Melodies in Marketing

Gary Hamel in late May 2008, gathered together 36 prominent leaders in business and academia to attend Management Lab’s inaugural conference: Inventing the Future of Management. It was structured to address 4 questions and through exercises and interviews, and compile a list of 25 challenges for management in the 21st century.

Four Questions

1. What are the impediments or design flaws preventing organizations to:
   - Adapt to change without trauma
   - Innovate and daily mobilize everyone’s imagination
   - Engage by creating environments conducive to extraordinary contributions
2. Given these systemic impediments and organizational demands in coming years, how should management innovators set the agenda? What big challenges must be addressed?
3. What are some potential solutions to these challenges? Are there exercises, activities, or experiments that would help?
4. What limitations are currently hindering management innovation, and how might they be overcome?

Attendees & Interviews

• Attendees (official list) included Eric Schmidt (Google), Henry Mintzberg (McGill Univ.), James Surowiecki (The New Yorker), Jeffrey Hollender (Seventh Generation), Jeffrey Pfeffer (Stanford Univ.), John Mackey (Whole Foods Market), Peter Senge (Society for Organizational Learning), Kevin Kelly (Wired), and Tim Brown (IDEO) among many others.
• Pre-Conference interviews (compiled document), highlights everyone’s preliminary answer to the four questions in the following format: Flaws, Fixes, and Other.
• Video Interviews with all Attendees (Quicktime format)

Management “Moonshots”

These are the highlighted challenges and solutions as compiled by Hamel and his team, following the interviews and team exercises. For a detailed look (highly recommended), please see the document at the bottom of this (link) page, which gives the master challenges (as numbered list); broad challenges (Blue headings, as extracted from pre-conference interviews); the big challenges (Red headings, as identified from conference team exercises); and the corresponding points to each (black text).

Gary kindly notes that while many of these aren’t ‘new’, they’re important nonetheless. Here they are:

1. Reconstruct the philosophical foundations of management
2. Fully operationalize the ideas of community and citizenship
3. Seek orientation in a higher and broader purpose
4. Distribute (share) the work of creating direction and strategy
5. Develop holistic performance measures
6. Stretch executive timeframes and perspectives
7. Increase trust, reduce fear
8. Create a democracy of information
9. Expand and exploit intellectual variety
10. Substantially reduce the gravitational pull of the past
11. Enlarge and empower the pro-change constituency
12. Expand the freedom for autonomous action
13. Create more space for emergent strategies
14. Create an internal market for ideas, talent and resources
15. De-structure and dis-aggregate the formal organization
16. Dramatically diminish the influence of (formal) hierarchy
17. Reinvent the work of executive leadership
18. De-politicize decision-making
19. Reinvent the means of “control”
20. Transcend the efficiency vs. innovation trade-off
21. (Further) Unleash human imagination
22. Enable communities of passion
23. Create (more) open organizations
24. Rethink management thinking
25. Humanize (the language of) business

Share with:

This 1st paper in a series of five, by Business for Social Responsibility, highlights how considering the spiritual practices of countries where a business operates - and how those practices influence society’s expectations of a responsible company — can influence the firm’s reputation and long term success in those places. Case studies and inside looks into 4 countries are given, including: China, India, South Africa, and Brazil.

Share with:

[Video Link for Email/Other Subscribers]

{UPDATE 7/15: Due to some recent concerns on a few of these videos, unfortunately every one except #2 and #32 will be temporarily removed. We live in the social media age and for a topic this important, I hope all these videos can be made publicly available for the educational community. Please leave a comment if you’d like to know when they’re available again. Merci mes belle Amis…}

A 10-Minute Highlight video of some sessions I filmed at a great conference I attended in early June: Sustainable Brands 08. All of these videos cover topics in marketing communications, product development, operations, human resources, and management. The camera may not be always perfect, but I tried my best to get the best audio and sharpest resolution. Rollover a link for a quick abstract. On each individual page, there is descriptive information below the video about the speaker(s), the presentation’s summary and analysis, and additionally related articles and resources for further learning.

If someone you know may benefit from the incredible educational value of these sessions, please send them a link to this page or one of the videos below. They are under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial license, and may be downloaded and redistributed as appropriate. If you’d like to learn more about the process involved in producing & distributing video through online social media, please send me an email at: mvellandi [at] yahoo.com . ~ Adieu

{UPDATE: Thanks to the Universities that have taken interest in these video case studies. I hope they serve essential value to educators and students interested in responsible & ethical approaches to sustainability}

1. SMaRT Sustainable Product Standard (Special Event)
   .
2. Environmental Defense Fund - Beth Trask
   .
3. California EPA - Leonard Robinson
   .
4. Clean Tech Investment - Bob O’Connor, Wilson Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati
   .
5. CleanFish - Tim O’Shea
   .
6. Brown-Forman (Alcohol) - Rob Kaplan
   .
7. Green Marketing - Jacquelyn Ottoman
   .
8. Dow Chemical - Julie Fasone Holder
   .
9. Clorox Co - Bill Morrissey
   .
10. PANEL: Consumer Green Brand Perceptions for 2008
    .
11. Keen Footwear - Bobbie Parisi
    .
12. Seventh Generation - Jeffrey Hollender
    .
13. PANEL: Designers Accord (summarized for conciseness)
    .
14. World of Good / Ebay - Robert Chatwani and Priya Haji
    .
15. PANEL: Environmental Labeling
    .
16. Big Green Purse - Diane MacEachern
    .
17. PANEL: The New Social Ethic, Making Sustainability Personal
    .
18. Climate Change Film Producer - Patrick Gregston
    .
19. Method Products - Eric Ryan
    .
20. Yahoo for Good - Erin Carlson
    .
21. New Belgium Brewery - Greg Owsley
    .
22. PANEL: On the Path to Carbon Neutrality
    .
23. PANEL: Establishing Credibility, Avoiding Greenwash
    .
24. Blogosphere Green Consumer Insights - Janet Eden-Harris and Averill Doering, Umbria
    .
25. PANEL: The Greening of Traditional Media
    .
26. Design for the Other 90%
    .
27. Fabien Cousteau - Undersea Adventures & State of the Ocean
    .
28. The Future of Sustainability - Mark Lee, SustainAbility
    .
29. PANEL: Building a Sustainable Brand at Gap Inc
    .
30. Hewlett-Packard, Printing & Imaging Division - Michelle Price
    .
31. PANEL: Innovations in Sustainable Packaging
    .
32. John Edson - Sustainable Product Design
    .

Share with:

Continuing with my series of posts on Steve Farber’s “The Radical Leap”, today I’ll quote and review some dialog about the source of love and inspiration individuals need to develop energy they can channel into their work.

The narrator and his companion are on the beach playing fetch with an enthusiastic dog. A stick is motivation enough for her to play, since there’s few activities she loves to play more than fetch. The companion says:

“..people are not dogs; we’re not content to spend our lives chasing sticks. We’re far more complex that that; yet, so many businesspeople throw sticks and expect others to fetch and come back again and again like good little doggies.”

How we’ve all been subject to that at times, as if we’re kids happily receiving candy and toys in response to good behavior or rituals (birthdays, holidays). Sure, they’re perks. But ultimately all humans need attention, validation, a feeling of contributive worth, and at least a sense of purpose.

The narrator goes on to say that to energize and inspire masses, most leaders will give stout speeches, write rousing memos, print shirts, hang up posters, etc. The real kicker is the Vision, to which the companion adds:

“It’s become conventional wisdom that in order to get people excited about the present, you talk about the future, you have a vision statement. Problem is, most vision statements are way too incomplete at best, and cynic-inducing claptrap at worst…It’s easy to pump people up. But its usually a temporary phenomenon. Michael Cunningham, the novelist said, ‘If you shout loud enough, for long enough, a crowd will gather to see what all the noise is about. It’s the nature of crowds. They don’t stay long unless you give them reason’.”

The companion goes on to say how most vision statements are formed by executive committees offsite, arguing over petty words, phrases, and trite expressions. When they’re done, they laminate it and hand it out to everyone in little wallet cards or place them on walls around the premises. He funnily says:

“It’s as if they expect the laminated card to work like a nicotine patch. Carry it close to your skin [or on your desk] and the energy will somehow get in your bloodstream…A vision statement doesn’t generate energy, love does, great ideas do, principles and values do. A vision statement that comes from a corporate exercise is about as energizing and memorable as a saltine cracker.”

Next, the companion reasserts love generating energy, draws a circle of hearts around the narrator and him, posits that it’s the extreme leader’s job to connect all those hearts, and continues:

“Without that heart connection, you may have an employer-employee thing going on, or a bureaucratic boss-subordinate ‘relationship’. But people who don’t have that heart connection won’t try to change the world together. And if you’re not trying to change the world, you haven’t entered the realm of the Extreme Leader”.

The narrator then asks how to establish such a connection, to which his companion replies:

“By revealing yourself as a human being to those you hope to lead. So, instead of reciting a vision statement, reflect on the ideals that it represents, and take it all into your on heart. Then at every opportunity - whether you’re talking on-on-one or standing in front of a crowd - you say, in essence, ‘This is who I am, this is what I believe, this is what I think we can do together if we put our hearts into it. Look at how magnificent our future can be. Please join me and let’s help each other make this happen.’ Then you can burn the document, because, in effect, you’ve become the vision.”

Electric connections will ensue, because it’s honest, well-delivered, and sends an impacting blow to those around. Now that makes a lot of sense. Sure, I’ve thought vision / mission statements were lame at times, but I understand the good intention was oftentimes there. This story made me think much more about effective delivery techniques that resonate strength and authenticity, while kicking banality and generic hope to the curb.

One CEO I worked for delivered this passion and purpose of the company exceptionally well; other department heads could too (except for mine). The little placards around the building didn’t mean too much because all of us understood our roles and commitment to paying fanatical attention to the needs of prospects and clients, while seeking to make the most innovative and unique products retailers would love. That was our common purpose and what we strove to do everyday.

[image by brapke]

Share with:

To me, Brand Management is such a big term that can mean a lot of different things - depending on the context and whose point of view is being expressed. This is a common effect of Nominalizations; we often must ask ‘how so?’ in order to be on the same wavelength. Nonetheless, I would like to explore a little of what I have come to learn about it. By all means, please leave comments on what it means to you.

In the world of consumer goods, Neil McElroy of Proctor & Gamble wrote a 3-page memo to senior management in 1931, outlining his vision of how a business should run and manage multiple brands (Full story here). This development was similar to Sloan’s multi-divisional structuring of GM, but it expanded on how brands should be financed, staffed, and operated like independent subsidiaries. While the concept makes clear sense today, the degree of brand independence allowed will largely be based on the brand’s perceived maturity and potential in the marketplace.

That is an ideal scenario though. One friend who worked in a multi-brand firm, complained that the owner didn’t give one brand (in a far different product category: alcohol), the dedicated financial support and independence it needed to successfully live. It had a lot of potential; some well-compensated and brilliant leaders with vast industry experience were brought on board. But the owner liked to meddle with its purse, product design, manufacturing, and market strategy. He couldn’t give up control, and the result was random chaos and frustration with folks already having invested so much time and energy with the brand.

That story made me first think about how Al & Laura Ries talked about the importance of divergence in The Origin of Brands. New product categories need new brand names because effective market positioning demands it (for most consumer products that is). The alcohol carried the parent company brand name for 2 years where it experienced limited sales, then finally got its own name. Secondly, the story made me reflect on another book: The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton M. Christensen. Some radical innovations can’t achieve market success within the same industry and customer base as the parent company. They need new markets, operational independence, dedicated capital, adequate staffing, and preferably a different geographic headquarters. Lastly, this is all similar to Jack Welch’s organizational structuring of General Electric and its SBUs: widely diversified brands across multiple industries, yet bound together by a common management philosophy of empowerment, team membership, mentoring, and leading with the heart.

So the pervasive theme from that perspective hearkens back to Sloan’s “Decentralization with Coordinated Control”. If we look at the latter half of that statement, we’ll come to the intersecting avenues of new product development, brand analysis, portfolio management, and product innovation & technology strategies. You’re probably thinking: No more big words! Well, all of these avenues have some common themes like: What should we create? How are we doing? What should we let go? How should we allocate our capital across new projects and existing brands?

An excellent historical model for analyzing brands is the famous Growth-Share matrix developed by Bruce Henderson for the Boston Consulting Group in 1970. Complemented with Michael Porter’s contributions to strategic analysis among various other models, we have a lot of tools at our disposal. But I would think that in our day and age, with the proliferation of so many brands combined with the long-tail effect, the changing demographic landscape, and the rise of psychographic segmentation, analysis has become a lot more difficult and great data harder to come by. What do you think?

The last areas of Brand Management that I see relevant to completing the picture relate to development, growth, maintenance, and retirement. While I could expand on each of these subjects, I will spare you some mental time & energy, and close the subject with what I consider to be probably the most important act of all: Listening to customers, prospects, partners, suppliers, and employees. Lewis Green, Christina Kerley, and Robert G. Cooper are some proud proponents of it.

So Brand Management is a big tricky affair depending on how you look at it. Your perspectives and thoughts would be much appreciated. Oh, and Thanks for listening!

Share with:

One of the subjects I’m currently studying is American business history. It can be fascinating for its insight into how and why modern business practices evolved the way they did.

Henry Ford helped build the U.S. automobile industry by becoming a master of production methods, and using the subsequent economies of scale to progressively offer the public a better Model T at a increasingly lower price. While he was a brilliant engineer and equitable leader, he detested bureaucracy, org charts, and so called ‘financeering’; as a result, he bought back all of his company’s stock in 1919 and took the firm private. Ford was the proud individualist who understood practical economics, but two conditions slowly brought his firm down. First, his centralized management style couldn’t adapt to the unique needs of a much larger corporation of its operational nature. Secondly, his complete lack of a customer and market-orientation led Ford to make few model updates and new brands, causing a steady drop in market share from 56% in 1921 to 21% by 1937.

Alfred Sloan became President of General Motors in 1923, a firm that was losing money but had various car brands including Buick, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, and Cadillac. Sloan was a pragmatic leader described by a Fortune magazine writer:

“[He] displays an almost inhuman detachment from personalities, [but] a human and infectious enthusiasm for the facts. Never, in committee or out, does he give an order in the ordinary sense, saying, ‘I want you to do this.’ Rather he reviews the data and sells the idea, pointing out, ‘Here is what can be done.’ Brought to consider the facts in open discussion, all men, he feels, are on an equal footing. Management is no longer a matter of taking orders, but of taking counsel.”

While enabling financing for dealers and customers, and establishing a solid product development and positioning strategy for GM’s brands remain two of Sloan’s notable accomplishments, it was his management design that remains his legacy.

It was common business tradition before the 1920s, that divisions would be organized not according to product, but by function. This meant centralized command over all purchasing, manufacturing, and sales across multiple lines, brands, and regions. Sloan turned this system on its head by creating a multi-divisional structure with dozens of divisions, each operated by a chief executive responsible for the operations, marketing, and finance of their business unit. Secondly, he created a series of cross-divisional committees that forced high-ranking executives to regularly communicate with one another and be greater in touch with the company at large. In his words, decentralization allowed for “initiative, responsibility, development of personnel, decisions close to the facts, flexibility…”

The key question Sloan tried to continually address was: “How could we exercise permanent control over the whole corporation in a way consistent with the decentralized scheme of organization?” The answer lied in combining coordinated control with decentralization.

Coordinated control was exercised through: 1) Continual financial/operational planning, measurement, and reporting, and 2) Capital allocations. GM became an expert in its use of financial ratios and budget targets. Adjustments to production lines were continually made based on what the numbers were telling top management, what innovations were being made within the firm, and what was happening in the external environment. Sloan knew that constant attention to changes in consumer preferences, technologies, government policies, business cycles, competitive activities, and international trade patterns were essential.

This form of organizational management spread to many other American corporations including DuPont and young, but fast-growing companies from the nascent chemical and technology sectors. While Ford may have been the pioneer of mass manufacturing, it was Sloan that made the greatest impact to both the future of the auto industry and large organizational management.

——>>>>>——->>>>>

Are there any business or industry leaders that you feel have made an important contribution to society? Please share! I’ve read some works by Peter Drucker, and will read about Warren Buffett later this year. But I’d love to hear who you’ve found inspiring.

Share with: