Customers make buying decisions. Consumers use products and services. Sometimes they’re the same person. Sometimes they aren’t.

By differentiating between customers and consumers you can explain a lot of otherwise baffling phenomena in business, like why professional sports teams don’t care that strikes and demands for new stadiums (stadia?) have driven the public beyond mere apathy to alpha-state levels. Their major customers are the networks; fans, for the most part, are consumers.

It also explains the poor product quality and “customer” service of many software companies: Software selection is a strategic decision made by IS leadership or the chief technical officer, so when end-users and technicians experience problems and call for support they can’t threaten to take their business elsewhere — it isn’t their decision.

(This distinction, by the way, appears to be an original insight — much to my astonishment, nobody seems to have pointed it out before. If you were my customer instead of my consumer, it could turn me into a wealthy man.)

This distinction is useful inside, as well as outside, the company: Understanding the difference between your internal consumers — the people who make use of the technology you provide to the enterprise — and your internal customers will help you become a more effective leader, and help your career as well.

A recent column pointed this out. Your internal customers aren’t your consumers, they’re the people who approve your budget and who control your career. Some readers weren’t too happy with this analysis: They prefer to eliminate the idea of internal customers altogether. Everyone in IS, in their view, should focus on the connection between their work and external customers (and, presumably, external consumers, too).

This is a position advocated many times in this space: Everyone in IS, and in fact, every employee in the company, should always be aware of how their efforts translate to value for external customers.

The two positions aren’t in conflict, though. They’re complementary, or at least they can be, although keeping all of the connections straight can be a challenge sometimes.

When making decisions, it’s worthwhile to look at the world from more than one perspective. One perspective is that of mission and purpose — what you are trying to accomplish. From this perspective, it’s important to understand your connection to external customers, to provide context for your actions and decisions. IS works best when it relates to the rest of the company as an active partner rather than as a passive order-taker or independent service provider, and to be an active partner you need to participate in interactive discussions about how to achieve business goals. “How can we more effectively attract and retain customers together?” is a better question than, “How can we help you?”

A different, but equally valid, perspective is your responsibility to be politically effective. Even in healthy companies, every individual starts with different premises, experiences, personal and professional goals, and priorities … in short, a unique world view. Politics is the art of moving forward in the face of these differences. With technology pervading most businesses, every business decision leads to new or changed, and always conflicting technical requirements and priorities, so you operate in a highly political environment.

Why should you view the people who control your budget as your internal customers? Because that’s political reality. By definition they are your customers, and if you don’t treat them that way, they won’t make the right buying decisions about your products and services (they won’t approve your budget).

Then, most important of all, there’s a third perspective: your career. You personally have customers, and they’re also internal. They’re the people who approve your raises, bonuses, and promotions.

If you’re lucky, helping the business attract and retain external customers will make your personal internal customers happy. If you aren’t so lucky … well, they’re internal, but they’re still your customers.

It’s up to you to decide how you want to treat them.

Dear Bob,

I know this is a rather odd question, but I need your help with ManagementSpeak. No, it’s not translating it, it’s me translating to it!

I’ve been told that although I speak very well to and/or with end-users, I need to work more on talking with upper management. Three different managers have suggested this, so for the sake of my career and IS survival, I’m taking them seriously.

I’m pretty sure the very thing my manager wants is what you lampoon in your columns. Do you have any suggestions on learning how to translate into ManagementSpeak instead of your normal practice of translating from it? Just as important, can you tell me how to not snicker while I’m doing it?

Dancing around issues and trying to put a positive spin on everything, even when they are potential issues that need to be addressed, seems rather hypocritical. However, in the interest of my career, I have to at least try to overcome this particular “weakness.” Any suggestions, thoughts, or comments would be greatly appreciated.

– Talkin’ Trash in Tennessee

Dear Talkin’,

Here are a few suggestions that may help out. They may sound cynical, but they’re intended to help you be more persuasive, not manipulative. Use them with restraint, or you’ll go home every day feeling like you need a shower.

Rule #1: Never say “no.” You can present alternatives and estimate costs. You can explain that you don’t have the authority to say “yes” on your own. You can “see what the committee thinks about it.” “No” wrecks your image.

Rule #2: Never argue. “I think you’re wrong” just entrenches your opponent. If possible, make your own idea sound like a simple modification to your opponent’s moronic notion. If that isn’t possible, you can usually get away with, “I used to think the exact same thing. Then I ran across a book by Irving Slobodkin, and it made an interesting point.” That way you aren’t arguing — it’s Slobodkin who’s arguing.

Rule #3: Never present an idea as new or original. “I’ve read that some other companies are doing this [this being your great idea] when they’ve found themselves in this situation,” is far better. Why? First, new ideas are risky; “others are doing it” reduces the hazard. Second, nobody inside your company is allowed to be an expert. Why? That would make them better than the rest of us — who do you think you are, anyway? By quoting the experts rather than presenting yourself as one, you maintain the appearance of humility.

Rule #4: Find the upside. There are, after all, no problems, only opportunities. To avoid the cliche, make it a question: “How can we turn this to our advantage?” Many problems really are opportunities in disguise. Most are solvable challenges when faced with the right attitude but disasters when faced with the wrong one. (Don’t be asinine, though. The atmosphere gets icky when managers say brainless things like, “Don’t think of it as being unemployed and unable to feed your family. Think of it as an opportunity to broaden your horizons.”)

Understanding why you should follow these rules should help you keep a straight face and stay inside the fine line that separates diplomacy from stupidity on the one side and simple deception on the other.

Management has a lot in common with chess strategy. Each move you make has more at stake than achieving a single objective. Each should help you build a strong position as well. That means your speech should enhance relationships and alliance while avoiding the creation of antagonism or antagonists.

If all you want is to be right all the time, fine — just forget about your management aspirations. Being right is for staff. Leadership roles require you to be effective as well. Among the many skills this requires is the ability to present intrinsically unpleasant notions in ways that make them seem palatable.

Think of it this way: Somebody once figured out how to make raw oysters sound like a delicacy, not a pile of slimy goo. Sometimes, when you’re leading people, you have to achieve the same, seemingly insurmountable goal or nothing good will ever happen.