Listening: A Strategy and Change Blog | Hosfeld & Associates

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Over a Christmas holiday in 2004, I was working on an article that describes the strategy framework we use at Hosfeld & Associates.  As I often did, I shared my draft with my dad, Bob Hosfeld, a retired Alcoa executive, whose perspective always expanded my awareness on any topic we discussed.

There were two key questions in the model at the time:

• What is the change we want to create in the world with our work?  This question spoke to the larger purpose and intention of the company.
• What are the means we will use to create this change? This question speaks to the particular strategy the company will employ to create this change. What is the work it is uniquely positioned to do?

So far so good, I thought.  Dad, however, replied to the effect: “This is all well and good, but it won’t matter at all to the rank and file.”

“What do you mean Dad?”

My father had worked his way up through the executive ranks at Alcoa by first working at smelting facilities in Washington state. Aluminum smelters take the ingredients of aluminum, melt them down and form the basic products that are sent off for further shaping or fabrication.  What came to his mind were the men and women who worked the “potlines,” doing hard physical labor, with the potential for injury, day-in, day-out.

“Your questions are for the white collar people at the top.  What the person on the potline cares about is relationships.  Can I go to the break room at lunchtime and sit with people I like and trust? If I’m injured, will the company care for me and help me get back to work?”

“So for them it’s about how we treat each other in the workplace?”

Dad agreed. This gave birth to the third question in the model :

• How do we want to be together as we do this work?

I published the article we worked on in 2005 just before Dad passed away. Much has changed since then in terms of the expectations that people have toward their work. Increasingly more employees expect their employer to have a purpose that transcends profit alone. They do care about the first two questions more than they once did.

Yet, lately I’ve been realizing the genius of Dad’s contribution to the model.  Too often an inspirational purpose is designed only for the benefit of customers “out there.”  While that’s important, it forgets that one of the largest impacts a company can have is on its employees. Translating our noble purpose into values that we intend to live out every day within the company does two things.  First, it gives us a way to “be” the change we seek to create in the world.  Second, it creates the authenticity that comes from “walking the talk.”   When employees see it, they believe it.  When it matters to them personally, they see how it can matter to the customers they serve.  They are then more compelled to live it themselves.

Brand, strategy or purpose. They all suggest values to which we aspire and seek to live out.  Claiming and institutionalizing these values is the way to make the change we seek here and now.

By Kathleen Hosfeld

You may call it the triple bottom line, sustainable, green, conscious, responsible or worthy business. Underlying the labels is a common commitment to maximizing value for multiple stakeholders including the community and the environment.  Research continues to show the approach pays off. Financially.

Many people find their motivation for “good” business in an instinctive or intuitive desire to “make a difference,” even if it risks lowering profitability. In the early days of so-called green business, most mainstream business owners and executives saw efforts to manage environmental and social concerns as expensive indulgences that would ultimately cost money and possibly competitiveness.  That perception has shifted as organizations realize meaningful cost savings and risk mitigation from entry level commitments to waste and energy reductions.

But the strategic upside potential of a values-based, stakeholder approach is growing increasingly clear thanks to books like Good Company: Business Success in the Worthiness Era by Laurie Bassi, Ed Frauenheim, and Dan McMurrrer  with Larry Costello.  The book travels many of the same paths of the book Firms of Endearment, by Rajendra S. Sisodia, and colleagues in 2007.  Firms of Endearment made the point that a positive relational approach to multiple stakeholders resulted in superior financial performance. The companies they profiled achieved a higher return on equity (10 year rate of 1025% compared with S&P 500 of 122.3% and Good to Great Companies 331%) in spite of spending considerably more on employees and other stakeholders than most companies.

Bassi et al have done two things to advance the conversation. First, they have compiled a boat load of more recent “hard-nosed” evidence that companies who do well do better and those who do not do poorly by comparison.   A sampling of their citations:

• In a recent study by consulting firm A.T. Kearney, firms that embraced sustainability outperformed industry averages by 15% from May through November of 2008.
• According to a study by Packaged Facts, in spite of the recession, sales of “ethical” consumer products have grown at a rate of high single and low double-digits to a projected $38 billion in 2009.
• Firms on Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For outperform the stock market as a whole.

Bassi’s group has taken this analysis one giant step further. They created a quantitative index of what constitutes a “worthy” company, profiled all the Fortune 100 companies and compared them on three levels: as employers, as sellers and as stewards of society and the environment. They found that companies with a higher Good Company score outperformed their peers with a lower Good Company score by an average of 19.8 percentage points.

On the strength of their findings, the Bassi and her colleagues created Bassi Investments, a money management firm that invests according to the Good Company criteria. The funds were established in 2001 and results continue to support the finding that investing in employees is a best practice of wealth creation.

It may seem counter intuitive that in order to be more profitable a company has to invest more money in an area.  These business results point to the new insights that are emerging as the way we do business continues to change.

More about the Book:

Good Company

Noted green business journalist Joel Makower caused quite a stir when he published this article in May: “Green Marketing Is Over. Let’s Move On.” What Makower fails to do, as comments pointed out, is define what he means by “green marketing.”  This makes the article somewhat confusing because many of the things he points to as working are also marketing issues. Turns out that he’s describing green marketing communications, not the full marketing discipline. With this clarification, this article provides substance to the position we’ve taken on green marketing for several years.

I welcome the demise of obsession with green marketing communications.   No one is ever going to scale sustainability by trying to get people to buy green for green’s sake.  As I’ve discussed in previous articles, the people who will buy green for green’s sake are the innovator’s and early adopters of the industry. Everyone else buys for other reasons, primarily the utility of the product or service.

It’s my hope that as people recognize the limitations of so-called “green marketing,” they will rediscover the other 3-4 “P”s of marketing (depending on how you count them), will discover the value of strategy as a place to embed sustainability values into the core business rather than bolting them on through features-benefits descriptions.  According to Makower’s article, this *is* what’s working.  Let’s get to it!

“Why does your company exist?” It’s a question every values-oriented brand or strategy consultant asks of clients when they begin work together.

If the answer comes back “to make money” we know that there’s a huge opportunity for unleashing the hidden potential of the firm. That opportunity lies in engaging the company with a purpose greater than money alone.

As I’ve said before, profit is important. It’s just generating profit is first level mastery. Once you’ve figured out that part of the game, the answer is “what’s next?” Service, gratitude and creating a better world — those present meatier and fulfilling challenges. They tap the potential producitivity of your best employees. Companies with a unique purpose out-perform
those who don’t according to Harvard Business Review blogger Bill Taylor, and the authors of “It’s not what you sell, it’s what you stand for.”

The book came out a while back, but Taylor provides a good update of what companies and organizations experience — and how they benefit — when they are “Different on purpose.” Check out the article here.

Looking for a resource to help you find that unique purpose and express it in your brand? Contact us.

Companies are moving beyond CSR to reinvent business models for business and social benefit

The current edition of Harvard Business Review features an article by Michael Porter and Mark R. Kramer describing the leading companies that are seeing opportunities for creating economic value by meeting social needs. Going beyond corporate social responsibility (CSR) approaches, which Porter describes as essentially public relations programs,  these companies are fundamentally reinventing business models as drivers of both economic and social value.

A BBC interview with Michael Porter concerning this article can be downloaded here.

The Harvard Business Review article is available here.

By Kathleen Hosfeld and John Forman

Trust in business is starting to make a comeback from historic lows during the Recession, according to the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer research.  It’s a fragile trust, the report tells us. Those surveyed say that after the economic pressure is off, they expect business to go back to unbridled self-interest. In other words, they don’t really trust business – not for the long-haul. At a Young Presidents Organization event last week, members said that “trust” was their number one concern, regardless of the specific business they were in. The gap is enormous.

The Business Case

The business case for trust is well established. A lack of trust can create a number of problems for a company. It can impact reputations as conversation in the market place is fueled by assumptions of ill-will (like BP), gossip and innuendo, slower decision-making processes, as well as loss of sales. And the misbehavior of one Bernie Madoff can sour public perception for organizations that have never been connected to him.  On the other hand, a company that has the trust of its customers or other stakeholders can count on better collaboration and decision-making, resilience in the face of a crisis (like Toyota), more word of mouth advertising from advocates, and fewer legal or regulatory costs.

Trust matters to a lot more companies than a skeptical public might imagine. While there are egregiously self-interested firms that can be said to not care about trust, the larger part of the business world cares deeply. Yet, in the current  environment, positive intent may not be enough to reclaim trust.

The Trust Formula

One model of trust in relationships offers some lessons for senior executives and marketing specialists for how to reclaim trust with customers, partners and other stakeholders. The trust “formula” has four factors: Credibility, Reliability, Openness, and Self/Other Orientation. This model is adapted from David Maister’s “Trusted Advisor,” a classic in the field. All four elements in the model play an important part, but the fourth — Self/Other Orientation — can either undermine or enhance the other three factors.

Credibility – The credibility of a firm is built on the truthfulness of its communications, its reputation, its experience base and credentials. If there’s a gap between what a firm says and the customer or partner’s experience, trust can break down. If the firm’s reputation or verifiable credentials or experience don’t line up with its claims or communication, trust can be lost. Marketing initiatives to build credibility center on brand alignment, certifications, client/customer testimonials, promotion and sales processes.

Reliability – The reliability of a firm is demonstrated in its actions. Does the firm follow through and keep its commitments? Does it create predictable experiences, does it set expectations that it can keep? Uneven quality, inconsistent experiences, poor performance, lack of follow up or follow through, all contribute to a loss of trust. Marketing initiatives to build reliability include product management and sales and customer service.

Openness – In interpersonal relationships, openness is often confused with sharing intimate information. That does not foster trust. Openness that fosters trust involves the risks taken  in the relationship, and  the discretion and empathy with which one treats other people’s risks. In business life, this translates to transparency, and sharing information with stakeholders, sometimes hard-to-admit information like “we made a mistake.” Marketing initiatives that demonstrate openness include stakeholder engagement, supply chain transparency, sustainability reporting and open design standards.

Self/Other Orientation – In individual relationships, we most deeply trust those people who we feel have our best interests in mind. So too with companies. We trust companies that  care for our benefit as much they care about profit.  Marketing initiatives that foster trust also include integrating social good into all aspects of mission, marketing and communication. Demonstrating this commitment amplifies the benefit of a firm’s efforts in regards to Credibility, Reliability and Openness. Marketing initiatives that “go first” involve making a stand for social and environmental responsibility in the communities and the environment where they operate. But efforts at these forms of conscious capitalism must be genuine, and seen as genuine, efforts to make a positive difference.

How are We Doing?

Each of these qualities shows up in organizations in slightly different ways, but all lend themselves to meaningful measurements. As a result, organizations can benchmark perceptions and behaviors, and objectively assess progress towards trust goals.  Companies can be comprehensively assessed on these four qualities to determine the greatest opportunities for reclaiming or enhancing trust with customers and other stakeholders.

~~~
Kathleen Hosfeld is the principal of Hosfeld & Associates, a strategy and marketing firm.  John Forman is the principal of Integral Development, a teaching and consulting firm focused on leadership, performance, strategy and decision-making.

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.

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.

Noticing the gap between what consumers say and what they do.

Recently the radio industry was rocked by the results of using new listening measuring devices to monitor listener behavior. Called “People Meters,” the devices “listened” to the sound in the room of the person wearing them, and recorded what stations they picked up. Prior to the use of these devices, people kept journals of how many hours a day they listened to particular stations. What people reported was that they listened to National Public Radio stations and classical music stations. What the People Meters revealed however is they were actually tuning into easy listening , oldies and country western stations. This is something like reporting that you read National Geographic, Scientific American or Town and Country magazines, when in fact you’re actually reading People, Cosmopolitan or Seventeen.

The difference between what we know we should do and what we actually do is something that smart marketers have noticed for a long time. It’s a lesson many forgot in the dot.com bubble days when focus groups asked people to evaluate whether or not they would use a certain Web technology in the future.

The Hartmann Group, a Bellevue research firm, has explored the gap between our so-called “new thrift” and the actual purchase behavior of many consumers. We clip coupons for the grocery store, but then go out and buy an iPhone. This phenomenon helps us understand why people report that sustainability is very important to them, but their purchase behavior doesn’t necessarily confirm it.  Read more here.

“The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act with yesterday’s logic.”
— Peter Drucker

By Kathleen Hosfeld

Freeze and wait. That’s been the reaction of many to this time of economic uncertainty. While that works for animals who camouflage themselves in their surroundings until danger has passed, its wisdom only goes so far in the human marketplace.

This strategy assumes that the “danger” will indeed pass, and that things will “get back to normal.” Early signs, however, suggest that the old status quo has been disturbed permanently. How much consumer and corporate behavior will change for good remains to be seen. Many agree, however, that this crisis has changed them in fundamental ways.

In this time those that are thriving are doing something fairly counter-intuitive. They are moving in the direction of their hearts, and doing the things they long to do. As a result, they are stepping out of stagnant eddies into places where new energy and activity are flowing.

I recently watched a short film called Lemonade that tells stories of people in the advertising industry who used their layoffs as a call to action. By unleashing the power of what was meaningful to them, their lives and careers were redirected in important ways.

Around Thanksgiving 2009, I wrote a small blog article titled “Let the Beauty We Love Be What We Do.” It’s a challenge to counteract fear with a move toward what we love.  What do you feel called to do? Now is the time. Take your own career or your organization in a direction you have always longed to go. It may not make sense and yet it’s the right move.

Yesterday’s logic is to focus on the numbers – the numbers you can hit or the numbers you can earn. The new logic is to find the place where you can make a difference, the place that is meaningful to you, and let that energy carry you forward.

No-cost places to start include:

• Watch the Lemonade movie.
• Read the blog article I wrote and spend some time thinking about the beauty that you love.
• Reconsider your value propositions for key stakeholders.  Are they compelling to you? Do they speak to your desire to make a difference in the world?  Use our free value propositions worksheets for this exploration.
• Start a conversation in your workplace around the question: “How do we want to make a difference at this workplace, through this work, or using the assets and resources we have available to us?”

I’m interested to know what changes you decide to make. Let me know.