The Trusted Advisor — David Maister on Credibility and Self-Orientation

AuthorAthenarium / Posted on

The Trusted Advisor — David Maister on Credibility and Self-Orientation

Beyond expertise

Trust is a commonly neglected facet of business and economics. Many professionals wrongly assume that industry is a purely rational enterprise—that technical competency is all that separates the good consultants from the bad. It goes without saying, of course, that content knowledge and technical skills are necessary for doing good work. But as David Maister observes in his book, The Trusted Advisor, you will not have an opportunity to exercise your craft unless your clients are trusting enough to risk their challenges with you. In business, and much of life really, trust is the bedrock of human connection. It is central to almost everything we do. So it is something that we should take most seriously.

But what exactly is trust? And what makes for a trusted advisor? In some ways, it is a nebulous concept, chocked full with complex qualities and expectations. It is a sort of belief in the consistency or reliability of something or someone. “The key point”, Maister writes, “is that trust must be earned and deserved.” It is an accumulation of big and small experiences. An entity that is given slowly, and lost most easily. Trust, he adds, is related to risk-taking and reciprocity. When somebody hires you, he or she is staking her time, resources, and reputation on you.

Logic and feeling

Indeed, trust is a mixture of logic and feeling. Maister likens it to an ‘emotional duet’: “It is not enough for a professional to be right. An advisor’s job is to be helpful.” Remember that “clients usually commit [to advisors] for one of two reasons”, he adds. “Either they are feeling pain or energy around a topic; or they have been captivated by something new, different, and totally appealing… [But if we] strip down all these distractions… we are likely to find some form of fear at the root. It may be fear of embarrassment, of failure, of appearing ignorant or incompetent, or fear of loss of reputation or security… What clients frequently want is someone who will take away their worries and absorb all their hassles.” And so the trusted advisor is someone who listens and empathizes well. Someone who is cognisant of their risks and concerns. The advisor is sensitive to the rational and emotional needs of the project and the client. 

The trust equation

Moreover, trustworthiness, Maister observes, is a function of credibility, reliability, intimacy, and self-orientation.

Credibility

Credibility is probably the most well-understood. This is why lawyers, doctors, pilots, and scientists spend many years and dollars for a piece of paper that they can hang on their walls and resumes. (Notice, however, that these credentials and licenses have sway because we trust the institutions that hand them out.) But advisors and employees can also cultivate these signals through direct experience. Usually, this is a more powerful and intimate form of credibility. But it is also one that is not so easy to transfer from one place to the next.

Reliability

Relatedly is the degree to which one is reliable. In a rational sense, this refers to the frequency or consistency in which the advisor is able to meet his or her promises and obligations. But “reliability also has an emotional aspect”, writes Maister. Often, “we unconsciously form opinions about someone’s reliability by the extent to which they seem to anticipate our own habits, expectations, routines, and quirks.” In this way, “[reliability] is the repeated experience of expectations fulfilled.”

The trusted advisor must therefore be timely and proactive in ways that satisfy the idiosyncrasies of his or her client. He or she must manage expectations well, and ensure those expectations are met. Indeed, a strong reputation is never born overnight. This is true no matter how brilliant the marketing campaign or impressive the initial pitch. Trusted brands are arduous by-products of repeated interactions and consistently positive experiences. The windbags, the grandstanders, and the feckless—the very opposite of trusted advisors—should take note.

Intimacy

The third element is intimacy, which pertains to the closeness or familiarity of the relationship. This is not about playing golf or tennis with your boss or client, mind you. No, intimacy in this setting is about the reciprocation of risk and information. A gradual escalation of exchange and sharing. If a client divulges his or her concerns to you, you must be willing to match it in equal or greater measure. As with any blossoming friendship, somebody has to make the first move, whether it be the client or advisor. In this way, the trusted advisor, Maister notes, is someone who does not shy away from conflict and politics in the workplace. He or she must be ready to enter the storm to bring disparate people and views together on mutual ground. This requires the advisor to prepare not only for the problem and solution, but for the people in the room as well.

Self-orientation

The final element is self-orientation. This is the degree to which the advisor aligns his or herself with the interests of the client. As Maister writes, “there is no greater source of distrust than advisors who appear to be more interested in themselves than in trying to be of service to the client.” I’m sure you know the type. They are the arrogant braggarts who spend an inordinate amount of time trying to look smart; the spin doctors who proffer recommendations that lead only to more sales for themselves; and the consultancies that claim to be inclusive, but work hard to starve their clients of information upon the relationship’s end. Such adversarial tactics may work in the short-run, but they are not the foundations on which enduring relationships and strong brands are built.

Trust in business and life requires paradoxical intent. As Maister explains, “success comes to those who have chosen not to make success their primary goal. The way to be as rich as Bill Gates is to care more about writing code than about being rich.” The same is true for advisors and consultants. You have to care more about the people you work with than your next sale or promotion. This, Maister adds, requires a good deal of “ego strength”—the capacity to focus on the relationship and process rather than attribution and recognition. But be careful here. Maister is not asking you to be a doormat. It is important to be recognized for your hard work and contributions, of course. But undue focus on who gets the credit and blame may detract ultimately from your ability to do the job well. 

Jumping the gun

One symptom of poor ego-strength can be seen in the advisor’s rush to find and share solutions. In his or her eagerness to turn ambiguity into tangibility, and insecurity into validation, the advisor jumps the gun, wrongly believing that a few conversations, research papers, and a simple model is enough for problem solving. In most cases, time is better spent defining, crystalizing, and framing the problem itself. Richard Rumelt shares the same view in his excellent book, Good Strategy / Bad Strategy. Coherent actions and sound treatments, he says, depend mightily on a good diagnosis and guiding policy. As Maister observes, people are so afraid of making mistakes and looking dumb that they fail to do the right thing anyway. If you want to be a trusted advisor: slow down, listen, empathize, and take the time to deeply understand your client’s problem. “An accurate problem statement is more than halfway to the solution.”

Great teachers

In fact, advisors and consultants can learn a thing or two from educators, both good and bad. As Maister jokes, “a lecture is the fastest means known [to humankind] for getting ideas from the notes of the teacher to the notes of the student without passing through the minds of either.” Great educators, on the other hand, have two desirable skills. Not only do they have a nuanced understanding of their student’s knowledge and inclinations, they know how to take their students on an incremental journey through reasoning, understanding, and discovery. Whether intentional or not, great teachers excel at Socratic dialogue. And these skills are just as valuable in business. 

Good advisors will bring their clients on a logical journey, step-by-step from the problem statement to the final course of action. When this is done well, the clients may even believe that they arrived at the answer by themselves. The tactics here are manifold. Sometimes, it’s about combining options with subtle nudges. Sometimes, it’s about finding the right words. Ordering your clients or boss to do something is unlikely to go far. But suggesting some alternatives for them to pursue given the tradeoffs and dangers you see might do the trick. Either way, “the successful advisor [is someone who] assumes responsibility for mutual understanding”, writes Maister.

The last to know

But consulting is indeed a funny business. As the saying goes, executives are typically the last to find out about their company’s problems. This is due in part to the distances and layers that information must overcome to reach their ears and attention. So what do they do? They hire outsiders, often with limited exposure to the ins-and-outs of the company, to find pragmatic solutions. What’s worse, the economy is so large and complex today that no professional can hope to be at the frontier of knowledge in every domain.

Yet many consultants and advisors feel that supreme confidence is a necessary part of their façade, perhaps to hide their insecurities and to justify their value-add. Any semblance of humility, and the words ‘I don’t know’, have since become strangers to them. But “anyone who tries to appear omnipotent… is more likely to evoke the opposite”, Maister reminds. The trusted advisor must recognize the limits of his or her own competency, and be willing to ask for help. This openness must extend not only to the top brass, but to the junior staffers who are typically more attuned to the problems at hand. In this way, great advisors are not a fountain of answers but a bridge to solutions. This distinction, while subtle, is an important shift in mindset.

Trust and institutions

Ultimately, trust is a personal thing, even in business and economics. As Maister writes, terms like ‘institutional trust’ are oxymorons. Organizations and societies, we must remember, are complex inter-weavings of relations, obligations, and expectations. We believe in science, justice, and the news, for instance, because we trust the scientists, lawyers, and journalists to do their jobs well. The same is equally true of capitalist markets. Trades and exchanges happen because the buyers and sellers trust each other, and that the system will protect them if things sour. In fact, it is hard to imagine a healthy society and functioning economy without any trust. And so it would be wise for us to not squander the good faith that others put on us, for much of human life hinges on the way we treat one another.

Sources and further reading