Exploring the critical importance of independently questioning, testing, and validating assumptions in brand partnerships.
In Hans Christian Anderson’s famous cautionary tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, all the king’s men and all the king’s subjects are reduced to silence out of fear that questioning the apparent reality of their situation may lead them to look foolish. In today’s modern workplace, this same phenomenon happens more often than we’d care to admit. Better to “not rock the boat”. Leave the tough questions to the “Subject Matter Experts”. That’s “above my paygrade”. These idioms developed because they allow us to stay in our comfort zone and avoid risking upsetting a client, offending a superior, or asserting an inaccuracy.
Unfortunately, performance is rarely maximized when everyone is comfortable. This point underscores the critical importance of Credible Challenge – the process of independently questioning, testing, and validating assumptions, data, methodologies or decisions. In the context of cobrand program management, credible challenge is essential, and brand partners are often best positioned to provide it. Given the “arms-length” nature of cobrand agreements, partners almost always maintain a degree of independence regarding the matters of most importance to program success – credit underwriting, marketing, investment, capabilities, roadmapping, etc. All of these critical functions emanate from the issuing bank and are subject to multiple layers of oversight, approval, and authority. By the time these decisions are made only a steadfast and convicted partner can claim independence and present a meaningful challenge to the decision-making process.
With independence ensured, brand partners also enjoy a clear and undeniable right to “question”. Hierarchies within all bank issuers ensure certain decisions must be followed, but the vendor/client nature of all cobrand programs entrenches an obligation of the issuer to allow partners to understand, probe, and if necessary, request clarification of any material decision. Brand partners are often the most empowered stakeholder to question.
These two components of the Credible Challenge – independence and a right to question – inure with greater effect to brand partners. This fact underscores the responsibility which falls on them to influence not only the direction of their specific program, but also the overall strategic wisdom of their issuing partner. In this way the obligation of Credible Challenge is symbiotic – all parties benefit when brand partners fulfil their obligation to provide robust, informed and skeptical contest to materially impactful program management decisions.
While issuing bank partners often have as much to gain from strong, candid, partner relationships grounded in Credible Challenge, there is no doubt the brand partner itself must invest in the capability. Executive sponsors and program managers must maintain, or employ, deep and strategic familiarity with industry operating procedures, regulatory actions, best-practices, economic barometers, and operating agreements. Absent this informed perspective, brand partners will lack intellectual and argumentative prowess necessary to inform and reinforce independent questioning.
In The Emperor Has New Clothes, it took the juvenile courage of a child to break townsfolk of their fear offering Credible Challenge. In today’s business environment, it takes intentional investment in knowledge and devoted attention to program performance to ensure issuers and brand partners alike benefit from honest, independent questioning of program decisions.