Joel Comm wrote yesterday about “The $25,000 Lunch.” The basic summary: a gentleman offering a $25,000 corporate coaching service invited Joel to lunch. At the end of it, the man asked if Joel would like to split the bill. Offended that the man who is trying to win his business didn’t offer to pay for the full bill (which was only $16.88), Joel paid for it himself. Joel provides a lot more details, of course. You can read the full story on his blog.
My initial impression was 51/49. I definitely see Joel’s viewpoint, and in a pinch, I would side with him. But I can also see why the corporate coach may have acted the way he did.
The commenters overwhelmingly agreed with Joel. Not surprising, since it’s Joel’s own blog. And he does seem to be in the right: paying for business lunches (when you’re the one who invited the other person) is generally seen as common sense.
But there were 2 commenters who offered differing opinions. They’re very interesting, so I’ve quoted them below:
David Lockett Says:
December 3, 2009 03:34 PM
It is all a matter of perspective.
I have had plenty of con artists offer to buy me lunch in order to secure a contract with my company. However, I always insist of paying for my own lunch, believing that anything else is unethical and could possibly be construed as a bribe.
It seems to me that Joel possibly missed out on dealing with an honest man who was obviously not attempting to buy his favour. Any con artists out there who are angling to win a contract from Joel now know that they need to first buy him lunch as that no doubt strokes his ego and makes him feel important.
Hamster Says:
December 3, 2009 07:31 PM
I was thinking a little bit otherwise. At first, my feeling was to totally agree with you about it costing $25,000. However, I began to imagine if I were that person whom invited you to lunch, there could be a few deductions in my mind that makes me lose pace..
1) Business is business, lunch is lunch, lunch can be personal, and since it is the first casual business lunch, maybe he did not want to rush in to business so soon? Maybe he plain wants to get down to earth and make the first genuine friendship, he calls fairness irregardless of the amount?
2) Maybe he is afraid of offending you or feels himself out of place by treating you to that lunch? Maybe he was thinking “I am sure he would think that I have to buy him lunch to get that business” which is what he does not want you to think as such. Or buying you $16 dollar lunch aint just not good enough?
[...]
So what do you think?
Adversite here
Comments
It is so easy to be ambiguous, but so hard to be clear with intentions. “can I take you to lunch?” implies I am buying. “can we have lunch?, do you want lunch?” are open ended. “Who’s buying” should have been cleared on the outset. Replying, “You buying?” solves the question instantly and allows everyone to enjoy lunch without the inevitable anxiety accompanied by the check.
When finished with lunch, “Can I buy your lunch, or would you prefer to split it?” can set you up as cheap, but adding motivation resolves intent: “i wouldn’t want to create a situation where you might feel obliged to reciprocate or give an appearance of impropriety with your constituents or shareholders.” would resolve the very valid conflict presented by the first commentator. Aren’t many government officials prevented from accepting lunches for that very reason?
English can be both clear and ambiguous, but people are rarely clear when they speak, leaving more to the unsaid and mysterious social conventions that vary from region to region. Why is it so hard to just say what we mean?
Leave A Comment