Former Community – We Moved

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

ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsPost office employee directs me t …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Post office employee directs me to do something to make his life easier - frame of moral reference?

#1 · June 3, 2023, 11:48 pm

Quoting from my journal:

Quote from Bel on June 3, 2023, 5:30 pm
This morning I went again to the post office, and interacted with the same employee.
I was returning some items to an online store and the return modality allowed me to just bring my phone and the items: the post office would pack them and write the address.
This ensued:
Post Office employee: Oh no, another one of these returns. Why don’t you choose the one where you prepare the box next time.
Me: It’s easier for me to choose the return with no box.
Post Office Employee: But not for me.
Me: ( Amused look)
* click on blockquote to expand
He then rapidly changed the subject.

Lucio mentioned in his reply that the most effective intervention would have been at a higher level of “frame of moral reference”:

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 3, 2023, 9:21 pm
P.S.:
Well done for your example.
And still, the most effective intervention there was at yet a higher level of "frame of moral reference".
Feel free to open a new topic about it, can be an interesting case study.

I’m very interested in getting this, I will also give a try to imagine it could be something like

Me: Well, since you are the one doing a service to me here, I believe I’ll continue in the way I wish - especially since it’s fully allowed by the post.

John Freeman has reacted to this post.

#2 · June 4, 2023, 4:01 am

I wasn't across the whole thread. But I ll have a go for practice.

How about saying "I like my way" with an amused smile and upwards wave of both hands. That very french 'fuck you' combined with 'such is life' kind of vibe.

So you're asserting your right to decide what you do.

And if he doubles down and keeps whining, say: "and... I m the customer.

All high power but the guy really is pushing luck.

Very similar to what you had I ve just tried to keep it short. I feel like when we get it right it's just like a slight wave of the hand to bat away a fly.

B has reacted to this post.

#3 · June 4, 2023, 6:22 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 4, 2023, 6:22 am
Bel, you did good.
Very high power.
High power, with a small "not so nice" price
Only issue is:
That high-power frame still made you the high power but potentially bad guy.
And well, that's A LOT better than the low-power guy.
But if you also want to come out on top of the moral side, we may be able to do even better (and you usually do want to also come out on top morally, especially when it's your right to).
The frame's sub-communication there was:
Him: You're being a taker (bringing all the work to me just to make it easier on yourself)
You: Yes indeed, it works best for me, your problem
Him: Yes indeed, it's bad for me
You: Yes indeed, sucks to be you
It's OK.
But it's generally still better to be both high power and high-warmth (or, at least, not lowest warmth).
Go to the higher level (of frame control)
The alternative option is to go to the higher level.
I'm thinking more and more that advanced frame control often is all about going to the highest possible level.
In this case, the highest level is that of role expectations.
Role expectations where he is the SERVICE PROVIDER and there to SERVE YOU.
At that level, YOU can frame HIM as being a taker (aggressive/out of line/unprofessional).
The Mindset
From the start:
Post Office employee: Oh no, another one of these returns. Why don’t you choose the one where you prepare the box next time.
First, realize what this is:
A higher-aggression version of a guilt trip
An attempt at switching the power tables
From "your right to pick that option" to "not nice to pick that option"
From "me serving you as a customer and you having the right to good servicce" to "you vexing me as a taker and me having the right to a simple job"
This is a non-starter.
Your frame of mind is to refuse to even enter that guilt trip and power switch.
You may think:
What the fuck is even talking about?
How on earth does he think that it's OK to talk like that to a customer?
You shouldn't even enter that frame -not even as a winner, maybe-.
Some options:
Refusal by "strategic ignorance"
Post Office employee: Oh no, another one of these returns. Why don’t you choose the one where you prepare the box next time.
You: (facial expression of utter surprise and/or disgust) ?? I don't get it. Why would I do that when there is a more convenient option
Your "why would I do that" refuses to enter his frame that's inconvenient to him.
That angle is something you don't even address because it's his job to do it.
After that, there's a million ways to go about it.
Many of the techniques of self-defense apply.
Low-investment option
For example, whatever he says, the minimalist one would be:
You: (shrug shoulders, makes a "WTF face", says nothing, as if to say "that makes no sense, just do your job as you're supposed to")
Surfacing technique
You: why are you saying that...
You: But wait, isn't it an option that I can choose to pack it at the postal office?
You: If it is, then why are you saying it's not cool of me to pick an option that's part of the offer?
You: Yeah, I get it it's bad for you, but are you saying I shouldn't do it anymore even though it's a valid option guaranteed by the postal service?
This is great like most surfacing techniques are because without ever attacking, you correctly frame him as being an out-of-line asshole who doesn't want to do his job
Surfacing + meta
And the "surfacing" + "meta" one could be:
You: yeah, that's part of your job to service us customers isn't it
(...)
You: so if it is part of your job, then, why are you trying to make it sound like I'm inconveniencing you. Because sorry if I say it, that's very aggressive and manipulative to someone who's a customer
I personally wouldn't do that if it's a busy postal office because, well... I can get his point and those guys can often be overloaded.
So as much as you don't want to be the sucker, you also don't want to go out of your way to enforce boundaries beyond what's "enough".
Empathic version
A more empathetic version could go along these lines:
You: well, look, I get it that it's an annoying task and I can see you got lots of work here. But if this is a service being offered, then it's the service being offered. And it's my right to take it. You should complain about it with the posts or with whoever decided it. I'm the customer, and I don't enjoy this angle that I'm inconveniencing you because I'm doing the right thing (or: "because it's the other way around")
As usual, all caveats apply:
You were here, and know better :).

Bel, you did good.

Very high power.

High power, with a small "not so nice" price

Only issue is:

That high-power frame still made you the high power but potentially bad guy.

And well, that's A LOT better than the low-power guy.

But if you also want to come out on top of the moral side, we may be able to do even better (and you usually do want to also come out on top morally, especially when it's your right to).

The frame's sub-communication there was:

Him: You're being a taker (bringing all the work to me just to make it easier on yourself)
You: Yes indeed, it works best for me, your problem
Him: Yes indeed, it's bad for me
You: Yes indeed, sucks to be you

It's OK.
But it's generally still better to be both high power and high-warmth (or, at least, not lowest warmth).

Go to the higher level (of frame control)

The alternative option is to go to the higher level.

I'm thinking more and more that advanced frame control often is all about going to the highest possible level.

In this case, the highest level is that of role expectations.
Role expectations where he is the SERVICE PROVIDER and there to SERVE YOU.

At that level, YOU can frame HIM as being a taker (aggressive/out of line/unprofessional).

The Mindset

From the start:

Post Office employee: Oh no, another one of these returns. Why don’t you choose the one where you prepare the box next time.

First, realize what this is:

A higher-aggression version of a guilt trip
An attempt at switching the power tables
- From "your right to pick that option" to "not nice to pick that option"
- From "me serving you as a customer and you having the right to good servicce" to "you vexing me as a taker and me having the right to a simple job"

This is a non-starter.

Your frame of mind is to refuse to even enter that guilt trip and power switch.

You may think:

What the fuck is even talking about?

How on earth does he think that it's OK to talk like that to a customer?

You shouldn't even enter that frame -not even as a winner, maybe-.

Some options:

Refusal by "strategic ignorance"

Post Office employee: Oh no, another one of these returns. Why don’t you choose the one where you prepare the box next time.
You: (facial expression of utter surprise and/or disgust) ?? I don't get it. Why would I do that when there is a more convenient option

Your "why would I do that" refuses to enter his frame that's inconvenient to him.

That angle is something you don't even address because it's his job to do it.

After that, there's a million ways to go about it.
Many of the techniques of self-defense apply.

Low-investment option

For example, whatever he says, the minimalist one would be:

You: (shrug shoulders, makes a "WTF face", says nothing, as if to say "that makes no sense, just do your job as you're supposed to")

Surfacing technique

You: why are you saying that...
You: But wait, isn't it an option that I can choose to pack it at the postal office?
You: If it is, then why are you saying it's not cool of me to pick an option that's part of the offer?
You: Yeah, I get it it's bad for you, but are you saying I shouldn't do it anymore even though it's a valid option guaranteed by the postal service?

This is great like most surfacing techniques are because without ever attacking, you correctly frame him as being an out-of-line asshole who doesn't want to do his job

Surfacing + meta

And the "surfacing" + "meta" one could be:

You: yeah, that's part of your job to service us customers isn't it
(...)
You: so if it is part of your job, then, why are you trying to make it sound like I'm inconveniencing you. Because sorry if I say it, that's very aggressive and manipulative to someone who's a customer

I personally wouldn't do that if it's a busy postal office because, well... I can get his point and those guys can often be overloaded.

So as much as you don't want to be the sucker, you also don't want to go out of your way to enforce boundaries beyond what's "enough".

Empathic version

A more empathetic version could go along these lines:

You: well, look, I get it that it's an annoying task and I can see you got lots of work here. But if this is a service being offered, then it's the service being offered. And it's my right to take it. You should complain about it with the posts or with whoever decided it. I'm the customer, and I don't enjoy this angle that I'm inconveniencing you because I'm doing the right thing (or: "because it's the other way around")

As usual, all caveats apply:

You were here, and know better :).

John Freeman, Jack and 3 other users have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#4 · June 4, 2023, 8:25 pm

Thank you so much, Lucio.

A great post, with which I agree wholeheartedly. And very helpful for me to understand this.

I suppose I’m still inclined, when in doubt, towards taking some “social revenge” on power movers.

Even though, from a “return on investment” point of view, the higher level approach is definitely better.

John Freeman and Transitioned have reacted to this post.

#5 · June 4, 2023, 11:22 pm

Thank you Lucio that was a master class.

I like the empathetic one similar to a tip Leil Loundes gave but hers are too doormatty.

In Oz we d probably say it like this (With a shoulder shrug)

"Talk to your bosses mate. They offer it."

John Freeman has reacted to this post.

#6 · June 14, 2023, 8:23 pm

Quote from John Freeman on June 14, 2023, 8:23 pm
Great thread, thanks Bel!
I'm thinking more and more that advanced frame control often is all about going to the highest possible level.
Boom, just boom. 100% agree. PU-worthy.
That's the beauty of the philosopher frame. I think it might have something to do with the power of the human mind. The most mentally powerful person is the person who can see a wider scope. That's basically what a leader does: not only see his job but also the other person's. Or a president: has the scope of a country. So when someone goes higher he communicates: "I have a higher mental power". Since one of our species' most salient trait is intelligence it does signal superiority.
At that level, YOU can frame HIM as being a taker (aggressive/out of line/unprofessional).
Powerful.
I think that personally in this situation I would have also ignored his remark and do a warm smile:
Post Office employee: Oh no, another one of these returns. Why don’t you choose the one where you prepare the box next time.
Me: Warm smile (sub-communicates: I'm not going to partake in this stupid game. I have nothing against you, let's go over with it so you don't waste your time and not mine). And just wait for him to finish his job, thank him and be on my way. They often just shut up and do their job.

Your "why would I do that" refuses to enter his frame that's inconvenient to him.
Powerful.
You: (shrug shoulders, makes a "WTF face", says nothing, as if to say "that makes no sense, just do your job as you're supposed to")
Powerful.
I also like very much the empathetic version. I think the words matter less than the emotion expressed. I noticed many times people will apologize when you're being empathetic or they will be be emphatically grateful. Like they're trying to be agressive, you're being supportive so (if normal person just in a bad mood, not a manipulator) will feel bad and self-correct to right the social exchange balance.
Thank you very much Bel for the thread and Lucio for the awesome awesome answer! Great case study for PU here I believe. I saved the post.

Great thread, thanks Bel!

I'm thinking more and more that advanced frame control often is all about going to the highest possible level.

Boom, just boom. 100% agree. PU-worthy.

That's the beauty of the philosopher frame. I think it might have something to do with the power of the human mind. The most mentally powerful person is the person who can see a wider scope. That's basically what a leader does: not only see his job but also the other person's. Or a president: has the scope of a country. So when someone goes higher he communicates: "I have a higher mental power". Since one of our species' most salient trait is intelligence it does signal superiority.

At that level, YOU can frame HIM as being a taker (aggressive/out of line/unprofessional).

Powerful.

I think that personally in this situation I would have also ignored his remark and do a warm smile:

Post Office employee: Oh no, another one of these returns. Why don’t you choose the one where you prepare the box next time.
Me: Warm smile (sub-communicates: I'm not going to partake in this stupid game. I have nothing against you, let's go over with it so you don't waste your time and not mine). And just wait for him to finish his job, thank him and be on my way. They often just shut up and do their job.

Your "why would I do that" refuses to enter his frame that's inconvenient to him.

Powerful.

You: (shrug shoulders, makes a "WTF face", says nothing, as if to say "that makes no sense, just do your job as you're supposed to")

Powerful.

I also like very much the empathetic version. I think the words matter less than the emotion expressed. I noticed many times people will apologize when you're being empathetic or they will be be emphatically grateful. Like they're trying to be agressive, you're being supportive so (if normal person just in a bad mood, not a manipulator) will feel bad and self-correct to right the social exchange balance.

Thank you very much Bel for the thread and Lucio for the awesome awesome answer! Great case study for PU here I believe. I saved the post.