Drucker and Facebook–Organizing for Change

No Gravatar

There’s a story about the demise of Facebook in the Washington Post: Worldwide ebb for Facebook.
I like the logic–when a company’s been around long enough for someone to make a movie out of it, then it’s probably on the downhill slide, even if they do get Justin Timberlake.

That people are interested in something new shouldn’t be surprising to anyone in business, marketing or evolutionary psychology.  Same ol’, same ol’ won’t cut it, especially in a world where expectations about the speed of change have reached new highs.  But rather than speculate on trends and following the migration across social media tools of whoever’s cool, it’s time to revisit some words of wisdom from the original management guru, Peter Drucker.

Organizations must be organized for innovation.  Using economist Joseph Schumpeter’s term “creative destruction,”  Drucker said companies should be:

organized for the systematic abandonment of whatever is established, customary, family and comfortable, whether that is a product, service, or process; a set of skills; human and social relationships; or the organization itself.  In short, itmust be organized for constant change.  The organization’s function is to put knowledge to work–on tools, products, and processes; on the design of work; on knowledge itself.  it is the nature of knowledge that it changes fast and that today’s certainties always become tomorrow’s absurdities.” (Drucker, 2006, p. 140)

Just because companies like Facebook, Twitter, and all the rest are using new technologies and breaking new ground, doesn’t mean they aren’t subject to the same needs for good management practices that cultivate innovation.  It will be up to Facebook’s management, not a few trendsetters, if Facebook is to stay prosperous and viable.

Drucker, P. (2006) Classic Drucker: Wisdom from Peter Drucker from the Pages of Harvard Business Review. Cambridge, Harvard Business Press.

The Positive Psychology Of Entrepreneurship

No Gravatar

A version of this post appeared in my blog Positively Media on Psychology Today.

Portrait of store ownerThere’s a lot of buzz about entrepreneurship right now. This is especially obvious if you hang out on LinkedIn, Twitter, or cruise the Ning social networks. It is not surprising, given the amount of people looking for jobs due to cutbacks and restructuring and a few bankruptcies thrown in for good measure. So far, the government plans to promote economic growth have tried to stimulate a lot of things, but stimulating entrepreneurs doesn’t seem to be one of them. It’s important to encourage entrepreneurship and not just for economic reasons. Entrepreneurship is the ultimate exercise in developing the attributes that we know from positive psychology to be essential to having a good life: self-competence, optimism, engagement, and resilience.

I’m against government stimulus the way it’s usually done for the same reasons that I’m for entrepreneurship. Sending people checks in the mail may give them money to spend–and I’m not saying that’s not fun–but they might as well print a card to stick in the envelope with the check that says: “You can’t do it yourself, so we have to help you.” There is no indication that anyone in government from either side of the aisle thinks we can take care of ourselves. There is no encouragement to start a business or suggestions about how do it with or without the stimulus checks. There are no messages about how starting a business is way to turn one dollar into two. Or even how important it is for everybody’s morale if you just get busy and make or do something. We don’t even teach it in schools unless you make it all the way to an MBA. For a country founded on initiative and pioneer spirit, this seems totally out of character. The stimulus program is a message about powerlessness and consumption. And worse, this type of stimulus is promoting consumption without any ties to an individual’s effort. Every parent knows that’s a recipe for disaster. Aside from what that kind of incentive does to someone’s work ethic, it is even worse psychologically because it undermines people’s belief in themselves.

When someone starts a business, it’s just the opposite. It draws on your passion and energy, your creativity and innovation, your resourcefulness and your guts. You do not have to start the next Apple or IBM to have the satisfaction of making a positive contribution. And if you’re even remotely successful, you’ll also give someone else a job. Do you have a passion for making scented soap? Can you keep somebody’s books, build a website, knit a sweater, wash a dog, tutor kids, repair cars, mow a lawn, or teach someone how to use their computer?

From a practical standpoint, thanks to media and communication technologies, some of the major hurdles to starting a business are incredibly low. With the Internet and social media, you can research legal issues, apply for licenses, get supplies, and launch marketing campaigns all on a shoestring budget. With the Internet, service jobs can be done without having to drive your car or put on a tie. If geography matters to what you want to do, then you’ve got Craig’s List or EBay. Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland put on a show in their father’s barn. You can start a business in yours. If you don’t have a barn, how about the garage or the basement?Woman entrepreneur

However, the logistics of starting a business are not the point.

It isn’t what business you do, or how you do it that brings psychological value. It’s that you are doing something. Once you have a plan, you are engaged. You take action, figure out problems, try things, and your belief in yourself grows. Those feelings are self-reinforcing; they build on each other and it’s empowering, if not slightly exhausting. In the recent issue of Psychological Science, Park and Peterson (2009) review what it means to live well according to the positive psychology literature. From Freud to Seligman, the recurring themes include autonomy, competence, initiative, environmental mastery, purpose in life, personal growth, engagement, meaning, and the balance of skills and challenges. Sounds like the manifesto of an entrepreneur.

Positive psychology gets a bad rap because many people think it’s just about being “happy” and, aside from our moral ambivalence about happiness, many construe that as a fairly shallow construct. If all we–or the economy–needed to feel better was money, the government stimulus checks would really be doing the trick. But that approach misses the point. Positive psychology is about the attributes that make you feel good, which is a different thing. It’s about feeling like you matter, that what you do has meaning, and that you believe in your ability to get stuff done. (Psychologists like to call that ‘self-efficacy’.) When you feel like that, you also feel more optimistic and hopeful which makes you more willing to take risks and try other new things. If you don’t believe me, read Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus‘ “Banker to the Poor” in which he describes how microlending (lending people small amounts of money to start businesses) has positively transformed the lives of people around the world, lifting them out of both poverty and helplessness. Or go to Kiva and read about their social network approach to financing small business ventures.

This is the kind of stimulus we need. Let’s at least focus a couple of initiatives on creating the opportunity to achieve some autonomy, meaning, independence, and engagement through entrepreneurship. It would be nice if the government could show us they have faith in us, too. We could stand a little more optimism all around.


Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2009). Achieving and sustaining a good life. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 422-428. Retrieved July 15, 2009. from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pps/4_4_inpress/park.pdf

Photos: istockphoto.com

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Rebranding Nigeria in Global Brains

No Gravatar

Nigeria has recently embarked on a rebranding effort to improve their image worldwide.  Global perceptions are important in attracting the kinds of things an emerging economy needs to improve the living standards and opportunities of its people: tourism, trade, foreign direct investment and foreign financial assistance, or even to meet the UN recommended Millennium Development goals. In the words of President Yar Adua, “we must readily put in place a positive perception of Nigeria.”   It has been interesting to watch the dialogue in the AllAfrica.com news.  In a recent article Nigeria: Re-Branding – Country May Be Worse If Credibility Gap is Created the National Institute of Marketing of Nigeria (NIMN) president Aimiuwu warned that things may get worse rather than better if Nigeria doesn’t do the rebranding effort right, noting that credibility is important, if “a product is not authentic and credible then our acceptability by other comity of nations will be difficult.” He also pointed out that corruption by Nigeria ‘s leaders presented a serious challenge in the selling of Nigeria as a brand.  Corruption is always a challenge to crediblity and transparency.

Whether it’s corruption, quality of workforce, infrastructure, tourist venues, or social stability and safety, credibility is key. Nigeria faces two big challenges: 1) brands are held in the brains of the tourists and investors, not the promoters, and 2) emerging social technologies have established new standards and expectations around the globe for authenticity and transparency.

Nigeria (and any nation) needs a new approach in the current environment. A new slogan, catchy song, and opulent video footage won’t do the trick in an age where regular people can talk to regular people without official intervention or institutional intermediaries. I know, easy for me to say, but Nigeria needs to identify the areas that are most detrimental to their goals and establish specific intervention strategies. The intervention strategies must address both the substance of the problem (i.e. improve something) and then the perception in the market. Holistic rebranding efforts sound fine, but the economic manifestation of positive perceptions often hinges on a short list of perceptions. No one can change everything, so it’s good to change the things that matter most.


Photo source: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/19/world/19nigeria-600.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2658127.stm

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/04/20/nigerias_election_may_move_a_continent/

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Redefine Business Success to Fit the Times

No Gravatar

An article on Entrepreneur.com “In This Economy, Everything’s (Re)Negotiable” got me thinking about how hard it is to make changes in a business.  Aside from contracts and other commitments, it’s difficult to retrench because it means redefining how you think about yourself and success.  Running a business is hard work because you have to be able to  adapt to the market with the necessary steps to keep your business healthy–especially when the economy goes limp.  Times like this can be a great opportunity to realize that renegotiating contracts and cutting costs are NOT signs of weakness and failure. 

The real success stories are the people who recognize that the time to make change is BEFORE you need to.  They have the internal strength to roll up their sleeves and do what it takes to keep their business alive and well.  This means not getting hung up on the size of your office, the view out of your window, or the kind of car you drive.  If you start to internalize the external trapping of success, you won’t be able to adjust when it’s the right thing to do.   What does success mean to you?  Success to me means keeping our business running so we can take care of your family and so employees can take care of theirs.  If you can put your goals in that context, renegotiating price contracts and leases become badges of honor, indications of business acumen and the ability to make good decisions. 

Being proactive will not only strengthen your business structure but will also enhance your sense of control in uncertain times.  While the financial benefits will accrue over time, the psychological benefits will be felt immediately in terms of confidence, security, and optimism–not just yours, but your employees and your customers. 

Hang in There Jack: A Case Study in Cross-Platform Digital Storytelling

No Gravatar

Why would someone use television ads, billboards, and print to drive people to online and social media sites?

1) For the right audience, social media has lots of advantages, speed of dissemination, trust, interaction, expectations, collaboration, and emotional investment in user-generated content, engagement, curiosity, or
2) you are trying to look very hip and don’t care if it motivates action.

The ‘Hang in there Jack’ campaign is one very effective example. It successfully crosses from traditional media to the Internet (Hangintherejack.com) and social media applications such as Facebook, Flickr, and Twitter and invites a relationship with the user by encouraging user-generated content via different avenues: comments, videos, text messages, and snail mail get well cards. By doing this, it shifts the focus of the advertising message from the company (Jack in the Box, Inc.) to the user. Jack is now the vehicle for dissemination not the primary message. The hand-off from individual to individual via these various applications gives Jack’s storyline a sustainability and a patina of authenticity that could not happen with a direct ad campaign.


Demographically, this campaign will appeal most to users who are young or early adopters (Pew Internet Report : Use of Twitter is about 20% until you hit 34, then it starts dropping off steadily to 10% of 35 to 44 year olds and 5% of 45 to 54 year olds using Twitter. It’s down to 2% by the time you hit 65.)   Over half the Internet population is under 44; although there is growth across all age groups. The interesting thing about these stats combined with the emphasis on the ‘Get Well Jack’ videos is that downloading videos is growing in popularity across all ages. And I’m quite confident that Jack made these marketing decisions knowing the demographics of his customer base.

Jack has created (and I hate to use this word) buzz by successfully integrating multiple media applications and platforms.  There really is something for everyone in the mix. In the new media environment, integration is key and the envelope will  continue to be pushed.  I wonder, will we see a mobile Jack app beyond texting? Is there an integration between the physical sites to the web/social network sites, like streaming video where people in a Jack in the Box can send their message to Jack, or coupons sent to people who submit videos to the site?   If there isn’t already, there should be.

Personally, I’d like to see Jack in the Box extend this campaign and direct their customers to send messages to real people in real hospitals who could use some emotional support and cheering up. That would create tangible social capital for their brand by converting playful enthusiasm into empathy and awareness of others.

Is there potential downside? Probably not. The questions I would have asked during planning are: Will the story play out in a way that meets the expectations of the fans? Will the narrative stay fresh or will people will get bored and move on? Can we continue to drive it into new applications and create new linkages? Is the story line a little morbid (especially in this economy)? Will it alienate people who don’t want to watch someone in a hospital bed? Or those digital immigrants who them feel out of it and irrelevant with new technology?

The sales numbers and interest level will be interesting to track. I will resist any urge to mention boxes in relation to thinking, but Jack has created a good case study here.

Photos from http://www.hangintherejack.com
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Copyright © · Media Psychology Research Center · on WordPress ·