The importance of the human element for professional service providers is increasing
I recently came across Bill Fischer’s article, “The end of expertise” (HBR 2015), which questions the long-term existence of knowledge based organizations in their current form. Threatened by the increasing commoditization of knowledge and perceived expertise, and the low-cost, immediate results driven buyers' behavior, the author argues that soft skills and emotional intelligence are becoming unique differentiators for professionals and their firms. I couldn't agree more. While often undervalued, how you do what you do has always been an essential component of successful and sustainable client-expert advisor relationships.
It is undisputed that technology is disrupting the business of professional services firms. This disruption has been ongoing for the past two decades and it will most likely continue for the foreseeable future. Pricing pressure and changing business models and compensation formulas are some of the most visible immediate results of that turbulence. What it all ultimately means to expert professionals and their futures is yet to be determined…not much has been speculated or prescribed.
After spending incredible amounts of time and resources in the world of academia, professionals embark on a lifelong journey of professional development and practice, yearning to reach the coveted “expert” title. However, more and more professionals are realizing that the “expert” title has lost its luster, and all that goes with it. What are professionals and the firms that employ them do? Well, a few lucky ones, who have enjoyed the full benefits of being called and treated as experts, may retire. Others may have to re-tool themselves.
Based on the widely accepted Maister trustworthiness formula {trust= (credibility + reliability + intimacy) / self-orientation}, Fischer suggests that the variables in the trust building formula that deal with the human aspect of relationships offer the solution to the commoditization of professional services. In other words, employing and mastering the art of soft skills would be the only way for professionals to differentiate themselves and succeed in their careers going forward.
Because I’ve studied and have seen the positive results of professionals employing human skills, the “how you do what you do" has always come forefront in my teaching of professional development tips. I often refer to it as part of the notion of executive presence: how you go about carrying yourself, listening, communicating, etc. Take a deep dive into the concepts with “WHERE IN THE WORLD IS THE NEXT GENERATION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRMS’ PARTNERS?”, an oldie but goodie I wrote on the subject about a half a decade ago. Listen to “LEADERSHIP LESSONS FROM MARGARET THATCHER”, an interview with Sir Bernard Ingham, Margaret Thatcher's chief press secretary I curated several years back. It builds upon the frameworks shared in the previous article, especially the one of personal gravitas.
Of course, we can’t talk about soft skills without touching on the subject of problem solving capabilities and its importance for professionals. The ability to ask good questions, realize and release innate assumptions and leniency to assign judgments, synthesize and re-frame points so as to communicate more effectively: all critical for professional and personal development in my view. Content and format will vary based on professionals’ and firms’ needs. Ask for best practices and recommendations.
Technology is great. It supposedly simplifies life and it does for the most part. Most professionals and firms have easily made the decision to invest sizable amounts in improving technology. However, most firms are neglecting to invest in the supposed beneficiaries of that technology. I say: it’s time to invest in the human element. Be human, even if your career doesn’t depend on it.
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
It's all about SALES
Over the past year I've collected, and randomly shared, a number of articles on the subject of sales: organization, process, skills and development. Here's a selection to reinvigorate your sales thinking, actions and results.
What Salespeople Need to Know About the New B2B Landscape: a Gartner study
As the sales process is shifting towards a consultative one in order to stay calibrated with the dynamic buying process, the importance of sales professionals as well as the marketing and thought leadership tools they use is greater than ever. Read on HERE to find out why and what to do about it.
What Top Sales Teams have in Common
High quality of the sales organization, a structured sales process, and accountability of the sale’s team members separates high-performing organizations from average and underperforming sales organizations. For additional criteria and details, read on HERE.
What Makes Great Salespeople
Spending more time with your clients, your colleagues, and your marketing and sales support team, as well as dedicating more quality time to selling, leads to better business growth results. Read HERE for supporting information.
What Separates the Strongest Salespeople from the Weakest
To improve your business growth results, increase the level of your communications skills, bump up your competitive streak, confidently lead your client conversations, stay positive while questioning your clients and their problems, and work with high performing business growth leaders. Click HERE for details.
How to Really Motivate Salespeople
Adopt individualized and simple compensation models, set reasonable goals and experiment with the rewards systems to find the most effective and efficient one for your organization. Click HERE to read more about motivating salespeople.
What Salespeople Need to Know About the New B2B Landscape: a Gartner study
As the sales process is shifting towards a consultative one in order to stay calibrated with the dynamic buying process, the importance of sales professionals as well as the marketing and thought leadership tools they use is greater than ever. Read on HERE to find out why and what to do about it.
What Top Sales Teams have in Common
High quality of the sales organization, a structured sales process, and accountability of the sale’s team members separates high-performing organizations from average and underperforming sales organizations. For additional criteria and details, read on HERE.
What Makes Great Salespeople
Spending more time with your clients, your colleagues, and your marketing and sales support team, as well as dedicating more quality time to selling, leads to better business growth results. Read HERE for supporting information.
What Separates the Strongest Salespeople from the Weakest
To improve your business growth results, increase the level of your communications skills, bump up your competitive streak, confidently lead your client conversations, stay positive while questioning your clients and their problems, and work with high performing business growth leaders. Click HERE for details.
How to Really Motivate Salespeople
Adopt individualized and simple compensation models, set reasonable goals and experiment with the rewards systems to find the most effective and efficient one for your organization. Click HERE to read more about motivating salespeople.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
SHARE | Change and risk management tips for law firms from Managing Partner magazine
"SHARE" is the new format I've selected to post articles, tips, insights, videos, etc. of interest, authored by others
To succeed in a continuously evolving environment, law firms must accept risk management as a business growth enabler, appoint experienced business advisors to their leadership ranks, embrace change management training & establish a culture of readiness for change. See Managing Partner for details: https://lnkd.in/b9pAgQ5
To succeed in a continuously evolving environment, law firms must accept risk management as a business growth enabler, appoint experienced business advisors to their leadership ranks, embrace change management training & establish a culture of readiness for change. See Managing Partner for details: https://lnkd.in/b9pAgQ5
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO…AND GROW AN ORGANIZATION
The roles of the firm and the professionals in business growth
Professional service providers (lawyers, accountants, consultants, etc.) elect to join firms for many reasons: technical and administrative support, built-in infrastructure, environment of colleagueship and continual education, brand, etc. There are two main components to the partnership model - the partnership and its executive management, on the one hand, and the individual professionals, on the other. The model seems to work in most aspects of the business, but often fails when it comes to business growth, however. When implementing a growth strategy, I often see situations where management blames the individuals, and vice versa, when the firm’s growth goals are not realized. Why is that, and who is really to blame?
My strategy development projects require me to work with both firm management and its individual professionals. Over the course of the project however, I sometimes find myself working primarily with one or the other. In that role, I get a close view of the dynamics and dysfunctions of this partnership model, especially as it relates to business growth. I hear objections and complaints - some valid ones - about what’s holding back individual and firm business growth. Instead of playing a mediator or defender, I spend a considerable time explaining the business growth roles of the firm and its professionals. So, I decided to take a few minutes and spell it out: it takes two to tango. In order for organizations to experience sustainable and smart business growth, both parties – the firm and its technical professionals - should accept their business growth responsibilities and work to deliver them.
It starts with the visible disconnect between a firm strategic direction and the one of its individual practitioners…it is a recurring case, unfortunately. Firms should take individual professionals’ business growth goals and activities into consideration when developing strategic development plans. In addition to looking outwards for market trends and competitive analysis, annual retreats should become a series of strategic conversations of how partners see growing their practices over the short term, how such objectives are within the realm of the firm’s aspirations, and how the firm can support them.
Firms tend to load the marketing budget with awareness building activities and internal marketing communication. Instead, they should invest in building internal business growth organizations that reaches beyond branding activities, and cover all steps of the business growth process. They should take a comprehensive view and ensure that this internal platform offers adequate support during the awareness building, education, sales and loyalty phases. They should provide marketing and business development resources and tools, and I am not referring to the basic websites and brochures. The firm should be able to provide thought leadership materials, target intelligence, client data, and facilitate opportunities for the professionals to engage with clients, prospects and referral sources so that they can build meaningful relationships. Firms should adopt and manage systems and processes to help track and measure business growth activities, for more efficient and effective i.e. smart growth. Most importantly, firms should equip professionals with the skills how to best use all of the above. In my professional experience, firms, which have aligned their development inspirations with that of its professionals, have invested and built internal growth engines, see considerable growth results.
Professionals tend to set business growth goals based on anecdotal information (often not due to the lack of actual data) and without regard on how they might achieve them. They should take a more strategic approach and create simple business growth plans (no more than 1-2 pages long), inclusive of measurable goals and specific tactics on how they might reach their objectives. They should get to know and utilize the tools, resources and systems provided by the firm – they are in place for them to use. Equally to their continual thirst for technical knowledge, they should strive to enhance their business growth planning and implementation skills. If professionals take advantage and leverage the full support of the firm, only then can they point elsewhere for poor business growth results.
Firm leaders, professionals, keep in mind for the next round of annual reviews: "it takes two tango". Look inwards and evaluate how you are delivering on your business growth responsibilities before shifting blame and looking for alternative business growth opportunities.
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Professional service providers (lawyers, accountants, consultants, etc.) elect to join firms for many reasons: technical and administrative support, built-in infrastructure, environment of colleagueship and continual education, brand, etc. There are two main components to the partnership model - the partnership and its executive management, on the one hand, and the individual professionals, on the other. The model seems to work in most aspects of the business, but often fails when it comes to business growth, however. When implementing a growth strategy, I often see situations where management blames the individuals, and vice versa, when the firm’s growth goals are not realized. Why is that, and who is really to blame?
My strategy development projects require me to work with both firm management and its individual professionals. Over the course of the project however, I sometimes find myself working primarily with one or the other. In that role, I get a close view of the dynamics and dysfunctions of this partnership model, especially as it relates to business growth. I hear objections and complaints - some valid ones - about what’s holding back individual and firm business growth. Instead of playing a mediator or defender, I spend a considerable time explaining the business growth roles of the firm and its professionals. So, I decided to take a few minutes and spell it out: it takes two to tango. In order for organizations to experience sustainable and smart business growth, both parties – the firm and its technical professionals - should accept their business growth responsibilities and work to deliver them.
It starts with the visible disconnect between a firm strategic direction and the one of its individual practitioners…it is a recurring case, unfortunately. Firms should take individual professionals’ business growth goals and activities into consideration when developing strategic development plans. In addition to looking outwards for market trends and competitive analysis, annual retreats should become a series of strategic conversations of how partners see growing their practices over the short term, how such objectives are within the realm of the firm’s aspirations, and how the firm can support them.
Firms tend to load the marketing budget with awareness building activities and internal marketing communication. Instead, they should invest in building internal business growth organizations that reaches beyond branding activities, and cover all steps of the business growth process. They should take a comprehensive view and ensure that this internal platform offers adequate support during the awareness building, education, sales and loyalty phases. They should provide marketing and business development resources and tools, and I am not referring to the basic websites and brochures. The firm should be able to provide thought leadership materials, target intelligence, client data, and facilitate opportunities for the professionals to engage with clients, prospects and referral sources so that they can build meaningful relationships. Firms should adopt and manage systems and processes to help track and measure business growth activities, for more efficient and effective i.e. smart growth. Most importantly, firms should equip professionals with the skills how to best use all of the above. In my professional experience, firms, which have aligned their development inspirations with that of its professionals, have invested and built internal growth engines, see considerable growth results.
Professionals tend to set business growth goals based on anecdotal information (often not due to the lack of actual data) and without regard on how they might achieve them. They should take a more strategic approach and create simple business growth plans (no more than 1-2 pages long), inclusive of measurable goals and specific tactics on how they might reach their objectives. They should get to know and utilize the tools, resources and systems provided by the firm – they are in place for them to use. Equally to their continual thirst for technical knowledge, they should strive to enhance their business growth planning and implementation skills. If professionals take advantage and leverage the full support of the firm, only then can they point elsewhere for poor business growth results.
Firm leaders, professionals, keep in mind for the next round of annual reviews: "it takes two tango". Look inwards and evaluate how you are delivering on your business growth responsibilities before shifting blame and looking for alternative business growth opportunities.
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
COLLABORATE TO INCREASE BUSINESS GROWTH: PART III
Practical tips for unlocking the potential of collaboration
In Part I of the series on collaboration I made the argument that professional services organizations should strive to encourage collaboration, because it leads to business growth. In Part II, I discussed the major obstacles to collaboration, and hinted on how to overcome them. In this last segment, I will take a prescriptive approach, and outline specific measures to unlocking the potential of collaboration. As in the past, I’ll also refer to the Harvard Business Review (HBR) article and study, titled “When senior managers won’t collaborate”, and some of my past writing on the subject.
A collaborative culture must originate with the leadership team. Leaders should consider and explore a firm development strategy with collaboration as a core attribute, or even as a sustainable competitive advantage. Take an all-encompassing approach: from recruiting and retaining talent, to growing the firm and boasting team performance. Demonstrate and communicate the importance of collaborating and growing the organization and the danger of not doing so to the business; become vocal in celebrating client development accomplishments and equally so to learn from failures; and nurture an environment where experimenting with innovative ideas is welcomed.
Leaders should define an organizational structure and compensation models that foster sharing and cooperation, again spreading throughout the firm: back office operations, technical and client facing practitioners. Employ tools and systems that encourage communication, knowledge sharing and transparency, which are some of the key components of collaboration. Establish functions and recruit / develop professionals who not only understand the value of collaboration, but have the necessary skills to build and cultivate collaborative culture. Focus on the system not the individual superstar performance. Set firm-based, common goals, which benefit the firm as a whole rather than the individual performer. For the greater good.
Leadership must adopt a “systems thinking” way to managing professional services organizations. To do so, approach problems by identifying the source of the issues: what’s the core, not the symptom. Employ all disciplines of the systems thinking theory (refer to my past article, "Systematic approach to business growth"), especially the ones of “mental models”, which among other things, explains why change management exercises and introduction to new business growth systems and programs might fail; and the “team learning” one, which casts light on what's behind the “narcissistic behavior” of professional services organizations, ultimately holding back collaboration and limiting business growth.
To my delight, the HBR survey offers professional services organizations tips similar to my prescriptions. It encourages leaders to walk the talk and show first hand by collaborating with others. Create opportunities for the team to connect and build trust. Resist the temptation to bring in rainmakers, but look for individuals with demonstrated collaborative experience. Celebrate team wins. Re-consider the compensation scheme of the firm and question how much weigh is attributed to collaboration, if any. I’ve seen some of this already take place in a few progressive organizations, where collaboration has become a factor in the compensation formula. Build a collaborative culture by tracking and rewarding non-billable collaborative initiatives such as mentoring. Enhance the knowledge sharing culture. Encourage regular workshops and secondment programs, and utilize communication technology and tools to share best practices. Develop teams to lead the way. Build collaboration in the firms’ development strategies.
The HBR survey takes a segmented approach, and in addition to the above-mentioned recommendations geared towards organizations and their leaders, it also speaks directly to individual practitioners. It recommends to professionals to be persistent. Select to collaborate with a firm influencer / rainmaker. Be fair to teammates. Communicate often and openly, and deliver on promises.
Organizational development research, as also confirmed by the HBR study, shows that organizations which build and nurture a collaborative environment manage to turn knowledge into action, share best practices and drive growth at a sustainable and fast pace. So, when examining what’s inhibiting organizational development and growth, reflect on the factors outlined above and most importantly, take immediate actions to close the know-do gaps and create collaborative culture.
For a copy of the HBR article visit: https://hbr.org/2015/03/when-senior-managers-wont-collaborate?utm_content=buffer98a13&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
In Part I of the series on collaboration I made the argument that professional services organizations should strive to encourage collaboration, because it leads to business growth. In Part II, I discussed the major obstacles to collaboration, and hinted on how to overcome them. In this last segment, I will take a prescriptive approach, and outline specific measures to unlocking the potential of collaboration. As in the past, I’ll also refer to the Harvard Business Review (HBR) article and study, titled “When senior managers won’t collaborate”, and some of my past writing on the subject.
A collaborative culture must originate with the leadership team. Leaders should consider and explore a firm development strategy with collaboration as a core attribute, or even as a sustainable competitive advantage. Take an all-encompassing approach: from recruiting and retaining talent, to growing the firm and boasting team performance. Demonstrate and communicate the importance of collaborating and growing the organization and the danger of not doing so to the business; become vocal in celebrating client development accomplishments and equally so to learn from failures; and nurture an environment where experimenting with innovative ideas is welcomed.
Leaders should define an organizational structure and compensation models that foster sharing and cooperation, again spreading throughout the firm: back office operations, technical and client facing practitioners. Employ tools and systems that encourage communication, knowledge sharing and transparency, which are some of the key components of collaboration. Establish functions and recruit / develop professionals who not only understand the value of collaboration, but have the necessary skills to build and cultivate collaborative culture. Focus on the system not the individual superstar performance. Set firm-based, common goals, which benefit the firm as a whole rather than the individual performer. For the greater good.
Leadership must adopt a “systems thinking” way to managing professional services organizations. To do so, approach problems by identifying the source of the issues: what’s the core, not the symptom. Employ all disciplines of the systems thinking theory (refer to my past article, "Systematic approach to business growth"), especially the ones of “mental models”, which among other things, explains why change management exercises and introduction to new business growth systems and programs might fail; and the “team learning” one, which casts light on what's behind the “narcissistic behavior” of professional services organizations, ultimately holding back collaboration and limiting business growth.
To my delight, the HBR survey offers professional services organizations tips similar to my prescriptions. It encourages leaders to walk the talk and show first hand by collaborating with others. Create opportunities for the team to connect and build trust. Resist the temptation to bring in rainmakers, but look for individuals with demonstrated collaborative experience. Celebrate team wins. Re-consider the compensation scheme of the firm and question how much weigh is attributed to collaboration, if any. I’ve seen some of this already take place in a few progressive organizations, where collaboration has become a factor in the compensation formula. Build a collaborative culture by tracking and rewarding non-billable collaborative initiatives such as mentoring. Enhance the knowledge sharing culture. Encourage regular workshops and secondment programs, and utilize communication technology and tools to share best practices. Develop teams to lead the way. Build collaboration in the firms’ development strategies.
The HBR survey takes a segmented approach, and in addition to the above-mentioned recommendations geared towards organizations and their leaders, it also speaks directly to individual practitioners. It recommends to professionals to be persistent. Select to collaborate with a firm influencer / rainmaker. Be fair to teammates. Communicate often and openly, and deliver on promises.
Organizational development research, as also confirmed by the HBR study, shows that organizations which build and nurture a collaborative environment manage to turn knowledge into action, share best practices and drive growth at a sustainable and fast pace. So, when examining what’s inhibiting organizational development and growth, reflect on the factors outlined above and most importantly, take immediate actions to close the know-do gaps and create collaborative culture.
For a copy of the HBR article visit: https://hbr.org/2015/03/when-senior-managers-wont-collaborate?utm_content=buffer98a13&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Monday, April 13, 2015
COLLABORATE TO INCREASE BUSINESS GROWTH: PART II
Why is it so difficult for collaboration to work?
Last month I launched a three-part article on the subject of collaboration. The piece is based on my past and current research and observations, and follows a recently released Harvard Business Review (HBR) study. In Part I, I and the author of the HBR article, made the case for collaboration in professional services firms and the direct correlation to business growth. In this segment, I will focus on the challenges of making collaboration work.
The study and I are in agreement: the key factors preventing professional organizations from taking full advantage of collaboration are organizational structure, compensation model and culture.
While in several of my articles I discuss narcissistic or hyped self-preservation behavior and the lack of common strategic goals and systems in professional services firms as the main roadblocks to building a healthy collaborative environment, the compensation models and culture are just as critical for that. I’ve especially emphasized on those in my piece based on the collapse on Dewey & LaBouef. The Dewey & LaBouef case clearly demonstrates that a compensation model, mainly incentivizing rainmaking can encourage wrong behaviors and be counterproductive. Similarly, a culture allowing for a digression from the clearly defined traditional firms’ values of loyalty and collegiality, often has a hefty price.
The HBR survey notes that organizational structure, compensation systems and culture in professional services firms favor individualistic approach. Most firms still value rainmakers higher. From professionals’ standpoint that’s not a bad thing, as professionals’ security is tied to their client relationships. External recognition from professional organization rankings further influences professionals and pushes them to focus on individual performance. The last notable obstacle to collaboration, according to the survey is the lack of collaboration skills. I concur. The skills in reference here are such that go beyond the usual delegation of work to junior professionals; these skills support an advisory approach to client management of asking questions, which benefit the client, and having client conversations that reach outside of the comfortable technical points and are actual business dialogues. These collaborative skills encourage giving and receiving team member feedback, allowing both jr. and sr. level professionals to contribute and learn from one another. These are the skills that most professional service providers are not equipped with…
So, what can you do about it?
After a careful study of the characters, the various circumstances and the storyline of the events, leading to the bankruptcy of Dewey & LaBoeuf, in The New Yorker piece, “The Collapse”, James B. Stewart concludes that “cooperation and mutual respect” is at the heart of successful professional services firms. That’s the culture that successful firms foster and Dewey & LaBoeuf blatantly ignored, according to Stewart. In some of my other articles I refer to that as collaboration and encourage organizations to reward it, because it provides for learning, best practice sharing, better solutions design and a team client approach…for the greater good.
Stay tuned for the last segment of this series, which will take a prescriptive approach and will outline tangible points to inspire collaboration(CLICK HERE).
For a copy of the HBR article visit: https://hbr.org/2015/03/when-senior-managers-wont-collaborate?utm_content=buffer98a13&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Last month I launched a three-part article on the subject of collaboration. The piece is based on my past and current research and observations, and follows a recently released Harvard Business Review (HBR) study. In Part I, I and the author of the HBR article, made the case for collaboration in professional services firms and the direct correlation to business growth. In this segment, I will focus on the challenges of making collaboration work.
The study and I are in agreement: the key factors preventing professional organizations from taking full advantage of collaboration are organizational structure, compensation model and culture.
While in several of my articles I discuss narcissistic or hyped self-preservation behavior and the lack of common strategic goals and systems in professional services firms as the main roadblocks to building a healthy collaborative environment, the compensation models and culture are just as critical for that. I’ve especially emphasized on those in my piece based on the collapse on Dewey & LaBouef. The Dewey & LaBouef case clearly demonstrates that a compensation model, mainly incentivizing rainmaking can encourage wrong behaviors and be counterproductive. Similarly, a culture allowing for a digression from the clearly defined traditional firms’ values of loyalty and collegiality, often has a hefty price.
The HBR survey notes that organizational structure, compensation systems and culture in professional services firms favor individualistic approach. Most firms still value rainmakers higher. From professionals’ standpoint that’s not a bad thing, as professionals’ security is tied to their client relationships. External recognition from professional organization rankings further influences professionals and pushes them to focus on individual performance. The last notable obstacle to collaboration, according to the survey is the lack of collaboration skills. I concur. The skills in reference here are such that go beyond the usual delegation of work to junior professionals; these skills support an advisory approach to client management of asking questions, which benefit the client, and having client conversations that reach outside of the comfortable technical points and are actual business dialogues. These collaborative skills encourage giving and receiving team member feedback, allowing both jr. and sr. level professionals to contribute and learn from one another. These are the skills that most professional service providers are not equipped with…
So, what can you do about it?
After a careful study of the characters, the various circumstances and the storyline of the events, leading to the bankruptcy of Dewey & LaBoeuf, in The New Yorker piece, “The Collapse”, James B. Stewart concludes that “cooperation and mutual respect” is at the heart of successful professional services firms. That’s the culture that successful firms foster and Dewey & LaBoeuf blatantly ignored, according to Stewart. In some of my other articles I refer to that as collaboration and encourage organizations to reward it, because it provides for learning, best practice sharing, better solutions design and a team client approach…for the greater good.
Stay tuned for the last segment of this series, which will take a prescriptive approach and will outline tangible points to inspire collaboration(CLICK HERE).
For a copy of the HBR article visit: https://hbr.org/2015/03/when-senior-managers-wont-collaborate?utm_content=buffer98a13&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
COLLABORATE TO INCREASE BUSINESS GROWTH: PART I
HBR study confirms that collaboration in professional services firms leads to financial rewards
Nearly 3 years ago I launched a series of articles on the subject of collaboration among professionals from professional services firms (law, accounting, tax, consulting, etc.). I wrote about the importance of collaboration to firms’ organizational development and business growth, the reasons behind the visible resistance to it, and how to overcome such resistance and take full advantage of collaboration. Even though some of my blog entries might be considered polarizing, the theme of collaboration has repeatedly appeared in many of my articles. I am glad to see the findings and statistics of a recently released HBR study on collaboration validate my hypothesis and emphasize the importance of collaboration to professional services firms.
As a result of examining collaborative behavior of professional services firms over the past couple of years, Professor Gardner (a lecturer at the Harvard Law School) recently released her findings in an HBR article, titled “When senior managers won’t collaborate.” The key sentiment of it is in line with much of my beliefs: when professionals work together to collaborate everybody wins!
Why collaborate? In my “One for all, all for one" article of December 2012, I spelled out the benefits of collaboration. Collaboration encourages learning and development (critical for knowledge-based organizations such as PSFs), turns knowledge into action (which closes “knowing-doing” gaps), and increases the opportunities to grow business and succeed in the market place. Collaboration in PSFs provides confidence to existing clients that the firm will provide the necessary resources to support them and provide fresh ideas and solutions; for new clients, collaboration means a stronger and deeper team and higher chances for both the client and the advisor to identify someone to connect with and build trust which builds stronger, better relationships between clients and advisors…after all, people like to work with people who they like and trust. When it comes to client development, collaboration alleviates the burdensome stigma of sales. Working as a part of a team makes that experience less onerous, and promotes best practices sharing, while keeping everyone accountable.
Equipped with statistics and historical financial data, the HBR study backs up my words and demonstrates direct financial benefits of collaboration to the firm. When professionals collaborate, it results in the involvement of more practice areas, creates higher margin work, and institutionalizes client relationships. Thus, it becomes harder to replace an entire team of advisors and it becomes equally difficult for a departing partner to walk away with a client.
The HBR study goes on to outline the benefits to professionals as well. When team members get to know one another they become more likely to refer work among themselves. I often tell my clients: you have to work as hard to develop relationships with your internal partners as with external referral sources; they need to know you and trust you before they put their reputation on the line for you. The study has made an interesting observation here: collaborative professionals benefit from a steady stream of business even during slow periods due to their diversified skills, which further allows professionals to work on a variety of projects, and continue to collaborate. Collaboration creates a very beneficial feedback loop.
If the benefits are so overwhelmingly clear, why is it so difficult for collaboration to work in professional services firms? Stay tuned for my next article on the subject, which will examine the roadblocks to building and managing collaborative environment (CLICK HERE).
For a copy of the HBR article, click HERE.
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Nearly 3 years ago I launched a series of articles on the subject of collaboration among professionals from professional services firms (law, accounting, tax, consulting, etc.). I wrote about the importance of collaboration to firms’ organizational development and business growth, the reasons behind the visible resistance to it, and how to overcome such resistance and take full advantage of collaboration. Even though some of my blog entries might be considered polarizing, the theme of collaboration has repeatedly appeared in many of my articles. I am glad to see the findings and statistics of a recently released HBR study on collaboration validate my hypothesis and emphasize the importance of collaboration to professional services firms.
As a result of examining collaborative behavior of professional services firms over the past couple of years, Professor Gardner (a lecturer at the Harvard Law School) recently released her findings in an HBR article, titled “When senior managers won’t collaborate.” The key sentiment of it is in line with much of my beliefs: when professionals work together to collaborate everybody wins!
Why collaborate? In my “One for all, all for one" article of December 2012, I spelled out the benefits of collaboration. Collaboration encourages learning and development (critical for knowledge-based organizations such as PSFs), turns knowledge into action (which closes “knowing-doing” gaps), and increases the opportunities to grow business and succeed in the market place. Collaboration in PSFs provides confidence to existing clients that the firm will provide the necessary resources to support them and provide fresh ideas and solutions; for new clients, collaboration means a stronger and deeper team and higher chances for both the client and the advisor to identify someone to connect with and build trust which builds stronger, better relationships between clients and advisors…after all, people like to work with people who they like and trust. When it comes to client development, collaboration alleviates the burdensome stigma of sales. Working as a part of a team makes that experience less onerous, and promotes best practices sharing, while keeping everyone accountable.
Equipped with statistics and historical financial data, the HBR study backs up my words and demonstrates direct financial benefits of collaboration to the firm. When professionals collaborate, it results in the involvement of more practice areas, creates higher margin work, and institutionalizes client relationships. Thus, it becomes harder to replace an entire team of advisors and it becomes equally difficult for a departing partner to walk away with a client.
The HBR study goes on to outline the benefits to professionals as well. When team members get to know one another they become more likely to refer work among themselves. I often tell my clients: you have to work as hard to develop relationships with your internal partners as with external referral sources; they need to know you and trust you before they put their reputation on the line for you. The study has made an interesting observation here: collaborative professionals benefit from a steady stream of business even during slow periods due to their diversified skills, which further allows professionals to work on a variety of projects, and continue to collaborate. Collaboration creates a very beneficial feedback loop.
If the benefits are so overwhelmingly clear, why is it so difficult for collaboration to work in professional services firms? Stay tuned for my next article on the subject, which will examine the roadblocks to building and managing collaborative environment (CLICK HERE).
For a copy of the HBR article, click HERE.
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
THE PROFESSIONAL NETWORKS MODEL: EVOLVING TO STAY RELEVANT?
A series of questions and recommendations from the leading minds in the field
Professional networks have become the norm when it comes to connecting independent professional services firms in order for them to better serve clients and offer global solutions. As I indicated in my article “Making Professional Networks Work” when both the member firms and the network have shared objectives, long-term commitments, and clear expectations, that formula can be extremely powerful. However, that’s easier said than done! Many member firms I’ve worked with are struggling to justify their network involvement and investment, and are increasingly questioning the validity of the network model.
During my extensive experience with networks and their member firms, I’ve had the privilege to collaborate with a number of forward thinking network leaders. James Mendelssohn is certainly one of them. James is a Chairman of one such network, MSI Global Alliance (MSI) and a highly sought-after consultant focused on network management and leadership issues with Firm Management Associates. I was thrilled when James recently agreed to share some of the content he’s developing - alongside Quentin Vaile, former head of the international network at the UK law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner - on the future model of professional networks. Below, please find the first several articles of the series. I hope that you will find their thoughts and recommendations of interest and will follow their writings, as this blog will.
“PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS – A VIABLE BUSINESS MODEL FOR THE FUTURE?”
This is the first in a series of blogs that will look at the world of professional services networks; their future; different business models that can be followed to ensure their success; and what member firms need to do to capitalise on their membership of such networks.
There are some strong networks out there, and others that are struggling. There are some good member firms of networks, and others that are members for entirely the wrong reasons or with totally unrealistic expectations. We’ll be looking at all of this, and we won’t be pulling our punches. Some may find our comments uncomfortable and will undoubtedly stick their heads (even further) into the sand. Others, I hope, will accept them in the spirit with which they are offered and consider changes that may lead to the long-term sustainability of their organisations.
For the full article, click HERE.
“DO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS HAVE A FUTURE?”
The professional services world is changing – and probably faster today than at any time in the past. The principal reasons for this are twofold; and these converging pressures create the perfect storm for change. First, client needs are changing. One in five SMEs in the UK now trades overseas. And if you discount the high number of very small traders who are never going to look beyond these shores, then the proportion is clearly much higher amongst those businesses that many professional services firms would consider to be prime targets. Demand from clients for their advisers to be able to respond to an international enquiry has never been higher. Secondly, the professions are changing. Of course, the professions are always changing, but the pace of change within the professions at a local and national level is now having a very marked impact on the way in which firms are able to service their clients overseas.
If you take these two factors within the context of many people, in both their personal and business lives, believing that big is not always best (just look at the shift in retailing patterns over recent years), then the need both for networks to look critically at themselves, and also for those firms that either within a network or considering joining one, to review their motivation, and see whether their objectives are being met, has never been stronger.
For the full article, click HERE.
“CHANGING THE MODEL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS – ONE FIRM, ONE VOTE”
‘Partnership is not a great management approach at a single office level. And when you translate that into the international arena, it is a disaster. Democracy within the typical network business model is all very well in theory, but in practice …’ That comment from my previous blog certainly struck a chord, and so for the next few blogs, I plan to focus on various aspects of network governance where democracy sometimes emerges … but not always with the desired results.
With many networks set up as membership organisations, the concept of member participation in the governance process is often embodied in the constitution. Indeed, I know of one network where each member firm, whatever their size, gets one vote on each important decision. And, if the network wishes to appoint a new member firm, then 75% of the membership has to vote in favour. Very democratic, perhaps, but a complete nightmare. Not just because of the administrative problem of trying to get that number of firms to actually vote, but it totally undermines the position of the team whose task it is to appoint new members. What do people from the other side of the world know about a particular firm that someone who has visited and reviewed that firm do not?
For the full article, click HERE.
CHANGING THE MODEL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS – WHO SITS ON YOUR BOARD?
The ‘one firm, one vote’ concept, still adopted by many groups (largely because of their inability to change rather than a belief that this is a good model for any other than the smallest firms), may appear to be democratic, but in reality it simply hinders the logical decision-making process. Some groups have managed to vest the management of the group to a small Board of Directors, and they will normally have significant powers, with only key issues being put to the membership as a whole. And therein lies the problem. Or, in fact, two problems.
First, while day-to-day management becomes more efficient, fundamental issues of change remain within the domain of the membership as a whole, with all their diverse interests. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, and member firms in membership organisations are primarily driven by the interests of their particular firm, rather than the organisation as a whole. That’s fine if votes on key issues are decided by a simple majority, but I know of at least one large network that requires a 75% majority on any decision of substance.
Secondly, it is fine to vest management in a Board of Directors, but who sits on that Board? Well, almost without exception, the Board comprises senior partners from a number of the larger member firms, together with the senior employee, normally the Chief Executive or Executive Director. Whilst these are normally, I am sure, worthy men and women, there is absolutely no doubt that the most important thing in their business lives will be their own firm, and not the membership organisation of which their firm is a member. So unless the situation is well managed, there is an inevitable conflict of interests.
…
The more ‘corporate’ the structure can become, with directors who really distinguish between their different roles, the more likely it is that the network will succeed and flourish.
For the complete article, click HERE.
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Professional networks have become the norm when it comes to connecting independent professional services firms in order for them to better serve clients and offer global solutions. As I indicated in my article “Making Professional Networks Work” when both the member firms and the network have shared objectives, long-term commitments, and clear expectations, that formula can be extremely powerful. However, that’s easier said than done! Many member firms I’ve worked with are struggling to justify their network involvement and investment, and are increasingly questioning the validity of the network model.
During my extensive experience with networks and their member firms, I’ve had the privilege to collaborate with a number of forward thinking network leaders. James Mendelssohn is certainly one of them. James is a Chairman of one such network, MSI Global Alliance (MSI) and a highly sought-after consultant focused on network management and leadership issues with Firm Management Associates. I was thrilled when James recently agreed to share some of the content he’s developing - alongside Quentin Vaile, former head of the international network at the UK law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner - on the future model of professional networks. Below, please find the first several articles of the series. I hope that you will find their thoughts and recommendations of interest and will follow their writings, as this blog will.
“PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS – A VIABLE BUSINESS MODEL FOR THE FUTURE?”
This is the first in a series of blogs that will look at the world of professional services networks; their future; different business models that can be followed to ensure their success; and what member firms need to do to capitalise on their membership of such networks.
There are some strong networks out there, and others that are struggling. There are some good member firms of networks, and others that are members for entirely the wrong reasons or with totally unrealistic expectations. We’ll be looking at all of this, and we won’t be pulling our punches. Some may find our comments uncomfortable and will undoubtedly stick their heads (even further) into the sand. Others, I hope, will accept them in the spirit with which they are offered and consider changes that may lead to the long-term sustainability of their organisations.
For the full article, click HERE.
“DO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS HAVE A FUTURE?”
The professional services world is changing – and probably faster today than at any time in the past. The principal reasons for this are twofold; and these converging pressures create the perfect storm for change. First, client needs are changing. One in five SMEs in the UK now trades overseas. And if you discount the high number of very small traders who are never going to look beyond these shores, then the proportion is clearly much higher amongst those businesses that many professional services firms would consider to be prime targets. Demand from clients for their advisers to be able to respond to an international enquiry has never been higher. Secondly, the professions are changing. Of course, the professions are always changing, but the pace of change within the professions at a local and national level is now having a very marked impact on the way in which firms are able to service their clients overseas.
If you take these two factors within the context of many people, in both their personal and business lives, believing that big is not always best (just look at the shift in retailing patterns over recent years), then the need both for networks to look critically at themselves, and also for those firms that either within a network or considering joining one, to review their motivation, and see whether their objectives are being met, has never been stronger.
For the full article, click HERE.
“CHANGING THE MODEL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS – ONE FIRM, ONE VOTE”
‘Partnership is not a great management approach at a single office level. And when you translate that into the international arena, it is a disaster. Democracy within the typical network business model is all very well in theory, but in practice …’ That comment from my previous blog certainly struck a chord, and so for the next few blogs, I plan to focus on various aspects of network governance where democracy sometimes emerges … but not always with the desired results.
With many networks set up as membership organisations, the concept of member participation in the governance process is often embodied in the constitution. Indeed, I know of one network where each member firm, whatever their size, gets one vote on each important decision. And, if the network wishes to appoint a new member firm, then 75% of the membership has to vote in favour. Very democratic, perhaps, but a complete nightmare. Not just because of the administrative problem of trying to get that number of firms to actually vote, but it totally undermines the position of the team whose task it is to appoint new members. What do people from the other side of the world know about a particular firm that someone who has visited and reviewed that firm do not?
For the full article, click HERE.
CHANGING THE MODEL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES NETWORKS – WHO SITS ON YOUR BOARD?
The ‘one firm, one vote’ concept, still adopted by many groups (largely because of their inability to change rather than a belief that this is a good model for any other than the smallest firms), may appear to be democratic, but in reality it simply hinders the logical decision-making process. Some groups have managed to vest the management of the group to a small Board of Directors, and they will normally have significant powers, with only key issues being put to the membership as a whole. And therein lies the problem. Or, in fact, two problems.
First, while day-to-day management becomes more efficient, fundamental issues of change remain within the domain of the membership as a whole, with all their diverse interests. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, and member firms in membership organisations are primarily driven by the interests of their particular firm, rather than the organisation as a whole. That’s fine if votes on key issues are decided by a simple majority, but I know of at least one large network that requires a 75% majority on any decision of substance.
Secondly, it is fine to vest management in a Board of Directors, but who sits on that Board? Well, almost without exception, the Board comprises senior partners from a number of the larger member firms, together with the senior employee, normally the Chief Executive or Executive Director. Whilst these are normally, I am sure, worthy men and women, there is absolutely no doubt that the most important thing in their business lives will be their own firm, and not the membership organisation of which their firm is a member. So unless the situation is well managed, there is an inevitable conflict of interests.
…
The more ‘corporate’ the structure can become, with directors who really distinguish between their different roles, the more likely it is that the network will succeed and flourish.
For the complete article, click HERE.
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Who Do You Trust When the Trust Is Gone | Edelman Trust Barometer 2015
What does it mean to your organization and what you should do about it?
Trust is at the core of any interpersonal relationship. Politicians campaign to capture their constituents’ trust and voting power. Consumer brands strive to earn their consumers’ trust and become the product / brand of choice. Service firms work hard to establish themselves and their professionals as “trusted advisers” and “partners.” Trust can be very fragile, and once earned can be easily lost no matter how much time and money were spent earning it.
As has become my custom, here’s a brief overview of the recently released 2015 edition of the Edelman Trust Barometer and my interpretation of the findings.
The bottom line of the 2015 Trust Barometer: trust is on the decline, yet again. Studying four main segments: NGO’s, business, media and government, government is the only institution with a slight uptick in trust (hard to believe, right?).
Overall trust in the media is on the decline. Search engines are the most trusted and the first choice of locating general information. Content is more trusted if it is created by the subject matter experts, as opposed to journalists. Not surprisingly, business references coming from family members or friends are the most trusted. Marketing professionals take note: revisit and potentially increase your spending on SEO’s, raise authentic authorship content and review testimonials to include some of trusted referral sources.
Businesses are losing trust for the first time after the Great Depression – perhaps an indicator that the recovery we’ve been seeing is slowing down. The survey outlines four factors that impact trust in business: industry, enterprise type, country of origin and leadership.
Technology remains the most trusted industry, yet with the numerous security breaches, hacking stories, etc. trust is decreasing both for the technology products and the industry overall. Don’t take it for granted: continue to ensure your clients and shareholders of the security of their information, reinforce the value of your products / services and their positive benefit to society (see more on that below).
BRICs are still among the most distrusted countries of business origin, while Sweden, Canada, Germany and Swiss are the most trusted (well, at least until the most recent Swiss HSBC banking scandal). Family-owned businesses in the developed countries are the most trusted ones, while big businesses are trust leaders in developing countries. The reputational risk closely tied to where you and your clients do business is still very much alive. Think of the healthy longevity of LuxLeaks, SwissLeaks and other tax related headlines in the international media. I hope that these finding will encourage you to review your current geographic development strategy and adjust it accordingly.
Academics, industry experts and technical experts remain the most credible spokespeople. In most cases, CEOs are not viewed as credible spokespeople, though that again varies between developed and developing countries. Another question to marketers: who is addressing your clients? Consider raising the profiles of technical experts, and partnering with academic institutions to validate your thought leadership.
One of the most interesting findings of this year’s study is that rapid implementation of technology seems to depress trust and directly influences trust in innovation overall. The continuous stream of newly minted technology millionaires presents innovation as being driven by greed and not necessarily good for society. Then again, trust in innovation is far higher in the developing world than in the developed one, as the "developing markets are more open to change." Organizations that see innovation as critical to their competitiveness need to recognize that consumers fear the unknown and should emphasize education during the sales process. Transparence and third-party validation, perhaps by academic institutions and NGO’s, are essential for earning credibility and trust.
“Knowledge and understanding beget trust”. Edelman has identified integrity, engagement, products and services, purpose and operations as the key ingredients in building trust. Integrity is the leading criterion, closely followed by engagement, both of which encompass activities such as “ethical business practice, taking responsibility to address issues, having transparent and open business practices, listening to clients’ needs and feedback, treating employees well, placing clients ahead of profit, and communicating frequently on the state of the business.” So what does this mean to you? Be transparent. Communicate with your stakeholders and clients often and with purpose. Connect with academic institutions. Get involved in solving the problems of the community. Work to earn and keep the trust of your key constituents.
Trust matters. Clients purchase products/services from companies they trust. Keep in mind that now, more than ever, clients/consumers are vocal. They will recommend organizations they trust and equally, share criticism of the ones they distrust.
For a copy of the 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer visit: http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2015-edelman-trust-barometer/trust-and-innovation-edelman-trust-barometer/executive-summary/
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Trust is at the core of any interpersonal relationship. Politicians campaign to capture their constituents’ trust and voting power. Consumer brands strive to earn their consumers’ trust and become the product / brand of choice. Service firms work hard to establish themselves and their professionals as “trusted advisers” and “partners.” Trust can be very fragile, and once earned can be easily lost no matter how much time and money were spent earning it.
As has become my custom, here’s a brief overview of the recently released 2015 edition of the Edelman Trust Barometer and my interpretation of the findings.
The bottom line of the 2015 Trust Barometer: trust is on the decline, yet again. Studying four main segments: NGO’s, business, media and government, government is the only institution with a slight uptick in trust (hard to believe, right?).
Overall trust in the media is on the decline. Search engines are the most trusted and the first choice of locating general information. Content is more trusted if it is created by the subject matter experts, as opposed to journalists. Not surprisingly, business references coming from family members or friends are the most trusted. Marketing professionals take note: revisit and potentially increase your spending on SEO’s, raise authentic authorship content and review testimonials to include some of trusted referral sources.
Businesses are losing trust for the first time after the Great Depression – perhaps an indicator that the recovery we’ve been seeing is slowing down. The survey outlines four factors that impact trust in business: industry, enterprise type, country of origin and leadership.
Technology remains the most trusted industry, yet with the numerous security breaches, hacking stories, etc. trust is decreasing both for the technology products and the industry overall. Don’t take it for granted: continue to ensure your clients and shareholders of the security of their information, reinforce the value of your products / services and their positive benefit to society (see more on that below).
BRICs are still among the most distrusted countries of business origin, while Sweden, Canada, Germany and Swiss are the most trusted (well, at least until the most recent Swiss HSBC banking scandal). Family-owned businesses in the developed countries are the most trusted ones, while big businesses are trust leaders in developing countries. The reputational risk closely tied to where you and your clients do business is still very much alive. Think of the healthy longevity of LuxLeaks, SwissLeaks and other tax related headlines in the international media. I hope that these finding will encourage you to review your current geographic development strategy and adjust it accordingly.
Academics, industry experts and technical experts remain the most credible spokespeople. In most cases, CEOs are not viewed as credible spokespeople, though that again varies between developed and developing countries. Another question to marketers: who is addressing your clients? Consider raising the profiles of technical experts, and partnering with academic institutions to validate your thought leadership.
One of the most interesting findings of this year’s study is that rapid implementation of technology seems to depress trust and directly influences trust in innovation overall. The continuous stream of newly minted technology millionaires presents innovation as being driven by greed and not necessarily good for society. Then again, trust in innovation is far higher in the developing world than in the developed one, as the "developing markets are more open to change." Organizations that see innovation as critical to their competitiveness need to recognize that consumers fear the unknown and should emphasize education during the sales process. Transparence and third-party validation, perhaps by academic institutions and NGO’s, are essential for earning credibility and trust.
“Knowledge and understanding beget trust”. Edelman has identified integrity, engagement, products and services, purpose and operations as the key ingredients in building trust. Integrity is the leading criterion, closely followed by engagement, both of which encompass activities such as “ethical business practice, taking responsibility to address issues, having transparent and open business practices, listening to clients’ needs and feedback, treating employees well, placing clients ahead of profit, and communicating frequently on the state of the business.” So what does this mean to you? Be transparent. Communicate with your stakeholders and clients often and with purpose. Connect with academic institutions. Get involved in solving the problems of the community. Work to earn and keep the trust of your key constituents.
Trust matters. Clients purchase products/services from companies they trust. Keep in mind that now, more than ever, clients/consumers are vocal. They will recommend organizations they trust and equally, share criticism of the ones they distrust.
For a copy of the 2015 Edelman Trust Barometer visit: http://www.edelman.com/insights/intellectual-property/2015-edelman-trust-barometer/trust-and-innovation-edelman-trust-barometer/executive-summary/
© 2010-2015 Copyright Mira Ilieva Leonard / iStile All rights reserved
By Mira Ilieva-Leonard | Mira.ilieva-leonard@istile.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)