Management tools: A set of furniture keys or how to come up with constructive arguments
Friends, thank you for such a great interest in our video about trolling, pictures of the world and other non-constructive communication techniques (currently more than 6,000 people have watched it). If you think about it, then 24 min. video * 6,000 = 2,400 hours of time - we hope that this was useful for you.
As promised, we are moving back to constructive: today we would like to make out the topic of how to select constructive arguments that change people's behavior patterns. If in real life there were situations when it was hard to convince another person of his point of view, when the interlocutor DOES NOT UNDERSTAND obvious things, then today we will analyze a simple algorithm how to convey this to people. And, as usual, we will fix the material with examples from real life.
PS Since habraopros in the previous article showed that text is better than video, this time there are both video and text.
')
When in a recent article we analyzed the algorithm of constructive confrontation , we talked about changing the behavior of another person and that the key point of the algorithm is “agreement on the problem” .
That is, if a person says: “Yes, I agree, the situation is kind of awkward ...”, then we can proceed to a decision. Otherwise, it is too early to move - the person does not agree and / or does not understand what we are deciding.
If we push the solution without agreement on the problem, then several options are possible:
And at this point, without reaching agreement on the problem, in a fit of conviction, we use non-constructive methods, which were discussed in the previous video “How to involuntarily troll the interlocutor and get a minus in karma” :
And the harder we press, the greater the chance of getting a minus in karma and more weight of the minus itself.
Accordingly, I want a person to somehow bring about agreement on the problem, without pressure, so that it agrees with the problem and goes on to a solution by itself.
Need arguments. Which we prepare in preparation. And at the preparatory stage, we do not know which argument will work, because we don’t know what the person has in mind.
Argument alone is not enough. If you are going to collect the closet of your beloved mother-in-law, then you do not take the only key. You specify: “Nadezhda Petrovna, what key is needed there?” She competently answers: “Seryozha, here are hexagonal nuts and some more bolts”. And you take a set of keys so as not to have to go a second time.
So here, it would be good to prepare a set of arguments before the discussion, in case your only killer argument doesn't work.
So how are the arguments prepared?
Example number 1. Suppose you lead a team, and there is an employee who is constantly late for morning gliders (scrum meetings, stand-up rallies, or just plain meetings). At these meetings, you discuss who did what yesterday, who will do what today, what problems there are, etc. That is, distribute tasks and carry out some coordination.
And here, a scoundrel, is late. And you want to make sure that he is not late.
It is clear that there may be situations when the wife went on a business trip and there was no one to take children to kindergarten, etc. - we will not consider it here. Suppose that a particular Fedya does not sincerely understand why we need the gauging, and is late for them. Well, that person’s previous work didn’t have these stupid meetings, and everything was fine. And the work worked and satisfied the customer. And here you are with your stupid meetings.
What we often see at trainings - managers begin to speak in their managerial language:
That is, about some corporate ships that are plying something there. What is team spirit? This is when you enter the room, and there is such a powerful team spirit in the air? What does it mean, motivation falls? You, the manager, are you measuring her in parrots? In lumens, which show how people have their eyes burning?
Managers speak their own language. They sometimes forget a little how they felt and thought when they were not managers.
Probably, the arguments should be a little different ... Matrix 2 by 2 will help us to understand the question.
On a scale we postpone time: present or future. According to another scale, whose problem is this: yours or the person to whom you came to discuss it.
Which arguments do people better listen to? To those who show that you have a problem, or to those who show that they have a problem?
The answer is not so obvious. It can be said that it depends on whether you have joint goals, on his innate criticality, on the history of your relationship with this person (that is, your karma in his eyes). It depends on this whether your arguments about falling motivation and foul team spirit will work.
But that is absolutely certain - people listen well to the arguments that concern them personally. Some psychologists said that:
People change their behaviors when they realize that they are counter-constructive to their goals.
What does this late employee want? You know better, you work with him. But I guess what he might want:
To these Wishlist we can bind the arguments:
And now you are a little more prepared for the conversation. And you go from one argument to another, putting in pauses, letting the person say what he thinks about this. But you have more than one argument, but a whole set of keys.
And we have not yet analyzed what the person wanted to achieve with his model of behavior right now. Let's try to do this with the following example.
Example number 2. Suppose you lead a team, and your experienced employee (technical leader) criticizes the work of your colleagues for all non-constructive, periodically switching to the mat. Colleagues (specifically, Masha) are offended, cry, can not work and are going to quit. Because the nerve cells are not restored. And you decide to somehow change the pattern of behavior of your technical leader.
Here, of course, it is worth thinking. He always behaved like this, or did it start after some moment? Maybe this is just a matter of motivation. Man became bored. Need to understand. Suppose the technical leader has always been so sharp.
But let's say, you still decided to talk with your experienced employee. You will begin by describing why this situation is problematic for you:
But there is a chance that you will come across a misunderstanding:
So let's think about what the technical leader wants?
What does he want with this behavior? To do:
What does he want at all?
Based on this, and preparing the arguments:
It is not necessary to press too much here. The man may not have looked at the situation from such an angle at all. And he needs time to come to terms with the fact that his pattern of behavior will not lead him to his Wishlist. Still, with this model of behavior, he lived for several years.
And maybe this will be the second conversation, when you agree with him in the format “Let's try differently ... Instead of $% ^ # you say:“ Masha, how did it happen? .. ”
You can say: Alexander, but this is pure manipulation! As so, you learn, that it is not necessary to use them.
This is an important question. Manipulation is a hidden influence on a person to achieve their own goals. Understand us correctly, we are not for using arguments that influence a person to covertly solve our managerial problems.
In short, the reporting algorithm is as follows:
Your current karma in the eyes of this person will simply determine the point at which he will begin to agree with your arguments. Thought in it.
The summary is very simple: people change their behavior when they realize that it is counter-constructive to their goals. Think not only about your problems, but also select arguments based on the desires and desires of your interlocutor. And there should be several arguments - like keys in a set. Then the chances of success in conversation greatly increased.
Of course, real life is harder. In real life there is a history of relationships, there are nuances of applying schemes when dealing with customers and management, there are organizational birth injuries, there is group dynamics and other things that throw up unpleasant surprises.
But for 7 years of our work in trainings and 10+ years of work as managers, we discovered two things:
1. Many management techniques can be described with simple schematic tools. Some of them (16 pieces, to be exact), we described in our free video course “Management tools: system management on fingers” .
2. Good managers do what bad managers don't do. They work with people, including using the tools from paragraph 1. And all these things fit into a rather clear formula for working with people. Therefore, in the next article (most likely it will be a video), we would like to make out this formula. Bring a big picture to work with people and go into details as far as possible.
Most likely, a great intellect card will be made according to the result, which, of course, we will share.
Successes!
Alexander Orlov
Stratoplan.Ru
As promised, we are moving back to constructive: today we would like to make out the topic of how to select constructive arguments that change people's behavior patterns. If in real life there were situations when it was hard to convince another person of his point of view, when the interlocutor DOES NOT UNDERSTAND obvious things, then today we will analyze a simple algorithm how to convey this to people. And, as usual, we will fix the material with examples from real life.
PS Since habraopros in the previous article showed that text is better than video, this time there are both video and text.
')
When in a recent article we analyzed the algorithm of constructive confrontation , we talked about changing the behavior of another person and that the key point of the algorithm is “agreement on the problem” .
That is, if a person says: “Yes, I agree, the situation is kind of awkward ...”, then we can proceed to a decision. Otherwise, it is too early to move - the person does not agree and / or does not understand what we are deciding.
If we push the solution without agreement on the problem, then several options are possible:
- A man fights back: “Yes, okay, they used to work somehow ...”
- The man turns on the sabotage regime: “Well, you're the boss, I'm a fool, but then you will see that it was the wrong decision ...”
- A person puts a minus boss in karma: “Well, let it be your way. (Already not out loud) Chiefs are idiots, they themselves do not understand why what is being done, only know how to crush. ”
And at this point, without reaching agreement on the problem, in a fit of conviction, we use non-constructive methods, which were discussed in the previous video “How to involuntarily troll the interlocutor and get a minus in karma” :
“Why should I explain to your level specialist such elementary things?”
“As a manager with your experience ...”
“I've been trying to explain the basics to you for half an hour ...”
And the harder we press, the greater the chance of getting a minus in karma and more weight of the minus itself.
Accordingly, I want a person to somehow bring about agreement on the problem, without pressure, so that it agrees with the problem and goes on to a solution by itself.
Need arguments. Which we prepare in preparation. And at the preparatory stage, we do not know which argument will work, because we don’t know what the person has in mind.
Argument alone is not enough. If you are going to collect the closet of your beloved mother-in-law, then you do not take the only key. You specify: “Nadezhda Petrovna, what key is needed there?” She competently answers: “Seryozha, here are hexagonal nuts and some more bolts”. And you take a set of keys so as not to have to go a second time.
So here, it would be good to prepare a set of arguments before the discussion, in case your only killer argument doesn't work.
So how are the arguments prepared?
Example number 1. Suppose you lead a team, and there is an employee who is constantly late for morning gliders (scrum meetings, stand-up rallies, or just plain meetings). At these meetings, you discuss who did what yesterday, who will do what today, what problems there are, etc. That is, distribute tasks and carry out some coordination.
And here, a scoundrel, is late. And you want to make sure that he is not late.
It is clear that there may be situations when the wife went on a business trip and there was no one to take children to kindergarten, etc. - we will not consider it here. Suppose that a particular Fedya does not sincerely understand why we need the gauging, and is late for them. Well, that person’s previous work didn’t have these stupid meetings, and everything was fine. And the work worked and satisfied the customer. And here you are with your stupid meetings.
What we often see at trainings - managers begin to speak in their managerial language:
“Team motivation falls”
“Team spirit is falling”
“This is contrary to the policies of our company”
That is, about some corporate ships that are plying something there. What is team spirit? This is when you enter the room, and there is such a powerful team spirit in the air? What does it mean, motivation falls? You, the manager, are you measuring her in parrots? In lumens, which show how people have their eyes burning?
Managers speak their own language. They sometimes forget a little how they felt and thought when they were not managers.
Probably, the arguments should be a little different ... Matrix 2 by 2 will help us to understand the question.
On a scale we postpone time: present or future. According to another scale, whose problem is this: yours or the person to whom you came to discuss it.
Which arguments do people better listen to? To those who show that you have a problem, or to those who show that they have a problem?
The answer is not so obvious. It can be said that it depends on whether you have joint goals, on his innate criticality, on the history of your relationship with this person (that is, your karma in his eyes). It depends on this whether your arguments about falling motivation and foul team spirit will work.
But that is absolutely certain - people listen well to the arguments that concern them personally. Some psychologists said that:
People change their behaviors when they realize that they are counter-constructive to their goals.
What does this late employee want? You know better, you work with him. But I guess what he might want:
- Wants interesting tasks and does not want boring
- Wants to listen to his opinion
- Wants career growth
- Wants money
To these Wishlist we can bind the arguments:
- When you come after the meeting, all interesting tasks are already parsed.
- Only boring tasks remain.
- On boring tasks, I can not assess your growth
- If I am now asked to recommend someone to the manager’s position, I will not be able to recommend you.
- In our company, a manager is someone who, by his own example, shows how company policies are followed + Argument No. 4
- ...
And now you are a little more prepared for the conversation. And you go from one argument to another, putting in pauses, letting the person say what he thinks about this. But you have more than one argument, but a whole set of keys.
And we have not yet analyzed what the person wanted to achieve with his model of behavior right now. Let's try to do this with the following example.
Example number 2. Suppose you lead a team, and your experienced employee (technical leader) criticizes the work of your colleagues for all non-constructive, periodically switching to the mat. Colleagues (specifically, Masha) are offended, cry, can not work and are going to quit. Because the nerve cells are not restored. And you decide to somehow change the pattern of behavior of your technical leader.
Here, of course, it is worth thinking. He always behaved like this, or did it start after some moment? Maybe this is just a matter of motivation. Man became bored. Need to understand. Suppose the technical leader has always been so sharp.
A small digression and an example from life. In her book “Up!” Inna Kuznetsova, the first Russian-speaking vice president of IBM, describes a case when at some point she had a terrible boss who was very hard to work with. And she was about to leave him when she unfolded this situation for herself.
After all, the further upward, the less of the chiefs you can choose. And Inna took this situation as a great opportunity to learn how to work with a complex boss. Life has become easier. Because when you understand a long-term goal, and how the current situation will lead you to it, you can suffer.
Therefore, in our example, it may be an option to talk to Masha. You may be able to convince her that it will be useful for her to learn how to communicate with curdling technical leaders. :)
But let's say, you still decided to talk with your experienced employee. You will begin by describing why this situation is problematic for you:
- Work is done slowly
- Masha is in non-resource condition
- Masha can quit
- ...
But there is a chance that you will come across a misunderstanding:
- “Of course, ponabyri on ads”
- “Well, everything is fine with me the first time”
- “She'll quit, and thank God — maybe a normal person will be hired at last ...”
- ...
So let's think about what the technical leader wants?
What does he want with this behavior? To do:
- Quickly
- Qualitatively
What does he want at all?
- To listen to him
- Work with smart people
- Career
- Of money
Based on this, and preparing the arguments:
- Quickly -> What do you want? when you scream at Masha? To make it fast? It does not work out quickly ...
- Quickly -> Look: you screamed, Masha left to cry. Then she came to tell me how hard it is to work with you. I think about all the staff, I came to you to warm the brain about it. Now I will leave, you will go to Masha to explain that you should not go through your head to the boss. Masha will quit. What do you think, who will be engaged in the search, interview, introduction to the course of the case of beginners, but for now there are none, do their job?
- To listen -> Look. while you and Masha communicate. everyone else got popcorn and watch for it. And they see how you convey your thoughts to colleagues. What do you think. If people have a question, will they come to you to discuss it?
- Work with smart people -> You said you want to work with smart people? So smart people will also think about whether or not to work with someone who, if something happens, can apply with all of this. Why do they need it?
- Career -> In our company grow those who can find a common language with any people. Now. If they ask me if I can recommend you to the manager’s position, I won’t be able to do that. Because I do not know how you will communicate with the management and customers. The customer may also not understand something, and not be competent in your field. If you send it to him, it’s not a deal ...
It is not necessary to press too much here. The man may not have looked at the situation from such an angle at all. And he needs time to come to terms with the fact that his pattern of behavior will not lead him to his Wishlist. Still, with this model of behavior, he lived for several years.
And maybe this will be the second conversation, when you agree with him in the format “Let's try differently ... Instead of $% ^ # you say:“ Masha, how did it happen? .. ”
This is not about manipulation.
You can say: Alexander, but this is pure manipulation! As so, you learn, that it is not necessary to use them.
This is an important question. Manipulation is a hidden influence on a person to achieve their own goals. Understand us correctly, we are not for using arguments that influence a person to covertly solve our managerial problems.
In short, the reporting algorithm is as follows:
- I have a problem, I came to discuss it with you
- For me, this is the problem, that's why ...
- In addition, I want to work with you for a long time, but this situation is also a problem for you. And that's why…
Your current karma in the eyes of this person will simply determine the point at which he will begin to agree with your arguments. Thought in it.
Summary: try
The summary is very simple: people change their behavior when they realize that it is counter-constructive to their goals. Think not only about your problems, but also select arguments based on the desires and desires of your interlocutor. And there should be several arguments - like keys in a set. Then the chances of success in conversation greatly increased.
Formula for working with people
Of course, real life is harder. In real life there is a history of relationships, there are nuances of applying schemes when dealing with customers and management, there are organizational birth injuries, there is group dynamics and other things that throw up unpleasant surprises.
But for 7 years of our work in trainings and 10+ years of work as managers, we discovered two things:
1. Many management techniques can be described with simple schematic tools. Some of them (16 pieces, to be exact), we described in our free video course “Management tools: system management on fingers” .
2. Good managers do what bad managers don't do. They work with people, including using the tools from paragraph 1. And all these things fit into a rather clear formula for working with people. Therefore, in the next article (most likely it will be a video), we would like to make out this formula. Bring a big picture to work with people and go into details as far as possible.
Most likely, a great intellect card will be made according to the result, which, of course, we will share.
Successes!
Alexander Orlov
Stratoplan.Ru
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/213859/
All Articles