Beating someone: win a (hostile) argument; show someone you are better than them; win a negotiation.
You will note that I have listed "win a negotiation" both under " creating a bond" and " beating someone". That is because in a negotiation you can either try to bond or be hostile (and often use a healthy mix of both). Indeed depending on the situation you will need to decide which tactic is better suited to achieve your goal. Let me illustrate this with a concrete example: a while ago I have had to negotiate a specific clause in an agreement which from the legal standpoint was an aberration. On the other side of the table was a well-known international bank. They tried to include a clause which would basically have exonerated them from any liability if they did not do what they were supposed to do under the contract. Pragmatically, this is counterintuitive, because if a party can exonerate themselves from their liability in case they do not honour their contractual obligations, you would not need to enter into an agreement in the first place. Legally, it is also very likely that a judge would rule that such contractual clause is not valid. The bank’s tactic was obviously to play the strength-card, because the company I represented was much smaller and internationally insignificant. I knew that my legal arguments where right and I knew that the person I was negotiating with was a very weak English speaker, meaning he had difficulties formulating his ideas in a clear and succinct way.
I should also mention that I was already slightly irritated by the bank, because it was not the first time they made such unreasonable demands and tried to pull off something like this. That is why I was not willing to use the gentle "bonding technique" at that stage of the negotiations. As the call started the bank asked which language we should speak. Although I was perfectly fluent in the language of the bank’s employee I insisted on English. I let him start by presenting his point of view and patiently waited for him to make his point. After that I bombarded him with our legal arguments. Responding was difficult for him because he could not find the words to make his point. Also while he was struggling to find the right words I had plenty of time to think of my rebuttals. At some strategic points I decided to interrupt him. Since he was speaking slowly I had plenty of time to throw in my counter-argument even before he could finish his argument. A couple of minutes after the call had started, everybody on the call could see where the conversation was going. Needless to say that we did not "bond" with the other side. However, my company got what we wanted and won the argument.
Of course, applying this strategy will be difficult if the opponent already knows that you speak his language. It that case you can ask a colleague to join the meeting or call and explain that your colleague does not understand the favourite language of your opponent. That way you will have a valid reason to insist on the language of your choice.
If your opponents are clever they will respond in their native language or another language they feel more comfortable with (provided they know that you understand them). It happens that a person understands a language, but does not feel comfortable speaking it. It such case it is possible that a common language is chosen in a meeting and that some people will reply in another language. Indeed, sometimes, in order not to impose their own language, certain people will accept that a meeting is held in one language and then respond in another one. This works especially in countries with more than one official language such as Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland.
Often, accents from cities are more respected then "rural" accents, because people will associate education and manners with such accents. However if you are trying to bond with someone from a rural area it may useful to "hide" your city-accent, because it may be associated with snobbism and arrogance.
Commenti