Techniques and Methods of Conducting Business Conversations

A business conversation — is verbal contact between people connected by business relations. In the modern, narrower interpretation, a business conversation is understood as verbal communication between interlocutors who have the necessary authority from their organizations and firms to establish business relations, resolve business problems, or work out a constructive approach to solving them.

The true significance of this kind of business communication in our society is only now beginning to be fully recognized, in connection with the transition of the domestic economy to market relations. Every year the country sees more and more enterprising and capable business people appear. At the same time, they clearly lack experience in entrepreneurial activity, and above all the ability to conduct a successful business conversation, which significantly reduces their business effectiveness. It therefore makes sense to examine the business conversation in more detail, in order to outline ways of conducting it more rationally.

Business conversations have many advantages that meetings, exchanges of written information, and telephone conversations lack. First, they are conducted in close contact, allowing attention to be focused on one interlocutor or a very limited group of people. Second, they involve direct communication. Third, they create conditions for establishing personal relationships that may later become the basis of informal contacts, i.e. they allow interlocutors to get to know each other better, which makes their future communication easier.

A business conversation is the most favorable, and often the only, opportunity to convince the interlocutor of the validity of your position, so that they agree with it and support it. Thus, one of the main tasks of the conversation — is to convince the interlocutor to accept a specific proposal.

A business conversation performs a number of very important functions. These include:

1) mutual communication among employees from the same business environment;

2) the joint search for, proposal of, and rapid development of working ideas and concepts;

3) the monitoring and coordination of business measures already underway;

4) the maintenance of business contacts;

5) the stimulation of business activity.

But it is not only the purely pragmatic effect of the business conversation that matters. During the conversation you can obtain up-to-date business information. It contributes to expanding the intellectual capacities and activating the collective intelligence of its participants when making important managerial decisions.

The main stages of a business conversation are: preparatory measures, the beginning of the conversation, informing those present, arguing the positions put forward, and concluding the conversation .

Preparatory measures

There are no unified, foolproof rules for preparing for a business conversation. However, it will be useful to point out the following version of a preparation scheme: planning; gathering material and processing it; analyzing the material gathered and editing it.

The venue of the conversation is chosen with regard to its influence on the expected result. For persons not working at the firm, the most convenient place will be the host's office or a special room for guests, equipped with everything necessary. The setting should in any case be calm, private, and preclude the unexpected appearance of outsiders, noise, phone calls, etc., since this is unsettling, but it should not be "intimate" either. In many respects it is determined even by the color of the walls, the lighting, the furniture, and the way it is arranged.

You can also meet with employees at their workplace. It is acceptable to hold business conversations outside of work as well, for example, in a restaurant, a cafe, or even at home. The main thing is that your interlocutor feels free and relaxed and can fully switch over to a business conversation.

Then you should choose the most opportune moment and only afterward arrange the meeting. In this case the initiative will be in your hands, and it will therefore be easier to control the situation.

Once a conversation has been scheduled, a plan for conducting it is drawn up. First you should determine the goals facing you, and then develop a strategy for achieving them and tactics for conducting the conversation.

Such a plan — is a clear program of actions for preparing and conducting a specific conversation. However, not everyone understands this, reasoning something like: «How can one plan a business conversation if a single new fact that suddenly comes up during the meeting can change everything in the most fundamental way and ruin all the preliminary planning?»

But the purpose of planning is precisely to try to soften, to neutralize the influence of unexpectedly emerging new facts or unforeseen circumstances on the course of the conversation. Preparation and planning of the conversation make it possible to anticipate possible unexpected moments in advance, which reduces the effectiveness of the interlocutor's remarks. In addition, one acquires the skill of a quick and flexible reaction when unforeseen circumstances arise.

Planning a business conversation makes it possible to define its specific tasks already at the beginning of preparation for it, to find and eliminate «bottlenecks» in the conversation, and to agree on the time for holding it.

Gathering material for a business conversation is a very labor-intensive process requiring considerable expenditure of time. But it is one of the most important stages of preparation for the conversation. It includes the search for possible sources of information (from personal contacts, reports, scientific research, publications, official data, etc.). In doing so, it is advisable to immediately supplement the collected materials with one's own notes, since such records can substantially help at the final stages of preparation for the conversation. The volume of collected materials largely depends on the general awareness of the participants of the upcoming conversation, the level of their professional knowledge, and the breadth of approach to the problem intended for discussion.

Then the collected and carefully selected factual data are systematized. This is somewhat reminiscent of the process of enriching ore, when its concentration is increased by sifting out the waste rock.

Systematization makes it possible to single out the most important facts to be considered. It facilitates finding them and helps establish previously unnoticed dependencies. Systematization should be carried out throughout the entire process of processing the material.

Analysis of the collected material helps determine the interrelation of facts, draw conclusions, select the necessary argumentation, i.e. make a first attempt to combine and link all the collected material into a single logical whole. The processed and systematized material is, as it were, laid out into the «cells» of the plan, and the «cells» themselves are linked together into larger parts.

It is desirable to supplement the material with text consisting of individual concepts and words, by linking which you obtain the meaning of what has been presented. It is also desirable to write down particularly successful formulations without abbreviation. Then one should highlight the most important points by underlining or by special marks (letters, circles, arrows, etc.).

It is quite useful before the conversation to try to compose a portrait of the partner, to determine his strengths and weaknesses, i.e. to establish his psychological type, political convictions, social positions, social status, religious beliefs, hobbies, etc.

All this will help determine whether one will be dealing with a supporter or an opponent, and to work out the most acceptable tactics to follow in the course of the conversation. Immediately before the meeting itself, it is desirable to find out what mood the partner is in, what is «bothering» him, how in this situation one can help solve his personal problems, which certainly gives any conversation a more favorable direction.

Knowledge of the future partner helps not only to get an idea of his personal qualities, but, most importantly, to understand his vision of the subject to be discussed, and the interests connected with it.

The preparation for the conversation is completed by editing the text, its final polishing, and refinement.

The beginning of the conversation

The beginning of the conversation — is a very important stage, and therefore should not be neglected. The tasks of this stage of the conversation are as follows:

— establishing contact with the interlocutor;

— creating a working atmosphere;

— drawing attention to the upcoming business conversation.

Any business conversation begins with an introductory part, to which up to 10-15% of the time is allotted. It is necessary to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding between the interlocutors and to relieve tension. If the meeting takes place between people of different ranks, the senior person should take the initiative. If it is between guests and hosts — the representative of the host side. In the latter case, it is advisable to offer the arriving guests some light refreshment, for example, a cold drink.

The initial stage of the conversation is, above all, of psychological significance. The first phrases often decisively affect the interlocutor, that is, their decision on whether to listen to you further or not.

Interlocutors are usually more attentive at the beginning of a conversation. It is precisely the first phrases that will determine the interlocutor's attitude toward you and toward the conversation itself (that is, the creation of a working atmosphere). An impression of a person is formed from the first phrases, and as is known, the effect of a «first impression» is always remembered for a very long time.

It is a good idea to smile while saying the first words. A smile in business relations creates an atmosphere of goodwill and contributes to the success of any negotiations. But it should not be a formal smile, but a sincere one, showing that you feel genuine joy at communicating with your interlocutor. Then it will be much easier for you to establish contact with your business partner and resolve any misunderstandings that arise during the business conversation.

At the beginning of the conversation, one should avoid apologies and displays of uncertainty. Any manifestations of disrespect or disdain toward the interlocutor should be excluded. One should not force the interlocutor, with the first questions, to look for counterarguments and take a defensive position, although this is a quite logical and completely normal reaction. However, from a psychological point of view, this is a clear mistake.

It is very useful, at the beginning of a conversation, to state the interlocutor's full name accurately and with the correct stress, to be sure to remember it, and thereafter to address the interlocutor by name as often as possible. This always makes a good impression. By remembering the partner's name and using it naturally, you pay the person a subtle and highly effective compliment.

If the interlocutor is lower in rank or younger in age, one should not overuse addressing them by first name alone, especially in the shortened American manner. In our country, it has been customary since ancient times to address people by first name and patronymic. That is our tradition, and it should not be broken.

A correct beginning of a conversation involves stating the purpose of the conversation, naming the topic, and announcing the sequence of the questions to be considered.

In some cases, an element of surprise can be very useful — a deliberate but unexpected and unusual linking of details and facts for the interlocutor.

The rhythm of the conversation is also of significant importance. One should try to increase its intensity as it approaches the end. In doing so, special attention should be paid to the key questions.

There are many techniques for beginning a conversation. However, all their variety can be reduced to three techniques.

The technique of TENSION RELIEF helps establish personal contacts. A few compliments are enough, and the estrangement will quickly begin to disappear. A joke that brings smiles or laughter from those present also helps to relieve the initial tension.

The technique of the «HOOK» allows one to briefly outline a situation or problem, linking it to the content of the conversation, and to use this «hook» as a starting point for beginning the conversation. For this purpose, one can also successfully use some minor event, a comparison, personal impressions, an amusing incident, or an unusual question.

The DIRECT APPROACH technique means going straight to the point without any introduction. Schematically, it looks as follows: you briefly state the reasons why the conversation was arranged, quickly move from general questions to particular ones, and get down to the topic of the conversation. This method is suitable mainly for short-term and less important business contacts, for example, in communication between a boss and a subordinate.

Informing those present

The next main stage of a business conversation is informing those present, i.e., conveying the information you want to acquaint them with. Such conveying must be accurate, clear (free of ambiguity, confusion, understatement), professionally correct, and, where possible, illustrative (using well-known associations and parallels, as well as visual aids). In doing so, whenever possible, one should tell those present the sources of your information and indicate their reliability.

Special attention should be paid to brevity of presentation. One must not forget the time constraints of the conversation. Voltaire once said: «The secret of being a bore is to tell everything».

One should constantly bear in mind the direction of the conversation, i.e., keep its main objectives in mind and not stray from the topic, even if the interlocutors bombard the speaker with questions.

During the conversation one must constantly address the interlocutor with questions, bearing in mind that personal influence is of great importance in business relations.

Most people, for many reasons, are reluctant to answer direct questions (insufficient knowledge of the subject, fear of conveying incorrect information, business constraints, difficulty in expressing themselves). Therefore, one must first interest the interlocutor, i.e., explain to him why answering your questions is in his interest. In addition, it does not hurt to explain why you are interested in this or that fact and how you intend to use the information obtained from him. One must remember that your interlocutor also asks himself: «Why do they want to know this? Why are they interested in it?».

In the process of informing, one should not interrupt the interlocutor without extreme necessity, but nor should one be afraid of pauses in the conversation — perhaps he is simply gathering his thoughts in order to say something important. But if the pause drags on, it is necessary to encourage the interlocutor with an indirect question that cannot be answered in one word, so that, willingly or not, he has to launch into lengthy reasoning. And here one must know only how to choose suitable moments for remarks and make them with good reason, tactfully, keeping in mind the need for self-criticism.

While informing, one must listen to the speaker sincerely and with interest. And at the same time try to remain oneself: natural, polite without formalism, a warm host, yet free of Manilov-like effusiveness.

While listening to the interlocutor, one must be able to perceive what is said «between the words», which is analogous to reading «between the lines». This is of paramount importance in conversations of senior officials, who often cannot afford to say openly everything they think and want.

When informing those present, one must firmly adhere to the main direction of the conversation, consistently pursue one's thought, one's opinion, not pushily but persistently defending it. All the questions raised are then considered in the order in which this was planned, and one should move on to the next only after the previous one has been discussed.

In the process of informing, one should carefully follow everything the interlocutor asks, the meaning of his words. If something is unclear, one should be sure to ask a clarifying question, but in such a way that the interlocutor, in answering, expresses his own opinion rather than trying to speak using worn-out stereotypes.

When informing, some interlocutors often try to hide their thoughts, get away with general phrases, avoid making concrete decisions. To do this, they usually use the following techniques:

— using expressions with no substantive content, such as: «there is a decision...» (whose?);

— using verbs that give no indication of the exact course of action, for example, «improvement is needed», «activation is required», etc.;

— making hints, when there is no specific indication of who is being talked about, for example, «there is an opinion...» (whose?);

— conveying information very vaguely and subjectively, when they say «this is good...» or «this is bad...» (and how is it for others?);

— generalizing information, changing its semantic content.

The use of such techniques significantly reduces the effectiveness of a business conversation and complicates the achievement of the set goal. One can list a number of other factors that need to be identified in the reported information and their negative influence should be «neutralized». Among them:

— averaging or, conversely, selectivity in the approach to perceived information;

— unwillingness to accept negative facts;

— simplification, expressed in forming an impression based on fragmentary information or a first impression;

— negative emotions caused by extraneous irritants;

— transferring a negative attitude toward certain individual traits of the interlocutor or details of the problem onto the overall assessment;

— conducting the conversation with an undertone.

Justification of the positions put forward

After informing those present and answering questions, the main stage of the business conversation begins — the justification of the positions put forward. At this stage a preliminary opinion is formed, and a certain position is taken both by you and by your interlocutor. With the help of arguments you can fully or partially change the position and opinion of the interlocutor, soften contradictions, critically examine the positions and facts presented by both sides.

In argumentation, two main constructions are distinguished: evidentiary argumentation, when you want to prove or justify something, and counter-argumentation, with the help of which you refute the statements of your negotiating partners.

The following main METHODS OF ARGUMENTATION (LOGICAL) are used to build both constructions.

The FUNDAMENTAL method is a direct appeal to the interlocutor, whom you acquaint with the facts and information that form the basis of your proof. If it concerns counter-arguments, then you must try to dispute and refute the interlocutor's arguments.

Numerical examples play an important role here. Figures look more convincing. Numerical data are the most reliable evidence in all discussions. This happens to a certain extent also because at that moment none of those present is in a position to refute the figures presented.

The CONTRADICTION method is based on identifying contradictions . in the opponent's argumentation. In its essence, this method is defensive.

The DRAWING OF CONCLUSIONS method is based on precise argumentation, which gradually, step by step, through partial conclusions, leads you to the desired conclusion.

When using this method, attention should be paid to so-called apparent causality. Detecting an error of this kind is not as simple as in the example of the use of apparent causality in a physics lesson. The teacher asked the student: «What do you know about the properties of heat and cold?» — «In heat all bodies expand, and in cold they contract». «Correct, — the teacher remarked, — now give a few examples». The student: «In summer it's warm, so the days are longer, and in winter it's cold — and the days are shorter».

The COMPARISON method is of exceptional value, especially when the comparisons are well chosen.

The «YES — BUT» method. Often the partner presents well-chosen arguments. However, they cover either only the advantages or only the weaknesses. But since in reality any phenomenon has both pluses and minuses, one can apply the «yes — but» method, which allows one to consider other sides of the subject under discussion as well. In this case you need to calmly agree with the partner, then begin to characterize the subject from precisely the opposite side, and soberly weigh which there is more of here, pluses or minuses.

The SLICING method consists of breaking down the partner's speech in such a way that individual parts become clearly distinguishable. These parts can be commented on, for example, as follows: «This is correct»; «There are various points of view on this»; «This and that are completely wrong».

In doing so, it is advisable not to touch upon the partner's strongest arguments, but to focus mainly on the weak points and try to refute precisely those.

The «BOOMERANG» method makes it possible to use the partner's own «weapon» against them. This method has no evidentiary force, but it has an exceptional effect if applied with a good dose of wit. Let us give an example of the use of this method. Demosthenes, the well-known Athenian statesman, and the general Phocion, his compatriot, were bitter political enemies. Once Demosthenes declared to Phocion: «If the Athenians get angry, they will hang you». To which Phocion replied: «And you too, of course, as soon as they come to their senses».

The IGNORING method. It very often happens that a fact presented by the partner cannot be refuted, but it can be successfully ignored.

The QUESTIONING method is based on the fact that questions are asked in advance. Of course, it is not always advisable to show your cards right away. But you can still ask the partner a number of questions in advance in order to at least basically identify their position.

Most often the questions are asked something like this: «What is your opinion on...» Using this method, you can begin general argumentation, in the course of which you deliberately force the partner to state their position.

The APPARENT SUPPORT method. What does it consist of? For example, your partner has presented their arguments, and now you take the floor: But you don't object or contradict them at all, and, to the astonishment of everyone present, on the contrary, you come to their aid, presenting new evidence in their favor. But only for appearance's sake. Then a counterattack follows, for example: «You forgot to also cite such facts in support of your idea... «But none of this will help you, because...» And then it's your counterarguments' turn.

In this way an impression is created that you have studied the partner's point of view more thoroughly than they have themselves, and after that have become convinced of the untenability of their theses. However, this method requires especially thorough preparation.

So, we have examined methods of argumentation based on logical proof, and now let us turn to SPECULATIVE METHODS OF ARGUMENTATION, which are better called tricks and should of course not be used in a serious discussion, but which one needs to know in order to protect oneself from a dishonest opponent.

The EXAGGERATION technique. Consists in generalizing of any kind and exaggeration, as well as in drawing premature conclusions.

The ANECDOTE technique. One witty or joking remark, said at the right time, can completely destroy even a carefully constructed argument.

The USE OF AUTHORITY technique. Consists in citing well-known authorities, which is far from always proof of a point of view, since the matter may concern something else entirely.

The DISCREDITING THE PARTNER technique. Based on the following rule: if I cannot refute the substance of the issue, then the interlocutor's personality can be called into question.

What should you do if your partner has stooped to such a level? Of course, you will not follow his example, but coolly point out his indecency to those present. It is even recommended in some cases to simply ignore such a jab.

The ISOLATION technique. It is based on «pulling out» individual phrases from a speech, isolating them, and presenting them in a truncated form so that they take on a meaning completely opposite to the original. It is also absolutely incorrect to omit what precedes a statement or immediately follows it.

The CHANGE OF DIRECTION technique. It consists in the partner not attacking your arguments but switching to another question that is, in essence, unrelated to the subject of the discussion. In practice he is trying to bypass the «hot spot» and get you interested in other problems. In this situation you must be extremely attentive in order to prevent any such maneuver in time.

The MISLEADING technique. It is based on conveying confused information to the partners. The interlocutor deliberately mixes everything up, trying to confuse everyone and thus avoid discussing a topic that is undesirable for him.

What should be done in this case? Of course, one must not falter! One should examine every point of such a partner's statement as if under a microscope and calmly continue the discussion.

The DELAY technique. Its purpose is to create obstacles to conducting the discussion or to drag it out. The partner asks already well-rehearsed questions, demands clarification on minor details, in order to gain time. This technique cannot be considered unconditionally manipulative. In this case it is advisable not to show surprise or embarrassment.

A discussion may be heated, but it must always remain honest. If your partner has convinced you, this should be acknowledged.

The APPEAL technique. This represents a dangerous form of «displacing» the process of reasoning. Here the partner acts not as a specialist but as a person appealing for sympathy. By playing on your feelings, he skillfully sidesteps unresolved business issues in the name of some vague moral and ethical norms.

If a partner uses this technique, you should immediately try to turn the discussion back onto «business tracks», although this is often very difficult, since such a technique is aimed at the feelings of the parties and blocks the path to reason.

The TRAP QUESTIONS technique. It is based on a set of premises designed to be suggestive. These questions fall into three groups:

1. Repetition. The same question or statement is repeated many times, which sooner or later weakens your critical thinking. For example, the ancient Roman statesman Cato ended every speech of his in the Senate with the words: «Furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed!»

2. Alternative. Alternative questions «close the horizon», implying only answers that fit your partner's concept. Example: «Will you study, or will you go work as a street sweeper?»

3. Counter-questions. Instead of checking and possibly refuting your arguments, the partner asks you counter-questions. It is best to fend them off right away. «I will gladly consider your question after your answer to mine, which, you must agree, was asked first».

The DISTORTION technique. This represents an outright perversion of what you said, or a rearrangement of emphasis.

Closely related to the technique of distortion is DEMAGOGY, i.e., a set of devices that make it possible to create the appearance of being right. Demagogy lies between logic and falsehood, differing from logic in defending incorrect judgments, and from falsehood in leading the listener to false conclusions, which the demagogue does not formulate himself, leaving this to the interlocutor. Demagogy has several varieties.

Demagoguery WITHOUT VIOLATING LOGIC finds its expression in the following techniques:

— omission of facts that the interlocutor cannot suspect, but which change the seemingly obvious conclusion;

— omission of a fact that is visible and perceived by the interlocutor «by evidence», which leads to an incorrect conclusion;

— omission of facts that change the conclusion, which the interlocutor can only guess if he does not trust the speaker;

— creating distrust in the interlocutor toward some fact by means of «building up» distrust in stages.

Demagoguery WITH AN IMPERCEPTIBLE VIOLATION OF LOGIC:

— use of a logical error, when a temporal connection is treated as a causal one;

— from A follows either B or C, but C is not mentioned;

— it is implied that if B follows from A, then A necessarily follows from B.

Demagoguery WITH NO CONNECTION TO LOGIC:

— use of «single-use» verbal blocks;

— answering an unasked but closely related question;

— reference to the authority of a non-specialist;

— mixing a correct and an incorrect statement in one phrase;

— an incorrect statement contained in the wording of the question;

— admission of one's minor and insignificant mistakes.

Let us now consider the TACTICS OF ARGUMENTATION, which differ significantly from the technique described above. Thus, if the technique of argumentation covers methodological aspects, i.e. indicates how to build argumentation, then the tactics of argumentation involve the art of applying specific techniques. Accordingly, technique — is the ability to present logical arguments, while tactics — is the ability to select from them the most suitable ones for a given specific case.

What then are the main principles of argumentation tactics?

Application OF ARGUMENTS. The argumentation phase has three levels: the level of main arguments, which you operate with in the process of argumentation itself; the level of auxiliary arguments, with which you reinforce the main arguments and which are rarely used more than once (they are applied only in the argumentation phase); the level of facts, with the help of which all the auxiliary arguments, and through them the main points, are proven (facts have the status of «ammunition» — they can be used only once).

You state the main arguments at every convenient opportunity, but if possible each time in a new place or in a new light. If it concerns lengthy negotiations, you should not use all the weapons from your arsenal at once — something should be left for the end. When laying out arguments, one should not rush to make decisions. (Voltaire said: «Hasty conclusions are the result of slow reflection».)

CHOICE OF METHOD OF ARGUMENTATION. Depending on the characteristics of the partners, different methods of argumentation are chosen. For example, for an engineer, a few figures will mean more than a hundred words. In this case, the fundamental method with numerical data should be applied.

ELIMINATION OF CONTRADICTIONS. It is important to avoid escalation or confrontation. If this still happens, one should immediately readjust and make peace with the partner, so that the following questions can be considered without conflict and professionally. There are some particularities here:

— critical questions are better considered either at the beginning or at the end of the argumentation phase;

— on especially delicate issues, one should talk to the partner privately before the negotiations begin, since much greater results can be achieved face to face than in the meeting room;

— in exceptionally complex situations, it is useful to take a break so that passions subside, and then return to the same issue again.

«STIMULATING THE APPETITE». It is most convenient to offer the partner options and information to preliminarily awaken their interest, and then (based on the «provoked appetite») indicate possible solution options with a detailed justification of the advantages.

TWO-SIDED ARGUMENTATION. This can be used when you point out both the advantages and the weak points of the proposed solution. In any case, you should mention the drawbacks that the partner could learn about from other sources of information.

One-sided argumentation can be used in cases where the partner is less educated, or has already formed their own opinion, or openly expresses a positive attitude toward your point of view.

THE ORDER OF ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES. It is known from psychology that the initial information has a decisive influence on the formation of the partner's position. Therefore, during argumentation, the advantages are listed first, and then the disadvantages.

REVERSE ORDER, i.e., listing the disadvantages first and then the advantages, is inconvenient because the partner may interrupt you before you get to the advantages, and then it will indeed be difficult to change their mind.

PERSONIFICATION OF ARGUMENTATION. You need to first try to identify your partner's position and then incorporate it into your argumentation, or at least not allow it to contradict your arguments. The simplest way to achieve this is through direct address, for example: "What do you think about this?", "In your opinion, how could this be done?" You can also express your approval, for example: "You are absolutely right!"

By acknowledging the partner's rightness or supporting them, you thereby make them feel obligated. As a result, they will accept your argumentation with less resistance.

In all cases, argumentation should be conducted correctly. You must always openly acknowledge the interlocutor's rightness when they are indeed right, even if it is disadvantageous for you. This gives you the right to expect and demand the same behavior from your interlocutor. Moreover, by acting this way, you do not violate business ethics.

Every businessperson makes an effort to maintain a reputation as an honest and decent person. Therefore, if you have to deal with a genuine swindler (and there are quite a few of them in our business world), the only possible way to achieve a positive result from them is to communicate with them as if they were a very honest and decent person. They will be so flattered by such treatment that they may very well manage to keep their word.

You have created a good reputation for them, and they will want to live up to it. They will make enormous efforts just to avoid disappointing you. Therefore, to achieve greater commercial success, try to create a good reputation for your partners, which they will be eager to live up to.

In the process of substantiating the points being put forward, it becomes necessary to convince the interlocutor (or interlocutors) of their validity. There are many techniques of persuasion. The most effective of them in a business conversation is showing the interlocutor what they should act for the sake of and why it is beneficial to them.

For an interlocutor who is not particularly experienced in business matters and who is also peaceably disposed, persuasion can take the form of guidance, forming a holistic attitude toward a certain activity. This can be accompanied by approval, direct or indirect.

When persuading the interlocutor that you are right, you need, above all, to speak in simple, clear language, formulate your thoughts precisely, and take into account their level of education, culture, and professional training.

Success in persuading the interlocutor is greatly aided by a correct style of conducting the conversation with them. Whatever happens during the meeting, one must maintain composure and politeness. In an argument, it is customary to first respond to all the other side's remarks, and only then present one's own arguments, and one should operate only with those arguments that the opponent acknowledges, presenting them as visually as possible whenever possible. It is best to admit mistakes openly and self-critically — this will only add to the respect shown by others.

It must be remembered that today people are no longer moved by slogans and appeals, so it is preferable to clearly demonstrate to the interlocutor the advantages of your point of view, tailoring the argumentation to the person's individual characteristics and ability to take it in. In this sense it is better to avoid verbosity, which causes irritation and can lead to rejection of any proposals, even good ones.

The process of persuasion can be made easier by applying a number of methods recommended by the already-mentioned V. R. Vesnin. Let us note some of them:

— the «RECASTING» method - gradually leading the partner to the opposite conclusion through a joint analysis of each stage of the decision-making procedure he has proposed;

-the method of OBTAINING AGREEMENT IN PRINCIPLE FIRST on the issue under discussion, and then «ironing out» individual details;

- the method of BREAKING DOWN THE INTERLOCUTOR'S ARGUMENTS into correct, doubtful, and erroneous ones, with a subsequent demonstration of the untenability of the overall concept if the share of indisputable arguments does not prove decisive;

- the method of POSITIVE ANSWERS, or the «Socratic method», the essence of which lies in structuring the discussion so that the interlocutor answers the first questions positively, these usually being simpler and more unambiguous; this will secure his agreement with more complex and fundamental statements;

- the method of CLASSICAL RHETORIC, which consists in agreeing with the interlocutor's statements, and then, having lulled his vigilance, suddenly refuting the arguments with a strong counterargument; related to it is the «explosion» method, based on artificially creating a situation that strikes the interlocutor and forces him to fundamentally change his views;

— the method of SLOWED PACE, which consists in a thorough enumeration of all the weakest points in the partner's argumentation, which will help draw his attention to the mistakes and eliminate them.

To achieve greater persuasiveness of argumentation, a few more simple rules should be observed. Let us list them.

Adapt your arguments to the personality of your interlocutor. Avoid a simple listing of facts; instead, present the advantages or consequences arising from these facts that interest your interlocutor (first characteristics and features, then advantages and ways of use).

Use terminology that is understandable to the interlocutor, since otherwise you will not only fail to convince him but will also spoil his mood by the fact that he is unable to — ⁽ grasp your argumentation.

Do not forget that excessive persuasiveness provokes resistance from the interlocutor, especially if he has an aggressive nature.

Try to present your evidence as clearly as possible. When giving convincing arguments and vivid comparisons, remember that the comparisons must be based on the interlocutor's experience. Otherwise there will be no result, since the interlocutor will be unable to grasp their meaning due to not understanding the connection between the phenomena being compared.

In the case where the interlocutor, despite your efforts to convince him, begins to object decisively, it is useful to recall TWO TACTICAL TECHNIQUES.

1. Do not rush to react to the interlocutor's very first objection, bearing in mind that an agitated person stops listening to you, because he is trying to do three things at once: 1) calculate the moral damage (even if imaginary); 2) find a cutting reply to «sting» the offender; 3) derive satisfaction from his awkwardness when the latter cannot answer properly. Therefore it is better to patiently hear the interlocutor out to the end and try to understand the reason for his objection. Perhaps your position is not very solid, the arguments unconvincing; the interlocutor did not understand you, did not appreciate your argumentation for various reasons, perhaps you did not express yourself clearly enough; or he simply finds you unlikeable, and he objects not on the merits but out of stubbornness, an inner rejection of your personality. It is clear that your further tactics in the conversation will be built depending on the reasons for the disagreement. You will either try to back up your reasoning with more convincing arguments, or explain your position more clearly, or tactfully break off the conversation.

It makes sense to consider whether you and your interlocutor might be talking about different things, since this happens so often. A different understanding of the same thing is usually perceived as a difference of viewpoints. Try to continue the conversation with this in mind.

2. Do not respond to objections in a categorical tone, for this will show you in a very unfavorable light. It is not for nothing that some wise person once noted: "Categoricalness —is a sign of narrow-mindedness." To state something categorically means to think that you possess the absolute truth. Categoricalness is a way of depriving yourself of a path to retreat, of the possibility of jointly searching for the truth. Convinced of your own rightness, you categorically answered the interlocutor's objection, though it may have contained a very sound consideration that would be hard not to agree with, but you have already backed yourself into a corner. Therefore, in any case, seek the answer to the interlocutor's objection together with them, and choose your words carefully:

Concluding the conversation

The final stage of the conversation — is its conclusion. Successfully concluding a conversation — means achieving the goals set in advance. At the final stage the following tasks are resolved:

— achieving the primary or (in an unfavorable case) the backup (alternative) goal;

— ensuring a favorable atmosphere;

— stimulating the interlocutor to carry out the planned actions;

— maintaining further (if necessary) contacts with the interlocutor and their colleagues;

— drawing up a summary with a clearly expressed main conclusion, understandable to everyone present.

Any business conversation has its ups and downs. In this connection the question arises: when should the conversation be shifted into its concluding phase — the decision-making phase. Practice proves that this should be done when the conversation reaches its culminating moment. For example, you have answered your interlocutor's very important remark so exhaustively that their satisfaction with your answer is obvious.

An example of their typical comment in this case: "This definitely needed to be clarified!"

Your answer should immediately be followed by a positive conclusion, for example: "Together we have confirmed that adopting this proposal will be very advantageous for you."

It would be a mistake to think that the interlocutor has retained all your arguments in memory and remembered all the advantages of the solution you proposed. Their typical statement in the concluding phase of the conversation is usually: "I need to think it all over thoroughly once more." But this is more a state of "having a full head" than a manifestation of their indecisiveness. Therefore in such cases one needs to use techniques for accelerating the decision-making. There are two such techniques: direct and indirect acceleration.

DIRECT ACCELERATION. An example of this technique: "Shall we make the decision right away?" Most often the interlocutor has not yet managed to make a decision, and so they answer: "No, not yet. I still need to think it all over."

Using the "direct acceleration" technique, a decision can be made in the shortest possible time. But this technique often fails to achieve its goal, since in 50% of such cases the interlocutor says "no."

INDIRECT ACCELERATION. This technique allows you to lead your interlocutor toward the desired goal gradually. Its advantage is that you begin working toward your goal quite early, reducing the degree of risk of failure.

There are four variants of this technique. Hypothetical approach. Almost all people experience some fear when finding themselves in a situation where they need to make a decision. In this connection, it is advisable to speak only of a conditional decision, so that the interlocutor relaxes and gets used to it gradually. The following formulations are suitable for this: «If...», «In case...», «Suppose that...»

Step-by-step decisions. The interlocutor's final conclusion can be anticipated by assuming that the main decision of the conversation has already been made. Then only preliminary or partial decisions are made. In this way you fix individual points of decisions even before the interlocutor has given their consent. As a result, a strong effect (through suggestion) is achieved on the interlocutor in the desired direction.

Alternative decisions. The essence of this approach is that you offer the interlocutor alternative options for resolving the issue. It is important that both options suit you.

Key question. Answers to your questions at the end of the conversation can ease the interlocutor's position, especially at the moment when you address them with a seemingly harmless but pivotal question. For example: «What would you prefer...», «What conclusion would you come to in this case?»

What is the advantage of the pivotal question? The interlocutor will try to answer the question posed precisely, while their thoughts at that moment will switch away from the decision they are about to make, i.e. they will be temporarily freed from the psychological burden of responsibility. In such a state it will be easier for them to make a decision afterward.

All the listed methods of indirect acceleration of decision-making are productive in themselves, and if used in combination, their effectiveness will be even higher.

By applying these methods, you as it were lead your interlocutor into a harmless dead end. They delve into it and involuntarily approach the final decision.

An example of such a combination: «Let's now imagine (hypothetical approach) that you have familiarized yourself with the products of both our firms. Which firm's product suits you best (step-by-step decision) — «Planet» or «Mercury» (alternative decision)? What do you think about this (key question)?

The interlocutor remembers the concluding part of the speech best of all. This means that the last words have the strongest effect on them. In this connection it is recommended to write down and memorize by heart a few final sentences or at least the concluding one.

Experienced business people usually think in advance of two or three variants of concluding sentences, in order to later decide, depending on the course of the conversation, which of them — softer or harsher in form — to pronounce.

It is very important to separate the conclusion of the conversation from its main part, for example, with the help of such expressions as: «Let's sum up», «So, we have come to the end of our conversation».

Now it is necessary to decide the question of when to say the words indicating the conclusion of the conversation. This depends on the presence of at least one of the conditions under which the conversation can be concluded:

a) if you have used control questions to steer the conversation toward the desired goal;

b) if you have provided arguments convincing to the interlocutor;

c) if you have given answers satisfying the interlocutor to the questions raised during the conversation;

d) if you have successfully dealt with all the interlocutor's objections;

e) if you have managed to create a favorable atmosphere for concluding the conversation.

When these conditions are met, it is not necessary to push the interlocutor toward action; on the contrary, they may themselves suggest speeding up the decision-making.

Here are typical questions from the interlocutor indicating that the conversation is concluded, when the decision has already been made: «And will you take part in...»; «Can this also be used to...?»; «Are you sure we will accomplish this on time?»; «When can work begin?»; «How are things with the deadlines?»

Another sign indicating that the conversation is nearing its end is a change in the interlocutor's behavior:

— in a relaxed state he leans forward with an expression of interest, or, conversely, spreads or clasps his hands;

— shows signs of a friendly attitude;

— listens to your presentation with an expression of approval, sometimes nodding;

— leafs through your proposal again, reviewing once more the data contained in it.

Let us now consider the tactical techniques that help clarify the situation when concluding a conversation.

If you notice that the interlocutor is furrowing his brow in search of a suitable remark, you should try to find out from him what he disagrees with, reasonably applying the technique of questions. Example: «Does this correspond to your expectations... If not, why?» In this way you will learn the true reason for your interlocutor's resistance.

In all cases, alternative solutions should be avoided at the end of a conversation.

One can move on to making a decision only when you have reached full agreement with your interlocutor.

You should always be prepared for the word «no». If the interlocutor has said «no», the conversation must not be ended. You should have prepared options that will allow you to continue the conversation and overcome this «no».

Feel free to ask the interlocutor whether he agrees with your decision.

Always wait for the interlocutor to agree with your decisions himself.

Do not show uncertainty when making a decision. If you have doubts at that moment, do not be surprised if your interlocutor begins to doubt as well.

Always keep one strong argument in reserve to support your thesis, in case the interlocutor begins to waver at the moment of decision-making. Experienced business people never allow surprises at the end of a business conversation. They always have an excellent argument in reserve, with the help of which they can successfully conclude it. For example: «Yes, I forgot to add: in case of failure we will cover all the expenses ourselves».

Carefully make sure that you always remain consistent from the standpoint of truth. Use reliable arguments. With the help of half-truths one can force an interlocutor into some decision, but one cannot build correct and durable business relationships.

Do not retreat until the interlocutor has clearly repeated the word «no» several times.

Do not give up at the mercy of the interlocutor until you have tried all known methods of speeding up the decision-making process.

Often, at the end of a conversation, interlocutors put forward strong arguments but forget to prepare conclusions from the main points in advance. As a result, an unclear conclusion to the conversation sharply reduces the impression made by everything that was persuasively said earlier. Therefore, serious attention should be paid to summing up at the end of a conversation.

The conclusion of a conversation cannot be reduced merely to a simple repetition of its most important points. The main ideas must be formulated very clearly and concisely. You must give the overall conclusion an easily digestible form, i.e. make several logical statements, full of meaning and significance. Every detail of the summarizing conclusion must be clear and understandable to everyone present; there should be no room for superfluous words and vague formulations. One main idea should predominate in the summarizing conclusion, expressed most often in the form of several points that consistently convey it in the most condensed form possible. In written form, the CONCLUSION consists of sections, each of which represents an independent semantic block, although as a whole they are logically interconnected and represent a unity which together characterizes the results of the conversation held.

The conclusion is drawn up on the basis of a written record of the entire conversation. This record — is an extremely important document, in which all the necessary formalities must be observed and the following must be indicated:

— the surnames, first names, and patronymics of those present, their positions (level, rank, permanent place of work);

— the duration of the conversation;

— on whose initiative it took place.

If the author of the record of the conversation conducted it himself, he draws up this record in his own name, but in doing so omits the pronoun «I», i.e., uses impersonal sentences. The partner is referred to in the third person, but the pronoun «he» is not used. The words «interlocutor», «partner», and the proper name are used instead. If the conversation was conducted by the head of the delegation, and the record of the conversation was made by someone else, the head of the delegation is referred to by his proper name.

The record of the conversation should be concise, but it must record the purpose of the conversation, the questions discussed, the parties' positions, the considerations expressed, the objections, and the agreements reached. Procedural aspects of the meeting are omitted from the record. If an exchange of materials or documents took place during the conversation, this fact must definitely be reflected in the record. Facts of receiving or presenting commemorative gifts are also recorded.

Summing up everything stated above, let us formulate the basic principles of successfully conducting a business conversation, and also recall the most important practical recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of its conduct.

First let us single out five universal principles that can be applied in any business situation.

If you are unable to attract the interlocutor's attention, if he is not listening to you, why should you say anything at all? Therefore the first principle — is to ATTRACT the interlocutor's ATTENTION (the beginning of the conversation).

If your interlocutor shows interest in the conversation, this means that your presentation will be useful to him and he will listen to you attentively. Consequently, you must INTEREST the interlocutor — this is the second principle (conveying information).

The next step consists in using the interest thus aroused to convince the interlocutor that he would be acting sensibly by agreeing with your ideas and proposals, since their implementation will bring definite benefit to him and his firm. This is the third principle of conducting a business conversation - the principle of DETAILED JUSTIFICATION (argumentation).

The interlocutor has become interested in your ideas and proposals, has understood their expediency, but still behaves cautiously and does not see the possibilities of applying these ideas and proposals at his own enterprise or firm. Having aroused interest and convinced the interlocutor of the expediency of what has been said, you must identify and distinguish his wishes. Thus, the fourth principle — is to IDENTIFY THE INTERESTS AND REMOVE THE DOUBTS of your interlocutor (countering objections).

And the fifth, main principle of conducting a business conversation consists in TRANSFORMING the interlocutor's interests INTO A FINAL DECISION