Golden Practices

Policies for Emerging Technologies

This topic keeps coming up. People have differing comfort levels with newish technologies and therefore have very different tolerance levels for others using it.

True that some people just don't "get it" when it comes to being polite. The cell-phone screamers and mid-conversation texters or email-checkers come to mind.

The common reaction seems to be "We need a company policy for [fill in technology here]?"

For everything from listening to ipods (wrote "iPods Are Not the Enemy") and blogging ("Blogging Policies" post) to streaming video watching at work or accessing facebook, business leaders want policies. Especially accounting and law types. We want to control it!

I've written an article that was just published in Practical Accountant and WebCPA, but it applies across many industries. It's called, "Charting a Firm's Social Media & Communications Policy" and I hope you'll check it out. 

Basically it explores a facilitated session I led with managing partners to explore how to deal with emerging technology urging them to take the time to fully understand it... hopefully BEFORE cranking out a policy banning or stifling its use.

I just read lawyer Jay Shepherd's blog post on Gruntled Employees called Does Your Company Need a Smartphone Policy and he raises some of the same issues and links to three other terrific posts. My favorite is A Two-Word Corporate Blogging Policy.

Something you'll find in my article, above, is that getting the partners/owners on the same page about your policy approach, in order to make policies that make sense, requires giving them the opportunity to hash through what REALLY concerns them, and dealing with those concerns, rather than jumping to policy FIRST.

It's Time

It's, well, time for a LOT of things. But it's high time for two things as I write this:

1) MUST introduce you to Debra Helwig's blog, Service Minded. Debra is the chief evangelist of many things for CPA firm association, IGAF Worldwide. She is committed to the core of continously advancing her association's offerings, quality, and "experiences" for every single member. And she promotes wise practices for every level employee...owner, marketer, receptionist... 

Best of all, she totally practices what she preaches--no easy thing for a busy evangelist and mom. If you are a service provider and you don't read any other blog, you must read hers!

2) You'll see in Debra's recent post, Letting Go, a stark reminder that surrendering less-than-perfect relationships is not just best for you but better for the client, too. We sometimes hang on to client relationships believing we are doing the client a favor, but in many cases, we aren't!

Check out her post. Then subscribe to her blog.

Don't Just Recruit Cool, BE Cool

Rita Keller brings up being "cool" if a firm is going to remain competitive. I agree and expand the point to emphasize it's a two-parter!

The first step is attracting great people. The second and more important part (and much more difficult one) is inspiring them to want to STAY so your firm has the talent AND attitude to continue to do great things for clients.

Rita's post, "Do you speak their language" talks about texting. Specifically, texting used in an accounting firm's recruiting ad. And, sure, it's a clever ad. I don't know the firm, but I hope they have the second part down-pat, too.

Just this month, I've been privvy (with great disapproval) to several firms' conversations about their policies on ipods, text messaging, and so forth. Basically, they say "don't" because "it interferes with productivity." 

Funny. How many of those staffers jammed to their favorite tunes through every homework assignment they've had while they earned their grades that qualified them to join the firm. (Take yourself back a few years...there was definitely a stereo, maybe even a favorite record or cassette, cranked up while I did MY studies. How about you?)

Maybe they're just trying to tune out the office chatter-box so they can get some work done! (Is there a no office chatter-box policy??)

And when I spoke in June at the AAM conference about blogs, a number of attendees said their firms' internet security won't let them access blogs from the office!

A number of firms also deny access to Linked In, Facebook, YouTube and other social networking sites in order to "control timewasting." Blogs and social media tools facilitate some of the most effective marketing and networking going on these days. And firms are blocking them!!

This lockout occurs among roughly 25% of businesses, so it's not just accounting firms who are short-sighted. See David Meerman Scott for that figure on his excellent (and sad) post called "Facebook and YouTube blocked by paranoid corporations at their own peril."

A commenter on David's post says people take advantage and waste hours on the internet to which David wisely responds:

... it is a management issue, not a technology issue. If people mess around at work, it doesn't really matter if it is on Facebook, or chatting by the water cooler, or taking a three hour "shopping lunch". It's all the same - people not doing what they've been paid to do.

I would deal with the behavior. If required, fire the employee who is not working.

Amen.

At any rate, policies like these stink. Most contradict what firms are trying to claim they are: great places to work. These policies (attire, perfume, internet use, ipods...) are insulting because they treat every person on your team as the worst behaved child by making everyone "pay" for the sins of one or two who show poor judgment and ought to just receive a talking to, and maybe a boot, if the talk doesn't work.

I'm picking up Rita's post today because I want to reinforce, all the great "cool" recruiting in the world won't solve the talent crisis. The problem is people leaving once they came, they saw, and they experienced. A lot of firms DO have amazing and cool cultures. And those firms are not seeing the turnover like the ones who get uptight about ipods and blog-reading.

Treat all the people like grown-ups and if some don't choose to act like it, then deal with them individually! But stop punishing the masses or you won't have a mass...there are too many other places for them to go.

It's time to get with the program.

Boredom

I've been thinking a lot about personal responsibility because of David Bohl's great post that I picked up in my recent Carnival of Trust post.

This morning, my daughter and I were having an interesting conversation. She's a couple weeks away from turning six which means she's constantly thinking about a lot of weird stuff and asks a lot of seemingly random questions. She asked me what "bored" means.

She's my fourth (and last) kid. Having three other kids (ages 14, 15 and 23) I've heard at least a couple hundred thousand (rough estimate) exasperated "I'm so bored" statements. Why do kids expect us, their parents, to fix their boredom?

So, I thought, wow, maybe if I define this for her right, I won't have to hear "I'm bored" another hundred thousand times in the next ten or so years.

Somewhat pleased with myself, and inspired by that above-mentioned post on responsibility, I answered her: "Bored is how you feel when you haven't yet decided what you're going to do next."

This makes me think about boredom in jobs, boredom with where we are in life. Has a lot to do with proactivity and decisiveness, doesn't it?

Also has me thinking about needing to teach our kids to rely on themselves more. If we leap to entertain them when they're bored (and what parent hasn't, even if just to shut them up??) how will they learn to be responsible for their own feelings and take action?

Aside from my 'boring' example, are there other ways we unitentionally help kids or employees, or even bosses, be less personally responsible?

A Younger, Hipper Accounting Firm

Great interview on BusinessGears.com picked up from Business Opportunities Blog which publicized two 24 year-old women who started an accounting practice in the UK (Cardiff to be exact).

Sophie Hughes and Lucy Cohen are closing in on revenues (turnover) of almost £120k (about $240K USD) nearing the end of their second year in practice. They have two team members and plans to expand into another city, soon, a few more in due time.

Is this another step in a trend toward breaking free of traditional firms and their stodgy ways? Look at their website and decide for yourself www.MazumaMoney.co.uk.

Their site explains:

Their idea behind setting up the company was to put to rest the stereotypical idea of accountancy and to bring the profession to the attention of young businesses and established companies alike.

Of course, their pricing policy caught my attention, too.

...All these are offered on a “mix and match” basis with a bespoke price to suit your needs. You can even pay monthly so you don’t have to worry about a big accountant’s bill at the end of the year.

"Bespoke" if you're unfamiliar with the mostly British term, means tailored or customized to your EXACT specifications.

The interviewer asked: "It’s quite unusual to have a female-owned and run accountancy…"

Sophie: Definitely, and that’s probably why we’ve had a fairly good reception.

A lot of younger businesses definitely like us, although we don’t just want to appeal to women. There is a solicitor’s firm local to us which only has women working for it, but we’re all equals so we don’t want to come across like that.

But we do think women are attracted to us because we are female. And younger people seem to like us because we’re on the same wavelength.

When asked: "What advice would you give to someone starting a business?"

Sophie: Make sure you do a business plan. It gives you something to measure against what you’ve done.

Another one which Lucy always says is that a lot of people tend to work part-time when they’re setting up their business. But if you do that you can’t focus on your business and it’s never going to be as good as you want it to be. If possible just plunge into it, and if after three months you’re not making any money then fine, get a part-time job. But if you don’t give it 100% commitment right from the beginning then it’s not going to give you 100% reward.

Lucy: Don’t be wishy washy. You have to put in 100% effort, but you also have to be 100% sure. There will inevitably be a time, when you first quit your job, when you wake up at three in the morning thinking “Oh my God, what have I done?”

And money will be tight. You’re always one month away from not being able to pay your mortgage when you’re on a salary so it can be difficult if you have a month without that.

But this is where the planning comes into it. You’ve got to be so good at planning and commit yourself fully to it. You’ve got to go for it.

Good luck ladies, I suspect you'll do quite well!

On Trust

In a comment to a post on the VeraSage blog about micromanaging behaviors, Tom "Bald Dog" Varjan pretty much sums up firm trust issues:

So, the basic premise is that the firm must build trust with clients. And I believe it's very hard to trust a group of people who fail to trust each other.

I don't trust my people because they're not trustworthy, but I ask my clients to trust us and give us money. This is a pretty pervert perspective.

What do you think?

Oh, and the post he commented on, Why Don't CPA Firm Leaders Trust Their People? is worth the read!

Recruiting Magnets: Firms of the Future

There's so much more to this story than the recruiting angle. This story is about the future of professional service firms.

But now that I have your attention let me tell you about Brendon Harrex, a senior fellow of VeraSage Institute. He's another innovator turning the professional firm business model upside down!

Brendon, at the age of 31, became the first Chief Value Officer (ever) in his 100-person accounting firm. This means HE was solely in charge of ALL pricing. Read more about this in Ron Baker's post Who's In Charge of Value in Your Firm? where he describes Brendon's role:

If you worked at Ward Wilson, a four-office, ten-partner, one-hundred team member firm in Invercargill, New Zealand, your answer would be Brendon Harrex, who was recently appointed Chief Value Officer, responsible for creating and capturing value across the entire firm. Brendon, at age 31, is the youngest partner in the firm, and is an amazing visionary, bringing leadership not only to his firm, but our entire profession.

Then, at age 33, Brendon was elected chairman of Ward Wilson--the firm had amazing vision. But it also had aging partners who, apparently, were more concerned with their retirement than with the posterity of the profession (my words, not Brendon's!).

Ward Wilson sold to a consolidator. Brendon's window of opportunity opened and he bought out one of WW's offices, the one he led before becoming Chairman. Below is the e-mail he shared with Ron Baker and me about this.

His brilliant ad (pictured, click to enlarge) says:

"If you have get up and go and know you should have got up and left before now, consider the Harrex Group."

Now Brendon has a WAITING LIST of future employees who WANT to come work for him. Read on, the emphasis is mine:

Is Owning Synonymous With Managing

In a recent meeting with Howard Wilkinson, Mercer & Hole's managing partner, we discussed the way decisions are made in many firms. His firm approaches things a bit differently than most.

Discussing this further, he wisely observed that, typically:

"Partnerships confuse management with ownership."

His firm does not. How does your firm approach management and decision-making?

Don't Separate Marketing from Strategy!

A cool marketing blog, Unconventional Thinking, makes a fantastic point about separation of "marketing" from a company's strategies and operations. The post is called The Most Dangerous Term In Business and that term is "marketing department."

Never mind that most marketing actually sucks and fails to stay focused on those key goals. There is another equally ominous danger here. That is, establishing a marketing department effectively balkanizes marketing ideation and implementation from the development and execution of the company’s core business strategy. This cannot be allowed to happen. Marketing is the process of growing a business. To separate it from the development and execution of business strategy means that you are effectively diminishing the impact marketing can have on the company.

I see this soooooo often. Some firms struggle to understand my frustration at their approaches to strategic planning that are many steps removed from their marketing professionals. I've even had a law partner tell me that "marketing has nothing to do with strategic planning." HUH??

Mark continues:

You know how it goes: the top people in the company, be it the president or a management team, develops a plan for how they want to grow the business, and once that is set in stone, they turn to the marketing folks (some think of them as marketing flakes, which they often deserve, because they do not force themselves into the business-building process). The tools and initiatives required to grow the company have to get force-fed into a strategy that has already been signed, sealed and delivered by the powers that be. What an idiotic mistake.

What to do about it?  Mark's first three suggestions:

• Stop allowing your marketing people to be balkanized into a department.
• Instead, make the marketing people part of the management team.
• Weave the marketing people through all of the company’s processes from the beginning

His whole post, and the comments, are worth a read.  (And if you're a marketer, don't let yourself be a "marketing flake"!!)

Can Business Learn From the Military?

I saw something last night that I don't see very often. It was moving and impressive.

Last night, a St Louis news channel ran a story exposing various instances of military recruiters (several branches) who were misleading potential recruits or saying inappropriate things.

Most of the incidents picked up on the 'secret cameras' used by undercover reporters regarded the downplay of danger in serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Certainly, these techniques aren't acceptable and no one in their right mind would try to defend what was blatant misinformation caught on camera.

Or would they? In the corporate and business world, it seems that we often see footage or photos and hear spoken words, yet corporate representatives stand up and make statements that refute what we've seen and heard with our own eyes. Sometimes it's blatant denial and sometimes it's fuzzy logic attempting to explain or justify away what observation or logic tells us is so. 

But do you know what the military did upon being confronted with this troubling news story?

One human, one man, took complete responsibility for the whole thing and took immediate action to correct it. I quote the news:

Lt. Col. Junio-Omaru Barber is the Army recruiting commander for Missouri and southern Illinois....After learning about the I-Team's findings, Barber ordered retraining of all 180 recruiters under his command.

"I'm responsible. I take full responsibility for everything that happens in the St. Louis recruiting battalion," said Barber.

I commend Col. Barber and admire the accountability he demonstrates. Wouldn't the business world do well to emulate this level of responsibility more often?

Measuring What Matters

Those who've read me for awhile probably know that I'm a strong supporter of the writing, research and theories of my brilliant colleague at VeraSage Institute, Ron Baker.

Well, he's done it again. One of the messages Ron has been delivering to professional service firms, since long before I met him in 1999, is that timesheets measure the wrong stuff in professional service firms.

"If I don't use timesheets, how will I know how much to charge?" That's the first question we PSFs ask Ron, literally, every time he speaks. 

The next question asked is:

"But if we don't use timesheets, how do we 'measure' productivity?"   

People argue: "I cannot manage my people if they don't fill out timesheets--I won't know what they are doing."

There are several issues at hand in answering these questions. First, let's admit that there is a successful business or two out there that, without timesheets, seems to inspire and intellectually stimulate their human capital to be highly effective. That's the bottom line firms want, too, right? Effectiveness.

Then there's the question I have: if using timesheets to manage people helps us to be better managers, why are there so many partners and managers with very poor people management skills? (Could it be they are letting timesheets be the 'managers' in lieu of them?)

And, last time I checked, timesheets tell someone what somebody else did yesterday (lagging indicator). Not what they should be doing tomorrow (leading indicator). Shouldn't management focus on directing future results more than reading about past inputs?

Further, in a value pricing environment (one in which we aren't considering hours as a factor in price) we need to assure we are delivering value to our customers in accordance with the expectations we set and the prices we ask. To accomplish this, we need a means of assuring we do the 'right things' (usually client-oriented things as opposed to our own 'realization') to meet those expectations.

So how do we make sure we and the people we manage are doing the "right things tomorrow"?

We must align individual efforts with the goals of the firm which, for optimal firm success, should be aligned with the objectives of the client and establish Key Predictive Indicators for the firm's success through meeting customer expectations and needs.

Ron's newest book entitled Measuring What Matters to Customers: Using Key Predictive Indicators covers this in excellent detail, yet it's an easy read at only 200 pages. You can buy it from Wiley at VeraSage Institute's preferred pricing. (If you don't see -15% applied at checkout, enter code aff15 in the Promotion Code field and click the Apply Discount button.)

Ron's other books including three FREE PDF books can be found at VeraSage's website. The PDF books are: Trashing Timesheets, Burying the Billable Hour (on the move to Value Pricing) and You Are Your Customer List (on customer selection and DEselection).

Full disclosure: I am a Senior Fellow of VeraSage Institute but I do not benefit financially from the organization or any book sales.

Bosses Worthy of Raving About

An uplifting post on Lisa Hanneberg's Management Craft blog just in time for Bosses Day. It's very refreshing to hear people who adore their bosses!

Generation Gap--Less Chasm, More Fissure

I just read with great interest Allison Shields' post "What's Wrong With the New Generation of Lawyers?" referring back to a post Larry Bodine penned back in August called "Generation Gap Hurts Law Firm Marketing."

I really like Allison's take and find myself in strong agreement with her (which happens a lot, actually). What she writes above parallels (though much more eloquently) what ran through my mind when I first read Larry's post.

I don't contest the American Lawyer survey findings that 69% of associates don't expect or desire partnership. I, too, hear this in both law and accounting firms. I agree with her (a former practicing lawyer) that one cannot draw the conclusion (as did Larry) that associates not aspiring to become partner directly correlates with a lack of desire to market.

Allison nicely explains why lack of a clear desire to be partner doesn't necessarily equate to lack of willingness to market.

Just because a lawyer may not want to make partner or have a life-long legal career doesn't necessarily mean that young lawyers aren't interested in their firms, or in marketing. Most young lawyers realize that marketing and bringing in business will increase their professional reputation as well as their own personal bottom line, whether they ultimately stay with their firm or not.

From what I witness, more often than not, associates are more interested in, and willing to participate in, "organized" and "preplanned" marketing activities than are partners.

In the rare instances they don't participate, it is largely because partners don't practice what they preach (i.e. do the marketing planning and activities themselves). Other times it's because associates aren't taught the benefits or techniques of business development. Not taught the benefits to them, they might conclude their marketing efforts are just to drive more profits to partners' pockets.

Stereotypes

In Bodine's post, I really find Cam Marston's narrowly painted stereotypes of Gen X &Y to be heavily (negatively) biased. And Larry's generalization is just as bad: "They don't want to be like the people who are in charge of the firm, the Baby Boomers who have a strong work ethic, are competitive, optimistic and show success visibly with trophies and plaques."

Judging from the people in firms that I meet, this is largely untrue on both sides of the equation. Not all Gen X/Y'ers lack work ethic, competitive spirit, and optimism. Not all "Boomers" have work ethic, are competitive, or care to show success visibly. And certainly, many Boomers have lost their professional optimism.

First of all, I don't think the generations are so far apart, really.

Why do people try to create a chasm, where one needn't exist! Though there are, of course, some differences between people in their 20s/30s and their 50s/60s, it occurs to me that the problems we see in firms aren't so much due to a "Generation Gap." It's a lack of conversation.

Whether in the boardroom, or in the media, sitting around making sweeping generalizations about our differences only makes us less connected, less comfortable with each other, and not more.

Could we possibly approach this in a more UNhealthy manner?

What say we compare what we DO agree on and see how we can build from there?

Where to Start...

Allison writes:

For many lawyers, 'work ethic' has become synonomous with giving over your entire life to your firm and putting the firm ahead of everything else - family, friends, outside interests, and even health. That's not a work ethic - that's slavery. It may bring financial rewards and prestige in some circles, but it also often brings depression, alcoholism, anxiety, stress and a whole host of other problems.

I would say this applies to ALL ages/generations of professionals. Shouldn't we strive to free practioners of ALL ages from this paradigm of unhealthy work attitude?

It's time to have conversations about a better way for the professions to do business. And that includes making it better for all the generations in a firm.

Can Consultants Have More Impact?

To my recent post entitled "The People Problem is Firms' Fault," David Maister commented that he agreed with the points but he posed to consultants the questions:

I agree these are important points and right on target. But I don't think I really understand why those of us who share your point of view, Michelle, seem to be fighting a LOSING battle. What you advocate is becoming less common, not more.

What are we doing wrong in our attempts to have a beneficial impact on the world? If what we suggest would truly help everyone, why isn't it happening? What do WE have to do differently to help make it happen other than just keep on insisting that we're right?

I answered with a comment but wanted to elaborate in this post.

As the last consultant on earth who wants a firm to invest in me for research and development of solutions and then, for whatever reason, fail to implement the solutions they participated in creating—and it breaks my heart when this happens—isn't it the responsibility of the firms, who've looked to us for guidance, to ensure implementation?

So, assuming that the scope of our engagement does not specify implementation (leaving it the firm's responsibility, overall) some of us are still very invested in the outcome. Given this level of care, how can consulting experts be more influential in inspiring firms to desire and achieve results?

These are the largest barriers I see when it comes to implementation:

1) Problems and Solutions are NOT Simple
2) Democratic Leadership
3) Complacency
4) Defensiveness
5) Infrastructure

Perhaps if consultants work with fewer firms but in more depth, the results can be far stronger than when working with more firms, but more superficially.

Problems and Solutions are NOT Simple
They are complex and entirely interrelated. Consultants and media feed "easy" solutions to one small piece of a problem at a time. This doesn't seem problematic at first, and even seems a palatable way to make incremental change.

But what this approach fails to illustrate is exactly how interrelated most problems in firms are (e.g. low interest in personal marketing is perpetuated by the belief that no one is available to "do the work" if/when the marketing succeeds—though this appears at first like a capacity problem—often the capacity DOES exist to do the work, but leveraging is the issue). While it may seem trivial to fix a leverage problem, if we can show the impact of leverage on profitability (for example), it is easier to accept this as a beneficial change. Without a clear picture of exactly why a change is needed, buy-in tends to be half-hearted at best.

Unless the leader/s of a firm are true visionaries and connect these dots themselves, or can see the forest despite the trees, then we consultants may need to do more in this area in order to have deeper impact.

Democratic Leadership
When firms are governed by democracy, multiple leaders seldom agree about making a change at all, much less about taking that commitment personally and supporting it all the way through implementation. To succeed, leaders must agree that a problem IS a problem therefore believe in a solution's need and then must trust in the appropriateness of the recommended approach to resolving it.

The firms that experience greatest success have at least one of the following:

1. one key leader that others respect and follow;
2. multiple leaders, but infrastructure for accountability (including mutual respect in order to adhere to commitments made);
3. an emotional or psychological investment in the success of implementation.

Consultants can spend more time illustrating the interrelationship of problems for clearer understanding, and then facilitating solutions that are "right" for that unique firm. And consultants could probably work more closely with the firm to create custom solutions even if it means directing them to others to solve the problems.

Complacency
Today, many of those in charge are making "enough" money and are close enough to retirement that "sticking it out" a little longer in the status quo is still an option for them. And it's an option that can be more appealing than making the sorts of significant changes we suggest.

Is the firm going to increase it's internal and external value proposition? Or not? That is the question.

Bringing in the consultant doesn't mean the desire to move forward is a given. We consultants could do a better job to always raise the question — it is an important part of the commitment to implement. Getting a solid answer is a must because choosing not to decide is always an option. As the song lyric goes, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." (Freewill, Permanent Waves, Rush, 1980). Any choice, or lack of choice, will have its consequences. Until or unless the consequences of not changing are actually painful to the current leaders, many firms simply won't.

What consultants could do more of here is to be more compelling about the benefits of improving the firm's value proposition for its people and/or its customers. When enough work is piled on their desks, partners don't care to worry much about tomorrow's dollar. When there are warm bodies populating the cubicles, they don't care to question if those are the right bodies or if those bodies will be there tomorrow.

Much like an attorney or accountant trying to convey the benefits in proactive tax or estate planning, we consultants are presently trying to communicate the price of NOT changing. And much like many people will never buy the tax or estate planning, many firms will never accept our advice to change. We consultants must accept this and focus our energies on the firms that WILL move ahead of the pack.

Defensiveness
Leaders often think when someone says things need to change that we are saying THEY broke them or that THEY somehow failed. More often than not, all we are saying is that times they are a-changin' and firms need to change, too. Consultants could be more careful to avoid putting firms on the defensive which creates a barrier that doesn't need to exist.

Infrastructure
The systems, processes, and expertise needed to apply our recommendations is not usually in place within the firm. If we don't help them to create that infrastructure, then we could be more proactive in helping the firm find the resources to build it and follow up routinely to counsel through the implementation.

Again, though it isn't always our "job" to ensure our advice is heeded, if we care to, those of us who consult can do more aid in implementation. If our personal satisfaction is in seeing firms advance, then perhaps we need to be better at our own client selection--choosing to work with firms with higher likelihood of applying our advice. Sounds a lot like our advice to the firms we serve...

360 Degree Reviews and Incremental Change

This is a (long and) detailed addition to the conversation going on at David Maister's blog about 360 degree evaluations/reviews in firms. A little verbose to post as a comment, I think...

David kindly posted a question I'd e-mailed him providing his insights and asking for responses from his readers. Here's my response to his post:

David, I'm particularly glad you linked to your prior posts. I hadn't recalled the "guts" post in particular as it relates to 360 (or any) feedback and it certainly does relate.

Quite clearly, some people just don't want to know.

The saying that you can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink is what comes to mind with regard to what people will do with the information they receive. It does take guts to drink from the feedback cup. And it takes real resolve to act on that feedback after absorbing it.

I believe the way the feedback on style and performance is presented is paramount: context and purpose are key.

And, as I mentioned in my question, there are many ways to mess up a 360. (This holds true for ANY appraisal!) It is no small matter and must be handled extremely carefully.

Issues to resolve:

• Is the purpose of the feedback clear? Is feedback for personal consumption? Management consideration?
• Is the process understood? Confidential? Credible?
• Are the questions without bias? Fair? Level appropriate?
• Is the instrument suitable for the purpose? Easy to use? Not too long and cumbersome or repetitive? Can the reviewer edit her responses, if need be?
• Are the reports explained such that interpretation is clear and consistent?

About the process, I think it's essential that the subject selects his or her reviewers so that results aren't easily dismissed as potentially coming from someone whose opinion the subject does not respect. We are far more likely to accept and process feedback from people we respect. If people choose their reviewers, they are saying upfront they will consider the feedback worthy of regard.

That being said, I usually urge people to consider choosing some people outside of their tightest circle of "friends"--perhaps even those they've had some professional disagreement with, as long as they would value their opinion. Optimally, each subject selects 3-4 of each: direct reports, peers, managers, and sometimes clients, plus self. This provides a good sample size.

I hear (read) you saying that running a 360 without accountability for action based on the outcome is a cause of failure. I'm not sure I agree. I do see it as suboptimal, but not as a complete failure.

Based on the horse/water/drink theory, I think statistical odds suggest that some will take the information to heart and try to use it while others will not give a hoot. The question the firm would then ask is, "how many will care?" Is it worth doing if 50%, 25%, or just 5% would act on the information? I think yes. But maybe I'm too willing to accept incremental change. (I think all real change is incremental...). I very seldom see 100% participation in anything a PSF ever does.

About your reasons for failure, you're right about "a."

a) if no articulated standards exist, I would suggest the "first" eval serve as a personal benchmark against which a person would seek to improve over time. As an aside, if there is no managerial job description--aside from the sad oversight it represents--why not view it as an opportunity to write one's own--he or she is, after all, a knowledge worker which implies the entrepreneurial ability to chart one's own course to some degree.

b & c) covered above in process/approach

d) failure? or suboptimal? (my suggestion above)

Your "quick summary" statement is: "a manager who really wanted to improve would not need the formality of a company-wide 360-program to get there." Perhaps not, but managers desiring to improve are typically hungry for feedback. Your linked article recommends asking people directly. That can be great. I particularly like your suggestion of asking "tell me what others say..." to take some pressure off.

But even so, especially with accountants (lawyers tend to be more forthright) the idea of hurting someone's feelings can keep truths buried. 360s can open the door for honest AND CONSISTENT feedback.

Specifically, 360s are most useful in assessing perceptions about how well people are doing in areas of management/leadership that tend to be extremely subjective--those requiring judgments, not measurements. It so happens that nearly all characteristics of a "great" CPA or lawyer are gauged only by judgment:

• ability to apply sound judgment (irony there?)
• ability to deal constructively with challenging situations/people
• ability to teach others in a way that inspires/motivates them
• ability to be trusted and valued
• ability to accept and apply feedback (more irony?)

Exact areas worthy of focus are:

• Teambuilding and team management
• Delegation and direction of others
• Planning and decision making
• Integrity and trustworthiness
• Leadership
• Self-awareness and development
• Skills and performance (non-technical)

We refrain from cover abilities already "evaluated" (saturated) in other ways such as technical skills and marketing efforts. Those tend to be extremely measurable and feedback, though not always formalized, tends to be ample.

Feedback at all is rare in PSFs. Positive feedback is even more rare.

360's provide the unique opportunity to see if you treat direct reports differently from your managers. Or if you are perceived as weaker or stronger in a given area by one group or another. This can provide telling insights about management style. Most importantly, do you see yourself the way others see you?

Assuming all perceptions are the realities of the perceivers, then all feedback is valid. As you said, David, what people choose to do (or not do) with the information is the next step. So is it worthwhile in your eyes if change is incremental? If participation is less than 100%?

(Welcoming contributions from all...)

Choosing With Whom You Work

In a heartfelt comment to an open plea for insights into his future direction as it regards audience and work, David Maister states this personal, recent, realization:

I don't just want to help or work with anyone: I want to help and work with people who share my philosophies. I really am a believer that Passion, People and Principles are the keys, and I get real fulfillment working with people who are trying to make that real in their lives - junior or senior, "traditional professions" or hard-core manufacturers.

What I don't want to do anymore is to waste time (mine and theirs) trying to convince "hard-nosed, short-term corporate-style people" that there's a better way. I've actually learned that I never "convert" anyone - what I do is to help clarify the thinking of those who shared my views to begin with.

I find it fascinating that David says he doesn't convert anyone. I'll bet he's brought more than a few around...kicking and screaming along the way.

But his next point is key. Whether you're a consultant or CPA, lawyer, or in any other profession.

When—as leader, speaker, or other influencer—your views and values (passion, people, and principles, or otherwise) resonate with others, that is when you have synergy and begin building a team or a following, as it were.

A beautiful lesson in all of this is: as you go about your business, be true to your values. Work with those with whom you have synergy.

If you like a challenge you can try to convert, but isn't your energy better spent where at least somewhat similarly minded people can expand each other's ideas rather than focus all their energy on completely changing the ideas of others?

Finding (or Becoming) a Great Mentor

An excellent post at Escape from Cubicle Nation is called How Can You Find a Great Mentor? in which author Pamela Slim discusses several facts about mentoring and offers must-read advice.

She notes there are three types of mentors:

1. The technical expert
2. The wise elder
3. The few-steps-ahead peer

She then discusses the characteristics of a great mentoring relationship:

• Encouragement.  A good mentor will not only provide you with valuable advice, he or she will also help you deal with the fear and stress involved in growing professionally and making a big change.
• Reciprocity.  Enduring mentoring relationships have mutual benefit built into them. Your mentor may have years of experience in his or her field, but you also must bring something to the table. Perhaps they are less familiar with technology so you can help them build a website. Whatever you do, make sure they are not the only ones offering support and advice.
• Chemistry.  A mentoring relationship is just that, a relationship. You must truly enjoy each other's company if it is to last. If you put each other at ease and make each other laugh, that will make your time together energizing and engaging.
• Gratitude.  Don't ever forget to acknowledge and thank your mentor for his guidance and advice. Lavish gifts or hollow praise are not necessary.  Good, old fashioned heartfelt thanks in the form of a handwritten note or sincere comment work the best. Let him know what his advice meant to you and how it changed the course of your life.
• Mutual respect. Even if people are very well-known in their field, they don't want to be surrounded by feet-kissing grovelers who deem themselves "not worthy." Let me rephrase that. The mentors you want do not want to be surrounded by arse-kissers. Be confident and present yourself as a humble, less-experienced equal.

She then discusses where to find mentors and how to kick off the mentoring relationship. Where to find mentors is an important topic all its own. I've never been comfortable with the notion that a firm can "appoint" a mentor for new team members.

On the contrary, smart people prefer to select their own members, if you please, and they probably are not the people to whom they report!

In fact, I just read a reference to this in a PRSA article called Ten Things You Didn’t Know About the Grad You Just Hired (And will he or she be working for you a year from now?) (hat tip to David Maister for pointing to the article today). Number 5....

Their bosses aren't their mentors.

Read both articles, you'll be glad you did.

The 'Good to Great' Bus Metaphor

A lot of people have referenced this metaphor since Collins' book came out.

When I stumbled upon Phil Gott's post contemplating the application of that bus metaphor for professional service firms, I found myself agreeing with his insights. Gott reflects on Collins' "do you have the right people on the bus?" and "are they in the right seats?" questions and he says:

...when you apply them to the typical professional service firm the whole thing (the metaphor and perhaps even the bus?) becomes unstable. You have to imagine a bus with dozens or perhaps thousands of different drivers (partners) all with some shared (or conflicting) influence over the steering. Add to that a good many jeering back-seat drivers, quite a number of who are straining on the hand brake. And then imagine that the bus has no particular destination or defined route. You wouldn’t expect such a bus to make much progress.

The more I reflect on this the more I struggle with Collins’s metaphor. I don’t know of any bus company that starts by choosing a collection of passengers and then says “OK, this is where I am going to take you.” No, the main bus company model is that there are lots of different buses all going in different directions. Passengers have to check the route number on the front of the bus and decide which bus they want to get on. They will stay on the bus only so long as it is taking them where they want to go. Then they get off.

For this bus metaphor to work, firms have to have a clear and declared destination and route (and most don’t), and individual professionals have to know where they want to go (and again, most don’t). Perhaps the metaphor does work after all. It’s professional firms – most of them anyway - that don’t.

'Tis true that, as Gott shows us, firms are built a bit backwards. Accountants would say we've "backed into" our passenger list and varied routes. My Grandpa used to say, "Do your feet smell and does your nose run? Then you're built backwards!"

Can we at least agree that we need our long term strategy first (destination and routes) before we determine if we have the infrastructure (fleet and drivers) to get there?

Maybe more people will come along for the ride (passengers) when we've established those first four things. Could this be a clue how to resolve the growing problems in recruiting and retention?

Happiness or Purpose: Which is More Important?

On her blog, Rita Keller posted advice of a Denver consultant, Ben Leichtling, on creating a winning firm. Not that reshaping a firm could ever be easy, but perhaps he's on to something.

It makes sense to me in managing a firm, but it also resonated with me as a parent...

Do we spend too much time trying to create "happy" people instead of purposeful people? Where there is purpose, there is personal reward, yes?

Keller wrote:

It’s not all about continually searching for ways to make them happy and some firms seem to go overboard in trying to do just that. Making people happy is impossible! It is so much more than that...

Mr. Leichtling says, “How do you build a happy work place? Do you use typical team-building activities, flex-time, event tickets, free pizza on Fridays or a wilderness-survival course?

“I suggest a different goal: Create a winning workplace instead of a happy one. If you build a winning workplace, including shared sacrifice, accomplishment and reward, you’ll also have a happy one. You’ll retain only those people, at all levels, who are happy when they’re being very productive, winning and being rewarded.

“If you focus on happy, you’ll only create an unproductive organization based on begging and bribery.

“Most of us think of happiness in terms of ‘what will they give me?’ But getting paid all that you want and having a good time working only when it’s convenient aren’t the reasons your customers are paying you. They want results and service.

“To create a winning workplace, clarify performance goals and the role each person is expected to play. Outstanding performance will become a test of whether specific team-building activities and rewards are paying-off.”

The key is to align customer goals with performance goals of everyone in the firm. So many firms say "our success is the success of our clients" but do they actually aim for it? Or more or less luck into it on occasion?

I really believe that today's young (under 30) people seek purpose.

Purpose isn't "more money" for them (or the firm's owners). It is to make a difference to someone, somehow.

How many firms actually establish a goal or outcome, per client? How about even just for the very best customers? An objective in which the customer has participated in setting and the team is involved in achieving?

As I've posted more than once recently, to be successful, significant ideas like these require more than policy dictated from above. They require sincere participation (role modeling) of partners, managers and all the firm's leaders.

Most firms lack identification of a purpose beyond "profitability" and those that do have a purpose aren't doing a great job of communicating it.

If you want a team, you must have a purpose for your team.

Keller concludes (emphasis mine):

...If [team members] truly feel like a team, that EVERYONE is working together to serve the client, they are willing to go the extra mile. It is when they do not see the partners and managers setting the example that they feel used.

Remember a time when there was a personal tragedy or health issue with a particular person in your work-life and everyone knew they had to pitch-in to get through a tough time? I bet everyone felt good about helping. That is the spirit to nurture in your firm.

Leadership Notes

Dr Ellen Weber is author of the Brain Based Business blog and contributor to Leader Notes blog (and kind contributor of comments on this blog).

She recently picked up on my post about Steve Erickson who said "Leadership is a Quality, Not a Position" and added very interesting perspective. Further, commenter Stephanie West Allen, of IdeaLawg, adds significantly to the conversation and links to her interview of Dr. Charles (Chuck) Yoos regarding his 1984 paper entitled, "There is No Such Thing As Leadership."

Read Dr. Weber's post and the comments.