Executive leaders are often required to make tough (and unpopular) strategic decisions. As a result, many may use manipulation—sometimes unintentionally—to influence their peers and bring them short-term gains. Unsurprisingly, there are many serious longer-term downsides to this practice—whether that be distorted truth, weaker C-suite trust and collaboration, and poorer decision making.

It can be easy for leaders to get caught up in this web of intrigue. A 2023 Gartner survey of 140 CEOs and CEO direct reports from companies with at least $1 billion in annual revenue found that without an appropriate decision-making framework, 16% of C-suite executives defer to the CEO, 10% rely on past approaches, 9% have no set process for decision making and 8% rely on intuition rather than data for internal judgments. Furthermore, 17% of c-suite leaders don’t necessarily believe that they need a solid financial business case before securing project funding.

Directly addressing manipulative communication can worsen C-level political tensions, especially if a colleague thinks their professionalism is under attack. If you’re a c-suite leader who is on the receiving end of manipulative communications, it’s important to pause, tread carefully and use diplomatic language to avoid petty disputes and damage to relationships.

Here are these three steps that you can take to combat manipulative communication in a way that minimizes nasty confrontations and hopefully allows you to maintain your professional relationships

Step one: Spot the four common types of manipulative communication in the c-suite (and their signals)

Executive leaders need to pay attention to patterns of behavior, because manipulators often exhibit consistent traits over time. These traits often lend themselves to one of four categories regarding types of manipulative communication styles:

1)    Undermining the argument. Introducing ambiguous or contradictory details, including insinuations or misleading information, to control the narrative or create doubt among participants.

2)    Undermining the person. Employing emotionally charged language to provoke feelings of embarrassment, anger or frustration in an attempt to disturb or disrupt others.

3)    Misrepresenting facts. Using overstatement or understatement to shape the path of a discussion away from a collective goal. Executives might amplify a project’s positive aspects while minimizing or ignoring the potential drawbacks, or vice versa.

4)    Deflection. Diverting attention away from the main issue or criticism. Leaders often employ this tactic when there are knowledge gaps or challenges in delivering business value.

Identifying these patterns will often help executive leaders deal with these challenges.

Step two: build political momentum by balancing rational and social strategies

Learning how to navigate manipulative communication is vital to building momentum, particularly when it takes months or years to make decisions. Combating manipulative communication in the C-suite—especially in a global enterprise—requires a sophisticated mix of rational and social skills.

It’s worth planning potential responses to manipulative behavior in mind before they enter the conversation. When appropriate, they should enlist their own team to practice countering challenges.

Here are examples of rational and tactics that executives might want to employ:

1)    Leverage data-supported facts and prepare for counterarguments. Anticipate potential pushback by thoroughly gathering supportive data in advance.

2)    Simplify and clarify the argument. Highlight the strongest point to provide fewer opportunities for doubt.

3)    Enlist an authority on the subject. Use others’ expertise to help champion the specific initiative. Bring in third-party experts to present supportive case studies and data, or involve internal specialists to outline the problem and solutions to the C-suite.

4)    Get others to advocate for the cause. Share a proposal with them beforehand and explicitly ask for their allyship in the meeting. Identify others in the organization who buy into the disruptive ambitions, and partner with them to create momentum.

5)    Prepare for early, upfront inclusion. Organize the argument to involve important stakeholders from the start of the meeting.

6)    Align arguments with the stakeholders’ language and interests. Avoid technical jargon and use terms that everyone in the room can understand. Plan ahead to anchor arguments on specific stakeholder interests, and look for their confirmation as you address the issues. It’s crucial that you know when you stop.

Step three: Apply counter strategies during tough discussions

This is where combining rational and social steps can help counter manipulative communication. Consider the following scenario:

A CTO advocates adopting a new technological framework to enhance efficiency and security, and presents a well-thought-out strategy. But another executive raises concerns about potential disruptions during implementation, saying: “So, you are saying we should now blindly shift and follow this new framework without considering compatibility issues? This is too simplistic.” The leader then raises multiple questions to shift the narrative, casting doubt among other executives and postponing a decision.

The CEO could start by incorporating the opponents’ propositions to strengthen their rational argument. This might involve voicing a proposal to develop a comprehensive risk mitigation strategy to smooth the implementation and safeguard against any disruptions.

Then it’s time to lean on the other leaders in the room. Once the CTO has already gathered support among the C-suite, bring them to the discussion. You can thank the executive and say, ”Our team did extensive research into this topic, and the biggest risks we see do not include X. Let me turn this to the rest of the room: Do you all share this concern? What appetite do you have for a smaller possibility of this risk?”

Finally, be sure to be strategic when you face resistance and challenge. Avoid the temptation to refute every point. Instead, win through actions and not argument, and propose a small-scale test to validate the proposal. Use the results as tangible evidence to persuade the team to proceed.

If executive leaders can keep the four common forms of manipulative communication in mind and address them with the set framework described above, they’ll have the ability to get out ahead of any executives looking to undermine trust. And when leaders are free to make decisions without any negative influence, the whole organization benefits.