The Language and Behavior Profile (LAB Profile®) is a tool to use when communicating with people and groups that allows us to notice and respond with just the right Influencing Language. It’s tailored to each situation and structured to allow us to understand

• how people get motivated
• how they process information
• how they make decisions.

LAB Profile® is NOT a personality test. Although personality tests are useful for our education, they are often ineffective because they tend to label people in general. People have different behaviors in different situations and the LAB Profile® is the only tool that takes this into account and lets you use it in real-time conversations.

LAB Profile® is used as a recruitment tool. You ask a few questions to identify Motivation and Productivity Patterns that your best-performing employees have. With this information, the HR department can be trained to write job invitations that attract the right people as well as screening for that set of patterns in the language and behaviour of the applicants. Here is an example from an airlines which did this.

Southwest Airlines had a corporate culture problem. They wanted to be the lowest complaint-ratio airline in the USA. But some of their flight attendants seemed to attract customer complaints, while other flight attendants seemed to do the exact opposite, and no one ever complained on their flights. The LAB Profile® specialists profiled the complaint-generating flight attendants and those who were never complained about. That’s how they clarified the difference between them.

They modified the recruiting and screening process to identify the best candidates, and eliminate those who were most likely to cause complaints.

The result was that Southwest Airlines achieved its status as the lowest-complaint ratio airline in the USA and it maintained that status for many years.

A mutual fund company had the following problem: They were generating leads for high net worth individuals from their investment advice television program, but they were not happy with their closing rate.

Typically, the high net worth prospective clients, people who had $2 million or more to invest, would watch the TV program where the CEO handled phone-in inquiries about investing, and after several months of watching, they would phone to find out about investing with the company. The issue was that customers were somehow lost along the way and the company didn’t know what was happening.

They hired Shelle Rose Charvet to help them by conducting LAB Profile® market research. She interviewed prospective clients who phoned the company and said “yes” to investing and prospects who phoned but didn’t end up saying “yes”.

From these interviews Shelle uncovered what were the key LAB Profile® Motivation Triggers™ for each group. Using that information, she designed a sales process for them and proposed a series of keywords to use on their website and in the television program that they are still using today, 15 years later.

And the results? Their closing rate increased by 50%. Because of this this, the CEO decided to come and train with Shelle, because he wanted to understand what was the difference that actually… made the difference.

He took a 10-day program with her, but wouldn’t commit to doing the whole program because of his busy schedule (even though he had paid for the whole thing). At the end of each day, the organizers wondered whether or not he was coming back the next day. In the end he stayed the full 10 days. He was fascinated by the words that change mind even though he had a very busy schedule.

Sandra wanted to apply for her dream job, but she knew there would be hundreds of people applying and needed a way to stand out and get noticed.

She worked with Shelle Rose Charvet to come up with a strategy to make sure she would get an interview. Shelle suggested using the Skeptical People Process from the LAB Profile®.

Instead of starting off her cover email with the usual “I am the perfect person for this position,” she opened the email by saying “I suspect I might be just the right person for this position.”

Then she offered evidence for their consideration. The “I suspect” language set her apart from many others who were pushier because it created curiosity in the recruiters’ minds.

Results? She got the interview and the job because she used language that engages people who are hard to convince.

After getting the job, she said to Shelle: “If I hadn’t been able to get an interview by using this technique, I never would have had a chance to get my dream job.”

One of Shelle Rose Charvet’s corporate clients in the auto parts industry was confronted with a looming strike. The relationship with the union – the United Auto Workers (UAW) had recently deteriorated, so they were very concerned and needed to find a way to avoid a strike.

The bargaining team thought it might be possible to get an agreement with the union reps. The problem was that there wasn’t a lot of trust between the people bargaining on behalf of the Union and the membership: differences in culture, race, and social class.

They needed to find a strategy that would also speak directly to the membership. And that’s what Shelle taught them how to do.

So, they worked together, and she trained them in the LAB Profile® Strategies for Negotiations. They ran role plays, simulating actual negotiations. It was difficult, and everyone ended the training days tired and with large sweat stains on their shirts.

They learned how to use language that would not only speak to the negotiators on the other side, but would also indirectly get a message through to the membership.

What followed was very interesting. They were able to get a deal with the union reps, as expected. But when it went to the membership, it was voted down.

Strangely, two days later a number of the members initiated another vote because they had gone away, thought about it, and decided it was actually a good deal! So they instigated a new vote. Not only did the membership approve the deal, they signed the first 5-year agreement in the history of the company.

Up until then, there had only been 1- or 2-year agreements. This was the very first time they had ever gotten a 5-year agreement because the members realized it really was a good deal.

The company’s bargaining team told Shelle afterwards that they were not expecting to be able to avoid a strike. But the strategy worked. Everyone realized it was an excellent deal. And they were very happy that the relationship with the union membership had dramatically improved.

One trainer decided to offer a new advanced training program. The participants, who were all managers, arrived very excited about this brand-new program. As it was the first time, it was challenging to run. It was a 6-day program with a very intense schedule.

In the third day of the course, the trainer received a call from one of the program assistants to let her know that a number of the participants were feeling very dissatisfied with the program. Specifically, they couldn’t see the point of many of the practical exercises from the course plan and they had gotten quite angry about it.

The assistant was told that they were planning to confront the trainer next morning and demand their money back.

Naturally our trainer stayed up most of the night worrying about what to do. She called a meeting with all the program assistants very early next morning but even at the end of the meeting still wasn’t sure how to handle the situation.

She left the elevator, walked into the large meeting room, up onto the stage and started the morning and something changed. She addressed the problem directly and said: “I understand a number of you are not happy because you don’t understand why we are doing the activities we are doing. So I’d like to explain to you why.”

She used the LAB Profile® Zooming Out technique. On the flip chart she created an overview, framing the whole program, in two large overlapping circles, illustrating not only WHAT they were doing but WHY they were doing it; the purpose, applications and why each element was essential.

Results? She said: “They all sat there with their mouths open. And when I asked: “Any questions,” no one had anything to say. Everybody was OK with it. They all nodded and then they continued as if nothing had happened.”

The participants were happy, nobody asked for their money back, everybody continued with the program to the end, and gave rave reviews. And the trainer still uses those frames today to introduce the program.

Have you ever written a proposal, spent a long time on it, and then got no answer? The problem is that clients are really busy, so it can be difficult to make sure it is a priority for them, even if they requested the proposal.

They may even have insisted they need the proposal on their desk right away, and you stayed up all night or worked all weekend to get it to them and still nothing happened.

Part of the problem is the word “proposal”. What do people do when they get a proposal? They think about it. Often, they don’t do anything about it. It’s the wrong terminology to use.

Shelle Rose Charvet taught a group of consultants the LAB Profile® Proposal Template. How to use language that moves the process forward, using Proactive Language.

She suggested that instead of doing a proposal for a prospective client, to get an “okay” from them to submit a “Plan of Action”. The word “action” is built right in the title and people tend to respond to this much quicker than a proposal which just sits on someone’s desk.

The point of a “Plan of Action” is to solve a problem or achieve a goal for the client – how to get there. This is how to shift people out of the “thinking and waiting mode” into the “action mode” and when you pre-schedule a follow-up meeting to discuss the Plan of Action, this enables you to get your proposals accepted in half the time.

Aruna had to do a presentation for her company in a large, packed amphitheatre, standing at the bottom in the light, looking up at the rows of seats of people, mainly in the dark. Just as she was about to start, an unseen man sitting way up at the top yells out: “Hey Aruna, you’re just as beautiful as you used to be 20 years ago.”

And everybody laughs. Of course.

And not only that. Because they all worked for the same company, they were probably thinking: “WOW! Did they have an affair 20 years ago?”, “Why is he saying that?”, “Did he sleep with her?”, “What kind of relationship do they have?” They were certainly no longer thinking about Aruna’s topic.

Many women who have been sabotaged in this jovial manner are taken aback and feel embarrassed. They end up just laughing because everybody else is laughing. Huge mistake! Because now everyone is distracted, and she may have just lost credibility by not handling the situation.

It looks like Mr. Joker has just pulled the rug out from under her feet. Some people may even start feeling sorry for her!

But Aruna didn’t make this mistake. She was Shelle’s student for many years and didn’t fall into the trap. She knew exactly what to do when somebody throws you a “Banana Peel,” implying: “Here, darling, slip on this!”

She followed Shelle’s teachings about how to handle a “Banana Peel”, by throwing it right back to the person who threw it at her. And she was brilliant!

Aruna said: “Gee Peter, unfortunately I can’t say the same for you”. Everyone laughed, and she immediately regained credibility and did a great presentation.

Later, she told Shelle: “If I hadn’t known how to respond to a banana peel, I probably would have fallen in the trap of laughing and lost credibility.”