The Case for Clarity in Short-List Interviews

My daughter recently attended a play at the University of Washington, which she reported was one of the most confusing theatrical performances she’d ever seen.  The play was performed completely in Polish with English subtitles streamed across the top of the theater. She said it was extremely confusing, not just because of the content matter, but because she had to constantly take her attention away from what was happening on stage to understand what the actors were saying.  I wonder if selection committees for A/E/C short-list interviews often feel the same way.  I suspect they might.

After 25 years in the industry, I’m convinced we speak a different language, one for which we rarely provide helpful subtitles. And, when we do, they are often presented in such a way that disconnects our audience from the action happening on the project or in the interview.  Even when clients know the multitude of acronyms we use (I challenge each of you to go an entire day without using one!), most don’t understand what they really mean, though few would ask for clarification.  Even the team requirements of the procurement methods clients use are fraught with confusion for us and them.   For example, I suspect that the vast majority of clients who are currently experimenting with IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) don’t really understand the ramifications of either the contract or the working relationship – as evidenced by the many who like the concept but balk at negotiating an actual IPD contract. 

Do we think clients really understand how the entire realm of relationships changes when they move from DBB (Design Bid Build) to CMAR (Construction Manager at Risk)?  Clearly, some do and some don’t.  But, I think our industry needs to do a much better job explaining how teams work together differently under each procurement method beyond the contractual obligations and transference of risk. This is essential because within these relationships we see the real benefits of CMAR, CM/GC, IPD, Design Build, etc.

In two weeks, I’m working on one of the more refreshing interviews of my career. The client, understanding that his organization does not understand the costs and benefits of different procurement methods, has requested a very non-traditional short-list interview.  In the interview for a $300+ million project, the team must first educate and convince the owner as to the benefits of the Construction Manager at Risk procurement method and then convince him that the team is the best choice for the project.  I’m looking forward to this interview because we will really get to explore the core benefits of the procurement method and how by working together, the entire team – owner, designer, and construction manager – can reap the benefits in cost, schedule, quality, profitability, and relationship.

So, what do we take away for short-list interviews?  Beyond the obvious goal to explain our acronyms (if you didn’t get that, “Return to Go; do not collect $200”), I think we need to do a better job explaining the benefits and the requirements of the procurement methodologies used for projects.  This affords us the chance to position our teams as meeting not only the needs of the project, but being able to work with the owner to achieve the benefits of the procurement method.  For example, how can the owner and the design team get real benefit from the CM’s early engagement of subs?  Beyond just saying that we will engage subs early, teams should explain how this process works and the real benefit to the project and the team.  In shorter interviews in particular, I’d love to see teams spend more time explaining the details of what they can do for the project via the procurement method than trying to cover the entire breadth of typical topics (our history, our experience, our staffing, our management plan….).

The partnership required to make any of the delivery methods work can start in the interview – with clarity of expectations and a conversation about how to achieve the benefits of team members working together.  Savvy teams take the time to explain how they are going to achieve the promise of the procurement method vs. delivering a typical quals-based interview.  Clients are yearning for teamwork, partnership, protection from growth in their budgets and schedules – and they are turning to procurement methods many of them don’t fully understand to get there.  It behooves teams to not only deliver on the promises these procurement methods may offer, but to fully explain to owners how they will get there.  A winning interview presents not only the benefits, but the unique methodology to achieve them in a way that is clear, compelling, and game changing.

A Tale of Two Leaders

I’ve been coaching a lot in the past several months – both incredible wins and hard losses, but all hard fought.  My teams are working harder and the quality of interviews keeps rising.  I’m impressed with their energy and commitment to excellence. One of the things I’m noticing as I spend more time around presentation teams is the way in which company leaders interact with their presentation teams during the interview preparation and right before the team leaves for the interview.  I’m seeing some profound and, quite frankly, shocking differences.

Let me illustrate by way of two cases from two different teams.  Each team was working diligently to prepare for a very important, potentially game changing interview.  Each team also struggled to get through their content at some point in the preparation process, as is normal for most large, complex interviews.  As most of us in marketing and business development know, interviews seldom come together seamlessly. They generally go through a creative process that sometimes resembles the making of sausage (tastes great at the end, but really messy and difficult to create, even though it follows a logical production process).  Teams struggle as part of the creative process because they challenge ideas and they try new strategies to develop and deliver interviews that are different than the status quo.

In the first case, one of the owners of a large construction company walked into the room during one of the early creative meetings.  He went around the room to each team member, expressing gratitude for the team member’s contribution and offering the full support of the organization to the effort.  He introduced himself to me and thanked me – the hired coach – for agreeing to be a part of the pursuit.  He introduced himself to the outside team members and expressed his excitement for the firms to be able to collaborate.  After sitting through the meeting for a short time, he gracefully exited.  When the team was ready for a run-through – not the final one – he came back, and while sitting through through the rehearsal, provided some very insightful, but very supportive feedback.  He clearly moderated his comments to the skill level of each speaker and was very careful to support the work the team had done in the hours he was not in the room. 

In the second case, one of the owners of a design firm sat through a very short period of the first team meeting and spend much of that time expressing his perspective on the project.  He provided some very insightful comments, but left before team members could engage with him or ask questions.  He reminded the team how important the interview was and how he needed the team to bring home the project.  At one of the later rehearsals – again, not the final one – he sat through a portion of the presentation and proceeded to lambast the team for not performing to his standard.  He expressed disdain for the design of the presentation and told the team he thought it would not work well.  He picked apart the delivery skills of one of the younger team members.  Then, he left the room for another appointment.

Quite a difference.  In the first case, the team was treated respectfully and with gratitude for their efforts. Team members were trusted with the presentation and the content.  As a result, each team member worked his or her hardest to excel and had an easy time integrating the relevant feedback into the presentation, making it better. Team members left for the interview relaxed, confident, and knowing they had the full support of their leadership.

In the second case, the team was treated disrespectfully and with disdain.  Team members felt belittled and at a very late hour, began questioning their plan and content, even though the time for wholesale changes had clearly passed.  Team members spent the next hours fretting over the overall approach to the interview vs. coming together and feeling confident.  It was truly a disappointment that the leader of the firm did not ever see the overall approach to the interview before offering criticism. In one short interaction with the team, this individual created uncertainty and unease with a strategy that could have been fun and innovative.

So, what’s the take away?   The role of the company leader in the performance of a short-list team cannot be underestimated.  Leaders need to either engage in the entire process or trust their teams, entering the process strategically to support their teams and provide meaningful assistance.  In the first case, the company leader was not simply a figurehead.  He provided insightful and relevant comments that were easily integrated into the team’s performance, making it better.  In the second case, the leader provided global comments based on limited information that tore down the confidence of both individuals and the team as a whole.

That one team won and the other team lost is probably not due to the leaders and their engagement with the team.  But, the behavior of each, both separately and in juxtaposition to each other revealed volumes about the respective companies and how they will ultimately work together on real projects.  Leaders need to think about the power of their words as amplified by their role and their experience and tailor their content and their tone to the situation, the audience, and the timing.  Leaders can inspire confidence and incredible performance or they can tear down confidence and create fear and increased stage fright.  As with all things – leaders need to behave intentionally to drive the outcomes they want for their employees and their firms.  

Remembering the Importance of Connections

As many of us leave our holiday family reunions for another season (I’m flying home from ours as I write), it’s a good time to reflect on the importance of our "work family."  While sites liked LinkedIn do a great job of getting many of us back in touch with colleagues from around the Country and help us see the wide range of our work/social networks, they really aren’t a substitute for the real, interpersonal connections that build and nurture us in our working lives.

Researchers have long known the importance of social networks in professional and personal development.  Social networking websites, though a wonderful source of contact information, can’t provide the interaction, mentoring, problem solving, and perspective taking that are so necessary for growth and intellectual development.  Particularly in this economy, where companies can offer fewer training and development opportunities, interaction with and mentorship from other professionals are paramount.

I’m concerned that the moments many of us spend on social networking sites (I’ll admit to too much time on Facebook largely due to my Scramble addiction), may take away from the real interaction with others that is so necessary to develop worthwhile social networks that go beyond linked nodes on a network diagram.   In fact, even email, while a time saving (or some might argue a time sucking) advance, can take away from meaningful social interaction. Online connection can never effectively replace real life, face-to-face conversation.

Many years ago, my mentor, an incredible marketing professional named Dale McMichael, told me, “One must look after one’s friends.” And, Dale did.  Most times, when he flew through Seattle, he intentionally carved out time with me to find out how my business was doing and to teach me something new.  He once spent two days working with my team and me to figure out a plan for growing our business – I can say without a doubt, I’m doing what I do today because Dale believed in me and took the time to make our interaction meaningful.  He was a real mentor and a real friend. And, I know our relationship would not have been so valuable over email or social networking sites.  Dale gave me the gift of time – sharing his knowledge and his network, and being a ready ear for new ideas and difficult questions.  While Dale has been gone for many years, there isn’t a month that goes by that I don’t think of him in gratitude for what he taught me and the time he gave me in the busiest time of his own career.

So, in this New Year, I advocate for all of us to make a resolution to use our newly found linked networks to interact on a more meaningful, personal level.  Pick up the phone to connect with a colleague, help a younger employee build their skills by sharing your knowledge, and in the Northwest tradition, sit down for coffee to talk about work issues, needs, and concerns.  And, let’s share our networks with each other to find projects, learn more about the work we do, and help those who are not working find work.  The renewed connections we have as a result of social networking sites can be powerful and valuable, but only if we use them to really foster authentic connection and interaction.

For those of us lucky enough to be in supervisory positions, let’s share our networks with our protégé’s – take them along on client calls, talk about what we’re doing and why we’re doing it, ask their advice and counsel on important issues and project requirements, and introduce them to a broader network of professionals who can provide different perspectives and opportunities.  I know that this kind of mentoring isn’t something we can do online.  It takes time to have the intellectual and social discourse necessary for growth and development.  We all need to take the time to encourage questions, provide information, and be actively engaged in communicating with our teams.

This year, I’m making some resolutions: I’ll be writing more, talking more, interacting more, and spending more time communicating meaningfully. This doesn’t mean that my colleagues and friends won’t get the occasional 3am email, but it does mean that I hope to spend more time over coffee talking and less time holding conversations by email, LinkedIn, or Facebook.  I know this is going to be hard, particularly for those of us who spend more time sitting on an airplane than we do sitting at our desks. But, I have to believe that the payoff will be worthwhile by way of stronger networks, better relationships, and more connected team members.

I’m not advocating unplugging; I’m simply advocating a new kind of being plugged in. We can use social networking to get back in touch AND simultaneously focus on bringing back old-fashioned conversation to make those connections mean something.