Charlotte Beers at Ogilvy and Mathers
...n guide and direct the company to greater heights than it has ever been before, i.e. create a vision of the future, communicate that vision, set specific goals for the company and each division, and reverse the trend of dwindling revenues and lost accounts. Beers was obviously fighting an uphill battle during the first few months of her tenure as most of the executive team had been at O&M for 20 years or more; they were set in their ways reliving the “glory days” when Mr. Ogilvy ruled the company. After Ogilvy, four non-visionary executives preceded Beers; they were hardly able to fill the giant shoes of Ogilvy. Most employees of the company were doubtful Beers would be any more of a true leader than the previous four “milquetoast” executives. When the company was bought out, many top creative and account executives, including Kenneth Roman left the company to join other agencies because there was “an air of conflict, adversaries and invasion.” The person chosen to replace Roman was brilliant at his job, but was not considered an inspirational leader. Most felt that leadership was not present and that the New York office was deteriorating. The New York office, which was the most powerful part of the company lost large contracts. Some of these contracts were symbols of company moral. The company could not adapt to clients’ demands. Budgets were too large and processes were sluggish Ogilvy employees were skeptical of her because she was an outsider and from a smaller company that did not manage international offices. 2. What is your assessment of Ms. Beers’ visions? Does it meet the criteria for a powerful vision? Part of the reason that Beers had difficulty in implementing the vision is that it only meets some of the criteria for a powerful vision. The vision, “To be the agency most valued by those who most value brands” is not particularly vivid or clear, nor is it inspiring. The organization believed in David Ogilvy’s philosophy, “We sell or else.” Further, they had built their reputation on ad campaigns that were intelligent, stylish and first class, “the class act of Madison Avenue.” People did not understand the brand philosophy. It did not speak to the core beliefs of the members. The vision probably allows for changes in the environment, and it does not state the obvious, both characteristics of a powerful vision. Her vision was aimed more towards the clients instead of the organization. Her vision does not meet the criteria for a powerful vision. It did not encompass the dreams and aspirations of the organization. It was broad but not inspiring or lofty. It did not reduce uncertainty or reduce conflict. Many divisions and offices were at odds with each other. Overall it was not an extension of the core beliefs of the members. (No BHAG) Beers vision, “To be the agency most valued by those who most value brands”, was certainly a galvanizing vision, but not a great vision. It is forward looking, lofty, vivid, and clear but not inspiring, or a broad, philosophical statement. It also does not allow for changes in the environment, an important aspect of a great vision. Beers vision was to have a company that met all the needs of the clients and was a company that collectively worked together to get the most satisfaction from clients. She wanted to be the company most valued by those who most value brands. It didn’t seem that it had all the pieces for a powerful vision, because there didn’t seem like there was ever any tangible goal that evoked passion from the employees. It also didn’t seem to be an extension of the core beliefs of the company. It also seemed pretty ambiguous as to what the company’s slogan actually meant. 3. What is your assessment of the process Ms. Beers and her team went through to create the vision? Beers began the process appropriately. She asked for ideas, meeting with people one on one and assigning them tasks to see how they approached the task. She did not just ask her direct reports for ideas, but sought out those she thought would be agents for change. When she brought this Thirsty for Change group together, however, there was much disagreement over what the firm’s priorities/goals should be. Ultimately, Beers defined the three specific but attainable goals for the following year. While all agreed these three goals were the right ones for the organization for the following year, there was no long term strategy to build on the vision. The case ends by saying that Beers wondered what course of action in 1994 would provide the best stewardship of the Ogilvy brand. If the vision process had been done properly she would not be wondering about the course of action in1994, it would already be mapped out. She did a good job in her process of setting a vision. She was charismatic and full of life. She assembled a diversified group of the company in an effort to get a variety of perspectives from all over the company. They set three main strategies, which were specific and attainable. It seemed fine for the short term more like a company campaign rather than a vision. It was an important, painful, stretching process for all those on the team involved in creating the vision and strategy of O&M for the future. Involving other employees who had been at O&M quite a while was a smart strategy for Beers; this enabled her to gain referent power by empowering them to forge the vision and direction of the company. Beers involvement of employees not par...