SOURCE: Journal of Management Consulting. v8n3. Spring 1995. p. 2,62, 2pages.
Coaching the Client:
Another role for management consultants
by Washburn, Stewart A
The modern CEO doesn't have to be a Renaissance man, but he's increasingly expected to be comfortable working in all the major management disciplines.
This can be difficult; few CEOs have the necessary training and experience, and fewer still can take time off and go back to school. But there's an answer: coaching. It's not a new or a novel idea. The late John Barry, for example, coached the Pirelli family in the decade after World War II.
Working with a coach has become normal for many. Golfers, tennis players, musicians, and many others turn to them to improve their performances. Some of us even work with a personal trainer. But what's a bit off the beaten path is the growing number of CEOs who work with a consultant as a coach.
The goal is to improve some part of the way they manage.
I've had several such clients and am working with a couple now. CEOs are fun to coach. They catch on quickly and enjoy the experience. And the efforts produce measurable results without all the complications of a formal consulting engagement.
Coaching assignments come about in several ways. Occasionally they result when a board of directors wants to broaden the knowledge and skill base in certain areas of an otherwise qualified CEO. This happens frequently when a new CEO is hired. Often the CEO himself senses that his knowledge and skills need beefing up, and he casts about until he finds someone with whom to work.
A third situation can also result in a coaching assignment. This happens when a client or prospect misdiagnoses his or her problem (or opportunity) and proposes an inappropriate consulting project. Sometimes, an uncertain client meets a consultant in command of the latest technology or with deep knowledge of a special field and they talk a project into being. In either situation the project may be unnecessary. Simpler means may produce results without injecting a third party between the organization and a problem it could handle on its own.
In my field, sales and marketing, some consulting engagements are overkill and many unnecessary. This parallels the experience of Burns Roper, recently retired chariman of Roper Starch Worldwide and a public opinion pollster. He says, "Too many polls are an imposition on the public for useless purposes."
Consider a situation in which a CEO with limited marketing experience chose an inappropriate means to solve for a new product a problem of product and market definition. Because powerful and sophisticated computer technologies are available for analyzing massive amounts of statistical data, massive amounts were gathered.
Respondents were asked a great many questions: Would you buy the new product? If not, why not; how much would you pay; what changes would you like to see; what color would you prefer; and on and on --all about a hypothetical product. No one can answer such questions about a product that exists only on paper. Also, the conclusions from such research are generally uncertain or misleading.
Yet, it was on the basis of such research that its U.S. developer abandoned the fax machine, leaving it to the Japanese to perfect and bring to market.
They built prototypes, ran demonstrations, completed simple market research, and started selling fax machines, improving them as they went. The result? Nearly everyone now has one, even some who don't really need them.
Don't misunderstand; the technology isn't at fault just its application. That same technology does wonders when asked to analyze sales figures that may reflect the purchases of thousands of customers over a decade or so.
But there are, unfortunately, consultants who view the size of the potential billing and not the appropriateness of the project and take the prospect's money. The alternative may reduce the size of the billing but offers a greater long-term payoff besides being the right thing to do.
A current assignment of mine demonstrates the possibilities as well as the advantages of coaching. The client, a former venture capitalist, decided after years of financing start-ups to try his hand at running a manufacturing firm. He bought a middle-market firm with a reasonably up-to- date plant, a capable work force, and a short line of well-regarded industrial products. But no new products were in the works. Sales and marketing were having trouble finding new customers for existing products.
When I met my client, he had simplified his accounting to provide clearer and more current data on costs, margins, product, and customer profiitability. Manufacturing was in capable hands, so he then turned his attention to sales and marketing, an area where his experience was weak. Specifically he faced the problem of finding new products and customers.
He had called me in to discuss a needs analysis of the markets being served. From experience, I knew the study would take 45 to 50 billable days and 60 to 65 calendar days. If I worked with a colleague, I could cut the calendar days to 30 or 35, and with two colleagues to 20 or 25.
As we talked, other more immediate ways appeared to solve the client's problems. The proposed study might come later if needed at all. And from information he had given me, it was clear that he wouldn't need much outside help. With a little coaching, he could do what was needed with his own resources. One thing led to another, and we now meet for a day each month with a few phone calls in between.
The results? So far, he has a number of new products coming along with potential customers testing and providing feedback as he develops new products. His technical service group has been reorganized and new customers bring their problems to him. He's developing an improved incentive program for salespeople.
His costs, covering a day of my time once a month, are modest compared to the benefits. Everything is being done in-house, so he knowledge and experience gained remain there. It doesn't walk out the door when the consultant leaves. Meantime, the client is becoming an experienced marketing man acquiring one more set of skills needed to become a more effective CEO.
A good deal all around. For the consultant there are two kinds of payoff. By working one-on-one with a CEO, a relationship of trust and mutual respect is being established. The second benefit is especially important for senior consultants of larger firms whose time is mostly spent in sales and marketing or in supervising juniors. A coaching assignment makes minor time demands and provides an opportunity to be a consultant once more at a very high level and at an attractive billing rate.
But there's a caution. Coaching doesn't work in every situation. Sometimes a fully fledged consulting engagement is called for.
But when:
- the client is unfamiliar with the problem area,
- the client doesn't want to make a big deal out of something that can be handled informally,
- the personal chemistry between client and consultant is right,
- no crisis prevents slow, steady improvements, and
- the client and consultant can create a day or so of uninterrupted time on a regular basis,
then coaching can accomplish quite a bit at minimum cost and with minimum disruption of management. Because the time demands are light, it's easier for the client to get the help of an experienced and busy consultant who might not be available otherwise.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Associate Editor Stewart A. Washburn is a consultant and author in sales and marketing. One of this journal's founding editors, he wrote this issue's "From the Editor."
