Catching Fish with a Lasso

This week let me share with you my short article that appeared in Economic Times Corporate Dossier of June 3, 2011 under the title Cowboy on Horseback . 

If you’re a cowboy on horseback, even the wildest and fastest of bulls cannot escape your lasso. You will rope the animal so gracefully that it will appear almost effortless. You cannot, however, take this ingenious device to the sea if you want to catch fish. You will have to use nets or hooks hidden in baits. Or harpoons if your fight is with whales. The best of lassos will be pathetically inappropriate and the nimblest of cowboys impotent in encounters with fish.

Yet, in the world of persuasion we often try to catch fish with a lasso simply because we’re comfortable using it. Of course we get frustrated when we are unable to influence the target.

A recent case that has been played out on the global scene to chuckles and wisecracks all around is Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi’s April 5 letter to President Barack Obama. It has all the ingredients of great emotional persuasion. The only problem is that it is a lasso thrown at a shark. Let us look at the brief letter a bit closely.

The opening salutation, “Our son, Excellency, President Obama,” makes it quite clear that the writer is focusing on a personal relationship rather than on the relationship between two heads of state.

The writer then refers to the moral and physical hurt that Mr Obama’s words and deeds have caused Libya, and adds, “Despite all this you will always remain our son.” Obviously the writer wants to arouse the wayward ‘son’s’ sense of guilt, then forgive him magnanimously, and reassure him that the relationship is intact. Signalling continued goodwill, Col Gaddafi goes on to wish President Obama all the best in his re-election campaign.

In a cunning move, Col Gaddafi then praises President Obama as “a man who has enough courage to annul a wrong and mistaken action.” This is followed by a few rational arguments such as impossibility of building a civil society by means of weapons and support for the terrorist outfit, Al Qaeda. He also reminds the American president of his own repeated assertions, including the one he made at the UN General Assembly, that the security of other countries is not America’s responsibility.

Finally, the Colonel asks Mr Obama to intervene for the sake of “friendship between our peoples … and for the sake of economic, and security cooperation against terror,” and keep NATO off Libya.

This is a very good use of emotion laced with reasoning to persuade the target to change the course of action he has set in motion. But we know that it failed miserably except to trigger ridicule. There are four reasons why the result could not have been different.

First, Col Gaddafi called Mr Obama ‘son.’ Even when not intended literally, it can be repulsive to a person who doesn’t treat the caller as a father figure. It could, of course, be different if Nelson Mandela used it.

Second, Col Gaddafi was trying to build on an emotional platform which was non-existent. Genuine emotion is so powerful that it is widely and successfully used to blackmail people to do what the persuader wants. Logic and evidence stand no chance against powerful emotion. There are numerous cases of powerful kings and queens and their modern equivalents going weak in the knees and doing foolish things as a result of emotional blackmail from people they love and care for deeply. As Birbal reminds us, Emperor Akbar’s grandson would be hugged and rewarded, not beheaded, for climbing on the old man and pulling at his moustache. Where there is no love, the rules are different.

Third, Colonel Gaddafi was attempting emotional persuasion publicly. While he might not have intended the letter to be splashed all over the world, it was not a secret document meant only for President Obama’s eyes because the Libyan official news agency also had announced the dispatch of this letter. Emotional persuasion is best attempted in private especially when you want the target to change a position that has already been made public. Leaders cultivate the myth that they base their decisions on principles and evidence. A political leader would not want the world to know that he changed a policy in response to an emotional appeal.

Fourth, the Libyan leader was trying to do the persuasion himself. It is true that as the person who has been ruling Libya for over forty years, Col Gaddafi has more power and authority than any other Libyan. But right now his face is unacceptable to the West. He should have used back channel diplomacy if he wanted to persuade any Western leader.

These factors apply equally well to the corporate world. Emotion can and does work there too, provided you have established your personal power over others. Don’t try emotional persuasion on those who don’t care whether you are dead or alive. It is guaranteed to fail. Don’t try emotional persuasion in public; you are unlikely to succeed. Learn to recognise situations where it is best to persuade targets through intermediaries.