Twice in recent weeks I have been told that no one makes phone calls anymore.  One person, who I will call Lenore, put it this way:

No one uses the phone just to stay in touch with old clients and maintain relationships anymore.  The phone is too intrusive, and clients prefer emails, which are more convenient for them.  They’re too busy to take calls.  Today, the phone is just for when you have something specific and important to talk about.

Is Lenore right in saying that the phone shall nevermore be used for staying in touch, schmoozing and developing relationships when selling professional services?  Or is this  just the latest in an endless list of excuses to mask call avoidance?

Professionals seldom debate sales ethics.  This is especially true during the hot pursuit of an opportunity, when there is pressure to make quick judgments about what claims to make. 

A prospective client asks how well a professional firm knows banks.  One of the firm’s professionals answers, “Quite well.  Over a quarter of our revenues came from the banking industry last year.”  If she had been given  the chance to speak first, his colleague would have felt compelled to say, “We have only worked for one bank, but it was our largest client last year.”  Both statements are accurate, but they leave a prospective client with quite different impressions.  The professionals make different choices in the tradeoff between accuracy and precision, a subject which I have discussed elsewhere.  

Here I address the problem of discussing what is an ethical answer.  The two professionals didn’t debate the subject in advance, because they didn’t know the question would be asked.  And they will probably also avoid the discussion later, because the answer by then is a fait accompli.  If Professional One knows that Professional Two would reject his answer, he will probably think her prudish, while Professional Two feels that Professional One’s choice of words is unprincipled.  Recognizing that accusations, whether spoken of implied, about a colleague’s prudishness or lack of principles is likely to turn ugly, they simply don’t talk about it.  The more senior person gets his way.  Or the one who speaks first sets the standard.  That isn’t the way to resolve ethical concerns.
 
I am not arguing for either answer here.  Professional One may realize that his, though true, is potentially misleading, but believe that a little finessing is as acceptable in selling as bluffing is in poker.  Professional Two may feel that anything short of the barest truth is dishonest.  Both are defensible positions and do not necessarily reflect a lack of integrity by either professional. 

Note that different clients might respond differently to the two answers, were they to know the whole truth.  One might be a bluffer, herself, and appreciate good bluffing in selling, as much as she does when playing poker or buying something at an oriental bizarre.  She may feel that the first answer proves the savviness of the professional, a trait she may value.  Another buyer might feel he has been betrayed if told anything short of the starkest truth. 

My concern is that if the issue is not discussed, it leads to permanent misunderstanding about what management considers acceptable sales behavior and what is not.  In the absence of that discussion, the bluffs may get bigger to the point that they become bald lies.  (The professional claims that his firm worked for fourteen banks when it has actually only worked for one.)  And the true statements can become more and more detailed, to the point that they never put the firm in a good light.  (The professional not only states that the firm has only worked for one bank, but then adds four reasons why that case is not relevant to the one at hand.)  I have seen both occur during my career and both are destructive to a firm’s reputation and its ability to get business.  They inhibit the firm’s ability to develop a unified sales culture.

To avoid this, I suggest the following:

• Openly discuss appropriate sales behavior from time to time, but focus the discussion on developing appropriate standards for the firm, rather than on accusations about personal morals, sophistication or attitudes.  Talking about standards helps depersonalize the conversation.
• Welcome discussions of sales standards when someone else brings up the subject, regardless of how cautiously.
• Recognize that, while we can all agree that there are standards that are unacceptable, it is legitimate and probably good for the firm for people to believe in different standards, because firm standards should be challenged from time to time.
• Make it clear that the firm has standards that it will hold to, even if doing so requires reprimanding a senior person.  Make those standards clear. 

If you are uncomfortable discussing sales ethics or clearly stating firm standards, that, by itself, should be cause for reflection.

At any networking event we risk getting stuck talking to one individual who would keep us there all night, if we allow it.  I will call this person Lizzie Boredom.  If you spend too much time with her, you lose the benefits of having come to event in the first place.  We need to move away from her as quickly as can be done politely.  At all costs, we must get away before we are trapped into sitting next to her through the entire dinner that follows.   Here are some ways to escape her:

The Old Standby

Lizzie Boredom:  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . .

You:  Excuse me, Lizzie.  I need to refresh my drink.

The Socially Connected

Lizzie Boredom:  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . .

You:  Excuse me, Lizzie.  I see someone who I have been trying to reach for a week and I must go talk to her.

The Desperate

Lizzie Boredom:  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . .

You:  Excuse me, Lizzie.  Before dinner starts, I simply must find a restroom.

The Devious

Lizzie Boredom:  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . .

You:  Oh, John, come over here for a second.  You should meet Lizzie Boredom.  Lizzie, this is John.

John:   It’s nice to meet you, Lizzie.

Lizzie Boredom:  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . .

You:  Excuse me, you two.  I see someone I must talk to.

The Deceptive

Lizzie Boredom:  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . .

You (after subtly punching the speed-dial number for your own cell-phone):  Excuse me, Lizzie, but that’s a call I simply must take.

The Direct

Lizzie Boredom:  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah . . .

You:  Well, Lizzie, I’ve enjoyed talking with you, but must circulate to see some other people before the evening is out.  I look forward to seeing you again at the next of these gatherings.

We have all had to deal with anti-sponsors, people in a client organization who don’t want you to get work at their companies.  Dealing with them tests a professional’s rainmaking prowess.

One rainmaker I know advises his people to “nuke’em,” by going to their bosses and pointing out that they are obstructing progress.  I have no doubt that this man does just that and does it successfully.  It’s not an approach for all professionals in all situations.

My colleague, Gary Pines, a proven rainmaker, took a different approach with an anti-sponsor, whom I will call Marie, who was blocking our chance to work at an old client.  For some reason, she took a dislike to Gary and Harding & Company.  We are not sure why, but perhaps it was because on our original assignment we were brought in by the Managing Partner of her firm, without Marie’s knowledge or approval.

Whatever the reason, she was trying every tactic she could to make sure we got no more work.  She said that the members of the committee she was working with didn’t want us, though we knew from moles on the committee that this wasn’t true.  She said that we were more suited for a small piece of work, awarding the larger share to a competitor.  Even when the competitor failed to produce results, she continued to resist hiring us.  She threw up barrier after barrier.

Gary, a cheerful, likeable, gentlemanly person, might have been able to nuke this anti-sponsor, because of his relationship with the Managing Partner and several key committee members assigned to selecting consultants.  Instead, he chose to win her over.  Over the next eight months he wore away her resistance.

He remained irrepressibly sunny and helpful to her.  He included her in most of his communications with the firm, demonstrating that he wasn’t trying to go around her.  He was helpful above and beyond what was required, in spite of her sour responses.  During one meeting with her at which she was raising objection after objection, he leveled with her, saying, “Marie, somewhere along the way we got off on the wrong foot with each other.  I don’t know why or how and I don’t care.  From today, as far as I’m concerned, we’re starting fresh.  I want to work with you, I want to help you and I want you to be a success.”

She absorbed the message without comment, but from then on things began to change.  In communications with others at the firm, Gary made a point of mentioning Marie positively, if she provided him even the remotest excuse for doing so.  He stayed in touch with her and continued to be positive, polite and helpful.  And he wore her down.  Today, she is a strong sponsor for Gary and our firm.

Turning around an anti-sponsor is one of the toughest challenges a professional can face.  It takes emotional intelligence and maturity to resist taking personal affront at someone like Marie and to do what Gary did.  It also takes a lot of hard work.  But the return on the effort can be huge.

A reader has ask for help with pricing work for friends.  He writes:

I am finding that I will probably be doing an increasing amount of business with long-time friends whom I have known long before we entered a potential client-consultant relationship. I have found it difficult to pursue value-based pricing in these circumstances. Some of these people work for larger public companies, while others work for private ones.

I don’t let friends walk all over me, but I am not sure if I am in a minority when it comes to both my discomfort and (perceived weaker ability) to charge more premium fees. I have often internally used a concept of “fair” pricing or “customer means-based” pricing (what customer can afford), but I have not seen this widely discussed.

How should I be pricing work sold to friends?

Last month in behalf of a reader I posted a Rainmaker Problem, requesting suggestions about how to make a referral.  A couple of readers responded with good ideas, but not many, probably because you were busy with pre-holiday activities.

The subject is an important one, so here are a few suggestions for requesting referrals:

• Pick the right moment.  There are times when you are much more likely to get the help you want than others.  This was the subject of an earlier post, so I will not repeat that discussion here.
• Make it easy for the client to help you.  Broad requests, like Would you consider referring us to others who might need our services?, may get yes for an answer, but they place a large burden on the client to figure you who might be a good contact for you and how to bring up your services.  That’s why they so often produce no result.  You can make it easier for the client by:

1. Being specific:  A request for a referral to the CFO or head of the Consumer Products Division or someone in a senior position at Trigestis Pharmaceuticals is much easier for the client to focus on than a broad plea for help.  Alternatively, you can ask for an introduction to someone with a specific issue with words like Can you think of anyone you know who might also be facing executive succession problems? or Do you know anyone else who handles insurance recovery problems for his company?
2. Make it clear that you aren’t asking too much.  The open ended request for introductions can, and often is, perceived as asking for access to all of a client’s contacts.  That can be off-putting.  Be clear that you aren’t asking for too much.  One rainmaker I know would ask if a client would be willing to make introductions for him and when the client agreed, would follow up with these words:  Could I make a suggestion?  Would you be willing to scan through your contact list and note down ten or a dozen people you know who might benefit from our services? After you do that, we could sit down and talk about them and, together, pick out one or two to target.  If you are uncomfortable with that language, try these words:  Thanks.  That’s awfully kind of you.  Even one or two introductions would be a big help.
3. Provide some language that the client might use when making the introduction.  This saves the client time coming up with the right approach and makes him more effective at getting you in the door.  You can use words like these:  We find that people dealing with international litigation often respond well when someone says, “If you even need a rock-solid, expert witness on transfer pricing issues, you might want to talk with Brenda Smith.  She helped us on . . .” Or you can help your client filter out good introductions form bad ones with words like We find that if you ask someone if they are interested in green design and that they say they are, it is easy to get them to agree to a meeting with us.

• Don’t put the client on the spot.  Show that you recognize that the client many choose to back away from an introduction with words like Timing is everything, so if you bring up the subject and feel that this isn’t the time to introduce us, don’t even try.  I trust your judgment on this completely.  This is especially important if the client shows even the slightest hesitation about making a specific introduction.  Asking for advice rather than an introduction is another way to reduce pressure:  I want to meet Joe Smith.  Do you have any suggestions for the best way to do that?
• Keep the client informed about what happens.  Always notify the client about how the introduction went, whether or not it was a success.  If the introduction turns into new business for you a year later, it is still important to let the client know what happened, because it shows you acknowledge the help he provided, and so reinforces the behavior.
• Be thankful.  This should be done whether or not the introduction is successful.

Do any of you have additional ideas?

Rain making requires building a referral network by maintaining contact with people over the years.  That’s how most rainmakers sell accounting, actuarial, architectural, engineering, legal, consulting and other professional services.  Much of this work is done by phone, because phone calls cost less in time and money than do face-to-face meetings and because they allow conversation to flow to productive subjects in a way that email doesn’t.

But, something there is that does not love a call . . . namely me.  Left to my inclinations, I would use the phone only in emergencies and for ordering pizza.  I am, in fact, an expert at avoiding making phone calls.

Here are some things you can do to avoid even the most essential calls:

• Tell yourself that the probability of anything good coming out of the call rounds to zero and give up immediately.  The statement of probability is true, which is why the tactic works so well.  Of course, if you make enough calls to enough people, the cumulative probability of something good happening gets quite high, but let’s not think about that.
• Take a quick look at your email in-box before calling.  This highly recommended tactic almost always works, because you immediately surrender control of your day to responding to urgent, if not always important, matters.  By the time you are done, you must move on to something else and can put off calling until tomorrow, when you can repeat the process.
• Tell yourself that your calls will be unwelcome and you will become a pest.  Years of personal experience and experience with hundreds of professionals show me that this statement is untrue, as long as you handle yourself properly, focusing on the other person’s needs rather than pushing a sale. Still, imaging myself being rejected for being pesky feeds my personal insecurities so effectively that it stops all effort cold.
• Treat calling as if it is something you must squeeze in on top of everything else you must do.  That way it is the first thing that gets squeezed out.  For this to work you must never acknowledge that calling is equally or even more important to the firm and to yourself than the other things you are responsible for.
• Repeat to yourself over and over that bringing in business isn’t really your responsibility or, at least, shouldn’t be.  Of course, this can be career limiting, but a dedicated call avoider won’t let that stop him.

There are other trivial techniques for avoiding the phone—sharpening a pencil, going to the bathroom, getting coffee; I have tried them all—but the five I have listed are the best for busy professionals.  Just recognize that when time comes around for promotions (or layoffs, for that matter) and your business development contribution is reviewed, these excuses won’t help you.

Slippage refers to the difference in price for a stock between what the investors estimates he will pay and what he actually does pay, due to changes in price that occur during the process of buying. Efficient buying reduces slippage.  It is a concept that applies to selling professional services, too.

There are times when a client or prospective client or network contact is more than usually predisposed to help you.  This can be, for example:

• When you have just finished an excellent piece of work for the client.
• When the prospective client becomes excited about your potential to help him.
• When you have just had a conversation at a conference with a network contact that shows the potential you have for helping each other.

The value of such opportunities fades as time passes.  The client’s desire to help you in return for the excellent work you did ebbs as she gets absorbed by other urgent matters.  The prospective client loses some of the enthusiasm generated at your meeting.  The network contact also forgets the conversation you had as the days go by.

This is one of the reasons that rainmakers feel a sense of urgency about following up.  No matter how busy they are, they find time to follow up on such opportunities, recognizing that all their hard work to produce them loses value as time slips by.

I don’t want to overwork this metaphor.  Following up too eagerly can be construed as desperation or as being mercenary.   But, in my experience, among professionals far more is lost from slippage than from pushing too fast and too hard.  And, of course, I am not suggesting that you give up on an opportunity if a week or three has slipped by before you act.  Better late than never.

Still, as a New Year’s resolution, you could do worse than committing to reduce rainmaking slippage by following up on opportunities while the glow you have created burns brightest.