How psychological aikido saved my relationship with a client
In the first year of my journo career I was welcomed by a fitness glossy editor to pitch in some article ideas. So I did, and she replied with,
In the following days the editor regularly dropped me letters showing interest in the work. Finally I pitched in the article and an immediate answer was,
But I made a pause to take a walk and cool down. Having restored the ability to self-analyse, I realised that my chances to sell the article to anyone else were neglectable. Reworking the article for the same editor looked an easier option than looking for a new buyer and a new theme from the ground up. Besides, if I split up that moment, the memory of the failure would torture me years on.
If only I could understand what exactly the editor disliked! The „not-interested-thank-you“ conclusion evoked an image of a sharply shut mouth in my mind so I thought that she wasn’t going to play a nurse for me.
Yet I guessed that she might just be in a bad temper while reading the article. I knew from experience that bosses are prone to casting peremptory judgements like „gain nothing“ or „no systematization is provided“ when they feel down.
By that time I was practicing psychological aikido, a conflict preventing technique developed by a brilliant Russian psychologist Michail Litvak. Basically, its rule of thumb is „find good in other person’s vice and acknowledge it, find bad in your virtues and admit it“. It reframed my task to the question „what bad thing in her was really a good one?“
It was easy. I wrote,
Did you notice that instead of arguing I had found a euphemistic way to prove that the judgement about „a two-minute search on the Web“ was wrong?
To find out if she’d really written me out or not, I also offered an idea for another article. And finished the letter with,
The answer was,
Your angle is quite enticing so I commission you this article.Being a novice in journalism, I jumped with joy as a puppy.
In the following days the editor regularly dropped me letters showing interest in the work. Finally I pitched in the article and an immediate answer was,
Having read the material I’m about to say that readers will gain nothing from it. What’s more, it all looks like a non-systematic fact list, compiled through a two-minute search on the Web. No interpretation, nor systematization, nor fact checking provided. The magazine is not interested in such an article. Thank you.I felt dizzy to loss of orientation. Ten minutes later I had restored ability to think and feel, and anger came. For all my hard work I now receive this??? Fine, I’m gonna sell the damn article to some other edition and through with this lady!
But I made a pause to take a walk and cool down. Having restored the ability to self-analyse, I realised that my chances to sell the article to anyone else were neglectable. Reworking the article for the same editor looked an easier option than looking for a new buyer and a new theme from the ground up. Besides, if I split up that moment, the memory of the failure would torture me years on.
If only I could understand what exactly the editor disliked! The „not-interested-thank-you“ conclusion evoked an image of a sharply shut mouth in my mind so I thought that she wasn’t going to play a nurse for me.
Yet I guessed that she might just be in a bad temper while reading the article. I knew from experience that bosses are prone to casting peremptory judgements like „gain nothing“ or „no systematization is provided“ when they feel down.
By that time I was practicing psychological aikido, a conflict preventing technique developed by a brilliant Russian psychologist Michail Litvak. Basically, its rule of thumb is „find good in other person’s vice and acknowledge it, find bad in your virtues and admit it“. It reframed my task to the question „what bad thing in her was really a good one?“
It was easy. I wrote,
Thank you for the remarks. You were so kind to take time and explain why you disliked the article (most editors would silently move it to the trash folder).I had reflected further on the work and got hold of my biggest mistake, which turned out to be a typical one for my previous works. I hope you will permit me to rework it thoroughly using the four interviews I had already made.
Did you notice that instead of arguing I had found a euphemistic way to prove that the judgement about „a two-minute search on the Web“ was wrong?
To find out if she’d really written me out or not, I also offered an idea for another article. And finished the letter with,
May be you keep in mind some topics you would be especially happy to cover?Thus I hoped to shift the editor’s perception of herself from a „difficult client“ to a „wise supervisor“.
The answer was,
Hello Roma.I think if you could develop a practical vector in the article that would be good… (a list of sound tips followed, put in a very delicate and friendly tone)She went on,
Considering my reaction, working with authors is a part of my daily job. I’m sure that any person with an aptitude for learning and writing and not a complete idiot can be trained to become a fine journalist. I assume, other editors that you had met in your life had a different style. So good luck with your writing and do ask questions have you any doubt. Better collaborate in the process then rewrite completely ready articles. It will remain true at least until I’m confident that you’ve honed the magazine’s format and know my requirements for the articles.Could not wish for the better; I had hit the bullseye! The magazine followed up with commissioning me many good articles and was my best client for the whole next year. The editor continued to give me helpful tips which really improved my professional level. I was even given a news column.
Comments