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.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
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!
Monday, February 19, 2007
Flexible Working for all
On the 12 January the Minister for Children, Beverley Hughes, said that she felt that workers without children should get the same right to request flexible working hours as parents. Currently only parents of children who are under 6 (or are disabled but under 18) are the ones to have the right to request flexible working.
The CBI’s Director of HR Policy, Susan Anderson, has concerns about any such change, saying “only by having a gradual and phased extension can be avoid firms being deluged under a sudden increase in requests”.
At Lawyers for Change we explore alternative ways of approaching things both within the legal system and beyond it. The problem we see with the ever increasing volume of regulation is the difficulty for people to know where they stand with the law. The law has to assume that everyone knows the law and yet the volume of law makes it impossible even for lawyers to be fully aware of the law, let alone individuals and medium to small businesses.
We see the idea of recognition of such trends in the form of flexible working to be desirable. Whether this needs to be done in the form of regulation, however, is an entirely different matter. Rather than dictating that behaviour, it makes more sense to educate people. If you tell a business that they will make more money if they offer flexible time and people can produce evidence of it, more people will take it on. If you force the issue, you risk resistance – just because something becomes the law does not mean that people comply. Approaching the subject of education from “enlightened self interest” is often far more effective. It also simplifies matters hugely.
From another perspective, Lawyers for Change also considers that happy lawyers lead to happy clients. The current trend is to focus first on satisfying clients to the exclusion of all else which results in some seriously stressed lawyers (often to the point of having drink or drug addictions) – on the day of writing this article The Evening Standard headline speaks of a lawyer jumping to his death.
In this context, Lawyers for Change would heartily recommend that other law firms explore what would be available to them and their clients by having a fulfilled and happy team of lawyers encouraged to develop themselves and their creativity for the benefit of all concerned. In this way we see flexible working as a far broader issue than mere flexibility as to working hours. What of shared jobs, unpaid leave opportunities, personal development training in-house, etc, etc?
In the first decade of the second millennium we are entering a more enlightened phase of business and society and, though the desire for legislation is not something the writer shares, the underlying principle is sound.
The CBI’s Director of HR Policy, Susan Anderson, has concerns about any such change, saying “only by having a gradual and phased extension can be avoid firms being deluged under a sudden increase in requests”.
At Lawyers for Change we explore alternative ways of approaching things both within the legal system and beyond it. The problem we see with the ever increasing volume of regulation is the difficulty for people to know where they stand with the law. The law has to assume that everyone knows the law and yet the volume of law makes it impossible even for lawyers to be fully aware of the law, let alone individuals and medium to small businesses.
We see the idea of recognition of such trends in the form of flexible working to be desirable. Whether this needs to be done in the form of regulation, however, is an entirely different matter. Rather than dictating that behaviour, it makes more sense to educate people. If you tell a business that they will make more money if they offer flexible time and people can produce evidence of it, more people will take it on. If you force the issue, you risk resistance – just because something becomes the law does not mean that people comply. Approaching the subject of education from “enlightened self interest” is often far more effective. It also simplifies matters hugely.
From another perspective, Lawyers for Change also considers that happy lawyers lead to happy clients. The current trend is to focus first on satisfying clients to the exclusion of all else which results in some seriously stressed lawyers (often to the point of having drink or drug addictions) – on the day of writing this article The Evening Standard headline speaks of a lawyer jumping to his death.
In this context, Lawyers for Change would heartily recommend that other law firms explore what would be available to them and their clients by having a fulfilled and happy team of lawyers encouraged to develop themselves and their creativity for the benefit of all concerned. In this way we see flexible working as a far broader issue than mere flexibility as to working hours. What of shared jobs, unpaid leave opportunities, personal development training in-house, etc, etc?
In the first decade of the second millennium we are entering a more enlightened phase of business and society and, though the desire for legislation is not something the writer shares, the underlying principle is sound.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)