Passion, People and Principles
For you lawyers out there (and those who consult to them) there is a new resource released today: BlawgWorld 2007—a collection of 77 thought-provoking essays from 77 of the most influential law-related blogs (“blawgs”).
Handpicked by each respective blogger (including yours truly), these essays provide a window into their blawgs, making it easy to figure out which ones merit your ongoing attention.
You can download the 300 page document here.
You can quickly find essays of interest in BlawgWorld 2007 by using an interactive table of contents. From any page, click on the Blawgs navigation tab. From there, two more clicks will take you to any essay.
Virtually every company I meet says they have a strategy of growing their key relationships.
However, whenever I ask to see the plans of what they intend to do to build these relationships, it becomes immediately clear that what they have is a sales plan, not a relationship plan.
The difference should be (but clearly isn’t) obvious. A sales plan is about getting straight to what the provider wants: assignments and revenues. Sales plans, which are almost always aimed at a short-term impact, are filled of activities about “cross-selling’ – making more contacts and setting up CRM systems to ensure that coverage and frequency is adhered to.
I have no moral objection to this approach, except for the misappropriation of the word “relationship” as a proxy for the word sales. However, I do have doubts that this kind of approach will produce what the firms are looking for.
A relationship plan is what it says it is: a set of activitites designed to build and deepen an asset – the relationship. The theory is that, where there is a strong asset – a strong relationship bond – there WILL BE a (greater) stream of revenues in the future. But to get there, you must focus on activities which are not designed to generate sales, but to earn and deserve the relationship.
A relationship plan, to be effective, is all, about figuring out what you could do FOR this client (unpaid) to invest in the relationship, in order to predispose the client to use you more frequently (and for more interesting things) in the future.
A good “invest in the relationship” tactic passes three tests:
- It shows that you are willing to invest your own time to earn and deserve the relationship
- It’s done insuch a way that, by doing it, you get to learn more about the client
- It’s done in such a way that you get the chance to illustrate, not assert, that you can be useful to the client above and beyond the specifics of what you are working on now for the client.
Tested against these criteria, few firms (or individuals) have well-thought-out relationship plans. All they have are vague plans to go see someone in the hopes that a job will come out of it.
post # 408 — July 23, 2007 — a General post
In the 18th episode of this series, we will look at two critical aspects of communication in relationships. The true test of good communication is to find the time to talk especially when there is nothing to talk about. You need the ability to ask questions, listen, and – especially – remember!
![](http://davidmaister.com/images/videocast/RulesofRelationships.jpg)
Audio Timeline
00:40 — Introduction
00:58 — The ability to remember: the true test of a good listener
02:21 — Communication and talking when there is nothing to talk about
03:38 – Conclusion
You can download Rules of Relationships or sign up to receive new Maister Moments 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.
post # 407 — July 20, 2007 — a Managing, Strategy post
Here’s a reader question:
I work for a government department that has just re-organised into 30 unwieldy 30 directorates (on the recommendation of a famous consulting firm.)
I have been asked to develop an operating model that might help senior management plan for the deployment of the professional human resource at their disposal.
Our working assumption is that we have something to learn from the PSF model (as set out broadly in your book “Managing the Professional Service Firmâ€) but our project is veering towards a model based on time recording (a sort of “billable time†analogue) relating individuals’ efforts to one or other of the broad strategic objectives that our management board has designated as a priority.
I’d be interested to know whether you believe the material in your book is, in principle, adaptable for a government department where the drivers are in many ways very different. Actual profitability is not one, for example, but cost effectiveness and customer experience certainly are.
Other differences are that we have a much more static career structure where promotion and performance pay are often less important than pride, respect and “public service†as individual motivators.
Nor do we really have the types of leaders that seem to be the prerequisite for the working of your model. By and large they are not inspirational or dynamic strategic leaders, but are, more often than not, managers because they happen to have been in the department a while or have reached a certain level of seniority.
Hence, I’m sceptical about the notion that we can solve our problem of improving our effectiveness by developing another administrative layer of resource management. (I’ve tried unsuccessfully quoting chunks to them of your chapter on how managers really add value.)
****
David replies: I have always had difficulty with the notion that there is such a thing as one unique “PSF model,†if that is taken to mean one clear set of policies, practices, processes, structures and attitudes.
Yes, I did try to offer some generalizations and insights that I hoped (and have proven to be) broadly applicable, but there is no one recipe that fits all situations.
I think the closest parallel I’ve seen to the government situation is the running of in-house service departments inside large for-profit corporations. They face similar issues that there is a more limited career path, they are often not profit-driven, and their mission is often less clear. If I were you, looking for comparable situations, I’d look at companies that have in-house legal departments, real estate or property departments, shared-service accounting departments, etc.
Using the for-profit model will, I think, be completely misleading. Even in the for-profit sector, some of the underlying assumptions that the traditional model was built on (and are described in my book) are proving to be untrue in the modern world.
Take, for example, a topic of promotion opportunities. In the traditional model I described, it was assumed that the vast majority of people hired at junior levels would want to become “partnersâ€, and would be willing to work very hard toward that as a primary goal. As a counterpart, it was assumed that the organization wanted a high percentage to become partners, because what the organization provided to its market was the fully rounded, fully developed professional.
You point out that this is not necessarily the case in government: not everyone has the dynamism to want to move up, and top management doesn’t necessarily want them to.
Here’s my point: that’s actually the direction that many private practice firms are going in: Firms are promoting a smaller and smaller percentage of people to partners, because they can show more “profits per partner†by keeping partner numbers small. For these and many other cultural reasons, fewer and fewer younger people feel that it is worthwhile or sensible to compete in the “tournament†to become partner.
I would agree with two other points you make. The solution is absolutely not about structures (reorganizing) or systems (time-keeping.) You get better efficiency, quality, morale and everything else by having managers in place who now how to manage. Without them, the rest is truly irrelevant.
I am just putting the finishing touches on my manuscript for my new book “Strategy and the Fat Smoker,” which collects together most of the articles I have written in the past two years. I’m self-publishing it and hope to have it available some time this fall, probably as both an e-book and as a paperback.
Old friends will recognize the title as that of the article I did in 2005, and its theme runs through the book: in both personal life and in business, we usually know what to do, why we should do it and even how to do it. But that doesn’t mean we always do the things that are good for us. In fact, because of short-term temptations, we usually don’t.
So let me ask about what you’ve learned: what are the approaches that help a fat smoker change his or her bad habits and start doing the things that they already know are good for them?
How does it work for organizations? What determines why some competitors stick to the long view and execute their strategy, while others always succumb to short-term temptations?
By the way, if you’re a blogger and would like to see a copy of the galleys / page proofs of the book (available in early September) drop me a line at my email address.
post # 404 — July 16, 2007 — a General post
In Romance and Sincerity, the 17th episode in this series, we will distinguish between two mindsets for winning business. On the one hand you have the development of a relationship through genuine interest in your clients and their business. On the other, you have the one night stand mentality which is about winning business transaction by transaction. Which of these two classifications does your practice fall into?
![](http://davidmaister.com/images/videocast/RomanceandSincerity.jpg)
Audio Timeline
00:40 — Introduction
01:26 — Romance vs. the one night stand: two distinct mindsets
02:46 — Taking a genuine interest in your client’s affairs
03:48 — Human connectivity vs. revenue generation
01:01 – Conclusion
You can download Romance and Sincerity or sign up to receive new Maister Moments 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.
post # 403 — July 13, 2007 — a Managing post
Time for another book by someone associated with an executive recruiting firm. This time, it’s EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE by Justin Menkes from Spencer Stuart.
Here’s Menkes’ key findings (or assertions, according to taste):
Managerial work can be broken down into three subjects: accomplishing tasks, working with other people, and self-evaluation. Within each of these categories there are identifiable cognitive skills that determine how well an executive performs, such as:
- TASKS — the abilities to properly define a problem, identify the highest-priority issues, and assess both what is known and what needs to be known in order to render a sound decision.
- OTHERS — the abilities to recognize underlying agendas, understand multiple perspectives, and anticipate likely emotional reactions.
- SELF — the abilities to identify one’s own mistakes, encourage and seek out constructive criticism, and adjust one’s own behavior.
Though these cognitive skills play a profound role in determining a manager’s success, they are not what most employers focus on when recruiting or promoting executives. Instead, nearly everyone fixates on personality type, style, or other irrelevant characteristics.
The book is filled with quotes from famous, successful people, and is not shy about stating firm conclusions. For example: “Not one study has shown emotional intelligence to be a meaningful predictor of job performance beyond what has long been explained by other measures.â€
Menkes and his other consulting firm (MenkesStark) claim to have a proprietary approach to measuring what they call Executive Intelligence. I don’t buy everything he has to say, but it’s probably worth your $14.95 and the plane-ride time it will take to examine it.
post # 402 — July 10, 2007 — a Managing, Strategy post
Here’s another question I received by email:
“I work for a consulting company (50 people) and have been in the business 10 years. Recently our partners rolled out a list of “guiding principles” for the company. You talk a lot about setting minimum standards of behavior and strict adherence to group values. So I tried to create a way whereby we could measure if we were living by these principles.
I suggested to the partners that we create a checklist whereby the employees can rate the partners on how well we think they are living up to the standards. This received a lukewarm response – “We’ll think about it”.
For reference, here are our “guiding principles” (by the way, it seems almost impossible for any one human to meet them all):
Trust
We believe that trust is fundamental to success in our business, which means we must be transparent, reliable, accepting and congruent. We must do what we’ve said we’ll do, we must be clear in our expectations and opinions, be accepting of mistakes and limitations of others, and “walk our talkâ€. We must also be sincere, hear and acknowledge others, be candid and straight, and demonstrate integrity and clarity with boundaries.
Accountability
We believe that individuals are the source of who they are, how they feel, behave and perform. We can choose to be a player and not a victim, and can lead with head and heart. We recognize that we can choose to be inspiring, self-motivated and determined. We take on accountabilities out of creative cause, not for praise or credit, or out of burden, blame or guilt.
Perspective
We seek out perspective because we don’t believe in “right†answers, just better interventions. This requires us to be thoughtful, self aware, humble and low ego. But we are not afraid to have a point of view on what we believe can work better.
Performance
We judge performance by what is achieved, but in the meantime we assume positive intent. We believe in courage and energy, look for the positive and are future focused. We recognise that performance is situational and some achievements need to be judged over longer time periods. We set high standards, welcome challenge and are honest and transparent about our own performance.
Learning
We are aware of our interactions with the world and the opportunity to learn from our successes and failures. We are comfortable with ambiguity and use an enabling leadership style that allows people to experiment and learn. We don’t take ourselves too seriously. We believe upsets are setups for learning.
Externally Open
We are externally curious and understand the value of seeing and acting beyond ourselves. We value the thoughts and suggestions of others and invite them into all our conversations. We actively encourage collaboration and interdependency.
Human
We believe in people. We are supportive, and show empathy and compassion to see the potential in everyone. We understand the importance of meaning at a personal level, and how active appreciation can counteract fear. We believe we engage with the whole of a person, not just their work persona and are sensitive to cultural diversity. We encourage health and life balance. We believe businesses should do good when they’re doing great.
David, what do you think about such things? If we create these great aspirations but don’t hold people accountable what good are they? (Ironically, you’ll note that one of the guiding principles is “accountability.”)
***
The questioner has answered his or her own questions, right? If it’s humanly impossible to live up to the standards, what do the partners mean to convey when they pronounce them? What is achieved by stating your commitments to the unachievable? And if you’re not willing to be evaluated on what you say you stand for, what do people think you mean?
Note that I don’t think it “immoral†to enunciate principles you’re not prepared to be accountable for — I just think you’re fooling yourself as to the beneficial impact of preaching them. My experience says it’s even worse than neutral: you train people to see that you cannot be depended upon to act according to what you advocate, and they end up either trusting you less or just ignoring what you preach.
****
What do the rest of you think? Does all this mean that firms shouldn’t even try to enunciate their principles? Should they survey everyone each year and publish the results? Internally? Externally? How many firms — good or bad, successful or unsuccessful, actually do that?
post # 401 — July 9, 2007 — a General post
In the 16th episode of this series, we are going to dive into the subject of marketing from the perspective of the buyer. All marketing and selling questions boil down to one basic query: How do people buy? To learn the answer to this, one only needs to look as far as their own experience in buying to find that it’s not only about qualifications but also about trust.
![](http://davidmaister.com/images/videocast/HowWeBuy.jpg)
Audio Timeline
00:39 — Introduction
01:02 — Understanding marketing equals understanding buying
02:50 — The key to every marketing question in your profession
04:30 — The essential truth of being a buyer
05:19 — The two necessary attributes for a successful sale: qualification AND trust
07:20 — Conclusion
You can download How We Buy or sign up to receive new Maister Moments 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.
post # 399 — July 6, 2007 — a Client Relations post
Most of us want to be caring trusted advisors, showing an interest in our clients’ affairs and staying current on what’ on their mind.
But there are only so many hours in a day, and many of us have more than a handful of clients to take care of at once.
So what can you do to earn and deserve trust (and a relationship) if you only have a limited amount of time?
The first point I’d make is to ensure that, in the limited few interactions you can afford the time for, you succeed as coming across as sympathetic and understanding. I don’t necessarily want a lot more of my doctor’s time when I see him or her, I just want to be treated a certain way when we are together.
Second, Getting in contact before I’m needed. (“I’m going to be away: is there anything I can take care of for youbefore I go?”) This is one case where seeking permission (to be unavailable) is better than seeking forgiveness.
I don’t know if the metaphor applies, but the situation reminds me of struggling to be a good parent or marriage partner. You can’t always give the other person all the time they want from you, but there must be ways to maximize the impact of the time you do have.
I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on good practice, since I think building and sustaining relationships with limited time is a common challenge.