"Debate" And "Discrimination" In Speculative Work

Discuss with your colleagues, discuss with your customers, report to your superiors, and communicate with them.

Otherwise, people will not understand us completely, so it is likely to be misunderstood.

Therefore, we consciously or unconsciously form the habit of "debate" and enhance the ability of "debate".

First of all, "debate" is a way of working.

As we have said before, we need to communicate with all the working people, and many of the contents of communication are "arguments".

Secondly, "debate" is a kind of job responsibility.

Arguing is not always justification, but to fully understand the connotation of the work. Leadership must be face-to-face and clear. Anyone who thinks he knows everything will be very bad and largely irresponsible.

It can be said that the good or bad of "debate" largely determines the superiority and inferiority of our duties.

Moreover, "debate" is a kind of work art.

Just imagine, if "argument" is much more, "argument" is ruthless, it will be evasive.

If we let our colleagues, clients, superiors or subordinates produce the idea that we are shirking, it will be very bad. If we don't get the opportunity to argue, it is very likely to be considered as a protest, a mountain hero and a personal hero. That will be very bad. A long, endless argument will be regarded as a matter of no distinction between the primary and the secondary and the eyebrows and beards.

All these are different.

The purpose of argument is to let others know what they want to say or what they want to do. Under this premise, we must consider all kinds of circumstances and adopt a better way to argue.

Therefore, "argument" is a necessity for work and a skill for work. It is worth thinking for everyone.

In fact, our work is full of eloquent and eloquent people. They have sharp eyesight and sharp words, and their work is also a pressing force. Their achievements are remarkable, appreciated by their superiors, and are admired by their subordinates.

However, overdoing it is that extremes must be reversed.

That is to say, under some circumstances, we can not argue.

When our respected superiors criticize us for being angry, our colleagues deeply criticize us for misunderstandings, but we must not argue with them. But we must not argue for "arguing". We should avoid being caught at the top of the list. When some of the authorities are accused of nothing, they will fall into the trap that has already been set up when they are pferred to responsibilities by some good people.

These are not the best time to argue.

Moreover, enterprises and leaders will be somewhat helpless at some point. We also need to give support on the basis of understanding and understanding.

At this time, we may have to face and look directly at some of the situations we didn't want to see.

If this happens, the first thing to do is to clarify the truth, to respect the reality, to make a clear and noble compromise, not to choose from personal feelings, and not to display the skills of eloquence in pursuit of truth.

Debates and eloquence are many times.

"Debate" is different from "discrimination". The latter is to excavate the essence of the problem, find the law of things, use the thought to carry on "debate" at the same time, "distinguish" is the right and wrong, is the essence behind the phenomenon, and set aside the dark clouds to see the blue sky.

However, when you argue, you must use "discrimination" with caution. That is to say, many times, you do not want to find out the essence of the problem. Even if you want to do the thing, there is a hidden secret. You just need to understand things well and do well. At this time, you use "discrimination" to be very dangerous.