Changing the culture of any business is a difficult task but try setting a policy aimed at changing the culture of your business when your employees are for the most part twenty-somethings each of whom is making millions of dollars a year in salary alone.  That was the task that faced the National Basketball Association three years ago when commissioner David Stern first implemented a NBA Player Dress Code.

Despite what you think of the NBA, the league was at a cross-roads after the 2004-2005 season.  It was a league that had not had Michael Jordan on the marquee for years, did not have a superstar to replace him with (even Kobe Bryant had suffered public indiscretions) and to top it off the Indian Pacers and Detroit Pistons were involved in a brawl which started on the basketball court but ended up in the stands. That incident caused nine players to be suspended without pay for a total of 146 games (which led to $10 million in salary being lost by the players), five players were charged with assault, and all five were eventually sentenced to a year on probation and community service. Five fans were also legally charged, and one fan received a lifetime ban from attending Pistons games.

For a business that was trying to attract large corporate sponsorships, television deals and have individual arenas sell off naming rights the image of NBA players as thugs did not exactly gel.

In response, on October 17, 2005, NBA commissioner David Stern implemented a mandatory dress code for all NBA and NBA Development League players. Beyond the fact that the rule was novel to the NBA, it was actually even more  noteworthy because the NBA became the first major professional sports league to implement such a rule, although National Hockey League rules state that a player is supposed to wear a jacket and tie to games and on charters if not told otherwise by the head coach or general manager.

To say the reaction of the players, fans and media was mixed would be to be extremely kind to Mr. Stern. A quick Google search gives me reactionary quotes which read from the ridiculous  “I’m not really a suit guy, so I’m going to have some fun with it. I’ll wear, like, purple shoes, yellow slacks, a burgundy shirt, cut-up tie and a lavender sport coat. I’m going to mix it up.” -- Ron Artest -  to the absolutely stupid “I don’t see it happening unless every NBA player is given a stipend to buy clothes.” -- Marcus Camby

Fast forward three years to this past weekend when I inevitably flipped through the NBA’s All-Star weekend festivities and couldn’t help but notice that virtually every player not involved in the on-court activities was dressed in a minimum of “business casual” and most were wearing suits that cost more than my car. They looked classy. They looked like guys who make millions of dollars. They looked like the type of individuals you want to have representing your corporate brand and not only if brand is about flash and sizzle.

Of course everyone knows who Lebron James is and quite obviously he gets signed to do endorsement deals because the man can flat out play. However as a league what the NBA sells is a whole product. They absolutely rely on individuals to market that product but again the sum of the parts is what they sell. So while the dress code that was implemented three years ago may not have been met with great fanfare at the time, there is no doubt in mind that it has been a success. The players seem to have accepted if not embraced it (“I hear guys used to come to games wearing sweat suits…that just isn’t professional” -- Kevin Durant) and even corporate partners of the NBA have picked up on the theme and used it in their advertisments (see the Reebok Allen Iverson commercial below).

I guess my point is that every once in a while you have to step back and look at your business through your customer, partner and the public’s eyes, making your decisions based on what is best for the overall business, not what is going to rattle the fewest people. In the case of the NBA, the commissioner’s decision to implement a dress code was highly scrutinized (even called racist by some), but at the end of the day three years later there are few who would not call it a tremendous success.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXJkeoDwBrs

I had a couple of different themes in mind when I decided I was going to write this post, in my head it started as a debate between customer loyalty versus customer satisfaction and then turned to a discussion of the types of clients people in professional services come across and finally wound up as what it will be, a discussion of when it is time to tell a client you can no longer do their work (essentially fire them) and how to bow out of it gracefully. So from here on out I will stick to the topic of just when and how you should fire a client.

Upfront I will say that the phrase “fire your client” has some distinctly negative connotations but it got your attention or you wouldn’t be here so remember it’s just a headline.

When To Fire A Client

If you work in a service related business and specifically one where you charge your clients based on time invested or where you have given a flat fee but have only budget “x” number of hours, then you will know that inevitably you will come across clients who are just so difficult to deal with that either the work you are doing for them or the work you are doing for someone else suffers. I am not talking about the client who is a day or two late with payments (though be wary of those as well), rather I am talking about one of several different types of clients who can actually hamper your overall business if you are not careful. You have probably dealt with these types of clients before but see if any of these ring a bell

• The client who calls you multiple times each day with new ideas or revisions they have dreamt up the night before to the extent that you can never get past step 1
• The client who gives you a short description of what they want and then never answers any of your follow-up questions
• The client who does not really know what they want so takes direction from their spouse, friends, kids etc…
• The client who is forced into using your service (they would have chosen someone else if they were the decision maker) and therefore is continually trying to point out your faults to cover their own ass
• The client who signs off on the scope of a project and then wants to change the entire project without revisiting the contract

I am sure there are many others that you can add to the list (and please do!) but my point is that if it gets to a point where you are worried about your work (or even mental health) suffering then you must take a step back and evaluate whether you can either (a) continue to work with this client but reshape the way in which you deal with one another or (b) cannot continue to work with the client for fear of producing subpar work for them or others.

First Try Psychology

In my opinion you should always first try to have an open discussion with your client in which you let them know that their work is extremely important to you but so is the work you do for several other clients (here is where you need to be smooth) and in order to continue producing top quality work for all your clients you and this client will need to revisit the way you work together. Regardless of whether the client is one of the types noted above there is probably a reason they have for acting the way they do and so you need to put on your psychology hat for a few minutes and try to dig deeper into what (if anything) the real issue is.

• Perhaps the client is calling you every day because they have never outsourced this work before and are nervous
• Perhaps the client got told by their boss that they had to use you and they are taking out their frustration on you by trying to show their boss was wrong
• Perhaps the client really doesn’t understand the work you are doing for them and therefore are really just trying to sound intelligent when asked about the project

Once you have been able to gain some insight into the reasoning behind why this client is difficult to work with you then have a much easier path to rectifying your working relationship and if needbe dropping the client. If we take the three scenarios above, the first and last bullets seem to be areas where by having a little insight you will be able to address the real issue either through setting up a more frequent status call (for bullet 1) or (for bullet 3) scheduling a casual coffee with the client to help them understand exactly what it is that you are doing for them and why you are doing it. My point being that if you actually listen and try to understand the real reasons the client is being difficult you will more often than not find that you actually are able to not only rectify the situation but also bolster your relationship.

If however the client is going to hurt the rest of your business either by taking your attention from other clients, speaking negatively about your work or simply not giving you enough support to make the project a mutual success (remember you are allowed to take pride in your work and not want to turn out just anything) then you may have to take the step of effectively telling the client you no longer can take on their work.

Firing A Client

The when of firing a client is really a personal decision that you have to make given the many parameters that are involved, I have given some wide reaching examples above but I know each situation will be unique. So if we move from the “when” to the “how” I think there are some points worth noting. For the purposes of this post, I am going to assume that you have some sort of ongoing contractual agreement (not a service by service) with the client and that you have decided that you want to end (not re-negotiate but end) that arrangement.

Know Your Legal Rights

First and foremost is that you must understand the terms of your contractual relationship with the client to the nth degree. Though lawyers are not fun (I can say that being trained as one) they are certainly necessary and as such you should be sure that you have a very clear understanding of what obligations and rights you have under the agreement if you (or the client) decide to terminate it. If you have been using standard agreements that you borrowed from other jobs, the Internet or wherever else you might have found these contracts then you most certainly need to have a lawyer break it down for you. If you had your agreement drawn up by a lawyer in the first place then you should ask them to explain in a “plain english” memo the areas (e.g. who owns the copyright of works in progress) of the contract that you need to be aware of when terminating an agreement.

There is a lot of “boiler plate” language in contractual agreements and while you might think that at the heart of it they all look the same, each agreement will not be the same and especially upon termination of the agreement you want to be sure that you are living up to all your obligations and protecting all your rights.

Suggest Alternatives But Check First

It’s kind of a double-edged sword to have to give alternate service providers to the client but it is a way that you can bow out with some class. On the one hand you know how difficult the client is and that you cannot work with them and on the other hand what would it do for your relationship with the person you recommend if they too cannot deal with the client. Even with that said, it is something that you should do if at all possible. Given that you are working in the industry all day every day, you will most likely have a variety of different contacts whose name you could provide but if you want to maintain a level of respect amongst your peers, you will not just dump tough clients on them without some upfront heads up.

Coming from a legal background, it happens all the time that you are “conflicted” between two clients and as such you have to send one or both to other lawyers. Even though in that scenario you are not “firing” the client the same etiquite still holds, you ask (it is important to ask in case the project is confidential – in law it obviously always is) the potential client if you can make a few calls on their behalf  and then when you do speak to your peers be upfront about the issues you were having with the client and why you are seeking alternatives for them. Just because you had a personality clash with a client that does not mean that they won’t absolutley hit it off with one of your peers. By asking both the client if you can make calls on their behalf and by being upfront with your peers you will come out of what could be a sticky situation looking like a class act.

Check In With Both

Although it is tempting to just walk away when you have passed off a client you will be able to score points and continue to show yourself as someone deserving of a good reputation if you take the time to follow up with both your former client and the peer (if it is a peer otherwise you can skip this half of the step) they have chosen to work with. I can only liken it to dating and going out with someone who isn’t for you but then setting them up with a friend of yours. Of course nobody likes the original rejection but by suggesting a friend to set them up with and then following up with both the friend and the date both of them will come away with a sense that you are someone who really cares about the people you meet and the sting of the rejection will certainly subside.

Bottom Line

It’s never easy to admit you can’t or should not be collaborating with someone but I do believe there is a threshold beyond which working with a particular client begins to cause both your work for them and/or for others to suffer and at that point you need to politely give them their walking papers. No need to be Donald Trump about it but it is in your best interests to help facilitate a change.

Comments Please

As usual I know there are a whole host of steps and ideas that probably should be above, but that is where you the audience come in. What do you think, is it ever ok to fire your client? What steps would you take before or after this decision has been made that I missed?

As I have written about previously, I have the good fortune of being educated as a lawyer and being called to the Bar in Ontario which means that I have spent a little bit of time practicing law as well. During that time and due to the fact that my father is one of the most respectable lawyers in his field I have learned a few of the tricks of the trade and have been able to apply those to my business life. One of those lessons that I have often shared with my colleagues or those who I completed my MBA with is this: Be Careful What You Say On Voice mail.

Seems like a simple enough piece of advice and for the most part one that you would suspect intelligent business people are already cognizant of. The fact of the matter is that what you say in your voice mail is quotable, it is your direct words and sometimes even gives binding directions (e.g. you tell your lawyer to settle a case) to the party you are leaving the message for. Yet somehow or for some reason people decide to ramble when leaving voice mail messages. They say things that they have no business saying or that have no real relevance to the message they are leaving and literally the minute they hang up the phone they have no real recollection of exactly what they said. This opens the door to large potential problems or at least a “gotcha” type moment.

Think about it. How many times do you read an email before sending it off to a potential customer, partner or someone you are negotiating with? You have the chance to proof it and those who are truly prudent will often have someone else take a read before sending it off just to ensure the message is clear. Further to that, you have a permanent record of exactly what you wrote, it sits there in your sent messages folder and there is no disputing what was sent, to whom and at what time.

Now let me turn back to voice mail. I do not know why, but people feel the need to say every single thing that is on their mind in a voice mail message. It is a rare case that (prior to the call) someone actually takes the time to methodically think about what they want to say and exactly what the point of their phone call is. When that call gets picked up by voice mail they end up rambling on about multiple topics and (as stated earlier) at the end of the call they probably could not tell you exactly what they said, only that they covered this or that topic (most likely forgetting some).

So why is this important? What is it that I know that you should too? It is actually so simple yet pretty brilliant from the lawyer’s side. Ready…

They take your voice mail and have it transcribed! Yes word for word everything you said is then right there in black and white. Take it one step further and you get the 3rd party (most likely the lawyer’s admin) to swear an affidavit that the words in the transcript are exactly what was left on voice mail and now you have a legally binding sworn statement referencing your voice mail.

With the fact that your entire message will be transcribed, now think about those same rambling messages that you leave where you don’t really realize what you have committed yourself to until it is presented to you right there in black and white. It becomes pretty hard to argue “I didn’t say that” when there is a legally sworn document saying you absolutely did “say that”.

So all this is to say that my advice is simple: Choose your words carefully the next time you hear an answering machine’s beep.

Most people who read this will not have had the experience of working within a large corporate law office, so I will tell you as someone with that experience it is much the same as any large corporation though I think there is obviously less emphasis on anything other than traditional marketing and now blogging – though I would argue that blogging previously was just a law firm’s paper newsletter, turned e-newsletter, turned blog.

The thing you need to understand about a law firm and the ability to use Yammer before I tell you why I think there is a real business case for it. First you need to understand that in a law firm there would need to be the ability to set permissions, not necessarily hierarchies, but there are times when two lawyers in the same firm (or two groups for that matter) are working on files for two firms that may not be legally combative but are competitive and so you the groups of lawyers are “firewalled” from talking to one another about either case. So in that scenario you need the ability to set a subject line that immediately stopped the other group of lawyers from seeing your Yammer. Seems pretty simple.

The other thing that you need to realize is that the legal community as a whole is facing perhaps the biggest recruiting and retention challenge of the last 50+ years. Young lawyers are leaving big corporate firms for government or in-house jobs that allow them to have a work-life balance. Law firms make their money as a partnership where the senior most lawyers are partners and share in the profits. In order to make these large profits there needs to be a healthy (3-1) ratio of junior lawyers to partners. As the junior lawyers leave the ratio becomes smaller and smaller, squeezing the profits of the firm further and further.

So my business case for Yammer in mid-large corporate law firms (say 70 lawyers or more).

As A Recruiting & Retention Tool

Just because the senior lawyers at most firms do not have the first clue about most technologies, you can bet your bacon that the students at every law school and the junior lawyers all are on some social networking site. Further many students are starting to Twitter so it is completely natural for them to communicate in a short and to the point manner. They also appreciate the ability to drop a quick line even when the reason has nothing to do with work. For the most part they want to use new technology to communicate and law firms are the essence of the walled garden. Everything is priviledged so a private Yammer network would open the lines of communication between young lawyers at the same firm, sharing everything from the latest decision on their motion to a case they recently researched (more on that below). It can also serve as a mechanism to bridge the gap between older more senior partners and the young lawyers at their firm. Many partners can be tough to approach face to face but if there is an ability to approach them in a less formal setting first, knowledge can be shared and a bridge built. Starting a Yammer network is not going to change the fact that you need to work 80+ hours a week, but it might make young lawyers feel like their firm is at least in tune with how they like to work.

As A Knowledge Sharing Tool

The law is built on precedents. Never do you go into a case without having done a ton of research on every possible decision at every court level to ensure that you know which ones you will argue and as importantly which ones to be prepared for the other side to argue. In a law firm there are often large libraries and often several librarians to help with your research. However it is that invaluable tidbit that comes from a more senior lawyer who has had a similar case or simply knows the law that much better that he/she can be more strategic within it that makes all the difference quite often. So being able to shoot a company wide Yammer about a specific angle of the law or asking about how to interpret a court’s decision would be an invaluable knowledge sharing tool for law firms. Many firms have been and continue to invest heavily in knowledge management databases storing everything from research memos to court decisions (though everyone uses Westlaw or Quicklaw for those), in my opinion Yammer would be a very cheap complimentary tool.