The Myth of the Difficult Client: Where There is Communication and Collaboration, There is Conflict. And It is Worth Its Weight in Gold

Whenever we meet with people from the business world at informal gatherings, the topic of ‘difficult clients’ inevitably comes up. Let’s clarify the term ‘difficult’. Does ‘difficult’ signify the effort to achieve better results, collaboratively solve problems, or is it about a blurred relationship among the actors that manifests as, for example, misunderstanding on the client’s part or superficial work by the supplier? Both are symptoms of different understandings of expectations. The client has their expectations, just as the supplier has theirs.

‘What does she want again? She understands nothing! She’s acting hysterically again. Do they think I am their property? I am not her emotional doormat! Did I really do something wrong?’ These questions and statements are familiar to anyone who works with people and clients. Depending on the perspective, whether it is the client or the supplier, modus operandi is always the same: never enough time, the price is still a bit too high, the other side lacks the necessary understanding, and of course, they are to blame if the defined goals are not achieved.

A Deeper Insight

What do all these questions, statements, and thoughts have in common? They reinforce the thesis of the ‘difficult client’ while keeping in mind the image of a person and the conflict that arises from personal conversation and the hidden desire to learn to navigate better personally. Therefore, if you expect an article that will provide you with advice in five steps for easier dealings with clients, it might be better to stop reading.

Our thesis is that it is about addressing symptoms and that it is necessary to dive deeper into the matter, as the aforementioned claims we see, hear, and experience arise from a system, i.e., the interdependence between the client and the supplier, and both the client and the supplier are integral parts of other systems, which is rarely acknowledged.

First Example

Let’s look at two examples from practice. An international company wants to introduce a new sales application in a market and needs to increase the number of its downloads through social media campaigns. However, the application is not tailored to that market, neither in language nor in product offerings, as the products it promotes in that country are not available. A communication consultant from a contracting agency warns that the success of the campaign could undermine user satisfaction with the company. The company’s marketing manager, irritated by the discussion, ignores the warning because his personal goals set by the company are linked to the number of downloads.

If you look at it objectively, the consultant should not care what will happen next as long as the campaign is successful. But what does this lead to in the long run? Users become dissatisfied. The number of critical inquiries negatively reflects on the company; the consultant believes that the manager has no clue but overlooks the fact that the manager is only doing what is necessary to meet the personal goals on which his salary depends. The path to ‘joint value creation’ is blocked, frustration increases on both sides, and trust diminishes. The relationship becomes strained and difficult.

Second Example

Or another example. A cosmetics company launches a campaign to promote a new product. The sales manager visits hair salons, distributes promotional materials, and encourages the staff in the salons to actively promote it to their clients. The owner of the hair salon does what is requested because she is also excited about the new product and orders it.

Without notice or prior warning, the goods do not arrive, and she is forced to apologize to her clients. Visibly upset, she calls the sales manager, who, instead of providing an explanation or an apology, irritated by similar conversations with other hair salons, snaps at the owner. The relationship between the manager and the owner, which will continue to exist due to the nature of the work and signed contracts, becomes strained and difficult.

Where the Problem Lies

In both cases, it can be assumed that the reason for collaboration was the desire for joint value creation, but we see that this desire and intention are not enough. The American engineer and economist and founder of the Japanese industrial power, William Edwards Deming, found in his research that at the organizational level, only six percent of errors arise from humans, while 94 percent are the result of inappropriate organizational systems.

His belief is that companies have the right people, but they are led by wrong practices, processes, and systems. Looking from that perspective, the reason for the conflict in both examples is a consequence of system error. This means there is no need to seek blame among the individuals involved, to psychologize them, and to question their way of thinking; rather, it is necessary to look deeper into the processes that lead people to behave as they do.

If people are automatically blamed, it has serious consequences that do not contribute to the success of the organization. First, we make it easier for ourselves because we have found a culprit, and second, there is no longer a need to question the system and deal with difficult questions, such as: Are we doing the right thing at all? Are our processes designed for survival in today’s market? If we become aware of this and dedicate ourselves to understanding that we are moving in a complex domain of interpersonal relationships and markets, it opens up space for different perspectives on maintaining and building relationships.

Smart Companies Learn

Smart companies learn from these symptoms and adapt their practices, processes, and structures, but there are also those that persist in existing practices, offering their clients or suppliers ‘explanations’ for why it is so, without an option for change or a better future, and convincing their employees that with a change of mindset and behavior, they can avoid conflicts, leaving them in a very uncomfortable position that is a magnet for conflicts.

To understand the two paradigms hidden in the last sentence, it is necessary to illuminate the concept of communication and the ideas about conflicts as a negative state.

Paradigm 1: The Ultimate Truth

We communicate daily and consider ourselves skilled in communication – it’s just that the other side does not understand us. The fact is that we behave very carelessly regarding communication. Too often, whether consciously or subconsciously, we follow an outdated communication model that assumes a sender and a receiver of information, considering that information is like a postal package sent from one head to another, where people are compared to transmitters and receivers who either function or have interference and who propagate the idea that there is one truth.

These assumptions excellently illustrate the communication model that rests on linear and mechanical thinking, which is present in many areas of Western culture, thus viewing people, interpersonal relationships, or the nature of organizations. However, information is not a ‘thing’, but rather the result of a joint process of creating the construction of our reality (co-creation). This process contains three operational activities: observing/communicating/understanding, which occur simultaneously, not (as assumed) linearly one after the other. All involved in the process are circularly connected, and there is no recipient and sender of information.

Terms such as ‘truth’, ‘reality’, or ‘objectivity’ are not relevant but rather thoughts arising from the creation of the construction of our reality, as the communication process is determined by the mental maps and systems in which we react. They govern our behavior, and the behavior of each person involved impacts the other individuals involved. Therefore, there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ understanding – everyone understands what they understand.

Paradigm 2: Avoid Conflict!

What do you associate with the concept of conflict? Dispute, misunderstanding, disagreement, disrupted relationships, loud arguments, ignoring, or bullying. If you ask people, it turns out that conflicts are more avoided than sought. A pity, because not every conflict is dangerous to the relationship and destructive. Conflicts have the potential for clarification, clearing up, finding ideas, and development.

Yet, when we talk about ‘difficult clients’, tactics and solutions are offered in the form of five steps to cool down the heated emotions of the ‘other side’ and send the message that it would be best to prevent the emergence of conflict, resolve it, or turn it to advantage. Egoism, envy, personality, stubbornness, or other human characteristics are common explanations. In many cases, winning is the only thing that matters in a conflict. The misunderstanding that it is ‘something interpersonal’ robs us of the possibility of clarification because solutions are sought at the wrong level.

Conflict is Not the End

The problem arises when conflicts that clearly stem from the structure are mistakenly understood as disputes in relationships and hinder ‘renewal and development’. When current behavior is explained by the past, it is a temporal conflict, and the past is often invoked to clarify the issue of blame. This is rarely purposeful, but depending on the level of escalation of the conflict, one or more participants may consider it important. If we continue to follow the thought that conflict requires a decision, then yes, here and now. And the decision impacts the future.

Conflicts have the power to disrupt the social order and indicate the need for decision-making. The decision is chosen between ‘preserving the old’ and ‘renewal and change‘. This is the dynamic that every social system faces. This tension is necessary, so we should practice dealing with it appropriately. This is also the only way to achieve progress in collaboration and joint ‘value creation’, which is the initial reason why the marketing manager and the communication consultant, as well as the hair salon owner and the sales manager, began their collaboration.

In their case, relieving tension may seem like a good solution in case they ‘want to reach a consensus on the aforementioned issues’, but such an agreement with the client is more than fragile, and it is only a matter of time before it escalates again. Therefore, it is useful to regulate the conflict, heating it up or cooling it down as needed. It is always present where there is communication and collaboration, and it is worth its weight in gold. It is not always necessary to try to reconcile differences. Differences lead us to development. Or as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe said: ‘The same leaves us alone, but contradiction is what makes us productive’.

And how to deal with conflicts, failures, and feedback can be discovered in a specially designed program Stephanie Borgert called ‘Culture Triple’, which has been available on the qohubs platform and the Croatian market since spring.