Guns For Hire by David Maister

I have discussed this a thousand times with professional providers, but very, very few think that they are "allowed" by their firms to walk away from a paying customer because they didn't like what he or she was doing. Notice that what people are telling me is how their firms are run. Most tell me that they would make different choices if they were solo like me.

And you know what? I believe them! It's been my observation that solo advisers can (and do) impose their own standards regarding whom they want to work for. They can afford to be elective, working only for clients they like personally and whose cause they can wholeheartedly serve. They are making decisions for themselves alone.

Yet the very minute they join an organization, they would sacrifice that ability to apply selective criteria of taste, meaning, ethics, and (maybe even) legality. They would have to apply someone else's selection criteria, not their own. And the bar would almost certainly be set pretty low.

I've been told over and over again that organizations cannot afford to be selective. Public or private, they feel that they are under immense pressure to grow, and cannot turn away business. But notice that solo operators are in business, too. It's not being in business that drives you to the compromises, it's being in an organization!

The fascinating thing is that I know lots of CEOs and managing partners. As individuals, they are usually people of taste, honor, integrity, and all the rest of it. But they believe in their bones that they are not allowed to apply the same criteria in their organizational roles that they would if they were working only for themselves. They feel as trapped and as compromised as the most idealistic junior does.

I think that part of what is going on is this: It's all about trust. If I knew that all my colleagues, bosses, partners, owners, et al., shared a common set of standards, then I would have the courage to make selective decisions based on those standards. However, if I think that they do not share my values, ideologies, principles, and preferences, then I will not take the risk and expose myself to criticism by turning away cash under any circumstances. And the organization's decision-making gets driven to the lowest common denominator. We'll shoot at anything that moves, serve anyone with anything, as long as they pay.

I do truly despair at the hopelessness that people and individuals feel — their feeling that they cannot afford choices. It's the cynicism — no, the despair — that gets me. Something profound has happened when people start saying:

"I can't afford to worry about whether I like my clients."

"I can't afford to worry about whether my client is the good guy or the bad guy."

"I can't afford to worry about the social consequences of my clients' actions."

But is it not only possible, but also real-world, that you could establish a firm that had a clear philosophy that we, as a firm, don't work for certain kinds of clients? Couldn't it actually be a fabulous source of competitive differentiation in the war to attract talent?

I got hints of this in my book Practice What You Preach — that one way some firms made extra profits was by keeping their people enthused and excited in part (in large part) by refusing to work for dull, unexciting clients. Can't the excitement (noncynicism) of what "we" do be a competitive strategy?

Everyone talks about the shortage of talent and the need to attract and motivate the best and the brightest. Isn't this topic related to that in more than a minor way?

My proposition is that those who have the guts to live this way make more money, not less. It's the difference between building a firm that represents the Marines and building a firm that represents the best mercenaries on the planet.

David Maister is widely acknowledged as one of the world's leading authorities on the management of professional service firms. He can be reached at David@Davidmaister.com.