RoR: Forum

Pete, I did not actually use the phrase "Fuck you" to my clients. I am slightly more tactful than that -- despite their case of bad manners. :) However, my message was no less clear.

Post 21

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 9:16pm

My father had a friend (now deceased) who used to send the following to his debtors:

Dear XXX

Fuck you! Strong letter follows.

Sincerely

Etc...

I don't know if that worked much but it made the guy feel a whole lot better.

Post 22

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 11:31pm

Jeff,

Thanks very much for clarifying that, I wasn't sure what to make of your reference to my having reached law school :-)

Yes I have certainly dealt with generally inconsiderate and thoughtless people on a personal level, and had a couple of memorable situations at university - like in a class on International Human Rights, being told by the lecturers to make a presentation to the class on the effects of western capitalism on the native/aboriginal groups in third world countries. My response wasn't exactly Roarkian, but suffice to say I doubt the presentation I gave was quite what the lecturers had in mind ;-)

MH

Post 23

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 6:03am

David,

Terrific article. This kind of stuff shows up in corporate life a lot. I left my last company after having a terrific three years. Unfortunately, my boss had a nasty habit of using mid-year reviews as a negotiating tool ( I give you a crappy mid-year review, then give you a laundry list of things I want done in exchange to clear it.) In one of my sessions with him, I told him if you are really that unhappy just tell me I'm not wanted anymore and I'll leave. I finally left on my own, told them I'd had a wonderful time working there (which was true) and moved on.

Jim

Post 24

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 8:45am

Jeff,

Your observation of amassing a "war chest" to fall back on is right on target. Another tack is to have a strong Plan B ready and waiting. This is called BATNA in negotiation or best alternative to a negotioted agreement. Companies should expect that you will negotiate as hard with them as they do with you.

Jim

Post 25

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 8:52am

James,
Thanks for your comments. I would very much appreciate your feedback on a SOLO article of mine
that appeared some time ago.

http://solohq.com/Articles/Perren/The_Keating_Phenomenon.shtml
(I feel like I just did a 'bidinotto'.)

Jeff

Post 26

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 12:06pm

Jennifer,

I hope you didn't take my comments as saying that "Roarkian" moments, and yours in particular are never appropriate.

"Sacrificing oneself to one's own integrity" was, I thought at the time, a clever turn of phrase to capture the point I was trying to make. I think I was trying to be too clever for my own good :)

What I meant was sometimes we find ourselves in the situation where our business partner knows how much we want or need the job, and that we are an honest and straight up and down person to deal with. The hacks, the lowlifes, the short-termers out there who give capitalism a bad name can be tempted to take advantage of this sincerity and transparency and well, "shaft us". By maintaining our integrity in the line of fire we can end up sacrificing our goals in this particular relationship (although not our ultimate goals themselves, which are true to our integrity). That is all I was alluding to... nothing more.

Maybe a "Roarkian moment" should be considered the "nuclear option"?

David

Post 27

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 6:27pm

Jeff,

I read your article and concur about the overemphasis on EQ in many corporations. I've had the privilege to work in three very good corporations. However, I think there is a misconception among Objectivists that the corporate types are necessarily the good guys. My take is that if you try to follow their designated "career tracks", it's a recipe for disaster. I have a good friend that I co-owned a process module with at my last job. They've got this guy who's a PhD and a material science expert looking at control charts, writing whitepapers and generally doing the same process improvements over and over again. If there's a better recipe for killing innovation, I haven't found it.

Jim

Post 28

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 7:00pm

Jim, I've actually found corporate types to be some of the most nightmarish. I've had clients shriek at me because they needed to cover their asses and follow the party line, and it was a sad, pathetic thing to witness. I could not run far or fast enough away from one of America's most admired corporations, where politics -- not ability -- rule.

David, no worries. :) I think I understand what you are saying, and it may be that I am more "nuclear" than many when it comes to business. I have no tolerance for games or bullshit, and decided a long time ago that they would not be part of my work life. (There is more than one customer service representative in America who has been dressed down by me for an utter lack of concern with solving the problem at hand. Such complacency is like a festering disease, and I do my part to keep the contagion under control.) ;) As for clients, well, you know my position on that. :)

Post 29

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 7:21pm

Jennifer,

Are you always able to speak your mind, and do you? Have you set up your business in such a way that you don't have to be diplomatic sometimes, that you can always tell somebody to go fuck himself, literally or figuratively?

Are you in a position where you can simply drop undesirable clients and vendors -- to always be Holly Roark? ;-)

Post 30

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 7:33pm

James,
One of the points I barely touch on in the article, but has been on my mind for years,
is there seems to be something about modern corporations that actually produce the horrors we
are familiar with.

Just as totalitarian states, concentration camps, etc can strongly influence
otherwise decent people to behave in the most vile manner, something like this
is at work at, er, work.

(Though to a much less evil degree, and remembering one always has the choice to leave a company)

I haven't fully put my finger on what it is. But I'm absolutely convinced that if you
put a couple of hundred decent people in the ranks and a few of the typical X-types
in a company, things will rapidly devolve to the point where there are only a few decent
people, a great many sheep, and a few sharks who will do just about anything to get what they want.
I don't think this is inherent in human nature or capitalism so I'm trying to figure out what is going on.

And these considerations apply to more than work or business interactions. We see this sort of thing everywhere. At restaurants,
in shopping malls, and on and on. Anywhere people rub elbows in large numbers, otherwise decent people behave dishonorably too much of the time.

For all it's value, I don't think Objectivism has fully nailed what is going on. (I called the above X-types, for example, because
neither Keating nor Toohey nor any other Randian villain quite has the attributes and motives I'm trying to describe, except possibly in the most abstract way.)

Of course, the end-goal is not just psychological or philosophical identification of a phenomenon. The purpose is to figure out what to do about it, since life in society is always going to be a lot less pleasant than it otherwise would be as long as there are so many of these types around with the ability to get away with what they do. I have every reason to believe that things were not like this in my grandmother's day, so I know it can be changed.

Still hoping for something on this thread that touches on this. Getting a deposit up front isn't exactly the kind of 'advice' I'm looking for.

Post 31

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 7:42pm

David,

I do speak my mind with my clients, and I have found that they greatly appreciate it. It establishes a sense of trust that I will not give them a line or cause them to spend money for no reason other than to line my pockets. I've gotten to the point where I choose those clients very carefully, and spend a good amount of time getting to know them before I will enter into a contract. I find that when one is a straight-shooter, people will either take to it immediately or head for the nearest exit.

With clients who have surprised me with unacceptable behavior, I have been known to provide a scathing clarification of how our business relationship is to work. Sometimes diplomacy is not the most effective route, though it is the one I employ 99% of the time. I haven't been fired yet. :)

Most importantly, I am always in a position to sever ties with people who bring me nothing but aggravation. I would rather temp for a few weeks and get rid of a lousy client than remain in a purgatory of irrationality and bad behavior. I've learned to live my life very simply at this time so I can afford to do that. When the dollars are rolling in with my other venture, I will be happy to say goodbye to "clients" forever. Though I will have other groups of people to deal with, whether they be advertisers, etc., the same dynamic will apply.

Is it harder to live this way? Absolutely. Will it take me longer to reach my material goals? Definitely. Do I rest peacefully at night? You betcha.

My life. My terms.

Post 32

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 10:52pm

I wanted to add something to what I said above, as I realized some of my words may lend the impression that under every circumstance of irritation I tell my clients to kiss off. I am not Henry Cameron. :)

There are things I do tolerate, and I *am* quite patient with people. There are also times when I word my thoughts carefully, when a great big "fuck off" would feel much better. It depends upon the size of the grievance, and how much damage has been done to the business relationship.

However, if I am unable to get the desired result in communicating my point of view, or if repeated politeness does not work, then both barrels are fired. I recently had to do this with a client who clearly did not get the message when it was delivered in polite form -- multiple times. A scathing reprimand seemed to be the only thing he responded to, and he has been on his best behavior since. When this project is finished, however (only an hour remains), I will not work with him again, and will clearly explain why. Once burned, I will not work with the same client again, no matter how ironclad the contract.

In other cases, a polite bowing out is more appropriate, and I have lost count of the times I've done that, as I don't believe in burning bridges unless it is absolutely crucial. I always try to take the high road -- but make my point clear nonetheless.

Post 33

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 11:42pm

Most importantly, I am always in a position to sever ties with people who bring me nothing but aggravation. I would rather temp for a few weeks and get rid of a lousy client than remain in a purgatory of irrationality and bad behavior. I've learned to live my life very simply at this time so I can afford to do that.

You are doing the right thing here, Jennifer. The fact that you are not locked into anything long-term affects the dynamic in a positive way in my experience. They know you can and will walk if you are unsatisfied. Never ever ever ever ever let people punish you twice. It took me awhile but I fully grasp the sanction of the victim concept now.

Security seems as though it would be nice to have but I suspect, once a person gets it, they simply find something new to threaten their security. Carpe diem. And enjoy it.

Post 34

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 6:03am

Jeff,

I don't have time to flesh it out right now, but your point is well taken. I think the problems we have right now are a witch's brew of bad ideas, perversion of social support structures into group identity, and power seeking within those support structures. I think the congregation of people in large numbers is relatively new evolutionarily speaking and it's not the natural human condition. However, the pathologies we see around us reflect a failure of the natural support structures of friends and family to help people properly individuate. Some of this is caused by the mobility of modern society and some by our increasingly nihilistic culture.

Jim

Post 35

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 8:44am

Some observations of standard business dealings:

1. Never paying bills of small, struggling vendors, or making partial payment as payment in full for a fictional flaw in goods or services.

2. Re-negotiating terms in mid-stream, to the benefits on one party and detriment to the other.

3. Accepting a detailed business plan or proposal, rejecting it, and then using in-house people to mug and copy the ideas, for free (paying nothing for the fruits of the creating mind's labor).

4. Promotions in business based on everything BUT ability and results. Most popular include appearance, blood relation.

5. "Open bidding" for an account that, miraculously, only a select number of firms are notified of

No, this aint Galt's Gulch.

Some of my favorite things as a an injury lawyer.

1. Established clients that want me to come to their homes to discuss a 'new matter'--which leads to an expenditure of 3 hours of my time to discuss something that could have been simply answered over the telephone. And never results in a fee of any kind.

2. Injury clients that sign with you, and then, after you assemble and poresent their case to the insurance company along with a demand for settlement, promptly fire you and try to settle with the insurance company directly using the materials and demand you assembled.

3. Other injury lawyers who use 'runners' to make contact with your established clients, go to their homes, bad-mouth you, and offer the client cash to fire you and hire the offending lawyer.

4. Clients who insist that they are too busy to meet during business hours--insisting ona 7 pm meeting, or meeting on the weekend--and then never show, never call, and do not return your calls--except to call to reschedule for another weekend.

5. Clients who purposely hide detrimental facts of their case--and the fact that their case has been turned down by several other lawyers--until you discover them independantly after spending hours and hours working the case up--for free, no fee, because you have to drop the meritless case.

6. Clients who demand the moon and the stars for minor injuries, because they have heard of the "McDonald's case" (woman got 4 million for spilling coffee on her lap)--but then refuse to cooperate to answer written discovery, do not show upo for their deposition, and refuse to come to trial.

Post 36

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 12:59pm

Jeff,

I'd like to recommend Thomas W. Malone's: "The Future of Work" for a view on how corporate heirarchies can be decentralized for employee flexibility and maximum profit.

Jim

Post 37

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 1:43pm

Scott, I can imagine that working on contingency fees opens up a whole other can of worms in terms of business dealings. Have you ever thought about charging a non-refundable fee for the initial consultation? Or would that simply turn away too many prospective opportunities?

Post 38

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 3:30pm

Pete: "Or would that simply turn away too many prospective opportunities?"

You hit the nail on the head, partner! Unbelievable competition, even for the small cases. It is all about making it a breeze for clients to hire you.

Post 39

Monday, May 9, 2005 - 3:35pm