Dealing with small tasking from a taker
This comes up all the time at my girlfriend's work. The key characteristics of this pattern are:
- The task is something somebody could reasonably ask you to do (i.e. it is appropriate for your role and you do know how)
- The person is a peer not above you
- The person is a taker - they never did anything in the past for you when you asked for info or help
- Its a small thing
Example: today this teacher Kristine asked my G/F in email if she could give her a rundown of this 'reflections' teaching unit. Now my GF could but K has always pushed her off when asked for help in the past. And officially the source of truth and knowledge for a teaching unit is the unit coordinator.
I advised her to write
Hi Kristine
Can do 🙂 I'm on campus next Wednesday if you'd like to have a quick chat. If you want more detail the unit coordinator is Nina.
The objective was to look helpful but ring fence the help so the taker couldn't suck up your time. And point out she should be going to the Unit Coordinator. Yea I know on the smiley but this is a lady org and the ladies love them.
I don't like to deal with situations case by case because then I'm living off my wits. I prefer default responses because those I can over train and be able to do on bad days when I'm stupid.
In similar situations previously we focused on stating our priorities (i.e. I make my priorities and you aren't the boss of me). But I feel this would be 'too much' for these small requests - you would look like you were making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I was wondering if we could come up with a default response. And I wonder how you could say no because you were busy without justifying yourself - it seems hard to say no to something that probably is only 15 minutes.
Or maybe I'm being too princess and the correct response is to help these people even if you don't get anything back because the task is so small its not worth thinking about. Or maybe this is covered in PU and I've forgotten.
Hello Kevin,
It's a good email.
In my opinion, maybe a bit too low in friendliness/cooperation (even if you don't want to be friendly with her).
The "coordinator is..." is corporate speak for "don't bother me with that, I'm not the person for that".
A simple tip to change that: invert the two.
Such as:
Can do.
Of course the unit coordinator is Nina, so she knows more and better :).
But I'm happy to help.
I'm on campus next Wednesday if you'd like to have a quick chat.
Also note that the sub-communication here is:
- Albeit it's not me who should... I'm still happy to help = I'm making a unique exception, and helping you out
Now there's a much stronger pre-frame of (exceptional) giving.
As for giving to takers, check out this sub-paragraph on the "arm's length approach":
I'd rather not have that in the public section for a few reasons, including having used them in life 🙂
Thanks Lucio that is very nice. Love a good pre-frame. And a clever use of 'but' to negate the gentle push back.
I will study up on that section. It's funny back in my mercifully brief PUA phase we had this similar concept - saying was 'christmas value' in other words nothing much but 'it's the thought that counts '
Although not perfect I could handle the first time they tasked you. So we've opted to help them but talk-up the value of that help.
What I'm less sure about is how to deal with them next time. Without directly pointing out they are not doing anything in return. If you do that it seems a bit transactional.
The pattern is likely to be they take the help. They still don't help you. They come back for more. Slowly you're turning into their bitch.
Quote from Transitioned on December 2, 2022, 4:38 amWhat I'm less sure about is how to deal with them next time. Without directly pointing out they are not doing anything in return. If you do that it seems a bit transactional.
The pattern is likely to be they take the help. They still don't help you. They come back for more. Slowly you're turning into their bitch.
I see.
If you already know it's a slippery slope, then it's "yeah-yeah the first meeting, but delay and make them chase".
Second time, more of the same: "sure I can help", but you answer 2 days later, you're swamped, and give no exact day about your availability.
Let them chase to make it happen.
As a matter of fact, if you think that's the trend, then don't give them a date on the first email at all.
Haha love it. Like paying out the rope attached to the lifeboat.
The thing that makes that even more perfect is that at this time of year work is not at all busy so she will know she is on the block list.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on December 2, 2022, 7:55 amQuote from Transitioned on December 2, 2022, 4:38 amWhat I'm less sure about is how to deal with them next time. Without directly pointing out they are not doing anything in return. If you do that it seems a bit transactional.
The pattern is likely to be they take the help. They still don't help you. They come back for more. Slowly you're turning into their bitch.
I see.
If you already know it's a slippery slope, then it's "yeah-yeah the first meeting, but delay and make them chase".
Second time, more of the same: "sure I can help", but you answer 2 days later, you're swamped, and give no exact day about your availability.
Let them chase to make it happen.
As a matter of fact, if you think that's the trend, then don't give them a date on the first email at all.
This “delay and make them chase” strategy to counterbalance the “slippery slope” of “taking for granted and not giving back anything” is stellar.
Now it’s clear to me it has the effect of leveling the playing field (and it also validates what I had been doing unconsciously with that guy in my journal).
I think it is PU worthy if not already there.
Thank you so much for the feedback Kevin and Bel!
@Bel, thank you for the note on PU, that's always super helpful.
This approach is now in PU, but possibly only in the latest update though, so it's possible that on your first run it wasn't there yet.