Sharing our Assumptions

Note: I will be in Vancouver BC all week, so the posting will be lighter and shorter...

I had two conversations on the same day with two authors who seem to agree on little. Some of their comments were opposite of each other. Both of these authors do keynote and other pricey speeches.

This got me thinking.... Should consultants, speakers, and authors be expected to share - UP FRONT - what their basic assumptions are? When a company hires a speaker or consultant, they are hoping that this person will have a positive impact and that the benefits will outweigh the costs. The same is true when we recommend a book, but at a much smaller scale.

I was talking with a new client of mine last week who said that they had hired speakers in the past who said things that clashed with their culture and that this reduced the credibility and influence that the speaker was able to have.

When it comes to the uber speakers, like Tom Peters, I think that if you don't know what you bought, shame on you. His style and messages are clear and readily available. But most speakers and consultants are much less known and expressive.

How do you know if an expert is the right fit for your goals and the company? I would recommend that you ask any prospective consultant, trainer, or speaker about their basic assumptions. Get to know their style by asking them how they typically work and present.

For example, I offer my opinions (you all know I am not shy with my opinions), but when I am speaking to a group of which I am unfamiliar, I don't tell them what's right for them. It would be pretty arrogant of me to think that I understand their culture and their strengths and weaknesses enough to say what's right or wrong. I can offer observations and alternatives and predict the benefits, but I stop short of saying a practice is good or bad. That's a style thing - I am flexible and fluid.

If I were spending thousands of dollars on a consultant or speaker, I would also want to know about their basic assumptions about management, leadership, and how business should be conducted. I would want to know about their background and what has lead them to their current beliefs.

Going back to the two people I talked to, they both had great presence and sounded really sharp. And they would share very different messages with an audience and offer different suggestions. If people take their suggestions, this would lead to two sets of actions and two different outcomes.

What do you think? Am I over thinking this? Some of you might feel that it does not matter because few people will take the advice anyway and the speaker is there just as a gesture from senior management. I know this is the case sometimes, but that certainly should not be our goal. If you are going to disrupt your employee's schedules to bring someone in from the outside it should be someone who can make a positive difference and helps to make their work easier or more fruitful.

Oh, and one last thing. I think speaker's bureaus are a total rip off. They are a great source of talent, but the prices for these speeches, some only one hour long, have been driven up to a point that is ridiculous. I know there is a model of thinking out there about overall value and my time is worth the value I bring, but this is all bunk as applied to speaker fees. Yes, there is prep time, yes, there is the hassle of travel (most charge for business class travel, so the hassle is less). But even talking all this into account, I do not believe any business speaker is worth more than $10,000 if they have to do a total of five days prep (most don't require this much prep). (Sorry, Tom, I don't even thing you are worth the huge price tag you get.). The thinking that allows speaker fees to go as high as $50-100K is the same thinking that allows a CEO's pay to go as high as tens/hundreds of millions of dollars per year. And often it's the highly paid CEO who makes the decisions about hiring pricey speakers.

Lets get real, people.

Sorry for the tangent, it just came out!

 

 

 

Comments

[Adrian Savage]

Their values would be a better guide to whether or not a speaker fits with the culture of the audience. Culture is made of values and our values underly every assumption we make.

Just a thought.

[Dick Richards]

I agree with Adrian -- about values. And I definitely do not sense that you are over-thinking this Lisa.

When I was learning to "facilitate" (not gonna say how long ago), there was great debate about whether facilitation should be value free. At the same time I had a graduate prof who was writing a book about religious values in education. His argument was that you could not possibly avoid religious values in education. As soon as you open your mouth to teach, you are imparting a religious value of some kind. I concluded that the same was true of facilitation, began trying to identify my own values, and communicate them to clients.

Values unavoidably drive decisions at all levels of who we are. I think it is part of the "psychological contract" that exists anytime we take on a task for someone else. The best we can do is be clear about it.

[Lisa Haneberg]

I agree with what you are saying about values. the question is, how do you ask about someone's values?

[Dick Richards]

It really is hard to ask someone directly about their values if they haven't done the work of identifying them. And often you can't trust what people say their values are, especially if they have an interest in impressing you. For example, the 2000 annual report of Enron lists their values as communication, respect, integrity, and excellence.

There is also great misunderstanding about what constitutes a value, so the word itself has become like the word "trash" -- it can mean a whole lot of different things.

But you can see values at work--infer them--particularly in the decisions people make, the goals they set for themselves, how they use their time and money, and what they pay attention to.

[Lisa Haneberg]

Dick - that makes sense. Your example about Enron is funny. I can remember about a year before the OJ Simpson thing happened. He was one of several famous people in the line up for a country wide tour of a program called, "For Goodness Sake" - it was a program about ethics. Here's the real funny thing...After OJ was charged, I got the same brochure in the mail and instead of reprinting it, they just put a sticker over OJ's picture and name, replacing him with Jason Alexander.

I guess the moral of the story is to get to know someone before you plunk down tens of thousands of dollars and let him or her address your company.

[Michael Wagner]

Lisa, you - as always - have me thinking with this post. So many thoughts...

From my perspective as a speaker (and a "sometimes" consultant) I always expect a mixture of agreement and disagreement in my presentations. To quote an old saying, my job is "to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable". If all I am is reinforcement of the client's preconcieved notions or existing culture why am I here? To be some sort of a "safe" motivational speaker handing out the Kool-Aid? (though I grant re-inforcement of good values is always worth doing)

On the other hand I am mindful of the impact of my words/consulting on a given corporation. I never wish to do harm or disupt the client's pursuit of their corportate mission. I recognize a range of client issues exist including the readiness of an organization to hear thoughts that run contrary to their current assumptions. In preparation and conversations with the client I am careful to be clear about them. I respect the power of words.

The client always has the right to ask about my values - they are paying the fee. I am not offended by any of their questions. And I believe I ought to put the client at ease so that they know they can pose any question to me that comes to mind.

Assumptions, values and practices (like Dick notes above) are woven together. We are a mystery to our collective selfs at times and need a jolt.

So, "yes" - truth in advertisement and full disclosure of assumptions. I agree with you. But my take is that most of us need our assumptions challenged, me included.

On the matter of fees and speaker's bureaus - all part of the larger issue of our celebrity culture. Things get out of whack when it becomes about amusement; i.e. minus a muse, without any real meaning and significance. The strategic use of entertainment to arouse attention in the listener is important. For that reason when I address branding and creativity issues - I am entertaining. But I am not speaking to amuse. That's why God created TV.

And finally - a connection with today's post on worldliness; thoughtful/respectful speakers and consultants are a source of corporate worldliness that our all too insolated organizational cultures need. Think outside the box and bring in speakers/consultants to speak outside the corporate bubble. They're not the only source, but "a source" of worldliness. Every good company needs someone to stir the water.

[Lisa Haneberg]

Michael - you make some great points. I agree that speakers and consultants can and should add to the worldliness of the clients/customers. I also agree that it is good to challenge people and nudget them past their comfort zone. I also think that there needs to be a good fit and some basic common ground.

"to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable" - I LOVE THAT!

The example that made me ask these questions was of two extremely different speakers - with very different basic assumptions/values. Both would stir the waters, but one might guide them down a river leading in a direction they don't want to go. I seek to give people an exhilerating ride, but in a direction which is aligned with their goals.

Thanks for your thoughts and input!

[Michael Wagner]

Lisa, your blog is always entertaining but never amusing!! Grin. I really enjoy being part of the coversation.