Friday, May 30, 2008

The Undiscussed Side of Trust

Three things came together in the past week or so that caused me to reflect on what we know about trust.

First, I was reading in The Economist an article on immigration which pointed out that, throughout history and throughout the world, people like to associate with those with whom they have a lot in common.

That's why, The Economist argued, immigrants from the same country tend to move (at least initially) to the same cities and regions where previous immigrants from their origin have gone. Just as there are Bangladeshi areas in certain British towns, Irish in Boston and Russians in Brooklyn.

Nothing wrong with that, right?

Well, no, but in the same week I received an email from someone in an eastern European country who asked: "Do you think the principles of trust that you described in your article apply in Eastern Europe? Rather than the factors of credibility, reliability, intimacy and lack of self-orientation that you write about, trust in my country basically boils down to whether or not you come from the same village as I do. Or at least the same region."

The third thing that happened is that I was sent an email about a blog by Carmen van Kerkhove, who argued that, essentially, many diversity trainers in business focus on all the wrong things. One of her most telling points is that by trying to teach people how to be "sensitive" to other races, genders and religions, the training actually just trains people how to hide their racism -- it doesn't stop them being racist, just how to not show it!

I'm really not equipped to be a moralist, but there's some complicated stuff going on here.

Sometimes, we work hard to be race-, gender-, religion- and class-blind. The, at other times, we are all "realists" and recognise that, very often, people like to deal with people who are like them. We call it "comfort", "chemistry", "connection."

For example, when we strive to create diverse firms in order to appeal to diverse buyers (female partners to go after female clients, people of colour to "penetrate" the ethnic community they come from) we are trading on the (apparently universal) tendency of people to prefer dealing with people like themselves.

There seems to be an aspect of how we as humans come to trust that is inherently "racist." OF COURSE, it's not just Caucasian males who can be racist in trusting people who are like them. People of all nationalities, genders and religious background do it ALL the time -- not just occasionally, but (it would appear) as the default position! Global literature and movies from any age would be only a microscopic fraction of what they are if we eliminated dramas based on star-crossed lovers whose families do not want them to marry because they come from different backgrounds.

If all this makes you uncomfortable (as it does me) there's still some hope. People like interacting with and TRUST people with whom they have a lot in common, when there's no other evidence. "Being like us" (ie the class-ist, racist, religious, gender-biased starting default position) can, it seems, be overcome by just being more trustworthy than others. Credibility, reliability, intimacy and lack of self-orientation DO matter.

But let's not fool ourselves about what a large portion of the world actually uses to base their trust judgments on. We don't have to like it, but we do have to acknowledge and deal with it.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Train a Pigeon

In this video, we're going to explore the proposition that helping another human being to improve, to fulfill their potential is, in fact, a general process with general lessons which we can draw upon both from within business life and from our experience outside being either a sports coach or helping out children grow. Somewhat humorously, I call the description; how do you train a pigeon?

Friday, May 23, 2008

Where Are We On Client Feedback Approaches?

Along with hundreds of other consultants, I have advocated (literally for decades) that firms should have programs for systematic client feedback. However, these are not as simple to design and implement as one would like.

One thing that needs to get clarified right up-front is the purpose of getting client feedback. If it is a sincere effort at continuous improvement in quality and client satisfaction, then one would do different things than if it is a marketing exercise run by the marketing department (as it still is in some firms.)

As a third purpose, some firms try to design feedback systems to obtain input to the firm's compensation scheme. The problem with this is that instead of the positive "let's learn" aura surrounding the scheme, the client feedback can quickly turn into a negative "gotcha" system, perceived by the firm's people as adverse and something to be suspicious of.

There are lots of alternatives out there on how firms get client feedback. First, when is it done? Mid-engagement, or at the end? Doing it in the middle allows for course-correction, but influences, positively or negatively, the engagement relationship itself.

Second, there's the question of who obtains the feedback. Is it the lead service provider on the assignment? The marketing director? A third-party research firm? Retired partners/ senior executives?

Third is the question of coverage: do you try to get feedback on all work or just a sample? (The answer to this one depends on your purpose, of course. If you're trying to use it as input to a compensation scheme, then you probably need broad coverage.)

Finally, there is the question of the medium you use to contact clients and get the feedback. Among the choices are personal visits, phone calls, on-line surveys, e-mails, mailed questionnaires.

My question to all of you out there is: what's the state of play in 2007? Are firms having success with different kinds of client feedback approaches than they did in previous years?

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Getting Others to Give You What You Want

A crucial difference in our style in dealing with the world is whether we deal with other people as "us," part of the same relationship. Or whether or not we're always thinking of them as "them," people who are on the other side, people from whom we want things. They are adversaries. The following clip tries to illustrate that distinction.

A Great Coach in Action -- New podcast episode available now

The eleventh episode of my new podcast series, Strategy and the Fat Smoker, is now live and available for download.

The series is dedicated to exploring the themes found in my article by the same name.  I encourage you to forward these to friends and associates who may be interested in the topics covered.

The eleventh episode, A Great Coach in Action, tells and examines a story of exemplary coaching skills.  Often, managers are content to rely on performance appraisals, cold criticism, and appeals to another's sense of personal responsibility towards the organisation in order to effect positive change in a person's performance.  These approaches seldom work, as we've seen in previous episodes.  In this episode we will describe an approach that does work:  ensuring that those in managerial roles have the attitudes, skills, and behaviours of a skilled coach.

NOTES FOR THE EPISODE:
00:37 -- Introduction
01:13 -- An example of a great coach in action
05:29 -- The lessons
22:26 -- Last thoughts

You can download A Great Coach in Action 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.

Pictures of Partners

A reader writes in to ask:

"I've noticed that the Big Four accountancy firms do not profile their partners on their websites -- yet almost every law firm does. Any thoughts on the reasons and wisdom of these differing approaches?

I guess it could send the message that when you instruct anyone at PwC etc., you instruct the firm; but when you instruct someone at a law firm, you instruct the individual. Do clients really see a distinction? Or do accountancy firms fear that their staff will be poached by rivals, I wonder?"

Ideas, anyone? Advice?

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Is Managing Professionals Different?

As a specialist (historically, at least) in managing professional service firms, I often get asked whether (and how) managing professionals or managing a professional firm is different from management "in general."

(Sometimes the question is posed as how leadership of professionals differs from leadership in general.)

As time goes by, I'm increasingly coming to the belief that the differences are minor, if they exist at all. This is mostly because it's a good idea to treat EVERYBODY as a professional.

This doesn't always go over well. I was being considered to do some educational sessions for managers in a (super-successful) investment bank and was asked how what I would present would reflect the special nature of their people -- highly intelligent, already successful, already energetic and motivated, etc.

I really stuck my foot in my mouth when I said that the key to managing ANYONE, even a secretary, was to treat them with respect, deal with them as individuals, assume that (until proven otherwise) they were intelligent and interested in excitedly pursuing a cause or vision of excellence that they could believe in, help them find the individual, personal challenge that would match their interests and passions, etc., etc.,

Apparently, I gave great offence, because the individual I was talking to replied: "What do you mean, it's not different from managing a secretary? Our people are SPECIAL!!"

Now, I'm not so naïve as to realise that I could have phrased it better. (I often get into trouble for being blunt and refusing to play into people's underlying assumptions. I'm a less diplomatic trusted advisor than I'd like to be.)

However, if you ignore my language skills and get to the underlying issue, there's an important debate there. Just because someone's a "professional" does that mean that they need to be managed in different ways, with different skills?

I'm not asking the moral question here, but the pragmatic, practical one. If you were put in charge of managing a group of "partners" (i.e. senior VPs, shareholders) would your approach to managing be different than it would be if you were in charge of a group of admin staff?

Phrase it another way: If you were going to put on a course on how to be a good manager, would you cover different material if you were training managers of senior professionals or managers of admin staff?

Friday, May 16, 2008

Do You Have a Trusted Advisor?

Among the topics that I still speak (and consult) about regularly is that of being a trusted advisor to one's clients (the topic of an article.)

I think that one of the reasons that interest in the topic doesn't seem to diminish is that true trusted advisors seem to still be scarce.

As a test of this, I ask my audiences what I ask YOU now: Is there anyone you have hired who serves as your trusted advisor?

If the answer is yes, I'm (eternally) curious about two things. First, what are the specific kinds of things they do (or did) that made you accept them as your trusted advisor? (I know the theory -- I'm interested in YOUR real world practical experience.)

Second, I'll be curious to find out which practitioners (in general) seem to have earned trusted advisor status most frequently. Has it been it your doctor, lawyer, accountant, broker, consultant, PR person or some other?

Maybe I'll sneak in a third question to solicit your input: as time goes by, are you finding it easier or harder to find professionals you trust?

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

How Managers Should Spend Their Time

Everyone agrees that professional groups need to be led by a player coach or a producer manager. But the balance between those roles is not always agreed even with in firms or within the group themselves. In most firms the emphasis is on the player or the producer role meaning that the main job that's taken seriously is to serve the clients and get out and get revenues. The coaching or the managing is very often neglected. I think this is a very bad economic choice for most firms, as you will see in the following discussion.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Who or What is the Firm For?

The longer I think about business, the less I think I understand it clearly.

The latest issue of The American Lawyer magazine reports on the top 100 largest US law firms, and includes a number of interesting articles and analyses.

Two in particular caught my attention. One reported on the general industry trend (discussed in this blog before) of partners becoming increasingly mobile between firms. Actually a number of articles were about this -- it's probably the single most important thing going on as a structural shift in professional businesses -- not restricted to just law firms.

The issues the trend raises in my mind were exemplified by the second article which profiled an immensely successful firm which has dramatically improved its profitability (among other accomplishments) in the past 5 years. The "moves" made by the firm did indeed impress this reader.

But here's the kicker: the article pointed out that, since 2001, 37 percent of the partners (i.e. shareholders) had left the firm. Now how is one supposed to process that?

"The firm" has clearly flourished -- but not for all the people that, theoretically "owned it" and worked there five years ago.

That is, of course, how business in most industries work: a "company" can be deemed successful even if (a) it is no longer in the businesses it was in when it started (b) the people who worked there no longer do and (c) the company serves completely different customers and markets than it did before.

What has flourished is the entity: it's not clear what else has.

Now I'm not saying it's inevtably bad (I'm a free-market capitalist who went to business school.) I am saying it's confusing and ambiguous.

Who are we running the firm for? The standard capitalist answer used to be "for the shareholders." But if it is not unusual for one third of them to be gone within 5 years, what then remains as the purpose? Who THEN are we running the place for? Or for what?

Friday, May 9, 2008

Happiness is Relative

There have been a number of studies in recent years showing that, while people in many countries are getting richer, they are not necessarily getting happier. The research seems to show that, for most people, apparently, happiness lies not in the absolute amount of "rewards" you have, but in whether or not you have more or less than others.

If you have more than those you compare yourself to, then you will be a happy person. If you have less, you will be unhappy.

This matches what I tend to see. CEOs with obscene paypackets are unhappy until they have matched what is considered "normal" among other CEOs. Lawyers from modest beginnings, making more than a million dollars a year or more, can get depressed and resentful because they are not earning what investment bankers earn.

The issue is not just about money, but many forms of the world's rewards and recognitions. Academics and other authors can be (and are) jealous the (non-monetary) respect and recognition that is accorded to their (perceived) competitors' work. Socially, in their personal lives, people are always playing the game of "keeping up with the Jones':" being content with what they've got, until their neighbour has more.

All of this points out something rather interesting for managing oneself and others. If happiness comes from "how well you are doing compared to others," then it matters a lot WHICH others you compare yourself to. And that can be very arbitrary.

On any given day, we can be amazed at the good fortune we have been showered with, compared to specific others who, perhaps, did not have our advantages. There will usually be solid reasons to celebrate our relative successes, triumphs, accomplishments, recognition.

On the other hand, for most people and most companies, there will ALWAYS be someone who, in some way, has done "better," deservedly or undeservedly, and the focus can become a dispirited one of regret and disappointment, that we are not doing as well as THEM.

Sometimes, you don't care what others have got. Or to be more precise, certain people just aren't your reference group: you don't compare yourself to them. Others you care about a lot.

The questions that all this raises in my mind are these:

(a) How are the reference groups you compare yourself with determined?

(b) As individuals (self-management) or as companies (managing others) can we learn to control or manage who we choose as our reference group?

(c) How do you keep comparisons to a reference group "healthy" and avoid obsessive, unproductive comparisons?

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Excitement

In this video we are going to dig deep into the issue of excitement. Of how you ensure that in fact people bring to their work passion and excitement and enthusiasm. And the question is going to be not only about yourself but also the people around you.

Why Most Training is Useless -- New podcast episode available now

The tenth episode of my new podcast series, Strategy and the Fat Smoker, is now live and available for download.

The series is dedicated to exploring the themes found in my article by the same name.  I encourage you to forward these to friends and associates who may be interested in the topics covered.

This tenth episode, Why Most Training is Useless, deals with the reliance many companies and firms place on training as a surrogate for the hard work of true skill development.  Training is a wonderful last step in a change process, but a pathetically useless first step.  I examine the numerous other essential steps in that process.

NOTES FOR THE EPISODE:
00:35 -- Introduction
00:42 -- Training is no quick-fix
02:08 -- Choosing managers and implementing training
04:31 -- The keynote speech
10:04 -- The hard business of making change
14:46 -- The correct approach to training
19:42 -- Summary

You can download "Why Most Training is Useless" 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.

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Laws about Blogging (Really -- Legal Stuff!)

If you blog, then you'll want to read Aviva Directory's "12 important US Laws About Blogging."

Very important and very clearly written.

April Top 5 Roundup

Thank you to everyone who contributed to make these posts the most linked and discussed ideas in the month of April.

  1. Good to Good
    Here are some interesting questions: Is there business advice out there for people and firms that, quite consciously, make a choice that they don't want to pursue "Olympic Gold"? If not, is most business literature profoundly misleading because it assumes objectives that are inaccurate?

  2. Great Clients
    In this client relations post, I quote Dennis Howlett's AccMan's list of "Great Client" characteristics, and add to those my own. Readers contribute many interesting opinions and stories.

  3. The Long Term
    I have observed that our biggest barrier, as individuals and organisations, is the difficulty in doing what is in our long-term best interest, not just what provides immediate gratification. This post builds on ideas developed in How Not to Manage People and Strategy and the Fat Smoker. Experience has shown me that there are effective ways to get people to do what they (already) know is best for them in the long term.

  4. The War For Talent
    On the HBS site, Bob Sutton announces that "The War for Talent Is Back" (did it ever end?). Here is my response to that statement and what I think we can do to win the battle.

  5. The Overhead Projector
    To this day, I prefer the use of the overhead projector because it is still the best technology I know to minimise the speaker-audience barrier during presentations. Some people wonder if this projects an unprofessional, out-of-date image ...

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Career Strategies at 60

Many of my friends / acquaintances are going to be 60 this year, or are of a similar era.

Many have worked for big firms that have mandatory retirement policies in place, so a lot of people have moved on to new phases of their life: college teaching, pro-bono or charity work, consulting, getting involved in their industry association. Some have launched entrepreneurial ventures, completely separate from what they did in their previous employment. Very few are doing nothing.

It's a strange transition. For others, they find it hard to contemplate doing something totally DIFFERENT.

They have been so "invested" in their career choice (writing, speaking, consulting) that the notion that it may be time to do something different (or change the balance) is an unusual feeling, and I think many of their age-group feel it too. For example, friends in Big-4 accounting firms tell me that their firms put on week-long courses for partners in their mid and late 50s, asking "Have you thought yet about what you're going to do NEXT?"

Next? NEXT?!?!

Who says they're done with what they are doing? On the other hand, with each passing year, as is normal in any business, more and more competitors enter the field. As the ads say "Past peerformance is no predictor of future results." How many of them can be Peter Drucker, truly productive and creative into our 90s?

But they tell me that if they made 60, the odds are they'll make 85 or so, and most of that time able to work effectively.

Any reaction from other aging baby boomers out there? What do we X-ers and Y-ers think 60-year olds should be doing? (Other than getting out of the way!)

Friday, May 2, 2008

Sincere thank you to all of you

I like to recognise my readers and those who trackback to my posts every month so for April, here are your due credits -- thank you for keeping this blog dynamic, and relevant to you.

I encourage each of you to click on the links of other participants. Check each other out!

Commentors

Pete Aldin, Jerome Alexander, Alisya, Allen, Amit, Andrea, Ariel, Charan Atreya, Barb, Ann Bares, Richard Becker, Carol Bergeron, Wally Bock, Duncan Bucknell, Build An Ebook Empire, Tim Burrows, John Caddell, Shawn Callahan, James Cherkoff, Eric Christiansen, Todor Christov, Stuart Cross, Mark D, Daniel, Peter Darling, Krishna De, Mike DeWitt, Doc, Lance Dunkin, Heidi Ehlers, Ellen, Eugene, David Ewing, Brad Farris, Doug Ferguson, Franc, Charles H. Green, Lisa Guinn, Santiago Gómez, Ford Harding, Ted Harro, Ken Hedberg, Hemang, Michael Hjerth, Tom Hood, Amanda Horne, Dennis Howlett, Mike Hunter, S. Anthony Iannarino, Ilya, David Jacobson, John, John, Tim Khaner, Ed Kless, Howard Krais, John Labbe, Patrick Lamb, Listr, Luke, Stephanie Lunn, MHG, Javier Marti, Susan Martin, Max, Scott McArthur, Jim McHugh, Judy McLeish, Ann Michael, Andrew Mitchell, Cristian Mitreanu, Moisha, Janet H. Moore, Abhisek Mukherjee, EVDEN EVE NAKLİYAT, Nancy, Gabriella ORourke, Dave PRouhet, Sameer Panchangam, Patmcgraw, Tamara Paton, David Phillips, Eelke Pol, Prem Rao, Tony Rice, Ric, John Riutta, Robert, Steve Roesler, Stephen Ruben, Michael Sampson, Stephen Seckler, Steve Shu, Linas Simonis, Carl Singer, Ian Street, Bob Sutton, Will Swayne, Kathleen OBrien Thompson, Charles Tippett, Tom "Bald Dog" Varjan, Gene Turner, Peter Vajda, Veeraiah, Luis Villa, Coert Visser, Ashutosh Wakankar, Ms. Sabrina Waller, Ellen Weber, Hugh Williams, Liz Zitzow

Trackbacks

A New Wave of Thinking
Accountants Round Up
All Things Workplace
Alpha Kappa Psi -- Mu Sigma
Business for enjoyment's sake
Dawud Miracle @ dmiracle.com
In Search of Perfect Client Service
International Lawyer Coach Blog
jobman2u
Michael's Thoughts
MorePartnerIncome
Picture001
Real BIG Thinking
The Employee Factor
The New View From Object Towers
Three Star Leadership Blog