Keep an eye out for fake power-protecting vs power over-protecting

#1 · May 22, 2023, 1:00 pm

Quote from Ali Scarlett on May 22, 2023, 1:00 pm
Here's the case study:

I'm booking a call with a high-performance coach who now wants to reschedule.

Notice my response:

It's actually scheduled for 4:30pm EST, your Game Plan Call Calendly showed you're available.
So, if that doesn't work for you, you can update it with your actual availability and then I'll reschedule there

Standard power-protecting rules say that this part would be overdoing it:

So, (power-protecting here with this "if" statement) if that doesn't work for you, (power-protecting again with the "you can") you can update it with your actual availability and then I'll reschedule there

And that I should remove one of the power-protecting phrases by doing something like this:

So, (power-protects once) if that doesn't work for you, update it with your actual availability and then I'll reschedule there

But, look at what happens now.

The receiver had already said that the time doesn't work for them.

So, this can come across as just repeating known information to give the illusion of power-protecting and make it seem OK to give an order (and thus, make them follow your lead).

In other words, fake power-protecting.

For example, imagine saying to someone, "Hey man, sorry, but I can't make it today," and then them replying right after, "If you can't make it today, give me another time that works for you." It may feel a little off because you just said you couldn't make it, so now they're just repeating what you've already said. Therefore, the "if" in their response feels somewhat unneeded and doesn't provide a "full" power protection. So, better might've been for them to say, "Since you can't make it, you can give me another time that works for you."

So, I opted for the phrasing you see in the screenshot.

The mindset behind much power protecting is to give people the freedom to choose.

So, if someone says they can't (don't have the freedom to) do something, it doesn't make sense to me to use that as the foundation of your power-protecting (at least in this case above).

Not totally sure about this one, so happy to read any feedback.

Here's the case study:

I'm booking a call with a high-performance coach who now wants to reschedule.

Notice my response:

It's actually scheduled for 4:30pm EST, your Game Plan Call Calendly showed you're available.
So, if that doesn't work for you, you can update it with your actual availability and then I'll reschedule there

Standard power-protecting rules say that this part would be overdoing it:

So, (power-protecting here with this "if" statement) if that doesn't work for you, (power-protecting again with the "you can") you can update it with your actual availability and then I'll reschedule there

And that I should remove one of the power-protecting phrases by doing something like this:

So, (power-protects once) if that doesn't work for you, update it with your actual availability and then I'll reschedule there

But, look at what happens now.

The receiver had already said that the time doesn't work for them.

So, this can come across as just repeating known information to give the illusion of power-protecting and make it seem OK to give an order (and thus, make them follow your lead).

In other words, fake power-protecting.

For example, imagine saying to someone, "Hey man, sorry, but I can't make it today," and then them replying right after, "If you can't make it today, give me another time that works for you." It may feel a little off because you just said you couldn't make it, so now they're just repeating what you've already said. Therefore, the "if" in their response feels somewhat unneeded and doesn't provide a "full" power protection. So, better might've been for them to say, "Since you can't make it, you can give me another time that works for you."

So, I opted for the phrasing you see in the screenshot.

The mindset behind much power protecting is to give people the freedom to choose.

So, if someone says they can't (don't have the freedom to) do something, it doesn't make sense to me to use that as the foundation of your power-protecting (at least in this case above).

Not totally sure about this one, so happy to read any feedback.

Lucio Buffalmano, Jack and Mats G have reacted to this post.

#2 · May 23, 2023, 2:05 pm

Hey Ali,

I think how you wrote with the double power protection is good and smooth.

It's also good because the whole frame there that it was HIS mistake seemed to have gone lost in the way he was writing.

So your text restates that you did all correctly from your side, and that it was HIM who didn't have an updated calendar.

HE should have admitted that his calendar was off to power protect you first.

He didn't do it, so you correctly pointed that out -and it was good to add double power protection so it doesn't come across as accusatory of overly blaming-

Ali Scarlett has reacted to this post.

Check the forum guidelines for effective communication.
---
Book a call for personalized & private feedback