I recently had the privilege of presenting to a private company. My subject was ‘Building a Dominant Brand in a Competitive Marketplace.’ I intended to, based on my experience, share my journey and then my beliefs and convictions about brand dominance. When presenting to management and leadership teams, I am often impressed with the depth of thought and understanding revealed by the questions and interactions.
In my presentation, I state that for a brand to be dominant, it must first be authentic. An authentic brand is a manifestation of a business’ Core Purpose. It answers the question, “why do we exist?” The answering of this question is a process of discovery. It is the same process of discovery that reveals the business’ Core Values. The Core Values are the behavioral manifestation of the Core Purpose. They answer the question, “how do we behave?”
As examples, within the presentation, I cite several dominant brands. In each case, there is a Core Purpose (or a reason they exist) separate and apart from what they do. This was true of my company, as well. I also make a case for an ‘integrated’ business model and leveraging relationalism as its empowerment. This leveraging is an internal understanding that the relationships between the integrated pieces are more important than the individual pieces themselves. Its understanding is the model’s empowerment. We refer to this understanding as “systems intelligence,” or SyQ. Each of the four dominant companies cited in the presentation has a deeply integrated business model and, within the model, a profound understanding of relationalism – high SyQ. They were selected for the presentation only because they are dominant brands, and they have a clearly stated Core Purpose. That they also have relationally integrated business models is a coincidence – and revealing.
When I made a case for active facilitation of the discovery of Core Values and their communication, I received a challenge from one very bright attendee. She believed that at least one of the benchmark companies I cited was unlikely to facilitate a Core Values campaign within its organization. From outward appearances, it seems a campaign of this type was unlikely from this company’s leadership. She was correct, and I failed to provide an adequate reply at the time. I’ve given this some thought.
The correct answer is that while the discovery of Core Purpose (why we exist) and Core Values (how we behave) is a pathway to the authenticity required for brand dominance, relationalism within an integrated model is a pathway as well. There is an ’emergence’ of Core Values with integration and relationalism that replaces or mitigates the need for active facilitation. Dynamism catalyzes this emergence. In an earlier presentation to business students, I stated that “emergence has an authenticity that belies strategy.” The answer to the question posed during my presentation is similar. It is that integration and relationalism foster an emergence that usurps the need for active facilitation. In other words, when an organization has an integrated business model, the free flow of information resulting from relationalism causes a cascading of values through the organization. These organizations only have to discover and communicate their Core Purpose – and the Core Values emerge. Emergence is more powerful and more durable than active facilitation (albeit somewhat slower).
By comparison, organizations or companies with flat business models or are absent relationalism between business units require more active facilitation for the discovery and cascading of values.
In my company, we did both. We had a deeply integrated business model that could always find blue waters and fostered a free flow of information. We also actively facilitated the discovery process and the cascading of our Core Values. I understand upon reflection that our facilitation was especially effective because we already had a highly relational, deeply integrated business model. The facilitation was the topcoat that plugged the holes and smoothed the rough spots. It had value.
Relationalism, or the free flow of information between units – or between people, is essential to a dominant brand. We ultimately defined our brand as ‘our business model plus our business culture.’ For the business model, software facilitated the free flow of information. We were insistent on proprietary software – ERP, Operating System, and Point of Sale from the company’s inception. We understood that an integrated business model without the free flow of information between the business units was unjustifiable. The software was the space between the business units from which the model derived its power. It had to be proprietary to be effective. The software had to be adaptable to the model design and the model’s objectives, not the other way around.
For the business culture, the free flow of information was the relationships between employees. We understood that the quality of the relationships between employees – their ability to work well together, was more important than any individual talent level or level of intelligence an individual employee may have. Like the business model, we understood that values were meaningless without the free flow of information between employees. Without this flow, values would not cascade and become indelibly woven into the organization’s daily narrative.
After recognizing the value of software ‘within’ the structural side of the business, i.e., the business model, and the importance of relationships ‘within’ the cultural side of the business – both fostering relationalism, the same relationalism can happen between the structural and cultural sides of the business. Here, it is a combination of software and relationships. The integration of the business model and the business culture is the brand’s strength – essential for brand dominance.
The four companies cited in my presentation as dominant brands have in common deeply integrated business models within competitive landscapes comprised of companies that are less so. Correctly answering the attendee’s question would have recognized integration as the common denominator. They also each had a clearly stated Core Purpose – why they exist. The proper answer would have been that integration passively fosters the emergence of Core Values and their cascading through an organization – provided there is a clearly stated Core Purpose. Their emergence in the integrated business model proportionately offsets the need for active facilitation.
The experience in my company was that active facilitation of the discovery of Core Values has incremental value inversely proportionate to their passive emergence. The premise is that dominant brands are authentic and, as such, are a manifestation of the company’s Core Purpose – why it exists. The pathway to authenticity is a combination of passive emergence and active facilitation. Passive emergence is an outgrowth of integration and purpose, and active facilitation is necessary in its absence. The resulting authenticity alone is not enough for a brand to be dominant. It is a required platform that is a prerequisite for effective branding.
