by Adam Hartung | Jun 26, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership
"Retailers cut back on variety, once the spice of marketing" is the Wall Street Journal.com headline. It seems one of the unintended consequences of this recession will be forced consumer goods innovation!
For years consumer goods companies, and the retailers which push their products, have played a consistent, largely boring, and not too profitable Defend & Extend game. When I was young there was one jar of Kraft Miracle whip on the store shelf. It was one quart. This container was so ubiquitous that it coined the term "mayonnaise jar" – everybody knew what you meant with that term. Now you can find multiple varieties of Miracle Whip (fat free, low fat, etc.), in multiple sizes. This product proliferation passed for innovation for many people. Unfortunately, it has not grown the sales of Miracle Whip faster than growth in the general population.
Do you remember when you'd go to Pizza Hut and they offered "Hawaiian Pizza?" Pizza Hut would concoct some pretty unusual toppings, mixed up in various arrangements, then give them catchy labels. Unfortunately, what passed internally as an exciting new product introduction was recognized by customers as much ado about nothing, and those varieties quietly and quickly left the menu. Like the Miracle Whip example, it expanded the number of choices, but it did not increase the demand for pizza, nor revenues, nor profits.
Expanding varieties is too often seen by marketers as innovation. I remember when Oreos came out with 100 calorie packs, and the CEO said that was an innovation. But did it drive additional Oreo sales? Unfortunately for Nabisco, no. It was plenty easy to count out the number of cookies you want and put in a baggie. Or buy fewer cookies altogether in these new, smaller packages.
These sorts of tricks are the stock-in-trade of Defend & Extend management. Clog up the distribution system with dozens (sometimes hundreds) of varieties of your product. Try to take over lots of shelf space by paying "stocking fees" to the retailer to put all those varieties (package sizes, flavor options, etc.) on his shelf – in effect bribing him to stock the product. But then when a truly new product comes along, something really innovative by a smaller, newer company, the D&E manager uses the stocking fees as a way to make it hard for the new product to even reach the market because the small company can't afford to pay millions of dollars to bump the big guy defending his retail turf. The large number of offerings defends the product's position in retail, while simultaneously extending the product's life to keep sales from declining. But, year after year the cost of creating, launching and placing these new varieties of largely the "same old thing" keeps driving down the net margin. The D&E manager is trying to keep up revenues, but at the expense of profits.
Simultaneously, this kind of behavior keeps the business from launching really new products. The previous CEO at Kraft said in 2006 that the best investment his company could make was advertising Velveeta. His point of view was that protecting Velveeta sales was worth more than launching new products – and at that time the last new product launched by Kraft was 6 years old! Internally, the decision-support system was so geared toward defending the existing business that it made all marginal investments supporting existing brands look highly profitable – while killing the rate of return on new products by discounting potential sales and inflating costs!
This D&E behavior isn't good for any business. Consumer goods or otherwise. And it's interesting to read that now retailers are starting to push back. They are cutting the number of product variations to cut the inventory carrying costs. As I mentioned, if you now have 6 different stock keeping units (SKUs) for Miracle Whip in various sizes, flavors and shapes but no additional sales you more than likely have doubled, tripled or even more the inventory – and simultaneously reduced "turns" – thus making the margin per foot of shelf space, and the inventory ROI, poorer. Even with those "shelf fee" bribes the consumer goods manufacturer paid.
For consumers this is a great thing! Because it frees up shelf space for new products. It frees up buyers to look harder at truly new products, and new suppliers. The retailer has the chance of revitalizing his stores by putting more excitement on the shelves, and giving the consumer something new. This action is a Disruption for the individual retailer – pushing them to compete on products and services, not just having the same old products (in too many varieties) exactly the same as competitors.
This action, happening at WalMart, Walgreens, RiteAid, Kroger and Target according to the article, is an industry Disruption. It impacts the manufacturers like Kraft and P&G by forcing them to bring more truly new products to the market if they want to maintain shelf facings and revenues. It alters the selling proposition for all suppliers, making the "distribution fees" less of an issue and turning those retail buyers back into true merchandisers – rather than just people who review manufacturer supplied planograms before feeding numbers into the automated ordering system. And it changes what the manufacturer's salespeople have to do.
The companies that will do well are those that now implement White Space to take advantage of this Disruption. As you can imagine, it's a huge boon for the smaller, more entrepreneurial companies that may well have long been blocked from the big retailer's stores. It allows them to get creative about pitching their products in an effort to help the retailer compete on product – not just price. And for any existing supplier, they will have to use White Space to get more new products out faster. And get their salesforce to change behavior toward selling new products rather than just defending the old products and facings.
Markets work in amazing ways. Almost never do things happen as one would predict. It's these unintended consequences of markets that makes them so powerful. Not that they are "efficient" so much as they allow for Disruptions and big behavior changes. And that gives the entrepreneurial folks, and the innovators, their opportunities to succeed. For those in consumer goods, right now is a great time to talk to Target, Kohl's, Safeway, et.al. about how they can really change the competition by refocusing on your innovative new products again!
by Adam Hartung | Jun 24, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, General, Leadership, Openness
"Reborn Chrysler gets a European makeover" is the headline at the Detroit Free Press. Now that Fiat is in charge, can we expect Chrysler to turn around?
There is no doubt Chrysler has been severely Challenged. But that alone did not Disrupt Chrysler – you can be challenged a lot and still not Disrupt Lock-ins. On the other hand, the new CEO appears to have stepped in and made significant changes in the organization structure, as well as the product line-up at Chrysler. We also know that bankruptcy changed the union rules as well as employee compensation and retirement programs. These are Disruptions. That's good news. Disruptions precede real change. No matter the outcome, the level of Disruption ensures the future Chrysler will be different from the old Chrysler. Step one in the right direction.
But, the Fiat leadership under Sergio Marcchione appears to be rapidly installing the Fiat Success Formula at Chrysler. The organization, product, branding and manufacturing decisions appear to be aligned with what Fiat has been doing in Europe. So this makes our analysis a lot trickier. Companies that effectively turn around align with market needs. They meet customer requirements in new, better ways. For Chrysler to now succeed requires that the American market needs are closely enough aligned with what Fiat has been doing to make Chrysler a success.
If this gives you doubts, you're well served. It's not like Fiat has been a household name in America for a long time. Nor have I perceived Fiat was gaining substantial share over its competitors in Europe. Nor do I have awareness of Fiat being noticably successful in emerging auto markets like China, India or Eastern Europe. They aren't doing as badly as Chrysler, but are they winning?
The new management is rolling in like Macarthur's team taking over Japan. They clearly have already made many decisions, and are now focused on execution. What worries me is
- what if the product lineup isn't really what Americans want?
- what if dealers don't make enough margin on the new lineup?
- what if the cost/quality tradeoffs don't fit American needs?
- what if competitors match their product capabilities?
- what if competitors have lower cost?
- what if competitors have measurably better quality?
- what if competitors bring out new innovations, like electric, hybrid or diesel, change the market significantly from what Fiat has to offer?
- what if customers simply have doubts about Fiat quality?
- what if customers like the Charger, Challenger and 300 more than they like the new Fiat products?
I don't have to be right or wrong on many of these questions and it portends problems for the new Chrysler/Fiat. And that's the problem with having such a tight plan when you start a turn-around. What if you get something wrong? How will you know? What will tell you early you need to change your plan fast, and possibly dramatically? Nowhere in the article, nor elsewhere, have I read about White Space projects being created that would produce an entirely new Success Formula. Only how Chrysler is being converted to the Fiat Success Formula.
I want the best for the new owners, employees and vendors of Fiat. I'm really happy to see the level of Disruption. But until we see White Space, more discussion of market testing and experimentation, as well as greater discussion of competitiors, I'd reserve judgement on the company's future.
If you read about White Space at Chrysler/Fiat please let me know. This is a story worth watching closely. Americans have a lot riding on the outcome – good or bad. So if you read about Disruptions or White Space share them with me or here on the blog for everyone.
PS – Don't forget to download my new ebook "The Fall of GM" for additional insight on managing Success Formulas in the auto industry.
PPS – There have been a lot of great comments related to recent blogs. I appreciate the personal notes, but don't hesitate to blog directly on the site. Also, keep up the comments. I don't feel compelled to re-comment on them all. Suffice it to say that the quality is excellent, and comments make the blog all that much more powerful. So please keep up the responses.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 23, 2009 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
What is a brand worth? Do you spend a lot of time trying to "protect" your brand? A lot of marketing gurus spent the last 20 years talking about creating brands, and saying there's a lot of value in brands. Some companies have been valued based upon the expected future cash flow of sales attributed to a brand. Folks have heard it so often, often they simply assume a recognized name – a brand – must be worth a lot.
But, according to a Strategy + Business magazine article, "The trouble with brands," brand value isn't what it was cracked up to be. Using a boatload of data, this academic tome says that brand
trustworthiness has fallen 50%, brand quality perceptions are down 24%,
and even brand awareness is down 20%. It turns out, people don't think very highly of brands, in fact – they don't think about brands all that much after all.
And according to Fast Company in the article "The new rules of brand competition" the trend has gotten a lot worse. It seems that over time marketers have kept pumping the same message out about their brands, reinforcing the message again and again. But as time evolved, people gained less and less value from the brand. Pretty soon, the brand didn't mean anything any more. According to the Financial Times, in "Brands left to ponder price of loyalty," brand defection is now extremely common. Where consumer goods marketers came to expect 70% of profits from their most loyal customers, those customers are increasingly buying alternative products.
Hurrumph. This is not good news for brand marketers. When a company spends a lot on advertising, it wants to say that spend has a high ROI because it produces more sales at higher prices yielding more margin. Brand marketers knew how to segment users, then appeal to those users by banging away at some message over and over – with the notion that as long as you reinforced yourself to that segment you'd keep that customer.
But these folks ignore the fact that needs, and markets, shift. When markets shift, a brand that once seemed valuable could overnight be worth almost nothing. For example, I grew up thinking Ovaltine was a great chocolate drink. Have you ever heard of Ovaltine? I drank Tang because it went to the moon, and everyone wanted this "high-tech" food with its vitamin C. When was the last time you heard of Tang? It was once cache to be a "Marlboro Man" – rugged, virile, strong, successful, sexy. Now it stands for "cancer boy." Did the marketers screw up? No, the markets shifted. The world changed, products changed, needs changed and these brands which did exactly what they were supposed to do lost their value.
Lots of analysts get this wrong. Billions of dollars of value were trumped up when Eddie Lambert bought Sears out of his re-organized KMart. But neither company fits consumer needs as well as WalMart or Kohl's for the most part, so both are brands of practically no value. People said Craftsmen tools alone were worth more than Mr. Lampert paid for Sears – but that hasn't worked out as the market for tools has been flooded with different brands having lifetime warranties — and as the do-it-yourselfer market has declined precipitiously from the days when people expected to fix their own stuff. So a lot of money has been lost on those who thought KMart, Sears, Craftsman, Kenmore, Martha Stewart as a brand collection was worth significantly more than it's turned out to be. But that's because the market moved, and people found new solutions, not because you don't recognize the brands and what they used to stand for.
Every market shifts. Longevity requires the ability to adapt. But brand marketers tend to be "purists" who want the brand to live forever. No brand can live forever. Soon you won't even find the GE brand on light bulbs. That's if we even have light bulbs as we've known them in 15 years – what with the advent of LED lights that are much lower cost to operate and last multiples of the life of traditional bulbs. GE has to evolve – as it has with jet engines and a myriad of other products – to survive.
Think for a moment about Harley Davidson. Once, owning a Harley implied you were a true rebel. Someone outside the rules of society. That brand position worked well for attracting motorcycle riders 60 years ago. As people aged, many were re-attracted to the "bad boy" image of Harley, and the brand proliferated. A $50 jacket with a Harley Davidson winged logo might sell for $150 – implying the branding was worth $100/jacket!! But now, the average new Harley buyer is over 50 years old! The market has several loyalists, but unfortuanately they are getting older and dying. Within 20 years Harley will be struggling to survive as the market is dominated by riders who are tied to different brands associated with entirely different products.
If you see that your sales are increasingly to a group of "hard core" loyalists, it's time to seriously rethink your future. Your brand has found itself into a "niche" that will continue shrinking. To succeed long-term, everything has to evolve. You have to be willing to Disrupt the old notions, in order to replace them with new. So you either have to be willing to abandon the old brand – or cut its resources to build a new one. For example, Harley could buy Ducati, stop spending on Harley and put money into Ducati to build it into a brand competitive with Japanese manufacturers. This would dramatically Disrupt Harley – but it might save the company from following GM into bankruptcy.
The marketing lore is filled with myths about getting focused on core customers with a targeted brand. It all sounded so appealing. But it turns out that sort of logic paints you into a corner from which you have almost no hope of survival. To be successful you have to be willing to go toward new markets. You have to be willing to Disrupt "what you stand for" in order to become "what the market wants." Think like Virgin, or Nike. Be a brand that applies itself to future market needs – not spending all its resources trying to defend its old position.
Don't forget to download the new ebook "The Fall of GM" to learn more about why it's so critical to let Disruptions and White Space guide your planning rather than Lock-in to old notions.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 22, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Web/Tech
For years business leaders have sought advice which would allow their organizations to become "evergreen." Evergreen businesses constantly renew themselves, remaining healthy and growing constantly without even appearing to turn dormant. Of course, as I often discuss, most companies never achieve this status. Today investors, employees and vendors of Apple should be very pleased. Apple is showing the signs of becoming evergreen.
For the last few years Apple has done quite well. Resurgent from a near collapse as an also-ran producer of niche computers, Apple became much more as it succeeded with the iPod, iTunes and iPhone. But many analysts, business news pundits and investors wanted all the credit to go to CEO Steve Jobs. It's popular to use the "CEO as hero" thinking, and say Steve Jobs singlehandedly saved Apple. But, as talented as Steve Jobs is, we all know that there are a lot of very talented people at Apple and it was Mr. Jobs willingness to Disrupt the old Success Formula and implement White Space which let that talent come out that really turned around Apple. The question remained, however, whether Disruptions and White Space were embedded, or only happening as long as Mr. Jobs ran the show. And largely due to this question, the stock price tumbled and people grew anxious when he took medical leave (chart here).
This weekend we learned that yes, Mr. Jobs has been very sick. The Wall Street Journal today reported "Jobs had liver transplant". With this confirmation, we know that the company has been run by the COO Tim Cook and not a "shadow" Mr. Jobs. Simultaneously, first report on the Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal is "Apple Claims 1M iPhone Sales" last weekend in the launch of its new 3G S mobile phone and operating system. This is a huge number by the measure of any company, exceeded analysts expectations by 33-50%, and equals the last weekend launch of a new model – despite the currently horrible economy. This performance indicates that Apple is building a company that can survive Mr. Jobs.
On the other side of the coin, "Walgreen's profit drops as costs hit income" is the Crain's Chicago Business report. Walgreen's is struggling because it's old Success Formula, which relied very heavily on opening several new stores a week, no longer produces the old rates of return. Changes in financing, coupled with saturation, means that Walgreen's has to change its Success Formula to make money a different way, and that has been tough for them to find. The retail market shifted. Although Walgreen's opened White Space projects the last few years, there have been no Disruptions and thus none of the new ideas "stuck." Growth has slowed, profits have fallen and Walgreen's has gone into a Growth Stall. Now all projects are geared at inventory reduction and cost cutting, as described at Marketwatch.com in "Higher Costs Hurt Walgreen's Profits."
Now the company is saying it wants to take out $1B in costs in 2011. No statement about how to regain growth, just a cost reduction — one of the first, and most critical, signs of Defend & Extend Management doing the wrong things when the company hits the Flats. And now management is saying that costs will be higher in 2009/2010 in order to allow it to cut costs in 2011. If you're asking yourself "say what?" you aren't alone. This is pure financial machination. Raise costs today, declare a lower profit, in order to try padding the opportunity to declare a ferocious improvement in future year(s). This has nothing to do with growth, and never helps a company. To the contrary, it's the second most critical sign of D&E Management doing the wrong thing at the most critical time in the company's history. When in the Flats, instead of Disrupting and using White Space to regain growth these actions push the company into the Swamp of low growth and horrible profit performance.
We now can predict performance at Walgreen's pretty accurately. They will do more of the same, trying to do it better, faster and cheaper. They will have little or no revenue growth. They may sell stores and use that to justify a flat to down revenue line. The use of accounting tricks will help management to "engineer" short-term profit reporting. But the business has slid into a Growth Stall from which it has only a 7% chance of ever again growing consistently at a mere 2%. This is exactly the kind of behavior that got GM into bankruptcy – see "The Fall of GM."
The right stuff seems to be happening at Apple. But keep your eyes open, a new iPhone is primarily Extend behavior – not requiring a Disruption or necessarily even White Space. We need to see Apple exhibit more Disruptions and White Space to make us true believers. On the other hand, it's definitely time to throw in the towel on Walgreen's. Management is resorting to financial machinations to engineer profits, and that's always a bad sign. When management attention is on accounting rather than Disruptions and White Space to grow the future is sure to be grim.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 19, 2009 | Boards of Directors, Books, Defend & Extend, eBooks, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Transportation
Of all the companies that typified America’s rise as an industrial superpower, none was more successful than General Motors.
What happened? Why has it fallen so far? GM at its biggest boasted some 600,000 well-paid employees. It will be left with something like 60,000 after it emerges from bankruptcy. How did that happen? Why did its stock price tumble from $96 per share at its height to 80 cents recently? Why did its market share shrink from one out of every two cars sold to less than one in five last quarter?
And thus begins the new ebook about the fall of GM. In 1,000 words this ebook covers the source of GM’s success – as well as what led to its failure. And what GM could have done differently – as well as why it didn’t do these things. Read it, and share it. Let folks know about it via Twitter. Post to your Facebook page and groups, as well as your Linked-in groups. As markets are shifting the fate of GM threatens all businesses. Even those that are following the best practices that used to make money. Let’s use the story of GM — and the costs its bankruptcy have had on employees, investors, vendors and the support organizations around the industry as well as government bodies — as a rallying cry to help turn around this recession and get our businesses growing again!
Download Fall of GM
by Adam Hartung | Jun 15, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Lifecycle
Harvard Publishing recently posted an article from a professor at the London Business School, Freek Vermeulen "Can we please stop saying the market is efficient?" The good professor's point of view was that he observed a lot of companies that were efficient which didn't survive, and several not all that efficient that did survive. He even took time to point out where some Harvard professors had identified that companies who implement ISO 9000 often see their innovation decline!
Unfortunately, the good professor is all too correct. If markets were efficient, we'd see performance move in a straight line. But any follower of equities, for example, can show you where the stock of a company may have gone up, then declined 20%, then gone back to a new high, maybe to even fall back more than the original 20%, only to then climb to even greater highs. If the market for that equity were efficient, it would never have these sorts of wild price gyrations.
Likewise, the market for products, things like copiers, aren't all that efficient. A case I describe pretty deeply in Create Marketplace Disruption. When Xerox brought out the 914 copier it changed the world of office copies. But it didn't take off. Instead, for years companies maintained their duplicating shop in the basement, using small lithographic offset presses. This went on for years, and usually the basement shop was closed when (a) the operator retired, (b) the printing press simply gave up the ghost and was ready for the scrap heap, or (c) when the company realized it had so many copiers the basement would be better served to house copiers instead of the printing press. The fact is that marginal economics – the very low cost of continuing to operate an alread-paid-for-press meant that it was easy to simply keep using presses long after they had any economic advantage. Not to mention all kinds of kinks in the decision apparatus that funded things like a print shop just because the budget "always had." But eventually, as the retirees and metal scrappers started accumulating, the market shifted. What had been a "mixed market" of presses and Xerox copiers suddenly shifted to almost all copiers. Xerox exploded, and the small offset press makers disappeared.
That wasn't efficient. There was a huge lag between when the benefits of copiers were well known and the demise of print shops. In the end, those who had debts or equity in printing press companies suffered huge losses as the business "fell off a cliff." There was no "orderly migration" out of the marketplace. In a very short time, the market shifted from one solution to another.
As recently as 2007 almost every home in America had a newspaper delivered. By 2009 the market had begun to disappear with subscriptions down over 60% in some markets. For advertisers, the purchasing of print ads dropped by over 50% in just 24 months. Yet, the growth of web usage and internet ads had been growing for almost a decade. In an efficient market there would have been a smooth transition between the two, with say 5% of ads shifting every year. Again, the economists' "orderly transition" would have applied. There doesn't seem anything orderly if you're in a market where the newspaper has disappeared, filed for bankruptcy, or cut its pages 40% – and you're wondering how to get the local news or even the TV listings you once found in the newspaper.
Market shifts are sudden, and big. In the later half of the 1980s the PC market shifted from 60% Macintosh to 80% Wintel in just 5 years – while growth for PCs exploded. It didn't feel very efficient to people at Apple, the suppliers of apps for Macs or the user base. Thousands of people in corporations were told "surrender your Mac and get a new PC next week" with no discussion, explanation or concern.
Companies that fall victim to market shifts aren't without strategists, planners or quality programs. Many have robust TQM or Six Sigma projects. But these are all about optimizing performance against past performance – not necessarily what the market wants. When you optimize agains the past you depend on minimal change. When markets shift, these "efficiency" programs can cause you to be the last to know – and the last to react.
People like to think of evolution as sort of like Continuous Improvement. Get 5% better every year. Like a variety of mammal might lose 1/4" of tail each generation until it no longer has one. We now know that's not how it works. There are winners. They keep reproducing, get stronger and more of them every year. Like mammals with long tails. Meanwhile, an alternative develops – like a mammal with no tail. Then suddenly, without expectation, the environment changes. Tails become a big hindrance, and those with tails die off in a massive exodus. Those without tails suddenly find they are advantaged by the lack of tails, so they begin breeding fast and getting stronger. In short order, perhaps a single generation, the tailed mammals are gone and the no-tails become dominant. Not very efficient, or orderly. More like reactive to an environmental shift.
If you want to do good tomorrow, I mean one day from today, the odds are that you can accomplish that by being just slightly better at what you did yesterday. But if you want to be good in 5 years, you may well have to do something very different. If you wait for the market to tell you – well – you've waited too long. By the time you know you're out of date, the competitor has taken your position. You have no hope of survival.
We live with a lot of myths in business. The value of efficiency, and the belief in efficient markets, are just a couple of big ones. Kind of like the old myths about blood-letting. Before the USA, never before in history has anyone ever tried to establish a government of self-rule. And self-rule led America to a country dominated by businesspeople. No longer did the king determine winners, losers, prices and behavior. Now markets would do so. The people who would make these markets were the emerging business folks. But nobody knew anything about markets – except some theories about how they "should" work written by an Englishman who had grand thoughts about open-market behaviors. So most people accepted the earliest theory – with its ideas about "invisible hands" that would guide behavior.
Markets are dramatically inefficient. Just look at the prices of equities. Look at the bankruptcies all around us. GM, your local newspaper, Six Flags and your neighborhood furniture store. People who were often efficient, but didn't understand that markets shift quickly, and very inefficiently. They don't move in small increments – they change all at once. And if you want to survive, you have to
prepare for market shifts. Simply working harder, faster and cheaper won't save you when the market shifts. If you aren't ready to be part of the shift, you get left behind and won't survive.
Markets are shifting today faster than they ever have. Telecommunications, internet connections, massive amounts of computing power, television, jet airplanes – these things have made the clock speed on changes much faster. Market shifts that used to be seperated by decades are compressed into a few years. If you don't plan on market inefficiencies – on market changes – you simply can't survive.
Lots of people misunderstand Darwin. The prevailing view is that his study on the origination of species says that the strongest survive. In fact, his conclusion was quite the opposities. What he said was that it is not the strongest that survive, but the most adaptable.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 10, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Lock-in
As I've given presentations around the country the last year I'm frequently asked about the role of leadership in Phoenix Principle companies. All people can bring Phoenix Principle behaviors to their work teams and functional groups. Yet there is no doubt that organizations do much better when the leaders are also committed to Phoenix Principle behaviors.
Unfortunately, all too often, top leaders are more interested in Defend & Extend Management. BusinessWeek's recent article "How to Succeed at Proctor & Gamble" talks about replacing CEO icons such as Charles Schwab, Michael Dell and Jack Welch. Unfortunately, only one of these was a real Phoenix Principle leader – and the others ended up coming back to their organizations when the replacements tried too much D&E behavior – leaving their shareholders with far too low returns and only dreams of rising investment value. Even more unfortunate is the fact that too many management gurus simply love to wax eloquently about leaders of big companies – regardless of their performance. Such as Warren Bennis's description of A.G. Lafley at P&G as "Rushmorian." Those at the top are given praise just because they got to the top. Yet, we've all known leaders who were far from being praise-worthy. Even the mundane can be loved by business reviewers that rely on them for money, access, ad dollars and influence.
There's a simple rule for identifying good leadership. Grow revenues and profits while achieving above average rates of return and positioning the organizations for ongoing double digit growth upon departure. It's not the size of the organization that determines the quality of a leader, it's the results. We too often forget this.
Back to departing P&G CEO, Mr. Lafley. Preparing to retire, he's taken the high ground of claiming to be "Mr. Innovation" for P&G. Experts on innovation classify them into Variations, Derivatives, Platforms or Fundamental. Using this classification scheme (from Praveen Gupta Managing Editor of the International Journal of Innovation Science and author of Business Innovation) we can see that Mr. Lafley was good at driving Variations and Derivatives at P&G. But under his leadership what did P&G do to launch new platforms or fundamental new technologies? While variations and derivatives drive new sales – "flavor of the month" marketing as it's sometimes called – they don't produce high profits because they are easily copied by competitors and offer relatively little new market growth. They don't position a company for long-term growth because all variations and derivatives eventually run their course. They may help retain customers for a while, but they rarely attract new ones. Eventually, market shifts leave them weaker and unable to maintain results due to spending too much time and resource Defending & Extending what worked in the past. Mr. Lafley has done little to Disrupt P&G's decades-old Success Formula or introduce White Space that would make P&G a role model for the new post-Industrial era.
Too often, bigness stands for goodness among those choosing business leaders. For example, GM is replacing departed CEO Rick Wagoner with Ed Whitacre according to the Detroit Free Press in "Former AT&T chief to lead GM." Mr. Whitacre's claim to fame is that as a lifetime AT&T employee, when the company was forced to spin out the regional Bell phone companies he led Southwestern Bell through acquisitions until it recreated AT&T – as a much less innovative company. Mr. Whitacre is a model of the custodial CEO determined to Defend & Extend the old business – in his case spending 20+ years recreating the AT&T judge Green took apart. Where a judge unleashed the telecommunications revolution, Mr. Whitacre simply put back together a company that is no longer a leader in any growth markets. Market leaders today are Apple and Google and those who are delivering value at the confluence of communication regardless of technology.
Today, few under age 30 even want a land-line – and most have no real concept of "long distance". Can the man who put back together the pieces of AT&T, the leader in land-line telephones and old-fashioned "long distance service" be the kind of leader to push GM into the information economy? Does he understand how to create new business models? Or is he the kind of person dedicated to preserving business models created in the 1920s, 30s and 40s? Can the man who let all the innovation of Ma Bell dissipate into new players while recreating an out-of-date business be expected to remake GM into a company that can compete with Kia and Tata Motors?
Any kind of person can become the leader of a company. Businesses are not democracies. The people at the top get there through a combination of factors. There is no litmus test to be a CEO – not even consistent production of good results. But in far too many many cases the historical road to the top has been by being the champion of D&E Management; by caretaking the old Success Formula, never letting anyone attack it. They have avoided Disruptions, ignored new competitors, and risen because they were more interested in "protecting the core" than producing above-average results (often protecting a seriously rotting core). Much to the chagrin of shareholders in many cases.
Now that the world has shifted, we need people leading companies that can modify old Success Formulas to changing market circumstances. Leaders who are able to develop and promote future scenarios that can guide the company to prosperity, not merely extend past practices. Leaders who obsess about competitors to identify market shifts and new opportunities for growth. Leaders who are not afraid to attack old Lock-ins, Disrupting the status quo so the business can evolve. Leaders who cherish White Space and keep multiple market tests operating so the company can move toward what works for meeting emerging client needs. Leaders like Lee Iacocca, Jack Welch, Steve Jobs and John Chambers. They can improve corporate longevity by shifting their organizations with the marketplace, maintaining revenue and profit growth supporting job growth and increased vendor sales.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 1, 2009 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, Leadership, Openness
June 1, 2009 will be remembered for a really long time. As I last blogged, I think the iconic impact of GM as one of the most successful and profitable of all industrial companies makes its bankruptcy more important than almost any other company.
As GM loses its market value, it was forced off the Dow Jones Industrial Average. In "What's behind the Dow changes?" (Marketwatch.com) we can read about how the Wall Street Journal editors selected Cisco to replace GM. I've long been a detractor of GM for its slavik devotion to its outdated Success Formula. For an equally long time I've long been a fan of Cisco and how it keeps its Success Formula evergreen. Cisco reflects the behaviors needed to succeed in an information economy, and its addition to the DJIA is a big improvement in measuring the American economy and its potential for growth.
What I most admire about Cisco is management's requirement to obsolete the company's own products. This one element has proven to be critical to Cisco's ongoing growth – and the company's ability to avoid being another Sun Microsystems. By forcing themselves to obsolete their own products, Cisco doesn't get trapped in "cannibalization" arguments. Management doesn't get trapped into listening to big customers who want Cisco to slow its product introduction cycle. Leaders end up Disrupting the company internally to do new things that will replace outdated revenues. It sounds so simple, yet it's been so incredibly powerful. "Obsolete your own products" is a statement that has helped keep Cisco a long-term winner.
Since even before writing "Create Marketplace Disruption" I've espoused that Cisco is a Phoenix Principle kind of company. One that uses extensive scenario planning to plan for the future, one that obsesses about competitors in order to never have second-place products, willing to Disrupt its product plans and markets to continue growing, and loaded with White Space developing new solutions for new markets. It's a great choice to be on the Dow – which will eventually have to replace all the outdated companies (like Kraft) with companies that rely on information – rather than industrial production – to make money.
by Adam Hartung | May 27, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, General, Leadership, Lock-in, Openness, Quotes
"The Need for Failure" is a recent Forbes article on why it is bad – really bad – to prop up failing institutions. The author is an esteemed economics professor at NYU. He says "too big to fail is dangerous. It suggests there is an insurance policy that says, no matter how risky your behavior, we will make sure you stay in business." Rightly said, only it creates a conundrum. Large organizations are not known for taking risky actions. Large organizations are known primarily for lethargic decision-making which weeds out all forms of risk – right down to how people dress and what they can say in the office. When you think of a big bank, like Bank of America or Citibank, you don't think of risk. You think just the opposite. Of risk aversion so great they cannot do anything new or different.
What I'd add to the good professor's article is recognition that large organizations stumble into risk they don't recognize, by trying to do more of the same when that behavior becomes risky due to market changes. My dad said that 100 years ago when my grandfather was first given pills by a doctor he decided to take the whole bottle at once. His logic was "if one pill will help me, I might as well take the whole lot and get better fast." Clearly, an example where doing more of the same was not a good idea. Then there was the boy who loved jumping off the railroad bridge into the river. He did it all the time, year after year. Then one month there was a draught, the river level fell while he was busy at school, and when he next jumped off the bridge he broke his leg. He did what he always did, but the environmental change suddenly made his previous behavior very risky.
Big corporations behave this way. They build Lock-ins around everything they do. They use hierarchy, cultural norm enforcement, sacred cows, rigid decision-making systems, narrow strategy processes, consistency in hiring practices, inflexible IT systems, knowledge silos and dependence on large investments to make sure the organization cannot flex. The intent of these Lock-ins is to make sure that historical decisions are replicated, to make sure past behaviors are repeated again and again with the expectation that those behaviors will consistently produce the same returns.
But when the market shifts these Lock-ins create risk that is unseen. Bankers had built systems for generating their own loans, and acquiring loans from others, that were designed to keep growing. They designed various derivative products as their own form of insurance on their assets. But what they did not recognize was that pushing forward in highly unregulated product markets, as the quality of debtors declined, created unexpected risk. In other words, doing more of the same did not reduce risk – it increased the risk! Because the company is designed to undertake these behaviors, there is no one who can recognize that the risk is growing. There is no one who challenges whether doing more of the same is risky – only those who would challenge making a change by saying change is risky!
Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and AIG all created a much higher risk than they ever anticipated. And they never saw it. Because they were doing what they always did – and expecting the results would take care of themselves. They were measuring their own behaviors, not the behavior of the market. And thus they missed recognizing that the market had moved – and thus doing more of the same was inherently risky.
(The same is true of GM, for example. GM kept doing what it always did, refusing to see the risk it incurred by ignoring market shifts brought on by changing customer behaviors, rising energy costs and offshore competitors.)
That's why big company CEOs feel OK about asking for a bail-out. To them, they did not fail. They did not take risk. They did what they had always done – and something went wrong "out there". Something went wrong "in the market". Not in their company. They need protection from the marketplace.
Of course, this is just the opposite of what free markets are all about. Free markets are intended to allow changes to develop, forcing competitors to adapt to market shifts or fail. But those who run (or ran) our big banks, and many of our big industrial companies, haven't see it that way. They believe their size means they are the market – so they want regulators to change the market back. Back to where they can make money again.
So how is this to to be avoided? It starts by having leaders who can recognize market shifts, and recognize the need for change. In an companion Forbes article "Jamie Dimon's Straight Talk Has A Good Ring" the author takes time to review J.P. Morgan Chase's Chairman's letter to shareholders regarding 2008. In the letter, surprisingly for a big organization, the JPMC Chairman points out market shifts, and then points out that his organization made mistakes by not reacting fast enough – for example by changing practices on acquiring mortgages from independent brokers. He goes no to point out that several changes have happened, and will continue happening, at JPMC to deal with market shifts. And he even comments on future scenarios which he hopes will help protect investors from the hidden risk of companies that take actions based on history.
Mr. Dimon's actions demonstrate a willingness to implement The Phoenix Principle. For those who don't know him, Mr. Dimon has long been one of the more controversial figures in banking. He is well known for exhibiting highly Disruptive behavior, yet he has found his way up the corporate ranks of the traditional banking industry. Now he is not being shy about Disrupting his own bank – JPMC.
- His discussion of future scenarios clearly points to expected changes in the market, from competitor shifts, economic shifts and regulatory shifts which his bank must address.
- He sees competitors changing, and the need for JPMC to compete differently with different sorts of institutions under different regulations. Mr. Dimon clearly has his eyes on competitors, and he intends for JPMC to grow as a result of the market shift, not merely "hang on."
- He is espousing Disruptions for his company, the industry and the regulatory environment. By going public with his views, excoriating insurance regulators as well as unregulated hedge funds, he intends for his employees and investors to think hard about what caused past problems and how important it is to change.
- He keeps trying new and different things to improve growth and performance at the company. It's not merely "more of the same, but hopefully cheaper." He is proposing new approaches for lending as well as investing – and for significant changes in regulations now that banking is global.
Very few leaders recognize the risk from doing more of the same. Leaders often feel it is conservative to not change course. But, when markets shift, not changing course introduces dramatic risk. People just don't perceive it. Because they are looking at the past, not at the future. They are measuring risk based upon what they know – what they've failed to take into account. And the only way to overcome this problem is to spend a lot more time on market scenarios, competitor analysis and using Disruptions to keep the organization vital and connected with the market using White Space projects.
by Adam Hartung | May 26, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Openness
Today I was hit by a market shift that left me baffled as to what I should do next.
Everybody, every work team, every company has Lock-ins. Lock-ins help you operate quickly and efficiently. And they blind you to potential market shifts. I have as many Lock-ins as anyone. Some I recognize, and some I don't. It's always the ones we don't recognize that leave us in trouble.
For 18 years I've listened to only one radio station in Chicago. WNUA 95.5 smooth jazz. I like jazz, and I've just about quit listening to anything else musically. I grew accustomed to the people who played the "light jazz" music on WNUA, and so enjoyed it I even listened to the station on my computer when traveling out of town. I was a stalwart, loyal fan. My whole family knew that when I was driving the car, the channel would be 95.5.
Then, after a long weekend out of town, I got in the car this morning. I pushed the button for 95.5, and for some reason there was Hispanic music. I couldn't figure it out. This didn't make any sense. So I turned off the radio and went about my business. When I returned home I logged onto WNUA.com to find a letter from a Clear Channel Chicago executive telling me that WNUA was no longer broadcasting as of 10:00am on Friday, May 22. The web site was gone, only this one HTML page existed. I was stunned.
I quickly did a Google search and found an article published by the media critic at The Chicago Tribune dated May 22, "WNUA Swings to Spanish Format." I immediately thought "this can't be right. There has to be something I can do to get back my radio station. Maybe if I email Clear Channel?" See, I quickly wanted to defend my radio selection, and extend the life of the product I personally enjoyed.
But then I read the article. Turns out there are a lot of smooth jazz lovers who were loyal to WNUA. But, unfortunately, that number has not been growing for a while. The channel management had tried many things to boost listeners, but none had worked. The market just wouldn't grow, despite their efforts. The jazz radio listener market had stalled – and was showing signs of (oh my gosh) decline! I was getting older, and apparently us old Chicago smooth jazz hounds aren't creating new jazz followers.
But, the station had done a lot of analysis as to what was growing. Hispanics now outnumber African-Americans as the largest minority group in the country. Clear Channel Chicago did a full scenario about the future, thinking about what would be needed to fill the needs of Chicago's biggest listener groups in 5 years. Looking forward, there was no doubt that smooth jazz wasn't going to grow – but the opportunity for an Hispanic station was "crystal clear". Competitively, they would continue losing revenue playing smooth jazz, and although the cost of shifting would be great – the opportunity to be part of a growing market had much more to gain. Chicago is the 5th largest Hispanic population in the USA and growing, with 28% of the current population Hispanic. Clear Channel management did both scenario planning and competitor analysis before deciding to make this switch – just what a Phoenix Principle company is supposed to do!
KaBoom. The market was shifting, and I saw it, but I didn't think about the impact on my own life. I just assumed WNUA would always be there playing jazz for me. But the people at Clear Channel looked at the market shifts, and how they could best use their 5 stations to service the most people. That is good for Chicago, and good business for Clear Channel. If they wanted to keep growing, WNUA had to be replaced. I would bet the hate mail has been extreme. The longing for our old station must be felt by several thousand people around Chicago. It's hard to let go of a Lock-in.
Oh, I feel terrible about not having my radio station. But the right move was made. I should have thought about this more, and seen it coming. I could have scouted out other radio stations, and started looking for other music styles that I'd like to listen to. But I wore blinders – until the market shifted and left me in the cold.
I'm curious, have any of you readers found yourself the unfortunate loser due to a market shift? Did some favorite aspect of your life or work disappear because the market went a different direction – and you found yourself in a small segment unprofitable to serve? I'd love to hear more stories from folks whose Lock-in left them unprepared for a change in lifestyle or work.
As for me, I guess there's always CDs. Or NPR (I'm getting old enough to like the news). But those would be D&E behaviors intended to ignore the shifting market. So, maybe I should start letting others in my family select the radio stations so I could climb out of my cave and learn what more modern musicians are doing these days. It would do me good to update my music knowledge – get me closer to people who have music appreciation beyond jazz, and probably make me a lot more likable as a driver. It's never too late to open up some White Space and learn what's new in the world you couldn't see because of your old Lock-in.
