Posts

Serving To Win

/17 Comments/in /by

Which of these statements resonates more with you?

1. I try to win, because losing sucks.

2. I try to serve my clients, because then I win too.

3. I try to serve my clients, which generally works out best for me as well.

If you chose #1, OK, I get it, I like competing as much as the next guy, but come back another time, we’re not talking to you today.

Today we’re talking about service, winning, and the link between them.

Do you serve to win? Does serving cause winning? Or is winning an occasional byproduct of serving?

What it comes down to is: Why are you serving?

Does Doing Good Cause Doing Well?

There’s a myth being perpetuated by well-intended, wishful-thinking, creative, holistic people out there: the myth that if you do right, you absolutely will do well.

In its more extreme forms, this belief would suggest that all highly ethical and socially responsible companies always make more money, every quarter.

Of course, there’s no shortage of cynical, embittered, hard-bitten “realists” who just can’t wait to whump the idealists upside the head with a good “oh-yeah-take-Bernie-Madoff” or two.

Who’s right?

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Social scientists and game theorists are enamored of The Prisoner’s Dilemma, a two-person game about cooperation and competition. In each game, each player can choose to cooperate or compete.

  • If one chooses to cooperate and the other to compete, the cooperator gets 10 years in prison, while the competitor goes free.
  • If they each choose to compete, they each get 5 years in prison.
  • If they each choose to cooperate, they each get 6 months in prison.

The person economists assume we all are—rational maximizer of self-interest—will rationally choose to compete. So will his competitor. Boom.

That approach sums up approach number 1—play to win. Turns out that businesspeople in controlled tests of prisoner’s dilemma strongly favor approach number one; it fits with what they learned in business school, be number 1 or 2 in your market, competitive advantage, etc.

In a connected world: boom. So much for statement number 1 at the outset of this post. Because in the real world, prisoner’s dilemma doesn’t just get played once.

Playing the Game More than Once

Part of the “trick” of prisoner’s dilemma is to play it more than once. Over time, the optimal strategy turns out to be “tit for tat,” i.e. assume the other party will cooperate, and do likewise. This generally ends up in iterative decisions to cooperate, with only occasional breakdowns of order.

But why do people continue to choose “cooperate?” Is it because the economists are right, and we’re all rational maximizers of self-interest who look at the long run? Do we calculate the odds and figure that the net present value of cooperating is greater than that of competing? Turns out it’s a little murkier than that.

Playing the Game With More Than One Player

In addition to frequency, the game is affected by participation. If there are high levels of information, visibility and interaction about how other players are engaging in the same game, then the cooperation strategy becomes even more dominant. There are fewer defectors from the cooperative strategy trying to squeeze in that last little bit of competitive edge.

Fewer Madoffs.

But: if you have more people choosing to tweak those odds, looking for just the right moment to sucker-punch the other guy after having lulled them into somnolence by a series of apparently cooperative gestures, looking to gain that final advantage—then the system starts to fall apart.

Why We Play the Game Matters

Prisoner’s dilemma is a pretty good metaphor for life. The economists’ fiction of individual actors is just that—a fiction. Francis Fukuyama puts it this way in The Origins of Political Order:

It is in fact individualism and not sociability that developed over the course of human history. That individualism seems today like a solid core of our economic and political behavior is only because we have developed institutions that override our more naturally communal instincts. Aristotle was more correct…when he said that human beings were political by nature.

The only serious debate is between statements two and three. Do you cooperate to win? Or do you cooperate because—that’s what you do? It’s the latter attitude, held by enough people over a long enough time period, that drives economic wealth.

  • A business strategist who advises any given company to be socially responsible because they’ll make more money that way is detracting, not contributing, to social responsibility;
  • An investor looking for socially responsible companies solely in order to make more money on their investment is a risk-seeking investor;
  • A society of people who cooperate “in order to win” is in trouble.

The Paradox of Trust

Belief number two—serving your clients because that way you win—is ultimately self-defeating. Because if “to win” is your ultimate goal, you’ll sooner or later end up facing a situation where you have to choose between serving and winning. And you’ll choose winning.

And then people will stop trusting you. And that disease is communicable.

Two variables make it all work: time, and numbers. Play the game enough times, with enough players, and it works. Where it goes wrong is when we:

  • Start managing to quarterly earnings
  • Start analyzing performance metrics in the short term
  • Analyze individual psychology outside of group psychology
  • Use the language of self-interest instead of group interest.

The paradox is: economics work if we justify it ethically. But if we try to justify ethics economically, it all falls apart. Beware of those who justify ethical behavior by the bottom lines.

Answer three—serve your clients because things generally work out better that way—is the “right” answer for all of us. If we remember to keep it long-term, and keep it social, then it works.

Help, Leadership and Teamwork

/8 Comments/in , /by

“I helped Maia and Maia helped me”… was the breathless comment of a three year old at the end of a very successful Easter egg hunt recently; she had formed a partnership with an equally ambitious four year old egg-hunter to be clear winners in the task of finding (and consuming!) as many Easter eggs as possible.

At the other end of the age spectrum, a Chief Operating Officer said to me last week that senior leadership relationships in his organization were improving through an increased readiness to approach colleagues with the simple request, ‘I need some help. Please do me a favour.’ It had not been easy to start to do this, he pointed out, because it had implied a declaration of vulnerability but the results were making it most worthwhile.

As leaders strive to build the agile, trust-based cultures that fuel the quality conversations – strategic, creative, curious, experimental – needed to generate breakthrough ideas and breakthrough execution, I notice them using more and more the language and approaches of ‘help.’ Are you noticing this too?

Thinking About Helping

If so, we might turn to Ed Schein’s 2009 book Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help. Schein suggests ‘what we think of as effective teamwork, collaboration and co-operation can all be understood best as consistent effective mutual helping.’ He defines teamwork as ‘a state of multiple reciprocal helping relationships including all members of the group that have to work together. Building a team therefore is not just creating one client/helper relationship but simultaneously building one among all the members.’

Schein points out the many challenges involved in giving and receiving help. As receivers of help, we can often feel diminished or ‘one down’ when offered help. As givers of help, we must consciously pause and turn away from what seems to be most pressing at the time in what are often very busy, hectic lives.

Principles of Helping

Three principles and tips stand out from Schein’s advice to leaders:

  1. Task interdependence is the foundation of strong mutual helping relationships. Maia of the Easter egg hunt understood perfectly that she and her little friend had better chances working together than did others searching on their own. Similarly, a VP of Sales and a VP of Operations in an IT Services company have formed a very strong ‘helping’ relationship around the challenging task of entering a new market. Schein argues that, without these mutually important tasks, it is very difficult to form strong ‘helping’ relationships. He zeroes in on the importance of solicited, specific, descriptive and goal-related feedback–enabling colleagues to become more helpful.
  2. The strongest helping relationships occur when both giver and receiver are ready, and the relationship is equitable. He urges the giver of help to check whether the person she wants to help is ready and able to receive it; and the receiver to give regular feedback on what is and is not helpful—in particular, being clear when help is no longer required.
  3. Effective helping starts with pure inquiry, a strong effort to understand and empathise with the needs of the person requiring help. No matter how clear the request for help, he urges us to pause and reflect, truly to listen, and to challenge our own assumptions. This is particularly important at the beginning of a helping relationship because it enhances the status of the one being helped, and maximises the information available to the helper.

The Trust Equation and Helping

The Trust Equation supplements Schein’s notions as a strong frame for effective helping relationships. To be truly helpful to you, I focus on your needs, not mine (low Self-orientation); you are safe raising any issue you wish with me, and I will engage with you at both emotional and rational levels (high Intimacy); when you ask for advice, I will be clear and truthful (high Credibility); and you can rely on me to be available to you when needed (high Reliability).

I recently saw one CEO commit to his organization to:

  1. Encourage open feedback across my leadership team about the pursuit of the team’s collective and individual goals. Above all, cultivate a readiness in the team to say ‘I am not sure’, ‘I need some thoughts on this one’, ‘This is not quite going as we would wish it to.’
  2. Adopt an even more inquiring approach with my colleagues, really listening in order to understand their needs for help, and challenging my own assumptions about what I think they need.
  3. Check in regularly on what help is needed and how this is changing.
  4. Invite help myself, showing my own vulnerability as a result. Acknowledge my own deficit of understanding and knowledge in numerous matters.

He will help his organization and his organization will help him. Just like the Maia egg-hunting partnership.

Upcoming Events and Appearances: Trusted Advisor Associates

/0 Comments/in /by

Join us at one or more upcoming Trusted Advisor Associates events. This Spring, we’ll be hosting and participating in events in Cambridge, MA; Boston, MA; London, England; Washington DC and through globally accessed webinars.

Also, a word about the Trusted Advisor Mastery Program.

—————————————-

Fri. May 6th Cambridge, MA Charles H. Green

Charlie Green will be a panelist at the Sloan Sales Conference, today, at MIT.

 

Wed. May 18th Boston, MA Stewart Hirsch

Stewart Hirsch will be a guest lecturer at Emerson College, speaking on “Becoming a Trusted Advisor.” The class to which Stewart will be addressing is a part of a professional services marketing course taught by Prof. Silvia Hodges, Ph.D.

 

Tues. & Wed. May 24th-25th London, England Julian Powe & Charles H. Green

In a highly interactive, practical and lively day-and-a-half program, TAA will be offering the opportunity to accelerate your professional growth, identify and strengthen the outstanding practice you already have, and address areas for improvement. This is the first time these two extraordinary presenters have offered this program together! Our early-booking price for the program will be $2200, with discounts available for group participation. For more information or to register contact Julian Powe or Tracey Del Camp, respectively.

 

Wed. July 20th Washington, DC Andrea P. Howe
(Rescheduled) Andrea will be speaking at the Washington DC Chapter of the Project Management Institute (Reston Luncheon) on “Trust and Influence: What Every Successful Project Manager Needs to Know.” 11:30am. Registration information to be announced soon. PDUs will be available for Project Management Professionals (PMPs).

 

Wed. Aug. 24th Washington, DC Andrea Howe
Andrea will be speaking at the Washington DC Chapter of the Project Management Institute (Washington Circle Luncheon) on “Trust and Influence: What Every Successful Project Manager Needs to Know.” 2101 L Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC. 11:30am. Registration information to be announced soon. PDUs will be available for Project Management Professionals (PMPs).

——————————-

The first tranche of the Trusted Advisor Mastery Program has completed the 19 modules in the program, individual coaching calls and its third group call, and the members have agreed to keep up lively discussions on the online Forum. Here’s what one participant has to say about the program:

“The Trusted Advisor Mastery Program delivered professional and personal results beyond expectations. The first coaching call was worth the whole price of admission.” (Virginia Sambuco, Sr. Director Marketing Services, Enterprise Solutions, Harland Clarke, San Antonio, TX)

To be notified of the next available program, email us at: [email protected].

Valuable Content Award Winners Announced

/3 Comments/in /by

One of the hot issues on the web these days (along with curation and inbound marketing) is content. Actually, other than a short period where portals ruled the headlines, I’m not sure if “content” ever really went out of vogue.

In any case, friend across the pond Sonja Jefferson runs Valuable Content. They do website development—but with an avowed focus on content. As they put it, they develop “websites rich with content customers appreciate that consistently generate qualified leads.”

Which, come to think of it, also has to do with curation and inbound marketing.

Anyway, they have recently initiated the Valuable Content Awards; here are this month’s five winners:

The Payroll Services Centre—yes, payroll services. At Payroll-Services-Center.co.uk

Bryony Thomas, a marketing consultant, at http://www.bryonythomas.com/

Heather Townsend, an all-things-networking business at JoinedUpNetworking.com

Formicio, an IT transformation and innovation consultancy, at www.Formicio.com

Oh yeah and a little business called Trusted Advisor Associates got one too. We are grateful.

Thanks to Sonja (@sonjajefferson) and Sharon (@sjtanton), Mick and Eli for doing the heavy lifting to put the awards program together. Good content deserves recognition.

 

 

Lessons in Leadership and the Three Umpires

/6 Comments/in /by

This is one of my all-time favorite stories. Three umpires (baseball, for our international readers) were talking about how they make calls on each pitch.

The first umpire said: “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them like they is.”

Umpire number two said: “No, there’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call ’em like I see ’em.”

But it’s umpire number three that I like. He said: “There’s balls and there’s strikes, but they ain’t nothin’ until I call them.”

The Third Ump

What sets umpire number three apart? First, he understands that distinguishing a strike from a ball is fundamentally a judgment call. Television’s K-zone aside, it’s his job as the umpire to set a strike zone, to watch the pitches and declare where each pitch sails: inside, outside, high, low, or right down Broadway.

Second, he knows the integrity of the game depends on his certainty in his calls. The pitches really aren’t anything until he makes his pronouncement, and he has the courage of his convictions.

Lessons in Leadership

And how does the third umpire tie into leadership? A good leader does the following:

  1. Knows that a lot of decisions are in fact judgment calls, and is willing and able to make them – command presence.
  2. Provides clear and concise direction.
  3. Demonstrates passion and yes, courage of her or his convictions.
  4. Sets a fair and consistent “strike zone” and applies that to everyone.

The third ump, or the good leader, isn’t arrogant, non-collaborative or deaf to others. The good leader is willing to take on the tough responsibility of setting priorities, being clear in direction and demonstrating the passion to get others believing in the vision.

PS: For a great real-life story of courage and leadership, read Mike Myatt’s great piece.

Books We Trust: You’re Working Too Hard to Make the Sale

/5 Comments/in /by

This is the first in a new series called Books We Trust. We expect to publish it irregularly, but about monthly.

The first book was a no-brainer for me. You’ve probably never heard of it; it was not a best-seller; it ranks about 900,000 on Amazon (not high). But I’m telling you; it is a wonderful book. It’s called You’re Working Too Hard to Make the Sale, by Bill Brooks and Tom Travisano.

—–

I came late to the study of sales (though early, and miserably, to selling itself). None of it made much sense to me—it all seemed either excessively hormonal, abstract, or manipulative. It all felt vague—a feast of gratuitous adjectives and amateur psychology.

I persisted, reading books I won’t mention, which only made it worse. Then one day, I ran across You’re Working Too Hard , by two folks I’d never heard of.

It made everything click for me. Suddenly I could make sense of trust, influence, psychology, money, fear, and closing.

One of the points that book made was that the concept of “needs” had gotten over-used. Everyone, they said, was focused on identifying needs and generating a complete picture of what the clients needed so that they could consultatively package and sell a solution that fit the specs of what the client really needed.

I had always felt something was lacking in that formulation (years later, John Caddell wrote, “No one ever bought a value proposition”), putting more words to my feeling—but that was later). Brooks nailed it down, with page after page making fun of the penchant for identifying needs.

It was “wants,” he insisted, that motivated buying behavior, not needs. Needs included toothpaste, bicycles, audits and CRM systems. But wants—that was different: wants included a myriad of hopes, wishes, fears, desires and aspirations. If a seller could connect on that level, the story went, buyers would transfer the purchase of their “needs” to those who had made the wants connection.

The data were astonishing. Travisano in particular—a former political consultant and pollster, I believe—had crafted the research to explore exactly that thesis. And, they’d done it across several relevant business sectors, including CEOs of small entrepreneurial companies and CIOs.

I knew how serious, educated people made big dollar decisions for serious investments in major services, and the rational, deductive model of decision-making that I had been taught simply did not bear resemblance to the undeniable parade of actual decisions I had seen. This book explained it.

And the punch line was marvelous: you didn’t have to satisfy people’s wants to get the sale—who would believe a salesperson could deliver on a buyer’s wishes, needs, hopes fears and aspirations? It was enough that you connected; that they felt understood, that someone “got” who they were. That, the research said, powerfully drove sales.

It was a eureka book for me. It meant you could be a real, genuine, flawed, warts-and-all human being—and still sell. As long as you could connect to the real person on the other side of the table. Faking it did not work; self-obsession did not work; the answer didn’t lie in process, or in mastery of closing lines, or even of the collection of questions and needs. It lay in understanding the human being in front of you. Suddenly I liked selling.

Co-author and researcher Tom Travisano died a few weeks after the first edition; lead author and more famous sales consultant Bill Brooks carried on with The Brooks Group in North Carolina. Brooks himself passed on in 2007, but his company is aggressively continuing, even prospering, through the efforts of his sons Jeb and Will.

I spoke with Jeb recently.

——–

CHG: This book was one of the top three sales books I ever read, and the one that had the most impact on me. How did your dad come to write it?

JB: First, we’re touched; thank you. Dad wrote over 20 books, but we always thought this one was the sleeper. He wrote them all longhand, on yellow pads, by the way. This was maybe the 6th or 7th book for him. It was released twice, first in 1995, then 2005.

I was young when I first read it. I thought, “What’s the big deal?” It seemed so commonsense, so obvious.

CHG: I had that feeling too just recently, re-reading it. But at the time, for me, I had to work at it to get it. It sounded simple—maybe I just couldn’t accept that it really was that simple.

JB: Dad said that back then, everyone was focused on needs, needs, needs. He made a lot of fun of “needs-based selling” in that book. He felt that Frank Bettger had it right years before—the idea that if you could show people what they really wanted, they’d move heaven and earth to get it. When dad got together with Tom Travisano, a skilled political researcher, they set out to prove it, and to prove that the dominant needs-based sales mantra missed the boat.

CHG: I still hear a lot of focus on needs; this book needs a rebirth. I always remember how they collapsed the key insight into one critical sentence: “Buyers are eager to buy what they need from salespeople who understand what they want.” Almost every word in that sentence is significant.

JB: Other insights included “People buy the salesperson, not the product,” and “the opening is where the sale is made, not the closing.”

CHG: And the research is solid; thousands of buying situations, blinded studies, both complex and simple B2B products and services. But let me ask you; in today’s sales 2.0 world, do you think his findings about buyer motivation are less relevant, or perhaps more?

JB: Without a doubt—even more relevant. In Sales 2.0, the buyer is supposed to be in control, and that’s true—but the buyer still doesn’t know what they want. If anything, they’re more confused by all the data, because they think they should know. So because it’s easier nowadays to find all your needs, that means it’s even more important to find someone you trust, who understands your wants.

I recently had to buy a health care plan for our business, and it was tough. I didn’t know much, and I didn’t want to do the wrong thing, I didn’t want to upset people, and so on. In fact, I had a lot of wants. And guess who I went with? The person who worked hard to find out what I wanted, without making me feel stupid. And you know what? That is just, plain, simple how it works. That’s what dad and Tom said so clearly. It sounded so obvious not because it was obvious—they had to uncover the truth to say it so plainly.

CHG: How do you and your brother think about that book these days, besides being proud of it?

JB: We live the values he talked about: Integrity and Intense Customer Focus. We’re a sales-driven company, meaning we deliver on buyer wants. And that’s what he talked about.

We Want Your Stories in Our Book: Enter the Trusted Advisor Fieldbook Story Contest

/2 Comments/in /by

As announced two weeks ago, we (Andrea P. Howe and Charles H. Green) are writing a book, The Trusted Advisor Fieldbook, to be published by Wiley Books in November. True stories are a critical part of a practical book like that, and we’ve got a ton.

But we’re still short 3-5 stories: namely, the top 3-5 stories from you, the thoughtful and insightful readers of Trust Matters.

So we’re announcing a small contest–please send us Your Great Story about trust in business or organizations. See guidelines below.

If you’re in the Top 3-5, we’ll include your story (mentioning you as source, of course) in the book. In addition to Everlasting Fame, you’ll get a full set of all Charlie’s books, autographed, including the new Trusted Advisor Fieldbook (autographed by both Charlie and Andrea).

If we don’t choose your trust story as among the Top 3-5, we’ll still enter you in a drawing for a free copy of The Trusted Advisor Fieldbook; we will give out one free book for every seven entrants. And even more still, submitted stories that do not get chosen for the book may still get published in the blog Trust Matters.

We realize those are not great extrinsic motivators; the main reason you’d contribute is to share your insights with others. We’d like to get you a great audience for your story that you might not otherwise receive.

———–

Guidelines for Entries:

1. Deadline for entries is 9PM EST, May 13, 2011

2. Send your story in any digital format to ahowe-at-trustedadvisor-dot-com

3. Your story should be no longer than 400 words.

4. The story should be about an experience that you personally had or witnessed–no re-hashes of previously published stories.

5. Subject matter: Any story reflecting an aspect of trust in business or organizational life. Settings could include sales, customer relationships, internal politics, recruiting, reputation–to name a few. Subjects could include trust and risk, trustworthiness, trusting and not trusting, the trust equation components, the process of trust creation, trust recovery–to name a few. For further examples, take a quick skim through back blogposts on Trust Matters, like here, and here, and here, and here, and here.

6. We may (probably will) further edit any stories you provide, but we will review those edits with you; we will only publish what you’re comfortable with.

You’ve been part of our blog for so long; now be part of our book.

 

Real People, Real Trust: A CEO You Should Know

/35 Comments/in /by

Chip Grizzard (@chipgrizzard)is the CEO of Grizzard Communications Group, a nonprofit marketing and fundraising agency. Chip is the fourth-generation member of the Grizzard family to work at the 91-year-old company. Discover Chip’s candid replies to questions about what it really takes to be a Trusted Advisor and how to create a company that leads with trust, every day.

Seven Key Traits of a Trusted Advisor

I first met Chip in January of this year when he brought me in to teach his top 35 leaders about Trust-Based Selling. It was clear from the moment we met that he’s a very principled man with a real commitment to being the kind of leader that others want to follow.

When I interviewed Chip for this article, I asked him what he sees as the fundamental attributes of a Trusted Advisor. His answers highlighted seven key traits:

  1. Keep your promises. “You gotta do what you say you’re going to do. So many times people will casually say, ‘I’ll send you that’ or ‘I’ll call you about this.’ I routinely make mental notes about how often people follow through on their promises. It’s about 50% of the time or less. That drives me nuts and definitely impacts my perception of someone else’s trustworthiness, so I work hard to be sure I keep my promises. I watch my words a lot and don’t make off-hand comments. If I say it, I’ll write it down or get a text message to help me remember. And then I’ll do it.”
  2. Focus on others’ success. “The only way I’m successful is if I make others successful. You can’t fake caring about what others think or what’s important to them.”
  3. Stay in it for the long haul. “You can’t look for a short-term gain; you have do to what’s right for the long-term. We have a 60-year client relationship in one case; other clients have been with us 20 and 30 years. This is unheard of in our industry. We give them all we have and they know we’re in it with them.”
  4. Treat people right. “It really is so simple. Just treat people right. It doesn’t get any simpler. If you do that, then great things happen. The day we’re fired from one client is the day we start working to rebuild that relationship and win that business back. We always end a relationship as positively as we can. Any time you take a hard approach, you burn a bridge. Some agencies in our space take the harder approach. They carry that with them forever. We always strive to be fair—to ourselves as well as our clients.”
  5. Persevere. “It might take ten years to fix something, or to win someone’s business. So be it.”
  6. Never compromise. “Compromise is not negotiable. It’s not even something I think about. Our industry is very small and people move around a lot. News travels fast about how you treat others. Personal integrity matters.”

Here’s the seventh, which I’m adding to the list on Chip’s behalf:

  1. 7. Modesty. Chip didn’t speak of this trait directly; he demonstrated it. At the beginning of our interview, this very confident and highly successful leader said, “I hope I can help you. Please don’t feel like you have to use my answers if I don’t give you exactly what you need.” An hour after the interview was over, he emailed me a note to thank me for my time.

Moments of Truth

I asked Chip to talk about tough times in Grizzard’s very long history of exemplary client relationships. He shared one particularly poignant story.

“We made a big mistake once. Our client had big media plan that coincided with our direct mail drop. Because of our mistake, the mail arrived in homes before the big media push. In the client’s mind, this hurt results. He called and said, ‘This is very disappointing. We’ve done all this planning and you’ve let us down.’ I asked him what would make him feel like we addressed the situation to his satisfaction. He said, ‘I don’t think we should pay for this mailing.’

“There was a fair amount of money at stake. Right away, I said, ‘No problem, done.’ As painful as it was, it was the right thing to do. Ten years later, he’s still a client, despite having moved around to different organizations and locations. And every time I see him—every time—he says, ‘Do you remember when we had the problem with that mail drop and you took care of it?’ It had a huge impact on him, and he became a lifelong client as a result.”

Creating a Culture of Trust

Grizzard was recently named “Top Workplaces 2011” in Atlanta. The evaluation for the program was based on feedback from a survey that 94% of Grizzard employees completed (exceeding the average company response of 55%). This top honor is a direct result of the honest feedback in a number of areas related to Grizzard’s culture, such as organizational values, strategic vision, leadership, operations, pay and benefits and overall work environment and experience.

I asked Chip to share any advice he has for executives who are trying to create a culture of trust in their organizations. His response boiled down to one thing: being a strong role model. And from Chip’s perspective, it starts with him.

A Matter of Personal Integrity

“I never send a mixed signal related to integrity; my staff never sees me do it one way this way this time and another way another other time. Some people try to play both sides of the fence—to turn on the relationship charm and do the right thing at some points. But it’s not a part-time thing. You have to live it every day. It has to be real. And it’s not just a business thing.

“I just came back from a client conference where I saw people doing great things with clients during the day and crazy stuff at night with colleagues. Even if clients don’t see that, well, then your co-workers doubt your character. You can’t turn it on and off. You have to be consistent all the time—in your personal life, your social life, your professional life. I talk to my staff when I see them doing things outside of work that leave me concerned. Integrity applies to all aspects of your life.”

Teachable Moments

Chip made mention of a discussion his leaders were having during the program I led on Trust-Based Selling for Grizzard. The question on the table was, are there ever times when you shouldn’t tell a client the whole truth? Chip was in the room at the time (role modeling that he, too, had things to learn and it was worth his time to spend two days in a classroom). He reminded me what he said that day.

“My answer to that was simple: If you’re expending any energy on the debate, then it probably means you already have your answer about whether or not it crosses the line. I said it that day in front of all 35 of my leaders in the room, and since then I’ve heard two people repeating the same thing when talking to their staff. Teaching moments are key to living our values and our culture. They start with me.”

Recovering from Mistakes

I asked Chip what happens when he makes a mistake. Here’s what he said:

“I hope I’m not making a lot of integrity mistakes. I might make mistakes on how we’ve resolved a particular situation. In that case, I look back and acknowledge it, and apologize if necessary. I own it, try to explain it, and try to rebuild the relationship. I put in the time, the work, and the commitment to turning a situation around.”

Going the Distance

Chip is not only a leader with an impressive track record; he’s also an endurance athlete with a long list of sports accomplishments. Chip has competed in over 100 triathlons, including the Hawaii Ironman and Escape from Alcatraz Triathlon. I asked him what connections he saw between his athletic efforts and his success as a leader. His answer was inspiring:

“It’s very easy to not want to get up at 4 a.m. and go workout sometimes. If I stay up too late and do something dumb and I’m in the middle of training for an event, well, I get my butt out of bed and go suffer (laughing). On the endurance sports side, my work ethic and my passion make a difference for me. The same is true on the business side.”

May we all have the wisdom and tenacity to walk a mile—or run 26.2—in Chip Grizzard’s shoes.

Connect with Chip Grizzard on Twitter and LinkedIn.

—————————————————

This is the first blog in a series on Real People, Real Trust—an insider view into the challenges, successes, and make-it-or-break-it moments of people from all corners of the world who are walking the talk of a Trusted Advisor. Know someone you’d like to nominate to be featured in our next article? Email Andrea Howe.

Doctors and Lawyers: Consumers, Patients and Clients

/5 Comments/in /by

Q. What do Paul Krugman (Nobel-prize-winning economist) and Scott Greenfield (criminal defense attorney) have in common?

A. Both are occasionally wrong, but never in doubt.

Q. What’s the difference between Paul Krugman and Scott Greenfield?

A. In the recent case of markets and professional ethics, one of them is wrong—and it’s not Krugman.

 

Krugman recently wrote in his NY Times column a piece called Patients Are Not Consumers, about how doctors and medicine (and patients) are being degraded by a simplistic emphasis on market ideology to the exclusion of ethics. Krugman is more right than wrong in this timely piece.

Politicians and supposed reformers talk about the act of receiving care as if it were no different from a commercial transaction, like buying a car — and their only complaint is that it isn’t commercial enough.

Krugman isn’t saying health care isn’t commercial; he’s saying it’s not only commercial.

Greenfield attempts to hijack the medical metaphor on behalf of lawyers in a post called Take the Lead, saying that lawyers and the law (and legal clients) are also being degraded by a simplistic emphasis on market ideology.

But Greenfield, by contrast, is more wrong than right. He confuses professionalism with witch-doctoring, and does his cause no good.

Doctors, Patients and Consumers

Market-as-solution is increasingly being exposed as an imperfect ideology except on the political fringes. (You could say that about government-as-solution too, but it’s a straw dog with no teeth—socialists are polling badly in the US these days).

This is legislatively relevant today, as Krugman points out, in the program put forth most recently in Congressman Ryan’s economic proposal. Here’s Krugman:

The idea that all this can be reduced to money — that doctors are just people selling services to consumers of health care — is, well, sickening. And the prevalence of this kind of language is a sign that something has gone very wrong not just with this discussion, but with our society’s values.

Krugman is an economist; but one who does not believe homo sapiens is equivalent to homo economicus. He’s an economist who believes in ethics, which makes him both interesting and relevant in my book.

Of course, that’s not the whole story. There are reasonable claims to be made for consumerism in healthcare. HBS’s Regina Herzlinger has for years argued—very cogently, e.g. in Who Killed Health Care?–that the entire US system desperately needs more consumer–and market–orientation. As someone with recent experiences of loved ones in hospitals I can attest to the need for intelligent process design and change management skills.

Yet Krugman’s no absolutist. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to find that he’s familiar with Herzlinger’s work and that he favors it. He doesn’t say that health care isn’t commercial—just that it’s not only commercial.

He’s talking about the excess that comes not from reasonable people applying reasonable market principles but from ideologues.

Lawyers, Clients and Consumers

Which brings us to Mr. Greenfield. Trying to hitch a ride on Krugman, he says, “Doctors don’t have consumers. They have patients. Lawyers don’t have consumers. We have clients.”

“All marketers lie,” according to Greenfield, “because without lies they would get no leads.” Which may be your first tip that we’re in true-believer territory.

In particular, Greenfield finds the term “leads” a morally offensive term.

“…I was offended by his characterizing clients as leads, that this was a marketing term and it fundamentally conflicted with what lawyers do. Lawyers do not seek ‘leads,’ I told him. We seek clients. I thought it was outrageous.

“We don’t sell used cars. We are responsible for people’s lives. We used to be, anyway. And people who are responsible for the lives of others don’t think of them as leads or consumers.”

Witch-Doctoring

When someone starts talking about being “responsible for the lives of others,” get your megalomania sniffer out. Greenfield’s parallel here isn’t with doctoring—it’s with witch-doctoring.

In my experience, most law firms are still a long way from being touched by market forces, much less dominated by them. The idea that marketing is in fundamental conflict with client service makes as much sense as an Ayn Rand Daycare Center.

Krugman integrates ethics and economics. Greenfield is anti-integration when it comes to law and economics—there can be no compromise with the devil. Such intolerance, I find, is closely correlated with cases of the Hammer-Nail Syndrome.

The Hammer-Nail Syndrome

All professions are prone to the hammer-nail syndrome; if I own a hammer, you must be a nail. And Greenfield is a poster child. Consider a case from his own files.

You may recall about 18 months ago Tiger woods got into major PR trouble for backing a car out of his driveway and allegedly being on the wrong end of a 3-iron from his wife? Greenfield’s advice at the time was crystal-clear (as always—sometimes wrong, never in doubt):

“Even worse than the civil lawyer is the flack, whose only concern is how things will play out in the media. ‘But it won’t look good for you if you don’t meet with the police, Tig.’ And it won’t look good if he’s arrested based on his statements to the police either, but the latter will go on much longer than the former. Flacks tend to be more concerned with appearance than reality. [italics added]”

In Greenfield’s world-view, Woods should have ignored the PR “flacks” around him and immediately gotten not just a lawyer, but a good criminal defense attorney. Because what ol’ Tiger had was not a communications problem, but a legal problem.

Really, Scott? Is that how we’ll remember the Tiger Woods fiasco—as a case in criminal law? Would you have coached him to just say, “I didn’t do anything illegal, I didn’t break any laws?”

Being blinded by antipathy to marketing means you can’t see a marketing issue when it hits you like, well, a hammer in the head.

What Real Professionalism Looks Like

This is not what real professionalism looks like. The legal profession should reject the ‘high-priest slash witch doctor’ view of the law as being apart from the rest of human commerce, just as I think Krugman does.

Professionalism must include ethics. To me, that means treating our clients and patients as intelligent equals in a joint search to make things better in their part of the world. Your expertise is not a license to bloviate, much less to be respected for doing so. Your expertise is an attribute that, if you treat clients decently, will be perceived as such and rightly so.

That means—let me spell it out—if you’re not proactively seeking opportunities to improve the world via your expertise, then you’re not behaving as a professional.

  • If you have a cure for smallpox and you just sit in your office aggressively waiting for the phone to ring from enlightened smallpox victims—you’re unprofessional. Go look for “leads,” preferably in places where you’re likely to find smallpox victims. You might save some lives.
  • If you’re a lawyer doing corporate work for a client and you see a real estate issue, but choose not to mention it because ‘you don’t sell’—you’re unprofessional. That’s a ‘lead’ and you’re not unethical for pursuing it—you’re unethical if you don’t.
  • If you refuse to treat your client or patient as an intelligent adult consumer by insisting they first respect you for your black-robed witch-doctor status—you’re unprofessional. Go look for leads, defined as people whom you can help. Don’t demand respect; earn it.

Scott says he’s responsible for his clients’ lives. I suggest that’s a bad rule for the rest of us.

We’re not responsible for our clients’ lives; they are. Our job is to help them—not live their lives for them.

Asking for Fees and Root Canals

/14 Comments/in /by

When my coaching client Craig returned from the dentist following his unexpected root canal, he didn’t complain about the pain. It was the sign in the reception area that got him: “Payment Expected at the Time Services are Provided.”

“I was wondering why the dentist doesn’t have any trouble insisting I pay him now,” he told me. What he didn’t understand is why some lawyers and consultants, including him, feel they have to tip-toe around the issue of discussing and collecting fees.

There are plenty of other professionals who don’t have trouble asking for fees. Think about those in medicine, and people like the snow plower, your car mechanic, real estate broker, plumber and your electrician.

What’s So Hard About Asking?

Why is it that lawyers, consultants and others often have so much difficulty talking about fees? Why is it that with us, we act like we’d rather get a root canal than discuss fees? Clients expect us to be assertive when helping them – so why do we dance around when it comes to talking about fees?

How To Make it Easier

Here are three tips that just might help you ask for and collect client fees:

  • Believe in yourself. Acknowledge that you are good at what you do, and that your fees reflect the value of your work in the marketplace in which you are working. If they are not, you’ll find out soon enough. And if you want some ideas on pricing your services, here’s a great compendium of short articles, thanks to Rain Today via Michael McLaughlin.
  • Deal with the topic sooner rather than later. Transparency helps. Don’t hesitate early on in the conversation to discuss your fees with a prospective client. Waiting too long may appear as if you’re hiding something, and certainly makes it more awkward. Try saying something like: “I’m delighted to talk more about this. Let me give you an idea of costs so we’re on the same page.”
  • Get personal. When you send a bill, don’t hide behind your firm’s invoicing systems. If the bill seems higher than expected, let the client know in a separate note or call – that reduces surprises and increases your reliability. If it’s lower than expected, that’s worth a call as well. Good news is appreciated. And, the personal touch will go a long way toward growing trust in the relationship.

Meanwhile, Back in the Dentist’s Chair

We all need to take our cue from those who don’t mind asking for fees. As for Craig, he’ll get another lesson when his dentist, without hesitation, tells him the cost for the cap to cover that root canal.