Charles Schwab was passing through one of his steel mills one day at noon when he came across some of his employees smoking. Immediately above their heads was a sign that said“No Smoking.”Did Schwab point to the sign and say,“Can't you read?”O(jiān)h, no not Schwab. He walked over to the men, handed each one a cigar, and said,“I'll appreciate it, boys, if you will smoke these on the outside.”They knew that he knew that they had broken a rule—and they admired him because he said nothing about it and gave them a little present and made them feel important. Couldn't keep from loving a man like that, could you?
John Wanamaker used the same technique. Wanamaker used to make a tour of his great store in Philadelphia every day. Once he saw a customer waiting at a counter. No one was paying the slightest attention to her. The salespeople? Oh, they were in a huddle at the far end of the counter laughing and talking among themselves. Wanamaker didn't say a word. Quietly slipping behind the counter, he waited on the woman himself and then handed the purchase to the salespeople to be wrapped as he went on his way.
Public officials are often criticized for not being accessible to their constituents. They are busy people, and the fault sometimes lies in overprotective assistants who don't want to overburden their bosses with too many visitors. Carl Langford, who has been mayor of Orlando, Florida, the home of Disney World, for many years, frequently admonished his staff to allow people to see him. He claimed he had an“open-door”policy; yet the citizens of his community were blocked by secretaries and administrators when they called.
Finally the mayor found the solution. He removed the door from his office! His aides got the message, and the mayor has had a truly open administration since the day his door was symbolically thrown away.
Simply changing one three-letter word can often spell the difference between failure and success in changing people without giving offense or arousing resentment.
Many people begin their criticism with sincere praise followed by the word“but”and ending with a critical statement. For example, in trying to change a child's careless attitude toward studies, we might say,“We're really proud of you, Johnnie, for raising your grades this term. But if you had worked harder on your algebra, the results would have been better.”
In this case, Johnnie might feel encouraged until he heard the word“but.”He might then question the sincerity of the original praise. To him, the praise seemed only to be a contrived lead—in to a critical inference of failure. Credibility would be strained, and we probably would not achieve our objectives of changing Johnnie's attitude toward his studies.
This could be easily overcome by changing the word“but”to“and.”“We're really proud of you, Johnnie, for raising your grades this term, and by continuing the same conscientious efforts next term, your algebra grade can be up with all the others.”
Now, Johnnie would accept the praise because there was no follow-up of an inference of failure. We have called his attention to the behavior we wished to change indirectly, and the chances are he will try to live up to our expectations.
Calling attention to one's mistakes indirectly works wonders with sensitive people who may resent bitterly any direct criticism. Marge Jacob of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, told one of our classes how she convinced some sloppy construction workers to clean up after themselves when they were building additions to her house.
For the first few days of the work, when Mrs. Jacob returned from her job, she noticed that the yard was strewn with the cut ends of lumber. She didn't want to antagonize the builders, because they did excellent work. So after the workers had gone home, she and her children picked up and neatly piled all the lumber debris in a corner. The following morning she called the foreman to one side and said,“I'm really pleased with the way the front lawn was left last night; it is nice and clean and does not offend the neighbors.”From that day forward the workers picked up and piled the debris to one side, and the foreman came in each day seeking approval of the condition the lawn was left in after a day's work.
One of the major areas of controversy between members of the army reserves and their regular army trainers is haircuts. The reservists consider themselves civilians (which they are most of the time) and resent having to cut their hair short.
Master Sergeant Harley Kaiser of the 542nd USAR School addressed himself to this problem when he was working with a group of reserve noncommissioned officers. As an old-time regular-army master sergeant, he might have been expected to yell at his troops and threaten them. Instead he chose to make his point indirectly.
“Gentlemen,”he started,“you are leaders. You will be most effective when you lead by example. You must be the example for your men to follow. You Know what the army regulations say about haircuts. I am going to get my hair cut today, although it is still much shorter than some of yours. You look at yourself in the mirror, and if you feel you need a haircut to be a good example, we'll arrange time for you to visit the post barbershop.”
The result was predictable. Several of the candidates did look in the mirror and went to the barbershop that afternoon and received“regulation”haircuts. Sergeant Kaiser commented the next morning that he already could see the development of leadership qualities in some of the members of the squad.
On March 8, 1887, the eloquent Henry Ward Beecher died. The following Sunday, Lyman Abbott was invited to speak in the pulpit left silent by Beecher's passing. Eager to do his best, he wrote, rewrote and polished his sermon with the meticulous care of a Flaubert. Then he read it to his wife. It was poor—as most written speeches are. She might have said, if she had had less judgment,“Lyman, that is terrible. That'll never do. You'll put people to sleep. It reads like an encyclopedia. You ought to know better than that after all the years you have been preaching. For heaven's sake, why don't you talk like a human being? Why don't you act natural? You'll disgrace yourself if you ever read that stuff.”
That's what she might have said. And, if she had, you know what would have happened. And she knew too. So, she merely remarked that it would make an excellent article for the North American Review. In other words, she praised it and at the same time subtly suggested that it wouldn't do as a speech. Lyman Abbott saw the point, tore up his carefully prepared manuscript and preached without even using notes.
An effective way to correct others' mistakes is…
CALL ATTENTION TO PEOPLE'S MISTAKES INDIRECTLY.
一天中午,查爾斯·施瓦布在視察他的一個(gè)鋼鐵廠(chǎng)時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)有員工在吸煙。而在他們頭上,就頂著“請(qǐng)勿吸煙”的標(biāo)示。施瓦布是否走過(guò)去指著標(biāo)示問(wèn)他們“你認(rèn)字嗎”?哦,不。施瓦布不會(huì)這樣做。他走過(guò)去,給每人遞上一根雪茄,說(shuō):“伙計(jì)們,到外面去抽我會(huì)很感激的?!彼麄兌贾雷约哼`反了規(guī)定,他們知道施瓦布也知道這點(diǎn),然而施瓦布不但沒(méi)有責(zé)罵他們,還給了他們小禮物,這讓他們感受到自己的重要性。因此,他們愛(ài)戴施瓦布。誰(shuí)都愛(ài)這樣的人,不是嗎?
約翰·沃納梅克也運(yùn)用了同樣的技巧。沃納梅克曾每天都去他費(fèi)城的店里走一圈。有一次,他看到一位顧客在柜臺(tái)旁等了半天也沒(méi)人招呼她。服務(wù)員呢?哦,他們正圍成一圈在柜臺(tái)另一邊談笑風(fēng)生呢。沃納梅克什么也沒(méi)說(shuō),自己走進(jìn)柜臺(tái)幫助女人結(jié)了賬,并把貨物遞給售貨員進(jìn)行包裝。
選民常抱怨無(wú)法接近公職人員。公職人員的確都是大忙人,不過(guò)有時(shí)卻是那些過(guò)度保護(hù)官員的助手的錯(cuò)誤,他們不希望官員被過(guò)多訪(fǎng)客所擾。迪士尼所在的佛羅里達(dá)奧蘭多市的市長(zhǎng)卡爾·朗弗德時(shí)常告誡屬下要允許訪(fǎng)客見(jiàn)他。他宣稱(chēng)自己執(zhí)行的是“開(kāi)門(mén)”政策,然而當(dāng)社區(qū)市民打來(lái)電話(huà)時(shí),他們卻被秘書(shū)和其他行政人員拒之門(mén)外。
最后市長(zhǎng)找到了方法,他把辦公室的門(mén)卸了下來(lái)!他的助手終于懂了。在那個(gè)頗具象征性的沒(méi)有門(mén)的日子之后,他才真正做到了公開(kāi)執(zhí)政。
措辭的改變便是能否改變對(duì)方觀點(diǎn)且不冒犯、不引起憤恨的關(guān)鍵。
很多人在提出批評(píng)前都會(huì)先贊美,然后用“但是”一詞轉(zhuǎn)折。例如,想改變孩子學(xué)習(xí)時(shí)粗心的毛病時(shí),我們會(huì)說(shuō):“約翰,我們很為你驕傲,但是如果你能在代數(shù)上更加努力,你會(huì)做得更好?!?/p>
在這個(gè)例子中,約翰在聽(tīng)到“但是”二字前都備受鼓舞。但聽(tīng)到這個(gè)詞后,他會(huì)懷疑贊美的真誠(chéng)度。對(duì)他來(lái)說(shuō),贊美或許只是虛偽的開(kāi)頭,目的是批判并影射他的失敗。家長(zhǎng)會(huì)失去信譽(yù),也不太可能改變約翰的學(xué)習(xí)態(tài)度。
這是很容易改變的一件事。你只需把“但是”變成“還有”。例如,“約翰,你這學(xué)期成績(jī)進(jìn)步了,我們很為你驕傲。還有,如果下學(xué)期你能繼續(xù)用功,你的代數(shù)一定會(huì)和其他科目一樣好的。”
現(xiàn)在約翰可以接受贊美了,因?yàn)楹竺鏇](méi)有跟著影射失敗的詞語(yǔ)。我們間接地讓他注意到可以進(jìn)步的方面,他很有可能會(huì)試著不辜負(fù)我們的期待。
那些敏感的人有可能對(duì)直接批判產(chǎn)生怨恨,這個(gè)時(shí)候,間接地讓對(duì)方注意到自己的問(wèn)題對(duì)這些人來(lái)說(shuō)尤其適用。羅德島溫索基特的馬姬·雅各布在訓(xùn)練班中告訴了我們,她是如何說(shuō)服邋遢的建筑工人在加蓋房屋后清理現(xiàn)場(chǎng)的。
剛開(kāi)始施工的幾天里,雅各布女士每次下班回家都會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)院子里堆滿(mǎn)了木材碎塊。她不想惹惱工人,因?yàn)樗麄兊氖炙嚪浅:?,所以工人回家后,她和她的孩子們?huì)把碎塊都撿起來(lái)堆在一邊。后來(lái)的一個(gè)早晨,她把工頭拉到一邊說(shuō):“昨天你們把前院收拾得特別干凈整齊,不會(huì)讓鄰居不滿(mǎn)?!睆哪且院螅と硕紩?huì)把碎木整齊地堆到一邊,而且工頭每天都會(huì)來(lái)詢(xún)問(wèn)雅各布女士對(duì)院子每晚的狀況是否滿(mǎn)意。
陸軍預(yù)備隊(duì)的成員和他們的教官間最大的矛盾之一便是理發(fā)。預(yù)備隊(duì)成員認(rèn)為自己是平民(多數(shù)情況下的確如此),不愿意把頭發(fā)剪得太短。
預(yù)備隊(duì)第542學(xué)校的軍士長(zhǎng)哈利·凱瑟爾在訓(xùn)練一組未任命的預(yù)備軍時(shí)也遇到了這個(gè)問(wèn)題。大家以為他會(huì)大聲責(zé)罵并嚇唬這些人,然而他選擇了另一種方式,間接表述觀點(diǎn)。
他說(shuō):“先生們,你們都是領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。如果你們都能以身作則就會(huì)事半功倍。你們必須當(dāng)屬下的好榜樣。你們知道軍規(guī)對(duì)發(fā)型的要求是什么,盡管我的頭發(fā)已經(jīng)比你們有的人短了,但我今天要去理發(fā)。你對(duì)著鏡子看看,如果覺(jué)得理了發(fā)才能起到更好的表率作用,我們會(huì)為你安排理發(fā)時(shí)間?!?/p>
結(jié)果可想而知。有些人的確照了鏡子,當(dāng)天下午就去理了個(gè)大兵頭。第二天早晨,凱瑟爾軍士長(zhǎng)說(shuō)他已經(jīng)看到了一些成員展現(xiàn)出的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)氣質(zhì)。
1887年3月8日,德高望重的牧師亨利·沃德·比奇去世了。之后的那個(gè)周日,萊曼·艾伯特被邀請(qǐng)?jiān)诒绕媪粝碌目罩v道臺(tái)上講話(huà)。他希望做到最好,所以一遍又一遍地寫(xiě)布道詞并進(jìn)行潤(rùn)色,像福樓拜一樣認(rèn)真。寫(xiě)完后他讀給妻子聽(tīng),就如大多數(shù)演講稿一樣,它很糟糕。如果他妻子略微缺乏深思熟慮便會(huì)說(shuō):“萊曼,這真是太糟糕了。這行不通的。大家都會(huì)睡著的。聽(tīng)上去你就像在讀百科全書(shū)。布道那么多年了,你應(yīng)該能說(shuō)得更好啊。老天啊,你為什么不能說(shuō)人話(huà)呢?為什么不自然一些?如果你真在眾人面前讀了這些那真是會(huì)給你自己蒙羞啊?!?/p>
這是她有可能說(shuō)出的話(huà)。如果真的說(shuō)了,你知道后果會(huì)是怎樣的,她也知道。所以她只是輕描淡寫(xiě)了一句:這聽(tīng)上去像是一篇《北美評(píng)論》上的出色文章。換言之,她贊美了這篇文章,同時(shí)巧妙地暗示了它并不適合演講。萊曼·艾伯特明白她的意思,把精心準(zhǔn)備的稿子撕掉,后來(lái)進(jìn)行了脫稿演講。
糾正他人錯(cuò)誤的有效方式是:
間接讓對(duì)方意識(shí)到自己的問(wèn)題。
瘋狂英語(yǔ) 英語(yǔ)語(yǔ)法 新概念英語(yǔ) 走遍美國(guó) 四級(jí)聽(tīng)力 英語(yǔ)音標(biāo) 英語(yǔ)入門(mén) 發(fā)音 美語(yǔ) 四級(jí) 新東方 七年級(jí) 賴(lài)世雄 zero是什么意思北京市富力桃園英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)交流群