I gonna write about a conflict between my ex-company and my client. Due to confidentiality issues, I shall not name the involved parties.
Few years back, I was working in a law firm specializing in enbloc sales. Being a personal assistant to a lawyer, my job scope included screening calls, attending meetings, handling clients and settling administration stuff. During the 6 months, I had a few encounters with enraged clients whom we are representing. I shall name one that is still fresh in my mind.
For a particular private estate, there was this old couple who had some legal issues with the selling of their flat. As my company was representing the sellers, we were obliged to help them settle the issues and we did. However, we had to go through some legal technicalities which required some time to settle. This did not go quite well with the old couple because they were worried that their legal issues would disrupt the enbloc sales (there are deadlines for each stage of the legal process). Hence, they kept calling us up everyday. However, we could not give them a good enough explanation for the delay in solving their issues because of confidentiality issues. We do not let our clients know the legal correspondence with the other legal parties. For example, a delay caused by some legal technicalities would be explained with a "there is quite some going to and fro with XX regarding this issue YY."
To add on to the lack of understanding between us and the old couple, there was no establishment of trust because my boss avoided their calls. My boss felt that answering their repeated calls everyday, was a waste of time. The old couple was really a handful but my boss's behaviour did put through to the old couple that my boss was just entertaining them and not really concerned about their interests. In addition, they could not get the reassurance they need because whatever I said had no credibility since I was not a lawyer. This enraged the old couple because they felt that as lawyers representing them, we should do our best to fight for their interests and be more proactive so as to speed things up. Also, the lawyers (not their personal assistant) should respond to their calls.
Whenever I took their calls, I tried to reassure them as best as I could while taking note that whatever I say could be a legal liability. I said the old couple was a handful because the wife would ramble on and on, explaining why there were so anxious (which we did not need to know) while the husband would scream to get his point across (partly because he is partially deaf). I was actually quite upset at his harsh tone and loud volume when I did not know he is partially deaf. In any case, the unnecessarily long conversation was too time-consuming.
Things improved after the old couple and my boss had a long talk. The old couple popped by our office to demand to talk to my boss without an appointment and my boss agreed to see them. I did not know what they communicated inside my boss's office, but the old couple was pleased after the session. The husband even apologised to me, explaining that he was screaming because he is partially deaf and his tone was harsh because he was angry at the slow moving of things, not at me. I felt good because I could feel the sincerity of his apology due to his facial expression and body language.
In hindsight, this conflict was resolved because of proper communication and establishment of trust. What do you think could have contributed to this conflict? When they were finally able to have a long talk with my boss without an appointment, they did not feel that my boss was entertaining them. Instead, they felt respected because a lawyer's time is money and yet my boss gave them the time they need to get the reassurance they need. It also led them to believe the sincerity of my boss in resolving their legal issues. I learned that acts (behaviour) can also unintentionally communicate or signal something to the recipients, other than one's body language. Also, I find that face-to-face communication is far more convincing than phone or email correspondence. If you have survived reading through my long post, what is your take on my last 2 sentences?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi
ReplyDeleteAccording to my experience, face to face meetings is one of the best ways to get a point across. I can emphasise on my main emphasis and also could look at their facial expressions and body postures to customise the message that I want to send across. More attention could be given to the conservation and any doubts or misunderstandings could be cleared while the subject is still fresh in the listener's mind. Compromises are thus more often accomplished through face-to-face talks than through any other means of communication.
Behaviour has already been known to influence communication by psychologists (people who study behaviour). The sequence in which tasks are done often reflect both the interest that you have for each of those tasks and the value you percieve you could recieve when the task is completed. Behaviours could also be seen by some individuals to be indicative of the person's personality and allow the development of prejudices against that particular person as a result.
Once again, I'm impressed. I agree that behaviour can influence communication; a=sequence can reflect the priority the individual places on the task; behaviour is indicative of one's personality. These are very good points. >_<
ReplyDeleteWow, I think you have written a very detailed and interesting case study on conflict. I agree that face to face is a very good way to clarify issues and concerns. However, it is difficult to implement many face to face sessions to all your clients,on top of your daily pile of work. Perhaps they should have clarify with them why they need to go through all the technicalites and assure them that it will not affect their enbloc sale.
ReplyDeleteI thought the firm was lucky to have you to listen to the worries and concerns of the old couple and saving them alot of time to do their work. Great!
Hi Kalene,
ReplyDeleteI feel that the main cause of conflict in this case was the lack of trust between the parties involved mentioned by you. On a smaller scale, this is somewhat simialr to the interpersonal conflict between couples where trust is the fundamental part of establishing the relationship. Face-face communication definitely surpass most forms of communication channels such as emails because of the reduced time lag to get our messages across to another party accurately. Any misinterpretation can then be resolved on the spot. In my humble opinion, face-to-face talk is not the determining factor for the success of resolving the conflict in the case mentioned by you. In fact, i feel that the initiative displayed by the old couple where they took the trouble to clear things up was the main cause of success.
Having said that, we also have to give credit to your boss for his patience for resolving the conflict.
Thank you so much for the well-written post!
Cheers!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBehaviour reflects personality. Thus from the old couple's perspective, they probably thought that the lawyer was being disinterested aloof. The old couple was unaware of the nature of a lawyer's job and maybe slightly paranoid about being deceived. It's natural for senior citizens to be more careful about the management of their money given that most victims of cheating cases were elderlies. This accounts for the couple's unpleasant behaviour. It is superficially rational to be incensed by such aggravating behaviour, but it is admirably rational to stand in their shoes to react calmly. I believed both your boss and you have done the admirable part. Face-to-face talks can indeed build trust, which was the assurance that the couple needed. The couple did not seek to have faith but to have trust in the lawyer.
ReplyDeleteJohhny, I couldn't help being amused by your comment. I have the impression that you are very interested in couple-related stuff because you seem to be thinking alot about couple-related stuff. Are you looking for your other half now? LOL!!
ReplyDeleteAnd, your "in my humble opinion" also tickled me alot. =P
Swee Guan, Johnny and Ethel!!
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points that you all have listed. I agree with Swee Guan that face-to-face communication may be difficult to implement in all cases. I agree with Johnny that the main cause of conflict is the lack of trust. I agree with Ethel that behaviour reflects personality.
And, I am surprised that you all are patient enough to read my long, lengthy blog entry. I actually didn't know I had typed so much until I was writing my conclusion. =X
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHello kalene
ReplyDeleteBasically, I thought that the Boss might have played a part in contributing to the conflict because he/she was ignorant to the issue. This issue could actually worsen because the old couple actually paid for service from the law firm. If I were to put myself in the old couple's shoes, I would probably be mad too.
And, solving an issue involves tackling the root of the issue - like talking things out properly.
By the way, I agree to all the people above that to solve an issue or a conflict, it is best to talk it out face-to-face.
Though it's a long post, its very well narrated! Good job!
I did like your last comment on how actions are also communication. The saying, "Actions speak louder than words," comes to mind. Good insight!
ReplyDelete