Listening: A Strategy and Change Blog | Hosfeld & Associates

“To listen is to lean in, softly, with a willingness to be changed by what we hear.”

Mark Nepo

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Increasingly strategy must be about dialogue. In a recent article about the changing nature of strategy and marketing  in the “Twenty-Tweens” (our current age),  I described three different forms of communication – information sharing, persuasion and dialogue. Information sharing and persuasion are the two forms most people associate with marketing. But the nature of business, the demands of customers and stakeholders are quickly outstripping the capacity of information sharing and persuasion alone to respond.

What do we mean by dialogue? I’ve said that it’s the type of conversation where two or more parties bring together information out of which something new is created.

Poet David Whyte has talked about this type of communication in terms of what it means to be a leader today. In a video on his website he talks about the conversational nature of reality:

“The conversational nature of reality has to do with the fact that whatever you want to happen will not happen. A *version* of it will happen. Some aspects of it will happen. You will be surprised also and quite often gladdened that what you wanted to happen in the beginning actually didn’t happen and something else occurred. Also it’s true that whatever society, or life or your partner or your children want from you will also not happen. They also will have to join the conversation.”

Whyte’s speaking engagements with companies on the conversational nature of reality have to do with what kind of leadership stance one can take in response to this dynamic. Who do we need to be as leaders to participate in the conversational nature of reality?

The same question faces organizations. What kind of stance do we need to take with our customers and partners in order to thrive in the conversational nature of reality? Many companies who have been early pioneers of collaboration and co-creation will say there’s tremendous potential return on investment from engaging in dialogue. Strategy– including communications, product innovation and more – is at its best in dynamic collaboration with customers and other stakeholders. To tap that potential we need to start from a place of strong core of identity and purpose, and then have the skills and tools to support dialogue as it scales through the organization.

The scale of dialogue takes place on a continuum of complexity. On the left side of the X axis we have dialogues one-to-one; on the right side we have dialogues one-to-thousands or even millions. On the left side of the continuum we rely on interpersonal skills and good facilitation of conversations to get to the shared creation. On the right side, we need technology platforms (crowd sourcing, social media and corporate social platforms) to support true two-way “conversation” on a mass scale.

All along the continuum, we need to be able to relax our grip on our own ideas and be open to what we can “create together.” In his video, Whyte takes issue with what he calls the “strategic” approach, by which I think he means predetermining a set of actions and getting too attached to them in ways that ignore the conversational nature of reality. I would say that the type of strategy – marketing and organizational — that actually works today is one that takes the conversational nature of reality into account. It is not static. It is not a fixed plan. Rather it’s a framework that includes a strong purpose and identity and that creates a container – much like a greenhouse – where the seeds sown in dialogue can take root and grow.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

It will seem oxymoronic to some to put the words spirituality and strategy in the same sentence. The mainstream world of strategy and marketing is transactional and fast-paced, rather than reflective. Or so it would seem.  Let me paraphrase the four-point test from the strategy model we use in order to make more clear how an organization’s strategy design process touches the spiritual aspects of business decisions:

• In what way do we create perceived value for our customers?
• What value do we create that reflects the best of our collective gifts and intentions?
• What is the unique value we can create in the market that no other company is as qualified to create?
• Which types of value creation in which we engage give us an opportunity for positive impact in a wide variety of markets or settings?

Some of you might recognize the pattern of the four-point test of the core competence model in the questions above. This model, developed by Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad years ago, is an enduring model for breakthrough strategy and strategic innovation.

The first question probes the extent to which we are serving the market by offering something of real value. The second question looks at who we are together as a work community; is there a cohesive sense of identity and purpose that we share?  The third question points to the unique capability that each company has distinct from any another company; what is it that we can do together that no one else can? The fourth question tackles the scope of the firm’s vision; how far does it reach, and how might it change our market, our community, our world?

Why are these spiritual questions? Spirituality taps the fullest experience of what it means to be alive, and for many of us this is expressed in relationships.   These questions help us examine the strength of our relationships with ourselves (are we deeply in touch with and expressing the essence of who we are as individuals and as a company?) and others (are we using our gifts and strengths to benefit others as ourselves through either support or challenge?).

Spiritual does not mean airy-fairy and impractical. All four of these questions can be used to advance key performance indicators and other benchmarks that measure organizational performance and outcomes.  The difference is hitching the practical, financial and quantitative aspects of business to something larger, engaging with meaningful action, and allowing the firm to be drawn upward as a result.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Few companies argue that fostering trust with customers and other stakeholders is an important business task. Where there’s disagreement, however, is what specifically fosters trust, and the degree to which trust between customers and companies – particularly as it relates to green or sustainability claims – is suffering.

Our academic partner, Jenny Mish, PhD., assistant professor of marketing at Notre Dame, explored this and other questions in her doctoral research. Her study, which explored food standards and sustainability, resulted in insights about marketing behaviors that foster trust.

Mish interviewed a wide variety of individuals representing institutions engaged in developing or promoting the use of market-based product standards, such as Fair Trade or organic, that specify reductions in negative environmental or social impacts.  She spoke with people in large corporations like McDonald’s, in government such as the United States Department of Agriculture, and  smaller, grassroots organizations such as the Portland, OR-based Food Alliance.

The spectrum of types of trust she found span from the very impersonal and institutional, to the highly personal, local and dare we say “intimate.”  Large corporations tend to look primarily at repeat purchase behavior to evaluate the degree of trust they’ve engendered with customers. Some companies evaluate trust on the basis of their ability to fulfill key expectations of sustainability performance. Still others evaluate trust on the basis of direct, personal interactions with customers, and the degree to which they had actual contact with customers and other stakeholders.

Her findings suggest that marketers may be able to foster trust three different ways:

Preserving the Integrity of the Brand: The least personal form of trust is embodied in the brand attributes that create a predictable customer experience. This is true even when the context is not sustainability or green attributes.  This calls for organizational and channel alignment to fulfill brand promises consistently, which means full commitment to green or sustainability standards…not merely claims that show up in features and benefits.

Compliance with a Market-Based Standard: A company’s ability to merit certification such as the USDA’s organic standard or Fair Trade, creates a type of performance contract with customers that fosters trust. Marketers may encourage their organizations to qualify for certification, but ultimately this will require cross-functional collaboration to bring operations into compliance. Standards that inspire trust are those that are either objectively evaluated (by government or third-party) or that are developed and supported by a wide coalition of contributors/stakeholders.

Designing Highly Personal Forms of Contact with Customers: A company’s ability to deal directly and personally with its customers, such as “meet the farmer” programs, can foster the most personal type of trust.  These programs are common in “local” exchange relationships, such as those formed at farmer’s markets.

One implication of the study, as I see it, is that human interactions (personal) are where trust can be lost altogether, or maintained in either an impersonal or highly personal and reciprocal manner. Mish’s study was not designed to explore trust as engendered by the sales process, but we know from other experience that the quality of those interactions also impact on consumer perceptions. While they make good marketing sense, authentic interpersonal relationships are usually not driven by marketing goals. They usually reflect a sense of “this is the right thing to do regardless” in the company culture, as is the case with local relationships described above.  They manifest from the shared values of everyone in the company.

Ultimately fostering trust is not a matter of choosing between these forms. It’s bringing all types of trust-fostering practices to the marketing agenda. The assumption is that if the organization is large, then personal interaction is not possible.  If we believe, however, that it’s the right thing to do, then it becomes an opportunity for innovation. There’s the marketing challenge — creating trust-engendering relationships between human beings on both sides of the exchange process, regardless of company size.

—–

Jenny Mish’s dissertation is “Centralizing and Decentralizing Forces in the Development of Sustainable Markets: A study of Food Product Standards.” It was published in 2009, by the University of Utah.

This article is one in a series of reports about the Spring 2010 Journal of Public Policy and Marketing special edition on Stakeholder Marketing. See an introduction to and a summary of our coverage of this edition here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

In an article called “The New Marketing Myopia,” authors N. Craig Smith, Minette E. Drumwright, and Mary C. Gentile suggest that a stakeholder perspective is the next step in a progression that began with “product orientation” and evolved to “market orientation.” Building on the insights of Theodore Levitt’s landmark essay “Marketing Myopia,” originally published in 1960 in Harvard Business Review, the authors say that a stakeholders orientation in marketing will help prevent companies from relying too heavily on products or services that may come under regulatory or other scrutiny, or fall out of step with mainstream values.  Another article in the Journal’s special edition, “From Market Orientation to Stakeholder Orientation,” by O.C. Ferrell, Tracy L Gonzalez-Padron, G. Tomas M. Hult, and Isabelle Maignan, further develops the this idea.

A product orientation is internally focused on selling what one can/wants to make. A market orientation shifts to an external assessment of what customers need/want, and what competitors provide. A stakeholder orientation would also be externally focused, including other voices beyond customers and competitors, those advocating for longer-term, ethical, social, environmental or cultural issues.

The New Marketing Myopia article provides examples of food manufacturers and retailers who trade on the short-term desires of children for junk and fast food, and US automakers catering to the desire for gas-guzzling SUVs while disregarding signs of increasing regulatory pressure for more fuel-efficient vehicles. Stakeholders have lobbied both industries for years.  Automakers in particular have paid a price for ignoring stakeholder concerns.

The authors make the point that a market orientation, because it looks outward, has the potential to more easily evolve into a stakeholder perspective. The chief difference is that market orientation tends to ultimately prioritize customers and competitors over other stakeholders, whereas stakeholder orientation seeks to manage to all stakeholder interests simultaneously.

The original “Marketing Myopia” offered inspirational examples of how a market orientation expanded possibilities for long-term organizational evolution – reframing the core business from specific products which may only have a market for a decade or two to a customer need that might be reinterpreted over many decades.  It expanded trains to transportation, or silent films to film and video entertainment.

The authors suggest that stakeholder orientation can help companies “develop foresight regarding the markets of the future.” However, they provide no examples of how companies have thrived by doing so. Rather the stakeholder orientation as described here serves as a constraint – what one should not or cannot do – rather than something that broadens strategic options.  This does an injustice, I believe, to the stakeholder concept, which by way of its expanded systems view and the latent creativity present in the stakeholder system itself should similarly explode strategic options.

I wanted the authors, particularly of the New Marketing Myopia article, to cite examples of the generativity fostered by the stakeholder perspective. In some situations the stakeholder perspective might offer an expanded view of customer needs—from junk food to youth nutrition, or from SUVs to transportation solutions.  In others, it might show how companies and customers can create new benefit for other stakeholders while enhancing value creation for themselves. Or, it may simply mean meeting the same customer need but from within a business model or operational system that has been redesigned to respond to issues of ethics and sustainability.

Significant change is motivated by a compelling future.  I believe there is a compelling business case for adopting a stakeholder orientation in marketing. The authors of both these articles have not made that case.

This article is one in a series of reports about the Spring 2010 Journal of Public Policy and Marketing special edition on Stakeholder Marketing. See an introduction to and a summary of our coverage of this edition here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

It’s virtually impossible to be a Triple Bottom Line business without practicing stakeholder marketing.  Adding social and environmental outcomes to the traditional financial bottom line almost invariably involves engagement with stakeholders other than customers, employees and owners.  As a result, Triple Bottom Line firms are a source of insight concerning what stakeholder marketing looks like.

Hosfeld & Associates’ academic partner, Jennifer Mish, Ph.D., a professor of marketing at Notre Dame, contributed the article “Principle Based Stakeholder Marketing: Insights from Triple Bottom Line Firms,” with co-author Debra Scammon to the special edition of the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. The article is based on her doctoral research of firms who had operated with at least two bottom lines for at least 15 years and three bottom lines for at least 5 years (some had done so for more than 30 years).

Such firms inherently recognize the interconnectedness of stakeholders, what we call “taking a systems perspective.” Moreover they are committed to acting in service of the well being of the system as a whole. This translates to a commitment to transform industries and institutional norms, reinventing how business in their industry gets done, and tending to the needs of the weakest or most vulnerable members of the system.

The firms Jenny interviewed use value propositions in a unique way. In traditional settings, a value proposition is used to clarify the benefit created for a target customer.  The value propositions adopted by these Triple Bottom Line firms however define how the company and its customers together will create benefit for other stakeholders in the system (for example, offering a recycling program that helps them co-create benefit for the community and the environment).

Jenny’s article describes three elements of a Principle-Based Stakeholder Marketing Model:  1) a set of principles which support  2) the organizational culture which then in turn supports 3) specific stakeholder marketing practices.  The practices include 1) generating stakeholder-related intelligence,  2) disseminating the intelligence, and 3) responding to the intelligence.

Her article includes implications for public firms, some of which apply to many organizations – public, private or non-profit — that may be seeking to adopt a stakeholder perspective. A stakeholder orientation will increase the complexity of decision-making, may be difficult to measure, may unsettle single-bottom-line expectations, may expose the firm to reputation risks, and may challenge perceived legal constraints.

This article brought me back to another in the Special Edition, an essay by Gregory T. Gundlach and William L. Wilkie on why the term “stakeholder” was omitted from the latest iteration of the American Marketing Association’s definition of marketing in 2007. The essay makes the point that stakeholder marketing is less a set of specific tactical practices – like green marketing – and more a marketing management perspective or a marketing philosophy.   Jenny’s article may leave the practitioner hungry for answers to the question “How do I do stakeholder marketing?” Yet, it rightfully sets the context for how marketing and other executives should think about marketing from a stakeholder perspective.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

We live in an exciting time during which companies are questioning traditional models of marketing, and are pioneering new approaches that create better financial returns. More importantly, more companies are raising the ethical bar on their marketing and seeking to earn both the trust and loyalty of the market. Stakeholder marketing is an approach that does both. It’s something that you may hear more about in the coming months.

What is stakeholder marketing?  It’s an approach that recognizes that the “market” is not just a narrowly defined customer target (or series of customer segments). It perceives that customers are interconnected with employees, vendors, government and community, the environment and more.  It’s based on the premise that in order to effectively conduct commercial transactions companies must engage with a system of interconnected partners, known as stakeholders.

In the article Transformation of Marketing, I have identified three elements of the emerging model of marketing practiced by high-integrity companies: embracing a systems perspective, creating social good, and living the brand. Stakeholder marketing is an important part of embracing a systems perspective because it engages with the marketplace as such a dynamic system. It can also reflect the intention to create social good, depending on the degree of mutuality to which the company aspires.

The intention of those who’ve practiced stakeholder marketing is to establish, cultivate and deepen positive relationships of trust between their organization and the groups directly affected by their activities. These relationships result in cooperation that helps a company further its goals. For many who practice stakeholder marketing, their goals include service to stakeholders as an end in itself not as a means to an end. Some organizations may see the value of stakeholder relationships only in terms of how they might help the organization achieve goals for growth or profit. Research indicates that stakeholder orientation in a firm correlates to improved financial performance. However, as those who have practiced stakeholder marketing will tell you, the rewards can be far greater.

In the book Firms of Endearment, the authors assert that stakeholder marketing creates such positive relationships and perceptions with stakeholders, that those who practice it spend less to get the word out and to shape public perceptions of their brand. They benefit from significant word of mouth that is fueled by customer loyalty and advocacy.

Serving Instead of Managing

A primary characteristic of stakeholder marketing is that it is not an attempt to manage or control perceptions or behavior. Rather it expresses itself in efforts to engage stakeholders collaboratively to create value together. It incorporates a strong ethic of service not just to customers but also to other partners in the value chain. The following provides an evolving series of stances that organizations can take or have taken in response to stakeholders.

Prior to the advent of the Internet, companies with the financial resources to do so could more easily control the information that audiences received about products or services. Customers and other stakeholders had neither the time nor the money to fully investigate all the companies from whom they might purchase products or services, or with whom they might work. As a result, during this time companies assumed that marketing’s role was to create and protect perceptions of the firm and its products in order to sell.

With the advent of the Internet, all stakeholders gained considerable new information about and influence over perceptions of companies, products and services. Stakeholders were better able to communicate out their experiences of a product, service or company. Other stakeholders were able to access this information, giving them information to either confirm or undermine the company’s own messages. As companies lost some of their ability to control those perceptions, marketing became somewhat more collaborative and transparent. “Managing” perceptions and key stakeholder relationships was an evolution in marketing that acknowledged the difficulty of maintaining control while still seeing control as desirable.

Stakeholder marketing takes a leap into the void by ceding a great deal of control and shifting to an attitude of servant leadership in the exchange process. According to research on companies who practice stakeholder marketing, such companies disclose more, share their standards, ask for feedback and act on the feedback they receive. A company that adopts stakeholder marketing sees innovation potential in finding ways to align stakeholder needs with its own, and has confidence in the good will, loyalty and trust that the process will generate.

Implications for Marketing Planning

How does a stakeholder orientation change marketing planning? In a traditional environment, the company takes in information (from the sales force, from research, from analysts) and uses this to formulate its marketing strategies. In stakeholder marketing, the information gathering process broadens to employees, vendors/suppliers, distributors, communities and regulators – the stakeholder groups that the company identifies as appropriate to its situation  — and continues as a form of dialogue. Gathering information from stakeholder groups, feeding this information to the right internal audiences within the company, and formulating responses are the inhale and the exhale of stakeholder marketing. This can seem overwhelming if the company does not have a clear sense of direction and mission. This is provided by clear value propositions.

Value propositions are important ordering agents in traditional marketing planning. They are also extremely valuable in helping companies align stakeholder needs in a stakeholder marketing planning process.  The process of establishing a value proposition allows a company to define what it does best and how it contrasts with competitors or substitutes. In traditional marketing, however, the value proposition is created with only one target audience: the customer.  In stakeholder marketing, value propositions created for each stakeholder group help to fully develop and articulate both marketing goals and brand values. Creating these propositions also helps identify areas that need to be aligned or reconciled. As a result, marketing strategies become more robust, and marketing efforts more focused. (See related article on value propositions.)

Is it Marketing or is it Management?

One of the tricky things about stakeholder marketing is that it is difficult to isolate the actions of stakeholder-oriented firms that are discretely marketing focused. This, of course, depends on your definition of marketing.  In the Michael Porter Value Chain model, marketing is the function of communicating and selling that happens later in the process of supposedly “creating value.”

If, however, your definition of marketing is like Peter Drucker’s – the entire company as seen through the eyes of the customer – then you believe that all departments and functions hold pieces of the marketing function, and stakeholder marketing identifies the opportunities all along the value chain to create value for all partners – not just customers.  The transformation of marketing requires the adoption of such a systems view which breaks down the silos between strategy, management and marketing.

The Firms of Endearment authors assert that companies with a stakeholder orientation spend less money “on marketing.”  Based on the case histories of the book, which include Costco, Harley Davidson, and other recognizable names, I disagree. What may more likely be true, however, is that these companies spend less money on sales and promotional efforts – such as advertising – that seek to form or build positive awareness for their goods or services.  Why? By virtue of their organizational behavior, and fostering authentic, positive relationships with stakeholders, they have earned such positive awareness. They don’t need to buy it.

As a result, I am tempted to think of principle-based stakeholder marketing as more than an approach. It’s also a philosophy of marketing that is collectively held by all members of the firm. If all company’s decisions are focused on the question of “what creates mutual value between our firm and our partners” the decisions that have the potential to benefit profit and growth can be made virtually anywhere in the organization.

Getting started. Would you like more information on how to get started exploring or understanding how to implement stakeholder marketing? I am working on another article to describe that process. Let me know what you’d like that to cover. Please contact me with your questions and ideas.

Sustainability and the Path to Transformed Marketing

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld

Many are the challenges facing today’s marketing practitioners as they seek to cultivate relationships with customers in a volatile economic climate.  As a chief point of contact between the company and its customers, marketing is a place where trust is either won or lost.  As many consumers cut back on spending, trust is one of the critical factors underlying purchase decisions. But research shows that decades of intrusive, coercive demand-creation efforts have created layers of resistance that are now compounding companies’ woes.

Is sustainability a business strategy than can transform marketing practice and begin the process of rebuilding trust? Sustainability, for the purpose of this article, is the management of an organization’s performance in service of financial, social and environmental objectives, with the intent of meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Brundtland World Commission).

Transformed marketing is the emerging model of marketing practiced by high-integrity organizations, a subject I wrote about in The Transformation of Marketing. The relationship between transformed marketing and sustainability depends on the ultimate goal of both initiatives – for businesses to operate profitably in ways that create benefit for many diverse stakeholders.  In early stages of sustainability adoption, however, this shared interest may not be quite as evident. As engagement with sustainability deepens, the qualities of transformed marketing begin to appear.

What are the Stages on the Road to Sustainability?

The notion that organizations implement sustainability in stages of increasing engagement is held by a variety of consultants and thought leaders.  The Leadership of Sustainability, a study authored by Pat Hughes, (to which I was a contributing analyst) offered a five-stage model of sustainability development based on interviews with leaders from diverse companies. The five stages in that model were:

• Stage 1: Values (Awareness) Develop the will to take action.
• Stage 2: Action (Experimentation) Begin with a single project or experiment.
• Stage 3: Deepen (Systems Thinking) Explore implications of sustainability for all operations and decisions.
• Stage 4: Sustain (Resource Commitment) Commit to comprehensive plan with resource allocation (management focus, money), tracking and reporting.
• Stage 5: Learning and Advocacy (Sharing) Leadership and advocacy in industry; continuous learning.

Since the publication of The Leadership of Sustainability, at least two other staged models have been published highlighting different aspects of organizational engagement with sustainability. Peter Senge’s organization offers a model that describes the emerging “drivers” that push organizations deeper and deeper into engagement. Avastone Consulting offers a model that describes similar stages of engagement from the perspective or organizational perspectives or “mindsets.”

While not in exact agreement, these three models offer a surprisingly congruent picture of increasing degrees of intention and engagement.

Marketing’s Transformation on the Sustainability Road

Each stage of engagement with sustainability presents its own marketing challenges and opportunities. See Diagram. Large Format PDF Early engagement with sustainability is focused primarily on operational and administrative changes that reduce waste and conserve energy. The primary goal of most companies in the early stages is to save money.

At the Awareness Stage, marketers become conscious of consumer interest in “green” products and the role of environmental and social issues in purchase decisions. There’s also increased interest in cause-related promotion events that may have an environmental or social justice focus.

At the Action Stage, companies’ experiments with sustainability may not yet translate well into promotional or brand messages. Still, marketers begin exploring how to leverage the value of these experiments for marketing purposes.  They start to explore “green marketing” techniques (those tactics that have an environmental impact) and  eco-branding (building environmental values into brand image). They may explore the process of publishing sustainability reports, and take more concrete steps toward refining product/service line value propositions based on social, environmental factors. At this stage, they are also concerned about accusations of “green washing,” in which companies are accused of promoting superficial efforts of sustainability merely for their image/PR benefits.

At the Deepen Stage, however, both the organization and its marketing team are invited into the initial stages of what may lead to deep change. At this stage, the leaders we studied began to see the interconnections between their operational waste and energy strategies and “everything else.” They started to see the impact of such changes on their vendors or suppliers.  They began to see the potential response from community partners. They start to see the opportunities for collaboration in the community and industry to accomplish sustainability goals. According to other models, at this stage, companies also begin to see the opportunity in developing entirely new business strategies that integrate sustainability. Here we see a form of stakeholder marketing start to take hold as companies realize they have to manage increasingly deeper levels of conversation with the community, vendors, suppliers, and industry colleagues, not to mention  customers.  New business opportunities begin to emerge as companies realize consumers’ interests in seeing social and environmental criteria integrated into the company’s core products and services.

As a result, marketers who step up to the challenge may find themselves with new opportunities to lead conversations about the redesign of products/services for social, environmental factors and articulation of new pricing strategies.  Design and pricing conversations lead invariably to engagement with standards and certifications that assure truthfulness in marketing claims. As they begin to appeal to customers with sustainability oriented values, they’ll also be challenged to re-evaluate marketing tactics that are perceived as coercive or intrusive. And as companies grapple with multiple stakeholders and holding financial, social and environmental values simultaneously, they may determine that the metrics they’ve historically used are no longer adequate.

The Shift from Technical Change to Adaptive Change

As companies and their marketers continue to deepen their engagement, the changes that they are asked to make move from technical change to adaptive change. In technical change, we don’t fundamentally alter how we work. We add knowledge; we make incremental improvements in what we are already doing; and we stick basically to the strategies we’ve been using.

On the journey to sustainability, as in the path to transformed marketing, there’s a point where we are asked to begin to think differently about how we work.  Fundamental assumptions are challenged. We embark on new initiatives and enter new territory where few have gone before us. We have to take risks and learn together.

At the Sustain level of engagement, for example, marketers that have never before had to account for externalities in their pricing or product design strategies must now reframe the entire cost/value proposition of products and brands. An externality is a cost that occurs as a result of a commercial transaction that is not directly paid for at the time of purchase (the cost of waste disposal of an obsolete machine is one such externality).

Embracing the rationale for why companies should account for externalities is the right thing to do is a radical reframe of the role of the business for many. At this stage, companies also commit resources to developing strategic partnerships and fostering internal and external collaborations that bring additional expertise to bear on specific tasks.

At the Learning/Advocacy stage, companies are beginning to hit their stride in sustainability and are thinking about their businesses in fundamentally different ways than they did at the beginning of the journey. Sustainability is not something they “do,” it’s part of their core identity. As a result, marketers are often engaged in processes to rebrand and reposition the firm and its offerings in light of this full commitment. Additionally, companies are increasingly seen and act as thought leaders in their industries – advocating for sustainability practices, and sharing knowledge about their experiences.  Creating open standards and sharing expertise, rather than protecting company secrets for competitive advantage, is one of the adaptive challenges  of this stage.

Arriving at Transformed Marketing

At the Deepen, Sustain and Learning/Advocacy stages, we see an acceleration of change that results concurrently in transformed marketing. Changes that took place prior to these stages were necessary precursors to the adoption of transformed marketing. These changes raise the three key issues we previously outlined in The Transformation of Marketing:

Embracing a Systems Perspective – Companies began to embrace a systems perspective at the Deepen stage. An emerging web of relations and interconnections – in customers and markets, in the dynamics between community groups and strategic partners – continues to unfold for them as they gain experience.

Creating Social Good – By this stage, sustainability is less about something the firm does to make money, and has become more a way of life. The intrinsic value of building social good into the purpose and mission of the organization has become self-evident.

Living the Brand – The alignment of values, strategies and operational practices has advanced much more deeply, and as a result the company’s brand and image has authenticity and integrity. Trust is often a core brand value, and the company’s promotional practices are measured against that value.

At this stage of engagement, the coercive, intrusive, unethical and wasteful practices that undermine marketing have been eliminated by engagement with the values of sustainability. Additionally companies have cultivated relationships with stakeholders that allow for timely feedback on whether company practices are compromising brand promises or shared values. This feedback allows the company to self-correct more quickly and restore balance and integrity to its marketing practices.

The Road Less Travelled

The current business and political interest in sustainability makes this path toward the transformation of marketing likely the road more travelled.  Some companies that currently practice high-integrity marketing did not get there via sustainability, but rather through an ethic of care for all people they touch in their day to day interactions.  As I wrote in The Transformation of Marketing “we are fortunate in this time that research… is confirming their collective hunch that a seemingly radical commitment to marketing that works for all also turns out to be a good way to make money. “

As always, we invite your comments, experiences and stories. Please write to us.

See the related article: Fulfilling Sustainability’s Potential: Growing the Top Line – about the role of marketing in creative strategic sustainability innovation.

An emerging model from high-integrity organizations

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld

The phone rings at our house on any given evening. A member of our family looks at the caller ID. “It’s Evans Glass,” he or she calls out to the rest of the house. The call goes unanswered. This is one of between four to 10 calls we receive from Evans Glass each week. We made the mistake once of talking to someone going door to door offering estimates for window replacements. When we found out that the estimate process would take two hours, we said, “No, this isn’t what we want.” We asked that they not contact us again. They have continued to call. And call. And call.

This is one of the practices that have led to another kind of call – a call to “reform” marketing. These and other common marketing practices “work” for companies – they do result in sales. However, research shows that there’s a long-term consequence associated with intrusive and coercive tactics: cynicism and resistance on the part of consumers. Studies by the American Association of Advertising Agencies and Yankelovich show that from 1964 to 2004, the number of people who say their feelings about advertising have become negative grew from 15% to 60%. Forty-five percent of consumers say that the amount of advertising they are exposed to every day detracts from their experience of everyday life (Yankelovich). Yet, companies are spending more to overcome resistance, doing more of that which created the resistance in the first place. This is a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle.

What’s to stop it? Some believe that more regulation is the answer. While regulation and public policy always play an important role in systems change, a change from within – a transformation – will ultimately reach parts of the system that regulation can’t touch. Pioneering firms have been blazing this trail for almost two decades and research is starting to show that companies that take a higher road are achieving higher returns as a result (Studies by Sisodia, Raj, Jag Sheth, and David B. Wolfe in 2007; Sully de Luque et al. in 2008; Kearney in 2009).

The Emerging Model

Consider this article an introduction to a much wider conversation about how pioneering firms are transforming marketing. To start that conversation, I’m offering a 50,000 foot level management perspective of the model of marketing that is emerging as an alternative to the vicious cycle described above. This includes sustainability and the triple-bottom-line, but this is not a model of sustainability marketing per se. It’s meant to suggest a model of marketing that is emerging in companies who have made sustainability a way of life and are continuing to evolve. I have avoided references to tactical execution and, for now, case histories. I’ve avoided elements that might be more appropriate for specific industries (hard goods manufacturers), and tried to synthesize elements that are universal to all firms.

In working with clients, I often translate assessments into “Key Issues” for the sake of simplifying what must be addressed to accomplish their objectives. Key Issues are sheltering wings under which a variety of other issues or factors can find a home. In the following diagram and text, I frame three “Key Issues” for transforming marketing, and some (but not all) of the factors they represent.

A Fundamental Assumption: The most important difference between companies that are transforming their marketing practice is their interpretation of the purpose of marketing. In traditional practice marketing is about “selling stuff.” This follows the perception of the purpose of the business, which is to create profit. In firms that are transforming or have transformed marketing, marketing is about creating value for stakeholders – not as a means to an end (profit) but rather as the end in itself. Within this shift, profit is the measurement of how well the organization is achieving that end.

Embracing a Systems Perspective – A competence required for this emerging model is the ability to navigate complexity and engage with diverse, complex, adaptive systems. In transforming marketing, this includes issues such as:

Adopting a Multi-Stakeholder Orientation – In transformed marketing, the organization enlarges its focus from stockholders to stakeholders who include investors, employees, customers, partners and society. The intent is not to “manage” stakeholders but to serve them.

Cross-Functional Collaboration – In the traditional paradigm, marketing is frequently siloed and given increasingly tactical focus. In transformed marketing, value creation for stakeholders (marketing) is everyone’s job and requires cross-functional collaboration across departments – finance, human resources, manufacturing.

Industry Collaboration and Partnerships – Organizations transforming marketing are not isolated competitors seeking dominance and hoarding information. Rather they participate in industry collaborations to advance standards or other initiatives for the benefit of stakeholders.

Reclaiming the Marketing Mix – In traditional practice, marketing has increasingly focused on sales and promotion due to an emphasis on measurement. Organizations that are transforming marketing seek to maximize stakeholder benefit through all aspects of the marketing mix (product, price, promotion, distribution/sales). These marketing decisions may not take place in the marketing department per se but through cross-functional collaboration.

Creating Social Good – A radical departure from serving simply the profit motive, to one that says profit is the measure of how much value or benefit the firm creates for stakeholders. This includes issues such as:

Purpose and Culture Founded on Ethics and Responsibility – There’s a constant focus in these organizations around “doing the right thing,” which begins with purpose and a culture that supports ethical action.

Defining Success Beyond Profit – Financial measures are insufficient determinants of success for many organizations who care deeply about their impacts on the environment, on customers, on employees, vendors and more. Whether it’s two, three, four or more “bottomlines” – transformed marketing evaluates success in more than financial terms.

Organizational “Calling” – Those practicing transformed marketing are guided by goals that serve a shared understanding of the organization’s “calling” or intent to create stakeholder (or world) benefit.

Sharing Power in Exchange Relationships – Transformed marketing seeks to create partnerships with stakeholders in which power is shared. This capacity separates these organizations from those that are merely well intentioned, yet feel entitled to cajole customers into decisions that are “good for them” or to “sell what we make” without meaningful input from the customer or market.

Living the Brand – From one perspective brands are “perceptions” that are created to influence purchase decisions. In organizations practicing transformed marketing, however, the brand IS the company, and the company lives the brand. It’s not perception. It’s reality. Branding campaigns seek to create awareness of that reality, not to create it virtually. Elements of this include:

Brand Rooted in Clear Differentiation Strategy – In transformed marketing the brand is rooted in a solid business model that articulates a long-term strategy for creating value for stakeholders distinct from that of other firms. By contrast, head-to-head competition or competition on perception alone reinforces the vicious cycle of promotion to compete, leading to ethical “trade-offs”, and a firm-centric view.

Operations Aligned to Fulfill Brand Promises – The “operational side of branding” means taking the brand deeply into every aspect of the organization. This requires translating the implications of the brand for the day-to-day functions of departments. Representative questions to ask in this process include: What type of person should we hire to reflect the brand values? How does the brand change what our office looks like? How do I need to share information with other departments in order to help them live the brand?

Commitment to Stakeholder Benefit – The “right thing to do” in a transformed marketing environment is a radical commitment to making sure all aspects of brand execution translate into benefit for stakeholders. This includes ongoing reflection and action concerning methods of creating products/services, their features and benefits, the materials they use and the transparency with which the supply chain is managed.

Continuing The Conversation

Although the era of sustainability shines a brighter light on companies who practice marketing in this way, many companies – including ours and our clients’ – have been marketing in the spirit of the emerging model for years if not decades – long before frameworks for sustainability or the triple bottom line were as accessible as they are today. As more organizations adopt social enterprise models and similar forms that blend mission and revenue creation, transformed marketing offers an approach that better fits their values.

Many of the companies who have been pioneering in this model have done so based on the intuitive conviction that it was simply “the right thing to do.” We are fortunate in this time that research, including the studies referenced above, is confirming their collective hunch that a seemingly radical commitment to marketing that works for all also turns out to be a good way to make money. Many today are trying to approach the triple bottom line from a single-bottom-line perspective. Perhaps now there’s enough empirical research to encourage such firms to explore this emerging model more deeply.

There are many stories to tell and many interrelated ideas to unpack as we continue our own exploration. We’d love to hear from you about your experiences, ideas and questions.

Periods of economic uncertainty and transition place greater demands on organizations to engage in adaptive change processes. As a result, the idea of “what really works” in strategic planning has changed dramatically in the last 15 years.

Added to this are increased employee expectations for engagement, collaboration, and the opportunity to create positive social and environmental outcomes through their work.

• What really works in strategic planning?
• What must clients do to ensure a high quality process and outcome?
• How do we build progressive values for success and meaning into both the strategic planning process itself and the resulting strategic plan?

What Really Works In Strategic Planning?

Following we provide insights about what works in strategic planning, followed by some of the reasons traditional planning may have failed in that regard.

When the strategy is clear to everyone. Strategy needs to be simple enough for anyone in the company to understand.

• Avoid top-down approaches. Many organizations suffer from planning that goes on at the most senior level of the organization and doesn’t integrate wisdom from “the front lines.” Top-down planning also suffers as a result of a lack of understanding and buy-in. The most effective approach is one that combines top-down and bottom up approaches.

• Numbers aren’t the whole story. Strategies that are about hitting particular financial targets alone aren’t really strategies. Financial targets are goals that we want the strategies to deliver.  A strategy is the mobilization of company-wide efforts needed to create the desired outcomes. Financial targets are the “what.” Strategies are the “how.”

• Create shared language. The language of the executive office is often financial, but that doesn’t “translate” very well in other parts of the organization. Using planning tools that create shared language in all departments and levels of the organization helps make the strategy clear.

The strategy is resilient. One common critique of strategic plans is that they are obsolete as soon as they are written. Resilient strategies are based on organizational strengths and assets that have long-term strategic potential.

• Avoid strategies that are “borrowed” from other companies. Some companies try to copy what they see working for their competitors or peers in their industry.  While great ideas can often be picked up from others, successful strategy is based on the unique assets and strengths of each organization.

• Base strategic plans on long-term opportunities, not short-term trends. A very common practice in organizations is to mistake tactical strategies for strategic planning. A short-term market opportunity then replaces organizational mission and strategy. Without balancing short-term and long-term, the organization short-changes itself on profitability and risks creating a culture driven from one crisis to another.

The strategy is fully implemented. Many organizations create reasonable strategies that are not fully implemented. When this happens, one of the following may be occurring.

• Invite people into agreement with the strategy. If the strategy process has not sufficiently included key perspectives in its development, the outcome will likely have opponents. Strategy processes that integrate differing views ultimately create stronger outcomes.

• Translate the strategy to day to day work. For many, the intuitive process of figuring out what strategy means for their work is fun and challenging. For others, it’s asking them to do the impossible.  Creating measurable action steps, and in some cases, metrics and financial targets, is a critical step in strategy implementation.

• Role model at the executive level and follow through. In order to give the strategy a chance, there has to be managerial commitment and follow-through. If the strategy was developed without their buy-in or if the strategy is not robust enough, managers will become fearful that it doesn’t address the reality of today’s challenges. If they face resistance because key perspectives weren’t addressed in planning, they may lose the will to enforce it. If no one seems to get the strategy, they may become frustrated and conclude the strategy “doesn’t work.”

The Client’s Role in Getting a Good Outcome?

Robust strategies that help organizations become more successful and profitable require quality input from the client.  Clients need to consider carefully if they can make these commitments in order to get a better outcome from a planning effort:

• Will you commit a reasonable amount of time? Although many processes take too much time and cost too much, it is also true that you can’t craft a robust, fully articulated organizational strategy and action plan in a weekend retreat with a SWAT analysis and a brainstorming session.  A reasonable amount of time for strategy development is 6 to 9 months. This time frame allows for comprehensive organizational and competitive analysis, as well as client research. During that time, the strategy process should not bring day to day activity to a halt. Rather, the process should feed new information into daily operations on an ongoing basis.

• Will you create opportunities for participation at all levels of the organization? Finding appropriate ways to tap the genius of the entire organization are essential to crafting practical, doable strategies and engaging the entire organization it their implementation.  Strategy design isn’t necessarily a consensus process, but there must be broad input and dialogue. Some of the best strategies and innovations are “stumbled upon” in the initial stages of planning. They sometimes are small, unnoticed or under-valued aspects of the organization that only emerge with broad participation.

• Will you ask clients or customers what they really want? Committing the time and money to conduct client research is essential to strategy design. The primary sources of break-through innovations and thinking are efforts that solve clients’ problems in new and unique ways.  WE all have our own standards of what quality or good work means. It’s important that we not mistake that for what customers or clients truly value. One of the key elements to sound strategy is focusing on what creates perceived value for clients. The only way to find out what creates perceived value for clients is by asking them. Without research, strategy making devolves into guesswork.

Creating Both Success and Meaning Through Strategy

“A path without heart is never enjoyable. You have to work hard even to take it. On the other hand, a path with heart is easy; it does not make you work at liking it.”
-    Carlos Castaneda, The Teachings of Don Juan

Employee loyalty and enthusiasm are two of the greatest strategic assets of any organization. We tap the potential of these assets when organizations serve a purpose that creates meaning for their work.

Organizations can create meaningful engagement in the ways they conduct strategic planning exercises, as well as in how they incorporate values and mission in the resulting plans.

Strategic planning processes can create anxiety and uncertainty, over and above that generated by the changing dynamics that make the planning process necessary. The following elements can help organizations bring out the best in their people as they go about strategic planning processes.

• Collaborative Engagement – Creating opportunities for engagement, dialogue and input from all levels of the organization is essential to creating understanding of and support for strategic plans. It is also the primary way to tap the genius within the organization to find its own solutions.  While we do not conduct planning from a consensus model, we do design ways to get engagement and information efficiently and in ways that make participants feel heard and valued.

• Build On What’s Already Working – Focusing the organization on what’s working creates hope and a foundation upon which to build new strengths. What do clients or customers already really appreciate and want from the organization? What’s the opportunity to leverage existing strengths and capacities for further growth? What are the “stumble upon” initiatives that are working that can be amplified?

Additionally, strategic planning offers an opportunity for organizations to step back and integrate social and environmental values and opportunities into the core business. In 2008, almost 60% of companies surveyed by McKinsey and Company reported that they were integrating environmental and social missions into their core strategy to a greater degree than they were five years prior. Although cost savings and new marketing opportunities motivate some of these initiatives, such practices also attract top talent. “Recruitment and retention consultancies like Kenexa, Hewitt Associates, Robert Half, and Towers Perrin have published figures demonstrating a link between environmentally friendly workplaces and engaged employees,” writes Andree Iffrig, author of Find Your Voice at Work: The Power of Storytelling in the Workplace (Limegrass 2007). Environmental and social values pave the path with heart that employees want to walk.