Bel's thoughts
Ahaha! Yep, I actually told her about this insight of mine before posting here.
Too much unqualified and immediate availability with new clients may signal "not being busy" and may lead to losing the new lead
1. The case of the new dentist
One person I know recently went to a new dentist.
When she called this new dentist the first time, they told her:
Dentist: You can come today afternoon, as a client forfeited the slot he had booked.
In other words, they were immediately available, but they framed it as an exception.
She went there, but told me she still had some doubts about her choice of this dentist, since he was immediately available.
Only after talking to the dentist and hearing that the next slot for the intervention would be in one week, she felt secure she had made the right choice.
2. My case: losing a potential client due to combining a) showing immediate availability with b) asking for more without giving back at least something
Here I wrote about one new potential client that I feel I botched due to missing this point.
I showed immediate ("today") availability, but did not even qualify it as an exception due to the urgency.
Then I studied the matter for two days and asked for more data, again showing I was amenable to talking "today".
For sure I compounded the mistake with failing to give back at least something after first contact, answering after two days, and again showing immediate unqualified availability.
If this happens again, the reverse is in order:
- not being immediately available for "today";
- communicating I understand the urgency and I can make an exception for "tomorrow";
- showcasing I am starting to give back before asking for more ("I have some information").
In line with this post immediately here above, I am starting to feel that I was making some other significant (but unkown at the time) power-dynamics mistakes with some clients that turned them off and made them go away.
I can think of two-three situations where I lost the ball badly, and only now I realize my mistake cost me the client or the work.
One such situation:
I was not able to recognize and acknowledge when the client just wanted to "go to war" with the other side and "make it pay" figuratively, no matter the cost to the client
I tended to always paint, to all clients, a very accurate picture of the risks involved in going forward with a lawsuit.
I remember several instances where I was "too accurate", and the result was the client backing off.
Here's what I now understand: sometimes the client does not want to necessarily win, but only to fight and make it pay to the other side in lost time and effort.
The client, however, does not want to say that to my face. Because: the client does not want to "lose face", especially if he senses that I, as a lawyer, am unable to recognize the real need of the client.
In other words: the more the client interacts with me and finds that I focus on the merits of the case and am evaluating whether it might be a good case, where the client just wants to "go to war", the more likely it is that the client - to avoid the risk of being "shamed" by me - may just change lawyer instead of taking the time to "convince me" how to proceed.
So it is my job, as a lawyer, to be able to "sense" when the client is more focused on "creating problems" for the other side than on "winning on the merits of the case", and to subcommunicate to my client that I can do that - even if we will likely lose.
I think one such case I handled badly was the one that involved the client wanting to make a criminal complaint that I considered not grounded.
To be clear, I'm not saying I should have prepared the criminal complaint. If I had just subcommunicated to the client that I understood his feeling of being defrauded and his need for "revenge", I then could have kept the client and found ways to work with him for the better.
Some clients just want to be certain that their lawyer can handle the "big guns", even if they are not used.
Some great pearls of wisdom, Bel!
On validating the feelings, sometimes you can also join the client.
Sometimes, client who are hurt are also looking for emotional support, validation they're in the right, and that you're fighting in ther corner for them and with them.
That's where a bit less professionalism and some more humanity can also help.
Sometimes that humanity can be hanger.
Sometimes can be agreeing or (sub-)communicating the other person is a horrible person.
For example:
Lawyer: (leans in) the witch is dead
Thank you so much, Lucio!
I was viewing a video by Jordan Peterson where he explained that the most attractive kind of man for women is one who a) knows how to defend from, manage and interact with psychopaths and b) is still open enough with normal people (and with her) to share a life.
He basically said that women understand instantly if they have this kind of man in front of them, and are magnetically attracted.
It's enlightening, as this thought basically overlaps totally with everything that TPM, PU and SU teach.
Came across this article which explains that people are more attractive and seem more authentic when they present more emotional variability (the article speaks about "moods" but I believe the correct reference is to variability in "emotional states"):
I believe this is a great principle to implement that definitely works from my experience in all contexts: dates, job interviews, work, friends, family.
The underlying idea, as I understand it, is that only a secure person would not fear coming across as "emotionally variable" in emotion depending on external events.
To be clear, I find the most attractive stance is that of showing being "superficially able to react emotionally" while maintaining an internally grounded stance.
I find that this is totally true in the context of dating and seduction: the most attractive people tend to naturally convey an aura of "normality" and "being able to be influenced" by reacting with different facial and emotional expressions depending on the interaction. Here one example:
Contrast this to a hypothetical person who would be focused on appearing "strong" and "unswayed": it would be much less attractive and sound "fake".
But I find it works also in job interviews and in friendships. In fact I am backwards realizing it is one of the most attractive things that top people do.
In fact, I find they tend to look for occasions to showcase more emotional variability in a short time when meeting someone to establish more familiarity and a stronger bond.
100%! When you are secure you are not afraid to show how you feel. However you are mature enough to do it when “appropriate”. Not taking things personally helps here as well.
Yeah, within limits that makes sense, especially in dating probably where a totally un-emotional character would feel more "alien" to a woman (we even had some threads on that topic).
I'd add that it's also a case of "law of balance" though.
As John says, it's also about "when appropriate".
And also on intensity: you can definitely overdo the emotional variability, especially at work.
I’m with Lucio with the difference btw work and private life.
At work I’m very stoic with maybe 5-10% of emotional expression. Especially with colleagues: I’m detached so I can think about the problems and react to PMs. I’m focused. More emotionality with parents and patients.
In private life: 50-90% emotionality. These are just to show the wide difference. If I behave with my friends like at work (have experimented) I’m too cold. If I do the opposite I seem not professional enough at work. That’s my experience. It’s better to be too stoic at work than not enough with short periods of emotional authenticity.