It occurs to me that the real issue that bothers people about
manipulation is the very same thing that bothers people about change.
The problem is control, or as some would argue, the perception of
control. Most people feel a lot more comfortable when they think they
have some control over things. (For the sake of this discussion let's
not get into whether control is real or illusory.)
Most of us, I think, would understand the difference between influence
and manipulation to be the matter of the informed consent of the party
who is being acted upon.
Unfortunately, in this world we are always faced with varying degrees
of information and consent. Exercising influence, as opposed to
manipulation, seems to me a more ethical way. If we truly desire to
build learning communities, based on the dignity and value of all
members, then that is the way to approach it. That means sharing all
information and gaining consent of all involved. But manipulation is
often far easier and quicker, and we might use it to achieve some
short term goal.
Does the end justify the means? One of those great philosophical
questions for which we all need to form our own answer. The way I see
it, manipulation is like "little white lies." It seems like the right
thing to do, at the time. But often the damage grows and can never be
repaired. If you don't care how many bridges you burn as you go down
the road, then this may be the way for you.
I don't know if you can prove that either approach is more successful
in this world. If you believe in other things, if you think there is
more meaning to life than accumulating wealth, power, position,
prestige, or whatever, and that "success" comes from another domain,
then you probably don't even need to ask the question about which way
is right. Just whether you are willing to do what's right.
Unfortunately the types of questions one has to ask oneself, or one's
partners, in order to find the answers about whether manipulation is
acceptable, are uncomfortable questions for many of us, especially in
a business setting. We have come to find ethics and values to be
either a matter of living to the standards of law (IMHO, the lowest
common denominator) or a matter of personal choice that is taboo at
the workplace. Makes it pretty hard to talk about things like our
"vision" or "purpose" if we can't even discuss this vital part of "who
we are."
Of course, for many businesses, the workplace is a job, a source of
revenue, and no more. The parties have no interest in "creating a
community" or any such tripe. These people have made their choice, and
are consistent to reject any attempt to resist change, at least
according to their apparent values.
The real difficult situation was the one described in the earliest
message, where the consultant's "aikido" process was rejected by the
executives as "too manipulative." The consultant claims to have not
intended to be manipulative. But there is an old saying, "If it looks
like a duck...," you know the rest. I can only guess that the pressure
to produce changes in a short period of time, in order to show those
bottom-line improvements so vital to keeping the contract or getting
the next contract, can persuade even the most well-intentioned amongst
us to use some of those tools of the trade which we know to be most
effective, although not entirely fair.
My main guideline in working with people is this: I always aim to
create a workplace where I will be happy to work. A place where I
would look forward to going each morning. I treat people the way I
want to be treated. Personally, I don't like being manipulated, and so
I don't do that. However I think there are workplaces populated by
people who prefer this approach, and I think it is their right to use
it. I'll do what I can to avoid them, but they can do as they want.
There are societal implications to this thread, but I've chatted long
enough, so I'll let you consider those thoughts on your own. I have
found this thread very enlightening and thought-provoking.
Sean Gawne, gawnesm@songs.sce.com