Episode 30: The marketing person you replaced was probably a hot mess

Six months into a year-long tour in 2007, the unit I was supporting in Iraq, was going home – but not before a short period of overlap with the replacements.

That period lasted one or two weeks, providing for a multifaceted process the military calls a “relief in place” and a “transfer of authority.” This was done so the troops leaving, could show the troops coming in, how to get things done safely.

When the last aircraft, carrying the last members of the original unit, finally went wheels up, and the new unit took charge, one thing became clear: the new guys thought the guys that just left were a hot mess. Things were about to change. At least that’s what they said.

When it was my turn to leave, six more months later, those changes were barely perceptible. Of course, there were tweaks, as every unit has its own way of doing things, but by far and large, the conditions eventually led the new unit to the same conclusions the old unit had reached. Things were pretty much the same.

When I think back across the 20+ years I wore a military uniform, I have to laugh because vignettes like this were a frequent occurrence. Whether peace or war, whether an entire unit or just the commander, as soon as the baton was passed, the allegations of how the old unit did just about everything wrong began to mount.

Yet, this sort of organizational behavior isn’t limited to just the military. We see it in business, government and non-profits too. In marketing, it’s become the CMO playbook. The last CMO was a train wreck and therefore a) we need to fire an agency; b) initiate a restructuring; and c) launch a re-branding.

I’ve observed this phenomenon dozens of times in a variety of organizations and roles. Though my data is at best anecdotal, I’d venture to say, that in six or 12 months, the new line of thinking usually travels 359 degrees and winds up shockingly close to the previous line.

As they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The problem with this is that it places a tremendous amount of unnecessary stress and churn on an organization. Consequently, the front door of the office begins to revolve, and the business suffers both hard and soft costs. Research suggests it can cost 1.5x to 3x the salary to replace an employee – and it may never be able to replace institutional knowledge.

This all goes to show the incredible responsibility organizations face in building the right team. Whether in the military or in business or in marketing , who you’ve got in the dirt next to you counts for a whole lot more than the sum of individual skills.

Ful post (oldie but a goodie): https://www.swordandthescript.com/2017/02/marketing-predecessor/