Medical Practice as a Professional Service

R Paul L. Shillam, Controller at Pacific Medical Centers in Seattle wrote in to say:

"I just read your article published in Consulting (Nov/Dec 2008). Each time I read your views on professional consultants, accountants or legal firms, it easily translates to the practice of medicine. In a medical practice, there is a group of professionals trained in problem solving and decision making, and then dispensing recommendations to their clients. Clients can either choose to implement their recommendations or not. The medical consultant's success depends a great deal on the relationship between the client and consultant. I could go on with the parallels.

"I think you miss a great opportunity to contribute to the changes needed in health care by limiting your practice to 'service firms'. Isn't the practice of medicine a service anyway? I would be interested in translating much of what you say about the 'trusted advisor' and 'relationships' in professional service firms to the practice of medicine. There is a huge push to change the way medicine is delivered in this country and the common sense approaches your offer to service firms have applicability in the practice of medicine.

"Here's an idea, do a survey of some of your physician acquaintances to see how they react to your ideas ... just a thought."

***

What's the reaction of the rest of you? Do any of you have experience applying professional service firm lessons to medical practitioners? How easy or difficult is it to make the "translation"? How receptive is the medical community?

New Business Thinkers

Are there any business thinkers that you are paying attention to that have not been "around" and well-known for years already? Who, if anyone, is an emerging business thinker worth paying attention to?

Digital Marketing for Professional Firms

David Koopmans, Director of Mokum Marketing in Melbourne, Australia wrote in by email to raise the topic of how professional services firms can use the web in their marketing strategy and what the specific benefits are.

He points out that among some types of professional firm there is often resistance to the concept of marketing in general, and the digital space in particular.

If you were advising a professional firm about web marketing, what would you stress?

I'm not sure how much hard evidence there really is about the benefits of the web in marketing professional services. I suspect that key decision-makers and buyers are not spending much time on the net. Their staff subordinates (HR people, marketing directors, strategy people etc.,) may use it more, and you may be found that way, but I doubt that there is much of a direct executive audience.

I would probably point out that the old adage "demonstrate don't assert" remains the key to effective use of web technology, and that websites need to have voluminous amounts of easy to search and easy to find content, so that you can you can prove that you have something to offer (and are generous and professional enough to share it.) The ease of use of your digital marketing gives you an opportunity to show your ability to put yourself in the shoes of the client / purchaser and understand things from their perspective, rather than saying "let us tell you about us."

I'd also stress that you need to be well advised by people who understand search engine optimisation, so that if there are buyers who don't know you, you are found when they begin searching.

It's still early days for blogging, podcasting and videocasting, but I'd have to guess that, for most professional service firms, these are not high return activities -- again, because I'm not sure that the "high-level" buyers are listening and watching.

I've had a lot of fun and success with my own activities (which I reported on last year in an article called "Adventures in Modern Marketing") but it's very hard to unbundled the incremental marketing benefit that being active on the web has brought. I'm not sure what I would advise a client to do in this area, nor how much of their marketing budget to devote to web activities.

What do the rest of you think? What advice would you give to a professional firm about digital marketing? What have we learned?

Meeting Rules

We all know meetings are a curse.

Here are some of the rules I would offer to help make them more productive.

1. Do not call meetings when some other form of information sharing is possible.
2. Since most people can read ten times faster than a presenter can speak, send material ahead.
3. Meetings need to have concrete goals (a purpose for what must be accomplished), not just an agenda.
4. Select speciifc start and stop times and stick to them
5. Restrict attendance to only those who must be there
6. Appoint a reporter at the beginning of the meeting, charged with recording the discussion, writing it up, and circulating the meeting notes within 24 hours

***

Those are just some of the rules I would offer. What meeting rules would you propose?

Reputations

Consistency, dependability and regularity work: occasional peaks of excellence don't.

For example, always meet your deadlines.

If you are asked to do something, make sure you know exactly what it is and when it is due.

If you have doubts about your ability to complete on time or about the task's priority or importance, raise your concern with your manager or client immediately.

It is OK to need more time as long as you ask for it ahead of time. It is OK to struggle and ask for help.

It is not OK to break your commitments. The fastest and surest way to fail is to break your word.

The Rule of St. Benedict

At a seminar I conducted last Friday, the topic of enforcing standards came up -- as it always does. And, again as always, I made the point that the courage to enforce standards by asking otherwise productive people to leave is both essential and scarce. We also discussed the charcateristics of an effective manager of professionals.

Over the weekend, I heard from Adam Simon, Managing Director of Business Optimisation Services at PRG-Schultz Europe. He wrote:

Many thanks for your words of inspiration at last Friday's seminar. Before going into business 25 years ago I spent some time as a Benedictine monk and have often tried to draw on that experience in my business life.

As you were leaving, I asked if you had read the rule of St Benedict and you said no. I think you will love parts of it, especially two chapters that I draw your attention to for a starter: Chapter 2 what type of man the Abbot should be. I do not think that in all management writing, pace Drucker, Peters and all the gurus, there is a better description of what a good manager should be. Chapter 28, Of Those Who Having Often Been Corrected Do Not Amend, which follows your principle that people have to be pulling in the same direction or leave. Whilst many of the specifics in the rule have no relevance, the spirit is totally modern with its understanding of human frailty and the difficulties of living with others.

Here is a link to a translation of the rule into English (slightly old fashioned language, better modern translations do exist but I could not find them on the web).

CHAPTER II

What Kind of Man the Abbot Ought to Be

The Abbot who is worthy to be over a monastery ought always to be mindful of what he is called, and make his works square with his name of Superior. For he is believed to hold the place of Christ in the monastery, when he is called by his name, according to the saying of the Apostle: "You have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry Abba (Father)" (Rom 8:15). Therefore, the Abbot should never teach, prescribe, or command (which God forbid) anything contrary to the laws of the Lord; but his commands and teaching should be instilled like a leaven of divine justice into the minds of his disciples.

Let the Abbot always bear in mind that he must give an account in the dread judgment of God of both his own teaching and of the obedience of his disciples. And let the Abbot know that whatever lack of profit the master of the house shall find in the sheep, will be laid to the blame of the shepherd. On the other hand he will be blameless, if he gave all a shepherd's care to his restless and unruly flock, and took all pains to correct their corrupt manners; so that their shepherd, acquitted at the Lord's judgment seat, may say to the Lord with the Prophet: "I have not hid Thy justice within my heart. I have declared Thy truth and Thy salvation" (Ps 39[40]:11). "But they contemning have despised me" (Is 1:2; Ezek 20:27). Then at length eternal death will be the crushing doom of the rebellious sheep under his charge.

When, therefore, anyone taketh the name of Abbot he should govern his disciples by a twofold teaching; namely, he should show them all that is good and holy by his deeds more than by his words; explain the commandments of God to intelligent disciples by words, but show the divine precepts to the dull and simple by his works. And let him show by his actions, that whatever he teacheth his disciples as being contrary to the law of God must not be done, "lest perhaps when he hath preached to others, he himself should become a castaway" (1 Cor 9:27), and he himself committing sin, God one day say to him: "Why dost thou declare My justices, and take My covenant in thy mouth? But thou hast hated discipline, and hast cast My words behind thee" (Ps 49[50]:16-17). And: "Thou who sawest the mote in thy brother's eye, hast not seen the beam in thine own" (Mt 7:3).

Let him make no distinction of persons in the monastery. Let him not love one more than another, unless it be one whom he findeth more exemplary in good works and obedience. Let not a free-born be preferred to a freedman, unless there be some other reasonable cause. But if from a just reason the Abbot deemeth it proper to make such a distinction, he may do so in regard to the rank of anyone whomsoever; otherwise let everyone keep his own place; for whether bond or free, we are all one in Christ (cf Gal 3:28; Eph 6:8), and we all bear an equal burden of servitude under one Lord, "for there is no respect of persons with God" (Rom 2:11). We are distinguished with Him in this respect alone, if we are found to excel others in good works and in humility. Therefore, let him have equal charity for all, and impose a uniform discipline for all according to merit.

For in his teaching the Abbot should always observe that principle of the Apostle in which he saith: "Reprove, entreat, rebuke" (2 Tm 4:2), that is, mingling gentleness with severity, as the occasion may call for, let him show the severity of the master and the loving affection of a father. He must sternly rebuke the undisciplined and restless; but he must exhort the obedient, meek, and patient to advance in virtue. But we charge him to rebuke and punish the negligent and haughty. Let him not shut his eyes to the sins of evil-doers; but on their first appearance let him do his utmost to cut them out from the root at once, mindful of the fate of Heli, the priest of Silo (cf 1 Sam 2:11-4:18). The well-disposed and those of good understanding, let him correct at the first and second admonition only with words; but let him chastise the wicked and the hard of heart, and the proud and disobedient at the very first offense with stripes and other bodily punishments, knowing that it is written: "The fool is not corrected with words" (Prov 29:19). And again: "Strike thy son with the rod, and thou shalt deliver his soul from death" (Prov 23:14).

The Abbot ought always to remember what he is and what he is called, and to know that to whom much hath been entrusted, from him much will be required; and let him understand what a difficult and arduous task he assumeth in governing souls and accommodating himself to a variety of characters. Let him so adjust and adapt himself to everyone -- to one gentleness of speech, to another by reproofs, and to still another by entreaties, to each one according to his bent and understanding -- that he not only suffer no loss in his flock, but may rejoice in the increase of a worthy fold.

Above all things, that the Abbot may not neglect or undervalue the welfare of the souls entrusted to him, let him not have too great a concern about fleeting, earthly, perishable things; but let him always consider that he hath undertaken the government of souls, of which he must give an account. And that he may not perhaps complain of the want of earthly means, let him remember what is written: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you" (Mt 6:33). And again: "There is no want to them that fear Him" (Ps 33[34]:10). And let him know that he who undertaketh the government of souls must prepare himself to give an account for them; and whatever the number of brethren he hath under his charge, let him be sure that on judgment day he will, without doubt, have to give an account to the Lord for all these souls, in addition to that of his own. And thus, whilst he is in constant fear of the Shepherd's future examination about the sheep entrusted to him, and is watchful of his account for others, he is made solicitous also on his own account; and whilst by his admonitions he had administered correction to others, he is freed from his own failings.

CHAPTER XXVIII

Of Those Who Having Often Been Corrected Do Not Amend

If a brother hath often been corrected and hath even been excommunicated for a fault and doth not amend, let a more severe correction be applied to him, namely, proceed against him with corporal punishment.

But if even then he doth not reform, or puffed up with pride, should perhaps, which God forbid, even defend his actions, then let the Abbot act like a prudent physician. After he hath applied soothing lotions, ointments of admonitions, medicaments of the Holy Scriptures, and if, as a last resource, he hath employed the caustic of excommunication and the blows of the lash, and seeth that even then his pains are of no avail, let him apply for that brother also what is more potent than all these measures: his own prayer and that of the brethren, that the Lord who is all-powerful may work a cure in that brother.

But if he is not healed even in this way, then finally let the Abbot dismiss him from the community, as the Apostle saith: "Put away the evil one from among you" (1 Cor 5:13); and again: "If the faithless depart, let him depart" (1 Cor 7:15); lest one diseased sheep infect the whole flock.

Mentoring

There's an interesting discussion this month in the print version of CONSULTING magazine about mentoring programs in consulting firms. What's notable is how diverse the programs are. Some are highly structured, while others are based on encouraging mentees to seek out their own mentors among the senior staff.

One common element is the claim that senior people are evaluated on how well they develop their mentees. I wonder how real this is, and how much is just paying lip-service. I'm sure it's on the list, but I don't know how much weight is actually given to it. After all, senior people have lots of other things they are evaluated on.

Do any of you have experience being effectively mentored inside your firm? What were the key elements that made the mentoring program work well in your organisation?

Technical Excelllence

In many professional businesses, high technical excellence is taken for granted -- we assume that having it is "table stakes" for competing.

However, it's not a trivial issue to ask whether and how a firm goes about ensuring that its employees in fact meet high standards of technical expertise, especially in a world where companies tend to signal that revenue generation is a more pressing (if not more important) topic.

Who is best positioned in a professional organisation to judge an employee's technical quality? I assume that it might be that person's supervisor, but there could be some built-in conflicts: what if the supervisor is under economic pressure to meet group goals and hence compromise (a little) degrees of technical excellence?

I'm curious about your experience as to how your firm or company goes about ensuring technical excellence. Is it some combination of:

1. Training
2. On-the-job supervision
3. Peer Review Processes at the Job Level
4. Annual Performance Appraisals
5. Reward schemes

Or something else?

Believer or Sceptic?

When working with clients on change initiatives, I notice that they have two widely different strategies for appointing the internal person to lead the project. In some cases, they appoint a "true believer" who really wants to see the change happen. In other cases, firms go out of their way to appoint a sceptic, so that only proposals that can overcome the scepticism emerge from the study task-force, and proposals are not made that will not be implemented.

As a consultant, it's easier initially to work with a true believer, but the implementation success may be higher if a sceptic is appointed.

Does anyone have experience with this? if you were a company manager, who would you appoint to lead the charge on new strategic change intiatives?

Another reader question

My question to you and all your website contributors;

What have been people's experiences with the strategy of targeting only working with one client per industry sector and deliberately broadcasting to the market that that is your "modus operandi"? It's a bit clumsy, but, for example -- "We guarantee our clients that we will not work for their competitors, thereby preserving exclusively for our clients, the commercial advantage of partnering with us"

I know the applicability may vary with the type of services one offers, but do others have any thoughts on this approach?

Implementing a Client Service Strategy

One of the most common topics I am asked to advise on is achieving distinctively high levels of client service. I find that many firms underestimate how tough a diet and exercise program (see STRATEGY AND THE FAT SMOKER) it would really take to pull this off.

Among the changes that most firms would need to make are:

1. Adopting a culture that no longer allows people to "opt out" on the topic of client service excellence on the grounds that their skills lie elsewhere. A firm can't get a reputation for something that not everyone does.
2. Finding some way to monitor client feedback in real time (not just once a year) and make it credible to everyone that there will be a follow up for anything less than excellence.
3. Providing training in client counselling skills
4. Providing research support from the marketing department to help service delivery people stay current on client industries
5. Enable sharing of experiences (workshops and workbooks) among practitioners on an ongoing basis to establish a continuous improvement approach to client satisfaction.
6. Implement disciplined project management systems, including mandatory processes for communications strategies with clients mid-process.
7. A systematic program of senior officer visits to clients to "role model" the firm's commitment.

None of these approaches are new or innovative. (I first wrote about them in the 1990s, and I wasn't the originator then.) However, it is still my experience that firms are less than systematic in implementing a client service strategy.

What systems do you think are need to pull this strategy off? What else needs to be in the "change package?"

Managing Professionals in Not-For-Profits

A friend called recently and asked whether I thought the principles of managing professional service organisations applied in the not-for-profit sector.

It's a complex question. Let's start below the level of the organisation and ask whether the principles of managing professionals (not the organisation, but the people) differs between for-profit and not for profit.

I suspect that while the principles are the same (manage people through the opportunity for meaningful, challenging work) the actual practices are very different. The monetary dimension in the for-profit sector is both a blessing and a curse.

The blessing is that the availability of money allows generous rewards to be used to attract, motivate and retain talent. The curse is that financial rewards come to be used exclusively as the means to attract, motivate and retain talent.

In the for-profit sector, managers can "get away" with being poor managers, using money to cover up the absence of hands-on managerial skill. In the not-for-profit sector, the need for people management skills is unavoidable.

That's only one dimension of the not-for-profit difference, but before carrying on with my analysis, let me get yours.

What do the rest of you think? What has your experience been?

Screening for Relationship Attitudes and Skills?

Yesterday's post was about whether relationship skills must be "found" by firms in their hiring process or whether they can be developed.

As I reported, about one-third of a conference of leading management consulting firms felt that these values, attitudes and/or skills are mostly "hired in" rather than developed once people have reached the age and stage of being hired by consulting firms.

Which raises these questions:

1. How can firms screen for and identify relationship values, attitudes and skills?
2. How, in fact, do they screen for them?
3. Do formal testing approaches work?
4. What about "behavioural interviewing" (I'm still not sure what that is!)
5. Do you have to rely on the "take them out for a beer" test?

Developing Relationship Skills

At a conference of leading management consulting firms last week, I led a discussion about the barriers to developing strong, deep relationships with clients -- a "fat smoker" strategy in the sense that we all know we should be good at it, but few of us are.

As we explored the topic, I took a poll on how many people thought relationship skills were "born" and how many thought they could be "made" (i.e. developed.)

(Only) two-thirds of the audience thought they could be developed. However, very few firms said they had formal programs to help their people develop the interpersonal, social, political and emotional skills necessary to be good at relationships. As a rule, they depended either upon people developing these skills for themselves, or (if you were lucky) learning on the job by observing those ahead of you who were good at it.

The challenge was made even more difficult when it was pointed out that -- ultimately -- relationship skills are about values and attitudes, not personality characteristics and skills. If the discussion is about values, then it really is challenging to address the key questions:

1. Are these born or can firms develop them in their people?
2. If they can be developed by the organisation, how?
3. How did you learn to develop your relationship skills?
4. Were you ever given any formal training that helped?
5. What would you advise others that wanted to work at developing these skills?

Firing unprofitable clients

Hi Richard,

I had a question I wondered whether you or your blog readers had any opinions on.

Many companies have unprofitable customers. This situation may arise for many reaons including:

• Poor pricing controls -- offering large and multiple discounts
• Historic over-servicing and under-charging long-term customers
• Lack of understanding of the true cost to serve

Nonetheless, whatever the reason, when companies do find unprofitable customers they need to manage them. They can be made profitable or they can be "fired".

Do you have any ideas or strategies for actually firing customers? Does anyone have any examples of how their companies (or others) have done this and what the results were?

Regards. Daryn, Sydney, Australia

***

Well, gang, what say thee?

Bob Sutton wins Quill Award for "No Asshole Rule"

Bob Sutton was awarded the Quill award for "best business book of the year" for "The No-Asshole Rule."

Way to go, Bob! As I said on his blog, we all look forward to the movie of the book!

Consultant Seeks Advice

A consultant sent me this emaial, soliciting advice:

Last week I spent a couple of days with group within my client's organisation. The group was all male with one female. I was appalled by the pre-pubescent behaviour of the males towards the female. I'm a former Marine, played football in college, I'm not unfamiliar with male environments. Their behaviour towards their own female staff made me uncomfortable. My test is that I don't want to put our employees in an environment in which I would be uncomfortable putting my wife or daughter.

But, it's a really big client. And, my desire to back away from this client is being challenged by others.

Our first, agreed-upon principle is that our employees come first. Great employees, who are truly experts in their area, are harder to come by I think than clients. This is an interesting test of our application of our principles.

Any suggestions about how best to handle this would be appreciated.

Books by Consultants

Here's a great piece by Jonathan Copulsky, (a consultant at Deloitte in Chicago) published in the October 22, 2007 issue of Brandweek.

Smells Like The Publishing Spirit

While any self-respecting management consultant strives to achieve stellar results for his clients, there's one desire that often seems to permeate both body and soul more than any other: He dreams of being the author of a bestselling book.

Don't believe me? Browse the business section (or even, at times, the center-aisle tables) of the nearest mega bookstore, and count the number of books with the grinning guy in a suit on the dust jacket.

Naturally, he wants to demonstrate his in-depth knowledge and experience, share his insights, purvey his skills -- and earn your respect. Perhaps I should say "we," however, because the siren song of publishing oft tempts me -- a veteran marketing and sales consultant -- too. Only the fear of being unable to make my book truly stand out from the stack has kept me from succumbing to the temptation.

Until now, perhaps. Last week, you see, I finally found my inspiration -- the talisman sure to set my book apart from the rest. A newspaper story informed me that, when it comes to business books, animals are "in." The article cited Spencer Johnson's mice tale, Who Moved My Cheese? which has topped bestseller lists for almost a decade. More recently, John Kotter recast his 1996 organisational change bestseller as a fable about a penguin who mobilises his colony against the threat of its melting iceberg. Our Iceberg is Melting sold more than a quarter of a million copies.

With these zoological precedents in mind, I have decided the world is now ready for Who's Buying Our Guano?

A book about guano can't miss. A prime ingredient for both fertiliser and gunpowder, guano is rich in history, nitrates and adorable animals. Produced by birds, bats and even baby seals, it can be found throughout the world, from tropical islands to dank caverns. Guano's geopolitical influence also has been profound.

Peru, Bolivia and Chile waged war over guano 150 years ago. Perhaps it fueled their cannons, as well as their feud. Long before the world worried about weapons of mass destruction, Congress authorised the takeover of islands rich in guano deposits and even empowered the president to use the armed forces to protect our newfound national guano interests. Bats, seals, birds, war and American imperialism; that, friends, is an unbeatable combination.

Who's Buying Our Guano? will be set in an impoverished but guano-rich bat colony. Mobilised by one of its wiser and more experienced members, Sollie (short for Solomon), the colony wakes up to the commercial value of its deposits. Sollie convinces his fellow bats that they need a robust marketing and sales strategy, as well as a premium product, to achieve results in the lucrative but highly competitive global guano market.

Under Sollie's leadership, the colony quickly creates a multitiered distribution structure that includes exclusive agreements with the top-tier organic retail gardening chains. The bats' brand of guano immediately achieves market acceptance and generates an impressive rate of return. Less than 12 months after the bats launch their branded line, however, they come under fire from the seals. Although the seals' brand of guano is lower in quality in terms of its fertilising value, they promote it heavily with coupons and bulk-purchase discounts.

Our bat-marketer is, of course, baffled and disheartened. Despite their clearly superior product, the bats are losing market share. The ensuing crisis of confidence prompts Sollie to proffer his resignation. Fortunately, the CEO and the board rally behind him. Re-invigorated by this show of support, Sollie leads the attack on the guano sector by identifying value-added guano services, launching a boutique series of guano varietals and creating a series of beautiful complementary products for the home, including an ergonomic guano spreader available in six colors.

All of these innovations put the bats back on top of the guano pile. Determined to stay there this time, Sollie launches an in-depth study of the bats' target demographic. Following a thorough analysis, Sollie is shocked to discover that the bats' guano brand is failing to make a profit on nearly 15% of its customers. He concludes that the colony is literally giving away services, ranging from expedited shipping to custom packaging. Sollie convinces the board to introduce a menu-based pricing scheme. The result? Profitability increases by more than 500 basis points.

As just these little teasers prove, Who's Buying Our Guano? has all the ingredients of a blockbuster. Although bats may strike some as icky, just think of cute bats, like Jannell Cannon's Stellaluna or Fu-Fu from the PBS cartoon Sagwa.

Trust me, after my title hits the shelves, the business publishing sector will never be the same. As Sollie and his talented marketers teach us, when it comes to marketing and sales books, there's always more guano to buy.

***

Thanks, Jonathan, for permission to reproduce this.

So Young and So Jaded

I was giving a presentation to a group of young people (mid to late 20s) newly promoted to their first supervisory position.

As always, I was making what I thought were obvious points -- that the best means to get productivity and quality from those you manage is to help them find the meaning, the purpose, the excitement in what they have to do.

The reactions were amazingly cynical. "Have you ever worked in a professional service firm?" asked one young man.

A young woman asked, "But how do you motivate people to do the unexciting tasks that have to get done?" (I told her that she was unlikely to get much commitment, productivity and quality by delegating with an air of "We all know this is boring, but someone's got to do it, so I chose you!")

Obviously, these young people had not (yet) been managed in a style that elicited their enthusiasms. Even though their firm (like all others) had grand statements about its commitment to developing its people, they had already learned (or so they thought) that the world did not really work that way.

I said that I hoped they would not just pass on to the next generation the poor way they had been managed, but I didn't leave the room with much hope.

Sad, sad, sad.

Summary Proverb -- new careers videocast & audiocast

In the 25th and final episode of this series, we will close with a proverb that I use to conclude many of my seminars. It illustrates that what most businesses need is not clarification on what the right thing to do is, but the courage to not give in to short term gratification.

Audio Timeline

00:39 -- Introduction
01:00 -- Summary Proverb
01:21 -- Conclusion

You can download Summary Proverb or sign up to receive new videos automatically with iTunes or other video players. (Click here for step-by-step instructions on how to subscribe.) My seminars are always available for download at no cost.

Summary Proverb

We will close this series with a proverb that I use to conclude many of my seminars. It illustrates that what most businesses need, is not clarification on what is the right thing to do, but the courage to not give in to short term gratification.

Blawg Review #131

It is a great honour and privilege to be invited back to host the Blawg Review again. I did so previously for the Blawg Review #76.

The Blawg Review is designed to be a collection of posts on blogs relating to the law. In making my selection, I have focused on issues relating to the business of law, rather than legal matters (which I am not qualified to judge.)

Let's begin with some MARKETING blogs.

Charon QC ... the blawg has an absolutely amazing post about marketing at the UK firm of Eversheds, which talks about the need for "Innovateers, Knowlivators, Logithiser, Performibutors, Proactilopers, Professionaries, Prioricators and Winnowmats."

Intrigued? Go check it out -- it's worth it.

Dan Hull, at What About Clients? has a good post summarising the key elements in winning high-end clients.

Michelle Golden, president of Golden Marketing is also an active member of the VeraSage Institute, which is committed to abolishing the billable hour. She reports on the advice given by another consultant on how to implement a value-pricing approach.

Susan Cartier Liebel at Build A Solo Practice, LLC offers tips on how to build a practice. I was surprised, to put it mildly, that she was passing on "classic" sales advice with questions like: "Is the prospect pre-qualifed? What is their motivation to buy your product? Always conclude with a call to action."

I had hoped we had moved on beyond such traditional sales advice in our understanding of how professionals get hired. See, for example, (my co-author) Charlie Green's blog for an ongoing discussion of an alternative approach -- trust-based selling.

To be fair, there's a lot of otherwise good stuff on Susan's site. See, for example, this post:

Lori Herz, on her blog Write for Clients talks about Customer Experience Management (CEM). Evolving in tandem with the new experience economy, the CEM model considers a customer's relationship with a service or product from the vantage point of user experience. As she notes, people tend to translate their consumer (or, I'd note, professional service) experiences into stories that they quickly share with others.

***

Now, let's turn to the topic of LEADERSHIP.

The ever-stimulating and readable Bruce MacEwen asks whether "transformative change" is on your agenda. As he notes, it's probably in your future, though, regardless whether it's made it onto your agenda. Relying heavily on McKinsey research MacEwen offers relevant advice on how one can successfully drive radical change within an organisation. He takes us through the steps of aspiration, leadership and engine (or ideas) and process.

Tom Collins, at More Partner Income, reacts to Bruce MacEwen's post with some thoughts of his own on "The Right Way to Manage Change in the Law Firm."

As I also try to stress in my new article, Tom points out that the benefits of change are not immediate and do not follow a smooth linear line of improvement. He tells us that the magic ingredient is "KASH". KASH stands for new Knowledge which, when combined with the right Attitude, results in new Skills, which, through use, become Habit.

Another of my favorite legal bloggers, Arnie Herz at Legal Sanity, quotes an executive coach in posing an interesting and, perhaps, daunting question for law firm leaders: If you lost your title, position and power tomorrow, would others still support you and want to work with you?

Actually, that's not a bad question for any trusted advisor who provides client counselling advice to ask himself or herself!

Patrick McKenna, has a checklist of questions to self-assess your leadership, including: alignment; engagement, retention, innovation, collaboration, talent, productivity, agility, responsiveness.

Katheryn Hayes Tucker, asks whether the General Counsel job could be a route to a CEO position. She cites Delta Air Lines' new CEO, Richard H. Anderson, the former Texas prosecutor who started in the airline business as an in-house lawyer with Continental Airlines and then became general counsel at Northwest Airlines Inc. before moving up the ranks to CEO there. She also mentions Home Depot's CEO Frank Blake, a former GC at General Electric and Former Coca-Cola Co. GC Deval Patrick, who is now a chief executive of a different kind: governor of Massachusetts!

Brian Sommer is a former Accenture partner whose blog, while it does not explicitly address law firms, is essential reading for those tracking the latest thinking in managing professional businesses. In one of his latest blogposts, he interviews Beth Carvin, CEO and President of Nobscot Corporation. Her firm has software that allows workers to request and find potential mentors and mentees within their own firm.

***

Some ECONOMICS issues are touched on by these posts:

Peter Lattman at The Wall Street Journal Law Blog provides a link-heavy blog covering a lot of stimulating territory, including whether deal-making attorneys earn enough money, and the ongoing debate about whether (for example) Goldman Sachs should be allowed to buy Simpson Thatcher. If you want to track the latest chat about money-making in the law, this is a good place to start.

A recent ruling blogged by Joseph Palazzolo on the Legal Times blog hits contingency fee-based firms where they'll feel it. From the case: "A client may discharge his attorney, with or without cause, and such a discharge will not constitute a breach of any agreement between them," Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote. "This rule is admittedly harsh to attorneys, especially to those who provide services under contingent-fee agreements, for they bear a substantial risk."

***

A couple of BLOGS ABOUT BLOGGING are worth noting.

When it comes to corporate blogging strategy, some corporations, even cutting-edge ones, are more conservative in their approach. Kevin O'Keefe focuses on Google and describes how its blogging strategy may be a good model for such conservative firms, allowing them to participate in the blogosphere without getting in over their heads. Every product team at Google has a blog but their focus is strictly PR, not to give rise to a conversation on the blogs, none of which allow comments. Law firms may also want to follow Google's lead on the use of blogs in place of press releases.

Daniel A. Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog discusses his decision not to publish a blogpost rather than risk disrupting his firm's relationships with a client. That leads to a discussion of proposed blogging principles in a law firm.

A warm blogosphere (blawgosphere?) welcome to the renowned Ellen P. Goodman, making her first ever blogpost at Balkinisation.

She shares a few thoughts about the need to radically reform our system of public service media for the digital age. She explores the question of what media regulation might mean in a networked environment, and concludes that traditional broadcast regulation, which assumes content scarcity and captive audiences, is of limited use today in achieving the kinds of democratic values that were advanced 40 years ago in Jerome Barron's important article Access to the Press: A New First Amendment Right.

Professor Daniel Solove at Concurring Opinions has a really interesting discussion of "Who, Exactly, Is a Journalist?" The story is about Howard Bashman, who calls himself a “member of the news media,” yet who also happens to be a Pennsylvania attorney who also operates a blog. Does readership define a journalist? Does receiving money for writing make one a journalist, as Bashman does?

***

On the HUMAN INTEREST topic, Rhonda Muir at Law People reports on a story in Inside Counsel. She quotes John P. Donahue, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Rhodia Inc., as saying "We evaluate 'courage' as a behavioural characteristic of our lawyers, and we link this evaluation to compensation. Rhodia has "embraced professional objectivity of its in-house lawyers as a core value" and Donahue wants to make sure that "our lawyers can deliver bad news to clients," with whom they are often closely aligned.

Rhonda notes that Hospital administrators contend that a ratio of 1 conflict avoider in 4 employees results in a "dangerous workplace" -- think: "I don't want to get so-and-so in trouble over reusing needles" or "Maybe she'll start writing down dosages after she gets used to our procedures". Left to their own proclivities, lawyers' much higher rate of avoidance than hospital workers risks being just as dangerous.

Then there's the story about 18-year-old Kathleen Holtz, who, if she passes the California bar, will be the youngest lawyer in the Golden State, and quite possibly the nation. L.A.'s TroyGould has hired her as an associate, and she's reportedly doing great.

***

And that's it for this week!

Blawg Review has information about next week's host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues. Also they are hosting the Carnival of the Capitalists this week, so don't forget to go check it out.

Loyalty to Whom?

Another reader question:

A partner of a large firm specialising in training and development asks how to make sure that the clients develop loyalty to the firm, as opposed to the individual trainer?

When the firm gets a contract to train managers of a company X, the firm assigns a trainer (who is, most commonly, an independent contractor) to the company. If the company likes the results of the training, they would most likely invite the same training firm again and again, most commonly asking for the same trainer. Over time, the relationship between the trainer and the client company flourishes to the degree that the company starts offering training assignments directly to the trainer, without even notifying the firm.

How can the training company protect itself from such an unfortunate turn of events? I realise that there are some "half-baked" solutions like, for instance, try not to send the same trainers to the same company, but there should be something else.

***

There are two dimensions along which this can be examined. There is a triangle formed by the individual consultant (or trainer), the client and the consulting (or training) firm. The question makes clear the strength of the link between the individual and the client. But what strengthens the link between (a) the client and the firm and (b) the individual and the firm?

In both cases, we are asking how the firm "adds value" above and beyond the talents of the individual service provider. Some possibilities:

1. On-going enhancement of the consulting / training product or service
2. Access for both the individual consultant and the client to proprietary tools owned by the firm
3. Access for both the individual consultant and the client to research conducted by the firm
4. Access for both the individual consultant and the client firm to regular "solons", discussion groups, seminars and other learning opportunities, so that there is Value in belonging to the network.

Does anyone else have other ideas?

Call for Blawg Review submissions

The Blawg Review, weekly showcase of the best recent posts on blawgs (law blogs), has again invited me to host the Review for this coming Monday, October 22.

I would like therefore to encourage my readers and contributors to submit your own articles for review.

If you aren't familiar with the Blawg Review, you can look at the Blawg Review home page, as well as the current issue: northern hemisphere edition and New Zealand edition.

Blawg Review Submission Guidelines

• Deadline for submission is 11:59 p.m. PST on Saturday, October 20
• I greatly appreciate if you can send your submissions well before the deadline!
• You are welcome and encouraged to submit blog posts by other people which you'd like to recommend as well as your own writing
• Articles on law practice management, marketing, business strategy and career development are especially welcome
• Click on this Blawg Review submission link to submit your article

With your support, I look forward to presenting readers here as well as the Blawg Review regulars with an excellent roundup of blog articles on the business of law and life as a lawyer.

Adhering to agreed standards

If sticking to diet and exercise programs is difficult for an individual, the challenge is exponentially more difficult for a group. Agreements on group strategy might be reached, but there is always the problem of ensuring that everyone (powerful people included) act in ways consistent with the strategy.

The most basic (and blunt) instruments for achieving this are pay schemes (reward the right behaviour) and terminations (fire those who don't act in ways consistent with the strategy.) It is amazing how many firms still rely just on those two tools.

A third approach is to try and establish agreement on "values," achieving performance consistency through "ideological influence."

To make this approach work, it must be recognised that something is a value if and only if you are willing to enforce it. A value is NOT a high aspiration you plan to strive for (that's a dream). A value is a non-negotiable minimum standard to which everyone has agreed to comply.

However, the agreement alone is clearly insufficient. To have values, there must be a system for responding to and eliminating non-compliance. Such a system would, preferably, begin gently with a closed-door office visit from a group leader (or manager) and a counseling session to provide help would result.

If this does not induce compliance within a finite time, then the group must be prepared to contemplate exit -- asking people who do not live up to standards to leave.

However, I am continually surprised when firm and group leaders tell me they don't have the time to (a) spot non-compliance with standards and (b) devote the time to help people who are not meeting standards get back on track.

Without having this time available to manage, they are thrown back on using the pay scheme to deal with egregious departures from standards, and no system for dealing with minor departures.

The question then gets posed: what else can a group or firm do to ensure that its standards are, in fact executed? Beyond, pay, termination and managerial attention, what else is there?

Some groups try to argue that peer pressure can create a culture, even if no one person has the responsibility (and time) to monitor (and follow up on) the new behaviours.

I'm sceptical. Peer pressure can work to sustain a culture but is weak when introducing a new standard.

For example, in the face of the war for talent, many organisations want their senior people to live to higher standards in coaching, supervising and mentoring juniors. But if it's left to the group to police itself in this "new" behaviour, I think it unlikely that higher standards of excellence will result. More likely would be a "you forgive me and I'll forgive you" culture.

As we know, new (visible) scorecards can help. Even if there is not managerial time to spot and follow up on non-compliance, a new metric tracking the new behaviour (if appropriately visible) can create the incentive to change.

But still I get asked "What else?" We know what we should do, my clients say, we've agreed among ourselves to do it, but we don't have the managerial culture that allows group leaders to spend time monitoring the group.(!)

So, they ask, what else can we do?

What would YOU say?

B-School competition on Human Capital

I received an email from Susan D. Strayer, the Director of Talent Management at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company. She included a press release letting me (us) know that students from the Vanderbilt Owen Graduate School of Management who focus in human and organisational performance issues are hosting the nation's first-ever competition focusing solely on human capital challenges.

The National MBA Human Capital Case Competition will be held in Nashville, Tenn. on Oct. 19-20. The teams will be judged by a panel of industry executives, including leaders from General Electric and Deloitte, who are sponsoring the competition. The teams will have the chance to win more than $30,000 in cash prizes.

Strayer (a 2007 grad of the Owen school) said "Some of the biggest obstacles companies of any size will face have to do with their employees. It's imperative that business school students make employee-related issues as important as other avenues of business. That's why Owen is taking the lead to elevate the study of human capital to be on the same level with marketing, finance and operations."

For more information on the National MBA Human Capital Case Competition, log onto www.humancapitalcasecompetition.com.

I'm sure other business schools will take issue with the assertion that Vanderbilt is "taking the lead" here. Any current or recent B-school grads have anything interesting to report about the extent to which the "study of human capital" (horrible phrase) is being integrated into the curriculum and treated "at the same level with marketing, finance and operations"?

Earning a Relationship

A core element in my view of the world is that everything we want must be given to us by another human being. So whether it is about getting our staff to co-operate with us, or to get clients to entrust us with business, our main task is to make other people, want to give us what we want. We must learn how to earn relationships.

The following video, taken from my personal life, shows a remarkable effective way, of pulling this off.

Book Review: Lead Well and Prosper

Nick McCormick has written a slim, large-type paperback book (with cartoons) called "Lead Well and Prosper."

His 15 chapter headings are:

1. Adopt a Serving Attitude
2. Teach
3. Provide Honest and Timely Feedback
4. Share Information
5. Listen
6. Treat People Like Human Beings
7. Set Goals, Plan and Execute
8. Learn
9. Do the Right Thing
10. Embrace the Uncomfortable
11. Clean Up Your Own House First
12. Persist
13. Do what You Say You'll Do
14. Always Follow Up
15. Plan your Week

That's a pretty good summary checklist for any manager!

Which of these would everyone say tends to be done best? Which are usually least well done?

Relationships: What's the Problem?

Almost every firm (and individual professional) I know SAYS (and has said for a long time) that they want to build their strategy on having deep and broad relationships with key clients.

But the percentage of firms that have pulled this off is (in my experience) relatively small. I explore this in part in STRATEGY AND THE FAT SMOKER where I explore the fact that while firms say they want romance, too many firms still act in a transactional "let's win this one" mode.

But there's more that needs to be said. It's not enough to argue that relationships are a good thing, or even prove that they are economic. We must understand why they are difficult to pull off.

Here's a preliminary list of some of the possible barriers:

1. Many clients, in fact, don't want relationships. They prefer to buy on a transaction-by-transaction basis.
2. Too many providers are not really trying to build a relationship, they're just trying to sell more product and services -- and clients can tell
3. Firms or individuals are too short-term focused, over-investing in short-term sales opportunities and under-investing in long-term relationship-building: it's a time allocation problem
4. Senior professionals just don't have the time to invest in relationships: it's a time problem
5. Senior professionals are actually not that interested in clients: it's an attitude problem
6. Individuals are not skilled in earning clients' trust: it's a skill problem
7. Internal barriers in firms -- for example, excessive "silos" mean no incentive to create opportunities for colleagues to provide additional services to "your" clients: it's a structural problem
8. Lead professionals see it as too risky to introduce their colleagues -- they worry that their own PERSONAL relationships would be threatened by any attempt to turn the relationship with a client into an INSTITUTIONAL relationship: it's a quality or cultural problem
9. Firms are not discriminating enough in selecting which client relationships actually have a chance at succeeding: they try to develop relationships with too many clients -- they should focus more effort on fewer, carefully selected opportunities: it's a focus problem

What would you add to the list? What do you think is the most common explanation of why most firms' relationship strategies fail to succeed as often as they hope?

Three Months’ Worth of Gratitude

It has already been three months since I expressed my gratitude for all your thoughtful contributions. Your generosity and enthusiasm are clearly essential to the success of this blog. I am looking forward to another season of engaging discussions as we all move forward with new ideas and projects. In the meantime, let’s keep the exchanges going. Thanks to all of you for the comments and trackbacks.

Commentors

Harry Alexander, Stephanie West Allen, Amit, Arnoud, Artem, Kishore Balakrishnan, Richard Becker, Nagesh Belludi, Benjamin Lorch, Berlin School Of Creative Leadership, Dailymirror Bingo, Wally Bock, Eric Boehme, Thomas Box, David Brewster, Judith Briles, Eric Brown, Duncan Bucknell, Jonny C, Tom Hood, CPA, John Caddell, Martin Calle, Bhanumathi Chandran, Charlie, Joel Cheesman, James Cherkoff, Rachna Chhachhi, Vikram Chhachhi, Clarke Ching, Chris, Trevor Comyn, Glen Cooper, Victoria Crawford, CreditDebt, Dave Crisp, Crizza On Reduce Stress, Stuart Cross, Daniel, Daphne, Dave, Krishna De, Mike DeWitt, Michael Denny, Frank DiFazio, George Dinwiddie, Bill Dotson, Stephen Downes, Lance Dunkin, Joseph Dunphy, Johan Van Eeden, Heidi Ehlers, The Career Encourager, Christopher Marston, Esq, Brad Farris, Adam J Fein, Doug Ferguson, Robert Fligel, David Foster, Kerry Francis, Dean Fuhrman, Galba Bright At Tune Up Your EQ, Phil Gerbyshak, Alexei Ghertescu, Tom Gimbel, Michelle Golden, Gordon, Larry Gourley, Charles H. Green, Shelley Greening, Brian Hagerty, Illana Halliday, Ted Harro, Nettie Hartsock, Joel Head, Ken Hedberg, Erick Hendricks, Scot Herrick, Joseph Heyison, Kim Hillman, Homegrownmp3, PreSchool Hopeful, Dennis Howlett, Michael Hurd, Self Hypnosis, Irene, Carl Isenburg, John JEnsen, Alex Jacobs, Javid Jamae, Jef, Jennifer, Dawna Jones, Just Another Pretty Face, Frank Kanu, Karin, David Kirk, Ed Kless, Greg Krauska, Joe Leverich, Susan Cartier Liebel, Andrew Long, Suzanne Lowe, Dina Beach Lynch, Christian Ter Maat, Peter Macmillan, Marie, Willem Mastenbroek, Joe Matthew, Scott McArthur, Sharon McGann, Paul Menefee, Karen Morath, Abhisek Mukherjee, Dan Murray, Herman Najoli, Nancy, Tom Nixon, Sameer Panchangam, Bill Peake, Steven Pearce, Bill Peper, DISC Profiles, Rachel, Vikram Rajan, Raj, Prem Rao, Prem Rao, Jeff Riegner, Stever Robbins, Steve Roesler, Johanna Rothman, Stephen Ruben, Anand S, Vanessa Feom SLC, Michael Haberman. SPHR, Jason Sanders, Sheryl Sisk Schelin, Bryan I. Schwartz, Stephen Seckler, Geoff Sharp, Linas Simonis, Susan Sinclair, Carl Singer, Skylark, Slade | You Should Be An Author, Kerry C. Stackpole, Stig, Jim Stroup, Harry Styron, Syed, Tamara, RC Tank, Tim, Fiona Torrance, Dick Troll, Simon Tupman, Stefan Töpfer, Peter Vajda, Victor Sanchez Del Real, Free 3gp Videos, Coert Visser, Vrontis, Lois Van Waardenberg, Ashutosh Wakankar, Wangjel, Hugh Watkins, Ellen Weber, Susie Wee, Rob Withecombe, Richard Xie, Justin Yousif, Liz Zitzow

Trackbacks

Fouroboros
Accountants Round Up
bill dotson
Business Development
Copywrite, Ink.
elearnspace
George Dinwiddie's blog
Lead and Gold
Legal Sanity
mediator blah...blah...
Michael's Thoughts
More than a living
MorePartnerIncome
PERSONAL BRAND MARKETING podBlog
Research, Technology,
Software Project Management
Trends in the Living Networks
trust matters
www.5thwind.com

Podcast Trackbacks

George Dinwiddie's blog
mediator blah...blah...

We Just Don't Want to Do That!

As everyone who reads this blog regularly knows by now, the theme off STRATEGY AND THE FAT SMOKER is that if you don't want to get on the diet, you can't achieve your goals.

Stated that way, it's a pretty tough message, and I sometimes struggle to find a way to soften it while maintaining the point.

For example, in my seminars, it's almost always the case that people ask how to make their practice groups more effective.

As a starting point, I feel it's necessary to go through the (simple, familiar) points that (a) the key is the group manager's time and skills and (b) that it is economic and effective to allow -- even require -- group leaders to take the time to manage the people in their groups, and not just expect them to carry a full personal "sell and deliver" load, and then manage their group on top of that.

Yes, I know these are old points, but that's the message -- "eat less, exercise more" is the answer to losing weight, and everything else is commentary.

But that frequently doesn't satisfy my audiences and clients.

"But what do we do if our culture and systems don't reward people for managing, and pays them on their personal production?"

OR "What do we do if none of our partners wants to take on the role of being a manager, each preferring to build his or her own book of business rather than taking the time to helping other people succeed?"

In essence, I say (with as supportive and comforting tone as I am capable of) "Well, if you don't want to do what works, then just don't expect to get the benefits. Your choice!"

Not surprisingly, people are often frustrated with this "tough love" answer. All of us want the "magic pill."

So, here's the challenge: What do you do if the problem posed by your client is presented with excessively binding constraints?

It is remarkably common to hear clients ask "We don't want to change how we do things, that's our culture, but tell us how we can get more of what we want!"

Can anyone shed some light on the best way to help when people pose things this way?

New Case Study Discussion feature at BusinessWeek.com

BusinessWeek.com has a newly launched "Managing Channel", which replaces its popular Careers Channel. Among the terrific new features are interactive case studies which feature a story, a column, two videos, a reader poll and an opportunity for visitors to engage in substantive discussion of a real-life business case.

The very first case study zeroes in on a controversial management decision made by Procter & Gamble CEO A.G. Lafley, who skipped over 78 general managers with more seniority in making a key staff appointment without even consulting the rest of his management team. Lafley says "there was almost a revolt" over his decision. The case study includes an analysis by Noel Tichy, the leadership maven and University of Michigan professor.

It's worth checking out!

How to be a Customer

In the latest online issue of Harvard Business School's Working Knowledge professor John Quelch argues that, as a customer, it is possible to get preferential (or at least better) service from your vendors, suppliers, etc, if you know the right approach.

He lists the following as the keys:

1. Be Demanding
2. Be Respectful
3. Be Reliable
4. Be Surprising (eg reward a job well done)
5. Be Engaging.

You can join John's discussion, or we can start one here.

We've had discussions here before about what we providers seek in an ideal client, but would you agree with John's starting list? Do you agree that these are the keys to eliciting better reactions from providers?

Dynamos

In this video clip we're going to look at the issue of energy, excitement, and ambition in a different way and talk about the different states of drive that you and I might experience at different stages of our career.

About Women

I'm still at the Australian Institute of Management Convention. A number of speakers have made a central point: that women are INHERENTLY better leaders than men, or at least are better at the type of leadership that the emerging society and economy requires: relationships, empathy, the long-term view. Again, and again, the point is being made here that numbers, logic, science are "masculine" approaches and are inadequate or insufficient for progress.

Most insistent on the issue has been Tom Peters. he basically said "You can disagree with me on many issues but not this one: I'm right and you're wrong." (To see Tom's arguments, go to his website www.tompeters.com and download his slides. He's very generous in making them freely available.)

Over dinner, I heard practicing businesspeople (and those in local governement) increasingly willing to comment on the ability and desirability of hiring females as opposed to males. According to what I was told, young males are less loyal and committed, harder to handle and are more demanding as employees.

Is it me, or are people increasingly willing to make generalisations about male/female differences? Isn't this dangerous territory? Or is it just reflecting statistical realities? Do you feel comfortable listening to (or participating in) discussions about why women are better/ different than men?

I don't. I'll listen and try to learn, but it feels like the opportunties for bias and gross exaggeration are boundless.

Outcomes and Behaviours

I have just listened to an interesting interview with David Morgan, CEO of Westpac -- Australia's oldest bank and oldest company. (I'm here in Sydney as part of a convention organised by the Australian Institute of Management.)

Among the interesting things he had to say was a description of how Westpac enforces its values. For each person, from the CEO on down to the lowest front-line person, each individual is evaluated according to two dimensions -- what they accomplished (their outcomes) and HOW they accomplished them (their behaviours.) The behaviours evaluated include "doing the right thing", integrity, apolitical behaviour, thinking of the best interests of the bank rather than just the individual's own operating unit, etc. According to David Morgan, the system which feeds directly into a person's remuneration, is a key mechanism for ensuring that the values are lived.

I've heard that GE also has a similar system.

Has anyone out there experienced such sytems (ie lived within an organisation which uses this approach)? How effective is it in ensuring compliance wit organisational values?

How Much Standardisation?

Here's what I hope will be an interesting question for many people. A correspondent of mine wrote in as follows:

***

I work for a firm of about 20 people (15 consultants.) We all work independently, the consultants rarely meeting up -- if we do, it's for training sake. We are sole practitioners at the client site, coaching and leading client teams. Our projects get little or no oversight, as long as the client is happy and we are getting results. We do have "standard methodology", a standard project roadmap, some standard analysis tools, and some standard training presentations and exercises that we use, or at least they are available to us.

Compliance to the standard methodology is low. The tools are typically used, but there is huge variation in the exact project sequencing/schedule and the training presentations. Many of us in the group were hired in from different companies and we have different backgrounds and we all bring something different to the table.

Most of us personalise and adapt the training material based on what and how we like to teach. I think some of the training material is either incomplete, inappropriate, or unprofessional. So, I spend time customising the slides, sharing some of them with co-workers in an informal way, but, again, nobody is really watching to see HOW I do my consulting work, just to see if I'm delivering results (which I do).

Recently, we had a very frustrating week-long offsite meeting as a team. There was a lot of contention and confusion about this idea of standard methodology, namely who defines it? How much standardisation is enough?

A team of four people volunteered to look at the issue of standard methodology -- but those of us who didn't volunteer (or weren't chosen) didn't realise how much power this group would have. Instead of looking at ALL of the variation and the ways some basic training presentations were crafted and delivered, they picked one version and made edits to it, basically ignoring the input that the rest of us would have given.

In our consulting, we preach that standardised work can't be dictated to people -- yet, we're doing the same thing within our group. Can we ever get 15 diverse people to perfectly 100% agree on what material should be presented and in what order? There are too many diverging opinions (and too much history of not being perfectly standardised) for us to all just suddenly get on board.

We're getting very inconsistent and schizophrenic "direction" from our leadership. On the one hand, they'll say "the standard is the bare minimum of content, you can add to it" and then later saying "you must all do the work exactly the same way." Is it enough to have a standard framework that we can all customise to our personal tastes and client needs? Or, do we have to be "consultant-bots" who follow a perfectly scripted program, for the sake of consistency?

I fully believe "nobody likes to be told what to do" and that it applies equally well to assembly workers, nurses, and consultants. If I am told to perfectly standardise on what I consider to be sub-par material, I'll most likely look for a new firm (or start my own). I understand the need to deliver a consistent experience to our clients, but how standard is standard enough from their standpoint? I can handle standardising to the level of "here's what you must accomplish in a 16-week project and here's what you should be doing each week, if all goes well." But dictating every single slide seems like overkill, like standardisation for the sake of standardisation. If we're all getting good results with slightly different methods, isn't that ok?

What are your thoughts? Is this a common problem in a consulting firm?

***

My first instinct is to share the view that no-one like to be dictated to on HOW to do things. In general, as you suggest, the key is to have very solid accountabiity for outcome effectiveness, and then let people do it their own way "on the day."

But let's think about this. Under what circumstances might you argue the opposite? If you're not involved and can look at it in a detached way, then you could observe that standardising the process is exactly what businesses have done for centuries to capture efficiency and get things done with lower cost workers. Does MacDonalds let each outlet decide how to do things? Should they? What about a steel mill?

Now, I'm not arguing that fits your situation. I merely observe that I know consulting operations whose entire business model is built around getting lower paid people to deliver very effective standard methodologies. You and I might not want to work there, but it's not inherently a dumb idea.

In Memoriam

This is a day to remember many tragedies and losses, and resolve to carry on nonetheless. That's what's expected of us, and it's the best we can do.

Think of Work

A core proposition in my way of thinking about business development is that you will have more success if you're trying to market things that turn you on for clients that you are truly interested in. Now this is simple to say, but it appears that it is not the case with the way that many professionals actually come to market. Listen to the following presentation and reactions.

Why Does Bad Management Thrive So Much?

One of the things that puzzles me and fascinates me is that, according to the economics and competitive strategy I was taught, companies that do things well, are efficient and achieve high standards should (in theory) drive out their competitors who are managing poorly, fail to use resources effectively, etc.

The source of all these reflections is an email I just received from a young professional describing how his firm operates. My question is: why hasn't this egregiously bad management been driven out competitively? How do firms like this stay in business?

Here's the story as it was relayed to me in my correspondent's email:

***

Over the last few weeks situations at my workplace have sent me down and interesting journey of thought. Specifically, I have noticed how distorted our perception can be in the accounting industry.

There was a particular engagement in my sector which was new to us this year. We had one staff member with less than a year experience, one supervisor who has been at our firm for less than 6 months, and a principal who has been with our firm for 3 years but has extensive public accounting and private industry experience. As the engagement went on it became very clear that work was not progressing at a satisfactory rate but nothing was adjusted to compensate for it.

Finally, last week, the young staff member stressed once again that he did not believe they would be able to finish the work on time. At this point the sugar hit the fan! The principal came down very hard on the staff and supervisor and stated she was "disappointed" in their inability to get the job done. For the rest of the week, the principal and another manager from our department stepped in and worked close to 20 hour days to complete the project. I should also mention that both the staff and supervisor had put in 60 hour weeks over the last 2 months attempting to meet the deadline.

I first became upset when the principal threw the staff member under the bus and failed to take any responsibility for the engagement herself. But what bothers me even more is that from the outside, the principal (and the additional manager who stepped in to help out) looks like she saved the day when in reality the engagement "failed" due to poor management throughout. Part of me realises that my youth may cause me to overlook many aspects of the situation but I also know that this has solidified in my mind the up-hill battle that many individuals in my generation will have in public accounting.

Unfortunately, this industry will continue to reward those who sacrifice their time, their family and their lives over those who find ways to manage effectively, and become more efficient. The end result is that current senior management will label my generation as lazy and arrogant (both are partially true). If you tell me that I can achieve success, as my superiors have, by working 3,000 hours a year I would see it as a failure. If I have to work as much as someone else did 20 years ago to accomplish the same results have we really progressed at all?

I always thought that a fun experiment would be to tell someone that they only had 45 hours this week to accomplish their work. I bet we would all be surprised by the efficiencies and innovation that would come out of it. The fact that this profession will permit, and even worse, reward those who work such ridiculous hours exposes a fundamental flaw in the collective thinking of the industry. After all, we are not teaching our young staff to find better, more effective ways to do anything. But rather, we are simply showing them how to put their career before their family and personal life. We do not encourage that people take risks, try something new, or go out on a limb. We take the easy, safe route ... we just work more. In the process we are rewarding many who are poor managers, poor developers and are stagnant in their own development.

Thank you for your time, I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

***

I'd like to hear everyone else's thoughts: How do firms that manage this way survive? Is it simple that EVERYONE is equally bad, so there's no penalty?

The September Carnival of Trust

Welcome to the fourth Carnival of Trust, originally launched by Charles Green at Trust Matters.

My job was to choose the top 10 for this month. So, here are some interesting items that I think are worthy of your attention.

First, in the category of trust in society, the economy and politics, look at Marty Lederman's frightening discussion of The Rosetta Stone of the Detention/Interrogation Scandal, in which he explores the role trust plays in the interrogation of prisoners.

Next, Tiffany offers what she unabashedly calls a "political rant" about the recent Lead in the Children's toys events.

Annalee Hewitz explores issues of anonymity and trust in the use of Wikipedia.

Alan Weis tells an interesting story about being approached by PR firms to be an expert for the media on the Minneapolis bridge collapse story -- and why he declined.

Then there is Rajesh Setty's advice in his ongoing series on "How to Distinguish Yourself" The latest in his advice series is Watch Who You Refer.

In The Secret Sauce for Virtual Teams, Anne Truitt Zelenka provides a stimulating discussion about how to make geographically dispersed teams function through the use of trust.

Also in the category of trust in managing, take a look at Bruce McEwen (who blogs under the name of Adam Smith, Esq.) who reports on a Harvard Business School Study of an advertising agency that tried to manage through "values", but found it harder than it first appears!

Rob Millard reports on a study in Harvard Magazine about the relationship between Trust and Betrayal in the Process of Strategy.

Paul Pedrazzi, of Oracle, provides a stimulating explanation of "Why Social Networks Don't Work for Business."

Michelle Golden offers an interesting twist on client portability and trust. She discusses the provocative view that the fact that a member of the firm COULD walk away with one of the firm's clients is a mark of appropriate client intimacy!

Thanks to everyone who submitted blogs for consideration and for those looking for more about trust, the first, second and third carnivals should satisfy. If you'd like to be submit an article for consideration for the next carnival of trust you can do so here.

The Importance of Appearance

Back in February, I blogged about my experience being a juror. As part of the follow-on discussion, Penelope Trunk (who has a fabulous blog called "The Brazen Careerist") commented: "one thing I learned is that fat women don't have a lot of empathy and defendants usually try to strike those jurors."

Yesterday, Joseph Dunphy reacted by saying: "On behalf of many, I suspect, I'd just like to say WHAT? Did I really just read that? Unbelievable. That's just terrible."

I understand Joseph's initial reaction, but I don't think Penelope was advocating anything -- she was just sharing her real-world experience that appearance matters a great deal more than we like to admit openly.

For example, last week I was conducting a workshop for a global corporation that had concentrated a number of its in-house services into one "shared services" unit. One service line in particular received much higher client satisfaction ratings than the others. We discussed why, and focused on the traditional client service topics.

During one of the coffee breaks, one of the participants came up to me and said, "The real reason that unit does so well is that it explicitly sets out to hire attractive young women. No-one likes to admit it, but that makes a huge difference." (The unit was in a South American country, if that makes a difference to your reaction to the story.)

Of course it does. I know of more than one top-flight professional firm that takes appearance into account in its hiring of both males and females and gives its young people lessons in how to dress well and how to behave with sophistication.

Should appearance, youth and manners matter? Maybe not, but they do -- a lot. To pretend they do not is just unrealistic.

Yet in many countries this is called discrimination and is legally barred.

All of this raises some interesting questions:

Should more firms continue to include physical appearance in their hiring, even to the point of preferring some ages and genders?

Are we naive to believe they are not already doing that?

Are discrimination laws fighting a losing battle against human nature?

Should I get back on the treadmill and worry more about my clothing in order to enhance my career prospects?

Getting Hired by New Clients

In this video clip, we explore how you can win business from a non-client who is looking around and talking to many providers. So this is the situation that may be described as a beauty parade or a competitive bid or a request for proposal.

We analyse it by using a direct experience of my own.

Warlords and Civil Society

I need some help from the historians and anthropologists among you.

In the history of mankind's evolution, civil society (social collaboration, governed by the rule of law) triumphed in most countries over the warlords (rule by those with aggressive individual force and the willingness to use it.)

But how and why? How did the feudal barons with their armies come to accept the rule of law? How did developed economies come to root out (most) self-serving corruption and establish trustworthy civil servants?

What lessons can we learn that apply within businesses? How do we "tame" the individual warlords (rainmakers) and get them to do things for the good of the firm?

Experts vs. Advisors

In the marketing of professional services, you can come across in one of two ways to the buyer. You are either interested in them, or you are interested in their cash. We will show why the former is the key to successful business marketing.

Making Mergers Work

A reader offers this anguished cry:

Given what is happening in my firm these days, I felt compelled to blurt out some observations and questions and see if they resonate with you, or whether your audience would care to comment.

I am part of a firm created in a merger with the assumption that the combined skills of the merged entities would lead to an integrated powerhouse. The idea was that some sort of combined/integrated methodology would emerge and we would operate as an integrated entity.

In the following few years, this is what has occurred:

There is not a single instance where the legacy firms have worked together on an integrated offering, delivered to a client. There have been a few cross-sells, but these have been matters of luck more than skill.

Each legacy firm operates as if the merger has not occurred. My group proceeds semi-autonomously, unable to see the value or need to link to the "other" side of the business. Their specialty rarely enters our discussions. And vice versa -- the delivery of their work rarely leads to a discussion with the client CEO about what we can do. We're like two separate islands.

The cultures of the merged firms could not be more different. One was loose and entrepreneurial, the other was tightly controlled and process driven. People from the latter firm seem to have taken over firm management, so we are drowning in process and layers of account management.

Everyone is unhappy. We are now on our 4th reorganisation.

Richard, I was wondering: How frequently do firm mergers fail? Why? If the original value proposition of a merger seems sound, then why does it still fail? If the merger is based upon integration and complementarities of offerings/skills, does it make more sense to simply ram a new integrated methodology down everyone's throats and announce this is the way the new form works, or take an organic approach and hope that a few smart people will make it work and let momentum take over? We tried the organic approach and it has not worked.

Richard, I send this to you not expecting a reply, not expecting you to post this on your site, but more trying to reach put to someone I trust "virtually" (you!) to unburden myself of the pain this merger has caused me and many others. Thanks for "listening."

******

MY reply is this: I first wrote about mergers in my articles.

The key points I made there were as follows:

" 'Alchemy' mergers are based on the expectation of synergy -- the hope that the firm will be able to create something new. However, firms will not do so merely by bringing these (different) specialists in-house (whether through merger or hiring). The key added-value (from the client's perspective) will be the ability to design, coordinate and integrate a variety of diverse specialists. This will place significant stress on firms, as well as challenge their abilities to manage a completely different beast than the one they are used to.

"Another way to think about this is to recognise that on complex transactions, clients need a 'prime contractor' who will take responsibility for the total job, including the management, coordination and integration of a variety of technical discipline specialists needed to take care of the various detailed issues (managerial, accounting, legal, financial, consulting, business strategy, and so on.) The question, then, is who credibly possesses the project management skills essential to be the prime contractor?

"Many firms have merged or acquired their way to bringing multiple specialists in-house. Few have convinced the market that they have created (and can manage) a seamless, integrated service."

So, for me, the answer to the core question posed by the reader is clear. Unless you have a clear formula for creating the new, truly integrated service, don't combine the firms. It's combined services that appeal to clients, not combined firms. And, of course, creating something truly new and valuable is incredibly hard unless it's pursued with passion by the people inside the firm who want to be part of something different. (Which doesn't seem to be the case here.)

It's not about "ramming a new methodology" down everybody's throats. That won't create the energetic innovation that will produce what clients want. A better approach is to form a special unit that dedicates itself solely to the integrated approach (being protected from short-term economic pressures while it does so), so that they can develop and market test the theoretical synergy. If it survives the market test (clients actually pay for it and like it) then you can roll it out.

But, as always, that takes patience. And one thing recently merged firms rarely have is patience. (The Fat Smoker Principle Strikes again: we don't want to incur short term discomfort to get where we want to be tomorrow.)

Friendship Skills and Strategy

My forthcoming book is an exploration of things we all claim to know, but few of us actually do. For example, many firms claim that what distinguishes their organisation is that their people are client centric and act like trusted advisors. However, few of these organisations, when they hire, have programs to select for people who have basic friendship attitudes and skills and few have systematic programs to help their people develop them.

As others have observed (for example, Pfeffer and Sutton in their book HARD FACTS, DANGEROUS HALF-TRUTHS & TOTAL NONSENSE) we should draw upon what we already know from relationships in our personal lives when it comes to understanding business relationships. People and firms often don't do this. It sometimes seems as if, when they come to work, people leave behind everything they have learned about interacting effectively with others.

If you have an active social circle and people like being with you, the odds are that you will have a significant advantage in learning the skills and habits of business development. If, on the other hand, you're a social recluse, you will find it more difficult to convince clients to see you as a trusted advisor they wish to work with.

The way most clients choose professionals is essentially identical to the way people choose their friends. They look for professionals who can (a) put them at ease, (b) make them feel comfortable sharing their fears and concerns, (c) inspire trust in their ability to oversee both the client and his transaction, and (d) prove their dependability.

Creating these feelings in others begins with having the correct attitude -- a sincere interest in others. However, the outward signs of this genuine caring are often conversational and interpersonal skills.

If you want to win a client's business, it's necessary to give the client the chance to talk to you, person to person, about their needs, wishes, and wants. The key is to make it easy and comfortable for the client to share his or her feelings and secrets. In short, if you really want to win a client's business, you must know how to have a conversation.

Imagine a dinner party conversation. What makes a good conversationalist in such a setting? He or she:

• Has a fresh point of view, but does not try to thrust it upon everyone else
• Speaks politely and respectfully
• Tells good stories to illustrate key points
• Is good at drawing other people's views out and drawing them into the conversation
• Speaks intelligently on a variety of subjects, but is not afraid to admit areas of ignorance
• Avoids trotting out well-worn arguments or clichés.
• Listens with genuine interest
• Is light-hearted in style, but always respectful of others' views

All of these conversational skills also apply to effective marketing and selling. You may remember to behave this way at a dinner party, but do your client meetings really meet these criteria? What about your seminars, speeches, articles, blogs, and websites?

Is the tone of your client interactions friendly, inviting the client to chat, to think about ideas and to encourage both sides to get to know each other as people?

Suppose you want to be good at building romance: getting another person to work with you to build a mutually beneficial, mutually supportive relationship. What characteristics would make you good at this? Most of us have discovered that whether it is love, friendship, or work, people respond best when they believe that you are (among other things) considerate, supportive, understanding, and thoughtful.

It's worth pausing and asking yourself right now: do people think I am considerate, supportive, understanding and thoughtful? Do my friends and acquaintances? Do those I work with? Do those I manage? Do those I serve? If the answer to any of these questions is "no," then it's worth asking yourself, "Why not? What's the problem?"

The answer is likely to be some variant of the fat smoker syndrome. You know what's good for you, but it takes attention to a lot of detail today to get the reputation that's going to benefit you in the future.

A reputation for being supportive, for instance, must be earned through social habits. And to be seen as considerate, you have to be able to remember information that people share about their lives, proving that you listened and paid attention. It also helps to follow up with skillfully phrased questions about what you were told last time you met. The idea is demonstrate concern, not intrusiveness, with a question like, "How did it work out with that guy you met?"

To be viewed by other people as supportive also takes thought and careful attention to language. It is important to remember that friends don't judge each other. They don't evaluate. They don't point out each other's weaknesses. Suppose that your friend has a child who is badly behaved. You don't say, "Your kid is a little horror!" or "You're raising that kid incorrectly," even though both statements may be true. Instead, a friend could say something like, "Have you ever thought about doing or saying such and such to little Ashley?"

Having the ability to respond with the right phrase in real time takes practice, as do all social skills.

As individuals, or as organisations, it is possible to set out to develop friendship skills. However, like all aspects of the fat smoker syndrome, it requires a concerted effort to invest today in building skills (and relationships) that will pay off tomorrow. Unless they are already naturals, relatively few individuals -- and even fewer organisations -- have the self-discipline to stick with the program. That's why it's a successful strategy for those who do.

Do you know of firms that make a competitive advantage out of all this by selecting for and training these attitudes and skills? Can it be done?