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.