A few days before the final steering committee, the engagement manager shows the recommendation to the client's most sceptical manager, one to one. He starts with where the manager was right, listens to his objection, takes his counter-proposal seriously, and changes the plan where the manager has a point. The goal is not agreement; it's no surprises in the room.
You asked for an hour, just the two of us, early in the week. So I assume it's not good news for me.
Some of it isn't. But I promised you'd hear it first, and I'd rather you heard it from me in this room than read it on a slide on Friday. Before I show you anything, can I start with where you were right?
That's a polite way to prepare me for bad news.
Maybe. But it's also true. At the workshop, you said a call isn't only a cost, there's a customer behind it. The data proved that. And you said that if the work moves, experienced people leave and their knowledge leaves with them. HR's numbers proved that too.
Owen opens by naming two specific things Javier said that the evidence supported. This is not flattery; each point is a fact with a source. A person who hears that they were right first is far more able to listen to what comes next.
I'm glad somebody wrote it down. Does Joanna know what you're going to show me?
Not yet. You're first. Joanna is tomorrow, and Philip gets the full pack on Wednesday.
Good. Go on.
There's one more thing you said, and I want to read it back to you. At the workshop, one of your success criteria was: "Nobody calls three times about the same parcel."
I remember. I still mean it.
Then here's the uncomfortable part. Today, the centre that is closest to that criterion is Glasgow. Eight per cent of customers call back there. In Leeds it's twenty-two, and in Bristol it's nineteen.
You're using my own words against me.
I'm using your own words for the customers. That was your point, not mine.
Owen doesn't argue with his own data alone; he measures the options against the criterion Javier himself chose. It is very hard to reject a conclusion that follows from your own standard. "Your words, for the customers" turns a possible attack into shared ground.
All right. Show me.
Two centres: Leeds and Glasgow. Bristol closes, in phases. And the Glasgow way of working, where the first agent keeps the case, is introduced in Leeds. That's the recommendation. The saving is about two point two million a year.
Two point two. Philip told his board four.
He did. And he'll have to tell them it's lower. But it's a number we can defend, and it doesn't depend on customers calling three times.
How much of the two point two is simply closing Bristol's building?
About a third is the building and the lease. The rest comes from fewer repeat calls in Leeds, once the Glasgow method is working there. That second part is the one I'm least sure of. If Leeds only gets halfway to Glasgow's eight per cent, the saving is closer to one point eight.
So the saving depends on Leeds learning something it has never done.
Yes. That's why the transition plan matters more than the number.
And Bristol pays for it.
Bristol is where the cost falls, yes. I won't pretend otherwise.
Owen states the recommendation in plain words and doesn't hide who loses. "I won't pretend otherwise" is honest, and honesty here earns more trust than a gentle euphemism would. People can accept bad news better than they can accept being managed.
Then let me tell you what I think, and I'd like you to let me finish.
Of course. Take your time.
You're closing the centre with the most experienced people to keep the centre with the oldest phone system. In Bristol, half the agents have been there more than five years. Some of them trained the people in Leeds. If you close Bristol, you lose the people who know how the business really works. I hired some of those team leaders myself. And you'll find out in a year, when the complaints start.
Thank you. That's a serious objection, and I don't want to answer it too quickly. Do you have an alternative in mind?
I do. Keep Leeds and Bristol. Close Glasgow instead. Then take the Glasgow way of working and teach it in both. You keep the experience, and you keep the method.
Owen doesn't defend his recommendation immediately. He asks Javier for his alternative. A critic with a counter-proposal is a partner in the problem; a critic without one is only an opponent. And a counter-proposal can be tested, just like a hypothesis.
That's a real option, and we looked at something close to it. Can I tell you honestly where I think it works and where it doesn't?
Please. Honestly is better than politely. I've had enough polite this year.
Where it works: you keep Bristol's experience, and that's not a small thing. Where it doesn't: the method is not a training course. In Glasgow it grew over five years, one team at a time. If you close the only place where it already works, you're asking two centres to learn something they've never seen, from people who've just lost their jobs.
And in your plan, Leeds learns it from people who still have their jobs.
Exactly. Glasgow teaches Leeds. That's the difference.
And where do Bristol's calls go? Glasgow has sixty agents.
Glasgow grows by about twenty, and Leeds by about forty. With fewer repeat calls, you need about thirty fewer roles overall, mostly through people who would leave in the next year anyway.
Mostly.
Mostly. Not all. I won't promise you that, because it wouldn't be true.
And Glasgow's phone system? You're keeping the oldest one in the company.
No. Whichever centres stay, the phone system is an implementation decision. And you said yourself at the steering committee that Glasgow's won't be the one you keep.
I did. At least somebody listens. And about Glasgow's method, I called it a local habit at the workshop.
You did. And then you said nobody had ever measured it. Now somebody has.
Fair. I was wrong about Glasgow. I'm not wrong about Bristol.
Javier accepts one point and holds the other. "I was wrong about Glasgow. I'm not wrong about Bristol." This is how real agreement usually looks: not total surrender, but a clear line between what has changed and what hasn't.
No, you're not. And that's why I want your help with Bristol, not just your approval. Our draft closes Bristol over six months. What would you change?
Six months is too fast. Twelve, at least. And the best Bristol team leaders shouldn't be offered a job. They should be offered the job of teaching the Glasgow method in Leeds. Then the experience goes somewhere instead of disappearing.
That's better than what we had. Twelve months costs some of the saving in the first year, but much less than losing the people who know the work. I'll change the plan.
Owen doesn't just listen to Javier's idea; he adopts it and says what it costs. When a stakeholder sees their own suggestion in the final recommendation, they stop being an opponent of the plan and start being one of its owners.
How much does twelve months cost?
About three hundred thousand in the first year, compared with six months. I'll tell Judith and Philip today, not in Wednesday's pack. He'll ask why, and I'll show him the alternative: losing the people who keep the complaints down.
There are four team leaders in Bristol I'd trust with this. I can give you their names.
Can I put them in the plan?
Ask them first. I'll introduce you on Thursday. They should hear it from me, not from a document. And you'll change the plan before Friday?
Before Wednesday. You'll see the new version before anyone else, as before. And I'd like the plan to say that the Bristol transition was designed with you.
Only if it's true when it's finished.
Then I'll make sure it is.
Good. Then we understand each other.
One more thing about Bristol. When the agents hear the news, what do they need to hear first?
That their experience is wanted. Not "thank you for your service". Something real: a role, a date, a choice.
Then the plan will start with the choice, not with the closure.
Good. That's the first sensible thing anyone has said to me about Bristol this year.
One more question, and it's an important one. On Friday, in front of Philip, what will you say?
I won't say it's a good idea to close Bristol. I don't think it is, and Philip knows me too well. But I won't fight the recommendation either. I'll ask for one condition.
Which is?
That nothing is announced until the Bristol plan has names, dates and the role for the team leaders. And that the agents hear it from us first, not from the canteen.
A pre-wire is not about getting a yes. It's about knowing exactly what each person will say in the decision meeting, so nobody is surprised. Owen now knows Javier's position and his condition, and he can prepare for both.
Let me say it back. You won't support closing Bristol, you won't fight the recommendation, and you'll ask that nothing is announced before the plan has names, dates and roles, and that the agents hear it from you first. That's a fair condition, and it matches the criteria you agreed at the workshop. I'd rather you asked for it in the room than I offered it. It'll mean more to Philip coming from you.
You're thinking about the meeting like a chess game.
I'm thinking about it like a meeting where nobody should hear anything for the first time.
And Joanna? It's her old centre that wins. People will talk.
She found the method for us, and she was careful not to push it. I want Philip to hear that on Friday, from me.
She'll hate the attention. Do it anyway. And who presents on Friday? You or your partner?
That depends a little on how you feel after this conversation.
Then present it yourself. I'd rather argue with you than with someone I've met once.
Thank you, Javier. I'll take that as a compliment.
Don't. Take it as a warning. I'll still ask hard questions on Friday. And bring the numbers for Leeds. Philip will want to know how fast Leeds can learn.
Judith's condition was that Owen presents only if Javier leaves ready to argue about details, not still angry. Javier's last line is exactly that: he will challenge the plan, but on its content. That's what a successful pre-wire looks like.