It all started with a video that my lecturer showed us as part of our persuasive communications class. The video, ‘From Yes to No’ by Philip and Rosemary Gould is all about the persuasion techniques developed in the setting of a middle management office. It focuses on conflict and unsatisfactory compromise; but also how it is possible, with certain skills, to get your point of view across without creating an atmosphere of hostility. The most important element that derives from it is the accomplishment of persuasion, which includes being able to sit through a meeting, share your opinions and eventually win over everyone. I watched the video carefully trying to analyse the manager’s thinking pattern and the behavioural change methods that he employed in order to influence other people. I wanted to know more about influencing others in the workplace. Is persuasion an art or is it simply a set of tricks you can follow and most of all is it ethical?
Many researchers have tried over the years to define persuasion. Benoit and Benoit (2008) identify persuasion as a process in which a source uses a message to achieve a goal by creating, changing or reinforcing the attitudes of others. In a more controversial manner, Schopenhauer (1896) suggests that as part of the debating process, the participants must put the objective truth aside and look only to the defence of their own position and the refutation of their opponents.
I was intrigued by the thoughts provoked by these diverse approaches of persuasion. As a future professional communicator, I have been bombarded with information over the three-year period of my studies on how to win the reputation game and on how to get different publics to agree with my side of the story. One of the first things I also learned was that transparency should always be part of the Public Relations practice. However, today’s world of media and politics seem more than keen on rhetoric wording, which has shed negative light on the practice of persuasion.
Public relations professionals are quite often seen as the ‘bad guys’ that will find a way of attracting your attention and will get you to embrace their side of a story that is not necessarily truthful. The ways that we, PR professionals, choose to reach our publics and achieve the optimum results include: carefully written press releases, social media discussions, emotional appeal and the list goes on. They are all elements to help us charm our target audiences, engage them into conversations and finally persuade them.
I am therefore wondering how far we can go as professionals without neglecting the virtues of transparency and honesty. In a situation, where we are trying to modify somebody’s belief is it possible to remain fully impartial, especially in the fast paced world of Public Relations?
What are your thoughts and experiences?
Anastasia Psarra - A hint of spin 