英语听力 学英语,练听力,上听力课堂! 注册 登录
> 在线听力 > 有声读物 > 世界名著 > 译林版·如何享受人生,享受工作 >  第13篇

双语《如何享受人生,享受工作》 第十三章 如此树敌屡试不爽

所属教程:译林版·如何享受人生,享受工作

浏览:

2022年06月27日

手机版
扫描二维码方便学习和分享

Chapter 13 A Sure Way of Making Enemies—and How to Avoid It

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.

第十三章 如此树敌屡试不爽

西奥多·罗斯福出任总统时曾坦言,如果他能做到在75%的情况下是正确的,那么他就达到了自己的最高要求。

如果这位二十世纪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?

如果你觉得自己能维持55%的正确率,那么你就可以去华尔街一天挣一百万了。如果你不能保证55%的正确率,那么为什么还能告诉别人他们是错的呢?

你可以通过一个眼神、一个语调或一个动作就能有效地告诉对方他错了。如果你告诉对方他是错的,你认为会得到对方的认同吗?永远不会。因为你已经直接对他人的智力、判断力、骄傲和自尊射上了一箭。这只会引起对方的反击,却永不可能改变对方的想法。你可以用柏拉图或康德般的缜密逻辑来攻击对方,但别期待对方能改变主意,因为你伤了他的感情。

永远不要以这样的话语开始对话:“我要证明给你看……”这真的很糟糕。这就相当于在说:“我比你聪明。我会为你指点一二从而让你改变主意。”

这其实是在挑战对方,会引起敌意,使听者在你开始说话前就想先和你打一仗。即便是在最具善意的情况下,你也很难改变他人的主意。那么为什么要把事情变得更难,为什么要为自己设下障碍呢?

如果你想证明什么,先不要让别人知道,而要做得巧妙、机智、不被察觉。亚历山大·蒲柏就曾简单扼要地阐述过这个观点:

人只在不知被教诲时接受教诲;

不懂的事要当被遗忘的事来传授。

三百多年前,伽利略曾说过:

你无法教会别人任何东西,只能帮助别人发掘他们已知的东西。

查斯特菲尔德勋爵这样告诉他的儿子:

试着做比别人聪明的人,但是不要告诉别人。

苏格拉底在希腊不停向他的追随者重复:

我只知道一件事,那就是我的无知。

我不认为自己比苏格拉底还聪明,所以我不再对别人说他们的错误,并且我也发现那样做是徒劳无益的。

如果别人说了你认为不正确的话——即便你确认是错的,也最好以这种方式开始你的话:“嗯,我的想法不太一样,但我也有可能是错的,这种事常常发生,如果我错了请纠正我。让我们来分析一下这个问题吧。”

类似于“但我也有可能想错了,这种事常常发生,如果我错了请纠正我。让我们来分析一下这个问题。”这种的语句是有魔力的,而且是正面的魔力。

没有任何人会反对“我或许不对,让我们分析一下问题”的建议。

培训班里的一位同学在和客户打交道的过程中运用了这种方法,他叫哈罗德·莱恩克,是蒙大拿州比林斯市道奇汽车的经销商。他说,在汽车行业的巨大压力下,往往面对顾客的投诉,他的态度都是强硬、冷漠的。这导致他大动肝火、失去生意,带来了总体的不愉快情绪。

他在班里说:“我意识到这样做对我并没有好处,所以尝试了新的方式。我会以这样的话开头:‘我总是为我们车行所犯的错误感到惭愧。这次没有让您满意,请告诉我您的问题。’

“这样说能使对方解除戒备心理,而当顾客的不满情绪宣泄完毕后,他们往往能更理智地解决问题。实际上,好几位客户感谢了我尝试理解的态度,其中两个人甚至还带了他们的朋友来买车。在如此激烈的竞争环境中,我们需要的就是这样的客户,而我相信尊重所有客户的意见并礼貌对待他们会帮助我们在竞争中胜出。”

承认自己可能出错永远不会给你带来麻烦。这能停止一切争论并激励对手也同样做到公平、坦然、大度;这也会使对方愿意承认:他也有可能是错的。

如果你确信对方是错的并且直言相告,那又会发生什么呢?让我来举个例子。S先生是纽约市一名年轻的律师,曾经在美国最高法院为一个很重要的案子进行辩护,案件涉及很大一笔钱和一个重要的法律问题。在辩护过程中,最高法院的一名法官提问他:“法定时效是六年,不是吗?”

S先生呆望着法官数秒,然后直截了当地回答:“法官大人,海事法中并没有法定时效一说。”

“法庭里顿时响起一片嘘声。”S先生在我的一堂培训课中讲到此事,“法庭内似乎静止了。我是正确的,法官是错的。我不喜欢让他意识到这点,但这又能使法官变得友好吗?没有。我依然觉得我方占据了一切法律优势,我也表现得比每一次都好,但是我还是没能说服法官。我直白地指出了如此知识渊博、德高望重的人的错误,这真是太鲁莽了。”

逻辑性强的人是少数的,我们大多数人都充满偏见,带着先入为主的观念,而嫉妒、怀疑、恐惧和自负会使人逐渐枯萎。然而大多数人不愿改变自己的想法,不论是有关个人发型、宗教观念、共产主义还是他们最爱的电影明星的想法。所以如果你总是对别人说起他们的错误,请在每天早晨吃早饭前读一遍下面这段话,它选自詹姆斯·哈维·鲁滨逊所著的引人深思的《思维的形成》一书。

我们可以不夹杂任何阻力和激烈情绪地改变自己的主意,然而当我们被告知自己错了的时候,我们便会排斥别人的指正,变得心硬起来。我们从不推敲信念的形成,然而每当有人要挑战这些信念时,都会激起我们捍卫信念的荒唐热情。很明显,重要的不是那些想法本身,而是我们那受到威胁的自尊……“我的”二字是人类生活中最重要的两个小小的字,而正确应对这二字便成了智慧的起源。不论是“我的”晚餐、“我的”狗、“我的”房子、“我的”爸爸、“我的”国家或是“我的”上帝,都是同样的重要。我们不但拒绝承认我们的表不准、车很破,还对火星运河、爱比克泰德的发音、水杨苷的药用价值、萨尔贡一世的生卒日期有着不可侵犯的信念。我们希望继续保持一直认为是正确的想法,而任何对我们认知的怀疑都会激起憎恶,促使我们去寻找一切继续坚守那些信念的理由。因此,很多我们所谓的“讲道理”都不过是为巩固固有信念而寻找的理由罢了。

著名心理学家卡尔·罗杰斯在《个人形成论》一书中说过:

我发现如果我允许自己理解他人,那将是极具价值的一件事。或许我的观点让你觉得很诧异。我们需要允许自己理解他人吗?我觉得十分需要。我们对大多数(别人口中的)言论的第一反应是评价或评判,而不是理解。当他人表达了感受、态度或信仰后,我们总是习惯于做出这样的第一反应:“说得没错”“这很愚蠢”“这不正常”“这没有道理”“这不对”“这不好”。我们很少允许自己准确了解这话在别人脑中是什么意思。(1)

有一次,我雇了一名室内装饰师为我的家换几个帘子。但是,收到账单时,我心中很不悦。

几天后,一个朋友来串门,看到了新帘子。我跟她说了价钱,她用胜利的口吻大呼:“什么?那太糟糕了!他肯定在你这儿狠狠捞了一笔。”

她说得对吗?没错,她说的是实情,但很少有人愿意听反映了自身判断的实情。所以,被人性驱使,我试着为自己辩护。我说,当然物美价廉是最好的,但是质量、艺术品位和低廉的价格无法共存云云。

第二天,又有一个朋友到家里来看到了帘子,她非常欣赏并表现出极高的热情,还说她多希望自己有钱为自己家也添置如此精致的物件。我的反应截然不同。我说:“事实上,我自己也买不起。我买贵了,现在很后悔。”

当我们犯错的时候,我们会向自己承认。如果处理得温和得当,我们也愿意向他人承认自己的错误,而且从这种坦诚和大度中找到自豪感。但如果有人想硬塞给我们这不受欢迎的事实,我们则不再愿意承认自己的问题。

美国南北战争期间,最著名的报纸编辑霍勒斯·格里利曾强烈反对林肯的政策。他认为自己可以通过一系列的争论、嘲笑与谩骂迫使林肯接受他的意见。他日复一日,年复一年地进行着这些尖酸刻薄的活动,甚至还在林肯总统被布斯刺杀前的晚上给他写过一封粗暴、刻薄、嘲讽、颇具人身攻击意味的信。

然而格里利种种刻薄的做法是否让林肯接纳了他的意见呢?完全没有。嘲讽与谩骂永远无法做到这点。

如果你想得到如何与人相处、管理自己、提高自己的好建议,请阅读本杰明·富兰克林的自传——这是最引人入胜的传记故事之一,也是美国文学中的经典著作。在书中,本·富兰克林告诉我们,他是如何征服好辩的坏习惯并把自己转变为美国史上最有能力、最文雅、最有外交手段的人。

当本·富兰克林还是一个浮躁的年轻人时,一天,一位年迈的智者把他拉到一旁,用几个尖锐的事实给了他当头一棒:

本,你实在让人无法忍受,你的意见中总是带有对其他想法的攻击。它们太具冒犯性以至于人们已经不拿你的话当回事了。你的朋友们觉得你不在时他们玩得更尽兴。你觉得自己知道得很多,根本听不进别人的意见。实际上,没人想要告诉你任何事,因为那样做会令人不悦也太麻烦了。因此你的知识将无法超越现有的水平,而现在知道的也有限。

富兰克林明智之处便是他谦虚地接受了这智慧性的批判。他的胸怀足够宽广,头脑也足够聪明,所以他意识到了其中的道理,感觉到自己正在走向失败和社交灾难的不归路。于是他悬崖勒马,改变了自己那傲慢、武断的处事方式。

富兰克林说:“我给自己制定了一条规矩:克制住对他人想法的直接否定以及对自己观念的肯定。我甚至禁止自己运用那些表示固定思维的词语,例如‘当然’‘毫无疑问’等。与其让他人改变,不如先改变自己,于是我采纳了新的表述方式:‘我的看法是’‘我理解的是’‘我猜这件事是这样的’或者‘目前来讲我认为’。当对方表述了我认为不正确的观念时,我克制住激烈反驳对方、即刻证明其理论荒谬的快感。在回复时我会首先承认在某些情况下对方的观点是正确的,但在当前的情形中,我有不同的看法。我很快便发现了这一变化带来的好处,我所参与的对话能够在更愉悦的氛围中进行了。我展现出的更谦虚的态度使人们更容易接受、更少反对我的观点了。如果我被证明是错误的,我的羞辱感减少了;而如果我是对的,人们也更容易放弃他们错误的观点,采纳正确的意见。

“而这种我一开始需要违背自然倾向、强迫自己接纳的方式最终已变得如此简单和习以为常。这五十年来,或许再也没有人从我口中听到过武断的表述。我觉得一切都归功于这个习惯(在此之上是我正直的人格),才能让我在提议建立新制度、改变旧制度时深得民心,在成为公共理事会成员后产生了重大影响。但我从不是一名好的演讲者。我不会雄辩,在选词时犹豫不决,语法上也不见得正确,然而我通常可以表达出自己的观点。”

北卡罗来纳州国王山的凯瑟琳·A.奥瑞德是纺织厂的工业工程主管,她在一堂课中讲起了她在上课前后处理敏感问题的不同方法:

“我的职责之一便是为生产者建立和维护奖励制度及标准,从而激励他们制造更多的纱线。当我们只生产两三种纺线的时候,原本的系统还不错,但最近我们拓展了进货渠道,提高了生产能力,已经可以同时制造十二种纺线了,这时的奖励制度已经无法公平地反映员工的工作量并给予他们增强生产力的动力了。我设计出一套新的按纺织类别进行奖励的系统,我带着这套系统走进会议室,立志要向管理层证明我的方法是对的。我详尽地解释了他们的方法为何不好,为何不公平,而我有一切问题的答案。可是,最后我败得一塌糊涂。我太急于维护自己的立场,以至于没有给他人留下坦诚并优雅地承认问题的机会。这注定死路一条。

“参加了几堂培训课后,我清楚地认识到了自己的问题。于是,我再次召集了一次会议,而这次我向他们询问了他们的看法及问题出在哪里。我们探讨了每个方面,我也征求了他们的改革意见。我在适当的时机里提出了几个低调的建议,引领他们主动走入了我的思维模式。所以,当我在会议末尾提出了那个具体方案后,大家兴高采烈地接纳了。

“我现在彻底懂得了,如果你直截了当地告诉别人他的错误,你不仅无法得到任何建设性结果,还会造成很大的伤害。你只是成功地剥夺了对方的尊严,使自己变成任何对话中不受欢迎的一方。”

让我们再看一个例子,请记住,我引用的这些例子都是具有代表性的。R.V.克劳来是纽约一家木材公司的销售人员,他承认自己多年来一直不留情面地指出冷漠的木材检查员的错误,也在争论中屡居上风。然而这并没有带来任何正面的结果。“这些木材检查员就像棒球裁判一样。”克劳来说,“他们一旦做出判决便永不再改变。”

克劳来先生意识到,他赢得了争论中的胜利,但公司损失了数万美金。所以他在上我的培训班时发誓要改变自己处理问题的方式,放弃争论。结果又如何?下面是他在班里讲的他的故事:

“一天早晨我办公室里的电话响起了。电话另一端是个怒气冲冲、忧心忡忡的人,他告诉我,我们运给他工厂的木材全都不符合要求。他的工厂已经停止卸货,并要求我们立刻想办法把所有货物拉走。卸下四分之一的木材后,他们的木材检查员汇报说这批木材低于标准55%,在这种情况下,他们当然拒绝签收这批木材。“我立刻开车驶向他的工厂,路上想着处理此事的最佳办法。以往遇到这种事,我会复述木材评级的规定,并用我曾从事木材检查的全部知识和经验来试图说服对方的检查者,让他相信我们的木材实际是符合等级规定的,而他则搞错了检查规则。然而,这一次我想试着用培训班中学到的法则来解决问题。

“我到达工厂后发觉采购员和木材检查者的脸色都很阴郁,为争吵做好了准备。我们一起走到卸货车那里,我让他们继续卸货,好让我观察一切程序。我让检查者挑出不合格的木材,并把合格的放到另一堆。

“观察了一会儿之后,我发现他的检查过于严格了,他根本理解错了标准规格。我们卸的是白松木,我知道这位检查者是实木专家但对白松木不甚了解,而我对白松木却很熟悉。我对对方的检查方式提出了质疑吗?没有。我继续观察,并逐步询问他为何认为某些木材是不合格的。我丝毫没有暗示他是错的,我一再重申我询问只因想知道今后如何提供更合意的木材。

“我非常友好的提问和合作的态度以及对他们检查结果的肯定缓解了我们之间的关系,也使对方的态度逐渐缓和。我无意间的一句评论引起了他对自己判断的怀疑——或许这不合格的一堆中有些其实是合格的,而他们所要求达到的标准实际是属于更昂贵的一个等级的。不过我很小心地不让他觉得这想法是我灌输给他的。

“慢慢地,他整个态度都改变了。最后他承认他对检查白松木并不在行,并开始边卸货边询问我的意见。我给他解释合格的标准并一再确认我们不会让他们接受任何他们不满意的木材。最后他终于承认了自己每一次往不合格堆放木材时都充满了愧疚,其实是他们的错误,他们订的木材并不是自己需要的等级。

“最后的结果是:我走后他们又重新检查了一遍所有木材并全部接收了,而我们收到了全款。

“仅仅在那一件事中,这个小小的方法和避免直接指出对方错误的决心,就为公司挽回了损失的大笔金额。何况,这种做法所维护的信誉则是金钱所无法衡量的。”

马丁·路德·金曾被问到,身为和平主义者的他为何会敬仰战无不胜的空军上将丹尼尔·詹姆斯,即当时美国最显赫的黑人军官。马丁·路德·金回答道:“我以他人的准则而不是我自己的准则看待他人。”

无独有偶,有一次,罗伯特·E.李将军在和南军总统杰弗逊·戴维斯谈话时,他用最华丽的词语赞美了他手下的一位军官。旁边一位军官惊呆了,“将军,”他说道,“你难道不知道那个被你如此夸赞的人就是不放过任何机会诽谤你的大仇人吗?”“我知道。”李将军说,“但是总统问的是我对他的看法,而不是他对我的看法。”

对了,我在此章中讲到的东西都不是什么新鲜内容。两千年前,耶稣就说过:“立刻赞同你的敌人。”

在耶稣诞生前的两千两百年,埃及的阿托伊法老就曾对他儿子提出这样一句明智的建议,今天的我们依然迫切需要着这句话。法老教诲到:“要懂得外交手段,这样才能保住你的立场。”

换言之,别与你的客户、配偶或敌人争执;别指出他们的错误;别激怒他们;要多运用外交手段。

尊重他人的观点。永远别说:“你错了。”

————————————————————

(1) 改编自卡尔·罗杰斯的《个人形成论》(波士顿:米夫林出版公司,1961),pp.18ff。

用户搜索

疯狂英语 英语语法 新概念英语 走遍美国 四级听力 英语音标 英语入门 发音 美语 四级 新东方 七年级 赖世雄 zero是什么意思上海市京华路90弄小区英语学习交流群

  • 频道推荐
  • |
  • 全站推荐
  • 推荐下载
  • 网站推荐