Passion, People and Principles
post # 169 — August 23, 2006 — a Careers, Strategy post
I have just published two profiles of entrepreneurs who exemplify how disruptive and revolutionary a true commitment to client service and business principles can be.
In the first article, An Innovative Law Firm, 29-year-old Christopher Marston launches his own law firm, convincing all new hires (from a recent graduate to a 30-year veteran bank executive) to defer compensation until his experimental model pays off.
On his blog, Marston wrote: “Most attorneys I know are not happy. The opportunity to build a firm that can be a win for the attorneys by creating a great work environment and at the same time be a win for clients who are endlessly disappointed with law firm service and billable hours is what drives me to get up every day and do what I do. People who think Exemplar is about a pricing model have missed the point. Exemplar is about changing lives … one by one … until we’re all done!” He plans to have 24 people in the firm by year’s end.
(This article first appeared under the title “The Courage to Innovate,” as the introduction to the inaugural issue of Innovaction, an online journal celebrating innovation in the practice of law published by the College of Law Practice Management.)
* * *
In the second article, An Entrepreneurial Journey, software services engineer Geoff Considine retraces his career, reflecting on how he built “Maisterisms” into building his own successful firm. Geoff feels these are the most important guidelines that he has learned — often inspired, he says, by my work:
- Be worthy of trust.
- Everyone knows that you are smart — don’t try to prove it.
- You are there to help, not to be right.
- Be a concierge – if it needs doing, do it.
- Develop services and products that are worth paying a premium price for.
- Do business as if you were working with a good friend –
(An Entrepreneurial Journey was first published as a feature article at PSVillage.com )
If you would like to be emailed automatically when I add future full-length articles to the site (or know of anyone else that would benefit), I invite you (or them) to sign up for my (free) article email list.
post # 168 — August 22, 2006 — a Client Relations post
This happened thirty yeas ago.
I had been hired to assist the executive committee of a major consulting firm to discuss their strategy. There were 8 or ten senior officers of the firm around the table, including the CEO, who was due to retire in 12 months.
As I was generating various options for them to consider, the CEO suddenly said to me (in front of everyone else): “You just want to see us change so you can get consulting fees.”
I had no idea what to say, and said nothing. I was hugely offended. It’s one thing to dislike my ideas, but to question my ethics? Impugn my integrity?
On the other hand, don’t all clients and customers distrust the motives of all professional provides (and all other businesspeople?)
The air hung heavy and silent until one of the other executives picked up the conversation and moved on.
I carried on working with that firm, through the term of my contract, and no-one ever referred to the CEO’s remarks again.
I have often thought about what I SHOULD have done or said.
What would you have done?
What are you going to say or do when someone accuses you of only being in it for yourself?
post # 167 — August 21, 2006 — a General, Strategy post
This week’s strategy podcast seminar, “One-Firm Firm” (downloadable at no cost), is based on an article I wrote in 1985, and which subsequently appeared in my 1993 book Managing the Professional Service Firm.
Back then, I asked the question, “What do Goldman Sachs, McKinsey, (Accenture), Latham & Watkins and Hewitt Associates and other prominent professional businesses have in common?” (I referred to Accenture by the name of its predecessor firm.)
Besides being among the most profitable firms (if not the most profitable) in their respective professions?
And besides being considered by their peers among the best managed firms in their respective professions?
The answer I gave back then:
A commitment to a model of professional business management which stresses teamwork, collaboration and institutional loyalty, which I term the “one-firm firm” system.
This seminar is one of the very few I have written where I talk about specific firms by name. After all this time, I still feel that I chose the correct firms to discuss.
I am in the process of writing an update for this article, which will appear later this year. But since I think that the lessons still apply (and because these firms are still hugely successful) I decided to make a podcast seminar out of the original article, changing very little.
The seminar includes:
- An analysis of what makes “one-firm firms” great
- How the best firms generate loyalty and a sense of mission
- The ‘open secrets’ of great firms’ strategy on hiring, mergers, compensation, and more
You can listen to this episode with the player above, you can download “The One-Firm Firm” here, or sign up to receive new seminars automatically every week by subscribing to my Business Masterclass series with iTunes or other podcast players. (Click here for step-by-step instructions on how to subscribe.)
The podcast draws from ideas I discuss in these 3 previous conversations on my blog:
I also highly recommend “The Lessons of Andersen” by Brian Sommers — presenting an ex-Andersen perspective on the Enron convictions.
What does your experience say?
Does the evidence really match my conclusion that the loyalty-based, real team-play organizations actually ARE triumphing over the decentralized, profit-centered, internally competitive and entrepreneurial organizations?
And if the “one-firm firms” truly are winning, why isn’t their “one-for-all, all-for-one” approach more common?
post # 166 — August 18, 2006 — a Careers post
You’ll read in lots of places that, in business, the right strategy is to “fail often, fail fast, fail cheap.” That way, you learn, innovate, and develop.
It’s good advice for an organization, but not necessarily for an individual. While I like to be encouraging, urging people to stretch to fulfill their capabilities and dreams, the truth is that the world can be an unforgiving place, and you do have to choose your “next challenge” with care.
For example, if you are aiming for a big promotion, you had better make sure you want that responsibility before you try to move up. If it turns out not to work out well (for any reason), a company will most likely NOT put you back where you came from, but move you out. (It’s happened to me.)
Actually, the same is true when companies take on new client work and deals: take one on that runs into trouble, and you don’t go back to the market reputation you had before, but to one with a big black mark. (That’s happened to me, too.)
Be sure to think through what it means to move up in an organization, because it is hard to go back. The higher you climb, the more responsibilities you get that you simply didn’t know existed when you were a naive junior. With promotion comes incredible responsibility and narrow career choices.
Life doesn’t get any easier as you move up the ladder. All you ever do as you progress is trade one set of problems for another, hopefully higher class, set of problems. One set of stresses for another.
Am I counseling anyone to not be ambitious? No, what I’m saying is that you don’t accept or pursue “promotions” or “challenges” “or “glamorous client assignments” just because they are there. They’ve got to be the right ones for you.
You’ve got to go through life recognizing that, if you fail at new challenges, you’ll have rebuilding to do.You have to weigh both the benefits of succeeding and the risks of failing before you decide.
As you progress, life does get more interesting, but it doesn’t get easier.
Duncan Bucknell, who is a “lawyer, patent attorney and intellectual property strategy consultant” – and a regular participant in these discussions – writes in to ask:
To use an analogy I picked up from you, it seems to me that the trusted adviser is the local doctor – the person you first turn to for assistance.
The Brain Surgeon gets the most challenging and difficult work. However, they are too expensive to call all the time. You want them on your team when there is something really important, but you don’t need them all the time. So, is it actually possible for the brain surgeon to be anyone’s trusted advisor? The business model for the trusted advisor is clearly very different. (You have previously discussed hourly rate and lower leverage etc.)
It also affects things such as conflicts of interest policies. A true trusted advisor will work for fewer clients, because he or she is busy looking after each one more fully. He or she will also see conflicts where other advisors may not – simply to be genuinely looking after his or her client’s best interests. The brain surgeon can not afford such a tight conflict policy. He or she has a larger pool of clients who call for help less frequently, but when it is REALLY needed.
David, can you please shed some light how it is possible to stay a trusted advisor and a brain surgeon at the same time?
Duncan, let me both agree and disagree with your propositions. Your analysis seems to be position the “Trusted Advisor” as a particular role or “positioning”, rather than as a set of behaviors and skills.
I made the same distinction in a chapter called “What kind of Provider Are You?” in my book TRUE PROFESSIONALISM where, like you, I pointed out that the two roles are quite different. In that book, among many other contrasts, I pointed out that the “family doctor role” (I sometimes call it “psychotherapist”) is primarily about the skill of diagnosis – helping the client understand and unbundle the complex symptoms in a situation and decide what needs to be done.
As you say, it is to other people that I may turn (almost always WILL turn) to execute the highly specialist tasks that emerge from the diagnosis. I don’t want a surgeon deciding what needs to be done (they will always say ‘operate’) and I don’t want my family doctor or ‘trusted guide’ always saying “yes, I can do that, too, let me just get my knife!”
So, I end up concluding that you do have to decide what you want your market positioning to be. The tough part is that we’re all capable enough to do it all, but it would be a poor personal or firm strategy to actually do a little of everything and go to market shouting “You wan’t it we got it!” That’s no way to build a reputation. (Even though many large firms try to do exactly that.)
If ther’s a solution for a large firm (not an individual) I could see successfully pulling it off by having clearly organziaaed different teams, staffed with different people (just as a hospital does.) “Here’s our diagnosis doctors, and when the time comes, we have specialist surgeons to hand you over to, if you ever need them.” It won’t be credible if the same doctors keep working in all wards of the hospital!
Of course, even a brain surgeon, who focuses on highly technical tasks, needs to learn interactive skills such as those described in THE TRUSTED ADVISOR book. Brain surgeon’s don’t have to be strong, brooding, sullen, abrupt types. They can and should learn how to interact with clients for the times when they have to. But that’s not their role. It’s not their positioning.
You had it right first time, Duncan.
post # 164 — August 16, 2006 — a Managing, Strategy post
Innovaction, an online journal celebrating innovation in the practice of law, has just been published by the College of Law Practice Management. It contains a number of articles (including one by me), a rountable panel discussion, and a collection of success stories. Check it out!
You here a lot of people saying things like these:
- We’re too busy doing the wrong things to have time to do the right things
- We’ve got so many of the wrong people in the key positions that we can’t get the right people appointed
- We got too may of the bad clients to serve that we don’t have the time to get the good clients
- We’ve been known as people who do X for so long, that no-one will believe that we now do Y
- I’m stuck doing stuff I hate but I can’t afford to quit
- He / She’s never going to change, so why bother?
When I do hear such phrases, I’m reminded of this:
“The past has a vote, not a veto.”
— Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan, Born in Lithuania in 1880s
post # 162 — August 15, 2006 — a Client Relations post
A number of my clients have been asking me how you sell to a corporation where you do not have the opportunity to meet the “real” client executive who is going to use your service or product, but have to “sell” though a consultant who has been hired to run the client’s buying process. They say they want to use the principles in my book The Trusted Advisor approach in their selling, but don’t see how you do that if there is a gatekeeper. (They describe this to me a tryng to make love through a blanket!)
There’s probably been a lot of research on this topic about which I am not aware, but I’m fascinated with how much this approach to buying has grown and spread. It happens in corporate purchases of :
- Advertising
- Public relations
- Asset management
- Outsourcing
- Large management consulting projects
- Law firm selection and monitoring
- and many other services.
My curiosity is aroused in trying to explain why this is expanding so much. Why don’t corporate officers select and choose their own outside providers? Why do they need the consultants to advise them?
I can see why you would need an advisor if you were a one-time buyer, buying only periodically, or buying something particularly big. Then, you would want to tap into the specialists’ expertise and greater knowledge of what’s out there, and who’s good. It would save you search time. We’ve all used people to perform that role for us at one time or another.
But what if you buy the product or service all the time? What if it’s your JOB? If you are, say, the investment officer for a state pension fund, wouldn’t it be your job to know who’s out there? Or if you’re a marketing manager who’s been in place for 5 or 6 years, shouldn’t you know who the possible agencies are and what their reputation is?
My guess is that these buyers DO know, and are employing “consultants to the process” to achieve other goals. If we are to successfully “penetrate” this layer between ultimate client and vendor, then we must understand what the buyer is hoping to achieve by putting it in place.
There are a number of possible purposes, including:
- By using third-party consultants, buyers can make the buying process appear more formal and detached, and give the appearance to their corporate masters (or Wall street Observers) that they are being diligent and responsible in their buying. They are buying affirmation, reassurance and cloud-cover against attacks that they were “soft” or relied too much on things like “relationships.”
- Putting the third part y in place allows all sorts of buying games including “Good Cop / Bad Cop” (Client/consultant) The hired-gun gatekeeper plays tough guy, while the client (who has to work with the service provider afterwards) can remain above the negotiating fray and preserve the bases for a good working relationship.
- Some consultants could offer a lot more than just a “gatekeeper” function. The client may have only an unfocused understanding of his or her own needs, and what the consultant is doing is providing a “strategic navigator” service, so that the client can understand which outside service (a pill, a nurse, a brain surgeon) he or she really needs to buy. By separating the diagnosis from the execution, the client benefits by not having biased people (the vendors) always selling what they have, rather than what the client needs.
I have some additional thoughts, but let me find out if this is a topic of interest to anybody out there. The questions for you (all) are:
- Are there other reasons companies hire consultants to advise them on their buying?
- How well do the vendors understand the real reasons?
- What are the implications for the DIFFERENT rationales for how a vendor should respond. Does the vendor do different things if the client is using consultants for different purposes?
post # 161 — August 14, 2006 — a General, Strategy post
This week’s new (free, downloadable) strategy seminar, “Values in Action,” asks the question, “Why don’t most firms actually live up to the standards and values espoused in their mission statements?”
The answer? Values are what not what you aspire to, but what you are prepared to enforce with consequences for non-compliance. It’s one thing to say you believe in something; it’s another to be willing to be held accountable.
It takes courage to actually live by the values that you say you believe in. More than the right choice of products, services and markets, strategic success is about living up to your values.
The seminar includes:
- The right way to handle a “rogue elephant” who won’t play by the rules
- The missing business element: managerial courage
- Two effective ways to enforce organization values for long-term success
You can listen to this week’s seminar with the player shown just above or download this episode. You can also receive new seminars automatically every week by subscribing to my Business Masterclass podcast series with iTunes, Yahoo! Podcasts or Podcast Alley.
This episode was based on a chapter of my 1997 book, True Professionalism: The courage to care about your clients, your people and your career. The book is a call to arms, to find the strength and courage to do what we know to be right. The book’s lesson is clear: act like a true professional, aiming for true excellence, and the money will follow.
The podcast also draws from ideas I discuss in these 3 articles:
and in these 3 previous conversations on my blog:
How vigorously do you “enforce” your values? Do your people think you live up to them?
Bob Sutton, co-author (with Jeff Pfeffer) of the terrific book Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense, had a fascinating post a few days ago about “Lovaglia’s Law.”
Michael Lovaglia, (a professor at the University of Iowa) proposed Lovaglia’s Law: The more important the outcome of a decision, the more people will resist using evidence to make it. Bob discusses this, and agrees that, the more consequential the outcome, the more power, greed, stress and irrationality come into play in influencing how people react and how individual and collective decisions are made.
I think there is something very important here. I have always been fascinated by the fact that (in spite of what they teach us in school) logic, reason, rationality and sensible analysis seem to play so little part in human affairs – at the office, in our home lives, and elsewhere.
It sometimes seems as if, for all of us, nearly all the time, rhetoric triumphs over reason, personality over substance, politics over merits, neuroses over facts.
I’m not saying this as a complaint. I’m saying that it’s a more accurate critique of human affairs than the misleading interpretation we sometimes fool ourselves with – that our smarts (logic, reason and rationality) are what drive the world.
Tom Davenport (author of Thinking for a Living) recently published an article in the Harvard Business Review arguing that there is a huge competitive advantage to be gained by companies if they were to develop a more analytical approach to business, using advanced analytical abilities. It’s a great article, but its truth and its power comes from the fact that so few of us, as individuals or as institutions, in our work lives or in our personal lives, actually do make our decisions primarily through logic and analysis.
That’s why it can be a competitive advantage for anyone who can escape Lovaglia’s Law.
