If you were in an Afrikaans school in the 90’s or 2000’s, you are probably familiar with the Afrikaans play – Die Keiser, by Barto Smit. It’s a political satire based on ‘The Emperor’s new clothes’ and it was popular for a couple of reasons. It was funny, tongue in cheek political – and it allowed you to use words ‘innocently’ that was in fact not meant to be quite as innocent. But some of the characters in all their ignorance were the diplomats.

The definition of diplomacy is to deal with people in a sensitive and tactful manner. To some this comes naturally. Others – wildly not. I can upfront tell you – I fall in the second category.

Confrontation is part of life as much as walking and talking is. Because people are so diverse and different in their backgrounds, way of thinking and goals. My approach to confrontation, has been up front and personal. If something bothers me – I will address it head on. Now, there are a couple of issues with this. No-one, not even myself, likes it to be pushed into a corner at the wrong time, so the full head-on approach is not only contradictory to what I myself like, it’s also not going to reach the purpose of resolution.

And that has brought me to gain a large appreciation for people that are diplomatic.

However, diplomacy can also have its downfalls. Years ago, I had an open conversation with my boss, where I told him that there is a difference between being diplomatic and simply just telling everyone what you think they want to hear. That is not a resolution. It just creates resentment and more conflict. Because in order to keep people on opposite ends happy – there has to be a bit of misguidedness and slight dishonesty to make it convincing.

So, I admire true diplomacy – that ability to emotionally connect with people, but still stick to facts and truth. But I am also cautious with people that mistake diplomacy with playing on emotions for whatever reason. Because people are fragile and using emotions against them can really create confusion and play with their heads.

Example: You have two people who both want things that are directly in contradiction to one another. Person A and Person B. Now, Person B has better diplomatic and emotional skills – so they can use that as a method of persuasion. Person A, then feels increasingly guilty. The moment Person A then compromises and do what Person B persuaded them to do – those feelings of guilt go away.

Now, ideally the story would end there. No-one is feeling guilty anymore and the world goes on. Or does it…?

If Person A, after a period of time feels resentment, confusion or mild depression towards Person B – it begs the question – was it really and truly natural guilt that went away, or was it simply because Person B momentarily stopped to play on Person A’s emotions, because they benefited from the results? Mmm…

That is the difference between manipulation and guidance. Guidance directs from a good motive; manipulation is one sided and creates more negative emotions. Now, don’t get me wrong. We think of manipulators in distant and wicked terms and that is simply not true all of the time. We all have that capability.

My mom can be quite manipulative. She is also one of the most unselfish and purest people I know. My bias is obvious. This is something that we have discussed on numerous occasions. She likes to call it diplomacy and leading people in the right direction. And with people, I mean her closest family. Mostly me and dad. I call it – ‘playing on my emotions to get me to do things I don’t want to’.

Now, the difference, that I want to sharply point out, for when my mom does ‘diplomat’ me into caving: not once is her motivation to make herself feel better – it is always with someone else in mind. I am also not left with feelings of resentment, hidden anger or any other negative feeling because of it. My mom does not deny it and she even laughs at the conversation. Simply, because her motives are real and unselfish. That, is something I can deal with, because I still can voice my opinion.

But when our feelings and emotions are influenced, for whatever reason, and we make decisions we don’t really want to – we will find ourselves in various levels of confusion and frustration. From my own experience – I absolutely hate it. And it’s never malicious. There are valid reasons people do this and it’s probably based on our own insecurities. Which makes it even more confusing. But at some point, we all have to understand that sometimes people will do things that we are not going to like or benefit from, and that we still have to accept it. The persuasion might win the battle, but it’s a battle on a never ending see-saw. I don’t like confusion, therefor – I do not deliberately want to create confusion in others.

We all have many reasons, why we want to influence/ persuade/ manipulate. It’s normal . And it’s not that I haven’t tried. I just think that because my natural approach is head-on, when it comes from the subtle side – it might come across as inauthentic and less believable. So I am no good at it.

That being said – when we are dealing with people – it is not just about us, or our willingness to be heard or understood – we now have someone else also present with independent thoughts, feelings and a voice. And I need to constantly remind myself that it’s not just the message I portray that is taking the spotlight – but how and when I say it that matters just as much. It’s also important to understand that it’s not just me in the story, therefor what I want, goes parallel with what someone else wants. And to never sway from a place of just our own wants. If we play on emotions, the consequence might just be resentment and bitterness.

The art of convincing people – using words and emotions in such a manner that you connect with them – it truly is a superpower. But with great power – comes great responsibility. (Yes, I clichéd the crap out of this😊)

Have a happy and (considerate) influential week friends!