Persuasive communication is essential in various dimensions – for instance, academic, professional, and personal. The latter is one people deal with daily, given that there are numerous interpersonal connections that they face. It seems reasonable to provide my example here so that the application of persuasive communication could be visible within the scope of the theme. In the university, I had a group project with my colleagues where we had to do research together, sharing the responsibilities and duties. This project was related to the sphere of international accounting regulatory frameworks, and the team consisted of seven people, including me. I felt that I had to use my leadership skills and arrange our research process, so I produced a speech, which can be defined as a context of the rhetorical situation. My teammates, in turn, were the audience to which I appealed. I was a speaker, and my purpose was to distribute my colleagues’ duties and responsibilities so that the project could be developed coherently and proficiently. This speech’s text included the introduction in which I stressed the necessity of proper organization; the main part, in which I described each teammate’s strengths and suggested possible roles; and the conclusion in which I expressed my confidence in our success and asked whether the colleagues agreed with the scenario. The example was effective in terms of persuasive communication, given that the teammates accepted my propositions and that I utilized the notions of intercultural inquiry (Flower, 2003). I clearly understood the story behind the story of each stakeholder, which helped me to develop a convincing argument. Then, I presented rival hypotheses – alternate roles that the teammates can have without considering our strengths. However, the suggested options and outcomes were persuasive, which resulted in my colleagues’ acceptance of my ideas. Finally, the project was delivered on time, and got an excellent grade.
The second example of persuasive communication will be provided using the same theoretical pattern used above. My uncle is an owner of a small cozy restaurant and has many briefings with his employees, given that he prefers to control the working process on his own. Once, he allowed me to be present at one of these briefings so that I could learn how to deliver ideas to a team, as well as establish a healthy working environment. The weekly briefing was dedicated to the shift of the restaurant’s theme from a “family place” to a “prestige place to visit.” Such a change implied the introduction of a new menu, responsibilities, and work organization. However, this also meant increased salaries and many new incentives for the team. The described facts are the context of the rhetorical situation. My uncle – a speaker – was appealing to his team – an audience – justifying the benefits of the mentioned changes, trying to avert any turnover, and asking for the employees’ vision of the upcoming shifts, which was a purpose. The text itself seemed efficient because my uncle is a significant orator and knows rhetorical essentials. Particularly, he proficiently combined the usage of logos, pathos, and ethos in his speech, which contained a great extent of coherency. What is more, he also utilized the concept of intercultural rhetoric (Flower, 2003). Firstly, he clearly understood the stakeholders’ interests and made the emphasis on particular benefits that the described change could bring while producing the argument. Secondly, he presented rival hypotheses in which he depicted the hardships – that, at first approximation, could seem unnecessary – that the staff would face. Thirdly, he debunked these hypotheses by revealing every benefit that each employee would obtain due to the changes in the restaurant.
The third situation will be related to my experience in the academic field – particularly a lecture on supply chain management that I have had recently. About 40 students were listening to the professor, who is a recognized figure in the scholarly dimension. He was standing at the tribune and delivering the material of the course, which can be viewed as a context of the rhetorical situation. The professor – a speaker – was exploring the topic of the proper application of the supply chain model to the students – an audience – which was the purpose. The professor’s speech was organized coherently and consistently, given his experience as a lecturer. The text had a great degree of balance between evidence-based economic concepts and catching references to real life so that the students would not get bored. Such an approach was combined with constant interaction with the audience to comprehend the material better, as well as to involve the students in the process. The professor’s attempts were all successful – it seemed that everyone wanted to participate in little discussions during the lecture. This state of affairs allows a lecturer to be sure that the material is being perceived and learned rights away (Rosen et al., 2010). Hence, it seems reasonable to state that the professor’s lecture was significant and adhered to the fundamentals of persuasive communication.
References
Flower, L. (2003). Talking across difference: Intercultural rhetoric and the search for situated knowledge. College Composition and Communication, 55(1), 38–68. doi:10.2307/3594199
Rosen, J.A., Glennie, E.J., Dalton, B.W., Lennon, J.M. & Bozick, R.N. (2010). Noncognitive skills in the classroom: New perspectives on educational research. RTI International.