I’ve just finished reading The Concept and Ethics of Manipulation. I have a few thoughts I’d love to share and hear yours on, too.

Strategy is just a awful word. It can be used to mean almost anything, and when talking about strategy it’s hard to know what people are about when there’s no shared definition. That’s partly because strategising a skill in constant evolution, but also because the word can be and are used to make almost anything sound more important.

My way of dealing with this is to apply the most strict definition of strategy I’ve come across: “design and implementation of behaviours and habits that wouldn’t exist in the absence of strategy.”

But words matter and the exact same action that one describes as strategic and good can be seen by someone else as manipulative and bad. That is also what makes this book interesting to me. It is essentially a book about strategy and the ethics of exercising it. In fact, i think it could just as easily have been titled The Concept and Ethics of Strategising.

The word “manipulation” is usually associated with something unpleasant or morally questionable. But the actions don’t always have to be seen as unwanted influence, they can just as well be understood as a strategic skill for creating behaviours that wouldn’t arise naturally. Behaviours that generate value and utility.

You could even argue that what we think of as social skills or leadership building trust, fostering collaboration, leading through difficulty, making people and teams reach beyond and creating momentum in complex challenges. All imply a solid ability to manipulate others.

Cohen argues that manipulation is a constant, natural and necessary part of human relationships. Rather than treating it as something automatically negative, he suggests we view manipulation as a cluster of actions aimed at steering, shifting, or creating new decisions, habits, and behaviours. It’s a way of deliberately shaping social and individual responses outside the realm of natural impulses. Outside what we think of as the norm, or what our gut reaction tells us is true. Activities and initiatives that create behaviours that wouldn’t otherwise occur without the presence of manipulation.

Sound familiar? :) That definition bears a striking resemblance to the strict definition of strategy mentioned earlier.

One of Cohen’s key arguments is that manipulation isn’t inherently morally dubious (just as strategy isn’t either) It is the actions itself while practicing the skill that must be evaluated. They can be harmful, disrespectful, supportive, or even life-saving, depending on how and why they are applied.

Once you get comfortable with the idea that these concepts are essentially equivalent, the next natural question becomes: assuming we want to exercise this ability with sound judgement and responsibility, what ethical rules should we follow?

One point I really appreciated in the book is the idea that this is a situational and relational practice. We must find ways to continuously evaluate the purpose, means, and outcomes of our actions, rather than judging the form itself. Manipulation, or in my case strategy has no inherent moral quality. Acting with a good value alibi doesn’t automatically lead to good consequences. Nor is implementing a strong business model automatically sustainable. Both risk failing when we apply an ethical lens to the manipulation required to make them happen.

Cohen proposes an ethical framework based on three factors: purpose, transparency, and consequence.

Purpose: Is the action intended to support the individual’s or group’s well being, the relationship, and autonomy or does it exploit a vulnerable situation for personal gain?

Transparency: Not all manipulation can or should be fully transparent. But there is a line where lack of insight or deliberate smokescreens undermine a person’s ability to make informed choices. “Ethical manipulation” or “ethical strategising” can happen where recipients retain enough freedom to have agency in their decisions.

Consequence: Are relationships improved, trust increased, autonomous behaviour encouraged, or value created for the recipient or are these foundations weakened?

I really appreciated the book because it offers an ethical lens and practical principles to assess own behaviour and that of others. It also breaks away from the black and white thinking we often apply when talking about values in relation to action in business. Encouraging a more situational and context aware moral judgement feels far more useful.

As social beings, we become who we are through the relationships we surround ourselves with. Rational persuasion alone is often not enough. The complexity of becoming who we are in relation to others and how these dynamics shape decisions and reactions in those we attempt to influence creates a level of social complexity that is nearly impossible to comprehend. When these mechanisms now are scaled through social media and amplified by algorithms, perhaps it’s time to think seriously about the ethical boundaries we need to establish.

If the goals are achieved but life and relationships worsen for those we influence then manipulation isn’t just questionable, it’s harmful. But if the answer is yes, if lives and relationships are improved then manipulation isn’t just defensible, it’s necessary and welcomed.

I can’t help but feel that many of the newer companies, particularly in the digital space, aren’t really passing this ethical test.

What are your thoughts on this?