Bel's thoughts
Great stuff here.
Worth noting down for that Lawyer Power University 🙂
Thanks.
My thinking on low power behavior to be avoided in written communication, based on: my past experience, PU, your comments, John's comments, and some other things I spotted in the forum.
These seem to subcommunicate insecurity, submissiveness, and an opportunity for others to push one around and manipulate.
- Thanking people in advance
As in:
Thank you in advance for your response.
This has several negative underpinnings:
- it subcommunicates that one does not believe he deserves a response;
- it irritates the receiver, as it somewhat seeks to remove his choice on whether and how to engage;
- it cuts the flow of the communication and does not allow it to breathe, by implying the sender will not aknowledge the answer nor respond to it.
2. Thanking clients or customers for choosing you
As in:
Thank you for your request.
Or:
Thank you for entrusting this matter to me.
Or:
Thank you for your continued preference.
This also has several negative underpinnings:
- it subcommunicates one needs their business, due to not having much to do (and thus makes them wonder whether they made the right choice in coming to you);
- if making reference to trust, it subcommunicates one is not normally trusted with similar matters;
- it reverses the socially-accepted normal dynamics of engagement with a professional.
There may be a limited exception when one former client comes back after a long time:
I appreciate you coming to me for this, so I can quote a fee of ...
Here the idea would be that one is happy to reencounter an old client in a different role, so the subcommunication seems to be more on an equal plane, and not "I didn't deserve it".
3. Thanking people in advance for their reply within a certain timeframe
A variation of no. 1, as in:
Thank you if you can answer shortly.
It subcommunicates being short on time, depending on the other's answer, and being at the whims of the other.
Much better to either:
- not make reference to needing an answer before a certain deadline, and getting ready for the alternative if it doesn't come; or
- imposing the deadline:
To go forward with the settlement, I look forward to receiving your answer within day X.
Or, in a very low-warmth tone:
The present proposal is not negotiable and will be void unless accepted within day X.
4. Specifying that you "remain available" for whatever
As in:
I remain available for any clarification and send you my kindest regards.
This:
- subcommunicates low-power and deference;
- cuts the flow of the communication, by suggesting the other person does not need to respond to you or update you.
There may be some very limited exceptions to this, eg if one is writing to the president of the universe.
5. Season's greetings or holiday wishes if you have just asked a question or are expecting a response to your message
As in:
How did it go with X?
I take the opportunity to wish you a good summer/Christmas/whatever.
This:
- subcommunicates you don't think you deserve a response;
- undercuts the normal flow of the conversation (because the normal thing to do would be to send the wishes to the other person after you receive a response, not before);
- gives an easy excuse to the other person not to answer.
6. Thanking someone more than once in the same message/email
As in:
Thank you for this.
...
Thanks again. Goodbye.
Subcommunication being that: one did not deserve what the other person did.
7. Not answering an interim communication directed to you or to a third party, when your silence can be interpreted as submissiveness, subservience or not caring
CASE A
If a client writes to you:
Sorry for not getting back to you, I was on vacation. I'll do so now.
and you don't answer, you will probably subcommunicate at the same time subservience and not caring.
Better to answer in a way that reempowers you and, if appropriate, shares the blame (I don't think the following message is the best, but it probably still beats not answering):
Hope your vacation went well! I have also been busy on a project so far, but I remain available to go forward with this upon receiving your feedback/comments/whatever.
CASE B
A situation where you, as a professional, are being asked to take part in a meeting with two other people.
One day before the meeting, one person writes to all three:
Good day, tomorrow I won't be in the office so let's keep the meeting a videoconference.
And the second person answers:
Perfect, see you tomorrow!
If you don't answer, your silence subcommunicates that you don't care, and that you are a passive servant to the two people's whims.
Better to answer with an interim re-empowering one-liner, as in:
I confirm my participation, see you tomorrow.
7. Anything that communicates taking one's decisions on the basis of what the other says/does
With exceptions of course: if the other person is your boss, this may be good.
But if he or she is your customer, not so much.
As in:
Ok, then let's do it this way.
Key word here being "then": it subcommunicates following the lead of the other person.
Even if you are doing so, best to reframe it as your independent decision to go the route the other person asked you to consider.
Request: Can we do it this Saturday?
Bad answer: Ok, let's do it this Saturday then.
Better answer: Let's go with this Saturday.
8. Anything that communicates not being deserving of the other person's time or response
As in:
Sorry to disturb you, but I need to ask you ...
Or, subtler but still present:
Can you give me an update when you have the time?
9. Not acknowledging emotional bids for connection
As in, not answering these kinds of emails:
Hey thank you so much, your answers are always spot on and you are always kind!
Thank you for your precious support.
Thanks! Have a very good week.
A stock answer I'm thinking about for difficult-to-decide cases:
It's a pleasure X! Talk soon.
10. Anything that communicates worrying about who will do what, or who will follow up on what, and how and when
As in:
Ok, who will write the document?
Or:
Will you contact me or do I contact you?
Best to either directly ask the other person to do it or take the lead and do it directly:
We can accept your proposal and look forward to receiving the document to be signed to close this.
Or:
We can accept your proposal, here enclosed the document for signature by the parties.
11. Not being able to spot and respond to power moves
Self-explanatory: for each unchecked power move, the other person will get bolder and bolder in pushing one around.
12. Implying acceptance instead of expressing acceptance
As in:
Request: Can you prepare the document for a fee of ...?
Bad answer: I'll send the document to you asap.
Better answer: I can accept your proposal for a fee of .... I'll send you the document as soon as possible.
Just openly stating acceptance increases perceived agency and thus power.
13. Adopting a too formal tone / not going with the flow
Secure people write almost like they talk, ie in a normal tone of conversation and following the flow.
If what one writes sounds very formal and/or disconnected from the flow (i.e. requiring other to make big commitments, decisions), others will pick up that one is masking insecurity.
Considering the difference between:
Could you provide me with an update on this?
And:
In reference to this, did they sign the contract?
Another difference between:
I propose to you that we talk on day X at time Z, or on day Y at time J.
and:
Feel free to call me on X after time Z.
As always guys, please feel free to comment on anything I've written here.
And two other past mistakes I’ve been thinking of lately:
- saying or writing anything that may make the client think you are not siding or empathizing with the client
Example one: clients comes to me and asks:
Request: Do you think our adversary was right in starting this lawsuit against me?
Bad response: Well, the inheritance is significant so I would have advised him to do the same if I were his lawyer.
Good response: I cannot speak for our adversary, but I am of the opinion we have much to do and fight on here to show you are in the right.
- pointing out the mistakes of the client in writing in detail to CYA
Much better to talk about them in words, and only make a passing reference to having spoken about them in the written agreement if absolutely necessary.
Never write “you did this this and this and now you have a decision to make”. Ugh
Read “The Gervais Principle” after reading Lucio’s awesome review. It was a great recommendation from LOF, and a very interesting read.
Apart from confirmation of the power dynamics of workplaces that I myself experienced and that are also taught in PU, there are two concepts that struck me in the book.
Joke / laughter / frown dynamics can be manipulated to negotiate power in a group by its members
Laughing at a joke that one person in a group makes, is a way of giving social proof and status recognition to that person. It increases the status and power of that person in the group.
Indifference, or frowning, at a joke by one person in a group, conversely, is a way to reduce a person’s status and power in the same group.
Rao speaks of a “vote of confidence” mechanism whereby the majority of the group laughing or not laughing actually “votes” on the status of the person making the joke.
Normally, laughter is natural and spontaneous: meaning that people in the group will laugh, or not, depending on the respect and status they feel the person merits (I suspect this is more relevant than the joke actual).
But suppose I am a member of a group, I consciously know the mechanism, and I wish to deliberately “vote for” or “vote against” a person to increase or lower its status in the group: I could withhold my laughter, or even frown, on whatever that person says or does.
In other words I could try to consciously influence the status dynamics to the benefit or detriment of someone else.
The illegibility of relative status of most group members means that the leader’s position and the lowest status person’s position are always going to manifest, and that any person associating with one of these two is going to be cast as either “close to the leader” or “close to the bottom/on the way out”
The book speaks of the illegibility of relative status of all group members except the leader and the lowest status-person (alpha and omega).
In other words, people (in and out of the group) concentrate their attention on the two extremes, and tend to “lump” all other members in one big category.
This has important effects for understanding group dynamics: it means that whoever is able to associate itself with the leader, will be perceived as higher status by all others in the group, with all consequent effects.
The converse is also true: seeking support from, or unconsciously associating oneself with the lowest-status member (eg the butt of all jokes, the person unable to defend himself, the always-picked-on-person) is going to make everybody think that one is omega-minus-one: in other words, that one is not worthy of being in the group.
These dynamics validate several successes I saw some people were able to engineer by unconscious knowledge of these same mechanisms.
A corollary is that all groups have a power/status rank order between members.
No group can exist of exact equals. Status and power are always being negotiated.
A thought on disrespect and social climbing
Deliberate disrespect and social climbing is effective only in the short term if done to the detriment of growth-oriented people.
A person can be unable to see the disrespect at a certain stage of his or her growth, and let it pass.
But, as a person grows, they will find out who disrespected them and social climbed on them, and when, and how. And will be able to reconstruct the exact moments when that happened, even if it was masked (as it always is).
In other words, social climbing makes you lose the most important people.
Hello Bel,
thanks for sharing, this book is definitely on my list now. I am currently listening to "When men behave badly", which I recommend.
About the "being the butt of all jokes", that is why I did not like when JB started to make jokes at my expense. It's a new dynamics and it is an attack on my status. I understand, thanks to PU, that the value I delivered is in the past now. However, I understand it as a way of social climbing.
That is why the "joker" is powerful. He's able to hide attacks as humour and gain status through social climbing.
Now apart from laughing/not laughing, there is another aspect that I am going to explore from now on: the counter-joke.
When you are being the butt of jokes, you make a joke back on the attacker. I noticed this is powerful as it makes everyone laugh very hard. It asks some mental agility, but I think it sends a strong signal: "you want to be funny? Well, I am funnier". So now the joker will think twice about making jokes.
I tried to answer seriously or ignore but it's not powerful. Because making fun of someone is a power move, it should be addressed. I'll experiment with the counter-joke and let you guys know. Once again, to be eagle-like, the goal is not to social climb on people but to defend from the social climbing.
It's also good to know that status is always negotiated. Therefore, one is prepared. Also this is why in my group, the jokes are always going on: because it's an easy way to gain status in the group. You make a joke. You don't have to provide information, inspiration, listening or any kind of value.
Making jokes to gain status is the lazy man's approach to gaining status. Of course, they will always deny that there is a status element in there. It's just a joke!
It's good to know as now my framework expands. That is also why when I make real jokes, I often feel the need to say: "I'm imagining a situtation, I'm not talking about you." Because people are so used to jokes in groups as a status enhancer/destroyer that they are expecting it to be a status joke.
About counter-jokes, I will categorise them:
- Are you dumb? counter jokes: "you did not know that...?", "Yes, that is why people..." AND laugh. That is important, because the laugh "takes off the edge" but officialise the counter-attack.
It's a work in progress. So as I learn to counter-joke I'll add more. Also, it's important to be careful about turkey spirals, that is why I propose to only defend and not use humour to attack people's status.
Also, people are very status-conscious and have status anxiety. So actually if as a group, we're discovering these things. Many people have known it all along.
I think it's absolutely necessary to hit back when someone makes a joke. The more devastating counter attack the better (will also serve as a warning to others to not joke)
This video shows Rock giving a good comeback to Kevin Hart.
These are the kind of jokes I hit back when I can't think of something very witty. For guys especially these jokes will insult them hard.
Hi Guys, thank you for sharing.
My past experience on counter-jokes is that it used to turn into a turkey spiral even when I was only defending. However, I was power-unaware and much less effective at these dynamics, and that may also have affected things.
That’s why I was now thinking of defaulting, in case of lack of better ideas on the spot, to this stock answer slightly modified from the microaggression section of PU:
What a funny joke. (said with a flat tone and a hint of contempt)
I also imagine that you are referring to situations where other people laugh at the joke made by the jester/joker at one’s expense, and that may make it unavoidable to retort with sarcasm/ a counter joke.
Very good retort in the video, and really useful as a stock format that can be adapted to counter-jokes on the spot:
Well, when X [jester] finds out about Y [embarrassing fake thing concerning X and related to his previous joke, but worse], that’ll be fun.
On the power dynamic of joining vs collaborating or creating a joint venture
I quote Lucio from this thread:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 17, 2022, 5:02 pmJordan Peterson Joins Ben Shapiro
…
From a power dynamics perspective, JP joined Ben Shapiro, not the other way around.
Why would the (already very wealthy) #1 world philosopher enter someone else's business instead of, say, creating a brand new venture -which would have been more power neutral-.
From an authority and persuasion point of view, it's also a loss.
JP (is/was/has at times been) an eagle with high authority.But Ben Shapiro never was.
This is a very interesting dynamic that is often, in my experience, deliberately set up with power moves by manipulators upon power-unaware people.
One of the signature power moves of many high-Mach people I met in the past was that of always giving the impression to third parties that I, even when collaborating with them as peer lawyers joining firms, was part of their firm (ie had joined them).
When the reality was instead that we were collaborating as equals.
I infer that if you (having an equal public status) join another’s already established venture, you implicitly confirm the other is higher power, and you also lose credibility and power in the process with all people who observe you.
Now this may be exactly what it wanted, and in that case no problem. The problem is when Machs push it on you.
I remember two particular instances when this happened.
Case 1
Once I was meeting an important client of a fellow lawyer and “friend” in her office, because she had asked me if I could help her in the case. When the client came in, one of the first things my “friend” said was:
Her: This is Bel, he’s my right arm. (Subcommunication: he works for me, and is below me)
I didn’t say anything, but now see it as very nasty. I would now retort with:
Me: She’s too kind, but I don’t work in her firm, we are two lawyers joining forces for this case. (Subcommunication: don’t bullshit me and the client, we are equals and you asked me to help you here)
Case 2
I once entered into a collaboration agreement with another law firm whereby we would join forces on specific cases by mutual agreement. Each firm could also mention, upon agreement, the fact of the collaboration with the other.
Immediately after concluding the framework collaboration agreement, the guys in the other firm proposed for my agreement a “joint announcement” whose content was basically that I, Bel, was joining their firm as a new lawyer of theirs. I immediately objected and the announcement was never issued.
They were also to shortly take part into a law firm network meeting of theirs and they asked me to go with them (abroad) to present me as a new collaborator of their firm. I also objected to this and didn’t go, because something felt off to me. Now I understand the move was meant to cement the frame that I was joining them, ie was beneath them. They wanted to publicly present me like this in front of others, most probably without telling me, and hope I fell for the social pressure and for the (future/faked) benefits.
Later their intentions proved to be even worse, as they tried to steal one of my clients.
Other cases
Some higher-experience lawyers asked me if I wanted to collaborate and conditioned the collaboration to me opening an email address with the suffix of their firm.
—————
A closing thought on this
The irony was that, in all these cases, the real higher power (in technical competence and professional growth potential) was probably not on the other side. If it were on their side, why bother trying to define the relationship as “me joining them”?
I also cooperated with other lawyers on cases of mine, and I never once mentioned the origin or nature of the collaboration to my clients. Because I was somewhat secure that my client would remain with me.
Quote from Bel on July 31, 2022, 1:41 amRead “The Gervais Principle” after reading Lucio’s awesome review. It was a great recommendation from LOF, and a very interesting read.
Apart from confirmation of the power dynamics of workplaces that I myself experienced and that are also taught in PU, there are two concepts that struck me in the book.
Joke / laughter / frown dynamics can be manipulated to negotiate power in a group by its members
Laughing at a joke that one person in a group makes, is a way of giving social proof and status recognition to that person. It increases the status and power of that person in the group.
Indifference, or frowning, at a joke by one person in a group, conversely, is a way to reduce a person’s status and power in the same group.
Rao speaks of a “vote of confidence” mechanism whereby the majority of the group laughing or not laughing actually “votes” on the status of the person making the joke.
Normally, laughter is natural and spontaneous: meaning that people in the group will laugh, or not, depending on the respect and status they feel the person merits (I suspect this is more relevant than the joke actual).
But suppose I am a member of a group, I consciously know the mechanism, and I wish to deliberately “vote for” or “vote against” a person to increase or lower its status in the group: I could withhold my laughter, or even frown, on whatever that person says or does.
In other words I could try to consciously influence the status dynamics to the benefit or detriment of someone else.
The illegibility of relative status of most group members means that the leader’s position and the lowest status person’s position are always going to manifest, and that any person associating with one of these two is going to be cast as either “close to the leader” or “close to the bottom/on the way out”
The book speaks of the illegibility of relative status of all group members except the leader and the lowest status-person (alpha and omega).
In other words, people (in and out of the group) concentrate their attention on the two extremes, and tend to “lump” all other members in one big category.
This has important effects for understanding group dynamics: it means that whoever is able to associate itself with the leader, will be perceived as higher status by all others in the group, with all consequent effects.
The converse is also true: seeking support from, or unconsciously associating oneself with the lowest-status member (eg the butt of all jokes, the person unable to defend himself, the always-picked-on-person) is going to make everybody think that one is omega-minus-one: in other words, that one is not worthy of being in the group.
These dynamics validate several successes I saw some people were able to engineer by unconscious knowledge of these same mechanisms.
A corollary is that all groups have a power/status rank order between members.
No group can exist of exact equals. Status and power are always being negotiated.
A thought on disrespect and social climbing
Deliberate disrespect and social climbing is effective only in the short term if done to the detriment of growth-oriented people.
A person can be unable to see the disrespect at a certain stage of his or her growth, and let it pass.
But, as a person grows, they will find out who disrespected them and social climbed on them, and when, and how. And will be able to reconstruct the exact moments when that happened, even if it was masked (as it always is).
In other words, social climbing makes you lose the most important people.
These are both really good, Bel.
I have to say, when I read the original posts I didn't see as much insights, but it's either I miss, or your interpretation and/or way to put it hit the mark.
Both are absolutely true, and not seeking the support of the lowest-rank guy is indeed part of good strategies/power-awareness.
I even made a note for a future lesson/mini-module on group power dynamics.
Quote from Bel on July 31, 2022, 7:32 pmHer: This is Bel, he’s my right arm. (Subcommunication: he works for me, and is below me)
I didn’t say anything, but now see it as very nasty. I would now retort with:
Me: She’s too kind, but I don’t work in her firm, we are two lawyers joining forces for this case. (Subcommunication: don’t bullshit me and the client, we are equals and you asked me to help you here)
The problem with that is that as you reply, you are the ones who brings the "dirty clothes" into open air, in front of the customers.
Ie.: you get dragged into the war, and you fight in front of your customers.
She loses more than you do, but if your goal is to win rather than "making her lose more than you do", which is a much better goal, then a smoother approach is in order here.
For example:
Her: This is Bel, he’s my right arm. (Subcommunication: he works for me, and is below me)
You: (looking in her direction, but NOT to her) thanks. (move gaze to the customer) yeah, my name is Bel and (I have a separate practice, but) we joined forces for this case
The part in parenthesis is optional, just in case you want to make it even more obvious.
It might seem like you're not hitting back at her.
And indeed, you aren't.
But you ignore her frame and re-set your own frame.
You still achieve your goals to reclaim your independence, but without breaking too much rapport and, even more important, without presenting a fractured front in front of the customers (trust: they'd rather see their lawyers getting along than busy fighting each other).
And if there's anyone at that table who's any power-aware (and if they're high-ticket customers, chances are very good they are power-aware), they'll come to think of you as "one of them" (ie. "one of the high power folks").