Rainmaker Test
A test to identify future rainmakers has be reported in several blogs (and also 2). Here is my concern with it:
I find this test disturbing. I have interviewed hundreds of rainmakers in the profession, written three books on rainmaking, and, along with the other members of our firm helped many hundreds of professionals learn how to bring in new matters and new clients.
The characteristics Dr. Richards has identified ring true. The test, then, may be good at identifying people who have them. But it does not look at what in our experience is the single most important determinant of rainmaking success, the desire to bring in business. Someone with the will to succeed can learn many of the other traits.
Take, for example, an attorney I will call Kate. She works on media and entertainment matters for a mid-sized firm. When I met her she was a partner who had not met origination targets for several years. One reason was lack of resilience; she gave up on opportunities after one or two unreturned phone calls. She needed and took help in developing appropriate standards for measuring success. She learned that an unreturned phone call did not mean a lack of interest, that a client who turns you down for one matter isn’t lost forever and many other interpretations of events that built her resilience. She now is a solid producer of new work. A single mother, Kate was driven to succeed, even though she lacked many of the traits at first that Dr. Richards identified.
I fear that people like Kate will score poorly on such a test and be written off as unsuited to become rainmakers. That would be an injustice to them and a loss for their firms.
Ford Harding
August 21st, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Ford – I agree with your thinking here.
The “Rainmaker Test” sounds rather like analysing Olympic gold medal winners and concluding that their key characteristics are athleticism, a strong desire to win and a willingness to train hard to do so. All true – but certainly not the full picture. Did they all have those characteristics 10 years ago when their talent was spotted? Probably not. And does everyone who aspires to perform better athletically need to start with those characteristics? Again, probably not.
One question for you though: in your studies of rainmakers, are there any characteristics you have spotted which are an absolute pre-requiste and can’t be trained, coached or acquired somehow along the way?
Ian
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 AM
Ian:
The raw material from which rainmakers are drawn is pretty strong to start with. By and large, professionalls are well educated, smart and motivated people. The last two of those attributes may also be prerequisites to rainmaking.
Optimism was the one trait that stood out among rainmakers. It encompases resilience which the test looks for. It can be learned. See Martin Seligman’s “Learned Optimism.” I think Dr. Richard’s list of attributes pretty good. The issue is, as you state, whether they must be prerequisites or can be learned.
Ford