychology" needs to be taken into account for each competition.

So each time you do a proposal, you must go to the effort of inventing a new winner.