Maturity 3.0
When asking companies to assess their current situation (internal and external operations, technical capabilities, analog and digital interaction with customers), the thing that surprises me is that the majority are convinced that they are in no (immediate) need of improving competence. They are extremely confident they are doing a hell of a job.
The reality, as we know, is quite different. That being the case, what reason would such a company have to even want to change?
First let’s look at the key players:
1. Executive management
The top executive management or Board of Directors of an average non-profit organization usually consists of people who have limited or no affinity with the internet. Having a 20th century education and mindset they have an outdated look upon a world that is evolving rapidly even exponentially with customers who increasingly become more and more individual and assertive. Do the care? No. Do they have any reason to question the maturity of their business? No. And why should they? The senior management is feeding them “information” which clearly states that internet is one of the main channels being used within the marketing mix. And they are briefed on all existing and new actions / developments in areas such as marketing, social media and apps. And on top of it all customer satisfaction is way above average. So for them a concrete reason is nonexistent. The only way this could change is thru external stimuli. Market trends, competitor actions, fellow businesses actions or new blood. The latter however, is not always a guarantee of success.
Commercially minded companies on the other hand will show greater involvement and guidance when using the internet in fulfilling customer needs and augmenting customer satisfaction and loyalty. Especially when a dependency can be created only their company can provide for. When senior management is convinced however, based on internal information and external stimuli, that the present course is the right one, little to no need will be present to question the companies maturity or the need to actual change.
2. Managers
The internal structure of companies has changed significantly over the last 20-25 years. In the late 80’s and early 90’s it was very common that a relatively small group of people (bosses, team leaders), having lots of experience and in general well-developed social skills, would control large groups of employees. Their drive was based upon loyalty to the company, the quality of the product or the results provided and the positive feedback of their subordinates. Nowadays we have managers. On average higher educated young(er) people with practically no experience what so ever. Their drive is mainly determined by their target(s) and the related bonus. A third party will have little to no chance to gain access to this company to perform an unbiased internal audit or maturity check simply because it will potentially jeopardize targets and thus bonuses. Moreover, the same applies to (critical) questions posed by specialists within that company. Managers however are more likely inclined to fill out an online maturity test especially then if the outcome of such a test can be influenced in a way it supports or reinforces their own targets.
There are of course differences as to the method of operation of managers in non-profit and commercial enterprises. Fact remains that the present day bonus culture has a huge impact on business operations within both companies types making it much harder if not nearly impossible to bring about necessary changes.
3. Experts
The experts, the guys and girls who do the actual thinking and implementation, are the ones who experience the full impact of management policy. They are the ones who need to bent and shape the truth in order to meet management targets. They are however not able or do not have enough mandate / influence to agitate against this. At this level, an external audit would be greatly appreciated. As already indicated management will certainly refuse this, unless it would be beneficiary for themselves. Would the online maturity tool be used by different experts at this level, the outcome would in general be the same. Why? Because they pretty much have the same scope and experienced the drawback of management policy firsthand.
So in summary, the experts are willing and able and eager to plot a new direction but are denied to do so. Management is able but not willing for obvious reasons and the board members are able but see no reason why.
Viewed from this angle nothing will change in the foreseeable future and so, in my opinion, the maturity tool will continue to be used less then optimal.
If company policy and execution thereof is up to speed maturity wise and customer wise, surely they can ask the customer what his or hers experience has been with the company. In the context of transparency they should in fact embrace the voice of the customer. Sure thing its the picture the company wants to convey to the outside world.
Suppose this “mature” company wants to reach out to its customers. What would be the best approach and from what point of view? What type of questions would be appropriate and how reliable would the answers be (if any)? Moreover, suppose the findings were not to coincide with certain targets, what would the companies course of action be?
A typical customer has little fondness of questionnaires. He will look at them as an obstacle in his surfing enjoyment. Consequently it will be a daunting task to generate sufficient response unless … the company uses a game element or something that could generate a winning (money or trip).
All in all quite a challenge which calls for a solution out of the box.
Let’s return to the concept of maturity. In my opinion there are two views on the subject that are inseparable:Corporate maturity
An organization without much hierarchy which aligns seamlessly all of its resources (people, equipment and procedures) with the actual needs of its customers. The organization is 100% transparent. The customer, being the center of their universe and thus the very foundation of the companies existence, is informed regularly of affairs within the organization. The tone of voice, the usability and layout of this feedback it fitting to the targeted group.
Customer relationship, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty are embedded in the organizations daily operations. It is made easy for customers to get in touch or to monitor progress or complaints. An independent customer advocate, appointed by the organization, will advise and assist customers in case something appears to be going wrong. It is a defacto learning organization.
Customers are able to provide uncensored feedback. They are encouraged to grade all of the companies performances.
Each year independent external auditors will check if the promises made to the customers are upheld. Results of this investigation will be made public.
Digital maturity
All digital initiatives and manifestations such as websites, newsletters, promotions and apps are centered around the customer. Prior to development they are devised in close collaboration with the customer. The result, digital solutions tailored to specific customer needs within the (segmented) audience. A win-win situation because on the one hand company resources are used very effectively, on the other hand customers are satisfied because they get what they really want.
Real digital maturity however is only possible when corporate maturity is a fact. As long as the bonus culture is upheld real corporate maturity and thus digital maturity won’t be possible. Unless, as I mentioned earlier, we start thinking out of the box.
So what kind of external stimuli could really effect company policy? In any case something that would tarnish their image. An award I think would do the trick. Something like an annual digital award for the most digital mature company (and also the less).
The following pops into mind (in outline):
- an independent body is going to map digital expressions of companies and value them:
– websites, newsletters & blogs
– social media
– traffic data (big data) - customers can value companies online via a special website:
– questions are written in a way and form matching the dedicated audience;
– a nice incentive can be added (fill out this form and possibly win ….) - both sets of figures are added together to provide the final ranking;
- involvement of national and regional
Suppose a renowned company would end up being the best or the less mature company. What would be the impact on the PR value of that company? And what the chances for people like you and me to respond to this?