by Adam Hartung | Jan 15, 2010 | Disruptions, eBooks, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Many people think the best way to grow is by setting big goals – even Big Audacious Hairy Goals (BHAGs). But increasingly we're learning that goal setting is not correlated with success. At AmericanPublicRadio.org there's a partial text, and MP3 download, of a recent interview between General Motors leaders and a University of Arizona Professor titled "It's not always good to create goals."
The story relates how about a decade a go, with market share hovering at 25%, GM set the goal of moving back to 29%. It became a huge, multi-year campaign. Lapel pins with "29" were made and all kinds of motivational programs were put in place. The GM organization had its goal, and it was highly aligned to the goal. But it didn't happen. Despite the goal, and all the energy and talent put into focusing on the goal, GM continued to struggle, lose share – and eventually file bankruptcy. The goal made no difference.
Worse, the interview goes on to discuss how goals often lead to decidedly undesirable, sometimes unethical – even illegal – behavior. Instances are cited where goal obsession led company employees to falsify documents, even ship bricks in place of products to meet sales targets. No executive wants this, but goals and goal obsession – especially when there is a lot of reinforcement socially and monetarily on the goal – can become a serious problem.
Results are exactly that. Results. They are an outcome. They are the way we track our behaviors and activities – our decisions. When we focus on goals – usually some sort of result – we lose track of what is important. We have to focus on what we do. And for most organizations a big goal merely leads people to try working harder, faster,better, cheaper. But when the Success Formula is mis-aligned with the market – even when the whole organization is aligned on maximizing the Success Formula results will still struggle – even falter. Goals don't help you fix a Success Formula returning poor results. Just look at GM.
In fact, it can make matters worse. In "White Bears and Other Unwanted Thoughts" (available on Amazon.com) the authors point out that when you try to turn a negative (a problem) into a positive (a challenge, or goal), you often achieve a rebound effect making people obsess about the problem. Tell somebody not to think about a white bear – and it's all they think about. When your company has a problem and you try to tell employees "hey, don't think about the problem. Go do your job. Work harder, increase your focus, and all will work out. Sure share is down, but don't think about lost share, instead think about the goal of higher market share" frequently the employees will start to become obsessive about the problem. It will reinforce doing more of the same – perhaps manicly. Instead of becoming innovative and doing something new, obsessive devotion to trying to make the old methods produce better results becomes the norm. Goals don't produce innovation – they produce repetition.
So what should you do when facing a problem? Disruptions. GM didn't need a big goal. GM needed to Disrupt its broken Success Formula. GM needed to attack a Lock-in (or two). GM leaders needed to admit the market had shifted, and that competitors were changing the game. GM needed to recognize, admit and encourage employees to engage in attacking old assumptions – and recognize that market share would continue eroding if they didn't do things differently. Setting a big goal reinforced the old Lock-ins and even an aligned organization – working it's metaphorical tail off – couldn't make the outdated Success Formula produce positive results.
Only a Disruption would have helped save GM. After attacking some Lock-ins, like the desire to move all customers to bigger and more expensive cars, or the desire to focus on long production runs, GM should have set up White Space teams to discover new Success Formulas. Instead of putting all its management energy and money into growing volume at Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GM nameplates, General Motors leadership should have revitalized the innovative Saturn and Saab to do new things – to develop new approaches that would be more competitive. Instead of pushing Hummer to have 3 identical cars in 3 sizes, GM leadership should have unleashed Hummer to explore the market for truly unique, limited production vehicles. GM should have allowed Pontiac to really take advantage of the design breakthroughs happening at the Australian design studio – to change the nameplate into a performance car segment leader. By attacking Lock-ins, Disrupting, and using White Space GM really could have turned around. Instead, by creating a BHAG GM reinforced its focus on its Hedgehog concept – and drove the company into bankruptcy.
You can see a 40 second video about the value and importance of Disruptions on YouTube here.
A 75 second video on White Space effectiveness on YouTube here.
Read free ebook on "The Fall of GM: What Went Wrong and How To Avoid Its Mistakes"
by Adam Hartung | Dec 31, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, Leadership, Openness, Web/Tech
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
We end the first decade in 2000 with another first. In ReutersBreakingViews.com "Don't Diss the Dividend" we learn 2000-2009 is the first time in modern stock markets when U.S. investors made no money for a decade. Right. Worse performance than the 1930s Great Depression. Over the last decade, the S&P 500 had a net loss of about 1%/year. After dividends a gain of 1% – less than half the average inflation rate of 2.5%.
Things have shifted. We ended the last millenium with a shift from an industrial economy to an information economy. And the tools for success in earlier times no longer work. Scale economies and entry barriers are elusive, and unable to produce "sustainable competitive advantage." Over the last decade shifts in business have bankrupted GM, Circuit City and Tribune Corporation – while gutting other major companies like Sears. Simultaneously these changes brought huge growth and success to Google, Apple, Hewlett Packard, Virgin and small companies like Louis Glunz Beer, Foulds Pasta and Tasty Catering.
Even the erudite McKinsey Quarterly is now trumpeting the new requirements for business success in "Competing through Organizational Agility." Using academic research from the London Business School, author Donald Sull points out that market turbulence increased 2 to 4 times between the 1970s and 1990s – and is continuing to increase. More market change is happening, and market changes are happening faster. Thus, creating strategies and organizations that are able to adjust to shifting market requirements creates higher revenue and improved operational efficiency. Globally agility is creating better returns than any other business approach.
A McKinsey Quarterly on-line video "Navigating the New Normal: A Conversation with 4 Chief Strategy Officers," discusses changes in business requirements for 2010 and beyond. All 4 of these big company strategists agree that success now requires far shorter planning cycles, abandoning efforts to predict markets that change too quickly, and recognizing that historically indisputable assumptions are rapidly becoming obsolete. What used to work at creating competitive advantage no longer works. Monolothic strategies developed every few years, with organizations focused on "execution," are simply uncompetitive in a rapidly shifting world.
And "the old boys club" of white men in top business leadership roles is quickly going to change dramatically. In the Economist article "We Did It" we learn that in 2010 the American workforce will shift to more than 50% women. If current leaders continue following old approaches – and generating anemic returns – they will rapidly be replaced by leaders willing to do what has to be done to succeed in today's marketplace. Like Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo, women will take on more top positions as investors and employees demand changes to improve performance. Leaders will have to be flexible and adaptive or they, and their organizations, will not survive.
Additionally, the information technology products which unleashed this new era will change, and become unavoidable. In Forbes "Using the Cloud for Business" one of the creators of modern ERP (enterprise resource planning) systems (like SAP and Oracle) Jan Baan discusses how cloud computing changes business. ERP systems were all about data, and the applications were stovepiped – like the industrial enterprises they were designed for. Unfortunately, they were expensive to buy and very expensive to install and even more expensive to maintain. Simultaneously they had all the flexibility of cement. ERP systems, which proliferate in large companies today, were control products intended to keep the organization from doing anything beyond its historical Success Formula.
But cloud computing is infinitely flexible. Compare Facebook to Lotus Notes and you start understanding the difference between cloud computing and large systems. Anyone can connect, share links, share files and even applications on Facebook at almost no cost. Lotus Notes is an expensive enterprise application that costs a lot to buy, to operate, to maintain and has significantly less flexibility. Notes is about control. Facebook is about productivity.
Cloud computing is 1/10th the cost of monolithic owned/internal IT systems. Cloud computing offers small and mid-sized companies all the computing opportunity of big companies – and big advantages to new competitors if CIOs at big companies hold onto their "investments" in IT systems too long. Businesses that use cloud architectures can rearrange their supply chain immediately – and daily. Flexibility, and adaptability, grows exponentially. And EVERYONE can use it. Where mainframes were the tool for software engineers (and untouchable by everyone else), the PC made it possible for individuals to have their own applications. Cloud computing democratizes computing so everyone with a smartphone has access and use. With practically no training.
As we leave the worst business environment in modern times, we enter a new normal. Those who try to defend & extend old business practices will continue to suffer declining returns, poor performance and failure – like the last decade. But those who embrace "the new normal" can grow and prosper. It takes a willingness to let scenarios about the future drive your behavior, a keen focus on competitors to understand market needs, a willingness to disrupt old Lock-ins and implement White Space so you can constantly test opportunities for defining new, flexible and higher returning Success Formulas.
Here's to 2010 and the new normal! Happy New Year!
by Adam Hartung | Dec 21, 2009 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, General, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
Great blog today at MidasNation.com. Rob Slee is a book author and blogger focused on privately held companies. And today he took on "Old White Men" – or OWM – in his blog "Why 60 Year Old White Men are Killing America." Telling the story about how GM management drove the profits out of suppliers while bankrupting the company, he contrasted GM's behavior with the Japanese run firms in America who partnered with suppliers to make a better product customers more highly valued. We know who ended up with the profitable approach.
Similar to Defend & Extend management, Mr. Slee talks about "past as predicate" as he discusses older managers who keep doing what they always did, even though results keep worsening. And how "command and control" hierarchies sucked the value out of the traditional Big 3 automakers. His views about how OWM leaders expect a "return to the norm," creating a recipe for disaster in an ever changing world increasingly producing black swans. His stories are an action call for all leaders to change their behavior.
According to Marketwatch.com today, "GM Hires Microsoft Exec Liddell as CFO." Is this good, or just more OWM? According to BusinessWeek, Mr. Liddell is 50 – which makes him 10 years shy of the minimum 60 Mr. Slee denotes for OWM. More disconcerting was the final paragraph of his bio at Microsoft.com which claims Mr. Liddell "has completed a number of triathlons, including an Ironman and also enjoys rugby, yoga, golf and tennis." Pretty seriously testosterone laden language – and appealing primarily to OWM types. Like his new boss, the retired Southwestern Bell Chairman, now running GM.
Triathlon and rugby often have a way of making people Lock-in on the values of persistence, hard work and sacrifice. Jim Collins is a rather famous triathlete who loves Lock-in. Creativity and innovation are rarely the stuff of winners in those sports. Of course, competing in a global marketplace with fast changing competitors who defy all rules is a far cry from any sport. Sport analogies are usually more harmful than good in today's global marketplace, where adaptability is worth more than repetitive behavior seeking scale.
Mr. Liddell's last boss, Steve Ballmer, is one of the 10 most Locked-in CEOs in corporate America. Not a great mentoring for open-mindedness. And during Mr. Liddell's 4.5 year career at Microsoft the company's big launches were the me-too, and underwhelmingly exciting, Vista and System 7 products. Mr. Liddell didn't seem to push the innovation engine much in Seattle.
From appearances it would seem likely he'll focus on cost reductions pretty hard — something unlikely to make GM a success. GM doesn't need to launch it's own version of Vista. GM doesn't need a tough guy to whack the chicken coop hoping to get more eggs – instead just making the hens all upset. GM needs significant Disruption – attacks on its Success Formula – with a revitalization of new product development and technology application. GM needs an entirely new Success Formula, not just a better Defended and Extended one.
Keep your eyes on Mr. Liddell. Perhaps he'll surprise us. Look for Disruptions and White Space. It doesn't seem to be Mr. Liddell's nature. But watch. Until then, there's no sign yet that GM is taking the right actions to make itself a vital competitor against Hyundai, Kia, Tata Motors, Honda and Toyota.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 3, 2009 | Books, Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
Seizing the White Space is a new book being launched by HBS Press (and being pre-sold on Amazon.com.) I'm very glad to read about others who are taking up the message of Create Marketplace Disruption – which first published the critical role of White Space in successfully managing any business (published in 2008 by Financial Times Press and also available on Amazon.com).
The author, Mark Johnson, is Chairman of Innosight, a consulting firm he co-founded with Clayton Christenson who's on the Harvard Business School faculty (and author of The Innovator's Dilemma also on Amazon.com). Innosight primarily focuses on consulting businesses to identify Disruptive innovations. Now the Chairman is starting to realize that implementation is as important as identifying the implementation – and he's linked it to WHITE SPACE. Great!!!
You can read his insights to how IBM and some of his other large clients have used White Space in an Harvard Business Publishinng Blog "Is Your Company Brave Enough For Business Model Innovation?" You'll quickly see that he applies The Disruptive Opportunity Matrix from chapter 10 of Create Marketplace Disruption – which is how companies have been shown to reach new businesses using White Space. It's so gratifying to read somebody else who's applied your research and come to the same conclusions!
I'm looking forward to the book. Readers please let me know what you think of the author's blog post – and the book when it comes out.
Post-script to yesterday's blog about the CEO of GM:
"Cat's Owens, Deere's Lane on short list of CEO candidates" is the AP article appearing on Crain's Chicago Business about the search for a new leader at GM. As I predicted yesterday, recruiters seem to think the ideal candidate for the job needs to be from another big industrial company. And preferably, an auto company "to understand the industry complexities." Not only is there no incentive for these highly paid executives to take a similar job, at a lot less pay, in a government funded organization — but investors shouldn't want it! GM needs change. And more change than trying to make GM into John Deere, or CAT.
John Deere has had weak results for decades. The company has been wedged between other equipment manufacturers so badly that most of its profits now come from yard tractors homeowner's buy from Home Depot. Just because the company is big, and one of the few left making equipment for which there is declining demand, is no reason to want the CEO at a turnaround like GM. Likewise, CAT is under intense competition from Komatsu, Volvo and other manufacturers who are squeezing it from all sides – jeapardizing revenues and profits. Only acquistions have kept CAT growing the last 10 years, and margins have plummeted. That leadership is not what's needed at GM either.
When will somebody speak up for the investors and start a search in the right direction? GM needs leadership that thinks entirely differently. Unwilling to accept old-fashioned industrial notions about how to lead a company. Like I recommended, go somewhere entirely different. Maybe recruit somebody from Dell or HP or Cisco that understands rapid design cycles. Or someone from Wal-Mart or Target that understands how to sell things – cheaply. Or someone from Oracle or Mozilla or Google that understands the value of software – and that the product is a lot more than the iron – so you can capture the right value. It's so disappointing to read how the "recruiting industry" is just as Locked-in as GM.
If one of you readers knows somebody on the GM Board, maybe you should send them this blog (and yesterday's) to see if they can consider searching in the right place for new leadership!
Don't miss the recent ebook, "The Fall of GM" for a
quick read on how easily any company (even the nation's largest employer) can be
easily upset by market shifts. And learn what GM could have done to avoid
bankruptcy – lessons that can help your business grow! http://tinyurl.com/mp5lrm
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.
