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?