In January 2020, I found myself sweating through my shirt in the agency’s conference room. Across the polished table, our Head of Inspections glared at me, arms crossed, after I proposed a radical change: replacing some of our traditional on-site inspections with large-scale, project-based surveys.

My data analysis showed that inspecting one licensee at a time was inefficient and gave us limited situational awareness. But he wasn’t convinced.

“That’s the most ridiculous idea I’ve ever heard,” he snapped. “We’ve been doing inspections this way for 35 years. You can’t properly inspect without being physically present.”

The room fell silent. Leadership team members avoided eye contact, staring at their notebooks. I had two choices: push back and risk a career-damaging fight or back down and lose my credibility as both an IT project manager and a former inspector.

Instead, I chose a third option.

I took a breath and said, “Jensen, you might be right. With your decades of experience, can you help me understand what we’d miss without on-site visits, aside from physical measurements?”

His posture softened. For the next ten minutes, he outlined the nuances of in-person inspections that my data model hadn’t captured. By acknowledging his expertise before presenting my perspective, I turned a confrontation into a collaborative discussion.

Two months later, COVID-19 made traditional inspections impossible. When restrictions hit, we quickly implemented a modified version of my survey approach—this time incorporating Jensen’s insights about critical in-person elements.

By the end of the year, we had transformed our inspection process, improving data collection and situational awareness across the entire sector. Jensen, once my strongest critic, became my biggest advocate, recommending the approach to other agencies.

That experience taught me a crucial lesson: Winning an argument isn’t about proving someone wrong. It’s about aligning perspectives, preserving relationships, and creating progress.

Most people treat arguments like battles: they gather ammunition, defend their ground, and try to emerge victorious.

But research from the Harvard Negotiation Project, as documented in Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury, shows this approach backfires. When people feel defeated in an argument, they rarely change their minds. Instead, they retreat, harbor resentment, and look for ways to push back later.

Studies show that when people feel their autonomy is threatened, their resistance intensifies by up to 30%. The harder you push, the harder they push back.

This isn’t just a communication issue—it’s a career killer.

In government, healthcare, and corporate environments, reputation and relationships determine success. Research from Leadership IQ found that 89% of executive failures result from poor relationship management—not lack of technical expertise.

What separates those who can change minds without making enemies from those who leave a trail of resentment?

The key lies in three psychological principles:

Dr. Robert Cialdini, in Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, explains that people are more likely to change their views when they feel safe—not when they feel pressured.

This is why the most effective communicators often appear to “lose” small points in conversations while quietly guiding the discussion toward their perspective.

As Chris Voss, former FBI hostage negotiator, puts it in Never Split the Difference:

After handling hundreds of high-stakes negotiations in government, healthcare, and IT, I’ve refined a framework that works across all contexts—from boardrooms to interdepartmental disputes.

Start by validating the other person’s expertise or perspective. This isn’t manipulation—it’s recognizing their experience.

Wrong: “Your process is outdated.”
Better: “I can see why this process made sense when it was implemented. It’s clear there’s a lot of expertise behind it.”

Studies show that acknowledging someone’s expertise increases their openness to new ideas by 40%.

Ask genuine questions to understand their thinking. This does two things:

Wrong: “Let me explain why that won’t work.”
Better: “How does this workflow handle multiple trauma cases during peak hours?”

A Stanford persuasion study found that asking questions increases persuasion by 34% compared to making direct statements.

Before presenting your counterpoint, identify shared goals.

Wrong: “We need to change this approach.”
Better: “It looks like we both want to improve patient outcomes and reduce wait times. We just have different ideas on how to get there.”

This shifts the conversation from opposition to collaboration.

When presenting counterevidence, structure it as follows:

Wrong: “Your data is incorrect. Here’s what’s actually happening.”
Better: “I agree patient experience is the top priority. I found some additional data that might give a fuller picture. I think this supports your goal of improving care.”

This approach keeps the other person engaged instead of defensive.

Rather than forcing a resolution, invite co-creation.

Wrong: “So you see why we need to do it my way?”
Better: “Given both the subject matter expertise and data insights, what approach do you think would work best?”

This preserves autonomy and makes it their decision, not just yours.

Want to master the complete influence toolkit? Become a founding member today to unlock the toolkit and the following: