Winning the Q and A Interview

Tired of hearing the same interview over and over by different teams, many owners are turning to interviews comprised of targeted questions and answers (Q and A) in the hopes of really getting to know team members’ thoughts about the project and whether a team is a good fit for the client organization.  These interviews can be extremely effective vehicles for teams to showcase their expertise and personality. But they require specific planning and rehearsal, the same as for a traditional interview.  Teams who come unprepared and unrehearsed do so at their peril and will not give their best possible performance.

Teams should prepare for Q and A interviews by getting immersed in the project, learning as much as they can about the client, the site, the project, and the stakeholders. As with all interviews, we win projects in the details. It is paramount that team members be able to tie rich details into their discussion of approach and philosophy as it relates to the project under consideration. This first stage of interview development is the same for a traditional interview as it is for a Q and A interview; aligning team members to the project and the client is the most important first step in any effective interview planning process.

In addition, I also recommend to teams that they develop a “What we need to prove in order to win this job” list. Commit this list to memory. Use it in your Q and A rehearsal. Keep it with you at the interview if needed; it is the DNA of your pitch. This becomes a check-list to make sure you communicate the information needed in order to win the job.

To increase your chances of success in the Q and A interview, the best strategy is to design a set of mini-presentations that respond to the key messages list above – each with a strong claim, detailed content, and examples to back up your points. These mini-presentations need not be over-rehearsed, but they should be planned and structured around strong, clear claim statements. By creating a set of mini-presentations, teams can make sure they cover the points they need to in a clear and organized manner. 

Team choreography sets the mood for the interaction between client and team. In a Q and A interview, move in closer to the selection committee, even sit around a table, interspersed with the selectors if possible.  Otherwise, move the team close in to facilitate eye contact and true engagement.  Team members should sit up straight (not rigid) and focus their attention on the selection committee, making strong, real eye contact with the person asking the question and smiling in order to come across as engaging and collaborative.

Rehearsal for a Q and A interview is incredibly important – probably even more so than for a traditional interview.  Because of the inherent “impromptu” nature of the context, Q and A interviews can encourage poor presentation behavior by some speakers. Speakers who are more confident and comfortable can inadvertently take over the interview by talking too much - overshadowing the less verbal experts on the team and wasting precious minutes. Rehearsing appropriate presentation behaviors can dramatically increase a team’s chance of success.

Teams should brainstorm a list of possible questions (and their follow-on questions) and should practice answering both the easy ones and the hard ones.  If possible, convene a group of informed professionals within your own firm to practice Q and A with the team in a more realistic rehearsal.  Determine who “owns” what content.  Make sure no answer is more than about two minutes in duration. And, never, ever have more than three speakers speaking on the same question (e.g., the “endless hitchhike”).  Finally, nominate one person in the room to make sure the team has covered everything on your key messages list.

In sum, a Q and A interview does not mean your team cannot plan, strategize, or rehearse. In fact, you probably need even more time together to align team members to the project and get them comfortable with the content and the “rules” governing your team’s approach to Q and A. Only by planning and rehearsing can we have absolute confidence that the team will perform well in the actual interview.   Because so few teams are good at this type of interviewing, there’s ample room for savvy teams to shine in this venue – coming across as prepared, relaxed, conversational, and ready to get to work.

Partnering with Housing Hope: Your Purchase can Make a Difference!

As we move closer to winter and our northwest winds start to blow, we at Communication Resources are very sensitive to those among us who are without shelter this season.  As a result, we are donating $100 for each of our training DVDs purchased in the month of October to Housing Hope of Snohomish County. 

The DVD training, entitled "Winning the Short List," provides a quality training experience to A/E/C professionals on short-list interviewing.  The training is accompanied by a detailed participant’s handbook and a trainer’s guide.  In this training, you can learn Meg’s tested techniques for developing, presenting, and winning short-list interview presentations.  The complete system, including both DVD and Guides, is $395.  With purchase, you may also call Meg and her team directly with any of your training and/or coaching questions.

You can read more about the DVD, preview a segment, and see the guides at www.communication-resources.com.

We’re happy to partner with Housing Hope to help provide shelter and valuable resources for our community’s most vulnerable families.  If you would like to contribute to them directly, please do so at www.housinghope.org.

Walking, Talking, Smiling, and Pointing: Delivery Skills for Technical Professionals

Technically trained professionals – primarily engineers, contractors, and architectural project managers – have typically been perceived as poor speakers.  Companies spend thousands of dollars on standardized delivery coaching in an attempt to make these professionals more compelling and dynamic.  After more than 20 years of coaching such technical professionals, I have found, however, that this standardized coaching method is ineffective. In order to improve the delivery skills of any technical professional, coaches like me need to adapt our approach to coaching to the unique ways in which our technical clients think and communicate.

Training an engineer in theatric “tricks” like common gestures, movement in the room, and the ubiquitous smile, typically makes said engineer look over-coached and wooden (think Al Gore in the 2000 presidential elections).  Rather, we should be coaching technical professionals in ways that connect compelling content to their own natural delivery.  I’ve seen literally hundreds of technical presenters in a range of important presentations and frankly, I’ve only met a handful of them who were truly horrible in their delivery.  Most speakers are actually quite competent – if we work with them in a way that is supportive vs. prescriptive.

I tell speakers that there isn’t any right way to present and there’s no simple list of delivery improvements that will work for every speaker.  Most speakers, in fact, are quite competent in the four elements of delivery that really count:  walking, talking, smiling, and pointing.  We just need to help speakers take their natural competence in these four elements and translate them into the context of a compelling presentation.

Technical professionals need to have a strong working outline that they have written, that has strong logic, and that they’ve both had vetted by colleagues and had an opportunity to practice.  In my experience, most technical professionals can’t begin to focus on delivery until they have connected with content.  Coaching delivery before the speaker has a firm grasp of the content results in frustration and stress for both speaker and coach.

Once content is ready, however, we need to coach technical speakers carefully – choosing our “battles” and making minor improvements that are consistent with a speaker’s natural style.  If a speaker naturally uses small gestures and speaks softly, asking him to adopt broad gestures and an effervescent vocal style simply won’t work.  Technical speakers are generally not trained actors and we need to support them in minor changes that will appear natural in a presentation instead of asking them to make major changes that are more consistent with the coach’s prescriptive vision of a good speaker.

Minor changes might include adding a smile, moving closer to the selection panel, slightly increasing volume, or interacting with a visual to show a process or example.  Technical speakers respond well to minor changes that have a major impact.  Any delivery “tweaks” that we recommend as coaches need to be closely tied to the content. In this way, the technical speaker can “see” the logic of the recommendation.  For example, “Suzi, when you identify the major technical challenge, pause beforehand, then speak louder and look the selectors in the eye. This will give that statement much more impact.”  This is more effective than saying, “Suzi, you need to speak louder and integrate more pauses into your delivery.  This will make you a more persuasive and dynamic speaker.”

New Math: Marketing and Business Development Realities for this Economy

For those of us in the trenches of short-list interviewing, we are aware of the current challenges of wnning work in a very different economy than we’ve ever seen.  Right now, firms are proposing on more and more projects, being short-listed more frequently, and preparing and presenting more interviews.  Unfortunately, this is not resulting in proportionately more work.  And, the truly negative outcomes can be seen in less return on investment for marketing dollars and demoralized team members.  What’s needed is an entirely new approach to the entire business development and marketing lifecycle that culminates in the short-list interview. 

What’s required to win work in this economy is “New Math”.  In the lifecycle of business development and marketing, there are four core elements:  Relationship/Reputation, Proposal, Cost or Fee, and Presentation.  Depending on the characteristics of the pursuit, each accounts for approximately 25% of the chance of being selected.  In the past, we might have been able to “wow” a selection committee with an exceptional interview and walk away with the job. That same interview today will bring us only to a close second.  Thus, we need firms to align business development and marketing efforts – looking at the short-list as the end of a long, intentional process instead of being an event in and of itself.

Relationship/Reputation has four levels of effective client “engagement”, the highest being having a strong relationship with an existing client with whom you have completed similar, successful work.  This requires not only superior performance and project management, but also maintaining the solid relationship with the client after the project has been completed. 

The next level is having a relationship with a potential client based on your having provided advice and/or assistance.  While never having performed a project for the client, the client is aware of the firm’s capabilities and trusts that your firm can do work of a certain type and complexity. 

                 

The third level is when the potential client knows of the firm’s and individual team members’ capabilities through conference presentations, journal and trade publications, or even industry-specific blogs.  In this case, the client knows of the firm’s past projects and can link his/her project to similar projects in the firm’s portfolio. 

The lowest level of effective engagement is when the firm or individual has “borrowed credibility.”  Borrowed credibility comes from an outside reference – usually another credible client who strongly recommends the firm and specific team members for the current work.

In the absence of any of the four levels of Relationship/Reputation, I recommend firms and teams take a hard look at their Go/No Go decision.  If any of these levels are missing, the firm should likely not be going after the work at all. The best decision would be to invest scarce marketing dollars in building client engagement vs. participating in a no-win proposal and presentation cycle.  Firm leadership should be actively publishing in trade journals, and they should be out in the field meeting with potential clients.  At a minimum, each client manager should be regularly meeting with the clients from their current and recently completed projects to maintain the strong relationship and the reference.

Understanding your Clients: The Value of Ongoing, Internal Research

I’m a nerd – I freely admit it.  I love numbers, complex measurement tools, running statistics, and making graphs.  There’s something seductive about taking a dataset and working with it to reveal the “story” it’s trying to tell me. Over the past 20+ years, I’ve designed and implemented dozens of surveys for public and private organizations, and every time I get a clean, fresh data file, I love to stay up late playing in the data, mining its secrets and learning what it is telling me about my clients and their needs.

The economy is tough right now and looks questionable for the foreseeable future. As a result, many firms are cutting back on any kind of organizational research. This is a bad idea on so many levels. Client, employee,  and project research keeps us in touch with what our clients need and expect and most importantly, provides us a mechanism to take lessons learned from one project to the next, constantly improving along the way.

So, how do we conduct meaningful client research without huge monetary outlay?  Answer:  Bring it in-house and be more strategic about the process.  Many of our clients are asking us to assist in the development of internal research programs in which they can gather regular data from clients – or employees – to drive internal understanding and process improvement. They are spending their outside consultant dollars on the analysis of the data or on gathering only the most sensitive or confidential data.  From a consultant perspective, I don’t view this as threatening; rather, I see this as a way to provide my clients the highest value, while enabling them to continue critical research programs when budgets are tight. And, the bright side to all of it is that my clients are becoming more connected to the data, understanding how to gather, interpret, and respond to client and employee feedback in a deeper way.

Savvy firms are continuing programs of both client and employee research – using data to drive decision-making and process improvement. The big change is that they are the data gatherers and the data managers. This requires a commitment to standards of good research and research protocols and a forced objectivity about the results. This is hard, but absolutely necessary. We are helping our clients develop programs of research – setting up surveys, on-line systems, and data gathering protocols. And, most of our clients are taking on their own research programs very successfully, using us to troubleshoot and provide data analysis on confidential files. 

In this economy, information is power. Firms need good information to fuel growth, improve processes, and drive training. They should never sacrifice reconnaissance, as a continued investment in data yields value far beyond its cost. But, firms can be more strategic in the research they do and their principals can get involved – doing the legwork to continue strong client and employee research even when times are tough.

The Value and Disadvantage of Familiarity

My colleagues and I were down in Los Angeles this morning talking with our friends at SMPS about how A/E/C teams can develop winning presentations in this very challenging economy.  One of the participants asked me a very significant question that really made me think:  “How do we design a winning presentation when we are not the incumbent and the client really likes the firm with which they’ve been working?”  Good question.  My answer was fairly simple: You have to work harder than the incumbent. 

Some of my most memorable wins in short-list interviews in the A/E/C industry have been on projects where my team was not the incumbent.  We won because we did more homework and developed a presentation that clearly addressed the real needs, interests, fears, and expectations of selectors and their organizations.  In those presentations, we spent a lot of time on the “alignment” phase of presentation development - getting each team member’s head in the project so that they were fully engaged in understanding the owner’s needs.  This resulted in presentations that were focused on the unique aspects of the project, targeted on solving the owner’s project “pain”, and centered on the advantages they could bring the owner relative to higher value, better quality, and faster delivery.

I’ve found that it’s actually easier to beat an incumbent firm than one thinks because many incumbents get lazy, assuming that the strength of the relationship will carry them to a win. While in many cases this is indeed true, when my non-incumbent teams compete, they always compete “hungry”, offering the client a value proposition that is so compelling, so interesting, and so seductive that we can easily win against a lazy incumbent. Remember incumbents, “familiarity breeds contempt” – this means that in most relationships, partners can get complacent, leaving the door wide open to the new, shiny, and interesting.  Lazy incumbents create an easy space for coaches like me to help teams “steal” the project through hard work, innovation, and creativity.

For my teams that are incumbents – watch out!  Always compete as if you didn’t have the relationship.  Never take the owner and his/her project for granted, especially in this challenging economy. Do more research, make more effort, prepare more for these interviews than for any other because, frankly, these are the ones that hurt the most to lose. You’ve invested time and resources in the relationship; make the concerted effort to maintain the value of that investment by giving interviews with your regular clients everything you’ve got. These truly are the “can’t afford to lose” interviews.

Partnering Leadership from the Public Sector

I have the honor of being on the communications team for the Asset Management group for a leading power provider in the Pacific Northwest. This group is rolling out a very innovative program designed to increase productivity, reduce risk, and provide safe, reliable power at a reasonable cost to customers across their service area. And, they have partnered with national and local specialists to help them achieve success.

Midway through the project, this Utility asked us to provide partnering services to the team to help members remain aligned to project goals and expectations as they ramped up towards the implementation phase of their very aggressive project. In a one day session, Utility leadership, project team members and their consultants worked together to document overall goals, design teamwork improvements, and plan the course for the challenging months ahead.  It was, to say the least, an exhausting day. At the end, everyone, the facilitators included, felt they had achieved real understanding across the team and had developed the start of a workable “way forward.”

Currently, the team is working through a very challenging aspect of the project and I’m impressed with how team leadership is using the partnering agreements as a guide.  During the partnering process, the team created a team charter as well as clear metrics to chart the success of teamwork.  During a meeting of team members from across the project team, one of the first agenda items was to tie the current work and difficult decisions with a renewed focus on the charter and project goals.  This refocus encourages team members to resolve issues and design strategies based on their commitment to a common goal.

A Partnering session is a common way to kick-off a project, particularly in the public sector.  Many teams recognize its importance as a time to talk about teamwork before the team moves quickly through project meetings and milestone dates. However, many times, that’s the last time a team focuses on partnering unless the team is having problems. As a result, at the conclusion of every partnering session my colleagues and I facilitate, I remind team members that the real work of partnering starts after the session is over. The success of partnering occurs when team members working through challenging issues refocus themselves on the project charter – the agreements they made at the start of the project to work together toward a common good.

It’s gratifying to see that one of the largest agencies in my region not only understands the value of partnering, but more importantly, for this project team to actively use the work they did in partnering to drive success at critical milestones. In recommitting themselves to keep the commitments they made in partnering, this team reaffirmed the importance of teamwork, while improving work processes and creating a common understanding of future deliverables. That’s the real value of partnering.