Is It Ever OK to Recommend a Competitor to Your Client? (Episode 31) Trust Matters,The Podcast

Welcome to the newest episode of Trust Matters, The Podcast. Listeners submit their personal questions about professional relationships, trust, and business situations to our in-house expert Charles H. Green, CEO, Trusted Advisor Associates and co-author of The Trusted Advisor. 

A tech consultant asks, “My boss wants to outsource parts of our client project to several vendors and a competitor. This gives me a gut feeling of being very wrong and deceptive. What should I do?”

Charlie offers insight for leveraging honesty and credibility as well as managing expectations.

And if you want to read more on this topic, here is a recent blog post:

Do you want to send your questions to Charlie & Trust Matters, The Podcast?

We’ll answer almost ANY question about confusing, complicated or awkward business situations with clients, management, and colleagues.

Email: podcast@trustedadvisor.com

We post new episodes every other week.
Subscribe to get the latest 
episodes

Under-Promise and Over-Deliver for Clients? BAD Idea (Episode 30) Trust Matters,The Podcast

For our 30th episode, a tech expert asks if it is a good idea to OVER-DELIVER for a client and exceed their expectations.

This week’s episode touches on our own reputation, business development, and managing client relationships.

To learn more about the topic of managing expectations, read this blog post:

We’ll answer almost ANY question about confusing, complicated or awkward business situations with clients, management, and colleagues.
Email us at: podcast@trustedadvisor.com

We’ll be posting new episodes every other week.

Subscribe to get the latest 
episodes

Are trust-building conversations different for women? In at least one case, absolutely.

We had a really interesting discussion in a team meeting the other day about a trust-building technique that we’ve been espousing for years (one that Charlie Green first wrote about in Trust-Based Selling in 2005 and has been a favorite of mine ever since he taught it to me). We talked about how that technique, when used by women, might unintentionally compromise their trust-building efforts in a big way. This week’s tip digs a little deeper into the issue and proposes a solution that actually applies to women as well as men.

The technique in question is a caveat, which is a short, emotionally honest statement that precedes a tough message—like, “This is awkward …” or, “At the risk of embarrassing myself … ”.

The questions that arose were (1) Can caveats hurt a woman’s credibility and (2) Should women therefore avoid them entirely?

The answers I’ve since come to, thanks to colleague and coach Stewart Hirsch’s thoughtful input based on the work he’s done on implicit bias, is (1) quite possibly, yes, and (2) no.

Caroline Turner, former General Counsel of Coors and author of Difference Works (with whom Stewart has collaborated), helps us understand the why behind both answers.

In Caroline’s article, “Masculine-Feminine Difference: How We Talk,” she describes a masculine-feminine continuum and distinguishes what she calls masculine and feminine language. She reminds us that both men and women operate on both sides of that continuum, and each has its own language. In short, masculine language is marked by declarative statements. Feminine language uses more questions, and, as noted in Caroline’s article, often relies on what Dr. Pat Heim calls disclaimers, hedges and tag questions. Feminine language used in a masculine environment—and vice versa—are where trust issues can arise.

With caveats, which can sound a lot like disclaimers, a more feminine style of speaking could in fact hurt credibility in a more masculine-dominated setting. (A disclaimer has the effect of discounting the message, though that’s not the intent of a caveat.) Examples of problematic caveats in this case include:

  • “I could be wrong …”
  • “I may be missing something …”
  • “I’m not sure how to tell you this …”
  • “At the risk of embarrassing myself …”

Similarly, more masculine-style caveats, like, “You’re not going to like this …” could hurt intimacy in a more feminine-dominated setting. (Side note: I had great difficulty coming up with a lot of masculine-style examples as I am definitely more feminine-style oriented. Suggestions are always welcome.)

The solution is the same for both women and men: know your audience and tailor accordingly. Interestingly, the caveats above could be very effective when applied in the other setting. And when you’re not sure, you could go more neutral:

  • “Heads up …”
  • “I’m not sure how you’re going to react …”
  • “There’s no easy way to say this …”

The solution is definitely not to avoid caveats altogether. That’s because they serve as a warning to the recipient that bad news is on the way, and that warning is an intimacy-builder in and of itself. And intimacy—especially in the face of bad news—is a critical aspect of trust-building for us all.

Should I Start Consulting Or Stay In-House? (Episode 28) Trust Matters, The Podcast

An experienced B2B, technology Product Leader asks, “Should I break out and become a SME Consultant, starting my own practice or should I continue working at bigger companies? What do I need to know about starting my own consulting business?”

Do you want to send your questions to Charlie & Trust Matters, The Podcast?

We’ll answer almost ANY question about confusing, complicated or awkward business situations with clients, management, and colleagues.

Email: podcast@trustedadvisor.com

We’ll be posting new episodes every other week.
Subscribe to get the latest 
episodes

Trust Matters, The Podcast: Can I Trust Digital Marketing for Lead Generation? (Episode 26)

A Co-Founder of a small Management Consulting Firm asks, “We need to grow our sales funnel. Can we trust Digital Marketing and SEO for lead generation?”

For more on this subject read our blog post:

Do you want to send your questions to Charlie & Trust Matters, The Podcast?

We’ll answer almost ANY question about confusing, complicated or awkward business situations with clients, management, and colleagues.

Email: podcast@trustedadvisor.com

We’ll be posting new episodes every other Tuesday.
Subscribe to get the latest 
episodes

Trust Matters, The Podcast: How to Reengage Unresponsive Sales Leads(Episode 25)

A manager at a communications firm writes in and asks “How to you manage qualified sales leads that seem very interested but then go silent? Do you keep reaching out?  Do you try another approach?”

Do you want to send your questions to Charlie & Trust Matters, The Podcast?

We’ll answer almost ANY question about confusing, complicated or awkward business situations with clients, management, and colleagues.

Email: podcast@trustedadvisor.com

We’ll be posting new episodes every other Tuesday.
Subscribe to get the latest 
episodes

Five Short Phrases to Build Relationships: Part 2 of 5

This is the second in a series of five posts on short (seven words or less) powerful phrases. Each phrase distills the essence of a key part of approaching trust-based relationships in business.

Why focus on short phrases like this? Because the concise expression of several emotionally powerful concepts packs a punch. Such phrases feel profound. They catch the listener’s attention. They force the listener to reflect. They are short enough to remember every word, and therefore to resonate in the mind of the listener.

Today’s Phrase: (Four words) 

            “At the risk of…”

What then follows is a short list of your fears about what will happen if you say what you are about to say.  (And usually your fears are shared by the others in the conversation).

When to Use It

  • A key technique for calling out the “elephant in the room,” the thing that everyone is thinking about but no one feels comfortable saying
  • As a way of announcing an emotionally risky statement, thereby defusing the risk.

Examples

  • “At the risk of revealing my complete ignorance about this organization – what does the acronym QRP stand for in this paper?”
  • “At the risk of delving way too deep into personal relationship issues – it feels to me like there’s a bit of a breakdown in communications between you and Susan…”
  • “At the risk of grossly misreading your reaction, Susan, you seemed a little startled by that last part of the conversation?”

Why It Works.

These four little words pack an emotional punch well beyond their weight. They work because of the relationship between Transparency, Vulnerability, and Risk-taking, and because of the power of Ironic Over-statement.

Transparency. The opposite of transparency is opacity. When interactions are opaque, there is room for all parties to imagine all manner of bad motives, monsters lurking under the bed. When someone chooses to be transparent – to reveal their true motives, to shine a light on the ‘monsters’ – we relax. We feel more intimacy with that person, and our mistrust fades away. By speaking of the ‘elephant in the room,’ we deprive the elephant of its emotional power over us.

Vulnerability. By choosing to be the first to challenge the ‘rule’ about not speaking of the elephant, you are overtly taking a risk – the risk that every fear you listed may in fact be true.

      • But paradoxically, stating those very fears out loud in the form of a caveat (“at the risk of…”) robs them of their power – you have already acknowledged out loud the worst of your fears.
      • Having done so, the worst that others can say is, “Well, yes, that does reveal ignorance / get too personal / misread me.” In which case you simply say, “OK, got it, won’t make that mistake again.” You have converted an elephant into a mere checked-as-completed task.

Risk-taking. All trust starts with someone taking the risk. If you always wait for the other person to take the first risk, you are passively defaulting your power (the analogue in sales is “aggressively waiting for the phone to ring”). These four words not only announce your intent to take the first risk, but mitigate the risk you are taking (see the bullet points in ‘vulnerability’ comments above).

Ironic Over-statement. Note the adjectives and adverbs in the examples above: complete ignorance, way too deep, grossly misreading. We all know the lesson of Watergate: the cover-up is always worse than the crime.

By ironically over-stating our fears, we are immunizing ourselves against the Watergate error. No one can mistake your intent for a flimsy excuse, a lame apology, or an almost-but-not-quite admission. It evokes a response of, “All right, OK, we got it, let’s move along” – which is precisely what you want.

 

Next Blogpost:  Short Phrase #3 of 5: “Help me Understand…”

 

 

 

Five Short Phrases to Build Relationships: Part 1 of 5

 

This is the first in a series of five posts on short (seven words or less) powerful phrases. Each phrase distills the essence of a key part of approaching trust-based relationships in business.

Why focus on short phrases like this? Because the concise expression of several emotionally powerful concepts packs a punch. Such phrases feel profound. They catch the listener’s attention. They force the listener to reflect. They are short enough to remember every word, and thus to resonate in the mind of the listener.

Today’s Phrase: (Seven words) 

“I could be wrong about this, but…”

What then follows is an observation, hypothesis, or point of view, that you wish to put forward to your client.

When to Use It

  • When you are attempting to distill key elements of a discussion and move toward framing an issue
  • As a way to establish thought leadership or credentials in a pitch or sales presentation
  • As a way to present an alternative point of view in a conversation.

Examples

  • “I could be wrong about this, but in my several forays into the retail industry, the merchandising function has generally had a pretty powerful voice…”
  • “I could be wrong about this, but my sense is that you may be attributing more energy on this issue coming from Bob than he might have – I wonder if he really cares that much?”
  • “I could be wrong about this, but it strikes me from what you’ve said that the downside risk sounds pretty small compared to the upside benefit…”

Why It Works

This little phraselet triggers four key concepts behind trust-based interactions: Low Self-orientation, Respect, Reciprocity, and Risk.

Low Self-orientation. By explicitly acknowledging up front your possible fallibility, you show that you are willing to subordinate your ego for the greater good of the team (paradoxically demonstrating that you are comfortable enough in your own skin to withstand being perceived as wrong).

Respect. By overtly confessing that you might not be right, you are deferring to the client as a possible arbiter of the real truth. It invites a correction if one exists. At the same time, if the client doesn’t have the right answer, it lets them off the hook, allowing them to save face – because at worst, they are your equal in ignorance.

Reciprocity. Reciprocity is a fundamental dynamic of human relationships, forming the template for such interactions as etiquette, influence, and trust. If you do X first, I will do the same in return. If you listen to me, I will listen to you; if you treat me well, I will treat you well; if you humble yourself to me, I will humble myself to you.

    • In this case, you are offering a gift of sorts – a gift of your insight, presented with humility. The natural reciprocative response is, bare minimum, to consider your gift; and often to, in return, engage in dialogue about the issue you have raised.
    • Note that in this context, it is critical that you really might be wrong, and you know it; the whole thing doesn’t work if you flat-out believe you couldn’t possibly be wrong (in which case you’re being hypocritical), or if there’s really no risk at all to your gift.

Risk. At nearly every point in nearly every relationship, each party fears taking a small risk to go deeper. Short term loss always overwhelms long-term gain in our emotional short-sightedness. But “I could be wrong, but…” says to the other party, “It’s OK – I’ll take the first risk. I’ll test the water, I’ll risk the humiliation – I’ll put myself forward to lessen the risk to you.” And, as per the reciprocity point above, this willingness to take the first risk results – paradoxically – in greater willingness of the other person to join you.

Next Blogpost:  Short Phrase #2 of 5: “At the risk of…”

Trust Matters, The Podcast: Trusting a Team Member on a High-Profile Project (Episode 19)

Podcast: EmbedSubscribe to TrustMatters, The Podcast Android | RSS