When Followers Don’t Follow: The Art of Persuasion
Image
Though many of us don’t think of ourselves as leaders, we all find ourselves in situations where we’re responsible to some extent for “getting other people to do things” (or stop doing things). In that sense, we’re all leaders occasionally.
Previously, I introduced three primary tools leaders have at their disposal (coercion, persuasion, and influence), overviewed how the three differ, and explored some ways we tend to use one of them—coercion—badly (with self-defeating consequences).
Paul’s letter to Philemon draws our attention to the second tool—persuasion—and even a brief look reveals a great deal about what persuasion is, how it works, and why we should try to get better at it.
1. Persuasion offers compelling information and reasoning.
Paul has two goals in the epistle: to see Philemon accept the runaway slave, Onesimus, back into Philemon’s home and to put Onesimus and Philemon’s relationship on a new footing. Much of the letter consists of arguments—reasons why—Philemon should do this. Seven stand out.
- Philemon 13 – Onesimus is a huge help!
- Philemon 15-16 – You can now have him as a brother rather than a slave.
- Philemon 17 – You can do this for me as your partner.
- Philemon 18 – It won’t cost you a dime!
- Philemon 19 – You owe me this.
- Philemon 20 – You can make me happy.
- Philemon 21 – It would be so like you to do this, and more.
Paul uses some personal appeal, emotional appeal, and maybe even a bit of subtle guilt-tripping here. But his basic approach is a reasoned one that aims to change what Philemon believes about the situation, and as a result, what he does.
This is what persuasion, as distinct from coercion, seeks to achieve.
2. Effective persuasion is wisely delivered.
For Paul, beginning epistles with affirmations and thanks was routine. Nonetheless, those affirmations were genuine—and selective. To Philemon, he wrote,
I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints, 6 and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ. 7 For I have derived much joy and comfort from your love, my brother, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you. (ESV, Philemon 5–7)
In these few statements, Paul frames the entire persuasive effort as (a) an appeal to a man’s already-demonstrated godly motives (“love and … faith”), (b) an appeal rooted in the man’s personal relationship with Paul (“I have derived much joy and comfort from your love, my brother”), and (c) an appeal to a man with a track record for expansive and generous serving of others (“the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you”).
The words of appreciation not only open Philemon up to listen to Paul’s requests, but also set the stage for what sort of case he is going to make—and how that case is likely to be perceived. The entire effort is suffused with respect.
So many leaders self-sabotage their persuasive efforts from the start by adopting a condescending and insulting tone. It’s more than a little puzzling. Isn’t it obvious that we all pretty much dig in when we’re approached that way? (It’s true that both John and Jesus rebuked Pharisees and other phonies with a “condescending and insulting tone”—but the Pharisees were not the audience they were trying to persuade!)
By using this tool, Paul is respecting Philemon. He is not only communicating what he’d like Philemon to do and why, but by using persuasion rather than coercion, he is telling Philemon “I know you are the kind of person who is open to change, open to learning, open to arguments that might call for a change in course.”
This is the same sort of respect Paul is communicating even to the likes of the troubled church of Corinth (1 Cor. 10:15, though he tempers that praise in 1 Cor. 6:5 and nearly reverses it through sarcasm in 2 Cor. 11:19.)
Whenever we aim to persuade, we are implying the respect that is due to reasonable people (James 3:17).
3. Persuasion requires influence.
Note the wording of v.9: “for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus.”
The subtext here seems to be something like, “You wouldn’t disappoint and old man stuck in jail for serving the Lord, would you?” There’s nothing low about Paul’s use of this angle. His many years of hard, hard service truly entitled him to be taken seriously, and the fact that he chooses to be so gentle with Philemon makes that personal credibility even stronger.
Similar allusions to Paul’s influence occur in Philemon 17, 19, 20, and 22. One of the most poignant is v. 17: “So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me.”
Though we often need to persuade people who don’t know us well, some basic level of at least provisional ethos is vital to the process. Even communicating with a hostile audience, we have to be winsome enough to at least gain a hearing for the length of time it takes to unfold the case. And that pinch of influence can go a long way.
Here, though, Paul has the deeply rooted and strong respect of Philemon to leverage. And he uses it well.
4. Whenever the situation allows, persuasion is better than coercion.
In Philemon v.8-10, Paul identifies two distinct strategies for gaining the result he desires from Philemon. He goes out of his way to choose one over the other—and explains why.
Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, 9 yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus— 10 I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment. (Philemon 8–10)
The contrast between “command” and “appeal” here is not precisely a contrast between coercion and persuasion, but it’s close. Commands are typically backed by an implied or stated “or else,” or occur in the context of a potential consequence of some sort. His choice to “appeal” is a choice to persuade. Nor is that preference for persuasion unique to the book of Philemon.
For even if I boast a little too much of our authority, which the Lord gave for building you up and not for destroying you, I will not be ashamed. 9 I do not want to appear to be frightening you with my letters. (2 Cor. 10:8–9)
For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down. (2 Cor. 13:10)
Paul’s attitude toward the use of his authority is a beautiful thing. First, he recognizes that his authority is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Second, he realizes what that end is—building up, not destroying. Third, he knows where his authority came from, as a trust (“the Lord gave… the Lord has given”). Fourth, the resulting attitude is that—apostle though he is—he does not want to use the authority to command in any situation where doing so would not truly edify.
This is why the pastoral epistles sometimes call for rebuke, but over and over urge Timothy or Titus to teach patiently, gently, firmly, lovingly.
Verse 14 sums up his attitude.
But I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. (Philemon 14)
That Paul shows a preference for persuasion shouldn’t surprise us. Christianity and the Great Commission are all about genuine belief, and nobody has ever been coerced into faith.
Limitations
As vital as persuasion is to leading people, it’s not always the right tool for the job. Part 4 will consider situations where persuasion is contraindicated.
Aaron Blumer 2014 Bio
Aaron Blumer, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years.
- 55 views
Thanks for the insightful analysis of Philemon and its application to principles of leadership.
G. N. Barkman
Can’t say as I have this completely down, but the power of the carrot, of letting people know what’s in it for them, is just amazing. And on the flip side, the way some people try to motivate others (probably me at times too), you could be offering chocolate cake and they’d be turning up their noses at it like it was haggis or chitterlings.
(nothing against the latter, I’ve had and enjoyed both, BTW….just a word picture)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I would not say that persuasion is better than coercion. They are different. For example, if you work in a secular job, part of your performance is subject to a formal performance review and from that the company rewards you with a salary increase and/or bonus. For sales individuals reaching their sales targets provide a financial reward. Missing your targets and having poor performance can result in a loss in pay or a demotion. While it should not be the predominate method, I would be hard pressed to agree that it is always worse than persuasion. Everyone wants to be rewarded in some case, and that reward (or lack of reward) is a form of coercion.
[dgszweda]I would not say that persuasion is better than coercion. They are different. For example, if you work in a secular job, part of your performance is subject to a formal performance review and from that the company rewards you with a salary increase and/or bonus. For sales individuals reaching their sales targets provide a financial reward. Missing your targets and having poor performance can result in a loss in pay or a demotion. While it should not be the predominate method, I would be hard pressed to agree that it is always worse than persuasion. Everyone wants to be rewarded in some case, and that reward (or lack of reward) is a form of coercion.
Ordinarily I’d view natural consequences in business short of firing as persuasion, not coercion, because until an HR decision has been made, the employee is free to make a decision. The etamology of “coerce” is, after all, to “restrain”—in other words to restrict the liberty of someone so they cannot do anything else. So my take is that in church or business, “coerce” really refers to situations where you’ve got to say “do it this way or hit the road”; firing in business or exclusion from the body of believers in the church, for the most part.
But that said, there’s more and more in the church where at least a degree of coercion is necessary. For example, in guiding Sunday School at my church, I have to tell prospective teachers that it’s the church’s way of screening nor they don’t get to serve, and if someone chooses to disregard rules, we would then need to have a parting of ways. And then you’ve got those 990 forms to be filed each year…in each case, I still try to lead with persuasion, though. “Here are the benefits of having two adults in the room”. “Here is why we want to do your 990s right”, and the like.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I like the way Philemon reads - like two friends having a chat, sometimes saying things they both know, but repeating them for mutual benefit. And sometimes it’s ok to ask someone to do something for you because it’s a good thing that will make you both happy in the long run.
[dgszweda]I would not say that persuasion is better than coercion. They are different. For example, if you work in a secular job, part of your performance is subject to a formal performance review and from that the company rewards you with a salary increase and/or bonus. For sales individuals reaching their sales targets provide a financial reward. Missing your targets and having poor performance can result in a loss in pay or a demotion. While it should not be the predominate method, I would be hard pressed to agree that it is always worse than persuasion. Everyone wants to be rewarded in some case, and that reward (or lack of reward) is a form of coercion.
As I’m using the term, this would indeed be coercion. And I wouldn’t say it’s without value. What I meant to convey in the post is that when there is time to do it, persuasion is always better. My case for that is incomplete at this point because Philemon and the NT are focused on uniquely Christian motivations for things. And that means faith is all around and through it…. and persuasion is all about belief.
But in the course of—using your example—running a business, persuasion is not always practical or possible. Where the authority to use coercion exists, and where the forms of coercion being used are appropriate, there’s nothing wrong with that. And given the fact that you can’t take the time to develop deep commitments in everyone (and not everyone is even close to persuadable anyway), you have to be somewhat coercive in that setting.
So it’s hard to generalize. Maybe it’s best to say that, other things being equal, persuasion is always better. It’s more durable, deeper, connects with faith/belief and values, and builds mutual respect.
I don’t know if that clarifies, but what I’m trying to say is that where conditions allow or “when possible and practical” persuasion is always preferable.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Possibly. Although it is interesting that the first example, is based on coercion (Gen. 2:17). I would frame it this way. Based on the maturity of the relationship, it primarily starts with coercion and balances out to where influence and other elements begin to take over. Genesis was the beginning of man’s relationship with His God and it was founded on coercion. The relationship that we have with our children starts with coercion. The relationship an employee has with their employer starts with coercion. It is more based on the style of the relationship more than inferior or superior. Even when using persuasion or influence, coercion is always the bedrock. Whether it is death, getting fired, a spanking, church discipline, separation….. The foundation begins with coercion, it matures to influence and persuasion, but when the relationship begins to falter, it is coercion that backs it up.
I think it’s difficult to clearly separate consequences from coercion, especially with kids. We can’t exactly allow kids to experience the natural consequences of many of their actions. Such as “Hold my hand in the parking lot or I won’t bring you to the store anymore.”
We use ‘artificial’ consequences to replace the natural consequences to teach, train, and maintain safe and healthy boundaries, so IMO those aren’t really coercion, at least not in the way we usually view coercion. IMHO.
Another example of something that sounds like coercion but isn’t is, “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” That’s a natural consequence.
I think the bottom line might be that persuasion is only possible when someone has the ability to reason, and if you can reason with someone, that’s obviously preferable.
It’s worth noting here that the Creation story in Genesis is an act of creation, not coercion—coercion requires someone to be forced to do something, no? And you cannot coerce someone who does not yet exist. Same basic idea for starting a company or a division within the company—you create that, and then you persuade people to work for you there, bonuses and the like being part of the process of persuasion. So I can’t agree that those things are coercion, or that starting things inevitably requires it, or that something is “founded” on coercion.
I will admit that I am VERY leery of an overly expansive view of coercion, to be honest. I worked for a while in a factory where the management more or less forgot that the process of persuasion could work, and the end result was a workforce that, from the director level on down, was more or less embittered at the VPs and company president. You’d get an 8D to do, and after going through all the documentation, machinery calibrations, and all that, all you could say is the people who did the work simply didn’t care.
The phrase used when people left was “they got a real job”, and some weren’t content to give their notice and go, but rather accumulated “points” through strategic absenteeism (one absence could shut down a whole line) until the company was forced to fire them. Yes, they were making themselves far less employable, but by that time, they didn’t care. Not vicious people; they’d just had enough.
Same basic principle applies in the church; people understand, for the most part, that there are some boundaries, and breaking them will get you on the wrong end of Matthew 18, the “right boot of fellowship”, and so on. But on the flip side, if one uses coercion where the Scriptures require persuasion, you engender a spirit of bitterness in the flock—and they start reneging on their commitments and showing up as empty pews. The balance here matters a lot.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
If it helps, call it “or-elsing.” :-)
Whether the or else is positive or negative, we’re moving away from “persuasion.”
But there is some overlap. If I convince a person that he’ll get fired if he’s late for work, I have “persuaded” him. But if I’m his boss, it’s really mostly coercion.
So yes, I’m using “persuasion” in technical way as well…in ref to deeper beliefs and values.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]The term ‘coercion’ is perhaps a bit distracting. I’m using it in a techical since in order to put the alternatives in sharp contrast.
If it helps, call it “or-elsing.”
Whether the or else is positive or negative, we’re moving away from “persuasion.”
But there is some overlap. If I convince a person that he’ll get fired if he’s late for work, I have “persuaded” him. But if I’m his boss, it’s really mostly coercion.
So yes, I’m using “persuasion” in technical way as well…in ref to deeper beliefs and values.
Let’s try a definition or two here. I would agree that the threat of getting fired is clearly coercion; I would emphatically disagree that the prospect of a bigger or smaller raise, or a better or lesser job title, qualifies as such. That’s persuasion.
You’re correct that there is an issue of semantics—we might define coercion as “forceful persuasion”, after all—but psychologically, it’s a HUGE distinction for people. Bad things happen when one coerces someone when he hasn’t previously persuaded them that he’s got authority in that area. This is the big issue that many (myself included) have with “my way or the highway” or “touch not God’s anointed” kinds of “pastoring.” Another way of drawing the picture; sheep are led, not driven, and shepherds who consistently play cowboy wear cotton and polyester.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I think the reason using persuasion is so important is that coercion is too often the default. Persuasion sounds weak, like negotiation or compromise. It is seldom even attempted, even though we have just as many examples in Scripture of persuasion as we have “do this or else.” Coercion puts the control in the hands of the manipulator, and I’m sure it seems easier to use methods that allow you to maintain the upper hand, rather than take the time to engage and reason.
I think I want to give some more attention eventually to how coercion and persuasion often work in concert. I’ve been emphasizing the differences between the two because I so often people using one or the other heavily in situations where they’re not really the right tool.
But they are usually mixed… and quite often they should be.
dgszweda and Bert have referred to Genesis. Assuming we’re talking about people who already exist (creation is not a leadership tool!), the relationship does indeed become somewhat coercive very quickly with the Rule of the Tree and it’s huge “or-else.” But at the same time there is persuasion going on. I’m not sure which came first, but the whole naming-the-animals sequence is a case of motivation by education (aka persuasion), I’m pretty sure.
And there is some persuasion built into the “or-else” itself. While it’s the fear of an undesirable consequence that is the motivation in focus, God is also teaching them about Himself and their place in relation to him.
And so it is with parenting as well. Though the little ones can’t be reasoned with a whole lot, the act of command+or-else does teach. Hopefully there is a context of love and affection and so part of what we’re saying is “I know better than you; I’m taking care of you; believe that and comply… or-else.”
Tool1 and tool2 do indeed go hand in hand much of the time when used well (and tool3 is foundational to both).
So…. “default”? Well, direct pressure by penalty/reward is certainly simpler and faster. So just ordinary human impatience probably does bias us toward it… with the result of some overuse. In the worst cases, though, I think it has to do with temperament. We’ve all met very “pushy” people who seem to start metaphorically shoving us in a particular direction before they even seemed to have noticed we exist. At least that’s how it feels. These folks feel naturally entitled to directly reshape every person and thing their eyes fall upon, and rarely reflect on what they’re doing. In the worst cases. They are the bulls and the whole world is their china shop… and they seem oblivious to the carnage they create everywhere they go. Sad… because the best and brightest figure it out and find somewhere else to be!
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Susan R]I think the reason using persuasion is so important is that coercion is too often the default. Persuasion sounds weak, like negotiation or compromise. It is seldom even attempted, even though we have just as many examples in Scripture of persuasion as we have “do this or else.” Coercion puts the control in the hands of the manipulator, and I’m sure it seems easier to use methods that allow you to maintain the upper hand, rather than take the time to engage and reason.
Aaron, I think Susan nails my objection to describing incentives and such as coercion; a tremendous number of people, especially those who are paid by the hour in the private sector, have an instinctive understanding of what coercion is and is not. Present them with an incentive—say profit sharing—and they may be cynical (“it’ll just be manipulated so we get nothing”), but the psychological effect is nothing like when management shoves things down their throats. Nothing at all.
Plus, if we take a look at persuasion, exactly how do we separate persuasion from what’s in it for us? Even knowing that something is true and good is an incentive, no? So let’s draw the line between persuasion and coercion where Aristotle and the dictionary do; when the person no longer has a choice about the matter, but is forced into an outcome. And again, no argument with the reality that some level of coercion is necessary and even good; but let’s not confuse coercion with creation or persuasion. They are not the same.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion