Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Did I shame her inadvertently in this phone call?
Hi guys!
I recently talked with the assistant of a notary for a personal donation between one of my clients and his son.
The context is that the fee quote by the notary (who was a notary that the client, not I, knew) seemed "mistaken" to me, as it calculated the taxes too high. I studied the tax law and convinced myself that the notary had made a mistake in calculating taxes on the donation.
However, it's always touchy to tell notaries about "mistakes" in their fees. So, I called the assistant of the notary and, with as much tact as I could muster, I asked her if "she didn't think that we couldn't apply the XWZ ruling" to "try to lower the taxes".
Initially, she resisted and told me the quote the notary had made was "what had to be paid".
Then, two hours later, she called me back, told me the notary had "gotten the details of the case wrong", apologized, and told me I was right: the taxes were significantly lower, as I had told her.
I told her "no need to apologize", and "we'll take some time and then arrange the donation".
Then my client basically decided to defer the donation for personal reasons, that were not related to the notary's mistaken fee quote.
Two months passed. I had another client that needed to make a "waiver of rights" in front of a notary to be used abroad.
I called back this notary assistant to ask her about this new deed and get a fee quote, and this is the conversation that ensued:
Me: Hello Ms. ..., I am attorney Bel. We talked some time ago for a donation for Mr. X. Do you remember?
Her: Please tell me what you need.
Me: (I felt her answer was very rude, and this is what came out of my mouth:) Ok, you don't remember. My client has been busy and has not had the time to arrange the donation, but I think he will do so in the future. But now I am calling about another of my clients who would need to do [I describe the need of my client].
Her: No, sorry attorney, we don't do these kind of deeds.
Me: (thinking it's impossible they don't do these deeds and she was just looking to get rid of me, and in any case was very rude:) Oh, you don't do these. Ok. Thank you, I think in the near future my client will in any case arrange for the donation. Goodbye.
Her: Goodbye.
Then I hung up and thought: WTF?
Initially I could not understand why she was so detached and rude.
Then I started thinking maybe she felt shamed by my "finding out" they had made a mistake on the taxes, by me and the client "disappearing", and that I now compounded her shame by reminding her of the past situation. But I wonder, if that's the case, what I could have done instead.
Guys, feel free to share your thoughts if you have feedback on this and on any mistake I may have made here.
Sounds like your interaction was fine. I'm wondering if the notary cracked out with the assistant. And when you rang up she's just remembering the tantrum she got from her boss.
I guess if you wanted to go more power protecting in the original conversation with her.
You could have said something like "hey I'm not sure, you guys are the experts in this field but I worked with a couple of other notaries who I learnt a lot from and they did this. Maybe you could have a chat with the notary and work out what's the best way or if you think it's better for me to have a chat happy to do that whatever is easiest".
That's buttering up the notary and by association her. And power protecting by giving her options on how she wants to play it and suggesting that her and boss work out things together when in reality the boss probably just grunts orders at her
I also wonder if they think that you told the client about the saving/their mistake because that s what a lot of sneaky people would do. And from your experiences in your journal doesn't seem like there's any shortage of sneaky people in your industry.
So maybe to head off that thinking you could have said "hey I haven't discussed this with the client I wanted to check with you guys."
That's a lot of mental gymnastics for you to account for their malfunctions so if you have to do more than that I personally wouldn't want to work with these guys.
Thank you Transitioned,
In other words I could have been even more power protecting.
From your answer I’m wondering if they simply got upset that I tried to “protect“ my client from paying more than due. In other words maybe she saw me as an inconvenient pain in the neck.
I also think I maybe could have skipped the “reminding her” part. Even though I was still involving them in new potential work.
In any case agree that it isn’t worth to interact with them any more at this point.
I think you're spot on. Even though you did everything right, from her odd reaction - the 'reminding her' part might have been expanding on a negative thread.
To begin with, I agree with Kevin:
You didn't do anything wrong.
But you unluckily met a fragile ego, thin-skin, power-concerned person.
And in her defensiveness and ego protection, she preferred losing business than "owning up" to it.
Now... Could you have done even better to even prevent this bad apple from standing in the way?
Let's see an alternative approach:
Protecting is huge, but doesn't always mean it's the best way to go.
P.S.: upgrading that section in PU right now together with an article on it.
Still, it's not like you misapplied it here.
I generally think that power protecting should be your stock and go-to approach.
There's a difference though between "saving face" -a subset of power-protecting- and "power protecting".
In this case, it feels you went more for saving face.
Let's see the difference:
Power protecting to get things done VS dawdle with over "saving face".
Saving face sometimes is very obvious.
And can add an extra step and/or longer communication about the issue.
What that means is that it thread-expands and makes the issue bigger, with the final result being an even bigger power loss.
In this case, the mistake -and power loss around "authority"- seemed even bigger because the saving face attempt ended up thread-expanding on that mistake.
Compare:
Indirect, low-power saving face
You: Don't you think that we may be could apply the XWZ ruling to this case?
Now she got time to mull it over.
She thinks "could we?" or could we not?
Is he trying to correct us?
Is he right?
Plus, it's apparent you're trying to save their face for their mistake, which further expands on their original incompetence.
First gut-reaction: no, we're the authority, push back on it.
Now she's also getting invested in it, and worked up.
And now you got an issue: now she really needs to lose face if indeed it was a mistake.
Plus, this has the added downside of being low-power (and we know that's generally not a good idea).
Direct, high-power power protect
To:
You: Hi, how are you. Thank you for the quote and fast turnaround, I appreciate that. I think we can apply the XWZ ruling to it. Can we do that please, I want to help my client lower the taxes
The difference:
This one addresses the mistake as a given.
But, paradoxically, it's also more power-protecting because it jumps right through the issue.
The mistake is in the past, gone.
And the topic of contention is not whether you should or not, it's about doing it.
This approach thread-minimizes.
The power protection is also sub-communicated in the:
- Attitude: goal-driven concerned about bottom-line results
- Matter-of fact communication: it is what it is, neutrally, without making a fuss about anything
- Customer-centric shifts focus from mistake, to end-goal: the "that'll help my client lower the taxes". You're not doing this out of concern for "mistakes", but for your customer. That's your goal.
- Brevity / voice: if text, short and to the point. If on a call, a bit long
And:
- Power protection elements: the "how are you, thank you for, appreciate... " maintains warmth and preframes it as you still being good with them. The "I think" and "that'll help my customer" are the power-protection bits here
Higher power, faster, more direct, more professional... And even more power protecting.
If you're not sure about the ruling, then a similar format would be "I think we can apply the XWZ ruling here, right? If so, can you please do that, I'm keen to save taxes for my customer".
Dealing with the "denial of service": escalate it
Yes, it's likely your analysis is right.
She denied her own boss more work to save her face.
But also consider that your initial face-saving approach was indirect and lowish power, and that can come across as sneaky to some.
I'd personally have tried to fix this right away on the phone but going more high-power, even pushy/aggressive if worse came to worse.
Instead of accepting, tell the secretary that it's impossible they don't do this type of work and you'd like a quote.
Or that you know the notary and you will contact him directly.
Contact the notary
If you have direct access to the notary, contact him directly now.
Get your fair credit for this work
Also, Bel, consider:
This is great background work you're doing for your customer.
Are you collecting your fair credits for it?
Maybe you can find a way to let the customer know the notary made a mistake and it was you who fixed it.
P.S.:
Let me know it that makes sense or if anyone has any feedback/ideas on that.
It'll be super useful for the upgrade/lesson/article.
BOOM!
Thank you Lucio, this is incredibly helpful.
I see it now.
Low-power saving-face comes across as a sneaky approach
My “low-power saving face” came across as if I was more concerned of not triggering a reaction against me than in addressing the issue.
As if I was saving my face!
So it was only natural she would also start thinking that maybe I was critical of their mistake, and in any case my approach thread-expanded on it.
High-power “bypassing the mistake” and re-aiming for the solution comes across as more “mature” and “solution focused”
Your suggested high-power approach makes much more sense. I had an inch that maybe I should have been more “direct”.
That explains why the “direct abrasive approach” of my former boss would paradoxically keep more people in rapport, compared to my approach of “dealing with things indirectly”.
Paradoxically, people prefer to deal with a high-power person who constantly redirects to his aim without thinking about feelings, than with a person who’s always indirectly trying to point out things and hoping they “get it”.
This seems tied to being “less democratic” in leadership when starting out. In this case these were my first interactions with this person.
In some cases people feel more respected if you bypass their mistaken view and go directly to the point, instead of “trying to convince them”.
I think there’s a phrase by Steve Jobs saying to another person
“You’re not telling it like it is: you’re really just afraid of others reaction to you and that’s hindering your effectiveness on the job”.
So, in conclusion, the real issue here is that I behaved low-power again.
On escalating the denial
While I don’t know the Notary, I see now that, if I had escalated with the assistant, in a way, she would have recovered some respect for me then and there.
Instead, when I accepted her excuse on the phone, I probably lost her respect even more.
On taking credit for lowering taxes vs scalping on a mistake of the notary
Yes, I let my client know I was able to find a way to “lower the taxes”.
Albeit I have to admit: I basically let my client (who’s a relative of mine) know that there had been a “mistake” on the quote by the notary.
Now, from your post and from Transitioned post, I understand I should instead have just said I had “found a way to lower taxes”.
I remember one of the books on workplace strategies you suggest saying the exact same thing: when fixing mistakes, never point out the mistake, but only focus on how you helped find the solution, because:
- it’s evident to all that someone had made a mistake, or you wouldn’t have found a (better) solution;
- you want the person making the mistake as your ally, not as an enemy;
- by not “scalping” on the mistake, you come across as even more the grown-up guy and gain the respect of high-power people for behaving high-power and knowing the secret handshake.
So I made, myself, a mistake here… nice! (I have to drill these things in my head!!).
On my personal bigger-picture
I see that this is triggering some initial awareness in myself of lots of other situations where I am probably continuing to adopt a “low-power” “saving face” approach.
I now realize this is something I have to work on changing in many other areas.
One example is how I sometimes deal with client resistance on some legal approaches.
Edit: Optimum balance?
I think this may be tied to “optimum balance”: there’s a threshold for power-protecting and, if you go over, you start thread-expanding on their mistake instead of “protecting”.
If you “power-protect too much”, you highlight their mistake!
Re-Edit: Power-protecting best done while subcommunicating respect and “trusting the other to be an adult”?
Another thing I derive from your post is that power-protecting may best be subtly subcommunicated by showing a general attitude of respect, than by subcommunicating fear of a reaction… which in turn subcommunicates “I don’t think your ego can take it”. Not exactly the best thing to subcommunicate…
———
I need to cut myself some slack, I think I just couldn’t have understood all these things myself here.
On “not scalping the mistake”
It was the client that got the initial quote from the notary and forwarded it to me.
Then I told the client I thought taxes were too high and told him why.
I told him he should contact the notary and point this out to see if the notary agreed.
My client then asked me to directly contact the notary with this, as he did not feel talking about this with the notary.
I then contacted the notary’s assistant and everything ensued.
So in reality my “scalping” on the mistake was inherent in how thing developed, though I could have minimized it by framing it with the client better.
