Posts tagged as:

Power trigger

The Talented Asshole vs. the Sweetheart Hack (Part II)

by Sally Hogshead on February 28, 2010

Why Jerks So Often Succeed, and How to Avoid Becoming One of Them

I once had a boss who told me that I should not smile if I wanted to be respected.

(Hello, asshole.)

Erik Proulx, creator of the movie Lemonade, comments: “I think it’s hard to respect someone who doesn’t respect someone who smiles.” So what’s the correlation between respect and intimidation? At what point does “leadership” turn into unadulterated jerkness?

Last week, I explored an issue on Facebook, posing the question: “Would you rather work for a talented asshole, or a sweetheart hack?” Since then, dozens of people have expressed that the former is far preferable to the latter. Jim Schmidt, partner at Downtown Partners in Chicago, said, “The fact is, most hacks are assholes. Because of their lack of talent they are usually uber-politicians — especially in the big agencies where more money is at stake.” Creative Director Jill Atkinson commented, “The Talented Jerk pisses you off but ultimately makes your work better. The sweetheart hack makes you feel comfortable and kisses your work goodnight — the kiss of death.”

In my book Fascinate, I describe the seven different triggers that brands use to persuade consumers: trust, mystique, lust, prestige, alarm, vice and power. Asshole personalities overactivate the three most polarizing triggers: alarm, vice and power.

Let’s take power, for instance. We’re controlled by this trigger throughout daily life: When you brake for a stop sign, or remove your shoes for TSA, or agree to iTunes’ “terms of use” policy, you’re doing so under the influence of the power trigger. Unsurprisingly, this is often the trigger of choice for politicians, CEOs and companies that need to control behavior in order to succeed. Power isn’t necessarily overpowering. It can guide gently, even lovingly. It’s a necessary ingredient in many forms of structure, training and motivation to achieve higher result.

Like all seven triggers, power lives on a spectrum, ranging from delicate suggestion to crushing force. A meter maid uses a slight form of power, whereas a hijacker on a plane uses the same trigger to its maximum level. Gandhi persuaded differently than Genghis Khan, yet both commanded the multitudes. Used in the extreme, power can unjustly intimidate or persecute. Yet in positive circumstances, power can motivate others to rise to their best.

At what point does a leader turn into a dictator? It comes down to principles of branding. We all know that a watered-down message might not offend anyone, but it’s less likely to inspire action or change opinions. In Fascinate, I outline the traits of a fascinating brand and the need to elicit a clear response. A brand:

1.    Provokes strong and immediate emotional reactions
2.    Creates advocates
3.    Becomes “cultural shorthand” for a specific set of actions or value
4.    Incites conversation
5.    Forces competitors to realign around it
6.    Triggers social revolutions

At their best, highly persuasive personal brands offer the rare chemistry necessary to unite corporations and cultures, to influence behavior, sway opinion and incite action far more effectively than milder personalities. They use triggers with unusual vividness and intensity to get their messages across. These personalities get under our skin and into our conversations, often challenging our expectations and swaying our thinking. At their worst, the “talented assholes” can hit nerves and step on toes, lobbing interpersonal firebombs and torching relationships.

These hallmarks hold true for messages, and brands, as well as leaders. In order to make any real change, a boss’ voice must be heard. If a leader can’t sell an idea internally, or get shareholders excited, or continually push for innovation, then they lack the juice to get big ideas and big initiatives through the company. As Kirsten Osolind, CEO of Re:Invention Marketing, commented, “Leaders need to use their best judgment at all times. Effective leadership depends on situation, context and timing. One leader’s most appealing trait can be another leader’s downfall. There is no right or wrong leadership trait checklist. Sometimes the most effective leadership technique is counter-intuitive to outsiders. Girls gymnast coach Bela Karolyi was hot-tempered — and it worked. FedEx founding CEO Fred Smith leads tough-guy truck drivers and is quiet and soft-spoken. Herb Kelleher, CEO of Southwest Airlines, leads a highly regulated industry with humor. … ‘Nice’ and ‘compassionate’ can be detrimental leadership techniques. Ask any Navy SEALs master chief.”

Yet a gift for influence is not without controversy. Some of the most influential people are also the most polarizing: the rock stars, the lighting rods, the challengers. Politicians can earn tremendous support from one group and denunciation from others: Sarah Palin. Rudy Giuliani. Ann Coulter. In media, think of Arianna Huffington and Glenn Beck. In fashion, think of larger-than-life personalities like Isaac Mizrahi, Betsey Johnson or Tom Ford. Business leaders such as Richard Branson and Warren Buffett. Musicians such as Madonna and Sean Combs. The sports world brings us Dennis Rodman, Barry Bonds and Andre Agassi.

Brand strategist Curvin O’Rielly offers David Ogilvy’s thoughts on this leadership spectrum in the creative department of an ad agency: “In my experience, there are five kinds of creative director: 1. Sound on strategy, dull on execution; 2. Good managers who don’t make waves … and don’t produce brilliant campaigns either; 3. Duds; 4. The genius who is a lousy leader; 5. ‘Trumpeter swans’ who combine personal genius with inspiring leadership.” Ogilvy’s first three personality types can sometimes fall into the “sweetheart” variety, because they’re more concerned with being liked than respected. But what exactly is the “trumpeter swan,” a.k.a. the “talented sweetheart”?

When I asked about the most desirable leadership traits on Facebook and Twitter, answers were remarkably consistent: earning respect rather than fear, and encouraging others to succeed rather than focusing on one’s own success. “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” says, “Any effort that has self-glorification as its final endpoint is bound to end in disaster.” In his best seller “Good to Great,” Jim Collins agrees, points out that inflated self-importance can interfere with the success of your product or organization.

Personalities that are both strong and effective focus their efforts on making their message, and their teams, more persuasive. Dan Fietsam of Energy BBDO remarks, “I look for leadership that I can trust on two fundamental levels — I trust they have the talent to make things happen and I trust because their consistent intent is respect, directness, fairness and integrity. I value trust over sweetheartedness. Or assholeness.” When this happens, it shows in the results. Michael Iva, president-creative director of Qually & Co., observes, “It is amazing how creative and productive people can be when everyone gets a share of the credit.”

You do not have to be an asshole to be a loved and respected leader. But you do have to have the power to influence decision-making. Every persuasive brand does. Just as brands must influence customers, leaders must have the ability to inspire action among employees and clients.

So what about you? Are you using the power as your primary personality trigger? Used intelligently and selectively, this trigger strengthens your reputation and earns respect in a cluttered marketplace. Find out by taking the F Score personality test.

In my next column, I’ll explore a markedly different type of trigger: Lust. Each fascination trigger elicits a different type of response, and the lust trigger encourages others to move closer with a promise of warmth and humanity.

Again, my thanks to friends and followers for so generously sharing opinions, insight, and insider scoop with me. (If you’d like to share your thoughts on this topic, please do, on Facebook or Twitter.)

What about you? If forced to choose, would you rather have the talented asshole boss, or, the sweetheart hack?

Your primary fascination trigger: Handle with care

by Sally Hogshead on February 24, 2010

Every brand, even a personal brand, relies on specific triggers to fascinate.

When consumers buy a product, what they’re often actually buying is something more than the utility of the item—they’re buying a trigger. If they pay for your product but don’t get the expected trigger in return, you could face a backlash.

When Kelly Clarkson became the first American Idol winner, her fans’ expectations were clearly defined: She was the newly christened American pop princess, decorated with bubble gum and sparkles. But then Clarkson threw the world a curveball with her third album, My December. The new darker, grittier Clarkson abandoned her pop formula. Songs such as “Haunted” and “Sober” were deemed “too negative” by her own label. Clarkson canceled her tour due to underwhelming ticket sales and sought new management. The singer’s brand has recovered, but only after returning to her fans’ expectations with the trust trigger once again. Madonna, on the other hand, succeeds because of her manipulation of the vice trigger; her fans expect her brand to reinvent and experiment.

Every brand’s value is built upon a specific combination of fascination triggers. Abandon those triggers with great care. Obviously, if Porsche released a car that was safe-yet-sluggish, or Volvo released a car that was zippy-yet-unsafe, these companies would contradict their primary brand triggers, and weaken brand value. Such is the problem now facing Toyota.

The trust trigger was Toyota’s most precious brand asset. Damaged trust could cost the brand far more than the actual cost of the recall– even more than lost stock price or market position. I outlined ramifications in my blog post last week, with an interview:

The more respected the brand, the greater the surprise when that brand contradicts its core triggers. Just as Toyota contradicted its primary trigger, Tiger Woods contradicted his brand’s valuable triggers of prestige, mystique and power. Can the Tiger Woods brand recover as quickly as his golf game? Stuart Elliott in the The New York Times reports:

Is the Tiger Woods Brand Beyond Repair?

Tiger Woods’s golf game may recover, an advertising executive believes, but it may take his brand a long time to do so — if it ever does.

That is the conclusion of Sally Hogshead, who worked at agencies like Crispin Porter & Bogusky and is now a brand consultant and author. Ms. Hogshead, who said she was in the satellite media center during Mr. Woods’s remarks on Friday morning, called his speech “a big step forward in recovering the Tiger Woods brand.” …Mr. Woods’s decision to try “defending his wife, protecting his children and paying respect to his mother” should help “quell the outrage” over his behavior, Ms. Hogshead said, especially among women…. Also on the plus side of the ledger, she said, was the fact that he “let his guard down” with his remarks “to show us his humanity.”

On the negative side, Ms. Hogshead said, was “the way in which he manipulated the press conference” by taking no questions from the press… Also, the Woods brand “was founded upon prestige, mystique,” she added, “and an aura of elusive untouchability…”

Once lost, the prestige and mystique triggers, are extremely difficult to regain. Fortunately, Woods can return to his power trigger in golf. How do other established personal/corporate brands evolve over time, while staying true to their triggers?

Celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck’s company scores high on lust (crave-able foods), and prestige (trendy restaurants such as Spago). Even while selling part of his brand to Campbell’s, and introducing his soups to a broader market, Puck retains his core values of lust and prestige. The lesson: As your company expands, stay mindful of your fascination promise to consumers.

It’s good and necessary to update your message over time. However, radically changing your trigger without warning might just end up sparking another trigger for your accountants… alarm.

The Talented Asshole vs. the Sweetheart Hack

by Sally Hogshead on February 22, 2010

“I believe you do not have to be an asshole, or work for one, in order to do great work.”

I posted this on Facebook last Saturday night at 8:27 p.m. Apparently, I’m not the only one who dislikes assholes. Almost immediately, folks ranging from CEOs and professors to newbies and retired stars were joining in to criticize obnoxious leaders. No one, it seems, enjoys working for nasty people.

This includes Donna Lee Jahn Merz, the soft-spoken reverend who baptized my children as newborns, who posted, “I am so totally over working for or with assholes. … What ever happened to ‘do unto others?’” (Hey, if she can drop the A-bomb on Facebook, so can I.) Comments about mean or egomaniacal bosses, both past and present, ranted on.

So it’s unanimous: No one wants to work for a jerk, under any circumstances. Nastiness is never tolerable. That’s settled. Right? Well, hold on. Not so fast. After getting such emphatic responses, I asked a question on Facebook:

“Would you rather work for a talented asshole, or a sweetheart hack?” And this, my friends, is where it started getting interesting. Of the dozens of ensuing comments, the response was startlingly clear: When forced to choose, the talented asshole wins. Nothing, it seems, is worse than working for a hack — even a sweet one.

Why? Comments ranged from “respect” and “better opportunity to grow,” “higher quality of work,” but the main sentiment was the one expressed by freelancer Robert Manley: “Talent trumps nice.”

Helayne Spivak, exec VP-chief creative officer of Saatchi & Saatchi Wellness, pointed out, “Sweetheart hacks? I don’t want to sound heartless, but … can we afford nice people who aren’t good at their jobs? How’s this: We pair every talented asshole with a sweetheart hack who just walks around all day apologizing for the asshole’s behavior. Problem solved.”

What’s so bad about being a sweetheart hack? Most cited either weak leadership, or inability to create and support great ideas. Sam Harrison, speaker and author of “IdeaSelling,” remarked, “Looking back on my career, I’ve loved the pats on the back. But I’ve grown most from the people who were willing to look me in the eye and say, ‘You’re a good person, but your work needs work.’” Bart Cleveland, creative director of McKee Wallwork Cleveland, weighed in: “Both are equally dangerous and helpful to one’s career. … You may learn something from the jerk. A sweetheart always erodes potential.”

This need to learn from genuine talent became a recurring theme, especially when I asked the question on Twitter. Copywriter Jenn Totten tweeted, “As a young person in the biz I’d rather work for a talented asshole than a hack … but if you’re a talented sweetheart, I’ll work even harder.” Anthony Kalamut, professor and program chair of creative advertising at Seneca College in Toronto, asserted that the “biggest killer of young fresh talent is ‘the sweetheart hack.’” Deborah Morrison, a professor of advertising at University of Oregon, wrote, “Transparency is a beautiful thing. … There’s probably a blog and Twitter feed on ‘here’s an asshole’ updates.” Hacks, the group surmised, are not only untalented, but also insecure.

The most dreaded combination, it seems, are the leaders who are both hacks and assholes. Nasty behavior can become part of the culture in some marketing departments and ad agencies, as mercurial behavior seems to get confused with genius.

If we can all agree that nasty leaders are bad, then why do they so frequently seem to rise into management positions? In this environment, a less forceful personality can unfortunately be perceived as less charismatic, or even weak. Kathy Hepinstall, former creative director at TBWA Chiat Day, wrote, “The sad fact is, assholes break through. They’re colorful. They are spoken of. Like sound over water, assholism travels far.”

Do some bosses unfairly earn this reputation? Talented leaders must make tough choices, fight for innovative ideas, advocate for their team, and refuse to settle for average. They’re unafraid to ask questions, and don’t pander to the committee. They push everyone around them to work harder and go outside the comfort zone, and along the way, they’ll occasionally step on toes. (Do you think Apple’s Steve Jobs is a sweetheart?)

In my book, “Fascinate,” I delve into research on how influence develops and expands. Persuasive leaders, like persuasive brands, tap into specific “fascination triggers.” Intentionally or not, they elicit certain patterns of response every time they communicate.

The most dominant or polarizing brands — a.k.a. the talented assholes — tend to overuse certain traits. They gorge on the power, alarm and vice triggers, taking these traits to an extreme. Sweetheart hacks, on the other hand, become so hyper-reliant on the consistency of the trust trigger that their creativity and passion takes a back seat.

As a result, the asshole/hack debate is highly subjective. What appears to be brilliant leadership to some people might feel like power-mongering or ego-run-amok to others.

True talents can do great work and support others. Cathy Austin, president at Loop9 Marketing, advised, “The talent lies in being able to tell someone (honestly) their work sucks and it serving as inspiration, not condemnation.” The best leaders keep their focus on the organization, rather than making it personal. Mark Trueblood, copywriter at Turkel, says, “Being a leader means serving something greater than yourself. This requires a firm hand and an open heart.”

In a tough economy, pressures run higher, tempers are shorter, budgets are smaller and deadlines more unreasonable. Stress and insecurity run high, and intolerance for jerks runs low. Larry Tolpin, chief creative officer of Y and former chief creative officer at BBDO and JWT Worldwide, adds, “The same goes for hiring people … don’t settle.”

Bob Kuperman, former president-CEO DDB Worldwide, New York, quoted the ultimate source, Bill Bernbach: “We have two requisites for people working at Doyle Dane Bernbach. Number one, they have to be nice people. And number two, they have to have a lot of talent. I’m sorry for the nice guy who doesn’t have talent, but that’s bad for my business. And I don’t give a damn how much talent the son-of-a-bitch has. I don’t want him. Life is too short.”

Next week, we’ll continue on the debate with a closer look at asshole brands, hack brands and the pursuit of the talented sweethearts. In the meantime, if you’re curious to know which triggers you’re using to persuade others, check out the F Score personality test in my book.

One last thing. To everyone who shares his insight and experiences with me online, thank you! You make conversations like this fascinating. If you’d like to share your thoughts on this topic, please do, at facebook.com/hogshead, or at twitter.com/sallyhogshead.