The Necessary Art of Persuasion - wuve.pw · the necessary art of persuasion Jay A. Conger is a...

The Necessary Art of Persuasion

by Jay A. Conger

Reprint 98304

Harvard Business Review

MAY– JUNE 1998

Reprint Number

HarvardBusinessReviewDAVID J. COLLIS ANDCYNTHIA A . MONTGOMERY

JAY A . CONGER

CHRIS ARGYRIS

JEFFREY PFEFFER

MAHLON APGAR, IV

ORIT GADIESH ANDJAMES L . GILBERT

ORIT GADIESH AND JAMES L . GILBERT

CONSTANTINE VON HOFFMAN

GORDON SHAW, ROBERT BROWN,and PHILIP BROMILEY

LARRY E. GREINER

JEFFREY E. GARTEN

CREATING CORPORATE ADVANTAGE 98303

THE NECESSARY ART OF PERSUASION 98304

EMPOWERMENT: 98302THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

SIX DANGEROUS MYTHS ABOUT PAY 98309

THE ALTERNATIVE WORKPLACE: 98301CHANGING WHERE AND HOW PEOPLE WORK

PROFIT POOLS: 98305A FRESH LOOK AT STRATEGY

manager’s tool kitHOW TO MAP YOUR INDUSTRY’S PROFIT POOL 98306

HBR CASE STUDYDOES THIS COMPANY NEED A UNION? 98311

ideas at workSTRATEGIC STORIES: 98310HOW 3M IS REWRITING BUSINESS PLANNING

HBR CLASSICEVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION AS 98308ORGANIZATIONS GROW

BOOKS IN REVIEWOPENING THE DOORS FOR BUSINESS IN CHINA 98307

The language of leadership is misunderstood, underutilized – and more essential than ever.

THE NECESSARY ART OF

PERSUASION BY JAY A. CONGER

If there ever was a time for businesspeople to learn the fine art

of persuasion, it is now. Gone are the command-and-control days of

executives managing by decree. Today businesses are run largely by

cross-functional teams of peers and populated by baby boomers and

their Generation X offspring, who show little tolerance for unques-

tioned authority. Electronic communication and globalization have

further eroded the traditional hierarchy, as ideas and people flow more

freely than ever around organizations and as decisions get made closer

to the markets. These fundamental changes, more than a decade in

the making but now firmly part of the economic landscape, essentially

come down to this: work today gets done in an environment where

Twelve Years of Watching and Listening

people don’t just ask What should I do? but Whyshould I do it?

To answer this why question effectively is to per-suade. Yet many businesspeople misunderstandpersuasion, and more still underutilize it. The rea-son? Persuasion is widely perceived as a skill re-served for selling products and closing deals. It is also commonly seen as just another form of manip-ulation – devious and to be avoided. Certainly, per-suasion can be used in selling and deal-clinchingsituations, and it can be misused to manipulatepeople. But exercised constructively and to its fullpotential, persuasion supersedes sales and is quitethe opposite of deception. Effective persuasion be-comes a negotiating and learning process throughwhich a persuader leads colleagues to a problem’sshared solution. Persuasion does indeed involvemoving people to a position they don’t currentlyhold, but not by begging or cajoling. Instead, it involves careful preparation, the proper framing ofarguments, the presentation of vivid supporting evidence, and the effort to find the correct emotionalmatch with your audience.

Effective persuasion is a difficult and time-consuming proposition, but it may also be morepowerful than the command-and-control mana-gerial model it succeeds. As AlliedSignal’s CEOLawrence Bossidy said recently, “The day whenyou could yell and scream and beat people into goodperformance is over. Today you have to appeal tothem by helping them see how they can get fromhere to there, by establishing some credibility, andby giving them some reason and help to get there.Do all those things, and they’ll knock down doors.”In essence, he is describing persuasion – now morethan ever, the language of business leadership.

Think for a moment of your definition of persua-sion. If you are like most businesspeople I have encountered (see the insert “Twelve Years of Watch-ing and Listening”), you see persuasion as a rela-tively straightforward process. First, you stronglystate your position. Second, you outline the sup-porting arguments, followed by a highly assertive,data-based exposition. Finally, you enter the deal-making stage and work toward a “close.” In otherwords, you use logic, persistence, and personal enthusiasm to get others to buy a good idea. The re-ality is that following this process is one surefireway to fail at persuasion. (See the insert “Four WaysNot to Persuade.”)

What, then, constitutes effective persuasion? Ifpersuasion is a learning and negotiating process,then in the most general terms it involves phases of

Copyright © 1998 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved. artwork by David Johnson

the necessary art of persuasion

Jay A. Conger is a professor of organizational behavior atthe University of Southern California’s Marshall Schoolof Business in Los Angeles, where he directs the Leader-ship Institute. He is the author of Winning ’Em Over: A New Model for Managing in the Age of Persuasion (Simon & Schuster, 1998).

The ideas behind this article spring from three streamsof research.

For the last 12 years as both an academic and as aconsultant, I have been studying 23 senior businessleaders who have shown themselves to be effectivechange agents. Specifically, I have investigated howthese individuals use language to motivate their em-ployees, articulate vision and strategy, and mobilizetheir organizations to adapt to challenging businessenvironments.

Four years ago, I started a second stream of researchexploring the capabilities and characteristics of suc-cessful cross-functional team leaders. The core of mydatabase comprised interviews with and observationsof 18 individuals working in a range of U.S. and Cana-dian companies. These were not senior leaders as inmy earlier studies but low- and middle-level man-agers. Along with interviewing the colleagues of thesepeople, I also compared their skills with those of other

team leaders – in particular, with the leaders of lesssuccessful cross-functional teams engaged in similarinitiatives within the same companies. Again, my fo-cus was on language, but I also studied the influence ofinterpersonal skills.

The similarities in the persuasion skills possessedby both the change-agent leaders and effective teamleaders prompted me to explore the academic litera-ture on persuasion and rhetoric, as well as on the art ofgospel preaching. Meanwhile, to learn how most man-agers approach the persuasion process, I observed sev-eral dozen managers in company meetings, and I em-ployed simulations in company executive-educationprograms where groups of managers had to persuadeone another on hypothetical business objectives. Finally, I selected a group of 14 managers known fortheir outstanding abilities in constructive persuasion.For several months, I interviewed them and their col-leagues and observed them in actual work situations.

Four Ways Not to Persuade

discovery, preparation, and dialogue. Getting readyto persuade colleagues can take weeks or months ofplanning as you learn about your audience and theposition you intend to argue. Before they even startto talk, effective persuaders have considered theirpositions from every angle. What investments intime and money will my position require from oth-ers? Is my supporting evidence weak in any way?Are there alternative positions I need to examine?

Dialogue happens before and during the persua-sion process. Before the process begins, effectivepersuaders use dialogue to learn more about theiraudience’s opinions, concerns, and perspectives.During the process, dialogue continues to be a formof learning, but it is also the beginning of the nego-tiation stage. You invite people to discuss, even de-bate, the merits of your position, and then to offerhonest feedback and suggest alternative solutions.That may sound like a slow way to achieve yourgoal, but effective persuasion is about testing andrevising ideas in concert with your colleagues’ con-cerns and needs. In fact, the best persuaders not on-ly listen to others but also incorporate their per-spectives into a shared solution.

Persuasion, in other words, often involves –indeed, demands – compromise. Perhaps that iswhy the most effective persuaders seem to share a common trait: they are open-minded, never dog-matic. They enter the persuasion process preparedto adjust their viewpoints and incorporate others’ideas. That approach to persuasion is, interestingly,highly persuasive in itself. When colleagues seethat a persuader is eager to hear their views andwilling to make changes in response to their needsand concerns, they respond very positively. Theytrust the persuader more and listen more atten-tively. They don’t fear being bowled over or manip-ulated. They see the persuader as flexible and arethus more willing to make sacrifices themselves.Because that is such a powerful dynamic, good per-suaders often enter the persuasion process with judicious compromises already prepared.

Four Essential Steps Effective persuasion involves four distinct and es-sential steps. First, effective persuaders establishcredibility. Second, they frame their goals in a way

harvard business review May–June 1998 87


In my work with managers as a researcher and as aconsultant, I have had the unfortunate opportunity tosee executives fail miserably at persuasion. Here arethe four most common mistakes people make:

1. They attempt to make their case with an up-front,hard sell. I call this the John Wayne approach. Man-agers strongly state their position at the outset, andthen through a process of persistence, logic, and exu-berance, they try to push the idea to a close. In reality,setting out a strong position at the start of a persua-sion effort gives potential opponents something tograb onto – and fight against. It’s far better to presentyour position with the finesse and reserve of a liontamer, who engages his “partner” by showing him the legs of a chair. In other words, effective persuadersdon’t begin the process by giving their colleagues aclear target in which to set their jaws.

2. They resist compromise. Too many managers seecompromise as surrender, but it is essential to con-structive persuasion. Before people buy into a proposal,they want to see that the persuader is flexible enoughto respond to their concerns. Compromises can oftenlead to better, more sustainable shared solutions.

By not compromising, ineffective persuaders un-consciously send the message that they think persua-sion is a one-way street. But persuasion is a process of

give-and-take. Kathleen Reardon, a professor of orga-nizational behavior at the University of Southern Cal-ifornia, points out that a persuader rarely changes an-other person’s behavior or viewpoint without alteringhis or her own in the process. To persuade meaning-fully, we must not only listen to others but also incor-porate their perspectives into our own.

3. They think the secret of persuasion lies in pre-senting great arguments. In persuading people tochange their minds, great arguments matter. No doubtabout it. But arguments, per se, are only one part of theequation. Other factors matter just as much, such asthe persuader’s credibility and his or her ability to cre-ate a proper, mutually beneficial frame for a position,connect on the right emotional level with an audi-ence, and communicate through vivid language thatmakes arguments come alive.

4. They assume persuasion is a one-shot effort. Per-suasion is a process, not an event. Rarely, if ever, is itpossible to arrive at a shared solution on the first try.More often than not, persuasion involves listening topeople, testing a position, developing a new positionthat reflects input from the group, more testing, incor-porating compromises, and then trying again. If thissounds like a slow and difficult process, that’s becauseit is. But the results are worth the effort.

that identifies common ground with those they in-tend to persuade. Third, they reinforce their posi-tions using vivid language and compelling evi-dence. And fourth, they connect emotionally withtheir audience. As one of the most effective execu-tives in our research commented, “The most valu-able lesson I’ve learned about persuasion over theyears is that there’s just as much strategy in howyou present your position as in the position itself.In fact, I’d say the strategy of presentation is themore critical.”

Establish credibility. The first hurdle persuadersmust overcome is their own credibility. A persuadercan’t advocate a new or contrarian position withouthaving people wonder, Can we trust this individ-ual’s perspectives and opinions? Such a reaction isunderstandable. After all, allowing oneself to bepersuaded is risky, because any new initiative de-mands a commitment of time and resources. Yeteven though persuaders must have high credibility,our research strongly suggests that most managersoverestimate their own credibility – considerably.

In the workplace, credibility grows out of twosources: expertise and relationships. People are con-sidered to have high levels of expertise if they havea history of sound judgment or have proven them-selves knowledgeable and well informed abouttheir proposals. For example, in proposing a newproduct idea, an effective persuader would need tobe perceived as possessing a thorough understand-ing of the product – its specifications, target mar-kets, customers, and competing products. A historyof prior successes would further strengthen the per-

suader’s perceived expertise. One extremely suc-cessful executive in our research had a track recordof 14 years of devising highly effective advertisingcampaigns. Not surprisingly, he had an easy timewinning colleagues over to his position. Anothermanager had a track record of seven successfulnew-product launches in a period of five years. He,too, had an advantage when it came to persuadinghis colleagues to support his next new idea.

On the relationship side, people with high cred-ibility have demonstrated – again, usually over

time – that they can be trusted to listen and to workin the best interests of others. They have also con-sistently shown strong emotional character and in-tegrity; that is, they are not known for mood ex-tremes or inconsistent performance. Indeed, peoplewho are known to be honest, steady, and reliablehave an edge when going into any persuasion situa-tion. Because their relationships are robust, theyare more apt to be given the benefit of the doubt.One effective persuader in our research was consid-ered by colleagues to be remarkably trustworthyand fair; many people confided in her. In addition,she generously shared credit for good ideas and pro-vided staff with exposure to the company’s seniorexecutives. This woman had built strong relation-ships, which meant her staff and peers were alwayswilling to consider seriously what she proposed.

If expertise and relationships determine credibil-ity, it is crucial that you undertake an honest as-sessment of where you stand on both criteria beforebeginning to persuade. To do so, first step back andask yourself the following questions related to ex-pertise: How will others perceive my knowledgeabout the strategy, product, or change I am propos-ing? Do I have a track record in this area that othersknow about and respect? Then, to assess thestrength of your relationship credibility, ask your-self, Do those I am hoping to persuade see me ashelpful, trustworthy, and supportive? Will they seeme as someone in sync with them – emotionally,intellectually, and politically – on issues like thisone? Finally, it is important to note that it is notenough to get your own read on these matters. You

must also test your answers with col-leagues you trust to give you a realitycheck. Only then will you have acomplete picture of your credibility.

In most cases, that exercise helpspeople discover that they have somemeasure of weakness, either on theexpertise or on the relationship side ofcredibility. The challenge then be-comes to fill in such gaps.

In general, if your area of weaknessis on the expertise side, you have several options: ■ First, you can learn more about the complexitiesof your position through either formal or informaleducation and through conversations with knowl-edgeable individuals. You might also get more rele-vant experience on the job by asking, for instance,to be assigned to a team that would increase yourinsight into particular markets or products. ■ Another alternative is to hire someone to bolsteryour expertise – for example, an industry consul-tant or a recognized outside expert, such as a profes-

88 harvard business review May–June 1998


Research strongly suggests that most managers are in thehabit of overestimating their owncredibility–often considerably.

sor. Either one may have the knowledge and experi-ence required to support your position effectively.Similarly, you may tap experts within your organi-zation to advocate your position. Their credibilitybecomes a substitute for your own.■ You can also utilize other outside sources of infor-mation to support your position, such as respectedbusiness or trade periodicals, books,independently produced reports, andlectures by experts. In our research,one executive from the clothing indus-try successfully persuaded his com-pany to reposition an entire productline to a more youthful market afterbolstering his credibility with articlesby a noted demographer in two highlyregarded journals and with two inde-pendent market-research studies. ■ Finally, you may launch pilot projects to demon-strate on a small scale your expertise and the valueof your ideas.

As for filling in the relationship gap:■ You should make a concerted effort to meet one-on-one with all the key people you plan to per-suade. This is not the time to outline your positionbut rather to get a range of perspectives on the issueat hand. If you have the time and resources, youshould even offer to help these people with issuesthat concern them. ■ Another option is to involve like-minded cowork-ers who already have strong relationships with youraudience. Again, that is a matter of seeking out sub-stitutes on your own behalf.

For an example of how these strategies can be putto work, consider the case of a chief operating offi-cer of a large retail bank, whom we will call TomSmith. Although he was new to his job, Smith ar-dently wanted to persuade the senior managementteam that the company was in serious trouble. Hebelieved that the bank’s overhead was excessiveand would jeopardize its position as the industryentered a more competitive era. Most of his col-leagues, however, did not see the potential serious-ness of the situation. Because the bank had beenenormously successful in recent years, they be-lieved changes in the industry posed little danger.In addition to being newly appointed, Smith had another problem: his career had been in financialservices, and he was considered an outsider in theworld of retail banking. Thus he had few personalconnections to draw on as he made his case, norwas he perceived to be particularly knowledgeableabout marketplace exigencies.

As a first step in establishing credibility, Smithhired an external consultant with respected creden-

tials in the industry who showed that the bank wasindeed poorly positioned to be a low-cost producer.In a series of interactive presentations to the bank’stop-level management, the consultant revealedhow the company’s leading competitors were tak-ing aggressive actions to contain operating costs.He made it clear from these presentations that not

cutting costs would soon cause the bank to falldrastically behind the competition. These findingswere then distributed in written reports that circu-lated throughout the bank.

Next, Smith determined that the bank’s branchmanagers were critical to his campaign. The buy-inof those respected and informed individuals wouldsignal to others in the company that his concernswere valid. Moreover, Smith looked to the branchmanagers because he believed that they could in-crease his expertise about marketplace trends andalso help him test his own assumptions. Thus, forthe next three months, he visited every branch inhis region of Ontario, Canada – 135 in all. Duringeach visit, he spent time with branch managers, lis-tening to their perceptions of the bank’s strengthsand weaknesses. He learned firsthand about thecompetition’s initiatives and customer trends, andhe solicited ideas for improving the bank’s servicesand minimizing costs. By the time he was through,Smith had a broad perspective on the bank’s futurethat few people even in senior management pos-sessed. And he had built dozens of relationships inthe process.

Finally, Smith launched some small but highlyvisible initiatives to demonstrate his expertise andcapabilities. For example, he was concerned aboutslow growth in the company’s mortgage businessand the loan officers’ resulting slip in morale. So hedevised a program in which new mortgage cus-tomers would make no payments for the first 90days. The initiative proved remarkably successful,and in short order Smith appeared to be a far moresavvy retail banker than anyone had assumed.

Another example of how to establish credibilitycomes from Microsoft. In 1990, two product-devel-opment managers, Karen Fries and Barry Linnett,



A persuader should make aconcerted effort to meet one-on-one

with all the key people he or sheplans to persuade.

came to believe that the market would greatly wel-come software that featured a “social interface.”They envisioned a package that would employ ani-mated human and animal characters to show usershow to go about their computing tasks.

Inside Microsoft, however, employees had imme-diate concerns about the concept. Software pro-grammers ridiculed the cute characters. Animatedcharacters had been used before only in software forchildren, making their use in adult environments

hard to envision. But Fries and Linnett felt theirproposed product had both dynamism and com-plexity, and they remained convinced that con-sumers would eagerly buy such programs. Theyalso believed that the home-computer softwaremarket – largely untapped at the time and with fewer software standards – would be open to suchinnovation.

Within the company, Fries had gained quite a bitof relationship credibility. She had started out as arecruiter for the company in 1987 and had workeddirectly for many of Microsoft’s senior executives.They trusted and liked her. In addition, she hadbeen responsible for hiring the company’s productand program managers. As a result, she knew all thesenior people at Microsoft and had hired many ofthe people who would be deciding on her product.

Linnett’s strength laid in his expertise. In particu-lar, he knew the technology behind an innovativetutorial program called PC Works. In addition, bothFries and Linnett had managed Publisher, a productwith a unique help feature called Wizards, whichMicrosoft’s CEO, Bill Gates, had liked. But thosefactors were sufficient only to get an initial hearingfrom Microsoft’s senior management. To persuadethe organization to move forward, the pair wouldneed to improve perceptions of their expertise. Ithurt them that this type of social-interface softwarehad no proven track record of success and that theywere both novices with such software. Their chal-lenge became one of finding substitutes for theirown expertise.

Their first step was a wise one. From within Mi-crosoft, they hired respected technical guru Darrin

Massena. With Massena, they developed a set ofprototypes to demonstrate that they did indeed un-derstand the software’s technology and could makeit work. They then tested the prototypes in marketresearch, and users responded enthusiastically. Fi-nally, and most important, they enlisted two Stan-ford University professors, Clifford Nass and BryonReeves, both experts in human-computer interac-tion. In several meetings with Microsoft seniormanagers and Gates himself, they presented a rigor-

ously compiled and thorough body ofresearch that demonstrated how andwhy social-interface software was ide-ally suited to the average computeruser. In addition, Fries and Linnett asserted that considerable jumps incomputing power would make morerealistic cartoon characters an in-creasingly malleable technology.Their product, they said, was the lead-ing edge of an incipient software rev-

olution. Convinced, Gates approved a full product-development team, and in January 1995, theproduct called BOB was launched. BOB went on tosell more than half a million copies, and its conceptand technology are being used within Microsoft as a platform for developing several Internet products.

Credibility is the cornerstone of effective per-suading; without it, a persuader won’t be given thetime of day. In the best-case scenario, people enterinto a persuasion situation with some measure ofexpertise and relationship credibility. But it is im-portant to note that credibility along either linescan be built or bought. Indeed, it must be, or thenext steps are an exercise in futility.

Frame for common ground. Even if your credi-bility is high, your position must still appealstrongly to the people you are trying to persuade.After all, few people will jump on board a train thatwill bring them to ruin or even mild discomfort. Effective persuaders must be adept at describingtheir positions in terms that illuminate their ad-vantages. As any parent can tell you, the fastestway to get a child to come along willingly on a tripto the grocery store is to point out that there arelollipops by the cash register. That is not deception.It is just a persuasive way of framing the benefits oftaking such a journey. In work situations, persua-sive framing is obviously more complex, but theunderlying principle is the same. It is a process ofidentifying shared benefits.

Monica Ruffo, an account executive for an adver-tising agency, offers a good example of persuasiveframing. Her client, a fast-food chain, was institut-ing a promotional campaign in Canada; menu



In some situations, no sharedadvantages are readily apparent.In these cases, effective persuadersadjust their positions.

items such as a hamburger, fries, and cola were tobe bundled together and sold at a low price. Thestrategy made sense to corporate headquarters. Itsresearch showed that consumers thought the com-pany’s products were higher priced than the compe-tition’s, and the company was anxious to overcomethis perception. The franchisees, on the other hand,were still experiencing strong sales and were farmore concerned about the short-termimpact that the new, low prices wouldhave on their profit margins.

A less experienced persuader wouldhave attempted to rationalize headquar-ters’ perspective to the franchisees – toconvince them of its validity. But Ruffoframed the change in pricing to demon-strate its benefits to the franchiseesthemselves. The new value campaign,she explained, would actually improvefranchisees’ profits. To back up thispoint, she drew on several sources. A pilot project in Tennessee, for instance,had demonstrated that under the newpricing scheme, the sales of french friesand drinks – the two most profitableitems on the menu – had markedly in-creased. In addition, the company hadrolled out medium-sized meal packagesin 80% of its U.S. outlets, and fran-chisees’ sales of fries and drinks hadjumped 26%. Citing research from a re-spected business periodical, Ruffo alsoshowed that when customers raisedtheir estimate of the value they receivefrom a retail establishment by 10%, theestablishment’s sales rose by 1%. Shehad estimated that the new meal planwould increase value perceptions by100%, with the result that franchiseesales could be expected to grow 10%.

Ruffo closed her presentation with aletter written many years before by thecompany’s founder to the organization.It was an emotional letter extolling thevalues of the company and stressing the impor-tance of the franchisees to the company’s success. Italso highlighted the importance of the company’sposition as the low-price leader in the industry. Thebeliefs and values contained in the letter had longbeen etched in the minds of Ruffo’s audience. Hear-ing them again only confirmed the company’s con-cern for the franchisees and the importance of theirwinning formula. They also won Ruffo a standingovation. That day, the franchisees voted unani-mously to support the new meal-pricing plan.

The Ruffo case illustrates why – in choosing ap-propriate positioning – it is critical first to identifyyour objective’s tangible benefits to the people youare trying to persuade. Sometimes that is easy. Mu-tual benefits exist. In other situations, however, noshared advantages are readily apparent – or mean-ingful. In these cases, effective persuaders adjusttheir positions. They know it is impossible to en-

gage people and gain commitment to ideas or planswithout highlighting the advantages to all the par-ties involved.

At the heart of framing is a solid understanding ofyour audience. Even before starting to persuade, thebest persuaders we have encountered closely studythe issues that matter to their colleagues. They useconversations, meetings, and other forms of dia-logue to collect essential information. They aregood at listening. They test their ideas with trustedconfidants, and they ask questions of the people



When a fast-food chain needed to persuade its franchisees to buyinto a meal-pricing plan that had the potential to eat into profits,headquarters framed the initiative to accent the positive.

they will later be persuading. Those steps helpthem think through the arguments, the evidence,and the perspectives they will present. Oftentimes,this process causes them to alter or compromisetheir own plans before they even start persuading. It is through this thoughtful, inquisitive approachthey develop frames that appeal to their audience.

Consider the case of a manager who was in chargeof process engineering for a jet engine manufac-turer. He had redesigned the work flow for routineturbine maintenance for airline clients in a manner

that would dramatically shorten the turnaroundtime for servicing. Before presenting his ideas to the company’s president, he consulted a good friendin the company, the vice president of engineering,who knew the president well. This conversation re-vealed that the president’s prime concern wouldnot be speed or efficiency but profitability. To getthe president’s buy-in, the vice president explained, the new system would have to improve the com-pany’s profitability in the short run by lowering op-erating expenses.

At first this information had the managerstumped. He had planned to focus on efficiency andhad even intended to request additional funding tomake the process work. But his conversation withthe vice president sparked him to change his posi-tion. Indeed, he went so far as to change the work-flow design itself so that it no longer required newinvestment but rather drove down costs. He thencarefully documented the cost savings and prof-itability gains that his new plan would produce andpresented this revised plan to the president. Withhis initiative positioned anew, the manager per-suaded the president and got the project approved.

Provide evidence. With credibility establishedand a common frame identified, persuasion be-comes a matter of presenting evidence. Ordinaryevidence, however, won’t do. We have found thatthe most effective persuaders use language in a par-ticular way. They supplement numerical data withexamples, stories, metaphors, and analogies tomake their positions come alive. That use of lan-guage paints a vivid word picture and, in doing so,lends a compelling and tangible quality to the per-suader’s point of view.

Think about a typical persuasion situation. Thepersuader is often advocating a goal, strategy, or ini-tiative with an uncertain outcome. Karen Fries andBarry Linnett, for instance, wanted Microsoft to in-vest millions of dollars in a software package withchancy technology and unknown market demand.The team could have supported its case solely withmarket research, financial projections, and the like.But that would have been a mistake, because re-search shows that most people perceive such reportsas not entirely informative. They are too abstract to

be completely meaningful or memo-rable. In essence, the numbers don’tmake an emotional impact.

By contrast, stories and vivid lan-guage do, particularly when they pre-sent comparable situations to the oneunder discussion. A marketing man-ager trying to persuade senior exec-utives to invest in a new product, for

example, might cite examples of similar invest-ments that paid off handsomely. Indeed, we foundthat people readily draw lessons from such cases.More important, the research shows that listenersabsorb information in proportion to its vividness.Thus it is no wonder that Fries and Linnett hit ahome run when they presented their case for BOBwith the following analogy:

Imagine you want to cook dinner and you must first goto the supermarket. You have all the flexibility youwant – you can cook anything in the world as long as you know how and have the time and desire to do it.When you arrive at the supermarket, you find all theseoverstuffed aisles with cryptic single-word headings like“sundries” and “ethnic food” and “condiments.” Theseare the menus on typical computer interfaces. The ques-tion is whether salt is under condiments or ethnic food or near the potato chip section. There are surroundingracks and wall spaces, much as our software interfacesnow have support buttons, tool bars, and lines around theperimeters. Now after you have collected everything,you still need to put it all together in the correct order tomake a meal. If you’re a good cook, your meal will proba-bly be good. If you’re a novice, it probably won’t be.

We [at Microsoft] have been selling under the super-market category for years, and we think there is a big opportunity for restaurants. That’s what we are trying todo now with BOB: pushing the next step with softwarethat is more like going to a restaurant, so the user doesn’tspend all of his time searching for the ingredients. Wefind and put the ingredients together. You sit down, youget comfortable. We bring you a menu. We do the work,you relax. It’s an enjoyable experience. No walkingaround lost trying to find things, no cooking.

Had Fries and Linnett used a literal description ofBOB’s advantages, few of their highly computer-



Numbers do not make anemotional impact, but stories and vivid language do.

literate colleagues at Microsoft would have person-ally related to the menu-searching frustration thatBOB was designed to eliminate. The analogy theyselected, however, made BOB’s purpose both con-crete and memorable.

A master persuader, Mary Kay Ash, the founderof Mary Kay Cosmetics, regularly draws on analo-gies to illustrate and “sell” the business conductshe values. Consider this speech at the company’sannual sales convention:

Back in the days of the Roman Empire, the legions ofthe emperor conquered the known world. There was,however, one band of people that the Romans never con-quered. Those people were the followers of the greatteacher from Bethlehem. Historians have long since dis-covered that one of the reasons for the sturdiness of thisfolk was their habit of meeting together weekly. Theyshared their difficulties, and they stood side by side. Doesthis remind you of something? The way we stand side byside and share our knowledge and difficulties with eachother in our weekly unit meetings? I have so often ob-served when a director or unit member is confrontedwith a personal problem that the unit stands together inhelping that sister in distress. What a wonderful circle offriendships we have. Perhaps it’s one of the greatest fringebenefits of our company.

Through her vivid analogy, Ash links collectivesupport in the company to a courageous period inChristian history. In doing so, she accomplishesseveral objectives. First, she drives home her beliefthat collective support is crucial to the success ofthe organization. Most Mary Kay salespeople areindependent operators who face the daily chal-lenges of direct selling. An emotional support sys-tem of fellow salespeople is essential to ensure thatself-esteem and confidence remain intact in theface of rejection. Next she suggests by her analogythat solidarity against the odds is thebest way to stymie powerful oppres-sors – to wit, the competition. Finally,Ash’s choice of analogy imbues asense of a heroic mission to the workof her sales force.

You probably don’t need to invokethe analogy of the Christian struggleto support your position, but effectivepersuaders are not afraid of unleashing the im-mense power of language. In fact, they use it totheir utmost advantage.

Connect emotionally. In the business world, welike to think that our colleagues use reason to maketheir decisions, yet if we scratch below the surfacewe will always find emotions at play. Good per-suaders are aware of the primacy of emotions andare responsive to them in two important ways.

First, they show their own emotional commitmentto the position they are advocating. Such expres-sion is a delicate matter. If you act too emotional,people may doubt your clearheadedness. But youmust also show that your commitment to a goal isnot just in your mind but in your heart and gut aswell. Without this demonstration of feeling, peoplemay wonder if you actually believe in the positionyou’re championing.

Perhaps more important, however, is that effec-tive persuaders have a strong and accurate sense oftheir audience’s emotional state, and they adjustthe tone of their arguments accordingly. Some-times that means coming on strong, with forcefulpoints. Other times, a whisper may be all that is required. The idea is that whatever your position,you match your emotional fervor to your audi-ence’s ability to receive the message.

Effective persuaders seem to have a second senseabout how their colleagues have interpreted pastevents in the organization and how they will proba-bly interpret a proposal. The best persuaders in ourstudy would usually canvass key individuals whohad a good pulse on the mood and emotional expec-tations of those about to be persuaded. They wouldask those individuals how various proposals mightaffect colleagues on an emotional level – in essence,testing possible reactions. They were also quite ef-fective at gathering information through informalconversations in the hallways or at lunch. In theend, their aim was to ensure that the emotional ap-peal behind their persuasion matched what theiraudience was already feeling or expecting.

To illustrate the importance of emotional match-making in persuasion, consider this example. Thepresident of an aeronautics manufacturing com-pany strongly believed that the maintenance costs

and turnaround time of the company’s U.S. and for-eign competitors were so much better than his owncompany’s that it stood to lose customers and prof-its. He wanted to communicate his fear and his ur-gent desire for change to his senior managers. Soone afternoon, he called them into the boardroom.On an overhead screen was the projected image of a smiling man flying an old-fashioned biplane withhis scarf blowing in the wind. The right half of the



A persuader must match his or heremotional fervor to the audience’s

ability to receive the message.

that persuading senior managers would be difficult,but he also had his own team to contend with.Team members had lost their confidence that theywould ever again have the opportunity to create a good car. They were also angry that the UnitedStates had once again given up its position to foreigncompetitors when it came to small cars.

Marcell decided that his persuasion tactics had tobe built around emotional themes that would

touch his audience. From innumerable conversa-tions around the company, he learned that manypeople felt as he did – that to surrender the subcom-pact’s design to a foreign manufacturer was to sur-render the company’s soul and, ultimately, its abil-ity to provide jobs. In addition, he felt deeply thathis organization was a talented group hungry for a challenge and an opportunity to restore its self-esteem and pride. He would need to demonstratehis faith in the team’s abilities.

Marcell prepared a 15-minute talk built aroundslides of his hometown, Iron River, a now defunctmining town in Upper Michigan, devastated, inlarge part, by foreign mining companies. On thescreen flashed recent photographs he had taken ofhis boarded-up high school, the shuttered homes of his childhood friends, the crumbling ruins of thetown’s ironworks, closed churches, and an aban-doned railroad yard. After a description of each ofthese places, he said the phrase, “We couldn’t com-pete” – like the refrain of a hymn. Marcell’s pointwas that the same outcome awaited Detroit if theproduction of small cars was not brought back tothe United States. Surrender was the enemy, hesaid, and devastation would follow if the group didnot take immediate action.

Marcell ended his slide show on a hopeful note.He spoke of his pride in his design group and thenchallenged the team to build a “made-in-America”subcompact that would prove that the UnitedStates could still compete. The speech, whichechoed the exact sentiments of the audience, rekin-dled the group’s fighting spirit. Shortly after thespeech, group members began drafting their ideasfor a new car.

transparency was covered. When everyone wasseated, the president explained that he felt as thispilot did, given the company’s recent good fortune.The organization, after all, had just finished itsmost successful year in history. But then with adeep sigh, he announced that his happiness wasquickly vanishing. As the president lifted the remaining portion of the sheet, he revealed an im-age of the pilot flying directly into a wall. The presi-dent then faced his audience and in aheavy voice said, “This is what I seehappening to us.” He asserted that thecompany was headed for a crash ifpeople didn’t take action fast. He thenwent on to lecture the group about thesteps needed to counter this threat.

The reaction from the group wasimmediate and negative. Directly af-ter the meeting, managers gathered insmall clusters in the hallways to talkabout the president’s “scare tactics.” They resentedwhat they perceived to be the president’s overstate-ment of the case. As the managers saw it, they hadexerted enormous effort that year to break the com-pany’s records in sales and profitability. They wereproud of their achievements. In fact, they had en-tered the meeting expecting it would be the mo-ment of recognition. But to their absolute surprise,they were scolded.

The president’s mistake? First, he should havecanvassed a few members of his senior team to as-certain the emotional state of the group. From that,he would have learned that they were in need ofthanks and recognition. He should then have held a separate session devoted simply to praising theteam’s accomplishments. Later, in a second meet-ing, he could have expressed his own anxietiesabout the coming year. And rather than blame theteam for ignoring the future, he could have calmlydescribed what he saw as emerging threats to thecompany and then asked his management team tohelp him develop new initiatives.

Now let us look at someone who found the rightemotional match with his audience: Robert Mar-cell, head of Chrysler’s small-car design team. Inthe early 1990s, Chrysler was eager to produce anew subcompact – indeed, the company had not introduced a new model of this type since 1978. Butsenior managers at Chrysler did not want to go italone. They thought an alliance with a foreign man-ufacturer would improve the car’s design and pro-tect Chrysler’s cash stores.

Marcell was convinced otherwise. He believedthat the company should bring the design and pro-duction of a new subcompact in-house. He knew



It’s important for people tounderstand persuasion for what it is–not convincing and selling

but learning and negotiating.

Marcell then took his slide show to the com-pany’s senior management and ultimately toChrysler chairman Lee Iacocca. As Marcell showedhis slides, he could see that Iacocca was touched. Iacocca, after all, was a fighter and a strongly patri-otic man himself. In fact, Marcell’s approach wasnot too different from Iacocca’s earlier appeal to theUnited States Congress to save Chrysler. At the endof the show, Marcell stopped and said, “If we dare tobe different, we could be the reason the U.S. autoindustry survives. We could be the reason our kidsand grandkids don’t end up working at fast-foodchains.” Iacocca stayed on for two hours as Marcellexplained in greater detail what his team was plan-ning. Afterward, Iacocca changed his mind and gaveMarcell’s group approval to develop a car, the Neon.

With both groups, Marcell skillfully matched hisemotional tenor to that of the group he was address-ing. The ideas he conveyed resonated deeply withhis largely Midwestern audience. And rather thanleave them in a depressed state, he offered themhope, which was more persuasive than promisingdoom. Again, this played to the strong patriotic sentiments of his American-heartland audience.

No effort to persuade can succeed without emo-tion, but showing too much emotion can be as un-productive as showing too little. The importantpoint to remember is that you must match youremotions to your audience’s.

The Force of Persuasion The concept of persuasion, like that of power, oftenconfuses and even mystifies businesspeople. It is socomplex – and so dangerous when mishandled –that many would rather just avoid it altogether. Butlike power, persuasion can be a force for enormousgood in an organization. It can pull people together,move ideas forward, galvanize change, and forgeconstructive solutions. To do all that, however,people must understand persuasion for what it is –not convincing and selling but learning and negoti-ating. Furthermore, it must be seen as an art formthat requires commitment and practice, especiallyas today’s business contingencies make persuasionmore necessary than ever.

Reprint 98304 To place an order, call 1-800-988-0886.



Harvard Business ReviewHARVARD BUSINESS REVIEWSUBSCRIPTION SERVICE

United States and Canada Phone: 800-274-3214Rates per year: United States, $85; Canada, U.S.$95

International and MexicoPhone: 44-1858-435324Fax: 44-1858-468969Rates per year: international, U.S.$145; Mexico, U.S.$95Orders, inquiries, and address changes: Harvard Business ReviewTower House, Sovereign ParkLathkill Street, Market HarboroughLeicestershire le16 9efEngland

International customer service E-mailaddress: [email protected]

Payments accepted: Visa, MasterCard, American Express; checks at current exchange rate payable to Harvard Business Review. Bills and other receipts may be issued.

CATALOGS

Harvard Business School PublishingMedia CatalogThis 32-page, full-color catalog features morethan 40 management development video andinteractive CD-ROM programs.

Harvard Business School PressThis latest full-color catalog features books for the fast-paced business world where youlive and work.

Harvard Business School Publishing Catalog of Best-Selling Teaching MaterialsThis collection of teaching materialscontains those items most requested byour customers.

Harvard Business School PublishingCatalog of New Teaching MaterialsDesigned for individuals looking for thelatest materials in case method teaching.

CASE STUDIES AND HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEWARTICLE REPRINTS

Many readers have asked for an easy way to order case studies and article reprints or toobtain permission to copy. In response, wehave established a Customer Service Team to grant permission, send rush copies in paperform, deliver files in Acrobat (PDF) formatelectronically (Harvard Business Reviewarticles only), or customize collections.

Please contact the Customer Service Team:

Phone: 617-496-1449United States and Canada: 800-668-6780(8 A.M. – 6 P.M. weekdays, voice mail after hours)Fax: 617-496-1029 (24 hours, 7 days a week)E-mail: [email protected](24 hours, 7 days a week)Web Site: http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu

Prices (minimum order, $10):

Harvard Business Review Reprints(Discounts apply to multiple copies of thesame article.)

1–9 copies $5 each10–99 $4100–499 $3.50Electronic $3.50 each

Harvard Business School Case Studies$5 each

For quantity estimates or quotes on customized products, callFrank Tamoshunas at 617-495-6198.Fax: 617-496-8866

PERMISSIONS

For information on permission to quote or translate Harvard Business SchoolPublishing material, contact:

Customer Service DepartmentHarvard Business School

Publishing Corporation60 Harvard WayBoston, MA 02163

Phone: 617-496-1449United States and Canada: 800-668-6780Fax: 617-495-6985E-mail: [email protected]

Persuasion is a process of learning from colleagues and employees and negotiating shared solutions to solving problems and achievinggoals. In The Necessary Art of Persuasion, Jay Conger describes four essential components of persuasion and explains how to masterthem, providing the information you need to fulfill your managerial mandate: getting work done through others. Business. Impression.Â One fee. Stacks of books. You donâ€™t just buy a book, you buy an entire libraryâ€¦ for the same price! Always have something toread. Friends, editors, and experts can help you find new and interesting books. Persuasion then becomes a matter of presentingevidenceâ€“but not just ordinary charts and spreadsheets. The author says the most effective persuaders use vividâ€“even over-the-topâ€“stories, metaphors, and examples to make their positions come alive. Finally, good persuaders have the ability to accuratelysense and respond to their audienceâ€™s emotional state.Â If there ever was a time for businesspeople to learn the fine art ofpersuasion, it is now. Gone are the command-and-control days of executives managing by decree. Today businesses are run largely bycross-functional teams of peers and populated by baby boomers and their Generation X offspring, who show little tolerance forunquestioned authority. Start by marking â€œThe Necessary Art of Persuasionâ€ as Want to Read: Want to Read savingâ€¦ Want toRead.Â Persuasion is a process of learning from colleagues and employees and negotiating shared solutions to solving problems andachieving goals. In The Necessary Art of Persuasion, Jay Conger describes four essential components of persuasion and explains howto master them, providing the information you need to fulfill your managerial mandate: getting work done through others. ...more. Get ACopy. Kindle Store $7.99.

The Necessary Art of Persuasion - wuve.pw · the necessary art of persuasion Jay A. Conger is a...

Documents

Transcript of The Necessary Art of Persuasion - wuve.pw · the necessary art of persuasion Jay A. Conger is a...