This is a sample — not your own result
The report below is real and completely full, but for a fixed example persona shown to everyone — it is not your own analysis. To get your actual result, answer the questions after purchasing.
Influence Style Analysis - Per (POIS)
Rationality + Exchange
The context this analysis measures: Workplace and influencing decisions — how you actually try to influence a superior, peer, or subordinate to agree with what you want
How to read this report: your profile is weighted across the six tactics; the highest tactic (Rationality) is the focus of the sections, followed by summaries of the next two; read the descriptions as the usual pattern rather than an absolute.
This tool has not yet been calibrated on a sample of respondents, so there is no population norm and no comparison with other people here; the result describes only your own answers in the stated context.
Executive Summary
Rationality is an influence tactic built on laying out facts, figures and well-ordered arguments so that the other person is persuaded by the logic of the case rather than by pressure. A typical phrase is: "Here is the evidence, and here is where it leads us." Its portion of your answers falls in the upper tier of your profile, which does not tally how often you present evidence; when another tactic shares that portion or nearly does, the figures do not show that one outweighs the other.
Rationality helps when the other person has time to read and compare, and decides by a standard that can be checked, such as cost, risk or schedule. Its effect turns into a cost when the objection is about something data does not address, such as status, trust or fear of what a change will bring; the evidence piles up and the situation does not move.
Rationality may be the first thing you reach for: you open the attempt with the file and the numbers before the request itself. It may also be what you turn to after another tactic has stalled: you bring in evidence to back a request that began in a different way. Which of the two applies to you is settled by looking back over your recent meetings, not by this summary.
Detailed Interpretation of This Tactic
Rationality works by moving the conversation from "who wants what" to "what the evidence shows". That hands the other person a justification they can repeat to their own manager or team. Its hidden value is that it gives them something to defend their agreement with, not only proof that you are right.
The tactic succeeds to the extent that the argument connects to the standard of the other person rather than your own. A budget that persuades a finance director asking about return may not persuade an operations manager worried about the schedule. It fails when the data is correct but answers a question nobody in the room was asking.
When this share is among the highest in your profile, you may lean toward written preparation, and toward an objection that arrives specific and in writing over a discussion whose subject changes every few minutes. This describes a tendency in the context stated above, not the quality of your execution; the tool measures what you reach for, not how well you do it.
Where This Tactic Sits in Your Full Weighted Profile
An illustrative distribution for a displayed example, not a real user result.
Your profile shows all six tactics by their shares without forcing a single type on you; below we detail the highest tactic and then the next two.
Deeper Background
This analysis is inspired by a well-known classification of organizational influence tactics abbreviated POIS (the Profile of Organizational Influence Strategies). It is an independent tool that describes your tendency; it is not issued by the publisher of that classification and carries no endorsement from it, and the six tactic names are used here as descriptive labels.
By function, Rationality can be placed midway between hard and soft tactics: it does not press with authority as Sanctions do, and it does not build goodwill first as Ingratiation does, but puts evidence on the table and leaves the decision with its owner. That describes what the tactic does, not what it is worth.
Do not confuse it with your own way of making personal decisions. Rationality here concerns how you persuade other people; a person may decide by instinct and then persuade with numbers, or the reverse. This analysis measures only the first.
Strengths When This Tactic Sits High in Your Profile
An argument the other person can check alone
When listeners review the figures themselves they do not feel driven toward a decision, which may give them more confidence in saying yes.
An easier group decision
The same evidence laid before a committee or team may give each member something to rely on in front of the people they represent.
Objections that can be pinned down
When your case is detailed, disagreement often becomes a review of one specific point rather than a quarrel about intentions.
Impact that outlasts the meeting
A written file stays available when attendees change or priorities shift.
A reputation for accuracy
Repeatedly presenting sound figures may make your word count in later decisions, even before you open your file.
Risks Worth Watching When This Tactic Is Prominent in Your Profile
Flooding the listener with data
Too many slides and tables can suggest to the listener that they must prove they understood, so they retreat to "I will think about it".
Warning sign: someone asks you for "the bottom line" more than once, which may mean the argument ran ahead of what they needed.
An unspoken objection
The hesitation may come from status, a relationship or fear of consequences, so the situation does not budge however much evidence you add.
Warning sign: the other person agrees with every item and still decides nothing, which suggests the obstacle lies outside the numbers.
Selecting the data
Showing only what supports your position gets noticed when someone checks the source, and the rest of your case weakens with it.
Warning sign: you know of a figure that contradicts your position and cannot find a place for it in your presentation.
Turning disagreement into an examination
When every objection is treated as an error to correct, the other person may feel examined in front of others and defend themselves instead of thinking.
Warning sign: your first reply to an objection is a correction rather than a question.
Slowness in an urgent situation
Careful preparation takes time, and in an emergency the moment may pass before the file is complete.
Warning sign: you postpone a matter you know cannot wait because your data is not yet complete.
Reflection Across Work Situations
Workplace and Team
When you ask your team for the basis of each proposal, giving reasons may become a habit in your decisions, and fewer old discussions may need reopening.
Some team members may read your question about the basis as doubt in them, and hold back ideas that are not yet finished.
Ask "What led you to this suggestion?" in a curious tone before you ask "What is the evidence?"
Influencing Upward, Toward Your Manager
A busy manager may appreciate a brief, supported argument that lets them decide without extra meetings.
A large volume of figures can read as a challenge to their judgment unless it is presented as options to choose between.
Offer two options with the effect of each and one recommendation, and leave the choice to them.
Influencing Peers
With people you have no authority over, evidence may suit you because it does not ask them to defer to anyone.
They may see your heavy preparation as a contest, answer with figures of their own, and the meeting becomes an exchange of opposing evidence.
Start by asking what success in this decision looks like to them, then build your argument on their measure.
Leading Direct Reports
When you explain the reason for a direction, the report may understand the standard behind the decision and later decide by it without coming back to you.
The explanation can turn into a lecture in a situation that needs only a short instruction.
Separate what deserves a detailed rationale from what needs only a clear assignment and a delivery date.
Organizational Change
Presenting the reasons for a change and its expected effect may give the team material to discuss instead of rumors.
You may underrate a real worry that numbers do not address, so the change feels imposed even though its reasons are sound.
Set aside time for questions about concerns before moving to tables and indicators.
Comparison and Context
The shares in your profile are relative within you: they show which tactics took the largest portion of your answers, not how often you use Rationality or how well you use it. This tool has not yet been calibrated, so there is no comparison here between you and anyone else.
Relying on logical argument is a way of working you choose in a situation, and it can sit alongside very different broad traits. So do not infer a lasting trait about yourself from its share being high, such as orderliness, precision or openness.
What was measured here is your attempts to influence in the workplace. You may use different tactics with your manager than with a peer or a report, and this analysis does not separate those directions.
The order of tactics in the distribution above (primary, second, third) is an arithmetic sort of your shares as they are. If two or three shares tie at the top or come close at the edge of your three highest, the label does not show that one is stronger; in that case read Rationality together with the two tactics that follow it at the end of this report, as one mix, and do not treat argument as the only thing you reach for.
How this differs from a comprehensive personality analysis: Rationality is a tactic you choose in a particular situation, not a broad trait such as Conscientiousness. This analysis does not measure broad traits, so none should be inferred from it.
90-Day Plan
A three-month plan that moves from observing to experimenting to widening your range, keeping Rationality as your first tool while adding what lowers its cost.
Month One: Observe What Actually Happens
Aim: know from facts rather than impressions when your argument persuades and when it does not.
- At the end of each important meeting, write one sentence on the decision you wanted and the last thing the other person said
- Collect three cases where your presentation worked and three where it did not, and compare who the other person was, the kind of decision and the time available
- Ask a colleague whose judgment you trust what they understand from the way you present, and listen without defending yourself
By month end: a short list of the decision types and the people with whom your argument succeeds, and those with whom it stalls.
Month Two: Experiment With Wording
Aim: test the effect of the order of your words alone on how your argument is received.
- For the first two weeks, open every presentation with the decision you need and then the evidence, even if you would prefer to start with the evidence
- For the next two weeks, close every presentation with an open question about what the other person still needs in order to decide
- Compare the reactions this month with what you recorded in month one
By month end: knowing whether the order of your presentation changes the speed of decisions or the kind of questions you receive.
Month Three: Widen Your Range
Aim: try what comes after evidence, for the times when evidence alone is not enough.
- Every two weeks pick a situation where the evidence stalled and try in it one of the two tactics that follow Rationality in your profile, whose summaries are at the end of the report (see the section “Strategic Recommendations”)
- Ask for written feedback from someone who was affected by a presentation you gave
- Write in half a page your own standard for how much evidence suits each kind of decision
By month end: a written standard for the amount of evidence, and at least one trial of another tactic from your profile in a situation where the argument had stalled.
Applied Tools
The One-Page Template
Aim: deliver your argument in a form that can be read in two minutes.
Write the decision you need in one line at the top of the page, then three points with their figures, then one risk you know about, then what you ask of the reader. An example of the first line: "I am asking your approval to delay the launch by two weeks, for three reasons."
When to use it: before any presentation longer than five minutes
The Other Party Standard Table
Aim: tie your evidence to what matters to the person you are addressing.
Draw a table with two columns: what matters to the other person in this decision (cost, time, reputation, risk), and which of your facts answers it. An empty cell is a question you have not yet prepared an answer for.
When to use it: when preparing for a major decision
Objection-Opening Phrases
Aim: understand the objection before you answer it with data.
Prepare three phrases to say at the first objection: "What worries you most about this?", "If this figure held, would your view change?", "What do you still need in order to decide?" Then hear the whole answer before you open your file.
When to use it: at every objection that comes up in a meeting
The Contradicting Figure Rule
Aim: protect your credibility from selection.
If you find a fact that contradicts your position and that others can reach, state it yourself first and explain why it does not change your conclusion. If it does change it, adjust the position before the presentation rather than after.
When to use it: before handing over any file that a decision will be built on
Strategic Recommendations
Ask about settings that reward argument
Rationality may carry more weight in an organization that issues decisions through committees and written memos than in one where decisions are settled through personal relationships. These are questions for reflection, not an assessment of your fit for any job, and a tool that has not yet been calibrated is not a sound sole basis for choosing a career path.
When assessing a new role or team, ask how the last major decision was made, and whether it began with a paper or with a phone call.
Set the amount of evidence by the size of the decision
A small decision met with a huge file looks excessive, and a large decision met with a short paper looks dismissive.
Give yourself three levels: a supported sentence, then a page, then a full file, and tie each level to the cost of the decision, not to how much you have gathered.
Do not let evidence carry the decision alone
When the obstacle lies outside the numbers, such as status, a relationship or fear of consequences, the evidence grows in volume without growing in effect. One of the two tactics that follow Rationality in your profile may suit that obstacle better than evidence does.
Before you add a slide or a table, ask whether the other person is short of information, of reassurance, of authority, or of a return. If it is not information, pick from your next two tactics (their summaries are at the end of the report) the one closest to what is missing.
Choose someone to challenge your argument before it is presented
An argument put first to someone inclined to object shows its gap early, instead of the gap appearing in front of the decision maker.
Pick a colleague inclined to ask about sources and assumptions, give them your file a day before the presentation, ask for its weakest point, and adjust before you present.
Closing Summary
Your profile places Rationality among the highest of what you lean toward when influencing in the workplace, and one or two other tactics may share the top with a close share. That tendency has two faces: an argument that can be checked and that lasts, and a cost that appears when the obstacle lies beyond the numbers.
Read this result as the usual pattern, not an absolute. The shares are relative within your answers, the tool has not yet been calibrated, and the result makes no comparison between you and other people and does not judge how good your presentations are. After this summary come summaries of the two tactics that follow it in your profile; read them alongside, since Rationality is one part of a mix for you.
Try one habit from the plan for two weeks before adding another, and ask a colleague who watches you present to tell you what they noticed. What you make of it is your decision alone.
A supporting tactic in your profile: Exchange
Exchange is an influence tactic built on tying your request to something you offer in return: an explicit reciprocal deal, a reminder of an earlier favor, or an offer of help to come. A typical phrase is: "I can take on your report this week if you cover the meeting tomorrow for me." It sits in the top layer of your profile shares, meaning your answers leaned toward it more than toward some of the other tactics, not that you often offer returns; if it ties with another tactic or the two come close, there is no ranking between them.
Exchange helps when the boundaries between the two sides are clear and each holds something the other needs, and when trading is familiar in the relationship, as it is between colleagues, departments and partners. Its effect turns into a cost when the other person feels every interaction has become a deal, or when what you offer looks out of proportion and is read as exploitation.
Exchange may be the first thing you reach for: you work out what you can offer before you ask. It may also be what you turn to after a direct request or an argument has stalled: you add an offer that makes agreement cost the other person less. The last three offers you made are the place to check which of the two fits you; this summary cannot decide it.
A supporting tactic in your profile: Assertiveness
Assertiveness is an influence tactic built on saying what you want with direct clarity: an explicit request, a stated deadline, and follow-up until the thing happens. A typical phrase is: "I need this before the end of the week." Its share enters the upper part of your profile; that measures how your answers are spread, not the number of your direct requests, and whenever it equals or nears the share of another tactic there is no point in ranking one above the other.
Assertiveness helps when the request is specific and cannot afford ambiguity, when time is short, or when your role makes a direct request acceptable to the person you are addressing. Its effect turns into a cost when the other person feels dictated to, or when the request repeats until it becomes pressure, so that they comply on the surface and hold back inside.
Assertiveness may be the first thing you reach for: you open your attempt with the request itself before any preamble. It may also be what you move to after the hesitation of the other person has gone on too long: you shift to the plain request after preparing the ground in a different way. Your record of recent requests shows which of the two is closer to you; this summary does not settle it.
Internationally accredited by International Mental Fitness Hub (IMF-HUB)