Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

A person could be forgiven for head-scratching after reading the results of a survey by Gallup in late January. When asked, "What worries you more, too much regulation of business by government or not enough regulation of business by government?," 57% said too much regulation and 37% said not enough.

What's going on here? All the recent polls show trust in corporations at or near historic lows. According to Gallup's survey about six months ago, only 22% expressed trust in banks and only 16% said they trusted big business.

Okay. So it's fairly safe to say that Americans are skeptical that businesses have their best interests at heart. But here's where the Obama Administration and Congress may be going off track: citizens don't believe that the answer is in regulating and legislating businesses into doing the right thing.

And by the way, according to Gallup, there is a dramatic split in how Republicans and Democrats view this. More than 8 in 10 Republicans are against more government regulation, compared to about one in three Democrats who are against more regulation.

The takeaway for businesses? Do more to show your commitment to your customers. Don't misread that. The takeaway is not to SELL more to customers. It's to do more to show your commitment to your customers. Better service. Better explanations of your policies. When something goes wrong, do your level best to fix it. Be in touch, even when you're not trying to get more business.

It's all about being a step ahead of the needs and desires of customers.

Do we need more regulation of banks? You bet. That system rewards risky behavior - at the expense of Main Street investors. But being a step ahead of your customers will be viewed far more favorably by most Americans than more government regulation.

Meetup.com was facing issues about two years ago. Their service, which enables people to discover other like-minded folks, was gaining traction.  They started growing in response. Meetup went from a startup with a handful of employees to one that totaled around 60.

In this lurch-y adolescence, they began looking to big businesses for organizational and management models. Processes and structure were put in place. Two governance panels were created. A 16 step release process was enacted.

All of this was designed to to instill greater quality and help Meetup handle its growing pains. Yet the opposite occurred. Releases of new functionality to Meetup.com were stalled. People were at each other's throats. They were becoming less responsive to their customers. Employee morale tanked.

So began "What happens when your give employees 100% instead of 20% time? ", a panel hosted by two of the brass from Meetup.com at SXSW09 . What continued over the next hour was incredibly compelling. In the next few paragraphs, I'll recap what I heard.

Confronting the problem.

To confront the problem, executive management convened a two week marathon meeting. The goal was to walk out with a plan to reclaim the spirit of Meetup's beginnings. For two weeks they deliberated and, at the end, they walked out without an answer.

But coming out totally empty-handed wasn't doable. The execs decided they would stall for a bit longer. To the staff, they announced that all work on Meetup would cease. In its place, they would hold a six week hackathon.

The Hackathon.

The hackathon was simple. Any employee could work on whatever they wanted--given three basic rules.

1. Your project had to help out the Meetup community. This limited off-strategy projects.
2. You had to convince three other people to work on this with you. This limited pet projects.
3. You had to impress your team. This encouraged cool ideas.

Employees could also volunteer to work on any project suggested by their peers.

After presenting this plan to the staff, management excused themselves from the discussions. After less than an hour, ideas were flowing and groups forming. Over the next six weeks, teams collected and commandeered board rooms. People moved desks. Titles and seniority were cast away. In their place, people began to organize based on who was best able to execute their piece of the project.

At the end of the hackathon, lots of projects were in flight and making progress. Nothing was released yet, but the volume and quality of work accomplished was staggering. But sensing the end, employees started asking questions about what was next. Would they revert back to their old norms?

The honeymoon is over...or is it?

In the six weeks, there was little solid direction on how Meetup would be run in the future. The management team looked back at the hackathon. A lot of work had been done to date. Could the business keep working like this?

The team drew up five pages--on 8 pt type--of reasons why it wouldn't work. "How do you measure and reward employees?" "How do you keep on strategy?" "How do you get VC funds when you have no real roadmap?" These were all questions with no answer.

Out of these five pages though, the realized most were edge cases. If they could handle these as they occurred--rather than being prematurely defensive--this might work.

100% time.

At Google, those in engineering roles get 20% of their time to devote to projects they personally want to do. At Meetup, the idea is 100% time. Employees both propose and self-select the projects they want to work on. Teams form and disband based on what interests their members.

Teams can choose whatever methodology they want to work in: agile, waterfall, whatever. They choose how they want to manage communication. Management helps in setting goals and holding people accountable, but the freedom for day-to-day execution rests solely in the hands of those in the trenches.

Where they're at.

The speakers were very quick (and humble) to point out they had only been at this for about 18 months. They didn't know how it would scale. There are some product consistency issues. Performance management is still a bit nebulous.

But the side effect is that employee morale has improved. They're more responsive to their customers. The Meetup.com product, they believe, is better overall.

What's your take?

Let's hear your opinions in the comments below.

Capstrat recently wrapped up a pitch to a prospect whose name I will not mention here. It was a wonderfully draining experience.

Once a presentation date is set I, like my counterparts, switch into that special gear reserved only for high speed new business pursuits.

What you accomplish is only limited by the number of hours before you walk into that room full of judges.

The process starts off well-paced and methodical and ends up turning into a crescendo of last minute refinements and caffeine-induced second-guessing. I love it.

One minute I feel like I have helped solved the problem that will help us win the business.

The next minute, I feel like a miserable hack who should consider changing careers.

The curveballs come from all directions, and for a change, they are not being thrown by a client. Hindsight shows you they were all for good reasons.

In the end, the pieces all come together, the presentation gels and the team ends up on the same highly scrutinized page.

When you see the client nod his head in complete agreement, you know it was all worthwhile.

At the end of the day you are both exhausted and energized.

Win or lose, we are better off for having gone through the process.

I am ready to do it again, but not this week.