There are common mistakes that sabotage even the most well-intentioned influence attempts. These aren't just minor missteps; they're fundamental misunderstandings about how persuasion actually works in organizational settings. When managers make these mistakes, they don't just fail to persuade—they often create active resistance, damage relationships, and make future influence attempts even harder. What makes these mistakes particularly dangerous for people managers is that they often feel like the right approach.

Author Jay Conger shares extensive research in the HBR Guide to Managing Up and Across on he three fatal errors that consistently cause persuasion efforts to fail.

The most tempting mistake in persuasion involves strongly stating your position at the outset, then through persistence, logic, and exuberance, try to push the idea to a close. This aggressive, upfront approach feels powerful and direct, but it fundamentally misunderstands how people respond to new ideas. When you lead with a strong position, you give potential opponents something concrete to grab onto—and fight against.

Consider the metaphor of the lion tamer. Rather than confronting the lion directly, the tamer engages his partner by showing him the legs of a chair. In persuasion terms, this means introducing concepts gradually, raising questions rather than providing answers, and allowing colleagues to discover the solution alongside you rather than having it imposed upon them. You don't give them a clear target to attack because you're not presenting a fixed position—you're facilitating a discovery process. This approach transforms potential adversaries into problem-solving partners who feel ownership of the eventual solution.

Let's observe how this plays out when Ryan initially tries the hard-sell approach with Victoria, then shifts to gradual engagement:

• Ryan: Victoria, I've analyzed our entire workflow and created the perfect solution. We need to implement this new automated system immediately. It'll cut costs by 40% and eliminate all our current bottlenecks.
• Victoria: Wait, you're talking about replacing our entire process? My team has spent years perfecting our current approach. This would disrupt everything.
• Ryan: But the numbers don't lie! Your current system is costing us $50,000 monthly in inefficiencies. Here, look at this 20-page analysis I've prepared.
• Victoria: I don't care about your analysis. You clearly don't understand the complexities of what we actually do here.
• Ryan: You're right, I don't fully understand your daily challenges. What are the biggest pain points your team faces right now?
• Victoria: Well, the manual data entry is killing us. We spend hours on tasks that should take minutes.
• Ryan: That sounds frustrating. How much time do you think your team loses on that each week?
• Victoria: Probably 15-20 hours across the team. But any new system would require massive retraining.
• Ryan: What if we could address just the data entry issue first, without changing everything else? Would that be worth exploring?

The second fatal mistake is treating compromise as surrender. Too many managers see any modification to their proposal as weakness, a dilution of their vision, or a sign that they lack conviction. This rigid mindset fundamentally misunderstands the nature of organizational persuasion. Effective persuaders understand that:

• Flexibility demonstrates strength, not weakness. When you show willingness to modify your position based on others' input, you send powerful signals: that you value their expertise, that you're more committed to solving the problem than being right, and that you're a collaborative partner rather than an imperial dictator.
• Compromise often leads to better, more sustainable shared solutions. When you incorporate others' perspectives, you're not just building buy-in—you're actually improving your proposal. Your colleagues bring different expertise, see different risks, and understand different aspects of implementation. Their modifications might feel like compromises, but they're actually enhancements that make your solution more robust and more likely to succeed.

The third and perhaps most fundamental mistake is assuming persuasion is a one-shot effort—that you can arrive at a shared solution on the first try. Persuasion is a process that involves listening to people, testing a position, developing a new position that reflects input from the group, more testing, incorporating compromises, and then trying again. Yes, this sounds slow and difficult, because it is. But the results are worth the effort because solutions developed through iterative refinement have something that first-attempt proposals never achieve: genuine organizational ownership.

The iterative nature of persuasion reflects how people actually process new ideas and change their minds. Initial resistance is natural and expected—it's how people test whether an idea is solid and whether the persuader is committed. When you return with a modified proposal that addresses their concerns, you demonstrate that you've truly listened and that you're serious about finding a solution that works for everyone. Each iteration builds trust, deepens understanding, and strengthens commitment. What might seem like repetitive meetings are actually essential steps in transforming an individual idea into an organizational initiative.

Effective persuaders expect and plan for multiple rounds of persuasion. They don't get frustrated when the first attempt doesn't achieve full buy-in; instead, they see initial feedback as valuable intelligence for refining their approach. They maintain comprehensive notes about each stakeholder's specific concerns, track how positions evolve through each iteration, and celebrate small movements toward agreement rather than expecting immediate wholesale conversion. This patient, iterative approach might take longer initially, but it dramatically reduces implementation time because you've built genuine consensus rather than forced compliance.

Now you're ready to avoid these critical persuasion pitfalls in your practices. These scenarios will challenge you to resist your natural instincts for directness and efficiency, instead embracing the patient, collaborative approach that actually succeeds in complex organizations. Remember: the goal isn't to win the argument—it's to build the coalition that will make your initiative successful.