3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Im often asked to explain the difference between persuasion and manipulation. Actually, it tends to take more the form of a challenge, as in, Bob, isnt persuasion and manipulation the same thing?

And, its a good, legitimate question. After all, in both cases you are attempting to elicit an individual or group to think or do something they would presumably not think or do without your influence.

Persuasion and Manipulation are certainly “cousins” and to deny that is to deny reality. After all, both are based on certain principles of human action and interaction.  Good persuadersand good manipulators understand those principles and know how to effectively utilize them. Thats why there is perhaps nothing more dangerous than a bad person with good people skills.

Yes, the principles are similar; often even the same.* In actuality, however, the results are as different as night and day. The big difference — in my opinion — is the intent. In his magnificent 1986 book, The Art of Talking So That People Will Listen Dr. Paul Swets provided an outstanding explanation regarding both intent and outcome. He wrote:

Manipulation aims at control, not cooperation. It results in a win/lose situation. It does not consider the good of the other party. Persuasion is just the opposite. In contrast to the manipulator, the persuader seeks to enhance the self-esteem of the other party. The result is that people respond better because they are treated as responsible, self-directing individuals.

Persuasion aims to serve; manipulation, to hurt. Or, if not necessarily intending to hurt, certainly not caring if it does. The manipulator is simply so focused on him or herself and their own self-interest that — like any other totally self-serving organism — they do only what they feel is for their own benefit and, if someone must suffer as a result, then so be it.

What they don’t realize is that not only is this not good life practice…it’s not good business practice.

A manipulator can have employees, but never a team.

She can have customers, but rarely one that will be long-lasting and a source of referrals. And, once discovered. the manipulators customer-base tends to crumble like a stale cookie.

He can have friends and family, but rarely are these relationships fulfilling and happy.

Yes, both persuaders and manipulators know the how and why of human motivation. And, both utilize their knowledge to cause the action they desire a person to take. However, the crucial difference between the two is that while manipulators use that knowledge to THEIR advantage, the persuader uses it to the OTHER person’s advantage.**

This ties perfectly into Law #3 from The Go-Giver which says, Your influence is determined by how abundantly you place other peoples interests first.

And, thats persuasionand leadership at its best!

Please weigh in with your thoughts.

*I placed an asterisk after the phrase, the principles are similar; often even the same because, while thats true, there is something that a manipulator will do that a persuader never will, and its important you be aware of it. Fortunately, its extremely easy to recognize. Well look at that next .

**Caution and questioning of ones motives is always advised here. Might one rationalize to themselves they are persuading when they are actually manipulating? A persuader stays aware of this on a constant basis. In a future article, well look at how this can be done.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 at 7:43 am and is filed under WWI. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response. or trackback from your own site.

56 Responses to Persuasion vs. Manipulation

3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Bob. great article to remind us all what the difference is between professional sales and cons I always liked Albert Einsteins quote-> Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler Persuasion helps people understand better in simple terms it is not lying to them for your own agenda.

3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Hey Bob,

Another excellent blog post that hopefully cures peoples hesitation to use certain techniques of persuasion when being in contact with prospects and customers. With the right intention to give and help, these techniques can be employed to benefit one´s customers.

Being an internet marketer I often do get the question whether the internet marketing world is not full of scam and crap. My answer to this question always is: Yes, it is. It is just like in the physical world. There is good and bad all over the place. The internet itself and the techniques how to use it are neither good or bad. It´s the user who makes it a beneficial experience or something that is solely aiming at one person profiting. Educated internet users will be able to differentiate between those two sides and your blog is an excellent place for everyone to discover how persuasion techniques can be employed for a higher good.

Have a great day and keep up your great work

3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

I feel like I want to draw a different line. Persuasion still respects the listeners right to decide, manipulation offers them no choice. This is not to say you cant resist manipulation, but if we are persuading we need to have the humility to realize that we may be wrong, or not have the right solution for some people. We need to respect their right to choose. Manipulators often just want to get what they want to get, without regard to the listeners right to choose.

3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Great distinction Bob. It is particularly important for leaders. Your point that There is perhaps nothing more dangerous than a bad person with good people skills. is a big source of disillusionment with leaders and leadership these days.

askjohncharles.com. Great job!

Mirko, excellent points. Than you.

Brad, you are right on the mark. So much so, in fact, that I went back and added an asterisk. Well discuss your great point in a future article. I agree with you 100 percent. A persuader sets a frame for the other person to take positive actionbut always leaves it up to the other person as to whether or not they take that action. Thank you for pointing that out.

3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Bob, I really like the way you distinguish between these two words/actions. In sales, Ive seen a lot of techniques labeled persuasion but that feel like manipulation when used. The intention really is key, and we need to think about this anytime were in a situation where we are interested in influencing someone else. I agree with Susan that its a critical distinction for leaders to absorb if they want to get positive results through others.

Bob

Sorry had the wrong email address in.

3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

I agree pursuasion happens between equals. People who manipulate are viewing the other person as a thing.

3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

As with the other points eloquently made, I believe the distinction is a necessary one.

Manipulation is concerned exclusively with manoeuvring to a particular value or point of view, whilst persuasion has as its sole intention the influence of another which allows for their greater good.

Great persuaders act as a mirror, reflecting a world full with potential as seen through the eyes of the beholder ready to be shaded, drawn and packed with images created by the individual.

Great manipulators present a completed picture, drawn and shaded in their colours, their images, their viewpoint with no possibility for interpretation, choice, potential or excitement such an impoverished picture.

Wow all these kind comments. Thank you so much. Please know how much they mean to me. And, going through them individually, I greatly appreciate you sharing your wisdom with us. Again, I find that so often your comments both add to and exceed the information in my original post. Thank you!!

I like the definition of persuasion that you presented. However, I believe that it is a bit of wishful thinking. So many people who practice persuasion are applying pressure upon each individual listener, and are being subtly manipulative even when they say they arent. The definition you presented will only give them justification to continue practicing the same methods, while claiming they are only being persuasive. Some will even quote you.

Carl Ingalls

3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Bob,

Your blog post touched on a subject that I have been working with recently and you have helped me firm up my view of the manipulation vs. persuasion issue.

Persuasion is when you motivate someone to take an action that is in THEIR own best interests. You help someone see what is possible, something they may not have seen before. You then guide them to achieve that reality. The major word here is HELP.

Manipulation is when you motivate someone to take an action that is for YOUR benefit. You have no regard for the other person and indeed see them at best as a transaction, at worst a target. The major word here is SELFISH.

Thank you so much for your help! I love your work and have tried to implement in both my personal and professional lives. Keep it up!

Rick White

3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Hi everyone who has posted comments since my last thank you. Just wanted to saythank you and for you to know how much Im enjoying and learning from all your comments. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom with us!!

Carl, thank you for your note. Im wondering if perhaps you might have overlooked the asterisk immediately after the article. Repeating it here, it said:

**Caution and questioning of one’s motives is always advised here. Might one rationalize to themselves they are persuading when they are actually manipulating? A persuader stays aware of this on a constant basis. In a future article, we’ll look at how this can be done.

Please let me know if that clarifies or if Im still not quite getting it.

3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Bob,

I apologize for hastily leaving a comment without first reading both of your postscripts. I see now that you had already addressed my main concern.

However, I still believe that you are proposing a definition of persuasion that is very different from how most people interpret the word, and they are not likely to change. Also, for most people, the very objective of persuading will cause them to do things that are manipulative.

3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Hi Carl, thank you. I appreciate that. And, no prob. Im a bit curious; what is it about the definition of persuasion that you feel is missing the mark? And, I agree that there are those who might not interpret it that way. In fact, thats one reason I wrote the article; to establish a premise; a definition of what persuasion is that I believe is accurate. Id really enjoy knowing more regarding how youre seeing this, as good, thoughtful discussion such as this always helps me to learn more, and helps me to learn how to better communicate what Im trying to say. Thank you again!

3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Carl, I neglected to answer your last concern. My apologies. You wrote:

Also, for most people, the very objective of persuading will cause them to do things that are manipulative.

While I respectfully disagree with that, Ill be covering that issue as part of the follow-up articles. My thanks.

3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Im not going to try to persuade anyone that persuasion doesnt work. Whether anyone is persuaded one way or the other is completely up to them, and not at all up to me.

However, I will talk about my own persuasion on this topic. I am a consultant with a technical specialty. People pay me to give them advice. I know how to be persuasive, but I finally discovered that my clients were more likely to take my advice if I made no attempt of any sort to convince them to do so.

My intent did not change, just my delivery. My reason for wanting them to take my advice has always been so that they would benefit from it. Therefore, my attempts to get them to take my advice certainly meets your definition of persuasion. I was doing it for my clients benefit, because I only benefit when they do.

When I started delivering the same advice in a different way, with absolutely ZERO attempt at any sort of persuasion at all, and no change in my intentions, the acceptance rate went way up. I believe I understand why, but explaining it might sound persuasive.

Carl Ingalls

3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Hmmm, I wonder if we are still looking at the word persuasion differently. Could it be that your low-key type of persuasion (which, is excellent) plus, the fact that your advice has proven to work in the past, and the fact that they know, like and trust you (and anytime that is the case, persuasion as I would define it is much easier) provides a context where basically, all you need to do is advise them and that is enough for them to take action? Of course, I dont know because I dont know the exact situation. Im just guessing. Personally, when you say you use absolutely ZERO persuasion, my guess is that you perhaps lost your attachment to their having to be persuaded. And, when that happened, you found it easier to persuade (i.e. for what you suggest to be acted upon).

Now, with all that saidagain, Im just guessing.

Regarding your last sentence, by all means, feel free to explain Carl. I always want to learn more and Id say that probably holds true for all of us participating in, and reading, this discussion. I welcome your wisdom!

3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Great post, Bob! Persuasion is a kissing cousin to influence, which as John Maxwell reminds us, is leadership, positive win-win leadership that is!

3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Bob,

Yes, I am certain that we are looking at persuasion quite differently. I believe this difference has been the central point of our conversation.

I see persuasion in 3 very different parts. The first is the Intent to Persuade, to change someone elses mind. The second is the Act of Persuasion, the conscious things you do that you believe will make this change more likely. The third is the Outcome of Persuasion, where your target has been persuaded.

What I have found is that if I skip the first part entirely, and leave the second part to the other person, the third part takes care of itself quite well. The desired outcome occurs more often. I am not doing, nor intending to do, any part of the persuading. If the other person wants to be persuaded, they do it themselves.

Skipping the Intent to change someone elses mind is similar to, and a little bit deeper than, your description of abandoning the attachment to the outcome. You also have to abandon the intent to change someone elses mind. Even more importantly, you have to abandon the idea that you can take credit for the outcome.

By the way, I didnt lose my attachment to the outcome. It takes a very deliberate act to get rid of that. It is also a continuous struggle.

Thank you for inviting my comments on this blog post. You are a very gracious host, even to people who disagree with you.

Carl Ingalls

3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Bob, so true! I work in the fitness field and often see people who want to get fit but are afraid, for whatever reason, to take the plunge (usually financial). I always see potential clients as people who are investing in themselves. If they truly respect themselves, I am not the one persuading themtheyve already done that on their own. Im simply a vehicle to show them they can get it done safer, faster and with less pain. Thanks for this article!

Ron A Go Giver.

3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

Jane, thank you. Always great to hear from you!

Carl, yes, I believe we are looking at persuasion differently, but mainly in terms of its use value. I see it as benevolent if done with the correct intent.

Your second paragraph I agree with completely. I love the three parts and I think that sums up persuasion perfectly (as you know, in my opinion, the changing of someones mind or more accurately, *helping them to change their own mind* is persuasion if with benevolent intent and manipulation if with malevolent intent).

Heres where I would disagree with you, if I may. Depending upon the situation, in most cases, if there is a necessity to obtain a different result from a certain persons intended actions or non-action, then following your suggestion in your third paragraph skipping the intent to persuade and simply leaving it to the other person will result in no change at all. It must result in that, by the very nature of the thing. After all, without additional information, people generally wont change what they are already thinking or doing.

Of course, we could be speaking in different contexts. However, Im talking (and in my articles on this topic, this is the case) where nothing would change if the persuader didnt take the action to cause it to change.

Examples include (but are certainly not limited to) the customer-service person not providing you customer service, the bureaucrat following policy when its counter-productive, the child who is tending to involve him or herself with the wrong crowd, the ticket agent who was having a bad day who was going to make the next customers life unnecessarily difficult, the bank not cashing an out-of-town check that you need to cash, helping a child see their inherent worth and value, the sales prospect who is trapped in a paradigm that is not helpful to them (and, yes, positive sales is persuasion otherwise it would be called order-taking), the police officer citing you for a questionable violation, a company not wanting to accept a return. And, it goes on and on.

Again, different situations are different. And, I do think in the next couple of articles Ill answer your concerns regarding the fine line that can occur between persuasion and manipulation, though, Ill look forward to any additional thoughts and concerns from you there, as well.

Regarding your fifth paragraph in terms of not losing your attachment but it being a deliberate act and a continuous struggleRIGHT ON. I agree with you completely. I was incorrect in the way I previously stated it.

Thank YOU, Carl.

Ron, thank you for your feedback. Yes, youve simply provided the context and become the vehicle. That would also seem to align with what Carl said.

3A%2F%2F1.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D80&r=G /%

I see it as benevolent if done with the correct intent. Agreed. When we compare and contrast persuasion with manipulation, we must be careful not to throw the baby (persuasion) out with the bath water (manipulation).

Bob, I do believe manipulation involves much more than just malevolent intent. We can go on and on about how a sellers self-absorption can manifest manipulative sales tactics under the guise of I am only doing this for your own good. Yes, the end result may actually be in the clients best interest, but the means of getting theremanipulationis morally and ethically questionable. Where I come from, means dont justify ends. (We are talking about sales and not politics, right?)