When Theodore Roosevelt was in the White House, he confessed that if he could be right 75 percent of the time, he would reach the highest measure of his expectation.
If that was the highest rating that one of the most distinguished men of the twentieth century could hope to obtain, what about you and me?
If you can be sure of being right only 55 percent of the time, you can go down to Wall Street and make a million dollars a day. If you can't be sure of being right even 55 percent of the time, why should you tell other people they are wrong?
You can tell people they are wrong by a look or an intonation or a gesture just as eloquently as you can in words—and if you tell them they are wrong, do you make them want to agree with you? Never! For you have struck a direct blow at their intelligence, judgment, pride and self-respect. That will make them want to strike back. But it will never make them want to change their minds. You may then hurl at them all the logic of a Plato or an Immanuel Kant, but you will not alter their opinions, for you have hurt their feelings.
Never begin by announcing“I am going to prove so-and-so to you.”That's bad. That's tantamount to saying:“I'm smarter than you are. I'm going to tell you a thing or two and make you change your mind.”
That is a challenge. It arouses opposition and makes the listener want to battle with you before you even start.
It is difficult, under even the most begin conditions, to change people's minds. So why make it harder? Why handicap yourself?
If you are going to prove anything, don't let anybody know it. Do it so subtly, so adroitly, that no one will feel that you are doing it. This was expressed succinctly by Alexander Pope:
Men must be taught as if you taught them not
And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
Over three hundred years ago Galileo said:
You cannot teach a man anything;
you can only help him to find it within himself.
As Lord Chesterfield said to his son:
Be wiser than other people if you can;
but do not tell them so.
Socrates said repeatedly to his followers in Athens:
One thing only I know,
and that is that I know nothing.
Well, I can't hope to be any smarter than Socrates, so I have quit telling people they are wrong. And I find that it pays.
If a person makes a statement that you think is wrong—yes, even that you know is wrong—isn't it better to begin by saying:“Well, now, look. I thought otherwise, but I may be wrong. I frequently am. And if I am wrong, I want to be put right. Let's examine the facts.”
There's magic, positive magic, in such phrases as:“I may be wrong. I frequently am. Let's examine the facts.”
Nobody in the heavens above or on the earth beneath or in the waters under the earth will ever object to your saying:“I may be wrong. Let's examine the facts.”
One of our class members who used this approach in dealing with customers was Harold Reinke, a Dodge dealer in Billings, Montana. He reported that because of the pressures of the automobile business, he was often hard-boiled and callous when dealing with customers'complaints. This caused flared tempers, loss of business and general unpleasantness.
He told his class:“Recognizing that this was getting me nowhere fast, I tried a new tack. I would say something like this:‘Our dealership has made so many mistakes that I am frequently ashamed. We may have erred in your case. Tell me about it.’
“This approach becomes quite disarming, and by the time the customer releases his feelings, he is usually much more reasonable when it comes to settling the matter. In fact, several customers have thanked me for having such an understanding attitude. And two of them have even brought in friends to buy new cars. In this highly competitive market, we need more of this type of customer, and I believe that showing respect for all customers' opinions and treating them diplomatically and courteously will help beat the competition.”
You will never get into trouble by admitting that you may be wrong. That will stop all argument and inspire your opponent to be just as fair and open and broadminded as you are. It will make him want to admit that he, too, may be wrong.
If you know positively that a person is wrong, and you bluntly tell him or her so, what happens? Let me illustrate. Mr. S—, a young New York attorney, once argued a rather important case before the United States Supreme Court (Lustgarten V. Fleet Corporation 280 U. S. 320). The case involved a considerable sum of money and an important question of law. During the argument, one of the Supreme Court justices said to him:“The statute of limitations in admiralty law is six years, is it not?”
Mr. S— stopped, stared at the justice for a moment, and then said bluntly:“Your Honor, there is no statute of limitations in admiralty.”
“A hush fell on the court,”said Mr. S— as he related his experience to one of the author's classes,“and the temperature in the room seemed to drop to zero. I was right. Justice—was wrong. And I had told him so. But did that make him friendly? No. I still believe that I had the law on my side. And I know that I spoke better than I ever spoke before. But I didn't persuade. I made the enormous blunder of telling a very learned and famous man that he was wrong.”
Few people are logical. Most of us are prejudiced and biased. Most of us are blighted with preconceived notions, with jealousy, suspicion, fear, envy and pride. And most citizens don't want to change their minds about their religion or their haircut or communism or their favorite movie star. So, if you are inclined to tell people they are wrong, please read the following paragraph every morning before breakfast. It is from James Harvey Robinson's enlightening book The Mind in the Making.
We sometimes find ourselves changing our minds without any resistance or heavy emotion, but if we are told we are wrong, we resent the imputation and harden our hearts. We are incredibly heedless in the formation of our beliefs, but find ourselves filled with an illicit passion for them when anyone proposes to rob us of their companionship. It is obviously not the ideas themselves that are dear to us, but our self-esteem which is threatened…The little word“my”is the most important one in human affairs, and properly to reckon with it is the beginning of wisdom. It has the same force whether it is“my”dinner,“my”dog, and“my”house, or“my”father,“my”country, and“my”God. We not only resent the imputation that our watch is wrong, or our car shabby, but that our conception of the canals of Mars, of the pronunciation of“Epictetus,”of the medicina value of salicin, or of the date of Sargon I is subject to revision. We like to continue to believe what we have been accustomed to accept as true, and the resentment aroused when doubt is cast upon any of our assumptions leads us to seek every manner of excuse for clinging to it. The result is that most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.
Carl Rogers, the eminent psychologist, wrote in his book On Becoming a Person:
I have found it of enormous value when I can permit myself to understand the other person. The way in which I have worded this statement may seem strange to you. Is it necessary to permit oneself to understand another? I think it is. Our first reaction to most of the statements (which we hear from other people) is an evaluation or judgment, rather than an understanding of it. When someone expresses some feeling, attitude or belief, our tendency is almost immediately to feel“that's right,”or“that's stupid,”“that's abnormal,”“that's unreasonable,”“that's incorrect,”“that's not nice.”Very rarely do we permit ourselves to understand precisely what the meaning of the statement is to the other person.(1)
I once employed an interior decorator to make some draperies for my home. When the bill arrived, I was dismayed.
A few days later, a friend dropped in and looked at the draperies. The price was mentioned, and she exclaimed with a note of triumph:“What? That's awful. I am afraid he put one over on you.”
True? Yes, she had told the truth, but few people like to listen to truths that reflect on their judgment. So, being human, I tried to defend myself. I pointed out that the best is eventually the cheapest, that one can't expect to get quality and artistic taste at bargain-basement prices, and so on and on.
The next day another friend dropped in, admired the draperies, bubbled over with enthusiasm, and expressed a wish that she could afford such exquisite creations for her home. My reaction was totally different.“Well, to tell the truth,”I said,“I can't afford them myself. I paid too much. I'm sorry I ordered them.”
When we are wrong, we may admit it to ourselves. And if we are handled gently and tactfully, we may admit it to others and even take pride in our frankness and broad-mindedness. But not if someone else is trying to ram the unpalatable fact down our esophagus.
Horace Greeley, the most famous editor in America during the time of the Civil War, disagreed violently with Lincoln's policies. He believed that he could drive Lincoln into agreeing with him by a campaign of argument, ridicule and abuse. He waged this bitter campaign month after month, year after year. In fact, he wrote a brutal, bitter, sarcastic and personal attack on President Lincoln the night Booth shot him.
But did all this bitterness make Lincoln agree with Greeley? Not at all. Ridicule and abuse never do.
If you want some excellent suggestions about dealing with people and managing yourself and improving your personality, read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography—one of the most fascinating life stories ever written, one of the classics of American literature. Ben Franklin tells how he conquered the iniquitous habit of argument and transformed himself into one of the most able, suave and diplomatic men in American history.
One day, when Ben Franklin was a blundering youth, an old Quaker friend took him aside and lashed him with a few stinging truths, something like this:
Ben, you are impossible. Your opinions have a slap in them for everyone who differs with you. They have become so offensive that nobody cares for them. Your friends find they enjoy themselves better when you are not around. You know so much that no man can tell you anything. Indeed, no man is going to try, for the effort would lead only to discomfort and hard work. So you are not likely ever to know any more than you do now, which is very little.
One of the finest things I know about Ben Franklin is the way he accepted that smarting rebuke. He was big enough and wise enough to realize that it was true, to sense that he was headed for failure and social disaster. So he made a right-about-face. He began immediately to change his insolent, opinionated ways.
“I made it a rule,”said Franklin,“to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiment of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbade myself the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fixed opinion, such as‘certainly,’‘undoubtedly,’etc., and I adopted, instead of them,‘I conceive,’‘I apprehend,’or‘I imagine’a thing to be so or so, or‘it so appears to me at present.’When another asserted something that I thought an error, I denied myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition: and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appeared or seemed to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engaged in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I proposed my opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.
“And this mode, which I at first put on with some violence to natural inclination, became at length so easy, and so habitual to me, that perhaps for these fifty years past no one has ever heard a dogmatical expression escape me. And to this habit (after my character of integrity) I think it principally owing that I had earned so much weight with my fellow citizens when I proposed new institutions, or alterations in the old, and so much influence in public councils when I became a member; for I was but a bad speaker, never eloquent, subject to much hesitation in my choice of words, hardly correct in language, and yet I generally carried my points.”
How do Ben Franklin's methods work in business? Let's take two examples.
Katherine A. Allred of Kings Mountain, North Carolina, is an industrial engineering supervisor for a yarn-processing plant. She told one of our classes how she handled a sensitive problem before and after taking our training:
“Part of my responsibility,”she reported,“deals with setting up and maintaining incentive systems and standards for our operators so they can make more money by producing more yarn. The system we were using had worked fine when we had only two or three different types of yarn, but recently we had expanded our inventory and capabilities to enable us to run more than twelve different varieties. The present system was no longer adequate to pay the operators fairly for the work being performed and give them an incentive to increase production. I had worked up a new system which would enable us to pay the operator by the class of yarn she was running at any one particular time. With my new system in hand, I entered the meeting determined to prove to the management that my system was the right approach. I told them in detail how they were wrong and showed where they were being unfair and how I had all the answers they needed. To say the least, I failed miserably! I had become so busy defending my position on the new system that I had left them no opening to graciously admit their problems on the old one. The issue was dead.
“After several sessions of this course, I realized all too well where I had made my mistakes. I called another meeting and this time I asked where they felt their problems were. We discussed each point, and I asked them their opinions on which was the best way to proceed. With a few low-keyed suggestions, at proper intervals, I let them develop my system themselves. At the end of the meeting when I actually presented my system, they enthusiastically accepted it.
“I am convinced now that nothing good is accomplished and a lot of damage can be done if you tell a person straight out that he or she is wrong. You only succeed in stripping that person of self-dignity and making yourself an unwelcome part of any discussion.”
Let's take another example—and remember these cases I am citing are typical of the experiences of thousands of other people. R. V. Crowley was a salesman for a lumber company in New York. Crowley admitted that he had been telling hard-boiled lumber inspectors for years that they were wrong. And he had won the arguments too. But it hadn't done any good.“For these lumber inspectors,”said Mr. Crowley,“are like baseball umpires. Once they make a decision, they never change it.”
Mr. Crowley saw that his firm was losing thousands of dollars through the arguments he won. So while taking my course, he resolved to change tactics and abandon arguments. With what results? Here is the story as he told it to the fellow members of his class:
“One morning the phone rang in my office. A hot and bothered person at the other end proceeded to inform me that a car of lumber we had shipped into his plant was entirely unsatisfactory. His firm had stopped unloading and requested that we make immediate arrangements to remove the stock from their yard. After about one-fourth of the car had been unloaded, their lumber inspector reported that the lumber was running 55 percent below grade. Under the circumstances, they refused to accept it.
“I immediately started for his plant and on the way turned over in my mind the best way to handle the situation. Ordinarily, under such circumstances, I should have quoted grading rules and tried, as a result of my own experience and knowledge as a lumber inspector, to convince the other inspector that the lumber was actually up to grade, and that he was misinterpreting the rules in his inspection. However, I thought I would apply the principles learned in this training.
“When I arrived at the plant, I found the purchasing agent and the lumber inspector in a wicked humor, both set for an argument and a fight. We walked out to the car that was being unloaded, and I requested that they continue to unload so that I could see how things were going. I asked the inspector to go right ahead and lay out the rejects, as he had been doing, and to put the good pieces in another pile.
“After watching him for a while it began to dawn on me that his inspection actually was much too strict and that he was misinterpreting the rules. This particular lumber was white pine, and I knew the inspector was thoroughly schooled in hard woods but not a competent, experienced inspector on white pine. White pine happened to be my own strong suit, but did I offer any objection to the way he was grading the lumber? None whatever. I kept on watching and gradually began to ask questions as to why certain pieces were not satisfactory. I didn't for one instant insinuate that the inspector was wrong. I emphasized that my only reason for asking was in order that we could give his firm exactly what they wanted in future shipments.
“By asking questions in a very friendly, cooperative spirit, and insisting continually that they were right in laying out boards not satisfactory to their purpose, I got him warmed up, and the strained relations between us began to thaw and melt away. An occasional carefully put remark on my part gave birth to the idea in his mind that possibly some of these rejected pieces were actually within the grade that they had bought, and that their requirements demanded a more expensive grade. I was very careful, however, not to let him think I was making an issue of this point.
“Gradually his whole attitude changed. He finally admitted to me that he was not experienced on white pine and began to ask me questions about each piece as it came out of the car. I would explain why such a piece came within the grade specified, but kept on insisting that we did not want him to take it if it was unsuitable for their purpose. He finally got to the point where he felt guilty every time he put a piece in the rejected pile. And at last he saw that the mistake was on their part for not having specified as good a grade as they needed.
“The ultimate outcome was that he went through the entire carload again after I left, accepted the whole lot, and we received a check in full.
“In that one instance alone, a little tact, and the determination to refrain from telling the other man he was wrong, saved my company a substantial amount of cash, and it would be hard to place a money value on the good will that was saved.”
Martin Luther King was asked how, as a pacifist, he could be an admirer of Air Force General Daniel“Chappie”James, then the nation's highest-ranking black officer. Dr. King replied,“I judge people by their own principles—not by my own.”
In a similar way, General Robert E. Lee once spoke to the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, in the most glowing terms about a certain officer under his command. Another officer in attendance was astonished.“General,”he said,“do you not know that the man of whom you speak so highly is one of your bitterest enemies who misses no opportunity to malign you?”“Yes,”replied General Lee,“but the president asked my opinion of him; he did not ask for his opinion of me.”
By the way, I am not revealing anything new in this chapter. Two thousand years ago, Jesus said:“Agree with thine adversary quickly.”
And 2, 200 years before Christ was born, King Akhtoi of Egypt gave his son some shrewd advice—advice that is sorely needed today.“Be diplomatic,”counseled the King.“It will help you gain your point.”
In other words, don't argue with your customer or your spouse or your adversary. Don't tell them they are wrong, don't get them stirred up. Use a little diplomacy.
SHOW RESPECT FOR THE OTHER PERSON'S OPINIONS.
NEVER SAY,“YOU'RE WRONG.”
————————————————————
(1) Adapted from Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), pp. 18ff.
西奧多·羅斯福出任總統(tǒng)時曾坦言,如果他能做到在75%的情況下是正確的,那么他就達到了自己的最高要求。
如果這位二十世紀最杰出的人物之一能得到的最高分只有75,那么,你和我能得到多少分呢?
如果你覺得自己能維持55%的正確率,那么你就可以去華爾街一天掙一百萬了。如果你不能保證55%的正確率,那么為什么還能告訴別人他們是錯的呢?
你可以通過一個眼神、一個語調(diào)或一個動作就能有效地告訴對方他錯了。如果你告訴對方他是錯的,你認為會得到對方的認同嗎?永遠不會。因為你已經(jīng)直接對他人的智力、判斷力、驕傲和自尊射上了一箭。這只會引起對方的反擊,卻永不可能改變對方的想法。你可以用柏拉圖或康德般的縝密邏輯來攻擊對方,但別期待對方能改變主意,因為你傷了他的感情。
永遠不要以這樣的話語開始對話:“我要證明給你看……”這真的很糟糕。這就相當于在說:“我比你聰明。我會為你指點一二從而讓你改變主意。”
這其實是在挑戰(zhàn)對方,會引起敵意,使聽者在你開始說話前就想先和你打一仗。即便是在最具善意的情況下,你也很難改變他人的主意。那么為什么要把事情變得更難,為什么要為自己設下障礙呢?
如果你想證明什么,先不要讓別人知道,而要做得巧妙、機智、不被察覺。亞歷山大·蒲柏就曾簡單扼要地闡述過這個觀點:
人只在不知被教誨時接受教誨;
不懂的事要當被遺忘的事來傳授。
三百多年前,伽利略曾說過:
你無法教會別人任何東西,只能幫助別人發(fā)掘他們已知的東西。
查斯特菲爾德勛爵這樣告訴他的兒子:
試著做比別人聰明的人,但是不要告訴別人。
蘇格拉底在希臘不停向他的追隨者重復:
我只知道一件事,那就是我的無知。
我不認為自己比蘇格拉底還聰明,所以我不再對別人說他們的錯誤,并且我也發(fā)現(xiàn)那樣做是徒勞無益的。
如果別人說了你認為不正確的話——即便你確認是錯的,也最好以這種方式開始你的話:“嗯,我的想法不太一樣,但我也有可能是錯的,這種事常常發(fā)生,如果我錯了請糾正我。讓我們來分析一下這個問題吧?!?/p>
類似于“但我也有可能想錯了,這種事常常發(fā)生,如果我錯了請糾正我。讓我們來分析一下這個問題?!边@種的語句是有魔力的,而且是正面的魔力。
沒有任何人會反對“我或許不對,讓我們分析一下問題”的建議。
培訓班里的一位同學在和客戶打交道的過程中運用了這種方法,他叫哈羅德·萊恩克,是蒙大拿州比林斯市道奇汽車的經(jīng)銷商。他說,在汽車行業(yè)的巨大壓力下,往往面對顧客的投訴,他的態(tài)度都是強硬、冷漠的。這導致他大動肝火、失去生意,帶來了總體的不愉快情緒。
他在班里說:“我意識到這樣做對我并沒有好處,所以嘗試了新的方式。我會以這樣的話開頭:‘我總是為我們車行所犯的錯誤感到慚愧。這次沒有讓您滿意,請告訴我您的問題?!?/p>
“這樣說能使對方解除戒備心理,而當顧客的不滿情緒宣泄完畢后,他們往往能更理智地解決問題。實際上,好幾位客戶感謝了我嘗試理解的態(tài)度,其中兩個人甚至還帶了他們的朋友來買車。在如此激烈的競爭環(huán)境中,我們需要的就是這樣的客戶,而我相信尊重所有客戶的意見并禮貌對待他們會幫助我們在競爭中勝出。”
承認自己可能出錯永遠不會給你帶來麻煩。這能停止一切爭論并激勵對手也同樣做到公平、坦然、大度;這也會使對方愿意承認:他也有可能是錯的。
如果你確信對方是錯的并且直言相告,那又會發(fā)生什么呢?讓我來舉個例子。S先生是紐約市一名年輕的律師,曾經(jīng)在美國最高法院為一個很重要的案子進行辯護,案件涉及很大一筆錢和一個重要的法律問題。在辯護過程中,最高法院的一名法官提問他:“法定時效是六年,不是嗎?”
S先生呆望著法官數(shù)秒,然后直截了當?shù)鼗卮穑骸胺ü俅笕?,海事法中并沒有法定時效一說。”
“法庭里頓時響起一片噓聲。”S先生在我的一堂培訓課中講到此事,“法庭內(nèi)似乎靜止了。我是正確的,法官是錯的。我不喜歡讓他意識到這點,但這又能使法官變得友好嗎?沒有。我依然覺得我方占據(jù)了一切法律優(yōu)勢,我也表現(xiàn)得比每一次都好,但是我還是沒能說服法官。我直白地指出了如此知識淵博、德高望重的人的錯誤,這真是太魯莽了。”
邏輯性強的人是少數(shù)的,我們大多數(shù)人都充滿偏見,帶著先入為主的觀念,而嫉妒、懷疑、恐懼和自負會使人逐漸枯萎。然而大多數(shù)人不愿改變自己的想法,不論是有關個人發(fā)型、宗教觀念、共產(chǎn)主義還是他們最愛的電影明星的想法。所以如果你總是對別人說起他們的錯誤,請在每天早晨吃早飯前讀一遍下面這段話,它選自詹姆斯·哈維·魯濱遜所著的引人深思的《思維的形成》一書。
我們可以不夾雜任何阻力和激烈情緒地改變自己的主意,然而當我們被告知自己錯了的時候,我們便會排斥別人的指正,變得心硬起來。我們從不推敲信念的形成,然而每當有人要挑戰(zhàn)這些信念時,都會激起我們捍衛(wèi)信念的荒唐熱情。很明顯,重要的不是那些想法本身,而是我們那受到威脅的自尊……“我的”二字是人類生活中最重要的兩個小小的字,而正確應對這二字便成了智慧的起源。不論是“我的”晚餐、“我的”狗、“我的”房子、“我的”爸爸、“我的”國家或是“我的”上帝,都是同樣的重要。我們不但拒絕承認我們的表不準、車很破,還對火星運河、愛比克泰德的發(fā)音、水楊苷的藥用價值、薩爾貢一世的生卒日期有著不可侵犯的信念。我們希望繼續(xù)保持一直認為是正確的想法,而任何對我們認知的懷疑都會激起憎惡,促使我們?nèi)ふ乙磺欣^續(xù)堅守那些信念的理由。因此,很多我們所謂的“講道理”都不過是為鞏固固有信念而尋找的理由罷了。
著名心理學家卡爾·羅杰斯在《個人形成論》一書中說過:
我發(fā)現(xiàn)如果我允許自己理解他人,那將是極具價值的一件事?;蛟S我的觀點讓你覺得很詫異。我們需要允許自己理解他人嗎?我覺得十分需要。我們對大多數(shù)(別人口中的)言論的第一反應是評價或評判,而不是理解。當他人表達了感受、態(tài)度或信仰后,我們總是習慣于做出這樣的第一反應:“說得沒錯”“這很愚蠢”“這不正?!薄斑@沒有道理”“這不對”“這不好”。我們很少允許自己準確了解這話在別人腦中是什么意思。(1)
有一次,我雇了一名室內(nèi)裝飾師為我的家換幾個簾子。但是,收到賬單時,我心中很不悅。
幾天后,一個朋友來串門,看到了新簾子。我跟她說了價錢,她用勝利的口吻大呼:“什么?那太糟糕了!他肯定在你這兒狠狠撈了一筆。”
她說得對嗎?沒錯,她說的是實情,但很少有人愿意聽反映了自身判斷的實情。所以,被人性驅(qū)使,我試著為自己辯護。我說,當然物美價廉是最好的,但是質(zhì)量、藝術品位和低廉的價格無法共存云云。
第二天,又有一個朋友到家里來看到了簾子,她非常欣賞并表現(xiàn)出極高的熱情,還說她多希望自己有錢為自己家也添置如此精致的物件。我的反應截然不同。我說:“事實上,我自己也買不起。我買貴了,現(xiàn)在很后悔。”
當我們犯錯的時候,我們會向自己承認。如果處理得溫和得當,我們也愿意向他人承認自己的錯誤,而且從這種坦誠和大度中找到自豪感。但如果有人想硬塞給我們這不受歡迎的事實,我們則不再愿意承認自己的問題。
美國南北戰(zhàn)爭期間,最著名的報紙編輯霍勒斯·格里利曾強烈反對林肯的政策。他認為自己可以通過一系列的爭論、嘲笑與謾罵迫使林肯接受他的意見。他日復一日,年復一年地進行著這些尖酸刻薄的活動,甚至還在林肯總統(tǒng)被布斯刺殺前的晚上給他寫過一封粗暴、刻薄、嘲諷、頗具人身攻擊意味的信。
然而格里利種種刻薄的做法是否讓林肯接納了他的意見呢?完全沒有。嘲諷與謾罵永遠無法做到這點。
如果你想得到如何與人相處、管理自己、提高自己的好建議,請閱讀本杰明·富蘭克林的自傳——這是最引人入勝的傳記故事之一,也是美國文學中的經(jīng)典著作。在書中,本·富蘭克林告訴我們,他是如何征服好辯的壞習慣并把自己轉變?yōu)槊绹飞献钣心芰?、最文雅、最有外交手段的人?/p>
當本·富蘭克林還是一個浮躁的年輕人時,一天,一位年邁的智者把他拉到一旁,用幾個尖銳的事實給了他當頭一棒:
本,你實在讓人無法忍受,你的意見中總是帶有對其他想法的攻擊。它們太具冒犯性以至于人們已經(jīng)不拿你的話當回事了。你的朋友們覺得你不在時他們玩得更盡興。你覺得自己知道得很多,根本聽不進別人的意見。實際上,沒人想要告訴你任何事,因為那樣做會令人不悅也太麻煩了。因此你的知識將無法超越現(xiàn)有的水平,而現(xiàn)在知道的也有限。
富蘭克林明智之處便是他謙虛地接受了這智慧性的批判。他的胸懷足夠?qū)拸V,頭腦也足夠聰明,所以他意識到了其中的道理,感覺到自己正在走向失敗和社交災難的不歸路。于是他懸崖勒馬,改變了自己那傲慢、武斷的處事方式。
富蘭克林說:“我給自己制定了一條規(guī)矩:克制住對他人想法的直接否定以及對自己觀念的肯定。我甚至禁止自己運用那些表示固定思維的詞語,例如‘當然’‘毫無疑問’等。與其讓他人改變,不如先改變自己,于是我采納了新的表述方式:‘我的看法是’‘我理解的是’‘我猜這件事是這樣的’或者‘目前來講我認為’。當對方表述了我認為不正確的觀念時,我克制住激烈反駁對方、即刻證明其理論荒謬的快感。在回復時我會首先承認在某些情況下對方的觀點是正確的,但在當前的情形中,我有不同的看法。我很快便發(fā)現(xiàn)了這一變化帶來的好處,我所參與的對話能夠在更愉悅的氛圍中進行了。我展現(xiàn)出的更謙虛的態(tài)度使人們更容易接受、更少反對我的觀點了。如果我被證明是錯誤的,我的羞辱感減少了;而如果我是對的,人們也更容易放棄他們錯誤的觀點,采納正確的意見。
“而這種我一開始需要違背自然傾向、強迫自己接納的方式最終已變得如此簡單和習以為常。這五十年來,或許再也沒有人從我口中聽到過武斷的表述。我覺得一切都歸功于這個習慣(在此之上是我正直的人格),才能讓我在提議建立新制度、改變舊制度時深得民心,在成為公共理事會成員后產(chǎn)生了重大影響。但我從不是一名好的演講者。我不會雄辯,在選詞時猶豫不決,語法上也不見得正確,然而我通??梢员磉_出自己的觀點?!?/p>
北卡羅來納州國王山的凱瑟琳·A.奧瑞德是紡織廠的工業(yè)工程主管,她在一堂課中講起了她在上課前后處理敏感問題的不同方法:
“我的職責之一便是為生產(chǎn)者建立和維護獎勵制度及標準,從而激勵他們制造更多的紗線。當我們只生產(chǎn)兩三種紡線的時候,原本的系統(tǒng)還不錯,但最近我們拓展了進貨渠道,提高了生產(chǎn)能力,已經(jīng)可以同時制造十二種紡線了,這時的獎勵制度已經(jīng)無法公平地反映員工的工作量并給予他們增強生產(chǎn)力的動力了。我設計出一套新的按紡織類別進行獎勵的系統(tǒng),我?guī)е@套系統(tǒng)走進會議室,立志要向管理層證明我的方法是對的。我詳盡地解釋了他們的方法為何不好,為何不公平,而我有一切問題的答案??墒?,最后我敗得一塌糊涂。我太急于維護自己的立場,以至于沒有給他人留下坦誠并優(yōu)雅地承認問題的機會。這注定死路一條。
“參加了幾堂培訓課后,我清楚地認識到了自己的問題。于是,我再次召集了一次會議,而這次我向他們詢問了他們的看法及問題出在哪里。我們探討了每個方面,我也征求了他們的改革意見。我在適當?shù)臅r機里提出了幾個低調(diào)的建議,引領他們主動走入了我的思維模式。所以,當我在會議末尾提出了那個具體方案后,大家興高采烈地接納了。
“我現(xiàn)在徹底懂得了,如果你直截了當?shù)馗嬖V別人他的錯誤,你不僅無法得到任何建設性結果,還會造成很大的傷害。你只是成功地剝奪了對方的尊嚴,使自己變成任何對話中不受歡迎的一方?!?/p>
讓我們再看一個例子,請記住,我引用的這些例子都是具有代表性的。R.V.克勞來是紐約一家木材公司的銷售人員,他承認自己多年來一直不留情面地指出冷漠的木材檢查員的錯誤,也在爭論中屢居上風。然而這并沒有帶來任何正面的結果?!斑@些木材檢查員就像棒球裁判一樣?!笨藙趤碚f,“他們一旦做出判決便永不再改變?!?/p>
克勞來先生意識到,他贏得了爭論中的勝利,但公司損失了數(shù)萬美金。所以他在上我的培訓班時發(fā)誓要改變自己處理問題的方式,放棄爭論。結果又如何?下面是他在班里講的他的故事:
“一天早晨我辦公室里的電話響起了。電話另一端是個怒氣沖沖、憂心忡忡的人,他告訴我,我們運給他工廠的木材全都不符合要求。他的工廠已經(jīng)停止卸貨,并要求我們立刻想辦法把所有貨物拉走。卸下四分之一的木材后,他們的木材檢查員匯報說這批木材低于標準55%,在這種情況下,他們當然拒絕簽收這批木材?!拔伊⒖涕_車駛向他的工廠,路上想著處理此事的最佳辦法。以往遇到這種事,我會復述木材評級的規(guī)定,并用我曾從事木材檢查的全部知識和經(jīng)驗來試圖說服對方的檢查者,讓他相信我們的木材實際是符合等級規(guī)定的,而他則搞錯了檢查規(guī)則。然而,這一次我想試著用培訓班中學到的法則來解決問題。
“我到達工廠后發(fā)覺采購員和木材檢查者的臉色都很陰郁,為爭吵做好了準備。我們一起走到卸貨車那里,我讓他們繼續(xù)卸貨,好讓我觀察一切程序。我讓檢查者挑出不合格的木材,并把合格的放到另一堆。
“觀察了一會兒之后,我發(fā)現(xiàn)他的檢查過于嚴格了,他根本理解錯了標準規(guī)格。我們卸的是白松木,我知道這位檢查者是實木專家但對白松木不甚了解,而我對白松木卻很熟悉。我對對方的檢查方式提出了質(zhì)疑嗎?沒有。我繼續(xù)觀察,并逐步詢問他為何認為某些木材是不合格的。我絲毫沒有暗示他是錯的,我一再重申我詢問只因想知道今后如何提供更合意的木材。
“我非常友好的提問和合作的態(tài)度以及對他們檢查結果的肯定緩解了我們之間的關系,也使對方的態(tài)度逐漸緩和。我無意間的一句評論引起了他對自己判斷的懷疑——或許這不合格的一堆中有些其實是合格的,而他們所要求達到的標準實際是屬于更昂貴的一個等級的。不過我很小心地不讓他覺得這想法是我灌輸給他的。
“慢慢地,他整個態(tài)度都改變了。最后他承認他對檢查白松木并不在行,并開始邊卸貨邊詢問我的意見。我給他解釋合格的標準并一再確認我們不會讓他們接受任何他們不滿意的木材。最后他終于承認了自己每一次往不合格堆放木材時都充滿了愧疚,其實是他們的錯誤,他們訂的木材并不是自己需要的等級。
“最后的結果是:我走后他們又重新檢查了一遍所有木材并全部接收了,而我們收到了全款。
“僅僅在那一件事中,這個小小的方法和避免直接指出對方錯誤的決心,就為公司挽回了損失的大筆金額。何況,這種做法所維護的信譽則是金錢所無法衡量的?!?/p>
馬丁·路德·金曾被問到,身為和平主義者的他為何會敬仰戰(zhàn)無不勝的空軍上將丹尼爾·詹姆斯,即當時美國最顯赫的黑人軍官。馬丁·路德·金回答道:“我以他人的準則而不是我自己的準則看待他人。”
無獨有偶,有一次,羅伯特·E.李將軍在和南軍總統(tǒng)杰弗遜·戴維斯談話時,他用最華麗的詞語贊美了他手下的一位軍官。旁邊一位軍官驚呆了,“將軍,”他說道,“你難道不知道那個被你如此夸贊的人就是不放過任何機會誹謗你的大仇人嗎?”“我知道。”李將軍說,“但是總統(tǒng)問的是我對他的看法,而不是他對我的看法?!?/p>
對了,我在此章中講到的東西都不是什么新鮮內(nèi)容。兩千年前,耶穌就說過:“立刻贊同你的敵人?!?/p>
在耶穌誕生前的兩千兩百年,埃及的阿托伊法老就曾對他兒子提出這樣一句明智的建議,今天的我們依然迫切需要著這句話。法老教誨到:“要懂得外交手段,這樣才能保住你的立場。”
換言之,別與你的客戶、配偶或敵人爭執(zhí);別指出他們的錯誤;別激怒他們;要多運用外交手段。
尊重他人的觀點。永遠別說:“你錯了?!?/p>
————————————————————
(1) 改編自卡爾·羅杰斯的《個人形成論》(波士頓:米夫林出版公司,1961),pp.18ff。