Descriptions Of The Four Styles Revealed By The Questionnaire
September 1, 2009
Assertive Persuasion
This style is characterized by the use of logic, facts and opinions to persuade others. Individuals who are effective at using this style make good proposals and suggestions about what to do and how to do it. They are not afraid to stick their necks out and submit their ideas to the test of other people’s reactions. They are skilful in marshalling evidence and arguments in support of their proposals and in rebutting those with which they disagree. They are persistent and energetic in persuading others. Sometimes they may not listen very well to the points others raise or they may listen only to find weaknesses in the opinions expressed.
An emphasis on logical argument as opposed to an appeal to emotions is a prime characteristic of this style. People who use it well are usually very articulate and participate actively in discussions and arguments about ideas, plans and proposals. They enjoy the cut and thrust of debate and even when they are defending an inferior position they may battle away with enthusiasm and determination.
Rewards And Punishments
This style is characterized by the use of pressures and incentives to try to control the behaviour of others. It may take the form of offering rewards for compliance or of threatening with punishment or deprivation for noncompliance. It may involve the use of naked power or more indirect and veiled pressures exerted through the possession of status, prestige and formal authority. There is liberal use of praise and criticism, approval and disapproval and moralistic judgements of right and wrong.
People who use rewards and punishments go out of their way to let others know what they want, expect or require of them and what standards will be used in judging their performance. They then follow up to find out what has been done and give approval or disapproval, praise or blame, rewards or punishments accordingly. They tend to be specific and detailed in communicating their requirements and they follow up quickly with the positive and negative incentives. Psychologists say that the effective use of this style involves much heavier use of praise than criticism. Many who use the style, however, do not follow this dictum and they are frequently more negative than positive.
An important aspect of using rewards and punishments is the ‘management of contingencies’, which means communicating clearly to others what they must do in order to get what they want and to avoid negative consequences. Traditional bargaining, involving the use of offers and counter-offers and threats and counter-threats, is a good example of this process. If you let others know what you will do to or for them if they do or don’t do such and such, you are engaged in ‘ contingency management’. Niccolo Machiavelli’s book The Prince portrays ‘contingency management’ on a grand scale (1999).
In using both rewards and punishments and assertive persuasion you may agree or disagree with others and approve or disapprove of their ideas and actions. The difference is in what backs up the agreement or disagreement and approval or disapproval. In assertive persuasion you may agree or disagree because of your judgement of the rationality of the other person’s position or because you think it is more or less effective, correct, accurate or true. The ultimate appeal is to reason, logic and reality. In using rewards and punishments, on the other hand, the judgement of right and wrong does not depend on rationality. The standard is external to the person being judged, for example a moral or social standard, a regulation or a performance standard. It is the compliance or not with this external standard that causes the evaluation of right or wrong or good or bad.
In practice, the best way to tell the difference is to note whether the judgement is given with or without a reason. If it is merely ‘That’s right’ or ‘You’re wrong’, then it is likely that the person is using the rewards and punishments style. If a reason is given, it is more likely that assertive persuasion is being used.
Participation And Trust
The efficacy of this style depends on involving others in decision-making and problem-solving processes. When others can be induced to take an active part in making a decision their commitment to carry it out is increased and the amount of follow-up required is markedly reduced. The person being influenced contributes his or her energy to the work, and the amount of effort required from the influencer is therefore reduced. Thus, whereas the assertive persuasion and rewards and punishments styles may be thought of as ‘pushing’ others to do what is required, participation and trust involves drawing or ‘pulling’ others in to decide and act.
If others are to be actively involved they should feel that they have the resources required for the task, that their contributions are received and understood and that their efforts are valued. An atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation is conducive to participation. People are helped to contribute when they believe that others will not belittle or ignore their contributions and when there is an atmosphere of openness and nondefensiveness. In short, participation is encouraged by receptivity, understanding and openness and is discouraged by attempting to gain control over others or by competitively trying to win one’s own points.
People who rely a good deal on participation and trust tend to listen well, drawing out contributions from others and showing understanding and appreciation when contributions are forthcoming.
They do a lot of building on, and extending, the ideas of others rather than pushing their own proposals. They are quick to give credit to others for their contributions. Rather than counter-attacking when their own ideas and proposals are questioned, people who use this style tend to be open and non-defensive about their own limitations. They do not put up a strong front to hide their own weaknesses. By their example they try to create trust and openness in relationships, so that others feel accepted for what they are and do not feel the need to compete for attention and control.
Common Vision
This style involves identifying and articulating a common or shared vision of what the future of an organization, group or team could be. It is concerned with strengthening the members’ beliefs that the desired outcomes can be achieved through their individual and collective efforts.
The common vision style involves mobilizing the energy and resources of others through appeals to their hopes, values and aspirations. It also works through activating the feelings of strength and confidence that are generated by being part of a group with a shared common purpose.
Common vision shares with assertive persuasion an emphasis on the ability to present ideas orally. It differs in that the appeal is not primarily to the intellect but rather to emotions and values held by the recipient. Further, the attempt is not so much to inject energy and enthusiasm into others as it is to activate the commitment and strength that are bound up in their hopes, aspirations and ideals and to channel that energy into work and problem solving.
Typical of the skills possessed by people who use common vision effectively is the ability to see and to articulate to others the exciting possibilities that exist in an idea or an assignment and to project these possibilities enthusiastically. The skilled practitioner uses images and metaphors to kindle enthusiasm about a better future. The leader using the common vision style helps others to identify the values, hopes and aspirations that they have in common and to feel the strength in unity found in cohesive groups. The leader emphasizes what he or she and the group can do together. Stress is placed, for example, on ‘what we can accomplish to make a better future for all of us if we work together to achieve common goals and ideals’. Charismatic leaders like Sir Winston Churchill and John Kennedy used a lot of common vision. So did others like Hitler and Mussolini. The common vision style can be used to pursue high ideals and worthy goals or, on the other hand, to foster support for dangerous intentions and narrow, selfish ends.