Listening: A Strategy and Change Blog | Hosfeld & Associates

By Kathleen Hosfeld

One of the things that makes a significant difference in the quality of strategic planning is the extent to which the process is informed by objective information. Too often processes can become thinly veiled exercises that reinforce dominant opinion or intuition alone. While intuition is an important tool for planning, it needs to be fed by facts.

A good strategic discussion or planning process will look for facts to answer the following questions.

Who are our competitors or collaborators? What are they experiencing? These questions are answered by an environmental analysis or environmental scan.

Is our mission/vision still resonating internally and externally? What do our employees think? What do our customers or other key audiences think about our mission or vision? Is it still relevant? These questions are answered through dialogue and surveys about mission and vision.

What is happening in our industry? What is no longer happening? What’s starting to happen? How can these changes be measured? This information is explored through review of industry trends and benchmarks.

What do we want to do? How can we measure that? Setting measurable organizational performance outcomes creates a target that guides strategic discussions.

How well are we doing now? Evaluating current performance against target outcomes (above) gives the organization objective information about the gap between current and desired performance.

How do our most important audiences see our challenges and opportunities? Interviews, surveys and focus groups with stakeholder groups provide much needed perspective and often unexpected insights that can fuel the strategic planning process.

How do our conflicts, obstacles or challenges give us an opportunity for innovation? Many organizations see tensions or obstacles as either/or problems. The opportunity for strategic innovation comes from holding the tension between two opposing views until a third (and sometimes more) option appears.

A recent study of strategic planning among non-profit organizations suggests that high performing organizations are more than twice as likely to include the types of evidence-gathering described above. Whether you are a non-profit or for-profit, the degree to which your process uses objective information for decision-making and innovation will make a difference in the value you realize from strategy and execution.

See Related Article on Non-Profit Strategic Planning

By Kathleen Hosfeld

As challenging as it is to find time to create and implement strategic plans, new research reinforces that it’s one of the keys to organizational success. Consistent strategic planning and implementation monitoring practices make the difference between moderately and highly successful non-profit
organizations according to a study presented in 2013 at the annual meeting of the Association for Strategic Planning.

The University of Arkansas study surveyed close to 500 non-profits ranging in size from less than $1 million Annual Operating Expenses to greater than $5 million. Non-profits scored themselves on their success level (Low, Moderate, High) on the basis of their overall success and likelihood of success in the future.  What can you learn from their findings?

1. Don’t wait until there’s a crisis

According to the study, 60% self-described Low Success non-profits engage strategic planning reactively when there is either a significant risk or an opportunity, whereas 74% of High Success organizations engage in strategic planning as a matter of routine.

2. Research, metrics and mission/vision discussion key to effective planning

 High Success organizations are twice as likely to integrate evidence-based decision-making (through the use of research), metrics (performance outcomes, industry benchmarks) and mission/vision analysis into their processes. They are far more likely than their counterparts to engage stakeholders via interviews, focus groups or surveys.

3. Follow-through makes the difference

 It’s true in for-profit organizations as well:  Realization of strategic value comes through implementation. While 64% of Moderate Success non-profits had done either a somewhat successful or very successful job at implementation, 88% of High Success organizations had done “somewhat” or “very” successful implementation.

4. Regular progress evaluation and reporting against plan are associated with high success

High Success organizations were more than twice as likely as Medium Success organizations to engage in 1) progress updates in executive staff meetings, 2) annual review of mission/vision alignment with plan, and 3) periodic assessment and reporting. High Success organizations assess and report plan progress at least 3 to 4 times a year or more.

All organizations, small and large, struggle with aspects of strategic planning and implementation according to study. Time is a major consideration. 46% of the High Success organizations say lack of time is a challenge in the planning process; 33.8% say that staff is spread too thin to focus on plan implementation.  In what may seem counter-intuitive, the Higher Success organizations are more likely than Moderate Success organizations to report time constraints associated with both planning and implementation.

Medium Success organizations have different challenges that may also affect their overall success. They report a lack of high-level strategic thinking by leadership (37%) and higher resistance to making hard choices (35%) twice as frequently as High Success counterparts.

The study authors conclude that High Success non-profits have a “culture of planning” that involves a commitment and discipline for planning and implementation.  The evidence of the importance of planning to organizational success from this and other studies is so compelling that the authors recommend that funders emphasize these practices as a means to fulfilling mission.

What you should consider:

• Develop a planning culture that is committed and disciplined about periodic strategic planning and implementation
• Utilize research, metrics and mission/vision alignment tools as part of the planning
• Create an implementation process that involves regular progress reports to the executive level
• Communicate out progress at least quarterly if not more often to key constituents

The study report can be found here.

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld

“We don’t have time to be strategic, Kathleen!”

That’s the tongue-in-cheek greeting I get whenever I touch base with one of our clients.  It’s a sentiment that many executives probably share.  Yet it always reminds me of Hall of Famer John Wooden’s quote: “If you don’t have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?”  If you have the chance to do it over.

According to a research by Chris Bradley and colleagues, reported by McKinsey, most companies fail to meet even three of ten standards for good strategy.  These standards include the following:

• Will your strategy beat the market?
• Does it tap a source of advantage?
• Does it put you ahead of trends?
• Is there conviction to act on the strategy?
• Is it translated into an action plan?

Their research suggests a strong case for companies’ need to spend more time on strategy formulation.   The challenge is “right-sizing” the strategy process for the time you have without sacrificing the quality of the thinking.

If time is short, then strategy processes have to be strategic themselves and focus on what is essential. Three of the insights from the Bradley article, “Managing the Strategy Journey” point to these essentials. First, strategy requires the engagement of a cross-functional team of executives across silos. Second, there’s typically an intensive effort at the beginning to clarify strategy followed by a disciplined ongoing process of refinement and implementation.  Third, the intensive process at the beginning needs to result in all members of the strategy counsel creating a shared understanding of 1) where they are, 2) what will happen if nothing changes, and the 3) compelling future state to which they aspire.

There are several ways to engage the intensive effort at the front end. Bradley describes a process of spending 2-4 hours each week or every other week engaged in a structured strategy conversation.  He and co-authors recommend spending as much time on strategy as is spent on operational issues.  The strategy process is then integrated into the annual process of forecasting tied to the budgeting.

A different approach to the intensive front-end piece is to structure a series of executive intensives, possibly 2 to 3 two-day meetings, with homework between sessions.  These then can also be integrated into forecasting and budgeting.

While the Bradley article describes a process appropriate for large corporate clients, the basic insights of the article captured above, and the two approaches to structuring the process can be tailored to work-teams and middle-market size organizations. Experiment with what works for your organization.

For additional inspiration, you can read the entire Strategy Journey article here.

It refers to an earlier article on classic tests of a strategy which was published last year.  That article along with links to a wealth of supporting resources is here.

What are the best practices that make strategy work in an organization?

When the strategy is clear to everyone. The strategy needs to be simple enough for anyone in the company to understand. Fostering clarity involves the following:

• 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.

When the strategy is resilient. One common critique of strategy processes is that they create plans that are quickly obsolete. Resilient strategies are based on organizational strengths and assets that have long-term strategic potential. This involves the following:

• 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.

When 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 the perspectives of those who will execute the strategy, 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 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 no one seems to get the strategy, they may become frustrated and conclude the strategy “doesn’t work.”

Think about the last strategic planning process you went through. Was it energizing? Did it create breakthroughs with lasting impact on the organization? Did it tap the creativity of the planning team? If it did, it’s likely that your process went beyond traditional planning techniques to tap the potential of the artistic mind. It was likely more like a strategy design session than a strategic planning session.

What’s the difference?

Effective strategy design calls on us to engage the artistic mind – capable of pattern recognition, synthesis, story, empathy, play and meaning-making – to create compelling futures that inspire adaptive change. In our Strategy Jazz workshop, we explore an archetypal pattern of human creativity through the eyes of jazz musicians to see ways we can get greater outcomes from strategy processes.

Strategy Jazz will be presented at the OSR (Organizational Systems Renewal) alumni conference at Seattle University, June 19, 2010, but can also be adapted for on-sites, retreats and other conferences.

Through this workshop, we invite participants to shift their mental model of strategy design from a linear “planning” model to an innovation-based approach that taps the artistic, intuitive mind.

Using conversations with jazz recording artists Greta Matassa and Jovino Santos Neto, we take participants on a guided tour of the elements of jazz improvisation, laying down an archetypal pattern that repeats itself in our approach to strategic innovation for businesses and other organizations.

The OSR Conference explores the emerging field of arts in the design and leadership of change. For more information about the OSR Conference or to register, please visit the event website. To find out about options for presenting this workshop for your own organization, please contact us. Additional information is also available here.

By Ron Benton and Kathleen Hosfeld

With a global economy in slow recovery and many businesses fighting for survival, what is the significance of sustainability thought, practices, and execution in shaping a better and more prosperous world?  A just-released comprehensive global study conducted by MIT’s Sloan Management Review and partners provides some revealing and reassuring answers including the following:

• Sustainability is continuing to have a material impact on how companies think and act
• Sustainability is surviving the downturn
• Most firms are not decisively acting on the opportunities presented by sustainability
• A small number of firms are capitalizing on the opportunities and reaping the rewards.

What do these findings mean for you and your organization?  In general, the findings affirm that thoughtful investments in sustainability will positively differentiate early adopters in their industries.  The specifics depend on the issues your organization faces and where you and your firm are in your evolution of adopting and benefiting from sustainability practices.

The study also supports our assertion that engagement in sustainability has a developmental aspect to it.  It says that those who have experience in sustainability see more clearly the business case and strategic benefits it can offer. Those with less experience don’t have a clear sense of the business case for sustainability.  This suggests that a good way to explore sustainability is through a well-designed pilot. Well-crafted sustainability strategy projects can help companies explore the potential benefits of sustainability in ways that create value over the long and short term.
Read the MIT Sloan Management Report “The Business of Sustainability.”

Hosfeld & Associates and Ron Benton & Associates work together to offer services to help companies thrive in the sustainability economy. Additional details are available here.

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld

Companies engage in sustainability initiatives in stages.  Starting small, and usually with operations-oriented steps, companies’ first experience with sustainability is focused on saving money.  Creating new revenues from sustainability happens at deeper stages of engagement.  At these deeper stages, marketing, which may have been only peripherally involved before, now plays a strategic role in creating new opportunities to fulfill sustainability’s potential to the company and to stakeholders.

We’ve written before about the various stage models of sustainability engagement and how marketing shows up at each stage. In the early stages, when companies are experimenting with waste, energy and resource management issues, their focus is on cost savings. This doesn’t translate well to marketing action, although in some rare cases, such as Cisco’s used equipment recycling program, it can become a new line of business.

Changes in the environmental features of products and services that occur in the middle stages of sustainability engagement can prompt marketing departments to redefine their respective value propositions. They can also activate marketing’s promotional, publicity and public affairs capacities to manage perceptions around green washing (allegations of superficial claims of environmental benefits).

At the deeper levels of sustainability engagement, where companies seek to fully integrate sustainability into product and service design and business model development, marketing plays a strategic role. At this stage, the ability to research and interpret customer wants and needs is essential to tapping the top line potential of the commitment to sustainability. It’s a significant opportunity for marketing to make a strategic contribution to the direction and focus of the organization.

Team-Based Innovation Planning: Baking it In

Up to this point, the changes the company has been undergoing are technical changes. You can hire a consultant to help you conduct a lifecycle analysis, measure your carbon footprint, advise on resource, energy and waste strategies.  But redesigning and re-imagining whole products, services and lines of business from a sustainability standpoint is “adaptive change.” At this stage, sustainability has been bolted on, now the task is to bake it in from scratch. It’s probably not something that anyone in the organization has done before. As a result, executives assembling and commissioning teams to do this work need to consider how best to convene, commission, guide and support them.

Start from the Future – In the September 2009 edition of Harvard Business Review, R. Nidumolu, C.K. Prahalad, and M.R. Rangaswami write about research they have conducted with 30 companies integrating sustainability into their operations. “Don’t start from the present,” they advise.  Rather, start from a desired future state and work back. When Hosfeld & Associates works with clients on these issues we like to start with the question: “What is the change we want to see in the world because of our work?” What business should we be in as a result?

Feed the Process With New Insights – At this stage of sustainability engagement, customers and other stakeholders can play a co-creative role. Effective design and implementation of customer and stakeholder research can tap insights that will feed the innovation process. Marketing specialists on the innovation team best help other departments interpret research and learn how to understand customer needs.  Great ideas can also come from anywhere in the organization.  Effective approaches to sustainability innovation will tap the hidden genius of the organization.

Build Engagement From the Start — The result of the planning process will be a strategy that must be implemented. As my colleague Ron Benton says “to be effective, strategy has to be constructed and owned by those who execute it.” This means creating cross-functional teams across organizational silos that can work together to solve complex problems. It also means creating opportunities for engagement during the planning process with those who may not participate directly in it.

Mitigate the Challenges of Change – As an adaptive process, strategic sustainability innovation has the potential to create anxiety. It’s important to anticipate the anxiety of change and provide innovation teams with new tools. Building the team’s capacity to have fearless, frank and authentic dialogue and move quickly through areas of disagreement is fundamental. This means using conflict and resistance as tools for learning. Clear objectives and metrics can also provide guidance and support for making good decisions, assuring engagement and supporting execution.

Keep It Moving – If the goal is competitive advantage, strategic sustainability innovation can’t get hung up on internal turf squabbles, or get squashed by the tyranny of day to day operations. Organizations seeking this type of advantage must support teams with clear direction and the resources to keep it a top priority.

——————

If you are interested in knowing more about how to integrate marketing’s capacity for innovation with your sustainability initiative, please contact us.

Check out the Sustainability and Innovation edition “How Green Will Save Us” Harvard Business Review

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld

Creating improvement in performance, marketing or otherwise, usually involves change. Many of us are keenly interested in any thing that creates positive change faster and with lasting results. So, I was intrigued when I  read that the science of neuroplasticity has some implications for how individuals and organizations can change. The headline: Focus on Solutions Instead of Problems.

This is something I thought I already knew. In the spring of 2007, we worked with a non-profit board focused on generating earned income from events. In researching what would increase attendance at their events, we tapped market research that explored how similar organizations and similar events elsewhere managed to do well. But one board member was flummoxed. “Why didn’t you research why people don’t come?” he asked.

We had, in fact, studied the surveys that talked about reasons people don’t attend events like his. In fact, the Executive Director of the organization had ordered and studied three white papers on why organizations like theirs had failed. I read those, as well as national studies on the challenges of similar organizations.

In order to turn things around, we had chosen instead to look at best practices of what others had done to solve their problem. What solutions were out there? What was already working? Having practiced “appreciative” approaches like this to marketing for quite some time, I was pleased to learn this fall that the implications of neuroplasticity for creating change in organizations supports this approach. The study of neuroplasticity concerns how the brain can and can’t be “rerouted” to support new ways of thinking and behaving.

According to an article in the Autumn 2007 Special Edition of Strategy + Business, focusing on a problem (“why does this keep happening?”) builds stronger neural pathways associated with the problem. An appropriate metaphor might be that it wears the ruts deeper in the existing road. Making new ideas possible (and new behavior) starts with focusing on solutions instead (“what will create a different outcome?”). Focusing attention on solutions helps build the short-cut between the road we’ve been on and the road we want to be on. So, focusing on solutions that are working is a faster way to create change.
While the non-profit I worked with did not ultimately adopt all the best practices we identified, the result of the assessment was hope. They had previously convinced themselves that their prospects were small. Now they had compelling evidence that others similar to them were making similar transitions and accomplishing their goals.  Compelled by this hope and a vision of greater possibility than they had imagined, they were able to chart a new course, recruit a new Executive Director and embark on a more successful program.
Focusing what you want to achieve, and new solutions to get there, are the keys to faster change and faster marketing results. The full article on Neuroplasticity is here at the Strategy + Business website:  You must register to read it but registration is free.

Organizations Can Experience the Stress of Change When Implementing New Branding or Marketing Strategies

The dynamics of change are challenging for any organization.  Whether reacting to change or initiating change, the ambiguity and fear of the unknown that go with change create anxiety.  It’s made worse when leaders don’t acknowledge that the experience of change is as important to manage as the actual mechanics of doing business differently. The change doesn’t have to be a merger, down-sizing or process engineering to have significant impact. It can be as simple as creating a new marketing program.

In my work helping clients to explore, identify and implement new marketing strategies I’ve seen the effects of change in a variety of circumstances:

• Addressing declining revenue in a down market
• Implementing a new marketing plan during the transition of senior leadership
• Adopting a new brand strategy as the CEO made unannounced plans to leave
• Developing a new strategic direction when an artistic director and an executive director were fighting for control of an arts non-profit

The lessons that are emerging from these and other experiences reinforce a number of best practices of change management. Emotionally-intelligent and systems-oriented practices help carry organizations more successfully through change.

See the Whole System – A systems perspective is one that recognizes that our current situation is the result of the interaction of multiple elements. There are many lenses through which to see and define the elements of a system. One, the integral model, suggests that there are subjective and objective aspects of human systems. Objective elements are those that can be demonstrated and observed. Subjective elements are thoughts, beliefs and feelings.  Many organizations seek to drive change by attending only to the objective elements. Increasingly however, they are finding that success comes from attending to the subjective ideas, beliefs, passions and perspectives taken by individuals and shared culturally. Attending to those subjective areas – the “soft” stuff – means taking care of the emotional side of change.

William Bridges is known for his simple but useful model that highlights the emotional challenges of change. Organizations beginning a change start with an Ending. From there they move into a Neutral Zone where there is an intentional effort to move to a new end goal. Arrival at that end goal constitutes a New Beginning.

For organizations or individuals who have had change forced upon them, the first phase, Endings, is a phase of grief and loss. Time must be spent at this stage of change to recognize what is ending, and notice what is not ending.  For those who are initiating the change, there may be less unwanted loss, but something must be given up in order to move forward. As painful as this time can be, the next phase, the Neutral Zone, can be even more challenging. In the Neutral Zone, we enter the unknown, a time of new learning, where risks must be taken to find solutions that take the organization toward its goal.

Acknowledge and Mitigate Anxiety — Organizations facing the unknown experience anxiety. The members in these organizations act out their anxiety in a variety of ways. Finger-pointing, blame-shifting, detachment, passive aggression, aggression, and scapegoating are among the behaviors that show up in the Neutral Zone. Trust, or lack of trust, can be a significant factor in change. Many are suspicious of who is behind the change and who will benefit the most. A lack of clear leadership will bring out aggression as individuals seek to impose a sense of order. Perhaps most important to notice is a tendency to personalize the anxiety of change and make friction or problems experienced in the change process a particular individual’s fault.

A variety of techniques can be used to address these behaviors if they arise during the implementation of a new marketing strategy or program. Perhaps the most important step to mitigate anxiety is openly acknowledging it and providing safe places for that anxiety to be expressed.

Leadership Sets the Tone – How is the top leader (or leaders) in the change reacting? Are they anxious? Are they risk-averse? Do they love learning new things and taking on new challenges? If the leader is anxious, the organization will be anxious. If the leader is not clear, his or her direct reports will be unclear. They will believe he or she has a plan and just isn’t telling them what it is. If the leader feels comfortable taking risks and making mistakes, he or she will make that okay for everyone else. That’s important because transformational and adaptive change means stepping into the unknown. Mistakes will be made. That’s how we learn the new way.

So, leaders in change must be aware of their own receptivity to change. Those that are anxious should find outside resources for support and not expect emotional reassurance from their employees. Those leaders who thrive in change need to be sensitive to those who are less comfortable and not label them as “the resistance.”   Frequent communication about the change, clarifying where the organization is in the change process, and providing hope for a positive outcome are some of the greatest gifts leaders can give in a transition.

A more detailed unpacking of the Bridges model will provide additional insights for organizations going through change. John Kotter’s model for leading change in organizations also provides a series of action steps leaders can use to address the points above as they plan and manage the change.

At some point in the lives of many of America’s newspapers, their purpose shifted. Many went from seeking to “empower a democratic society with a free press” to “delivering an audience to advertisers.”

We in the Seattle area watched this month as nearly three decades of changes in the newspaper industry brought down the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. It would be simplistic to say that loss of the original purpose was the turning point in the newspaper industry’s demise. Many complex factors including the rise of the Internet have contributed to their current dire circumstances.

While many reporters and editors remained motivated by the ideal of a free press, their management was focused on a specific form of revenue creation (selling advertising) which did not allow newspapers to adapt as the market has changed.

Ted Levitt made this point years ago in his famous “Marketing Myopia” article: adapting over time means focusing on the evolving needs of customers, not selling a particular business model. Holding fast to the importance of a free press as an agent of enlightened democracy might have helped newspapers cling less tightly to the advertising paradigm and evolve their revenue models in service of the greater purpose.

A focus on how we seek to make the world a better place helps companies stay clear and resilient in troubled times.  When economic conditions are volatile, business models focused on purpose provide clarity about what needs to change and what should never change in the business. This focus on purpose does four things for an organization:

• Provides a strategic focal point for aligning all aspects of the organization
• Creates the basis for powerful, trust-based marketing
• Establishes a foundation for positive corporate culture, and
• Taps the motivation and passion of employees and other stakeholders.

According to an article in the February 12 Gallup Management Journal, it’s more critical than ever that businesses and customers know what companies stand for.

The article describes the work of GSD&M Idea City in Austin Texas, a branding agency, as it helped Southwest Airlines describe their purpose. While many see Southwest as simply the low-cost provider, for founder Herb Kelleher, the point is making air travel accessible. The agency gave him the language to describe his purpose: “democratizing the skies.”

A friend of Hosfeld & Associates, Kip Gregory, author of Winning Clients in a Wired World, also runs a purpose-driven business. He works with clients to help them tap the enormous potential of the Internet and everyday technology to make their businesses more profitable. For Kip, the Internet is a banquet and many businesses can’t find the door in.

In talking with Kip about his purpose, I paraphrased: “You’re not in the technology business, Kip, you’re in the abundance business. Hundreds of the resources you share with clients are free, and yet they offer the opportunity for breakthroughs in productivity and profits.”

Kip is successful because people recognize he’s not a geek who loves technology (not that there’s anything wrong with being a technology-loving geek); but a client champion who uses technology to make them more successful.

Studies suggest that purpose-driven businesses outperform companies without a purpose. Southwest Airlines is one of several firms cited in the book Firms of Endearment, which describes the characteristics and performance of companies committed to a purpose. Firms of Endearment (or FoEs) that they studied returned a 1,026 percent for investors over the 10 years ending June 30, 2006, compared to a 122 percent return for the S&P 500.

Companies with purpose are not immune to economic downturns. Some of the firms described in the book, including Harley Davidson, have taken significant hits in the last several months. Yes, further studies suggest that companies committed to purpose recover more quickly after economic challenges.

Companies with purpose, those that take a stand and build their business on making the world a better place, stand out with consumers. They foster trust and loyalty. Companies with loyal customers succeed in good markets, and have more going for them in difficult times.

If you’d like to find out how to align your organization’s operations and brand around a compelling purpose, please contact us.