Stop Adding Value

 

This is something we keep hearing about, how people and companies need to add value. Adding value is fast becoming the new bubble. A few years ago, Marshall Goldsmith, the world's top executive coach, questioned the cost of adding value in his debut post at Fast Company.

In the opening, Goldsmith outlines a very powerful piece of advice:

In my experience, one of the most common challenges that successful people face is a constant need to win. When the issue is important, they want to win. When the issue is trivial, they want to win. Even when the issue isn't worth the effort or is clearly to their disadvantage, they still want to win.

The more someone is successful, the more they need to be right. Needing to win in many cases shows up as adding too much value. Does this sound familiar? Have you seen some of this behavior in social media? Have you seen this behavior exhibited in social media by brands?

Winning today

Goldsmith pinpoints the main problem with that behavior: taking away someone's ownership of the idea spells lack of commitment to executing by a team. It's natural, it's human. And acquiescing to the "buts" and "value added" all the time erodes your confidence.

Winning today means something very different than it did even a short couple of years ago. It means collaborating by building on ideas, not tearing them down. Why? Because of velocity. It's not what you think. It doesn't mean you need to beat your competitors at their game.

It means you need to gain momentum for your own game. And you need to do that with people -- internal teams and customers and partners. The more value you add, the more you slow the momentum down.

Same thing applies to brands and crowd sourcing initiatives. 

Answer to how

Many companies are grappling with several issues about managing the conversation. If you pay attention, you'll be able to read through the lines in articles and interviews:

• how can our messages go viral?
• what can we do to make people come to our Web site?
• why are people not joining our community?
• how can we get more business from customers?
• who can we get to talk about our services?

Stop adding value. That's how. You need to have messages, yes. I mean you need to know what you're going to communicate (goals), and direction (strategy). To build a platform today, you need to be of service. Help your customers be heroes by sharing valuable content, then step back and let them use it, and approach you, however they please.

Which also takes care of the conversation that ensues. Then work the story and the relationship inch by inch. Although you still need to figure out who and how you manage it.

Forget added value. Help people see each other instead. Concentrate on core value, and nothing added is needed.

[The Infamous Space Bubble - http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonupshaw/ / CC BY-ND 2.0]

_______

Bonus reading:

Become a Marketing Superhero in 2010 - Part 3 - Power to the People!

Heroes of the Future: we ARE Harry Potter

© 2010 Valeria Maltoni. All rights reserved.

Comments

[KatFrench]

Valeria,

First of all, I want to know where I can find one of those people-sized hamster balls...

Second, this post smacked me firmly between the eyeballs at the individual level. As the economy has tightened, it's harder and harder for individual contributors to STAY IN OUR GAME and not get tempted into offering more and more outside our core competencies just to remain employed. Which, unfortunately, leaves less and less time for us to fully develop what we're best at. Unfortunate, but true.

Third, I was thinking about this very thing at a company-level as it relates to the video game company BioWare. One thing they've done amazingly well is continually tighten and define their market to only include the stuff they do far, far better than anyone else. They are about delivering an exceptional experience to a particular audience--not about appealing to everyone. Their last couple of games are highly inappropriate for younger gamers--but far more satisfying for adult gamers. Their willingness to say "We make games for adults" is an example of knowing their value sweet-spot.

Good stuff, as always.

[Rich Becker]

Valeria,

This is an interesting post, provided people have the where-with-all to keep it within context.

Specifically, it is true that adding value might not be enough for most people to succeed, assuming the goal to increase the size of the crowd. However, I hope people reading this post have the good sense to appreciate that size isn't the only measure of success, which is linked to where this discussion starts.

Different companies, different objectives, and different whatever, all require different sized crowds to support themselves. And the value of each crowd or tribe or whatever we want to call it can help too.

However, all that aside, I like the discussion. And in the spirit of building upon it, think that it fits splendidly within the context that some social media folk think too much about other social media folks in terms of placement.

Most of the time, they are not even similar enough to compare. And it's the differences that help each one add value in their own way. It seems smarter to become comfortable with that idea than attempt to pile on a laundry list of ideas that worked for everyone else. At least, I like to think so.

All my best,
Rich

[Eric Fulwiler]

I don't think that added value necessarily has to be something you inject into a community. If you build a strong, stable community, then the interactions and connections that are built upon that foundation is still value that you added, even if it is indirect.

That said, I do like the idea of giving you communities and customers some room to breath and shape the value that they derive.

As always, thanks for the food for thought.

Eric
Publisher Recruiter, Forbes.com

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Kat - a very astute observation. It's so tempting also because we want to be useful and short term useful may seem more attractive than long term deeper/more skilled. The brands that stay true to their core are weathering things better, we know what they stand for. Which brings us back to your first point.

@Rich - the right people on the right team will have better traction than more of them. However, there is a point where you have too little diversity, too few resources, not enough to go around to make a difference. To add value, differences need to be manifest. The more I write for the business people who are using my content to succeed in their work, the less feedback I get online. Google not indexing TypePad for months also didn't help ;) That is also a challenge.

@Eric - curating, facilitating, enabling, empowering are all actions that add value. I was taking a poke at the smart ones who cannot help but throw their wisdom in your face at every turn. Wisdom and value are in fact characteristics of service, and not items to be flaunted.

[Eric Tsai]

Really hit the nail on this one especially as I was recently working with a few "consultants." By the way I also enjoy everyone's comment above. Some people just want to take and others want to give, it makes them happy.

However, I think added value also has to do with intend and approach, perhaps it's confidence issue or ego, or just want to be respected or liked? Ultimately it shouldn't be a race or is it?

Will try to make time to read your work and provide feedback :) Thank you for the reminder.

[Peter]

Building on the idea -

Pre 2000 - the dominant metaphor for business was an oil well. Massive organisations designed to "extract" diminishing returns. Winning was about sucking the $ out of customers quicker than the competition.

Post 2010 - the dominant metaphor is becoming waterwheels - build flow ("curating, facilitating, enabling, empowering" others ) to create creeks, streams and mighty rivers that will push the blades of your many and different waterwheels (that convert the momentum of the flow into value). No one owns the flow and is shared by many waterwheels - that move as the course of the river changes over time.

A competitor can't compete if they're are not in the flow.

By the way, at the risk of proving your thesis, "The more value you add, the more you slow the momentum down" - only if someones listening.

Peter

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Eric - it is a matter of attitude and approach. For some, it's easier to give than it is to take. Not quite sure what it is about the popularity contest that gets people all riled up :) In the end, it takes all kinds.

@Peter - what I wonder is are these metaphors just that Are companies really doing the things they talk about? I still see a huge disconnect with the people at the top. They still want to hoard, amass, and extract from the people they can give orders to do the work. On this point it is starting to show: businesses that are not in the flow will not be able to compete. As for my thesis, yes and no. Some people only think they're adding value, they never bother to figure out if they actually do.

[Peter]

It's worse than that, companies mix their metaphors.

I see traditional media companies trying to make money by building oil wells on rivers. I also see plenty of companies building waterwheels in the desert.

I use the metaphor to help CEO types to understand their business model. In my experience, the people advocating flow models aren't necessarily selling waterwheels. Likewise the people selling waterwheels don't necessarily appreciate flow.

Another way to look at it, is that its a lot like computer/software interoperability. The operating system and application have to be compatible. If not they crash.

I find oil wells and water wheels can compete ( though I prefer to work with water wheels) - they go out of business when they try and be both.

On adding value - I like everyone input - But I try to listen to/hear half of it - ( I have a thesis that most people are at least 1/2 right - even the value adders - my job is to figure out which half to listen to.)

Spk soon.

Peter