[MUSIC] [SOUND] So, I've introduced Newton's cradle before, and this module is very much about the alignment between the dots if you will, the alignment between the three Bs that I've talked about between business, brand and behavior, in the process of creating customer and consumer value. So if you think about these three Bs, what does the alignment actually mean? We'll focus on various aspects. In this video, I'll focus mainly on the kind of codes of behavior, that stand behind of each of these dots, if you will, or each of these balls, which is really about. Are we all kind of dancing to the same tune, in the organization or do we have different tunes, at each of these stages, this is central to much of what I teach. I use a tool called the three B aligner In my classes, and it's really about on the business side, thinking about the organizational purpose, your vision, your mission, your strategies. At the brand level, it's about the customer value proposition, your positioning. And the behavior level, we can think of organizational values maybe codes like your employee value proposition, your competency framework, your leadership model. All of these are various codes of behavior that we subscribe our people, our employees to take part of. And if you think about the relationship between these, are they all pulling us in the same direction or are they pulling us in different directions. And ultimately also think about the relationship between these at a more fundamental level. Think about your business, does it allow a certain brand to come to fruition to build a certain brand, maybe your heritage. On the other hand, if you think from the brand to the business, what is the right business structures, systems, processes, that bring this brand to life? That allow it to exist? That support it? If you think about the behaviors, it's also a two way street from the brand. On the one hand, you can think about well, what is the organizational culture? What are the behaviors, that I need to exist to deliver the brand? But you could push this to the extreme, and say well, if we have a strong organizational culture. What are the types of brands that we can actually support? So this alignment really goes both ways, if you think about these balls swinging back-and-forth. Now this is not just an internally focus exercise. The public eye is increasingly on the alignments of these various components. So this alignment between the three B's is not just something that we need to be concerned with internally. For operational; purposes but it's really part of our reputation, they way we're seen in the market place. And I've chosen two brands to really bring this to life. Ive chosen them because they're recent examples, but also they're brands that I admire, they're great brands, so I think it's safe to point out these two incidents. The first one is, recently Starbucks came out with a campaign called Race Together. The baristas were encouraged, all the way from Howard Schultz down to write race together, on the Starbucks cups. This is in the United States, because of the racial tensions, that are really very apparent, in the US still today, and this is not a bad idea in itself. I think it's great to encourage discussions about race. But you then have to think about, well, does this fit the brand and does it fit the organization, the business? So this behavior that baristas are encouraged to do. So from the brand level, you might argue, well, if you think about Starbucks as the third space, people go and they can discuss, maybe that is a topic you'd like to discuss. On the other hand people want their coffee and maybe they want to relax and not talk about such serious concept. So, from the brand level, this is questionable already. But really when this kind of erupted in the media was when a lot of the consumers started pointing towards Starbucks, started pointing towards the composition of their executive committee, which was not quite as diverse as this kind of a message would have required. On the internal response, from the communications side overwhelmed with this public attack, the communications director actually shut down, I think their Twitter account it was. And that certainly doesn't fit also with this idea of open discussion. So on so many different levels, did the brand not fit. The behaviour in the business did not fit this behaviour, that they quickly shut this down. The second example is a bit further back, but maybe equally dramatic, because some blamed a fall in the stock prices in the billions tn this incident. This is some years ago, the New York Times decided to publish an op-ed piece, a letter from a disgruntled employee of Goldman Sachs. And it's curious that the New York Times would think this is news, and give this kind of space, but they did. And if you think about Goldman Sachs if you go to their business principles and their homepage, it's all about client focus. That's the number one kind of business principle, that client always comes first. And what this employee was saying, and he wrote a book about it after the op ed piece Why I Left Goldman Sachs, which is basically just a longer version of the book. He basically said look, there's nothing about client focus in our daily discussions, all we care about is making money and this is really not true. Now, I don't whether it's true or not. I think a lot of people from Goldman stood up and said no, that is true, clients do come first. But what I am trying to point here is that we really are in the public eye. I call this sort of new reality brand naked in some sense, because it used to we had very controlled corporate communications, corporate PR But now, we really are in the public eye, our employees are out there, our consumers are out there. And they do very much care about this alignment. [MUSIC].