The book is about important discussions where the conditions are extreme and the stakes are high, as the outcome could 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 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 a neighbor's 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 ...” From that moment on, the conversation turns into a heated argument about where to place 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 DescriptionKey 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.
Key negotiations
About the book
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 could 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?
How 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 a neighbor's 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 ...” From that moment on, the conversation turns into a heated argument about where to place 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.
Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, 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 Christine, Rebecca, Taylor, Scott, Aislinn, Kara, Seth, Samuel, Hyrum, Amber, Megan, Chase, Hayley, Breen, Amber, Laura, Becca, Rachel, Benjamin, Meredith, Lindsey, Kelly, Todd, which are an inexhaustible source of new knowledge for us.
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 captivated by the importance, power, and timeliness of its content that I even suggested that the authors call 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 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 a different direction.
Thanks to this book, I realized the wisdom of the statement of the great historian Arnold Toynbee, who said that the whole of history - not only of society, but 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 key discussions change people and relationships between them, creating connections on a whole new level. They lead to what in Buddhism is called the middle way, which is not a direct compromise between the two opposites of the rectilinear 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: to know and not to do is to 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 in two, And I had to decide on something ... I chose the road that led to the right
Restoring 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 fairly advanced conversational skills recognize that security is at risk, but they try to restore it in the wrong way: they try to alleviate the problem by sweetening the pill on offer. “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 to such an extent 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 goal.
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've been working hard all night to get ready for a scheduled management visit 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 add the finishing touches and 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 apologize".
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 it was not so. 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 Jotam.
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.
Truth? 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 this. 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 now you're having a hard time getting to your phone or checking your email. You tried to talk to him about making him less busy with 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 the search for 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 readiness, even if it seems that the interlocutor intends to win the argument at any cost. We do this on the assumption that he resorts to silence or aggression because he does not 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 Jotam. - 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.
