Prophet or Putz? Part Duh

Back in June of this year I took a look at some of my post history to see how close some of my prognostications were to eventual reality.  Based on my own “unbiased” review I was pretty close.

Well, it’s almost 6 months later and closing in on that time of year when everyone reflects on and reviews their efforts over the past year, so I thought it would be worth checking back on a few other ideas I presented and see whether my future meter was still working.

Being within a few months of hitting 1,000 posts (based on average posts/month) it wasn’t easy – but I found three posts that “predicted” the future and I’m curious what you all think.  Jump out and read the posts and then come back and let me know – Prophet or Putz?  I can take it.

 

Nexus of Value

This post (three years ago) discussed the idea that companies may not be the nexus where employee’s derive a sense of value and belonging.  My take was that more and more employees will connected to their most immediate work group first – and their company second.  I posited that this would have some impact on the way in which incentive and reward programs should be designed.  

A quote from that post:

"In other words, I would market to the Tribe - and outsource the reward and recognition to the Tribe members.  I would "enable" the Tribe.  I would celebrate the different Tribes.  I would create reward and recognition programs that reinforce the Tribe and Tribe membership.

The one thing I wouldn't do is what most companies would initially try to do - rein it back in.  Control is the opiate of a bureaucracy - and a very powerful one.  If new media and new technologies have shown us anything it is that control is moving away from a top-down model to a networked one.

As the leader I would reinforce the network.  Move my span of control up a notch to the Tribes and let the Tribes worry about their members."

When I wrote this I felt it was dead on… but I didn’t anticipate companies like zappos that focus exclusively on the big tribe – the company.  But the question for me now is – “When zappos grows to beyond 2,000 or 5,000 employees – will the nexus shift to their more immediate work group?"

I think it will.  zappos should pay attention to finding ways to leverage the smaller groups as they grow.  But that thinking is for a future Prophet or Putz post.

Are You Motivated by a Carrot

This post was more of a screed on the use of “carrots” as a symbol for motivation.  I’m still steadfastly against it and believe with some of the newer research (or older research repackaged) that carrots are the wrong metaphor for aligning and driving specific organizational behaviors.  Hasn't happened yet - but carrots are so last year IMHO.

From the post:

"I purposely don't link to these books or the site because I don't want to continue to promote carrots as a motivational metaphor.  I don't know about you, but the titles listed above reduce a complex set of principles and activities down to a much too simple instinctual metaphor - and insult the audience.

I'm sure that some of the sidelong glances the motivation industry gets from its own clients are driven by the continued use of this metaphor.  The concept of carrot and stick creates and aura of duplicity and manipulation - when in reality we're talking about alignment of values and goals.  I don't believe incentive and recognition programs manipulate as much as "guide."  I'm sure someone will make the point that those words may have distinction but no difference.  Let them - I respect my audience and in my mind there are big differences."

What’s is your take?  Are we past the carrot metaphor?  What should it be?

I’m thinking more of a progress bar or a heart – tying into the need to belong and the need to see progress as real drivers of engagement and motivation.  

 

Are We at a Marketing Tipping Point?

Moving to audience-sponsored marketing from company-sponsored marketing is pretty much the post “du jour” for many sites today but this was 20 months ago and I made suggestions that at the time weren’t reality.  I think there are a few ideas in the post that are yet to be realized - but are on the very near horizon.

To quote the post:

"It is now becoming apparent to me that any marketing activity initiated and paid for by a company is seen as a potential lightning rod for bad press.  It's as though journalists woke up yesterday and discovered marketing as if it were fire to a Neanderthal.  Eyes wide with excitement and awe, they write, post, and report on all the ways companies spend money to convince employees, partners and consumers to do business with them - and why that expense is a waste! 

Marketing is now a tipping point that won't be visible for a few years and only with hindsight.  That tipping point is from company sponsored-marketing to audience-sponsored marketing.  I know there are a few of you who have been preaching this for a while - "the audience owns the message."  I think the difference now is that up until today, the audience was just the consumer and those activities were an adjunct to other marketing tactics.  But the future will be audience sponsored marketing as the ONLY marketing tactic and encompass ALL audiences - consumer, channel and employee."

Specifically, I made some predictions about how marketing programs will break down the walls between consumers, channel partners and employees.  I’m seeing a little of that today – especially in how companies are using twitter – but not as much as I think would be beneficial.

And I liked my closing paragraph:

"I almost can see every Facebook page, linked in profile and twitter home page looking like a NASCAR driver uniform - each person connecting their contacts to their favorite brands - and getting something in return.

Marketing will make that leap from being sponsored by the company to being ENABLED by the company.  It will probably be cheaper and more effective in the long run."

So take a look and let me know – on target, off target, missing a big issue?  I’m curious.  

 

Comments

[Cyndy Trivella]

I see quite a bit of insight in what you posted. If I may, here is my humbly provided two cents.

I totally agree that workers build their circle around their immediate work group and more importantly, their work "buddies." People as a general rule don't identify with companies, they identify with people. Further, good (employers) companies understand that their brand has a personality and that is the entry into where people, consumers and employees alike, find the bond.

I don't find carrots to be the correct form of motivation. Frankly, I see carrots and sticks as de-motivating. They are an "at-a-boy" that suffices the moment or a "bandage" on a problem that requires surgery. Communication, inclusion and providing work-of-value are much longer lasting and penetrable into the heart of the matter.

From the many articles I have read lately, I do agree that marketing is at the crossroads. Personally, I am much more interested in knowing what people have to say about a company and/or product and/or work culture than I am about the company taking bragging rights to a whole new level. This said, I do not devalue a company's marketing initiatives and do see benefits, however once a message is launched, it now becomes the "property" of the public to do with it as they see fit. In addition, companies need to get comfortable with societal transparency and wrap their arms around it.

[Derek Irvine]

Great post, Paul. Yes, we are FAR past carrots and sticks as motivators. I wrote a couple years ago about this metaphor -- "When you think of an image of carrots and sticks as a motivator, what's in the middle? A jackass. I don't think of my team members as jackasses, do you?"

[Scott Crandall]

Paul --- From your posts and our conversations over the years, I've arrived at one primary conclusion: organizations that have a CULTURE of recognition and appreciation need fewer PROGRAMS of rewards & incentives. I think the CULTURE -- for good or ill -- is a very formidable hurdle for PROGRAMs to scale.