by Adam Hartung | Jun 13, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
If your boss told you that he enjoyed your hard work, but he wanted to cut your pay 50% I bet you would feel – well – violated. Your hard work is just that; hard work. If you received $100,000 (or $50,000 or $250,000) for that work last year it would be hard to accept receiving some fractionally lower amount for that same work next year. Especially given that every year you are able to work smarter, better and faster at what you do. Because your execution constantly improves you'd expect to receive more every year.
But in reality, it doesn't matter how hard we work. What matters is the value of that work. It's why nearly incoherent ball players and actors make millions while skillful engineers barely make 6 figures. In other words, pay inevitably ends up being the result of not only the output – it's volume and quality – but what it is worth. And that the compensation is a marketplace result – and not something we actually control – is hard for us to understand.
Every years many pundits decry "excessive" executive pay. There is ample discussion about how an executive received a boat load of money, meanwhile the company sales or profits or customer performance was less than average, or possibly even declined. Of course the executives don't think they are overpaid. They say "I worked hard, did my job, did what I thought was best and was agreed to by my Board of Directors. I did what most investors and my peers would have expected me to do. Therefore, I deserve this money – regardless of the results. I can't control markets or their many variables (like industry prices, costs of feedstock, international currency values, or the loss of a patent or other lawsuit, an industrial accident, or the development of a competitive breakthrough technology) so I can't control the results (like total revenues, or total profits or the stock prices). Therefore I deserve to be compensated for my hard work, even if things didn't work out quite like investors, customers, employees or suppliers might have liked."
This answer is hard for the detractors to accept. To them, if top management isn't responsible for results, who is? Yet, shockingly, each time this happens investment fund managers that own large stock positions will be interviewed, and they will agree the executives are doing their jobs so they should get paid based up on their title and industry – regardless the results.
An example of this behavior was reported by Crain's Chicago Business in "Tribune's $43M Bonus Plan Lambasted by Trustee." Even though Tribune Corporation's leadership, under Sam Zell, took the company from profitable to bankruptcy, and even though they've been unable to "fix" Tribune sufficiently to appease bondholders and develop a plan to remain a going concern thus exiting bankruptcy, the management team thinks it should be paid a bonus. Why? Because they are working diligently, and hard. So, even though there really are no acceptable results, they want to get paid a bonus.
We all have to realize that our company sales and profits are a result of the marketplace in which we compete, and the Success Formula we apply. The combination can produce very good results sometimes; even for a prolonged period. Newspapers had a good, long profitable run. But markets shift. When markets shift, we see that the old Success Formula must change because RESULTS deteriorate. Slow (or no, or negative) growth in revenues and/or profits and/or cash flow is a clear sign of a market shift creating a problem with the Success Formula. When this happens, rewarding EXECUTION (or hard work) is EXACTLY the WRONG thing to do! Doing more of the same will only exacerbate bad results – not fix them
What's bad for the business, in revenues/profits/cash flow, must (of necessity) be bad for the employees. Not because they are bad people. Or lazy, or incompetent, or arrogant, or any of many other bad connotations. But because the results are clearly saying that the value has eroded from the Success Formula . Usually because of a market shift (like readers and advertisers going from newspapers/print to the internet). What we MUST reward are the efforts to change the Success Formula, to get back to growing. Not hard work. As much as we'd like to say that hard work deserves money – we all know that money flows to the things we value regardless of how hard we work.
I've long been a detractor of many executives – Brenda Barnes at Sara Lee has been a frequent victim of this blog. Whitacre of GM another. Steve Ballmer at Microsoft. That the Boards of these companies compensate these leaders, and the teams they lead, is horrific. It reinforces the notion that what matters is hard work, willingness to toe the line of the old Success Formula, willingness to remain Locked-in to industry or company traditions – rather than results. Results which give independent feedback from the marketplace of the true value of the Success Formula.
Let's congratulate the Tribune Trustee. For once, more attention is being paid to results than to "hard work" or "execution." Tribune – like General Motors – needs a wholesale makeover. An entirely new team of leaders willing to Disrupt old Lock-ins and use White Space to define a new Success Formula. Willing to move the resources in these companies, including the employees, back into growth markets. If more Boards acted like the Tribune Trustee we'd be a lot better off because more companies would grow and maybe we'd move forward out of this recession.
by Adam Hartung | May 19, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Web/Tech, Weblogs
Do you lament "the way things used to be?" I remember my parents using that phrase. Now I often hear my peers. And it really worries me. Success requires constant growth, and when I hear business leaders talking about "the way things used to be" I fear they are unwilling to advance with market shifts.
For 5 years newspaper publishers have been lamenting the good old days, when advertisers had little choice but to pay high rates for display or classified ads. Newspaper publishers complain that on-line ads are too inexpensive, and thus unable to cover the costs of "legitimate" journalism. While they've watched revenues decline, almost none have done anything to effectively develop robust on-line businesses that can offer quality journalism for the future. Instead, most are cutting costs, reducing output and using bankruptcy protection to stay alive (such as Tribune Corporation.) Even as more and more readers shift toward the digital environment.
Source: Business Insider 5/18/10
While most of the "major" newspapers (including Tribune owned LA Times) have been trying to preserve their print business (Defend & Extend it) HuffingtonPost.com has gone out and built a following. There's little doubt that with the last 3 years trajectory, HuffingtonPost will soon be the largest site. And reports are that HuffingtonPost.com is profitable.
In 2006 the CFO at LATimes told me he couldn't divert more resources to his web department. He felt it would be jeopardize to the print business. "After all," he said "you don't think that the future of news will be bloggers do you?" Clearly, he was unprepared for the kind of model Arianna Huffington was building – and the kind of readership HuffingtonPost.com could create.
On Tuesday I presented the keynote address at the Innovation and Energy Summit in Grand Rapids, MI – and as reported in West Michigan Business "Energy & Innovation Summit Speakers Urge Business Leaders to Seek New Businesses, Not Protect Old Ones." Defend & Extend management always "feels" right. It seems like the smart thing to try and preserve the old Success Formula, usually by cutting costs and increasing focus on primary revenue sources. But in reality, this further blinds the organization to market shifts and makes it more vulnerable to disaster. While NewsCorp and others are busy trying to think like newspapers, emerging news market competitors are developing entirely different models that attract customers – and make a profit.
That's why it is so important to use future scenarios to drive planning (not old products and customers) while passionately studying competitors. Talking to advertisers gave these publishers no insight as to how to compete, however had they spent more time watching HuffingtonPost.com, and other on-line sites, they might well have used Disruptions to change their investment models – pushing more resources to the web business. And had they set up dedicated White Space teams not constrained by old Lock-ins to traditional revenue models and goals of "avoiding advertiser cannibalization" they might very well have evolved to a more effective Success Formula necessary for competing on the internet into 2020.
by Adam Hartung | Apr 19, 2010 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Is news dying, or are newspapers dying? That's a critical question. Most of us know the demand for news is not dying – and if you needed reinforcement a recent McKinsey & Company study verified that the demand for news has increased (McKinsey Quarterly "A Glimmer of Hope for Newspapers"). And a lot of the increase comes from people under 35 who are escalating their news demands. Of course, most of this increase is coming from the web and mobile media.
Too often, however, we don't see our business growing. Instead, Lock-in to old definitions make us think our business is shrinking when it is actually doing the opposite! And that's the Re-invention Gap. Manufacturers of small printing presses said demand was declining in the 1970s, when in fact demand for copies was exploding. Only the explosion was from xerography instead of presses. So A.B. Dick and Multigraphics, small offset press manufacturers, went out of business when demand for the output of their product was exploding! The market shifted, but it kept growing, and they missed the shift.
Today we see this behavior in most news publishers. Those who print newspapers and magazines are talking about how horrible business is. Only the demand for news is growing more quickly than ever. It's just not demand for print, which arrives too late for many customers. And because print is too slow a distribution method for these customers, advertisers are abandoning print as well. But only if you're Locked-in to printing do you say the market is horrible. Because with demand for news growing, if you reposition yourself to serve the growing part of the market you should say business is great!
Tribune Corporation, owner of The Chicago Tribune newspaper is still in bankruptcy. And its future relies entirely on how well it will serve the needs of on-line news readers. According to Crain's Chicago Business, in "Former Sports Editor Bill Adee Steers Chicago Tribune's On-line Strategy" print advertising revenues fell by 9% versus last year in the most recent quarter. And according to a quoted investment banker, nobody would have much interest in the value of a print newspaper. That business is destined to keep declining.
But simultaneously the volume of on-line ads tripled! And that's what a business has to do to cross its Re-invention Gap. It has to move from the old business into the new business – from the declining elements of its business into the growth elements.
What most businesses do wrong is try to apply their old business model to the new business. The old Success Formula has Lock-ins to metrics, schedules, processes, frequent decisions, decision-makers, strategic plans, etc. which the leadership tries to apply to the new business. For example, most newspapers are used to selling ads for several thousand dollars, based upon the number of subscribers. These are pretty large price points. But on-line, ads are sold per page view or per click. Now we're talking pennies sometimes. And to make money, you have to get a lot of views. Likewise, newspapers work on a 24 hour cycle of news accumulation and publishing, whereas the internet is 24×7 with the opportunity to change headlines and what's reported continuously. If a newspaper tries to apply the old Success Formulas related to sales, pricing and editorial process they fail.
And that's why crossing the re-invention gap requires a big Disruption. You have to get the organization to understand that while you are managing the old business, it is destined to eventually go under. So you have to be prepared to Disrupt the Lock-ins, to discover a new way to do the business. And that can only happen if there is a White Space team dedicated to building a business the way the new marketplace will pay for it. Totally separated from the old business. And exactly the opposite of what Tribune is doing by placing the team in the middle of the old newsroom!
At Tribune, one of the big problems is not only the ad pricing model and news scheduling, but the fact that the leadership is still trying to drive content like they did at the newspaper. Over a decade ago Tribune took a direction of accumulating less news on its own, and as a result it republished lots of content. But now on the internet republishing (or content aggregation as it is called on-line) is far less valuable because readers can go to the source. There are thousands and thousands of aggregators – making competition intense and profits negligible. Why page view a Chicago Tribune web page that's feeding info from the New York Times or Marketwatch or MSNBC when you can go directly to the New York Times or Marketwatch or MSNBC and get it yourself – possibly with other interesting sidebars? Succeeding in the new market requires developing an entirely new Success Formula – which Tribune Company has not done. It's still trying to find that magical "leverage" which will allow it to preserve its "history" (its old Success Formula) while tiptoeing into the new marketplace.
I don't know any newspaper or magazine publisher that has really attacked its Lock-ins, really Disrupted, or set up a true White Space team to explore how to make money in the growing new news market. News Corp. had the chance when it bought MySpace.com, but failed as it destroyed the MySpace business by "helping" its leadership. This market requires understanding how to get the news and report it cheaply and very fast, to computer and mobile device users. That is necessary to obtain the traffic which would be valuable to advertisers. And simultaneously the new team must package ad sales so as to maximize revenues from page views. Most are far too reliant on single ad sales, and not effectively linking the right ads to the right pages to generate more click-throughs as well as views.
Re-invention Gaps emerge because we let Lock-in blind us to growth opportunities. We define the business around the Lock-ins (such as printing a newspaper) rather than defining it around what the market wants (news.) Then when revenues stumble, starting a growth stall, the energy goes into preserving the old Success Formula (and its Lock-ins) first with cost cuts, and later with efforts to "synergize" or "leverage" the old Success Formula into the new market. And this never works. The growing part of the market is entirely different, and requires developing an entirely new Success Formula. That's why even in growing markets businesses fail, unless they commit to Dis
rupting the Lock-in and using White Space to move back into the growth Rapids.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 24, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, Film, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
Blockbuster Video is in big trouble. Most analysts think the company is going to file bankruptcy – unlikely to survive – with a mere $.30 stock price today. Most of us remember when the weekly (or more frequent) trip to Blockbuster was part of every day life. Like too many companies, Blockbuster was in the Rapids of growth when people wanted VHS tapes, then DVDs, to rent – and CDs to purchase. We happily paid up several dollars for rentals and purchases. Blockbuster grew quickly, and developed a powerful Success Formula that aided its growth.
As it is failing, I was startled by a Forbes.com article "What Blockbuster Video Can Teach Us About Economics." The author contends that this failure is a good thing, because it will release poorly used resources to new application. Like most economists, his idea has good theory. But I doubt the employees (who lose pay and benefits), shareholders, debt holders, bankers, landlords and suppliers – as well as the remaining customers, appreciate his point of view. Theory won't help them deal with lost cash flow and expensive transition costs.
As the market shifted to mail order and on-line downloads, Blockbuster could have changed its Success Formula. But instead the company remained Locked-in to doing what it has always done. It will fail not because some force of nature willed its demise. Rather, management made the bad decision to try Defending & Extending an out of date business model – rather than exploring market shifts, studying the competition intensely then using Disruptions and White Space to attack both Netflix and the on-line players. Blockbuster's demise was not a given. Rather, it was a result of following out of date management practices that now have serious costs to the businesses and people who are part of the Blockbuster eco-system. I struggle to see how that is a good thing.
Fortunately, ManagementExcellence.com has a great article about ideas for attacking a threatened Success Formula in order to avoid becoming a Blockbuster entitled "Leadership Caffeine: 7 Odd Ideas to Help You Get Unstuck." The author specifically takes aim at the comfort of Lock-in, and describes how managers can start to make Disruption part of everyday life:
- Fight the tyranny of Recurring Meetings
- Rotate Leadership
- Break the back of bad-habit brainstorming
- Do something completely off-task with your group
- Introduce your team to thought leaders and innovators
- Play games
- Change up your routine
Described in detail in the article, these are simple things anybody can do that begin to reveal how deeply we Lock-in, and expose the power of how we could behave differently. If Blockbuster management had applied these ideas, the company would have been a lot more likely to return positively to society – rather than become another bankruptcy statistic.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 11, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
I don't know the source of the phrase, but since a young boy I've heard "Nero fiddled while Rome burned." The phrase was used to describe a leader who was so out of touch he was unable to do the necessary things to save his city and the people in it. Lately, it seems like General Motors is ancient Rome.
"General Motors to launch the 'un-Dealership" is the Mediapost.com headline. Trying to leverage auto shows, GM is going to open minimally-branded brick-and-mortar locations in 3 or 4 cities where customers can test drive Chevrolet and other cars. The idea is that with less pressure from salespeople, customers will come use the internet cafe and hang out while occasionally test driving a car. Then they'll be fired up to go buy a GM product.
If that isn't fiddling…… well…… When will leaders admit GM is in seriously dire trouble? The company has lopped off complete product lines (Saturn, Hummer, Saab and Pontiac) and whacked away large numbers of dealers. Their cars are uninteresting, and losing market share to domestic (Ford) and foreign manufacturers. Design cycles are too long, products do not meet customer needs and competitors are zeroing in on GM customers. Product sales, and even dealerships, are being propped up using government subsidies. The best news in the GM business has been all the troubles Toyota is having.
During this malaise, the new GM Board agreed to appoint Ed Whitacre as the permanent CEO (see ABCnews.com article "GM Chairman Ed Whitacre Named Permanent CEO.") Great, just what GM needed. Another 70 year old white male as CEO who developed his business experience in the monopoly of the phone industry. Who's primary claim to fame was that after Judge Green tore AT&T apart to create competition he was able to put it back together – only after the marketplace for land-line phones had begun declining and without growth businesses like mobile data.
As the ABC article notes, Mr. Whitacre sees his role running GM as "a public service… I think this company is good for America. I think America needs this." Just the kind of enthusiasm we all like to hear from a turnaround CEO.
GM needs to get aggressive about change if it is going to survive in a flat auto business with global competitors. The company has no clear view of how it will be part of a different future, nor any keen insight to competitors. It is floundering to manage its historical products and distribution, with no insight as to how it will outmaneuver tough companies like Honda, Kia and Tata. It has not attacked its outdated product line, nor its design cycle, nor its approach to manufacturing. It has very little R&D, and is behind practically all competitors with innovations. A caretaker is NOT what GM needs.
I blogged months ago that GM needed a leader who was ready to change the company. Ready to adopt scenario planning, competitor obsession, Disruptions and White Space to drive industry change and give GM a fighting chance at competing in the future. It's going to take a lot more than 4 test drive centers with internet access and latte machines to make GM competitive. But given what the new Board did, putting Mr. Whitacre in the CEO role, the odds are between slim and none the right things will happen.
To survive you have to BEAT the competition. Read more about "The 10 ways to Beat the Competition" at BusinessInsider.com
by Adam Hartung | Feb 16, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
About 30 years ago Roberta Flack hit the top of the record charts (remember records anybody?) with "Killing Me Softly" – a love song. Today we have 2 examples of CEO's softly killing their shareholders, employees and investors. Definitely NOT a love song.
Sears has continued its slide, which began the day Chairman Lampert acquired the company and merged it with KMart. I blogged this was a bad idea day of announcement. Although there was much fanfare at the beginning, since day 1 Mr. Lampert has pursued an effort to Defend & Extend the outdated Sears Success Formula. And simultaneously Defend & Extend his outdated personal Success Formula based on leveraged financing and cost cutting. The result has been a dramatic reduction in Sears stores, a huge headcount reduction, lower sales per store, less merchandise available, fewer customers, empty parking lots, acres of unused real estate and horrible profits. Nothing good has happened. Nobody, not customers, suppliers or investors, have benefited from this strategy. Sears is almost irrelevant in the retail scene, a zombie most analysts are waiting to expire.
Today Crain's Chicago Business reported "Sears to Offer Diehard Power Accessories for Sale at Other Retailers." Sears results are so bad that Mr. Lampert has decided to try pushing these batteries, charges, etc. through another channel. At this late stage, all this will do is offer a few incremental initial sales – but reduce the appeal of Sears as a retailer – and eventually diminish the brand as its wide availability makes it compete head-to-head with much stronger auto battery brands like Energizer, Duralast, Optima and the heavily advertised Interstate. Sears has attempted to "milk" the Diehard brand for cash for many years, and placed in retail stores head-to-head with these other products it won't be long before Sears learns that its competitive position is weak as sales decline.
Mr. Lampert needed to "fix" Sears – not try to cut costs and drain it of cash. He needed to rebuild Sears as a viable competitor by rethinking its market position, obsessing about competitors and using Disruptions to figure out how Sears could compete with the likes of WalMart, Target, Kohl's, Home Depot, JC Penneys and other strong retailers. Now, his effort to further "milk" Diehard will quickly kill it – and make Sears an even less viable competitor.
Simultaneously, Chairperson Barnes at Sara Lee has likewise been destroying shareholder value, employee careers and supplier growth goals since taking over. During her tenure Sara Lee has sold buisinesses, cut headcount, killed almost all R&D and new product development, sold real estate and otherwise squandered away the company assets. Sara Lee is now smaller, but nobody – other than perhaps herself – has benefited from her extremely poor leadership.
As this business failure continues advancing, Crain's Chicago Business reports "Sara Lee to Spend $3B on Stock Buyback." In 2009 Sara Lee announced it was continuing the dismantling of the company by selling its body-care business to
Unilever and its air-freshener products and assets to Procter & Gamble Co. for approximately $2.2 billion. As an investor you'd like to hear all that money was being reinvested in a high growth business that would earn a significant rate of return while adding to the top line for another decade. As a supplier you'd like to hear this money would strengthen the financials, and help Sara Lee to invest in new products for growth that you could support. As an employee you'd like this money to go into new projects for revenue growth that could help your personal growth and career advancement.
But, instead, Ms. Barnes will use this money to buy company stock. This does nothing but put a short-term prop under a falling valuation. Like bamboo poles holding up a badly damaged brick wall. As investors flee, because there is no growth, low rates of return and no indication of a viable future, the money will be spent to prop up the price by buying shares from these very intelligent owner escapees. After a couple of years the money will be gone, Sara Lee will be smaller, and the shares will fall to their fair market value – no longer propped up by this corporate subsidy. The only possible winner from this will be Sara Lee executives, like Ms. Barnes, who probably have incentive compensation tied to stock price — rather than something worthwhile like organic revenue growth.
Both of these very highly paid CEOs are simply killing their business. Softly and quietly, as if they are doing something intelligent. Just because they are in powerful positions does not make them right. To the contrary, this is an abuse of their positions as they squander assets, and harm the suburban Chicago communities where they are headquartered. That their Boards of Directors are approving these decisions just goes to show how ineffective Boards are at looking out for the interests of shareholders, employees and suppliers – as they ratify the decisions of their friendly Chairperson/CEOs who put them in their Board positions. The Boards of Sears and Sara Lee are demonstrating all the governance skill of the Boards at Circuit City and GM.
It's too bad. Both companies could be viable competitors. But not as long as the leadership tries to Defend & Extend outdated Success Formulas unable to produce satisfactory rates of return. Lacking serious Disruption and White Space, these two publicly traded companies remain on the road to failure.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 2, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
"Henderson Never Fit In At GM Helm" is the Detroit Free Press headline. Imagine that – the CEO of GM has been asked to leave. Industry sales are down about 24%, and GM is down 32%. Meanwhile, Mr. Henderson had proposed selling 4 divisions (Saab, Opel, Hummer and Saturn) – which were the most interesting divisions in the company – and none of those deals have closed. In fact, 3 have fallen apart completely. Only the Hummer sale to a Chinese firm is potentially going to happen. In fact, it's hard to find anything good that's happened at GM since Mr. Henderson took over. Including closing Pontiac.
When the government invested in GM this year the existing Chairman/CEO, Rick Waggoner, was forced to resign. Imagine that, after puting several bilion in a company the investor's transition team replaced the CEO who got the company into bankruptcy, almost out of cash, with no plan for recovery. Also, the Board, which had allowed GM to get into such a mess without even raising tough questions, was replaced. All seems remarkably sensible given the sorry state of the company.
The goverment led transition team, which rocketed GM through bankruptcy, cleaned the ceiling, but then selected Mr. Waggoner's hand-picked successor (Mr. Henderson) to replace him. The claim was they'd need 6 months to search for somebody new and didn't want to take the time. And they put in a lifetime monopolist, Mr. Whiteacre of AT&T, as Chairman. And a 40+ year industry veteran was made head of marketing (Mr. Lutz.) And a 40+ year company employee was kept as CFO. And we're supposed to be surprised that things aren't going well?
The Chairman and replacement CEO says of the company says "Whiteacre: GM On the Right Path," also in the Detroit Free Press. But do you believe him? What does he know about competing successfully against intense foreign led competitors who move fast? The AT&T that trained him early in his career failed horribly, never succeeding in any market outside the U.S. and getting cleaned by offshore competitors in hardware and mobile telephony. And as head of Southwestern Bell, all he did was rebuild the old "Bell system" of land-line companies – without effectively taking a leading position in any new telephony business. Or any other business. Broadband, mobile phones, digital television – can you think of any market where today's AT&T is a technology, product development, innovation or other market leader? He may have bought up a bunch of the old spun out businesses, but those are on their last legs as people give up land lines and transition to a different sort of connected future.
What's surprising is that GM isn't doing worse. But it's unlikely Mr. Whiteacre, or Mr. Henderson's replacement, will do much better. Several candidates are from inside GM – all with the same Lock-ins that allowed Messrs. Waggoner, Henderson and Lutz to perform so abysmally – despite incredible pay packages for many years. In "Selling GM's CEO Job to be Tough Task" (Detroit Free Press) headhunters claim that the industry is so complex they'll have a hard time finding someone talented who will work for the pay. Balderdash. That's only true because they are so Locked-in to traditional thinking about who should lead GM that they keep trying to recycle already overpaid CEOs who have done little for shareholders. That's not what's needed at GM.
Give us a break. Who would want an industry veteran in the job at all? And why would a recruiter hunt for somebody with a lot of industrial-era Lock-ins. GM's investors (that's the citizens of the USA and Canada,) employees and vendors need somebody who's ready to move beyond the old industry and company Success Formulas and do something very different. Willing to develop entirely new scenarios of the future which alter the competitive playing field and then Disrupt the organization in order to start doing new things. Before Tata Motors and China's Chery auto join the other companies ready to put GM into the grave.
It's amazing how "inside the box" the people who are leading GM, and advising the company, remain. Why not try to recruit somebody from Tesla to take over? The long-delayed electric Chevy Volt might well get to market faster – and in a more desirable form – if that were to happen. Or how about an heir apparent at fast growing Cisco Systems? Those people know how to pay attention to the market and move quickly to give customers what they need – profitably.
Turning around GM requires leadership that will change the Success Formula. Not try to Defend it, or Extend it with slowly evolving variations and minimal change. The whole house needs to be cleaned. The investor representatives who led the transition pulled up short of finishing their job. Only by bringing in new managers who are willing to see a very different future, unbounded by the GM legacy, can GM's competitive position be changed – and if GM tries to keep competing the way it has Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Tata Motors, et. all will eat GM's dinner. And only by Disrupting the old Lock-ins, using White Space teams to develop new solutions, can GM regain viability.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 5, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
"Saturn Done in Four Months" is the Autoweek.com headline. The next time somebody brings up the short life cycle of tech products, remember Saturn. GM started the company, grew it, and now is shutting it down on a timeline that roughly corresponds with the life of Sun Microsystems. Clearly manufacturing companies can do just as poorly as techs.
When Penske lost itsmanufacturing deal, the purchase of Saturn fell through. And GM leadership can't wait to clear out inventory. Production has already stopped. Soon, the products and dealers will disappear. Along with the brand name. Another experiment that failed. So it is very important our post-mortem teaches us the right lessons from Saturn.
I was appalled when Harvard Business School Publishing posted "Why Saturn Was Destined to Fail." According to the author, Saturn was an anchor that drug down a hurt GM!!!! Reporting that the successful Saturn launch came at the loss of $3,000 per car sold (a new factoid I've never before heard), he claims that GM should have been more focused on fixing its old business. The implication is that GM wasn't trying to fix its old business, instead being diverted by the very successful operations at Saturn! Pretty illogical. GM was doing everything it could to compete, but improving its old Success Formula simply wasn't enough given the market shifts already in place. To meet changing market requirements GM needed to develop a new Success Formula, and that was the purpose of Saturn!
Saturn was the best chance GM had to succeed! The Success Formula at Chevrolet and the other GM divisions had been created in the 1950s when GM dominated the industry. But by 1980 the market had shifted dramatically. Design cycles had dropped, customer tastes had changed, production methods had moved from long assembly lines to just-in-time, quality requirements were redefined and rising, and impressions of auto dealers had tanked. Saturn was established to teach GM how to compete differently.
The reason Saturn lost money had everything to do with accounting. GM forced all kinds of costs onto GM – which were not representative of a normal start-up. Without those costs, Saturn would have been much leaner and profitable. Further, after Saturn proved it could move faster and outsell expectations, GM quickly moved to force Saturn to act like other GM divisions. Forced sharing of components severely hampered the design cycle and flexibility. Union contract consistency pushed Saturn into old employee agreements which the union had previously agreed to wave. And forcing Saturn to allow traditional GM dealers to sell the Saturn brand tarnished the changed customer relationship Saturn worked hard to create.
When Roger Smith created GM he set it up seperately. His scenario of the future demanded GM figure out a new way to compete. Saturn, was a White Space project with permission and resources to figure out that new way. But Chairman Smith did not Disrupt the old GM auto management. He did not replace the Division presidents with leaders from EDS or Hughes (businesses he had acquired) who were willing to move in a new direction. He did not change the resource allocation system to give Saturn more clout over its own decisions and those at other divisions. Thus, when he left the larger divisions moved fast to change Saturn into their mold – rather than vice-versa. Instead of Chevrolet learning from Saturn, Saturn managers were forced to adopt Chevrolet practices.
Saturn proved that even a stodgy, Locked-in company can use White Space to develop new solutions. And it also proved that if you aren't willing to Disrupt the old Success Formula – if you aren't willing to attack old Lock-ins – White Space (regardless of its success) is unlikely to convert the company into a better competitor. The lesson of Saturn is NOT that it diverted GM's attention, but rather that GM was unwilling to Disrupt its Success Formula to learn from Saturn.
As investors, the question is pretty easy. Would you rather own Saturn, Pontiac and Hummer – the divisions of GM that had loyal customers and some reputation for innovation, quality and customer satisfaction – or Cadillac, Buick and Chevrolet? Would you rather have businesses that are looking forward with early plans for hybrids, and exciting cars like the G8, or a high volume business in cars that most people find ho-hum, at best? Do you want designers that take chances and bring out cars quickly, or that move slowly seeking the "lowest common denominator" in design? If you were an entrepreneur, would you rather be given pemission to lead Saturn, or Chevrolet?
Learning the right lessons from Saturn is important, or else our business leaders are doomed to repeat the GM mistakes. If you don't challenge your Success Formula, White Space project will be met with great resistance by the organization. They will be saddled with unnecessary costs and requirements that strip them of permission to do what the market demands. And they will not achieve the goals which they established to accomplish, including acting as a beacon for migrating a business forward.
For a deeper treatment of this topic please download the free ebook "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes."
by Adam Hartung | Oct 4, 2009 | Books, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Lifecycle, Web/Tech
Do you remember when AOL dominated the internet? In the early 1990s most people who used the internet actually were AOL clients. They bought their internet access, via dial-up modems, from AOL. Their interface (browser) was from AOL. And most of the sites – and navigation – was driven by AOL. AOL was the "monster" of the web. And it created enormous value for investors from this leadership position. It's value stormed to over $160billion!
Chart from Silicon Alley Insider
But as we can see, once acquired by Time Warner AOL tried to Defend & Extend its position. These actions pushed AOL into the Swamp, an undefendable position in the rapidly growing internet world. Defending its position proved impossible, as people found better and lower cost solutions for accessing and using the web. Now AOL is in the Whirlpool, fast disappearing – an historical anecdote about early internet days.
Apple has only about 2% market share in mobile phones. On the one hand, this could appear nearly immaterial. But if we look at usage, we see a very different story
Chart courtesy Silicon Alley Insider
iPhone application growth, which is clearly becoming logarithmic, demonstrates a change in the marketplace. People are clearly using these devices for more than making calls. Unlike AOL, which tried to hold people into their environment – or even Motorola's RAZR which tried to dominate sales of phones with pricing – Apple isn't trying to Defend & Extend a market position. Apple is creating a market disruption by changing how mobile devices are used. Promulgating applications increases demand for the iPhone (and iTouch) as not just phones but as replacements for laptops and other internet devices. Possibly ereaders like Kindle. This pulls people toward Apple's devices, which will generate strong future growth. By constantly bringing out new uses, Apple disrupts the market for phones, computers and internet access devices. Positioning its own products to be big winners as demand continues growing, and keeping Apple in the Rapids.
PostScript –
I was pleased to see a recent Wall Street Journal article "What Kills Great Companies: Inertia." The message of Lock-in as a source of business problems keeps spreading. This time Gary Hamel talks about some of the sources of Lock-in he sees. Reads like he bought a copy of "Create Marketplace Disruption"!
by Adam Hartung | Sep 15, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
The Real Blindness Behind The Collapse
Adam Hartung,
09.14.09, 05:00 PM EDT
The exact same failing brought down Wall Street, Detroit and Main Street's real estate speculators.
"Too big to fail" is a new phrase in the American lexicon, born in the economic crisis that gave us a bankrupt Lehman Brothers and the shotgun marriage of Merrill Lynch with Bank of America.
Nobody really knows what it means, except that somehow in the banking
world, central bankers can decide that some institutions–like AIG, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and BofA–are so big they simply have to be kept alive.
This is the first paragraph in my latest column for Forbes. There is much EVERY business leader can learn from the collapse of Lehman. Learn about risk, and about how to succeed in a shifting marketplace. Please give the Forbes article a read – and put on a comment! Everybody enjoys reading what others think!
