You will learn to really hear the interlocutor, which will greatly simplify your life and give you an edge in any negotiations.
Being in a significant situation for themselves - important negotiations, getting a job, talking with a manager - many people (and maybe all) "filter" their speech, give socially desirable answers. In an effort to get more favorable terms in the course of negotiations, many partners promise what they themselves do not believe in (or, at least, what they doubt). The leader, wanting to keep you at work, promises what he cannot do. The subordinate, trying not to contradict you, subscribes to the achievement of a result in which he is not at all sure. Your child also promises you something … How to understand in all these cases what he really thinks, what he believes, what motivates the interlocutor? “Everybody lies,” as Dr. House rightly notes, but often does so unintentionally. In many cases, a person does not try to deceive us, but there is an important subtext in his speech, which gives us important information about him and his true intentions - but only if we are able to notice this subtext. After reading the book and completing the exercises, you will learn to really hear the interlocutor, which will greatly simplify your life and give you an edge in any negotiations.
Typical behaviors and deviations from them
Are there many actions that you always perform, without any exceptions? Are you brushing your teeth? But surely at least once in my life there was no time or opportunity to do this (at least in childhood, this could happen when the parents did not control). Is there a lot of things that we will never do, that is, under no circumstances at all? Answer this question yourself. Of course, if each of us has prevailing patterns of behavior, there are deviations from them.
We will consider several "speaking" deviations from typical human metaprograms and how they can be interpreted. Metaprograms are "patterns that we use to determine what information will be admitted into consciousness … Metaprograms are key moments in the process of motivation and decision-making." Simply put, it is the metaprograms that determine the behavioral models, the corresponding values and motives of a person. We will classify metaprograms as an orientation towards a process or a result, striving and avoidance, globality and detail, etc. Let us dwell on the exceptions: they provide information about what is the peculiarity of a person's perception of a particular situation and how his behavior will differ in a particular case …
Partial avoidance
A. P. Chekhov has a story "The Man in a Case". The main character of this story has such a favorite saying: "No matter how something happens." This is a man of avoidance: he thinks according to the principle of "how not to", "what I do not want." People of aspirations belittle differently: "As I want," and people of avoidance go from the opposite. The aspiration-avoidance model can be used for career guidance in order to understand in which professions and activities a person will be successful. And what will it give us?
In this chapter, we'll talk about partial avoidance. Suppose a person in most cases uses the formulations of striving, that is, positive, but sometimes, when answering a question or talking about his expectations, desires, needs, he switches to the formulations of avoidance. Why do you think this is happening? Let's analyze the examples together to understand what partial avoidance is evidence of.
A. Negotiation
"What is most important to you when choosing a supplier?"
"Good quality, reputation of the company and so that delivery times are not disrupted."
B. Job interview
"What does a good job mean?"
"A good team, interesting work and so that the salary is not delayed."
You probably guessed it: the factors noted by partial avoidance are of increased importance to the respondent. The question is why this is so. There can be two reasons: either there is a negative experience and the person does not want to repeat it, or the interlocutor has an increased sensitivity to this factor. Noticing examples of partial avoidance in the interlocutor's speech, we get important information: what should be paid special attention to when interacting with this person - and it does not matter if it is a client, a subordinate, or a candidate for an open vacancy. So, in example A, it is worth paying attention to the exact adherence to the delivery time, because otherwise this is what will cause the greatest negative on the part of the client. If the risks of failure to meet the deadline are probable, it is worth considering in advance how we will compensate the client for this, financially or morally. From Example B, we draw two conclusions. Firstly, you cannot hire this person if the delay in salary in our company is a constant practice, since the employee will soon be looking for a new job. The second conclusion for the future: in a crisis situation, some problems in the company, it is worth paying special attention to the motivation of this employee, since he may be demotivated not only by the delay in the patch, but also simply because of fears that something like this might happen. Let's take a deeper look at both situations. In example A, we need to clarify two points: whether the person had a real negative experience (delivery time missed), and if so, which one. Let's say we understand: the client is annoyed by the fact that deliveries are delayed for three months, and we have a maximum of a week. In this case, the situation is not critical for us. Example B: if the candidate had an unpleasant experience, when the salary was not paid for three months, and we do not have such a practice at all, then there will be no problems either. Sometimes partial avoidance occurs in the absence of a negative experience in a person. In this case, it indicates a person's pain points, that is, those moments that are most critical for him, which he is afraid of. And it gives us information about potential difficulties and problems that may arise during cooperation. In this case, the thesis "Forewarned is forearmed" is very relevant. We can either avoid problems altogether, or somehow smooth things over if problems do arise. Example A: Knowing that the customer is particularly sensitive to meeting delivery deadlines, we can take good control of the logistics or the supplier. If there is still a risk of failure to meet the deadline, then you can think over in advance the moral (and even not only moral) compensation that we will offer the client so as not to lose him. Example B: An employee is sensitive to the timing of salary payments. If a salary delay does happen, then individual work of the manager is required: an explanation of the reasons, a guarantee of payment, obligations for the future. Well, now the worst option for us: the zone of partial avoidance of the interlocutor completely coincides with the situation in our company. In this case, there may be several options, each of which has its own characteristics. Let's look at them in a client or partner situation.
1. If this cooperation is not particularly important for us, we can refuse it. First, you need to determine the price of the issue: to understand to what extent the risks that may arise in a conflict situation are justified by the benefits of cooperation. Of course, you should not immediately refuse to cooperate, but when we warn your partner about the risks, it is very likely that he himself will decide that cooperation is unacceptable for him. If you do not warn about the risks, then such a negative situation may develop:
We took an example with delivery times from real negotiations. We are talking about project sales of a complex product imported from Europe. At the time in question, the company had great difficulties with the delivery time, the delay could be up to several months. In negotiations with one of the potential customers, there was a partial avoidance associated with delivery times, but the company representative did not notice or ignored it. The delivery time was disrupted, as a result of which the client presented serious material claims, and the company was forced to satisfy them. But the even more frustrating consequence was that a dissatisfied customer shared the incident with many others, leaving the company in serious trouble rebuilding its reputation. Obviously, in this situation, the risk was not justified. And what was worth doing in such a situation? One could simply warn about the risk, and even the client's refusal to cooperate would be better than such consequences.
2. We can warn the partner about the possible risks.
But how can you avoid his refusal? In this situation, it is especially important to understand not only the zones of demotivation, which are signaled by partial avoidance, but also the zones of motivation. If we know them, then we can “compensate” in advance the probable risks both by negotiation methods in their pure form (“Yes, we can have longer delivery times, but …”, “Unlike many others, whose supplies are also unstable, we we immediately tell you the truth "," For our industry, the duration of deliveries is a characteristic feature "), and with the help of material benefits (favorable terms of payment, additional service, etc.). And there are - unfortunately, rarely - and such options:
One company - a manufacturer of equipment and consumables - had difficulties with supplies. And this fact often became the reason for the refusal of clients from the transaction. But this did not apply to one of the product groups, because this equipment had unique characteristics - there were no analogues on the market at that time. And sales specialists perfectly knew how to present these advantages, describing the benefits to customers. The uniqueness of the product compensated for the zone of partial avoidance for most customers.
3. Another option is to remove or minimize factors negative for the partner. And here two points are important: the fundamental possibility of this and the price of the issue, that is, how much the benefit from cooperation will exceed the costs of eliminating the demotivator. The most important thing is to resolve the issue, and not pretend that nothing is happening. As in classical conflict management, in such cases, ostrich politics can lead to significant risks, including reputational ones.
Now let's get back to the candidate situation. So, the zone of partial avoidance of the candidate completely or partially coincides with the situation in the company. For some reason, we are not ready to refuse this candidate (there are no others, unique qualifications, unique connections or opportunities). The worst thing, as in the situation with the client, is not to warn the candidate, relying on chance. Recently, one of the participants in the training told the following story. She is an aspiring HR manager, not so long ago working in the company, but undergoing special training. On one occasion, together with the chief accountant, she interviewed for the position of senior accountant. The candidate, a very good professional, immediately liked the head. During the conversation, to the recruiter's question: "What are good working conditions?" - the candidate replied: "This is a good team, atmosphere and so that there are no special reworkings." As you can see, in this answer, the partial avoidance is overwork. You may also have noticed the word "special", which indicates subtext. The recruiter clarified what "special overtime" is, and received the answer: "More than an hour."As a result of the interview, the chief accountant liked the candidate very much, and she said: “We must take”. The HR manager offered to speak with the candidate again and warn that overtime can be noticeably more than an hour, including going to work on Saturday. However, the reaction was something like this: "It's okay, everyone works like this, and she will get used to it." Since the status of the chief accountant turned out to be higher, the number of overtime was not agreed with the candidate. As a result, the new senior accountant immediately performed very well professionally, and at first she did not need to stay more than an hour. However, after a while, the situation changed, and the senior accountant had to stay two or two and a half hours, because that was how the volume of work was distributed in the company. A week later, she approached her supervisor and said that she did not have the opportunity to stay for such a time every day, since she could not agree with the child's nanny about constant delays. But the volume of her work was not reduced, as a result of which she quit. At the exit interview (an interview conducted by the personnel service to find out the reasons for leaving), our heroine said with regret that she really liked everything, but if she had been warned initially about the amount of overwork, she would not have applied for this position. And then she would not have to quit her previous job, and the company would not waste time. It is imperative to discuss with the candidate those moments that have fallen into the zones of avoidance. However, here it is worth adhering to several important rules so as not to lose the candidate immediately:
1. First, you should talk about the positive aspects so that the candidate has a good first impression. Then, of course, it is necessary to tell the truth about the negative aspects, and end again on the positive. This is the so-called sandwich principle: "positive - negative - positive", based on the edge effect (a feature of perception, due to which the first and the last are remembered better).
2. It is necessary to correctly present negative points. In this case, we can use the reframing technique, which will allow, without hiding the negative moments for the employee, to show them from a positive or neutral side, or immediately oppose them with a positive. For example, a candidate showed partial avoidance: “It’s important for me that there is no uncertainty,” and we have a lot of changes in our company, and often unpredictable ones. We tell the candidate that in our company he will be able to very quickly improve his qualifications and value, since frequent changes will allow him to learn new things. Now let's focus on the partial avoidance option for your subordinate. These are zones of doubt, fear or potential demotivation, therefore, hearing them when delegating or discussing work, you need to clarify why your employee has them. For example: "What do you think about the upcoming negotiations with client A?" "I think the deal won't fall through." This partial avoidance indicates that the employee is thinking about the risk of a deal breakdown. The task of the manager is to clarify what concerns the employee has, and to resolve the situation in a joint discussion. There may be several options, and depending on what we learn by asking the question, the leader should behave differently. There is a possibility that the employee is simply not confident in himself, he has low self-esteem, and there are no objective reasons for fear. In this case, the manager can convince the employee that everything will work out for him. Another option is also possible: there are some objective reasons for doubts. Suppose there are similar precedents with this client or similar ones in the past, previously expressed by the client of the opinion, our proposal will clearly not be the best, etc. Having found out the reasons, the manager, together with the employee, must think over those measures that will allow effective and successful negotiations.
Very important
Even those who know this method, notice partial avoidances and make the right conclusions about the affected area, make one critical mistake. Ironically, this mistake is often caused by effective communication training. Many of us have been taught to formulate our thoughts positively, to avoid denial. And we, out of habit, talk in this way with a person of avoidance ("The main thing is that the deadlines are not missed. -" With the deadlines, everything will be in order "). But we need to "bring back" avoidance. What does it mean? To the client's phrase "The main thing is that the deadlines are not missed", we answer: "The deadlines will not be disrupted." If the candidate says: “It is important for me that the work is not routine,” we say that the work “will not be routine”. People who have a pattern of avoidance in their speech are best persuaded using the same pattern.
