Client Speak: Client Feedback ' Best Practices

For background, the following repeats the listing of the nine components of the How best practices:

A. Background Orientations

B. Client Selection

C. Interviewee Selection

D. The Interviews

E. Communicating Feedback

F. Follow-Up

G. Summary Reports

H. A Continuous Process

I. Cost

As indicated above, the first part of the article discussed components A through D; Part Two herein will discuss E through I.

E. Communicating Feedback

• Use of status reports and interim debriefings ' It is important to keep the Lead Partners and others in firm management informed of the status of the interviews at the various clients where interviews are being conducted or scheduled to be conducted. We do this by means of a periodic status report prepared every two weeks or every month depending on the volume. Furthermore, we debrief each Lead Partner ' and others s/he or the firm designates ' after each interview or group of interviews in case there are any issues requiring immediate attention. For example, one interviewee informed us that the firm was currently involved in a proposal it was about to lose. Immediately after that interview, the Lead Partner was contacted and he was able to successfully turn the situation around.
• Reports that interpret rather than just regurgitate ' In contrast to interim debriefings (discussed above), which are recounted on an interviewee-by-interviewee basis, Client Feedback Reports should be thematic and highlight major findings and recommendations. While some of the recommendations will be based on specific interviewee comments, others will be derived from an experienced interviewer's observations and interpretations of the interviewees' actions and remarks as well as the consistency or inconsistency of their comments. (See also G., below.)
• Qualitative, but also quantitative ' A Client Feedback Report is primarily a qualitative assessment of a firm's performance and its relationship with the client. However, to provide some assistance to those focused on KPIs and metrics, we have always included two or three quantitative questions dealing with performance ratings and the interviewees' willingness to recommend the firm to others. The responses to these are tabulated and included in the Client Feedback Report.
• Attribution of comments ' There is some disagreement on this issue, but you will often find that failure to disclose the source of a critical comment will make it difficult for firm personnel to adequately resolve the relevant issue or issues, especially where there are several interviewees and differing viewpoints are provided. Over the past 15 years, I can only recall one instance where an interviewee requested non-attribution and, in that case, it was not vital to know the source of the comment. (See also the related item immediately below.)
• Keep feedback appropriately confidential ' Interviewees recognize the importance of having their comments shared with certain representatives of the firm, but this should be limited. Accordingly, directly under the name of the client on the first page of each of our Client Feedback Reports, we include the following stipulation: “As this report contains confidential client comments, it should not be widely circulated beyond key members of the client service team and firm management.” Interestingly enough, many interviewees have expressed greater concern about having their comments made known to their co-workers. In fact, one interviewee was so adamant, he threatened to fire the firm if his comments were revealed to others at his own company. Therefore, we also advise against sharing our Client Feedback Report itself with client personnel. However, summaries of the Report's relevant findings and recommended
  actions should be discussed with appropriate client personnel, including some ' if not all ' of the interviewees.

F. Follow-Up

• Client Service Team meeting to initiate follow-up ' A Client Service Plan should be developed, using the Client Feedback Report as a basis, to establish necessary action steps, responsibilities and a timetable.
• Commitment to and monitoring of follow-up activity ' A representative of firm management should be assigned to work with the Lead Partner to provide guidance and ensure that the necessary actions steps are initiated, completed on a timely basis and that progress is properly, and periodically, communicated to designated client personnel.
• Feedback to be used constructively, not punitively ' We have found that interviewees attempt to be constructive and helpful with their comments, even those that are critical. Partners quickly come to realize that, for the most part, clients' executives wish to optimize the relationship as much as the partners do. Therefore, their critical comments are often accompanied by suggestions for improvement. Or, when these are lacking or not self-evident, experienced interviewers can normally provide appropriate guidance for the partners and other members of the client service team. In most cases, it is really a win-win.
  On the other hand, we have come across examples of how not to structure a CFP. At one of the firms we have worked with, it soon became apparent that a well-understood purpose of the process was to penalize partners whose clients provided adverse feedback. Accordingly, it was not surprising to find that the process was being gamed. For example, in response to some adverse comments provided by one of the interviewees, the partner involved became incredulous and blurted out, “Do you think that I would be dumb enough to have you interview her if I knew she had something negative to say? Comments like those could get me fired!”

G. Summary Reports

• Periodic reports should be provided ' Unlike the individual Client Feedback Reports discussed in E., above, periodic Summary Reports focus on overarching themes, such as: evolving perceptions of the firm and the competition; recurring topics of client concern; impressions of planned or executed strategic and marketing initiatives; and new areas of opportunity. In other words, the issues covered will normally be those that are primarily of relevance to the leadership of the firm and/or a specific practice group as opposed to the individual client service teams, as well as those issues that may not be so readily apparent from reviewing the contents of individual Client Feedback Reports. It would be unusual for Periodic Summary Reports to include names of the interviewees or specific firm personnel.

H. Continuous Process

• The CFP should become part of the fabric of the firm ' Partners and clients react very positively to a well-executed in-person client feedback process even though it is time consuming and very intensive. And, because so much substantive feedback is generated, we don't feel it necessary for the process to be repeated more often than once every two to four years at each client, assuming no required significant follow-up activity nor dramatic situational or relationship changes in the interim.
• Since even the largest law firms will most likely not have more than 30 to 50 Tier 1 clients, we usually suggest consideration of something like a three-year interview cycle for each client in this select group. For example, for a firm with 36 Tier 1 clients, the cycle could involve initiating interviews at one client each month during a three-year cycle. And, if additional resources become available, possibly more Tier 1 clients could be included in the first and second years, and/or consideration could then also be given to including some Tier 2 clients with the possibility that, later on, Tier 3 clients could be added. But clients in these latter two categories will not require the same degree of effort nor a similar interview approach, and many could be surveyed.

I. Cost

• Cost to be borne by the firm ' It should go without saying that none of the cost of the CFP should be passed on to clients. The tangible and intangible benefits of a well-planned and well-executed CFP should well exceed
  the cost involved. Furthermore, the feedback generated will very likely preclude the necessity of investing in certain other marketing research to determine issues related to such areas as market position and brand (see also G., above).

The By Whom Best Practices

Part Three of this article will focus on the By Whom best practices and will appear in the November 2011 issue. Included in that discussion will be the pros and cons of using in-house personnel versus a third party to design the CFP and/or conduct the interviews.

Donald E. Aronson is CEO of D. E. Aronson Associates LLC and a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors. Don's firm conducts market research by interviewing executives of professional services firms' Key clients with a primary focus on Client Feedback. Located in New York City, he can be reached at 212-874-4181 or [email protected]. Copyright ' 2011 by D. E. Aronson Associates LLC

In the July 2011 issue, Part One of this article indicated that the Best Practices would be segregated as between the How and the By Whom. Part One also listed the nine components of the How best practices. It then went on to describe the first four; the remaining five will be described herein. (The By Whom best practices will be discussed in Part Three of this article, which will appear in the November 2011 issue.)

While a Client Feedback Program (“CFP”) may incorporate interviews (in-person and/or phone) as well as surveys (written or online questionnaires), this three-part article is oriented primarily toward interviews, which are what you'll want to use with your Tier 1 ' i.e., most valuable ' clients.

The How Best Practices

For background, the following repeats the listing of the nine components of the How best practices:

A. Background Orientations

B. Client Selection

C. Interviewee Selection

D. The Interviews

E. Communicating Feedback

F. Follow-Up

G. Summary Reports

H. A Continuous Process

I. Cost

As indicated above, the first part of the article discussed components A through D; Part Two herein will discuss E through I.

E. Communicating Feedback

• Use of status reports and interim debriefings ' It is important to keep the Lead Partners and others in firm management informed of the status of the interviews at the various clients where interviews are being conducted or scheduled to be conducted. We do this by means of a periodic status report prepared every two weeks or every month depending on the volume. Furthermore, we debrief each Lead Partner ' and others s/he or the firm designates ' after each interview or group of interviews in case there are any issues requiring immediate attention. For example, one interviewee informed us that the firm was currently involved in a proposal it was about to lose. Immediately after that interview, the Lead Partner was contacted and he was able to successfully turn the situation around.
• Reports that interpret rather than just regurgitate ' In contrast to interim debriefings (discussed above), which are recounted on an interviewee-by-interviewee basis, Client Feedback Reports should be thematic and highlight major findings and recommendations. While some of the recommendations will be based on specific interviewee comments, others will be derived from an experienced interviewer's observations and interpretations of the interviewees' actions and remarks as well as the consistency or inconsistency of their comments. (See also G., below.)
• Qualitative, but also quantitative ' A Client Feedback Report is primarily a qualitative assessment of a firm's performance and its relationship with the client. However, to provide some assistance to those focused on KPIs and metrics, we have always included two or three quantitative questions dealing with performance ratings and the interviewees' willingness to recommend the firm to others. The responses to these are tabulated and included in the Client Feedback Report.
• Attribution of comments ' There is some disagreement on this issue, but you will often find that failure to disclose the source of a critical comment will make it difficult for firm personnel to adequately resolve the relevant issue or issues, especially where there are several interviewees and differing viewpoints are provided. Over the past 15 years, I can only recall one instance where an interviewee requested non-attribution and, in that case, it was not vital to know the source of the comment. (See also the related item immediately below.)
• Keep feedback appropriately confidential ' Interviewees recognize the importance of having their comments shared with certain representatives of the firm, but this should be limited. Accordingly, directly under the name of the client on the first page of each of our Client Feedback Reports, we include the following stipulation: “As this report contains confidential client comments, it should not be widely circulated beyond key members of the client service team and firm management.” Interestingly enough, many interviewees have expressed greater concern about having their comments made known to their co-workers. In fact, one interviewee was so adamant, he threatened to fire the firm if his comments were revealed to others at his own company. Therefore, we also advise against sharing our Client Feedback Report itself with client personnel. However, summaries of the Report's relevant findings and recommended
  actions should be discussed with appropriate client personnel, including some ' if not all ' of the interviewees.

F. Follow-Up

• Client Service Team meeting to initiate follow-up ' A Client Service Plan should be developed, using the Client Feedback Report as a basis, to establish necessary action steps, responsibilities and a timetable.
• Commitment to and monitoring of follow-up activity ' A representative of firm management should be assigned to work with the Lead Partner to provide guidance and ensure that the necessary actions steps are initiated, completed on a timely basis and that progress is properly, and periodically, communicated to designated client personnel.
• Feedback to be used constructively, not punitively ' We have found that interviewees attempt to be constructive and helpful with their comments, even those that are critical. Partners quickly come to realize that, for the most part, clients' executives wish to optimize the relationship as much as the partners do. Therefore, their critical comments are often accompanied by suggestions for improvement. Or, when these are lacking or not self-evident, experienced interviewers can normally provide appropriate guidance for the partners and other members of the client service team. In most cases, it is really a win-win.
  On the other hand, we have come across examples of how not to structure a CFP. At one of the firms we have worked with, it soon became apparent that a well-understood purpose of the process was to penalize partners whose clients provided adverse feedback. Accordingly, it was not surprising to find that the process was being gamed. For example, in response to some adverse comments provided by one of the interviewees, the partner involved became incredulous and blurted out, “Do you think that I would be dumb enough to have you interview her if I knew she had something negative to say? Comments like those could get me fired!”

G. Summary Reports

• Periodic reports should be provided ' Unlike the individual Client Feedback Reports discussed in E., above, periodic Summary Reports focus on overarching themes, such as: evolving perceptions of the firm and the competition; recurring topics of client concern; impressions of planned or executed strategic and marketing initiatives; and new areas of opportunity. In other words, the issues covered will normally be those that are primarily of relevance to the leadership of the firm and/or a specific practice group as opposed to the individual client service teams, as well as those issues that may not be so readily apparent from reviewing the contents of individual Client Feedback Reports. It would be unusual for Periodic Summary Reports to include names of the interviewees or specific firm personnel.

H. Continuous Process

• The CFP should become part of the fabric of the firm ' Partners and clients react very positively to a well-executed in-person client feedback process even though it is time consuming and very intensive. And, because so much substantive feedback is generated, we don't feel it necessary for the process to be repeated more often than once every two to four years at each client, assuming no required significant follow-up activity nor dramatic situational or relationship changes in the interim.
• Since even the largest law firms will most likely not have more than 30 to 50 Tier 1 clients, we usually suggest consideration of something like a three-year interview cycle for each client in this select group. For example, for a firm with 36 Tier 1 clients, the cycle could involve initiating interviews at one client each month during a three-year cycle. And, if additional resources become available, possibly more Tier 1 clients could be included in the first and second years, and/or consideration could then also be given to including some Tier 2 clients with the possibility that, later on, Tier 3 clients could be added. But clients in these latter two categories will not require the same degree of effort nor a similar interview approach, and many could be surveyed.

I. Cost

• Cost to be borne by the firm ' It should go without saying that none of the cost of the CFP should be passed on to clients. The tangible and intangible benefits of a well-planned and well-executed CFP should well exceed
  the cost involved. Furthermore, the feedback generated will very likely preclude the necessity of investing in certain other marketing research to determine issues related to such areas as market position and brand (see also G., above).

The By Whom Best Practices

Part Three of this article will focus on the By Whom best practices and will appear in the November 2011 issue. Included in that discussion will be the pros and cons of using in-house personnel versus a third party to design the CFP and/or conduct the interviews.

Donald E. Aronson is CEO of D. E. Aronson Associates LLC and a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors. Don's firm conducts market research by interviewing executives of professional services firms' Key clients with a primary focus on Client Feedback. Located in New York City, he can be reached at 212-874-4181 or [email protected]. Copyright ' 2011 by D. E. Aronson Associates LLC