Carsten Bredemeyer The Art of Verbal Attack. Practical guide
Carsten Bredemeyer
The art of verbal attack
Carsten Bredemeyer
The art of verbal attack
Foreword
Important notes...
1.Be resourceful in an argument …
Constructive methods of discussion...
Reaction at the subject level - "Rule of three T" ...
Variations on a theme...
Exercises for the topic “Questions in critical
situations"...
Reaction Exercises
to reproaches, polemical remarks,
killer phrases and false claims...
End of confrontation...
Emotional yellow card...
Bredemeyer response...
Tip: Enough is enough!…
Other techniques for resourceful discussion...
Wordplay...
Variations on a play on words...
Wordplay with associations...
Wordplay using figurative
oppositions...
Wordplay with the help of associative chains of words ...
A play on words using proper names...
A play on words using figurative associations ...
A play on words through the transfer of meaning...
Play on words with substitution/substitution
additional sounds per word ...
Play on words by replacing parts of a word ...
A play on words using the method of interpretation…
A play on words
at the unexpected end of a sentence...
A play on words based on paraphrasing...
A play on words
deliberately misunderstood...
A play on words using language images…
Wordplay through paraphrasing
(foreign language) quotes...
Ambiguities…
Ready to take a hit...
Verbal boomerang - countermeasure No. 1 ...
Boomerang - forwarding ...
Boomerang - forwarding third party,
not participating in the dispute (!) ...
Boomerang - agreement ...
Boomerang - delimitation ...
Boomerang is a therapeutic tool ...
Boomerang - clearly addressed,
judging question...
Idling technology...
Idling reception using
agreement with reproach...
Idling reception using a play on words ...
Idle reception
using retaliation-agreement...
Idle reception
using shifting accents...
Boomerang Exercises
and idle...
Fundamentals of Resourcefulness: "Verbal Cover"...
Catalog of "evil verbal caps"...
Resourcefulness "without words" -
nonverbal and paraverbal cues...
We train resourcefulness and wit ...
Series of training...
Your "fixer" for a quick and resourceful reaction...
Your final endurance test...
2. The magical power of summoning is a new dimension …
Open calls...
Closed calls...
Calls requiring a yes or no answer...
Appeals that encourage the interlocutor
provide the required information...
Half-open/half-closed calls…
Direct and indirect calls...
Call types...
Alternative calls...
Appeals with an element of suggestion ...
Calls-tricks…
Rhetorical calls...
Counter call...
Calls to motivate...
Shocking and provocative calls...
Controlling or confirming calls…
Socratic Appeals
("Green Street" for affirmative answers) ...
Caricatured, exaggerated appeals...
Concrete calls...
Introspective and evaluative appeals…
Information calls...
Narrative and descriptive appeals…
Scenario calls…
A call to define...
Calls that increase mutual understanding (open calls, concentration
on the interlocutor) ...
Interpretive calls (closed)…
Bridge calls...
Calls-filters…
Appeals expressing surprise or doubt...
Psychological calls...
Differential calls...
Appeals related to perception and introspection…
Link calls...
3. Tasks for self-test …
Appendix
Possible options answers to exercises...
Bibliography…
Foreword
The state when there are not enough words to adequately respond to the opponent arises if we do not possess the techniques, methods and tools necessary to professionally respond to verbal (including forbidden) blows. If we have misjudged a situation or adopted behavioral patterns that look like a panacea for any situation, but in fact are not, we are insolvent in the argument. In short, resourcefulness is your behavior in stressful situation when you open your mouth not only to take in air.
Real resourcefulness is manifested in skillful actions, bold remarks, quick reactions that follow so appropriately and logically in response to all sorts of attacks that the opponent and / or bystanders of the conversation begin to think that in this situation they would have acted the same way. Resourcefulness is not a product of a strong throat, but of a bright head.
Resourcefulness can be learned. Therefore, this book provides exercises for training constructive discussion techniques, as well as mastering other professional speech techniques.
The main questions concern the discussion techniques that I advocate among middle and senior managers, calling for the abandonment of habitual patterns of behavior passed down from generation to generation, or at least critically rethinking them.
To fill gaps in this area, I would like to advise my supportive readers of my previous books published by Orell Fussli (see list of references at the end of the book).
That is why I deliberately refrained from detailed explanations and descriptions, and where necessary, gave simple, understandable examples. Thus, from these exercises your head will definitely not go round. On the contrary, the purpose of the exercises is to equip you practical examples, which could serve as a model, and in a critical situation would become a trump card.
Many thanks to all participants of the seminars, and in particular RevivalTrainingsgroup Munich, for comments and clarifications, questions and suggestions.
By the way, although "resourceful" is a word in my native language, it is not a purely German concept, as evidenced by the licenses for the publication of this book, sold by Qrell Fussli to Turkey, Korea and China.
To each his own, but this book is for everyone.
Important Notes
Please read the suggestions below to help you get the most out of this book.
Resourcefulness is not a product of a strong throat, but a bright head!
1. Although this book is a collection of exercises, there is not much space for your answer here. Please write down your answers in a separate notebook or notebook, or copy the task from the book, then after a while you can do it again! I advise you to write down the number of the page or exercise (the book uses continuous numbering). Also, keep track of the time it took you to complete the exercise, this will add an element of competition!
Set a time limit for yourself (stopwatch or hourglass) to answer some questions. If during this time the answer does not come to mind or you are not happy with it, skip the exercise to return to it later, this is where the workbook will come in handy.
2. Many exercises require careful study, assimilation of patterns and examples of well-aimed answers, therefore, when doing them, take your time, do not quit if you do not succeed the first time, because the accuracy of the answers is like playing poker: if you intend to pull an ace out of your sleeve, you have to put it in there first. Resourcefulness can be learned, just like grammar.
3. If the answers are still difficult, imagine
situation, play it in faces; it is better to puzzle over the answer longer than to leave everything halfway.
4. When doing exercises, leave half a page (bottom or side) free.
5. Actively engage in self-checking, there are three ways:
you answer questions out loud by turning on the voice recorder beforehand, and thus you will better remember what you read;
you answer questions in writing and it's worth the time. You will absorb what you read twice as well;
you find an interlocutor perhaps even one whose views do not coincide with yours. Discuss with him and indulge in reflection, but first of all try to limit yourself to the scope of the exercises.
6. Make it a habit to use certain techniques at conferences and meetings, write the objectives of the exercise on a piece of paper and put it with documents.
7. Write down in your workbook verbal attacks and unexpected blows that, whether in a professional area or in a personal area, you cannot immediately repel. In your free time, work on them too - for next time.
8. Alternative: if you want to first understand the subject and try out a few separate exercises without going too deep into the topic, then this, of course, is also possible. In this case, decide if it would be more useful to review the answers first, and then move on to completing the assignments.
Please think before answering: there will be no second chance for a first-class answer!
Everyone knows how to speak, but not everyone can masterfully hold a blow in a tough dispute, respond correctly to all the attacks of opponents, respond quickly and resourcefully.
Many times, after various kinds of disputes and discussions, I myself caught myself thinking that often I simply lack the sharpness and persuasiveness of words, but after that an insight seems to come. But, as they say, they don't wave their fists after a fight.
The book of the famous German specialist in the field of rhetoric, coach-consultant Carsten Bredemeyer "The Art of Verbal Attack" is a practical guide to the so-called "verbal armament".
"Idiot!" - "It's great that you all at least once showed your true nature!"
"Stupid!" - "Is this a loud cry of your helplessness?"
"If you were my husband, I would give you poison!" - "If you were my wife, I would accept it!"
"...you're completely drunk!" (Lady Ashley) - "That's right, but tomorrow I'll be sober, and you will remain a bitch!" (Sir Winston Churchill)
"You, a conservative, you are just a brake for everything new, a sign of a pause in the music of history!" - "Yes, I place signs in history, that's right."
"You are now declaring yourself mentally incompetent, do it in writing!"
(examples from the book "The Art of Verbal Attack")
Agree, not everyone can react so sharply and, most importantly, quickly. Although often the outcome of a particular transaction depends on our resourcefulness and ability to make accurate verbal shots.
In the "Art ..." Bredemeyer, in normal human language, without the so-called scientific frills, with examples, various methods of effective and effective discussions are presented. To consolidate the material and hone the skills of verbal attack, the author has developed more than 200 different exercises.
In general, words, like time, can be easily converted into money if used skillfully.
Main takeaways from the book:
Well-aimed responses should, like accurate rapier strikes, make the opponent think, but should never be a firework of verbal insults or an inquisition fire for your opponent;
Responses to attacks should be related to the context, with the specific phrase you want to respond to, and in no case turn into verbal garbage thrown out of place;
First of all, work with your head and do not repeat stupid things after others;
Non-verbal (gestures and facial expressions) and paraverbal (sounds accompanying the speech process) signals in a dispute can be no less powerful weapons than verbal attacks. These techniques serve as a vivid expression of seething emotions or direct rationalism in a certain direction.
Eye contact is a detail that is often overlooked, but can be crucial. Through prolonged eye contact, you invite the interlocutor to continue the verbal duel. You should not do this if you expect the exact opposite effect.
To get the discussion back on track, use the "rule of three T" (Touch-Turn-Talk):
1. Touch - Rating: evaluate the topic of conversation in terms of the purpose of the discussion.
2. Turn - Return: back to the main topic.
3. Talk - Deepening: delve into the main topic so that it becomes the main subject of discussion again.
Resourcefulness in the classical sense of the word is the product of a bright head, not a strong throat.
Carsten Bredemeyer
The art of verbal attack
Foreword
Important notes...
1.Be resourceful in an argument…
Constructive methods of discussion...
Reaction at the subject level - "Rule of three T" ...
Variations on a theme...
Exercises for the topic “Questions in critical
situations"...
Reaction Exercises
to reproaches, polemical remarks,
killer phrases and false claims...
End of confrontation...
Emotional yellow card...
Bredemeyer response...
Tip: Enough is enough!…
Other techniques for resourceful discussion...
Wordplay...
Variations on a play on words...
Wordplay with associations...
Wordplay using figurative
oppositions...
Wordplay with the help of associative chains of words ...
A play on words using proper names...
A play on words using figurative associations ...
A play on words through the transfer of meaning...
Play on words with substitution/substitution
additional sounds per word ...
Play on words by replacing parts of a word ...
A play on words using the method of interpretation…
A play on words
at the unexpected end of a sentence...
A play on words based on paraphrasing...
A play on words
deliberately misunderstood...
A play on words using language images…
Wordplay through paraphrasing
(foreign language) quotes...
Ambiguities…
Ready to take a hit...
Verbal boomerang - countermeasure No. 1 ...
Boomerang - forwarding ...
Boomerang - forwarding to a third party,
not participating in the dispute (!) ...
Boomerang - agreement ...
Boomerang - delimitation ...
Boomerang is a therapeutic tool ...
Boomerang - clearly addressed,
judging question...
Idling technology...
Idling reception using
agreement with reproach...
Idling reception using a play on words ...
Idle reception
using retaliation-agreement...
Idle reception
using shifting accents...
Boomerang Exercises
and idle...
Fundamentals of Resourcefulness: "Verbal Cover"...
Catalog of "evil verbal caps"...
Resourcefulness "without words" -
nonverbal and paraverbal cues...
We train resourcefulness and wit ...
Series of training...
Your "fixer" for a quick and resourceful reaction...
Your final endurance test...
2. The magical power of summoning is a new dimension…
Open calls...
Closed calls...
Calls requiring a yes or no answer...
Appeals that encourage the interlocutor
provide the required information...
Half-open/half-closed calls…
Direct and indirect calls...
Call types...
Alternative calls...
Appeals with an element of suggestion ...
Calls-tricks…
Rhetorical calls...
Counter call...
Calls to motivate...
Shocking and provocative calls...
Controlling or confirming calls…
Socratic Appeals
("Green Street" for affirmative answers) ...
Caricatured, exaggerated appeals...
Concrete calls...
Introspective and evaluative appeals…
Information calls...
Narrative and descriptive appeals…
Scenario calls…
A call to define...
Calls that increase mutual understanding (open calls, concentration
on the interlocutor) ...
Interpretive calls (closed)…
Bridge calls...
Calls-filters…
Appeals expressing surprise or doubt...
Psychological calls...
Differential calls...
Appeals related to perception and introspection…
Link calls...
3. Tasks for self-test…
Appendix
Possible answers to the exercises ...
Bibliography…
Foreword
The state when there are not enough words to adequately respond to the opponent arises if we do not possess the techniques, methods and tools necessary to professionally respond to verbal (including forbidden) blows. If we have misjudged a situation or adopted behavioral patterns that look like a panacea for any situation, but in fact are not, we are insolvent in the argument. In short, resourcefulness is your behavior in a stressful situation, when you open your mouth not only to take in air.
Real resourcefulness is manifested in skillful actions, bold remarks, quick reactions that follow so appropriately and logically in response to all sorts of attacks that the opponent and / or bystanders of the conversation begin to think that in this situation they would have acted the same way. Resourcefulness is not a product of a strong throat, but of a bright head.
Resourcefulness can be learned. Therefore, this book provides exercises for training constructive discussion techniques, as well as mastering other professional speech techniques.
The main questions concern the discussion techniques that I advocate among middle and senior managers, calling for the abandonment of habitual patterns of behavior passed down from generation to generation, or at least critically rethinking them.
To fill gaps in this area, I would like to advise my supportive readers of my previous books published by Orell Fussli (see list of references at the end of the book).
That is why I deliberately refrained from detailed explanations and descriptions, and where necessary, gave simple, understandable examples. Thus, from these exercises your head will definitely not go round. On the contrary, the purpose of the exercises is to provide you with practical examples that could serve as a model, and in a critical situation would be an ace of trumps.
Many thanks to all participants of the seminars, and in particular to RevivalTrainingsgroup Munich, for their comments and clarifications, questions and suggestions.
By the way, although "resourceful" is a word in my native language, it is not a purely German concept, as evidenced by the licenses for the publication of this book, sold by Qrell Fussli to Turkey, Korea and China.
To each his own, but this book is for everyone.
Important Notes
Please read the suggestions below to help you get the most out of this book.
Karsten Bredemeyer is a coach and consultant known both in Europe and beyond.
The Art of Verbal Attack is his new textbook on rhetoric. The main themes are constructive discussion techniques, which he promotes at seminars among middle and top managers, urging them to abandon the usual patterns of behavior. The book contains more than 50 various tricks discussions and over 200 exercises to hone your own skills. Using the templates, you will gradually create your own response templates, which will no doubt help you out during the discussion, and you will no longer be taken by surprise.
Today we publish a part from the first chapter of "Being resourceful in an argument", which contains a description of the main constructive methods of conducting a discussion and, in particular, the "rule of three T".
Chapter 1
Resourcefulness is...
- from the point of view of the processes taking place inside a person - your professional reactions to the questions asked, of course, if against the background of increased pressure and attacks of opponents you are able to do more than just open your mouth, take a breath and then close it again;
- when it comes to external manifestations, resourcefulness should be understood as actions, timely spoken remarks, non-verbal and verbal actions in response to attacks, killer phrases or unfair attacks against oneself. Moreover, they were said in such a way that the opponent / opponent and / or those present would want to do the same in a similar situation;
- a subconscious or conscious skill and a response that is "just firmly learned." They, like grammar, can be mastered.
The situation when you are unable to utter a word arises if you do not own professional techniques, do not use the methods and tools that are appropriate in this situation, react unprofessionally to verbal attacks, if you have incorrectly assessed the situation or underestimated your opponent. That's when you react inadequately: either too violently, or even become withdrawn.
Therefore, to begin with, it is necessary to define some concepts:
- well-aimed answers should come at the right time. They cannot visit you retroactively on the way home or even the next day, and certainly they should not give the impression of a slow reaction, stretching the interval during which the conversation must be answered (usually 3-5 seconds). However, in any case, you should remember that it is better to delay the answer than to explain what you meant later;
- your answer should be elegant and relevant;
- you must leave yourself and (of course, best of all) your audience or opponent with an impression of the appropriateness of what was said in the situation. Therefore, in most situations, the tools of verbal defeat, caustic insults are like charges that exploded in the barrel, and in this regard, they, like boomerang answers, are excluded. A quickly found standard response to a remark will not add points to you, and can subsequently turn the audience and opponent against you. True, for such cases, you probably prepared a couple of verbal mines, but, unfortunately, only you yourself will be a victim. Therefore, it is necessary to strive to leave a pleasant impression: you gave a suitable answer, showed an example of an adequate reaction, and remembering the situation, you are satisfied with your behavior and can confidently say: “Everything was OK, I was OK, and the situation was OK. That's why I distinguish constructive resourcefulness in a dispute from all other tricks!
- well-aimed responses are like accurate blows of a rapier that make the opponent think, but should never be a firework of verbal insults or a bonfire of the inquisition for your opponent;
- professional resourcefulness is designed to help find a way out of an unpleasant situation, and not stage an exchange of boxing blows and not provoke an escalation;
- in a figurative sense, resourcefulness in disputes can be understood as all your witty thoughts taken together, which, although they may remain unspoken, however, allow you to stay on top, and not slide down;
- appropriate and constructive answers in the dispute should prompt the opponent to think, clarify the situation, remain in his memory so that he can
analyze; - resourcefulness in a dispute is based on emotional perception, therefore your well-aimed answers are conscious verbal, non-verbal and paraverbal actions that explain the appropriate criticism of the actions, words of your interlocutor and invite him to continue, if you yourself want it, a constructive conversation;
- your well-aimed answers should be related to the context, with the specific phrase you want to respond to, and in no case turn into verbal
rubbish thrown out of place; - your resourceful answers are aimed at resolving contradictions without allowing the conversation to turn into a tangle of emotional problems;
- and finally, that is why your well-aimed and resourceful answers in a conversation with a critical or unpleasant interlocutor should become a reflection of your reputation, independence and at the same time high communicative intelligence. Be persistent in demonstrating your superiority.
First of all, work with your head and do not repeat stupid things after others - this is a serious requirement for your independent work with this book and at the same time a call to you.
Resourcefulness in the classical sense of the word is the product of a bright head, not a strong throat.
Note:
Each time you give a well-aimed response designed to end a verbal duel, you must break eye contact.
The one who inserts a risky or, conversely, appropriate remark during a verbal skirmish, gives a good, convincing answer to the opponent at a meeting, group discussion, in a face-to-face conversation, during a conversation for " round table or at a conference, there is often no choice but to allow this answer to have its effect on the interlocutor.
She or he wants to enjoy the coveted sound of fanfare in his honor, the reaction of the opponent, his amazing irritation and annoying defeat. But then (wow!) the rested opponent again rushes into battle. According to statistics, in a verbal duel, the chances of staying on top are 50/50.
But why, you ask yourself, despite such a magnificent verbal blow, is he ready to continue the argument? And it's all about eye contact, looking at the interlocutor, you kind of ask: “Now what? With all my desire, I can’t imagine that you are still capable of answering this!”
Eye contact is a detail that is often overlooked, but can be crucial. On the other hand, it is a stupid habit that requires effort and concentration to get rid of. Important to remember:
Through prolonged eye contact, you invite the interlocutor to continue the verbal duel. You should not do this if you expect the exact opposite effect.
Constructive Discussion Techniques
You would always be faced with the choice of what direction to give to the discussion in which you participate, your report, presentation or discussion. It could be:
- a constructive direction, the purpose of which is the resumption of a discussion focused on achieving a result;
- verbal skirmish, which, on the one hand, contributes to the establishment of certain relations between the parties, and on the other hand, is destructive in terms of achieving the result of communication.
The constructive direction is that you stop the escalation using a cascading technique to interrupt non-constructive digressions, the essence of which is to return the discussion to a businesslike course and to ensure that both parties are interested in its effectiveness. There are three strategies you can use to dampen an escalation:
1 Reaction at the subject level- "Rule of three Ts".
2Reaction at the emotional level - "Emotional yellow card".
3 Reaction at the meta level- "Feedback according to Bredemeyer".
Reaction at the subject level - "Rule of three T"
At the first sign of a confrontation beginning to question your reputation, image, or competence, it makes sense to apply a strategy to end the confrontation at the subject level. This means that you quickly, painlessly and persistently return to the discussion of the main topic.
Let's imagine that until now the conversation has been constructive and proceeded in a businesslike way. Suddenly and almost imperceptibly, it turned into a discussion of extraneous topics, thus deviating from the main goal. There are common personal attacks and verbal attacks that are designed to put pressure on you or bury your reputation. In such a situation, you should aim to bring the discussion back to the main topic. Relevant response #1 is the "rule of three T's":
1 Touch- Grade: evaluate the topic of conversation from a point
view of the purpose of the discussion.
2turn- Return: return to the main topic.
3talk- Deepen: Go deep into the main topic so that it
again became the main subject of discussion.
Example
Touch- Grade:“Please don’t jump into extraneous topics. Let's stay in line with the main topic of our discussion and not deviate from it.
turn- Return:"Our topic today is the logistics of product XYZ in your facility."
talk- recess:“I just wanted to draw your attention to the negative impact on our production cycles. So, how can we ensure flawless logistics in a reasonable time frame? One way is to…”
An alternative option that is relevant in the case of personal attacks:
Touch in the imperative mood:"Don't start a controversy, please stick to the main topic."
Tyrn:"Our topic today is the logistics of product XYZ in the enterprise."
talk:“I have already pointed out the factors that have had a negative impact on our production cycles. So, how can we ensure flawless logistics in a reasonable time frame? One of the ways is…”
Tip: In a roundtable or discussion, use Touch-Turn-Talk along with eye contact.
Touch / eye contact with the addressee; you say, "Don't start a debate, please stick to the main topic."
Turn/Change eye contact; looking at another interlocutor, you say: "Our topic today is the logistics of product XYZ in the enterprise."
Talk / The second interlocutor becomes the addressee; you say: “I have already pointed out the factors that have had a negative impact on our production cycles. So, how can we ensure flawless logistics in a reasonable time frame? One of the ways is…”
This is the only way to ensure that the first addressee is excluded from the conversation. Eye contact means: Well, does anyone have an objection?! You don't want to go back to an off topic anyway.
The advantages of the "rule of three T" are obvious:
- you consistently take the lead in the conversation;
- you do not accept deviations from the topic of conversation;
- you actively exclude extraneous topics from the conversation and do not go into discussing the mood of those present;
- you are unshakable in your position and strictly adhere to the topic;
- you stop bickering and witticisms about the competence of those present;
- all your maneuvers do not go beyond the bounds of politeness and common sense;
- you quickly and persistently stop the tactless behavior of the participants;
- at the same time, you not only answer questions, but also focus the attention of the audience on clear language;
- you answer only those questions that help to continue the discussion, appreciating them accordingly.
Consider: every answer justifies the question asked!
Please observe the following principles:
Formulate positive statements.
Not right:“Mental mood is not the topic of today's meeting!”
Right:“Our topic today is logistics, please explain your position on this issue!”
Underline what was said with an unambiguous assessment.
Not right:“In this way, we will reach our goal faster.”
Right:“Only in this way can we quickly reach the goal of our conversation.”
From the very beginning, stop the transition to extraneous topics and only then return to the main topic of discussion.
Not right:“Now it’s about the enterprise as a whole, not about your specific area.”
Right:"Now it's not about your field of activity, but about the enterprise as a whole."
Formulate your statements briefly and clearly.
Not right:“Well, it so happened that we have repeatedly tried to move on to discussing this topic, of course, under certain circumstances ...”
Right:“... to the topic. We all share the opinion that…”
Avoid any comparisons, restrictions, declaring yourself intellectually bankrupt and discovering signs of communicative incompetence.
Not right:“Perhaps it is time to discuss, although it is possible - and I approve of this anyway - but there are contradictions here too ...”
Right:“Let's return to the proposed solutions to the problem. These were..."
In a conversation / discussion, do not use questions, but appeals directly to the audience.
Not right:“Could we return to our main theme, Logistics?
Right:“Mr Mayer, please tell us more about your proposal for solving the problem!”
Avoid repetition and negative statements, they reinforce the misconception and lay the foundation for reproaches against you.
Not right:“Bad image? No, our image is not bad at all.”
Right:“No, we have a good image in the eyes of the public!”
Typical and Possible Examples of Touch/Ratings
- Not really;
- the question was posed, in a different context;
- is not main topic;
- this is our main question;
- it is not about that now;
- this is your personal opinion;
- you generalize;
- our clients ask about something else;
- this is another aspect;
- true False;
- it is speculation;
- you think so;
- because you used the wrong information;
- this is a wrong impression.
In case of negative statements addressed to you, addressed to your company about the image, competence, education or experience, forbid yourself to ask counter questions, because opponents who have mastered the rhetoric usually answer such questions.
An example of an unsuccessful counter-question
Attack: "You have a bad image in the company!"
A killer counter-question: "Why did you decide that?" Possible answer:
1 All employees speak badly of you.
2 No one expects you to successfully complete this project.
3 You have just sunk an important project.
If you are interested in developing the topic, I advise you to ask only evaluation questions:
"How did you come to this erroneous opinion?"
Only in this way can you be sure that everything your opponent says will lose in the perception of your assessment by those present.
In general, "Evaluation" and "Return" in responses-objections are often opposed to each other:
Counts:
The stronger the reproach, the more persistent the objection.
This contrast is especially noticeable in contrasts:
"Touch - Evaluation" - "Turn - Return"
Speculation - Proof
Assessment - Fact
Personal impression - Confirmation
Evaluation - Result
Assumption - Result
A few examples well-aimed answers, which, of course, are deliberately formulated positive:
"Have you ever attended rhetoric seminars?"
Incorrect unswer:"Yes!"
Possible reaction of the enemy: “Why then is it imperceptible?”
Correct answer:
Turn - and if you analyze my performances, you will definitely come to the conclusion
Talk - that I, for example, use the method of five sentences in my statements.
“Why does your company have a bad image?”
Incorrect unswer:“Bad image? How did you come to that conclusion?"
And then your opponent will unfold in full force.
Correct answer:
Touch - “You have an erroneous opinion.
Turn - In fact, both in the eyes of the public and in the opinion of our customers, the image of the company is impeccable.
Talk - This year's award for...”
Variations on a theme
The situation when there are not enough words for an answer often arises among managers due to the assimilation of a certain template for conducting a discussion, which forces them to act according to a given scheme:
Leading question - an answer containing puzzlement / irritation / counter-question,
- decisive reproach - forced excuses / lack of response. I have always felt dissatisfied because many of my fellow teachers often teach how right and answer questions in detail, instead of teaching answer the right questions. And this is not easy, since we learn from an early age that we must respond to questions asked and how it should be done.
"Don't ask - answer!" - an old rule, which not only not will help you in a critical situation, but also plunge you into silence. Again:
(Counter) questions are excluded if there was a negative statement about:
- your competence and/or image;
- your field of activity, company
- or personality and personal problems.
Answering the questions of critical or unscrupulous interlocutors and accepting their statements means justifying your opponents and experiencing pressure during the discussion.
We can remember something fundamentally important: (false) politeness requires answering all the questions of the interlocutor, self-sufficiency and professionalism, on the contrary, - answering selectively, because every answer justifies the question!
Former Chairman CDU G. Geisler always answered a question about his incompetence with a question, saying the following: “However, first of all, the question arises of what we have achieved, and we are 1…, 2…, 3…, 4…”.
It was not easy for interlocutors to ask him questions on topics of a negative nature, and they could only cross them off their lists.
One top manager behaved differently, who in one of the channel's programs RTL "Der heisse Stuhl" he tried to answer all the questions, even those that were not within his competence, until he had a heart attack in front of the camera.
It is not necessary to explain which strategy is preferable.
And now for some professional advice based on the "rule of three T" on how to behave in critical situations. We will focus on the Touch/Evaluate and Turn/Return aspects.
Assign critical questions and polemical remarks to the field of theory:
“This is a question from the field of theory, but based on practical experience, I must object that ...”
Forward questions and unsubstantiated defamatory statements to other participants in the conversation:
- “A legitimate question, but in the wrong place, ask our leader about it.”
During a roundtable discussion, interpret questions and criticisms differently:
- “Your question relates to another point, and not to the one just mentioned! ..”
Consistently replace questions and remarks of critical or dishonest interlocutors with other questions/statements:
- “The question concerns only the topic “Strategy”, right question to those present from the point of view of our company sounds like this ... "
Amplify the value of questions or remarks of opponents:
- “Your question is not related to the topic, but behind it lies, however, the main question ...”
- "An interesting question from an outsider's point of view, but the question of interest to our shareholders sounds...".
During negotiations, limit questions and objections by focusing on the topic of conversation:
- “This is a secondary aspect. After all, it's about…”
- "Your question is not related to the topic of conversation, because we are discussing..."
Narrow down abstract questions and reproaches to the level of a definition or simple explanation term:
- "In order to make your question legitimate, I will ask you to define project management and explain its scope."
- “The concept of responsibility can be interpreted in different ways. What responsibility and in what context are you talking about?
Classically: evaluate the questions and polemical statements of the opponent:
- “Excuse me, but this is a typical entrepreneurial consultant question, so let’s jump right into company moves!”
- “Sorry, but our shareholders do not ask this question. They are asking..."
Specify attacks and general questions for the benefit of the other participants in the discussion:
- “Please, for everyone present, please elaborate on your question, what is it really about.”
Feel free to reveal the dishonest intentions of the critic:
- "What is your purpose in asking this defamatory and controversial question?"
Classify the opponent's question or statement in context:
- “Dear Mr. Mayer, you are asking the same question again, only formulating it differently. We have just discussed it in great detail and have given an exhaustive answer. Once again, we...
Counteract critical or polemical questions by clarifying their context but leaving them unanswered:
- “Your polemical question again touches on only a small aspect of the overall strategy of our enterprise, so let's return to the discussion of the overall strategy ...”
Emphasize the incompetence of dishonest opponents:
- “As a project manager, you should know that the question is purely theoretical…”