口語表達是自信心的關鍵

【文／許芳菊】


在講台上，一向能言善道的導演吳念真，這回卻有點被打敗的感覺。眼前的沉默，讓人心慌，「什麼時候開始，台灣的學生竟都成了省話一哥？」

那日，吳念真受邀到某大學擔任一日業師的演講。他開場謙虛的表示，自己沒資格「當老師」，請同學主動提問，結果換來全場靜默。經常受邀到學校演講的吳念真 感慨，他經常問學生「有沒有問題？」都沒有人提問，結果回家上Facebook（臉書）才發現，在網路上，大學生誰都有意見，但面對面，卻鴉雀無聲。

鏡頭，轉到另一個場景。

幾年前，美國一所名校提供了八個獎學金的名額給台灣跟中國大陸的學生，結果面試過後，八個獎學金名額統統給了大陸的學生。得知此事的中央大學認知神經科學 研究所所長洪蘭很訝異，「台灣的學生也很優秀啊！為何獎學金統統給了大陸的學生？」她特別去了解原因，結果得到的答案是：「大陸的學生上台個個侃侃而談， 台灣的學生上台卻個個扭扭捏捏。」兩相對照，台灣學生自信不足，相形失色，輸贏的關鍵，就在口語表達能力。

「說」出國家實力

在這個資訊爆炸的時代，身處面試、口試愈來愈重要的潮流中，如何流暢、明確精簡的表達自己的想法，如何順利與人溝通、分享、討論，甚至說服、影響別人，已經愈來愈重要。許多國家也都看到這個趨勢，紛紛透過教育、訓練，加強培養學生的溝通表達能力。

新加坡前總理李光耀曾說：「新加坡國民必須具備良好的閱讀能力，和正確表達自己意思的能力，才能在二十一世紀跟別國競爭。」

哈佛大學前校長德瑞克‧伯克（Derek Bok）提出二十一世紀大學的八個教育目標，其中以「表達溝通能力」最為重要。

環顧世界各國，中國大陸從中小學開始就安排「口語交際課程」，來培養孩子口語表達溝通的能力，尤其在上海世博期間，政府更大力推廣這樣的課程。例如，他們 會在課堂上模擬演練，「家裡電話鈴響了，拿起電話該如何有禮貌的回答？」還會設計各種「問路」、「問候」、「辯論」、「討論問題」的情境，讓學生在課堂上 實戰演練如何與他人溝通交流。

經常到大陸觀摩教學的新店國小校長吳淑芳也發現，在中國，幾乎每一堂課老師都在做口語表達的訓練。例如，從朗讀文本開始，他們就會教學生讀出文章的文氣、了解文字中的情緒、語調，自然的帶出說話技巧。

香港的口語表達訓練，則和閱讀推廣緊密結合。實際走訪香港的小學，會發現他們的閱讀課程，都有大量的討論、發表、聆聽、回饋與評論的訓練。例如，香港播道 書院小二的閱讀課，老師除了大量提問，還會邀請學生上台口述故事重點，並且會把評分的項目清楚的寫在黑板上，包括內容（1～5分）、流暢（1～5分）、音 量（1～5分）。台下的同學必須專注聆聽，因為當台上同學發表過後，老師會請全班同學閉上眼睛趴下來，為台上的同學一項項舉手給分。評分完畢，老師也會詢 問小朋友評分的理由。這樣的閱讀討論發表練習，讓大部分的香港小學生都能大方站到台上表達自己的想法。

歐美國家的學生更早已習慣討論、發問、上台報告。世新大學口語傳播系教授游梓翔指出，西方教育認為表達能力的訓練就是思想訓練，所以每一堂課都要設計讓學 生應用到表達的機會。老師講完一個原則，就會讓學生挑戰這個原則、辯論這個原則。「所以到任何一個場合，他們的學生都樂於發問，絕不會出現台灣多數出現的 狀況，連個舉手的人都沒有，」游梓翔說。

台灣口語表達四大病症

當世界各國愈來愈重視口語表達能力的培養，台灣教育現場，至今卻仍普遍缺乏口語表達能力的訓練。從小學到大學，學生口語表達能力不佳，「不敢說、不會說、說不好」，是許多人對台灣學生的印象。

洪蘭指出，「人和」就是溝通的能力，講話不得體或說的時機不對，都會得罪人。但她最近發現，台灣學生連最基本的講話都需要改進。他們上台報告時，說的句子不完整，而且缺乏邏輯，不知所云，讓人聽得很辛苦。

【完整內容請見《親子天下》2011年1-2月號】

辭職時不需要臨別爭吵

文／川北義則
2010年7月 Web Only

跟現在任職的公司上下相處不和睦，最後可能決定辭職。這時候，最好不要在離去前跟公司內部吵架。因為未來的發展還不明朗，這樣做可能會帶來負面效果。
因為忍不住氣憤而辭職的人，心中一定抱持「這種公司，怎麼可能再進來？」的情緒，於是不去注重應有的禮節。從感情上可以理解當事人的想法，但是在此還是要勸離職者最好小心行事。因為這種臨別的吵架，只會將好不容易才結交到的朋友也變成敵人。
根據日本厚生勞動省（主管勞動與福利的中央機關）的調查，最近的大學畢業生當中，大約有三五％的人，進公司不到三年之間就辭職。再轉職跳巢成習的社會，辭職是無可厚非的個人意志。問題就在辭職的方式，「留得青山在，不怕沒材燒」，要辭職也應該辭得漂亮才好。
最近，許多日本企業好像對辭職者特別的留意。主要是因為最近發生很多企業醜聞，幾乎都是由辭職的員工爆料或內部員工檢舉的。因此企業也開始留心辭職者的言行。
當 然也有人總是努力工作到最後一刻，臨走時還獲得公司增送辭行花束，但是做到這樣好像是有點過於矯情了。也有公司在員工辭職時提心吊膽地說「請別太多話好 嗎？」此時難免讓人懷疑「有什麼麻煩的事」嗎？也有些公司員工跟直屬上司處不好，導致辭職時更上層的上司甚至經營層級的人也會過來詢問，似乎已經有公司開 始顧慮到，應該避免讓辭職的員工對公司抱持惡劣的印象。
人際關係也一樣，離別是非常重要的時刻。即使最初或中途曾經彼此產生不好的印象，只要離別時保持良好氣氛，過去的不愉快就煙消雲散。相反地，最初的印象很好，但是臨別時關係交惡，過去美好的印象就全部抹滅了。

【川北義則小叮嚀】聰明人不隨便樹敵

自己的能力還算強，生活態度也很認真，人際關係也處理得不錯，為什麼人生還是過得不如意？
有這種煩惱的人很多。
如果你是其中之一，不妨先環顧一下你的四周。你一定會留意到，平常毫不在意的人卻變成障礙你的人。至於是什麼障礙呢？就是利用你不注意的時候，扯你的後腿，讓你跌跤受傷。
能幹的男人周遭一定有敵人。如果有人敢說：「我沒有半個敵人」，我想這個人必定沒什麼能耐，或者屬於那種欠缺存在感的「無印人類」。否則，敵人一定會存在他的身邊。
但是，這些敵人不是專扯後腿的人，寧可說是幫助自己提升的人。如果有好的敵人當成對手，相互切磋琢磨，實力當然就會因此提升。會遭人扯後腿的，多半屬於到處樹立無用之敵的人。
所謂的無用之敵，意思是指自己並不在意對方，但是對方卻把你視為敵人，擅自出招攻擊你的人。很多人通常在不知不覺間，就樹立這種敵人。
舉 例來說，最近很多企業都變成「馬賽克職場」。除了正式員工，還有其他企業派來的員工，等候外派的員工、鐘點工、非正式員工，可以說是由各種型態的員工所構 成。如果你是正式員工，照理說，你眼中的對手應該是和你一樣的正式員工吧！你可能不認為非正式員工或鐘點工與你之間會產生問題。但是，如何跟這些人相處， 也是你得面對的問題。
例如，你請鐘點女工幫你複印一些資料，「印好了，」她帶過來給你，「好了嗎？放在那裡，」你指定位置給她時，沒有看她的臉，也沒說「謝謝，辛苦了！」之類的感謝話。如果持續這樣的態度下去，我想她一定會在心裡罵你「這個混蛋」。
雖然在業務上，公司不會詢問鐘點工的意見，但是她一定有機會跟同事聊天說話，要製造攻擊你的流言也很容易。那些在職場中表現出自己很偉大的人，隨便亂說亂做的人，粗線條沒禮貌的人，通常都會遭到這種敵人的暗算。這就是隨便亂樹敵的結果。
在企業裡經常意外落馬的人，不妨從這個角度檢視一下自己的日常行為。企業裡充滿各種不同立場的人，因為不了解這些人的背景，最好將他們視為平常的人，就他們的立場去考慮事物比較妥當。
日本經濟新聞（二○○八年一月十二日發行）曾經就如何在馬賽克職場裡作一個以品格的企業人做調查，主題為「工作者的品格」，跟據調查歸納出十項守則，供讀者參考：

1、稱呼對方名字
2、別展現讓人誤解的優越感
3、別忘記感謝的念頭
4、用語言表達自己的情緒
5、不要太過度表達情緒
6、要求明確
7、習慣他們的委託
8、不要持有被害意識
9、不可以排斥對方
10、保持適度的距離感

這十條，你實踐了多少？
英國的天才作家王爾德（Oscar Wilde，生於一八五四年~一九○○年）曾經有句名言：「人們通常在選擇自己的敵人時，太過粗心。」
我覺得事實就是如此。一般人只要稍微感覺不愉快，就可以將對方列為仇敵。那種強迫對方接受自己的態度，到底只能樹立無用的敵人而已。把心力用來樹立無用的敵人絕對是錯誤的行為。

Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive

Noah Goldstein’s, Steve Martin’s (no, not that Steve Martin’s) and Robert Cialdini’s Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive is a pop psych book, where a bunch of research in psychology is distilled into one readable volume.
50 scientifically proven ways constitute 50 chapters of the book, longest of which take 7 pages. The authors take the position that persuasion is a science, not art, hence with the right approach anybody can become the master in the skill of persuasion. So, what are the 50 ways?

1. Inconvenience the audience by creating an impression of product scarcity. It’s the famous change from “Call now, the operators are standing by” to “If the line is busy, call again”, that greatly improved the call volume by creating the impression that everybody else is trying to buy the same product.
2. Introduce herd effect in highly personalized form. The hotel sign in the bathroom informed the guests that many prior guests chose to be environmentally friendly by recycling their towels. However, when the message mentioned that majority of the guests who stayed in this specific room chose to be more environmentally conscious and reused their towels, towel recycling jumped 33%, even though the message was largely the same.
3. Ads quoting negative behavior en masse reinforces negative behavior. Petrified Forest National Park A/B tested two versions of a sign imploring people not to steal pieces of petrified forest from the park. One mentioned large amounts of petrified forest taken away on an annual basis, the other one simply asked the visitors not to remove petrified wood. The first one actually tripled the theft ratio as it showed stealing petrified wood as something commonplace. Same effect was observed after airing an ad that implored women to vote, but mentioned that 22 million single women did not vote last year. That kind of information actually portrays not voting as more socially acceptable.
4. Avoiding magnetic middle. A California survey measured energy usage of a neighborhood on a week-by-week basis. When the average electricity consumption for the neighborhood was calculated, researchers sent thank-you cards to those using the energy conservatively, and a nice reminder to perhaps conserve to those who used electricity liberally. Net effect? While the liberals tried to cut down on unnecessary energy usage, the conservatives, finding out they’re way below average, suddenly became way more liberal with their energy usage, which actually increased the amount of energy used by the neighborhood. Proposed solution that worked? Sending a smiley face card to conservatives with a request to keep doing what they were doing, instead of pointing out they were at the right end of the bell curve.
5. Too many options necessitate selection, and hence frustration, when brain decides it’s unnecessary work. The example here is given by a company that manages retirement funds for other companies, and hence has access to retirement information of 800,000 employees. When employees were offered a choice of 2 funds, roughly 75% signed up for a retirement program. When the number of funds was increased to 59%, even though qualitatively this was a better deal for employees, only 60% decided to sign up. When Head & Shoulders brand killed off 11 flavors of the shampoo, leaving only 15 on the market, the sales rose 10%.
6. Giving away the product makes it less desirable. Researchers gave one group of people a picture of a pearl bracelet and asked to evaluate its desirability. Another group of people was given the same task, but prior to that was shown an ad, where the same bracelet was given away for free, if you bought a bottle of expensive liqueur. The second group considered the bracelet much less desirable, since mentally a lot of potential buyers (35% of them to be exact) shuffled the bracelet onto “trinkets they give away for free” shelf in their brain.
7. A more expensive product makes the old version look like a value buy. An example here is a Williams-Sonoma bread maker. After an introduction of a newer, better, and pricier version, the sales of the old unit actually increased, as couples viewed the new item as “top of the line”, but old product was all of a sudden reasonably-priced, even though a bunch of features were missing.
8. If a call to action is motivated by fear, people will block it, unless call to action has specific steps. A group of people received a pamphlet describing the dangers of tetanus infection. It didn’t describe much else. The second group of people got a description of tetanus infection, plus a set of instructions on how to get vaccinated. The second group exhibited much higher sign-up rate for tetanus vaccination than the first one, where many participants tried to block out the high-fear message urging that something as rare as tetanus would never happen to them.
9. A small gift makes people want to reciprocate. People who received a small no-strings-attached gift from a stranger were twice as likely to buy raffle tickets from him than those who were just pitched on raffle tickets.
10. Hand-written Post-It note improves response rate on inter-office letters. Researchers distributed three sets of questionnaires around the office. The first set included a hand-written Post-It note requesting completion of the survey. The second set got the same survey, with the request to return it hand-written on Page 1. Third group got the same survey with their name mentioned (in type) on page 1 of the survey. Response rates? 75%, 48%, 36%. People appreciated personalized approach, and somehow a Post-It note even highlighted the extra work that someone did before sending out the survey.
11. How restaurant mints are a personalized affair. Let’s a say a restaurant provides mints for its customers on the way out. If the amount of tips per week is the baseline for that restaurant, let’s make the waiters include a mint as they give the check to the customer. The tips go up by 3.3%. However, when the waiters offer the mints themselves, prior to signing the check, the tipping amount went up by 14.1%. In yet another experiment, the waiter would present the patrons with 1 mint per guest, then give them the check, then turning around to leave, then, as if remembering something sudden, turning around and giving them yet another mint per guest. Result? 23% increase in tips, as this signaled high amount of personalization.
12. Attaching no strings increases response to the message. Using the same hotel as the one mentioned in Chapter 2, researchers tried out two different versions of the sign. The first one: if you reuse the towels, a donation will be made to a nonprofit environmental organization.  The second version: the donation has already been made, since the hotel trusted you’d reuse the towels anyways. Recipients of the second message reused their towels 45% more than the recipients of the first one.
13. As time goes by, the value of a favor increases in the eyes of the favor-giver, and decreases in the eyes of the favor-receiver. Researchers asked a group of people in the random office environment to exchange favors and then rate the value of the given/received favor in their eyes. A few weeks later the same employees were reminded of the favor, and asked to evaluate the favor again. Favor-givers consistently assigned higher value to a given favor, while as the time passed by, favor-receivers tended to assign lower value to the received favor.
14. Asking for small favors changes self-perception, introducing ways for big favors. Researchers asked a group of homeowners to place a large “Drive Carefully” sign on their front lawn. Only 17% agreed. With the second group of homeowners, 76% of people were ok with road traffic people maintaining the sign on their beautiful lawns. What was the difference between two groups? A few weeks earlier group B was asked to display a small non-intrusive window sign asking drivers to slow down. This mental foot-in-the-door technique made homeowners from the group B view themselves as socially responsible and safety-aware, hence a request for a larger favor few weeks later didn’t startle them.
15. Labeling people into a social group tends to increase their participation ratio. A group of people was interviewed regarding their voting patterns. Half of them were told that based on their response criteria, they were very likely to vote, since they were deemed to be more politically active. Later on the election day that specific half did indeed turn up a participation rate that was 15% higher than participation of the control group.
16. Asking people to substantiate their decision will lead to higher commitment rate on that decision. Researchers called a group of people asking them how likely they were to vote in an upcoming election. Those who responded positively were either asked nothing, or asked why they felt they would vote. Any reason would suffice, but when the election day came, the turnout for the control group (who all responded “Yes” to the question of whether they were going to vote) was 61.5%. Turnout for the group that actually gave a reason (any reason)? 86.7%. A restaurant stopped telling customers “Please call to cancel your reservation” and started asking “Will you call and let us know if you need to cancel?” Net result? Number of reservation no-shows dropped from 30% to 10%.
17. Writing things down improves commitment. Group A was asked to volunteer on AIDS awareness program at local schools, and was asked to commit verbally. Group B was asked for the same kind of volunteer project, but was given a simple form to fill in. 17% of volunteers from Group A actually showed up to their assigned local school. From Group B 49% of volunteers showed up.
18. The fact that circumstances changed allows people to change their viewpoints without being viewed as inconsistent. People are generally not thrilled to change their viewpoints on something, as they fear they will display lack of consistency and be called a flip-flopper. Convincing people that their old decision (to stick with the old product) was completely 100% correct under old circumstances allows them to be more responsive to the messages that imply a new product/idea is better because the circumstances radically changed since then.
19. Sometimes asking people for help makes them more open. Group A was given some bogus research that included a sum of prize money. After the experiment, the researcher approached them and asked whether it wouldn’t be inconvenient if they had to give the money back, since the researcher was using his own money. Group B was not approached with such request after their portion of bogus experiment was done, and was allowed to keep the money. After this both groups were asked to rate their impression of the researcher. Even though it was the first group who didn’t get to keep any money, all of them consistently rated the researcher higher on likability scale.
20. Asking for little goes a long way. Researchers went door-to-door asking for American Cancer Society donations. Group A just asked for a donation, group B ended their spiel with “even a penny would help”. Results? 28.6% response rate for Group A vs. 50% response for Group B.
21. Lower starting prices attract higher bids. This is a reference to a study of eBay items where people consistently bid items with a lower starting price higher. The explanation seems to focus on the fact that people invest more time into updating bids for a lower-priced item to let it go.
22. How to impress a potential customer with credentials without being labeled as a show-off? Public speakers have someone else introduce them, a real estate company made a slight improvements to their phone service by directing people to “Jane, who has 10 years of experience with houses in upper price range”, and physicians display their diplomas on the walls.
23. The danger of being the smartest person in the room. The expert card frequently trumps any other card in the room. The example here is that the scientists who discovered the double-helix of the DNA were never prime DNA experts, which made them “hungrier” for new discoveries, and made them question established rules.
24. Devil’s advocate example works with large organizations. Leaders who consistently seek out dissenting opinions earn more respect, and generally have better agreement with people in the room than those who rule by laying down the law and persecuting dissenters.
25. Negative examples are memorized better than positive examples. When one group of firefighters went through the list of real-life mistakes other firefighters have made, and another group just went through the list of positive things to do, the first group demonstrated better judgment when faced with real-life tests. Our brain seems to discount the best practices, but single out bad examples of someone else making a mistake.
26. Admitting negatives up-front might lead to better communication. When Progressive says that they will compare your rate against their competitors’, and when original VW Bug was introduced in the US, both companies pursued a strategy of highlighting the negative stuff only to open conversation about the true values their product has to offer.
27. Spinning negative facts as positive allows customers to make a mental link towards the positive. Among the viewers who viewed an ad advertising restaurant’s cozy atmosphere, an ad advertising the restaurant and lack of parking spaces, and an ad mentioning both, the third group made a connection between cozy atmosphere and bad parking situation. The restaurant was so cozy, the customers reasoned, that they didn’t even have enough parking spots, which made them even cozier in the eyes of a customer.
28. Admitting you’re wrong makes people trust you more. Company A published an investors relations report, contributing slump in sales to overall economic climate. Company B said slump of sales was relevant to a few bad decisions by top management. Net result? Investors viewed company B more positively. You’d think that they’d be viewed as a bunch of screw-ups, but admission of a mistake made investors more confident the situation was under control, while company A investors got the uneasy feeling of the ship floating in the waters with captain losing control.
29. Similarities raise the response rate. A person named Cindy Johnson received a survey request by mail from someone named Cynthia Johannson. Someone named John Smith received a survey from Gregory Jordan. The name similarity in the first case (note that it’s just phonetic similarity, none of the names are the same) brought up the response rate to 56% vs. regular 30%.
30. People like the sound of their name, and that defines their vocation. There are three times as many dentists named Dennis as any other names. Number of Florences living in Florida is disproportionately high, same goes for Louises living in Louisiana.
31. Verbalization helps interaction. Waiters who repeat customers’ order to them make 70% more in tips than waiters who just say “Okay”. Our mind subconsciously appreciates the effort taken to ensure the things are perfectly right.
32. Just smiling makes for a poorer customer service. Group A was exposed to a hotel clerk smiling, while peppering the customer with questions regarding their preferences and ways to improve their hotel stay. Group B had just a smiling clerk performing her duties. Group B was more likely to rate the smile as fake.
33. People pay more for the stuff that’s about to disappear. Oldsmobile sales rose after GM announced the end of life for the line. Australian beef purchases rose after customers learned this year’s supply would be severely diminished because of the weather conditions. Concorde sales took off right after British Airways announced the hyper-speed flights would be shut down.
34. When people feel something is about to go away, they will stick to perception of the product being better than the new one. In majority of blind tests customers chose New Coke over Classic Coke. Yet when New Coke was introduced, massive protests were staged. When the same drink was packaged into Classic Coke and New Coke bottles, customers still claimed they preferred the Classic Coke and could taste the difference, even though labeling was the only thing that differed two drinks.
35. “Because” makes any explanation rational. In a line to Kinko’s copy machine a researcher asked to jump the line by presenting a reason “Can I jump the line, because I am in a rush?” 94% of people complied. Good reason, right? Okay, let’s change the reason. “Can I jump the line because I need to make copies?” Excuse me? That’s why everybody is in the line to begin with. Yet 93% of people complied. A request without “because” in it (“Can I jump the line, please?”) generated 24% compliance.
36. Asking people to choose reasons themselves might backfire. Two groups were given an ad by BMW. Group A saw an ad saying “So many reasons to buy a BMW. Can you name 10?” Group B saw an ad saying “So many reasons to buy a BMW. Can you name 1?” After the ad both groups were asked to evaluate their likelihood of buying a BMW. Similar to what’s described in Chapter 5, people who had to name 10 reasons actually named Mercedes-Benz, a competitive brand, as their probable choice, while Group B named BMW as their likely next vehicle, compared to Mercedes-Benz.
37. People like stocks with more pronounceable names. Research of stock tickers between 1999 and 2004 looked at the relationship between the phonetic fluency of the stock and its rise through IPO, then 12 months later, then throughout its lifetime. The result? Stocks with more pronounceable names produced higher returns, even though nobody yells out the tickers on the exchange floor anymore.
38. Rhyming makes the phrases more convincing. People were asked to evaluate the practical value of parables “Caution and measure will win you treasure” and “Caution and measure will win you riches”. In general proverb A was considered to be more practical and insightful than proverb B.
39. Amount of information is context-dependent. A group of people was given an ad for department store A, extolling in great detail the 6 departments that A had. Another group was given a short blurb on store A, presenting mainly abstract information. After that store B was presented to both groups with information on 3 departments given to both groups. The first group thought they preferred A, since A volunteered more information and B seemed shadier in comparison. The second group did exactly the opposite and preferred store B, which volunteered detailed info on 3 departments, while A’s message was an abstract blurb.
40. Incentive programs need a good start. A car-wash place gave one group of customers a free car wash after 8 washes, and everybody got their first stamp after their visit. Group B got a free car wash after 10 car washes, with 3 stamps on the card. Both groups needed to make 7 more trips to get a free wash. 19% of the Group A returned, while 34% of the Group B did.
41. Abstract names allow the customers to come up with reasoning. Crayola found out that naming colors Cornflower Yellow and Kermit Green worked better than no adjectives attached to colors. The more abstract the connection, the better it seemed to work, as people spent mental time working out the connection between the abstraction and the product in their mind.
42. Ad campaigns that do not incorporate brands tend to not be remembered. A good portion of people when asked which company was represented by a bunny and the phrase “going, going, and going” named Duracell as the advertiser. Duracell sales increased with the launch of Energizer Bunny campaign.
43. Mirrors make people more self-conscious. A group of trick-or-treating kids was told to pick up one candy from the jar in the living room, while the adult was in a different room on some pretense. Group A had a large mirror placed by the candy jar, group B did not have the mirror. 8.9% of kids with the mirror in the room and 33.7% of the kids with no mirror treated themselves to extra candy. Another group of people was brought in for what was advertised as gel research, and was given a hand paper towel to wipe the gel off while heading for the exit. With the mirror in the hallway, 24% of participants littered, dropping the towel on their way out, with no mirror, 46% threw the paper towel on the floor without bothering to find a trash can.
44. Negative emotions make people pay more. Group A was exposed to an emotional movie about the death of someone close to the main character. Group B saw no such movie. Both groups were asked then to name a fair price at which they’d buy the object presented to them. Group A tended to give prices 30% above Group B’s.
45. Tired people tend to be more receptive to arguments. No wonder those magic bullet infomercials run so late at night. Both groups were presented to product demo, and then asked to evaluate the possibility of buying it. Group A was tired and a bit sleep-deprived, group B was in good physical condition. Group A was much more prone to buy.
46. Caffeine increases the argumentativeness of a strong argument. Group A drank regular orange juice, group B drank orange juice infused with caffeine. Both groups were then presented with a statement on controversial issue. Except one statement then made weak and hasty arguments, while the second statement made a strong case. Both groups equally dismissed the weak argument case. As far as strongly argumentative case, group B was 30% more receptive. A faster-working brain under the influence of caffeine seems to appreciate good arguments.
47. Face time still beats e-mail time. Group A was given time to get to know one another in person, then resolve a conflict via e-mail. Group B got a similar task, except no face-to-face communications. 6% of the Group As failed to come up at a good resolution, while 29% of Group Bs arrived at impasse.
48. Individualism is perceived differently in many countries. In US and Western Europe a chewing gum campaign that accentuated “you, only better” seemed to get more success, than a similar campaign in Eastern Europe and Asia, with much more collectivism built into the culture. In those countries, emphasizing that chewing gum was much more tolerable for other people who can smell your breath, was perceived better.
49. Notion of commitment among various cultures differ. A group of American students was asked to complete a short marketing survey. A few weeks later they got invited for the second survey, which was going to take twice as long. No pay for either survey. The same experiment was conducted among Asian students. The response rates among American students was 22%, response rate among Asian students was 10%. Research suggests that while American students relied only on their own experience, Asian students found out that few of their peers responded to the first request to complete the survey, which triggered their negative response.
50. Response to voice mail differs among Americans and Japanese. When faced with a voicemail message, 50% of Americans, and 85% of Japanese hang up. Respondents from Japanese test group pointed out the personal touch of the conversation (intonation, pauses, volume) was important to them and impossible to reproduce over voicemail.

If you liked reading review of this book, check out my review of Predictably Irrational, which is written by a psychology professor and explores the topic of human irrationality in our perfectly rational world.

from:
http://www.moskalyuk.com/blog/yes-50-scientifically-proven-ways-to-be-persuasive/1624/trackback

以4P流程自我訓練，個性內向也能建立人脈網

你是否害怕公開發表演說？ 你是否覺得，開會中發表評論是很困難的事？你是否覺得，生意上的應酬往來常常讓你感到精疲力盡？

【整理／黃莎蘋；取材自《幹掉獅群的小綿羊：內向工作人的沉靜競爭力》，三采文化出版】 如果以上皆是的話，你可能就是一位內向型工作者。然而，世界上有許多傑出的領導者，如比爾‧蓋茲（Bill Gates）、股神華倫‧巴菲特（Warren Buffett）、美國前總統林肯（Abraham Lincoln）還有金恩博士（Martin Luther King Jr.），都是他人眼中內向的人。 根據估計，全世界有將近50%的人都屬於內向者，在高階主管中，這個比例則占了40%。從以上兩段敘述可以明白，擁有內向性格的人，絕對可以成為優秀的領導者，只是要找出自己的成功之道。 美國奇異（GE）、IBM、可口可樂（Coca-Cola） 等知名企業的人力訓練專家珍妮芙‧凱威樂博士（Jennifer B. Kahnweiler），在《內向工作人的沉靜競爭力》（The Introverted Leader:Building on Your Quiet Strength）一書中提出「4P」流程，闡述了一套明確且務實的方法，幫助內向型工作人有效管理自己的性格，發揮潛力。   Preparation：事先詳盡準備， 提升自信 「準備」可以讓你覺得自己掌握大局，信心滿滿，擁有能力掌握任何突發狀況，進而減輕壓力。準備的工作，包含針對人際互動進行策略規畫，例如釐清目標、思考 具體的問題和用詞、做筆記、和朋友進行角色扮演等等。另外，也可以觀察那些擁有傑出人際能力的人，將他們的風格納入自己的風格當中。 舉例來說，在簡報之前，編制詳盡的筆記，包括自己會使用的特殊語法，可以幫助你流暢地完成簡報；參與重要的社交活動前，先研究座位表，將關鍵客戶找出來， 設定好交談的目標；或是在會議前，事先檢視相關資料，擬好與會者可能提出的問題，並寫下答案，如此即使臨場有突發狀況，你也能夠立即給對方一個穩健的回 覆。   Presence：當下投入，讓他人感受你對他的注意 指的是要你展現人在當下、合乎當下的態度。準備是為了讓你能夠放鬆，同時融入當下，但許多內向的人，常常會準備過頭，以致於完全照本宣科，反而失去了準備 的效用。已故的佛瑞德‧奧特教授（Fred Otte）的上課祕訣是，事先準備有趣的小故事，並在自己說話變得沉悶的時候，分享給聽眾，讓大家再度充滿活力。 另一個合乎當下的舉止是「將焦點放在此時與你共處的人身上」，你可以運用直視對方眼睛、提出內行的問題，讓對方感受到你對他的注意。如此，在旁人眼中，你會是個正直、可靠、富有同理心的人，能夠與他人建立密切的人際關係。   Push：向前推進，跨出舒適圈、發掘自己的潛力 美國文學家愛默生（Ralph Waldo Emerson）曾經說過：「要去做你最害怕的事。」這句話正是Push的精髓，我們應該要督促自己超越恐懼，強迫自己跨出安全領域，如此一來才能夠不斷前進。 舉例來說，某位資訊長強迫自己在30分鐘內，在參加的酒會中蒐集到20張名片。或者要求自己詳讀座位表，並帶著目的和對方周旋；甚至是和上司交流，都算是踏出安全範圍的冒險行為。 跳出安全領域，不僅會帶給你實質的收穫，例如贏得客戶、名聲、別人對你的了解、不再是隱形人等等。你也會發掘出自己的潛力，知道自己能夠做到些什麼。   Practice：持續練習，校準行為模式 最後一個步驟，是要你善用每個機會，練習新的行為模式。內向的人在職場上練習不屬於本性的行為，就像是右撇子練習用左手一樣，一開始雖然怪異，但經過一段時間就能適應，假以時日便能得心應手。 練習能讓你熟能生巧、融會貫通，並將許多技巧彙整成個人的技能。此外，透過練習，你可以嘗試運用不同的方法和人們聯繫、溝通，也讓你有能力重新校準你的方法和行為。 4P流程可以當成自我訓練工具，幫助你進行規畫，在不同的情境中，你可以有哪些作為。 【完整內容請見《經理人月刊》十月號】

搞定4種難溝通的人

事先思考對方通常會如何回應，以及交談將會如何進行，絕對有助於溝通。記住，難以處理的並非人本身，而是他們的「行為」。 

文／陳孟珠　編譯
2007年5月 Cheers雜誌


我們都知道，應該要像個理性的成人一般討論問題。但是當問題實在太過棘手，比如主管隨意的諷刺或批評愈來愈無法忍受，或者和父母始終無法達到共識，溝通總是容易轉變成爭執與口角。

難處理的不是人，而是行為

心理學家安．狄克森（Anne Dickson）指出，人們通常只想著如何表達自己的想法與觀點，並用自己的方式開啟對話，卻沒有考慮到這些論點將會如何被聽者接收，以及接下來會發生什麼狀況。
因此狄克森建議，溝通時不妨試著表現出你的弱點。「你可以說，『和你討論這個問題真的讓我感到非常焦慮，但那是因為這對我很重要，』」狄克森舉例說明，這樣不但可以緩和氣氛，讓對方有更多時間思考真正的問題，也較能以理性的態度回應。
事先思考對方通常會如何回應，以及交談將會如何進行，絕對有助於溝通。記住，難以處理的並非人本身，而是他們的「行為」。
當你意識到這個重點，就可輕易歸納對方的行為模式：每次當你談起某一話題，對方就會開始哭泣，或者拒絕和你對話。這樣的可預測性，可讓你事先模擬雙方對話的進行，也就能幫你掌控溝通的結果。

訓練「自律肌肉」，加強情緒控制

除了思考對方的問題，你也有責任控制自己的情緒。不妨想一想，對方的回應將如何影響你，你又該如何控制自己的情緒？
你可以事先問自己：做什麼／不做什麼可以讓情況好轉？哪些問題可以問／可以不問？現在生氣，是否能在接下來的20分鐘裡有任何幫助？如果我這麼做了，解決問題的機率有多大？嘗試保持「未來式」的心智模式，對於解決問題非常重要。
研究也顯示，平時訓練你的「自律肌肉」，比如控制姿勢、心情，或建立自己的飲食紀錄，都可以改善壓力狀態下的情緒控制能力。
你必須學習辨認某些徵兆，以判斷自己或對方是否快要失去控制，並適時結束交談。畢竟，你很難單靠一次溝通就能解決棘手的問題，適時地走開，等雙方冷靜下來再做溝通，進行漸進式的改善，會是更成熟的作法。

知己知彼，見招拆招

談判專家道格拉斯．史東（Douglas Stone）指出，有些人會發現，自己總是不善於和某種個性的人互動。「發現某種人特別難以相處，或許是因為他們恰好符合自己的某個弱點，」史東解釋。

我們無法改變別人，唯一能做的，只有改變自己的回應。史東表示，「無論和誰交談，即使是個瘋狂的綁匪，只要了解他們看待世界的方式，以及他們真正想要的，而你又嘗試提供某些他們想要的東西，就有談判的空間。」
不過，面對不同類型的人，方式也要有所調整：

1.情緒崩潰型。最常發生的狀況是，每當你嘗試溝通，對方就要眼淚決堤。這時不妨邀請他出去散步走走，在公共場合裡對方較能控制情緒，藉由肩並肩、而非面對面的方式，也可以緩和彼此某些權力不對等（比如上司下屬或父子）的關係。

2.拒絕溝通型。當你嘗試溝通時，對方便拒絕對話。這顯示你們的關係出現非常嚴重的問題，建議先從日常生活的小事開始改善氣氛。要進入較嚴肅的話題時，可使用較婉轉的開頭，如「我非常需要你的意見，有空可以聊一聊嗎？」

3.躁進挑釁型。遇到這類型的人，可以用不同的話題來配合、滿足他們的挑釁。舉例來說，當對方大聲咆嘯，「我真不敢相信你又用結婚成家的話題來給我壓力！」你可以回答，「我知道，但更不公平的是，我年紀也愈來愈大了！」

4.野蠻威脅型。史東表示，當你遇到習慣威脅恐嚇的人，最好的處理方式是走向他們，勇敢地說，「每次當你不高興時，就威脅我們的關係，這是不合理的。如果你真的在意，就讓我們直接討論問題本身。告訴我，你到底想要什麼樣的結果？」
溝通時多點耐心與細心，許多的誤會便不會發生。



 

溝通，從第一印象開始

這個演講的場景你一定不陌生。主持人剛介紹完今天演講的主題和講者、台上背景螢幕寫著演講主題和講者姓名、 聽眾手上的資料袋裡也有演講主題和講者姓名。然而，講者一上台卻還是說：「大家好，我的名字是某某某，我是甲公司的總經理，今天我要來跟大家談談Ａ主 題。」講者能給聽眾強有力第一印象的機會白白喪失。
史丹福商學院溝通議題研究中心主任斯蘭姆（JD Schramm），以這個例子說明，在進行溝通時，無論是書面還是口頭，第一印象是一個需要善用的資源。他強調：「你永遠沒有第二次機會給別人第一印象。」
跟剛剛提到的例子相反，去年，斯蘭姆聽到了一場令他至今難忘的演講。那場演講的講者是一位愛滋病專家，上台她開口的第一句話是：「有人做了愚笨的 事，才讓ＨＩＶ病毒擴散。」她一開始就抓住聽眾的心，想仔細聽下去，之後她分成四大部份，討論她對愛滋病的田野調查研究，內容紮實精彩。演講從第一句話到 整體結構，都經過精心設計，爆發的威力十足。
不只演講或簡報，寫求職信也常常可以看到第一印象被忽略了。很多人的求職信是從談自己開始：「我在某某求職網站上，看到貴公司刊登徵才廣告。我覺得 這個工作，我會做得很好。」斯蘭姆表示，想像自己是收到求職信的人事部門主管，看到這樣的開頭，並沒有讓人有特別想繼續讀下去的動力。
他建議，改成從對方的角度切入，從你的世界進入對方的世界。「貴公司想要找到一位幹勁十足的業務員，而我剛好就是這樣的一個人。」求職者的名字已經在信封上、在履歷表上、在自傳裡，所以求職信的第一句話，不需要是：「我的名字叫王小明，我想要應徵貴公司的業務。」
對電子郵件來說，第一印象是主旨欄。斯蘭姆請大家去看看，現在自己收件匣裡的電子郵件，有幾封信的主旨欄會讓自己想要打開來看。他猜測不到十分之 一。更糟的是，許多主旨欄不僅不吸引人打開來看，還根本看不出郵件的內容是什麼，例如，「上次問題的回覆」、「專案最新進度報告」等。
他建議撰寫電子郵件時，最後再寫主旨欄。因為只有在寫完郵件之後，才真正知道郵件的內容是什麼。
每個星期大家都有千百個機會，讓別人留下第一印象。仔細思考「第一印象」這件事，讓它產生加分作用。　
文章來源：EMBA雜誌第289期（2010年9月出版）

Moments Of Truth for Toastmasters

View more presentations from sebhaigh.