by Adam Hartung | Jan 14, 2012 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
A lot of excitement was generated this week when Mitt Romney said the words "I like to fire people." I'm sure he wishes he could rephrase his comment, as he easily could have made his point about changing service providers without those words. Nonetheless, the aftermath turned to a discussion of job losses, and why Bain Capital has eliminated jobs while simultaneously creating some.
Surprisingly, a number of economists suddenly started saying that firms like Bain Capital are justified in their job eliminations because they are merely implementing "creative destruction." Although the leap is not obvious, the argument goes that some businesses are made inefficient and unprofitable by new technologies or business processes – so buyers (like Bain Capital) of hurting businesses often cannot "fix" the situation and have no choice but to close them. Bain Capital inevitably will be stuck with losers it has no choice but to shutter – eliminating the jobs with the company.
Unfortunately, that argument is simply not true. The only thing that allows "creative destruction" to kill a company is a lack of good leadership. Any company can find a growth path if its leaders are willing to learn from trends and steer in the growing direction.
Start by looking at recent events surrounding Kodak and Hostess, both quickly heading for Chapter 11. Neither needed to fail. Management made the decisions which steered them into the whirlpool of failure.
Kodak watched the market for amateur photography shrink for 30 years – drying up profits for film and paper. Yet, management consistently – quarter after quarter and year after year – made the decision to try defending and extending the historical market rather than move the company into faster growing, more profitable opportunities. Kodak even invented much of the technology for digital photography, but chose to license it to others rather than develop the market because Kodak feared cannibalizing existing sales – as they became increasingly at risk!
Hostess is making a return trip to Chapter 11 this decade. But it's not like the trend away from highly processed, shelf stable white bread and sugary pastry snacks is anything new. While 1960s parents and youth might have enjoyed the vitamin enriched Wonder Bread "helping grow bodies 12 ways" the trend toward fresher, and healthier, staples has been happening for 40 years. In the 1980s when the company was known as Continental Baking profits were problematic, and it was clear that to keep what was then the nation's largest truck fleet profitable required new products as consumers were shifting to fresher "bake off" goods in the grocery store as well as brands promising more fiber and taste. But despite these obvious trends, leadership continued trying to defend and extend the business rather than shift it.
These stories weren't "creative destruction." They were simply bad leadership. Decisions were made to do more of the same, when clearly something desperately different was needed! At the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge web site famed strategiest Michael Porter states "the granddaddy of all mistakes is competing to be the best, going down the same path as everybody else and thinking that somehow you can achieve better results." Failure happened because the leaders were so internally focused they chose to ignore external inputs, trends, which would have driven better decisions!
In the 1980s Singer realized that the sewing machine market was destined to decline as women left homemaking for paying jobs, and as textile industry advances made purchased clothing cheaper than self-made. Over a few years the company transitioned out of the traditional, but dying, business and became a very successful defense industry contractor! Rather than letting itself be "creatively destroyed" Singer identified the market trends and moved from decline to growth!
Similarly, IBM almost failed as the computer market shifted from mainframes to PCs, but before all was lost (including jobs as well as investor value) leaders changed company focus from hardware to services and vertical market solutions allowing IBM to grow and thrive.
The failure of Digital Equipment (DEC) at the same time was not "creative destruction" but company leadership unwillingness to shift from declining mini-computer and high priced workstation sales into new businesses.
More recently, over the last decade a nearly dead Apple resurrected itself by tying into the large trend for mobility, rather than focusing on its niche Mac product sales. Company leaders took the company into consumer electronics (ipod, ipod touch,) tablet computing and cloud-based solutions (iPad) and mobile telephony with digital apps (iPhone.) Apple had no legacy in any of these markets, but by linking to trends rather than fixating on past businesses "creative destruction" was avoided.
There are many businesses today that are in trouble because leaders simply won't pay attention to trends. Avon, Sears and Barnes & Noble are three companies with limited futures simply because leaders seem unable to pull their heads out of the internal strategic planning sand and look at environmental trends in order to shift.
My favorite target is, of course, Microsoft. Nobody thinks we will be carrying laptop PCs around in 5 years. Yet, Microsoft has been unable to recognize the trend away from PCs and do anything effective. Its efforts in music (Zune) and mobile handsets have been indifferent, insufficiently supported and mostly dropped. Mr. Ballmer continues to speak about a long future for PC sales even as Q4 volume dropped 1.4% according to IDC and Gartner. Even though everyone knows this trend is due to limited PC innovation and rapidly accelerating mobile-based solutions, Microsoft blamed the problem on, of all things, floods in Thailand that restricted manufacturing output. Really.
We'll learn soon enough just how many jobs Bain Capital created, and killed. But those lost were not due to "creative destruction." They were due to leadership decisions to discontinue the business rather than invest in trends and transitioning to new markets. Creative destruction is an easy excuse to avoid blaming leaders for failures caused by their unwillingness to recognize trends and take actions to invest in them which will create winning businesses.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 29, 2010 | Current Affairs, Leadership, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Apple now has a market cap of $210B. Microsoft has a market cap of about $260B. To traditionalists, this must seem contradictory. Apple has fought its way into new markets, and has domination in none (except maybe the narrowly defined individual music download business). Microsoft has near monopolistic market presence in personal computer operating systems and office software. According to modern business theory from business schools, and the output of books such as Business Strategy by Michael Porter, the monopolist company has entry barriers protecting its return – and thus the ability to almost print unlimited profit. Yet this has not happened.
At SeekingAlpha.com "Apple versus Microsoft: The Value Gap is Closing" the case is made that the value difference is all due to growth. Apple's business for music devices and content is growing – quickly. Its business for mobile devices and mobile device applications is also growing very fast. Those offer substantial positive cash flow today, as well as dramatic cash flow growth in the future. So much so that many analysts wonder what Apple will do with all that money. And that doesn't even count the iPad sales which have exceeded expectations – before even available to ship. And businesses are starting to build applications for the iPad, as explained in the BusinessWeek article "Businesses want Apple's iPad, too."
On the other hand, the demand for PCs is sluggish – at best. People increasingly leave their laptop at home for extended time while the use their mobile device instead. But Microsoft is stuck in a loop of upgrade development and launch. But because of the market shift, these investments are yielding less and less return. Complexity cost is going up, and profits are going down, and growth is dropping precipitously. Products in music, mobile phones and advertising have all lost significant share to Apple, Google and others as attention has remained on the "core" business. So even though current cash flow is strong, value has gone absolutely nowhere for several years, and there's precious reason to think it will go up.
When you lose growth, even if you prop up profits with draconian cost cutting and inventory sales, you lose value. Just look at Sears/KMart. Investors were really excited when Mr. Lampert used his takeover of KMart to acquire Sears. Predictions flew that he would get Sears growing again, while simultaneously monetizing the huge real estate portfolio. But as detailed in Chicago Tribune "Sears and KMart Still Standing, but Market Share Dwindles," value has declined. Mr. Lampert has proven very good at whacking cost. But when it comes to growing revenue – something that will drive ongoing growth in cash flow for a decade or more, he's shown nothing. You can't cost cut your way to long term success.
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 | 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 | Apr 5, 2009 | Uncategorized
Michael Porter wrote a famous book in 1980 on strategy called, befittingly, Competitive Strategy. His doctoral work at Harvard had shown him that in an industrial market, you could map out the power a company has – and from that imply its future profitability. Famous from this book was his "5 Forces" model in which companies could compare the relative strength of customers, suppliers, substitutes and potential entrants with traditional competitor rivalry to ascertain attractiveness. An outcome of his late 1970s analysis was that if you are really strong, you can control the behavior of the other forces to dictate your profitability. This was all pre-internet, pre-information economy.
Today (Sunday) my wife was fit to be tied (an old midwestern phrase) when she opened the Chicago Tribune and couldn't find a television schedule. She's not much of a newspaper reader, primarily just the Sunday ads and the TV schedule. When she couldn't find the TV schedule, she called the newspaper to ask for another copy. But the automated response at the Trib said not to leave a message if you're calling about the TV schedule, because it was now being printed in the Saturday edition. As you might guess, we don't take Saturday because we don't have time to read newspapers any more. Her reaction was simple "I get most of these ads delivered in the mailbox now during the week. If we don't get the TV schedule, we might as well cancel the paper altogether."
This, of course, is not the reaction Sam Zell and his management team at Tribune Corporation are expecting. They think their last remaining competitor, Sun Times Corp., is most likely going to fold now that it's filed bankruptcy and seems drowned in red ink. Following Porter's nearly 30 year old approach, they think they have little competition and no threat of new newspaper entrant – so they'll simply "force" readers to buy Saturday if they want the TV schedule.
But they are wrong, of course. Just like every other action they've taken since Zell overleveraged the corporation in his buy-out, they continue to ignore that the internet exists. As I pointed out to my wife, we can easily bookmark several locations to identify our local programming – including a nice layout at USAToday.com.
In an industrial economy, many leaders came to believe that they could erect entry barriers which allowed them great power to run their business for high profits. At newspapers, many felt that by being the only (or largest) local paper they had a "moat" around their business guaranteeing profits. They felt comfortable they could raise rates on advertising, and classified ads for those looking to find new hires or sell a used car. But of course they missed the fact that advertisers could go to the web to find customers. And that it was a lot cheaper to use Monster.com, Vehix.com or Craig's List than a local classified ad. So now Zell's team is trying to use his "relative strength" to push his subscribers into behavior they have avoided – buying a Saturday paper. And, again, the team has forgotten that in an internet-connected world customers have lots of options, and given a push they'll go look for other solutions.
The folks at Tribune Corporation made a big mistake by over-leveraging their acquisition. And they worsened that mistake by trying to use 1980s strategy post-2000. I recently emailed books editor Julia Keller with a recommendation for promoting book reading more strongly in her Sunday "Lit Life" column. She responded by upbraiding me for having the temerity to offer an idea to her – and concluded by challenging not only my intelligence but my own reading ability – then telling me to subscribe to the Saturday edition so I'd stop being such a luddite. My son wrote to the Trib's Sunday auto reviewer Jim Mateja with some insights he had about hybrids as a 21 year old, and Mr. Mateja responded that since he was only 21 he wasn't old enough to have common sense, and certainly no insights a serious auto reviewer or auto executive should consider. Bullying customers seems to have become commonplace around The Chicago Tribune.
When business conditions turn poorly it's very easy to focus on Defending & Extending what worked in the past. It's natural to turn against those who complain, and seek out your most loyal customers for reinforcement that you're Success Formula need not change. It's not uncommon to "write off" customers that walk away from you, saying they are no longer in your market target or niche. It's likely you'll turn to management practices that might have worked 3 decades ago (think about GM as well as newspapers). It's comfortable to turn to your "hedgehog concept" and try to do more of what you know how to do, primarily because you know how to do it and are good at it.
But you can't bully customers. Today, more than ever, substitutes and new entrants are no further than a Google search. Markets aren't as neatly and tightly defined as they were in 1980. When you see results slip, you can't try to force them back up by bullying vendors either. You have to align with market needs – with the direction markets are headed. You have to look into the future to see what customers will value, and do the Google search yourself to identify alternative competitors you need to beat. The Chicago Tribune could do a lot more to make its business valuable to people in Chicago and beyond. A little White Space could go a long way. Unfortunately, management appears intent on being the first major market newspaper to really fail – and folks in Chicago as well as L.A. (Tribune Corp. also owns The Los Angeles Times) may find themselves first on the curve to using web media exclusively.
