Back in the day when I was working in the hardware store, I had a boss who had an excellent approach to dealing with really difficult customers. That approach was as follows, and I quote, “They can be unpleasant. Hell, they can be a total asshole… but at the end of the day, if we get their money, we won.” And he was right.
I spent the better part of 10 years in that hardware store doing exactly that… putting up with people’s shit a lot of the time. One time it was even pushed to the extreme of a customer throwing merchandise at me and asking what time I got off work cause he wanted to meet in the parking lot! But was it even really just a matter of gritting and putting up with their shit? No. In fact, when you really examine the situation, I would say it is a careful negotiation executed with someone who has chosen to position themselves as the enemy. That boss I mentioned earlier had an unmatched ability to strategically and successfully execute this negotiation and ultimately reach the objective of monetary extraction from the enemy’s pocketbook. At the end of the day, we had every right to tell a bunch of these people to “go to hell” because we didn’t need them to keep the store open. However by negotiating, we were able to improve our situation, regardless of whether they really improved their situation or not.
So if that is the right way to deal with such situations on a small scale, why is not the way to do so with matters as important as national security? It doesn’t seem to make a hell of a lot of sense to me that we “refuse to negotiate with terrorist nations” like Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others. If you refuse to negotiate, exactly how do you expect to ever, metaphorically speaking, “get their money“. Instead, we don’t even tell them just to leave the store (ignore them), but step up and slap them in the face with a name like “axis of evil”. What kind of a deeply flawed theory are we living under?
What if I had, instead of apologizing and negotiating DESPITE being dead right, told that guy “F*** you, I’m off at 6, see you in the parking lot!!” I’m guessing we wouldn’t have gotten his money (which we did, $26.27), and might have just ended up being dead right with a big black eye.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:53 am
VERY nice comparison Dan! I have worked with the public most of my life and used the old “kill ‘em with kindness” - which means not necessarily giving them a thing except a listening ear and some sympathy. Never failed and a win/win. Mom
December 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Dan, That is a tough paraphrase on your old foolish boss. I would guess what he was really saying was that if you can put a deal together rather than just tell the “customer” to go way, it is way better for both. He in some way gets his needs met (a leaders #1 priority) plus the “customer” has an oppotunity to save face. “Wow”…now there is the opportunity for them to work together on another deal at a later date. Positive relationships with as many customers as possible (if not all) is what determines the success of the business. It follows that the same principal could go an awful long way toward world peace and understanding. Besides, our current national tough guy can’t work his way through one Bin Ladin. By attacking the entire population from that person’s ethic background, I hope he hasn’t destroyed the successful business ….oh….I mean the country.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
My thoughts exactly… great comment!
December 12th, 2007 at 2:50 am
OK so I have not been able to get this off of my mind. I’m taking back my previously naive comment. So what if the “customer” is holding an AK47, has just blown up the King Soopers and his thugs have been known to rob Office Depot and the ATM. Your employees are running out the back door and calling in the police. Time for sympathy was when the terrorist was a child and negotiating when he was a teenager. In light of recent events - whatcha gonna do with maniacs?
December 12th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Flawed logic, it’s not a comparable situation… my post doesn’t address the individual specific terrorist himself, rather a group like Al Qaeda. When the terrorist is on the airplane with , there is clearly nothing to do but kick his ass. But if your example AK-47 wielding “customer” worked for the mob, wouldn’t you be interested in talking with the mob to determine why they would unleash someone like that and what it is that has them so damned bothered in the first place? Not sure if that makes sense but I think you get where I’m going… it’s not about niceness, or toughness, or anything else. It’s about being the bigger man
December 13th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Soooo how do you talk to Al Qaeda?? Aren’t they pretty much all just individual terrorists? And there are “experts” who think they know what’s bothering these extremists and its simply(?) our “culture” - or our “shopping center” in my analagy. Plus my point I think is that when the “specific individual terrorists” hit, fear sets in and guns go off ( war in other words) and the whole hate ball gets rolling. Fear may actually be the WHOLE problem which, yes, takes a really big man to overcome.
December 16th, 2007 at 11:16 am
No offense, but you are confusing matter. Those experts know nothing… they are insighting fear to encourage war. Everyone agrees with killing an individual terrorist of course but we seem to insight no dialog with the entire culture is the problem. Let me see if this video would help clear it up.