Colleagues are inefficient and can't keep up with the rhythm. Should we communicate with him?

At work, we inevitably meet some colleagues who are stubborn and difficult to communicate with. When communicating with such people, they always either don't reply to the information for a long time, or they don't have anything to say in the middle, or they simply say that it's not their own business.

Often, we follow their ideas and try to persuade them, but in the end, we basically end up arguing.

even if we don't want to argue with him, we often feel that we can't control our emotions at that moment when the other person's tone is excited.

as for work? It has long been forgotten in the quarrel.

At work, it is often the identity conflict behind the compromise contradiction of one party.

At work, we can't avoid some minor contradictions with colleagues. We either choose to give in, or choose to be tough, but the more we compromise, the more tired we get, the more outrageous we quarrel, and the more we quarrel, the more we often argue that things have nothing to do with what we discussed at the beginning.

Actually, do we say "You don't respect me", "Why should I listen to you" and "Your ideas are all wrong" have anything to do with the work of discussion, rationality and interests? No.

But most of the time, these words are always in the end of a quarrel. Why?

I read a book recently, which gives the answer. It divides people into three dimensions:

Dimension 1: Rational people, which is when we are talking about reason, law and standards.

dimension 2: emotional people, which is when we talk about closeness.

dimension 3: identity person.

Everyone has his own identity

What is an identity person? For example, in the school, we have 34 bedrooms, and the opposite is 33 bedrooms. At that time, it was originally two people across the building, and as a result, they scolded and pulled to the two buildings. As a result, more and more people joined in the two dormitory buildings.

do you know each other? I don't know. Is it reasonable to argue? It doesn't make sense. But for the honor of my own building, I just want to go. If I don't join, I won't belong to this dormitory.

In order to maintain our identity, the communication we have often has nothing to do with facts, but focuses on respect. Why should we listen to your logic?

this is the irrational communication brought by the identity person.

it's the same at work, when people face each other or we talk about two identities, your department's and ours. Then nothing can be discussed. The first thing that comes out of communication is: your department XX, our department XX.

whether we are right or not, we can't admit cowardice. To admit cowardice is a betrayal of our own department and our identity.

in this case, no work can be carried out.

So we should learn to be uncompromising. The uncompromising here is not uncompromising to our colleagues, but uncompromising to our inner identity, and being a rational person instead of an identity person. How to be uncompromising about your inner identity?

We should be uncompromising about our identity, which can be divided into two parts, which is effective whether we are communicating with colleagues or family members. Part 1: Recognizing that the inner self has fallen into irrational discussion Part 2: Returning to rationality with the help of external forces < P > Let's first talk about how to recognize that the inner self has fallen into irrational discussion.

We often argue with our colleagues until we are red in the face, and even argue for the sake of argument later.

When we get into a heated argument with our colleagues, we might as well take a deep breath first, then. Deep breath can help us calm down.

step two, learn to be a blow. The first trick is to keep in mind the purpose of communication and conversation. What do we communicate for?

We're going out to see a movie this time. We're negotiating this time so that both companies can make money, instead of talking about the fact that we'll never talk to each other and report to each other.

family quarrels, we are here to fight, not to make the quarrel worse. It is very interesting that there was a news before that the husband and wife quarreled and the brother-in-law went to stop the fight. As a result, the brother-in-law joined the quarrel and even started fighting. That's why I can't remember the purpose of communication.

the second measure is to broaden our horizons.

The consciousness of broadening our horizons is whether we can not get caught up in this matter. Then lengthen the time and enlarge the space, and our hearts will be broadened, and we will have more dimensions to solve problems than others.

I remember that I used to call a colleague to convince him to read the plan, but he just wouldn't read it. I was so anxious that I felt as if the part he was responsible for was falling apart. But later, when I got to the back, I found that his part was actually not important, and I could handle it myself.

If we don't have that broad vision, we can't open the distance between this physical environment and time, and we won't look at it from another angle, then we will never get into that dispute.

Part 2: Returning to rationality with the help of external forces

A lot of work can't be solved by communication at our own level. This is not a question of cooperation or non-cooperation, but we can't make decisions ourselves. In this way, no matter how quarrelling, you can't push the work down.

or when the two sides quarrel, you can't return to rationality by yourself.

at this time, we need the help of legal authority.

Then there is the legal authority. What do you mean, the legal authority? When I was a child, there was a big family in our family. Every time our big family quarreled, when the quarrel could not be solved, they said to invite grandma out. It's the oldest grandmother in our house. Then she sat there and said, you can talk on both sides. You found that as long as she sat there, everyone stopped arguing and everyone became calm.

In work, when it is found that neither side can convince anyone, it is better to report it to the superior leader and let them make a decision.

It not only avoids unnecessary quarrels, but also promotes the development of work.

Finally, if we want to have a good communication effect in our work and life, we have to learn one thing, that is, to learn to release the power of identity.

We can't defend my identity by ignoring the facts, that is, we don't admit our mistakes or apologize.

When others are easily trapped in identity, and we are good at looking at identity beyond it, we can even think from each other's point of view, and then promote the progress of our work. This is the power to release identity.