Next Time Call Me

Friday, July 27, 2007


Timing is everything, they say. Back in April I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal about some of the issues facing Procter and Gamble (P&G) as it works to create the intended synergies between its Crest toothpaste and the Oral-B toothbrushes of recently acquired Gillette. In her article (“Merger Challenge: Unite Toothbrush, Toothpaste”), Ellen Byron describes some of the cultural differences that Gillette people experienced as the business was absorbed into P&G. In one example, language was a distinguishing characteristic of the two cultures:

P&G employees are known for loading their communications with acronyms like CIB (“consumer is boss”), FMOT (“first moment of truth,” or the moment when consumers notice a product in a store) and SMOT (the “second moment of truth,” when they use it). Outside board members use glossaries at meetings, and Ms. Stacy (head of Gillette’s sales to dental professionals and now for P&G) says she needs one, too. “I have it in my briefcase at all times,” she says, pointing to her attaché’s front pocket.


Apparently there were also differences in decision-making approaches:

Mr. Cleverly, (Gillette’s oral-care president and initial head of the merged oral care divisions) used to working under former Gillette CEO James Kilts, also faced adjustments. He balked at what he saw as laborious processes and slow decision making at P&G, say former Gillette employees familiar with the matter. “The cultural differences were real,” Mr. Cleverly says.


These differences may seem somewhat minor, but the problem is that they can start to distract employees from the really important efforts needed to make sure the company achieves the intended benefits of the acquisition. In this case, P&G is very keen on displacing Colgate from its top position in the oral care market and sees the combined Crest and Oral-B product offerings as the key piece to this strategy. It’s human nature for people from both companies to see differences more than similarities in the early months of integration. But if this emphasis on differences is left unaddressed, this mindset can start to take root and becomes increasingly difficult to change as time goes on.

So I wish P&G well in its business integration efforts in its oral care division. But should the process begin to slow down, Mr. Lafley (A.J. Lafley, CEO of P&G), here’s my recommendation on how to integrate the cultures to create a high performance culture that drives business results.

I don’t know of a better tool and process to use than the Denison Organizational Culture Survey. I recently got around to attending a Denison workshop to learn more about these instruments and I came away very impressed and excited by the ways companies, in a variety of situations, could benefit from Denison’s research and surveys. Of course I went into the workshop a bit skeptical – how could someone capture something as intangible as culture? Well, Dan Denison and his colleagues took a different approach over twenty years ago. Rather than trying to capture culture, they instead focused on identifying organizational factors that drive organizational performance, as measured by bottom-line results. Their research confirmed that the following four culture traits and twelve corresponding organizational capabilities have a direct impact on organizational performance:

Mission
• Strategic Direction and Intent
• Goals and Objectives
• Vision

Adaptability
• Creating Change
• Customer Focus
• Organizational Learning

Consistency
• Coordination and Integration
• Agreement
• Core Values

Involvement
• Capability Development
• Team Orientation
• Empowerment

I particularly like the comprehensive of this cultural model (it covers both an external and internal focus, as well as flexible and stable infrastructures) and that Denison has statistically proven that its correlates with bottom-line business performance.

So how could this have benefited P&G when they first started this integration effort with Gillette? It could have shown Mr. Lafley and his management team how the P&G and Gillette cultures stacked up against 10,000 other companies in terms of organizational strengths and deficiencies. Comparing the two companies in this way, we could then identify which company’s culture was stronger in certain organizational capabilities so we could pinpoint the specific areas where culture merging would have the greatest bottom-line pay off. It may not have prevented but it would have blunted the typical “we bought you so you have to be like us” integration mindset often seen in acquisitions.

There’s lots more to talk about here, but for now it’s exciting to know that just as toothpaste and tooth brushes can be made compatible for greater value so too can organizational cultures.

Weight in the Saddle

Thursday, July 19, 2007

A couple of things in the business world came together for me in the past few weeks.

Back on July 8 I read Paul Brown’s New York Times review of a new book entitled "Finding Midas." The author, Russell Cleveland, is founder of RENN Capital Group, an investment management firm. Using Wall Street investment wisdom of “bet on the jockey, not the horse,” Mr. Cleveland describes the type of chief executive he looks for when making his investment decisions. It is the entrepreneurial C.E.O. that catches his attention, whether or not the person is the founder of the company. “Entrepreneurial management concentrates on seeking new opportunities, trying to fulfill the needs of others,” he writes. “Professional management is mostly about making assets more effective and efficient. Both types of management are important, but in our economy it is the entrepreneurs who create the economic growth and wealth for everyone else.”

Then on July 12, David Kesmodel and John Wilke’s article (“Whole Foods is Hot, Wild Oats a Dud – So Said ‘Rahodeb’”) appeared on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. In case you don’t know, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a lawsuit, seeking to block Whole Foods’ takeover of one of its competitors, Wild Oats, on antitrust grounds. The C.E.O. of Whole Foods, John Mackey, has been quite vociferous in defending his company’s strategy and actions. It turns out that the FTC, in a document it made public late on July 10, included a quotation from the Yahoo Finance stock forums. The footnote reads, “As here, Mr. Mackey often posted to Internet sites pseudonymously, often using the name Rahodeb.” (Rahodeb is an anagram of Mackey’s wife’s name, Deborah.)

Given the speed of Internet journalism, by late evening on July 11, Mr. Mackey had posted seven responses to the question “Who is “rahodeb” and why does the FTC quote this person?” on Whole Foods’ website’s Frequently Asked Questions section. His first three answers were:

• I posted on Yahoo! under a pseudonym because I had fun doing it. Many people post on bulletin boards using pseudonyms.
• I never intended any of those postings to be identified with me.
• The views articulated by rahodeb sometimes represent what I actually believed and sometimes they didn’t. Sometimes I simply played “devil’s advocate” for the sheer fun of arguing. Anyone who knows me realizes that I frequently do this in person, too.

Keep in mind that Mr. Mackey posted to Yahoo from 1999 to mid-2006 and only stopped posting because he lost a bet with another correspondent over Whole Food’s stock performance.

Next headline, July 14, in the Wall Street Journal, “SEC Opens Informal Inquiry of Whole Foods CEO Postings.”

Now I have no idea whether his actions violated any securities laws but as a leadership consultant, I find his use of “fun” and “unintentional” to justify his unorthodox actions as reproachable. The smart leader knows that one’s intentions are of no consequence – it is the impact of one’s actions that matter the most. I recognize it must be very difficult for him to separate his identity from the company’s identity, having co-founded it as a college dropout back in 1980. But as can be the case in situations like this one, the moment arrives when it is painfully and publicly clear that the company has grown up but its creator has not.

Then Whole Foods issues the following press releases on July 17:

• “Whole Foods Market’s Board of Directors Begins Independent Internal Investigation Associated with Online Financial Message Board Postings”
• “Whole Foods Market today released the following statement from Co-founder, Chairman and CEO, John Mackey: "I sincerely apologize to all Whole Foods Market stakeholders for my error in judgment in anonymously participating on online financial message boards. I am very sorry and I ask our stakeholders to please forgive me."

Sounds like someone got tired of the jockey doing acrobats while riding the $5.6 billion racehorse.

Postscript: Here is a Wall Street Journal video from Friday, July 20 on the Mackey story.

Driving Miss Manners

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Leave it to Toyota to come up with another variation on the hybrid theme. In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Amy Chozick gives us an inside look at the luxury car buying experience that Lexus is promoting in its Japan market to compete with BMW and Mercedes (“The Samurai Sell: Lexus Dealers Bow to Move Swank Cars”). Lexus has modeled its version of customer service after ancient Japanese hospitality traditions, including its samurai culture and tea ceremony. All its employees attend a three-day training course in the shadow of Mount Fuji to learn how to bow, serve tea, and smile in ways to make the Lexus car buying experience pleasurable and memorable. Needless to say, this is an unusual mix of business strategy, national culture and customer service.

As I thought about this story more, I began to see that this strategy is more than just a variation on customer service. Rather, what Lexus is trying to do is to create a culture of hospitality in the rough-and-tumble automotive industry. And there is a significant difference between customer service and hospitality. Being more transactional in nature, customer service is standard business practice, regardless of how well a company practices it. But hospitality implies ritual, location, and relationship, the sense of welcoming and care. Not exactly words you think of when “dealer showroom” comes to mind.

Clearly this hospitality strategy is in line with tenets of the experience economy. My posting from March 23 (“Jim Gilmore and the Geeks”) talked about some companies who have developed intentional experiences for their customers as a way to either distinguish themselves from their competitors or offer value-added features or both. I talked about the importance of authenticity if an experience is going to avoid the gimmick trap. With this hospitality approach, Lexus is coming close to blurring the lines between service and ritual. Since rituals usually involve an acknowledgment or honoring of some sort of significant life event or experience, Lexus may need to seriously look at how far they want to go down this path. To what degree does buying a Lexus in Japan signify an accomplishment or life passage? Would this only apply to first-time Lexus buyers, who have truly “moved up” in status and buying power that they can now afford a Lexus? We all grew up on the notion of cars as status symbols. How could Lexus use the ancient hospitality philosophy to take this reality to the next level? And why couldn’t Lexus apply this approach in the U.S.? Though the practices and ritual are not of American origin, the Japanese version of the hospitality tradition has the chance of striking a chord with a particular luxury car buyer – the acknowledgement that this purchase represents a major personal accomplishment. Combine this with a “ceremony” that is dignified, refined, and rooted in 700-year-old traditions and you can create one powerful and emotional connection.

Now I’m not advocating that the Big Three automakers copy Lexus’ hospitality strategy. But it wouldn’t hurt them to re-examine the entire buying experience through the eyes of the consumer. Otherwise, an old saying (ichigo ichie) from the Japanese tea ceremony may prove to be prophetic…

Treasure every encounter with another person, because it may never happen again.