Perhaps, it should be such as to formulate and understand that the main approach in the negotiations, which most often leads to success. I have often thought about the question of a formula, leading negotiations for the inevitable success. To my happiness, I found this formula, but not in the practice of business, and in psychotherapeutic practice. I was astonished!
Astonished how it psychotherapeutic practice is close to the healthy human relations, which only ensures the success of the negotiation and fruitful collaboration with individuals of any status or social position. But since we do not communicate in society, often because we do not even communicate with loved ones. Who suffers from this? Everything! Children, family, partner, head of national economy. Unless we improve the quality of the negotiation process, we can not improve our lives.
To begin, I would like to razvenchat common stereotype about interaction in the psychotherapeutic process. Many see it that omniscient and charismatic psychologist leans over the poor patient, veschaya him the truth and unconditional undividedly vlastvuya in his inner world. It is a complete nonsense!
Although I can not help but notice that quite often, especially in Russia, distributed and this type of relationship with a psychologist or, usually, with a psychiatrist. No. Interaction between a psychologist and a client - it is the interaction of two equal and the equal rights of researchers inner world, where one (the psychologist) as invites to the study of another (the client), resulting in both the first and second are more experienced and competent in the matter.
I think that any normal negotiation must start from the same bargaining power. However, in order to consistently describe the negotiation process, I would like to begin by the first part of this criticism and approval.
I would like to note that the success of the negotiations, I understand the achievement of your goal. And for this purpose, in a general sense, may be the change the relationship the other person (the client) to anything (on a matter or subject, for example). Logically, is not it? Otherwise, why enter into negotiations at all?
I hope many understand the basic thing that the criticism and the father to change something in a person simply can not. This is clearly a bad strategy for negotiations. Does not work so long as no beysya does not work. Pointless to criticize meaningless inspire. All raises are usually rejected, not accepted, not postponed and is not understood.
Negotiations can not be a man something to inspire, drum, something to teach, if he does not want. You see? Ineffective critic ever, but how difficult it is to abstain from it! All pilyat each other, pilyat, criticize, criticize, and the effect - zero. Sometimes, of course, is valid, but the relationship is to you obviously does not do better.
When you criticize, people have to protect, rather than over-. As a result, any change in his views (preferences, habits, principles, beliefs) does not occur. You certainly can be proud that both his pokritikovali nice, but its goal is not achieved, and thus lost the negotiation. I think this is obvious. Stop criticizing others, it is meaningless.
But this is not enough! I understand that there is not enough to criticize. Ineffective even merely asserts that before. For example, imagine that you are talking about the man: "This is A". The man thinks: "No, it's not A, then I am sure of this, so you went to ..." You speak with foam at the mouth: "My position is correct" or "So this thing cool." Another thinks to himself: "Yes, this complete garbage." And the offensive, which it aloud so you can not say. To argue that a general sense.
Yes, it is meaningless, because it is nothing in the negotiations. When a politician says from the podium: "All Communists (or Democrats) сволочи and enemies of the people" - he in fact did not lead any negotiations and did not bring round, it just signals to those who feel the same as follows: "I am your I am here, I I think as you! " Those who do not agree with his position, no change in their attitude to the discussed topic, and even on the contrary, further strengthened in my opinion.
A reasonable question: Why not change the approval of the views of the other person? No change, but only say at the right time in the right place. Thus, I believe that the problem is not how a man something to convey. The problem is that he wanted to embrace it, wanted! Or, in other words, a person "opens" for perception. That man took your ideas (opinions, arguments, arguments), it should open! That is, I repeat, the point is not that something the person said, but to create an environment where you will be heard and seen.
I think many people do not give a report as far as this is important - to monitor the interviewee (on his willingness to accept). Typically, the mountain-negotiator so absorbed that it should be noted that simply does not notice the desired state of the client, and did not notice where the talks are moving. He is so absorbed in their own thoughts, as if rushing to speak, as soon as possible izvergnut up their arguments, and to position the client to him like a spit.
In short, poor, zatsiklen on themselves. What happens to the person, he is not even trying to understand, and this should be carefully and closely monitor the progress of negotiations and the state of the client.
The neglect, lack of attention to attitudes to the person - The main problem, which many do not even begin to solve. Do you think that successful negotiations - this is where one can better explain how the other one's case? Nothing of the sort, the successful negotiation - this is when one of the best possible position to understand the other. Your own contentions about the subject of negotiations would only hinder this problem!
You saw a talk show "To the barrier!" on NTV or "Cultural Revolution" on TV "Culture"? What I do not look, I've never seen that one opponent, talk and took another position. Here is a negative example of the negotiation process. It is simply no!
Moreover, negotiations - it can be said, the clash of two worldviews. And the battle to be honest. What does this mean? This means that if you want something to convince the other, you should be mentally prepared themselves to lose. And if you're not ready to Play in the negotiations, that is, to acknowledge its wrong, then you are a bad negotiator. After negotiations, or you must change its attitude (attitudes, behavior, etc.), or other person, or both. Otherwise (when everyone is at his) thought that the negotiations and was not at all.
So, to criticize the senseless. Indiscriminately approve anything as pointless. Formulate short: do not claim, and not a criticism, it prevents a person "open" and be prepared to accept what you say. What remains to do?
HYPNOSIS
Posts
