Say you’re really hungry and someone offers to make you a
grilled cheese sandwich for $2. But you’re lactose intolerant. It’s not made
yet, so you tell them that you’re lactose intolerant and ask for just toast
still willing to pay $2, but they say no. They says it is a grilled cheese
sandwich or nothing. On the one hand, your stomach hurts and you feel tired
because you’re hungry. On the other hand, the cheese will make your stomach
hurt later and you will be paying $2 for that stomach ache. Either way, there
are benefits and consequences.
That’s sort of like the situation she is in. But with
much wider scale issues than stomach aches and dairy intolerance. And instead
of a request for no cheese, it was a well researched list of 86 concerns and
suggestions to make the deal more positive without adding too much work to
either party. But the list was totally disregarded. Because they assume they
will take the deal either way and by not doing anything they save themselves
time. Like in the example, if they’re making grilled cheese in mass and they
know they have a room of hungry, lactose intolerant people, some people will
cave so why should they go out of their way to make you toast? They will make
money without you, you’ll be hungry without them.
She goes on to argue the pros and cons of both, but it
wouldn't have gotten that far for me. I would have said no, from the moment
they said they wouldn't make toast.
This isn't just a random, imaginary room with lactose
intolerant people. This is a medical convention of some kind for people with
lactose intolerance and/or studying it to come together, so the majority of
people are lactose intolerant. Not everyone is, but most are and these people
were invited as a catering company knowing most of the people would be lactose
intolerant and they did not come prepared to accommodate them and were
unwilling to take their dietary needs into consideration because they would be
the only food option at the event (which for the sake of the metaphor, people
are not allowed to leave so couldn't get food elsewhere). And now they're
saying that everyone at they table has to agree to eating the grilled cheese,
despite being lactose intolerant, or they might not bring food for the people
at the table who do want the grilled cheese. So, they're relying both on your
hunger and that the people around you will pressure you into doing it, because
you don't want to be the one person who stops them from eating.
This company knew they were going to be dealing with
people who had issues with the process, but have ignored their concerns. Her
team went and did research on the concerns and made suggestions supported by
that research for how the concerns could be addressed (like I said) and did
really what the company should have done in the first place, but the company
ignored the list entirely. And while I am not saying they have to take the
suggestions, all or any, they should have, at the very least, addressed that
her company had concerns. They could have just acknowledged the list or
explained why they didn't address the list. But, no. They dismissed it entirely
and, with it, all the work her team did on it.
To me, that is a sign of serious disrespect. It shows
they don't care what the people they make the deal with think or get out of it,
so long as the deal is made. And if there is not mutual respect going into the
agreements when the company still wants something, there definitely won't be
respect once they get what they want.
Their resources are also far
more expansive (as well as their legal team). If the agreement is made and the
company suddenly decides to utilize a loophole in the contract that they wrote,
her team would not have had the legal power to combat it. And the company
itself is already used to dealing with negative press, so would hardly need to
worry about her small company saying they did something wrong.
I think, when it comes to business,
where there is no respect, there can be no trust. And I would not put my
company or team in the hand's of a company I could not trust. Especially when
the pros and cons are still up for debate. Her article ends with her saying she
made a decision, but not what decision she made. Whatever she has decided has
come to fruition at this point, so I could look it up if I really wanted to
know.
Or I could just ask her.
But, really, what I took away from her piece was about
how differently we came about our decision to make a deal or not. True, I was
not in her situation so might be missing some of the details and context she
had. However, I think the overall arch of her article showed that she was so focused on her own
company's situation and debating her own morals about the pros and cons, that she did not do a thorough
enough job of thinking about the other side's position. From reading the
article, it sounds like she started and continued in the defensive and never
reached equal footing because of it.
And I think the company got away with what they did, because they knew that. The list, while helpful, just showed how eager they were to work with them and how much they would be willing to put up with.
The catering company knows people can't leave the event. Maybe the attendees can try to order food in, but the fact they keep sending back suggestions for toast or bread or just a side, shows that they want to order from the caterers. And will, therefore, likely cave in on the grilled cheese.
For that reason, I think she accepted the deal. She
bought the grilled cheese sandwich. I just hope she doesn't end up with a
stomach later on because of it.
