When I was in my NUS sophomore year, I joined a song writing competition organizing committee. Since the scale of the competition was considerably large, it was natural that we had to source for collaboration with external companies to support the events of the competition.
I came into contact with a music publishing company, in which I denote it as “company A” in this post. It did not take long before we discussed some details and came to a mutual agreement. In the terms and conditions stated, the company would provide judges for the competition at a discounted price while we would help to advertise their company during our events.
Subsequently, another director from my committee successfully obtained a cash sponsorship from a music school and agreed to distribute flyers for them during our final event. We did not consider it to be a violation to our agreement with company A, since they were not our exclusive partner for the event.
When the liaison of company A found out about our collaboration and service for another company, she was enraged and questioned us for the decision because she deemed it as a conflict of interest because they provide music lessons as well. We were initially agitated by her accusation, but composed ourselves because we were in a collaboration nonetheless. We attempted to explain the incidence as a misunderstanding because in the contract with company A, the company was not identified as an exclusive partner and there was no rule that prohibited us from collaborating with other music company and providing service for them.
In the end, the conflict was resolved when we agreed to advertise their company via the public announcement system in addition to printed advertisements. She probably felt that their advantage in advertisement was threatened when a competitor's flyers were present at the same instance. Although the conflict was resolved without any loss from the committee, it did not end up to be a happy collaboration after all.
I learned to be more careful in future collaborations. While I review the incident, I think it would have been better if we made it clear in the contract with company A for possible collaborations and services with other similar companies. The conflict stemmed from a lack of communication and assumptions made on both sides. The company assumed us to consider them as exclusive partner, while we assumed the company to accommodate our service for another music company since it was not prohibited in the contract.
I came into contact with a music publishing company, in which I denote it as “company A” in this post. It did not take long before we discussed some details and came to a mutual agreement. In the terms and conditions stated, the company would provide judges for the competition at a discounted price while we would help to advertise their company during our events.
Subsequently, another director from my committee successfully obtained a cash sponsorship from a music school and agreed to distribute flyers for them during our final event. We did not consider it to be a violation to our agreement with company A, since they were not our exclusive partner for the event.
When the liaison of company A found out about our collaboration and service for another company, she was enraged and questioned us for the decision because she deemed it as a conflict of interest because they provide music lessons as well. We were initially agitated by her accusation, but composed ourselves because we were in a collaboration nonetheless. We attempted to explain the incidence as a misunderstanding because in the contract with company A, the company was not identified as an exclusive partner and there was no rule that prohibited us from collaborating with other music company and providing service for them.
In the end, the conflict was resolved when we agreed to advertise their company via the public announcement system in addition to printed advertisements. She probably felt that their advantage in advertisement was threatened when a competitor's flyers were present at the same instance. Although the conflict was resolved without any loss from the committee, it did not end up to be a happy collaboration after all.
I learned to be more careful in future collaborations. While I review the incident, I think it would have been better if we made it clear in the contract with company A for possible collaborations and services with other similar companies. The conflict stemmed from a lack of communication and assumptions made on both sides. The company assumed us to consider them as exclusive partner, while we assumed the company to accommodate our service for another music company since it was not prohibited in the contract.
In our everyday communications, we may do a lot of assumptions on how the others think, which are not necessarily correct. Dear readers, have you been doing the same thing?
Hi Edward! like what you mentioned above, the conflict stemmed from a lack of proper communication and assumption from both sides. In my opinion, i think that what may seem obvious to 1 side of the party, may not be as obvious to the other.
ReplyDeleteHence, in this particular case, i believe company A thought it was obvious that your team must not have other collaborations with another music company. Perhaps, if they have clarified with your team in the very beginning, this conflict might not have happen in the first place.
anyhow, i am glad your team managed to resolve the conflict and compromise with both sides. i believe that takes a lot of skill, patience and tactfulness. well done!
-richard
Hi Edward,
ReplyDeleteI am in full agreement with you on your concluding statement that maybe most of us are always making assumptions in life which are likely to be the main causes of miscommunication and misunderstandings, resulting in conflicts.
In the situation as described above, without the signed black-and-white contract of exclusiveness of company A, I think the organising committee was not at fault in accepting the cash sponsorship of another company. Both parties should have related the terms and conditions to each other specifically in the original contract so as to minimise confusion.
Thanks for relating this really insightful incident! It serves as a fresh reminder to not take things for granted in life, making assumptions that may prove to be wrong thus resulting in conflicts.
Hi Edward,
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned, conflicts often arise because we are constantly making assumptions which may eventually result in miscommunication. I really agree with this statement.
Regarding your team's conflict with company A, I am really glad that the conflict is resolved eventually after taking measures to appease them. I feel that both parties are at fault in this episode because both made assumptions which caused this misunderstanding.
I am aware that I have indeed been guilty of making assumptions, and your blog post serves as a reminder for us to take note note so as to minimise/prevent unwanted misunderstandings.
Cheers,
Qianwen.
Hi Edward!
ReplyDeleteI believe the conflict arose because both parties (the organizing committee and company A) made assumptions on their part; the committee should have clarified with any external companies that they were intending to contact, and the companies themselves should also verify such details to prevent any unwanted conflicts or violation to agreements made.
Although it might not have been a very happy collaboration, I'm sure you would have learnt a lot more from this incident. In event that you are involved in organizing other activities in future, you will definitely be more experienced in identifying possible causes of conflicts and be able to avoid them.
I agree that we often assume what we perceive is correct, resulting in many misunderstandings and misconceptions. We should never take for granted that a certain concept would be universally understood just because we are used to it. Instead, we ought to remind ourselves not to jump into conclusions and be able to anticipate the causes of conflict, preventing them from happening.
- Siyuan