by Adam Hartung | Dec 17, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Many people think it is OK for large companies to grow slowly
- Many people admire caretaker CEOs
- In dynamic markets, low-growth companies fail
- It is harder to generate $1B of new revenue, than grow a $100B company by $10B
- Large companies have vastly more resources, but they squander them badly
- We allow large company CEOs too much room for mediocrity and failure
- Good CEOs never lose a growth agenda, and everyone wins!
“I may just be your little rent collector Mr. Potter, but that George Bailey is making quite a bit happen in that new development of his. If he keeps going it may just be time for this smart young man to go asking George Bailey for a job.” From “It’s a Wonderful Life“ an employee of the biggest employer in mythical Beford Falls talks about the growth of a smaller competitor.
My last post gathered a lot of reads, and a lot of feedback. Most of it centered on how GE should not be compared to Facebook, largely because of size differences, and therefore how it was ridiculous to compare Jeff Immelt with Mark Zuckerberg. Many readers felt that I overstated the good qualities of Mr. Zuckerberg, while not giving Mr. Immelt enough credit for his skills managing “lower growth businesses” in a “tough economy.” Many viewed Mr. Immelt’s task as incomparably more difficult than that of managing a high growth, smaller tech company from nothing to several billion revenue in a few years. One frequent claim was that it is enough to maintain revenue in a giant company, growth was less important.
Why do so many people give the CEOs of big companies a break? Given that they make huge salaries and bonuses, have fantastic perquesites (private jets, etc.), phenominal benefits and pensions, and receive remarkable payouts whether they succeed or fail I would think we’d have very high standards for these leaders – and be incensed when their performance is sub-par.
Facebook started with almost no resources (as did Twitter and Groupon). Most leaders of start-ups fail. It is remarkably difficult to marshal resources – both enough of them and productively – to grow a company at double digit rates, produce higher revenue, generate cash flow (or loans) and keep employees happy. Growing to a billion dollars revenue from nothing is inexplicably harder than adding $10B to a $100B company. Compared to Facebook, GE has massive resources. Mr. Immelt entered the millenium with huge cash flow, huge revenues, and an army of very smart employees. Mr. Zuckerberg had to come out of the blocks from a standing start and create ALL his company’s momentum, while comparatively Mr. Immelt took on his job riding a bullet out of a gun! GE had huge momentum, a low cost of capital, and enough resources to do anything it wanted.
Yet somehow we should think that we don’t have as high expectations from Mr. Immelt as we do Mr. Zuckerberg? That would seem, at the least, distorted.
In business school I read the story of how American steel manufacturers were eclipsed by the Japanese. Ending WWII America had almost all the steel capacity. Manufacturers raked in the profits. Japanese and German companies that were destroyed had to rebuild, which they progressively did with more efficient assets. By the 1960s American companies were no longer competitive. Were we to believe that having their industrial capacity destroyed somehow was a good thing for the foreign competitors? That if you want to improve your competitiveness (say in autos) you should drop a nuclear bomb on the facilities (some may like that idea – but not many who live in Detroit I dare say.) In reality the American leaders simply refused to invest in new technologies and growth markets, allowing competitors to end-run them. The American leaders were busy acting as caretakers, and bragging about their success, instead of paying attention to market shifts and keeping their companies successful!
Big companies, like GE, are highly advantaged. They not only have brand, and market position, but cash, assets, employees and vendors in position to help them be even more successful! A smart CEO uses those resources to take the company into growth markets where it can grow revenues, and profits, faster than the marketplace. For example Steve Jobs at Apple, and Eric Schmidt at Google have found new markets, revenues and cash flow beyond their original “core” markets. That’s what Mr. Welch did as predecessor to Mr. Immelt. He didn’t so much take advantage of a growth economy as help create it! Unfortunately, far too many large company CEOs squander their resources on low rate of return projects, trying to defend their existing business rather than push forward.
Most big companies over-invest in known markets, or technologies, that have low growth rates, rather than invest in growth markets, or technologies they don’t know as well. Think about how Motorola invented the smart phone technology, but kept investing in traditional cellular phones. Or Sears, the inventor of “at home shopping” with catalogues closed that division to chase real-estate based retail, allowing Amazon to take industry leadership and market growth. Circuit City ended up investing in its approach to retail until it went bankrupt in 2010 – even though it was a darling of “Good to Great.” Or Microsoft, which launched a tablet and a smart phone, under leader Ballmer re-focused on its “core” operating system and office automation markets letting Apple grab the growth markets with R&D investments 1/8th of Microsoft’s. These management decisions are not something we should accept as “natural.” Leaders of big companies have the ability to maintain, even accelerate, growth. Or not.
Why give leaders in big companies a break just because their historical markets have slower growth? Singer’s leadership realized women weren’t going to sew at home much longer, and converted the company into a defense contractor to maintain growth. Netflix converted from a physical product company (DVDs) into a streaming download company in order to remain vital and grow while Blockbuster filed bankruptcy. Apple transformed from a PC company into a multi-media company to create explosive growth generating enough cash to buy Dell outright – although who wants a distributor of yesterday’s technology (remember Circuit City.) Any company can move forward to be anything it wants to be. Excusing low growth due to industry, or economic, weakness merely gives the incumbent a pass. Good CEOs don’t sit in a foxhole waiting to see if they survive, blaming a tough battleground, they develop strategies to change the battle and win, taking on new ground while the competition is making excuses.
GM was the world’s largest auto company when it went broke. So how did size benefit GM? In the 1980s Roger Smith moved GM into aerospace by acquiring Hughes electronics, and IT services by purchasing EDS – two remarkable growth businesses. He “greenfielded” a new approach to auto manufucturing by opening the wildly successful Saturn division. For his foresight, he was widely chastised. But “caretaker” leadership sold off Hughes and EDS, then forced Saturn to “conform” to GM practices gutting the upstart division of its value. Where one leader recognized the need to advance the company, followers drove GM to bankruptcy by selling out of growth businesses to re-invest in “core” but highly unprofitable traditional auto manufacturing and sales. Meanwhile, as the giant failed, much smaller Kia, Tesla and Tata are reshaping the auto industry in ways most likely to make sure GM’s comeback is short-lived.
CEOs of big companies are paid a lot of money. A LOT of money. Much more than Mr. Zuckerberg at Facebook, or the leaders of Groupon and Netflix (for example). So shouldn’t we expect more from them? (Marketwatch.com “Top CEO Bonuses of 2010“) They control vast piles of cash and other resources, shouldn’t we expect them to be aggressively investing those resources in order to keep their companies growing, rather than blaming tax strategies for their unwillingness to invest? (Wall Street Journal “Obama Pushes CEOs on Job Creation“) It’s precisely because they are so large that we should have high expectations of big companies investing in growth – because they can afford to, and need to!
At the end of the day, everyone wins when CEOs push for growth. Investors obtain higher valuation (Apple is worth more than Microsoft, and almost more than 10x larger Exxon!,) employees receive more pay (see Google’s recent 10% across the board pay raise,) employees have more advancement opportunities as well as personal growth, suppliers have the opportunity to earn profits and bring forward new innovation – creating more jobs and their own growth – rather than constantly cutting price. Answering the Economist in “Why Do Firms Exist?” it is to deliver to people what they want. When companies do that, they grow. When they start looking inward, and try being caretakers of historical assets, products and markets then their value declines.
Can Mr. Zuckerberg run GE? Probably. I’d sure rather have him at the helm of GM, Chrysler, Kraft, Sara Lee, Motorola, AT&T or any of a host of other large companies that are going nowhere the caretaker CEOs currently making excuses for their lousy performance. Think what the world would be like if the aggressive leaders in those smaller companies were in such positions? Why, it might just be like having all of American business run the way Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and John Chambers have led their big companies. I struggle to see how that would be a bad thing.
by Adam Hartung | Aug 10, 2010 | Current Affairs, Food and Drink, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Lock-in
Nearly 20 years ago the Clinton campaign inspired itself with the mantra “It’s the Economy, Stupid.” Their goal was to remind everyone that the economy was critical to the health of a nation, and the economy hadn’t been doing so well. Now we could retread that for business leaders “It’s About Growth, Stupid.” For some reason, all too many seem to have gotten caught up in downsizings and cost cutting, forgetting that without growth there’s no way to have a healthy business!
I’ve long been a detractor of Sara Lee. As the company undergoes a change in leadership, the Chicago Tribune headlines “Nobody Doesn’t Like Sara Who?” Under CEO Brenda Barnes, Sara Lee sold off business after business. Now the company is so marginalized that it’s an open question if it will remain independent. For years the leaders said asset sales were to help the company “focus.” Only “focus” made the company smaller, without any growth businesses. Why would an investor want to own this? Why would a manager want to work there?
Had the asset sales been invested in growth, perhaps a positive outcome would have developed. But Sara Lee was like most companies, as that rarely happens. Had the money been paid out to investors perhaps they could have invested those gains in other growth businesses. But instead the money went into the company, where it propped up no-growth businesses. Leaving Sara Lee a smaller, no growth, low profit business. This leadership has not benefited investors, employees, customers or suppliers.
Likewise, draconian cost cutting does more harm than good. The National Public Radio headline reads “Extreme Downsizing May Hurt Companies Later.” Using deep cuts at Alcoa as an example, Wayne Crascia, professor at University of Colorado, points out that it’s unlikely Alcoa has really “prepared itself for future growth.” Instead, cost cutting often eliminates the ability to compete effectively, by cutting into R&D, marketing and sales in ways that are impossible to rebuild quickly or effectively. By trying to save the old Success Formula with cuts, rather than growth initiatives, the leadership hurts the company’s long term viability. Sort of like repeated vomiting by anorexia sufferers leaves them skinnier – but in far worse health. Even though Alcoa still boasts 60,000 employees it’s very likely the company has permanently Locked-in its old Success Formula leaving itself unable to emerge as a stronger company aligned with new market needs.
Yet, while so many company leaders are trying to “retrench to success” it’s clear that growth still abounds for the companies that understand how to create value. BrandChannel.com headlines “The Elastic Brand: Virgin Expands in Every Direction.” Instead of retrenching to focus on some sort of “core” the article points out how Virgin’s leader, Sir Richard Branson, keeps taking the business into new, far flung operations. Defying conventional wisdom, Virgin is in money lending, mobile phones, gaming, social media, international airlines, domestic airlines and even intercontinental flight! By intentionally avoiding any kind of “core” Virgin keeps growing – even during this recession – adding jobs for employees, higher value for investors, more sales opportunities for suppliers and more chances to buy Virgin for customers!
Conventional wisdom be danged ….. maybe it’s time to look at results! Organizations that whittle themselves down to “core” by asset sales or cutting destroy value. While it may feel self-flaggelatingly good to talk about cuts, it does not create value. Only growth can do that. And there is growth, when we start focusing on market needs. Virgin is finding those opportunities – so what’s stopping you? Is it your “focus on your core” business? If so, maybe you need to read the Forbes article “Stop Focusing on Your Core Business.” It may sound unconventional, but then again – isn’t it those who defy conventional wisdom that make the most money?
Postscript: I offer my personal best wishes to Ms. Barnes on her recovery. It has been reported in the press that Ms. Barnes recently suffered a stroke. I know how difficult a time this can be, as my wife stroked at age 54, and I was her personal caregiver for 3 years of difficult recovery. Stroke recovery is hard work. For the patient as well as the family it is a tough time. While I have been a detractor of Ms. Barnes leadership at Sara Lee, in no way did I ever wish my comments to be personal, and I would never wish anyone suffer such a difficult health concern as a stroke. Again, my best wishes for a full recovery to Ms. Barnes, and for both her and her family to have the strength and tenacity to come through this ordeal stronger and even more tightly knitted.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 20, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
According to Crain’s Chicago Business “Sara Lee Looks to Sell Bread Business.” Large investors seem to support the sale, hoping this will expedite a take-over by a larger consumer goods company or a privage equity firm. They hope the sale of this laggard company will finally bail them out of a bad investment. Should either takeover happen, Sara Lee would likely cease to exist as a company. Most employees would lose their jobs, more products “streamlined” into the dustbin, and another Chicago headquarters would disappear.
Since taking the helm in 2005 CEO Brenda Barnes has systematically dismantled Sara Lee. Then a $19B company, Sara Lee has shrunk by almost 50% to just over $10B. From 2005 to 2009, as asset sales dominated management attention, value declined by 75%, from $20/share to $5. On the hope of high values for the asset balance as the company is shopping its very existence, value has risen to $15/share – a 25% decline from the starting point. Hard to call that “excellent” CEO performance.
Sara Lee leadership was so focused on trying to Defend & Extend legacy business models that when they didn’t improve the business was sold. Year by year, Sara Lee got smaller. And the end of the road looks to be the end of Sara Lee. Customers lost many products, with almost no new product introductions to replace them. Employees had almost no growth opportunities as the company shrank. Suppliers saw margins shrink as they were beat upon to lower prices. And investors have suffered losses. There is no “winner” at the end of the road for Defend & Extend Management. When the company moves into the Whirlpool little is said as the remnants slip away.
Today we are fascinated by BP’s effort to cap the Deepwater Horizon oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Will it work? Everyone certainly hopes so. But what will it mean for BP if the leak is capped? Unfortunately, precious little.
The New York Times reported recently “In BP’s Record: A History of Boldness and Costly Blunders.” In classic Defend & Extend behavior, Tony Hayward early on implemented a “back to basics” campaign to “refocus” BP on its “core strengths.” These are all warning signs. When management looks backward, it is not looking forward. Taking “bold action” to “do what the company has always done best” is simply using euphemisms to ignore added risk in effort to protect a Success Formula with declining value. People feel pushed to improve performance by constant optimization – including a lot of cost cutting. And cost cutting leads to blunders.
BP is far from the Whirlpool. But things don’t look good for BP. As Forbes published in “BP’s Only Hope for Its Future” BP has to change its direction pretty remarkably or it’s employees, investors, suppliers and customers could find out BP has a long way yet to fall. Drilling ever riskier wells, in riskier places, for less reserves is not a long-term viable Success Formula.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 2, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, Disruptions, Food and Drink, Leadership
Rumors are flying around Chicago about the health of Sara Lee CEO Brenda Barnes. Will she stay or leave? Some investors are wondering as well. While I join the chorus of voices that wish Ms. Barnes good health, her departure would not be a bad thing for Sara Lee investors, employees, suppliers and customers! Whether for health or other reasons, a change in the top at Sara Lee is long overdue.
As Crain's Chicago Business reported in "Sara Lee's Secrecy on CEO Barnes' Health Leaves Investors Wondering" in the 5 years Ms. Barnes has been CEO Sara Lee's value has dropped 25%, even as the S&P consumer goods index has risen by 18%! During her tenure, revenues at Sara Lee have declined 50% – largely due to asset sales from which the cash proceeds have done nothing to improve results. Currently, Ms. Barnes has a large deal on the table to sell another multi-billion dollar business in her ongoing effort to make Sara Lee a smaller and less competitive company.
There's nothing wrong with selling a business. But leaders have a responsibility to either pay the proceeds out to investors or re-invest the proceeds into new, growing businesses with high rates of return that will add more value. In Ms. Barnes case the money has been spent buying up shares of stock (the plan for any future proceeds, by the way). That has done nothing more than make the pool of shares, like the company assets, smaller. As already mentioned, these asset sales have not added anything to revenue or profit growth and thus the company value has steadily declined.
Of course, as I vilify Ms. Barnes reality is that it takes the agreement of Sara Lee's Board of Directors for this strategy to be implemented. And it takes a leadership team which agrees to go along – without offering strong dissent and driving discussion of results and long-term impact. While I make out Ms. Barnes to be a "goat" there is a lot more wrong at Sara Lee these days than simply the CEO.
Sara Lee has long been without any White Space. The company has tried to "milk" its aged brands, hoping to get more profits out of products that were much more exciting to customers in 1970 than 2010. While Jimmy Dean Sausage, Sara Lee frozen desserts and similar products were the stuff of my youth the current generation of young adults have chosen much different fare – in not only food but household and health/beauty products. Sara Lee's leadership before Ms. Barnes started the route of focusing on past sales and simply trying to give existing customers more. As a result, there has been 2 decades of insufficient scenario planning, limited competitor analysis – and no Disruptions. There has been no White Space to do anything new.
Similarly, we can easily make heroes out of CEOs in companies doing well. Steve Jobs at Apple is a case in point. During his 10 year leadership, Apple has gone from near bankruptcy to value greater than Microsoft. But this was not all Mr. Jobs. He has pushed his Board of Directors and leadership team to do more scenario planning, obsess about competitors, implement Disruptions and open White Space for doing new things. As a result, the Apple organization is now entering new markets and launching new products.
Mr. Jobs has not been without his own health concerns the last few years. Hopefully, he is doing well and will live many, many more healthy and happy years. Yet, if he chose to depart Apple for health or other reasons Apple is well positioned to continue doing well. Because as an organization it is planning correctly and implementing Disruptions and White Space – critical capabilities of Phoenix organizations.
CEOs matter. They set the tone for their organizations. Good ones understand the need to build organizations that can enter new markets – like Mr. Jobs. Bad ones spend their energy trying to Defend & Extend past results, often getting trapped in financial machinations as the organization shrinks and value disintegrates – like Ms. Barnes. But it's not all about the CEO and we shouldn't get too caught up in that single job. Good organizations have the skills to produce long-term growth and high rates of returns, and that can be built anywhere. Let's hope Sara Lee's Board wakes up to this and starts making changes in that organization soon.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 16, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
About 30 years ago Roberta Flack hit the top of the record charts (remember records anybody?) with "Killing Me Softly" – a love song. Today we have 2 examples of CEO's softly killing their shareholders, employees and investors. Definitely NOT a love song.
Sears has continued its slide, which began the day Chairman Lampert acquired the company and merged it with KMart. I blogged this was a bad idea day of announcement. Although there was much fanfare at the beginning, since day 1 Mr. Lampert has pursued an effort to Defend & Extend the outdated Sears Success Formula. And simultaneously Defend & Extend his outdated personal Success Formula based on leveraged financing and cost cutting. The result has been a dramatic reduction in Sears stores, a huge headcount reduction, lower sales per store, less merchandise available, fewer customers, empty parking lots, acres of unused real estate and horrible profits. Nothing good has happened. Nobody, not customers, suppliers or investors, have benefited from this strategy. Sears is almost irrelevant in the retail scene, a zombie most analysts are waiting to expire.
Today Crain's Chicago Business reported "Sears to Offer Diehard Power Accessories for Sale at Other Retailers." Sears results are so bad that Mr. Lampert has decided to try pushing these batteries, charges, etc. through another channel. At this late stage, all this will do is offer a few incremental initial sales – but reduce the appeal of Sears as a retailer – and eventually diminish the brand as its wide availability makes it compete head-to-head with much stronger auto battery brands like Energizer, Duralast, Optima and the heavily advertised Interstate. Sears has attempted to "milk" the Diehard brand for cash for many years, and placed in retail stores head-to-head with these other products it won't be long before Sears learns that its competitive position is weak as sales decline.
Mr. Lampert needed to "fix" Sears – not try to cut costs and drain it of cash. He needed to rebuild Sears as a viable competitor by rethinking its market position, obsessing about competitors and using Disruptions to figure out how Sears could compete with the likes of WalMart, Target, Kohl's, Home Depot, JC Penneys and other strong retailers. Now, his effort to further "milk" Diehard will quickly kill it – and make Sears an even less viable competitor.
Simultaneously, Chairperson Barnes at Sara Lee has likewise been destroying shareholder value, employee careers and supplier growth goals since taking over. During her tenure Sara Lee has sold buisinesses, cut headcount, killed almost all R&D and new product development, sold real estate and otherwise squandered away the company assets. Sara Lee is now smaller, but nobody – other than perhaps herself – has benefited from her extremely poor leadership.
As this business failure continues advancing, Crain's Chicago Business reports "Sara Lee to Spend $3B on Stock Buyback." In 2009 Sara Lee announced it was continuing the dismantling of the company by selling its body-care business to
Unilever and its air-freshener products and assets to Procter & Gamble Co. for approximately $2.2 billion. As an investor you'd like to hear all that money was being reinvested in a high growth business that would earn a significant rate of return while adding to the top line for another decade. As a supplier you'd like to hear this money would strengthen the financials, and help Sara Lee to invest in new products for growth that you could support. As an employee you'd like this money to go into new projects for revenue growth that could help your personal growth and career advancement.
But, instead, Ms. Barnes will use this money to buy company stock. This does nothing but put a short-term prop under a falling valuation. Like bamboo poles holding up a badly damaged brick wall. As investors flee, because there is no growth, low rates of return and no indication of a viable future, the money will be spent to prop up the price by buying shares from these very intelligent owner escapees. After a couple of years the money will be gone, Sara Lee will be smaller, and the shares will fall to their fair market value – no longer propped up by this corporate subsidy. The only possible winner from this will be Sara Lee executives, like Ms. Barnes, who probably have incentive compensation tied to stock price — rather than something worthwhile like organic revenue growth.
Both of these very highly paid CEOs are simply killing their business. Softly and quietly, as if they are doing something intelligent. Just because they are in powerful positions does not make them right. To the contrary, this is an abuse of their positions as they squander assets, and harm the suburban Chicago communities where they are headquartered. That their Boards of Directors are approving these decisions just goes to show how ineffective Boards are at looking out for the interests of shareholders, employees and suppliers – as they ratify the decisions of their friendly Chairperson/CEOs who put them in their Board positions. The Boards of Sears and Sara Lee are demonstrating all the governance skill of the Boards at Circuit City and GM.
It's too bad. Both companies could be viable competitors. But not as long as the leadership tries to Defend & Extend outdated Success Formulas unable to produce satisfactory rates of return. Lacking serious Disruption and White Space, these two publicly traded companies remain on the road to failure.
