From How to Win Any Argument – Without Raising Your Voice, Losing Your Cool, or Coming to Blows
By Robert Mayer, 221 Pages
I’m a ‘win/win’ kind of guy. I don’t want to lose a position and I like it best when both parties sustain gain, in a partnership sense. For me, that prospect represents the most enduring framework for success in any kind of relationship, whether personal or in business. When it comes to a win/lose scenario, if you’re not the loser, that energy will very possibly come around and need to be dealt with again, maybe when you least expect it.
So How to Win Any Argument aligns with my views and it provides useful tools, strategic insights to assure that you don’t lose any competitive edge, to ensure your position is strong. It takes as a given that the people one is dealing with within this dynamic are fundamentally upright people. If the interaction equation represents dealing with abusive situations, entrenched irrationality, threats or lying, unfortunately the prospects of achieving a win/win outcome are remote at best. With that disclaimer, here are the core strategies:
By Robert Mayer, 221 Pages
I’m a ‘win/win’ kind of guy. I don’t want to lose a position and I like it best when both parties sustain gain, in a partnership sense. For me, that prospect represents the most enduring framework for success in any kind of relationship, whether personal or in business. When it comes to a win/lose scenario, if you’re not the loser, that energy will very possibly come around and need to be dealt with again, maybe when you least expect it.
So How to Win Any Argument aligns with my views and it provides useful tools, strategic insights to assure that you don’t lose any competitive edge, to ensure your position is strong. It takes as a given that the people one is dealing with within this dynamic are fundamentally upright people. If the interaction equation represents dealing with abusive situations, entrenched irrationality, threats or lying, unfortunately the prospects of achieving a win/win outcome are remote at best. With that disclaimer, here are the core strategies:
- Maintain an Inner Calm – While maintaining a composed focus, recognize that while disagreements involve logic and reason, emotions are a critical element influencing the outcome of any conflict. Your goal is to find leverage points to ensure your view represents the influential one in the exchange of views. Abandon positions centered only on pride or habit. Seek a true understanding for the reasons behind any disagreement. Look for hidden messages behind words. Apply profound focus on discovering and building connections that strengthen your case.
- Define the Consent Zone – A “consent zone” is a conceptual framework you construct by establishing the right tone and choosing the right language. As well, it involves quickly finding the common ground you share with your participant and building on that both intellectually and emotionally. Strive to put the opposing parties at ease to foster receptivity to your position. Demonstrate enthusiasm and praise for common points you agree with, which promotes trust. Avoid topics that might disrupt the consent zone framework. This often includes focusing on the past or the negative (such as judgments or personal attacks). Tie your perspective to your concern for the other parties and their interests and link your points to things they value. Above all: Listen to others and let them establish the pace of the conversation. Throughout the interaction remain kind, polite and respectful.
- Manage Logic versus Emotion in Reaching Agreement – Frame your position with an appreciation of your listeners priorities and sentiments. First, define your stance and don’t assume the other side fully understands your view, or that any earlier points of reference are necessarily definitive. Second, be prepared to redefine any useful aspect of the main focus of the challenge at hand. Third, adjust the scope and focus of the issue as needed. Demonstrate how your perspective relates to larger, smaller or different issues than the other side appreciates. Fourth, explain the consequences if your proposal isn’t adopted, or if alternative proposals are; and use simple if/then statements facilitating an understanding of consequences. Finally, craft your proposal so that agreement seems easy.
- Present a Compelling Case – When framing your argument with someone, ask questions. Employing declarative statements often makes participants feel threatened, whereas questions encourage engaged involvement in a subject. Choose questions that help diminish points of contention and that encourage other parties to envision themselves and their cooperative involvement in the issue of contention in complementary ways. Tie your questions the other party's priorities and strive to shape the discussion so they see clear advantages for themselves in agreeing with your position. (Tip: use 'what' questions, which encourage participants to share information, over 'why', which can put people on the defensive.)
- Factor in the Context – 'Who,' 'what' and 'where' are critical elements of context. Obviously the ‘who’ observes the relationship with the contender, whether it is a supervisor, a colleague, a direct report or a family member, the nature of the relationship is critical to keep in perspective. The 'what' of the topic and the 'where' the interaction takes place are critical considerations. Observations of setting considerations outside the face-to-face scenario: Written communications – Avoid complicated sentences and big words and make your case as quickly as possible. Link sentences with transitions that guide your reader to your compelling conclusion. When possible tells stories with vivid images that carry emotion. Telephone interactions – Recognize the participant's reality on their side, their schedule and other potential distraction factors. Understand as well the dynamics are different from a face-to-face interaction. Listen for tonal and rhythm ques that indicate any shift in attitude, and be flexible in your own tonal delivery. Maintain an upbeat and positive visualization of the outcome.
“What seems logical to me may
not seem logical to you. Logic
doesn’t exist in the abstract but
in the eye of the logician.”