November 26, 2009 at 10:26Business in the style of Habr - 4. Cold pressed. Part two
Continuation of the first part of the article on the withdrawal of customers from the company.
Let's try to consider the issue from the point of view of the employer. How to deal with the "spin" and how to resist it.
Part two. Find and not let go.
In order to figure out how to deal with the phenomenon, let's analyze its causes. This will help us chop the spin in the bud.
Why does another client have a desire to be “wrung out”? Because he gets the same thing as at the employer's firm, often for much less money. It is important to understand that he does not receive an analogue, not a surrogate, but absolutely the same thing. Would you, for example, refuse a Mercedes for a third or half the price? Not from the Chinese counterpart stolen in Mexico, but from a new real Mercedes, which an employee of the company will roll you out of the main gate of the plant. That's it. This is an absolutely normal desire. It is pointless to appeal to the conscience of the client; he is absolutely right. Why pay extra money without getting anything in return?
Why do employees “squeeze” a client? Yes, because for the same work, he will receive many times more money. In the end, everyone comes to work for money (well, someone comes to have a good time, but we are not talking about it), so why not maximize the flow of money with the same labor costs.
What do we get? That "spin" is an absolutely logical, bilaterally beneficial deal. Moreover, the third party (employer) most often does not bear direct losses from this transaction (the employee did everything himself, sold everything himself), the employer does not receive any profit, but he also does not receive profit from the fact that employees work for him only 8 hours, not 12 hours or, even better, 16 hours a day. Moreover, very often the “leftist” is made in his spare time from his main job, here the employer is generally “out of business”.
In other words, it is absolutely pointless to fight the manifestation of "spin". It is possible to stipulate in the employment contract a ban on employees performing similar work outside the company, this will not work. Moreover, this is an insignificant clause of the contract. I will not describe now why, if it is interesting, I will sign it later in the comments. You can fire employees at the first hints of a possible “spin” of a client. He will not work with anyone later, because why does the company need an employee who “doesn’t need any customers”. All the others, sooner or later, with the opportunity (or provocation) that has come up, may try to “squeeze” someone.
Conclusion: you need to deal with the reasons for which the "spin" becomes profitable. I see only one way to achieve this (maybe there is still) - to make it unprofitable for the employee. Not scary, but economically unprofitable. This can be achieved in several ways.
1. Eliminate the situation in the company when all the work with the client is carried out by one person. How did we do this in our company? We have several customer service managers. Only they negotiate, conclude agreements, solve all issues with the client on orders, payments, claims, etc. But they do not fulfill the order itself. Directly the work is done by other people. Why is it better? Our managers are girls with higher humanitarian education, they have a good speech, they know the basics of psychology, they find it easier to negotiate with a client - they were taught this. In case of difficulties, they can more objectively assess the situation (the contractor is almost always sure that he did everything right). An important detail, managers are well versed in the technical part of the work (we taught them that ourselves), in order not to have to bring the client directly with the contractor. Theoretically, the manager can execute the order himself (“squeeze” the client), but it is not profitable for him, since the percentage that he has not received from ten lost customers (and he will not be able to work with them if he is completely occupied with the “squeezed” order), rather In total, it will be higher than the benefit from the "wrung out" order. Plus, the whole company will immediately see that the manager is busy with the “wrong thing”. It is also convenient for the performer. He is not distracted by communication with clients, does not listen to their complaints, does not jump 10 times a day from one project to another, he works quietly, after which he transfers the affairs to the manager and he hands over the work to the customer. A sort of prototype conveyor (Henry Ford was a very smart person). since the percentage that he has not received from ten lost customers (and he will not be able to work with them if he is completely busy with the “squeezed” order), it is likely to be higher than the benefit from the “squeezed” order. Plus, the whole company will immediately see that the manager is busy with the “wrong thing”. It is also convenient for the performer. He is not distracted by communication with clients, does not listen to their complaints, does not jump 10 times a day from one project to another, he works quietly, after which he transfers the affairs to the manager and he hands over the work to the customer. A sort of prototype conveyor (Henry Ford was a very smart person). since the percentage that he has not received from ten lost customers (and he will not be able to work with them if he is completely busy with the “squeezed” order), it is likely to be higher than the benefit from the “squeezed” order. Plus, the whole company will immediately see that the manager is busy with the “wrong thing”. It is also convenient for the performer. He is not distracted by communication with clients, does not listen to their complaints, does not jump 10 times a day from one project to another, he works quietly, after which he transfers the affairs to the manager and he hands over the work to the customer. A sort of prototype conveyor (Henry Ford was a very smart person). He is not distracted by communication with clients, does not listen to their complaints, does not jump 10 times a day from one project to another, he works quietly, after which he transfers the affairs to the manager and he hands over the work to the customer. A sort of prototype conveyor (Henry Ford was a very smart person). He is not distracted by communication with clients, does not listen to their complaints, does not jump 10 times a day from one project to another, he works quietly, after which he transfers the affairs to the manager and he hands over the work to the customer. A sort of prototype conveyor (Henry Ford was a very smart person).
2. It is not always possible to implement the first option. We came across this when we opened a branch in another city. Like it or not, there should be one person, the head of the branch, who will have all the completeness of actions. He will coordinate work with both clients and performers. In the end, everything will come to the point that the branch can turn into its private company (there are no technical barriers to this), which will compete with us in this city. How to prevent this? But no way. You can’t make water flow uphill, you need to figure out how to make it profitable when it flows downhill. We found a person who was engaged in a similar business in the city we needed. We agreed with him like this: he gets our brand, our work technologies. We place orders with him at a price which is equal to the cost of order execution plus its small interest. All the orders that he finds himself are his orders, we do not get a penny from them. If the branch finds an order for which it requires our participation, we agree on what percentage of the transaction we receive. What is the result? We got workers in another city, where you can transfer the order at any time, which allowed us to increase the total turnover of the company. The branch manager (practically the director of another company) received a stable stream of orders that allow him to keep the necessary staff and receive a guaranteed minimum wage plus the ability to work independently and earn money. Will such an employee “wring” clients? Not. He has nothing to squeeze out, all that he found himself is him, all that we found, he cannot squeeze out, because it can’t do the job cheaper (I remind you that our orders are paid to the branch at cost). According to this scheme, we have 2 branches in two different cities. So far, everyone is happy, and the branch, and we, and customers.
3. The option is not for the branch, but for a regular office. If it is impossible to divide the workflow and delegate it to different employees, you need to make it so that the employee is profitable to share with the company. Alternatively, you can agree as follows: the employee brings the client to the company, does all the work himself and pays the company a percentage (10%, 20% ... depending on the company's participation in the project) for using the office, equipment, communications, etc. It is not the company that pays the employee 5-10% of the order, but he pays the company. Naturally, the burden on his main job remains with him, and if he cannot cope with it, he will begin to experience “economic difficulties” (deprivation of bonuses, deductions from salaries, etc.). If the employee does all the work at home in the evenings, then of course there is nothing to take, this is his personal time. He wants to watch TV, wants to bake pies. In this case, the concept of “squeeze” disappears as a term. There is nothing to wring. It is naive to think that you can recruit employees, they will find customers themselves, they will do all the work, and you, as the head of the company, will give them 10% each, and they will be happy to go looking for new customers. This does not happen. If the company is not useful to them, they will find a way to do without it.
Briefly summarized.
If your company cannot make it so that employees could not work without it, they will “squeeze” orders.
If a client receives as much from a company as her employee can give alone, the client will want to be “squeezed”.
Make the company vital for employees, and they will protect it as the most precious thing in life.
The most important thing. Why did I write this article.
No need to try, without changing business processes, to put obstacles in the way of communication between employees and customers. If the employee is profitable, he will always “wring” the client. You cannot control every step of it. He will call the customer on his cell phone, meet him after work, complete the order on the weekend. Opportunities will always be found. It makes no sense to arrange provocations. You caught an employee trying to “squeeze”. And what to do? Reprimanded so what? When he can earn more money in a week than in a company in six months, no reprimands will stop him. You can fire him. Who will you have left? Those who cannot do anything on their own, and who, apart from your company, do not need a single client for? And why should the company have such employees?
Let's try to consider the issue from the point of view of the employer. How to deal with the "spin" and how to resist it.
Part two. Find and not let go.
In order to figure out how to deal with the phenomenon, let's analyze its causes. This will help us chop the spin in the bud.
Why does another client have a desire to be “wrung out”? Because he gets the same thing as at the employer's firm, often for much less money. It is important to understand that he does not receive an analogue, not a surrogate, but absolutely the same thing. Would you, for example, refuse a Mercedes for a third or half the price? Not from the Chinese counterpart stolen in Mexico, but from a new real Mercedes, which an employee of the company will roll you out of the main gate of the plant. That's it. This is an absolutely normal desire. It is pointless to appeal to the conscience of the client; he is absolutely right. Why pay extra money without getting anything in return?
Why do employees “squeeze” a client? Yes, because for the same work, he will receive many times more money. In the end, everyone comes to work for money (well, someone comes to have a good time, but we are not talking about it), so why not maximize the flow of money with the same labor costs.
What do we get? That "spin" is an absolutely logical, bilaterally beneficial deal. Moreover, the third party (employer) most often does not bear direct losses from this transaction (the employee did everything himself, sold everything himself), the employer does not receive any profit, but he also does not receive profit from the fact that employees work for him only 8 hours, not 12 hours or, even better, 16 hours a day. Moreover, very often the “leftist” is made in his spare time from his main job, here the employer is generally “out of business”.
In other words, it is absolutely pointless to fight the manifestation of "spin". It is possible to stipulate in the employment contract a ban on employees performing similar work outside the company, this will not work. Moreover, this is an insignificant clause of the contract. I will not describe now why, if it is interesting, I will sign it later in the comments. You can fire employees at the first hints of a possible “spin” of a client. He will not work with anyone later, because why does the company need an employee who “doesn’t need any customers”. All the others, sooner or later, with the opportunity (or provocation) that has come up, may try to “squeeze” someone.
Conclusion: you need to deal with the reasons for which the "spin" becomes profitable. I see only one way to achieve this (maybe there is still) - to make it unprofitable for the employee. Not scary, but economically unprofitable. This can be achieved in several ways.
1. Eliminate the situation in the company when all the work with the client is carried out by one person. How did we do this in our company? We have several customer service managers. Only they negotiate, conclude agreements, solve all issues with the client on orders, payments, claims, etc. But they do not fulfill the order itself. Directly the work is done by other people. Why is it better? Our managers are girls with higher humanitarian education, they have a good speech, they know the basics of psychology, they find it easier to negotiate with a client - they were taught this. In case of difficulties, they can more objectively assess the situation (the contractor is almost always sure that he did everything right). An important detail, managers are well versed in the technical part of the work (we taught them that ourselves), in order not to have to bring the client directly with the contractor. Theoretically, the manager can execute the order himself (“squeeze” the client), but it is not profitable for him, since the percentage that he has not received from ten lost customers (and he will not be able to work with them if he is completely occupied with the “squeezed” order), rather In total, it will be higher than the benefit from the "wrung out" order. Plus, the whole company will immediately see that the manager is busy with the “wrong thing”. It is also convenient for the performer. He is not distracted by communication with clients, does not listen to their complaints, does not jump 10 times a day from one project to another, he works quietly, after which he transfers the affairs to the manager and he hands over the work to the customer. A sort of prototype conveyor (Henry Ford was a very smart person). since the percentage that he has not received from ten lost customers (and he will not be able to work with them if he is completely busy with the “squeezed” order), it is likely to be higher than the benefit from the “squeezed” order. Plus, the whole company will immediately see that the manager is busy with the “wrong thing”. It is also convenient for the performer. He is not distracted by communication with clients, does not listen to their complaints, does not jump 10 times a day from one project to another, he works quietly, after which he transfers the affairs to the manager and he hands over the work to the customer. A sort of prototype conveyor (Henry Ford was a very smart person). since the percentage that he has not received from ten lost customers (and he will not be able to work with them if he is completely busy with the “squeezed” order), it is likely to be higher than the benefit from the “squeezed” order. Plus, the whole company will immediately see that the manager is busy with the “wrong thing”. It is also convenient for the performer. He is not distracted by communication with clients, does not listen to their complaints, does not jump 10 times a day from one project to another, he works quietly, after which he transfers the affairs to the manager and he hands over the work to the customer. A sort of prototype conveyor (Henry Ford was a very smart person). He is not distracted by communication with clients, does not listen to their complaints, does not jump 10 times a day from one project to another, he works quietly, after which he transfers the affairs to the manager and he hands over the work to the customer. A sort of prototype conveyor (Henry Ford was a very smart person). He is not distracted by communication with clients, does not listen to their complaints, does not jump 10 times a day from one project to another, he works quietly, after which he transfers the affairs to the manager and he hands over the work to the customer. A sort of prototype conveyor (Henry Ford was a very smart person).
2. It is not always possible to implement the first option. We came across this when we opened a branch in another city. Like it or not, there should be one person, the head of the branch, who will have all the completeness of actions. He will coordinate work with both clients and performers. In the end, everything will come to the point that the branch can turn into its private company (there are no technical barriers to this), which will compete with us in this city. How to prevent this? But no way. You can’t make water flow uphill, you need to figure out how to make it profitable when it flows downhill. We found a person who was engaged in a similar business in the city we needed. We agreed with him like this: he gets our brand, our work technologies. We place orders with him at a price which is equal to the cost of order execution plus its small interest. All the orders that he finds himself are his orders, we do not get a penny from them. If the branch finds an order for which it requires our participation, we agree on what percentage of the transaction we receive. What is the result? We got workers in another city, where you can transfer the order at any time, which allowed us to increase the total turnover of the company. The branch manager (practically the director of another company) received a stable stream of orders that allow him to keep the necessary staff and receive a guaranteed minimum wage plus the ability to work independently and earn money. Will such an employee “wring” clients? Not. He has nothing to squeeze out, all that he found himself is him, all that we found, he cannot squeeze out, because it can’t do the job cheaper (I remind you that our orders are paid to the branch at cost). According to this scheme, we have 2 branches in two different cities. So far, everyone is happy, and the branch, and we, and customers.
3. The option is not for the branch, but for a regular office. If it is impossible to divide the workflow and delegate it to different employees, you need to make it so that the employee is profitable to share with the company. Alternatively, you can agree as follows: the employee brings the client to the company, does all the work himself and pays the company a percentage (10%, 20% ... depending on the company's participation in the project) for using the office, equipment, communications, etc. It is not the company that pays the employee 5-10% of the order, but he pays the company. Naturally, the burden on his main job remains with him, and if he cannot cope with it, he will begin to experience “economic difficulties” (deprivation of bonuses, deductions from salaries, etc.). If the employee does all the work at home in the evenings, then of course there is nothing to take, this is his personal time. He wants to watch TV, wants to bake pies. In this case, the concept of “squeeze” disappears as a term. There is nothing to wring. It is naive to think that you can recruit employees, they will find customers themselves, they will do all the work, and you, as the head of the company, will give them 10% each, and they will be happy to go looking for new customers. This does not happen. If the company is not useful to them, they will find a way to do without it.
Briefly summarized.
If your company cannot make it so that employees could not work without it, they will “squeeze” orders.
If a client receives as much from a company as her employee can give alone, the client will want to be “squeezed”.
Make the company vital for employees, and they will protect it as the most precious thing in life.
The most important thing. Why did I write this article.
No need to try, without changing business processes, to put obstacles in the way of communication between employees and customers. If the employee is profitable, he will always “wring” the client. You cannot control every step of it. He will call the customer on his cell phone, meet him after work, complete the order on the weekend. Opportunities will always be found. It makes no sense to arrange provocations. You caught an employee trying to “squeeze”. And what to do? Reprimanded so what? When he can earn more money in a week than in a company in six months, no reprimands will stop him. You can fire him. Who will you have left? Those who cannot do anything on their own, and who, apart from your company, do not need a single client for? And why should the company have such employees?