Creating the Perfect "Brew"

I had a chance this week to spend some time with my very creative and talented sister in law. She works in the internal communications area in the adult beverages industry; they make beer, very good beer.

Her role is to assist in crafting the messages for their internal employees to understand the values and mission of the organization and how their individual and collective roles fit into it.
We were talking about the parallels between making beer and crafting a great message- it isn't just simply a recipe. All the right ingredients without that something "else" and you just have beer, not great beer. All the slogans and mission statements and team building without that something else and you have a good organization, but not a great one.

Her charter is to help her organization create extraordinary brands and she and her colleagues identified six elements that they feel are essential to accomplishing that objective. I would go further and say that like congruency and other concepts I have shared on this blog and other places these elements speak not just to beer, but have a dimension of universal application to them. These are the elements:

• A defining brand truth. Think about the concept of a defining brand truth. It articulates value statement not only to your customers, but also to your employees. It allows them to commit rather than merely comply.
• A set of in transient principles. Great brands refuse to compromise on their principles. They may change a process or a look, but they retain their essence.What they represent is foundational and consistent.
• Great brands are iconic. Think about great brands. Brands like Porsche, Mercedes, Xerox, Kleenex, McDonald's, Starbucks and others. They are a benchmark. Their "brand" is instantly recognizable.
• They create and reinforce an experience. Think about that. Great brands literally create an expectancy. You don't just go there or dine there, you experience them in a variety of ways.
• They are inspirational and aspirational. As we have talked about with the new definition of engagement a great brand creates a pride of affiliation. Employees and customers take pride in their association with the organization, they champion the product or brand. They become benchmarks.
• Great brands are enduring. They continue to deliver value to their stakeholders; shareholder, employee and community.

I am struck by the parallels between their elements and those described by BlessingWhite and others in achieving engagement. To operate consistently within the framework created by her and her colleagues is not for the faint hearted. The elements are systemic, you can't do one or two of these things you must do them all and you must do them consistently.

These elements are also built upon a foundation of relationships. They are based on interactions of people. Technology and systems will not create this alignment, they can only reinforce or erode the elements.

She is a passionate advocate for her "brand". She believes in it and works very hard to articulate the principle behind it to others. She "gets" engagement in a very visceral as well as intellectual way. She is committed rather than compliant. She also recognizes that as skilled as she is in communications that the real engagement will occur not in articulating, but rather living the brand promise. Every employee will look to their boss for consistency with these values. She is an explorer rather than a mapper!

I like their elements, I think like the five elements of moving from compliance to commitment (respect, responsibility, information, rewards and loyalty) they are clear and simple without being simplistic. They focus on relationships rather than abstracts. I especially admire their organizations commitment to crafting and communicating this message of who and how to all of their employees giving them a chance to "join up" rather than simply comply.

So I would be curious, what are the "ingredients" in your particular brew? Are you committed to creating and sustaining an extraordinary brand or content to be one of the "pack"?

Thanks for sharing with me Mel. You gave me some great insights and I am excited to see people and organizations recognizing that only through engagement will be be able to build the iconic organizations that so many of us claim to aspire to. Your "brand" is lucky to have such a passionate advocate!

The "Turtle" or the Hare

In hockey there is an interesting expression called "turtling". It generally means that a player curls up rather than fight when confronted by a member of the opposing team. It struck me that businesses are going to have to make some of those same decisions as we continue in this economy for what looks to be the foreseeable future.
There are some strategies that are available to businesses right now to "survive" this economy and in fact even position yourself.
I was reading an article about President Obama and it was commenting on leadership and strategy during "turn around" times that have some interesting implications for these times as well.

One of the first "weapons" you want to have in your arsenal in times like these is great leadership. I want to be clear about what represents great leadership in my mind and to me it comes down to a couple of key factors- the first being what Marcus Buckingham describes as clarity. Clarity is ensuring that everyone in the organization understands the mission and where they fit in. If you are the CEO or another C level person that is absolutely critical right now.
I believe this is also a time for executive courage that is demonstrated by being visible, available, and personally accountable. This is not a time to hunker down in your office or in a conference room with your executive team. That's turtling.

If you are a middle manager your role is to minimize ambiguity. As managers our primary role is to remove the complexity from situations and make it very clear what each employee's role is and how it contributes to the bigger picture. In times of stress that becomes even more important.

I believe this is an excellent opportunity for transparency. By transparency I don't mean an "open" book policy. especially if you haven't previously had one. What I do mean is showing people the respect they deserve by being honest with them about the situation and potential outcomes and actions. They are adults. They need to be led not parented.

I think this is a great opportunity for collaboration. Most of us like to believe that we hire and retain competent management staffs. If that is the case why do we exclude them from the decision making process? I can't tell you how many times I have been in situations where the executive team dictated the "solution" to an issue, without engaging the participation and input of the people managing the actual work processes.. I am not necessarily arguing for negotiation about targets, but I am proposing that you may dictate the "what", but give them an opportunity to participate in the how.

I am a great believer in cautious optimism. They need to believe that you believe that you will come though this a stronger organization. If you don't and you feel that the "end is near" then do the right thing and resign and leave the leadership to someone who is still committed!

I am also a believer in making the tough decisions. Many people don't like Jack Welch's tough performance matrixing model, but the reality is that everyone doesn't perform at the same level. High performing organizations know this and they evaluate their talent pool constantly. People who can't or won't perform at the expectations set by the organization are given an opportunity to find a better fit at another organization. Consistency is highly overrated in the absence of good performance management. Consistency means we treat everyone exactly the same, the problem with that is everyone doesn't perform the same way. Your processes should be consistent, the application should not be. There is nothing illegal about treating your best performers and your non-performers differently, or treating your best performers differently than your "average " performers. Before you do an "across the board pay cut" ask yourself if you have the right people in the life raft.

As you all know from my previous blogs, writings and rantings I am a big believer in engagement. I am going to go on record here and tell you that engaged organizations will not only weather the impact of this recession, they will emerge stronger!. You see they have their foundation of clarity, transparency, trust, and commitment already in place.

So in this case the hare is better. One of my favorite expressions is "when you are being run out of town get out front and make it look like a parade". Curling up and "turtling" is not going to get us through this recession, but the recession could cause us to take actions we have neglected and build a new foundation.

"Outdated" Words

A couple of "virtual" discussions I have had with colleagues I respect a great deal cause me to ponder the use of some words that are part of our business lexicon. Two words in particular that people focused on are loyalty and empathy.

My colleague said that she felt loyalty has become a kind of psychological handcuff that we try to put on people, especially in the employment environment. People who don't stay with us for a long period of time are disloyal. Employees who question company policy are disloyal.

I use the concept of loyalty as one of the five elements of my Compliance to Commitment(TM) model. The other elements are respect, responsibility, information, and rewards.

In my my mind loyalty is in context. Loyalty like respect and leadership is something you earn and is freely given rather than an entitlement. Loyalty means that we meet our commitments to each other and that we deal with each other from a place of respect and clarity. It does not mean tenure, fealty, or other things that in my mind are based in a compliance kind of relationship. In an employment setting it means that while I am in your employee I meet your expectations to the best of my ability and that you give me clear expectations and honest feedback. It is measured by that commitment not the length of the relationship.

I think to ask someone to act in way that is not in their best interests or is in congruent with their values is being disloyal to them. I also think for me personally it is easier to be loyal to a person or value set than to an organization. I have always asked people who worked with me to be loyal to the vision or values of the organization, not to me.

Empathy is an interesting word as well. In my mind empathy is an appreciation and considerations for another's point of view. It is not sympathy, nor is it necessarily sensitivity. I think empathy is very important, if you cannot recognize and acknowledge another persons right to have a viewpoint or value set different than your own I think leadership is a bad fit for you. I didn't say you needed to agree with their viewpoint, rather that you acknowledge their right to have it and be able to evaluate it objectively. Without empathy I think we run the risk of attempting to impose our viewpoints and values on others.

So, I would ask you two questions:

• Are these words "outdated" ?
• What words would you add to my list?