Kat Cole faced a dilemma in her job as a Hooters server.
Every week a young man came in with his buddies and ordered a plate of 50 wings. When it was time for the check, he complained that they only received 40 and demanded a discount. This would’ve been fine once, but it was happening every week.
The customer is always right. But what do you do about it?
The situation Cole faced was a classic conflict of wills. Either she had to convince the customer that he was wrong and had to pay the full bill, or she had to give in and accept he was going to get a discount every time.
A conflict of wills is a no-win situation. The more you try to convince the other that you’re right and they are wrong, the more entrenched they will get. In fact, in many situations, unhealthy people will bait you into a conflict of wills to avoid dealing with something else and taking responsibility for self.
For example, if a congregant is dealing with an unhappy situation with his family of origin, he may take it out on the pastor by criticizing the upcoming budget (I actually know a situation where this was the case).
When you give someone the fight they’re looking for, you’ll be stuck. It’s like a tug-of-war where both sides have fairly equal strength and neither side is willing to give in. Nobody moves.
So what did Kat Cole do?
Before I get into that, it’s helpful to know her story. In high school, she started as a hostess at Hooters and worked her way up to being a server. Because of a variety of situations she ended up filling in as a cook and a bartender and ultimately learned every job in the store.
By the time she was 19, she was part of a team that opened first-ever Hooters’ franchises in Australia, Mexico and South America. She dropped out of college and moved to the Hooters’ corporate offices when she was 20. By age 26 she was a VP. Cole also got an MBA without ever completing a bachelor’s degree, and she ultimately became President of Cinnabon, turning it into a company with over a billion dollars in sales.
Back to young Kat Cole the Hooters server. She must’ve intuitively known that she couldn’t get into a fight with this customer. Just a few minutes before it was time for the young man’s check, she ordered 10 wings and took them to the young man. She said something like, “I know we must’ve messed this up again, so I’m bringing these to make it right.”
All the young man’s buddies laughed hilariously and started digging him that Cole had gotten him back. The customer never tried to pull the stunt again.
Paradox is one way to deal with a conflict of wills.
It’s counterintuitive. It’s going in the opposite direction that you think you should go. In most cases the server would have either tried to argue that a customer was incorrect or just give the discount. Neither is a good solution.
Instead by proactively bringing him more wings, Cole gave him nowhere to go in his fight. Even so, the primary effect of paradox is not some ninja mind trick on the other. It’s to help you regulate your own anxiety, so you don’t engage in a conflict of wills.
Playfulness is similar. Keeping the tone light and refusing to argue can you help bring down the anxiety in a situation. If you can be paradoxical and playful all the better. That’s what Cole did.
This is not something that happens in the moment. If you just allow your own emotions to take over, you almost never respond appropriately. You will get sucked into a conflict of wills.
Learning how to use paradox and playfulness requires reflection and planning. If you anticipate the situation, figure out what a helpful response might be, and practice it out loud (or in your head) you have a better chance of being a non-anxious presence in the moment.
The likelihood is you won’t get this right the first time. But you might. And if you don’t, keep at it. Most situations involving a conflict of wills are ongoing, so you have time to work on your approach and to get better at it. This is what non-anxious leaders do.
