Consulting flawlessly means more than making the sale

Published on 08/15/2005 under Book Reviews

After 35 years in advertising and marketing, you’re expected to know a few things, like how to present your ideas and recommendations to clients. And I always thought this was one of my strengths--you know, like the ability to sell ice cubes to Eskimos. But after reading Peter Block’s classic book Flawless Consulting, I’m not so sure.
For one thing, I’ve never spent much time probing for clients’ true expectations of me and my team. I always assumed clients wanted exactly what they said they wanted--no more and no less. But as Block points out, the “presenting problem” is never the real problem. You need to find out what is causing the “pain” that led them to call you in the first place. And the fact that they haven’t been able to make the pain go away on their own probably means they don’t totally understand the cause of the pain themselves.
So at the very beginning of any assignment, you should spend some time trying to understand the underlying reasons for the assignment. This comes in handy at the end when you recommend something bold that makes everybody uncomfortable. If you remind them how your solution addresses root causes of the problem they asked you to help them solve, it makes it a lot easier for them to jump onboard.
I also thought I knew how to deal with objections, but maybe not. In some cases, I’m sure I didn’t even recognize that an objection was being raised. Block calls it “getting stuck.” He says you are stuck if you catch yourself explaining something for the third time. Two times should be sufficient to answer someone’s question. When they ask a third time, they’re really saying they have a problem with the proposed solution, the methodology or maybe the whole project in general.
When you find yourself stuck in a consulting situation, and this goes for internal consultants as much as external ones, the recommended technique is to name the resistance and then shut up. For example, you might say, “You’re asking a lot of questions about our methodology. Do you have any doubts about how our results will be received?” Then don’t say anything until the questioner comes clean about what’s really bothering him or her.
Block spends a lot of time in his book talking about how to gain commitment from the client, not only to work with you in a collaborative fashion, but also to follow up when your work is done to implement and measure results. We all know how frustrating it is to recommend the “World’s Greatest Big Deal Program” and watch it die a horrible death because the client wasn’t all that committed to the program or because someone higher up the ladder wasn’t committed.
Block rightly points out that you can’t make a “contract” with someone who isn’t in the room. We’ve all been down that road. The vice president was supposed to sit in on the meeting but had to cancel at the last minute when something more important came up.
So what do you do? Block says you have a right to meet with them directly and to know you have an agreement with them. If the subordinate tries to block that request, you have the right to refuse the assignment or postpone it until such time as all the interested parties can reconvene. And while that sounds like a drastic step, it’s probably no more drastic than accepting an assignment that is destined to fail due to lack of support.
Another important lesson from Flawless Consulting is the importance of 50/50 collaborative relationships. Block points out there are three primary roles a consultant can assume: expert, pair-of-hands and collaborative. If you’ve been around any time at all, you’ve done all three.
In the expert situation, the client says, “You’re the expert, fix it” and leaves the scene. The consultant is totally responsible for diagnosing the problem and fixing it. In some cases, like specialized machinery or complex computer software, this is an appropriate situation because the client just wants the problem fixed and you know how to fix it.
In the pair-of-hands scenario, the client stays involved but in a passive way. You fix the problem, but you report through the client-manager who alerts other people of your need to interface with them, orders supplies, approves methodologies, and so forth. You have become a temporary member of his or her staff.
The problem with both of these roles is that the consultant is acting alone with minimal involvement from the client. That might sound like a good deal, but it’s not. If the client was actually causing the machinery or software malfunctions, they will most likely continue to do so. And if they are expected to change their behaviors in the future--say, to implement a new inquiry management program or manage an online store--they probably won’t.
Some people think it’s good that clients depend extensively on them, and I can certainly remember feeling that way myself. But eventually the client becomes fed up with paying money for things that don’t work or that require constant maintenance from outside suppliers who some critics believe are very expensive. It’s not a winning proposition.
The better situation for both client and consultant is the collaborative role where both parties share equal commitment and ownership of the project. As a consultant, you have the right to request sufficient involvement from your client so that they share responsibility for a successful result and agree to support your efforts in whatever way that is required by you. Anything less is a ticket to Crazyville.
Whether you’re a member of an in-house marketing communications staff or an outside consultant, you’re constantly in a position to share your ideas and expertise with your co-workers and clients. The manner in which you offer that expertise will have a huge impact on the results you achieve. If you do it right, it’s called consulting flawlessly. n

Return to top of page