{"id":4777,"date":"2025-07-08T15:59:15","date_gmt":"2025-07-08T15:59:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aomtodayprod.wpenginepowered.com\/?p=4777"},"modified":"2025-07-08T15:59:15","modified_gmt":"2025-07-08T15:59:15","slug":"effective-persuasion-calls-for-appealing-to-emotions-over-logic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aom.org\/today\/effective-persuasion-calls-for-appealing-to-emotions-over-logic\/","title":{"rendered":"Effective Persuasion Calls for Appealing to Emotions Over Logic"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Daniel Butcher<\/a><\/p>\r\n

In persuasion, whether it\u2019s gaining support for a business plan, selling a product or service, or seeking forgiveness after a misstep, it\u2019s crucial to pay attention to emotions and respond in kind. Academy of Management Scholar Tim Pollock<\/a> of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville said it\u2019s most effective to show people that you\u2019ve actually listened to them and tried to understand how they\u2019re feeling, rather than argue with them based on logic or data.<\/p>\r\n

Pollock said many organization leaders face challenges responding to emotional problems or reactions with rational analyses and logical arguments.<\/p>\r\n

\u201cYou can\u2019t have an emotional impact by relying solely on logical reasoning, and it isn\u2019t going to have the effect that you hope for,\u201d Pollock said. \u201cIf we\u2019re having a rational discussion, we\u2019re being analytical and saying, \u2018Okay, let\u2019s look at the data. Let\u2019s figure out what\u2019s going on.\u2019<\/p>\r\n

\u201cThat can work really well in some cases, but when I\u2019m reacting emotionally, trying to explain to me why I\u2019m wrong or why things aren\u2019t as bad as I feel they are, or providing me with data is not going to be an effective strategy,\u201d he said. \u201cParents know this; think about if you\u2019ve tried to have a rational argument with your kid when they\u2019re in the middle of a meltdown\u2014it doesn\u2019t work very well, and so it\u2019s the same principle.<\/p>\r\n

\u201cYou have to read of the situation, understand where the emotions are coming from, and address the source of the emotions, not try to provide an analytical assessment\u2014you can\u2019t answer emotions with analysis.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

A related communications pitfall to avoid is making a crisis-management statement that deflects responsibility, comes off as insincere, or doesn\u2019t contain an actual apology.<\/p>\r\n

\u201cIn the face of misconduct, they\u2019ll try to rationalize stuff, as opposed to just saying \u2018You\u2019re right; I\u2019m sorry\u2019 or to go back to Bill Clinton, \u2018I feel your pain,\u2019\u201d Pollock said. \u201cIf you say that and apologize and mean it, it\u2019s more effective at diffusing the situation.<\/p>\r\n

\u201cDo not give the performative non-apology or deflection of blame and accountability,\u201d he said. \u201c\u2018We\u2019re very sorry, but it isn\u2019t really our fault, but we\u2019re still sorry this happened to you,\u2019 as opposed to, \u2018We\u2019re sorry we did something,\u2019 and a lot of their apologies sound more like \u2018We\u2019re sorry we got caught,\u2019 as opposed to, \u2018We\u2019re sorry for what we did.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n

A sample of Pollock\u2019s AOM research findings:<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n