Year-end gifts: let's not forget our suppliers!
As the festive season rapidly approaches, the ritual of "client gifts" is about to begin. Lists will be validated, catalogues leafed through, and teams will send their best clients bottles of champagne and other luxury hampers. In our view, this custom has something paradoxical about it: a client gift does more to enhance the reputation of the company giving it than that of the one receiving it.
The idea is to make a good impression so that the client renews the contract. It would make far more sense if the company extended this same gesture of generosity towards its "subcontractors". This would reward work well done and send a signal of recognition to a partner. Alas, we are rarely compelled to acknowledge that this attitude is rare. Why?
Economic literature is full of books on human relations at the heart of the company, yet there is precious little reflection on "client-supplier" relationships. If many HR managers and executives are fond of repeating the motto "put people at the heart of the company", one could very well transpose this message to subcontractors. This would make particular sense. Imagine: "We do everything to give our suppliers their fair value" or "We share the best of our suppliers with you." Companies that dared to communicate in this way would not only demonstrate openness — they could also highlight the fact that their products are the fruit of a fruitful collaboration, an exercise every bit as complex as managing internal teams. And there are several reasons for this.
What makes entrepreneurial collaboration complicated is the heterogeneity of the players involved. Most of the time, the two "partner entities" belong to different worlds — in terms of their headcount, their turnover, and of course their complementary fields of activity. It is then easy to understand that for collaboration to be effective, the two parties must find common ground. Yet the teams in charge of projects can have different — or even opposing — objectives. In the case of outsourced technological innovation, for example, the client will be focused on controlling the costs of their investment and bringing their new product to market within deadlines; while their service provider will be directing all their attention towards the success of the technological challenge they have been called upon to meet. While an overrun in working hours may fit within the provider's logic of pursuing the perfection they seek, the additional cost it generates risks throwing the commissioning party's calculations into disarray. One can then appreciate the level of complexity this type of collaboration entails and the difficulties it can create for a serene dialogue.
Today, values are taking up ever more space in the business world. One sees this in the number of charters and websites. All companies now say they want to prioritise trust, people, team spirit, the environment, and service. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) — which refers to the voluntary consideration by companies of environmental, social, and ethical challenges in their activities — is gaining ground a little more every day. For some it is still a posture. But for most it represents a genuine commitment. And one can expect this movement to gain further momentum with the arrival of the millennial generation, who are extremely sensitive to the values conveyed by their employers.
Returning to our initial question, one understands that the condition for a healthy collaboration between a commissioning client and a subcontractor is the sharing of common values linked to a degree of transparency. For example, the weaknesses of each party will be better understood when both actors know that they share many common principles. It is on this basis that dialogue and trust can take root. And it is the respect of this "implicit contract" between the two partners that should give rise to a token of appreciation — and of course, a sincere word of thanks and a lovely year-end gesture!
