Beware the Social Media one-trick-pony – Hiring an SM Director, Part 2.

photo: Bob Elsdale

From Linda Zimmerman, in response to Is Your Social Media Director Qualified?

One point you made in the video I’d like to highlight. You mentioned Frank at Comcast who has taken his knowledge of customer service and social media and meshed them together. This is key. EVERY professional needs to understand social media in their own context so they can *interpret* it into their profession and job. This by the way should be part of a social media director’s job – educating.

I must take you to task on one point however. I think you fall into a common trap in your definition of “first type” using “recognized thought leader” as a criteria to be considered “first tier.” I see this generalization of “celebrity” in social media equating to “first tier” as an equally disturbing problem in the social media profession.

I have the privilege of working with many professionals who equal or often out-think those “thought leaders” every day, who have been evolving with the web culture longer, who deeply understand and interpret social media in a broader business context, and who are plodding away profoundly changing the way businesses run, understand and interact. They are behind the scenes, quietly affecting change. They engage with the tools to understand consumer trends and cultural shifts, then interpret them for the business.

I applaud your list of competencies (marketing focused as they are), as they get at the heart of how to identify these “invisible giants.”

In my world view, a Social Media Director needs to be able to broadly address your point about cross-functional impacts – marketing is only one application of social media.

Brilliant. I love it.

So, two points:

1. Social Media “thought leaders” and rock stars have their place, sure… and I have to tread lightly since I might have a toe or two planted on that side of the fence, but beware the “blogger-turned-Social Media genius” syndrome. It’s one thing to evangelize Social Media, even if you do it extremely well, but another COMPLETELY to work within an organization at the Director or VP level actually INTEGRATING and OPERATIONALIZING Social Media (or anything, for that matter).

Before you can be a Social Media Director within a Marketing department, you first have to be a Marketing Director. Before you can be a Social Media Director in a PR department, you first have to be a PR Director. Same with HR, Business Development, IT, etc. See where I am going with this? An individual with “extensive” Social Media experience (please forgive my liberal use of the term “extensive”) cannot function at the Director level without prior experience at that level outside of “Social Media.”

Your knowledge of the function of a department (or group of departments) takes precedence over your knowledge of Social Media.

Why? Because the function(s) of one or more department don’t change when you add a social component to the mix. How they go about doing their work, sure, Social changes the strategies and tactics, but not the function. Look at it this way: Social ENHANCES Marketing, Customer Service, HR, IT, Sales and PR the same way that web and mobile do. If you don’t understand how a Marketing or PR or Sales department works – from the perspective of a Marketing/PR/Sales Director or VP – you aren’t ready to be a Director in that department, no matter how comfortable you think you are with FaceBook, Twitter, Radian6 and ScoutLabs. This is a FACT. You need a rich blend of both worlds – “Traditional” and “New/Social” – if you are to be successful in this space at the Senior level.

Hiring a Social Media “rock star” who understands how to use Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Friendfeed, Google Buzz and a dozen other tools and has a really good blog about it but has ZERO experience working as a Director in the type of environment you expect them to operate in is a disaster waiting to happen: Nothing will ever get done. Politics will turn every project into a time-suck. Nothing will click. Your Social Media experiment will be all pain, no gain, with your rock star complaining about how you need to “chaaaaange” and “let go of your oooooold ways,” and how he “just can’t function in that kind of environment.”

Apparent knowledge of Social Media (the ability to talk at length about Social Media) doesn’t trump operational expertise (the ability to actually turn knowledge into action – and successful action at that).

First, as Linda brought up in her comment, there is a HUGE difference between Social Media Evangelists and Trained executives with a practical understanding of Social Media integration and management.

Second, there is also a huge difference between Social Media practitioners who can operate at the junior level, and Social Media practitioners who can operate at the senior/executive level. Huge. Massive. Humongous. (Category 1 vs. Category 2 in my previous post.)

How do you tell them all apart? Simple:

1) Establish that they do in fact know what they are talking about in SM (Google them, read their blog, see where they are in SM and what they do there, how they behave, what they talk about, if their content is their own or a constant rehash of someone else’s work, etc. Don’t forget to see HOW LONG they have been in the space. A self-professed “Guru” with all but three months of activity on Twitter, no blog to speak of and a network of twenty people on LinkedIn, for example probably shouldn’t move on to the next step in your selection.

2) Dive deeper into their content. Are they really a master of their trade, or are they little more than a cultural evangelist inspired by other people’s blogs? (Is their advice practical or theoretical? … assuming they provide advice at all.) Do they actually solve problems, or muse about what could be? Are they truly THINKING about Social Media from a strategic or tactical standpoint, or just yapping about the latest tool they read about on Mashable?

3) You’re going to laugh, but yeah, look at their CV/Resume. (I know, it’s old school, but bear with me.) Where have they worked? What have they done? What level of management have they reached? Just because someone understands Social Media through and through (and shows tremendous promise for your organization) doesn’t mean they are experienced enough to be given a Director level position. Could they be mentored and fast-tracked into the position after some time? Sure!  Make them a Social Media advisor to the CMO if that works. An in-house consultant, even. But BE CAREFUL how quickly you promote or hire someone for a key leadership position with a) P&L and staff responsibilities, and b) a need for a tremendous amount of change management savvy (which comes with a need for serious political Kung Fu skills). Even someone with lots of community management experience isn’t necessarily ready for a Director-level role.

Among the things you should look for in their CV/Resume, apart from their Social Media savvy: Director-Level experience or above, change management experience at the corporate level, a capacity for adaptation, solid leadership experience, crisis management experience.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Social Media is an integration piece. It needs to be embedded in the organization. If it isn’t, it won’t do a damn bit of good to anybody. Can you outsource some elements of it? Yes. All of it? No. You don’t outsource your email, do you? Everyone still has a phone on their desks too, right? Okay. This is no different. Agencies can handle some of this for you, but the kernel has to be managed within, and someone with operational savvy has to help you build a framework to do just that.

Consult with with Social Media rock star bloggers if you must (and there are some great ones out there who can help you out,) but when it comes to HIRING a Social Media Director (who will take you from “talking” to “doing”, look for folks with REAL EXPERIENCE in the corporate world, who have figured out how to bring Social Media into their field(s) of expertise. Those are the folks who will actually make Social media work for your organization. The folks who will put it into practice and into action. Those are your “invisible giants.” (Though be ready: They won’t stay invisible long.)

2. If you still think that Social Media is a Marketing function, start over from the beginning. You still don’t understand how this space fits into your business or the way your customers expect it to fit into their lives… and we need to get you back on track fast.

*          *          *

Incidentally (and please forgive the self-promotion since I am behind these events), if you are still curious about how to plug social media into your organization or business, Red Chair training events are launching in the US this year, starting with Portland, OR. These events are usually broken down into two sessions:

Day 1 – “Red Chair: Executive” is a one-day course specifically designed to teach CMOs, CEOs, executives, VPs, Director level professionals and senior-level consultants how to properly build, integrate, manage and measure Social media programs across their organization.

Day 2 – “Red Chair: Studio” is a half day course specifically designed to teach Department Managers, account-level managers and junior consultants how to build, manage and grow specific social media programs based on their specific departmental needs.

Unlike the types of presentations you usually sit through at conferences or via webinar, Red Chair training is designed to teach you how to actually plan for and manage your Social Media infrastructure. This is the real thing. No evangelizing, no rehashed theory, no Facebook 101 junk… Real training for real world applications, from the perspective of running a business.

Stop Number one is in Portland on March 11 and 12. If you or someone you know in the Portland/Seattle area is interested in actually having someone show you how to do this properly, consider registering. (If you want to fly in from another part of the country, that’s cool too.) Go register now.

Read Full Post »

Is your Social Media Director qualified?

Social Media Directors should know how to do their jobs without having to ask for help every five minutes:

So I look down and the (twitter) DM reads: “Hey, can you help me out? Not sure how to do this. How do I use Twitter to gain traction for my company? Thanks!” I stare at it for a while and decide to blow it off for now, not because I have better things to do (which I do) and not because I don’t really have time to build a Twitter business plan for this person right this second (which I don’t), but because that DM comes from a newly minted Social Media Director at a fairly visible company who basically just asked me to help them hold on to a job they obviously didn’t deserve to be hired for.

I slide my Blackberry Storm into my back pocket and find myself flashbacking to 11th grade: It’s final exams time and I am in hour two of IB Biology. The essay section. One of the kids in my class is behind me, gently kicking my chair, whispering, begging me to move my scrap/notes where they can read them.

And I am almost tempted to do it.

That same conversation starts taking place in my head. I’m in a position to help someone in need.  But wait… cheating is cheating. Don’t do it. But still, I feel that I should help. Arrrgh…

I reach for the blackberry, launch Twitterberry (which is not my favorite app, by the way), and respond: “Wait… You got the job, right? Don’t you know how to do this? Isn’t that why you were hired?”

For hours, no response. And then it comes. “Yeah, but I’m in a little over my head. I’ve never worked with Social Media in a business context before. ;)”

Again. This from a Director-level individual now working for a pretty well known company.

Not cool.

I suffer through similar exchanges weekly now, and I am not happy about it. What does this trend say about what types of people are going after Social Media management jobs – and landing them with alarming frequency these days? At the very least, I am worried about how this is going to end up hurting Social Media’s legitimacy in the business world. (Watch the video for my reasoning on this specific point.)

If the video doesn’t launch, you can go watch it here. Thanks, Viddler).

With this disturbing development weighing on me more and more these past few months, I’ve been thinking long and hard about what is going on in the Social Media “management” world, and I’ve basically come down to two conclusions: The first (which we’ll get back to in a few minutes) is that the qualifications of Social Media Directors may not be entirely clear to the folks interviewing and hiring applicants for those positions. The second is that as a result of this, confusion, we are now looking at three distinct types of Social Media Directors/Managers scampering about in the corporate world, some good, some okay, and some really bad.

The first type is the best type: These folks are super smart, talented, experienced in a broad range of disciplines, have an established footprint in the Social Media space (through blogs, Twitter, Ning, various communities), are recognized as thought leaders (or as emerging thought leaders), and are unquestionably passionate about what they do. Folks like Chris Brogan, Frank Eliason, Amber Naslund, Mack Collier, Beth Harte, Valeria Maltoni, etc. These are folks who are truly writing the book on how to build social media practices and smoothly integrate them in the organizations they work with.

The second type isn’t quite as savvy, but it isn’t lacking in talent, smarts and enthusiasm. These are people who basically don’t know how to be Social Media directors yet, but are learning fast. And most importantly, they are completely open about the fact that they are still in that learning stage, which means that their employers are okay with it. In spite of the fact that they are still very junior, the companies they work for saw in them a lot of potential and decided to hire them toward that end. (I dig people like this a lot.)

The third type is what I would call the bad type. Not bad as in cool, but rather… bad as in unethical, inept and unprofessional. These are the con artists. The shams. The hacks. The folks whose egos and selfishness led them to a moment in their lives when they unapologetically took a job they knew they weren’t qualified for. And now here they are: Social Media Director for Company ABC, soon to move over to Company XYZ, and so on. One position validating the next, one impressive brand on their resume justifying consideration by the next, and so it goes: A perpetual daisy chain of high profile Social Media management job built on unadulterated douchebaggery and thinly-disguised mediocrity.

(Ironically, this third group tends to be the same one that perpetuates the notion that Social Media ROI either doesn’t exist or is “unwise” to try and measure. Yeah. Convenient, isn’t it?)

Before we go on, here are some red flags to help you identify deadbeat Social Media Directors:

Every time you see a major global consumer brand engaging with less than 5% of its active (vocal) customers on a popular Social Media platform like Twitter after 8-10 months of activity, you can bet that their Social Media Director belongs to that third category.

If every time you walk into your monthly status meeting with your new Social Media Director and ask them for the latest, they either talk to you about google analytics, confuse you with endless spreadsheets or launch into a “Social Media takes time” monologue, chances are that they belong to that third category.

If you ask your Social Media Director why their efforts aren’t scaling very fast or producing the numbers you expected and they give you a story about engagement not being a numbers game, chances are that they belong in that third category.*

If when you ask them for real business metrics, impact analysis and (god forbid) ROI and they either give you a blank stare or explain that these things don’t apply to Social Media, they probably belong to that third category.

And when you ask them how they plan to integrate Social Media into customer service, Human Resources, Public Relations, Marketing, Business Development or any other silo in your organization and they schedule a later meeting to address that instead of answering on the spot, guess what category they probably belong to.

The thing about that third category is that they’ll never admit that they don’t know something. Because they get by every day by producing massive amounts of bulls**t, they will automatically default to making something up on the spot or deflecting questions with well crafted excuses. That’s their most damning trait, and what gives them away every time: They always know, and they’re never wrong (except… they don’t, and they are, and now you’re wise to it).

* Simple test to prove or disprove a “depth before breadth” response:

First – On Twitter, look  at the number of brand mentions vs. the number of your brand’s account mentions. Big difference? Ask why. Then ask your Social Media Director what they are doing to raise awareness for your presence in the space. Breadth matters, no matter what your overpaid hack of a Social Media honcho tells you.

Second – Look at the number of comments directly aimed at your account. 20 per day? 50 per day? Now look at how many of these requests for attention were acknowledged with some sort of reply. 100%? 80%? Less than 25%? If your Social Media Director claims that they are focusing on depth of engagement instead of breadth, yet they only respond to less than half of the handshakes thrown at them daily, maybe it’s time you found out what he/she actually does with his/her time.

What should you be looking for in an applicant interested in becoming your next Social Media Director ?

I could go on with my indictment of poser Social Media Directors all day long, but I would rather put this post to a more productive use: Since so many of these hacks are getting through the recruiting filter, why don’t we focus on helping interviewers distinguish good applicants from bad ones, starting with some traits and skills they want and need in a Social Media Director. Think of this as a checklist for would-be Social Media Directors, and please feel free to add your own suggestions by leaving a comment.

• Applicant has developed and managed marketing programs before. Not just campaigns but programs.
• Applicant has had a continuous professional presence in the Social Media space (via blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Ning or other platforms) for at least one year.
• Applicant has managed a business blog and/or business community for a minimum of one year.
• Applicant has built or managed a community for longer than one year.
• Applicant has at least two years of experience managing projects and working across organizational silos.
• Applicant has managed a brand or product line for more than one year.
• Applicant has demonstrated a strong ability to forge lasting relationships across a variety of media platforms over the course of his/her career.
• Applicant understand the difference between vertical and lateral action when it comes to customer/community engagement – and has working knowledge of how to leverage both.
• Applicant demonstrates a thorough knowledge of the Social Media space, including usage and demographic statistics for the most popular/relevant platforms as well as a few niche platforms of his/her choice.
• Applicant has managed national market research projects.
• Applicant demonstrates a throrough understanding of the nuances between Social Media platforms and the communities they serve. (Example: MySpace vs. Facebook or YouTube vs. Seesmic)
• Applicant understands the breadth of tools and methods at his/her disposal to set goals and measure success in the Social Media space. (Applicant’s toolkit is not limited to Google analytics.)
• Applicant can cite examples of companies with successful social media programs and companies with ineffective social media programs. He/she can also argue comfortably why each was either successful or unsuccessful.
• Applicant has been active on Twitter for more than 8 months.
• Applicant knows who Chris Brogan, Jeremiah Owyang and Peter Kim are.
• Applicant is comfortable enough with business measurement methods to know the difference between financial impact (ROI) and non-financial impact. He/she also knows why the difference between the two is relevant.
• Applicant demonstrates the ability to build and manage a Social Media practice that works seamlessly with PR, product marketing, event management and customer support teams within the organization.
• Applicant has managed a work team for more than one year. He/she was responsible for the training and development of that team.
• Applicant has spent at least one year in a project management role outside of an ad agency, PR or other Marketing firm.
• Applicant can tell a personal story involving either Digg, Seesmic or both.
• Applicant has been responsible for managing a budget/P&L.
• Applicant demonstrates a high level of proficiency working with popular Social Media platforms and apps such as FaceBook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Flickr, Ning, Seesmic, YouTube, FriendFeed, WordPress and Tumblr.
• Applicant is capable of mapping out a basic Social Media monitoring plan on a cocktail napkin.
• Applicant is more excited about engagement, building an internal practice and finding out about your business’ pain points than he/she is about firebombing you with the full scope of their Social Media skills’ awesomeness.
• Applicant already has the framework of a Social Media plan for your company before he/she even walks through the front door, and thankfully, it doesn’t involve setting up a fan page on FaceBook.
• Applicant actually knows how to use Twitter to help your company build brand equityonline and offline without having to DM people for help.

Your turn. What do you think is missing from this checklist?

And how do we stop this kind of nonsense?

Read Full Post »

Killing America’s brands, one lousy C.E.O. at a time.

How “Black Widow” C.E.O.s and Caretaker Managers are choking the life out of the world’s most profitable brands:

Fellow brand guy Rob Frankel and I don’t always agree on everything, but more often than not, he an I find ourselves on the same side of the fence, shaking our heads at corporate execs who somehow manage to choke the life out of an otherwise solid brand. They are the corporate world’s equivalent of the proverbial black widows – women who marry for money, kill their husband, and then move on to their next prey.

This isn’t to say that black-widow CEOs purposely kill the brands they are hired to manage, but it would be a stretch to pretend that they have any brand’s best interest in mind: By the time these guys leave – usually after just a few years – the size of their golden parachute seems to be in direct proportion to the damage they have caused.

The worst part about this is that in spite of their horrendous track record, they keep getting hired to run more companies and brands into the ground with the efficiency of an enraged elephant trying to muscle its way out of a porcelain store.

Rob Frankel has some pretty interesting things to say about this phenomenon, and looks at it through the cultural prism of the Three Generations of Wealth principle, in which the first generation creates the fortune, the second generation spends it and the third generation loses it. Pretty clever if you ask me.

Per Rob:

Many American brands are victims of third generation “caretaker” managers, who themselves never had to build the very brands they’ve been charged to manage. Living off the fat of the land, they’re complacent managers who fear innovation and risk, the type that figure their brand will always be there, because it was always there for their fathers and grandfathers.

The trouble is it doesn’t work that way. The grandfathers who built the brands knew the power of a brand. They knew how to constantly build and reinforce their value. Caretaker managers, however, spend more time on the golf course than they do building brand value. In fact, most CXOs don’t truly understand what a brand is, let alone how to build its value. And so while the caretaker managers might hold hands, close their eyes and wish real hard, their brands continue to wither from neglect, with market shares shrinking into a mere slivers of what they once were.

But it isn’t enough to just point a finger at ineffective CEOs without looking at exactly HOW they are destroying the brands they should be elevating. There is a method to the madness, and here it is (in its simplest form). Again from Rob:

Year One: Get hired by suckers whose company is hemorrhaging cash and market share to the point that their desperation clouds their good business sense. The Caretaker uses this first year to make promises and “assess the situation.”

Year Two: Caretaker begins sniffing out departments where he can “cut costs”, drastically slashes budgets and tosses out the very employees who built the company. By cutting costs, he hopes to “restore profitability.”

(And on paper, it works.)

Year Three: The costs are cut, but the Caretaker has done nothing to increase revenues. While profits have increased, overall revenue is down and company infrastructure is devastated to the point where any hope of a real financial recovery is gone. But the Caretaker Manager doesn’t care: His deal is done. And by the time the folks who hired him find out how much damage he’s caused, it’s too late. His recruiter has already landed him at another company where he can do the same damage all over again.

The key element of this process is obviously Year Three: a) The black widow CEO has done nothing to increase revenue, and b) the company infrastructure has been severely weakened.Not a good combination.

By then, customer support (one of a company’s most important brand-reinforcing touch-points) has been outsourced, most departments are stretched well beyond their operational limits, and most of the company’s true management talent has left. Meanwhile, because little or no work has been done to enhance or even maintain the brand’s relevance, customers have started to shift en masse to competitors more concerned with creating value than cutting corners… err… costs.

Rob goes on to cite Chrysler’s choice to hire controversial serial CEO Robert Nardelli to take the helm as an example of this process:

According to the Los Angeles Times:

In Nardelli, Chrysler is getting a former senior General Electric Co. executive, who was both credited with overhauling purchasing and technology systems at Home Depot and widely criticized for pay and severance packages seen as excessive.

“This is an interesting choice, and I’m somewhat perplexed by it,” said Erich Merkle, an auto industry analyst with IRN Inc. “There are still things that Chrysler needs long term and I’m not sure Nardelli can provide them.”

Right. Things like vision, direction, purpose or clarity, perhaps? Heck, anything that even closely resembles a strategy beyond growth through acquisitions and further rounds of cost-cutting?

Now we’re on to something.

It should be said that Nardelli’s current annual salary at Chrysler is exactly $1, so kudos to him for at least playing along with Washington theatrics surrounding the spectacular bailout his company is currently benefiting from (especially considering his past history with grossly excessive executive compensation.) That being said, given his history, how can board of directors look at a guy like Nardelli and think “wow, this guy can really turn around Chrysler and get us to the top again?” His track record and tactics are pretty clear.

Is there a forest vs. trees problem going in in the corporate world, or are the boards that appoint these black-widow CEOs that clueless? (The question is not rhetorical. I really want to know.

How to spot a caretaker manager posing as a leader: Look for short-term P&L mirages instead of actual growth:

Something to think about: Efficiency is nice when you’re a CFO or a COO. A CEO’s job is considerably more complex than just hacking off unprofitable divisions and cutting costs to the point of operational anemia, however. (See Year Two, above.) Would Nardelli make a great COO? With the right CEO looking over his shoulder, probably. But CEO? Not on your life. Yet here we are, watching Nardelli accelerate Chrysler’s nose-dive by favoring short term profitability through aggressive cost-cutting over actually rebuilding a limping company and the brand that once made it successful. Sure, efficiency and profitability may look great on paper, but the end result, when not tied to long term strategies is almost always disastrous.

And if you don’t believe that a CEO can resurrect a company by understanding and embracing the value of its brand, just look at Steve Jobs and Apple. Consider for a second what happened to Apple when he left, and how his return a) brought Apple back from the brink, and b) turned it into the powerhouse that it is today. Did Steve Jobs rebuild Apple by cost-cutting and focusing on short term profitability, or did he set out to rebuild Apple’s relevance and culture of innovation again? (No need to think about the answer. It’s a rhetorical question.)

Now compare a black widow CEO like Nardelli and a visionary CEO like Jobs. What kind of CEO builds powerhouse brands and what kind sinks them? (Last I checked, Apple wasn’t applying for bailout money.)

Why is this a relevant topic this week? I’m sure you can draw your own conclusions, but the main catalyst for this post was Rick Wagoner’s precipitous removal from the helm of General Motors over the weekend… and subsequent appointment of GM’s current COO (and former CFO) Fritz Henderson. Now… I don’t know Mr. Henderson personally and haven’t followed is 25 year career with GM, so my questions about this choice as a replacement are completely uneducated and skewed towards today’s argument, but hear me out for a second.

Given what we have discussed today and what we know of corporate America’s habit of rewarding CXOs for short-sighted performance rather than long term growth, ask yourselves for a moment if the best possible choice to lead an ailing company (like GM) is really its former CFO/COO.

Do cost cutting and operational efficiency REALLY impact revenue, or do they mostly help the company’s P&L look good while sales continue their downward trend?

Can a 25-year insider/veteran of GM who has contributed during his entire career to the downfall of a brand really bring new vision and infuse new life into a dying company?

As I was researching this topic for today’s post, I happened to zero-in on a comment Edmunds.com’s Chief exec. Jeremey Anwyl today in an AP story on GM’s move, which he called out as little more than “political theater.”

I couldn’t agree more.

The point here being: Sure, Wagoner being pushed out was a good move considering Chrysler’s horrendous performance and complete lack of direction, but Henderson’s appointment basically negates any kind of forward momentum or positive outcome for GM. He is just another GM exec with absolutely nothing new to bring to the table.

It doesn’t matter how deeply GM and Chrysler cut costs. If neither company focuses on rebuilding their brand(s), they will not be able to rebuild their revenue stream. Period.

More of the same breeds more of the same breeds more of the same, and so on:

Case in point: The AP story makes some good observations about Wagoner’s success in cutting costs and improving operational efficiency at GM, but looking at the big picture, what did the cost-cutting really accomplish?

$82 Billion (yes, with a “B”) in losses in the last four years. That’s what.

Let me say that again: $82,000,000,000 in losses in just four years. (Source)

Does this sound like GM was moving in the right direction with the cost cutting and “restructuring?” In that time period, did GM’s brand as a whole capture our attention the way BMW, VW or Lexus did?

If you find my argument a little weak, ask David Cole (chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan) what he thinks:

“I don’t think you would see any shift or significant change at all with Rick’s leaving. I think the course that they’re on, they’re on.”

You don’t say. Yet Senator Charles Schumer’s (D-NY) comments on the change indicate how deeply rooted our general cluelessness about the value of true leadership and objective change really are:

“Given the history, a change in management could hardly hurt and might do some good.”

No, Senator. Change for the sake of change is just noise. Replacing a caretaker manager with another caretaker manager from the same management culture is not an improvement. It is nothing more than political gesticulation and pointless churn. What we do need, however, is fresh talent at GM. What we need are executives who want to rebuild the GM brand and will attack that task with the passion of a true believer.  We need people who understand GM’s importance to the automotive industry and their millions of fans – both in the US and around the world – and will map out a future for it rooted in clarity of purpose. That kind of leadership looks a lot more like Steve Jobs, Richard Branson, Yves St. laurent and John Mackey than Robert Nardelli, Rick Wagoner, Fritz Henderson or Edward Liddy.

Stop mistaking managers for leaders. Please, for the love of god, learn the difference between the two.

The proverbial fork in the road: How companies choose to either succeed or fail:

Ironically, GM currently owns some of the world’s most more recognizable automotive brands, with Cadillac, Saab, Hummer, Chevrolet and Saturn making the list… So it shouldn’t be all that hard for GM to make a comeback… But unless it learns to embrace the power of the brands it depends on to remain profitable, it doesn’t stand a chance.

(As a taxpayer,) what I would like to hear from Mr. Henderson is a statement affirming a new direction in GM’s strategy. Specifically, one that leverages what Cadillac, Saturn and Hummer have managed to accomplish all on their own: Create unique cultural niches for themselves and build loyal brand followings. Cadillac especially, having reinvented itself over the last decade, could help ailing brands like Buick, Chevrolet and GMC find renewed purpose in a market saturated with banality, derivative designs and watered-down identities. In short, what I would like to hear Mr. Henderson say is that the lesson Cadillac learned in the course of its own successful reinvention will be applied across all GM brands effective immediately. That GM, while continuing its commitment to reducing costs where it makes sense will shift its focus back to making cars that people actually want to drive. That GM as a whole has a plan to completely revamp its design and Q.A. departments (please hire some Germans already) in the next six months. That it will immediately end production of all models with notably low market share. And most importantly, that it will actively seek to bring fresh executives to the table. Not US automaker flunkies from the same stale pool that got GM and Chrysler to the brink (like himself), but professionals from other industries with a talent for actually developing culture-affecting products and building brands from the ground up. And that – to that end – he plans to voluntarily step down from his role as C.E.O. sometime in the next year to give them room to work their magic. I want deadlines, direction, purpose and unwavering commitment. What I don’t want is more hollow posturing and vague rehashes of already failed strategies.

Sadly, hollow posturing is probably all we can hope for at this stage in the game. Even the White House seems content to let heads roll at GM and Chrysler without demanding real change. As a result, what we are likely to hear from both auto giants over the next few months will be the same old song that got us here to begin with: More cost-cutting. More attempts to return to short-term “profitability” by hacking their companies into strategic and operational impotence. More bean-counter promotions to leadership positions. More lame duck partnerships. More requests for bailout money. In short, more of the same. Why? Because expecting true leadership from caretaker managers trying to hold on to their jobs in a tanking economy is about as realistic as expecting my chihuahuas to start quoting Buddha, Mohammad and Ghandi in their native Spanish. (Though sadly, the latter is actually more realistic.)

The most likely outcome of this ongoing corporate FAIL will be an endless circus of caretaker managers taking turns playing C.E.O. musical chairs while their once mighty companies burn to cinders around them.

Let’s face facts: Any idiot with a calculator and a spreadsheet can cut costs to make his P&L look good at the end of the month. You don’t need 25 years of executive experience at the Fortune 500 level to master that little trick. So what exactly qualifies executives like Nardelli, Wagoner and Henderson to run (heck, to rescue) companies like Chrysler and GM?

The question I would like to ask these guys is simple: When you run out of costs to cut, then what? (Besides jumping ship or asking for bailout money?)

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Repeat after me: No major brand ever rose to a position of market dominance by focusing on cutting costs.

Apple. BMW. Starbucks (in its heyday). Microsoft. Cartier. Disney. Newman’s Own. Michelin. Breitling. Cervelo. Oakley. Hermes. Pixar. Assos. The list goes on.

Is it really so hard to grasp these simple concepts? That P&L manipulation through chronic cost-cutting is no kind of strategy at all? That preserving the health of your revenue stream trumps all other business functions? That everything you do in a company should be done with one objective in mind: To create customers? That a C.E.O. can’t just focus on the dashboard or the rear-view mirror while he drives his company forward?

This really isn’t rocket science. Is it?

Is it?

Help me understand how we got here. Two ways you can do that:

1. Be sure to add to the already fantastic series of comments published below.

2. Continue the discussion anytime by engaging me an fellow commenters on Twitter. Use the hashtag #brandbuilder_CEO in your Twitter comment. (You can then follow the threads by clicking here.)

Thanks for bearing with a particularly long post today. You guys are good sports. 😉

Read Full Post »

Why positive people create positive brand experiences… and negative people don’t.

http://wray-mccann.com

Ever noticed how positive attitudes are infectious? You walk into a store, and everyone who works there is jazzed and happy to be there and energetic… and by the time you leave, you have completely adopted their mood?

Ever noticed that the opposite is also true: Walk into a business where everyone is negative or apathetic, and you find yourself feeling the same dread and negativity?

Sitting in Houston’s Toyota arena with thousands of the world’s most innovative Microsoft partners, I was reminded of the power that other people’s attitudes and moods have over our own – and remembered a post that Kathy Sierra shared many moons ago on her brilliant but now sadly defunct “Passionate Users” blog. It talked about happy vs. angry people, emotional contagion, and the role mirror neurons play in our involuntary tendency to be drawn into other people’s positive or negative attitudes. Very cool stuff, and particularly relevant to some of the discussions I have been involved with in the last few days with some of my international peers. I did some quick digging to find it so I could share it with you. Here are some of the highlights:

Mirror neurons and our innate tendency to pick up other people’s behaviors, good and bad.

There is now strong evidence to suggest that humans have the same type of “mirror neurons” found in monkeys. It’s what these neurons do that’s amazing–they activate in the same way when you’re watching someone else do something as they do when you’re doing it yourself! This mirroring process/capability is thought to be behind our ability to empathize, but you can imagine the role these neurons have played in keeping us alive as a species. We learn from watching others. We learn from imitating (mirroring) others. The potential problem, though, is that these neurons go happily about their business of imitating others without our conscious intention.

Think about that…

Although the neuroscientific findings are new, your sports coach and your parents didn’t need to know the cause to recognize the effects:

“Choose your role models carefully.”
“Watching Michael Jordan will help you get better.”
“You’re hanging out with the wrong crowd; they’re a bad influence.”
“Don’t watch people doing it wrong… watch the experts!”

We’ve all experienced it. How often have you found yourself sliding into the accent of those around you? Spend a month in England and even a California valley girl sounds different. Spend a week in Texas and even a native New Yorker starts slowing down his speech. How often have you found yourself laughing, dressing, skiing like your closest friend? Has someone ever observed that you and a close friend or significant other had similar mannerisms? When I was in junior high school, it was tough for people to tell my best friends and I apart on the phone–we all sounded so much alike that we could fool even our parents.

But the effect of our innate ability and need to imitate goes way past teenage phone tricks. Spend time with a nervous, anxious person and physiological monitoring would most likely show you mimicking the anxiety and nervousness, in ways that affect your brain and body in a concrete, measurable way. Find yourself in a room full of pissed off people and feel the smile slide right off your face. Listen to people complaining endlessly about work, and you’ll find yourself starting to do the same. How many of us have been horrified to suddenly realize that we’ve spent the last half-hour caught up in a gossip session–despite our strong aversion to gossip? The behavior of others we’re around is nearly irresistible.

Why choosing who you work, play and hang out with matters.

When we’re consciously aware and diligent, we can fight this. But the stress of maintaining that conscious struggle against an unconscious, ancient process is a non-stop stressful drain on our mental, emotional, and physical bandwidth. And no, I’m not suggesting that we can’t or should’nt spend time with people who are angry, negative, critical, depressed, gossiping, whatever. Some (including my sister and father) chose professions (nurse practitioner and cop, respectively) that demand it. And some (like my daughter) volunteer to help those who are suffering (in her case, the homeless). Some people don’t want to avoid their more hostile family members. But in those situations–where we choose to be with people who we do not want to mirror–we have to be extremely careful! Nurses, cops, mental health workers, EMTs, social workers, red cross volunteers, fire fighters, psychiatrists, oncologists, etc. are often at a higher risk (in some cases, WAY higher) for burnout, alcoholism, divorce, stress, or depression unless they take specific steps to avoid getting too sucked in to be effective.

So, when Robert says he wants to spend time hanging around “happy people” and keeping his distance from “deeply unhappy” people, he’s keeping his brain from making–over the long term–negative structural and chemical changes. Regarding the effect of mirror neurons and emotional contagion on personal performance, neurologist Richard Restak offers this advice:

“If you want to accomplish something that demands determination and endurance, try to surround yourself with people possessing these qualities. And try to limit the time you spend with people given to pessimism and expressions of futility. Unfortunately, negative emotions exert a more powerful effect in social situations than positive ones, thanks to the phenomena of emotional contagion.”

This sounds harsh, and it is, but it’s his recommendation based on the facts as the neuroscientists interpret them today. This is not new age self-help–it’s simply the way brains work.

Emotional Contagion explained.

Steven Stosny, an expert on road rage, is quoted in Restak’s book:

“Anger and resentment are thet most contagious of emotions,” according to Stonsy. “If you are near a resentful or angry person, you are more prone to become resentful or angry yourself. If one driver engages in angry gestures and takes on the facial expressions of hostility, surrounding drivers will unconsciously imitate the behavior–resulting in an escalation of anger and resentment in all of the drivers. Added to this, the drivers are now more easily startled as a result of the outpouring of adrenaline accompanying their anger. The result is a temper tantrum that can easily escalate into road rage.”

From a paper on Memetics and Social Contagion,

“…social scientific research has largely confirmed the thesis that affect, attitudes, beliefs and behavior can indeed spread through populations as if they were somehow infectious. Simple exposure sometimes appears to be a sufficient condition for social transmission to occur. This is the social contagion thesis; that sociocultural phenomena can spread through, and leap between, populations more like outbreaks of measles or chicken pox than through a process of rational choice.”

Emotional contagion is considered one of the primary drivers of group/mob behavior, and the recent work on “mirror neurons” helps explain the underlying cause. But it’s not just about groups. From a Cambridge University Press book:

“When we are talking to someone who is depressed it may make us feel depressed, whereas if we talk to someone who is feeling self-confident and buoyant we are likely to feel good about ourselves. This phenomenon, known as emotional contagion, is identified here, and compelling evidence for its affect is offered from a variety of disciplines – social and developmental psychology, history, cross-cultural psychology, experimental psychology, and psychopathology.”

[For a business management perspective, see the Yale School of Management paper titled The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion In Groups]

Can any of us honestly say we haven’t experienced emotional contagion? Even if we ourselves haven’t felt our energy drain from being around a perpetually negative person, we’ve watched it happen to someone we care about. We’ve noticed a change in ourselves or our loved ones based on who we/they spend time with. We’ve all known at least one person who really did seem able to “light up the room with their smile,” or another who could “kill the mood” without saying a word. We’ve all found ourselves drawn to some people and not others, based on how we felt around them, in ways we weren’t able to articulate.

Happy People are better able to think logically

Neuroscience has made a long, intense study of the brain’s fear system–one of the oldest, most primitive parts of our brain. Anger and negativity usually stem from the anxiety and/or fear response in the brain, and one thing we know for sure–when the brain thinks its about to be eaten or smashed by a giant boulder, there’s no time to stop and think! In many ways, fear/anger and the ability to think rationally and logically are almost mutually exclusive. Those who stopped to weigh the pros and cons of a flight-or-fight decision were eaten, and didn’t pass on their afraid-yet-thoughtful genes.

Happines is associated most heavily with the left (i.e. logical) side of the brain, while anger is associated with the right (emotional, non-logical) side of the brain. From a Society for Neuroscience article on Bliss and the Brain:

“Furthermore, studies suggest that certain people’s ability to see life through rose-colored glasses links to a heightened left-sided brain function. A scrutiny of brain activity indicates that individuals with natural positive dispositions have trumped up activity in the left prefrontal cortex compared with their more negative counterparts. “

In other words, happy people are better able to think logically.

And apparently happier = healthier:

“Evidence suggests that the left-siders may better handle stressful events on a biological level. For example, studies show that they have a higher function of cells that help defend the body, known as natural killer cells, compared with individuals who have greater right side activity. Left-sided students who face a stressful exam have a smaller drop in their killer cells than right-siders. Other research indicates that generally left-siders may have lower levels of the stress hormone, cortisol.”

And while we’re dispelling the Happy=Vacuous myth, let’s look at a couple more misperceptions:

“Happy people aren’t critical.”
“Happy people don’t get angry.”
“Happy people are obedient.”
“Happy people can’t be a disruptive force for change.”

So can Happy and criticism live happily together?

One of the world’s leading experts in the art of happiness is the Dalai Lama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. Just about everyone who hears him speak is struck by how, well, happy he is. How he can describe–with laughter–some of the most traumatizing events of his past. Talk about perspective…

But he is quite outspoken with his criticism of China. The thing is, he doesn’t believe that criticism requires anger, or that being happy means you can’t be a disruptive influence for good. On happiness, he has this to say:

“The fact that there is always a positive side to life is the one thing that gives me a lot of happiness. This world is not perfect. There are problems. But things like happiness and unhappiness are relative. Realizing this gives you hope.”

And among the “happy people”, there’s Mahatma Gandhi, a force for change that included non-violent but oh-most-definitely-disobedient behavior. A few of my favorite Gandhi quotes:

In a gentle way, you can shake the world.

It has always been a mystery to me how men can feel themselves honoured by the humiliation of their fellow beings.

The argument for and against anger

But then there’s the argument that says “anger” is morally (and intellectually) superior to “happy”. The American Psychological Association has this to say on anger:

“People who are easily angered generally have what some psychologists call a low tolerance for frustration, meaning simply that they feel that they should not have to be subjected to frustration, inconvenience, or annoyance. They can’t take things in stride, and they’re particularly infuriated if the situation seems somehow unjust: for example, being corrected for a minor mistake.”

Of course it’s still a myth that “happy people” don’t get angry. Of course they do. Anger is often an appropriate response. But there’s a Grand Canyon between a happy-person-who-gets-angry and an unhappy-angry-person. So yes, we get angry. Happiness is not our only emotion, it is simply the outlook we have chosen to cultivate because it is usually the most effective, thoughtful, healthy, and productive.

And there’s this one we hear most often, especially in reference to comment moderation–“if you can’t say whatever the hell you want to express your anger, you can’t be authentic and honest.” While that may be true, here’s what the psychologists say:

“Psychologists now say that this is a dangerous myth. Some people use this theory as a license to hurt others. Research has found that “letting it rip” with anger actually escalates anger and aggression and does nothing to help you (or the person you’re angry with) resolve the situation.

It’s best to find out what it is that triggers your anger, and then to develop strategies to keep those triggers from tipping you over the edge.”

And finally, another Ghandi quote:

“Be the change that you want to see in the world.”

If the scientists are right, I might also add,

Be around the change you want to see in the world.

Strong organizations and communities are able to harness the power of emotional contagion to create engaging, productive and extremely effective collaborative ecosystems. The truly exceptional among them also manage to extend this collective positivity to their human/customer touchpoints (retail outlets, salespeople, CSRs, etc.). Obvious examples of this are Starbucks (except in airports), Mac Stores, and Whole Foods grocery outlets.

This week, a very large scale example of this (and the trigger for this post) was Microsoft’s Worldwide Partner Conference in Houston, TX.

The complete opposite of this might be, say, the checkout at Walmart, Home Depot or Taco Bell, a prison ward, or an Vietnamese sweat shop.

Success breeds success. Enthusiasm breeds enthusiasm. Professionalism breeds professionalism.

Likewise, mediocrity breeds mediocrity. Apathy breeds apathy. Negative attitudes breed negative attitudes.

Now you know. What you do with this knowledge is up to you. For me, the choice is pretty simple. Always has been.

Have a great Friday. 😉

photo credit: Christopher Wray McCann

Read Full Post »

Death to Brainstorms!

http://wray-mccann.com

I love rants. Especially rants that relate to the world of business. And most especially rants about things that I myself have had to endure. I found this brilliant little bit of catharsis on adliterate.com this week, and since it is relevant to this blog’s theme, I thought I’d share.

Enjoy:

I hate brainstorms.

I hate running them, I hate contributing to them and I hate using them to solve problems.

They waste huge amounts of time and talent and they are no fucking good at delivering decent ideas.

And so six months ago I cleansed my professional life of this Trojan horse of mediocrity, favoring aggregated individual working or two person thinking sessions.

I suggest it’s time you gave them the boot too.

Death to the brainstorm. Long live great ideas.

The idea of the brainstorm was developed in the 1930s by Alex Faickney Osborne, the O in BBDO (which he founded in 1919 with his mates Batten, Barton and Durstine) and popularized in a book he wrote on the subject called Applied Imagination.

Osborne believed that when creating ideas quantity breeds quality – that if you can generate enough ideas somewhere in all the swill will be gold dust.

And so that’s what he built his brainstorming technique to do – deliver quantity over quality. Kind of like a Starbucks for creative thinking, you know once in a while they make a decent cup of coffee. Brainstormers are supposed to focus on quantity, not criticize other people’s ideas, be as ‘wild’ as they want and to combine and improve existing ideas.

These rules are so pervasive in contemporary business that even the cretins on The Apprentice seem to have learned them. And it is these rules that are at the heart of the ghastliness of the brainstorm experience . An experience in which too many people, with little ultimate responsibility for the quality of the outcome whitter on for far too long to the increasing frustration of the problem owner. Frustration manifestly worsened by the cult of facilitation.

A facilitators main task is to ensure that ‘everyone goes home with a balloon’ after a brainstorm – that they all feel that their pointless lives have been made somehow better by this semi cathartic experience and by the lovely little warm up games that they all played. Not to mention that they all got to vote on the most simplistic and incompetent ideas with a little stash of post it notes like some kind of mutant pin the tail on the donkey game. Facilitators like participants to have a nice time more than they like delivering actionable output.

But the thing that really pisses me off about this whole technique is that it brings an unwelcome democracy into the process of idea generation. Democracy is great as a way of ensuring that the will of the people is brought to bear in governing of their lives. But it pretty much ensures that blandness is the output we most readily associate with the brainstorm. In particular democracy leads to production blocking which is the loss of great ideas while people are waiting for their turn or having to listen to the irrelevant ramblings of other participants. And if that were not bad enough it ensures that the more polarizing and interesting ideas are lost at the evaluation stage as everyone showers the flip chart with their ‘stickies’ endorsing the familiar and feasible.

And there is no evidence they actually work beyond increasing morale, team building and other such airy fairy shenanigans. Productivity loss in an inherent part of the brainstorm approach (Mullen, Johnson and Salas, 1991; Diehl and Strobe, 1987) which results from evaluation apprehension, social loafing and the production blocking I mentioned above. Much of this research shows that brainstorms are in fact less effective than individuals working independently.

for my money the optimum number of people for an idea generation session is two with no facilitator hanging on. Two people that have a vested interest in the quality of the outcome and can switch seamlessly between divergent and convergent thinking until they get to the right idea which they both then build upon.

It is one of the reasons that Bernbach was a genius in putting art directors and copywriters together and a reason that strategists should also be paired, or paired with individual creatives.

And if you need any more convincing that brainstorms (and their euphemistic offspring like ‘thought showers’) are shit think about how easy it was to get people into the room last time you ran one. The only endevour people want to be involved in less is a four hour powerpoint presentation on the new phone system and they will make up the most outlandish excuses not to spend 3 hours in an overheated room with some idiot prancing around in front of a Nobo board for no apparent reason.

Sure have a brainstorm if you want to do a bit of team building and you don’t really care about the outcome.

If not pledge today that you will have nothing to do with the bastard offspring of the advertising industry. Refuse to run them, refuse to contribute to them and never ever find yourself voting on lackluster ideas with post it notes again.

Amen. And well put.

Have a great weekend, everyone. 😉

Photo by Chris Wray McCann

Read Full Post »