Designing a Better Business with Cooperative Systems

The case for creating more cooperative and altruistic business environments is an easy one to make.  In the modern organization where projects are constantly beginning and ending, and individuals’ workloads are difficult to define and constantly fluctuating, being able to develop an environment that promotes cooperative behavior can quickly return on the investment.

Until recently, we, with the help of evolutionary biologists have been under the impression that humans are inherently selfish.  Flashback to Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan or Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and even though they differ slightly, they reach the same conclusion, that humans are inherently selfish. Certainly in 2008 with the collapse of the financial markets, prompted by the behavior of investment bankers, continuing today with the American political system led by politicians who leave no question that re-election is the only real concern, it’s a tough pill to swallow that humans could possibly contain even an iota of altriusm or conscientiousness for their common man.

However, if we step back we realize that corporate and political systems are based on the assumption that human beings are selfish and need to be controlled with punishments or similarly motivated with promise of financial gain. When we being to see this, it becomes easier to see that these systems create conditions that force or provoke humans to act in selfish ways. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

In the last decade, however, multi-discplinary studies spanning, evolutionary biology, genetics, psychology, economics and political science are beginning to prove, through an enormous body of evidence that the issue is obviously not black or white. Humans are not either altruistic or selfish, they are both, depending on a wide variety of conditions. And, furthermore, if systems are put in place that presume or promote unselfish behavior and create conditions that allow it to flourish, there’s no guessing what our societies could be capable of.

So, cutting to the chase, how do we design coorporative systems (in this case within businesses) that are easy to maintain but that create conditions that will allow businesses to increase profits and employee satisfaction (a logical byproduct or altruism) to soar?  Good question. Here’s an initial framework, borrowed from the work of Yochai Benkler, a Harvard Law Professor and author of The Unselfish Gene, a post which inspired this piece:

Communication: a cooperative environment hinges on open communication, as it predicates trust and empathy. Businesses should strive to develop as much transparency within their organization as possible. The days of closed door meetings and murky corporate strategies are over. As millennials take their places in the work force transparency will be a requirement.

Morality: Clearly defined corporate values set a precedence amongst employees for what constitutes acceptable behavior. Cooperative systems are based on the notion that people would rather follow social norms than obey rules. Simply put, people want to do what’s normal.  So, set the “norm” on an aspirational, but attainable plane.

Rewards: Material payoffs are the gold-standard for incentivizing higher performance, however research is beginning to show that this can significantly hinder altruistic or pro-social behavior. Focusing on appealing to people’s intrinsic motivations, by making the business social, autonomous, rewarding and fun will yield far greater results. Think about it: hand someone a gift card for a job well-done or present them with the opportunity to lead a team that investigates and evolves your process.

Reputation / Reciprocity: constructing systems that have participants dependent on one-another for success will have a much greater likelihood of yielding better results, as shown by project-to-project team-based models.

Research by Peter Senge on Learning Organizations has much to lend this as well, but that’s another post.  In summary, industrial area organizational models are ineffectual at fostering environments capable of competing with today’s challenges and needs for innovation. People who are focused on individual payouts aren’t intrinsically motivated to create, learn, experiment and cooperate with their peers in pursuit of a clearly defined goal for which they feel an emotional connection.

 

The Human Brand

So, this is essentially a re-blog of an idea I threw up on a now defunct Tumblr about something I’ve been thing about for some time.  Namely, that the primary obstacle that prevents brands from connecting more effectively with people is that they don’t allow themselves to exhibit uniquely human characteristics.  I’m recycling this post, because 14 months later I find myself returning to the same notion, with more evidence that it might actually be useful.  Please share your thoughts, as this is far from complete.

I feel more strongly than ever that brands must serve as a sort of living, breathing companion to the individual.  But, it’s not enough to simply display humanistic tendencies, brands must use them as the basis for growth and innovation.

By human tendencies I mean the development of an opinion or point of view, the desire to form new bonds and to assist in the connection of likeminded individuals, the capacity to listen and empathize and entertain, all while creating something of value.

With all of this laid out, I found myself more lost than when I began, so I set out to simplify and organize the key human tendencies that might apply to brand evolution.  What followed was a preliminary model based on the key characteristics possessed not just by average people, but highly functioning people. It is by no means comprehensive at this point, but represents what I think is a very solid first draft.

Three main tendencies make up our ideal human (or brand): growth, connection and production.

Growth

Characterized by the natural desire to learn new information and skills, develop behaviors that indicate greater social responsibility and heightened consciousness, as well as a desire to seek out new experiences and cultivate of an increasingly more evolved point of view and unique identity.

Connection

Demonstrated by the tendency to share knowledge and opinions, form new bonds and strengthen existing ones, engage in two-way dialogue, and connect other like-minded entities.

Production

Exhibited as the will to create for the sake of self expression and the unwavering belief in a better tomorrow.

All three components are of equal importance for the human brand and are mutually dependent on one another.  For example, the development of a more complex point of view is meaningless if it is not shared with others and used to create something new.  Similarly, seeking out and engaging in new experiences lacks significance if it doesn’t serve as a means for connection with other likeminded individuals.

The model isn’t worth anything if it isn’t applied as a means for growth, in this case to ask the right questions that will lead to the formulation of intelligent strategies.  For example, if a sports apparel brand realized that it wasn’t connecting with high school youth, it could use this framework to pinpoint areas of potential weakness like a lack of a formulated identity that resonated with young people, or a failure to share their years of accumulated knowledge about sport performance.  The next step would then be to reverse these statements to become questions, like how can we more effectively share our vast body of knowledge about performance to create a devoted following?

With this preliminary model in place, we can begin to develop strategies that are more in line with the needs of today’s consumer.

Johnnie Walker Plays Big in China

If you follow the spirits industry, then you know that whiskey is hitting a high point, not just domestically, but in developing nations like China.  As consumers in the east have increasing amounts of disposable income, high-end spirits from the western hemisphere have increasing appeal.  The Scotch category is growing at 8% value with Diageo’s own Scotch portfolio sales increasing at twice that rate.

Diageo, whose portfolio includes the likes of Johnnie Walker is striking while the iron is hot with some serious marketing to the Chinese consumer with the luxury mindset.  About a month ago, they launched The Johnnie Walker House, a four-story mansion in Shanghai that allows invited guests to sample product under the guise of some of the brands most trusted experts.  The space will also be used to host lectures, dinners, masterclasses, trade events and more.

But, JW didn’t stop there, they created 1,000 bottles of a custom blend, called The 1910 Edition, sold within the house for a mere $2,000 each.  The rare prize is meant to commemorate the original journey taken by Johnnie Walker by boat from Scotland to China in 1910, a perilous journey at the time, all the way around Africa and up through the Indian Ocean.

Read more of this post

The Strategist’s Dilemma

Jim Beam’s ‘Bold Choice’ Campaign Commercial is Nearly Perfect and Here’s Why…

This very introspective commercial, starring Willem Dafoe is fantastic.  On the surface, Jim Beam explores the importance of the choices we make throughout our lives, urging us to side with ones that lead us down the road less traveled.  But, this piece is about much more than choices.  It’s about becoming the most complete version of ourselves, a notion that no doubt resonates strongly with their (I’m guessing) 23-40, male target.  You can run the car company or you can work for it.  You can be the showman or you can clean up after him.

The spot also plays well on the cultural notions associated, at this point in time, with American Whiskey, namely as being refined and experienced.  But, unlike scotch, not pretentious and showy.  Whiskey drinkers have been places, they have dirt under their fingernails, but they’re careful, namely, with their choices in life.

American Whiskey is enjoying a fantastic period of growth right now, due in small part to it’s integral role in popular culture (i.e. Boardwalk Empire and Mad Men).  But, it’s success is much bigger than that.  I personally think, it’s tied somehow to patriotism.  But, not the sort of “gun-toting, foreigner-hating” patriotism we often think of.  This is deeper than that.  Perhaps the only spirit that is uniquely ours, American whiskey is in our DNA.  And men who choose to drink it, are able to portray themselves as a refined American, that embodies uniqueness, as it’s not currently seen as a common choice.

Finally, to those who feel that I’ve read way too deeply into this, I say, do not underestimate the importance that a man places on his choice of libations.  At a bar, he knows his drink says a lot about who he is.  His drink, if chosen correctly, is a mimicked conversation piece that proves he is a bold individual.

Congrats to Strawberry Frog for their great work.

A Summary of The New Capitalist Manifesto

After seeing the launch of COMMON, I decided to pick up Umair Haque’s “The New Capitalist Manifesto”.  In the book, Haque, an economic strategist by trade, lays out a vision for how capitalism must evolve to meet current & future economic challenges.  No longer can businesses subscribe to Industrial Age paradigms built around short term profits earnings.  He argues that instead the successful brands of tomorrow will orient their entire infrastructure and business model around enhancing human well-being.  Corporate leaders will be wholly responsible for the tertiary effects of their company’s actions.  Businesses will be evaluated based on long-term value creation, rather than short term profits.  Brands will no longer be built with astronomical marketing budgets, but will instead be constructed by the participants who benefit from their use.  This set of values, when executed appropriately, will guarantee businesses a rightful place in the 21st century marketplace.

Read more of this post

The Agency Challenge (from The Planning Lab)

The purpose of this blog is not to be an echo chamber for the rest of the web.  I repeat: the purpose of this blog is not to be an echo chamber for the rest of the web.  With that in mind, I’d like to re-post this piece written by Leon at his blog The Planning Lab.

Nov. 29, 2010

Today’s agency challenge isn’t digital thinking or innovation but a reality check.

Why?

Because too many agencies (i.e. offices with people that have advertising background and sell creative services to companies that want to sell more stuff and/or build their brand) see themselves as more than just advertising agencies. Which is fair when it comes to marketing yourself as the new hot shit. But a bit problematic, given the fact that zero advertising people throughout history have managed to come up with anything really innovative. Like the computer on the picture. Or even the cable that attaches to it. If advertising people could invent iPhones or come up with new search engine logarithms and be rich as f**ks, trust me they would.

An important reality check for us all.  However, that’s not to say that we shouldn’t be trying to innovative, experiment, explore and make things.  In fact, I think it’s essential to being any good at this business at all, and not simply trying to mimic or improve on the last cool thing you saw.  The question I find myself asking is, “When?”, considering all unused brain power goes towards trying to keep up with what everyone else is currently doing, because, on some level, I deem it as being relevant.  The thing is, all those RSS feeds will never be as useful as real experience.  BBH Labs offers an interesting perspective in a post entitled, Think While You Make, Make While You Think and Mark Pollard makes a great argument for Why Strategists Should Make Stuff.  These posts ought to provide us with all the reasoning and motivation to get off our computers and do something.

What’s Under the Logo?

In recent years, there has been so much focus on logos, mostly addressing the negative (Tropicana, Apple, Gap) that I feel compelled to share my thoughts on the subject as it relates to overarching brand strategy.  Most recently Starbucks, has come under fire for embarking on what I will later address as a sensible redesign, so it’s time we step back and look at how brands must approach these makeovers to ensure they are met with success.

There has been a lot of useless chatter out there, but one article I’ve found that I think does a good job of putting this all into context is a piece from Fast.Co design written by Steve McCallon called, “The Real Lesson of the Gap Debacle: Logos Aren’t Key Anymore”.  In this article McCallon, carefully makes the case that logos don’t matter, that what matters is that brands develop holistic social brand platforms to back them up (the guts underlying the cosmetics, if you will).  McCallon argues that the successful platforms will possess 5 key traits: Useful, Social, Living, Layered and Curated and he shares a wealth of examples from Nike+ and the Levi’s Workshops to YouTube and etsy themselves.

I totally agree with McCallon on this front: anytime a company is rolling out a re-branding, it must be accompanied by a deeper evolution of their products and services, otherwise it risks coming across as superficial.  However, what I do not agree with McCallon on is how he undervalues the importance of logos.  Allow me to digress.

Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers