Why Professionals Just Focus on Earning Fees…

…And don’t do all the other good things they should.

What sort of things am I talking about? It’s the non-billable stuff, such as business development, managing key accounts, generating knowhow and sharing it with colleagues, introducing clients to colleagues in other teams, investing time in mentoring juniors etc.

I know this situation frustrates the management of many firms. But the typical approach adopted, which is to give them a speech and put them on a training programme, doesn’t work – mainly because insufficient focus is put on understanding why each individual isn’t doing it.

And there are lots of potential reasons according to David Maister, such as:

  1. They don’t really understand the action’s importance.
  2. They see the action’s importance to the firm, but don’t see what’s in it for them personally.
  3. They don’t know how to do the action or some aspect of the action.
  4. They know what to do but is just not very skilled at it.
  5. They don’t want to do it. They’d rather stick to their technical discipline.
  6. They have lost their enthusiasm for innovation and are in an “I’ll just do my job” place.
  7. They haven’t been given the support or tools to do the action.
  8. They think the firm (in spite of its exhortations) really wants them to be focusing on earning fees and not to engage in non-reimbursable activities.
  9. The action is viewed as discretionary (ie they think that participation is optional).
  10. They view the activity as a long-term investment, and they would rather work on things that provide more immediate gratification.
  11. They feel more accountability and pressure for other things. They intend to do or would like to do the action, but they feel that they don’t have the time to do it.
  12. They feel that the action is not really valued by their peers. The corporate culture doesn’t reinforce the action.
  13. They view the action as a personal choice and is not thinking of team-level impacts (or approaches).
  14. They perceive the reward for the activity, but think it will only be given for high levels of performance — so why should a beginner even try?

Perhaps most important of all: When they don’t do it, management doesn’t react (except perhaps once a year at performance evaluation time). Since there are no short-term consequences for noncompliance, why bother when there is so much else to do?

Getting an individual to change and participate requires a more sophisticated approach and an ability to engage in a non-threatening conversation to uncover the true reasons for non-participation.

Once an action plan is agreed, support needs to be offered and the conversation needs following up.

All of which takes time. But the rewards should be great.

 

Posted in Business Development and Selling, Leadership and Management | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Bad Meetings. Bad Decisions.

Hope you don’t get involved in a meeting as bad as this one…

It’s October 1940 when Benito Mussolini met with his generals to discuss the arrangements for invading Greece. He asked what might seem like an important question: Are we sure of victory?

Absolutely the generals replied, knowing that no other answer was acceptable.

After 90 minutes Il Duce closed the meeting saying: It seems to me that we have examined all aspects of the problem.

In truth of course no vital answers had been given. No important questions had even been asked!

A week later Italy invaded Greece and the country was humiliated.

It turns out that Italy didn’t even have enough industrial capacity to supply their troops with the equipment they needed.

But nobody asked that question!

Posted in Leadership and Management | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Solutions-Based Coaching using OSKAR

Originating from the Solutions Focused Approach, the OSKAR coaching model is a powerful framework to help your coaching sessions focus on solutions rather than problems. Here is a brief description of the different stages which I have adapted from the very readable The Solutions Focus by Paul Z Jackson and Mark McKergow.

So, OSKAR is an acronym:

O – Outcome

S – Scaling

K – Knowhow

A – Affirm & Action

R – Review

Outcome

At this initial stage of the OSKAR coaching model you are establishing a ‘platform’ from which to coach. Here you are confirming that your coachee is really committed to change.

You are also clarifying:

  • what your coachee wants to achieve in the long, medium and short term
  • what they want to achieve from the session itself and how they will know it has been useful to them
  • the ‘future perfect’ -in other words the perfect scenario they desire. It helps to encourage them to visualise this outcome in a lot of detail.

Scaling

The next step is to  establish where they are already in relation to this desired outcome, using a 10 point scale, such as:

e.g. On a scale of 1 – 10, where 1 represents x and 10 represents y, where are you in relation to this goal.

Know How

You can now build on this foundation by establishing what positives have given them that rating – what skills, knowledge and attributes do they currently possess which give them say a 4 or 5 rather than a 0. This stage is all about uncovering their strengths – their knowledge, skills and attributes and building up their awareness of these and developing confidence. The sort of questions you might be asking at this stage are:

  • What skills, knowledge, attributes do you currently have that will help you?
  • When have you done this or something similar before?
  • What would others say is working for you?

This stage really is about ‘digging for gold’ and plenty of time should be taken to establish the resources they have available to them.

Affirm and Action

Affirming – At this stage of the conversation it is helpful for the coach to provide positive reinforcement of what you have heard…reflecting back positive comments about some of the keys strengths and attributes your coachee has revealed, such as:

  • I am impressed with the knowledge you have in this area
  • It’s evident, from what you have just said, that this approach is working for you

Action – Now the coach needs to help the coachee determine what small steps they will now take.

Review

This final stage of the OSKAR coaching model is to review progress against actions. It is therefore most likely to take place at the beginning of the next coaching session. The emphasis is on reviewing the positives. Questions that may assist include:

  • What is now working better for you?
  • What did you do that made change successful?
  • What do you think will change next?

This is a relatively easy model to use and I can recommend it, particularly when the person you are coaching is stuck with their problem. Maybe they just need to be helped into a space where they are focused more on solutions.

Let me know how you get on.

For another coaching model, see: https://tonyreiss.com/2013/11/11/coaching-for-well-formed-outcomes-pacer-beats-grow/

Posted in Coaching and Training | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

There are Three Distinct Types of Firm

source: themuse.com

There are three predominant reasons for partners to go into business together, according to Professor Stephen Mayson (see stephenmayson.com).

None is inherently better than the others and each should have their appropriate supporting cultures which affect investment and approach to management and strategy. Each one can be successful.

The three reasons for being in partnership together are:

  1. For Convenience
  2. For Complementing
  3. For Combining

I describe these cultures below.

Convenience

  • Partners simply share the overheads. The mathematical way of expressing this culture is 1 + 1 = 1.
  • Each partner has “my clients”.
  • Administration can be kept simple with little need for sophisticated ‘back office’ teams or expensive IT systems.
  • Strategic thinking is left to individuals or not done at all. Little time is spent on a firm strategy. There might not even be practice groups.

Complementing

  • Partners join to offer a range of services to clients. So, here 1 + 1 = 2.
  • Partners see clients as “my client’s and my team’s”.
  • Some administration and management are required to support this infrastructure.
  • More thinking is needed on strategy, particularly at practice group level.

Combining

  • Partners join to help build an integrated range of services and approach to service delivery. Here, teams combine so that 2 + 2 = 5.
  • Partners talk about “the firm’s clients” and act as custodians for the long-term future success of the firm (ie leave it in better shape).
  • These firms need to invest in good IT, such as CRM systems, and need more management and leadership to create the shared vision and make things happen.
  • A clear strategy is vital to ensure everyone knows where the ship is sailing. And that the ship gets there, avoiding rocks and icebergs!

Key Lessons

You might read this and think the Combining firm, with its 2+ 2 = 5 approach, will do best. This is not necessarily so. Such firms – and there aren’t many – are making bigger investments. They have significantly bigger overhead costs and the leadership challenge of herding their cats to truly combine. Not easy to achieve, because deep down, many practitioners prefer to be sole traders!

The important thing is to be clear what kind of firm you are. For example, if you’re a Convenience firm, avoid investing heavily in management and sophisticated IT systems. You are unlikely to get the payback. If you are a Combining firm, it will be essential to invest in having effective leadership.

What type of firm is yours?

 

 

 

 

Posted in Leadership and Management, Strategy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

How to Measure Your Sales Pipeline

Firms tend to measure sales predominantly. This is understandable. Sales are important and the figures tend to be indisputable.

But might this measure discourage sufficient activity in developing the sales pipeline? One firm I worked with found that it took, on average, three years to win a significant mandate from the first connection with the client. Maybe they weren’t very good at it, but we can all accept that it might take a few meetings to establish our credibility, build rapport and become trusted with each of the key stakeholders at the client.

Firms obviously need to encourage BD activity to ensure there is income in the future.

So here’s a way of measuring progress in the pipeline and early client phases. It’s a ten-point scale. You can adapt it to suit your own business activities.

0 – I doubt they’ve heard of us

1 – We have met and exchanged contact details

2 – We’ve had a business development meeting

3 – They’ve opened up to us and shared their plans

4 – They have called us for advice

5 – They have invited us to pitch

6 – We have started work for Joe (ie fees being earned)

7 – Joe has given us another project (ie follow up work)

8 – I have introduced a colleague, who is working for Joe (ie x-selling)

9 – We are now working with Joe’s colleagues (ie further x-selling)

10 – They have referred us to another client

A professional advisor might, for example, have the objective of moving a handful of target clients from a 1 to a 3 or 4 over the course of a year.

Furthermore, it should be emphasised that each of these stages are verifiable. They either invited you to pitch, or not.

Would your firm benefit from using a system based on this approach? I’d be interested to learn how other firms encourage activities to develop their pipeline.

Posted in Business Development and Selling | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

​Do You Listen to the Message or the Messenger?

Hermes – Messenger of the Gods and Divine Trickster (Wiki)

It’s frustrating isn’t it when many of our own good ideas are not taken up until an outside consultant comes in and says the same thing. Then it’s the best idea since sliced bread! They just had to be dressed in a suit, carry a briefcase and come from out of town.

Or it’s probably even worse when the boss’s protégé says the same thing but gets listened to.

The reason this happens apparently is because we find it hard to separate the message from the person giving it.

Edward L Thorndike an American psychologist studied communication in firms in the 1920’s. He found that, when rating employees on different characteristics, say leadership and intelligence or dependability and decisiveness, managers tended to use their rating on one dimension to guide their rating on another unrelated one. So a weak leader was more likely to be rated as less intelligent. This is widely termed ‘the halo effect’.

In effect there are just two types of employees: good and bad!

Later, in 1946, a Polish-born psychologist Solomon Asch found that individuals form impressions of one another from early or initial information. First impressions were established as more important than subsequent impressions. We either continue to look at others through rose-coloured or grey-coloured lenses. And see what we expect to see!

In this fast-paced, data-saturated world it is increasingly easy to fall into the trap of assuming a person talented in one aspect of work is equally good in another. Clearly this defies logic.

It happens in politics as well. A politician tainted by a failed policy will probably find it harder to have future ideas listened to.

Savvy parents will recognise this situation. Their offspring might not listen to them but might listen to their best friend. Or even better the cute boy or girl next door they have a crush on!

So what’s the lesson? It’s this. Even if you have the best idea, you may not be the best person to present it.

 

 

Posted in Coaching and Training, Leadership and Management | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment