Strategic Persuasion and Influence Training Course

Participants can construct concise, evidence-led messages that prompt a defined decision or commitment.

• Aristotle's ethos, logos and pathos matched to executive decision contexts
• Claim-evidence-warrant structure strengthens recommendations under senior-level scrutiny
• Message maps organise a governing thought, supporting points and proof
• Framing choices contrast gain, loss, risk and status-quo consequences
• Strategic narratives connect organisational purpose, stakes, action and measurable outcomes
• Plain-language editing removes hedging, abstraction, jargon and unsupported assertions

Participants can apply behavioural influence principles while protecting informed choice and trust.

• Cialdini's influence principles applied without false scarcity, reciprocity or social proof
• Dual-process thinking distinguishes systematic evaluation from heuristic decision shortcuts
• Choice architecture reduces cognitive load while preserving informed consent
• Anchoring effects shape reference points, ranges and perceived proposal value
• Loss aversion reframes consequences without overstating threats or certainty
• Social proof uses credible peers, comparable evidence and transparent attribution

Participants can negotiate agreements that protect priorities while creating acceptable exchanges for stakeholders.

• Interest-based negotiation separates positions from underlying needs, fears and priorities
• BATNA analysis sets walk-away thresholds, alternatives and bargaining confidence
• Concession planning trades low-cost items for higher-value commitments
• Package proposals create conditional exchanges across price, scope, timing and risk
• Objective criteria ground contested terms in standards, benchmarks and precedents
• Closing language records agreements, contingencies, owners and next decision dates

Participants can uncover the real source of resistance and respond without becoming defensive.

• Objection diagnosis distinguishes factual concerns, value conflicts, politics and delay
• Feel-felt-found responses acknowledge concerns without using scripted reassurance
• Steelman summaries test opposing arguments before offering evidence or alternatives
• Question funnels move from broad concerns to decision-relevant specifics
• LARA protocol structures listening, affirmation, response and additional information
• Resistance maps identify stated objections, unstated risks and sponsors required

Participants can prepare and deliver executive recommendations that clarify the decision required.

• Pyramid Principle structures recommendations from answer first to supporting evidence
• Executive briefings distinguish decision requests, context, options, risks and recommendation
• Data stories pair decision-relevant evidence with implications and explicit actions
• Pre-wiring conversations surface concerns before formal governance meetings
• Question handling bridges hostile challenges to evidence, trade-offs and decisions
• Meeting design assigns pre-reads, decision rights, dissent routes and follow-up

Participants can build credible support networks for decisions requiring cross-functional commitment.

• Coalition maps link stakeholders through interests, credibility, influence and dependencies
• Reciprocity plans identify legitimate contributions, requests and relationship boundaries
• SCARF model anticipates status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness concerns
• Third-party advocacy recruits credible messengers without laundering accountability
• Cross-cultural communication tests directness, hierarchy, face-saving and consensus expectations
• Trust deposits combine reliability, competence, candour and appropriate disclosure

Participants can address disagreement directly while preserving working relationships and accountability.

• Conflict modes select competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding or accommodating responses
• Crucial Conversations framework separates facts, stories, feelings and shared purpose
• Nonviolent Communication formulates observations, feelings, needs and requests without blame
• Face-saving language preserves dignity while stating limits and consequences
• De-escalation techniques slow tempo, lower threat and restore problem focus
• Boundary statements specify unacceptable conduct, escalation routes and documented commitments

Participants can align influence activity with the practical barriers to change adoption.

• ADKAR model links influence messages to awareness, desire, knowledge, ability and reinforcement
• Change sponsor plans assign visible actions, messages and stakeholder accountabilities
• Commitment ladders distinguish awareness, understanding, trial, adoption and advocacy
• Implementation objections anticipate workload, capability, incentives and operational disruption
• Feedback loops capture response signals, adapt messages and maintain credibility
• Influence metrics track commitments, decision speed, sponsor activity and adoption

Participants can create a practical, ethical influence strategy for a live professional priority.

• Influence diagnosis identifies priority relationships, decisions, barriers and ethical constraints
• Personal credibility audit assesses expertise, reliability, intent and communication habits
• Stakeholder-specific message plans match interests, evidence, channel and timing
• Conversation scripts prepare opening, questions, objections, requests and close
• Thirty-day influence plan sequences meetings, sponsors, milestones and review points
• After-action reviews compare intent, response, outcomes and adjustments