ARTHUR PSALTIS

Most professionals know exactly how to execute their skills and deliver a high quality product. But what about providing a service to their clients? How much formal training do professionals receive in understanding and executing the highest level of service? Do they really understand its value and importance?

I’ve always been a strong believer in prioritising service for 3 simple reasons, and they all relate to the client.

Firstly, in many instances, clients don’t have an intimate understanding of our skills or how we go about our craft, therefore have limited ability to assess what we do. When it comes to service however, they have all the knowledge required to assess and evaluate our performance. Everyone knows what they want when it comes to service.

Secondly, in professional services, comparisons of product are very hard to determine. Rarely are two situations the same. Comparing service is much easier. An unreturned phone call or broken commitment can be easily related and assessed against others.

Lastly, poor service can’t be rectified. Returning a phone call too late or not delivering on an undertaking is irreversible. Rectifying an incomplete or sub-standard product can be fixed and made good later.

So as professionals, once we understand the importance of service, we can then afford it the attention and priority needed. Well, almost.

There is one key ingredient in implementing the highest level of service, and that centres around the client’s expectations. Without effective management on what is expected as good service, meeting those expectations is extremely difficult. As we all know, unrealistic expectations can never be met. The key to good service is not delivering quicker or working harder, it’s managing the client’s perception of what is realistic and achievable.

So next time you have a time commitment that can’t be met because the product isn’t ready, what will you do? Will you let the client down on service and deliver the finished product late, or will you deliver the unfinished product on time?

The real answer is; you should have agreed earlier with the client that the product would take longer to deliver.

As society changes and workplaces adjust, things that were considered acceptable not that long ago can quickly fall out of favour, or be considered inappropriate. Similarly, terminology and words that were part of our everyday vocabulary now have little meaning or relevance.

“Taping” a TV show is now an incorrect term. We “record” or simply catch-up via the internet. When was the last time you bought a postcard? Do young people of today even understand the concept of buying a picture while on holidays and posting it by snail mail? Is the term “postcard view” obsolete?

In previous generations, there was value attached to hard work, uncompromising commitment and the school of hard knocks. People accepted that to get somewhere in life, “blood, sweat and tears” were non-negotiable consequences. But this is no longer the case.

Let’s look at the term “blood”. The uncompromising commitment to work is no longer accepted in the workplace as appropriate. Due to a greater (and better) balance of responsibilities between life partners in the household and in the parenting of children, the value attached to a differing work life balance has dramatically changed.

The staid and structured work environment has also changed significantly, along with formality. Now we expect flexibility within a casual environment. We want to enjoy work, not bleed.
“Blood” has been replaced by “Fun”.

Hard work used to be directly related to success. It was respected, admired and rewarded in the workplace. In some ways, it is now frowned upon. There is often pity bestowed on the hardworking individual for not having a life outside of work.

Technology has taken over. It’s not about working harder. It’s about working smarter. “Sweat” has been replaced by “Tech”.

And the final change that has occurred lies within the expectation of tears at some point along the journey. Where previously motivation was sourced through the desire to avoid humiliation, or to avoid a berating from a work colleague, we now live in the uncertainty of factors outside the workplace.

The workplace has become a protected zone and in its place, external factors are at play. We now face constant concern that things are moving too fast. Disruption is at the forefront of our minds; information overload provides us with too much irrelevance and distracts us from what should be our focus.

We don’t shed “tears”in the workplace anymore, we live in the “fear” that our jobs may be extinct in the near future.

So, is society and the workplace better for these changes? Of course, it is. The challenge lies in how we adjust to these changes. In some instances, changes need no thought. It’s easy to stop buying postcards. Other changes need conscious consideration and adaption.

There is a saying that “Chocolates should be the reward, not the motivation. If they are the motivation, then you just get fat!”

In business, and in team environments, this simple philosophy has proven over and over again to be the foundation of success. The opposite may provide short term benefits, but ultimately leads to failure.

It is critical for leaders to understand the difference between reward and motivation and recognise that it is not the same for everyone.

Over many years I have witnessed a shift in what motivates people at similar ages and what they value as reward. For differing generations, the motivation also varies. As a business grows, the opportunities for people within that business also change. This leads to the organisation attracting different people, who are motivated by different things. Small firms tend to attract people that value responsibility, intimacy, autonomy and flexibility. Larger firms tend to attract team players that are comfortable with structure, defined roles and who value job security.

Previously, young professionals were motivated by setting a career path and committing totally to the ultimate outcome. In more recent times, young professionals have a broader outlook towards their career and a greater focus on balancing life inside and outside of work.

Reward for young people has also changed. While financial recompense and career progression will always be important, today it is critical that young people feel valued and acknowledged in ways other than just by money.

As a professional’s career develops, the motivation also changes. Early in a career there is a focus on gaining recognition, building reputation, learning and developing skills. Later in one’s career, the focus shifts to working with likeminded people, tenure and work environment.

Understanding these differences, and being able to respond as the motivation changes within people over time and from generation to generation is not easy. Rewarding them appropriately based on these differences also adds to the complexity. Doing all of this within a growing business can become quite a challenge to get right. For businesses that rely heavily on people, success is based on maintaining an environment that satisfies all.

While it is easy to generalise in an attempt to articulate thoughts and concepts, it is wrong to assume there is strong demarcation between groups, or that within groups characteristics are common to all.

The key ingredient in creating the right environment is to treat people individually, with a full understanding of what motivates them and the best way to reward them. Achieve this, and not only will everyone get some chocolate, but it will taste a whole lot sweeter!

While there is plenty of literature around the characteristics of varying generations, all of which is relatively sound in its general assessment, my experience is that by treating people individually without bias or assumption, you maximise the opportunity of rewarding them appropriately. Understanding how to motivate them is no different. Individualise the approach, and the reward will be there for all to share.

In a professional environment, career development is fundamental to motivation and reward. There are constants, irrespective of generation and stage. These include the desire to be successful and the sense of progression. What does change is the measures of success and the definition of progress.

There will always be expert analysis, opinions and dialogue regarding leadership. What characterises it, can we teach it, how do we assess one’s competency…the list goes on and on.  To all of these questions, one should ask, “Is it really that complicated and are we looking and thinking too deeply?”

As with most engineering and life problems, the best solutions are often the obvious ones. So, what defines a good leader? Is it skills or qualities? I believe leadership qualities and leadership skills are fundamentally different, and there are sound reasons for this.

What defines a good leader? Is it skills or qualities?

In my opinion, leadership qualities are less tangible but inherently more obvious and easier to identify in someone, whereas skills are easier to define but quite often harder to assess. Qualities are generally common between individual leaders whilst their skills can vary enormously. It is this variation in skillset that defines the type of leader, not whether one is or isn’t.

A great deal of the literature written regarding leadership centres around identifying, assessing and evaluating the skills required. However, this focus can often lead to over-complication and more importantly, distraction from the most important issue i.e. the person’s qualities as a leader. In relation to someone being a true leader, I believe the qualities are mandatory, the skills are optional.

Within any organisation, true leaders will always stand out. What is even more profound is that their qualities can usually be easily identified at a relatively young age, early in their career. These qualities strengthen with time and they mature and evolve at a rate commensurate with the opportunities provided.

A critical component of any successful business is the development of them. Too often, I believe, companies assess individuals with leadership aspirations based on skills rather than qualities. Even more concerning is those with a strong skillset may be granted the privilege of leadership over those who have the inherent qualities.

Too often, I believe, companies assess individuals with leadership aspirations based on skills rather than qualities.

For me the approach is simple. Identify those within the organisation who show strong leadership qualities and then build their skills to make them more effective. Many would argue this approach carries risk, based on it primarily being an intuitive decision rather than analytical. I would argue not, due to these leadership qualities being generally easy to identify. In other words, choose the standout individuals with natural talent. Make the obvious decision and don’t over-complicate it.

Once the “easy” decision is made, then the hard work begins. Allow individuals exposure to situations that will develop their skills, whilst providing them with mentoring and guidance. Most importantly, and because of their own unique skillset, allow them to be their own type of leader.