A few weeks ago, my friend and negotiations expert extraordinaire, Fotini Iconomopoulos, sent me a post from Daniel Pink.
Now, I adore Dan Pink. I loved his work long before he graciously blurbed my first book (Find Your Red Thread). So when I say I disagree with him here, know it comes from a place of respect.
Dan Pink’s Example of Motivating Action
The post was a carousel explaining one of his favorite concepts: people believe more deeply in actions when they have their own reasons for doing them. To that, I say: absolutely. No argument.
But his example gave me pause.
The Room, the Scale, and the Counterintuitive Question
He sets it up like this:
Imagine you have a daughter, Maria, with a messy room. You want her to clean it.
Dan suggests asking Maria:
“On a scale of one to ten, where one means ‘not ready at all’ and ten means ‘ready right now,’ how ready are you to clean your room?”
Maria answers, “I’m a two.”
Then comes the second, counterintuitive question:
“Why didn’t you pick a lower number?”
Then Dan offers that “Maria now has to explain why she isn’t a one.” She says, “Well, if my room were cleaner, maybe I’d get to school faster and spend more time with friends.”
Dan’s point: she’s now articulating her own reasons, which makes her more likely to follow through.
Why This Example Doesn’t Quite Work
Here’s the rub: this technique only works if the person already wants to do what you’re asking them about. Maria doesn’t. She doesn’t care about the room. And kids—having had two myself—are far more likely to say “one” or “negative 2,000” when asked a question about “how ready they are” to clean their rooms
So in this scenario, the example isn’t honoring Maria’s agency—it’s setting her up.
A Better Alternative: Choice Within Boundaries
What’s better? One technique I’ve used to good effect is to ask directly:
“When will you clean your room—now or later? In an hour or in two?”
That’s clear. That’s specific and simultaneously makes both my intent (clean your room) and its non-negotiability transparent. It also still gives the other person a sense of control, which means I’ve avoided doing anything to deny their agency or to damage their self-efficacy or our relationship.
Where the One-to-Ten Scale Does Shine
Now, back to the technique itself. Dan’s describing a tool that’s been used in political canvassing and something called street epistemology. There, the one-to-ten scale isn’t about action—it’s about belief.
They ask: “To what extent do you believe X?” Then, after a real conversation—sharing stories, listening—they ask again: “Where are you now?” The point isn’t to get someone to act—it’s to measure whether their belief shifted.
Using It to Strengthen Strategic Messaging
In fact, that’s how I use this technique in my own work. When I’m working with clients to design their core message, I’ll check:
“On a scale of one to ten, how strongly do you stand behind this case for your idea?”
If they can’t stand behind it, no one else will. If it’s lower than 9 or 10, I ask why it isn’t higher, and then we work to refine until it’s something they genuinely believe, and thus can truly own.
So: What’s the Right Tool for the Job?
- If you want someone to do something they don’t want to do, give them a choice about how and when.
- If you want to understand what someone actually believes, use the one-to-ten with the follow-up.
Match the Technique to Your Intent
Both techniques are valuable and effective—IF, that is, they’re used with in the correct situation and with the honest intent.
That’s really the heart of it: The more you match intent to action and more effective your approach will be, and the more (and better!) impact you’ll have. It’s one of the core principles that guides all of our work at the Message Design Institute.
So yes—thank you, Dan, for sparking the conversation (and Fotini, for sending it my way). If you ever see something you’d like my take on, send it along, too!