5 Now consider these questions: 1. What was the common ground that Susan established in the beginning of the discussion? Susan noted that it was in the management company’s own interest to decrease risks to their residents, and identified a risk that needed to be addressed – her risk of falling. 2. How did Susan benefit from asking for an explanation and listening to the response? Instead of telling John the reasons she was upset about the denial – possibly putting him on the defensive – Susan asked the company’s reasons for the denial and listened. By doing so, she quickly identified the misunderstanding that led to the denial. 3. When she wanted a quicker response, did Susan persuade John, or was she pushy? Susan provided a persuasive reason that the company should be motivated to give her a quick response. As Susan and John had agreed earlier, it’s important for the company to manage their risk, so answering Susan quickly was in their interests. When John said he was unsure if he could speed up the process, Susan accepted that answer. 4. How did Susan close the meeting on good terms? Susan thanked John for his time and effort, and let him know that she would be following up. Leaving on such a positive note increased the chance that John would act on her behalf. 5. How could the situation have gone differently if Susan treated John as an adversary? Susan knew her rights and knew they were being violated. She could have taken an adversarial approach, arguing with John, or even going right to a lawyer. Though she probably would have prevailed in the end, it might have taken considerably more time, effort, and money to get the same results. TIP: We live in an information age. People want facts, and they want them quickly and concisely. Written materials in either printed or digital format supporting your cause are a valuable tool.