Before You Can Get Buy-In, People Need to Feel the Problem

Before You Can Get Buy-In, People Need to Feel the Problem

2:50 PM Wednesday February 16, 2011

Picture this: you're in the middle of presenting your proposal and a person at the far end of the table raises her hand. "I'm not even sure the 'problem' you're describing exists, or is a big deal at all!" How do you deal with that?

From reading your responses to my previous posts, I find that many people aren't able to even reach the point where they can debate the merits of their proposal. Many get bogged down in the quagmire of trying to effectively communicate the nature and extent of the problem. If you can't do that, it doesn't much matter what your proposal is. People aren't going to consider anything until they are convinced there is a problem that truly needs to be addressed. In scenarios like this, I've found that it's effective to highlight the problem and the people affected by it in a way that makes the problem feel real. What's less effective — and far more common — is to make a dry business case that, even if correct, is usually less persuasive and less memorable than it needs to be.

On this topic, one story I've always liked (from my book The Heart of Change) I affectionately call "Gloves on the Boardroom Table." A large organization had an inefficient purchasing process, and one mid-level executive believed that money was constantly being wasted with each of the organization's factories handling their own purchases. He thought there could be tremendous savings from consolidating the procurement effort. He put together a "business case" for change but it went nowhere. His boss said that senior executives didn't feel it was truly a big problem, especially with so many other daily challenges taking up their time. So the manager had an idea: he collected the 424 different kinds of work gloves the factories collectively purchased and tagged each one with its different price and supplier. He carted the gloves in and dumped them on the boardroom table before a senior executive team meeting. He first showed the pile to his boss, who was taken aback by this powerful visual display of the waste inherent in having dozens of different factories negotiate different deals for the items they needed! The boss showed the CEO, who scrapped the meeting agenda to talk about procurement because what he was looking at was so memorable, so compelling, and so real. It galvanized the executives to action. Ultimately, they overhauled their procurement process and saved a great deal of money.

I've called the process used here See, Feel, and Change, as opposed to Analyze, Think, and Change. The latter is all head, no heart, and often fails to motivate people to recognize the importance of a given problem. It's too easily forgotten or ignored if it doesn't feel real.

So what is my everyday advice if you can't always collect, catalogue, and cart around 424 pairs of gloves? One way is to highlight the real, personal consequences of the problem you want people to see, and to highlight the real people who suffer because of it. My newer book, Buy-In, features a story of someone presenting a plan to provide new computers for a local library. When dissenters don't listen because they don't think there is a problem with the current computers, the presenter has two options. He could use PowerPoint slides to compare the library's computers to current computer models sold in stores, showing the difference in processing power, memory capacity, and modem speed. Or he could relate the true story of a local fourth-grader from a poor family who relies on the library's computers for homework — computers that are too slow and outdated to allow her to finish her assignments, leaving her underprepared for school.

Which case would you find more compelling? Which case makes the problem feel real?

http://blogs.hbr.org/kotter/2011/02/before-you-can-get-buy-in-peop.html

Stay on Message to Win Buy-In

Stay on Message to Win Buy-In
1:06 PM Wednesday January 26, 2011

Imagine this: Seeking buy-in for your new product or process proposal at work, you pick on one raised hand around the conference table for a question. The person — whom you know has deep, specialized knowledge in his area — asks a detailed question. You have done your homework, and so you answer it using the specifics of the example he has used. Then he asks a follow-up. And another. And another. Each time, he nitpicks a specific part of your response, saying something to the effect of, "I see where you're going with that, but here are the eighteen problems with it; it's not your fault, you just don't know the specifics of this situation like I do."

After several rounds of questioning, and several exhaustively thorough, direct answers on your part, he remains unconvinced. He continues, repeatedly pointing out, "But another thing I don't think you're considering is..." and so on. Looking around the room, you're alarmed to see that people have tuned out — and some have even dozed off.

We've all probably seen similar situations. Well, there is a lesson here for achieving buy-in: while it's important to respect each person in the group, it is just as important to stay focused and keep the conversation and line of questioning in your own territory, where you feel more comfortable and know the relevant facts better. Stay on message. And don't let the focus shift to the attacker and his or her attack.

When facing resistance to your proposal, it may seem natural to zero in on each attack and address it at length so as to dispel it. This is a mistake. Whatever the attack — whether an anecdote, or an obscure data point — odds are that the attacker knows the specifics far better than you. A lengthy answer and a few follow-ups on the subject will likely (and unfairly) make you seem uninformed or underprepared, undermining your credibility with your broader audience. I am not suggesting that you dodge questions. But I am suggesting that you address them directly, simply, and quickly, and move on. Do not let yourself become bogged down in the minutiae of someone else's argument.

Which brings me to a larger point: be careful not to craft your answers to respond too exclusively to an individual attacker, who, for all you know, may be an entrenched ideologue who will not support your idea anyway. Answer instead with the entire audience in mind. I've found that most people actually focus a disproportionate amount of time targeting one or two particularly vocal dissenters, and this focus often comes at the expense of more neutral audience members whom they should be targeting. That is why I suggest carefully watching the entire audience; it's their reactions that are important, not the look of disapproval on the face of one dissenter.

Stay on message. Don't delve too deeply into single attacks. Don't forget about your broader audience. This advice is important because a primary tactic of dissenters is confusion. It is easy to cloud the subject, forget what is truly at stake, and lose the merits of a proposal if you lose focus and shift to someone else's terms. Acknowledge and respect your questioners, but craft your response to each question staying as much as possible in your own "territory" and thinking about the whole audience.

Staying focused and staying on message may just help you save your idea.

http://blogs.hbr.org/kotter/2011/01/stay-on-message-to-win-buy-in.html

The Good Fight: How Conflict Can Help Your Idea

The Good Fight: How Conflict Can Help Your Idea

2:27 PM Tuesday December 14, 2010

I confess, I don't much like conflict. And I have come to see how that can really get in my way.

Some leaders value consensus so much that they feel they need complete agreement on everything. They stamp out disagreements over the issues because they fear their subordinates might get their feelings hurt, some teammates will harbor grudges, or the team could lose cohesiveness. Without commenting on the general wisdom of this leadership philosophy, I will say that avoiding conflict can actually be ruinous for achieving buy-in for an idea.

This may seem counterintuitive. After all, if you have a great idea, you present it as persuasively as possible with the aim of achieving consensus, right? You might be quick to hush dissenting team members as they debate specific measures of the proposal, wishing instead to fast-forward to the moment when you can take an up-or-down vote, win a simple majority, and move on, victorious. But conflict concerning the issues at hand can be constructive, and even essential! Conflict engages. If people have no opinions, no objections, and no emotions, it usually means they don't care. And you'll be hard-pressed getting their help when you have to actually implement your idea.

Moreover, let's admit that most meetings are boring, and people spend a remarkable amount of this time daydreaming or typing on their blackberries beneath the table. When this is the case, conflict shakes people out of their daze in a novel way. They pay attention, which gives you the opportunity to say why your idea really is valuable and explain it in a way that wins over hearts and minds.

In a previous post, I recommended to you to "let the lions in." That advice applies to conflict, even if it isn't coming from an angry lion. If you don't believe me, try this experiment next time you're in a meeting where someone is advocating for an idea: If some conflict emerges, watch the group and see how people sit up and the energy level rises. Disagreement may seem like a bad thing — but it grabs people's attention.

There is, of course, a risk. Worst case scenario, the idea does die. But if it is a nontrivial idea, it will almost certainly need a lot more support than a non-enthusiastic group voting 51% in your favor. My research and experience show that proposals approved in such a way often die a slow and very painful death. (Need an example? Just look at the United States Congress.)

Good ideas need active, engaged support for a considerable time until they reshape how we think about and do things for the better. To make positive, lasting change, you need to energize people, and at a deep enough level to make buy-in — then ultimate implementation — achievable. And you need conflict to accomplish that.

http://blogs.hbr.org/kotter/2011/01/show-some-respect.html

To Make a Strong Case, Don't Be a Data Dumper

To Make a Strong Case, Don't Be a Data Dumper
3:35 PM Monday December 6, 2010

News flash: academic writing can be verbose.

Throughout my career as a Harvard Business School professor, writing and reading textbooks, journal articles, papers and studies, it almost seemed that anyone who used one word when they could instead use five simply wasn't trying hard enough. But we professors are not longwinded and laborious simply to puff our own chests. Rather, it's because we've been conditioned to believe that making a case with lots of data and complex jargon wins us praise from the academic community. Basically, we think it is the best way to get buy-in for our work.

My work leading to my latest book, Buy-In, indicates that this approach is not, and should not be, universal. In fact, I've found that in most cases, people should argue with less data. When you're defending an idea, my research of what works in the real world suggests that you should respond in ways that are simple, straightforward, and honest. This may sound obvious, but I found that this principle is rarely employed. Rather, most people respond to a critical question by arguing against the reasoning of whoever asked the question. They offer all of the evidence they can think of, hoping to make their case overwhelming. They shoot at an attack sixteen times with bullets of data to make sure it is dead. But in so doing, they are arguing not on their own but on the naysayer's territory, opening themselves up to counter-attacks with each piece of evidence they dispense — and simultaneously putting other listeners to sleep!

I have seen far more success when people offer a quick, direct, common sense answer that shows respect for the naysayer but moves the discussion along. It is important to strike a balance between addressing a naysayer's concern and keeping each question-and-answer brief in order to hold your audience's full attention. To use economics terms, there are diminishing marginal returns to data-dumping in your answers. Great leaders throughout history, from Gandhi to Sam Walton, have always employed this principle to maximum effect. They knew the power of clarity and simplicity. And they found that using it allowed them to connect with more people and win more hearts and minds.

The next time you present an idea on an important new marketing campaign, for example, and someone rebuts it by citing five previous times that your company tried a new marketing campaign and it was unsuccessful, you have two options. You could go through each of the five examples, explain their flaws in detail, and demonstrate how each of those flaws does not apply to your idea. Or you could say, "There are always examples of failed attempts to do anything of real importance, and we did indeed learn from the experiences you cite. But we cannot allow these past failures to keep us from adapting to a changing world or else we would never move forward on anything."

I have found the latter approach to be far more successful because it is simple, straightforward, and honest, and because it appeals more to the broader audience. Sometimes arguing with less evidence actually allows you to be clearer and more persuasive.

http://blogs.hbr.org/kotter/2010/12/to-make-a-strong-case-dont-be.html

Why Should Anyone Trust Your Vision?

Why Should Anyone Trust Your Vision?
1:06 PM Wednesday November 3, 2010

Recently, an Irish Times reporter interviewed me on the changes currently taking place in Ireland's finance industry (the nation's financial regulator had just announced the $39.3 billion price tag of the Anglo Irish Bank bailout). Clearly, much is going to have to change in the banks and how the government deals with them.

But there's a buy-in problem, as the reporter pointed out. "Why would subordinates trust management to develop a change vision in a situation like this, when management got the company into a mess? I would be worried I was being asked to buy into the wrong thing! And even if it was a good new vision, how are they going to get my support if I don't trust them?"

There are many aspects to this problem (and I probably didn't do a very good job of dealing with them all in the sound bite the reporter wanted). But let me address just one issue here.

The reporter's questions were based on an assumption that the way good decisions are made and implemented is sort of like this: (1) top management (often four smart people) analyze the situation or ask a consultant to; (2) then they create a plan and tell the troops to execute it, or, more likely these days, they "sell" it, or at least aggressively communicate it to their troops; (3) the troops take the direction and execute. The fact that many people, including the reporter, think like this is understandable given the way organizations have developed over the years, but — though many organizations still behave this way — it's not close to how the best organizations handle change today.

The conventional decide-execute model handles large changes very poorly. I've written much about this (starting with a book called Leading Change), but for now let's just say that success comes from a lot more people getting involved in the decision-making process, and not just by sticking them on a committee — I mean really engaging them so that they are interested and want to be involved. If done right, better data is brought into a decision, and by engaging people you have already set things up to make buy-in easier.

This isn't a co-opt strategy. You really want people from all over to contribute. When they do, and you go well beyond the original small cast that made the decisions that created problems, it gives the buy-in process more credibility. And it makes any decision/vision easier to communicate widely because the large cast who helped with the decision will be happily involved in the communication process.

Now this is a little more complicated than my brief summary to the reporter, but let me repeat the one single point I want to make: Almost all managers have been brought up in a world where small-numbers decide, large-numbers execute (after the large-numbers are "sold," which is almost impossible if the small-numbers are not trusted). People continue to think and act this way, often unconsciously. But that approach doesn't fit with today's reality.

When it comes to large-scale change in our increasingly diverse and fast-moving world, we need to engage people in the decision-making process, to get their buy-in and to get the job done well.

http://blogs.hbr.org/kotter/2010/11/why-should-anyone-trust-your-v.html

The Right Mindset for Buy-In

The Right Mindset for Buy-In

9:42 AM Thursday October 21, 2010

Today's post is about how important our mindset is for achieving buy-in. Recently, one of this blog's readers, Bob Ferrer, asked why I used the word enemy in my post "Know Your Enemy: The People Who Block Buy-In." Doesn't this create a negative frame of mind? Good question. The short answer is that my editor titled the post (sorry to pass the buck, HBR). But, I think I see where that title comes from, because it very much reflects the reality of how we often think about a maddening part of the buy-in problem. We tend to think "attack," "enemy," "defend," "bullet," etc., because that's the way the whole process can feel. But that way of thinking, and the associated feelings that create that mindset, don't help one bit.

The October 13th issue of The Wall Street Journal featured an article — "Slumping at Work?" — reporting that many people use sports psychology methods to help themselves envision and achieve success in their jobs. That is, they invest considerable time and resources in getting their mindset right, sometimes actually learning to see themselves win. When they do, the results can be significant. The article profiled a salesman who doubled his sales within one year by systematically addressing and improving his outlook.

But what does mindset have to do with buy-in? Another reader of this blog, Michael Darmody, answered this question, arguing that when people shoot down an idea, it is generally fear-driven. I suspect he's right. Michael's potential solution to this problem is to conceptualize the idea as "safe" for everyone's buy-in. Change your mindset to change theirs. For example, demonstrating a proposal's clear alignment with a company's culture, values, and mission can create a positive mindset around adopting the proposal — as if it always belonged there in the first place. This mindset is more positive and likely more effective than conceptualizing a proposal as a fear-driven change.

My book, Buy-In, contains a five-point strategy for saving good ideas. At the core of that strategy is "respect," and respecting people who are offering comments or asking questions that easily undermine support for good ideas is impossible without a positive mindset. Two other parts of that strategy also play on this positive mindset idea: (1) do your homework, which makes you less fearful, more confident, and more positive, and (2) watch the audience, not just those who seem to be pointing guns at you.

So yes, Bob and Michael, you are onto something.

http://blogs.hbr.org/kotter/2010/10/the-right-mindset-for-buy-in.html

Getting Past the "But We Already Tried That" Response

Getting Past the "But We Already Tried That" Response

You and your team have been wrestling with the problem of increasing efficiencies without a big budget to make it happen. You've been authorized to look at every aspect of the process. One particularly enterprising young woman on your team has found that a complicated safety inspection procedure that was put in place fifteen years ago is no longer necessary because the parts that required inspection no longer exist in the product now being produced. And yet workers are holding up the production for the required amount of time in order to get sign-offs anyway.

Great! Simple! We get rid of this inspection process for parts that don't exist and increase productivity by 15%!

Not so fast. When you bring this insight to the management committee, one grizzled fellow says, "That won't work. We tried that five years ago and the lawyers wouldn't let us take it out of the subcontract." Now, this particular grizzled fellow is used to having his words taken as law. Everyone defers to him because he has been around a long time, is in a position of power, and knows a lot about the ins and outs of the critical and complicated production paths.

What do you do?

Certainly you could try to argue your point, but you don't have all the facts of what actually happened five years ago and past experience has shown that arguing with this fellow can be a dangerous activity.

The basic comeback for "We tried that already and it didn't work" is to say something like: "That's a good point, but that was then and this is today. You know, things change. They always do, for all companies everywhere. We don't make the exact same products. Our customers are changing" [or other basic, clear, facts that illustrate how things have changed]. "I'll make a call to the lawyers today, just to be safe" [if you haven't already done so, which you may have] "and if there's a problem with doing this now, we'll try to solve it and get right back to you. But we need the 15%, right? So unless the lawyers scream, why don't we agree now to go forward with the plan. I mean, it really is a terrific idea."

You must never get sucked into the black hole of "what happened 5 years ago." He may have more facts than you do, and make you look as if you didn't do your homework. (Of course it's always a good idea, as part of your preparation, to learn about earlier similar efforts and why they didn't work out.) The real danger, though, is getting drawn into a distracting conversation that goes on to the point where the idea is put aside because you've run out of time on the agenda. Or that the ensuing discussion either bores or confuses people so that they give up and lose interest.

"We already tried that" is one of the familiar attacks I've seen many times over the years. Be prepared for it, and mold your response to your own particular situation. What are some of the variations on this attack that you have seen?

http://blogs.hbr.org/kotter/2010/10/getting-past-the-but-we-alread.html

What a Physicist Taught Me About Leading Change

John Kotter
On: Leadership, Managing People, Change Management

What a Physicist Taught Me About Leading Change

What do leading change and doing physics have in common? Good question. I have no idea. I do know that for my new book, Buy-In I have a co-author, Lorne Whitehead, who is a physicist.

You don't normally think of a physicist writing books about human interaction, but as it turns out, Lorne has also helped run a university, he's been an entrepreneur, and he's a terrific guy whose experience is very different from mine.

I think our differences have helped the book not only because Lorne has some real experience in dealing with ideas being shot down, but also because there is something about a physicist's brain that's a little bit different than mine. (I am sure of this because as a senior in high school I thought I might become a physicist, but it only took two weeks as a freshman at MIT to dissuade me.)

Whenever you get people with diverse backgrounds looking at the same thing you can come up with ideas that might not have developed otherwise. That is hardly news. But I've learned in studying large-scale change that if the people are very different, in relevant ways, and want to work together (not appointed to be on one more task force), the possibilities are great.

That's why, when I am helping organizations put together a team to guide a change, I advise that people who really want to help make the change happen are included in the group that guides the effort, and that they have relevant diversity on many dimensions: education, functional background, leadership or managerial skills, credibility in different parts of the organization, relationships with people at the top and bottom, access to data at the top and bottom, age, tenure in the organization (old-timers and new). This can work if the people want to be part of the group and if the meetings are competently facilitated.

I think of all the relevant dimensions of diversity in these cases, the one that is often the most difficult for senior executives (maybe everyone) to grasp is level in the hierarchy. This even trumps the idea of an organizational behavior professor working with a physicist.

We have grown up in a world in which "committees" and teams often have people who are more or less peers in the hierarchy. You don't find a 55-year-old senior vice president and a 25-year-old customer service rep on the same team, unless the focus is rather trivial and the time span of the group is short. Yet the benefits of this sort of diversity can be amazing in many ways: the two people will have vastly different sources of information, vastly different sets of relationships, and vastly different perspectives on any issue. In an effort to find and implement a whole new strategy, or find and implement a whole new IT system — big changes affecting lots of people — the benefits of putting together a broader group of people than usual to effect change can be amazing.

You may be thinking, "Nice idea, but not practical." It does take more thought and care to create a diverse team to guide major change in an organization, but when done correctly it creates a team more open to ideas and more capable of successfully implementing those that fit its mission. I've seen it work multiple times and with astounding results.

http://blogs.hbr.org/kotter/2010/10/what-a-physicist-taught-me-abo.html

Tips on Finding the Best Life Insurance Company

Tips on Finding the Best Life Insurance Company

You might have heard about life insurance but the exact meaning might not be clear in any way. There are many people who face the same situation and are also curious to know about it before they go in for a life insurance policy. Life insurance can be defined as a kind of insurance which secures your life or family and also protects the life of the dependants in financial terms after the death of the insurer. Apart from protection, this insurance type serves to be included under smart financial planning terms.

There are different types of life insurance policies including Term Life Insurance Policy, Whole Life Insurance Policy, Cash Value or Permanent Life Insurance Policy, Universal Life Insurance Policy and Variable Life Insurance Policy. You can get a better idea about these options if you hop in online or even if you approach your insurance agent. A clear understanding of these types is the most important step before applying for the policy so that you can choose with your consciousness if you know what it talks about.

When you have decided to take a particular life cover, the next step which must get into your head is the life insurance company that you must choose. Never choose any company thinking all are the same. There are certain things which can be done in order to find the best company successfully following your needs.

Internet is of course the best place to check out information on anything needed and so about the companies. Each life insurance company will certainly have their websites and you can easily get into each of them to read and learn about their terms and conditions before applying for one. Apart from knowing the terms, you can also get the rates and other relevant details related to it. This helps in a good comparison wherein you can do the same with other companies as well. Just a little time is something which is needed to conduct a good study about this field and then you are off to select the one of your choice. With this you can also be rest assured that you are going for the best and affordable rates depending on your needs and requirements.

Reviews are something which you can find online if you conduct a good search. Magazines are also another option for finding reviews which might be real time experiences and you must never ignore these. At the same time, it is also important that you find out only genuine reviews as there are certain websites putting up their own review writings favoring them.

Another option to find the best life insurance policy would certainly be to have a good talk with your friends and relatives so that they can share their real time experiences with you. This would also give you additional confidence and help you chose the best one which favors your needs, budget and other requirements in the best way possible.

http://www.quotes-r-us.org/life-insurance/tips-finding-best-life-insurance-company

Obama's quote

"Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential." Barack Obama

'Behold the turtle: He only makes progress when he sticks his neck out'
James Bryant Conant

Daily Success Habits - 9 Practical Daily Habits For Personal Growth and Success

Daily Success Habits - 9 Practical Daily Habits For Personal Growth and Success

By Chris David Cooper

Developing a daily success habit can massively increase your performance. Talk to any very high achiever and they usually have them. One of the keys that we must develop is the discipline to begin changing our patterns of thinking and behaving, or we will always get what we have always got. This can be tough. We may have become programmed over many years to behave in a certain way. However, we have to take the responsibility to not let the past or present situations rule our future.

If want to change our habits daily mindset and learning will really help. Here are some examples that I use. You may well have or develop others. The key is to take some time, preferably at the start of the day to take yourself through a positive process. This will help overcome doubts and fears and get you into a healthy flow. Also it will help to enjoy your day so much more.

1. Use a Success Journal - Write out 5 successes from the previous day and your key learning and ideas from the previous day. This really you appreciate the progress being made and also helps you not forget your ideas. I have recently found using some simple software called 'Simply Journal' very helpful.

2. Write out your 6 key goals. If you do not have them, develop them. Then write them out everyday.

3. Identify your priorities for the day (this focuses you on what specifically must be done). Focus on the things that will really make the difference. This I admit is a daily challenge for me!

4. Exercise, for about an hour (great for keeping energy up and feeling good). For me getting my dog has been a great help here, as now I have to go out.

5. Reading each day (linked to your goals). I also watch positive educational videos. This morning it was Esther and Jerry Hicks 'Money and the Law of Attraction'.

6. Reflect on the person you need to become to achieve your vision and goals.

7. Imagine yourself in possession of all your dreams. This is inspiring and helpful in terms of developing them further.

8.Think of who you can help today. If you put good things out there, you increase the probability of good things coming back.

9. Be GRATEFUL for what you already have and have achieved.

Now, if you picked some of the above and developed your own routine, would this be helpful? Would you feel better and more productive? If the answer is yes, get started!

See this time as an investment in yourself and you will be surprised at the amount of ideas you generate while you are doing this work. Of course, if you want results, you will also need to put the ideas generate into action.
And now to help you develop greater prosperity and success get your FREE report 'Develop Your Mindset for Wealth' at http://www.bemoreachievemore.com

From Chris Cooper 'helping entrepreneurs and executives become more to achieve more' http://www.bemoreachievemore.com ''

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Chris_David_Cooper

Nine Things Successful People Do Differently

Nine Things Successful People Do Differently

8:58 AM Friday February 25, 2011
by Heidi Grant Halvorson

Why have you been so successful in reaching some of your goals, but not others? If you aren't sure, you are far from alone in your confusion. It turns out that even brilliant, highly accomplished people are pretty lousy when it comes to understanding why they succeed or fail. The intuitive answer — that you are born predisposed to certain talents and lacking in others — is really just one small piece of the puzzle. In fact, decades of research on achievement suggests that successful people reach their goals not simply because of who they are, but more often because of what they do.

1. Get specific. When you set yourself a goal, try to be as specific as possible. "Lose 5 pounds" is a better goal than "lose some weight," because it gives you a clear idea of what success looks like. Knowing exactly what you want to achieve keeps you motivated until you get there. Also, think about the specific actions that need to be taken to reach your goal. Just promising you'll "eat less" or "sleep more" is too vague — be clear and precise. "I'll be in bed by 10pm on weeknights" leaves no room for doubt about what you need to do, and whether or not you've actually done it.

2. Seize the moment to act on your goals. Given how busy most of us are, and how many goals we are juggling at once, it's not surprising that we routinely miss opportunities to act on a goal because we simply fail to notice them. Did you really have no time to work out today? No chance at any point to return that phone call? Achieving your goal means grabbing hold of these opportunities before they slip through your fingers.

To seize the moment, decide when and where you will take each action you want to take, in advance. Again, be as specific as possible (e.g., "If it's Monday, Wednesday, or Friday, I'll work out for 30 minutes before work.") Studies show that this kind of planning will help your brain to detect and seize the opportunity when it arises, increasing your chances of success by roughly 300%.

3. Know exactly how far you have left to go. Achieving any goal also requires honest and regular monitoring of your progress — if not by others, then by you yourself. If you don't know how well you are doing, you can't adjust your behavior or your strategies accordingly. Check your progress frequently — weekly, or even daily, depending on the goal.

4. Be a realistic optimist. When you are setting a goal, by all means engage in lots of positive thinking about how likely you are to achieve it. Believing in your ability to succeed is enormously helpful for creating and sustaining your motivation. But whatever you do, don't underestimate how difficult it will be to reach your goal. Most goals worth achieving require time, planning, effort, and persistence. Studies show that thinking things will come to you easily and effortlessly leaves you ill-prepared for the journey ahead, and significantly increases the odds of failure.

5. Focus on getting better, rather than being good. Believing you have the ability to reach your goals is important, but so is believing you can get the ability. Many of us believe that our intelligence, our personality, and our physical aptitudes are fixed — that no matter what we do, we won't improve. As a result, we focus on goals that are all about proving ourselves, rather than developing and acquiring new skills.

Fortunately, decades of research suggest that the belief in fixed ability is completely wrong — abilities of all kinds are profoundly malleable. Embracing the fact that you can change will allow you to make better choices, and reach your fullest potential. People whose goals are about getting better, rather than being good, take difficulty in stride, and appreciate the journey as much as the destination.

6. Have grit. Grit is a willingness to commit to long-term goals, and to persist in the face of difficulty. Studies show that gritty people obtain more education in their lifetime, and earn higher college GPAs. Grit predicts which cadets will stick out their first grueling year at West Point. In fact, grit even predicts which round contestants will make it to at the Scripps National Spelling Bee.

The good news is, if you aren't particularly gritty now, there is something you can do about it. People who lack grit more often than not believe that they just don't have the innate abilities successful people have. If that describes your own thinking .... well, there's no way to put this nicely: you are wrong. As I mentioned earlier, effort, planning, persistence, and good strategies are what it really takes to succeed. Embracing this knowledge will not only help you see yourself and your goals more accurately, but also do wonders for your grit.

7. Build your willpower muscle. Your self-control "muscle" is just like the other muscles in your body — when it doesn't get much exercise, it becomes weaker over time. But when you give it regular workouts by putting it to good use, it will grow stronger and stronger, and better able to help you successfully reach your goals.

To build willpower, take on a challenge that requires you to do something you'd honestly rather not do. Give up high-fat snacks, do 100 sit-ups a day, stand up straight when you catch yourself slouching, try to learn a new skill. When you find yourself wanting to give in, give up, or just not bother — don't. Start with just one activity, and make a plan for how you will deal with troubles when they occur ("If I have a craving for a snack, I will eat one piece of fresh or three pieces of dried fruit.") It will be hard in the beginning, but it will get easier, and that's the whole point. As your strength grows, you can take on more challenges and step-up your self-control workout.

8. Don't tempt fate. No matter how strong your willpower muscle becomes, it's important to always respect the fact that it is limited, and if you overtax it you will temporarily run out of steam. Don't try to take on two challenging tasks at once, if you can help it (like quitting smoking and dieting at the same time). And don't put yourself in harm's way — many people are overly-confident in their ability to resist temptation, and as a result they put themselves in situations where temptations abound. Successful people know not to make reaching a goal harder than it already is.

9. Focus on what you will do, not what you won't do. Do you want to successfully lose weight, quit smoking, or put a lid on your bad temper? Then plan how you will replace bad habits with good ones, rather than focusing only on the bad habits themselves. Research on thought suppression (e.g., "Don't think about white bears!") has shown that trying to avoid a thought makes it even more active in your mind. The same holds true when it comes to behavior — by trying not to engage in a bad habit, our habits get strengthened rather than broken.
If you want change your ways, ask yourself, What will I do instead? For example, if you are trying to gain control of your temper and stop flying off the handle, you might make a plan like "If I am starting to feel angry, then I will take three deep breaths to calm down." By using deep breathing as a replacement for giving in to your anger, your bad habit will get worn away over time until it disappears completely.

It is my hope that, after reading about the nine things successful people do differently, you have gained some insight into all the things you have been doing right all along. Even more important, I hope are able to identify the mistakes that have derailed you, and use that knowledge to your advantage from now on. Remember, you don't need to become a different person to become a more successful one. It's never what you are, but what you do.

Heidi Grant Halvorson, Ph.D. is a motivational psychologist, and author of the new book Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals (Hudson Street Press, 2011). She is also an expert blogger on motivation and leadership for Fast Company and Psychology Today. Her personal blog, The Science of Success, can be found at www.heidigranthalvorson.com. Follow her on Twitter @hghalvorson

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/02/nine_things_successful_people.html

Being the Boss: The 3 Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader

Being the Boss: The 3 Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader
by Linda A. Hill, Kent Lineback
304 pages. Publication date: Jan 11, 2011. Prod. #: 12285-HBK-ENG

You never dreamed being the boss would be so hard. You're caught in a web of conflicting expectations from subordinates, your supervisor, peers, and customers. You're constantly fighting fires. You're mired in office politics. You end each day exhausted and discouraged, wondering what, if anything, you've accomplished. You're not alone. As Linda Hill and Kent Lineback reveal in "Being the Boss", becoming an effective manager is a painful, difficult journey. It's trial and error, endless effort, and slowly acquired personal insight. Many managers never complete the journey. At best, they just learn to get by. At worst, they become terrible bosses. This new book explains how to avoid that fate, by mastering three imperatives:

(1) Manage yourself: Learn that management isn't about getting things done yourself. It's about accomplishing things through others,

(2) Manage a network: Understand how power and influence work in your organization and build a network of mutually beneficial relationships to navigate your company's complex political environment, and

(3) Manage a team: Forge a high-performing "we" out of all the "I"s who report to you. Packed with compelling stories and practical guidance, "Being the Boss" is an indispensable guide for not only first-time managers but all managers seeking to master the most daunting challenges of leadership.

http://hbr.org/product/being-the-boss-the-3-imperatives-for-becoming-a-gr/an/12285-HBK-ENG

What Manchester United can teach us

What Manchester United can teach us

Leadership matters in football as much as in any other business. Hay Group's Fabian Lim a committed fan explains how Manchester United chairman Sir Alex Ferguson has applied six leadership maxims to create the club's success:

align culture to goals

groom people today for tomorrow

remember that strategy is nothing without execution

spend money to make money

build for the next encounter; don't dwell on success, or defeat

have a long-term vision of what success will look like.

Sir Alex Ferguson CBE is the most successful manager in English football. Through force of will, counselling and a system of keeping tabs on players and fines, he has taken United's mediocre underperforming team of the 1980s and created a tight-knit, disciplined and professional outfit.

When he took charge, the club was coasting on its past 'Busby Babes' glory that had culminated in the winning of the then-European Cup by the 1967 team that included Bobby Charlton, Denis Law and George Best.

Since his arrival 17 years ago the team has won, nine English Premier League Championships, five FA Cups, two League Cups, and one European Champion's League – an average of one piece of silverware per year.

Of the journey, Ferguson wrote in his autobiography 'Managing My Life' that "much of the change was painful, never more so than when famous players had to be jettisoned or promising youngsters had their dreams shattered by injury". But he never let sentimentality cloud his focus on achieving success, which, for a football club – as with all commercial entities – depends on teamwork.

Ferguson's approach offers some simple yet powerful truths about helping managers and their teams score.

Align culture to goals
To ensure that his team worked, Sir Alex made it clear that not a single player was beyond the manager's control. And he was true to his word, off-loading talents like Paul Ince and Andrei Kanchelskis, who were at the peak of their careers but had become 'too big for their boots'.

He puts it in his autobiography: "...if footballers think they are above the manager's control then there is only one word to be said to them - goodbye". There is no doubt he knew where the buck stopped - with him.

Groom people today for tomorrow
Upon his arrival in 1986, he recognized the need for a longer term fix for an "alarming weakness [of] the way playing staff had been allowed to age without sufficient care being taken to ensure that younger replacements of the right quality were ready to stake claims for regular places in the first team".

He re-established the talent-scouting system and integrated it with a comprehensive and structured youth policy that has produced the likes of Ryan Giggs, the Neville brothers, Paul Scholes and David Beckham. Short-term results should not be pursued at the expense of long-term growth of our businesses.

Manage talent from the heart
The media scrutiny over his 'my way or the highway' clashes with his players and then-Chairman, Martin Edwards, is well known. However, from canteen staff to physiotherapists to players, most speak of his genuine, personal touch and his unwavering loyalty to his players. His knack for 'man management' enables the team to see his goals as theirs too.

Take the case of Eric Cantona and his infamous kung-fu kick at a Crystal Palace fan back in 1995. Sir Alex chose to support and rehabilitate the charismatic Frenchman. Cantona went on to help the team win the English Premier League and FA Cup double the following season.

Many organizations claim that 'people are their most important asset' yet how many practise what they preach? Sir Alex's managerial style epitomises the adage that 'people don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care'.

Execution, execution, execution!
Strategy is nothing without execution. History has proven that Sir Alex is adept at executing his strategic vision, restoring the English League title to the club after a 26-year wait and leading the club to numerous titles and trophies, including an unprecedented Premiership-FA Cup-Champions League treble in 1999.

A big part of that vision lies in his judgement in picking, managing and developing the right talent, as this list of stellar names attests to: Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, Wayne Rooney, Cristiano Ronaldo, Eric Cantona, Peter Schmeichel, Ruud van Nistelrooy, David Beckham, Mark Hughes, Steve Bruce, and Roy Keane. The last three have gone on to be club managers in their own right.

He also protects his players from the media spotlight, stressing that "[it] is always better for me to take the flak, rather than the players".

Sir Alex understands the business of football and stands by the philosophy that 'in order to make money, you have to spend money'.

He has never lost sight of how United's performance on the pitch impacts on its fortunes as a listed company. Companies who manage their talent consistently outperform their peers in terms of return on share price. Companies that get that talent equation wrong feel it on the bottom line.

Throughout his 21 years with the team he has seen the business entity go public and yet he has never taken his eye off the ball - nor dwelt either on success or defeat. Last year, as he celebrated his 20th year at Old Trafford, he complained that the festivities would distract him from grabbing the Premiership back from Chelsea.

While United was beaten by Chelsea in the FA Cup Final in May, Ferguson didn't dwell on defeat. The wily Scotsman has already strengthened his team with the signing of England midfielder Owen Hargreaves from Bayern Munich.

http://newsweaver.co.uk/haygroupglobal/e_article000881048.cfm

Top 20 Best Companies for Leadership

Top 20 Best Companies for Leadership


1 General Electric

2 Southwest Airlines

3 3M Company

4 Proctor & Gamble

5 Accenture

6 Wal-Mart Stores

7 Nestle

8 Coca-Cola

9 McDonald's Corporation

10 Infosy Technologies

11 IBM

12 Cisco

13 United Parcel Services

14 IKEA

15 ABB

16 Zappos.com

17 Hewlett-Packard

18 Goldman Sachs

19 Unilever

20 General Mills, Inc

http://haygroupnews.com/ve/7231i9799V7066FLE/VT=1/page=3

Top 10 reasons Talent management strategies fail

Top 10 reasons Talent management strategies fail

1. No clear vision by senior leaders on what talent management can do for the organization.

2. No clear understanding of what success 'looks like here'.

3. Talent management is seen as the function of HR, not a business accountability supported by HR.

4. No distinctive talent proposition that differentiates from the competition.

5. Line managers fail to address underperformance, even when chronic.

6. Too much focus on development at the expense of better deployment.

7. Not enough 'quality' time devoted to talent management.

8. Line managers confuse performance with potential.

9. Aspirational values and behaviors bear little relation to what's rewarded.

10. Lack of talent management infrastructure and online systems.

http://haygroupnews.com/ve/7431i9294V77620058603/VT=1/page=2

Developing successful leadership styles

Leading across borders: inclusive thinking in an interconnected world
Developing successful leadership styles

Understanding cross-cultural differences shouldn’t be that difficult. After all, haven’t most global CEOs been there, done that?

But the devil is in the details, as Dr. Mansour Javidan, Dean of Research and Garvin Distinguished Professor at Thunderbird School of Global Management, explains to Ernst & Young’s Billie Williamson, Americas Inclusiveness Officer.

Billie Williamson: You’ve been leading GLOBE, the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Project. Can you briefly describe the project and its progress to date?


Video: Leading your business with
a global mindset

Dr. Mansour Javidan: GLOBE looks at the inter-relationships between societal culture, organizational culture and organizational leadership. We’ve got about 170 social scientists and management scholars from all major regions worldwide working on a long-term series of cross-cultural leadership studies.

GLOBE is a multiyear project that’s broken into phases. In Phases 1 and 2, we looked at cultural similarities and differences across countries and tried to understand what we call implicit leadership theories. That is, what do people in different societies expect from their leaders? In the first two phases, we collected data from more than 17,000 middle managers in 58 countries representing 62 cultures. From that, we’ve created profiles of outstanding leadership in each of those cultures.

Now we’re in Phase 3, in which we collected data from more than 800 CEOs in 20 countries (a subset of the total 58). In this phase, we’re looking at the actual behaviors of CEOs and asking how they implement strategic change in their organizations. We hypothesized two things: first, that the CEOs whose styles are consistent with the leadership profiles in their respective countries will be outstanding leaders; and second, that their companies’ financial results will be superior to the results of companies led by CEOs whose styles don’t match the profiles. Thus far we’ve found that this is, in fact, true.

Billie Williamson: What does this mean, in practical terms?

Dr. Mansour Javidan: It means that if you’re a US executive working in Russia or China, for example, you must think about what kind of leadership style you should use and how you must adjust your behavior. We have detailed information about how to lead in different countries.

And now that we have that information, we’re asking what adjustments a typical executive must make and why some are more successful than others in making those adjustments. Our position is that the successful executives have “the global mindset”; a set of attributes that helps executives do a better job of leading people who are different from them.

Billie Williamson: What are your top-level findings from the survey?

Dr. Mansour Javidan: We have identified specific leadership attributes that are universally desirable — no matter what country you’re in. For example, integrity and honesty are viewed as very positive (although they’re more important in some countries than in others). Being collaborative is also highly desirable, regardless of what part of the world you’re in. By the same token, some attributes are universally undesirable for leadership: being irritable, asocial or self-centered is viewed negatively in all countries.

Then, there is a wide range of attributes that are culturally specific. For example, being cunning and self-protective is viewed negatively in the US and Germany, but seen as positive and effective in parts of the Middle East and some other countries.

So US executives in the Middle East, for example, would first want to understand that these qualities may be viewed positively by location colleagues and clients. And second, they’d want to decide how to incorporate those qualities into their own leadership style without losing their identity. That’s the real challenge.

Billie Williamson: In talking about promoting diversity and a global mindset, don’t we risk being somewhat ethnocentric ourselves? We’re telling people, “Here’s how we do it in our part of the world, so that’s how you should do it, too.”

Dr. Mansour Javidan: I get that question a lot. My view is that if you’re an American company that believes in the value of diversity — that it fuels innovation and leads to better business outcomes (and there’s good evidence that it does) — then the people you hire in other parts of the world should abide by your values. Again, that’s the challenge for every global company: how to balance your corporate and societal cultures with those in the foreign country where you’re operating.

The company must stick to its values, but it also must understand that just because you can implement those values in the US doesn’t mean you can necessarily do so in another country. I don’t think there is a simple answer to a situation like that. You have to assess what risk you want to take, and then see what happens.

Billie Williamson: Can you think of any real-life instances where you’ve seen this dilemma? How did it work out?

Dr. Mansour Javidan: This was kind of a nuanced situation, not really black and white. A US company operating in the Middle East sent a very competent, very successful woman executive there. The company’s own country manager said, “If you send us this individual, she won’t be able to build the same personal relations that a man could.” And in the Middle East, it’s true that the boundaries between business and personal relations are fuzzy.

The company decided that the woman met all the relevant criteria, and sent her despite the objections of the country manager. In the short term, the US company actually received strong positive feedback from some of its local clients and supply chain partners, and other people it was dealing with in that country.

Some of them said, in effect, “We appreciate that you’re taking your own values seriously.” Everyone was very pleased. But a year into the job, the female executive realized what the country manager had been talking about. She had very good, respectful relations with her local contacts, but she was unable to build the same kind of personal relations that a male executive could have. Her experience on the informal side was quite different from the formal side. As a result, she was a little constrained in her ability to do more business.

So it’s not about good or bad, or wrong or right, or success or failure — she was reasonably successful — but she herself was the first to admit that a male executive could have done more. Everyone was clear that there had been a price attached to sticking by the company’s values — and the company was fine with that.

Billie Williamson: Are there actions companies can take in the short term that will help their people foster a global mindset?

Dr. Mansour Javidan: First, share information with newcomers about the do’s and don’ts of dealing with people from different parts of the world. Tell people that this is a priority for the organization. Second, multinational corporations employ people from all over the world, but often they don’t exploit this advantage.

Companies should leverage their networks by arranging for new executives to spend time with people from different backgrounds whenever possible. I’m often amazed that companies have no easily accessible database of managers who are based overseas or foreign employees who have worked abroad and then returned. Most companies have a large pool of people who can share ideas and experiences, and it doesn’t cost anything to do this.

Let’s say I want to learn about Japan. Which button do I push, which screen do I access to see the list of all our people? Again, not just those who are currently in Japan, but also those who have had experience working there, regardless of where they are now. Many companies, perhaps most, don’t have this information centralized and made easily available.

Billie Williamson: Don’t most senior leaders know all this already?

Dr. Mansour Javidan: None of this stuff is rocket science. Most people in global positions are pretty smart and they’ll undoubtedly figure it out. But there’s an easy way to do it, and a hard way. The easy way is to take a proactive approach and help prepare people for the challenges of leading with a global mindset.

The hard way is to let them parachute in and assume that they’ll figure it out. Many of them probably will, but the process will be inefficient and painful. And there is the risk that some of them may not figure it out. The solution is for companies to be proactive and help their managers. This requires that they do some thinking about how to thrive in a global economy, and make the issue a priority.

http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/Business-environment/Leading-across-borders--inclusive-thinking-in-an-interconnected-world---Developing-successful-leadership-styles

Why Sports Marketing Is the 'Sweet Spot' of Marketing

Why Sports Marketing Is the 'Sweet Spot' of Marketing
Q&A: Catching up With Former A-B Creative Chief Bob Lachky

By Maureen Morrison

Published: August 02, 2010

CHICAGO (AdAge.com) -- Former Anheuser-Busch creative executive Bob Lachky recently teamed up with Chicago-based sports-marketing agency Revolution in a senior advisory role. In the time between his consulting role with Revolution and a two-decade-long tenure at A-B, he started his own consulting company.


Bob Lachky
Mr. Lachky has consulted as a creative director on a Scottrade campaign, as well as on "Lombardi," the eponymous and soon-to-be-Broadway play about the late football coach Vince Lombardi. (The play is co-produced by Tony Ponturo, a former media executive at Anheuser-Busch.)


While at A-B, Mr. Lachky helped to create some of the most memorable and iconic ad campaigns of the past two decades, including "Wassup?!," the Budweiser frogs and "Real Men of Genius," the most-awarded radio ad campaign in history. He also worked on the development of A-B's Super Bowl ads.

Mr. Lachky spoke with Ad Age recently about his new consulting business, his musings on live TV and sports marketing, and his plans for the future.

Ad Age: You recently joined Revolution in an advisory role. What will you be working on? Will you continue to consult on other projects?

Mr. Lachky: I've had my own consultancy, RCL Group, for about a year. After being in a high-pressure corporate environment for 20 years, which I truly enjoyed, I wasn't about to just stop participating in the marketing world. I enjoy marketing strategy and creative development. Those are the things I did a lot of at Anheuser-Busch and it's been wonderful to be able to transfer that on a consultancy basis. It gives [me] variety: I have something as different as online brokerage, which Scottrade gives me, and then I have Tony Ponturo from the A-B days, who's in Broadway. I work more as an intermediary with the clients ... and make sure that the strategy is correct, that the idea is the right idea and that we execute it properly.

Revolution is a different prospect for me. I started my career in the agency business. ... They are looking for my perspective on marketing strategy and how to make their agency more marketable. It's the marketing of an agency brand. Having been a client for 20 years, I can give them my perspective.

Ad Age: Do you have any plans to work with any beer or spirits clients?

Mr. Lachky: I can't yet because I'm still under [a] non-compete [agreement], but once that non-compete runs out, we'll see. I do love the beer business. The alcohol arena is a very fun, totally image-driven category.

Ad Age: What do you think about A-B spending $1.2 billion to be the next NFL official beer sponsor?

Mr. Lachky: To spend that kind of money makes a lot of sense for a brand that is a natural complement to watching football -- whether in a stadium, or at home, or during the Super Bowl. When I was at A-B, we were able to avoid buying the official beer of the NFL because we did a superb job marketing around it. We owned the Super Bowl. We bought all the local sponsorships for local teams. We looked like we owned the NFL. The only thing we didn't have was the rights to the NFL shield. But now that they have the rights, they can do a lot more local grassroots marketing. That says they are truly a partner. ... It really is a good investment for a brand in a category that complements the viewing of that sport.

I can't comment on whether the price is right or wrong. I know how competitive it can get when you try to buy it. When I was at A-B, and we tried to seriously go after it, we lost it to Coors. We were shocked the [NFL] just didn't come to us because we had some good marketing going on at the time. But it's never a given when you're in a competitive bid situation for these sponsorships.

Ad Age: Regarding the changeover with A-B being the next official beer sponsor of the NFL, do you think that kind of official sponsorship will change the sports-marketing landscape, at least for the NFL?

Mr. Lachky: I think you're just going to see a different primary sponsor doing their spin on what an official product of a category would look like. ...I think the landscape will be changed to the degree that A-B intends to activate the sponsorship on a much more aggressive level locally.

Ad Age: Live network TV -- particularly sports -- has been doing well in the upfronts lately. How do you think the sports-marketing landscape will change with live TV doing so well?

Mr. Lachky: I think it's why Revolution, and a lot of companies like it, are in the sweet spot of marketing: because everybody is immersed in some form of sports or lifestyle activity. I think sports marketing as a term is limited -- it's more like lifestyle marketing. ... Everything that's going on in the sports world has become more of a lifestyle, and so to me any kind of an increase in the upfront on live sports really is a continuation of what has always been there -- one of the strongest buys for an active consumer category. People want live, prime sports. It's entertaining, it's competitive, it's immediate and it's real. ... The various wide range of sports and the various opportunities for activation is a positive trend for anybody with an expertise in the sports marketing/lifestyle marketing industry.

Ad Age: How do you think it affects media spending?

Mr. Lachky: The problem with media spending right now is that people are very much afraid to do any investment marketing because the economy is so uncertain. There's a lot of nervousness, and entire categories have disappeared. ... Entire financial institutions that used to invest in golf tournaments are gone. So I think you'll see more and more people migrating slowly away from pure reliance on traditional media and getting more into events, more into social -- and doing it in an intelligent way. If you can measure it, it's got a chance of taking dollars from traditional media. But it's not either/or -- nobody's going to walk away from traditional media for a mass-marketed product. ... But you're going to start to see more and more spending going into media that are more immediate and can sell consumers one-on-one: Event marketing/sports marketing is very much a one-on-one experience.

Ad Age: You're consulting on Tony Ponturo's play "Lombardi," and the NFL is involved. What will the NFL do for the "Lombardi" play?

Mr. Lachky: They're a marketing partner. They've been in meetings with us and approving the way we're going with certain things, the way we're depicting some of the archival shots in some of the promotional materials to some of the staging. Everything's not finalized. We're just getting out of our summer run, and we don't go to Broadway till October, but the NFL shield will be the seal of approval on some of the marketing. That to me is like an endorsement from the greatest professional sports leagues I can think of. ... The platform the NFL provides is perfect.

Ad Age: What are you plans for the future?

Mr. Lachky: My goal is to stay with clients for a long period of time. I know there are going to be ebbs and flows, so I continue to look for things that are exciting that won't pose a conflict with existing clients. I want the experiences I get from one client be transferable to another. I also want to do work for personal reasons. I'm working a few with not-for-profits: The St. Louis Symphony Orchestra, St. Vincent de Paul Society and Beyond Housing -- all St. Louis based. I'll certainly add to my client list as I can, but I won't jeopardize the current business I have. I want to have a long-term relationship with everyone I work with.

http://adage.com/article?article_id=145193

Rules of Consumer Engagement

Rules of Consumer Engagement
What Sports Marketing Has Taught Me About Making Connections

By John Brody

Published: February 14, 2011
John Brody


One of the hottest marketing buzzwords these days is "engagement." It's easy to see why: In a world of DVRs and digital downloads, where consumers are bombarded with thousands of marketing messages a day, "traditional" advertising has lost much of its punch. Engaging people -- that is, enticing them to invest their time and attention in interactive and shared experiences -- is a powerful way to create an emotional connection with a brand. But as many marketers have learned the hard way, just building an iPhone app, sending out an email newsletter or starting a blog doesn't guarantee a real connection.

As someone who has spent the last 15 years in the sports-marketing arena, I've spent countless hours thinking of methods to engage consumers. After beginning my career on Madison Avenue at a major ad agency, I served as chief marketing officer of the Boston Celtics and spent 12 years as a senior sales and marketing executive at Major League Baseball. Recently, I joined global sports marketing agency Wasserman Media Group as a principal and its head of global sales and business development. It's been an exciting and memorable journey that has given me a window into many different types of sports businesses. It's also taught me a great deal about how media and content must work together to connect consumers with brands.

We all know that the key to marketing anything is identifying the needs or desires of the potential customer. If you're marketing an insurance product, a pharmaceutical drug or a sports drink, your customers' needs, respectively, might be financial security, a healthier life or a thirst quencher. But the need sports satisfies is different; it is less tangible and reactive. It is differentiating because it is emotional, it is passionate and it is built into our persona as we grow and learn who we are. When I first got into this business, I thought fans were simply looking for entertainment, a diversion from the challenges of daily life. But as I learned more, I discovered that sports fills a deeper emotional need for communal experiences -- of delivering hope, anticipation, excitement and shared memories.

Let me give you an example. When I first started to dig in at the Celtics, I asked to see the materials and data that led to the team's branding message, as well as what the team's brand message actually was. I was impressed to learn it had been written by none other than my boss, the legendary Red Auerbach, the team's former coach, general manager and, at the time, president and vice chairman. The message was simple and brief: "To win championships." It was an understandable approach for Auerbach, who had won a record-breaking nine titles during his tenure as coach. But it had been years since the team claimed its 16th NBA title in the mid-1980s, which meant we were failing at our marketing message each year we didn't bring home the Larry O'Brien trophy. We were actually under-delivering to our fans, and we were disappointing our consumers. So I suggested a different strategy. It occurred to me that we were in the business of providing our fans not an unbroken string of wins and limitless success, but rather the aspirational possibility -- the hope -- of another win. So we transformed our message to "Green 17," branding the team's quest for its 17th title, while emphasizing the connection to our signature color. The message to our loyal fans was simple: Show your support for the team's mission by wearing something green. We tied our quest to their hope and rallied behind something they could act on: Celtic Green!

That's engagement in its simplest form.

Today, there's so much choice (aka clutter) in the marketplace, not just in sports but in all media, that it's essential to be relevant and know what your consumer wants. Sometimes the easiest way to figure out how to engage your audience is to put yourself in their shoes -- or on their couch.

Shortly after I joined MLB, in 1999, we were looking for a platform that would truly resonate with baseball fans and be a viable marketing program for our corporate partner, MasterCard. We knew that baseball fans are obsessed with the statistics and records that allow them, however imperfectly, to compare players from different eras. So we came up with the concept of an All-Century Team. We thought, what baseball fan hasn't gotten into the water-cooler argument about who was the best second baseman ever? So we asked fans to choose the 100 best players of the century. As fans with a passion for baseball ourselves, we knew it was a dialogue we would want to be a part of. It turned out to be the most successful promotion for MLB or MasterCard. Note: The success of All-Century Team led to the 2002 MLB Memorable Moments platform, also executed with MasterCard, where we asked our fans to choose their "most memorable moment" in MLB history.

Today I'm focused on growing the agency's domestic and international businesses. In this role overseeing our evolution and expansion, I am constantly reminding myself and my team that we must connect with the consumers and deliver them hope. We must also never lose sight of what programs would matter to us, as fans, because the moment we lose our fandom we have lost our connection.

One of the things I love about my new job is the challenge of putting myself in the mindset of sports fans around the world -- cricket fans in Mumbai, football fans in New York and basketball fans in Spain. I learn something new every day. (I guess you could say I'm engaged.)

But whatever the sport and whatever the country, the goal is always the same: Find the need, know your audience and create a program that resonates with them emotionally.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John Brody joined Wasserman Media Group in August where he is a principal and member of the executive management team based in New York. A 15-year sports industry veteran, Brody spent 12 years at Major League Baseball, the last seven as a senior VP, leading the corporate sales and marketing division. Brody also spent two years as exec VP-CMO of the Boston Celtics. He also spent four years at Y&R. Brody is a three-time winner of the Sports Business Journal "Forty Under 40 Award" and is a member of its Hall of Fame.

http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=148872