The Internal Brand

Hey, first we are sorry for the long delay.  The good news is that Jennifer and I have been really busy.  We are both doing really interesting work, but we have remiss with our blog posts.  We'll try to be better.

Recently, I had lunch with Larry Lubin of Lubin-Lawrence (www.lubinlawrence.com).  Lubin-Lawrence has been helping the worlds’ leading consumer goods companies establish and implement brand strategies for decades.  I got to know them years ago when one of my clients needed help with their brand image.  They have a powerful methodology for helping companies understand what the most loyal consumers truly value about the brand.   Their work led to a fundamental restructure of the company’s approach to the market.

The Lubin-Lawrence approach is based on the belief that a brand will be more powerful and meaningful if it plays an important role in the consumer’s life.  Rather than focus on features and functions, they have a holistic research methodology for determining, or uncovering really, the experiences most sought after by the consumer and the fundamental human values that drive a particular consumer’s behavior.

One of our current clients believes that their culture provides a true source of competitive advantage and is interested in how to “brand” their culture, both internally and externally.  My conversations with Larry and his partner Barbara Lawrence, have been about how to do that.   In our conversations, I think we all realized the similarity between the external and internal brands, and more importantly why alignment between the two is so critical.

In both cases, the target constituency, the consumer or the employee, has to believe that their actions, either a purchase or their work, is aligned with their values.  The lesson learned: great branding isn't about making you want to buy stuff it is about helping you discover meaning in your life.

Scott

Down With Performance Reviews!

I am not a fan of Performance Reviews. My own experience has been that they consistently fall short of my expectations, and I'm speaking not only as a recipient, but as someone who has written my fair share over the years. They tend to be either too shallow to do much good, or they create an unnecessary rift with the employee who hopes (and often expects) to hear nothing but superlatives about their contributions.

I now have company in my views. Two authors—a professor from UCLA and an editor from the Wall Street Journal have written a book with a title that says it all: "Get Rid of the Performance Review!"

The writers, Samuel Culbert and Lawrence Rout pull no punches in their analysis. They believe the damage inflicted by reviews by far eclipses their benefit. Or as expressed by Culbert, reviews are "the most pretentious, fraudulent, ill-advised exercise taking place at companies." (Tell us how you really feel, Sam--)

Completely eliminating reviews, though, is not necessarily the answer. Behind the charade is actually a good intention: to shine a spotlight on the employee's true talents and contributions, and to find a way to develop their skills and capabilities. So it's more about changing the process and tools.

There are a lot of useful ways to accomplish this, but one of the more intriguing is to change ownership of the experience from being management driven to employee-led. We now expect employees to own their careers, so doesn't it make sense that they own the resources that help map and guide them on their chosen path? A review that therefore highlights the employee's achievements, written in their own words, and accompanied by a vision for future contributions, sets the stage for a meaningful discussion.

So if you want to engage employees rather than generate angst and anxiety, take a look at how reviews can be revamped to really focus on the employees' needs, preferences and aspirations.
 
Jennifer

Pornographic Management

I believe that language is a powerful force that shapes who we are, and in turn shapes our organizations. How we describe our mission and values, how we communicate inside and outside our organizations, and even the nature of our conversations all have profound influences on our business.

As an example, what does the phrase "performance review" conjure up for you? For most people, words like "aggravation" and "pointless tasks" come to mind. Yet, despite the label the intention of a review is to create a vehicle for helping people grow. So after years of bad experiences and bad press, even the best review process will forever be branded in a negative way as long as it's called a performance review.

With language in mind, imagine my reaction when I ran across the phrase "pornographic management" while doing some research. It jumped right off the page for me, and I immediately needed to learn more. In an article by Stephen Long, http://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/?p=1510, he characterizes it as leaders who live under a cloak of fear—fear of making mistakes, fear about what's next in the economy, fear for their very survival—and as a result they work in a cautious, emotionless way. Strategies are followed to the letter of the law, blame is shifted, and everything becomes a "shrug"—that's just the way it is around here. The world becomes objectified and as a result lacks a soul.

Two things came to mind as I thought about the concept. First, to label this type of leadership as "pornographic" felt harsh yet right to me. Organizations that function in this way—and I've experienced it firsthand—create environments that stifle all energy and talent, promoting inertia and hostility. They're positively obscene.

At the same time, though, Long was describing a prevalent way of operating in many businesses today. Fear for tomorrow and worry that the bottom will fall out of the market again is promoting behaviors by leadership that are wrapped in intense anxiety. These leaders may not be intending to, but they are enacting pornographic management in their effort to serve the bottom line.

People are starting to see this as "normal," or just the way it is. But it makes me wonder, if we start calling it what it is—pornographic—will it prompt leaders to search out new behaviors, or at least push aside the fear and begin a shift toward an optimistic future? And have you witnessed examples of pornographic management? Would love to hear your comments!

Jennifer

Apple’s “Multiplier Factor of Excellence”

Steve Jobs is the face of Apple, and much has been made about how powerful his presence is in the organization. Perhaps more than any other company in the marketplace, there is a belief that Apple's very existence depends heavily on Jobs himself. This was made clear in recent years as Jobs has fought cancer; you could see the stock price fluctuate as his health reports leaked into the marketplace.

But it doesn't take much thought to realize the absurdity of such a bias. Yes, Steve has a strong influence on Apple's mission, processes and products. But to suggest that he single-handedly carries the load of $32 billion in revenue, 34,000 employees and bunch of cool products, just doesn't make sense. So what's the real secret behind Apple's success?

During the recent announcements of their new product, the iPad, Wall Street discussed how Apple distinguishes itself among its competitors. One reporter shared the following observation:

Truly outstanding designers, engineers and managers, Jobs says, are not just 10 percent, 20 percent or 30 percent better than merely very good ones, but 10 times better.

So while Jobs may not be the super hero that the world makes him out to be, he's still a brilliant guy. He's figured out that to create world class products that people line up for takes more than expressing his own ego. It takes a phenomenal team, and Apple has done an incredible job of finding, motivating and growing a very talented group of individuals.

With Jobs as the face of Apple, they have a strong and smart personality to represent them in the marketplace. But what really makes him smart is the fact that he understands it truly is about talent—just not his alone.


Jennifer

“Dear Abby” Has Interesting Company

A couple of weeks ago I shared a post in which "Dear Abby" commented that the flood gates are poised to open in businesses across America, resulting in the exodus of employees who are profoundly disappointed in how their organizations handled the cost cutting associated with the recession. Well, it appears that Abby is in good company and it comes from an unexpected group within the business world.

Robert Half and Associates recently conducted a Chief Financial Officer survey which examined the "lessons learned" from the recession. I assumed as I anticipated their likely answers that the majority of attention would be given to concerns such as, "Reduce costs sooner," or "Be willing to take on more organizational risk to alleviate financial risk." However, the response that was considered #1 was: "Place greater focus on maintaining employee morale."

Business, by its nature, is left-brained and pragmatic, and CFO's in turn are essentially the poster children of this perspective. It was therefore with both interest and surprise to see this group step back and recognize the implications of the financial decisions that were made. While the distress felt across organizations as waves of employees were laid off and comp and benefits were cut would be hard to ignore, it could also have easily been rationalized. After all, better to hurt a few rather than lose the entire the company. These CFO's therefore get bonus points from me for their willingness to acknowledge the unintended consequences of some of the decisions that were made.

And, the good news is that an investment in building a substantial, employee-centered culture pays off not just today, but also in the future. Research by Barbara Frederickson of the University of North Carolina has shown that a foundation of strength and positive emotions tends to create resiliency; people are far more forgiving during a crisis if they see it as an anomaly rather than as more evidence of cynicism and distrust. So there's no time like the present for CFO's and their fellow leadership team to make investments in employees, and therefore investments in the company's future.

Jennifer

New World/New Rules

I recently read an interview of Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon.com. The focus of the article was on the Kindle, their ultra-cool wireless reader.

When the Kindle was launched, the breakthrough wasn't in the concept; the first e-readers were introduced over a decade ago. But they were the first to finally get it right, addressing everything from the light weight of the hardware, an easy to read screen and access to a wide-range of books.

But I think the real breakthrough was that it was Amazon that put the whole package together, and not Apple, Intel or even Research in Motion, all of which are in the business of manufacturing computer hardware. After all, Amazon is a retailer; they're supposed to sell other people's stuff, not make it. Yet they broke some rules and did it anyway.

I like Jeff's explanation for how this came about. Here's what he said:

"There's a tendency, I think, for executives to think that the right course of action is to stick to the knitting—stick with what you're good at. That may be a generally good rule, but the problem is the world changes out from under you if you're not constantly adding to your skill set."

Maybe Jeff should have said, "It used to be a good rule." We're all witnessing how quickly products and services are becoming obsolete. That suggests that companies need to assume they're going to have a short lifespan, or instead they need to become much more creative and much more aggressive about how they define themselves in the marketplace.

Amazon took a risk when they stepped out of their routine, but it has clearly paid off. The Kindle is now their #1 selling product. I can't wait to see what their next reinvention is going to be!

Jennifer

Even “Dear Abby” Knows the Score

I still like to read the print version of the newspaper, and when I'm paging by "Dear Abby" I'll usually take a quick look at the trials that other people are having. While the juicy stuff is often about a social or family dilemmas, businesses should take notice of a recent post.

"Bitter in the Northeast" wrote in to complain about her job situation. Apparently, she is a good performer, based on her reviews, but because of the economy she hasn't had a raise in two years. If things were bad across the board, she wouldn't mind too much, but she's observed that the company owner has recently bought a new luxury car and taken some nice vacations. Her question to Abby was, does she have a right to be upset and feel that she's being taken advantage of?

Here's what Abby said, in its entirety:

"If your employers are claiming poverty while indulging in conspicuous consumption, your feelings are understandable. And as soon as the job market improves, I'm sure you will be only a part of the stampede of fellow employees seeking another job. With your outstanding reviews it shouldn't be too difficult to find one. Bide your time."

As the economy starts to warm up, the smartest and most talented employees will be thinking the same way—how has my company treated its employees during these past difficult months? Is this the kind of place I want to continue to make as my "business home"? And if "Dear Abby" is even arguing to leave rather than negotiate an equitable solution, than you know the predicted "stampede" is starting to form on the horizon.
Jennifer