by Adam Hartung | Nov 3, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Lifecycle
"TribCo Papers Will Try Ditching AP to Cut Costs" is the Crain's Chicago Business headline. Tribune is in bankruptcy because it is losing so much money trying to sell newspaper ads. Subscribers are disappearing as more people get more news from the internet, so advertisers are following them. So what should Tribune Corporation do? You might think the company would focus on other businesses in order to go where customers are headed.
But instead Tribune has decided to stop buying AP content for it's newspapers in a one week test. Not sure what they are testing, as one week rarely changes a subscriber base. What they know is that AP content has a cost, and Tribune is so broke it can't afford that cost. Seems Tribune is redefining its business – to selling papers rather than newspapers. They've dropped much of their content the last 2 years, so now they are going to drop the news as well. This is an example of trying as hard as they can to keep the old business alive, even after it's clear that Success Formula simply won't make money. In this case, we're seeing management ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater trying to keep a hold on the tub.
Interestingly "Vivek Shah Leaving Time Inc. to Go 100% Digital" is the MediaPost.com headline. Mr. Shah headed the digital part of Time, and he's decided to throw in the towel personally, promising that he is going to a 100% digital operation. He's tired of guys who think ink trying to manage bits – and doing it poorly. So another option for dealing with market shifts is to Disrupt your personal Success Formula by going to an employer positioned in growing markets. Not a bad idea if you can arrange it – even though there are lots of risks to changing employers. While the risk of change may seem great, the probability of ending up unemployed because your company fails is a very likely risk if you work for a traditional publisher these days. We often are afraid to go to the next thing because we hope that things will get better where we are. Even when we're standing on a the edge of an active volcano.
"P&G Considers Booting Some Brands" as headlined in the Wall Street Journal is yet another alternative. This one is more like GE used in the past where it sold underperforming businesses in order to invest in new ones. This has a lot of merit, and really makes a lot of sense for P&G. P&G is desperately short of any real innovation, and has been going downmarket to poorer products at lower prices in its effort to maintain revenues. A strategy that cannot withstand the onslaught of time and competitors with new products and better solutions.
I don't know if the new CEO is really serious about changing the P&G Success Formula or not. He hasn't demonstrated that he has any future scenarios for a different sort of P&G. Nor has he talked a lot about competitors and how he hopes to remain in front of companies with new solutions. Nor has he offered to Disrupt P&G's very staid organization or its very old Success Formula – which is suffering from lower returns as ad spending has less impact and younger people show less interest in old brands. So there's a lot of reason to think his buy and sell approach to shifting with markets may not really happen.
What's most important to watch are P&G's business sales. Any big company can make acquisitions to create artificial growth. That's easy. But it doesn't signal any sort of change in the company. What does signal are the kinds of businesses sold. McDonald's sold Chipotle's to invest in more McDonald's stores – that's defend & extend. Kraft sold Altoids and other growth businesses to invest in advertising for Velveeta and "core brands" – that's defend & extend. If P&G sells growth businesses – theres' little to like about P&G. But if the company sells old brands that have big revenues and little growth – like GE has done many times – then you have something to pay attention to. Selling off the "underperformers" that some hedge fund wants (like the guys that bought Chrysler from Daimler) so you get the money to invest in growth businesses can be very exciting.
When markets shift you have to go where the customers are headed. If your employer won't go there, you should consider changing employers. It's not about loyalty, it's about surviving by being where customers are. But what's best is if you can convert your business to one that is oriented on growth. Shake up the old Success Formula by attacking Lock-ins and setting up White Space and you'll remain a company where people want to work – and customers want to buy.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 27, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
"IBM authorizes another $5Billion for share buybacks" is the Marketwatch.com headline. This brings the amount available for buying the stock to $9.2billion – or enough to buy about 73.6million shares. But it begs the question, what value will this bring anyone?
"The U.S. Workplace: A Horror Story" is the CIOZone.com headline. A survey by Monster.com and The Human Capital Institute of more than 700 companies (over 5,000 workers) discovered that by and large, employees are mad at their employers. They don't trust business leaders, and think those leaders are exploiting the recession for their own purposes (and gains). 79% of workers would like to find a better employer – to switch – but only 20% of employers have a clue how many workers have become disillusioned.
Simultaneously, "Many vanished jobs might be gone for good" is the Courier-Journal.com headline. Historically, increases in manufacturing (usually led by autos) and construction (primarily housing) caused recessions to diminish. But nobody expects either of those sectors to do well any time soon. Manufacturing is showing no signs of improving, in any sector, as we realize that all the outsourcing and offshoring has permanently reduced demand for American labor. And quite simply, very few investments are being made by business leaders that will create any new jobs.
"ALL BUSINESS: Innovation Needed Even in a Recession" is the Washington Post headline. The article points out that almost all recent improvement in profitability – boosting the stock market – has been through cost cutting. But that has done nothing to help companies improve revenues, or improve competitiveness. It's done nothing to bring new solutions to market that will increase demand. Quoting the former Intel CEO Gordon Moore – "you can't save your way out of a recession" – the article cites several consultants who point out that companies which earn superior rates of return use recessions to invest in new technologies and innovations that create new demand. And eventually new jobs. But today's CEOs aren't making those investments. Instead, they are taking short-term actions that dress up the bottom line while doing nothing about the top line.
Which brings me back to IBM. Who benefits from $9.2billion being spent by IBM on its own stock? Only the top managers who have bonuses and options linked to the stock price. The shareholders will benefit more if IBM invests in new products and services that will increase revenues and drive up long-term equity. Employees and vendors will benefit from creating new solutions that generate demand for workers and components. Almost nobody benefits from a stock buyback – except a small percentage of leaders that have most of their compensation tied to short-term stock price.
What new innovations and revenues could be developed if IBM put that $9.2billion to work (a) at its own R&D, product development labs or innovation centers, or (b) at some young companies with new ideas that desperately need capital in this market where no bank will make a loan, or (c) with vendors that have new product ideas that could meet shifting markets?
That's the beauty of an open market system, it supposedly funnels resources to the highest rate of return opportunities. But this doesn't work if managers only cut costs, then use the money to prop up stock prices short term. It's a management admission of failure when it buys its own stock. An admission that there is nothing management can find worth investing in, so it will use the money to artificially manipulate the short-term stock price. For capitalism to work resources need to go to those new business opportunities that generate new sales. Money needs to flow toward new health care products and new technologies – not toward keeping open money-losing auto companies and failed banks that won't make loans.
If we want to get out of this recession, we have to invest in new solutions that will increase demand. We have to seek out innovations and fund them. We cannot simply try to Defend & Extend Success Formulas that are demonstrating their inability to create more revenues and profits. Laid off workers do not buy more stuff. We must put the money to work in White Space projects where we can learn what customers need, and fulfill that need. That in turn will generate jobs. And only by investing in new opportunity development will workers begin to trust employers again. IBM, and most of the other corporate leaders, need to "get it."
by Adam Hartung | Oct 19, 2009 | Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
The McKinsey Quarterly just published a new report "Where Innovation Creates Value." I think the consultant got paid by the word for this really long article, which boils down to a simple argument. It doesn't matter what kind of innovations are developed, or where innovations are created. What does matter is who implements them. The implementers gain the vast majority of the value from innovation. More than the patent holders or the countries where inventors live.
Historically America has been a hotbed for trying new things. America was advantaged over Europe because it didn't have the regulations and other innovation testing roadblocks. America was advantaged over Africa and much of South America because it didn't have a legacy of dictator governments and corruption that kept things from moving forward – blocking innovation. America was advantaged over China and India because it's per capita GDP has been very high, meaning there were ample resources to invest in trying new innovations. Thus, America has historically been an innovation testing grounds that has paid enormous dividends by keeping its companies on the leading edge of competitiveness.
But there is cause to worry. Recently I blogged about how companies were blocking employee access to social networking sites ("Letting the Bogeyman Hurt Your Business"). Concerned about employee efficiency, managers were blocking these sites so employees kept their fingers on the keyboards performing designated, approved tasks. Sort of Taylor-ish sounding, don't you think? In today's economy the value of smart employees is pretty high, but how do you know if they are smart if you block their access to tools. Is success more about how fast they do the tasks, or if they can figure out a better way that is inherently cheaper? Do you want employees doing the same thing better, faster, cheaper – or do you want them developing new solutions that are more competitive?
Consider the smart phone market, led today by the iPhone. And the new publishing media like Kindle and Sony's eReader. Soon we'll have plenty more of these products available that will increase knowledge access and speed of information flow making those who are connected even more competitive. According to SeekingAlpha.com, "Verizon's Droid is the Real Deal." New phones from Motorola with Google's Android operating system (get that, an operating system for your phone. Does that phrase not surprise at least a few people – some of whom might remember when phones had no intelligence – not even a dial tone?) will have an explosion of new applications and uses raising productivity and results.
Yet, how many companies are providing these devices and data access for employees? Most of the early adopters I see are paying for this out of their own pocket. The obvious concern is that American companies will remain focused on efficiency in this downturn. They will block access to parts of the web, and avoid technology investments for employees and customers. Meanwhile competitors in countries growing at 6-8%/year like China, India and Brazil will make these investments. If so, they become the early innovation implementers. And if that happens….. well that could be a very serious game changer. We can't assume the American economy will recharge if we don't apply innovations, and we can't assume competitiveness if companies from other places increase their adoption rates to exceed America's.
I don't see a lot of Disruption or White Space in America right now. Even top economists are bemoaning how businesses keep cutting employees and costs while the overall GDP does better. Business leaders seem stuck trying to Defend & Extend past business practices which aren't producing better results – and won't. They remain focused on cutting costs rather than innovating new solutions. But what we know is that the greatest return comes from a willingness to Disrupt and open up White Space to implement new solutions – in the process of making your own business a market disruptor that can grow and achieve superior rates of return.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 16, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Innovation, Leadership, Openness
"Everyone talks about the need for innovation these days, but they especially talk about why businesses are so bad at it." That's the opening line from my newest column "The Myth of Efficiency" at Forbes.com. Today businesses seem to be struggling with innovation – preferring instead to cut costs and pursue efficiency. But we now know that the foundation for cost cutting as a route to better returns is based on faulty – in fact mythical – claims by Frederick Taylor and his devotees of "scientific management." Read this article if you ever wondered about the value of cost cutting compared to innovation – and learn why so many people "default" to actions that never make things better.
My column cites a great New Yorker article entitled "Not So Fast" on the faulty foundations upon which scientific management – and subsequently much of business education – is based. For an even deeper read into the mythical bases of Taylor and his crew pick up a copy of The Management Myth: Why the Experts Keep Getting it Wrong by Matthew Stewart (2009 W.W. Norton) available via the link at Amazon.com.
This is timely, because "Defining talent needs, managing costs central to workforce planning in 2010" is the headline from Mercer's own website about it's recent survey showing that the #1 factor in planning for human capital next year is managing cost!! How are we to grow out of this recession when people are cost obsessed? Especially now that we know cost cutting has no foundation as a basis for improving or sustaining returns? Certainly we now have good reason to challenge conventional wisdom as espoused in books like Cut Costs + Grow Stronger recently published by HBS Press.
If you are confronted with picking between cost cutting or innovating read this article, because your "gut" just might have been developed on faulty assumptions – leading you to make the wrong decision.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 11, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Innovation, Leadership
Saturday I had the good fortune to attend a presentation by President Bill Clinton. He spoke at the Indian Institute of Technology alumni conference – an event I attended as a speaker myself.
President Clinton must have used the word profit 100 times. In today's divided political climate with words like "socialism" bandied about you might be surprised. But his talk focused on the importance of making a profit as businesses meet customer needs.
The 42nd President discussed how new fish farms in Haiti were important to improving the devastated economy – because they allowed everyone involved to make a profit. He discussed how forests devastated for charcoal were being replaced by a new business that converted used paper and sawdust into a charcoal replacement for 75% less cost to the user — and yet created over 100 good paying jobs and produced a profit. His point was simple, you can't fix a down-and-out country's economy unless there is a profit in it. And he was seeing, through his foundations, multiple profit opportunities.
Across the board, the President reminded listeners that they can maintain the profit motive and solve big problems if they think about the business differently. American competitiveness is seriously challenged by rising health care costs. Yet Pennsylvania has shown it can contain costs by reporting cost and outcome statistics – a practice not shared in the other 49 states. Switzerland has a private health care system, and it incorporates wellness programs, but it spends only 11% of GDP on health care. The U.S. spends 17%. The U.S. needs to rethink how health care is sold and administered first – and if it does that private enterprise can continue to lead. But it takes a shift on the part of the health care insurers and providers.
After many years as the country with the highest percentage of college graduates in the 25 to 34 age group, in the last 8 years America has fallen to 10th. America has priced college out of the range of too many students, while other countries have modifed their approach and improved completion rates. To improve competitiveness requires an educated society. It takes different thinking if America is to regain strength as an educated country. Now that American competitiveness is being challenged (the theme of this meeting) the former President challenged whether that competitiveness can be regained if we don't think differently about how we provide education.
Of all his comments, I most enjoyed his discussion about how much . Americans love zero sum games. He and then pointed out that almost all games (football, soccer, etc.) have been modified to allow for overtimes so somebody wins. He brought up an Arkansas football game that went to 7 overtimes! Americans hate non-zero sum situations, where multiple people can win, or where it's possible to win by doing things differently. But he pointed out that in life, almost nothing is a zero sum game. That is limited to the sports field. Even in battles, it's often not clear who the winner is – for both sides will declare victory. He commented "all economic systems carry the seeds of their own destruction." And when it comes to succeeding in business you don't need to create a zero sum game. You can succeed by doing things differently.
Far too many business gurus discuss business like it is zero sum. For example, Jim Collins' BHAG and his love of fighting for a "hedgehog" concept is all about viewing business as a zero-sum game that you have to win. But today most growing, high return businesses intentionally avoid zero-sum games. Those lead to price wars and declining returns. Instead they (like Google) employ innovation, like the folks making charcoal from recycled paper, to develop new solutions that are superior and earn higher returns.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 8, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech, Weblogs
"Companies Say No to Friending or Tweeting at Work" is the headline in The National Law Journal. According to the article, somewhere between 54% (according to a Robert Half survey) and 76% (according to a ScanSafe survey) of companies block employees from connecting to social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter, Linked-In, Plaxo, etc. The reasons sound so traditional – starting with lost productivity and moving on to fear of data theft.
And of course, there's the bogeyman to worry about too.
In the 1940s and 1950s success was all about mass production. Show up for work on time, don't be late, don't be absent, and do your job. We had assembly lines to operate. Making stuff meant we needed to get people into the plant, and have them do their job. The more efficient people were, the more things a plant could make – be it cars or washers or televisions. So control everything the employee did on the job to make sure each minute is spent welding, typing, adding, inspecting or whatever their task. Fredrick Taylor became a business guru, running around with stopwatches calculating how to get more work out the door by controlling everything workers did.
Have people noticed that its 2009? Today, there are places where such focus on task implementation is important. But most of those places aren't in the USA. Those kinds of jobs have moved elsewhere. Even in America's manufacturing plants (and in most plants in the developed world) it is more important that an employee be thinking about their work. More gains are made by intelligent application – new ideas for processes or activities – than from Tayler-ist style efforts to whip people into working harder and more efficiently. Would you rather have a drone employee (a human robot) or a smart employee thinking about how to be more productive and successful? Sweat shop behavior doesn't make more money in a world where intelligence and insight are worth a lot more than hours in the chair.
Yet Lock-in to old efficiency notions still remain. In the 1930s there was a movement to ban adding machines for fear the tapes (the old white tape that ran out the top) would be stolen by employees. Better to stick with humans doing the adding – less risky. When PCs came along practically all IT departments wanted to ban them – saying that they posed an inherent risk to productivity (people might use them for things besides work) and employees would capture data on them and leak it to competitors. When the internet emerged in the 1990s huge numbers of employers banned access because they didn't know what people would do on the web and they feared everyone would be shopping all day, or emailing their friends. And who knew what kind of information they would leak about the company! In each instance, a tool that dramatically improved business performance was met with "this will hurt productivity. And don't you think this poses a serious risk?"
For those who aren't looking for the bogeyman, this presents an opportunity. Those who first adopted adding machines quickly improved performance – and those who adopted PCs improved productivity (spreadsheets and word processing gave early adopters huge advantages) – and those who adopted the internet rapidly sold more to new customers while finding more low cost suppliers and automated lots of business processes in their supply chain taking down operating costs. These innovations created Challenges to old ways of doing things, but they also created huge opportunities for those willing to Disrupt old patterns and use White Space to see how they could improve their business.
Every day millions of people are starting to use – and millions more are increasing their use of – social networks. You can get an incredible sense of the pulse of many communities. You find out what's going on with customers, potential customers and colleagues incredibly fast. These networks help sift through billions of megabytes of data and bring critical items of importance to you (and your business) remarkably fast. They act as a new distribution system for information – think of them as a water cooler on steroids taken to the "nth" power. These are not on-line solitaire environments, these are places where people exchange information and learn. Really fast.
Today, having informed employees who can take action separates winners from losers. Those who want to be in the forefront of competition are already thinking about how these environments connect them with critical information. Help them connect to customer and vendor communities. Help them improve productivity by increasing the pace of information exchange. If you aren't afraid of the bogeyman then you have an opportunity to get a leg up on the fearful by not only accepting, but encouraging the use of social networks. The faster you "get it" the better off you'll be. It's likely to introduce ideas for Disrupting your business during this downturn and opening White Space to get you growing again!
Postscript –
An article in the recent New Yorker Magazine "Not So Fast" takes a deep look at Fredrick Taylor and the history of "scientific management." According to the article, Taylor and his colleagues often made up their data, and their conclusions, and the results they promised were almost never achieved. Interesting reading on how the myth was created, and became legend. Perhaps sending most of what was taught for decades as "business best practice" at leading business schools in a seriously misguided direction. Well worth a read for those with time to pick up a little history – and some insights to how business myths are developed and promulgated.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 7, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
"Amazon Cuts Kindle Price to $259" is the USAToday headline. This $40 whack is the second price cut this year. Sony is selling its ePocket for $199. Of course Kindle is pushing that it has more content available and easier wireless access than Sony,- even internationally. Expectations are for 3 million e-Readers to be sold in 2009 (about 1 million around the holidays.) Obviously, if you aren't paying attention this is a big deal. It is changing publishing (books, magazines and newspapers.) But the impact goes far beyond publishing.
Simultaneously, The Wall Street Journal reports "Just a Touch Away, the Elusive Tablet PC." According to this article, new devices are being tested that will allow you to do everything from classic PC applications to web interconnection to watch movies – or read books – on a keyboard-less new tablet. Something that is a cross between an iPhone/iTouch (with a bigger screen) and a PC. As iPhone users are learning (quickly) you don't need a keyboard or mouse to have an interface to your machine and the world.
So what will be the future solution? Will it be one of these, or yet something different? I don't know. Do you have a crystal ball? But the answer to that question really doesn't matter to us today. We don't need to know that sort of specific to begin growing our businesses.
Not being widget nuts, or platform forecasters, should not stop us from planning for a different sort of future and changing our approach today. Scenarios for 2013 (you do have scenario plans for 2013, don't you?) should be planning on practically everybody having one of these devices. And perhaps these devices being so cheap they could be included with sales of every major appliance (like a car, or refrigerator). If that sounds silly, just look at how cheap a flash (or thumb) drive is now. Remember when we thought floppy disks were expensive? Now people exchange flash drives that have more capacity than a 2004 laptop without thinking about cost. These made tapes, floppy drives, zip drives and a lot of other technology obsolete in a hurry.
How can your business take advantage of this shift? Can you replace paper manuals, maybe even user instructions with a tablet? Or a tablet app? Can you use an interactive device that grabs input from your appliance to do diagnostics, recommend maintenance, report on failures? Would this help customers pop for the new frig – say if it helped lower electric bills? Or could it encourage that new washer by helping set the cycles to lower water cost? Could you build it right into the console on a washer or dryer? Or could you encourage someone to buy a new car by telling them to forget about maintenance logs and just track the car's performance on a tablet?
If you provide content – are you planning for this? Recently The Economist sent me an email (I've registered on their web site) telling me they were going to start charging for web content. I've heard News Corp. properties, like the Wall Street Journal, intend to do the same. I guess they haven't noticed the world is moving in a direction that makes such a plan – well, impossible. In a recent Harris poll (reported on Silicon Alley Insider "People Won't Pay for News Online") 74% of web users said they'd simply switch sites before paying. With one of these eReader/Tablets in hand, why would they ever pay for content when another provider is a finger streak away? As access becomes easier and easier, the willingness to pay will go down and down. Publishers had better start figuring out how to get paid a different way than subscriptions!
Now is about when executives like to say "so I want to know which format will win before I start doing this. I only want to do this once." That old cry for efficiency. Unfortunately, while waiting for a winner to emerge, the waiter becomes the laggard. The early adopter, that recognizes the value provided to consumers, gets out there and starts using these innovations to drive better customer value. And to capture more sales. When you are part of making the market – like Apple in music – you gain huge advantages. You don't have to know all the answers to compete. You just have to be willing to Disrupt old notions and use White Space to experiment and learn.
I have drawers filled with obsolete electronics. How many obsolete cell phones do you own? How many big old monitors are you recycling to replace with flat screens? Do you still have a fax machine? I have an old keyboard that used something called "sideband technology" to allow me to interact with people and get news and sports info years before the internet was popular – and before wireless internet was available. Obsolete now, that device taught me how valuable the internet was going to be when Congress made it available for commercial use. Fear of throwing away a few products or software – maybe a betamax machine or copy of visicalc – is no reason not to get into the market and learn!
Markets are marvelous things. As these articles discuss, nobody knows how we will be using technology in the future. Not exactly. It will be some combination of eReader – computer – music player – television – telephone. But we do know the broad theme. And if you want to get out of this recession, you can start playing to this market shift now. You'll never grow if you sit on the sidelines watching and waiting. Get in the market. Participate. Use this technology to create new solutions! There are countless applications (as the expanding iPhone app base is proving.) Want to get into the Rapids of growth? You'll never succeed if you don't become part of the marketplace. Nothing creates learning like doing!
by Adam Hartung | Sep 29, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Last week was big news for technology. Hewlett Packard announced it was killing the EDS brand name, pushing to make HP more of an integrated solutions company (like IBM). And Dell bought Perot Systems to launch itsfirst push into services. According to Washington Technology "HP, Dell Know They Have to Change or Die." The article talks about the dramatically shifting marketplace (love that language!), and how these two hardware oriented companies are trying to avoid the Sun Microsystems finality by getting into services. The author says the companies must "adapt or die," and "there's no sitting still." He goes on to say "it may take years," but he thinks they will transition and eventually be successful. His success forecast hinges on his belief that they must change to survive – and that will be sufficient motivation.
I love the awareness of shifting markets, and the recognition that shifts are demanding changes in these former leaders. But I don't agree with the conclusion that future success is highly likely. Because even with big acquisitions and name changes – HP and Dell haven't laid the groundwork to change. They have taken some rifle shots, but they haven't followed The Phoenix Principle and that means the odds are less than 10% they will successfully transition.
Lots of companies have tried to transition via acquisition. Heck, GM once bought EDS (and Hughes Electronics) – and look what it did for them. Just because a company buys something doesn't mean they'll change. McDonald's bought Chipotle, and then sold it despite double digit growth to fund acquisition of additional McDonald's. Just because a company needs to change its Success Formula to succeed – or even survive – is a long way from proving they will do it.
Neither HP or Dell show they are building a company for the future. Unfortunately, they look to be chasing a model built by IBM in the 1990s. Taking action in 2009 to recreate "best practices" of 15 – 20 years ago is far from creating a company positioned for success. There is no discussion of future scenario planning from either company – about technology use or changing business practices. No description of their scenarios for 2015 and 2020 – scenarios that would demonstrate very high growth and payoff from their action. To the contrary, all the discussion seems to be defensive. They are getting into services – finally – because they realize their growth has slowed and profits are declining. It's not really about the future, it's action taken by studying the rear view mirror.
Additionally, there is no discussion of any Disruptions at either company. To change organizations must attack old Lock-ins. Embedded processes – from hiring and reviews to product development and resource allocation – all exist to Defend & Extend past behavior. If these aren't attacked head-on then organizations quickly conform any potential change into something like the past. In the case of these companies, lacking a clear view of what future markets should look like, they have opted to forgo Disruptions. Mr. Gerstner attacked the sacred cows around IBM viciously in his effort to transition the company into more services. But the CEOs at HP and Dell are far less courageous.
And there's no White Space here for developing a new Success Formula aligned with market needs as they are emerging. Instead of creating an environment in which new leaders can compete in new ways, these businesses are being instructed on how to behave – according to some plan designed by someone who clearly thinks they are smarter than the marketplace. Without White Space, "the plan" is going to struggle to meet with markets that will continue to shift every bit as fast the next 2 years as they did the last year.
I have very limited expectations that these actions will increase the performance of either company. I predict organic growth will slow, as "integration" issues mount and "synergy" activities take more time than growth initiatives. They will not see a big improvement in profits, because competition is extremely severe and there is no sign these companies are introducing any kind of innovation that will leapfrog existing competitors – remember, mere size is not enough to succeed in today's marketplace. They will largely be somewhat bigger, but no more successful.
It's easy to get excited when a company makes an acquisition off the beaten path. But you must look closely at their actions and plans before setting expectations. These companies could make big changes. But that would require a lot more scenario planning, a lot more focus on emerging competitors (not the existing, well known behemoths), much more Disruption to knock back the Lock-in and White Space for building a new Success Formula. Without those actions this is going to be another acquisition followed by missed expectations, cost cutting and discussions about size that cover up declining organic growth.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 28, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Lock-in, Television, Web/Tech, Weblogs
Lock-in causes us to keep moving in the same direction, to continue behaving the same way, even when competition and market shifts makes it a surety that the direction we're heading will produce poorer returns. Blacksmiths who ignore the shift to automobiles. Printers who ignore the shift to photocopiers. As I often point out, unless something attacks the Lock-in, we are amazingly able to keep right on going the same direction – blithely ignoring the inevitable problems.
"I read Playboy for the articles" is a Harvard Business School Working Knowledge article which outlines just how far we all will go to avoid dealing with internal conflicts caused by undertaking behavior we know is unjustifiable. (Download full pdf text of White Paper here.) According to the article:
- Because people do not want to be perceived as (or feel) unethical or
immoral, they make excuses for their behavior—even to
themselves.
- People cope with their own questionable actions in a number of ways by rationalizing, justifying, and
forgetting—a remarkable range of strategies allowing them to maintain a
clear conscience even under dubious circumstances.
Which leads me to the #1 excuse I hear. "I don't get it." I bring up to people – especially those who are over 35 – the power of modern technology tools. For example, ask a 40 year old why two 20 year old girls sitting across a table will text each other and the answer is "I don't get it." Tell them you know teenagers who spend more time at the computer monitor on-line than watching TV and the answer is "I don't get it." Hear someone say "my cell phone is more important than my car" and you hear "I don't get it.' And the biggest one of all, tell this person they need to open up accounts and go everyday to Facebook, Linked-in, Twitter, MySpace and Plaxo and you hear "you're kidding – right? Why anyone spends time on those – I don't get it."
Every time I hear "I don't get it" I wince. Because that person just admitted "I'm willing to get out of step with the market, and risk having my skills become obsolete. I'm happy doing what I do, and I don't see why I need to doing something new and different. I'm sure the world is not evolving away from me, and I've chosen to remain Locked-in to where I've been rather than learn what's going on with these new solutions." See what I mean? When you read my interpretation makes you wince, doesn't it?
Our parents used to tell us when we talked on the telephone "Why don't you just go to their house, I don't get it." When we listened to rock-and-roll "Your music makes no sense, I don't get it." When we thought everybody needed a car they'd say "We always walked, why do you need a car? I don't get it."
"I don't get it" is the proverbial excuse justifying Lock-in. It allows us to walk away from a shift that's right in front of us, and remain stuck. It allows us to feel like we're OK to remain – well — ignorant.
So, the next time you hear yourself saying "I don't get it" it's time to stop, Disrupt yourself, and find some time to get it. It's time to review your willingness to remain Locked-in, and invest some resources in trying new stuff instead of Defending & Extending. Because if you do create some White Space you can learn – and the first who "get it" will be the ones who do best in the market, getting the best results.
PART 2 – a personal extension for those with time to read.
When my son died last week, at age 21, he left a brother age 20 and a brother age 18. He also left hundreds of friends his own age. These people shared what all of us shared at that age – a deep desire to talk to each other, to communicate, to cry in groups, to grieve, to find things in the past that made them happy. To capture time in a bottle by reflecting on Alex's life. And they also shared the simple fact that they have almost no money, precious little time, and a host of responsibilities to school, family and work.
30 years ago my generation would have made a few phone calls. Maybe a few of us gotten together for an hour. But our talks would have been mostly a small group, and for a short time.
The last week I've been living on Facebook, Linked-in, Twitter, et.al. I have used all these tools for at least several months, and in some cases years. But I used these through the filters of my history. I saw them as extensions (D&E) of old ways I communicated. Finally, now, I get it. These communities are an entirely different way of communicating. I different way of building a community. And in many ways, it is MORE vibrant and more honest than anything ever before. LIkewise, it is real time. And it is open to everyone. It is extraordinarily effective. And it is unbelievably healthy.
For those who question their child's life on-line, you are looking from your historical reference. What happens in this environment is incredibly open – thus very informative. It is remarkably honest – in ways everyone finds very hard to be face-to-face. And it is very fast. There are no boundaries – no race, no origin questions, no location questions, no income questions. It is the most egalitarian, comprehensive method of creating a self-forming community to accomplish a goal I've ever seen. Way beyond anything I've ever seen my generation accomplish by developing plans and subsequently focusing on execution.
Within hours, my son's friends found out he had died 500 miles away – and his Facebook page exploded. It became a central hub to exchange information of all kinds about his accident, his life, his funeral. Within hours almost his entire world new what happened – far faster than any "family call chains" we ever created. As they searched to learn more, within a day someone found a video of the accident scene and the helicopter whisking him away —- something that would have taken my generation weeks to find (if at all) and share. And the videographer was put in contact with me, able to give me first-hand info about the accident scene.
His brother created a new Facebook site dedicated to honoring Alex the next day. Within hours 200 people were hooked up. Before week end the number went to 400. This became universe central for this topic. There was no CEO. No Director of communications. Just a self-organizing activity that brought together hundreds of people who wanted to talk about Alex. Very effective discussion.
Since Alex's 22nd birthday is 9/30 – some spontenous person said a birthday party should be thrown. Within hours an event had been created, and hundreds were talking about whether they could attend or not (by the way, it's going to be on 10/2 in Chicago.) All kinds of talk about who had to work, who could come, what to bring. Again, self-organizing and spontaneous and remarkably effective.
By the time the newspaper published an article on the accident, and my son's obituary, it was so old news I don't think anybody cared. And certainly the only people who learned this way were those who were – over 40.
If you aren't using these tools – if you don't "get it" – this is one place I would recommend some personal White Space investment. If you do, the payoff is extremely high. If you don't, you're likely to find yourself as out of date as cobblers and blacksmiths faster than you think.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 17, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
How many cars do you own? Odds are, it's at least 1 more than you need. There are more licensed vehicles in the USA than there are licensed drivers – so it's clear America is loaded with cars. Now it looks like a permanent shift is developing, to less auto ownership, and it will change competition significantly.
In places as far ranging as Detroit/Ann Arbor, Chicago and San Francisco increasingly people are opting for a new approach to transportation. Take the bus and train – yes. Take a cab – sometimes. And for a lot of folks they are joining car-sharing companies. According to Freep.com, "Service Lets Users Borrow a Car Whenevery they want." Pay a flat annual fee, as low as $30 to $150, then you rent a car in your neighborhood for as little as $8.00/hour. Right. No monthly insurance fee, no gas charge, no parking bills. You rent cars when you need them, and only as long as you need them.
To those of us, mostly older, this may seem heretical. How can you give up your car? It's long been a status symbol. What you drive is supposed to say something about who you are. But this is getting turned upside down. People, lots of people, are renting by the hour and they want something very cheap and easy to park. Cars have a place, but not in your personal parking spot at an enormous cost.
Implications are powerful. Firstly, recognize that the USA is increasingly an urban country. Every election we are reminded that while most the people live in cities, the electoral map is by state. Thus, a President can be elected while losing the popular vote! Just like the tendency across the globe, as agriculture makes less and less importance to the economy people gravitate to major urban centers. Likewise, as manufacturing jobs move offshore from America, people shift to office work which is more centralized in urban areas than the former "factory towns." These demographic trends have been developing for over 30 years, and show every sign of accelerating – not decreasing.
Thus, watching what the "early movers" are doing in urban areas is really important. We have to develop our scenarios about the future, and we can see that what happens in cities is becoming even more important than it was just a couple of decades ago. And in cities, people are opting not to buy cars. Nor even rent them for a day or two. Nor are they relying on ever more costly taxis. They are going for hourly rentals they can preschedule.
GM, Chrysler and Ford are getting very little of this business because the renters, 80%, prefer small hybrids. Hertz and other big rental car companies were being shut out, because their model was the daily rental — largely from an airport location for a traveling business person or vacationer.
In a real way, this shows all the signs of a classic Clayton Chrstensen "Disruptive Innovation." An unserved, or underserved, customer who cannot obtain personal transportation is able to get it. An unconventional solution, perhaps, but it's working. What does that tell us? As the business grows expect the leaders to develop better and better solutions, leading to more and more people accessing the solution. This is how we get to a very large market shift – not from the people currently served suddenly changing, but rather from the underserved market creating a new solution which gets improved and refined until it meets the needs of the majority of customers – who shift much later – but cut the legs out from under old Success Formulas. Meaning we could get back to families having one car (circa 1948) and when a second is needed they rent by the hour – even in the suburbs!! With insurance costs often topping $100/month for a second car, plus the cost to license and maintain it, it's less clear that multi-car ownership is as beneficial as it once was. If a viable new solution comes along – well it just might work!
This, of course, is not a good thing for auto companies dependent on a demand rebound to fix their recent woes. Their "good case" scenarios have people returning to adding to their personal fleets, while also returning to new car acquisition every 2 or 3 years. If instead buyers go the direction of less ownership and less frequent purchases it will be impossible for these companies to repay the government loans.
Markets shift. Often quickly and violently. Far too oten, we ignore these shifts. Because they look so different, so odd, that we believe it must be a short term phenomenon. We expect that things will soon get "back to normal." We have future scenarios – they are extensions of the past. But in the post-millenial global economy people are starting to do a lot of things differently. They aren't trying to return to old patterns. They are developing new ones. And if you want to compete, it's becoming crystal clear you have to change your assumptions about the future, your scenarios of the future and your approach to markets. Before you get left so far behind you fail.
