by Adam Hartung | Aug 9, 2012 | Current Affairs, Disruptions, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Mark Zuckerberg was Time magazine's Person of the Year in December, 2010. He was given that honor because Facebook dominated the emerging social media marketplace, and social media had clearly begun changing how people do things. Despite his young age, Mr. Zuckerberg had created a phenomenon demonstrated by the hundreds of million new Facebook users.
But things have turned pretty rough for the young Mr. Zuckerberg.
- Facebook was pretty much forced, legally, to go public because it had accumulated so many shareholders. The stock hit the NASDAQ with much fanfare in May, 2012 – only to have gone pretty much straight down since. It now trades at about 50% of IPO pricing, and is under constant pressure from analysts who say it may still be overpriced.
- Facebook discovered perhaps 83million accounts were fake (about 9%) unleashing a torrent of discussion that perhaps the fake accounts was a much, much larger number.
- User growth has fallen to some 35% – which is much slower than initial investors hoped. Combined with concerns about fake accounts, there are people wondering if Facebook growth is stalling.
- Facebook has not grown revenues commensurate with user growth, and people are screaming that despite its widespread use Facebook doesn't know how to "monetize" its base into revenues and profits.
- Mobile use is growing much faster than laptop/PC use, and Facebook has not revealed any method to monetize its use on mobile devices – causing concerns that it has no plan to monetize all those users on smartphones and tablets and thus future revenues may decline.
- Zynga, a major web games supplier, announced weak earnings and said its growth was slowing – which affects Facebook because people play Zinga games on Facebook.
- GM, one of the 10 largest U.S. advertisers, publicly announced it was dropping Facebook advertising because executives believed it had insufficient return on investment. Investors now fret Facebook won't bring in major advertisers.
- Google keeps plugging away at competitive product Google+. And while Facebook disappointed investors with its earnings, much smaller competitor Linked-in announced revenues and earnings which exceeded expectations. Investors now worry about competitors dicing up the market and minimalizing Facebook's future growth.
Wow, this is enough to make 50-something CEOs of low-growth, non-tech companies jump with joy at the upending of the hoody-wearing 28 year old Facebook CEO. Zynga booted its Chief Operating Officer and has shaken up management, and not suprisingly, there are analysts now calling for Mr. Zuckerberg to step aside and install a new CEO.
Yet, Mr. Zuckerberg has been wildly successful. Much more than almost anyone else in American business today. He may well feel he needs no advice. But…. what do you suppose Steve Jobs would tell him to do?
Recall that Mr. Jobs was once the young head of Apple, only to be displaced by former Pepsi exec John Sculley — and run out of Apple. As everyone now famously knows, after a string of Apple CEOs led the company to the brink of disaster Mr. Jobs agreed to return and completely turned around Apple making it the most successful tech company of the last decade. Given what we've observed of Mr. Jobs career, and read in his biography, what advice might he give Mr. Zuckerberg?
- Don't give up your job. Not even partly. If you create a "shadow" or "co" CEO you'll be gone soon enough. Lead, quit or make the Board fire you. If you had the vision to take the company this far, why would you quit?
- Nothing is more important than product. Make Facebook's the best in the world. Nothing less will allow a tech company to survive, much less thrive. Don't become so involved with financials and analysts that you lose sight of your #1 job, which is to make the very, very best social media product in the world. Never stop improving and perfecting. If your product isn't obviously superior to other solutions you haven't accomplished your #1 priority.
- Be unique. Make sure your products fulfill needs no one else fulfills – at least not well. Meet unserved and underserved needs so that people talk about your product and what it does – not how much it costs. Make sure that Facebook has devoted, diehard customers that believe your products meet their needs so well they would not consider your competition.
- Don't ask customers what they want – give them what they need. Understand the trends and create future scenarios so you are constantly striving to create a better future, not just improve on history. Never look backward at what you've done, but instead always look forward at creating what noone else has ever done. Push your staff to create solutions that meet user needs so well that you can tell customers why they need your product in ways they never before considered.
- Turn your product releases into a show. Don't just run out new products willy-nilly, or on a random timeline. Make sure you bundle products together and make a big show of each release so you can describe the upgrades, benefits and superiority of what you offer for customers. People need to understand the trends you are meeting, and need to see the future scenario you are creating, and you have to tell them that story or they won't "get it."
- Price for profit. You run a business, not a hobby or not-for-profit society. If you do the product right you shouldn't even be talking about price – so price to make ridiculous margins by industry standards. At Apple, Next and Pixar the products were never the cheapest, but they accomplished what customers needed so well that we could price high enough to make margins that supported additional product development. And you can't remain the best solution if you don't have enough margin to keep developing future products.
- Don't expect products to sell themselves. Be the #1 passionate spokesperson for the elegance and superiority of your products. Never stop beating the drum for the unique capability and superiority of your product, in every meeting, all the time, never ending. People like to "revert to the mean" so you have to keep telling them that isn't good enough – and you have something far superior that will greatly improve their success.
- Never miss an opportunity to compare your products to competition and tell everyone why your products are far better. Don't disparage the competition, but constantly reinforce that you are first, you are ahead of everyone else, you are far better — and the best is yet to come! Competition is everywhere, and listen to the Andy Groves advice "only the paranoid survive." You aren't satisfied with what the competition offers, and customers should not be satisfied either. Every once in a while give people a small glimpse as to the radically different world you see in 3-5 years so they buy what you are selling in order to prepare for that future world.
- Identify key customers that need your solution and SELL THEM. Disney needed Pixar, so we made sure they knew it. Identify the customers who can gain the most from doing business with you and SELL THEM. Turn them into lead customers, obtain their testimonials and spread the word. If GM isn't your target, who is? Find them and sell them, then tell us all how you will build on those early accounts to eventually dominate the market – even displacing current solutions that are more popular. If GM is your target then make the changes you need to make so you can SELL THEM. Everyone wants to do business with a winner, so you must show you are a winner.
- Identify 5 of your competition's biggest customers (at Google, Yahoo, Linked-in, etc.) and make them yours. Demonstrate your solutions are superior with competitive wins.
- Hire someone who can talk to the financial community for you – and do it incredibly well. While you focus on future markets and solutions someone has to tell this story to the financial analysts in their lingo so they don't lose faith (and they are a sacrilegious lot who have no faith.) Keep Facebook out of the forecasting game, but you MUST create and maintain good communication with analysts so you need someone who can tell the story not only with products and case studies but numbers. Facebook is a disruptive innovation company, so someone has to explain why this will work. You blew the IPO road show horribly by showing up at meetings in a hoodie – so now you need to make amends by hiring someone who will give them faith that you know what you're doing and can make it happen.
These are my ideas for what Steve Jobs would tell Mark Zuckerberg. What are yours? What do you think the #1 CEO of the last decade would say to the young, embattled CEO as he faces his first test under fire leading a public company?
by Adam Hartung | Apr 14, 2012 | Current Affairs, Leadership, Transparency, Web/Tech
Apple's amazing increase in value is more than just a "rah-rah" story for a turnaround. Fundamentally, Apple is telling everyone – globally – that there has been a tectonic shift in markets. And if leaders don't understand this shift, and incorporate it into their strategy and tactics, their organizations are going to have a very difficult future.
Recently Apple's value peaked at $600B. Yes, that is an astounding number, for it reflects not only 50% greater value than the oil giant Exxon/Mobil (~$390B), but more than the entire value of the stock markets in Spain, Greece and Portugal combined!
Source: Business Insider.com
This astounding valuation causes many to be reticent about owning Apple shares, for it seems implausible that any one company – especially a tech company with so few employees – could be worth so much.
Unless we look at this information in the context of a major, global economic shift. That what the world values has changed dramatically. And that what investors are telling business (and government) leaders is that in a globalized, fast paced world value is based upon what you know, when you know it – in other words information. Not land, buildings or the ability to make things.
Three hundred years ago the wealthiest people in the world owned land. Wars were fought for centuries to control land. Kings owned land, and controlled everything on the land while capturing the value of everything produced on that land. As changes came along, reducing the role of kings, land barons became the wealthiest people in the world. In an agrarian economy, where most human resources (and all others for that matter) were deployed in food production owning land was the most valuable thing on the planet.
But then some 120 years ago, along came the industrial reveolution. Suddenly, productivity rose dramatically by applying new machines to jobs formerly performed by humans. With this shift, value changed. The great industrialists were able to capture the value of greater productivity – making people like Cyrus McCormick, Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie the wealthiest of the wealthy. Worth more than most states, and many foreign countries.
The age of manufacturing was based upon the productivity of machines and the application of industrial processes to what formerly was hand labor. Creating tools – from entignes to automobiles to airplanes – created great wealth. Knowing how to make these machines, and making them, created enormous value. And companies like General Motors, General Dynamics and General Electric were worth much more than the land upon which food was produced. And the commodity suppliers, like Exxon/Mobil, feeding industrial companies captured huge value as well.
By the middle 1900s America's farmers were forced to create ever larger farms to remain in business, and were constantly begging for government subsidies to stay alive via price controls (parity programs) and land "set-asides" run by the Agriculture Department. By the 1980s family farms going broke by the thousands, agricultural land values plummeted and the ability to create value by growing or processing food was a struggle. Across the developed world, wealth shifted into the hands of industrial companies from landowners.
Sometime in the 1990s the world shifted again, and that's what the chart above shows us. Countries with little or no technology companies – no information economy – cannot create value. On the other hand, companies that can drive new levels of productivity via the creation, management, use and sale of information can create enormous value.
Think about the incredible shift that has happened in retail. America's largest and most successful retailer from the 1900 turn of the century well into the 1960s was Sears. In an industry that long equated success with "location, location, location" Sears has had, and continues to control, enormous amounts of land and buildings. But the value of Sears has declined like a stone pitched off a bridge, now worth only $6B (1% the Apple value) despite all that real estate!
Simultaneously, America's largest retailer Wal-Mart has seen its value go nowhere for over a decade, despite its thousands of locations that span every state. Even though Wal-Mart keeps adding stores, and enlarging stores, adding more and more land and buildings to its "asset" base the company's customer base, sales and value are mired, unable to rise.
Yet, Amazon – which has no land, and almost no buildings – has used the last 20 years to go from start up to an $86B valuation – doing much better for shareholders than its traditional, industrial thinking competitors. In the last 5 years, Amazon's value has roughly quadrupled!
Source: Yahoo Finance
Yes, Amazon is a retailer. But the company has learned that applying an industrial strategy is far less valuable than applying an information strategy. As an internet leader, first with most browser formats on PCs and smartphones, Amazon has reached far more new customers than any traditional real-estate focused company. By launching Kindle Amazon focused on the information in books, rather than the format (print) revolutionizing the market and capturing enormous value.
By launching Kindle Fire Amazon takes information one step further, making it possible for customers to access new products faster, order faster and build their own retail world without ever going to a building. By becoming a tech company, Amazon is clearly well on the way to dominating retail, as Sears falls into irrelevancy and almost surely bankruptcy, and Wal-Mart stalls under the overhead of all that land, buildings and vast number of minimum-wage, uninsured employees.
We now must realize that value is not created by what accountants have long called "hard assets" – land, buildings and equipment. In fact, the 2 great U.S. recessions since 2000 have demonstrated to everyone that there is no security in these – the value can decline, decline fast, and decline far. Just because these things are easy to see and count does not insure value. They can easily be worth less than they cost to make – or own.
Successful competition in 2012 (and going forward) requires businesses know about customers, products and have the ability to supply solutions fast with great reach. Winning is about what you know, knowing it early, acting upon the information and then being able to disseminate that solution fast to those who have emerging needs.
Which is why you have to be excited about the brilliant move Facebook made to acquire Instagram last week. In one fast, quick step Facebook bought the ability to easily and effectively provide mobile image solutions – across any application – to millions of existing users. Something that every single person, and business, on the planet is either doing now, or will be doing very soon.
Source: Wired
On a cost-per-existing-customer basis, Facebook stole Instagram. And that's before Facebook spreads out the solution to the rest of its 780million users! Forget about how many employees Instagram has, or its historical revenues or its assets. In an innovation economy, if you have a product that 35million people hear about and start using in less than a year, you have something very valuable!
Kudos go to Mark Zuckerberg as CEO, and his team, for making this acquisition so quickly. Before Instagram had a chance to hire bankers, market itself and probably raise its value 10x. That's why Mr. Zuckerberg was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" at the start of 2011 – and why he's been able to create so much more value for his shareholders than the CEOs of industrial companies – like say GE.
Going forward, no company can plan to survive with an industrial strategy. That approach, and those rules, simply don't create high returns. To be successful you MUST become a tech company. And while this may not feel comfortable, it is reality. Every business must shift, or die.
by Adam Hartung | Jan 13, 2011 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Before there was Facebook, the social media juggernaut which is changing how we communicate – and might change the face of media – there was MySpace. MySpace was targeted at the same audience, had robust capability, and was to market long before Facebook. It generated enormous interest, received a lot of early press, created huge valuation when investors jumped in, and was undoubtedly not only an early internet success – but a seminal web site for the movement we now call social media. On top of that, MySpace was purchased by News Corporation, a powerhouse media company, and was given professional managers to help guide its future as well as all the resources it ever wanted to support its growth. By almost all ways we look at modern start-ups, MySpace was the early winner and should have gone on to great glory.
But things didn’t turn out that way. Facebook was hatched by some college undergrads, and started to grow. Meanwhile MySpace stagnated as Facebook exploded to 600 million active users. During early 2010, according to The Telegraph in “Facebook Dominance Forces Rival Networks to Go Niche,” MySpace gave up on its social media leadership dreams and narrowed its focus to the niche of being a “social entertainment destination.” As the number of users fell, MySpace was forced to cut costs, laying off half its staff this week according to MediaPost.com “MySpace Confirms Massive Layoffs.” After losing a reported $350million last year, it appears that MySpace may disappear – “MySpace Versus Facebook – There Can Be Only One” reported at Gigaom.com. The early winner now appears a loser, most likely to be unplugged, and a very expensive investment with no payoff for NewsCorp investors.
What went wrong? A lot of foks will be relaying the tactics of things done and not done at MySpace. As well as tactics done and not done at Facebook. But underlying all those tactics was a very simple management mistake News Corp. made. News Corp tried to guide MySpace, to add planning, and to use “professional management” to determine the business’s future. That was fatally flawed when competing with Facebook which was managed in White Space, lettting the marketplace decide where the business should go.
If the movie about Facebook’s founding has any veracity, we can accept that none of the founders ever imagined the number of people and applications that Facebook would quickly attract. From parties to social games to product reviews and user networks – the uses that have brought 600 million users onto Facebook are far, far beyond anything the founders envisioned. According to the movie, the first effort to sell ads to anyone were completely unsuccessful, as uses behond college kids sharing items on each other were not on the table. It appeared like a business bust at the beginning.
But, the brilliance of Mark Zuckerberg was his willingness to allow Facebook to go wherever the market wanted it. Farmville and other social games – why not? Different ways to find potential friends – go for it. The founders kept pushing the technology to do anything users wanted. If you have an idea for networking on something, Facebook pushed its tech folks to make it happen. And they kept listening. And looking within the comments for what would be the next application – the next promotion – the next revision that would lead to more uses, more users and more growth.
And that’s the nature of White Space management. No rules. Not really any plans. No forecasting markets. Or foretelling uses. No trying to be smarter than the users to determine what they shouldn’t do. Not prejudging ideas so as to limit capability and focus the business toward a projected conclusion. To the contrary, it was about adding, adding, adding and doing whatever would allow the marketplace to flourish. Permission to do whatever it takes to keep growing. And resource it as best you can – without prejudice as to what might work well, or even best. Keep after all of it. What doesn’t work stop resourcing, what does work do more.
Contrarily, at NewsCorp the leaders of MySpace had a plan. NewsCorp isn’t run by college kids lacking business sense. Leaders create Powerpoint decks describing where the business will head, where they will invest, how they will earn a positive ROI, projections of what will work – and why – and then plans to make it happen. They developed the plan, and then worked the plan. Plan and execute. The professional managers at News Corp looked into the future, decided what to do, and did it. They didn’t leave direction up to market feedback and crafty techies – they ran MySpace like a professional business.
And how’d that work out for them?
Unfortunately, MySpace demonstrates a big fallacy of modern management. The belief that smart MBAs, with industry knowledge, will perform better. That “good management” means you predict, you forecast, you plan, and then you go execute the plan. Instead of reacting to market shifts, fast, allowing mistakes to happen while learning what works, professional managers should be able to predict and perform without making mistakes. That once the bright folks who create the strategy set a direction, its all about executing the plan. That execution will lead to success. If you stumble, you need to focus harder on execution.
When managing innovation, including operating in high growth markets, nothing works better than White Space. Giving dedicated people permission to do whatever it takes, and resources, then holding their feet to the fire to demonstrate performance. Letting dedicated people learn from their successes, and failures, and move fast to keep the business in the fast moving water. There is no manager, leader or management team that can predict, plan and execute as well as a team that has its ears close to the market, and the flexibility to react quickly, willing to make mistakes (and learn from them even faster) without bias for a predetermined plan.
The penchant for planning has hurt a lot of businesses. Rarely does a failed business lack a plan. Big failures – like Circuit City, AIG, Lehman Brothers, GM – are full of extremely bright, well educated (Harvard, Stanford, University of Chicago, Wharton) MBAs who are prepared to study, analyze, predict, plan and execute. But it turns out their crystal ball is no better than – well – college undergraduates.
When it comes to applying innovation, use White Space teams. Drop all the business plan preparation, endless crunching of historical numbers, multi-tabbed Excel spreadsheets and powerpoint matrices. Instead, dedicate some people to the project, push them into the market, make them beg for resources because they are sure they know where to put them (without ROI calculations) and tell them to get it done – or you’ll fire them. You’ll be amazed how fast they (and your company) will learn – and grow.
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 | Dec 15, 2010 | Current Affairs, In the Swamp, Leadership, Openness, Television, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Business leaders are honored for creating profitable growth
- Those who create the greatest growth disrupt the status quo and change the way things are done – such as Zuckerberg and Jobs
- Too many CEOs act as caretakers, overlooking growth
- Caretakers watch value decline
- Under Welch, GE dramatically grew and he was Time’s Person of the Year
- Under Immelt, GE has contracted
- Too many CEOs are like Immelt. They need to either change, or be replaced
It’s that time of year when magazines like to honor folks for major accomplishments. This year, Time’s Person of the Year is Mark Zuckerberg, honored for leading Facebook and its dramatic change in social behavior amongst so many people. Marketwatch.com selected Steve Jobs as its CEO of the Decade – an honor several journals gave him last year!
There is of course a bias in these selections. Most journals highly favor CEOs that drive up their stock price! For example, Ed Zander was CEO of the year in 2004 for his “turnaround” at Motorola – and within 2 years he was fired and Motorola was facing possible bankruptcy. Obviously his “quick fix” (getting the RAZR out the door with a big marketing push) didn’t pan out so well over time. We’ll have to see if Alan Mulallly deserves to be CEO of the Year at Marketwatch, since it appears his selection has more to do with not letting Ford go bankrupt – like competitors GM and Chrysler – and thus reaping the benefits of customers who wanted to buy domestic but feared any other selection. Whether Ford’s “turnaround” will be a winner, or another Zander/Motorola, we’ll know better in a couple of years.
One fellow who isn’t on anybody’s list is Jeff Immelt at General Electric. His predecessor was. Given that
- GE is the oldest company on the DJIA (Dow Jones Industrial Average)
- GE is one of the most widely held of all corporations
- GE is one of the largest American corporations in revenues and employees
- GE is in a plethora of businesses, globally
- Mr. Immelt is paid several million dollars per year to lead GE
It is worthwhile to think about why he’s not on this list – whether he should be – and if not, whether he should keep his job!
Since Immelt took the helm at GE, the value has actually declined. He’s not likely to win any awards given that sort of performance. Amidst the financial crisis, he had to make a very sweet deal with Berkshire Hathaway to invest cash (via preferred shares) in order to keep GE out of bankruptcy court – a deal that has enriched Mr. Buffett’s company at the expense of GE. GE has exited several businesses, such as its current effort to unload NBC via a deal with Comcast, but it has not created (or bought) a single exciting, noteworthy growth business! GE has become a smaller, lower growth company that narrowly diverted bankruptcy. That isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for honors!
Yes, GE has developed a nice positive cash flow, which will allow it to repurchase the preferred shares from Berkshire (Marketwatch “GE to Buy Back Buffett’s Preferreds Next Year.”) But what is Mr. Immelt doing to create future shareholder value? His plan to make a few acquisitions, pay some higher dividends (suspended when the company faltered) and repurchase equity offers shareholders very little as a way to generate high rates of return! Why would anyone want to own GE? Nobody expects the company to be a growth leader in 2012, or 2015. With its current businesses, and strategy, there is no reason to expect GE to produce double digit earnings growth – or double its equity within any reasonable investing horizon.
There’s more to being a CEO than being a “caretaker.” Mr. Immelt’s predecessor, Jack Welch, created enormous value for shareholders. Mr. Welch was willing to disurpt the GE status quo. In fact, he intentionally worked at it! He made sure business leaders were constantly challenged to find new markets, create new products, expand into new businesses, leverage new technologies and generate growth! Mr. Welch was willing to take GE into growth markets, give leaders permission to create new Success Formulas, and invest in whatever it took to profitably grow revenues. During the Welch era, competitors quaked at the thought of GE entering their markets because things were always shaken up – and GE changed the game in order to create higher rates of return. During the Welch era investors received amongst the highest rate of return on any common stock! GE value multiplied many-fold, making pensioners (invested in the stock) and employees quite wealthy – even as employment expanded dramatically. That’s why Mr. Welch was Time’s Person of the Year in 2000 — and for many the CEO of the previous decade.
Mr. Immelt, on the other hand, has done nothing to benefit any of his constituencies. Like far too many CEOs, he took a much less aggressive stance toward growth. He has been unwilling to challenge and disrupt existing leaders, or promote aggressive market disruptions through the GE business units. He has not invested in White Space projects that could continue the massive expansion started during the Welch era. To the contrary, he has moved much more slowly, and focused more on selling businesses than growing them. He has resorted to trying to protect GE – rather than keep it moving forward. As a result, the company has retrenched and actually become less interesting, less valuable and less clearly able to produce returns or create new jobs!
Mr. Immelt certainly has his apologists, and seems to securely have the support of his Board of Directors. But we should question this. It actually has an impact on the American economy (and that of several other countries) when the CEO of a company as large as GE loses the ability to create growth. The malaise of the American economy can be directly tied to CEOs who are operating just like Mr. Immelt: doing almost nothing to create new markets, new sources of revenue, new jobs. Many business journalists like to say the government doesn’t create revenue, or jobs. So who will create them when corporate leaders are as feckless as Mr. Immelt? Especially when they control such vast resources!
Congratulations to Mr. Zuckerberg and Mr. Jobs (and Mr. Hastings of Netflix who was named Fortune magazine’s CEO of the Year.) They have created substantial new revenues, profits, cash flow and return for investors. Their company’s employees, suppliers, customers and investors have all benefitted from their leadership. By disrupting the way their company’s operated they pushed into new markets, and demonstrated how in any economy it is possible to create success. Caretakers they are not, so like Mr. Welch each deserves its recent accolades.
And for all those CEOs out there who are behaving as caretakers – for all who are resting on past company laurels – for all who have watched their company value decline – for those who think it’s OK to not grow – for those who blame the economy, or government, or competitors, or customers or their industry for their inability to grow —- well, you either need to learn from these recently honored CEOs and dramatically change direction, or you should be fired.
