Bel's thoughts
Quote from Bel on May 31, 2022, 5:18 pmFrom this post by Lucio I got the incredible power of the D(E)SOE format for assertive communication, which I had read in PU but not really "understood" before.
My "unconscious thinking" here was (and maybe still is?) that it is somewhat dangerous to speak clearly.
And I also got the knowledge that it is particularly powerful when the "outcome" includes a reward for the other party, as this closes all possible avenues for push-back (outline below is mine):
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 31, 2022, 1:51 amI received the files on date X, not Y as it was initially stated.
Going forward, I expect and appreciate more honest communication.
If X company needs time to produce the files, that can be OK. We can talk about that. No need to "gain time" with long detours.
Thank you Bel.
By "reward" (in this case) you mean an out for him, or something that makes telling the truth possible and easier on him?
---
Book a call for personalized & private feedback
I was referring to the last sentence in your suggestion ("if you need more time, you can probably get it by speaking clearly").
If the statement had just been "don't play games", it wouldn't have been so effective, because his thinking could have been "that's the only way I have to gain time!".
The last positive part ("if you say it clearly, you can obtain more time") was what made it really effective. As you say, it makes telling the truth easier and possible for him and encourages open discussion.
It also did not imply commitment on my part to conceding more time, but just the possibility of commitment.
Edit: I think it may also be worth experimenting with leaving out the last sentence next time ("no need to gain time with long detours"), which probably made the statement a bit more aggressive than it could have been.
Quote from Bel on June 1, 2022, 9:55 amI was referring to the last sentence in your suggestion ("if you need more time, you can probably get it by speaking clearly").
If the statement had just been "don't play games", it wouldn't have been so effective, because his thinking could have been "that's the only way I have to gain time!".
The last positive part ("if you say it clearly, you can obtain more time") was what made it really effective. As you say, it makes telling the truth easier and possible for him and encourages open discussion.
It also did not imply commitment on my part to conceding more time, but just the possibility of commitment.
Right, thank you for clarifying.
If you think this wasn't clear in PU feel free to let me know and I'll amend it.
---
Book a call for personalized & private feedback
I'm thinking that, in my profession, I must calibrate warmth based on the situation (examples: less warmth when others want a concession from me, or I am doing most of the work, or I am acceding to a request). It's probably just a specification of the general rule on calibrating warmth in PU. In general, I should probably start experimenting with showing less warmth than I'm used to.
I think that in writing:
- power is conveyed by who accedes to whose demands, who writes more, who accepts to work more, how long it takes one to answer, whether disrespect is checked and boundaries are enforced or not (i.e. the content of the communication);
- warmth is conveyed by whether or not one includes references to being happy or glad for the contact, whether the tone is curt or more extended, whether one is extremely polite or more matter-of-fact, whether one responds to every demand of the other, even if to say no, or instead just does not address the request (i.e. the medium of the communication).
Together with displaying too much warmth, I am also probably still low on power relative to others, so I should also work on this. It is possible that learning to be higher power makes warmth less of a problem.
One word to remove from my emails and texts: “then”.
I use it too much, and it subcommunicates I am following the lead of the other person, as in this answer:
Let’s then catch up for the signing. (Subcommunication: ok what you say, let’s go forward as you say)
It’s unneeded and subcommunicates low power.
It’s probably one of many reasons people keep trying to push me around, like when I used to say “I think”.
I’ll remove it altogether from now on and see what happens.
My idea of lowering warmth is probably just a compensation for the fact that I simply continue to be lower power (relative to many of the people I meet).
But Lucio is too kind to say that explicitly 🙂
John also hinted at this more than once, and I have to admit it’s true. Thanks guys, I understand I have to work on the real issue.
Nice, really great stuff, Bel (and Imean your realization and description of the power moves).
Quote from Bel on June 4, 2022, 1:39 pmThis lawyer interviewed me at length on how my then-current firm worked. Then, after finishing his questioning, he said:
Consider that might have been an "intel gathering" session, more than an interview.
A fun way to end up with a power one-up back, would have been to say:
"OK, I'm glad that I lied about everything about my current firm" 😀
---
Book a call for personalized & private feedback
Another thing I am removing from now on from my communications is "explicitly asking for arrangements to speak / communicate / get in touch again" with clients and counterparts.
In fact I already removed it unconsciously in my latest emails, I notice.
Asking for confirmation of appointment, asking how we will get in touch again, worrying about who should call who, who should get back: these are all things that signal both uncertainty and wanting to accommodate the other, and they can be exploited by other person.
I actually am coming to think this was probably the main culprit of the power moves I encountered on first contact.
On the contrary, leaving these unstated (thus up to both parties) will probably increase my power and standing, because it puts the burden for half of communication on other party, as it should be.
It's a form of not worrying for what I am not responsible for, a form of lowering my direct involvement in 50/50 situations.
It's also a way to put in practice the power principle of "who does less, has more power". I was violating the law by going in the other direction, i.e. by doing more than my 50% share of "arranging the communication".
In the same direction, it was a mistake to ask "who should draft the document" and similar. If anything, I should have waited for these people to ask me, and then leveraged my "yes" with something else.
It is incredible to think that things apparently so small can have a so big effect on getting respect, clients, fees, friends, a normal life.
Edit: re-posting this here, my bad for deleting my original post, I was unsure whether it was useful to mention a thing so far in my past. Originally it was above Lucio's answer here.
Thank you Lucio. I got it was intel gathering soon after the interview ended, and your ending comeback to reframe the interaction is great!
------
I was reading this post on rapport breaking moves, and I immediately remembered several rapport breaking moves from job interviews I did with some law firms (two in particular) many years ago.
Interview one
I was a young graduate. The lawyer who was interviewing me had a confrontational attitude from the start.
Interviewer: Why did you accept our invitation to interview with us, we are a small firm and your resume shows you are more suited for international firms.
Later:
Interviewer: Do you have other offers?
Me: Yes, I have one other offer.
Interviewer: Well don’t get your hopes up, because we are not going to get into a race to offer more than others.
At the end:
Me: (trying to find a common point of agreement to lower the confrontational tone of this woman): I really like this table.
Interviewer: I hate this table. It is the worst piece of furniture I have in my office.
Interview two
This lawyer interviewed me at length on how my then-current firm worked. Then, after finishing his questioning, he said:
Interviewer: Do you have any questions?
Me: Yes…
Interviewer: I’m sorry, I have no time to answer you. And by the way, it’s obvious you have no experience whatsoever with what I need here. You never did any [xwz] deal and you are not what we are looking for.
Me: That's not true, I did several [xwz] deals and it shows in my resume.
Interviewer: Yes it may be, but they are not sufficient; and you probably don’t even know how [xwz procedure] works.
Me: It works like this: ... (I describe it in detail)
Interviewer: You are right, it works like that! But you are still not what we are looking for. Good bye.
Incredible to think of this now.
By the way, being immediately disqualified in my "appropriateness" for the job was very common to the job interviews I used to do. Now, I understand it was a way to make me qualify, and lose negotiation power in the event they decided to hire me: because I would be thinking “well I can’t ask much, they didn’t even want me…”.
Just understanding how this works can make all the difference. Not that I would want to work with (never mind for) people like these.
Quote from Bel on June 4, 2022, 1:58 pmI was reading this post on rapport breaking moves, and I immediately remembered several rapport breaking moves from job interviews I did with some law firms (two in particular) many years ago.
Interview one
I was a young graduate. The lawyer who was interviewing me had a confrontational attitude from the start.
Interviewer: Why did you accept our invitation to interview with us, we are a small firm and your resume shows you are more suited for international firms.
Later:
Interviewer: Do you have other offers?
Me: Yes, I have one other offer.
Interviewer: Well don’t get your hopes up, because we are not going to get into a race to offer more than others.At the end:
Me: (trying to find a common point of agreement to lower the confrontational tone of this woman): I really like this table.
Interviewer: I hate this table. It is the worst piece of furniture I have in my office.
Interview two
This lawyer interviewed me at length on how my then-current firm worked. Then, after finishing his questioning, he said:
Interviewer: Do you have any questions?
Me: Yes…
Interviewer: I’m sorry, I have no time to answer you. And by the way, it’s obvious you have no experience whatsoever with what I need here. You never did any [xwz] deal and you are not what we are looking for.
Me: That's not true, I did several [xwz] deals and it shows in my resume.
Interviewer: Yes it may be, but they are not sufficient; and you probably don’t even know how [xwz procedure] works.
Me: It works like this: ... (I describe it in detail)
Interviewer: You are right, it works like that! But you are still not what we are looking for. Good bye.Incredible to think of this now.
By the way, being immediately disqualified in my "appropriateness" for the job was very common to the job interviews I used to do. Now, I understand it was a way to make me qualify, and lose negotiation power in the event they decided to hire me: because I would be thinking “well I can’t ask much, they didn’t even want me…”.
Just understanding how this works can make all the difference. Not that I would want to work with (never mind for) people like these.
These are very interesting cases Bel 😀
Such interactions tend come usually from a specific type of character, and these people are overall very challenging, and I'm myself not sure how to handle such situations best, because they are a frame battle from the very first second on, and these types are regularly quite skilled in that too.
Some general approaches:
I was a young graduate. The lawyer who was interviewing me had a confrontational attitude from the start.
Interviewer: Why did you accept our invitation to interview with us, we are a small firm and your resume shows you are more suited for international firms.
Breaking the frame train
I know this confrontational interrogation-attitude. A very promising approach could be to immediately break the "frame train" they try to roll over you.
So you could simply take an explicit deep breath and answer in response to the overall feeling of the situation instead of the content of their question. Easier said then done, but something along the lines of:
"I'm not sure if we are on the same page, let me be clear, I'm here to collaborate with you guys (smile)."
The earlier in the interaction one does this the easier it is to break out of this disempowering dynamic.
What to avoid
A sure way to loose a lot of power in these instances is certainly to remain confined in their interrogation-like questions (which are regularly quite inappropriate) while simply passively answering them, especially if one is trying to win them over with niceness (huge mistake, they will exploit it relentlessly).
At least some counter-initiative in the overall interaction should be taken, like questioning them back, asking for clarification or explicitly answering something else of equal importance first or not answering inappropriate questions.
Laughter as Frame-Breaker
Another frame-breaker that could even work when already confined in this disempowering dynamic could be to simply laugh about one of their ridiculously inappropriate statements and break character so to speak:
Me: (trying to find a common point of agreement to lower the confrontational tone of this woman): I really like this table.
Interviewer: I hate this table. It is the worst piece of furniture I have in my office.
You: ":D Well I see we have a lot in common." ( "Are you in a relationship?" - if you are bold and can risk it for the laughs 😀 The situation then probably makes a good story, not just for this forum :D.)
But Lucio already described a great and effective way to answer those in particular in the thread you linked.
Use cases for steamrollers
But there are two potentially huge use cases for these types:
1. Asking them for feedback.
The danger is that they give you bullshit feedback (just with the made up statement about the table)[1], but there still is a somewhat realistic chance that they want to hit you on your true weak spots, and for that they can be useful, because they obviously have no qualms disagreeing with you or telling you that they think you are a piece of shit - as opposed to most people who likely wont give you their true impressions and thoughts about you even if you ask them to.
To try to limit the amount of lies they potentially make up one could say something like:
"At the end of an interview I usually ask for feedback, what do you think was bad on my side?"
The idea here is to make it seem that you do this out of habit and naivety, and they now can exploit this to hit on your weak spots - that you however want to find out about.
One has to be very self confident though to not get emotionally hit by whatever they come up with, but this is one way to train just that.
[1]One predictable bullshit answer is them likely claiming in some way that you aren't submissive enough (as they want to dominate you).
2. Practicing Frame-Control
One could try to seek out these types just to have some fun real world practice.
And the sheer nerve of that guy is particularly funny actually (at least for me not being confronted with that asshole):
Interviewer: Do you have any questions?
Me: Yes…
Interviewer: I’m sorry, I have no time to answer you. And by the way, it’s obvious you have no experience whatsoever with what I need here. You never did any [xwz] deal and you are not what we are looking for.
I think the best response is either to laugh out loud at the "I'm sorry, I have no time to answer you." if you feel like it and see what happens, but probably better starting and ending directly with:
"*Shaking head* Let's end this. Goodbye Mr. xyz"