by Adam Hartung | Sep 19, 2005 | Disruptions, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle
Readers of this BLOG know I’m a big fan of companies avoiding lock-in. I’m always pushing organizations to open White Space projects. So you’d think that a company looking to sell a business would be someone I’d attack.
Not so quick there.
Motorola is putting out feelers to sell it’s auto parts business. Ostensibly to "focus." That’s a word reporters and investors understand. You might think I’d say "hey, why don’t you fix that business? Why not explore new options?"
In this case, I fully support management. For over a year now Motorola has been opening White Space right and left. The results have been fantastic (six consecutive higher profit quarters) as Motorola has grown revenues in several new markets while breaking down old lock-ins and expanding revenues in the hotly contested cell phone business. The company is doing practically everything right.
Now is the BEST time to walk away from the old legacy business. Nowhere is lock-in stronger, and less valuable, than in the original legacy business. In Motorola’s case, finding a new future has been augmented by cutting its ties to the past – past practices, past metrics, past cultures and now past markets.
Sometimes developing a new future is best augmented by knowing when to walk away from the old business. And if you’ve already established White Space that’s producing results, you can walk away smiling.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 9, 2005 | Disruptions
There is no silver lining to hurricane Katrina. The storm has laid waste to a huge area, killed thousands and left many thousands more with no homes or income. The nation’s infrastructure has been greatly harmed. There’s nothing good to be said about such a storm.
We can, and will, recover. The critical question is "how"? At the end of WWII Japan was left with thousands dead and homeless and it’s infrastructure destroyed. With the help of lots of U.S. aid Japan rebuilt. It did not just rebuild what it had, but went beyond. In several industries, let’s pick steel for example, Japan made investments to have the world’s leading technology and lowest cost production. Within 10 years of WWII Japan was becoming a player in the world steel market. By the 1970s Japan’s steel industry was "cleaning up" on U.S. integrated steel manufacturers. The actions Japan took to build a NEW infrastructure (not just rebuild) set the stage for Japan to be a world economic power twenty years later – a position it maintains to this day.
There are similar stories about the devastation in post WWII Germany, which is now a leader in many industries including chemicals and automobiles.
We must recover from Katrina. We will. The important thing for us to remember is that we should take this opportunity not to simply rush to rebuild what we had before – but rather to use this horrible challenge to lead us into White Space for determining how our Gulf Coast can be even more productive, more capable, a better economic leader than it was before. We can confront not only the immediate challenge, but challenges which have been building for years as we move forward — and in doing so make the Gulf Coast an even greater American jewel than before. We should not shortchange our investments in planning, resource utilization nor rebuilding as we return the Gulf Coast to a vital economic region. Now is the time to move forward and be even better than before!
by Adam Hartung | Aug 21, 2005 | Disruptions
Today’s Chicago Tribune had a front-page article on declining innovation in the midwest (Illinois Could Use a Few Good Edisons). Rightly so that this should make the front page and not just the business section. Declining innovation is often a harbinger of economic decline. People in Illinois should be worried.
Looked at individually, the leaders in Illinois innovation (Motorola, Abbott, Caterpiller, ITW, etc.) all took actions since 2000 to improve their performance. No one has faulted them for cutting costs – especially in an area where the payoff is as long-term as R&D. (A companion article discusses the strategy at Motorola for curbing its appetite for patents.) Moving the focus to better profits has, generally, pleased analysts and supported their stock price. Each of these companies has acted to defend and extend their business model.
But looked at by an outsider, the implications are really shocking. Illinois is now the 22nd state in patents – 22nd – even though it’s home to some of America’s biggest companies. What the Tribune can see no locked in company can. That from the inside, cutting these innovatoin expenses looks very different than it looks to someone from the outside.
It’s important for businesses to listen to outsiders. There is no way that any business can avoid having blinders. The quest for profits simply leads to lock-in and focus. Outsiders often see what insiders simply can’t.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 23, 2005 | Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle
Readers of my BLOGs might think I am always opposed to layoffs. It is true that the majority of layoffs are efforts to Defend & Extend outdated Success Formulas with short-term cost reductins that do not effectively address Challenges. Those layoffs (such as across the board reductions) do nothing to improve a business and are difficult to support. They simply push the business closer to the Whirlpool. But, layoffs can also be important Disruptions tied to turning a troubled company around.
Troubled Success Formulas are turned around by White Space projects. And White Space requires both permission and resources. But where is a troubled company supposed to get the resources? In many cases, it requires making tough decisions to STOP doing some things in order to refocus the business on developing a new Success Formula. Layoffs targeted at redirection and resource generation for new projects are very effective Disruptions that can unleash new innovation and move toward renewed success.
HP and Time Warner have both stalled. They must undertake serious redirection. And both are taking Disruptive actions intended to generate Pattern Interrupts plus unleash resources to be invested in White Space.
According to BusinessWeek, HP is going to redirect what it sells and how it sells it. An action intended to get much closer to customer needs – something HP desperately needs to do. And in order to finance this action it will likely layoff 15,000+ workers.
TimeWarner is selling its cable business in order to invest in AOL. A risky move – but one to applaud. Cable franchises are not high growth businesses. Capitalizing the future value of cable into current cash creates a treasure chest for developing new growth opportunities — which likely lie in AOL as it moves aggressively to reposition and compete with Yahoo!
Both companies are far from out of the Swamp and back into the Rapids. But both are doing exactly what they need to do to prepare themselves for the transition. Investors may applaud these moves simply because these changes raise cash that will improve the balance sheets of both firms. What investors should cheer is raising cash to invest in transitional White Space projects that could return both companies to higher growth.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 8, 2005 | Disruptions, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership
It’s easy to beat up on old businesses. But lately, a very old business is making some very smart moves.
The venerable New York Stock Exchange came under some severe attacks last year. It Chairman was accused of improper compensation and the Exchange Board was accused of improper oversight. Things weren’t looking too good as prosecutors went after specialists and floor traders.
But hand it to the new CEO. He used the troubles to create an internal Disruption. The NYSE’s troubles were more a reflection of its inabilities to address its challenges from the NASDAQ than malfeasance (although the latter is still being argued.) So he used the attacks to rethink the future of the exchange.
Viola – in a master stroke the new Chairman of the 200 year old exchange has acted to revitalize the NYSE by buying Archipelago. Instead of taking actions in defense of the past, he is moving quickly to push the Exchange into the forefront of trading for the new millenium. This acquisition is a classic example of using a Disruption to create White Space – and develop a new Success Formula for an old business.
In the hectic pace of change in business, many have paid little attention to this action. But it’s a great example of a new leader identifying the real challenge to the business – rather than reacting to its problems. And then taking actions to create a pattern interrupt and new opportunities to learn. And possibly saving a venerable, and horribly locked-in, organization.
This is a great move for the NYSE – and a stellar example of The Phoenix Principle in action.
by Adam Hartung | May 12, 2005 | Disruptions, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle
Poor GM. When you’re a big target, lots of people find it easy to take their shots at you. No doubt GM is in trouble. But there are few pundits offering solutions for GM’s woes. And no one knows what Mr. Kerkorian is likely to do.
The most prevalent thinking across the press is that GM needs to retrench. Kill products, and whole brands. Never mind that killing Oldsmobile cost GM more than keeping it alive, and that killing Oldsmobile simply made GM smaller as those customers switched to competitors rather than other GM cars. The overwhelming view is GM needs to cut, cut, cut. Remember, GM is not short of cash. It has enough cash to last years and years. So why does it need to do all this cutting and/or selling? Is GM supposed to save its way to prosperity?
GM needs to grow if it wants to remain a vital company. In the short term, this probably means selling more cars. Longer term, it probably means doing lots more than cars (look at GE, no longer just an electric production company.)
Amidst all these calls for belt tightening, busines jettisoning and head lopping we need to remember that GM needs to grow. Last Sunday’s Chicago Tribune interviewed the head of marketing for GM, and for the first time I heard a glimmer of what might turn around GM. He’s out to sell more cars. To compete with those stealing GM’s share. He hears this crisis as a call for GM to change the way it does business and become more customer focused.
That’s a plan that might work. It’s not without risk. But the plans to simply shrink GM have no future. GM needs to turn loose the folks in the divisions to find better ways to compete for customers. Less corporate purchasing and corporate consolidations and more white space for those divisions to do something new. You never know, there might be another John Z. DeLorean somewhere in the giant GM with the next GTO on her mind just waiting for someone to give her the permission and resources to make something new happen.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 18, 2005 | Books, Disruptions, General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle
I wrote recently that IBM looked like an elephant that could continue to dance (taking off on the title of Lou Gerstner’s book about his days at IBM.) Shortly after that, IBM announced quarterly earnings and its stock accelerated a 2005 decline. A fair question might be "would I like to retract my earlier BLOG?"
Definitely not! Yes, IBM missed its earnings projection by $05/share. Right; a nickel. That was about 6% lower than expected but a nickel higher than last year. The stock sold off like you’d think they’d announced a quarterly loss – falling about 10%. From its peak at the beginning of 2005, the stock is down about 25%.
Over the long term, the markets are efficient. But in the short-tem — well it’s anyone’s guess. Not even the famed Peter Lynch could make money timing a market. What makes money long-term is finding companies that can sustain success (read the latest great book on long-term investing by Jeremy Siegel for more info.)
IBM is taking actions to continue sustaining its success. The stock might be volatile, both up and down, along the way. But few make money trading stocks. The way to riches in a creatively destructive world is finding companies that can sustain success. Since its turnaround in the 1990s IBM has regained its ability to disrupt itself and demonstrate the characteistics of a long-tem sustained growth company.
If you want a portfolio of long-term winners I would say that IBM is a company worth considering. Even moreso today.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 18, 2005 | Disruptions, General, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle, Openness
Far too often we see companies merge in an effort to save an old Success Formula. The goal of the acquistion is to Defend & Extend an outdated business model by bringing together two less than stellar competitors. Because this is so common, it’s easy for analysts and pundits to become very jaded regarding acquisitions and mergers.
Today, however, just the opposite happened. Two good, high growth companies decided to merge in order to create new growth opportunities. Rather than merging to find cost synergies, they are merging in order to find new markets, develop new products and further grow.
The two companies are Adobe and Macromedia. According to MarketWatch "Both companies said the long-rumored acquisition was not to consolidate and cut costs but to help Adobe expand into new markets, particularly in the area of providing content to mobile phones and other handheld devices….This is not a consolidation play. This is all about growth," said Bruce Chizen, Adobe’s chief executive."
Because most acquisitions are about D&E, the stock market punished Adobe upon the announcement – sending it’s stock down about 10%. However, acquisitions and mergers can be very effective tools for creating white space and developing new growth opportunities. We should keep our eyes on Adobe, and consider it for a long term investment, since this could be the move that spurs its growth for another decade.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 8, 2005 | Books, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
Hewlett Packard has been having a tough time the last 5 years. As reported in Business Week, most analysts realized in 2004 that HP had stalled. The HP printer business was the only unit making money, and growth was weak as resources were being poured into the faltering PC/server business — which was not helped by the Compaq acquisition.
Jim Collins did a great job of describing the decades of early success at HP in Built to Last. The HP Way gave work teams permission to create new solutions and pushed the decision making, as well as resources, as low as possible. Great innovation was the result, and years of prosperity.
But with the acquisition of Compaq HP definitely lost its Way. Decision making moved up, often to the CEO. As HP adopted the Compaq Success Formula in its effort to grow PC sales management found itself focused on Defend & Extend management practices like budget slashing, R&D reductions, new product cuts and layoffs (over 17,000 since 2002). This was not the HP Way, and business results went from bad to worse.
Now some are calling for the new CEO to even more aggressively pursue cost cutting and layoffs. To "execute – then strategize." That surely won’t turn around HP. What’s needed is unleashing the innovation amongst those thousands of silicon valley employees. What’s needed isn’t price slashing, but new products, new markets and new competitive models to deal with Dell. HP needs to go back to creating and managing those high performance White Space teams that made it great.
Changing leaders at HP certainly provides a pattern interrupt to the business. If he takes the popular route with analysts, and executes more disturbances like his predecessor, he can expect to continue the string of results below expectations. Instead, HP’s new CEO needs to follow through with effective disruptions that create White Space and returns HP to the HP Way.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 4, 2005 | Defend & Extend, Disruptions, Ethics, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Those of you familiar with The Phoenix Principle are familiar with our statistical review demonstrating the high failure rates of companies. Company longevity is far shorter than most of us realize. One significant impact of this phenomenon affects all of our company retirement accounts.
America largely depends upon private retirement. Social Security is considered substistence funding, and we are expected to make up the difference with either private funds or a retirement plan. For our parents, who expected near lifetime employment, these private retirement plans were their safety net. They depended on "the company" to fund their retirement and health care.
But let’s consider someone today who wants to retire at 65. They need to work, and pay into, a corporate retirement plan for at least 10 years, so they have to start at age 55. And they would expect to live until 80 (the current average). So, they want that company retirement plan to be around for at least 25 years. Yet, when we look at performance of the S&P 500 we know that only about 1 in 3 companies (yes, only 1/3) of the S&P 500 can expect to survive for 25 years. So where does that leave your retirement plan?
It’s even worse if you start your retirement planning at 45. Now you need your employer to stick around for you for 35 years. The odds of that are no better than about 1 in 4 (25%). So, where comes the funding for the retirement plan?
Now look at the problem from a large employer’s viewpoint. US Steel and GM are just 2 recent examples (out of several dozen) where the company has said they can’t afford to maintain the retirement program. Not surprising. Their lock in to their old Success Formula has pushed them way out into the swamp. So what happens to those retirees? Or those near retiring that had planned on that pension? They have gone along for 10, 20, 30 or more years believing in the Myth of the Flats, thinking that their employer would always be there for their retirement. But that myth is about to implode on them with painful consequences.
In an age of Creative Destruction, corporate retirement programs are little more than a wish. If the companies don’t succeed long enough to support the programs they are of little use to retirees.
Perhaps this should be part of the current debate regarding the future role, and funding, of Social Security. For sure it should be part of your plans for retirement.
