Persuasion and Manipulation Among Managers

Persuasion and manipulation are two workplace activities that follow many of the same paths yet have different means of achieving their ends. Some managers will engage in persuasion while others will lean towards manipulation. Those who are engaged in persuasion are more likely to gain the respect of their employees while those who are more manipulative often receive immediate gratification but loose out on long-term effectiveness. Companies should recognize and remove manipulators to ensure a positive work environment.

Persuasion is an attempt to show certain facts in a positive light without hiding or leaving out crucial information. It is generally a positive experience. Ultimately the listener can make a free choice on the issue as all the important information is presented to them. The influencer seeks to create a prevailing logic that both parties can agree with that leads from agreement to performance. Manipulation attempts to leave out particular facts and distort their meaning in an effort to change the perception of events.

When trust and persuasion are high the managers words are highly palatable to the listener. The managers experience and knowledge of the situation can help the employee make a better decisions as to their next course of action. When trust is low, and manipulation is high, the immediate gain takes precedence over long-term solutions. Employees could become resistant to the managers wishes and find ways of thwarting their influence.

The risk manipulators face is that someday they may become discovered. A simple discovery of manipulated facts leads to resentment, destruction of trust, and an active attempt to undermine the manager. Employees often respond to manipulators by avoidance and attempting to hold the perpetrator accountable (Bryand & Sias, 2011). The violation of a persons integrity leads to further conflict.

Workplace do not function well off of manipulative tactics as organizational culture will come to reflect that inherent lack of trust and respect. Organizations that do not seek to gain employee trust through open and honest dialogue will ultimately find themselves lacking in performance, embroiled in workplace conflict, involved in legal suits, and suffering from chronic staff turnover. 

Discerning between those who are persuasive and those who are manipulators can be difficult. According to Robin Dreeke, the head of behavioral analysis at the FBI, trust becomes a central issue in developing positive relationships and manipulators have a hard time creating long-term trust (Nahai, 2013). Manipulators are focused on their own needs and often leave others with buyers remorse through unfulfilled promises and self-seeking behavior. 

Manipulators have an inherent disrespect for the integrity of other people and don't see much point in telling the truth. Manipulators exhibit higher levels of Machiavellianism and lower levels of agreeableness that correspond to personality disorders (Wischniewski & Dipl-Psycho, 2013). They will use whatever means work and seek to punish those who do not agree with their methods leading to a retaliatory environment.

All employment sectors are open to the power of manipulators. Whether you are in business, non-profit work, law enforcement, political positions or any other type of employment manipulators can and do exist. Organizations would do well to screen those who manipulate for self-seeking gain in order to reduce potential risks and raise the trust factor among employees and stakeholders.

The higher the position and the more authority the position has the greater the destructive power of manipulation. People unwittingly give unconditional support to certain societal members based upon positional or institutional status. Those less likely to be manipulated are the ones who can question the decision-making processes regardless of the position of the manipulator. Questioning creates critical thinking beyond simple assumptions.

Manipulators are not only dangerous in their personal relationships but also the organizations where they work. In the business world we have idealized people in movies and popular media who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals without regard to the impact on others. Calm,cool, and collect is immortalized. The ends do not justify the means as manipulators eventually ruin previously positive work environments and do incalculable damage to the organizations where they are employed. Creating cultures where manipulation is thwarted and persuasion is appreciated not only shows a level of respect for employees and co-workers but also leads to stronger corporate cultures.

Bryand, E. & Sias, P. (2011). Sensemaking and relational consequences of peer co-worker deception. Communication Monographs, 78 (1).

Nahai, N. (Sept 21, 2013). Trust, Persuasion, and Manipulation. Psychology Today. Retrieve from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/webs-influence/201309/trust-persuasion-and-manipulation 

Wischniewski, J. & Dipl-Psych, B. (2013). Personality disorder respond to norm violations? Impact of personality factors on economic decision-making. Journal of Personality Disorders, 27 (4).

The Benefits of Active Listening for Employee Relations

It is difficult for manages to understand their workplace and how to improve performance if they are not actively listening to their employees. This means listening to their conversations, paying attention when employees are talking, and trying to find improvements in the workplace that creates congruence between employee desires and firm performance. Managers that listen are better able to coach and counsel their employees to higher levels of functioning.

Listening is a skill that takes considerable time to develop but can be learned with practice. Active listening is in presence form where the manager listens without interrupting the employee. They may ask probing questions but ultimately want the employee to express themselves fully because this adds to the managers knowledge of both the employee and the organization.

Those managers who fail to actively listen often find that employees no longer bring their issues to them nor are they enthusiastic about speaking up about operational problems increasing the chances of large problems down the road. If employees are prompted negatively to their managers they will not be open to issues, problems, ideas, or improvements; the organization ultimately loses.

Consider organizational cultures where there is a huge divide between managers and employees. These cultures develop due to the inherent separation that occurs between employee and manager communication. Using active listening and paying attention to employee needs can lessen this divide and help in developing an inclusive culture.

Once a poor culture begins to develop an in and out-group among managers and employees it is very difficult to counter that new development. Managers will need to engage workers, change their course of action, and open up communication lines. Organizations that foster a manager-employee divide or power-distance relationships will eventually find themselves falling behind their competitors.

 Open communication is also very egalitarian. Open communication helps to ensure that company employees, whether they be managers or not, are considered important to the entire organization. Companies that foster egalitarian environments may also find that employee loyalty rises as employees feel valued and respected.

Managers have a responsibility to coach and counsel to improve the overall performance of their employees. Without actively listening it will be difficult for managers to effectively coach and counsel their employees. They will not be able to understand the employees needs or make important contributions to their understanding.

Active listening isn't particularly hard but does require a level of engagement with employees. Paying attention to the employee, thinking about what they are saying, and asking questions about any areas the manager doesn't understand helps in fully understanding the situation. Once the employee's actual position is known the manager is then able to give appropriate direction and advice to employees.

Developing appropriate relationships with subordinates helps in the creation of an organization constantly changing through information sharing. Active listening is about encouraging a more inclusive and innovative environment so that ideas move between the functional layers of a company and to the right people. It also reduces employee issues as employees and company begin to similarities of perspective. The information gained by active listening will not only build stronger workplace relationships but also improve upon operational functioning. 

Improvements in American Worker Productivity

Labor productivity and relative wages have increased during the third quarter of 2014. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that output increased 4.4%, labor productivity rose 2 %, and working hours increased 2.3%. When comparing the third quarter of 2013 to 2014 you find that productivity increased a total of .9%. Hourly compensation also increased 2.3% putting more money into worker’s pockets.

American workers have a tough job and are trying to forget the nasty years of the recession. Improving productivity and subsequently raising wages has a duel benefit of keeping overall costs lower, effective use of labor resources, and paying productive workers higher compensation. It is a win-win situation for investors, business owners, and employees.

Labor productivity is calculated by dividing an index of real output with an index of all hours worked. It is a fairly simply calculation that determines how much per unit productivity each worker increased or decreased over a certain period. In this case, productivity over the third quarter rose 2% which is a positive marker that encourages higher economic activity.

Consider the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spend on a single investment to open a new manufacturing plant or business within the United States. Investments on this scale consider a whole range of expenses ranging from local, state, and federal taxes all the way over to worker productivity. Low productivity requires additional resources to train and improve before actual business occurs.

Productivity also becomes a marker of a worker’s value when compared to other workers on the global economy. If American workers can produce more and create sophisticated products they naturally have higher value than those that can only complete only simple duties. An increase in employee productivity is a beneficial marker for improvements in other areas of the economy.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm

Does Negotiating Pay with Employees Lead to Higher Performance and Profits?

Employers seek to create higher levels of employee performance as well as high firm profits. Standard employment contracts with predefined pay may not be offering an appropriate level of motivation for employees. Research conducted by Kuang and Moser may provide insight into how such negotiable contracts would work in the marketplace.

Participative decision-making can improve firm performance in two ways (Zwick 2004) which includes information transference and employee involvement. In the first case, the transference of information creates a more efficient organization while employee involvement improves overall satisfaction with the organization. Both help tie the individual to the organizations success and mission. 

Employees need accurate information in order to make choices within the workplace. The information disseminates useful data to employees (Freeman & Lazear 1995) that encourages effective organizational operations. The more useful information employees have the more efficient their daily activities and choices become which in turn raises the potential profits of the firm. Waste can be seen as a byproduct of poor choices.

Such participative management also produces a psychological effect on employees that raises their satisfaction and morale (Covaleski et al. 2003). With participative management employees may feel as though they are part of the organization and will take greater care to ensure its success. Through such activities, employees change from being the actors to the authors of their employment status.

Wages are a central factor in gainful employment and often determine the nature of employee-employer relationships. Wage negotiation is part of the process of participative management (Locke & Schweiger, 1979). Employees who have a level of control over their wages are likely to work smarter and harder in order to raise their market value.

Research conducted by Kuang and Moser (2011) studied the psychological effect of a model that offers a contract, allows the employee to counteroffer and then provides a final offer the employee can either accept or reject. It is believed that such offers raise the employee’s aspiration levels which will encourage them to either put forth more effort or move to another organization. A total of 80 MBAs with approximately 4.5 years of full-time experience were included.

Results:

-There were differences in firm profit and employee effort.

-When there is participative management and adequate employee information there is a reciprocal between employee effort and firm profit.

-If the firm affords the ability for employees to negotiate and raise their aspiration levels without adequate increases in pay once that level has been achieved a negative performance result may occur.

-Employees prefer no negotiation if they do not feel the relationship with their employer is equitable.

-Potential negative effects of mismanaged negotiation processes are more damaging than the positive effects of a well managed negotiation processes.

Analysis:

Employees, like firms, seek to create higher levels of pay and resources. Negotiating with employees can raise their level of performance as they become attracted to and seek higher levels of needs attainment. However, a poorly designed approach to negotiating with employees can damage and limit future performance. Successful negotiation provides a truer economic relationship between employer and employee when compared to contracts with defined pay as seen in unionized environments. Yet the perceived equity of those contracts and improved performance by employees relies on trust, participatory management, and adequate information. Equitable relationships based on trust result when employees have an incentive to raise their market value and employers reward employees for their increased value. It is important to note that if the negotiation process is not seen as equitable employee prefer a defined contract without negotiation.

Covaleski, M. . Evans, J. Luft, J. and Shields, M. (2003). Budgeting research: Three

theoretical perspectives and criteria for selective integration. Journal of Management Accounting

Research 15 (1): 3–49.

Freeman, R. & Lazear, E. (1995). An economic analysis of works councils. In Work councils,

ed. J. Rogers and W. Streeck, 27–52. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Kuang, X. & Moser, D. (2011). Wage negotiation, employee effort, and firm profit under output-based versus fixed-wage incentive contracts. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28 (2). 

Locke, E. and Schweiger, D. (1979) Participation in decision-making: One more look. In

Research in organizational behavior, vol. 1, ed. B. M. Staw, 265–339. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Zwick, T. (2004). Employee participation and productivity. Labor Economics 11 (6): 715–40.