• Dynamic...
  • Inspiring...
  • Entertaining...
  • Principle-Based...
  • Immediately, Effective...
  • Bob Burg

“Bob Burg is the greatest teacher of networking in the world ”

~ John Milton Fogg, author, The Greatest Networker in the World

Persuasion vs. Manipulation

August 3rd, 2010 by Bob Burg

I’m often asked to explain the difference between persuasion and manipulation. Actually, it tends to take more the form of a challenge, as in, “Bob, isn’t persuasion and manipulation the same thing?”

And, it’s a good, legitimate question. After all, in both cases you are attempting to elicit an individual or group to think or do something they would presumably not think or do without your influence.

Persuasion and Manipulation are certainly “cousins” and to deny that is to deny reality. After all, both are based on certain principles of human action and interaction.  Good persuaders…and good manipulators understand those principles and know how to effectively utilize them. That’s why there is perhaps nothing more dangerous than a bad person with good people skills.

Yes, the principles are similar; often even the same.* In actuality, however, the results are as different as night and day. The big difference — in my opinion — is the intent. In his magnificent 1986 book, The Art of Talking So That People Will Listen Dr. Paul Swets provided an outstanding explanation regarding both intent and outcome. He wrote:

“Manipulation aims at control, not cooperation. It results in a win/lose situation. It does not consider the good of the other party. Persuasion is just the opposite. In contrast to the manipulator, the persuader seeks to enhance the self-esteem of the other party. The result is that people respond better because they are treated as responsible, self-directing individuals.”

Persuasion aims to serve; manipulation, to hurt. Or, if not necessarily intending to hurt, certainly not caring if it does. The manipulator is simply so focused on him or herself and their own self-interest that — like any other totally self-serving organism — they do only what they feel is for their own benefit and, if someone must suffer as a result, then so be it.

What they don’t realize is that not only is this not good life practice…it’s not good business practice.

A manipulator can have employees, but never a team.

She can have customers, but rarely one that will be long-lasting and a source of referrals. And, once discovered, the manipulator’s customer-base tends to crumble like a stale cookie.

He can have friends and family, but rarely are these relationships fulfilling and happy.

Yes, both persuaders and manipulators know the how and why of human motivation. And, both utilize their knowledge to cause the action they desire a person to take. However, the crucial difference between the two is that while manipulators use that knowledge to THEIR advantage, the persuader uses it to the OTHER person’s advantage.**

This ties perfectly into Law #3 from The Go-Giver which says, “Your influence is determined by how abundantly you place other people’s interests first.”

And, that’s persuasion…and leadership at it’s best!

Please weigh in with your thoughts.


*I placed an asterisk after the phrase, “the principles are similar; often even the same” because, while that’s true, there is something that a manipulator will do that a persuader never will, and it’s important you be aware of it. Fortunately, it’s extremely easy to recognize. We’ll look at that next.

**Caution and questioning of one’s motives is always advised here. Might one rationalize to themselves they are persuading when they are actually manipulating? A persuader stays aware of this on a constant basis. In a future article, we’ll look at how this can be done.

58 Responses to “Persuasion vs. Manipulation”
  1. Bob.. great article to remind us all what the difference is between professional sales and cons… I always liked Albert Einstein’s quote-> “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler” Persuasion helps people understand better in simple terms… it is not lying to them for your own agenda.

  2. Mirko Gosch said at 8:37 am on

    Hey Bob,

    Another excellent blog post that hopefully cures peoples hesitation to use certain techniques of persuasion when being in contact with prospects and customers. With the right intention to give and help, these techniques can be employed to benefit one´s customers.

    Being an internet marketer I often do get the question whether the internet marketing world is not full of scam and crap. My answer to this question always is: Yes, it is. It is just like in the physical world. There is good and bad all over the place. The internet itself and the techniques how to use it are neither good or bad. It´s the user who makes it a beneficial experience or something that is solely aiming at one person profiting. Educated internet users will be able to differentiate between those two sides and your blog is an excellent place for everyone to discover how persuasion techniques can be employed for a higher good.

    Have a great day and keep up your great work


  3. Brad Farris said at 8:44 am on

    I feel like I want to draw a different line. Persuasion still respects the listeners right to decide, manipulation offers them no choice. This is not to say you can’t resist manipulation, but if we are persuading we need to have the humility to realize that we may be wrong, or not have the right solution for some people. We need to respect their right to choose. Manipulators often just want to get what they want to get, without regard to the listener’s right to choose.

    Does that make sense? Are we saying the same thing?


  4. Susan Mazza said at 8:55 am on

    Great distinction Bob. It is particularly important for leaders. Your point that “There is perhaps nothing more dangerous than a bad person with good people skills.” is a big source of disillusionment with leaders and leadership these days.

  5. Bob Burg said at 9:04 am on

    Hi John, thank you. I enjoy your blog at http://askjohncharles.com. Great job!

    Mirko, excellent points. Than you.

    Brad, you are right on the mark. So much so, in fact, that I went back and added an asterisk. We’ll discuss your great point in a future article. I agree with you 100 percent. A persuader “sets a frame for the other person to take positive action…but always leaves it up to the other person as to whether or not they take that action.” Thank you for pointing that out.

    Susan, thank you. Yes, how many times have we seen that happen!

  6. Meredith Bell said at 9:25 am on

    Bob, I really like the way you distinguish between these two words/actions. In sales, I’ve seen a lot of techniques labeled “persuasion” but that feel like manipulation when used. The intention really is key, and we need to think about this anytime we’re in a situation where we are interested in influencing someone else. I agree with Susan that it’s a critical distinction for leaders to absorb if they want to get positive results through others.

  7. Bob

    Sorry had the wrong email address in.

    I don’t comment enough on your wonderful blob posts. You are bang on. I must tell you I have worked with these bad people with good skills. The challenge is determining right off the top and not a couple months down the road. I must say from experience I can determine the bad ones must faster. Anyway, great post!

  8. Mark McCarthy said at 9:37 am on


    Been a hot topic lately in my circles. Your post makes me think that manipulation is a “zero sum game” and that persuasion is not. Clicks with me now. Thanks for making me think!

  9. Phyllis Mufson said at 9:40 am on

    I agree – pursuasion happens between equals. People who manipulate are viewing the other person as a ‘thing.’

  10. Angi Egan said at 9:41 am on

    As with the other points eloquently made, I believe the distinction is a necessary one.
    Manipulation is concerned exclusively with manoeuvring to a particular value or point of view, whilst persuasion has as its sole intention the influence of another which allows for their greater good.
    Great persuaders act as a mirror, reflecting a world full with potential – as seen through the eyes of the beholder – ready to be shaded, drawn and packed with images created by the individual.
    Great manipulators present a completed picture, drawn and shaded in their colours, their images, their viewpoint – with no possibility for interpretation, choice, potential or excitement…… such an impoverished picture.

    Thank you Bob for your insight and wisdom – keep shining!

  11. Bob Burg said at 9:51 am on

    Wow – all these kind comments. Thank you so much. Please know how much they mean to me. And, going through them individually, I greatly appreciate you sharing your wisdom with us. Again, I find that so often your comments both add to and exceed the information in my original post. Thank you!!

  12. Tiago Simões said at 11:12 am on

    Hi Bob,
    I love to read your posts.
    You hit the target again with this one.
    Many leaders makes mistakes with this subjects.
    We need to “persuade” them to change their thinks 🙂
    Best regards from Brazil.

    Tiago C. Simões

  13. Dan Collins said at 11:22 am on


    I really liked this post. It addresses a remarkable distinction that very few people make in sales, business and indeed life. Intent. Is the intent to gain or provide – to strengthen ones position or to provide service? If we focus on the latter, in both cases a win – win occurs. If we focus on the former a zero sum result occurs. Great post – thanks again

  14. Sean Humby said at 12:20 pm on

    Loved the article – reading the Paul Swets description made me think that that is what Twitter and many of the Social media sites should be about. It also sums up networking – I have an event tomorrow in Bristol and this is great ‘ cooperation, win/win, enhancing self esteem’ fabulous. Finally the ‘manipulator having employees and not a team’ successful management/business in one line! Thank you.

  15. Carl Ingalls said at 12:45 pm on


    I like the definition of “persuasion” that you presented. However, I believe that it is a bit of wishful thinking. So many people who practice persuasion are applying pressure upon each individual listener, and are being subtly manipulative even when they say they aren’t. The definition you presented will only give them justification to continue practicing the same methods, while claiming they are only being persuasive. Some will even quote you.

    Carl Ingalls

  16. Rick White said at 1:00 pm on


    Your blog post touched on a subject that I have been working with recently and you have helped me firm up my view of the manipulation vs. persuasion issue.

    Persuasion is when you motivate someone to take an action that is in THEIR own best interests. You help someone see what is possible, something they may not have seen before. You then guide them to achieve that reality. The major word here is HELP.

    Manipulation is when you motivate someone to take an action that is for YOUR benefit. You have no regard for the other person and indeed see them at best as a transaction, at worst a target. The major word here is SELFISH.

    Thank you so much for your help! I love your work and have tried to implement in both my personal and professional lives. Keep it up!

    Rick White

  17. Bob Burg said at 2:41 pm on

    Hi everyone who has posted comments since my last thank you. Just wanted to say…”thank you” 🙂 and for you to know how much I’m enjoying and learning from all your comments. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom with us!!

    Carl, thank you for your note. I’m wondering if perhaps you might have overlooked the asterisk immediately after the article. Repeating it here, it said:

    **Caution and questioning of one’s motives is always advised here. Might one rationalize to themselves they are persuading when they are actually manipulating? A persuader stays aware of this on a constant basis. In a future article, we’ll look at how this can be done.

    Please let me know if that clarifies or if I’m still not quite “getting it.”

  18. Carl Ingalls said at 5:15 pm on


    I apologize for hastily leaving a comment without first reading both of your postscripts. I see now that you had already addressed my main concern.

    However, I still believe that you are proposing a definition of “persuasion” that is very different from how most people interpret the word, and they are not likely to change. Also, for most people, the very objective of persuading will cause them to do things that are manipulative.

    Thank you for writing on such a very important topic.

    Carl Ingalls

  19. Bob Burg said at 5:43 pm on

    Hi Carl, thank you. I appreciate that. And, no prob. I’m a bit curious; what is it about the definition of persuasion that you feel is missing the mark? And, I agree that there are those who might not interpret it that way. In fact, that’s one reason I wrote the article; to establish a premise; a definition of what persuasion is that I believe is accurate. I’d really enjoy knowing more regarding how you’re seeing this, as good, thoughtful discussion such as this always helps me to learn more, and helps me to learn how to better communicate what I’m trying to say. Thank you again!

  20. Bob Burg said at 6:02 pm on

    Carl, I neglected to answer your last concern. My apologies. You wrote:

    “Also, for most people, the very objective of persuading will cause them to do things that are manipulative.”

    While I respectfully disagree with that, I’ll be covering that issue as part of the follow-up articles. My thanks.

  21. Carl Ingalls said at 6:29 pm on

    I’m not going to try to persuade anyone that persuasion doesn’t work. Whether anyone is persuaded one way or the other is completely up to them, and not at all up to me.

    However, I will talk about my own persuasion on this topic. I am a consultant with a technical specialty. People pay me to give them advice. I know how to be persuasive, but I finally discovered that my clients were more likely to take my advice if I made no attempt of any sort to convince them to do so.

    My intent did not change, just my delivery. My reason for wanting them to take my advice has always been so that they would benefit from it. Therefore, my attempts to get them to take my advice certainly meets your definition of “persuasion”. I was doing it for my client’s benefit, because I only benefit when they do.

    When I started delivering the same advice in a different way, with absolutely ZERO attempt at any sort of persuasion at all, and no change in my intentions, the acceptance rate went way up. I believe I understand why, but explaining it might sound persuasive.

    Carl Ingalls

  22. Bob Burg said at 7:44 pm on

    Hmmm, I wonder if we are still looking at the word “persuasion” differently. Could it be that your low-key type of persuasion (which, is excellent) plus, the fact that your advice has proven to work in the past, and the fact that they “know, like and trust you” (and anytime that is the case, persuasion – as I would define it – is much easier) provides a context where basically, all you need to do is advise them and that is enough for them to take action? Of course, I don’t know because I don’t know the exact situation. I’m just guessing. Personally, when you say you use absolutely ZERO {attempt at} persuasion, my guess is that you perhaps lost your “attachment” to their “having” to be persuaded. And, when that happened, you found it easier to persuade (i.e., for what you suggest to be acted upon).

    Now, with all that said…again, I’m just guessing.

    Regarding your last sentence, by all means, feel free to explain Carl. I always want to learn more and I’d say that probably holds true for all of us participating in, and reading, this discussion. I welcome your wisdom!

  23. Jane Perdue said at 8:00 pm on

    Great post, Bob! Persuasion is a “kissing cousin” to influence, which as John Maxwell reminds us, is leadership, positive win-win leadership that is!

  24. Carl Ingalls said at 10:37 pm on


    Yes, I am certain that we are looking at persuasion quite differently. I believe this difference has been the central point of our conversation.

    I see persuasion in 3 very different parts. The first is the Intent to Persuade, to change someone else’s mind. The second is the Act of Persuasion, the conscious things you do that you believe will make this change more likely. The third is the Outcome of Persuasion, where your target has been persuaded.

    What I have found is that if I skip the first part entirely, and leave the second part to the other person, the third part takes care of itself quite well. The desired outcome occurs more often. I am not doing, nor intending to do, any part of the persuading. If the other person wants to be persuaded, they do it themselves.

    Skipping the Intent to change someone else’s mind is similar to, and a little bit deeper than, your description of abandoning the attachment to the outcome. You also have to abandon the intent to change someone else’s mind. Even more importantly, you have to abandon the idea that you can take credit for the outcome.

    By the way, I didn’t “lose” my attachment to the outcome. It takes a very deliberate act to get rid of that. It is also a continuous struggle.

    Thank you for inviting my comments on this blog post. You are a very gracious host, even to people who disagree with you.

    Carl Ingalls

  25. Ron Betta said at 12:00 am on

    Bob, so true! I work in the fitness field and often see people who want to get fit but are afraid, for whatever reason, to take the plunge (usually financial). I always see potential clients as people who are investing in themselves. If they truly respect themselves, I am not the one persuading them…they’ve already done that on their own. I’m simply a vehicle to show them they can get it done safer, faster and with less pain. Thanks for this article!

    Ron – A Go Giver….

  26. Bob Burg said at 7:33 am on

    Jane, thank you. Always great to hear from you!

    Carl, yes, I believe we are looking at persuasion differently, but mainly in terms of its use value. I see it as benevolent if done with the correct intent.

    Your second paragraph I agree with completely. I love the three parts and I think that sums up persuasion perfectly (as you know, in my opinion, the changing of someone’s mind or – more accurately, *helping them to change their own mind* – is persuasion if with benevolent intent and manipulation if with malevolent intent).

    Here’s where I would disagree with you, if I may. Depending upon the situation, in most cases, if there is a necessity to obtain a different result from a certain person’s intended actions or non-action, then following your suggestion in your third paragraph – skipping the intent to persuade and simply leaving it to the other person – will result in no change at all. It must result in that, by the very “nature of the thing.” After all, without additional information, people generally won’t change what they are already thinking or doing.

    Of course, we could be speaking in different contexts. However, I’m talking (and in my articles on this topic, this is the case) where nothing would change if the persuader didn’t take the action to cause it to change.

    Examples include (but are certainly not limited to) the customer-service person not providing you customer service, the bureaucrat “following policy” when it’s counter-productive, the child who is tending to involve him or herself with the wrong crowd, the ticket agent who was having a bad day who was going to make the next customer’s life unnecessarily difficult, the bank not cashing an out-of-town check that you need to cash, helping a child see their inherent worth and value, the sales prospect who is trapped in a paradigm that is not helpful to them (and, yes, positive sales is persuasion – otherwise it would be called order-taking), the police officer citing you for a questionable violation, a company not wanting to accept a return. And, it goes on and on.

    Again, different situations are different. And, I do think in the next couple of articles I’ll answer your concerns regarding the “fine line” that can occur between persuasion and manipulation, though, I’ll look forward to any additional thoughts and concerns from you there, as well.

    Regarding your fifth paragraph in terms of not “losing” your attachment but it being a deliberate act and a continuous struggle…RIGHT ON!! I agree with you completely. I was incorrect in the way I previously stated it.

    Thank YOU, Carl.

    Ron, thank you for your feedback. Yes, you’ve simply provided the context and become the vehicle. That would also seem to align with what Carl said.

  27. Russ Thoman said at 11:35 am on

    “I see it as benevolent if done with the correct intent.” Agreed. When we compare and contrast persuasion with manipulation, we must be careful not to throw the baby (persuasion) out with the bath water (manipulation).

    Bob, I do believe manipulation involves much more than just malevolent intent. We can go on and on about how a seller’s self-absorption can manifest manipulative sales tactics under the guise of “I am only doing this for your own good.” Yes, the end result may actually be in the client’s best interest, but the means of getting there–manipulation–is morally and ethically questionable. Where I come from, means don’t justify ends. (We are talking about sales and not politics, right?)

    Great discussion!

  28. John Clark said at 12:50 pm on


    What a great topic…

    There is a fine line between the two, for sure.

    Rick wrote:

    “Persuasion is when you motivate someone to take an action that is in THEIR own best interests. You help someone see what is possible, something they may not have seen before. You then guide them to achieve that reality. The major word here is HELP.”

    I agree with this only to the point the person has sought out your help. Also who are we to decide what is in “THEIR own best interests.”

    When we try to help those because of the “THEIR own best interest”, it often ends up being manipulation, if they have not sought our help or think that any help is necessary.

    “A person convinced against their will, is of the same opinion still.”

    Let’s look at the health care package that was just put in place, they are trying to persuade us everyday that this is good for us. But it all depends on from what side of the debate you come from.

    People often use manipulation for expedition and often on those they feel are weak minded.

    But when you use persuasion to help those who are looking for your help to reach an outcome they desire, it often takes a long time depending on persons true desire for change. And it often takes a lot of patience to let them come to that conclusion.

    Keep up the Great Work, Bob!

    Here’s to Your LifetoSuccess,

    John Clark

  29. Bob Burg said at 1:18 pm on

    Russ, yes, great point. While the intent must be pure, it also must be carefully self-watched. I alluded to that in the double asterisk ** after the article, which said:

    **Caution and questioning of one’s motives is always advised here. Might one rationalize to themselves they are persuading when they are actually manipulating? A persuader stays aware of this on a constant basis. In a future article, we’ll look at how this can be done.

    I’ll be discussing this in an upcoming post as well as a way that the person “being” persuaded or manipulated can tell.

    I agree with you that the means don’t justify the end. Russ, in most cases, persuasion is not that “deep.” But, in those rare occasions where it is, yes, you are correct.

    Regarding this being about sales and not politics, it’s actually much more than just in sales; persuasion (and, it’s counterpart; manipulation) take place in all sorts of different areas of life. Regarding politics…no. Politics is not about persuasion; it’s about manipulation. I wish I were joking.

  30. Wendy Naarup said at 1:27 pm on

    Hi Bob,
    I like this post. I think people in a position of power can persuade others only when they’ve earned “influence” by serving those who follow them. Without influence, those in power are left with manipulation and all of it’s destruction.

    Thanks for continuing to make all of us better.

  31. Bob Burg said at 1:28 pm on

    Hi John, thank you for your feedback. Yes, there are times when, sure, “who are we to decide what is in THEIR own best interest?” Other times, times, it is perfectly appropriate. A sales prospect doesn’t realize that the “widget” we have will help them {fill in the blank}, until we persuade them that that is the case. Afterwards, after experiencing the helpful results, they are glad we were patient and took the time to help them. They then become a huge referral source. And, we don’t have to persuade the people they refer because our referral source has already passed along their “know, like and trust.”

    However, let’s look at one more aspect of this. It’s important that we don’t just see persuasion as one area, such as sales. There are all sorts of areas when we need to persuade someone who is not being helpful (I provided some examples of this five responses above in the fifth paragraph). Sometimes it’s not even that it’s in (or not in) their best interest per se, but more neutral for them and beneficial for us. Again, needing to persuade the bank manager to let you cash an out of town check or ensuring that the customer service rep takes on a more helpful attitude. I mean, we could say it is ultimately helping them but that’s not really the point. We need something that’s honest and legitimate and yet if someone is stuck in an unhelpful paradigm, we need to gently persuade.

    What I encourage all of us to do (including myself) is to not get too caught up as seeing persuasion as being just one area and one specific aspect but knowing that it encompasses many different situations and contexts. Certain things are appropriate at certain times with certain people and other times it is not. We need to use our judgment and make sure we are being honest both with ourselves and with them. Thank you so much again for your comments, John!

  32. Bob Burg said at 1:32 pm on

    Hi Wendy, I agree with you completely. Thank you for sharing!

  33. Larry Winget said at 1:54 pm on

    Bob-great article and great point. I think it comes down to motive and intent. As one who is known for being blunt in his approach to personal development, some people translate that into my being mean. My motive and intention is not to be mean but to influence change. Intention/motive is the key to my process as in what you are describing. Persuasion has the intention to help, manipulation is not as “pure of heart.” While the result may be the same, ie. a sale, etc., the intention makes the difference in the way the persuader feels himself as well as about the result. It also makes a difference long term for the buyer. People will never forgive you for manipulating them but are open to being persuaded if the motive is one of helping them.

  34. Bob Burg said at 1:59 pm on

    Wow – Larry; thank you for joining our discussion and for sharing your always wisdom-filled point of view. Much appreciated!
    {Note from Bob: Check out Larry and his numerous bestselling books at http://www.larrywinget.com}

  35. Richard Dillard said at 2:09 pm on

    Now that was one of the 10 best articles I personally have ever read!

  36. Bob Burg said at 2:13 pm on

    Richard, thank you. Much appreciated. That means a lot to me!

  37. You’ve gone and done it again! Great article and great discussion here. (I so respect the time and energy you put into keeping it a DIALOG by responding to every post.)

    In my first consulting experience I contracted to a company whose founder was famous for saying “manipulation for the good of the manipulated is still a good thing.” While he was quite persuasive about that viewpoint (I’ll take my tongue out of my cheek now) I saw it as highly arrogant that he sincerely believed he knew what was best for his clients. While he was extremely intelligent and brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table, he didn’t treat the client as a whole person, but rather as a problem to be solved. So he was generally right about what was best for the SITUATION but not always right about what was best for the PERSON. (The good thing is that his arrogance toward his clients offended me so much I left and started my own consulting biz which led to the coaching I do today – all for the good.)

    Working in the medical field as a consultant I taught “case acceptance” – which is doctor-speak for “sales.” Again, they knew what was best for the situation or illness and I fully understood their frustration when facts and education didn’t persuade the patient to follow their recommendations. I created 5 Keys to Case Acceptance (5 seems to be a magic number for us) that focused on TRUST as being the first key. (I find those 5 Keys are applicable no matter WHAT is being sold, but they as especially vital in selling services.)

    Manipulation doesn’t require trust. It’s mental and emotional arm twisting. It aims for, exactly as you say, control.

    Persuasion requires trust. It might be trust of the person, the profession, the source of facts, case studies, you name it. But it is belief and trust that persuades us to take recommended action. It aims for the other person freely choosing a course of action based on what we have shared.

    Certainly there is a very fine line. But it comes down to this – in order to help people make choices that will serve them well (sell them services or goods, talk them down off a ledge, convince them NOT to invest in a beach front villa in Arizona) without manipulation we MUST offer them something they can trust. There are a lot of approaches but the most vital and effective is for them to trust US. As in your Golden Rule of Business – “all things being equal, people will do business with and refer business to, people they know, like and TRUST.”

    And what better reason to TRUST someone than to believe that they have your best interests at heart. Law #3 at work – how better to have influence (which means you can persuade or influence decisions just by being YOURSELF) than to demonstrate that you put the best interests of others first?

    Your message is always SO consistent – this is just another example. Thanks for sharing and letting all of us weigh in.


  38. Bob Burg said at 7:08 pm on

    Dixie, thank you. As always, you have put your thoughts into words that are a pleasure to read. Thank you, my friend.

  39. […] Bob Burg explains the difference between persuasion and manipulation […]

  40. […] is one concept above practically all else that makes the biggest difference in your ability to persuade others to your way of thinking and attain the results you desire. It is known by several different […]

  41. Coach Steve said at 1:24 am on

    Bob & Carl…

    Great volley of responses. I simply see persuasion as asking questions merely to help others get what they desire regardless of my product or service.

    If we “tell” or “old school sell” to others, we are trying or attempting to “get” them to make up or change their mind. When they are sincerely desiring something we have that can help them, asking questions is merely to find out how to best help them with the solution that is best for them (may not include my service at all).

    We must protect or “keep hidden” our great service or product until someone expresses a sincere desire to “know” about it. Then we can reveal that which we keep hidden. “Don’t throw pearls before swine”. Don’t “old school sell” or try to convince or manipulate another.

    Geez…i could go on and on and on.

    **** P.S. Was I persuaded or manipulated to respond to this message? ****

  42. […] to do what we want, in a way they can benefit and feel like a winner, as well? Through Positive Persuasion (a/k/a, Winning Without Intimidation) of […]

  43. […] Part One we looked at a basic principle in the persuasion process. As the great Dale Carnegie taught us in his classic, How to Win Friends and Influence […]

  44. Considerably, the report is basically the freshest on this notable topic. I agree together with your conclusions and will thirstily look forward to your next updates.I will immediately grab your rss feed to stay abreast of any updates.

  45. […] as adherents to the philosophy of Positive Persuasion; i.e., Winning Without Intimidation, we believe that negotiation should always be win/win in nature […]

  46. […] Part One we discussed how effective it is in the persuasion process to actually first vocalize the opposing party’s views. What a great way to lower their […]

  47. […] discussed in this column before how it is up to us – the positive persuader – to set the tone…the Matrix, if you will, as to how the transaction is going to […]

  48. Bob, I found your blog when I did a search for persuasion vs. manipulation. I have taken a few managerial tests and have ranked high in the former category but do not believe I am a manipulator. I got into a heated discussion with my boyfriend’s mother who made the blanket statement, “all women are manipulators” to which I strongly disagreed. I am a woman who has worked as a construction manager and believe that I am about as honest as they come in my delivery (sometimes too honest for many people). In any event, this made me realize that I am on the right track as I am always looking out for others and will not get involved with something that I believe doesn’t give the other the option of not going along with me or looking for the win/win. Too many people are just out for themselves and could care less about the other person. Thank you so much for clearing it up in my mind. Keep up the great work! Deborah

  49. […] How To Get Your Point Across In 30 Seconds or Less, I was reminded that – in the context of persuasion – there are three essentials for every form of spoken or written […]

  50. […] are some people you won’t be able to persuade. The boss, in this case (and assuming all our reader stated is correct), is a classic example of […]

  51. […] Porter B. Williamson quotes the General, displaying his true knack for understanding positive persuasion […]

  52. | said at 8:14 am on

    […] Porter B. Williamson quotes the General, displaying his true knack for understanding positive persuasion […]

  53. […] 24th, 2011 by Bob Burg One could quite correctly say that whenever we discuss the topic of persuasion (a/k/a “Winning Without Intimidation) we are within the context of negotiation. Really, any […]

  54. […] your reframe can be, “What a tremendous opportunity to practice my influence skills and persuade this person to my point of […]

  55. […] I just stumbled upon this article, which I think makes some great points: Persuasion vs. Manipulation | Bob Burg Reply With Quote […]

  56. […] that it’s nearly impossible to win an argument? That doesn’t mean you can’t persuade someone to move from their original view to your […]

  57. […] non-manipulative, or what we call “positive persuasion,” a phrase like, “What can I do to help?” or “Is there anything I can do to make it easier […]

  58. […] Law #3 from The Go-Giver says, “Your influence is determined by how abundantly you place other people’s interests first.” […]

Leave a Reply