I've been extremely busy lately - hence the lack of regular posting to this site. When time allows, I have the ability to read and think and find topics to post about. When I'm busy I have to resort to only posting when I get hit right in the face with a topic.
That is how I came to this thought today.
I was in a meeting recently talking about how to revamp, improve, change and generally increase the effectiveness of a "portfolio" of programs a client is running. In that portfolio are two programs that were designed and launched in a different business environment, by two - then independent divisions that are now one division - focused on specific objectives of those independent divisions.
Based on the research it was obvious (at least to me) that the two programs, when in their prime, probably added a lot of value to the relationship with the target audience. But in the new world order had fallen by the wayside relative to their impact. Reasons are many but the main one is that they don't reflect the new divisions overall goals and objectives. In other words - they are no longer aligned with the corporate direction.
When discussing how to phase them out and put in place a new program that more accurately reflects the company's position - and aligns the audience's behavior with that vision - I received some push back. Too me it was a no-brainer. The programs were designed in another time for another purpose so why keep them around?
Your Subconscious Sometimes Rules
But there are subtle influences at work that affect your program design thinking. I was reminded of them as I perused my RSS Feeds today and hit on this post from Dan McCarthy's blog - Great Leadership.
The post highlights four business biases that affect our decision making and they have great applicability in this example.
The Confirmation Bias
Companies fail to confirm that a new product or strategy is actually working and meeting goals.
I turn this one around and rephrase it as - if an old strategy cannot be confirmed as successful, we assume is it working vs. assuming it isn't.
The Sunk-Cost Fallacy
Once an idea is not living up to expectations, management doesn’t want to consider dumping it arguing that they put too much money in developing it.
Since we've been running it, and we've sunk money and time into it, we don't want to stop doing it because it invalidates the work we've done to date. Think about the influence principle of commitment and consistency here. If I've been committed to an activity - I am more likely to continue to do the activity because I want to stay consistent with past behavior.
The Escalation of Commitment
If a product is a bummer, management holds on to it, thinking that someday it will be profitable.
See above. No one wants to say something is a failure. Sometimes the smartest thing we can do is to recognize failure early and move on it. Think about personnel decisions. I know I've heard more than a few times in my career.... "We should have let that person go a lot sooner." Don't be afraid of failure - as I think Edison said - it's one more step closer to success.
The Anchoring and Adjustment Bias
If the company does decide to exit a product, it has to make savvy decisions about how to get rid of it, such as finding the right new owner and at the right sales price.
The process of closing a long running program down is a tough one. Someone is going to have a fit. Someone is going to want to keep it going. Someone still likes it. Yep. But that doesn't mean that when you look at the big picture you shouldn't shutter it.
Creating the best exit strategy is hard. Sometimes it's like ripping a band aid off - doing fast and reduce the long-term pain. Sometimes it's better to let it linger. It all depends on the program and the objective. I can say this though. Keeping a program around that no longer is in alignment with your company's goals and objectives will confuse the audience and create more problems in the long-run than a few disgruntled participants.
So - to net it out.
Take a couple of steps backward and ask yourself - "are any of these biases affecting my decision to keep a program or structure in place?"
Are you "hoping" it gets better? Does lack of evidence of success keep you from saying it is (or isn't) successful? Do you hear yourself rationalizing the program based on the historical investment? If so, you're probably being affected by one of these biases and it's time to ask someone who doesn't have the history or attachment to the programs you're looking to improve for their opinion.
Did that sound like a plug for hiring me? Hope so.
