Key negotiations. Kerry Patterson - Key Negotiations. What and how to say when the stakes are high
The book is about important discussions where the conditions are extreme and the stakes are high, as the outcome can change the lives of the participants forever, for better or worse.
This can be as business negotiations or a request for a pay rise, as well as a conversation with a spouse or a quarrel with a neighbor. For decisive discussions, special methods and techniques are needed, which are outlined in the book.
Who is this book for?
As it is customary to write in such cases - for a wide range of readers. We all have to have a conversation from time to time, on which too much depends.
Especially - for managers who, on duty, are professional negotiators.
Why we decided to publish this book
Because we are confident in its maximum usefulness.
Book chip
The book takes first place on Amazon.com in the categories Management\Negotiations and Etiquette\Conversations.
When you heard the title of this book, Negotiating in Extreme Situations: What and How to Say When the Stakes Are High, you could imagine presidents and prime ministers gathered around the negotiating table and deciding the fate of the planet. While such discussions do have a huge impact on our world, we mean otherwise. The important discussions that this book is devoted to are nothing more than ordinary communication. The conditions are extreme, and the stakes are high even in mundane conversations that can change your life.
What are the features of these important negotiations? Firstly, the divergence of interlocutors in their views. For example, you are discussing with your boss the possibility of a promotion. He believes that you are not ready yet, but you are convinced that the time has come. Secondly, during important discussions, the stakes are very high. In a meeting with colleagues, you are trying to develop a new marketing strategy. You need something completely new, otherwise the company will not be able to achieve its goals. Thirdly, emotions are running high. You are talking to your other half, and suddenly he or she remembers that "disgusting act" that happened at the neighbors' party yesterday.
It turns out that you not only flirted with someone there, but also “behaved just disgustingly.” You do not recall any flirting at all and are sure that you were polite and friendly with the guests. Your husband or wife runs out of the room in anger.
At the same party, you are making small talk with your perpetually dissatisfied neighbor about his diseased kidneys, when all of a sudden he says, “Speaking of the new fence you are building…” new fence - ten centimeters to the right or left. Ten centimeters! It comes to the point that the neighbor threatens to sue you, and you declare that he does not understand anything in this life. Emotions really ran high.
Such conversations can be called precisely key, even critical, and not just tense, threatening or unpleasant, since their outcome can have a noticeable impact on the living conditions of the participants. In each of the cases described, some element of your daily existence can change forever for better or for worse. Naturally, a promotion, like a company's success, marks significant change. Your relationship with your spouse affects every aspect of your life. Even such an everyday conversation as an argument about where to draw the line between the plots will undoubtedly affect your relations with your neighbors. If you manage unsuccessfully with the most seemingly insignificant situation, then you will have a fixed pattern of behavior that you will follow in all subsequent critical discussions.
Key discussions, by definition, deal with difficult issues. Unfortunately, human beings naturally tend to avoid conversations that could hurt us or make our current situation worse. We become real masters in the art of avoiding such unpleasant discussions. Colleagues send each other emails, although they can just go down one floor and talk face to face. Managers give orders over the phone instead of talking directly to subordinates. Family members change the topic of conversation when a question becomes too slippery. We (the authors) have a friend who found out that his wife was divorcing him from an answering machine message. People resort to all sorts of tactics, just to evade a dangerous topic.
This tactic is wrong. By mastering the principles of negotiating when the stakes are high, you will be able to touch on and effectively discuss literally any issue.
Expand description Collapse DescriptionRestoring Security
How to create an atmosphere of mutual trust that allows you to discuss almost any issue
As noted in the previous chapter, you will be able to talk about almost anything if you learn to notice the moment when the other person no longer feels safe, move the conversation to another topic to restore mutual trust, and then continue the conversation, directing it in the right direction. . In this chapter, we will explain what is needed to restore the sense of security lost in the process of communication.
First, consider a situation where security is at risk. We eavesdrop on a couple who are trying to discuss one of the most sensitive issues - intimate relationships.
So, Jotam thinks that he and Yvonne have too little intimacy, while Yvonne is quite happy with the existing relationship. Over the past years, they practically did not discuss this problem, preferring to express their feelings by any actions. If Jotam is in the right mood, and Yvonne does not support his ardor, he simply takes offense, withdraws into himself, remains silent and avoids Yvonne for several days.
Yvonne knows what's going on with Jotam. His sour physiognomy does not give her joy, so from time to time she succumbs to him, even without being disposed to romance. Unfortunately, after that, she herself becomes angry with Jotam, and the former good relations are not restored very quickly.
The problem is that the more Jotam insists on his own, the less attractive and interesting he seems to Yvonne. The more Yvonne succumbs to persuasion and then repents, the less she is interested in continuing this relationship. The longer both will avoid a serious conversation on this topic, expressing their feelings through actions, the higher the likelihood that they will have to leave very soon. Yvonne finally decided to speak frankly with Jotan. She did not wait for another quarrel, but chose the moment when they both settled on the sofa in a good mood. That's what came out of it.
Jotam, let's talk about what happened last night, well, do you remember when I said I was very tired.
Well, I do not.
What do you mean by this?
I'm fed up with the fact that you always decide what and when we need to do!
Yvonne runs out of the room, slamming the door in her heart.
Take a break. Restore security. Then return to the topic under discussion
In such a situation, it is necessary to move away from the topic of conversation. Don't focus on what has been said. Yvonne ran out of the room because her perception was only limited by what Jotam was saying. If she paid attention to his behavior, she would understand that sarcasm on his part is a form of disguise. Jotam prefers to hide his feelings under the guise of aggression, shifting the blame onto Yvonne's shoulders. Why does he need it? Then, that he does not feel safe to continue the dialogue. But Yvonne didn't get it.
We do not at all assert that Jotam's behavior is worthy and Yvonne should put up with him. But always start with yourself. Ask yourself, “What do I really need?”
If you really want to discuss in detail the topic on which the continuation of the relationship depends, then for some time you will have to suppress the urge to kick back - in this case, Jotam's sarcasm.
The test for Yvonne is the need to restore security enough to talk about the issues of physical intimacy, about Jotam's attitude towards this, or discuss any other issues. But if security is not restored, then all Yvonne will have to face is continued subterfuge, silence or aggression.
So what should she do?
Under the circumstances, people who are completely ignorant of the art of dialogue do exactly the same as Yvonne and Jotam. Like Jotham, they completely ignore the urgent need for security. They say the first thing that comes to mind, without thinking about what consequences this will lead to. Or, like Yvonne, they decide that the topic is extremely dangerous and prefer to remain silent.
People with sufficiently developed conversational skills recognize that security is at risk, but they try to restore it in a completely wrong way: they try to alleviate the problem by sweetening the proposed pill. “Darling, I really want to be with you, but I’m terribly tired at work, so due to stress I can’t fully enjoy the time spent together.” By letting in the fog, they are trying to protect themselves. Such a strategy, of course, does not affect the essence of the problem, so it can not be settled in any way.
People with a highly developed ability to conduct a dialogue do not resort to such tricks. They know that dialogue is a free exchange of opinions without any pretense, embellishments or lies. So they do something completely different: they steer the conversation in a different direction, restore security, and then return to the topic under discussion again.
Once you learn to feel a security threat, you can discuss the most risky issues if you step back from this topic for a while and restore security enough that you can solve any issue. For example: “Can we talk? I'd like to discuss what happens when our romantic moods don't match. It would be great if the two of us sorted out this problem. I don't want you to feel guilty, and I'm certainly not going to make excuses. The only thing I strive for is to come to a mutual agreement that will help us both to enjoy our relationship.”
Find out what exactly confuses the interlocutor
Now let's look at what will help restore security, even if the topic is very risky, controversial or emotional. The first step to success is to understand what exactly confuses the interlocutor. In each case, the way out should be different.
common goal
Think about why you started this conversation. Remember the last time you were told various unpleasant things, but you did not defend yourself? Suppose a friend said something to you that would make a lot of people upset. In order for a person to be able to speak out on a sensitive topic, you must believe that for him your interests are in the first place, that he cares about your aspirations. In other words, you must trust his goals and therefore be ready to listen to some rather harsh remarks from him.
Important negotiations often fail, not because of the content of the conversation, but because your interlocutors are convinced that your bad intentions are hiding behind an unpleasant topic. How can they feel safe if they think you are going to harm them? After all, every word you say inspires them with suspicion.
Therefore, the first condition for maintaining security is a common goal, that is, the interlocutors understand that they are working in the same direction, share the aspirations, interests and values of each other. This means that a common goal is a necessary prerequisite for dialogue. Find common goals, and you will have both a good reason and a favorable atmosphere for a fruitful discussion.
For example, if Jotam thinks that Yvonne brought up the subject only to reproach him or to get her point across, then the conversation is doomed from the start. But if he believes that Yvonne is really guided by the best of intentions, namely, she cares about their relationship, then she will have a chance of success.
Watch for signs that a common goal is at risk. How do you know that the feeling of security has disappeared precisely because of problems with a common goal? It's very simple. First of all, if such a target is in danger, we begin to argue. When others force their opinions on us, it's often because they feel like we're trying to take over, so they have to do the same. Another sign is the desire to defend yourself, the accusations and the constant return to what has already been said. The following questions will help determine if the overall goal is at risk.
Are the interlocutors convinced that I care about their interests in this conversation?
Do they trust my motives?
Do not forget that the goal is common. It's common, and it's not a gimmick. To succeed in critical discussions, we really need to care about the interests of others, not just our own. If our goal is to get our way or manipulate others, this will show up very soon, security will be compromised, and we will return to silence or aggression again. First of all, understand your motives. Ask yourself questions that will help you get started.
What do I need for myself?
What do I want for others?
What do I need to continue the relationship?
Tune in to reciprocity. Let's see how a common goal can be used to solve difficult questions, which at first glance seem to be pursuing only your own interests. How can you find a common goal here? Suppose your boss often doesn't keep his promises. How to express your distrust to him? Naturally, the boss will immediately begin to either defend or attack you, as he knows that your true goal is to improve his own position.
To avoid disaster, find a common goal that your boss will find compelling enough to agree to listen to you. If you turn to him only to get your way, the boss will consider you selfish, who you really are and show yourself with this approach. On the other hand, if you try to understand the point of view of the interlocutor, you can easily find a way to attract him to a conversation on a risky topic. For example, if your boss’s behavior is causing you to miss a deadline, or it causes unnecessary expenses that he grumbles about, or reduces the productivity that he cares so much about, then this will be your possible overall target.
Imagine that you started the conversation with these words: “I have some ideas on how to reduce costs by a few thousand a month. I can help solve this problem by preparing an appropriate report. Most likely, the conversation will not be very simple, but I think it would be very useful for us to talk about it.”
Mutual respect
Can you continue the dialogue?
It makes no sense to enter into important discussions if you do not have a common goal with the interlocutor, but equally it is not worth continuing the conversation if you cannot maintain mutual respect, which is a necessary condition for a meaningful dialogue. If people feel that they are not respected, the conversation immediately becomes insecure, and the dialogue abruptly stops.
Why? Because respect is like air. If he is gone, then people will only think about him. As soon as neglect begins to appear between the interlocutors, the original purpose of the interaction disappears and it is only about protecting honor and dignity.
For example, you are discussing a rather complex quality assurance problem with a group of supervisors. You really want to resolve this issue once and for all. Your work depends on it. Unfortunately, you are convinced that supervisors are paid too high salaries, and their qualifications are clearly not up to par. You think that they are not only trying to jump above their heads, but they constantly do stupid things, and sometimes they simply go beyond ethics.
You listen with a sour face to their new ideas. This shows your disrespect for them, which is hidden in your subconscious. And everything ends before it starts. What happens to the conversation even though you still have a common goal? The conversation doesn't work out. Supervisors meet with hostility any of your proposals. You, in turn, respond to their proposals using rather offensive epithets. This is no longer a business conversation, but a tournament, attention is now directed only to scoring, although in the final everyone will be the loser. Your common goal suffers from a lack of mutual respect.
Warning signals. To spot when disrespect is shown and safety is threatened, watch for signs that people are beginning to defend their dignity. The main thing at the same time is emotions. When people feel disrespected, it becomes a central problem for them. Fear is replaced by anger. This entails insults, shouting and threats. To determine when mutual respect is in jeopardy, try answering this question: "Do the people I'm talking to have any doubts that I respect them?"
Can you respect people you don't respect?
Some fear that with certain interlocutors or under certain conditions they will not be able to maintain a common goal or mutual respect. How can you have a common goal with people who come from a completely different background or whose views and values are completely different from yours? For example, what do you do when you get upset because someone has let you down? And if this happens all the time, how can you respect a person who is so selfish?
Yvonne faced just such a problem. Sometimes she doesn't like the Jotam. She considers him rather wayward and self-centered. How can you treat such a person with respect?
Undoubtedly, any dialogue would be doomed if we had to have exactly the same goals or respect all, without exception, the character traits of the interlocutor. In that case, we would have to remain dumb. However, we can have a dialogue if we learn to respect the human dignity of the interlocutor. In fact, the feeling of disrespect arises if we think about how the other person is different from us. You can resist this by focusing on what we have in common. Without judging the behavior of the interlocutors, try to show them participation.
A very smart person once came up with the idea of doing this in the form of a prayer: "God, help me forgive those who sin differently than I do." Recognizing that we all have our weaknesses will make it easier to respect others. Having done this, we feel unity, a sense of kinship even with people who are completely different from us. It is this feeling that stimulates participation in key discussions and helps to conduct a dialogue with literally any interlocutor.
Let's consider such an example. Workers at a manufacturing company went on strike for six months. Finally, the union decided to return to work, but the representatives of the strikers were forced to sign an agreement on conditions that turned out to be much worse than the original ones. On the very first working day, it became clear: yes, people would work, but without enthusiasm. Everyone's nerves are on edge. What can be done to correct the situation?
Realizing that the battle was still going on even though the strike was over, the manager turned to one of the authors of this book for help. A meeting was organized with two groups of leaders - senior managers and union leaders. They were approached with the following request: each group should retire to a separate room and set out on a poster sheet of paper how they imagine their goals for the company. For two hours, everyone lists what they would like to receive in the future, then these lists are posted on the wall. Having completed this task, the groups begin to study the list of opponents, trying to find any, even the most insignificant, matches between their requirements and their own.
They all return two minutes later. They are stunned. It seems that the lists were written under carbon copy. They turned out to have in common not just a couple of ideas - all aspirations were completely and completely the same. Everyone needed a profitable company, a permanent and well-paid job, high-quality products and good team relations. Having been able to speak frankly without fear of being attacked, each group expressed not only general requirements, but also what each person needed.
This experiment forced each of the parties to seriously consider whether they imagined their opponents correctly. Former enemies realized that they are very similar. The "sins" of others differed from their own mainly because of the role that people had to play, and not because of radical differences in character. They restored mutual respect, and silence and aggression were replaced by real dialogue for the first time in many decades.
Discussion of the topic is temporarily suspended. What's next?
If you notice that a common goal or mutual respect is under threat, we advise you not to turn a blind eye to this. In addition, we remind you that you must find a way to restore both an atmosphere of mutual understanding and a common goal, even in relation to those who differ from you in many ways.
But how? What exactly needs to be done? We have already touched on a few points (mainly what to avoid), but now it's time to look at three very important skills that are best used in dialogue:
Apology.
Contrasting.
Each of them helps to restore either mutual respect or a common goal. First, we will observe their practical application, and then we will try to find out if these skills will help Yvonne to rectify the situation.
And we have been waiting for you! For example, let's say you're talking to a group of hourly employees who have been working hard all night to get ready for a scheduled visit by management to a factory. You were supposed to introduce them to the visiting branch vice president, whom they would fill in on the details of their innovations. They're proud of the improvements their group has been able to make lately, so they've readily agreed to work through the night to put the finishing touches on and make the final preparations.
Unfortunately, when it's their turn to visit their department, the vice president who arrives for the inspection makes a sensational announcement. He comes up with a plan that you firmly believe will hurt quality and alienate your best customers. Since the visit ends in an hour, you decide to discuss the offer right away without continuing to tour the factory. Your future depends on this conversation. Fortunately, you managed to convince the vice president, but, unfortunately, you forgot to warn about the change in plans of people who have been busy preparing for this visit all night.
After escorting your superiors to the car, you return to your office and run into the entire team along the way. All six people with bleary eyes and frustrated faces seethe with rage. They didn’t wait for anyone, you didn’t bother to call them, and your whole appearance shows that you are in a hurry to your place and are not going to stop to give them any explanations.
Gee!
Now the situation is getting really tense. “We worked the full night shift and you didn't even think to come in! It was the last time! Don't wait for us to continue to hump on you!
Time stops. The conversation has just turned into a critical discussion. The workers, who have been working all night, are clearly upset by this attitude. They feel they have been openly disrespected.
But you do not understand the essence of the problem. Why? Because now you yourself feel a lack of respect for your person. You are absorbed in the criticism that has fallen on you and pay attention only to the content of the conversation, that is, you still think that it all has something to do with the inspection of the factory.
“I had to choose between the future of the company and the inspection of production. I have chosen our future, and if I have to, I will do the same again.”
Now you and your interlocutors are fighting for respect. Pretty soon it will get you nowhere. But what could have been done differently?
Instead of getting hooked and fighting back, break out of this circle. Take their aggressive behavior for what it really is - as a sign of compromised security, then digress from the topic of conversation, restore security, and then return to the subject under discussion. We will now see how this can be done.
Ask for forgiveness if necessary
If you've made a mistake that hurt others (in this case, you didn't let your staff know that your appointment was cancelled), start by apologizing. An apology is a statement that conveys your sincere regret that you caused trouble to others or failed to prevent them.
“I am very sorry that I did not call when I learned that we would not come to you. You worked all night, it would be a great opportunity to showcase all your improvements, and I didn't even explain what happened. I am sorry".
But an apology will only be effective if it is spoken from the heart. To sincerely ask for forgiveness, you need to change the motivation. You must give up trying to save face, rise to the occasion, or win. Instead, you need to understand what you really want. You have to sacrifice part of your ego and admit your mistake. Such sacrifice pays off, because when you give something of value, you get even more value in return - healthy dialogue and good results. See if this genuine show of respect helped restore security. If so, now you can explain in more detail what happened. If not, you need to use one of the more advanced skills outlined below. Whatever the case, restore security first and then get back to the point of the conversation.
If your behavior gives someone reason to doubt your respect and devotion to a common goal, then the conversation will end in stupid tricks and misunderstandings until you ask for forgiveness.
To avoid misunderstandings, you can use the method of opposition
Sometimes during a discussion, when the stakes are high, the interlocutors may feel a lack of respect for themselves, even if we have not done anything offensive or unpleasant for them. Naturally, respect often vanishes when we behave in an overtly inappropriate manner. But in the same way, the insult is often unintentional.
The same can happen with a common goal. At first, you can just share your views, but it will seem to the interlocutor that you are going to convince him and persuade him to your side. It is clear that under such circumstances an apology is not appropriate. It would be strange to admit your mistake if you were not mistaken. So is it now possible to establish a common goal or mutual respect in order to restore security and return to dialogue?
If your interlocutors misunderstand your purpose or intentions, take your mind off the argument and re-establish security by using a tool called juxtaposition.
Contrasting is an affirmative or negative statement, which is characterized by:
Express the interlocutor's fears that you do not respect him or have bad intentions (negative part);
Confirm your respect and explain your true goals (affirmative part).
Let's take an example.
[Affirmative] "I think your work is simply excellent."
Once the atmosphere of security has been restored, you can get back to the point and try to make things right.
“Unfortunately, just as I was about to head to your place, a problem arose that needed to be urgently discussed with the vice president, otherwise it could have seriously ruined our business. You know what, I'll try to invite the vice president to you tomorrow so that he can hear about the results of your work. He will be here at the opening ceremony, and we will definitely show him all the innovations that you have introduced.”
Of the two parts of the opposition, the negative is considered the more important because it concerns a misunderstanding that puts security at risk. Employees who have worked so hard act on the belief that you do not appreciate their efforts and did not even bother to inform them of changes in the program, when in fact they were not. So you address this misunderstanding and explain what you didn't want. Once you've done that and the conversation is back on track, you can say whatever you were going to say. The most important thing is the atmosphere of safety.
Let's get back to Yvonne and Jotham. Yvonne tries to talk, but Jotham questions her motives. This is how the use of the method of opposition could help her.
It seems to me that the situation only becomes more complicated when you withdraw into yourself and do not communicate with me for days on end, says Yvonne.
So you expect me to put up with your rejections and still feel happy? retorts Jotham.
I do not want to say that this is only your problem, - continues Yvonne. “To tell you the truth, I think the problem is the two of us. I'm not trying to put all the responsibility on you. I don't even know what the solution might be. The only thing I want is to talk in order to understand each other better. Perhaps this will help me change my attitude towards you.
I know where this will lead, Jotam replies. - We will talk, and then you will still refuse me, but at the same time you will feel much more comfortable, because "we talked." Have you seen enough of those daytime talk shows again?
Obviously, Jotam still thinks that Yvonne is trying to make sure that the relationship between them is in perfect order, and if she succeeds, she will still refuse him, but without feeling any remorse. Jotam still doesn't feel safe. Therefore, Yvonne continues to retreat and restore safety through the method of opposition.
Honestly, dear, - she says, - I'm not going to say that now our relationship is in perfect order, because I see that this is not so. I just want to talk about what each of us likes or dislikes. This way we can understand what we need to change and why. The only thing I need is to come to some kind of mutual solution that will help us become happy.
Is it true? Jotam lowers his tone and calms down. - Sorry for the doubt. I know I'm a little selfish, but I don't know how to force myself to perceive this situation differently.
Contradiction is not an apology. It is very important that you understand this. This is not a way to retract what has been said so as not to offend someone's feelings. Rather, it is an opportunity to make sure that our words did not hurt the interlocutor more than they should. Once Yvonne clarified her true intentions, Jotam felt more secure and they returned to normal dialogue.
Contrasting provides context and proportion. In the midst of a conversation on a sensitive topic, interlocutors sometimes hear something in our words that we do not mean. For example, you are talking to your assistant about how he is not very punctual. When you show your concern, he looks downright depressed.
At this point, you may be tempted to smooth out your harshness: "You know, it's not that big of a deal." Do not do that. Don't back off if you've already started talking. Instead, put your thought in context. For example, at this moment your assistant may think that you are absolutely not satisfied with his work. He believes that your attitude to the issue under discussion reflects the attitude towards him personally. If this opinion is wrong, use a contrast to explain what you really think about all this. Start with what you don't believe.
“Let's put this into perspective. I don't want you to think that I'm not happy with the quality of your work. I want us to continue to work together. I really think that you are doing very well. But the issue of punctuality is important to me, and I just want you to pay special attention to this. If you keep an eye on it, we won't have any problems."
Use opposition as prevention or first aid. When dealing with security problems, confrontation is useful both as a preventive measure and as a first aid. So far, all examples have been of the second type, that is, an ambulance. Someone misunderstood something and we intervened to clarify our true intentions.
However, if we suspect that the statement we are just about to add to the general pool of opinions will evoke active self-defense, we can use opposition to reinforce the atmosphere of security even before it becomes noticeable that the interlocutors tend to silence or aggression.
“I don't want you to think that I don't appreciate the time you spent making sure our bank records are in perfect order. This is very important to me, and I am sure that I myself could not do it so carefully. But the way we use the new electronic banking system still causes me some concern.”
When people misunderstand you and you start to challenge the misunderstanding, stop. Use opposition. Explain what you didn't mean until security is restored. Only then return to the conversation. Safety first.
Test yourself
Let's practice. Consider the situations described below and make up your own statements using the contrast method. Remember: you must counter what was not meant with your true intentions. Say everything in a way that helps restore a sense of security to your interlocutor.
Angry neighbor. You asked your roommate to remove the bags from your shelf in the refrigerator and put them on hers. It seemed to you that this question was completely insignificant, just a request to evenly distribute the space. You did not have any hidden intentions, besides, you really like this neighbor. But she suddenly replies: “You are back to the old again! You show me how to live again. I can't take out the trash without you telling me how best to do it."
I don't want______
I really want ______
Irritable employee. You are about to talk to Jacob, one of the employees who takes other people's recommendations and advice too personally. Yesterday, a colleague told him that she would be very grateful if he cleaned up after himself in the dining room (as everyone usually does), and Jacob lost his temper. You decide to intervene. Of course, you will have to give him some advice, and this is what always drives him furious, so you need to approach the matter carefully. You must find the right intonation and carefully bring the conversation to the right topic. Because, to be honest, you really like Jacob. And not only to you. He has a great sense of humor and is the most competent and diligent worker in the company. If only he wasn't so touchy!
Formulate a statement with a contrast.
I don't want______
I really want ______
Chatty teenager. Your nephew came to live with you, because after the death of his father (your brother), his mother could not cope with him when he began to associate with bad company. You always got along with the boy, and everything would be fine if not for one problem: he chats for hours on the phone and surfs the Internet, that is, he spends almost all his free time on it. It's actually not a bad thing to do given his past "exploits" and you're not too worried about it, but you're having a hard time getting to your phone or checking your email now. You tried to talk to him about making him take less time on his phone and computer, and in response you heard: “Please don’t send me to a boarding school! I'll be good! I promise I won't talk to my friends again, just don't send me away!"
Formulate a statement with a contrast.
I don't want______
I really want ______
RUSO - a way to define a common goal
Let's look at another tool. Sometimes we suddenly find ourselves at the center of an argument because our goals are clearly different from those of the interlocutors. And here we are not talking about a misunderstanding, so the opposition in this situation will not help. To solve this problem, we need something more efficient.
For example, you have just been offered a new position that will mean a noticeable promotion and give you more power; in addition, the salary is such that it can brighten up the need to move. The latter is important, because you will have to go with the whole family to the other side of the country, and your wife and children really like the city in which you live now.
You had a premonition that your spouse would object to the move, but you did not expect her to be so opposed to it. For her, the news of your promotion is bad news. Firstly, you will have to move, and secondly, you will work even more and be at home even less. This is not compensated even by the possibility of earning more and occupying a higher position. What to do now?
People who do not know how to conduct a dialogue either ignore the problem and insist on their own, or immediately give up and give in to the opinion of the interlocutor. Both strategies result in winners and losers, and the issue goes far beyond the initial discussion.
Those who are good at dialogue are quick to compromise. For example, a family that is faced with the need to move begins to live in two houses, that is, one of the spouses goes to a new place of work, and the second remains where the family has lived so far. In reality, such a solution does not satisfy anyone, and, frankly, this is a very bad option, which most often leads to a deepening of the problem and ultimately to divorce. While sometimes a compromise is necessary, there are other solutions that can be found.
People who are fluent in the art of dialogue use four methods in search of a common goal, which can be conventionally denoted by the abbreviation RUSO:
Dare to find a common goal
If you want to return to dialogue, then, as with other dialogue skills, start with yourself first. In this situation, you will have to agree to agree. To be successful, we must give up silence or aggression as a way to sway others to our point of view. Moreover, we need to resist the temptation to engage in a false dialogue in which we pretend to have found a common goal (that is, we persist in arguing until the interlocutor gives up). Instead, we start with ourselves, choosing to engage in the conversation until we reach a solution that satisfies both parties.
It may not be easy. To stop quarreling, you need to give up confidence in the exceptional correctness of the option you proposed. You need to believe that you can be happy without even getting exactly what you want at the moment. It is necessary to accept the fact that perhaps there is another solution, and it is suitable for everyone.
In addition, we must be willing to be open about this willingness, even if the interlocutor appears to be determined to win the argument at any cost. We do this on the assumption that he is being silent or aggressive because he doesn't feel safe. We come to the conclusion that if this feeling of security is restored by demonstrating their willingness to find a common goal, then the interlocutor will understand that dialogue will be the best way out of this situation.
So the next time you find yourself in the thick of a confrontation over a difference of opinion with someone, use this simple but very powerful trick. Take a break from the essence of the dispute and restore security. Just say, “We both seem to want to force our opinions on each other. I am ready to continue the conversation until we find a way out that is acceptable to both of us. And then see if you have regained a sense of confidence and security.
Set goals based on strategy
The desire to find a common goal is great, but that alone is not enough. When you change yourself, you need to change your strategy. At the same time, we will have to solve the following problem: we find ourselves in a dead end because we ask for one thing, and our interlocutor for another. It seems to us that there is no way out, because we correlate what we ask for with what we want. In fact, what we are asking for is only a strategy for getting what we want. We simply confuse desires and goals with strategies, and that is the problem.
For example, I come home from work and say that I want to go to the cinema. You state that you want to stay at home and rest. And so the argument begins: cinema, TV, cinema, books, etc. It seems to us that we will never be able to resolve this issue, since it is impossible to stay at home and go for a walk at the same time.
In such circumstances, a way out of the impasse can be found by asking the interlocutor: “Why do you want this?” As in our example:
Why do you want to stay at home?
Because I'm tired of the hustle and bustle of the city.
So you need peace and quiet?
Exactly. Why do you want to go to the cinema?
To spend more time with you away from the kids.
Before you can find a common goal, you need to figure out exactly what people want. So take your mind off the conversation, which is a manifestation of the strategy, and set goals that you are trying to achieve with it.
If you do this, you may discover new options. By abandoning your own strategy and focusing on your true desires, you will be able to come to a common goal.
You need peace and quiet, and I want to spend time only with you, away from the children. So if we come up with something that combines these conditions, like a trip to a quiet and distant place, then we will both be happy, right?
Absolutely.
What if we go on a trip to the canyon and...
Create a shared goal
It happens that the goals that we pursue with our strategy coincide in many respects. In this case, it remains only to agree and develop a common goal. But we are not always so lucky. For example, you find that your desires can be satisfied only at the expense of the interests of the interlocutor. Under these conditions, you cannot find a common goal, so you need to create one.
To do this, define goals in more general terms, find something more important than the aspirations that the disputing parties share. For example, you and your wife may not agree on whether to move to a new position, but you are able to understand that the future of your relationship and the interests of your children are more important than your career. By focusing on higher goals, you will find a way to get rid of temporary contradictions, create a common goal and start a dialogue.
Consider new strategies
If you have found a common goal and restored security, then find enough confidence in yourself to return to the topic of conversation. It is time to re-engage in dialogue and think about strategies that would meet the needs of all interlocutors. If you really want to find a solution that works for everyone and understand your true desires, then you will no longer waste energy on unnecessary arguments. On the contrary, you will easily come to a solution that will suit everyone.
Take an open-minded look at new opportunities. Will you be able to move up the career ladder if you stay in your current job? Is it really this job only in this company that can make you happy? Is it really necessary to move? Where will your family be as happy? If you're not willing to get creative, you won't be able to find an answer that's attractive to both parties. If you have such a desire, then remember that there are no limits to perfection.
Feeling a divergence of views with the interlocutors, you need to do the following. First, digress from the essence of the dispute. Forget who thinks what. And then use RUSO to detect a common target.
Decide to find a common goal. Make an open statement about your desire to participate in the conversation until a solution acceptable to all is found.
“It won't work. Your people are ready to stay up late and finish the work, but we prefer to go home now, but work on the weekend. Maybe we’ll try to come up with an option that will suit everyone?”
Set goals based on the strategy. Ask the interlocutors why they want exactly what they insist on. Separate their demands from the goals they pursue.
"Why don't you want to come on Saturday? We are tired, so we will not be able to comply with all safety requirements and we are worried about the quality. Why do you want to work weekends?
Create a shared goal. If you still can't reach an agreement, even after finding out the intentions of your opponents, try to create a higher or longer-term goal that is more important than the one that made you argue.
“I don't want to pressure anyone. It would be better if we could find a way out without forcing anyone to yield to anyone; it always only results in the losers resenting the winners. I am most interested in our good relationship. Let's try not to harm them with our decision."
Consider new strategies. With a clearly defined common goal, you can join forces in finding an exit that suits everyone.
“So we need to find a solution that doesn't compromise safety and product quality while still allowing you to attend your colleague's wedding on Saturday. What if we work from morning to afternoon, and then you come and continue working? So we can…”
Yvonne and Jotham again
Let's end the same way we started. Yvonne is trying to establish a dialogue with Jotam. Let's see how she manages to restore an atmosphere of mutual security before starting an important discussion. First, she will use contrast to prevent any misunderstandings about her true goals.
Jotam, I would like to talk about our intimate relationship. I am not at all saying that the problem is only in you, it is quite clear to me that it is also in me. I would really like to discuss this, and we could make sure that we both feel good.
What is there to talk about? You don't want to, but I want to, so I'll try to deal with the problem myself.
It seems to me that everything is much more complicated. The way you behave sometimes makes me avoid your company.
If you have such feelings for me, then why are we still pretending that there is some kind of relationship between us?
So what just happened? Remember, we're looking at the situation from Yvonne's point of view. She is the one who initiates the conversation. Naturally, Jotam can do a lot to remedy the situation. But she is not Jotham. What can Yvonne personally do? She should focus on what she really wants, which is to find a way to improve the relationship. Therefore, she should not react to Jotam's insulting remark, but rather pay attention to the shattered sense of security that lies behind it. Why is Jotham evading the conversation? There are two possible reasons:
Yvonne's tone makes him think she's trying to blame all the trouble on him.
He believes that her concern about one small issue reflects the general attitude towards him.
So she asks for forgiveness and uses a contrast to restore security:
I'm sorry I said that. I don't blame you for my own feelings or actions. We have common problems. We must have both done things that only made the situation worse. I'm pretty sure about myself.
Probably my fault too. Sometimes I get sulky because I get offended. In addition, I hope that in this way I will make you regret your words or actions. Sorry about that.
Pay attention to what just happened. Since Yvonne had successfully re-established security and focused on what she really wanted from this conversation, Jotham entered into the conversation. This is much more effective than if Yvonne continued her accusations.
Let's continue.
I can't even imagine how it can be fixed, says Jotham. - I have more temperament than you. Therefore, it seems that the only solution is either for me to accept this state of affairs, or for you to feel in sexual slavery.
Now the problem is the common goal. Jotam thinks that he and Yvonne have different intentions. He is convinced that for them there is no way out that would suit both sides. But neither agreeing to a compromise nor insisting on her own, Yvonne digresses from the topic and therefore uses the RUSO technique in order to create a common goal.
“[Dare to find a common goal.] No,” Yvonne explains, “that's not what I want at all. I can't accept a solution that doesn't suit both of us. I would really like to find a way that allows us both to feel close and loved.
And I want it. It just seems to me that we understand our desires differently.
Notice how Jotham enters into dialogue. This is made possible by the restored atmosphere of security, especially by having a common purpose.
“[Set goals based on strategy.] Or maybe not in different ways,” Yvonne argues. - What does it mean to you to be loved?
Make love to you when you really want to. And for you?
When you think about my interests too. And also when you hug me, but not necessarily with sexual intentions.
So when we just hug, you feel loved?
Yes. And besides, then sex brings me the same sensations.
“[Create a common goal.] So,” Jotham continues, “we need to find a way to be together and still feel loved, right?
Yes, I really want this.
[Consider new strategies.] What if we do this...
But I will never be able to!
The above dialogue may give you two feelings. At first, you might be thinking, “Look, this really works!” But at the same time, the thought may come to you: “But I myself will never be able to think so clearly in the midst of a tense conversation!”
We recognize that sitting at a computer and typing text, it is very easy to clearly express thoughts and talk about various techniques. But we dare to assure you that all these examples are taken from life, people really often do this. Moreover, sometimes you yourself are on top.
So don't be discouraged by beginning to doubt your ability to think clearly in the midst of an emotional conversation. Instead, consider whether you can think a little more clearly during certain critical discussions. Or prepare for them in advance. Before you get into a critical conversation, consider what techniques can help you. Remember, when it comes to discussing serious issues, even small progress can be of great benefit.
Finally, as with other confusing problems, don't aim for perfection. Aim for gradual progress. Learn to slow down when adrenaline enters the bloodstream. Don't forget to ask yourself the questions we've already talked about. Choose the ones that you think are best suited to the topic under discussion. And watch your own gradual improvement.
Summary: Restoring Security
Change the subject
If the interlocutors tend to be silent or aggressive, change the subject of the conversation and restore the atmosphere of safety. When the feeling of confidence is no longer threatened, return to the topic under discussion and continue the dialogue.
Pay attention to what exactly confuses the interlocutor
Common goal. Do the interlocutors doubt that their interests are important to you? Do they trust your motives?
Mutual respect. Do they doubt your respect?
Apologize if necessary
If you have shown obvious disrespect, ask for forgiveness.
Use contrast to clarify the situation
If there are misunderstandings between the interlocutors about your goals or desires, use opposition. Start with what you didn't mean and then explain what you really wanted.
RUSO as a way to define a common goal
When faced with the fact that your goals differ from the goals of the interlocutor, use four techniques to return to a common goal.
Decide to find a common goal.
Set goals based on the strategy.
Create a shared goal.
Consider new strategies.
Carrie Patterson, Joseph Grennay, Ron Macmillan, Al Switzler
Key negotiations. What and how to say when the stakes are high
We dedicate this book to Louise, Celia, Bonnie and Linda, whose support is endless, love is endless, and patience is endless.
And also to our children Christina, Rebecca, Taylor, Scott, Aislinn, Kara, Seth, Samuel, Hyrum, Amber, Megan, Chase, Hayley, Breen, Amber, Laura, Becca, Rachel, Benjamin, Meredith, Lindsey, Kelly, Todd, which are inexhaustible for us m source of new knowledge.
© Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, Al Switzler, 2002
© Translation into Russian, edition in Russian, design. OOO "Mann, Ivanov and Ferber", 2011
Foreword
This book is a real breakthrough in its field. That is what came to my mind when I read the manuscript. I was so taken with the importance, power, and timeliness of its content that I even suggested that the authors name the book Fateful discussions. But, after carefully rereading it and reflecting on the many years of experience presented in this book, I understood why it is called that way and not something else ...
From my own experience of working with organizations, families, and from my own life, I was convinced that in the career and life of every person there are several decisive moments that become “moments of truth”. Many of them are born in pivotal, or life-changing, discussions with powerful people in emotionally charged situations, when the decisions made determine the choice of one of several roads, each of which leads in its own direction.
Thanks to this book, I realized the wisdom of the statement of the great historian Arnold Toynbee, who said that the whole history - not only of society, but also of public institutions and individuals - can be expressed in a few words: nothing fails like success. This means that if any problem is followed by a worthy response to a "challenge", you will succeed. But when faced with a problem of a higher level, an outdated, although once worked experience - an answer, a solution - may not bring results. And it turns out that nothing fails like success.
Problems in personal life, family and society have changed markedly. The world is changing at a terrifying rate, becoming increasingly dependent on amazing, but sometimes dangerous technologies, along with this, the stress and pressure that we feel on ourselves is greatly increased. In such a heated atmosphere, it is all the more necessary for us to strengthen relationships, cherish them, and develop techniques, skills and abilities to find new and better solutions to our problems.
Such a more modern and more appropriate solution will no longer be “in my opinion” or “in your opinion”, but “our way”. In other words, such decisions must be based on joint efforts, because the whole as a result is more than just the sum of its parts. Such synergies can lead to improved relationships and decision-making processes, to a greater interest in the implementation of these decisions.
You will learn that the key discussions change people and relations between them, create connections of a fundamentally new level. They lead to what in Buddhism is called the middle way, which is not a direct compromise between the two opposites of a linear time continuum, but a more perfect middle way of a higher order. When two or more people create a new kind of dialogue, a new bond develops, similar to that which occurs in a family with the birth of a child. When you and someone produce something completely new, one of the strongest bonds that exists on earth is created. Moreover, it is so strong that you will not betray this person, no matter how the social environment and others push you to this.
The consistency of the presentation of the material in this book is admirable. You start by understanding the meaning and supernatural power of the dialogue, then you realize what you really want and what is really happening, then you provide the necessary conditions, then you use introspection and self-awareness. At the last stage, this book teaches how to achieve the level of mutual understanding and creative synergy that is necessary for people to feel an emotional connection with the decisions made and strive to implement them with all their might. In other words, you start with the right mental and mental attitude and end up building a set of necessary skills.
Although I have been writing on the subject for many years and teaching similar ideas, the content of this book not only impressed me, but even inspired me. I learned about new ideas, fully realized the existing ones, saw new opportunities for applying and expanding my knowledge. In addition, I realized how these new techniques, techniques and tools together help to lead key discussions and really make a break with the mediocrity and mistakes of the past. And the new breakthrough in my life is also associated with a decisive break with the old key concepts.
When this book first fell into my hands, I was pleased to note that my dear colleagues and friends not only spoke in their professional experience and touched on an incredibly important topic, but also did it brilliantly. Key Negotiations. What and how to say when the stakes are high ”is an accessible form of presentation, subtle humor, illustrative examples, practicality and common sense. The authors have demonstrated how intelligence quotients (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ) can be effectively combined and used in key discussions.
I remember one of my esteemed colleagues having a similar pivotal discussion with a college professor. The teacher believed that this student, my friend, was learning through the sleeves and did not realize his full potential. He listened carefully to the professor, in his own words stated the reasons for his concern, expressed gratitude for the high assessment of his potential, and then calmly and with a smile said: “I pay attention to other priorities, studying is not so important for me now. I hope you understand".
At first, the teacher was stunned. But then he began to listen to the arguments of the interlocutor. The dialogue took place: a new understanding was reached, even stronger ties were created.
I know the authors of this book not only as outstanding people, but also as wonderful teachers and consultants. I saw them at work during training seminars, but then I did not know if they would dare to take on such a complex topic and put it in a book. They did it. I encourage you to study the material carefully, stopping to think about each chapter and how they relate to each other. After that, put what you have learned into practice, and then go back to the book again to learn and understand something new, and take advantage of the new knowledge. Remember: know and not to do is dont know Nothing.
I hope you will agree, as I do, that the key discussions so beautifully described in this book convey the inner meaning of the following passage from Robert Frost's excellent poem "The Other Road":
In the autumn forest, at the fork in the road,
I stood, thinking, at the turn;
There were two ways, and the world was wide,
However, I could not split
And something had to be done...
I chose the road that led to the right
And, turning, disappeared into the thicket.
Worthless, or something, she was
And more, it seemed to me, overgrown;
And yet, both were overgrown.
And both beckoned, pleasing to the eye
Dry yellowness of loose foliage.
I left the other in reserve,
Although I guessed at that hour,
That it is unlikely that a chance will come back.
Still I will remember sometime
Far this forest morning:
After all, there was another way before me,
But I decided to turn right -
Stephen Covey
What is emergency negotiation?
The emptiness created as a result of unsuccessful communication is soon filled with resentment, nonsense and distortions of meaning.
Cyril Northcote Parkinson
After reading the title of this book - “There is a serious conversation. What and how to say when the stakes are high, - you can imagine presidents and prime ministers gathered at the negotiating table and deciding the fate of the planet. Although such discussions do have a huge impact on our world, we still mean otherwise. The discussions in this book are just as important, despite the fact that they are nothing more than ordinary communication. Extreme conditions and high stakes also happen in everyday conversations that can change your life nonetheless.
What are the features of these important negotiations? Firstly, divergence of views. For example, you are discussing with your boss the possibility of a promotion. He believes that you are not ready for this yet, but you are convinced that the time has come. Secondly, during important discussions rates really very high. Let's say you're in a meeting with colleagues trying to develop a new marketing strategy. You need something completely new, otherwise the company will not be able to achieve its goals.
Thirdly, in important negotiations emotions are running high. For example, you are talking with your other half, and suddenly she (or he) remembers that “disgusting act” that happened at yesterday's party at the neighbors.
It turns out that you were not only flirting with someone there, but also "behaved just nasty." You do not recall any flirting at all and are sure that you were polite and friendly with the guests. Your wife (or husband) runs out of the room in anger.
At the same party, you are making small talk with your perpetually dissatisfied neighbor about his diseased kidneys, when all of a sudden he says, “Speaking of the new fence you are building…” new fence - ten centimeters to the right or left. Ten centimeters! It comes to the point that the neighbor threatens to sue you, and you declare that he does not understand anything in this life. Emotions, of course, ran high.
It is these, at first glance, ordinary conversations that can also be called key and even critical, and not just tense, threatening or unpleasant, since their result can have a noticeable impact on the living conditions of the participants. In each of the cases described, some element of your daily existence can change forever - for better or for worse. Naturally, a promotion, like a company's success, marks significant change. Your relationship with your spouse affects every aspect of your life. Even an everyday dispute about where to draw the boundary between the plots will undoubtedly affect your relations with your neighbors. If you manage unsuccessfully with the most seemingly insignificant situation, then you will have a fixed pattern of behavior that you will follow in all subsequent critical discussions.
Key discussions, by definition, involve complex issues. Unfortunately, a person by nature tends to avoid conversations that can harm him or worsen the current situation. We become real masters in the art of avoiding such unpleasant discussions. Colleagues send each other emails, although they can just go down one floor and talk face to face. Managers give orders over the phone instead of talking directly to subordinates. Family members change the topic of conversation when a question becomes too slippery. We (the authors) have a friend who found out that his wife was divorcing him from an answering machine message. People resort to all sorts of tricks, just to evade the discussion of a dangerous topic.
This tactic is wrong. By mastering the principles of negotiating when the stakes are high, you will be able to touch on and effectively discuss literally any issue.
Key (critical, important) discussion- this is a conversation between two or more people, in which, firstly, high stakes, secondly, a divergence of opinions, and thirdly, heated emotions.
How we usually conduct important negotiations
Just because we're in the middle of a serious discussion (or perhaps contemplating the need for one) doesn't mean we have a problem or that it threatens future complications. In fact, when a responsible conversation is brewing, there are three options for its development:
prevent;
Conduct unsuccessfully;
Spend with brilliance.
Everything seems to be very simple. If you avoid discussion, you will have to face the consequences of this step. You can unsuccessfully conduct a conversation and get far from the best result. Or, such a discussion can be successfully handled.
“What is there to talk about,” you think to yourself. “In that case, I would choose the third option.”
Worst Behavior Model
Are we really good at these conversations? When passions heat up, do we take a deep breath and hear our inner voice: “The discussion becomes critical. Be careful." Or, sensing the threat of a potentially dangerous discussion, instead of facing it, do we prefer to avoid it? Sometimes. Yet sometimes we bravely take on a risky issue, watch our behavior, and do our best. We weigh all the pros and cons. Sometimes we even rise to the occasion.
And then we continue to live as before. There are times when, for whatever reason, we do not foresee a key discussion or suddenly join it in the midst of it, and then we act completely wrong: we shout, we interrupt the interlocutor, we speak thoughtlessly, which we later regret. When the conversation really matters, when the discussion goes from mundane to extreme, we tend to be at our worst.
What does it mean?
The wrong way of behaving is genetically programmed. When a key issue is suddenly raised in an ordinary conversation, it often causes us some discomfort. The reason is that emotions do not allow us to communicate constructively. Countless previous generations have left us as a legacy not the ability to convincingly argue and listen to the interlocutor in a friendly way, but the desire to solve serious issues either by acting with fists or by fleeing.
Let's consider a typical example. Someone expresses an opinion with which you strongly disagree, and this point of view touches on an issue that is really important to you. You feel like you're ready to bristle like a hedgehog, and yet you know intellectually that you can still handle it. But, unfortunately, your body requires more. Two small organs located in the abdominal cavity - the adrenal glands - begin to intensively produce and release the stress hormone - adrenaline into the blood. You do not decide to do this, the adrenal glands do it for you, you just have to accept it.
And that is not all. Your brain redistributes blood flow. The blood supply to those organs whose activity he considers less important at the moment is reduced, and those that are able to solve the primary tasks - "hit or run" - increases. Unfortunately, when the muscles of the arms and legs, due to their size, get large volumes of blood, in those parts of the brain that control emotions, it enters significantly less. As a result, you approach the solution of a key issue in the same state as an angry monkey.
We're under pressure. Let's add another factor. Critical discussions usually arise spontaneously. Most often they appear literally out of nowhere, out of nothing! But once you are caught off guard, you have to enter into extremely complex human relationships in real time. Moreover, you don’t have any reference books, coaches and, of course, no respite during which the team rescuers rushes to your aid and throws up valuable ideas.
What remains? A sharp question (as they say, an edge), your interlocutor and the mind, which is preparing to either fight or run. At the moment of the conversation, it seems to us that we are uttering extremely smart words or doing the right things, but later it turns out that we have committed stupidity.
"And what was I thinking?" you wonder.
The truth is that your mind, which at that moment was doing a completely different job, was faced with the need to urgently solve a complex problem that had arisen. It’s good if you didn’t get hit at the same time.
We're out of whack. Let's look at another problem. You don't know where to start, but you figure it out along the way, because you haven't often seen how effective communication skills are actually applied. Suppose you have been preparing for this difficult conversation, perhaps even replaying it in your mind, so you are completely confident in yourself. Will everything go well? Not necessarily. Problems can still arise, because the mother of learning is not just repetition, but perfect repetition.
First of all, you must know what to chant. In most cases, the course of the planned discussion is unknown. Moreover, it happens that you never find a way out of the current situation, because you did not have the opportunity to observe how certain problems should be solved. Perhaps you understand what no need to do based on the negative experience of their friends, colleagues and even parents. Maybe you even swore repeatedly that you would never do that. But now, without a suitable example before your eyes, you are at an impasse. What to do?
You do what most people do: speed up the process, link words together, create a certain mood, or otherwise do what you think should work, all the while your brain is overloaded with work. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the most decisive situations we choose the worst model of behavior.
We doom ourselves to failure. In such a besotted state, we choose to conduct extreme negotiations those strategies that very quickly lead to completely opposite results. And we become our own worst enemies without even realizing it. Here's how it all goes.
Suppose your loved one pays you less and less attention. You understand that he is very busy at work, however, you would like to spend more time together. You hint at it several times, but to no avail, so you decide not to escalate the tension and withdraw into yourself. Since you are still unhappy with the situation, these feelings spill out from time to time in sarcastic remarks: “What, sitting in the office late again? Do you want to make all the money in the world?"
Unfortunately (and here lies the reason for the defeat), the more you grumble, the less your loved one wants to be with you. He starts to avoid you, spends even less time with you, you get more and more upset, and a new round of the spiral begins. It is your behavior that leads to what you originally wanted to avoid: what is called, what you fought for - that's what you ran into. You find yourself in a vicious circle.
Let's take, for example, what happens to your roommate Terry, who, without permission, takes your clothes, the belongings of three other people living in the same room, and does not feel the slightest remorse.
One day, leaving the room, he loudly announces that he has again put on some of your things. You see Taylor's pants, Scott's shirt, and even Chris' new socks and boots. What did he take from your clothes? ..
It's natural for you to speak ill of Terry behind his back in retaliation. This is until one day he heard you sling mud at him. As a result, you feel awkward and try not to catch his eye. And he, when you are not in the room, out of spite wears your clothes, eats your products and uses your computer.
Let's take another example. You share an office with a terrible slob, while you yourself are painfully clean. Your colleague leaves you notes written with felt-tip pen on a file folder, ketchup on a potato chip wrapper, and indelible marker on your desk pad. You, on the contrary, give him only printed messages. Yes, it's printed.
At first, you still somehow tolerated each other. Then you start getting on each other's nerves. You annoy him with cleaning reminders, he grumbles about your nagging. Gradually you become sworn enemies. Every time you saw him, he is terribly upset, but at the same time he is in no hurry to clean up. Whenever he calls you a disgusting bore, you swear not to let him get away with these vile and base insults.
What will such a confrontation lead to? You are more obsessed with cleanliness than ever, and the part of the office that belongs to your partner looks like it will soon be closed at the insistence of the sanitation service. You are moving along a road that leads to nowhere, you find yourself in a vicious circle. The more mutual attacks, the more you push each other to the very behavior that you so despise.
The most common negotiation topics in which the stakes are high
In each of these examples, the stakes were relatively high, opinions varied, and emotions were running high. In truth, in some cases, the stakes are small at first, but as emotions build up, the relationship deteriorates, and the result is life discomfort. And the risk, which was initially low, may become so.
The cases discussed are, of course, only a small part of the vast and ugly iceberg of problems that arise when key discussions are either avoided or mishandled. The following reasons can also lead to irreparable consequences:
Clarification of personal relationships;
Talking to a colleague who is defiant or makes offensive innuendos;
Appealing to a friend with a request to repay a debt;
A frank conversation with the boss about his leadership style;
A conversation with a leader who violates the rules he has established;
Criticism of the work of your colleagues;
Asking a roommate to find another place to live;
Discussing custody or visiting schedules with your ex-spouse;
Finding out the relationship with a difficult teenager;
Talking to a team member who does not keep their promises;
Discussion of intimate problems;
Talking to a loved one about alcohol or other substance abuse;
Conversation with an employee who withholds information or its source;
Writing an unfavorable critical review;
Request to relatives not to interfere in family affairs;
Talking to a colleague about personal hygiene issues.
Our bold statement
Let's assume that you either avoid key discussions, or participate in them, but at the same time adhere to the worst model of behavior. Is it really that important? Are the stakes really that high? Are the consequences of an unsuccessful conversation so deplorable? Is it worth worrying about at all?
The consequences of a poorly conducted conversation can be both devastating and long-term. The results of our research have shown that the stability of interpersonal relationships, careers, organizational success and the well-being of society are all based on the ability to speak openly on important, emotional and controversial topics.
We dare to say boldly: perfect your ability to negotiate in extreme situations - and you will give a powerful impetus to the development of your career, strengthen relationships with others and improve your health. And when others follow your example, the activity of your organization will become more active or the intra-family microclimate will improve.
Give your career a boost
Can the ability to critically negotiate help a career? Undoubtedly. Twenty-five years of research involving twenty thousand people and hundreds of organizations has convinced us that the people with the most influence (those who can get others to work) and at the same time maintain good relations with everyone), have reached perfection in the ability to discuss difficult issues.
For example, such people know how to talk to the boss and not risk their careers. Everyone knows cases when employees ruined their careers by getting involved in the discussion of dangerous topics. It is possible that you have made the same mistake. Due to prolonged dissatisfaction with someone's behavior, the cup of patience overflows, and you finally express everything that hurts, however, too sharply (oops!).
Or, perhaps, passions are so heated that others begin to get seriously worried and turn into a nervous crowd of potential victims of a heart attack, but you boldly cut the truth-womb. Yes, this is not a very pleasant discussion, but someone must have the courage to keep the boss from outright stupidity (oh-oh-oh!).
But you don't really have to choose which is more important - being honest or getting results. You don't have to choose between sincerity and career. People who are accustomed to leading key discussions and do it successfully can express controversial and even risky ideas in a way that is sure to be heard. Their words are perceived by managers, colleagues and subordinates, without starting to defend themselves or become angry.
What about your career? Are there dangerous topics that you avoid or don't discuss very well? Does it undermine your credibility? And most importantly: will your career get a boost if you learn how to successfully lead important discussions?
Improve relationships with others
Think about the impact important discussions can have on your relationships with the people around you. Can a bad key conversation lead to a broken relationship? It turns out that if an ordinary person is asked why couples break up, he, as a rule, answers that the difference in views is to blame. It is known that people have different ideas about how to manage money, diversify intimate life or raise children. In practice, any person is prone to arguments when discussing serious issues. But not all couples break up, because it is important that How you argue.
For example, when famous family experts Clifford Notary and Howard Markman studied families in a state of confrontation, they found that people fall into three categories: some immediately resort to threats and insults, others silently accumulate rage inside themselves, and others communicate openly , honestly and efficiently.
After examining dozens of married couples, scientists made predictions about the possible development of further relationships and continued to monitor the lives of the participants in the experiment for another ten years. They were able to accurately predict 90% of divorces! The family was saved by couples who learned to openly and sincerely express their opinions on risky topics and treated each other with respect. Relations were broken off by those who did not want to master this science.
What can you say about yourself? Think about your relationship with the person you care about. Are there any sensitive topics that you avoid discussing, or issues that you cannot find a common language on? Do you shy away from some dangerous topics and immediately rush to discuss others? Do you contain your dissatisfaction by expressing it in the form of sarcastic remarks or blows to a sore spot? What about your family members? Do they often go from silence to attack? In the most important situations (after all, after all, these are the people you love), do you behave correctly towards them? If not, then you should definitely read this book and learn how to successfully lead key discussions.
Liven up your surroundings
Now let's look at our neighbors. If the fate of an organization is determined by how key discussions are conducted, can't the same be said for people? Of course you can.
The difference between the best, good and bad communities lies in the number of problems they have. Everyone faces difficulties. But, we repeat, communities differ from each other in that how they deal with these problems. In the best of them, the leading representatives - the leaders - initiate a healthy dialogue. They discuss important issues. In contrast, communities that fail to build normal relationships play dangerous games. At meetings, people insult each other, get angry and act as if everyone who does not share their opinions is mentally retarded. Battles follow one after another.
But in addition to the style of relationships at social events, family behavior also affects a healthy atmosphere in the community. Consider, for example, the problem of crime. Perhaps the tragic statistics given here will shock you. Not every person serving a sentence in prison was born into a difficult family and from childhood had problems with others, which is why he eventually turned into a complete criminal. In fact, more than half of those convicted of the most serious crimes - these are people who broke the law for the first time, and their victims were friends or relatives.
How is this possible? Violence is often preceded by a long period of silence. Most of the prisoners used to have jobs, pay bills and remember friends' birthdays. And then one day, unable to solve some problem and allowing anger and resentment to accumulate inside, they found a terrible way out - they attacked a friend, loved one or neighbor. It's hard to believe, but the reality is harsh: people who have committed a crime for the first time rarely have a predisposition to criminal activity. These are our neighbors or loved ones driven to despair. Not knowing what or how to say, they choose violence. In this case, the failure to deal with key issues destroys people, destroys families and poisons society.
What can you say about your area? What problems do your neighbors share with you? Are there topics that people don't know how to or don't want to discuss, and that keeps you from moving forward? Don't your meetings of tenants look more like a talk show "Windows" than a discussion of educated and respectful people? If yes, then it will be very useful for you and your neighbors to learn how to properly conduct key discussions.
Take care of your health
If the above arguments do not seem convincing enough to draw attention to the discussion of key issues, then how do you look at the fact that the ability to successfully conduct key negotiations is the key to health and longevity?
The immune system. In their groundbreaking study, Dr. Janice Kickoult-Glacer and Dr. Ronald Glaser studied the immune system of couples who had been married for an average of forty-two years. Scientists compared those who constantly quarreled with those who were able to peacefully resolve differences. It turned out that many years of scandals amplify destructive impact of constant conflicts. Married couples who typically failed at key discussions had weaker immune systems than those who were good at resolving contentious issues. And this is natural: the weaker the immune system, the worse the health.
Severe illnesses. In perhaps the most comprehensive medical study ever conducted, participants who were found to have cancer were first given conventional treatment and then divided into two groups. The first met regularly for six weeks, the members of the second never saw each other again. Specialists taught the first group of recovering patients special communication skills. (What can't you do when your life is at stake?)
After attending six sessions and then separating for five years, patients who learned how to express themselves effectively showed a higher recovery rate: only 9% died compared to 30% of the non-trained group. Consider the implications of this study. The smallest improvement in the ability to communicate corresponds to a two-thirds reduction in the death rate.
One could talk for a long time about the impact of the ability to discuss sensitive issues on health. Evidence is emerging every day. Nevertheless, many consider this statement too pretentious. “Are you saying that the way we communicate affects the body? Do you really think that words can kill? they wonder.
The answer is yes. We can only add that the negative emotions that we hold back in ourselves, the emotional stress from which we suffer, and the constant excitement that we experience in difficult communication situations, gradually undermine our health. In some cases, an unsuccessful conversation turns into minor difficulties. In others, its consequences can be catastrophic. But be that as it may, failure in conversation will never make us happier, healthier and stronger.
What can you say about yourself? What topics bother you the most? What conversations (if you had not shied away from them or had these conversations more successful) would strengthen your immune system, help you cope with diseases, improve your quality of life and well-being?
Summary: learning to negotiate in extreme situations
When the stakes are high, opinions differ, and emotions run high, a casual conversation becomes an emergency negotiation. Ironically, the more important the topic of such a conversation is for us, the less likely it is to succeed and rise to the occasion. The consequences of avoiding discussion of key issues (or failed negotiations) can be the most serious. Defeat can affect all areas of life - from career to harmony with neighbors, family relationships and physical health. By learning how to properly perceive and conduct critical discussions, we will be able to manage literally all aspects of our lives with the help of these simple skills. What are these necessary skills? What are the people who are involved in key negotiations actually doing? And, most importantly, can it be learned?
Ability to lead a discussion
Give me a point of support and I will move the world.
Archimedes
The authors of this book have not always been engaged in the study of important discussions. Our professional interest in personal and career improvement was expressed in the study of very different topics. We suggested that by identifying the reasons why some people are more successful than others, one can learn to both repeat their experience and pass it on to others.
We began our search for the source of success by examining the professional field. To begin with, people were asked to name the names of their colleagues, whom they consider the most successful. Over the past twenty-five years, we have asked this question to over twenty thousand people. We were looking for those who did not just have a certain influence, but whose influence was very pronounced.
When compiling such a list, the same trend was observed all the time. Some people were called once or twice. Others were mentioned in the lists of five or six employees - they can be called influential, but not enough for unconditional success. But someone's name was called more than thirty times. They were the best - real leaders in their fields. And only a part of them belonged to the top and middle managers, mostly they were ordinary workers.
Of particular interest to us was an opinion leader named Kevin. Of the company's eight vice presidents, he was the only one who was described as extremely influential. We decided to find out the reason and began to observe his work. At first, Kevin didn't do anything remarkable. He worked like any other vice president: he made telephone calls, communicated with subordinates, issued orders. In a word, the most common routine activity.
A startling discovery
After watching Kevin for almost a week, we began to think: is he really different from others in some way or is his influence only the result of popularity? And so we followed him to the meeting.
Kevin, other vice presidents, and the CEO discussed the location of their company's new offices: should they be located within a city, state, or country? The first two employees presented their arguments in favor of their preferred options, and, as expected, all the rest literally bombarded them with questions. There was not a single unexplained moment or unresolved doubt.
Then Chris, the CEO, expressed his preference - an option that had no supporters and also involved significant risk. However, when colleagues tried to argue with him, he reacted completely inadequately. Since he was a big boss, he didn't have to intimidate people to get his way. Instead, he opted for a proactive tactic: first he raised his eyebrows, then his finger, and finally, just a tiny bit, but still raised his voice. Very soon they stopped asking him questions, the employees silently agreed with his ill-conceived and unfinished version.
But to be more precise, they almost agreed, because Kevin took the floor. He said something very simple like: "Chris, can we discuss something?"
There was a tense silence in the meeting room. Everyone held their breath. But Kevin seemed to take no notice and insisted on his own. In the next few minutes, he essentially told the CEO that he was violating his own decision-making principles. Kevin insisted that Chris was using his position to convince the others to move the new office to his hometown.
When Kevin finished speaking, Chris was silent for a while. Then he nodded, "You're absolutely right. I tried to impose my opinion. Let's go back and start over."
This discussion turned out to be really critical, but Kevin remained himself. He did not hide, like his colleagues, behind a shield of silence, but he did not try to impose his arguments on others either. As a result, the most reasonable decision was made, and Kevin's CEO appreciated his directness.
When Kevin finished speaking, one of his colleagues turned to us and said: “See how he carried himself? If you want to understand the secret of his success, look into what he just did."
We did just that. Moreover, we devoted the next quarter century to unraveling what Kevin and people like him are doing. What really sets them apart is their ability to negotiate successfully, to win when the stakes are very high.
When it comes to dangerous topics and there is a lot at stake, these people still succeed. But how? Kevin really not only raised a risky question, but also helped the team make a better decision, but how exactly did he achieve this? Maybe he has skills that can be learned? Or is it the result of some kind of magic beyond the control of others?
To answer these questions, let's take a closer look at what Kevin did. This will help us understand in which direction to move. Then we will take a closer look at the dialogue skills that successful speakers use so skillfully, and try to learn how to apply them to important negotiations in our own lives.
Our secret
In one Hollywood movie, the protagonist declares from the screen that if someone wants to succeed in life, he must do one thing. After that, he embarks on lengthy arguments that he is not going to reveal his secret to anyone, but offers to reach everything with his own mind. We do not want to be like this movie hero, so we will not test your patience for a long time, but will immediately explain what is most important for achieving success in life. When it comes to risky, contentious, and emotional discussions, smart people find a way to expose all relevant information (which they and their interlocutors possess) to the public. That's all.
At the heart of any successful conversation is the free discussion of all relevant information. In effective discussion, people openly and honestly express their point of view, exchange thoughts and offer their concepts. They readily share their ideas, even if the latter may seem controversial or completely unacceptable to the interlocutors. This is the secret of their success. In other words, this is exactly what we have found through research that Kevin and other highly successful speakers are adept at using.
Let's define this impressive talent and call it dialogue. Dialogue– free exchange of opinions between two or more interlocutors.
The principle of the dialogue
Now that we've shared our top secret with you, you probably have two questions. First, how does this free exchange of opinions lead to success? And second, what can be done to encourage interlocutors to speak their minds openly?
Let's immediately find out what is the relationship between free exchange of opinions and success. The answer to the second question (what needs to be done so that the dialogue continues regardless of the circumstances) you will receive in the remaining chapters of this book.
Replenishment of the general fund of opinions
Each of us enters into a discussion, including an important one, with his own baggage: with his own views, feelings, ideas and experiences regarding the topic under discussion. This unique combination of thoughts and feelings is our personal pool of opinions. It not only provides us with information, but also determines all our statements and actions in the process of interaction.
By definition, there is no common pool of opinions at the start of a discussion. The points of view of the interlocutors are different. I believe in one thing, you in another. I have one version of what happened in my mind, you have another. We have completely different views on the future.
People who are good at dialogue do their best to create general a fund to which each of the interlocutors will contribute. Even those thoughts that at first glance seem controversial, wrong, or even at odds with one's own beliefs deserve attention. Naturally, the interlocutors are not required to agree with each of these ideas. The main thing for them is to be able to express any opinions frankly and without fear.
What is the use of a common pool of opinions? First, when people have more accurate and verified information at their disposal, they can make the right choice. In the most direct sense of the word, the common pool of opinions is an indicator of the intelligence of the group. The more complete the fund, the better the decisions made. And even though the process of making them is delayed when there are many people involved, if all the participants in the discussion openly and freely share their thoughts, then the time spent is fully compensated by the quality of the decisions made.
On the other hand, we have all seen what happens if the general fund is extremely poor. When people deliberately hide their opinions from others, those who are individually considered very smart, do together nonsense.
One of our clients told this story.
A woman who received a referral for the removal of tonsils turned to the hospital. During the operation, the surgeons mistakenly removed part of her foot. How could such a tragedy happen? Why are there 98,000 deaths every year due to such medical errors? This can be partly explained by the fact that most doctors are afraid to speak their minds out loud. In the case described, no less than seven people silently wondered why the surgeon was working on the foot, but did not dare to ask a question.
Of course, such fear reigns not only in hospitals. In any situation where the leader is a smart, highly paid, self-confident person and at the same time unrestrained in his statements (which happens everywhere), subordinates try to keep their opinions to themselves and not take risks. It is dangerous to anger a person in power.
On the other hand, when people speak their minds confidently and there is a free exchange of opinions, a common fund can tremendously increase the group's ability to make good decisions. Think back to Kevin's example. When the members of the group entered into the discussion, all participants had a clear and unambiguous idea of the real state of affairs.
Beginning to realize the reasons and motives for all proposals, the members of the group turned out to be a support for each other. In the end, when one thought gave rise to another, then another, and so on, there was always a solution that no one thought about at first, but now everyone wholeheartedly supported it. As a result of the free exchange of opinions, the whole (the final decision) was much more complete than the sum of its individual parts. Briefly, this can be expressed as follows: common pool of opinions is the cradle of synergy .
The atmosphere of openness not only helps the interlocutors to make the right decisions, but also contributes to the effective implementation of them. By engaging in open discussion and sharing their thoughts, people support a free exchange of opinions. In the end, all participants in the conversation understand why the decision is the best, and are ready to participate in its implementation. For example, Kevin and the other vice presidents agreed to fulfill their decision-related responsibilities not because they were also involved in the discussion, but because understood its meaning.
Conversely, when people are not fully aware of what is happening, when they silently sit out during risky discussions, few of them sincerely agree to put the decision made by the group into practice. Since their opinions were kept with them, and thoughts were not contributed to the general fund, these people criticize the decision behind their backs and passively resist its implementation. It is even worse when someone, with the help of the strength of his influence or power, invests his opinion in the general fund. In this case, other people with even greater difficulty accept this information. They can say that they agree, but then they will work carelessly. As Samuel Butler said, "He who yields against his will still holds his own."
The time spent on creating a common fund of individual opinions is more than compensated by the quick and coordinated actions of the participants.
For example, if Kevin and other executives did not want to implement the plan to move offices, the consequences for the company could be devastating. Some employees would have agreed to move, others would have resisted it fiercely. Some would argue furiously in the corridors, while others would silently sabotage the implementation of this plan. Most likely, the leadership team would have to meet again, discuss this issue again and make a decision again (after all, only one likes it, and the results affect everyone).
Don't misunderstand us. We are not saying that every decision needs a consensus or that the boss should not participate in it and even lose the right to a decisive vote. We simply believe that, regardless of the method of decision-making, the fuller the pool of opinions, the better the end result will be - no matter who has the final say.
For example, sometimes we prefer to gloss over problems. At work, we don't want to contradict people in positions of power. At home, we silently accumulate resentment against other family members, hoping that they will notice this and, in response to our alienation, they will treat us better (where is the logic here?).
Sometimes, in order to express our point of view, we resort to allusions, sarcasm, innuendo and contemptuous glances. We pretend to be martyrs and then pretend that we were genuinely trying to help. Afraid to oppose a specific person, we blame the whole team for the problem in the hope that punishment will also reach the desired goal. Techniques can be very different, but in general we are talking about the same thing. We keep our opinion to ourselves, not wanting to contribute it to the general fund - we consciously prefer silence.
In other cases, not knowing how to maintain a dialogue, we rely on forceful methods - from covert manipulation to verbal attacks. We behave as if we know everything in the world, and we hope that others will take our word for it, take our arguments for granted. To do this, you have to impose your point of view in all possible ways. We use the techniques of superiors, put pressure on our interlocutor. The goal, of course, remains the same - to convince others that you are right. Now let's talk about how the interaction of individual elements occurs. When the stakes are high, opinions differ, and emotions run high, we often behave in the most inappropriate ways. In order to realize our full potential, we need to learn how to explain the value of our own pool of ideas, especially when it comes to risky and controversial points of view. In addition, you should call on such frankness of your interlocutors. We need to develop skills that will make us feel confident enough to discuss any, the most pressing issues, while forming a common pool of opinions. And if we succeed, our life will change for the better.
The art of dialogue can be learned
It's time for some really good news. The skills necessary for successful interpersonal interaction can be very easily identified and relatively easy to develop in oneself. First, understand that the ability to successfully lead important discussions floats into your hands. When you see someone confidently enter the turbulent waters of an emotional and contentious conversation and successfully overcome all obstacles, you willy-nilly are drawn to step aside in awe. "Wow!" - usually the first thing that breaks off the tongue. What started as a discussion doomed to failure ends up as an undeniable success - the right decision. This can take your breath away!
More importantly, the skills of proper dialogue are not only easy to identify, but they are also not very difficult to learn. That's where we'll go next. For twenty-five years of research, without ceasing to exclaim: “Wow!” We have highlighted the main ones. At first, we constantly watched Kevin and others like him. When the atmosphere heated up, they recorded the course of the conversation in detail, so that later they could compare their observations. We tested hypotheses and fine-tuned models until we were able to confidently identify skills that could account for the success of brilliant conversationalists like Kevin. In the end, we have combined our theories, models, and skills into a set of tools that are easy to learn and use when dealing with serious issues.
What will we strive for
What will we focus on in later chapters of this book?
First, let's study the tools used to create the necessary conditions for dialogue. Particular attention will be paid to our attitude to problem situations and preliminary preparation for them. Positive results are achieved when we work on ourselves, track the problem in time, control the course of our thoughts, determine our special style, and cope with difficulties before the situation gets out of hand. As you read the book you will learn to create for yourself and others the conditions under which dialogue will be the path of least resistance.
Then we will look at the tools available for conversation, which will help you learn to listen to the interlocutor and then work together. This is what most people mean when they talk about discussions where the stakes are high. How can I respond tactfully? How to speak convincingly, but without insults? How to listen to others? Or more importantly, how do you get people to speak up when they're nervous? How to move from thought to action? Reading this book , you will learn the basic tools of speaking, listening to others and taking action together.
Finally, we will bring together all the theoretical material and all the skills, presenting the reader with an appropriate model, illustrated with a wide variety of examples. To see if you can really put all this into practice, we're going to look at seventeen situations that most people find difficult—even those who are good at dialogue. As you read further you will develop the ability to find the right words when there is so much at stake.
Let's start with ourselves. How to define your goal
In our time, humanity is at a crossroads like never before.
One road leads to despair and hopelessness, the other to complete degeneration. We can only pray that we have enough wisdom to choose the right path.
Woody Allen
It's time to talk about the basics of dialogue. How to establish a free exchange of opinions, faced with differences in views and overly heated emotions? Given the nature of an ordinary person, this may not be so easy. Moreover, given the long-standing habit of most people to harm themselves with their own behavior, it may take a lot of effort to achieve a positive result. But no matter what, man Maybe change. Let's say more: thousands of people with whom we have collaborated over decades have achieved significant success. There is no single and only recipe - it is impossible to just drink a magic potion and instantly change for the better. No, for this you need to carefully and thoughtfully understand yourself and do a lot of inner work.
This is the first principle of dialogue - to start from myself. If you cannot change yourself, then it is unlikely that you will be able to build a dialogue correctly. Otherwise, as soon as the atmosphere heats up, you will again return to those norms of communication that you have become accustomed to since childhood - fierce disputes, prolonged silence, manipulation, tricks, etc.
If you don't work on yourself
Let's take an example from life. Two baby sisters return to their hotel room with their father after spending the day at Disneyland. The heat is suffocating, and the girls drank a lot of sparkling water. Therefore, now, entering the room, everyone thinks of only one thing - hurry to the toilet!
But there is only one bathroom in the room, and the real battle begins. Children quarrel, push and call each other names, jumping impatiently near the bathroom. Finally, one of the sisters calls for help from her father.
“Daddy, I was the first one to come in here!”
I know, but I need more!
- How do you know? You are not in my body. And I did not go to the toilet even in the morning, before we went for a walk.
- You only think about yourself!
The Pope offers a way out:
Girls, I can't decide this for you. Stay here and decide who goes first and who goes second. Only one rule - do not fight.
The father marks the time, and the children enter into a critical discussion. Minutes pass one after another, but only mutual accusations are heard. Finally, half an hour later, the sound of flushing water comes from the toilet. One of the sisters comes out. A minute later, the water is flushed and the second girl comes out. When both appear in the room, the father says:
- Now think about how many times you could go to the toilet during the time you sorted things out?
Such a thought did not even occur to the sisters, but nevertheless both immediately find the answer:
- many times if she wasn't that stupid.
- You just listen! called, and herself could well wait. But you always have to stand your ground!
Do not look at me!
You can laugh at this story, but you still have to admit: girls behave like any of us. When a conversation ends in failure, most of us are quick to blame others. Now, if the people around could change, then everyone would live happily ever after. If they had not behaved so disgustingly, then we would not have had to respond to them in the same way. They started it first. It's their fault, not ours. And so on.
Maybe not often, but we still happen to be in the role of outside observers in an endless stream of life's collisions. Very rarely we are not at fault. Much more often we contribute to existing problems.
People who are able to communicate understand this simple truth and the principle “Work on yourself first” that follows from it. They not only realize that by improving their approach they can win, but they also realize that a person can only work on himself. Perhaps others urgently need to change, or maybe we just want them to change; but the only person we can inspire, motivate and improve is the one we see in the mirror.
There is a certain irony in this fact: it turns out that only the most talented are constantly trying to improve their ability to communicate. As is often the case, the rich get richer. Those who are sure that you need to start with yourself do just that. While working on themselves, they simultaneously develop dialogue skills.
Let's start with ourselves
So let's say we need to work on our own conversational skills. Instead of buying this book and then giving it to a loved one or colleague saying, "You'll love this, especially the parts I've highlighted," let's try to figure out how we can benefit ourselves. How? Where to begin? How not to go astray?
It's hard to describe the special course of events in this kind of interaction as a major negotiation, but we're sure of one thing: gifted people start with excitement. This means that they enter risky discussions with the right motivation and focus on the conversation no matter the circumstances.
This ability to concentrate attention can be maintained in two ways. First, you need to be clear about what you want to achieve. You need to stick to the topic stubbornly, despite any attempts to distract you and divert the conversation to the side. Second, don't make rash decisions. Unlike those who justify their unworthy behavior by saying that they had no choice but to fight or flee, the masters of dialogue are convinced that in any circumstances you can agree with the help of words.
Let's take a look at both of these important postulates in turn.
moment of truth
To understand how emotional impulses can affect our ability to stay in dialogue, consider another real-life example.
Greta, the CEO of a small company, has been having a rather tense meeting with the top managers for the past two hours. For the past six months, at her insistence, a campaign aimed at reducing costs has been carried out. She called this meeting to find out why her initiative hasn't been working as expected so far. Greta hopes that those present will be able to explain why they did not start cutting costs. After all, she had gone to great lengths to convince them to speak sincerely.
And as soon as Greta announces that they are moving on to the agenda items, one of the managers starts to fidget, gets up, looks at the floor, and then nervously asks if he can ask a very uncomfortable question. By the way he highlights the word "very", it can be assumed that he is ready to accuse Greta of nothing more than nothing less than kidnapping the Lindbergh child. The embarrassed manager continues:
“Greta, six months ago you made us look for ways to cut costs. I would be lying if I said that we were zealous about this task. If you don't mind, I'd like to explain what exactly is preventing us from getting to the bottom of this issue.
“Great, lay it out,” Greta replies smiling.
– While you urge us to save even on writing paper and refrain from repairing and replacing office equipment, a new office is being equipped for you.
Greta freezes, and her face turns crimson. Everyone is closely following developments. The manager continues:
– Rumor has it that the furniture alone costs $150,000. This is true?
There comes a point when the discussion suddenly becomes critical. A foul-smelling, juicy detail has just been thrown into the general pool of opinions. Will Greta continue to maintain a frank exchange of opinions, or will she prefer to silence her subordinate?
At this point, the stakes are high because Greta's actions in the next few minutes will not only determine how employees feel about the proposed cost reduction, but will also affect how they will think about her in the future. Will she agree to continue an honest and open conversation? Or will she turn out to be the same hypocritical hypocrite, who does not tolerate objections from her subordinates, like many of her predecessors?
Will we get hooked?
Greta's behavior during this important discussion largely depends on how much she can control her emotions, being in the role of the defensive side. Of course, when giving a speech or writing memos, she wholeheartedly welcomes frankness. In this case, she is simply the captain of the club's "frankness and honesty" supporters. But what to do now? Will Greta thank the speaker for taking the risk of telling the truth?
Most likely, like most of us, she will become defensive. When the conversation gets dangerous, new (and less honest) motives often overwhelm the noble impulses we originally had. If you are standing in front of a potentially hostile crowd, then no doubt change your initial course to protect your public image. You can say:
“I'm sorry, but I don't think my new office is the right topic for today's discussion.
But that's where it all ends, and above all for you. In one fell swoop, you destroy the faint hope of sincerity in this particular conversation, and in addition, confirm the fears of others that you are interested in frankness only as long as it does not affect your reputation.
First, focus on what you really need.
In fact, no matter how great the temptation, Greta did not defend herself. After being accused of not following her own principles, she was surprised, embarrassed, and perhaps even a little upset, but then she took a deep breath and said:
- You know what? Let's talk about it. I'm glad you asked this question. Now we have the opportunity to sort things out.
And then Greta starts talking straight. She explains that she thinks she needs a new office, but at the same time confesses that she had no idea how big the expenses would be. Therefore, she sends someone to check the estimate, and at this time she says that the equipment of the new office is being carried out in accordance with the recommendation of the marketing department in order to improve the company's image and strengthen customer confidence. When she sees the construction quotes, she is amazed and admits that she should have checked the estimate before signing the work order. After that, she immediately announces her decision to either come up with a new plan that would cut costs in half, or completely abandon this project.
On the same day, we asked Greta how she managed to maintain her composure in this difficult situation. We wanted to know exactly what was going on in her head at that moment. What helped her move from anger and embarrassment to expressing gratitude?
“It's very simple,” Greta explained. “At first I really felt like I was in the crossfire and I was going to respond in kind. To tell the truth, my first impulse was to put that guy in his place. He accused me in front of everyone and was wrong. And suddenly it dawned on me. Despite the fact that two hundred pairs of eyes were looking at me, I suddenly had a question: “What do I need now? In fact?»
This question greatly influenced Greta's reasoning. By focusing on this problem, far more important than fighting back, she quickly realized that her goal was to convince two hundred managers to cut costs and thereby get thousands of other employees to do the same.
Having set this goal, Greta realized that the most serious obstacle she faced was the widespread belief that she was hypocritical: on the one hand, calling others to sacrifice, and on the other, spending excessive funds for her own convenience. At that moment, she no longer felt anger or shame, only gratitude. It couldn't have been a better opportunity to persuade the managers to follow her plan. So she entered into a dialogue.
Rearrange your thinking. Let's move on to a situation that could happen to you. You are talking to a person whose opinion on an important issue is the opposite of yours. How to apply all this reasoning about the goal you need? When entering a discussion, start by identifying your motives. Then ask yourself what exactly you need.
As the conversation progresses, when you feel like you're giving in to your boss or coldly meeting your spouse's arguments, pay attention to what happens to the goals you've set for yourself. Have you changed them to save face, overcome confusion, gain the upper hand, or punish the other person? This is the whole focus. Motives usually change without any conscious effort on our part. When adrenaline thinks for us, motives are determined according to the chemical processes in the body.
To return to the original motivation with which you approached this dialogue, you need to take a break from the conversation and look at yourself from the outside: “What am I doing and how can this be related to my main intentions?” If you honestly try to establish the motives, then the conclusion should be: “Okay, we'll see. I put pressure on the interlocutor, use unnecessary arguments - in general, I try to win at any cost. I'm trying to win this argument, instead of the two of us deciding where it's best to spend a vacation.
Notes
Previously, this book was published by our publishing house under the name "There is a serious conversation."
Per. G. Kruzhkova. Note. ed.
Synergy is the phenomenon when the overall result exceeds the sum of individual effects. Note. ed.
The kidnapping and murder in 1932 of the one-year-old son of the American pilot-hero Charles Lindbergh is one of the most high-profile criminal cases of the 20th century. Note. ed.
End of free trial.
, ,
Key negotiations. What and how to say when the stakes are high Joseph Grennay, Al Switzler, Ron Macmillan, Carrie Patterson
(No ratings yet)
Title: Key Negotiations. What and how to say when the stakes are high
By: Joseph Grennay, Al Switzler, Ron Macmillan, Carrie Patterson
Year: 2012
Genre: Paperwork, Foreign business literature, Foreign psychology, Popular about business, Social psychology, Management, recruitment
About the book Key Negotiations. What and how to say when the stakes are high.” Joseph Grennay, Al Switzler, Ron Macmillan, Carrie Patterson
Each of us has moments that decide everything or almost everything. Your career, the fate of your company, the future of your marriage. Emotions are raging, consciousness is clouded by adrenaline, thoughts are confused, you are tense to the limit, because you realize the importance of the situation. Your interlocutor is often in the same state. In such cases, "usual" negotiation techniques are not only useless, but certainly difficult to apply.
How to create a trusting atmosphere in such a situation? How to be persuasive and correct? What to do if you are overwhelmed by resentment or paralyzed by fear? How do you spot if a conversation is getting out of hand?
The complete guide to successful negotiation in an emergency is in this book.
On our site about books, you can download the site for free without registration or read the online book “Key Negotiations. What and how to say when the stakes are high” by Joseph Grennay, Al Switzler, Ron Macmillan, Carrie Patterson in epub, fb2, txt, rtf, pdf formats for iPad, iPhone, Android and Kindle. The book will give you a lot of pleasant moments and a real pleasure to read. You can buy the full version from our partner. Also, here you will find the latest news from the literary world, learn the biography of your favorite authors. For novice writers, there is a separate section with useful tips and tricks, interesting articles, thanks to which you can try your hand at writing.
Quotes from the book “Key Negotiations. What and how to say when the stakes are high.” Joseph Grennay, Al Switzler, Ron Macmillan, Carrie Patterson
The one who yields against his will still remains in his opinion.
In successful companies, the problem is ultimately solved by the leaders. In the most successful companies, everyone is responsible for each other, regardless of position.
What would I do if I was really interested in such results?
What do I really need for myself?
When entering a discussion, start by identifying your motives. Then ask yourself what exactly you need.
What do I want for others?
How can I strengthen relationships?
Strive to stay safe.
A key (critical, important) discussion is a conversation between two or more people, in which, firstly, there are high stakes, secondly, a divergence of opinions, and thirdly, heated emotions.
