Manipulation and influence

Journal Record, The (Oklahoma City), Sep 25, 1998 by Jim T. Priest

I recently received a question worthy of discussion:

"There is a fine line between influencing and manipulating others. Is manipulation ethical? If influence is ethical and manipulation is unethical, where is the line that divides them?"

Let's start with a dictionary definition of the two terms.

Manipulation is defined as "to manage or control artfully or by shrewd use of influence, often in an unfair or fraudulent way."

After reading that definition, it's not too hard to answer the question of whether or not manipulation is ethical. Even if there is a worthy goal to be accomplished, improper methodology is never justified. The old Italian philosopher Machiavelli was dead wrong when he said "the ends justifies the means."

By contrast, influence is defined as "the power of persons or things to affect others, seen only in its effects; the ability of a person or group to produce effects indirectly by means of external power."

Influence then is more benign, neither ethical nor unethical by itself. Influence is a means and the morality of its actions depends both on the preceding motivation and the goal toward which it is directed.

For example, one could have a good goal in mind and use one's influence in an underhanded way. If I want my workers to donate to the United Way I could hint that their continued employment is contingent upon their contributions. I would have influenced them and my ultimate intention would have been laudatory but the means to achieving it was heavy handed and cruel. This kind of influence is unethical.

Alternatively, I could attempt to use a positive method of influence but for an illicit end.

What if I gave great incentives to my employees who were willing to work overtime? I know the excessive hours will make their life unhealthy and have an adverse impact on their family but my only concern is for the bottom line.

Even if my "influence" (monetary incentives) are good, the goal (profits at the expense of workers) makes the exercise of such influence unethical.

What to shoot for

The line between manipulation and influence is drawn in the sand of means and ends.

To avoid unethical behavior both our methods and our goals must be examined. Am I not only doing the right things, but am I doing them in the right way? This is the core question the ethical person must face. The one who can answer yes to both parts of this question has the opportunity to be a positive moral influence on others.

What will be the legacy of your influence?

Will your epithet be "She really could get a deal closed"? Will people say at your graveside, "He knew how to outmaneuver any business opponent"?

Or will you gravestone be etched with a different kind of influence -- the positive kind?

The impact one life can have is significant.

You probably cannot list the five greatest sermons you ever heard. But I'll bet you can name the five most influential people in your life. That's because we'd rather see a sermon than hear one. We'd rather watch and learn rather than listen and snooze. We learn better in the school taught by role models and we retain our lessons better if it's more than just a speech.

Studies tell us we remember about 10 percent of what we hear, 25 percent of what we hear and see and about 40 percent of what we hear, see and participate in. So we all learn better under the influence of a positive role model and we learn especially well with a role model who takes the time to mentor us.

Positive influence. It's something we could all use in our personal lives. We could use it in our organizational lives as well. Stay sensitive to the difference between manipulation and influence and once you know where the line is that divides them, be sure you stay on the side of being a positive, ethical influence on others around you.

Jim T. Priest, a trial lawyer and partner in the Oklahoma City/Tulsa law firm of McKinney & Stringer, welcomes your comments and questions. You may reach him via e-mail at JPriest1