BY OSMOSIS?

It’s an all-too-common plaint we’ve heard among colleagues:  Got anyone who thinks strategically?

More to the point, it’s not an easy skill set to teach.  Though we know it’s highly valued, not only by our peers but also by the universe at large:  97 percent  of senior execs surveyed last year by a market research firm agree it’s the most important attribute for organizational success. 

Sure, MBA schools list strategy courses – and claim they produce these futuristic thinkers.  There are strategic officers and strategy firms galore.  But, where in our business – of communications, design, and branding – are these practitioners?

Let’s start with the learning, agreeing that (for the purpose of this blog) thinkers can be made, and not born. 

There’s the immersive approach, where information on every facet of the corporation – customers, market, industry, suppliers, et al. – is shared to provide in-depth understanding and a wider range of information. 

Then there’s the Jack Welch approach, pairing up a known mature thinker with one who’s fairly new to the business.

Or there’s the reward point of view, ensuring that those who think strategically (and their products) are recognized.

All of those paths might prove successful.  Yet there’s another idea that has us applauding:  Surround yourself with those who look at the world differently, while questioning your own opinions.  It’s only by exposing ourselves to out-of-the-way ideas that we’ll design the actions that give our enterprises sustainable competitive advantage.  Armed with a good knowledge of the business as well as a world perspective, professionals can reframe and challenge current mindsets with a good strategy or two.

Or, in simple terms, diversity makes the strategy go ‘round.

WHAT CSR COULD REALLY MEAN

There’s much talk these days about Millennial engagement – or disengagement, depending on the workplace you’re now inhabiting.

Actually, it’s more than idle conversation:  Executives, HR leaders, consultants, and professional pundits fill the media with analyses (psychological and otherwise), statistics, and good old solutions.  How do we retain and recruit this generation?  What’s the magic bullet?  Do we, can we truly understand this cohort?

In our head, the answer’s found in three letters many companies embrace:  CSR, or corporate social responsibility.  Today many of us recognize that Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life applies not just to individuals, but also to organizations.  The sense of contributing to a larger good, whether that means creating and implementing sustainable food strategies or lifting up the communities in which we work, is pervasive and, often, genuine.   That calling, experts say, motivates us to be more productive, toil longer hours, and be less likely to dial in sick or bolt for another position. 

But.  Many Millennials yearn to be on the CSR frontlines, actively, daily, even hourly making a difference.  The occasional service day won’t suffice.  Neither will a sense of belonging to a company that practices good. 

On the other hand, there are all too few dedicated CSR positions, for-profit or not.  [Our prediction:  The economy’s ebbs and flows will dictate an ever-decreasing number.]  And this M generation, not unlike the Boomers, has little patience for waiting.

Why not embed CSR in every individual’s job description, then?  Those fueled by the mission for a better tomorrow will automatically integrate at least a few sentences – and actively look for appropriate ways to contribute … in addition to their full-time gigs.  We’ve seen it happen:  The thoroughly blasé become enthusiastic; the slackers, actually engaged.  The kicker word is, of course, “appropriate.”  Every people manager must be trained on CSR’s meaning, what is acceptable (and not so much).  As should every employee at every level. 

It’s the meaning that matters, after all.

WORTH [OUR] WHILES

It’s been some time since we heard of value propositions.

Obviously, a business and its strategy are lost without one.  Yet figuring out how to prove that we, denizens of intangibility, deliver value is tough.  And wiser heads than ours haven’t yet cracked the code, seeing as we – marketers, designers, branding gurus, communicators – are usually among the first to be RIFed and our work, eliminated or cut back.

Some of the more apparent extra value options offered by one agency head:

• Generate ideas in new ways.  All well and good (and something we fervently believe in and practice), but where’s the revenue?  Unless, of course, it’s built into your contract … as both consultants and practitioners.
• Go above and beyond.  That got us in pretty hot water years ago; billing software couldn’t account for all the hours expended.  Then again, that premise should be built into mindsets and behaviors … balancing is the key.
• Drive results that make a difference.  Okay, that’s our mission, our mantra, our zeal.  Problem is, many outcomes are anecdotal.  Others rely on squeaky numbers that not everyone buys into.  And still others target changes in behaviors and attitudes, shifts that take a longer time to calculate.

Questions we can ask ourselves in an honest aside:  Do we talk about our services in memorable headlines?  Why do our customers choose us over another Jane and Tom?  Is our language (argh!) accessible … and jargon-less?  Have we strengthened our case with all the usual suspects, from customer testimonials to results, as well as the more unusual benefits?

There’s much more on this topic, trust us.  Watch this space … for a while.

THE YEAR OF LINEAR THINKING. OR NOT.

For years, we’ve had an on-and-off debate with our change colleagues.  [Mostly off, to tell the truth.]

These disagreements center on the nature of change:  Is it linear?  And more, can we superimpose different change frameworks (whether Prosci or Kotter or Bridges or you-fill-in-the-blank) on a human process that, quite frankly, doesn’t always respond to a one-step-at-a-time logic?

Case in point:  One of our clients was incredibly frustrated when a project went AWOL, primarily because executive sponsors had to tend to other burning platforms.   Not ours, obviously.   We went back to start, analyzed, compared it to other shifts in the business, and found that, yes, human ADD simply pushed it away.  Over-multi-tasking was the culprit.

Solving change problems, to us, must consider the human element.  Any number of managers and leaders can nod and give lip service to a specific effort, say, around the supply chain.  The business case, the sense of urgency, the executive sponsors, and the project team might be in play.  But it’s human:  Managers might forget.  Allocate their time elsewhere.  Be called into work on a different initiative.  Or simply resist in a passive-aggressive way, and stymie progress.

Or, another scenario:  Everyone nods, and buys in.  They agree, this IT or HR or cost-saving change must happen for the business to grow.  Change chugs along until – yup – a pocket of the population isn’t motivated or willing to shift attitudes, behaviors, roles, or whatever they’re being asked to do.  Back to the business case, then.

Bottom line:  Thinking linearly doesn’t work for us when driving change.  Sure, frameworks are handy, if only to remind you what needs to be done.  Instead, we prefer moving in a non-straightforward manner, making the connections we need to make at the times we need to make them, and in the ways they need to be made.  Definitely messy, but it works. 

Is this your year to break out and through change?