Philip Patston's Blog

It takes one to not know one, too

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:31:45 +1300

Following on from my last post, just quickly, before I prepare myself to co-direct the first retreat of the second Be. Leadership intake...

Psychological projection is a useful way to understand discomfort with diversity. When people react negatively (or overly positively for that matter, in that bleeding-heart liberal way they do) to another culture, lifestyle, or belief system, a useful exploration may be:

How aware of — and comfortable with — their own culture, lifesyle, or belief system are they?
How much are they feeling envious of the others' well-defined culture, lifestyle, or belief system?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Authentically valuing diversity has nothing to do with understanding others. It's all about awareness of and comfort with self.

It takes one to know one

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:33:14 +1300

I get a lot of people telling me how wonderful, amazing, inspirational, etc, etc, they think I am. To be honest, it gets a bit tedious and it's difficult to respond to such compliments, because they are often unnecessary.

Mostly, I'm just out doing unadmirable, uninspiring stuff, like having lunch.

Over the years I've developed a standard response: "Thanks, it takes one to know one." It graciously returns the compliment and, unless the person is a complete neanderthal, they get the wit and, usually, any disability-related tension is dispelled.

Last weekend, during my first weekend at Leadership New Zealand, we looked at the phenomenon of (psychological) projection. In short, projection is when we react to the behaviour or qualities (positive or negative) of others when we either recognise it or desire it in ourselves.

I learnt about projection when I trained in counselling, so it was interesting to place a leadership lens on it.

I realised that, "It takes one to know one," is the perfect response to projection because, literally, we would not notice and react to a behaviour or quality in someone else, unless we recognised its presence or absence in ourselves.

Projection is a human phenomenon. It's something to be aware of, not free of.

And of course, if I find myself reacting to others projecting their admiration of themselves — or lack of it — on me, I need to ask myself, what am I projecting on them?

NZ Prime Minister – zoom out or get out

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:33:31 +1300

"State housing should be a stepping stone and was no longer about a home for life," Prime Minister John Key says on Stuff.co.nz

That's all very well, but everyone "should" have equal –or at least equitable – access, opportunity and resources to acquire and retain the basic need of shelter.

They don't. Until they do, the Prime Minister is failing to see the bigger picture.

As a leader, in my humble opinion, the PM needs to zoom out or get out.

Employment — get over it

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 09:06:58 +1300

If you believe the hype about finding jobs, the economy improving, tra la la la la, personally I think you need to think again. The economy has been poked for a long time, if you hadn't noticed, and is just about as poked as it could ever be right now.

I'm no economist, hence the technical terminology, but what I do know for sure is that jobs as we know them will just get harder and harder to find. I told the NZ Welfare Working Group that according to the Zeitgeist Movement, it's likely the US unemployment rate will be 62% by 2030. They didn't include that in their report.

Technology, that thing we've been investing millions of hours and trillions of dollars in improving (particularly in the last hundred years, but actually since we realised we could smash stuff with rocks), is taking our jobs. Machines and computers, articulated vehicles, 3D printers. These marvellous inventions that we've deliberately created to make our lives easier are making our lives easier. Now.

At least they could be. But we keep saying jobs, jobs, jobs and woe betide you if you don't have one.

Humanity — or at least Western society — needs one hell of a wake up call. Employment as we know it – which, let's face it, is just Slavery 2.0, where the Master gives (usually not enough) money instead of food, clothing and shelter — is going to become a thing of the past. Actually, for more and more people it is already.

As I prepare myself to start the 2012 Leadership NZ Programme on Friday, I'm considering a personal leadership challenge: to progress in NZ society (and beyond) a conversation about how we value and resource people over and above their employment status, employment role, their personal income and the amount of profit they generate for their employers.

Because let's be honest, that what value comes down to, save a few cases.

Part of the conversation needs to be how we design an interim change strategy. Interestingly, as a self-employed person (who admittedly employs a few part-timers), I think a rise in self-emploment capacity could be one answer. It gives people an opportunity to engage in self-directed, meaningful vocations where money needs not be the driver and the only pocket they are peeing in is their own (another technical term).

Diversityworks Trust has recently been successful in securing Ministry of Social Development funding to coach ten people with unique function into self-employment so I'll keep you informed as that develops.

Meanwhile if you are interested in self-employment coaching or being part of "A Conversation Beyond Employment", do drop a comment below or contact me.

Peters' charitable response problematic

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:09:59 +1300

On the face of it, Winston Peter's offer of $6000 towards meeting MP Mojo Mathers' access needs, which was today refused by Parliamentary Services via Speaker Lockwood Smith, seems decent. Peters has also challenged other parties to match his offer.

But this charitable handout goes to the heart of a huge problem in NZ and other countries. The "special" needs of people to access communication, services, housing and equipment are too often seen to reside in the realm of goodwill and sympathy, rather than rights and empathy.

We are no longer hidden away in institutions, economically inviable and unproductive. We are living in communities, contributing to the economy and higher in productivity than others in many cases. We therefore have the right and responsibility to be equitably resourced, not given guilty compensation.

It's about time Parliamentary Services and society – including any people with access needs who are happy to accept a handout – caught up.

Gagged

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:14:56 +1300

This blog post is purposely vague because I cannot guarantee that, if I write freely about the issue, I or another party will not suffer retribution. That's a sad thing to write in a country like NZ, with a national anthem that brags, "God defend our free land."

Suffice to say there are legal and bureacratic processes in motion that potentially breach the Human Rights Act, as well as the Care of Children Act, which asserts that a child’s welfare and best interests include that "the child’s parents and guardians should have the primary responsibility, and should be encouraged to agree to their own arrangements, for the child’s care, development, and upbringing."

And there are people involved who think policy is more important than rights, a child's welfare and best interests.

As my regular readers know, I do my best to present a positive, or at least constructive, perspective. In this instance, I can only say that there is nothing positive or constructive in this situation.

Is technology making diversity redundant?

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:25:44 +1300

At the intergenerational talk I did with Sam Orchard at the 2012 Changemakers Auckland Convention today, we split the audience into three groups to think about justifications for the following options for gender identification on passports:

Male or Female
Male, Female or Transgendered
No gender identity

The most interesting observation came from a member of group 3 who proposed that, with technology like iris and finger scanning, it is pointless to continue to use such an arbitrary characteristic as gender to help confirm someone's identity.

Indeed.

However much you agree or disagree with unique identifying technology, it is redefining at a fundamental level how we recognise each other. It may only be at airports now, but it could well be on your iPhone 6.

Imagine – no more, "Shit, it's that gay, disabled, radical guy. What the hell's his name?" Siri will say, "Philip Patston is approaching. Would you like to make that important phone call right now?"

Stuck in the past or intent on the future?

Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:13:45 +1300

At a meeting I attended today, a lot of discussion centred on a process for planning a consultation hui, which those at the meeting thought was excluding of their perspective.

It was, but more than 50% of the two hour meeting was spent talking about how bad, unfair, hurtful, wrong, etc, etc the exclusion was.

Maybe I'm getting too long in the tooth but I can't see the point of getting swamped in "should haves" and "shouldn't haves" in the past.

We seem to do it a lot though.

Finally someone pointed this out and discussion turned to what to do in the future to create an inclusive process going forward.

I breathed a sigh of relief and the future will be changed as a result — of discussing it intentfully, not me sighing.

When service goes bad

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:12:57 +1300

Last year I wrote extensively about the situation with my neighbour who was harassing me. After a Tenancy Tribunal hearing Housing NZ finally agreed to relocate him. However the process was appalling –nobody communicated with me and the move took a week longer than I was told – so on 27 December I wrote to the CEO:

I would like to thank you sincerely for your prompt response to my email of 20 December regarding the situation with my neighbour. I do appreciate your understanding of the circumstances.

Unfortunately, however, I need to relay my concerns and dissatisfaction with the manner in which the relocation has been managed and I wish to make a formal complaint. I would also like to formally request a meeting with you, at your nearest convenience, to discuss the future implications of the handling of the matter.

[Read the entire letter]

Admittedly the situation coincided with the holiday break. I realised a response would be delayed as a result. But let me list a number of things that the CEO and staff of Housing NZ got very wrong and that indicate to me that the leadership of the Corporation has allowed a culture of non-caring to develop.

The CEO made no attempt to personally acknowledge my correspondence.
When my letter was acknowledged, I was given no timeframe about when I would receive a response.
I learnt, by emailing and receiving an autoreply from the person responsible for replying, that she was on leave until 16 January.
Ten days after her return from leave I still had no reply and emailed asking when I may expect a response. I was told, "rest assured" the matter was being looked into, but still no timeframe.
Meanwhile the house next door was let to another single male with no communication with me.
On 2 February I received a response.
The response said that due to the Privacy Act specific dealings with another tenent could not be disclosed. I hadn't asked for these details.
It went on to say the Corporation "mistakenly agreed" to pay for a security consultant I hired as I was concerned for my safety (my neigbour had breached trespass, threatened my life and assaulted my gardener).
The letter explained the Corporation uses a "social allocation system" to rent houses whereby no consultation with neighbours is entered into.
Finally, in response to my concerns about the way things were handled: "I was sorry to hear this was your experience. In future I hope your experience is more positive."

[Read the entire letter]

I'm at a loss to know how to respond –you may wish to make suggestions – I'd welcome them. I am cynical about the lack of responsibility taken by people who manage systems and those who implement them. I'm disappointed about the refusal to even acknowledge, let alone agree to, my offer to engage about my concerns for others. I can't imagine how much time and effort went into constructing such a letter of disregard.

My overwhelming sense, though, is sadness about how some of us treat each other which such disrespect and disconnection. I can only hope that the examples I wrote about yesterday are strong enough to prevail over such inauthentic attempts to avoid admitting we all make mistakes.

Speaking of admitting we make mistakes, here's a great role model for that:

OMG! I got good service!

Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:05:41 +1300

This morning I rang Apple to return a gadget whose power adaptor was malfunctioning. I was a few days past the 14 day no questions asked timeframe, but the guy spoke to his supervisor and they accepted the return.

Yesterday I rang Tyler St Garage and asked if they could cater for a friend I'm having lunch with today who's gluten intolerent and vegan. They said not only would they do their best, but if they couldn't, they shared a kitchen with the nextdoor restaurant so could bring through food from there if need be.

Last week I went to Mercy Radiology to get an x-ray on my back which has been giving me grief. Rather than try to manhandle me onto the table as has happened before, the radiographer listened to me as I told her I'd ask her if I needed help. "Of course," she smiled and shrugged, "what would I know about what you need?"

A few weeks ago I bought a pair of shoes from Overland. I got home and realised the shoes were different sizes. I took them back and the sales person rolled her eyes, laughed and said, "Oh dear, that's not a good look for us." She immediately got me a new pair.

Giving good service doesn't take a lot of time and isn't hard work. It's about generosity, good communication, willingness and humility.

The opposite - poor service–it would seem to me, takes far more effort and time. To illustrate the difference I'll blog tomorrow about the continuing bad service I've received from Housing NZ.

From sympathy to empathy – understanding disability

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 17:48:01 +1300

I'm currently reading a very interesting book — "I Thought It Was Just Me (but it isn't): Telling the Truth About Perfectionism, Inadequacy, and Power", by TEDster Brene Brown. The book's core themes are the causes and connections between shame, courage, empathy and compassion.

One of the sub-themes Brown talks about is the difference between empathy (understanding) and sympathy (pity). Instantly I got thinking about the astounding amount of sympathy or pity people display about the experience of disability.

Brown says sympathy conveys the idea that you could not possibly understand someone's experience, while also implying that you are glad you cannot. "In most cases, when we give sympathy we do not reach across to understand the world as others see it," she writes. "Inherent in sympathy is, 'I don't understand your world, but from this view things look pretty bad.'"

In short, says Brown, "sympathy is about separation." Empathy on the other hand, she says, is about connection.

So if there's one thing we need to encourage in the disability social change space, it's empathy in place of sympathy. The tricky thing is that people think they can't understand the experience of disability or, at the very least, if they think they can, the believe it is inherently negative. Of course, it isn't, it's just more unique. And so back we come to sympathy.

Added to the conundrum is what Brown calls "sympathy seeking", where people imply "my situation is worse than everyone else's." Of course, not all sympathy seekers are disabled and not all disabled people are sympathy seekers. But because sympathy is a kind of default response to disability, disabled people in particular need to steer real clear of sympathy seeking if we ever want to see meaningful change.

The key to empathy, as my PA Barbara was told in her Youthline counselling training, is that everyone knows how it is to experience emotions – happiness, sadness, frustration, anger, loneliness etc. And disabled people feel that range of emotion.

So, with that in mind, crucial to disability change is to help everyone connect with the understanding of the range of emotions evoked by the experience of disability, rather than the few that most people associate with it, namely fear and sadness.

What dumpsters can teach us about life without money

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:34:38 +1300

The multi award-winning documentary DIVE! by filmmaker Jeremy Seifert and friends reveals three basic rules to dumpster diving, as they dumpster dive in the back alleys and gated garbage receptacles of Los Angeles' supermarkets:

First one to the dumpster has first dibs.
Never take more than you need.
Leave it cleaner than you found it.

No money involved in dumpster diving.

Let's apply those rules to supermarkets:

First one to the supermarket has first dibs.
Never take more than you need.
Leave it cleaner than you found it.

Could we do supermarkets without money?

Anything you say may be used against you...

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 06:00:00 +1300

...in a court of law.

What an embarrassing mantra for a civil society, where one is supposedly innocent until proven guilty.

I know a parent being prosecuted for theft of Government funding approved for their significantly disabled child, and I read of grandparents being denied money to care for their grandchildren.

In both cases, strangers would be paid.

New Zealand is a country ruled by a Government that resources relationships between our children and strangers (foster families and caregivers), but not their family. Our country, whose indigenous culture values family over individuals.

How is it so? Does our Government believe familial relationships magically create resources for children?

Meanwhile a child dies.

Let's start a new mantra: Anything you say will be used to help you support your child.

And let's resource children, not strangers.

Who cares about caring?

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:38:29 +1300

"Caring, it turns out, is a competitive advantage, and one that takes effort, not money," blogs business entrepreneur Seth Godin. "Often it's the CEO or the manager who sets a standard of caring about the details. Even better is a culture where everyone cares, and where each person reinforces that horizontally throughout the team."

Of course Godin is talking about caring in a business sense, saying that over time it will attract more customers, more business, more profit.

But what happens to caring in Government agencies, non-profits, even educational institutions, that are oversubscribed and underfunded, and therefore no incentive exists to attract new or repeat custom? Where, in fact, the opposite incentive prevails and the ideal is to decrease demand?

In what is often known as the "caring profession", I'm seeing caring going out the window.

I'm not saying it's deliberate. But rather than being profitable like it is in business, caring comes at a cost to Government and non-profit agencies. The cost is extra demand with no extra resources, extra work with no extra staff, extra responsibility with no extra appreciation.

Moreover, I think, sometimes the problems with which people are dealing seem too big to care too much about. Child abuse, homelessness, disability support, alcohol and drug abuse, increasing demand on services as we keep more babies and accident survivors alive. It's easy to think, "If I care too much about these things, how do I reconcile how little I can do to solve them?"

I've experienced and witnessed this "care fatigue", let's call it (and acknowledge its similarity but difference to compassion fatigue) several times recently: Housing New Zealand staff not contacting me back about my abusive neighbour; ACC declining more and more claims; the Ministry of Health prosecuting parents for using allocated funding to provide themselves the best support for their disabled children.

It seems to me Government and non-profit sectors are fast developing a culture where people couldn't care less.

This "not caring" may make things better in the short term. It may save a 30 second phone call, reduce overspending by 1% or less, or shift the blame of poor policy from a bureaucrat to a struggling family.

Over time, however, it will hurt the people who don't care. It will strip them of their humanity. Shame will creep up and rob them of empathy. Disconnection will isolate them.

So when you realise you maybe couldn't care less, consider that it may be time to care just a little bit more. It won't solve the big problems, but it will make a huge difference to that person for whom someone caring enough to call back is the only thing that matters.

Sand castles, sand piles and social change

Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:18:00 +1300

I love the idea of entropy, explained eloquently by the BBC's Dr Brian Cox. According to Wikipedia, "In statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of ways in which a system may be arranged, often taken to be a measure of "disorder" (the higher the entropy, the higher the disorder)."

Watch this video and then let's consider entropy from a social change perspective.

It doesn't take much awareness to notice that social structures and systems are becoming more disordered. Could we be merely witnessing natural processes of entropy occuring in the context of social evolution and the arrow of time? Capitalism, justice, education, traditions, organisational culture etc are the sand castles. Recessions, civil disobedience, failing schools and conflict are entropy, returning human-made ideas of control and order to the natural state of disorder and chaos.

Entropy, from a human standpoint, could be considered as an indicator of resilience in human beings and endeavours. Individuals, systems and structures that can withstand high levels of disorder, uncertainty, change and chaos (entropy) are far more likely to thrive. However, the requirement for order and rigidity that we see in communities and society are literally impossible. They will erode eventually. Right now we are witnessing our treasured sand castles being blown quite noticably into sand piles — and we don't like it.

When I saw this clip I reflected that I've always had difficulty defining myself, who I am, what I do, sometimes even what I think. Similarly, my work, my company and Diversityworks Trust have all changed over time, are difficult to brand but, nonetheless, have proved resilient and relevant. In all respects my world is a collection of sand piles, not sand castles.

So, how entropic are you? Are you a sand castle or a sand pile? Does your organisation need to protect itself from the winds of change, or can it withstand being whitled by the breeze of disorder, changing shape but remaining a distinctively recognisable pile of sand? Or are you desperately trying to maintain your form, expecting that the laws of physics will improbably blow new grains of sand into exactly the same spots?

I think becoming more aware of diversity as a process of decay, and creativity as a more flexible glue than structure, are key to understanding how society needs to be organised in the future — a highly entropic future of piles, not castles.

Next time you find yourself wishing things were the same, simpler, or more defined, consider instead the following: Do I/we need to increase my/our entropy?

Kicking off a new innovation in disability support

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:10:18 +1300

{ Safe and sound } is an idea for a new, multi-faceted service designed for people managing their own disability support through the Ministry of Health Individualised Funding scheme or ACC direct payments.

People opting into this method of support do so because they are looking for customised support to fit their lifestyle, which current home-based support services struggle to provide. However, it does involve the responsibility of employing one or more people.

{ Safe and sound } is a collaborative initiative led by me, which aims to provide simple, effective, affordable support that you can buy with personal funding.

We are planning the following services:

Meals: Restaurant quality meals delivered to your door. You pay for the food — your funding pays the rest.

Cleaning: Superior housekeeping by people who know about your needs.

Safety and protection: Low-level security (a drive-by to check you're ok) or 24-hour personal protection (in situation of emergency or sickness) — you decide what you need.

Personal support: We'll provide someone competent and friendly to meet your daily personal support needs.

First of all though, we need to know if people want access to services like these.

We've used KickoffLabs to create a quick and easy "landing page" through which to collect email addresses of people who may be interested in such services.

By sharing your email address you commit to nothing but give us an indication of demand. Once we feel there's enough interest we'll get in touch to ask more questions.

So far we've had 7 expressions of interest. It would be great to double or even triple that number before we send out a questionnaire to find out more about people's needs and how we can best meet them.

So, if you could spread the word to one or two others, and ask them to do the same, that'd be fantastic.

Here's the link: http://safeandsound.kickofflabs.com/

I'll post an update towards the end of January.

Destiny City or jails...hmm, tough choice

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:16:07 +1300

So Brian Tamaki is now wanting millions of taxpayers' dollars to build Destiny City, in order to keep people out of Government-built jails.

Who do we trust more?

A man who believes the Earth was created in 7 days by a big Guy in the sky who loves you unless you disobey him? Or a dysfunctional bureacratic system led by elected mini-celebrities who believe they have all the answers?

I'm stumped.

Just had to get that off my chest.

Happy New Year and I'm not doing anything I don't want to do

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:21:07 +1300

Hello, it's 2012 - hope you had a great break. So, are you ready for change?

Not cataclysmic, apocalyptic, chronomatic, revelational change.

I mean subtle, gentle, influential and revolutionary change. Like this:

The current monetary system is corrupt, irrelevant and causes most social problems. Managing resources in an adult way is paramount to creating social cohesion.
If you believe religion you'll believe anything. If you don't believe it, say so. Too few do.
Honest communication creates sanity. Sanity and anything else create chaos, but sanity keeps it real.
Chaos is diverse and creative. Diversity and creativity are chaotic. None can be managed. They must be revealed and observed in wonder or disbelief.

Change is easy. Adapting to it is an experience you choose.
Education is redundant. Responsive leadership is vital.

Fear is debilitating. Disability is the new Unique.
Who you love is beside the point. How you love is everything.
What you do is inconsequential. How you do it creates yours and other people's stories.
What's our story in 2012?

I'm spending January thinking shit like this. I'm calling it my "creative commitment" time and I'm not doing anything I don't want to while I decide what I want to do this year.

Great to blog. I may not want to do it again before 1 February though, so see you then, if not before.

Great film.

2011 in review – and thank you

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:03:06 +1300

REST WELL. SEE YOU IN 2012.

Many of you will know I'm not a fan of Christmas. A 2011-year-old tradition based on a mash up of a misunderstood myth about a pagan activist and a Coca-Cola advertising campaign that guilt-trips people into spending money they don't have on gifts people don't want — what's that about?

All cynicism aside though, for me this time of year is one of reflection, relaxation and, most of all, reconnection with self and loved ones, devoid of the stress and distractions of our manic world of invented meaning.

Oops, there's that cynicism creeping back in.

Even though I've had a couple of glitches on the domestic front, 2011's been a pretty great year for me work-wise. I want to take the opportunity to thank my clients, partner organisations and supporters for your contribution to the work I do. Thank you also to all of you who follow me on Twitter, Facebook, Linked in and by receiving emails — I truly appreciate your presence, retweets, comments and emails.

The highlights of the business year have been working with:

the Ministry of Social Development's Family and Community Services team, grappling with the complexity of social change, rethinking disability and designing the toolkit I Think Differently;
the Be. Institute and Borderless Productions teams, co-directing the Be. Leadership programme;
Diversityworks Trust's team and Trustees, as Executive Director;
Auckland Disability Law on their UN Convention on the rights of People with Disabilities Shadow Report and strategic planning;
Arts Access Aotearoa and Creative New Zealand, raising awareness of accessibility;
Westpac, the Electoral Commission, Life Unlimited and Lifewise, raising awareness of diversity;
the conferences of the New Zealand Home Health Association, New Zealand Rehabilitation Association and Equal Opportunity Practitioners in Higher Education Australasia;
Nick Hodson Lawyers, designing and maintaining their website;
Enable New Zealand and IHC, supervising their staff;
and the Ministry of Health, on their New Disability Support Model.

Through Diversityworks Trust, it's been a pleasure working with Artstation on our exhibition, MIC Toi Rerehiko on our MyFilm project and with the Todd Foundation who fund our Peer Support Network.

So, whether you celebrate the Yuletide ritual or avoid it like me, enjoy this time of rejuvenation. Thanks again for your support this year. I look forward to working, playing and exploring the realms of diversity, creativity and change with you all again, next year :~}

Making it right when you get it wrong

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:38:52 +1300

Sometimes in business, things just mess up. People do stupid things, repeat mistakes and just get it wrong.

I recently had an experience with a business where the service I received was somewhat, but not entirely, inappropriate. Then they got the invoice for the service wrong. Four times.

A recipe for disaster. You'd think I'd never go back, wouldn't you?

Actually, I will go back, for two reasons. Firstly, because my several dealings by email and phone with the manager were great. She admitted the mistakes, was profusely apologetic and, best of all, was humorous about the situation. She graciously received the feedback I gave to her about a member of her team and told me that she'd spoken to him about my concerns.

Secondly, as someone who runs a business myself, I know how easy it is for things to go pear-shaped, particularly when others are working on your behalf. There's only so much you can do to make sure you get it right. There are fewer things you can do to ensure others get it right. Who am I to punish another business for this unfortunate kink in humanity's design?

When you get things wrong, you can do a lot to make sure that your response is right:

Take responsibility. Admit you made a mistake.
Be vulnerable. Apologise.
Hold it lightly. Be humorous.
Listen openly. Hear negative feedback with a constructive mindset.
Respond. Act on feedback and let people know you have.
Communicate. Promptly, courteously and when you say you will.

But there's another side to this. How you respond when you've been wronged is equally important for a good outcome — perhaps even more so:

Be respectfully assertive. Politely tell the vendor straight away what the problem is.
Be constructive. Let them know what you want the resolution to be.
Hold it lightly. Be humorous if you can.
Keep cool. If things don't get sorted first time around, calmly explain what still needs to be done.
Be generous. Believe that people usually do their best in difficult situations (even if it isn't always obvious)
Forgive. Move on. Let bygones be bygones. Holding onto it will give you cancer.

Of course there are always situations where fault is blurry, where it's unclear who and what is wrong. My Rules Of Thumb (which is an ironic acronym) in unclear situations are:

Be wrong together. Act, as above, as if you're both wrong.
Split the difference. If you can't decide, share the burden of uncertainty.

Remember, things will always go wrong without you knowing it. What you can always know is how to make it right.