Skip to content

Archive for October, 2009

Making the List & Checking it Twice

Saturday, October 31st, 2009

Christmas is less than 60-days away and Sears has already started to selectively sell their Black Friday specials. I therefore found it extremely interesting to read a Bloomberg article titled Wilbur Ross Sees Huge Commercial Real Estate Crash. While this title might not be that big of a surprise, his strategy when to reenter the market is interesting.

Dubbed the King of Bankruptcy by clients during his quarter century at the Rothschild investment bank, Ross entered the U.S. home mortgage business as an increasing number of borrowers quit making payments and profits sank in loan servicing.

“Our methodology is to make a great big list: What’s every thing we can think of that’s either wrong with the industry or that we just plain don’t like about it,” Ross said today.

“Then we start work on another list. If we had control of this industry, what would we do to fix each one of those problems?” he said. “Once we feel that there is a reasonable likelihood that the second chart kind of equals the first chart, that’s when we get ready to do something.”

So the question today is,

  • What lists are you working on today?
  • What don’t you like, and what do you like about the economy today?
  • What don’t you like and what do you like about the business you’re in?
  • Are you ready to invest or are you holding on to cash?
  • What would need to change or to alter your strategy?

These are just a few of the questions every business needs to ask today. What questions are you asking, or avoiding?

Book Awards

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

I grew up on a farm in Norther Illinois. I was in 4-H and FFA. I also bought calves in the fall, trained them over the winter to be led and showed, and then took them to the local, county and state fairs throughout the summer. Each year, I spent hundreds of hours only to be informed in a matter of minutes whether my project was best of class, or simply okay. And along that journey, I learned many valuable lessons.

  • I needed to evaluate my projects objectively, not subjectively
  • Focus and determination were direct enemies of laziness and procrastination
  • Expectations often led to disappointment, although hope was often rewarded
  • Long term view and commitment was essential to success
  • Try to have fun while doing your best work

You may have had similar experiences and lessons along the way. Approximately 3-years ago I started a different journey. It was a journey I was uncertain if I wanted to complete, nor compete. After all, I had to be my own critic, which is difficult. But along the way, the basis for a book started to unfold, and it was different than my competition. Six months ago my book was born. Then I had to ask myself, and the world, how good is it - really? The other day I just received notification that it was named a Finalist in the Business: Leadership & Management category at The National Best Books 2009 Awards. I guess that means, I received a Blue Ribbon.

Awards are a nice way of saying, “Job Well Done.” How do you award your employees for a job well done?

Access To The Best

Monday, October 26th, 2009

Do you have an inquisitive mind? If you do, I’m certain that from time to time you look at a business experiencing economic hardship and wonder, “How could that happen? They have access to the best talent the world has to offer. They have access to the top consultants… the top financial analysts… the top bankers… the most efficient suppliers…  The list goes on and on.  And then you realize, none of this matters. Simply having “access to the best” is not enough. Because culture has the ability and capacity to trump change. In effect, culture can just about kill anything it wants to, if it so chooses. This is why leaders must build cultures that embrace change, rather than killing it.

 A case in point is illustrated by Steve Rattner, the ex-car czar who helped orchestrate the bailout for the Detroit automakers. Here are a few of the comments from a Huffington Post article.

Everyone knew Detroit’s reputation for insular, slow-moving cultures. Even by that low standard, I was shocked by the stunningly poor management that we found, particularly at GM, where we encountered, among other things, perhaps the weakest finance operation any of us had ever seen in a major company. GM’s board of directors was “utterly docile in the face of mounting evidence of a looming disaster” and former GM chairman and chief executive Rick Wagoner set a tone of “friendly arrogance” that permeated the company, Rattner wrote. “Certainly Rick and his team seemed to believe that virtually all of their problems could be laid at the feet of some combination of the financial crisis, oil prices, the yen-dollar exchange rate and the UAW,” Rattner wrote. “We were shocked, even beyond our low expectations, by the poor state of both GM and Chrysler.

Although Rattner’s comments are recent, one doesn’t need to search too far to find further evidence leading to GMs demise.

“We have vastly underestimated how deeply ingrained are the organizational and cultural rigidities that hamper our ability to execute.” Elmer Johnson

What’s interesting about Johnson’s comment, it was made in 1987.

Bottom Line: Having “access to the best” is not a competitive advantage, nor is it a winning strategy. At times, it can even be a silent problem. Developing an organization that works efficiently, effectively and can leverage the talents within will win in the long run.

What are you doing to leverage your talent resources?

China’s Exposed Underbelley

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

China is easy to praise, and equally easy to dismiss. Over the past decade they’ve become the go-to country for everything from textiles to the manufacturing of hi-tech gadgetry. And of course, they’ve also been the source of numerous product recalls. Generally speaking, China has been the place for low cost products. However, China has bigger plans, and a huge desire to move up the food chain, so to speak.This week, Business Week ran an interesting article titled The China Hype suggesting that China is coming up short when it comes to innovation - the catalyst for its new future. It states:

As the West struggles to recover, China is on track for 8% growth this year and is about to overtake Japan as the world’s No. 2 economy and Germany as the No. 1 exporter. Now the mainland is charging ahead in new industries, unveiling homegrown airliners, electric cars, and high-speed trains. But delve beneath the muscular statistics and hype about advances in strategic industries, and China doesn’t seem so prepared to catapult into a role of global economic leadership. Experts familiar with highly touted Chinese achievements such as commercial jets and high-speed trains say the technologies that underpin them were largely developed elsewhere. There is no Chinese Sony, Toyota, or Samsung on the horizon

By Beijing’s own admission, the economic model that has powered China for three decades can no longer be counted on to move it forward. The mainland has prospered largely through construction and by exporting all manner of consumer goods churned out in low-wage factories; workers parked their savings in state-run banks, which then loaned the money to companies to make more stuff. But technology and managerial knowhow came mostly from multinationals, and the costs—pollution, decaying social services, and a yawning gap between the urban rich and rural poor—were largely ignored. Though that model has fueled phenomenal growth, Hu and others now call it “unbalanced” and “unsustainable.”

I find it interesting that a similar scenario played out 20 years ago, except then it was Japan. Japan became an economic giant following World War II. Names like Sony and Panasonic and Toyota emerged. Large trading groups formed. Management philosophies were developed and implemented. Japan was the country to fear, because it appeared they had it all.

Over the past decade, China has become the new Japan. They have cheap labor. They have a growing economy. They have… But behind it all, China has a multitude of challenges. And as the article points out, they’re simply not an innovation culture and this will be difficult to change. As I stated in an earlier entry, China feels like its a constant Without Warning event waiting to happen.

Silent Problem Exposed in England

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Famous Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan once wrote, “We look at the present through a rearview mirror; we walk backwards into our future.”

Today, silent problems are one of the greatest “rearview mirror” challenges facing every organization, every business, and every public institution. Such is the case surfacing in England, and reported about by Scott Eblin on his Next Level Blog. Scott reports:

Well, the story that’s dominating the UK’s headlines and airwaves this week is a controversy over how members of Parliament used their expense accounts for items like housekeeping, gardening and, in one infamous case, the digging of a moat. Sounds sort of outrageous doesn’t it?  The back story, as my cab driver explained it to me the other day, is that when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister she wanted to give a pay raise to the MP’s but knew that wouldn’t fly with the public. So, instead, she adjusted the expense reimbursement schedule for MP’s so it was much more liberal and ended up significantly supplementing their incomes.  That was all going along swimmingly for the past 20 years or so until earlier this year when the husband of the Home Secretary watched a couple of porn movies on the family telly and the cable bill was submitted for reimbursement under the MP expense plan. You can probably figure out what happened next… In case you can’t make it out, the passenger car is carrying 3 or 4 people holding prime minister Gordon Brown masks in front of their face. The sign across the top of the car reads, “All Aboard the Gravy Train.”  As the Brits might say, “Simply brilliant!”

It’s obvious that an “offline” compensation program is doomed to failure, or what some might call, a scandal. It wasn’t a problem waiting to happen, it was a problem that had happened, it just took 20 years to surface. Now that it has surfaced, there is 20 years of baggage associated with the problem, which only gives it staying power and front page presence.

I’ve said it numerous times before on this blog, silent problems are the most dangerous problems of all. Because once they do surface, there is a lot of pent up emotion attached to them. “Beware” is the word of caution to those who are considering or holders of a silent problem.

Compensation Overboard

Sunday, October 18th, 2009

Silent problems are not a one way street! Therefore at times, one can see them coming and going. Such is the case and current ferver over compensation. If you’ve read my blog or my book Without Warning, you realize that compensation is an area where silent problems commonly reside. This is no surprise, after all money has been referenced as the root of all evil since the beginning of mankind. So one might wonder, with 1000s of years of experience, why can’t we get it right?

This is a fair question, and one with few answers. In fact, if you read the news, compensation in recent years is simply out of control. Is this simply hype or reality? From my perspective, its a bit of both. Its easy to get on the “compensation is unfair” bandwagon. After all, it’s such a big deal today that we have a compensation czar, Kenneth Feinberg (appointed by the Obama Administration) to set the salaries and bonuses at seven firms at the heart of the financial crisis. And guess what they’re finding? They’re finding compensation plans that appear inequitable. For instance, financial instituions that had lost Billions of dollars in the past year paid out Millions to senior management in additional compensation. For what - performance? 

However in this ferver, many things get distorted. They’re all thugs mentality is beginning to set in. There is no doubt that many compensation/incentive/bonus/retirement plans may not make much sense. There are billions of dollars being pushed to business executives that may not deserve it. However, as much as the system might be broken in places, it doesn’t need to be dismantled and thrown away. A tune-up, yes. Thrown away, no. And it’s the responsibilty and duty of corporate boards to realign compensation plans that produce long-term results, not short term events.

As I state in my book, “too often the behavior (derived from incentive plans) delivers an outcome you weren’t expecting and didn’t want.” Compensation/incentive plans are a powerful tool. However at times, it can become a destructive tool. I encourage you to live by this maxim. A poorly designed incentive plan is worse than none at all. Be certain to get it right.

50,000 Customers Can’t Be Wrong

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

An interesting showdown between Lori Swanson, Minnesota’s Attorney General and Ferrellgas, a provider of LP gas to 50,000 Minnesota customers is surfacing. According to news reports, the Attorney General sued Ferrellgas on behalf of its residential customers, saying they’re paying disporportionally high prices for LP gas. According to the AP, spokesman Jim Saladin for Ferrellgas said, “Ferrellgas wouldn’t be the largest propane retailer in the state if its prices weren’t competitive. The company has 50,000 Minnesota customers.” The story then provides examples of supposed price gouging and surprise fees related to the lawsuit.

Excuse me. There is absolutely no logical basis how a person can state that we’re the biggest, therefore we’re fair and customer focused. Actually, a case for the opposite viewpoint exists, “we’re the largest, therefore we can set prices whereever we want, based on our criteria of ‘what’s fair for us, not our customers.’” This leads me to warning sign No. 6 from Without Warning, that a silent problem is present.

When rationalization is the customary means to explain why specific targets aren’t achieved or certain decisions are made.

Individuals and companies rationalize decisions and how decisions are made all the time. Rationalization can be a highly effective tool, if the resultant decision is based on strongly held corporate values (this is what we stand for), a solid contextual framework (this is how we have successfully done things in the past), and strong moral values (we understand the difference between what’s right and wrong). However as we saw in the mortgage crisis of a year ago, a slippery slope scenario can quickly evolve. In Without Warning I site a Wharton article referring to the mortgage crisis titled, Eyes on the wrong prize… It states:

Alarm bells have gone off… But in many major industries, problems grow slowly and come to be accepted by members of the industry only to explode later.

Bottom Line: Today, many corporations and businesses are struggling to reach their goals. Many are financially in dire straights with reduced demand for their products and reduced borrowing capacity. When this occurs, a path toward creative profit generation techniques can ensue. This is dangerous ground, since it can lead the business into a high-profile lawsuit. And when this occurs, it’s lights out. Customers will leave. Costs will soar. And the business will likely evaporate.

A Lesson From The Nobel Peace Prize

Monday, October 12th, 2009

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama  on Friday, October 9th. Ever since the award was announced, sentiments of praise, confusion, anger… have been expressed across every medium. President Obama himself was humbled by the award, although he didn’t believe that his work to date had risen to the level that is symbolic of the prize. Hilary Clinton noted on the Sunday morning talk shows that she felt he won the award because of “his attitude toward his role in the world.” If you were to do a google search with the words “why Obama won the Noble Peace Prize,” over 3500 entries will be noted. Each of these will carry a different spin, a different perspective, a different viewpoint around why he won, and possibly why he isn’t worthy of the award.

So what is the lesson regarding the bigger world, especially in the world of business?

The lesson is quite simple. If a prize is awarded and no one understands why they received it, especially the receiver of the award, you have a problem. Therefore before a prize is awarded, it should meet certain criteria. These being:

  1. The communication surrounding the prize and why it is being awarded must be clear and concise.
  2. The recipient of the award must have clearly demonstrated to the committee and the community why they are worthy of the prize.
  3. The recipient of the prize must exemplify the standards and inherent meaning of the award

Possibly the most coveted prize of all, The Nobel Peace Prize hit a big thud last week. I’m not saying whether President Obama deserved the award or not. I’m saying that the Nobel Committee didn’t clearly communicate, nor demonstrate why President Obama deserved and earned this award. And that is a problem.

The Lesson: Don’t let this happen to you and the awards you extend to those around you for their exempilary service. Be certain you can authenically convey the reason and a corresponding message for extending the award. If you can’t, the significance of the award will be diminished.

Nobel’s “Extraordinary” Peace Prize

Friday, October 9th, 2009

This morning I awoke learning that President Obama had been given the Nobel Peace Prize. The notation for winning the peace prize being: for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.

 Okay, I was surprised. So let’s take a quick look at previous winners and the language surrounding their Nobel Peace Prize.

2008: Martti Ahtisaari, for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts.
2007: International Governmental Panel on Climate Change & Al Gore, for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
2006: Muhammed Yunus, for their efforts to create economic and social development from below.
2005: International Energy Agency and Mohamed ElBaradei, for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.
2004: Wangari Muta Maathai, for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace.
2003: Shirin Ebadi, for her efforts for democracy and human rights. She has focused especially on the struggle for the rights of women and children.
2002: Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.
2001: The United Nations and Kofi Annan, for their work for a better organized and more peaceful world.
2000: Kim Dae-jung for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular.
 
In my book Without Warning, I present the history of the Nobel Peace price and its controversy at the time. For instance, Nobel assigned the Peace Prize to the Norwegian Parliament, despite the fact that Nobel was from Sweden.  And, Nobel was criticized for creating the Peace Prize since Nobel obtained most of his wealth from the manufacture and sale of explosives. So the mere fact that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama is highly controversial, maybe shouldn’t be all that surprising. However what I do find surprising is the language surrounding this special award. I’ve underlined the key words above and a very clear pattern emerges. President Obama’s efforts were extraordinary, vs. untiring, important, their, and her efforts in previous years.
Language is important. It gets to the heart of the matter. And this is no different for the Nobel Peace Price. Nobel was an extraordinary man. However, I’m uncertain at this point of his political career, whether “extraordinary” truly defines President Obama’s contribution to world peace.
Your thoughts?
 

The Consequences of Too…

Monday, October 5th, 2009

Have you ever pondered the consequences of “too” in a conversation. The simple word that is commonly misrepresented (i.e. to, two) is possibly one of the most defining words in the english language. When that little word “too” is utilized, it will define the conversation and inform you about what’s to come. Because what is to come might as well be a position paper on XYZ. The conversation will be somewhat predictable, as the conversation will automatically move from dialogue to influence. For instance, imagine the relevance of these “too” phrases in a conversation.

  • Too big to…
  • Too important to…
  • Too integral to…
  • Too established to…
  • Too strong to…
  • Too risky to…
  • Too dangerous to…

Yes, those all important, and telling “Too” phrases describe institutions, communities and individuals. They describe current thinking and potential consequences of defying the consequences of “Too.” And in every conversation where I come across “Too”, I know what will follow. 

However, you too can neutralize the influence of “too.” And its as simple as asking a question such as:

  • But, how does that…
  • Excuse me, doesn’t that…
  • How does that…

Yes, the “does that” phrase is the perfect neutralizer to “too.” And its a little trick that you too, should never forget.

Be the one to see it coming!

The first leadership book to point out the problem, then hand-deliver the solution.

Without Warning - Rondey Johnson

Learn More

Order Info