Some of us grow up in a rigid environment that involved a regimental or a disciplined lifestyle. For example, everything must be done in a certain regular pattern. For instance, my father is a stickler when it comes to restaurants. He prefers to eat in the restaurants that he is familiar with rather than exploring new restaurants. His reasoning is, “Why go and look for trouble when you know this restaurant serves good food?”. It makes sense but at the same time, it also restricts future options. Another example is my son who used to follow to a strict pattern when it came to timing. When he was a young kid, the nanny used to feed him lunch at 12.00pm, bathed him at 4.00pm and dinner at 5.30pm. For a long time, he sticked to this “schedule”. I remember when he was 6 years old, we were out somewhere quite far from home, suddenly our young son asked us whether we could be back at home by 4.00pm? We were surprised and asked him, ‘“Why?”. Our young son replied that he needed to be home by 4.00pm to shower. My wife and I burst out laughing but we when we saw his face, we knew he was dead serious and nothing was going to change his decision! So, we thought we needed to change his mindset and teach him that it was perfectly fine to be flexible in life as long as your objective remains the same. I was reminded of the analogy of an airplane and its destination. The analogy is that “The destination remains the same but the flight path may change”. Why the change? Well, it could be due to bad weather or strong turbulence that requires the plane to divert from its usual route. However, the destination will always remain the same. Therefore, being flexible is a good thing to have in our life. I have a few stories about flexibility. Here are the first two stories, the rest will be in the next posting.
Story No. 1 - The Stewardess with the food cart
Someone told me a story about a particular airline that prides itself with its inflight service. When it comes to serving meals, the Stewardesses would push the food cart and ask the passengers, “Would you like chicken or fish?”. In other words, the passengers have an option of having either the chicken or the fish meal. For some reason, on that particular day, the fish meal was very popular and they ran out rather quickly. My friend didn’t know about it. So when it came to my friend’s turn to be served, being ignorant, he requested for the “fish”. The stewardess very politely replied, “I am sorry, Sir, we ran out of fish, we only have chicken”. My friend responded, “No problem, I will have the chicken then”. After serving the “chicken meal” to my friend, the stewardess pushed the food cart and went on with her usual mantra, “chicken or fish!”. My friend just shook his head as he couldn’t understand how could the stewardess rambled the same line when she knew very well that they already ran out of the “fish meal”. My friend informed me that perhaps the cabin crew have already been instilled this sort of training and delivery lines into their heads so deeply that flexibility no longer applies when it comes to serving the passengers. Another school of thought could be that it was a way of pleasing the passengers by giving the perception that options have been given to them when in actual fact, there wasn’t any. To me, the second option doesn’t seem plausible as it could be deemed to be deceitful and I am sure airlines would not do that.
Story No. 2 - “The Standard Operating Procedure”
About 15 years ago, a friend of mine came and see me because he wanted to take a housing loan from the bank and needed someone to assist him with the loan documentation. As some us know would know in Malaysia (not sure if this is still the case or not), in order to prepare loan documentation, the law firm must be in the bank’s panel of solicitors. I informed my friend that I am not in any of the bank’s panel. My friend said that he had already checked with the bank officer and he was informed that all he needed to do was to give a letter appointing my firm as his solicitors and my firm can prepare the loan documentation for him. He also informed me that the bank had their own loan documents, so all I needed to do was to purchase them from the bank’s head office. The next day, I sent one of our staff to the head office to purchase the loan documents. After a couple of hours, the staff returned from the bank empty handed. He said the bank needed a letter from the law firm authorising him to purchase the loan documents on its behalf. So, I quickly prepared the letter and gave it to him. My staff rushed to the bank and came back again empty handed saying that the bank couldn’t find the letter from my friend appointing us as their solicitors in their file. Therefore, they requested for another letter. Getting frustrated, I called up my friend and related to him what happened. My friend asked me not to worry, he would go to the bank’s head office himself and get those loan documents. After that, he would bring them straight to my office. A few hours later, I received a phone call from my friend sounded very agitated. This time, it was me who asked him to cool down and tell me what happened. This was what he said, “The bank would not allow me to purchase the loan documents even though I am the borrower and the client”. He said to add insult to his injury, the bank required the following documents before they can sell the loan documents to him:-
1. The original letter from him appointing us as his solicitors; and
2 A letter from my law firm authorising HIM to purchase the loan documents on our behalf.
My friend told the clerk that since he is the client, why does he need a letter from his own lawyers authorising him to purchase the loan documents? Thinking that the clerk may not quite understand him, my friend said he tried to put it in layman’s words to the clerk, “I am the “boss”, why do I need a letter from my own lawyer authorising me (the “boss”) to buy the documents?”. The clerk had no words to say. The clerk took out a checklist and showed to my friend that he was merely following the “standard operating procedure”. The list has got a list of things that require a tick. If one of the box is not ticked or marked, the clerk will be in trouble. My friend emphatised with the clerk but he just shook his head in disbelief on how rigid the bank could be. Some flexibility and common sense would work well here.
I remember another incident where I went to collect the original title deed from the land office. I was told by my colleague to bring both the firm’s rubber stamp as well as my lawyer’s rubber stamp in case the land office needed verification. When it came to my turn to collect the original title deed at the land office, the person attended to me asked “Where is the law firm’s letter authorising you to collect the original title deed?” I informed the person that I am the Principal of the law firm and I have the law firm’s rubber stamp, my lawyer’s rubber stamp, my business card and a Photo ID to proof who I am. In Malaysia, all law firm’s letterhead must have the name of the lawyers printed clearly. Not only that, the names must be differentiated whether they are partners, consultants or merely employed lawyers. The letterhead in his file as well as mine clearly showed that I am the Principal lawyer in the firm at that time. The person still refused as he was merely following “Standard Operating Procedure”. I refused to budge as I waited a long time for my turn to collect the original title deed, so I continued to make him see where I was coming from (ie: common sense and some flexibility). Finally, the person relented and told me very clearly, he is making this exception only ONCE! Next time, he will need a letter and to put it clearly, “this is NON NEGOTIABLE in the future!” Will talk about other stories in the next posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment