In the past three years as consultant, I have learned to better understand client perspectives and manage client expectations through the use of “conditions of satisfaction” (CoS).  CoS is way for us at Microsoft Services to more go beyond what we are just legally or contractually obligated to provide in a work order or contract.  It could very well be that a customer receives every line item and/or service they ordered, but in the end are still not satisfied – because of extra-contractual factors such as communications style, unwritten/unspoken expectations and interpersonal differences.  From a long term relationship outlook, this type of engagement can’t be deemed successful, because the client is left with a bad taste in their mouth (or just a mediocre taste for that matter) even though nominally the project is a “success” because all contractual items were fulfilled.  

Focusing on not just the “what” but the “how” is critical to managing customers, partners, subordinates as well as superiors.

The less tangible and obvious parts of the overall context of a engagement, such as the “rhythm” of a particular customer, the inherent interests of different parties, and the emotional tone of the customer, are critical to having a relationship that is successful at the EQ level.

At one customer we were asked to provide a set of deliverables which included artefacts, workshops sessions as well as an implementation of the technical solution.  What seemed to be fairly straightforward engagement, turned out to be much more complex as different interests and emotional states emerged among the different parties in the mix.  Even though I was leading this engagement, that is providing oversight and general guidance on the overall solution, I had no direct authority over my cross functional team members.  Two other outsourcing companies, customer staff, as well as project sponsors were all in the mix and needed to work in synergy to arrive at a successful solution.  Being able to understand their emotional state and perspectives, was critical in the project. 

The project manager for instance, required adherence to process and more frequent updates with little requirement for chit chat.  Others were not so interested in what we actually did, but were more focused on being included in the solution – that is being praised for the work they have done and included in decisions.  The EQ component was also critical with managing upwards, that is with the executive sponsors at the client and ELT on the Microsoft side.  In this case, certain executives just wanted to check off their business scorecards and were concerned about little else.  By understating what they are measured on, I was able to tailor the conversation with the C-suite folks and not get distracted with peripheral noise of the engagement.

Finally, potential conflicts were also avoided by understanding the emotional triggers that would be active by different parties in several crucial situations.  By being sensitive to the team dynamic and adapting the communication style when appropriate, each party started to be vested in the solution.  For the most part, conflicts were dealt with openly and resolved through a dialogue.  So when we hit crucial decisions points, that could have taken the project sideways, I built enough human capital to shepherded the different interests through with few incidents.