Passion, People and Principles
post # 380 — May 23, 2007 — a Client Relations post
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?
post # 379 — May 21, 2007 — a Client Relations post
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?
post # 374 — — a General post
In this, the 9th episode in my live videocast and podcast series, I put fourth the proposition that everything in life must be willingly given to you by another person. We will explore relative merits of two very different ways of engaging with other people.
Audio Timeline
00:40 — Introduction
01:07 — Anything you want in life must come from other people
02:14 — The difference between them and us
02:51 — The difference between relationships and one-night stands
03:52 — Conclusion
You can download Getting Others To Give You What You Want 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 # 378 — May 18, 2007 — a Managing post
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.â€
(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 offense, because the individual I was talking to replied: “What do you mean, it’s not different from managing a secretary? Our people are SPECIAL!!â€
Now, I’m not so naïve as to realize 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?
post # 377 — May 16, 2007 — a Client Relations post
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 my co-authored 2000 book.)
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?
post # 373 — May 14, 2007 — a General post
There exists a great imbalance in the responsibilities of a professional group leader. While many are expected to manage, serve clients, and generate revenue, too often the lowest priority is management or coaching. In this, the 8th episode of my live video and podcast series, we will discuss why this is a terrible economic decision for most firms and we’ll explore tactics aimed at restoring this balance.
Audio Timeline
00:39 — Introduction
01:16 — The economical mistake of neglecting management in favor of revenue
04:38 — How managers should spent their time
08:11 – Conclusion
You can download How Managers Should Spend Their Time 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 # 375 — May 10, 2007 — a Strategy post
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?
post # 372 — May 9, 2007 — a Careers, Managing post
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 neighbor 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?
post # 368 — May 7, 2007 — a General post
In order to maintain any successful, motivated, and forward-thinking organization, the people must be excited and turned on with regards to the tasks they face. In Excitement, the 7th episode in my live videocast and podcast series, we are going to dive into the virtues of excitement and examine the types of managerial efforts it takes to maintain this crucial element.
Audio Timeline
00:40 — Introduction
01:00 — The difference between being happy and being turned on
02:13 — Why it is imperative that people be excited
04:09 — Managers: People of principles vs. people of expedience
You can download Excitement 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 # 371 — May 4, 2007 — a General post
Thank you to everyone who contributed to make these posts the most linked and discussed ideas in the month of April.
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?
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.
The Long Term
I have observed that our biggest barrier, as individuals and organizations, 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.
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.
The Overhead Projector
To this day, I prefer the use of the overhead projector because it is still the best technology I know to minimize the speaker-audience barrier during presentations. Some people wonder if this projects an unprofessional, out-of-date image…
