This style of influencing is based on a belief in the power of logical argument. The underlying sentiment is ‘Once I lay out the facts the logic of the course of action I am recommending will seem indisputable. Once you understand things as I do, you will agree with me.’ 

Assertive Persuasion tends to work when the issue under discussion is:

• High on logic and low on emotional impact
•  Based on undisputed facts or figures 
• Based on shared agreement in many important, more fundamental areas e.g. objective, success measures e.g. shared common context) 

Assertive Persuasion It tends not be so effective when there is:    

• More than one interpretation of same data 
• A lack of shared context 
• High emotional or values content to the disucussion 

The relationship between consequences and behaviour is well established through a branch of psychology technically known as ‘operant conditioning’. If you want to learn how to use this style effectively, I recommend a small paperback called ‘Don’t shoot the dog’ by Karen Pryor.

It is a style that, once you recognize it, you will notice being used everywhere from infant school ‘if you can recite your three times table I’ll give you a gold star’ to adolescence ‘study hard so that you can go to college and earn good money’ to adulthood ‘if you smoke you are more likely to develop lung cancer’ or ‘if you follow this diet you will lose weight’. In all these cases pointing out the consequences of some behaviour will, it is assumed, influence action in a particular direction.

Reward and Punishment tends to work when you can ensure:

•  That the behaviour is linked to the consequence in some consistent and predictable way
•  The rewards or punishments are salient, that is, personally meaningful, to the person
•  That the consequences are delivered close in time to the event
• The change being supported is in a direction desirable to the person

Reward and Punishment is less effective when

• There is a poor link between the behaviour and the consequence
• There is a time delay between the behaviour and its consequence
• The rewards or punishments are not salient to person
• People feel they are being covertly manipulated

In short Participation and Trust is the ‘you can be in my gang’ or ‘trust me on this’ style of influencing.

People who default to this style tend to have a consensual, collegiate or consultative approach to working with others and making decisions. They value relationships and tend to want to build close-knit groups or teams. They also value the efforts of others and work to create mutually supportive, high-trust environments. They may well view leadership from a ‘first amongst equals’ rather than ‘lone ranger’ or ‘distant commander’ perspective. They are likely to want you to want to do what they want you to do. Compliance is not enough; they value true commitment as in ‘we’re in this together’.

Participation and Trust works when people:

• Want to be with you, working with you makes them feel good
• Trust your judgment, your belief in them encourages them to stretch themselves
• Feel supported and believe in the longevity of the relationship, that is it worth investing in
• Are generally in agreement with the objective

Participation and Trust is less likely to work when there is:

• No relationship between the people involved, or indeed distrust
• No faith the person is going to stick around
• An attempt to take people too far out of their comfort zone which ‘bursts the bubble’
• Disagreement on moral or other grounds with the objective

Appreciative Inquiry is a change methodology that offers a complete process for understanding people’s values and aspirations, co-creating attractive visions of the future and working out how to achieve them. It can be used to help create attractive common visions or futures for individuals, teams or organizations. For more see ‘Appreciative Inquiry for Change Management’ by Lewis, Passmore and Cantore.

People who use this style well are often perceived as visionary leaders or described as inspirational. They are good at creating ‘word pictures’, making a future state come alive through their descriptions of the possible. They appeal to people’s hopes and aspirations, think of Martin Luther King’s famous ‘I have a Dream’ speech. They use inclusive language such as ‘us’ and ‘we’ and ‘our’. Sometimes described as charismatic, they use their enthusiasm and excitement to ignite the passions, motivation and actions of others. They are focused on creating futures, and influence others by drawing them towards this future.

Common Vision tends to work well when people:

• Are involved in the co-creation of the attractive ‘common vision’
• Respond to inspiring future objectives to pull them through present difficulties
• Are very connected to and invested in the outcome

Common Vision doesn’t work so well when

• There is no vision or the vision is ‘handed down’ to the group from elsewhere 
• It isn’t an attractive vision to the audience and so doesn’t create an attractive pull to the future
• The vision doesn’t connect to people’s hopes and aspirations, values and priorities and so doesn’t seem relevant to them

Once you understand these four different styles you can consciously adapt your style to the situation. 

When my car broke down, again, as we began our return journey at the height of the holiday season, I needed a 300 mile tow. There was a long queue for the breakdown recovery service and I had small children with me. I had already decided I was junking the car. To get to the front of the queue I offered a reward incentive. 'Jump us to the front of the queue take us home straight away, and you can keep the car,  bring it back with you.' Shortly afterwards we set off, rode home in style and got rid of a problem car. Everyone was happy and we never saw each other again.

On the other hand, when I had to keep a residential building for women and children functioning as it closed down rather suddenly, with no assurance that there would be any money to pay staff for the final few days, I called on Common Vision to influence others by creating hope and aspiration of how we could make this difficult situation into a success, resettling every family successfully before we closed. This objective appealed to everyone, as it resonated with our values. Staff stayed and we did re-home every family. (And in the event we did get paid!)

I hope that by now you understand the four different styles, how to use them, and when they might be useful. Practice them in different situations and remember, if one gains no traction you can always try another. Like any tool they can be used to good or nefarious purposes. I encourage you to use your new found powers wisely!