Building trust with your customer

Trust means we can depend on future action

It is common to speak of building trust within a project team.

We debate ways to build trust, how we break trust and to what extent this “trust notion” is important anyway.

I have written about trust building with regard to noticing the implicit promises we make each other, and how very “real” they are to us in terms of consequences even though we don’t know they exist.

I know some cynics who say that trust does not exist… but I also accept that is how a true cynic might see it, and I move on.

So in this post, I want to talk about the trust we build with our customers… something relevant to every technology leader. (Actually, the core reference for my post above had to do, in part, with a marketer’s perspective of software developers.)

Revisiting components of trust

I have introduced a distinction for trust as:

An assessment of sincerity, reliability and competence to hold our promises for long horizons of time

You might use a different distinction, but I offer this one as the basis for the rest of this post. It is a standard distinction produced and taught by The Aji Network, which you know if you follow me is an educational discourse of business professionals with whom I have learned and grown professionally.

Actually, when I say “long horizons of time”, it is more specific to say “as long as needed”. If you trust me with a promise not to tell about a surprise birthday party… I am off the hook for that promise after the event.

So what is our task?

You can't keep any promises you don't make

Given that distinction for trust, we only build trust with our customers when they assess we are:

  1. Sincere – we mean what we say
  2. Reliable – we recurrently do what we say
  3. Competent – we’re not claiming a skill we don’t have

AND… we have to hold our promises [for as long as needed].

The thing is, if we don’t make any promises, we can’t build trust.

Now, I’ve heard some people adopt this as an intentional strategy – if we don’t make promises, they can’t distrust us. Actually, the opposite is true — if we don’t make promises, our customers WILL grow to trust us — to NOT take care of them.

We can’t hide demand by ignoring it exists (or saying “no” to everything), and we can’t build trust by saying “yes” and failing to deliver. So what is left for us to do?

The natural human planning cycle: 90 days

Here are two examples from domains outside software projects:

These books have at least one thing in common – they both refer to the human psychological implications of 90 days as a powerful window for planning.

Things change a lot in our business lives, and in the business lives of our customers. That is one reason we gravitate toward agile, or at least to short-cycle projects. Here we have two examples of other domains that suggest a familiar theme – give yourself space for feedback and time to adapt… and don’t pretend to know everything.

So let me offer this natural human planning cycle as consistent with a powerful move to build trust with our customers. Don’t delay a release unless something drastic has happened. Communicate clearly and confidently about what will be “in” the release, but don’t miss the ship date.

Over time, your capacity to recurrently hit ship dates (reliability), with solid features (competence) as you have said you would (sincerity), you create the opening to change the moods and attitudes of customers who might have great reasons not to trust due to historical patterns.

One strategic purpose for building trust with customers

There are many reasons to build trust with customers, but I will leave that to another post.

Today, I just want to link back to a past article I wrote about the role of project managers to hold customers to their end of the bargain – that they take receipt of our products. Not every team has this problem because they have their customers’ trust.

Some teams don’t have the problem because they have psychologically strong coaches who can force acceptance on their customers regardless of trust. (I haven’t directly observed this, but I leave open the possibility that it might exist.)

For the rest of us, not having your customer’s trust means they may become over-demanding, asking for more because they know they won’t get it all. They may get beaten down and stop asking for your help. Or I don’t know if this is worse, but they may take their budgets and look elsewhere for help.

They are not “wrong” in acting that way… but you can get ahead of them by investing in building their trust. Find promises you CAN make, if you can’t do everything. (Who can?)

…and deliver on those promises, consistently, competently, sincerely and recurrently… for as long as needed.

Advertisements

Does your IT salary depend on what makes you different?

"Rational people" think at the margin...

It’s Monday, and that means I take another crack at an economic principle and apply it to software development and IT. (Here is a link to the series so far.)

This week we are on principle #3 which goes something like this:

Rational people think at the margin.

I am going to put aside questions about whether (or which) people are “rational”, or whether I would be qualified to make the assessment in the first place.

Instead, I want to focus on the “margin”. (Perhaps that makes me “rational”, after all.)

In this context, the “margin” relates to an economics principle called “Marginal Utility“.

A summary of the concept (for our purposes, anyway) is that people will value two otherwise equivalent items against each other based on their “marginal” (or incremental) differences, positive or negative.

So we might pay more for one car based on its gas mileage or on its performance characteristics, all other attributes being pretty much the same.

Fundamentally, the market of buyers and sellers converges on a certain price at which a commodity might be bought or sold.

As long as a surplus of buyers or a shortage of supply exists, prices may rise… and the converse also holds.

Designing for marginal utility

Now, if a company wants to sell its products at a premium, you may have heard that it needs to “differentiate” them in the market.

More specifically, the company needs to name, find or design a marginal utility for its offers… an incremental change that drives a disproportionate increase in assessments of value (price).

Don't quit your day job!

My business teacher, Toby, used an analogy like this (the following numbers are illustrative only, and may not be accurate):

  • A “good” college basketball player, scoring 26 points per game, has no chance of becoming a professional…
  • A “great” player, routinely scoring 30 points per game, might get drafted at a league minimum salary…

While…

  • The “elite” player who always scores 34+ points per game might get a starting salary ten times higher (not to mention endorsement deals and other additions to income)

Looking at it that way, you could say that the difference between getting into the pros and not is 2 baskets per game.

You could also say that the elite player gets 90% of their income from the extra 2 baskets they make every game.

Bringing the topic back to IT

Since I thought it would be good to set up what marginal utility is and offer an illustration, it seems to me that we can spend a couple of weeks on this subject. We can speak about designing marginal utility at the individual, team and organizational levels.

So while we have the notion of salaries fresh in our minds, let’s start with you and me, shall we?

First, let me make my intentions really clear: I accept that people say money isn’t everything. People don’t have to slave and toil to get paid more. There is nothing morally ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ about wanting higher pay or not.

Remember that the topic is marginal utility in the domains of software and IT. So I am just speaking of the topic about how much we get paid. That’s all – I have no judgments and am not making any recommendations – “I’m just sayin’.”

I have nothing particularly witty to write this time - this is a piggy bank on a pile of money.

In the basketball analogy, good players don’t become professionals. There is nothing wrong with them – they’re good… just not valued highly enough to get in at that level of competition.

In my career, most of the IT people I’ve met are good.

They get paid what the market bears for their roles, which our industry declares clearly and consistently in job descriptions from one company to the next.

A Java developer is a Java developer, and they make a certain amount of money. They make a little more as a consultant, generally speaking.

A “senior” Java developer wants to get paid more, but the standard for assessing what “senior” means is not well established.

And don’t get me started on what an “architect” really is in all its various derivations… except they also expect to get paid more, and have higher expectations to live up to.

The point is: as long as what defines your capabilities and accomplishments is the same as everyone else, the market sets your rate pretty clearly.

In this situation, your income fluctuates with the market, and you are a commodity, in a sense. A business may see you as replaceable, you may struggle to find your next role and you may feel trapped in roles, feeling underpaid and undervalued.

On the other hand, when you find those strengths that you bring to bear – those things that makes you incrementally more valuable than someone else in your role – that could be marginal utility (your “2 baskets more“) for which you compel other to pay a premium.

Just be careful in thinking that what you value about yourself is what they value, and that you deliver enough that they will feel your premium is worth it.