I agree , change is one of the innovation’s consequences , can anyone imagine if we have the technology in below video , what will happen to the devices we use today.

http://theqig.net/leanblog/?p=358

Your key comment was that your clients wanted you to measure impact on sales — that’s a marcomm function that because of our tactical execution, leads us to the marketing side of the equation. That’s no tragedy at all — it’s just a different angle on the communication mix.

I’m hoping for more clients asking about measurement — it and strategic planning are what I do — and I’m certainly not afraid of measuring against sales if that’s what they want and are willing to pay for it!

Thanks again for stopping by.

As a business owner, I see two sides of our profession: I see it from a business owner’s perspective and I also see it from a communication professional’s perspective. The funny thing is that we’re really great at brand awareness and creating conversations and driving credibility…both for Arment Dietrich and for our clients. But clients began to say, “This is great, but how do we know if it’s doing anything?” And they wanted us to measure those efforts to their sales.

So we switched our business model to incorporate all of that with, what would be more commonly known as, marketing.

Turns out, when you do both and you can measure it, clients are very, very happy.

@chris – many thanks. I’ve been working on the thinking of the 3 C’s for a while — since last year — and needed @gini’s boost to push me off the dime.

You’re right, of course — we could debate who owns whom for eons (and have!) to no logical end at all. And, you’re not cynical to think it takes a crisis to make stuff happen, not when we see the, ahem, ladies and gentlemen of the U.S. Congress as a batch of spoiled toddlers with a mud bog at hand…

Thanks again.

Your tips here on communicating are tangible and applicable; a good practice that was forced by a crisis situation. It’s a shame to say it, but that sort of communication and eventual integration of multiple communications departments probably wouldn’t have happened unless “it had to” due to the times. Maybe I’m just being cynical, but either way, it’s a good success story to learn from!

Looking forward to more!

This is part of the reason behind much of my recent focus on Leadership Communication as a foundation for organisations.

Look forward to future contributions.
Cheers, geoff

Whether it’s a lack of respect for history as Bob avers, or a deficit in listening as Geoff suggests, it’s comical how clueless so many leaders seem to be at understanding culture.

A recent piece in the Harvard Business Review looked at research into the seemingly mutually exclusive realms of respect and power among senior leadership. The “tough guys” seem to win out over the less abrasive, more respectful leaders, both in experiments and in practice. (I read the piece in USAirways’ magazine).

According to the research, the perception of being powerful turns out to be a causal agent for promotion, particularly to the C-level. What’s doubly disturbing is that more humanistic leaders tend to get better results than their “powerful” counterparts… So it’s a classic disconnect — the tough ones get the job but don’t get the results. Gaaa.

Thanks again for your comments.

In my experience, much of this thinking is, as you correctly point out, hubris on the part of leaders, who think that they have the magic beans to “strategize” their way out of any challenge.

Another part of the problem, though, is that many business leaders are actually not that interested (or educated) in contextual thinking, particularly in history. The silly jargon, “moving forward” just about sums it up — the relentless drive toward something…a goal, plan, etc., rather than an examination of history or culture that provides broader understanding.

Most change doesn’t work because of culture clash. Culture and history are inherently important, yet too soft for the majority of leaders, who would rather ride in on a white stallion and act as if they have all the answers. This all points to the primary problem in Corporate America — too little critical and contextual thinking in relation to supposed action or planning.

“Know the context in which you are going to lead. Knowledge of the organisation in which the leadership is taking place is important to understanding why the leadership needs to take place now, why this is the right time for action and why others will support you …

“When you enter a new company, you may be tempted to start immediately leading for change without understanding what has happened before. Your view may well be that what is past is the past, and that this is time for a new beginning. But what is it like from the perspectives of others in the company? How many times have they heard this before and watched the actions fail to meet the talk? Why will they support you?

“Don’t completely disregard your own appointment as the company has employed you for a reason and this is also part of the context…

“The most important tool in your leadership box to help with this is listening. Not superficial listening but deep listening – the type that means you not only hear but analyse what you hear and work out why a person is saying the things you are hearing.”

Cheers, geoff