by Adam Hartung | Feb 18, 2011 | Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness, Television, Web/Tech
Business people keep piling onto the innovation and growth bandwagon. PWC just released the results of its 14th annual CEO survey entitled “Growth Reimagined.” Seems like most CEOs are as tired of cost cutting as everyone else, and would really like to start growing again. Therefore, they are looking for innovations to help them improve competitiveness and build new markets. Hooray!
But, haven’t we heard this before? Seems like the output of several such studies – from IBM, IDC and many others – have been saying that business leaders want more innovation and growth for the last several years! Hasn’t this been a consistent mantra all through the last decade? You could get the impression everyone is talking about innovation, and growth, but few seem to be doing much about it!
Rather than search out growth, most businesses are still trying to simply do what their business has done for decades – and marveling at the lack of improved results. David Brooks of the New York Times talks at length in his recent Op Ed piece on the Experience Economy about a controversial book from Tyler Cowen called “The Great Stagnation.” The argument goes that America was blessed with lots of fertile land and abundant water, giving the country a big advantage in the agrarian economy from the 1600s into the 1900s. During the Industrial economy of the 1900s America was again blessed with enormous natural resources (iron ore, minerals, gold, silver, oil, gas and water) as well as navigable rivers, the great lakes and natural low-cost transport routes. A rapidly growing and hard working set of laborers, aided by immigration, provided more fuel for America’s growth as an industrial powerhouse.
But now we’re in the information economy. Those natural resources aren’t the big advantage they once were. Foodstuffs require almost no people for production. And manufacturing is shifting to offshore locations where cheap labor and limited regulations allow for cheaper production. And it’s not clear America would benefit even if it tried maintaining these lower-skilled jobs. Today, value goes to those who know how to create, store, manipulate and use information. And success in this economy has a lot more to do with innovation, and the creation of entirely new products, industries and very different kinds of jobs.
Unfortunately, however, we keep hiring for the last economy. It starts with how Boards of Directors (and management teams) select – incorrectly, it appears – our business leaders. Still thinking like out-of-date industrialists, Scientific American offers us a podcast on how “Creativity Can Lesson a Leader’s Image.” Citing the same study, Knowledge @ Wharton offers us “A Bias Against ‘Quirky’ Why Creative People Can Lose Out on Creative Positions.” While 1,500 CEOs say that creativity is the single most important quality for success today – and studies bear out the greater success of creative, innovative leaders – the study found that when it came to hiring and promoting businesses consistently marked down the creative managers and bypassed them, selecting less creative types!
Our BIAS (Beliefs, Interpretations, Assumptions and Strategies) cause the selection process to pick someone who is seen as less creative. Consider these comments:
- “would you rather have a calm hand on the tiller, or someone who constantly steers the boat?”
- “do you want slow, steady conservatism in control – or irrational exuberance?”
- “do we want consistent execution or big ideas?”
These are all phrases I’ve heard (as you might have as well) for selecting a candidate with a mediocre track record, and very limited creativity, over a candidate with much better results and a flair for creativity to get things done regardless of what the market throws at her. All imply that what’s important to leadership is not making mistakes. Of you just don’t screw up the future will take care of itself. And that’s so industrial economy – so “don’t let the plant blow up.”
That approach simply doesn’t work any more. The Christian Science Monitor reported in “Obama’s Innovation Push: Has U.S. Really Fallen Off the Cutting Edge” that America is already in economic trouble due to our lock-in to out-of-date notions about what creates business success. In the last 2 years America has fallen from first to fourth in the World Economic Forum ranking of global competitivenes. And while America still accounts for 40% of global R&D spending, we rank remarkably low (on all studies below 10th place) on things like public education, math and science skills, national literacy and even internet access! While we’ve poured billions into saving banks, and rebuilding roads (ostensibly hiring asphalt layers) we still have no national internet system, nor a free backbone for access by all budding entrepreneurs!
Ask the question, “If Steve Jobs (or his clone) showed up at our company asking for a job – would we give him one?” Don’t forget, the Apple Board fired Steve Jobs some 20 years ago to give his role to a less creative, but more “professional,” John Scully. Mr. Scully was subsequently fired by the Board for creatively investing too heavily in the innovative Newton – the first PDA – to be replaced by a leadership team willing to jettison this new product market and refocus all attention on the Macintosh. Both CEO change decisions turned out to be horrible for Apple, and it was only after Mr. Jobs returned to the company after nearly 20 years in other businesses that its fortunes reblossomed when the company replaced outdated industrial management philosophies with innovation. But, oh-so-close the company came to complete failure before re-igniting the innovation jets.
Examples of outdated management, with horrific results, abound. Brenda Barnes destroyed shareholder value for 6 years at Sara Lee chasing a centrallized focus and cost reductions – leaving the company with no future other than break-up and acquisition. GE’s fortunes have dropped dramatically as Mr. Immelt turned away from the rabid efforts at innovation and growth under Welch and toward more cautious investments and reliance on a set of core markets – including financial services. After once dominating the mobile phone industry the best Motorola’s leadership has been able to do lately is split the company in two, hoping as a divided business leadership can do better than it did as a single entity. Even a big winner like Home Depot has struggled to innovate and grow as it remained dedicated to its traditional business. Once a darling of industry, the supply chain focused Dell has lost its growth and value as a raft of new MBA leaders – mostly recruited from consultancy Bain & Company – have kept applying traditional industrial management with its cost curves and economy-of-scale illogic to a market racked by the introduction of new products such as smartphones and tablets.
Meanwhile, leaders that foster and implement innovation have shown how to be successful this last decade. Jeff Bezos has transformed retailing and publishing simultaneously by introducing a raft of innovations, including the Kindle. Google’s value soared as its founders and new CEO redefined the way people obtain news – and the ads supporting what people read. The entire “social media” marketplace is now taking viewers, and ad dollars, from traditional media bringing the limelight to CEOs at Facebook, Twitter and Linked-in. While newspaper companies like Tribune Corp., NYT, Dow Jones and Washington Post have faltered, pop publisher Arianna Huffington created $315M of value by hiring a group of bloggers to populate the on-line news tabloid Huffington Post. And Apple is close to becoming the world’s most valuable publicly traded company on the backs of new product innovations.
But, asking again, would your company hire the leaders of these companies? Would it hire the Vice-President’s, Directors and Managers? Or would you consider them too avant-garde? Even President Obama washed out his commitment to jobs growth when he selected Mr. Immelt to head his committee – demonstrating a complete lack of understanding what it takes to grow – to innovate – in today’s intensely competitive information economy. Where he should have begged, on hands and knees, for Eric Schmidt of Google to show us the way to information nirvana he picked, well, an old-line industrialist.
Until we start promoting innovators we won’t have any innovation. We must understand that America’s successful history doesn’t guarantee it’s successful future. Competing on bits, rather than brawn or natural resources, requires creativity to recognize opportunities, develop them and implement new solutions rapidly. It requires adaptability to deal with new technologies, new business models and new competitors. It requires an understanding of innovation and how to learn while doing. Amerca has these leaders. We just need to give them the positions and chance to succeed!
by Adam Hartung | Dec 17, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Many people think it is OK for large companies to grow slowly
- Many people admire caretaker CEOs
- In dynamic markets, low-growth companies fail
- It is harder to generate $1B of new revenue, than grow a $100B company by $10B
- Large companies have vastly more resources, but they squander them badly
- We allow large company CEOs too much room for mediocrity and failure
- Good CEOs never lose a growth agenda, and everyone wins!
“I may just be your little rent collector Mr. Potter, but that George Bailey is making quite a bit happen in that new development of his. If he keeps going it may just be time for this smart young man to go asking George Bailey for a job.” From “It’s a Wonderful Life“ an employee of the biggest employer in mythical Beford Falls talks about the growth of a smaller competitor.
My last post gathered a lot of reads, and a lot of feedback. Most of it centered on how GE should not be compared to Facebook, largely because of size differences, and therefore how it was ridiculous to compare Jeff Immelt with Mark Zuckerberg. Many readers felt that I overstated the good qualities of Mr. Zuckerberg, while not giving Mr. Immelt enough credit for his skills managing “lower growth businesses” in a “tough economy.” Many viewed Mr. Immelt’s task as incomparably more difficult than that of managing a high growth, smaller tech company from nothing to several billion revenue in a few years. One frequent claim was that it is enough to maintain revenue in a giant company, growth was less important.
Why do so many people give the CEOs of big companies a break? Given that they make huge salaries and bonuses, have fantastic perquesites (private jets, etc.), phenominal benefits and pensions, and receive remarkable payouts whether they succeed or fail I would think we’d have very high standards for these leaders – and be incensed when their performance is sub-par.
Facebook started with almost no resources (as did Twitter and Groupon). Most leaders of start-ups fail. It is remarkably difficult to marshal resources – both enough of them and productively – to grow a company at double digit rates, produce higher revenue, generate cash flow (or loans) and keep employees happy. Growing to a billion dollars revenue from nothing is inexplicably harder than adding $10B to a $100B company. Compared to Facebook, GE has massive resources. Mr. Immelt entered the millenium with huge cash flow, huge revenues, and an army of very smart employees. Mr. Zuckerberg had to come out of the blocks from a standing start and create ALL his company’s momentum, while comparatively Mr. Immelt took on his job riding a bullet out of a gun! GE had huge momentum, a low cost of capital, and enough resources to do anything it wanted.
Yet somehow we should think that we don’t have as high expectations from Mr. Immelt as we do Mr. Zuckerberg? That would seem, at the least, distorted.
In business school I read the story of how American steel manufacturers were eclipsed by the Japanese. Ending WWII America had almost all the steel capacity. Manufacturers raked in the profits. Japanese and German companies that were destroyed had to rebuild, which they progressively did with more efficient assets. By the 1960s American companies were no longer competitive. Were we to believe that having their industrial capacity destroyed somehow was a good thing for the foreign competitors? That if you want to improve your competitiveness (say in autos) you should drop a nuclear bomb on the facilities (some may like that idea – but not many who live in Detroit I dare say.) In reality the American leaders simply refused to invest in new technologies and growth markets, allowing competitors to end-run them. The American leaders were busy acting as caretakers, and bragging about their success, instead of paying attention to market shifts and keeping their companies successful!
Big companies, like GE, are highly advantaged. They not only have brand, and market position, but cash, assets, employees and vendors in position to help them be even more successful! A smart CEO uses those resources to take the company into growth markets where it can grow revenues, and profits, faster than the marketplace. For example Steve Jobs at Apple, and Eric Schmidt at Google have found new markets, revenues and cash flow beyond their original “core” markets. That’s what Mr. Welch did as predecessor to Mr. Immelt. He didn’t so much take advantage of a growth economy as help create it! Unfortunately, far too many large company CEOs squander their resources on low rate of return projects, trying to defend their existing business rather than push forward.
Most big companies over-invest in known markets, or technologies, that have low growth rates, rather than invest in growth markets, or technologies they don’t know as well. Think about how Motorola invented the smart phone technology, but kept investing in traditional cellular phones. Or Sears, the inventor of “at home shopping” with catalogues closed that division to chase real-estate based retail, allowing Amazon to take industry leadership and market growth. Circuit City ended up investing in its approach to retail until it went bankrupt in 2010 – even though it was a darling of “Good to Great.” Or Microsoft, which launched a tablet and a smart phone, under leader Ballmer re-focused on its “core” operating system and office automation markets letting Apple grab the growth markets with R&D investments 1/8th of Microsoft’s. These management decisions are not something we should accept as “natural.” Leaders of big companies have the ability to maintain, even accelerate, growth. Or not.
Why give leaders in big companies a break just because their historical markets have slower growth? Singer’s leadership realized women weren’t going to sew at home much longer, and converted the company into a defense contractor to maintain growth. Netflix converted from a physical product company (DVDs) into a streaming download company in order to remain vital and grow while Blockbuster filed bankruptcy. Apple transformed from a PC company into a multi-media company to create explosive growth generating enough cash to buy Dell outright – although who wants a distributor of yesterday’s technology (remember Circuit City.) Any company can move forward to be anything it wants to be. Excusing low growth due to industry, or economic, weakness merely gives the incumbent a pass. Good CEOs don’t sit in a foxhole waiting to see if they survive, blaming a tough battleground, they develop strategies to change the battle and win, taking on new ground while the competition is making excuses.
GM was the world’s largest auto company when it went broke. So how did size benefit GM? In the 1980s Roger Smith moved GM into aerospace by acquiring Hughes electronics, and IT services by purchasing EDS – two remarkable growth businesses. He “greenfielded” a new approach to auto manufucturing by opening the wildly successful Saturn division. For his foresight, he was widely chastised. But “caretaker” leadership sold off Hughes and EDS, then forced Saturn to “conform” to GM practices gutting the upstart division of its value. Where one leader recognized the need to advance the company, followers drove GM to bankruptcy by selling out of growth businesses to re-invest in “core” but highly unprofitable traditional auto manufacturing and sales. Meanwhile, as the giant failed, much smaller Kia, Tesla and Tata are reshaping the auto industry in ways most likely to make sure GM’s comeback is short-lived.
CEOs of big companies are paid a lot of money. A LOT of money. Much more than Mr. Zuckerberg at Facebook, or the leaders of Groupon and Netflix (for example). So shouldn’t we expect more from them? (Marketwatch.com “Top CEO Bonuses of 2010“) They control vast piles of cash and other resources, shouldn’t we expect them to be aggressively investing those resources in order to keep their companies growing, rather than blaming tax strategies for their unwillingness to invest? (Wall Street Journal “Obama Pushes CEOs on Job Creation“) It’s precisely because they are so large that we should have high expectations of big companies investing in growth – because they can afford to, and need to!
At the end of the day, everyone wins when CEOs push for growth. Investors obtain higher valuation (Apple is worth more than Microsoft, and almost more than 10x larger Exxon!,) employees receive more pay (see Google’s recent 10% across the board pay raise,) employees have more advancement opportunities as well as personal growth, suppliers have the opportunity to earn profits and bring forward new innovation – creating more jobs and their own growth – rather than constantly cutting price. Answering the Economist in “Why Do Firms Exist?” it is to deliver to people what they want. When companies do that, they grow. When they start looking inward, and try being caretakers of historical assets, products and markets then their value declines.
Can Mr. Zuckerberg run GE? Probably. I’d sure rather have him at the helm of GM, Chrysler, Kraft, Sara Lee, Motorola, AT&T or any of a host of other large companies that are going nowhere the caretaker CEOs currently making excuses for their lousy performance. Think what the world would be like if the aggressive leaders in those smaller companies were in such positions? Why, it might just be like having all of American business run the way Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and John Chambers have led their big companies. I struggle to see how that would be a bad thing.
