SHADES OF 007

Who among us doesn’t like to entertain a nice juicy secret, flavored with the admonition that “hey, it’s between you and me.  No one else must know”?  [Which is, of course, the fastest way to spread the word.]

It’s intriguing to remember that a different form of keeping secrets – which we dub commercial spy craft –started in the 1940s, with the introduction of mystery shoppers who were, at first, intended to investigate employee honesty and/or behaviors.

Today, the business iterations of “hush” take the form of hidden menus, in the case of In-N-Out Burger and Panera Bread, as well as the more blatant CBS series, “Undercover Boss.”  When asked about their non-publicized items, chain-restaurant concept gurus claimed the secrecy was driven by risk and expense … risk, in terms of avoiding possible menu “flops” and expense in promoting and advertising.  Seventy-some years later, mystery shoppers are still employable.  Today, more and more disguised detectives evaluate the quality of hospital and medical care, thanks to Medicare waving a hefty bonus payable upon the receipt of great patient satisfaction scores.

It’s the secrecy that bothers us.  Why is it necessary to disguise ourselves to determine how a service or product or store rates in delivering great customer service?  Are incentives truly a better employee motivator than, say, a pat on our back from a client or manager?  Is it truly the feeling of “being in the know” that propels us to ask for the hidden menu?  Who can’t go to his/her boss to factually outline corrections that need to be made, attitudes that could be reshaped, and behaviors that must be restrained? 

On the other hand, there is a certain allure to Bond’s quip during License to Kill: 

“'I help people with problems.'   

Sanchez:  'Problems solver?’

Bond:  ‘More of a problem eliminator.'”

IS IT REAL OR ...

Way too many years ago – in our memories at least – the late great Ella Fitzgerald starred in advertising for a product from a long-gone company (now part of Imation).

The tag:  Is it live or is it Memorex? 

The pitch:  No one could differentiate the quality of the music – live versus tape – in listening sessions.  It was so real, the copy exclaimed, that Count Basie himself couldn’t tell the difference.

Our minds made this decades-old connection during the always-continuing discussion about “authenticity.”  Someone at a recent meeting asked:  “Well, how can you know who’s or what’s authentic?”  Answerers talked about true selves, no hype or hyperbole, candor, and a feeling of knowing.

We don’t think that’s good enough. 

After all, what many communicators and advertisers and others in our profession are now even more aware of is the cry for the genuine-ness of brands and conversations, thanks to the social media avalanche.  Consumers are ever quick to criticize in public those people and things that don’t mean what they say – or what is said for them.  Just calling a product or service or person authentic is missing some opportunities for definition and measurement.  And in the kind of ironic twist everyone loves to point out, MBA admissions directors are launching applicant team discussions to probe group dynamics and individual genuineness.

It ain’t easy.  In True North, Bill George, ex-CEO of Medtronic, realized there was no one profile of authentic leadership.  Authenticity depends, he says, on executives who know who they are, show passion for their purpose, demonstrate their values consistently, and lead with hearts and minds.  Not on imitating a Jack Welch or Sam Palmisano or Herb Kelleher.

How do you tell the fake from the real (and we’re not talking pleather or snakeskin, margarine or butter)?  Can a true-to-you self also be impulsive?  How do we, our clients, our employers and our colleagues best reflect the sincerity the world craves – and balance other real corporate demands?

We’re listening … at cbyd.co.

AND IN THIS CORNER ...

We’re no Luddites, really.

Between us, we count three tablets, four laptops, two PCs, and multiple smartphones.  We’re trained to use every Microsoft program available for download or cloud tapping.  We’re conversant with all things ITrendy, even, to some point, debating the worth of Outlook against Entourage, cloud versus portable HD storage, and the like.

Yet. 

We’ve noticed that lately, the media’s been packed with rants about technology’s mesmerizing effects.  About un-story-like (but unfortunately true) tales of PowerPoint that perplex and bore.  About how much time is wasted by Reply to All, High Priority e-designations, and smaller-than-small mouse type. 

In this corner, the avengers:  More than one firm has hired a start-up to measure exactly how its employees are using technology at work.  [Shades of Big Brother, eh?]  Others restrict the use of certain features or applications.  And still other businesses IT avoidance on certain days, during specific hours, even at special occasions.

What all these solutions to our tech OCDs miss are the threat to our thinking.  Sure, many of us compose on the screen, with blinking cursor always at the ready.  There are some projects, though, that just demand some peace and no visual effects:  When pondering the creation of a marketing campaign (in the midst of analytics) or simply free-associating to capture ideas and, eventually, viable recommendations and solutions.  In those cases, that mouse becomes our enemy and the PC shut down, the immediate cure-all.

We like the elegant twist of Intel.  Its 14,000 employees have been blessed with four hours a week to think through “stuff,” excused from emails and meetings for all but the most urgent of reasons. 

To that we say, Amen … and why not longer?

BREAKING BREAD (not bad)

Retailers have re-discovered their mate:  Restaurants.  Until its meatball mess, Ikea was known for its café-home furnishings combo.  Walmart and Target, for their snacks-while-shopping lures.  Now, Tommy Bahama claims its recently introduced in-store eateries generate twice the sales per square foot of apparel.

Another duo follows:  News organizations and politicians (and anyone else who’s got a soapbox).  Today, frequent breakfasts with Paul or Larry or Bob, when combined with The Wall Street Journal or The Christian Science Monitor, have a certain panache and appeal.  Not to mention frequent business conversations and occasional deals.

Once upon a time, though, establishments like the late-great Marshall Field’s as well as Neiman Marcus built dining places inside.  The Walnut Room and Zodiac restaurant were, respectively, part of the experience.  Then, hours-long in-store shopping was the norm.  There were no cyber worlds, no flash sales.  It was a time to relax, to be with friends, reflect on the day, and, oh yes, buy what you needed as well as feed your selves.

The power of a meal to begin (and continue) relationships is one we all acknowledge.   Inside organizations, especially in buildings with cafeterias, many leaders do take the opportunity of a mid-day snack or lunch or break to sit and listen to colleagues and employees.    All good.

But why not more often, more off-the-cuff dialogues over a meal or a cuppa?   Sure, there’s always a tendency to clam up when a C-suite executive meanders in and sits at a table.  Or to resort to small talk.  Or to studiously avoid the table or make excuses about getting back to work.  Yet many workers are yearning for just that kind of connection, to understand leaders and their motivations.  Study after study shows a real need to personalize the workplace, to forget a relationship with their managers and executives

A bit of orchestration, at first, might be necessary.  Creating natural venues to have a conversation can be staged, first (especially around food!).   Later, more natural and impromptu opportunities occur as colleagues and coworkers and chiefs get to know each other. 

After all, it started with the Old and the New Testament:  Breaking bread is about the food and the fellowship. 

OUR CUPS DON'T RUNNETH OVER

It’s sorta expected, in our business.

After all, we’re outside experts or, at the best, business partners who work with companies on a variety of short- and long-term projects. Though we might be around for a while, we’re definitely hired help.

All fine.  So the idea of thanks (given to us) is somewhat novel, and one that’s never guaranteed.  Nonetheless, we do perk up when we hear good words, and remember the whos and whats of the conversation.

What’s unexpected, though, is the endemic lack of thanks today in the workplace, full-time colleagues and leaders who work for one company.  In its typical fashion, The Wall Street Journal, late last year, riffed on a recent “there’s no gratitude” survey, then proceeded to set up a typology of those managers who just couldn’t show appreciation.   To us, the publication’s five characters were (pick one):  1) somewhat stereotyped, 2) overblown, and/or 3) created for the sake of a headline.

For whatever reasons (and feel free to make up your own), thanks just isn’t embedded in contemporary vocabularies.  Or, if it is, it’s somehow, er, fake.  How many times have you gotten an e-missive that, oh by the way, acknowledges your contributions (usually the middle of a list of things you have to do)?  Or been lobbed an off-handed compliment on the way out the door?

We’re not imagining this.  Survey says, for instance, that only 10 percent utter a thank you to colleagues, while 7 percent manage to be gracious to the boss-person.  Are dollars or other tangible rewards good substitutes for an authentic note about “job well done”?  Is everyone way too busy to look back and forward on a day’s work to compliment the support given?  Or do we need to add an amendment to the Ten Big Ones about being grateful each and every day?

Aretha, you got it right.