Nineteen: The Authentic Brand
There is a common misconception that it is possible to separate business and personal matters. While a person can alter their behavior in certain roles, their character remains constant. When a person's behavior is aligned to their character, they have authenticity. When a person's behavior is misaligned, they do not. Others will recognize this, and will consider such an inauthentic person to be disingenuous and untrustworthy. And the same can be said of brands.
Authenticity is based on integrity, an assessment of whether a persons' actions align to their words and an estimation of whether they are constant and reliable. To be authentic, a person must say what they mean and keep their promises. A person who does so is considered to be true to his character, and if you know his character then you know what he will do - he is predictable and reliable. A person without integrity is expected to violate the most basic exchanges of the social contract - he will say whatever is necessary to get what he wants from others, then fail to do what he has promised in return. No-one cares to do business with a person like that, and most people would not care to interact with them socially.
Authenticity requires the courage to be oneself and expect to be accepted. The inauthentic person is cowardly and weak, and allows his fear of rejection to lead him to put on an act. Because he does not expect to be accepted for what he is, he feels the need to pretend to be something he is not.
Authenticity also requires patience - particularly in an environment where cheaters seem to prosper, it takes a certain level of faith in oneself and others to play fair and expect the outcome to be positive. In the short run, people can be easily fooled and deceived - but over time they will recognize this has happened and will avoid those who are inauthentic and seek out those who are honest and reliable.
The author also asserts that authenticity requires being concerned for the welfare of others, recognizing that playing fair means ensuring the interests of both parties are served. (EN: I would consider this to be a separate manner. A self-centered and callus person has integrity if he doesn't pretend not to be self-centered and callus. You don't want to interact with him because he is harmful or indifferent, not because he is inauthentic.)
The Authentic Brand Manager
While a "brand" is often discussed as if it were a person, the brand cannot take action on its own. The behavior of a brand is the behavior of those who manage it, and who must also be authentic. They must have personal integrity, and they must act in a way that instills this integrity into the brand itself.
There's a brief diversion about the manager as a person of integrity, and the benefits this has to all his working relationships: superiors, subordinates, partners, and all who interact with him will be more collaborative if he is a person of integrity and can be relied upon.
There once was a motivational phrase that suggested those who manage a brand should "live the brand" - which is excellent advice but was never fully embraced. When a manager pays lip-service to the brand, his actions (hence the brand's behavior) will inevitably reflect his true character and the market will recognize the lack of integrity. To be authentic at all times, the character of the manager and the character of the brand must be aligned.
(EN: This relies on the assumption that the brand manager is the single decision-maker for everything related to the brand, which seems sensible but is not at all practical. Many employees operate under the aegis of the brand, and any one of them has the ability to harm the brand. To think a company can hire only stalwart people of impeccable character is idealistic - some of them are going to have to fake it.)
Authenticity and Engagement
Integrity is critical for engaging consumers. Much in the same way that people shun other people who lack integrity, so do they shun organizations that misrepresent themselves to gain engagement. This is often a serious problem with advertising: a company misrepresents itself (or its products) in order to make a sale - but when people discover the deception, they will not buy a second time and will warn others to keep well away.
The author shifts to internal engagement - how the company engages with its employees. There are various studies that correlate an employee's sense of engagement with performance factors: their productivity, their contribution, their willingness to apply themselves, their loyalty, etc.
Just as the brand represents the company to the market, so does the manager represent the company to the employees. And in that sense the authenticity of the manager drives the engagement of the workers, and results in the quality of their work. And in turn, the quality of their work supports the value and reputation of the brand.
Shift back to the customer: engagement with a brand drives customer behavior as well. A customer is not only a buyer of the brand and a user of the brand, but an ambassador of the brand to other customers and prospects. There are very strong brands that need very little advertising because of strong customer advocacy, and very weak brands that must do a great deal of advertising because of very weak engagement.
There's an odd bit at the end about engagement being expressed in action. That is, the concept of "engagement" is often spoken of as a sense or a feeling toward the brand - but this is not accurate. When a person is engaged, they are engaged in activities - their sense of engagement makes them want to do things. So it is suggested that companies that want to have engaged customers must give them something to do.
This can be in conflict with the imperative to make a product easy to use. When a product requires no action, it provides no opportunity to be engaged. Customers feel more attachment to brands that require them to do things - they feel a stronger sense of participation and engagement with a product they had to assemble than one that was ready to use right out of the box.
Internal Authenticity
Shift back to employees, as they are a brand's strongest ambassadors. However, many companies take an antagonistic stance toward their workers, sharing information on a "need to know" basis, and often presenting very skewed information to their employees. This creates mistrust, which taints the way in which they represent the firm to others.
To make matters worse, many companies do not have a clearly defined strategy for communicating to their employees. The author cites a 2014 study that found that only 17% of companies have documented such a strategy, and employee surveys demonstrate that the strategy is not executed to the point that employees understand their company's brand objectives.
It's also suggested that firms fail to consider the full employee lifecycle, in the same way that they fail to consider the full customer lifecycle. That is, they are periodically interested in attracting and hiring talented employees - but there is no strategy in place for retaining them once they have signed on. As such, many companies face constant employee turnover: their best people leave and have to be replaced - and as word spreads, it becomes increasingly difficult to attract good people: they have burned through many, and those they have burned have spread the word to other candidates.
Random Bits
- The author cites a study that suggests that the level of engagement between an employee and their immediate supervisor is the most influential factor in workers' sense of trust for their organization. Those who say they have supportive supervisors have higher engagement and longer tenure.
- A Gallup pollster asserted that employee development was also a significant factor in workplace happiness. Even in places with poor compensation, benefits, and work-life balance, development makes misery "magically" disappear.
- Another study of "thousands of workers" correlate engagement to revenue: employees who feel that they are well treated by their firm generate more revenue per customer visit.
- A 2103 Gallup survey found that only 13% of employees felt engaged at work
- A Harvard study found four factors that were highly correlated to engagement: feeling valued and appreciated, feeling trusted to handle tasks with little control, being able to do what one does best, and having opportunities to "renew and recharge" at work.
- The same study found correlation between job satisfaction, tenure, and performance in the workplace.
- Another study found that recognition and praise was more motivational than monetary incentives as measured by productivity incentive programs. "Even a simple gift generates a positive response from employees simply because they are recognized and appreciated for a job well done."
Motivation and Meaning
Incentives are meant to alter human behavior by altering the benefit or the cost of a transaction - but each person evaluates the benefit and cost and makes their own judgment on whether they find the exchange to be attractive under the terms of the incentive. By lowering the cost of a benefit, it is assumed more people will find the benefit attractive - and by increasing it, fewer people will. Or should.
The author considers the case of a daycare center that imposed a fine on parents for picking up their children late. It was assumed that parents would pick up their children on time to avoid paying the fine, but instead the center found that the number of late pick-ups increased. Evidently, parents found that the convenience of picking up their child later to be worth the cost of the fine - and more importantly, some who did not think it was acceptable to be late now saw this as a service that was available for a reasonable fee.
Workplace incentives often have similar adverse effects: incentives offered for extra productivity are seen as being not worth the time or effort, and productivity decreases rather than increases. Particularly for programs where the "prize" is worth less than the wages for the time required to earn the prize, employees are demotivated and some are even demoralized because they recognize the trick their employer is attempting to play.
There's a sidebar about motivating volunteers, which can be difficult because there is no monetary reward. But volunteers are motivated by a desire to accomplish a goal or support a cause - and when their activities are linked to the cause, they are more enthusiastic about lending a hand. Keeping volunteers busy is also critical, as people who find themselves idle cannot be convinced that their mere presence is helpful.