Blanchard's Situational Leadership Model

A couple of days ago, I ran my team through a whistle-stop tour of Blanchard's Situational Leadership Model.  If you've never seen it, it's a really good way of looking at task/goal oriented behaviour especially when managing people.

It's very different to traditional management and leadership theory.  The key premise is that people move through different stages with any task, no matter who or how skilled you are: it's just the speed you move through the stages that varies.

The stages are: 

1. The Enthusiastic Beginner/D1 (Low competence, high commitment).  This is where they are very motivated and require a huge amount of support, but don't really know what they are doing.
2. The Disillusioned Learner/D2 (Low competence, low commitment).  This is where the person has started to realise what they don't know, but isn't there yet, and the initial enthusiasm has worn off.  They can get frustrated more easily, and often feel there's little to show for their efforts. 
3. The Cautious Contributor/D3 (High competence, low commitment/confidence).  Here, the person can do the job but don't have confidence in themselves yet.
4. The Self-Reliant Achiever/D4 (High competence, high commitment).  The person knows what they are doing and is self-managing.

A good way to understand the model is to think of a project away from the office such as painting your bedroom.  You start full of enthusiasm, convinced it will be the most wondrous bedroom in the world when you are finished.  You toy with the idea of transfers, murals and multiple tones having poured zealously over interior decorating websites and magazines, and have a plan written down.  However, a few hours in, with paint dripping in your hair, splodges on the floor and one wall looking like a remnant of a sixties acid trip, you've lost all motivation. You are close to throwing the brush and phone your best friend in tears; they encourage you, telling you it'll be OK and giving you tips that you write down, such as using a roller and thinning the paint.  You use their help and grimly keep going.  Gradually the walls get covered more easily, and you even start correcting your early mistakes with a third coat.  Your friend pops round to check you haven't committed Hari Kiri with a paint scraper to find a very credible bedroom.   Impressed, they tell you so, which spurs you to finish of the edges and snagging jobs.  And once you've finished, you realise that it's actually all fine, that you can do it, and you're off to paint the kitchen.   

What makes this model different to a lot of leadership theory is that it asserts that each development stage has an associated leadership style that compliments the situation.  The idea is that you adapt your leadership style according to where the person is in order to help them effectively; hence the idea of situational leadership rather than always having one style of management.  This is where the axis of support and directive behaviour comes in.  You modify the amount of direction and support, depending on where they are in that curve.  The advised styles are:

1. Enthusiastic Beginner/D1 = S1 Style.  You need to provide specific instruction, direction and attention, like a task or check list in easy steps.  They will be the ones that have lots questions regarding the task from the large to the small, but are generally full of interest and engagement.
2. Disillusioned Learner/D2 = S2 Style.  The person still need direction and to a lesser extent help structuring a work/task plan, but they need lots of praise and recognition for the things they do manage to ensure that their contributions are recognised and help with positive reinforcement.
3. Cautious Contributor/D3 = S3 Style.  The person still needs support in the form of recognition or praise, and you need to be available for brainstorming and discussion of problems, but there's a step back from the directive style to let them find their own way.
4. Self-Reliant Achiever/D4 = S4 Style.  This is essentially delegation; the person knows what they are doing and how to do it.  

What I really like about this model is that it recognises human behaviour without judging, and offers a good management solution.  No-one is expected to be immediately competent on this model, and motivation is understood to ebb and flow without censure.  

It's worth noting that the model is not the easiest thing to implement, because it involves constantly being aware of where people are with regards to specific projects, and they can easily be a D4 in one task, and  D1 in another related topic simultaneously.  As a manager, you need to be able to pick up the cues when discussing various projects, and accepting the need to be agile as you move around topics. But if you can track where people are on the curve, then it enables you to support them in the most appropriate way.    

The other thing about the model is that it offers a neutral and safe language to approach issues that could be potentially painful going forwards.  This is why I shared it with my team: it's a lot easier to go to a manager and say “please stop delegating at me!  I'm currently a D2 with this project!”, or “I don’t need a task list but I’d quite like to chat things through before I go ahead: I'm feeling a bit D3?” that to have to admit to feeling lost or lacking in any enthusiasm.  We're going to try and use it as a mutual language, and see how it works.  

Wish me luck! 

Cellulite, Palm Oil and Orang-utans? Why Social Media and Over-Regulation Doesn’t Mix

Nutella, the famous Italian chocolate spread and chocolate sweets manufacturer is currently in a lot of PR hot water in France at the moment.  It’s an amazing example of how not only to completely cock-up your social media campaign, but to actually damage your brand as well. 

The concept of their "Say it with Nutella" campaign was pretty simple.  Nutella decided that for PR purposes, they would make a small web-based application where you could type in your name, and it would display a picture of a Nutella pot with your name on instead of the brand name.  You could then post it all over the web to your heart’s content, secure in the knowledge that everyone would know how much you love the chocolate and hazelnut goodness.  This had already been done in Italy with great success.  

A gif containing a set of some banned
words thanks to Rue 89.  Apologies
to the easily offended souls out there!

Of course, when you release something into the wild, you have to accept that a small minority of people are going to try and subvert it.  Just think of the Nike ID campaign where you could get your name embroidered onto your trainers: an MIT Student caused Nike huge amounts of negative publicity by asking for 'sweatshop' instead of a name, and went public with the back and forth emails when Nike refused.  And as a rule, the internet is far worse for this.  Nutella seem to have been aware of the danger, and took steps to protect themselves.  Thus people who tried type in something not entirely wholesome got a 'this word is not allowed' message.  Except, more and more people kept experiencing this, way above what would normally be expected, and some really weird words seemed to be banned.

At which point, someone technologically savvy went into the code to investigate what was restricted.  With a little bit of ingenuity, they managed to pull the full list of blocked words.  From my perspective, there were four groups:

1. Obscenities: this is actually relatively morally defensible as a majority of Nutella’s key audience are probably under 18 or buying on behalf of children who have access to social media.
2. Trademarks, such as 'Coca Cola' or 'Microsoft': again, reasonable on legal grounds because theoretically Nutella could be seen in breach of copyright should the images be spread on social media.
3. Words which could be theoretically be used to contravene the French laws on hate speech, especially the 1990 Gayssot Act, which includes a five year fine for holocaust denial, and criminal penalties for defamation based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or any handicap .  For Nutella this meant banning words such as 'Hitler', 'Muslim', 'Judaism' and 'Lesbian' (but not 'gay' strangely).  Whilst the fact you can't put 'Jew' onto a image of Nutella jar has been picked up by the British media and decried as evidence of discrimination, it is almost a direct lift from the legislation and is defensible, if ill-judged. 
4. And finally, what can only be dubbed as the “Oh God we hope no-one brings these up” topics, and include things like ‘obesity’, ‘fat’, ‘palm oil’, and ‘orang-utan’.  And this is the major cock-up because you cannot justify censorship based on paranoia of your own working practices.  Nutella have listed and blocked every topic where they feel vulnerable, and these exact topics have been distributed all over social media.  It’s like the classic joke when someone tells you not to think about elephants and suddenly all you can think about are grey pachyderms, except this herd is going to stomp all over your brand equity.  

So now on social media, there are a lot of questions.  Why is Nutella so worried about palm oil?  What are they doing over in Borneo/Indonesia?  Are they deliberately destroying rainforest areas for their plantations?  Is it more likely to cause obesity than other chocolate spreads?  To make the situation worse for the company, the current French internet game of the month seems to be to try and get around the restrictions.  Maybe you can’t do Orang-utan, but what about Oran-gutan?  Or Oranutan?  And once people manage a work around, they post it proudly on social media, reinforcing the message and linking Nutella obesity and rainforest destruction as well as more swear words than you can count.  

The problem for Nutella is that the internet is a realm of looser of societal rules.  Whilst no-one would consider breaking into an office to rifle through a computer to look at concept artwork for a campaign, anything on the internet is seen as fair game.  You can’t put restrictions on anything beyond the bare minimum because whatever you do will be publicly scrutinised so has to be defensible, and there are a lot of people out there better at programming than your average corporate web department.    

This fiasco illustrates some very basic rules of online marketing:

• If you are going to use something, you need to have a basic understanding the technology and its limitations.  I'm pretty sure that had Nutella realised that it was even possible to get the full list, they wouldn't have done it. 
• Expect anything interactive you put onto the web to be potentially subverted by a small minority and don’t panic when it happens.
• Keep a level of perspective.  So what if a couple of people write ‘Obesity’ on an image and post it on Facebook?  It would be gone from most people’s feeds in an hour and be forgotten.    
• There is a skill in dealing with ‘hecklers’ with a modicum of grace: if you can do so, generally these things are over quickly and don’t affect your core audience.  In other words, keep your cool.  One or two images with a comment on palm oil aren't going to put off your standard consumer.  Sadly, people have a level of unconscious blindness over things they don’t want to see when it involves giving up something they want: see things like Climate Change vs car use, or the demand for meat over conditions in battery farms.    
• And the cardinal rule: if you can’t defend something, don’t put it on the internet.

In the almost-words of the infamous 1980s TV advert; “Ah, Mr Ambassador, you are really spoiling the jungle with your Orang-utan murdering, obesity-causing treat!”.

Augmented Reality: Viable Channel or Virtual Pipe Dream?

Last week I went to a breakfast presentation by one of our suppliers.  It’s a nice thing to do occasionally, especially as it starts at 8.30am so you get into work at a reasonable time.  They showcase some of their new handy services and their customers get free croissants, coffee and networking opportunities.  This one was on Augmented Reality.

Augmented reality (in marketing terms) is where you use technology to give a real life interaction/touch.  It usually involves an App and a Smartphone or equivalent where you scan something in real life with the camera on the phone, which then gives you additional options/interactions in the digital arena.  QR codes were a form of basic AR, as was Blippar. These generally took you to an additional website or video with more information.  Blippar was slightly more advanced in that it offered 3D images overlaid onto camera images, but was confusing as no-one ever really knew what they could scan.

AR has moved on since then, and now is a lot more interactive.  It’s also starting to get embedded

The IKEA App promotional images

into standard media so you don’t need things like special codes.  One of the best examples is the current IKEA catalogue.  Firstly, you download a free App of the app store, and get a paper catalogue as well.  If you then hold your smartphone over an image of the product in the paper catalogue, it will create a 3D rendering of that product on your phone screen, whilst allowing the camera on the phone to show whatever you are looking at even when you move away from the catalogue, and say, look at the room.  The product is then superimposed on the background.  The idea is that you can see exactly what the sofa you’ve picked will look like in the corner and if it matches your curtains.  

Red nose day is very much in on the action as well, assuming you have the Taggar App: if you scan the 2015 badges, you will unlock Harry Hill showcasing additional content including jokes, real time photo additions and games (you can see a video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EdiH0i2-po).  

But you can do more than that, oh yes!  You can augment your business cards so that a little miniature avatar of yourself appears standing on the card doing a pre-filmed presentation (you do it on greenscreen) when your card is scanned.  You can run sneak previews of products when KOLs get certain ‘toys’ in the post or at KOL events (scan this engine, and see a 3D rendering of the new car due to be launched in 4 months).  You can embed games into postal mail, so that when a client opens a brochure, they can run their phone over the images and voilà, a game appears!  The possibilities are, as they say, endless.

Lots of the audience really bought into this, and were asking for more information, got really excited, and started uttering the classic buying signal that most sales people dribble over: "I have a project this would be perfect for!"  And yet, I couldn't join in.  It felt like I was alone on an island of cynicism, the Grinch in the room, because no matter how I thought about it, as a useful communication tool for my industry, it's just not going to work.  

What you are looking at isn't a shiny toy.  Instead you're changing people's habits: essentially, you're looking at a possible game change changer.  Due to that you have to consider:

1. The Adoption Curve 
2. The propensity of your target audience towards a new thing in this arena
3. What are your targets' current habits?
4. Does this fit with the image/brand you want to portray?

1. The Adoption Curve

The Adoption Curve

What is the Adoption Curve?  This is another of those Marketing 101's, and was mentioned in fair detail in the video in the last post.  What it demonstrates is that people do not take on new innovations or products at the same rate: important and because each group needs different messages and support within your campaigns.  

You'll notice that very few people buy into new things when they are first available.  Not everyone queues outside the Apple Store for that new iPhone; and how many people have an Apple TV?  Newness will appeal to less than 15% of your audience.  The rest want variants of reassurance, recommendations and solid proof of having seen the product in use.

And AR is definitely in the Early Adopter, if not Innovator phase.  You see that mass of people cowering behind the sofa from the scary new thing?  That's the rest of your target market who will never see your beautifully crafted AR content because by the time they are comfortable with it, it'll be out of date.

2.  The propensity of your target audience towards a new thing in this arena

It's also worth bearing in mind that people have different Adoption Curves for different areas.  If you're working for Apple, well, your key opinion leaders are going to be technological communication innovators anyway.  But you might find your surgeon who is willing to use the very latest surgical developments and tools can't programme the annoyingly spangley TV the kids demanded, or the environmentally conscious driver who insists on buying the newest hybrid car isn't fussed about the newest forms of social media.

Just because you sell new products in one area doesn't mean that your customers will be willing to adopt new methods of communication, and if you work in a more traditional, conservative industry you're going to hit that barrier twice as hard.  This is why you need to consider who your audience is, and what their preference is for communication.  Obviously, people are individuals, but certain personalities tend to be disproportionately drawn to certain industries: your average regulatory manager isn't going to be a wildly creative adrenaline junkie.  There's no point in making amazing materials if no-one ever sees them.  

3.  What are your targets' current habits?
So what does your target audience do? What are their communication habits?  And how similar is it to what you want them to do with Augmented reality?

How habits are formed: the reinforcing habit loop.

Habits are an evolutionary short-cut to cut down on the need to think and analyse every situation.   It takes around 60 days to form a new habit, and is a little like self-conditioning based around three stages: the cue, the behaviour and the reward.    One formed, habits get imprinted on your neural pathways and are incredibly hard to change.

Within marketing and PR, the most successful communication tools are those that complement what you already do because it's a habit.  So if your audience checks FaceBook every couple of hours, then working on social media is a good way to go.  If your audience always checks their physical post, then you're likely to use a postal mail campaign.  Does you audience watch a medical dramas?  Then put a TV advert into the middle of House (if you have the money).  It seems obvious, but you'd be surprised how many people forget this.

In order to use AR, you need to do a number of things outside of your normal habits:

• Get the App: this is a barrier in itself as it involves going to the relevant App store, finding the right App, downloading it and working out how it works
• Scan things using that App that you wouldn't normally scan like a business card and brochures etc.

You can already see the problem, can't you?  You're asking your customers to do complex processes which are totally outside the scope of their normal practice just to push a marketing message: to make a new habit.  Yet seeing marketing materials probably isn't enough of a 'reward' to be habit forming unless they get a real kick out of seeing something new and exciting (then the reward is linked to self esteem at being at being a pathsetter).  The only people that might are your "innovator" group in the adoption curve above, which is only about 2.5% of your audience.  This is why QR codes and Blippar failed: they didn't get people into the habit of using those apps by default, so when the audience did, it was a conscious effort, and easily ignored.  

I will add a coda that due to the nature of the adoption curve, the one exception is in the teenage market, because the very fact that most of the adults around the technology will not be interested or able to access it (due to having to get a new app) makes it instantly appealing.  But apart from that?  Not ideal for a mass market.

4.  Does this fit with the image/brand you want to portray?

Everything, ultimately, comes down to your brand and brand image in your communications, and this goes for channel/location as well as what's actually in it.  Want to be see as a family friendly drinks company?  Well, you're probably not going to give away samples in a strip club.  Want to be seen as eco-friendly?  You're probably going to use recycled paper if you do have to do a mailshot.

So if you want to be seen as technologically advanced or cutting edge, then yes, you could develop some AR materials as long as they came with huge rewards (such as prizes only winnable through the AR medium), as long as you did a lot of marketing on the side to get people to know it's there and how to access it.  But you're marketing the concept of AR and using it to boost your image rather than having it as an enhanced communication tool.  If it's for a more conservative industry?  I'd be wary. 

Overall, I like AR as a concept.  I think it's pretty cool as a toy and a way to stand out if you work and are pitching to a technologically innovative audience, or one who particularly like to feel like part of an elite sub-culture, but right now at this point in 2015 it's not ready for mass use as a standard communication tool.    

And, much as I like them, no amount of free coffee and croissants is going to convince me otherwise!