Passion, People and Principles
post # 10 — January 31, 2006 — a Client Relations post
Andreas Steinert asks:
In your new article “Marketing is a Conversation” you say “You can’t really write a proposal until you find out which version of success a client wants with this project”. Working in Germany as a PR consultant for more than 20 years I fully agree to this. But in the past five years or so I feel it is getting more and more difficult to get close enough to potential clients to hear their personal views on their objectives and their ideas of success.
An increasing number of companies tend to follow an ideal of “objective” and “not personally influenced” decision-making processes. So we have to cope with poor briefings, short presentation (not discussion) sessions and remarks that alternative proposals are not allowed at all (especially with public tenders.) More and more decisions are made without personal dialogue and information only obtained by exchanging papers. Is this also happening in the US market?
What has worked is the “long” way: getting to know potential clients in a situation not directly related to jobs or projects or having a personal contact to a potential. And then after months or years being invited to present oneself.
What has failed is the “normal” way: coming in face-to-face contact with potential clients with a credentials presentation, a first short proposal related to the briefing and than talking briefly about the whole stuff.
The problem with this is that the chances to win get increasingly reduced to situations where you’ve got a personal relation before and beside the official business request.
You no longer can count on being a well-known professional service company.
As consultants, we seem to have only a choice of the “Here’s our firm’s approach (and proposal)” gamble that you warn us against in the article, or the “No proposal without discussion” gamble that might seem arrogant and evasive. Do you see a third way?
What you describe is happening every part of the world in every profession.
My thinking is that if a client or prospect is going to follow a purely paper-based process, then either the decision is already made and they are just going through the pretence of considering others (because their regulations require it), or else it’s going to be a price-based decision.
It’s certainly not going to be decided on trust, and it’s unlikely to be based on a sensible, thorough comparison of 5 100-page formal statements of qualifications and proposals from 5 different firms. Have you ever tried to compare 5 100-page documents? It can’t be done! You know what’s going to happen: they are going to reduce all 500 pages to a single page of 5 columns, comparing the key dimensions of all 5 proposals only by what can fit on that one page, and presented to the key decision-maker. He or she will never even see your proposal. They are going to decide it on price.
So, if they are going to do that, give them what they want. Come up with a price (one that will make you a decent profit) and invest an absolutely minimal amount of time writing the proposal. (There’s no point investing time on things that aren’t going to make a difference.)
I’d also probably say in the proposal something like “To minimize the cost to you of doing this project we have made the following assumptions about what you are looking for. If our assumptions are incorrect, please let us know, and we will resubmit our proposal. If what you wish the project to achieve changes from these assumptions after it has begun, we will need to negotiated a change in our estimates or fees.” (If they can be formal, so can you! Two can play at that game.)
If they accept it, fine. If the work goes to someone who bid lower, then you’re OK, because who would want to win work on which you can’t make a decent profit? I assume you are not a charity, and do have a family to support.
There is another way, the one that I prefer. If someone asks you to write a proposal, think carefully about whether the potential work is exciting enough and the client is interesting enough. If these tests are met, then say something like: “I recognize that I need to work to earn and deserve your business. I must also give you the opportunity to judge my worth and whether or not we have the right chemistry to work together.”
“So, let me make the following offer. Name the time and the place, and I’ll happily donate a day of my services for free, with no obligation. We can spend that day exchanging views, exploring topics of interest to you. I’ll share my knowledge and experience with you, answering any question you have. At the end of that day you can decide whether or not you still want me to participate in a competitive proposal and I can decide if I wish to pursue the opportunity with you.”
If the client or prospect accepts, then you have hit a home run. You will win the business with one day’s investment, which is a lot less than you would have done spend on preparing and presenting the proposal.
And if they don’t accept your offer, well you can always go back to plan B described above: invest minimal time and send them a number.
post # 9 — January 29, 2006 — a Managing post
What follows is an article I coauthored with Julie Lindy, the editor of INSIDE Public Accounting. I plan on revising it into my usual article length, but thought the blogosphere would like to see the shorter version which appeared in Julie’s newsletter/magazine this month. Julie Lindy is a veteran journalist who has been covering practice management of accounting firms for more than a decade. Contact her at (678) 686-6528; jlindy@hudsonsawyer.com.
Let’s face it: lying is a very common human activity. Not only is it easy to lie – it can even be the polite or politically correct thing to do. “Your baby is beautiful.” “Don’t worry, spilling your drink on my carpet is no big deal.” “Your party was so much fun.” We often find ourselves lying for the sake of kindness and social graces.
However, equally common are the times when we lie not to preserve the feelings of others, but to try and create an advantage for ourselves. That’s when we get ourselves into trouble – almost always. We are so eager to impress that we end up saying things that are so hackneyed and improbable as to backfire immediately: “My child is brilliant” “Trust me, I’ll do the right thing” “The check’s in the mail” “It’s not about the money.” (Does any listener ever believe any of those claims?)
The lies accounting firms tell flow just as easily. And, like social lies, accounting firms often tell them knowing that nobody really believes them. Everyone, speaker and listener, knows we are making conventional, time-worn claims (often phrased the same old way) that have little correlation with reality.
There are four categories of accounting firms lies:
Lies to clients: These lies occur throughout most firms’ marketing materials. Look at some obvious lies prominently placed on the Web sites of three firms in the INSIDE Public accounting list of the largest 100 accounting firms:
- “We dedicate all of our resources to the long-term success and general well-being of our clients.”
- ”[Firm X] is uniquely qualified to provide audit and accounting, tax, information technology, estate and financial planning, and management consulting services to a wide range of industries, individuals, estates, and trusts.”
- “Our core purpose is to use knowledge, experience and innovation to solve problems and enhance opportunities for our clients.”
Do the firms that say these things about themselves really think clients and prospects who read these statements will believe them? And if everyone knows that the claims are not going to be believed, why do firms continue making them? All that happens is that by continuing to make claims that are (literally) non-credible, less trust and confidence is built, not more. It’s all very peculiar!
It’s no explanation to argue that firms really believe that they are superb at these things. It’s always been true that what you think about yourself is irrelevant data. It’s what others think of you, not what you think of yourself that determines your success. Unproven claims have become a hallmark of marketing, but in a reputation-based business like accounting, it’s much more effective to provide some evidence and let people draw their own conclusions. For example, client testimonials are an effective way to deliver your message. They allow you to avoid the perception of lying, because you’re not making a claim.
Lies to staff: One of us recently spoke with a firm that claimed to be a terrific place to work. When he asked for proof, firm leaders replied, “Well, we can’t prove it, but we just know we’re a fantastic place to work!” Saying something is true doesn’t make it so. In these times of desperate staffing situations, it’s tempting to say what employees and potential employees want to hear: “We have great communication between partners and staff.” “Our people are our greatest asset.” “We offer flexible schedules and believe in work/life balance.” “We live by the following core values …” We want to believe we are great at these things, but are we really? When was the last time you asked your employees how well you were living up to your espoused values?
Lying to staff can have damaging long-term consequences. Recently a tax senior felt so compelled to vent his frustration with the firm he recently left that he wrote a confidential letter to the editor of IPA: ”[Firm Y’s] partners … have to lie in interviews to get people to come work for them. When I interviewed with this firm, they made multiple promises that they didn’t keep.”
Is this what you want former employees saying about your firm in your community, or to the press? Again, testimonials are extremely powerful. The only people really qualified to say whether your firm is a great place to work are your employees.
The biggest danger in lying about our performance and effectiveness (without confirming feedback) is that it can lure us into believing our own PR. Once you start lying to yourself about what you are good at, you’re really in trouble, because you’ll stop looking for ways to improve and you’ll suffer doubly – once for the poor performance and secondly for being so manifestly “out of it” that you can’t even see what you need to improve.
Lies partners tell each other: Here are some common ones: “We act like team players, putting the interests of the firm before our own.” “We treat each other with respect.”
“We keep our word to each other in contributing non-billable time to help the firm develop.” “We don’t care who gets the origination credit. We help each other with marketing and business development”
These are all very nice things to say. We might even mean them when we say them. But how many times do partners catch each other dropping a ball or breaking a promise to the practice group or some other team – and do nothing about it? “The trouble with law firms is that the culture is: Promise big. Deliver little. Get forgiven. Repeat until totally frustrated,” says consultant Patrick McKenna. Accounting firms aren’t much different, are they? Forgiveness, toleration and understanding are certainly virtues, but failure to hold each other accountable isn’t good business.
Successful businesses don’t tolerate broken promises and uncompleted actions. “At McKinsey & Co., there is very little you have to do. But if you say you’re going to do it, you must keep your word,” Managing Director Ian Davis reported in a speech at the London Business School. People who don’t keep their word create a chain reaction of consequences – wasted meetings, redoing of tasks, unnecessary downtime, and missed deadlines that are deadly to an organizations efficiency and quality. And of course, the attitude quickly spreads that if the other guy doesn’t have to keep his word, I don’t have to either, and the whole thing spirals!
Lies partners tell themselves: Do any of these sound familiar? “We manage for the long term around here.” “We balance financial metrics with soft contributions like mentoring and being a good citizen when dividing the pie.” “We reward our group leaders for time managing their groups and forgive them if that means fewer personal billable hours or less origination. We want them to focus on their groups.” Sounds nice, doesn’t it? But is it the truth? We’d save ourselves from so many blunders and foolish notions if we could only see ourselves as others see us, the poet Robert Burns points out. Like the other types of lies that firms tell, these lies aren’t mean or malicious. They’re the lies of self-delusion. We want to believe them. Often, the claims we make don’t have the desired impact, so we raise the temperature of our tone. We exaggerate to make affect, and in the process, hurt our own credibility.
Exaggeration, misrepresentation and lying – however innocently or well-intended – has never made good business sense, as tempting as it may be. Lying and getting away with it puts you at risk of being found out in the future. Lying and not being believed destroys your credibility immediately. It’s just not worth it!
post # 8 — January 27, 2006 — a Managing post
An old friend and client writes to ask:
How do professional service firms obtain independent, external input at the leadership level? Do they add a few independent directors to the board of (inside) directors, if there is one? Do they form an external advisory board of people? Do they hire specialized consultants on an issue-by-issue basis? Do they bring in outsiders as co-CEO, COO or as a full- or part-time vice chairman?
Corporate boards bring valuable experience, expertise and networks to their managements. But doing this in a professional services firm would pose numerous challenges, not least of which is the amount of time it would take the outsiders to really get to know the business, the top managers and customers before their counsel would be valuable and valued.
As to advisory boards, in the 1970s a number of high-profile American companies created international advisory boards peopled with former heads of state (e.g., Willy Brandt), high-profile foreign corporate leaders, statesmen (Henry Kissinger) and others.
Hiring a highly talented retired executive or regulator as full- or part-time vice chairman or senior advisor might be a viable approach to accessing ongoing independent thinking at the top. However, in a number of years the thinking might lose some of its “independence.”
Are any of these approaches wise or viable for today’s professional service firm?
Let’s begin with the cheap shot. What does it tell you that one of the most pioneering, prominent, distinctive and heavily promoted advisory board in professional services (with the caliber of people you mention) was that of Arthur Andersen? I have no way of knowing whether that instance was cynical window dressing or a real strategic advantage to the firm, but as a professional cynic I incline towards the former interpretation, especially given the way events unfolded.
I would be more impressed by a firm that had such a Board, but told no-one about it. Now that would be a good clue that they weren’t doing it just for the image!
I am willing to believe that getting high-level input and access to great minds is helpful to any top executive (CEO or managing partner) in any business, large or small. That’s why organizations like The Young Presidents’ Organization, Rotary Clubs and private dining clubs in every major city exist to allow business people from different industries to get to know and help each other.
I don’t at all accept your implication that professional service firms are going to be particularly difficult for an outsider to understand. That’s pomposity. Professionals themselves pretend they can quickly understand all their clients’ industries and businesses when they get hired, but to turn around and say “our business would take years to understand” is the (unsurprising) height of arrogance (and self-delusion.)
The biggest barrier for professional firms acting like corporate businesses and getting high-level input at senior levels would likely be their (un)willingness to accept advice! Who is going to successfully get the world’s top advice-givers to accept critiques and suggestions that what they are doing could be done another way? Who’s going to tell some of the world’s smartest brains that they have reached a faulty conclusion? Who’s going to get away with doing this more than once, and still be asked back again and again? It’s a very peculiar set of skills to have, and only a (small) subset of top professional firm leaders who would want this on a regular basis. (I don’t think I ever could have got started in this business without the crimson H of Harvard glowing out of my forehead!)
So, should firms have these formal structures? One of my eternal rules is to eagerly look for productive processes, but beware of sticky structures. The key here is to engage in activities (or processes) that get input from fresh perspectives (dinner clubs, mentors in other industries, use of consultants to do make evaluations and recommendations and to do so in such a way that there is a route for the input be surfaced, dealt with and responded to, not just collected and ignored.
However, for me the warning sign would be that if this ever goes beyond being a process (the regular way you do business) and becomes a structure (an board, a committee, a bureaucratic system) then that’s a pretty good sign that you’re only playing games, and its likely to be of limited value. There’s no more certain way to avoid facing hard issues than to form a committee, establish an oversight board, or hire a new executive to a new position who actually cannot influence how the firm actually does things.
One final thought: you may be overestimating the impact of corporate boards. We all know they are not only supposed to provide wisdom to top management, but also to exercise oversight on behalf of the shareholders. So it is, in theory also, with professional firms. Many partnerships, for example, have a board of partners whose job it is to oversee the activities of the firms’ executive. My take is that, most of the time, these are no more and no less effective in controlling management than they are in the corporate sector. And adding outsiders theoretically should give the board more power, but rarely does. It’s usually a well-paid boondoggle for the board member who is expected to behave.
post # 7 — January 26, 2006 — a Client Relations post
There’s an interesting (and very blunt) critique of some marketing materials from big-name law firms like Shearman & Sterling, Bingham McCutchen and Frost Brown Todd at the following site: link
The points he makes are very interesting, but I can tell the author from personal experience that pointing out to important people what their flaws are, even when you’re correct, is not always the way to win their hearts and minds (or their business!)
post # 6 — — a Strategy post
Nicole Munro of Lovells (an eminent UK law firm, if you need to know) asks: “What do you believe are the fundamental changes to the risk profile of those professional firms which are converting/have converted to an LLP?”
The honest truth, Nicole, is that I have not begun to think about this. I hope others will correspond either by posting here or sending private emails. When I have thought my way through to some conclusions, I’ll share them.
Anyone got some initial thoughts to kick off the discussion?
post # 5 — January 25, 2006 — a Managing post
I received this question from a client executive:
One division of our private banking unit is 5 years old, with 7 investment directors and 7 client relationship managers. As we grow we are in the process of dividing the 14 people into 3 sub-groups, each with informal team leaders who support me by helping their team members to be motivated, to fulfill their aims and to solve problems.
As we do this, we want to avoid internal competition between the teams. We want members of each team not only to cooperate within their team, but to be supportive of other teams and to have a feeling that we stand for the same purpose. We also wonder how we should measure the teams, the individual team members and the team leaders to accomplish both small-team performance and group-wide collaboration.
When you get big, it may be necessary to have formality and “official” structures, but it is not clear to me why you need it now. Managing 14 people should be possible without official structures and, as you point out, the minute you draw a circle around a group of people, you automatically get less collaboration across boundaries. Always.
So, I would work hard to make the team assignments feel informal. You want mission-oriented teams, not structurally-defined departments. For example, I would not “publicize” or “publish” any official team metrics, but only discuss performance in private with individuals and small teams, making sure that you insist on making judgments, not just sticking to measures.
In private meetings, you can say “The hard numbers look great but people do not give you great praise for collaboration. Both are important to us. Can we discuss ways to improve? Can you tell me what you have done to help others look good, within your team and outside your team?”
Done this way, here will be little opportunity to play games with the system by trying to look good on fixed metrics, individual or team. Again, the rule – for firms and groups large or small – is: “Avoid ANY fixed system of metrics – always make judgments.”
Your people will not like this. Everyone, especially the quantitative types attracted to banking, wants a precise formula as to how they will be measured and compensated. It is always a mistake to give in to this request. There is no quantitative system that cannot be “gamed.” Some firms like to think that financial measures are “objective,” but that’s a delusion. They are not objective if people are making the numbers look good by hoarding work, failing to share and collaborate and thinking of their own metrics. What’s objective about that?
![cover of David Maister's book, Managing thice Firm](http://davidmaister.com/images/book_covers/mtpsf.gif)
Something else I would try is to make team assignments short term or temporary – rotate people between the teams as the months and years go by, and make sure everyone knows that this will happen. It will be good for their careers (they will be better advisors for having worked in all our areas) and they will have more opportunities to be close to people who were once team members even if they are not now. People collaborate with individuals they trust, and you need to give them repeated experiences of working together, (I wrote about this in the chapter Creating the Collaborative Firm in Managing the Professional Service Firm)
![cover of David Maister's boo What You Preach'](http://davidmaister.com/images/book_covers/pwyp.gif)
Finally, look at the Nine Case-Studies in my book Practice What You Preach for some wonderful examples of how nine managers got teamwork going and built a sense of community (and made lot of money by doing so.) Among the things they did were:
- Arrange a series of group days out of the office (picnics, films, shows)
- Eat lunch together every day as a group.
- Regularly throw a good office party!
- Make sure people believe management is not ONLY out to make a lot of money for themselves.
- Discuss all financials (except salaries) with everyone – open disclosure of how every group is doing.
- Have a bulletin board where you list everything anyone wants to celebrate either for themselves or for someone else.
- Ensure everyone knows why a decision is made.
- Give regular “State of the Union” addresses to the entire firm.
- Have team leaders meet with you regularly to discuss cross-group issues
Does anyone else have ideas about avoiding cross-group competition?
post # 4 — January 23, 2006 — a Strategy post
Ellen Ostrow, who is a coach/consultant with a Ph.D. in psychology sent me this question:
I just came back from a meeting on work/life balance in law firms and had an extended discussion with the managing partner of a large firm. His point of view was essentially that if a firm were to implement work/life policies, profits per partner would go down and as a result big rainmakers would leave, thus devastating the firm.
The discussion was particularly interesting since there were two senior Booz Allen managers present who commented that their business model would never give that kind of power to individuals.
I’m not an economist – not even a lawyer. I’m just trying to understand why all the research on employee satisfaction/engagement resulting in greater profitability does not seem to apply to law firms? Can you please help me understand this?
My own lawyer told me pretty much the same thing, Ellen. “We all know we’re making enough money, but it’s a race to the bottom. We’ve got to keep the average per partner profit going up or the powerful guys and the bright, aggressive young lawyers seeking to get to the top of the profession will leave.”
This all reminds me as nothing so much as a dark ages warlord terrorizing the villagers into compliance, while forcing them to pay tribute or they will be left to defend themselves against the roving bands of rogue bandit knights.
There’s another aspect to this. Lawyers have discovered, like the Dickensian factory owner, that you can, in reality, make a lot of money if you work everybody very, very hard and really slash your costs, and don’t give a gosh-darn about the how people (partners, associates or staff) feel about their work-lives.
But as I analyzed in a 2005 article called Are You Abusive, Cynical or Exciting?, while it’s an approach to riches, it can be proved that it is not the approach to riches. “Let’s succeed by working more hours with ever decreasing amounts of support” is not the most sophisticated piece of business thinking I’ve ever heard. Yet it’s exactly what most law firm partners tell me (and you, Ellen) that their firm is doing.
Why do law firms find it so hard to understand that a feudal warlord system forcing everyone to work harder is not the height of mankind’s achievement in civilization? I have spent twenty years trying to say all professions look similar and can learn from each other, but I’m finally prepared to concede that lawyers are different – and it has nothing to do with economics.
Peter Rouse, a UK legal profession consultant, drew my attention to a fascinating quote from Martin Seligman in his book AUTHENTIC HAPPINESS: “Lawyers are trained to be aggressive, judgmental, intellectual, analytical and emotionally detached. This produces predictable emotional consequences…he or she will be depressed, anxious and angry a lot of the time”
People like that are unlikely to be natural democrats, happy to work in a collaborative society. Depressed, anxious and angry? Sounds like a bunch of feudal villagers (and their oppressors) to me!
It only changes, just as history teaches us, when a courageous William Tell or Joan of Arc rallies the common people and forges them into a principled, mutually committed force that can throw off the oppressor and craft a more civil and economically functioning society. I’m proud to say I’ve played a small part in making that happen in one or two places, and not embarrassed to report that, on other occasions, I have not been invited back because I’m viewed as too disruptive and idealistic. Guilty as charged! I continue to believe there’s a better way, and to believe that lawyers are not condemned to follow the model they currently favor.
![cover of David Maister's co-authored book, Thr](http://davidmaister.com/images/book_covers/ta.gif)
“JAH of Connecticut” submitted this question:
As you mentioned in The Trusted Advisor, trust implies keeping client confidences. In theory, accountants, lawyers and others are also supposed to police the actions of management in the interests of shareholders or the public. But doesn’t doing so necessarily exclude them from being management’s “trusted adviser?”
The responses to Enron and the other scandals has reinvigorated the role of gatekeeper in many professions. Bankers, insurance companies, insurance brokers and agents, investment advisors, and others now have positive obligations to prevent their products and services from being used as instruments of fraud.
There are very few professionals who are so renowned or so essential that they can walk away from the miscreant client or can afford a reputation as a potential fink or “inflexible rule-citer.”
The professional who wants to work with or inside public companies now must be a gatekeeper first and a trusted adviser last. Companies attitudes now are “We used to work together, now the auditors are the policemen/adversaries not consultants/advisors. We don’t share strategies, ideas or proposals with them any more than we would share them with the IRS.”
What does this mean for the professional who is trying to market himself or herself to public companies?
I did address similar concerns as these in my USA Today article “The Auditing Debate” (which is on this website – click here) which came to the conclusion that the gatekeeper and advisory roles are inherently irreconcilable.
However, JAH may be misunderstanding what my co-authors and I meant by being a Trusted Advisor. We did not intend it to mean “I’m exclusively on your side.” A trusted advisor is not some caricature of a mafia consigliere out of the movies – a professional hit man or woman. It means letting your client know when he or she is contemplating something illegal, immoral or just something that will create a bad public image. The key to the role is the skill of doing it so that you actually have influence, and don’t just come across as a nay-sayer.
It means having a big-enough repository of trust so that you can successfully get your client to actually listen to and act on your counsel. As we stress in the book, it is an attitude and a set of skills in helping the client understand options, face reality, and reason through to a sensible decision or conclusion.
And that’s the way you’ve got to market yourself. If you even hint in your marketing that you’re an amoral gunslinger for hire to whoever pays the price, guess who’s going to hire you? The good guys or the bad guys? The only way to avoid the bad guys (ie future troubles) is be clear about the role you’re prepared to play, and what you’re not. And if that loses you business with the bad guys, well, is that good for you or bad for you? Why is it so hard for some professionals and professional firms to understand that there is such a thing as bad business you should not take on?
Yes, it is going to take a lot of courage and self-discipline to do it that way, but it’s the only sensible long-run approach that’s going to keep you out of jail. The lessons of all the scandals (and near-misses that didn’t hit the papers) is neither that we now have more onerous regulation to adhere to, nor that that commercial pressures will continue to be irresistible. The lesson is that it’s just not worth it to play it anything but straight.
I’m afraid that JAH may be right, though. Many professionals are going to continue to get themselves in a LOT of trouble by being afraid to question what their clients are asking them to do, not least because of the financial pressures imposed from firm management. I don’t think we’ve seen the last of the professional service firm provider scandals. He (and many others) think only a special elite can afford to walk.
I disagree— we can’t afford not to. And I still maintain that one of the best ways to avoid the ultimate confrontation is to point out, when appropriate, things like: “What you are suggesting is legally risky, and if you were to take that route anyone in my position would have regulatory obligations to notify the authorities. Let’s keep trying to understand the feasible options and not put you or your company at risk.”
If you can develop – and market – the counseling skills that The Trusted Advisor analyzes, you’re going to have a very healthy book of business — and avoid ending up in either the cell block or at the bottom of the river wearing concrete shoes.
Anyone else out there want to pitch in on this important issue?
post # 2 — January 18, 2006 — a Careers, Strategy post
FORTUNE magazine in its issue dated January 23, 2006 published its annual survey of the 100 best places in America to work.
It is amazing how many professional service firms make the list. Skimming quickly, I noted the following:
Rank |
Firm |
Profession |
11 |
Boston Consulting Group |
Consulting |
12 |
Plante & Moran |
Accounting |
16 |
Edward Jones |
Stock brokerage |
19 |
Alston & Bird |
Law |
20 |
Kinley-Horn & Assoc. |
Engineering |
26 |
Goldman Sachs |
Investment Banking |
31 |
Robert W. Baird |
Investment Advisor |
48 |
Perkins Coie |
Law |
49 |
Nixon Peabody |
Law |
54 |
Arnold & Porter |
Law |
65 |
PCL Construction |
Construction |
66 |
MITRE |
Research |
67 |
Ernst & Young |
Accounting |
70 |
A.G.Edwards |
Brokerage |
71 |
PriceWaterhouse Coopers |
Accounting |
72 |
Booz Allen Hamilton |
Consulting |
80 |
CH2M Hill |
Architecture/Engineering |
82 |
Bingham McCutchen |
Law |
88 |
Morrison & Foerster |
Law |
I know some of these places, and they are very different from each other. Some are the best because of the hard-driving opportunities for achievement they provide. Others, as noted in Geoffrey Colvin’s essay in the magazine, because they allow for “lower hours for lower pay.” There’s clearly more than one definition of “best place to work” going on.
This leads me to wonder whether it is really possible to have a meaningful, consistent definition of “best place to work,”
For example, for a few years before its demise, Arthur Andersen set itself the goal of being a “A Great Place to do Great Work.”
The source of this slogan is perhaps unfortunate but it’s still an intriguing concept. What would make a firm a great place to do great work? Here are some of my hypotheses:
- A high percentage of smart, energetic colleagues (no dummies.)
- A disproportionately high percentage of top-end assignments. (Only bring in challenging work.)
- An A client list. (Refuse to work for the rest.)
- Real mutual support and collaboration among partners (Get rid of the cowboys.)
- Practicing with others who share mutual interests. (Base teams around individual enthusiasms, not dry analytics.)
- Lots of help around (Real coaching from peers and group leaders)
- A willingness by the firm to provide the tools and support needed. (Avoid excessive cost-cutting)
- High standards, enforced with help and discipline. (Acting according to what we preach.)
- A clearly articulated set of values that everyone believes in. (A firm driven by principle, not expediency)
Done well, all of this would create a firm-wide reputation, not dependent on individuals, that would help each person succeed in the marketplace in attracting and executing the best possible, most challenging work.
Only a few of these things are referred to in the Fortune report (although they may exist in the companies named.) What I’m trying to get at here is that “Best Place to Work” is going to mean different things to different people, and we’re going to have to be careful how we throw the term around.
What would you add to the list of characteristics of a great place to work? How well do you measure up?
Most interestingly, anyone want to nominate a firm that meets my standards?
post # 1 — — a General post
The title of my blog derives from a comment made by Tom Peters who observed in his blog that ”…(it’s) interesting how all these gurus—e.g. Stan Davis, Gary Hamel, David Maister—come to put People & Passion first as they age. Hmmm…”
The only element I’ve added is the importance of having principles both in personal and professional life. One way or another, all my research conclusions, consulting advice and speeches come down to passion, people and principles.
I hope to use this blog to share my initial thoughts on new issues that I may, someday, write an article about. I really hope that these thoughts will create dialogues, and not just one-way pontifications. Please participate, by posing challenging new questions and suggesting emerging topics, and perhaps together we can all make progress in our understanding.
By the way, before I launched this blog, my website had an “Ask David” section which allowed visitors to pose questions to me. (The archives are here) I still eagerly solicit your suggestions for blog topics, but I will no longer be responding to questions about topics about which I (or others) have already written extensively. I don’t want this blog to be filled with old answers and old advice.