Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
I think I am disempowering myself upon first contact with lawyers and clients: troubleshooting
Quote from John Freeman on May 24, 2022, 6:45 pmIf I had not read this thread before I would have missed it: power-savvy/dominant people go high power/dominant first and if the person resists as in my case they go lower-power. If the person caves in: good move, now they are in the higher-up position.
So it's a cheap power move: you get to be the dominant for not too much effort: on the first encounter you set the frame.
By cheap, I mean it does not cost a lot of energy (not as in stingy or low). It's smart.
Thanks John, that's spot on!
Basically it is an opening gambit, like PU says about needing to always resist initial domination attempts in person.
Now we know it also happens all the time by email and phone. And the reaction should be the same: always resist.
Besides, it's a risky opening gambit: if the recipient sees and addresses the power move, he then comes on top and the power mover comes off as the power-down one. As PU says, if you match a power move, you win.
So it's not to be replicated, in essence.
One more thing: in the past, I remember addressing these kind of power moves correctly by chance, and I found myself as the power-up one. But, here's the thing: I felt uncomfortable, so I tried to give some power back to the power mover. And of course he interpreted this giving power back as a weakness of mine, and took advantage of it.
So now my thinking is: you opened with a power-move? I need to be careful to always keep my guard up and not leave you any opening from now on. No kindness, no warmth, and if I am power-up all the time, it's better. At least I won't use it to destroy you like you would have done to me.
Otherwise, I liked your self-trouble-shooting: more matter of fact, less warmth. Warmth is appropriate when you get to know the person or have a reason to be warm or want to reciprocate warmth. Otherwise, it can be interpreted as weakness especially in this business setting.
As long as you are polite, the matter-of-fact style of email is the default I would say. Then with people you have good collaboration, you can add warmth. That's how I go about it.
Basically no kindness, my pleasure, glad, happy, hi how are you!, and all kindness indicators.
Just hi colleague, call me at x, regards.
What a crappy world we live in if everything I learned in How to win friends and influence people is actually counterproductive! :)
As I said it's a matter of context: how well do you know the person...
There is a middle ground:
Dear colleague,
thank you for your offer and consideration...
Something along these lines. Formal, polite, respectful. If you know well the person you can add warmth. Being polite is a form of respect and kindness. Being formal and polite puts right away boundaries.
About being uncomfortable being one-up, I made the same mistake today. I felt uncomfortable with having so much power at once that I gave it some right away back to the person. You help me realize it was a mistake...
I think (but I'm open to being corrected on this) that it's similar to the case of the burglar entering in your house and then asking your assistance to communicate to the police.
You really can't worry about the lower status of the other person if he was trying to power move on you. Leave him to his destiny and only worry about protecting yourself and keeping the upper hand.
He was not worried about us the least, that's for sure.
Some really interestign stuff here.
Also took a note for PU from it.
Adapting warmth
The warmth thing is most certainly something that needs to be adapted.
I'd personally still open with it in most cases because you're always better off with a relationship and/or exchange that is "somewhat more than simply professional".
Re-empowering after defending boundaries, one-upping back, and winning
And on the re-empowering, I'm also of the idea that, in many cases, it's a good idea to give (some) power back, or be open to more friendliness.
It's like the strategy of "tit for two tats" or "tit for tat with forgiveness", the only strategy that in computer simulations could beat tit for tat (that strategy entailed forgiving the player who had previously cheated tit for 2 tats, while tit for tat never forgives).
Of course we don't need to learn everything and take 1:1 from dry and simplified computer simulations, but logic seems to support it and my experience as well.
As Stef said here in some other threads, we call the power-up who are kind "magnanimous" (not weak).
Exceptions always apply of course, so whether you give back or not ultimately depends on the feeling you got from the person, and the situation.
Plus, if they take advantage of you once again when you give back, then you that it's most likely a burned bridge to keep professional and at an arm's length (or more :).
Update: I had the call and the colleague seemed fair to me in his negotiation style and behavior.
It’s going to be a bit of a complex negotiation, but that’s not a power dynamics issue between lawyers.
Update on this.
I found that after checking the initial opening gambit this colleague played (which was: you adapt to my schedule even though I asked you to talk), the negotiation went significantly more smoothly than usual for me. Meaning: I encountered almost no resistance at all to my proposals (which were very strong).
The counterpart lawyer accepted most of the proposals I made; and it was his client that then tried to renege some (that his lawyer had already accepted)!
In essence, the counterpart's negotiation stance was significantly weakened by the fact that his opening power move was checked.
This to me is proof that successfully checking a power move significantly shifted the personal balance of power even on technical legal content matters.
Just incredible.
Thank you so much for the update, Bel!
It's super useful.
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 25, 2022, 6:47 amAdapting warmth
The warmth thing is most certainly something that needs to be adapted.
I'd personally still open with it in most cases because you're always better off with a relationship and/or exchange that is "somewhat more than simply professional".
Since this post I have experimented a bit by opening conversation with counterparts myself with very low warmth and more formality, and I am coming to the conclusion you indicated from the start, meaning:
- when opening myself a conversation with a new counterpart lawyer (or with any new person), on balance it is probably best to be high warmth (eg by including commonly suggested phrases like "Glad to make your acquaintance") and then, if they interpret warmth as weakness and power move, check any power moves (the alternative I experimented, ie opening high power and low warmth, gives a feeling of "assholeness" and I think it's likely to discourage both a potential future relationship and any prompt response);
- when responding to a first message sent by a new counterpart lawyer (or any new person), best to adapt to his warmth level and not go overboard, especially if he was very high-power and low-warmth.
In other words, I believe my former mistake was not being high-warmth, but being too high-warmth when unwarranted relative to the other's warmth.
Yea some people on first meeting like to "see what your made of" and calm down after that
