沃顿商学院全套笔记-三十一-
沃顿商学院全套笔记（三十一）
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P51：23_准备道歉.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
The last piece I want to think about as we apologize is preparing to apologize。
And the idea here is that just like a fire drill， we want to prepare for something even。
if we think it's unlikely to happen。
And there are some industries where people are readily expecting to apologize， like in。
transportation， hospitality， in hospitals， where we know we're going to encounter service。
failures and we have to apologize。
But there are other industries where people are less prepared and we see that just in。
the differences of the good and bad apology examples that we went through。
Now here's an interesting story。 This happened to Stacy Heiling at the Ritz Carlton and the Ritz Carlton does a magnificent。
job in service recovery。 So the Ritz Carlton she checks in， she requests a wake-up call。
The wake-up call never happens。 She sleeps through and misses a meeting。
Now what happened after that， after complaining to the Ritz Carlton， the Ritz Carlton ends up。
apologizing for the missed wake-up call and they do that with a fruit basket and chocolate。
They have a handwritten note that apologizes and instead of complaining and sort of lambasting。
Ritz Carlton for having missed the wake-up call， what she ends up doing is providing a five-star。
rating online and she raves about the five-star service。
So here this apology transformed the relationship from one that could have been very competitive。
into one that ends up being incredibly collaborative。
Now we need to be quick to apologize and we highlighted the speed before but we can't， be too quick。
And here's an example of being too quick that is we can't automate it。
So here this is Domino's Pizza and here the comment went online， best pizza ever， keep。
up the good work guys。 That was what came out。 Now Domino's quick response was， so sorry about that。
Please share some additional information with us and please mention this reference number。
So it's as if it seemed like there was an automated system， anything that went online。
about Domino's Pizza must have been a complaint， they apologized prematurely here。
So here the speculation is that they had some overzealous bot that just automatically generated。
responses but here they ended up trying to recover that by saying， oh we meant we were。
sorry it took us so long for you know， Jennifer to get that best pizza ever。
So we want to think about quickly apologizing but you don't want to overdo it。
So think about preparation and experience。 So some industries are ready for this but other industries should be and we saw these。
other industries struggle and the advice here is that we need to prepare that is just as。
we would for a fire alarm we need to be prepared for that apology。
We need to figure out how to overcome some barriers。
So we have barriers like the fear of signaling weakness that it might put us in a one down。
position making us look like we're not quite sure of ourselves， sort of the same kind of。
feeling that often we have we're afraid of asking for directions or for help but sometimes。
we can appear more confident we ask for help and the same thing is true about apologies。
There's also this fear of liability or culpability and in fact it used to be the case that medical。
professionals were trained not to apologize for this very reason and it's actually new。
procedures like at Baptist Hospital where professionals are trained to apologize and。
they've actually seen lawsuits decrease。 Now you often think about pride and defensiveness where we often have a hard time with that prospective。
taking idea we talked about before where here when you think about how to break down these。
barriers and institutionally we can create rules or guidelines that can help employees。
get to where they need to be。 So here are the key lessons。
First we should prepare to apologize just as they did at Ritz Carlton and to great effect。
and at Baptist Hospital also to similar effect and we need to train employees and develop。
procedures and policies in place and then we also need to build credibility that is we。
need to make sure that the words that we use are meaningfully heard by the people who get， them。
Like in the Domino's case you can't be too quick and then finally we have to think about。
expectations。 We want to make sure that the expectations that we convey are really the things that。
we're able to follow through and do。 And then finally stay other focused that is we've seen this consistently that is when you。
think about the other side's point of view what's their experience and how can we communicate。
in a way that demonstrates a concern for other people。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P52：24_传达思想.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
We think about communicating effectively。
There are three goals that we often have。 We want to convey our ideas。
We want to gather information from other people。 And we want to change relationships。 And first。
let's think about how we convey ideas。 So if we're trying to communicate with someone。
part of the challenge we have is conveying what's in our mind， and getting it out to other people。
How do we do that？ Well， the first challenge is to grab attention。
So how do we gain somebody else's attention？ We do that when the message is simple。
It's persuasive and it's memorable。 And often you see some advertisements that really。
exemplify this。 So here， this is an advertisement for a helmet。
We have a chicken that's coming down the conveyor belt。 All the other chicken has been packaged。
but this one， is coming down with a helmet。 It's surprising。
It's also humorous and it grabs attention。 So things that grab attention are surprising。
They offer some sort of puzzle or they pull on our emotions。 Often it's the individual stories。
And Frank is a story about an individual that grabs our emotion。
and helps tell a much broader story。 As Mother Teresa said， "If I see one， I will act。"。
Often we think about a multitude。 We tend to lose our focus and it doesn't grab our attention in the same way。
So ironically， a story about an individual is often more powerful， than a story about many people。
And Chippith， for example， describes an example where a doctor。
created a video from the patient's perspective。 And in showing that video。
it actually helped people take that perspective。 There's a story here that grabbed attention。
You saw something from a perspective you weren't really anticipating。
So step one is to grab attention。 Next， once we have someone's attention， we want to be credible。
So to be persuasive， people have to know that we're saying is real， truthful， and important。
So we can evoke authority figures。 So people who are experts or in positions of power。
we can rely on what they're saying。 We invoke that authority。 We might rely on their experience。
So we have experience and we want to use sources that are trusted。
So things that come from authority or experienced people or people we trust。
are going to be more credible than we want to think about using those tapping into that。
to create a message that's persuasive。 Now， simplicity is another key idea。
For messages to be understood and remembered， we need them to be simple。
So we can think about things like when Bill Clinton was running for president， guiding his campaign。
it's the economy stupid。 That was the core idea。 So everything kept coming back to the economy in Bill Clinton's campaign。
Or Southwest Airlines， the low-cost airline， by using that guiding principle。
its simple message guides people's decisions so they can line up with that one goal。
In the US military， they have something called the commander's intent。
There's a short line at the top of the message。 Here's the goal。
There are a lot of other details that are going to follow。
but there's that one key idea at the beginning。 And the same thing's true in journalism。
We don't want to bury the lead。 We want the key idea to be upfront。
So we want something that's simple that's really going to help us convey our message。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P53：25_使信息令人难忘.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
How can we make our messages memorable？
Well one key idea is to tell a story。 And I'll tell you a story about Willie Horton。
It turns out the story of Willie Horton took over the political campaign as George Bush， Sr。
was campaigning against Dukakis。 This is a very difficult campaign。
The two candidates were different but they were both polling very similarly。 And for much of this。
a Dukakis was ahead。 Now Lee Atwater was a young politician who became George Bush's campaign manager。
And he said， "By the time we're finished， they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton。
is Dukakis' running mate。"， Now it turns out Willie Horton was convicted for a life sentence for murder。
And there was a program in Massachusetts that allowed people， furloughs， allowed these prisoners。
furloughs for good behavior。 And the reason why you do this is to encourage good behavior in prison。
People were allowed furloughs。 And Willie Horton on a weekend furlough。
now remember he was in prison for murder。 On his weekend furlough。
he ended up engaging in rape of a woman and stabbed the husband。 Now that event。
it wasn't Dukakis that had personally furloughed him。
But Dukakis had said he was in favor of the furlough program and he had defended the furlough。
program。 And it turns out this issue and the story of Willie Horton ended up derailing Dukakis in。
1988。 So this story took on such an impactful part of the campaign。
It eclipsed other key events at the time and other key economic and other social issues。
So here's a story that ends up becoming very memorable and very impactful。
Lee Atwater actually later apologized on his deathbed。
He apologized for the use of the story and he apologized to Dukakis。 It was a very effective story。
but it turned out to be not very pleasant campaigning。
But the idea I want to convey is that it's very vivid， that is it's memorable。
And then generally we want things that are vivid。 So when we thought about Afghan refugees。
there's one photo that comes to mind。 We want to keep stories simple。
We want things to be in chronological order that is easier for a memory。
So the more vivid the example， the more accessible the example， the easier things are to remember。
So ideas like copyrights are property or we're only as strong as our weakest link。
These ideas are easy to access and the analogies， it's like closing the barn doors after the。
cows have gone out。 These analogies allow us to access ideas much better。
Now sometimes it's a figure of speech。 So fingers of speech like at the OJ Simpson trial。
one of his defense attorneys famously， stated， "If the glove doesn't fit， you must acquit。"。
Many people who watched the OJ Simpson trial， which was broadcast on television， thought。
that OJ Simpson was guilty， the evidence seemed to point that way。 And yet this idea。
if the glove doesn't fit， there's a glove that didn't fit over OJ Simpson's， hand。
it seemed to suggest that， well， maybe not all the evidence is consistent and that。
ends up with this rhyming figure of speech being a very compelling idea。 Or another one here。
loose lips sink ships， this idea that we should be careful in what， we say。
this rhyming simple idea becomes very memorable。 So we want our messages to be memorable and stories and analogies and short expressions。
will help us do that。
Now another idea to make things memorable is to keep them very concrete。 So the idea。
this sort of goal， we're going to put a man on the moon within a decade。
So when Kennedy set out this ambitious agenda， it creates a very concrete idea for us to align。
behind。 Or in the 1960s， Boeing had a very concrete goal。 The 727 must-seat。
hundred-thirty-one passengers fly nonstop from Miami to New York and land。
on a specific runway in LaGuardia。 Now this runway was less than a mile long。
We could have specified things with more abstract terms， but the idea here， the ideas。
that were conveying， offer a very concrete set of attributes that allow us to focus on， that。
So we want to avoid vague claims or vague ideas like our goal here is to maximize shareholder。
value or we want to engage in continuous improvement。 Those are nice ideas。
but they're not very concrete and they don't guide very concrete， actions。 Now one concern， however。
is that sometimes when we narrow focus， we can do it too much。 So when Lee I。 Coco was a CO Ford。
he did a lot of great things， but one of his goals was to create， in his words。
a car that was under 2，000 pounds and sold for under 2，000 dollars。 So this is very concrete。
That's a very specific goal and in 1974 introduces the Ford Pinto。
Now here's another， another expression that is also very vivid。
It was called the barbecue that seats for because of the fuel tank placement。
Rear end collisions could sometimes cause the fuel tank to burst into flame and 56 people。
ended up dying in Pinto fires and Time Magazine included the Ford Pinto as one of the 50 worst。
cars of all time。 Now there's still some debate whether Ford was aware of the design flaw or not。
There was a concern that maybe they decided it was cheaper to pay off the lawsuits than。
redesign the car。 But the key idea here is that we have a concrete idea that is the 2000， under 2。
000 pounds， under 2，000 dollars， that's a concrete idea that guides action。 It's very memorable。
And similarly， these very vivid expressions like the barbecue that seats for is also very， vivid。
So when we're trying to convey ideas， we want people to remember them and these short expressions。
the concrete and the use of analogies are all key tools， they're vehicles for making our。
ideas very memorable。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P54：26_提问.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
A second key goal of our communication is to gather information。
And we do that often by asking questions。 And it turns out that sometimes just asking for it。
as Linda Babcock would say， just asking， for it is sometimes the most important step。
So here's a story about the University of Chicago。 They received a million dollar grant from Mrs。
Field from the Marshall Field Department， Store fame。
And administrators at Northwestern were shocked。 After all， Ms。 Field lived in Evanston。
She had been a supporter in the past of Northwestern。 And when they reached out to Mrs。 Field。
they asked， "Oh， why did you give this money， to Chicago？"， And she replied， "Well。
the people of the University of Chicago asked and you didn't。"。
So asking for information or help are often key goals。 And it turns out that when we look at。
for example， skilled versus average negotiators， we see this big divergence in asking questions。
When we think that one of the key goals is to just convey our winning arguments or to。
convey all the great information we have in our own heads。
But it turns out that what's really important often is just asking good questions。
So Neil Rakham did a study with over 100 labor negotiators and he had experts and relative。
novices and he recorded and compared their negotiations。
And one of the most important things he found， and he assessed expertise based on peers and。
kind of brought to assessments， he found that the expert negotiators spent way more time。
asking questions。 So they're doing things like asking questions。
they're testing their understanding， like， "Oh， let me make sure I understand what you're saying。"。
So demonstrating concern for the other party as well。
But they're spending time doing that and the key idea is sort of asking questions。
And they're spending way less time engaging in other behaviors， including just revealing。
information but also engaging things like irritators， like saying things that are a little。
bit annoying to their side or putting down to their side or attacking to their side。
And they're offering fewer justifications for their key ideas。 So when they're saying， "Oh。
here's why we need higher wages or here's why we need better， insurance coverage。
" they're offering one or two reasons。 The less expert negotiators are offering more reasons。
So what's interesting here， the key idea is that experts are asking more questions and。
they're conveying a little bit less information and they're being more effective because of， it。
So one of the key ideas I want to suggest is that sometimes we should be focused on asking。
questions and really listening to those answers rather than focusing on trying to just get。
our ideas out。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P55：27_深入探讨提问.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Let's take a deeper look at questions。
I want to think about what questions really do。 And we can look at experts in linguistics that have guided us to think about questions。
They've studied them for a long time。 They structure our conversation。
They focus us on particular topics。 They also move narratives forward。 So what happened next？
Or they pause to ensure understanding。 So do you know what I mean by that？
Or how do you know who is calling？ So these questions are often created to elicit information。
But I also want to suggest that questions do something different as well。
They often not only solicit information， but they often guide our answers and sometimes。
convey information as well。 Now we think of this with leading questions。
And Loftus did some of the most important work in this area。
Loftus had people do things like watch videos of two cars colliding。 So these cars got an accident。
And then Loftus asked questions。 And she asked how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other？
Or how fast were the cars going when they bumped into each other？
Or how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other？
Now in every case we're asking how fast were the cars going？
But here's what's really interesting is that when people answer these questions， they。
thought the car was going fastest with the smashed wording。
And I thought the cars were going slowest in the contacted wording。 So the other thing。
the car is going almost 41 miles an hour when they're asked how fast。
they were going when they smashed to each other。 But only about 32 miles an hour when they're asked how fast were the cars going when they。
contacted each other。 So that is the questions we ask can guide the answers that we get particularly for questions。
that have kind of vague or uncertain answers。 So here's some other examples。
So do you get headaches frequently and if so how often？
Or do you get headaches occasionally and if so how often？
And again we're getting very different answers。 So frequently people say over to a week when we say occasionally it's less than one a week。
And the idea is that the way we ask questions can guide us to be very different in how we。
answer those questions。 And we think about for example jurors。
We sometimes limit questions lawyers can ask potential jurors。
So potential jurors might be asked could you be impartial if you knew the defendant was。
a member of a gang。 Now it turns out that person may or may not be a member of a gang but we've now just implanted。
an idea by suggesting that they were part of a gang。
Or when we say when do you stop taking the money and we're presuming that you were taking， money。
The idea here is that the way we ask questions can guide people and sort of plant ideas they're。
very difficult for us to really get out of our minds。
Now this is another story that Loftus did that I particularly like。
She had people watch a video of a car going by in a country road。
And again she asked how fast was the car going。 Now a week later she brought people back in and said I'm going to ask you about that。
video and she asked did you see a barn in the video。
Now there was no barn in the video but here's what's interesting so that week before when。
she asked how fast was the car going she asked that question in a few different ways。
So one question was how fast was the white sports car going while traveling along the， country road。
So remember that there was no barn but by asking the question that has the barn phrasing。
What you find is that a week later when people are asked did you see a barn people have been。
asked that question with the barn wording in it。 They reported that they saw the barn and they said that it was a barn。
And they said that it was a barn。 The barn wording in it they reported that they saw the barn about 17% of the time。
In contrast people that never saw a barn there was no mention of a barn when they were。
asked to see a barn less than 3% of them said they saw a barn。
So that is we're seeing a dramatic increase in responses that are completely fabricated。
where traditionally we think of questions as just gathering information but we also know。
that questions are also revealing information and guiding answers。
And so questions can actually play a really important part in the communication process。
So we think about what questions do the traditional ideas that gather information but I'm arguing。
that they actually also reveal information and they reveal a lot of information about。
what the asker knows as well as information about the context or guiding the answer。
So we get different answers as a function of the questions that we ask。
I'm going to explain a short experiment that I ran that reflects a stream of research that。
I've conducted that looks at how different questions can elicit different kinds of information。
And in this experiment I told people that they're selling a used iPod and that it frequently。
crashes。 So there's a problem with crashing on this iPod and they have a lot of other information。
about this used iPod that they're selling。 Now it turns out then we have these Confederates so I paid these research assistants to pretend。
that they were trying to buy the iPod and they reached out to this participant and they asked。
one of three different questions。 One question the general question said well what can you tell me about it？
A second question was this positive assumption it doesn't have any problems does it or a。
negative assumption question what problems does it have。
So here if we think about it the general question doesn't reveal any specific knowledge。
The other two questions suggest there's a problem and the negative assumption question。
in particular suggests that there really is a problem so the what problems does it have。
suggests that there's actually a problem that I want to learn about。
So it's a direct approach and the negative assumption is the most direct the positive。
assumption the general question are less direct and we look at the responses that we get people。
thought that these participants thought the buyer was much more knowledgeable when they。
asked the negative assumption question and least knowledgeable when they asked a general。
question and they thought the buyer was much more assertive with the negative assumption。
followed by the positive assumption and the general question。
But the key idea and the most important idea here is the kind of responses。
So suppose that you are a potential buyer and you want to learn negative information it。
turns out that when people are asked a positive or negative assumption question they're getting。
much more reliable information they're learning a lot more information about the crashes when。
they're asked these positive assumption or negative assumption questions and they're。
learning very little information when they ask the general assumption question。
In fact in the general assumption case they're learning a lot of information about totally。
irrelevant general stuff they're not learning about this problem。
So the key idea and this is just one of several studies that I've run is that when you ask。
these more direct questions you're getting far more reliable answers and the negative。
assumption when you presume a problem you're getting the most voracious。
The greatest veracity of all the most truthful response comes with that negative assumption。
question。 Okay。 And in fact people found when they had independent raters judge the responses they of course。
judged the sound to be most honest when they're asked the negative assumption or positive assumption。
question。 So one of the ideas here is that when we want to ask these questions we should be sure to。
ask questions and listen carefully to the answers we want to seek disconfirming information。
So we want to challenge assumptions that we have。 So if we're asking a patient how compliant they've been with their medication you might。
want to ask what medications have you missed as opposed to a question like oh you haven't。
missed any medications have you or you want to ask what challenges are you facing meaning。
this deadline as opposed to presuming that they haven't had any challenges like oh we're。
right on track aren't we？ So we want to presume a problem and we're then more likely to gather accurate and truthful。
information。 Thank you。 Thanks。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P56：28_积极倾听.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
I want to build on some of the ideas about asking questions and think more broadly about。
active listening。 When thinking about active listening。
we use this to not only learn information but also， build relationships。 With active listening。
we demonstrate concern and we demonstrate interest in other people。
and their ideas and we can actually shift emotions and how people are feeling。
The idea with active listening is we're asking questions， that's a key part of it。
We're also demonstrating interest in our counterpart， that's a key part of it and we're probing。
further。 That is， in concert， we're doing things to really actively engage in hearing other people。
Just the key idea about active listening is we're asking broader open-ended questions。
What happened or what did that happen？ We're asking people to expand on those answers。
Tell me more about it。 The other key idea here is we're speaking less。
I mentioned this before but we often think that our key ideas are the most important things。
to get out。 In many cases， what we really need to do is listen to other people to figure out what。
their needs are， how our ideas interact with their needs。
The active listening part gets a statement from this active part of listening。
We're doing things like demonstrating interest verbally and non-verbally。
We can engage in these things like minimal encouragers。 Like aha， a right， a really。 She said what？
We're nodding in agreement。 We're doing things that demonstrate that we're paying attention。
When you're out with somebody and they say， "Oh， you haven't listened to a thing I've， said。
" what they're saying is you haven't given me any minimal encouragers。 You might be able to say， "Oh。
yeah， I know exactly what you've been saying for the last， 20 minutes。
" and yet they might feel as if they're not being listened to。 These minimal encouragers。
it's an active listening part that actually gives people a， sense that you're paying attention。
Mirroring。 You're demonstrating interest。 We're repeating the last words or the gist of what somebody said。
We might repeat something and that gives people a sense that you're actually engaged， invested。
in what they're saying。 As we do that， we're encouraging people to open up and we're demonstrating that we care。
about other people。 We're building this affiliation， this rapport， that's so important。
We also need to probe further so we can summarize what people have said。
We demonstrate that we're taking their perspective and then we seek additional clarification。
So something like， let me make sure I understand what you're saying。
The depreciation values from last year came from somewhere， but the current values are。
missing or there's no money in the budget this quarter， but next quarter might be different。
So we're summarizing something and then we're pushing for more information。 By doing this。
that is in concert， if we ask questions， so we seek elaboration， we avoid。
talking and this part's quite hard。 The idea is that when we leave space。
we often create some discomfort。 So sometimes if we just pause。
people find that silence uncomfortable， fill it sometimes， with extra information。
So this is a common interview technique。 It's also common in negotiations。
People will just leave space and that awkward pause gets filled in。 Sometimes with information。
people were reticent to reveal。 Then the active part of the listening， the minimal encouragers。
the mirroring， repeating， the gist of what somebody has said and then the follow-up。
So we're probing further， we're summarizing and asking that next question。
This active listening does a couple of things。 One is it gets people engaged， demonstrates concern。
but also to us， it not only helps， us focus on other people， but it helps us gain their perspective。
So we engage in better perspective taking as we're focusing really on active listening。 Thank you。
We'll see you in the next video。 Bye。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P57：29_非语言沟通.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
A key part of communication is nonverbal。
In fact， most of the message that we get is from the nonverbal cues。
Now sometimes nonverbal cues are pretty funny， so here's President George Bush and Angela。
Merkel at the G8 Summit in 2006 in St。 Petersburg。
And George Bush thought it was going to be appropriate to walk over to Angela Merkel。
and give her a back rub。 And so you see pictures of this。
This was front page news after it happened。 George Bush starts giving Angela Merkel a back rub and her nonverbal cues make it very。
clear she doesn't feel comfortable。 So George Bush is queuing that he wants a close relationship or is presuming a close。
relationship。 Angela Merkel is signaling that he's crossed a boundary and wants to create some distance。
So these nonverbal cues， without any exchange of words， is conveying a great deal of information。
Now this is true in general。 So by some studies， 70 to 90% of the message that we get is nonverbal。
How people are standing， the way they're speaking， or the way they're looking or not。
looking at you。 So nonverbal communication is important when we're communicating with other people。
We can communicate far more effectively with nonverbal cues and we're trying to interpret。
other people。 We can do that far better if we're paying attention carefully to nonverbal cues。
Now there are cross-cultural differences。 There's some cultures where the message really is in how it's being sent。
So these high-context cultures， often in Asia and Latin America， many Middle Eastern cultures。
how the message is being conveyed is almost the entirety of the message。
So somebody in Japan might say that would be difficult。
And what they really mean is there's no way we could ever do that。
And if you'll be paying attention to how it's being said。 In low-context cultures。
we rely more on the content of the text， what is actually being， said。
so in North America and Europe。 But even in low-context cultures。
how things are said dramatically influence the meaning， of what's said。 So far to say， "Oh。
that's no problem。"， The way I say that matters profoundly。 So if I say， "Oh， that's no problem。
" or "Oh， that's no problem，" I'm sending very， different messages。 In fact。
we can flip the meaning of something like， "I'm happy to do that，" or， "I'm happy， to do that。"。
We can send it completely in opposite directions depending on how we say it。 And of course。
cross-culturally， there are different signals when we hold hands or pat， someone ahead。
We're sending messages。 And cross-cultural， we're not going to be sensitive to that。 In some cases。
we can offend people merely by using gestures that we think are pretty， innocuous。
like the okay symbol。 So when we think about number of cues。
here are the dimensions that we should be paying， attention to。 One part are kinesics。
So symbols that we use created by the body。 So gestures， like the okay symbol。
or just articulations。 Facial expressions， eye contact， appearance。
There are a lot of cues around how we look。 There are paralanguage cues。 So the tempo， the emphasis。
So I gave examples with， "I'm happy to do that，" or， "I'm happy to do that。"。
We can emphasize things quite differently。 And in writing。
paralanguage cues are things like writing in all caps。 So I text you a message in all caps。
and you might write back， "Why are you yelling at， me？"， Haptics are involved touching。
Every mammal involves， every male group is very fond of contact。 This tactile contact。
So shaking hands， patting somebody on the back， patting somebody on the head。
These are conveying a lot of information， or like George Bush giving Angela Merkel a backrub。
were engaging in contact in a way that's communicating some important message。 Now。
this is related to proxemics。 How far apart are we？ Again， there are cross-cultural differences。
So in Eastern Europe， distances are much smaller。 In the United States。
we have our sort of personal bubble of about a foot and a half。
So anybody that invades our personal space should be a very close friend or an intimate， partner。
We have public distance that's sort of different spaces。
And we think about where our comfort zone is。 The way we arrange this space can make people more or less comfortable。
And what I'm suggesting is that we can think about this deliberately rather than feeling， like。
"Hey， I'm uncomfortable。 I don't really know why。 I'm suggesting we can figure out why。
We can figure out how the space that we're in can make us more or less comfortable。"。
And that use of space， so the room size， the color， the lighting， the way we've configured。
the office can really change the message that we're conveying。
So if I want to convey a sense of equality， we might have a circular table and we're all。
at seats that are similar。 If I want to convey a sense of inequality。
we can have a table and we can have somebody， on a higher chair than somebody else。
So we can think about this space and the messages that we're conveying implicitly in those cues。
Chronemics， these of time。 So is somebody on time， are they prompt？
Are they delayed or they show up late for meetings？ And again。
if we want to communicate a sense of equality and caring， we're prompt and on。
time。 And again， they're cross-cultural differences。 So Germanic peoples might be very punctual。
Latin peoples might be less punctual and they're not meaning anything by it。
We should be sensitive to those cross-cultural differences。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P58：30_沟通媒介.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Communication media profoundly influence how our messages are not only interpreted， but。
the consequences of those messages。 There's a story about a woman who is negotiating her job offer at Nazareth College。
And what she done after she'd been extended offer， she decided to ask for some clarification。
and ask for some other concessions in an email。 And she wrote， as you know。
I'm very enthusiastic about the possibility of coming to Nazareth。
Granting some of the following provisions would make my decision easier。
So notice that she's not insisting on this。 She's not saying I have to have all these things。
She's saying some of these would make it easier。 And she asked for things like increasing the starting salary consistent with what she thinks。
other people have been getting， a semester of maternity leave， a pre-tenure sabbatical， and so on。
She asked for a few other things here。 And I know that some of these might be easier to grant than others。
Let me know what you think。 Now this is a relatively soft way of approaching things。
I would suggest that had she done this in person， she'd be getting feedback along the way and。
she get a pretty clear sense of how things were going。
The response that she got ended up withdrawing the offer。
So here she had meant to ask for some things。 And I'm going to suggest that because it was an email。
it came across， I think， more forcefully， than she'd intended。
And this electronic medium allowed her email to be shared and probably interpreted in。
different ways。 So you can imagine somebody getting it， forwarding it on。
but forwarding it with a message at， the top like， "Can you believe this？"。
Or "This doesn't look right to me。"， And then building consensus with the department that ended up leading to a withdrawal of the。
offer。 Here， this email exchange ended up in disaster。 Now on a quickly add。
there are many advantages to email and texting。 The asynchronous nature of it means we can send messages and not have to be there at。
exactly the same time。 So we can multitask， we can take more time， we could gather more information。
So the asynchronous characteristic has real advantages。
It tends to be more equal medium of communication。 So if they're high。
if they're strong hierarchies， people communicate more evenly in email。
People can sometimes evade questions in ways that are good or bad， but often more obvious。
when we look through the whole email exchange。 We're revealing different and often less information。
Again， all of those nonverbal cues are often absent。 So humor， for example。
often doesn't go over very well in email。 If it's sarcastic。
it's hard to know if it's delivered in a sarcastic way or not。
But it's also very easy medium to communicate with many people and also to keep a record。
So there are a lot of advantages to using email but some important disadvantages。
And a lot of this relates to the lack of richness in this communication。
There's some media richness theory that suggests that we can order media depending on how rich。
they are。 And face-to-face is really the best。 So in face-to-face media。
we end up communicating with people as completely as we can。
We're most effective in communicating our messages and we're most effective reading other people。
But face-to-face also allows us to do other things like engaging those haptics we talked， about。
So shaking somebody's hand or giving somebody an embrace。
We can do things that allow us to build rapport that we cannot do without it。
Now I'm not saying we shouldn't also use email。 We should。
But we might want to balance face-to-face meetings with email and sometimes replace some other。
meetings， let's say it's through video conference。 If we can， it still pays to get on the airplane。
fly somewhere and meet face-to-face。 That's important for building rapport and our relationships。
It's particularly important when things are complicated。 So if we go down this hierarchy。
there's face-to-face at the top， we can have video conference next。
So video conference doesn't allow us to shake hands but we can still gauge some nonverbal。
cues like facial cues。 Telephone， for example， is less rich than that but again we can still hear the pace and pitch。
and timing of somebody's words。 Writing goes below that。 We have voicemail， email。
instant messaging and those I'd put in a very special category。
because with these electronic messages they're easily replicated and forwarded。
So like that email to Nazareth College， you might end up with a message that gets forwarded。
but sometimes with a preamble that we might not have intended。
And so we want to be careful with these messages and write them or leave them as if we're expecting。
them to be broadcast。 So we want to think about being very careful with those messages。
So here are my prescriptions for email。 So avoid email for sensitive matters。
We want to write email as if things are getting forwarded。
So if we're concerned about being misunderstood， if we're concerned about navigating a tricky。
social relationship like a new relationship with an employer， we want to be very careful。
because we're less likely to get to both communicate and receive feedback as we're communicating。
by email。 So we might miss social conventions or not convey the empathy that we really mean to convey。
when communicating over a text media like email。 So if we're using email。
we have to work at relationship building， we have to recognize。
that emails often appear more aggressive and more serve than they really meant to be。
So we come across differently。 So we have to soften our emails。
We want to think about folding in some face-to-face meetings or getting up， leaving your office。
walking down the hall and talk with somebody as well as emailing with them。 And then finally again。
just to reiterate it because I feel so strongly about it， write。
that email as if many people are going to see it。 [ Silence ]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P59：31_威胁.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
And next， I want to think about threats。
I'll start off with a story。 This was an air traffic controller strike。 It was in 1981。
and nearly 13，000 air traffic controllers went on strike。 They were negotiating over wages， hours。
and benefits， and they're negotiating with the， federal government。 Now， you can think about this。
In the 18，000 air traffic controllers， they're controlling all of the flights throughout the。
United States。 Now， the president of the time， Ronald Reagan， he was a new president。
and he came out and， said， "They're in violation of the law。
They do not report for work within 48 hours。 They have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated。
"， Okay？ So he issues this threat， he's threatening to fire 13，000 people who are controlling。
all of the air traffic in the United States。 Okay？ So this happens on August 3rd， two days later。
so he said 48 hours。 Two days later， August 5th， President Reagan comes out and he carries out his threat。
He fires the 11，359 people， so 11，359 air traffic controllers who didn't show up for work。 Now。
these air traffic controllers hadn't believed that he would follow through on this， threat。
but Reagan made the threat。 He followed through on it， and by October 22nd。
the air traffic controllers union was， officially decertified。
So he won around their traffic controllers。 He ended up pulling people from the military to get a patchwork solution in place。
He ended up retraining， filling these positions， but he effectively followed through on his， threat。
And as a consequence of this， the US Attorney General， Edwin Mies at the time， considered。
this the defining moment of Reagan's presidency。 That is。
he saw this as the foundation for Reagan's subsequent successes because he built。
credibility by following through on this threat。 So Reagan ended up with a lot of legislative and diplomatic successes。
and part of it was， because of the credibility people had with him。 So in this case， very dramatic。
It was a use of a threat， and it ended up paying dividends for Ronald Reagan， those。
are expensive course of action to pursue。 What I want to think about is when should we use threats。
and what do they do， and how， do we respond to these threats？ So first。
think about when to use threats。 We do it when we want to get attention。
If it feels if people aren't paying attention， they're not taking it seriously， want to grab。
that attention， a threat will do that。 It'll also send a message that the status quo is not acceptable。
You want to change how things are going。 Or in Reagan's case， to set a precedent， and in this case。
build credibility。 I'll think about two other threats in the context of strikes。
The Canadian auto workers went on strike in '84。 Each day on the strike cost the company millions of dollars in lost production。
And after 13 days on strike， General Motors conceded to all the key demands of the auto， workers。
So here， there was a threat that's carried to go on strike， GM capitulated， and that threat。
was very -- that threat of the strike and continued on strike was very successful。
About the same time in 1985， Hormel meat packers went on strike in Minnesota。 However。
was ready to keep production going。 They actually served in the factory themselves。
and they ended up hiring replacement workers， who were willing to work for less money。
So they were able to fill demand。 And in that case， few of the demands were ever met。
and most of those employees end up， losing their jobs。
The meat packers had overestimated the impact of their threat going on strike， trying to。
ruin the company， and they ended up losing。 So here are cases of threats that are going in both directions。
So threats that effectively worked and threats that didn't， based upon how much power you。
actually have， and notice we can make bad miscalculations。 Now here's a more disturbing example。
In 2004 in Iraq， militant seized a South Korean man， and they delivered an ultimatum， this。
threat to South Korea， pull your forces out of Iraq， or we'll be sending this hostage。
head back to you。 You have 24 hours。 Now this threat's difficult。
It's 24 hours to remove troops is really quick。 South Korea officially refused to halt their military deployment。
and then in a second， video was released only two days later， showing this man getting decapitated。
So here these militants had followed through on this gruesome threat。 Now the following month。
a Filipino truck driver was taken hostage。 These kidnappers in the video said the last few months to a troop has to leave Iraq on。
this date， and if he goes beyond end of the month， we're going to behead this truck driver。
And the Philippine government quickly withdrew the 51 member presence they had in Iraq。
The hostage was then released the next day。 Now in this case。
it's a very disturbing course of events， but I think about it from。
a threat perspective and this credibility perspective， what's going on that is how are。
they able to effectively change international policies， and they're able to do that by falling。
through on a very disturbing threat。 So we can think， we can look at threats and figure out。
you know， sometimes they work， sometimes they don't。
and we want to think about when they do and when they don't。
Now here's the study about using threats。 Williness。 Are you willing to follow through？
The threat has to be credible and you want to avoid threats that are going to hurt you。
more than your counterpart， but often falling through on threats is very costly to you。
So it was costly to Reagan to fire all those workers and replace them。
It was costly for the whole male meat packers to hire all new workers， at least in the short， run。
But we need to make sure we have a threat that's really costly to the counterpart。
In the GM example， the threat was more costly to the other side and that makes it effective。
We want the demands to be reasonable。 Can the other side comply with the demands？
You notice that in that hostage taking example， the first threat was not reasonable。
It built credibility。 The second threat though gave a month to remove 51 people。
That was a more reasonable demand and that ended up gaining compliance。 Okay。
let's think about interests。 So what are their interests？ What are your interests？
We want to avoid rash threats。 We want threats to come from a place of calculation where we want to gain compliance to further。
somebody else's interests。 So we don't want to punish people。 We want to motivate people。
So if we can all get back to work， we'll be productive。
And here's a way to avoid some bad consequence as opposed to a bullying kind of threat， which。
is likely to promote reactants。 Now still， some of the examples we talked about showed effective threats that were really bullying。
but they're not a foundation for a long-term relationship and they're likely to motivate。
people to try to retaliate。 Now we also want to think about saving face。
So we don't want irrational threats or wimpy threats。
We want to make it easy for the side to meet demands as if they're choosing because again。
we can incite reactants and revenge。 So we want to build respect and build credibility。
Those are the key ideas rather than just throwing out threats as a way that can actually undermine。
our credibility if we don't follow through or people call us on them because they're calling。
our bluff。 And then finally， we want to be exact when we're conveying a threat。
So we want to be very clear about if you do this， then here's what's going to happen。
So you want to set a clear deadline。 We want to be very clear about consequences。
We want to be specific。 And remember， if we don't follow through， we lose credibility。
And if we do follow through， it's often costly， at least in the short run。
So that's the idea about delivering threats。 The next idea is how we deal with threats。
So when people make threats， we should recognize that these threats push our neurological buttons。
We really crave retaliation。 That is we want to go beat up that person that issued a threat。
This is one reason why we should be very judicious and careful when we issue threats because we're。
pushing somebody else's buttons and that reactants is likely to blow up back in our， face。 Now。
when it's happening to us， my recommendation is to avoid escalating conflict。
We want to be very careful about being just reactive， even though that might be what feels。
best in the moment。 Now， on this side， we want to be very careful about conceding too quickly because if we。
concede to somebody who's making threats， we're encouraging them to operate that way and we。
lose power。 So one thing we might do is ignore a threat。 In fact。
this is what a lot of hostage negotiators do。 Hostage negotiators will frequently talk through a threat deadline。
So some hostage will say， "Look， this is the deadline。"， And right before the deadline。
the negotiators will get on the phone。 They'll start talking through and they'll try to move the conversation forward somewhere。
and never go back to like， "Hey， you said you're going to throw somebody off a building。
you never did。 They don't come back to it， but they talk through it。"。
So they're ignoring that threat。 And often， when we look at these studies。
negotiators abandon their threats most of the， time。
77% of the time when the threat goes unreciprocated。 As we respond to threats。
we want to think about a few key things。 One is trying to figure out the motivation。
So what's behind that threat？ It could be that the person who's issuing the threat feels like a victim。
So they feel frustrated or offended。 They feel neglected。
And this threat is coming out of a desire to be heard。
So they feel like they can't grab attention unless they issue that threat。 If that's the motivation。
it's really important， they're calling out for attention， they care， deeply about this issue。
They want to give them careful attention。 It could be they're just being pragmatic。
So they have a really strong alternative。 And this is how they're going to deal with you。
This is how they see the playing field。 And they want to gain leverage with this threat。
The third case is they're just bluffing。 This is how they have done business in the past or flex insecurity。
And the threat really isn't serious。 They just found that issuing threats are a good way to gain compliance。
So you want to think about where this threat is coming from。 And we want to respond appropriately。
So if somebody is just trying to gain attention， we want to express understanding。
We want to listen。 We want to figure out what their grievances are and express understanding for their troubles。
So we want to soothe their concerns。 Now we should also ask questions。
So how intense is this threat and how intense is their feeling about it？ And if it's a pragmatist。
we can come up with creative solutions to address it。
Now if it's somebody who's just bluffing just to gain compliance as a matter of practice。
we want to label that behavior。 And we really want to counter it。
So we like to call it out or ignore it completely。 And sometimes when we're really stuck。
what we have to do is deliver a counter threat。 Now remember， I said this could escalate conflict。
but sometimes to establish credibility， we， issue a counter fight saying， look， if you do that。
here's what we'll be forced to do。
But none of us wants to end up in that place。 Let's try to get somewhere else or I understand that you're feeling upset。
If you take that course of action， here's the response that we're going to have to follow。
through with。 But let's see if we can figure out a more creative way for us both to get what we need。
So we like to remove beyond threats and really deescalate them。
But you can't just give in to every threat because we'll lose our own credibility， our， own power。
and that could be in the long run what's really most important。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P6：5_六种生活练习.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
When we teach success， here at Wharton， one of the things we do is offer the students。
exercises， mind puzzles， little homework things that allow them to think about their own success。
values and their own emotions and their own capabilities。 And then when we come together。
we talk about the different answers people got。 In this setting。
what we're going to do is offer you the same exercises and then give， you a chance to do them。
And then I'll come back and I'll be able to share with you some of the range of responses。
that I've received from these exercises either in the classroom or in executive sessions。
with senior executives or online where I've got thousands of people who've taken some。
of these assessments。 And that way it'll give you a chance to benchmark your own answers and think about them in。
light of these other responses。 So let's get started with the first one。
It's the one we use in the first class here in the success course at Wharton。
I call it the Six Lives Exercise。 And it's really very simple。 There are six short paragraphs。
each one telling the story of an individual in a different， career setting。
Then you have to read each of those paragraphs。 It's sort of on。
if you printed it out of being one side and the other side of a single， piece of paper。
And then think about these six stories。 And then the final part is the part that's going to give us something to work with。
I need you to rate the lives from number one， the most successful life as you see it， to。
number six， the least successful life as you see it。
And we just try to make it so that each life gets an individual number， so there's no ties， allowed。
So you're going to be reading these six little vignettes， you're going to be thinking about， it。
and then you're going to rank them。 Number one is the most successful， down to number six。
the least successful。 And then bring your answers to the session where we talk about some of the context for。
this。 And I think you'll begin to see how this helps you access what some of your implicit values。
are when it comes to this magic word that we're going to be studying the word success。
So let's take a moment， take the exercise， and I'll be back in a second to talk about， your results。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P60：32_目标的益处.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Goal setting turns out to be an incredibly powerful tool。
It's a fundamental part of motivation。 Goal setting can drive us to do great things。
Goal setting can also drive us to do very bad things。 But first。
I want to think about the benefits of goal setting。
There are over 400 managerial studies that have looked at goal setting。
And there are dozens and dozens more that have looked at behavior and goal setting。
whether it's delivering mail， it's welding， it's sewing， in athletics。
When people have specific challenging goals， they increase their efforts， they increase persistence。
and they increase performance。 That's the general result。
And it's a very robust and replicable finding。
In fact， some of the most foundational goal setting scholars have said。
the beneficial effects of goal setting on task performance is one of the most。
robust and replicable findings in the psychology literature。
And indeed it is。 That is psychologically just setting a challenging goal will boost performance。
And the relationship between goal difficulty and task performance over a wide range is almost linear。
That is the more difficult the goal， the higher the performance。
This is particularly true for effort-based tasks。 So tasks where we just need people to work a bit harder。
greater goals will boost motivation and often boost performance。
We also know the goal proximity matters。 So you want to break down goals in smaller pieces when people are close to reaching that goal。
So the end of the month， and we're almost at the goal。
that's when people are particularly motivated。 So close to that goal， people work extra hard。
You can look at this。 There are studies of runners。 If you look at a marathon race。
there are big spikes right by round numbers。 People are racing to get in under a specific time。
Now goals work by focusing our attention。 They're increasing our effort and boosting persistence。
So what we wanted you to harness the benefits of goal setting is to set clear specific goals。
They should be challenging but also realistic。 If we have past performance。
so how fast we've run on prior races， or how much people on this factory line can perform。
or sales goals based on past performance， we want to set goals around the 80th to 90th percentile of performance。
So challenging， but also credible。 And if we can set a series of short-term goals。
like goals every month rather than goals for the whole year。
we're likely to see greater benefits to setting goals。 The next part involves committing to goals。
And this is one reason why the goal has to be realistic。 People have to believe they can get there。
So if they visualize it， they write it down， they tell other people。
And sometimes if I tell other people， it'll be embarrassing if I fall short。
so that'll steal my resolve to that goal。 We also want to think about developing a plan。
How can I achieve that goal？ What steps do I need to take to get there？
That action plan will all help us get to the goal。 And of course clear feedback is important。
That is， we want to make sure we're getting feedback along the way。
And remember that when we're particularly close to the goal。
that's what's going to boost performance the very most。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P61：33_设定目标的陷阱.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
In addition to the good in goal setting， there are also some important pitfalls， or the bad。
and the ugly about goal setting。 Let me tell you a story about Wells Fargo in 2016。
They launched the great initiative， GR-8 initiative。
They set a goal for their employees to sell at least 8 financial products to their customers。
By a financial product， what I mean is a checking account， a debit card， a credit card。
They wanted at least 8 financial products per customer。 This is also known as cross-selling。
So you come in and open a checking account， where you come in and have a home mortgage。
and they try to sell you other financial products。 Now。
we all know that goal setting can boost motivation and boost performance。
It motivates people to do more。 Here's the problem。
What happens if you're struggling to hit that goal？ What then？
We know psychologically it feels terrible to fail to meet a goal。
And it presents a dilemma for employees or other people who are trying to hit a goal。
And what often happens is that people will cut corners。 And in the case of Wells Fargo。
they opened 2 million fake accounts to meet these sales， goals。
So employees were opening accounts with customers that customers had not authorized。
Wells Fargo ended up firing 5，300 employees， and they paid $185 million in fines。
Now one idea is to say， "Well， there's some bad apples here。
There's some bad employees doing the wrong thing。"， Five years， it's not the employees。
it's the system。 And anytime you have to fire over 5，000 employees over the same problem。
it's not a few bad apples。 It's a problem that's more systemic。 And here it's goal setting。
that's the problem。 And the CEO， John Sump， actually came out and said。
"We're eliminating product sales， goals because we want to make certain our customers have full confidence。
Our real estate bankers are always focused on the best interest of customers。"。
So they're eliminating the goals because the goals were a problem。
Now this brings me to this idea of some work that we've done that we've titled， "Golls， Gone Wild。
" because goals can do， in addition to very positive things， some negative things。
They can focus attention too narrowly。 So that is， we're focused on hitting that goal。
So think about a runner， they're trying to hit that goal。
They're focused on hitting that time and they're ignoring the pain in their knees。
Maybe that's the right thing to do。 Maybe it's not。
but goals focus attention in a way that can drive performance。 Goals can also increase risk taking。
So we take on more risk to try to hit that goal。 That is。
since we care deeply about hitting that goal， particularly when we're close to， it。
we might take risk that might allow us to reach the goal and the difference between。
falling short by a little and falling short by a lot may not be that important to us。
Goals can also lead to unethical behavior。 The Wells Fargo case is not an isolated case。
There are many others。 So here's the idea about a narrow goal。
One motor years ago set a goal for 29。 Now in 2002， they had 28。2% of the US market。
They set a goal for capturing 29%。 So they created buttons and pins for executives to wear with the number 29。
So these executives were walking around with pins that said 29。
And the goal was to increase market share。 Well it turns out that GM expanded the offering of interest-free loans and no money down incentives。
They're trying to get people to buy the cars to reach their 29% goal。
They were losing money on a per-car basis in the effort to meet this goal。 Now you could say。
well they're trying to meet the goal but they're missing the broader， focus。
That is the goal setting process narrowed their focus on 29% of market share。
But of course that's not really the goal。 The goal is to be profitable at the same time。
So they were missing the broader picture because the goal setting process had narrowed their， focus。
So they ended up saying， well this is what Forbes said， fixate on this target。
The firm went on to make decision after disastrous decision that helped drag it to the brink。
and then pass the brink of bankruptcy。 So GM ended up going bankrupt because they ended up pursuing this narrow goal that really。
didn't reflect their broader goal。 There are other cases。 So in the United Kingdom。
the Health Commission reported that there were 400 deaths at Stafford。
Hospital because they had excessive focus on certain targets。 So we see this across industries。
across time， people end up narrowing their focus because， of goal setting that really does。
by its inherent nature， focus people on specific targets。 Now risk taking。
Staying also promotes greater risk taking。 In 2003， Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac。
the large institution designed to support mortgages for。
all Americans but particularly people with lower incomes。
They set out a goal to have 20% of mortgages for lower， very low income families。
This was up from 14% in the preceding years。 So at the end of the 1990s。
14% of the mortgages were for low and very low income families。 2001 and 2003。
they had a goal of boosting that to 20%。 They ended up making very bad loans。
Loans that were so risky and so bad， they ended up filing for bankruptcy in a government。
bailout in 2008。 So here they set a goal and they ended up taking on more risk than they could handle。
In our own research， we've looked at goal setting and found that people are more likely。
to engage in risky and unethical behavior when they're pursuing a goal。
So we've seen this in negotiation studies。 Pills goals are reaching less profitable agreements。
They're making larger demands。 And people have talked about the destructive goal pursuits。
In other domains too， like the 1996 Mount Everest disaster， as people were trying to reach their。
goal of submitting the mountain， they took on too much risk and sometimes with disastrous。
consequences。 Now goal setting can also get us into deep trouble。 The dog green giant， for example。
rolled out a plan where as they harvest vegetables。
they want to make sure there are no insects along with those vegetables。
So they set out a goal for collecting insects and they said targets for people collecting。
insects and it turns out their employees ended up starting carrying insects around with them。
in their pockets that they'd put into the vegetables so they could take them out later。
to hit their goals of number of insects pulled out of vegetables。 Now， mini scribe in the 1980s。
they had quarterly earnings。 They had goals to ship enough products and they found the employees were actually shipping。
not just products but also bricks because they were trying to hit these goals in a very narrow。
sense。 Sears automotive in the 1990s， they set a goal for certain billable hours。
They wanted $147 in billable sales per hour。 They found the staff overcharged for work and made unnecessary repairs。
In undercover investigations， they found that a vast number of Sears automotive employees。
were suggesting unnecessary work and it damaged the reputation for years。
My own experiments with my colleagues have demonstrated that when people have specific。
challenging goals and they fail to meet those goals， they'll often cheat， in this case they。
were checking their own work to hit that goal。 So across several domains。
we've seen goals lead to very undesirable outcomes。 I'll share one other example here。
the Atlantic school superintendent， Beverly Hall， in 2009。
she was heralded for the National Superintendent of the Year Award。
So here's someone who has held up as an example for others to follow。 And they had 50。
000 student standardized tests starting in 2001 and she was able to boost， performance in Atlanta。
Now it turns out what she'd done is she had pushed goals on educators to produce these。
great achievement goals。 But when state investigators looked into this performance。
they determined that cheating， had occurred in more than half of the districts。
Over 180 teachers were implicated in this scandal that is teachers who were cheating on standardized。
tests on behalf of the students to hit performance goals so they can meet these marks。
So goals can push us to do things that are very undesirable。 Taking together。
we can see that goals can promote unethical behavior。
They can promote unethical behavior by guiding people to use unethical means to meet that， goal。
So like Wells Fargo employees opening up accounts that customers didn't ask to create。
And we can also see people mis-threatening their performance to meet the goal。
So they're saying they met the goal even when they didn't。
In both cases， goals are motivating people but they're motivating people to cut corners。
in ways that can have disastrous consequences both for individuals， groups and organizations。
So that's it。 That's it。 It's the end。
That's it。 That's it。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P62：34_充分利用目标设定.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So how do we make the most of goal setting？
Sometimes goals can motivate us to do great things， but goals can also lead us astray。
to do unethical and terrible things。 So should we ever use goals？
Notice that in some of those examples we talked about before， executives come in and。
just decide to remove the goal setting process。 That will as far go at Sears and it presents this challenge。
How do we decide how to use goals？
We know that goals can be very effective for directing effort， particularly when it's。
an effort based task， when the parameters are clear and we can accurately incorporate the。
key dimensions of what we're trying to do。 Goals are also very powerful for informing and communicating what we care about。
And they're very useful for straightforward tasks。
So in many cases goals are really important and they really are a foundational part of， motivation。
They're one of the key mechanisms for communicating and getting people on board to drive in a。
pillar direction。 But goals should be used carefully and I'm going to argue that we should demonstrate a。
concern for the process and also monitor the behavior that people are engaging in as they're。
pursuing that goal。 This is particularly true when people get close to that goal。
So if it's a sales goal， the end of the month， should be when we're very mindful and watchful。
vigilant of what people are doing。 So when people get close to the goal。
that's when goals can be most intense in their motivation。
and we want to be careful about what people are doing。
We want to demonstrate that we care about the process。
So we care about the process like the Atlanta school teachers that we do care about the integrity。
of the test taking。 If that's how we're measuring goal performance。
we want to be very careful that we're caring， about that process。
Now there's some related ideas here。 We could have performance goals versus learning goals。
So when we go out， let's say you're going out to play tennis， the performance goal is。
winning the tennis game。 The learning goal is improving so that your backhand becomes the best that it can be。
And the same is true in any domain， whether it's educational or at work， we're doing a， project。
Is the goal performance or is there a learning goal？
And the upshot is that the more we can get to a learning goal that is we're constantly。
trying to improve， we're trying to get this to be better and better。
The closer we are to a learning goal， the better off we're going to be in a long term， situation。
We find that people are better， they react better to feedback。
They actually do end up learning and performing better over time。
So we want to move away from a performance mindset to a learning goal mindset。
Another key idea is organizational culture。 The culture in the organization really matters。
And this is related to the idea that we care about process and strong cultures that care。
about ethics can really curtail the risk of unethical behavior being driven by goal setting。
The idea here is that if we have an organizational culture， we can limit the damage that goal。
setting may cause because we demonstrated concern for ethics and a concern for process。
So in short， I want to issue a warning that is goals may cause systematic problems in。
organizations because they narrow focus， they increase risk taking， they can promote unethical。
behavior and harm learning， harm cooperation and decrease intrinsic motivation to pursue。
what we really want people to do。 But on the other hand。
they can also have very positive consequences。 So we should use goal setting。
but we should do so carefully。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P63：35_实现目标.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
In this last segment， I want to think about the importance of endings and how we end things。
influences how we start what comes next。
I want to share a story about one of my friends， Angel Calzadilla。
He's a crisis negotiator in Miami， Florida。
Now one day he was called to an incident， a man named Paris had hauled three suitcases。
over a barbed wire fence and up a tower。 At the top of this radio tower。
he was throwing down leaflets that read "Listen to Paris。"， Well， crowd had gathered below。
It was being a stop traffic。 The swatting was called in and a crisis negotiator needed to convince this guy to。
come down and stop creating all this commotion。 Well they got there。
They didn't know exactly how to communicate with him until they finally figured out， "Well。
we can communicate by helicopter。"， So Angel goes up in a helicopter。
is writing on these large sheets of paper and is getting。
Paris to shake his head yes or no to get him to communicate to eventually persuade him。
to come down。 It takes hours。
It takes so long they have to refuel the helicopter。 Finally， Angel persuades him。
If you come down now， you can come down and I'll let you speak to the media。
Who knows， another story could break。 You could lose your opportunity。
You have a message。 Now's your time to get it out。 Finally， Angel persuades Paris to come down。
He comes down and think he might have a bomb。
It turns out he didn't。 He comes down， the SWAT team is tired， they're exhausted。
They want to throw Paris in the van。 Angel intervenes and says， "No， I know you're sick。
You're tired。 You just want to throw this guy out。"。
But we're saying， "No， I promise him he could speak to the media。
I'm going to follow through on that promise。"。
So Angel lets him speak to the media。 He runs over the meeting and says， "Even if you have no film。
just turn your lights on。
let the guy speak。"。
So they let the guy speak。 And it turns out he had some very unusual demands。
He wanted less asphalt。 He wanted more horses， more bicycles。
And this is 1996。 He wanted to be Bob Dole's running mate。
And here's the most interesting demand。 He wanted an end not to all pornography。
he wanted an end to Russian pornography。
For some reason that was the variant that was really bothering him。
Now here's the funny part about the story。 First it turns out he had a funny。
he followed through on this ending。
But the second part is that it doesn't end there。 Months later。
after Paris had been incarcerated but then released， he didn't after all have。
a bomb。 He wasn't deemed a threat to society。
Months later， Angel's pacing around his house， he's hanging out with his family。
He gets a page。 And he looks down and is like， "Oh， a page， I can't believe it。 It's Easter Sunday。
"， He gets a page。
He goes up， shows up on scene。 Here's a guy。 And they say， "Look， Angel。
here's a guy and he wants to talk to you。"。
And here it is， Paris， he's climbed up a pile on and he has similar demands to make。
Now the second negotiation goes very quickly， very smoothly。
They'd already built a relationship。
Paris trusted Angel to follow through。 So here， how Angel had ended that first interaction influenced the way that second interaction。
went。
And something else really interesting here is that we often think of crisis negotiations。
as single shot events。 That would be easy for Angel to have said， "You know what？
This is a one shot deal。 Here's the guy we got on the throne in the van。"。
But Angel follows through recognizing that even in unusual， weird cases， sometimes what。
seems like a single shot case is repeated interaction。 That is。
when it comes to crisis negotiations， we're not expecting repeat business， but we。
can sometimes be surprised。
Next I want to think about endings on a bigger scale。 Here on the world stage。
we think about the end of the Cold War。 This is a war that raged for decades between the Soviet Union and the United States。
Now finally， the Berlin Wall fell down and as it fell down， people streamed across the。
border and it was heralded as a great victory for the Western countries， the United States。
and Western Europe。 It created an opportunity for Germany to become reunited and it marked the beginning of the。
end of the Soviet Union。 Now for the United States， it seemed like a great victory。
but President George Bush at， the time didn't gloat。 He didn't even make much of a deal about it。
He was incredibly understated about this because he knew that working with Gorbachev， the。
leader of the Soviet Union， he needed to affect cooperation and he knew that if he glowed。
about that victory， it would make it much more difficult for him to work with Gorbachev。
going forward。 The study about ending is true in a lot of different domains。
Think about negotiations。 Of course， we can think about being happy after we reached a deal。
perhaps even a deal that's。
really great for us and yet just like it's important not to gloat when the wall falls。
down， it's important not to gloat when we end up with a good deal in a negotiation。
But here you want to be careful even smiling too much after you reach a negotiated agreement。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P64：36_课程总结.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Thanks for joining me。
I enjoyed thinking about these topics of cooperation and competition， how things like。
social comparisons can tip us into a competitive mindset， how we can think about trust and in。
whom to place our trust， and deception as it hijacks our trusting systems。
We talked about apologies and putting those pieces back together， as well as some communication。
topics more generally and crafting effective messages， messages that are memorable and， effective。
We also talked about asking questions and the whole questions play not only in eliciting。
information but also conveying information and guiding the kinds of responses that we， can get。
And finally goal setting when it goes right and when it can drive us to engage in behaviors。
like unethical behaviors that we really want to avoid。 I've really had a great time。
Thanks for joining me and best of luck using these ideas as you go forward。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P65：0_课程简介.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Welcome to Influence。 My name is Kate Massey。 I am a practice professor here at the Wharton。
School in the Operations， Information， and Decisions group。 This is a course that I've。
been teaching with executive MBAs and MBAs for 10 years now， first at Yale School of。
Management and more recently here at Wharton。 I teach other things。 I teach negotiation。
decision-making， people analytics。 This is a course that's very close to my heart。 I've。
poured a lot into it over the last 10 years。 I've learned a lot from the students I've。
been working with and from the literature on power and influence。 One of the reasons。
I like it is that like negotiation， it's about more than just work。 It's as important in your。
personal life and your family and your relationships as it is at work。 I also like it because it's。
this nice intersection of it's almost social science and clinical psychology。 This is a。
very personal class。 If you're signing up for it， I hope you're ready to do some introspection。
and some stretching because that's the motivation here is that we think we can make a difference。
in your life by encouraging you and motivating you and giving you new tools for becoming a。
more influential person。 The initial motivation for this course was to arm our MBAs as they。
left our program and they begin navigating their way through organizations。 In fact。
the initial title， the first version was called "Navigating Organizations。" The idea was that。
so much of the business school curriculum is about running an entire organization。 How。
do you design an organization for example？ Not enough about what happens when you leave。
business school when you're a middle manager， while you're still traversing your way。 These。
tools are intended to help you traverse your way， navigate your way through organizations。
So that's where I'm coming from。 That's what the course is intended to do。 I'll give you。
a little bit of a roadmap for the first week。 We have a couple of topics for this first week。
The first is an introduction to lay out a few basic ideas on power and influence to give。
you some basic frameworks to introduce an example or two that we'll draw on for the rest of。
the course。 And then in the second half of the week， we're going to talk about we're。
going to move from the kind of individual perspective to more organizational perspective。
So much happens in power and influence that focuses on individuals。 It's important up。
top to emphasize the power of the situation and the context。 And so in the second half， of week one。
we're going to look more at context and organization。 So that's where we're going。 Week one。 Enjoy。
Thank you。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P66：2_公平世界谬论.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
How does an appreciation of power and its dimensions really affect a person in their。
career and their lives？ To begin getting a sense of this。
let's start with an example of a former student。 So Noah， let's call him Noah。
graduated from a top business school in 2005， mechanical。
engineering background that was his undergrad， well liked by his peers in business school。
some quotes about him， one of the smartest kids around， great teammate， nice guy， coming。
out of school， takes a product manager role， this is one of the most desired roles these。
days coming out of business schools with a startup， about a hundred person or so tech。
startup out in Northern California。 So this is a challenging work environment he drops into。
his firm is under big pressure， to hit venture capital milestones。
His direct supervisor was not the most experienced manager in the world and is often the case。
in these startups was over committed。 And the founder CEO who was still involved with this firm had difficulty making the hard。
decision。 So an exciting situation but challenging situation as well。 Early on out there。
some successes， so he had great rapport with his business side， colleagues。
The marketing and sales folks were very much like the classmates he had had at business。
school so that worked really well。 But of course as a product manager。
he's got the other side as well， he's got the technical。
side and he didn't have a great rapport on that side of things。
He was known as a hard worker so he established that reputation early on。
But he continued to have some challenges。 He argued with the lead engineer about product specifications perhaps leaned a little heavily。
on his mechanical engineering background and he was intimidated by questions from some。
of the higher ups。 In particular the lead venture capitalists had a rep on the board out there that he had。
difficulty interacting with didn't quite seem to know how to address the concerns that。
that person had。 And then he was repeatedly stymied by management's reluctance to commit to a course of action。
Between the overextended manager and the indecisive owner， he often felt kind of left。
in the lurch and unclear on what course of action to take。
So as he moved into the second half of the year out there， his challenges seemed to multiply。
He started working harder and he hoped his bosses were noticing that he was working harder。
He was too busy to attend the periodic gatherings that their investors had of their portfolio。
companies and he eventually lost support even of his big allies out there on the market。
on the business side because he was unable to move and persuade the people on the technical。
of the engineering side。 When he came up just before his first anniversary。
his product missed the second deadline in， a row and one morning he walked in and he was unceremoniously let go from this firm。
From this very promising beginning just a year before in this very exciting situation。
he had utterly failed。 And this is a story， I don't hear these stories that often but we do hear them。
With some regularity we have the most talented kids， the most talented students go into these。
new environments and fail。 Others have more muted versions of these stories。
They go into environments and just kind of tread water。 They don't ever seem to get traction。
Some of the patterns in these stories， I've started to notice over the years。
Some of the patterns are， many of them are dealt a difficult hand。 Chance happens。
bad bosses happen。 This is the thing about political ability and understanding power and influence。
Sometimes you need that political ability just to get the job done。
It may not be about getting a promotion or running the company。 In some situations you just。
you need it just merely to get the job done。 Another pattern is first impressions。
A lot of folks who have trouble that trouble begins in the beginning。
There's a real premium on what happens early in a firm。
There's trouble fostering good relationships。 This is one of the most central patterns that we see。
A humbling share of what we do happens through other people。
That means there's going to be a real premium put for people who are on people who are good。
working through others。 In this case， and in many of these cases。
we see former students who don't understand， the cost of passivity。
That there's a high return to a willingness to bend circumstances to not accept the status。
quo as a given。 Finally， some folks are hampered by their belief system and in particular a notion of a just。
world that the world's hard work， the world rewards good intentions。 That if you're a good employee。
you keep your head down， things are going to work out okay。
This is a surprisingly robust pattern among folks who have this kind of trouble。
It's been documented in the psychology literature since learner in 1982。
There's research on the just world hypothesis that many people believe that people get what。
they deserve， that is good people are likely to be rewarded and bad to be punished。
This is a mindset that we see in children。 It's seen in developmental psychology。
but a surprising number of adults have this belief， as well。
I could spend quite a bit of time mustering evidence that this isn't the case， but it。
should be the kind of premise that doesn't need to have evidence。
There's just no evidence that the world is a just place。
The problem is that this belief hinders people's ability to learn from all situations， especially。
learning from people who they may not like or respect。
It also enesthesizes people to the need to be proactive in building a power base。
We in this course are very much trying to give you the tools for building a power base。
We want to knock down any beliefs in a just world as a starting place because it is the。
absence of the just world that kind of motivates the need for these tools。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P67：3_塞尔吉奥·德梅洛案例.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Previously， we've talked about the example of NOA， a student who left top B school and。
had trouble in the new work environment。 And we can come up with many of these examples。
not just business school， but for the same， kinds of examples from doctors and lawyers。
But before we go too far， I want to give you a counter example。
Someone pretty much at the top of their game navigating a difficult situation。
We think we can learn something from watching people like Sergio de Mello when they're really。
challenged。 So， in this next section， I want to talk about a book， a couple chapters from a book。
by Samantha Power。 Power most recently was the US ambassador to the United Nations。
Before she had that position， she wrote a book about Sergio de Mello， who she had run。
across in the Balkans during the Balkan conflict of the 90s。 De Mello was a lifetime diplomat。
He went to work for the United Nations straight out of college。 And originally from Brazil。
he rose to be one of the top diplomats in the world。 Most folks considered him the best candidate。
the most likely candidate to become secretary， general。 He was eventually killed in Iraq。
He was the UN ambassador to Iraq in 2003， when one of the first bombings of a civil institution。
there led to his being killed。 One of his last postings before Iraq was in a small country。
formerly in Indonesia， called， East Timor。 And in 1999。
the United Nations negotiated a piece of sorts between Indonesia， which had。
occupied East Timor and East Timor。 They negotiated the right for the East Timorries to have a referendum on independence from Indonesia。
Indonesia had occupied the country since 1975。 There had been a long resistance。
including guerrilla military resistance， from the East， Timorries。 They held the election in '99。
the locals voted overwhelmingly on the side of independence。
The local militia backed by Indonesian military then ransacked the country。 Before leaving。
they basically destroyed 75% of all property。 They killed another thousand people。
They essentially wanted to destroy the chances of East Timor had of being successfully independent。
of Indonesia。 The UN had to take this over。 The UN had brokered the independence。
The UN was responsible。 And the UN basically took the country over for two years。
They chose Sergio de Melo to go there and help build the country again。
They chose de Melo because one， he was from Brazil， so he spoke Portuguese。
East Timor used to be a Portuguese colony。 That's the language many of them are trained in。
He was also seen as a person with the skills to pull this off。
And he was heavily backed by the US who was a big supporter of the UN effort there。
So de Melo at that time had been almost 30 years in diplomacy and had been all over the， world。
And we can learn from watching what he did in this environment， which was such a challenging， one。
So when he got there， there was "nothing。"， Literally nothing had been left intact on the ground except the will of the teamorees。
This picture is one of a small village that had almost every home in the village had been。
destroyed。 There were foundations of the homes that used to be there。
What they needed to do， they needed to do everything essentially。 Power rights。
Airports and ports had to be opened。 Clean water procured。 Health care provided。
Schools resuscitated。 A currency created。 Relations with Indonesia normalized。
a constitution drafted， an official language chosen and tax， customs and banking systems devised。
Policies that normally evolved over hundreds of years would all have to be decided within。
months of arrival。 So consider yourself in this situation。
Consider what you would do as you landed in East Timor。 How would you take up these challenges？
What are your inclinations？ What would be the first actions that you took？ So DeMello。
Here are his early efforts， which you might consider to be phase one。
First he put together an advisory board。 The advisory board included UN representatives but also multiple political parties。
the leading， political parties and also the smaller political parties as well as the Catholic Church。
East Timor is a country that's something like 80% Catholic。
He recruited and trained an entire new judicial system。
So there was something like 60 lawyers in the entire country。
They had to bring more people into the legal system。 They put。
they commissioned judges almost straight away to start rebuilding the legal， institutions。
I say DeMello did。 He just initiated this。 Of course he had a big team there helping out。
DeMello was acutely sensitive to symbolism and to national self-esteem。
So he took many actions to indicate that he did not consider himself above the people， there。
that he didn't consider himself a king in some way。
He was very sensitive to the way he and the staff treated the locals。
One example was he also studied the local language。
He was fluent in Portuguese but the local language， Teddam， was something that he decided。
he wanted to be able to use。 And so in his off hours he was always trying to sneak in some extra language instruction。
And then he worked his tail off。 He was famous。 He was famously a hard worker but there he was known for working something like 19 hour。
days。 And of course when the leader is working 19 hour days the staff is doing the same。
So these are all his inclinations out of the box。 This is the first stage and this is only the early days。
This is like six weeks or so。 They didn't have much of a honeymoon period。
This is what they did with it。 Okay。 Phase two。 The crisis worsens。 Remember is they were in crisis。
There was nothing working in this country when they took it over because it had been raised。
by the militia and the Indonesian military。 So things got worse。
80% unemployment they weren't making a dent in the unemployment。 The UN didn't have the expertise。
It turns out to do many of the things that they needed to do to rebuild this country。
As one staff member put it， staff UN staff is good at diplomatic cables not laying electrical。
cable。 The main thing could be said basically everywhere you turn they just didn't have the skills to。
physically rebuild a country。 There were multiple missteps with some very important issues。
So for example the guerrilla army， the army that had resisted Indonesians for 24 years。
the army that had essentially provided leadership for the country for 24 years had to be honored。
in some way while at the same time they had to protect in other UN situations those kinds。
of armies had been sources of problems。 So D'Mella was very reluctant to give them any leeway。
tried to keep them very tightly， leashed and that was a real issue for them especially given the role they had played in。
the resistance。 And then the whole effort was hampered by UN regulations that were highly restrictive。
and many cases inappropriate。 So for example there were restrictions on what funds could be used。
what funds could， be used on。 So the UN staff had a huge budget。
600 million or something like that while the budget couldn't。
be spent directly on the T-Mores though， the whole East Timor budget was something like。
60 million dollars。 So all these funds were flowing into the UN staff。
couldn't spill over into the real， needs in the country。
So for example there were 500 UN cars in East Timor and D'Mella had to work to get even。
10 of those allocated to the T-Mores leader。 So you can imagine how this goes over with the local populace when all these new cars。
are coming in flooding the country and yet none of the non-UN staffers have access to， it。
As spring 2000 rolled around and remember they just got there in November， this is just。
a few months later they were really on the brink of failure。 Physical security was breaking down。
There was more and more threats from the militia that hadn't quite melted away as much as they。
thought。 The economy was still in ruins and the T-Mores began viewing the UN as "a second occupation"。
which is about as big an insult as you could give given it was the UN that negotiated the。
end of the first occupation， the 24-year occupation。
So this is the situation D'Mella finds himself in after his best efforts and about six months。
of work there which leads us to phase three where D'Mella really had to reset his priorities。
and double his efforts。 In this case his highest priority was emphasizing security。
He revised the peacekeepers rules of engagement。 The peacekeepers are the UN military people there who were intended initially to be merely。
passive。 They didn't initiate engagements。 In fact they had to fire a warning shots before they fired anybody but in order to tighten。
up military security， safety of the people he allowed them to initiate。
He allowed them to be more actively involved。 A couple of large police and military sweeps to drive out the militia and then some important。
strategic decisions like they had a repatriation office in West Timor and they had to shut that。
down because it was threatened people's lives were threatened out there。
It meant they couldn't bring people back from West Timor。
East Timorry citizens who wanted to come back they had to let that go and leave it there。
because it was too much of a security threat。 So really emphasizing security was his number one priority and not his inclination。
He is a man who had spent his career advocating for humanitarian efforts。
It wasn't his inclination but he considered it the priority here。
Number two he created a co-government。 So for the first time in the mission high paid foreigners would work directly under the。
team reese in particular he had eight secretary said department heads essentially。
He made four of them internationals as the initial plan was but then four were East， Timorries。
He literally allocated half of the government to East Timorries。
This was before the government was formed。 This was before elections that happened。
This was before the Constitution was created all of which was against the rules。
The UN officials hated this that was not the mandate。
He was supposed to be running the country for two years but he recognized it wasn't going。
to work if he ran the country。 He had to give these guys more power and it had to be substantive power。
Couldn't be superficial power。 He gave literally half the cabinet to the team reese。
Some of the folks didn't like this even local staffers。 UN staffers didn't like it。
They said we came to work for the secretary general not this department head from the local， folks。
In this critical moment DeMello called a gathering all 700 UN staffers。
He put those four department heads the East Timorries department heads and says these。
four are your new bosses。 I assume for responsibility you either obey them or you can leave。
Took a real stand with these guys。 Another wrinkle and there were lots of variations on this but he figured out ways to navigate。
the UN bureaucracy to get more resources to the local folks and more money and to the， economy。
For example he was able to use some of his budget on road repairs because the logic was。
the road the damage the roads are so bad they're hurting the UN vehicles。 This is how crazy it was。
He couldn't repair the roads directly because that didn't fall within the UN mandate but。
if the roads were bad and damaged the vehicles he could do it。
He found wrinkles like that as a ways of giving the locals more and pouring more money into。
the economy。 Finally in 2001 this is you can see about nine months worth of effort here。
He laid out a clear timeline to full independence。
To address this question the East Timorries were so concerned about when do we have independence。
The vague a year from now two years from now wasn't enough。
He laid out a clear plan that said elections in the summer write a constitution then decide。
how to do the presidency and then we'll hand things over。 These were the steps he took。
These were the rules that he bent and broke in order to do it and eventually he was able。
to satisfy these guys and get things going in the right direction。
As Ramos Horta one of the leaders of the guerrilla effort and then basically the secretary of。
state for decades for these guys said people remember him。
He came here in the worst of times and led them out of these horrendous times when nothing。
existed nothing worked until the restoration of independence。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
