"Strategic Plans Lose Favor" is a recent Wall Street Journal headline. Seems like some big companies, and big consulting firms like Accenture, McKinsey and the Boston Consulting Group are rapidly learning what this blog has been pushing for a few years. That flexibility trumps traditional approaches to strategic planning.
When Office Depot's strategic plan was leading to revenue struggles, the company set up a situation room to track key indicators and adjust to market shifts much quicker.
"Strategy as we know it is dead" according to Walt Shill, head of strategic planning at Accenture. "increased flexibility and accelerated decision making are much more
important than simply predicting the future." (Do you think he's been reading this blog and my book?)
"business leaders will start to rely less on static five-year strategic
plans and more on rough "adaptive" strategies that consider multiple
scenarios" according to Martin Reeves, Senior Partner at BCG. (Where'd he read that – on this site?)
""The rate of change and width of volatility is much wider and faster
than what we would have assumed coming into this," Jeff Fettig, CEO at Whirlpool
McKkinsey has opened a "Center for Managing Uncertainty." Really.
As this recession has come on, and lingered, businesses are clearly starting to realize that market shifts happen fast, and businesses cannot be slow to change. Adaptability is one of the most important capabilities to compete in the post-2000 business world.
And the real market leaders are incorporating this kind of thinking into their organizations. While the earlier quotes show how, caught on the defensive, organizations are finding new ways to react, the best performing organizations are taking market leadership by being Disruptive. Like Apple. In a Harvard Business Review blog Roberto Verganti, professor at Politecnico di Milano tells us "Apple's Secret: It tells us what we should love."
The good professor of design and management points out that Apple does not ask customers what they want. Instead the company designs products which take customers to new levels of performance beyond what they imagined. Instead of being reactive, Apple uses scenario planning to understand future market needs and create shifts with its products. This approach leads to breakthrough performance, such as the success of Nintendo and its Wii product line.
To be successful businesses can no longer try to Defend & Extend their old strategies. They have to be market focused, and flexible to manage through market shifts. And to earn superior rates of return they have to be market leaders that use scenario planning and White Space to launch new solutions meeting emerging needs which attract customers and grow sales.
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!
There's no doubt that many more people are looking for jobs than there are those hiring. As a result, organizations offering jobs can find themselves flooded with applicants. Several are complaining about how hard it is to find "the right person." Reality is most companies have been struggling to find "the right person" for a long time. It just wasn't as obvious.
According to The Wall Street Journal "To Find Best Hires, Firms Become Creative." Yet, these creative ideas are largely about finding new ways to restrict the number of people getting into the hiring funnel. Increasingly, asking potential employees to carry more cost of the hiring process. And often putting employees through a longer (sometimes days) battery of interviews. Yet, it is unclear that these new hurdles are helping organizations hire "the right person" any more often.
In today's changing marketplace, "the right" people are often those who can help the organization adapt. They think laterally about what is happening in the market, and how to develop creative solutions. They rely less on their historical experience, and more on their scenarios about the future. They pay a lot of attention to competitors, and push for decisions that leapfrog competitive actions. And they aren't afraid to Disrupt historical ways of behaving and recommend white space projects where new things can be tried. They don't try to Defend & Extend the company's Success Formula. Instead they seek improved results.
But that is not how hiring processes are designed. They focus on developing tight requirements. With so many applicants now, the focus is on making very, very tight requirements so resumes can be sifted efficiently for specific experiences. But this approach means hiring requirements are based on what history has dictated was needed. They reflect what the company used to do, how it used to hire, what previous employees did that supported the old Success Formula. Job requirements rarely look forward, instead they try to find homogeneous individuals who are like people that succeeded in the past. Usually by reinforcing the old Success Formula. They are out to find candidates who want to Defend & Extend the Success Formula, not evolve it to better results.
Most hiring organizations even have an "ideal prototype candidate." This goes down to specifying the type of degree, and the university attended. It may well include specifying a geography where the candidate was raised. Common certifications. A preferred set of previous jobs that are like what others have been through. These approaches are all about yielding candidates that look alike – not different. In most companies, an employee from Google. Amazon or Apple – very successful companies – could not get through the first round.
Then the prolonged interviews. These simply force candidates to be like the people doing the interviews. Rafts of studies have been done on interviewing, and they always return the result that interviewers like people who are like themselves. The interviewer has a sense of what they think made them successful – education, experience and problem solving approach. And they simply look to see if the candidate is like them. If the interviewing goes on for days, they even look to see if the candidate orders food like them, drinks like them, has the same approach to mornings or working late. The long interview approach merely ensures that candidates are more likely to be just like existing employees.
These approaches are about finding candidates that have a good "initial fit." But if the organization is in need of adapting to changing market conditions, is that the employee you really need? All the people at the old AT&T were much alike – but that company still didn't survive deregulation. The people at most airlines are much alike, yet outside of Southwest the airlines don't make any money. GM had an "ideal employee profile" yet the people leading the company could not deal with market shifts that sent the organization into bankruptcy.
Today your organization might well need new employees who are not like previous employees. They may well need different education. Different experiences. Work in different industries. And different approaches to problem solving. With so many available candidates, is your approach to hiring helping you find people who can help your company grow, or is it trying to find the kind of people who reinforced the old Success Formula? Are you hiring for the future, or searching for people like you hired in the past?
