When I consider the impact of legal training on the world we create for ourselves, I am becoming concerned. The latest scientific research in the field of quantum mechanics seems to confirm what many of us have intuitively known for years, namely that whatever focus we have in a contract is likely to show up in reality given time. Put another way, a contract whose purpose is less than positive may cause the very thing it fears happening. So in personal work, the pre-nuptial agreement has been widely seen as negative and being likely to increase the chances of a relationship failing. In business circles, such a perspective is less prevalent but the same logic dictates the same result. So surely if you come at relationships in business from distrust, surely you are increasingly the likelihood of a break down in the relationship? But short of trusting everyone, which is current business circles might be seen as suicidal for a business, what can we do?
The answer is predictable for those used to my thinking: you create a relationship from a positive perspective, focusing on all aspects of the relationship including bits that might have little or no immediate legal impact but are an important part of the focus of the relationship - the desired long term outcome of the relationship or its "vision" if you like.
Getting clarity around and then stating the vision alongside more specific objective and values for the relationship creates a powerful focus for the contract. You can then go on to deal with the more mundane mechanics of the relationship to make it work and also state, almost as an aside, what will happen "in the unlikely event of things going astray".
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The Benefits of Contractual Freedom
Building on the idea of approaching law from the point of view of creating effective relationships (as an overall commitment for my legal practice), I have being looking at other ways of doing this. So far in my blog I have covered positive focus in contracts and working towards specific visions, objectives and values. I have also spoken about my ‘assisted communication’ work. Something new came up during a client meeting yesterday.
All of this came out of the realisation that in essence everything, as a human-being, is about relationships. In particular, successful business is about successful relationships. The distinction however between business and personal is much more grey than it might at first appear. In looking to build freedom and flexibility in my own personal relationships, it has started me thinking about how this can operate in business.
Yesterday I saw a client whose business is effectively an intermediary between the members of the public and certain specific service providers (for confidentiality reasons, I cannot say exactly what). He goes out and seeks customers, has them sign up to a commitment (which they are bound by after the appropriate cooling off period) and then he sells the contracts on to the service provider for a set fee. The client was very interesting in that he wants to expand the business rapidly and create franchises so he is interested in building on what their success is so far by focussing on quality assurance, etc, to build the brand.
As we sat down to discuss how we might work together, I asked him what he thought would be possible for the expansion of the brand by turning his current approach on its head, risking losing the benefit of long-term contractual commitments (which might be quite hard in practice to enforce anyway) in favour of the probable popularity of a service that is so confident in itself that it does not feel the need to tie people down. What I was effectively suggesting was that contracts only provide a loose structure for when the two parties (in this case the customer and the supplier) choose to work together. I was suggesting therefore letting go of the attempt to tie them in for a fixed period. Any short term gain in terms of some people cancelling would probably be outweighed by the increase in the number of people who would be probably willing to sign up to a contract where there was no long-term commitment so that trying it out is effectively a “no-brainer”.
The down side in the short term is that if he took on short commitments rather than longer ones, when he sells on the contracts to the service providers, they would not be willing to pay a large up front sum and he would have to then take payments from them in instalments, probably by way of standing order. However, again this was something that would also enable him to more easily sign up service providers as only that day he had encountered resistance to a request for an up-front payment from a supplier bearing in mind that they had no guarantee that the customers would actually perform their contracts. He again saw that this could be very beneficial in the expansion of the business.
As we explored the subject in greater depth, the client saw that such an approach would make a powerful statement of confidence in their service and also make it much easier to sign people up and he saw that this would be very beneficial in the long term development of the brand.
I ended up our first “get to know” meeting leaving him to reflect on what we had discussed and to speak to his business partner. The meeting itself seemed to produce a whole raft of possibilities for expansion of the business that he had not considered before. I found the experience of our discussions personally enjoyable and fulfilling and he seemed to find it invigorating as well.
All of this came out of the realisation that in essence everything, as a human-being, is about relationships. In particular, successful business is about successful relationships. The distinction however between business and personal is much more grey than it might at first appear. In looking to build freedom and flexibility in my own personal relationships, it has started me thinking about how this can operate in business.
Yesterday I saw a client whose business is effectively an intermediary between the members of the public and certain specific service providers (for confidentiality reasons, I cannot say exactly what). He goes out and seeks customers, has them sign up to a commitment (which they are bound by after the appropriate cooling off period) and then he sells the contracts on to the service provider for a set fee. The client was very interesting in that he wants to expand the business rapidly and create franchises so he is interested in building on what their success is so far by focussing on quality assurance, etc, to build the brand.
As we sat down to discuss how we might work together, I asked him what he thought would be possible for the expansion of the brand by turning his current approach on its head, risking losing the benefit of long-term contractual commitments (which might be quite hard in practice to enforce anyway) in favour of the probable popularity of a service that is so confident in itself that it does not feel the need to tie people down. What I was effectively suggesting was that contracts only provide a loose structure for when the two parties (in this case the customer and the supplier) choose to work together. I was suggesting therefore letting go of the attempt to tie them in for a fixed period. Any short term gain in terms of some people cancelling would probably be outweighed by the increase in the number of people who would be probably willing to sign up to a contract where there was no long-term commitment so that trying it out is effectively a “no-brainer”.
The down side in the short term is that if he took on short commitments rather than longer ones, when he sells on the contracts to the service providers, they would not be willing to pay a large up front sum and he would have to then take payments from them in instalments, probably by way of standing order. However, again this was something that would also enable him to more easily sign up service providers as only that day he had encountered resistance to a request for an up-front payment from a supplier bearing in mind that they had no guarantee that the customers would actually perform their contracts. He again saw that this could be very beneficial in the expansion of the business.
As we explored the subject in greater depth, the client saw that such an approach would make a powerful statement of confidence in their service and also make it much easier to sign people up and he saw that this would be very beneficial in the long term development of the brand.
I ended up our first “get to know” meeting leaving him to reflect on what we had discussed and to speak to his business partner. The meeting itself seemed to produce a whole raft of possibilities for expansion of the business that he had not considered before. I found the experience of our discussions personally enjoyable and fulfilling and he seemed to find it invigorating as well.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Question: When is a sale not a sale?
Answer: When it involves the possibility of an ongoing relationship.
Today I had a meeting with a young web entrepreneur who wanted to acquire some websites to expand his business interests. Our chat was designed to brief me to create the purchase contract with the US seller and to ensure that he obtained the domains.
I warned him that he needs to undertake “due diligence” to make sure that he gets what is expecting – to allow him to verify things he has been told. We had had the conventional chat about the contract and the due diligence but as he spoke he talked about the relationship he had struck up with the seller and how he had grown to trust him over quite a period of time (around two years) and the more he spoke the more I realised how the ongoing relationship, even beyond the promised period of post-completion support, was a major consideration for my client and for the seller.
Indeed, it was clear to me that they could continue to develop the relationship to mutual benefit. I spoke with him about how I could use my “relationship creation approach” (normally more relevant with business partners) in creating a more positive purchase document that deals with things beyond the usual standard things to protect and deal with future disputes.
I explained that the real value in contracts usually lies not in the documents themselves but in the process of clarifying intentions to reduce the chance of disputes. I added that by adding longer terms aspirations and aligning both parties with the vision, objectives and values of the ongoing relationship, though largely legally unenforceable, it gives the contract a very positive and inspiring focus on which to base the future.
Having these unexpected things raised seemed to inspire my client who sees much possibility for himself and the seller in their ongoing association and friendship. I will now set about creating this document in the next week and I will share some of it (with confidential bits removed of course) on this blog in the next week or so.
Today I had a meeting with a young web entrepreneur who wanted to acquire some websites to expand his business interests. Our chat was designed to brief me to create the purchase contract with the US seller and to ensure that he obtained the domains.
I warned him that he needs to undertake “due diligence” to make sure that he gets what is expecting – to allow him to verify things he has been told. We had had the conventional chat about the contract and the due diligence but as he spoke he talked about the relationship he had struck up with the seller and how he had grown to trust him over quite a period of time (around two years) and the more he spoke the more I realised how the ongoing relationship, even beyond the promised period of post-completion support, was a major consideration for my client and for the seller.
Indeed, it was clear to me that they could continue to develop the relationship to mutual benefit. I spoke with him about how I could use my “relationship creation approach” (normally more relevant with business partners) in creating a more positive purchase document that deals with things beyond the usual standard things to protect and deal with future disputes.
I explained that the real value in contracts usually lies not in the documents themselves but in the process of clarifying intentions to reduce the chance of disputes. I added that by adding longer terms aspirations and aligning both parties with the vision, objectives and values of the ongoing relationship, though largely legally unenforceable, it gives the contract a very positive and inspiring focus on which to base the future.
Having these unexpected things raised seemed to inspire my client who sees much possibility for himself and the seller in their ongoing association and friendship. I will now set about creating this document in the next week and I will share some of it (with confidential bits removed of course) on this blog in the next week or so.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Phew – it worked!
I met a client and friend for dinner last night and to my delight he acknowledged me for some assistance I had given (in front of my life partner who is unaware of the ground-breaking stuff I am experimenting with). I had been approached by him over being bought out of a small business venture he had gone into with a friend. They had been friends but the friend was now not paying the money they had agreed and was proving difficult to tie down and my friend felt he had to take legal advice to protect himself.
I told him that my stance is always to avoid disputes and that I am committed to leaving no stone unturned in helping people resolve conflict and to have a good ongoing relationship. I offered to sit down with them both as a neutral observer to provide what I call “assisted communication”.
I explained that it involves me sitting with them and there rules are simple: each party can say whatever they need to say about how they feel, etc and neither is allowed to interrupt the other. I said that the only person who can interrupt or bring the session to an end is me. I said that if they do not find a resolution then I cannot act for either of them. Furthermore, I am committed at the outset to them resolving their conflict have having a great ongoing relationship. That sums up what I do.
We met some weeks later, it went like clockwork: they each spoke their mind. I guided them through areas to help find creative solutions that spoke to each of their needs and they then documented it briefly.
Last night he tells me that his friend has made all but the last payment which is due shortly and he now has a great friendship with him again and he thanked me for my input that resolved things so quickly and easily. I feel very proud of this simple but effective tool. The fact is that whenever I go into one of these, I always have to remind myself of the commitment to find a resolution even though I have no idea how I will find it and I then have to give up the self doubt that would block the flow of listening and creativity that is necessary to do this. When I just trust myself despite not having any idea how I will do it, it always works out.
For non-lawyers reading this post, the key thing to say is that as lawyers our training hammers into us that we have to "get things right" and that if we don't we face getting sued. It's perfectly understandable and nothing is wrong but it can make us fearful and leave us working well within the proverbial box otherwise our insurers may be unhappy and indeed may even refuse cover in extreme cases. The reality is that much can be done outside the box that is more likely to reduce the risk to insurers but the fear prevents us trusting ourselves and in some cases we might fairly be accused of using this situation as an excuse to avoid confronting our fears.
I admit to being terrified quite often when I face new situations but I have learned to let go of the fear and actually trust my innate intuition and in doing so the outcome is almost invariably positive.
I told him that my stance is always to avoid disputes and that I am committed to leaving no stone unturned in helping people resolve conflict and to have a good ongoing relationship. I offered to sit down with them both as a neutral observer to provide what I call “assisted communication”.
I explained that it involves me sitting with them and there rules are simple: each party can say whatever they need to say about how they feel, etc and neither is allowed to interrupt the other. I said that the only person who can interrupt or bring the session to an end is me. I said that if they do not find a resolution then I cannot act for either of them. Furthermore, I am committed at the outset to them resolving their conflict have having a great ongoing relationship. That sums up what I do.
We met some weeks later, it went like clockwork: they each spoke their mind. I guided them through areas to help find creative solutions that spoke to each of their needs and they then documented it briefly.
Last night he tells me that his friend has made all but the last payment which is due shortly and he now has a great friendship with him again and he thanked me for my input that resolved things so quickly and easily. I feel very proud of this simple but effective tool. The fact is that whenever I go into one of these, I always have to remind myself of the commitment to find a resolution even though I have no idea how I will find it and I then have to give up the self doubt that would block the flow of listening and creativity that is necessary to do this. When I just trust myself despite not having any idea how I will do it, it always works out.
For non-lawyers reading this post, the key thing to say is that as lawyers our training hammers into us that we have to "get things right" and that if we don't we face getting sued. It's perfectly understandable and nothing is wrong but it can make us fearful and leave us working well within the proverbial box otherwise our insurers may be unhappy and indeed may even refuse cover in extreme cases. The reality is that much can be done outside the box that is more likely to reduce the risk to insurers but the fear prevents us trusting ourselves and in some cases we might fairly be accused of using this situation as an excuse to avoid confronting our fears.
I admit to being terrified quite often when I face new situations but I have learned to let go of the fear and actually trust my innate intuition and in doing so the outcome is almost invariably positive.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Alternatives to war!
Today’s challenge was to deal with a conversation with a friend of mine who rang to talk to me about supporting her and getting clear about how we could work together but during the conversation she mentioned her dispute with her business partner. In the conversation it became clear that she had had a document prepared by a very good solicitor but the negotiations were breaking down. Although her relationship had not been great at the time, when she sat down with her (having had a chat with me) she was on good terms and then everything seemed to go wrong when the document was received. The document prepared by the lawyer was in fact a very “gentle” document but somehow still it caused offence and had put a rift between them. The result was that the business partner appeared to be changing the “goal post” and also did not envisage being able to work with my friend in the future.
My friend knows me well and knows that my position is that I do not like conflict and will do everything possible to get people communicating to allow them to deal with it rather than get into an expensive fight. The way that the documents were going meant that my friend was going to end up spending more and more money as the documents got changed and then re-changed as the goal post moved and the resentment grew deeper.
Having listened to what she said, it was clear to me that, however misplaced it may be, the document had caused some sort of upset to her business partner and she said she needed to sit down with her business partner, ideally with me present and with the partner also having someone to represent her (if not a lawyer, somebody that would give her the comfort of not feeling she would be bullied) so that we could have an open and honest discussion about what was really going on. The alternative response was the conventional one which would have involved taking a stance, making it clear that the proposals she was making were unacceptable and generally making threats about what would happen if she did not come to the table and reach a settlement promptly. I felt this approach was not helpful and would cause further division.
I asked my friend either to call her friend or to send an email saying that she appreciates that for whatever reason she is not unhappy with the documents and that her own stance is that she wants to have a good working relationship with her in future and therefore she would like to sit down with her and talk things through. I said that she should raise the point about somebody being there to represent her but also making sure that she is comfortable and does not feel as though she is going to be backed into a corner. My friend said she would me the draft and we left it on that basis.
On a personal note, I found the conversation potentially challenging as I was worried about how to approach the situation that I knew could be very difficult and I did not want to tread on the toes of the lawyer who had done the document who I knew to be excellent. However, the outcome of suggesting a meeting seemed perfectly natural and far more satisfactory way of coming at the problem, being committed to an ongoing good relationship between my friend and her business partner.
Update: the outcome of this conversation was that no meeting was necessary. The email itself broke the stalemate between them and they have now been able to reach a settlement without having to run up further legal costs. The email triggered a successful telephone conversation (previous attempts to speak by phone were unsuccessful as the other partner never took the call or rang back and this time she got straight through!) the core of which was the desire to have a good ongoing relationship.
My friend knows me well and knows that my position is that I do not like conflict and will do everything possible to get people communicating to allow them to deal with it rather than get into an expensive fight. The way that the documents were going meant that my friend was going to end up spending more and more money as the documents got changed and then re-changed as the goal post moved and the resentment grew deeper.
Having listened to what she said, it was clear to me that, however misplaced it may be, the document had caused some sort of upset to her business partner and she said she needed to sit down with her business partner, ideally with me present and with the partner also having someone to represent her (if not a lawyer, somebody that would give her the comfort of not feeling she would be bullied) so that we could have an open and honest discussion about what was really going on. The alternative response was the conventional one which would have involved taking a stance, making it clear that the proposals she was making were unacceptable and generally making threats about what would happen if she did not come to the table and reach a settlement promptly. I felt this approach was not helpful and would cause further division.
I asked my friend either to call her friend or to send an email saying that she appreciates that for whatever reason she is not unhappy with the documents and that her own stance is that she wants to have a good working relationship with her in future and therefore she would like to sit down with her and talk things through. I said that she should raise the point about somebody being there to represent her but also making sure that she is comfortable and does not feel as though she is going to be backed into a corner. My friend said she would me the draft and we left it on that basis.
On a personal note, I found the conversation potentially challenging as I was worried about how to approach the situation that I knew could be very difficult and I did not want to tread on the toes of the lawyer who had done the document who I knew to be excellent. However, the outcome of suggesting a meeting seemed perfectly natural and far more satisfactory way of coming at the problem, being committed to an ongoing good relationship between my friend and her business partner.
Update: the outcome of this conversation was that no meeting was necessary. The email itself broke the stalemate between them and they have now been able to reach a settlement without having to run up further legal costs. The email triggered a successful telephone conversation (previous attempts to speak by phone were unsuccessful as the other partner never took the call or rang back and this time she got straight through!) the core of which was the desire to have a good ongoing relationship.
The blog proper?
This is my first proper blog entry - entries to date have been articles I have written on various subjects. I am increasingly encouraged by the experience of “putting my toe in the water” with the new approaches in contract drafting and relationship creation.
When I started this journey a couple of years ago, I had some vague notions about importance of effective relationships in business and in life in general. I also knew that, law being the “glue” of society, had a role to play in shifting the way we look at relationships.
My main observation was that law in our legal system tend often to be a force for division by their very nature. It is a bit like being a tram where the driver cannot decide its own path.
As I went along the journey, I have found myself being tested by negative reactions from people whose opinion counted too much to me, based on my own insecurities and self doubt.
Freedom for me came when I realised that other people’s reactions matter to me only because I doubted myself. When I stopped that and had faith in myself I found freedom to express myself in my work in ways I could never have imagined.
As the preceding articles indicate, I believe that contracts can be extremely negative in their focus. I believe that by being so, they give a less than even chance of a good relationship. Furthermore, I believe that the process of creation of the document is more important than the document itself – the process of looking carefully at the relationship and making sure everyone is clear on the desired outcomes and what they are bringing to the “party” are of paramount importance. All too often, particularly in England where we are often shy of talking about money and what we want for ourselves, this leads to unnecessary conflict and, through that, the major expenditure on and distraction of legal disputes.
Creating documents with positive intentions and commitment to positive outcomes, possibly incorporating guiding principles (that are perhaps alien to English lawyers but more familiar to European lawyers), leaves contracts with a more positive focus that inspires all those involved.
This is not some nebulous concept from the hippy era but something that has a tangible effect on the outcome of business transactions and personal relationships to the extent that it leaves people far more likely to make money and succeed in their vision for their business or their personal life.
My approach includes creating a contract that states the vision for the outcome of the relationship or even the vision for the future of the business, the objectives (more grounded specific “achievables”) and values (the standard of conduct that each party can expect of the other). A vision is not a mission statement but a statement of commitment to a possible future as it would be if the company or the relationship turns out to be successful).
Many lawyers may cringe at the concept of commitments to vague concepts such as openness etc but the concept of good faith in dealings, for example, is widely accepted, again, particularly in European jurisdictions. Therefore, there is no reason why they cannot be incorporated in our system now. They provide a focus and intention that is far more powerful than the underlying law itself.
Finally and more radically, I have even seen from my own dealings, placing trust in people without documentation (whilst still being clear on the purpose of the relationship and the standards of conduct required, producing some outstanding opportunities) can produce outstanding results. I have provided consultancy services to people on trust, only where I feel intuitively that it is safe to do so, and felt that a contract would constrain the relationship if anything and not leave it free. So far this has lead to me being offered 50% in one company and possibly 5% in at least one other with the prospect of 50% in yet another company. This is where my beliefs in a business context overlap with my personal ones. I believe that by instinctively working only with those people you trust very profoundly, by being clear with those people and then giving your services unconditionally is capable of producing some outstanding results that I believe will set a new paradigm for the future of business.
I must emphasise in closing this lengthy blog entry that I am not advocating that people trust everybody. Unfortunately we operate in a social and business paradigm where self interest and even greed dominate. Whilst I believe that things will begin to very profoundly change in the next 5 to 10 years, I still see contracts and protection for people as very important, particularly where if they are created in ways that are the result of producing more effective relationships.
Another aspect of my work is in the handling of disputes. Invariably where there is a breakdown in relations there are underlying causes that may not be apparent on the surface. What I aim to do is to get people to communicate and often thereby avoid costly disputes. I also work with companies to empower people to handle these things rather than create an addiction to me – where they would otherwise feel that I had to be consulted on handling every aspect of a relationship.
As an example, on the day of writing this blog I met with a client and friend who was concerned about her relationship with an investor who she felt was being demanding and even her other business partner found her to be so too, so she “knew” she was right. I sat down with her and looked at how she was reacting, noticing that her interpretation was very different from reality. We looked at some underlying issues that were unspoken and this helped free her up to handle not only this situation but anyone in which the same buttons are pressed. This leaves her able to deal with things ongoingly without reference to me most of the time. I believe that traditional professional relationships can create an addiction and be disempowering despite the best intention of the professional him/herself.
Thank you if you have read to this point – that was quite a task!
When I started this journey a couple of years ago, I had some vague notions about importance of effective relationships in business and in life in general. I also knew that, law being the “glue” of society, had a role to play in shifting the way we look at relationships.
My main observation was that law in our legal system tend often to be a force for division by their very nature. It is a bit like being a tram where the driver cannot decide its own path.
As I went along the journey, I have found myself being tested by negative reactions from people whose opinion counted too much to me, based on my own insecurities and self doubt.
Freedom for me came when I realised that other people’s reactions matter to me only because I doubted myself. When I stopped that and had faith in myself I found freedom to express myself in my work in ways I could never have imagined.
As the preceding articles indicate, I believe that contracts can be extremely negative in their focus. I believe that by being so, they give a less than even chance of a good relationship. Furthermore, I believe that the process of creation of the document is more important than the document itself – the process of looking carefully at the relationship and making sure everyone is clear on the desired outcomes and what they are bringing to the “party” are of paramount importance. All too often, particularly in England where we are often shy of talking about money and what we want for ourselves, this leads to unnecessary conflict and, through that, the major expenditure on and distraction of legal disputes.
Creating documents with positive intentions and commitment to positive outcomes, possibly incorporating guiding principles (that are perhaps alien to English lawyers but more familiar to European lawyers), leaves contracts with a more positive focus that inspires all those involved.
This is not some nebulous concept from the hippy era but something that has a tangible effect on the outcome of business transactions and personal relationships to the extent that it leaves people far more likely to make money and succeed in their vision for their business or their personal life.
My approach includes creating a contract that states the vision for the outcome of the relationship or even the vision for the future of the business, the objectives (more grounded specific “achievables”) and values (the standard of conduct that each party can expect of the other). A vision is not a mission statement but a statement of commitment to a possible future as it would be if the company or the relationship turns out to be successful).
Many lawyers may cringe at the concept of commitments to vague concepts such as openness etc but the concept of good faith in dealings, for example, is widely accepted, again, particularly in European jurisdictions. Therefore, there is no reason why they cannot be incorporated in our system now. They provide a focus and intention that is far more powerful than the underlying law itself.
Finally and more radically, I have even seen from my own dealings, placing trust in people without documentation (whilst still being clear on the purpose of the relationship and the standards of conduct required, producing some outstanding opportunities) can produce outstanding results. I have provided consultancy services to people on trust, only where I feel intuitively that it is safe to do so, and felt that a contract would constrain the relationship if anything and not leave it free. So far this has lead to me being offered 50% in one company and possibly 5% in at least one other with the prospect of 50% in yet another company. This is where my beliefs in a business context overlap with my personal ones. I believe that by instinctively working only with those people you trust very profoundly, by being clear with those people and then giving your services unconditionally is capable of producing some outstanding results that I believe will set a new paradigm for the future of business.
I must emphasise in closing this lengthy blog entry that I am not advocating that people trust everybody. Unfortunately we operate in a social and business paradigm where self interest and even greed dominate. Whilst I believe that things will begin to very profoundly change in the next 5 to 10 years, I still see contracts and protection for people as very important, particularly where if they are created in ways that are the result of producing more effective relationships.
Another aspect of my work is in the handling of disputes. Invariably where there is a breakdown in relations there are underlying causes that may not be apparent on the surface. What I aim to do is to get people to communicate and often thereby avoid costly disputes. I also work with companies to empower people to handle these things rather than create an addiction to me – where they would otherwise feel that I had to be consulted on handling every aspect of a relationship.
As an example, on the day of writing this blog I met with a client and friend who was concerned about her relationship with an investor who she felt was being demanding and even her other business partner found her to be so too, so she “knew” she was right. I sat down with her and looked at how she was reacting, noticing that her interpretation was very different from reality. We looked at some underlying issues that were unspoken and this helped free her up to handle not only this situation but anyone in which the same buttons are pressed. This leaves her able to deal with things ongoingly without reference to me most of the time. I believe that traditional professional relationships can create an addiction and be disempowering despite the best intention of the professional him/herself.
Thank you if you have read to this point – that was quite a task!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
The “Customer First” Myth
How many times have you seen companies proudly boast that they “put their customers first”? How many of those companies do you suppose actually do that?
Besides feeling that people who need to shout about it probably don’t do it, if they do take it on board in compliance with the edict of the management gurus of the 1980s and 1990s, I believe they are ultimately sowing the seeds of their own downfall.
Well intentioned it may have been, for those old enough to remember 20 to 40 years back, can you honestly say that there has been a significant improvement in service during that time? In my experience, the reverse is true. Companies tend to provide freefone numbers that assume that it is acceptable to keep us holding because they are paying for the call, not thinking that our time is valuable. Others have us work through complicated automated answering services or, even worse, outsource their customer relations to places where cultural and language differences make communication even harder.
Another impact of “putting the customer first” is that, where companies really “go for it”, is often met by employee resistance and even resentment, partly because of the significant pressures it puts on them and the failure to fully engage people in the process. In effect their employer is saying to them: “You don’t matter. You have to do everything to please the customer”.
In my own profession, “putting clients first” has resulted in young lawyers being some of the most stressed professionals in the country with high addiction rates for alcohol, drugs and other compulsive disorders including sex and gambling. These young lawyers receive a very handsome reward for surrendering their lives to keeping the law firm’s clients happy, except that, judging by client responses, they don’t always do that.
My proposition is simple: put your staff first. Be concerned with their fulfilment, their happiness, their problems, their freedom to contribute. The impact of this is perhaps controversial proposal is to engage all people working in the company (including the owners and managers) in a process that spreads far beyond their worth. The stress is reduced, our sickness reduces, staff turnover reduces and (all associated costs), work motivation increases substantially and, last but not least, customer service levels rocket having a resultant impact on sales and after-sales service.
Making this happen is all about great relationships internally and externally. Instead of the traditional divisive role of our legal system, law (the ultimate governor of relationships) can be used a tool to help create effective relationships, effective staff fulfilment programmes that allow our company to fulfil its true potential.
For more information contact Maitland Kalton on 07957 124426.
Besides feeling that people who need to shout about it probably don’t do it, if they do take it on board in compliance with the edict of the management gurus of the 1980s and 1990s, I believe they are ultimately sowing the seeds of their own downfall.
Well intentioned it may have been, for those old enough to remember 20 to 40 years back, can you honestly say that there has been a significant improvement in service during that time? In my experience, the reverse is true. Companies tend to provide freefone numbers that assume that it is acceptable to keep us holding because they are paying for the call, not thinking that our time is valuable. Others have us work through complicated automated answering services or, even worse, outsource their customer relations to places where cultural and language differences make communication even harder.
Another impact of “putting the customer first” is that, where companies really “go for it”, is often met by employee resistance and even resentment, partly because of the significant pressures it puts on them and the failure to fully engage people in the process. In effect their employer is saying to them: “You don’t matter. You have to do everything to please the customer”.
In my own profession, “putting clients first” has resulted in young lawyers being some of the most stressed professionals in the country with high addiction rates for alcohol, drugs and other compulsive disorders including sex and gambling. These young lawyers receive a very handsome reward for surrendering their lives to keeping the law firm’s clients happy, except that, judging by client responses, they don’t always do that.
My proposition is simple: put your staff first. Be concerned with their fulfilment, their happiness, their problems, their freedom to contribute. The impact of this is perhaps controversial proposal is to engage all people working in the company (including the owners and managers) in a process that spreads far beyond their worth. The stress is reduced, our sickness reduces, staff turnover reduces and (all associated costs), work motivation increases substantially and, last but not least, customer service levels rocket having a resultant impact on sales and after-sales service.
Making this happen is all about great relationships internally and externally. Instead of the traditional divisive role of our legal system, law (the ultimate governor of relationships) can be used a tool to help create effective relationships, effective staff fulfilment programmes that allow our company to fulfil its true potential.
For more information contact Maitland Kalton on 07957 124426.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Into the unknown - a lonely journey?
This is my first proper blog entry - entries to date have been articles I have written on various subjects. I am increasingly encouraged by the experience of “putting my toe in the water” with the new approaches in contract drafting and relationship creation.
When I started this journey a couple of years ago, I had some vague notions about importance of effective relationships in business and in life in general. I also knew that, law being the “glue” of society, had a role to play in shifting the way we look at relationships.
My main observation was that law in our legal system tend often to be a force for division by their very nature. It is a bit like being a tram where the driver cannot decide its own path.
As I went along the journey, I have found myself being tested by negative reactions from people whose opinion counted too much to me, based on my own insecurities and self doubt.
Freedom for me came when I realised that other people’s reactions matter to me only because I doubted myself. When I stopped that and had faith in myself I found freedom to express myself in my work in ways I could never have imagined.
As the preceding articles indicate, I believe that contracts can be extremely negative in their focus. I believe that by being so, they give a less than even chance of a good relationship. Furthermore, I believe that the process of creation of the document is more important than the document itself – the process of looking carefully at the relationship and making sure everyone is clear on the desired outcomes and what they are bringing to the “party” are of paramount importance. All too often, particularly in England where we are often shy of talking about money and what we want for ourselves, this leads to unnecessary conflict and, through that, the major expenditure on and distraction of legal disputes.
Creating documents with positive intentions and commitment to positive outcomes, possibly incorporating guiding principles (that are perhaps alien to English lawyers but more familiar to European lawyers), leaves contracts with a more positive focus that inspires all those involved.
This is not some nebulous concept from the hippy era but something that has a tangible effect on the outcome of business transactions and personal relationships to the extent that it leaves people far more likely to make money and succeed in their vision for their business or their personal life.
My approach includes creating a contract that states the vision for the outcome of the relationship or even the vision for the future of the business, the objectives (more grounded specific “achievables”) and values (the standard of conduct that each party can expect of the other). A vision is not a mission statement but a statement of commitment to a possible future as it would be if the company or the relationship turns out to be successful).
Many lawyers may cringe at the concept of commitments to vague concepts such as openness etc but the concept of good faith in dealings, for example, is widely accepted, again, particularly in European jurisdictions. Therefore, there is no reason why they cannot be incorporated in our system now. They provide a focus and intention that is far more powerful than the underlying law itself.
Finally and more radically, I have even seen from my own dealings, placing trust in people without documentation (whilst still being clear on the purpose of the relationship and the standards of conduct required, producing some outstanding opportunities) can produce outstanding results. I have provided consultancy services to people on trust, only where I feel intuitively that it is safe to do so, and felt that a contract would constrain the relationship if anything and not leave it free. So far this has lead to me being offered 50% in one company and possibly 5% in at least one other with the prospect of 50% in yet another company. This is where my beliefs in a business context overlap with my personal ones. I believe that by instinctively working only with those people you trust very profoundly, by being clear with those people and then giving your services unconditionally is capable of producing some outstanding results that I believe will set a new paradigm for the future of business.
I must emphasise in closing this lengthy blog entry that I am not advocating that people trust everybody. Unfortunately we operate in a social and business paradigm where self interest and even greed dominate. Whilst I believe that things will begin to very profoundly change in the next 5 to 10 years, I still see contracts and protection for people as very important, particularly where if they are created in ways that are the result of producing more effective relationships.
Another aspect of my work is in the handling of disputes. Invariably where there is a breakdown in relations there are underlying causes that may not be apparent on the surface. What I aim to do is to get people to communicate and often thereby avoid costly disputes. I also work with companies to empower people to handle these things rather than create an addiction to me – where they would otherwise feel that I had to be consulted on handling every aspect of a relationship.
As an example, on the day of writing this blog I met with a client and friend who was concerned about her relationship with an investor who she felt was being demanding and even her other business partner found her to be so too, so she “knew” she was right. I sat down with her and looked at how she was reacting, noticing that her interpretation was very different from reality. We looked at some underlying issues that were unspoken and this helped free her up to handle not only this situation but anyone in which the same buttons are pressed. This leaves her able to deal with things ongoingly without reference to me most of the time. I believe that traditional professional relationships can create an addiction and be disempowering despite the best intention of the professional him/herself.
Thank you if you have read to this point – that was quite a task!
When I started this journey a couple of years ago, I had some vague notions about importance of effective relationships in business and in life in general. I also knew that, law being the “glue” of society, had a role to play in shifting the way we look at relationships.
My main observation was that law in our legal system tend often to be a force for division by their very nature. It is a bit like being a tram where the driver cannot decide its own path.
As I went along the journey, I have found myself being tested by negative reactions from people whose opinion counted too much to me, based on my own insecurities and self doubt.
Freedom for me came when I realised that other people’s reactions matter to me only because I doubted myself. When I stopped that and had faith in myself I found freedom to express myself in my work in ways I could never have imagined.
As the preceding articles indicate, I believe that contracts can be extremely negative in their focus. I believe that by being so, they give a less than even chance of a good relationship. Furthermore, I believe that the process of creation of the document is more important than the document itself – the process of looking carefully at the relationship and making sure everyone is clear on the desired outcomes and what they are bringing to the “party” are of paramount importance. All too often, particularly in England where we are often shy of talking about money and what we want for ourselves, this leads to unnecessary conflict and, through that, the major expenditure on and distraction of legal disputes.
Creating documents with positive intentions and commitment to positive outcomes, possibly incorporating guiding principles (that are perhaps alien to English lawyers but more familiar to European lawyers), leaves contracts with a more positive focus that inspires all those involved.
This is not some nebulous concept from the hippy era but something that has a tangible effect on the outcome of business transactions and personal relationships to the extent that it leaves people far more likely to make money and succeed in their vision for their business or their personal life.
My approach includes creating a contract that states the vision for the outcome of the relationship or even the vision for the future of the business, the objectives (more grounded specific “achievables”) and values (the standard of conduct that each party can expect of the other). A vision is not a mission statement but a statement of commitment to a possible future as it would be if the company or the relationship turns out to be successful).
Many lawyers may cringe at the concept of commitments to vague concepts such as openness etc but the concept of good faith in dealings, for example, is widely accepted, again, particularly in European jurisdictions. Therefore, there is no reason why they cannot be incorporated in our system now. They provide a focus and intention that is far more powerful than the underlying law itself.
Finally and more radically, I have even seen from my own dealings, placing trust in people without documentation (whilst still being clear on the purpose of the relationship and the standards of conduct required, producing some outstanding opportunities) can produce outstanding results. I have provided consultancy services to people on trust, only where I feel intuitively that it is safe to do so, and felt that a contract would constrain the relationship if anything and not leave it free. So far this has lead to me being offered 50% in one company and possibly 5% in at least one other with the prospect of 50% in yet another company. This is where my beliefs in a business context overlap with my personal ones. I believe that by instinctively working only with those people you trust very profoundly, by being clear with those people and then giving your services unconditionally is capable of producing some outstanding results that I believe will set a new paradigm for the future of business.
I must emphasise in closing this lengthy blog entry that I am not advocating that people trust everybody. Unfortunately we operate in a social and business paradigm where self interest and even greed dominate. Whilst I believe that things will begin to very profoundly change in the next 5 to 10 years, I still see contracts and protection for people as very important, particularly where if they are created in ways that are the result of producing more effective relationships.
Another aspect of my work is in the handling of disputes. Invariably where there is a breakdown in relations there are underlying causes that may not be apparent on the surface. What I aim to do is to get people to communicate and often thereby avoid costly disputes. I also work with companies to empower people to handle these things rather than create an addiction to me – where they would otherwise feel that I had to be consulted on handling every aspect of a relationship.
As an example, on the day of writing this blog I met with a client and friend who was concerned about her relationship with an investor who she felt was being demanding and even her other business partner found her to be so too, so she “knew” she was right. I sat down with her and looked at how she was reacting, noticing that her interpretation was very different from reality. We looked at some underlying issues that were unspoken and this helped free her up to handle not only this situation but anyone in which the same buttons are pressed. This leaves her able to deal with things ongoingly without reference to me most of the time. I believe that traditional professional relationships can create an addiction and be disempowering despite the best intention of the professional him/herself.
Thank you if you have read to this point – that was quite a task!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)