Are You Being Influenced or Manipulated?

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Feb 21
6 min read

Listen to this article:

Abstract: The article explores the distinction between ethical influence and unethical manipulation within organizational leadership. It defines influence as the process of affecting others through trust-based means like persuasion and inspiration, while manipulation involves controlling and deceiving people to serve the manipulator's self-interest. The article outlines several signs of manipulation, including withholding information, excessive pressure, appealing to self-interest over shared values, and exploiting personal vulnerabilities. It then provides guidance for addressing manipulation, such as building awareness, facilitating open feedback, distributing decision-making authority, cultivating shared purpose, and offering support and accountability systems. The article uses a case study of a tech startup to illustrate how these principles can be applied in practice to transform a toxic, manipulative culture into a collaborative, high-trust environment focused on the organization's mission.

Leadership within organizations requires the ability to positively influence others in ethical ways that mobilize people towards shared goals and mission. However, the line between ethical influence and unethical manipulation can sometimes be blurry. As Richard Dawkins noted, all human relationships involve a degree of mutual manipulation, yet some types of manipulation undermine human dignity, autonomy, and well-being.

Today we will explore the difference between ethical influence and unethical manipulation based on research from organizational psychology and leadership studies, providing practical guidance for identifying and addressing unethical manipulation within organizations.

Defining Influence and Manipulation

Before distinguishing influence from manipulation, it is important to define these core concepts. Influence refers to the process of affecting the actions, behaviors, or opinions of others through ethical, trust-based means like persuasion, inspiration, relationships, and appealing to shared values (French & Raven, 1959; Keltner, 2016). Manipulation, on the other hand, involves exerting control over others through covert, deceptive means like coercion, control, or misleading information to get someone to do something against their will or best interests for the manipulator's own benefit (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007; Strout, 2016).

The key distinctions involve voluntariness, ethics, trust, and whose interests are actually being served. Influence relies on earning trust and buy-in by appealing to what is best for all parties involved. Manipulation undermines autonomy and consent by prioritizing the manipulator's interests through controlling or misleading means.

Identifying Manipulation

Several signs can help identify when influence crosses the line into manipulation within an organizational context:

Withholding or distorting information: Manipulators will provide partial truths, exaggerate benefits, or omit important details to mislead others. They frame information in a biased way to push others towards a predetermined decision or course of action (De Cremer & van Dijk, 2005).
Excessive pressure and control tactics: Manipulators will apply pressure through intimidation, threats of punishment, or creating a sense of fear, obligation, or guilt. They may also isolate targets from others or diminish their autonomy and personal decision-making power (Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991).
Appeals to self-interest over shared values: While influence involves appealing to mutual purpose and higher goals, manipulation tends to rely on stirring up self-interest, competition, greed, or jealousy to get what the manipulator wants (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016).
Lack of sincerity or accountability: Manipulators are driven more by their concealed agenda and less by authentic care, transparency or integrity. They are not genuinely open to feedback and avoid taking responsibility for negative consequences of their actions (Ferrari, 2005).
Creating dependencies and asymmetries: Through withholding resources, information or support, manipulators engineer situations where targets feel they have no choice but to comply with the manipulator's demands to get their needs met (Naranjo, 1993).
Exploiting personal vulnerabilities: Rather than empowering others, manipulators will exploit people's insecurities, fears, needs for approval or other emotional vulnerabilities to gain control over them (Buss & Duntley, 2011).

Of course, not every interaction involving these behaviors is outright manipulation. Context matters, and intentions are not always apparent. The weight of evidence across multiple signs increases the likelihood one is being manipulated versus influenced.

Addressing Manipulation Within Organizations

When manipulation is identified, either as a target or observer, the following actions can help address it in an ethical, constructive manner:

Build awareness and set clear standards: Leaders must communicate zero tolerance for manipulation through policy, training, and leading by ethical example themselves. Establish transparency as the norm and clarify how influence versus manipulation will be defined.
Facilitate open feedback and dissent: By empowering respectful challenges and alternative perspectives, manipulation's asymmetries of power and information can be corrected. Create psychological safety so potential manipulation comes to light.
Distribute decision-making authority: Centralizing power creates opportunities for abuse. Share governance, give teams autonomy over their work, and diminish dependencies that manipulation exploits.
Cultivate shared purpose and values: When people feel part of something bigger than themselves, they are less vulnerable to manipulation's appeals to self-interest. Foster a strong culture through co-created vision and values.
Provide support systems and accountability: Targets of manipulation often feel unable to speak up due to fear. Support networks, ombudsperson roles, and safe reporting processes uphold dignity and integrity.
Address root causes compassionately but directly: While manipulation must have consequences, respond with understanding, coaching and setting clear behavior changes expected rather than punishment. The ultimate goal is rehabilitation over retaliation.
Create opportunities for restoration: Where appropriate and safe, manipulated individuals could be given a voice and role in resolving issues as part of the healing process. Forgiveness and reconciliation should be encouraged between parties.

Case Study: Addressing Toxic Influence at a Tech Startup

To bring these concepts to life, consider how they might apply at a tech startup where the CTO was found to be engaging in manipulation. Through controlling significant resources and information flows, the CTO had gained disproportionate power over important decisions and career trajectories of engineers on their team. By exploiting competitive cultures and playing people off each other, the CTO was able to conceal product defects and push unrealistic deadlines. Morale was low and several talented engineers were considering leaving due to the toxic work environment.

Applying the above approaches, the startup CEO:

Clearly communicated manipulation would not be tolerated and redefined influence vs manipulation
Facilitated anonymous feedback sessions to understand full scope of issues
Distributed decision making powers more broadly across leadership
Had CTO coach and mentor junior teams rather than directly manage
Created employee resource groups as safe reporting mechanisms
Held restorative meetings where impacted engineers could have a voice
Implemented coaching and behavior change plan with CTO along with accountability

Within 6 months, dysfunctional dynamics were replaced with a collaborative, high-trust culture where people felt empowered and cared for. The startup was then able to refocus on its mission and thrive.

Conclusion

Leadership inherently involves influence, but influence crosses ethical lines into manipulation when it undermines human dignity, autonomy and well-being through controlling, coercive or deceptive means to serve self-interest over shared purpose. By fostering transparency, accountability, diversity in decision making and a culture of care, compassion and restoration, organizations can establish norms where people feel empowered rather than manipulated. Ultimately, the most effective leaders are those who earn influence and trust through appealing to higher purpose and serving the best interests of all.

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115–128.
Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2011). The evolution of intrigue. In C. Crawford & D. Krebs (Eds.), Foundations of evolutionary psychology (pp. 413–428). Lawrence Erlbaum.
De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(4), 553–563.
Ferrari, J. R. (2005). Impostors behind the screen: Concealment and revelation of self through computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(5), 699–715.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.
Keltner, D. (2016). The power parity effect: How empowerment and power differentials influence negotiation. In L. Thompson (Ed.), Negotiation Excellence: Successful Deal Making (2nd ed., pp. 121-135). PON Books.
Naranjo, C. (1993). Enchantments of the mind: Manipulating the unconscious. The Inter-American Foundation.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Strout, S. L. (2016). The prevalence of manipulation: Why it matters and what we can do to counteract manipulative behaviors. Journal of Applied Security Research, 11(3), 338–360.
Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: Examining the effect of malevolent leadership on followers' behavior and well-being through infiltration, intra-group conflict, and social undermining. Psychology of Violence, 6(4), 510–520.

Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.

Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Are You Being Influenced or Manipulated?. Human Capital Leadership Review, 18(1). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.18.1.7