(Fortune) -- They're often at the top of companies, or in sales -- those lucky people who seem to be born persuasive, with a seemingly magical ability that makes others listen to them, trust them, and act on what they say.

But, "regardless of actual job title, we all persuade for a living," says Kurt Mortensen, founder of a consulting firm called the Persuasion Institute (www.persuasioninstitute.com).

He has a point: Whether you're a salesperson, a team leader trying to coax a group to work in a smarter way, an employee asking for a raise, or simply someone with great ideas to share with co-workers or higher-ups, the one skill essential to success is persuasiveness.

Mortensen, who spent 15 years studying all the available research on how to influence others, came up with his own system, detailed in his latest book, Persuasion IQ: The 10 Skills You Need to Get Exactly What You Want (Amacom Books, $21.95). I recently spoke with Mortensen about his ideas. Some excerpts from our conversation:

Q. Why did you spend 15 years studying persuasiveness?

A. Frankly, I was mad. I had spent $50,000 on an MBA and picked up some great core skills - marketing, finance, and so on - but none of it seemed to be helping me get ahead in my career. I soon found out that the technical knowledge B-schools were teaching [when he got his degree in 1993] account for only about 15% of anyone's business success. The other 85% comes from so-called people skills, of which the ability to persuade is the most important. So I set out to learn as much as I could about it.

Q. What was the most striking thing you learned?

A. It turns out that there are more than 100 methods of getting someone else to trust you and agree with you, but most of us only use the same three or four techniques we learned when we were children. These include whining until you get your way; or bullying, especially if you're a boss; or bribery, which is saying, "I'll do that for you if you do this for me." In the grown-up business world, those methods are often not very useful. Most people really need to learn some new techniques. Using the techniques we learned as kids may get us short-term compliance, but why settle for that when you could have long-term influence?

Q. Can you give us an example of an effective grown-up persuasion technique?

A. Yes. Let's take, for instance, how we handle objections, whether from a customer or some other audience, such as a boss we're asking for a raise. Early on in life, we learn to perceive objections as opposition, so we get defensive. An unskilled persuader, often without realizing it, will show tension, uneasiness, or irritation when someone raises an objection, usually because the objection or concern stirs up the persuader's own insecurities: "Aren't I doing a good enough job explaining this? Didn't I go over that already?" This way of thinking will only make matters worse.

By contrast, great persuaders who have learned new persuasion skills know how to welcome objections. Instead of seeing them as opposition, these persuaders see objections as a natural, and valuable, part of the process. They use their audience's concerns as a way to open a dialogue, a chance to exchange ideas and discover new areas of common ground. Truly great persuaders may cut to the chase by addressing an objection before it's even been voiced, just to get that communications ball rolling.

Q. What kind of consulting work do you do? What do your corporate clients want?

A. Companies bring me in to address problems with customer service, or with managers who are having trouble motivating people. Or there are situations where employees are lying to managers, saying they'll do things they never intended to do. Or sometimes it's a question of salespeople who can't win customers' trust. You know, there was a big study at Harvard a few years ago that showed that when people get fired, 66% of the time it's because of "people issues," not a lack of technical proficiency. It's the inability to figure out what others really want or need and address that. And I do see lots of those problems in the companies where I consult.

Q. In the book you mention "the Wobegon effect." Want to tell us a bit about that?

A. In Garrison Keillor's fictional town Lake Wobegon, all the children are above average -- and when I ask a roomful of businesspeople to rate their own people skills, 90% say they're above average. We rate ourselves very high on thinking people like us, people trust us, we're great at getting along with other people, and so on. That's the Wobegon effect. What I'm saying is that really successful people are open to the idea that they may have strengths and weaknesses in their people skills, and the weaknesses may be holding them back.

Q. A big part of persuasion is establishing trust. How do you do that?

A. One interesting aspect of it is credibility. When someone meets you for the first time, if you reveal a weakness, you are likely to win that person's trust. That's because people are looking for a weakness, and they will assign one to you, so you might as well control the process. Also, we've all been taught never to let a weakness show, so it's disarming to come right out and state one. I don't mean a huge weakness, like you're an axe murderer. I mean, for example, let's say you're a one-person business and your competition is a huge company. You might say, "Look, I know we're small, but that means we can focus on your particular needs better than the big guys" -- or whatever you can find to say that will turn that weakness into a strength. First acknowledge it, bring it out into the open, and then turn it in your favor.

Q. What's the biggest mistake most people make in trying to persuade others?

A. Well, it depends on the person, but one very common error is to over-persuade. I think we've all been on the receiving end of this, where someone is giving you 101 reasons why you should agree with them or do what they want you to do, and you were already convinced 10 minutes ago and now you just want them to go away. The irony is that, if you really listen, a person will tell you everything you need to know to persuade them. But most people are so busy thinking about what they're going to say next that they miss all those signals. Persuasion is first and foremost a matter of paying attention. It's not inherent - it's a skill you can learn.

 

在state college最后一次搬家正式告一段落。两间满满的屋子里的东西合二为一，真不是一件容易的事情。但经过搬家那几天的铺垫，加上最后一个下午的努力，我们把原本的东东，还有ld实习带回来汇合的东东，完完全全收拾完毕了。简直是世界第八大奇迹。住着紧凑明亮的新家，躺在平整舒适的大床上，白天晒太阳，晚上看月亮。啦啦啦啦啦。

北京时间8月16日凌晨3点，奥运网球中央球场上郑洁晏紫一次次让观众疯狂。面对实力强大的俄罗斯库兹娃萨芬娜组合，郑晏组合硬生生的把看似没有悬念的比赛打的风声水起。迅速进入状态拿下第一set，第二盘早早落后又顽强拼到5：7，决胜盘2：5落后的不利情况下，愈战愈勇搬到5平。结果无论如何都是史诗般的对决。不多说了，文字直播告一段落，看比赛先！

 

对了，奥运金牌我赌能过40枚！

奥运进入第七个比赛日，中国军团放慢夺金步伐。小杨（依ling）在女子体操全能中基本没什么机会，被两员本来排位更高更有经验实力更强的美国体操运动员前后夹击，以微弱劣势取得第三也是合情合理。现在想想女团夺冠真不容易，扬威男子全能领先那么多实在牛奔。

 

其实锁定羽毛球女单金牌也应该算了。不过羽球女双，混双都让人不太放心。男单方面至少有一个决赛席位。男双首次进奥运决赛比较值得激动。风云组合做掉韩国人的比赛只用了30来分钟，酣畅淋漓，爽的一塌糊涂。虽说最快扣球速率（200 mile/hour）的世界记录（所有持拍项目的最快球速）由付海峰保持，但蔡赟的庆祝显然不落下风。两人每次重扣得分都大吼助威，拿下比赛同时跪地长啸，蔡赟还顺势脱下上衣，露出一身结实的肌肉让女球迷一饱眼福。总的感觉是看到两个王哲在拍档打羽毛球，生猛的紧。

 

 

Blake做掉Federer，李娜做掉大威，谁比较屌我不知道，反正后者肯定更激动人心。

沉默少言的湖北男人杨威继前天率队夺取男团金牌，又在个人比赛中拿下分量最终的男子全能。最后的单杠ending不尽完美，但早早确定的领先优势足以奠定胜局。

 

顺便赞一个精彩的羽毛球四分之一决赛，谢杏芳2：0（21：19，22：20）艰难战胜代表德国出战的中国海外军团选手。最后赛点一球打了48个回合，荡气回肠，打完两选手差点没趴下。。。

 

女子200米蝶泳的金牌就更是以外之喜了。还有杜丽的射击金牌。大珠小珠落玉盘啊。哈哈。

 

目前美国金牌总数（10）是菲尔普斯一人金牌数（5）的两倍；中国代表团金牌总数（20）是美国的两倍。赞一个。

女子体操团体赛终于结束了，中国战胜美国夺冠。呼呼。

 

当程菲从平衡木上掉下来的时候，13亿人的心一起掉了一掉。接下来的美国美眉上平衡木动作失败掉下来的时候，我很没有奥林匹克精神的狂叫：美国妞也掉了！结果同一个美眉可怜的在最后一项自由体操中再次重大失误，中国选手镇定自若的正常发挥后，将金牌收入囊中。

 

看着Phelps狂揽金牌，美国金牌榜随之飙升，心中既佩服又担心。中国在面对面美国的竞争中取胜，一枚金牌抵两枚，两个字，巨爽！

一段时间不更新博客，人气骤减。随便搞上两篇，人气飙升。场子旺，托大家的福啊。

 

从丹佛JSM归来，有很多东东要跟大家分享。今天分享找工作的经验，以飨读者。

 

本来没准备现在找工作的，而且这个会也差点没去成。结果阴差阳错去搞了这么个会，稀里糊涂面了十来家公司，也算是试了试水深水浅，至少是打湿了自己的脚。

 

先逐个说说面试的经历。

 

Millennium 是家小公司，历史不长药不多，统计部门不到10来人。人很nice，工作环境感觉相对稳定，最年轻的员工也呆了5年。前些年被日本的Takeda并购了，保持独立研发，多出了亚洲市场和雄厚的财政支持。

 

Amgen，500强。面我的是中国同胞。问了很多research的问题，感觉对我做的dimension reduction很感兴趣。结果问我DR和SVM的模拟比较，我还没答出来。后来问了堆technical的问题，什么p-value; fractional factorial design; least squares的假设什么的，也是搞出一身冷汗。这位仁兄是preclinical的，临走还问我要DR的程序。

 

IBM, 本来对这个机会很激动。毕竟是从小景仰的公司，读书看报了解多多。结果面的很悲惨。一说大家就明白了，面我的是小日本。山本一直皮笑肉不笑的，让人心里滲渗的。又是问research的问题，关键是问的没什么水平，不太搭边。跟他说不明白，到头来说我答非所问。最惨的不是我，是小日本旁边的一美国青年。此人一看就是被山本打压很久的下属摸样，30分钟内就说了一句话，还是说50 choose 2等于49，不是一般的紧张啊。这是一次失败的相亲，互相没对上眼儿。

 

顺便说说Google。谷歌没给我面试，只是prescreen了一把就没了消息。谷歌问的每个问题都跟data有关。你做过最大的数据有多大？做过的最有趣的data是啥？怎么整 missing data？不愧是最information intensive的公司。

 

Monsanto 这个有点搞笑。前20分钟相谈甚欢。后来问我看了job description觉得自己哪些方面比较match；我其实没看过，就随便掰胡过去了。紧接着问我将来去什么地方工作，我吸了口气，真诚的说去药厂。她看了看她的同事又看了看我，说：可我们是搞农业的，不是药厂啊？

 

开始以为要被Novartis Oncology放鸽子，结果30分钟的interview晚了15分钟。面我的是个欧洲女人。话不多，眼睛很大会说话，年轻的时候一定很漂亮。该director明显对我兴趣缺缺，嫌我没什么实际经验。嘴上没说什么，大眼睛闪一闪说：下一个。

 

Fox Chase是费城的一个研究所，面我的小年轻跟我很谈的来。感觉是一个可以边拿工钱边发文章的地方。后来遇见他，还跟他说了我Monsanto的搞笑经历。

 

Abbott在Chicago，聊的还行。不知道会不会有正面消息。

 

Eli Lilly可能是双方都比较high的了，聊的很开。比较扯的是他问我对工作地点有什么要求，我说不想有台风。他收敛了笑容跟我说：我们Indianapolis每年都有台风啊。然后费很大力气跟我说其实台风不太影响波立斯同志的工作生活。

 

啰啰嗦嗦这么多，无非是想说这么个道理：面试一定要认真准备，不要像我哪壶不开提哪壶。不用紧张，保持适度兴奋。展现真实的自己很重要，要尽量表现能引起对方兴趣的东东。

 

最重要的最后说，去业界工作的话，相关实习经历很重要。想去药厂就早去药厂实习；想去银行就早去银行实习；想做发考题就老老实实做好research。

 

话说从前有个老和尚，身边有个老爱抱怨的小孩。有一天，老和尚对小孩说：出去找把盐。小孩找到盐，回来。老和尚说：把盐放到装满水的杯子里。小孩照办。老和尚说：喝一口味道怎样。小孩尝了尝，皱皱眉，说，苦。老和尚说：把水倒到湖里。小孩照办。老和尚：再尝尝味道怎样。小孩俯下身，舀了一口，说：很新鲜。老和尚：你尝到苦味了么？小孩：没有。

 

老和尚幽幽的发话了：人生的痛苦，不多也不少。人遇到的痛苦就那么多，但是体会到多少却取决于自己。只有心胸开阔，才能战胜痛苦。当你遇到了苦难，不要做一只杯子，要成为湖泊。

 

(*^__^*) 嘻嘻……，我就是那爱抱怨的小孩；美眉，你就是那幽幽的老和尚。

真的想骂人。

 

累死老子了。

 

累到想哭。

 

搬个家，咋就整成这样呢？

 

腰都直不起来了。

 

幸好当劳24小时营业，幸好身上还有现金（Y凌晨后只收现金）。

 

简单的big mac，填补了我的肚，没办法消除我的苦。

博客有一阵子没有更新了，为什么呢。

 

因为最近比较忙乱。

 

汇报一下最近的动态，也算是预告一下下面几篇博客的内容了。

 

7月一直在赶一个research的东西，学习过程有很多心得；

 

8月1日到7日在丹佛，见识了传说中的JSM；

 

8月8日回到state college，搬家忙乱至今。。。

 

开心的是赶上了看李宁飞天加飞檐走壁加点火，担心的是家里还是乱乱的要搬运要打扫。。。

 

抽空先说这么多，睡觉去了。