Status Updates From Подумайте еще раз. Сила зна...

By asking questions rather than thinking for the audience, we invite
them to join us as a partner and think for themselves. If we approach an
argument as a war, there will be winners and losers. If we see it more as a
dance, we can begin to choreograph a way forward.

This success isn’t unique to her: there’s evidence that people are more interested in hiring candidates who acknowledge legitimate weaknesses as opposed to bragging or humblebragging.

Psychologists have long found that the person most likely to persuade
you to change your mind is you. You get to pick the reasons you find most
compelling, and you come away with a real sense of ownership over them.

We won’t have much luck changing other people’s minds if we refuse
to change ours. We can demonstrate openness by acknowledging where we agree with our critics and even what we’ve learned from them. Then, when we ask what views they might be willing to revise, we’re not hypocrites.

When we argue about why, we run the risk of becoming emotionally attached to our positions and dismissive of the other side’s. We’re more likely to have a good fight if we argue about how.

Starting a disagreement by asking, “Can we debate?” sends a message that
you want to think like a scientist, not a preacher or a prosecutor—and
encourages the other person to think that way, too

Experiments show that simply framing a dispute as a debate rather than
as a disagreement signals that you’re receptive to considering dissenting
opinions and changing your mind, which in turn motivates the other person
to share more information with you. A disagreement feels personal and
potentially hostile; we expect a debate to be about ideas, not emotions.

Disagreeable people don’t just challenge us to think again. They also
make agreeable people comfortable arguing, too.

John’s natural tendency is to avoid conflict: at restaurants, if the waiter brings him the wrong dish, he just goes ahead and eats it anyway. “But when I’m involved in something bigger than myself,” he observes, “I feel like I have an opportunity, a responsibility really, to speak up, speak out, debate. Fight like hell when the morning whistle blows, but go out for a beer after the one at five o’clock.”

It’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Although I’m terrified of hurting other people’s feelings, when it comes to challenging their thoughts, I have no fear. In fact, when I argue with someone, it’s not a display of disrespect—it’s a sign of respect. It means I value their views enough to contest them. If their opinions didn’t matter to me, I wouldn’t bother.

Disagreeable givers often make the best critics: their intent is to elevate the work, not feed their own egos. They don’t criticize because they’re insecure; they challenge because they care. They dish out tough love.*

We learn more from people who challenge our thought process than
those who affirm our conclusions. Strong leaders engage their critics and
make themselves stronger. Weak leaders silence their critics and make
themselves weaker.

There’s evidence that disagreeable people speak up more frequently—especially when leaders aren’t receptive—and foster more task conflict. They’re like the doctor in the show House or the boss in the film The Devil Wears Prada. They give the critical feedback we might not want to hear, but need to hear.