Comments

Getting to WE can have major benefit for both parties but its not easy, I think the primary feature has to be trust, derived through shared vision and business objectives. Followed by shared sense of risk and responsibility.

To achieve this partners (if they have more than one customer / partnership) must have chinese walls in the organisation so other customers / other 'WE's' don't present a conflict of interest with the customer in point.

Posted by Dave Hills at November 18, 2005 4:39 AM

Partnership, customer liaison, team, customer care.... "NOT"... It's me me me... And guess what, until you become your own customer and experience the other side of the counter, whether real or virtual, you will not understand "We"

Posted by Bob Hail at November 18, 2005 4:44 AM

To sell well, a company's message to the consumer must be about 'you': the consumer's needs and wants.

To make a profit, the goal must be 'we': the customer's and the company’s needs and wants.

'We' must also be about managers/team, leaders/led, company/employees, company/community and company/environment.

Posted by Mark Nunney at November 18, 2005 5:11 AM

Great post Steve

When I worked as a manager in the UK National Health Service I used to get fed up even angry when managers referred to people as 'my staff.' I find the words patronising at best and rude at worst. 'My' implies ownership and no one owns anyone else in the work place - we are all colleagues. I never used that expression for people who worked 'with' me - even if people were paid less than me. It was always 'we' and your post is a very welcome breath of fresh air.

The words we use are so important in relationships. A little humility never did anyone any harm and in reality all progress in the world has never been because of 'I' - it has always been through 'we'

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 18, 2005 7:12 AM

To me the next iteration is the Lovemark concept - examples - for many reasons I'm always loyal to Nike, Wal*Mart, Bank of America [barely], Nordstroms, Eddie Bauer, Lexus, Oakley.

Mainly "we" due to buying into their story and culture and value and savings and service.

I'm pleased to do battle and fire product suppliers/services too though - ones that try to drain your time and finances - while "providing" inferior 19th century dino products/services

Posted by Sean at November 18, 2005 10:25 AM

Steve:

To me "We" is about understanding the business of your customer. When you focus on their business and what they need to succeed then any issue will automatically become a "we" without any effort at all. The same focus also will also determine when it is not a "we." If you know their business well then you can automatically determine if what you have to offer will be of value and if you can do so and make a profit. To me it has also been a very natural process, yet I would say that that viewpoint is not as widespread as I would have thought. Over the years I have often been told by our customers (partners in our phraseology) that no one in my area of the industry had every understood their needs and position let alone tried to create solutions where everyone won. We all tend to be centric in our views. To me business and relationships are not all that different - if you focus on helping others succeed you will naturally be carried along in that success. This view is very much like Disney World's view of profits - they don't create goals that describe profits as in so many % profit for the quarter. Instead, they focus on creating an optimal customer experience. If they do that, then profits are a natural byproduct.

Posted by walter white at November 18, 2005 10:57 AM

I DON’T KNOW!

Even when WE go for a walk with the dog, the “We” relationship falls apart at the first sign of a rabbit; then I am walking alone and the “We” becomes me, myself, and I.

We is a classification of belief that rarely holds true when looked close enough. We are all on this planet we call earth, except for those people living in the space station. We are all in the project together, unless the status turns red then you guys don’t know what you’re doing. We must work together with our suppliers to create a partnership, until they fail to deliver the product on time. Our customer’s are our number one priority as long as they don’t complain about the customer no-service.

“We” is another definition of Trust. The word trust has been active in human language throughout written history. Although the concept of trust is vital to our daily lives, most people have trouble defining trust in specific terms. Trust is dependent on sources such as reliability, genuineness, truthfulness, intent, competence, and other similar factors. These factors can be applied to situations that either enable trust or destroy it. Trust can be based on the expected actions within an interaction characterized by uncertainty. Trust can be viewed as the perceived credibility and benevolence of the other party. The credibility of the party is related to the documentation or statements made during the course of a business relationship. Benevolence is the conceptualization that one party is genuinely concerned for the other’s welfare and is motivated by seeking a joint gain in the relationship.

You see we and trust are simply the same thing. If we don’t have trust, you can’t get We.

Posted by RTodd at November 18, 2005 11:11 AM

I suppose that a major requirement for the realization of 'we' is for a business or provider to be truly ethical, providing a quality product or service without attempting to either trick, over-charge, or deceive its customers. There would be very few legitimate 'we' relationships between providers and customers. And even fewer in larger organizations where extremely high salaries are earned. When the proportion of earnings, profit margins and cost to consumer are analysed, any great disparity amongst them will certainly cause an us vs. them perception to the consumer.

A 'we' relationship will only be realized when a provider and consumer collaborate from the concept stage through development, price structuring and distribution. When the customer is considered throughout the life cycle of a product or service, and when transparency and fairness overshadow investor strategy and profit, then 'we' might be working together.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at November 18, 2005 11:12 AM

Come to think of it, there would be very few 'we' relationships w i t h i n organizations, forget about between them and their customers!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at November 18, 2005 11:17 AM

I like "we." The reason I like "we" is that it implies a relationship in which people face challenges together. The problem is that "we" are often dysfunctional. Even when "we" face the market together, or face vendors together, or face shareholders together, "we" still hang onto all the emotional baggage that naturally comes with any relationship. What is unnatural (but frequent in the world of work) is that there is little expectation that "we" will work it out. "We" should be motivated by profit targets and culture... but how does that encourage me to pick up my phone, call you, agree that we have a problem between our two departments, resolve the problem, and restore "we"? In a real relationship, when people bicker and fight, they always have a choice: Do I want to be right? or do I want to be together? But in the world of work, that choice has already been made for us.. we HAVE to be together. There for we are dysfunctional. Without some sort of amazingly strong bonding experience that breaks down the barrier of "well, you should work with me because you're paid to," "we" find it difficult to work it out.

Posted by robin at November 18, 2005 11:41 AM

A fantastic summary RTodd - I love it - 'Trust' and 'We' the same thing - excellent!

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 18, 2005 11:42 AM

Collaborative - participative - Serving - Authentic - Genuine - Orchestral - Altruistic

*Holding Hands * Yielding * Sharing * Humility * Common Cause

Posted by D Weigold at November 18, 2005 11:43 AM

Steve, this is a very important topic. Perhaps one of those that can make a real difference. I think some of these qualities could be:

Responsibility, commitment, involvement, effectiveness and leadership.

Posted by Felix Gerena at November 18, 2005 7:43 PM

I think transparency is the key to establishing we-ness. Opening the books is one way to communicate this transparency. I've bent over backwords to maintain a relationship with a vendor who was completely open with me about their cost structure. I try to offer the same to people, because once you've crossed that line, both parties are empowered to make business decisions that are known to benefit both parties.

Pre-transparency, the partnership is working on stated and assumed needs. Post-transparency, the partnership can work on grounded, factual needs. This reality based scenario inspires people to use their creativity. It provides an impetus for creating new solutions.

Posted by Jeffrey Osborne at November 18, 2005 7:58 PM

There is no exposition more eloquent on the topic of "We", than Martin Buber's classic, "I and Thou". During the spring, '06 semester I will be teaching a graduate seminar on the topic of "Explorations in Conversational Competence" at Hiram College in Ohio. "We-ness" is the essence of the course. Tom, I look forward to your thoughts on this topic from a business perspective.

Posted by James Laux at November 18, 2005 8:07 PM

I agree with Bob in understanding first your own needs and being your own customer, that as a previous step towards the "We" concept makes sense. Re. Robin's post I slighly disagree that any "We" will be disfunctional because of "emotional baggage", that way we will never establish constructive communications. Quoting here Mr. Z.Ziglar, "failure is an event, not a person" and I believe this is the perspective that can allow us to start working whatever for delivering excellent customer experiences.
Tom O' those remarks on ethical standards, transparency and fairness are brilliant.

Posted by Omara at November 19, 2005 12:14 AM

Excuse my bad English.. I am from Spain!
I think the key to WE relationship is not in customer and in the COMPANY... I think the key is in the people of company. If people only works for company... there will not be a WE relationship with customer... if people have a kind of partnership with company (arriving in an ideal situation to a relation of equal parts), the customer will be integrated in this relation and will be a part of this WE. The customer of workers will not be the work done (as at this moment) but will be the satisfyed customer.
(I think I haven't expressed very well my idea!! :D)

Posted by Gregor Moreno at November 19, 2005 7:24 AM

As an entrepreneur launching the starting-up airline Air Gumbo and recruiting candidates for executive positions, some would asked me if they will be working for me (the CEO); to which, I answer, WE will both be working for the corporation.

Also when speaking to potential investors, I would use WE [meaning at least myself and the corporation or hopefully, the potential investor(s)] and they would always asked me who is WE!

Posted by Ralston Champagnie at November 19, 2005 2:59 PM

Ralston...
I think people shouldn't work nor for you nor for the company... people should cooperate to get an objective (so they don't work for nobody)... and people ARE company.. so they don't work for company... THEY ARE THE COMPANY!

Posted by Gregor Moreno at November 20, 2005 7:36 AM

The "we" has been done especially well by Starbucks - a must read in BusinessWeek's new issue [which quotes Dr. Tom a couple of times about the late great Dr. Peter Drucker] - anyway Starbucks is up $50k in same store sales vs. last year and has even been opening stores very close to existing. The Star culture / story is brilliant [rarely go there myself tho].

Plus Star's rapid growth in China - amazing "we" story. BusinessWeek also mentioned that Vancouver, BC pollution particulates on any given day are 25% from China - hang in there "pd" - don't breathe too deeply in the semi great white north. Same for San Fran / LA la-la rad liberal land.

Posted by Sean at November 20, 2005 10:44 AM

More importantly how do your customers refer to you? My mum had a butcher she always went to. Commonly referred to her friends and family as "my butcher". The butcher was very good, new mum's preferences and looked after her.

On the other hand it was always "the bank", "the chemist", "the newsagent". There was a clear distinction between the relationships she shared. Do your customers use "my" or "the"?

Posted by Jason Wenn at November 20, 2005 7:54 PM

Good point Jason. That said, I just found out recently that MY local (pub) has been ripping me off over the past year with margins that benefited their profit ahead of my wallet. We relationships in business or in life will only grow to fulfilling partnerships if the motives of all involved are not completely self-serving and are based on sincere, fair and honest exchanges.

Sean, while I like Starbucks, I just can't accept that a cup of coffee should cost me that much. I used to get a refillable carafe of coffee in NY Diners for half the price of one cup of a mocha joka. Meanwhile, Starbucks execs are laughing in their 7 series BMWs as I wait in line hoping that I have 3.40 in change for my caffine fix.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at November 21, 2005 7:34 AM

Thanks for these comments, everyone. I'm letting your ideas percolate, and I will share more of my thoughts soon. Great comments!

James Laux - I had a the epiphany that started this book listening to a lecture on "I and Thou," which I've known for years. Contact me to discuss if you'd like!

Posted by Steve Yastrow at November 21, 2005 7:54 AM

viagra mastercard online pharmacy I don't really start feeling like there is a "we" relationship as a customer until I start to feel that the company has a stake in my success. The key point being that it is a feeling.

Posted by Kevin Knutson at November 21, 2005 10:20 AM

I agree Tom O' - I only go to Starbucks if invited - am not a $5 coffee/sugar/flavor type - do admire their business model and hopefully they and other USA companies overtake China so our trade deficit floats to a normal range.

Posted by Sean at November 21, 2005 11:22 AM

Steve,

I definitely would like to discuss "we-ness" with you. Let me know how you'd like to proceed.

Jim Laux

Posted by James Laux at November 21, 2005 6:56 PM

Hi Steve

Great post, the concept of us and them versus we is one that is rooted a lot deeper than we originally think

I was a professional sportsman who had the privelege of playing with some tremendous athletes.
it was always the power of the we that made the biggest difference , and the scourge of the us v them that crippled even the most talented teams

magic happens when the base concern of the individual is for the collective, because we as human beings seem to have more energy for achievement through the greater good than purely selfish pursuits, and continually prove that 2+2 can equal 5
keep up the good work

Posted by Bob Skinstad at November 25, 2005 8:03 AM

Tell me, I'll forget. Show me, I may remember. But involve me, and I'll understand.

-Chinese Proverb

Posted by Jim Cooper at November 28, 2005 1:13 PM

The concept of "WE" is an excelent way to start on thinking about our way to do everyday work with those who pay the salarys: our customers. I hope my english will be ok (I'm from Argentina).

Posted by Juan Carlos Traverso at November 29, 2005 11:34 PM

In order for customers to shift to "we" thinking, they must feel that we are on their side, that "us" and "them" have the same goal in mind. I work in health care (in a hospital, to be exact), and patients will respond better to treatments and have a better experience if they feel that their providers are looking out for them - and beyond just getting them out of the hospital. Patient's families must also feel cared for. As you said in Re-Imagine!, the basis of this is creating an experience, from the front door, to housekeeping, to checking your vital signs. Even (perhaps especially!) hospitals have to re-invent and re-imagine to be successful.

Posted by Dennis Jolley at December 9, 2005 12:39 PM