Can we agree that making good business decisions is getting harder?
For each business, the reasons vary, but we see common themes:
Volatility: The pace of change of everything (markets, customers, technologies, products and competitors) is accelerating.
Uncertainty: The accelerating pace of change challenges assumptions about what’s invariable.
Complexity: The number of stakeholders, variables, and perspectives involved in a decision keeps growing.
Ambiguity: We’ve become very clever at accumulating data, but having more data does not solve the problem of knowing what the data means.
School didn’t properly prepare any of us for making decisions in this environment. Deductive problem-solving works best in predictable environments. That’s not the world we live in.
Of course, there is no apparent shortage of external help:
Analysts proclaim their best practices.
Consultants promote their proprietary models.
Technologists offer their SaaS tools that aim to automate some choices.
And in their own particular contexts, all of these are, of course, helpful. But for higher-level decisions, “best-practices,” “models,” and “algorithms” share a common liability: they are, by design, reductive.
And so for those early, fuzzy, high-level and massively consequential choices, the question you need to ask is whether the way to make a good decision is to keep eliminating considerations until the right answer appears.
That happens often enough, but is there a better way?
We think so. It’s called: “Possibility-Oriented Thinking.”
The phrase is most closely associated with innovation, but this capacity is one that marketing people should also hone. Put yourself in the shoes of a classic innovator: you’re not yet sure what the product is exactly, or who the customer is yet, or what they will pay, or what exactly your competitors are working on, or who they even are, and when they will make their next move.
The answers are all emergent properties of a system too complex to fully understand. Doesn’t that sound a little like many marketing challenges today?
So what do you do?
The “Possibility-oriented thinking” approach begins with this perspective.
Rather than:
assuming there is a “right” answer, we assume there are a variety of answers, some better than others.
assuming that we have the facts required to make the right choice, we assume we don’t, and so adopt an attitude of humility about assumptions and relentless curiosity about new data and possibilities.
thinking the answer can be arrived at by way of deduction from existing facts, we assume that something new has to be injected into the system, something we imagine; a possibility we conceive, a relationship we speculate about and then explore.
making ballistic decisions with resources, we think about “Safe-fail” experiments, pilots, & prototypes.
thinking that the best idea comes from the most expert or highest ranking person, we think the best idea comes from a diversity of perspectives integrated through thoughtfully designed interactions.
What are some of those thoughtfully designed interactions? This comes back to context.
Are you seeking a strategy of differentiation in an established market?
Are you seeking a strategy of transformation around the customer experiences you create, or the business model that you create them with?
You might consider using the Basadur Simplexity model for discovering challenges, organizing a map of dependencies around them, and prioritizing the action plans that advance your goals.
Are you creating a new category, or something very close to it, and seeking a framework for decision-making that does not rely on asking an as-yet undefined customer group how they would respond to an as-yet undefined value proposition?
You might consider a program organized around the concept we call “Pathfinding” – an iterative process that involves a rotation between stances – strategic sense-making, research, ideation, market ecosystem analysis, and marketing experiments.
Of course, organizations also look to Marketers to solve narrower more routine problems. If that’s all Marketing stands for and contributes, it does run the risk of being seen as the “arts and crafts” department of the business.
It need not be so.
A marketing organization equipped to provide leadership in decision-processes at those moments when the altitude is high, the problems are fuzzy, and the outcomes really matter – is a marketing organization that produces value far exceeding the narrow chores of “filling the funnel” and managing content.
Building your musculature in possibility-oriented thinking improves your chances of doing so.
Get more thoughtful content on how to ‘think differently’ on marketing, business, and work by subscribing to our newsletter.
Let us know what you think. Are outbound sales dead? Do leaders use technology as a ‘silver bullet’ to try and fix sales, marketing, and the customer experience?
A couple years ago during Gartner’s Sales and Marketing Thought Leaders roundtable, I asked the group, “Do we really need sales anymore?”
The question was in response to research Gartner shared about the challenges facing sales in gaining a consensus from the internal buying group to move forward with a purchase decision. This insight, built on top of the previous CEB (now Gartner) research showing that buyers are 57% of the way through the sales process before engaging sales, prompted me to think about their effectiveness.
Knowing that half of the room was filled with sales thought leaders, I asked the question in jest to provoke a lively conversation. This year, after seeing Gartner’s latest research on B2B sales, I asked the question again with a twist, “Do we really need outbound sales anymore?” This time it wasn’t meant in jest, it was a serious question about the value of a Sales Development Rep (SDR).
SDR’s according to Payscale, earn on average of $42,000 a year to “make outbound sales by reaching out to clients to obtain leads and schedule appointments for the sales team.” They are the voice on the other end of the phone after your download information off a vendor’s website.
The data point that caused me to question their value is based on how little time buyers spent speaking with sales during a purchase decision. In 2017 Gartner found that only 17% of a buying group’s time is spent with sales. In the latest meeting Brent Adamson, vice president at Gartner, shared that in the most recent research the number is now down to 16%. And as you might have guessed (based on the 57% data point mentioned above) most, if not all, of that time is spent at the end of the buying process.
That leads us back to the SDR. Their role is aligned at the front end of the process. Perhaps you could argue that they play a valuable role in creating leverage for the more seasoned and costly sales executives by screening inquiries, and as the definition describes, scheduling appointments for the sales team.
So, let’s explore how effectively they perform this role using a recent experience I had with an SDR of a SaaS company. We were running an RFP bid process for a client. As a mid-market company, they are looking for an online collaboration tool that fits their unique needs. We collected a list of potential providers and I came across an additional vendor late in the process. Here’s my actual email exchange with the SDR after I signed up for a demo.
You guessed it, he didn’t make it happen. As a result, I didn’t have the information needed to add them to the list. If his organization had allowed me to view the demo on their website without being screened, they may have been included in the bid.
Ironically, the well-defined lead qualification process the rep was following killed the deal before he was able to qualify the opportunity.
I’m not alone in my experience. Gartner’s research asked buyers to define the factors that contributed to a “High Quality, Low Regret” deal. In other words, what factors contributed to them feeling like they made a good informed decision.
Interestingly enough, the factors that made buyers feel less confident about their purchase decisions are directly tied to the seller, specifically buyers didn’t trust them to provide all the relevant and/or unbiased information needed to feel well informed.
On the other side of the chart, buyers commented that they felt confident in their ability to ask the right questions, collect the right information and draw out the insights needed to make a good decision.
Now the dilemma…
We are at the intersection of inbound marketing and sales engagement.
With the increasing sophistication of content management platforms and the risk associated with the sales person negatively impacting the information collection process, we face two very strategic questions for sales and marketing executives.
The first — where do you draw the line between allowing the customer to direct themselves to the right information needed to make a “high quality and low regret” decision and inserting the SDR to help guide them?
The second — when do you do it? Do you allow the buyer to self-identify and request help or do you proactively reach out to them?
The answer may come down to simply how you view the process. If it is truly a “buying process,” then the buyer is in control. You allow them to go as far as they need and allow them to reach out to sales.
If it’s viewed as a sales process, then you reach out to them and help them find what you think they need, which according to the research, is the riskier path.
Based on my experience, I think the answer is clear. And if you believe that sales is a “numbers game,” then the numbers in the research are not in favor of outbound sales.
Let the debate begin.
To hear the interview with David, listen or download here.
By Glen Drummond Estimated Reading Time: 3:00 minutes
Does the competitiveness of your product, or even the success of your business depend on someone else changing their mind or practices? If so, then here’s an instructive tale.
Louis Pasteur
This name, you probably know. Historical reports indicate that by age 55 Louis Pasteur was considered a national hero of France. He won an impressive series of honours and awards for his pioneering work – perhaps most important the germ theory of disease – a theory he developed in the period between 1860 and 1864.
Ignaz Semmelweis
This name most people don’t know. In 1846, Semmelweis was appointed to lead the obstetrical clinic of Vienna General Hospital. In 1847, he got to the bottom of a horrendous (35%) mortality rate from “childbed fever” – drawing a link between doctors performing autopsies and then attending to birthing mothers without first disinfecting their hands.
In his 1861 book, Semmelweis presented evidence to demonstrate that the advent of pathological anatomy in Wien (Vienna) in 1823 (vertical line) was accompanied by the increased incidence of fatal childbed fever. The second vertical line marks introduction of chlorine hand washing in 1847. Rates for the Dublin Rotunda maternity hospital, which had no pathological anatomy, are shown for comparison (view rates).
In the span of one year presiding over the maternity ward, Semmelweis established both cause and cure – instituting a regimen of physicians handwashing with a chlorine solution. Semmelweis conceived and implemented hospital infection-control procedures resulting in dramatic clinical improvements – a full 15 years before Pasteur. And he actively promoted his findings for all to see.
Fifteen years later, Pasteur basked in glory for his achievements in the understanding of the cause and control of infection. Semmelweis was ignored by his contemporaries, who refused to adopt his infection-control procedures. Semmelweis became despondent and his life deteriorated into tragedy. What’s the difference?
The course of a person’s life does not reduce well to a theory – but the course of an idea’s progression in society is a worthy subject of study. Some good ideas have a hard time breaking through. And conversely some bad ideas catch on and linger. What’s interesting is that in this case we have almost the same idea – but in one case it catches on, and in the other it does not.
So what is the difference? One clear difference in this case is “Framing.”
Semmelweis saw that the behavior of the doctors (performing autopsies and then attending to mothers giving birth) was causing the mothers to be infected with “childbed fever”.
He theorized, and then clinically demonstrated, that a change in doctor’s behavior (handwashing after performing autopsies, before attending to living patients) could sharply reduce maternal mortality. Do you see the framing problem? In order to get doctors to stop killing mothers, they would have to admit to themselves that their past actions had been killing mothers. The frame generated a headwind of cognitive dissonance.
Pasteur was not necessarily a more gifted clinician. But he was certainly a more gifted framer. He recast the narrative of infection, shifting attention from the practices of the doctor to the “infectious agent” – the pathogen or “germ.” Semmelwies invented infection control. Pasteur invented a signifier to represent a signified that was already, but only, implicit in Semmelweis’s clinical innovation.
From the standpoint of clinical procedures, there’s nothing in the germ theory of disease that would cause Semmelweis to act any differently in his own clinic; nothing that would improve upon the results he obtained. But from the standpoint of convincing other doctors to change their practices, the germ theory of disease was far more effective than Semmelweis’s call for doctors to change their practices.
We can draw a lesson from comparing the accomplishments of these two men. We may draw a contrast in our mind between the “real” work of innovation and the “fluff” of representation, but to do so is to mis-recognize the way people respond to change.
Inventors who wish to gain attention for tangible innovation should not ignore the need for a new frame to go with it.
Scott had the pleasure of sitting down with author Carlos Hidalgo to discuss his new book, The UnAmerican Dream. The book talks about Carlos’ “journey to entrepreneurial triumph, and the simultaneous path to rock bottom.”
Carlos describes the book as being more than just business, but a book for those that want to reassess personal and professional relationships in today’s always connected, always ‘too busy’ world.
When asked who the book was written for, Carlos stated, “I wrote it from the perspective of an entrepreneur and a business owner and a professional. But it’s really a book to say, stop. What is the frenzy for and reassess your personal and professional relationships and define success on your terms.”
In the interview clip, Scott and Carlos talk about his journey from being on the cusp of a divorce and hitting rock bottom, to his inspiration for the book when a LinkedIn post about why he was leaving his first agency helped him realize he wasn’t alone in his desire to get back to his true self. Carlos also talks very candidly about asking his wife to write a chapter in the book, sharing her story of the impact his ‘unhinged business pursuit’ had on their family.
https://vimeo.com/347584670
Want to watch the full interview with Carlos Hidalgo? Click here.
To hear the discussion with Carlos, listen or download here:
Want more like this delivered straight to your inbox? Stay up to date on all things Carbon Design by joining our email list here.
by Glen Drummond Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
Part One in a two-part series
Empathy. It’s such a defining human quality, you could say it’s in our bones. For sure, it’s in our brains. Neuroscience reveals that we have “mirror neurons” that cause other people’s emotional experiences to become our own. That concept would be astonishing if it were not so familiar. Empathy runs in our veins. The hormone oxytocin – makes us closer to those we’re close with.
Beyond this, there are the mental gadgets that history has draped on our biology. For instance, our fine-tuned sense of justice, fairness, and balance. These qualities also incline us to prosocial behavior, such as helping a stranger on the street, supporting a local non-profit, separating our recycling…
So if empathy comes naturally, why call for “Artificial Empathy?” (Presuming, of course, that such a thing could even be possible?) The answer begins with an observation about a trend in scale. Human nature developed over a long period in which there were rewards for co-operation within groups and competition between groups. But compared to today, the groups were small. It’s not clear that biologically-rooted empathy equips us adequately for the scale-change.
It’s not merely that there are more of us, although the human population has tripled since 1945. It’s that the nature of connectivity between us is transformed. As members of media-fueled electorates, our mood-swings are damaging institutions that took centuries to build. As members of a global economy, our collective emissions are generating planet-scale impacts on the environment.
There are broad conversations underway about these forms of our connectivity. Less so about our participation in corporations. Arguably, no prior form of connectivity rivals the modern corporation’s capacity to pursue its objectives with such speed, scale and precision
If you have spent your career inside corporations, you know there are instances where scale acts as a liability as much as a strength. The world knows that something went wrong at Volkswagen, at Facebook, at United, at Boeing. And while the particulars are different, the circumstances rhyme. A group of people sincerely felt it was their job to do something that the public would come to hate and the owners would come to regret. What corporation is free from this risk?
So why does business need “Artificial Empathy?” It’s partly because natural empathy is poorly matched to the scale of the modern corporation. And it’s partly because the consumer and the public are not going to let corporations off the hook for un-empathetic behavior.
Here’s the basis for my confidence in that second observation. People imagine brands as if they were other people. The marketing practice of managing brands using a system of archetypal characters speaks to this fact. So does the blow-back that follows when corporations act in notably inhuman ways. There’s even neuro-imaging research that shows we look at logos and faces in surprisingly similar ways.
So here, in a nutshell, is why brands need artificial empathy:
Because we imagine brands as if they were other people, and
Because we expect other people to be inherently empathetic, so
We also expect brands to be inherently empathetic too, and
Brands have no natural capacity to fulfill this expectation
This fabric of observations explains a lot. Corporations, pursuing their interests without paying attention to this prevalent expectation, violate customer trust. And sometimes, public trust too.
Only on the rare occasion does this violation happen in the dramatic ways cited in the cases of Volkswagen’s emissions masking or Cambridge Analytica’s democracy hacks.
Far more common are violations so banal they barely register. Robotic voice response systems that remind you: “please continue to hold, your call is important to us.” Departure lounges that add acoustic assault to the list of insults suffered by air passengers. Manipulative marketing and sales tactics like the email that arrived this morning in my inbox, by no coincidence, at 9:18 AM with the subject header, “9:00 AM Meeting.”
Viewed through the lens of empathy, (and the lack thereof) the distinction between the dramatic and undramatic instances becomes only a distinction of degree, not kind. And that observation is potentially helpful because it offers some guidance on what needs to be done.
Now, you might say, “Ah, you’re talking about customer experience,” and yes, in a way that’s true. But insofar as the term “customer experience” stands for a department, a performance measure or one in a set of parallel business disciplines, a “customer experience” capability will only act on symptoms while failing to address the root cause. (Sociopaths are known, after all, for their ability to charm.)
Or, you might say, “Ah, so you’re talking about corporate governance.” And yes, again in a way that’s true. But how much real capacity do the people charged with such weighty responsibilities have to intervene in the minor daily violations of the customer’s expectation of empathy? It’s been observed for some time, that “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Since empathy violations appear to take place despite the ubiquity of “customer experience” and “corporate governance” functions the empathy gap – the delta between customer expectations of empathy and the level of empathy corporations are presently organized to muster – is a real business problem.
It seems like a problem that would be worth taking risks to explore, based on the value of the potential outcome if it could be solved.
To summarize, let’s retrace our steps.
Corporations are large, powerful, engines of collective influence and action.
They are growing increasingly large, powerful, and influential in the lives of people.
People expect them to act empathetically, but corporations have no natural inherent capacity, like people do, to fulfill that expectation.
So, we should expect the empathy gap will grow with the power and reach of corporations, until such time as either corporations design a technology of empathy – “artificial empathy” if you will – or face a more concerted backlash directed at individual brands (“United breaks guitars”), at industry sectors (say, “big tech,”) and at corporations in general.
Despite all the technical progress, investment and hype devoted to it, there remains a debate over whether “artificial intelligence” (AI) actually exists. The concept of “artificial empathy,” if it were to enter the public discussion, would be subject to a similar philosophical challenge.
So why talk about it at all?
Because corporations have plenty of resources for tackling challenges once they can be identified. This one is staring us in the face.
Since the processes, which we call “artificial intelligence” will inevitably shape more of the experiences that corporations project and customers and the public will absorb, is there any question that the need for artificial empathy will grow with each passing day?
The conjunction of “artificial” and “empathy” is a provoking framing of a problem that exists. It matters greatly to a corporation’s stakeholders and deserves far more rigorous thinking and effort than has been devoted to it thus far. Rather than being a zero-sum game, “artificial empathy” will be a project that aligns the interests of shareholders, employees, customers, and the public. Rather than being a departmental problem, “artificial empathy” will require a systems-level response.
I’ll leave for a subsequent article the questions of how “artificial empathy” might work and what resources it might draw upon. For now, suffice it to say if corporations need empathy and don’t have it as a natural quality, then the commercial incentive is there to synthesize it.
The ingenuity and organized effort that has made predictive science – machine learning, deep learning, expert systems, big data, or more generally, “artificial intelligence” – such an important component of corporate strategy today, provides at least a framing metaphor for this initiative – and maybe some important tools too.
But intelligence (natural or artificial) is no substitute for empathy. No matter what strides we make in AI, brands need to make progress now on Artificial Empathy. And if AI begins to make strides on its own, there’s a good chance brands will need to pick up the pace.
Don’t miss out on what’s new at Carbon Design Co., join our email list here!
It’s not unusual to find companies referring to their relationship with clients as “partnerships.” It’s common to find client logos on vendor websites. But how often do you see an agency or consulting firm’s logo on client websites? If you visit www.evepark.ca – that’s exactly what you’ll see.
Carbon Design, represented side by side with, a global architecture powerhouse, a world-class designer, and the project principal: the innovative green-tech engineering firm, S2E Technologies Inc. Under S2E’s leadership, these firms are inventing a new consumer category – one that integrates bold new ideas about housing and transportation – and radically resets the carbon footprint of both at the same time.
CASE STUDY
Did you know, that until recently restaurant owners only cared about the cleanliness of the food prep area? Most customers, and owners, assumed that if someone got sick after dining out it was because of food poisoning. That was until Carbon Design and Challenger Inc. helped “challenge” the norm by showing owners that half of the outbreaks in a restaurant were caused by people to people transmissions.
Now owners know where the “hotspots” are, and as a result, restaurant are cleaner than ever. Grab your face mask and enjoy a safe night out, but you may want to avoid the raw oysters 😉.
CASE STUDY
How do you do it? By giving clients and users what they want. Using the remaining budget that was to be used to update the site with the new branding we designed and built an entirely new site on a new platform. But audience needs are constantly evolving so the work never stops. Our team continues to audit performance and make improvements.
As a result, the two-year journey has paid off with the site being named #1 in the industry. Even more importantly, their key priority areas (site search, attorney profiles, etc.) were ranked in the outstanding category. Proving that excellence is a journey not just a destination.
