The art of influence

As lawyers and executives, we are in the business of persuading others. Yet sometimes patience, professionalism and objectivity fail to persuade or influence the right people. Since we need an audience that’s receptive to what we have to say, we must consider their point of view. So, let’s take a few basic principles of influence and discuss how to align them with our audience’s point of view.

Reciprocity can be a powerful stimulus of cooperation. We are wired to return favors extended to us, sometimes of greater value than what was originally offered. Scarcity, or limited availability, makes something more desirable. Social proof, the endorsement or behaviors of others, taps into the perceived wisdom of crowds (i.e., colleagues, peers, communities, etc.) and we can be influenced by what has influenced others. Likeability matters: we are more likely to be persuaded by others we like or appear to be like us.

Although these principles can help us to be influential, they may not be enough. We may need to tailor our message to the other person’s disposition or temperament. Try tapping into their curiosity, imagination and goals. Avoid triggering negative feelings such as anxiety and distrust. In other words, be strategic as well as reciprocal, likeable, responsible, etc.

Consider that some of us are more extraverted than others. That might suggest social proof as an effective influencer. But some extraverts value new ideas or innovative ways of managing resources or solving problems. Consequently, social proof may not matter to people who prefer their own personal experiences over someone else’s. For those who are distrustful and emotionally volatile, we may exert greater influence when we show how consistent and reliable we are, following up when we say we will.

Another way to approach the art of influence is to consider how we build rapport. Our ability to maintain respect and compassion for others affects whether they give us an opportunity to influence them. Being nice or passive will not motivate change. Presenting our agenda in a way that’s “non-threatening” or “objective” may not matter to our audience. Instead, build trust and understanding first so that the interaction can be productive, even when there is strong disagreement.

Think about how you respond when someone truly listens and engages with what you have to say. Or when someone recognizes your core values and your autonomy. Or when someone is honest and direct about their feelings and objectives. It can be a nice surprise, and you might be more likely to consider what was said during the conversation. It may not mean you trust everything completely. You should verify what you were told whenever possible. But rapport and trust now have a foundation that can grow and strengthen if the parties can continue to communicate effectively, although that can be a challenge.

Differences in communication styles can prevent our ability to persuade and influence. Some people may need or want to set the agenda and appear to be in charge. Sometimes, that may not be a problem since it may not matter in the end. If so, be patient and respectful. But when someone is pedantic or argumentative or does not allow you to contribute to the discussion, do not react poorly and lose your cool. Once you do that, you’ve created a distraction that will become the focus of the conversation (and the next one, and the one after that, etc.).

Instead, assert your position without sarcasm or “gotcha,” etc. Root your response in anything that’s objective – data, a third party’s report, the rules, etc. Something like, “I hear you say X but the rules state Y. How do you want to reconcile that?” Admittedly, it can be tough to engage without signaling your judgment (that you don’t think much of their position). Curiosity can help. Ask, “What outcome are you looking to obtain?”

The more we know about how people think or react to a set of circumstances, the better we can tailor our communication to establish and maintain rapport, build trust and be influential. Once we have adequate information about the merits of our position or our case  (i.e., the “what”), consider how best to influence the audience. It’s no different from considering the mechanics of how to influence jurors with the facts of a claim or defense. In our line of work, the “how” matters just as much as, if not more than, the “what.”

Jeff Trueman, Esq., is an independent mediator and arbitrator and adjunct professor at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. He can be reached at [email protected].