Yet Another Hint On Avoiding Conflict

In recent posts I have suggested ways to avoid conflict. The latest hint I want to share will probably not be accepted by some, but I have seen many parties end up in conflict because of misrepresentations.

I understand that there are professionals who believe that some degree of misrepresentation is an advantage in negotiations. I understand that some would argue that some negotiations involve “strategic misrepresentation,” for example knowingly understating costs and overstating benefits that intentionally goes beyond an optimistic bias. These negotiators justify their misrepresentation as part of the negotiation “game” and argue that agreements would not otherwise been possible.

I will say that as the instructor of many negotiation seminars I make it quite clear that I believe negotiators should not lie. I contend that misrepresentations may well become known and that decidedly weakens one’s negotiating credibility in the future. Nonetheless, I understand that others disagree with me.

But let me share one example of how misrepresentation can lead to conflict. A bulk mail enterprise was looking for a management company to contract for its printed materials and other services such as delivery to mailing houses. An agreement was reached, which specified a cost per thousand of units. The management company represented that they would use their purchasing power to get the lowest possible printing cost and pass those savings onto the client in order to get the rest of the client’s business. After about a year, the client began to feel that the charges for printing were excessive and began to shop around his order. By accident he asked for a bid from the printing company the management company had been using. The printing company recognized the job and simply asked if they would be dealing directly with the client from now on. The client got a bid which was significantly less than what he had been paying the management company. And asked for and obtained copies of past invoices for printing the jobs paid for him by the management company.

In mediation, the representatives of the management company contended they were charging the client what it cost them to get the job printed. At that point, the client pulled out copies of old invoices from the printing company showing what the management company had actually paid. Those were matched with what the management company charged the client.

Simply put, the management company got caught in a lie. At that point all they could do was contend that what had happened was that they were applying a standard industry markup. The client contended that their agreement was that he was to pay the actual cost of printing. There was no dispute over the charges for other services.

The invoices were on the table as was the lie. Would it have been unreasonable for the management company to markup the printing?  No. Was it a misrepresentation to not tell the client that in order to get the rest of his business? You decide. But it was the misrepresentation that got them into a bitter conflict which destroyed their relationship.