Beyond Just Talking: Communication Starts Before You Speak

People ask me, fairly often, how a PM should communicate. It’s one of the most central skills the job demands.

常有人來問我，PM 要怎麼溝通。這確實是這份工作最核心的能力之一。

Most of the advice online is about attitude: be sincere, listen, put yourself in the other person’s shoes. None of it is wrong. But none of it touches the thing that actually matters. Here is what I’ve come to believe: whether communication succeeds rarely depends on how well you talk. It depends on whether you’ve first worked out what you’re trying to achieve, then chosen your method to fit. When the goal is vague, even the smoothest words are just pleasantries. When the goal is clear, the method reveals itself.

網路上教溝通的文章多半在講態度：要真誠、要傾聽、要換位思考。這些都對，卻沒講到關鍵。我的體會是：溝通的成敗，很少取決於你話說得漂不漂亮，而取決於你有沒有先想清楚「目標是什麼」，再回頭去挑方法。目標模糊，話說得再好也只是客套；目標清楚，方法自然浮現。

Two examples from my own experience.

用兩個我自己經歷過的例子來說明。

Example One — Restarting the Line // 目標是復工，手段是替自己創造籌碼 #

I once worked as a project manager at an electronics contract manufacturer. One day, a critical component in our product started failing quality checks — the defect rate was high enough that we had to stop the line. We traced it to one of the component suppliers. The catch: that supplier had been designated by our customer, not us, so it wasn’t ours to manage. The line stayed down for a long stretch, burning money by the day, and the supplier kept dragging its feet on helping us find the cause.

我曾在一家電子代工廠當專案經理。有一次，產品上一個關鍵零組件出現品質異常，不良率高到必須停線。追查下來，問題出在某家零件供應商身上——但那家供應商是客戶指定的，不歸我方管理。產線一停就是好一段時間，成本天天在燒，對方卻遲遲不願配合釐清原因。

My goal was simple: get the line running again as fast as possible.

我的目標很單純：讓產線盡快復工。

But restarting the line took more than urgently sourcing a second supplier — a new vendor couldn’t cover our volume on short notice. To ship reliably, the original supplier still had to fix the problem and keep supplying. In other words, I didn’t need to replace him. I needed to get him to move.

但復工這件事，光靠緊急找第二家供應商並不夠——新供應商短期內產能根本補不上缺口。要真正穩定出貨，終究得讓原供應商把問題解決、繼續正常供貨。也就是說，我要的不是換掉他，而是讓他願意動起來。

The trouble was that I had nothing to make him cooperate. Simply describing our losses was, to him, something he could ignore.

難處在於，我手上沒有能促使他配合的籌碼。單純陳述我方的損失，對他而言是可以無視的事。

So I ran two tracks in parallel. On one, I worked with the customer to actually qualify a second source. On the other, I kept pressing the original supplier to hand over its process records and help us investigate. Qualifying that second source was, in itself, the most powerful thing I could have said — without a word spoken, the supplier understood the message: you are not irreplaceable. His posture shifted immediately. The records came out, and together we found the root cause: a raw material he had quietly changed shortly before, which was contaminating the process. He fixed it, supply stabilized, and only then did the line truly come back.

於是我雙線並進：一方面與客戶合作，實際導入第二供應商進行驗證；另一方面持續要求原供應商提供製程紀錄、共同追查。導入第二供應商這個動作本身，就是最有力的一句話——它不必明說，對方卻聽得懂：你並非不可取代。原供應商的態度隨即轉變，交出了紀錄，和我們一起找到了根因：他們稍早更動了一項原料，在製程中引發了污染。原供應商修正問題、恢復穩定供貨，產線才真正復工。

If you want communication to get something done, ask yourself first: do I hold anything that makes cooperation the other side’s only real option? If not, go create it. Communication never begins at the moment you open your mouth.

要靠溝通把事情做成，先問自己：我手上有沒有能讓對方非配合不可的籌碼？沒有，就設法創造一個。溝通，從來不是從你開口那一刻才開始的。

Example Two — Sharing the Cost // 目標是共同分攤，手段是有憑有據、以退為進 #

The same incident had a second fight in it. The stoppage caused a substantial loss, and because the supplier at fault had been designated by the customer, we submitted the bill to them. They pushed back, arguing the fault wasn’t entirely theirs, and refused to absorb it.

同一件事後續還有一場硬仗。停線造成了可觀的損失，而闖禍的供應商是客戶指定的，因此我方將這筆費用提報給客戶。客戶反彈，認為責任並非全在他們，不願承擔。

I was clear about one thing: my goal was not to recover the full loss. It was to get the customer to share it. Once the goal was framed that way, the whole strategy of the conversation fell into place.

這時我很清楚，我的目標不是把損失全額討回，而是讓客戶願意共同分攤。一旦目標這樣設定，整場溝通的策略就跟著清楚了。

I didn’t get tangled in “whose fault is it.” Fighting over blame only drags a negotiation into a stalemate where both sides talk past each other. I acknowledged the fault genuinely wasn’t 100% theirs, and moved the question from “should you pay” to “how do we split this fairly” — reframing the dispute so there was something to actually discuss.

我沒有糾結在「誰該負全責」上。糾結責任歸屬，只會把談判拖進各說各話的死局。我承認責任確實不是百分之百在客戶，主動把議題從「要不要賠」挪到「該如何合理分攤」——先把爭點重新框定，雙方才有得談。

Then I broke the loss down into an auditable, line-by-line cost sheet: materials, rework, overhead, the labor cost of a line sitting idle — each item with its basis and its supporting evidence. When money is on the table, what persuades the other side is never emotion or grievance. It’s a bill they can verify line by line and find nothing to fault.

接著，我把整筆損失拆解成一份可以逐條稽核的成本清單：材料、重工、管銷、產線閒置的人力成本，每一項都附上計算依據與憑證。談錢的時候，能說服對方的從來不是情緒與委屈，而是一份他可以逐項驗證、挑不出毛病的帳。

Somewhere in the back-and-forth, something dawned on me: rather than keep grinding over blame, it was better to take a step back and grow the pie together. So I discounted the idle-labor line. That move was both reasonable and a gesture of good faith. Reasonable, because those workers could be redeployed to other lines during the stoppage, so the cost shouldn’t have been charged in full to begin with. Good faith, because I offered it up myself, showing the customer we weren’t there to nickel-and-dime, but to solve the problem together.

來來回回的拉扯之中，我慢慢想通了一件事：與其在責任歸屬上繼續僵持，不如主動退一步，把餅一起做大。於是我把「閒置人力」這一項打了折——這一步，既合理，也是誠意。合理，是因為那些人力在停線期間仍能調度到其他產線，本就不該全額計入這筆損失；誠意，是因為我主動把這一項讓了出來，讓客戶看見我方談的不是錙銖必較，而是共同把問題解決。

This is what I consider the most professional move of all: stepping back to move forward. What that step gives up is a slice of the immediate loss. What it wins is something worth more — being seen by the customer as a reasonable, trustworthy, willing partner for the long run. However elegantly you split this one loss, the number is what it is. But a customer relationship that can go the distance is worth far more than the outcome of any single round. So I’d rather give up part of it, and buy a better future. What communication is really trying to win is never this one round. It’s making sure both sides still want a next one.

這就是我認為最專業的一手：以退為進。這一步退讓，退的是眼前一部分的損失，進的卻是更重要的東西——客戶眼中一個講理、可信、願意共同承擔的長期夥伴。眼前這筆損失分攤得再漂亮，金額就是這麼多；但一段能長久走下去的客戶關係，價值遠超過這一次的得失。所以我寧可主動讓出一部分，換一個更好的未來。溝通要成的，從來不是這一局的輸贏，而是讓雙方都還願意有下一局。

Back to the Question // 回到最初的問題：PM 要怎麼溝通？ #

My answer: don’t rush to work out “how do I say this well.” Ask first, “what am I actually trying to achieve.” Once the goal is clear, the method appears — no leverage, so create leverage; you want a shared cost and a lasting relationship, so know when to step back. The people who are truly good at communication have already worked out, before they say a word, exactly where they’re trying to get to.

我的答案是：先別急著想「怎麼把話講好」，先問「我到底要達成什麼」。目標清楚了，方法自然浮現——沒有籌碼，就去創造籌碼；要的是分攤與長期合作，就懂得以退為進。真正會溝通的人，在開口之前，就已經想清楚自己要走到哪裡。

© Chung-Hao Lee. All Rights Reserved. All content on this webpage—including but not limited to text, images, design, code, and multimedia materials—is protected under the international copyright treaties. Unauthorized reproduction, modification, distribution, public transmission, or commercial use is strictly prohibited. Legal action will be taken against infringement.
© 李崇豪。保留所有權利。 本網頁之內容（包括但不限於文字、圖片、設計、程式碼及多媒體素材）均受國際著作權條約保護。未經書面授權，嚴禁任何形式之複製、改作、散布、公開傳輸或商業利用。侵權者將依法追訴。