Here are four prime no-no’s when giving shortlistee presentations: 1. Don’t use lots of unexplained technical jargon to make yourself sound smart. ( NB: The same advice applies to your written submissions.) 2. Don’t let everyone know how important you are. 3. Don’t recite your presentation from memory or sound as though you are. 4. Don’t cram your slides with numerous text bullet points in multiple fonts. Source: Chris Anderson’s ‘How to Give a Killer Presentation’, Harvard Business Review.
Whilst the first and most immediately obvious step in improving poor articulation performance in a submission is to subject it to a rigorous editing process, there’s almost always a greater issue at play. That issue is the largely non-client-specific (at least, not convincingly specific) and generally “same, same” nature of the content . . . the supplier-focused “brochureware” that results from an unclear, uncertain or absent bid strategy. Or an insufficiently documented one. In almost every bidding enterprise I’ve worked with, writers have previously had to either rely on little more than workshop notes, together with existing generic content, to inform their response sections. For the most part, they’re forced to interpret and piece together in their own minds, the intended underpinning strategy and guiding themes supposedly resulting from planning sessions. In many cases, they’re faced with making up the content themselves without any guidance. It’s critical to recognise that producing a client-focused submission requires more than a simple emphasis on writing techniques and editing processes (e.g. flipping sentences around to commence with the client organisation’s name versus the bidder’s). If writers are given a comprehensive and user-friendly bid strategy blueprint to guide them, and along the way their outputs are nurtured by the appointed strategist within the group, their writing should, by default, adequately convey the bid strategy. And it should do so in a client-focused manner.
One of the less tangible, less immediately “visible” reasons for the loss of either a new-business pursuit, or an existing account, is a misalignment between organisational cultures. I’ve seen this happen on a number of occasions. One that springs colorfully to mind involved an SME client, quite some years ago: A sizeable print management firm was pursuing an account with the Australian operations of a large consumer goods multinational, with requirements that included high-volume direct mail campaign activity. The business development operative (“BD”) on this account had, for over a year, been aggressively endeavouring to win over the account from a competitor. Each time he’d gotten close to potentially consummating the deal, however, this potential client appeared to back off. Finally, he’d moved the relationship to the stage where a serious, formal proposal had been requested of him . . . the point at which he contacted me. When the Client’s Psychology Differs from Yours Conducting a detailed interview with this BD to understand the client’s psychology, it became clear to me that the BD’s aggressive and gung ho culture (which was also that of his company at large) was at complete loggerheads with the far softer, more relationship-respecting modus operandi of the client organisation. It didn’t take me long to work out from an analysis of the historical dialogue that there was, in fact, no lack of interest in the service and other aspects of this provider’s offer. Rather, there was pushback based on this BD’s manner and approach. He didn’t see it. Not only was he oblivious to it, he advised me that when I’d produced the proposal he was tasking me with, he intended to brandish it forcefully before the client representative with an ultimatum that she make a decision forthwith or . . . well, the rest of the intended statement was quite colorful (something to the effect of "shit or get off the pot"). With some considerable persuasive effort, I managed to convince him not to take this stance. I suggested that, instead, he recognise the nature of the corporate culture he was dealing with and take a far more empathetic approach. Long story short: A little bit of “empathy” and a couple of weeks’ more patience on the BD’s part, and he bagged a new, $20m per annum account for his employer. The moral of the story is this: The Client Knows . . . Either Consciously or Subconsciously When pursuing any type of account, project, implementation, or other form of deal that requires your people to work closely with the client organisation, take culture seriously. Even if the potential client doesn’t consciously recognise the reason for any resistance on their own part, he or she will “at a gut level” detect cultural misalignment. And even if you do win the deal, a poor cultural match has the potential to be, at best, a constant challenge in the ensuing relationship. At worst, it has the potential to create disaster. Here are five steps you can take in the event that you sense a potential cultural mismatch: 5 Steps for Averting or Dealing with A Cultural Mismatch Determine the degree of mis-match. Determine whether or not this has, or may, cause mis-alignment in more tangible ways as the relationship progresses. If, given your consideration of these facts, you decide to press ahead, map out a strategy for addressing and to the greatest extent possible overcoming the mis-match. Where possible, make the elements of your plan measurable by, for example, formulating strategic Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Recognise that this will be an issue that needs constant monitoring throughout the life of the project or contract. Be upfront with the client about your plans and efforts. Again, you’re probably only kidding yourself if you think the client organisation is unaware of the cultural mis-alignment. Far better that you demonstrate your own awareness, and your proactive approach to striving for a successful working relationship.
When you’re under the pump with a short submission timeframe, your best default strategy for getting a top-notch bid out the door in good time and with the least stress possible is to “go with the current” in terms of people’s natural talents. You can coach people in their areas of weakness to a reasonable degree, but rarely will they be great in those particular aspects of bid production. The fact is, people generally gravitate back to the aspects in which they naturally excel and endeavour to avoid those in which they don’t. And when a bid manager is under the pump, the cold, hard fact of the matter is that he or she simply doesn’t have the time to coach or cajole. Identify the Priority Skills Needed The first step is to accurately identify the priority skills required for each part of the submission and the process, giving careful consideration to which individuals possess these. It’s also smart to consider personality traits or work habits that stand to either propel or impede progress towards the finish line. Really think about each person and who (rather than what ) they are. ‘Day job’ position titles can be misleading in the context of a bid. Often, the strengths and weaknesses you’d assume of an individual in a particular role just don’t import across into a bid team environment in the way you’d expect them to. I’ll cite as a case study, a small, component operation of a larger organisation with which I had been working. One of the operation’s few "white collar" staff members (aside from the GM) was assigned as bid manager. It was a pressure cooker timeframe and, a few days after kick-off, the schedule was already floundering. In short, this assumedly "natural" bid manager appointment was a disastrous choice. As it happened, fate graciously stepped in and saw that individual suddenly pulled off onto another contract elsewhere. Because I was working with the team by remote control, there was little choice but for the Construction Manager to take over the bid management role. ‘Humble Hammer Swinger’ Saves the Day Fate dealt the bid a lucky hand that day. The previous appointee’s weakness was the Construction Manager’s strength. This "humble hammer swinger" (his own words) made a brilliant bid manager. He was organised, efficient, exercised total diligence in keeping his own commitments, and had an affable but effective way of holding others to their's. His humility came in handy, too: If he could see anything going off the rails, he was quick to pick up the phone for advice. The fact that he couldn’t string two coherent sentences together on paper turned out to be inconsequential. When the now-former bid manager returned to the team, he gravitated directly towards - and excelled at – the bid’s writing tasks, taking on those that had, in fact, been assigned to the Construction Manager. So, by complete accident, we ended up with a highly functional bid team and a top-notch bid out the door in what, for that particular operation, was apparently record time. To re-emphasise the moral of the story: When time is unavoidably tight, ensure the highest quality and the least stress by getting to know your "human resources" and letting each wear the cap that most comfortably fits him or her.
How do you slash the cost of bidding without bringing about a correspondent drop in submission quality? I’m about to present you with nine suggestions which, when implemented, will not only save you time and resources (read: budget) but will, in fact, streamline the process and produce a superior end product. Fair warning: Some are […]
Whilst the first and most immediately obvious step in improving poor articulation performance in a submission is to subject it to a rigorous editing process, there’s almost always a greater issue at play. That issue is the largely non-client-specific (at least, not convincingly specific) and generally “same, same” nature of the content . . . the supplier-focused “brochureware” that results from an unclear, uncertain or absent bid strategy. Or an insufficiently documented one. In almost every bidding enterprise I’ve worked with, writers have previously had to either rely on little more than workshop notes, together with existing generic content, to inform their response sections. For the most part, they’re forced to interpret and piece together in their own minds, the intended underpinning strategy and guiding themes supposedly resulting from planning sessions. In many cases, they’re faced with making up the content themselves without any guidance. It’s critical to recognise that producing a client-focused submission requires more than a simple emphasis on writing techniques and editing processes (e.g. flipping sentences around to commence with the client organisation’s name versus the bidder’s). If writers are given a comprehensive and user-friendly bid strategy blueprint to guide them, and along the way their outputs are nurtured by the appointed strategist within the group, their writing should, by default, adequately convey the bid strategy. And it should do so in a client-focused manner.
If – as pursuit leader or bid strategist – you haven’t checked off the following key preparatory measures before your bid writers put fingers to keyboard, you greatly risk falling into the standard default position i.e. section authors producing thinly-disguised "brochureware", and others producing what comes across as cut-and-pastes from a product or procedures manual. So ensure you can answer fully in the affirmative before you set your section authors loose on their tasks: Have you produced a comprehensive, high-readability, overarching strategy document? Have you produced writer’s guides – based on the above – for each major section or Schedule? Before finalising the above, have you shown these to several of the writers to ensure they are user-friendly from their perspective? Have you held a collective briefing session i.e. between the strategist, one or two other key participants in the strategy workshops, and the section authors i.e. to verbally explain the strategy and how it underpins or influences their sections? Have you returned to each section author, individually, following this initial collective briefing, to ensure they understand and can follow their respective writing guide? And that they have aligned the content of their writing guide with their section content plan? Does any section author feel he or she needs more supporting information that they need help to obtain? These are the key steps to ensuring bid content that reflects, and adheres to, a central, cohesive, underpinning strategy.
If a company struggles to differentiate its product or service from that of its competition, the first element of any corrective strategy should be to seek to deepen the level at which it understands its prospects and its clients. Not all companies do this well. Most don’t. Why am I confident to make such a sweeping statement? I see the evidence on a daily basis as a bid strategist and writer, and as an evaluator and bid coach. When I take on a new client, almost without exception, that organisation’s previous bids, tenders and proposals literally shout self-centricity. Those that think they don’t, are always surprised to learn just how much further they could go in taking a genuinely client-centric approach and, in the process, de-commoditising themselves far more effectively. Symptoms of Self-centricity Let me demonstrate how a self-centric perspective shows up in a bidder’s documentation. I’ll focus on just one part of a bid document — the Executive Summary . Here are two examples that literally whack an evaluator between the eyes with this syndrome on the bidder’s part: Example One: ‘We’, ‘Our’, ‘Us’ I once evaluated a bid, the Executive Summary of which featured the seller’s name no less than 17 times in a short series of introductory paragraphs. Don’t laugh; a large percentage of these key front pieces end up with the seller’s or service provider’s name (or ‘we’, ‘our’ and ‘us’) at the beginning of most paragraphs. This indicates a lack of knowledge, understanding and caring about the client organisation and its issues and priorities, as well as a lack of listening skills and a probable low “care factor” on the part of the bidder. The propensity for a bidder to communicate in such a way that the world revolves around them i.e. the supplier or service provider, rather than around the prospect/client makes it obvious to the client and its evaluators that the entire working relationship is likely to evolve in this same, very predictable, direction. This — in the client’s mind — places that bidder in the same self-focused category as the majority of its competition. And this, in turn, relegates it to a largely undifferentiated status. Example Two: Framing Strengths Most Executive Summaries focus almost exclusively on getting across the bidder’s strengths. Some do go slightly further, communicating the purported competitive uniqueness of the offering. Few, however, investigate and explain the specific relevance of these to the client and its operating environment. And without doing so, they come across as arrogant, lazy or both. It’s also a wasted opportunity. Regardless of any information requests made in a client’s tender call documentation, the client’s interest in the service provider centres around the relevance of that information to its own organisation, its own priorities, its own issues and how all these will be satisfied in any potential contract with the bidder. Let’s come back to de-commoditisation. The degree to which your company can demonstrate a relevant and competitively superior understanding of the client organisation, and how your strengths and the aspects of your offering uniquely position you to solve the client’s problem and/or achieve that organisation’s desires, is the margin by which you’ll be out in front of your competition. In turn, the extent to which you are out in front of your competition (on elements of your offer other than price) is the extent to which you have successfully differentiated your company and your service or solution. In turn, the extent to which you’ve differentiated your proposition, is the extent to which you free yourself from the price trap into which most operators in heavily commoditised industries otherwise fall.
How do you slash the cost of bidding without bringing about a correspondent drop in submission quality? I’m about to present you with nine suggestions which, when implemented, will not only save you time and resources (read: budget) but will, in fact, streamline the process and produce a superior end product. Fair warning: Some are […]
Whilst the first and most immediately obvious step in improving poor articulation performance in a submission is to subject it to a rigorous editing process, there’s almost always a greater issue at play. That issue is the largely non-client-specific (at least, not convincingly specific) and generally “same, same” nature of the content . . . the supplier-focused “brochureware” that results from an unclear, uncertain or absent bid strategy. Or an insufficiently documented one. In almost every bidding enterprise I’ve worked with, writers have previously had to either rely on little more than workshop notes, together with existing generic content, to inform their response sections. For the most part, they’re forced to interpret and piece together in their own minds, the intended underpinning strategy and guiding themes supposedly resulting from planning sessions. In many cases, they’re faced with making up the content themselves without any guidance. It’s critical to recognise that producing a client-focused submission requires more than a simple emphasis on writing techniques and editing processes (e.g. flipping sentences around to commence with the client organisation’s name versus the bidder’s). If writers are given a comprehensive and user-friendly bid strategy blueprint to guide them, and along the way their outputs are nurtured by the appointed strategist within the group, their writing should, by default, adequately convey the bid strategy. And it should do so in a client-focused manner.
Have you ever had the demoralising experience of being engaged in a phone conversation with someone who suddenly starts shuffling papers, filing or (worse still) reading and responding to an unrelated email? If you were sufficiently forward as to protest and the other party sufficiently ignorant as to persist with his or her other activity, he or she would no doubt have given you the “I can multi-task” line. But I’ll wager it was obvious to you that, at best, your “multi-tasking” conversation partner was hearing only sporadic soundbytes of your end of the conversation. It’s a neurological fact that the brain can focus on only one matter at a time. It might flit between subjects, issues and conversations . . . but it can concentrate properly on only thing in any given moment. In his recent best-seller, ‘The Organized Mind’ , neuroscientist Daniel J. Levitin produces evidence to underscore how minimising the attention devoted to any one thing (the natural consequence of trying to spread one’s concentration amongst several things) dramatically decreases the quality of attention both to that and to everything else on that individual’s plate. Conversely, conceptual and critical thinking, along with insight and ingenuity, Levitin stresses, happen only when we screen out distractions and properly focus. Already, it’s pretty obvious how the nonsense practice of “multi-tasking” negatively impacts not only the quality of critical submissions, but every process that feeds into their production. As a bid strategist and coach, here are just two of the key processes that I regularly witness being adversely affected: Participants in strategy workshops insisting on reading and responding to emails and text messages . . . switching off to the thread of fast-moving, group conversations and thus forgo-ing their understanding of, and input into, the evolving bid strategy. Section authors and other writers interrupting their flow of writing inspiration to answer emails and their own incoming phone calls. (If professional authors feel the need to shut themselves away in order to place their full and uninterrupted focus on the piece they’re working on, why would someone who doesn’t write for a living feel they can produce a quality written output while “multi-tasking”?) Aligning with my cynicism over the concept of “multi-tasking” proficiency, Stanford University researchers have found that “multi-taskers” (a) have difficulty organising their thoughts and filtering out irrelevant information, and (b) are actually slower at them, with their switching from one task to another (versus those who stay focused on one activity until it is satisfactorily completed). Potentially, there’s also evidence that multi-tasking lowers one’s IQ. A University of London study found participants who multi-tasked during cognitive tasks experienced compromised IQ score declines similar to what might be expected had those individuals smoked marijuana or stayed up all night. Coming back to bidding. When you’re otherwise throwing everything at a must-win, high-stakes bid, why go at it with diffused mental energy? To do so argues with every claim you make – to yourself, to your bid team colleagues, and to the potential client – as to the importance of victory.
When you’re under the pump with a short submission timeframe, your best default strategy for getting a top-notch bid out the door in good time and with the least stress possible is to “go with the current” in terms of people’s natural talents. You can coach people in their areas of weakness to a reasonable degree, but rarely will they be great in those particular aspects of bid production. The fact is, people generally gravitate back to the aspects in which they naturally excel and endeavour to avoid those in which they don’t. And when a bid manager is under the pump, the cold, hard fact of the matter is that he or she simply doesn’t have the time to coach or cajole. Identify the Priority Skills Needed The first step is to accurately identify the priority skills required for each part of the submission and the process, giving careful consideration to which individuals possess these. It’s also smart to consider personality traits or work habits that stand to either propel or impede progress towards the finish line. Really think about each person and who (rather than what ) they are. ‘Day job’ position titles can be misleading in the context of a bid. Often, the strengths and weaknesses you’d assume of an individual in a particular role just don’t import across into a bid team environment in the way you’d expect them to. I’ll cite as a case study, a small, component operation of a larger organisation with which I had been working. One of the operation’s few "white collar" staff members (aside from the GM) was assigned as bid manager. It was a pressure cooker timeframe and, a few days after kick-off, the schedule was already floundering. In short, this assumedly "natural" bid manager appointment was a disastrous choice. As it happened, fate graciously stepped in and saw that individual suddenly pulled off onto another contract elsewhere. Because I was working with the team by remote control, there was little choice but for the Construction Manager to take over the bid management role. ‘Humble Hammer Swinger’ Saves the Day Fate dealt the bid a lucky hand that day. The previous appointee’s weakness was the Construction Manager’s strength. This "humble hammer swinger" (his own words) made a brilliant bid manager. He was organised, efficient, exercised total diligence in keeping his own commitments, and had an affable but effective way of holding others to their's. His humility came in handy, too: If he could see anything going off the rails, he was quick to pick up the phone for advice. The fact that he couldn’t string two coherent sentences together on paper turned out to be inconsequential. When the now-former bid manager returned to the team, he gravitated directly towards - and excelled at – the bid’s writing tasks, taking on those that had, in fact, been assigned to the Construction Manager. So, by complete accident, we ended up with a highly functional bid team and a top-notch bid out the door in what, for that particular operation, was apparently record time. To re-emphasise the moral of the story: When time is unavoidably tight, ensure the highest quality and the least stress by getting to know your "human resources" and letting each wear the cap that most comfortably fits him or her.
Whilst the first and most immediately obvious step in improving poor articulation performance in a submission is to subject it to a rigorous editing process, there’s almost always a greater issue at play. That issue is the largely non-client-specific (at least, not convincingly specific) and generally “same, same” nature of the content . . . the supplier-focused “brochureware” that results from an unclear, uncertain or absent bid strategy. Or an insufficiently documented one. In almost every bidding enterprise I’ve worked with, writers have previously had to either rely on little more than workshop notes, together with existing generic content, to inform their response sections. For the most part, they’re forced to interpret and piece together in their own minds, the intended underpinning strategy and guiding themes supposedly resulting from planning sessions. In many cases, they’re faced with making up the content themselves without any guidance. It’s critical to recognise that producing a client-focused submission requires more than a simple emphasis on writing techniques and editing processes (e.g. flipping sentences around to commence with the client organisation’s name versus the bidder’s). If writers are given a comprehensive and user-friendly bid strategy blueprint to guide them, and along the way their outputs are nurtured by the appointed strategist within the group, their writing should, by default, adequately convey the bid strategy. And it should do so in a client-focused manner.
The tone or writing style of a bid need not be 100 percent uniform across all sections of the submission, but an editor should ensure against a mish-mash of different, non-complementary styles. A bid with a “salesy” Executive Summary or “front end”, and a “back end” that ranges widely from misplaced “brochureware” to dry academia, gives the impression of a disorganised vendor or bidder. Depending on the degree of disparity, it could even convey the impression that the various departments within the bidding enterprise are not on the same page. In answer to the question, “What’s the best style of writing to employ in a bid?” , it would be simple to say, “That which comes naturally to the writer.” Unfortunately, it would also be simplistic. The problem is, sometimes (often, in fact), a stilted, convoluted academic style is the section contributor’s default writing style. A partial answer to this – and one which avoids this pot pourri of styles ending up on the editor’s desk in the first place – is to coach all section authors in the use of the active voice in their writing.
One of the most fundamental mistakes bidders make when answering a call for Expressions of Interest or Requests for Proposal, is submitting a response that’s full of unsubstantiated claims (as website copy and general marketing materials commonly are). Too often, a statement is made in an EOI or RFP response that offers no substantiation, no demonstration of its accuracy. It appears the evaluation committee is simply expected to accept the claim at face value. Yet the evaluators would not be doing their job if they do . . . and you, as bidder, haven’t done “your” job if you expect them to. Further, how can an evaluator award you selection criteria-related points when you answer a question with an empty, unproven claim? Respondents and their writers should ask these questions as they plan and write their answers: What is the proof that this is true / fact? Offer adequate and genuine substantiation – whether of a “third party” nature or by providing some form of provable quantification. Table a statistic, for example, and state the source (which should be a reputable body recognised either by your industry, their industry, or the business sector at large). What is the credibility of this information? Many bidders include lightly edited, thinly-disguised versions of the same material they include in their marketing material or on their websites. The credibility of this information is generally nil, since it is based on opinion-based claims the bidder is making about its own service or product. To be authoritative, you must be able to show that any opinion is, in some form, supported by a credible third party e.g. by accreditation. Why is it relevant / critical to the client / customer organisation? Don’t just state facts or table data and leave it to the evaluation committee to determine their relevance. Explain why, in the context of this bid, you consider that fact or datum important. In that way, you strengthen the support those inclusions loan to your proposition. If, on the other hand, you neglect to do this, you will have potentially wasted that opportunity. Worse still, the evaluator may misinterpret the connection you intended him or her to make. With regard to the answer generated by the above question, what is the proof point of this high-relevance criticality? A savvy bidder will offer a double layer of substantiation. First, it will offer proof of a claim, and/or demonstrate that the claim is proven or provable. Then, after drawing the relevance of that information to the client organisation’s specific needs or challenges, the bidder will go on to demonstrate and/or quantify the benefits that will result from the evaluator making a decision in the bidder’s favour, based on this information. In summary, table proof that your claim is true (not just your opinion); provide some authoritative indicator of third-party concurrence; make it relevant to the client and, in turn, prove this relevance. Finally, if possible, quantify the benefits to be gained by taking the action that your claim suggests should be taken.
A "checklist", in the context of a document, usually limits its embrace to non-subjective, cut-and-dried elements of inclusion or accuracy. However, it’s equally important – in the case of a big-ticket bid – to step back and view your content from a broader perspective, to assume nothing, and to ensure your writing style and/or structure packs a decent punch. Here are some key such ‘macro-level’ checkpoints: Does your piece reflect that you’ve followed a cohesive and well-structured, or at least well-thought-out, content plan ? Whether you’re a seasoned bid writer or a newbie, you should plan your work and stick to your plan. Check your “facts”. There’s no room for the inclusion of assumptions or the reliance upon unverified third-party statements or claims in your EOI and RFP responses. Make sure your first paragraph – as the “introduction” to your piece –is strong, punchy and provides a compelling entry point to the rest of your material. Draw out the project-specific or contract-specific relevance and meaning of anything you write. Don’t leave it to the evaluators to connect the dots. Ensure you’ve communicated the benefits associated with the features of your technology or service ( not just the features ).
If you’re a senior executive responsible for setting – and overseeing the attainment of – your enterprise’s corporate growth goals, I have a question for you: How informed are you on the individual contracts that comprise the overall total of your organisation’s business-under-pursuit? How certain are you that the priorities underpinning the prioritisation of current […]
How do you slash the cost of bidding without bringing about a correspondent drop in submission quality? I’m about to present you with nine suggestions which, when implemented, will not only save you time and resources (read: budget) but will, in fact, streamline the process and produce a superior end product. Fair warning: Some are […]
‘What we’re trying to buy is new and innovative thinking – not our own thinking recycled back to us from the other side of the table.’ That was the strong message from Treasury New Zealand’s Head of PPP Program Fiona Mules, as she departed the position for a new phase as an independent, advising infrastructure […]
Some time ago, I wrote an article about the fact that, as I saw it, engineers have been done a grave disservice by consultants who intimate they ‘can’t sell’. That article has been published in numerous different professional journals and other publications, and continues to prompt feedback . . . and I’ve yet to receive […]
Here are four prime no-no’s when giving shortlistee presentations: 1. Don’t use lots of unexplained technical jargon to make yourself sound smart. ( NB: The same advice applies to your written submissions.) 2. Don’t let everyone know how important you are. 3. Don’t recite your presentation from memory or sound as though you are. 4. Don’t cram your slides with numerous text bullet points in multiple fonts. Source: Chris Anderson’s ‘How to Give a Killer Presentation’, Harvard Business Review.
If you’re a senior executive responsible for setting – and overseeing the attainment of – your enterprise’s corporate growth goals, I have a question for you: How informed are you on the individual contracts that comprise the overall total of your organisation’s business-under-pursuit? How certain are you that the priorities underpinning the prioritisation of current […]
Whilst the first and most immediately obvious step in improving poor articulation performance in a submission is to subject it to a rigorous editing process, there’s almost always a greater issue at play. That issue is the largely non-client-specific (at least, not convincingly specific) and generally “same, same” nature of the content . . . the supplier-focused “brochureware” that results from an unclear, uncertain or absent bid strategy. Or an insufficiently documented one. In almost every bidding enterprise I’ve worked with, writers have previously had to either rely on little more than workshop notes, together with existing generic content, to inform their response sections. For the most part, they’re forced to interpret and piece together in their own minds, the intended underpinning strategy and guiding themes supposedly resulting from planning sessions. In many cases, they’re faced with making up the content themselves without any guidance. It’s critical to recognise that producing a client-focused submission requires more than a simple emphasis on writing techniques and editing processes (e.g. flipping sentences around to commence with the client organisation’s name versus the bidder’s). If writers are given a comprehensive and user-friendly bid strategy blueprint to guide them, and along the way their outputs are nurtured by the appointed strategist within the group, their writing should, by default, adequately convey the bid strategy. And it should do so in a client-focused manner.
One of the less tangible, less immediately “visible” reasons for the loss of either a new-business pursuit, or an existing account, is a misalignment between organisational cultures. I’ve seen this happen on a number of occasions. One that springs colorfully to mind involved an SME client, quite some years ago: A sizeable print management firm was pursuing an account with the Australian operations of a large consumer goods multinational, with requirements that included high-volume direct mail campaign activity. The business development operative (“BD”) on this account had, for over a year, been aggressively endeavouring to win over the account from a competitor. Each time he’d gotten close to potentially consummating the deal, however, this potential client appeared to back off. Finally, he’d moved the relationship to the stage where a serious, formal proposal had been requested of him . . . the point at which he contacted me. When the Client’s Psychology Differs from Yours Conducting a detailed interview with this BD to understand the client’s psychology, it became clear to me that the BD’s aggressive and gung ho culture (which was also that of his company at large) was at complete loggerheads with the far softer, more relationship-respecting modus operandi of the client organisation. It didn’t take me long to work out from an analysis of the historical dialogue that there was, in fact, no lack of interest in the service and other aspects of this provider’s offer. Rather, there was pushback based on this BD’s manner and approach. He didn’t see it. Not only was he oblivious to it, he advised me that when I’d produced the proposal he was tasking me with, he intended to brandish it forcefully before the client representative with an ultimatum that she make a decision forthwith or . . . well, the rest of the intended statement was quite colorful (something to the effect of "shit or get off the pot"). With some considerable persuasive effort, I managed to convince him not to take this stance. I suggested that, instead, he recognise the nature of the corporate culture he was dealing with and take a far more empathetic approach. Long story short: A little bit of “empathy” and a couple of weeks’ more patience on the BD’s part, and he bagged a new, $20m per annum account for his employer. The moral of the story is this: The Client Knows . . . Either Consciously or Subconsciously When pursuing any type of account, project, implementation, or other form of deal that requires your people to work closely with the client organisation, take culture seriously. Even if the potential client doesn’t consciously recognise the reason for any resistance on their own part, he or she will “at a gut level” detect cultural misalignment. And even if you do win the deal, a poor cultural match has the potential to be, at best, a constant challenge in the ensuing relationship. At worst, it has the potential to create disaster. Here are five steps you can take in the event that you sense a potential cultural mismatch: 5 Steps for Averting or Dealing with A Cultural Mismatch Determine the degree of mis-match. Determine whether or not this has, or may, cause mis-alignment in more tangible ways as the relationship progresses. If, given your consideration of these facts, you decide to press ahead, map out a strategy for addressing and to the greatest extent possible overcoming the mis-match. Where possible, make the elements of your plan measurable by, for example, formulating strategic Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). Recognise that this will be an issue that needs constant monitoring throughout the life of the project or contract. Be upfront with the client about your plans and efforts. Again, you’re probably only kidding yourself if you think the client organisation is unaware of the cultural mis-alignment. Far better that you demonstrate your own awareness, and your proactive approach to striving for a successful working relationship.
