Answers in October >>
Add comment May 13th, 2007
At the beginning of April StrategyWorld pointed out Circuit City’s foolish strategy to fire experienced employees to cut costs.
Now it’s time to fire the decisionmakers who came up with this bright idea.
According to the Washington Post:
“…the Richmond electronics retailer says it expects to post a first-quarter loss next month, and analysts are blaming the job cuts.
The company, which on Monday also revised its outlook for the first half of its fiscal year ending Feb. 29, 2008, cited poor sales of large flat-panel and projection televisions. Analysts said Circuit City had cast off some of its most experienced and successful people and was losing business to competitors who have better-trained employees.”
Will they never learn?
Perhaps they need to attend our FAST strategy webinar… although I doubt anything can help this kind of blindness.
Speaking of ethics, how about Duke’s cheating scandal?
Listen to this:
A survey released last year by Rutgers University professor Don McCabe showed 56 percent of MBA students acknowledged cheating in 2005. In other fields, 47 percent of graduate students said they cheated.
Note: these were graduate students, not undergrads.
Add comment May 2nd, 2007
In 4 Sources of Advantage, authors Peter S. Cohan and Barry Unger tell us that technology leaders create success cycles by the way they perform four critical business processes – which they call “the four sources of advantage.”
The four processes are:
- Entrepreneurial leadership
- Open technology
- Boundaryless product development
- Disciplined resource allocation
So where does your company stand? If you’re seeking to accelerate your company’s, take this self-assessment and find out: [hint - A is good, B is bad]
Entrepreneurial leadership
1. Hiring
A. Hires engineers with strong technical skills and keen business sense; or
B. Hires engineers with strong technical skills and limited business sense.
2. Self-driven research
A. Gives engineers, say 10 per cent to 20 percent, of their time to work on projects they choose; or
B. Requires engineers to work exclusively on manager-directed projects.
3. Publishing
A. Allows engineers to publish current research in peer reviewed publications after appropriate patent disclosures have been made; or
B. Requires engineers to keep their research company confidential.
4. Peer recognition
A. Holds annual celebrations for engineers who develop innovative products; or
B. “Rewards” engineers who innovate by letting them keep their jobs.
5. Culture
A. Uses culture and supporting measurement and reward systems to emphasise how society benefits from its products; or
B. Uses culture and supporting measurement and reward systems to focus on enhancing shareholder value.
Open technology
6. Speed to market
A. Acquires companies or licenses technology to obtain rapid access to products its customers want to buy; or
B. Uses only internally developed technology to develop new products.
7. Customer perspective
A. Builds technologies that create customer value; or
B. Builds technologies that satisfy executive requirements.
Boundaryless product development
8. Cross-functional teams
A. Uses cross-functional teams of, say, engineering, manufacturing, sales, marketing, finance, and early
adopter customers, to design new products; or
B. Uses its engineering department to design new products.
9. Prototypes
A. Uses cross-functional team input to build new product prototypes; or
B. Manufactures product based solely on engineering blueprints.
10. Fast feedback
A. Redesigns prototypes using feedback from early adopter customers, manufacturing, and other functions; or
B. Redesigns products only after they’re out in the market.
Disciplined resource allocation
11. Timing discipline
A. Creates strong incentives to meet project milestones; or
B. Lets product development deadlines slide.
12. Expected value discipline
A. Validates development projects’ expected value (EV) via continuously updated market research and kills them if their EV goes negative; or
B. Once their budget has been set, sticks with development projects.
13. Learning discipline
A. Allocates resources and shares learning through control systems that measure competitive performance; or
B. Rewards those who tell the CEO what the CEO wants to hear and fires those who contradict the CEO.
14. Renewal discipline
A. Develops a deep bench of management talent; or
B. Dismisses ambitious managers to protect the CEO.
Add comment March 5th, 2007
The US Postal Service has taken customer service to the next level of incompetence.
Instead of fixing the problem - the long wait in line - it has decided to work on perception instead: 37,000 post offices across the country have removed their wall clocks from retail areas.
This as part of a “retail standardization program” launched last year.
A spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service says: “We want people to focus on postal service and not the clock.”
The USPS seems to have lost track of what it means to build a positive customer experience.
USPS Customers know that the USPS is not as fast as FedEx, for example, and they don’t expect to be. They’re not using the USPS for efficiency but for cost.
So what’s the big deal? My research tells me that the clock is a fundamental part of the checkout experience - whether you’re in a grocery store or the post office. And not having a clock actually makes the perception of service quality go down, not up.
Says service guru Leonard Berry, “It’s silly, I guess they think people don’t have watches.”
Add comment March 5th, 2007
StrategyWorld.org is proud to announce that Marshall Goldsmith’s latest book, What Got You Here Won’t Get You There: How Successful People Become Even More Successful, is the #1 best selling business book in the United States (as ranked by both the Wall Street Journal and USA Today).
Congratulations, Marshall! We’re going to have some excerpts from the book here shortly, so stay tuned.
Add comment January 31st, 2007
Now that Bob Nardelli is out at the Home Depot the armchair quarterbacks and hindsight pundits are full of theories about “the fatal flaws” and the “mental errors” that caused his sour (albeit lucrative) exit.I think they all (so far) have missed the most significant factor. It wasn’t primarily that Nardelli’s “political” skills were lacking or that his strategy was wrong ( or even the curse of Six Sigma). In fact at the root of his predicament was something that most people would call a strength not a weakness. (And it’s a strength you, Bob, and I probably share).
The big reason Nardelli was, from the beginning, never going to win at Home Depot was that he recognizes the need for change very quickly and acts on it.
I know that seems contradictory so let me explain.
In the late 1990s I spent almost five years writing and researching the reasons that companies move too slow. One of the biggest obstacles I had to address was the powerful urge to hold on to the status quo and the incredible unwillingness among many people to let go.
As a result I, along with a lot of other executives, worked on strategies to open up when hearing new ideas and to embrace change more quickly. From what I’ve read Nardelli had done much the same during his tenure at GE.
But as the experts explain, “good things often have unintended (negative) consequences.”
What unintended consequence comes from learning to recognize the need for change quickly and act without delay? It’s often a huge blind spot.
Many early adapters and fast acting managers have a hard time imagining that others do not see what they see and they therefore radically misinterpret or underestimate what it will take to get the majority of their associates to buy-in.
From the beginning there were signs that Nardelli didn’t have enough buy-in at the Home Depot. People in the stores were whispering, “Nardelli has no retail background” and “The board is paying him too much money.” “He doesn’t get it,” senior executives grumbled, “Everything he’s doing is counter-culture.” Even Wall Street didn’t buy-in. “The market’s getting saturated,” one expert wrote. “I wouldn’t be in a rush to buy it [Home Depot’s stock].” (This was at a time that Nardelli’s turnaround efforts were barely off the drawing board.)
Now as someone who embraced change and acted quickly in the past Nardelli saw these people sitting on their hands and making negative comments and decided that was proof positive that they were the wrong people for the new situation.
And he was partly right. About 20 percent of the average company won’t ever pitch in and try new ideas or innovations.
But that leaves a large group of people who may be right for the job but who stay on the fence longer that the leaders expect. They look like immovable resisters, but they’re not. They are simply more average folks, people who need to see that the change is safe and likely to succeed before they will give a strategy their buy-in.
This is the critical lesson I’ve learned in the last three years as I’ve been researching the art of execution. Not enough buy-in one of the four big reasons why half of all the best laid plans fail. But it’s not callousness or stupidity that causes executives to underestimate the challenge and assume the worst. It’s that many of us have the eyes of the early adapter. We’ve opened our minds to what we see as an obvious need for change. And we assume that resistance is irrational (or sinister). We lose good people and take a big step back. In the end that causes us to miss our announced milestones and disappoint our stakeholders.
So now we have an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of another (a great way to gain experience for cheap). Here’s the lesson: Every well thought out strategy need an equally well thought out plan to get enough buy-in. That plan starts with realizing that everyone isn’t like us. Many are slower to buy-in. But if they see the path is safe and likely to succeed they will (also) follow through.
Add comment January 8th, 2007
This past year U.S. News teamed with the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government to evaluate the state of leadership.
The results were dismal:
More than half of Americans—56 percent—say they’re not proud of the country’s leaders. Two thirds and more say the country is in a leadership crisis. Nearly three quarters say the nation will decline without better leadership.
Eighty-three percent of Americans said corporate leaders are more concerned with the bottom line than with running their companies well, 93 percent say political leaders spend too much time attacking their opponents, and only 39 percent say leaders have high ethical standards.
What’s new you ask? Well, the study, led by Warren Bennis and David Gergen, also dug up a few authentic leaders — rating the nominees from to 1 to 5 based on how well they met the following criteria:
Sets Direction (25%)
Achieves Results (50%)
Cultivates a Culture of Growth (25%)
Unfortunately, not many business leaders made the cut.
No mention of Branson, Gates, or Jobs.
Business leaders making the grade include Warren Buffet, A.G. Lafley, and Marilyn Carlson Nelson.
1 comment January 1st, 2007
What do Michael Porter, Bono, and The Gap have in common?
They’re all related to “The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy.” The HBR article, by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer, proposes a fundamentally new way to look at the relationship between business and society that does not treat corporate growth and social welfare as a zero-sum game.
They introduce a framework that individual companies can use to identify the social consequences of their actions; to discover opportunities to benefit society and themselves by strengthening the competitive context in which they operate; to determine which CSR initiatives they should address; and to find the most effective ways of doing so.
Perceiving social responsibility as an opportunity rather than as damage control or a PR campaign requires dramatically different thinking—a mind-set, the authors warn, that will become increasingly important to competitive success.
The framework identifies three ways in which social issues should be prioritized:
Case studies? Porter gives us a few examples: Whole Foods, Microsoft, GE, Volvo etc. Some of his examples are weak (ExxonMobil building roads is not exactly CSR, or is it?)
What’s truly great about this article is the diagram mapping the societal impact of the value chain ( pp.86-87). In it, Porter shows us how companies can start analyzing it’s “inside-out” linkages to see where it can do the most good — for society and itself.
Which brings us to The Gap. Duke grad-student Jeremy MacNealey writes:
“The apparel retailer has struggled mightily over the past few years, but we learned that the company may have found new hope from the most unlikely of sources — its charitable efforts. Teaming up with (Product) Red and launching a new apparel line called Gap (Product) Red, it has seen an overwhelming response by consumers to the edgier and more premium product. The response by the public has been so strong that the company is now planning to apply a similar look throughout the Gap brand. It just may be that the long-awaited turnaround that investors have anticipated will actually come about in part as a result of Gap’s charitable efforts.”
More about Product Red here >>
Add comment December 30th, 2006
At the beginning of this year, the Edelman Trust Barometer assessed the impact on trust of a company’s national origin, industry sector, behaviors and communications policies.
[Ironic, isn’t it, that Edelman itself lost credibility this year when it was revealed that they were behind the fake Wal-Mart blogs… details here>> ]
The findings, which were presented at the World Economic Forum in Davos, included:
Add comment December 20th, 2006
Teaming is one of the two disciplines for achieving performance in small groups.
In addition to keeping groups small, the team discipline revolves around needed skills, shared sense of purpose, goals and how to get along and work together, and mutual accountability — all of which make these findings from Grovewell must reading for folks in cross cultural teams.
We are all human — we bring with us beliefs and behaviors that reflect ‘how we do things around here’. Increasingly, more and more of us absorb and practice such values in organizations.
Still, the forces of national and ethnic culture remain the starting point because of family, because we ‘grow up’ in contexts heavily influenced by those cultural dimensions. The shift from place to organization going on around the globe holds both promise and peril — but surely one potential advantage comes from blending the best of various cultures into ‘how we do things around here’ in our organizations. Teams are powerful crucibles for making this happen because they are small thick we’s with an orientation toward performance — toward some objective purpose that brings us together meaningfully.
As the Grovewell research shows, achieving performance requires small cross-cultural groups using the team discipline to grapple with how to get the best from values that are seemingly at odds, such as:
1. Individualism versus group orientation
2. Hierarchical versus democratic distribution of power
3. Content-focused versus context-focused communication style
4. Formality versus informality
5. Punctuality versus flexible sense of time
6. Task and goal orientation versus relationship orientation
7. Deductive versus inductive reasoning
8. Holistic versus linear thinking
9. Confrontation versus diplomacy/face-saving
10. Short-term versus long-term viewpoint
11. Competition versus cooperation
12. Loyalty to particular people versus obedience to universal rules
13. Self-determination versus acceptance of fate/circumstance
14. Religious versus secular worldview
15. Permissiveness versus strict rules/regulations
16. Pragmatic flexibility versus adherence to detailed plans
17. Achieved versus ascribed status
18. Change as positive versus tradition as revered
19. Youth orientation versus age veneration
20. Male dominance versus gender equality
21. Rigid class structure versus social mobility
22. Action/doing versus contentment with being
Much turns on the attitudes with which these questions are approached, especially how best to respect differences while finding a shared path to performance that matters.
Folks who jump straight to ‘good versus bad’ step into unpromising territory.
In contrast, those who take the time and make the effort to understand nonjudgementally will build the initial respect and trust required for more difficult choices about the best path to performance.
The Grovewell piece speaks specifically to cross-cultural teams. Over thirty years of experience with small groups, however, suggests to me that several of the items listed apply just as much to folks coming from different organizational cultures (e.g. in a post-merger integration team) and different functional/expertise cultures (e.g. marketing versus engineering).
Add comment December 20th, 2006
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « May | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |