THE AMAZING PARADOX OF THE PERSUASION PROCESS

I put several amazing paradoxes in the book on persuasion, Inside-Out Persuasion, that was published earlier this year. And one of those amazing paradoxes concerns how the persuasion process actually works. It is paradoxical, surprising, unexpected, and most of all— completely opposite of how persuasion is usually described and how those who train it do so. Now in saying it is paradoxical, what this means when you discover it is that it will feel counter-intuitive and even contradictory. It may not even make sense when you first hear it. But if you give it a chance, the secrets will be revealed to you.

Now the process of persuasion goes to the field of communication and how we send messages back and forth as we seek to understand each other and as we seek to influence each other. It begins with seeking to influence each other’s thinking and way-of-thinking. And inevitably when we do this, we cannot but help to influence each other. Influence is built into the very structure of communication. That’s why “communion” lies at its heart and also the idea of “co-union.” Communication entails far more than talking, it is the seeking to understand and that requires trying on each other’s thoughts. Without that, there can be no understanding.

It starts there, and yet there’s more. There’s actually a lot more. Persuasion requires dialogue. Those who think it is about a pitch— a presentation, a sales spiel, etc., truly do not understand the process or the psychology behind influencing another’s mind and emotions to evoke a response. People are seldom influenced by being told things. Lectures, sermons, instructions, etc.— these are not the most powerful influence processes. Much more powerful is dialogue. And that means the flowing through (“dia”) each person the meanings and words (“logos”) of each person. Unlike the monologues of telling, lecturing, selling, etc., dialogue involves two people trying on each other’s ideas and believing that the best ideas will emerge from the encounter.

The process of persuasion also goes to another field—the field of change. In that field, the most fundamental premise or principle is a strange one, namely, “I can change no one, I can only change myself, yet when I change, those in relationship to me are influenced to change.” I cannot change anyone else directly because I cannot directly think thoughts for them or feel feelings in their body. I can only influence them by speaking to them and inviting them to try on some thoughts. They may do that; they may not. That’s within their control. It is their choice if they do so or not. So while I cannot directly and immediately change another person, I can invite a change— evoke, elicit, suggest, recommend, etc.

Now we are getting to the heart of the persuasion process— only the person him or herself can change him or herself. Only the person can take my invitations in any or all of its forms and influence himself. Only the person can use my elicitations to persuade herself. So ultimately each

individual person is the person, and the only person, who can persuade that person. In other words, all persuasion is ultimately self-persuasion. Amazing isn’t it? Counter-intuitive also.

Most persuasion operates in a very different way. Most trainings and books on persuasion present it the persuasion strategy in this way: Objective: I want you to do something, buy something, think something, believe something. Motivation: I believe it is for your good. It will make your life better. Or at least I convince myself of that or tell myself that. That’s the motivation I offer you. My motivation is that I want something from you so I use various techniques to get it from you. Method: I set out to convince you, charm you, inspire you, scare you, etc. If I do these particular persuasive things, you will respond as I want you to response. I find your strings and pull them, you dance. I find your buttons and push them, you jump.

But that’s manipulation, that’s not persuasion. That’s puppetry! True persuasion is an invitation via dialogue, it is an offer for an exchange of value, it is a dance of dialogue communication, a dance of discovery.

Consider this with regard to coaching and therapy. A client in both domains comes to a coach or a therapist and essentially is paying the professional to persuade him and influence him so that he can persuade himself to do what will make his life better. This is especially true for most coaching clients because they already know what they want but are not able to get themselves to embody it and make it real in their lives. They are essentially saying to the coach, “Influence me so I can influence myself to do what I know.” The therapy client often is under the illusion that the therapist will somehow “make” her healthy. “Do something to me, influence me, persuade me. I need your influence.” Only later does the person realize that they have to do it and the psychotherapist is there to guide and support them.

The bottom line is that, ultimately, all change is self-change and all persuasion is self-persuasion. This means that real persuasion is not something we do to another person. Rather it is a shared experience that occurs through dialogue. That makes it a conversation —a persuasive conversation that we co-create. Now you know the reason for the title of the training: Persuasively Impactful Conversations.