Business in style Habr - 4. Cold spin. Part two
Continuation of the first part of the article about 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.
')
Part two. Find and do not let go.
In order to figure out how to deal with a phenomenon, let's analyze its causes. This will help us to hack "spin" in the bud.
Why does another client want to be "pressed"? Because he gets the same thing as the employer's company, often for much less money. It is important to understand that he receives not an analogue, not a surrogate, but absolutely the same thing. Would you, for example, refuse a Mercedes for a third or half of the price? Not from the Chinese counterpart, hijacked in Mexico, but from the new real Mercedes, which the company employee will roll out of the main factory gates. This is it. This is an absolutely normal desire. Appealing to the conscience of the client is meaningless, he is absolutely right. Why pay extra money without getting anything in return?
Why do employees "squeeze" a client? Yes, because for the same job, he will receive at times more money. In the end, everyone comes to work for money (well, well, someone comes to have a good time, but we are not talking about it now), so why not maximize the flow of money with the same effort.
What do we get? That “spinning” is an absolutely logical, two-way profitable deal. Moreover, the third party (the employer) most often does not bear direct losses from this transaction (the employee himself did everything, he sold everything himself), the employer does not receive profit, but he also does not receive profit from the fact that his employees work only 8 hours, not 12 or, even better, 16 hours a day. Moreover, very often the "leftist" is done in his spare time from the main work, here the employer is generally "not in the business."
In other words, to fight against the manifestation of "spin" is absolutely meaningless. It is possible to provide in the employment contract a ban on the performance by employees of similar work outside the firm, this will not do anything. Moreover, it is an insignificant clause. I will not now describe why, if it is interesting, I will write out later in the comments. You can dismiss employees at the first hints of a possible "spin" client. There will be no one to work with later, for why does the firm have an employee who is not needed by customers. All the others, sooner or later with the opportunity turned up (or provocations), may try to "squeeze" somebody.
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 more) - to make it so that the employee is unprofitable . 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 conducted by one person. How did we do it in our company? We have several customer service managers. Only they negotiate, conclude contracts, solve all questions with the client on orders, payments, claims, etc. But they do not fulfill the order itself. Directly work done by other people. Why is this better? Our managers - girls with a higher liberal arts education, they have a good speech, they know the basics of psychology, it is easier for them to negotiate with the client - they were taught this. In the case of difficulties, they can more objectively assess the situation (the performer 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 this ourselves), in order not to have to reduce the client directly with the performer. Theoretically, the manager can execute the order himself (“squeeze out” the client), but this is not profitable for him, since the percentage he has not received from ten lost clients (and he will not be able to work with them if he is completely busy with the “pressed” order) In total, it will be higher than the benefit from the "pressed" order. Plus, the whole company will immediately see that the manager is busy "not so." 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 calmly, after which he transfers the case to the manager and he handles the work to the customer. A sort of conveyor prototype (Henry Ford was a very intelligent man).
2. It is not always possible to implement the first option. We encountered this when we opened a branch in another city. Anyway, there must be one person, the head of the branch, who will have all the actions. He will coordinate work with both clients and performers. In the end, everything will come to the conclusion that the branch may turn into its private firm (there are no technical barriers to this), which will compete with us in this city. How to prevent this? No way. You can not make water flow uphill, you need to figure out how to make it so that it is beneficial when it flows downhill. We found a person who was engaged in a similar business in the city we need. We agreed with him like this: he gets our brand, our technology works. We place our orders with him at a price that is equal to the cost of order execution, plus his small interest. All the orders that he finds himself are his orders, we do not receive 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 received workers in another city, where you can place an order at any time, which allowed us to increase the company's total turnover. The branch manager (practically the director of another company) received a steady stream of orders that allow him to keep the necessary staff and receive a guaranteed minimum salary plus the opportunity to work and earn money independently. Will such an employee “squeeze” clients? Not. He has nothing to squeeze, all that he found himself is his, all that we have found, he will not be able to squeeze, because he cannot do the work cheaper (let me remind you, our orders are paid by the branch at cost). According to this scheme, we have 2 branches in two different cities. So far everyone is happy with the branch, we and the customers.
3. Option not for a branch, but for a regular office. If it is impossible to divide the workflow and reassign it to different employees, it is necessary to make it so that the employee benefits from sharing with the company. Alternatively, it is possible to agree as follows: the employee leads the client to the company, he does all the work and pays the company a percentage (10%, 20% ... depending on the company's participation in the project) for using the office, equipment, communications, etc. The company does not pay an employee 5-10% of the order, but he pays the company. Naturally, the workload on the main work remains with him, and if he does not cope with it, he begins to have “economic difficulties” (deprivation of bonuses, withholding from salaries, etc.). If the employee performs all the work at home in the evenings, then of course there is nothing to take, it is his personal time. He wants to watch TV, wants to bake pies. In this case, the concept of "squeeze out" disappears as a term. It becomes nothing to squeeze. It is naive to think that you can recruit employees, they will find customers themselves, they will do all the work themselves, and you, as the head of the company, will distribute 10% to them, and they will be content to look for new customers. It does not happen. If the company they nafig not useful, they will find a way to do without it.
Briefly summarized.
If your company cannot ensure that employees cannot work without it, they will “squeeze” orders.
If a client from a firm receives as much as an employee can give it alone, the client will want to be “squeezed out”.
Make the company vital for employees, and they will protect it as the most precious thing in life.
The most important thing. For what I wrote 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 out” the client. You cannot control his every step. He will call the customer on the mobile phone, meet with him after work, fulfill the order on the weekend. Opportunities will always be there. It makes no sense to arrange provocations. You caught an employee trying to "squeeze". And what to do? Reprimanded and what? When in a week he can make money more than in a company in six months, no reprimands will stop him. You can fire him. Who will you have left? Those who can not do anything on their own, and who, apart from your company, don’t need a single client? And why does 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.
')
Part two. Find and do not let go.
In order to figure out how to deal with a phenomenon, let's analyze its causes. This will help us to hack "spin" in the bud.
Why does another client want to be "pressed"? Because he gets the same thing as the employer's company, often for much less money. It is important to understand that he receives not an analogue, not a surrogate, but absolutely the same thing. Would you, for example, refuse a Mercedes for a third or half of the price? Not from the Chinese counterpart, hijacked in Mexico, but from the new real Mercedes, which the company employee will roll out of the main factory gates. This is it. This is an absolutely normal desire. Appealing to the conscience of the client is meaningless, he is absolutely right. Why pay extra money without getting anything in return?
Why do employees "squeeze" a client? Yes, because for the same job, he will receive at times more money. In the end, everyone comes to work for money (well, well, someone comes to have a good time, but we are not talking about it now), so why not maximize the flow of money with the same effort.
What do we get? That “spinning” is an absolutely logical, two-way profitable deal. Moreover, the third party (the employer) most often does not bear direct losses from this transaction (the employee himself did everything, he sold everything himself), the employer does not receive profit, but he also does not receive profit from the fact that his employees work only 8 hours, not 12 or, even better, 16 hours a day. Moreover, very often the "leftist" is done in his spare time from the main work, here the employer is generally "not in the business."
In other words, to fight against the manifestation of "spin" is absolutely meaningless. It is possible to provide in the employment contract a ban on the performance by employees of similar work outside the firm, this will not do anything. Moreover, it is an insignificant clause. I will not now describe why, if it is interesting, I will write out later in the comments. You can dismiss employees at the first hints of a possible "spin" client. There will be no one to work with later, for why does the firm have an employee who is not needed by customers. All the others, sooner or later with the opportunity turned up (or provocations), may try to "squeeze" somebody.
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 more) - to make it so that the employee is unprofitable . 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 conducted by one person. How did we do it in our company? We have several customer service managers. Only they negotiate, conclude contracts, solve all questions with the client on orders, payments, claims, etc. But they do not fulfill the order itself. Directly work done by other people. Why is this better? Our managers - girls with a higher liberal arts education, they have a good speech, they know the basics of psychology, it is easier for them to negotiate with the client - they were taught this. In the case of difficulties, they can more objectively assess the situation (the performer 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 this ourselves), in order not to have to reduce the client directly with the performer. Theoretically, the manager can execute the order himself (“squeeze out” the client), but this is not profitable for him, since the percentage he has not received from ten lost clients (and he will not be able to work with them if he is completely busy with the “pressed” order) In total, it will be higher than the benefit from the "pressed" order. Plus, the whole company will immediately see that the manager is busy "not so." 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 calmly, after which he transfers the case to the manager and he handles the work to the customer. A sort of conveyor prototype (Henry Ford was a very intelligent man).
2. It is not always possible to implement the first option. We encountered this when we opened a branch in another city. Anyway, there must be one person, the head of the branch, who will have all the actions. He will coordinate work with both clients and performers. In the end, everything will come to the conclusion that the branch may turn into its private firm (there are no technical barriers to this), which will compete with us in this city. How to prevent this? No way. You can not make water flow uphill, you need to figure out how to make it so that it is beneficial when it flows downhill. We found a person who was engaged in a similar business in the city we need. We agreed with him like this: he gets our brand, our technology works. We place our orders with him at a price that is equal to the cost of order execution, plus his small interest. All the orders that he finds himself are his orders, we do not receive 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 received workers in another city, where you can place an order at any time, which allowed us to increase the company's total turnover. The branch manager (practically the director of another company) received a steady stream of orders that allow him to keep the necessary staff and receive a guaranteed minimum salary plus the opportunity to work and earn money independently. Will such an employee “squeeze” clients? Not. He has nothing to squeeze, all that he found himself is his, all that we have found, he will not be able to squeeze, because he cannot do the work cheaper (let me remind you, our orders are paid by the branch at cost). According to this scheme, we have 2 branches in two different cities. So far everyone is happy with the branch, we and the customers.
3. Option not for a branch, but for a regular office. If it is impossible to divide the workflow and reassign it to different employees, it is necessary to make it so that the employee benefits from sharing with the company. Alternatively, it is possible to agree as follows: the employee leads the client to the company, he does all the work and pays the company a percentage (10%, 20% ... depending on the company's participation in the project) for using the office, equipment, communications, etc. The company does not pay an employee 5-10% of the order, but he pays the company. Naturally, the workload on the main work remains with him, and if he does not cope with it, he begins to have “economic difficulties” (deprivation of bonuses, withholding from salaries, etc.). If the employee performs all the work at home in the evenings, then of course there is nothing to take, it is his personal time. He wants to watch TV, wants to bake pies. In this case, the concept of "squeeze out" disappears as a term. It becomes nothing to squeeze. It is naive to think that you can recruit employees, they will find customers themselves, they will do all the work themselves, and you, as the head of the company, will distribute 10% to them, and they will be content to look for new customers. It does not happen. If the company they nafig not useful, they will find a way to do without it.
Briefly summarized.
If your company cannot ensure that employees cannot work without it, they will “squeeze” orders.
If a client from a firm receives as much as an employee can give it alone, the client will want to be “squeezed out”.
Make the company vital for employees, and they will protect it as the most precious thing in life.
The most important thing. For what I wrote 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 out” the client. You cannot control his every step. He will call the customer on the mobile phone, meet with him after work, fulfill the order on the weekend. Opportunities will always be there. It makes no sense to arrange provocations. You caught an employee trying to "squeeze". And what to do? Reprimanded and what? When in a week he can make money more than in a company in six months, no reprimands will stop him. You can fire him. Who will you have left? Those who can not do anything on their own, and who, apart from your company, don’t need a single client? And why does the company have such employees?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/76430/
All Articles