My 2017 Wish: Less Talk, More Doing

2016 was an election year, and Americans were inundated with talk. Unfortunately, a lot of it was pure hubris.

President-elect Donald Trump inspired people to “make America great again.” In doing so, he developed the theme that the reason America wasn’t so great had to do with too much work being done offshore, rather than onshore. And that there were far too many immigrants, which harmed the economy and the country. This became rather popular with a significant voting block, led in particular by white males – and within that group those lacking higher education. These people expressed, with their votes and with their words at many rallies, that they were economically depressed by America’s policies allowing work to be completed by people not born in America.

Source: Metacool http://metacool.com/metacool-thought-of-the-day-27/

Source: With permission of Metacool

Oh, if it was only so simple.

Any time something is manufactured offshore there is a cost to supply the raw materials, often the equipment, and frequently the working capital.  These are added costs, not incurred by U.S. manufacturing.  The reason manufacturing jobs went offshore had everything to do with (1) Americans unwilling to work at jobs for the pay offered, and (2) an unwillingness for Americans to invest in their skill sets so they could do the work.

 In short, don’t blame foreign countries or immigrants. Although they are easy targets. Instead, those Americans should blame themselves for not knuckling down and working harder to make themselves more competitive.

Since the 1980s America has lost some five million manufacturing jobs (from about 17.5 million to 12.5million). That sounds terrible, until you realize that the amount of goods manufactured in America is near an all-time.  While it may sound backwards, the honest truth is that automation has greatly improved the output of plant and equipment with less labor.  America isn’t making less stuff.  Productivity more than doubled between 1985 and 2009. As the Great Recession has abated, output is again back to all-time highs. It just doesn’t take nearly as many people as it once did.

 But it does take much smarter, better trained people.

Manufacturing today isn’t about sweat shops. Not in the USA, and not in Mexico, China or India. The plants in all these countries are equally high-tech, sophisticated and automated. Just look at the images of workers at the Chinese Foxconn plants, or the Mexican auto parts plants, and you’ll see something that could just as easily be in the USA. The reality is that those plants are in those countries because the workers in those countries train themselves to be very productive, and they make great products at very high quality.

And don’t blame regulations and unions for creating offshoring.

For almost all U.S. companies, their offshore plants comply with the U.S. regulations. Most require the same level of safety and working conditions globally.

Union membership has been declining for 75 years. Fifty years ago one in three workers was in a union.  Today, it’s less than one in 10. In 2015 the Bureau of Labor reported that only 6.7% of private sector workers were unionized – an all time modern era low. Unions are almost unimportant today. It hasn’t been union obstructionism that has driven jobs oversees – it’s largely been an inability to hire qualified workers.

Much was made the last few years of a lower labor participation rate. Many Trump followers said that the Obama administration was failing to create jobs, so people stayed home. But that simply was not true. While the economy was recovering, the unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since the super-heated economy of 2001. To find this low level of unemployment prior to that you have to go all the way back to 1970!

There are plenty of jobs. The issue is getting people trained to do the work.

And here is the real rub. You can’t sit home complaining and moping, you have to study hard and train.  Before today’s level of computerization and automation, when work was a lot more manual, it didn’t matter how much education you had, nor how well you could read and do math and science. But today, work is not manual. It takes minimal manual skill to operate equipment. Today it takes computer programming skills, engineering skills and math skills.

Trump appealed to those who have let their skills lapse, and shown an unwillingness to study hard to make themselves more employable.  He took the Lake Wobegon approach of claiming that U.S. workers were like the people of that famous fictional city – “where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking and all the children are above average.” As much as these “angry white men” who voted for Trump would like to think they are smarter and better trained than immigrants and offshore workers – that just is not true. The problem is not “them.” To the extent there is an American problem, it is U.S.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) does an annual Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) study. This looks at test scores across the world to see where students fair best. Of course, economically displaced Americans are sure that Americans are at the top of these test results – because it is easy to assume so.

Americans are in the bottom half of the planet’s educational performance .

The 2015 results are here, and in reading, science and math America doesn’t even crack the top 10. In fact, the poorest 10% of Vietnamese students did better than the average American teen. In all three categories, the USA scored below the global average. American’s are not above average – they are now below average.

American’s have simply gotten lazy. For far too long, when somebody did poorly Americans have blamed the teacher, blamed the test, blamed the “system” — blamed everyone and everything except the person themselves.  It has become unacceptable to tell someone they are doing a below-average job. It is unacceptable to tell someone their skills don’t match up to the needs of the job. Instead, we simply give out trophies for participation to everyone, imply that everyone is good, nobody is bad and let mediocrity blossom.

Instead of forcing people to work hard – really hard – and expecting that each and every person will work hard to compete in a global economy – just to keep up – the expectation has developed that hard work is not necessary, and everyone should do really well. Instead of thinking that hard mental effort, ongoing education and additional training are the minimal acceptable standards to maintaining a job, it is expected that high paying jobs should just be there for everyone – even if they lack the skills to perform.  American no longer want to admit that someone is being outperformed.

In 1988 Nike set the company on a growth trajectory with their trademarked phrase “Just Do It.” Just get up off the couch and do it. Quit complaining about being out of shape – just do it.

And that’s my wish for America in 2017. Quit blaming foreigners for working harder at school than we do. Quit blaming immigrants for being better trained, and harder working, than Americans. Quit pretending like the problem with the labor participation rate is some kind of problem created by the government. Quit finger-pointing and blaming someone else for being better than us.

Instead, get up off the couch and do it. Go back to school and study hard – harder than the competition.  Grades matter. Learn geometry, trigonometry and calculus so you can make things – or operate equipment that makes things. Gain some engineering skills so you can learn to program, in order to improve productivity with a mobile device – or even a personal computer. Become facile in more than one language so you can operate and compete in a global economy.

Hey Americans, instead of blaming everyone else for workers lacking a job, or a higher income, quit talking about the problems. If you want to “make America great again” quit complaining and just do it.

Octopus Pants: A Great Lesson for Business and win for Ralph Lauren

If you're not a golfer, you may not understand the title.  But it is important.

Sunday was the final, of four days, of the U.S. Open.  Golf is clearly not as fan-favorited as soccer, football, basketball or hockey.  But many people are aware of the "major" golf tournaments – just as non-horseracers know about the Kentucky Derby or Preakness.  So there was more awareness than average about the sport on Sunday, and a tremendously greater amount of media coverage.

Interestingly, the big winner on the day was Octopus Pants. If you're confused – read on!

Monday morning if you opened a Yahoo! browser window and looked the top "trending now" box  there, plain as day, was "Octopus pants."  US Open was not there.  Nor was the name of the winner – Justin Rose (who came from behind to win.)  Nor the name of the leader for almost the entire tournament, and a huge crowd favorite in the sport, Phil Mickelson

But, back in the pack, was a very good golfer named Billy Horschel.  Although he's a great golfer, and a previous PGA tournament winner, was almost impossible to think he would win the U.S. Open on the final day, even though he shot a great second round (it takes 4 rounds to complete the tournament.)  Barring a near-miracle, the focus would be on the leaders Sunday so there was a chance the relative newcomer would not receive  much attention. [He did end up 6th – which is far better than the famous Tiger Woods, who came in 36th.]

In golf this is important because not only did it mean he would take home a smaller purse, but it also meant his value as an endorser for sponsors is lower.  As a fairly new golfer to the Professional Golf Association (PGA) tournaments Mr. Horschel is known in golf circles because he plays Ping brand clubs.  But few people know that for apparel Mr Horschel is sponsored by Ralph Lauren.

So, on Sunday he showed up wearing a pair of pants covered with images of Octopus. Pants that are part of the Ralph Lauren RXL line.  Mr. Horschel (and the Lauren team) was smart enough to use social media (Twitter, etc.)  to heighten interest in his appearance.  This bit of assault on the sensibilities of golf, combined with fashion, sent interest in Mr. Horschel's apparel – if not his golf – viral.  Not only were golfers looking for glimpses of Mr. Horschel's run for the leader board, but people not usually interested int the game were tuning in and keeping tabs via their mobile devices on his performance — and his pants!

Now, a combination of thinking ahead as to what he might wear, combined with some help from a smart sponsor like Lauren, and really smart use of social media marketing has helped Mr. Horschel, Lauren and Octopus Pants to become a global sensation.  More interesting to more people than the tournament winner, the tournament leader and even the biggest names (including Rory McElroy, Graham McDowell, Ian Poulter, Luke Donald) in the sport — and their sponsors.

Winning often means thinking, and doing things, outside the box.  Preparing to do something unconventional is important.  While I'm sure there was a plan for Mr. Horschel to be much more typically attired had he been the tournament leader, Lauren's team did a great job of figuring out multiple outcomes and how to be a winner under multiple scenarios.  Planning for how to win under multiple contingencies is critical in business. And having outside-the-box solutions thought through and ready to implement is the sign of a winning strategy – from different product to using unconventional marketing techniques. 

While we all should congratulate Justin Rose on a big win the U.S. Open, the big winner here was Ralph Lauren – and Octopus pants! 

 

The Wal-Mart Disease


Summary:

  • Many large, and leading, companies have not created much shareholder value the last decade
  • A surprising number of very large companies have gone bankrupt (GM) or failed (Circuit City)
  • Wal-Mart is a company that has generated no shareholder value
  • The Wal-Mart disease is focusing on executing the business's long-standing success formula better, faster and cheaper — even though it's not creating any value
  • Size alone does not create value, you have to increase the rate of return
  • Companies that have increased value, like Apple, have moved beyond execution to creating new success formulas

Have you noticed how many of America's leading companies have done nothing for shareholders lately?  Or for that matter, a lot longer than just lately.  Of course General Motors wiped out its shareholders.  As did Chrysler and Circuit City.  The DJIA and S&P both struggle to return to levels of the past decade, as many of the largest companies seem unable to generate investor value.

Take for example Wal-Mart.  As this chart from InvestorGuide.com clearly shows, after generating very nice returns practically from inception through the 1990s, investors have gotten nothing for holding Wal-Mart shares since 2000.

Walmart 20 year chart 10-10

Far too many CEOs today suffer from what I call "the Wal-Mart Disease."  It's an obsession with sticking to the core business, and doing everything possible to defend & extend it — even when rates of return are unacceptable and there is a constant struggle to improve valuation.

Fortune magazine's recent puff article about Mike Duke, "Meet the CEO of the Biggest Company on Earth" gives clear insight to the symptoms of this disease. Throughout the article, Mr. Duke demonstrates a penchant for obsessing about the smallest details related to the nearly 4 decade old Wal-Mart success formula.  While going bananas over the price of bananas, he involves himself intimately in the underwear inventory, and goes cuckoo over Cocoa Puffs displays.  No detail is too small for the attention of the CEO trying to make sure he runs the tightest ship in retailing.  With frequent references to what Wal-Mart does best, from the top down Wal-Mart is focused on execution.  Doing more of what it's always done – hopefully a little better, faster and cheaper.

But long forgotten is that all this attention to detail isn't moving the needle for investors.  For all its size, and cheap products, the only people benefiting from Wal-Mart are consumers who save a few cents on everything from jeans to jewelry. 

The Wal-Mart Disease is becoming so obsessive about execution, so focused on doing more of the same, that you forget your prime objective is to grow the investment.  Not just execute. Not just expand with more of the same by constantly trying to enter new markets – such as Europe or China or Brazil. You have to improve the rate of return.  The Disease keeps management so focused on trying to work harder, to somehow squeeze more out of the old success formula, to find new places to implement the old success formula, that they ignore environmental changes which make it impossible, despite size, for the company to ever again grow both revenues and rates of return.

Today competitors are chipping away at Wal-Mart on multiple fronts.  Some retailers offer the same merchandise but in a better environment, such as Target.  Some offer a greater selection of targeted goods, at a wider price range, such as Kohl's or Penney's.  Some offer better quality goods as well as selection, such as Trader Joe's or Whole Foods.  And some offer an entirely different way to shop, such as Amazon.com.  These competitors are all growing, and earning more, and in several cases doing more for their investors because they are creating new markets, with new ways to compete, that have both growth and better returns.

It's not enough for Wal-Mart to just be cheap.  That was a keen idea 40 years ago, and it served the company well for 20+ years.  But competitors constantly work to change the marketplace.  And as they learn how to copy what Wal-Mart did, they can get to 90%+ of the Wal-Mart goal.  Then, they start offering other, distinctive advantages.  In doing so, they make it harder and harder for Wal-Mart to be successful by simply doing more of the same, only better, faster and cheaper.

Ten years ago if you'd predicted bankruptcy for GM or Chrysler or Circuit City you'd have been laughed at.  Circuit City was a darling of the infamous best seller "Good To Great."  Likewise laughter would have been the most likely outcome had you predicted the demise of Sun Microsystems – which was an internet leader worth over $200B at century's turn.  So it's easy to scoff at the notion that Wal-Mart may never hit $500B revenue.  Or it may do so, but at considerable cost that continues to hurt rates of return, keeping the share price mired – or even declining.  And it would be impossible to think that Wal-Mart could ever fail, like Woolworth's did.  Or that it even might see itself shredded by competitors into an also-ran position, like once powerful, DJIA member Sears.

The Disease is keeping Wal-Mart from doing what it must do if it really wants to succeed.  It has to change.  Wal-Mart leadership has to realize that what made Wal-Mart once great isn't going to make it great in 2020.  Instead of obsessing about execution, Wal-Mart has to become a lot better at competing in new markets.  And that means competing in new ways.  Mostly, fundamentally different ways.  If it can't do that, Wal-Mart's value will keep moving sideways until something unexpected happens – maybe it's related to employee costs, or changes in import laws, or successful lawsuits, or continued growth in internet retailing that sucks away more volume year after year – and the success formula collapses.  Like at GM.

Comparatively, if Apple had remained the Mac company it would have failed.  If Google were just a search engine company it would be called Alta Vista, or AskJeeves.  If Google were just an ad placement company it would be Yahoo!  If Nike had remained obsessed with being the world's best athletic shoe company it would be Adidas, or Converse.

Businesses exist to create shareholder value – and today more than ever that means getting into markets with profitable growth.  Not merely obsessing about defending & extending what once made you great.  The Wal-Mart Disease can become painfully fatal.

 

Fire the Status Quo Police! – Forbes, AT&T, Microsoft, DEC, P&G, Sears, Motorola


Leadership

Fire The Status Quo Police

Adam Hartung, 09.08.10, 06:00 PM EDT

Their power to prevent innovation can devastate your business.

“That’s not how we do things around here.” How often have you heard that? And what does it really mean? It is said to stop someone from doing something new. It is no way to promote innovation, is it?”

That’s the lead paragraph to my latest column on Forbes.com, published yesterday evening.  Forbes launched a new editorial page covering Change Management, and gave my column’s link the premier placement!  

All companies want to grow.  But early in the lifecycle they Lock-in on what works, and then implement Status Quo Police that intentionally do not allow anything to change.  Their belief is that if nothing changes, the business will always grow.  So conformance to historical norms is more important than results to them.  To Status Quo Police results will return when conformance to old norms is returned!

Of course, this completely ignores the marketplace.  Market shifts, created by competitors launching new technologies, new pricing models, new delivery models or other new solutions cause the value of old solutions to decline.  No matter how well you do what you always did, you can’t achieve historical results.  The market has shifted! 

To keep any company growing you must know who the Status Quo Police are in your organization.  They can be in HR, controlling hiring, promotions and pay.  In Finance controlling what projects receive resources.  In Marketing, tightly controlling branding, product development or distribution.  The Status Quo Police are committed to keeping things tightly controlled, and saving the organization from change that could send the company in the wrong direction!  No matter what the marketplace may require.

But it’s not enough to know who the Status Quo Police are, its up to leaders to eliminate them!  If you want to have a vibrant, profitably growing organization you have to constantly adjust to market shifts.  You have to sense what the market wants, and move to deliver it.  You have to be very wary of the Status Quo, and instead be open to making changes in order to grow.  To do that, you have to hold those who would be the Status Quo Police in check.  Otherwise, you’ll find the obstacles to innovation and growth overwhelming!

Please read the article at Forbes, review it and comment!  Let me know what you think!

Profit from growth markets, not “core” markets – Virgin & Nike vs. Dell & Sears


Summary:

  • We are biased toward doing what we know how to do, rather than something new
  • We like to think we can forever grow by keeping close to what we know – that’s a myth
  • Growth only comes from entering growth markets – whether we know much about them or not
  • To grow you have to keep yourself in growth markets, and it is dangerous to limit your prospects to projects/markets that are “core” or “adjacent to core”

Recently a popular business book has been Profit from the Core.  This book proposes the theory that if you want to succeed in business you should do projects that are either in your “core,” or “adjacent to your core.”  Don’t go off trying to do something new.  The further you move from your “core” the less likely you will succeed.  Talk about an innovation killer!  CEOs that like this book are folks who don’t want much new from their employees. 

I was greatly heartened by a well written blog article at Growth Science International  (www.GrowthSci.com) “Profit from Your Core, or Not.. The Myth of Adjacencies.”  Author Thomas Thurston does a masterful job of pointing out that the book authors fall into the same deadly trap as Jim Collins and Tom Peters.  They use hindsight primarily as the tool to claim success.  Their analysis looks backward – trying to explain only past events.  In doing so they cleverly defined terms so their stories seemed to prove their points.  But they are wholly unable to be predictive.  And, if their theory isn’t predictive, then what good is it?  If you can’t use their approach to give a 98% or 99% likelihood of success, then why bother?  According to Mr. Thurston, when he tested the theory with some academic rigor he was unable to find a correlation between success and keeping all projects at, or adjacent to, core.

Same conclusion we came to when looking at the theories proposed by Jim Collins and Tom Peters.  It sounds good to be focused on your core, but when we look hard at many companies it’s easy to find large numbers that simply do not succeed even though they put a lot of effort into understanding their core, and pouring resources into protecting that core with new core projects and adjacency projects.  Markets don’t care about whatever you define as core or adjacent.

It feels good, feels right, to think that “core” or “adjacent to core” projects are the ones to do.  But that feeling is really a bias.  We perceive things we don’t know as more risky than thing we know.  Whether that’s true or not.  We perceive bottled water to be more pure than tap water, but all studies have shown that in most cities tap water is actually lower in free particles and bacteria than bottled – especially if the bottle has sat around a while. 

What we perceive as risk is based upon our background and experience, not what the real, actual risk may be.  Many people still think flying is riskier than driving, but every piece of transportation analysis has shown that commercial flying is about the safest of all transportation methods – certainly much safer than anything on the roadway.  We also now know that computer flown aircraft are much safer than pilot flown aircraft – yet few people like the idea of a commercial drone which has no pilot as their transportation.  Even though almost all commercial flight accidents turn out to be pilot error – and something a computer would most likely have overcome.  We just perceive autos as less risky, because they are under our control, and we perceive pilots as less risky because we understand a pilot much better than we understand a computer.

We are biased to do what we’ve always done – to perpetuate our past.  And our businesses are like that as well.  So we LOVE to read a book that says “stick close to your known technology, known customers, known distribution system – stick close to what you know.”  It reinforces our bias.  It justifies us not doing what we perceive as being risky.  Even though it is really, really, really lousy advice.  It just feels so good – like sugary cereal for breakfast – that we justify it in our minds – like saying “breakfast is the most important meal of the day” as we consume food that’s probably less healthy than the box it came in!

There is no correlation between investing in your core, or close to core, projects and high rates of return.  Mr. Thurston again points this out.  High rates of return come from investing in projects in growth markets.  Businesses in growth markets do better, even when poorly managed, than businesses in flat or declining markets.  Where there are lots of customers wanting to buy a solution you simply do better than when there are lots of competitors fighting over dwindling customer revenues.  Regardless of how well you don’t know the former or do know the latter.  Market growth is a much better predictor of success than understanding your “core” and whatever you consider “adjacent.”

Virgin didn’t know anything about airlines before opening one – but international travel from London was set to boom and Virgin did well (as it has done in many new markets.)  Apple didn’t know anything about retail music before launching the iPhone and iTunes, but digital music had started booming at Napster and Apple cleaned up.  Nike was a shoe company that didn’t know anything about golf merchandise, but it entered the market for all things golf (first with just one club – the driver – followed by other things) by hooking up with Tiger Woods just as he helped promote the sport into dramatic growth.  

Success comes from entering new markets where there is growth.  Growth can overcome a world of bad management choices.  When there are lots of customers with needs to fill, you can make a lot of mistakes and still succeed.  To restrict yourself to “core” and “adjacent” invites failure, because your “core” and the “adjacent” markets that you know well simply may not grow.  Leaving you in a tough spot seeking higher profits in the face of stiff competition — like Dell today in PCs.  Or GM in autos.  Sears in retailing.  They may know their “core” but that isn’t giving them the growth they want, and need, to succeed in 2010.