Comments on: Consulting Conundrum

By: Hildy

Hildy — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 20:24:10 +0000

Havi and Jon:
I am smiling at Havi’s response – being a writer, I think by writing. But that doesn’t always mean the written word is the best method to use when all is said and done! So I am hoping through writing this and through all these responses that perhaps we will have collectively worked through how to perhaps say these things aloud to a client. Because again, that’s part of the problem when “client” becomes “friend and client” – even just handing them a piece of paper that says all the right things is an act that requires finesse!

We have had a policy in our practice for years now that we don’t work with friends – that adding together business and pleasure and money and trust and the fact that suddenly one of you is an ‘expert’ where 2 days ago you were equals, and etc. – well we have just seen it go badly too often. It adds “stuff” to a friendship that before had just friendship!

Which I think is at the heart of the issue of the friendships that blossom and flourish with clients – you wind up having more than just the ‘client’ expectations. You wind up with friendship expectations, which gets to Jon’s post re: those expectations.

There are consultants who do indeed, as Jon noted, see their work as just a series of deliverables, and one of the means to get to those ends is the client relationship. And there are those who form real relationships, and then have all the issues of those relationships – and the Tyranny of the Nice happens in friendships all the time! Where you don’t want to rock the boat by pointing out things about which your friends later say, “Why didn’t you tell me?”

From your posts, though, it is nice to know I am not alone in this! And I confess that our outcomes from these types of situations have been very mixed. So I’m hoping others will share – has anyone else had this issue come up for them? Can you share how it resolved itself?

By: Hildy

Hildy — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:59:34 +0000

Channing – thank you! Your comments are, as always, thought-provoking!
Hildy

By: Jon Ford

Jon Ford — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:14:30 +0000

Would like to hear more from all involved on the “Tyranny of the Nice.” When I think back on my own history of agency-client experiences, it is all about the relationship and where it is maintained. But these relationships are just that: two-way relationships. So can one side of the relationship ‘manage’ these? Or are relationships by their nature nurtured?

(Cool, I just put ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ right next to each other.)

I realize that this is exactly what my job was for many years – client management. And now I wonder, particularly as we move forward into a more interconnected and conceptual age, whether or not that is a model that simply doesn’t – or won’t soon – apply.

The last agency I worked for intuitively didn’t embrace a client management role. We were all in charge of the real products – creativity, ideas, strategy and implementation. We considered these the currency of the relationship. Is that enough?

By: Havi Echenberg

Havi Echenberg — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:39:05 +0000

At the risk of being over-simplistic, maybe you have them read this blog entry?

Seriously, I can’t think of a better way for a client (especially one with whom one has a relationship) to understand why you want to “go back to basics”, if you will. I’m going to use it, even if you choose not to!

By: Channing Hillway, Ph.D.

Channing Hillway, Ph.D. — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:14:46 +0000

Excellent statement of the problem of working with clients with whom we have established relationships.
One of the handicaps that we have, in this regard, is that we put it on ourselves to solve the problem. If we cannot easily address and solve it, then we tend to want to live with it in hopes that a window of opportunity will come along, which is usually a delusion allowing us to slip into that “Tyranny of the Nice.” We are problem solvers, after all, and we want to get it right.
One strategy that I have found successful is to offer options, which means choices. There are three types of options. The first is where both options are positive, with one much more attractive — which really doesn’t solve the problem here.
The second is equal options, or equal for at least one of the parties. An example would be, “Okay, think about whether we should start by pulling people together for the strategic planning or if we should work just with the office staff to nail down the financial picture.” If these are equal for someone, the consultant or the client, it may be a way to get the client off the dime to at least do something.
The third is to offer unequal options, which gets us more to the point of the “Nice” dilemma. An example might be, “I believe we are the point of either nailing down a schedule where we agree to a series of steps to address the goals we have discussed, or possibly we should set a date sometime next year to see if we want to go forward then.” It’s the choice of either moving off the dime to make some kind of commitment or forget it, at least for now. Consultants, after all, must actually work with their clients to earn fees. It’s a reasonable position to want to keep things moving.
All three types of options — all positive, equal and practical, or unequal options — have their place. By using the options strategy, the onus is placed on the client to make the decision, and that’s why it works. The consultant, on the other hand, must only offer options that he or she can accept. And it may mean temporary or permanent separation from a client, which may be inevitable but which may result in a strong sense of loss or even guilt, at first. A sense of joyous liberation may emerge from it all when one has broken out of that “Tyranny of the Nice.”

Channing Hillway, Ph.D.
ARISTARCUS COMMUNICATION
Ventura CA USA