When I Say No, I Feel Guilty (30 page)

In the next dialogue, we see how a job applicant copes with a situation many of us would like to find ourselves in: assertively making no commitment to a possible employer while choosing the best of two offers of work.

Dialogue #20
Carl copes with a manipulative
movie producer.

Carl is a talented young actor with three movie roles that have earned him good reviews. Because of his success, he and his agent planned a campaign for his screen career that involves careful review and selection of any roles he is offered in the future to get the most financial and professional achievement out of them.

Carl knows that he is talented and has the potential to become a sought-after actor. Unfortunately, Carl also feels that he must do everything desired by the producers he deals with to maintain their goodwill or he might be passed by. Carl’s belief that he must act like a “goody two shoes” toward producers is unsupported by reality. Carl’s assumption that talent alone is not sufficient to be successful is quite correct. His assumption that the goodwill of these producers is essential to his success is not correct. Evidence to the contrary is available to Carl and all his peers, but is misinterpreted by them. The three actors in the movie industry who work whenever they want and pick and choose their jobs are George C. Scott, Marlon Brando, and Peter Falk. These gentlemen behave publicly as if they do not feel they require the goodwill of producers or indeed certain other segments of the movie industry, and they are reputed to be very assertive in their private dealings in negotiating movie roles and contracts as well. Although equally great acting talent is not common to all three of these gentlemen, a high degree of assertiveness is. To Carl and his fellow actors in his group, these three persons are viewed as eccentrics or “crazies” since they are not manipulable and find it easy to assertively demand what they require for themselves and typically get it. Carl himself is amazed at their finding work consistently but writes off their successes as something peculiar to their personalities and places himself in an infantile, or at best childlike, relationship to his possible employers.

At the time of this dialogue, I was consulting for a drama study group that included Carl, a former Broadway musical star, and other young actors and actresses whose faces were so familiar from their TV commercials but had no names to go with them. I was consulting on how to be systematically assertive to casting directors, reading committees, directors, production assistants, producers and the whole lot of fringe “backers,” “experts,” “critics,” and “gofers” that the actor must cope with. Carl brought up a problem of being pressured and manipulated by the producer of a film soon to go into production. Carl’s agent has two possible contracted roles in negotiation, one of them with this producer. His agent may recommend that he take one over the other, neither, or even both if scheduling commitments could be worked out. The producer, on the other hand, wanted Carl to sign a production contract with him immediately. Carl’s agent meanwhile was negotiating on the second possible role. Carl did not want to tell the producer that he was considering another role in place of the one being offered for fear that he would lose the producer’s goodwill on future negotiations or that the producer would use this information to foul up the negotiations on the other contract. In short, Carl had a problem in communicating his desire not to make a commitment immediately and to negotiate a commitment time limit sufficient to decide which role to contract for. Carl had had an encounter with the producer shortly before the consultation with me; he had begged off giving his decision but had promised to see him as soon as possible. The following coached dialogue was set up in the drama group to allow Carl to practice being systematically assertive in avoiding a premature commitment without being rude, short, apologetic, or making the producer angry or insulting him. Although the setting of this situation dialogue is the exotic cinematographic production business, systematically asserting oneself to one’s present or future employer to avoid a manipulated commitment is equally applicable in almost all other life occupations.

Setting of the dialogue: Carl is seated in Mr. Mogul’s office as the producer breezes through the waiting room, greets Carl, and whisks him into his inner office.

PRODUCER
: Carl, this is the role for you. If this doesn’t make it for you, nothing will. I’ve just come from upstairs and everybody is really enthusiastic over you playing the role of Marvin.

CARL
: That’s great.
I agree with them. I think I could do a good job on it too
. [FOGGING]

PRODUCER
: Fabulous! All we need is the contract signed and we’ll have a drink on it.

CARL
: Great! I’ll have the drink if I sign, but
I still want some time to decide
. [SELF-DISCLOSURE]

PRODUCER
: What do you need time for? It’s a great part and the money’s good. Hal thinks so too. He’s your agent and he negotiated the terms.

CARL
:
I agree
, but
I don’t want to make a commitment yet
. [FOGGING and BROKEN RECORD]

PRODUCER
: Carl, we really want you on this production. I’ve worked hard upstairs to get the rest of the staff enthusiastic for you. We all want you now. Don’t let me down after all the trouble I went to for you.

CARL
:
I hope I don’t disappoint you, Sol
, but
I still don’t want to make a commitment right now
. [SELF-DISCLOSURE and BROKEN RECORD]

PRODUCER
: We leave for location in two weeks. We need a commitment right now. Don’t pass up this part, Carl.

CARL
:
You’re probably right, Sol, so how long can you give me to decide?
[FOGGING and WORKABLE COMPROMISE]

PRODUCER
: I’ll need your signature by tomorrow.

CARL
:
I’m sure you do, Sol
, but that’s not enough time for me.
How about if I let you know before you leave for location?
That’s two weeks. That should be enough time for me to decide. [FOGGING and WORKABLE COMPROMISE]

PRODUCER
: Carl! We can’t do that. We’d have to break off production and come back here to get a replacement if you said no; screw up the whole schedule!

CARL
:
I don’t understand
. Don’t you have a second choice picked out? [SELF-DISCLOSURE]

PRODUCER
: Not yet. We haven’t found anyone near you for this part. If you don’t sign, Carl, you’ll be missing a great role.

CARL
:
You’re probably right, Sol
, but
I still want some time to decide
. Let’s look at the calendar. You leave on the twenty-eighth, right?
I’ll give you my decision on the twenty-third
. That would give you five working days to find someone else, if I say no. How’s that sound? [FOGGING, BROKEN RECORD, and WORKABLE COMPROMISE]

PRODUCER
: That’s cutting it very close for me, Carl.

CARL
:
I’m sure it is, Sol
, but
I need time
and you need time.
This gives us both some leeway
. [FOGGING, BROKEN RECORD, and WORKABLE COMPROMISE]

PRODUCER
: You give me no choice. What way is that to be after all I’ve done for you?

CARL
:
You’re right, Sol, it’s a hell of a way to operate. I wish I could let you know that I would sign
, but
I’m not going to make a commitment right now
. [FOGGING, SELF-DISCLOSURE, and BROKEN RECORD]

PRODUCER
: If you decide earlier, you will let me know right away?

CARL
: Of course I will, Sol.
As soon as I decide
. [WORKABLE COMPROMISE]

PRODUCER
: We’re counting on you for this part.

CARL
:
I know you are, Sol
, and
I want to take it
, but
I just need more time
. [SELF-DISCLOSURE and BROKEN RECORD]

I was amazed at the quickness Carl displayed in being able to pick up the elements of the assertive skills and use them after only a small amount of explanation and coaching (less than three hours and several bottles of California wine). Perhaps the quickness was due to his excellent skill as an actor; he was familiar with role-playing. All he needed to do was learn a new script. As things turned out, Carl learned his new, more
assertive role very well. In his meeting with the producer, Carl got what he wanted, a delay in commitment that was to prove very important to him. After his agent finished negotiations with the second production company, they both decided the second offer was the better of the two deals, and took it. As a result, Carl spent six enviable months on a tropical island perfecting his craft while working with and learning from a major star and consummate actor but keeping his word to the first producer to let him know by a scheduled time.

While Carl’s success story is interesting and a glamorous one to tell, you might ask, as did my New York editor (and Carl himself at the time of my consultation), what could Carl say if Sol the producer said something like: “Commitment, commitment! Whaddya really mean?” Carl, like Carlo in the chapter on BROKEN RECORD, was instructed that just because Sol says or asks him something does not mean that Carl has to give an answer or response in any way related to what the producer says. The following short dialogue illustrates this point:

SOL
: Carl. What the hell is holding you up? Commitment, commitment! Whaddya really mean?

CARL
: I understand you want an answer now, Sol, but I won’t give a commitment until the twenty-third.

SOL
: Your agent agrees to this. Don’t you?

CARL
: I understand how you feel, Sol. You want me to sign right now, but I won’t have an answer until the twenty-third.

SOL
: Are you into another part? Is that what this is all about?

CARL
: I understand how that possibility would worry you, Sol, but I won’t have an answer for you until the twenty-third.

As you can see from this short, hypothetical dialogue, all Carl really needed to field anything Sol the producer could throw at him was an emphatic but persistent and unflappable BROKEN RECORD response.

In the next set of dialogues, we see a problem area related to “show biz,” i.e., assertively coping with large groups of people while speaking publicly, giving an invited talk, presenting a report,
etc.

Dialogue #21
Susan demonstrates how to deal
with criticism of her
public-speaking
ability.

Recently, my good friend and colleague, Ms. Susan Levine, MSW, was invited to give a two-hour talk to a local meeting of the National Association of Social Workers. While Sue was specifically requested to talk on how to train clients to be more assertive, the subject of her talk—systematic assertive therapy—is not the point of this dialogue. Comfortably presenting your views in public is. A number of learners, like teachers, sales managers, etc., who spoke in public regularly on a variety of subjects have reported experiences identical to Sue’s in using this method of overcoming anxiety in public speaking.

Sue bad never before given an invited presentation to a group of her peers and, like most people, she was a bit nervous and apprehensive about how well she would carry it off. I could empathize with her feelings, remembering how nervous I was the first time I had to speak to a professional group. My assumption about Sue’s predicament was that she was feeling the same about her first invited talk as I had about mine: knowing the material, yet feeling unsure of herself and her speaking abilities. In spite of all her experience and competence, Sue found that there is something about that first invited talk that strikes fear in the hearts of us all. Perhaps because of this irrational anxiety, she asked me if. I would role-play the manipulative parts in her demonstration of the assertive verbal skills—to be her “second banana” on the speaker’s dais and be manipulative upon her cue. I agreed, and as it turned out, Susan overcame her anxiety, gave a great talk to the association
of social workers, I had a great prime rib dinner, and we both had a lot of fan. I could not help but notice, however, and my observation was later confirmed by Susan, that up to the point of demonstrating the skill of FOGGING, she was a bit tense. After that role-playing she was completely relaxed and at ease with her audience, no matter what comments or questions they posed … even the hostile ones! Her more relaxed attitude was a result of what we did in the FOGGING demonstration. Sue asked me, in front of her audience, to criticize her presentation, even to invent criticism if I couldn’t find specifics to fault her on. As you can see from the following dialogue, my critique of Sue was worse than anything she could have rationally expected from her audience. My critique, however, went to the heart of the irrational anxiety many of us have about public speaking and she was able to cope with it by FOGGING and completely eliminate it in a real, in-vivo speaking situation. After she extinguished my critical enthusiasm, she asked the audience with a devilish glint in her eye if they would like to take up where I had pooped out She got no takers.

If you have a problem similar to Sue’s (like other novice speakers), you can ask your audience to criticize your talk after you give it—or even before (NEGATIVE ASSERTION!)—to help you improve your speaking style. You men respond to criticism with FOGGING (and perhaps with NEGATIVE INQUIRY if their critique poops out too fast). This method has been used in dry run or mock practice presentations as well as in real talks by learners to reduce public-speaking anxiety with good results. In such a practice, you would have your friends or associates (as many as you can muster) criticize your style and manner of giving your talk while you respond to each criticism with FOGGING, as Sue’s dialogue shows.