Building a Path to Leadership

I recently was watching a report on CNN's "Reliable Sources" (which is a fascinating review of the media) and was reminded that Presidential candidates are more than ever media-focused and media-sensitive. It made me realize that as a natural consequence of living in a world with 24-7 media coverage, we are all more aware of the media and its importance. And this is particularly notable with younger entrepreneurs with whom we are working: there's more sensitivity than ever to playing to the media ("media" is defined in the broadest way here). That is, before lots of basic company blocking and tackling is thought through, getting attention in the near term is attended to.

Yes, this is the world we live in. But it's worrisome for a few reasons. First, the most basic: it's hard to build a company and it takes lots of time and energy to understand how to build it. Too much distraction with externals can be costly.

Moreover, in addition to this basic concern, so much of the attention paid by these (usually) young entrepreneurs is to the near-term and not the long-term image of their companies. And that is the bigger problem. Just because a young company has a good idea that captures initial attention, how will the company seize the high ground and really define a leading company? Initial hype is not the same thing as leadership.

This is an interesting conundrum. After all, we at Roeder-Johnson often talk about needing to be aware of the perceptual environment. And more than that, it can be maddening to work with more traditional executives who are oblivious to how their companies are seen and really believe that building a better mousetrap will win the game. But, what's the right balance?

Well, of course, the real answer depends on each individual situation. But we believe the answer can be found in clearly thinking through the "path to leadership." That is, what are all the pieces and parts that need to be put in place in order attain long term leadership. A few of the questions to find this path are:

• What needs to change?
• What are you doing and how will it change the market?
• Why is this important?
• Who needs to understand the needed market changes and when?
• Who needs to understand what you are doing, why it’s different and important, and when?
• How will you reach these important constituencies?
• How will you continue to build your credibility?
• How will you continue to build your leadership?
• And more.

There are certainly no hard and fast answers to these questions, but our experience is that it’s important to think them through initially and then refresh them every six months or so – based on the realities that have emerged along the way.

Starting with a Blank Sheet of Paper

There has been quite a bit of dialog about the most recent post on this blog called "Did Microsoft Use A 20th Century Launch Strategy to Launch their 21st Century (We Hope) Vista ???"Much of the discussion was to agree with the point that Microsoft seemed to hype Vista, rather than letting the market create a foundation for it and then talking about it. That was *part* of the point of that last post.

But, there was another point that was more subtle and that I want to emphasize: what really was distressing about the launch was that in promoting a product that *should* completely change the playing field and not just be trapped by legacy, Microsoft ended up using a legacy approach for the launch, rather than starting with a blank sheet of paper and saying "What's the right way, in the 21st Century, to launch this critically important product?"

Those of us who work with start ups and other young companies are faced daily with the need to "start with a blank sheet of paper." The combination of limited resources, ground breaking products and/or ideas, and a new era of communications demand it.

What does "starting with a blank sheet of paper" mean? In short: don't start with preconceived notions of the right way to launch/announce/talk about something. But rather, truly step back and think about the full context of the announcement/company/idea. The result of such thinking should be some combination of brand new (and hopefully clever) ideas and activities that result from past experience, but applied to today's context.

I want to be clear about something. I am not saying "Throw out everything you have done before in communications." As a matter of fact, I think that some communicators don't step back and think about some basics of communications before they develop a plan in today's environment. We have talked about this before in this blog, but will reiterate: your objectives are important; your message is important; your communications architecture is important; your goals are important; etc.

We are convinced that the best communications programs are those that are a "hybrid" approach: that is, they use the benefit of experience, but throw away inflexible assumptions about communicating. This is a very interesting era in which to communicate: a lot of the rules have changed, which allows programs to be developed that are interesting and creative but still meet key goals.

Did Microsoft Use a 20th Century Launch Strategy to Launch their 21st Century (We Hope) Vista????

I prefer not to pick on big companies -- they know something about making money and running big and complex businesses which is often easier said than done. And you can certainly say that about Microsoft. However, in recent months, I have truly wondered if they are just missing the ability to refocus their prism to enter the new age. After all, they have a cash cow legacy business and will need to take some serious risks to move into this new world. ButI think I will leave those lofty business strategy questions to people more equipped than I to address them.

But the launch of Vista has caused me the question fundamentally Microsoft's communications strategy, as well. Clearly it was very well executed, with all of the pieces and parts running smoothly to ensure the launch and hype all coincided. But, did they use a 20th century methodology for the launch of a product that should be the essence of the 21st Century? Should Microsoft have delivered first and hyped later? Was it necessary -- or even wise -- for Bill Gates to be on every newscast in the world AND The Daily Show? What was the point? They got a lot of attention, but at the end of the day, to what end?

Believe me, I understand that Microsoft could certainly not launch their most important product without some amount of positioning and messaging. Would it have made more sense for them to do this launch a bit more quietly and let the market absorb the product. Then, in 6 or 8 months, when they start to have proof that what they thought would happen is in fact happening, talk about it loudly. They could have pulled it off. Everyone wants to talk to Bill Gates.

Certainly there were hundreds of strategy meetings over an extended time period about this launch, but I just wonder if anyone attending the meetings was a part of the "modern world" or just a part of Microsoft's world?