Playing by the rules can be dangerous
Published on 04/08/1996 under Book Reviews
Since childhood, we've been taught that playing by the rules is the correct thing to do. And society has developed many important rules that are necessary to sustain order and balance in our lives. Things like speed limits and property rights and laws on theft,assault and battery, for example.
But in business, playing by the rules can be hazardous to your mental health, not to mention your bank account. Several interesting books have been written in recent years on this subject.
One, by Kansas City adman Bill Fromm, is called The Ten Commandments of Business & How to Break Them (G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1991). Fromm ridicules and pokes fun at such conventional wisdom as "the customer is king," "put it in writing," and "the goal of business is to make a profit."
He devotes an entire chapter to whether companies should even have rules like dress codes, merchandise return policies, official office hours, etc. His point is that rules often get in the way of common sense and prevent employees from taking the most appropriate action for any given situation.
Another delightful book on this subject is If it ain't broke, BREAK IT! by Robert J. Kriegel (Time Warner 1991). Kriegel urges his readers to constantly challenge the status quo and be willing to change things even if it appears to be working satisfactorily.
I'm old enough to have been burned a number of times playing by rules that clients set forth, even though I often know better. Ultimately, the only thing that counts is results, and if you've limited your performance by following "rules" you will still be judged according to your lack of performance. Sorry.
In-house marketing communications departments are the most frequently victimized groups in this regard. They have to walk a delicate line between being "team players" (find a way to get it done) and telling internal clients things they don't want to hear ("your idea stinks, sir").
After they've been battered and rejected by certain individuals, they start looking for the path of least resistance. Unlike outside agencies who can choose other clients, in-house groups must continue to knuckle down to key managers and do whatever it takes to keep them happy, even if it means sacrificing their creative and professional standards.
Eventually, though, someone comes along and says, "this stuff is really boring," and out they go. The in-house group is abolished, and the account is given to an outside agency whose work is considered more exciting.
It happens to outside agencies, too, even ones that strive for creative excellence. As the old saying goes, "you can't do good work if your client won't let you do good work."
My agency lost a very important client several years ago despite the fact that we were playing by every rule that had been established and still managing to do some pretty decent work. It wasn't great work, though, and that's what the CEO wanted.
We were playing by the marcom manager's rules and doing the best we could do under the circumstances (reduced budgets, rigid formats, recycled old materials, etc.). And that person was pleased with our efforts.
But we got fired anyway.
It's amazing to watch, but I've seen it happen many times: One person says it has to be a certain way and there's no room for discussion. Then someone a little higher up in the organization comes along and guess what? -- it doesn't have to be that way after all!
The "rules" that seemed absolute and unchallengeable are suddenly changed.
I still remember vividly a scene in a corporate board room years ago. We had developed an ad campaign for a new client that had been in the works for several months. The senior vice president, the marketing manager and the marcom manager had all been intimately involved in this process and bought into the campaign conceptsthat had been developed. It satisfied their direction, and they were excited about it.
Now we were presenting the program to the company president. About half way through the presentation, the president stopped me abruptly, turned to the senior V.P. and started berating him in front of the entire group for wasting his time with concepts that were so completely out of sync with corporate objectives.
Stunned does not come anywhere close to describing our reaction. The CEO apologized for his outburst, and promised to meet with us later for the purpose of providing new direction. That meeting never came. We were out before we were in, and we never understood why.
On the other hand, it often does pay dividends to look for ways around the rule-setting project directors if your instincts tell you that trouble is on the horizon.
One way is to give them what they asked for, but offer one or several additional options for their consideration. If done skillfully, this can vividly point out shortcomings of the mandated approach, without making it look like you ignored the basic direction altogether.
Our clients have come to expect this. They smile and make sarcastic remarks about how it would be too much to expect for us to give them exactly what they asked for, but in most cases, they're pleased to have the extra choices. Because having extra choices is insurance against producing boring or invisible advertising programs.
There are many, many ways to communicate the same message. Some good, some mediocre and some truly awful. The objective is to push for the good or excellent choices, and not fall victim to "rules" that limit your creative effort.
It's like legendary adman Bill Bernbach once said: "Rules are prisons." If you're not careful, you'll end up in solitary confinement, talking to yourself about what went wrong.