Previously, I’ve discussed transcribing oral understandings, sharing “bad news” early and misrepresentations. The hint I will share today deal with misperceptions.

Without being too technical, perception is understood as occurring in several steps beginning with sensation. It’s easy to recognize that we vary greatly even in our sight and hearing ranges. Some of us don’t have the hearing ability we once had, for example. The next step is selection or only attending to some stimuli. In a busy airport we might notice an announcement about our flight number while others around us wouldn’t pay attention to it.

Next is organization of how we attribute meaning to perceptions by how we group them with other perceptions. For example, if shown pictures of a cow, a chicken and grass, which two would you group together? Some would group the cow and chicken together as animals; others would group the cow and grass together because cows eat grass. So some perceive the cow first of all as an animal; others as a member of the group of “grass eaters.”

But it is the final step in the perception process that leads us to conflict. That step is interpretation or attaching meaning to the perception. For example, is a horse an animal to be raised for work, sport, recreation and valued as such or is a horse an animal raised to be eaten by humans. Those who value horses as work and sport animals have some pretty strong feelings about those who eat horse meat.

I once mediated a “neighbor vs. neighbor” dispute in an upscale mountain community. One of the neighbors on her daily jogs frequently passed by her neighbor’s house when he had his garage door open. On display and easily seen from the street was a Nazi flag. One day she confronted her neighbor demanding he take down and destroy the flag. He refused and they got into a heated conflict. Police were called who referred the parties to mediation.

In mediation the woman told her story. Her grandparents had been Nazi camp prisoners and, to her, the flag represented the horrors of the extermination camps. The very display of the flag, to her, was not only disrespectful but criminal.

I asked her neighbor if he wished to respond. He first apologized if the flag made his neighbor uncomfortable. He went on to explain that that flag had been brought back from World War II by his grandfather who had fought and been wounded on Normandy. To him, the flag brought feelings of pride for what his grandfather had accomplished in bringing down Nazi Germany. 

They both had very different interpretations or meaning of the flag. Their rather intense fight had been over those interpretations and had led to heated words, threats and police intervention. In mediation they were able to share those interpretations and learn that they shared important values. In short order they were able to put the dispute behind them and work out a mutually agreeable solution.

As a mediator I often find myself encouraging people to consider how others might have different perceptions to their own and, just possibly like in this example, those alternative perceptions are understandable and valid.

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.