I ordered food from Seamless tonight. (Then I ate it. But that part’s not important to the point I’m making.) One part of the order wasn’t done right. I had requested a sushi roll inside out and they made it the regular way. I know, first world problems… Also not the point. Stay with me here.

A few hours later they sent me a text asking if the order was delivered properly. I was supposed to send a yes or no response back to them or opt out of these little surveys.

So I responded “no” because, well, that was the truth.

Guess what happened next.

Did they ask me for more detail on what was wrong with the order? No.

Did they apologize? No. Did they ask if they could contact me to learn more? No. Did they refund my money? No. Did they offer me a back rub? No.

Instead, they sent me another survey question, asking if the order was delivered on time.

Are you kidding?

Had they not bothered with the texts in the first place I would have been fine. I had forgotten about the one wrong item in my order. It was a non issue for me. But there’s an object lesson in here on how to engage customers.

The moment they sent me the second question they broke conversational norms. When you’re in a conversation and someone says something, you’re meant to respond in a way that demonstrates that you were listening and that you care about them. If instead, you just say the next thing you wanted to say anyway, then it isn’t a conversation. It’s just you broadcasting in their face.

Brands need to understand this. Deeply. The rules in business are not different than the rules in your personal life. Humans are humans. We want to be respected. We want to be cared about. We want to be heard. And you simply cannot recite your script in someone’s face. You have to actually engage them, listen to what they say and, you know, say words back to them that indicate you’re actually in the conversation with them.


On compensation

February 3, 2015

“Compensation” is the word used to describe the money that employers pay their employees. And something about it just feels off to me. It seems to me this represents some beliefs about employment that are increasingly at odds with the work people do and why they do it.

Google “compensation” and the first definition you’ll find is “something, typically money, awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury, or suffering”. You’ll also find links to articles with headlines such as:

  • “Russian nationalists suggest enormous lawsuit against Germany over WWII damages”
  • “GM receives over 4100 injury claims for faulty ignitions”
  • “The Tehran hostages’ endless siege: A quest for compensation and closure”

Surely I can’t be the only one who finds it sadly comical that our paychecks are in the same category as monies paid to the victims of Nazi aggression.

I shouldn’t be surprised. Basic economic theory holds that the money paid to us by our employers is all about them purchasing our labor. We would all rather be sitting on the couch drinking a beer and so, work is painful. Or at least annoying. We would rather not do it and therefore we need to be compensated for our loss.

I’ll admit, work throughout most of history has hewed to that way of thinking. And it still does for most people.

But you can see the glimmers of hope and evidence that in the future, work will much more often be about expressing our identity, advancing our ideals, self-actualizing and (dare I say it) having fun.

Work should be enjoyable. We should choose work that we believe in, that helps us make a difference, that enriches our lives.

We shouldn’t need to be compensated for it. It should be intrinsically rewarding.

In case my own employer is reading this, I don’t mean we should all work for free. I just mean that the basic assumption of compensation is essentially awful. It reinforces some premises about work that we would all be better off jettisoning. That work is somehow separate from and actually an intrusion on your real life. Basically, that work sucks.

Instead of “compensation”, perhaps we ought to think about “enrichment”. Money that employers pay us is being paid not because they have aggrieved us but simply to help enrich our lives. In that world view, work is a part of what we do as whole human beings. It fits into and enriches our life rather than taking from it. The work itself is an enrichment and the money we receive supplements that by allowing us to do all sorts of things outside of work—raise children, get involved in our communities, travel and, of course, drink great beer.


Participant Consulting

February 3, 2015

I have been blessed with the opportunity to work with some really wonderful clients. People I respect and adore, in companies whose foundational ideas are compelling to me and who are in a position to really do some good in the world if they fully act on what they stand for. Often my work involves helping them shape and clarify their core ideas (purpose, values, vision, mission, behaviors, etc.) and design cultures in which those ideas can be fully manifest.

Over the past few years I have noticed myself using the language of my clients’ values as if they were my own values. Referring to their values and behaviors in order to make a decision. Using them with my consulting teams to add a bit of poignancy to something we’d just done.

As a consultant, this gets interesting. Because I am not an employee of my client’s company. I am employed by another company. A pretty wonderful one. With its own values and foundational ideas that matter to me a lot.

This has led to some soul searching for me. How am I supposed to relate to the ideas and ideals of my clients? Admire them from afar? Internalize them? How should I think about the relationship between my clients’ values and the values of my own employer? What about my own?

All of this made me wonder whether we should be rethinking the relationship we have with our clients. I know that I feel a much deeper connection to my clients than simply being a professional service provider.

The era of professional consulting

Management consultancies are known and valued for the objective impartial advice we provide to our clients. This is central to our value proposition. Clients often come to us because we bring a breadth of perspective learned from across all of our clients and because we don’t “have skin in the game”.

This at-a-distant relationship seemed appropriate in an era when value was created through the application of best practices, and the qualities most differentiating were professionalism and integrity.

But we now live in an experience economy. Professionalism and integrity are now expected as table stakes and value is created through the design of brilliant experiences delivered through authentic human relationships.

The era of participant consulting

I believe consultancies can play a different role. We are at a moment when professions, industries and the nature of work are transforming. The known ideas, approaches and methods of achieving results are no longer working as they once did. The world needs leaders who can imagine a better future and rally people to take the bold and creative steps that will get them there.

These leaders can’t survive only on a diet of objective advice from impartial outsiders. They need partners who will work alongside them as they transform their organizations. They need people who will collaborate with them to author, visualize and design their future. And they need friends who feel emotionally invested in their success, who have deep empathy for the hard and lonely work of leading through the unknown, who will help them summon their courage when it gets tough and lift their spirits when they are exhausted.

To do this transformation work as a consultant requires skill, expertise, brilliance, and energy as it always did. But these are no longer enough. It also takes profound insight into our clients—their companies and themselves as people. We need to understand not just what we can learn from their annual report, from their strategy documents, from their market research. And not just what we can glean from interviews. We need to understand their jargon, their worldviews, their fears, dreams, aspirations. We need to be deeply aware of how they behave—how they actually get work done, and what it feels like to work as they do every day.

Consider the field of anthropology. Many anthropologists believed that the best way to understand human behavior was not to analyze it as an outsider. They believed that only by observing from within, as a member of a culture, could you draw out rich insights and profound understanding. They called this method “participant observation”.

Perhaps it’s time for “participant consulting”—an endeavor in which we engage with our clients not as disinterested impartial objective outsiders, but with a sense of kinship. As members of the family.

Perhaps it’s time to take it personally.

Our clients have to matter to us. Not just out of a sense of professionalism. Even more. We have to believe in what they stand for, value what they value, and feel motivated to manifest their behavioral ideals.

Many anthropologists who pursued the method of participant observation were accused of “going native”—of abandoning their scientific and scholarly standards as they came to identify personally with the cultures they were studying.

Whatever the merits of this critique of participant observation in social science, I would argue that impartiality is no longer a positive quality in consulting. If ever it was.

When I partner with a client, what does it mean if I do not come to feel a sense of kinship with them? What does it mean if their values don’t motivate me? What does it mean if I do not feel that their unique behaviors are worthy of emulating? If after weeks or months of working alongside a client I do not identify with their mission, how can I possibly expect their own employees to do so?

Much like anthropologists developed the method of participant observation because they believed that the best way to learn about a culture was by participating from the inside, I believe that consultants can only do their best work when they engage with passion, with empathy and, yes, with love, for their clients and what they stand for. When they really are members of the family in some meaningful way.

What I’m envisioning may or may not have implications for the business model and offerings of consultancies. Mostly, I’m thinking about the boundaries between “us” and “them”—whether such boundaries are really necessary, whether they should exist but be highly porous, where they should be placed and what this suggests for how consultants and clients ought to think about and relate to each other.

I know how I feel about this. When I’m in a great client relationship I don’t feel a hard boundary between me and them. It feels authentic to me. I feel that my interests and theirs are completely aligned. I enjoy being with them. I believe in what they do. I don’t feel any sense of “otherness”. I fully trust them and feel fully trusted by them. I don’t feel the need to “manage” the relationship any more than I do with a close personal friend.

And when all of this is happening, I feel most fulfilled and I do my best work.

I’m grateful to the clients that have given me such an invitation and welcomed me as members of their family.


You’ll never have “the answer”

January 11, 2015

If you’re thinking that when you’ve earned a certain title or have amassed a certain number of years of experience that all will become clear to you or that you’ll feel more comfortable having an opinion and speaking up, don’t. When you have your boss’s job or your boss’s boss’s job…you are not going to feel […]

Read the full article →

An open letter to United’s CEO

May 23, 2014

Jeff: I’ve reached the end of my rope. I’m done with United. You are literally the worst experience I have with any company. Any. TSA is a more delightful experience than flying United. The DMV is a more delightful experience than flying United. Root canal is a more delightful experience than flying United. These are […]

Read the full article →

On freedom

February 28, 2014

Everyone will tell you they want to be free. Most people are lying. They want the benefits of freedom but don’t want to pay the costs. I’m not making a political point here. I’m not talking about taxes. Or civic duty. Or anything like that. I’m talking about what you want. What you really want. […]

Read the full article →

It’s always a choice

February 27, 2014

You cannot control the weather. You cannot control physics, chemistry or biology. You cannot control the laws of human behavior. You cannot really control much of anything. The one thing you might be able to control is your own attitude and behavior. And when you do this, you have a critical choice to make. You […]

Read the full article →

Be aware of the moment

November 5, 2012

I think there are at least three ways for a company to frame its relationship with the customer: We transact with you: This means the company exchanges its goods and services for your money. Of course, like anything else, this can be done awfully or brilliantly. Brilliantly done means the good or service is relevant, […]

Read the full article →

Change the toilet, not the pipes

October 6, 2012

First things first. I’m about to use a toilet analogy to share an innovation and transformation idea. If toilet analogies bother you then either stop reading or get over it. I’m using this analogy deliberately for two reasons. The first is that that’s where and how the idea came to me. I was in a […]

Read the full article →

What would Patrick Moynihan think about TED?

August 23, 2012

I came across an article on the TED blog about the 20 most watched TED talks. I found it at first oddly unsettling. And then I realized there was nothing at all odd about being unsettled by that. Here’s what TED has to say about itself: “TED is dedicated to ideas worth spreading. And that […]

Read the full article →