Probably some of the professionals who routinely carry out recovery management think that the current situation is very bad, that the crisis is wreaking havoc and that the poor clients are doing a lot "paying" for something.
There is another contrary profile that makes the assessment of the " defaulter " as a geta, who always buys with the intention of not paying. What is truth / reality in both approaches?
From our point of view, it is not a matter of searching for truths, but of evaluating the consequences that both visions have on our management. Every task that we carry out will be marked by our attitude and what we say to ourselves about the clients who default.
If I think that "poor thing" can not do more, our attitude in customer management will be marked by submission, which leads us to a weak tone of voice, lacking messages and pedigree attitudes, all of them unconvincing messages.. So we will leave it to the client to pay or not to pay.
If, on the contrary, our idea of recovery is characterized by evaluating the client as someone who refuses to pay, although of course it can and my function is to threaten to recover, possibly a rigid, uncooperative attitude will prevail, in which I have the right to recover, "The bad one is you and you have to pay me, be that as it may". In these cases we make the person fully responsible for the debt and fight “against” him, which usually generates defensive attitudes, as well as attacks by the other party. And of course a lot of distance in the relationship and management, feeling generally attacked by us.
It is the best alternative to move away positions and hinder the agreement.
Why not separate people from the problem?
The relationship between the parties tends to deteriorate with discussions about the problem. Dealing with the issue of payment and maintaining a cordial relationship do not have to be competing objectives. It is tempting to place the blame and responsibility for your problem on the other party. It is also a form of personal relief, compared to involving the other party in the process of finding solutions and providing valid data for recovery.
The guideline: "Hard on the problem and soft on people." The client must be our ally, it is important to collaborate with him and help him, since this will favor the agreement. If the client feels us as the enemy, he will not pay. If we approach positions, we have half a way to go. Objective: to feel listened to, objectively argue the consequences of non-payment, in addition to maintaining an open and flexible attitude.
