The rhetorical triangle
The rhetorical triangle
Last Friday, I found myself using the framing of the rhetorical triangle again, in the context of an engineering management discussion. I thought I should put pen to paper given how much I use it.
The rhetorical triangle is composed of three corners: ethos, pathos, logos. It is used in rhetrocial analysis and as a means of taking a rhetorical stance - one that is suitable for the audience and the context - in both oratory and writing. The components are simple and yet, powerful:
- logos: the logic of your argument, the chain of reasoning that leads to your conclusion
- ethos: why are you speaking or writing about this? What context, experience or mandate do you have such that it’s especially persuasive that you are speaking to this topic
- pathos: the emotional resonance with the audience you are able to create and leverage
While it makes no sense to go through your day as an engineering manager actively thinking about ethos, pathos or logos, it can be very useful as a framing device when persuasion is important - for instane when you are drafting a comms plan about a sensitive change in your team or org. Often as engineering leaders (especially if you have a background in engineering), we imagine messages land by logic (logos) alone - ignoring that ultimately we (and our audience!) are all at the core emotional beings that can deploy logic.
It can also be surprisingly useful as a framework to troubleshoot difficulties an engineering manager might be having with their team or a specific report.
- Is it a problem of ethos? Have you not built enough trust and respect with your team?
- Is it a problem of pathos? Are your folks just not motivated by the message you are trying to land?
Like all other models, this isn’t comprehensive, but rather a lens, a tool you can use in your work.
Refs: