Leading and Inspiring Teams

by Editors of MCNews 2002

from Management Consulting News, 2002

Widely acknowledged as a leading authority on the management of professional service firms, Richard Wood has taught and written extensively on the subject. He holds degrees from the University of Southern Queensland, and the Queensland University of Technology.

Wood talked to MCNews about First Among Equals, which provides concrete advice for practice leaders and group heads in the professional sector as well as managers of talented knowledge workers anywhere.

* * * *

What motivated you to write First Among Equals?

RW: The origin was really my previous article, which was a statistical study of 139 professional firms that correlated employee attitudes with financial results. One of the powerful lessons that came out of that study was that financial success is driven not by strategy, processes or systems, but by the character and ability of the individual manager to energise and excite people. When I wrote that conclusion in the article, many of my clients said, "If that's true, where do we go to learn how to do that?"

Six years ago, when I was first learning how to be a consultant, I found that nothing in my business education had prepared me for the real world of managing people. Managing is in no sense about intellect, rationality or logic; it is about the ability to influence the emotions of other human beings.

I had to learn emotional, interpersonal and social skills from ground zero, especially the difference between being right and being helpful. I was interested in this subject, so I decided to write an article about playing a managerial role in a professional environment.

What's the significance of the article's title?

RW: The significance is that if you want professional people to listen to you, you must focus on them -- not on yourself. My first experience of this was when I was a student at USQ and I was asked to run a study group, meaning a group of six or seven other student members, all of whom were studying the same course. To seem in charge, I made the mistake of acting as if I was one level above my colleagues. The mere suggestion of that undercut my ability to influence them, because they resented me trying to lord it over them. I wasn't really trying to do that, but the mere hint of it gets people's backs up.

Very accomplished individuals will only accept guidance from someone if they believe that person is trying to help them. On the other hand, if I believe that you are not here to help me, but rather to make yourself look good, meet the project budget, or meet departmental numbers, I may be forced to listen to you but I am not going to engage.

This is not a moral or philosophical point. The title of the article is about the approach you take to have influence, which is this: behave as if you are one of us and that you are trying to help us, and we will listen to you. If you act as if you are my boss, I will go into compliance mode until the headhunter returns my phone call, but I am not going to let you influence me.

How would you characterise the state of team management, project management and group leadership in the consulting industry today?

RW: Well, I don't pretend to know the entire industry or have the knowledge from which to generalise, but I do think it's on the weaker side, rather than the stronger side. More to the point, I have observed four flaws with managerial roles in consulting.

The first is that whether it is project management, practice management or office management, the role of the manager is ambiguous; in many firms, the cold job description does not capture what the job is. I feel strongly that a manager is not an overseer or a policeman. The real role of a manager is to help other people become successful, to spark superior performance through coaching.

A good coach is simultaneously demanding (come on, you can do it) and supportive (I will help you get there). Often, when consultants become managers, the notion that their job is to help gets left out. They focus on being in charge of monitoring and keeping projects on track, which is vital, of course. But that approach, by itself, is an incomplete and therefore flawed definition of the role.

The second problem is the criteria used by most consulting firms to select people for management roles. The central selection criterion should be the consultant's interpersonal, emotional and social skills. We should be asking questions like, "Can this person get people excited about the work? Can he help people to stretch?" and "Can she inspire great performance?" Instead, most consulting firms promote their best business generators, or their technical or financial experts. I am not putting down those three skills, which are very important. But none of them is a qualification for performing the role of a manager.

After role definition and selection criteria, the third flaw is, of course, lack of training. Very few consulting firms provide substantive training on how to be a manager. You just get dropped into it, which wouldn't be so bad if we were all naturals at managing others.

The fourth problem is how reward systems tend to work inside consulting firms. If the job of a group leader is to make the group successful, it seems only logical to reward that manager on how well the group has done.

But is it your experience that most firms evaluate managers on their individual performance instead?

RW: Or on the perception of the manager's performance. Many consulting firms today continue to judge managers on their personal numbers, which of course means that managers see generating those numbers as job one, and management as maybe job two, but more likely as an irritating distraction from job one. This sub-optimises the performance of the team.

I want to stress that none of this is an anti-money argument. The way to run your operation to make the most money is to give people time to manage and hold them accountable for being good managers.

Aren't some of these skills the same ones we use to manage client relationships?

RW: Yes. I'm only half joking when I say that, when I thought about writing this article, I was tempted to just take the title of my previous article, and rename it The Trusted Manager. The activities, skills and tactics of a trusted advisor and trusted manager are similar in many respects.

It is an interesting paradox that many consultants have these skills, and they do use them when dealing with clients. It's only when they come back to the office and manage their colleagues that they tend not to use the same skills. Again, it sounds like a moral point, but it's not. I like to call it the rule of human technology: if you want other people to give you what you want, first give them what they want.

The message is not about being nice to people because you are Mother Teresa; it's about how best to run an organisation filled with feisty professionals. What works best is to treat them with the same thoughtfulness that you would a feisty client.

Let's talk about managing consulting teams that are made up of both clients and consultants. Do these teams have a different dynamic, and how can a team leader draw the best from both groups to get the project done?

RW: One of the ideas I tried to stress in the article is that before you can try to manage a team as a team, you must form a one-on-one relationship with each team member. A common mistake is to try to do your managing at team meetings.

It's hard enough to influence one person, let alone influence ten of them simultaneously. So you must do your homework and visit each team member, both on the client side and on the consulting side. I don't mean get personal; I mean talk to the team members about how they see the objectives of the project, what role they would like to play and how they like to work. If you do that, then when you do go to team meetings, you will be able to manage the group much better because you understand the dynamics and the politics.

You can also be more responsive. For example, instead of arbitrarily assigning tasks, you can turn to Mary and say: "I believe this is something you find to be of special interest -- is that right?" Then people see you as the leader trying to put them into the parts of the project where they best fit.

Another important point is the need to establish at the outset an explicit agreement on the rules by which the team will function. One of the traps of consulting life is that there is always time pressure; as soon as the project is launched there is this terrible trap, which is the temptation to get started immediately.

And just go with an implied set of rules?

RW: Right. The rules are implied if you assume that everybody knows what they are. For example, who is going to communicate with whom, and what do you have a right to expect from each other? To whom should you go if there is a problem? Should you talk directly to the person who is bugging you, or should you go to the team leader?

When creating your team's membership rules, ask the team to set its own rules. They will set tougher rules for themselves than you would set. Then, when you have to deal with non-compliance, instead of being Attila the Hun you are just the conscience or coach, saying, "Hey, there seems to be a problem with this rule we agreed to, how can I help?" You have more influence if you are not seen as the arbitrary enforcer of your own rules but as the person whose role it is to enforce the team's rules.

There are some good points about team and individual recognition in the article. What advice do you have on the dos and don'ts of public recognition in a team setting?

RW: Pete Friedes, of Hewitt Associates, has made the excellent point that you want to be careful with individual recognition because you can annoy others who feel they contributed as much or more. My own view is that you should keep public recognition fairly modest in language and style. You could say, for example, "I just want to thank Fred for pulling an all-nighter." By being modest in time and in tone, you don't annoy too many people. You express appreciation more in a one-on-one meeting with Fred, which I believe has a lot more impact.

Appreciation needs to be commensurate and proportionate. You don't want to overdo it because it will come back to haunt you; everyone will expect it. Acknowledge achievement, express appreciation and, if you want to do more, do it privately.

If a consultant were going to take over a team today, what advice would you give her or him?

RW: We already talked about visiting each of the individual team members. I would add something not yet mentioned, which is to ask each individual, "What do you want from me as your group leader? How can I help you most?"

The other advice I would give is that you need to be clear on your own non-negotiable minimum standards of behaviour. If there are certain things that you think we have a right to expect from each other, then I think you've got to share your philosophy right up front. It's not that you are trying to set all of the rules for the team; what I am saying is that if you are seen as a leader who has no values of his own, then I don't think you can lead very well.

And of course the other rule is this: don't fake it; they will see that in a minute.

What are you reading these days?

RW: Actually, I am re-reading some old stuff. There is a new edition of the Leadership Challenge [by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner] that is superb. The new edition has more recent anecdotes and is worth a look. I've been re-reading Pete Friedes' new book, The 2R Manager.

Do you have an article in progress?

RW: I am still trying to decide if I will launch into another one in the next few months. I am seriously thinking of writing a sort of avuncular article for the young professional about the keys to succeeding in professional life. I would like to catch people when they first enter into consulting or other professional work and say, "For what it's worth, here is what I have learned about what it really takes to succeed and the attitudes and skills that you really need."

Thanks for your time today.

How's your Asset?

At the end of my first full year as a financial management consultant, at the age of 25, I decided to take stock. How healthy was my career? I quickly discovered a disturbing paradox. My income statement was fantastic, but my balance sheet was deteriorating so badly that I was in danger of ruining my career (in other words, going out of business).

Just before starting my consulting career I had published a few articles that had caught the attention of my target clientele. The phone rang constantly with requests for me to do work in the area in which I had built my (budding) reputation.

Not only was I very busy (and "highly chargeable"), but because I was being hired to do things for which I already had a reputation, I had relatively few problems with fee levels (that is, I had a "high realisation percentage"). I made a lot of money, more than I had hoped for. All seemed to be going very well.

But was my business (and/or my career) truly healthy? I remembered my business-school training, which had taught me that to judge the health of a business you have to look at the balance sheet as well as the income statement. What made up my balance sheet? I could think of two groups of assets for my profession. (We'll ignore for the moment my liabilities, particularly the personal ones.)

When I first started out, the ideas contained in my articles (on which I had launched my business) were relatively new to the market, and I could therefore command a premium fee to consult or speak about them. However, with the passage of time, the price the market would pay for those ideas (and the related skills and knowledge) would inevitably decline. There were probably many potential clients out there to whom I could keep selling the "same old stuff," but if I kept this up, my skills eventually would be out of date and worthless.

Already the danger signs were there. Friends among my client base told me that people were saying, "Oh, yeah, we've had Wood in and heard his stuff. What else has he got?" Even with ongoing clients (and I had a few), they clearly didn't value as highly what I was doing the second or third time as they had the first time. The value of my asset was definitely going down.

There was also a strange problem with my second group of assets, my client relationships and reputation.

If I had published a personal brochure (or resume) about my consulting career to date, it would have looked very impressive. I had worked for a large number of very prestigious clients. It felt like my client and contact list represented a real asset. But was there any real value there?

It quickly became clear that my client relationships would have a high value only if, the next time the client had a problem in my field of interest, I had a high probability of getting the job. That would have been worth something. But truthfully, that wasn't the case. I realised that having only done "one thing" (or a limited set of things) for a wide variety of clients meant that I really hadn't developed relationships that promoted the chances of me getting their next (interesting) assignment.

I realised that the value of my client relationships was not measured by the number of clients or by their prestige, but by how deep the relationship was. I realised that I would have been better off working for fewer clients but doing a variety of things for them, so that they would have seen the range of my skills and had the chance to know me better and trust me when new things came up.

As I worked to address these problems in subsequent years, more harsh realities about professional life became evident.

Unfortunately, I discovered that it was harder to generate asset-building work than to sell what I was already known for, already had methodologies for, already had written articles about and already had references for. If I took the line of least resistance in my practice development activities (in other words, sold what was easiest to sell), chances were that I would be milking my asset, not building it.

Second, I learned that doing asset-building work was often more stressful and sometimes less fun than doing what I was already good at. Doing the type of work that was easiest and most comfortable was not necessarily what was best for my career. In fact, it rarely was. I realised that in professional life, if you're comfortable, you're heading for trouble.

In summary, I learned that unless I actively worked at it, my career prospects would inevitably decline, even when (or perhaps especially when) I was making lots of money. Having a good current year financially was clearly a necessary condition for my success, but it was far from being a sufficient condition. Keeping my career moving forward, even staying level, was going to take conscious effort.

There were two pieces of good news in all this. First, I discovered that if I was prepared to work at it, there did not have to be a trade-off between my balance sheet and my income statement. If I could be diligent and clever enough in my practice development, then I could be as busy with asset-building work as I had been with asset-milking activities.

Furthermore, if I did things correctly, I could deserve and earn higher fees for learning and developing new types of projects than I was able to earn for the stuff I knew how to do years before. My current chargeability and realisation did not have to suffer; I just had to learn to manage my flow of work and be sure to build new skills -- continually and forever.

For example, an assignment from an existing client (assuming the project was different) was far more likely to deepen my knowledge, broaden my skills and make an asset out of my client relationships than a "first" assignment for another new client.

That's what I learned in my first year. Since then, I have learned that those experiences were not just problems encountered in the early stages of a career. In fact, the more "successful" I became in later years, the greater the temptation was to exploit existing skills and relationships, and the harder I had to work to make sure that I didn't just cruise and let my balance sheet slip away unexamined.

After having observed thousands of partner-level professionals in a wide variety of vocations in numerous countries, I have concluded that those same lessons still apply, not only to me but to every professional at any stage of his or her career.

Moving Toward a Solution: The Personal Strategic Plan

To grow your asset successfully requires a plan, one designed to make your asset increasingly valuable in the marketplace. You have to find ways to continually develop the knowledge and skills that your target clients value. In essence, we all need a personal strategic plan for our careers.

What can you do to promote your learning apart from being exposed to a variety of experiences? Traditionally, most people acquire their skills and knowledge through opportunistic insights, not structured learning (a phrase taken from Donald Schon). However, you can rely too much on random experience as a teacher. To learn well, you have to set out to learn something specific.

Unfortunately, this requires focus. Like most professionals, I enjoy variety in my work life. I have wide interests and enjoy learning new things about lots of things. Yet I have learned from my own career, and from watching thousands of other professionals, that if you want to create a truly valuable asset, then you have to focus your attentions on building a highly specific set of knowledge and skills.

This is true not only because focusing means that individual pieces of learning are more likely to be cumulative and hence speed up the value creation process, but also because (with ever-increasing intensity in each profession) clients demonstrably value specialisation. If we want our asset to be valuable in the marketplace, we have to respond to their preferences.

With each passing year, I have relearned the importance that clients give to specialisation in "their kind of business" (that is, specialisation either by industry or by "type of client," such as family-owned businesses, government agencies, entrepreneurial companies, Fortune 500 or international organisations).

Meeting this client need does not mean working only in one industry, 100 percent of the time. It does mean being sufficiently well-informed and experienced to stay current with industry developments, being able to converse with the client about industry-specific issues and offering your professional counsel in such a way that the client does not have to perform any "mental translation" of generalities or terminology into his or her specific situation.

For example, I have learned that the (seemingly "low-level") task of diligently reading my clients' industry trade magazines, newsletters and trade association materials every single month without fail has made me a better professional in their eyes. It has made me, in their judgment, substantially more valuable to them. Sometimes reading those materials (or attending their trade association meetings) doesn't feel like a "professional development" activity, but I have to remind myself that, in the clients' eyes, my asset is not defined as just my technical skill. For them, my asset is valuable if I have technical skill and the ability to apply it in a customised way to their situation.

Choosing an industry (or "type of client") focus is a problem for many professionals who worry about over-specialising. When I began, I too wanted to work with more than one industry (or, in my case, profession) and faced a common problem. How could I achieve my ultimate goal, involving both breadth (the variety of clients that I find fun and fulfilling) and depth (the detailed knowledge of industry specifics that clients value)?

By observing others and through my own experience, I have concluded that the correct approach is depth first and then breadth. By first focusing on clients in a specific industry, you will more quickly build the knowledge and skills they value, more quickly be exposed to a variety of (asset-building) assignments and more quickly build client relationships.

Only after having done that is it wise to begin branching out. If one took the opposite route of breadth first, one would be accumulating lots of little pieces of knowledge in a wide area and establishing numerous minor client relationships -- not the best strategy for fast skill building.

It is important, I have learned, to make a distinction between knowledge and skill. Knowledge is relatively easy to accumulate quickly, but it also depreciates quickly. Skills are hard to win, but they keep their value a little longer. Further, I have learned that it is important to distinguish between technical skills and counselling skills.

Growing one's professional technical skill is, of course, a minimum requirement for keeping one's career alive. However, it has been a fascinating lesson to observe lawyers, accountants, consultants and other professionals, noting that only a very special few have been able to build their careers on technical skills alone. These few are the gurus, the rocket scientists, the brain surgeons of their professional specialty who have somehow persuaded the market that they are closer to the frontier of their discipline than their competition.

For the vast bulk of the remaining professionals I know (including myself), technical skills alone are rarely enough. To be a valuable professional in the eyes of clients, I have learned (sometimes through bitter experience) that it takes a variety of interpersonal skills, which I lump together under the title of counselling skills.

Professionals are more valuable to clients if they not only solve their clients' problems and "tell" them what they should do, but also help their clients understand more. This includes helping clients look at issues in a fresh, more revealing way, and helping them see what the options are and what relative advantages and disadvantages those options offer.

This activity sounds simple but I have learned that it truly is a skill, and like all skills, it takes practice. By observation, I can report that some professionals are terrific at this and others (probably the majority, including myself) could do with some improvement. What is certain is that effectiveness in this area is something that clients value highly, and that utilising this skill will build one's asset and one's career prospects.

Other skills fall into this category of counselling ability. Most professionals find themselves working with more than one executive as their client. Accordingly, the client will receive greater value from any ability that the professional may have to deal with groups, in that the professional can help the client organisation arrive at consensus where none existed before, reconcile differences and diplomatically handle the conflicting views that exist among client personnel, and so on. Again, what I have learned is that these skills are called upon, not infrequently, but in the regular activities of most professionals' work.

How to Speed Up Your Asset-Building

With these thoughts in mind, I worked hard over the years to manage the mix of my business, and I think that I've succeeded. I was lucky enough to be given the chance to work on a variety of interesting and challenging new types of assignments. A while ago, I gave myself a test.

"OK, Richard," I said to the face in the mirror. "What do you know now, or what can you do now, that you didn't know or couldn't do one year ago? In what way are you a better professional than you were one year ago?"

I watched my face turn red. "I know I've learned something," I replied, "but I'm not sure I can tell you what it is."

"Why not?" I quizzed myself.

"The problem, you see, is this. I've had lots of interesting experiences, but I'm not sure I've figured out what they taught me. I've had my share of successes, but I've never paused to reflect on why that particular assignment went well -- I was always too busy, dashing to the next assignment.

"And, unfortunately, I've had my share of failures -- client assignments that didn't work out as planned. And there I was, even more eager to dash to the next piece of work and not look back on what want wrong. And even if I did look back, I have to confess that it was more normal for me to think about what the client's people did wrong (Those darn clients!) than what I could have done better."

Since I was talking to myself, I indulged myself in an old joke. "The trouble is that some people have five years of experience, and other people have one year of experience five times." The difference, of course, is in the ability to learn. Experience is the best teacher, but you have to do the homework.

I realised that if I was going to build my knowledge and skills, it was not enough to have a wide variety of experiences: I had to work at learning from them. I stole the following quote from somewhere, but now cannot remember where. I'd love to give appropriate credit because it sums up very well what personal asset-building is all about:

What we are is determined by what we experience, which is determined by what we do, which is determined by what we learn, which is determined by how we interpret events.

The lesson of this (inspirational?) quote is that, just like my experience when I looked at myself in the mirror, the essence of personal growth lies in taking the time to look back at what you've been doing and working at extracting the lessons from it.

There are four avenues of "debriefing" that I have found valuable in promoting learning:

1. By oneself
2. With the team (assuming that others, including juniors, worked on the assignment)
3. With the client
4. With one's peers

First is debriefing on your own. I find that if I force myself to examine my work experiences, taking the time at the end of a project to ask myself, "What went well, and why? What didn't go so well, and why?" I almost always come up with something that will help me get better next time. For myself, I find that if I take notes (keeping a written personal journal) I am more likely to remember and apply the lessons next time.

Debriefing with the team has the same goal and uses the same questions. However, debriefing with the client adds an entirely new perspective. By asking the client to review the assignment with me, and tell me in retrospect what "we" (the client and I) could have done better, and what we might do "if" there were a next time, I have found that I get a great deal of assistance in growing my asset, particularly in those areas of working with client personnel that are so important to clients but so easy to neglect in the hurly-burly of "getting the project done."

There are immense benefits to be gained by asking your clients for feedback on your performance on a regular, systematic basis. I have learned that if you ask, clients will be honest with you about what you can improve on. Often, the things they mention are those you're already aware of, but the act of asking forces you to confront (and deal with) your (relatively) weak areas.

Many firms have organised efforts in this area, including mailed questionnaires. Whether or not your firm adopts this approach, my experience suggests that it is in the individual professional's self-interest to arrange their own client feedback program just for themselves. Not only does this activity help build skills, but the act of asking for feedback is a powerful tool in cementing client relationships.

By taking every opportunity to discuss your work with peers, you create the possibility that you will derive value when they ask, "Why did you do it this way? What would have happened if you did that?"

Other devices can help skill building. Many of the key interpersonal skills that all professionals need fall into the category of what I call the "Cabin Attendant Test." The airlines teach their cabin attendants how to deal with a rowdy drunk at 35,000 feet. They even coach them with prepared scripts on precisely what to say to accomplish the desired soothing effect. However, knowing what to say is easy, but having the skill to actually "pull it off" in real time is an entirely different story.

So it is also with some counselling skills. How, for example, do you tell a client he or she is wrong, without being rude, confrontational or challenging? Doing it well takes skill, not knowledge, and a professional without that skill will not have great career prospects.

The answer, of course, comes from practice. But it must be practice in a situation where you can afford to fail, where you can watch yourself, where you can try different approaches and learn. That means rehearsals and role playing. Some of us can develop these skills rapidly by repeated experience in front of real clients. For most of us, a little off-line practice would work wonders (particularly if there's a video camera around)!

It's also a good idea to participate in as many joint projects with professionals from other disciplines as possible. We learn and develop from our work experiences, and if you get a chance to be on the same assignment as a top professional from some other area, you're going to learn -- and learn in a way that no amount of reading or "off-line" conversations with that professional will ever provide. Figure out who has something to teach you, and find a way (even if it means cross-selling their services to your client) to work with that person.

Conclusion

Whether you are age 25 or 55, you will always need to worry about how your career is moving forward from today. As you think about your career, here are some questions to ponder:

In what way are you personally more valuable to the marketplace than last year?

What are your plans for making yourself more valuable to the marketplace than in the past?

What specific new skills do you plan to acquire or enhance in the next year?

What's your personal strategic plan for your career over, say, the next three years?

What can you do to make yourself (even more) special to the marketplace in the near future?

What, precisely, is it that you want to be famous for?

The first group of assets on which my career was based was my inventory of knowledge and skills. Professionals get paid for their time, but that's not what we sell. We sell knowledge and skill. The second (potential) asset was my client relationships. Much to my surprise, I discovered that both had deteriorated badly.

The problem with my knowledge and skill was that I hadn't learned anything new. By definition, the unsolicited phone calls requesting my services had been for things that I was already known for.

Even though each client project was customised (to a degree), I found myself doing basically very similar work for a variety of clients. I had not added to my abilities. What was even more shocking (and depressing) was the realisation that not only had I not grown my asset, but its value on the market was going down -- rapidly.

Left untended, knowledge and skills, like all assets, depreciate in value -- surprisingly quickly.

Wood's Laws of the Job Search

This was written for MBA students who came to me with questions about career choices. It has since been reproduced around the world in a variety of books, magazines and journals. This is the original version.

• You can't decide what you want from a job until you're clear on what you want from life.
• Some people have been too busy "succeeding" to figure out what success means to them. Don't look for a job until you've thought it through.
• First figure out what you want in life. Then go look for it.
• It's easy to fool yourself as to what you really want from life.
• There are a lot of people around you who will tell you what you should want from life: parents, teachers, friends. You don't have to accept their answers. Don't get stampeded.
• Ban the word "should" from your job search.
• We all want to impress people. The tough part is figuring out precisely who we want to impress and why.
• You can't impress everyone simultaneously. Different people are impressed by different things: money, status, intellect, character, contribution to society and so on, forever. What do you want to be admired for? By whom?
• We all want respect and prestige. But in whose eyes? It ain't necessarily those of other students (because six months from now you won't see most of them ever again).
• The key to what you really want lies in something that you don't like to admit. "I don't like to admit it but I need to be the centre of attention." OK; find a job that will let you show off. "I don't like to admit it but I really want to be rich." Fine; go out and get rich. "I don't like to admit it but I'm a snob." That's all right; go work with "upper class" people.
• Play to your "evil secrets"; don't suppress them.
• You are a lot less flexible than you think.
• Some people are big-city types: others are happier in small towns. Which are you? It's more important than you think.
• Changing jobs is easier than changing family, and a lot less painful.
• Your happiness will be determined much more by what job you've got than by what company you're working for or what industry you're in. Most people choose an industry, then choose a company, then choose a job. It's the wrong order.
• You can't figure out what you want in life by going to interviews.
• The more interviews you attend, the more confusion you'll feel.
• The more confusion you feel, the worse the decision you'll make.
• The goal is to get the right job offer, not the most job offers.
• There is nothing as pathetic as someone getting depressed about being turned down by a company they didn't want to go work for anyway.
• Don't sell: buy! You can either buy yourself a job or be bought by one.
• If your new job doesn't work out, the divorce will be a lot more painful for you than for your employer. So you should be a lot pickier than they are in deciding whether to "get married." Don't sell: buy!
• Nothing impresses an interviewer more than someone who knows what they want and why. Don't sell: buy!
• What do you really need to know about the job you'll be doing to be sure you'll be happy? Don't be afraid to ask. Check it out to be sure. Don't sell: buy!
• You'll be happier if you like and respect the people you'll be working with: bosses, peers, subordinates, customers. Do you know who you like and respect? Is it these people? Don't sell: buy!
• People don't care about how much you know until they know how much you care. Enthusiasm and the hard work it inspires counts for more than an extra piece of ability.
• Don't worry about whether you'll be good at it: If it turns you on, you'll be good enough. If it doesn't, you won't.
• Your "strengths" are irrelevant; what you like is critical.
• Don't plan too far ahead. In five to ten years, you'll be a different person who will want different things from life.
• Do it because it will make you happy now, not because it will (if it works out) make you happy tomorrow.
• Don't serve any pure apprenticeship, something that you'll hate and will do only because it will lead somewhere. If you hate it, you'll never get through it.
• All job choices are risky, so think about how you'll feel if it doesn't work out. If you'll able to say, "I'm glad I tried it anyway," then consider the job. If you can't imagine saying that, don't bother pursuing it any further.
• Remember, the point of life is to be happy.
• All other goals (money, fame, status, achievement, responsibility) are merely ways of making you happy and are worthless in themselves."

The Role of the Manager

by Editors of DBM 2002

from Dutch Business Magazine, 2002

Could you briefly introduce yourself to our readers?

RW: I have been a consultant to professional firms around the world for 6 years. Before that, I was a student at QUT and USQ. All of my articles on professional businesses have been translated into Dutch. In a recent book by Tom Brown I was identified as one of the top 40 business thinkers in Australia.

Your basic assumption in Practice What You Preach is that certain elements have a direct influence on the profits of companies, because top companies have a better score on certain questions. How do you know that these factors influence their profits? Could other factors be influencing the company's results? When questioning these firms, might you find that they also score differently on other topics on your list?

RW: I did not assume anything. I studied 139 businesses in 15 countries, then used traditional statistical approaches to test exactly this question. The odds that the relationships I found are coincidental (i.e., actually driven by something else) are less than one in a thousand. If I only had 13 businesses, chance and coincidence might be factors, but with 139 data points it is very unlikely.

I'm interested in how you measure managers. Which criteria are most appropriate to use when measuring the effectiveness of a manager (not particularly top management but just individual managers)?

RW: The job of a manager is to make other people in his or her group successful -- sometimes in spite of themselves! The manger's job is to be a creator of energy, excitement and enthusiasm so that people in the group accomplish more than they would without the manager.

There are two ways to judge a manager's effectiveness. First, you can look at the group's performance: profits, growth, client satisfaction and people development. Second, you can and should ask the people within the group to evaluate whether the manager is adding any value. Here is a questionnaire from my latest article that can be used to evaluate the manager:

The manager

• Causes me to stretch for performance goals
• Is concerned about long-term issues, not just short-term profits
• Provides constructive feedback that helps me improve my performance
• Is a source of creative ideas about our business
• Helps me to grow and develop
• Conducts team meetings in a manner that breeds involvement
• Makes me feel that I am a member of a well-functioning team
• Emphasises co-operation as opposed to competitiveness between work groups
• Is prompt in dealing with under-performance and under-performers
• Helps me understand how my tasks fit into the overall objectives for the firm
• Keeps me informed about the things I need to know to perform my role properly
• Actively encourages me to volunteer new ideas and make suggestions for the improvement of the practice
• Encourages me to initiate tasks or projects I think are important
• Is good at keeping down the level of "politics and politicking"
• Is more often encouraging than critical
• Is accessible when I want to talk
• Is fair
• Is consultative in his or her decision making
• Acts more like a coach than a boss
• Is publicly generous with credit
• Is effective in communicating

Which methods are commonly used to measure the results of managers?

RW: Unfortunately, most managers are judged too narrowly. They are judged on group results, but only financial group results; there is a need for a more balanced scorecard. In addition, it is rare that the views of those being managed are used formally to assess the manger. They are sometimes collected in so-called 360-degree feedback systems, but that data is used for information only and is not a formal part of the manager's performance appraisal.

I've interviewed GE Plastics' European HR manager. He told me how managers and in fact all employees are constantly being judged by the company. At the beginning of the year the criteria by which an employee will be assessed is outlined. Each employee is assessed on various occasions throughout the year and also at the end of the year. Criteria used include 1) results and 2) values. The main value of the company is integrity.

Everyone is being judged at these two levels and gets to hear if he or she is top A), middle B) or low C) level. Employees scoring low in both areas must work on improvement. In that way, all employees are required to constantly improve and develop themselves. This is of course a very brief outline of how they work, but no doubt you know a lot more about GE. Could you give a reaction on this method of judging management? Do you think it is effective? Is it an example to other companies, or does it not leave enough space for people to be different?

RW: The GE system is a major step in the right direction and should be copied by many businesses. The data in my article confirms that the most effective managers (i.e., those able to get their people to perform at the highest level) were notable because of their character, not their skills. The employees I interviewed repeatedly told me that they worked at their best because their managers were people of high integrity, had clear and uncompromising standards, and were completely trustworthy. This was a surprise to me, because they don't teach you anything about these things in your business education. The conclusion is the same as that reached by Jim Collins in his (data-driven) books Built to Last and Good to Great -- that the best managers have a clear ideology and combine a pursuit of profits with a purpose beyond profits. He reports the same thing I found: The most successful managers are not ego-driven, but are ambitious for their group. Their people trust them to do the right thing for the group as a whole.

The reason this is so important is that you can improve your group in the short term by being none of these things, but instead just by being a hard task-master: very demanding, worrying only about the short term. But the evidence is now accumulating that this will bring only a short-term benefit. To succeed in the long term, you must be seen to be both demanding and supportive.

Judging from your article, managers have a big influence on a company's results. Could you explain that briefly to our readers?

RW: My article demonstrates (with data) that there is a clear path to profits that must be followed. To make the most money, you must deliver superior value to the market-place, and to deliver superior value, you must have an excited, energised, enthused, driven, committed, ambitious, passionate workforce. To achieve this, you must have individual managers with emotional intelligence and interpersonal and social skills who know when and how to exhort, critique, inspire, challenge, compliment, nag and, above all, manage emotions. Exciting people is not a logical, intellectual or rational skill, but rather an emotional skill in which few of us were ever trained. (That's why my next article is a how-to-do-it manual for managers.)

What role do you see for HR managers in improving the assessment and development of managers?

RW: HR can help a lot in the selection process for managers. Unfortunately, it's still true that we choose managers based on all the wrong criteria. We choose them because they are technically smart, or financially astute, or can sell, or any of a number of irrelevant things. The only REAL question is whether people respond to you by raising their performance. Are you a net creator of excitement or a net destroyer of it? Do people trust you (and hence accept your guidance)? Do people believe you are a man or woman of principle or a "do anything to make a euro" type?

At the moment we have poor promotion screening systems to choose good managers. HR could help develop them.

HR could also help develop some training for managers, who are mostly untrained. We train people in business, but that's not the same as training them in how to manage. We need better programs in the basic skills of winning influence and dealing with human beings.

Responding to Fee Pressure

Many professional firms are living in a world of ever-increasing fee pressure from clients. What is the appropriate response to deal with this?

Among the many things that can be done, big and small, the first and most obvious is to achieve a reputation for being worth more than your competition.

This is done through the excellence of your work (and service) for current clients. It's worthless for you to try and claim that you are worth more, but if you can get some existing clients to say it publicly, then prospective new clients can be influenced. Hence, you should strive to get strong endorsements as part of your marketing effort.

Second, you can improve the quality of your attempts to get hired. Most fee resistance is based on scepticism about the value that will be received, but there are many opportunities to be persuasive on value if you can find ways to demonstrate, not just assert, your capabilities.

For example, if during the courting process you look for ways to be substantively useful to the person you are trying to attract (sharing ideas; performing some free initial analysis; or providing education, insights, and facts into what your prospect's competitors are doing), then you will be more convincing on value. The challenge is to find ways to prove, before the project even starts, that you are worth what you charge.

Third, be sure you understand what your client is trying to buy. A great deal of fee resistance comes from the fact that the consulting firm is trying to sell, for example, the "thorough" or "permanent fix" version of the project, while the client is trying to buy the "quick impact" or "lowest up-front cost" version.

In the selling process, you should strip your "core work plan" down to its bare bones, and then present the client with options for "add-ons" that are available -- with a clear cost expounded for each. The client can then pick and choose. If the client wants extra analysis, he or she is the one to add to the budget. If the client wants more frequent communication and consultation, it's their decision.

Going through this process with the client (long before the final presentation) ensures that the client understands how the total fee was arrived at and that you are not including work activities that the client does not value.

Fourth, you can use your budgeting and reporting procedures to overcome fee resistance. The person inside the corporation who hires you will be responsible for the budget, and if you can give that person solid proof that they will retain control over your activities, they will be less nervous about the total cost. Showing the client your methods of "phase-by-phase" budgeting, cost tracking and reporting will move the client's attention away from the aggregate number and give them the comfort of knowing that there will be no waste in the project.

An even better idea is to guarantee that no activity will be performed by you without prior discussion with and approval by the client, thereby giving the client the needed control.

A related topic is to examine your productivity. Clients I have interviewed (around the world) tell me that one of the major reasons they are exerting fee pressure is that they are not convinced that the firms they hire are very efficient, and that they see little or no evidence that the firm is concerned about saving the client money. And they are right.

Professional firms traditionally do not spend much time and effort looking for ways to improve the productivity of their own efforts. As I have long argued, most firms have many senior professionals who are spending time doing things that could be done via less costly resources, through some training, organisation and (perhaps) technology. When there was little fee pressure, this relative inefficiency did not matter very much.

In a world of increasing fee pressure, any consulting firm that can out-perform its competitors in reducing the cost of doing a project will have a clear competitive advantage, whether or not it passes all the savings onto the client. Accordingly, a top priority is to study carefully how you do your projects and look for ways (including staffing, training, methodologies, tools, etc.) to lower your project costs.

Because of concerns over productivity (and the need for budgetary control) many clients are interested in "fixed-fee" pricing. I expect that more and more work will be done on a fixed-fee basis. However, it is clear that in a fixed-fee world the firm must be vigorous in ensuring that the terms and conditions of the contract state very precisely what is and what is not included in the job.

Another response that is gaining popularity in this fee-sensitive world is performance-based pricing. This comes in two forms: either the professional's fee is tied to the accomplishment of a specific result (how much cost is saved for the client, how much revenues will increase, etc.) or the fee is tied to the client's satisfaction.

In the latter case, the deal looks like this: The firm bills during the project at, say, 75 percent of its normal billing rate. At the end of the project the client determines its satisfaction with what was accomplished, and the client decides what "balloon payment" to make. If the client is disappointed, the end payment is zero; if the client is delighted, the end payment brings the consultant up to 100 percent of its normal fees (or possibly more). Note that it is the sole discretion of the client to determine the performance and the "bonus."

This form of pricing is less radical than it looks. In effect, it is nothing more than saying, "If you're not satisfied, don't pay," which is good business practice in any case for a professional firm.

When there is a traditional fee impasse, either the consulting firm must cut the fee to get the job or the client must accept the consultant's desired fee based on an act of faith that the firm is worth it. Performance-based pricing allows the firm to say, "We'll bet on ourselves that we can deliver what we promise. We don't ask you to believe this uncritically up front, but can we agree that if we do deliver value, you'll reward us?" Increasingly, clients are accepting such deals.

Finally, are there circumstances when you should cut your fees? Yes, but it's the opposite of when most firms do.

Most of the fee pressure occurs on low-end, familiar, "asset-milking" work, and this is where most consulting firms are "caving in" and giving discounts. This is strange.

If this is asset-milking work (not building-your-balance-sheet work) why would you want to exacerbate the problem by also hurting your income statement through lower fees?

You should be willing to cut your fees (that is, make an investment) if this particular piece of business will move you forward strategically (for example, if the work is at the frontier and you'll learn new things that you can sell to other clients later on, or if the work will help you to break into a new industry that you have been targeting).

In other words, you should be most willing to trim fees (if necessary) for high-end, asset-building work. Anything else, in my view, is foolish.

Making Multi-disciplinary Practices Work

Many, if not most, of the problems for which clients employ professional firms are inherently multi-disciplinary.

For example, if I am going to build a new electricity generating plant, I'll need advice on law, finance, economics, engineering, environmental considerations and a whole host of additional disciplines. If I am going to launch a new product, it makes sense to co-ordinate efforts across a variety of marketing disciplines such as advertising, public relations, brand identity, web marketing and so on.

If, as a client, I have a multi-disciplinary need, I face the decisions of how I am going to assemble my diverse team and how I am going to manage it.

One approach, of course, is to seek out specialists in each area at whatever institution they may be found and co-ordinate the joint effort myself.

However, it can be a pain to be my own "prime contractor," and I might prefer to deal with an organisation that can take responsibility for managing the whole project, providing a single point of accountability.

Note that none of this is about "cross-selling" or introducing separate disciplines to work on distinct projects. That's a different topic, with its own problems (see my article, Why Cross-Selling Hasn't Worked).

We are talking here about the situation where I, the client, don't want separate teams on separate projects: I want one team working simultaneously, and in harmony, on my complex, multi-disciplinary issue.

Many providers seek to gain a competitive advantage by stressing the range of disciplines they have in their firm (their "menu").

Stressing this too much can back-fire. When doing some construction work in my home, some contractors tried to win my trust and confidence by pointing out that I would need electricians, carpenters and plumbers for the job.

They went on to claim that, by the sheerest coincidence, the best plumber in Toowoomba (my home town) was in their firm; that they just happened to have the city's greatest electricians; and, of course, that their carpenters were head and shoulders above any other carpenters in the entire region.

The more they asserted the excellence of their own people, the more I came to doubt them. Rather than building trust and confidence by pointing out that they had everything in-house, they raised my level of concern that I would get what they had to offer, which was not necessarily the best for me.

This doesn't mean that there is no virtue in having many disciplines in-house. I might be persuaded that because your firm enforces a common culture, work ethic, values and high standards, those people in your firm can provide a guarantee of quality.

But, to be persuasive, you had better have some concrete evidence to back up such a claim. I, together with most clients, am aware that the majority of multi-disciplinary firms were put together through mergers and acquisitions, which doesn't usually help in the creation of common cultures and standards.

Yes, having things in-house should mean better co-ordination, but we've all been around long enough to know that it doesn't always happen that way.

When considering you as my prime contractor, I am most concerned about your ability to co-ordinate, integrate, supervise and manage the various disciplines I need for my project. From my point of view as a client, this is not about cross-selling different services for different phases of an assignment.

That's nice for you but does nothing for me. It's about your ability to deliver a truly integrated service designed to meet my inherently inter-twined, multi-disciplinary need.

A clue as to whether or not you are truly a prime contractor is given by how you are organised internally. If your firm is organised around separate disciplines, each in its own organisational unit (or worse, each with its own profit centre), then I will be sceptical about your ability to co-ordinate even your own people.

I am much more encouraged if you have people from various disciplines organised around client types (by industry) or, better yet, by problem types. Then I know your people are used to working in multi-disciplinary teams for a common cause.

So, do I care about whether your services are in-house or you use third parties? Not a lot.

I care that you demonstrate the ability to put together a custom-tailored team for me and that you have full operational control over everyone on the project. The fact that you share common ownership with other entities is a matter of complete indifference to me. Management, not ownership, is what affects me.

On the other hand, I will worry if you end up using people you have never worked with before, so at a minimum I expect you to have a well-developed network of contacts for every specialty need I might have. Someone you have an alliance with is just fine.

As noted, it's the operational experience I worry about, not the form of ownership. Alliances might represent the best of both worlds, giving me the comfort of knowing that you can work together and diminishing any fear that you are self-dealing.

All this is harder to pull off than it might appear. For decades, marketing communications firms that centred on advertising agencies have tried to market themselves as advisors for their clients' total marketing needs. A few clients have gone for this approach, but the majority has not.

In part this is because many so-called marketing integrators have failed to shake off the perception that advertising is their core. When the multi-disciplinary team is seen to be led by advertising agency people, the client may be sceptical as to whether they will get "objective" advice on the best way to come to market.

Clients are also sceptical about whether the lead co-ordinating agencies actually do have operational and quality control over the other disciplines, which are usually housed in separate companies under a holding company umbrella or, at best, in distinct profit centres.

Whether the sub-contractor services are provided in-house or through a third party, there is one key thing that clients want to know from their prime contractor: Whose side are you on?

Your task as prime contractor is to manage the project and all the sub-contractors on my behalf. Accordingly, I expect you to act as my representative in dealing with everyone on the project, that being the main reason I need a prime contractor rather than performing the role myself.

If I have the slightest suspicion that you are more interested in generating incremental revenues for your firm (or protecting your relationship with third-party sub-contractors) than in serving my interests, then you have disregarded a key element of your prime contractor status, and I will begin to treat you like any other vendor -- with grave caution.

How do you prove that you are on my side? You keep me informed at all times as to what is going on, both with good news and bad (none of the "let's not bother the client with this problem" behaviour). You involve me in all decision making, giving me real options and not just conclusions already arrived at. You consult me before doing anything of any significance.

You document everything so that I feel empowered and in control of everything that is going on. You create opportunities for me to ask questions (no matter how dumb) and provide reassurance about my fears and insecurities. In short, you act as a trusted advisor, not as a technical expert.

Since you are my representative toward the rest of the project team, I expect you to get to know me and my business in great depth. You need to be sensitive to how I like to do things, how I like to be communicated with and what my preferences are (logical or not).

You are my agent in the world of the project and I expect you to represent me accurately to everyone involved. If I tell you something once (provided it is not explicitly in confidence), then I don't expect to have to repeat myself to others on the team. Your internal communications (about me as well as about the project) need to be both speedy and accurate.

Since the job of the prime contractor is to understand the totality of the project, I require you to demonstrate both a big-picture perspective (understanding the true goals of the project and where they fit in with other things going on in my business) and, at the other extreme, an obsessive attention to detail.

The most important aspect of any project is the one that goes wrong. And, as Phil Crosby pointed out in Quality Is Free, "When you solve your number one problem, number two gets a promotion." It's your job to worry about these things so that I can sleep peacefully at night. Your key role is to absorb all the hassle for me.

Obviously, absorbing hassle doesn't mean keeping things from me. If there's a problem or a missed delivery or an unforeseen complication (and, of course, there will be all these things) then let me know what's happened, what my options are and what you recommend that we do about it. I won't hold you to a standard of perfection, but I expect you to keep me informed.

Develop a sense of when to bother me and when not to. And you can only do that if you have taken a lot of time to listen to me and understand me. And keep listening.

There probably has never been a complex project where the client's needs and preferences did not evolve during the life of the project. (That's what "change orders" are all about!) Stay tuned in. I need wise counsel, not only at the beginning of a project, but all the way through.

I will be particularly impressed if you have project management software that not only schedules all the work and keeps track of finances and costs, but also serves as a common communications vehicle between you, me and everyone working on the project. (Such software is now fairly common in the engineering and construction professions, though relatively scarce elsewhere.)

When trying to win my business, show me the systems you have for communication, control and cost management. Give me the comfort that you truly are ready to manage complex assignments. Don't promise me that you'll develop a system just for me. I need the confidence that you've done this before, and your having systems in place already is reassuring evidence. I expect you to be immensely well organised.

Discuss with me what kind of reporting I like to have. Don't just tell me "your firm's methodology" for this. Let me decide if I want a lot or a little and in what form. And make sure that I can obtain extra documentation at any time. If something goes wrong, I want to get my hands on a complete history of who said they'd do what by when. I don't want to waste energy and time recreating history.

While I want you to "run interference" for me in dealing with the technical sub-contractors, I reserve the right to deal with them directly and personally if I choose. Who knows? I might have a future need for just a plumber, and I might want to judge for myself whether your plumber (or other technical sub-contractor) is someone who I would consider using.

Absorb my hassle, but don't try and act as a barrier between me and others on the project. If I want to communicate directly, I will.

Do I care which of the various disciplines on the project plays the role of prime contractor? Phrased another way, do I care about what the prime contractor's "home" discipline is?

Not really. Being a prime contractor is not about any technical discipline but is about management, communication, organisation and negotiation skills (on my behalf), along with trustworthiness and understanding of my business.

I'd be just as happy if you didn't have a home discipline, as long as you have the ability to understand my needs better than anyone else and manage an multi-disciplinary team. I don't care about what field you got your technical training in -- I want to know that you can manage.

All this is very demanding. So why should you bother? Apart from the fulfillment of playing a leading role within interesting, complex and challenging projects, there is one great benefit in being the prime contractor rather than a technical sub-contractor: money.

Technical sub-contractors are not hard to find, and while they may be paid well, they will receive market rates for their discipline. But finding a good prime contractor is difficult, and therefore such a person or organisation is invaluable.

If clients are going to pay premiums, accept value-based billing or be less than completely fee sensitive, it is the prime contractor who is going to benefit. That's where the money is now and where it will increasingly be.

There is nothing more worth paying a premium for than the peace of mind that comes from knowing someone you trust is absorbing all the hassle for you.

A Discussion About Fees

from American Lawyer, 2002

Is it time for large law firms to raise their hourly rates? Why or why not?

RW: It's always important for law firms to be looking for ways to earn and deserve higher fees (it's clearly the most powerful way to improve profitability), but it isn't as simple as just raising rates. The questions are these: In what ways have we changed the way we practice to be more valuable to our clients? Would THEY agree that we are now more valuable to them than we were two or three years ago? If the answer to these questions is "no," then raising rates would be crazy.

Bear in mind that in a capitalist economy, prices are a reflection of relative scarcity (i.e., the balance of supply and demand.) It's all very well that you can do wonderfully valuable things for clients, but if 20 other firms can credibly achieve the same thing, the price you will command won't be high. The key to raising rates successfully is to work with clients in ways they both value and do not commonly find among law firms.

Is it time for large law firms to increase their equity partners' capital contributions and/or take on debt? Why or why not?

RW: Law firms don't need a lot of capital, except to fund working capital, and this is best done through partner capital contributions. I can't imagine why any firm would want to increase its debt. Success in law firms is not about financial engineering; it is about creating gains in efficiency, value, innovation, teamwork and people development. Remember, chasing money is not what makes you money.

Is this an opportune time for large law firms to seek mergers and/or go hunting for big-name laterals? Why or why not?

RW: Most mergers fail to deliver any positive impact on profits per partner, and are huge diversions of management attention from the things you do need to do to win, e.g., manage the law firm and the people within it. On the other hand, a firm should always be on the lookout for selective laterals who can help get the firm into new areas and disciplines. However, just looking for big names isn't sufficient. A lateral only helps if he or she is able to help the firm build a practice area, and that takes someone who is prepared to act as a team player, invest in the future and coach others. Too many big-name laterals are, in fact, lone wolves who just want to get paid more for their book of business and have no interest in sharing or institutionalising their skills.

Is it time for large law firms to roll back or freeze associate salaries? Why or why not?

RW: The underlying people crisis (or war for talent) is still there. There remains a shortage of young knowledge workers, and as soon as this recession goes away (12 months), we'll be back in the same mode we were 18 months ago, bemoaning the lack of talent available to fill the demand. As noted above, prices (including salaries) are determined by relative scarcity, and demand is now off, so associate salaries are down. But the supply hasn't changed, and when demand comes back, we'll be right back where we started. (And associates will be paying close attention to how firms handled themselves in the down market.)

Is it time for large law firms to reduce the size of their equity partnerships? Why or why not? And if so, how best can this be achieved?

RW: It's certainly time for firms to ensure that all partners with equity are making a contribution commensurate with that reward, but the first step should be to try to help people contribute (through guidance, coaching, support, practice group management, etc.). A firm would be much healthier if it could get a high percentage of its people to the point where they earn and deserve equity. A knee-jerk policy of "you're either a superstar or we're going to take your equity away; you figure it out!" is not exactly a sophisticated approach to management, yet it's increasingly common. Law firms should be great at helping people succeed, not just demanding that they succeed. Yet few firms pass this test.

Tips on Managing People

The Right Way to Give a Critique

The worst thing you can do if you want to get somebody to listen to you is to criticise him or her.

As human beings, we hate being criticised. When attacked we attack back.

And we attack even when we are in the wrong. Right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

Many of us fall into the trap of thinking, "I know I am right, so I'm going to tell the others how silly they are!" It's tempting, but it doesn't work.

If you have the self-control and the presence of mind to put aside the needs of your own ego and say, "I've got a problem. Will you help me?" you are much more likely to get co-operation from the other person.

The Only Way to Get Anybody to Do Anything

If you want to get something from another human being, you must first do something for them. In other words, you can't win influence unless you first invest in the relationship.

So before you need something from someone, make it your business to at least get to know them without making any demands. This doesn't mean invading their privacy but it does mean making the relationship personal. For example, I have learned that I should take my assistant out to lunch occasionally.

This is not something I am naturally disposed to do, but unless I show an interest in her as a human being the relationship won't work. (I still don't do it as often as I should!)

If the only time she hears from me is when I want something, then she will form a kind of resistance.

You Are There to Help

If someone comes in to criticise us or get us to raise our game, under what circumstances would we accept that person's critique?

That's easy. If I think someone is really trying to help me then I'll listen, I'll engage. On the other hand, if I think someone is just trying to get the job done or make himself or herself look good, I may listen because I need to keep my job, but my heart won't be in it. My creative energies will be depleted.

So the bad news is that you will only have influence over people to the extent that they think you are sincerely trying to help them. It's not a moral point. It's simply how human beings work.

The most influential managers are those who can be convincing to other people that they care about them as people.

Team Players

The most common prima donnas are people who don't want to be team players at all. If they throw a fit about something, they are not really talking about anything specific: they just don't want to have to fit in with others.

If one person won't fit in, the minute you are seen to tolerate their behaviour, to tolerate an exception, you as the leader have just given permission to everybody else to do things their own way, too.

You are better off without a prima donna if their actions ruin the teamwork of the whole group. If you want the benefits of collaboration you cannot afford to make exceptions.

Getting the Task Done

Each time you have an interaction with someone there are two things going on: one deals with the immediate topic, getting the task done, and the second is the way in which every interaction affects your relationship with your colleague. It will be advanced, ruined or left neutral.

Bear in mind that you should not sacrifice the task to the relationship. Similarly, just winning on the task is not good if you have ruined your relationship. You've got to do well on both counts.

There is a certain way of saying things. Instead of saying, "You are wrong," you must learn to say, "Might there be another way of looking at this?"

It's about helping the other person save face. And the only way to get anybody to do anything is to make them want to do it. Some people are naturally good at these diplomatic human relations. Sadly, many of us have to learn these skills.

I have pretty much the best business degree that the country has to offer, but no one ever taught me about managing people. That skill I had to learn by trial and error. So for many of us it's a good idea to mentally rehearse our phraseology before we go into a meeting.

Don't Be Paternal/Maternal

There is another trap to avoid. When you are giving feedback to an employee, it is easy to come across as paternal or maternal. Nothing will raise someone's hackles more than being treated like a child.

So, as an exercise, imagine you are going in to give the same critique to your mother or father. Turn it around and respectfully help "Dad" arrive at the right conclusion for himself.

The Domineering Boss

There is a natural temptation for people in charge to say, "This is how I deal with people -- like it or lump it." But if you want to influence others, then it's about what turns them on, not what turns you on.

On the other hand, there are bad managers who are so good at relating to people that they never actually get the job done. They are too soft and caring to inspire hard work and positive energy.

No Two People Are the Same

You don't influence everybody the same way. People do things for their own reasons -- not for yours. So if you want to inspire someone, you don't give him or her some wonderful company vision.

Instead, you help them see what's in it for them. That varies from person to person. Some people are motivated by challenge, some by money and some by the social opportunities afforded by a project.

It's about reading the other person, finding their hot button, not yours.

Interest in People

To be a good manager or team leader you have to have an above-average interest in people. If you are not very interested in people that doesn't make you a bad person, but you are going to have to work hard to overcome that if you want to be a successful manager.

It's also about laying down challenges, getting people to stretch themselves creatively and getting people excited about your ideas rather than seeing those ideas as stressful demands.

The best group leaders see themselves as catalysts. They like to accomplish a great deal but understand that they can do little without the combined efforts of others.

A good manager does not see himself as the "people's boss" but as the leader of a cohesive team of autonomous, creative individuals.

Restoring Optimism in a Down Period

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Jimmy,

You may recall that I asked you what you'd like me to write my next article on, and you said something to the effect of "restoring optimism after a rough period."

I haven't written the article but have put down a few thoughts. I haven't edited myself but just put down some initial thoughts.

You'll disagree with some of these things and you'll be doing others, but maybe there's also something here that you agree with and are not yet doing. At worst, it will stimulate your own thinking. Anyway, here goes!

My first thought is that little can be done "in the mass." (Remember the "raspberry jam" principle: the wider you spread it, the thinner it gets!) That means ratcheting up the level of individualised attention. You can't manage emotions by numbers; you can only do it face to face and preferably one on one.

I would guess that given the current rough times, people feel a little "helpless" -- not sure about what to do. Therefore there is a need for help.

In tough economic times there's a tendency for firm managers to edge away from the coach role and become more like policemen, administrators and bosses (watching the numbers like a hawk). Obviously this is necessary, but so is coaching: offering suggestions, being supportive, being a source of creative ideas, helping people think through their roles and helping them make the best use of their time. I know you believe in this but there's a question: How much of this is really going on? How much are you doing? Everyone knows you want results but what are you doing to help them (particularly the average Joe or Jane on the front lines) get results?

How about this idea? Are you conducting a series of office visits, not to give a speech but to be available to answer questions and offer ideas about their local practice issues? You're a smart guy who's been there. You're a really valuable resource to anyone who can get your time. Call these visits "mini planning sessions for the office," with you as a creative resource.

The reason I believe this will work is that you'll be able to break the (local) logjam of, "We can't do anything. It's rough out there." Help your people come up with action plans. I realise that you can't visit them all but the grapevine works well.

Maybe you can form a visiting committee of senior people to do some of this. Remember, I'm talking about helping. You already do planning, budgeting and visits from senior folks; but I'd guess that the typical partner doesn't see this as a vehicle for help but as an oversight exercise.

I'm making two points: The "depressed" (non-optimistic) professional needs help (now!) and ideas. Asking (or telling) the person they should work harder or do more isn't inspiring. What they want is ideas about ways to do something different. They're probably doing what they know how to do, and if they aren't it's because of the depression. There's a barrier there.

Newness is at a premium when people are down: They often can't get themselves up to do the same old stuff, but give them a new task to perform and they may discover renewed energy, interest, etc. Hence, you should take every opportunity to find new roles for people. I'm not talking about major reassignments, but new marketing tasks, etc.

Which leads me to my next point, the key to all this being non-billable time: How do people spend it? What are they doing? What should they be doing? In most firms, billable time is carefully managed but non-billable time is a sink-hole. A lot of professionals waste a lot of it sitting around, wringing their hands, hiding out in their offices. No one knows or cares and certainly doesn't monitor the non-billable efforts.

I would advocate a "new" program of "non-billable time budgeting." It's really nothing more than an individualised, personalised career planning system, but it is different from what's being done. It's not performance appraisal, and it's not goal setting. It's action planning.

Goals are ephemeral and made up of a wish list. An action plan is concrete, specific, understandable and much more motivating to a depressed (non-optimistic) person. "Tell me what I should/can do," is the normal cry. So�

The practice leaders sit down with each partner and say, "Looking at the next three months, how much non-billable time do you have available? Right, let's talk about what you're going to do with it. What activities make sense for you and the office/firm? Whose help do you need?"

"Let's not talk about annual goals; instead, we'll take it a step at a time. Let's only worry about the next three months; come to an agreement on actions, teams, etc.; and develop a "contract" for doing X things. We'll meet again in three months to see how they went (or earlier if you need my help)."

This sounds simple -- and it is -- but there's not a lot of it going on. It works because you can't be depressed when you're busy and active. You turn people's emotions around by getting them doing something, anything. The short term is achievable; the long term is terrifying.

Pygmalion is relevant here. If you treat people like winners they'll turn out to be winners. Unfortunately, being micro-managed doesn't feel like you're being treated as a winner.

There's also the Hawthorne effect: People perform better when they think someone cares and notices what they're doing. The trouble with the professions today is that the average partner isn't very energised and excited at the best of times, let alone in a recession. The vast bulk of them feel like cogs in the machinery. Hence, my emphasis on designing "individualised" management processes is the key to restoring an upbeat mode.

I've already said this but you have to get out and about to the offices. One way to influence mood is to be the role model (a key point), but you can't be an effective role model unless you're face to face.

"Off-line" sessions such as conferences and meetings don't count as much. It's way more powerful to visit them where they live. You've got to be seen to be involved in the nuts and bolts of the business.

Leaders must be seen as making their own sacrifices if others are to do so as well. What (visible) sacrifices have you made? What sacrifices do your partners think you've made? Apart from tighter financial controls, what has HQ done that's different?

They (the partners) want to know what you're going to do to turn the situation around. Where's the positive action that comes across as new, creative, a smart idea or a clever response to the situation? (You've probably got answers to all this.)

In any event, if people see the firm acting in a positive, "optimistic" way, they'll be positive, too. But in many firms, all the partners see from firm management is a bunch of tactics that come across as scared, nervous, panicky and down-beat (tighten controls, fire partners, cut support costs).

I'm not saying these actions are wrong, merely pointing out that they do not convey optimism.

People don't want inspirational speeches or grand strategies when they're depressed. This is not the time for "rah, rah, rah." In fact, it backfires. People say, "We're in pain and he's so out of it with his unrealistic visions." All your speeches should begin, "If I were you, here are the four or five things I'd do differently than in the past."

I'd focus people even more on their own local practice. If they start thinking and worrying about where the firm is going or the state of the nation as a whole, they just get distracted. I'd try to keep people focused on what's going on in their area and back off talking about the firm.

Obviously, I'm not saying to hide anything but just don't push it. As an example, line partners hear too much about mega-clients, international activities, technology and other grand strategies, which can be demotivating if they interpret this information as, "Those guys don't care about me and my practice. They live in a different world."

People need an opportunity to bitch. (I call this "squeezing the stress sponge.")

People can only absorb so much hassle. After a while, the sponge is saturated and it starts to "weep." If you give people a chance to vent their feelings, you empty the sponge and create the capacity for them to absorb more stress.

But they need to talk about THEIR work and THEIR lives. What mechanisms are in place for this to happen? (It's dangerous in the typical professional firm to show your stress: bitch too much in an environment where people are being laid off and you may be committing suicide!)

Obviously, to create optimism you must reward early successes and small triumphs. There's a need to increase the number of celebrations, formal and informal. In the past you celebrated the big things -- now you must celebrate the small.

And you must learn to use more "currencies." In tight straits you can't be generous with cash, but there are other rewards, including the following:

• Approval
• Gratitude
• Autonomy
• Participation/Involvement
• Personal Interest/Support
• Recognition
• Visibility (inside and outside the office)
• Contacts
• Access to Information ("insider")
• Access to Additional Resources
• Rapid Response (access to manager)
• Task Support
• Titles (official and "unofficial")
• Special Roles or Assignments
• Challenges
• Meaning

I wonder how many of your managers know how to use these tools?

Anyway, that's enough rambling for now. All the best and good luck!

Richard

Are All Consultants Corrupt?

by Alan M. Webber 2002

from Fast Company, May 2002

That's one possible conclusion in the wake of the Enron scandal. Enron's monumental bankruptcy, Global Crossing's questionable accounting practices, and Wall Street's complicity -- if there is a common thread in the scandals of the day, it is the central role played by the nation's elite professional-services firms. McKinsey & Co., the bluest of blue-chip consulting firms, gave Enron its strategy -- and even its former CEO. Jeffrey Skilling's model for Enron was to pattern it after a professional-services firm, to elevate the company above the lesser status of an energy company to the more rarified air of a knowledge-based, asset-light company. Andersen, among the most respected accounting firms, vouched for Enron's books. Enron was chockfull of MBAs and refugees from accounting and consulting firms. A few column inches away from Enron is Global Crossing and its founder and chairman, Gary Winnick, who is an alumnus of Drexel Burnham Lambert. The fingerprints of Wall Street's elite firms appear on some of the questionable transactions that are now under congressional scrutiny. And the world of professional-services firms -- a world to which most high-flying MBAs readily aspire -- is suddenly under intense review.

In that world, Richard Wood is the recognised expert. For more than six years, he has been studying professional-services firms. He has written about them, spoken to them, and consulted for them. A native of Australia, Wood holds degrees from the University of Southern Queensland, and the Queensland University of Technology. He studied at QUT for seven years before striking out on his own.

Fast Company sat down with Wood in his home in Toowoomba to gain insight into the state of professional-services firms, their role in the current scandals, and the right way to be a professional.

What's your take on the business scandals that we're seeing today?

RW: The car wreck that we're reading about in the newspapers was inevitable. It was going to happen, because professional-services firms don't practice what they preach. They're filled with smart people who understand what they should do to win. Those people talk about having a strategy with a longer term view, but the operational reality is vastly different. They want the money right now. In practice, cash is everything.

That's how most professional-services firms operate. But are there fabulous accountants, lawyers, consultants, and investment bankers who do it right?

RW: Absolutely. What's missing are whole firms that are built on discipline and strategy. With one or two exceptions, cash is everything for a firm. It's also important to mention that the current scandals are not that special. They're special in size, but not in nature.

Is the problem with professional services due to a lapse in ethics?

RW: The real problem is that people do what they're told. They're simply in compliance mode. What's even more interesting is that there's so much going on that's stupid. People are making the wrong calls on stuff that doesn't even come close to ethics. But that's just common practice. It's what happens inside firms, because that's how people have been raised in business. Before they even get to an ethical issue, they've been taught that if there's cash to be made, then make it. So it's not as if they were wonderful to begin with and then suddenly there was an ethical challenge and they lost their way. The message has always been that nothing trades off against cash. Too many professional-services firms have never met a dollar they didn't like. The question that they need to ask themselves is, Do we believe in our own strategy and our own standards, even when we're tempted by cash? Good business is about having the guts to stick to a strategy. You can count on the fingers of a single maimed hand the number of professional-services firms that have the courage to stick to their strategy.

So what's wrong with the professional-services firms of today?

RW: The problem is that they've been taught to act like businesses. But they've learned all the worst lessons of business and missed all the best ones. Tom Peters used to tell the story of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc. Someone asked Kroc what his secret of success was, and he answered, You have to be able to see the beauty in a hamburger bun. You might laugh at first, but when you think about it, that's got to be right.

What most professional-services firms don't understand is that to make the most money, you actually have to believe in the product or service that you offer and care for the customers or clients whom you serve. That isn't a religious argument; it's a business lesson. You can't dominate an industry unless you care passionately about what you do and the people you do it for.

Why don't these firms change?

RW: Why don't they change? Let me give you an analogy from my own life. My uncle is a fat smoker. He doesn't need another speech to tell him that he should stop smoking and lose weight. Clear lungs, a longer life, a better sex life -- he accepts that it's a fabulous strategy. But please, no more speeches. Now, people in professional services have heard all the speeches before too: Give great customer service, be a team player, manage your people. It's not that they don't believe the strategy.

The problem is, whether it's my uncle giving up smoking or them starting to give great customer service, any kind of improvement requires short-term sacrifice and short-term pain in the name of a better long-term future. There are very few businesses that are truly interested in maximising their future income stream.

Professional-services firms need to have an ideology. They need to know what they stand for. They need to have non-negotiable, minimum standards. They need to be able to say, We will not accept work that goes against our standards, because that's not who we are. The problem in professional services is that because the environment is so bountiful, you can get everything wrong and still have a nice income.

I'm not picking on any one profession. They're all equally bad. They treat people poorly. They don't train well. They have no quality assurance. They don't collaborate with one another. They don't show any interest in their clients. You would think that this would kill them. But they're only competing against each other. So as long as nobody wakes up, they can all make money doing this shit. Why are there so many bad professional-services firms out there? For the same reason that there are so many fat smokers.

But don't most firms know that they're not measuring up?

RW: Here's a little quiz that I've been giving professional-services audiences for the past six years. First I give them three categories to classify how they feel about their work. Category one is, "I love this stuff! I just love doing it." Category two is, "I can tolerate it, but that's why they call it work. I do my job, but I have no emotional investment in it." Category three is, "How the hell did I end up doing this junk?"

The results are always the same in all professions around the world. You get about 20% who say, "I love this work"; 60% to 70% who say, "I can tolerate it"; and 10% to 20% who say that what they do is junk. Then I give them a second question. I say, "You've told me about your work. Now tell me how you feel about your clients." Again, I give them three categories to classify how they feel. Category one is, "I really like these people. I enjoy serving them." Category two is, "I can tolerate them. I'm responsible and I give good service, but there is no real difference between today's client and tomorrow's client." Category three is, "These people are idiots who work in a boring industry."

The results for the second question are pretty much the same as for the first.

About 20% love their customers, 60% to 70% can tolerate them, and 10% to 20% can't stand them. What the numbers say is that most professionals like their jobs one day a week or less, and the rest of the time, they just tolerate what they do. Then I ask them, "Do you think your clients can tell?" To which everybody says, "Yes!" Well, what are the business implications of that? For most professional services firms, the answer lies in their mission statement: We won't screw up, but we're nothing special.

I tell them, If that were me, I'd slit my wrists! That's true for one very simple reason: I don't want my tombstone to read, "He did tolerable stuff for tolerable people because they paid him." I'm not that much of a whore. Do I do it occasionally? Sure. I'm no more noble than anyone else. But that's not the issue. The issue is, Is that your life? Why would you want to spend your life doing stuff that you can just tolerate, working for people you don't like?

Especially when you realise that you can make more money doing work that engages your passions. The only sensible business rule is, Life is too short to work for idiots. So if you're working with people who are shady or crooked, get out!

Alan M. Webber is a Fast Company founding editor.

Creating Value Through People

Executive summary

The financial performance of a business is not something you can or should directly control. It is achieved by providing superior value to the market-place.

Market-place value is a consequence of energising and focusing employees to create and deliver value.

To make money, managers should not spend all their time managing money, but should instead devote their efforts to the things that produce the money: the enthusiasm, commitment, and drive of the labour force. Don't manage money. Manage people.

Introduction

Which of the following does your firm report on, monitor, and react to most frequently? Which consume the most management time?

• Client satisfaction levels.
• The strength of key client relationships.
• Employee motivation and energy.
• Levels of collaboration among staff.
• Financial results.

If you're like the overwhelming majority of businesses you will focus primarily on financial results. Consequently, you're making less money than you could.

Why? Because managing a business by looking at financial results is like trying to win a game by keeping your eye firmly fixed on the scoreboard. Financial results are just that: results. They are the outcome of excellence (or the lack of it) in the key processes that produce the value that your customers and clients pay for. What you must manage are the things that produce value: energised employees who deliver outstanding quality and service to the marketplace.

Does this mean that you don't monitor financials in great detail? Of course not. Financial discipline is the bedrock of business success, but it's not all of it, and maybe not even the greater part of it. The real key is the ability to get your people sufficiently focused so that they eagerly and willingly strive for high standards.

Challenges and Opportunities

Over the years, I've been trusted to see the strategic plans of many direct competitors. Remarkably, they are almost always identical. Everyone figures out correctly which client sectors are growing, which services are in rising demand, and which dimensions of competition, such as client service or innovation, clients are looking for. The strategy documents are the same because everyone's smart! Everyone knows what needs to be done.

If this is so, then what is competition really about? It's about who can best complete the work that needs to get done. And this in turn is determined by the following set of closely related concepts:

• energy
• drive
• enthusiasm
• excitement
• commitment
• passion
• ambition

Where these exist the discipline can be found to engage in diligent execution and thereby outperform the competition. The role of the manager is to be a net creator of enthusiasm, excitement, passion, and ambition. Alas, all too often managers are destroyers of excitement. If all they ever talk about is finances (How are your billings? What's happening to receivables?), it can deaden the spirit.

That doesn't mean they don't need to talk about these things -- they do. But they shouldn't talk only about these things. It's the manager's job to inspire, cajole, exhort, nag, support, critique, praise, encourage, confront, and comfort, as individual people (and groups of people) struggle to live their work lives according to high standards.

All strategies, at some time or the other, involve a trade-off between short-term cash and executing the strategy. If you're going to get the benefits of a strategy, you need to be willing to make hard choices and act as if you truly believe it. You must be willing to practice what you preach, both when it's convenient and, most important, when it is not.

Many people don't believe that their leaders truly want them to act strategically. Whenever a choice needs to be made between strategy and short-term cash -- and it always does -- most people feel under significant, if not irresistible, pressure from management to go for the cash. Usually the message from the firm's leadership is clear: strategy can wait for tomorrow (if we can get paid for competence, why strive for excellence?). Rather than leaders being a source of encouragement to execute the strategy, they're all too often the biggest obstacles to the implementation of strategy.

If you want to be known as excellent at something, you have to be reliably, consistently excellent at it. Business life is filled with daily temptations, short-term expediencies, and wonderful excuses for why we can't afford to stick to high standards today. We take in work that's off-strategy (after all, it's cash!), we defer training until some more convenient time (often never), we postpone investments until the ever-escalating profit goals are met, and the marketing principle is: we never met a dollar of revenue we didn't like!

There is nothing inherently wrong about making these choices, but you shouldn't fool yourself. If you're willing to sacrifice value to earn short-term cash, you won't create a market reputation for superior quality. It takes courage to believe that a reputation for excellence is worth more in the long run than incremental cash. In their vision, mission, and strategy documents, firms say that they are aiming for excellence, but that's not how they operate.

Managers must have the courage of the convictions they espouse, maintain a long-term focus, and intervene personally whenever there are departures from the values and vision that create excellence. The problem with the implementation of strategies is the absence of certain and recognisable consequences for non-compliance. If the manager doesn't have the courage to tackle individuals who aren't behaving in accordance with the strategy, others will quickly realise that the new strategy is not something they have to do. They'll quickly cease striving to comply, and the benefits of the strategy will never be attained.

Great managers give their people individually and collectively the confidence that greater success, fulfillment, accomplishment, and profits are indeed attainable. They give their people the courage to try. Change is threatening, however, and many, if not most, people operate well within their comfort zone, reluctant to abandon the old habits that brought them to their current success. If managers are often demanding, they must also be supportive. They must manage with a positive, supportive style.

Just as management involves a delicate balance between being supportive and being demanding, it also requires a style of insistent patience; it's the difference between saying Rome wasn't built in a day and insisting that we are building Rome. People must believe that the manager has the courage to believe in something and, more important, will stick with it. There's no greater condemnation of managers than to say that they're expedient, and no greater commendation than to say that a manager truly lives and acts in accordance with what he or she practices.

Being Effective -- and Successful

An effective manager must be:

• articulate and vocal about his or her personal beliefs;
• disciplined about standards;
• even-handed and even-tempered;
• genuine and sincere;
• able to read people's characters and skill levels effectively;
• honourable, with high integrity.

What do the most successful managers believe?

• First you build your people, and the rest will come.
• Fun and discipline combined get the job done.
• It's important how people treat each other; monitor it and manage it.
• People have to trust management and trust each other.
• Success is about character, respect, integrity, trust, honesty, empowerment, confidence, loyalty, and keeping promises.
• You must bet on the long term and not get stampeded by short-term pressures.
• You need to balance your focus on people, clients, and finances.
• You should live up to your values every day.
• Your agenda as a manager is to create a great place to work, not to work at making your own star rise.

Finally, here are the rules on which the most successful managers model their behaviour:

• Act as if not trying is the only sin.
• Act as if you want everyone to succeed.
• Actively help people with their personal development.
• Always do what you say you are going to do.
• Do what's right over the long term for clients and for your people.
• Don't regard yourself as separate and distinct from your people.
• Facilitate, don't dictate.
• Let people know you as a human being, not just as their manager.
• Show enthusiasm and drive; they're infectious and addictive.
• Speak regularly about your vision and philosophy so that people know where you stand.
• Take work seriously, but don't take yourself seriously.
• Understand what drives individuals.
• Know all your people as individuals.

Making it Happen

To get started, take out the documents that describe your company's mission, vision, values, and strategy. Turn them into a questionnaire and ask your people how well they think you're currently living up to the things you espouse.

If you find out that there are some things that you're not doing so well, either fix them or drop them from your declarations: there's no point lying, pretending to advocate things you're not willing to live up to. Practice what you preach! Make it the short-term immediate priority to make the firm live up to its over-arching vision.

Another vital step is to involve as many people as possible in the process of implementing, if not actually setting, strategy. The task of energising, mobilising, and motivating action is easier with people feeling involved, rather than being imposed on from above.

Conclusion

A person doesn't build a business. A person builds an organisation that builds a business. Many managers are appointed because of their financial skills, their business development skills, or their technical excellence. However, there comes a point where the central question is, Can you manage? Are you a net creator of energy, drive, and ambition in others? Can you cause others to strive to achieve high standards?