Ten Tips to Effectively Influence Others

Ten Tips to Effectively Influence Others

1) Set an outcome for what the other person will do, if you are successful in
influencing him/her.
a) Flush out in detail what would really be ideal for you - even if you think there’s no way
that ideal is possible. At a minimum, you’ll know your own goals, and you are likely to
get closer to them than you think.
b) Consider the other person’s outcome(s). Are there ways you can include their goals
in your proposal? What are the benefits and costs to him/her in doing what you want?
Are there ways to enhance his/her benefits and/or lessen his/her costs that could still
get you what you want?
2) Aim high when you make the first suggestion(s). Suggesting that he/she does
even more than you might really want gives you room to lessen your suggestions, and
makes it more likely you’ll get closer to what you really want in the final agreement.
3) Be congruent, and confident as you communicate. Other people usually notice
(not always consciously) your body language and voice tone, so if you’re uncertain in
making suggestions, it’s likely that will come across.
In other words, be as certain of yourself and your suggestions as you can possibly be.
This doesn’t mean you need to be demanding or argumentative. It does mean that you
present your position and/or requests as if you are certain that this is what you want. A
quiet, solid, clear confidence is often your best attitude.
4) Consider your long-term relationship with this person or people.
What impact will the results of this interaction have over time? What will your relationship
with him/her be if your suggestions are implemented? What will it be like if the
suggestions are not implemented?
5) Begin where they are, that is, acknowledging that they have a particular
perspective that makes sense for them. This is best done by considering their
mood and/or attitude, as well as the particular position he/she may have at the beginning
of the discussion.
6) Consider the larger context. What factors might make it difficult for the person
to do what you want? Can you develop some ideas that would minimize these
difficulties, or better yet, turn them into advantages for him/her?
7) What might you be able to give the person ‘no strings attached’? This can be
information, and need not be anything physical (such as a gift). Giving something can
be a good move towards developing a favorable context, a move inviting reciprocity
but be perfectly willing to have your ‘gift’ taken, without expecting anything back. So, it
needs to be something you can give freely.
8) Be clear on what you would get if this person agreed to your request. That is,
what would you benefit of influencing them so that you get your outcome?
One way to determine your benefits is to ask yourself “What would have this done for
me?” When you get the first answer, ask yourself the same question about that answer.
You may determine a wider range of options that would satisfy you. This gives you
more flexibility in making suggestions and/or requests from the person.
9) Are there any changes you could make to the environment that would make
it more likely for the person to agree to your request?
This is intended as a thought-provoking question, i.e. to get you to think about factors
you might not ordinarily consider. For instance, there’s some evidence that people are
more likely to accommodate requests when they are eating (associating a pleasant
activity with your request). Hence the number of business deals that are completed
over lunch.
Another environmental factor when influencing someone is to consider whether to
discuss an issue on the phone, in person, or by e-mail. In many cases, you will get a
very different response to the same request, depending on how it is made.
Thinking of the environment in a slightly broader sense, for instance, could you,
persuade a colleague of the person to, say, be more cooperative. Perhaps this
increased cooperation would make it easier for the person to take your suggestions.
10) It goes without saying, of course, that when you are successful in
influencing, you’ll certainly live up to the agreements that you’ve made - both
during and after the ‘influence time’. These agreements should be implemented as the
other person understands them. This requires you to verify that your communication
has been understood in the same way you intended it.
The benefit to you is a long-term business relationship, in which you have established
your reliability and in which you request the same. Atmospheres in which you trust one
another makes better business sense for all.
A person may use this as a checklist before an attempt to influence someone else,
decide to go through the list and choose which would be the most useful in a particular
a situation, or use it as a test of which items could be missing from an ongoing attempt
at influence.
Source: Lynda L. Fudold, Advanced Communications Group

Persuasion Theories - Rank’s Model

Persuasion Theories - Rank’s Model

Rank’s model of persuasion states that persuaders use two major
strategies to achieve their goals.
These strategies are nicely set into two main schemes
known as (1) intensify, and (2) downplay.

The basic premise of the model is that people will either intensify or downplay certain
aspects of their own product, candidate, or ideology, or those of their receiver’s. The
Persuaders will do this in one of four methods.

• Intensify their strong points.
• Intensify the weak points of the opposition.
• Downplay their weak points.
• Downplay the strong points of the opposition.

Persuasion Theories - Information Manipulation Theory

Persuasion Theories - Information Manipulation Theory

A communicator overtly or covertly violates one of the conversational maxims of quantity, quality, relation and manner with the intention of deceiving his/her audience.

• ‘Quantity’ refers to a person’s expectations that a conversation will be as
informative as possible. We do not expect information to be left out.
• ‘Quality’ refers to a person’s expectation of being presented with information
that is truthful and complete.
• ‘Relation’ illustrates the expectation of contributing relevant information to a
conversation.
• ‘Manner’ relates to how things are said rather than what is said.
For example, the private secretary turns up late to the office. How will he/she answer
his boss for turning up late?
• Quantity: “I am so sorry Sir; I was caught up in a traffic jam caused by a political
rally.”
• Quality: “I overslept. Because I had forgotten to pay the electric bill, power got
cut off and my alarm clock didn’t go off.” “
• Relation: “I’ve just had a really bad week. My mom was in the hospital and was
discharged today morning only.”
• Manner: (said rolling eyes and looking disgusted): “I really started on time, but
was caught up in the traffic jam”

Information Manipulation Theory provides an explanation for and the multiple ways in
which deception can occur. However, it does not predict what maxims a person may
only violate that the violation will occur within the certain realm of possibilities provided.

Persuasion Theories - Reinforcement Theory 

Attitude changes result from an opinion change produced
through reinforcement in areas such as attention, comprehension, and acceptance.
Attention, comprehension, and acceptance are considered by the audience before a
new opinion is adopted. The message must be drawing attention and easily
understood. More importantly, it must be presented in a way that reinforces the idea’s
validity.
Here is an example of how reinforcement theory operates. A public relations practitioner
is conducting a week-long campaign for “Organ Donation Awareness Week”. S/he
conducts a pre-campaign phone survey providing positive reinforcement for pro-organ
donation answers for two groups and no reinforcement for the other two groups. All
groups have an opposing position to organ donation.
One group from each, reinforcement and no reinforcement, are in the target area of
the campaign. According to Reinforcement Theory, the people in the areas that received
the reinforcement and the campaign will have the greatest change in attitude toward
organ donation. The next should be the group that received the reinforcement without
the campaign closely followed by those who received the campaign but not the
reinforcement. The group with the least amount of attitudinal change would be those
who reached no reinforcement and did not receive the campaign.

Persuasion Theories - Cognitive Dissonance

Persuasion Theories - Cognitive Dissonance

The cognitive dissonance theory gives a basic explanation

for the way, humans react when they act outside of their beliefs. This theory posits that

individuals often have conflicting beliefs with actions they take, or other beliefs they

have. This dissonance creates a tension and tension reduction is automatically sought

by changing their evaluations to some degree. Dissonance increases due to the

following:

• The importance of the subject

• How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict

• People’s inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict

Dissonance increases with the importance and impact of the decision, along with the

difficulty of reversing it. Discomfort about making the wrong choice of car is bigger

than when choosing a lamp.

Dissonance is often strong when people believe something about themselves, but do

something against that belief. If they believe that they are good but do something bad,

the discomfort they feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is central to many forms of persuasion to change beliefs, values,

attitudes, and behaviors. The tension can be injected suddenly or allowed to build up

over time. People can be moved in many small jumps or one large one.

Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful motivator which will often lead to change one

or other of the conflicting beliefs or actions. To release the tension a person can take

one of three actions:

• Change his/her behavior.

• Justify his/her behavior by changing the conflicting cognition.

• Justify his/her behavior by adding new cognitions.

Dissonance is most powerful when it is about our self-image. Feelings of foolishness,

immorality and so on (including internal projections during decision-making) are

dissonance in action.

If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact

dissonance compels one to change one’s beliefs. If beliefs are moved, then the

dissonance appears during decision-making, forcing one to take actions one would

not have taken before.

Cognitive dissonance appears in virtually all evaluations and decisions and is the central

a mechanism by which a person experiences new differences in the world. When one

sees other people behave differently to one’s images of them, when one holds any

conflicting thoughts, one experiences dissonance.

Persuasion Theories - Source Credibility Theory

Persuasion Theories - Source Credibility Theory

The source credibility theory postulates that people
are more likely to be persuaded when the source presents itself as credible. The theory
is broken down into three models that can be used to apply the theory. These three
models are the factor model, the functional model, and the constructivist model.
The factor model - covering laws? approach - helps determine to what extent the
receiver judges the source as credible.
The functional model - a covering laws approach - views credibility as the degree to
which a source satisfies a receiver’s individual needs.
The constructivist model - a human action approach - analyzes what the receiver does
with the source’s proposal.
The findings of the Source Credibility of Persuasive Communication study by Yale
University is presented schematically below:
Who (source of communication):
• The speaker should be credible and attractive to the audience.
Says what (how)(nature of communication):
• Messages should not appear to be designed to persuade.
• Present two-sided arguments (refuting the ‘wrong’ argument, of course).
• If two people are speaking one after the other, it is best to go first (primacy
effect).
• If two people are speaking with a delay between them, it is best to go last
(recency effect).
To whom (the nature of the audience)
• Distract them during the persuasion
• Lower intelligence and moderate self-esteem help.
• The best age range is 18-25.
While the relationship between source credibility and attitudinal change seems to be
self-evident, it is interesting to note that many studies have also revealed no/ and
relatively low level of relationship between source credibility and attitudinal change.

Persuasion Theories - Balance Theory

Persuasion Theories - Balance Theory

 Balance theory states that when tensions arise between or inside
people, they attempt to reduce these tensions through self-persuasion or trying to
persuade others. A ‘motivational theory’ of attitude change, ‘Balance Theory’
conceptualizes the consistency motive as a drive toward psychological balance. It
proposes that “sentiment” or liking relationships are balanced if the ‘affect valence’ in
a system multiplies out to a positive result.

For example, a person who likes another person will be balanced by the same valence
the attitude on behalf of the other.
Symbolically, when P (+) > O and P < (+) O the result is a psychological balance.
This can be extended to objects (X) as well, thus introducing triadic relationships.
If a person P likes object X but dislikes other person O, what does P feel upon learning
that O created X? This is symbolized as such:
• P (+) > X
• P (-) > O
• O (+) > X
Multiplying the signs shows that the person will perceive imbalance (a negative
multiplicative product) in this relationship, and will be motivated to correct the
imbalance somehow. The person can either· Decide that O isn’t so bad after all,
• Decide that X isn’t as great as originally thought to be, or
• Conclude that O couldn’t really have made X.
Any of these will result in psychological balance, thus resolving the dilemma and
satisfying the drive. (Person P could also avoid object X and other person O entirely,
lessening the stress created by psychological imbalance.)

Persuasion Theories-Inoculation Theory

Persuasion Theories-Inoculation Theory

Inoculation theory posits that through cognitive processing,
the likelihood of resistance to attitude change can be enhanced by applying inoculation
treatments containing threat components that motivate individuals to generate counter
arguments. The motivation for individuals’ counter arguing is induced by threats to
their freedom of attitudinal discretion.

Inoculation works because it exposes people to arguments, making them think about
and rehearse opposing arguments. When they hear the arguments again, even stronger
versions, they pay less attention to them, especially if they believe their opposing
argument is stronger.

There are three stages to inoculation:

• Warning: Tell the person that it is about to happen so they are forced to get
ready.

• Weak attack: Attack them, but weakly so they can easily resist.

• Active defending: The persons must actively defend themselves (and find it
relatively easy to do so).

Inoculation theory has explanatory power in that it provides credible explanations for
the concepts. This theory has predictive power and has relative simplicity. Inoculation
theory is testable and can, therefore, be proved false, and is internally consistent.

Persuasion Theories - Social Judgement Theory

Persuasion Theories - Social Judgement Theory

Persuasion is a complex phenomenon involving an interplay of different factors and is
influenced by diverse communication modes and contexts. There are several theories,
advocated by communication experts, based on extensive research and experience
which attempt to provide insights into the whole process of persuasion. Presented
below is an overview of some of the principal theories of persuasion.
This theory of persuasion holds that to persuade
someone best, one must understand well his or her present views on the subject. There
are five principles of social judgment theory:
• People have categories of judgment by which they evaluate persuasive positions.
• When people receive persuasive information, they locate it within their categories
of judgment.
• The level of ego involvement affects the size of latitudes. (The latitude of
acceptance is the range of opinions with which people agree. The latitude of
rejection is the range of opinions with which people disagree. The latitude of
non-committal is measured by the questions for which people have no opinion.)
For example, ego involvement increases the latitude of rejection. When closely
involved with an issue, people recognize a broader range of opinions on the
issue with which they disagree.
• People tend to distort incoming information to fit their categories of judgment.
• Small to moderate discrepancies between anchor positions and the one
advocated will cause people to change; large discrepancies will not. People
typically cannot be moved far from their anchor position or far outside their
areas of acceptance or rejection. Ambiguous messages thus work best.
According to this theory, influence is most likely to occur under certain conditions.
Communicators must work within the latitude of acceptance or at least the latitude of
non-commitment for success. People will neither process nor respond in a negative
way to information that occurs within their latitude of rejection. Therefore, direct attacks
are doomed to failure according to this theory.

Four Ways to Not to Persuade by Jay Conger

Four Ways to Not to Persuade by Jay Conger

1. Don’t attempt an up-front hard sell. Providing a strong position at the start
of a persuasion, effort gives potential opponents something to fight against.
One should present one’s position with finesse.

2. Don’t see compromise as surrender. People want to see the persuader is
flexible enough to respond to their concerns. Compromises can often lead to
better, more sustainable shared solutions.

3. Don’t think the secret to persuasion lies in presenting great arguments.
Arguments, per se, are only one part of the equation. Other factors that make
arguments compelling are the persuader’s credibility, her ability to create a
mutually beneficial frame for a position, connect to the right emotional level with
an audience, and communicate through vivid language.

4. Don’t assume persuasion is a one-shot effort. Persuasion involves listening,
testing a position, reframing it in a way that reflects input from the group,
re-testing, reframing incorporating compromises and trying again.

Principles of Persuasion

Principles of Persuasion

These principles will be seen in any influence-setting situation. It is crucial to take a
psychological step back, away from the situation to ask oneself, “Why do I feel this
obligation to say yes to this person’s request [or to believe what this person is telling
me]?” Is a person just feeling obligated towards the other because the other person
gave him something; or because he or she seems to be an “authority”; or because the
person claims to have exclusive truth. Is it because he or she is “a nice person”; or
because all his friends signed up; or because one is already agreed to an earlier
request? Are these reasons, by themselves, sufficient to warrant a person going ahead
and saying yes? One has to make sure that there are legitimate reasons for going
forward.
According to Cialdini, when it comes to utilizing the principles of persuasion, there are
three different categories under which people fall - Bunglers, Smugglers, and Sleuths.
The “Bungler” is the individual who doesn’t understand how to use the most powerful
principles of influence and, consequently, fumbles away opportunities for beneficial
change.
The “Smuggler” is the person who understands these principles of influence perfectly
well, but who imports them illicitly into situations where they don’t naturally exist, thereby
producing the gain that is one-sided and temporary.
The “Sleuth” on the other hand, uncovers the power principles that naturally reside in
the influence situation and brings them to the surface to the long-term advantage of
both parties
Cialdini says it is only through the Sleuth’s approach that an influence agent or
persuader can bring about the desired change in others that is both effective and
ethical.

The Six Principles of Reciprocity...contd.,

The Six Principles of Reciprocity...contd.,

AUTHORITY (if an expert says it, it must be true)
People automatically believe the expert or follow those in authority. This is true even if
the person is not and cannot be an authority, but is only perceived as such. They react
automatically, without thinking, because an “authority” says so. The most credible
authorities are both knowledgeable and trustworthy. TRUST

One must be impartial, unbiased and honest. A shortcut to gaining trust is to
say something mildly contradictory to one’s own position. Then one will be seen
as impartial, willing to acknowledge the negative side of one’s own position,
and one will thus establish credibility.

b. MISPLACED TRUST
Trust can be established either by “smuggling” or by being honest and providing
the truth.

CONSISTENCY (I can’t back out now, nor do I need to)
a. Obtain a commitment
People become more certain after they invest in something—or make a
decision.
b. Start small and build
Start by getting a person to make a very small commitment, and then ask for increasingly
larger requests. The build-up can be slow, subtle and insidious. Once the commitment
is made, it is very hard to change.

CONSENSUS (everyone is doing it)
a. The actions of many others
People often look to see what other people are doing before they act. In
Singapore, a bus strike caused a run on a bank and its closure because the
people outside the bank waiting for the bus created the impression of a problem
with the bank.

b. The actions of similar others
“The more one sees others like him/her doing something, the more one does
what he/she does”

c. Rejection of Original Referent Group
If the original referent group is rejected, a person is susceptible to the coercion
and persuasion of the new group. This is one of the techniques used by cults: reject
normal society, parents, and friends and substitute the cult.

LIKING (positive connections create liking)
a. Similarities
A person likes people who are like himself/herself.
b. Compliments, praise
People like to be complemented by others, whether the compliment is true or
false.
c. Cooperative efforts
Bonds form through cooperative efforts, whether natural and legitimate or unnatural
and manipulative.

The Six Principles of Reciprocity

The Six Principles of Reciprocity

Scarcity (if I can’t have it, I want it)

Something held in abundance is much less highly valued than something is scarce.
Deceptive groups use this, for example, by saying that this is the only way to salvation.
To a slightly less degree this is also done when the group claims to be the “best,” the
“closest to the will of God,” “God’s Green Berets,” the “fastest path to enlightenment,”
etc.

a. Exclusivity of information
Exclusive information is more prized and more readily believed. A test of scarcity
showed that scarcity of commodities produced increased revenue, but the
exclusivity of the information about a future shortage produced a far greater
increase in revenue. It should be noted that the information must be true to
maintain the relationship of trust.

b. Rivalry for scarce items
Scarcity can be manipulated, especially by creating a rivalry for it. In cults, this can
apply to such things as leadership positions, praise from the leader and other
special favors.

Governing Principles of Persuasion

Governing Principles of Persuasion

An important attribute of managing is the ability to persuade others to accept ideas
and follow certain courses of action. Where senior individuals give directions,
intermediaries may be required to influence the behavior, thought process and actions
of others in order to comply with that direction.  A manager’s level of success or failure
may be determined by his/her ability to influence people within his/her own organization,
as well as those operating in other organizations.

The six principles of influence that are used everywhere in society are discussed by
Dr. Robert Cialdini. While these are common principles that can be effective, ethical,
and lasting, they can also be used unethically, as by those leading totalist groups.
Compliance is behavior that occurs only because it is requested, that is, getting what
one asks for. The Six Principles of Reciprocity are:

1. Reciprocity (give and take)

a. Obligation People are programmed from childhood to pay back those who
give them something. If someone gives a present for their birthday, they have to
give that person a gift for his birthday. If someone sends a Christmas card,
people feel that they must send them one. Those who only take are called
moochers, ingrates, parasites.
For example, the Hare Krishna Societies are mostly funded by contributions.
They give something like a book or flower, and then ask for money. People buy
their way out of the obligation. Some try to give back the flower, or throw it on
the ground in order to break free. Reciprocation of concessions
A person will start by asking for something very high, and then come down.
Compliance is very high in this situation.

Persuasion Process

Persuasion Process

Reinforce positions with vivid language and compelling evidence:

Persuasion requires the presentation of evidence — strong data in multiple forms (stories,
graphs, images, metaphors, and examples). Persuaders need to make positions come
alive by using vivid language that complements graphics.
In most cases, a rock-solid argument:
• Is logical and consistent with facts and experience
• Favorably addresses your audience’s interests
• Eliminates or neutralizes competing alternatives
• Recognizes and deals with office politics
• Receives endorsements from objective, authoritative third parties

Connecting emotionally with audiences: 

Good persuaders are aware of the primacy of emotions and are responsive to them. They know how to maintain a balance between professionalism and their own emotional commitment to the position they are advocating. Their connection to their audience demonstrates both intellectual and emotional commitment to their position. Successful persuaders cultivate an accurate sense of their audience’s emotional state and they adjust their arguments accordingly.

Whatever their position, they must match their emotional fervor to their audience’s
ability to receive their message.

Proven Approaches for Strengthening Emotional Connection
• Go to the heart of the audience
• Use highly descriptive and involving stories and illustrations
• Use visuals to illustrate your points
• Show how the issue has touched you personally

Persuasion Process-Framing common goal with colleagues

Persuasion Process-Framing common goal with colleagues

 Effective persuader must be adept at describing the position in terms that illuminate the person’s point advantages that he/she is trying to persuade. It is a process of identifying shared benefits. This requires conversations to collect essential information by asking thoughtful questions. This
process will often prompt to alter the initial argument or include compromises.

Peter Sandman identifies four kinds of colleagues or the public with varying levels of
‘involvement’ with a persuader’s issue of interest that managers should learn to cope

• Fanatics: Persuader’s issue is their main interest aside from job and family.
They can not turn their interests.
• Browsers: Persuader’s issue is on their ‘worry list’, but way at the bottom.
• Attentive: Persuader’s issue is on his/her top-10 list.
• Inattentive: They do not know and they do not want to know.

Persuasion Process

Persuasion Process

Persuasion is an essential proficiency for all leaders. According to Professor Jay
Conger, “effective persuasion involves four distinct and essential steps.”

Establish credibility - Credibility grows out of expertise and relationships. A persuader
needs strong emotional characteristics and integrity. The need to listen carefully to other
people’s suggestions and establish an environment in which they know their opinions are
valued. They should prepare by collecting data and information that both support and
contradict their arguments through – surveys, focus groups, interviews, sounding boards
with colleagues/experts and personal hunches.

Credibility factors - Expertise

• Well informed
• Studies issues thoroughly
• Clearheaded/reasonable in beliefs
• Provides reasons/evidence in response to objections
• Avoids foolish/exaggerated opinions
• Is own person/not easily misled
• Has specialized training/experience

• Credibility Factors: Relationship\

• What’s said matches what’s done
• Truthful/admits mistakes
• Acts out of conviction, not expediency/opportunism
• Concerned for others rather than self
· Emotionally stable
• Not intimidating, domineering, submissive, lacking conviction
• Has emotional/personal stake, not “just business”