Know-How Exchange : Branding

"Stimulating competition" to me implies you are looking to "motivate" the locations to perform at higher levels. If this is the case, setting up "internal competition" is absolutely the wrong answer! To be successful as a company, you have to focus efforts outside to 1) Customers, and 2) Competition! Spending money to focus your employees internally takes those resources (money people) away from activities that will meet customer needs better than your competitors and thus gaining market share and increasing revenues.

If these recently acquired local outlets aren’t performing, it’s probably a motivational issue stemming from the corporate leadership. If you review Maslow’s theory of motivation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_Hierachy), if you want people to perform creatively and solve problems (like close customer deals, beat the competition, etc), then they need to be working in the “self-actualizing” mode. To get to this tier in his hierarchy, they have to have satisfied the other tiers. In particular, with a “corporate acquisition,” people have issues with security (second tier) and then with belonging (third tier). The security issues stem from people losing their jobs around them as a result of the acquisition and the fear that, if there is another branch of the company near, their branch might be closed. To get over this, swift, decisive action must be taken at the onset of the acquisition to out-place duplicated positions and to reconcile duplication in branches. These plans need to be communicated at each step – from the beginning, letting everyone know the plan, and then when each step is executed, reminding them of the plan. The corporate leadership has to provide avenues for the “survivors” to mourn and then get on with their life. Security will come about through consistent communication and actions.

The next obstacle is “belonging.” The newly acquired have to be made to feel a part of the new team. Two-way communications is essential here. Not only should corporate leaders communicate their plans, but also to seek input from the newly acquired. This is where it is important to resolve the “branding” issues. A plan should be put together prior to the acquisition on how to converge brand strategies – whether it’s a complete conversion to one brand or an umbrella brand with subbrands under it. Which strategy is taken depends on the power of the brands. However, a plan from the onset with open discussion with the newly acquired, striving for consensus, and with the leadership acting on that input, is important so that the newly acquired branches to feel that belonging. This is how branding can be achieved without a “competition,” but with a cooperative effort.

This gets the newly acquired into the “esteem” area. To get esteem satisfied, we borrow from Hertzberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Hertzberg). He said that motivation is brought about from achievement, not incentives or threats. Incentives and threats are short-lived and require continuous “raising of the ante” to be effective. Here’s where the current plan of record is flawed: When you have internal competition with some kind of prize, this is a short-lived motivator – if it works at all. They become “status quo” and people are no longer motivated. It is through achievement – setting goals and meeting those goals – that self-esteem is acquired. So the corporate leadership has to communicate the corporate goals and work with the branches to set goals coincident with the corporate goals. The goals need to be SMART – Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time bound. Leadership needs to recognize the meeting of these goals publicly. This builds esteem and frees the people to working in “self-actualization.” And this is how you get the branches motivated to perform – the goal of the corporation when they set out with their “internal competition.”

I hope this helps.

Wayde