Assertiveness and Influence Training Course

Participants can state a clear position and make specific, respectful requests.

• Facts, interpretations and judgments separated before stating a position
• DESC structure: Describe, Express, Specify and Consequences for difficult requests
• I-statements replace blame with ownership of impact, needs and boundaries
• Message pyramids place the headline, reasons and requested action first
• Specific language removes qualifiers, hedging, mind-reading and loaded labels
• Requests distinguish preferred outcomes, minimum requirements and non-negotiable boundaries

Participants can use listening and feedback methods to hold direct two-way conversations.

• SBI feedback: Situation, Behavior and Impact stated with observable evidence
• Active listening uses paraphrase, summarising, clarifying and emotion labelling
• Open and closed questions selected for diagnosis, agreement and commitment
• Silence, pace and tone managed during emotionally charged conversations
• Checking understanding prevents assumptions about intent, meaning and accountability
• Non-verbal signals aligned with a firm, respectful verbal message

Participants can refuse unreasonable requests and maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

• Boundary statements define acceptable conduct, capacity limits and response consequences
• Broken-record technique repeats a concise position without fresh justification
• Fogging acknowledges valid points while retaining the central boundary
• Conditional yes responses protect priorities through explicit trade-offs and timing
• Refusal scripts distinguish lack of capacity from lack of commitment
• Escalation choices address repeated boundary breaches through appropriate channels

Participants can address disagreement and inappropriate behaviour without escalating conflict.

• Thomas-Kilmann modes selected according to stakes, relationships and time pressure
• Conflict interests separated from positions, assumptions and stated demands
• De-escalation language lowers defensiveness without conceding legitimate concerns
• Shared problem statements convert interpersonal friction into workable issues
• Repair conversations address impact, accountability and future working agreements
• Confronting inappropriate behaviour uses evidence, standards and stated consequences

Participants can plan an ethical influence approach for different stakeholders and decisions.

• Stakeholder maps identify decision-makers, gatekeepers, allies and affected parties
• Cialdini principles applied ethically to evidence, reciprocity and social proof
• Influence objectives distinguish informing, gaining support, securing decisions and action
• Audience analysis tests interests, concerns, credibility requirements and likely objections
• Value propositions connect proposals to stakeholder priorities, risks and measures
• Coalition building sequences one-to-one conversations before wider group decisions

Participants can lead decision-focused meetings and respond constructively to objections.

• Pre-meeting planning defines decision, participants, agenda and desired commitments
• Opening statements establish purpose, relevance and a credible recommendation
• Question funnels reveal objections, constraints and decision criteria before advocacy
• Evidence framing combines operational facts, stakeholder impacts and proportionate risk
• Objection handling acknowledges concerns, tests assumptions and proposes next steps
• Closing techniques confirm owners, deadlines, decisions and unresolved dependencies

Participants can negotiate agreements while protecting essential needs and relationships.

• Preparation identifies interests, priorities, concessions and acceptable settlement ranges
• Objective criteria support fair proposals when authority or resources are contested
• Package proposals trade lower-priority items for higher-value commitments
• Concession planning protects critical needs and records reciprocal movement
• Deadlock responses reopen options through reframing, pauses and joint fact-finding
• Agreement summaries document commitments, conditions, owners and review dates

Participants can influence senior, peer and cross-functional stakeholders with credible challenge.

• Formal authority, expertise, relationships and information assessed as influence sources
• Upward influence frames concerns around decisions, risks and organisational priorities
• Cross-functional requests clarify accountabilities, dependencies and competing performance measures
• Status differences managed through preparation, evidence and respectful challenge
• Ethical influence rejects coercion, deception, retaliation and undisclosed conflicts
• Psychological safety strengthened by inviting dissent and responding without punishment

Participants can prepare and review an assertive influence plan for real workplace conversations.

• Real workplace conversations diagnosed using assertiveness, influence and conflict frameworks
• Conversation plans specify objective, audience, message, evidence and boundaries
• Risk rehearsals prepare responses to anger, silence, delay and deflection
• Feedback criteria assess clarity, respect, listening, influence and follow-through
• Personal development priorities convert observed patterns into measurable behavioural commitments
• Thirty-day application plan schedules conversations, review points and accountability partners