20 strategies and tactics of business communication. Strategy and tactics of interaction

In any interaction strategy, the status of the partner is of great importance, and not a permanent status, but the status “here and now”, at the moment of communication. One possible way to understand communication is to perceive the position of the partners, as well as their positions relative to each other. Above we looked at positions from the point of view of “leader-slave” interaction; now we will focus on other positions in communication.

Typically, positions in communication are considered in line with transactional analysis. This direction in psychology was developed in the 60s. XX century American psychologist and psychiatrist Eric Berne. The scheme he developed, in which Eric Berne identifies three modes of behavior: Parent, Child, Adult, has received the greatest popularity and practical application. At any moment, each person can be in the state of either an Adult, a Parent, or a Child, and depending on this state, interaction is carried out, the positions and status of participants in joint activities are determined.

Each type of state is important for interaction participants:

• the parent-partner knows everything, understands everything, never doubts, demands from everyone, is responsible for everything;
• the Adult partner soberly, analyzes realistically, does not give in to emotions, thinks logically;
• The Child partner is emotional, impulsive and illogical.

Group communication as a business interaction can also be viewed from the perspective of its participants’ orientation towards control or understanding.

Control orientation involves the desire of one of the participants in business interaction to control and manage the situation and behavior of other people, which is accompanied by the desire to dominate the interaction. “Controllers” speak more themselves; their strategy is to force partners in joint activities to accept their plan of interaction and impose their tactics of action, their understanding of the situation.

An understanding orientation involves seeking to understand situations and other people. At the same time, human behavior is based on the idea of ​​equality of partners, therefore, as a rule, it is aimed at achieving mutual satisfaction with the course of interaction. Those who want to understand another usually listen carefully to their interlocutors, observe, and analyze. They try to understand the other person as best as possible, adapt to him, sometimes even adapt.

Thus, in the process of interaction, partners realize their plans, goals and solve professional problems. During the interaction, the behavior of the participants in communication, as noted earlier, may change, as common approaches to a joint decision are developed to achieve the desired result.

Among the participants in communication there are people who are calm and indifferent to various situations, maintaining balance and the ability to make optimal decisions, and those who are prone to conflict behavior. Traditionally, all psychological literature has placed and continues to place emphasis on the “resolution” of the conflict, emphasizing that the conflict can and must be resolved or eliminated (from the Latin - exclude, remove). The goal of conflict resolution was to achieve an ideal conflict-free state where people interact in complete harmony with themselves and others. However, everyday practice and its analysis have introduced new nuances into the study of this problem; it turned out that:

1. most efforts to completely eliminate conflicts in interactions have been futile;
2. Apart from having a negative function, conflicts can also have a positive beginning and can be constructive.

Based on the above, K. Thomas first proposed a new approach to the study of conflicts, in which the emphasis was placed on their management. He proposed to focus on the following problems in the study of conflicts: what forms of behavior in conflict situations are characteristic of people, which of them are more productive or destructive, and how all phases of the conflict can be managed and constructive behavior stimulated. To describe possible types of behavior of people in conflict situations, K. Thomas used a two-dimensional model of interaction conflict regulation, the fundamental dimensions of which are cooperation (taking into account the interests of another) of those involved in the conflict and assertiveness, energy, which is characterized by an emphasis on protecting one’s own interests.

To demonstrate the results, K. Thomas developed a special questionnaire (presented at the end of the chapter), with which you can determine your predisposition to a particular strategy or flexibility, i.e. the ability to change strategies depending on the goal of collaboration, the current situation, the characteristics of interaction partners and one’s personal characteristics. The test results allow us to ascertain the individual strategies of the participants in the interaction and carry out a comparative analysis of their own observations, each person’s self-esteem with what their teammates think about them.

In this scheme, K. Thomas identified the following five ways to regulate destructive interaction.

• Rivalry (competition). It seems obvious to one of the participants in the interaction that the solution he proposes is the best, hence the desire to achieve the satisfaction of his interests to the detriment of the other, especially since there is no other choice and there is nothing to lose. An attempt is made to influence others, to pursue one’s own line, because the end justifies the means.
• Avoidance. Lack of both the desire for cooperation and the tendency to achieve one’s own goals. A person seeking avoidance, most concerned about his own health, believes that the subject of the dispute is not related to the problem under discussion, is distracting and at the same time is a symptom of other, more serious problems. Therefore, further study of the situation and the search for additional information about the nature of destructive interaction seems to him more preferable than immediately making any decision.
• Device. In contrast to competition, a person sacrifices his own interests for the sake of another person. The goal, which is the desire to maintain peace and good relationships with other people, restore calm and stability, and not resolve conflict relationships or even solve a problem.
• Compromise(mutual concession as a neutral option). This strategy, since it is necessary to make an urgent decision when there is a shortage of time, is preferred by those participants in the interaction who have the same power and have mutually exclusive interests. As a rule, they are focused not only on the task, on the final result, but also on maintaining relationships with the participants in the interaction.
• Cooperation. Participants in the situation, analyzing the problem and making a decision, come to a consensus (from the Latin - agreement, unanimity), which fully satisfies the interests of all parties. This strategy is preferred when the participants in the interaction, despite the disagreements that have arisen, still want to put some ideas on the table and work on developing a joint decision or project. The team has enough time to work on the problem that has arisen, and the person proposing this interaction strategy is proficient in collective decision-making technologies.

According to K. Thomas, if conflict is avoided, neither party will achieve success (this can even be imagined speculatively). In such forms of behavior as competition, adaptation and compromise, either one of the participants wins and the other loses, or both lose because they make concessions to each other. And only one strategy - cooperation - brings benefits to all participants in group interaction. Mastery of strategies will allow participants in joint activities to better understand in which situations of business communication certain strategies are most appropriate or what guides a participant in a conflict interaction when choosing a particular strategy. It is especially important to use interaction strategies flexibly during a discussion or business meeting.

Thus, in order to work effectively with others, each person needs to know his leading interaction strategies and, if necessary, develop flexibility in their use, taking into account the goals set, the characteristics of other people, adapting to their tactics and behavioral strategies. At the same time, competent use of interaction strategies may not lead to success if the interlocutor demonstrates negative character traits, a low level of emotional culture, i.e. provokes destructive communication.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Ministry of Education and Science of Russia

Federal State Budgetary Institution of Higher Professional Education

"Tula State University"

Essay

in the discipline Business Rhetoric

on the topic of Strategy and tactics of business communication

Chapter 1. Strategy and tactics of dialogue

Strategy dialogue is determined by the main goal pursued by the participants in the discussion in the process of conducting a conversation or dispute. Depending on the degree of conflict in the dialogue, the following types of strategic goals can be distinguished.

1. Conflict-free dialogue. Its strategy is determined by the goals of information transfer or exchange. Examples of dialogues with an informative strategy include, say, legal consultations, training sessions on legal issues, conversations on legal education, operational meetings, discussion of all possible solutions, hypotheses, versions regarding the problem under study, speaking to an audience in order to draw attention to the problem as much as possible more interested parties. It is very important in this case to carefully monitor that a conflict-free dialogue with informative strategic goals does not develop into a conflict dialogue, the strategy of which is completely different.

2. Dialogue in low conflict mode. Several possible strategies can be listed here. Business strategy: its goal is a constructive solution to a problem in the presence of various hypotheses and approaches to it. This strategy is often used when making decisions in the field of economics, in business communication, when concluding agreements and contracts, and in developing investigative and operational measures. Compromise strategy: its goal is to come to a mutually acceptable agreement on an issue regarding which there is a clear confrontation between the parties. The strategy of compromise is usually the basis of judicial debate in civil cases, sometimes in arbitration, but it finds its most obvious expression in parliamentary debates on legislative issues, where the participants in the debate belong to different political parties, factions or movements. It is necessary to distinguish between a politician’s compromise cooperation in the work of the legislative assembly and his uncompromising, principled and uncompromising position towards his political opponents. Evaluation strategy: its goal is to open a discussion of the problem, a discussion to identify possible like-minded people and opponents. Persuasion strategy: its goal is to convince the opponent to change the position he is defending, the approach he is defending. This strategy is used in investigative practice when interrogating to convince an “obstinate” witness or to obtain a confession from a suspect. The strategy of persuasion is leading in the media.

3. Dialogue in a regime of acute conflict. Strategy of truth: its goal is to achieve an objectively justified, true result when discussing a controversial issue. This strategy is usually used in the process of scientific controversy; in legal proceedings it is most clearly expressed by the goals and objectives of the criminal process. Destructive strategy: its goal is to refute an incorrect, unscientific or incompetent approach to solving a problem: to prove the falsity of the opponent’s point of view or the incorrectness of his argumentation; destroy the legend of the opponent in the controversy. An example of such a strategy in investigative practice is interrogation to incriminate the accused: in information practice - exposing rumors and conjectures. Combat strategy: its goal is to win the argument. The strategy “in war, as in war” clearly defines the essence of political battles of parties and social movements that have antagonistic political programs and are actively fighting for political power. Another example is the struggle of opposing scientific schools and directions that do not accept alternative positions and views.

The strategy of dialogue in a regime of acute conflict should be distinguished from attempts and aspirations aimed at destroying the discussion of the problem as a whole, the goals of which are: to lead the solution to the problem into a dead end: to lead the dispute along the wrong path; crush the opposition, discredit dissidents, discredit an idea or its author.

Tactics dialogue is determined by a system of operational methods, techniques and means used in the process of discussing a problem and aimed at the effective implementation of the set strategic goals by each of the participants in the conversation or dispute. Discussion tactics are formed depending on the chosen strategy. Violation of the correspondence of tactical means in dialogue to its strategic goals entails deformations of communication, ethical incorrectness, and sometimes the failure of the dispute. For example, a legal adviser who allowed himself to speak with a client in a raised tone, in a conflicting manner, and not in the form of an informative conversation, will no longer be contacted by this client, and will not advise others. One can often observe how parliamentary discussions in the legislative assembly turn into political polemics and therefore lead to fruitless results. The tactics of populism, which may be acceptable in an informal conversation between a political or government leader and the masses, are erroneous when he formally sets out the provisions of his political or government program. strategic dialogue tactics communication

The tactical tasks that the participants in the dialogue solve during the discussion of the problem can be divided into objective and subjective. Objective tactical tasks are directly aimed at the effective implementation of the strategic goal of a conversation, discussion or polemic. These include, firstly, the optimally appropriate sequence of presentation of one’s own position and its sufficient argumentation; secondly, effective criticism of the opposing side’s point of view; thirdly, control over the progress of the discussion of the problem, changing the fields of argumentation both in the positive sense of persuasion, protection from criticism, and in the negative sense of destroying the arguments and opinions of the opponent. Subjective tactical tasks include the desire to demonstrate to the audience one’s competence regarding the problem being discussed, polemical skill, impartiality to the opinion of the interlocutor, the correct manner of conducting a debate, and objectivity. Another part of the subjective tactical tasks: the desire to assert oneself in a dispute, the desire to show one’s competitiveness, increase one’s market status, and create intrigue.

Tactical and operational techniques and means of dialogue are divided into constructive and destructive. Constructive tactics is aimed at substantiating and defending one’s own thesis in public discussion and polemics. Destructive tactics concerns issues of effective criticism of the opposing side's argumentation.

Constructive tactics for substantiating and defending your own thesis in a public dispute boils down to the following methods and means.

1. Logical principles for expanding the field of argumentation. Method of direct logical persuasion: strict evidence of the provisions, the original thesis or additional theses is provided that contribute to the logical justification of the main formulation of the position. Method of specifying deduction: deductive consequences are derived from existing arguments, detailing, clarifying and explaining the concept being proven. Method of generalizing induction: new generalizing provisions are formulated that explain the concept and are based on already accepted facts. Method of enumerative induction: a step-by-step reconstruction of the facts or circumstances of a case under discussion, followed by extrapolation of the results of the reconstruction to unknown facts or circumstances in an ordered sequence. Method of logical demonstrativeness: demonstration of logically evidential connections between disparate information.

2. Concentration of independent arguments. In the process of argumentation, it often happens that the failure of just one argument in a consistent chain of evidence leads to its criticism and refutation as a whole. This is especially dangerous when conducting prosecution in criminal proceedings, where doubt is always assessed in favor of the accused and the principle of the presumption of innocence applies. To eliminate such a danger, at the preparatory stage of organizing a dispute, care should be taken to ensure that there are several logically independent chains of argumentation that confirm the thesis being proven. In this case, you can always promptly replace the refuted chain of argumentation with a new one that equally successfully confirms the investigative version, the indictment, the opinion of the defense, or the defended point of view.

3. Alternative proof. As a rule, a problem has several alternative possible solutions based on different forms of demonstration. However, not every alternative possible solution has a sufficient “charge” of persuasiveness. Therefore, in the practice of public dispute, it is sometimes useful and effective to present alternative evidence of a thesis, thereby showing the multidimensionality and diversity of its analysis.

4. The order of presentation of the position. It is not always tactically advantageous to immediately formulate the main thesis of the concept being defended. It is necessary to think in advance about the formulation of the initial thesis and additional ones.

5. The order of introducing arguments. It is always ineffective to bring down on the heads of the listeners of a public dispute all the arguments, facts, and arguments available in the arsenal that support the position being defended. This, firstly, makes it difficult for the audience to perceive the argumentation, and secondly, makes the field of argumentation wide enough for selective criticism from the opponent. Therefore, when preparing for dialogue, it is necessary to determine the main argumentation, that is, a system of arguments that confirm the main thesis with necessity and sufficiency, as well as analyze the initial arguments and alternatively possible sequences of additional ones. During the dispute, it is necessary to strictly control the order and effectiveness of introducing new arguments into the discussion.

6. The principle of compromise. There are usually a number of statements made by the opposing party, but with which one can agree. Some of them are neutral with respect to the interests of the proponent, others are dangerous, but others can be publicly accepted and applied in their own argumentation. This has a double effect. Firstly, the use of the opponent’s arguments during the discussion process is more convincing for the audience of listeners. Secondly, expanding the field of argumentation by replenishing it with arguments from the opposing side does not entail expanding the zone of criticism.

7. Minimax principle. The process of a public dispute can be modeled as a “battle” of the fields of argumentation of the direct participants in the discussion. Since the field of argumentation is a set of statements made by a proponent or opponent regarding a controversial issue, the winner is the one whose field of argumentation will be wider for understanding and acceptance by the audience. Therefore, each participant strives to maximally expand the field of reasoned statements that are convincing to the listener. On the other hand, each participant in the discussion tries to make his field of argument a zone that is minimally possible for criticism. Compliance with the minimax principle, that is, the minimum zone of criticism and the maximum zone of persuasion, is a difficult tactical task in a dispute.

8. The principle of punctuation. Cunctator - procrastination: cunctator - procrastinating. This tactical technique consists of a wait-and-see attitude during the discussion and the desire to say the last, final word in the dispute. In one case, the wait-and-see position expands the area of ​​criticism of the opponent; in the other, it deprives the opposing party of objecting to the proponent’s final statements.

The destructive tactics of refuting and criticizing the thesis defended by the opposing side are illustrated by the following techniques.

1. Logical principles for destroying the opponent’s argumentation field. Method of direct logical refutation: logical evidence is provided for a thesis that is opposite or contradicts the position defended by the opponent. Eliminative induction method: eliminating from the opponent's legend, say, the interrogated person, information, testimony not related to the subject of discussion or interrogation, as well as false information by a system of dichotomous questions. Method of destructive deduction: eliminating false statements from the opponent’s argumentation field by demonstrating proof of the falsity of their consequences. Reducing the opposing party's statements to a contradiction.

2. Concentration of counter-evidence. A refutation or criticism of the position of the opposing side does not always achieve its goals or prove to be a sufficiently convincing factor for the audience of listeners. Therefore, when preparing for a debate, you cannot limit yourself to developing just one system of counterargumentation, no matter how flawless it may seem. In the arsenal of criticism of an opponent's position there should always be a sufficient amount of refuting counter-evidence.

3. Deconcentration of the opponent’s independent arguments. The opponent, of course, has several logically independent logical chains of proof of the defended position or point of view. In the process of criticizing an opponent's concept, it is ineffective to focus attacks on only the arguments of one chain. It's a waste of time. It is wiser and more persuasive for the audience to critique the arguments of each of the alternative evidence presented by the opponent. Such tactics will both save time and cast doubt on all the enemy’s evidence as a whole.

4. The “Achilles heel” principle. One should not rush to criticize any opponent’s argument that comes to hand; it may be irrefutable, and the proponent will lose the trust of the audience. It is more effective to trace the entire chain of arguments to prove the opponent’s thesis, find the weakest link in the argument and focus criticism on this vulnerable link.

Methods of destructive tactics also include the method of expanding the opponent’s weak argumentation with a system of detailed questions, criticism of the terminology used, demonstration of the opponent’s incompetence in the problem under discussion, the ethical incorrectness of his behavior, methods of irony and exposure of lies.

Chapter 2. Some details

Distracting from scientific concepts and definitions, we should also touch on some unspoken rules, following which you can significantly increase the effectiveness of a business conversation.

We know the model of speech communication:

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Based on this model, we will consider its individual elements and how to use them to somehow influence the course of the conversation.

1) Communication situation.

Since we are talking about a business conversation, you won’t have to come up with a communication situation for a long time. Let this be a conversation in the office of the director of the company with potential investors.

2) Setting

There are several subtleties here. The environment (in our case, the director's office) should not have an irritating effect on the interlocutors. There should be no bright, flashy details. This also applies to the colors of furniture, walls and other things. Order and cleanliness are highly desirable, since for your interlocutors (for us - investors) this will be a good indicator of the seriousness of your intentions. There should be no unpleasant odors in the office; this can irritate the investor and ultimately make him want to quickly leave the office without concluding a contract.

Some use music to complement the setting. Quiet, relaxing, but not attention-grabbing music. Also often, instead of music, “sounds of nature” are played.

It is undesirable for someone to interfere with their arrival during negotiations, that is, it is better to lock the door and place the secretary under the door with a strict order to drive everyone away (but without causing bodily harm).

3) Communication, negotiations

So, when the situation is ready to receive the guest, and he is already knocking on the door, it’s time to move on to direct communication. The first thing that will catch the other person's eye is the way you greet him. It will be bad here if a person, upon entering the office, sees you sitting in his warm and soft leather chair, and at the same time there will be no attempt on your part to stand up, but instead a gloomy “Hello, sit down” will sound. It is quite obvious that it will be good if you get up, leave your cozy workplace and greet the person who comes in while standing, accompanying this with a friendly smile and a handshake. Then the investor will see your goodwill, and his good mood will greatly contribute to the successful signing of the contract.

Well, you said hello, now it’s time to discuss the details of the proposed contract. Let's assume that you are seeing your interlocutor for the first time. It is clear that excessive expression, an abundance of facial expressions and loud speech can negatively affect your mutual understanding. It would also be a mistake to miss notes of irritation and anger in your voice. You should speak calmly, measuredly, but at the same time, in no case sullenly. You can joke a little, but very carefully, because you don’t know how this person has a sense of humor.

4) Final result

In your difficult business, you often have to make concessions and compromises. The situation we are considering is no exception. Sticking to your guns without softening the terms even a penny is not the best solution. It is very likely that the guest will turn around and leave, although he could have accepted the contract on very slightly relaxed terms.

At the same time, there is no need to follow the investor’s lead, agreeing to all his demands. Know your worth, make concessions only within reason. Stiffness is only good in moderation. Then, most likely, the contract will be signed successfully.

Conclusion

This work shows that even an ordinary conversation can entail a lot of difficulties if you do not follow some simple rules. It is very important to choose the right strategy and tactics appropriate to the situation; then, it is very likely that your business will progress successfully.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Setting goals as one of the tasks of management. The mission of the organization, details of its status and areas of activity. Determination of a reference point and a system of goals. The procedure for constructing a goal tree. Assessing conflicting goals. The concept of strategy and tactics.

presentation, added 12/13/2016


The history of the emergence of the business style of communication, its types and forms according to G.V. Borozdina. Business conversation as a form of business communication. Characteristics of the rules of persuasion. Negotiations as a specific type of business communication. Types of business meetings, the procedure for their preparation.

course work, added 04/17/2017


The dependence of labor efficiency and success in achieving goals on the level of development of communication abilities. Systematic model of business communication with the participation of two business partners. Analysis of the behavior of organization personnel when contacting foreign guests.

course work, added 01/12/2011


Clothing as an attribute of a business person. Rules for wearing a suit. A culture of greeting and communication. Peculiarities of behavior of men and women. Image as an object of business communication. Development by an image maker of a strategy and technique for effective image formation.

presentation, added 03/02/2013


The role of business communication in the management system. Rules and principles of interviewing and analysis of its results when hiring. The importance of non-verbal communication in the process of personnel management. The influence of internal factors on selection and hiring.

course work, added 01/18/2012


Characteristics, tasks, stages and basic techniques for conducting a business conversation, negotiations, meeting. Choosing tools for organizing business communication. Tactics, psychological techniques and methods of argumentation. National styles of business negotiations.

presentation, added 08/23/2016


Classification of types of business communication. Principles of business communication ethics and analysis of methods of influencing or influencing people. The influence of personality traits and temperament on communication. Classification of meetings and conferences according to their purpose in management theory.

abstract, added 06/21/2011


Psychological types depending on the channels of information perception. An algorithm for business communication with a woman who has a kinesthetic type of perception of reality. Signs of identifying women as kinesthetics. Ways of constructive business communication.

abstract, added 12/07/2009


Methods and methods of strategy and tactics in organizations. Strategic management procedure. Analysis of the effectiveness of strategy and tactics in IT Service LLC (restaurant "Temptation"). Recommendations for improving strategic management in a restaurant.

course work, added 11/20/2011


Management information in the organization. Types and content of the business communication process. Features of the organization of communication processes. Characteristics of connections between people in the communication process, the role and design of management documentation.

Strategy is a method of action of a subject to achieve the main goal of influencing a communication partner.

Depending on the goals, the following leading tactics of behavior in interaction are distinguished:

• 1) cooperation - this form of interaction in which both communication partners promote each other in achieving individual and common goals of joint activities;
• 2) confrontation - partners oppose each other in achieving individual goals, focusing only on their own goals without taking into account the goals of the partner;
• 3) compromise interaction - communication partners in something promote, but in some ways oppose each other;
• 4) avoidance of interaction- partners try to avoid active interaction, withdraw from contacts, take the risk of not achieving their own goals in order to exclude the other’s gain;
• 5) contrast interaction- one of the partners tries to assist the other, and the latter actively opposes to him;
• 6) unidirectional assistance- one of the partners sacrifices his own goals and contributes to the achievement of the goals of the other, who avoids cooperation.

American psychologists L. Steinberg and J. Miller analyzed interaction from the perspective of control orientation and understanding orientation.

Control orientation involves the desire to control, manage the situation and behavior of others, usually combined with the desire to dominate in interaction.

Focus on Understanding involves seeking to understand the situation and behavior of others. It is associated with the desire to interact better and avoid conflicts, with ideas about the equality of partners in communication and the need to achieve mutual, rather than one-sided, satisfaction.

Analysis of the interaction when distinguishing these two orientations allows us to identify some interesting patterns of communication. Thus, “controllers” and “understanders” adhere to completely different strategies in communication.

Controller strategy - the desire to force the partner to accept his plan of interaction, to impose his understanding of the situation. Quite often, this strategy actually allows you to achieve control over the interaction.

Strategy "understander" implies adaptation to the partner.

It is significant that different orientations are associated with different distributions of positions in communication. Thus, “controllers” always strive for unequal interactions with subordinates and dominant positions of “vertical interaction.” An understanding orientation is more associated with equal horizontal interactions.

It should be noted that there are also opposite influences. For example, a person who is in communication at the very “top” position will necessarily be more of a “controller”, in contrast to the situation in which he would be “at the bottom”: the position obliges. Therefore, it must regulate interaction.

Since any communication is carried out regarding a particular subject, the nature of the interaction is determined by the openness or closedness of the subject position.

Openness of communication- this is the openness of a subject position in the sense of the ability to express one’s point of view on a subject and the willingness to take into account the positions of others, and vice versa, closed communication means an inability or unwillingness to disclose one's positions.

In addition to open and closed communication in its pure form, there are also mixed types:

• one of the parties tries to find out the position of the other party without disclosing its own;
• communication in which one of the interlocutors reveals all their “circumstances” to the partner, counting on help, without being interested in the intentions of the other.

Both of these types of interaction are asymmetrical, since communication is carried out from unequal positions of partners.

When choosing a position in communication, all circumstances should be taken into account: the degree of trust in the partner, the possible consequences of open communication. And at the same time, as socio-psychological research shows, the maximum effectiveness of business communication is achieved when it is open.

Business communication, as a certain process of interaction between people, has a strategic line and tactics for its implementation. Strategy involves setting a specific goal that stimulates the will of a participant in business communication, forces him to act consciously, intensively, mobilize his abilities, knowledge, experience, and be able to subordinate his forces to achieving this goal.

Business communication tactics involves the choice of a certain model of behavior, which in a given situation will most contribute to achieving the goal. Tactics (maneuverability) communication is based on certain principles, the most important of which are:

Variability (you should have several options for behavior in the same type of situation and be able to quickly use them);

Conflict-free (no confrontation or conflict with a business partner should be allowed);

Interactions (in business contacts one should skillfully use the mechanisms of human interaction: people’s affection for each other, sympathy, antipathy, trust, respect, etc.);

Ideology (you should be attentive to new, although unusual at first glance, ideas);

You need to be able to master those patterns of behavior that bring success in business relationships;

You should be able to show, present yourself and capture, correctly assess your reaction and the reaction of your partners when communicating, changes in the situation.

In business communication we can distinguish three phase :

1. Initial , during which initial contacts are established, the mood for communication is established, and orientation in the situation occurs. In this phase, the task appears: to encourage the business partner to communicate, to create interest, and the maximum field of opportunity to discuss the problem. Here the emotional state of the partner is also assessed, the strategy and tactics of communication are determined, due to which a certain tone of the relationship is chosen, the partner’s self-esteem is taken into account and roles are distributed.

2. Main , during which a certain sequence of actions is implemented, namely: establishing the intermediate and final goal of communication, direct linguistic, non-linguistic and documentary contacts, mutual analysis of output and intermediate proposals, search for agreed solutions, distribution of roles according to the principle of “dominance-subordination”, determining the prospects for communication.

3. Final , during which the results of business interaction are formulated, contact is exited, and the foundations for subsequent interaction are formed.

Business relationships are carried out in two

Business relationships take place in two forms: contact and interaction. Contact - this is a single act in which there is no system of coordinated actions of partners in relation to each other. The basis of the relationship between business partners is not contacts, but their interaction. Interaction – these are systematic, fairly regular, complementary actions of partners aimed at achieving the set goal. During the interaction, information is exchanged between both partners, a strong interest in the partner is formed, emotions and actions are exchanged.

The basis for distinguishing typical business communication strategies can be based on the value axis “treating another as a value, treating another as a means.” When treating a partner as a value, one can highlight the moral side, i.e. recognition of a person’s right to be who he is, and the psychological side, which consists of a desire for cooperation, equal partnerships, a willingness to understand the other, and an attitude towards dialogue. In the second position - treating a partner as a means (needed - attract, not needed - move away, interferes - remove) - there is a devaluation of the person’s personality, a feeling of superiority over others in something, reaching the understanding of one’s own exclusivity. In the practice of interaction between people, most cases are not at any of the described poles, since an extreme manifestation of attitude towards a person causes moral condemnation among others. In addition, one has to reckon with the resistance of a partner who defends his right to individuality.

Once, the famous poet and thinker Johann Wolfgang Goethe, walking through a Weimar park, encountered a critic on a narrow path who had a negative attitude towards his work. The critic pointedly blocked the poet’s path and said angrily:

• - I am not inferior to fools!
• “On the contrary, I always do this,” the author of “Faust” calmly answered and politely left the path.

The main effective mechanisms ensuring the formation of constructive business interaction include the following (Table 7.4).

Table 7.4

Effective business interaction mechanisms

All of the listed mechanisms represent a productive style of interaction, which is understood as fruitful contact in joint activities, contributing to the establishment of long-term relationships of mutual trust, the disclosure of personal potentials and the achievement of effective results by both parties.

Roles associated with interpersonal interaction are divided into presenters, i.e. so-called preferred persons: “stars”, authoritative, charismatic, ambitious, opinion leaders or otherwise attractive to others; And slaves - all the rest, including those “non-preferred”, with whom they cooperate only by force and, as a rule, in some situations make them responsible for all mistakes and failures.

In one of the studies conducted by the American scientist W. Haythorne, it was shown that such personality traits as sociability, efficiency, the ability to take the point of view of another person, understand his psychological state, have a positive effect on the success of joint activities, and such traits as suspicion, self-confidence and authoritarianism hinder it.

The effectiveness of group interaction is also influenced by the intensity of communication. Experts note that limiting emotional and interpersonal contacts in a group can lead to a decrease in its productivity and satisfaction of participants. Many researchers have proven that groups with a cooperative type of relationship are clearly superior to competitive ones both in the general atmosphere that prevails during work and in the quality of the final results of their activities. It has also been established that, under time pressure, groups that are homogeneous in composition work better than heterogeneous ones. Moreover, this feature intensifies as the group task becomes more complex 1 .

From what has been said, it is obvious how important the question of the degree of interconnectedness and interdependence of group members is. This integrity is achieved through the convergence of opinions, assessments, intellectual and personal characteristics, feelings and actions of group members, which can lead to a convergence of their interests and value orientations. During communicative interaction, physical contact, joint organization of the spatial environment and movement in it, joint group action, verbal and non-verbal information contact are carried out, therefore, the concepts of compatibility and harmony of communication participants are also important for effective interaction.

Compatibility is, first of all, an optimal combination of the properties of the participants in the interaction, the ability of a group in a given composition to work without conflict and in harmony, which creates conditions for effective joint activity (Table 7.5).

Table 7.5

Compatibility levels of people

1 See: Panfilova A. P. Interactive technologies for the formation of communicative competence of leaders in the socio-cultural sphere: abstract of thesis.... Dr. Ped. Sci. St. Petersburg, 2001. pp. 22-23.

Harmony, those. consistency in work between participants in joint activities. Both compatibility and harmony in interaction serve to indicate the objective correspondence of the properties of the participants in communication in relation to the goals and objectives of their activities. At the same time, for the harmony of interaction participants, the leading component is their behavioral component, which presupposes not only high effectiveness of interaction, satisfaction, first of all, with the success of work, but also, as a consequence, with the relationship with the partner, as well as low emotional and energy costs.

Thus, compatibility to a greater extent reveals an orientation towards good interpersonal relationships, and the harmony of communication participants indicates an orientation towards the effectiveness of interaction.

It is also important for the effectiveness of joint activities value-orientation unity of participants joint activities. This parameter can be considered as a common goal and a coincidence of personal and socially significant intentions. This means that the group acts not only as an internally effective community capable of generating cooperative relations, but also as a group in the best possible way, i.e. effectively performing the socially significant tasks assigned to it.

Thus, to master interactive competence, i.e. the ability to carry out effective interaction, a synthetic approach is needed that combines different socio-psychological characteristics of the participants that affect the effectiveness of group interaction and the productive organization of a joint communicative space for activities, the development of the motivation of each participant in the interaction.

Only those actions can be recognized as fair, the usefulness of which is confirmed in the needs of mutual communication between people (Epicurus).

Trust and the process of fascination play an important role in professional interaction. Under "trust filter" When interacting, as a rule, the process of considering a partner from the position of whether to trust him or not is implied. As practice shows, the lack of trust on at least one side prevents self-disclosure, which automatically does not allow the destruction of natural barriers that arise when two people or groups come into contact. Wariness complicates interaction, contributes to the manifestation of cunning, introducing the partner into a false situation, which gives rise to mutual misunderstanding, and ineffective feedback.

Trust in interactive interaction, as a rule, on the contrary, includes one’s own intention to trust another; the expectation that trust will be fulfilled and behavior will be consistent with those intentions. A high level of trust between interaction participants promotes an open exchange of views and opinions on significant issues; greater satisfaction from participation in teamwork, higher motivation for activity.

With agreement, small things grow, with disagreement, the greatest ones perish (Gaius Sallust Crispus).

In business communication, a specially organized verbal influence on the behavior of an interaction participant, in order to build trust and increase the effectiveness of the influence of information, is called fascination(from English, fascination - charm), with the help of which tension is relieved at the beginning of contact, which is especially important, since it has been proven that tense people who do not trust others, who do not trust others, perceive only from 14 to 45% of information. At the moment of interaction, fascination is carried out by the participants in communication through a pleasant timbre of the voice, a friendly look directed at the partner, eye contact, a smile and decent words designed to reduce the loss of significant information when perceiving the message and creating a good impression of oneself.

Business partners need to understand that trust in interaction, being associated with risk, always means overcoming an internal psychological barrier. Researchers note that the most significant reason blocking trust is the partner’s high authoritarianism. Therefore, the first stage of trustful interaction is the establishment equal primary contact and the formation, through fascination, of a positive image of another person.

At the second stage, the interpersonal relationships necessary for effective interaction are formed:

• reaching agreement;
• receiving emotional support, approval, such as a compliment or a sign of attention (strokes);
• the desire to accept oneself as an individual, for example, through self-disclosure and confidential communication.

At the next stage of interaction, specific mechanisms for regulating the dynamics of individual cognitive processes are formed, joint strategies and technologies for solving problems are developed, and a style of activity that coincides for the participants. The conditions for interaction expand the information space, make it possible to see the diversity of the problem being solved, hear different points of view and develop a joint solution. In addition, in the process of interaction, an exchange of personal qualities occurs, the range of individual capabilities of each person expands, and the need arises to correlate one’s personal goals with the goals of the partner, the organization, and with the actions of other people.