How the collector of debts works? Episode the third.
Why? Yes because our dear borrower does not want to draw conclusions. He wants that to it it was told: it here white, and this here black. And business here at all not that to it laziness to draw own conclusion. No, to it not laziness to draw own conclusion. It is terrible to it to draw own conclusion.
Because it will be its own conclusion, and responsibility for this conclusion should be born independently.
A if in the credit agreement wrote to it that it here - white, and this here - black, and as a result it will appear on the contrary, he does not bear any responsibility for it. It you can always tell: I was deceived.
That is our debtor trusts because lie to it but because he does not want to trust. And taking the credit, he wants that he was deceived. Because it relieves responsibility from it.
If the bank deceived, so the bank, and at all not the borrower who does not read the contract and does not think the head is guilty. If the manager of bank deceives, so the manager, but not the borrower to which laziness to compare two or three sources business of information is guilty.
is Anyway guilty someone another, but not it. It is never guilty of anything. Just all deceived him and always deceive.
Such is philosophy of the modern Russian borrower, in the near future of the client of my collection agency. It was the answer to the question “ who is guilty? “.
of the Answer to the question “ what to do? “ at me is not present. Though it also is on a surface. to Listen to
. To listen attentively. To listen to Zainteresovanno. Not to interrupt though I will hear all these mantras in the 100-th and in thousand time.
Learn “to tell
Ya I do not doubt that I will hear it every day or each hour, or every other day or in each hour. It is my professional task to learn “to listen“, learn “to speak silently“.
to Empathize, sympathize, but to think and pursue the aim: to help the got confused debtor to be exempted from bias, financial stagnancy, an economic uzkolobost, tendency to groundless generalizations.
It of course is difficult. Even it is terrible: how many and what tasks will rise before me. But I will try: I will communicate with professionals, I will be engaged in self-education, I will listen to councils of the best, I will read a lot of special literature and I all the same will master this difficult, but such interesting science “chelovekovedeniye“. to what do I have to be ready
K? To categorical statements “rested“ which rows all all alike: - “there are no good bankers, bankers bad people“; “nobody ever will agree to debt restructuring“.
To groundless generalizations: “creditors think only to themselves, of the profits, and the debtor for them “the swine and a reptile“. It will be extremely difficult to shift rested from this prejudiced opinion (Oops! One more categorical generalization! You see how it is easy to make it and to become numb in it is mute?) .
Information to reflection.
Strategy of “obstinacy“ (as it happens): Bias and an obstinacy often result from the fact that for their owners there is only one prospect - their own. And debtors make absolutely incorrect decisions from - that simply ignore other points of view on a situation whom it is possible to call, at least, two.
is an opinion of the collector (as the consultant - the assistant) involved in this situation, and an objective picture of a credit situation “rested“ (as debtor) in general. They often transfer the picture of the world to the others, seeking to protect interests of others, but only not themselves. It is easier for them to tell the word “us“, than “me“. It is more free to argue on the subjects “we“ than “ya“. They are such, I know it. And my knowledge gives me strength and vent to work with same as they, - “rested“.
So what we can oppose to them? I have to object softly, giving to their words a bit different sense or interrogative intonation, i.e. “All bankers bad people?“, or “Creditors think only of themselves, and the debtor for them the swine?“, “Nobody ever will agree to debt restructuring?“. They can answer it with something it seems: “I used to know one banker living in a nashemdoma, and so he with anybody, never greeted“; “I once asked about a payment delay, so did not want even to talk to me“; “How these operators look at us? We that for them “last“, perhaps?“
In this case I have to specify quantity of cases on the example of which it builds the judgments: “How many such bankers you met?“ etc.
to Specify and ask, specify and ask.
to Ask again and specify.
to Retell his statements, but already with interrogative intonations.
Continuous game in “a ping - a pong“ where chances of the parties are equal. But in a prize there have to be both.
Ya has to return money to bank, it has to restore the status of the responsible and serious borrower. And we will win if we move in common to the general for us the purpose.
Everything will strictly occur according to Kant who said that he will never be tired to be surprised to two things - to the star sky over the head and to the moral law in us.