Image created by ChatGPT
A tale of two campaigns… for one company
I was tangentially involved with the launch of a hugely successful marketing campaign. You’ve no doubt seen hundreds and hundreds of ads associated with the campaign over the years. You know the jingle, the tag line. It is still going strong to this day. You’ve made jokes about it to your friends. You’ve seen it referenced all over pop culture. By every measure it is a huge success.
Before they launched that campaign, the company was set to launch a very different campaign. Different characters, style, jokes. It had a very different vibe. The rollout plan was finalized ready to go. Ad spots for this other campaign had already been purchased and scheduled to run in just a few weeks.
Then the company CEO saw the final cut and was not happy. He halted the campaign. Everything was scrapped and marketing, and their outside agency, had to start all over. The outcome of that record scratch moment is the hugely successful, award-winning campaign that has been running for years.
At the time, this pause was hugely demoralizing to everyone involved, understandably so. Many people worked for over a year developing the concept, fleshing it out, bringing it to life. And all the while they went through the steps necessary to launch a multi-million dollar campaign within a professional organization. They followed process. All the same, at the last moment, the guy in charge killed it and that was that.
I had watched the first series of ads for that old campaign. I confess I wasn’t a fan of them. I understood the concept they were going for, but I found the execution wanting. The characters were more annoying (to me) than endearing. I’m also not a marketer so don’t put a lot of stock into what I say about good and bad marketing tactics.
Still, killing the campaign at that late a stage seemed very wrong to me. I’m a big one for process; that doing things a particular way ensures consistent quality outcomes. The team had done what they were supposed to do throughout. I remember feeling at the time the CEO was wrong. I didn’t particularly like the original campaign, but that action by him sent a terrible message to the team and everyone working for him. Work as hard and diligently as you may, put forth your best effort, and still all that work may be thrown out on a whim.
You’re a big dog now
Bigdogging is when a person uses their position and perceived authority to make a decision, overriding others. It’s throwing your weight around, so to speak. Bad managers rely on this approach all the time. You’re probably thinking of several people who do that right now. And you’re probably not thinking too kindly about them.
Bigdogging shuts down conversation. It overrides rational debate prematurely. Before alignment can be reached, someone has made a decision and everyone is left with (to them perhaps) an unsatisfactory outcome. Only the big dog is happy. This is the pursuit of finality over truth. But is it sometimes OK to do this?
What’s the opposite of that?
When working with my teams, I want the strongest ideas to win out. I also want to pressure test concepts to ensure we have thought through everything and considered all options and potential pitfalls. What I don’t want to do is shut down conversation prematurely. I want to avoid bigdogging.
As a leader, I’m aware of how what I say can influence those that report to me. When I voice my opinion, do others agree with me because I am right or because I write their annual performance reviews?
For me, it is important for diverse voices to speak and for differing opinions to clash so that a more vetted position is defined. I want the conversation to flow freely. Personally, I like when my thoughts are challenged or pressure tested. I think it’s good for everyone. I’ve written previously on the importance of creating a safe space for people to dialog. This approach is clarifying to whatever the topic at hand is.
Bigdogging is the antithesis of this approach.
When is it ok to go bigdogging?
Shutting down discussion, insisting on an abrupt change in direction can be shocking and demoralizing to a hard working team. There are significant risks in taking that step.
The CEO had the right to make the call that he did. As the top dog, the ultimate decider, the CEO was well within his power to make that decision. He sacrificed countless hours from many, many people, as well as millions of dollars to change directions. But his position in the company empowers him.
What’s challenging about this situation is that the decision was proven correct. The marketing campaign that sprung forth from the closing of the original was and continues to be a huge success. Hours and money were written off to start anew. These costs appear to be justified.
Do the ends justify the means?
I think the CEO acted correctly. He made a difficult call, acting in the best interests of the company because he truly believed the original marketing campaign was not right for the moment. I don’t know that were I in his position, that I could make the same decision.
I also think that perhaps this also indicated a flaw in the process. How did things get so far that were also so off target (in the CEO’s mind)? I don’t know what if any post-mortems occurred to evaluate what went wrong. I would like to think that an evaluation was conducted and steps were taken to ensure that type of mistake doesn’t happen again. I would think it is an opportunity to learn and improve.
I don’t have a good idea on when a leader should make a decision to override consensus. Trusting one’s gut doesn’t seem the best method, but I’m also not sure how else to explain the conviction (and it should be obvious but let me state that I have never had a conversation with this particular CEO to understand how he made this decision).
A medium sized dog, perhaps
The ideal should be a system where the need for executive intervention is unnecessary. Establish processes that make team members feel empowered, to explore contrarian positions while including appropriate checkpoints for leadership to weigh in.
I believe that great leaders don’t just make great decisions; they build strong decision-making frameworks that raise teams up collectively. Effective executives need to create the conditions that lead to good outcomes.
At the same time, great leaders need to be able to step in and override the team when most necessary, as the CEO did in this case. This should be a rare occurrence, and should prompt reflection of how they arrived at that situation.
Personally, I do not want to make a big dog decision. I don’t think anyone should want to do that. I recognize that it may be necessary. And making that decision will come with all sorts of uncertainty and doubt. If the outcome was easily knowable, it would be unlikely necessary for me or any leader to do it. That is perhaps the most unsettling part of a big dog decision.