Blogging Topic 5: Negotiation and Conflict

Last week, I asked about manipulation vs. influence. It's a hard question, knowing when you cross the line to doing "bad" manipulation vs "good" influence. Like most ethical dilemmas, the line is fuzzy and moves a lot. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a ethical dilemma. We'll continue to revisit ethical dilemmas as we go through the semester, with the idea that keeping an eye on your core values will help you resolve them.

In class this week, you engaged in a negotiation. Did you think you did well in the negotiation? Were you surprised at your actual score on the negotiation compared to the scores of your partner and other members of the class? What kinds of information and influence did you try to bring to bear in the negotiation? Did your preconceived notions of your negotiation partner influence approach? Do you think your performance in the negotiation reflects your general approach to conflicts in the rest of your life? Were you satisfied with your performance? What can you learn from this negotiation (or from the role play you are working on) that informs you interactions with people around you?

Manipulation and Influence

By definition, manipulation means exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one's own advantage while influence is the power of affecting people or events without direct or apparent effort. Apparently, the former sounds more negative, the latter, more positive. Manipulation has a control on people, forcing them into doing things that they may reluctant or unwilling to do. On the contrary, influence inducing people into action with the power of one’s own characterization, prestige, and the power of its culture. Both can make things done as leader’s wish, but manipulation causes a result that is merely accepted passively, behaviorally, and definitely. Influence makes people volunteer to do things, and the result is usually actively accepted and recognized.
As for a leader, influence in a positive way helps win others’ hearts. But when it is being employed in a manipulative way in the interest of certain small groups, it becomes playing politics. If the objective is deviated from the correct path or against the general ethics, the leader is providing wrong direction. However, the other side might argue that playing politics as positive when it is used the right way, which can be helpful to one’s career. I’m definitely not asking you to do unethical things but by referring it as a learning process to adapt oneself to the company’s power structure. For example, you should know the company’s management structure, understand your supervisor and the company’s culture, and ability to see whether it favors employees with influence skills or just basically the rule followers. And then adapt yourself to your supervisor’s leading style to make yourself suitable within the culture.

Predictably Irrational: Blogging Topic 4: Ethics and influence

Predictably Irrational: Blogging Topic 4: Ethics and influence: "This week we had a great guest speaker and we talked about social influence. He mentioned that at Google they are looking at people who hav..."

Influence/Manipulation

No matter I you look at it, the word manipulation comes with a negative connotation. The definition of the word manipulate comes with this at the end..."especially in an unfair manner." If you want to change how the public views your company, influence would be the way I would aim for. The word influence can come off as both good and bad but mostly, to me, seems neutral. Playing politics and misdirection is the first step over the line into the "bad." It is easy to influence others to think your company is good if it actually IS good. If there is anything shady about your company, then you must rely on manipulating others to view your company in a good manner.

It is a thin line between good and bad, but the core values are what will always determine which one you are. No matter how many "weapons" you have, if you are influencing people to believe you are good when you actually are, then there is nothing wrong with that. Manipulating people only comes when you have something to hide. Google is an interesting company. I missed the speaker because it was my birthday, but I can definitely assume some things that were talked about. People use Google for everything on a daily (if not hourly) basis. They make a ton of money on advertising, and even though we may not click on the sponsored links that comes up, we are clearly influenced/manipulated to see it whether we want to or not. It is hard to tell if this is taking advantage of users or not. Google is a business, and businesses need to make money. If that many people use it, then advertising is clearly the best way to make it. You can't blame Google for trying to make a buck on people's searches. In my opinion, Google will cross the line into the "bad" section the second advertisements become a hassle more than a minor inconvenience.

Influence and Manipulation

When I say these two words in my head, they each evoke a different reaction. Manipulation I view, not necessarily as a bad thing, but as a concious effort to encourage someone to do what you want them to. Manipulating a situation can happen in many different ways... waiting to disclose information until the opportune moment, dressing a certain way, acting a certain way, and many other things that a person does to intentionally encourage their desired outcome. Influence, at least the way I view it, is not an intentional act all of the time. I am influenced by many people and situations that happen every day... and I am pretty sure none of the people involved know who I am or are trying to encourage me to do something they want.

The Influence Tactics article mentioned the difference between hard and soft tactics. The one that I relate most to Influence is the Symbol Management. This is the "lead by example" technique, and while it could be a form of manipulation, I view it more as influence, since you can never be sure who is noticing your actions and being influenced by them.

I suppose, in my view, when an action has an agenda, it is a form of manipulation.. and when an action has an unplanned affect on someone, it is influence. I know that this view is not completely accurate, since people "influence" other people all the time. However in my mind, influence is something that is exuded from a person or situation that has an un planned affect on another person. If the affect or action is planned, then it is a form of manipulation. In my mind that is...

Blog 4 - Is there really a difference?

I actually believe there is a very fine line between manipulation and influence. In practice, it looks the same. The difference is the intention of the influencer or manipulator. Manipulation usually has a negative connotation, and the intention is generally thought to be not for the good of others or the person being manipulated. Influence is similar in that an influencer is trying to get people to do certain things, but their intention is not necessarily negative. It becomes playing politics when the individual is not taken into consideration. The influence is for something bigger, and the person is just being used as a pawn for someone else’s agenda. I don’t know that you can actually find a line between good and bad, especially in business. I think it is sort of a gray area. What is good for the company is not always good for competitors, or for people, or for the environment. So it depends on your perspective. I think it is hard to be an influential leader and always stay true to your core values. You may not think it is good to lay people off, it goes against your values to let go employees especially if you know their personal situations and they need their jobs. However, if a company is doing poorly and has to cut down and only retain top performers, keeping those employees is not good for the organization. So you believe in the organization, but you don’t want to lay people off. Both perspectives are correct, and both can be seen as good or bad. But you want to keep your job so you lay people off, despite your core values. As a leader you have to make those choices. I think it ok to influence people if it is to their benefit, because in the end people have to make their own choices and sometimes just need direction on how to get there. That’s why people have faith in their leaders. People want and need mentors and role models. People like to have a good examples set forth in front of them so they can decide where they want to go.

Blogging Topic 4: Ethics and influence

This week we had a great guest speaker and we talked about social influence. He mentioned that at Google they are looking at people who have an array of influence skills and strategies. He also mentioned that, as a corporate entity, Google is fighting to maintain a positive public image. Related to that, here’s today’s blog topic: What is the difference between manipulation and influence? When does it become playing politics and misdirection? Where is the line between bad and good – and how do you find that line? As this class arms you with more “weapons” to influence others, we must also take into consideration our ethics. Can you use these "weapons" of mass influence and still stay true to your core values? And, if the easy answer is that it is okay to use these weapons if you are using them in the service of your values, do you need to take into account the people you are using these weapons on? For example, if Google were doing things with their search that influenced people, but for the people's own benefit, would that be okay?