Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Bank director who stopped responding
I have two doubts:
- I have a doubt on whether to include a sentence that says:
If the issue is the calculation I requested, let's talk to try to find a solution.
The reasoning is that he may not want to work on the calculation. And may feel that going to a lawsuit would be better for him personally.
But if I include this sentence and go back on my request, I suppose I'll now come across as wishy washy, and that may be worse.
I'm inclined to not include this sentence, because the power loss may be worse than going forward.
Yeah I understand your doubt. I think you could gain power (reach your goal) by proposing a solution if you decide to include the sentence.
I’m available to do the calculation I talked about if you want. Please let me know if that’s the case.
Something like that. So all the work is on your side and it is collaborative I think. So it does make it easier for him.
2. Another doubt is whether I could instead try to send a very polite email that says:
Dear Mr. ...
I tried to reach you on the phone on ....
I am writing concerning the liquidation of the assets under the succession of ... still at the Bank, to know if we may speak to try to close this matter amicably.
I look forward to your kind answer.
Kind regards.
And, only then, if I receive no response in a week, send the second part.
Dear Mr. ....,
I regret to inform you that I am forced by the long delays, and by the circumstance that the other successors press for an answer after all this time, to bring the entire matter to the attention of the control authority, in any case reserving any other direct action towards the bank.
Kind regards.
I suppose this may be better, under power dynamics considerations, than including everything in one fell swoop.
I suppose that the two-pronged approach is better because it:
- highlights I am really willing to eat my ego to try to find a solution, and send him respect as a person (which no doubt not many people do)
- but still clarifies this is the last try, since I mention "trying to close amicably" and imply if not, I'm escalating
- puts me in a better future frame vis-a-vis judges and authorities, because I'm the bigger guy who tries a last time to be very polite and superior
- probably will scare him more than explicitly threatening legal consequences. The "threat", after all, sent now, is an admission of impotence
- But if I send it later, I am acting with more power. I show I can wait some more
I will lose a week, but may gain in a higher probability of response and more power in any case.
I am thinking this two-pronged approach - of reserving the "threat of escalation" to a second message - is more powerful as a general rule.
In this case, in which the matter already took two years to get here, it's all the more important:
as Lucio said, when you gave more leeway, escalation has to be more gradual to be credible.
I also think it's better like you propose.
I think if you want to make it clear it's the last try, I would highlight it (still in the polite style) a little more (personal style here maybe):
I'm taking the liberty to attempt to reach you again (or "once more") as I could not reach you on the phone on ....
So he will understand you're starting to get irritated.
I think the "try to close the matter amicably" is really good in the progressive escalation. Not too strong but still firm with a hint of further escalation.
puts me in a better future frame vis-a-vis judges and authorities, because I'm the bigger guy who tries a last time to be very polite and superior
Spoken like a true machiavellian I think.
probably will scare him more than explicitly threatening legal consequences. The "threat", after all, sent now, is an admission of impotence
But if I send it later, I am acting with more power. I show I can wait some more
I will lose a week, but may gain in a higher probability of response and more power in any case
Yes, yes and yes. Regarding the threat and impotence: your solution gives you one more step for escalation so it's more progressive and therefore socially smoother I think.
as Lucio said, when you gave more leeway, escalation has to be more gradual to be credible.
I see this now. 100% and we all felt it in our lives at some point. And also when it strikes it harder.
I reflected more on this.
I suppose the director going silent is tied to my father getting angry in a meeting with this director, of which I spoke about in the forum before.
The director then said he was “sorry for my father getting angry”, to which I responded “let’s concentrate on our aim here”.
Lucio then pointed out I should have instead reempowered him by saying I was “also sorry”.
On the phone call we had next to that, the director told me “I hope you understand the effort I’m putting here in trying to help.”
To which I now understand I should have probably just responded “I do, thank you”.
Instead, I answered by mirroring him and saying I also hoped the bank understood I was mediating with my parents, who were worried and angry about having had to wait two years.
In sum, I suppose I should have strategically reempowered him and that’s why he checked out.
This is all so complex. I could in theory forfeit the case to my parents, but I am sure they would complicate it even more. And that in turn would cause damage to me also, since the monies my parents are owed by the bank also indirectly benefit me.
Hello Bel,
I think your anslysis is on point. Well, now you know better. Anyway, what you’re implementing right now is correcting the previous exchanges.
So based on what you wrote I would add an empathetic warm and grateful note in your first message. I would add more emotions.
First, I want to thank you for the effort you put in to help our family and for your empathy towards my father. He feels better now.
I would also slightly tweak the first message to make it less threatening and appeal more to his kindness: « I hope you understand that… ».
Based on what you wrote above maybe you are in the negative in his social exchange bank account. So I would make sure to replenish it a little bit before going forward with an ask.
As you know he’s probably busy (I would also mention it in the message). So if you show up as this person who has empathy for him AND has a duty to accomplish, I think you’re golden.
His probably looking for some gratefulness and understanding. I would focus on that.
I hope this makes sense to you.
Quote from Bel on September 19, 2023, 11:45 pmI reflected more on this.
I suppose the director going silent is tied to my father getting angry in a meeting with this director, of which I spoke about in the forum before.
The director then said he was “sorry for my father getting angry”, to which I responded “let’s concentrate on our aim here”.
Lucio then pointed out I should have instead reempowered him by saying I was “also sorry”.
On the phone call we had next to that, the director told me “I hope you understand the effort I’m putting here in trying to help.”
To which I now understand I should have probably just responded “I do, thank you”.
Instead, I answered by mirroring him and saying I also hoped the bank understood I was mediating with my parents, who were worried and angry about having had to wait two years.
In sum, I suppose I should have strategically reempowered him and that’s why he checked out.
This is all so complex. I could in theory forfeit the case to my parents, but I am sure they would complicate it even more. And that in turn would cause damage to me also, since the monies my parents are owed by the bank also indirectly benefit me.
Plausible.
I wasn't there, but I remember the story back then (I seem to remember you introduced him as an employee back then albeit I may be mistaken, but if it was a high-power area director, even more reasons to re-empower him and make sure you two were good at a personal level).
So it's possible this guy now thinks of this all as "f*ck these aholes who come to my office yelling at me, let them sweat for their money".
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on September 20, 2023, 9:06 amQuote from Bel on September 19, 2023, 11:45 pmI reflected more on this.
I suppose the director going silent is tied to my father getting angry in a meeting with this director, of which I spoke about in the forum before.
The director then said he was “sorry for my father getting angry”, to which I responded “let’s concentrate on our aim here”.
Lucio then pointed out I should have instead reempowered him by saying I was “also sorry”.
On the phone call we had next to that, the director told me “I hope you understand the effort I’m putting here in trying to help.”
To which I now understand I should have probably just responded “I do, thank you”.
Instead, I answered by mirroring him and saying I also hoped the bank understood I was mediating with my parents, who were worried and angry about having had to wait two years.
In sum, I suppose I should have strategically reempowered him and that’s why he checked out.
This is all so complex. I could in theory forfeit the case to my parents, but I am sure they would complicate it even more. And that in turn would cause damage to me also, since the monies my parents are owed by the bank also indirectly benefit me.
Plausible.
I wasn't there, but I remember the story back then (I seem to remember you introduced him as an employee back then albeit I may be mistaken, but if it was a high-power area director, even more reasons to re-empower him and make sure you two were good at a personal level).
So it's possible this guy now thinks of this all as "f*ck these aholes who come to my office yelling at me, let them sweat for their money".
You are right Lucio, I introduced him here as an employee, but he's a director.
I had not realized the importance of considering his "level".
In my mind, the fact that the bank was late two years in liquidating the assets oriented all my behavior.
He was "in the negative", he was the Bank.
Ok, so if we assume the analysis is correct, the only way to act here is to reempower him now through the email as John mentions in his post.
Instead of "reserve aggression for the end", here we want to "try super-politeness and super-warmth" at the end to "show I understand I went too far".
EDIT: So maybe something like this:
Dear Director,
I wish to first of all thank you for the time you dedicated to us.
I am writing concerning the liquidation ..., for which I tried to reach you on the phone yesterday ....
I'd like to know if we can meet or talk and try and close the matter.
I look forward to your kind answer.
Kind regards
Email wording may not make much difference when someone sees you negatively.
Angry emails confirm one is a SOB, conciliatory ones are framed as low-power slimy.
Unless you're sure of a quick win and resolution with the escalation, I'd consider going there in person.
Don't get dragged down fighting wars that someone else started for you.
Fight your own only, and only when you absolutely must.
The usual obvious not that I'm only an external party with limited info.
