Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 5, 2021, 9:49 am

I think it's a great formulation.

He covered both angles with "thanks and sorry".

Just like the "welcome lesson" in PU:

Thank you and congratulations

Quote from Matthew Whitewood on August 6, 2021, 5:33 pm

I think it's a great formulation.

I may be interpreting this wrongly.
Either it's a great value-adding move for both parties or it's a great covert power move.

My guess here is that it's not a covert power move.
Because he is sort of following from Ali's lead.

The thing is that I don't know whether "Thank you For Being Flexible" means

• Frames Ali as being generous to let him have a last-minute change (positive), or
• Frames Ali as having to be flexible in order to continue with the meeting (negative)

and, for "sorry about the last-minute change.", I'm unsure if it means

• My bad for having bad organisation (positive), or
• I have the power to make last-minute changes and you follow (negative)

Maybe it's both.
Then, both parties leave the interaction having agency over their schedules.

I would like to check my thoughts with the community.
Feel free to help me understand this better.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 7, 2021, 6:46 am

Hey Matthew,

On further re-reading the texts, I think you make good points actually.

If we stick to the words alone, then the net effect might be more on the power-taking sided.

Still, I think that the overall look on this is equally important.

So let me add a few notes:

80/20 of Power Negotiation

This is not a case where large amounts of power were taken or given.

The little power that was negotiated will be more than made up during the call, which is your 80%.

Even in the worst-case scenario that you're losing a little in the 20%, that shouldn't worry you too much because the 80% is where it's at.

And your 80%, usually, are:

• In-person interactions
• Actual interactions where the important topics are being discussed (as opposed to scheduling them)
• Longer interactions (as opposed to quick "checking-ins")

Philosophizing Dangers: Avoid Zoomed In Optics

Going deeper and deeper on a thin slice doesn't always provide more clarity.

This might be such a case because you don't get any further information / data points over-focusing on 2 lines.

There is some data we don't have.
We don't have access to the circumstances, to their previous history of dealing together, and to the previous history of his behavior.

So, could it be in theory that he's doing his best to disempower (or empower) Ali? Yeah, it might. It's just not the most likely scenario, and we have no surefire way of proving/disproving it based on 2 lines of text.

Just like lizards controlling the world is possible, but not the most likely scenario. And since we can't provide/disprove it in any case, so I just don't worry too much about it.

So what we add with deeper digging is not new data, but more and more interpretations (philosophizing).

In my opinion, that doesn't necessarily get you closer to the truth, but only adds layers of complexity that make you no more effective.

In the over-analyze phase philosophizing may be useful, but one should still be aware of the dangers.
One of the dangers is to over-focus on 2 specific lines when you could look at far more and far better data (all the data we don't have, plus the one we do have, see analysis below).

It might be better then to zoom out a bit.
And if still not clear, it might be better to move on based on your feel, and then adjust and improve your feel as you keep dealing with the individual (thus getting some new data points, rather than keep on building on the same little data you've got).

If in this case you felt disempowered, then act on it and see how it goes.
Then adjust as you go forward.

But keep in mind the previous feedback: I got a sense that sometimes you might see more malice or power-taking behavior than it might be the case.

Overview of the Interaction

And now back on a quick overview of this interaction, with slightly larger lens:

1. He asks to move the time, slightly power taking but no biggies: a common occurrence. Potentially power-taking, but slightly so
2. He warns in advance: warning before the meeting start is better than letting someone wait, or warning while the meeting already started, so that also counts on the "good" side. Compare for example if it was 3:10, Ali was still waiting, and he says "can we do 3:15". Big difference, right?
3. The change is small: that also matters. He's not asking to do 3:45, he's asking for 15 minutes. Small change, equals small power-taking. That's why I'd have said "yes, cool" and ended it there.
4. He adds a signature: a little added extra-effort that most people wouldn't do, so the effort he's adding makes it more power-protecting
5. Ali re-empower himself: in spite the power loss was small, Ali still decides to act on it. Fair enough
6. He acknowledges Ali's conditions and empowers Ali: the acknowledge of Ali's conditions confirms and thread-expands on Ali's frame of being busy and not to be pushed around to fit his schedule. That is good for Ali
7. He thanks Ali: yes, there is an element of power-taking covert power move, but it's not a big one
8. He apologizes: yes, even here, there is an element of power-taking. But it's small enough
9. He replies quickly: he replied more quickly than Ali did, thus empowering Ali
10. He puts in more effort: he expanded more lines of text, which empowers Ali

So it seems to me like you might have over-focused on the last 2 elements, which are indeed power-taking (good call!), but you might have lost sight of the full interaction, which to me seems "standard enough not to raise any major red flag".

Makes sense?