I was on a panel at a procurement conference recently and the topic about procurement as “trusted advisor” came up. It’s an aspiration I’ve heard a lot from internal support functions as we seek to get closer to the business unit we are supporting. I offered the opinion on the panel that the trust had to be there (earned) and the advice had to exist (learned). There was much agreement on this point.
I have been thinking about this topic a little more since then. As internal functional experts, we have developed a tendency to refer to our internal business colleagues are our “customers”. And this is the group of individuals to whom we wish to impart our advice, and by whom we want to be trusted. I suspect, however, the desire for “trusted” is less about imparting reliable advice and more about the advice being wanted at all.
The idea of internal customer service optimisation comes via TQM and is an early 1980s and 1990s idea whereby the internal “customer” is given measurable levels of service qualities by intra-organisational service providers. Whilst I can see the logic and appeal of this customer analogy in how one might approach the systematic way in which a support function assists various divisions, I increasingly don’t buy into its success or contribution of value to the organisation.
In the world of commerce, someone buys something that someone else is selling. This has always been the nature of exchange. Customers are people who give a seller custom, meaning they repeatedly buy from that that seller. Naturally, repeat business is to be prized. But I do not sell anything to my colleagues, nor do they provide me with custom. I realise that’s a pedantic distinction but I make the point only to be specific about the fundamental dynamic between customers and sellers is very different to that between internal service function and service recipient. The practice has given rise to the xBP role across most functions, with each department head having functional BPs as part of their leadership team. This practise is sufficiently common for the presence of an xBP to no longer be questioned. Indeed, the poor internal customers usually have little choice in this monopolistic imposition. As such, I think these roles often fall far short of the “trusted adviser” to which they aspire.
I am not arguing that we should dispense with assessing the quality of service we provide to the organisation but TQM’s ostensible intention was to ensure a similar standard of attention was paid both internally and externally to anyone giving a service. What we’re retained from these earnest TQM aspirations today, however, is only the idea of the “customer” with its attendant desire for “trusted advisor” status, and very little linkage to measurement or quality assurances in a manner that TQM aficionados would recognise or endorse.
I am keen on the idea of “trusted advisor” though.
I believe functional experts have a depth of advice to give through what they have learned. This is our strength, our differentiation, and the reason for our very existence. If we are not capable of offering these three elements of functional expertise, be it procurement or HR, our ongoing existence is in trouble.
But trust is harder to come by than learning.
Giving advice worth taking is only valuable to the firm if someone is prepared to act upon it. And asking someone to trust your advice in a corporate context is asking them to take a chance on you. Most of us will only do this after credibility has been built over time (legal and tax advisors excepted!). And when you reach this point of credibility and respect, it usually becomes an exchange between equals. Whilst we treat our internal colleagues as customers, we run the risk of never being seen as equals. And, I would argue, our advice never really being wanted or valued.
