Manipulation

August 17, 2004 at 5:20 pm — Glossary, Power

manipulate
  1. v. To influence a person using means that would be less effective if the person knew your intentions.
manipulation
  1. n. The process of influencing a person using means that would be less effective if the person knew your intentions.
My definition relies heavily on descriptions I’ve read in two books. In Influence without Authority, Allan R. Cohen and David L. Bradford say, “influence attempts are not manipulative if you can tell your potential ally your intentions with no loss of influence.”

Edgar Schein, in Process Consultation, Volume 1, defines manipulation as “influencing others without making visible the motivation behind the influence attempts.”

Each of these quotes suggests a test for whether your influence attempts are manipulative. Cohen and Bradford’s quote suggests what I call The Private Test of Manipulation: Could I tell the other person my intentions?

Schein’s definition suggests the second, stronger test, which I call The Public Test of Manipulation: Have I told the other person my intentions?

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

5 Comments »

Comment by Chris Morris — August 18, 2004 at 3:05 am

Excellent post. Although what makes this even trickier is a pre-test: Am I aware of what my true intentions are?

Am I so good at manipulating that I don’t realize when I’m doing it? Do I even know that I manipulate out of a very core desire to avoid conflict at all costs?

It helped me a lot to be able to answer those questions honestly.

Comment by Dale Emery — August 18, 2004 at 4:39 am

Chris, your comment reminds me that we are quite capable of manipulating ourselves.

Comment by Dale Emery — August 31, 2004 at 4:16 am

One of my collegues pointed out a hole in my definition. It is possible to manipulate someone even if you tell them your intentions.

For example, suppose a candidate wants you to vote for him for mayor, and as part of his campaign to win your vote he withholds information about the dozens of women he has sexually harassed. He is happy to tell you his intentions—he is trying to win your vote.

Even though the candidate’s actions pass my non-manipulation tests, I see them as manipulation. Purposefully withholding any relevant information, even information about something other than your intentions, is manipulation.

And withholding information isn’t the only form of manipulation. Another form is lying, willfully making statements false to fact.

There’s a word that covers both willful omission of relevant information and willful false statements: deceit.

So I have revised my definition:

manipulation
  1. Influence by means of deceit.
Comment by Brad Appleton — August 31, 2004 at 4:29 pm

Hi Dale!
“Influence by deceit” definitely resonates better with me than your previous definition. I have some more questiuons …

Is ‘deceit’ simply one of several possible unethical means? Is it possible for me to influence someone via unethical means, without employing deceit as one of them? If they still make the decision I was influencing them to make, and they know the “truth” and the “whole truth”, and if I was somehow unethical without being deceitful - does it make it “manipulation”? (Or does it mean I attempted to manipulate - but perhaps the target was not manipulated?)

Comment by John D. Mitchell — September 5, 2004 at 4:34 am

Dale,

Your revised definition is superb.

Brad,

(A) Ethics brings in the notion of a community’s notion of acceptable standards of behavior. Deceit is an absolute, if you will. For example, in the marketing industry, deceit is not only ethical but expected.

(B) I think that one of the distinctions that you’re trying to bring in is the need for both honesty and candor.

Leave a comment