Rationalism and the use of reason as an end in itself is the foundation of all globalising modernist thought and has created the framework to formulate our own ideals and in a sense, our own values. Western philosophy has also allowed us to conceive of ourselves as individuals, each possessing unique characteristics with a legitimate claim to pursue personal, diverse and frequently contending goals. This persistent drive towards greater individuality has been celebrated by many as both liberating and empowering, and helped define the ground-rules of our own lives. Furthermore, we have been able to determine how our own personalities develop and cement that position within a particular society.

On the whole, civilization has come to accept that with the rise of the West to global predominance, our lives have become conditioned and molded by various systems of particular national cultures, such as the United States. Their influence in particular has encouraged patterned and social behaviours revolving around political values such as liberal democracy, private ownership and control of wealth, freedom and rights under common law and a total commitment to choice.

The supremacy and widespread acceptance of such convictions has become manifest in most of us. In the main, we work for a living, we pay taxes, we invest in the market, we obey authority figures; we vote, we champion consumerism, we conform and remain loyal to commercial and national interests, we join clubs, charity or religious groups and generally, we like to think of ourselves as acting in a rational and unselfish way. Some of us live on the margins, while others occupy a more traditional space.

This idea of the individualistic Self as a modernist construct has shaped who we are today. We have the choice to remain independent from society and speak about world affairs and commercialism from a mental distance, or conversely, express ourselves within existing norms and rules set by governing bodies. We can be subscribe to any number of religious or political alternatives including those members of the Roman Catholic faith, Protestants, Jews, Liberals, Socialists, or Nationalists.

World affairs and business ethics shape and manifest itself in most members of society and I am no exception. I have been taught to accept western culture and so-called progress without question. I delight in the opportunity to think independently and the freedom to act rationally. To understand and behave on my inner world of knowledge while at the same time having my outer world presented to me by influential thinkers and opinion-formers. However, where I may differ from those who subscribe to the modernist project is that I believe we accumulate knowledge through experience, and am convinced there is no certainty in science. Understanding and maturity provides an inherent capacity to better comprehend world affairs and business, and it means that our approach is essentially a humanistic problem-solving one, as opposed to perpetually replacing scientific theory with ultimately more hypothesis. I believe that knowledge can never become an impersonal fact. We are our world knowing itself.

Not unlike the state, classical realists also emphasize the importance of power and self-interest, and disregard subjective moralistic considerations. They react strongly against notions of idealism and communities guided by virtuous and utopian political policies. Realists conform to the notion of the world as an imperfect place and conclude that in order to maintain control and authority, society should be governed by laws that are applied in rational and objective ways.

Politically, realists identify and deal with facts, as opposed to human assumptions. They are motivated by the pursuit of political supremacy and hegemony, particularly in foreign affairs. They are convinced that their actions and policies are impersonal and detached, and not subject to individual or biased disposition. Political realists seek to minimize uncertainty in world affairs (as it pertains to them) and maximize advantage and control for the state through systematic management. Applying stratagems that seemingly ignore moral principles is regarded as a necessary step in achieving a means to an end (such as the notion of freedom and democracy). Political realists understand that in order to achieve these objectives, power, in terms of military capacity or force may be required. Richard Nixon was a political realist who championed particular policies that constituted the core of his foreign policy. This balance of power proposed reconciliation with the Soviet Union, arms control, the opening of China, withdrawal from Indochina, and in typical realist fashion, the de-emphasis of ideology as a component of US foreign policy. However, these policies ultimately foundered because of Nixon’s personal shortcomings, especially his propensity for misleading the American people and Congress for the sake of short-term freedom of action and his own narrow political purposes.

Although realists aim for rationality and objectivity, they do not necessarily discount other compositions of human nature. They understand that people are made up of different facets and ideals incorporating elements of economics, religion and politics, therefore, they attempt to consider such convictions when determining domestic or foreign policy. Realist scholars such as E.H. Carr and Hans Morenthau however, remain critical and advocate that people and states must be forced into helping themselves and give priority to their own national interests and territorial defense before considering other idealist beliefs.

How can Realists divorce policies from other basic human tendencies such as morality and social values? Are they power-seeking wielders? Do they have an obsession with security and exhibit behaviours such as aggression and competitiveness? In some cases, yes. Former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, provided an ideal case for consideration of how realism operated in Vietnam. He believed that people were by nature, self-interested. He postulated that the war had created growing domestic constraints to the traditional policy of containment, and that accordingly, they needed to pursue a strategy of “global containment”. However, were his policies really based on the strategic importance of defeating communism, or on the effects a defeat would have on the United States’ prestige in the world? Did Kissinger actually weigh up the costs in lives and resources of deepening intervention, against the costs in reputation and notoriety of halting that intervention? If prestige and reputation are, as realists claim, the intangible balance of power, then in this conflict, the intangible weighed more than the tangible. This is how Kissinger was able to justify one military argument and frame the rewards of another. He was, in his decision-making able (or so he thought) to stand back and look at world affairs objectively and engage in “hard, ruthless analysis” (Carr, 1939).

Not much has changed post-Vietnam. The current administration in Washington DC is blatantly realist. Its disdain for international accords on the environment, chemical and biological weapons clearly demonstrates that. Former US Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld, may have described himself as a “new realist”, taking into consideration principles of morality and freedom in Iraq. However, his motive remained elusive, for this version of neo-realist foreign policy appeared to simply mean being firm with other countries and ignoring their official opinions and national interests. In other words, there seems to be little difference between classical realists and neo-realists. Kissinger and Rumsfeld considered balance of power, but was regard given to the balance of economy or balance of society?

Perhaps people drawn to realism, only believe in one knowable truth – power. A more menacing consideration is the question of psychology. Maslow concludes that politicians drawn to power may require needs, ranging from psychological needs to safety needs (including the desire for freedom), to the need for affection and to a greater need for esteem. His conclusion is that politicians who tend to view the world as threatening and the phenomena which surround them as unmanageable without laws, are likely to react with “dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity – and to be inflexible in situations of crisis.”

Can there not be many ways of knowing?

In the main, democratic political parties are charged with the responsibility of determining public policy on behalf of society, with a commitment to uphold the rights of freedom, reason, justice and toleration for all. Edmund Burke described the political party as “…a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours, the national interest upon some particular principle [policy] in which they are all agreed…” While this account may seem commonplace in today’s current political environment, it heralded a new way of thinking back in the 18th century. In that sense, Burke was a pioneer of his times.

Two hundred years later – are political parties still united in pursuing their nation’s best interests? And depending on the electoral system in place, which political party actually determines what is in the public’s “best” interest, and how that public policy is defined and debated? Is it the interests of society that are “best” upheld, or simply the interests of the party or its leader? Political parties are inherently problematic because their political interests can often be at odds with the collective whole. Take for example, the debate over the whether New Zealand should have remained a GE Free Food Producer. Despite all the international export economic arguments to the contrary, the former Labour government continued to balk or even debate the suggestion of retaining the moratorium for a further five-year period. Publicly they informed constituents that science meant progress and that New Zealand had the opportunity of increasing yield to help stave off hunger in third world countries. In reality, this was a political party who did not want to be regarded as retracting an election promise or acquiescing to the Green Party. Politics over principle or pride over public interest? I would argue that these conflicts of interests have the potential to undermine the necessary conditions for effective democratic governance.

James McGregor Burns describes political parties and their leaders as proponents of collective commitments. For Burns, leadership and political parties are nothing “if not linked to collective purposes”. However, he also holds to the view that politicians of the “best sort” do not so much represent citizens, as decide what challenges and interests they will present to the public. In my mind, this represents nothing short of anti-constitutional behaviour by which policymaking has been, and is being conducted particularly in the United States. In this regard, Nixon believed that trade-offs were necessary so that “the ends would justify the means”. He was also a great believer in Machiavelli’s teachings; particularly with reference to war in which he upheld the expression “Good laws and good arms” were necessarily in the public’s best interests. He believed that his Republican party must be able to use force to fight off necessary evil – even if it was difficult for the public to understand or match his methods to the situation. Nixon believed, as Machiavelli argued, that while integrity made for good leadership, so too did cunning.

In this regard, when we elect political parties in the assumption that they will embody a consistent set of values and principles, what can we really tell about their moral compass? And once in a position of power, how can we insist that these standards and are maintained to preserve our “best” interests?

In terms of world affairs, perhaps collectivism provides an alternative to other ideologies, although the attempt to build collectivist states have all failed to provide both freedom and security. Is this because they have not embraced the notion of Kant’s liberalism and the importance of the individual over any form of social or collective group? Perhaps we should we turn our attention to Aristotle who believed that the best form is a blend of democracy and elite leadership? Conceivably having each of these groups represented would produce the most stable and legitimate form of governance where the public’s “best” interests are upheld. It is difficult to ascertain the answers when the world is governed by so many different and diverse parties, all representing a myriad of unlike populations and groups.

This piece however, is not about our company. It is about the difference between sales (and salespeople) and about consultants (and consulting). It’s also about the importance of building solid business relationships.

I dislike the word ‘sales’ and the connotation of ‘salespeople’ yet conversely, I place great value on the word ‘consultant’ and the connotation of ‘counsel’. That may sound like a contradiction in terms and I admit that my aversion to the term ‘sales’ and ‘salespeople’ may well constitute an irrational emotion, but for me it brings forth images of overbearing and unrelenting agents looking to turn a rapid profit over unsuspecting ‘beneficiaries’.

In my mind there are two types of salespeople – the rudimentary sort who door knock selling goods; or who stand on street corners claiming “second to none discounts in-store”; or who phone in the evenings trying to convince me of something I didn’t ask for, don’t want or don’t need. These ‘salespeople’ are not only aggravating, but grating. Nothing puts me off more than the phrase, “Thank you for talking to me. I realize how valuable your time is and how busy you are”. Well, if they considered my time was that valuable and that busy, why would I want to waste any of it talking to someone I didn’t invite into my life or business?

The second type of salesperson comprises the corporate industry; those who cold call or send emails professing to offer something of high value. Many of these ‘Sales Managers’ or ‘Business Development Advisors’ profess that for only a marginal fee, I can have a plan or purchase a solution that will solve all my problems immediately. Really? Whatever the cost (they say) it’s bound to be cheap at twice the price! Where do I sign? Tempting as it all may sound, am I really convinced by these ‘professional’ people calling me with offers just too good to be true? I don’t think so. Why? Because unless I have an underlying issue that needs attention or a desire to own something I crave for or hanker after, then I don’t want to be harassed. I believe the same goes for large organisations. In these days of conservative risk and auditing, unless it offers a long term solution to a particular issue, then everyone is wasting their time.

So, what is the difference between salespeople and consultants, or more specifically sales and consulting? Simple – salespeople give no consideration to the fundamentals of good business practice – that of understanding the organisational culture in which they operate; whereas consultants are invited counsel who address specific issues and who are trusted because they understand and empathise with the people they work with and relate to the mores and ethos of the corporation. Most importantly; they appreciate and respect the value of long-term client relationships. It is for this reason that salespeople do not last in a consulting environment and indeed, visa versa. I mean really, does a potential client want some fast talking ‘barrow’ A-type personality pushing hard to get their point across, or would they prefer a person who understands and considers the nature of their business. The answer shouldn’t be hard.

As a budding entrepreneur, I have no issues with those who seek to make their fortune. Indeed I encourage capitalism in many forms, but I also believe that there are ‘ways and means’ of creating wealth beyond foisting a product or a plan onto an organisation who don’t necessarily see a need for it, or do not believe that their business will suffer without it.

When are salespeople going to ‘wise up’? When are they going to appreciate that it takes effective leadership, discernment, prudence and good counsel to generate reliance and trust? That; and the ability to deliver results. Salespeople who want to make a quick dollar today by simply selling the world’s greatest ‘one size fits all’ product will inevitably fail because a prospective client will value knowledge and intellectual capacity above anything else. This is not to say that salespeople are not intelligent, but how many bother to produce a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the product is something their potential client really needs to have, or would simply like to have? Unlike the halcyon days of the eighties, the ‘nice to have’ notion is rarely a reason to engage. Have these salespeople taken the time to identify the ‘problem’ or are they simply resolved to ‘sell at all costs’. If their salary is based on commission only, then there is little likelihood that all these factors have been weighted or even considered. Discernment and sales targets rarely mix.

I’d want to focus back on consultancy. I worked as an Account Director in the communications industry for many years and this I know; there is a reason that the industry has the word ‘relations’ as part of its lexicon (Public Relations, Investor Relations, Business Relations and International Relations) because ‘relations’ is never about products, gadgets or widgets – it is about interactions, dealings, associations and business connections. Organisations and clients come to us because they have a problem. And they have an understanding of what we do. Inevitably it may be based around an internal or external communications problem, a political problem, an image problem, a media problem or a marketing problem. Also reflect on my comment above “…come to us”. We don’t have to cold call or influence clients “to buy” our counsel because they already know we are there to solve their issue and provide germane advice … without the ‘sales’ pitch.

Timing is everything. It doesn’t matter how great you think your product is, if the timing is not right, if the client doesn’t understand how it will solve their problem, or the marketplace in which you are operating isn’t big or profitable enough, try another tactic, another country or another career. Your ambitions to be a multi-millionaire overnight, or at the other extreme – cash flow issues are not your client’s concern.

If you are genuine about creating wealth, while at the same time providing sound advice, then obtain a thorough understanding of your potential client’s organisational issues and aspirations. Get to know the people you advise; spend time with them and their departmental heads. None of your investigative research or work should epitomize falseness. It should come from a genuine like and respect of business and people.

The service we provide as a company is simply a conduit to wider networks and long-term relationships. The product we have developed is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. Here in lies the fundamental difference between sales and counsel – if successful, selling a product is a one off wonder and should anyone focus on this alone, then these ‘salespeople’ risk walking away at project end. Consulting on the other hand is about long term tenure and the ability to oversee and continue working with clients over many campaigns and often, over many years.

Now ask yourself the question – isn’t this a better way