VUCA skills under the microscope: Persuasion

Over the last couple of decades, my colleagues and I have been examining how leaders think about and employ persuasion in the workplace. We’re particularly interested in persuasion skills required in collaborative decision-making, because they are important components of the collaborative skillset that supports optimal decision-making in VUCA conditions.

In this article, you’ll find:

• a sketch of the relations between specific persuasion skills and three common contexts in which persuasion plays a key role,
• a description of what we’ve learned about the state of leaders’ persuasion skills, and
• suggestions for fostering the growth of persuasion skills required for effective and efficient collaborative decision-making.

What are persuasion skills and how are they used in negotiation, conflict resolution, & collaborative decision-making ?

It’s useful to think of persuasion skills as a collection of tools for changing minds. These tools are varied and used in a wide variety of contexts.

Merriam Webster offers the following definition: “to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action”

Although persuasion is generally thought of as a method for getting other people to do one wants them to do, it is often used in contexts in which the goal is not so clear cut. This will become clear as I unpack the role of persuasion in negotiation, conflict resolution, and decision-making.

Negotiation

Common dictionary definitions of persuasion fit well with the way persuasion works in negotiation contexts. Negotiating is about deal-making; participants are expected to negotiate to win.

In negotiations, we need each other but have different goals. You make something I need, and I want to get the best possible deal. I need to sell my product, and I want the highest possible profit margin. Both of us are expected to advocate skillfully enough for our own interests to get the greatest possible benefit from the negotiation. A successful negotiation ideally results in a win for my side, although a compromise that is accepted by both parties is acceptable. Some forms of negotiation advocate coming to a compromise that is a win for both sides, but it’s unclear how often this goal is pursued in practice.

Basic orientation: I want to make the best possible deal for my side.

Conflict resolution

Conflict resolution processes look a bit like negotiations in that participants advocate for themselves or their constituents. However, the emotion and psychological baggage that accompany conflict present additional challenges.

Basic orientation: We’re seeking a resolution to our conflict so we can end this suffering (or improve conditions).

Collaborative decision-making

In collaborative decision-making contexts, persuasion skills are important, but winning is not an appropriate objective. We’re not adversaries. We share the same immediate goal—to make a decision that optimizes outcomes. We advocate for our individual perspectives in order to ensure that all available information, ideas, and insights are on the table before a decision is made.

Orientation: We are presenting our most persuasive arguments in the interest of getting everything on the table before making a decision we can all agree on.

The table below shows how the goals of persuasion shift with context. In negotiations, winning is the primary goal. In conflict resolution, winning may be a goal, but achieving a win-win that restores stability is likely to be more important, and this is often achieved by identifying and working toward the achievement of shared goals. In collaborative decision-making contexts, the achievement of shared goals is primary, with alignment running a close second.

The second table provides an account of some of the specific persuasion skills required in our three contexts. Clear communication is equally important in all contexts, but it’s the exception here. Although the categories of skill are the same across most contexts, the specific skills vary.

For example, in the argumentation category, negotiators require the ability to provide a compelling argument. What makes their argument compelling is likely to be an appeal to emotion or desire. In contrast, in collaborative team-level decision-making, the ability to explain one’s evidence or reasoning hold greater value.

Similarly, listening skills differ from context to context. Where negotiators listen for vulnerabilities that will help them win, participants in a conflict resolution situation are more likely to be looking for signs of flexibility, and collaborators are looking for ideas and insights that might challenge their current thinking or lead to a better decision.

As I filled in this table I was keenly aware of making some pretty fuzzy distinctions. You may well take issue with my characterization of particular skills, but I’m hoping that my basic point comes across here:

When it comes to persuasion, context matters.

During the last few years, as the idea of collaborative decision-making has taken hold, my colleagues and I have noticed a troubling trend. Teams attempting to collaborate on decisions tend to lean on underdeveloped persuasion skills that are better suited for negotiation. The result is not pretty. Gridlock sets in—often because everyone is advocating and few are listening. Soon after gridlock is declared, attempts at collaborative decision-making are abandoned and its potential benefits go down the drain. Agile is declared dead.

But Agile isn’t the problem. Our work suggests that the failure of collaborative decision-making comes down to a lack of skill—skill that can readily be developed in a supportive context.

Most writers on negotiation and conflict resolution do not distinguish between skills and dispositions, talents, or personality characteristics. Dispositions, talents, and personality characteristics aren’t knowledge and aren’t particularly malleable. In contrast, a skill is a form of knowledge that can readily be developed over time. We think of a skill as embodied knowledge that’s developed through practice. This makes skills great targets for development. In addition to differing from dispositions, talents, and personality characteristics, skills differ from factual knowledge. Factual knowledge can be correct or incorrect while skills grow toward virtuosity. They have no fixed endpoint.