The Institute’s approach
Strategic Assertiveness: Verify First, Let Trust Follow Evidence
Protect your decisions through clear observation, independent checking, precise communication, and ethical responsibility.
By Dr. Mark R. Dell, Psy.D. · New Jersey licensed psychologist
What should you look for?
- Rushed commitment: Pressure to sign, pay, disclose, or provide access before reviewing the consequences. Check the actual deadline.
- Trust replacing information: Questions are met with guilt or loyalty demands rather than relevant terms.
- Blocked review: Written details, independent advice, or relevant records are discouraged. Clarify whether a legitimate restriction explains it.
- Changing accounts: Consequential claims conflict with records or conditions change after agreement. Check whether clarification resolves the discrepancy.
- Punished refusal: A reasonable question or limit brings threats or retaliation. Consider safety and appropriate support before confronting the person.
These are prompts for inquiry, not proof of manipulation or a diagnosis. Consider context, impact, and alternative explanations.
What supports trust?
Specific terms that can be checked, explanations consistent with records, follow-through, honest correction of mistakes, and respect for a reasonable decision process. Look at conduct over time. Charm, credentials, and promises cannot replace relevant verification.
Strategic competence with ethical limits
Here, strategic assertiveness means pursuing a legitimate aim through deliberate timing, precise questions, independent verification, and clear limits. Share what the decision requires without lying, creating a misleading impression, or withholding information you have a duty to provide. Preserve feasible alternatives and use commitments you can carry out.
Why not “good Machiavellianism”?
In personality research, Machiavellianism includes a manipulative and exploitative orientation. Ethical strategic competence should be distinguished from that trait. Understanding power does not require using deception, coercion, or another person’s vulnerability as a tool. Research context: Brewer and Abell (2017).
The Stoic contribution
Epictetus distinguishes our judgments and actions from outcomes beyond our command. Applied here, the focus is your choices and conduct, while recognizing that another person may not cooperate. This is a philosophical adaptation, not a claim that the approach is a validated treatment. Read Enchiridion, section 1.
A practical script
“Send the terms in writing. I’ll review them and respond by Friday.”
Choose a date you can meet. Account for actual deadlines, obligations, and safety. If you fear retaliation, a more forceful script may not be the right next step.
Trust can grow with reliable conduct. Verification is lawful, relevant checking; it does not authorize surveillance or demand certainty about motives. No script guarantees protection.
Put the approach into practice.
Don’t Be Played combines warning signs, verification prompts, concise scripts, worked examples, and printable tools.
Continue with The 48 Laws of Power: understand influence and regain direction for everyday examples of choosing timing, checking terms, and preserving your options.