It happens all the time—all the time—but it still never fails to amaze and disappoint me. A new marketing director or CEO or general manager or division manager or CFO assumes office and instantly begins to change everything.
Out go the multitude of procedures, strategies, techniques, relationships, policies, and standards that, taken together, had successfully guided the company over the past few (choose one) months, years, decades. Often, those strategies et cetera were working well; often they were based on good, solid research that had been put into practice and then fine-tuned over a period of time. Still, the newcomer cleans house.
I’m not talking about companies in trouble, where the situation is urgent and where immediate action serves the dual purpose of both correcting obvious problems and sending a message to the staff that help is on the way. I’m talking about the (ego-driven?) character who comes in and immediately announces big staff cuts, or fires the advertising agency, or implements some other significant operational change before really understanding the culture or past experience of the company.
Over the years, I’ve noticed that mid-level managers are more likely than others to be guilty of this whatever-my-predecessor-did-needs-to-be-changed-fast-or-they’ll-think-I’m-not-any-better-than-s/he-was mentality. They somehow seem to believe that demolishing their predecessors’ work will magically make their own seem better. Enhancing their own reputations takes precedence over what ought to be the primary objective of the job: making the company more successful.
In the past few months, I’ve read about new marketing campaigns for two of America’s largest consumer-products companies. One company announced that the centerpiece of its exciting, new marketing effort was the cartoon figure the company had successfully used for many years, but had abandoned several years back. What the announcement didn’t say is that the cartoon figure had very likely been scrapped by a bright, new marketing director whose ego couldn’t deal with the idea of just tweaking a predecessor’s concept, no matter how good it was.
The second company announced that, after coming up with new slogans every year or two for the past decade, it was going back to the successful and memorable slogan it had used long ago, which research studies showed was still better embedded in the public’s mind than anything since. The big question, of course, is, why did they drop that slogan in the first place?
And the answer to that question is change for change’s sake. If it isn’t driven by the ego feeding that too many managers require, then it’s caused by the vague perception that if things don’t change, they can’t be very good. But that isn’t necessarily true.
Coca-Cola has wisely resisted the temptation to change its logo, which is approximately the same as it was a hundred years ago. When I had lunch at Peter’s Grill in downtown Minneapolis recently, I had to smile at the fact that the menu was the same as it was 50 years ago, including the Canadian bacon and eggs and the apple pie. And the Parker fountain pen I use, a model still sold today, is identical to what the company sold in the 1930s.
Some things just don’t need to change, but it takes a very strong and self-confident manager to acknowledge that, and then to determine what should stay and what shouldn’t. At the moment, I’m mad at the company that makes Gold Toe socks, whose black, over-the-calf, all-cotton model I’ve worn for 40 years (not the same pair!). When I went to buy a new supply, the salesman told me they were discontinued, replaced by a sock that is 40 percent nylon. As I stood there in disbelief, he added, “And it was one of our bestsellers, too.”
And somewhere out there in sockland, a new marketing manager is rubbing his hands together and getting ready to report to management that he’s really brought the product line up to date.
