If you work in a firm struggling to redefine itself and maintain its relevance in this changing world, you’re not alone. You’re also involved in a battle for your firm’s life.
There’s a great article at HBR Blogs by Judith Hurwitz on the topical and timely example of this change battle being waged in front of our eyes at HP. In her post, “Can HP Change Its DNA?” Hurwitz explores the challenges that hardware firms have in adopting software thinking and business models. The post is filled with relevant questions and ideas for anyone dealing with this Herculean challenge.
A Road Strewn with Wrecks:
Certainly, the corporate history books are filled with great names of firms who failed to adapt and change with the times. For every Apple/Jobs, IBM/Gerstner and GE/Welch story, there are dozens of firms with formerly great household names that are no longer great or even good. Many are gone or on their way out.
I suspect there were more than a few smart people in those firms, yet through some combination of factors…poor leadership, the gravitational pull of an old, strong culture, pride and arrogance, dominant logic, management systems and technologies optimized for another era, etc. these firms failed to change and so, they failed.
Experience Breeds Respect for the Magnitude & Complexity of Organizational Transformation:
I’ve lived through this transformation three times as an employee…and learned something every time.
The first one failed. I recall sitting in the conference room as a young product manager, when the management team explained why we would never pursue the low-margin, low-end of the market when we were so dominant at the top end. It felt horribly wrong then and it’s painful to recall now. Perhaps a young Clay Christensen was listening in, because we had our butts disrupted right out of the marketplace.
The second one worked on a concentrated level. This global firm had no idea how to promote systems and software..it was hardware-centric and component oriented and wanted to get into the software and systems business. We built a nice business that for a good decade dominated market segments around the globe. We also spent a hell of a lot of time justifying our existence and trying to make the square peg of a software business model fit into a company that only understood the box and component model. Ultimately long after the founding/sponsoring team members moved on to new lives elsewhere, the gravitational pull of the low-margin, box oriented mentality sans support and significant R&D investments, returned to its roots. The unit is a shadow of its former self.
The third one…a pure software firm, succeeded in large part because the only change it had to make (I use “only” very loosely here), was the market focus. The business model was clear…the challenge was facilitating a culture shift into new, emerging and adjacent markets where the capabilities were highly valued. To the credit of the professionals in this firm, it ultimately worked very well. Nonetheless, transition was a bite…with many fits and starts and a lot of resistance. It worked, but it wasn’t a day at the beach. The lessons learned along the way are enough to fill a book. (Hmmm.)
No Easy Answers and a Resource:
Instead of being prescriptive and proffering a list of easy-to-write, nearly impossible to replicate/implement suggestions, I’ll offer that helping a firm break free of the past is difficult at best and almost impossible in some circumstances. (OK, you can save the “thank you, Captain Obvious” messages.)
There must be a fierce corporate will to live…catalyzed by strong, united leadership and a workplace population dedicated to doing the messy, heavy lifting required for success in this difficult endeavor. Oh, and did I mention the courage and fortitude required to look around and say, “this all has to change,” and then to do it.
I’ve not yet found the magical answers for this (they don’t exist), however, for those involved in this effort of reinvention and revitalization, consider checking out Geoffrey Moore’s latest book, Escape Velocity-Free Your Company’s Future from the Pull of the Past. (Geoffrey is the Silicon-Valley consultant whose thinking and writings in Crossing the Chasm, Inside the Tornado and others has profoundly shaped strategy and execution in the tech sector for two decades.)
I caught up with Geoffrey last week to interview him for The Leadership Caffeine Podcast (episode to be aired soon!), and I left the conversation convinced that his latest effort offers some important and much needed tools to guide us on this difficult journey. The framework of frameworks that he offers and the approaches for rethinking the business from the outside in, will be incredibly useful along the way. More on this when I run the interview.
If you’ve lived through and succeeded in one of these endeavors, I suspect we would all like to hear your ideas on what worked and what didn’t. There are more than a few out there with a lot riding on getting this right.
—
About Art Petty:
Art Petty is a Leadership & Career Coach and Strategy Consultant, helping motivated professionals of all levels achieve their potential. In addition to working with highly motivated professionals, Art frequently works with project teams in pursuit of high performance. Art’s second book (an edited, annotated collection of the most popular leadership essays), Leadership Caffeine-Ideas to Energize Your Professional Development, was released at the end of September in 2011.
Contact Art via e-mail to discuss a coaching, workshop or speaking engagement.
Art,
I really enjoyed reading this post. You hit the nail on the head, especially by noting that there are no easy answers. Trends in business and technology are constantly changing so the most successful firms will be the ones that are attentive and adaptable to change. Thanks for the insights!
My pleasure, Andrea! Thanks for reading and writing. -Art
Art,
you bring up a great point. It is very difficult for companies to change. However, your more interesting question might be, if people can see it, how do they respond?
For an employee, maybe the old analogy of a fish swimming in the Mississippi makes sense. If the fish can see that the current is going in the wrong direction, is it easier for the smart fish to jump from the Mississippi or to the Colorado river?
Senior execs might be a little different. Do you remember the Pink Panther cartoon? I thinking particularly of the one where the Pink Panther is standing in a house that is falling off a cliff. Right before the house hits the ground, he steps out the front door and walks away unharmed as the house crashes around him.
I’d bet senior execs at the cable and TV networks know their business model is dead. Maybe they could change an reinvent to leverage the Internet, but isn’t it smarter for the senior exec to milk every last penny from the existing model and then step out like the Pink Panther?
Andy, still chuckling at the Pink Panther visual!
I’m not quite as cynical as you on the last point. Sounds like the “defect” strategy in a prisoner’s dilemma game. In theory, there’s accountability…there’s a board, there are stakeholders…and there are typically ample warning signs of the decaying business model. While I don’t doubt that some think as you describe, I don’t have evidence in my own experience to support that as a general approach.
Suspect the broader stakeholders in Kodak didn’t opt for what seems to be heading towards dissolution. Love the article on this one that I saw yesterday…“The Entrepreneurial Failure of Eastman Kodak.”
Thanks for stimulating some thinking. -Art
Art,
there maybe some differences between LA and Chicago. (Don’t you love my stunning insights?) Al Teller left CBS Records in the early 90s and tried setting up an alternative music delivery service (Pre-Internet). Even before Napster, recording execs knew the writing was on the wall. If you can an exec in TV, Movies, cable or news who isn’t fully aware of what’s happening, they’re either grossly incompetent or Rupert Murdoch.
Clay Shirky cleanly articulated this in (http://bit.ly/dad3MZ). It’s not in this article, but he coined the phrase “Those who want, can’t. And those who can’t, want.” While he was specifically talking about how cable networks have the expertise to produce high quality, internet ready programming, they won’t and the people who are trying to develop internet ready content can’t.
It’s long been a truism that the most capable people in any company, are the first rats off the sinking ship (or maybe I just remember that to appease my guilty conscience…)
That Kodak’s business model was dead was clearly apparent in ’97 when it’s stock took it’s first big dump, going from around $90 a share to $58.
Very few businesses survive their business environment changing. That SPRINT (Southern Pacific Railroad INterstate Telegraph) survived a prospered as long as it did (or has done, we’ll see if they can recover now) is a glaring exception. IBM post Gerstner was really a new company that retained a known name. Jack Welch kept GE’s name, but also changed just about everything else.
I’m not Mitt Romney, I don’t think of corporations are people. I’m much more Joseph Schumpeter. Businesses exist to leverage a business model that is well aligned to a particular environment. If that environment changes, isn’t it maybe better that businesses die out and are replaced by businesses better aligned to the new environment?
Before condemning me as heartless, please ponder Playboy and Hugh Hefner…
Andy, I like you too much to condemn you as heartless! Just occasionally misguided. (Note from Art..Andy is a longtime valued contributor here at ME. The fact that we rarely ever agree is a bonus!)
In my experience, organizations fail more for the following than due to blatant and deliberate destruction as you indicate in what I will henceforth reference as Andy’s Pink Panther Hypothesis:
-Failure to recognize significant or disruptive changes in tastes or needs from their core markets.
-Failure to recognize that their business model is in the process of being co-opted.
-Obsolescence of core organizational technology and a failure to effectively diversify.
-More than those above, the failure to effectively respond. Most firms and management groups see the problems…they just fail on the response development and execution. This one is complex…it ranges from falling victim to Prahalad’s “dominant logic” to gross framing errors (how they view their business) to incompetence founded in denial and arrogance. A large part of what I see in firms facing some form of destructive pressure from outside sources comes from an almost irrational stubbornness that by tuning and tweaking, or incrementing, the glory days can be recaptured. Perhaps that is an outcome of the dominant logic. I could tack on several more here, but they are all close cousins.
Thanks for stimulating the discussion!
-Art
Business relies heavily on technology, and with technology changing what seems about every month. This is making today’s business world is becoming more and more difficult have a good solid vision, but this is why a strong leader can keep his business up to speed with the rast changing world today.
The leader of the company is the one person who will either bring you out of that hard times, or they will be the ones putting the nail in the confine. So you can list all of the issues that make companies fail, but it comes down to how strong the management and leadership of your company is.
No fundamental disagreement on your perspective, other than IMO you can’t separate the “reasons” and the leaders. Thanks for reading and sharing, Jamie! -Art