Are SMART goals redundant?

Oct 16, 2019 | Governance, Innovation, Strategy

 

Goal setting and the subsequent resource allocation decisions taken to address the goals are an integral part of every management job, no matter where on the organisational totem that job stands.

Setting goals appropriate to the level at which they are being implemented is a function of being appropriate for the level, as well as ensuring they are consistent and aligned with the overall goals of the organisation.

The greater the degree of alignment, in conjunction with the greater the degree of relevance of the goals to those at every level to which they are being applied, the more effective they will be.

‘If it cannot be measured, it does not matter’. I subscribe to this idea, first articulated by Peter Drucker,  with the simple caveat that it is not always right. As Einstein said, ‘not everything that matters can be measured‘. For example, How do you measure the value of good parenting? We all know it is good for the individuals, and the community, but what are the objective measures of good  parenting?

 It is also important to make the distinction between goals and KPI’s, which are simply the signposts along the way towards goals by which  you measure progress. Confusion of the meaning of these two terms is common, and destructive.

The acronym SMART was used a lot in the past to set the goals of an enterprise, function, teams, and even individuals. It seems, unfortunately, to have gone out of fashion. Perhaps because managing objectives in such a way increases accountability, which might just be a good idea!

Specific. Be very specific about what the objective is, no fluffy words, no ‘get out of gaol’ card.  What is it exactly that you want to achieve?

Measurable.  What are the measures to be employed that will chart progress towards the goal, and most importantly,  tell you when you have achieved it

Achievable. Do you have the capabilities required and the cultural and performance frameworks that will enable the achievement. Is everyone on board? It is hard for employees to strive to achieve an objective  they do not believe in, or think is unachievable. 

Relevant. The goal is consistent with the overall strategy, and contributes to  the delivery of that strategy.

Time-bound. Deadlines drive performance, and highlight activity priorities. The overall goal end point needs to be agreed, as do the key points on the journey

The poster boy for a SMART goal was JFK’s 1961 goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely by the end of the decade.

Header photo by NASA. Astonishing to think it was 50 years ago, I remember it like it was yesterday.

 

How do you delight a customer?

Oct 7, 2019 | Customers, Marketing

Delight the customer has become a cliché, popping up in all sorts of places from PR blurb, to websites, mission statements, and sales rev-ups.

However, few seem to have any real idea of what it really means, can put a solid foundation under the fluff, to make it something meaningful.

I asked the question recently of a group, one of whom had used the words as a throwaway.

 ‘What does delight the customer mean to you’?

I got the expected fluffy strings of adjectives and adverbs back, until someone at the back of the room came up with what I think is the right answer.

She said, ‘We provide an answer to a pressing problem for our customers that is dramatically superior to anything else they have seen’

Do that, and no matter the words, your customer will be delighted.

 

Photo credit: David Woo via Flikr

Who, and How, do we trust?

Sep 30, 2019 | Governance, Leadership

 

 

To me it is a paradox that we have never been so connected, and yet we have never been so polarised and isolated.

With all the information we could possibly hope for, we as a society seem to avoid using it to make sensible rational decisions that will stand logical scrutiny. 

We humans evolved in groups of around 150, according to the well accepted theory first posited by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar. It is the number of people with whom we can maintain stable personal relationships. 

Richard Edelman in his presentation at the Davos conference earlier this year put it as, ‘Trust is local, and very personal’. The comment is based on the 2019 version of the long running Edelman Trust Barometer. It seems to reflect the ambiguity of our evolutionary selves, limited as we are to Dunbar’s number of 150, and our modern  selves, inundated with ‘friends’ served up by the connectivity of the net.

We have substituted the ‘natural’ depth of a relatively few relationships, with the breadth of many superficial, perhaps illusionary ones.  I have 800 connections on LinkedIn, and while I have been very careful, really only know a small number. There are 6,000 names, email addresses and phone numbers in my contacts list, all of whom I have physically met at some point in the last 20 years, but again, really know only a tiny percentage of them.

In a complementary piece of research to the Edelman barometer, the  IPSOS  Global trustworthiness index showed that scientists are the most trusted profession in the world, followed by doctors. Globally, politicians are the least trusted group. 

In other words, the group least trusted by people are those who are instituting the policies that impact on our lives, often in contradiction of the suggestions of the most trusted group in our midst. Our children will inherit the impact of many of the decisions we make, should we not be making them with the best information we have, informed by those who understand it, in the best interests of those who follow us?

It seems not, and my head hurts trying to figure out why.

 

The photo in the header is lifted from a video taken at the UN last week where President Trump and Teen activist Greta Thunberg presented their differing views.  The most powerful man in the world, Vs a 16 year old Swedish schoolgirl. Who do you trust?

 

 

 

 

Do you need a Digital Strategy?

Sep 27, 2019 | Change, Governance, Strategy

 

 

‘Digital Transformation’ and its sibling ‘Digital Strategy’  have become clichés, unfortunately, as it distorts the management and leadership challenges involved.

However you choose to label the evolution from the analogue world of last century, to the digital ecosystems we now see evolving, it is a process, starting with the simplest things, and moving progressively along to the more complicated.

‘Digital’ is no longer a choice,  it simply is!

How many of you have a ‘Telephone Strategy’? Nobody, it is simply a necessary tool, used better by some than others.

The failure of many ‘digital transformations’ I have seen has little to do with the digital tools, and a whole lot to do with the way people are managed, led, and the manner in which the enterprise leadership enables the evolution to digital to occur.

As with any process, in any transformation, including ‘digital’, there are some pretty simple to say, but hard to execute steps to be taken,

  • Define the business outcomes you are seeking.
  • Start with the simple, test, learn, and move progressively to the more complex, building as you go.
  • Recognise and accommodate the wider impacts. In any digital evolution, your business model should evolve in sympathy. As you progressively digitise, the friction  between the old and the new will become more intense, and potentially disruptive to operations if not managed well. This seems to frequently lead to some expensive consultant recommending you devise a ‘Digital Strategy’.
  • Define the new capabilities required. Inevitably new capabilities will replace the ones that made you successful last century. This part of the evolution can be very confronting and painful, but is inevitable. It can also chew up lots of cash, which is often hard to justify using the short term quantitative measures we favour over taking a longer term, but more qualitative view of what the future might look like.

Nothing about a digital transformation is easy, but if it was, anyone could do it successfully, and we know from observation that is not true.

 

Header credit. Another stinging but insightful cartoon by Tom Fishburne at www.marketoonist.com

Content marketing or Marketing content?

Sep 23, 2019 | Communication, Marketing

These two things are different, absolutely different.

Content marketing means different things to different people. Last week I attended a presentation of a self-styled content marketing expert. He was pontificating from the stage about the value of content, and content marketing, but when I asked his definition of content marketing, all I got was clichés.

To me this is pretty typical, disappointing, but perhaps forgivable, as we are just in the early stages of really understanding how best to use this new(ish) medium.

To me, the best definition is that of Joe Pulizzi who runs the Content Marketing Institute.

‘Content marketing is a strategic marketing approach focused on creating and distributing valuable, relevant, and consistent content to attract and retain a clearly defined audience — and, ultimately, to drive profitable customer action’.

This definition does not at any time mention selling. It focusses on delivering information of value to an audience, which may, in time, result in a transaction.

This implies there is a strategy in place, an organised, strategically focussed process that generates content for publication, that reports to someone who carries the accountability for the process and its management.

Without a process, and someone accountable, it becomes chaos.

Trouble is, much of the so called content pushed out is just rubbish. Chaotic gibberish that rehashes what others have said, not an original thought amongst them. Any good stuff in that maelstrom of rubbish is likely to be lost.

Whenever I hear the words ‘Content marketing campaign,’ which is often, usually from agencies of various types, I cringe. Content marketing is not a campaign, at its best, it is a consistent, ongoing  flow of information that may be of value. It is a journey, not a campaign!

Marketing your content is different again, it is simply the management of the challenge of getting your content, good, bad or indifferent in front of those who might be interested, gaining their attention, and extracting an action.

It is largely an exercise in channel management. In the ‘good old days, you had a few options, radio, TV, magazines, letterbox drops and direct mail. Not so now, when there are multitudes of channels all fighting for the attention of potential customers.

You can do a good job of marketing your content, but if your content is crap, it will not do you much good, indeed, it will work against you. Poor content is toxic to the receiver, as it has consumed some of their valuable time, but delivered no value in return.  

 

Header cartoon courtesy of Tom Fishburne www.marketoonist.com