In nearly every situation, when people get into a discussion, there are bound to be certain questions or objections. How one handles the situation, and responds to objections, often determines whether one accomplishes his desired results. It is important to understand that all objections fall into two categories, either (1) technical; or (2) emotional. If the initial presentation has been properly presented, the vast majority of objections are emotional. The main technical objection is usually financial, while it takes a finer "ear" to properly understand what each emotional objection might be.
The same five steps are used in all situations. The finesse comes with being comfortable with the concept, listening, and believing in these steps. All major sales and marketing organization teaches this to some degree. The five steps are:
(1) Restate the objection--- This is essential so that you are answering the true objection, and not opening up a Pandora's Box by addressing something that is not the objector's concern. An easy way to do this is to say something like, "So you're concerned about... " (Understand the concern may be about a guarantee, reliability, time commitment, ability, etc., but it is essential that you ask, and get a response and acknowledgment from the objector). Also remember the very important "ZTL" rule - - - "zip the lip." Do not speak until the other person answers your question, and if you are not sure of the meaning of the answer, ask again until you are! The ZTL rule says that the first person to answer "loses."
(2) Empathize (Don't sympathize). This can be simply done by saying something similar to, "I can perfectly understand how you feel, in fact I felt the same way, until i realized and understood a few things..."
(3) Answer the objection-- Calmly, conversationally, fully answer the objection...
(4) Restate the proposal - - - "So in light of this information, and in light of the fact that you've told me that you... "
(5) Re-close - - - "Doesn't it make sense to...?" Then ZTL! I repeat, under no circumstances speak. You must let the other person, agree, say maybe, or give another objection. If they now give another objection, repeat the 5 steps! Keep doing this!
Then, if you believe you have done this long enough--- and after a minimum of 3 times using the 5 steps, there is one more "fall-back" position - - - Say, "May I make a suggestion?" Then, again, zip the lip. Wait-- force yourself --- it almost never occurs that someone will say NO to making a suggestion while they may say "No," eventually to the suggestion, however. It is very important that you get the other person into that "nodding--yessing" mode, because this can be a great lead in (or "trial close") to eventually overcoming the objection, and acquiring a commitment.
I want to stress that this works. I have used it hundreds and hundreds of times in numerous industries, organizations, charities, and personal situations. I have taught thousands how to effectively use these techniques. It initially takes some coaching, and then some practice, but once someone has perfected this technique, their "closing ratio" improves incredibly!
Enjoy the Home of the RICH IDEAS, + RICH BRODY'S TAKE, w/ Blogs about RE, negotiations, finance, etc., Leadership Planning, politics, etc. While there are many points of view, this blog is intended to "cut through the spin," and provide a unique, innovative and provocative insight into current issues. The intent of the blog is to be updated several times per week. Real estate info: http://PortWashingtonLongIslandRealEstate.com and the PLAN2LEAD website: http://plan2lead.net
Monday, September 20, 2010
Objections- How to Answer in 5 Steps?
In nearly every situation, when people get into a discussion, there are bound to be certain questions or objections. How one handles the situation, and responds to objections, often determines whether one accomplishes his desired results. It is important to understand that all objections fall into two categories, either (1) technical; or (2) emotional. If the initial presentation has been properly presented, the vast majority of objections are emotional. The main technical objection is usually financial, while it takes a finer "ear" to properly understand what each emotional objection might be.
The same five steps are used in all situations. The finesse comes with being comfortable with the concept, listening, and believing in these steps. All major sales and marketing organization teaches this to some degree. The five steps are:
(1) Restate the objection--- This is essential so that you are answering the true objection, and not opening up a Pandora's Box by addressing something that is not the objector's concern. An easy way to do this is to say something like, "So you're concerned about... " (Understand the concern may be about a guarantee, reliability, time commitment, ability, etc., but it is essential that you ask, and get a response and acknowledgment from the objector). Also remember the very important "ZTL" rule - - - "zip the lip." Do not speak until the other person answers your question, and if you are not sure of the meaning of the answer, ask again until you are! The ZTL rule says that the first person to answer "loses."
(2) Empathize (Don't sympathize). This can be simply done by saying something similar to, "I can perfectly understand how you feel, in fact I felt the same way, until i realized and understood a few things..."
(3) Answer the objection-- Calmly, conversationally, fully answer the objection...
(4) Restate the proposal - - - "So in light of this information, and in light of the fact that you've told me that you... "
(5) Re-close - - - "Doesn't it make sense to...?" Then ZTL! I repeat, under no circumstances speak. You must let the other person, agree, say maybe, or give another objection. If they now give another objection, repeat the 5 steps! Keep doing this!
Then, if you believe you have done this long enough--- and after a minimum of 3 times using the 5 steps, there is one more "fall-back" position - - - Say, "May I make a suggestion?" Then, again, zip the lip. Wait-- force yourself --- it almost never occurs that someone will say NO to making a suggestion while they may say "No," eventually to the suggestion, however. It is very important that you get the other person into that "nodding--yessing" mode, because this can be a great lead in (or "trial close") to eventually overcoming the objection, and acquiring a commitment.
I want to stress that this works. I have used it hundreds and hundreds of times in numerous industries, organizations, charities, and personal situations. I have taught thousands how to effectively use these techniques. It initially takes some coaching, and then some practice, but once someone has perfected this technique, their "closing ratio" improves incredibly!
The same five steps are used in all situations. The finesse comes with being comfortable with the concept, listening, and believing in these steps. All major sales and marketing organization teaches this to some degree. The five steps are:
(1) Restate the objection--- This is essential so that you are answering the true objection, and not opening up a Pandora's Box by addressing something that is not the objector's concern. An easy way to do this is to say something like, "So you're concerned about... " (Understand the concern may be about a guarantee, reliability, time commitment, ability, etc., but it is essential that you ask, and get a response and acknowledgment from the objector). Also remember the very important "ZTL" rule - - - "zip the lip." Do not speak until the other person answers your question, and if you are not sure of the meaning of the answer, ask again until you are! The ZTL rule says that the first person to answer "loses."
(2) Empathize (Don't sympathize). This can be simply done by saying something similar to, "I can perfectly understand how you feel, in fact I felt the same way, until i realized and understood a few things..."
(3) Answer the objection-- Calmly, conversationally, fully answer the objection...
(4) Restate the proposal - - - "So in light of this information, and in light of the fact that you've told me that you... "
(5) Re-close - - - "Doesn't it make sense to...?" Then ZTL! I repeat, under no circumstances speak. You must let the other person, agree, say maybe, or give another objection. If they now give another objection, repeat the 5 steps! Keep doing this!
Then, if you believe you have done this long enough--- and after a minimum of 3 times using the 5 steps, there is one more "fall-back" position - - - Say, "May I make a suggestion?" Then, again, zip the lip. Wait-- force yourself --- it almost never occurs that someone will say NO to making a suggestion while they may say "No," eventually to the suggestion, however. It is very important that you get the other person into that "nodding--yessing" mode, because this can be a great lead in (or "trial close") to eventually overcoming the objection, and acquiring a commitment.
I want to stress that this works. I have used it hundreds and hundreds of times in numerous industries, organizations, charities, and personal situations. I have taught thousands how to effectively use these techniques. It initially takes some coaching, and then some practice, but once someone has perfected this technique, their "closing ratio" improves incredibly!
Tea Party Success- Worse for Democrats or Republicans?
There is little doubt that the recent support and success of the Tea Party and its candidates is to a large degree a reaction by American parties to dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, the economy, the joblessness rate, a general malaise, and our existing government and elected officials. The question that may be far more relevant, however, is, "Is the Tea Party's success more of a threat to the Democrats or the Republicans?"
There has been much spin on all sides of the political spectrum as well as in the news media related to this question. Republicans state that the public's disenchantment gives them an advantage for the mid-term elections in November 2010, and that they believe they can then take control of the Congress. Some Democratic pundants, while keenly aware of the ledge they are teetering on, feel the Tea Party may actually splinter the Republican party, or give easier candidates for the Democratic candidates to run against than would the more traditional Republican party candidates. The media are also spinning this issue to support their point of view and preferences.
Traditionally, Americans tend to be relatively centrist politically. They may, for a short period, become a little more conservative or liberal, depending on certain issues, and the overall tone and mood of the electorate. However, what this means for the mid-term elections is certainly unclear. Tea Party candidates could ride an emotional wave to victory in November, but a historical perspective indicates that it will probably be short-lived.
What may even be more interesting, however, is that President Obama's chances to be re-elected may very well be enhanced for 2012 if the Republicans gain control of the Congress in 2010. In what would be perhaps the ultimate irony for Tea Party zealots, that scenario would give the President the opportunity to blame the Congress for whatever goes wrong, which he cannot do with his own party in control?
Therefore, whether the Tea Party is a short-lived fad and protest, or a long-term trend, the end result is that it will create some sort of rift within the Republican party. As the adage goes, my advice is, "Be careful what you wish for."
There has been much spin on all sides of the political spectrum as well as in the news media related to this question. Republicans state that the public's disenchantment gives them an advantage for the mid-term elections in November 2010, and that they believe they can then take control of the Congress. Some Democratic pundants, while keenly aware of the ledge they are teetering on, feel the Tea Party may actually splinter the Republican party, or give easier candidates for the Democratic candidates to run against than would the more traditional Republican party candidates. The media are also spinning this issue to support their point of view and preferences.
Traditionally, Americans tend to be relatively centrist politically. They may, for a short period, become a little more conservative or liberal, depending on certain issues, and the overall tone and mood of the electorate. However, what this means for the mid-term elections is certainly unclear. Tea Party candidates could ride an emotional wave to victory in November, but a historical perspective indicates that it will probably be short-lived.
What may even be more interesting, however, is that President Obama's chances to be re-elected may very well be enhanced for 2012 if the Republicans gain control of the Congress in 2010. In what would be perhaps the ultimate irony for Tea Party zealots, that scenario would give the President the opportunity to blame the Congress for whatever goes wrong, which he cannot do with his own party in control?
Therefore, whether the Tea Party is a short-lived fad and protest, or a long-term trend, the end result is that it will create some sort of rift within the Republican party. As the adage goes, my advice is, "Be careful what you wish for."
Setting Priorities For An Organization
Leaders of organizations are constantly facing the challenge of juggling priorities. Since most organizations do not train their leaders via a professionally designed and presented training program, many leaders are ill-prepared to use the concept of prioritization in conducting their leadership responsibilities.
The first thing that organizations need to do on a fairly regular basis is examine and reexamine their missions and Mission Statements, to assure that these missions are still relevant to the organization as it has evolved. After doing that analysis, and weighing all the ramifications of either keeping the Mission Statement static or altering it to adapt to changing times, leaders must set forth a set of priorities top adhere to during their tenure in office. These priorities should include short-term,intermediate-term, and long-term programs, objectives and goals, and a financial and time analysis of each of these. Once this analysis has been performed, leaders need to rate each program, project and event, in terms of both importance, perspective and relevance.
In my three decades of working with not-for-profits and other organizations, I have unfortunately observed that prioritizing tends to be one of the most overlooked items of leadership. The vast majority of untrained leaders tend to lead either based on some emotional attachment to an idea, a poorly conceived or understood notion, or as crisis managers. While every organization faces a "crunch time" which may or may not be perceived as a crisis, well trained leaders pre-plan for contingencies, and tend to be better able to cope when some difficult event occurs. However, when leaders do not properly use priority leadership as a core concept, very often ill-prepared leaders then spend too much time on non-priority items, and inadequate time on important ones. Using priority management techniques, leaders are far more capable of avoiding getting bogged down in minutia, and continue to see and understand the big picture.
The first thing that organizations need to do on a fairly regular basis is examine and reexamine their missions and Mission Statements, to assure that these missions are still relevant to the organization as it has evolved. After doing that analysis, and weighing all the ramifications of either keeping the Mission Statement static or altering it to adapt to changing times, leaders must set forth a set of priorities top adhere to during their tenure in office. These priorities should include short-term,intermediate-term, and long-term programs, objectives and goals, and a financial and time analysis of each of these. Once this analysis has been performed, leaders need to rate each program, project and event, in terms of both importance, perspective and relevance.
In my three decades of working with not-for-profits and other organizations, I have unfortunately observed that prioritizing tends to be one of the most overlooked items of leadership. The vast majority of untrained leaders tend to lead either based on some emotional attachment to an idea, a poorly conceived or understood notion, or as crisis managers. While every organization faces a "crunch time" which may or may not be perceived as a crisis, well trained leaders pre-plan for contingencies, and tend to be better able to cope when some difficult event occurs. However, when leaders do not properly use priority leadership as a core concept, very often ill-prepared leaders then spend too much time on non-priority items, and inadequate time on important ones. Using priority management techniques, leaders are far more capable of avoiding getting bogged down in minutia, and continue to see and understand the big picture.
Friday, September 17, 2010
What Is An Action Plan?
We often hear individuals talk about the importance of creating and utilizing an action plan, yet few individuals who are leaders of organizations ever fully take advantage of the usefulness of action plans. Action plans not only provide guidelines and guidance, but create a methodology to accomplish ones objectives.
The first thing one must do is create an objective or goal of a particular project or goal. This objective should be broken into long-term, intermediate-term and short-term needs. Once an objective has been decided upon, that objective must be examined to assure that it is in line with an organization's mission. If an organization's mission is in contradiction with a particular project's objective, leadership must examine if this contradiction is acceptable, if it makes it unworkable, or if either the mission or the objective needs updating or adjustment. Leaders must fully examine all ramifications of taking such an action, however, before they decide on any such action.
Once this procedure has been accomplished, it must be determined what the priorities of this plan are. There must be long-term, intermediate-term, and short-term objectives and/or goals, and the plan must be a workable program to accomplish the objectives.
This means that an action plan must list each action that needs to be taken, in a time order. It must also include alternative actions that might be used if a plan needs some "tweaking." Each of these actions must be broken up into sub-categories, and the intermediate steps must be listed, and a timetable placed for each one. The responsible individual for each part of the plan must be noted, as well as a "Need by date." In addition, there must be a strategy for thorough follow-up and examination of the action plan on an ongoing basis, as well as a mechanism for making needed adjustments.
Part of the action plan is also a cost evaluation. These costs include not only the actual expense in terms of both monies and possible lost revenues, as well as the costs in terms of personnel costs and time. Possible costs also include potential ramifications from existing members, who may not favor the changes being proposed.
One must always remember that an action plan has little value if it is either undeveloped, not fully developed, or does not move from the exercise stage to the implementation and action stage. Since many leaders prefer using rhetoric to actually taking action, an effective action plan will only work if leaders are properly trained in all aspects of use.
This discussion is only a beginning in terms of the realities of an action plan. However, my three decades of experience have clearly demonstrated that effective organizations always take advantage of creating and using action plans.
The first thing one must do is create an objective or goal of a particular project or goal. This objective should be broken into long-term, intermediate-term and short-term needs. Once an objective has been decided upon, that objective must be examined to assure that it is in line with an organization's mission. If an organization's mission is in contradiction with a particular project's objective, leadership must examine if this contradiction is acceptable, if it makes it unworkable, or if either the mission or the objective needs updating or adjustment. Leaders must fully examine all ramifications of taking such an action, however, before they decide on any such action.
Once this procedure has been accomplished, it must be determined what the priorities of this plan are. There must be long-term, intermediate-term, and short-term objectives and/or goals, and the plan must be a workable program to accomplish the objectives.
This means that an action plan must list each action that needs to be taken, in a time order. It must also include alternative actions that might be used if a plan needs some "tweaking." Each of these actions must be broken up into sub-categories, and the intermediate steps must be listed, and a timetable placed for each one. The responsible individual for each part of the plan must be noted, as well as a "Need by date." In addition, there must be a strategy for thorough follow-up and examination of the action plan on an ongoing basis, as well as a mechanism for making needed adjustments.
Part of the action plan is also a cost evaluation. These costs include not only the actual expense in terms of both monies and possible lost revenues, as well as the costs in terms of personnel costs and time. Possible costs also include potential ramifications from existing members, who may not favor the changes being proposed.
One must always remember that an action plan has little value if it is either undeveloped, not fully developed, or does not move from the exercise stage to the implementation and action stage. Since many leaders prefer using rhetoric to actually taking action, an effective action plan will only work if leaders are properly trained in all aspects of use.
This discussion is only a beginning in terms of the realities of an action plan. However, my three decades of experience have clearly demonstrated that effective organizations always take advantage of creating and using action plans.
Leaders Need To Stay Focused on The Big Picture
Many organizational leaders seem to operate on a "crisis to crisis" basis, rather than planning ahead and being prepared for possibilities. This challenge is then often multiplied by these same leaders inability to stay focused on the big picture. This means that leaders have to understand what their desired end result should be, and work to create a priority system, completing the most essential components of the plan before having their attention diverted to other problems.
Many children are taught that they should "not sweat the petty stuff," yet many organizational leaders appear to have forgotten this important childhood lesson. While many issues come up simultaneously, effective leaders realize that they must focus on the most important issues first, because if those are not properly functioning, the lesser issues have little to no chance of succeeding. Many leaders seem to lack either the ability or training to be able to evaluate an issue based on its merits, without then going off tangentially to discuss "side" issues. While all these issues may have some significance, this tangential-oriented behavior often causes leaders to fully examine the primary issue first, and resolve it, if possible, without going off tangentially.
Leaders must think, "What do I want to accomplish?"
Many children are taught that they should "not sweat the petty stuff," yet many organizational leaders appear to have forgotten this important childhood lesson. While many issues come up simultaneously, effective leaders realize that they must focus on the most important issues first, because if those are not properly functioning, the lesser issues have little to no chance of succeeding. Many leaders seem to lack either the ability or training to be able to evaluate an issue based on its merits, without then going off tangentially to discuss "side" issues. While all these issues may have some significance, this tangential-oriented behavior often causes leaders to fully examine the primary issue first, and resolve it, if possible, without going off tangentially.
Leaders must think, "What do I want to accomplish?"
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Why Strategic Planning?
While many organizations have heard of strategic planning, and even claim to strategically plan, few actually do so effectively. Many organizations and their leaders discuss strategic planning as if it is some sort of panacea for "fixing" the organization. That expression is almost as misused as "getting to the next level." It is somewhat amazing that few organizations, and few leaders seem to comprehend that strategic planning must be an ongoing process, if it is to be an effective use of time. Otherwise, what many organizations refer to as strategic planning ends up being little more than an exercise in philosophy and oration.
The first step in effective strategic planning is to properly identify where an organization is at presently, and how it got there. What is the history of the organization, and how does that and the organization's mission impact its planning? How can the organization evolve to improve, while maintaining its reason for being? Strategic planners must carefully understand the ramifications of its actions, or conversely, what the impact of not acting might be.
This process must identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, as well as the reasons and causes for each. All too often, so-called strategic planners inaccurately identify either strengths or weaknesses, or both, and then make decisions or recommendations based on false or faulty premises. This is often seen, especially on the weaknesses sign, when an organization is facing a challenge in a specific area, and often oversimplifies, misinterprets, or misunderstands the reason for the obstactle. When planning begins based on inaccurate premises, the plan is doomed from the onset.
Strategic planners must consider all alternatives in their deliberations. They must consider factors such as short-term, intermediate-term and long-term impacts, ramifications, costs both in terms of financial as well as personnel related. Costs include not only direct costs, but also indirect costs, such as the wastes and excesses. Planners must consider multiple alternatives, and weigh all relevant factors in analyzing ideas.
Strategic planning necessitates entering the process with an open mind, and considering alternatives. Where many organizations drop the ball, however, is that after they expend considerable time, energy and other resources in the process, they do not develop an action plan to assure the timely achievement of the plan.
The first step in effective strategic planning is to properly identify where an organization is at presently, and how it got there. What is the history of the organization, and how does that and the organization's mission impact its planning? How can the organization evolve to improve, while maintaining its reason for being? Strategic planners must carefully understand the ramifications of its actions, or conversely, what the impact of not acting might be.
This process must identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, as well as the reasons and causes for each. All too often, so-called strategic planners inaccurately identify either strengths or weaknesses, or both, and then make decisions or recommendations based on false or faulty premises. This is often seen, especially on the weaknesses sign, when an organization is facing a challenge in a specific area, and often oversimplifies, misinterprets, or misunderstands the reason for the obstactle. When planning begins based on inaccurate premises, the plan is doomed from the onset.
Strategic planners must consider all alternatives in their deliberations. They must consider factors such as short-term, intermediate-term and long-term impacts, ramifications, costs both in terms of financial as well as personnel related. Costs include not only direct costs, but also indirect costs, such as the wastes and excesses. Planners must consider multiple alternatives, and weigh all relevant factors in analyzing ideas.
Strategic planning necessitates entering the process with an open mind, and considering alternatives. Where many organizations drop the ball, however, is that after they expend considerable time, energy and other resources in the process, they do not develop an action plan to assure the timely achievement of the plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)