Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Social LifeHow Would You Handle the "You Hav …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

How Would You Handle the "You Have Lots of Secrets" Power Move?

#1 · January 8, 2022, 10:43 am

My friend Michael introduced me to Emmanuel.

It was a mix of business and pleasure vibe.

During the introduction, he tried to joke about me hiding lots of secrets:

(after brief introduction and now waiting in line outside the restaurant)
(initial friendly exchanges)
Michael: Yeah Matthew has lots of secrets. You can ask him.
Me (looks at Emmanuel): He likes to joke around a lot.
Emmanuel: Yeah man, he's always throwing me under the bus too.
So what's your secret?
Me: Ask Michael. He knows everything.
(brief silence)
Me: Okay Emmanuel, I will let you in on the codewords Michael and I used to discuss office politics.
We used to label each manager with a different character from the Godfather movie.
Did you watch the Godfather?
(conversation went friendly and the vibing was good)

I ended up getting along well with both of them.
And Emmanuel invited me into their platform used for "project discussions".

What's your opinion on how I handled the interaction?

Growfast has reacted to this post.

#2 · January 8, 2022, 3:16 pm

I think you handled it well. The only thing I can think of changing would be addressing Emmanuel's question "What's your secret" directly with Emmanuel instead of redirecting to Michael.

That's because, when Emmanuel asked you that question after you had put Michael in place, it was Emmanuel (and not Michael anymore) who was trying to jokingly one-up you.

So we could think of changing this:

Michael: Yeah Matthew has lots of secrets. You can ask him.
Me (looks at Emmanuel): He likes to joke around a lot.
Emmanuel: Yeah man, he's always throwing me under the bus too.
So what's your secret?
Me: I am starting to understand why you two are so close / Are you trying to throw me under the bus now? / I don't answer silly questions.

Or even indirectly, but still addressing Emmanuel:

Me (talking to Michael): Did you two agree on this beforehand (optional: to try to uncover my secrets)? / Now I see why you are so close to Emmanuel / He's a funny guy just like you!

This second approach is probably the most effective, since it parallels how you initially handled Michael's one-up (i.e. by talking to Emmanuel while addressing Michael): by now doing exactly the same (in symmetry), you are not allowing any of the two to think or say that you are miscalibrating, or "punishing" one unjustly or more strongly than the other.

This reminded me of something I observed happening when I am in a line (for example in a shop) and someone tries to cut the line. In this case, addressing the shopkeeper invariably fails, even if the shopkeeper should probably avoid allowing the line-cutter to cut the line; addressing the line-cutter directly, on the other hand, deals with the problem more effectively and avoids allowing the line-cutter to ally with the shopkeeper.

Also, the movie scene in PU where a guy tries to shame his friend for buying a "champagne" diamond presents a similar (albeit much nastier) dynamic.

Lucio Buffalmano, Growfast and Gguwad have reacted to this post.

#3 · January 8, 2022, 4:07 pm

Sounds great.

A yellow-level power move from Michael -a pale one, nothing big, could also be seen as a good way to jump-start the conversation with some good emotional jolt-.

You could have also forgotten the power move and built on top of it right away:

Michael: Yeah Matthew has lots of secrets. You can ask him.
You: do you guys wanna know one of them?
Whoever: yeah
You: well, here's the problem. I always kill those I share secrets with, and... I like you guys too much. So I'm afraid I gotta remain mysterious with you (laugh)

Transitioned, B and Gguwad have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#4 · January 8, 2022, 4:10 pm

I think it's important not to over-focus on the immediate power move.

You can regain power later on by virtue of who you are, how you talk, what you talk about, how you managed frames and flow, and everything else.

You don't need to react to every single thing.

And probably, especially in the beginning, it's better to roll-on with the punches, focus more on developing a good atmosphere, and less about reacting to the small stuff.

Think of it as the leader.
The leader who takes it upon himself to make it a good time.

That's how a good leader would act: forget for a second about the small-time power move, and focus more on developing a bigger pie.

See the power move, but soar higher.

B has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#5 · January 8, 2022, 6:40 pm

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 8, 2022, 6:40 pm
Thanks a lot Bel and Lucio!
The advice helps a lot.
Bel: I think you handled it well. The only thing I can think of changing would be addressing Emmanuel's question "What's your secret" directly with Emmanuel instead of redirecting to Michael.
That's because, when Emmanuel asked you that question after you had put Michael in place, it was Emmanuel (and not Michael anymore) who was trying to jokingly one-up you.
I see what you mean.
I could have joked about them being "good friends" in that regard.
I think that it would break the ice too.
I was subconsciouly thinking of passing the buck to Emmanuel like in the Putin, Megyn Kelly and Modi video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=47&v=90mcseCRA2c&feature=youtu.be
Do you think it was a good approach?
Bel: This second approach is probably the most effective, since it parallels how you initially handled Michael's one-up (i.e. by talking to Emmanuel while addressing Michael): by now doing exactly the same (in symmetry), you are not allowing any of the two to think or say that you are miscalibrating, or "punishing" one unjustly or more strongly than the other.
This reminded me of something I observed happening when I am in a line (for example in a shop) and someone tries to cut the line. In this case, addressing the shopkeeper invariably fails, even if the shopkeeper should probably avoid allowing the line-cutter to cut the line; addressing the line-cutter directly, on the other hand, deals with the problem more effectively and avoids allowing the line-cutter to ally with the shopkeeper.
I have made the mistake of addressing the shopkeeper when someone cuts in front of me as well.
Usually, they don't really care and just serve the person cutting in front of me.
There's not much incentive for them to care from their point of view.
Lucio: A yellow-level power move from Michael -a pale one, nothing big, could also be seen as a good way to jump-start the conversation with some good emotional jolt-.
So now I see that it's not a major power move.
Is slightly disempowering people with a slight jolt good to break the ice? (maybe another thread)
I can see how it's good in some cases like approaching a woman.
The "I have to kill you" response is really solid!
Reminds me of James Bond and some other spy movies.
I didn't think of this frame during that time.
Maybe this is one benefit of taking improv acting classes.
Lucio: You don't need to react to every single thing.
And probably, especially in the beginning, it's better to roll-on with the punches, focus more on developing a good atmosphere, and less about reacting to the small stuff.
Think of it as the leader.
The leader who takes it upon himself to make it a good time.
That's how a good leader would act: forget for a second about the small-time power move, and focus more on developing a bigger pie.
See the power move, but soar higher.
I was thinking that the first impression is important because it can set the benchmark.
I didn't want to be the guy coming up from behind.
So I wanted to address the power move like how I would address an alpha male handshake.
Then, people are warier in stepping over boundaries.
In this specific dinner, there were almost no power moves directed at me later on.
And I felt that the initial introduction played a part.
In other words, my approach is to
initially address power moves
move on to collaborative frames and a good atmosphere
I understand that it's not a strict, sequential process.
It's getting the "rock" out of the way mindset.
Although I see how sometimes the rocks are pebbles which you can step over or even play with them.
Do you think the non-reactive, sidestepping power moves approach is generally better?

Thanks a lot Bel and Lucio!
The advice helps a lot.

Bel: I think you handled it well. The only thing I can think of changing would be addressing Emmanuel's question "What's your secret" directly with Emmanuel instead of redirecting to Michael.
That's because, when Emmanuel asked you that question after you had put Michael in place, it was Emmanuel (and not Michael anymore) who was trying to jokingly one-up you.

I see what you mean.
I could have joked about them being "good friends" in that regard.
I think that it would break the ice too.

I was subconsciouly thinking of passing the buck to Emmanuel like in the Putin, Megyn Kelly and Modi video.

Do you think it was a good approach?

Bel: This second approach is probably the most effective, since it parallels how you initially handled Michael's one-up (i.e. by talking to Emmanuel while addressing Michael): by now doing exactly the same (in symmetry), you are not allowing any of the two to think or say that you are miscalibrating, or "punishing" one unjustly or more strongly than the other.
This reminded me of something I observed happening when I am in a line (for example in a shop) and someone tries to cut the line. In this case, addressing the shopkeeper invariably fails, even if the shopkeeper should probably avoid allowing the line-cutter to cut the line; addressing the line-cutter directly, on the other hand, deals with the problem more effectively and avoids allowing the line-cutter to ally with the shopkeeper.

I have made the mistake of addressing the shopkeeper when someone cuts in front of me as well.
Usually, they don't really care and just serve the person cutting in front of me.
There's not much incentive for them to care from their point of view.

Lucio: A yellow-level power move from Michael -a pale one, nothing big, could also be seen as a good way to jump-start the conversation with some good emotional jolt-.

So now I see that it's not a major power move.
Is slightly disempowering people with a slight jolt good to break the ice? (maybe another thread)
I can see how it's good in some cases like approaching a woman.

The "I have to kill you" response is really solid!
Reminds me of James Bond and some other spy movies.
I didn't think of this frame during that time.
Maybe this is one benefit of taking improv acting classes.

Lucio: You don't need to react to every single thing.
And probably, especially in the beginning, it's better to roll-on with the punches, focus more on developing a good atmosphere, and less about reacting to the small stuff.
Think of it as the leader.
The leader who takes it upon himself to make it a good time.
That's how a good leader would act: forget for a second about the small-time power move, and focus more on developing a bigger pie.
See the power move, but soar higher.

I was thinking that the first impression is important because it can set the benchmark.
I didn't want to be the guy coming up from behind.
So I wanted to address the power move like how I would address an alpha male handshake.
Then, people are warier in stepping over boundaries.

In this specific dinner, there were almost no power moves directed at me later on.
And I felt that the initial introduction played a part.

In other words, my approach is to

initially address power moves
move on to collaborative frames and a good atmosphere

I understand that it's not a strict, sequential process.
It's getting the "rock" out of the way mindset.
Although I see how sometimes the rocks are pebbles which you can step over or even play with them.

Do you think the non-reactive, sidestepping power moves approach is generally better?

#6 · January 8, 2022, 6:59 pm

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 8, 2022, 6:40 pm
Although I see how sometimes the rocks are pebbles which you can step over or even play with them.

I like that - you can indeed 'play' with these things. I've watched many interview with Putin just because I get a kick out the way he runs rings around journalists. Don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of the man himself of his politics(!), but he's a brilliant performer under pressure, and one of the things that always shows is that he actually seems to be enjoying himself... playing with the challenges and accusations and calmly flipping them over and back to whoever sent them..

Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and B have reacted to this post.

#7 · January 8, 2022, 8:01 pm

Quote from ZenDancer on January 8, 2022, 6:59 pm
I like that - you can indeed 'play' with these things. I've watched many interview with Putin just because I get a kick out the way he runs rings around journalists. Don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of the man himself of his politics(!), but he's a brilliant performer under pressure, and one of the things that always shows is that he actually seems to be enjoying himself... playing with the challenges and accusations and calmly flipping them over and back to whoever sent them..

Great point!

A "playful approach" is a great approach to it.

You gave me an idea now ZenDancer: mindsets & approaches to socialization.

Just today I was out... OK, I'm gonna make an entry in my journal and avoid the off-topic :)

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#8 · January 8, 2022, 8:50 pm

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on January 8, 2022, 6:40 pm
Do you think the non-reactive, sidestepping power moves approach is generally better?

I don't have a precise answer to that.

TPM long-focused on concrete examples and kept the "general approaches" to a few specific strategies (win-win, power/warmth, make friends & avoid enemies, maybe a just few more).

I'm thinking that if after many concrete examples we might come up with more "general approaches" (feel free to open a topic for this if you want).

At this time, I don't yet have an answer though.

The attitude of being above it is a great one, but that attitude doesn't always mean you stay non-reactive.

Generally speaking, it's certainly better in some situations.

But I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's generally better, no matter the situation.

I'm thinking right now that non-reactive is more suited for yellow-level power moves, albeit exceptions apply and some red-level attacks you should also probably ignore.

Matthew Whitewood and B have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#9 · January 8, 2022, 9:06 pm

I would add that, in my opinion, non-reacting can only come from a place of fully understanding the power move and knowing how to address it if one wanted, and still deliberately choosing not to address it explicitly because you just know your frame is stronger.

If you don't understand what is happening, or if you don't know how to respond, you are not non-reacting, you are being played. And it will definitely lead to death by a thousand cuts, and even to red level manipulation and power moves.

Lucio Buffalmano, Matthew Whitewood and Transitioned have reacted to this post.

#10 · January 8, 2022, 9:47 pm

Lucio, thanks a lot for elaborating further on the general approach!

Bel, I agree very much, and thanks very much for bringing up this point.
I think if you are learning, then addressing the power moves serves as a learning purpose and a journey towards the higher strategy approach.
One cannot play the field when one cannot handle the moments.

I have often detected the small power moves but do not know how to counter them.
As such, I think it's great practice for me to learn how to counter them first before ignoring them.
Albeit we can consider ignoring to be a form of frame control.

The attitude of being above it is a great one, but that attitude doesn't always mean you stay non-reactive.

I guess the key here is staying emotionally unreactive.
In this specific example, I stayed emotionally unreactive.
As such, my "counter replies" came across as generally fun and collaborative despite having a power component.

I'm thinking right now that non-reactive is more suited for yellow-level power moves, albeit exceptions apply and some red-level attacks you should also probably ignore.

I think I probably asked the wrong question.
I wanted to ask whether if I detected yellow power moves at the start, should I

Go stronger (more dominance)
Tide over the conversation with warmth and collaborative frames

From this specific dinner, I started out with dominance then moved to warmth and collaborative frames (fun and light-hearted as well).
I do realise a very good benefit of doing so.
The power moves (at least towards me) dropped to almost zero throughout the rest of the dinner.
And I ended up influencing the collaborative frames much more.

Albeit, in this situation, I sensed that I could go more dominant without getting pushed back.

Lucio Buffalmano and Transitioned have reacted to this post.