Shift Focus From Brand Identity To Individual Identity In The Age Of Personalization

“Put your coat on, I’m cold.”

That’s what a friend of mine heard a mother say to her child as they left a store one Chicago night. That simple turn of phrase perfectly sums up how our individuality gets stripped away. I believe something, so you must, too. I think something, so you must, too. I feel something, so you must, too. The organization and brand work this way, so you must, too.

We have entered an age of personalization, but our corporations still operate by the now outdated rules of the previous age of standardization.

As a society, we are more diverse than ever. We are more informed than ever. We are aware of and proud of our individuality. Corporate strategies were not designed to handle mass variance in people. They were designed to achieve efficiency, and efficiency requires a certain level of standardized thinking and standardized action.

And that means the brand comes first. It also means the brand comes at the expense of the individual.

This brand-over-individual idea is deeply embedded in our concept of what it means to be an American worker.

There Is No I in Model T

When Henry Ford first started producing cars at the turn of the 20th century, workers built whole cars themselves—a highly inefficient process that made those cars expensive. Ford needed mass production, not artisanal production, to make the Model T more than a luxury. Enter the assembly line.

The idea wasn’t new, but Ford executed it on a scale and with a degree of efficiency previously unheard of. Individual workers were retrained to work together to perform specific sequential tasks in the building process, rather than all of them. This required hiring more workers to assemble a car, but Ford believed the increase in production would more than pay for the increased labor costs and allow him to reduce the price of the Model T.

He was right. Out of the gate, Ford’s assembly line produced a car almost 80% faster than a single worker. Plus, production was continuous. If one person was out, another could learn the task quickly and step in.

But there was one problem: his current workers hated the change. They were upset by the line’s repetitious work and lack of ownership. Many of them quit. Even an increase in wages went only so far to retain them.

Ford realized he needed to do more than control the way cars were manufactured: he needed to control the workers who manufactured them. So he created a “sociological department” and made every current worker and applicant submit to its evaluation. The department even visited homes to ensure workers met certain criteria deemed essential for assembly line success, like being thrifty, not drinkers, not living in sin, and willing to take only standard Christian holidays. Those who passed the “test” were promised double the industry standard wages.

Ford’s ensuing ability to retain his workers and increase their productivity resulted in even greater production, and indeed, those workers could afford the cars they were building. He was so proud of his success he shared it, welcoming competitors, executives from other countries, politicians to see what he had done. He thought standardization of work and workers was the path to American greatness and influence. He wanted it to reshape American manufacturing, the American workplace, and the workforce in general.

Thus, the age of standardization was born.

Henry Ford not only standardized work, but also standardized workers who had to be willing, able, and required to give up their individuality and identity to the brand. There was no individuality on the assembly line, and no identities but the Ford brand.

This was the definition of the great American melting pot, only in business practices: Strip away individual identity and assimilate the individuals to the brand. In return, the brand would define their identity. Allow that loss of identity, conform, and work hard, and those individuals could realize the American dream of opportunity, freedom, and equality for themselves and their children. Buy a car. Buy a home. Raise a family.

By almost every measure, my family lived this dream. My parents immigrated to America in the 1960s, and my father built a successful career in corporate America. He was a chemist and an integral part of the quality control team that formulated an iconic American brand: Miller Lite. My parents bought a house, raised a family, and loved their new country. So why did my father want me to think differently when I graduated college in the 1980s and took my first corporate job at a well-known and successful wine and spirits company?

My father could hear the struggle in my voice. The company I worked for had the classic top-down, best-practice, fear-based culture common in the age of standardization. I was told I had to deliver results or I would be out in 30 days. I was given the company playbook and told to follow it.

Individuality? Communication? Nope. The only things that mattered were the transaction and compliance. Our relationships were defined by the company.

Just like at Ford, this standardized process produced results that padded our paychecks, so we also didn’t question them. Don’t get me wrong: many of the standards I learned at that job—attention to detail, daily reporting that elevated my sense of accountability and responsibility, and teamwork—have been critical to my success.

But it was never about me, or rather the standardization of me: my individuality, the different opportunities I saw for the brand, or what I wanted for my future. There was no balance between standardization and personalization. It was about the brand controlling us: do what you’re told, and you will do great here. If I followed the rules, I would be rewarded with a salary and benefits that would allow me to live the same dream my parents had.

But soon it bothered me the same way it had bothered the workers at Ford decades before. And today I see that it bothers most people.

We don’t make cars the same way we used to, why do we think it’s okay to standardize people the same way we used to?

There’s More Than One I in Identities

Here’s something I hear often from leaders at large organizations:

“I know what I stand for. I know I want purpose and meaning in my work. But I don’t know who I am. That’s what keeps me up at night.” Too many leaders and employees have said some version of that to me. What they are all saying is, “I don’t know my identity. No one knows me as an individual.”

This is heartbreaking to me: The one person you must know in your life is yourself. When the pressure is on and you are forced to make life-defining decisions, the ability to know yourself is tested.

• Do you know yourself enough?
• Have you lived a life that allows you to know yourself enough?
• Have you broken free from what others think your life path should be?

This is the tension they feel: Restricted and limited throughout their lives, they have tried to break away from standardization yet have been defined and crushed by it. Most of them feel comfortable living in the age of standardization— and unprepared to lead. Yet they want to feel and be significant, not just successful.

Today we’ve entered a new age of personalization, in which employees and consumers want to align with brands that are capable of leading and serving them based on the person’s own values, unique needs, and desires. This shifts the balance of power from brands and businesses to individuals—to the standardization of “me.”

Organizations that make employees and consumers feel included and understood on an individual level will have a huge advantage over those that don’t.

Of course, it may seem that organizations are already doing that: unlike when I started in business, today’s employees have evolved to have a much deeper sense of their own selves at work, where personality tests are common (for example, StrengthsFinder, Myers-Briggs, DISC). Organizations are filled with people who have learned at least some basics about their personalities, strengths and weaknesses, and work styles. Similarly, there are competency measurements and assessments that help leaders and organizations understand us as people and help us understand who we are.

But are those same organizations providing ways for individuals to actually use that self-knowledge and be self-directed? If not, what a waste.

The age of personalization is about individuals being self-directed and ensuring the success and significance of the organization they serve.

Without self-directedness, all that knowledge just becomes a means to one end: standardization—putting people in boxes.

Consider this: If you had a team of five people working on a major redesign of your systems and customer service, would you want five individuals who think like the brand working together to create the strategy? Or would you want five individuals who think for themselves on behalf of the brand, working through the tension and aligning what they think with what the brand represents, to create the strategy?

I’m hoping you choose the latter. That’s what you get in personalization when you have people with strong, secure, and credible identities. Each individual identity brings to the team a unique blend of thinking, expertise, and experience that gives them distinction, skills, and interests that make them particularly suited to solve certain problems.

Wondering whether or not you’ve established a workplace that puts the focus on individual identities? Ask yourself:

• Are there opportunities for people to have and share ideas even when their ideas involve a function or business unit they are not part of or not officially credentialed for?
• Is there room for someone to approach a challenge or assignment using a method that is different from the prescribed approach?
• Are you open to having your own goals challenged or questioned by someone you lead?

If I were to ask the people you lead the same questions, would their answers differ from yours? (Here’s a hint: answers usually differ. Leaders often think the workplace is safer than it is for independent thinking.)

Allowing individual identities to define the brand identity takes a concerted, strategic effort that many organizations are not investing in. That makes it a great opportunity. Set yourself and your organization apart by shaping a culture that elevates that elevates what’s so powerful in the age of personalization: individuality.

Take the following assessment to identify how prepared you are to lead in the age of personalization.