Editors are very careful not to change the meaning of an author's work. They always
ask if something is correct or not. They are highly detail-oriented people
and perfectionists...which is why they are editors.
And it turns out that there is a bit of a "time bomb waiting to go off"
in the early pages of Covert Persuasion that I wasn't cognizant of.
Apparantly (I say this because I'm writing in London and my library is at home.)
It says something like, "You don't need to compromise in negotiation, you can
always win as is shown in the chart above."
And then there is a graph that is supposed to diagram this statement. (I had the graph described to me yesterday via telephone and in my mind, it makes little sense. It basically shows a Win/Lose scenario which is abhorrent to me and defeats the purpose of persuasion.)
Now, certainly compromise is not always the best solution and in fact it is often
the wrong solution and thus sometimes part of the statement above would be true.
You don't compromise how many drinks of vodka your 10 year old is going to have tonight. You start at zero, she goes for 4 and you end up at 2.
Compromise is certainly a good thing in many instances, but definitely not
in all negotiation.
So it would surprise me if I wrote the statements in the book which are clearly
incorrect expanded to all cases, but correct for some. Tens of thousands of people
have read this book and no one ever pointed out this mental blunder until ...
the Journalists arrived....
That morning I had been told that The Prime Minister actually appointed the
Nazi Party leader as head of education
a couple of years ago. That tidbit alone sealed the elections probably especially
among young people who have kids in school.
Couple these recent trends with Poland's perception of selling, something you do TO
someone...in other words, you take advantage of them, they pay you, you win and the person
who made the purchase loses...That makes talking about Win/Win persuasion and neuropsychological
decision making based persuasion...a complicated task.
"How could you write such a book knowing that you can always win and the other person
can always lose knowing politicians can use this against us. What if they had this
and would have won the election yesterday?"
Long, long questions like that which were actually strong positions against Covert
Persuasion and it's generally affable author.
Having handled questions like this before, especially in Poland, I was very prepared
for this kind of a discussion which would never become the focus on meeting with
press as it did in Warsaw in 2001.
"Covert Persuasion simply means persuading using silent or covered strategy and tactics.
There is nothing that is unkind, unpleasant or unethical about it. Covert Persuasion
revolves around creating comfort and building long-term relationships."
And so it was over and on to interesting subjects...
...but only in my head...