The secret techniques of the man who never lost an argument

I find one personal skill more captivating than any other: the ability to influence without authority.

Conventional literature teaches us that influence derives from various sources of power. The most recognizable is role power, which comes from holding some formal position of power. Relationship power is another source, emanating from the trust and respect that people give us. With it, we can gain tactical advances, secure support from individuals and build coalitions. Still, its impact is limited in affecting weighty professional decisions. For example, I can be great friends with good people who trust me, but if I ask them to fundamentally change their eating regime, none are likely to comply (not even as a personal favor). What could possibly change this? Expertise power! In other words, having a proven record of relevant skills, knowledge, and know-how on the matter.

The significance of expertise power is hard to dispute: if you are a renowned researcher on industrial automation processes, and you have written respected books on this subject, few people will question your learned judgment. If anything, in crucial times of need, almost any manufacturing plant manager would prize your personal advice. However, there are other domains where expertise power is barely adequate. One notable case is the world of policymaking. How many policy experts can you recall who transformed global agendas all thanks to their recognized erudition in public policy? These must be few and very far between. In the world of politics, nearly every opinion is met with fierce resistance from an opposing one. If there is anyone capable of driving momentous policy changes chiefly based on expertise, that person is an exception well worth investigating.

One such thinker is the late Milton Friedman. An American Nobel Prize laureate in economics, Friedman is often regarded the most prominent economist since World War II, and for a good reason. Friedman ideated, advocated and influenced monumental policy shifts without ever holding public office. His doctrine paved the way to aggressive tax cuts, government downsizing, freely floating currency exchange rates, school vouchers, negative income tax, and even the abolition of medical licenses.

Like many heterodox economists, Friedman's theories have frequently come under heavy fire from reputable intellectuals and politicians alike. How, then, could Friedman's influence eclipse that of high-profile central bankers and heads of state? What was it about Friedman that got Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to ardently seek his guidance and implement his neoliberal ideology? How did Friedman's appeal spread over and above the Anglosphere to inspire diverse nations from Augusto Pinochet's dictatorial Chile to Mart Laar's Post-Soviet Estonia? It definitely wasn't Friedman's blatant contempt for Washington, or his five-foot stature, that won him these approvals.

What underlay Friedman's disproportionate clout extends beyond prestigious professorship positions, revered awards or even economic mastery. Indeed, Friedman's central asset was possibly best described by George W. Bush. In a 2002 tribute to Friedman, the former US President referred to Rose, Friedman's spouse and an esteemed economist in her own right, as the only person known to have ever won an argument with Milton.

In truth, it only takes a few minutes of watching a debate starring Friedman to appreciate his singular style and persuasiveness. Like any good debater, Friedman's grandeur was not in making flawless arguments. Rather, he brilliantly framed the terms of the debate while practicing rhetorical techniques which he refined to a remarkable level of finesse.

In the interest of honing my own influence skills, I set about to dissect Friedman's playbook and to distill any treasured novelties I could identify. A few years back, such exercise would have been a major struggle, but with the advent of video sharing websites, countless hours of Friedman footage are now just a mouse click away. What emerged from this analysis is a striking portfolio of trenchant rhetorical instruments. Friedman faithfully and methodically wielded these to outmaneuver his challengers. Even though many of these tools are variations on classical styles, enveloping legendary communicators from Aristotle to Lincoln, they all exhibit distinct Friedmanesque touches to form cohesive debate fabrics.

Friedman's techniques are timeless and boundless. They are powerful in any discussion arena where one seeks to win support while facing opposition. They are suitable to the workplace just as they are to the chambers of parliament or to the halls of academia. Indeed, what follows are a handful of potent weapons straight out of Friedman’s dialectical arsenal, each followed by an everyday workplace example. If these worked their magic and effect on famed world leaders, you too can use them to give your claims greater substance and stronger validity. In the end, Cicero was not joking when he said, "Nothing is so unbelievable that oratory cannot make it acceptable".

Technique #1 - Decontextualizing
(use the embedded links to plunge right into the relevant debating action)
Positive changes typically carry some unintended consequences, and your opponents will likely use that against you. Friedman often disregards such negative outcomes as part of a larger preexisting phenomenon which should be dealt with separately. To illustrate this, when asked about workers losing manufacturing jobs if trade barriers were to be removed, Friedman explains that displaced workers fall under the category of distressed people, which government already supports through various programs. Issue dismissed.

• Workplace example:
  CFO: Based on the orders pipeline of the last two weeks, and adjusting for seasonal effects, it's quite clear that we should cut down production by 10%. Otherwise, we risk accumulating excess inventory.
  COO: That's a bad idea as it will throw our entire outbound logistics plan into disarray. We'd have to rearrange our schedule across the entire supply chain, resulting in costly cancellations and fines.
  CFO: Production volumes shift all the time, and this is to be expected. Our systems and processes must be flexible to accommodate such changes. The need to adapt comes up all the time, whether because of lower demand, raw material shortages, or any other reason. We must build more resilience into our outbound logistics, but in the shorter term, we have to scale back production to align with the updated forecast.

Technique #2 - The Hedged Chiasmus
A chiasmus is an ancient figure of speech in which clauses are balanced against each other by reversing their structure. A famous example is Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country". This classic crisscross device is very telling because it gives listeners the impression that the argument is well accounted for, resulting in a natural tendency to favor one side of it. In Friedman's intellectual circles, one cannot make convincing points simply by dropping in a chiasmus, so he softens it with a hedge, resulting in a legitimate yet very powerful message: "In my opinion, a society that aims for equality before liberty, will end up with neither equality nor liberty." Arguing against government-run schools, a famous Friedmanian chiasmus was "I believe not all schooling is education, and not all education is schooling." Make no mistake: one cannot improvise a worthy chiasmus in the heat of the moment. However, carefully planned in advance, it will be worth its weight in gold.

• Workplace example:
  Chief HR Officer to the executive team: Our latest feedback report from division GMs doesn't paint a pretty picture. In fact, it's quite evident that we ought to stop managing our staff to make us successful, and instead manage ourselves to make our staff successful.

Technique #3 - Reversed Relations
This is the craft of turning your opposition's defense into the very origin of the issue they are raising. It is especially effective against those who resist altering the status quo. For instance, when warned that without government regulation, monopolies will flourish, Friedman contests that regulation has in fact contributed to the creation of monopolies. Friedman capably turns the defense (government regulation) into a cause of the issue (monopolies). Because cause-and-effect often form bilateral feedback loops, such arguments can hold plenty of water. In similar fashion, Friedman is confronted that poverty will rise without continued public schooling. He argues back by showing how public schools exacerbate poverty by segregating the poor.

• Workplace example:
  Sales Director: If we cut down our travel budget, the team will not be able to cover Eastern Europe, which will put the entire strategic plan at risk.
  Division VP: It was actually our wasteful travel habits that resulted in salesmen spending more time in lavish Parisian conference halls than with customers in Slovakia. If anything, this budget cut will help the team focus on what really matters while getting our expenses in check.

Technique #4 - Circumstantial Revocation
Oftentimes people around us have vested interests that preclude them from objectively analyzing situations. Friedman was fearless in pointing this out while keeping his rivals' dignity. To quote a typical statement of his: "He has understandably… I am not blaming him for this… He would be faithless to his job if he did not believe sincerely in what he says…"

• Workplace example:
  HR Manager: Each manager will have to select one team member who we will reassign to the new group starting next quarter. External hires are not an option at this point, and we are having to manage this with the people that we have.
  Line Manager: As I told you, our team has finally reached a level where it operates in full efficiency and harmony. Every team member is vital to this ongoing success, and it would be foolish to remove anyone from my staff.
  HR Manager: I fully understand you. If you believed that any member of your staff is dispensable, you would not be faithful to your team and you would not be faithful to your role. I appreciate your loyalty and devotion. Our company is making this move to meet a very strategic objective and we realize that various operations and individuals will be hurt in the process. This is unfortunate, and it's also unavoidable.

Technique #5 - The Law of Natural Sciences
This device adds credibility to a position or argument by paralleling it to a well-known and irrefutable scientific law. In this example with Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, the present Icelandic president, Friedman exerts this tactic to obliquely upgrade his economic credo to the status of Newton's gravitational laws, emphasizing that such principles apply throughout the entire economic cosmos. Having established that, Friedman returns to his original case with convincing justification for its relevance across two contrasting domains.

• Workplace example:
  Line Manager: I'm truly concerned that Sheri could leave if she doesn't get that raise. We have to do something about it.
  Director: If we raise Sheri's wage, we'd have to apply it to Bob, Marry, and Michael, and you know we can't afford to do that.
  Line Manager: Not necessarily. Sheri is a special case and she will definitely keep it confidential. We must do everything we can to keep her!
  Director: Well, Stevin's Law applies to salaries as much as it does to communicating vessels. If we pour more green into one paycheck, it's only a short matter of time until we find ourselves doing it for all, and that's simply not feasible. Therefore, rewarding Sheri through an increase in salary is out of the question. What other options can you suggest?