To be continued. The beginning in the previous part "What's a "gingerbread" better than a "whip"? (Part 1)"
POSITIVE INCENTIVES YIELD POSITIVE RESULTS
You want to get more out of people? Then don't scold or criticize them, but rather praise and encourage them.
It happened in America. One man was appointed president of a major construction firm. By then she was on the verge of bankruptcy. The building the firm was building required costs that exceeded the firm's financial capacity. The President came to the construction site to see how the work was going. He saw that some workers had erected the wall to a height of more than 3 meters, while others had built the wall to a height of no more than half a meter, i.e. some of them were performing their duties, while others were not performing their duties. What did the president do?
He returned to his car, took some envelopes and paper and returned to the construction site. When he walked past the sites where the work was good and excellent, he stopped and wrote on a piece of paper: "Thank you for a great job! Then he'd take the $20 bill out of his wallet, wrap it in a note, put it all together in an envelope, and leave it in this area.
That evening, he spent almost $400 from his resources. But, as he later recalled, "you should have seen these builders at work the next day!
As a result, the work was finished two months (!) earlier and cost $100,000 (!) cheaper than the contract price. And from these means, the president could not only return the spent 400 dollars but also give out to all workers bonuses...
Now imagine what would have happened if he new president had acted "logically" in this situation - that is, as most of us do in such cases: he would have started shouting at poorly performing builders. In this case, one could hardly expect the effect and results that would have been obtained after the "not logical" approach, i.e. the encouragement of well-performing workers.
So, it is not fear of punishment or criticism that is the best method of education, but praise and encouragement. That is, "psychological stroking". By agreeing with the person, praising him and encouraging him, we confirm his importance and significance for us. Namely, this is what each of us expects from any interlocutor.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO WHEN WE ARE "ATTACKED"?
When a person is not in a better mood, he or she seeks to get rid of this unpleasant state in two ways. He or she either starts to behave aggressively or resort to criticism. If criticizing others, as we already know, isn't a very wise and productive occupation, then what about when they criticize us?
Most often people use two methods of protection against criticism.
The first method is to throw the stone back at the offender.
That is, to answer the same question: "Well, you're an asshole! - "You'll see the goat in the mirror!
Or: "Are you a fool? - Are you looking for company?
The second method is to start making excuses. They say that I am not to blame, others are to blame, don't blame me, I'm good ... Psychologists say that both methods have significant disadvantages because they do not contribute to the resolution of the conflict. Then what to do when we are "attacked"?
First of all, let's be honest: criticism of the criticism of dissent. In other words, there is a fair critique and there is an unfair one. If fair criticism is becoming more or less understandable - since we have missed, then we must admit our guilt and apologize, and then try to learn from the mistake. But how to react to unfair criticism?
What, first of all, do you want to do when somebody tells him/her of impudence, habits or insults? The answer is obvious: to put the brazen man in his place.
It is not for nothing in the east they say:
"Donkey only respects the stick.
A fool can't be reasoned with logical arguments - he, like an ass, respects only force. And speech is a sign of weakness or strength of the speaker. Witty people are saved by their sharp tongue - few people want to be the object of their ridicule. If ingenuity and sharp mind are not your trumps, then your only salvation is to follow the advice of the Spanish writer Francisco Kevedo. He called on all those who do not wear swords "in case of collision with a fool" to equip themselves with "stabbing" and "piercing" phrases that break the fool. As you know, "good must be with your fists", isn't it?
To be continued in the next part "What's a "gingerbread" better than a "whip"? (Part 3)"