A reader from Ohio asked, “As nice as I try to be, sometimes it just happens that the person at, for example, the front desk is not helping to solve my problem. There are times when I must go ‘over their head’ and talk to the manager or supervisor. How do I do that without creating ill will or future confrontation with that person and still get the results I need from their manager who might think I’m being one of those difficult customers?

————————

What a great question. The good news is that this type of situation is actually  quite simple to work with and, from now on, you’re going to feel great about being to handle it almost effortlessly.

First, let’s face it; regardless of how proficient you’ve become at the art of positive persuasion there are times your just not going to be able to move someone to your side of the issue. In these instances, you might need to kindly bypass that person and speak with someone in a position of higher authority who can decide your way. That’s fine, providing you do it correctly, does not offend the first person and sets you up correctly with the next person you speak to.

Here are two steps you can take to get what you want, and make everyone happy in the process.

#1 Place the blame on yourself. For example: “I’m awfully sorry to be putting you in this position; it might be easier for you if I were to talk to your supervisor personally. That will take you off the hook. What’s his or her name?”

In phrasing it this way, you have honored the current person and not put them in a defensive position where they feel the need to make you the “bad guy” to their supervisor. You let him or her off the hook by both your words, and your attitude. He or she will be ready to be more helpful to you next time you visit.

Still, typically, when a supervisor is called, they are expecting a scowling, complaining, argumentative “opponent.” Instead…

#2 Greet with a smile, a pleasant countenance and the right words. Take a Step toward him with your hand outstretched and say, “I’m Carol James, thank you so much for coming out to see me, I know you’re very busy.”

Wow! Talk about disarming that person, and positioning yourself as someone they “want” to do for.

So, if you’re dealing with someone with whom you are simply not going to get the results you need without going over their head, then do it…go over their head, but do so with tact, kindness, class and in such a way that everyone possible gets to be and feel part of the solution.

—–

* Based on the kind suggestion of Deborah Stewart below, it reminds me that an important part of this is the ability to be in control of your own emotions. I should have provided a link to my article series on “Responding vs. Reacting.”

I recently posted the following on my Facebook page:

“Tact and politeness should not be misconstrued as compromise.

The two are not necessarily one and the same.”

Whether we’re talking about this within the context of an informal (or formal) debate, a corporate negotiation or a simple transaction between a buyer and a seller, the principle holds true.

I make this point, not because I don’t believe in compromise, which is often vital in the day-to-day getting along and working with others, but because of a certain prevalence becoming more and more common every day:

It’s that either/or thinking that, if you agree, you behave in a manner which is kind and nice but if you are philosophically or in other ways opposed, you must be nasty, interrupting and downright insulting to the other person.

Very few debates, disagreements or negotiations are settled in this way, though they are often prolonged. Very few minds (and their corresponding beliefs) are changed as a result of one being put-down, yelled at or otherwise insulted. Though, through this methodology, one’s opinions are often solidified and perhaps caused to be immutable.

Being polite; being gracious; being kind and tactful does not mean you agree with that person; nor does it signify you will cave in. While it’s fine to negotiate on “things” it is not okay to cave on our principles and beliefs (unless or until we are shown ours are incorrect or that at least the possibly occurs that they may be).

I loved the following two comments regarding the quote that leads this article:

MaryKay Morgan wrote:“One never has to let go of graciousness and good manners even in “tough” negotiations.”

How true:  In fact, I’ve always found that the more you maintain them the more successful you are likely to be in accomplishing your goal. The reason is that – when you maintain your sense of tact and kindness, the other person will be less inclined to maintain their defensive shield. They’ll feel good about you, and begin to like and – yes – possibly trust you. At that point, change can occur.

John Geraghty responded: “Not only do we not have to let go of graciousness and good manners in ‘tough negotiations,’ it seems as soon as we do, the negotiation devolves into an ego match. Far better to stay connected with a generous and empathic listening, which almost always inspires reciprocity and open dialogue in the long run.

I think that MaryKay and John should have written this post. Great comments!

So, stay true to your principles, but don’t lose your class.

How are you doing in this regard? Are you able to maintain your focus on the issues without losing your head and making it personal? Have you seen some good examples or…dare I say,  some not so good ones? Please let us know.

In Part One, we saw the expert advice entrepreneurial coach Dixie “Dynamite” Gillaspie provided in answer to her client’s concern that she struggles with charging a fee for her services because her work brings HER so much joy.

The premise then would be that, because Dixie’s client so enjoys what she does, she shouldn’t be paid for it, or at least paid too well. After all, if she’s deriving so much joy, how can she justify making a lot of money for it?

That is the second issue I alluded to at the conclusion of Part One; the belief that working at something you love should preclude you from charging a high fee, even if the value you are providing is far greater than what the client is paying for it.

Now, it would be easy to scoff and take her to task for that kind of “lack” thinking. But, I’ve got to tell you, for the first 35 years of my life, I believed that very same thing!

It was a total disconnect to me that a professional athlete, a singer, or an actor (or, a speaker) could make that much money doing something they loved. Not that I ever thought that what they did was necessarily easy, but I knew they loved it. And, that because they loved it so much, they shouldn’t make a ton of money at it. Or, at least, they shouldn’t care about making a ton of money from it.

Why did I think that? Though I cannot exactly put my finger on it, I do believe that belief was out there in the ether, and even permeated that ether. It was simply part of the cultural message we all received.

“Work is hard, it’s not enjoyable. It’s something you do Monday through Friday from 9-5, desperately waiting for the weekend and two days of…fun! Fun as in ‘play – not work.’”

As kids, we saw most of the adults in our neighborhood live like that, and watched it on the television sitcoms. Even the benevolent family patriarchs like Mr. Anderson, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Cleaver and Mr. Brady had demanding bosses and fairly unexciting jobs. The message was out there.

Earning one’s daily bread didn’t equate with having fun. It equated with work. Hard work. And, if it is equated with work, and work wasn’t fun, then how could you make a lot of money by doing something that brought you joy?

This was inadvertently drilled into our heads and we bought it lock, stock and barrel as did countless generations before us. And, it became “truth.”

And it will remain so for those not consciously aware of this extremely treacherous dichotomy.

So, don’t listen to the subliminal cultural messages. Instead, make it your goal to both love your work and profit abundantly from it.

Your thoughts?

Wordsmith extraordinaire, John David Mann and writer averageaire, yours truly, often discuss a concept during media interviews for which we both have a different name. He calls it the “Treacherous Dichotomy.” I call it the “False Dilemma.”

Either term can be defined as the unnecessary use of the word, “or” (i.e., “wealthy OR happy”, “giver OR receiver”, “nice person OR finishes first”). Of course, in each of these cases, “or” is best replaced with “and” since not only are both possible; both are very natural.

In her recent blog post, entrepreneurial coach, Dixie “Dynamite” Gillaspie, related the following:

—–

“During a recent coaching session a friend, fellow coach and client of many years confessed to me that she still struggles with charging a fee for coaching because it brings HER so much joy.

“So, I asked her ‘what is a coach who does not bring joy into the relationship worth?’ She admitted that would have very little value. ‘So then,’ I challenged her, ‘you would have to agree that it stands to reason that, assuming their skills and talents were similar, a coach who brought tremendous joy into the relationship would be worth proportionately more?’”

—–

First, great response, Dixie! I would suggest that your kindly-shared wisdom be copied and pasted (with proper attribution, of course), glued to an index card, and taped somewhere where it can be seen constantly by everyone as an excellent reminder.

Actually, though, there are two dynamics at work in the above scenario. One is the usual question of self-doubt. “How much should I charge? Am I worth that much? Do I bring sufficient value to the table to justify my fee?”

And, that’s something many people struggle with. I’ve certainly been there, done that and “bought my own tee-shirt” in that regard. (Fortunately, I managed to get over it.)

But, while that issue is certainly an important one to resolve, there is – as I see it – an even bigger one, and it’s something that has been drilled into our heads forever through one mainly unwritten but nearly always-accepted rule. In the next article, we’ll look at what that is.

What do you think it is?

In a Facebook discussion exchange yesterday, I was asked, “Do you think it is wrong for someone to say ‘I love money’?”

Of course, I’m not the authority on what is right or wrong for someone else and always do my best not to judge others (after all, I have enough personal faults of my own – who am I to judge anyone else?).

On the other hand, I’m rarely shy about voicing my personal thoughts and opinions when I have them. And, strangely enough…I often do have them.

I believe that for one to “love money” both makes no sense, and is actually counter-productive to their goal of having money.

Why?

First, because, money itself is nothing more than a “means of exchange.” It’s simply a “concept” and concepts cannot be loved. One can love what money can allow them to do (i.e., provide for their family, travel and learn, purchase fun things, give generously to charities, etc.).

But to love the money itself is a – in my opinion – mistake in focus.

And, it’s counter-productive because to focus on a concept rather than on an end goal makes it more difficult to accomplish that goal.

In my opinion, money should be used…not loved.

As the saying goes, “Use Money and love people…rather than the other way around.”

Meanwhile, I’d love to know your thoughts about this topic.