|
Dear CMO: Why do the mis-steps of our leaders get so much press? Why do we spend more time watching CEOs who have fallen into the potato salad on YouTube than the ones who are quietly leading their companies through troubled waters? This is unfortunate, so we're going to correct this with a post praising the CEO. Here's why....
. Turner CEO Phil Kent did the right thing following the recent Boston debacle. He didn't personally sign off on this stunt. But he stood up and did what CEOs do under the circumstances. So good on him.
. My friend Larry called me on the carpet over lunch today for being too opinionated (I swear, it's not true -- and I can prove it) and reminded me that as a marketer, we're all playing roles in our respective companies, the leader of which is the CEO.
. My lovely wife has animated this point perfectly, as her tireless work in the nonprofit world puts her in harm's way every time a group of volunteers takes it upon themselves to make 'unilateral' decisions.
All these things point to a simple conclusion: there's a reason we have CEOs. Bosses. The people in charge. They in front of whom the buck stops. The signature of last resort. He or she whose name we envoke to end all discussion.
We marketers are often mis-cast as "creatives" floating somewhere above the surface of the earth, spinning our impractical ideas to the consternation of finance and the amusement of sales. This isn't always true -- sometimes, of course, it is (did someone say "Boston"?)
Our ideas, and the budgets that support them, may be good ones. But they may not be the right ones. Beyond just being a pretty good Zen riddle, there's a hidden meaning that all of us marketers should dwell upon here.
We are always ready to charge up the hill, Custer-like, and seize the marketing high ground. There's a good reason for this: we're taught to take the high ground. Our fault then is not one of judgment but one of perspective. The CEO is at a different vantage point, where he can see that there are pitfalls to taking the hill that we just don't see. The reasons for this are too many to try to list, but you get the picture.
* * *
Key Takeaways:
> Marketers are responsible for sell-through. CEOs are responsible for companies. It's not our job to question their judgment but it is their job to question ours. Interesting to take this perspective once in a while.
> Sometimes bad budget cuts happen to good people. Sometimes pet projects get canned for good reasons. It's not personal. Get back on board, don't pout, and if you're asked to play special teams this quarter, do it and do it well.
> We marketers are paid to understand our markets and then adapt our company's products, messaging and strategies to suit our market's needs. Sometimes we need to focus these talents inwardly towards our own company.
* * *
We marketers are role-players in our companies, the focus of which is capturing the hearts and minds of our end users and channel partners. Sometimes we take a hard left hand turn just when we thought we were about to grab ahold of something great out of the right hand window.
Don't complain about the driving. You may have just missed a head-on collision.
Regards.
|
Comments
Interesting post, Stephen. I understand your comment about CEO's questioning our jobs, but I also think it's important for the senior management team to challenge the CEO on important issues, especially those that go before the board. I believe that a good CEO leader should welcome the debate to evaluate various perspectives, before making a final decision. The senior team can then support the CEO's decision.
Posted by: Elaine Fogel | 02.05.07
Thanks for the balance, Stephen. It's easy to miss what works when there are so many glaring examples of what doesn't.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 02.05.07
Very smart comment Elaine. I had the honor of working for Howard Schultz at Starbucks, who I believe is among America's best CEOs. He often said that the key to success was for a CEO to hire people smarter than he/she and to encourage them to speak out.
The primary job, I believe, of senior executives is to always give their best advice, and only a dumb CEO doesn't encourage other opinions.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 02.05.07
Elaine: here are a few quick acid tests for the particular idea I'm putting forward --
1. If you and your CEO are going out to slay the enemy together and you've got an elephant gun while your CEO has bug spray, ask why you're not on the same page.
2. If you think the sky is blue and your CEO thinks the sky is green, ask yourself whether the CEO is standing somewhere else and looking at a different part of the sky.
* * *
We tend to see things from our own biases. The real thinking tool we need to keep close is that others -- particularly those who are guiding the ship, not just marketing -- may be looking at a different set of facts that impact a broader area.
We can and should seek alignment and ensure that we're all "acknowledging reality." But once we've done this, we all have to move together with intent.
Posted by: Stephen Denny | 02.05.07
Stephen, I get it and I agree with you as it pertains to large corporate environments. My last "inside" job experience was somewhat different, as part of a hands-on senior management team for an organization of 1600 employees. All organizational decisions were discussed, whether related to HR policies, finances, business development or marketing. Although the CEO made the final decisions, all disciplines were represented at the table and we had to have a fairly good understanding of the big picture. I guess that would be challenging in such big companies where the numbers and issues are so much greater.
Posted by: Elaine Fogel | 02.05.07