Ask Japanese complicated passage


>
> 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!




[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.

