I would like to collect some stories about professionals artfully righting a sales effort that fallen in a ditch.  Here is one, for starters:

An executive recruiter accidentally called the client by the wrong name during a sales pitch.  Who hasn’t at least once in a career?  He apologized, but it was not his day, and he did it again.  The third time  he did it, he caught himself and without saying another word, picked put on his coat and started putting away his things.  The client asked what he was doing, to which he responded cheerily, “I would never hire somone who got my name wrong three times at an important meeting.  I suspect you wouldn’t either, so I don’t want to waste more of your time.  Thank you so much for the opportunity.  I wish you all success with the search.”  He had read his client correctly; the man laughed and told the recruiter to take his coat of, because he wanted to continue the discussion.  The recruiter got the search.

Do any of you have good stories about artfully turning around a difficult sales situation?

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.

I sat with a friend today who described frustration with a colleague who had lost a sale my friend had been pursuing for a long time. The client had asked the colleague, whom I will call Ernest, if he had ever done work in a foundry. Ernest had answered, “Yes, but only once and it was over twenty years ago for a company that was so different from yours that there isn’t much relevance to your situation.” After the meeting, Ernest had argued that a less detailed response would have been misleading, and so, dishonest.

First, I want to commend Ernest for his desire to be honest.  There is, unfortunately, too much lying in selling situations and it gives selling a bad name.  I do not think Ernest was being prudish nor that his colleague wanted him to do something unprincipled. Yet, I think his answer was a mistake.

In making his defense of his answer, he committed at least two logical fallacies. First, he assumed he could read the client’s mind. Ernest presumed that the question was about relevant client experience. What if it wasn’t? For example, it may have been a simple devise to get Ernest to talk to get a sense of what he would be like to work with. If so, and I think this at least as likely as the reason Ernest assumed, he showed the client that he was likely to bore him with unwanted detail and, worse, that he was none too savvy.

Or the client could have wanted to know how Ernest felt about spending a good part of the next few months in a place with a lot of banging and crashing. We will never know. If so, Ernest’s answer showed no tolerance or interest in such a place. Unless you know why a person is asking a question, you don’t really know how to answer.

Second, he assumed that an accurate but imprecise answer would be misleading and dishonest. The distinction between accuracy and precision should be kept in mind when answering client questions. An accurate statement, such as Ford Harding is between 20 and 70 years old, can be imprecise. And a precise one; Ford Harding is 18 years, four months and six days old; can be inaccurate. When we answer questions, we often make tradeoffs, explicitly or implicitly, between accuracy and precision.  An answer that is sufficiently precise in one context may not be in another.  If a policeman asks a young person’s age at a bar, he requires a precision not usually necessary, for example.

Answers to the question, Have you ever worked in a foundry?, such as Yes or Yes, but it was a while ago are both accurate, if imprecise in that they don’t give much detail. If they satisfy the client and are true, he may be put off by having more information pressed upon him. He can follow up with more questions, if he wants to.

If you are concerned that you may have misled him or that you may appear to have been evasive if he does ask for detail, the solution is simple: ask before you tell more. Yes. Is experience in a foundry important to you? His answer will guide you to the right level of precision. For example, he might answer, Only in that it would be better, if you knew what it is like to spend months in a place with so much noise, before you take the assignment. This might open the opportunity to describe work you did at a heavy metal stamping plant or the noise your child’s rock band makes when it rehearses in your living room, information relevant but not obvious.

But Ernest assumed he knew what the client was thinking and the level of detail the client wanted. Ernest is a nice man and generally good to be around.  But trying to read another’s intentions, as he did in this case, can be an annoying thing to do. How would you feel, if you asked a travel agent if she had ever been to Sweden, and you got a lengthy, qualified answer which seemed to suggested she wasn’t certain about anything on the subject, when all you really wanted to know is if the currency there is the Euro?

Everyone knew there was no point in calling on Hannah.  She had had a bad experience with the firm and had ceased to use it long ago.  The damage that had been done proved ever more limiting as Hannah’s career prospered and she was put in charge of larger portions of the client organization.

Ignoring the common wisdom of the firm, Grant, a senior associate, scheduled a meeting with her.  Grant is a soft spoken man with an open, reassuring manner.  He is an introvert and a listener.

He began the meeting by saying, “I understand you had a bad experience with our firm.  The person you worked with is no longer with the firm and that was before my time.  But, if you want to talk about it, I’m here to listen.  Or, if you would prefer, we can talk about the future.”

There was silence for half a minute and Grant held his tongue.  Then, Hannah said, “I haven’t spoken with anyone from your firm for ten years.”  Again a pause, and she said, “I have some needs coming up that I’m going to want some help with.  Let’s talk about them.”

Go see that client who had a bad experience with your firm.  A forthright approach, like Grant’s, at the very least will help ensure the client doesn’t bad mouth the firm, if she has in the past.  At best, the client and you will talk about the future.

In previous posts, Seven Things to Remember About a Senior Executive’s Secretary and Getting Help from Executives’ Assistants, I described how to get help from a client’s administrative assistant. In simple terms, I described how to develop a relationship with her that benefits her boss, her and you.

Some rainmakers delegate this responsibility to their own assistants, and so obtain several benefits. First and foremost, it frees up their own time for other marketing and sales activities. Second, it allows a peer-to-peer relationship between the assistants, which is often stronger than one you can create. Third, it results in a higher and better use their time. Many will recognize this and take pride in the contribution they are making.

As one executive recruiter who has started up several new offices for his firm puts it, “The assistant is fifty percent of your productivity. I am a little disorganized and chaotic, so I need an assistant who is organized and disciplined. I expect her to develop a relationship with the assistants of my key contacts, even though they never meet.”

If you choose to try this approach:

• Review the two posts with her. (There is more on developing relationships with admins in Chapter 7 of my book, Rain Making-2nd Edition.)
• Help her practice by role playing several calls with her. Do it over the phone, sitting in different rooms. First, have her play the role of the client’s assistant, while you demonstrate how you would obtain her help in scheduling a meeting with her (fictitious) boss. Then, you play the client’s assistant and let her practice on you several times.
• Select some low risk targets in the market you sell to and have her try what she has learned with them.
• Give her some targets and goals and get her started.
• Give her a small budget for an occasional lunch with the clients’ assistants or to buy them flowers on special occasions.
• When you come back from a meeting she scheduled for you, always let her know how it went. Always do this. She needs the information and it is also a courtesy to a valued team member whom you want to keep motivated. And if a meeting results in a win, make sure she participates in the celebration.

In an earlier post I listed seven things to remember when dealing with executives’ secretaries. Here are some things you can do to put that knowledge to use:

• Keep your goal aligned with hers and remind her that this is the case by saying things like, “I want to make sure that I use [your boss’s] time well.”

• Let her help you achieve this shared goal by seeking her advice. “I sense from talking to some of my contacts in the company that x is an issue in several parts of the organization. Do you know if he feels that way? Do you think he might be open to talking about it?”

• Keep your goal aligned with hers and remind her that this is the case by saying things like, “I want to make sure that I use [your boss’s] time well.”Let her help you achieve this shared goal by seeking her advice. “I sense from talking to some of my contacts in the company that x is an issue in several parts of the organization. Do you know if he feels that way? Do you think he might be open to talking about it?”

• Also, seek her judgment. “If you wouldn’t mind, I will send the email to you first, and if you don’t think it would interest him, please don’t forward it to him. I don’t want to waste his time.” “I am planning to bring our tax specialist with me, unless you sense that [your boss] would rather meet one-on-one. What do you think?”

• Show gratitude and interest. Verbal thank-yous, thank you notes, notes to a administrative assistant’s boss commending her, and flowers are all ways to show your appreciation for help. Praise will mean more if specific rather than general. (“Your advice on x saved hours of work, helping us meet the tight schedule.”) Equally important are showing interest in her children and spouse, and in her health and well-being as you would any other business friend.

Assistants to executives want to help their bosses use time productively and efficiently. They can help you do the same if you give them a chance.

To get in front of a senior executive, you often have to go through a secretary. When working with such a person always remember:

1. Without her help, the chances of getting a meeting are slim.
2. She is a lot more experienced with meeting-getting tactics than you are.
3. She is smart and well paid. There is a good chance that she is at least as smart as you are.
4. She knows more about the executive and his interests than almost anyone.
5. Ditto about the company.
6. She wants to help the right people get on the boss’s agenda. It’s your job to convince her that you are one of those people.
7. Most are predisposed to be helpful in ways beyond getting a meeting with the boss, if you let them.
8. She will likely keep her job longer than the boss does.

Of course, it isn’t necessarily a she.

There must be things to add to this list. Any suggestions?

To finesse a sale is to maneuver around facts that might hurt your chances of winning the prospective client’s business were she to know the whole truth. Those who know the term use it to describe words or acts which are legal but deceptive. We can legitimately call finessing a sharp practice. Or is it?
The Lowest-Common-Denominator Finesse (hereafter referred to as “the LCD Finesse”) is, perhaps, the most common. Many a rainmaker uses this finesse effectively to win work. They use it most often to make past client work seem relevant to the current prospect when she might not see it that way, if she knew the whole truth. If we are selling to a bank and have limited experience with banks, we might describe work we did at an insurance company as being for “another large financial institution.” When talking with a prospective client from a Zurich-based bank about work we did for a pharmaceutical company based in Geneva, it becomes “another large Swiss company.” By this logic, hotels and airlines are lumped together as travel-based businesses.

A little of this is innocent enough. After all, the descriptions we give are true. But we are withholding information which might make the client uncomfortable with our credentials. How far can this go before we cross the line into unethical behavior? Years ago, while pitching to a precision aircraft parts manufacturer, I referred to a former client in an anecdote as “another metalworking company.” This was an exceedingly low common denominator. The company in my story made the metal straps that tie goods to pallets to for shipping. The two companies had almost nothing in common, and the aircraft parts manufacturer would almost certainly have discounted my story, if I had told him the whole truth.

But the story did have a message, one important for the client to hear and that was relevant to his situation. Was I wrong to tell the story in a way that made it compelling to him? I am not sure. Would it have been better to tell it in a way that made the differences between his company and the one in the story blatantly clear and in doing so risk his rejection of a point that was imprortant for him to hear? That doesn’t feel right either. I can say that we did use the LCD in the story we told, he hired us and later provided us with a good reference many times.

Yesterday I saw George and Ira Gershwin’s musical, My One and Only, in Stratford, Ontario. The show must have collected every professional tap dancer in Canada. The twenty-person cast tapped its way through three delightful hours.

Tap dancing may be alive and well in Stratford this summer, but it’s on the decline elsewhere. For many of us, the last tap dancer we have seen was Gregory Hines, and there is a whole generation which has never heard of the man. Today, we use the term, “tap dancing,” metaphorically far more often than we use it to describe a real dance. And that lead me to wonder, why do we use the term “tap dancing?”

The metaphors we choose tell a lot about our view of whatever it is we use them to describe. “Tap dancing” is a good example. We use it to describe the deft handling of a risky and difficult inquiry. We might say, for example, ”You really had to tap dance your way out of that one.” In this sense it connotes survival of a near disaster. When used this way, it often draws a laugh, usually a laugh of relief and the pleasure of having gotten away with something. That’s because it may also suggest a less than full disclosure of the facts or at least walking a fine line between truth and misrepresentation.

Usually, it is used as a complement, though it can have a negative slant when used to describe how a person maneuvered himself out of a mess he had needlessly gotten himself into.

The term interests me because it is used so frequently to describe what happens in a difficult sales meeting. It might be used to describe the answers to such difficult questions as:

1. Isn’t it true that XYZ Corporation replaced you midstream on their project?
2. Why should we buy the same solution from you that you have already given to our competitors?
3. Do you mean that you have never done a project like this one before?

The ability to address questions like these, especially when unexpected, is highly valued by professionals. What does the choice of “tap dancing” tell us about that talent? I believe that is tells us the following:

1. It requires skill. This is true of both the dance, itself, and the verbal ability. Many may aspire but few can do it.
2. It is done under pressure before an audience. Unlike some forms of dancing, tap dancing is used almost exclusively as performing art. You do it under a spotlight before an audience. A critical audience is essential to metaphorical tap dancing, too.
3. It is hard work. Other dances may disguise hard work behind smoothness and grace, but tap dancing is obviously physically difficult. A difficult conversation with a prospective client at a sales meeting is also exhausting;
4. There is a competitive aspect to it. Unlike other forms of dancing, competition is almost always present when tap dancing. The competition between the lead and another actor-dancer that I saw so recently in My One and Only is repeated in form again and again when tap dancing is featured. A challenge and a response is essential to the application of the term to a conversation between two people, as well. While the client tries to catch him, the professional dances furiously to respond acceptably to each question.

There is a school of thought that tap dancing at a sales meeting isn’t necessary, because a professional is always open with clients. I lean in that direction, too. But I have tap danced through a sales meeting or two in my years as a professional and in doing so, have won some work that helped the client achieve her objectives and helped the firm I was with avoid a layoff. And I have enjoyed the admiration that others in the firm expressed afterwards.

Yes, we should always be honest with our clients. But we also should put our firms before them in the best fair light. That sometimes requires tap dancing. I would wager heavily that those who learn to tap dance make partner more often than those who only know how to waltz.

All of which leads me to conclude that when a rainmaker dances to make rain, it is sometimes a tap dance.