An unpredictable economic environment, constantly evolving local and central strategic initiatives.
Any one of these could test the relationship between a client and an agency, but together with Decathlon, we managed to weather this perfect storm. Petra, the brand’s online communication leader, and Máté, the Client Lead for Decathlon at Mito Performance, have collected their thoughts on how the relationship between the two teams not only didn’t weaken but actually strengthened after a windy strategic planning project.
Petra: I worked at an agency before, and it was always a sore point when we only received surface-level information here and there. It was difficult to truly understand how the organization functioned, why things were happening, and what their goals were. That’s why I believe that collaborative planning is essential; it should be a mandatory element in a client-agency relationship. Especially when we expect more than just tactical suggestions that provide surface-level answers to specific questions or issues but also recommendations that can improve our effectiveness and annual goals.
I’d say it’s better to have more meetings, but everyone should have a clear understanding of the annual goals, and we should share a common understanding of what we are building upon. Then, if we happen to go off course or can’t see the forest for the trees, there should be an objective professional perspective to get us back on track.
It's not always evident for every company that the agency should be part of the strategic planning. Should they definitely be involved from the initial stages?
The project often took significant turns. How did you feel during those times? And how did you convey this to the Mito team?
Petra: We went through quite a turbulent period. Alongside the challenges brought about by the economic situation, both international and domestic Decathlon was undergoing significant transformations. This sometimes resulted in long weeks and months of work being shelved, or things not going as planned.
I hope we communicated all of this transparently. We made sure that when a decision was made, we not only explained what changed but also why. There is a lot to learn from these international or top-level decisions about decision-making processes, organizational structure, so that in a similar situation in the future, we can all adapt more flexibly and quickly.
I approached this by believing that the work done previously was not in vain, and we could draw inspiration and build upon it.
Máté: Our first major reengineering effort took place around October-November. At that time, I felt that a considerable amount of work had gone into the previous strategic planning, and as a result, the team was exhausted. Telling an exhausted team that we need to reengineer is not easy. It was essential to realize that the nature of our goals had not changed; they were just as ambitious, and we could try something new to achieve them. What we were doing was still cool; we were just doing it differently.
Personal presence played a significant role in this situation. It eliminates many opportunities for people and teams to get worked up about how bad a situation may be. When you see the person you’re working with and you see how sincere they are, it makes a difference.
Regardless of a thorough strategy, the current economic environment has forced everyone to make sudden changes. How do you ensure quality and enthusiasm during such times?
Máté: Despite the reengineering, we kept to our shared checkpoints, both internally and with Petra’s team, where we could present the work in progress so our direction was clear to everyone. This way we prevent a lot of unnecessary work, help set and maintain direction in what we’re doing. It builds trust and harmony because we don’t just show the finished car; we bring people into the workshop to take a look, to provide input. While it may seem time-consuming at first, over time it results in accelerated processes and communication since we get to understand each other much better.
The project restarted, and the deadlines remained the same. What is the difference between working at a fast pace and rushing?
Even with such a collaborative approach and shared everyday experiences, is there still a need for formal feedback?
Máté: Feedback comes in two forms. One is what we do religiously because we believe in it. This can be an evaluation every quarter, half-year, or year, very high-level, and structured.
The other one, that we are good at is providing feedback during the process. I believe that very few do this in the industry, but it has significant value. It has the most impact when given during the process, when you can say something is not okay in time, not six months later in an evaluation where you might give a score, say an eight. And then that eight is there, maybe with two accompanying sentences, and no one wants to write more.”
Petra: When I pay attention to providing positive feedback and reinforcement to my own team, acknowledging that we did well as a team, then Mito is always a part of that too. Everyone needs good feedback, recognition for their work.
It’s important to express the good because often even though we have positive thoughts come to mind, we don’t communicate them; instead, we tend to focus on what’s not going as planned or that needs improvement. It’s very motivating when positive feedback is just as natural.
How different is it, should this be from your internal evaluations?
So, if a perfect storm is brewing, then besides wearing a Tribord sailing jacket:
- Don’t reduce the number of meetings reflexively,
- Spend time understanding the background of decisions along with the decisions themselves,
- Focus not only on what has changed but also on what remains,
- Be together, not just on Zoom or Teams,
- Start from the beginning by providing feedback to each other.