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

“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

Following a recent Special Report by the Wall Street Journal, commentators had a field day with columnist Dr. Aneel Karnani’s assertion that the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility is fundamentally flawed.  Many of the comments pointed out that not only was his analysis fundamentally flawed, it was the “same ole, same ole” whateverness we’ve been hearing from free market idealogs for the last 15-20 years.

Karnani, who is Professor of Strategy at the University of Michigan’s Stephen M Ross School of Business, asserts that all CSR initiatives have to “pencil out” financially before they are embraced by CEOs. “Pleas for corporate social responsibility will be truly embraced only by those executives who are smart enough to see that doing the right thing is a byproduct of their pursuit of profit. And that renders such pleas pointless.” See the article here.

Based on the interviews that Pat Hughes and I did for her study: “The Leadership of Sustainability,” and my work with clients, my perspective is that engagement with CSR or sustainability evolves.  Some leaders we spoke with started with a “because it’s the right thing to do” mentality. They kept their experiments small to see if they would hurt or help them financially. If it didn’t hurt, they kept going. In businesses where CSR or sustainability was not baked in from the beginning, it is developmental, occurring in stages.  As a result, early experiments have to be either revenue positive or at the least revenue neutral.

However, there are many firms who find that holding objectives for financial, social and environmental benefit simultaneously creates a crucible for innovation. They have broken away from the either/or thinking represented in Karnani’s article, and are now in the territory of Third Way thinking. Third Way thinking goes beyond hierarchical rankings of choices, one being the better “good” than another. Instead, it “holds the tension” between competing “goods” until a new solution appears that honors all of them. Harvard Business Review even published an entire special edition last summer about CSR and sustainability as drivers of innovation, citing breakthroughs of over 30 companies.

So, what is the Wall Street Journal’s problem? Commentators responding to the article repeatedly questioned the lack of balanced perspective, and a pattern of editorial bias against values-based management approaches. Companies every day are proving Karnani wrong with their actions. Is the Journal simply blind to the evidence? Or are the editors ignoring the firms who are doing well by  “doing good”  because they seem to be “outliers” rather than  mainstream. If they are intentionally disregarding outliers, then they do their readers a disservice because it’s in the outliers where the seeds of breakthrough innovations are sown.

A Theory, That is Mine*, About Mainstreaming

*That builds on someone else’s theory

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld

Imagine a bell curve (or Ann Elk’s theory of a brontosaurus) which is very thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again on the other end.  On the far left point is a small group called “innovators.” To the right of the innovators are the “early adopters.” In the much, much thicker part we find first the “early majority.” As the thicker part begins to decline again we find the “late majority,” and finally at the thin-again part we have the “laggards.”

You may have heard the term “crossing the chasm” and wondered what it meant. It’s an insight that builds on the bell curve described above, which was the work of Everett Rogers , author of “Diffusion of Innovations.” Geoffrey Moore, who penned the book “Crossing the Chasm,” used Rogers’ work to help market new  technology. Moore’s book centers on a key insight that applies to many types of change, including – my theory — sustainability in business.

Innovators snatch up new technology even before it comes on the market. Moore says they do this because “technology is a central interest in their life.” Early adopters, like innovators, are able to quickly perceive the potential benefit of new technology for their lives. They look to innovators as guides for what is worth trying.  The early majority also relates well to technology, but tends to be more selective. Its members need references and proof of concept before they invest. The critical point Moore highlighted is that winning the early majority is the key to profit and growth. Yet, insofar as many technology firms are made up of innovators and early adopters, it’s often hard for them to relate and sell to those who don’t share their passion.

Proponents of sustainability may face a similar challenge. The innovators – the Body Shop, Ben & Jerry’s, Tom’s of Maine – and locally Harriet Bullitt’s Sleeping Lady Mountain Retreat – were those for whom sustainability was a central interest of their life. They inspired the early adopters — Seventh Generation, Fetzer Wines, Whole Foods,  and others  –   many of which are now at scale and thriving. The next step beyond the second wave is to increase sustainability in traditional firms – to create the early majority.

But watch out for that chasm. The next step is a doozy. As Moore points out, a wide gulf separates the first two groups – innovators and early adopters – from the early majority, and the gulf has to do with motivation.  Innovators and early adopters love sustainability for its own sake. The terminology they use is “because it’s the right thing to do.” They want the potential early majority to love sustainability the same way they do, but the early majority doesn’t share their passion. As Moore says in his book, innovators and early adopters want revolution; early majorists want evolution.  They want proof that something works.  The chasm is built on these differences. To further sustainability, we need to find a way to bridge the chasm.

Three things will help:

Discernment. Companies that are just starting out are not going to be exemplary. They’re going to start small. The business community and media need to encourage nascent attempts and not crush them with premature accusations of greenwashing.

Empathy. A colleague of mine recently started a Seattle-based solar nonprofit. She came from a traditional business background but had an infectious passion for evangelizing solar energy. Members of the green community to whom she reached out for help treated her like an outsider.  The ability to take the perspective of others, understand their  frame of reference  is a critical success factor for creating change.

Experience. The early majority cares about what works in operating a business. The motivational bridge is the business case. In this regard, the best thing innovators and early adopters can do is share their stories of achieving and sustaining their own profitability, and how sustainability contributed to their success.

In a recently released MIT Sloan Management Review, most of the 1,500 executives interviewed didn’t have a business case for sustainability in their organizations.  Most said sustainability initiatives in their firms were a response to regulatory pressures. Regulation plays a crucial role in catalyzing change, but ultimately it only goes so far. Winning hearts and minds is the key to sustainability adoption, and that begins with meeting and respecting people where they are.

—-

Kathleen Hosfeld (Ms.) is a strategy and marketing consultant. She has a second theory.

“After” Approaches Emphasize Stakeholders, Systems Perspective and “Third Way” Thinking

By Kathleen M. Hosfeld (with Jenny Mish)

Thousands of sustainability oriented startups are creating game-changing innovations in products, services, industry partnerships, supply chain management and more as they seek to integrate values of social justice and environmental stewardship into their business practices.

As startups, they represent one part of the new sustainability economy. The other side is existing “traditional” businesses seeking to integrate sustainability into both the culture and business processes at the same time. For the former group, the challenge is making it work without a roadmap. For the latter, it’s creating change in systems that seem to have worked “just fine” before sustainability came along.

Until recently, there hasn’t been much recognition of the role that marketing can play in furthering sustainability. Superficial promotional claims of green characteristics of products and services in the 1980s — what’s now known as “green washing” — actually created something of setback for the sustainability movement. Today, marketing functions – such as product design or supply chain transparency– that are critical to success may not – in some organizations – have been seen as part of marketing.

As more organizations have succeeded in integrating sustainability, marketing researchers and people in the field are noticing an emerging picture of what sustainability oriented marketing looks like.

Jenny Mish, a doctoral candidate in marketing at the University of Utah, and I saw the outlines of this emerging picture in data she gathered as a part of her doctoral work. She completed a study of “Exemplary Triple Bottom Line Companies,” in the summer of 2007. She identified several themes emerging as characteristic of marketing in sustainability oriented companies:

• They view their situations through a complex, systems perspective – highlighting interrelationships of components and stakeholders
• They take a long-term triple bottom line approach – finding third-way solutions instead of creating trade-offs between goals
• They engage a broad array of stakeholders
• They integrate full-cycle product (or service) costs into their understanding of what creates value and relevance for customers
• They emphasize relational, trust-based communications and sales approaches

Many of these organizations express these characteristics as “authenticity” – saying they reflect their values (“This is who we are”). Comparing Jenny’s interview data with my consulting experience in the field, we have created a series of polarity diagrams that demonstrate the contrast between marketing that is not at all sustainability oriented and marketing that fully embraces sustainability. This comparison begins to create some guidelines for those companies who want to practice sustainability oriented marketing. This offers a picture of what they might or should be striving for.

Marketing “Before” And “After” Sustainability

This series of three diagrams contrasts a simplistic, single-bottom line oriented approach to marketing with a complex, triple-bottom-line approach to sustainability marketing:

• It’s important to stress that the two ends of the spectrum do not exist in pure forms. The right side of each diagram actually represents a collage of sustainability oriented marketing“best practices.”
• We suspect that lower profitability on the left side is the result of a more limited marketing skill set that coincides with a simplistic approach.

Figure 1. Managerial Orientation

To make a transition to sustainability oriented marketing, the values and perspectives of sustainability must be reflected at the top. Although some studies show that sustainability efforts can “start from the middle,” – marketers need agreement and support from other managers to make sustainability a
priority. Without this, the pressure on marketers to drive only short-term sales targets will create either/or situations where marketers are forced to choose between profit and sustainability goals. Figure 1 contrasts the managerial orientation of the two ends of the spectrum.

Figure 2. Relationships with Stakeholders

What we see in organizations that make this transition is that at some point the expectation of the marketing function flips. The extreme polarity on the left represents marketing as strictly the job of “selling.” (Again it’s important to stress that the two ends of the spectrum are not descriptions of actual businesses, but rather extreme points of view.) At some point, exemplary organizations pursuing a triple bottom line demonstrate a perspective that marketing is the stewardship of relationships in the context of assumed reciprocity. They certainly don’t remove the sales imperative from the table. However,marketing is charged with accomplishing the goals of the organization for sales, profit and mission by providing superior benefit and relevance to not just customers alone but also to other stakeholders.

Figure 2 depicts the key relationships of which marketers become stewards in a sustainability oriented setting.

Figure 3. How Stakeholder Relationships are Stewarded

The final figure demonstrates how various aspects of marketing practice – from budgeting to research to pricing to promotion – change in character when the purpose of marketing shifts from “selling stuff” to “stewarding relationships.”

What we notice in this chart is that a much higher degree of marketing sophistication is required to practice marketing from a stewardship perspective. For example, whereas many organizations do not have a defined approach to pricing – for example, they price intuitively based on what the market will
bear – sustainability oriented organizations must develop the capacity to measure the full cycle cost of a product or service and base their pricing accordingly.

The approach to market intelligence or customer research also changes. On the left, consumers are studied so that their needs can be addressed in sales and promotion. Sustainability oriented marketers, on the other hand, seek to foster ongoing dialogue with customers and other stakeholders. It’s considered a continuous conversation, where even “co-creation” may take place when that is valuable on both sides.

Another characteristic that was noted from Jenny’s study is that in sustainability oriented marketing, marketing functions and expertise are dispersed throughout the organization. Marketing – or rather stewardship of stakeholder relationships – is “everyone’s job.” It’s important to note that many companies who haven’t consciously adopted sustainability principles yet practice a high degree of ethics and have high standards for authenticity and trust in customer and other stakeholder relationships. We sense that these companies are well placed on the continuum toward the right hand side of the polarity diagrams even if the ideas of social justice and environmental stewardship are not yet part of their corporate consciousness.

What Does All This Mean?

For those companies who are already embracing sustainability, this comparison of “before” and “after” may identify new areas to deepen their practice. For those who are just getting started, leaders in organizations may want to take note of the following:

• Marketers need to be supported in integrating sustainability and its values into their practices. They may need to be challenged to hold financial, social and environmental goals simultaneously. Or they may need assurance from the top that the company is serious about measuring success by all three.
• Marketers may also need to be challenged to think and act from a systems perspective. They need to be supported and trained to look for “third way” solutions rather than seeing multiple bottom lines as areas for trade-offs. In the end this may pay off in innovation. The ability to hold multiple objectives simultaneously and search for the “third way” has led, in the past, to new products and services, as well as more efficient manufacturing and delivery systems.
• The overall marketing skill of the organization must be enhanced. Marketers should receive professional development in areas where they may lack experience. A sense of “stewardship of relationships” should be fostered in the company as a whole so that sustainability oriented marketing becomes “everyone’s job.”

A “printer friendly” version of this article, with larger graphics, is available here.