Below I answer a few of the questions posed to me yesterday in the webinar The Four Conversations Book Club: Chapter Two, The Qualifying Conversation. 

Like any book club, the idea in this four-part free webinar series is you read the book, or at least the chapter, then show up for the discussion. 

We dedicate an hour to each conversation but we’re receiving a lot more questions than I can answer in that hour, so here are the ones I thought would be broadly beneficial to the largest number of people.

If you want to sign up for the last two chapters, The Value Conversation and The Closing Conversation, you can do so here. They’re Tuesdays at 11am Eastern for the next two weeks. 

You can also watch the recordings of Chapter One: The Probative Conversation and Chapter Two: The Qualifying Conversation (coming soon) on our Youtube channel.

The Qualifying Conversation Q&A

For context, The Qualifying Conversation is the second conversation in our four conversation arc, but it’s the first person-to-person conversation. (If that doesn’t make sense to you then you haven’t read the book, have you? 😁)

Your objective in this conversation is to vet the lead while maintaining the expert position in the relationship. The latter you accomplished in the first conversation, The Probative Conversation. 

Let’s get into the questions. 

How do I convince my team that we don’t need massive, beautifully designed PPT decks for “credentials meetings”?

The short answer is you don’t convince them, you model it for them. You take a Qualifying Conversation (or five), record them then review them with your team.
 
Mary is almost certainly referencing my recent post There Is No Credentials Meeting where I made the point that these initial meetings are really Qualifying Conversations. Your objective is to vet the lead to determine a fit. You also have to be prepared to answer the client’s questions they’ll put to you to see if you qualify for them. 

The common mistake is to over-prepare for that side of the conversation. Read the post for more detail on what to do and what not to do. There’s also a 2Bobs episode that elaborates on this even further. It’s scheduled to drop on June 18th.

How do you balance client service without losing the expert position in the relationship?

This is from Claire, and she’s referring to the dual nature of account management where you are in server/responder mode one minute, getting things done on time and on budget, and in leader/challenger the next, pushing back on a project, asking the client to think bigger and budget more.

This is the issue of account management—the tension of two seemingly opposable roles. First, you need to know that you can do both, even though one is more comfortable to you. Check out the 2Bobs podcast episode on this titled You Contain Multitudes.

Second, you need to have a framework for when to move into leader/challenger mode. If you’re a Win Without Pitching client with access to the WWP Academy you can watch the Live Lesson on Growing Existing Accounts which offers a framework. 

Third, the framework for how you move into leader/challenger mode is The Value Conversation, which we cover next week in Chapter Three: The Value Conversation. 

What about sending questions in advance to get a general idea and go into more detail during the call?

This is from Greg, but others like Ruxana asked similar questions around qualifying via email.

A certain level of qualifying via email is appropriate if you have initial concerns about the fit and/or you’re pressed for time. Exactly when to email some qualifying questions will vary from firm to firm, but I suggest that when you do reply to an inbound inquiry with questions you should limit yourself to one or two questions only.

As a buyer, nothing kills a deal for me faster than the seller responding to my inquiry with homework like a questionnaire. There may be a time and place for that but it’s not before we’ve had a conversation. 

Ask your one or two questions as a precursor for deciding whether a full Qualifying Conversation is merited.

I struggle with probing about decision-makers without sounding like a vendor and undoing the “flip”. Typically, a client can tell that you’re trying to identify who has the power to make the decision so that you can route your sales process there. What are best practices for navigating the DM part of the frameworks without relinquishing power?

This is from Eric, who included more context about a “shadow spouse” that I left out for brevity.

At a high level, I don’t see the problem with you “routing your sales process” toward decision makers. It would be negligent not to, so just own it. You’re a professional, using a framework to get the answers you need to determine a fit and a next step. Just ask your questions. When you learn to be at ease your clients will be at ease. 

As I modelled in the webinar, I like to begin probing the DM process before I get to the decision makers themselves. E.g., “Tell me how you typically go about hiring a firm like ours?”

Then an open-ended search for the players, “In addition to yourself, who else needs to be involved?”

From there I’ll ask more pointed questions. Let’s say the spouse did not get a mention. You might say, “It’s typical for people in your situation to include your spouse in the decision. Is there a reason you didn’t mention them?”

The client might reply that their spouse is busy doing other things and they’ve agreed to divide and conquer, but you’ve seen this movie before and you know the spouse must have a say. So you might nod in agreement. “I get that you’re both busy. So they would approve the decision once you’ve made it?” 

“That’s right,” says the client. 

You’ve confirmed the spouse is a decision maker. When you drive the next step you will simply include the spouse in the step without apology. 

You can draw a hard line around this issue, if you prefer. For example, a financial planner might say, “as a matter of policy, both partners in the marriage need to be involved in the decision to hire me. Your spouse won’t have to attend every meeting, but they will have to attend the key ones, including the next one where you decide, as a team, whether or not I’m the right financial planner for you. That’s the most efficient use of everyone’s time.” 

For more on when to draw hard lines by invoking policy versus soft lines of preferences or guidance, listen to the 2Bobs episode title Hard Lines, Soft Lines. 

One final question. 

Do you give the same recommendations when people start out? I find it at times challenging to stay in “expert mode” and honoring all my principles when I know I have to close projects to provide for my family. What are your thoughts on this?

I understand this pressure, Christian. It’s the pressure that causes us to slip from expert to vendor in the sale. Let me ask you, does succumbing to this pressure and going into convince mode increase the likelihood of you closing the deal?

I would suggest it lowers the likelihood of you closing. This model of The Four Conversations with its principles and frameworks is not designed to make you proud but poor. The goal is to win more, better business, at higher prices and lower cost of sale. The path to this success involves less convincing, not more. Less presenting, more presence. Fewer assertions, more questions. 

Do it now, early in your business, before the bad habits are calcified. 

If you’re applying the principles and frameworks and you find yourself further from your financial goals then it’s likely there’s a flaw in your interpretation of the material. I see you’ve signed up for one of the July workshops so the answers are only a few weeks away! Let’s talk after that.

-Blair