Posts tagged trust

Regrouping

June 24, 2010 · Filed under Social Sustainability · Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Sometimes an idea has to be cooked back down to its origins so that it may be reborn with new vitality and strength.

Urban/Suburban Ecoliteracy has reached one of these choicepoints. It is unlikely that the workshop will continue to be offered monthly in Southern CA, but not because the content of the workshop is irrelevant and superfluous. A friend recently commented that this workshop may be ahead of its time. It may be. Then again, because the workshop exists and because Divine timing is always spot on, Urban/Suburban Ecoliteracy may just be right where it needs to be right now. The workshop just needs to exist in a different format.

I had hopes that the workshop would be gaining positive momentum while facilitating new social connections between workshop attendees as they learn the mindset that allows sustainability to take root. In other words, teaching people systems thinking is the ostensible goal of Urban/Suburban Ecoliteracy but one of the key intentions of the workshop was to rebuild sorely needed social capital.

Here’s a quick test to see how much social capital you have in your neighborhood. How many of your neighbors do you know? Of the neighbors you have met and liked, how well do you know them and how well do they know you? How many would you trust to watch your kids? How many could you depend on to have your back if the crap hit the proverbial fan? How many of your neighbors can count on you to have their backs? Most of us don’t know our neighbors, let alone trust them. Trust is a measure of the presence or absence of social capital. The psychological, emotional, and physical safety and well-being of children (and other vulnerable members of society) in their own neighborhoods and in their families is another measure of social capital.

It was also part of the inherent design of the workshop format that that material would be tailored for its locale. Each and every community would, in effect, be hosting a unique workshop that was intended to create or enhance a sense of place. Considering the disparate communities that the workshop participants have come from, creating a sense of community connected to and grounded within a place wasn’t going to happen through the workshops. Metropolitan Los Angeles sprawls too far. It’s a place without a true center, which may be said to be everywhere and nowhere all at once. Although interpersonal affinities may be felt among workshop participants, authentic community is hard to foster without face time in real time. That may offend all you Twitter and Facebook users, but the need for face time is our collective social reality. It’s just how we’re wired as social beings.

As a recently soured relationship with a former client has reminded me, we are collectively a long way off from where we need to be and where we yearn to be. Regardless of political stripe, I know of no person of reasonably good character who does not want to be safe and for that safety to be extended to beloved friends and family. We yearn to trust and yet we’re surrounded my messages that pelt us day in and day out that 1) we’re not safe, 2) we’re never good enough, 3) we can never have enough, 4) we’re surrounded by crazy people and predators, and 5) the world is rife with scarcity, fierce competition, incessant threats, and ever-present danger. You have to get “them” before “they” get you, whomever “they” might be.

Is this honestly the world that you want for your children and grandchildren? Is this the world that you want for yourself?

Leave a comment »

The long view vs. shortsightedness, pt. 2

June 12, 2010 · Filed under Landscaping · Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

During the last meeting with a problem client on June 9th, he complained that designers don’t create designs that are “buildable”. Honestly, I don’t know from what mental pit he dug out this particular bone to pick. I was hands-on long before I even started designing. That’s how I learned to design based on functionality rather than on pure aesthetics alone. (You can have a “pretty” garden that’s a maintenance nightmare or select a plant palette that looks great until it starts to grow out into maturity. Oops.) What’s more, I don’t see a point in creating a garden design that can’t be implemented.

This client is a retired general contractor in Sherman Oaks, CA and not a garden or landscape specialist, certainly not a designer by any stretch of the imagination. He wouldn’t have contracted my services if he was able to do the design himself. Had I known beforehand that he had burnt through a series of designers over the past ten years and had a disparaging view of them, I wouldn’t have worked with him. As a former service provider himself, he knows fool well what it’s like to encounter predatory clients who try to pick his brain clean like mental piranhas.

I’ve run this problematic scenario past other professionals in other design/consultation fields and the conclusion they draw is this: the man’s trying to see how much he can get away with. In short, he’s behaving like a bully.

I listened carefully to this client, as I do with all design clients. I paid attention to their lifestyle and aesthetics. The client and his wife like curves and to encounter little surprises in the garden that enchant them. I included a lot of edible plants for wildlife since the client and his wife are fond of watching birds and other animals in the garden and I made all the regular access points of the garden easily accessible from the pathways since the couple are in their golden years. Maintenance was going to be relatively easy due to the design.

The couple was so friendly and they were a dream to work with at first. It seemed like a perfect match between what I could offer and what they wanted. The final meeting to review the design went off without a hitch – they were over the moon! I asked if they had any changes they wanted to make to the garden design. They had none and made no other requests for any other renderings. From what I was told, the garden design met their expectations and it had benefits and features that they hadn’t even thought to ask for. Because this client and his wife had been so sweet (they had had even invited us over for wine and appetizers and loaned us the DVD of “Dirt: The Movie”) and because they were so excited about getting their garden started, I told my client and his wife that I was giving them a complementary bonus – a detailed writeup on the first steps to launching their garden project.

Things suddenly changed after that May 30th meeting for the worse. The first sign of trouble in the first week of June was that the client was trying to pump me for more consultation via e-mail. I gave him a few more relevant and timely tips but it wasn’t enough to satisfy him. Truth is, when entitlement mentality is present, even giving everything would not satisfy someone under its thrall.  I offered ongoing support and consultation online for a very reasonable monthly fee and he never bothered to respond. Instead, he ignored the offer. The only thing that had changed between the end of May and June was that the client was not able to pump me or my colleague for free expertise. That’s what upset him. Rather, he upset himself because he feels entitled to more professional expertise and advice that he has no willingness to pay for.

Another thing that I noticed was that the client was selectively cherry picking through the advice I gave him, choosing to only do the tasks that he wanted to do and what interests him. (He was eager to get started on the garden trellis, even though that should come long after initial site preparation and after the pathway is laid since the trellis was designed to match the shape of the pathway below it.) Never mind that site preparation can make or break a garden. Shoddy preparation means shoddy results, analogous to the computer programming aphorism, “garbage in, garbage out”. The last we heard, the client told us that he had stopped doing any site preparation.

For reasons that don’t have anything to do with the clarity of the instructions or the quality of the information, the client has shortsightedly refused to follow the detailed directions he has been given that would ensure the long-term success of his garden. Rather than doing what he needs to get the results that he (claims that) he wants, the client confirmed my worse suspicions when he complained on June 9th that he isn’t getting the full specs he wants, i.e. specifications for the trellis materials and curvature; the pond construction materials, equipment details, and how to build the pond from start to finish; permeable pathway layout and installation; CA native and edible plant selection and acquisition; planting locations and optimal spacing, etc.

Unfortunately, he’s skipping steps that would make the garden less weedy in the long run, not for lack of good information, but for want of receiving information to his liking that wouldn’t require work he would dislike. On top of demanding build out specifications, he also complained that the lack of perspective drawings made building impossible for him.

I don’t care what contracting or building service profession you’re in, no one will provide full build out specifications for free. NO ONE. If by “buildable” my client means that he hasn’t been able to extract any specs from any designer for free, then truly no garden design is buildable according to his expectation. Moreover, no designer will provide extra drawings for free, especially when they weren’t requested and paid for. What’s worse is that he modified my intellectual property – the design – without permission and against my recommendations. He has complained that the text labels on the plants are no longer there. They are. It’s just that he reduced the scale of the drawing to 1/4 of its original size, thus he made the text impossible to read.

This client has managed to dissipate whatever goodwill my colleague and I had towards him through his self-defeating two-faced behavior. His behavior is confusing, foolish, upsetting, and contradictory, to say the least, and his inability to “play well in the sandbox” guarantees poor results in the garden while perpetuating his frustration. It also allows him to rationalize passive aggressive blame for not getting the results he wants although ultimately he is responsible for getting in his own way. Because the client refuses to follow the advice he has already been given, my colleague and I can only interpret his collective choices as lack of interest in and no authentic commitment to the garden’s long-term success, sustainability, and integrated function. Permaculture sounds great to him in theory but the real work is apparently distasteful and it doesn’t interest him as a dilettante. He wants all the great garden results without possessing the systems thinking to get those results and he wants to enjoy the bounty of the garden without the work. What my colleague and I find fundamentally offensive is that this man believes that he is somehow entitled to much more than the design service that he paid for and received. Add to that the slime factor for friendly overtures made as a pretext for getting what he wanted at our expense. In the end, this client’s contempt for my and my colleague’s livelihoods as professionals is apparent, as is his lack of respect.

Leave a comment »

The long view vs. shortsightedness, pt. 1

February 16, 2010 · Filed under Landscaping · Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Clients can sometimes be a complete pain, especially when there is a mismatch between what a client expressly claims he wants versus what he actually wants. It may be instead that the true mismatch is between what the client was willing to be forthcoming about versus what he really wanted and silently expected.

If you pay for a garden design, that’s exactly what you’ll get: a design. That implies no warranty on the ultimate expression of the design as manifested in real-life. When the rubber hits the road, rendered garden designs have to be modified to reflect changes that are dictated by actual site conditions as they are uncovered when garden creation begins. A good designer expects the unexpected and can adapt a design appropriately.

Think of it this way: when you pay an architect for a building design, do you then expect to pick his or her brain ad infinitum for all the details and specifications in addition to expecting him or her to build out the design…for cheap or for free?

If what you want is a complete build-it-yourself “kit” complete with step-by-step instructions, but you don’t ask for that kit forthrightly yet expect it anyway and you don’t intend to pay for it (knowing fool well that you’re infringing on the livelihood of your service provider), then you’re just being a slimy, dishonest git steeped in entitlement mentality.

Straight up, few things destroy trust and social capital faster than entitlement mentality.

In this case, the client was expecting and feeling entitled to much more than he had paid for. He wanted the 70′ x 90′ edible landscape design that I created for him AND expected full build out specifications too at no extra charge. Mind you, at no point did the client say that build out specs were what he wanted from the start. Had he asked for it and paid for it, that’s what he would have received. Now this client is less likely than ever to get what he wants because what he wants is at my expense and at the expense of my landscape contractor colleague.

I’m not in the habit of giving clients complete and full instructions on how to do my job so that I’m rendered obsolete as a service provider, especially when the dissatisfaction with the design is expressed after the fact as an insult delivered backhandedly. This is particularly true when a client seems to think that my work can be brainlessly duplicated, as if no skill, experience, perspective, knowledge, planning, practical thought, or reflection goes into a design. Think about it: if someone was picking your brain, would you freely give away every last detail on how to do your work so that someone else can appropriate it in order to avoid paying you for your expertise, experience, and perspective?

That said, I have no problem teaching someone how to do what I do if they appropriately pay for the service and if they respect what I have to offer. That respect makes all the difference. When someone picks my brain, disregards my advice or applies it poorly only to later passive aggressively blame me for their failure, that’s where my patience, goodwill, and tolerance end.

A well-considered design is ultimately a balancing act – a sustainable landscape design has to match what a client wants, what a client needs, and what the garden can actually provide for the plants. Soil type, solar exposure, companion planting, the client’s visual aesthetics, the client’s lifestyle, and more all receive consideration in tandem. Good working relationships are also a balancing act, but when someone plays the entitlement card, all bets are off for seeing eye to eye.

Entitlement mentality demands that someone else caters to you. A profound lack of respect is made evident through the demand.

Leave a comment »