A guy, who I'll call Bob, had developed a strong level of confidence, and decided to go for the kind of job he really wanted. In Bob's case, that job was in the area of real estate. Bob got his license, applied for a real estate position, got an interview, aced the interview, and was now working for a real estate company. He had to work with a "seasoned agent" initially, so as to learn the ropes. Bob felt he was smarter and could do better than the "seasoned agent." So he would challenge the "seasoned agent" on things like how to present the "features and benefits," and when to use the potential buyer's name, and how to "go for the close." The way Bob saw it, he was establishing his dominance. However, what Bob failed to take into consideration, was that the "seasoned agent" was the one who was grading his performance, and would be the voice the higher ups would listen to in regard to Bob's worthiness to remain employed by them. So, due to his defiance and frequent disagreeing with the "seasoned agent," Bob found himself failing his probationary period. He was let go. Bob was of course angry about this, and felt that the "seasoned agent" felt inferior to Bob's superiority.
But here's where Bob stumbled.
He had a bad strategy. He could have simply made suggestions, offered alternative ideas, and if the "seasoned agent" didn't agree, Bob should have just let it go. After all, once Bob was free to show homes on his own, he would also be free to do things his way. In other words, he was only "stuck" with the "seasoned agent" for a limited amount of time, then he would be given the chance to go out alone with potential buyers. So he should have compromised by doing what I call "allow them to be wrong."
Compromise is not bad, provided you're doing it for the right reasons. I'll go more deeply into that in a moment, after I finish the point I'm making.
When you "allow them to be wrong" it means that even though you know that you're right, you also know that it's unproductive to sit there and argue the point. (For example, if you know you saw a blonde walk by in a red dress, but your friend insists that it was an orange dress, is it really worth it to sit there and argue about it? Of course not. So you allow your friend to be wrong, and move on.) How it applies to Bob, is that despite his certainty that his suggestions and ideas were valid and correct, arguing about it with the "seasoned agent" was an unproductive move. It was required that he shadow this "seasoned agent" so Bob had to either make the best of that requirement, or if it was more than he could tolerate, work someplace else.
There are going to be times when you have to interact with people you feel you are more qualified than, and more talented than. But it will be unproductive to sit there and argue who's got the better idea, when you can just "allow them to be wrong" and go do whatever you wanted to do when the oppoutunity to do so comes. Additionally, never ignore the fact that even "ignorant" people can provide you a nugget of useful knowledge. Learn from EVERYONE. I truly believe that there are no bad encounters, just missed chances to learn something. Personally, I hear from many people all the time who try and use my dark past against me. I screwed up, I know that. I hurt people, I know that. But some people like to use that knowledge as a weapon against me, while I use their words as a learning tool. Sure, I'll verbally slap them, especially if they get their facts wrong. But even then, I do it in a way that is fun and funny, instead of a way that's belittling and attacking. Their anger, their sharp words, serve me in testing who I AM versus who I WAS. Without them, I would only have people praising me, and that doesn't challenge me the same way. So, again, learn from even the people you feel you are "better" than. There have been MANY times when someone I had little or no personal respect for, would say something along a certain line of thinking, and even though I disagreed with them, there would be a word or a phrase they said that would send me on this amazing line of thinking. By me being open to these kind of "gifts" even from people I did not personally care for, it has rewarded me with some incredible personal discoveries.
Okay, now let's talk about this "compromise" issue.
Good compromise has flexibility, while bad compromise has supplication.
Okay, let's flesh this out!
Let me present a situation that a neighbor asked me about, and we'll go from there.
There is a person named "T" who has no car, only a bicycle. "T" uses the bicycle to get to work. Well, someone stole "T's" bicycle one day, so now "T" gets a ride to work from "Q." One day "Q" asks "T" to pitch in some gas money, but "T" doesn't want to. The way "Q" sees it, "Q" is doing "T" a favor, so asking for gas money is a fair request. The way "T" sees it, "Q" and "T" work at the same place, and live in the same apartment complex, so "Q" is not going anywhere "Q" wouldn't normally go to anyway.
So here's my question to you: If "T" were to pay "Q" some gas money, would "T" be compromisng in a flexible way, or compromsing in a supplicating way?
The answer is based on justification.
If "T" pays "Q" out of fear of losing a ride to work, then that's compromise in a supplicating way. If "T" pays "Q" because "T" fears losing the friendship of "Q" then that too is compromise in a supplicating way. However, if "T" pays "Q" gas money because "T" realises it's cheaper than taking the bus, then that would be an example of compromise in a flexible way. Also, if "T" were to acknowledge that "Q" is indeed doing "T" a favor by providing a ride, and as a result paid "Q" gas money, that too is compromise in a flexible way.
To make it more clearly understood, I'll put it this way. If you compromise because you think you'll LOSE something if you don't, then that's a compromise powered by fear, and that's supplicative. But if you compromise because it gets a mutually benefitial result, then that's being flexible in the compromise.
Understand now?
-Bishop New Alpha mailbag
No comments:
Post a Comment