A Better Way to Measure & Value Business Relationships: The

AN ADVISORY SERVICES WHITE PAPER

A Better Way to Measure & Value Business Relationships: The Enterprise Relational Quotient™ Assessment

Contents

Executive Summary...... 2 Executive Summary

We All Know Relationships We All Know Relationships Impact Results Impact Results...... 3 A recent national survey of VP level and above executives showed nearly universal agreement that relationships have a highly significant impact The Performance on business results each year. And it wasn’t just customer relationships Management Paradox...... 3 delivering the impact, but rather a wide range of internal and external relationship types. If business relationships are having such a significant The Warmth and impact, how can they be better measured, managed and strengthened to drive improved performance? Competence Model...... 4 The Performance Management Paradox What Do We Mean Effective internal and external relationships are critical to the daily by “Business performance of nearly every organizational function. Basic business Relationship” Anyway?...... 4 performance levers such as customer loyalty, operational productivity, cross- functional collaboration, employee retention and leadership development The Enterprise all depend on healthy, productive relationships between people. So here’s the paradox: why don’t organizations have more insight, expertise and RQ™ Assessment...... 5 visibility on the key business relationships that are so clearly critical to their success? Perhaps because they’ve lacked a clear, compelling and Relationship reliable method for measuring and valuing them. Assessment Findings...... 5 What Do We Mean by “Business Relationship” Anyway? Predictive Validity of Some may have the perception that the words “business relationship” refer the Enterprise RQ™ to the superfluous interpersonal aspects of conducting business. Not so Assessment Model...... 6 according to a national survey of VP level and above executives. Rather a business relationship is defined by all the knowledge, expertise, value Implications for Action and reliability a person demonstrates to others, as well as their integrity, trustworthiness and likeability. Cognitive psychologists have developed and Results...... 7 and validated a universal model of how humans perceive and judge each other socially. It’s known as The Warmth & Competence Model. References...... 9 The Enterprise RQ™ Assessment About The Relational The Enterprise Relational Quotient™ Assessment was created to address the Capital Group...... 9 relationship void that currently exists in widely used competency models and performance management systems. The Enterprise RQ™ Assessment was developed by adapting and extending the widely accepted Warmth & Competence Model to a business relationship context. Validity testing of the Enterprise RQ™ Assessment with a worldwide sample of business professionals showed a high degree of reliability and predictive accuracy in measuring business relationship strength. In addition, it revealed compelling new insights about how different types of business relationships each require unique approach. Implications for Action & Results The Enterprise RQ™ Assessment provides a business relationship competency framework and diagnostic metrics that can be applied to a wide variety of relationship types and performance opportunities. This innovative assessment can be deployed on a stand alone basis, or as an additional module within existing customer loyalty or performance assessment systems. For instance the Enterprise Client RQ™ Assessment provides deep, actionable insights that lead to improved account retention, penetration and acquisition. Similarly, the Enterprise Talent RQ™ Assessment provides remarkable visibility on the dynamics of internal relationships that lead to increased cross-functional collaboration, productivity and leadership development.

We All Know Relationships Impact Results

Business executives overwhelmingly agree: strong and Please indicate how significant an impact each effective relationships are essential to business success. In relationship type has had on your company fact, our national survey of VP-level and above executives success in the past? % Saying Very Significant at companies with revenues of more than $100 million annually1 showed just how universal this belief is. Overall, 54% Total 89% Customer/Client 89% indicated that the strength of their personal and 50% Human Resources 93% 50% professional relationships had a highly significant impact Suppliers 65% Marketing/Customer Service on their ability to deliver business results every year.86% 49% Manager/Subordinate 53% Perhaps most notably,Information 90% of Technology CEO/COO/Presidents 87%and Industry/Media 47% even 82% of Finance/PurchasingSales/Business Development VPs surveyed attributed 100% 55% their business results each year to the strength of their Operations/GM 82% Peer/Colleague 46% relationships. 55% Finance/Purchasing 83% Shareholder/Board 46% 53% CEO/COO/President 90% On a scale from 1 to 10, how significant an impact Family/Friend 36% has the strength of your personal and professional 48% relationships had on your ability to deliver business Total CEO/COO/President results each year? % Rating 8, 9 or 10 Total ImportanceSource: RCG National48.7 Survey of Executives, February50.7 2010 Supplier* Total Performance 44.7 54% 47.0 Total 89% Customer/Client 50% Peer* In particular, CEO/COO/Presidents expressed the Colleague Importance 49.2 51.4 50% Human Resources 93% Suppliersstrongest beliefs that a broad range of relationships are Supervisor* Colleague Performance 41.1 44.8 65% Marketing/Customer Service 86% impacting their business performance,49% especially those Colleague Manager/SubordinateCustomer Importance 48.8 53% 49.8 Information Technology 87% with suppliers. Moreover, it seems clear that building Customer Performance 45.7 47.0 Customer Industry/Mediaand maintaining strong and effective47% relationships, both Sales/Business Development 100% 55% internallySupplier and Importance externally,50.2 is widely viewed to be53.2 a critical Total Operations/GM 82% Peer/Colleague 46% driver Supplierof sustained Performance performance.49.0 55% 50.3 Finance/Purchasing Relationship Dimension Perceived Impact of Performance Ratings 83% Relationships on Results 46% Shareholder/Board Warmth Dimensions Competence Dimensions Relationship Dimension Potential Impact of 53% CEO/COO/President Importance Ratings 90%Relationship on PerformanceThe Performance Management Paradox Family/Friend 36% Total 48% 7.6 Effective relationships are essential to the daily Source: RCG NationalTotal Survey of Executives, February 2010 7.6 Human Resources 7.6 performanceTotal CEO/COO/President of nearly every organizational function. Marketing/Customer Service 7.8 Supervisor 7.5 Basic business performance levers such as customer loyalty, Total Importance 48.7 50.7 But which relationships impact business results most? Information Technology 7.4 Supplier* Peer 7.9 operational productivity, cross-functional collaboration, Total Performance 44.7 47.0 After all, a variety of internal (supervisors, peers and Sales/Business Development 7.7 Subordinate 6.7 employee retention and leadership development all depend subordinates)Peer* and external (customers, suppliers and other Colleagueon Importance healthy,Operations/GM productive49.2 relationships between51.4 7.8 people. So stakeholders) businessCustomer/Client relationships are in play at all times. 8.0 Supervisor* Colleaguehow Performance doFinance/Purchasing companies41.1 and their leaders44.8 know7.3 where they This same survey of VP level executives revealed that while Supplier/Service Provider 7.7 stand on their most important business relationships? Can client/customer relationships were most broadly viewed CEO/COO/President 7.3 Colleague Customerthey Importance be reliably48.8 measured, managed, developed49.8 or valued to have significant impactOther on company success, nearly all 8.3 Customerto Performance drive improved45.7 performance? 47.0 other relationshipCustomer types are also having significant impact Total 8.6 on results. Supplier Importance Supervisor50.2 53.2 8.8 Total Supervisor/Peer/Subordinate 56% Well, as it turns out, that seems to be a bit of a problem Supplier Performance 49.0 50.3 Relationship Dimension Perceived Impact of right now,Peer as 58% of CEO/COO/Presidents strongly8.4 agreed Performance RatingsCustomer/ Relationships on Results 25% thatWarmth “there Dimensions isn’t any widelyCompetence accepted Dimensions method for building Relationship DimensionClient Potential Impact of Subordinate 8.0 WhyImportance isn’t Ratings there moreRelationship insight on Performance and lasting business relationships”, much less a reliable way Supplier/ to measure,Customer/Client manage or value them. To address8.5 this void, 13% Service Provider Total 7.6 the Enterprise Relational Quotient™ Assessment was visibilityTotal on the key business relationships7.6 Human Resources Supplier/Service Provider 7.6 8.5 6% Other Outside developed, building on decades of academic research Stakeholder Other 8.7 Supervisorthat are so critical to success?7.5 Marketing/Customerby cognitive Service psychologists and the universal7.8 measures of Peer 7.9 Informationsocial Technology perception and behavior they7.4 identified: warmth Sales/Businessand competence. Development 7.7 Subordinate 6.7 Operations/GM 7.8 Customer/Client 8.0 Finance/Purchasing 7.3 © 2010 The RelationalSupplier/Service Capital Provider Group 7.7 3 CEO/COO/President 7.3 Other 8.3 Total 8.6

Supervisor 8.8 Supervisor/Peer/Subordinate 56% Peer 8.4 Customer/ Client 25% Subordinate 8.0

Supplier/ Customer/Client 8.5 13% Service Provider Supplier/Service Provider 8.5 6% Other Outside Stakeholder Other 8.7 AN ADVISORY SERVICES WHITE PAPER

The Warmth and Competence Model

The psychology of human and social perception has been the subject of academic study for decades. And the thought process humans use to perceive and judge the behavior of others has been well documented along the way. The “Warmth and Competence Model” is among the most widely accepted and published of these. As early as 1946, Solomon Asch, a professor at Swarthmore College, published a paradigm shifting study2 about how students formed impressions and judgments of others not only based on their apparent capabilities, but also on whether they seemed “warm or cold” in their attitudes toward them.

Since then a myriad of academic studies across 19 countries have refined and validated this model. For example, in 1998 Bogdan Wojciszke, a professor at the Polish Academy of Sciences published a study3 showing that the warmth and competence dimensions account for 82% of the differences in how people perceive each other in everyday social interactions. However, “only in the past five years have cutting edge studies of social cognition firmly established that people everywhere differentiate each other by liking (warmth, trustworthiness) and by respecting (competence, efficiency).”4

The extensive history and validity of this model is perhaps best summarized in Universal Dimensions of Social Cognition: Warmth and Competence by authors and university professors Susan T. Fiske, Amy J.C. Cuddy and Peter Glick, published in TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences in 2007. Therein, the authors explain how warmth dimensions cover traits around perceived intent: friendliness, helpfulness, sincerity, trustworthiness and morality, while competence dimensions cover traits related to perceived ability: intelligence, skill, creativity and efficacy. “Although both dimensions are fundamental to social perception, warmth judgments seem to be primary, which reflects the importance of assessing other people’s intentions before determining their ability to carry out those intentions,” according to Fiske, Cuddy and Glick.

What Do We Mean by “Business Relationship” Anyway?

Some may have the perception that the words “business about more than just “relating”. Rather they encompass relationship” refer to the superfluous “touchy feely” all the value, reliability and performance we come to aspects of conducting business. Not so according to our associate with an individual, group or organization. national survey of VP level and above executives. When asked which qualities are most important as the basis In fact, this aligns quite well with the foundational premise for a lasting business relationship, integrity, expertise, of The Warmth & Competence Model. Specifically, that reliability and goal achievement were at the top of their our judgments and beliefs about others are derived from list. By most accounts, these are foundational elements both the “warmth” aspects of their personality, as well as to the success of any business enterprise and not “touchy the “competence” of the behavior they exhibit. As a result, feely” at all. So it turns out that business relationships are dimensions of The Warmth & Competence Model can also be extended and applied to the study, measurement and understanding of business relationships. Doing so not only builds on a solid foundation of social psychology research, but also extends it to the business environment, where a reliable relationship assessment model is clearly needed but not widely available.

© 2010 The Relational Capital Group 4 54% Total 89% Customer/Client 50% Human Resources 93% 50% Suppliers 65% Marketing/Customer Service 86% 49% Manager/Subordinate 53% Information Technology 87% Industry/Media 47% Sales/Business Development 100% 55%

Operations/GM 82% Peer/Colleague 46% 55% Finance/Purchasing 83% Shareholder/Board 46% 53% CEO/COO/President 90% Family/Friend 36% 48%

Total CEO/COO/President

Total Importance 48.7 50.7 Supplier* Total Performance 44.7 47.0

Peer* Colleague Importance 49.2 51.4

Supervisor* Colleague Performance 41.1 44.8

Colleague Customer Importance 48.8 49.8

Customer Performance 45.7 47.0 Customer 54% Total 89% Customer/Client 50% Supplier Importance 50.2 53.2 Total 50% Human Resources 93% Suppliers Supplier Performance 49.0AN ADVISORY SERVICES65% 50.3 WHITE PAPER Marketing/CustomerRelationship Service Dimension Perceived Impact of Performance Ratings 86%Relationships on Results 49% Manager/SubordinateWarmth Dimensions Competence53% Dimensions Information TechnologyRelationship Dimension 87%Potential Impact of Importance Ratings Relationship on Performance Industry/Media 47% The EnterpriseSales/Business Development RQ™ Assessment 100% Total 55% 7.6 Operations/GM 46% Total 82% 7.6 Peer/ColleagueHuman Resources 7.6 Accordingly, the Enterprise Relational Quotient™ (RQ) managing Subordinates. However, it 55%is likely an accurate Finance/Purchasing 83% Marketing/Customer Service Supervisor 7.5 Shareholder/Board 46% 7.8 Assessment utilizes 12 relationship dimensions that are reflection of where business53% professionals are most CEO/COO/President 90% equally balancedPeer between warmth and competence concernedInformation about Technology the strength of their relationships.7.4 7.9Family/Friend 36% factors. These dimensions have been adapted and Sales/Business Development 48% 7.7 customized to fitSubordinate a business relationship6.7 context and Total Operations/GMOn aCEO/COO/President scale from 1 to 10, please indicate 7.8how validated throughCustomer/Client extensive quantitative testing with8.0 much potential this business relationship has Finance/Purchasing business professionals. The balance of this paper highlightsTotal Importanceto positively48.7 impact your performance50.7 7.3 at work, Supplier* Supplier/Service Provider 7.7 in your opinion? Mean response some of the unique insights and findings typically revealedTotal PerformanceCEO/COO/President44.7 47.0 7.3

by this assessment.Peer* Other 8.3 Colleague Importance 49.2 51.4 Total 8.6 54% In earlySupervisor* 2010, The Relational Capital group validated theColleague PerformanceTotal41.1 44.8 89% Customer/Client 50% Supervisor 8.8 Enterprise RQ™ Supervisor/Peer/Subordinate Assessment with a worldwide sample Human Resources 50% Colleague 56% 48.8 93% Suppliers 5 Customer Importance 49.8 65% of business professionals that represented a wide range Peer 8.4 Customer PerformanceMarketing/Customer45.7 Service 47.0 86% of job levelsCustomer and Customer/functional expertise areas. Participants 49% 25% Manager/Subordinate 53% Client SubordinateInformation Technology 87%8.0 were asked to identify and evaluate a specific businessSupplier Importance 50.2 53.2 Total Industry/Media 47% relationship that has the potentialSupplier/ to positively impact Customer/ClientSales/Business Development 100%8.5 55% 13% Supplier Performance 49.0 50.3 their work performance.Relationship Dimension TheService majorityPerceived Provider chose Impact toof evaluate a Performance Ratings Relationships on Results Supplier/ServiceOperations/GM Provider 82% Peer/Colleague 46% Warmth Dimensions Competence Dimensions 8.5 55% colleague relationship,Relationship DimensionOther which Outside couldPotential include Impact ofa supervisor, Importance6% Ratings Relationship on Performance Finance/Purchasing 83% peer or subordinate. TheStakeholder remaining respondents evaluated Other 8.7 Shareholder/Board 46% 53% a customer, supplier or other outside stakeholderTotal CEO/COO/President 7.6 90% 36% Source: RCG Enterprise RQ Validity Testing, March 2010 Family/Friend relationship,Total as shown below. We found 7.6 it interestingHuman Resources 7.6 48% that so many participants chose to evaluate internal Supervisor 7.5 Marketing/Customer Service 7.8 Total CEO/COO/President relationships that impact their performance. In addition, Information Technology 7.4 the majorityPeer of internal relationships assessed7.9 were with Relationship Assessment Findings Total Importance 48.7 50.7 supervisors, suggesting that participants may be moreSales/Business DevelopmentSupplier* 7.7 Subordinate 6.7 When asked to rate the strength and effectiveness of theirTotal Performance 44.7 47.0 Operations/GM concerned about their “upward” relationships. Peer* 7.8 Customer/Client 8.0 chosen relationship, Customer and Other relationshipsColleague Importance 49.2 51.4 Finance/Purchasingwere rated highest, while again Subordinate7.3 relationships Supplier/Service Provider 7.7 Supervisor* Colleague Performance 41.1 44.8 Please mentally select the business relationship CEO/COO/Presidentwere rated to be weakest by a7.3 notable degree. This you will evaluate and indicate which of the Other further Colleague highlights the gap that seems to exist betweenCustomer Importance 48.8 49.8 following categories it best fits into 8.3 Totalrelationship need areas and relationship efforts amongCustomer Performance 45.7 47.0 Customer 8.6 business professionals. Supervisor 8.8 Supplier Importance 50.2 53.2 Supervisor/Peer/Subordinate 56% Total Supplier Performance 49.0 50.3 Peer 8.4 On a scaleRelationship from Dimension 1 to 10, pleasePerceived rate Impacthow ofstrong Customer/ Performance Ratings Relationships on Results 25% Warmth Dimensions Competence Dimensions Client Subordinateand effectiveRelationship you Dimension feel your businessPotential8.0 Impact relationship of Importanceis with thisRatings individual?Relationship Mean rating on Performance Supplier/ Customer/Client 8.5 Total 7.6 13% Service Provider Supplier/ServiceTotal Provider 8.5 7.6 Human Resources 7.6 6% Other Outside Stakeholder Other Supervisor 8.7 7.5 Marketing/Customer Service 7.8 Information Technology 7.4 Source: RCG Enterprise RQ Validity Testing, March 2010 Peer 7.9 Sales/Business Development 7.7 Subordinate 6.7 This apparent upward orientation was further evidenced Operations/GM 7.8 Customer/Client 8.0 when participants rated the degree to which their chosen Finance/Purchasing 7.3 Supplier/Service Provider 7.7 relationship could impact their performance. Supervisor CEO/COO/President 7.3 relationships were rated to have the greatest potential Other 8.3 impact on performance, while Subordinate relationships Total 8.6 were rated to have the least. This finding does not reflect Source: RCG Enterprise RQ Validity Testing, March 2010 Supervisor 8.8 particularly well on the leadership priorities of those Supervisor/Peer/Subordinate 56% Peer 8.4 Customer/ Client 25% Subordinate 8.0

© 2010 The Relational Capital Group Supplier/ Customer/Client5 8.5 13% Service Provider Supplier/Service Provider 8.5 6% Other Outside Stakeholder Other 8.7 54% Total 89% Customer/Client 50% Human Resources 93% 50% Suppliers 65% Marketing/Customer Service 86% 49% Manager/Subordinate 53% Information Technology 87% Industry/Media 47% Sales/Business Development 100% 55%

Operations/GM 82% Peer/Colleague 46% 55% Finance/Purchasing 83% Shareholder/Board 46% 53% CEO/COO/President 90% AN ADVISORY SERVICES WHITE PAPER Family/Friend 36% 48%

Total CEO/COO/President From a functional expertise perspective, Marketing, Sales relationships underperform other relationship types, and OperationsTotal Importance professionals48.7 rated their relationship50.7 particularly in regard to warmth dimensions. Conversely, Supplier* effectivenessTotal Performance slightly higher44.7 than their counterparts,47.0 Supplier relationships outperform on both the warmth Peer* perhaps highlighting the degree to which they work with and competence dimensions. Perhaps most notably, all Colleague Importance 49.2 51.4 customers or suppliers on a daily basis. On the other relationship types are underperforming expectations Supervisor* hand, CEO/COO/Presidents,Colleague Performance 41.1 Finance and IT44.8 professionals and their potential on both warmth and competence Colleague rated theirCustomer relationships Importance strength48.8 somewhat lower, 49.8possibly dimensions.

reflectingCustomer their Performance more strategic45.7 or quantitative orientation.47.0 Customer Warmth & Competence Model Analysis Supplier Importance 50.2 53.2 Total On a scale from 1 to 10, please rate how strong Supplier Performance 49.0 50.3 Relationship Dimension Perceived Impact of and effective you feel your business relationship Total 48.7 50.7 Performance Ratings Relationships on Results Importance is withWarmth this Dimensions individual?Competence Mean ratingDimensions Relationship Dimension Potential Impact of Total Importance Ratings Relationship on Performance Performance 44.7 47.0 Total 7.6 Colleague Total Importance 49.2 51.4 Total 7.6 Human Resources 7.6 Colleague Customer Performance 41.1 44.8 Marketing/Customer Service 7.8 Supervisor 7.5 Colleague Customer Importance 48.8 49.8 Information Technology 7.4 Peer 7.9 Supervisor* Customer 45.7 47.0 Sales/Business Development 7.7 Performance Peer* Subordinate 6.7 Supplier Operations/GM 7.8 Importance 50.2 53.2 Supplier* Customer/Client 8.0 Supplier Finance/Purchasing 0 20% 40% 7.360% 80% 100% Performance 49.0 50.3 Supplier/Service Provider 7.7 Relationship Dimension Perceived Impact of CEO/COO/President Performance Ratings 7.3 Relationships on Results 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relationship Dimension Potential Impact of Combined Average Dimension Ratings Other 8.3 Importance Ratings Relationship on Performance Warmth Dimensions Competence Dimensions Total Source: RCG Enterprise RQ Validity Testing, March8.6 2010 Source: RCG Enterprise RQ Validity Testing, March 2010 Supervisor 8.8 Supervisor/Peer/Subordinate 56% Further assessing their selected relationship, participants Peer 8.4 Customer/ noted the degree to which various dimensions described Client 25% the individualSubordinate in question. The most prominent relationship8.0 Predictive Validity of the dimensions included “honesty”; “knowledgeable”; and Supplier/ Customer/Client 8.5 Enterprise RQ™ Assessment Model 13% Service Provider “worth my time.” Consistent with their previous ratings of overall relationshipSupplier/Service effectiveness, Provider Colleague relationships8.5 Statistical analysis of Enterprise RQ™ data across 6% Other Outside Stakeholder received lowerOther scores across all relationship dimensions,8.7 all relationship types confirms that this assessment while Supplier relationships received consistently higher methodology successfully explains over 80% of the dimension scores. variability in relationship strength and effectiveness ratings. While this level of overall validity is impressive, the predictive strength of Enterprise RQ™ assessment All relationship types are is even higher when differing relationship types are considered separately.

currently under-performing relative In addition, this analysis revealed that each business to expectations and potential relationship type has unique characteristics and dynamics that must be considered distinctly. For instance, while the dominant predictor of relationship strength across all types is how well each individual is perceived to perform From a warmth and competence perspective, the on the RQ™ relationship dimensions, other assessment Enterprise RQ™ assessment further confirmed that business variables seem to play a greater or lesser role depending relationships are formed by equal amounts of the warmth on the relationship type. and competence dimensions—both from an importance and performance perspective. More specifically, colleague

Total 48.7 50.7 ImportanceOverall, these findings make a strong case for the validity Cumulative Variance in Relationship Strength Explained by RQ™ Assessment Variables Total and reliability44.7 of the Enterprise RQ™47.0 Assessment Model Performanceas means for measuring, diagnosing and predicting the Colleaguestrength and 49.2 effectiveness of business51.4 relationships of Total Importanceall kinds. However, differing business relationship types Colleaguepossess a unique combination of expectations, dynamics Customer Performance 41.1 44.8 and drivers among these dimensions. As a result, there are Colleague Customerno silver bullets or one size fits all prescriptions that can Importance 48.8 49.8 be applied indiscriminately across all relationship types. Supervisor* Customer PerformanceRather, these45.7 12 RQ™ dimensions 47.0must be applied in a Peer* manner that is tailored to each relationship type. Supplier Importance 50.2 53.2 Supplier* Supplier 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Performance 49.0 50.3 Relationship Dimension Perceived Impact of Potential applications of this business Performance Ratings Relationships on Results 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Relationship Dimension Potential Impact of Combined Average Dimension Ratings Importance Ratings Relationship on Performance relationship competency model * Relatively small sample sizes Warmthare Dimensions quite broadCompetence and significant. Dimensions Source: RCG Enterprise RQ Validity Testing, March 2010

Implications for Action and Results

Business executives have clearly articulated their belief in the impact of relationships on results, and the need for reliable methods to assess and build stronger ones is apparent. The Enterprise RQ™ Assessment Model clearly provides a meaningful tool for addressing that need. In addition, the potential applications of this business relationship competency and assessment model are quite broad and significant.

In their groundbreaking book on relationship management and marketing6, Martin Christopher, Adrian Payne and David Ballantyne identified The Six Markets Model of business relationship strategy. As illustrated below, the breadth of relationships that can impact business results is quite significant. The Enterprise RQ™ Assessment provides a sound business relationship competency framework, along with detailed diagnostic metrics, that can be used to gain insight and enhance relationship impact on performance in all of these areas.

The Six Markets Model of Business Relationship Strategy

Existing Customers Supervisors Potential Customers Customer Supplier Internal Peers Markets Markets Markets Subordinates

Government Regulators Standards Bodies Lobbyists BUSINESS Stockholders RELATIONSHIP STRATEGY Bankers Venture Capitalists Financial Analysts Stockbrokers Consumer Associations Influence Recruitment Referral News Media Industry Associations Markets Markets Markets Social Media Labor Associations Review Media

This innovative assessment can be deployed on a stand alone basis, or as an additional module within existing customer loyalty, market research or performance assessment systems. For instance the Enterprise Client RQ™ Assessment provides deep, actionable insights that lead to improved customer retention, penetration and acquisition. Similarly, the Enterprise Talent RQ™ Assessment provides remarkable visibility on the dynamics of internal relationships that lead to increased cross-functional collaboration, productivity and leadership development. When tracked on a periodic basis, RQ™ Assessment measures provide a progress report on action plan impact and a roadmap to further plan refinements.

Individual Talent RQ™ Enterprise Talent RQ™ Enterprise Client RQ™ Assesses Manager, Peer and Assesses Employee Relationships Assesses Client Relationships Subordinate Relationships Across the Enterprise Across All Touch Points

Client Client Touch Touch Points Points

Manager

CLIENT Sales Internal Peers FACING Shipping Employee FUNCTIONS Billing Service

Subordinates

Client Client Touch Touch Points Points Interconnected Functional Departments

In particular, Enterprise RQ™ Assessment data and insights can be applied to enhance organization performance in the following areas:

Human Resources Sales/Business Development Finance/Operations/IT • Cross-functional Collaboration • Customer Retention • Productivity Improvement • Leadership Development • Sales Planning & Forecasting • Efficiency Cost Reductions • Performance Assessment • Account Penetration & Mgmt • Organization Effectiveness • Employee Engagement • New Account Acquisition • Change Management • Succession Planning • CRM System Effectiveness • Major Initiative Implementation • Acquisition Culture Integration • Client Needs Assessment • New Leader Onboarding • Candidate Evaluations • Sales Support Effectiveness • Acquisition Due Diligence

For more information on Enterprise RQ™ Assessments or other Advisory Services of The Relational Capital Group, please contact, Chris Malone, Chief Advisory Officer at [email protected] or visit our website at http://www.relationalcapitalgroup.com

References

1. RCG National Survey of 275 VP Level and Above Executives, conducted by Candice Bennett & Associates, Inc., February 2010

2. Forming impressions of personality, Journal of. Abnormal Social Psychology 42, Asch, S.E. (1946)

3. On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation, Wojciszke, B. et al., Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 24, 1998

4. Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence, Susan T. Fiske, Amy J.C. Cuddy and Peter Glick, TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.11 No.2, 2007

5. RCG Enterprise RQ™ Validity Testing with 430 business professionals, conducted by Candice Bennett & Associates, Inc., March 2010

6. “Relationship Marketing: Bringing Quality, Customer Service and Marketing Together”, Martin Christopher, Adrian Payne and David Ballantyne, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991

About The Relational Capital Group

The Relational Capital Group is a research–based, professional development and advisory services firm that helps organizations measure, manage and strengthen the business relationships that drive their performance.

Our breakthrough business relationship principles and processes are delivered in a variety of forms that lead to sustained performance improvement. These include performance enhancement engagements, Enterprise RQ™ Assessments, talent development workshops, keynote speeches, executive coaching and critically acclaimed books.