How do i stop my own personal sense of ethics interfering with the growth of my business?
July 3, 2011 10:31 AM Subscribe
How do i stop my own personal sense of ethics interfering with the growth of my business?
I own a relatively successful small business. I was brought up by a very honest and straight talking familiy.
Now that I´m in the "world of business" (for nearly 7 years now) I get to meet all sorts of people. Most honest and straightforward. Some clients i even look forward to dealing with. However, increasingly I´m getting frustrated by unsavoury and "tricky" people who see business as some sort of game where if you "pull a fast one" on the other party - it is seen as some sort of victory.
This I cannot tolerate. I work nearly 16 hours a day, five days a week. Some of my clients are other small business owners and some of them are multinational companies.
When they do try to "pull a fast one" or sneakily try to break the terms of a contract they get a very blunt and quite an abnoxious rebuke from me. I know other business owners who will just brush over it and over the years I've seen alot of decent business owners go out of business thanks to the antics of these sort of clients...For me, while I almost always get paid by them, I cannot help myself having a go at them. In reality ( and not surprisingly prehaps) i never see them again.
I know that if i continue you like this, I will lose out on some very lucrative work. But I just cannot tolerate any sort of cloak-and-dagger tactics in business. How do I deal with this? (and please don´t say find better clients -some of them are blue chip companies)
I own a relatively successful small business. I was brought up by a very honest and straight talking familiy.
Now that I´m in the "world of business" (for nearly 7 years now) I get to meet all sorts of people. Most honest and straightforward. Some clients i even look forward to dealing with. However, increasingly I´m getting frustrated by unsavoury and "tricky" people who see business as some sort of game where if you "pull a fast one" on the other party - it is seen as some sort of victory.
This I cannot tolerate. I work nearly 16 hours a day, five days a week. Some of my clients are other small business owners and some of them are multinational companies.
When they do try to "pull a fast one" or sneakily try to break the terms of a contract they get a very blunt and quite an abnoxious rebuke from me. I know other business owners who will just brush over it and over the years I've seen alot of decent business owners go out of business thanks to the antics of these sort of clients...For me, while I almost always get paid by them, I cannot help myself having a go at them. In reality ( and not surprisingly prehaps) i never see them again.
I know that if i continue you like this, I will lose out on some very lucrative work. But I just cannot tolerate any sort of cloak-and-dagger tactics in business. How do I deal with this? (and please don´t say find better clients -some of them are blue chip companies)
Can you clarify how you're telling them off? I'm thinking there's a difference between calmly explaining that you don't find certain behavior acceptable and really getting snippy/huffy (e.g. "obnoxious").
Ultimately, I think, there are three possibilities:
1. Start accepting this behavior, or at least not responding to it.
2. Keep doing what you're doing, or possibly do so in a more calm manner.
3. Change your expectations and view your interactions more skeptically. (I don't know if you're being naive and allowing yourself to be misled by communicating poorly - e.g., you expect something they don't actually promise - but it's a possibility.)
posted by J. Wilson at 10:45 AM on July 3, 2011
Ultimately, I think, there are three possibilities:
1. Start accepting this behavior, or at least not responding to it.
2. Keep doing what you're doing, or possibly do so in a more calm manner.
3. Change your expectations and view your interactions more skeptically. (I don't know if you're being naive and allowing yourself to be misled by communicating poorly - e.g., you expect something they don't actually promise - but it's a possibility.)
posted by J. Wilson at 10:45 AM on July 3, 2011
Bitching out the tricky ones is an act that implies that they're capable of being shamed and correcting their behaviour.
One of my great life lessons happened when my grandmother was contacted by phone scammers offering a "prize worth more than $10,000" if she gave them $2,000. She contacted my father and my father contacted me because I was living in the city where the call originated. By happenstance my boss knew a guy who was connected to the phone scamming business in general, knew who was pulling that scam, and told them not to call my grandmother back (apparently there's a 'no friends or family' code amongst them). I asked my boss for their contact information so I could call them up and shit all over them. My boss sat me down and said "They're criminals. They know they're criminals, they're okay with the fact that they're criminals, they sleep great every night." All they'd have done if I'd gotten hold of them was laugh at me.
The tricky people trying to get ahead by screwing you know exactly what they're doing, and they're okay with it. They're okay with themselves being that way, and your righteous indignation has zero effect on them. After you're done, they're giggling at your naivete, and you've achieved nothing more than to lose some business.
So what do you do? If you need to somehow answer that anger it causes in you, congratulate yourself on being better than them, and having caught them at it and denied them some success. Just don't kid yourself that your intolerance for their antics makes any difference to them. If you tell them to go fuck themselves, they'll just move on to the next mark.
This really is a situation where (as you recognize) you're only hurting yourself. Living well is the best revenge. Making your business successful without resorting to their behaviour is the best answer to their behaviour available to you.
posted by fatbird at 10:50 AM on July 3, 2011 [15 favorites]
One of my great life lessons happened when my grandmother was contacted by phone scammers offering a "prize worth more than $10,000" if she gave them $2,000. She contacted my father and my father contacted me because I was living in the city where the call originated. By happenstance my boss knew a guy who was connected to the phone scamming business in general, knew who was pulling that scam, and told them not to call my grandmother back (apparently there's a 'no friends or family' code amongst them). I asked my boss for their contact information so I could call them up and shit all over them. My boss sat me down and said "They're criminals. They know they're criminals, they're okay with the fact that they're criminals, they sleep great every night." All they'd have done if I'd gotten hold of them was laugh at me.
The tricky people trying to get ahead by screwing you know exactly what they're doing, and they're okay with it. They're okay with themselves being that way, and your righteous indignation has zero effect on them. After you're done, they're giggling at your naivete, and you've achieved nothing more than to lose some business.
So what do you do? If you need to somehow answer that anger it causes in you, congratulate yourself on being better than them, and having caught them at it and denied them some success. Just don't kid yourself that your intolerance for their antics makes any difference to them. If you tell them to go fuck themselves, they'll just move on to the next mark.
This really is a situation where (as you recognize) you're only hurting yourself. Living well is the best revenge. Making your business successful without resorting to their behaviour is the best answer to their behaviour available to you.
posted by fatbird at 10:50 AM on July 3, 2011 [15 favorites]
A "blunt and quite obnoxious rebuke" is not going to help I'd go more along the "polite, but firm response" lines.
Since you are not behaving unethically I'm not sure why your sense of ethics enters into the picture. They are the ones behaving badly. Continuing to work with them does not reflect badly on your sense of ethics (if they were trying to rip someone else off for your benefit then it might be a different matter). Continue to behave in an above-board manner, be clear about when other people behave in a way that you don't find acceptable, and go about your business (so to speak).
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 10:51 AM on July 3, 2011
Since you are not behaving unethically I'm not sure why your sense of ethics enters into the picture. They are the ones behaving badly. Continuing to work with them does not reflect badly on your sense of ethics (if they were trying to rip someone else off for your benefit then it might be a different matter). Continue to behave in an above-board manner, be clear about when other people behave in a way that you don't find acceptable, and go about your business (so to speak).
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 10:51 AM on July 3, 2011
Response by poster: No this is not a communication problem. I pride myself in setting out very
clear expectations of what the client it to expect during a transaction. Any potential problems that could be encountered are also communicated. Communication from my side I think is more than satisfactory. And also, the client usually gets expectations communicated twice - just in case there are any "misunderstandings".
posted by jacobean at 10:54 AM on July 3, 2011
clear expectations of what the client it to expect during a transaction. Any potential problems that could be encountered are also communicated. Communication from my side I think is more than satisfactory. And also, the client usually gets expectations communicated twice - just in case there are any "misunderstandings".
posted by jacobean at 10:54 AM on July 3, 2011
If you can't tolerate them, then you're going to need to do without their business.
You can't fix other people's ethics. It's not your job. Being obnoxious isn't helping the situation.
They aren't going to change. Either learn to do without that revenue or learn to resolve these issues in a way that doesn't alienate clients.
posted by 26.2 at 10:56 AM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
You can't fix other people's ethics. It's not your job. Being obnoxious isn't helping the situation.
They aren't going to change. Either learn to do without that revenue or learn to resolve these issues in a way that doesn't alienate clients.
posted by 26.2 at 10:56 AM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
It's usually not worth having a go at them, because they either know better, or should. You should feel confident in "firing" clients that do not meet reasonable expectations, and you don't have to do it by rebuking them in any way:
"I am sorry we aren't able to meet your needs anymore. Maybe I can recommend you to another firm that provides similar services, [some competitor that is equally difficult or unethical]."
posted by whatzit at 10:57 AM on July 3, 2011
"I am sorry we aren't able to meet your needs anymore. Maybe I can recommend you to another firm that provides similar services, [some competitor that is equally difficult or unethical]."
posted by whatzit at 10:57 AM on July 3, 2011
What Lurgi says. (I said it much longer but less eloquently so I deleted that.)
and then I'd add, one option is to hire a lawyer, or bring on a #2, who is endlessly calm, polite, and very very firm to deal with this client-side bad behavior if part of the problem is that it makes you too upset to deal with calmly. Sometimes the whole point of a lawyer is to have someone who's less emotionally invested in the situation who can stand in for you. Similarly, a second-in-command should have strengths where you have weaknesses so you can complement each other.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:59 AM on July 3, 2011 [4 favorites]
and then I'd add, one option is to hire a lawyer, or bring on a #2, who is endlessly calm, polite, and very very firm to deal with this client-side bad behavior if part of the problem is that it makes you too upset to deal with calmly. Sometimes the whole point of a lawyer is to have someone who's less emotionally invested in the situation who can stand in for you. Similarly, a second-in-command should have strengths where you have weaknesses so you can complement each other.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:59 AM on July 3, 2011 [4 favorites]
I may be reading into your question more than is there, but I'd also point out that there is a difference between a company trying to get everything they can out of a contract, and deliberately with pre-meditation pulling a "fast one". In my experience it is normal business expectations (and human nature) for people to try to maximize the value they get, and sometimes that can lead to them asking for, or even assuming and acting on, something they aren't entitled to under the contract. In those cases it is your job to point out that they are stepping over the contract limits and maybe counter-offer a change with appropriate compensation.
This is coming at it from my perspective in professional services, but if I considered every client unethical who asked me to do work that wasn't in the contract and then were disappointed when we wanted more money for that work, well, I'd have a pretty horrid view of the world. Instead, I think most are trying to get the best value for their money and expecting push back if you can't do it.
If I ran into someone who was actually putting "gotcha" clauses into the contract in the form of unusual legal language, saying one thing before signing and then pointing out that the paper later had a completely different meaning. Then I would indeed not do business with them.
On preview you say: Communication from my side I think is more than satisfactory. I'd be careful of this, as I think it is what is setting up your idea that a lot of clients are trying to pull one over on you. My experience is that most people rarely reference written correspondence and often forget detailed discussions sometime over the course of 2-4 weeks. I'd gauge your judgement of the clients based on how they react when you point out the problem. How can you tell the difference between "sneakily try to break the terms of the contract" from forgetfulness, hopefulness or any other of a number of reasons someone may try to do something unexpected and inconsistent?
posted by meinvt at 11:06 AM on July 3, 2011 [3 favorites]
This is coming at it from my perspective in professional services, but if I considered every client unethical who asked me to do work that wasn't in the contract and then were disappointed when we wanted more money for that work, well, I'd have a pretty horrid view of the world. Instead, I think most are trying to get the best value for their money and expecting push back if you can't do it.
If I ran into someone who was actually putting "gotcha" clauses into the contract in the form of unusual legal language, saying one thing before signing and then pointing out that the paper later had a completely different meaning. Then I would indeed not do business with them.
On preview you say: Communication from my side I think is more than satisfactory. I'd be careful of this, as I think it is what is setting up your idea that a lot of clients are trying to pull one over on you. My experience is that most people rarely reference written correspondence and often forget detailed discussions sometime over the course of 2-4 weeks. I'd gauge your judgement of the clients based on how they react when you point out the problem. How can you tell the difference between "sneakily try to break the terms of the contract" from forgetfulness, hopefulness or any other of a number of reasons someone may try to do something unexpected and inconsistent?
posted by meinvt at 11:06 AM on July 3, 2011 [3 favorites]
Response by poster: "My experience is that most people rarely reference written correspondence and often forget detailed discussions sometime over the course of 2-4 weeks. I'd gauge your judgement of the clients based on how they react when you point out the problem. How can you tell the difference between "sneakily try to break the terms of the contract" from forgetfulness, hopefulness or any other of a number of reasons someone may try to do something unexpected and inconsistent?"
Well, when a client says - at payment time, (funily enough), that X Y Z and K was promised.
You tell them K was never part of deal. This is what annoys me. They will use something small, something that never even came into the equation during negotiations to try to eschew payment.
posted by jacobean at 11:19 AM on July 3, 2011
Well, when a client says - at payment time, (funily enough), that X Y Z and K was promised.
You tell them K was never part of deal. This is what annoys me. They will use something small, something that never even came into the equation during negotiations to try to eschew payment.
posted by jacobean at 11:19 AM on July 3, 2011
One of the things about these sorts of clients is that they are very good at presenting themselves as "lucrative business" up front, and then somehow managing to not be very lucrative at all when you do the final accounting.
The basic, classic example is the guy who says "what's your price on 10,000 pieces? OK, give me 100 now at that price and I'll probably buy 20,000 next quarter." You give them that price and never see them again, or maybe they call back next month for another 100 pieces at the cheap price.
Think of the 80/20 rule. (Not set in stone, of course, but the concept generally applies.) 80 percent of your revenue comes from 20 percent of your customers, and on the converse, 80 percent of your grief comes from a different 20 percent of your customers.
Some of that grief is a cost of doing business; you can't always "fire" all of those customers. But you can certainly adjust your policies and marketing to discourage them.
posted by gjc at 11:19 AM on July 3, 2011
The basic, classic example is the guy who says "what's your price on 10,000 pieces? OK, give me 100 now at that price and I'll probably buy 20,000 next quarter." You give them that price and never see them again, or maybe they call back next month for another 100 pieces at the cheap price.
Think of the 80/20 rule. (Not set in stone, of course, but the concept generally applies.) 80 percent of your revenue comes from 20 percent of your customers, and on the converse, 80 percent of your grief comes from a different 20 percent of your customers.
Some of that grief is a cost of doing business; you can't always "fire" all of those customers. But you can certainly adjust your policies and marketing to discourage them.
posted by gjc at 11:19 AM on July 3, 2011
You need to practice some cultural relativism here.
Criminals do things that they know are wrong. A much bigger group of people simply don't regard what they're doing as wrong -- in fact, they think it would be wrong (depriving their shareholders, colleagues, and themselves of a deserved benefit) to cut anyone a break they don't have to.
Such folks will always push the edge in representing their capabilitie and intentions, and try to structure contracts with devious back doors and hidden traps ... and they will often out and out misrepresent capabilities and intentions on the front end, and breach their contracts on the back end, when they calculate that they have more to gain by doing so than not (i.e., can you afford to sue, and what damages could you be awarded and collect, and at what expense).
You identify these organizations by reputation and by (regretable) experience. Once you identify them, you refuse to deal with them, or if you don't have a choice, you simply only deal with them in a way that denies them the compass to mess with you. Require big deposits for sales of goods and services. Don't give deposits or pay COD. Personally inspect goods before taking delivery or purchases of goods and services. Demand letters of credit and personal guarantees. Sue if you get less than you bargained for, and force them to sue you if they demand you give them more than they bargained for. This can be expensive, but at the end of the day every organization that takes a "sheer all sheep" attitude in general has any number of counterparties whom it is unwilling to mistreat.
posted by MattD at 11:19 AM on July 3, 2011
Criminals do things that they know are wrong. A much bigger group of people simply don't regard what they're doing as wrong -- in fact, they think it would be wrong (depriving their shareholders, colleagues, and themselves of a deserved benefit) to cut anyone a break they don't have to.
Such folks will always push the edge in representing their capabilitie and intentions, and try to structure contracts with devious back doors and hidden traps ... and they will often out and out misrepresent capabilities and intentions on the front end, and breach their contracts on the back end, when they calculate that they have more to gain by doing so than not (i.e., can you afford to sue, and what damages could you be awarded and collect, and at what expense).
You identify these organizations by reputation and by (regretable) experience. Once you identify them, you refuse to deal with them, or if you don't have a choice, you simply only deal with them in a way that denies them the compass to mess with you. Require big deposits for sales of goods and services. Don't give deposits or pay COD. Personally inspect goods before taking delivery or purchases of goods and services. Demand letters of credit and personal guarantees. Sue if you get less than you bargained for, and force them to sue you if they demand you give them more than they bargained for. This can be expensive, but at the end of the day every organization that takes a "sheer all sheep" attitude in general has any number of counterparties whom it is unwilling to mistreat.
posted by MattD at 11:19 AM on July 3, 2011
I had a small business. Sometimes, people were jerks. Sometimes, people were confused, had a way of explaining/billing/corresponding that didn't make sense to me, whatever. Act as if everyone has good intentions. Dear Business Guy Name[handwritten if not email], As stated in our contract, blah, blah. I've fulfilled my part of the contract, and I anticipate that you will fulfill yours. Please let me know of any questions or concerns, so that we may resolve this promptly. Best, Jacobean
Anger doesn't make people behave better. Occasionally, you will "catch somebody being a jerk" who is merely mis-communicating. Always assume it's the latter, and behave graciously, while still being clear about the expectations. It will save the occasional client who is not actually a jerk. It's better for your mental health and blood pressure, and it also saves you, once in a while, from being the jerk.
posted by theora55 at 11:20 AM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
Anger doesn't make people behave better. Occasionally, you will "catch somebody being a jerk" who is merely mis-communicating. Always assume it's the latter, and behave graciously, while still being clear about the expectations. It will save the occasional client who is not actually a jerk. It's better for your mental health and blood pressure, and it also saves you, once in a while, from being the jerk.
posted by theora55 at 11:20 AM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: There is something deeply catharthic about getting one of these jerks on the phone (never by email - gives them too much think time), reading out a previous email / communication and then asking them "now tell me which part of this deal was not delivered upon". The silence is glorious. Their vocabulary of corporate speak does´nt usually have an answer for it. They mumble. They tell you they have a meeting to attend. They hate you for it. They hate it that their ruse has been blown. The great thing about this approach is that the next call you get is from their accounts department wanting to pay up...because they know that you know their BS has been seen through. But you lose them, as clients forever.
posted by jacobean at 11:35 AM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by jacobean at 11:35 AM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
People in a position to pay bills want to pay late for cash flow purposes, and even then they drag their feet because they are lazy.
posted by blargerz at 11:41 AM on July 3, 2011
posted by blargerz at 11:41 AM on July 3, 2011
You seem to think you can read your client's mind. Perhaps the client legitimately did believe that K was included in the contract- and, upon your snarky phone call, realize that they now have to handle K by themselves with even less time than anticipated. Don't presume malice when the answer may be simple ignorance and stress.
posted by samthemander at 11:48 AM on July 3, 2011
posted by samthemander at 11:48 AM on July 3, 2011
Solution:
Grow your business so you can dump these clients.
posted by Vaike at 11:48 AM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
Grow your business so you can dump these clients.
posted by Vaike at 11:48 AM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
Well, when a client says - at payment time, (funily enough), that X Y Z and K was promised.
You tell them K was never part of deal. This is what annoys me. They will use something small, something that never even came into the equation during negotiations to try to eschew payment.
In the many years I've worked in purchasing and sales in small businesses, I've seen this particular tactic more times than I could ever count. Unfortunately, it appears to be just a sad fact of business life. It hurts to have a client with whom you've had what you thought was a very solid and honest business relationship suddenly try to get away with something underhanded...particularly when they say "I distinctly recall you telling me K was part of the deal" so earnestly that they manage to make you feel guilty for having the signed, detailed purchase order in your hand, as if you should feel ashamed for catching them in a lie. As an ethical human being, you rightfully feel offended and used, but to be honest a strong reprimand from you isn't going to change the client's business practices. It feels good to let off steam, but people that engage in cutthroat tactics aren't going to read your letter and have an epiphany: "My goodness! Jacobean's right - I've been terribly remiss! I must alter my ethics immediately!!" You can either continue to do business with them without comment, or perhaps subtly let them know you no longer trust them by insisting upon and maintaining a very detailed paper trail for each purchase - everything from the packaging to the FOB point must be officially acknowledged with a signature. When the client gets exasperated and asks "Why all this paperwork?" you can then explain that there have been questions/problems in the past and you want to avoid any future complications.
posted by Oriole Adams at 11:48 AM on July 3, 2011 [4 favorites]
You tell them K was never part of deal. This is what annoys me. They will use something small, something that never even came into the equation during negotiations to try to eschew payment.
In the many years I've worked in purchasing and sales in small businesses, I've seen this particular tactic more times than I could ever count. Unfortunately, it appears to be just a sad fact of business life. It hurts to have a client with whom you've had what you thought was a very solid and honest business relationship suddenly try to get away with something underhanded...particularly when they say "I distinctly recall you telling me K was part of the deal" so earnestly that they manage to make you feel guilty for having the signed, detailed purchase order in your hand, as if you should feel ashamed for catching them in a lie. As an ethical human being, you rightfully feel offended and used, but to be honest a strong reprimand from you isn't going to change the client's business practices. It feels good to let off steam, but people that engage in cutthroat tactics aren't going to read your letter and have an epiphany: "My goodness! Jacobean's right - I've been terribly remiss! I must alter my ethics immediately!!" You can either continue to do business with them without comment, or perhaps subtly let them know you no longer trust them by insisting upon and maintaining a very detailed paper trail for each purchase - everything from the packaging to the FOB point must be officially acknowledged with a signature. When the client gets exasperated and asks "Why all this paperwork?" you can then explain that there have been questions/problems in the past and you want to avoid any future complications.
posted by Oriole Adams at 11:48 AM on July 3, 2011 [4 favorites]
Similar to Lurgi's comment, it's important to keep in mind that this doesn't actually implicate ethics for you at all. Not really, anyway, or it shouldn't. As long as you are honest, etc., you are behaving ethically. Your last comment makes this clear -- it's all about the emotional feeling you get by doing this.
It might help you control your response to realize that it's just an emotional matter for you. Be irritated all you want, but you are the boss of your actions, and you can act out of that irritation if you want to -- at the cost of their business -- or you can decide to be privately pissed off but act in a way that will maintain their business.
posted by J. Wilson at 11:48 AM on July 3, 2011
It might help you control your response to realize that it's just an emotional matter for you. Be irritated all you want, but you are the boss of your actions, and you can act out of that irritation if you want to -- at the cost of their business -- or you can decide to be privately pissed off but act in a way that will maintain their business.
posted by J. Wilson at 11:48 AM on July 3, 2011
Sorry, hit post too soon.
Anyways, part of having your own business is to create your life the way you would like it to be. I see no reason to have these kind of clients bringing you down. Work a little more at generating more business so you have a greater freedom to pick and choose.
Meaning, I don't think you should change to accept the bad behavior of these clients. It will just take the joy out of your work.
posted by Vaike at 11:53 AM on July 3, 2011
Anyways, part of having your own business is to create your life the way you would like it to be. I see no reason to have these kind of clients bringing you down. Work a little more at generating more business so you have a greater freedom to pick and choose.
Meaning, I don't think you should change to accept the bad behavior of these clients. It will just take the joy out of your work.
posted by Vaike at 11:53 AM on July 3, 2011
When they do try to "pull a fast one" ... they get a very blunt and quite an abnoxious rebuke from me... I cannot help myself having a go at them. In reality ( and not surprisingly prehaps) i never see them again.
You obviously get considerable satisfaction from telling off these tricky players. Nobody is advocating that you let them take advantage of you. The question whether you lose them because you stand firm or you lose them because you are obnoxious and have a go at them. If 100% of these people don't come back because you correctly identified their game and refused to play (regardless of how you present it to them) then you might as well as get some satisfication in the process. However, if some of the people you mark as "tricky" either aren't really (although you seem to have ruled that out) or might be willing to do business with you on your terms if they see they can't do it on theirs then how you talk to them might make a difference in getting satisfactory repeat business. I'm sure some percentage of these businesses (maybe most) are just out to get what they can and if they can't get that extra from you, they will go somewhere else. But I would guess that some are trying to see what they can get away with, if they can't get away with anything extra from you but you otherwise provide good value, they may well come back if you haven't already told them to never darken your door again.
So, maybe do an experiment - try standing politely firm and see if any of them come back vs the current enjoyably rude response that yields a 0% return rate.
Note - this is not about your own ethics and it is not about caving into other people's unethical behavior it is just about whether you are willing to do business with people who will test your boundaries.
posted by metahawk at 11:56 AM on July 3, 2011 [6 favorites]
You obviously get considerable satisfaction from telling off these tricky players. Nobody is advocating that you let them take advantage of you. The question whether you lose them because you stand firm or you lose them because you are obnoxious and have a go at them. If 100% of these people don't come back because you correctly identified their game and refused to play (regardless of how you present it to them) then you might as well as get some satisfication in the process. However, if some of the people you mark as "tricky" either aren't really (although you seem to have ruled that out) or might be willing to do business with you on your terms if they see they can't do it on theirs then how you talk to them might make a difference in getting satisfactory repeat business. I'm sure some percentage of these businesses (maybe most) are just out to get what they can and if they can't get that extra from you, they will go somewhere else. But I would guess that some are trying to see what they can get away with, if they can't get away with anything extra from you but you otherwise provide good value, they may well come back if you haven't already told them to never darken your door again.
So, maybe do an experiment - try standing politely firm and see if any of them come back vs the current enjoyably rude response that yields a 0% return rate.
Note - this is not about your own ethics and it is not about caving into other people's unethical behavior it is just about whether you are willing to do business with people who will test your boundaries.
posted by metahawk at 11:56 AM on July 3, 2011 [6 favorites]
First understand that obnoxiousness in the service of ethical integrity is hardly a virtue. Justifying rudeness and aggressiveness (ala having a go at them) sounds less like an act of integrity and more like a power trip dressed up as an act of integrity.
i.e........
There is something deeply catharthic about getting one of these jerks on the phone (never by email - gives them too much think time), reading out a previous email / communication and then asking them "now tell me which part of this deal was not delivered upon". The silence is glorious.
If you so enjoy playing gotcha! with your clients, why ask for a better way to deal with them? Clearly you are getting something deeply satisfying out of their bad behavior and your method dealing with that bad behavior. Weigh this satisfaction against keeping their business and act accordingly.
Does something like "I'm sorry, the terms of our contract are xyz, as such, I will not be able to accommodate abc. If you'd like further clarification, I'd be happy to meet with you and discuss the matter" really accomplish less than what you are doing now? Or, "I'm sorry, this was never outlined in our agreement, in order to accommodate your request, we will have to addend/ renegotiate the terms of service."
If your communications are as clear as you say and your contracts are precise about what they are getting and what you are giving, there is no need to resort to rudeness. You need only refer back to the written agreement firmly, politely and, if necessary, repeatedly.
This may not guarantee that you will keep their business, but if you do loose it, it will be because you behaved ethically and not like a smug jerk.
posted by space_cookie at 12:02 PM on July 3, 2011 [4 favorites]
i.e........
There is something deeply catharthic about getting one of these jerks on the phone (never by email - gives them too much think time), reading out a previous email / communication and then asking them "now tell me which part of this deal was not delivered upon". The silence is glorious.
If you so enjoy playing gotcha! with your clients, why ask for a better way to deal with them? Clearly you are getting something deeply satisfying out of their bad behavior and your method dealing with that bad behavior. Weigh this satisfaction against keeping their business and act accordingly.
Does something like "I'm sorry, the terms of our contract are xyz, as such, I will not be able to accommodate abc. If you'd like further clarification, I'd be happy to meet with you and discuss the matter" really accomplish less than what you are doing now? Or, "I'm sorry, this was never outlined in our agreement, in order to accommodate your request, we will have to addend/ renegotiate the terms of service."
If your communications are as clear as you say and your contracts are precise about what they are getting and what you are giving, there is no need to resort to rudeness. You need only refer back to the written agreement firmly, politely and, if necessary, repeatedly.
This may not guarantee that you will keep their business, but if you do loose it, it will be because you behaved ethically and not like a smug jerk.
posted by space_cookie at 12:02 PM on July 3, 2011 [4 favorites]
Response by poster: "I'm sorry, this was never outlined in our agreement, in order to accommodate your request, we will have to addend/ renegotiate the terms of service."
The reason I don´t use this approach is that it is too light and the case will just drag on for weeks. It will become a energy-zapping and time wasting game of email tennis. Sometimes you have to put away the aspirin and get out the morphine.
posted by jacobean at 12:09 PM on July 3, 2011
The reason I don´t use this approach is that it is too light and the case will just drag on for weeks. It will become a energy-zapping and time wasting game of email tennis. Sometimes you have to put away the aspirin and get out the morphine.
posted by jacobean at 12:09 PM on July 3, 2011
Your question seems to essentially boil down to how you can humiliate clients who try to get out of part of their bill without losing their accounts.
Simple answer: you can't.
There are ways you could keep the business and still get paid for your work by remaining firm on adhering to the deals of the original agreement but in a more diplomatic manner that gives your client a way to comply without losing face. If you act like any attempt to screw you over is just an honest mistake on their part, you can continue to insist on getting your fair due without shaming your client and making him uncomfortable dealing with you in the future.
You might not get the same sense of emotional satisfaction from this type of phone call, so you'll have to decide whether or not the continued business is worth it to you. If it's not, you might want to spend some time considering how taking pleasure in humiliating people - even if they might deserve it - jibes with your personal sense of ethics. Any Christianity-based code would advise you to be arbiter of only your own behavior leave both judgement and retribution to God.
posted by patnasty at 12:10 PM on July 3, 2011 [3 favorites]
Simple answer: you can't.
There are ways you could keep the business and still get paid for your work by remaining firm on adhering to the deals of the original agreement but in a more diplomatic manner that gives your client a way to comply without losing face. If you act like any attempt to screw you over is just an honest mistake on their part, you can continue to insist on getting your fair due without shaming your client and making him uncomfortable dealing with you in the future.
You might not get the same sense of emotional satisfaction from this type of phone call, so you'll have to decide whether or not the continued business is worth it to you. If it's not, you might want to spend some time considering how taking pleasure in humiliating people - even if they might deserve it - jibes with your personal sense of ethics. Any Christianity-based code would advise you to be arbiter of only your own behavior leave both judgement and retribution to God.
posted by patnasty at 12:10 PM on July 3, 2011 [3 favorites]
"I'm sorry, this was never outlined in our agreement, in order to accommodate your request, we will have to addend/ renegotiate the terms of service."
The reason I don´t use this approach is that it is too light and the case will just drag on for weeks. It will become a energy-zapping and time wasting game of email tennis. Sometimes you have to put away the aspirin and get out the morphine.
It sounds like you had your answer before asking the question then. I agree that it probably will drag out a bit to have a negotiation. And, you may be correct that it shouldn't be necessary. On the other hand, if you can afford to lose the client entirely, you can probably afford the time delay financially. In that case, you have to recognize that it is you, not the client that makes the resultant discussion energy-zapping.
I have found in my experience that some people see everything as negotiable. It is part of the enjoyment of business to them. A contract is just a starting point. When I took an attitude like yours I'd only alienate them and make everyone miserable. If I participated in their game (well sure, you want this extra here now, but I need to cut back over there instead) often we could come to a resolution.
posted by meinvt at 12:45 PM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
The reason I don´t use this approach is that it is too light and the case will just drag on for weeks. It will become a energy-zapping and time wasting game of email tennis. Sometimes you have to put away the aspirin and get out the morphine.
It sounds like you had your answer before asking the question then. I agree that it probably will drag out a bit to have a negotiation. And, you may be correct that it shouldn't be necessary. On the other hand, if you can afford to lose the client entirely, you can probably afford the time delay financially. In that case, you have to recognize that it is you, not the client that makes the resultant discussion energy-zapping.
I have found in my experience that some people see everything as negotiable. It is part of the enjoyment of business to them. A contract is just a starting point. When I took an attitude like yours I'd only alienate them and make everyone miserable. If I participated in their game (well sure, you want this extra here now, but I need to cut back over there instead) often we could come to a resolution.
posted by meinvt at 12:45 PM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Well i guess I have to work out how much time I can spend playing weeks of email tennis and voicemail bingo. Personally, I hate doing emails and detest voicemail disputing transactions. The true value any business can create is by delivering quality work /value to a client. The temptation to take a sledgehammer to the case
is too strong...I want the to cut through the BS. Get paid. Close the case.
BUT, maybe I should do a cost benefit analysis. Maybe I should play along with the client...making them believe they have won.
posted by jacobean at 1:04 PM on July 3, 2011
is too strong...I want the to cut through the BS. Get paid. Close the case.
BUT, maybe I should do a cost benefit analysis. Maybe I should play along with the client...making them believe they have won.
posted by jacobean at 1:04 PM on July 3, 2011
There is something deeply catharthic about getting one of these jerks on the phone (never by email - gives them too much think time), reading out a previous email / communication and then asking them "now tell me which part of this deal was not delivered upon". The silence is glorious.
Dude. I'm extremely fair to my vendors. I want them to be successful because I believe that profitable vendors do a better job and are less of a burden to me.
But reading that. I don't want to deal with you. You're being malicious and taking great pleasure in it. Why would any client return to you?
posted by 26.2 at 1:07 PM on July 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
Dude. I'm extremely fair to my vendors. I want them to be successful because I believe that profitable vendors do a better job and are less of a burden to me.
But reading that. I don't want to deal with you. You're being malicious and taking great pleasure in it. Why would any client return to you?
posted by 26.2 at 1:07 PM on July 3, 2011 [2 favorites]
Years ago, I fretted endlessly about whether I was being "scammed" or "ripped off" or "taken advantage of" ... now I don't give a shit.
I care about the quality of my work, and if I'm paid fair for the work. It's business. I fully expect some customers to try to get more for their money than what they agreed to. In most cases I know ahead of time which customers are predisposed to this type of behavior and I adjust my quotes accordingly. Stall and delay on payment, I add 15% to the estimate next time to cover for a potential "pay up" letter from my attorney or a few extra phone calls.
I don't pick fights. I don't shame anyone. I merely point out the "issue" with their interpretation of the contract and request payment. I stay firm and polite.
I have several lucrative long-term business relationships with companies that push every payment boundary. We play a silly game and I get paid (often much more than industry standard) for those clients. It's amazing how little stress it causes me know, mainly because I know I'm making MORE because of their bullshit.
posted by foggy out there now at 1:20 PM on July 3, 2011 [8 favorites]
I care about the quality of my work, and if I'm paid fair for the work. It's business. I fully expect some customers to try to get more for their money than what they agreed to. In most cases I know ahead of time which customers are predisposed to this type of behavior and I adjust my quotes accordingly. Stall and delay on payment, I add 15% to the estimate next time to cover for a potential "pay up" letter from my attorney or a few extra phone calls.
I don't pick fights. I don't shame anyone. I merely point out the "issue" with their interpretation of the contract and request payment. I stay firm and polite.
I have several lucrative long-term business relationships with companies that push every payment boundary. We play a silly game and I get paid (often much more than industry standard) for those clients. It's amazing how little stress it causes me know, mainly because I know I'm making MORE because of their bullshit.
posted by foggy out there now at 1:20 PM on July 3, 2011 [8 favorites]
Response by poster: foggy, very interesting answer...how do you find your strategy from a time management perspective. I know you add a premium for potentially troublesome clients but do you ever get frustrated you´re working on a case that is technically "finished" but it still ongoing?
posted by jacobean at 1:27 PM on July 3, 2011
posted by jacobean at 1:27 PM on July 3, 2011
Isn't it what sports are for ? Men are yelling , players are punching and kicking each other and having all that enjoyment and venting of frustrations after days of doing what is good for the business , controlling and restraining themselves at work .
This way you don't need to have catharthic moments nor with your clients , nor with your family... Sorry , I used to be a wife of this kind of righteous man , I left him for the same reason that his clients did .
posted by Oli D. at 1:38 PM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
This way you don't need to have catharthic moments nor with your clients , nor with your family... Sorry , I used to be a wife of this kind of righteous man , I left him for the same reason that his clients did .
posted by Oli D. at 1:38 PM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
jacobean: I think foggy is saying he's already charged for the frustration so it would be unfair to bring this frustration to the client since it's already paid for.
posted by rainy at 1:39 PM on July 3, 2011
posted by rainy at 1:39 PM on July 3, 2011
Hire an assistant to deal with billing hassles and other admin stuff. You save time and aggravation.
posted by J. Wilson at 1:43 PM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by J. Wilson at 1:43 PM on July 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
Try to see such situations as opportunities for the up-sell.
They want K thrown in? State that it isn't - point to the contract - be polite and understanding, and put the opportunity in front of them to spend more money and get K (if they really want it.)
If there's a chance of stuff beyond K, decide if you want to offer them a discount on K, if they pay up promptly for the earlier stuff.
posted by blue_wardrobe at 1:53 PM on July 3, 2011
They want K thrown in? State that it isn't - point to the contract - be polite and understanding, and put the opportunity in front of them to spend more money and get K (if they really want it.)
If there's a chance of stuff beyond K, decide if you want to offer them a discount on K, if they pay up promptly for the earlier stuff.
posted by blue_wardrobe at 1:53 PM on July 3, 2011
Best answer: > I know you add a premium for potentially troublesome clients but do you ever get frustrated you´re working on a case that is technically "finished" but it still ongoing?
From my point of view, it's not "technically" finished until I'm paid by those "troublesome" customers. With those customers, I'm being paid for my work AND for the cost of playing accounting head games with them. In most cases it's just little crap where the troublesome customer wants something done in a manner that wasn't in the original spec. I'll push back a bit for the sake of their little game, then I'll agree to do it if I feel that it is reasonably within the allotted "overrun."
I have an "internal spec" that assumes that those problem customers are going to pull a 10-20% time overrun because that's just the way those customers are. If you can estimate their bullshit ahead of time, then you can factor it into your quote and just deal with it in a way that reduces your angst. It's all relative of course; occasionally I've had to throw up my hands and wade deep into the crazy, but that's super rare. Mainly I just try to factor in the potential angst and move on.
posted by foggy out there now at 2:28 PM on July 3, 2011 [5 favorites]
From my point of view, it's not "technically" finished until I'm paid by those "troublesome" customers. With those customers, I'm being paid for my work AND for the cost of playing accounting head games with them. In most cases it's just little crap where the troublesome customer wants something done in a manner that wasn't in the original spec. I'll push back a bit for the sake of their little game, then I'll agree to do it if I feel that it is reasonably within the allotted "overrun."
I have an "internal spec" that assumes that those problem customers are going to pull a 10-20% time overrun because that's just the way those customers are. If you can estimate their bullshit ahead of time, then you can factor it into your quote and just deal with it in a way that reduces your angst. It's all relative of course; occasionally I've had to throw up my hands and wade deep into the crazy, but that's super rare. Mainly I just try to factor in the potential angst and move on.
posted by foggy out there now at 2:28 PM on July 3, 2011 [5 favorites]
Isn't this what escrow is for? A third party holds the payment so as not to allow the payer decide when a contract is fulfilled.
posted by axiom at 7:36 PM on July 3, 2011
posted by axiom at 7:36 PM on July 3, 2011
Ethics/integrity is about being honest, not cheating anyone, and doing what is in your customer's interest, rather than doing just what will make you the most money.
It *doesn't* mean you are obligated to tell off your customers or expose their dishonesty. There's nothing ethically compromising about negotiating extra charges for more features, just because it entails more work for you. There's nothing ethical or integrity preserving about sending an indignant email about why the customer is wrong and you are right. There's nothing unethical or dishonest about it, either, it's just that these episodes of yours are orthogonal to your desire to maintain your integrity.
I guess the question is why your own personal sense of ethics involve telling customers off when they are uncooperative or try to squeeze something out of you that theyre not due.
One approach could be to refrain from turning charges for extra features into a negotiation game. Show three solutions with different prices. The prices themselves aren't negotiable: if the customer wants to pay less, he can pay for the less expensive option. That way the customer has the chance to get something he wants, and you avoid the ping-pong of renegotiating something you though was over with.
posted by deanc at 7:51 PM on July 3, 2011
It *doesn't* mean you are obligated to tell off your customers or expose their dishonesty. There's nothing ethically compromising about negotiating extra charges for more features, just because it entails more work for you. There's nothing ethical or integrity preserving about sending an indignant email about why the customer is wrong and you are right. There's nothing unethical or dishonest about it, either, it's just that these episodes of yours are orthogonal to your desire to maintain your integrity.
I guess the question is why your own personal sense of ethics involve telling customers off when they are uncooperative or try to squeeze something out of you that theyre not due.
One approach could be to refrain from turning charges for extra features into a negotiation game. Show three solutions with different prices. The prices themselves aren't negotiable: if the customer wants to pay less, he can pay for the less expensive option. That way the customer has the chance to get something he wants, and you avoid the ping-pong of renegotiating something you though was over with.
posted by deanc at 7:51 PM on July 3, 2011
Could changing your quote / billing model (perhaps only on some line items; perhaps on all) help?
Eg.: Change quotes from "flat fee" to "estimated T&M" ... that way you might shift some of the cost of their jerking you around back on them.
Eg. II: Set-out milestones in the contract, then bill and collect on a "percent completion" basis (make sure you get a PO number up-front).
Eg. III: Eg. II also helps in another way: If you get jerked around on the final payment and collection looks increasingly unlikely, you might be able to sue in small claims court ... When they don't show up you can hand the photocopy you made of an earlier check to the sheriff who will bring that and your judgment to the back to extract your payment.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:52 PM on July 3, 2011
Eg.: Change quotes from "flat fee" to "estimated T&M" ... that way you might shift some of the cost of their jerking you around back on them.
Eg. II: Set-out milestones in the contract, then bill and collect on a "percent completion" basis (make sure you get a PO number up-front).
Eg. III: Eg. II also helps in another way: If you get jerked around on the final payment and collection looks increasingly unlikely, you might be able to sue in small claims court ... When they don't show up you can hand the photocopy you made of an earlier check to the sheriff who will bring that and your judgment to the back to extract your payment.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:52 PM on July 3, 2011
"Bank," not "back." Perhaps the back of the bank.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:55 PM on July 3, 2011
posted by ZenMasterThis at 7:55 PM on July 3, 2011
You may enjoy this talk from Mike Montiero of Mule Design, which is largely about dealing with difficult, tricky or cheap customers who try to wiggle out of things. There's a great Q&A at the end with his lawyer who deals with the difficult cases.
posted by Happy Dave at 2:46 AM on July 4, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by Happy Dave at 2:46 AM on July 4, 2011 [5 favorites]
« Older What sort of device do I need to do in-home... | Desperately Seeking A Monstrous Psychedelic Bubble... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
For me, I've made the rest of my life as resilient as possible. Low debt, low overhead, low consumption, fewer desires. That way if you need to tell the business part of your life to "take a walk" your real life can bend and stretch. Let's you stick to your guns and not compromise your ethics.
Congratulations on your success.
posted by humboldt32 at 10:43 AM on July 3, 2011 [9 favorites]