|
Dear CMO: Moving product is easy. Moving knowledge, as we’ve recently discussed, is harder.
We spend a considerable amount of time on branding, positioning, messaging architecture, and the outbound side of our desired self-image. Problems occur when our people can’t answer the third or fourth question about “why” we feel the way we feel about our brand and company. We might be able to parrot the outer wrappings but don’t really know the deeper context of our culture. Let’s pull on this thread a little more, because this is an important topic.
Whenever we find ourselves working with a new company -- either as an agency, a consultant or even as a new employee – we need this cultural transfer to happen as thoroughly and quickly as possible. This isn’t a casual undertaking. One doesn’t absorb the deeper context of a company – its real mission, values, key messages, and rationales behind important decisions – by sitting through a Power Point presentation. Or three Power Point presentations.
Just as you didn’t get your Masters Degree by reading a book, you absorb these lessons the way people learn: by listening, reading, questioning, applying, and eventually by teaching. At each of these steps, you’re likely to find yourself being corrected and moving backwards to an earlier stage to re-absorb these new lessons.
Sounds hard, doesn’t it? It is. And this is why it’s important to take this seriously and to put measures in place to facilitate this cultural transfer as a discipline in and of itself. Don’t short-change yourself or your company at this important step, because it will only mean your new cultural acolytes will take longer to get up to speed than they otherwise would.
Here are a few examples to animate this point.
• Articulate why your core product was designed, why it is different from alternatives and competitors, and why your company made the choices they did when they took the first steps down its current product roadmap – what is the deeper context behind the “zag” when your industry is content with a “zig” strategy?
• List out the key objections that your channel partners would raise during a routine sales call in the last thirty days.
• How do you see your current market standing in the context of overall industry and societal trends, both here and globally?
How many of your people can handle three, four, or a dozen pointed questions along these lines? How many of those who could are new to your organization? Not many? I’m not surprised.
* * *
Key Takeaways:
. Treat culture like product training. We wouldn’t dream of taking product training lightly, would we? Why do we think strategy and culture are less important? In the absence of cultural and strategic knowledge, you’re a commodity.
. Question, probe, and improvise on your culture and strategy. See what works and what doesn’t. Get feedback. Keep working on it. Strategy and culture might be set in stone, but stone can be shaped to the needs of the day. Just make sure everyone agrees before you start swinging away.
. Teaching “why” has a more immediate and long lasting effect than just telling the “what.”
* * *
One of the most important organizational growth strategies we can all instill in our companies is getting our “elders” to transfer their learnings. This practice is as old as time and probably started around campfires as storytelling and the beginnings of organized religion, and should be appropriately sized to the needs of the modern organization. Transferring culture is a lot like storytelling. Get your people to write down the important pillars of your culture and strategy in a place and manner that promotes the dissemination and deep understanding of this core knowledge. Wiki it. Re-write it and see if it holds together; get your management to critique it and fix it if it’s wrong, and re-work it until it’s right.
Does this sound like a lot of extra work? It is. And it’s important.
Regards.
|
Comments
stephen, i agree with you but, there's always a but, a lot of companies just cut off the elder people to hire newcomers with half the wage. this apparent money saving is a huge waste of experience, of knowledge, of history. during the european students movement in the 68, one of the most famous slogan was: let's study history. are companies investing on this? don't think so. e.g.: starbucks latest image was put under question by the big boss. no one of the other guys in charge felt the issue.
Posted by: gianandrea facchini | 05.15.07
Stephen - I'm working on a post right now that is using many of these same themes, but I'm having some difficulty putting it to words. I'm very grateful for your insight.
Becoming adept at promoting a product or service requires a deeper understanding than can be acquired through passive learning.
Posted by: Cam Beck | 05.15.07
Stephen, what you're talking about here is an investment of time and resources. Sadly, I think too many companies adopt a sink or swim attitude for an employee's first 30 days.
In my first week at a tech company in Silicon Valley I was handed a stack of tech manuals three bibles high. That was my training. Culture integration? Transfer of learnings form elders? Forget it, I was stuck in a cube with a stack of tech manuals and a fluorescent lamp.
I think as you point out, there's a right way and wrong way to integrate an employee into the culture of a company.
A successful company must view an employee as an investment instead of commodity. It's a mindshift change but one that needs to take place for companies to get a "return" from their HR investment!
Posted by: Paul Barsch | 05.15.07
Stephen,
Great insight. Brands are built from the inside out (customer touch points) and it begins with knowledgable employees. They need to know where the company is going, why it is going there, and how it will reach its destination, if they are to be responsible and held accountable for brand building, marketing and sales. And I believe every employee should be responsible for each of those important missions.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 05.15.07
Stephen,
Excellent post. Unfortunately, many companies do not invest in internal branding, as Paul pointed out. I quite agree with his assessment: "A successful company must view an employee as an investment instead of commodity". Many companies view employees, especially in the lower echelons, as units of production with high turnover rates. Therefore, they rationalize that training and inculcation into the company culture, are a waste of resources.
Sadly, I think they're missing the point: they should be viewing employees as a valuable asset, ie., human capital. Investing in employees pays huge dividends: less turnover, an understanding and "buying in" of the company's mission and reason for being, and a solid representation of the brand to the customer. If employee-customer interaction falls down, because the employees are not part of the corporate brand, what good does substantial investment in marketing, advertising and sales support accomplish?
Posted by: Claire Ratushny | 05.15.07
I think we're all in violent agreement that this is a missing priority. It is virtually impossible to hire people who understand the nuances of your company -- from culture to deep context -- without someone actually teaching them what they need to know. It is far deeper and farther reaching than many companies are willing to admit. Some acknowledge this ommision, but most miss it completely, at their own peril.
Claire: interesting insight on turnover versus lack of cultural indoctrination.
Gianandrea: true enough -- Starbucks at least sees the problem; what may be missing is the deeper understanding of 'why' certain returns to the core brand are important, and not just the 'what'.
Paul: I had that job too! Wierd. First day on the job, my new boss is leaving for two weeks, I have no desk, no phone, no laptop. They forgot I was arriving.
Cam: there's a huge gulf between passive and active learning, isn't there? Culture and adaptation take very active and adaptive learning. Not Power Point.
Posted by: Stephen Denny | 05.15.07