Saying "no" seems simple, but it is not easy. Some people are born good people, but they just don't have the courage to say no to others. I read an article saying that "no" is actually an energy. Mr. Nice guy dare not do it because he lacks this kind of energy. In fact, this is in line with human nature, because we are generally afraid of the unknown, such as fear that the other party will disagree, fear of provoking ourselves, fear that we can't do it, and so on. But in fact, our rights protection is justified because our rights and interests have been damaged. If we don't protect our legitimate rights and interests ourselves, who do you depend on? Besides, there's nothing to be afraid of. It is the other person who should be afraid, because you are the righteous one. Please keep this in mind.
The second point: bravely put forward your demands, that is, what kind of goals you want to achieve.
A clear goal is the first step in doing anything. Goals include: How much will the other party pay? Or let the other party redo it? Or can it be modified directly? You must never lose your temper with each other, and then you don't know what to do next, then you will be angry in vain. It is necessary to find out your own losses and put forward your own reasonable demands. There are direct losses and indirect losses. In China at present, it's good that you can get the direct loss back. Of course, you can tell the other party about the indirect loss. Although it is unnecessary, it is equivalent to letting him go, and it is not without loss.
Case 1: All the tiles in my house are made of Kelpolo brand, and the mosaic in the living room doesn't match my design. The original design of the thin strips between mosaics was 5CM, but the merchants cut them into 3.5cm after splicing, which made them feel uncomfortable visually. I didn't know the business was wrong until I asked the designer. I defended my rights with the merchants, and the goal was clear: it affected the effect of my two mosaics, so I asked the other party for compensation: the money for the two mosaics plus the cost of repaving the broken tiles. The rest of the living room doesn't matter, so you can't ask others for compensation. The merchant disagreed, saying that it was only the police who were wrong and could only compensate the police. I argued that if it wasn't paved, you only had to pay the note. Let's process it again and spread it. But now that the paving is completed, if you have a technology that can widen the area of thin strips without touching other tiles, then I agree. Merchants naturally do not have this technology. You called several times in the middle and finally had to agree to my request. This specific struggle process will be written in detail later.
Specific case 2: For example, Gome didn't give me the bill of lading and asked me to reissue it. I took all the things she gave me, but I didn't (because they were all ordered together, which was clear at a glance). The other party didn't give it to me, so I told her my needs: deliver the goods on time according to my requirements, and don't make up the bill, because I didn't cause the result of not billing, so I can't bear the loss for them.
The third point: constantly rejecting the unreasonable demands of the other party and guiding the other party to follow their own ideas is actually a negotiation process.
At present, the management of enterprises in China is not standardized, and the quality of employees is mostly poor. For their own interests, merchants will make all kinds of criticisms about your reasonable demands, trying to confuse the audience, but in the end they will deny it and start bargaining. The other party made various unreasonable demands and even moved out of various rules and regulations. You have to understand that these are normal and not worth getting angry about. Use your wisdom to reject them one by one and keep repeating your demands.
Case 1: A case in which my rights and interests were infringed by Kelpolo: Kelpolo's supervisor talked to me: In the first round, we played emotional cards in an attempt not to compensate: you see that we have a good relationship, and you see that the service provided by a clerk is good. As soon as you claim, she has to pay for it. The price of your two mosaic tiles is about 10 thousand yuan. Do you think she can afford it? If she is fired from the company for this, isn't it difficult for her to find a job? I replied: You are right, but there is only one situation that applies, that is, if she runs this store, I found her through my relationship, and people gave me a lot of advantages because of my friends. Now there is a problem. I shouldn't ask others for help, because I am a friend. But that's not the case now. I'm not talking about the clerk or anyone. I don't have any personal relationship with the clerk. I'm talking about Kyle Polo, a shopping company, including the brand value of Kyle Polo, and high-end brands have this service. Think about your colleagues. I think you are very good. From my experience in working in an enterprise, you don't need to worry about this. Enterprises have this formal process to deal with problems. Kelpolo has a large number of designers, supervisors, auditors and so on. Don't these people work, and all the work is left to the clerk? Then you don't have to worry about her. She is so important to your company that your company will be paralyzed as soon as she leaves, and your company will never dare to dismiss her. I went on to say that, of course, a shop assistant will take a little responsibility, but people have to pay for all their responsibilities, which is the price they must pay for growing up. So the supervisor has nothing to say, hehe. Then this round of contest was over, and I asked him to go back and claim for me. The second round, compensation reduction strategy: tell me that the leader agrees to accompany the fine, because only the fine is wrong, and I disagree. Tell him that although the fine lines are wrong, the paving affects the whole mosaic effect, so I disagree with this statement. Please go back and ask the leader. In the third round, the other party continued to increase the price, saying that the leader agreed to compensate the tile mosaic, but the paving fee could not be compensated (the paving fee was less than 3,000 yuan). I said I didn't agree, because the berth fee is also a direct loss, and I haven't calculated the indirect loss for you yet. Go back and ask for instructions from the leader. In the fourth round, the other party said that the berth fee really could not be paid. Can we introduce our partners to give you a discount when sewing? At this time, I compromised and said that the money could be deducted from the total sewing price, which I could accept. In the second part, I will talk about why I want to compromise, because when it comes to compromise, I have to compromise appropriately. So, this round of negotiations ended successfully with my victory.
Case 2: In the middle of the renovation, the contractor who gave me a specific job suggested that the original money was not enough, and a number of items were added, which could be paid directly to him or to the decoration company. I asked him to make a detailed statement and he gave it to me. Several items were added after no dispute, so they are payable, OK! I said I would go back and check the original contract, and then I did. I think I have received it, so I shouldn't pay it. He said it wasn't enough, but I should pay. I said it was an unreasonable request. I haven't changed these two items from beginning to end. Why not? Not enough. You should call your company instead of me. The other party didn't want to, and threatened me to withdraw from the construction site. Dear friends, you have come and gone several times, and basically a week has passed. I did it on purpose. If I don't delay one more day, the other party will work one more day, which is more beneficial to me. Finally, if he really quits and I don't give any increase, it should be him who suffers. So at this moment I saw the wisdom of my strategy, hehe. Back to the original topic, I told him it was okay. You can go, and I'll find your company. As for the team, I don't care. The other party can't blackmail me. They mainly say that he was not easy and lost. I said I'll pay for the rest, and I shouldn't pay any money for these two items, but if you say so, how much I will give you (about 20% of his dismissal money), you can agree, and if you don't agree, forget it. The other party agrees! It ended in my victory again.
The fourth point: appropriate compromise.
As you can see, both the Kelpolo case and the decoration price increase case were at the last minute, and I made a little compromise. Why do we have to do that？ Dear friends, this involves a little wisdom in being a man and doing things, and a little awareness of protecting yourself. Generally, at the end of the negotiation, the other party loses. Although he is ignored, he will feel unfair, unwilling and even depressed. At this time, most of the requirements have been met, so we will take care of each other's psychological feelings and take care of each other's feelings. I just learned it from the baby's father recently. He is a person who takes care of others' feelings, so his career is quite successful, and I have learned a lot from him.
Remember, let the other side make a little, generally not more than 20% of the amount of your dispute, and in extreme cases not more than 30%. In this way, he will feel more comfortable psychologically and avoid extreme events. For example, hot pot restaurants spill boiling water on customers. As mentioned earlier, this extreme case is aimed at the current situation in China. After all, the purpose of our rights protection is to live a better life, not to cause ourselves big trouble.
Borrowing a famous saying in A Dream of Red Mansions: "I forgot to put my hand behind me and face no way back", here we take a warning from the latter sentence: In the face of no way back, the result is good after all. Most afraid of more extreme consequences, such as: many people failed to defend their rights and were very angry with themselves until they died of hypertension; Zhaoyuan murder victim also met a very extreme criminal. Of course, the probability is very, very low, but it is impossible to protect your own safety. Therefore, when the rights are almost protected, we will withdraw our hands in time. At this time, your mind is happy. Although the other side lost the battle, they were psychologically balanced. This result is far from sulking at home!