Posts tagged as:

aligning identity image and action

$819 Billion to show us that transparency is not enough

by cv harquail on February 12, 2009

Earlier today I was mulling over a post by Rachel Happe at The Social Organization, arguing for more transparency about organizational budgets and compensation plans.

Rachel asserts that “accounting is really an exercise about setting our priorities and ensuring that we are acting on and accounting for those priorities. ” Thus, Rachel recommends that organizations be more transparent about their accounting (and distribution of resources), so that they can make their organizational values “crystal clear”.

Yes, I thought. The more data, the better we can see where an organization is focusing its resources. Then, we can draw conclusions about whether the organization is doing what it says it values.

Then, I tripped over The Washington Post’s mindblowing –actually genius– graphic by Laura Stanton, breaking down the $819 Billion Dollar Stimulus Bill into ‘buckets’. A second graphic shows how the money will be spent over time. (Here’s a little screen grab to tempt you to get over to the whole thing!)

Taking Apart the $819 billion Stimulus Package
Taking Apart the $819 billion Stimulus Package - washingtonpost.com_1234469766296

What’s the difference between “819 Billion Dollars” and actually being able to understand what the Stimulus Package is made of? It’s right there, in Stanton’s graphic. Just by looking at the graphic, you get it. Quickly. Comprehensively. Accurately. Powerfully. And now you can talk about the Stimulus Package knowledgeably.

There’s something else that Stanton’s graphic shows us, and that’s the difference between transparency and understanding .

Being transparent with your data is ONLY the first step towards demonstrating what your your organization really values.

In addition to being transparent (i.e., forthcoming and complete), data also need to be presented. Organizations need to share their quantitative and qualitative data in ways that are actually informative. Data need to be organized, categorized, graphed, compared, depicted, parsed, put into context, etc.  so that people can understand what’s there. Then, people can come to their own conclusions about the organizations’ authenticity.

In the example of the Stimulus Bill, not even the most avid political bloggers tracking tax cuts vs. infrastructure investment could give you a picture as clear as the one provided by Laura Stanton, based on the data assembled by Karen Yorish, at The Washington Post.

Too often, information is just ‘posted’, as though we stakeholders are actually going (to be able?) to figure out ourselves what the data mean. Even when data are presented in conventional, common forms, like on balance sheets according to GAAP, we need trained professionals to analyze them. Meanwhile, everyone else’s eyes glaze over.

Of course whoever is presenting the data gets to make choices about how the data are presented. These choices are rarely value-neutral; they can hide information, reveal information, and encourage conclusions in one direction or another. Still, even a presentation that frames the data in a potentially biased way is a huge step better than a raw data dump.

L+E Visual Thinking Archive - a set on Flickr_1234473250224

Authentic organizations don’t expect their stakeholders to sweat over their ‘transparent’ data, as though their stakeholders were MBA students taking a finance exam. Increasingly there are formats, templates and best practices that can guide organizations that choose to go beyond being transparent. Organizations that want to be understood, and be held accountable for being authentic, have some models to follow.

The folks over at CorporateEye post regularly about best practices in corporate communications. David Armano at L+E (Logic+Emotions) has a truly outstanding array of visual displays of processes, concepts and qualities. (See graphic at right.)

To be authentic, organizations must recognize that being transparent is not enough.

Organizations must go further and communicate information about ‘who they are’ and ‘what they do’ in ways that permit invite stakeholders to understand them.

Then, stakeholders can hold organizations accountable for being authentic.

If you're interested in this issue, please subscribe to my RSS feed. Or, use the blue box (upper right) to get an emailed update. Join the conversation below...

{ 1 comment }

Authentic Organizations Turn Green from The Inside Out

by cv harquail on February 4, 2009

How does an Authentic Organization create green products?

HJORDA

In her advice to organizations that want to reposition their corporate brands as "eco-friendly" , Susan Gunelius of Corporate Eye argues that organizations need to start being green before they claim to be green. As Gunelius explains:

Your customers aren’t going to believe messages claiming your (corporate) brand is green if your employees don’t even recycle.

An organization can’t gain a competitive advantage by being green unless it starts first with green behaviors inside, and moves only later to making claims of eco-friendliness to the outside.   Just like pears, authentically green organizations ripen from the inside out.

Obviously, an organization can’t effectively claim to be anything that it does not support with its internal action. But this link between internal action and external claims hold true not just with claims about the organization’s brand, but also with claims about the organization’s products.

What’s true about your eco-friendly corporate brand is also true about your eco-friendly product brand.

Only green organizations can grow authentically green products. Customers will not and should not believe claims that your product’s brand is green if your organization itself is not at least trying to be (more) eco-friendly.

Why would stakeholders look to your organization to substantiate eco-friendly claims about your organization’s products? Since when does the attribute of an organization’s product depend on the behaviors of the organization’s members? Said another way, when I’m wondering whether to believe that Tide really will get all the dirt out of my kids’ clothes, would I even think about how clean the offices are at Procter & Gamble? Then, why would I need to know something about the organization before I can believe in the eco-friendliness of the product?

Green claims and eco-friendly claims are not like other types of product/ brand claims.

Most brand claims have to do with either a product performance attribute (e.g., gets the dirt out) or some recognizably fictional attribute (e.g., unleashes your real beauty ). Consumers can confirm and authenticate performance-based attributes simply by putting the product to use. With fictional attributes, consumers don’t even there to be any basis in fact. We understand that these claims exist exist in our minds, and we don’t expect to authenticate these claims.

Eco-friendly claims are different, because they have a different authenticating process.

When we want to authenticate claims of eco-friendliness, we can’t consider only how the product performs. Instead, eco-friendly claims must be authenticated through:

  1. the processes that the organization uses to produce the product, and
  2. the behaviors of the organization itself.

From the power source for the manufacturing plant all the way down to whether the employees use recycled paper, the organization’s systems must also be eco-friendlier.

revolutionary girl pear Organizations promoting eco-friendly products need to go green from the inside out for another reason — to protect their integrity as organizations.

When organizations are found to have made false claims about their products, they damage their reputations and their perceived trustworthiness. The damage occurs in three steps:

  • First, organizational stakeholders get angry at the organization for having been mislead.
  • Second, once stakeholders’ ability to trust claims about your products has been damaged, they are likely to distrust the organization’s future claims- about anything.
  • Finally, stakeholders raise their standard of evidence and become even harder to convince the next time.

Claiming to have eco-friendly products is a high stakes marketing strategy, because with eco-friendly claims, the authenticity of the product rests on the authenticity of the organization. Unless the organization has gone green from the inside out, the whole package goes bad.

{ 0 comments }

Reputation, Beyond Authenticity

February 1, 2009

We’re delighted to feature a guest post from Mignon van Halderen, an expert on Organizational Reputation Management. Mignon is Assistant Professor at the Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), Erasmus University. At RSM, Mignon works in the Corporate Communication Centre where she combines teaching and applied research projects [...]

Read the full article →

What if … Executive Compensation was based on Sustaining Organizational Authenticity?

January 3, 2009

I’m a big fan of linking compensation to business outcomes … as long as the amount of compensation isn’t vulgar and the right kinds of outcomes are part of the formula. So I was intrigued by a recent article about Ethics and Executive Compensation .
Ed Konczal , writing about  over at Corporate [...]

Read the full article →

Can a for-profit business organization that also pursues a social purpose be authentic?

April 24, 2008

There are so many examples of for-profit organizations whose for-purpose actions are suspect that it’s a little scary to bring up the subject. Where do we even begin?
We should probably start by acknowledging that the questionable relationship between a ‘for-profit’ organizational identity and ‘for-purpose’ actions (aka: non-profit, socially responsible, charitable, philanthropic, [...]

Read the full article →

3 Questions for a “Quick and Dirty” Assessment of Your Organization’s Authenticity

April 12, 2008

An authentic organization, very simply, is an organization whose identity, image and actions are congruent with each other. Identity is reflected in image and actions, Image accurately describes identity and actions, and actions express identity and image.

How can you know whether and how your organization is authentic?

It takes a deep inquiry and thoughtful process to [...]

Read the full article →

Honey is really bee vomit: Why we should label “NonProfit” Organizations “For-Purpose” Organizations

March 28, 2008

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."
Would this advice make any sense if, instead, it was:
"You catch more flies with bee vomit than vinegar"?

Heck no. That’s why it makes a difference when organizations have positive, attractive, and descriptive names.
Names matter
Names convey identity. They can be crafted to [...]

Read the full article →