Kerry Patterson - Key negotiations. What and how to say when the stakes are high. Key negotiations

Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, 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 immeasurable, their love is limitless, and their patience is endless.

And also to our children Christina, Rebecca, Taylor, Scott, Aislinn, Kara, Seth, Samuel, Hyrum, Amber, Megan, Chase, Haley, Bryn, Amber, Laura, Becca, Rachel, Benjamin, Meridith, Lindsay, Kelly, Todd, which are an inexhaustible source of new knowledge for us.

Preface

This book is a real breakthrough in its field. This is exactly what came to my mind when I read the manuscript. I was so taken by the importance, power and timeliness of its content that I even suggested that the authors call the book Fateful discussions But after carefully re-reading 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 working with organizations, families, and my own life, I am convinced that in every person’s career and life there are several decisive moments that become “moments of truth.” Many of them are born in key, or life-changing, discussions with influential 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 great historian Arnold Toynbee, who said that all history - not only of society, but of 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 the “challenge”, you will achieve success. But when faced with a higher-level problem, an outdated, although once working experience - an answer, a solution - may not bring results.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 an alarming rate, becoming more dependent on amazing, but sometimes dangerous technologies, and at the same time the stress and pressure that we feel is significantly increasing. In such a charged 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.

This more modern and more appropriate solution will no longer be “in my opinion” or “in your way,” but “in 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 a synergistic relationship can lead to an improvement in both relationships and the decision-making process, and to greater interest in the implementation of these decisions.

You will learn that key discussions change people and the relationships between them create connections at a fundamentally new level. They lead to what in Buddhism is called the middle path - this is not a direct compromise between two opposites of a rectilinear time continuum, but a more perfect middle path of a higher order. When two or more people create the new kind dialogue, a new connection arises, similar to the one that appears in a family with the birth of a child. When you produce something completely new with someone, you create one of the strongest bonds that exists on earth. Moreover, it is so strong that you will not betray this person, no matter how much you are pushed to do so. social environment and those around.

The sequence of presentation of the material in this book is admirable. You start by understanding the meaning and supernatural power of dialogue, then realize what you really want and what is really happening, then provide the necessary conditions, then use introspection and self-awareness. At the final 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 to the decisions made and strive to implement them with all their might. In other words, you start with the right mental and emotional attitude and end with building a set of necessary skills.

Although I have written on this topic and taught similar ideas for many years, I was not only deeply impressed by the contents of this book, but even inspired. I learned about new ideas, fully understood existing ones, and saw new opportunities for applying and expanding my knowledge. In addition, I realized how these new techniques, techniques and tools together help in leading key discussions and truly force a break with mediocrity and the mistakes of the past. And the new breakthrough in my life is also associated with a decisive break with the old key ideas.

Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, 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 immeasurable, their love is limitless, and their patience is endless.

Preface

You will learn that key discussions change people and the relationships between them create connections at a fundamentally new level. They lead to what in Buddhism is called the middle path - this is not a direct compromise between two opposites of a rectilinear time continuum, but a more perfect middle path of a higher order. When two or more people create a new kind of dialogue, a new connection arises, similar to the one that appears in a family with the birth of a child. When you produce something completely new with someone, you create one of the strongest bonds that exists on earth. Moreover, it is so strong that you will not betray this person, no matter how the social environment and those around you push you to do so.

When this book first came into my hands, I was pleased to note that my dear colleagues and friends not only told in their professional experience and touched incredibly important topic, but they did it brilliantly. “Key negotiations. What and how to say when the stakes are high" - this is an accessible form of presentation, subtle humor, clear examples, practicality and common sense. The authors demonstrated how intelligence quotients (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ) can be effectively combined and used in key discussions.

I remember one of my respected colleagues having a similar key discussion with a college professor. The teacher believed that this student, my friend, was learning carelessly and was not realizing his full potential. He listened carefully to the professor, outlined in his own words 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 his interlocutor’s arguments. The dialogue took place: 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 whether they would dare to take on such a complex topic and present it in a book. They did it. I encourage you to study all of the material carefully, stopping to think about each chapter and how they relate to each other. After that, put what you've learned into practice, and then go back to the book to learn and understand something new, and take advantage of your new knowledge. Remember: know and not to do it 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 magnificent poem "The Other Road":

IN autumn forest, at the fork in the road,
I stood, lost in thought, at the turn;
There were two ways, and the world was wide,
However, I could not split into two,
And I had to decide on something...
I chose the road that led to the right
And, turning, she disappeared into the thicket.
Was she a stranger, perhaps?
And it seemed to me that it was more overgrown;
However, both were overgrown.

And both beckoned, pleasing to the eye
Dry yellowish loose foliage.
I left the other one in reserve,
Although I guessed at that hour,
That there is unlikely to be a chance to return.

I'll remember someday
This forest morning is distant:
After all, there was another path before me,
But I decided to turn right -
And that solved everything else.

Stephen Covey

What are negotiations under extreme conditions?

The emptiness created by 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,” one can imagine presidents and prime ministers gathered at the negotiating table and deciding fate planets. Although such discussions do have a huge impact on our world, we still mean otherwise. The discussions that this book is devoted to are no less important, despite the fact that they represent nothing more than ordinary communication. Extreme conditions and high stakes happen in everyday conversations that can nevertheless change your life.

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 can talk about almost anything if you learn to recognize the moment when the other person no longer feels safe, change the conversation to another topic to restore an atmosphere of mutual trust, and then continue the conversation, directing it in the right direction. . In this chapter we will explain what it takes to restore the sense of security lost during communication.

First, let's consider a situation where security is at risk. We overhear a conversation between a couple who are trying to discuss one of the most sensitive issues - intimate relationships.

So, Jotham thinks that he and Yvonne have intimacy too rarely, but Yvonne is quite happy with the existing relationship. Over the years, they have hardly discussed this issue, preferring to express their feelings through some kind of action. If Jotham is in the appropriate mood, and Yvonne does not support his ardor, he simply gets offended, withdraws into himself, remains silent and avoids Yvonne for several days.

Yvonne knows what is happening to Jotham. His sour face does not bring her joy, so from time to time she gives in to him, even without being in the mood for romance. Unfortunately, after this she herself becomes angry with Jotham, and the previous a good relationship do not recover very quickly.

The problem is that the more Jotham insists on having his way, the less attractive and interesting he seems to Yvonne. The more often Yvonne gives in to persuasion and then repents, the less interested she is in continuing this relationship. The longer both avoid a serious conversation on this topic, expressing their feelings through actions, the higher the likelihood that very soon they will have to separate. Yvonne finally decided to talk frankly with Jotan. She did not wait for another disagreement, but chose the moment when they were both in good mood settled down on the sofa. That's what came out of it.

Jotham, let's talk about what happened last night, well, you remember when I said I was very tired.

Well, I do not.

What do you mean by this?

I'm sick and tired of you always deciding what we need to do and when!

Yvonne runs out of the room, slamming the door in anger.

Take a break. Restore safety. Then return to the topic at hand

In such a situation, it is necessary to move away from the topic of conversation. You should not concentrate on what is said. Yvonne ran out of the room because her perception was limited only by what Jotham was saying. If she had paid attention to his behavior, she would have realized that sarcasm on his part was a form of disguise. Jotham prefers to hide his feelings under the guise of aggression, shifting the blame onto Yvonne's shoulders. Why does he need this? Because he does not feel safe to continue the dialogue. But Yvonne did not understand this.

We are not at all arguing that Jotham'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 a topic on which the continuation of the relationship depends, then for some time you will have to suppress the desire to fight back blow for blow - in this case, Jotham's sarcasm.

Yvonne's test is to regain enough safety to talk about intimacy issues, Jotham's attitude, or any other issues. But if safety 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 act exactly like Yvonne and Jotham. Like Jotham, they completely ignore the urgent need to remain safe. They say the first thing that comes to mind, without thinking about the consequences it will lead to. Or, like Yvonne, they decide that the topic is extremely dangerous and prefer to remain silent.

People with sufficiently developed dialogue skills are aware that security is at risk, but they are trying to restore it in completely the wrong way: they are trying to soften 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 we spend together.” By letting in the fog, they are trying to protect themselves. Such a strategy, naturally, does not address the essence of the problem, so it cannot be resolved in any way.

People with a highly developed ability to conduct dialogue do not resort to such tricks. They know that dialogue is a free exchange of opinions without any pretense, embellishment or lies. So they do something completely different: they steer the conversation in a different direction, restore safety, and then return to the topic at hand.

Once you learn to feel threatened, you will be able to discuss the most risky issues if you step away from the topic for a while and regain enough safety that you can resolve 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 could figure 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 enjoy our relationship."

Find out what exactly confuses your interlocutor

Now let's look at what will help restore safety, even if the topic is very risky, controversial or emotional. The first step to success is to understand what exactly confuses your interlocutor. In each case, you should get out of the situation differently.

common goal

Think about why you started this conversation. Remember the last time someone said unpleasant things to you, but you didn’t defend yourself? Let's say a friend told you something that would make a lot of people upset. In order for a person to speak out on a sensitive topic, you must believe that for him your interests come first, that he cares about your aspirations. In other words, you must trust his goals and therefore be prepared to listen to some rather harsh remarks from him.

Important negotiations often go wrong not because of the content of the conversation, but because your interlocutors are convinced that your bad intentions are hidden behind the unpleasant topic. How can they feel safe if they think you are going to hurt them? After all, every word you say inspires suspicion in them.

Consequently, the first condition for maintaining security is a common goal, that is, the interlocutors understand that they are working in the same direction and share each other’s aspirations, interests and values. 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 Jotham believes that Yvonne brought up the topic only to reproach him or to insist on her own, then the conversation is doomed to failure from the very beginning. But if he believes that Yvonne is truly guided by the best intentions, namely, that she cares about their relationship, then she will have a chance for success.

Watch for signs that the common goal is at risk. How do you know if the feeling of security has disappeared precisely because of problems with a common goal? It's very simple. First of all, if such a goal is in danger, we begin to argue. When others impose their opinions on us, it is often because they feel like we are trying to take over, so they have to do the same. Another sign is the desire to defend oneself, accusations and constant return to what has already been said. The following questions will help determine whether the overall goal is at risk.

Are the interlocutors convinced that I care about their interests in this conversation?

Do they trust my motives?

Don't forget that the goal is common. It's general, and it's not a trick. To succeed in critical discussions, we must truly care about the interests of others, not just our own. If our goal is to get our way or to manipulate others, it will soon become apparent, security will be compromised, and we will return to silence or aggression. First of all, understand your motives. Ask yourself questions that will help you start with yourself.

What do I need for myself?

What do I want for others?

What do I need to continue the relationship?

Tune in for reciprocity. Let's look at how shared purpose can be used to solve difficult questions that, at first glance, seem to be self-serving. How can we find common purpose here? Let's say your boss often doesn't keep his promises. How can I express my distrust to him? Naturally, the boss will immediately begin to either defend or attack you, since he knows that your true goal is to improve your own position.

To avoid disaster, find a common goal that your boss will find compelling enough to listen to you. If you approach him only to get his way, the boss will consider you selfish, which is what you really show yourself to be with this approach. On the other hand, if you try to understand the other person's point of view, you can easily find a way to involve him in a conversation on a risky topic. For example, if your boss’s behavior causes you to not complete work on time, or it leads to unnecessary expenses that he grumbles about, or reduces the productivity that he is so worried about, then this will be your possible overall target.

Imagine that you started a conversation with the following words: “I have a few ideas on how you can reduce your expenses by several thousand a month. I can help solve this problem by preparing a corresponding 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

Will you be able to continue the dialogue?

There is no point in engaging in important discussions if you and the other person do not have a common goal, but equally there is no point in continuing the conversation if you cannot maintain the mutual respect that is a necessary condition for meaningful dialogue. If people feel disrespected, the conversation immediately becomes unsafe and dialogue ends abruptly.

Why? Because respect is like air. If he is gone, people will only think about him. As soon as disdain 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 fairly complex quality assurance problem with a group of supervisors. You really want to settle this issue once and for all. Your job depends on it. Unfortunately, you are convinced that supervisors are overpaid and their qualifications are clearly not up to par. You think that they are not only trying to jump in over their head, but also constantly doing stupid things, and sometimes simply going beyond the bounds of ethics.

You listen to their new ideas with a sour expression on your face. This shows your disrespect for them, which is hidden in your subconscious. And it all ends before it begins. What happens to the conversation even though you still have a common goal? The conversation doesn't work out. Supervisors are hostile to 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, the focus is now only on gaining points, although in the final everyone will be a loser. Your common goal suffers due to a lack of mutual respect.

Warning signals. To spot when disrespect is being shown and safety is being compromised, watch for signs that people are becoming protective of their dignity. The main thing here is emotions. When people feel disrespected, it becomes a central issue for them. Fear gives way to anger. This entails insults, shouting and threats. To determine when mutual respect is in jeopardy, try answering this question: “Do people doubt that I respect them?”

Is it possible to 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 if you feel sad 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 exactly this problem. Sometimes she doesn't like Jotam. She considers him rather capricious and self-centered. How can you treat such a person with respect?

Undoubtedly, any dialogue would be doomed if we needed to have exactly the same goals or respect each and every character trait of the interlocutor. In that case we would have to remain mute. However, we can conduct a dialogue if we learn to respect the human dignity of the interlocutor. Essentially, feelings of disrespect arise when we consider how different another person is from us. We can resist this by emphasizing what we have in common. Without judging the behavior of your interlocutors, try to show concern for them.

One very clever man I 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.” By recognizing that we all have our weaknesses, it will be easier to respect others. Having done this, we feel unity, a sense of kinship, even with people 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 this example. Workers at one manufacturing company continued their 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 will work, but without enthusiasm. Everyone's nerves are on edge. What can be done to improve the situation?

Realizing that the battle continued, 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 in a separate room and, on a poster sheet of paper, state how they imagine their goals for the company. For two hours, everyone lists what they would like to achieve 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 discover any, even the most insignificant, matches between their demands and theirs.

After two minutes everyone returns. They are stunned. It seems that the lists were written as carbon copies. They had more than just a couple of ideas in common - all their aspirations were entirely the same. Everyone needed a profitable company, a permanent and well-paid job, high-quality products and good relationships in the team. Given the opportunity to speak frankly without fear of attack, each group expressed not only General requirements, but also what every person needed.

This experiment forced each side to think seriously about whether they correctly imagined their opponents. The former enemies realized that they were very similar. The "sins" of others differed from their own largely because of the roles the people had to play rather than because of radical differences in character. They restored mutual respect, and silence and aggression were replaced by real dialogue for the first time in 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. Moreover, we remind you that you must find a way to restore both an atmosphere of mutual understanding and a commonality of purpose, even in relation to those who differ from you in many ways.

But how? What exactly needs to be done? We've already touched on a few things (mostly what to avoid), but now it's time to look at three very important skills that are best used in dialogue:

Apology.

Opposition.

Each helps restore either mutual respect or a common goal. First we will observe their practical application, and then we will try to find out whether these skills can help Yvonne turn things around.

We've been waiting for you! For example, you are talking to a group of hourly employees who have been working hard all night to prepare for a planned management visit to the factory. It was expected that you would introduce them to the visiting vice president of the branch, who would be given the details of their innovations. They are proud of the improvements their team has been able to implement in Lately, so they readily agreed to work overnight to add the finishing touches and make final preparations.

Unfortunately, when it comes time to visit their department, the vice president who has arrived for the inspection makes a sensational statement. He proposes a plan that you firmly believe will harm quality and drive away your best customers. Since the visit will end in an hour, you decide to immediately discuss this proposal 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 the people who had been intensely preparing for this visit all night about the change in plans.

After escorting your boss to the car, you return to your office and run into the entire team along the way. All six people, with bleary eyes and upset faces, are seething 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 get to your place and are not going to stop to give them any explanations.

Gee!

Now things get really tense. “We worked a full night shift, and you didn’t even think to come in! This was the last time! You can’t wait for us to continue to hump you!”

Time stops. The conversation has just turned into a critical discussion. The workers, who worked all night, are clearly upset by this attitude. They feel they have been openly disrespected.

But you don't 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 been thrown at you and pay attention only to the content of the conversation, that is, you still think that all this is somehow connected with the inspection of the factory.

“I had to choose between the future of the company and inspecting the production. I chose our future and if I have to, I will do the same again.”

Now both you and your interlocutors are fighting for respect. Very soon it leads you nowhere. But what could have been done differently?

Instead of getting hooked and fighting back, break out of the cycle. Treat their aggressive behavior for what it is - a sign of compromised safety, then move away from the topic of conversation, restore safety, and then return to the issue at hand. Now we will see how this can be done.

Ask for forgiveness if necessary

If you made a mistake that hurt others (in this case, not informing your staff that you were canceling your visit), start with an apology. An apology is a statement that conveys your sincere regret that you caused trouble to others or failed to prevent it.

“I am very sorry that I did not call when I found out that we would not come to you. You worked all night, this would be the perfect opportunity to show off 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 your motivation. You must give up trying to save face, rise to the occasion, or win. Instead, you need to figure out what you really want. You need to sacrifice some of your ego and admit your mistake. This kind of sacrifice pays off because when you give something of value, you receive even more value in return - healthy dialogue and good results. See if this sincere show of respect helps restore safety. If yes, then you can now explain in more detail what happened. If not, you'll need to use one of the more advanced skills outlined below. Whatever the case may be, first restore safety and then get back to the point of the conversation.

If your behavior gives someone reason to doubt your respect and commitment 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 contrast method

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 to them. Naturally, respect often disappears when we behave in blatantly inappropriate ways. But in the same way, insult is often unintentional.

The same can happen with a common goal. At first you may simply share your views, but the interlocutor will think that you are going to convince him and win him over to your side. Clearly, an apology is not appropriate in these circumstances. It would be strange to admit your mistake if you were not mistaken. So can we now establish a common goal or mutual respect to restore security and return to dialogue?

If others misunderstand your purpose or intentions, step away from the argument and restore safety by using a tool called contrasting.

Opposition is an affirmative or negative statement, which is characterized by:

Express your interlocutor's concerns that you do not respect him or have bad intentions (negative part);

Affirm your respect and explain your true goals (affirmative part).

Let's give an example.

[Assertive] “I think your work is excellent.”

Once safety 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 you, a problem arose that urgently needed to be discussed with the vice president, otherwise it could seriously cripple our business. You know what, I'll try to invite the vice president to see you tomorrow so he can learn about the results of your work. He will be here for the opening ceremony, and we will be sure to show him all the innovations that you have introduced.”

Of the two parts of the opposition, the negative one is considered more important because it concerns a misunderstanding due to which security was jeopardized. Employees who have worked so hard act under the belief that you do not appreciate their efforts and did not even bother to inform them about changes in the program, when in fact this was not the case. So you address this misunderstanding and explain what you didn't mean. Once you've done this and the conversation is back on track, you can say whatever you wanted to say. The most important thing is an atmosphere of safety.

Let's go back to Yvonne and Jotham. Yvonne tries to talk, but Jotham questions her motives. This is how using the method of opposition could help her.

It seems to me that the situation only becomes more complicated when you withdraw into yourself and don’t communicate with me for days on end,” says Yvonne.

So you expect me to put up with your refusals and still feel happy? - Jotham retorts.

“I don’t want to say that this is only your problem,” Yvonne continues. - To tell the truth, I think the problem is between the two of us. I'm not trying to put all the responsibility on you. I don't even know what the solution could be. The only thing I want is to talk to understand each other better. Perhaps this will help me change my attitude towards you.

“I know where this will lead,” Jotham 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, Jotham still thinks that Yvonne is trying to make sure that the existing relationship between them is in perfect order, and if she succeeds, she will still refuse him, but without feeling any remorse. Jotham 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 it is not so. I just want to talk about what each of us likes and doesn't like. 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 decision that will help us become happy.

Is it true? - Jotham lowers his tone and calms down. - Sorry for doubting. I understand that I am a little selfish, but I don’t know how to force myself to perceive this situation differently.

Contrast is not an apology. It is very important that you understand this. This is not a way to retract what was said without hurting someone's feelings. Rather, it is an opportunity to make sure that our words do not hurt our interlocutor more than they should. Once Yvonne clarified her true goals, Jotham felt safer and they returned to normal dialogue.

Contrast provides context and proportion. In the midst of a conversation on a sensitive topic, our interlocutors sometimes hear in our words what 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 completely depressed.

At this point, you may feel tempted to tone down your harshness: “You know, it’s not that big of a deal.” Do not do that. Don't back down if you've already started talking. Instead, put your point 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 your attitude towards him personally. If this belief is wrong, use a contrast to explain how you really think about it all. Start with what you don't believe.

“Let's put this in perspective. I don't want you to think that I'm not happy with the quality of your work. I want us to continue working together. I really think you are doing a very good job. But the issue of punctuality is important to me, and I just want you to pay special attention to this. If you follow this, we won’t have any problems.”

Use opposition as prevention or first aid. When dealing with security problems, opposition is useful both as a prevention and as a first aid. Until now, all examples have been of the second type, that is, emergency care. Someone misunderstood something and we intervened to clarify our true intentions.

However, if we suspect that a statement we are about to add to the pool of opinions will provoke active self-defense, we can use opposition to strengthen the atmosphere of security even before it becomes clear that interlocutors are inclined towards silence or aggression.

“I don't want you to think that I don't appreciate the time you spent making sure our bank records were in 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 gives me some concern.”

When people misunderstand you and you begin to challenge the misunderstanding, stop. Use contrast. Explain what you didn't mean until safety 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 contrasting method. Remember: you must contrast what was not intended with your true intentions. Say everything in a way that will help restore a sense of security to your interlocutor.

Angry neighbor. You asked your roommate to remove the bags from your refrigerator shelf and put them on hers. It seemed to you that this question was completely insignificant, just a request to evenly distribute the space. You didn't have any hidden intentions, and besides, you really like this neighbor. But she suddenly replies: “You’re back to your old ways again!” Again you are telling me how to live. I can’t take out the trash without you telling me how best to do it.”

I don't want______

Actually I want______

Irritable employee. You are going to talk to Jacob, one of the employees who takes other people's recommendations and advice too seriously. Yesterday, a coworker told him that she would really appreciate it if he cleaned up after himself in the cafeteria (as everyone usually does), and Jacob lost his temper. You decided to intervene. Of course, you will have to give him some advice, and this is what always makes him furious, so you need to approach the issue carefully. You must find the right intonation and carefully lead the conversation to the desired topic. Because, to be honest, you really like Jacob. And not only for you. He has a great sense of humor and is also the most competent and diligent employee in the company. If only he weren't so touchy!

Formulate a statement with opposition.

I don't want______

Actually I 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 communicate with bad company. You always got along with the boy, and everything would be fine, if not for one problem: he spends hours talking on the phone and surfing the Internet, that is, he spends almost all his free time on this. It's actually not a bad thing to do, considering his past exploits, and you're not too worried about it, but you're now finding it difficult to get to your phone or check your email. You tried to talk to him about taking up less time on his phone and computer, and in response you heard: “Please don’t send me to a boarding school! I will behave! I promise I won’t talk to my friends anymore, just don’t send me away!”

Formulate a statement with opposition.

I don't want______

Actually I want______

RUSO - a way to determine a common goal

Let's look at another tool. Sometimes we suddenly find ourselves in the middle of an argument because our goals are clearly different from those of our interlocutors. And here we are not talking about a misunderstanding, so opposition in this situation will not help. To solve this problem we need something more effective.

For example, you have just been offered a new position, which will mean a significant advancement in the career ladder and will give you greater authority; In addition, the salary is such that it can alleviate the need to move. The latter is important, since you will have to travel with your 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 presentiment that your spouse would object to the move, but you did not expect that she would oppose it so much. 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 opportunity to earn more and occupy 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 yield to the opinion of the interlocutor. Both strategies create winners and losers, and the problem extends far beyond the initial discussion.

Those who are good at dialogue immediately 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 until now. In reality, this solution does not satisfy anyone, and, frankly, it is a very bad option, which most often leads to a deepening of the problem and ultimately to divorce. Although sometimes a compromise is necessary, another solution can be found.

People who are fluent in the art of dialogue use four techniques in the search for a common goal, which can be conventionally designated by the abbreviation RUSO:

Decide to find a common goal

If you want to get back 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 abandon silence or aggression as a way to win others over to our point of view. Moreover, we need to resist the temptation to engage in false dialogue in which we pretend to have found a common goal (that is, we persist in arguing until the other person gives up). Instead, we start with ourselves, choosing to engage in the conversation until we reach a solution that satisfies both parties.

This can be far from simple. To stop quarreling, you need to give up confidence in the exceptional correctness of the option you propose. We need to believe that we can be happy even without getting exactly what we want. this moment. You need to accept the fact that there may be another solution, and it is suitable for everyone.

In addition, we must be willing to openly state this willingness, even if it seems that the interlocutor intends to win the argument at any cost. We do this based on the assumption that he resorts to silence or aggression because he does not feel safe. We conclude that if you restore this sense of security by demonstrating your willingness to find a common goal, then the interlocutor will understand that dialogue is the best way out of the situation.

So the next time you find yourself in the midst of a confrontation due to a difference of opinion with someone, use this simple but very effective technique. Take your mind off the point of the argument and restore safety. 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 solution acceptable to both of us.” And then see if you managed to restore a sense of confidence and security.

Set goals based on strategy

The desire to find a common goal is great, but it is not enough on its own. Having changed yourself, you need to change your strategy. In this case, we will have to solve the following problem: we find ourselves in a dead end because we ask for one thing, and our interlocutor asks for another. It seems to us that it is impossible to find a way out, because we correlate what we ask for with what we want. In reality, what we ask 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 return from work and say that I want to go to the cinema. You state that you want to stay home and rest. And so the argument begins: movies, TV, movies, 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 find out what exactly people want. So take a step back from the conversation that's serving as strategy and set the goals you're trying to achieve with it.

If you do this, you may discover new variations. By giving up your own strategy and focusing on your true desires, you will be able to achieve a common goal.

You need peace and quiet, but I want to spend time only with you, away from the children. So, if we come up with something that combines these conditions, for example, a trip to a quiet and distant place, then we will both be happy, right?

Absolutely.

What if we went on a trip to the canyon and...

Create a common goal

It happens that the goals that we pursue with our strategy largely coincide. In this case, all that remains is to agree and develop a common goal. But we are not always so lucky. For example, you discover that your desires can only be satisfied at the expense of the interests of your interlocutor. Under these conditions, you cannot find a common goal, so you need to create one.

To do this, define goals in more general outline, find something more important than the aspirations that the disputing parties share. For example, you and your wife can't agree on whether to move to a new position, but you can 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 eliminate temporary differences, create common purpose, and start a dialogue.

Consider new strategies

If you have found a common goal and restored safety, then find enough confidence to return to the topic of conversation. It's time to re-enter the dialogue and consider strategies that would meet the needs of all interlocutors. If you truly want to find a solution that works for everyone and have understood your true desires, you will no longer waste energy on unnecessary arguments. On the contrary, you will easily come to a decision that will suit everyone.

Look at new opportunities with an open mind. Will you be able to advance your career if you stay in your current job? Is it really this job only in this company that can make you happy? Is moving really necessary? Where will your family be just as happy? If you're not willing to think creatively, you won't be able to come up with an answer that's mutually agreeable. If you have such a desire, then remember that there are no limits to perfection.

If you sense a difference of opinion with your interlocutors, you need to do the following. First, take your mind off the point of the argument. Forget about 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 is found that everyone can agree on.

“This won't work. Your people are willing to stay late and finish work, but we prefer to go home now but work on the weekend. Maybe we can try to come up with an option that will suit everyone?”

Set goals based on strategy. Ask your interlocutors why they want 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 quality. Why do you want to work on your day off?”

Create a common goal. If you still don't come to an agreement, even after finding out your opponents' intentions, try to create a higher or longer-term goal that is more important than the one that caused you to argue.

“I don’t want to put pressure on anyone. It would be better if we could find a way out without forcing anyone to give in to anyone; this always only leads to the losers resenting the winners. What interests me most is our good relationship. Let's try not to harm them with our decision."

Consider new strategies. With a clear, common goal, you can work together to find a solution that works for everyone.

“So we need to find a solution that doesn't compromise safety and product quality, but still allows you to attend your colleague's wedding on Saturday. What if we work from morning until lunch, and then you come and continue working? So we can..."

And again Yvonne and Jotham

Let's end where we started. Yvonne is trying to establish a dialogue with Jotham. Let's see how she can restore an atmosphere of mutual security before starting an important discussion. She will first use contrast to prevent any misunderstanding about her true goals.

Jotham, I would like to talk about our intimate relationship. I am not at all saying that the problem is only in you, it is absolutely clear to me that it is in me too. I would really like to discuss this and we could make it feel good for both of us.

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 are looking at the situation from Yvonne's point of view. She is the one who initiates the conversation. Naturally, Jotham can do a lot to improve 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 Jotham's offensive remark, but rather pay attention to the shaky sense of security that lies behind it. Why is Jotham avoiding the conversation? There are two possible reasons:

Yvonne's intonation makes him think that she is trying to blame him for all the troubles.

He believes that her concern about one small issue reflects the general attitude towards him.

So she asks for forgiveness and uses contrast to restore safety:

I'm sorry I said that. I don't blame you for my own feelings or actions. We have common problems. We both must have done things that made the situation worse. I'm sure about myself.

It's probably my fault too. Sometimes I start sulking because I'm offended. In addition, I hope that by doing so I will make you regret your words or actions. Sorry about that.

Notice what just happened. Since Yvonne had successfully restored safety and was focused on what she really wanted from this conversation, Jotham entered the conversation. This is much more effective than if Yvonne continued her accusations.

Let's continue.

“I can’t even imagine how this can be fixed,” says Jotham. - I have more temperament than you. Therefore, it seems that the only solution is either for me to come to terms with this state of affairs, or for you to feel like you are in sexual slavery.

Now the problem becomes the common goal. Jotham thinks that he and Yvonne have different intentions. He is convinced that there is no solution for them that would suit both sides. But neither agreeing to a compromise nor insisting on her own, Yvonne is distracted from the topic and therefore uses the RUSO technique in order to create a common goal.

- [Decide to find a common goal.] No, - Yvonne explains, - this is not what I want at all. I will not accept a solution that does not suit both of us. I would really like to find a way that makes us both feel close and loved.

And I want it. It just seems to me that we understand our desires differently.

Notice how Jotham enters the dialogue. This is made possible by a restored atmosphere of security, especially by the presence of a common goal.

“[Set goals based on strategy.] Or maybe not in different ways,” Yvonne objects. - What does it mean to you to be loved?

Making love to you when you really want it. 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 not only that, 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.

- [Think about new strategies.] What if we did this...

But I will never be able to do that!

The above dialogue may leave you in two minds. First, you might think, “Look, this actually works!” But at the same time, you may think: “But I myself will never be able to think so clearly in the middle of a tense conversation!”

Let's face it, sitting at a computer and typing, it's very easy to clearly express thoughts and talk about things. various techniques. But we dare to assure you that all these examples are taken from life, people really often act this way. Moreover, sometimes you yourself rise to the occasion.

So don't despair if you start to doubt your ability to think clearly in the middle 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 it comes to a critical conversation, think about what techniques can help you. Remember, when it comes to discussing big issues, even small progress can make a huge difference.

Finally, as with other tricky problems, don't strive for perfection. Aim for gradual movement forward. Learn to slow down when adrenaline flows into your bloodstream. Don't forget to ask yourself the questions we've already talked about. Choose those that, in your opinion, best suit the topic being discussed. And watch your own gradual improvement.

Summary: restoring security

Change the subject

If the interlocutors are inclined towards silence or aggression, change the topic of conversation and restore an atmosphere of safety. When your confidence is no longer threatened, return to the topic at hand and continue the dialogue.

Pay attention to what exactly confuses the interlocutor

Common goal. Do your 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 been blatantly disrespectful, ask for forgiveness.

Use contrast to make things clear

If there are misunderstandings between your interlocutors regarding your goals or desires, use contrast. Start with what you didn't mean and then explain what you really meant.

RUSO as a way to define a common goal

When faced with differences in your goals from those of the other person, use four techniques to return to a common goal.

Decide to find a common goal.

Set goals based on strategy.

Create a common goal.

Consider new strategies.

Carrie Patterson, Joseph Grennai, Ron McMillan, 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 immeasurable, their love is limitless, and their patience is endless.

Preface

This book is a real breakthrough in its field. This is exactly what came to my mind when I read the manuscript. I was so taken by the importance, power and timeliness of its content that I even suggested that the authors call the book Fateful discussions. But after carefully re-reading 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...

Thanks to this book, I realized the wisdom of the great historian Arnold Toynbee, who said that all history - not only of society, but of 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 the “challenge”, you will achieve success. But when faced with a higher-level problem, an outdated, although once working experience - an answer, a solution - may not bring results. And it turns out that nothing fails like success.

You will learn that key discussions change people and the relationships between them create connections at a fundamentally new level. They lead to what in Buddhism is called the middle path - this is not a direct compromise between two opposites of a rectilinear time continuum, but a more perfect middle path of a higher order. When two or more people create a new kind of dialogue, a new connection arises, similar to the one that appears in a family with the birth of a child. When you produce something completely new with someone, you create one of the strongest bonds that exists on earth. Moreover, it is so strong that you will not betray this person, no matter how the social environment and those around you push you to do so.

When this book first came into my hands, I was pleased to note that my dear colleagues and friends not only spoke about their professional experiences and touched on an incredibly important topic, but also did it brilliantly. “Key negotiations. What and how to say when the stakes are high" - this is an accessible form of presentation, subtle humor, clear examples, practicality and common sense. The authors demonstrated how intelligence quotients (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ) can be effectively combined and used in key discussions.

At first the teacher was stunned. But then he began to listen to his interlocutor’s arguments. The dialogue took place: new understanding was reached, even stronger ties were created.

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 magnificent poem "The Other Road":

In the autumn forest, at a fork in the road,

I stood, lost in thought, at the turn;

There were two ways, and the world was wide,

However, I could not split into two,

And I had to decide on something...

I chose the road that led to the right

And, turning, she disappeared into the thicket.

Was she a stranger, perhaps?

And it seemed to me that it was more overgrown;

However, both were overgrown.

And both beckoned, pleasing to the eye

Dry yellowish loose foliage.

I left the other one in reserve,

Although I guessed at that hour,

That there is unlikely to be a chance to return.

I'll remember someday

This forest morning is distant:

After all, there was another path before me,

But I decided to turn right -

Stephen Covey

What are negotiations in extreme situations

The emptiness created by 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",” one 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 that this book is devoted to are no less important, despite the fact that they represent nothing more than ordinary communication. Extreme conditions and high stakes also occur in everyday conversations that can nonetheless change your life.

What are the features of these important negotiations? Firstly, differences of opinion between interlocutors. 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.

Third, 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 the neighbors’ party yesterday.

It turns out that you not only flirted with someone there, but also “behaved just disgustingly.” You don’t remember any flirting at all and are sure that you behaved politely 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 disgruntled neighbor about his bad kidneys when suddenly he says, “Speaking of that new fence you’re building...” From this point on, the conversation turns into a heated argument about where to put it. the new fence is ten centimeters to the right or to the left. Ten centimeters! It gets to the point where your neighbor threatens to sue you, and you declare that he doesn’t understand anything in this life. Emotions, of course, ran high.

It is these seemingly ordinary conversations that can also be called key and even critical, and not just tense, threatening or unpleasant, since their result can have a significant impact on the living conditions of the participants. In each of the cases described, some element of your daily existence may be forever changed - for the better or for the worse. Naturally, promotion, like company 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 plots will undoubtedly affect your relations with your neighbors. If you handle the most seemingly insignificant situation unsuccessfully, you will develop a 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 could harm him or worsen the current situation. We become masters at the art of avoiding such unpleasant discussions. Colleagues send messages to each other via e-mail, although they can just go down one floor and talk face to face. Managers give orders over the phone instead of communicating directly with subordinates. Family members change the subject when the issue gets too sticky. We (the authors) have a friend who found out that his wife was divorcing him from a message on his answering machine. People resort to any kind of tricks just to avoid discussing a dangerous topic.

This tactic is wrong. Once you master the principles of negotiating when the stakes are high, you will be able to raise and effectively negotiate virtually any issue.

Key (critical, important) discussion is a conversation between two or more people in which, firstly, there are high stakes, secondly, a difference of opinion, and thirdly, intense emotions.

How we usually conduct important negotiations

Just because we are in the midst of a serious discussion (or perhaps contemplating the need to have one) does not mean that we have any problems or that there are future complications. Essentially, when an important conversation is brewing, there are three options for its development:

Prevent;

Fail;

Conduct with flying colors.

It seems very simple. If you avoid discussion, you will have to face the consequences of this step. You can have a bad conversation and get far from the best results. 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 pattern

Are we really having these conversations? When things get heated, do we take a deep breath and hear our inner voice: “The discussion is becoming critical. Be more careful." Or, when we sense the threat of a potentially dangerous discussion, rather than face it, we choose to avoid it? Sometimes. And yet, sometimes we bravely rush to solve a risky issue, monitor our behavior and do everything in our power. We weigh the pros and cons. Sometimes we even rise to the occasion.

And then we continue to live as before. There are times when, for some reason, we do not anticipate a key discussion or suddenly join it in the midst of it, and then we act completely incorrectly: we shout, interrupt the interlocutor, speak thoughtlessly, which we later regret. When the conversation really matters great importance When a discussion goes from run-of-the-mill to extreme, we tend to be at our worst.

What does it mean?

Incorrect behavior is genetically programmed. When a key issue suddenly comes up in an ordinary conversation, it often causes us some discomfort. The reason is that emotions prevent us from communicating constructively. Countless previous generations have left us as a legacy not the ability to convincingly persuade and listen to an interlocutor in a friendly manner, but the desire to resolve serious issues either by using fists or fleeing.

Let's look at a typical example. Someone expresses an opinion with which you strongly disagree, and this point of view touches on an issue that is truly important to you. You feel like you are ready to bristle like a hedgehog, and yet you understand with your mind that you can still cope with this. 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 don’t decide to do this, your adrenal glands do it for you, and you just have to accept it.

And that is not all. Your brain redistributes blood flow. The blood supply to those organs whose activities he considers less important at the moment is reduced, and those that are capable of solving primary tasks - “hit or run away” - are enhanced. Unfortunately, when the muscles of the arms and legs, due to their size, get big volumes of blood, it flows significantly to those parts of the brain that control emotions less. As a result, you approach the key issue in the same state as an angry monkey.

We're under pressure. Let's add one more factor. Critical discussions usually arise spontaneously. Most often they appear literally out of nowhere, out of nothing! But once you're caught off guard, you have to engage in extremely complex human relationships in real time. Moreover, you don’t have any reference books, coaches, and, of course, any breaks at your fingertips, during which the team rescuers rushes to your aid and gives you valuable ideas.

What remains? A sharp question (what is called an edge), your interlocutor and a mind that is preparing to either fight or flee. At the moment of conversation, it seems to us that we are uttering extremely clever words or doing correct actions, but later it turns out that we were stupid.

“What was I thinking?” - you are surprised.

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 don't have a stroke.

We're out of whack. Let's look at another problem. You don't know where to start, but you figure it out as you go because you haven't often seen effective communication skills actually applied. Suppose you have prepared for this difficult conversation, perhaps even played it out in your mind, so you are completely confident in yourself. Will everything go well? Not at all necessary. Problems may still arise because the mother of learning is not just repetition, but perfect repetition.

First of all, you must know what to repeat. 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 why no need do based on the negative experiences of your friends, colleagues and even parents. You may have even sworn repeatedly that you would never do that. But now, without a suitable example in front of you, you are at a dead end. What to do?

You do what most people do: speed up a process, string words together, create a certain mood, or otherwise do what you think will 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 are setting ourselves up for failure.. In such a stupefied 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. That's how it goes.

Let's say your loved one is paying less and less attention to you. You understand that he is very busy at work, however, you would like to spend more time together. You hint at this several times, but to no avail, so you decide not to escalate the tension and withdraw into yourself. Since you are still dissatisfied with the current situation, these feelings spill out from time to time in sarcastic remarks: “What, you sat in the office late again? Do you want to make all the money in the world?”

Unfortunately (and this is where failure lies), the more you grumble, the less your loved one wants to be around you. He begins to avoid you, spends even less time with you, you become increasingly upset, and a new round of the spiral begins. It is your behavior that leads to what you initially wanted to avoid: what they say, what you fought for - that’s what you ran into. You find yourself in a vicious vicious circle.

Let's take, for example, what happens to your roommate Terry, who takes your clothes without permission, the things 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 put on one of your things again. You see Taylor's pants, Scott's shirt, and even Chris' new socks and boots. What did he take from your clothes?..

Naturally, you retaliate by speaking ill of Terry behind his back. This happens until one day he hears you throwing mud at him. As a result, you feel awkward and try not to catch his eye. And when you are not in the room, out of spite, he wears your clothes, eats your food and uses your computer.

Let's take another example. You share an office with a terrible slob, but you yourself are painfully clean. Your coworker leaves you notes written in marker on a file folder, ketchup on a potato chip wrapper, and permanent marker in your desk pad. You, on the contrary, give him only typed messages. Yes, exactly printed ones.

At first, you still somehow tolerated each other. Then you start getting on each other's nerves. You bore him with reminders about cleaning, he – with grumbling about your nagging. Gradually you become sworn enemies. Every time you nag him, he gets terribly upset, but at the same time he is in no hurry to start cleaning. Every time he calls you a nasty bore, you swear not to let him get away with these vile and base insults.

What will such a confrontation lead to? You're more obsessed with cleanliness than ever, and your partner's part of the office looks like it's about to be closed by the sanitation department. You are moving along a road leading to nowhere, you find yourself in a vicious circle. The more mutual attacks, the more you push each other into the very behavior that you so despise.

The most common high-stakes negotiation topics

In each of these examples, the stakes were relatively high, opinions varied, and emotions ran high. The truth is, in some cases, the stakes are small at first, but as emotions escalate, the relationship deteriorates, resulting in life discomfort. And the risk, which was initially low, may become so.

These cases are, of course, only a small part of the huge 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;

Conversation with a colleague who behaves defiantly or makes offensive remarks;

Appealing to a friend with a request to repay a debt;

A frank conversation with your boss about his leadership style;

Conversation with a manager who violates the rules he himself has established;

Criticism of your colleagues' work;

Asking your roommate to find another place to live;

Discussion with ex-husband child custody or visitation schedule issues;

Clarifying relationships with a difficult teenager;

Conversation with a team member who does not fulfill his promises;

Discussion of intimate problems;

Talking with a loved one about alcohol or other substance abuse;

Conversation with an employee who is withholding information or its source;

Writing an unfavorable critical review;

We ask relatives not to interfere in family affairs;

Conversation with a colleague about personal hygiene issues.

Our bold statement

Let's say that you either avoid key discussions or participate in them but adopt a worse behavior pattern. Is it really that important? Are the stakes really that high? Can the consequences of an unsuccessful conversation be so dire? Should I even worry about this?

The consequences of a poorly conducted conversation can be both destructive and long-lasting. The results of our research showed that stability interpersonal relationships, careers, organizational success and community well-being are all based on the ability to speak openly about important, emotional and controversial topics.

We dare to say: perfect your ability to negotiate in extreme situations - and you will give a powerful impetus to the development of your career, strengthen your relationships with others and improve your health. And when others follow your example, the activities of your organization will intensify or the intra-family microclimate will improve.

Give your career a boost

Can the ability to conduct critical negotiations help your career? Without a doubt. 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 achieved perfection in the ability to discuss difficult issues.

For example, such people know how to talk to their boss and not risk their career. We all know cases where employees have ruined their careers by getting involved in discussing dangerous topics. It is possible that you have made a similar mistake. Due to prolonged dissatisfaction with someone’s behavior, your patience runs out, and you finally express everything that hurts, albeit too harshly (oops!).

Or, perhaps, passions are so heated that others begin to seriously worry and turn into a nervous crowd of potential heart attack victims, but you boldly cut the truth. Yes, this is not a very pleasant discussion, but someone has to have the courage to stop the boss from being outright stupid (ouch!).

But in reality, you don't have to choose what's more important: being honest or getting results. You don't have to choose between sincerity and career. People who are used to leading key discussions and doing so successfully can express controversial and even risky thoughts in a way that will definitely be heard. Their words are received by managers, colleagues and subordinates without becoming defensive or angry.

What about your career? Are there dangerous topics that you avoid or discuss poorly? Does this undermine your authority? And most importantly, will your career get a boost if you learn how to successfully conduct important discussions?

Improve your relationships with others

Consider the impact important discussions can have on your relationships with others. Can a failed key conversation lead to a breakup in a relationship? It turns out that if ordinary person When asked why married couples break up, he usually answers that it’s due to a difference in views. It is known that people have different ideas about how to manage money, diversify their intimate life, or raise children. In practice, any person is prone to argument when discussing serious issues. But not all couples break up, because what matters is How you are arguing.

For example, when renowned 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 within themselves, and others communicate openly. , honestly and efficiently.

Having studied dozens of married couples, scientists made predictions about the possible development of further relationships and continued to monitor the lives of the experiment participants 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. Those who did not want to master this science broke off their relationship.

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 questions that you cannot find? common language? Do you shy away from some dangerous topics and immediately rush to discuss others? Do you bottle up your dissatisfaction by expressing it through sarcastic remarks or hitting where it hurts? What about your family members? Do they often move from silence to attack? In the most important situations (after all, these are the people you love), do you behave correctly towards them? If not, then you definitely need to read this book and learn how to successfully navigate key discussions.

Bring your surroundings to life

Now let's look at our neighbors. If the fate of an organization is determined by how key discussions are conducted, shouldn't the same be true of people? Of course you can.

The difference between the best, good and bad communities is the amount of problems they have. Everyone faces difficulties. But, we repeat, communities differ from each other in that how they cope with these problems. In the best of them, the leading representatives—the leaders—initiate healthy dialogue. They discuss important issues. In contrast, communities that cannot build normal relationships play dangerous games. At meetings, people insult each other, get angry, and act as if anyone who doesn't 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 influences the healthy atmosphere in the community. Consider, for example, the problem of crime. You may be shocked by the tragic statistics presented here. 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 committing the most serious crimes are these are people who have broken 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 prisoners used to have jobs, pay bills, and remember friends' birthdays. And then one day, having failed 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, 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 can't or don't want to discuss, and that's stopping you from moving forward? Don't your residents' meetings look more like a talk show "Windows" rather than a discussion of educated people who respect each other? If so, you and your neighbors will greatly benefit from learning how to navigate key discussions.

Take care of your health

If these arguments are not convincing enough to attract attention to the discussion of key issues, then what do you think about the fact that the ability to successfully conduct key negotiations is the key to health and longevity?

The immune system. In a groundbreaking study, Dr. Janice Kiecolt-Glaser and Dr. Ronald Glaser looked at 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 knew how to peacefully resolve differences. It turned out that many years of scandals strengthen the destructive impact of constant conflicts. Married couples who routinely failed in key discussions had weaker immune systems compared to those who learned to handle things well. controversial issues. And this is natural: the weaker the immune system, the worse the health.

Serious illnesses. In perhaps the most comprehensive of all the medical research Participants in the experiment who were diagnosed with a malignant tumor first underwent a traditional course of treatment and then were divided into two groups. The first met regularly for six weeks, the members of the second no longer saw each other. Specialists taught the first group of recovering patients special communication skills. (What won't you do if your life is at stake?)

After attending six sessions and then being separated for five years, patients who learned to express themselves effectively showed more high percent recovery: only 9% died, compared with 30% of those who did not receive training. Consider the meaning of this study. The smallest improvement in the ability to communicate corresponds to a two-thirds reduction in mortality.

We could talk for a long time about the influence of the ability to discuss thorny issues to your health. The evidence is emerging every day. However, many consider this statement to be overly pretentious. “Are you saying that the way we communicate affects the body? Do you really think that you can kill with a word?” - they are surprised.

The answer is yes. We can only add that the negative emotions that we hold in ourselves, the emotional stress from which we suffer, and the constant anxiety that we experience in difficult communication situations gradually undermine our health. In some cases, an unsuccessful conversation results in 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 hadn't avoided them or had them more successfully) would have strengthened your immune system, helped you cope with illness, and improved 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, ordinary conversations become extreme negotiations. Ironically, the more important the topic of such a conversation is to us, the less likely we are to have it successfully and come out on top. The consequences of avoiding discussion of key issues (or unsuccessful negotiations) can be severe. Defeat can affect all areas of life - from career to harmony with neighbors, family relationships and physical health. Once we learn how to properly perceive and conduct critical discussions, we can use these simple skills to manage literally every aspect of our lives. What are these essential skills? What do people who are involved in key negotiations actually do? And, most importantly, can this be learned?

Discussion skills

Give me a foothold and I will change the world.

Archimedes

The authors of this book have not always studied important debates. Our professional interest to improvement in career and personal sphere was expressed in the study of completely different topics. We suggested that by identifying the reasons why some people are more successful than others, we can learn to both replicate their experiences and pass them on to others.

We began our search for the source of success by studying the professional field of activity. First, we asked people to name the names of their colleagues whom they considered 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 not only had 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 named once or twice. Others were listed as having five or six employees - they could be said to have influence, but not enough to be an absolute success. But someone's name was mentioned more than thirty times. These were the best - real leaders in their fields. And only some of them belonged to the top and middle ranks of management personnel; they were mostly ordinary workers.

Of particular interest to us was an informal leader named Kevin. Of the company's eight vice presidents, he was the only one 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 conducted telephone conversations, communicated with subordinates, and issued orders. In a word, the most ordinary routine activity.

Amazing discovery

After watching Kevin for almost a week, we began to wonder: is he really different from others or is his influence just a result of popularity? And so we followed him to the meeting.

Kevin, the other VPs, and the CEO were discussing the location of their company's new offices: should they be located within a city, state, or country? The first two employees presented their reasons for their preferred options, and, as expected, everyone else bombarded them with questions. There was not a single unclear moment or unresolved doubt.

Then Chris, the CEO, expressed his preference—an option that had no supporters and also involved significant risk. However, when his colleagues tried to argue with him, he reacted completely inappropriately. Since he was a big boss, he didn’t need to intimidate people to get his way. Instead, he opted for a proactive tactic: first he raised his eyebrows, then his finger, and finally raised his voice ever so slightly. 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, maybe we can talk about something?”

A tense silence reigned 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 established 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 his speech, 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 behind a shield of silence like his colleagues, but he also did not try to impose his arguments on others. The result was the smartest decision, and Kevin's CEO appreciated his straightforwardness.

When Kevin finished speaking, one of his colleagues turned to us and said: “Did you see how he carried himself? If you want to understand the secret of his success, look at what he just did."

That's what we did. In fact, we spent the next quarter of a century trying to figure out what Kevin and people like him were 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 with a lot at stake, these people still succeed. But how? Kevin indeed not only raised a risky issue, 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 this 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'll take a closer look at the dialogue skills that successful speakers use so skillfully, and try to learn how to use them to conduct important negotiations in our own lives.

Our secret

In a Hollywood movie main character states on screen that if anyone wants to succeed in life, they must do one thing. After which he launches into lengthy discussions about how he is not going to reveal his secret to anyone, but suggests that he figure it all out with his own mind. We don’t want to be like this movie character, so we won’t test your patience for long, but will immediately explain what is most important for achieving success in life. When it comes to risky, controversial, and emotional discussions, skillful people find a way to put all the relevant information (that both they and their interlocutors have) into the open. That's all.

The basis of any successful conversation is the free discussion of all relevant information. In effective discussion, people openly and honestly express their points of view, exchange thoughts, and offer their concepts. They readily share their ideas, even if the latter may seem controversial or completely unacceptable to their interlocutors. This is the secret of their success. In other words, this is the very thing that we have found through research that Kevin and other very successful speakers use adeptly.

Let's define this impressive talent and call it dialogue. Dialogue– free exchange of opinions between two or more interlocutors.

How the dialogue works

Now that we've shared our biggest secret with you, you probably have two questions. First: how does this free exchange of ideas lead to success? And second: what can be done to persuade interlocutors to openly express opinions?

Let's immediately find out what the relationship is between free exchange of opinions and success. The answer to the second question (what needs to be done to ensure 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 our own baggage: with our own views, feelings, ideas and experiences regarding the topic under discussion. This unique combination of thoughts and feelings constitutes our personal fund of opinions. It not only provides us with information, but also determines all our statements and actions in the process of interaction.

By definition, at the beginning of a discussion there is no common fund of opinions. The points of view of the interlocutors are different. I believe in one thing, you believe in another. I have one version of what happened in my mind, and you have another. You and I have absolutely different types for the future.

People who communicate skillfully make every effort to create general a fund to which each of the interlocutors will contribute. Even those thoughts that at first glance seem controversial, incorrect, or even at odds with one’s own beliefs deserve attention. Naturally, 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? Firstly, when people have more accurate and verified information at their disposal, they can make the necessary decisions. right choice. In the most direct sense of the word, the common pool of opinions is an indicator of the group’s intelligence. The more complete the fund, the better the decisions made. And even though the process of making them is delayed when many people take part in it, if all 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, commit together nonsense.

One of our clients told this story.

A woman came to the hospital with a referral to have her tonsils removed. During the operation, surgeons mistakenly removed part of her foot. How could such a tragedy happen? Why do 98 thousand medical errors occur annually due to such medical errors? deaths? This can be partly explained by the fact that most doctors are afraid to express their thoughts 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 an intelligent, 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 authority.

On the other hand, when people speak their minds confidently and there is a free exchange of ideas, a common fund can enormously enhance the group's ability to make good decisions. Remember the example with Kevin. When the group members entered into the discussion, all participants had a clear and unambiguous understanding of the real state of affairs.

Beginning to understand the reasons and motives of all the proposals, the group members turned out to be each other’s support. In the end, when one thought gave rise to another, then another, and so on, there was always a solution that no one had originally thought of, but now everyone wholeheartedly supported. As a result of the free exchange of opinions, the whole (the final decision) was much more complete than the sum of its individual components. Briefly it can be expressed like this: a common fund of opinions is the cradle of synergy .

An atmosphere of openness not only helps interlocutors make the right decisions, but also contributes to their effective implementation. By engaging in open discussion and sharing their thoughts, people support the free exchange of opinions. In the end, all participants in the conversation understand why the decision made is the best and are ready to participate in its implementation. For example, Kevin and the other vice presidents agreed to carry out the responsibilities assigned to them due to the decision made, not because they also participated in the discussion, but because understood its meaning.

Conversely, when people are not fully aware of what is happening, when they sit silently during risky discussions, few of them sincerely agree to implement the group decision in practice. Since their opinions remained with them, and their thoughts were not included in the general fund, these people criticize the decision behind their backs and passively resist its implementation. It is even worse when someone, using the force of their influence or power, invests their opinion in a common fund. In this case, other people have even greater difficulty accepting 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 remains in his opinion.”

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 were unwilling to implement a plan to move offices, devastating consequences for the company could follow. Some employees would agree to move, others would desperately resist it. Some would argue furiously in the corridors, while others would silently sabotage the plan. Most likely, the management team would have to meet again, discuss this issue again and make a decision again (after all, only one person likes it, and the results affect everyone).

Don't get us wrong. We are not saying that every decision requires consensus or that the boss should not be involved or even have a casting vote. We simply believe that, regardless of the method of decision-making, the more complete the pool of opinions, the better the final result will be - no matter who has the last word.

For example, sometimes we prefer to hush up problems. At work, we don't want to contradict people in power. At home, we silently accumulate grievances against other family members, hoping that they will notice this and, in response to our alienation, will treat us better (where is the logic here?).

Sometimes, to express our point of view, we resort to hints, sarcasm, omissions and contemptuous glances. We pretend to be martyrs and then pretend that we were sincerely trying to help. Afraid to speak out specific person, we blame the entire team for the problem in the hope that punishment will also reach the desired goal. The techniques may be very different, but in general we are talking about the same thing. We keep our opinions to ourselves, not wanting to contribute them to the general fund - we deliberately 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 those around us will take our word for it and take our arguments for granted. To do this, you have to impose your point of view on everyone possible ways. We use the techniques of our superiors and 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. To realize our full potential, we need to learn how to communicate the value of our own stock of ideas—especially when it comes to risky and controversial points of view. In addition, you should challenge your interlocutors to similar frankness. We need to develop skills that will make us feel confident enough to discuss any, even the most pressing issues, while forming a common fund of opinions. And if we succeed, our lives will change for the better.

The art of dialogue can be learned

It's time for some really good news. The skills needed for successful interpersonal interaction are very simple to identify and relatively easy to develop. First, understand that the ability to successfully conduct important discussions is within your grasp. When you see someone confidently navigate 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!" is usually the first thing that comes out of the mouth. What began as a discussion doomed to failure ends in unconditional success - making the right decision. This can take your breath away!

More importantly, good dialogue skills are not only easy to identify, but also not very difficult to learn. That's what we'll move on to next. Over the course of 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 became tense, they recorded the conversation in detail so that they could later compare their observations. We tested hypotheses and refined models until we could confidently identify the skills that could explain the success of brilliant communicators like Kevin. In the end, we have combined our theories, models, and skills into a defined set of tools that are easy to learn and use when dealing with big issues.

What will we strive for?

What will we pay attention to in subsequent 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 towards problematic situations and preliminary preparation for them. Positive results are achieved when we work on ourselves, monitor the problem in time, control the course of our thoughts, determine our special style and cope with difficulties before the situation gets out of control. As you read the book you will learn to create conditions for yourself and others under which dialogue will be the path of least resistance.

Then we'll look at the tools available for conversation that can help you learn to listen and then act collaboratively. This is what most people mean when they talk about high-stakes discussions. How can I tactfully object? How to speak convincingly, but without insults? How to listen to others? Or, more importantly, how do you get people to talk openly when they're nervous? How to move from thought to action? Reading this book , you will learn the basic tools of talking, listening to others and taking action together.

Finally, we will combine 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 actually put all this into practice, we'll look at seventeen situations that would be challenging for most people—even those who know how to communicate successfully. As you read further you will develop the ability to find the right words when there is a lot at stake.

Let's start with ourselves. How to Define Your Goal

In our time, humanity finds itself at a crossroads, the likes of which have never been seen 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 when faced with differences in views and overly heated emotions? Considering the nature of the average person, this may not be so easy. Moreover, given the established habit of most people to harm themselves with their own behavior, it may take a lot of effort to achieve a positive result. But despite everything, 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 internal work.

This is the first principle of dialogue - to begin 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 the norms of communication that you are accustomed to since childhood - fierce arguments, prolonged silence, manipulation, tricks, etc.

If you don't work on yourself

Let's give an example from life. Two little sisters return to their hotel room with their father after spending the whole day at Disneyland. The heat is stifling, and the girls have drunk a lot of sparkling water. Therefore, now, upon entering the room, everyone thinks about only one thing - to go to the toilet as soon as possible!

But there is only one bathroom in the room, and the real battle begins. Children quarrel, push and call each other names, jumping up and down outside the bathroom in impatience. Finally, one of the sisters calls her father for help.

- Dad, I came here first!

- I know, but I need more!

- How do you know? You're not in my body. And I didn’t even go to the toilet in the morning, before we went for a walk.

- You only think about yourself!

Dad offers a way out:

– Girls, I can’t decide this for you. Stay here and decide who will go first and who will go second. There is only one rule - don't fight.

The father times the time and the children engage in a critical discussion. Minutes pass one after another, but only mutual accusations are heard. Finally, after half an hour, the sound of water flushing comes from the toilet. One of the sisters comes out. After another minute, 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 have gone to the toilet during the time you were sorting things out?

Such a thought did not even occur to the sisters, but nevertheless, both immediately find the answer:

- Many times, if only she I wasn't such a dumbass.

- Just listen! Calls him names, but herself I could have waited. But you always need to insist on your own!

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 those around us could change, then everyone would live happily ever after. If they had not behaved so disgustingly, then we would not have to respond to them in kind. They started it first. It's their fault, not ours. And so on.

Maybe not often, but we still happen to find ourselves in the role of outside observers in the endless stream of life’s collisions. Very rarely is it not our fault. Much more often we contribute to existing problems.

People who know how to conduct dialogue understand this simple truth and the resulting principle “Work on yourself first.” 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 those around us urgently need to change, or maybe we are the only ones who want them to change; But only person The one we can inspire, motivate and improve to do something 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 communication skills. As often happens, the rich get richer. Those who are sure that they need to start with themselves 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 dialogue skills. Instead of buying this book and then giving it to a loved one or colleague and saying, “You'll love this, especially the parts I underlined,” let's try to figure out how we can benefit ourselves. How? Where to begin? How to avoid going astray?

It is very difficult to describe the specific course of events in such an interaction as an important negotiation, but one thing is certain: gifted people begin with enthusiasm. This means they enter into risky discussions with the right motivation and stay focused on the conversation no matter the circumstances.

This ability to concentrate can be maintained in two ways. First, you need to be clear about what you want to achieve. You need to stubbornly stick to the topic raised, despite any attempts to distract you and lead the conversation aside. Secondly, you should not make rash decisions. Unlike those who justify their unworthy behavior by saying that they had no choice but to fight or flee, masters of dialogue are convinced that in any circumstances it is possible to reach an agreement with the help of words.

Let's look at both of these important postulates in turn.

Moment of truth

To understand how emotional impulses can affect our ability to remain in dialogue, consider another example from life.

Greta, the CEO of a small company, is in her second hour of a rather tense meeting with senior managers. 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 this moment her initiative did not bring the expected results. Greta hopes that those present can explain why they haven't started cutting costs. After all, she had put a lot of effort into convincing them to speak out sincerely.

And just as Greta announces that they're moving on to the agenda items, one of the managers fidgets, gets up, looks at the floor, and then nervously asks if he can ask a very awkward question. The way he emphasizes the word “very” suggests that he is ready to accuse Greta of nothing less than the kidnapping of the Lindbergh child. The embarrassed manager continues:

– Greta, six months ago you forced us to look for ways to reduce costs. I would be lying if I said we were passionate about this assignment. If you don't mind, I would like to explain what exactly is preventing us from getting to grips with this issue.

“Great, lay it out,” Greta answers, smiling.

– While you urge us to save even on writing paper and refrain from repairing and replacing office equipment, a new office will be equipped for you.

Greta freezes and her face turns crimson. Everyone is closely following developments. The manager continues:

– There are rumors that the furniture alone costs 150 thousand dollars. 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 support a frank exchange of opinions or will she prefer to shut up 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 cuts, but will also affect how they 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 prude 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 when she finds herself on the defensive. Of course, when giving a speech or writing memos, she fully welcomes frankness. In this case, she is simply the captain of the fans of the "openness and honesty" club. 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 conversation becomes 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, you will no doubt change your original course to protect your public image. You can say:

“Sorry, but I don’t think my new office is the right topic for today’s discussion.”

But this will all end, and above all for you. In one fell swoop, you will destroy the faint hope of sincerity in this particular conversation, and in addition, you will confirm the fears of others that frankness interests you only so 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 hearing accusations that she herself did not follow her own principles, she was surprised, confused and perhaps even a little upset, but then she took a deep breath and said:

- You know what? Let's talk about this. I'm glad you asked this question. Now we have the opportunity to figure it all out.

And then Greta begins to speak bluntly. She explains that she thinks she needs a new office, but at the same time admits that she had no idea how much the expense 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 service 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 this, she immediately announces her decision to either make new plan, which would cut costs by half, or completely abandon this project.

That same day, we asked Greta how she managed to maintain her composure in this difficult situation. We wanted to know what exactly was going on in her head at that moment. What helped her move from anger and embarrassment to gratitude?

“It’s very simple,” Greta explained. “At first I really felt like I was in the crossfire and was going to respond in kind. To tell the truth, my first instinct was to put that guy in his place. He accused me in front of everyone and at the same time he was mistaken. 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 thinking. Focusing on this problem, which was much more important than rebuffing her subordinate, she quickly realized that her goal was to convince two hundred managers of the need 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 common belief that she was a hypocrite, on the one hand, encouraging others to sacrifice, but on the other, spending excessively for her own convenience. At that moment, she no longer felt anger or shame, only gratitude. There could not have been a better opportunity to convince managers to follow her plan. So she entered into dialogue.

Reframe your thinking. Let's move on to a situation that could happen to you. You are talking to a person whose opinion is important issue opposite to 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, and you feel like you're giving in to your boss or cold-shouldering your spouse's arguments, pay attention to what happens to the goals you've set for yourself. Did you change them to save face, overcome confusion, gain the upper hand, or punish your interlocutor? This is the trick. Motives usually change without any conscious effort on our part. When adrenaline thinks for us, motives are determined in accordance with the chemical processes in the body.

To return to the original motivation with which you approached this dialogue, you need to distract yourself 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 identify the motivations, the conclusion should be: “Okay, let's see. I put pressure on my interlocutor, use unnecessary argumentation - in general, I try to win at any cost. I’m trying to win this argument instead of deciding where the best place to go on vacation is.”

Notes

Previously, this book was published by our publishing house under the title “There is a serious conversation.”

Per. G. Kruzhkova. Note ed.

Synergy is a phenomenon when the overall result exceeds the sum of the individual effects. Note ed.

The kidnapping and murder in 1932 of the one-year-old son of the American hero pilot Charles Lindbergh is one of the most notorious criminal cases of the 20th century. Note ed.

End of free trial.

Pages:
, ,

The book is about important discussions where the conditions are extreme and the stakes are high because the outcome can change the lives of those involved forever, for better or worse.

This could be business negotiations or a request for a salary increase, a conversation with a spouse or a quarrel with a neighbor. Crucial discussions require special methods and techniques, 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 conversations from time to time that affect too much.

Especially for managers who are professional negotiators on duty.

Why we decided to publish this book

Because we are confident in its maximum usefulness.

Book feature

The book ranks #1 on Amazon.com in the Management\Negotiations and Etiquette\Conversations categories.

When you heard the title of this book, Negotiating in Extreme Situations: What and How to Say When the Stakes Are High, you might imagine presidents and prime ministers gathered around the negotiating table deciding the fate of the planet. While discussions like these 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 high in everyday conversations that can change your life.

What are the features of these important negotiations? Firstly, there is a difference of opinion between the interlocutors. 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. Second, 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're having a conversation with your other half and suddenly he or she remembers that "disgusting thing" that happened at the neighbors' party last night.

At the same party, you are making small talk with your perpetually disgruntled neighbor about his bad kidneys when suddenly he says, “Speaking of that new fence you’re building...” From this point on, the conversation turns into a heated argument about where to put it. new fence - ten centimeters to the right or left. Ten centimeters! It gets to the point where your neighbor threatens to sue you, and you declare that he doesn’t understand anything in this life. Emotions really ran high.

Such conversations can be called key, even critical, and not just tense, threatening or unpleasant, since their outcome can have a significant impact on the living conditions of the participants. In each of the cases described, some element of your daily existence may be permanently changed for the better or for the worse. Naturally, promotion, like company success, marks significant change. Your relationship with your spouse affects every aspect of your life. Even something as mundane as a dispute over where to draw a property line will undoubtedly have an impact on your relationships with your neighbors. If you handle the most seemingly insignificant situation unsuccessfully, then you will develop a pattern of behavior that you will follow in all subsequent critical discussions.

Key discussions, by definition, involve complex issues. Unfortunately, humans are naturally inclined to avoid conversations that could harm us or worsen the current situation. We become masters at the art of avoiding such unpleasant discussions. Colleagues send each other messages by email, although they can simply go down one floor and talk face to face. Managers give orders over the phone instead of communicating directly with subordinates. Family members change the subject when the issue gets too sticky. We (the authors) have a friend who found out that his wife was divorcing him from a message on his answering machine. People resort to any tactics they can to avoid a dangerous topic.

This tactic is wrong. Once you master the principles of negotiating when the stakes are high, you can raise and effectively negotiate virtually any issue.

Expand description Collapse description