Dynamic negotiating | Hartwig Eckert | TEDxArendal
Summary
TLDR演讲者通过自己的舞台经历引入话题,探讨了人们在交流中常见的“沟通工厂设置”模式,即人们在对话中倾向于遵循可预测的反驳和回应模式。通过一个城市规划的谈判案例,演讲者介绍了“动态谈判”策略,包括不追求争议点而是聚焦于共识区域,以及如何通过提问而非直接给出解决方案来定位谈判伙伴。演讲者强调,通过运用这些策略,可以避免操纵对方,而是共同构建解决方案,从而改善人际关系和谈判结果。
Takeaways
- 🎤 **开场互动**:演讲者通过让听众喊出“但是”一词来建立联系,展示人们在交流中如何预测对方的言辞。
- 🗣️ **语言模式**:通过使用“是的”、“诚然”、“通常”等词,演讲者引入了“预期器”概念,说明人们如何根据语言模式预测对话。
- 👶 **沟通工厂设置**:人们在童年时期就掌握了对话模式,这些模式在特定场合如议会辩论中适用,但也可能成为沟通障碍。
- 🤝 **谈判策略**:演讲者介绍了如何通过关注对方承认的领域(让步领域)来转变谈判策略,从而避免陷入僵局。
- 🚫 **避免对抗**:在谈判中,应避免被对抗性语言误导,专注于双方同意的点,即让步领域。
- 🔍 **挖掘隐含意义**:当对方提出异议时,可能隐藏着让步的领域,需要通过提问来揭示这些潜在的同意点。
- 💭 **注意前提假设**:在对方的话语中寻找前提假设,即使在否定的语境中,这些前提也可能表明了某种程度的接受。
- 🛠️ **动态谈判**:演讲者提出了一系列动态谈判的策略,包括不追求争议点,而是通过提问和发现让步领域来构建解决方案。
- 👥 **沟通影响个性**:我们的个性在一定程度上是由我们的沟通方式塑造的,有效的沟通策略可以改变人们对我们的反应,进而影响我们的个性。
- 🌟 **实践应用**:演讲者鼓励听众将这些谈判策略应用于实践,从小事做起,逐步改善沟通和谈判技巧。
- 🍀 **祝福与结束**:演讲以祝福结束,希望听众在谈判中能够利用让步领域取得成功。
Q & A
演讲者是如何在演讲开始时与观众建立联系的?
-演讲者通过让观众喊出他句子的下一个字来建立联系,这样做是为了让观众感到自己不是孤独的,而是真实的人。
什么是'anticipators',演讲者是如何使用它们的?
-Anticipators 是一种语言元素和信号,用于预示接下来要发生的事情。演讲者使用了“yes”、“admittedly”、“normally”和“would”等词汇,以及在逗号前的上升语调来预示观众喊出“but”。
为什么观众能够预测演讲者的下一个字是'but'?
-这是因为人们根据以往的语言模式和互动经验,往往能够在说话者还在说话时就在脑海中形成回应。
演讲者提到了哪些典型的对话模式?
-演讲者提到了攻击触发防御、批评触发辩解、争论触发反驳以及指控触发否认等典型的对话模式。
什么是'communicative factory setting'?
-Communicative factory setting 是指我们从小在家庭中习得并掌握的交流模式,这些模式在某些话语场合如议会辩论和脱口秀中是合适和标准的。
为什么说'communicative factory setting'在谈判中可能是有害的?
-因为这些模式可能导致不必要的会议延长、集体谈判停滞不前,甚至可能导致伙伴关系破裂。
演讲者是如何描述一个典型的谈判场景的?
-演讲者通过一个市民倡议的主席与负责城市规划的政治家之间的谈判来描述,其中包括了政治家对市民倡议的回应和市民的可预测反驳。
什么是'conceded territory',为什么在谈判中关注它是重要的?
-Conceded territory 是指在谈判中已经被对方承认的领域。关注这个领域可以把谈判对手变成谈判伙伴,从而实现动态的谈判。
演讲者提出了哪些动态谈判的策略?
-演讲者提出了四个策略:1) 不要被anticipators误导;2) 通过提问而不是给出解决方案来定位谈判伙伴;3) 如果一个异议没有覆盖所有可能性,这个异议可以被解释为同意;4) 注意预设,即即使在否定中也能存活的陈述部分。
演讲者如何回应那些认为动态谈判是操纵人的观点?
-演讲者认为动态谈判是一个强大的工具,确实存在被滥用进行操纵的危险。但他提出,如果我们区分操纵人对他们不利和定位人以构建解决方案,并将后者作为我们治理的指导原则,那么动态谈判就不会被视为操纵。
演讲者对听众有什么建议或鼓励?
-演讲者鼓励听众实践动态谈判的策略,并将其应用于日常生活中,从儿童的睡前争论到联合国的问题,谈判无处不在。他希望听众能够尝试并测试这些策略,并祝愿他们好运。
Outlines
😃 建立联系的力量
演讲者通过互动开始,与观众建立联系。通过让观众猜测并喊出下一个词,演讲者展示了语言中的预期元素,如“但”。这些预期元素帮助听众预测和理解对话中的内容,并展示了典型的对话模式。通过回顾这些模式,演讲者强调了我们从小就掌握的沟通技巧及其在对话中的作用。
🤔 动态谈判策略
演讲者讨论了如何利用让步区域进行动态谈判。通过专注于对方已承认的部分而非争议部分,谈判可以从对立转向合作。演讲者提出了几种策略,如避免争议焦点、通过提问定位谈判伙伴、理解隐含的让步领域以及关注前提假设。这些策略帮助谈判更加有效和富有成效。
🚀 应用动态谈判策略
演讲者回应了动态谈判可能被误用为操纵的担忧。通过区分有害操纵和建设性解决方案,演讲者展示了动态谈判的正面效用。演讲者强调,系统地应用这些策略将改变人与人之间的反应和沟通方式,从而影响个人的性格和生活。演讲者鼓励观众实践这些策略,从日常小事到国际问题,谈判无处不在,随时可以练习。
Mindmap
Keywords
💡孤独
💡建立联系
💡预期词
💡交流工厂设置
💡谈判
💡让步领域
💡动态谈判
💡预设
💡操纵
💡个性
💡实践
Highlights
演讲者通过与观众互动来建立联系,并使用“但是”作为下一个词汇的提示。
使用“是的”、“诚然”等词作为预示词,引导听众预期接下来的转折。
人们通过语言模式和互动经验,往往能在说话者还在说话时就预测其意图。
提出了“反驳”作为童年早期的典型对话模式之一。
提出了“沟通工厂设置”这一新术语,描述人们在童年时期习得的对话模式。
沟通工厂设置在某些话语环境中是标准和适当的,但在谈判中可能是有害的。
通过一个市民倡议与政治家之间的谈判案例,展示了沟通工厂设置在实际对话中的应用。
提出了避免被预示词误导的谈判策略,专注于已承认的领域。
通过提问而非给出解决方案来定位谈判伙伴。
如果一个反对意见没有涵盖所有可能性,可以将其解释为同意。
注意声明中的预设,它们即使在否定中也能存活。
动态谈判策略的核心是承认的领域,这可以改变人们的生活和个性。
动态谈判策略可以应用于从童年的睡前争论到联合国问题的各种谈判场景。
演讲者鼓励听众实践动态谈判策略,并将其应用于日常生活中。
演讲者以“愿承认的领域与你同在”作为结束语,寓意着成功的谈判。
Transcripts
Transcriber: Chi Linh Reviewer: Emma Gon
Have you ever felt lonely in the company of a few hundred people?
That’s the way I felt when I stepped onto the stage.
So I'm going to establish rapport with you now,
and what I’m going to do is I’m going to say a sentence.
And when I stop, I want all of you
to shout the next word into the lecture hall
to let me know that I’m not alone and that you are not avatars, but real people.
Got the message? I say sentence, I stop,
and when I give you the signal,
you will shout the next word into the theater.
So here’s my sentence: “Yes, admittedly, it is a charitable project
and normally I’d be very happy to make a donation.
(Speaker signs the audience and they shout: “But”.)
How on earth did you know my next word was going to be “but”
and all of you guess that? Telepathy?
No, it is because I used anticipators,
anticipators are elements and signals that focus on what is to come.
The anticipators that I used were “yes” and they were “admittedly”,
“normally”, “I would“ instead of I will and most importantly,
rising intonation up to the comma, “but.”
Because of our experience with speech patterns and interaction,
we are often ahead of the speakers even formulating our response in our minds
while they are still talking.
Typical turn taking patterns, typical conversational patterns interaction
are an accusation triggers a contract causation or a rejection.
An attack triggers defense criticism, triggers justification,
and an argument triggers a counterargument,
and an allegation triggers refutation.
Do you recall your first refutation in early childhood?
Correct: “It wasn’t me.”
Do you remember how you first tried a counter argument on your parents?
“It’s bedtime.” “But I’m not tired,” yawn, yawn.
So let's just coin a new term term for these speech patterns,
these predictable patterns.
Let’s call them the communicative factory setting,
because we acquired and indeed mastered these sound taking patterns
in our early childhood.
Nobody in the world needs training for that.
And let’s call them communicative factory setting,
because they produced us in our families, as it were,
the communicative factory that produced us.
Communicative factory settings
are appropriate and standard in certain settings of discourse,
such as parliamentary debates and talk shows.
The poison when we are negotiating.
They are the reason why meetings are often unnecessarily prolonged.
They're the reason why collective bargaining often come to a grinding halt.
And they are the reason why, sadly, partnerships break up.
Marriages do not end in divorce because after 20 years of married bliss,
one of the partners wakes up one morning realizing, “Oh my God, you look ugly.”
(Laughter)
Okay. Let me take you through a negotiation conducted
in the spirit of the communicative factory setting.
The president of a citizens initiative had an appointment with a politician,
who was responsible for town planning.
The proposal was to replace the existing car park
by a beautiful harbour promenade.
To this proposal, the politician responded by saying,
“In principle, that is a great idea, a wonderful idea indeed.
And I do appreciate citizens coming to me with visions,
but we do not have sufficient parking spaces.
As a matter of fact, we’re desperately short of them.”
Now, this statement wasn't entirely true.
As a matter of fact, there were other areas, even suitable ones.
So the predictable response was, “But we do have alternatives,
think of the areas X, Y, and Z.”
Why is it that we cannot resist the seductiveness of a good argument?
That's your take home message, by the way.
And so the predictable counterargument that the politician came up with was,
“But these areas are too far away from where we need their shoppers.”
“But the harbour promenade would attract them.”
“But we need the revenues from the parking fees.”
“If we attract more tourists, the town would profit even more.”
“Do you know how much it would cost me
to have that car park built on the waterfront
only four years ago? €3.6 million.
Giving up that area as a car park is something
I could never explain to the voters.”
“Huh, Is votes, votes, votes, all you politicians can only think about?”
“But the time interval is too short for such drastic change in town planning.
We can’t jump onto the bandwagon at any moment.”
Okay. So far, so bad.
Now, let me take you through this negotiation again,
this time, step by step.
As you remember, the politicians first counterargument was
“In principle, that it’s a great idea, a wonderful idea indeed
and I do appreciate people coming to me with visions,”
anticipates “But”, the predictable but.
Now let’s assume that the president of the Citizens Initiative
had responded by saying,
“When I made inquiries about a contact person,
your name was the first to come up and I’m happy
I followed that recommendation because you immediately saw
that this was a great idea or a wonderful idea.
Do you know of any towns where this, as you actually put it,
vision has become reality?
So my first message to you is do not go for what is in dispute,
go for what has been conceded.
Go for the concessions and let’s coin a new term for this.
Let's call it the conceded territory.
Focusing on the conceded territory, as demonstrated just now,
makes the difference between negotiating opponents and negotiating partners.
It makes the difference between stagnation and dynamic negotiation.
We’re now in a position to start formulating
the first strategies for dynamic negotiating.
Strategy number one - do not be misguided by anticipators.
Do not go for what is in dispute, focus on the conceded territory.
Number two - position the negotiating partner
by asking questions as demonstrated, not by giving you a solution.
Now here comes a challenge.
What if the conceded territory has not been made explicit?
The town politician said giving up this area as a car park is something
I could never explain to the voters.
Concealed below the surface is the conceded territory.
The subtext, which means what the politician really meant
can be rephrased as if you can sell this to the voters,
you can do with the car park, whatever you like.
So strategy number three is if an objection doesn’t cover
the whole spectrum of possibilities,
this objection is to be interpreted paradoxically as consent.
When in the 20th century, a man proposed to a young maiden
and she protests by saying, “But this is so sudden.” It meant yes.
So, strategy number four - watch out for presuppositions.
Presuppositions are that part of a statement
that survives miraculously negations. The politician had said,
“But the time interval is too short
for such a drastic change in town planning.”
Of course, we would have preferred him to say,
but the time interval is not too short. That is the negation.
But within the framework of dynamic negotiation,
it doesn’t make any difference, it’s neither here nor there,
whether he says the time interval is too short
or the time interval is not too short.
Because in either case,
has he accepted the idea of a beautiful harbour promenade,
where now only talking about the time factor.
It can’t get any better than that, can it?
Because he has now accepted what was an issue only 60 seconds ago.
However, when I expound the strategies of dynamic negotiation
to people, in particular when I demonstrated in real case scenarios
they usually come up with the objection,
but you are manipulating people who only have
the communicative factory setting at their disposal.
I love objections because as you all have spotted now
the conceding territory is in that statement.
So my response to that is you've drawn my attention to the fact that
because dynamic negotiation is a powerful instrument,
it carries the danger of being misused for the purpose of manipulation.
Will it delay your concerns,
if we distinguished between manipulating people to their disadvantage
on the one hand and on the other hand,
positioning people in order to construct solutions
along the lines of the dynamic negotiating strategies
and making the latter the guiding principle of our governance.
If you systematically apply the strategies of dynamic negotiation
with the conceded territory at its core,
your life will never be the same again,
because people’s reaction towards you will be different.
And in the wake of these change reactions, your personality will change,
because our personalities are to certain extent
shaped by the way we communicate with each other.
Now from early childhood bedtime disputes to United Nations issues,
we negotiate everywhere and all the time.
The good news is you can practice it as you're walking out of that door.
Put it to the test. Give it a try.
And may the conceited territory be with you. Good luck!
(Applause)
浏览更多相关视频
Solve Your Own Problems And Sell The Solution (Your Niche Is You)
HARVARD experts reveal The Worst Mistakes In Negotiation.
Case Interview Question & Answers (Part 10 of 12) | caseinterview
社會學與生死大事 (10) 親密的陌生人
Risk Schmisk | Annie Duke | TEDxGeorgetown
The Perils of Following Your Career Passion | WorkLife with Adam Grant
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)