Do Better via ‘alignment’
‘Communications’ is a funny thing.
But before I get there, I really want to talk about what I think is the absolute fundamental key to business success, and that’s ‘alignment’. If everyone knows the corporate goals, and is aimed at helping to achieve them in a meaningful and tangible way with all that they do, that’s being in alignment. And it’s a good and powerful thing. You’ve seen the lovely and inspiring Successories posters- the picture of the crew boat and all the crew rowing in the same direction, to the same beat. Or the one that says something like, ‘There Is No “I” In “team”’.
Alignment is powerful because it creates more light than heat. It keeps people focused and productive. And it becomes very easy to give people good feedback- did you help achieve the clearly stated goals based on your defined role? If you did contribute in a meaningful way, that’s a good thing, and you’re in alignment. If you haven’t, then we have a problem.
Most companies do not have strong alignment. Most sports teams do not. Why is this? I have thought about it and looked at many high-performing teams and company departments, and have come up with the following diagnosis, in five parts:
1. The wrong players: Some people don’t know how to play well together, or resist working together toward common goals.
2. The wrong intentions: Some people think they’re contributing, adding value, doing it better, outside of the goals for some reason… they genuinely think they’re helping when they’re not… Sometimes this is ‘local optimization’, where employees don’t know how they fit in. Sometimes it’s the ‘whip effect’, where management asks a seemingly simple question that gets whipped across the organization, confusing everyone.
3. Weak management/leadership: We’ve all worked for people who shouldn’t be in leadership positions, for a variety of reasons.
4. Flawed goals: I have even worked for leaders who have made the wrong choices. And for sure, I have made some huge mistakes about company direction before myself.
These four problem areas above are tough ones, but relatively easy to spot. Tough to correct, but easier to diagnose.
And think of the positive side of these: 1. strong players with 2. good intentions, 3. directed by a strong leader, 4. all aimed at the same thing. What could be better than that? Or more obvious?
There’s a fifth area that fosters alignment when done well, and cripples alignment when done poorly- 5. Communications.
Communications is THE high-octane fuel that feeds every organization.
So, hopefully you are asking two questions now: 1) why is communications so hard? and 2) what’s the right way to communicate in order to insure alignment?
I think communications is so hard and so rare because it’s free. And since it’s free, it gets ignored (you get what you pay for).
Communications is also a tactic, a ‘how’ activity. As a manager/leader, I want to spend my time and the ‘what’s’ and ‘why’s’… and delegate the ‘how’s’.
And too often it’s a function with no owner. I’ll let the PR department, HR department, marketing department etc etc handle how the word gets out.
Finally, since it’s free, it’s easily ignored. Why should I have to spend my time communicating? I’ll send the message out and everyone will read it and ‘get it’. How hard is that?
Communications is so hard for me personally because it needs to be repetitive. One message said over and over. I get bored easily, and say many things. (I just gave an hour’s talk to a large group and used at least 10 metaphors, 12 analogies, and at least 5 non-sequitars.) It is hard for me to stick to one message, one theme, and communicate it over and over and over. Bo-ring.
(But think of the coach who says this week we’re going to work on a list of 47 things, all different than last weeks’ list of 56 things- and the players anticipate that next weeks’ list of things will be different once again.)
Good communications requires the utmost discipline. Discipline to stick to the message, to say it over and over, to say it with enthusiasm.
And the best news? It’s free!
Jim -
Well written post.
To extend the discussion around alignment another piece needs to be closely examined by marketing organizations. And that is the structure between the dotcom side of the house and the offline/physical world of marketing organizations.
Too often we see dotcom pushed to the side, treated like a separate business unit versus a valuable asset. This treatment leaves a vast trove of insights and data in the dark while encouraging a lack of alignment from a people perspective across all five of your points above.
Consumers no longer behave in a manner where they deliniate between the offline and online world. They consume when they want to, how they want to, and wherever they want to with the brands they so choose.
Marketing organizations need to align themselves to reflect this.
Today, too many 21st century organizations are still aligned like they are in the 20th. The lack of alignment between dotcom and the rest of marketing is a perilous road to travel down.
Once a marketing organization solves the 5 problem areas you highlight in your post, this level of alignment will allow the ENTIRE marketing organization to drive business to new heights unable to be achieved today in too many marketing organizations.
To follow up on my initial post, this is a good snippet written today, May 7 2009, on Search Insider by Gord Hotchkiss – http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=105599
Consumers Don’t Differentiate, So Why Do Marketers?
What is interesting about the study to me is the artificial line we still tend to draw between online and offline marketing. And when I say “we,” I mean “we” the marketers, not “we” the people. The chasm between online and offline is slightly narrower than it was before, but I find true integrated marketing only exists in the sales hyperbole of agencies, with little evidence of it in the real world. With the advertisers I’m familiar with, the online marketing department barely talks with the offline Marcom folks, let alone sits down with them to plan out an integrated strategy.
Consumers don’t do this. If a consumer is considering a purchase, she pursues the most effective means necessary to research the purchase. Offline awareness leads to online consideration. Online consideration leads to offline visits to a retail location. Offline visits can lead to online price checking. We as consumers jump back and forth across the digital divide with ease, yet for marketers, the chasm seems unbridgeable. Why is this?
Part of it is attitude. Traditional marketers ignored online until it was too late. Their tardiness left us digital folks free reign to set up shop, thinking it would be, at best, an incremental channel that would never threaten the main event. But now, just a few short years later, you’ve got studies like Gian’s coming out saying that online might just be as effective as TV in driving sales of potato chips and pop. Hard to fathom, but true.
People don’t draw lines, departments (with budgets to defend, turf to protect) do! We always ask, ‘how little do we have to spend to reach the right folks with our message?’ rather than how much…. That tends to break down the lines!