Consulting Tips Compilation #2

I tweet a daily consulting tip on the @artofgig twitter account and compile them every couple of weeks here as a newsletter issue.

Here are tips 14-27.

Consulting Tip #14: By default, do not bill for travel time unless you actually work on the gig on the plane/train. Bill a high enough rate for billable time to cover overhead of travel-related schedule inefficiencies. Deal with exceptions like risky field travel case-by-case.

Consulting Tip #15: When you get a new lead, ask yourself whether one of your indie-consultants buddies might be a better fit for it than you, and refer them with a specific endorsement if so. Even if it means forgoing some short-term revenue yourself.

Consulting Tip #16: In the indie consulting economy, cooperation is more important than competition. You’re more likely to need support on skills you lack than to run into direct competition for a gig. So always look for ways to rope in buddies, and be open to being roped in.

Consulting Tip #17: Make all introductions (consultant to consultant, client to consultant, client to useful contacts) for free. Influence peddling for anything other than goodwill is rarely worth either the money or the moral hazard. Charge for what you know, not who you know.

Consulting Tip #18: Maintain a real blacklist and put people who behave poorly by your standards on it and stop working with them (both fellow indie consultants and clients). Indie consulting is a natural lemon market, and you are only as trustworthy as your network.

Consulting Tip #19: Make yourself a nice business card (from a service like Moo) with design and artwork that’s meaningful to you. They’re useless for networking but valuable catalysts for your identity formation as an indie consultant.

Consulting Tip #20: Don’t network. Netplay instead. If it feels like conscious “work”, you’re doing it wrong. At best you’ll gain short-term transactional benefits. Your network is ideally a positive externality of playing social games you actually take pleasure in.

Consulting Tip #21: Pay attention to the peripheries of your network. Your best leads will come from your weakest ties. People who know you best are usually your weakest sources of leads.

Consulting Tip #22: Do not book-keep time you devote to things viewed as goodwill (public commons contributions, free stuff, pro bono help to people who need it). Tracking means it is not coming from a place of abundance, and you will end up nursing a grievance about doing it.

Consulting Tip #23: If it feels like thankless work, then you are unconsciously expecting to be thanked, even if you say you’re not. Either charge for it, stop doing it, or structure it to accumulate value as an asset you control. Virtue signaling martyrdom is a dumb payoff.

Consulting Tip #24: Don’t whine about being asked to work for exposure. Do it if it seems worthwhile, don’t if not. Take note of those who exhibit exploitative patterns of trying to score free labor in return for worthless exposure, but you have no obligation to act on this info.

Consulting Tip #25: Do not act like you are in a union of exploited workers. The sine qua non of indie consulting is the search for greater individual agency than employees at any level from janitor to CEO can ever achieve. If that search doesn’t interest you, do something else.

Consulting Tip #26: Maintain a clear sense of what “independence” means to you in relation to all levels of permanent employees. Independence from collectivist agendas is as important as independence from the whims of capricious executives or the blundering of clueless managers.

Consulting Tip #27: Watch for signs of holier-than-thou smugness in yourself in relation to paycheck types. Your role in the economy exists because theirs do. Your choice to be an indie consultant is just that: YOUR choice. Respect theirs.

Here is Compilation #1 (1-13) if you want to backtrack and catch up.

If you’re active on twitter, and want to join the conversation there, follow @artofgig, introduce yourself via a reply to this pinned tweet, and follow some of your fellow subscribers on this list.

I’m in the middle of moving-week chaos (I’m moving from Seattle to Los Angeles) so no original-content post this week. If any of you live in LA, especially near downtown, do reply to this email to say hello. I have vague plans to pull together the occasional meetup.

Maneuvers vs. Melees

<< The Two Shadows of the Hero | Into the Yakverse index | The 12 Eigenconversation >>

Occasionally, I get a drink with my young Millennial buddy, Arnie Anscombe — you may recall him from the original Art of Gig case study, and we talked about his brother Bernie in Making it Interesting a few weeks ago — and we swap notes. I pick his brain about the latest magical developments in data science and machine learning. He dumps his more speculative, narrative-oriented thoughts ( which he seems to feel guilty about thinking) on me for reactions. Usually in the form of gotcha questions, hoping to trip me up and prove the superiority of his methods, and perhaps atone for his sins of data-free speculation that way. He’s a bit of a Data Supremacist, but very Catholic about it.

When we met up a few weeks ago, he had a smug look on his face, like he’d come prepared with a particularly good gotcha for me.

“So, I see you wrote about me again in your newsletter, and dragged my brother and the rest of my family into it as well…”

“… ah c’mon, you know I love you all you guys…”

“…And not particularly flattering either. Bernie was a bit mad at you about it, but then we both got a couple of good leads for gigs from your subscribers, so I guess all PR is good PR.”

“Always glad to help out the Anscombe boys,” I said. “So what’s on your mind now?”

“So,” said Arnie, as we settled in with our drinks, “I read your other newsletter a few weeks back, where you talked about the 4 styles of consulting. And I have… some thoughts.”

“Ah yes, did you like that one?”

Arnie gave me an indulgent look, “You and your 2x2s. Usual wild speculation without a shred of data behind it, but entertaining as always. I suppose you have me pigeonholed in your Achiever quadrant.”

“Is that where you think you fit?”

Arnie waved the Rogerian Therapy question away.

“See, I think overall consulting style is the wrong unit of analysis. I don’t think I have a fixed mode. The real unit of analysis is the conversation, not the conversational style.”

One of my rules of thumb is to never let a conversation get bogged down in No True Unit of Analysis quagmires, so I caved immediately.

“Sure. The style lens has its uses for talking about doctrinal matters, but the conversational lens is probably better for fine-grained tactical questions about meeting-level sparring methods.”

“Exactly, and as we both know, professionals talk tactics and logistics, amateurs bullshit about strategy.”

I ignored the neg, and went yes, and: “Plus you can get more empirical with it. I bet you maintain a spreadsheet of your consulting conversations?”

Arnie grinned, “Of course. I log all consulting conversations. I track 19 objective metrics, and score all conversations on 7 subjective dimensions, on 5-point Likert scales. And I just took Tiago Forte’s course, so I’m building a second brain in Evernote too, for my free-form notes.”

Just thinking about all that work exhausts me, but I neither agree nor disagree with that sort of quantified self approach to consulting. Hey, everybody has their own style.

“And what patterns do you see from all your tracking?” I asked.

“Actually, it’s what I don’t see that’s interesting. See, one of the things I track is the set of broad functional themes every conversation hits, and interestingly, two business functions almost never come up, except in passing. But both almost always hover ominously in the background. Care to guess which ones?”

I smiled and leaned back. I was pretty sure I had this one. Time to put the young whippersnapper in his place.

“I’ll bet sales and corporate finance.”

Arnie looked surprised. “Got it in one, wow! How did you know? Do you track your conversations too?”

It was my turn to look indulgently at him. I leaned back, steepled my hands, and said, “No, it was a matter of simple deduction. You, like me, are an indie consultant. And like most indie consultants, you mainly get roped in to help with decision-making while there is still room for creative ideas, and time to try imaginative maneuvers. Elementary, my dear Arnie.”

“But what does that have to do with the missing conversations on sales and finance?”

“Let’s hear your theory first. I’m sure you have one. After all, as we both know, data without generalization is just gossip.”

Arnie smiled and shrugged, “Touché. I don’t have a theory. I thought you might have one. You’re the wild speculation guy.”

“Ah, indeed I am, and indeed I do. Very well…”

I took a sip of my Manhattan, and began. “You ever hear that line, the aim of marketing is to make sales superfluous? I forget who said that. Might have been Al Pacino in Raging Bull.

Arnie gave me a pained look. “Yeah I’ve heard the line, and it was Peter Drucker. What about it?”

“See, sales is fundamentally a tactical mop-up function. If marketing is primarily about maneuvering and positioning for an unfair advantage, sales is primarily about being effective in the melee to finish the job. The better you are at the former, the less you need the latter. The idea behind the line is, if you do the marketing right, you might not need sales at all.”

“How does that explain why it doesn’t come up? And what about finance?”

“Finance too. Sales and finance — proper corporate financial engineering, earnings-per-share stuff — are both tactical mop-up melee functions. The aim of every other function is to make sales and finance superfluous. If demand for your product always outstrips supply, and there’s always a comfortable cash-and-control cushion, the VP of Sales and the CFO can spend all their time in Hawaii. Robots could do their jobs. Those jobs exist because strategy never takes you all the way.”

Enlightenment dawned on Arnie.

He said, “Ah, I see, and they don’t come up in free-wheeling open-ended strategy conversations — the kind indie consultants are usually involved in — because they’re the backstop downstream functions that kick in to solve problems with brute force….”

“….where upstream strategic maneuvering fails to make them superfluous by solving them with imaginative elegance. Precisely,” I finished the thought for him.

“So, let me see if I got this straight. If you do end up talking with a client about a problem from a sales or corporate finance perspective, it means the company has already lost the strategic initiative, and is embroiled in a melee situation.”

“Yes, and there’s nothing much left to talk about at a strategic level, only technical cleverness and brute force to get out of the situational melee. You can buy time, one quarter at a time, with sales hacks and financial engineering jiu-jitsu, but only for a while. If the company never gets back to where strategic maneuvering conversations fueled by imagination are meaningful, it is down for the count. Eight, maybe ten quarters before it turns into a zombie, ready for private equity or bankruptcy.”

“Ah, and the reason you and I don’t see much of that action is that there’s nothing much indie consultants can do if things get that far, and not much money to pay us with anyway.”

“Almost, right. There’s still technical things specialized indie consultant types can do, but ironically, if you’ve been dragged down to the melee level, it’s mostly a big-firm Positioning School game. Us People School types require time and real maneuvering room to deliver any kind of value.”

“Shades of Alfred Thayer Mahan there, huh? The Influence of Sea Power Upon History?

Sometimes young Arnie surprises me.

“Precisely,” I said. “Culture eats strategy for lunch, but only if you survive the breakfast melee.”

“And I guess companies can go back to talking strategy when they’ve gotten out of the melee long enough to create some maneuvering room.”

If they get out at all. That’s why finance and sales aren’t really absent from strategy conversations; they merely loom ominously as temporal forcing functions on all other conversations as corporate memento mori.

“The twin 400lb gorillas in the room,” said Arnie, in an unusual display of conceptual licentiousness (though with characteristically accurate book-keeping of gorilla poundage). I might make a narrative-driven bullshit artist of him yet.

“Exactly. Not invisible so much as studiously ignored. Typically, sales and finance will only come up in a couple of ominous warning slides, showing profit or share-price trends, reminding you of the forcing functions and time horizons at work, framing the situation…”

“…and threatening to turn it into a melee.”

“Exactly. Remember that other other Drucker line, about marketing and innovation being the only two necessary functions in business? Well, sales and corporate finance are what happen when they turn out to be insufficient.”

“Ah, so does that mean every real strategic sparring conversation is a marketing and/or innovation conversation in disguise?”

I’d never thought of this. Young Arnie had managed to ask a gotcha question after all.

I thought for a minute and did a mental review of my foggy first-brain memory of 8 years of conversations, hoping to get lucky. I came up with squat.

“Hmm… you know what? You got me there. I’m not sure. Off the top of my head, I count four different types of conversations that seem to account for 80% of my sparring with clients, but they don’t seem to map to the marketing/innovation dichotomy in any obvious way. What about you? Does that pop in your logs or notebooks?”

Arnie pulled out his laptop and tapped busily for a few minutes, then shut it and looked up ruefully. Apparently his second brain was as stumped as my first brain.

“I can try running some detailed analysis on my logs later, but I don’t see an obvious pattern there.”

“Ah, too bad.”

“So you’re saying you’re stumped, huh? Not even a 2×2 for your 4 different types of conversation?”

“Well, I do have a 2×2 in mind, but something seems off about it, and it doesn’t answer your question anyway. Hmm…”

“Let’s hear it.”

“Actually, I think this one is beyond me. Do you have another hour or so? I think we should go talk to my brother, he lives just around the corner in Diogenes Alley.”

“Whoa, you never told me you have a brother!??”

“Yes, I haven’t mentioned him before? Mycroft Rao. He’s much better than me at this sort of thing. Bills out at five times my hourly rate. I’ll bet he already has a taxonomy of Types of Consulting Conversations figured out.”

“Well then, let’s go. I’m free the rest of the evening!”

<< The Two Shadows of the Hero | Into the Yakverse index | The 12 Eigenconversations >>

The Two Shadows of the Hero

<< Making it Interesting | Into the Yakverse index | Maneuvers vs. Melees >>

In the People school of consulting, clients are the heroes, and consultants are the shadows. This is not an assessment of virtues and psyches, but a model of default roles within the narrative structure of any interesting consulting gig. And while heroes may have a thousand faces, they only have two shadows.

As a consultant, you will be cast in one of the two available shadow roles, depending on whether you add value based on what you know, or based on who you know. While both are ways of injecting new knowledge into a situation, one is a direct way, while the other is an indirect way, and you’ll find out very quickly, via your first few gigs, which way you mostly lean.

And if you don’t like being a shadow? Well, that’s when you end up with a Positioning school shtick instead. We’ll talk about that another day. Today we talk about shadows.

Let me tell you a little story from my case files to illustrate the know somebody, or know something dichotomy of shadows within the People school, and how the two shadow types operate.

One of the things that might happen to you, once you gain some experience in indie consulting and the gig economy, is that you might be called upon by the FBI’s G-Crimes division (which was formed in the late 90s) to assist in an investigation where your expertise is relevant. It is always good to help them out if you can, even when they cannot pay and you have to write it off as pro bono work.

I had just helped wrap up one such case, a singular affair that the G-Crimes division had internally labeled the Bermuda Triangle case. I can’t share real names and details, but it involved two executives A and B, at rival big companies, colluding via an indie consultant C, based in the Caribbean, to put a small startup D (which had been threatening to disrupt both the big companies) out of business.

It had ended grimly, with A committing suicide by PowerPoint in a train wreck of a board meeting, and B being canceled on social media. They deserved it perhaps, but it was still grim. Startup D, fortunately, survived the affair with just a few bruises, and is now well on its way to becoming the new unicorn on its block. But it could easily have died if the G-Crimes division hadn’t intervened, with a little help from me.

Agents Jane Jopp and Guy Lestrode of the G-Crimes division were buying me a drink to celebrate our closing the case, and debrief a bit. With them was a third agent I hadn’t met before. An old, almost elderly man, with an almost-retired look about him. But something about his alert eyes suggested he was very much a live player, still in the game.

Jopp said, “This is Agent Q, he’s with a different three-letter agency. He asked to join us, and he might want to run something by you later.”

Agent Q waved his arm graciously, “That can wait. I’m curious to hear about the Bermuda Triangle case first hand. The whole IC is talking about it.”

I bowed, not to be out-gracioused, “Any enigmatic, spooky friend of Jopp’s is an enigmatic, spooky friend of mine.”

As we were sitting down in our booth, I spotted my long-time indie-consulting evil twin, Guanxi Gao, at the far end of the bar, speaking inaudibly into his phone. I waved at him. He nodded and held up a finger to indicate he’d be right over.

“Ah, looks like coincidentally, I have an enigmatic, spooky friend of my own to introduce,” I said.

Gao finished his call and sauntered over. He nodded at the three agents and motioned cheers with his drink.

“Jopp, Lestrode, Agent Q, meet my evil twin Guanxi Gao. He and I go way back; we’ve been collaborating and stealing gigs from each other for years. I believe I mentioned him to you last week Lestrode?”

Lestrode nodded. “Yes, you said he gave you the lead that helped us crack the case I think? Nice to meet you Mr. Gao.”

Gao nodded, “That Bermuda Triangle case? How did that work out?”

“Messily, but it could have been a lot messier. Thanks for your help on that one Gao, I owe you one, as do Agents Jopp and Lestrode here.”

Gao smiled, and started to say something, when his phone rang.

He glanced at it, and said, “Sorry, I have to take this. Nice meeting you, Agents.”

He nodded and sauntered off again towards the far end of the bar.

Jopp looked at the retreating figure. “He’s your friend? Doesn’t seem like your type. Looks like one of those bagman operator types. Not an idea guy.”

I’ll say this for Agent Jane Jopp. She may be lacking in imagination, but she has an uncanny ability to read people within seconds. Twenty years in the G-Crimes division, and she still can’t quite get inside the heads of us gig economy types — which is why she calls me in when she needs to get inside consultant heads — but she’s acquired a certain savant-like ability to thin-slice and classify us with scary speed and accuracy. Hers is a mind that indexes people like a search engine.

I said, “Bagman operator is exactly right. They call him 6% Gao in indie consulting circles. He’s as religious about only working for a percentage as I am about only working by the hour. Usually 6%. He says 6 is lucky.”

Lestrode perked up, “In China, 6 is 六, which sounds like 流, which means flow. It’s considered lucky.”

Young Lestrode is full of surprises. A Very Online younger Millennial nerd in his late twenties, exactly the right foil for Jopp, who is very much old-school in her ways. They make a good team. Agents like Young Lestrode are the future of gig economy law enforcement I think.

“Well, Gao’s certainly all about making things flow smoothly wherever he goes. He’s always miraculously in the right place at the right time, positioned to nudge things along in just the right way. Interesting coincidences and serendipitous meetings seem to just happen around him. For a 6% cut.”

“And is it a coincidence that he’s here at the same time we are?” asked Jopp.

I grinned and held up my drink, “Let’s just say I owe him 6% of a drink.”

Lestrode said, “To get back to the Bermuda Triangle case, I’ve been meaning to ask you. How did you guess A and B would have a hidden connection via our friendly Caribbean rogue consultant C?”

I set my drink on the table, steepled my fingers, leaned back, and closed my eyes, “You know my methods Lestrode, apply them.”

Lestrode is an energetic learner, always game for such prompts. He leaned forward in his armchair, elbows on knees, and stared down at the carpet, frowning.

“Well, you make up a 2×2, and when you’ve eliminated 3 of the quadrants, the 4th, however improbable, is the right one.”

Jopp winked at me, and smiled indulgently at Lestrode.

I said, “That is indeed my primary method. You’ve been watching and learning, I see Lestrode. Do go on.”

“Well…in this case, from the outset, the two obvious questions were: was the course of events across the three companies actually intended by anybody, or an emergent effect, and, were people behaving maliciously or stupidly?

“Malice vs. Stupidity; Intended effects vs. Emergent effects, a very promising 2×2,” I said, encouragingly, taking a sip of my absinthe.

“And if we’d gone by priors, we would have concluded it was just an unfortunate — for the startup D that is — spot of emergent stupidity. No premeditation, no crime. Two dumb big companies acting in ways that accidentally almost killed a smart, promising startup that was threatening to disrupt both of them at once.”

Agent Q spoke for the first time, “Ah, a Double Morton effect. Interesting.”

I gave Agent Q a long, curious, appraising look, but could read nothing in his face. What sort of agent knew about esoterica like the Double Morton effect? He looked at me and gave me an enigmatic smile. Why was he at this meeting, I wondered. Well, I’d find out soon enough. I set the thought aside.

Lestrode said, “Is that some sort of technical term for emergent stupidity? But yeah, that’s what we thought it was at first. G-Crimes got called in because all three companies hire a lot of the same gig workers below the API, and we thought some low-level organized grift might be going on in the ecosystem, but then Agent Jopp noticed that two executives at the two big companies had been unusually well-positioned to personally benefit from what happened. In eerily similar ways too. That’s when we called in Rao, and started looking for above-the-API shenanigans at the C-suite level.”

I smiled, “I’m curious to see where you take this 2×2, go on Lestrode.”

“Here, lemme sketch it out,” said Lestrode. He grabbed a cocktail napkin and scribbled for a minute.

“Okay, so two unrelated executives in different companies making bank the same way suggested it wasn’t… a Double Morton, at least not primarily. On the other hand, it didn’t seem like a lucky accident because there wasn’t really much luck involved. And it couldn’t have been coincidental opportunism either, because both A and B made identical non-obvious trades to exploit the situation. So that left intended malice. But we had to prove active collusion, and to do that we had to find the connection between them.”

I beamed at Lestrode and nodded at Jopp, “Excellent hindsight analysis Lestrode! Jopp, you have a very promising understudy here. I predict an illustrious career in G-Crimes for Young Lestrode here.”

“So is that how you figured it out?” asked Lestrode, looking at me expectantly.

Jopp and Agent Q turned to look at me as well.

“Not even close, but that would have been a good way to proceed if there had been no other options. It might even have gotten us somewhere non-random. In fact, I’m going to take that napkin with the 2×2 if you don’t mind.”

I pocketed the napkin. Just because an answer is the wrong one for a given situation doesn’t mean it might not be the right one for a future situation. And as a consultant, you never pass up an idea in 2×2 form, no matter who it is from, or where you find it.

“We can call it the Lestrode 2×2,” I added graciously. It never hurts to liberally give credit where due, while you’re busy pocketing useful ideas for later.

Lestrode said, “So how did you figure out then? What 2×2 did you use?”

“What makes you think I used a 2×2 at all?”

“Well…” Lestrode trailed off uncertainly.

“It’s my shtick? We’ll have to have a little chat about shticks at some point Lestrode, just the two of us. But no, in this particular case, it wasn’t a 2×2 that did the trick.”

“So what did you do?”

“I made a call to my friend Guanxi Gao over there, and asked if he knew the two executives and any connection between them. He pointed me to our friendly Caribbean consultant, C. Who, as we now know, played a bit of creative chess postman, and took a cut from both ends.”

Lestrode looked deeply disappointed, “That’s it? That’s all? You just got the actual answer from somebody? You didn’t apply your Gervais Principle theories and do some deep abductive reasoning?”

I smiled and said, “In consulting, Lestrode, there are two ways to solve a problem; you either know somebody, or you know something, and when you’re mainly a know-something guy like me, you should always cultivate know-somebody people, because knowing somebody is nearly always a faster route to the right answer. When you’ve exhausted your rolodex of everybody who might actually know something, whatever remains, however messy, must be actually thought about. With or without 2x2s.”

“And Gao is a know-somebody consultant?”

“Precisely. He has a vast global network of contacts. He knows everybody, and never makes up an idea if he can make a phone call instead. I’ve never seen him draw a 2×2, but he can keep making phone calls long after I’m out of 2x2s.”

Lestrode didn’t seem impressed. “Huh. Not much of a networker, he didn’t say much to us. I’d have thought any consultant would be eager for a line in to G-Crimes.”

“Oh trust me, he networked exactly as much as he intended to. And he isn’t here by accident. I mentioned I’d be debriefing here with you guys, and I was 90% sure he’d swing by to check you out.”

“How come he didn’t try to chat us up more, or give us his card? Isn’t that what you guys do, hand out cards to everybody you meet?”

Jopp interrupted, “You’re thinking like a graduate student on LinkedIn, Agent Lestrode. What Mr. Rao is saying is that our new acquaintance Mr. Gao is no ordinary networker. He’s an operator. A pick-up artist among indie consultants. A market maker in the interstices of the gig economy.”

I nodded, “Precisely.”

“I’ve run into many like him over the years,” Jopp continued. “Build trust everywhere, know who has what available to sell, and when, who is in the market for what. Make the right connections at the right times.”

She turned to me, “So he’s good, huh?”

“Among the best,” I said. “And he’s only going to get better playing both sides of the US-China trade cold war too. Someone to watch.”

All three agents turned to look thoughtfully at Gao, still on his phone at the other end of the bar, his head down, mostly listening, occasionally saying something inaudibly.

“Now that you’re on his radar,” I said, “you’ll run into him at least twice more in different situations relatively quickly; and he’ll say more and listen more each time. By the third meeting, it will seem like you’ve always known and trusted him.”

“And do you trust him?” asked Jopp.

“Like me, he chooses interestingness over money. So yeah, I trust him. Up to a point. As much as one can trust an evil twin. I wasn’t kidding about that.”

“What happens after the third meeting?” asked Lestrode.

“Well one day, maybe at the fourth meeting, or maybe at the tenth, when you meet him, you’ll realize you want something from him. And he will make it happen, for 6%. But right now, he’s in no hurry to deepen the connection. He’s just checking you out…” I turned to look at Agent Q, “…like your associate Agent Q has been checking me out for the last half hour.”

Agent Q smiled, “Well, yes, I’ve certainly been doing that. Agent Jopp told me you were generally a good person to get to know in the gig economy, and I can see why she thinks that now. But as it happens, if we’re done discussing the Bermuda Triangle case, I do have something I want to run by you right now, and it can’t wait till our fourth serendipitous meeting.”

He pulled up a photograph on a tablet, and slide it across the table towards me.

“Do you recognize this object?”

It was a photograph of a Yak coin.

I smiled.

“I suppose there’s a rare third way to solve a problem in consulting, besides knowing somebody and knowing something.”

Agent Q raised his eyebrows questioningly.

I pulled out my wallet, carefully extracted my own Yak coin, and put it down on the table next to Agent Q’s tablet.

“You can have something to show,” I said.

Agent Q looked at me quietly.

“Told you he’d know something,” said Jane Jopp smugly. Lately, she’s been taking a sort of patronizing, proprietary attitude towards me, showing me off like a performing pet. It’s an occupational hazard of being a know-something consultant. I don’t mind though.

Lestrode frowned and leaned forward, “What’s that? Some sort of ancient rare coin?”

A voice spoke up from the shadows behind our little group. It was Gao, he’d finished his call and rejoined us unnoticed. How long had been listening, I wondered. That’s the thing with Gao. He’s a sort of deus ex machina haunting the gig economy in a lurking, invisible way. You don’t see or hear him until he decides he wants to be seen and heard.

“Yak coins. Not particularly rare. I’ve got a few myself. Didn’t know you had one Rao.” Gao stepped forward, bending down to look at my coin.

He straightened up, and pointed at the tablet, “The one in the photograph is a fake though.”

Agent Q looked at both of us speculatively.

“Well, well, well. Looks like I need to have a chat with both you gentlemen. Perhaps I could buy you both a drink if our friends from G-Crimes are done here?”

Jopp and Lestrode rose together, and put on their jackets.

Jopp said, “Yep, we’re done. Thanks again for your help with the Bermuda Case, Mr. Rao, nice to meet you Mr. Gao. We’ll leave you to chat with Agent Q here. See you around.”

“Thanks for the drink.”

They nodded and left. Gao hesitated for a moment, checked his phone, then seemed to come to a decision. He shrugged, and sat down,

“I guess I have time for another drink,” he said.

Agent Q motioned to the waiter for another round of drinks.

I picked up and pocketed my Yak coin, and slid the tablet back towards Agent Q.

“Well Agent Q,” I said, “In my experience Gao can be trusted in such matters, so what are you doing with a photograph of a fake Yak coin, and how can we help you?”

<< Making it Interesting | Into the Yakverse index | Maneuvers vs. Melees >>

Consulting Tips Compilation: 1

I’ve been tweeting a daily consulting tip on my new @artofgig twitter account for the last few weeks. So far it’s been a mix of silly and serious, esoteric and practical, n00b tips, and protips. I’ll be compiling these as public posts here every couple of weeks.

If you’re active on twitter, and want to join the conversation there, follow @artofgig, introduce yourself via a reply to this pinned tweet, and follow some of your fellow subscribers on this list. A modest stream of idle consulting chatter is getting underway already.

Here’s the first compilation, tips 1-13.

Consulting Tip #1: Your consulting True Name must be kept a secret except from other consultants with whom you have shared a gig.

Consulting Tip #2: Every gig is a parallel universe with its own timeline. Discover the bandwidth of your personal multiverse as early as you can.

Consulting Tip #3: Define scopes, not rules. Instead of asking, “should I do this?” ask, “under what circumstances would it be a no-brainer to do or not do this?” In consulting, circumstances vary a lot more than in employment.

Consulting Tip #4: Pack a protein bar and a light sweater when visiting client sites. You never know how cold they’ll have the AC set, or whether or not there will be snacks/food to suit your nibbling needs.

Consulting Tip #5: Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to increase the client’s rate of making trigger decisions. Except when it isn’t.

Consulting Tip #6: Trust, but verify, things your client says. Treat them as you would a sympathetic unreliable narrator in a novel. Just because you’re on their side doesn’t mean they have their story straight.

Consulting Tip #7: Do not automatically nod along when a client criticizes people you don’t know. Instead, challenge with more conservative alternate reads of the hearsay evidence. “Based on how you say he acted on the call, sounds like he might just be insecure after the reorg.”

Consulting Tip #8: Never let a missionary purpose in your head get in the way of hearing what a client is saying

Consulting Tip #9: Tour offices at every possible opportunity. Observe layout, patterns of proximity, naming/numbering conventions for physical infrastructure like conference rooms, furniture, break rooms, informational environment like posters and live displays etc.

Consulting tip #10: Tour factories and other specialized work facilities, like design studios or testing environments, at every opportunity possible. Ask operating staff as many questions as possible. Get enough engineering literacy to understand what you’re looking at.

Consulting Tip #11: Pay attention to calendar management practices in client organizations, especially around senior executive schedules, and chat with admins whenever possible to learn the typical patterns of calendar craziness and how they cope.

Consulting Tip #12: Make all travel and site-visits count, but let your primary client gate-keep what’s appropriate for you. Ask if they want you to meet with people you might not otherwise meet, and line up 1:1s.

Consulting Tip #13: Never be a “mysterious outsider” in an internal meeting. When sitting in/calling in on client meetings that aren’t about your gig, always make sure someone introduces you, explains your presence, and says enough to put others at ease. And at least say hello.

Knowing Which Nut to Tighten

There’s a joke I like that illustrates the foundational role of knowledge in consulting work.

Guy takes his car to the mechanic because it is making a mysterious noise. Mechanic opens up the hood, and tightens one nut. Mysterious noise gone!

“That’ll be $50,” says the mechanic.

“Hey!” the customer protests, “All you did was tighten one nut! How is that $50?”

“Let me print out an itemized bill for you,” says the mechanic.

The itemized bill:

Knowing which nut to tighten to resolve a mysterious noise is a simple example of a knowledge asymmetry. In this case, the knowledge was everything. The mechanic didn’t bring any execution skill to the party. He could have “consulted” on which nut to tighten for $49.90 and the customer could have done the “execution” themselves, saving $0.10.

This is often the case in consulting. The execution skill is often either trivial or available in-house in the client organization. The entire value lies in knowing which nut to tighten.

Knowledge Asymmetries

The joke illustrates two features of knowledge asymmetries.

On the one hand, it highlights the value of knowledge asymmetries. Knowing which nut to tighten is, in a sense priceless. Somebody who does not know which nut to tighten will likely waste hours trying to figure out the problem, and possibly do dumb things that make it irreversibly worse. In the worst case, the cost of the unfixed loose-nut problem might be the whole car being lost in an accident, possibly with loss of life.

But it would be a general waste of cognitive resources if everybody knew enough about cars to solve the loose-nut problem, which might occur in one out of a hundred cars over its lifetime. It makes sense for a few specialists — preferably people who have self-selected into car repair because they like the work — to know about the mysterious-noise/loose-nut connection, and do the nut-tightening for everybody.

On the other hand, the joke also illustrates the obvious potential for abuse, hinted at in the opaque “knowing which nut to tighten” claim. The mechanic could easily have screwed around doing nothing for hours or even days, made needless repairs with expensive parts, and finally done the nut-tightening as well. The customer wouldn’t have been any the wiser.

Worse, even if the mechanic doesn’t do that, how does the customer know that $49.90 is in an appropriate price for the “knowing”? Would other mechanics charge the same? Was the knowing the result of something you might learn in a weekend auto-repair course or the result of 30 years of experience and pattern recognition training? Is it a reasonable mark-up on amortized learning costs? Or rent-seeking?

These problems, of course, are aspects of the famous principal-agent problem.

While it is inherent to all knowledge work, the principal-agent problem is particularly acute in any relationship where the typical principal has a need that is rare enough that there is no incentive for them to get systematically knowledgeable about the domain, while fulfilling the need is so common an activity for the agent that they have incentives to learn to do it very cheaply, systematically, and efficiently.

A personal example: my “sparring conversation” model maps to a type of conversation I tend to have once every week or two with a different client. So I get 25-50 practice sessions a year. But some of my lower-frequency clients (often C-level execs at mid-size companies who have to do all the high-level thinking for their companies on their own) tell me that I’m the only one they have such conversations with, so their frequency is perhaps 1-2 times a year.

Knowledge Asymmetries for Employees

The principal-agent problem does affect regular employer-employee relationships, but is not as severe for several reasons:

  1. A manager — the internal “customer” for the work of an employee — is likely to have done the same kind of work before being tapped to supervise it

  2. The relationship is longer-term and higher frequency. It is harder to hide the nature of a problem when an instance is being detected and solved every week.

  3. There are likely peers with the same kind of knowledge, and strong incentives to rat out a fellow employee who is exploiting principal-agent knowledge asymmetries

  4. Much of the asymmetric knowledge is actually in proprietary systems rather than in the heads of particular employees

As a result of these factors, in work done by employees, there is a visible, reasonable-seeming correlation between effort and problems. And in general, the more important the problem is judged to be, the greater the cost of the effort.

This is not an accident. It is practically the definition of an organization: a collection of systematically monitored, high-frequency activities defined by reasonable-seeming correlations between effort and output.

In fact, you could argue that the core competency of organizations is knowing — at an codified process level — roughly how much effort it should take to accomplish any of a vast array of core activities they can do better than outsiders, and setting compensation policies accordingly.

If you’re one of those people who likes to analyze firms in terms of Coasean transaction costs, this effect can be seen as lower monitoring costs in a relationship. An employee is simply cheaper for an organization to monitor for dishonesty or ineffectiveness than an infrequently used consultant.

A much-worse-than-average employee (in terms of either dishonesty or incompetence) will soon be spotted. A genius employee who routinely finds 1-minute solutions to problems that take peers days will either be promoted to work on the hardest problems, or have their thinking skills analyzed and turned into teachable disciplines for non-genius employees. They are likely to turn into teachers themselves, trading the asymmetric knowledge for esteem.

The net effect of these two feedback loops is that behaviors that do not exhibit a reasonable-seeming correlation between effort and output either get weeded out or tweaked until they do.

What’s more, this dynamic also makes it harder for the firm itself to be dishonest the larger it gets, because more people with agent-side participation in knowledge asymmetries have to collude (so a “tell” of a possibly shady firm is a great deal of internal secrecy between groups that minimizes the number of people with complicity in any given deception).

Any employee with a very unique, opaque, and illegible skill is a huge risk for an organization. To prevent such an employee from falling prey to principal-agent temptations or being poached by a competitor, they are likely to end up highly compensated, so that it is simply not worth their time or energy to exploit the asymmetries of their knowledge.

Often a uniquely skilled but underutilized employees, despite being compensated enough to make dishonesty uninteresting, will end up leaving and becoming a consultant simply to find more things to do.

Reasonable Efforts for Reasonable Output

I’ve used the relative phrase reasonable-seeming rather than the absolute reasonable to describe the perception of effort in tasks done by employees.

Therein lies a subtlety. The work of an organization is a theater of apparent reasonableness that may or may not be actually reasonable depending on whether or not the foundational assumptions for the internal reality of an organization are actually true.

Quite often, these assumptions are at least slightly out-of-date. Often, they are wildly, insanely obsolete, in ways that are obvious to outsiders. Internally though, the organization may be unconsciously pumping a massive amount of energy into denying what’s obvious to outsiders. It may take serious social courage to challenge the “consensus of reasonableness” in the internal economy of valuing efforts and outcomes.

On the other hand, outsiders can be very, very wrong in interpreting the externally visible behaviors of an organization, in which case, reasonable-seeming is actually reasonable in an absolute sense, and it is the world outside that is insane in its beliefs about what “reasonable” looks like.

In some cases, there is no way to easily tell whether the organization is deluded, or the external world is deluded. The best you can do is think hard about it (from either side of the organization’s boundary) and wait for the judgment of history.

In either case though, one of the tells of an organization working very hard to maintain an internal reality that is dissonant with respect to external perspectives is resistance to consultants.

When the internal reality is deluded, consultants might inject an entirely unwelcome reality check.

When external reality is deluded, consultants might contaminate a fragile island of deeper truth by injecting bad external thinking.

In either case, we consultants represent informational risks and threats to the organizations we try to help, and it’s generally up to us to manage the risk.

Neutralizing Your Risks

This entire system breaks down in areas where the organization does not know enough to efficiently deploy as employee knowledge but has a strong (possibly rational) resistance to plugging knowledge gaps using consultants.

Consulting begins where monitoring costs get too high, relative to need frequency, for employees to be the right answer.

That doesn’t mean the monitoring cost problem goes away. It tends to get solved in varied ways:

  1. Crisis-only consulting policies: Organizations will simply resist retaining consulting services unless it is a crisis and the cost of not bringing in outside expertise to help become unacceptable. These companies simply leave the risks of non-crisis knowledge gaps that cannot be addressed by employees unmanaged.

  2. Ecosystem competency: Organizations will consciously develop competency in managing an ecosystem of consultants via specialized monitoring mechanisms — think certification programs.

  3. Externalize the risk explicitly: Many organizations will require consultants and contractors to carry specialized insurance policies, as some of you will know. I’ve never yet taken such a gig.

  4. Relying on exceptions: Many organizations will have default no-consultant policies, but allow senior executives to make exceptions based on special needs and the existence of trusted relationships. This of course, is an entry point for a lot of cronyism.

In my experience, the most common approach is the first one, leaving non-crisis knowledge gap risks unmanaged. Approach 2 works where there is a skills base that the organization can control and shape in some way (such as by owning the core design of a product). Approach 3 passes the buck to the consultant.

Last week, I took a lot some cheap shots at the economics-inspired positioning school of consulting. This week, I tried to give you a glimpse of how an economics lens can sometimes be useful in understanding how to approach gig work. The conclusion to draw from this, however, is that your best approach to creating trust and getting good gigs is Approach 4, ie a people-school approach to a problem whose structure is illuminated by a positioning school analysis.

Build relationships that allow you to be an exception to anti-consultant rules/barriers. So long as you keep yourself honest by resisting the lure of cronyism and only taking gigs where it is clear that you’re bringing genuine external knowledge or relationships to the party, it is the best way to address the legitimate principal-agent concerns of clients, without bearing too heavy a burden of externalized risk-management costs yourself.