| | By Malcolm Sleath
Question: When
presented with a client
problem, I come up with
the best solution I can.
Why is it that some
clients just don’t seem
to appreciate this?
Answer: When
researchers ask clients
how they feel about
management consultants a
significant minority say
they don’t feel they
have been listened to
properly; a similar
number feel that the
consultants do not
understand their needs;
and a majority say if
they felt they had been
listened to more
attentively, they would
have been more likely to
commission work.
The difficulty for
consultants is that on
the one hand they want
to position themselves
as being there to serve
the client’s needs,
while on the other hand
they know that slavishly
delivering what the
client asks them to is
unlikely to produce
outstanding results.
In some past golden
era consultants might
have been regarded as
experts, on hand to
dispense their
accumulated wisdom after
gently massaging the
client into a receptive
frame of mind. This
approach was summed up
in the saying, “First
you have to show the
client that you
understand what they
want, then you have to
work out what they need,
and finally you have to
get them to want what
they need”.
Handled in the right
way, this approach can
still work. But
acceptance that the
‘consultant knows best’,
if it every really
existed, is certainly
now dead. These days,
clients no longer regard
themselves as merely
buyers of services. They
expect to collaborate.
Consultants, even those
brought up on a
consultative sales
model, can find this
challenging.
Does this mean we
have to throw out
everything we think we
know about selling? No.
Does this mean we have | |
|
| | to modify what we are
doing at the heart of
the process? Yes.
What stays the same?
At the risk of
over-simplifying, we can
say the foundation is
still about letting the
client know you
understand the situation
from his or her point of
view. Everything hinges
around two questions:
‘What’s supposed to be
happening?’ and ‘What is
actually happening?’
These questions can
reveal problems: ‘I
thought I was here to
drain the swamp, but I
seem to spend all my
time fighting
alligators’. They can
also draw out
aspirations: ‘With all
these alligators around,
I can see an opportunity
to get into the handbag
business’.
Uncovering a need is
only the beginning.
Before you can have a
serious conversation
with a client – one that
is going to lead to a
collaborative solution –
three things need to
happen.
1. The client has to
spell out the potential
loss from failure to
resolve the problems or
achieve the aspirations.
This engages their
serious interest in
addressing the issue and
marks the first step in
establishing the
added-value you might
bring.
2. The client has to
be aware that a solution
exists. They don’t have
to know much about it or
believe it will work for
them – that comes later.
3. The client has to
express the desire to
change his or her
situation.
How the consultant
handles these elements
will determine if the
client feels they are
being ‘sold to’ or if
they feel they are
collaborating in
designing a solution
that meets their needs.
To illustrate, let’s
think about the ‘can’t
drain the swamp because
I’m fighting the
alligators’ problem.
| |
| |
| | stopped the client from
asking for it before?’
In the alligator
swamp example, the
forces pushing the
client towards wanting a
solution are mounting
losses from project
overruns and so forth.
But what has been
getting in the way of
them seeking to change
the situation until now?
These forces restraining
the client usually take
the form of beliefs that
fall into one or more of
the following
categories:
1. The client
believes they are not
personally able to
implement a solution.
For example, the client
may have a belief system
that regards alligators
as sacred, and prohibits
them from doing anything
that involves killing
them. They can’t imagine
a solution that does not
involve the slaughter of
alligators.
2. The client
believes that other
people do not have the
personal capacity to
implement the solution.
For example, they may
consider the workers to
be so afraid of
alligators that they
would never be able to
implement any solution
that involved engaging
with them.
3. The client
believes there is
something inherent in
the situation that
cannot be changed. For
example, they may
believe that alligators
in general breed too
fast for any solution to
be effective, or that
the alligators in their
particular swamp are
more aggressive than
average.
How these beliefs are
handled determines the
extent to which the
client feels ownership
of the solution.
The big mistake is to
treat them as
‘objections’ to be
overcome on the spot. If
you challenge the
client’s beliefs at this
stage, they have very
little motive to review
them. However, after
answering the payoff
question, the client has | |
|
| | much more motivation to
re-examine their
beliefs.
Until the client has
expressed their ‘vision
of success’, I strongly
suggest that the
client’s restraining
beliefs should be
incorporated into the
way the solution is
described. Here are
three examples that
incorporate the client’s
beliefs:
“It sounds as if you
need a way of reducing
the impact of the
alligators so the
project can get back on
track...
1. ... in a way that
respects their sacred
status.”
2. ... in a way that
takes account of the
deep fear the workers
have of them.”
3. ... in a way which
takes account of their
fast breeding rate /
particularly aggressive
nature.”
You are not promising
to deliver a solution
which meets this
specification. You are
simply acknowledging
that, for the time
being, this is what the
client wants. Your only
implied commitment is to
do your best to find out
if it can be done.
Once the client has
agreed the true value of
the solution, they will
be more open to revising
their beliefs in the
light of evidence. You
will also be in a better
position to assess the
feasibility of working
within their
constraints.
Challenging client
beliefs before you have
established the value of
a solution makes the
client inclined to feel
you are not listening
and only offering what
you want to offer.
Incorporating their
beliefs into the
solution, allows you to
move on to establishing
the true value. Once you
have done that, you
might be surprised at
how far they are
motivated to revise
their position. | |
|
| |
The potential losses
from not dealing with
the alligators might be
the cost of project
overruns, the damage to
reputation in failing to
drain the swamp and the
compensation bill
arising from workers
being eaten, and so on.
That much is clear.
Moving on, we could
begin to outline the
requirement for a
solution by saying to
the client, ‘It sounds
as if you need a way of
controlling the
alligators so that the
losses from project
overruns and so forth
are brought to a halt’.
Having established
the need, and the
downside of not
addressing it,
conventional wisdom
suggests the consultant
should push ahead with
trying to establish the
upside of solving the
problem.
Sometimes this is
referred to as the
‘payoff’ question. It
goes something like
this: ‘How would it help
you if you could solve
this problem?’ In its
more extreme form, it is
referred to as the
‘miracle’ question. For
example, you might ask a
drug addict, “If you
woke up tomorrow
morning, and your drug
dependency had
completely evaporated
overnight, what
difference would it make
to your life?”
These questions
encourage the client to
temporarily suspend any
reservations about the
effectiveness of the
solution so the real
benefits of resolving
the problem or realising
the opportunity can be
explored and made
explicit.
But before pressing
on with such questions,
I suggest consultants
ask themselves another:
‘If this solution is so
obvious, what has | |
|
Previous Page 
