I recently spent weeks developing a major initiative to improve the value we deliver to our clients and streamline our delivery process. I gathered information from surveys, conversations, and feedback across departments involved in this initiative, but after that initial research phase, I primarily worked alone to get to a draft.
When I presented my draft to an outside party, expecting to launch this initiative the following week, I received unexpected critical feedback. They identified a major gap. I hadn’t considered how other parties would receive my proposal. I had been so focused on my perception of the problem and solution that I overlooked how others, crucial to this initiative's success, would interpret what I was proposing. What I was missing was not data or planning; it was a Rogerian approach.
Rogerian Rhetoric
Rogerian rhetoric (or argument), aptly named after psychologist Carl Rogers, is a form of persuasive reasoning that prioritizes understanding and finding common ground over winning an argument. There is a genuine acknowledgment and careful consideration of the other person's perspective. Rather than presenting your argument first, Rogerian rhetoric follows this pattern:
- Demonstrate your understanding of another person’s position thoroughly to the point that the other individual(s) would not hesitate in agreeing.
- Acknowledge where their perspective makes sense to you and has merit.
- Find a common ground. Where do your ideas, concerns, vision, and goals overlap with the others involved?
- Present your proposal as one way to address overlapping interests.
- Demonstrate clearly how your proposal benefits both parties.
There is no winner or loser in this process. The purpose is to problem-solve collaboratively and ensure that everyone is heard and aligned with the path forward.
Business Application
Applying this to a setting like business, where success is dependent on collaboration, buy-in, and cooperation, reveals its power. Any initiative involving other parties requires understanding their priorities, constraints, and perspectives. Failing to do so increases the likelihood of an initiative failing.
While you can treat these situations as negotiations where positional power determines outcomes, approaching it this way carries costs. Forcing your solution through might achieve short-term compliance from those involved, but at the expense of quality in execution, strained relationships, and long-term failure. When people are forcefully directed to follow an order rather than dialogue, they disengage.
Rogerian rhetoric offers a collaborative alternative. Rather than pitching initiatives with a belief that there are winners and losers, it treats it as an opportunity for collaborative problem-solving. When stakeholders are involved in the process, heard, and see their concerns in the solutions, they invest in the execution. Beyond results, approaching initiatives this way builds trust that can carry into future collaboration.
Conclusions
With this feedback in mind, I revised my approach. I returned to the information I’d gathered in the initial research and held follow-up conversations with key stakeholders. Rather than lead with my solution, the solution was presented with stakeholders' questions and concerns in mind throughout each slide. The result was a far different outcome than my original approach would have achieved. This experience has reminded me to prepare every pitch with one question in mind: Am I presenting a collaborative solution that adds value to every stakeholder who needs to invest in it?