Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Bel's thoughts
Hello Bel,
Great way of handling.
As for the grieving coming back, I believe it's normal if not even expected to have some relapses.
Personally, with the employee, I'd have done it differently.
If for nothing else, that it was good for you.
This one here:
Bank employee: I'm sorry for your father's...
Me: Let's focus on the task at hand and on getting to the result.
Breaks rapport with someone whom you may need to be on your side -maybe do a better job, a faster job, smoothen things over, etc. etc.
Also, albeit it was for sure a power move in the general sense that it does affect the power dynamics, he also wasn't fully in the wrong (and not doing anything strange to comment on a very atypical behavior that does emotionally affect almost anyone).
And it's possible that people may feel a bit frazzled when those things happen and he was looking for some support/remove the blame from him (I wasn't there, don't know him, so for sure he may have been a total unemotional asshole, just bringing up different possibilities here).
Still, whether it was a calculated power move or not, I'd have still wanted him to be on my side.
So I'd have said something like:
Bank employee: I'm sorry for your father's...
Me: Thank you, it's all good, and I hope you're good to. Sometimes that happens (/he does that). Anyway... (back to the task)
Edit:
And I'd have also said that with the tone of that "that guy, always embarrassing me like that", so you form a non-spoken bond with the employee, isolate the power mover, and also make your future work together easier (because he knows what's up, and another power move wouldn't affect you and your work nearly as much).
For the rest, great on the ignore!
Basically:
When you shut the (emotional/social) door in the employee's face, you let the power move negatively affect you and your work (lose-lose for all).
If you instead take the chance to bond (and isolate the power mover), you gain from it.
Now you're two people, both originally victims of the power move, but also now understanding each other and re-empowering each other as you look down and isolate the "not-so-good" player (win-win for you and the employee, lose for the power mover).
That's how I see it at a general level.
For the specific situation, as usual, I wasn't there, and you know better :).
Thank you so much Lucio, this is very helpful.
I will do as you wrote from now on.
I suppose I changed the subject and "shut the door" because:
- subconsciously, I (still) felt "guilty by association" with my father;
- this led me to think that the employee, in making the comment, was blaming me.
But you are right, your empathizing statement with the employee is best in any case: because it creates a bond while shutting out the disrupter, independently of whether he's a relative of mine or not.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 13, 2023, 12:07 pmBasically:
When you shut the (emotional/social) door in the employee's face, you let the power move negatively affect you and your work (lose-lose for all).
If you instead take the chance to bond (and isolate the power mover), you gain from it.
Now you're two people, both originally victims of the power move, but also now understanding each other and re-empowering each other as you look down and isolate the "not-so-good" player (win-win for you and the employee, lose for the power mover).That's how I see it at a general level.
For the specific situation, as usual, I wasn't there, and you know better :).
In other words, my father isn't invincible.
I am still letting him win, or retreating.
But I can learn to keep interacting, and make him pay for whatever he does.
Still, doing this with my father (ie making him pay socially for his moves) is very very difficult.
And, he never stops trying to overpower me.
EDIT: On a related note: whenever my father is involved in anything, things become 500% more difficult.
He just gets off destroying social bonds between other people, creating disruption, drama.
And other people just become wary and aggressive, toward me as well.
I hate to say it, but he is a really malevolent person. One that should be avoided in the end.
I suppose, in line with the idea that empathizing with the employee was best, that if the employee had said nothing, the best course of action would have been to apologize on my side for my father's behavior.
It's tough to swallow that I let him "win" this time as well, and complicated the project / still allowed him to put the employee against me.
Quote from Bel on May 13, 2023, 12:36 pmI suppose, in line with the idea that empathizing with the employee was best, that if the employee had said nothing, the best course of action would have been to apologize on my side for my father's behavior.
It's tough to swallow that I let him "win" this time as well, and complicated the project / allowed him to put the employee against me.
Yes, exactly, same concept, by extension.
However, I truly don't see it as all as "letting him win", but the opposite.
If you see yourself as an individual first, not responsible for what others do, no matter how close they are to you, then you're just apologizing "for an unpleasant event".
You'd have done the same for any other client.
Or, as a kind gesture, you may have done the same for any stranger, too (imagine if you were in line and someone was rude just before you and you say "sorry about that man" -as in "sorry about that, you gotta do your work there, and some people just gotta be assholes").
Also, same as before, the way I see it, if your apologies are well-delivered, they elevate you, rather than sink you with the bad behavior -as in "we're different, it's just him who's like that"-.
Yes, I agree.
In saying I let him win I was referring to what I actually did, ie changed the subject instead of empathizing with the employee.
Or another, full vulnerability option:
Employee: sorry about your father
You: yeah, thanks, I'm sorry as well (just to make it even). He's been like that my whole life. Anyway, let's finish this quickly so I can stop working with him for good (laughs, turning what should have been a negative inte a dark-humor positive)
But I can understand if you'd rather avoid that in a professional setting.
Finally found confirmation that carrying an umbrella under the rain is not manly.
It's not what kind or size or color of umbrella it is; it's the inherent fact that umbrellas are not masculine. They originated as women's wear.
Here are some articles that prove it:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11169323/Why-real-men-dont-use-umbrellas.html
https://www.buzzfeed.com/emmamcgowan/men-wont-carry-umbrellas
Some women are even puzzled about why men don't use them, but reading between the lines it's clear to me that they're mostly attracted to men who don't use umbrellas.
I also have some personal stories that confirm this. I remember more than once in the past, when I was in the rain with no protection, often women would come up to me and offer me to stay under their umbrella, which at the time I didn't understand.
Hello Bel,
You know me and nitpicking me, so I wouldn't necessarily say those articles prove it (I haven't seen any conclusive meta-analysis in there though I may have missed it in my skimming), but they do provide some supportive evidence.
This is very similar to the examples of what makes someone "manly" in the alpha male article -including the mask, who does the chores home, etc.-.
Some people, especially the more alpha-male minded and/or conservative equate displays of "strength"/stoicism/adherence to typical male roles as proxies for power/manliness and how much respect to afford to a man.
So, yeah, it matters... But up to a certain point.
If it rains a lot and you can avoid getting wet as a fish, then it's probably better to use an umbrella -plus, if you're going to meet someone, it's not going to make a great show to arrive dripping wet-.
For the record though, there are 2 umbrellas here at my place, but some people left them.
I've never personally owned an umbrella.
