Towards the end of last week I was approached to take a peek at a review copy of a new book: Spiraling Up. (PDF preview) Catchy title aside, it talks about the things that distinguish top performing professional services firms from the average. Three statements caught my attention:
Almost every firm says more or less the same thing. And clients have stopped listening.
How true. The other week I talked about cookie cutter websites, comparing with others that are more exciting. That one line captures the essence of what I was getting at.
They [high performing firms] talk about delivering desired outcomes. High growth firms focus on the end result, not their firm’s qualifications.
That’s interesting. I recall when I was doing tax consultancy that clients could care less what I knew. They wanted to know what I could do for them. My approach was simple: crunch the numbers, work out what could be done, cobble a scheme and then tell the client how much they could save. That’s all they cared about. When done that way I could almost always achieve a premium fee. It’s not a slam dunk but close.
When we present this research to CEOs, we get a lot of questions about thought leadership. To our surprise, average firms in our study showed a greater affinity for thought leadership than high growth firms. This contradicts conventional wisdom, so we want to explain what we believe is going on.
Upon closer examination, we discovered that what many firms call thought leadership is often so technical and esoteric that it sails over their clients’ heads. It’s as though they are saying, “Look how smart we are!” You can just picture the glazed-over looks they get. Of course they’re smart. They are professionals — everyone assumes they are technically competent.
When high growth firms invest in thought leadership, however, they address issues of greater relevance to their target audiences. These firms want to be known for finding practical answers to clients’ common problems. They care less about impressing their peers. So while high growth firms may emphasize thought leadership less, they tend to do it right.
Spot on. I’ve said on many an occasion that firms can do a great job by communicating to their vertical client groups on issues of importance to them. But it is so rare to see that in action.
The people I find the most interesting are those that say something like: “I specialize in farming/leisure industries/construction/healthcare/name your vertical here.” These are often people who have a keen sense of how the economy is impacting their core client groups. It’s an important aspect of demonstrating that you not only understand the client but have an empathy for them. Ever thought about putting out a newsletter that addresses those types of issue?
We did it 20+ years ago and it was always a talking point. In today’s parlance we’d likely call that a social object.
When I spoke with Jon Stacey of Riley’s, one of the talking points was how the economy is impacting his main client groups. He knew exactly which sectors were being impacted, how it was affecting what they do, where the recovery points lay. That kind of information has value.
Finally – check the table at the top. What do you think of this comparison between high performers and the average firm? The one that struck me comes at the end: develop new products versus partnering. I’m kinda caught on this. I like the idea of partnering and used to do that for highly complex tax work and insolvency. The general notion of partnering makes sense because shared ideas can morph into new things that are value add. On the other hand it is important to develop new products. Should it be a mixture of both? Hard to tell.
The book has plenty to chew upon. Give it a spin and let me know what you think.
Disclosure: I am being named as a source for the book. Other than that there is no commercial relationship between the company behind it and myself.
