Years back two researchers argued that rampant crime in the city is the inevitable result of disorder. If a window in a building is broken and left unrepaired, people walking by will conclude that no one cares and that no one is in charge. One unrepaired window is an invitation to break more windows, and then lawlessness spreads outward from buildings to streets to entire communities.
Can you see the parallels between broken windows and broken brands?
A broken brand is a business that has no idea where it’s going; has no way of communicating its purpose (since none exists); and therefore cannot align its activities nor inspire its people. It’s in disorder. And this disorder leads to people walking around concluding that no one cares and that no one is in charge. Employees may see problems or opportunities, but they stop complaining and suggesting ideas, since they’re convinced management can’t do anything, or won’t. I’ve read the results of recent surveys, which showed that fewer than 10 percent of employees believe their daily activities are actually related to corporate goals. That’s pitiful.
Leaders are not connecting their organizations’ purposes to the individual’s sense of accomplishment, because the organization doesn’t have a purpose. There may be goals and objectives and “todos,” but there is no unifying perspective -- or strong brand -- that inspires people and guides their actions. This lack of a central organizing principle becomes an open invitation for people to run around following their own self-serving agendas. And like the broken window syndrome in neighborhoods, this lawlessness ends up spreading from employee to employee and from employee to customer. Before long, the organization is hardened with passionless team members, uninspired customers, shrinking margins, layoffs, accounting scandals, Dilbertesque cynicism. A vicious, and totally avoidable, downward spiral.
You’re probably wondering why the leader doesn’t simply step in and take control.
The simple answer is that today’s environment is too complex for leaders to “take control.” In the simpler days leaders acted as police and, like the police of that time, were far more integrated in the “community.” They could see -- or sense -- signals of disorder and intervene to protect their brand. The leaders of today -- like the police of today -- are dealing with a much more complex environment with widely different competitive pressures, customer demands, stockholder expectations, and workforce requirements. They are struggling with the global recession, the social web revolution, and the collapse of the old Industrial business paradigm. The only way for today’s leader to prevent disorderly behavior that will ultimately corrupt his or her organization is to viscerally understand and passionately communicate the organization’s brand!
The leader needs to communicate the brand’s compelling essence, which will inspire sharing, tolerance, teamwork and innovation, and act as a filtering mechanism for new ideas. The brand’s driving philosophy will create alignment and focus, and instill confidence, and give people permission to act, and bring ideas to life. Its special spirit will engage and unify people, and compel them to self-police the organization and prevent the small but unmistakable signals of impending chaos.
The good times are not returning any time soon. And until leaders put the brand at the heart of the organization and make people feel that they exist at that heart, chaos will prevail.
I just read another one of Stuart Elliott's advertising pieces in the New York Times. Is it just me or does his stuff read like a parody of the ad business?
In this breakthrough article, Elliott sincerely discusses the pressing issue of naming 2010:
"In less than two months, a new year will arrive, along with a new decade. Each year in the current decade has been spoken the long way, as in 'two thousand nine,' rather than the short way, as in 'twenty oh nine' (or even 'twenty ought nine').
In 2010, however, another option will present itself, echoing how people referred to years starting in the second decade of the 20th century: 'twenty ten,' just like 'nineteen ten,' rather than 'two thousand ten'.
Most people will have a couple of months to consider how they will refer to next year — but not the automakers, because a model year runs from Oct. 1 through Sept. 30."
Interviews with auto and ad execs reveal that Elliott's reporting is definitely not satire. These folks really spend time and money contemplating this triviality:
“It wasn’t really a ‘potato, potahto’ moment for us. Twenty ten feels a little slick, a little self-consciously futuristic, and there’s nothing worse than trying to position — or reposition, for that matter — yourself with forced lingo.” -- Jon Pearce, group creative director at Team One Advertising (Lexus' agency)
"Saying twenty ten is 'too colloquial,' and two thousand ten is 'more formal.'" -- Erin Poole, a spokeswoman for Toyota’s agency, the Los Angeles office of Saatchi & Saatchi
"Twenty ten sounds 'different, modern and progressive, which is very appropriate for the new Buick. It’s also a quicker, more intuitive read' for an announcer when time is at a premium." -- Steve Rosenblum, director for advertising and promotion for the Buick and GMC lines at G.M.
Here's an idea: Split test the pronunciation of 2010 to determine which ads pull better. Here's a better idea: Wake up and do something meaningful that will actually help sell cars.
That's the title of a recent article in The Economist, which refers to Stephen Covey, Jim Collins, Tom Peters and other management guru's rules as "nothing more than wet fingers in the wind." In addition to the author's disparaging discourse, get a load of the reader comments which are ripe with priceless remarks like the following:
"Thanks to the latest fashions of the Emperor’s new clothes that these experts proudly wear, there is no need for them to moisten their finger to know which way the wind is blowing."
"I'm thinking of titling my new management tome: 'How I Learned My Five Most Effective Management Habits in Kindergarten, While Winning Friends and Influencing People by Using a Twelve Step Program, and All Inspired by Sun Tzu and Genghis Khan.' Or something like that."
I've even noticed combative comments on guru blogs of late, which express similar sentiments. What's going on? Why the pushback?
Here's what's going on: People are hurting and they need real help. Business leaders are frustrated and confused, bankruptcies continue to rise, high unemployment is threatening people's health and livelihoods as well as the economic recovery, you name it.
Hearing someone advise you to "Be curious. Be nice. Stick to your knitting. Wander around. Be proactive. Etc.," while the ship rocks violently from side to side taking on even more water is wearing a little thin on people's frazzled nerves. Especially the folks who are busting their asses to keep everything afloat, and those who have invested a lot of financial and reputation capital to receive said "advice."
I certainly empathize, but c'mon? Let's get real. Let's get our expectations clear and end the ridiculous sniping once and for all. Let's call the management guru as motivational speaker what he or she truly is: a business entertainer. That's it. Thinking they can help you succeed in today's complex marketplace is like imagining that Howard Cosell could help you win a championship boxing match.
Tom Peters makes it pretty clear (at least to me) in this BVO video interview when he remarks (around 03:20):
"If I go my entire life without a framework, I'll be thrilled."
I appreciate Tom's honesty. You should too. He's not interested in helping to solve industry problems, like a W. Edwards Deming certainly was (and did). He's interested in writing and talking about cool and interesting stuff that he reads about or experiences. If that turns you on, go for it. Otherwise, go find something that does turn you on.
I just read a short piece in Forbes Magazine titled Four Styles of Leadership. In it the author, Rich Karlgaard, places leadership styles into the following categories: visionary, empathetic, humble servitude, and moral/ethical.
He describes each style by providing examples of leaders who exhibit those characteristic leadership traits. For example, he uses Steve Jobs as an example of visionary leadership, and states that "Empathetic leadership under founder Herb Kelleher and current CEO Gary Kelly is the reason that Southwest Airlines ( LUV - news - people ) even today has some of the happiest flight attendants in the skies."
The descriptions are useful as a way to inform a strategic mindset, however, I don't particularly find his categorization of "styles" accurate. Take Herb Kelleher. Sure, he was an empathetic leader. But he was also a commercial aviation visionary who demonstrated humble servitude by focusing relentlessly on the needs of people.
Are there "styles" of leadership? Certainly, as an approach of managing tasks and motivating people; e.g. authoritarian, democratic, etc. But there is only one style when it comes to strategic direction, and it encompasses all four of Karlgaard's styles:
1. Visionary - Understand the desires of your market and strategically orchestrate a differentiated bundle of value, and a value-enhancing organizational mindset, to continuously appeal to their changing desires;
2. Empathetic - Truly care about people and their changing circumstances;
3. Humble servitude - Roll up your sleeves, work with and for your employees, customers, and partners, and listen and respond to their concerns; and
4. Moral/Ethical - Take a stand and do the right thing. Strive to make a difference in the world, and never compromise on your most deeply held beliefs.
Is it possible to ignore one or two of those traits and still succeed as a leader in today's rapidly evolving marketplace? I doubt it. But folks still try. Perhaps that's why the average tenure of CEOs continues to drop.
I was recently shocked by a comment made on a post I wrote for a Spanish website. Someone actually compared "branding" to the notorious Nazi Joseph Goebbels' propaganda principles. I'm not kidding. Here's the link (it's in Spanish):
This month's article is an attempt to set him, and many others, straight (again).
Read "Brand is Not a Four-Letter Word" when you get a chance. Here's the link (PDF):
If you do like it, please pass it along. Just right click the link directly above, click "Copy Link Location," and then right click and paste it into your email, blog post or Tweet. If you don't like it, just keep it to yourself. Thanks again.
Angels fly because they take themselves lightly. -- G. K. Chesterton
If you're feeling a little down on life, spend a minute and enjoy the Chinese Backstreet Boys living it up in their dorm room. It's an oldie and, by evidence of its near 11 million views, packs a powerful lesson about lightening up and having some fun.
Think about it. Isn't a straw a luxury item? You don't need it to drink a milkshake, but it does improve the experience.
Once you finally realize that what you market and sell is a luxury item, you'll start focusing on what matters most to purchasers of luxury items; namely identity and pleasurable experiences.
Otherwise, like it or not, you sell a necessity. And what matters most to purchasers of necessities are saving them time and saving them money. The choice is yours, but you do have to choose. You can't be both.