by Adam Hartung | Jun 24, 2005 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Lock-in
McDonald’s is spending $20M this week to feel better about itself. Unfortunately, it won’t help shareholders. McDonald’s hit a growth stall 4 years ago, and ever since has been trying to use Defend & Extend management to regain growth. That’s included selling off assets and shutting stores.
Now it includes McDonald’s bringing 5,000 store managers (most at franchisee expense) to Vegas in an effort to pump them up and thereby improve store execution. The goal? To regain a future by focusing on better execution in the store. But, even the North American President admits "the U.S. would continue with ‘solid’ sales next year but probably not the double-digit growth..seen at times during the recent past."
So, a big chunk of one of America’s largest training budgets is going into a straightforward Defend & Extend program. Why? According to the Chicago Tribune, "The store managers’ performance will largely determine just how successful McDonald’s is going forward." Amazingly, we’re to believe the future of this DJIA multi-billion dollar corporation’s growth relies on the execution of 5,000 front line store managers in making and delivering Big Macs? "Results are [expected to be] evident through better execution of procedures in the restaurants." Where’s the leadership in that?
McDonald’s cannot rely on execution to regain its growth rate. The company heritage – consistency – is all focused on execution. So it’s comfortable for leadership to lean on execution as ‘the fix.’ But McDonald’s needs more than new chicken sandwiches – it needs to find a way to compete with the likes of Starbucks. And that won’t come from doing magic shows for 5,000 store managers in Vegas.
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 It is true that the majority of layoffs are efforts to Defend & Extend outdated Success Formulas with short-term cost reductins that do not effectively address Challenges.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 | May 21, 2005 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Lock-in
WalMart is an amazing company. From a small rural store a behomoth of retailing emerged in just a few years. No one seems able to compete with WalMart in discounting.
Despite its success, WalMart is now struggling to grow. Poor revenue growth has stalled the share price. Now, more than at any previous time, WalMart needs to find new ways to grow. Its Success Formula has worked so well that no one can outperform WalMart at being WalMart. But, it’s unclear that there’s a need for more WalMarts. And foreign markets aren’t nearly as excited about WalMart as Americans. So, how is WalMart to grow?
WalMart needs White Space projects that can launch new revenues. Just as Sam’s was once a new project that became large. But WalMart has become so focused on its retail store strategy that it’s lost the ability to do new things. Last week WalMart gave up on its effort to rent videos on-line, handing that business to NetFlix.
Amid the announcement WalMart pointed out that its stores sell more in one day than NetFlix does in a year. But the real story is that WalMart can’t figure out how to compete on-line. At WalMart, it’s all about the stores. How to drive more revenue to the stores. And that’s getting increasingly difficult.
There was another retailer that never rose to this challenge. Once the biggest innovator in retail, they were the first to capture the rural customer (with mail order) and they became a powerhouse across the country. But, when they couldn’t adapt to changing times and learn to do new things they fell to an acquirer’s axe. That company was, of course, Sears.
So, it may seem silly to think that WalMart’s failure to sell videos, or anything else, on-line is a serious concern. But people thought Sears’ on-line failures were no big deal 6 years ago. It’s actually a very, very big concern when any company becomes so locked in that it can’t undertake new projects. It portends very bad things ahead.
by Adam Hartung | May 18, 2005 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lifecycle
HP’s stock is destined to jump in the next few weeks. What will benefit short-term investors is bound to cost long-term employees, suppliers and investors.
HP’s new leader is indicating HP will benefit from deep layoffs and cost restructuring. The CFO is publicly stating that there will be no change in strategy nor business direction. Investment analysts and traders are cheering. Deep cuts are sure to provide short-term P&L improvement.
But at what cost to long-term growth and viability? HP’s businesses are highly competitive in all areas. They are fighting battles on all fronts, with little in the way of new fighting materials. Reducing the army size will lower the demands, but how will they win? Where’s the White Space for new growth initiatives when the focus is on draconian cost reductions?
Traders are buying, but these actions look about as sustainable as floating a cardboard balloon.
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.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 21, 2005 | Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Swamp, Lock-in
GM is having a tough time. Last week, the stock (already beat up) dropped nearly 20% on news of weak sales and lower profit expectations. You have to go back more than 10 years (see chart) to find a time the company’s market value was this low. So, what should GM do? What action will turn this venerable company around?
GM has responded to its problems by continuing decades of Defending & Extending its failing business model. It continues to avoid addressing the real challenges to its business while it resorts to white collar layoffs and traditional cuts. These are sure to make the problems worse for GM, and further inhibit the company’s ability to reinvent itself.
GM once tried to re-invent itself. Saturn was created as a way for GM to learn what works in today’s market. Remember the "GME" when they bought EDS? Remember "GMH" when they bought Hughes electronics? Chairman Roger Smith was first lauded, then later pilloried for these forays. Over time, GM let it’s lock-in to the past move them toward getting rid of both EDS and Hughes. That’s too bad, because they offered the White Space for GM to create a company much better at sustaining itself.
Saturn offered GM the capability to turn its auto business around. You CAN succeed making and selling cars in America – look at Toyota. If GM could have given up its lock-in long enough to look at Saturn as White Space they could learn from, and migrate toward, GM could have succeeded. Instead, GM leaders hated the new division and the attack on their lock-in it represented. So they acted to starve it to death.
Whacking a few more jobs isn’t going to save GM. I doubt even GM believes it will. If they want to avoid "junk" status on their bonds, stay on the DJIA, and continue to represent American industry they better start using some White Space to undertake substantial change. Our research has shown that turnarounds such as GM needs happen less than 10% of the time. What works? Changing the company business model via attack on the old operating parameters and the use of White Space to develop a new Success Formula.
When you’re as deep in the Swamp as GM you can’t fine-tune or marginally improve your way back to success.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 27, 2004 | Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle
Does anyone think KMart + Sears = a better company? It doesn’t look that way. Most experts say the company is worth nothing more than it’s inventory value plus the real estate. Too bad, for both companies started as tremendous innovators in American retailing.
Kmart pioneered the discount store concept. And Sears pioneered the retail catalog, store credit, private label tools and appliances, and lifetime warranties. Both companies saw tremendous growth during their cycles of innovation.
Was it inevitable that they would both be relegated to below average returns? Absolutely not. Both simply stopped innovating. They turned to defending and extending what they already knew, while other competitors attacked them with new innovations.
But why not change the game now? The bankruptcy of KMart opened the door to new options – including the acquisition of Sears. If the two chains view this latest action as a chance to simply defend and extend their outmoded businesses, they will both simply die off. But if they view this as a major disruption to their business, and realize success will not come from chasing the two entrenched leaders (Wal*Mart and Target), they have the chance to create substantial value for their investors, employees and customers.
The new company needs to open its organization to innovation. The new CEO, coming from restaurants, should eschew the conventional merchandisers and strike out for something new. With the stock worth no more than the real estate, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
We haven’t yet heard the new CEO make any claims about the future. If he heads down the road of putting Craftsman in KMart and Martha Stewart in Sears – with great goals of a turn-around – run for the hills! Investors should sell the stock and employees find new jobs. But if he creates a new company that innovates away from the old business and toward something brand new he has a chance of creating a new company that could produce great returns.
The fate of KMart and Sears is not cast in concrete. But the leadership must act quickly while the cement is still wet! They must use this disruption to create something new — not defend and extend "the best parts" of what’s already not working.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 12, 2004 | Defend & Extend
This is just too good. I just read on Business 2.0 blog that Blockbuster is trying to buy Hollywood Video, a rival chain of video rental stores. OK, this is CLASSIC Defend & Extend Management. They must be thinking that if they can just get big enough, they will be able to get those elusive scale savings and be able to have more control over their pricing. It won’t happen. They have to understand that storefront video rentals will never get any better as a business, no matter how big they get. (See my previous blogs on this.)
It’s amazing to see companies with broken Success Formulas buy other companies with the SAME Success Formula and expect that to improve the business. Didn’t anybody at Blockbuster ask WHY it would improve the business? Why it would make someone suddenly decide not to order that video on demand and charge down to the video store instead? Sadly, there are many other examples. Here’s one: Tupperware, who thinks its home party concept is still a viable concept in the 21st century, bought Beauty Control a few years ago because the company also sold through home parties. They expected to benefit from the synergies. Want to guess how that turned out?
by Adam Hartung | Nov 11, 2004 | Defend & Extend, Lock-in
I have noticed a common behavior among companies in the Swamp and Whirlpool stages of the lifecycle. They never seem to plan ahead for unexpected things to happen. It is as if they make an annual plan and there are no contingencies for marketplace challenges and disruptions. Maybe they really do believe that the plan will turn out like they lay it out if they simply hold the leaders accountable, which would indicate a terminal case of denial and self-deception.
Consider the major airlines which always seem to be on the verge of bankruptcy. After 9/11, they have all been in survival mode and their actions have been classic Defend & Extend Management: cut costs, layoff employees and reduce their pay, reduce prices, reorganize the business, replace management. They think that if they can do these things, they will become competitive again.
But they didn’t plan on oil prices reaching all time highs, which meant they had to make deeper cuts and go to even harsher extremes. And now, it seems that these troubled airlines didn’t plan on their healthy competitors adding more planes as part of their growth plans. (Well duh!) That’s a problem because more planes means more capacity which means more competition which means lower prices. And that means that the major airlines’ plans to rebound aren’t worth much. The fact is that they never were worth much.
Troubled organizations like those late in their lifecycle don’t have
any excess capacity. That’s why they keep getting knocked further and
further down by marketplace changes. No sooner than they recover from
one crisis, another crashes onto the scene. If you need proof, read the
countless annual reports that offer excuse after excuse for unexpected
events that hurt the company’s performance that year. Then read the hollow
promises about how they’ll plan better next year.
It would be valuable for any senior manager of a business or functional unit to assume that unexpected things are going to happen and to plan ahead for them. Scenario planning as a discipline has been around for many years and is a useful practice. In addition, every organization must budget for excess capacity to deal with unexpected challenges. Where will you get the money, people, capital, and management bandwidth to deal with surprises? In order to estimate how much extra capacity is necessary, managers can evaluate prior years and determine how much was consumed by surprises in the past. This, coupled with effective scenario planning, can help companies minimize the consequences of unexpected disruptions.
Oh, and adopting The Phoenix Principle wouldn’t be a bad idea either!
