A Tale of Two Islands - A Profile in Building Trust

Picking back up the blogging mantle after several weeks enjoy the lazy hazy days of summer.

During my vacation break, I heard a story on the National Public Radio program "This American Life" that really brought home to me the power of trust.

The program contrasted the approaches of two different countries - Jamaica and Barbados - in dealing with similar financial crises. Barbados emerged from their crisis a much stronger nation - median income is currently twice that of Jamaica's, and its literacy rate of 95% is four times better than Jamaica's. By every economic and socioeconomic measure, Barbados is significantly outperforming Jamaica. Why? Primarily, because during a time of crisis, Barbados chose to use trust as the fundamental lynchpin of their economic recovery strategy and in so doing - reinvented their approach to running the country.

Here's what happened. In the early 90's, oil prices skyrocketed and threw the world into a global recession. This created a real foreign currency crisis for Barbados. Essentially they did not have enough foreign currency to pay for imported goods and wound up having to borrow significant money from the IMF. Barbados' leaders "chose trust" and established a partnership between business, workers and the government to build an economic recovery plan based on shared sacrifice.

Business and the unions, previously adversaries, learned to trust each other, and their close collaboration essentially saved the country. Together they did extraordinary things - labor took an 8% across the board pay cut. Business collaborated with labor and government to make sure that layoffs did not affect both breadwinners of the same family. The results of this partnership were astounding - within 5 years, Barbados paid off their loan to the IMF, wages reached pre-crisis levels. And most importantly, the collaboration established between government, business and labor - still endures and forever changed Barbados' governance model.

Jamaica, and it pains me to say this since I am of Jamaican ancestry, had a very different response when faced with the same crisis in the early 70s.  The Jamaican Prime Minister did not build trust between rich and poor, business and labor. He made autocratic decisions and famously said in a speech that if Jamaicans didn't like what he was doing "there were five flights a day leaving for Miami".  As a result, thousands of middle class Jamaicans (including many of my relatives) left the country. This crippled the economy and Jamaica has never fully recovered. In fact,  now 50 cents of every $ the government collects is spent on paying down interest on IMF debts.

Tony Wolcott, Executive Director of the Barbados Employers Confederation, sums up the bottom line: "Trust is the key factor in the whole cohesion of the social partnership we've got here."

Such is the power of not only a partnership mindset, but of building trust. 

More on how to build trust in future blog posts.

Trust me!

I was recently advising an alliance manager who was desparately trying to manage expectations with a new partner in the face of a sales manager who is fond of "gentleman's agreements". The sales manager's logic was that he "trusted" the partner and therefore the parties "didn't need to have anything in writing".

Here's the problem with that logic. Is there a time and a place for "handshake" agreements? Yes. Is that time when you are establishing a partnership with a new partner. Decidedly no.

In these scenarios, I am very wary of parties who do not want to put things in writing, especially when the rationale is essentially "trust me". This is not trust. It's "faux trust" - bet hedging masquerading as trust - and a sign of someone who does not want to commit.

Here's why. In my experience, when you embark upon a collaborative initiative on a handshake, when things go either very well or very badly, people tend to get situational amnesia. When things go badly, people normally start heading for the exits. On their way out the door, sometimes they also try to shift blame for the failure to the other party. When things go swimmingly well, sometimes greed ensues, and one party will seek to cut the other party out of the action. That's why being committed to the venture (you both either sink or swim together) is an important success factor.

My advice to the alliance manager - if the venture is worth the time to do, it's worth the time to document. Depending on the situation you may not need a formal contract, but at a minimum, you should document the expectations, roles and responsibilities of both parties, and most importantly, what happens if expectations are not met. You should also make sure that ALL the stakeholders that are impacted by the joint plan are informed of the plan and expectations and that they sign off on those expectations!

When you take the time to put things in writing you are saying to the partner, I respect your time and investment in this project and I trust that our odds of mutual success will be much better if we have clarity around our joint gameplan and the expectations for execution.

"Bad deals don't last"

Trust has been a big topic in the news lately - Facebook's questionable privacy policies, UK Google Earth gathering personal information from people's computer's via their unprotected wifi networks. (As if me leaving my front door open gives you the right to enter my home and steal my television set! Not.)

It got me thinking about the importance of building and maintaining trust in alliance relationships. Too many organizations don't get it when it comes to the currency of trust.

I recall working for an internet startup where the CTO and founder would brag about "screwing the partner over", as if this was something to brag about! I'd commiserate with our VP of Sales, who was fond of saying "Bad deals, don't last". He was absolutely right. You may be able to get a partner in a tight spot where they feel compelled to accept a deal in the short term that is not in their long term interests. Ultimately, however, I don't care what kind of contract you put in place, if a deal is not good for one partner, they will find a way out. One way or the other. So you may win in the short run, but you will lose in the long run. Not only with this partner, but your reputation in the partner community will suffer - and then good luck finding ANY company that will partner with you!

For more on this topic, check out this white paper by Robert Porter Lynch (Chairman Emeritus of the Association of Strategic Alliance Professionals) and Paul Lawrence (Professor Emeritus of Organization Behavior, Harvard Business School) - Building a System of Trust for Strategic Alliances.

I'll share more thoughts on this topic in a future blog post.

AMFM - Always Maintain Forward Motion

I read an article in the Sunday Parade magazine a few months ago about an entrepreneur who's daily mantra was "AMFM" - Always Maintain Forward Motion. I loved that! That mantra was so applicable to our partner efforts that I adopted it as our divisional slogan for 2010..

We have been implementing formal processes for qualification, development and field execution of partner initiatives for the last 2 years and one thing we've learned is that momentum is your friend. When partner initiatives stagnate, particularly in the qualification phase, it's typically symptomatic of a project that has waning sponsorship or waning enthusiasm (either internally or within the partner organization).

Partner initiatives tend to be like produce, they go bad when they sit around for long periods of time.

So what we encourage the alliance managers to do now is carpe diem! If you've got sponsorship and a well qualified idea, execute quickly. The market moves quickly, and your sponsors and stakeholders might lose interest and get distracted by the next new "shiny thing" if things get stalled and bogged down.

Always Maintain Forward Motion - or as my nephew would say - "Keep it movin'"!

Breaking Up is Hard to Do - Part III

So what about when you've come to the point where you feel you need to invoke the exit clause and end the alliance?

It's certainly not a good feeling. I've been there. I was VP of Business Development for a startup. One of the co-founders had entered into an agreement with another company that seemed good on paper, but was just not making business sense for us. We were expending a lot of precious technical resources on the project with absolutely no hope of a return.

The CEO asked me to "fix it". Great. The first thing I did was read the contract and pray that there was a well written exit clause. Luckily, our corporate counsel, who I eventually developed a great partnership with for future alliance work, had written a very good contract with an exit clause that provided me with the right level of flexibility.

The second step for me was to organize my thoughts and think about the matter from the business partner's perspective. I knew he was not going to be happy. Were there any mitigating circumstances? Was there a way to leave the door open to working together down the road in a more mutually beneficial endeavor? Was I on solid ground in invoking the exit clause? How could I articulate our position in a dispassionate way and in so doing remove the sting?

The third step? After reviewing my thinking and game-plan with our corporate counsel , I wrote a succinct letter to our business partner's CEO, informing him of our desire and intent to terminate the agreement (required per the contract). I followed up with a phone call asking for a face to face meeting with him.

When I met him in the lobby and walked him into a conference room, I'm not going to lie, I was nervous. He was clearly not happy. But I have to say, at the end of the meeting, we shook hands and he said "I'm not happy with the outcome, but I understand your position and I respect how you've handled this". Whew! Thankfully, we were able to exit out of an unprofitable partnership while still preserving our relationship with the partner (and our reputation in the partner community!).

Next time you're negotiating a new partnership agreement, imagine the conversation you'd want to have with the partner in the event things don't work out and you found yourself in that conference room. Thinking about that conversation should help you plan for a positive exit

Find your "Avis" - They'll Try Harder!

When choosing a partner, the conventional wisdom holds that you should pick the #1 player, the proverbial 800 lb gorilla - the Hertz of the industry. But in my experience, sometimes the guy who is #2 (or even #3 or #4) is often hungrier and therefore more willing to take risks and put more on the table - in short - more like Avis and willing to try harder.

Have you ever tried courting the market leader? How long did it take to get them to return your phone call? Ugh. Since they're #1, they are getting a lot of phone calls. They are probably the media darling and getting lots of press as well, and that combined with years of success sometimes breeds a certain amount of arrogance. I know I always have to "gird my loins" when making those calls, and the pressure is really on to have an exceptionally strong partnering proposal and compelling case. And even then, you might not get their attention.

When there's a #1 player that I really do want to win over, sometimes what's worked better for me is to go after the #2 or #3 player in the market. They are typically much easier to approach and they're hungry (they want to be #1!). They are usually more willing to take risks and try new approaches to gain marketshare over the larger players. So, as a result, they sometimes are more fertile ground for exploratory partnership discussions. Additionally, if you win them over and the two of you can build some success together over a period of time, you will be in a stronger negotiating position once (or if) you approach the #1 player.

Food for thought..

Breaking Up is Hard to Do - Part II

So what should you think about including in the exit clause? You'll probably want to ask yourself a few questions...

• What circumstances should trigger either party invoking the exit clause? What would need to happen for your company to want out?
• What kind of notice should each party be required to give?
• What about Intellectual Property (IP) - what happens to any jointly developed assets?
• How will customer support be handled in the event of a breakup of the alliance? (typically covered in a "wind down" clause).
• Should there be any penalties for termination (or contract breaches)?

Think about the worse case scenario and what you would want to see happen, especially as it relates to any joint customers or prospects. Having this discussion during the initial contract negotiations is sure to save you potential headaches in the event that things don't work out the way everyone planned...