Quote from B on May 22, 2022, 12:04 pm

Reupping this as it is more recent than the other thread I posted in (about my Machiavellian former "boss").

Quote from B on May 22, 2022, 7:26 pm

Or maybe I’m just encountering lots of assholes everywhere.

I think I will start experimenting with fellow lawyers and clients with toning down my warmth drastically from now on.

Putting it in different terms, I will start being a real asshole. Which, considering where I started from, should in any case bring me just about to the middle of the doormat/asshole spectrum.

Quote from Ali Scarlett on May 22, 2022, 10:03 pm

Would love to hear more thoughts on this as well because I've been behind on other threads regarding Bel's journey and I'm unfamiliar with the power dynamics within the legal field. (All the more reason Bel would be more suited for an Attorney's PU than I would :).

That said, here are my (somewhat uninformed) thoughts.

Quote from Bel on May 22, 2022, 11:27 am

I am seeing a pattern here: I start "weak", others disrespect me, and I have to "recover" from a position of weakness.

Maybe this is tied to Lucio's teaching that you should start stronger in power and lower in warmth, and then you can ease back as the relationship progresses.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I don't recall Lucio saying that.

I remember a post where he said it's easier to start out higher-power and move to lower-power than the other way around.

But, as far as what one "should" do, ideally, you would start out high-power and high-warmth to be the high-quality man everyone wants to be around.

Then, consider lowering your warmth with those who don't deserve it.

Now, on the email exchange in particular, here's what I see:

Dear Colleague (very formal, maybe a sign of an unwillingness to take the relationship to a more personal level yet — and, perhaps, rightfully so),

I got your email address from XXX.

I read your amendments to the draft contract exchanged between the parties and I thought it may be useful to confront ourselves on the text being negotiated (uses negotiation terminology by saying "negotiatied" rather than "discussed", which can be a sign of an early competitive frame).

Please tell me Your availabilities for next week for a telephone or videoconference exchange (gives Bel an order).

Kind regards

As I said before, I'm unfamiliar with what's considered standard for a legal dealing/exchange.

But, the "Dear Colleague" rather than something like "Good afternoon Bel" was a sign of emotional distance to me.

Then, he referred to the draft contract as a "text being negotiated".

From a psychology side, there's a reason it's not recommended one uses that word in a negotiation:

The Psychology of Negotiation by Nick Kolenda:

Tactic 7: Avoid Negotiation Terminology

“To prevent aggressive behavior from your counterpart, avoid negotiation terminology. Always use words that depict cooperative behavior (e.g., ‘collaborate,’ ‘work together,’ ‘brainstorm’).

You should also incorporate 1st person plural pronouns (e.g., ‘us,’ ‘we,’ ‘our’). Those pronouns emphasize a shared goal with your counterpart, so you’ll usually gain a more favorable deal.” (See trigger social pressure.)

He makes an effort to persuade by using the word "ourselves" rather than "each other" (perhaps to get you to agree to the meeting).

But, his persuasive effort is overshadowed by his use of negotiation terminology to me.

So, the emotional distance on top of referring to a conversation as a "negotiation" could be an early warning sign that he's already thinking about "winning" or "coming out on top".

#1. The Power Move Answer

If you're working with a loose deadline that allowed for it, you could have responded:

Dear Colleague,

Agreed. (Keeps it low in social effort)

Unfortunately, I'm booked up for the remainder of this week. (Refuses to follow his order to tell him your availabilities.)

So, send me your availability (gives an order back) and I'd be happy to let you know when I'm free for a quick phone call.

Kind Regards,

Bel

The main adjustments to this response are that it's:

• Lower in social effort: he's the one who wants to talk so, if anything, he should be investing more social effort. Not you.
• Refuses to follow his lead: he gave you an order and, in your original response, you followed it. This response instead not only refuses to follow his lead, but also retakes the lead by giving him an order back.
  Under normal circumstances, an order back wouldn't be necessary (and you could power-protect more to keep things more fair and respectful). But, in a case like this where (1) you want to communicate that you're no pushover and (2) you're in a field where people will continue playing power games unless sub-communicate that you can play back and win, it can be a good way to start out higher power. Then, when you assess him as being worthy of more warmth, you can ease up on the dominance.
• Removes certain warmth signals: from what I saw in his email, he didn't give too many warmth signals. So, saying things like "my pleasure" and "glad to make [your] professional acquaintance" felt unfair to give and unnecessary.

Quote from Bel on May 22, 2022, 11:27 am

(...)

Here is one very recent example I would like to ask your opinion on (I think it is representative of what seems to always happen to me).

(...)

A quick question for you, Bel:

Is it true that this always happens to you, or often?

Maybe if you can identify what you do differently in the cases where it doesn't happen, you can also glean some more insight into possible adjustments for your own growth and success.

Happy to read anyone's thoughts and/or feedback (especially if you disagree, curious to see what I could learn here as well).

Quote from B on May 22, 2022, 10:41 pm

Thank you Ali, that is great feedback and very helpful.

Some answers to your points:

• "Dear Colleague" is standard here between lawyers
• it's true he was tasking me with giving him my availability, but I thought here that the situation was similar to this.
• I definitely overdid the warmth signals here
• my client is interested in closing the deal asap, unfortunately, and that is why I proposed Monday
• Your comment on counterpart lawyers being in an inherent subconscious "hostile conflict" is great! It explains these dynamics better than my "disempowering myself" initial idea.

Here your comment:

you're in a field where people will continue playing power games unless sub-communicate that you can play back and win, it can be a good way to start out higher power. Then, when you assess him as being worthy of more warmth, you can ease up on the dominance.

It's totally spot on, I think!

In other words, it's not necessarily that I am doing something wrong, it's that these lawyers unconsciously capitalize on any opening I give them! They try to pin me down ASAP.

This goes well with the intuition to start by very high power and low warmth.

• Your question about whether this happens always or often is very on point. I would say something similar always happened to me so far (i.e. people think they can push me around), but I usually compensate on the technical side of my work.

Update:

Just now (Sunday evening) I received his reply, which to me is even more disrespectful than his waiting:

His email: Dear Colleague,

I apologize for the delay with which I respond to Your e-mail, but it had escaped me between the many. (my thoughts: this is a clear power move and very disrespectful)

I cannot for Monday. As an alternative I propose the afternoon of Tuesday or Wednesday. (my thoughts: he is clearly trying to assert dominance here, and he is also protecting against me doing the same to him back by proposing two different days)

Kind regards. (very low warmth compared to my closing)

XX

My thinking on how to respond.

Option 1: I could say I am unable to speak on the days he proposed, and thus that he should convey what he wanted to say to me by email. Like this:

Me: Dear Colleague,

Unfortunately on the days you proposed it won't be possible to me. (refusing his dominance, using "you" without capitalizing first letter)

Will you thus please send me your comments directly by email, and afterwards in case we will try again to speak on the phone. (tasking him back, and also refusing his bid to speak altogether)

Regards,

Option 2: I could answer on Wednesday morning (to convey the signal that if he continues on the disrespect path, he will get the same) and propose Thursday:

Me: Dear Colleague,

Unfortunately I won't be able the days you proposed. (refusing his dominance)

I thus propose we do it Thursday or Friday. (counterproposal)

Regards

Option 3: I could suck it up and do it on Tuesday:

Me: Let's talk Tuesday at 5.15 pm. You can call me at my contact here below. (tasking back)

Regards (keeping text very blunt to remove warmth)

Right now I am oriented to Option 1, with the only decision being when I should send him the email. Tuesday morning probably.

My reasoning:

He is the one who wants to say something to me, and if he refused my kindness, with this solution he will be compelled to work more.

On the other hand my client will still be protected by option 1, because I am asking the other lawyer to send me his comments by email, so the dialogue can still go on.

He was the one who was interested in talking to me to explain his point of view.

He communicated to me he was open to speaking all week, then refused my bid for Monday.

This teaches me another lesson, which is this:

Always propose at least two times in two different days: this makes it more difficult for people to play these games.

Quote from B on May 23, 2022, 1:34 am

I understand now Lucio's proposal for an Attorney Power University.

Ali's post made me realize that the profession of lawyer has an inherent hostile/combative power dynamics substratum.

One lawyer wins, the other loses. The only profession to have these dynamics.

I now understand why I was attracted to The Power Moves. It would have been impossible for me to progress in the profession without studying this.

Also, I am thinking of nipping this colleague's power moves in the bud. Like this:

Option 4:

My email: Hi Colleague, (less warm and more confidential than he was)

unfortunately in the slots You propose it won't be possible for me; so please let me have Your comments directly via email. (totally closes the possibility of talking, communicates we only exchange written text from now on since he tried manipulating me)

Let me also know if You prefer we communicate via certified email from now on, so that we may avoid that my emails could still escape You between the many you receive. (communicates I know what he was doing and will shame him directly if needed, including to my client, who in turn may tell his client he tried to play games)

Regards,

My question here is this: is this email too much, meaning something that can be turned against me and possibly make me lose my client?

BTW, one other thought: usually when I received this kind of power moves, the other party was the one who would lose more under strict law.

Meaning, this person is probably doing this because his client wants the deal more than my client.

Quote from Ali Scarlett on May 23, 2022, 2:40 am

Glad my post was helpful, Bel!

And, thanks for the added information and details.

My thoughts on his response:

Dear Colleague,

I apologize for the delay with which I respond to Your e-mail, but it had escaped me between the many ("Sorry, I was busy" covert power move).

I cannot for Monday. As an alternative I propose the afternoon of Tuesday or Wednesday (control the logistics power move).

Kind regards.

XX

• "Sorry, I was busy" covert power move: the possible sub-communication being that your email "escaped him" because his other emails were a higher priority (hence why he got to those and not yours).
• Control the logistics power move: see the psychology and power dynamics behind it below.

The Psychology of Negotiation by Nick Kolenda

Strategy 2: Control the Logistics

With a note on controlling the logistics, Kolenda moves into power dynamics.

He says, “When planning the negotiation, you’ll need to coordinate when, where, and how it will occur. Negotiators with less power are usually accommodating with those decisions.”

E.g.

Counterpart: When are you free?

Less Powerful Negotiator: I’m free any afternoon next week. Let me know which day works best for you.

“That approach is harmful. When coordinating logistics, don’t be overly accommodating (and never reveal an empty calendar). Ideally, you should dictate those logistics.”

E.g.

Counterpart: When are you free?

Powerful Negotiator: I’m free at 10am next Wednesday. Does that work for you?

This is also a strategy recommended in business and professional networking when scheduling a meeting with a new contact / potential connection (see Advanced Connector’s Package).

Kolenda also says that the benefits of dictating the logistics go beyond being able to choose a date and time that’s more convenient for you.

He says, “Even if your counterpart needs to suggest a different time, your assertiveness will increase your perceived power, giving you a more favorable deal in the negotiation (Diekmann, Tenbrunsel, & Galinsky, 2003).”

*Click blockquote above to expand it.

So, here's how I might respond in your shoes, Bel:

Dear Colleague,

All good, I could've followed up with you a couple more times, life can simply get too hectic (resolves "Sorry, I was busy" covert power move: "you weren't a high enough priority to follow up with").

Unfortunately, my availability for a call is now closed (rejects his attempt to control the logistics and punishes his poor behavior — maybe now he'll prioritize your emails in the future :) ).

If you want to (power-protecting), email me your comments and if anything opens up, I'll let you know (tasks him while still leaving the door open for him to potentially get what he wants later).

Up to you (de-emphasize persuasion technique).

Regards,

The power-protecting here demonstrates the power-aware communication you'd prefer.

But, more importantly, it also shows a detachment regarding the call.

He's the one who wants the call, so he's more invested in making the call happen than you are. You're the party who gets to decide whether this person gets a share of your time or not.

So, saying things that underline that you don't care whether a conversation happens or not (such as "if you want to" and "up to you") puts more of that power on your side.

As always, open to reading any feedback on my thoughts.

P.S.

On this comment here:

Quote from Bel on May 22, 2022, 10:41 pm

(...)

Your comment on counterpart lawyers being in an inherent subconscious "hostile conflict" is great!

(...)

I understand now Lucio's proposal for an Attorney Power University.

Ali's post made me realize that the profession of lawyer has an inherent hostile/combative power dynamics substratum.

One lawyer wins, the other loses. The only profession to have these dynamics.

I now understand why I was attracted to The Power Moves. It would have been impossible for me to progress in the profession without studying this.

Yes, this reminds me of Lucio's comments here.

At work, some men tend to over-rely on competition.

The legal industry is a very specific environment where the players are supposed to compete, it's what they do there. And, that profession also attracts people who, on average, tend to compete more than the average.

Collaboration is great. But, collaboration isn't always possible.

And, you should compete when you are in inherently win-lose settings and the culture of the industry you are in equates competition with strength (which seems to be the case here).

At the very least, it seems that your "colleagues" are viewing all (if not, most) settings they interact with you in as win-lose settings.

And, that's where striking a collaborative frame after establishing yourself as "strong" and earning their respect (on top of maybe getting a brother in arms) might be your best strategy moving forward.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 23, 2022, 5:26 am

Some quick notes on this:

It's possible that you're sending out low-power signals that say "he can be treated as lower priority" or "toyed with".

However, consider that:

People may test independently of your initial signals

Many folks will try out those power moves first to see how others react.

And it may be more common in your profession.
So, it might be simply a way of "getting to know each other".

Some folks simply try to power-move anyone

For some others, it may simply be how they start all relationships to adjust later (they adjust with those who push back and show power-awareness, and continue to take advantage of those who don't).

... But do try higher power first

But still, yes, I think it makes sense to try out higher power and slightly lower warmth to begin with.

Albeit eventually, you do want to settle to both high-power / high-warmth, and adjust and correct with those who misunderstand the friendly signals and take them for "exploitability signals".

Streamline the communication

Finally, I personally think the communication here was not the quickest and most effective:

with pleasure we can talk on the phone about this. I propose Monday 23 May in the afternoon, from 3 pm onwards.

That was Thursday EOB, so Friday he'd probably get to it, and Sat and Sun are non-workdays.

But even independently of the workdays, why "propose"?

Now he should reply to that and "confirm".
It's an unnecessary step that you can help both to skip for a simple call.

Simply say:

with pleasure we can talk on the phone about this. Call me Monday after 3pm any time. If not, go for Tuesday, at X

Not much different from dating in that regard: keep it as simple and as streamlined as possible.

Also, I may be extreme in my reticence to commit to times, but many other folks are on that "commitment reticent spectrum". Especially when it comes for things they see as simple.
These folks see the commitment as unnecessary and as an impediment and prefer to "go with the flow" (what if Monday afternoon something big comes up for them? Then they stood you up, feel bad about it, need to reschedule again, and it never ends).
Give them a day to call, they'll call, if it didn't work out they'll call later, or you'll call them back. You'll reach each other eventually. Or you'll leave audio messages and get it done without even talking.

Quote from B on May 23, 2022, 8:28 am

Thank you Ali and Lucio, your comments are very very helpful.

So I guess my answer now could also be something like this, lower conflict. Do you think it flies?

Dear Colleague,

all good, but since I didn't hear from You I won't be able to these days. Feel free to call me the 26th after 4.30 pm (or Friday same time); in the meantime feel free to send me Your comments via email already.

Optional: Also let me know if you prefer we communicate via certified email, so we may avoid emails escaping us.

Kind regards

BTW, I understand my mistakes, but this colleague's response was really nasty.

Quote from B on May 23, 2022, 10:18 am

Here is the email I am settling on:

Dear Colleague,

unfortunately in the slots You propose it won't be possible for me; let me thus have Your comments directly via email.

Also let me know if You prefer from now on we communicate via certified email rather than via email.

Kind regards,

Will send this this evening.

The idea is: I know your games, but I am above them and won't play the same game back. But you no longer have access to speaking with me now. And, should you continue to "miss" my emails, I will make sure you receive my certified emails (a "warning shot").

I think I will start collecting a series of standard form answers for these kinds of power moves. This is strikingly similar to these by one of my former colleagues, so I'm thinking this "missing emails" thing is a "standard nasty power move" in the legal field:

Her: "I am really sorry, I missed this email, can you resend it to me".

Her: "I'm sorry, I probably deleted your e-mail by mistake; could you resend it to me?"

Her: "Hi, the client sent me these documents some days ago, but I missed them, sorry."

In that case, not putting my hands up immediately cost me dearly: power moves increased and increased. Not this time.

Thank you again Ali, and thank you Lucio. I will update the thread when I receive an answer back.