New jobs are created by starting new businesses that create new demand
Most leaders behave defensively, trying to preserve the old business
But success comes from acting like a start-up and creating new opportunities
Companies need to do more future-based planning that can change the competitive landscape and generate more growth, jobs and higher rates of return
A trio of economists just published "Who Creates Jobs? Small vs. Large vs. Young" at the National Bureau of Economic Research. For years businesspeople have said that the majority of jobs were created by small companies, therefore we should provide loans and other incentives for small business. At the same time, we all know that large companies employee millions of people, and therefore they have received benefits to keep their companies going even in tough times – like the recent bailouts of GM and Chrysler. But what these researchers discovered was that size was immaterial to job creation – and this ages-old debate is really irrelevant!
Digging deeper into the data, they discovered as reported in the New York Times, "To Create Jobs, Nurture Start-Ups." Regardless of size, most businesses over time get stuck defending their original success formula. What helped them initially grow becomes locked-in by behavioral norms, structural decision-making processes and a business model cost structure that may be tweaked, but rarely changed. Best practices serve to focus management on defending that business, even as market shifts lower the industry growth rate and profits. It doesn't take long before defensive tactics dominate, and as the leaders attempt to preserve historical practices there are no new jobs created. Usually quite the opposite happens as cost cutting dominates, leading to outsourcing and lay-offs reducing the workforce.
Look no further than most members of the Dow Jones Industrial Average to witness the lack of jobs created by older companies desperately trying to defend their historical business model. But what we've failed to realize is how the same management practices dominate small business as well! Most plumbing suppliers, window installers, insurance agencies, restaurants, car dealers, nurseries, tool rental shops, hair cutters and pet sitters spend all their time just trying to keep the business going. They look no further than what they did yesterday when making business decisions. Few think about growth, preferring instead to just keep the business the same – maybe by the owner/operator's father 3 decades ago! They don't create any new jobs, and are probably struggling to maintain existing employment as computers and other business aids reduce the need for labor – while competition keeps whacking away at historical margins.
So if you want to create jobs, throwing incentives at General Electric, General Motors or General Dynamics is not likely to get you very far. And asking the leaders of those companies what it takes to get them to create jobs is a wasted conversation. They don't know, and haven't really thought about the question. Leaders of almost all big organizations are just trying to make next quarter's profit projection any way they can – and that doesn't involve new hiring. After a lifetime of cutting costs and preservation behavior, how is Jeffrey Immelt of GE supposed to know anything about creating new businesses which leads to job creation?
Nor is offering loans or grants to the millions of existing small businesses who are just trying to keep the joint running going to make any difference. Their psychology is not about offering new products or services, and banks sure don't want to take the risk of investing in new experimental behaviors. They have little, if any, interest in figuring out how to grow when most of their attention is trying to preserve the storefront in the face of new competitors on-line, or from India, China or Vietnam!
To create jobs you have to focus on growth – not defense. And that takes an entirely different way of thinking. Instead of thinking about the past you have to be obsessive about the future, and how you can do things differently! Most of the time, business leaders don't think this way until their backs are up against the wall, looking at potential failure! For example, how Mr. Gerstner turned around IBM when he moved the company away from mainframe obsession and pointed the company toward services. Or when Steve Jobs redirected Apple away from its Mac obsession and pushed the company into new markets for music/entertainment and smartphones. Unfortunately, these stories are so rare that we tend to use them for a decade (or even 2 decades)!
For years Cisco said it would obsolete its own products, and by implementing that direction Cisco has grown year after year in the tech world, where flame-outs abound (just look at what happened to Sun Microsystems, Silicon Graphics, AOL and rapidly Yahoo!) Look at how Netflix has pushed Blockbuster aside by expanding its business from snail-mail to downloads. Or how Amazon.com has found explosive growth by changing the way we read books, now selling more Kindle products than printed. Rather than thinking about how each could do more of what they always did, fearing cannibalization of the "core business," they are aiding destruction of their historical business by implementing the newest technology and solution before some start-up beats them to the punch!
As you enter 2011 and prepare for 2012, is your planning based upon doing more of what your business has always done? A start up has no last year, so its planning is based entirely on views of the future. Are you fixated on improving your operations? A start up has no operations, so it is fixated on competitors to figure out how it can meet market needs better, and use "fringe" solutions in new ways that competitors have not yet adopted. Are you hoping that market shifts slow, or stop, so revenue, market share and profit slides abate? A start up is looking for ways to disrupt the marketplace to it can grab high growth from existing solutions while generating new demand by meeting unmet needs. Are you trying to preserve resources in order to defend your business from competitors? A start up is looking for places to experiment with new solutions and figure out how to change the competitive landscape while growing revenues and profits.
If you want to thrive you have to grow. To grow, you have to think young! Be willing to plan for the future, like Apple did when it moved into new markets for music downloads. Be willing to find competitive holes and fill them with new technology, like Netflix. Don't fear market changes – create them like Cisco does with new solutions that obsolete previous generations. And keep testing new ways to expand the market, even as you see intense competition in historical markets being attacked by new competitors. That is the only way to create value, and generate new jobs!
It seems like the best way to find old success is to do more of what used to make you successful
But lack of success is from market shifts, meaning you need to do more things
Investing in what you know gets more expensive every year, with little (if any) improvement in returns
To regain success it’s actually better to get out into new markets where you can compete with lower investment rates, generating more profitable sales
Apple increased its sales of Macs not by focusing on Macs – but instead by becoming a winner in entirely different markets creating a feedback loop to the old, original “core”
MediaPost.com, in its article “Enterprise Sector Takes a Shine to Apple” has some remarkable statistics about Apple sales. At a time when most PC manufacturers, such as Dell and HP, are struggling to maintain even decent growth (even after the launch of upgraded Windows 7 and Office 2010) Apple is dramatically increasing its volume of Macs – and gaining market share. In last year’s second quarter:
Mac sales jumped almost 50% in the business sector
Mac sales jumped a whopping 200% in the government sector
Mac sales rose over 31% in the home sector
In Europe, Mac unit sales doubled their market share – and more than tripled their share in dollars
Yes, Macs are a small part of the market. Around 3.5% in the U.S. But, if you’re an Apple employee, supplier or investor that doesn’t matter, does it? In fact, it comes off sounding like a PC fan pooh-poohing a really astounding sales improvement. Nobody is saying the Mac will soon replace PCs (that’s more likely to happen via mobile devices where Apple has iPhone and iPad). But when you can dramatically increase your sales, especially as a $50B company, it’s a big deal.
The lesson for managers here is more unconventional. For years we’ve been told the way to grow your sales and profits is to “stick to your knitting.” To “protect your core.” The idea has been promoted that you should jettison anything that is a diversion to what you want to do best, and completely focus on what you select, and then try to out-compete all others with that product. If things don’t improve, then you need to get even more focused on your core, and invest more deeply. And hope the Mojo returns.
But that’s exactly the opposite of what Apple did. When almost bankrupt in 2001 Apple jettisoned multiple Mac products. It invested in music and entertainment products (iPod. iTouch and iTunes) to grab large sales with lower investment rates. It then rolled that success into developing the mobile computing/phone business with the iPhone and all those apps (some 250 thousand now and growing!). And it built on that success with a mobile tablet called the iPad. The Mac is now growing as a result of Apple’s success in all these other products creating a favorable feedback loop to the original “core”.
Apple spends less than 1/8th the money on R&D as Microsoft. And an even lesser amount on marketing, PR and sales. Yet, by entering new markets it gets far more “bang for its buck.” By entering new markets Apple is able to develop and launch new products, that sell in greater volumes and at higher profits, than had it stuck to being a “Mac company.” In fact, back when it only had 45 days of cash on hand, if it had stayed a “Mac company” Apple would have failed.
What we now see is that constantly re-investing in what you know drives down marginal rates of return. It keeps getting harder and harder, at ever greater cost, to drive new development and new sales with upgrades to old products. Look at the sales and profit problems at Sun Microsystems (world leader in Unix servers) and Silicon Graphics (world leader in graphics computers) and now Dell. What we’d like to think works at driving revenue and profits really raises new product costs and creates an easy target for new competitors who attack you as you sit there, all Locked-in to doing more of the same.
Contrarily, when you develop new products for new markets you grow revenues at lower cost, and thus higher profits. And you create a feedback loop that helps you get more sales without massive investments in your historical “core.” Think about Nike. It hasn’t been a “shoe company” for a very long time – but its shoes are greatly benefited by all the success Nike has in golf clubs and all those other products with a swoosh on them.
When confronted with a decision between “investing in the core” – or “protecting the mother ship” – or investing in new markets and solutions —- be very careful. Your “gut” may lead you to “in a blink” decide the obvious answer is to invest in what you know. But we are learning every quarter that this is a road to problems. You get more and more focused, and less and less prepared for the market shift that sent you into that “core focus” in the first place. Pretty soon you’re so far removed from the market you can’t survive – like Sun and SGI. It’s really a whole lot smarter to get out into new markets with White Space teams that can generate revenues with a lot less cost by being a smart, early competitor.
Recently SeekingAlpha.com ran the article "Time for Tivo to say Ta Ta." The author (a professor) took the point of view that Tivo had filled a need, but now there were ample new options – such as on-line downloads – making Tivo obsolete. As a result, the company should fold up its tent and let the employees move on.
I was struck, because the good professor did not seem to think it might be possible for Tivo to change its business model and move into the other growing opportunities while simultaneously maintaining the traditional Tivo set-top business until the market figures out what customers really want. That sort of predicting future markets is dangerous for 2 reasons:
the inherent assumption that Tivo can be in only one market is flawed. There is nothing stopping Tivo from participating in the marketplace robustly with mutliple solution offerings. It can even cannibalize its own "base" revenues if the market shifts into other solutions. Tivo could remain top of the market – regardless of what solution dominates
predicting future markets is a fools game. The good professor may guess some of these futurist positions right, but he's sure to get many wrong. Any business that bets its product development or investments on future predictions is destined to eventually get it wrong – and possibly destroy itself. Good leaders use scenarios to realize there are multiple possibilities, and then participate in several of them in order to be assured of growth.
Fast Company points out in "Avoiding Corporate Death Spirals in a Sea of Change" that all companies hoping to remain long-lived MUST learn to transition with shifting markets. The article parallels this blog in discussing failures at Blockbuster Video, Silicon Graphics, Digital Equipment – and more recently dramatic share declines in Palm. All are attributed to management Lock-in on early wins, then trying to Defend & Extend the early Success Formula too long. Market transitions killed them. The article goes on to point out that Cisco Systems, a company held up as an example of Phoenix Principle Management here, has succeeded and grown principally because it has learned how to adjust to market shifts.
No company needs to give up. But all companies that want to survive HAVE to learn to manage market transitions. There is no other choice. Shift happens.
You've probably read that 80% of new jobs are created in small business. Even if this is true, it creates a misconception. You'd think that we need to start lots of new companies. As BusinessWeek reported in "Looking for More High Growth Start-ups" 40% of new jobs are created by a mere 1% of start-ups. The really fast growers.
We like to think that all companies contribute job growth to the economy. But that is simply not true. In reality, the vast majority of businesses contribute no new jobs. In fact, they are reducing employment. Almost all of the job growth, in fact almost all of the economic growth, comes from a very small number of companies that account for almost all the real growth. These are the 10% of companies that are in the Rapids. All others are either looking for early growth, or trying to "hang on" to an outdated Success Formula and seeing their business slowly (or not so slowly) erode.
Most small businesses are in the Wellspring. Looking for some kind of growth. Most of these – literally 90% – never really figure out a Success Formula that drives growth, and they simply die off. The other big group of businesses are somewhere in the Flats or Swamp. Growth has left them, as market shifts have taken demand to other competitors. They are facing a Re-Invention Gap between what they do and what most customers really want. As a result, they produce no inflation-adjusted revenue growth, and no new jobs. Eventually, as the re-invention gap grows, they drift into the Swamp of declining returns. Eventually they become obsolete. Think about independent pharmacies, most insurance agents, small banks, bicycle shops – you get the idea.
So where do we get new jobs? From the companies that are in the Rapids. Think about the skkyrocketing employment at places like Boeing and airlines when aviation was a growth industry in the 1960s through the 1980s. And the growth in computer and IT jobs in the 1990s. Those businesses that participatd in the Rapids are participating in market shifts, and they are creating new revenues and jobs.
Today a good example is Google. While traditional companies are lamenting "a bad economy" Google is participating in the market shift, and thus creating revenue growth and new jobs. At PoynterOnline.com, in "Google Team Offers Lessons in Innovation, Project Management", we can read how the GMail team discussed at the recent South by Southwest Conference their approach to remaining in the Rapids. While other organizations are frozen in place, trying to Defend what they've always done, and thereby falling into the Swamp, Google keeps pushing forward with new solutions that help customers do new things — and thus create additional growth.
Apple, Amazon and Cisco are additional examples of organizations that are using Disruptions and White Space to keep their companies participating in market shifts. As a result, they've kept growing in 2008, 2009 and into 2010. They don't blame the economy, they keep innovating and taking new solutions to market. Thus they grow. Those companies that are blaming the economy are simply spending too much time trying to Defend & Extend their old Success Formula, and drifting into obsolescence.
Even big, entrenched companies can grow. The Wall Street Journal recently interviewed the CEO of Austalia's phone company, Telstra, in "If You Don't Deliver Numbers You Aren't Doing Your Job." He points out that as CEO his most important role is to keep the company growing. He could easily have gotten stuck thinking of his business as a traditional, land-line telco. But his role is to balance the management of an old Success Formula with implementing White Space which can evolve his company forward into a post-modern communications company with new technologies and new solutions. As a result, what could be thought of as a bureaucratic monopoly is much more successful, growing through its participation in market shifts.
Alternatively, we have AT&T, and its former leader Mr. Whitacre now ensconced at General Motors. The original AT&T almost went bankrupt before being acquired by what was Southwestern Bell – then renamed to AT&T. AT&T kept losing jobs by the tens of thousands – as did the regional Bell Companies. Mr. Whitacre, with his "caretaker" approach to the old Success Formula, simply kept buying up old pieces of the original AT&T and laying off more people. Today AT&T is a shell of what it was in the early 1980s when split apart. It is not an aggressive part of the market shift, nor is it growing like Telstra.
And Mr. Whitacre is now at GM. Another company that is deeply mired in the Swamp – and very unlikely to avoid the Whirlpool. GM is not leading in any market shifts, and as a result its sales are not growing – nor is its employment. Lacking participation in growing markets, GM will continue shedding revenues and jobs as it marches toward obsolescence.
Myths about lifecycles abound. The biggest is that if you stick to your core, you will keep growing. Somehow you will jump from one new product line to the next, and maintain growth. But it just doesn't happen. Focusing on your core causes you to drop out of growth as market shifts make you irrelevant – like Wang, Lanier, Digital Equipment, Silicon Graphics and Sun Microsystems. Growth slows, employment shrinks. To succeed you have to continuously participate in market shifts, to keep yourself in the Growth Rapids. And for our economy, we desperately need more leaders to refocus on creating Disruptions and White Space to grow – like Google – if we are to get the U.S. economy growing again.
Did you ever notice how often a large company will introduce a new solution (often a new technology), but then retrench from promoting it? Frequently, the market is developed by an alternate company that captures most of the value. We can see that behavior looking at smartphones.
In 2008, three early leaders were Microsoft, RIM and Palm. But Microsoft chose to invest in Defending & Extending its PC software business – with updates to the operating system in Vista and OS 7. As the market has shifted toward mobile computing, Microsoft has been clobbered. But largely because it remained stuck trying to protect its "core" while the market shifted away. Palm also tried to Defend & Extend its early position with updates, but because it did not follow the pathway to greater usage with new applications it also has seen dramatic share decline.
Meanwhile, RIM has promoted new uses within the corporate world for mobility, and thus grown its market share. And Apple has made a huge impact by bringing forward dozens of new mobile applications, closely followed by Google. What we see is a classic example of the early entrant fading largely because they decided to Defend the old market, rather than investing in the new one. Really too bad for shareholders in Microsoft (losing 20 share points) and Palm (losing 10 share points), while good for shareholders of RIM, Apple and Google.
And in Apple's case we can see that the company continues using White Space to grow revenues by expanding the new marketplace. The iPad is off to a very strong start, with tens of thousands of units ordered last week. But of greater importance is how Apple is promoting the shift to mobile devices from traditional PC devices. At SeekingAlpha.com, in "How the iPad, Slates Will Evolve the Next Two Years," the reporter projects how demand for all laptop products will decline as more capability and functionality is added to mobile devices like smartphones and these new slate products.
Microsoft can keep trying to Defend & Extend PC technology, but it won't be long before their efforts largely won't matter. Don't forget that once Cray computers was a rapidly growing super-computer company. But increasing performance from much alternative products eventually made Cray irrelevant. Same for Silicon Graphics and Sun Microsystems.
Today the market capitalization of Microsoft is about $250B, about 4x sales. Apple's market cap is just over $200B, about 6x sales. Google's market cap is about $180B, about 8x sales. All reflect investor expectations about future growth. The D&E company is simply not expected to grow – and in fact is much more likely to disappoint than the companies growing share in growing markets toward which customers are shifting.
And any company can choose to participate in growth, versus Defend & Extend. While Tribune Corporation is trying to find a way out of bankruptcy, and struggling to figure out how to deal with market shifts away from newspapers, Hearst is taking positive action. The Wall Street Journal reports in "Hearst Jumps Into the Apps Business" how the old-line newspaper company has set up a White Space project, complete with dedicated people and its own funding, to begin developing mobile applications for news!
Even when business leaders see a market shift, far too many choose to Defend & Extend the "core." Unfortunately, that leads to disappointments. Keep in mind Microsoft and its rapid loss of Smartphone share as users move increasingly to mobile devices from PCs. To succeed leaders need to drive their organizations in the direction of market shifts, and growth. Like Apple, Google and even Hearst.
