Hidden Dangers Of Dodging Your People’s Personalities In Your Consulting Firm’s Profile

Have you heard that in Baldwin Park, California, it’s illegal to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool?

It seems it’s similarly illegal, or at least perceived to be illegal for consulting firms to add style, spunk and personality to their marketing materials, including their websites.

Look at the websites of 10 random consulting firms.

Is there any personality in them besides the standard business-like drool in a faceless me-too structure?

In many cases there is nothing. Not even a sausage!

It seems many consulting firms try to carefully conceal their people’s personalities, their consulting profiles, so potential clients often can’t find out anything about their business personalities and consulting psychology until it’s too late.

And some people call this business-like.

It’s also often positions these firms as commodities because they can’t stand out in the market.

So, what can be done here?

This is what we discuss in this month’s Commando Consulting, entitled...

The Hidden Dangers Of Dodging Your People’s Personalities In Your Consulting Firm’s Profile.

Do We Need Feedback Sheets In Consulting At All?

When it comes to consulting, the world is split into two.

Some people believe feedback sheets are important, so clients can provide honest feedback to consultants without feeling awkward of giving feedback in person.

And some people say consulting relationships must have enough mutual trust and respect built into them that people of either party can go to the people of the other party and express their honest observations.

The problem with feedback sheets

The existence of feedback sheets creates an “us and them” dynamic. It assumes that whatever consultants do, they do it TO, FOR or AT clients.

By giving a one-sided right to the client to comment and criticise on the consultant’s performance, we also enter into a superior-subordinate relationship.

And the client mentality is...

“Do it FOR me and I can judge you.”

So, what happens is that instead of focusing on the project and improvement in the client’s condition, consultants focus on receiving great evaluation marks from their clients.

They need good evaluation for future work and use the client as a reference. And it happens far too often even when nothing is achieved.

There is one snag though.

Let’s say your client hires you to help to develop a marketing plan for the next years. The client hires you because he doesn’t have the expertise to do it in-house.

But this lack of expertise automatically disqualifies your client from criticising your process.

What do you think would happen if new recruits started criticising Marine or Navy SEAL training for its harshness?

Can you really let the rabbit carry the rifle?

And while clients can “evaluate” (what a retarded word in this context) consultants, consultants can’t evaluate their clients. They have to accept comments from all Tom, Dick and Harry just because they pay the money to their consultants.

It comes from the age-old dogma that clients are always right.

Yes, dear, you are in charge. You and the kids.

Life without feedback sheets

This is a different dynamic altogether. In this scenario consultants work WITH clients in close collaboration. There is one team and one goal, and client and consultant regard each other as peers.

The only difference is that some team members are on the payroll and receive salaries whereas some others are with the company on a temporary basis and receive fees.

There are clearly defined objectives to be achieved and there is a jointly developed plan to achieve them.

Yes, there is always healthy work friction between team members, but it’s not about personal issues. It’s about getting the work done in the highest quality.

And what replaces feedback sheets?

Open communication. Anyone can approach anyone and voice her frustration. In this situation the junior consultant, Miss. Jones has the right to approach his client whom she calls Mr. Smith, and ask him not to call her Honeybunny just because she's a junior consultant and Mr. Smith is a multi-millionaire CEO in his 60s.

As a consultant, you also have the right to bring issues to your client, that is, the main sponsor of the project...

“Joe, I’d like to let you know that we all work hard to put a rush on this initiative but your HR manager usually takes as 5-7 days to respond to basic emails and this delay slows all of us down and the timely completion of the project is jeopardised. What do you suggest?”

Notice that you’re not ratting out the HR manager. And you go to Joe only after having asked the HR manager to respond a bit more quickly, so he doesn’t keep the team waiting.

So what to use instead of feedback sheets?

I believe in using Before Action Reviews and After Action Reviews. These concepts are borrowed from the US Army.

In the military there are not feedback sheets. There is constant communication.
The Before Action Review sets the parameters of the project and briefs team members on what to do.

The After Action Review debriefs the team on what was done, how it was done and how it can be done better the next time.

Reviews are project reviews not personal performance reviews.
If someone fails to give his best and brightest during the project, he is dealt with according to the client’s or the consulting firm’s disciplinary process.

Also, look at elite athletes. They don’t have feedback sheets on their performance. They practice like clockwork, and improvement is unavoidable.

What do you think about feedback sheets in consulting?

Working With Clients With Quantum Leap Projects

Have you come across consulting prospects who are seeking your help to achieve some quantum leaps in their success, but right now they can’t pay you the kind of fees the value of your help would justify?

Imagine a start-up client that projects $20 million in next year’s sale, and hires you to help to pull it off. The buyer wants you to help to design and build a sales system that is capable of achieving the $20 million, and is scalable as the company grows.

If, as an advanced consultant, you do value-pricing, what do you base your value contribution on?

Your value is clearly $20 million because this is the goal the client wants to achieve with your help. So, you’re addressing the seizure of a $20 million opportunity.

But if you try to charge a fair $2 million for the work, you have a problem.

This company is not making money right now, and can’t pay you. Not even $20. And most owners of such companies would never get a loan to pay you. No. They would expect you to work for future money.

And here opinions differ. Some people would jump in and work for free for future money.

But the problem is that the client has no skin in the deal, and while you’re working hard, the client, unbeknownst to you, may just change direction, leaving you high and dry.

While it’s tempting and exciting to work with “quantum leap” clients, I think we’re better off by working with clients that plan incremental improvements and are able to pay us for our help and support to achieve that increment.

Let’s say, you have a client with $10 million annual sales, and, with your help, the executives plan $13 million for the next year.

Great.

Your value is $3 million, so, within five years, this will be an estimated $15 million. This is vital because clients benefit from your help even after your disengagement. During your engagement you start a process of improvement, which can be maintained after your disengagement.

So, if your lowest option of contribution is an annual retainer for $150-250,000, then both you’re well compensated and your client gets great value for a fair investment.

I compare this situation to shooting. Helping a novice to shoot 9 bull’s-eyes out of 10 shots is hard. But the situation is drastically different with someone who can shoot three bull’s-eyes and six 9s out of 10 shots, and want to move up to five bull’s-eyes and four 9s.

The former is a quantum leap and the latter is incremental improvement.

What I’ve also found is that clients that are seeking incremental improvements are better grounded in reality, whereas quantum leap seekers and often “pie in the sky” organisations.

What is your experience in this area?

Does Pay For Performance Work In Consulting Firms? Part 2

This month we continue our journey from last month into the land of pay for performance, and further examine whether or not we can get peak performance from people if we pay them for the performance as by commissions or by performance bonuses.

We look into the three types of people you find, and how the different types respond to financial rewards.

So, if you have a dilemma about how to pay your people or how to get higher performance out of them, then you may want to read this month's issue.

And contrary to what compensation consultants promote, it's not money that improves people's performance.

And if you like what you've read, you can return here to discuss the topic a bit further.

But first, go and read my recent masterpiece.

When Consultants Are Forced To Become The Chasers Of The Quick Buck

There's been a long argument among experts whether or not performance-based payment is appropriate for consultants.

Some say since the consulting profession is unregulated and anyone can enter it, the only way to keep the incompetent charlatans out is by paying consultants for results.

But is that really the best way to go when consultants get hired mainly for their objectivity to tell their clients how things really are.

Would pay for performance systems cloud consultants' objectivity so they would joint their clients in pursuit of the quick buck, even if it takes some questionable methods.

Well, this is what we discuss in our September 2009 article, entitled "Does Pay For Performance Work In Consulting Firms? Part 1".

Hopefully you find it valuable.

Do Professional Associations Really Regulate The Profession?

There was an interesting article in the 17 September 2008 Vancouver Sun, entitled “Rogue Nurses Leave Quietly”.

It turns out that between January 2006 and November 2007, as a result of participating in various criminal activities, 45 nurses cut a deal with their professional and licensing association, the College of Registered Nurses and quietly quit their profession.

Simply said, the College failed to discipline 45 nurses who broke the College’s ethical code. The College failed its basic mission: To regulate the profession.

These nurses were involved in various nasty acts, including...

• Stealing narcotics for their personal use
• Physically and emotional abuse of patients
• Administering incorrect medication
• Mismanaging blood transfusions.
• Physically attacking elderly residents
• Being drunk on shift

These nurses made an agreement with the college to quit nursing, and in return the College didn’t press charges against them. Basically, they got away with their crimes.

The only trace of their criminal act is a brief listing in the College’s newsletter, BC Nursing.

And some really quit the profession, but six of them re-registered and continues working as nurses.

And this is not even a one off case. On average, 40 nurses per year leave the profession due to misconduct, but without disciplinary hearing.

The only reason the College must publicise these misconducts is if the cases go to formal disciplinary hearing. But, despite the 40 cases per year, the College hasn’t held such disciplinary hearings in years.

So, here you have it...

A friend of mine jokingly says that the people who know their stuff actually do it. People who know it less teach it. And the ones who are hopeless to achieve even the lowest level of competence, they form associations, organise certification programmes and try to regulate the profession they are hopelessly incompetent at.

In my view all these regulation bodies are all about shameless money grabbing.

In 1998, when I came to Canada, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists (APEG) almost took me to court because I “dared” to call myself an engineer in some formal correspondence.

I was told I had no right to call myself an engineer in British Columbia, unless APEG permits me to do so. And it turned out all it would have taken me to obtain this mystic permission was by becoming a member and paying my membership dues. So, then I learnt that this is how almost all professional associations operated. You pay and you can purchase titles and positions.

That's a rather loud and clear message about credibility.

Over the years, I’ve come across only a handful of truly professional associations that don’t merely “regulate” the profession, but actually help and support their members in the quests to become masters of their chosen professions. Two of them definitely are the IEE (Institution of Electrical Engineers) in the UK and BCRPA (British Columbia Recreation and Park Association) here in Vancouver.

I also believe that it’s not the associations that regulate members, but members regulate themselves through their own core values and ethical standards.

And when scumbags join these associations, they carry on as scumbags. Well, member scumbags. Nothing changes.

I bet many of the naughty characters at Arthur Andersen, Enron, WorldCom, etc, were members of various professional associations to buy their titles. But at the end of the day they gave in to the temptation of wrongdoing due to their own personal values, and not even the code of ethics of their respective professional associations could hold them back from cutting corners.

Then the question comes up: Do we really need these “professional" associations?

I suppose, by now you know my answer. Well, hell... no.

Writing and Submitting Consulting Proposals With Clients' Businesses In Mind

Many consulting firms make the mistake of skimping on marketing to save money, and rejoice when they count how much they've saved. But this joy is rather lost-lived when they realise that if they don't market, they have to engage in the ultimate money-wasting activity: Responding to request for proposals and battling it out on price with purchasing and procurement departments and being treated as fungible vendors.

In this article we discuss how consulting firms can improve their processes of writing and submitting client-centred proposals to real buyers and avoid the dreaded bid-judges of purchasing departments. If you like the idea, then check out the September issue of Commando Consulting in which we discuss Writing and Submitting Consulting Proposals With Clients' Businesses In Mind.