The Wall St. Journal Test

Kim (not her real name) recalls the moment she and her colleagues lost faith in the company that was allegedly partnering with them.

It was a video call and the partner firm's project lead was sharing his screen. At a certain point he had to switch applications, and he did so without first turning off the screen share. In the second or two between closing one application and opening another, Kim and her colleagues caught a glimpse of the presenter's Teams chat history. At the top of the chat was a freshly-written comment: "Can't believe these bozos are taking so long to get this."

Kim kept her cool in the moment, but later that day she described what had happened to the sponsoring executive at the partner firm, letting him know that trust had evaporated. He immediately replaced the project lead, hoping to mollify Kim's concerns, but the underlying tensions were too deep. The partnership never met its stated objectives.

When I was in consulting, we were often reminded of the 'Wall St. Journal test' — never, ever write anything in an email or text that you wouldn't want to appear on the front page of the Wall St. Journal. It was a wise counsel, and it took me a long time to appreciate the practical depth of this guiding principle.

For anyone in a client-facing role, there are two reasons to be always conscious of the WSJ test. The first is simply reputational. Clearly you want to eliminate the risk of being publicly shamed or discredited.? ?

But there's a much deeper reason that relates to the client service imperative. If your primary responsibility is to add value to another firm, you should never do anything to compromise or undermine the necessary mindset.

In professional service work, this is very easy to do. As an outsider to the client organization, some things will inevitably seem strange to you. Lacking history and context, you will be inclined to dismiss those things as absurd. Your impatience will grow in proportion to your sense of urgency about advancing your team's agenda. At some point, you will be tempted to speak about the client's distinctive habits and conventions in disparaging terms.

But it's poisonous to yield to this temptation. You may think your internal discussions are strictly private. You may take transgressive delight in calling out the client's apparently obvious flaws. But the whiff of disdain will soon fill the air, and the client will detect it.?

Kim's moment of truth with that partner was the symptom, not the cause, of distrust. It was a moment in which the smell of condescension slipped through the cracks. The project lead's toxic attitude had leaked, but it had already spread too far. It was the barrier that prevented him and his team from thinking and behaving like trusted advisors.

If you're in consulting, sales, or any kind of advisory work, no matter what your level, you can stop this mental slide from happening. You can insist upon understanding the client's dialect and decision criteria rather than diminishing them. You can hold your team accountable to a more empathetic standard. You'll be much more trustworthy and effective if you do.

That's the true purpose of the Wall Street Journal Test.