By Bruce Meuli, Global Transaction Services Advisory executive, and Jonathon Traer-Clark, Head of Strategy, Global Transaction Services, Bank of America Merrill Lynch
JTC One of the themes in our last Head2Head was listening, which reminded me of a piece of advice I received from a leader in a prior role. He said, “You have two ears and one mouth – use them in that ratio”. We’ve discussed relationship management before, and the importance of developing a regular, trusted dialogue between corporate treasury and its bankers. But that’s only one avenue of communication between banks and treasurers.
BM Did you ever take that leader’s advice? In all seriousness, banks have conferences, forums, journals, peer groups, surveys and the like to hear about what treasurers need and the challenges they face. And of course treasurers can move their business too – which is a form of feedback in itself, albeit quite a final one. Which do we consider the most effective?
JTC I’m listening…
BM Well, they certainly all have their uses – but as you expressed as a case in point – it’s not only what’s being said that matters, it’s who’s listening, and for what purpose. As a bank, we need to be mindful of the total client experience and seek feedback from servicing, sales, products etc. It’s not lost on me that whilst our business is founded on transactions – whether trade, FX, card, payments or receipts – they represent the output of a relationship.
JTC Still listening…
BM That relationship can be very deep and extend across the full spectrum of banking services – corporate, investment and so forth, so many treasurers have multiple points of interaction across the bank. And let’s not forget that banks also provide services to other financial institutions, which in turn support the corporate community. With all these interfaces, it’s important to understand that both communications and indeed feedback, can be multi-faceted and may not necessarily be relevant to every product or division. You can speak now!
JTC Phew! I like the expression ‘total client experience’. If we agree that both parties (the bank and the corporate) are partners in that experience, then it should be bilateral at the engagement level too. For me forums, surveys and the like are ways of requesting general views and feedback, whether on behalf of a bank, industry body, technology vendor, consultancy or other supplier to the treasury profession. When I worked in corporate treasury, my team and I received multiple requests for feedback on behalf of a variety of organisations, including banks.
BM How did you approach them? Did you respond to them all? I think there can sometimes be a tendency to view satisfaction surveys as a forum for complaints. The more cynical could argue that a survey response is only as good as your last negative interaction or event, or it is predominantly one person’s view, or that direct ‘apples to apples’ comparison can lead to confused outputs…
JTC I think we need to first recognise that surveys happen for a reason – companies are seeking information, visibility and insights in general terms across a customer segment or industry. Secondly, feedback should be balanced appropriately. As in your individual performance review, the objective is to be candid, give praise (where warranted) and direction. So to answer your question, as a general rule yes, we tried to respond to as many as we could. We also shared our responses across the department, to remove any personal bias.
BM I like the idea of survey sharing – that sounds like a great solution particularly when you receive multiple questionnaires at the same time. We know that treasurers receive surveys from lots of different sources, but from a bank perspective, we monitor the frequency of these closely to avoid placing undue requests on customers.
JTC Just as importantly though, is it always clear what happens with the results? To quote another leader, “feedback is a gift”, which means twice as much effort should be made to listen as to respond, but there needs to be an outcome.
BM Ah – the listening! I’ll use your analogy from personal performance reviews – specifically where feedback on individuals is sought anonymously. Whilst rankings against numerical scales can give you an overall league table, the commentary tends to give more of a theme. Personally I find scales and rankings are limited, but the rationale behind the score is of more interest.
[[[PAGE]]]
JTC So you do listen to me?
BM Pardon? When treasurers take the time to respond, I think that both individual institutions, and the wider industry listen. After all, without feedback, how would we be able to prioritise treasurers’ needs, such as simpler authentication, common standards, innovation and the like? Saying that, at some stage you’re right to suggest that you need to be able to demonstrate that you have listened, considered and acted. The evidence of listening is action – and by action I mean more than well-intended rhetoric. I think this in an area where we could do more.
JTC The industry has a lot of communication and feedback channels as you alluded to previously – all of which provide avenues of information and insight for bank and corporate alike. Treasurers tend to be naturally curious, which comes from constantly evaluating capital positioning, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The point is, we have a lot of information at our disposal. Furthermore, the industry today is undergoing a huge amount of change – politically, regulatory, workforce structure and dynamics to name but a few. We also have the emergence of new digital business models. To fully capitalise on new opportunities though, we all need to take time to listen, explore the implications of what we find out and respond appropriately.
BM That sounds like a good partnership approach. One final thought – these relationships aren’t one to one – even internally. They are many to many, and it is important to respect these different points of engagement and the needs of different teams within both the bank and corporation.
JTC I hear you. We often talk in terms of ‘the treasurer’ but it extends to all members of the treasury team – and increasingly other key stakeholders such as the shared service centre or procurement. Banks should consider every interaction a contributing factor in the ‘survey’ process.
TMI Comment - by Helen Sanders, Editor
Jonathon and Bruce’s commentary comes at a perfect time. There are typically two key times of the year when the volume of industry surveys increases: around now, once the cogs of the new year have ground into action, and in September/October at the height of the conference season. The sheer volume of surveys and invitations to events can be bewildering, but survey data, customer forums and feedback are precious and the insights they provide should be welcomed and cherished. In many cases however, these only exist so that the commissioning bank or vendor has a vehicle to express something they want to say. This often means the value of the feedback, which customers or wider industry participants have spent time in producing, is lost, and no-one is listening.
So rather than using every conference or media deadline to think ‘what do we want to say’, maybe the approach should be ‘what do we need to hear?’ Similarly, while listening is important, showing you’ve listened is just as important, as Jonathon mentions. How are new announcements, products and services aligned with the intelligence that has been gleaned, and how do they address customer challenges and priorities?
The onus is not only on banks or vendors to listen however, it is also on treasurers. Treasurers often tell us that they are unaware of specific or industry-wide developments such as new solutions, emerging regulations etc. even though they have been communicated to them a number of times, often very directly. They are often then affronted that they didn’t know about solutions of which they could have taken advantage earlier. Perhaps we all need to cut through the noise, choose our sources carefully, and listen.
