Improving Proposal Writing by Looking to Information Operations

Why Analogy?

Metaphor and analogy “are not associated very closely with scientific and technical communication” with metaphor often considered to be “an inexact form of expression” (Giles & Sides, 2017, p. 14). Indeed, such “style questions,” notes Baake, “stir up ancient tensions over whether eloquent discourse is honest, inspired, and successful discourse or whether it is deceitful discourse” (Baake, 2012, p. 152).

In scientific discourse, the use of analogy (or “model” as used in scientific writing) and metaphor appears somewhat more accepting with scholars exploring metaphor “both as philosophical grounding and as rhetorical tool” (Sherwood, 2004, p. 23). Giles and Sides see their use as epistemological in which “metaphor and analogy have long aided and directed scientific thinking” (Giles & Sides, 2017, p. 1). In this view, metaphor and analogy serve a constitutive or generative purpose allowing scientists to develop the metaphor in conjunction with, or as, a model (Giles & Sides, 2017, p. 10; see also Ungerer & Schmid, 2013, pp. 147–150). In the case of the Solar System Analogy, for example, the analogy drawn between the solar system and the structure of the atom extended theory epistemologically beyond what was known at the time (Giles & Sides, 2017, p. 10). Similarly, in engineering, Smeaton's use of metaphor in the design of the Eddystone Lighthouse is often pointed to as “a testament to the concrete value of metaphor as part of the engineer's thinking process” (Giles & Sides, 2017, p. 8; see Bump, 1985, p. 445).

In technical communication, Sherwood notes that “… scholars have not taken much notice of metaphor studies” (Sherwood, 2004, p. 23). When TPC scholarship has turned to the use or examination of metaphor it is largely as a humanities concern, often contentious and, within academe, frequently given short shrift in textbooks and the classroom (Bump, 1985, p. 444; Giles & Sides, 2017, p. 21; Sherwood, 2004). Where used, metaphor is applied in an effort to facilitate user comprehension or in discussion of the role of the technical communicator and how they conceive of themselves (Beck, 1991; Sherwood, 2004). One problem, according to Giles and Sides, with the scholarship in TPC is that they have “stopped with Francis Bacon and accepted his writings as a mandate for a plain style” (Giles & Sides, 2017, p. 23). Because

technical communication is still haunted by the idea of a plain style as the preferred … the result is that the interactive aspect of metaphor and its epistemological consequences are ignored. Few questions are asked in technical communication of how metaphor may be used to communicate, much less how to create new knowledge (Giles & Sides, 2014, p. 26).

As described in the introduction to this article, the stultification suggested by Giles and Sides is evidenced by both the persistent decades-long issues associated with technical writing in industry and the paucity of scholarship in the proposal domain.

No other articles have been published on the analogy between proposals and IO (or any other analogous profession for that matter), and no books have addressed it at length much less in passing. This failure by either practitioners or the academy to explore the ramifications of an analogous profession is indicative of the conceptual insularity of proposal writing in TPC. By approaching problems, such as improving the persuasiveness of proposals, use of analogy and metaphor can be a vital step in developing knowledge. Black has argued “a memorable metaphor has the power to bring two separate domains into cognitive and emotional relation by using language directly appropriate to the one as a lens for seeing the other” (Black, 1962, p. 237). Similarly, Sherwood, in his survey of the literature on metaphor in TPC, concludes “studying metaphor can be a productive way of examining the inner workings of a discipline … conscious attention to metaphors can change the ways that a discourse community functions, and change the ways the community's knowledge grows” (Sherwood, 2004, p. 26).

In this article, Gentner's structure-mapping theory of analogy (Gentner, 1983; Gentner, & Markman, 1997; Markman & Gentner, 2000) is used to achieve an analogic mapping of the base domain, IO, to the target domain, Proposals. This mapping is then used to explore a number of similarities and “alignable differences” that are connected to commonalities (Markman & Gentner, 2000, p. 514 and pp. 517–518) through use of existing rhetorical- and genre-based literature on TPC and borrowing from theory in other disciplines—management, organizational theory, sociology, and psychology among others. A byproduct of this analysis is the identification of a research agenda for the future analysis of persuasion in proposal writing.

Through structural mapping, the IO community's approach to the concepts of “influence,” “narrative,” “target audience,” and “unity of effort” may offer useful insight for State and Federal contractors to consider in their efforts to develop persuasive proposals. As put forth by Gentner, structural mapping theory describes

the implicit interpretation rules of analogy. The central claims of the theory are that analogy is characterized by the mapping of relations between objects, rather than attributes of objects, from base to target; and, further, that the particular relations mapped are those that are dominated by higher-order relations that belong to the mapping (the systematicity claim). These rules have the desirable property that they depend only on syntactic properties of the knowledge representation, and not on the specific content of the domain. Further, this theoretical framework allows us to state the differences between analogies and literal similarity statements, abstractions and other kinds of comparisons. (Gentner, 1983, p. 168)

In setting the stage for this analysis, Gentner and Wolff suggest “a more profound way that analogies and metaphors can lead to change in knowledge is through extended systems of mappings” (Gentner & Wolff, 2000, p. 326). Darwin's Great Tree metaphor, for example, “is grounded in similarities between two large systems of relations,” comparing the evolution of plants and animals to the growth pattern of a great tree (Gentner & Wolff, 2000, p. 309). In this article, two large systems—the military-business strategy analogy—are similarly extended wherein IO is an extension of the military domain and proposal operations an extension of the business domain. While the military-business strategy analogy is not prevalent in TPC, it is ubiquitous in the literature on business strategy. A brief survey of this literature, particularly as it relates to information and influence, serves to draws closer the analogic subjects of this article and sets the preconditions to extending the analogy to IO and Proposals.

Extending Two Large Systems of Relations

There is a rich tapestry of literature exploring comparisons of military strategy to business strategy. Keller (2008, p. 133) observes “the parallels between war and business planning are numerous and well documented.” Desjardins et al. (2021, p. 287) similarly note “business literature, especially content published in the second half of the 20th century, often invokes military and war metaphors.” Toffler and Toffler (1993, p. 25), in War and Anti-War, observe that “throughout history, the way men and women make war has reflected the way they work.” To this, Munro adds that “with the mechanization of work came the mechanization of warfare. Now that the productive basis of society is becoming increasingly orientated around information, so are the weapons of warfare” (Munro, 2005, pp. 5–6). Desjardin et al. remark on the continued influx of military parlance and theorizing in the age of information to business strategy: “With the arrival of the digital age … the scope and focus of management literature changed substantially” (2021, p. 288).

The Tofflers (1993), Denning (1999), and Porter (2001) are among the early explorers of the impact of the information age and its spill over to the military-business strategy analogy. Their accounts address a broad range of subjects to include information dominance, the integrity of information technology systems, and the use of propaganda as a tactic to influence consumers and subvert competitors (Munro, 2005). As to the latter, the use of propaganda by industry is by no means new and traces its origins to before WWII. Prior to this, the term had not achieved its modern negative connotation (particularly as conceived of in TPC), and since has become recast as “public relations” (Larson et al., 2009; Marková, 2008; Munro, 2005). Here, Munro notes “public relations and propaganda have been active as a form of Information Warfare within the business community for many decades, and that it is well-established practice” (Munro, 2005, p. 79). Few, if any of this literature, however, directly address the subject of ethical, consensual—what RAND refers to as “virtuous”—influence or persuasion in the Business Development Lifecycle, or proposals in particular (Bakir et al., 2019; Paul et al., 2023).

Not unsurprisingly, it is from the marketing community's maturation of “public relations” concepts that the Department of Defense (DoD) IO community has turned, reaping the earlier seeds of military concepts (read: Propaganda) borrowed in business (Reid, 2002, p. 64). RAND's Larson et al. (2009, p. 7), for example, in Foundations of Effective Influence, examined, among other areas, the marketing domain for “how practitioners think about their target audiences and the overall strategies, approaches, and analytic activities that they conduct to assist in achieving their influence objectives.” A high-level depiction of the historical interplay between the military and industry in the information domain is shown in Figure 1 and includes the proposed contributions of this article in extending this analogy.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Historical interplay of the military and business information analogy.

This interrelationship illustrates what Baake and others conclude of the function of analogy and metaphor in TPC: that it plays a critical role in knowledge generation between and among disciplines and, as Sherwood asserts, lets “scientists not only understand and engage in each others’ work, but also pull theory from unfamiliar disciplines and apply it to make new discoveries in their own fields” (Sherwood, 2004, pp. 25 and 26; Baake, 2012).

Structural Mapping of Base and Target Domains

Scholarship in both the base and target domains—IO and proposals—has struggled with definitional challenges. In a survey of TPC literature, Freed and Roberts (1989, p. 317) conclude “little disciplinary agreement exists about what proposals are and how they differ from some kinds of reports” and “present a bewildering array of classification systems, often failing to distinguish between situation and function.” de Souza Almeida (2019) simply classifies business proposals as a close cousin of technical reports and grant writing. Kmiec and Longo (2017) group a variety of routine workplace writing into several disparate categories one of which is persuasive documents to include proposals. For purposes of this analysis, how proposals are classified is less important than what they are. Here, proposals are considered within the broader context of the seven phase, 96 step, Shipley Business Development Lifecycle (Shipley Associates, n.d.a). In this context, proposal development consists of those points in the Business Development Lifecycle, to include activities within the Opportunity Assessment and Capture Planning phases such as customer engagement and presolicitation “shaping,” where there are legal and ethical opportunities per the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR; FAR, 3.104 Procurement Integrity, 2023) to engage with the Government, through to the submission of the written proposal itself in the Proposal Phase, which is simply defined in the FAR as the “written offer from a vendor or contractor to a prospective buyer” (FAR 2.101, 2023).

As regards IO, due to recent definitional changes, the terms IO and Operations in the Information Environment (OIE) are used interchangeably, depending on recency of the sources referenced. In the IO domain, DOD has, since 2012, defined “information operations” as:

the integrated employment during military operations of IRCs [information-related capabilities] in concert with other lines of operations to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision making of adversaries and potential adversaries while protecting our own. (Joint Chiefs of Staff [JCS], 2014, p. ix)

New Joint Publication (JP) 3-04, Information in Joint Operations, issued late in 2022, now removes the term “information operations” and replaces it with definitions that reframe how DOD considers “operations in the information environment” where “information environment” is defined as:

The aggregate of social, cultural, linguistic, psychological, technical, and physical factors that affect how humans and automated systems derive meaning from, act upon, and are impacted by information, including the individuals, organizations, and systems that collect, process, disseminate, or use information. (JCS, 2022, p. GL–5)

This new definition, according to the GAO (2022b, p. 36), “emphasizes the individuals, organizations, and systems that collect, process, disseminate, or act on information,” while also laying emphasis to how “intangible factors can affect how these actors derive meaning from, are impacted by, and act upon information.” “Operations in the information environment” involve the integration and employment of “multiple information forces to affect drivers of behavior” (GAO, 2022b, p. 36; JCS, 2022, p. x).

Like proposals which occur within the broader context of a seven-phase Business Development Lifecycle, OIE are planned within a broader seven step Joint Planning Process in which a number of well-defined steps are followed to “analyze a mission, select the best course of action, and produce a plan” to meet the objectives of the effort. Similar to the Capture Plan in the Business Development Lifecycle, the outcome of this process is a plan that “specifies how the joint force will use and leverage information as part of the overall operation” (JCS, 2022, p. IV-14).

The analogy under consideration in this article focuses on four common features or “predicates” (as they are referred to in Gentner's structural mapping framework; Gentner, 1983), that are found within both IO and proposal operations: Influence/Persuasion, Rhetoric, Target Audience, and Unity of Effort/Collaboration. Gentner contends that “part of our understanding about analogy is that it conveys a system of connected knowledge, not a mere assortment of independent facts. Such a system can be represented by an interconnected predicate structure,” as shown in Figure 2, in which a higher-order predicate such as Influence/Persuasion “enforce connections among lower-order predicates” such as the type of rhetorical technique in use, the relationship to and knowledge of the target audience, and the degree and nature of collaboration (Gentner, 1983, p. 162). In this analogy, both domains share similarity of intent—influence and persuasion, respectively. The TPC literature refers to “intent” synonymously as “purpose.” Both apply types of rhetorical appeal to achieve their desired intent. Similarly, the focus of their respective efforts is oriented to influence/persuade a target audience. Both domains also require a high degree of unity of effort and collaboration which is achieved through synchronized and coordinated activities. Gentner and Markman refer to the analogic coherence of predicates that belong “to a mappable system of mutually interconnecting relationships” as the “systematicity principle” (Gentner, 1983, p. 163; Gentner & Markman, 1997, p. 49; Markman & Gentner, 2000, p. 505).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Analogic comparison of information operations and proposals.

Systematicity, according to Gentner,

operates to promote predicates that participate in causal chains and in other constraint relations. It is a purely syntactic mechanism that guarantees that the set of candidate mappings will be as interesting-in the sense that a mutually interconnected system of predicates is interesting-as the knowledge base allows (Gentner, 1983, p. 165).

Significantly, one symptom of the systematicity principle is that changes in one predicate affects the others (Gentner, 1983, p. 163). This characteristic is also shown in Figure 2 where, for example, a change to organizational structure may improve or degrade organizational collaboration, influence the type of rhetorical appeal that is used, impact how audience is engaged and, ultimately, affect how well the desired intent is achieved. This characteristic of systematicity is a common feature to both IO and proposals and is described throughout.

In the discussion of each predicate that follows focus is placed on what Gentner and Markman refer to as “alignable differences.”

Just as commonalities gain in importance when they are part of a matching system, so too do differences … Intuitively, this focus on alignable differences makes sense, for it leads to a focus on those differences that are relevant to the common causal or goal structure that spans the situations” (Gentner & Markman, 1997, 50).

Further, this analytical structure promotes “new ways of construing situations [and] … lead[s] to insights” (Gentner & Markman, 1997, p. 51) and, in this way exposes “existing and influential beliefs in need of critical revision” (Popper, 1962, p. 50). Here, the use of analogical thinking points to information, solutions, and ideas from one domain—the source, IO—that can be used to solve, shed light on, or otherwise improve upon a problem in a new domain—the target, proposals (Marrin & Clemente, 2005).

Similarities of Intent

The similarities between OIE and proposals in terms of what they are meant to achieve—their intent or purpose—are clear. Both domains pivot around the concepts of persuasion and influence, synonyms that are often used interchangeably and that share the common objective of affecting a change in behavior or attitude (O’Keefe, 2012). ¹ Marková (2008, p. 40) sees the distinction as artificial; whereas MITRE sees the one-persuasion—as a scoreable measure of the other—a campaign to influence (Venhaus et al., 2021, pp. 3-1, 6-5–6-6).

Operations in the Information Environment seeks to “leverage information to affect the perceptions, attitudes, decision making, and behavior of relevant actors” (JCS, 2022, p. II-1). Kinneavy, in a definition of persuasion that persists today, similarly defines persuasion “as those linguistic choices that aim at changing or affecting the behavior of others” (Kinneavy, 1971, p. 211). O’Keefe defines persuasion as “a successful intentional effort at influencing another's mental state through communication in a circumstance in which the persuadee has some measure of freedom” (2016, p. 4). As it pertains directly to the subject of proposals, Lannon and Gurak (2013, p. 582) among others, assert “proposals attempt to persuade an audience to take some form of action: to authorize a project, accept a service or product, or support a specific plan for solving a problem or improving a situation.”

The thread connecting influence and persuasion is the shared intent to impact the decision-making of whoever is behind such activities. Authors at RAND take the view of defining “influence operations” (vice “information operations”) as “efforts to influence a target audience, whether an individual leader, [or] members of a decision-making group” (Larson et al., 2009, p. 2). This concept is conceived of as a “coordinated, integrated, and synchronized” effort “to foster attitudes, behaviors, or decisions by … target audiences” (Larson et al., 2009, p. 2). As earlier cited, DoD has since moved toward the adoption of this concept—to leverage information “to affect the perceptions, attitudes, decision making, and behavior of relevant actors” (JCS, 2022, p. IX).

JP 3-04 (JCS, 2022, p. viii) goes on to describe information as data in context to which a receiver assigns meaning whereby the receiver consists of humans (and potentially automated systems ² ) who take in information in a variety of ways. The premise underpinning this receiver-centric focus is that “each individual or automated system interprets symbols, messages, and actions differently. To increase the likelihood of a receiver interpreting the information in the way it was intended, the sender considers the factors that influence how a receiver assigns meaning” (JCS, 2022, p. IX).

Differences in Understanding How Persuasion and Influence Work

In OIE, efforts to influence are accompanied by a robust research program designed to understand the sociological, psychological, and neurological components of influence and how to affect it (see e.g., GAO, 2022b; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019; Spitaletta et al., 2017). According to DOD's FY23 and FY24 Military Information Support Operations (MISO) budgets, the U.S. spends more than $250 million a year in support of influence efforts “to change behavior” (Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2022, 2023).

By contrast, in the literature on TPC, and on proposals in particular, the science of how persuasion works is little explored. Instead, in the TPC scholarship, there is ongoing reliance on classical Aristotelian techniques of persuasive appeal (i.e., logos, ethos, and pathos) and use of “plain language” which is often directly associated with the rhetorical goal of persuasion (Baker, 2011, p. 19; Kimble, 1996; Matveeva et al., 2017, p. 336; Schriver, 2012, p. 282). Baker, in research on the use of plain language as a means to persuade in the legal profession, generally remarks that “scholarly research has not offered any direct, scientific support for its use” (Baker, 2011, p. 4) and encourages further use of cognitive science to provide insight into writing strategies. Markowitz's research (2019) on the correlation between language patterns and National Science Foundation (NSF) funding success not only is suggestive of the possibilities attendant to a more robust approach but it also demonstrates through data analysis that “plain writing may be an injunctive norm that is at odds with how science is actually communicated and then funded financially” (Markowitz, 2019, p. 14). He writes:

According to the data, there is little financial incentive to write according to the NSF's guideline for plain and simple language … these results are in line with the prior complexity findings, as the increased complexity of verbal structure (e.g., words per sentence) and content (e.g., fewer common words) associates with more money for grant writers. A writing style that is similar to a narrative instead of an analytic report … associates with more grant money (Markowitz, 2019, p. 11).

The research findings reported by Dahlstrom (2014) and Dahlstrom and Ho (2012) similarly point to the use of narrative as a tactic of persuasion in scientific communications as does the data-driven corpus-based methodology suggested by Mudraya (2006) to improve students’ knowledge of the unique linguistic features of disciplinary genres such as engineering and their ability to use it effectively.

Notwithstanding the absence of scientific or empirical discourse on the subject of persuasion as it relates to proposals, there is near universal agreement that the purpose of proposals is to persuade. Sales in a study of proposals states that persuasion “is the primary aim of the document” (Sales, 2002, pp. 4–36, 2006, Chapter 6). Speaking specifically of engineers, Vincler and Vincler (1996) argue proposals:

must stress what the received wants to hear … How persuasively you present your approach and its benefits—from the buyer's point of view—helps determines whether you or your competitor will walk away with the contract. (1996, p. 20)

Lawrence et al. (2019, p. 36) in their analysis of TPC texts observe that “all of the textbooks described the rhetoric of proposal writing in terms of its persuasive functions.” To this can be added a raft of more recent academic textbooks editions that all concede the importance of persuasion in technical communication (Joswiak & Duncan, 2020). According to one, “certain types of technical and professional communication, such as proposals … are more overtly persuasive while still conveying technical information” (McKinney et al., 2021, p. 4.1).

Differences in the Meaning of Influence and Persuasion

Although the terms “influence” and “persuasion” are often used synonymously, they frequently lack clarity or precision in their use. Marková (2008, p. 37) observes, for example:

terms like “persuasion,” “propaganda” and “rhetoric” are used interchangeably. They are considered, in one way or other, to be forms of communication the aim of which is to influence and change the mind of others with respect to the issue in question.

Wanless and Pamment similarly argue that many of these words are poorly understood and their “inconsistent usage leads to more confusion” (2019, p. 1). Further, these words come with preexisting connotations. Wanless and Pamment note, for example, that terms such as “propaganda” (sometimes used in reference to proposals and often used in relation to IO) tend to be all encompassing, making it difficult to distinguish from other domains such marketing and public relations or to determine what makes one form of communication acceptable and another unacceptable (Wanless & Pamment, 2019, p. 5). Within the TPC literature, such misconceptions may pose constraints on perceived ethical grounds that are unnecessarily limiting in the writing of persuasive proposals. Note, for example, this passage on “Ethical Persuasion” from a 2021 technical writing course:

What comes to mind when you think of speaking or writing to persuade? Perhaps the idea of persuasion may bring to mind propaganda and issues of manipulation, deception … We recognize that each of these elements has a negative connotation associated with it … These tactics violate our sense of fairness, freedom, and ethics. (Mckinney et al., 2021, p. 4.8)

In the latter example, the term “propaganda” is undefined. Instead, the reader is reminded of Aristotle's classical appeals and informed that persuasive strategies “are often embedded in the structure of the document” (Mckinney et al., 2021, p. 4.1). To this, however, the proposal consulting industry might offer that much can be done within the structure of proposals that is not found in Aristotle's classical appeals, to include the use of narrative as a more effective approach to persuasion. Indeed, improving the persuasiveness of proposal documents is that industry's raison d'être. Further, ethical considerations are enshrined in the FAR (48 CFR § 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct as well as FAR Parts 3, 5, and 10), which from a pedagogical perspective goes unremarked in the TPC literature. These seams between and within pedagogy and workplace practice become further evident upon closer examination of rhetorical traditions and the relationship to the target audience.

Within the IO domain, the nature and type of influence is somewhat less constrained. A recent RAND study remarks on the “lack of explicit consideration of ethics in the influence-planning process” (Paul et al., 2023, p. 2). JP 3-04 identifies the existing legal boundaries for the conduct of OIE but, unlike the TPC literature, does not address ethical considerations. Propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation are all among the legitimate tools of influence in OIE (JCS, 2022), and there is general recognition that many “view influence pejoratively, equating it with manipulation, disinformation, or propaganda” (Paul et al., 2023, p. 1). However, the Congressional Research Service observes “disinformation or deception is only one of the informational tools that comprise an IW [Information Warfare] strategy; factual information can also be used to achieve strategic goals and in some cases more effectively than deceptive means” (Marcellino et al., 2021a, 2021b; Opperman, 2012; Theohary, 2022, p. 1). This is further reinforced by JP 3-04 and supporting concepts and doctrine. The 2016 Strategy for OIE states, for example, “our principles of truth and accountability contrast with those of less scrupulous and opaque adversaries, who frequently offer misleading or false information as propaganda” (Department of Defense, 2016, p. 6).

Wanless and Pamment (2019, p. 8) observe that “the use of information to influence people ultimately calls into question a target audience's ability to be reasonably and fairly informed.” They ask:

Does truth matter in the context of information as it is used to influence a target audience? It does, insomuch as truth is often used as a defining line between what is acceptable in terms of using information to influence those audiences. Frické made this distinction between information and propaganda, for example, in that the former must be true, while the latter is not. (Wanless & Pamment, p. 3)

In the context of OIE, RAND refers to this as “virtuous persuasion” (Paul et al., 2023, p. 8), a concept worth further consideration in the TPC domain.

In TPC, there is a sizeable body of literature addressing the subject of truth and ethical considerations and, along with it, concerns about “propaganda” and “misinformation” (Dombrowski, 2000; Shuman et al., 2005; Sides, 1989). While the need to incorporate ethics into the TPC pedagogy is no longer debated, how it is represented remains unsettled and its terms undefined (Doan, 2022; Shuman et al., 2005). The distinctions earlier noted by Wanless and Pamment are all but absent in that corpus. This lack of clarity is further compounded by general unease over the application of “soft skills” in TPC discourse.

Differences in the Centrality of Soft Skills in Persuasion

Like the concept of persuasion, Hynes and Swenson (2013) argue the use of the term “soft skills,” (another term borrowed from the military domain [Berdanier, 2022; Parlamis & Monnot, 2019]) also carries with it a pejorative connotation within the TPC domain. Soft skills denote personal attributes, traits, attitudes, skills, and behaviors within the social sciences and humanities (see e.g., Robles, 2012 and Touloumakos, 2020) whereas hard skills include those technical aspects of engineering that are rooted in mathematics and science (Brattan, 2021).

Notwithstanding a robust and expanding literature that points to a “noteworthy shift in the importance given to soft skills within technical fields” (Al Mestiraihi & Becker 2022; Hirudayarj et al., 2021, p. 2; Touloumakos, 2020), this black-and-white view is perpetuated in articles on technical communications (see Brown, 1996; Wolfe, 2009) and books aimed at an engineering readership (Sales, 2002, pp. 6–15, 2006, pp. 136–137). Among those soft skills in highest demand of engineers by industry are “communications skills” (or rhetoric, addressed below); “empathy” (also referred to as “perspective taking” [Colman & Willmot, 2016; Cordova-Wentling & Price, 2007; Wilson & Mukhopadhyaya, 2022], addressed later in discussion of the Target Audience); collaboration (Colen & Petelin, 2003), addressed in discussion of Unity of Effort; and notably, “persuasion” (Pate, 2020; Walther et al., 2017), which is the universally ascribed intent of proposals.

In the scholarship on proposals, Sales observes “the prevailing attitude in the engineering community tends to reflect a rather black and white dichotomy of linguistic expression which designates language as being either objective/factual or subjective/emotional” (Sales, 2002, pp. 4–46). Engineers, Sales reports, “are unhappy about needing to persuade in proposals. They feel uncomfortable about it, and generally view themselves as being inept as persuasive writers” (Sales, 2002; Brown, 1996). Both Winsor (1996) and Brown (1996) report similar observations. Winsor (1996, p. 12) notes “as a profession, engineers frown on persuasiveness and find it suspect.” In this view, Winsor continues:

the primacy and purity of data are an ethical as well as a functional concern. Thus engineers may believe they let the facts speak for themselves and abstain from any obvious persuasion because that is a useful fiction in the world of engineering. (Winsor, p. 99)

“Good persuasion” according to Brown (1996, p. 37) “is somehow suspect as information and that persuasion is beneath the concern of those with a highly developed sense of scientific communication.” Untainted by audience or the desire to sell, they “go out of their way to avoid projecting an ethos of persuasiveness” (Brown, 1996).

“To emote,” according to Colman and Willmot, is viewed by some “who confine their thoughts to higher technical concepts, as weak or ‘soft’” (2016, p. 4). When it comes to proposals specifically, Sales opines that “possibly, one of the problems facing engineers is the confusion that results from the meanings associated with persuasion. As a term, ‘persuasion’ (or ‘persuade’) has rather wide colloquial applications, associated with the idea that it is an intentional act with illocutionary force” (Sales, 2002, pp. 4–26). To this, Sales adds, “Colloquially, ‘persuasion’ has potentially negative connotations, because of its association with social and behavioral manipulation which is not benign” (Sales, 2002, pp. 4–47).

It could be said, that since it may be considered as a kind of manipulation, presumably covert and possibly not in the message receiver's best interests, “persuasion” is negatively coloured for engineers in proposal writing (and reading) contexts … Engineers generally regard non-technical English with suspicion (they refer to it as “natural” English), because it allows, in their view, vagueness, “truth-bending,” and inaccuracies. It is possible, therefore, that by acknowledging that proposals persuade, engineers make the task of writing more difficult because of the problematic association with potential dishonesty and malign intent. (Sales, 2006, pp. 138–139)

As earlier noted, this synonymous identification of persuasion with propaganda and manipulation is often misplaced or misunderstood, discounts the possibility of persuasion as nonmanipulative and/or consensual, and leads to a reluctance to participate in what Bakir et al. refer to as “organized persuasive communication” and what RAND calls “virtuous persuasion” (Bakir et al., 2019, p. 315; Paul et al., 2023, p. 8; Brown, 1996). There is, according to Bakir et al., a “blind spot” in the examination of this category of communication within open societies which is “central to the exercise of power across all social spheres” (p. 311). To this, can be added the competition for federal funding as a social sphere which, as Mehlenbacher (1994) points out, is part of a “complex social process” (p. 5).

The perceived conundrum facing engineers in the proposal domain stands in marked contrast to the IO domain. Myers, sums it up as follows:

There is a paradox in the rhetorical strategy of the proposal, because the proposal format, with its standard questions about background and goals and budget, and the style, with its passives and impersonality, do not allow for most types of rhetorical appeals; one must persuade without seeming to persuade [emphasis added]. (Myers, 1990, p. 42)

Understanding the source(s) of this conundrum is instructive but not necessarily new to scholarship on scientific and technical discourse. However, when counterpoised against another domain, IO, which shares similar intent and similarly uses language to affect the decision-making behavior of others, it provides a wholly different perspective to looking at proposals and how they are written.

Differences in Rhetorical Traditions

RAND author's (Marcellino et al., 2021a, 2021b), in their literature survey on narrative, report a substantial literature on stories and narratives, but find, like the terminology used for “persuasion,” “influence,” and “propaganda” earlier described, there are numerous competing definitions (Marcellino et al., 2021b, p. 10). De Silva and Henderson (2007, p. 2) simply described “narrative” as “a representation of a series of events”; its need obvious in nontechnical domains and its use less so in technical writing where the emphasis is most often placed on the technical content.

By contrast, in a proposal, according to Sales, engineers:

prefer to write in a style they believe to be objective and devoid of any emotive slant. They acknowledge that the main aim of a proposal is to persuade but do not want to be associated with the persuasive aspects of text or, rather, what they actually perceive a persuasive text to be (Sales, 2006, p. 136).

An examination of the literary traditions that both IO and proposal writing draw from, the former from the composition genre and the latter from TPC genre, provides further insight.

IO conceives of narrative as stories. Stories, according to Walwema (2015, p. 20), transmit information from a position of knowing in such a way as to invoke vivid mental images and appeal to the audience in interesting and enticing ways. This is well understood within the IO community: “Narrative matters because it is the primary cognitive framework human beings use to make sense of the world … [they] are powerful because they influence audiences” (Marcellino et al., 2021b, p. 69). To this end, JP 3-04, observes:

Humans use stories and anecdotal evidence to help them derive meaning from their environment and experiences. Humans combine stories into narratives that they use to describe their version of the past and vision of the future and communicate that vision to others. A narrative can connect seemingly unrelated events and provides an overarching concept that influences thought, meaning, and decision making. (JCS, 2022, p. I-8)

Narrative, in other words, shapes desired ends, develops an emotional hold on audiences, and influences how they choose to act (Blas, 2023). “In comparison to other forms of communication,” according to RAND, “narratives present a more effective means of connecting an audience to a message and arousing an emotional response, influencing the audience's attitudes and behaviors” (Marcellino et al., 2021b, p. 11). There is broad consensus within the IO literature that “much of the influence found in narratives is a function of the storytelling format that develops emotional identification” with the audience (Blas, 2023, p. 49; Marcellino et al., 2021b; Yager, 2018). Joint Forces strive to provide a compelling narrative that “resonates with relevant actors by fitting their frame of reference” (JCS, 2022, p. II-6; Marcellino et al., 2021a). In turn, “effective narratives can and do affect rationality, decision making, and other aspects of thought processes” (JCS, 2022, p. A-1).

As a form of organized persuasive communication, storytelling is ubiquitous “including advertising and marketing, propaganda, public relations, organizational communication, information/influence campaigns, psychological operations, strategic communication and … is central to the exercise of power across all social spheres” (Bakir et al., 2019, p. 312). To the extent that technical writers provide narrative within the technical context of proposals, that is, they are responsive to the technical requirements of the solicitation, they are aligned to the stated frame of reference. This, however, is where the similarity ends and the connection to audience and persuasiveness is often deemphasized if not lost.

The TPC genre, of which proposals are part, spring from rhetorical traditions in which “effective rhetoric,” according to Winsor, “involves the denial that one is using rhetoric” (1996, p. 7). Grimshaw and McCarren summarize the style as follows:

In the ETHICAL mode, the writers gain good will on the titlepage by identifying themselves by title … and by company …. They establish good sense, i.e., introduction through their statements of purpose, problem, and scope. And they reveal good moral character, i.e., sincerity and trustworthiness, through a style which is clear, straightforward, and logical. With their conclusions and recommendations they influence decision-makers to act the desired result of the PATHIC mode not from anger, but from rational reasons. ( as cited in Masse & Benz, 1989, p. 11)

In matters of proposal writing, this, according to Sales (2006, p. 152), is entirely in keeping with the intent of engineers to uphold “engineering values in the processes and procedures relating to textual matters.” This “loyalty to profession” (Berdanier, 2022; Shuman et al., 2005, p. 45), in Sales view, “is deeply ingrained and it really matters to them that they should conform with the linguistic conventions of their discourse community” (Sales, 2006, p. 152). From this perspective, engineers are particular in how they go about describing their offering, not only because they wish to be factual but because through their writing they put on display their academic and professional bona fides, which in their view is itself a persuasive message (Wilson & Mukhopadhyaya, 2022). In other words, as Sales argues, they attempt to “sell” their offers by demonstrating their knowledge, skill, and expertise and, in this way, “project of themselves to those they are targeting … by the style of writing and informational substance of the description” (Brown, 1996; Sales, 2006, p. 152). Often, as Porter observes, this results in “inflate[d] prose with large words and complicated sentence to achieve the effect of serious thinking” (2007, p. 14). Unfortunately, as Porter concludes, “such tactics have the opposite effect” on evaluators (Markowitz, 2019; Porter, 2007, p. 41).

Baek and Falk, in their study of what makes a successful persuader, suggest a neurological component to this behavior supported by brain-based models:

Sharing information can benefit the sharer by making them look good, by appearing knowledgeable, relevant, or helpful … sharing information supports fundamental human desires to promote and uphold a positive self-image (i.e., self-presentation motives) (Baek & Falk, 2018, pp. 4–5).

Following this line of thought, proposals provide engineers an opportunity to persuade evaluators by way of demonstrating their knowledge, relevance, and high professional standards. They are, according to Sales, “opportunities for ‘giving face’ to engineers, who wish to convey these qualities about themselves” (Sales, 2006, p. 153).

Doan concludes that “in composition, genres represent individual learning or public persuasion.” In TPC, by contrast, “genre represents communicating expertise through genre ecologies” (Doan, 2022, p. 23). Both “use rhetorical theory and written genres in different ways … [while using] the same terminology and basic principles to different ends” (Doan, p. 23). Writers in the composition genre seek to persuade whereas writers of TPC use genres to propose and solution customer problems (Dahlstrom, 2014; Dahlstrom & Ho, 2012; Doan, 2022). “Composition pedagogy foregrounds critique, persuasion, and argument-making” whereas, as Doan observes, “discussing writing in this way is not how workplace writers operate” (2022, p. 23). This sentiment, as previously described, is ubiquitous within TPC; the engineering and science position on storytelling is clear:

the nature of research discourse, which emphasizes the need for (scientific) certainty, has denigrated storytelling and, by extension, the knowledge it generates. Storytelling, from the point of view of its detractors, is incapable of generating true knowledge, which they say is the province of the hard sciences (Miller, 1994). This dismissive notion that one who tells stories deals in flights of fancy (which are outside the realm of reason) is emblematic of this disturbing turn that is dismissive of storytelling as being, in the words of Miller (1994, p. 506), “‘soft,’ ‘idiosyncratic,’ ‘undertheorized,’ ‘individualistic,’ even ‘narcissistic.’” (As cited in Walwema, 2015, pp. 21–22)

The outcome is that while engineers may uphold the rhetorical traditions of their profession and demonstrate intellectual prowess and specialized training, when it comes to putting forth their ideas within the context of persuasive documents such as proposals, the message can be misunderstood, be perceived as overly complex, or worse, be ignored (Beck & Wegner, 1992; de Souza Almeida, 2019; Kraicer, 1997; Lemanski, 2014; Porter, 2007). Indeed, their training, as Lemanski suggests, may well be, and often is, their downfall (2014, p. 211). These observations are reinforced by the research on writing quality, soft skills, and industry expectations of engineers earlier cited.

In short, “engineers are typically not recognized as gifted communicators, which can impact their ability to produce high-quality work” that is persuasively presented (de Souza Almeida, 2019, p. 15; Lemanski, 2014). Markowitz's research on the correspondence between language patterns and NSF funding success in grantsmanship, which may be considered a correlate with proposals, reinforces these observations. Markowitz observes a correlation between narrative writing style to funding in which “high rates of storytelling language and … low rates of complex categorial markers” corresponds to more funding (Markowitz, 2019, p. 11). This is further supported in the research of Dahlstrom and Ho (2012), who report:

Narrative text is recalled twice as well and read twice as fast as evidence-based text and generates greater engagement, persistent attitude and belief changes, and self-efficacy. (p. 596).

All of this is to say that, as in IO, there may be efficacy in the greater use of narrative to persuade target audiences.

Unfortunately, as Walwema concludes, “the notion that non-scientific approaches do not result in objective knowledge poses an obstacle to storytelling” in TPC generally and in proposals specifically (Walwema, 2015, p. 23). Addressing the subject from the perspective of scientific discourse, Bazerman (1988) makes the following appeal:

Persuasion is at the heart of science, not at the unrespectable fringe. An intelligent rhetoric practiced within a serious, experienced, knowledgeable, committed research community is a serious method of truth seeking. The most serious scientific communication is not that which disowns persuasion, but which persuades in the deepest, most compelling manner, thereby sweeping aside more superficial arguments. (p. 321)

Killingsworth and Gilbertson agree (1986, pp. 289–290), “the rhetoric of relevance may demand that the writer reject many of the cherished stylistic conventions of so-called objectivity” and maintain that “contrary to frequent assumptions and powerful conventions, there is always a place for judgment and recommendation in technical reports.” Writing nearly three decades later and speaking specifically to the use of narrative in proposals, Walwema (2015), citing Julian Friedland in the New York Times (2012), makes the point well and is worth quoting at length. Friedland, Walwema states:

has placed it in the broader formulations of philosophy and science, suggesting that the differences in science and philosophy center on methodology. If storytelling is placed in the category of philosophy, wherein the quest for knowledge is grounded in the “rational tools of logical analysis” (Friedland, 2012: para. 14), the more scientifically minded among us would seek a more measured approach that relies on empiricism and evidence-based research. And yet, through articulating and clarifying concepts, philosophers have yielded knowledge drawn from rationally designed conceptual frameworks in fields such as ethics, economics, mathematics, and justice that have withstood the test of time. Such enduring knowledge indicates that there are some things that cannot be settled empirically but can be settled through rational thought. (p. 23)

To be successful, Porter maintains, “proposals must be written in a strong, persuasive style, and academic writers accustomed to a different style need help to develop more effective writing habits” (Porter, 2007, p. 43.) In the rhetorical tradition of engineers, however, there appears little place for target audience “empathy” or “persuasion,” both soft skills in high demand by industry.

Similarities in Focus on Target Audience

A solid understanding of target audience is core to both IO and proposal activities with practitioners in each domain working toward the influence/persuasion of their respective audiences. Target audience in IO is defined as “an individual or group selected for influence” (JCS, 2022). Each audience, according to JP 3-04, “views words, images, and deeds through their cultural lens and local environmental conditions.” Like IO, “target readers” of proposals are also identified—the SSA and “evaluation team” (48 CFR §15.303). These “target readers” or “gatekeepers” (Beck & Wegner, 1990, 1992; Mitroff & Chubin, 1979, p. 201; Vinkenburg, 2017; Vinkenburg et al., 2021) typically comprised of the program and contracting officer, an advisory panel, and other ad hoc reviewers, similarly view information through their respective lenses.

For both, audience can generally be considered a “complex term” (de Souza Almeida, 2019). In IO, the concept of “audience segmentation” is well-understood (Marcellino et al., 2021b, p. 24; Paul & Matthews, 2018, p. 56). Audience may not be considered monolithic or homogeneous; therefore, “to reach one or more audiences, communicators need to know something about the people they intend to influence. Ideally, communicators will start thinking about who constitutes their audience at the beginning of narrative development” (Marcellino et al., 2021b, p. 23). Still further, to ensure understanding, Paul et al. (2015, p. 172) confirm that planners may use various psychographic variables such as personality and social attributes “to understand how different messages resonate with different segments of the target audience” (see also Dearth, 2002; Marcellino et al., 2021b; Tatham, 2015). Even with such person-level knowledge, predicting outcomes also requires an understanding of the dynamics between and among these individual decision-makers (Bhattacharya & Mukherjee, 2013).

Reid (2002, p. 56) in discussion of the intersection of IO and business offers a bridge between these two domains:

Audience analysis is the most critical element in developing either a business or an IO campaign. Audience analysis should, however, never be defined in the singular. Analysis of audiences is a better way to look at this task, for there is never a single audience to deal with in either.

Audience, as it relates to the Business Development Lifecyle, and proposals in particular, exhibits similar complexity. As in IO, in proposals it cannot be predicted with any certainty how an audience will read an offer, resonate with the style and means of delivery, or be receptive to the message. Bacon and Pugh (2005, pp. 42–54), for example, classify audience by readership type: Expert and Nonexpert, Inductive and Deductive Processors, Scanners and Skimmers, and Visual and Verbal Conceptualizers. In another classification scheme, Gross et al. (2017, p. 21) identify Experts, Technicians, Executives, and Non-specialists. Regardless of classification, because each audience segment may have differing interests and viewpoints, they must all be addressed all at once (Bacon & Pugh, 2005; Beck & Wegner, 1992; de Souza Almeida, 2019, p. 22):

With too much of an emphasis on the strictly scientific, the proposal risks alienating the non-technical evaluators. Likewise, too much promotional emphasis risks having the proposal viewed as a mere “sales pitch.” Whether overtly acknowledged or not, this persuasive intention places technical proposal writing squarely in the realm of classical rhetoric (Beck & Wegner, 1992, p. 2)

One such strategy of message tailoring involves persuasive messages to recipient characteristics is known as message-person congruence (Hirsh et al., 2012). The message, whether in IO or in proposals must be tailored (de Souza Almeida, 2019; Knisely & Knisely, 2015; Marcellino et al., 2021a; Wright, 2018). To this end, both conduct target audience analysis (TAA). Here, however, is where differences emerge, and the approaches applied to IO may offer insight to the betterment of proposals.

Differences in Approach to TAA

There is a significant body of literature within the IO domain on TAA (see e.g., Larson et al., 2009; Marcellino et al., 2021b; Paul et al., 2015; Yager, 2018). Historically, TAA methods are based on scientific findings, with a heavy reliance on the fields of anthropology, sociology, psychology, biology, and neuroscience, and a robust research agenda exploring cognitive behavior and decision-making. In other words, there is a blend of “hard and soft” sciences, earlier described, that feed into and support the development of narrative. Tatham (2015) and Spitaletta et al. (2017) make the case that the “science of TAA” is already well advanced. Still, within the IO community there is common refrain to incorporate yet more theory and analysis into TAA. Spitaletta et al. (2017) note, for example:

Both personalized and persuasive technologies attempt to influence behavior hold promise (Berkovsky et al., 2012); synthesizing elements from each in conjunction with established methods of social influence holds potential both mass (Cialdini, 2008) and personalized (Burkett, 2013) persuasion …. Understanding the psychological effect of particular influence products from both a subjective and objective perspective is daunting (Casebeer & Russell, 2005) but the work is necessary. (As cited in Spitaletta et al., 2017)

Because TAA can be complex, the levers of influence are often counterintuitive, and many in the military domain are not sufficiently trained in the use of information-related capabilities, Spitaletta et al. advocate for yet more resources devoted to the conduct of TAA.

Hand-in-hand with the call for more science in TAA, “empathy” is considered central to the practical application of TAA and the development of narrative in IO. Referencing Haven's “pathbreaking research on effectiveness in persuasive storytelling,” RAND (Marcellino et al., 2021b, p. 47), cites “emotional resonance of a story as the single most important factor.” Thomson (2018, p. 17) calls it indispensable, its incorporation a procedural planning imperative. Cabayan observes:

When doctrine properly accounts for empathy, both the military educational system and training approaches will develop the culture of the Joint Force such that they have a better appreciation for the people they seek to persuade and will provide them with tangible processes through which they can more clearly think. (Cabayan, 2018, p. 4)

“Adoption of an ‘outside-in’ mindset … makes the audience's decision-making process the focus of the influence strategy” (Wright, 2018, p. 61). “Empathy causes the Joint Force to focus on information not as it matters to them, but as it matters to the relevant actors they hope to persuade.”

Although empathy is absent as an element of specific doctrinal discussion in joint operational design (Crabb, 2022, p. 101; Thompson, 2018), JP-3-04 does embrace the definitional aspects of empathy capturing the elements of research needed in TAA to understand audience perspective (Abbe, 2023, p. 19). Abbe describes this as an “attempt to understand the thoughts, feelings, and motives of a target without judgment or agreement” (Abbe, 2023, p. 23; see also Rasmussen et al., 2013, p. 31). JP 3-04 captures these elements in its discussion of the analysis of “human aspects” of the operational environment which frames “how relevant actors perceive a situation from their world view … [from] their perspective, from which they derive meaning to what they observe to understand the context of the world around them” (JCS, 2022, p. B-3). Suffice to say that through TAA IO practitioners endeavor to understand their target audiences in order to develop and deliver tailored, compelling narrative (JCS, 2022, A-4).

In asking “what makes certain people more effective at persuading and influencing others,” Baek and Falk (2018, p. 6) contend that “successful persuaders are better at understanding others’ mental states, more socially flexible, able to adapt strategies based on the situation and receiver characteristics. This increased social awareness may allow people who are more effective at persuading to present information to maximize the value of the information for the receiver.” Conger (2017, p. 93), writing in the Harvard Business Review, similarly advances the notion that “effective persuaders have a strong and accurate sense of their audience's emotional state, and they adjust the tone of their arguments accordingly.” Conger notes further “even before starting to persuade, the best persuaders we have encountered closely study the issues that matter to their colleagues” (p. 91).

In contrast to the formalized use of TAA in IO, there is surprisingly little scholarship on TAA within the context of TPC generally or proposals in particular. This absence of scholarship is all the more profound given the size of the addressable market. Shipley identifies a number of customer engagement points for Business and Capture Management professionals along the Business Development Lifecycle continuum (e.g., in Phase 2 Opportunity Assessment—Cultivate initial position with customer; Phase 3 Capture Planning—Extend customer contacts), and there is near universal agreement that audience understanding is important (Shipley Associates, n.d. a; Renze, 1995). Ironically, however, much of the TPC literature takes the form of advice rather than a structured or scientifically rendered assessment of “customer understanding” and, as previously addressed in discussion of rhetorical traditions, a general absence of empathy (notwithstanding its high demand by industry) in proposal writing that impacts the ability to be persuasive.

DeBakey early on identified that audience understanding assists writers in determining the type and depth of content to include in a proposal (1976, p. 7). Without this understanding, proposals can be misunderstood or worse, be ignored. According to Moffat (1994, p. 1922), proposal writers who “consciously adapt their prose” to the intended audience usually experience higher success rates.

Ziv (1989, p. 39), in a literature survey on the subject of audience, provides a concise summary of articles from the 1970s and 1980s:

McCaskey (1973) writes that stimulating the reader's interest is the key to writing technical articles. Dulek (1980) argues that since many technical writers do not know their audiences, they should avoid making faulty assumptions about the reader and implement adaptive strategies such as motivating the reader by implying the benefits of reading a particular document. Whittaker (1980) and Van Duyn (1982) also urge the technical writer to consider the reader. Thus Van Duyn tells writers, as soon as they have a general idea of their subject to “begin your project by studying the prospective readers. Once you define your audience and zero in on their basic needs and preferences, take a closer look at your product and find out how its readers will use it” (Van Duyn, 1982, p. 27). Roundy (1985) suggests that writers structure their documents according to the readers’ needs.

Continuing the trend, Kaplan encourages direct contact: “The value of personal contact with agency personnel cannot be overemphasized” (1990, p. 28 as cited in Renze, 1995, p. 10). Personal “inside” communications are indispensable to future efforts (Renze, 1995, p. 10). In Writing Winning Business Proposals (2011, p. 103), Freed et al. recognize the need for persuasive themes to achieve common understanding between writer and reader (see also Renze, 1995, p. 40). “This awareness of shared knowledge is called ‘common ground’ in the study of language” (Halpern & Blackburn, 2005, p. 187).

Thematically, the subject is addressed in similar manner in subsequent literature on proposals a decade later. Halleck and Connor (2006) acknowledge that proposals are intended for target audience, and those audiences often have disparate demands (Tardy, 2003). Walwema (2015, p. 19) speaks further to the need of successful proposal narratives to convey “insider knowledge.” de Souza Almeida et al. (2019) add that “having audience awareness and the ability to tailor the message accordingly are very important requirements for engineers to communicate successfully.” Renze (1995, p. 11) sums it up simply that “information from contacts can be used in writing a proposal to better address the intended audience.”

Ziv (1989, p. 39) concludes that writers “must identify the requirements of the primary audience for a text and then set up the overall text to meet those requirements.” To achieve this “they must be based on theory and research [emphasis added]” (Ziv, 1989, p. 40). Bazerman (1988, p. 184) similarly makes the argument for studying the relationship between offerors and evaluators. Beck and Wegner assert “writers can increase the persuasive effect of the document by a more exact or sophisticated audience analysis [emphasis added]” (1992). Kumar (2021, p. 27) makes the case most forcefully, arguing that the absence of customer focus is a primary reason for losing. Kumar argues the “customer focused proposal should not only address customer's KPI's [Key Performance Indicators] but also focuses on their hidden desires.”

Proposers, according to Renze, “need to know the ‘magic words’ that program officers want to hear. It doesn’t matter so much what your idea is, but how you cast it into the ‘hot terms’” (Renze, 1995, p. 22). Conversely,

an applicant who does not use the expected buzzwords for hot topics in one's discipline may receive lower support and less beneficial evaluations compared to the evaluation of an applicant whose vocabulary fits the ideal. (Vinkenburg et al., 2021, p. 8)

Information about these “hot terms” (more conventionally known as “hot buttons” and often used in conjunction with the term “pain points”) comes by way of customer engagement. With the exception of sporadic references to the use of personality traits in the “how to” proposal literature and notwithstanding a very rich literature on psychology in the marketing domain, discussion of “hot buttons” appears to be the closest that the proposal literature comes to the application of social science concepts and a more exact or sophisticated TAA called for by others. ³

Shipley defines “hot buttons” as:

any issue that the customer may have, hidden or obvious. These issues are the things that keep the customer awake at night and influence the customer's decision to buy. They may also be the objectives the customer is trying to achieve. Citing a customer's hot buttons directs your proposal on the customer instead of yourself. (Shipley Associates, n.d. b).

Capture managers discover these hot buttons through customer engagement and, in turn, communicate this information to the proposal team. More broadly, proposal teams rely on these capture professionals to collect information on the evaluation team; their personalities, likes, dislikes. Using this information, proposal writers orient the proposal discourse at the evaluating audience (Beck & Wegner, 1992).

Ultimately, there is the act of obtaining target audience insight—however imperfect, however informal, and regardless of method—and the act of integrating that insight into a proposal response which must include both the technical details of the offer per the solicitation instructions and the persuasive elements needed to convince the audience. As previously described, there is enthusiasm for the former and often indifference, if not distain, for the latter. Still further, assuming the will to apply what is learned from audience analysis, the science and associated training is simply not found in the TPC pedagogy. Herein lays a fundamental difference in IO, as compared to proposals.

Writers of IO narrative write to their target audience. Technical writers tend to write to their peers, other engineers and scientists, who likely constitute only a subset of the proposal evaluation audience (Lemanski, 2014, p. 216). This cognitive bias is further compounded by what Lemanski (2014, p. 216) sees as a predilection by many writers “to view their audience as rather homogeneous because they approach the new genre with that low differentiator mindset” which assigns little, if any, weight to the unique characteristics of the target audience. ⁴ Notwithstanding, well-defined Business Development Lifecycle processes and best practice guidance, the literature is suggestive of a fundamental disconnect between what the Business Development or Capture Manager learns about an acquisition and its decision makers and the integration of that knowledge into the proposal (Lemanski, 2014, p. 216). By contrast, in OIE, performance of this function is analogous to the integration and joint targeting function.

In OIE, coordination and control measures, to include the development and use of narratives, enable joint action. Information planners take part in targeting working groups to, among other activities, “evaluate targets for their psychological impact on relevant actors” (JCS, 2022, p. IV-26). The traditional joint targeting methodology as defined in JP 3-60 Joint Targeting, according to JP 3-04, remains valid for OIE (JCS, 2022, p. IV-26; Paul & Matthews, 2018). For proposals, this is often where help is needed and where, as Johnson-Sheehan (2008) asserts, professional writers trained in the proposal genre can add value.

Differences in Target Audience Relationship

Unlike IO, where target audience research may be both witting and unwitting with the intent to develop and deploy narrative to influence an audience that may or not be consensual, communication in the proposal domain is typically bidirectional and mutual which falls into the category of nonmanipulative (or consensual) persuasion described by Bakir et al. (2019). This is important to understand, as it runs counter to an inherent reluctance to persuade based on ethical grounds (described earlier) and, along with it, a rejection to embrace the use of narrative. In other words, it is not in keeping with the rhetorical traditions of scientific and technical discourse. Moreover, it suggests that the objectivity and standards of persuasiveness often held by engineers may be misplaced or misunderstood and discounts the objectivity of Source Selection evaluators and the regulations and training built around the evaluation process (see, for example, Federal Acquisition Institute [FAI] Acquisition Workforce Competency reports and Best Practices in Technical Evaluation Boards).

Proposals, on their face, are inherently positional and promotional. McCarren uses examples from industry to demonstrate the starting proposition of most proposals:

in the business world, one works at Texas Instruments, or IBM, or EXXON; one writes about T.I., or IBM, or EXXON products not about General Dynamics, or Wang, or Texaco. Consequently, one is prejudiced to begin with and is apt to select technical details that are most applicable to whatever product one is writing about. Rarely, very rarely, will the communication be purely objective. (McCarren, 1985, p. 28 as cited in Masse & Benz, 1989, p. 11)

Persuasion, in other words, “is not a matter of choice; it is inherent in [this particular] social interaction” (Hoffeld, n.d.; Mehlenbacher, 1994, p. 5). Still further, Marková (2008, p. 44) argues that “persuasion, in contrast to propaganda, is a feature of any communication.” Slack et al. (1993), similarly, note:

Whether they desire it or not, technical communicators are seen as variously adding, deleting, changing, and selecting meaning. Again, whether they desire it or not, they are always implicated in relations of power. (1993, p. 31)

This sentiment finds agreement in some corners of the TPC literature (Joswiak & Duncan, 2020). As a social interaction, there is a high degree of what is referred to in the IO domain as mutual “self-disclosure” or “information sharing” (DiEuliis & Giordano, 2018, p. 45). Defense Acquisition University (DAU) describes industry engagements as “encouraged early on to gain better product and service information particularly during the presolicitation phase of the acquisition” (DAU, Ask a Professor). Indeed, the intent of the Vendor Communication Plan is to “promote increased dialogue with the vendor community prior to awarding contracts.” This information and associated ethical and regulatory considerations are addressed in FAR Part 3, Part 5, Part 10, and Part 15 “Exchanges of information among all interested parties, from the earliest identification of a requirement through receipt of proposals.” Once a final solicitation is released, offerors are then only permitted to contact the contracting office for questions regarding the acquisition. Throughout, ethics and procurement laws must be followed in accordance with FAR Part 3.

The DAU informs that within the parameters defined by the FAR these Industry-Government exchanges can be “frequent, fair and transparent as appropriate” with industry afforded the opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities and speak to requirements owners and others within the acquiring organization, some or all of whom may be on an acquisition's Source Selection Board. The benefits of these engagements are mutual, providing:

greater clarity early-on of the agency requirements, increased awareness of industry capabilities, potential for increased competition, small business subcontracting opportunities as well as the use of small business set asides, and fewer performance problems with proper communication exchanges and meetings with vendors. (DAU, Ask a Professor)

These Industry-Government exchanges are considered the foundation to a successful acquisition (DAU, Ask a Professor). From an industry perspective, one consulting firm confirms:

the best of the best of government contractors shape the requirements in the RFP to raise their win probability … (unless there is a violation of the procurement integrity laws); there is nothing unseemly or unethical in doing this. (OST, n.d.)

To reinforce the importance of RFP “shaping,” the APMP cites that “companies with high win rates (upwards of 70%) spend approximately 60% of their total bid and proposal budgets on capture and 40% on proposal development” (as cited in OST, n.d.).

Because the exchanges described above are mutual, it should also be emphasized that just as industry is looking to shape the requirements to their favor, so too is the Government. Throughout, the Government, using a variety of public engagements, for example, market surveys, requests for information, industry days, presolicitation conferences, one-on-ones, and draft solicitation question and answers from industry, is working to cultivate a competitive environment and improve the acquisition from the position of what is in the Government's best interest, all while maintaining a posture of objectivity. The Government, in other words, is looking to influence how offerors respond to their solicitations. The afore described understanding of the FAR and the mutuality of communications between offerors and acquirers is absent from the TPC literature as it pertains to proposals.

Audiences, particularly proposal evaluators, are not necessarily impassive and “are very capable of rejecting narratives, most notably when the persuasive intent becomes salient and individuals react to the perception of being manipulated” (Dahlstrom & Ho, 2012, p. 597). Perloff (1993, p. 16) writes, “a defining characteristic of persuasion is free choice. At some level the individual must be capable of accepting or rejecting the position” urged upon them. By this logic, an offer that one is unable to reject cannot be considered to be persuasive; instead, it might be considered coercive and manipulative (Hoffeld, n.d.). Competitive proposals do not satisfy this criterion.

The FAR provides a framework for the solicitation and proposal evaluation process (FAR 15.101-1 and 15.305). This structure provides help to mitigate cognitive bias through use of objective rules and requires evaluators to provide justifications for their decisions (Cihacek, 2020). Specifically, the FAR requires that Requestors should “evaluate Competitive proposals and then assess their relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in the solicitation” (FAR 15.305). The Government's Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI), Best Practices in Technical Evaluation Boards, states “TEB/TEP members are responsible for ensuring a complete, fair, and impartial technical evaluation of all proposals”:

The panel will provide an orderly, impartial, comprehensive and discriminating technical evaluation of each prospective offeror's technical proposal against the solicitation requirements. The TEB/TEP member's assessment stands as the CO supporting documentation for determination of best value therefore, it's imperative these assessments reflect impartiality. (FAI)

Notwithstanding the FAR, “the comparative and intransitive nature of panel decision-making, in which multiple applications are ranked on the basis of multiple criteria, leaves room for bias” (Vinkenburg et al., 2021, p. 10). Notably, a “failure to follow evaluation criteria” and utilize the stated criteria to perform an objective measure of the proposal is among the most common reasons for protest are (Cihacek, 2020; Tsipursky, 2022). Tsipursky reports that despite the intention of officials to arrive at fair and objective proposal evaluations, the outcome may suffer from either deliberate or unintentional bias, typically cognitive biases. For this reason, “a flawed selection decision” is among the top four reasons for GAO's sustainment of bid protests (Tsipursky, 2022). Speaking to this phenomenon, Vinkenburg writes:

Room for bias occurs when evaluators are given discretionary space in evaluating performance and potential. In these kinds of complex decision processes, with limited time and inherent intransitivity, the volatile application of ambiguous criteria such as excellence, groundbreaking or “high risk high gain” induces the occurrence of bias. (Vinkenburg et al., 2021, p. 2)

While bias is often implicit, Vinkenburg et al. note “it becomes audible and readable through language and thus apparent to trained observers” (2021, p. 2). For this reason, and with specific regard to evaluators of proposals, there is evaluator training to combat cognitive bias in evaluation (FAI, n.d.). Industry is required to adhere to the ethical standards set out in the FAR as well those often established by their individual corporate entities; its proposal writers are not responsible for serving as the Government's guardrails to mitigate evaluator bias.

All of this is to say that there are ground rules that clearly set the conditions for mutual persuasion between Government acquirers and industry offerors and that efforts to persuade are expected. These expectations notwithstanding, adherence to the “correctness model” of the rhetoric approach and literary foundations that TPC draws on (de Souza Almeida, 2019, p. 21; Doan, 2022, p. 20) with its attendant downplay of “empathy” and adverse views on persuasion often coalesce to have the opposite effect on evaluators (Lemanski, 2014, p. 211; Markowitz, 2019; Porter, 2007). The coincidence of some or all of these factors supports Johnson-Sheehan's call for help (2008).

Similarities in Approaching Unity of Effort

Unity of effort in OIE is achieved through synchronization, coordination, deconfliction, and/or integration of activities. Without these conditions, “operational plans run a greater risk of being conceived on ill-defined goals or faulty rationale, leading to the misapplication” of the applied information (Blas, 2023, p. 53). To facilitate unity of effort, “the JFC [Joint Force Commander] and supporting staff should be familiar with the roles, expertise, and capabilities of individual and organizational stakeholders relative to the use of information and leveraging information to create relative advantage over an opponent” (JCS, 2022, p. III-1). To this end, JP3-04 describes the roles and “responsibilities related to achieving and maintaining unity of effort in the application of informational power” (JCS, 2022, Chapter III). Those most directly involved in OIE TAA, narrative development, and execution typically include Intelligence (JP 2-0, Joint Intelligence), Public Affairs (PA) (JP 3-61, Public Affairs), Civil Affairs (CA), and MISO (JP 3-13.2, MISO), key leader engagement personnel, policy advisors (POLAD), and other subject matter experts as required (JCS,2022, xvi, A-4–A-5).

“The deliberate coordination and synchronization of interorganizational efforts enables inclusion of the various perspectives, interests, and equities of each stakeholder … mitigates the potential for conflicting messages … [and] improves the overall efficiency and effectiveness” (JCS, 2022, p. III-29). The JFC will use various mechanisms to facilitate this coordination and synchronization such as the establishment of cross-functional organizations and the use of an information synchronization matrix (JCS, 2022, III-29–III-30). The latter displays how “informational aspects of the operations are knitted together with other functional elements,” contains critical tasks, and assists planners in the identification and mitigation of potential gaps (JCS, 2022, V-2–V-3). Information activities are deconflicted throughout to prevent or mitigate any negative effects.

In proposals, before pursuing any proposal effort, a company assigns a proposal team. Multiple sources identify the contributions of engineers, technologists, program managers, and business development professionals to a proposal team, “but many point to the importance of teamwork” (Moorhead, 1989, p. 271). “The proposal manager, book bosses, lead authors, editors, and proposal specialists are assigned full time to the core proposal team, whereas other writers join and separate as needed to create smaller segments of the project” (Kent-Drury, 2000, p. 91).

In efforts to achieve unity of effort in capture and proposal operations, Killingsworth and Jones (1989) identify two dominate models: the “division of labor model” and the “integrated team model.” In the former:

Certain people are in charge of planning, others do the research and writing, and still others are responsible for editing, illustrating, and typing. The proliferation of specialists among communications professionals also creates a need for managers who find their place in the division of labor as reviewers of the documents and perhaps as planners. (p. 321)

The integrated team model is characterized by the “full integration of all contributors to a given document in every stage of the process-planning, research, writing drafts, revising” (Killingsworth & Jones, 1989, p. 321). Of the two models, they conclude “the division of labor still dominates the practice of many companies” (p. 320).

Differences in Professional Norms

In IO, a gap remains “to replicate and deliver the right measure of non-lethal elements, perceptions and attitudes thus shaping desired behaviors of relevant actors” (DeGennaro & Munch, 2018, pp. 40–41). Here, practitioners note that in practice, there is unevenness in the proficiency between military and informational capabilities. This, according to the GAO (2022b, 2023), is primarily a training and education issue; vice one of rhetorical correctness. Blas (2023, p. 57) notes however, “Military strategists and planners have made great strides in better understanding how to operationalize strategic narratives. Significant room remains, however, for further research and growth in perceiving the role of these narratives in military strategy.” This unevenness notwithstanding, coordination and delivery of information effects is well-established in military concepts and doctrine and well worth consideration as it pertains to proposals.

JP 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, requires coordination “for achieving information-related objectives and ensur[e] the integrity and consistency of themes, messages, images, and actions to the lowest level through the integration and synchronization of relevant information-related capabilities” (JCS, 2017, p. I-13). The 2018 Joint Concept for Operating in the Information Environment (JCS, 2018, p. 21) adds that “a common understanding is key to establishing the unified logic required between all participants … [and] is also fundamental to planning and executing operations designed to affect the perceptions, attitudes, and other elements that drive desired behaviors of relevant actors.” This common understanding comes “even if the participants are not necessarily part of the same command or organization” (JCS, 2022, p. III-1). Fosher (2021) adds “although military personnel routinely critique one another's ideas, there is no pattern of open collegial critique.” Further, this is set against a backdrop of external calls to adhere to professional norms and standards. Note, for example, the Public Relations Society of America (2005) call for a “firewall separation between information operations and public affairs.” Similarly, note the American Anthropological Association's (AAA) opposition to the use of anthropologists in the service of DoD's Human Terrain System (HTS) program and its admonitions to job seekers of “the incompatibility of HTS with disciplinary ethics and practice” in the practice of anthropology (AAA, 2009, p. 3). This implies that within the OIE doctrinal construct rhetorical and professional adherence gives way to mission regardless of whether or not it is in the pursuit of “virtuous persuasion.”

From an analogic perspective, this setting aside of professional norms and standards in the service of mission (whether virtuous or not) is instructive and stands in contrast to the professional appeal and draw to adhere to the “correctness model” often found in TPC. While the use of persuasive language by engineers and technical writers may not rise to the same level of ethical concern expressed by the AAA, similar reference to unprofessional and unethical practices are reminiscent of the TPC literature on persuasive discourse earlier described. The power and appeal to professional identity in IO appears less strong than in industry.

Notwithstanding increased emphasis on “collaboration,” “teamwork” and other soft skills among desired engineering competencies sought by industry (ABET, 2004; Brunhaver et al., 2017; Passow & Passow, 2017), the literature on rhetorical genre, previously described, reinforces the notion that the dominating force in the selection of genre resides with the individuals and groups that drive the technical writing which is, in many instances, engineers. This poses challenges for integration of both hard and soft information (READ: empathetic elements of TAA) and makes mediation of the linguistic differences in disciplinary discourses complicated (Kent-Drury, 2000). Further, it is reinforcing of the division of labor model.

Passantino (2021, p. 10) writes “recent team science studies suggest that the fundamental challenges to collaborative proposal writing are identifying the knowledge requisite to the research problem, assembling personnel to fill the expertise gaps, and overcoming barriers to incentivizing collaboration.” To this Passantino adds:

Uncertainty and confusion in the social construction of meaning, including the lack of a shared vision that would facilitate alignment of individual efforts with a common agenda, and the navigation of multiple cultural norms associated with different disciplines. (p. 13)

“Failure to address the obstacles facing proposal teams may result in collaboration becoming taxing for the participants, decrease team member satisfaction, and wasted time that could be spent making initiatives more productive” (Passantino, 2021, p. 10). To this, one might add jeopardizing the persuasiveness of the bid. In this context, Bohan sees the ongoing influence of TPC genre use as associated with:

maintaining or achieving status and power relations (Schryer, 1994). For example, not everybody has access or authority to use particular genres (e.g., physicians have more power than non-medical members on inter-professional healthcare teams, Paré, 2000). Individuals and groups that have power and privilege select genres that maintain that power (Schryer, 2002; Winsor, 2000). These groups continue to influence others by using preferred ways of responding to rhetorical situations (Palmeri, 2004). (As cited in Bohan, 2011, p. 10)

The outcome, within the context of proposals, is that the language of persuasion, as earlier described, may be limited to the rhetorical traditions of engineers and scientists, how they view themselves professionally, and their organizational alignment. This, in turn, creates ongoing fragmentation (what Bohan refers to as a “boundary [that] separates professional practices”) and “professional differences” in communication and presents management challenges to achieving collaboration (Killingsworth and Jones, p. 210; Bohan, 2011, pp. 2 and 19; Proehl, 1996; Kent-Drury, 2000). Bohan succinctly describes these differences as:

often attributable to differences in professional communication practices of team members (e.g., Lingard et al., 2007; Wilson & Herndl, 2007; Winsor, 2000). In inter-professional teams, members confront sub-groups (i.e., other professional groups within the team) with “clashing narratives” (Palmeri, 2004, p. 47) caused by misinterpretation, miscommunication, discursive conflicts, epistemological disagreements, and bypassing or misunderstandings (Palmeri, 2004, p. 50). (As cited in Bohan, p. 3)

“Although most team members in such groups attempt to meet their obligations without prodding, disagreements about content and organization inevitably arise (Lay, 1989; Spilka, 1993). Good intentions may not be enough to surmount linguistic and conceptual differences.” (Kent-Drury, p. 90).

For Bohan, these “differences in professional experiences, education, and culture lead to misunderstanding and miscommunication among the functional units on the cross-functional team” (Bohan, p. 31). In other words, these social and political boundaries may foster the obverse of collaboration, where there is not shared or collaborative authorship or substantive interaction between and among members (Bohan, 2011; Colen & Petelin, 2003). These observations stand in marked contrast to the “unity of effort” prescribed in IO doctrine and concepts and are supported by the findings of Loopio (2023, p. 51) who in their survey of the proposal management community cite collaboration as the top challenge facing proposal teams. They are further supported by the statistical findings of Flening et al. who see a relationship between the willingness to collaborate and the rigidity of “semantic perspectives on the nature of facts or the importance of knowledge but not the way it is important” (2022, p. 135). Further, where proposal teams are constituted as a matrixed organization, the technical personnel who are assigned may experience divided loyalties, reporting to both the proposal or capture manager and to their functional unit, for example, an engineering organization or technology office (Proehl, 1996). In instances where this occurs, proposal managers may not only encounter the linguistic and functional differences described previously “but also the problems that arise from having authority over the written artifact but not over the writers themselves, who retain their allegiances to projects and managers in their home organizations” (Kent-Drury, p. 90).

Shifts toward interprofessional teams do not mean that individuals forego their professional identity or affiliation for the sake of achieving a more harmonious proposal process. Typically, professional distinctions are maintained which may result in continuous tension and conflict. Bohan (2011, p. 31), however, points to research on the efficacy of healthy tensions as beneficial. Proehl (1996) adds that this same diversity, which may result in tensions, may also foster beneficial communications internally within the broader corporate organization and externally with the customer. “For example, the team members from sales can talk to customers, while the engineers can discuss detailed applications with technical staff from the customer's company” (Bohan, 2011, p. 30). Disciplinary specialization also increases the need for collaboration among professional who have complementary skills and are able to solve problem that cannot otherwise be solved alone (Passantino, 2021, p. 31).

As in IO, “groups need a pre-established course of action to guide and to direct group process” (Gooch, 2005, p. 179). Ede and Lunsford (2001), for example, provide a number of case studies that examine the writing preparations of different technical and professional writers in which, among their findings, they identify the need for a plan to collaborate effectively (summarized in Gooch, 2005). To this end, APMA and others offer best practices and lessons learned on the planning and execution of proposals. This suggests that process is itself a mitigation to rhetorical preferences; however, as Gooch (2005, p. 180) maintains “management issues and effective organization become more challenging when persons begin collaborating across organizational cultures and across disciplinary boundaries.”

Bohan (2011, p. 35) offers another approach to achieving the desired level of integration; use of the “professional writer.” Pointing to supporting literature in management studies and rhetoric domains, Bohan sees professional writers as

boundary-spanning agents or conciliators who are “the members of the cross-functional team in charge of translating and sorting the language of managers, engineers and operators or general users, so the information is meaningful to all members.” In this case, agents manage the conflict between groups through the development of common language. (As cited in Bohan, p. 35)

Porter, Chapin, and Lemanski all suggest the use of “technical communicators,” professional writers who have “the ability to help a researcher craft the proposal text and visuals from the sentence level to the section and overall document levels for maximum impact on the various types of readers” (Chapin, 2004, p. 66; Lemanski, 2014, p. 221). In other words, professionals who in “fewer words with greater clarity” will achieve a trade-off that improves the persuasiveness of the proposal (Porter, 2007, p. 41). The obverse, according to De Silva and Henderson (2007, p. 1), is “misaligned contributions from various authors[that] can further impair the semantic consistency of a document … [and] make technical documents harder to read and understand” which is one of the more significant and long-standing complaints with technical documents. Because coherence can be difficult to achieve, they conclude “this makes technical documentation a particularly useful area in which to apply our narrative-based research” (De Silva & Henderson, 2007, p. 2). To this end, Killingsworth and Jones (1989), Jones (2005), and Colen and Petelin (2003) describe multiple different strategies and forms of collaboration and the associated soft skills needed to collaborate successfully. Whatever its form, the intent is to achieve coherence that is shaped to persuasiion.

Embracing different rhetorical traditions addresses two different communicative ends described previously in discussion of rhetorical traditions, both of which are needed in proposals: “influencing attitudes and influencing behavior.” The former induced through the reasoned arguments of engineers and scientists; the latter induced through the emotional arousal or appeal to the audience made through storytelling and narrative traditions in the humanities (O’Keefe, 2012, pp. 24–25). The two need not, and should not, be mutually exclusive, and may be mutually reinforcing. Research suggests this is the case where the combination is more persuasive than either alone (Allen et al., 2000, p. 332). Speaking to this intersection of approaches in the science domain, Dahlstrom and Ho (2012, p. 596) observe “science can use narrative to achieve its communicative goals by unobtrusively changing perceptions about the world through narrative's ability to create meaning with a veiled normative component.” In speaking specifically to the topic of proposals, Walwema (2015, p. 23) makes this precise argument: “the dynamics of storytelling simultaneously function as a method to advance the narrative in a proposal and as the means to focus on particular information.”

Conger, writing in the Harvard Business Review, sums up the coincidence of these domains nicely:

Persuasion does indeed involve moving people to a position they don’t currently hold, but not by begging or cajoling. Instead, it involves careful preparation, the proper framing of arguments, the presentation of vivid supporting evidence, and the effort to find the correct emotional match with your audience (Conger, p. 46).