Big Hairy Audacious Goals Versus The Devils You Know

Bill Taylor’s HBR Blog post today -- “Don’t Let What You Know Limit What You Imagine” -- strikes at the heart of a strategic planning challenge for professional service organizations in today’s marketplace.  Begin with bright business minds, add expertise and deep experience, blend with volatility, unpredictability and a touch of fear, and you have a recipe that can result in the devils we know defining the way we think, act and communicate.

You know the saying -- Be careful...the devil you know may end up being better than the one you don’t know.

When much is at stake -- not to mention those moments when crisis looms -- the desire to study history, examine the past, and leverage experience is understandable.  The great challenge -- in fact, one of the things that differentiates those who actually inspire, innovate and change the future from would-be leaders -- is balanced perspective.

Case in point — as the father of a soon to be 20-year old daughter, it’s difficult for me not to speak completely out of personal experience when I offer advice on dating.  ”I know exactly how immature boys your age are because I was one!”  Few would dispute that my perspective is rooted in fact.  But the problem (apart from the fact that my target audience has limited interest in this message) is that this one-dimensional perspective does little to facilitate progress.

What does this have to do with organizational thinking, planning and communication?  Simply this: without exception, when couched and “toned” only by data points of the past, an organization’s mindset, planning and message will lack dimension, limit vision, and seed faulty action.

Absent a perspective that allows for (and prompts) vision, communication is either a recitation of history or an account of current conditions. If that data is less than stellar the chances are great that the devils we know have far too much influence.

Consider this: had the framework for Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or poetic Second Inaugural been couched in the reality of recent history, or even the moment, his speeches would simply have decried the nation’s condition, and mourned those yet to die. Instead, Lincoln used the past to give birth to a new vision.

Had Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the throng gathered on the Mall in Washington, D.C. speaking only out of experience, the “I have a dream” refrain would never have passed his lips.

And in the wake of the USSR having won the race to orbit the earth, President Kennedy dared to stir the US with an unthinkable vision — to put a man on the moon.

Take a look at what these examples have in common.

• They do not gloss over or ignore the realities of the past;
• They broaden perspective;
• They speak of possibilities for the future;
• They call for participation.

Put another way — what Lincoln, King and Kennedy did was transcend data, and seed a vision. Some might suggest that known data points and vision represent opposite perspectives — that the former is grounded in fact and the later is right-side-of-the-brain creativity at its best . . . spin at worst. Yet, pivotal moments are often marked by the communication of a leader who, unprepared for the past to define the future, is able to articulate a new view of the horizon.

Pivotal moments — whether in commerce, social enterprise, political endeavors and even personal adventure – come when decision makers understand that most of us are anxious to be done with the devils we have known.  We simply need someone to help us with the vision of what might be.

Most of us are still stirred by a dream -- by the challenge inherent in what Jim Collins called Big Hairy Audacious Goals.

Five Keys To Better Conversations

To the degree that one life intersects with another – at home, on the job, socially (yes, even via social media) – few things are more central to progress and success than the art of dialogue.

Whether a political agenda, the endeavors of enterprise, social awareness and reform or a family’s pursuits, progress is impossible in the absence of an intentional and consistent focus on better conversations.  Better than what?  Better than those we had last year…last month…yesterday.

There is little value in having the same conversations over and over.  Eventually, no one is listening.  So, here are five ideas – two things to steer clear of, and three proactive steps -- that will instigate better conversations and more productive dialogue.

1) Avoid the devils you know.  These come in all shapes and sizes.  They may be rooted in legitimate analysis or the ghosts of self-awareness.  And though understanding the past is one of the ways to avoid repeating it, conversations (in the context of any relationship) that begin with the issues of past experiments and experiences rarely last long enough to break new ground.  Change – indeed progress – is born of aspirations.  Better conversations focus here.

2) Pass on the blame game.  It’s popular, and everyone plays it.  So much so that, masquerading as analysis, the language of blame (or CYA) is often the default language in any change related dialogue.  Understanding what precipitated difficulties of the past might be instructive (though I’m not convinced of that fact).  But attempts here almost always polarize and stymie.  Affixing blame is a waste of time, and an inhibitor of real conversing.  When it is of consequence, you can bet those who need to already have a sense who is to blame.  Play a different game.

3) Change the discussion.  This is the game we should be about, because it facilitates connection.  Much of the time the reason progress is so slow and minuscule is we’re engaging in the same discussions…over and over.  The same debate.  The same case.  The same retort.  And the same result.  Rather, invest in creativity and innovation.  Want to stand a discussion on its ear?  Drop pre-conceived agendas and seed a new idea.  Where true progress is the objective, new ideas – not agendas or platforms – will fuel a better brand of dialogue.

4) Be about solutions.  Conversations that begin with the problems rarely move past them.  Should you need a case study, witness the current non-dialogue in Washington, D.C.  Solutions, on the other hand, require creative thinking, broad (and deep) perspective, and a measure of courage.  Solutions to real-world-issues – without respect to venue – come laden with responsibility.  Whether on a personal level, in the workplace, or in the most convoluted of socio-political environs, solutions to multi-layered challenges always require on-going dialogue.  Solutions to our greatest challenges cannot be communicated via sound bite.

5) Listen more than you talk.  Ah! Here is the rub.  To the degree that conversation is merely what we tolerate in order to make our point and present our agenda, there is no real dialogue.  Dialogue is about erasing the whiteboard, and beginning anew.  Dialogue invests in intentional listening – without agenda, in search of shared aspirations, because this is where connection occurs.

At the risk of stating the obvious, all of this flies in the face of a communication strategy that says identify your message and stay on point no matter the topic or specific question might be.  Dialogue is hard work.  It is not media or camera-friendly.  Good sound bites are the accidental product of actual communication.

And so enterprise cranks out its marketing-speak; politicians rehearse and reiterate their sound bites; client service groups invent new ways to deflect criticism; we all learn to speak the same language, engage in the same conversations over and over; no one is listening…and dialogue is minimal.

I’m determined to be a part of better conversations.  Not only will the past not define the future, the mistakes of yesterday will not cloud today’s conversations.  If just you and I were to commit, what opportunities might be discovered?

No One Likes Change

No one likes change.  Those who say they do are most often talking about variety (like changing cars or upgrading laptops);  or perhaps about improvements that make life easier -- though initially, even the idea of change for the better is often met with disdain.

I ran across this Networking Exchange blog post by Alan See (@AlanSee on Twitter). With projections indicating that by 1925 every adult woman in America would be needed to staff Bell Telephone’s manual switchboard system of routing calls, the company introduced the first automatic switchboard.  The change was met with skepticism and questions about the elimination of a human being from the process.  (Also see initial reactions to such innovations as the Model T or the ATM.)

In most organizations, a measure of success -- not to mention the comfort zone provided by precedent -- fights against change.  On the other hand, a measure of pain is frequently the real agent forcing change in our midst.  And delaying innovation until pain is registered does not seem to be the best strategy for survival...let alone innovation and growth.

So as team leaders, organizational management, or simply aspiring agents of change, here are two responses that, when heard (or spoken), should signal that we may be missing an opportunity to innovate.

1. The “we already do that” response.  When a team member proposes a strategy or project innovation, be slow to equate the proposal with something already in place.  I know a Marketing Director whose proposal for a strategic upgrade to the organization’s client interview process was cut short once the term “client interview” was uttered.  Her boss either assumed every interview program is the same, or that there was no need for change.  Opportunity lost.
2. The “I’ve done that job, so I understand what is involved” response.  Right.  Talk to an audio engineer about the knowledge and skills required for the job today, and compare them to the same job twenty years ago.  No matter the task, the instant we assume the way we did RFPs, tracked customer experience, or approached SEO yesterday is state-of-the-art today, we are resisting the possibility that change might be in order.

This is not to suggest that just because change is possible we should instantly embrace it.  Innovation rarely comes cheap.  Impact on budget realities, human resources and organizational infrastructure are not to be discounted.  And certainly, the mere existence of a “great idea” does not constitute smart change for the better.  But as Alan’s post suggests, the most potent change may come in increments that begin with the question, "how can we improve."

"We’ve always done it this way", or "we never did that before" -- or "we don’t invest in fixing what isn’t broken" -- these are not, in-and-of-themselves, good reasons for sticking with the status quo.  To the degree these are knee-jerk responses to the ideas of change,  they are at the heart of our inability to innovate and grow.

In many respects the marketplace moves into uncharted territory with each new day.  Those who aspire to lead must constantly ask whether there is a better way to accomplish our tasks.

Open Letter To Law Firm Marketers

Several weeks ago I was part of a discussion on marketing in the legal industry. In the course of the conversation a successful, respected law firm leader looked around the room and announced, “I just don’t get this whole CMO thing.”

His pronouncement wasn’t argumentative or confrontational. He wasn’t lobbying against marketers. He was giving voice to what scores of law firm leaders wrestle with -- the questions of whether the marketing function (whatever it is labeled) in the legal space, is strategic at any level, and where it belongs in the hierarchy of a firm?

To be pointed -- does marketing belong in the so-called C-Suite in law firms, participating in baseline discussions of direction, profitability and growth? Or is the industry served best by top-flight marketing communication teams, able to respond, react, deliver and facilitate communication, media relations, events and the like?

And while it may be pronounced to an uncomfortable degree for marketing professionals in law firms, the underlying issue is not unique to the legal industry.  The fact that in many industries the ultimate office in the Suite -- that of the CEO -- is rarely occupied by one having come through the marketing ranks, is an oft explored issue by senior marketers.  And (editorial comment here) far too frequently our response as marketers is defensive...if not indignant.

There are scores of possible causes for this. The creative, polished and often “event-driven” side of marketing -- from high-end production, to the concept of “spin,” to the degree to which “optics” seem to determine so much -- may give rise to the question, How can one engaged in so much “theater” bring appropriate gravity and perspective to an executive’s role?

Whatever the reason, for all marketers aspiring to leadership, here are three ideas that will change the discussions in your organization.

• First, learn and use the language of those with whom you wish to connect / relate.  Marketing-speak and Financial-speak are (most often) worlds apart.  The verbal shorthand, metaphors, and acronyms of one rarely connect with the other.  Want to lead strategic discussions?  Speak a language that will connect with and be understood by leadership, whatever their respective discipline.
• Remember the organization’s reason for being.  Unless you market an agency or creative shop, it is probably not to win awards for advertising or gain acclaim for design and creative excellence.  Focus efforts on initiatives that directly connect to the mission, and watch the nature of your discussions change.
• Synthesize.  See the big picture.  Avoid (indeed, fight against) the silos that evolve in every organization.  The leaders in technology, finance, and human resources are allies and partners of the successful marketing organization.  And any perspective on strategy is incomplete if it is not a synthesis of every discipline in the organization.

One reason more marketers don’t have a “seat at the table” just might be that we haven’t found the way to connect with our colleagues in Finance, Technology, HR, Professional Development and Strategic Growth -- or whatever the departments in your organization might be.

A bit ironic that the group charged with connecting with the marketplace outside the organization has such difficulty connecting inside, don't you think?  And if we are unable to connect with our colleagues, have we earned the right to an office in the C-Suite?  Should we be shocked or dismayed when leaders "don't get the CMO thing?"