by Adam Hartung | Jan 15, 2010 | Disruptions, eBooks, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Many people think the best way to grow is by setting big goals – even Big Audacious Hairy Goals (BHAGs). But increasingly we're learning that goal setting is not correlated with success. At AmericanPublicRadio.org there's a partial text, and MP3 download, of a recent interview between General Motors leaders and a University of Arizona Professor titled "It's not always good to create goals."
The story relates how about a decade a go, with market share hovering at 25%, GM set the goal of moving back to 29%. It became a huge, multi-year campaign. Lapel pins with "29" were made and all kinds of motivational programs were put in place. The GM organization had its goal, and it was highly aligned to the goal. But it didn't happen. Despite the goal, and all the energy and talent put into focusing on the goal, GM continued to struggle, lose share – and eventually file bankruptcy. The goal made no difference.
Worse, the interview goes on to discuss how goals often lead to decidedly undesirable, sometimes unethical – even illegal – behavior. Instances are cited where goal obsession led company employees to falsify documents, even ship bricks in place of products to meet sales targets. No executive wants this, but goals and goal obsession – especially when there is a lot of reinforcement socially and monetarily on the goal – can become a serious problem.
Results are exactly that. Results. They are an outcome. They are the way we track our behaviors and activities – our decisions. When we focus on goals – usually some sort of result – we lose track of what is important. We have to focus on what we do. And for most organizations a big goal merely leads people to try working harder, faster,better, cheaper. But when the Success Formula is mis-aligned with the market – even when the whole organization is aligned on maximizing the Success Formula results will still struggle – even falter. Goals don't help you fix a Success Formula returning poor results. Just look at GM.
In fact, it can make matters worse. In "White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts" (available on Amazon.com) the authors point out that when you try to turn a negative (a problem) into a positive (a challenge, or goal), you often achieve a rebound effect making people obsess about the problem. Tell somebody not to think about a white bear – and it's all they think about. When your company has a problem and you try to tell employees "hey, don't think about the problem. Go do your job. Work harder, increase your focus, and all will work out. Sure share is down, but don't think about lost share, instead think about the goal of higher market share" frequently the employees will start to become obsessive about the problem. It will reinforce doing more of the same – perhaps manicly. Instead of becoming innovative and doing something new, obsessive devotion to trying to make the old methods produce better results becomes the norm. Goals don't produce innovation – they produce repetition.
So what should you do when facing a problem? Disruptions. GM didn't need a big goal. GM needed to Disrupt its broken Success Formula. GM needed to attack a Lock-in (or two). GM leaders needed to admit the market had shifted, and that competitors were changing the game. GM needed to recognize, admit and encourage employees to engage in attacking old assumptions – and recognize that market share would continue eroding if they didn't do things differently. Setting a big goal reinforced the old Lock-ins and even an aligned organization – working it's metaphorical tail off – couldn't make the outdated Success Formula produce positive results.
Only a Disruption would have helped save GM. After attacking some Lock-ins, like the desire to move all customers to bigger and more expensive cars, or the desire to focus on long production runs, GM should have set up White Space teams to discover new Success Formulas. Instead of putting all its management energy and money into growing volume at Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GM nameplates, General Motors leadership should have revitalized the innovative Saturn and Saab to do new things – to develop new approaches that would be more competitive. Instead of pushing Hummer to have 3 identical cars in 3 sizes, GM leadership should have unleashed Hummer to explore the market for truly unique, limited production vehicles. GM should have allowed Pontiac to really take advantage of the design breakthroughs happening at the Australian design studio – to change the nameplate into a performance car segment leader. By attacking Lock-ins, Disrupting, and using White Space GM really could have turned around. Instead, by creating a BHAG GM reinforced its focus on its Hedgehog concept – and drove the company into bankruptcy.
You can see a 40 second video about the value and importance of Disruptions on YouTube here.
A 75 second video on White Space effectiveness on YouTube here.
Read free ebook on "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes"
by Adam Hartung | Jan 12, 2010 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Do all good ideas originate outside the organization? Of course not. Motorola understood all the critical technologies for smart phones, and taught Apple how to use them in a joint development project that created the ROKR. That's just one example of a company that had the idea for growth, but didn't move forward effectively. In this case Apple captured the value of new technology and a market shift.
On the Harvard Business Review blog site one of consulting firm Innosight's leaders, Mark Johnson, covers two stories of companies that had all the technology and capability to lead their markets, but got Locked-in to old practices. In "Have You Already Killed Your Next Big Thing" Mr. Johnson talks about Xerox and Kodak – two stories profiled in my 2008 book "Create Marketplace Disruption." Both companies developed the technology that replaced their early products (Xerox developed desktop publishing and Kodak developed the amateur digital camera.) But Lock-in kept them doing what they did rather than exploiting their own innovation.
One of the causes is a fascination with metrics. Again on the Harvard Business Review blog site Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, tells us in "Why Good Spreadsheets Make Bad Strategies" that you can't measure everything. And often the most important information about markets and what you must do to succeed is beyond measuring – at least in the short term.
Measurements are good control tools. Measurements can help force a focus on short term improvements. But measurements, and the concomitant focus, reduces an organization's ability to look laterally. They lose sight of information from lost customers, from small customers, from fringe customers and fringe competitors. Measurement often leads to obsession, and a deepening of Defend & Extend behavior. It's not accidental that doctors often find anorexia patients measure everything in (liquids and solids) and everything out (liquids and solids).
Measurements are created when a business is doing well. In the Rapids. Like Kodak during the 1960s and Xerox in the 1970s. Measurements are structural Lock-ins that help "institutionalize" the behavior which makes the Success Formula operate most effectively. And they help growth. But they do nothing for recognizing a market shift, and when new technology comes along, they stand in the way. That's why a powerful Six Sigma or Total Quality Management (TQM) or Lean Manufacturing project can help reduce costs short term, but become an enormous barrier to innovation over time when markets shift. These institutionalized efforts keep people doing what they measure, even if it doesn't really add much incremental value any longer.
To overcome measurement Lock-ins we all have to use scenario planning. Scenarios can help us see that in a future marketplace, a changed marketplace, measuring what we've been doing won't aid success. And because we don't yet know what the future market will really look like, we can't just swap out existing metrics for something different. As we proceed to do new things, in White Space, it's about learning what the right metrics are – about getting into the growth Rapids – before we tie ourselves up in metrics.
Note: To all readers of my Forbes article last week – there has been an update. The very professional and polite leadership at Tribune Corporation took the time to educate me about the LBO transition. As a result I learned that what I previously read, and reported in my column as well as on this blog, as being an investment of employee retirement funds into the LBO was inaccurate. Although Tribune is in hard times right now, the very good news is that the employee retirement funds were NOT wiped out by the bankruptcy. The Forbes article has been corrected, and I am thankful to the Tribune Corporation for helping me report accurately on that issue.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 8, 2010 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, Lock-in, Web/Tech
So out of the blue I got called by a reporter asking me what I thought of Google posting an advertisement for the new Nexus One on its homepage. It was an easy question – the Google homepage isn't sacrosanct. Like everything, it needs to be used in a way that's most valuable for customers and suppliers. Times change, and it should change. So I answered that the Google home page wasn't a sacred cow, and it's smart for Google to try things.
So OnlineMediaDaily.com quotes me on Thursday in "Google Runs Multimillion-dollar ad for Nexus One."
- "Has Google changed its stance on using the
home page as a promotional platform? Adam Hartung, an analyst with
Spark Partners, refers to Google's home page as a "sacred cow." The
company has something that almost seems like a religious idol. This ad
demonstrates that Google is willing to change that and "attack a sacred
cow to step the company forward," he says. "And that's a very good sign
for investors."
I didn't record myself, but it sounds like me. Sacred cows get you into trouble. You have to constantly test, try new things.
But the CEO of Burst Media didn't agree with me. Picking up on my quote, in the HuffingtonPost.com "Google Should Not Give Up the Sanctity of Its Homepage" Mr. Coffin takes me to task for violating what he considers a sacred public trust. He fears that anything added to the Google homepage creates cracks in Google's foundation putting the company at risk.
How does anyone in web marketing get so Locked-in? It just goes to show that you don't have to be old, or a big company, or have a lot of money to be Locked-in to something. Google's homepage isn't even a decade old. Nor is Burst Media, an on-line marketing company, I don't think. But here a reputation leader in on-line marketing is working, working hard actually, to defend a sacred cow. "Sanctity" of a web page??? Give me a break.
Google has excelled, grown and made more money, because it has been willing to Disrupt its Success Formula and use White Space to test new things. That's why it's become a household name – and in the process almost singlehandedly destroyed the newspaper industry. And now is threatening to change how we do personal computing (with Chrome) and enterprise applications (with Google Wave) and even mobile computing (with Android and Nexus One). Google should consider nothing sacred, because that's the kind of Lock-in which kills tech companies. Sun Microsystems was busy protecting its sanctity while the market shifted right out from under it
Lock-in is inevitable. But winners – those who grow and make above average rates of return – learn how to manage Lock-in. They are willing to Disrupt and use White Space. Good for Google. I would have expected nothing less!
by Adam Hartung | Jan 5, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, eBooks, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Happy New Year!
As we start 2010 the plan, according to The Financial Times, "WalMart aims to cut supply chain costs." Imagine that. Cost cutting has been the biggest Success Formula component for WalMart for its entire career. And now, the company that is already the low cost retailer – and famous for beating its suppliers down on price to almost no profitability – is planning to focus on purchasing for the next 5 years in order to hopefully take another 5% out of purchased product cost. How'd you like to hear that if Wal-Mart is one of your big customers? What do you suppose the discussion will be like when you go to Target or KMart (match WalMart pricing?)
Will this make WalMart more admired, or more successful? This is the epitome of "more of the same." Even though WalMart is huge, it has done nothing for shareholders for years. And employees have been filing lawsuits due to unpaid overtime. And some markets have no WalMart stores because the company refuses to allow any employees to be unionized. This announcement will not make WalMart a more valuable company, because it simply is an attempt to Defend the Success Formula.
On the other hand according to Newsweek, in "The Customer is Always Right," Amazon intends to keep moving harder into new products and markets in 2010. Amazon has added enormous value to its shareholders, including gains in 2009, as it has moved from bookselling to general merchandise retailing to link retailing to consumer electronics with the Kindle and revolutionizing publishing with the Kindle store. Amazon isn't trying to do more of the same, it's using innovation to drive growth.
And the CEO, Jeff Bezos freely admits that his success today is due to scenario development and plans laid 4 years ago – as Amazon keeps its planning focused on the future. With the advent of many new products coming out in 2010 – including the Apple Tablet – Amazon will have to keep up its focus on new products and markets to maintain growth. Good thing the company is headed that direction.
So which company would you rather work for? Invest in? Supply?
Which will you emulate?
PS – "Create Marketplace Disruption: How To Stay Ahead of the Competition" was selected last week to be on the list of "Top 25 Books to read in 2010" by PCWorld and InfoWorld. Don't miss getting your copy soon if you haven't yet read the book.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 31, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
We end the first decade in 2000 with another first. In ReutersBreakingViews.com "Don't Diss the Dividend" we learn 2000-2009 is the first time in modern stock markets when U.S. investors made no money for a decade. Right. Worse performance than the 1930s Great Depression. Over the last decade, the S&P 500 had a net loss of about 1%/year. After dividends a gain of 1% – less than half the average inflation rate of 2.5%.
Things have shifted. We ended the last millenium with a shift from an industrial economy to an information economy. And the tools for success in earlier times no longer work. Scale economies and entry barriers are elusive, and unable to produce "sustainable competitive advantage." Over the last decade shifts in business have bankrupted GM, Circuit City and Tribune Corporation – while gutting other major companies like Sears. Simultaneously these changes brought huge growth and success to Google, Apple, Hewlett Packard, Virgin and small companies like Louis Glunz Beer, Foulds Pasta and Tasty Catering.
Even the erudite McKinsey Quarterly is now trumpeting the new requirements for business success in "Competing through Organizational Agility." Using academic research from the London Business School, author Donald Sull points out that market turbulence increased 2 to 4 times between the 1970s and 1990s – and is continuing to increase. More market change is happening, and market changes are happening faster. Thus, creating strategies and organizations that are able to adjust to shifting market requirements creates higher revenue and improved operational efficiency. Globally agility is creating better returns than any other business approach.
A McKinsey Quarterly on-line video "Navigating the New Normal: A Conversation with 4 Chief Strategy Officers," discusses changes in business requirements for 2010 and beyond. All 4 of these big company strategists agree that success now requires far shorter planning cycles, abandoning efforts to predict markets that change too quickly, and recognizing that historically indisputable assumptions are rapidly becoming obsolete. What used to work at creating competitive advantage no longer works. Monolothic strategies developed every few years, with organizations focused on "execution," are simply uncompetitive in a rapidly shifting world.
And "the old boys club" of white men in top business leadership roles is quickly going to change dramatically. In the Economist article "We Did It" we learn that in 2010 the American workforce will shift to more than 50% women. If current leaders continue following old approaches – and generating anemic returns – they will rapidly be replaced by leaders willing to do what has to be done to succeed in today's marketplace. Like Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo, women will take on more top positions as investors and employees demand changes to improve performance. Leaders will have to be flexible and adaptive or they, and their organizations, will not survive.
Additionally, the information technology products which unleashed this new era will change, and become unavoidable. In Forbes "Using the Cloud for Business" one of the creators of modern ERP (enterprise resource planning) systems (like SAP and Oracle) Jan Baan discusses how cloud computing changes business. ERP systems were all about data, and the applications were stovepiped – like the industrial enterprises they were designed for. Unfortunately, they were expensive to buy and very expensive to install and even more expensive to maintain. Simultaneously they had all the flexibility of cement. ERP systems, which proliferate in large companies today, were control products intended to keep the organization from doing anything beyond its historical Success Formula.
But cloud computing is infinitely flexible. Compare Facebook to Lotus Notes and you start understanding the difference between cloud computing and large systems. Anyone can connect, share links, share files and even applications on Facebook at almost no cost. Lotus Notes is an expensive enterprise application that costs a lot to buy, to operate, to maintain and has significantly less flexibility. Notes is about control. Facebook is about productivity.
Cloud computing is 1/10th the cost of monolithic owned/internal IT systems. Cloud computing offers small and mid-sized companies all the computing opportunity of big companies – and big advantages to new competitors if CIOs at big companies hold onto their "investments" in IT systems too long. Businesses that use cloud architectures can rearrange their supply chain immediately – and daily. Flexibility, and adaptability, grows exponentially. And EVERYONE can use it. Where mainframes were the tool for software engineers (and untouchable by everyone else), the PC made it possible for individuals to have their own applications. Cloud computing democratizes computing so everyone with a smartphone has access and use. With practically no training.
As we leave the worst business environment in modern times, we enter a new normal. Those who try to defend & extend old business practices will continue to suffer declining returns, poor performance and failure – like the last decade. But those who embrace "the new normal" can grow and prosper. It takes a willingness to let scenarios about the future drive your behavior, a keen focus on competitors to understand market needs, a willingness to disrupt old Lock-ins and implement White Space so you can constantly test opportunities for defining new, flexible and higher returning Success Formulas.
Here's to 2010 and the new normal! Happy New Year!
by Adam Hartung | Dec 30, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech, Weblogs
As we enter 2010, is your business expecting a very different future – and have you started planning to implement new approaches based upon a different future? For example, how do you plan to acquire new customers, employees and vendors in 2010 and beyond? Do you still rely on traditional advertising? Do you use a web site? Is most of your on-line IT budget still dedicated to web site development? How much of your plans for 2010 are extensions of what you've been doing on 2009 – or maybe an ongoing trend from much earlier in the decade?
According to the Wall Street Journal in "Linked In Wants Users to Connect More," the number of Linked in users almost doubled in 2009, from 31.5M to 53.6M. And to drive additional user traffic the site is working hard to add applications which can help companies with recruiting, marketing and other business functions. With users jumping, and time on site increasing, is your company blocking access? Or is it figuring out how to leverage this leading web site to find new customers, recruit aggressive new employees and build a stronger business?
But Linked-in is considerably less successful than Facebook. Do you still think of Facebook as a site for college kids to plan drinking parties? If so, you've missed a tsunami in the making. Facebook's user base, at 350 million, is over 6 times Linked-in. According to ReadWriteWeb.com "It was a Facebook Christmas; Site Hits #1 in U.S. for First Time." On 2 days Facebook actually had more site hits than search giant Google! And Facebook was the #1 Google search in 2009. Facebook use is exploding. The average Facebook user spends over 3.5 hours in a session. Many Facebook users log in daily to keep up with their network and what's happening in markets of interest to them.
Increasingly, people don't do web searches to find out about restaurants, movies, products, services – or even jobs. They go to social media sites like Linked-In, Facebook and Twitter. If you depend on people to use your web site to learn about your business – that may be too late. When referred by a friend, what is the first impression a potential customer (or recruit) gets when reaching out to your LInked-in, MySpace or Facebook page? What applications or groups do you support to demonstrate your business and your ability to grow? How are you reaching out through these environments to meet the people who should be a customer, employee or vendor?
Increasingly, people don't even make their first touch with your business via your web site. iPhone users, and the soon-to-explode Android phone users, as well as all the other "smartphone" (or mobile device) users learn about your business from a very small screen that brings in small bits of information that is largely text. They often go to a PC and search a traditional web site only every few days. So how is your information presented? Is it largely graphical, with embedded objects that don't show up well (or at all) on a mobile device? Is it lengthy HTML pages that requires scrolling on a phone?
Increasingly, people looking for you will blow off traditional web pages in favor of easier to access and read information. You may hate the 140 character Twitter limit – but it's becoming a standard (the new "elevator pitch.") So is your on-line impression being driven by web developers, or by mobile device developers? Is your on-line environment all about driving people to your web site – which may never happen – or are you effectively connecting with them via Facebook, et.al. and informing them without asking them to go to your environment? Are you letting users control their access to your information, making it easy for them, or are you trying to control their behavior — and putting off many?
There are many reasons to think that in 2010 how people acquire business information will shift from traditional web sites to social media sites. First impressions, and a lot of the decision making process, will come from Facebook, Linked-in and Twitter. Is your business positioned for this shift?
Pepsi recently made a decision that appears forward-focused rather than following tradition. Pepsi is abandoning Super Bowl ads in favor of spending more on-line. MarketingDaily.com reports in "Compete: Pepsi's On-line Push a Smart Play" that Pepsi is reaching more people at a lower cost by investing in on-line marketing. Despite the historical role Super Bowl ads have played for big consumer products companies, Pepsi's decision is positioning the company to better connect with more users and drive more sales. Coke's decision to remain with traditional advertising looks increasingly expensive – and out of step with how people really make purchase decisions today.
Smart companies are already making changes to reach the tidal wave of people relying on social media. They are building a strong impression, and business applications, that help them grow using environments like Linked-in, MySpace and Facebook. And they employ people to keep their Twitter communications clear and strong.
So is your business taking actions – making implementations – that will support where the market is headed in 2010? Are you putting yourself where the customers and recruiting targets are? Or are you trying to do more of the same better, faster and cheaper?
by Adam Hartung | Dec 26, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
The business media get really excited about acquisitions. And it is clear that many executives still think acquisitions are a good way to grow – especially when wanting to enter new markets. Even though all the academic research says that acquirers inevitably overpay, and that almost all acquisitions don't really have "synergy." In fact, most acquisitions significantly reduce shareholder value. While this doesn't keep execs from going forward, if we understand why acquisitions go badly better performance can be obtained.
As reported at Financial Times in "The Rise and Fall of MySpace" the problem with acquisitions is very tied to the "owner and acquired" thinking that emerges. NewsCorp wanted to get into social media, so it moved early. And the investment looked brilliant when a quick deal with Google appeared to make payback a year from new ad revenues. MySpace was an early social media winner, and it looked to be potentially transformative for NewsCorp.
Until NewsCorp decided that things were too undisciplined at MySpace. NewsCorp thought, like almost all acquirers, that it was more "disciplined" and "structured" and could apply its "better management" to the growth at MySpace. Of course, all of this is code for pushing the NewsCorp Success Formula onto MySpace. What was acquired as White Space was quickly turned into another NewsCorp division – with the decision-making processes and overhead costs that NewsCorp had. Quickly Behavioral and Structural Lock-ins that were prevalent in NewsCorp were applied to MySpace in management's effort to "improve" the acquisition.
But applying the acquirer's Success Formula to an acquisition soon removes it from White Space. Even though NewsCorp felt sure that it's higher caliber IT staff, big budgets and strong management team would "help" MySpace, it was robbing MySpace of its tight link to a rapidly shifting/evolving marketplace and replacing that with "NewsCorp think." Quickly, competitors started to take advantage of market shifts. Facebook took advantage of the now weighted-down MySpace to rapidly bring on more users, while the additional ads on MySpace simply frustrated formerly happy customers more than willing to trade platforms.
Scott Anthony on the Harvard Business Review blog "MySpace's Disruption, Disrupted" points out how in just 4years MySpace went from market leader to almost irrelevant. MySpace lost its position as market disruptor as it increasingly conformed to demands of NewsCorp. As the NewsCorp Success Formula overwhelmed MySpace it stopped being a market sensing project that could lead NewsCorp forward, and instead became a now money-losing division of a newspaper and TV company. NewsCorp started trying to make MySpace into a traditional media company – rather than MySpace turning NewsCorp into the next Amazon, Apple or Google.
If a company wants to acquire a company for new market entry, that acquisition has to be kept in White Space. It has to be given permission to remain outside the acquirer's Lock-ins and separate from the Success Formula. It has to be allowed to use its resources to develop a new Success Formula toward which the acquirer with migrate – not "brought into the fold."
Unfortunately, acquirers tend to think like previous century conquerers. In Gengis Khan fashion they almost always end up moving to change the acquired. Often in the name of "discipline" or "good management practices." And that's too bad, because the result is a loss of shareholder value as the investment premium is dissipated when the acquisition fails to reach objectives. Acquisitions can be good, but they have to be kept in White Space — like we see Google doing with Facebook!
by Adam Hartung | Dec 22, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
In "The Year in Innovation" BusinessWeek has offered its review of innovation in 2009. And the report is grim. Most companies cut innovation spending – including R&D. Even the pharmaceutical industry, historically tied to long-term investment cycles, cut 69,000 jobs in 2009, up 60% from 2008. Meanwhile, P&G's dust cloth Swiffer was pronounced a major innovation – indicating both how few innovations made it to market in 2009 – and the degree to which BusinessWeek must depend upon P&G for advertising dollars given this selection (I mean really – BusinessWeek ignores Google Wave and Android entirely in the article but feature a Swiffer dust cloth!)
According to BusinessWeek, the big advances in innovation in 2009 apparently were "open innovation" and "trickle up innovation." The first is asking vendors and others outside the company to contribute to innovation. Adoption of open innovation has spurred one thing – less spending on innovation as companies cut budgets, using "open innovation initiatives" as an explanation for how they intend to maintain themselves while spending less. Open innovation has not spurred improved innovation implementation, just justified spending less with no real plans to achieve growth. With open innovation, of course, failures no longer belong to the company because the "open environment" didn't produce anything – hence innovation simply wasn't possible!
Trickle up innovation is asking people in poor countries, like India, how they do things. Then seeing if you can steal an idea or two. There's nothing wrong with turning over every rock when trying to innovate, but using analysis of third world countries, where costs happen to be very low and new innovations few, to drive your innovation program smacks of looking for ways to put a fig leaf on a naked innovation program. Expectations are low, so explanations are more prevalent than results. C.K. Prahalad wrote an entire book on this approach – which is popular with big company leaders who have abandoned innovation and think it clever to steal ideas from the poor. But it's not how Apple became #2 in smart phonesor created iTunes or how Facebook has taken over social networking.
source: Silicon Alley Insider (with Google picking up 2 new carriers in late 2009, this chart will be very different by summer 2010)
None of the trends identified by BusinessWeek reflect behavior of the real innovation winners. Rather, they reflect the big companies who are mired in Defend & Extend management, and making excuses for their terrible performance since 2007. Not once does the article talk about Google, Apple, Cisco – or leading small company innovators like Tasty Catering in Chicago. There are companies winning at innovation, but they are certainly not following the trends (which have produced marginal results – at best) identified in this article.
Because planning processes look at last year when setting goals for next year, lots of companies now plan even lower innovation spending for 2010. And that's how an economy goes into a tailspin. Everyone from bankers to manufacturers to retailers are saying 2009 was weak, and they don't see much improvement for 2010. That can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 24/7 Wall Street reported in "Immelt Speaks at West Point: Future Leadership Path" that the CEO of GE, Jeff Immelt, is doing less innovation spending and relying more on government/business partnership. And of course GE is realing from over-reliance on financial services and under-investment in new products during his leadership. While Immelt is patching up holes at GE, the company is sinking without new products manning the oars.
Companies don't just need to spend on R&D. Studies of R&D have shown that the bulk of spending is Defend & Extend. Trying to get more out of the technologies embedded in the Success Formula. P&G and GE can spend easily enough. But when it's on short-term "quick hits" they get declining marginal returns and weaker competitiveness.
Companies in 2010 must adopt new approaches. They have to quit planning from the past, and plan for the future. More scenario development and understanding how to change competitive position. And they have to quit being so conforming and promote Disruption. Disruptions are needed to open White Space so new Success Formulas can be developed. In the 2000/01 recession Apple looked to the future, Disrupted its total dedication to the Macintosh and unleashed White Space allowing the company to become a leader in digital music as well as the front runner in smart phones within a decade.
Your business can be a leader; and soon. If you start thinking differently about what you must do, quit putting all your energy into Defend & Extend behavior and invest in White Space, innovation will flourish – and with it your revenues and profits.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 21, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
Great blog today at MidasNation.com. Rob Slee is a book author and blogger focused on privately held companies. And today he took on "Old White Men" – or OWM – in his blog "Why 60 Year Old White Men are Killing America." Telling the story about how GM management drove the profits out of suppliers while bankrupting the company, he contrasted GM's behavior with the Japanese run firms in America who partnered with suppliers to make a better product customers more highly valued. We know who ended up with the profitable approach.
Similar to Defend & Extend management, Mr. Slee talks about "past as predicate" as he discusses older managers who keep doing what they always did, even though results keep worsening. And how "command and control" hierarchies sucked the value out of the traditional Big 3 automakers. His views about how OWM leaders expect a "return to the norm," creating a recipe for disaster in an ever changing world increasingly producing black swans. His stories are an action call for all leaders to change their behavior.
According to Marketwatch.com today, "GM Hires Microsoft Exec Liddell as CFO." Is this good, or just more OWM? According to BusinessWeek, Mr. Liddell is 50 – which makes him 10 years shy of the minimum 60 Mr. Slee denotes for OWM. More disconcerting was the final paragraph of his bio at Microsoft.com which claims Mr. Liddell "has completed a number of triathlons, including an Ironman and also enjoys rugby, yoga, golf and tennis." Pretty seriously testosterone laden language – and appealing primarily to OWM types. Like his new boss, the retired Southwestern Bell Chairman, now running GM.
Triathlon and rugby often have a way of making people Lock-in on the values of persistence, hard work and sacrifice. Jim Collins is a rather famous triathlete who loves Lock-in. Creativity and innovation are rarely the stuff of winners in those sports. Of course, competing in a global marketplace with fast changing competitors who defy all rules is a far cry from any sport. Sport analogies are usually more harmful than good in today's global marketplace, where adaptability is worth more than repetitive behavior seeking scale.
Mr. Liddell's last boss, Steve Ballmer, is one of the 10 most Locked-in CEOs in corporate America. Not a great mentoring for open-mindedness. And during Mr. Liddell's 4.5 year career at Microsoft the company's big launches were the me-too, and underwhelmingly exciting, Vista and System 7 products. Mr. Liddell didn't seem to push the innovation engine much in Seattle.
From appearances it would seem likely he'll focus on cost reductions pretty hard — something unlikely to make GM a success. GM doesn't need to launch it's own version of Vista. GM doesn't need a tough guy to whack the chicken coop hoping to get more eggs – instead just making the hens all upset. GM needs significant Disruption – attacks on its Success Formula – with a revitalization of new product development and technology application. GM needs an entirely new Success Formula, not just a better Defended and Extended one.
Keep your eyes on Mr. Liddell. Perhaps he'll surprise us. Look for Disruptions and White Space. It doesn't seem to be Mr. Liddell's nature. But watch. Until then, there's no sign yet that GM is taking the right actions to make itself a vital competitor against Hyundai, Kia, Tata Motors, Honda and Toyota.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 11, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Food and Drink, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Television
If you can't sell products, I guess you sell the business to generate revenue. That seems to be the approach employed by Sara Lee's CEO – who has been destroying shareholder value, jobs, vendor profits and customer expectations for several years. Crain's Chicago Business reports "Sara Lee to sell air care business for $469M" to Proctor & Gamble. This is after accepting a binding offer from Unilever to purchase Sara Lee's European body care and detergent businesses. These sales continue Ms. Barnes long string of asset sales, making Sara Lee smaller and smaller. Stuck in the Swamp, Ms. Barnes is trying to avoid the Whirlpool by selling assets – but what will she do when the assets are gone? For how long will investors, and the Board, accept her claim that "these sales make Sara Lee more focused on its core business" when the business keeps shrinking? The corporate share price has declined from $30/share to about $12 (chart here) And shareholders have received none of the money from these sales. Eventually there will be no more Sara Lee.
Look at Motorola, a darling in the early part of this decade – the company CEO, Ed Zander, was named CEO of the year by Marketwatch as he launched RAZR and slashed prices to drive unit volume:
Chart supplied by Silicon Alley Insider
Motorola lost it's growth in mobile handsets, and now is practically irrelevant. Motorola has less than 5% share, about like Apple, but the company is going south – not north. When growth escapes your business it doesn't take long before the value is gone. Since losing it's growth Motorola share values have dropped from over $30 to around $8 (chart here).
And so now we need to worry about GE, while being excited about Comcast. GE got into trouble under new Chairman & CEO Jeffrey Immelt because he kept investing in the finance unit as it went further out the risk curve extending its business. Now that business has crashed, and to raise cash he is divesting assets (not unlike Brenda Barnes at Sara Lee). Mr. Immelt is selling a high growth business, with rising margins, in order to save a terrible business – his finance unit. This is bad for GE's growth prospects and future value (a company I've longed supported – but turning decidedly more negative given this recent action):
Chart supplied by Silicon Alley Insider
Meanwhile, as the acquirer Comcast is making one heck of a deal. It is buying NBC/Universal which is growing at 16.5% compounded rate with rising margins. That is something which suppliers of programming, employees, customers and investors should really enjoy.
Revenue growth is a really big deal. You can't have profit growth without revenue growth. When a CEO starts selling businesses to raise cash, be very concerned. Instead they should use scenario planning, competitive analysis, disruptions and White Space to grow the business. And those same activities prepare an organization to make an acquisition when a good opportunity comes along.
(Note: The President of Comcast, Steven Burke, endorsed Create Marketplace Disruption and that endorsement appears on the jacket cover.)
