I was able to participate in an EQP (Emotional Quotient Profile) exercise wherein they gave us a scenario and asked us to react on it. The exercise was very interesting, because it gave a wide range of answers which were valid and make sense.
If you want to check them out, click this link. They are awesome!
If I could remember correctly, there were three questions raised:
- What are you going to do?
- How will you react?
- What will you feel?
The scenario went this way:
You are in a video call with a client – an old woman who gave her trust 100%, and she gets disappointed with the outcome of the project. She gives certain scenarios that lead to her frustration, and she mentions that she regretted not being active on the project. Moreover, she mentioned two names of those who had quit on the project.
The reaction that I gave was, to reflect back on the project and reassess where things went wrong. My initial reaction was sad, because in a developer’s standpoint, I wasn’t able to manage the expectation of the client.
Then we were asked, “What’s missing?”
What was missing was the client’s availability. It was the client’s fault that she was not active on the project and in the first place, on any given project, it was set on the kickoff call that the client needs to contribute to the project for it to be successful.
So the session ended; we shared our experiences about the exercise, moved on, and continued working on with our tasks. But I wasn’t convinced enough with the conclusion. It made me think. Sure, it made sense since at the start, you (as a developer) and the client made a mutual agreement and each had established TRUST at that point. BUT I asked myself if it was right to blame because the client didn’t follow the simple rule of contributing to the project. I tried to convince myself that it was the right thing to do, but a part of me was in doubt. Was it right to react quickly on a problem?
I pondered and reflected back again on my answer, because I wasn’t able to move on with the fact that we ended with that conclusion.
After a while, I came up with a realization, and I believe that both parties needed to be held accountable. I also raised the angle that the client was old, and age does give a factor in terms of behavior. I may not be a psychology graduate, but as someone who is living with his mom convinced me that age does influence the whole story in one way or another.
I also raised questions that needed to be answered like, why wasn’t the client been active in the project? Were there any outside elements that made her busy? Did something came up that she needed to attend to rather than focus on the project? The client also mentioned two names who quit the job, so why wasn’t she concerned when the first one resigned?
Both parties always have expectations, but all we ever think of are our expectations because as Dale Carnegie said, “Remember that the people you are thinking to are a hundred times more interested in themselves and their wants and problems than they are in you and your problems.”
Many would argue that it’s important to defend the company’s interest first. Well, that is the brutal truth about businesses, because as soon as you give in, it will ultimately affect everything like time, money, and effort.
In the scenario earlier, did we ever think that there was another way to go about it? Yes, it was easier to just reason out the faults and give a refund rather than come up with Plan B; ask the client if they still want to commit, and come up with an agreeable compensation?
Simon Sinek said that we had to start with the Why, How, and then What. This principle won’t apply to situations like these though, because we are quick to jump on the “Why”. WHY is it not our problem? I think, on this occasion, we should reverse it this way: WHAT is the problem, HOW will we be able to handle it, and WHY are we doing it?
Don’t get me wrong, I love Simon’s principle and it is proven effective on other situations. Not just on this one.
Henry Ford said, “If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from that person’s angle as well as from your own.”
So, let’s say, the clients broke the rules and you know it’s their fault? If we argue that it’s their fault, will it solve the problem? How will it differ if I say,
“I do understand your frustration and we know that this is not going well but please do understand that the success of the project lies with the information that you feed us. We’d like to invite you to have this conversation to reflect on the things on what went wrong and hopefully come up with a possible solution to this problem. We won’t be able assure you that this not going to cost you anything but rest assured that we will come up with a solution.”
Rather than,
“Please do understand that you are responsible of giving us the information that we need and we already set clear instructions on our kickoff meeting and you haven’t met that expectations. We are open to give you a 50% refund if you are not happy right now.”
I know that I won’t be happy if I receive that message.
What I understand about boundaries is that you set agreeable rules, but I think the missing piece on setting up boundaries is timing. We are quick to jump the gun in saying that our boundaries were violated, and then proceed on giving a point that it’s the other person’s fault without reservations. Good timing may be able to solve this problem. Now you know why a court session tends to take up a lot of time before giving a verdict.
So, the question about how much trust is too much? I think it’s not bad to trust others, but we need to do our responsibilities to better support that trust. We must be held accountable not to hurt the other. Because it’s not about “giving too much trust sometimes kills you” kind of thing, but giving a 100% trust without doing anything is not the kind of trust that we aim for – it’s a senseless trust. It should be paired with sense of responsibility to make it more of a purposeful trust. Yes, I do agree that sometimes, the trust that we give to others gets taken for granted and it hurts so bad, but people need to learn that trust works both ways and not just for convenience.
What’s the point of not giving a little bit of trust? Did a client hire you just for the sake that they have someone to do their work for them?
So how do we establish a purposeful trust?
- Explain why we are doing it;
- How we will do the process;
- What responsibilities and boundaries we need to set; and
- Both must agree with everything that has been set.
What I noticed on every kickoff meeting is that, many tend to use the “I will be the X” statement instead of using “I will be responsible for X”. Would it be nice to hear if I say,
“I will be responsible for handling all of the back end logic, and make sure that the system that we are about to build meets the expectation of the client and eventually solve most of their problems.”
Rather than,
“I will be the web developer of the project. I will be handling all of the back end work.”
Yes, you do all of the messy bit at the back: SO WHAT? The client will not be interested about your position, they only want to know what you’re responsible for.
Now for the client. Most of the time we forget about them, and we just label them as clients. Would it be nice to say,
“We’d like that thank you for putting your trust on us to handle your project. We aim to (what’s your why) and make it happen. To make this experience more successful, we need your help to better understand your expectations for this project. The project depends on the information we gather because we believe that information is crucial to the outcome of the project. The more information that you will feed us, the more effective we will be on this project. Keep in mind that we don’t know everything that you think is common to other systems. Are you willing to help us?”
If the client says “yes”, then he/she takes the responsibility of helping us gather the information that we need for the project. There’s no need to force that responsibility because it makes you sound more demanding. As Dale Carnegie said, “If you want to gather honey, don’t kick over the beehive.”
Honestly, there is no right or wrong answer to this because human emotions can branch out to different kinds of outcome. However, it is our duty to come up with a solution that lives in the gray area. It’s not white nor black, but we should see things on a multiple angle or perspective, and eventually come up with a win-win situation. It is better to face a door where you come in rather than getting out.
Don’t get me wrong; I rant, get frustrated, and say things that is not good. And I think it’s healthy if done in private, because you release so much tension and make you think clearly afterwards. I do believe that in times like this, and in the situation presented above, it is good to second guess because once you utter words, you can’t take it back.
Anyways I will leave this quote by Napoleon Hill, “Think twice before you speak, because your words and influence will plant the seed of either success or failure in the mind of another.”
I’d like to hear your opinion on this and hopefully we can make the business world a better place.
