Thanks
james still
______________________________________________

A couple of years ago we created a new client team process for a big law firm, based on the radical notion (for law firms, anyway) that there were a number of support roles that must be performed well for the team to succeed, and that the only people you want on the team are those who have opted into an existing role of acknowledged inherent value that they know they can perform well. It's a self-governing system; no one opts into a role at which they'll fail. Such person/role alignment simplifies everyone's life. There's no need to motivate them, train them or supervise/manage them.

The short version of the outcome is that once we filled all the roles and established a collaboration process, they were able to cut the consultant umbilical chord within 5 months and operate completely independently for the balance of the year (and, obviously, in subsequent years). In December, they shared the results with us: 1) They accomplished every one of the specific goals they had set in January, including penetrating two new service categories, and 2) achieved a 35% revenue increase with no write-downs or discounts. Oh, and all this occurred with a client who had declared a flat legal budget for the year.

The point is that for everyone, there is an optimal setting and environment for success based on strengths, interests and other traits. Just because you don't belong here doesn't mean you're not valuable or won't have an important impact. It just means that you'll have to do that someplace where you're a better fit.

Small company biases against big company experience is not based on arrogance, but recognition that small is, in fact, very different from large, and that it matters.