Comments on: Complicit Clients

By: Mirjam

Mirjam — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:37:09 +0000

Hey Clark,
I just read this blog. Great post. Made me laugh, too, as it’s so true.
It can be challenging to push back, especially when your clients, or, stakeholders think
they know a lot about effective traing, while, in fact, they DON’T.
However, I agree that we owe it to ourselves, the business, and, especially the learners,
to advocate effective learning solutions instead of, well… the crappy ones.
Cheers!
Mirjam

By: Steve F

Steve F — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:33:54 +0000

We are considering both the end product and the process a campaign. That campaign starts with a hard sell and solid argument (including some crafted marketing collateral). At the early stage it’s about influence, at least the appearance of confidence, and committed change leadership. We’ve been successful so far and some of the folks started as tough customers (No effing way crowd).

It’s also about a packaged WIFM. We go in with a strategy for discovery, and in some cases a strategy for solution, that almost always includes byproducts that have value to the stakeholder and the stakeholder’s minions.

It’s not machiavellian, but it’s close. We open with most of our cards on the table. Clear and open communication about the stakes and the history of pitfalls usually closes the deal in one meeting. It’s tons of fun and it breaks the chains that tend to make projects with me-centric partners ‘unfun’.

By: Clark

Clark — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:46:28 +0000

Koreen, yes, sometimes we have to do our best despite the clients ;). Of course, I reckon once it’s been refined and practiced, good design isn’t really any more costly (except for extending the experience).

Steve, I like the “creative discourse and challenge”, how do get it instituted? I suppose making it part of the ‘process value we add’ proposition pre-sale and talk about the benefits just from that part of the process (coming ‘free’), you might get some buy-in. Appreciative inquiry, perhaps.

Thanks for the feedback!

By: Steve Flowers

Steve Flowers — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:27:01 +0000

Dealt with this on the contracting side. Contrary to popular belief, the client wants your help. The hot water I got into every time I engaged in logical conversation with the client, intent to educate, really bugged me. It’s an unpopular practice.

It was also an unpopular practice in government, but we’re getting used to it. Our stance is now… If the client insists on a solution without knowing what the problem is, it’s our job to work harder to convey the importance of discovering the problem – or to walk the other way, whichever comes second.

It’s easy for me as a government employee to offer resistance to another internal client. It’s what government does to external clients, it’s only natural that this practice spreads within:) Seriously though, if we aren’t challenging assumptions and demanding proof support for decisions we are wasting our time.

Since instituting the practice of creative discourse and challenge as a precursor to discovery, the process has become much more fun for everyone involved. I think we make assumptions about boundaries in many cases that are easily resolved with strategic communication and solid logic.

By: Koreen Olbrish

Koreen Olbrish — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:22:03 +0000

Great post, Clark. As learning professionals, we should be conscious of identifying opportunities to help others learn, including and maybe especially, our clients. We’ll probably never get away from the people who want us to churn out projects just to say they have them, but that doesn’t mean we can’t continue to challenge and educate, or to try to design those “churn” projects to be as relevant and effective as possible.