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 | 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 | Aug 20, 2005 | In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
This story hurts almost too much to tell.
This last spring a friend of mine for 25 years called asking for help with his small 2-year old business. He was competing in a fiercely competitive wireless data marketplace, where the rewards were potentially huge but no sure thing. His ambition was high, but his performance was struggling.
I met with him, and all too quickly realized that he was locked into management practices he had learned 15 years earlier as a successful executive in a very, very large wireless company. He was trying to run his new company, his much smaller company, the same way he ran the very large division of the much larger corporation. He wasn’t nimble, he wasn’t agile. He wasn’t holding the door open for extensive innovation amongst his 80 person staff, but instead he was trying hold to "hold everyone’s feet to the fire on performance" (against standards he was setting.) He wasn’t experimenting with new options, new ways of competing and disruptive market practices – instead he was trying to compete head on with much larger and better healed (although unprofitable) competitors.
I worked with him for two weeks trying to increase his agility. I offered him lots of options. He wasn’t willing to try new approaches, but rather he wanted someone to help make his business model more productive (and successful). At one point I pointed out that he wasn’t being as flexible as he might consider, to which he responded "I’m not inflexible, it’s just that there’s only one way to do this kind of business."
He stayed locked in to his business model, to his behavioral model and to his single-minded approach. I learned within the last two weeks that he’s now out of his company (his investors pushed him out) and the company is floundering – likely to be shut down shortly.
Lock-in can afflict any company of any size or age. Lock-in doesn’t only apply to large and mature organizations. And no matter where lock-in takes hold, it is both painful and deadly.
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….
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 | 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 | Apr 28, 2005 | Lock-in
Today is "Take your children to work day." As all of us know, there is much more to life than what’s taught in school, and having children visit the workplace to obtain a sense of what goes on after school is a valuable learning experience.
Unfortunately, the educators of Illinois don’t agree. This week the Illinois state education board advised schools in Illinois to consider all children who go to work with their parents an unexcused abscence. And, they strongly hinted that next year they would mandate such a position. Their reason? It’s a lost day in school for these students and therefore a lost day to teach them.
Clearly, these education leaders are completely locked into their own traditional views of education. It’s not hard for all us non-educators to see the value of expanding children’s horizons with such an activity. Because we aren’t locked-in to the idea of education as being something that has to happen in an official school according to a state curriculum.
Everyone runs the risk of becoming locked into their own view of what they do. Pretty soon, the ability to think outside the box simply evaporates. Operating the traditional Success Formula overwhelms other options. When that happens, it’s time to get outside the box so the lock-in can become obvious and new options can emerge.
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.
