>Now I feel that's a problem; because, very often, those discussions are those when you "win" an argument (especially in the eyes of colleagues or managers) or

>Now I feel that's a problem; because, very often, those discussions are those when you "win" an argument (especially in the eyes of colleagues or managers) or lose it. I think you are way ahead because you're coming from an empathy and a desire to understand other people's positions as far as I can tell, which is crucial in advising people. Becoming more aggressive is one implementation you thought of. There are other implementations such as becoming better at making convincing points. The point of the debates you have at work is the pursuit of a useful truth in a given time frame and a course of action that will lead the organization in the right direction. The problem when your convincing skills improve becomes that you'd be able to argue one position or the other and still be able to convince people, during the same debate. That spot is harder since you know your rudder is huge and you must be _very_ careful and you damn better be right. Bullying in conversations, monopolizing speaking time, interrupting, and trying to win by raising one's voice because their points don't stand on their own is no way to go in my opinion.