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 methods (more than 6,000 people have watched it at the moment). If you think about it, then 24 minutes. video * 6,000 = 2,400 hours of time - we hope this was useful to you.

    As promised, we turn back to constructive: today we would like to analyze 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 your point of view, when the interlocutor DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the obvious things, today we will analyze a simple algorithm of how to convey this to people. And, as usual, we will fix the material with examples from real life.

    PS Since habra-questioning in a previous article showed that the text is better than video, this time there is both video and text.



    When in one of our recent articles we examined the constructive confrontation algorithm , we talked about changing the other person’s behavior model 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 move on to the decision. Otherwise, it’s too early to move on - the person does not agree and / or does not understand what we are deciding.

    If we push through a solution without agreeing on a problem, then several options are possible:
    • The man beats off: “Yes, okay, they used to work somehow ...”
    • The person turns on the sabotage regime: “Well, you’re the boss, I’m a fool, but then you will see that this was a wrong decision ...”
    • The man puts a minus in the karma to the boss: “Well, let it be your way. (Not already out loud) The bosses are idiots, they themselves don’t understand why what is being done, they only know what to push. ”


    image

    And precisely at this point, without reaching agreement on the problem, in a fit of persuasion, we use unconstructive tricks, which were discussed in the previous video “How to involuntarily troll the interlocutor and get minus in karma” :

    “Why should I explain to your 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 stronger we push, the greater the chance of getting minus in karma and the more weight of the minus itself.

    Accordingly, I want a person to somehow agree on a problem, without pressure, so that it agrees with the problem and proceeds to a solution by itself.

    Arguments needed. Which we prepare at the preparation stage. Moreover, at the preparation stage, we do not know which argument will work, because we do not know what is in the person’s head.

    One argument 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, there are hexagonal nuts and bolts of some sort.” And you take a set of keys so you don't have to go a second time.

    So here - it would be nice to prepare a set of arguments before the discussion, in case your only killer argument does not work.

    So how are the arguments prepared?

    Example No. 1. Suppose you lead a team, and there is an employee who is constantly late for morning meetings (scrum meetings, standup meetings or just meetings). On 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 kind of coordination.

    And here, the scoundrel, is late. And you want to make sure he is not late.

    It is clear that there may be situations when the wife went on a business trip and there is no one to take the children to kindergarten, etc. - we will not consider it here. Suppose that a particular Fedya sincerely does not understand why planning meetings are needed, and is late for them. Well, here at the previous work the person did not have these stupid meetings, and everything was fine. Both work worked, and the customer was satisfied. And here you are with your stupid meetings.

    What we often see in trainings - managers begin to speak their managerial language:

    “The motivation of the team is falling”

    “The team spirit is falling”

    “This is contrary to the policies of our company”


    That is, about some corporate ships that plow 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 is falling? You, manager, measure it in what parrots? In lumens that show how people's eyes burn?

    Managers speak their language. They sometimes forget a little how they felt and thought when they were not managers.

    Probably, the arguments should be slightly different ... The 2 by 2 matrix will help us figure out the question.

    On one scale, we will postpone the time: present or future. On another scale - whose problem it is: yours or the person to whom you came to discuss it.

    image

    What arguments do people listen to better? To those that show that you have a problem, or to those that show that they have a problem?

    The answer is not so obvious. We can say that it depends on whether you have common 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 the falling motivation and the foul team spirit will work.

    But what’s absolutely certain - people listen well to arguments that concern them personally. Someone from psychologists said that:

    People change their behavior when they realize that it is counter-constructive to their goals.

    What does this late employee want? You know better, you work with him. But I'll guess what he might want:
    • He wants interesting tasks and does not want boring
    • He wants to listen to his opinion
    • Wants career growth
    • Wants money


    We can attach arguments to these Wishlist:
    1. When you come after the meeting, all the interesting tasks are already taken apart
    2. Only boring tasks remain
    3. On boring tasks I can’t appreciate your height
    4. If they ask me now to recommend someone for the position of manager, I can not recommend you
    5. In our company, a manager is one who, by his own example, shows how company policies are respected + Argument No. 4
    6. ...


    And now you are a little more prepared for the conversation. And you go from one argument to another, pausing, letting the person say what he thinks about it. But you have more than one argument, but a whole set of keys.

    And we have not yet analyzed what a person wanted to achieve with his model of behavior right now. Let's try to do this using the following example.

    Example No. 2. Suppose you lead a team, and your experienced employee (technical leader) criticizes the work of colleagues for all non-constructively, periodically switching to checkmate. Colleagues (specifically, Masha) are offended, cry, can not work and are going to quit. Because nerve cells are not restored. And you decide to somehow change the behavior model of your technical leader.

    Here, of course, it is worth considering. did he always behave like that, or did it start after a moment? Maybe this is just the motivation. bored became a man. It’s necessary to understand. Suppose a technical leader has always been so sharp.

    A small digression and an example from life. In his book “Up!” Inna Kuznetsova, the first Russian-speaking vice president of IBM, describes a case when at some point she had a terrible boss, with whom it was very difficult to work. And she was about to leave him when she unfolded this situation for herself a little.

    After all, the farther up, the less of the number of bosses you can choose. And Inna perceived this situation as a great opportunity to learn how to work with a complex boss. Life has become easier. Because when you understand the long-term goal, and how the current situation will lead you to it, you can suffer.

    Therefore, in our example, there may be an option to talk with Masha. You may be able to convince her that it will be useful for her to learn to communicate with swearing technical leaders. :)


    But suppose 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 a non-resource state
    • Masha can quit
    • ...


    But there is a chance that you will come across a misunderstanding:
    • “Of course, typed on the ads”
    • “Well, everything works out fine for me the first time”
    • “He will quit, and thank God - maybe we can finally hire a normal person ...”
    • ...


    So let's think about what the technical leader wants.

    What does he want with his behavior? To do:
    • Quickly
    • Qualitatively


    What does he want at all?
    • To listen to him
    • Work with smart people
    • Careers
    • Of money


    Based on this, we prepare the arguments:
    1. Fast -> What do you want? when are you yelling at Masha? To be done quickly? It’s not working fast ...
    2. Quickly -> Look: you shouted, Masha went to cry. Then she came to tell me how hard it is to work with you. I think about all the employees, I came to warm your brain about it. Now I’m leaving, you’ll go to Masha to explain that you don’t have to go through your head to the boss. Masha will quit. What do you think, who will be engaged in the search, interview, introduction of newcomers, and while they are not there, do their work?
    3. To listen -> Look. while you are talking with Masha. everyone else got popcorn and watched it. And they see how you convey your thoughts to your colleagues. What do you think. if people have a question, will they come to discuss it with you?
    4. Work with smart people -> You said you want to work with smart people? So smart people will also think whether to work or not with someone who, if something happens, can do it with everyone. Why do they need it?
    5. Career -> In our company, those who can find a common language with any people are growing. Now. if they ask me if I can recommend you for a manager position, I can’t do it. Because I do not know how you will communicate with management and customers. The customer may also not understand something, and may not be competent in your area. If you send him obscenities, then this is not the case ...


    It’s not worth it to squeeze too much. The man may not have looked at the situation from that angle at all. And he needs time to come to terms with the fact that his model of behavior will not lead him to his Wishlist. Nevertheless, he lived with this model of behavior for several years.

    And maybe this will be the second conversation when you agree with him in the format “Let's try it differently ... Instead of $% ^ # you say:“ Masha, how did it happen? .. ”

    This is not about manipulation

    You can say: Alexander, but this is pure manipulation! How so, you yourself teach that it is not necessary to use them.

    This is an important issue. Manipulation is a hidden effect on a person to achieve their own goals. Understand us correctly, we are not in favor of secretly solving our managerial problems using arguments that affect a person.

    In short, the reporting algorithm is as follows:
    • I have a problem, I came to discuss it with you
    • This is a problem for me, 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. The thought is this.

    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 choose arguments based on the wishes and desires of the interlocutor. And there should be several arguments - like keys in a set. Then the chances of success in the conversation are greatly increased.

    Formula for working with people

    Of course, real life is more complicated. In real life, there is a history of relationships, there are nuances of applying schemes when communicating with customers and management, there are organizational birth injuries, there are group dynamics and other things that throw unpleasant surprises.

    But over 7 years of our work in training and 10+ years of work as managers, we found two things:

    1. Many managerial techniques can be described with simple, sketchy tools. Some of them (16 pieces, to be exact), we described in our free video course “Management Tools: System Management on the Fingers” .

    2. Good managers do what bad managers do not. They work with people, using, among other things, the tools from point 1. And all these things fit into a fairly understandable formula for working with people. Therefore, in the next article (most likely this will be a video) we would like to parse this formula. Bring a big picture to work with people and go into details as much as possible.

    Most likely, the result will be a great intelligence card, which, of course, we will share.

    Good luck!

    Alexander Orlov
    Stratoplan.ru

    Also popular now: