Individual Counseling Insights From Westlake Village-Based Patricia McTague-Loft

If you care passionately about a subject, you probably take the time to learn all about it. To take a lighthearted example, maybe you care deeply about the revolution going on in college football, with conferences realigning and athletes being compensated for Name, Image and Likeness. You know all about the problems facing the NCAA that are driving such drastic changes. And you know the history, alternative solutions and most importantly, arguments against positions you hold. When you get in a heated argument with another “sports nut,” you can’t understand why they won’t change their mind when you present them with your deep expertise and well-thought-out views.

This conundrum — difficulty persuading someone despite a deep knowledge about a subject — extends far beyond sports. It affects a professional making a proposal to change the way their colleagues do business; a spouse attempting to convince their partner about the proper way to discipline their children; a political campaign volunteer canvassing neighborhoods to promote their candidate.

The reality is that there is an art to persuading another person to change their mind about a subject. Writing for the Harvard Business Review, Laura Huang and Ryan Yu ask the relevant question: “There is little friction involved in convincing people who are your natural supporters. But trying to change the mind of a dissenter, or a detractor, is a different story. How do you go about convincing someone who, for one reason or another, doesn’t see eye-to-eye with you? Someone who gives you a flat out ‘no’?”

During research Huang and Yu conducted for a book by Huang, the pair discovered some interesting insights about business leaders who were trying the change the minds of various groups. Specifically, they found that successful leaders first set out to discover the root of the resistance — what’s the deep-down source of the opposing view? Depending on the source of resistance, they then advise using one of three different types of persuasion. There was a different reason to try each approach, a different reason why each worked and a potential problem with each.

“The Cognitive Conversation.” As you talk to a person about why they object to a certain concept or proposal, you’ll probably easily see whether they are objective and logical, or they’re emotionally driven by something they may not even be aware of. That’s the time to use a cognitive conversation, which simply but importantly involves having a well-thought-out argument and a clear presentation of the argument.

Huang and Yu describe an example in which one person is trying to persuade a colleague to switch suppliers. The key here, they say, is “to use a logical framework and clear storyline to force the detractor to reassess their thinking… and emphasize that the decision is based on cost, quality, and service, but above all, cost and quality.” They then add an important caveat: “Be warned, these detractors are not easily swayed by broad generalizations. Be ready to mentally spar with them and come prepared with facts that back up each aspect of your overall argument.”

The potential problem with this approach is that you may have convinced them to change their mind about one particular issue, but that doesn’t mean they’ll automatically support future proposals. Whenever you develop a new idea, don’t be surprised that you’ll need “to have another cognitive conversation on that separate argument.”

“The Champion Conversion.” It’s an understatement to say that the reasons underlying a person’s behavior are complex. If a person is not giving you well-reasoned objections to your proposal, there may be other issues at play. It’s difficult if not pointless to try to logically unearth the issues.

Instead, say Huang and Yu, “Don’t jump in and try to convince the other person. Instead, invest time in personally learning about and building rapport with them. Here, it’s not about arguments or presentation, at least initially, but understanding their perspective and why they might feel personally affronted.”

The catch here is that building rapport might be perceived as manipulative if you surprise them with a proposal that they might consider illogical. So, say Huang and Yu, “Authenticity is key: allow the other person to see who you are so that they can more fully understand your point of view.”

“The Credible Colleague Approach.” Sometimes you simply may not be able to figure out why a person is objecting, and try as you might you’re not building any rapport. That’s when you realize they may have a problem with you personally.

That’s when it’s time to bring in reinforcements. Another respected person in your organization who agrees with your proposal may be able to present your idea objectively. That forces the person to respond to the proposal itself, and not to you.

Using this approach, though, can be difficult. “It’s critical,” say Huang and Yu, “to find the right colleague who can tactfully advocate for your position while maintaining a cordial relationship.”