A couple of people have made the observation that the Robert Craven/Directors' Centre approach to helping businesses is a bit harsh. And I quote from an email:
"The last thing we need when we are feeling a bit vulnerable is someone crashing around our business making rash and damaging threats and statements. What people need is to be nurtured and developed."
These kinds of comments so obviously miss the point, so obviously misinterpret what I am/we are about.
The last thing you need is some kind of bully on an ego-trip acting like a wally - I agree with that but that really is not what we do.
Anyone who knows us and our reputation knows that often we are trying to invoke a response and a recognition that there is a problem that needs to be addressed (and that putting your head in the sand will do you no good at all).
More importantly, the very last thing you need is for someone to visit and charge you to drink nice cups of tea and to stroke your brow and tell you that it will be alright.
Getting out of a mess requires business owners to take action and that is what we are about... and we help clients to do just that (and by whatever means seems to be the most relevant).
There is a recession out there and businesses just like yours are going bust.
Let me explain what that means.
When you go bust:
- all your employees lose their jobs (and as a result most wouldn't p*ss on you if you were on fire)
- all your suppliers don't getting paid (see the statements above re: fire)
- you will probably be declared bankrupt which means that...
- you will probably lose your house and your pension policy which means that
- your partner will probably leave you and take the kids with them (maybe a good thing!!! [joke!])
- your reputation will be in tatters and no-one will want to employ you for your skillset - the very skillset that appears to have caused your business to fail
- no-one will want to lend you money because they won't want to lose it...
What is required, I believe, is "tough love".
It isn't easy to make the 'tough decisions' in your business. How we get people to make those decisions is actually the real issue. So, maybe we should be a bit less shouty when we talk about being "challenging, honest and goading"... maybe that doesn't suit all tastes... but this can not change what is at the heart of what we do: getting people to make those tough decisions so that they improveo theoir sales/profits/cash situation!
I don't care whether my people drink triple espressos or camomile tea... but I do care about making sure that as few people as possible have to suffer the punishment of the indignity and humilation that the current UK bankruptcy laws impose on people - people who's only crime was to simply/blindly do their best to run a business but failed to keep it together.
So which do you prefer: polite or honest? Which one works best to motivate you?
End of rant!
RELEVANT LINKS
The Directors' Centre
16 comments:
I am with Robert on this one, but then again, I am also known for 'shooting from the hip'. Yes, sometimes the statements as offered at a seminar can appear shocking...'get rid of the pondlife' could be seen as offensive. Whether it be to your staff, customers, or whoever else fits the cap, once thought through and accepted that there are issues that need to be addressed, it is a spur to action.
I can only say that I have attended 2 seminars to date, and both have had a huge and positive influence on my retail business. I have the chance to attend a third in 2 weeks time, and am already trying to change staff shifts so I can be there.
As a small business, I miss the brainstorming that came with a 'corporate' situation, and it is refreshing to have someone to make me look at things from a different perspective. Give me the truth every time, and the tools to help make things better!
His 'pondlife' phrase is OK IMHO cos he is using it to make a point, that is all. It might be a bit blunt but the ends justify the means.
Sometimes we all need to 'shoot from the hip' so that people can hear what we are saying.
BB
Lynne, BB
Thnaks - I couldn't have put it better myself.
Robert
In my experience, the business owners sensibility is part of the underlying problem. There is often an inability to get past their own ego to admit that failure is part of growth etc, and further to admit that others have the solution to their problem.
After all, this means admitting that someone else could see what they themselves could not, and worse, could see it in the very thing that that once held their dreams, before it became a veritable monster that took over every aspect of their life.
All of the aforementioned is very similar to the family environment, where the head/s of the family have to admit that their are urgent problems that need fixing, lest they face death, etc. In such cases, the expert may be just that, and indeed have all of the right answers, but it doesn't make it any easier for the family to be told how to conduct one's private affairs, by an outsider, even if they were consulted/engaged.
There is a lot of negative energy bubbling under the surface where people feel they've run out of options. An essential part of presenting the solution, is the recognising of this and the pre-wiring of the stakeholders. The tough love can come later, but first the relationship has to be quickly formed by the expert, and trust facilitated. Before this is done, words are empty and the expert can become the shot messenger.
I don't know of the circumstances of the complaint, but do know that such reactions can be commonplace. If the basic considerations are not recognised before the tools are used, the expert can be seen as a bully, rather than the caring change-manager that they usually are.
The job of consulting has been made tougher these days, as a result of the immense pressures people are facing, the egotistical "experts" who've never actually run their own business but who became "consultants" after reading a book, and are more nervous about failing than the business stakeholders.
The "experts" who give everyone a bad name, a la Dragon's Den, Apprentice etc, do not help, either.
Any in the business who fail to recognise that, although time might be tight, one must first build the relationship before the truth can be told, does not yet have what it takes to create sustainable change in others businesses.
I've witnessed the power of the RC/DC tools, and indeed RC himself. They are, without question, excellent. Alas, sometimes this is not enough, the client is simply too angry, sensitive or afraid to see the reality. Sometimes, the expert fails to recognise it, and act as is appropriate too.
"First seek to understand, then be understood." Ghandi.
Some good commentary here - was robert talking about client email, or an attendee email? If it was a client, I think the rant is out of bounds, and I wouldn't like to hire him/DC if this is the response to complaints. If it was an attendee complaint, sometimes things can be rushed and appear arrogant at these seminars (assuming noone from DC was deliberately rude).
Larry
Th email came from an attendee at an event.
Robert
My vote is for honest.
Honest is not the same as brutal or uncaring. Some people confuse being honest with being a bully.
Sometimes you are wasting your time if people don't get it, when they don't get what you are saying. Just move along and talk to people who do get it.
And I quote this blog from last month,'Fish where the fish are'
BB
What is people's problem with honest. Polite is so very nice and trite and prim and proper.
But fundnentally it is dishonest.
And yes, honest is not the same as brutal.
TW
Hi TW.
There isn't a problem with honest per se, but unless it is given out in manageable doses by someone who is seen as having the client's best interest at heart, it simply doesn't get you the follow-on business these days.
There has been so much corruption and greed of late that, anyone, even someone of Robert's genuine motives, can be misread as an having ulterior motive.
You also have to remember that those seeking advice/rescue have often arrived at that point through having false pride and stubbornness. This hasn't gone away, and in fact, it's much to their chagrin that they've had to seek outside help in the first place.
Hence the need for attention to the ego before any progress can be realised. It's not about honest/dishonest, it's about basic human connection and psychology.
Andrew
I see where you are coming from.
And I think you are right. However Robert's point is about the choice we have between Ho & Po.
Consultants, managers, bosses etc often have to choose between the two styles - too often we get nice and polite for fear of causing offence (when we know that polite will skim around the real issue).
TW
I would like to offer an example of how 2 businesses can see the same comments so differently.
At the last seminar I attended, I found myself sitting next to an ex-supplier. The company made hand-made soaps. Not the cheapest or biggest range I could source, but they were locally produced, and as such we could get away with the 'added value' raising the price on our shelf.
They had bought along a box of their products, and proceeded to try and offer them to all and sundry, touting for orders. They got quite agitated by some of the questions raised and responses offered by those attending (this was at the 'pondlife' seminar) and felt that they had everything right in their little world.
At one point they proclaimed that they were very annoyed, when calling un-announced on some of their retailers, to find their merchandising stands were nearly empty...how on earth could the retailer expect to make money on their product when they couldn't even be bothered to ring up and refil the displays???
I politely (yes, I can do polite sometimes) pointed out, that it was my job as a retailer to service the needs and desires of my customers, and as such it was their job to do the same for me. Even after that, they didn't call on me...hence they are now ex-suppliers.
I came away, invigorated, and am opening a new venture next week...they will probably still be complaining to all and sundry about how offended they were at what they heard.
As a lawyer I'm used to delivering bad news (and good!). I agree you need to be honest and shoot from the hip, but it is how you say it that counts. Outright adversarial and agressive tactics don't work well in the work place, but direct, sincere constructive review does.
Liz
Virtuoso Legal
I still think we are missing the point here.
Robert's beef is about nice, bland, warm, banal and essentially dishonest behaviour - when people don't tell you how they really feel or what's on their mind in the interests of keepeing the peace (and pretence)
TW
I still think we are missing the point here.
Robert's beef is about nice, bland, warm, banal and essentially dishonest behaviour - when people don't tell you how they really feel or what's on their mind in the interests of keepeing the peace (and pretence)
TW
As a lawyer I'm used to delivering bad news (and good!). I agree you need to be honest and shoot from the hip, but it is how you say it that counts. Outright adversarial and agressive tactics don't work well in the work place, but direct, sincere constructive review does.
Liz
Virtuoso Legal
Andrew
I see where you are coming from.
And I think you are right. However Robert's point is about the choice we have between Ho & Po.
Consultants, managers, bosses etc often have to choose between the two styles - too often we get nice and polite for fear of causing offence (when we know that polite will skim around the real issue).
TW
Post a Comment