by Adam Hartung | Oct 20, 2005 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
Kraft‘s shares have dropped about 22% in the last year. They are flat over 2 years. They are down around 25% for three years, and down 35% from their peak in 2002. Recent profit announcements affirmed that Kraft is currently making 13.5% less than it made in the same quarter a year ago.
Company CEO Deromedi explained away the poor performance with "We don’t want to repeat mistakes we made in early 2003 when we raised prices and had significant share declines." So, 3 years into a restructuring the CEO says investors can hope for either sales at low profits, or less sales? (see full Chicago Tribune story)
When was the last time your boss said you could spend 3 years trying to get your job right with no performance improvement? The CEO certainly has high expectations for investor patience, doesn’t he?
Kraft is completely stuck in the Swamp, as it moves toward the Whirlpool. The company never disrupted its worn out Success Formula, and keeps trying to regain the glory years when "America Spelled Cheese K-R-A-F-T" (remember that ad slogan?) Yes, it is launching a new South Beach Diet line, but because it’s still using its old, poorly performing Success Formula that line is not moving the company toward a bright (and more profitable future.) The head of new products left in June. And in the last year they’ve sold businesses to both Wrigley and Kellogg in an effort to shore up the P&L.
Kraft’s leadership needs to create some White Space and find a new future – instead of trying to resurrect Velveeta-land.
by Adam Hartung | Oct 17, 2005 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
GM announced a plan to cut retiree and employee healthcare costs by $18B per year today. It also plans to cut another 8% of its workforce (25,000 jobs) on top of the 30% cut in employment it’s taken over the last 5 years. Oh, and by the way, the company is investigating selling it’s most profitable (and practically only) profitable business – GMAC.
Analysts cheered the actions, and the stock climbed on the news (despite reporting big losses.) What do they expect? Is GM going to save its way to prosperity?
GM is hopelessly mired in the Swamp. With losses mounting, and a corporate raider on their doorstep (Kirk Kerkorian now owns 10% of GM) you’d think leadership would recognize that the Challenges warrant some serious Disruption of their Success Formula (and not these ineffective disturbances). But no, not this leadership. They appear willing to take any action to Defend & Extend their failing Success Formula. Even if it means cutting off their supply of resources (GMAC) and cutting rations to their own troops.
Maybe Kerkorian can bring in a management team capable of really changing GM (he did team with Lee Iacocca on his takeover of MGM Grand). It’s certainly clear that the current leadership has no clue how to overcome existing Lock-In.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 15, 2005 | Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Quotes
"The slide into bankruptcy protection of two of the USA’s largest airlines is more a result of the carriers’ bad assumptions and slowness to act than the recent rise in fuel prices or the devastating terror attacks four years ago." USAToday 9/15/05 page B1.
Woe are many of the airline companies. They’ve been challenged to find a new, profitable business model. And instead they’ve blamed their employees (too expensive), their customers (disloyal and cheap) and commodity traders (rising fuel prices) for their failures. The leadership of these companies has done everything it can to continue Defending and Extending their broken Success Formula. But not even post 9/11 federal government bailouts were enough.
When companies don’t step up to their market challenges by disrupting their operations and finding new solutions then their future is easy to predict. Too bad for America that nearly half of the industry capacity is now in bankruptcy (and thousands of jobs at risk, not to mention the strain on the federal government’s Pension Benefit Guarantee system) simply because management would not stop trying to do more of what it had been doing (more, better, faster, cheaper) – an impossible plan for saving these companies.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 6, 2005 | Books, Defend & Extend, General, Lifecycle, Lock-in
There’s a new book out that’s well worth reading. Bait and Switch by Barbara Ehrenreich. There’s a great review (in case you don’t have time to read the whole book right now) In the Chicago Tribune by a University of Chicago Professor of history – Eric Arnesen.
Barbara’s thesis is pretty simple – there are a lot of white collar people unemployed and underemployed. So, as a quasi-anthropologist/journalist she faked up a resume, joined some networking groups and went job hunting. What she found is all too familiar to those struggling with white collar unemployment, and simultaneously insightful.
Barbara learned that unemployed and underemployed people tend to blame themselves for their difficulties. As if they simply didn’t work hard enough, try hard enough and diligently pursue all possibilities. Likewise, the herds of advisors in network groups, outplacement firms, job counselors and authors all put the blame for the unemployed squarely on those without good jobs and looking. Lots of advice is "more, better, faster – and consider making yourself cheaper." The same sort of lousy advice that gets businesses with broken Success Formulas into deeper trouble (and failure).
What Barbara also points out is that this answer is….. well…… insufficient. The economy has changed. The work world isn’t like we were promised in school. Globalization of skills, rapid "boom to bust" lifecycles of companies and wicked swings in market shares have made employment opportunities shorter and underemployment a fact of life. Much of what people are suffering through isn’t caused by them – but rather by a change in the working environment in which we all participate.
I regularly speak to networking groups. I find the same phenomenon Barbara describes. People searching for their "last job", rather than the "next job." Individuals become locked-in to a personal Success Formula developed early in their careers, and they keep trying to find a way to make that Success Formula work. But it won’t. The world has changed. What’s needed isn’t "the old jobs" but rather for those who are looking to realize they really have to change what they are looking for, how they are looking for it and often their own primary strengths. They have to compete in this new, transparent "information economy." And that requires a personal implementation of The Phoenix Principle.
Those who will continue to succeed will be able to understand that the employment market has changed. They must recognize their lock-in to old notions, and they must attack that lock-in so they can open doors to new approaches for developing their careers. They need to disrupt themselves, internally, and create personal White Space in order to find new search processes and improve those strengths which are valuable in today’s job marketplace. The Phoenix Principle doesn’t just apply to industries and companies that lock-in to old competitive structures – but to individuals as well.
Give Barbara’s book a read. And then think about what it will take for you to stop trying to Defend & Extend your career, and instead grow into a whole new set of opportunities. We all have to face the fact that retirement age is being pushed higher and higher, and thus we’ll all have to work longer. We might as well enjoy it – and that means modifying our Success Formulas to fit the working world of the future.
by Adam Hartung | Sep 2, 2005 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle
How do you read the trends in a business from the outside? Look at the articles on page 3. We all read the headlines. But headlines are dictated by what’s relatively interesting TODAY. This short-term phenomenon is not a good way to interpret what’s happening over time.
On Wednesday of this week (8/31/05) the Chicago Tribune business section led with articles about the business impact of Katrina. As they should. But when you turned the page, there were two very interesting, and short, adjacent articles on Motorola and McDonalds (courtesy of Bloomberg News).
The 4 inch by 4 inch text box on Motorola calmly reported that the company was retiring another $1B in bonds. This is on top of $2B in bond repurchases over the last year. Debt is down over 40% since January, 2004 and the company’s credit rating by Moody’s has been raised. By the way, sales and profits have risen over 10% for 6 straight quarters. The lower debt will allow Motorola to consider new investments in R&D and possibly acquisitions.
Meanwhile, the 2 inch by 8 inch text box on McDonald’s said the company was borrowing $3B to repatriate foreign earnings in order to take advantage of a short-term government tax break. By the way, this caused a recent 10% drop in reported earnings on top of the smallest sales gain in 2 years. The repatriated cash will be used to extend the company’s business model by opening new stores (anyone recall the store shuttering program in 2000-2001?), remodelings and paying salaries (no joke – paying salaries!).
I’ve written in this BLOG before about the great difference between Motorola and McDonald’s. One has disrupted itself and opened White Space to innovate – clearly moving rapidly from the Swamp back into the Rapids. The other is practicing Defend & Extend management as it continues struggling in the Swamp. To track performance, keep your eyes on page 3.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 30, 2005 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
Warren Buffet is often called the Oracle of Omaha. His track record at making money for investors in his company – Berkshire Hathaway – was remarkable for several years. Many have heard the story about how a mere $1,000 invested inthe late 1970’s is worth over $80,000 today. But, if you look closer, you’ll see that the company stock is about the same today as it was in 1998. Buffet really hasn’t made a lot of money for investors the last several years.
It’s foolish to attack an investing legend, yet it is worthwhile to look at whether what worked for Buffet for years is still working. As we know, the future is not the past and any company is subject to lock-in and deteriorating returns.
Last year Buffet’s Berkshire made a big investment in Pier 1 Imports. This helped prop up Pier 1’s stock price for a few months, but since then the company’s value has declined about 50%. This year the company suffered it’s first quarterly loss in history. According to Business Week, the company’s CEO has admitted he’s ashamed of company performance. Oops! Buffet hasn’t commented.
About 8 years ago Buffet’s Berkshire made a big investment in Coca-Cola. Such a large investment they put him on the Board. After that investment Coke’s market value doubled by 1998 – but then it started a slide that has Coke’s value back again to about what Buffet paid. Other than dividends, Berkshire hasn’t made any money. Oops! (And if you invested after Buffet you would have lost money.)
Buffet made a huge fortune with a strategy that worked incredibly well. But will it work going forward? He enjoyed buying companies that had a large asset which he perceived as undervalued and then hanging on while that asset rose in value. But increasingly these kinds of assets aren’t able to regain their old value. Companies like Pier 1 and Coke have hit growth stalls that have been deadly. Attempts to implement short-term fixes to their business models have been ineffective in the face of larger challenges to those models.
No one bats 1.00 (to use a baseball analogy) on their investments. But it’s increasingly obvious that Berkshire Hathaway’s strategy hasn’t been hitting so well. Their insurance and re-insurance investments aren’t producing like before, and even Mr. Buffet has been required to give testimony on intercompany relationships with scandals such as AIG. Oops! (This is not to impune Mr. Buffet – there have been no accusations of wrong doing by him or Berkshire Hathaway.)
Has Berkshire Hathaway hit a growth stall itself? Is the Oracle of Omaha locked-in, and possibly missing opportunities to improve shareholder return? Time will tell, but short term (looking at the last 10 years) Buffet shows all the signs of lock-in, and a stall – and that would trouble me if I owned Berkshire Hathaway stock. Mr. Buffet well deserves his opportunities on the public stage, yet it’s worth some hard thinking the next time you’re tempted to follow his lead on investments.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 20, 2005 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
Some of you may remember the old war movies in which the soldiers say "it’s the bullet you don’t hear that gets you." There have been a lot of movies in which the people who are killed make the point that it’s not what you see that gets you, it’s what you don’t see. There is no "Cry of the Banshee" prior to receiving the deadly blow. In business, it’s the same thing. It’s not the factors you plan on that kills your profitability, it’s what you don’t see. It’s not the threat from the direct competition that makes you business model unviable – it’s something that you never expected.
During 2005 there are two remarkable businesses that never saw it coming – and now they are facing great pain. They are household names with tremendous legacy and unbelievably profitable histories. But I can’t find any analysts who think they have growth in their future – and even the companies themselves admit they are facing a lower growth future. And their market values, employees, vendors and customers are all facing difficulty
Wal-Mart and Merck.
Wal-Mart has done about everything a discount retailer can do right. They’ve cut costs, appealed directly to their customers with lower prices. Created tremendous careers for their employees. But what they didn’t predict was a tripling of gasoline prices taking a relatively huge bite out of the discretionary incomes of their target customers. Now, with energy costs eating up the money they’d spend at the Wal-Mart stores the company is struggling to find a way to keep up its growth history.
Merck was the darling of Wal-Street in 1987. It was the highest P/E in the DJIA. It’s growth was spectacular. Not one analyst thought you could go wrong by buying Merck stock (and in all fairness if you bought it then you would have made a lot of money). But no one ever figured that one questionable drug (Vioxx) could destroy billions of dollars in shareholder wealth. The Merck business model made them rich while improving the lives of millions of people. But that same business model pushed Merck to aggressively market drugs directly to patients (rather than to doctors only), and to possibly push drugs into market use a bit quicker. And now the very health of Merck itself is in question.
Both these companies have been undeniably successful. World leaders. And they honed and pruned their business models to perfection for the competitive marketplace they were in. They locked-in that business model, and worked to defend and extend it as fast as possible. And that lock-in to the successful past practices meant they never saw it coming – they didn’t see what would cause them to stall. They didn’t see what could eventually knock them off their top spots.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 21, 2005 | Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lifecycle
Motorola announced a great profit leap this week. Sales keep going up in all markets, and most notably sales of Motorola handsets have been gaining share. It was just 2 years ago that most analysts had given up on Motorola. They tagged the company as unresponsive to customers and a bad investment. But now, analysts all over are trumpeting the success at this aged, but recovering, company and recommending investors buy the stock (as well as the products).
Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for Kodak. Since dropping off the DJIA Kodak has been struggling to re-orient the company toward markets and renewed growth. Kodak announced a loss last quarter, and longer delays before returning to profitability. Although Kodak has been working on its "turnaround" for over 5 years (from film to digital photography) they still are saying that reaching their goals is at least 18 months away. Eighteen months ….. that’s longer in the future than Motorola has been executing its turnaround. And analysts are far from optimistic about the Kodak’s future.
Motorola is opening two new R&D centers, while Kodak is planning to lay-off 20,000+ employees.
Last January (2004) Motorola undertook a pattern interrupt and launched a host of new white space initiatives. The new leader (Ed Zander) escshewed massive layoffs in favor of reigniting his employees and seeking new growth markets. In fairly short order, Motorola has unleashed creative energy trapped in the organization and taken new products to market which are growing the company again. Motorola, in about a year, moved from the Swamp back into the Rapids by effectively disrupting itself then creating and managing White Space projects.
On the other hand, Kodak keeps trying to Defend and Extend its old business while "transitioning" to a new future. The leaders at Kodak won’t let go of the past and unleash their own organization to seek the future. Kodak has plenty of talented people, a great brand, and good distribution. But it keeps trying to defend its past instead of taking the actions to reignite growth in new markets. Its a shame, since Kodak was one of the early pioneers in digital imaging (they held many of the first patents) and its employees have had a clear view of "the future" for 20 years. But management has let lock-in to an old success formula keep them from unleashing their own resources.
Two big and "mature" companies found themselves stuck in the Swamp. Growth had stopped and financial results tanked. One followed the Phoenix Principle, and the other followed traditional management practices. One is now regaining share and growing again, the other remains seriously troubled.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 13, 2005 | Defend & Extend, Leadership
Today Bernie Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years in prison. For some it is seen as a signal to all CEOs they had better not commit fraud. For others it’s revenge for the ruination of a large corporation. For others it’s yet another sign of America’s misguided business leadership. And for others this is just an isolated, and irregular, activity by a wildman CEO. No matter what the view, unless this decision is overturned on appeal it’s very likely Bernie Ebbers will die in prison.
What we know from the trial is that Bernie Ebbers worked hard to pursue quarterly revenue and earnings goals. He never for a moment took his eyes off the P&L. He was so single-minded, he was found guilty of altering his books in a massive fraud in order to produce those desperately sought after results. Yet during his leadership at WorldCom he was hailed as a great leader by those in and out of his company who admired his single-minded behavior and focus on results.
Ebbers forgot the basic rule – the P&L is about RESULTS. You don’t create results, they happen because of the business decisions you make. When results don’t come in as favorably as desired it’s not the results you should focus upon, but instead the business decisions which create those results.
Bernie Ebbers is nothing more than another manager who fell victim to Defending and Extending a broken Success Formula. He went farther than most – to the point of fraud – in order to defend and extend that Success Formula. As such, he represents just how far Locked-In management can go to practice D&E Management. All managers who fall into the trap of D&E thinking, and D&E practices, run the risk of facing the reality that the RESULTS simply aren’t what they projected. Then they face very, very difficult choices.
There are other such victims in management today. Some are going through the wringer for it – AIG, Enron, Healthsouth to name a few. And there are many, many more that aren’t on the front page of today’s business section or under investigation. But all represent a common threat to their organizations and investors. The threat created by locking-in, focusing on the results and thereby not preparing to make strategic shifts when market changes require them. Then these managers don’t know what to do when the RESULTS aren’t what was projected.
It appears that Bernie Ebbers may well die in prison because of the decisions he made. Everyone loses – the wiped out WorldCom shareholders, the laid-off employees, the stranded customers, the defaulted suppliers and now the leader himself. And this could have been avoided if Worldcom management (led by Ebbers) simply hadn’t locked-in on that Success Formula and become single-mindedly devoted to Defending and Extending it. And that is the lesson for us all, we have much to fear from Lock-In and D&E Management practices.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 29, 2005 | Defend & Extend, In the Whirlpool, Lock-in
Can you recognize a leadership team (and business) in the Whirlpool?
Today’s Chicago Tribune quoted UAL as saying their losses were the result of "brutal" fuel costs. If it just wasn’t for those darn high fuel prices, why they could break-even.
And if pigs could fly….
For many years United’s management has had one excuse after another as to why they couldn’t make money. Unions, too many planes, high gate costs, insufficient ridership, too much competition…. fuel costs… Their business model is broken and it can’t make money. They have no idea how to fix it. They keep trying to find a way to Defend what they’ve done and Extend it in some fashion that will save the company. But nothing works. And it won’t. Yet, they can’t seem to get the gumption to disrupt themselves and try to really do something new before everyone loses their jobs (they already wiped out the shareholders) and leave creditors owning a bunch of planes.
Why, if they could just get those pigs to fly….
