Hypothesis: Managers will agree relatively more with a likable internal auditor using an argument structure, and, in comparison, relatively less with a likable internal auditor not using an argument structure, with a dislikable internal auditor using an argument structure, or with a dislikable internal auditor not using an argument structure.

Claims:

1) Managers will agree relatively more with a likable internal auditor using an argument structure.

2) Managers will agree relatively less with a likable internal auditor not using an argument structure, a dislikable internal auditor using an argument structure, and a dislikable internal auditor not using an argument structure.

Confirmation:

The results indicate that managers will agree more with the internal auditor when (s)he is both likable and uses an argument structure, and relatively less under other conditions.

Reflection:

The study did not find whether likability alone can induce agreement. Nor did it find whether an argument with dislikability can induce agreement.

From what I understand of human psychology generally, humans like to be liked. They like to be accepted by 'the group', and can feel injured when they perceive non-acceptance. As such, generally in my work in the public sector I encounter likable people exhibiting 'likability'. I in turn perform similarly. Therefore I think the key takeaway here is the construction and presentation of an argument will make all the difference in influencing a decision maker. Interpersonal relationships and ad hoc interactions are not always controllable with regards to ongoing or ad hoc levels of likability between actors. Therefore it will be important to focus on argumentation and trust that on average, positive likability plays a contributing role by default.

Question 6:

There most certainly is a balance, so while the study did not suggest dislikability without argument led to non-acceptance of recommended decision, you more than likely can be so off putting in your behaviour as to override any well structured argument and simply be dismissed out of hand. Whilst one can be tasked with influencing and advising a decision maker, one must accept that ultimately the decision making is at their discretion. Whilst strong advocacy and influencing techniques can be applied, including the provision of evidence, one should not exhibit anger, bullying, harassment etc in order to try and influence decision makers in a professional context. Trust in systems and processes, and have faith that if you have shown that you have provided advice that is contrary to the decision that has been or will be made, then you have done your professional duty and should be absolved of any adverse outcomes, professionally if not without feelings of personal guilt or negative self-critique.