Influence or manipulation? The invisible frontier that decides the future of B2B sales

Find out how to distinguish ethical influence from manipulation in B2B sales, and why this choice conditions trust, loyalty and long-term success.

A few months ago, Donald Trump began his second term as President of the United States. Since then, many commentators and editorialists have marveled at his constant tendency to approach moral and ethical issues through a purely mercantile lens, reducing complex subjects – be they foreign policy, justice, education or religion – to simple transactions where the main issue is “winning” or making the most of the situation.

The point here is not to pass judgment on the ethics of contemporary political governance (Trump himself claims to be more of a “businessman” than a politician), but rather to seize the media opportunity he generates to reverse the perspective: to reflect on the role of ethics in the business conversation.

Credit : Getty Images

What are the long-term effects of a purely transactional approach, focused on maximizing short-term gains, on the relationship between a seller and a buyer in the B2B world?

What really works best: forcing the customer’s hand to close the deal, or guiding their thinking and leaving them free to make their own decisions? And why does one approach outperform the other over time?

After two decades of practice as a sales executive, almost ten years training sales teams, and just as many years studying the subject empirically, I propose here to confront these questions with the cross-disciplinary contributions of psychology, behavioral neuroscience, moral philosophy and behavioral economics.

---

The invisible dilemma at the heart of consultative selling

Every sales approach is, in essence, an attempt to influence. But where does legitimate influence end and manipulation begin?

In the B2B context, where decision cycles are long, multiple stakeholders are involved, and perceived value must be maintained over time, this boundary is not just a question of morality. It’s a strategic issue.

According to a study published in the Journal of Business Ethics, sales perceived as manipulative present a significantly higher risk of generating an early termination rate, with a 62% higher probability of contractual breach within the first 18 months of the business relationship (Gundlach & Murphy, 1993; Laczniak & Murphy, 2006).

To influence is to build trust. To manipulate is to obtain obedience.
And obedience collapses at the first sign of friction.

Manipulating and persuading are not the same thing

How do you recognize manipulation?

Let’s get straight to the point. A B2B sale ceases to be a legitimate influence and becomes manipulation when there is:

This is not abstract philosophy. It’s applied neuroscience.

---

How to sell ethically?

Developing an ethical influence means adopting a consultative approach, not a prescriptive one. For the salesperson, this means structuring conversations around clear principles:

• Be transparent about your intentions, interests and limits.
• Helping the customer to become aware of the issues at stake, by asking open, non-directive questions.
• Respect for the customer’s decision-making autonomy, as a fundamental principle from which arguments are developed.
• Empathy, embodied in clear business processes and explicit, rigorous communication, with no grey areas.
• Trust, seen as a measurable asset to be cultivated by both parties.

For further information, take a look at the LEAD® Method of persuasive selling, developed by Halifax Consulting and recognized in Europe and the United States by Training Industry as one of the best approaches to sales training.
Every year, over 10,000 B2B sales executives are trained using this method, in a wide variety of sectors: IT consulting, financial services, pharmaceuticals, agribusiness, heavy industry, to name but a few.

---

How do I know whether I’m using ethical influence or coercive manipulation?

Let’s take a concrete example, typical of the argumentation phase around the value that the salesperson’s solution claims to bring to the customer:

Ethical influence:

“Can I show you a comparison of the total cost of ownership? This might help you assess whether or not our solution is the best option for your situation.”

Here, the customer retains full autonomy and the ability to make objective decisions. They can compare, ask questions, accept or reject. They remain in control of their choices. They feel in control.

Manipulation (violation of objective, autonomous decision):

“This offer is only valid today. Tomorrow, I can’t guarantee anything. And by the way, one of your direct competitors is already in the process of signing…”.

In this case, the customer is driven to make a decision by fear, artificial urgency and social comparison. They have no opportunity to check the facts for themselves. His decision is not based on reasoned analysis, but on an emotional reflex in the face of a threat.

The salesperson chooses how to approach the customer

Choosing how to conduct a conversation with a customer requires maturity, skill, self-knowledge and a firm grasp of one’s own impulses.

Every experienced salesperson is familiar with this dilemma. And knows how much more difficult it is to manage than it seems.

---

Want to understand why this dilemma is so complex?

Welcome to the fascinating world of behavioral neuroscience.

⚠️ Warning: the following content is fascinating… but also highly technical. Continue at your own risk!

---

The biology of persuasion: How does the type of arguments used activate different areas of the brain and trigger radically different cognitive processes?

As the behavioral sciences progress, we understand more and more how our decisions are shaped. For today’s topic, let’s focus on two key areas of our brain: the cerebral amygdala and ventral striatum, on the one hand, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, on the other (Lieberman, 2007, Social Cognitive Neuroscience: A Review of Core Processes).

Why are these two areas of particular interest to us?

The cerebral amygdala and ventral striatum, located at the heart of the brain, in its innermost and “oldest” parts (present in almost all mammals and many vertebrates), ensure our immediate survival.
They orchestrate our desires, our search for pleasure, our flight from pain. They are responsible for impulsive, rapid and automatic emotional reactions.

The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, located at the front of the skull, just behind the forehead, belongs to the most “recent” and evolved part of the human brain (almost exclusive to humans, developed to a more limited extent in large primates).
It enables us to resist our impulses, reason, analyze, plan and make rational, deliberate decisions in line with our values and long-term objectives.

The interplay between these two systems determines the constant dance between instinct and intelligence, reactivity and strategy. And it has everything to do with how you conduct your business conversations.

What neuroeconomics says about persuasion, manipulation and trust

Neuroeconomics research shows that an individual’s perception of autonomy specifically activates the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which is associated with conscious, reasoned decision-making in line with one’s deepest values (Frith & Frith, 2006).

Conversely, when the decision is induced under pressure (fear, urgency, threat), the cerebral amygdala and ventral striatum take over – the same regions involved in survival, threat and impulsivity responses (Krawczyk, 2002; Sharot et al., 2009).

---

In practice, this means two essential things for your business approach:

1. Ethical influence and manipulation do not activate the same brain circuits.
   ➔ Ethical influence engages the areas responsible for free will, self-determination and strategic thinking.
   ➔ Manipulation exploits the archaic mechanisms of emotional reflex and defensive impulse.
2. For the persuaded, these processes are largely invisible.
   ➔ In other words, it is extremely difficult for the client to consciously perceive whether he has made his decision by reflective choice or by manipulated emotional reaction.
   ➔ Control over his free will is compromised… without him even being aware of it.

When ethical influence activates the strategic brain: the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC)

The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), mobilized during a conversation based on ethical influence, is responsible for the following functions:

• Rational planning ;
• Economic evaluation of trade-offs (long-term cost-benefit);
• Aligning decisions with personal values and sustainable goals;
• Ability to inhibit immediate impulses;
• Confidence-building through cognitive consistency between what we think, what we say and what we do.

For these processes to be activated, the brain needs to perceive:
→ time to think,
→ freedom to choose,
→ and a climate of relational security.

---

When manipulation triggers the archaic, reactive brain: cerebral amygdala and ventral striatum

Conversely, a conversation based on manipulation predominantly activates the cerebral amygdala and ventral striatum, whose main functions are:

• Emotional response to threats (amygdala) ;
• Reinforcement of immediate desire and the search for quick gratification (ventral striatum);
• Formation of automatic, often irrational behaviors (e.g., through framing bias);
• Constant monitoring of uncertainty, heightened vigilance against potential loss (loss aversion bias).

These circuits are activated when the brain perceives:
→ pressure,
→ urgency,
→ fear of loss,
→ implicit threats,
→ promises of immediate rewards.

---

In short: sovereign adult or impulsive child?

Simply put:

• Selling ethically means treating the customer as a sovereign adult, capable of thinking, analyzing and deciding freely in full awareness of what’s at stake.
• To manipulate is to try to force the hand of the irrational child in all of us, by exploiting his fears, impulses or need for validation… even if it means going against his own interests.

And this distinction is not a moral judgment: it’s based on the biology of decision-making.

---

So there you have it: manipulating is unethical… but does it “pay off”?

The dialectic between the ethical and the utilitarian view of action has pitted philosophers against each other for centuries.
Is it ethical? Is it in my interest?
This dilemma is not confined to academic salons: it inhabits the daily lives of every buyer and seller.

Many still believe that these two dimensions – morality and efficiency – are mutually exclusive: what is right is not profitable, and what is profitable cannot be right. It’s a kind of cynical fatalism, deeply rooted in certain business cultures. But then, let’s be pragmatic: does manipulation really pay off? Is it more effective in the long term?

---

The facts are there. Here’s what the most serious studies on the subject have to say:

• In complex purchasing situations, 63% of decision-makers say they will avoid recontacting suppliers who made them feel “emotionally pressured” during the decision-making process
  (Gartner Buyer Enablement Study, 2022).
• 78% of B2B buyers say that the transparency of the process is the #1 factor in their choice between two equivalent suppliers
  (Gartner Future of Sales, 2022).
• Companies that train their sales people to listen actively and ask collaborative questions see their sales cycle reduced by 19%.
  (Harvard Business Review, 2021).
• Customers who perceive the business relationship as ethical are 3.5 times more likely to recommend the supplier to others.
  (Forrester Research, 2020).
• Companies that adopt business models based on consultative influence have :
  • 23% lower CAC (customer acquisition cost);
  • And an LTV (customer lifetime value) 31% higher
    compared to companies using sales pressure-based processes.
    (Harvard Business Review, 2021).
• Sales experiences perceived as manipulative activate negative memories and generate heightened emotional reactivity during future sales interactions.
  (Loewenstein, 2005; Kahneman, 2011).

To be clear: does manipulating “work”? The answer is no.

No, it doesn’t build lasting relationships.
No, it doesn’t build loyalty.
No, it doesn’t optimize long-term profitability.

The data is unambiguous: ethical influence is not only right… it’s profitable.

Why doesn’t manipulation work?

The heart of this battle between ethical selling and manipulation boils down to one thing: the ability to generate and reinforce a bond of trust with the customer.

To understand this, let’s compare two hypothetical scenarios.

Scenario A: A relationship based on ethical influence

(Preservation of buyer autonomy, activation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex – DLPFC)

Relational dimension	Neurological impact	Buyer behavior	Result for the seller
Confidence	Consolidated by networks of coherence and predictability	Trust in the logic of the proposal and the integrity of the seller	Gains an internal ally within the customer
Loyalty	Built on alignment of values and positive emotional memory	Remains loyal, even in the face of competing offers	Promotes loyalty without price wars
Quality of negotiation	Tendency to collaborate	Seeks fair and sustainable solutions for both parties	Avoids conflict and excessive concessions
Recommendation	Supported by transferability of trust	Recommends supplier with confidence	Enables organic growth through word-of-mouth

Summary:
A relationship that activates CPFDL promotes the building of solid relational capital (e.g. trust), reduces future friction and increases customer lifetime value (LTV).
Customers see themselves as actors in their own success, not simply passive recipients of a sale.

Scenario B: Relationship based on manipulation

(Activation of the cerebral amygdala and ventral striatum)

Relational dimension	Neurological impact	Buyer’s behavior	Result for the seller
Confidence	Weakened by perceived inconsistency after the fact	Feels deceived or pressured when discovering new information	Increased mistrust and questioning of future offers
Loyalty	Replaced by opportunism	Changes supplier at the first secure opportunity	High turnover, increased customer acquisition cost (CAC)
Quality of negotiation	Becomes defensive and purely transactional	Focuses on protective clauses and risk limitation	Amplifies relational wear and tear, generates stress and service costs
Recommendation	Inhibited by fear of being compromised	Avoids supplier involvement with other contacts	Hinders growth through customer sponsorship

Summary:
Manipulation puts the customer in emotional survival mode, not in value-building mode.
Their behavior is aimed at minimizing losses rather than maximizing shared gains.
In this scenario, the salesperson is perceived as a risk factor, not a partner.

---

Conclusion: the future does not belong to manipulators

And this state shapes the entire future relationship – as studies on behavioral neuroplasticity clearly demonstrate.

• Ethical influence enables the buyer to think clearly, to decide in accordance with his own values, and above all to remember his decision with pride.
• Manipulation, on the other hand, stifles reflection, weakens the bond from the outset and sows mistrust, which is bound to flourish after the sale, in service, in complaints and in failure to renew.

---

In other words:

In the world of complex B2B, ethics is not a moral posture.
It’s a strategy for survival and sustainable growth.

And why? Because in this environment:

• Trust cycles are long;
• Relationships are interdependent;
• And reputation is a fluid asset, circulating faster and longer than was thought possible just a few years ago.

---

The real risk in B2B sales is not losing a deal.
It’s winning a sale through manipulation… and never being invited back.

---

So let’s ask the real question:
Are you selling to conscious adults, capable of making free decisions…
or are you trying to manipulate irrational children?

---

Did you like this article? Share it

•