Early in my seminars I tell participants that Persuasion is not Manipulation. Manipulation is getting others to do something that is of benefit to me. Persuasion is getting others to do something that is of benefit to them and of benefit to me.
Where is the line between Manipulation and Persuasion?
|Beware of Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing|
Where is black and where is white? How close to the line can I be without being “unethical”? How close to the line do I wish to go?
Professors Sherry Baker and David Martinson published a framework for Ethical Persuasion in 2001. It is a useful framework to use when asking the question “where does persuasion end and manipulation begin?”
I like TARES because it is not a list of rules, it is not the minimum necessary. It is a set of questions that are up to you as an individual to answer in your own way.
TARES is an acronym for Truthfulness, Authenticity, Respect, Equity and Social Responsibility:
- Truthfulness: Is this communication factually accurate and true? Has this appeal deliberatedly left out important and relevant facts?
- Authenticity: Do I feel good about being involved in this action? Do I believe that the audience will see improved Quality of Life?
- Respect: Is the persuasive appeal made to the audience as rational, free, adult human beings? Do I care about them as people?
- Equity: Does this meet The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”
- Social Responsibility: Does this action promote and create the kind of world and society in which I myself would like to live in?
You can read the full original academic article here: The TARES test for Ethical Persuasion. It has 5 tables that provide many questions that help shape your ideas of what really constitutes Truth, Authenticity, Respect, Equity and Social Responsibility.
I moved the second part of this post, which is a discussion of Manipulators to a new post.
What are your thoughts?