Here’s the one line summary. CLG is being held back because we try to fit old jobs into this new model.

This is not a new problem. Initially, we tend to define any new approach using the structures and language current use: concepts developed and refined over time that we are familiar with.. Language and structures are important in building and sharing the ideas we are developing. The problem with using old archetypes is that they constrain our thinking. It is what I refer to as the challenge of legacy mindsets.

Let me give you an example specific to customer-led growth.

A month rarely passes without someone on LinkedIn highlighting the difference between customer support and customer success or account management and customer success or customer experience and customer success. Many of these comments come from people with a vested interest, and as the saying goes, turkeys don’t vote for Christmas. No one asks if any of these roles, as currently conceived are even relevant in the new approach.

My favourite is that of account managers and customer success managers. Old thinking says the former is focused on maximising revenue whilst the latter is all about ensuring the customer receives value from what they have bought. As a result, companies have two roles, each with their own priorities, tools, methods and metrics: an account plan setting out sales opportunities and a success plan setting out steps to enable improvements. Having two plans adds complexity and they often get out of kilter, despite best attempts at alignment. Proponents of the two separate jobs argument overlook the fact that the best way to sell to existing customers is to identify a customer’s pain/gain points and show them how the product helps them address it in a measurable way. A shared initial success plan is a very powerful sales tool and the best way to sell more to existing customers is to deliver the results they expect. So why not have one plan: a single customer plan that sets out both sales goals and improvement plans. And why not share this with the customer? After all, there is no sale without a willing buyer and if the basis of the sale is measurable improvements in things that matter to them, why would a customer object?

This problem, of which the AM/CSM is just one example, is exacerbated in the way many companies go about organisation design. They confuse organisation design with designing an organisation structure - what departments we have; who reports to whom and what jobs sit in each team. These are only a tiny part of organisation design and the least important. This mechanistic approach is summed up well by Tien Zuo, the founder and CEO of Zuora: he said of CEOs facing new challenges “When in doubt, build another vertical silo”. And guess what, another new silo often serves only to exacerbate the problem. Structure should never be the starting point of organisation design. It is an outcome of good organisastion design.

This itself highlights another problem. The dominant structure employed in organisations is skill specific hierarchies: marketing, sales, product, finance….. This structure and the departmental metrics that go with it entrench stovepiped views and actions. Yet we know that most problems are multi-disciplinary.

In summary, we try to implement a new approach using old thinking about jobs and structures that are just not suited to what we are trying to achieve. We hamstring our efforts to change for the off. What should we do?

Here’s my prescription.

1. Start with the customer. What does their life look like as they go through the relationship with a supplier?

2. What capabilities (processes and skills) do we need to communicate, sell and deliver measurable results to the key roles in our chosen customers? Specifically explore for capabilities not currently in place but are called for in the new approach.

3. What data and metrics (note the difference) do we need to ensure we are doing the right things for them and us?

4. How can we bundle these skills and capabilities (job and structure design) to deliver improvements for customers, engaging jobs for people and profitable growth for the company?

Finally, think outside the box (and lines) when it comes to org structures. Multi-disciplinary capabilities often need multi-disciplinary teams. Just because we have built companies as discipline focused hierarchies for over 200 years doesn’t make it right. In fact it probably makes it wrong!