It’s tempting, when you’re trying to build business, to say yes to mediation and related gigs that are significant stretches for your skill level or experience.
I’ll figure it out as I go along, you say to yourself. Or perhaps you subscribe to the “fake it until you make it” school of business. It makes me cringe even to type that!
There’s a lot of wisdom in saying no instead, as pointed out by David Bresler of the Breakfast Network and quoted by Marketing Mentor Ilise Benun:
“An offer of a lucrative project that is different from anything you have done in the past or a mismatch for your skill set. Even if you believe that you can do it, you are bound to make mistakes this first time around and thus both damage your reputation and not make the kind of return you are used to (or even lose money). It is tempting to go to school on somebody else’s nickel, but, in the end it is usually a bad policy.”
There’s stretching yourself and then there’s really stretching yourself. Slight stretches can help improve your skills. Significant stretches can damage your credibility, a mediation marketing no-no from which it can be difficult to recover.
Read more about saying “no” wisely at The Marketing Mix blog.
Copyright © 2007 by Tammy Lenski. All rights reserved.
Interesting and valuable post.
When I first started mediating a while ago, I belonged to the “process skill” rather than “substantive knowledge” camp.
But over the years I have found that dipping your toe into unknown waters is not a good idea.
Far better to find you niche and not try to be “all things to all people”
Colm
You bet, Colm. There’s a chapter on just that topic (target market and market niche) in my forthcoming book.
If you have a moment, I’d love you to comment here on what lead you to conclude it wasn’t a good idea to dip toes into unknown waters!
Best,
Tammy
My initial approach was that “mediation” is “mediation,” but after having a “general” practice for a while it became obvious to me that I was not really listening to what my clients wanted.
I came in as the process expert all gung-ho with the fervour of beginning professionals (especially mediators as we seem to often look at what we do as a “calling” as much as a profession). But most clients and their counsel wanted resolution through settlement or narrowing the issues. They did not, except in particular cases, care whether I was a facilitative mediator or transformative mediator as long as I got results.
I discovered it is much easier to talk to clients and their lawyers if you have substantive knowledge the topic of the dispute.
All dispute resolution occurs along a continium and having substantive knowledge helps the mediator with work out where he or she should be in addressing the resolution needs of the particular client in the particular dispute. This may not sit well with pure conflict resolvers but it is reality especially in the legal field.
Colm
Colm,
I found myself nodding as I read your last comment because I have had a similar change in my thinking. I came in, as you did, fully believing that if I have enough good process knowledge and skill, I don’t need content skill. I still generally believe that, and I’ve come to understand that when I’m familiar with the narrower world of my clients (e.g., higher education or probate court), they seem more inclined to trust me at the front end…I speak their language.
And I couldn’t agree more with your comment that, except in particular cases, parties don’t really care what kind of mediator we label ourselves to be…they care about the results.
I appreciate you having this brief online conversation with me, Colm!