OF FENG SHUI AND FORECASTS

With any new year, East or West, almost everyone succumbs to the temptation to predict.

This time, it’s the Lunar celebration, with more than a billion of our Asian neighbors at home with family.

Some of the media’s annual visions are way too easy … and snore-able.  Like Canadian pop star and “we’re so over him” Justin Bieber will get into more trouble again.  Setting records in temperature and natural disasters, unfortunately, seems to prevail, given climate change.  Fighting looms over local conflicts – in the Middle East in particular.

Other forecasts depend on a wide application of common sense:  The economy’s slated to be up in the West, subdued in the East, with scaled-down spending on luxury items.  The Affordable Care Act will still be in the hospital, holding a diagnosis of “wait and see.”  Cost-cutting continues in the business arena, with corporate chiefs still uncertain about full-speed-ahead profitability.

This Year of the Horse, though, doesn’t address the trends in our profession.  Again, instinct and experience say that change is our constant.  What will matter is how well we accept change, indeed, how smartly we anticipate it.  It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to recognize that digital dominance is here and now.  Or that employees will continue to seek meaning in work.  Or that consumers need to be segmented into even more and smaller cohort groups.  Or that advertising is forever searching for the magic metric.

Our task is to figure out how to best use these trends, these changes – to our advantage and to our employer’s.  Why wait for the next best disruptor?  We could, using what we’ve learned, develop our own crystal ball – and what’s more, activate it.  Master the realm of the new and newer and yet-to-be media.  Emphasize individual contributors, holistically.  Network with and review group formations on different e-platforms.  Apply New Age measures to campaigns. 

No crystal ball needed.  Just wisdom, a shot of courage, and the ability to take change in hand. 

CUSTOMIZED CHANGE? DUH.

We call ourselves “change agnostics.”

As many do.  There are so many change management frameworks to apply that it doesn’t matter which is chosen.  Really. 

You could be a disciple of John Kotter.  A devotee of William Bridges.  Even ProSci certified card carriers.  To us, if clients prefer one architecture over another, so be it.  We’ll adopt it, embrace it, even.

But what we won’t do is slavishly follow the principles, from Point A to Point Z.  Why?  If you think about it:

• ·       Change is never linear.  Though the business case/reason for the shift might be apparent to some, trust us, it won’t be to all.  Somewhere, someone (or most likely, some group) will either have a hard time recalling the “why” or are troubled about the connection between the why and the what.  Too, a number accept the change at first, without whimpers.  Then, suddenly, in media res, they start questioning and erecting barriers.
• ·       Corporations are not the same.  Even if they inhabit the same industry.  There’s that elusive, differentiating culture, for one.  Everyone will admit that a Lenovo differs from Dell – not just in terms of products, but also in how things work around here.  And though many internal programs might appear to be the same, say, HR benefits or performance management, the determinant is in how employees think and feel about them.  So why would the same framework and tools work for each?

What caused our tirade?  One not-to-be-mentioned global professional services firm recently issued a white paper about the mandate for tailored change, driven by analytics, precision, and insights.  It advocates pairing objective and subjective data, ensuring leadership is on board, and following three roads to sustainable change through head, heart, and wallet.

Our response?  [The quick one:  See our headline.]  The more thoughtful answer:  Tailoring or segmentation is something our marketing and communications and advertising brethren have practiced for years.  Today, most of us apply customized change inside as well as outside, along with good hard looks at big and small data and a philosophy that uses change as a momentum, not isolated events. 

It’s never an easy path, this notion of change.  What are your thoughts, dear reader?

THAT FUD FACTOR

Change management professionals know the acronym FUD well:  Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Most of us, in fact, are familiar with apprehension; it faces us almost every day.  Are we doing what’s right for our clients/employers?  How will we know this strategy-tactic-technique will succeed?  What will happen if it flops?

Lately, we’ve been hearing more of this anxiety in our conversations, subtly, quietly, in a hard-to-detect undertone.  Often, it’s a premature prelude to recommendations:  “I’ve only got a few people to implement this, so it’s gotta be simple to do.  Otherwise, we won’t do it.”  Just as frequently, it’s accompanied by budget caveats:  “We’ve got X dollars.  We need to make this count!”

It’s all fear-propelled, deep down.  That emotion could come from an unsteady economy, working in a volatile industry, personal concerns, new management, and all of the above. 

Understandable … yet disconcerting:  As professionals accustomed to the slings and arrows of continual crises, ongoing changes, and never-ending accountabilities, that fear-of-failure gene doesn’t inhabit our minds naturally.  It takes a great deal of courage to convince a CEO of the importance of a media interview, present a completely different brand strategy, champion a new campaign, and tell clients that this particular change won’t be easy.  Taking risks, in many circumstances, is embedded in how we earn our livelihoods; we prepare, we benchmark, we consult, we execute, and we measure.

Look at it from the corporate point of view:  In times calling for growth and innovation, overcautious, even negative-thinking employees become a distraction, if not detraction.  How do you shake colleagues out of the NIH* or paralyzed mindsets into taking calculated risks and, yes, managing possible failures?  Sure, upper management and executives can and should set the stage, even broadcast the “it’s okay to fail” message.  Is that enough? 

History gives us cues – in the form of Thomas Edison, Donald Trump, Richard Branson, and Michael Jordan (among hundreds of others).  It’s up to us, as brand and design and marketing and communications bearers, to translate those hints into a “let’s go for it” encouragement, every day.

*Not Invented Here

TRUTH OR ... CONSEQUENCES

In past lives, many of my former colleagues and I* would have leaped at the chance when asked to validate a series of statements, chapters, or books.

Not any more, especially after Election 2012.  Bloggers and punsters, editors and opiners alike rushed to quick judgment about which party/candidate told the truth and which, fabricated.  “Right or not” became a cause célèbre as factcheck.orgs of all shapes and sizes weighed in.  Blue or red truth? trumpeted the headlines.  Both political parties blared Fiction! … and pointed fingers.  Posturing?  Yes, for many.  Yet many voters, in the millions, were simply seeking credulity and authenticity.

Regardless of the outcome, the facts didn’t matter.  Because facts, in and by themselves, were ­ not the prime determinant of the election.  A further surprise:  What did make a difference, psychological researchers insist, is the very complicated science of behaviors.  One study reveals that the more knowledgeable voters, those armed with the most facts, show more bias than those who knew less.  Another shows that people assume news is true (or not) simply based on which TV or radio station, newspaper or magazine, Web site or blogger reported it.

Why?  It has everything to do with emotions, the reasons we search for verification.  If I’m afraid or concerned or insecure, it’s doubly hard for me to wrap my mind around the facts. The truth matters less if I’m simply not prepared to accept it.  Cognitive dissonance, in part:  We ignore facts and science when they conflict with our practices (smoking, for instance).

At this point, the consequences from non-truths might not matter, depending on the specific cause and effect.  What this signals, initially, is that, as communicators and marketers, as designers and brand strategists, we all need to become a bit less fact-obsessed and a lot more emotion-driven as we set about to change minds and behaviors.

*Say it’s so:  My career began as an MSLS-wielding librarian.

CHANGE, BROUGHT TO YOU BY ...

New to the business world-at-large is something many of us have been doing for quite some time:  Sponsoring.

In the new parlance, a sponsor is a few steps up from a mentor, or someone who actively promotes you in the workplace, helping you get to the top.  It’s not a role to be solicited.  Nor is it conferred upon the meek.  Rather, says a recent Fortune magazine article, a sponsor-executive bets on your career and your track record, expecting the same loyalty in return. 

How is sponsorship all that different than our search for executive support for a large corporate initiative?  In the latter case, the naming of a sponsor is also a critical nuance for success:  She, he, or they need to have internal credibility, external presence, and a reputation for removing barriers and getting projects done. 

Or when we as marketers identify a sports or arts event, entertainment or cause that we want to own, er, sponsor?  Similar criteria rule:    Both parties must be credible, work together on a deal or deals of mutual benefit, and provide assurance of success, all along the way.

Easy to find?  Not really.  There’s no sure thing in sponsorships, whether of the change or the collaborative or the personal variety.    Validating what an executive has done (or not) in the past will help.  Has s/he managed the situation in good and not-so-great times, with grace under a lot of pressure?  Will they stand up for the outcomes, given that the cause is the right one?  Is it possible for the sponsor to act with not only integrity, but also with a touch of humor and humility?

Acquisitions and mergers, transitions and big lumpy strategy changes (to mention just a few) tend to reveal all sorts of behaviors in managers and employees that might not have been witnessed before.  Some good, some not.  So when thinking about the specific upcoming change and about the right kind of sponsor, prepare well.   Find that star manager.  And make sure you’ve got his/her back.