by Adam Hartung | Dec 2, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
"Henderson Never Fit In At GM Helm" is the Detroit Free Press headline. Imagine that – the CEO of GM has been asked to leave. Industry sales are down about 24%, and GM is down 32%. Meanwhile, Mr. Henderson had proposed selling 4 divisions (Saab, Opel, Hummer and Saturn) – which were the most interesting divisions in the company – and none of those deals have closed. In fact, 3 have fallen apart completely. Only the Hummer sale to a Chinese firm is potentially going to happen. In fact, it's hard to find anything good that's happened at GM since Mr. Henderson took over. Including closing Pontiac.
When the government invested in GM this year the existing Chairman/CEO, Rick Waggoner, was forced to resign. Imagine that, after puting several bilion in a company the investor's transition team replaced the CEO who got the company into bankruptcy, almost out of cash, with no plan for recovery. Also, the Board, which had allowed GM to get into such a mess without even raising tough questions, was replaced. All seems remarkably sensible given the sorry state of the company.
The goverment led transition team, which rocketed GM through bankruptcy, cleaned the ceiling, but then selected Mr. Waggoner's hand-picked successor (Mr. Henderson) to replace him. The claim was they'd need 6 months to search for somebody new and didn't want to take the time. And they put in a lifetime monopolist, Mr. Whiteacre of AT&T, as Chairman. And a 40+ year industry veteran was made head of marketing (Mr. Lutz.) And a 40+ year company employee was kept as CFO. And we're supposed to be surprised that things aren't going well?
The Chairman and replacement CEO says of the company says "Whiteacre: GM On the Right Path," also in the Detroit Free Press. But do you believe him? What does he know about competing successfully against intense foreign led competitors who move fast? The AT&T that trained him early in his career failed horribly, never succeeding in any market outside the U.S. and getting cleaned by offshore competitors in hardware and mobile telephony. And as head of Southwestern Bell, all he did was rebuild the old "Bell system" of land-line companies – without effectively taking a leading position in any new telephony business. Or any other business. Broadband, mobile phones, digital television – can you think of any market where today's AT&T is a technology, product development, innovation or other market leader? He may have bought up a bunch of the old spun out businesses, but those are on their last legs as people give up land lines and transition to a different sort of connected future.
What's surprising is that GM isn't doing worse. But it's unlikely Mr. Whiteacre, or Mr. Henderson's replacement, will do much better. Several candidates are from inside GM – all with the same Lock-ins that allowed Messrs. Waggoner, Henderson and Lutz to perform so abysmally – despite incredible pay packages for many years. In "Selling GM's CEO Job to be Tough Task" (Detroit Free Press) headhunters claim that the industry is so complex they'll have a hard time finding someone talented who will work for the pay. Balderdash. That's only true because they are so Locked-in to traditional thinking about who should lead GM that they keep trying to recycle already overpaid CEOs who have done little for shareholders. That's not what's needed at GM.
Give us a break. Who would want an industry veteran in the job at all? And why would a recruiter hunt for somebody with a lot of industrial-era Lock-ins. GM's investors (that's the citizens of the USA and Canada,) employees and vendors need somebody who's ready to move beyond the old industry and company Success Formulas and do something very different. Willing to develop entirely new scenarios of the future which alter the competitive playing field and then Disrupt the organization in order to start doing new things. Before Tata Motors and China's Chery auto join the other companies ready to put GM into the grave.
It's amazing how "inside the box" the people who are leading GM, and advising the company, remain. Why not try to recruit somebody from Tesla to take over? The long-delayed electric Chevy Volt might well get to market faster – and in a more desirable form – if that were to happen. Or how about an heir apparent at fast growing Cisco Systems? Those people know how to pay attention to the market and move quickly to give customers what they need – profitably.
Turning around GM requires leadership that will change the Success Formula. Not try to Defend it, or Extend it with slowly evolving variations and minimal change. The whole house needs to be cleaned. The investor representatives who led the transition pulled up short of finishing their job. Only by bringing in new managers who are willing to see a very different future, unbounded by the GM legacy, can GM's competitive position be changed – and if GM tries to keep competing the way it has Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Tata Motors, et. all will eat GM's dinner. And only by Disrupting the old Lock-ins, using White Space teams to develop new solutions, can GM regain viability.
by Adam Hartung | Nov 22, 2009 | Defend & Extend, General, Openness
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?
by Adam Hartung | Jul 31, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Innovation, Lock-in
"Deeper Recession Than We Thought" is the Marketwatch headline. As government data reporters often do, today they revised the economic numbers for 2008. We now know the start to this recession was twice as bad as reported. The 3.9% decline was the worst economic performance since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The consumer spending decline was the worst since 1951 (58 years – a very low percentage of those employed today were even born then.) Business investment dropped a full 20%. Residential investment dropped 27%. Stark numbers.
How did business people react? Exactly as they were trained to react. They cut costs. Layed people off. Dropped new products. Stopped R&D and product development. They quit doing things. What's the impact? The decline slows, but it continues. Just like growth begets growth, cutting begets more decline.
Then really interesting bad things happen.
"ComEd loses customers for first time in 56 years" is the Crain's headline. There are 17,000 fewer locations buying electricity in the greater Chicago area than there were a year ago. That is amazing. When you see new homes being built, and new commercial buildings, the very notion that the number of electricity customers contracted is hard to fathom. People aren't even keeping the lights on any more. They've gone away.
In the old days we said "go west." But that hasn't been the case. Everyone remembers the dot.com bust ending the 1990s. "Silicon Valley Unemployment Skyrockets" is the Silican Alley Insider lead. Today unemployment in silicon valley is the highest on record – even higher than the dot bust days. When even tech jobs are at a nadir, it's clear something is very different this time.
The old approaches to dealing with a recession aren't working. While optimism is always high, what we can see is that things have shifted. The world isn't like it was before. And applying the same approaches won't yield improved results. "For Illinois, recession looking milder – but recovery weaker" is another Crain's headline. Nowhere are there signs of a robust economy.
We can't expect an economic recovery on "Cars for Cash" or "Clunker" programs. By overpaying for outdated and obsolete cars we can bring forward some purchases. But this does not build a healthy market for ongoing purchases. These programs aren't innovation that promotes purchase. They are a subsidy to a lucky few so they pay significantly less for an existing product. To recover we must have real growth. Growth from new products that meet new customer needs in new ways. Growth built on providing solutions that advantage the buyer. Only by introducing innovation, and creating value, will customers (businesses or consumer) open their wallets.
Advertising hasn't disappeared. But it has gone on-line. Today you don't have to spend as much to reach your target. Instead of mass advertising to 1,000 in order to reach the 100 (or 15) you really want, today you can target that buyer through the web and deliver them an advertisement far cheaper. I didn't learn about Cash for Clunkers from a TV ad, I learned about it on the web. As did thousands of people that rushed out to take advantage of the program at its introduction – exceeding expectations. It no longer takes inefficient mass advertising through newspapers or broadcast TV to reach customers – so that market shrinks. But the market for on-line ads will grow. So Google grows – double digit growth – while the old advertising media keeps shrinking. To get the economy growing businesses (like Tribune Corporation) have to shift into these new markets, and provide new products and services that help them grow.
I live in Chicago. Years ago, in the days of The Jungle Chicago grew as an agricultural center. There was a time the West Side of Chicago was known for its smelly stockyards and slaughter houses. But Chicago watched its agricultural companies move away. They moved closer to the farms. They were replaced by steel mills in places like Gary, IN and Chicago's south side. But those too shut down, moved to lower cost locations offshore. These businesses were replaced with assembly plants, like the famous AT&T Hawthorne facility, and manufacturers such as machine tool makers. Now, for the last decade, these too have been moving away. With each wave, the less valuable work, the more menial work, shifted to another location where it could be done as good but cheaper and often faster.
Historically growth continued by replacing those jobs with work tied to the shifting market – jobs that provided more value. So now, for Chicago to grow it MUST create information jobs. The market has moved. Kraft won't regain its glory if it keeps trying to sell more Velveeta. Kraft has not launched a major new product in over 9 years. Sara Lee has been shedding businesses and cutting costs for 6 years – getting smaller and losing value. McDonalds sold its high growth business Chipotles to raise money for defending its hamburger stores by adding new coffee machines. Motorola has let mobile telephony move to competitors as it remained too Locked-in to old technologies and old products while new companies – like Apple and RIM – brought out innovations that attracted new customes and growth.
Growth doesn't come from waiting for the economy to improve. Growth comes from implementing innovation that gives us new solutions. Every market, whether geographic or product based, requires new solutions to maintain growth. If we want our economy to improve, we must change our approach. We can't save our way to prosperity. Instead we must create solutions that fit future scenarios, introduce new solutions that Disrupt old patterns and use White Space to help customers shift to these products.
If we change our approach we can regain growth. Otherwise, we can expect to keep getting what we got in 2008.
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 | Mar 11, 2009 | Current Affairs, General, Leadership, Lifecycle, Lock-in
All businesses hurting in today's economy must significantly change if they want to improve their performance. In the early 1900s the world saw the advent of several new machines ushering in the industrial era. But, the economy was based on agriculture – and largely the "family farm." As the industrial era expanded landowners tried to Defend & Extend their old business models by leveraging up the family farms – borrowing more and more money to plant "fencerow-to-fencerow" as it was called. Borrowers overworked the land, and with all the debt piled on when a glitch happened (a combination of drought and falling commodity prices from expansion) the mountain of debt collapsed. The beginnings of the Great Depression hit the farmers in the 1920s. The coming of the industrial revolution made old Success Formulas based on land ownership and agriculture obsolete – and no amount of debt could defer the shift forever. It took 10 years (into the 1940s) to fully transition to the new economy, and when we did Ford, GM and other industrial giants overtook the land barrons of the earlier era.
I was reminded of this today when discussing scenario planning with Diane Meister, Managing Director of Meridian Associates in Chicago. Today she sees the deteriorating Success Formulas in her clients. Companies that keep trying to apply Industrial era Success Formulas in what is now an information economy. When they aren't prepared for big shifts – it can be devastating. But those who do prepare can improve position quickly. She told me how one of her clients had an excellent business selling toys to FAO Schwartz and other top toy chains. But Meridian could see that the growth of Target created a viable scenario for a big shift in how toys would be distributed. She implored her client to prepare for possibly the failure (note – failure – not just weakness) of several big toy chains. Good thing she did, within 2 years most of her client's retail distribution was bankrupt. Only by using scenarios to prepare for a big market shift were they able to survive – in fact come out a leader – due to the big shifts happening in retail as a result of the change in markets. (Don't hesitate to contact her firm at the link – good stuff!)
As we transition into the information economy, big changes are going to happen to all businesses. The source of value, and competitiveness, has changed. Today the Allstate Insurance's CEO was quoted in Crain's "Insurer's Should Have Federal Regulator." And in an article at Marketwatch.com, "Dimon Backs Regulation", the CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce he backs additional mortgage regulation. Both of these leaders are looking forward, and recognize that markets have shifted. New regulations will be critical to success. Their future scenarios show it will take a different approach to be a global competitor in 2015 – to be a winner in the global information economy that won't support industrial era Success Formulas.
Not everyone gets it. Also at Marketwatch.com in "AT&T Chief Sounds Alarm", the AT&T CEO decries rising health care costs and worries system changes will hurt his competitiveness. Wake up! What sort of scenario is he using that expects America to keep the current health care system – and the current employer-paid insurance? Even insurance companies now recognize the system is broken and needs change. In no other country are health care costs "baked in" to the cost of a company's P&L. Think about it – even where there is national health care (Britain, France, Canada, Germany, etc.) the companies don't carry the cost as a line item they must recoup via sales and margin. Elsewhere, the cost of health care is born by society through taxes. The reality is that any American company trying to compete has a whole host of incremental costs on its shoulders because we ask employers to pay in order to keep personal income taxes low. Until we change the whole basis of how America chooses to insure its population, employers are being forced to carry costs not seen by offshore competitors. In a global marketplace – this sort of "yesterday thinking" will not survive. Employers should be leading the charge for national health care – just so they can get the issue out of their plethora of problems and off the backs of their P&Ls!
Those that don't change will end up out of the game. Because they didn't do effective scenario planning, that considered the rise of "upscale discounters," FAO Schwartz (mentioned earlier) and Zany Brainy's failed — not even a Tom Hanks movie could keep customers coming in the doors. Markets are merciless in taking down companies that can't globally compete on what's important. We can prop up GM for a short time, but no country can afford to try to keep its people working (avoid unemployment costs) and insured by pumping money into a dysfunctional car company that isn't competitive. Sears has ignored the trends, and is one of the "walking dead." Once the world's greatest retailer, it built what was for years the world's tallest building (now 2nd). But now Crain's has reported in "Willis will get Sears Tower naming rights" that soon the great building the great retailer built in its home town of Chicago will likely be renamed for a London insurance company. Of course, Sears sold the building years ago in its effort to subsidize its failiing retail business – and hasn't even been a tenant in the building for decades. It won't be long before no one even remembers Sears. Sears remained Locked-in to what it once was, and ignored scenarios about a different future that would require change.
The world has shifted. If your scenarios for the future expect a return to old practices – well, that isn't going to happen. If you want to be a leader in the next economy, you better start building new scenarios TODAY!
error correction - in yesterday's blog I inadvertently said I was "not" twittering. Talk about a badly mistaken typo! I meant the opposite. I am twittering and hope you all hook up so we can tweek each other.
