Former Community – We Moved

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

ForumPublic Forum: Business / Work / CareerWorkSettlement discussions where my c …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Settlement discussions where my client does not want to sue, and the counterpart just wants to procrastinate as much as possible

#11 · June 1, 2022, 9:06 am

Great call on blaming the client to power-protect him.

Seems like a typical frame battle:

You: I caught your lie and didn't like it. Be more honest and straightforward

And:

Him: (stewing for having being shamed and not wanting to admit it): I am honest and straightforward don't you dare doubt it

Stepping back here would be a mistake and a major loss.
At most, you can not mention it again, but never apologize (but you know that :).
Maintaining frame, while also de-escalating is what I'd do:

I said what I said for a simple reason: the file was not sent when I was told it was sent. There isn't much to argue about that.
In any case, (<--- bridge to move past it)
we moved past that now and my client is glad to hear (<--- gives and helps smooth over and move on, but slight covert power move: he might NOT be happy, and if he is not, then we might start thinking about suing)
that things are now proceeding smoothly.
Thank your for... and speak soon (<--- further giving to help smooth things and move on)

Mats G and B have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#12 · June 1, 2022, 10:04 am

Thank you Lucio.

I think for now I will just not mention it again, and wait full conclusion (signature of settlement and payment) before considering a possible de-escalation on this point.

The truth is that, independently of whether or not the statement was perfectly calibrated, he was somewhat delaying things, and it also shows in the email and text record.

And stopping this "dragging things on" was paramount here, because my duty is first to my client (and to my mental health), and only second to courtesy with colleagues.

So I'll just send him the final draft now, and not address his remark (which in any case, as you say, seems like he is defending and confirming my point in itself, I think also to a possible external observer).

I also think I won't "thank him" any more until conclusion, because:

my client is in the right (as proven by the total-payment offer we received);
I did most of the work (I wrote the settlement, pushed, asked, called);
I am continuing to accede to his times and ways of signing and exchanging settlement;
and I am now going to write myself the last amendments he asked (small things, but nonetheless...).

In a situation like this, I am starting to think that showing less warmth is necessary to avoid giving the impression that I am submitting/can be pushed around.

Now that I'm writing this, I think this was also one of my initial mistakes here. We could even generalize this as a (tentative) teaching and say that

"If my client is in the total right, and I perform most of the work for settlement, I probably must compensate this by adopting less warmth in communications, otherwise the counterpart will start (unconsciously) thinking I can be pushed around".

In other words, I - again - probably made a mistake in matching his warmth (which initially was very high) in my initial contact with him. He was justified in using it (on behalf of his client), but I was not.

Lucio Buffalmano and John Freeman have reacted to this post.

#13 · June 1, 2022, 10:44 am

Quote from Bel on June 1, 2022, 10:04 am

Now that I'm writing this, I think this was also one of my initial mistakes here. We could even generalize this as a (tentative) teaching and say that
"If my client is in the total right, and I perform most of the work for settlement, I probably must compensate this by adopting less warmth in communications, otherwise the counterpart will start (unconsciously) thinking I can be pushed around".
In other words, I probably made a mistake in matching his warmth (which initially was very high) in my initial contact with him.

Sounds like a great principle to me (perfect for "Lawyer Power Univesity" :)

B has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#14 · June 2, 2022, 1:06 pm

Quote from B on June 2, 2022, 1:06 pm
[Moved this post here from "Typos" thread, which was probably less relevant]
Difference between standard D(E)SOE and how it was used here: surfacing motive
In the lesson on assertiveness here, under the D(E)SOE technique, it says that the "description part" should focus on behavior, not personality and motives.
But how it was used in this thread's case (here and here) seems to be different, because it also somewhat included a surfacing of the motive:
Describe: I received what you had promised on date X, not Y as it was initially stated.
Specify: Going forward, I appreciate clear and linear communication.
Outcome: If you need more time, we can talk about that.
Surface motive: No need to "gain time" with long detours.
So it was both stronger, and a deviation from the general indication.
Do you think I am correct in my thinking here?
"In particular situations (such as, when a behavior becomes a pattern and you are starting to infer a clear motive), you could use this technique more strongly by surfacing the motive, as in this example:
Describe: I received what you had promised on date X, not Y as it was initially stated.
Specify: Going forward, I appreciate clear and linear communication.
Outcome: If you need more time, we can talk about that.
Surface: No need to "gain time" with long detours.
* click on blockquote to expand
Stronger nature of this "surface motive" D(E)SOE
I'm starting to think that what made the statement more "aggressive" and generated the "reaction", in this case, was exactly this "surfacing motive" part.
That's also probably why you suggested to power-protect more in the "outcome" part, by mentioning the other person could obtain what he wanted by speaking clearly: it was an offset for the stronger "critique on the motive".
Also, in reality the "outcome" part also includes a "surfacing motive" content (i.e. "you need more time"), which makes it "stronger".
At the beginning I though this was a form of power-protection, now I am starting to think this statement, considered in whole, is more aggressive than the standard DSOE format.
Graduating strenght and depth of D(E)SOE based on pattern formation
In that instance, we could, in abstract, also have used a less strong statement by keeping it at "behavior level", like the following:
Describe: I received what you had promised on date X, not Y as it was initially stated.
Specify: Going forward, I appreciate if we can agree on quicker and clearly anticipated times.
Outcome: That will make it easier for us to reach settlement.
This could have a first warning shot in generating the desired outcome, because it still hints at me being next to discovering the motive.
Then I could have gone with the "surfacing motive", more aggressive statement, next.
But probably, in this specific case, at the point I finally sent the message, the behavior by the other person had really been too prolonged and repeated (a clear pattern) to justify limiting my DSOE statement to the "behavior", and it was unavoidable to start stronger by including the "surface motive" part.
On the other hand, it could have made sense to use the less strong statement had I used it at the first (or second) instance of delay.
A standard format of escalation with D(E)SOE to address "delay games" by people?
We could even standardize these two statements, in my case for all future settlement discussions or work relations, where I encounter this kind of "delay games" behavior:
at first delay, let it slip;
at second delay, go with "behavior" DSOE;
at third delay, go with "motive" DSOE;
at fourth delay, threaten to interrupt negotiations and sue, or to interrupt work relationship if it's a colleague;
at fifth delay, enforce consequences.
This structure would be very useful, because "delay games" are one of the main forms of manipulation I now seem to encounter in my professional life, as also emerges from my past threads.
Confirmation from other sources
I am now recalling to my mind some books I read on the profession of lawyer, and while (of course!) they did not clarify this was the case, their examples of escalation in communications also seemed to proceed from "first message addressing behavior", to "second message starting to infer motive", to third message "threatening to interrupt relationship".
I remember one book dealing with collecting fees, who suggested to include in the second push for payment a phrase like "I am starting to fear my invoice is being ignored", which now I understand is a clear "surfacing motive" statement.

[Moved this post here from "Typos" thread, which was probably less relevant]

Difference between standard D(E)SOE and how it was used here: surfacing motive

In the lesson on assertiveness here, under the D(E)SOE technique, it says that the "description part" should focus on behavior, not personality and motives.

But how it was used in this thread's case (here and here) seems to be different, because it also somewhat included a surfacing of the motive:

Describe: I received what you had promised on date X, not Y as it was initially stated.
Specify: Going forward, I appreciate clear and linear communication.
Outcome: If you need more time, we can talk about that.
Surface motive: No need to "gain time" with long detours.

So it was both stronger, and a deviation from the general indication.

Do you think I am correct in my thinking here?

"In particular situations (such as, when a behavior becomes a pattern and you are starting to infer a clear motive), you could use this technique more strongly by surfacing the motive, as in this example:
Describe: I received what you had promised on date X, not Y as it was initially stated.
Specify: Going forward, I appreciate clear and linear communication.
Outcome: If you need more time, we can talk about that.
Surface: No need to "gain time" with long detours.

* click on blockquote to expand

Stronger nature of this "surface motive" D(E)SOE

I'm starting to think that what made the statement more "aggressive" and generated the "reaction", in this case, was exactly this "surfacing motive" part.

That's also probably why you suggested to power-protect more in the "outcome" part, by mentioning the other person could obtain what he wanted by speaking clearly: it was an offset for the stronger "critique on the motive".

Also, in reality the "outcome" part also includes a "surfacing motive" content (i.e. "you need more time"), which makes it "stronger".

At the beginning I though this was a form of power-protection, now I am starting to think this statement, considered in whole, is more aggressive than the standard DSOE format.

Graduating strenght and depth of D(E)SOE based on pattern formation

In that instance, we could, in abstract, also have used a less strong statement by keeping it at "behavior level", like the following:

Describe: I received what you had promised on date X, not Y as it was initially stated.
Specify: Going forward, I appreciate if we can agree on quicker and clearly anticipated times.
Outcome: That will make it easier for us to reach settlement.

This could have a first warning shot in generating the desired outcome, because it still hints at me being next to discovering the motive.

Then I could have gone with the "surfacing motive", more aggressive statement, next.

But probably, in this specific case, at the point I finally sent the message, the behavior by the other person had really been too prolonged and repeated (a clear pattern) to justify limiting my DSOE statement to the "behavior", and it was unavoidable to start stronger by including the "surface motive" part.

On the other hand, it could have made sense to use the less strong statement had I used it at the first (or second) instance of delay.

A standard format of escalation with D(E)SOE to address "delay games" by people?

We could even standardize these two statements, in my case for all future settlement discussions or work relations, where I encounter this kind of "delay games" behavior:

at first delay, let it slip;
at second delay, go with "behavior" DSOE;
at third delay, go with "motive" DSOE;
at fourth delay, threaten to interrupt negotiations and sue, or to interrupt work relationship if it's a colleague;
at fifth delay, enforce consequences.

This structure would be very useful, because "delay games" are one of the main forms of manipulation I now seem to encounter in my professional life, as also emerges from my past threads.

Confirmation from other sources

I am now recalling to my mind some books I read on the profession of lawyer, and while (of course!) they did not clarify this was the case, their examples of escalation in communications also seemed to proceed from "first message addressing behavior", to "second message starting to infer motive", to third message "threatening to interrupt relationship".

I remember one book dealing with collecting fees, who suggested to include in the second push for payment a phrase like "I am starting to fear my invoice is being ignored", which now I understand is a clear "surfacing motive" statement.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#15 · June 3, 2022, 2:18 am

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on June 3, 2022, 2:18 am
Hey Bel,
Yes, what you say and notice seems to make a lot of sense.
Albeit the "surfacing the motive" could have made it stronger indeed, it was an important part for what you expect going forward, plus it provided an out for him that sub-communicates: I'm open to accepting delay as long as you're upfront about it, so you can talk straight to me.
The "standard format" is more on the safer side, and you want to go module and go more aggressive from there depending on the situation:
Quote from Bel on June 2, 2022, 1:06 pm
But probably, in this specific case, at the point I finally sent the message, the behavior by the other person had really been too prolonged and repeated (a clear pattern) to justify limiting my DSOE statement to the "behavior", and it was unavoidable to start stronger by including the "surface motive" part.
On the other hand, it could have made sense to use the less strong statement had I used it at the first (or second) instance of delay.
Exactly.
Stronger and protracted shittier behavior calls for stronger self-defense / re-empowerment.

Quote from Bel on June 2, 2022, 1:06 pm

A standard format of escalation with D(E)SOE to address "delay games" by people?
We could even standardize these two statements, in my case for all future settlement discussions or work relations, where I encounter this kind of "delay games" behavior:
at first delay, let it slip;
at second delay, go with "behavior" DSOE;
at third delay, go with "motive" DSOE;
at fourth delay, threaten to interrupt negotiations and sue, or to interrupt work relationship if it's a colleague;
at fifth delay, enforce consequences.
This structure would be very useful, because "delay games" are one of the main forms of manipulation I now seem to encounter in my professional life, as also emerges from my past threads.
Confirmation from other sources
I am now recalling to my mind some books I read on the profession of lawyer, and while (of course!) they did not clarify this was the case, their examples of escalation in communications also seemed to proceed from "first message addressing behavior", to "second message starting to infer motive", to third message "threatening to interrupt relationship".
I remember one book dealing with collecting fees, who suggested to include in the second push for payment a phrase like "I am starting to fear my invoice is being ignored", which now I understand is a clear "surfacing motive" statement.
On paper, it seems great.
Before officializing, I'd like to see it applied to a few situations and/or examples (and then it'd be good for PU as well).
But it's something you can already start taking notes on, apply it to the next encounters, and see how it performs.

Hey Bel,

Yes, what you say and notice seems to make a lot of sense.

Albeit the "surfacing the motive" could have made it stronger indeed, it was an important part for what you expect going forward, plus it provided an out for him that sub-communicates: I'm open to accepting delay as long as you're upfront about it, so you can talk straight to me.

The "standard format" is more on the safer side, and you want to go module and go more aggressive from there depending on the situation:

Quote from Bel on June 2, 2022, 1:06 pm
But probably, in this specific case, at the point I finally sent the message, the behavior by the other person had really been too prolonged and repeated (a clear pattern) to justify limiting my DSOE statement to the "behavior", and it was unavoidable to start stronger by including the "surface motive" part.
On the other hand, it could have made sense to use the less strong statement had I used it at the first (or second) instance of delay.

Exactly.

Stronger and protracted shittier behavior calls for stronger self-defense / re-empowerment.

Quote from Bel on June 2, 2022, 1:06 pm

A standard format of escalation with D(E)SOE to address "delay games" by people?
We could even standardize these two statements, in my case for all future settlement discussions or work relations, where I encounter this kind of "delay games" behavior:
at first delay, let it slip;
at second delay, go with "behavior" DSOE;
at third delay, go with "motive" DSOE;
at fourth delay, threaten to interrupt negotiations and sue, or to interrupt work relationship if it's a colleague;
at fifth delay, enforce consequences.
This structure would be very useful, because "delay games" are one of the main forms of manipulation I now seem to encounter in my professional life, as also emerges from my past threads.
Confirmation from other sources
I am now recalling to my mind some books I read on the profession of lawyer, and while (of course!) they did not clarify this was the case, their examples of escalation in communications also seemed to proceed from "first message addressing behavior", to "second message starting to infer motive", to third message "threatening to interrupt relationship".
I remember one book dealing with collecting fees, who suggested to include in the second push for payment a phrase like "I am starting to fear my invoice is being ignored", which now I understand is a clear "surfacing motive" statement.

On paper, it seems great.

Before officializing, I'd like to see it applied to a few situations and/or examples (and then it'd be good for PU as well).

But it's something you can already start taking notes on, apply it to the next encounters, and see how it performs.

B has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#16 · June 9, 2022, 12:44 pm

The counterpart has signed the settlement.

I am blown away by the fact that the statement Lucio suggested had this incredible effect of getting past all games immediately.

Lucio Buffalmano and John Freeman have reacted to this post.

#17 · June 9, 2022, 2:32 pm

Boom!

Rock on Bel (and thank you for the credit, but that was mostly your work building on my first rough feedback).

That's also something to keep in mind by the way:

Sometimes people will push back strongly when you stand your ground, enforce your boundaries, check them, or power-move back.

That's when a lot of people might think "shit, I went too far, I overdid it, I ruined it... ".

Instead, that's often just their over-reaction out of ego, but deep down they come to respect you more.

John Freeman and B have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.