-1

何か自分が望まないことを断るという状況を、セミナーなどで様々な方に実演してもらうことがあります。その時、訓練を受けていない人は9割方、『自分の利害の説明』から始めようとしがちです。
例えば、会社の利益になると思えない残業を命じられたり、法令や規則違反ギリギリの仕事を依頼されたりする場面で、ほとんどの人は『自分はそれをしたくない』とだけ言い張ったり、あるいは適当なその場しのぎの理由でごまかそうとしたりします。
ところが、本当に必要なことは、それを行うと相手にどんな不利益があるのか、また相手にとってより良い代替案は何なのか、しっかりと説明することなのです。

I really don't understand this passage please help.

This passage means being commanded to do overtime work which seems not to make profit for the company(?), requested to do what is about to violate the rule, many people will say and insist "I won't do that", or deceive with reason that's suitable(?)(?)

The main point of the second paragraph is you don't want to do something that is not useful for yourself(?) -> but I don't understand what is the connection between the first and second paragraphs. Like the example in paragraph two explains what sentence in paragraph one?

And the third paragraph point is about to persuade other people to do what's the same as you think without thinking about their disadvantage??

Edit.

hello thanks so much for fast reply and also correction for 『自分の利害の[説明]{せつめい}』 i try to conclude all the paragraph but sometimes it is so hard to understand what is the core of the paragraph.

and this is the whole paragraph.

何か自分が望まないことを断るという状況を、セミナーなどで様々な方に実演してもらうことがあります。その時、訓練を受けていない人は9割方、『自分の利害の説明』から始めようとしがちです。 例えば、会社の利益になると思えない残業を命じられたり、法令や規則違反ギリギリの仕事を依頼されたりする場面で、ほとんどの人は『自分はそれをしたくない』とだけ言い張ったり、あるいは適当なその場しのぎの理由でごまかそうとしたりします。

ところが、本当に必要なことは、それを行うと相手にどんな不利益があるのか、また相手にとってより良い代替案は何なのか、しっかりと説明することなのです。

なぜなら、自分を含めて、すべての人は自分の利益中心に動きます。だからこそ、他人を動かす時には、相手の利害を説明し、相手の心に納得させなければなりません。

経済学でも会社学でも、様々な人の利害を一致させ、同じ行動をとらせるようにすることは永遠の問題です。それを考え続け、システムとして何とか構築したのが、経済学では資本主義、社会学では議院内閣制です。

すなわち、自分と相手の利害は、野放しの状態では基本的に全く一致しないのです。そこにうまく共通の目的や価値観、ルールなどを導入し、あるいはリーダー的な立場の人を作ることで、何とか方向性を一致させ、同じ目的を達するようにします

explanation:::: 何か自分が望まないことを断るという状況を、セミナーなどで様々な方に実演してもらうことがあります。その時、訓練を受けていない人は9割方、『自分の利害の説明』から始めようとしがちです。 例えば、会社の利益になると思えない残業を命じられたり、法令や規則違反ギリギリの仕事を依頼されたりする場面で、ほとんどの人は『自分はそれをしたくない』とだけ言い張ったり、あるいは適当なその場しのぎの理由でごまかそうとしたりします。 ところが、本当に必要なことは、それを行うと相手にどんな不利益があるのか、また相手にとってより良い代替案は何なのか、しっかりと説明することなのです。

the first paragraph is about way to refuse request through various way such as in seminar where we asked to do role play to demonstrate it. at that time, people who are not trained 90% start to discuss about pros and cons for themselves.

the second paragraph explain further examples in situations where people are ordered to do overtime that doesn't seem to profit the company, requested to perform work that is in a legal gray area, and people will likely wont do that or giving an excuses -> people who being ordered to do

par 3- when you refuse to do smthing start to think not only for yourself but also what's the impact for people the people you refuse, and also give more suggestions what another good point of view for the people who giving you command

なぜなら、自分を含めて、すべての人は自分の利益中心に動きます。だからこそ、他人を動かす時には、相手の利害を説明し、相手の心に納得させなければなりません。

par4 : why? to make other people to think and do the same as i want, by thinking and explaining what are the advantages and disadvantages for other people so that they will understand.

経済学でも会社学でも、様々な人の利害を一致させ、同じ行動をとらせるようにすることは永遠の問題です。それを考え続け、システムとして何とか構築したのが、経済学では資本主義、社会学では議院内閣制です。

its similar as politic and economic, to unite all people, and to make all people have the same behaviour is impossible, for example capitalism and parliament gov system is system that is similar with this problem.->become one

すなわち、自分と相手の利害は、野放しの状態では基本的に全く一致しないのです。そこにうまく共通の目的や価値観、ルールなどを導入し、あるいはリーダー的な立場の人を作ることで、何とか方向性を一致させ、同じ目的を達するようにします。

in conclusion, the way we think is surely different to other party points of view and it is impossible to unite it. to reach teh goal to make it have more commoness by inserting rule or people who have a leader behaviour to works on the problem.

is this right? have i missed some important fact? thank you in advance!

closed as off-topic by Flaw Nov 19 '16 at 15:17

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions asking for translations, transcriptions or proofreading are off-topic unless prior research effort is clearly indicated; we're here to help you learn, not to provide a bulk translation service nor to proofread your translations or transcriptions. See: We don't do translations." – Flaw
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • I can understand. However, are you sure 『自分の利害のセスメイ』. Probably it would be 『自分の利害の説明{せつめい}』. A probably minor mistake, though I rather first want make the whole sentence straightly correct, sorry. – Kentaro Tomono Jun 23 '16 at 23:45
  • Could you provide us with more succeeding and latter contexts please? – Kentaro Tomono Jun 24 '16 at 6:52
  • 2
    Well... StackExchange doesn't work this way. You have posted your message in the Answer field which is reserved for answers. You should use comments to get clarification for points that you don't understand. However with such a huge block of text, maybe you could split it your concerns into several well-defined questions from which other users could also learn and benefit. – macraf Jun 24 '16 at 10:09
  • 1
    @devina I edited the text you posted as an answer into your question, so that you still have access to it, but please consider macraf's advice and identify precisely where you are having problems, even if that means splitting it into several questions. – Earthliŋ Jun 24 '16 at 10:33
2

[Edit: Note, this answer was intended to be a complete answer to the initial version of the question - however the question has undergone a major edit so this answer only partially answers the question.]

The overall theme is "good and bad ways for people to refuse requests" (eg from their employers).

The connection between the first two paragraphs is that the first introduces the theme by describing people acting out such refusals at seminars, etc., and explaining the common (bad) pattern of focusing on themselves, while the second goes into more detail.

Specifically, the second paragraph establishes examples of scenarios where people would wish to refuse a request, and then gives examples of how people attempt to refuse the request. (Likely the author observed such patterns at such seminars, etc.)

The third explains the better way to refuse, which is to focus on the other party's needs in your refusal. If you explain to the other party why complying with the request harms the other party, and propose a better alternative, you are more likely to be successful (the author's conclusion).


The following is a full translation (somewhat loose, but I tried to keep word/clause ordering and directly translate where I could):

At various seminars, etc., many different people were asked to role play situations where one is refusing to do something that they do not wish to do. Of people who have not had any training (for such situations), around 90 percent tend to start by discussing the pros and cons towards themselves (of the activity they do not wish to do).

For example, in situations where people are ordered to do overtime that doesn't seem to profit the company, requested to perform work that is in a legal gray area, etc., most people will only insist that "I personally don't want to do that" or find a makeshift excuse to get out of the request.

However, what is really needed is to carefully explain to the other party why carrying out the request would harm the other party's interests, and what alternative course of action would be a good substitute from the other party's point of view.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.