Thru Their Eyes

Value of Corporate Culture

Jim Heskitt has a new book out about the value of corporate culture or more specifically why it costs when leaders don't actively manage their cultures ( The Culture Cycle: How to Shape the Unseen Force that Transforms Performance)

I had the pleasure of speaking with Jim about corporate culture from an behavioral point of view. We chatted over how to get leaders into the 'softness' of managing their corporate culture. We landed on the idea that most leaders and employee's are not taught the skill to identify behaviors that drive everyday actions. "Values" are used as the instructor to our behavior and yet whilst most people know what they mean but not how to put them into action

Example:

Value: We act with integrity

Other than the grand ideas of not cheating or lying or stealing how does that idea (integrity) get played out in the everyday all around you? 

One would think that this is a no brainer. Your company is successful if your culture is managed in a tangible way - if you define the behavior and the associated outcomes of that behavior. What in the world is so hard to understand about that. 

Well, here's the thing. It really hard to identify the core behavior of a value (or set of values). We naturally jump straight to action and you'll hear the deadly phrase "I just assumed you knew". Why is identifying behavior so important? Why not just tie your Corporate Values to a series of actions and tell people this is an example of what to do? 

Identifying behavior is a learning  framework. Behavior is the result of internalising the knowledge and putting it into action. Behavior is the insight, action is the tactic. It's the core behaviors that create a corporate culture not just the actions.  The actions are the expression of the Corporate Values in context. 

Example:

Value >Core Behavior> putting values into Action

Integrity >Responsiveness>Answering all contacts within two days

 

If you are interested in how to learn to identify core behaviours or how this could impact your corporation contact me through the blog or  egilding@insite.dasglobal.com

 

Social Strategy 2

Here's the thing. Social strategy seems to be how to manipulate the various platforms in order to ignite a behavior change. So like all strategy it relies on a deep understanding of the behavioral make-up of the user. 

I was hunting through our apartment trying to find a card for my  Aunt Betty's birthday this morning when I found some really cool old print ads (husband collects all sorts of junk). They were truly awful. A photo of a women and a man, she in poofy skirt and he in suit, with a bowl of blackened food on the table and a six pack. "Well, at least you didn't burn the beer" is the tag. 

Awful. Sexist. Dreadful. Yes all that. And it made me think - are we doing that with our social strategies? I mean, are we creating these naive and socially inept (if not insulting) approaches to our consumers? How would we know? These old ads were not acceptable even in the day but they were created and judged and produced and reviewed by only a micro section of the community (white guys in suits). I wonder if we look back in 20 or 30 years we will cringe at our dreadfully short sighted social media communications? 

Social Strategy

I'm putting together a discussion about social strategy for very high level execs (CEO etc). Whilst I don't want to insult them, if they are like the rest of us oldies we may have some *gaps* in our understanding of what social strategy is. 

 

I am looking for the best way to describe it. Other info on the topic that you have found insightful or motivating would be great also. 

 

So far, the winner is: Social Strategy is the manipulation of the various communication platforms in order to motivate the individual user. 

Talk to you

Talk To Me at MOMA is really cool. It's an interesting dialogue between objects (interface/design) and those that use them - humans. 

What a timely communal conversation to have. I'd say that we are on the cusp of another techno/heartbeat shift. We are on the pre-expressive brink of yet another relationship shift between object, function and function-er. Wonder what it's going to be?

Since we are in another recession and things are bad for most people I'd say it will be in the navigating the needs, wants and demands of our complex modernity area. Digital /shopping is becoming more sophisticated but it isn't the area that seems to capture the flame of passion out there. So, I wonder if thought or inspiration could be  next.

We've had the age of the creative classes, apparently. So maybe we are dawning into the age of inspiration. Those that marry the discipline of information with the courage of creativity.  I run across many that say they do this only to be really disappointed because what they mean is that that they use pictures to express thought in their powerpoint presentations. These folks stay where they are, comfortable and safe, and just gussy up the delivery. 

Then there are the real innovators. Those that do not want the path of least resistance, do not fall back on the way things are but leap out of the comfort. Those that I have run across tend to be in packs such as designer + strategist +painter. Or architect + entrepreneur + engineer. They interpret the insight from each other to co-create something amazing (in my world it strategic understanding and direction). At in:site this is our way of getting where we need to go. Wobbly teams of very different people, colliding and creating on the basis of individual experts leaping into the dark together. 

So, here's to the unknown. I love it out here. Its scary and quiet and demanding. Come play. 

Why this blog doesn't suck

On the other hand I do tend to create webs of connection from cancer sniffing bee's to branded interactions so that's good, right? 

My mind is less than linear and I enjoy the textual complexities offered by blogging. Short and timely pieces of thought that are tied together by spiderwebs of time,  location and content. Pretty cool. 

Since my identity shifted quite dramatically last year to include mother my ideas have shifted also, at least my relationship to ideas has shifted. I no longer see ideas as independent of impact. Every idea, in every way will and should have impact on something and someone else no matter how small or big. The biggest impact for me are those ideas that collect and connect: bright ideas are attractive and if expressed in the right way attract bright people to think with you. Often this happens through a post. 

 

 

Why this blog sucks

I have a few blogs that I write for. Most are under a different name coz I got married and used that name. This is the only work blog I write and I find it hard to have any mojo for it. 

Wonder why that is? 

The other blogs I either write or contribute to are not any more interesting in terms of comments, insights etc but they must be somewhat compelling since I have over 50,000 readers. Indeed, I would propose  that they are sometimes a total snooze fest. I don't really need any research or clever citations on those blogs and yet ...

I think the issue is ... Work. Insightful!!!  This is a blog that is supposed to contribute to my work output. I am supposed, I ought, I should. Not very motivating statement. I'm aware that clients look to this blog to see who we are and what we think so it needs to be PG rated. I am not a PG rated type of gal. I like to learn and create through managed chaos and conflict. 

I don't really read worky blogs because I feel they are contrite and too staged. If I want that I can read a newspaper. Before it got sold, the Huff was a great place for staged blogging. 

Maybe I should just bite the bullet and write this blog as I hear the monologue in my brain. Maybe then I would receive some joy back from writing it? Maybe then I wouldn't feel like this blog sucks. 

Imperative Interest.

 

There is  a great TED talk about how babies learn language. It turns out that at 15 months your kids can learn amazing amounts of language as long as you speak in person to them.

I wonder if this is the same for brands? In - person communication may be the next best thing to 'friend recommendation' which according to all the research out there is the most motivating influencer.

If this is true how do we gauge the timing? I say it’s by ‘imperative interest’. 

To hear more - contact us on 212 415 3518 (the answer is in the clue). 

 

Mission Statement Blues

The Starbucks Mission: To inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time.

I go to two locations on a regular basis. The first location honors the mission statement and the other fails so miserably I would be happy if they closed the store. 

1. Home. 

My home base is in the middle of a busy city and the store can be hectic. I go in maybe twice or three times a week and I've been going there for about three years. Nearly every employee knows my name. They know my hubby and my kids  and they know our beverage preferences. They know when I am dressed for work to speed things up and when I'm with the kids I can take time to chat. 

I have the Starbucks iphone app because of these guys. I have Pike in my home because of these guys.  I have tried various tea's and coffee combinations and food items because of these guys. I am an active citizen of the brand because of these guys. 

I am brand loyal because of this store location. 

 

2. Work

 I used to go in this location every morning and even some lunchtime's for a caffeine jolt but the customer service is so appalling that I only go in when I'm running late and can't make my own coffee. 

The customer service is not just sloppy. There is an antagonistic nature to the staff / customer relationship.

On a micro level the store employee's use negative non verbal instructions which is irritating for regulars and confusing for new users. They yell at each other and customers on an alarmingly regular basis.

On a macro level the employee's act as a group that have claimed the geographic store as an independent entity - blind to the larger brand experiences of most of the customers (I overheard a couple talking about having a latte from the Great Wall location today). The employee's spend so much time concentrating on either arguing or flirting with each other the customer's are almost an after thought. 

I have been at this store longer than any of the employee's. I have seen managers and bruisers (barista's with attitude) come and go. I have the same drink and have had for over five years and yet, each time I go in, I need to repeat the simple order.  I try to be pleasant most of the time but often leave feeling angry. 

I am a corporate brand rejector because of this store. 

This leaves us back at the Mission Statement.

I would urge Starbucks to look at how their mission statement is being taught, lived and expressed. If you have people working for you that just don't care about the human spirit of others then either fire your mission statement or fire the damn employee.

If I agree to live by the rules of this brand (paying premium for coffee/choice over others) then you have got to live up to your promise. Every interaction with the work location pushes me further and further away from my commitment to the brand and makes my belief in the corporate message very shaky. 

My recommendation to a quick fix: Give your core citizens (employee's and customers alike) the power to call out off brand behavior. 

 

We remember better together

One reason that I am fascinated by the process of collaboration is that as a species we live better lives when we collaborate. What I mean by this is that from psychology to finance there is evidence to support that individuals are exponentially better off if they commit to collaboration and with a common goal. 

Then why is it such a hard sell?

I just sat through a briefing of a number of organisations that flat out refuse to believe it is in their best interest to work together as a collective to achieve a very well defined common goal. How best to make the argument? I always try to drop a scientific article or thinker into the conversation. 

The latest research on Alzheimers (sp) states that we, as human beings, remember better when we work together. Given that institutional/brand legacy is a growing area for vendors (since we are around the brand longer than the client seems to be) surely this would be a great strategy to get folks to buy in?

What is you most successful strategy for encouraging folks to believe in collaboration?

Women make better soldiers

According to the American Psychological Association (APA) women and men do not react the same to the theatre of war. It turns out women can handle it better. 

Why is this not surprising?  After all, the common assumption is that women are 'too emotional' or 'empathic in the wrong way' when it comes to handling (let alone managing) conflict. And yet, I read the research study and thought "Yep. Feels right."

Maybe its time to reassess what the perception of empathic understanding is in the arena of conflict. This would do the industry I work in no end of good. Too many people are way to afraid to have the 'bad' conversation. It is left to fester until there is a huge blowup (or you lose the account) and then there is the inevitable blame game. 

If we had someone that was less inclined to be the emotional victim and more driven by contextual empathy we would have less conflict. 

Now there's a concept.