How to speak with a "difficult" client
From time to time, many of us come across “choosy”, “inadequate” and “difficult” customers, partners, bosses, subordinates, etc. In this post I will tell:
1. Any conflict is a chain of mutually invoking conflict states .
2. Conflict occurs in a conflict situation.
3. The impetus for the conflict is the incident.
So There are three main ways to "settle" the conflict: not to use conflict people, to eliminate a conflict situation, to exhaust the incident.
Now how to make it.
In no case do not interrupt him, let him speak, "let off steam." Speak only when they expect it from you.
')
Any disagreement with the interlocutor in a conflict setting will be a conflict gene. Therefore, you must necessarily agree with the statements of the interlocutor, but only with the part with which you can, or in the form in which you can.
- you did a poor project!
-No, the project is well done! yes, i could do better (change the form of utterance)
- you met the deadline, but at the expense of quality!
-No, the quality is excellent! Yes, I met the deadline (the agreement with the part)
In this case, your statements should be obviously correct both for you and for your interlocutor.
It is better not to indicate to the person that he is doing something (speaking) incorrectly - this is a conflict agent. A person will not "defend" if he is not "attacked." Self-messages are a way to indicate to a person that his behavior is wrong without causing a “defensive” reaction. Try to speak on your own behalf, especially when you need to criticize the behavior of your opponent.
- (raising voice)
-stop yelling at me - you are preventing me from concentrating! I can't concentrate when they scream at me. Could you speak more quietly?
If you need to give criticism, speak about the behavior of a person, and not about his abilities, values and not about who he is. Better yet - talk about the circumstances.
Poorly:
- you are a bad specialist!
- you really can not do anything!
- you are not worthy to receive such a salary!
Good:
- you did not exactly what we need.
There are three failure techniques to minimize stress:
1. Failure-fear (I fear it can not be implemented)
2. Failure is a regret (I'm sorry, but I can't do it)
3. Refusal-forcedness (I am forced to refuse)
You can also combine techniques, for example:
- I'm sorry, but I have to refuse ...
The technique is called "Socrates' positive response method." Each argument begins with the words "Do you agree with the fact that ..." . Just get a positive answer, go to the next argument. If the answer was negative - rephrase: “Probably, I did not quite correctly set out the idea. Do you agree that ... ” And so on, until the interlocutor agrees.
It is also important to talk about both positive and negative (of course, there should be fewer) sides of their position. This will reduce mistrust.
It consists in presenting your arguments after retelling the partner's arguments (in the form “since you consider that [his argument], I propose [your argument]” ). Hearing his words from your mouth, your opponent begins to trust you more.
on true, doubtful and incorrect.
Step 1: “I agree with you that ...”
Step 2: "But I would not be sure that ..."
Step 3: "As for ... then ..."
4 nag: bring your own arguments
Personally, the above described techniques, which are so simple in their nature, allow me to achieve one's own from a “difficult” interlocutor in 9 cases out of 10. I hope they will be useful to you too. Thank.
- How to achieve your in conflict situations
- How to conduct a conversation without causing a negative reaction of the interlocutor
- How to keep a conflict situation under control
- How to prevent conflict and how to eliminate it
A bit of conflict theory
1. Any conflict is a chain of mutually invoking conflict states .
2. Conflict occurs in a conflict situation.
3. The impetus for the conflict is the incident.
So There are three main ways to "settle" the conflict: not to use conflict people, to eliminate a conflict situation, to exhaust the incident.
Now how to make it.
Rule 1. Listen to the interlocutor.
In no case do not interrupt him, let him speak, "let off steam." Speak only when they expect it from you.
')
Rule 2. Agree.
Any disagreement with the interlocutor in a conflict setting will be a conflict gene. Therefore, you must necessarily agree with the statements of the interlocutor, but only with the part with which you can, or in the form in which you can.
for example
- you did a poor project!
-
- you met the deadline, but at the expense of quality!
-
In this case, your statements should be obviously correct both for you and for your interlocutor.
Rule 3. Use "I-messages".
It is better not to indicate to the person that he is doing something (speaking) incorrectly - this is a conflict agent. A person will not "defend" if he is not "attacked." Self-messages are a way to indicate to a person that his behavior is wrong without causing a “defensive” reaction. Try to speak on your own behalf, especially when you need to criticize the behavior of your opponent.
for example
- (raising voice)
-
Rule 4. Talk about behavior or circumstances.
If you need to give criticism, speak about the behavior of a person, and not about his abilities, values and not about who he is. Better yet - talk about the circumstances.
for example
Poorly:
- you are a bad specialist!
- you really can not do anything!
- you are not worthy to receive such a salary!
Good:
- you did not exactly what we need.
Rule 5. Refuse correctly.
There are three failure techniques to minimize stress:
1. Failure-fear (I fear it can not be implemented)
2. Failure is a regret (I'm sorry, but I can't do it)
3. Refusal-forcedness (I am forced to refuse)
You can also combine techniques, for example:
- I'm sorry, but I have to refuse ...
Rule 6. Argue correctly.
The technique is called "Socrates' positive response method." Each argument begins with the words "Do you agree with the fact that ..." . Just get a positive answer, go to the next argument. If the answer was negative - rephrase: “Probably, I did not quite correctly set out the idea. Do you agree that ... ” And so on, until the interlocutor agrees.
It is also important to talk about both positive and negative (of course, there should be fewer) sides of their position. This will reduce mistrust.
Rule 6.1. Counter the correct.
Method of rewriting the arguments of the interlocutor
It consists in presenting your arguments after retelling the partner's arguments (in the form “since you consider that [his argument], I propose [your argument]” ). Hearing his words from your mouth, your opponent begins to trust you more.
Argument Splitting Method
on true, doubtful and incorrect.
Step 1: “I agree with you that ...”
Step 2: "But I would not be sure that ..."
Step 3: "As for ... then ..."
4 nag: bring your own arguments
Personally, the above described techniques, which are so simple in their nature, allow me to achieve one's own from a “difficult” interlocutor in 9 cases out of 10. I hope they will be useful to you too. Thank.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/65946/
All Articles