It is common for some in advancement to hear the word, “persuasive,” and think, “manipulative.” But, the two are very different.
When we aim to be persuasive, we:
- are ethical, transparent, factual, and logical;
- seek fair, win-win outcomes with others;
- respect people’s rights and responsibilities to choose for themselves, based on what they believe, feel, and think is best.
But, when we aim to be manipulative, we:
- use tricks, lies, half-truths, or hidden motives to pressure others;
- seek to steer people toward outcomes that benefit us in some way, often at their expense;
- attempt to create the sense that others have limited or few options.
A key reason I believe these two very different concepts can be confusing rests in the fact that both start with the idea of presenting a perspective to a donor or audience. In other words, both persuasion and manipulation start with the understanding that, “I’ve got something I’d like to share with you. . .”
And that starting point, itself, can feel wrong or uncomfortable for some.
It’s as if simply having a perspective, a vision for the future, a preferred outcome, or a goal is problematic. If we believe our fundamental role is be nice, accommodating, and agreeable to whatever the donor or audience wants, we begin to understand why injecting our organization’s perspective into the mix can be difficult.
But, being nice, accommodating, and agreeable is not the work.
The work is persuasively advancing a mission and achieving a vision that makes the world a better place.
And, we should always have “something we’d like to share” with others.
