Every day, we hear companies saying they love their customers. And how do they show it? They push them tons and tons of irrelevant content. They flood their inboxes. They try to sell them things they don't want or need. And here's what many of them don't do:
Try to find out what will really make them happy.
If you've been fortunate enough to be in a long-lasting relationship (like we have), you'll know that you're always looking for ways to delight the other person. To show them that you want to help them get what they want and need to feel like they are their best. Saying sorry when you're wrong. Asking their closest friends if there's something they've been dreaming of that they haven't told you. Not taking, taking, taking.
So today, on Valentine's Day, and every day, if you really love your customer:
To you: thanks for reading. We appreciate it. And thank you to all of you who refer others, endorse us on social media, and engage in conversations about how to find, understand, and engage customers.
I'm Megann Willson, and I'm one of the Partners here at PANOPTIKA. (The other is Steve Willson - Happy Valentine's Day!) You can find us on Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn, or through our weekly email news.
A week or so ago, we had the most refreshing experience. It made us feel amazing. Serene, even.
One of our clients asked us for less. Now, we always try to go the extra mile with our clients, and if they are new to us, and we're working on a project, we try to show them all the possible lines of inquiry we might explore, to learn more about their customers or prospects. We prefer a very open journey, but if someone doesn't know us, they might have trouble seeing how that will work out. So imagine our relief when the client called and said, "I like where we're going, but don't you think we will get a richer result if we ask very broad questions and then probe as the respondent takes it in their direction, not ours?
Yes, yes we do. Thanks for asking us that. Constraints can be useful. But questions that will take the discussion in the direction you want, rather than where the respondent wants to go, are likely to end up with you feeling like you didn't learn anything new, and simply confirm what you already belief. The lesson? Open yourself up to simplicity, if you want a richer, more meaningful result.
I'm Megann Willson, and I'm one of the partners here at PANOPTIKA. If you'd like us to help you see everything that's really important to your prospects or customers, let's talk. You can find all our contact information here on the website. And if you'd like regular insights that will spark ideas you might not have been thinking about already, you can also find us on LinkedIn, on Twitter, or on Facebook.
For news, offers, and upcoming speaking or workshop dates, sign up below. We'll message you once a week, and on rare occasions, once more.
This week I was reading The Magic of Thinking Big, by David J. Schwartz. It's not a new book; in fact it was written in 1959. And although the tone may seem a bit old-timey, much of the advice is as valid today, as when it was new. Schwartz is a big believer in goal-setting, and in the importance of setting out with a plan. He also alluded to a problem we see in the research and consulting business, which is the gathering of data for data's sake, and an over-emphasis on keeping vast repositories of information in our heads or at our fingertips, as a way to "add value" to ourselves. But machines can do that. Here's what Dr. Schwartz said: "More and more we rely on books, files, and machines to warehouse information. If we can only do what a machine can do, we're in a real fix."
It's not the data (however big) that helps us make better sense of the world, understand our customers better, find new markets, sell more, or grow our businesses. It's the synthesis of the data - what we do with it, how we shape it, where we find connections - and our "knowledge goals", that make a difference. Knowing what we want to do with the answers, how we want to use them, and why they're important to us, will help us have a richer understanding of the people we're investigating in our research. Before adding yet another question to an overly-long survey, or jumping in like Columbo with a "just one more thing" query, ask yourself these things:
If you have good answers for those, and you're still comfortable asking, by all means, go for it. Then use what you've learned wisely and do something excellent for the person responding. That is why you're asking, isn't it?
I'm Megann Willson, and with my partner, Steve Willson, we've been helping PANOPTIKA's customers see everything they need to know to make better decisions for richer customer relationships, for over 18 years. You can also follow us on Twitter or connect on Facebook or LinkedIn. And if you'd like to join our community to have the conversation come right to your inbox, there's a button below that will do the trick.
If you've ever tried to create something or solve a problem as part of a high-functioning team, you know that conflict is practically unavoidable. Add a looming deadline, a commitment to an important client, or a boss who just won't take no for an answer, and there's a lot of pressure to come up with a solution.
There are a lot of different ways to solve conflict - the Thomas-Killman Conflict Mode breaks it down into five key methods. Their model includes a matrix where one axis is assertiveness, and the other is cooperativeness. The four quadrants break down as follows:
What about compromising? Isn't that the best approach? Maybe not. And here's why.
Compromising sounds okay, for sure. It's fair, right? Well, it's fair - in both the good, and the bad sense of the word. It's a little like the difference between equity and equality. Compromise may seem like an acceptable solution, but often it is the solution that gives everyone exactly the same amount of sway, but ultimately provides a weak solution that leaves everyone disappointed.
So how do you Collaborate? Very carefully. It takes time. (Remember that point at the top about maybe there's a looming deadline?) Earlier models for conflict resolution also talked about the axes being people-driven, or time-driven. And while there's no right answer, suspending the time deadline does increase the likelihood of collaboration. Collaboration is arriving at a co-created solution, where everyone feels heard, their ideas are validated, and then, if they must back off their position, they feel that it was at least given careful consideration by the other members of the team.
If time really is of the essence, then the solution may not be to leave it up to consensus decision-making. You may have to rely on a decider, and then return to the collaboration table to discuss less time-sensitive issues. (This is why design sprints usually appoint a decider - someone who has the final say, if push comes to shove).
So the next time you have a group decision to make, if you know there will be lots of strong wills in the room, leave enough time for collaboration. If there isn't enough time, appoint someone to decide, and move on. In situations of critical importance, sometimes every kid doesn't get a valentine.
I'm Megann Willson and I'm one of the Partners at PANOPTIKA. We work with our clients to help them see everything they need to make better decisions - including facilitating collaborative decision-making by teams, leading sprints, and helping them decide which framework best suits the kind of decisions they need to make. If you and your team need help doing that, send us an email, and let's set up a free call. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn, and for more news you can use to help you or your team to ask more questions in ways that will let them make better decisions, click the handy button, below.
Megann and Steve, Partners in PANOPTIKA, are working for our clients every day to help them see everything they need to know to make better decisions in their complex business environment.
Want useful advice for better business decisions, delivered direct to your inbox? (It's like a free coach who comes to you!)