Aristotle believed that Ethos, the trust of a speaker, was characterized by three attributes: the intelligence of the speaker (correctness of opinions, or competence), the character of the speaker (reliability – a competence factor, and honesty – a measure of intentions), and the goodwill of the speaker (favorable intentions towards the listener).
Has anything really changed in 2,400 years?
Customer-Vendor relationships are often riddled with distrust. Customers believe (and project?) they are paying too much, giving too much, working too hard and receiving too little. Vendors can be heard saying that they are paid too little, give too much, work too hard with no recognition and that they are driving most results. What would Aristotle say? One answer might be that unexamined organizations may make difficult partners.
Brought forward to 2011, Aristotle’s guidebook suggests that Trust in Customer-Vendor relationships is a matter of three factors (distilled from his work in The Rhetoric):
- the capabilities or competencies of each firm
- the dominant organizational culture
- the point of view (I simplify it down to Abundance vs. Scarcity thinking) about working relationships
Across 26 years in Innovation and Enterprise Transformation work, I’ve seen a bit when it comes to Customer-Vendor relationships. Some organizations ignore Trust as a key business factor; many pay inconsistent heed, and most are rather fickle on how they treat employees, partners and sometimes even shareholders.
Whether the deal is large, small or business-defining, Aristotle’s definition recommends that hard work is required to achieve Healthy Trust in Customer-Vendor relationships. One should not assume it. Time will not improve it. Rather, careful due diligence, discussions and across-the-table teamwork can invoke Trust in any situation if:
- each firm understands its own capabilities or competencies, the gaps, and what possible partners might offer to create larger, faster wins
- each firm understands its own cultures (values, norms and behaviors), and what kinds of firms they are best able to work with or serve to achieve outrageous outcomes
- each firm understands its own values with respect to opening up to, being vulnerable to, relying on and being assisted by another firm, to achieve more with less (leverage)
How often do you or your organization ask “is this a partner or firm that I best align with in terms of capabilities, culture and intentions?”, to achieve business or social objectives? I suggest this question is rarely asked. Instead, most of the time, we focus on the likelihood that this partner or vendor is
- the best total lowest cost price for the solution offered (Aristotle, what do you think? pass the sniff test?)
- a firm we can most manage or dominate so that we have leverage (what happened to vulnerability? to openness?)
- the best in-class firm in the category, thus, one we must do business with to get unfair advantage
Aristotelian customers often win the game or the race over the medium-to-long term period. Those that bring Trust to the table in their vendor relationships create abundant partnerships, versus guarded customers that seek to exploit or manage vendors because dollars and end-benefits are scarce in their mindset. I have seen this first-hand numerous times. The COO of Standard Pacific Homes embraces a supply chain partnership model that, to this day, attracts many of the industry’s most creative trades and innovative materials suppliers, breaking from the common tradition of seeking to exploit every vendor for incremental profits. Financial giant Chubb insurance (guided by a visionary Innovation leader) develops new services and solutions in close tandem with its broker channel partners, understanding that winning new Chubb solutions will also put dollars into the pockets of enterprising partners. And heavy machinery leader John Deere went so far as to launch a prize-based campaign to reward vendors who helped it redesign tractor components so that the total product would be more sustainable and green.
These firms have embraced ETHOS and not just the profit principle. And, predictably, they win more than their competitors. How ready are you for Healthy Trust in your customer-vendor relationships?
