by Adam Hartung | Dec 22, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
In "The Year in Innovation" BusinessWeek has offered its review of innovation in 2009. And the report is grim. Most companies cut innovation spending – including R&D. Even the pharmaceutical industry, historically tied to long-term investment cycles, cut 69,000 jobs in 2009, up 60% from 2008. Meanwhile, P&G's dust cloth Swiffer was pronounced a major innovation – indicating both how few innovations made it to market in 2009 – and the degree to which BusinessWeek must depend upon P&G for advertising dollars given this selection (I mean really – BusinessWeek ignores Google Wave and Android entirely in the article but feature a Swiffer dust cloth!)
According to BusinessWeek, the big advances in innovation in 2009 apparently were "open innovation" and "trickle up innovation." The first is asking vendors and others outside the company to contribute to innovation. Adoption of open innovation has spurred one thing – less spending on innovation as companies cut budgets, using "open innovation initiatives" as an explanation for how they intend to maintain themselves while spending less. Open innovation has not spurred improved innovation implementation, just justified spending less with no real plans to achieve growth. With open innovation, of course, failures no longer belong to the company because the "open environment" didn't produce anything – hence innovation simply wasn't possible!
Trickle up innovation is asking people in poor countries, like India, how they do things. Then seeing if you can steal an idea or two. There's nothing wrong with turning over every rock when trying to innovate, but using analysis of third world countries, where costs happen to be very low and new innovations few, to drive your innovation program smacks of looking for ways to put a fig leaf on a naked innovation program. Expectations are low, so explanations are more prevalent than results. C.K. Prahalad wrote an entire book on this approach – which is popular with big company leaders who have abandoned innovation and think it clever to steal ideas from the poor. But it's not how Apple became #2 in smart phonesor created iTunes or how Facebook has taken over social networking.
source: Silicon Alley Insider (with Google picking up 2 new carriers in late 2009, this chart will be very different by summer 2010)
None of the trends identified by BusinessWeek reflect behavior of the real innovation winners. Rather, they reflect the big companies who are mired in Defend & Extend management, and making excuses for their terrible performance since 2007. Not once does the article talk about Google, Apple, Cisco – or leading small company innovators like Tasty Catering in Chicago. There are companies winning at innovation, but they are certainly not following the trends (which have produced marginal results – at best) identified in this article.
Because planning processes look at last year when setting goals for next year, lots of companies now plan even lower innovation spending for 2010. And that's how an economy goes into a tailspin. Everyone from bankers to manufacturers to retailers are saying 2009 was weak, and they don't see much improvement for 2010. That can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 24/7 Wall Street reported in "Immelt Speaks at West Point: Future Leadership Path" that the CEO of GE, Jeff Immelt, is doing less innovation spending and relying more on government/business partnership. And of course GE is realing from over-reliance on financial services and under-investment in new products during his leadership. While Immelt is patching up holes at GE, the company is sinking without new products manning the oars.
Companies don't just need to spend on R&D. Studies of R&D have shown that the bulk of spending is Defend & Extend. Trying to get more out of the technologies embedded in the Success Formula. P&G and GE can spend easily enough. But when it's on short-term "quick hits" they get declining marginal returns and weaker competitiveness.
Companies in 2010 must adopt new approaches. They have to quit planning from the past, and plan for the future. More scenario development and understanding how to change competitive position. And they have to quit being so conforming and promote Disruption. Disruptions are needed to open White Space so new Success Formulas can be developed. In the 2000/01 recession Apple looked to the future, Disrupted its total dedication to the Macintosh and unleashed White Space allowing the company to become a leader in digital music as well as the front runner in smart phones within a decade.
Your business can be a leader; and soon. If you start thinking differently about what you must do, quit putting all your energy into Defend & Extend behavior and invest in White Space, innovation will flourish – and with it your revenues and profits.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 21, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
Great blog today at MidasNation.com. Rob Slee is a book author and blogger focused on privately held companies. And today he took on "Old White Men" – or OWM – in his blog "Why 60 Year Old White Men are Killing America." Telling the story about how GM management drove the profits out of suppliers while bankrupting the company, he contrasted GM's behavior with the Japanese run firms in America who partnered with suppliers to make a better product customers more highly valued. We know who ended up with the profitable approach.
Similar to Defend & Extend management, Mr. Slee talks about "past as predicate" as he discusses older managers who keep doing what they always did, even though results keep worsening. And how "command and control" hierarchies sucked the value out of the traditional Big 3 automakers. His views about how OWM leaders expect a "return to the norm," creating a recipe for disaster in an ever changing world increasingly producing black swans. His stories are an action call for all leaders to change their behavior.
According to Marketwatch.com today, "GM Hires Microsoft Exec Liddell as CFO." Is this good, or just more OWM? According to BusinessWeek, Mr. Liddell is 50 – which makes him 10 years shy of the minimum 60 Mr. Slee denotes for OWM. More disconcerting was the final paragraph of his bio at Microsoft.com which claims Mr. Liddell "has completed a number of triathlons, including an Ironman and also enjoys rugby, yoga, golf and tennis." Pretty seriously testosterone laden language – and appealing primarily to OWM types. Like his new boss, the retired Southwestern Bell Chairman, now running GM.
Triathlon and rugby often have a way of making people Lock-in on the values of persistence, hard work and sacrifice. Jim Collins is a rather famous triathlete who loves Lock-in. Creativity and innovation are rarely the stuff of winners in those sports. Of course, competing in a global marketplace with fast changing competitors who defy all rules is a far cry from any sport. Sport analogies are usually more harmful than good in today's global marketplace, where adaptability is worth more than repetitive behavior seeking scale.
Mr. Liddell's last boss, Steve Ballmer, is one of the 10 most Locked-in CEOs in corporate America. Not a great mentoring for open-mindedness. And during Mr. Liddell's 4.5 year career at Microsoft the company's big launches were the me-too, and underwhelmingly exciting, Vista and System 7 products. Mr. Liddell didn't seem to push the innovation engine much in Seattle.
From appearances it would seem likely he'll focus on cost reductions pretty hard — something unlikely to make GM a success. GM doesn't need to launch it's own version of Vista. GM doesn't need a tough guy to whack the chicken coop hoping to get more eggs – instead just making the hens all upset. GM needs significant Disruption – attacks on its Success Formula – with a revitalization of new product development and technology application. GM needs an entirely new Success Formula, not just a better Defended and Extended one.
Keep your eyes on Mr. Liddell. Perhaps he'll surprise us. Look for Disruptions and White Space. It doesn't seem to be Mr. Liddell's nature. But watch. Until then, there's no sign yet that GM is taking the right actions to make itself a vital competitor against Hyundai, Kia, Tata Motors, Honda and Toyota.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 15, 2009 | General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
In a tough year like 2009, many business leaders want to jump in a foxhole and focus on survival. The goal becomes maintain, and then try to grow again sometime in the future – when the economy gets better. They cut marketing and sales costs, stop new product development/introduction, and literally plan to do nothing new until "the business" improves. Unfortunately, that sets a business up for failure.
In today's fast moving competitive world, it's impossible to stand still. Your business either grows, or it falls behind. Think about Yahoo!. The company hoped to maintain it's search business at it entered a "turnaround." Unfortunately, the competition isn't willing to give Yahoo! any time at all. Microsoft grabs off 10% of the market with its Bing introduction, and Google just keeps taking share. Take a look at Yahoo's performance:
source: Silicon Alley Insider
Or consider AOL. AOL was the undoubted leader in bringing people to the internet. But over the last decade AOL has tried to maintain its customers without offering any new products. It has saved investment dollars, but lost its relevancy. Now Facebook has more unique visitors than AOL – a clear sign AOL (which recently went public) is well on the way to disappearing:
source: Silicon Alley Insider
Blockbuster was the clear market leader for video/movie rentals. The company even had a college football bowl game named after it! The CEO bought a baseball team, and made it into a World Series winner! Blockbuster was THE store for obtaining entertainment for many years. But the company saved its dimes, tried to defend its market position, and didn't develop new solutions. Now it is being overwhelmed by competitor Netflix:
source: Silicon Alley Insider
Too many business leaders believe in "The Myth of the Flats" (from Create Marketplace Disruption.) They think that you can build a business, and then ride a market position. When business is bad they depend upon living on past brand position. They think they can wait for a better market to come along before they use White Space to introduce new solutions that meet emerging needs. And the competitors, who don't slow down, use market downturns to introduce new solutions and overtake the former market leader.
Smart companies don't rest on their laurels. They don't wait for a better market. They keep using White Space to develop new solutions. And even in a bad overall economy, like 2009, they sell more and make more profits. Just look at Amazon, achieving record market valuation in 2009:
source: Silicon Alley Insider
If you want 2010 to be a great year, it starts with recognizing that you can't stand still. You can't wait for "a better market." You have to create that better market by pushing forward with White Space to introduce new solutions that meet emerging market needs.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 8, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership
In "Uptick Catches Entrepreneurs by Surprise" the Wall Street Journal points out that defensively-minded entrepreneurs are unprepared to undertake hiring or business expansion. Simultaneously, the Washington Post reports "Obama Preparing New Push to Add Jobs". What's clear is that there are incentives to undertake hiring, and with productivity at record highs it appears hiring needs are increasing. Yet, because they were looking in the rear view mirror many small business leaders are not prepared to participate and grow.
In "A Key To A Successful Business Plan" Forbes has just published my latest column, detailing why scenario planning is the first step for any business to overcome inertia and grow successfully. Instead of planning by looking to the past, we need to spend a lot more time looking at the future. Building scenarios that help us figure out where we want to be, successfully, in 2 to 5 years – rather than trying to replay the last inning over and over. Look at how well it worked at Apple the last decade!
"Now is absolutely the best time for your business to succeed. As the
collapse of Dubai World just demonstrated, enormous market changes keep
happening. Laggards and the unwise are failing, and businesses that
position themselves smartly to take advantage of market shifts are
winning big gains. Look at Google. There's never been a better
time to move ahead by developing plans for leading your business to
dramatic growth in revenue and profits." (read more of the article here)
My previous Forbes columns focused on the many current maladies of management. Insufficient innovation caused by Lock-in and obsession with outdated best practices has far too many companies performing far too poorly today. But followers of The Phoenix Principle know that it is possible to break out of this "doom loop" and be successful at growth through innovation implementation. Scenario planning is the first step, and a powerful replacement for traditional planning which wastes far too many cycles trying to review the past.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 27, 2009 | Current Affairs, General
So while most Americans are taking the traditional 4 day Thanksgiving holiday another debt crisis has emerged. Easy enough for most Americans to miss the news, if only because they are vacationing or shopping. But this debt crisis involves a company in a foreign land, so most Americans will say "Why should I even care? This doesn't involve my bank." That Dubai World looks to be unwilling to repay some of its debt, and will make no payments for 6 months, could be something a lot of Americans simply ignore – if for no reason than they simply can't link it to their work or life.
Dubai World is a very large real estate developer, owned by the Dubai government. The banks that loaned Dubai World billions were more European than American. Yet, we live in a global economy. When things happen elsewhere, they have an impact on U.S. businesses and citizens.
American companies depend upon international banks to make local currency loans for their offshore operations. And American companies depend upon businesses, and individuals, in foreign countries to borrow money in order to spend on American company goods. With the U.S. economy in the doldrums, companies that have robust offshore businesses selling to people in the foreign markets have done considerably better than most U.S. focused companies. But when these offshore banks don't get paid by Dubai World, they have to take write-downs. And if they don't get payments, the bank's reserves dwindle. As a result, these banks can't make loans – just like we've had happening in the USA since Bank of America, Citibank, etc. almost collapsed – due significantly to large real estate loan defaults.
Additionally, the U.S. government depends upon offshore entities – banks, businesses and individuals – to buy U.S. bonds. Without offshore buyers, the U.S. government could not fund its recurring debts. When a big corporation like Dubai World, part of a government backed with oil money, runs out of cash it causes a chain reaction of people not making loans. Not investing. And that can have a big impact on U.S. bond sales. When the government can't sell bonds it has to increase the interest rate – which spells a worse economy or inflation. So scared debt investors can have a quick impact on U.S. interest rates – because when U.S. Treasury bond rates go up all other rates, from municipal bonds to commercial loan rates to car loans, have to go up as well.
And this is why everyone needs to know about, and pay attention to, a big real estate developer in Dubai "restructuring" its debt and stopping payments. In a global economy, the impact will be felt by Americans.
- This action can further exacerbate real estate price deflation – a major cause of economic weakness and wealth destruction globally.
- If foreigners buy more stuff, Americans who sell this stuff will see lower sales – and that leads to less employment.
- The debt collapse in America is causing huge problems for small and medium-sized companies to stay in business. European banks trimming their loans will have similar negative impact on smaller businesses in many countries rolling-up to substantially larger population than America.
- Higher interest rates further dampen any American recovery.
- This could lead to less money available for lending in the USA, and a lot of additional lost jobs.
Scenario planning is not about predicting a collapse of Dubai World. It's impossible to forecast such specific events with any accuracy. But that doesn't mean U.S. companies shouldn't be spending a lot more energy thinking about global impacts on their business. What happens by central banks, big companies and even real estate developers around the globe is important. In prior years, when these collapses happened (Mexico, Korea, Japan) the USA stepped in to stop the collapse from cascading. But the U.S. government is no longer in position to thwart future declines.
It's important all companies undertake scenario plans that consider the impact of higher international interest rates, changes in currency valuations, import/export restrictions or tariffs and country-by-country unemployment rates. Our businesses are increasingly dependent upon offshore companies as our suppliers, customers and investors. If your scenario plans aren't considering the impact of global changes, like the disaster now happening to European banks, you may well find yourself wondering what hit you in 2, 4 or 6 months when the impact hits home.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 22, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, Openness
There's no doubt that many more people are looking for jobs than there are those hiring. As a result, organizations offering jobs can find themselves flooded with applicants. Several are complaining about how hard it is to find "the right person." Reality is most companies have been struggling to find "the right person" for a long time. It just wasn't as obvious.
According to The Wall Street Journal "To Find Best Hires, Firms Become Creative." Yet, these creative ideas are largely about finding new ways to restrict the number of people getting into the hiring funnel. Increasingly, asking potential employees to carry more cost of the hiring process. And often putting employees through a longer (sometimes days) battery of interviews. Yet, it is unclear that these new hurdles are helping organizations hire "the right person" any more often.
In today's changing marketplace, "the right" people are often those who can help the organization adapt. They think laterally about what is happening in the market, and how to develop creative solutions. They rely less on their historical experience, and more on their scenarios about the future. They pay a lot of attention to competitors, and push for decisions that leapfrog competitive actions. And they aren't afraid to Disrupt historical ways of behaving and recommend white space projects where new things can be tried. They don't try to Defend & Extend the company's Success Formula. Instead they seek improved results.
But that is not how hiring processes are designed. They focus on developing tight requirements. With so many applicants now, the focus is on making very, very tight requirements so resumes can be sifted efficiently for specific experiences. But this approach means hiring requirements are based on what history has dictated was needed. They reflect what the company used to do, how it used to hire, what previous employees did that supported the old Success Formula. Job requirements rarely look forward, instead they try to find homogeneous individuals who are like people that succeeded in the past. Usually by reinforcing the old Success Formula. They are out to find candidates who want to Defend & Extend the Success Formula, not evolve it to better results.
Most hiring organizations even have an "ideal prototype candidate." This goes down to specifying the type of degree, and the university attended. It may well include specifying a geography where the candidate was raised. Common certifications. A preferred set of previous jobs that are like what others have been through. These approaches are all about yielding candidates that look alike – not different. In most companies, an employee from Google. Amazon or Apple – very successful companies – could not get through the first round.
Then the prolonged interviews. These simply force candidates to be like the people doing the interviews. Rafts of studies have been done on interviewing, and they always return the result that interviewers like people who are like themselves. The interviewer has a sense of what they think made them successful – education, experience and problem solving approach. And they simply look to see if the candidate is like them. If the interviewing goes on for days, they even look to see if the candidate orders food like them, drinks like them, has the same approach to mornings or working late. The long interview approach merely ensures that candidates are more likely to be just like existing employees.
These approaches are about finding candidates that have a good "initial fit." But if the organization is in need of adapting to changing market conditions, is that the employee you really need? All the people at the old AT&T were much alike – but that company still didn't survive deregulation. The people at most airlines are much alike, yet outside of Southwest the airlines don't make any money. GM had an "ideal employee profile" yet the people leading the company could not deal with market shifts that sent the organization into bankruptcy.
Today your organization might well need new employees who are not like previous employees. They may well need different education. Different experiences. Work in different industries. And different approaches to problem solving. With so many available candidates, is your approach to hiring helping you find people who can help your company grow, or is it trying to find the kind of people who reinforced the old Success Formula? Are you hiring for the future, or searching for people like you hired in the past?
by Adam Hartung | Nov 20, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Weblogs
"The Illusion of Brand Control" is a great article at Harvard Business Publishing. Andrew McAfee, who is a research scientist at the MIT Sloan school Center for Digital Business, offers the insight that in today's market it's not possible for a business to "control" its brand. "New media" like the internet and Facebook are bi-directional. People no longer just absorb a crafted message, they are able to push back. Bloggers and internet commenters can have more influence on a brand than traditional advertising and PR. As a result, a business's brand becomes the result of what others say about it – not just what the owner says.
And this mirrors what is happening across business today. As we've moved from the industrial to the information economy, success is no longer about amassing and controlling assets. Scale advantages have disappeared, with scale accessible to anyone who has a browser and a credit card. Where the business leader of 1965 likely felt success required controlling everything from employees and facilities to the brand message, in 2015 success is about adapting to rapidly shifting market requirements.
If you want your brand, and your business, to grow and be profitable, you have to realize the dramatic limits of "command and control." That approach works in very static, clearly defined environments. Like the military. Businesses today no longer operate in slow moving static environments with high levels of regulation and rigid business limits and significant entry barriers. Businesses today operate in complex, highly adaptive systems. Competitors can move fluidly, quickly, globally to offer new solutions and react to changes.
Today's leaders have to recognize that many of the most important impacts on their business (or brand) come from outside their organization. Completely out of management's control. Being Locked-in on what you know how to do has less and less value when you might well have to react very quickly to an external event in an entirely new way in order to maintain product position and growth. Just ask the leaders at Circuity City, who could not adapt quickly enough and saw their company fail. Adaptability to shifting market requirements becomes key to sustaining growth. Competitive advantage is not created by seeking entry barriers. Rather, competitive advantage now comes from understanding market shifts, and moving rapidly to position yourself in the right place – over and over and over.
Executives who feel like they have "control" of their business are under an illusion in 2009. And that has been demonstrated time and time again as this recession has driven home a plethora of market shifts. There are many things managers can control. But many of the most important things to success are completely out of management's hands. Thus, the ones who succeed aren't trying to control their brand, or business. Instead they are building organizations that have great market sensing and are quick to react. Just compare GM to Google and you'll see the gap between what worked in 1965, and what works 45 years later.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 19, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
According to Marketing Daily "Electric Cars Set to Tiptoe Into Showrooms." Nissan is supposed to introduce the Leaf. Chevrolet, Toyota and Ford are all supposed to begin offering a plug-in hybrid. None have announced prices, but all indicate they intend to price them at the high end – more costly than a like-sized traditional gasoline powered automobile. One reason for the higher price is that dealers normally expect to make 20% of a traditional vehicle's price in high-margin maintenance and repairs, and because these electrics won't provide that revenue and margin the manufacturers believe the dealer has to make more on the initial auto sale – or they won't sell them.
The manufacturers themselves are not optimistic about sales. They are targeting wealthy early adopter consumers for whom climate change and environment are critical issues. Citing a lack of infrastructure for recharging, and battery technology that takes too long to recharge, the manufacturers are non-committal on how many cars they will make – preferring to wait and see if demand develops.
Sort of sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it? This approach is very unlikely to succeed, because they manufacturers are trying to sell electric cars to people who are already well served by existing petroleum powered traditional and hybrid cars. These people have little or no reason to pay extra for new technology, so will be a hard sell. And with built-in excuses for the technological limits, the manufacturers aren't being promotional. Simultaneously, the manufacturers are more worried about the impact on dealers than the success of the vehicles.
It's not the product that's wrong, its the approach. These manufacturers are trying to launch a very different product, that really needs to appeal to very different customers. But they are trying to do it in the totally traditional way. Same brand names, same distribution, same sales people, same marketing, same financing – same everything. They are trying to have the existing organization, with all its Lock-ins, do something very different. And that never works.
Electric cars are ideal for White Space team introduction. White Space projects are given permission to do what it takes to make a project succeed. They are given permission to operate outside the Lock-ins. It's that permission to find the right answer, to find the market-based solution, which allows the innovation to develop a new Success Formula that meets market needs.
Electric cars are not a solution for the way automobiles have been used in the past. To succeed requires appealing to different scenarios about the future. Electric cars need to appeal to people for whom a traditional auto has limitations they don't like, and instead the electric auto is something they want. People who are underserved by the current products. The electric car will succeed with buyers who have reasons to want one. For whom the electric car is the solution to their problem – not a second-rate, overpriced solution to an old need.
Cell phones didn't succeed because they were purchased by people who already had wired phones with long distance. Early cell phones, for all their expense and weakness, were bought by people who had a real need for mobile telephony. For years, mobile phones were used only by a small group of people. It took years for cell phones to become commonplace. We all now know younger generation people who have no land line phone – for whom the mobile phone has displaced a traditional phone. But the cell phone didn't succeed by trying to be a high-priced alternative to the existing solution, it was a product that was desired by people for the advantages it offered – even when it was expensive, big and had limited range. Only over time did the cell phone evolve to a new Success Formula that is making traditional phones obsolete – and leaving traditional phone companies with a very hard transition.
Electric cars need an entirely "greenfield" start. Those responsible need to be chartered to "make this work" in an environment where failure is not an option for them. They need to believe their careers depend on finding the right solution, and developing it. And they need permission to do what the market requires. They need to be able to have a stand-alone brand, and its own distribution system, and unique marketing. They need the White Space with permission to do what it takes, and the resources to accomplish the task. Free from worrying about dealer reaction, marketing impact on traditional autos in the brand, or requirements to solve "infrastructure issues."
Imagine urbanites who want cars just for short hauls. Think about the ZipCar business in most major U.S. cities as the target buyer, rather than selling cars to individuals. Or think about other markets – outside the USA. How about places like Taiwan or Malaysia where distances are short and traffic is bad and much fuel is wasted just sitting. Towns like Tel Aviv. Maybe as delivery vehicles in urban areas where traveling is rarely more than 200 miles in a day because most time is spent sitting at lights – or making the delivery. There are places for which an electric car could be an ideal solution – just as they are today. Where a head-to-head match-up favors the electric vehicle.
Secondly, who says a traditional dealer is the right way to sell this vehicle to these people? Maybe it should be sold on-line, with somebody delivering the vehicle to the buyer and offering personalized instruction? Maybe it should be sold out of a Home Depot, or Staples, or Best Buy like an expensive appliance or computer? It's not clear to me that people, or companies, have much value for auto dealers – so perhaps this is the time to change the distribution system entirely — and perhaps take a lot of cost out of auto distribution.
There is a market for electric cars. Today. Just as the technology exists. And if White Space teams were allowed to find and develop that market, we could have a robust electric car industry in just a few years. But it won't happen via traditional approaches, from companies Locked-in to their traditional ways. Those companies only see obstacles, not opportunity. Without White Space, this will be just another example of a technology delayed.
But it does leave the door wide open for a company like Tesla. Tesla is a stand-alone company pioneering the electric car market. They are operating in White Space. Easy as Tesla is now to ignore, they may prove to be the upstart like Southwest Airlines that succeeds and makes money while the traditional industry players keep struggling.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 9, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Leadership
Why The Pursuit Of Innovation Usually Fails
Adam Hartung,
11.09.09, 04:11 PM EST
It's not what we're trained for as leaders or how our businesses are set up to work.
Forbes published today "Why the Pursuit of Innovation Usually Fails." "Most companies everywhere are struggling to grow right now. With their
revenues flat to down, they're cutting costs to raise profits. But
cutting costs faster than revenues decline is no prescription for
long-term success….."
The article goes on to discuss how from Gary Hamel to Jim Collins to Michael Tracy and Fred Wiersema to Malcolm Gladwell to Tom Peters — managers have been taught to identify their "core" and "focus" upon it. Whatever that core may happen to be, the gurus have said that all you need to do is focus on it and practice and in the end – you'll win.
But unfortunately we all know a lot of very hard working business leaders that focused on their core, working the midnight hours, sacrificed pay and bonuses, and kept trying to make that core successful — only to end up with a smaller, less profitable, possibly acquired (at a low price) or failed business. While the best practices make sense when looking at past winners, reality is that they were followed by a lot of people that didn't succeed. Their best practices give no great insight to being successful. They are of no more value than saying "treat people well, be honest, don't lie to customers, don't break the law, don't get caught if you do, show up at work." Nice things to do, but they don't really tell you anything about how to succeed.
The mantra today is for innovation, but thirty years of these "best practices" now stand as a roadblocks to doing anything more than defend & extend the current business. Only by understanding the objective to defend & extend what already exists can you explain how can one of the world's largest consumer product companies can call Tide Basic an innovation.
Enjoy the read, and please comment!
by Adam Hartung | Nov 4, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, Food and Drink, General, In the Swamp, Leadership
Walgreens is apparently going through a dramatic change in leadership. Drug Store News reported that the top 2 folks, including the top merchandiser, have left Walgreens in "What it Means and Why It's Important: Wlagreens confirms departure of Van Howe." The article discusses the "old guard" departure and arrival of younger, new leaders. The magazine clearly paints this as a Disruption.
But I have my doubts. There's no discussion of future scenarios in which Walgreens is going to be a different company – not even a different retailer. There's no discussion about competitors, and how more prescription medications are being purchased on-line from new competiors, or even how Walgreens intends to be very different from historical brick-and-mortar competitors like CVS or Rite-Aid. No discussion about how the company might need to change its real estate strategy (being everywhere.)
There's really no discussion about changing the Walgreens' Success Formula. It's Identity has long been tied to being first and foremost a "drug store" (or pharmacy). A market which has been attacked on multiple fronts, from grocers and discounters like WalMart entering the business to the insurance mandates of buying drugs on-line. To be the biggest, Walgreens' strategy for several years has been tied to opening new stories practically every day. It was shear real estate domination – ala Starbucks. Although it's unclear how profitable many of those stores have been. Tactically Walgreens has moved heavily into cosmetics as a high turn and margin business, then items it an bring in and churn out very quickly – such as holiday material (Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Valentines Day, St. Patrick's Day, etc.), shirts, sweatshirts, on and on – stuff brought in then sold fast, even if it had to be discounted quickly to get it out the door. Churn the product because the goal is to sell the customer something else when they come in for that prescription.
There is no discussion of these executive changes creating in White Space to develop a new Walgreens. Without powerful scenarios drawing people to a new, different future Walgreens – and without a strong sense of how Walgreens intends to trap competitors in Lock-in while leveraging new fringe ideas to grow – and without White Space being installed to develop a new Success Formula to make Walgreens into something different —– this isn't a Disruption. It's a disturbance. Yes, it's a big deal, but it's unlikely to change the results.
Reinforcing that this is likely a disturbance the article talks about how the company is starting to obsess about store performance – down to targeting every 3 foot section for better turns and profits. The new leaders plan to work harder on supply chain issues, and store plannograms, to increase turns. They intend to put more energy into prioritization and reworking promotions. In other words, they want to execute better – more, better, faster, cheaper. And that's not a Disruption. It's just a disturbance. This may make folks feel better, and sound alluring, but experience has shown that this is not a route to higher growth or higher sustained profitability.
I don't expect these management changes to remake Walgreens. Walgreens has been a pretty good retailer. The Success Formula worked well until competitors changed the face of demand, and market shifts wiped out access to very low cost capital for building new stores. The Success Formula's results have fallen because the market shifted. Refocusing energy on being a better merchandiser won't have a big impact on growth at Walgreens. The company needs to rethink the future, so it can figure out what it needs to become in order to keep growing!
Real Disruptions attack the status quo. They don't focus on better execution. They attack things like "we're a pharmacy" by perhaps licensing out the pharmacy in every store to the pharmacist and changing the store managers. Or by selling a bunch of stores to eliminate the focus on real estate. Or by promoting the Walgreens on-line drug service in every store, while cutting back the on-hand pharmacy products. Those sorts of things are Disruptions, because they signal a change in the Success Formula. Coupled with competitive insight and White Space that has permission to define a new future and resources to develop one, Disruptions can help a stalled company get back to growing again.
But that hasn't happened yet at Walgreens. So expect a small improvement in operating results, and some financial engineering to quickly make new management look better. But little real performance improvement, and sustainable growth, will not occur. Nor will a sustained higher equity value.
