Former Community – We Moved

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

ForumPublic Forum: Business / Work / CareerWorkNew customer seems to be tasking …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

New customer seems to be tasking me (and maybe even disrespecting me) explicitly

#41 · November 5, 2022, 1:01 am

Quote from B on November 5, 2022, 1:01 am
Quote from Bel on March 2, 2022, 10:15 pm
Another idea, which I am borrowing from another lawyer who wrote something similar years ago when I was in biglaw:
My e-mail: Thank you ... for the comments on the text. (opening is much less polite than I usually write; also frames him as helping me, just like he did to me)
You'll find attached the version with the last amendments (clarifies I am not just "cleaning" the file but also working more). We cannot insert the [X] clause until the [X] model has been approved; at that time we will make another amendment (goes directly counter to one of the comments he made in text, and communicates I am the one who knows the law, and not merely an executor; also subtly re-tasks him back with informing me in the future of when the [X] model will be approved; finally, shows my work is not "final" yet, and he will need me again).
For the rest let's talk (clarifies he's not dictating what happens, and although both can call, I now expect him to call me). Talk soon,
Bel
What does everyone think - is any of the above a good way to rebalance the disrespect without destroying the relationship with this potential new customer? Is there anything I am misapplying or missing?
I was reflecting on this today and I believe if I’d encounter the situation now (client tasking, disrespecting and fixing inexistent mistakes), I’d do it slightly different.
I would answer like this:
My e-mail: Thank you X.
I enclose here not just the clean draft you asked for, but also a file with the last amendments in mark-ups for your convenience.
As to your comment about inserting the [X] clause: I could put in a generic reference now, but you won’t be able to use the draft until the [X] model is approved; do you want me to proceed already or would you prefer for us to revise it at that time (which would also allow us to be more precise legally)?
The idea is to deflect the tasking by reframing it as an “ask” and going further; and, to not refuse altogether his “wrong command” but to lead him to the correct solution while maintaining rapport. Also, using the “we” frame for my suggested solution and the “you and me” frame for his idea respectfully leads him to the correct choice.
In fact, from Lucio’s latest posts I understand that breaking rapport as I did here above in my real answer is highly disempowering, so that’s one of the reasons, I think, this client has not come back.

Quote from Bel on March 2, 2022, 10:15 pm
Another idea, which I am borrowing from another lawyer who wrote something similar years ago when I was in biglaw:
My e-mail: Thank you ... for the comments on the text. (opening is much less polite than I usually write; also frames him as helping me, just like he did to me)
You'll find attached the version with the last amendments (clarifies I am not just "cleaning" the file but also working more). We cannot insert the [X] clause until the [X] model has been approved; at that time we will make another amendment (goes directly counter to one of the comments he made in text, and communicates I am the one who knows the law, and not merely an executor; also subtly re-tasks him back with informing me in the future of when the [X] model will be approved; finally, shows my work is not "final" yet, and he will need me again).
For the rest let's talk (clarifies he's not dictating what happens, and although both can call, I now expect him to call me). Talk soon,
Bel
What does everyone think - is any of the above a good way to rebalance the disrespect without destroying the relationship with this potential new customer? Is there anything I am misapplying or missing?

I was reflecting on this today and I believe if I’d encounter the situation now (client tasking, disrespecting and fixing inexistent mistakes), I’d do it slightly different.

I would answer like this:

My e-mail: Thank you X.
I enclose here not just the clean draft you asked for, but also a file with the last amendments in mark-ups for your convenience.
As to your comment about inserting the [X] clause: I could put in a generic reference now, but you won’t be able to use the draft until the [X] model is approved; do you want me to proceed already or would you prefer for us to revise it at that time (which would also allow us to be more precise legally)?

The idea is to deflect the tasking by reframing it as an “ask” and going further; and, to not refuse altogether his “wrong command” but to lead him to the correct solution while maintaining rapport. Also, using the “we” frame for my suggested solution and the “you and me” frame for his idea respectfully leads him to the correct choice.

In fact, from Lucio’s latest posts I understand that breaking rapport as I did here above in my real answer is highly disempowering, so that’s one of the reasons, I think, this client has not come back.

#42 · November 5, 2022, 12:42 pm

In any case, experimenting with stronger reempowering was probably indispensable here due to my past submissiveness.

So my real answer still stands, and it’s possible he will come back after all.

Edit: another idea. In front of tasking, one could maybe also superficially make a show of being willing to go along with the tasking, but still hold court in the general framing of the discussion and project.

Let's assume an external advisor is tasked by a client. The advisor then does not challenge the tasking, but rather asks questions that lead the client toward a positive outcome, different from what the client initially wanted.

Let's assume the client accepts the new solution and then curtly tasks the advisor with "Perfect! Do that!".

And the advisor does not challenge the tasking.

Could we say that the higher-level frame (ie that of having shaped the discussion and led the client toward an outcome) still makes the advisor come out as high power, even though the advisor is going to formally execute the final tasking of the client (who has, however, followed the "lead" of the advisor even in choosing what to task the advisor on?).

In other words: as long as one is able to show higher power by framing the discussion and the outcome, focusing on superficial tasking may be less needed. Everyone will be able to "sense" that the "framer" is the one who calls the shots.