Saving the Training Baby

In my blogpost Why Training is Useless there is a challenge from a reader -- David G -- that I should not throw out the baby with the bathwater, and should offer some concrete suggestions on how to make training work.

Fair enough. Here goes with some principles of mine for effective training.

1. It is usually better to train people in groups formed from the operating units they work in, so that the training can be action- and decision-oriented. (Collective commitments.) Training classes drawn from different parts of the firm force program to be "educational" only. I prefer it when training sessions end with specific action commitments, which are monitorable.
2. You shouldn't overwhelm people and cover too much territory: depth, then breadth! You're better off with three 2-day programs than one 6-day programs.
3. It really helps if the operating group leader attends the training simultaneously, as a participant. In fact, it should be mandatory. This ensures action-orientation, public commitment ("We're going to do this!") Too often, we send the junior people off to be trained, and they continue to speculate whether the seniors or leaders are really committed and serious about all this. Even if they've heard it a million times, it's good for them to be there. If it's designed to be action oriented, it's also economic for them to be there.
4. To make changes in behavior, there are four key levels to make the change:
   System: Does the firm actually encourage, monitor and reward this (new) behaviour?
   Attitude: Do the trainees want to do this? Do they buy in to its importance?
   Knowledge: Do they know how to do it?
   Skills: Are they any good at implementing and executing what they know?
5. Each of these levels requires a different intervention. But note that skills (ie training, is bottom of the list, not top! As I said in my first blogpost on training, training is a great last step in a new initiative, but a pathetically ineffective first step.
6. The best training is done by the firm's own practitioners. Outsiders should be used only to help develop programs and "train-the-trainers."
7. If there is not a monitoring system to ensure that training will be implemented, then you'll get a low return on your training investment. A full program would have:
   a) Scorecards: (New, permanent measures of performance being trained)
   b) Coaching: (Continuous monitoring and Follow-up)
   c) Tools: (To help implement the training, in place before the training)
   d) Training:
   e) Rewards and/or Recognition for achievement
8. All professionals should be required to both undergo and conduct a minimum number of days training per year, but allow flexibility on what.
9. Don't confuse training with (general) education. Training helps people do their job (What do I need today). Education expands their horizons (What should I be thinking about for the future?). There's a role for both, but they're not the same.
10. To ensure discipline, training should have mandatory pre-testing (can't attend if you don't pass), and a survey (3 months later) not only of participants but of their supervisors, asking whether the training has been implemented to productive effect.

One of the best recent think-pieces on training that I've seen recently is by Mick Cope, a UK-based consultant. His website is here and he tells me he'll be posting his new article there on April 1 or 2.

Emotional Self-Control

Consider the following questions about your emotional states:

(a) How easy do you find it to get started? Do you procrastinate or attack each day with vigor?

(b) How easily do you bounce back from failure, determined to try again?

(c) How well do you handle rejection?

(d) What is your level of optimism? Do you usually have the confidence to try anything, or are you the worrying sort?

(e) Can you cheerfully get along with people with whom you have nothing in common, or do you tend to withdraw?

(f) When unfairly treated, do you withdraw from the game or engage with renewed determination?

(g) Do you forgive yourself your faults, or do you beat yourself up about them?

(h) Are you comfortable with ambiguity, not quite sure you're doing the right things, but ready to act anyway?

(i) Can you function in a team, without feeling the need to dominate? Can you control your ego needs?

(j) Can you handle the stress that comes from juggling multiple demands on your time?

(k) As Kipling asked, "Can you keep your head when all about you are losing theirs?"

Every single one of these emotional conditions will affect your success. You don't have to be perfect. Goodness knows, I've suffered from being on the wrong side of all of these at one time or another.

But if your emotions let you down, your talent won't save you.

There's no point having superior skills if you procrastinate in putting them to use. There's no point being smart if you give up at the first sign of failure.

Getting control of your emotions, and yourself, is essential to let your true ability shine through.

Special Challenges for the Young Professional

I recently received this email from Gordon Ross:

I have recently turned 30 years old and have been running my small professional services firm for 10 years.

There have been special challenges being young professional providers. For example, how do you prove or demonstrate to new and potential customers in a short period of time that you are trustworthy when you simply haven't been around all that long?

Your articles go into tactics on how to demonstrate credibility, reliability, intimacy and lack of self-orientation, but competing against much older and presumably) wiser firms was difficult sometimes, especially in regard to credibility and still is. You call experience-based work "grey hair work" for a reason!

Culturally, or perhaps biologically, speaking I believe that you think differently in your 20's and early 30's than you do later in life.

I was barely out of adolescence when I started on my professional services career. I kept many of the characteristics and traits of being a teenager: rebellious, enthusiastic, idealistic, oblivious to risk, and in search of instant gratification. Many of those things can be at conflict with the values present throughout your writing (hard work, perseverance, rigour, health and hygiene issues, etc.)

I feel as though a great deal of time was spent attempting to re-invent the wheel as a young professional. We struggled to create a professional identity, much the same as teenagers attempt to create their identities throughout their years trapped inside educational institutions.

All of your articles sit next to me and have for quite a few years now, but I didn't pay much attention to many of the lessons until I needed them. And that was also a function of time passing: I had simply not lived long enough as a professional to really understand the value of what you and other authors had written. The knowing-doing gap in action yet again.

Running a project for your customer as a young professional can feel a bit like asking to borrow the car from your father on the weekend. Many of our customers were old enough to have been my parents, some even my grandparents. I think there's a healthy dose of respect and even fear that is present in the young professional and an equally healthy dose of scepticism and suspicion in the older customer. While I've been lucky enough to develop friendships with those much older than myself, it is certainly easier to develop them with people of our same age.

Ironically, those teenage characteristics were probably what made my company valuable over the last 10 years: willing to question the status quo, do things in different ways, stand by our idealistic beliefs, take risks, and sometimes stretch ourselves beyond our means. We simply didn't know any better and failure was out of the question.

We also learned how much we didn't know. The learning curve is steep during that time and we joke about our MBA from the school of real-life business. We had to become experts on topics both for our customers and our employees -- if we didn't, no-one else was going to do it for us.

It's been a great experience, one that I feel very lucky to have been a part of.

I'm sure there's many similar stories out there shared by many other 30, 40, and 50 somethings that started young in business and learned a lot.

I think Gordon has raised a fascinating topic. As he asks -- does anyone else out there want to share the lessons of launching and running a professional business when you're young? What about the special challenges of being a young professional, even if it's not your firm? I'll hold off on my comments until I see whether this is a topic which interests others.

Managerial Underperformance

Since the 1990s, in the course of both my consulting and seminar work, it has been my habit to ask people to evaluate their leader, manager, supervisor -- whatever you want to call it.

One of the things that consistently surprises me is that one question in particular ALWAYS receives low scores -- how promptly the manager deals with underperformers.

Managers are always rated poorly on this. According to my experience, different managers have different strengths, but everyone, it seems, has the same weakness.

In a recent article (A Great Coach in Action) I discussed the natural reluctance that all of us have to engage in uncomfortable conversations until we absolutely have to.

In both our personal and professional lives, most of us don't like to complain, and we have never been taught the subtle art of offering a gentle critique to another person without eliciting defensiveness and hostile reactions. As a result, we don't say anything until the minor irritation has turned into an unavoidable problem.

What's significant, I think, about the fact that most managers are rated poorly in this area is that most people are, implicitly or explicitly, saying that they WISHED their managers were more prompt in tackling this issue. People want standards of the group to be enforced. It is very dispiriting to be trying really hard yourself, only to see that management is letting other people slacken and slide.

No-one wants to work in a place ruled by terror. But no-one wants to be part of a sloppy, ill-disciplined group either. People, I've been told over and over again. Want clear guidelines and rules of behaviour, and then want everyone to be held to those standards.

We hear a lot about "ugly" managers who are too demanding, but my experience is that the opposite problem -- managers who are too easy going to tackle performance problems -- may in fact be a more common and more resented situation.

Many managers think they are doing their job when they respond to and deal with egregious examples of bad behaviour or underperformance. ("We cut people's pay or fire them if they don't ultimately live up to standards.")

The truth, however, is that if you have waited until someone has failed (or the problem has become intolerable) before you intervene, you have lost most of your options. The essence of management is not -- "do you respond to problems?" -- but rather -- "do you deal with emerging issues before they become problems?"

Failing to help someone in your group who could improve, but who is not yet a major problem, is, of course, a tragedy all around. The individual fails to improve, the group's performance slips, morale plummets -- because the standards are clearly seen to be set lower -- and you have lost the (possibly one-time) opportunity to establish a counselling relationship when the issue is only a minor one.

You are most likely to be able to offer a critique -- and have it accepted -- if you are doing it with someone who trusts you because you already have formed a relationship. So, the most effective managing takes place if there is a history of talking together before there are performance problems. As the saying goes, the best time to build a relationship is before you need it.

The best time to offer performance guidance, counselling and concern is when someone is already performing well, and you're only trying to help them get to greatness. Do THAT frequently, and it will be easier to spot and discuss emerging problems with greater ease and comfort. You'll have fewer performance problems all round.

The test of real managerial skill is the courage, the tact and the art of intervening when there is only the first sign of a performance problem, not when it is obvious to everyone.

Do it well, and your people will thank you for it by raising their own performance -- and they will rate you more highly as a manager!

My new Videocast (and podcast) series

Two weeks ago I posted the last episode in my free podcast series on Career development, which completes the cycle of my original podcast plans. To date we have a series on each of my main topic areas. While my podcast and I will be moving on to new frontiers, the archives of all the 4 previous series continue to be available from my podcast page.

Starting today I'll be launching a new series (still free) of concurrent video and audiocasts called "Richard Wood Live."

Due to feedback I've received from the widely growing audience for my podcast series (many of whom access the site only through Itunes and other feed-readers), I've decided to syndicate the content previously available on my video page in order to better share these resources with my blog and podcast audience. Each episode will be broadcast on both my existing audio feed (audio only) as well as on my new videocast feed. I will also be posting each episode here on my blog as they are released. For interested clients I will also be offering these videos for sale on DVD from my videocasting page in the coming weeks.

The first episode of my new series is called On Strategy: Profit Formula

What are the factors that lead to ultimate business and financial success? In this video, I discuss how to identify the fundamental factors that drive this process, showing you the links between causes and effect that leads to profitablility.

00:38 -- Introduction
01:11 -- The sequence of consistent, superior client satisfaction
02:10 -- The necessity of excitement and enthusiasm
05:08 -- It's not only profits; It's also peoples lives
06:13 -- The character of the manager
06:53 -- Conclusion

If you are already registered to receive my podcast series, then you need do nothing to start receiving the new audio version of the series. However, if you haven't prevously signed up for my podcasts, or are interested in receiving the videocast, this would be a good week to do so, so that you can catch the beginning of the new series. You can subscribe to either or both by visiting my subscriptions page.

Oh, and if you know anyone else who could benefit from them, please spread the word about the existence of these free resources.

Should PSFs do CSR?

Legalease, a UK publisher, has just released a report on Corporate Social Responsibility in the UK legal marketplace (copies available from david.burgess@legalease.co.uk), for which I wrote the introduction. Generalised for all profession service firms (PSFs) in all countries, here are the highlights of my remarks.

In the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) literature, many benefits are claimed for effective CSR programs, including better risk and crisis management; improved financial performance; increased productivity; enhanced brand value and reputation; the ability to attract better employees; and (not least) the ability to maintain any licences required to operate.

Deciding on CSR programs and policies immediately runs up against the problem of which audience the program is meant to address. Among the possibilities are clients, recruits, government in all its forms, social activists, media, professional peers and many more.

For all that many major corporate buyers are now requiring their vendors to comply with (or at least report) CSR initiatives (as a cascading obligation under their CSR program), it is reasonably clear that for professional firms, clients are not the primary audience for such initiatives. The buying constituency has a lot of other things to worry about than a professional firm's CSR compliance.

On the other hand, universities are more likely to be the hotbeds of social responsibility concerns than are corporate boardrooms, and many CSR programs are. Many professional firm CSR programs are, in fact, aimed at establishing a firm's appropriate credentials to be an employer of choice.

It would be interesting to survey top university graduates and find out the extent to which CSR policies affect their decisions on which job offers to accept. A first guess might be that component of CSR which has to do with employment practices (flexi-time, job sharing, maternity policies, etc.) that directly affect the individuals involved. (I may be being cynical here.)

Beyond the recruiting marketplace, CSR programs can serve to appeal to current employees and staff. For example, just donating money to a charity may not be as influential on employee engagement commitment as organising a "Make a Difference Week" whereby teams of people from the firm, with partners, associates and catering workers toiling side-by-side, all joining in to clean up a stretch of riverbank or pick up litter from a nearby park.

The chance to work together on a common undertaking outside of normal business roles, while doing something that has purpose can go a long way in forging the collaboration and teamwork that many firms seek back in the workplace.

If it is concluded that a primary goal is to win the trust, loyalty and commitment of current employees and staff, perhaps it would be worthwhile to survey them (or at least consult with them informally) on a regular basis to determine what they would like to see firm CSR resources and attention go. It would be sad for firms to do things that they think will appeal but that are not at all appreciated by those they are targeting (a syndrome that happens all too often.)

Beyond clients or recruits, even before governments or regulatory bodies, one could make the case that it is the media that is the prime audience for CSR initiatives.

Once the media starts asking firms to report regularly on their CSR programs, it may be too late to debate whether or not you should have such a program and what its character should be. The social pressure (or blackmail, depending upon your point of view) is nigh irresistible.

The only question is what choices exist among CSR programs, and which are wise to emphasise?

Taking a Position -- Or Not!

A critical dilemma in CSR initiatives is that in choosing on which issues to engage, there rarely is a clear, non-controversial position to take.

The topics of human rights, job creation, support of local community, gender and racial harmony, support for the arts and so on may appear to qualify as appropriate CSR topics, but those who choose to pursue these goals will discover as many opponents as supporters.

The attempt to put in place CSR programs that are non-controversial is doomed to failure.

Consider for example the topic of gender and racial bias. Equality between genders and races can best be accomplished, according to different constituencies, either by treating all people as individuals and not as a member of a group (the meritocratic argument) or by putting in place programs to use their group membership to overcome social or historical disadvantages (the affirmative action argument.)

To suggest that the firm will make only friends and no enemies by taking either of these positions would be foolish.

Similarly, for every person who wants to protect the rights of "asylum seekers", there are those who would want to use the term "illegal immigrants" and want firms to work to uphold the integrity of immigration laws.

For everyone who thinks supporting the arts is an appropriate form of CSR, there are those who question the class-based bias of supporting elite activities that cannot pay their own way, while neglecting the activities that underprivileged people enjoy.

My point is not to argue either side of any of these illustrations, but to point out the obvious: there are at least two (and probably two thousand) sides to every case, and the risk of turning audience segments away is as likely as turning them on.

Because of these perspectives, some firms may attempt to develop a program of CSR activity is, and must be, of the "let's stay out of trouble" kind.

These programs, which are not based on strongly held causes or inherent values of the firm, are adopted to adapt (or be seen to be adapting) to social shifts.

Obviously, any CSR program based on "stay out of trouble" will be risky. No business entity will ever be protected against charges that it is being biased, particularly as those who participate in debates about CSR cannot always be relied upon to engage in reasoned, logical discourse. Token policies will provide no shield to a determined social group that wants to impugn the motives of a business entity (or anyone else.)

As a result, management of CSR can easily become a protective shield against social blackmail, even among those who do not subscribe to its tenets. It exists not to accomplish anything significant or constructive, but as first-line defence against those who might accuse it of social crimes in the future.

The action advice that flows from this analysis is that appeasement almost never works, and that it is foolish and possibly dangerous to try to appeal to all of the various constituencies.

Firms would be better advised, I believe, to take a position on and support the issues they choose to get involved in (and even those they find themselves involved in but not of their own choosing.)

Trying to have it both ways and accommodate all parties is a strategy more likely to fail than succeed. Symbolic CSR activities provide no defence from attack by antagonistic parties.

Employment Practices as CSR

A case can be made that wise, apparently socially responsible employment policies, are in fact just a sensible response to the shifting supply-demand imbalances in a free-market economy.

As the demand for knowledge workers has grown, it has made sense that the employers that have a special need for them (the professions) have become at least a little more accommodating to those who had difficulties fitting in to the old "take-it-or-leave-it" partnership-track model.

Is it economics or social responsibility that drives firms to be accommodating on flexible time, job-sharing, part-time, maternity leave with no loss of status and numerous other programs?

Some firms offer these programs not as rights, but as options that may be granted if the clients' interests are not compromised.

Whatever the moral merits of the matter, I suspect that viewing (and communicating) the topic as an economic one and being completely honest that the firm is not inventing new "rights" are both sensible approaches, even if they are less than immediately inspirational.

A more modest standard that you always live up to is better than pretending to hold a high principle that you are seen to be willing to break for self-interest.

It can be dangerous to pretend to be doing things on principle that, in fact, are self-serving. A prime example would be the concierge services (or "lifestyle management services") that many law firms now offer to their associates.

Although touted as benefits to help people get their cleaning done, their dog walked, and so on, more than a few cynical on-line associate chat rooms characterise these programs as "one more way to keep us at the office billing hours. That's fine, but stop pretending to a moral purpose you don't have."

In surveys conducted on CSR, charity and community involvement are grouped together (for convenience) as similar CSR activities. They are, of course, quite distinct and it is worthwhile to consider their differences.

While it is always easier to give cash and not get involved, people tend to be more influenced, swayed and impressed by donations of time and involvement than they do of cash.

Cash gets mixed in with other contributions and its identity lost, and is less "human" anyway.

Accordingly, a firm would receive more credit and attention by identifying the causes that it truly supports, and figuring out a way to get involved with time so that they can make a real difference.

As in all things Gerald Weinberg's raspberry jam principle applies -- the wider you spread anything, the thinner it gets.

I cannot prove the following propositions, but I offer as a point of view that a firm will benefit more by contributing time and effort that reflect its special talents and interests.

It would probably be better for a professional firm to contribute the special expertise of its people to help others with substantive issues than, say, helping a school develop and nurture a backyard garden (a real example of, in my view, a misguided CSR program.).

On the same line of reasoning, Wal-Mart, in the United States, probably helped society most by contributing its logistics expertise after Hurricane Katrina than any other CSR activity it could engage in. Not coincidentally, it also received its best publicity.

The lesson probably is that the best way to contribute is to stick to your knitting and contribute what it is that you do best.

Individuals or firm?

For professional firms there is another dimension of conducting CSR to contemplate -- Is it better for there to be firm-wide programs, or is the firm and society better served by doing the same amount of CSR work, but letting each person or team decide which issues and activities are most relevant to them?

A good case can be made for both sides, particularly in today's mega-firms. The larger the firm, the more difficult it would be for the firm to decide all the initiatives on behalf of the whole firm.

Local programs may be better received than those attempting to address society-wide issues.

On the other hand, there are some risks in "turning loose" large numbers of "CSR entrepreneurs" in the firm, each pushing for or pursuing their own private passions and causes.

I have already argued the case for focus, so that the firm can make a real difference in society by concentrating its resources on things in which it can truly make a difference.

However, an equally good case can be made that, as Peter Drucker once wrote about business "nothing ever happens except when it is done by a monomaniac on a mission."

Firms can (and have, very productively) encouraged their people to get involved in community activities, such as church, synagogue or mosque committees, social clubs, opera, ballet and village fete boards and other charitable endeavours.

The lessons of these activities are very clear. Where the individual is engaged in them because he or she has a true interest in that organisation's activities, the individual and the firm can benefit in reputation and even in business opportunities.

However, even the hint that the individual is participating for selfish reasons will be detected immediately by others involved, and the person will be rejected.

Following this logic, perhaps the course of wisdom, to ensure that the firm meets its CSR obligations with things that go beyond dabbling and hence make a real impact on the world is for the firm to throw the challenge of choosing CSR initiatives to individuals and small groups, letting them generate the initiatives.

Top management can then assess and select those programs that make a difference, are consistent with the firm's ideology and protect its reputation.

Tag, I'm It

I got tagged by Gerry Riskin

So, here goes:

Four movies I can watch over and over
White Christmas
Prime of Miss Jean Brodie
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers
Singing in the Rain

Four TV shows I love to watch
As Time Goes By
CNN Headline News
Vicar of Dibley
West Wing

Four places I've been on vacation
Kashmir
Andalucia, Spain
Valley of the Kings, Egypt
Theatre weeks and weekends, London

Four tunes that play through my head
To Love Somebody (Bee Gees)
Hey Jude (Beatles)
God Only Knows (Beach Boys)
Chiquitita (Abba)

Four favorite dishes
Anything prepared by my wife
Bangers and Mash
Meat pies
Roasted Chicken straight from the oven

Four books I really love
Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
Joel Whitburn, Billboard Hits
Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People
Kouzes and Posner, The Leadership Challenge

Four places I'd rather be
Home
Home
Home
Anywhere my daughter is

Four bloggers I'm tagging:
http://blog.guykawasaki.com/
http://blog.lifebeyondcode.com/blog
http://www.bmacewen.com/blog/
http://www.servicessafari.blogs.com/

The Shoemaker's Children

According to the old proverb, the shoemakers' children always go without shoes.

Accounting firms fail to have effective job-costing systems to track the use of their resources, law firm partnerships do not have up-to-date partnership agreements, management consultants keep appointing people to managerial roles who cannot manage and don't want to. And of course, Advertising and PR people are really bad about creating favourouble public impressions about their agencies and their professions.

So why is this so common? The most common hypothesis is that professional providers get paid to apply their skills to client work, and they are unpaid when they have to apply them to their own affairs -- and the individuals would always prefer to do paid work!

But I suspect something more profound is going on. I'm not sure what it is, and would love input from the readers out there.

There are times when I get the impression that professionals are only too well aware of the limitations of what their craft can actually accomplish, and they sell to clients things they actually don't think would be beneficial for themselves -- or at least they would not be willing to do themselves.

In part it's because of a belief that "we're different from our clients", but it's also in some way a hidden scepticism about the value of their own services.

Why don't advertsing agencies advertise? Other business-to-business services like Accenture do -- what does Y&R know that Accenture does not? (Or vice-versa?)

Most large management consulting firms reject the concept that their group leaders should spend their time managing, instead preferring them to be big business getters. But that's not the advice they give their clients.

Business School academics are always preaching the need for buisnesses to be client-centric and responsive to markets, but how many actually redesign what they do around the needs of their students or employers? Universities are designed to meet the needs of the providers (the faculty) not their markets.

If any of this is true (and fair), then why does it happen? Why is it so easy to see the fleck of dust in the other person's eye, while ignoring the plank in our own?

Whatever Happened to Quality?

In the mid- to-late 80s, the hot management fad was "quality," driven by the first wave of success of Japanese manufacturers and books like Phil Crosby's "Quality is Free." There was a lot of fuss about the Baldridge Awards, and major companies (even professional firms) competed to be singled out for this distinction.

You don't hear much about the quality movement these days, but it's still out there. Nowadays, it has (unfortunately, I think) been subsumed into the "Six-Sigma" cult, and re-branded as part of "client-centricity."

It would be nice if we could return to simpler days of speaking plain English and tackling real issues, instead of launching grand programs and initiatives that are long on idealism but short on real commitment.

The 1980s quality movement had its own jargon, but I still find some of it helpful in working with professional businesses. For example, it is still useful to distinguish between four possible kinds of quality.

1. Make the aspirin -- conformance (reliability, consistency, dependability) to technical quality
2. Nurse the patient -- conformance (reliability, consistency, dependability) in interacting with the client
3. Do the brain surgery -- higher-than-market performance (superior outcomes and value) in technical quality
4. Be the trusted counsellor -- higher-than-market performance (superior outcomes and value) in consultative quality (be the clients family doctor or psychotherapist.

The point, of course, is that each of these four ways of improving quality requires different initiatives.

Improving the aspirin means studying the work processes of how you get things done. Improving the nursing means getting your people both motivated and trained to know how to work with clients and their idiosyncrasies. Improving the brain surgery means getting to the frontier of your field and becoming true innovators. Improving the Trusted Counselling means entering the client's world and learning how to affect how they think about their problems and issues.

These are four very different initiatives.

Of course, one of the major ways of ending up with poor quality is to think you are providing one of these services when your client is actually trying to buy another!

In a meeting of consultants, I asked people to vote on what they thought were the major causes of quality failure in consulting. Here's their list, with the most common cause of quality problems listed first:

• Mis-Specification of goals of project
• Lack of Skills in dealing with clients
• Work-teams overloaded / overscheduled
• Poor staffing of engagements
• Overselling
• Shifting client expectations (Mid-engagement changes in client desires or needs)
• Proposing bad project solutions
• Attitudinal or motivational problems
• Engagement budget pressures
• Failure to access expertise elsewhere in firm
• Inadequately trained staff
• Lack of incentive (internally) to do a quality job
• Poor methodologies
• Excessive reliance on standard methodologies
• Inadequate support staff
• Poor management of project mix
• Available skills

I also gave these consultants a list of possible places to "attack" quality problems, and I had them rank the ones they would put at the top of their priority list. Here are their choices:

• Hiring for different attitudes and skills
• On-the-job training
• Client feedback systems
• Management behaviour
• Creating the quality culture/climate
• Proposals (negotiating quality dimensions)
• Formal training
• Peer review systems -- during projects (are we doing the right things?)
• Reward system -- senior professionals
• Peer review systems -- end-of-project (did we do the right things?)
• Principal/Partner promotion / admission process
• Managing project mix
• Monitoring procedures
• Methodology development and improvement
• Reward System for juniors

Among the initiatives that came out of the discussions I ran were:

• A need to shift from analytical to "client-involved" consulting techniques.
• A need to assess the client's sophistication and need for consultative help, not just technical help
• Rehearsals of client interactions, to help people improve skills in a low-risk environment
• Holding upward reviews, asking junior engagement personnel to evaluate the engagement leader on how well the project was managed
• Using outside experts to review project quality
• Formal project debriefings
• Formalised procedures to ensure that all communications with client are shared with those that need to know (including clerical and other support staff)
• "Second set of eyes" review of proposal prior to sale to ensure achievability
• A quality assurance professional on staff and involved in operations
• Use performance evaluations to stress quality.

There are a lot of ideas and good intentions here, but here's my point: people have been talking about all of this for decades, but how many people are actually doing these things?

In the rush to globalise and build multidisciplinary, megalithic professional businesses, how many truly have in place effective quality processes that truly serve the client?

Why Training Is Useless

For a lot of my professional life, I got paid to do training. It usually went very well in the sense that I got high ratings (evaluations) and people not only paid their bills, but invited me back again to do it again and again.

I now believe that the overwhelming majority of all business training, by me and by everyone else, is a complete waste of money and time, because only a microscopic fraction of any training is ever actually put into practice and yield the hoped-for benefits.

The main reason is that companies keep trying to bring about changes in behaviour by training their people in new things, and then sending them back to their operating groups subject to the same measures and management approaches as before. Not surprisingly, little, if any of the training ever gets implemented.

What companies don't seem to understand is that training is a wonderful LAST step in bringing about changed behaviour, but a pathetically useless first step.

Take, one example, the many speeches and seminars I have been invited to give since 2000. Companies have paid me loads of money to come in and be (a) inspirational and (b) informative about the importance of, and mechanisms for, growing relationships with existing clients. However, in vain do I point out that in order to have the time to nurture these relationships, it follows that you need to be more selective on which new client proposal opportunities you pursue -- there are only so many hours in a day.

This doesn't always go down well. In fact, I got fired by one firm after the training seminar, for suggesting that it was OK to decline to pursue something. "In this firm", the National Managing Partner said, "we pursue all new business opportunities."

That's fine by me. He may be right and I may be dead wrong. But why did he spend all that time and money encouraging his people to do something other than what he believed in, and what they all knew he was going to evaluate them on?

Another example of wasted money are the calls I get to put on training programs to help people become better managers. I put my callers through a standard set of questions: Did you choose your managers because they were the kind of people who could get their fulfillment and satisfaction out of helping other people shine, rather than having the ego need to shine themselves? (No!) Did you select them because they had a prior history of being able to give a critique to someone in such a way that the other person says -- wow, that was really helpful, I'm glad you helped me see all that. (No!) Do you reward these people for how well their group is done, or do you reward them for their own personal accomplishments in generating business and serving clients? (Their personal numbers!)

So, let's summarise, I say. You've chosen people who don't want to do the job, who haven't demonstrated any prior aptitude for the job, and you are rewarding them for things other than doing the job? Thanks, but I'll pass on the wonderful privilege of training them!

The truth is that most firms go about training entirely the wrong way. They decide what they wished their people were good at, allocate a budget to a training director and ask that training director to come up with a good program. Note, of course, that a training director (or Chief Learning Officer, if you prefer) is the LEAST influential person in the firm in the sense of being positioned to bring about any real changes in how things happen in daily execution. Pathetic and useless. A waste of everybody's time.

The correct process would be to sit top management down, ask "What are people not doing that we want them to be doing?" and then figuring out a complete sequence of actions to address the questions -- how do we actually get people to change their behaviour? What measurements need to change? -- what behaviours by top management need to change to convince people that the new behaviours are really required, not ust encouraged? -- what has to happen before the training sessions to bring about the change? What has to be in place the very day they finish?

Only if done this way will firms and companies get a return on their training dollar, pound, euro or yen.

A good test is as follows. If the training were entirely optional and elective, and was only available in a remote village accessible only by a mule, but people still came to the training because they were saying to themselves "I have got to learn this -- it's going to be critical for my future", then, and ONLY then, you will know you have timed your training well. Anything less than that, and you are putting on the training too soon.

Running Fast to Stay in Place

There is a fascinating article by Rob Nixon, the Australian specialist in accounting firms.

He found a 1964 study of accounting firm profitability, and correcting the numbers for inflation, found that in the past 41 years, Australian accounting firms had improved their profit per partner about 40 percent, a lot less than 1 percent per year, compounded.

Rob attributes the lack of any real progress to time billing, and the focus on such things as growth and size, rather than profitability. Fascinating reading!

About Scope Creep and Creepy Clients

I received the following from a guy named Jeff. He asked -- One major challenge we have is managing "scope creep." Clients are always changing, enhancing, modifying, backtracking, re-hashing, deliverables and we seem less than great at controlling the associated costs. And the client does not want to pay. What do you do? Is it up front education? A formal contract, detailing the change-order process? We want to be easy to do business with, but we don't want to lose money either.

Well, Jeff, we certainly all know what this feels like. You try to be nice, and the other person just takes advantage of you, never reciprocating the niceness.

I invite you to think about how you would handle it if this were an employee, or a family member, or a friend or acquaintance. How do you deal with this in other walks of life?

You'll find that the key point is that it's all in the timing. If you were mad at your spouse, the time to raise an issue would not be when you were so desperate to solve the issue that you would lose your temper, or be under immediate pressure to get your way. Done then, you are almost certain to get it wrong.

But you also wouldn't raise the issue the first time it happened -- you would try to be supportive. What you would probably do, if this were a friend or a spouse, is to say that you don't want to fight about what has just happened, but only want to work out how you want to work together tomorrow.

You would say something like "I wonder if we could just go for a walk and talk about some things. Everything's really good now, but it would really help if we could work out some issues that are bothering me. Can we talk about the future?" Talking about the future rather than the immediate events really helps defuse the emotions, and allows a more sensible conversation.

In the world of clients, as in personal life, you can't take extreme positions.

On the one hand, you do have to try and be helpful and flexible and be willing to try and accommodate your clients' needs. But you can't keep on just being nice, because then you'll just keep getting exploited.

If you do, it's easy to predict that you'll get madder and madder, stop enjoying the work and then, one day, you are going to explode with fury, really telling that person what you think of them. (That's what happens in bad marriages where people can't raise criticisms about each other without giving offense.)

The answer, Jeff, doesn't lie in systems. It lies in the verbal and interpersonal ability to raise a criticism, while still being committed to the relationship.

Yes, it's wise to get agreements down in writing at the beginning of a business relationship, and also to agree (with as much non-legalistic language as you can) what would constitute a change of scope.

I think it wise to draft a chatty letter to clients saying the following -- (this is language I actually do use) -- "just to make sure we are both thinking about the project in the same way, I want to be clear that I will be happy to engage in additional activities such as (telephone calls and preparatory reading) up to XX hours. This represents my investment in our relationship. However, if what you ask me to do exceeds that amount of time, I will contact you to ensure that you still want me to do the extra work, and agree an appropriate fee for it."

This doesn't stop clients being demanding, but when they are, I then call to discuss things, using the following language (also a real example) -- "I hope you are happy with my work and that you think I am being helpful and client-centric. If you wish me to invest more time in this project, perhaps we can discuss whether or not it would be appropriate me to bill you for more investment time."

The choice is then theirs. Now, I don't want to pretend that this approach works in 100 percent of all circumstances. There are still going to be clients who will keep trying to get something for nothing, even though I have explained that I have "reached the limit of my ability to invest in the relationship." (Exactly the language I use.) If they still want additional work for no additional fee, I do walk away.

Everyone deserves a fair chance to work out a relationship, but I am not so desperate that I continue to work with people I know to be unfair and unjust. Not only is life too short, but I would rather accept the extra stress of developing other new business than be forced into accepting abuse and exploitation.

As always, I invite other people's experience and contributions. Is there more advice out there to help Jeff?

Sustaining the Momentum -- new careers podcast episode

It is not uncommon for highly successful people to have some low points in their motivation; finding themselves lacking the accustomed drive and energy that is necessary for continued excellence. It is important, however, to realise that burnout, the "imposter syndrome," and other causes of decreased performance should not be seen as the end of the road of high self-motivation, but rather understood as a natural process to which there may be concrete, productive answers.

Following on the last episode about Avoiding Procrastination, this week's podcast episode Sustaining the Momentum discusses how to sustain the excitement, drive & enthusiasm necessary to keep building a successful career.

Timeline

00:30 -- An email on the difficulties of sustaining the momentum
01:30 -- The commonality of the down time experience
02:45 -- The motivational spiral: it works both ways
06:06 -- Professionals and the Impostor Syndrome
08:20 -- Simple rules for maintaining motivation amongst professionals
11:12 -- Carmine Coyote on the underlying cause of burnout: the gap between expectation and result.
12:24 -- Emotional self-control
14:46 -- A valuable resource for managing and changing your emotional state

You can download Sustaining the Momentum or sign up to receive new Business Masterclass seminars automatically with iTunes or other podcast players. (Click here for step-by-step instructions on how to subscribe.) My seminars are always available for download at no cost.

A Conversation with Steve Rubel

What follows are the abbreviated highlights of a telephone conversation that took place on March 2, 2006, just as Steve Rubel the world's most respected authority on blogging was joining Edelman, the international public relations firm.

Wood-- Do professional firms who that are engaged in business-to-business services have an easier opportunity to use blogging than do companies who that serve the mass consumer market, or is it harder?

Rubel -- It would be very misleading and limiting to think of blogging as only about conversations with customers or clients. It's about connecting with a wide group of stakeholders.

However, if you do think about connecting with clients, it should be easier for professional service firms to take advantage of blogging.

When buyers think about hiring firms, one of the things they care a lot about is "smarts" -- having really good advice and counsel to offer. Blogging brings that to life -- it's a perfect way to demonstrate that you have something to say and something to offer.

That's good for the buyer, and if you really have something to special to offer and something special to say, it's good for you. That's the kind of transparency that will help the buyer choose a better professional, whether it's a law firm, an accounting firm, a PR firm, or an advertising agency.

It's a lot harder to hide now. If a firm or agency really thinks it has the smartest people, then they haveit has a real incentive to get them out there and to show them off.

Wood -- But who's doing the listening and participating out there? Is it the clients you are trying to serve, or is it just other consultants picking your brains and stealing your best ideas?

Rubel -- I can track how people arrive at my blog, and the buyers arrive through Google. Buyers search for my topics on Google and, because I've been creating and giving away content for two years, they find my blog and me.

The media found me through blogging -- they are there and they are listening and watching. And then the buyers found me through the media attention. They don't necessarily join in the blog conversations, but they are listening and lurking silently, and in big numbers.

Wood -- If someone truly did want to do a better job of eliciting reactions and creating true conversations, what should they do?

Rubel -- One thing they definitely should do is begin by visiting other people's blogs and participating in their conversations by adding comments there. It's a good strategy to be prepared to be a little provocative and controversial, without being rude.

You start by going where the other people are and respectfully and politely joining in their conversations. Eventually, if you have been doing it often and regularly, they will notice you, come to you, and join in your conversation. There's no short cut or quick hit here.

You should read widely among other blogs so that you know what people want to talk about. In the "blogosphere" that means subscribing to and reading a lot of RSS feeds, so that you know what's being discussed and what's hot.

Last, and most important, you should use the technology to "Trackback" and link to other bloggers so that you help visitors and yourself to be part of the larger inter-blog conversation. You won't get a lot of intra-blog conversations going if you try to keep it all on your blog. You've got to link in.

Ultimately, it's about providing value and making people want to interact with you because they derive benefit when they do.

Wood -- These sound like life lessons, not just blogging lessons.

Rubel -- Yes, these lessons are general. But the blogosphere has its own culture, just like a dinner party in China is going to be different from a dinner party in the UK.

If you want to join in, you need to take the time to learn the specific manners and mores. Unfortunately, it is very easy to make a big "faux pas" in a foreign country by doing what you would normally do at home.

Wood -- What else can blogging do for the blogger?

Rubel -- Whether it's blog-based or news-based, you can be really valuable by being the best aggregator of information in your field. The blog is the perfect tool to make that possible. That's not just doing a cut-and-paste job on other people's blogs, although too many people are taking that approach. You must work at contributing. I have developed systems that help me find stuff, and find it before others do. That's part of making yourself the "go-to resource."

I'm not a journalist. I'm a finder of information, a sharer of information, an aggregator of information. And it works, because I'm out there every day uncovering things and sharing them with my audience.

For more of Steve's comments, and my reflections on them, go to my article Setting Knowledge Free.

Creating A New Religion

A lot of my professional work for the past two decades has had the following structure. A CEO or managing partner calls me up and says something like this --

"We've been managing this firm for profitability and cost control, and pulled it off. We're in terrific shape. Now we want to initiate a new era of inspiration. We want our people to be client-centric, to become trusted advisors. We want them to collaborate across boundaries so we can become a one-firm firm, and we want them to focus on developing our juniors so we can be a great place to work. Can you come and help convince our people to do all this?"

Since these are all goals and values I advocate and believe in, I have (in the past) frequently accepted this assignment. I have often been successful at building enthusiasm for these strategies. It's not because I'm so talented, but because most people, it turns out, would love to work in a company or firm that subscribed to those values. Getting buy-in is not that hard.

However, I frequently run the final strategy meetings with anonymous voting machines, and after everyone has voted that these are strategies they want to pursue, and that they want management to pursue, I then ask the question -- how many of you think we will actually do this, will run the company this way, and actually will implement these strategies?

In the overwhelming majority of cases, people indicate with the anonymous voting machines that they do NOT think the new strategies and policies will be implemented. Notice that the people voting are not some group of lowly employees -- they are the partners or senior vice presidents of the enterprise. If they are sceptical about the company's own ability to implement its own declared strategy, can you imagine how cynical the employees are?

As I have touched on in two of my recent articles -- Are You Abusive, Cynical or Exciting? and Strategy and the Fat Smoker people's depressing view of their own future comes from two sources.

First, their fear that they will not themselves live up to their own high aspirations when faced with temptation. Second, they believe that those in leadership positions will not "keep the faith" -- leaders will continue to manage as they have done in the past (usually driven by short-term financials) rather than the way they say they are going to manage in the future.

During the past 20 years of doing what I do, I have seen leaders of all kinds. Some really DO want to change, and are sincere about trying to lead their organisations in new directions. Other leaders truly are as cynical as their colleagues suspect them to be. These leaders want everyone else to change and live to high standards, but fully intend to go on managing the same old way. This second type is just trying to get more from others (the organisation) without having to give more.

What has been fascinating to observe is how hard it has been even for the sincere leaders to get their colleagues and subordinates to believe that they have changed, and that they will manage to new standards.

People almost never believe this. They just don't accept that there has been "a conversion on the road to Damascus." They never believe there truly is a new religion in place. They always believe that their leaders are going to go back to managing the way they have done for the prior 5, 10 or 15 years.

When you think about it, the cynicism is to be expected. Why should people think the leopard has changed its spots? What could the leader possibly do that would get those closest to them, those who know them very, very well, to think that they have shifted the basis on which they will make decisions? And if those closest to the leaders have a hard time believing that the leaders have truly changed their thinking, what hope is there for convincing the rest of the organisation?

I don't mean to become a cynic myself, but I have to report that new strategies and change efforts are easier for a new CEO or managing partner to implement than for the existing CEO or managing partner to be credible about. Leaders who want to convince their organisations that they have changed have a very difficult task.

Anyone out there have suggestions about how to overcome all this organisational scepticism?

Avoiding Procrastination -- new careers podcast episode

Many of us struggle against the perils of procrastination. We postpone tasks until the very last minute, and sometimes beyond, and risk our reputations for productivity and quality.

As you progress during your career, it's likely that you will not be managed as closely or as tightly, and the more you will need to learn self-management. You have to take responsibility for dealing with procrastination in order to succeed -- and to avoid sabotaging your career.

In today's podcast, Avoiding Procrastination, we explore the reasons behind procrastination, and look at basic tips and advanced techniques for overcoming procrastination to increase your productivity, success, and enjoyment of your job.

(By the way, for those of you reading this as a form of procrastination ... well, you know what to do!)

Timeline

00:29 -- The widespread epidemic of procrastination
02:33 -- Preparation for the task at hand
04:48 -- Alternating between a multitude of tasks
07:26 -- The importance of focus on a motivating purpose
08:36 -- Learning how to start
12:04 -- Sustaining the momentum
12:41 -- More advanced techniques

You can download Avoiding Procrastination or sign up to receive new Business Masterclass seminars automatically with iTunes or other podcast players. (Click here for step-by-step instructions on how to subscribe.) My seminars are always available for download at no cost.

The Mysteries of Dealing With People -- A Few Pointers

I am not a natural people person, so I watch out keenly for lessons on how to interact with others. Here's a few pointers I picked up along the way.

We often think of the distinct topics of dealing with superiors, colleagues, clients and subordinates as separate discussions. But the reality is that it's all one topic: how to deal with people.

You can use these different perspectives to help you think through difficult situations. If you're stuck on how to deal with a boss, ask yourself: "How would I handle it if I were dealing with a client?" Similarly, you can get a lot of insight into dealing with your subordinates by pondering the question: "If this person were a colleague, what would I do?"

Actually, the principle is broader than that. We all deal with people in our personal lives: parents, siblings, friends and lovers. These relationships are not always harmonious, yet we deal with issues and get on with the relationship. When you're contemplating what to do in a business relationship, draw upon your experience in your personal relationships. You won't do the identical thing, but it will help you think it through.

What do we try to be in personal relationships to build bonds? Sympathetic, supportive, nurturing, considerate and kind. Apply that everywhere in all your business relationships. They are the keys, in any relationship, to getting the other person to respond to you and treat you as you want to be treated.

When dealing with a subordinate, a reservations clerk at the airport, your boss, your spouse or anyone else, you are more likely to get cooperation if you control any emotions you are feeling.

A while ago, my wife turned to me and said "Richard, can I get your help?" Of course, I said yes. She said "Well, when we travel, we are usually lucky enough to stay in hotel suites, and your cigars don't bother me. But, occasionally, we are in small hotel rooms, and I find that, then, the cigars make my eyes itchy. What do you think I should do about that?"

This is, of course, brilliant. She had every right to be angry, but she knew that expressing her anger would reduce the chances of my cooperation, not increase it. She had every right to criticise me, but she knew that if she was explicit in her criticism, I would become defensive and try to justify myself.

She did not approach the problem as a logical, rational one to be "solved," but an interpersonal, psychological, emotional one. She was less concerned about being right, and more concerned about getting what she wanted.

There's a simple rule. If you are trying to make a point and do it with emotion, you give the other person the opportunity to deflect the conversation onto your emotions and away from your point. Keep your emotions out of it.

Want to know how to deal with others? As a good first approximation, think of others as like you, not as "them". If you want to influence someone, ask: Would it work on me? Figure out how you like to be dealt with. Draw up your own list of how you expect to be treated. Treat others that way.

Are these old, unoriginal thoughts? Of course, but still worth asking ourselves how well we actually apply them in our lives.

Selecting A Leader: Do We Know What We Want?

If you read many articles or books on the desired qualities of a CEO or a managing partner, you can get very confused. The list of desirable character traits, attitudes, skills and philosophies seems endless.

You can get the same impression looking at the job descriptions that many firms put together when searching for a new leader. There is often a long list, including both "qualifying" characteristics (such as "integrity") that most realistic candidates are likely to possess, as well as a number of factors that will truly distinguish the best candidates.

Very frequently, the desired characteristics that are listed are in conflict with each other. For example, firms often say that they want their leaders to be both decisive and consultative. These are both virtues, but there is a risk that they can neutralise each other as a guide to choosing the best candidate.

Similarly, it is not uncommon to find firms who say they want leaders who are especially adept at being active externally (dealing with clients, shareholders, the media, the community) and also be active internally: motivating people, readily available, and managing the firm's affairs. These two skill-sets are not the same. Taken together, the message can be confused, if not completely contradictory.

The situation can be made even more difficult. Many firms make lists of generally desirable characteristics of a leader, failing to recognise that the best set of attitudes, skills and behaviours depend on the individual firm, the specific opportunities and needs that the organisation faces, and (for example) how ready the organisation is to make changes.

After all, there's no point selecting an Olympic-level coach for a team of people who don't want to play that game. There's no point appointing a skilled cost-cutter if the primary strategic need is to grow revenues in new markets!

For professional firms run on "partnership" principles, the bar is raised even higher. Unlike a corporation, which can (and usually does) select its leaders according to the views of a relatively small Board, the choice of a new leader in a professional firm usually requires taking into account the preferences, desires and ambitions of a broad group of partners, shareholders or senior vice-presidents.

The need for this is not driven (just) by ideals of democracy, participation or consultation. It's about ensuring the organisation's understanding and acceptance of the CEO's (or managing partner's) mandate.

All too often, I have seen CEOs and managing partners criticised, resented and made relatively ineffective by being judged (both by their Board and those they manage) on aspects of the role they were not chosen to perform.

As I pointed out in a previous article Accountability: Effective Managers Go First, it is hard to hold a leader accountable if there is not a clear, unambiguous understanding of the role. Many leaders prefer it this way: they like the freedom of action that comes from an unambiguous role. However, as I pointed out, leaders are, inevitably, going to be judged: wouldn't it be better for all concerned to know, in advance, and with clarity, what the true, real expectations are?

This seemingly obvious principle is widely neglected in practice. In many firms, in many industries, in many countries, I have learned, people are appointed to managerial positions without detailed consideration of the requirements of the role.

Many firms go directly to a discussion of the merits of individual candidates, based on a very general job description, without priorities established among the characteristics listed for the "CEO search."

If, however, you (first) have an in-depth discussion of what you seek in a leader, the weighting given to competing virtues can be discussed dispassionately, and not be excessively influenced only by the specific candidates involved.

A Diagnostic Tool

In order to assist with this process, I have designed a simple diagnostic tool that can be used to facilitate your firms' discussions of the characteristics it seeks in a leader.

In the questions that follow, there are a series of "paired" qualities that a good leader might possess. In each case, either quality in the pair might be desirable, and (perhaps) an equal balance desirable.

However, the point of pairing these qualities is to ask: if there HAD to be a choice between the two items in the pair, which would each respondent really prefer in a leader?

A simple way to "force" people to think through their preferences (and also to provide a simple way to aggregate the views) is to ask them to allocate 100 points between each of the paired items. Thus, if the respondent thinks the CEO should be mostly focused on the external community rather than inside the firm, he or she could allocate 90-10 or 80-20 to the "outside / inside" pair.

So, what are the "either / or" choices you might present to your firm? As you scan the alternatives below, bear in mind that either side of the pair is (or can be) a virtue in a leader. The issue here is to set priorities, avoid ambiguities and conflicting messages and force some clarity.

Do you want your CEO / Managing Partner to be someone who ...

• Focuses on working inside firm versus focuses on a high profile with clients and marketplace
• Is good with numbers versus good with people
• Leads in accordance with a strong personal ideology of his or her own, versusbe the kind of person who tolerates different views, values and approaches
• Has a track record of generating business,versus a track record of managing people well
• Is the type of person who thinks we need to make big strategic moves, even if they involve bigger risks, versus someone who thinks we should make small, incremental changes
• Has strategic acumen personally, versus the ability to facilitate and let others innovate and make strategic choices
• Has the best business qualifications, versus has the best character qualifications
• Prefers to confront problems early, even if this can be disruptive, versusthe kind who avoids conflict until it's necessary to tackle it
• Focuses on preserving the firm's historical culture versuschanging the culture to adapt to meet new challenges of the marketplace
• Moves fast versus someone who acts deliberatively
• Emphasises ambition and growth, versus someone who emphasises caution and risk management
• Emphasises reasoning and logic versus someone who emphasises emotion and excitement
• Acts a peer, a first among equals, versus someone who is clearly a leader and will manage that way
• Is primarily a "businessperson" versus being "ideology-driven"
• Acts as the firm's "face" or "identity" in the media, versussomeone who facilitates others achieving a high profile
• Is a fresh face versus a known quantity
• Is very self-confident, versus someone who acts with humility
• Already has a clear view of where we need to go and what we need to do, versussomeone who will develop that with us after appointment
• Is a pragmatist, versus a visionary
• Primarily has a "hard head" versus a "soft heart"
• Focuses on getting things done (i.e. a "driver") versus someone who focuses on getting it right (i.e. an "analytical")
• Has an introverted style, versus someone with an extroverted style
• Focuses on capitalising on short-term opportunities, versussomeone who focuses on long-term wealth creation
• Makes changes through dramatic, big moves,versus someone who makes changes through continuous, insistent pressure
• Sets the example of hard work, versus someone who lives a balanced personal / work lifestyle
• Is diplomatic, versus someone who is "straight-talking."
• Is usually sympathetic to people's personal problems, versusis unwilling to allow sustained under-performance.
• Has a track record of personal professional success, versushas a track record of building an organisation
• Is usually trusting of others, versus not easily fooled
• Prefers to manage people directly, versus prefers to work through others
• Is decisive versus consultative
• Is hands-on, involved in the details, versus hands-off, sets the direction and then holds people accountable

Naturally, it is possible to adapt this questionnaire to your own firm, inserting key trade-offs that I have omitted and deleting ones you think are less critical to your firm.

The key is to make the choices difficult, so that people are forced to reflect on what characteristics a CEO or managing partner really requires.

Mechanistically, I have also used other ways to "force" people to indicate preferences. Instead of allocating 100 points, respondents could be asked, for each pair of virtues, to choose one point on a four-point scale:

1 = the leader should possess the first quality MUCH more than the second quality;

2 = the leader should possess the first quality a LITTLE more than the second quality;

3 = the leader should possess the second quality a LITTLE more than the first quality;

4 = the leader should possess the second quality MUCH more than the first quality.

Because we are trying to ask what people would choose if it really came to a choice between the two qualities, there would be no "middle ? equal balance" option in this version. In this way, true priorities are more likely to be revealed.

Using the Tool

Begin by circulating the questionnaire among the relevant participants (partners, shareholders or senior vice-presidents.) When everyone has contributed their views, charts should be prepared showing both the weighted average view and (this is important) the distribution of views, so that it is clear where the shareholders, partners or senior executives are of similar minds, and where they have divided views.

The results thus obtained should then be used for an open debate which tries to reconcile the differing views, and thus can serve an important educational, bonding and strategy-setting function.

The point of the polling is not to suppress debate, but to identify the subjects most worthy of debate. Areas of consensus can be quickly noted, and discussion focused on topics where there is a disparity of views.

For example, some participants may enter the process thinking that the CEO or managing partner should be a primary business-getter, while others think differently. Through debate, a better, healthier consensus may be forged about what the priorities are, not only for the CEO, but for the firm.

There are built-in flaws in any discussion of desirable leadership characteristics. For example, when asking people for their views about what they look for in a leader, (using this approach or any other) there always exists a tendency for "regression toward the mean." People tend to express preferences in comparison to the existing (or recently departed) leader, rather than absolute ones.

For example, if a previous leader has been noted for tilting the balance toward decisiveness rather than extensive consultation, there will be a tendency for people to vote for the new leader to be more consultative. And, of course, vice versa.

Once you have completed a first-round survey using these "paired characteristics," you will probably still have a lengthy, multi-item list of desired traits. It will usually be necessary to conduct a second round of the survey by creating new "either / or" choices from the surviving criteria.

Repeated rounds of "forced choices" may sound onerous, but eventually you will emerge with a clearer focus on what kind of leader is desired, and more support for any new leader chosen in line with the carefully debated, unambiguous, non-contradictory criteria.

To facilitate the ability to hone in on the few key descriptors that summarise the group's preferences, I often run meetings on this topic using "audience response systems" where each person has a (wireless, electronic) keypad and can quickly vote (anonymously) with the group results being shown instantaneously on a screen in front of the whole group.

The virtues of this system are many, but three stand out. First, there is no requirement to pre-program the questions, and the time from phrasing the question to seeing the views of the group is only a few seconds. Because of this, if a vote is ambiguous, or seen to be poorly phrased, a re-vote is possible immediately.

Second, the ability to conduct sequential "rounds" of voting enables the group to really test its key criteria. For example, if a list of ten criteria "survive" as the most desirable (or consensus) characteristics, it is easy to reduce the list to the most important five or six by repeating the pairing process instantaneously, asking "If you could only have one of these, which would it be?"

Finally, the fact that audience response systems are based on computers means that the group is able to "capture" the expressions of views that were made, and use them in future deliberations and decisions. What used to be called "a paper trail" is automatically created, which can be referred to long after to remind people of views expressed at the meeting.

Summary

If you are like other firms with whom I have used this exercise, you will find that it will force many participants to really reflect in depth (many of them for the first time) what kind of leader they truly think is best for the firm and, perhaps more importantly, what kind of leader they are prepared to accept and be guided by.

By the way, even if you do not have a broad group with whom you are required to be consultative, the "forced-choice" questionnaire can still be a helpful tool. I have used it with relatively small corporate Boards of Directors where there can also be a need for clarification and choice among competing criteria when appointing top corporate officers.

You may be surprised that, when faced with competing virtues, some of your colleagues will make surprising choices. You may also be surprised by the amount of unanimity that often exists in what people seek in a leader.

Your firm will then be in a good position to examine your candidates, and choose the right leader, at the right time, for where your firm is today and where your organisation is prepared to go.

If you can clarify your criteria, it will be easier to recognise the best leader for you. If your criteria are confused, it will be very hard to make a sensible choice. The effort described here is as nothing compared to the benefits of making a better leadership choice.