“Who’s responsible for your company’s reputation?”

This is the question posed in the title of a Harvard Business Review article published April 28 and written by Ron Ashkenas, author of The Boundaryless Organization. His answer, which draws on the current case against Goldman Sachs, and the ongoing trials and tribulations of Toyota’s quality control progams, among others, posits that reputation management “may need to be part of everyone’s responsibility.”

When any stakeholder—customer, employee, investor, etc.—chooses to buy from, work with or invest in any organization, their decision is based at least in part on the organization’s reputation. Based on the historical performance and customer care of an organization like Disney (another of Ashkenas’s examples), we expect a certain experience: For customers, that’s fabulous, family-friendly entertainment; for employees, its an amazing, innovative work environment; for investors, it’s a healthy, reliable return on their investment in the form of regular dividends.

Organizations that don’t hold to their own standards of responsibility inevitably erode their own reputations: Toyota’s current experience, for example, implies a betrayal of their legendary quality control practices. They’re fortunate to have such a strong reputation, forged through decades of strict adherence to their core values; they’ll likely weather the current storm. However, their customers won’t be fooled again. Repeated errors and quality gaffes will erode Toyota’s reputation, sales, and market share.

Reputation management—and brand management—require the care and attention of leaders, managers, and everyone else in an organization. A strong brand requires a remarkable degree of personal responsibility. How successful and consistent is your brand at enhancing its reputation?

This expectation of an experience is precisely our definition of the word brand.

Organizations can choose to embed responsibility for this expectation in their operations and standards, or they can choose to let it follow the whim of circumstance. In Disney’s case, leadership and management “make every employee feel responsible for the entertainment products and services they provide.” Johnson & Johnson, legendary for their adherence to their ‘credo,’ emphasizes every employee’s “responsibility to put the well-being of the people they serve first.” These are two of the most reputable firms in the world. And they’re also two of the most valuable brands in the world.

Victoria, British Columbia’s Inn at Laurel Point is the first BC hotel to go carbon neutral.

This is the latest in a long line of sustainability initiatives for the Inn: When a landmark Arthur Erickson-designed extension to the Inn was built 20 years ago, it included a seawater thermal heat and cooling exchange. This was “long before people were thinking about that sort of stuff,” notes the Inn’s General Manager, Ian Powell.

Other initiatives include paperless check-in, room keys made of recycled paper and printed with vegetable-dye inks, an organic herb and veggie garden, reducing waste and increasing recycling, bike racks, optional linen changes for guests and cutting back on use of lights when not needed.

The latest initiative, which the Inn is undertaking in partnership with Vancouver’s Offsetters, will initially support a general portfolio of carbon-offset projects. In the longer term, the Inn hopes to find a Vancouver Island project to support.

The Inn at Laurel Point is both a client and a service-provider to Octopus Strategies. We worked with the Inn’s executive and management team in 2008, helping to develop their ‘Stay Different…’ brand and marketing strategy. We have also hosted executive retreats there for other clients, and wholeheartedly recommend the hotel for its warmth, beauty, and exceptional service standards.

Congratulations to the Inn at Laurel Point from all of us at Octopus on being BC’s first carbon neutral hotel!

The Social Entrepreneurship Experience, a student-run conference under the Enterprize Canada umbrella, took place November 21 at the Museum of Vancouver. The organizers’ goals were to “tackle the question of what social entrepreneurship really is and how local businesses are radically changing Vancouver and communities abroad.”

I put it a slightly different way: “Traditional business is a flightless baboon,” I said. (It’s a long story!) “I’m interested in the evolutionary next step.” And I believe it’s social enterprise.

The nature of ’social entrepreneurship’ is as diverse as the individuals who adopt the moniker. Each of us can choose how we’ll build our organizations, but what we all hold in common is a purpose beyond profit, and an open, collaborative approach to resolving issues of sustainability. Yet it is the diversity that makes this burgeoning sector so hard to pin down. And so fascinating.

Read the rest of this entry »

As roles in corporate, non-profit and governmental leadership begin to pass from those born in or before the 1950s to those born in the 60s and 70s, will we see a different style of leadership emerge?

In a recent Harvard Business blog post, Tammy Erickson posits that we will: “The experiences that shaped those of you who were teens in the late ’70s and ’80s… translate into valuable contemporary traits and perspectives.” Whereas the idealism and ideological imperatives of post-war baby boomers have driven the last twenty years, GenX leaders will bring a pragmatic style, and focus on effectiveness—on setting and achieving important goals. Erickson suggests that their timing is perfect:

Future leaders in all spheres will have to contend with a world with finite limits, no easy answers, and the sobering realization that we are facing significant, seemingly intractable problems on multiple fronts. Perhaps the biggest change from the past: leaders will have to listen and respond to diverse points of view. There will be no dominant voice.

It comes as no surprise to those of us engaged with social entrepreneurship that the trend toward values-driven leadership will only accelerate. We will take the “opportunity to change the corporate template,” and “look for a different way forward.” And we will do so in an inclusive, open and transparent manner.

GenXers will respond to the call to “serve as effective stewards of both today’s organizations and tomorrow’s world.”

As a child of the 70s, I’m ready to go.

Are you?

The climb was more than Tom had bargained for. One foot in front of the other. Again, again, again. Onward. Upward.

The infamous Chilkoot Pass seemed to tower unassailable, far above his head. Yet limbs screaming, he plodded on, and on, eventually cresting the peak, and moving down to stake his claim: Tom had joined the gold rush.

By 1897, Thomas Flack had found gold, and returned with his fortune to the young city of Vancouver on Canada’s pristine west coast. There, he set about to build a landmark building at the centre of the city.

The William Blackmore-designed masterpiece would open in 1898, serving as home to retailers, barristers, insurance agents and others. Its location and style made it a treasured part of Vancouver’s heritage.

Yet like the neighbourhood to its east, The Flack Block fell into disrepair. For much of the past 100 years, the building has gone unnoticed….

Read the rest of this entry »

So reads the headline in a recent article in The Economist about Nigeria’s government’s attempte to ‘rebrand’ their nation. Their subhead, ‘The government of a great nation tries a short cut to salvation,’ seems to sum up the author’s perspective: “Got a problem…? Don’t fix it! Rebrand it!”

Unfortunately for Nigeria, this would seem to be the misguided strategy.

It’s hard from this distance to criticize the intentions of Dora Akunyili, the new minister of information, and the person responsible for the new ‘Nigeria: Good People, Great Nation’ campaign. But it is revealing, I think, that the previous attempt at a rebrand (‘Nigeria, Heart of Africa’) failed.

In both cases, the foremost criticism in-country has been that “Nigerians say their government should tackle the country’s fundamental problems—power shortages, crime and corruption—before worrying about its image.” Of course, nothing is so connected to ‘image’ as the authentic facts of any brand. In Nigeria’s case, the facts include rankings of Lagos as the worst place in the world for expatriates to live. Surely if the aim of the information minister is to build Nigeria’s esteem overseas, the $1M spent from government coffers for the new campaign could have been put to better use reducing crime, repairing roads, and improving sanitation.

A simple Google search reveals an endless list of references to Nigeria’s rebranding efforts. But the lesson i this short Economist piece is a simple one: Branding only works when builds an image based on credible insights. Successful strategies leverage strengths on which the brand can build. In Nigeria’s case, the people may well be good, but a legacy of corruption endures sufficiently that the claim isn’t credible overseas. And while Nigeria is achieving more than many of its African neighbours, and certainly aspires to become a ‘Great Nation,’ it has a long way to go.

An effective strategy would consider factor international perceptions and awareness into the development of a strategic roadmap for the brand. ‘Good people, Great nation’ is an aspirational position; clearly Nigeria can’t jump to that with an advertising campaign. But it could be a ten-year (or 20-year) goal. Ms. Akunuili’s job as a leader is to define the steps from here to there, and to work with her government colleagues to take those steps.

It may be that infrastructure is the first place to spend; certainly communicating success stories about infrastructure development and enhancement would be a more credible approach than leap-frogging to ‘Great nation.’

Of all possible branding projects, surely rebranding a country is the most challenging. But the fundamentals remain the same: Authenticity must come first.