2009-05-29

Jim Collins on the power of "no"

Published: May 23, 2009

JIM COLLINS calls his third-floor offices in the heart of this mountain-ringed city a “management lab.” But little distinguishes his workspace from most others, save for a few things.

There is, for example, the small sign outside the door: “ChimpWorks.” In case anybody doesn’t get the point, a large Curious George doll sits in a leather chair, delivering the we-ask-a-lot-of-questions-here punch line. And in a corner of the white board at the end of his long conference room, Mr. Collins keeps this short list:

Creative 53%

Teaching 28%

Other 19%

That, he explains, is a running tally of howhe’s spending his time, and whether he’s sticking to a big goal he set for himself years ago: to spend 50 percent of his workdays on creative pursuits like research and writing books, 30 percent on teaching-related activities, and 20 percent on all the other things he has to do.

These aren’t ballpark guesstimates. Mr. Collins, who is 51, keeps a stopwatch with three separate timers in his pocket at all times, stopping and starting them as he switches activities. Then he regularly logs the times into a spreadsheet.

He has a good jump, too, on another overarching goal he’s set for himself: to produce a lasting and distinctive body of work.

Within the sprawling and overpopulated world of self-styled gurus dispensing advice on management and leadership, Mr. Collins is in rare company. His last two books — “Built to Last” and “Good to Great” — were breakout hits, selling about seven million copies combined.

Rather than presenting silver-bullet formulas that are easily forgotten, Mr. Collins’s books offer tangible frameworks for understanding why organizations succeed. His winning streak is about to be tested with his just-released book, which takes a turn, as he says, to the “dark side,” focusing on why companies fail. At any other time, it would seem a long shot, in that it lacks the upbeat message of his previous books. But his timing, given the number of once-great companies now in ruin, couldn’t have been better.

It seems that Mr. Collins, for all his exacting approaches to time management and research, has been blessed with something he cannot control: repeated bouts of flat-out luck.

He started researching his new book, titled “How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In,” in 2005. Back then, the Dow Jones index had passed 10,000 and was still climbing, eventually to more than 14,000, and Bear StearnsLehman BrothersGeneral Motors and Fannie Mae still had bright futures.

Now the stages of decline that he maps out in the book — hubris born of success; undisciplined pursuit of more; denial of risk and peril; grasping for salvation with a quick, big solution; and capitulation to irrelevance or death — offer a kind of instant autopsy for an economy on the stretcher.

He writes that he’s come to see institutional decline as a “staged disease” — harder to detect but easier to cure in the early stages — which is likely to foster a sense of corporate hypochondria in many readers.

He started working on his previous book, “Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap ... and Others Don’t,” in the mid-1990s, smack in the middle of New Economy fever.

“Good to Great” was finally published in late 2001 — not long after the dot-com bubble burst, the pixie dust surrounding visionary leaders had fallen away, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks shook the country to its core. The book struck a chord with its back-to-basics message: Quiet but determined leaders who remained focused on clear and simple goals were the real success stories of corporate America.

It won a following, about four million copies’ worth, that extended well beyond the business world and included football coaches, pastors and school principals.

“We were really slow, and so it comes out right after everything is falling apart,” Mr. Collins recalls. “If we had come out in 1998, I don’t think anyone would have read it.”

His first best seller, “Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies,” another five-year project, which he co-wrote with Jerry I. Porras, came out in 1994, on the heels of the re-engineering craze in corporate America; it also went on to sell millions of copies.

And his next book, which he is writing with Morten T. Hansen and is due out in two or three years, is about why certain companies manage to thrive through tumultuous times.


2009-05-20

The World Competitiveness in 2009

WHO is the best of the world Competitiveness in  2009

Based on the results of the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2009, IMD is pleased to announce an additional ranking – the Stress Test on Competitiveness. Denmark finishes in first place in the “Stress Test” rankings, an analysis of which countries are better equipped to fare through the financial crisis and improve their competitiveness in the near future. In other words, the test is future oriented – it focuses on exposure, readiness and resilience in a period of world recession.
....
Despite finishing first in the overall 2009 World Competitiveness Yearbook rankings, the United States comes in 28th position in the Stress Test, underlining the concern of the market with the depth of the crisis and the time that it will take to solve it.

Between the 18th and 30th positions in the Stress Test are the larger exporting nations led by China (18th), and which includes Taiwan (21st), Brazil (22nd), Germany (24th), Japan (26th) and Korea (29th). Ireland (25th) could have been higher in terms of resilience but the suddenness and the magnitude of the real estate and the financial crisis have probably taken the country aback.

The UK (34th) is in a disquieting position; just as is France (44th), Italy (47th) and Spain (50th), stressing how much the recovery in these countries may be hampered by structural rigidities. Finally, Russia in 51st position may not have had enough years of economic growth to consolidate the structure of its economy and to create the necessary buffer to cope with a crisis of this magnitude.


From : http://www.imd.ch/news/IMD-WCY-2009.cfm

2009-05-19

Finding your innovation fulcrum

Finding your innovation fulcrum
The Wall Street Journal 12/20/05
by Mark Gottfredson and Mike Booker

It's a constant trade-off faced by even the most successful companies, from Nokia to Honda to Starbucks: Customers are crying out for more and more innovation. Yet if you create too many offerings, costs spiral out of control; too few, and you miss out on profitable sales. The dilemma puts a premium on finding just the right balance. In our experience, firms that master this "innovation fulcrum" -- between product variety and operating complexity -- can boost their balance sheets, with cost reductions of as much as 35% along with up to a 40% increase in sales.

The problem is where to start: According to a recent Bain survey of more than 900 global executives, nearly 70% admit that excessive complexity is raising costs and hurting profits, but many miss how complexity begins in the product line. The usual response -- launching a Six Sigma or other "lean operations" program -- falls short because standard accounting systems don't pick up complexity's full costs. Incremental approaches miss the gradual buildup of systems and mechanisms for managing complexity. Nor can they gauge actual customer desires.

What's needed, then, is a systematic review. H-E-B, a supermarket firm operating in Texas and Mexico, took a look at its overall offerings and found that it could simplify and improve the perception of variety by tailoring store offerings to local tastes and streamlining processes. In its Rio Grande Valley stores, for example, H-E-B focuses on traditional border customers and their ethnic preferences. Its Central Market division, however, offers a world of produce to upscale shoppers with "a passion for fresh and unique food." Yet all stores have a simple, standard operating model with similar ratios as targets for sales and gross margin.

We think of this approach as "Model T" analysis: On the operating side companies need to think about what processes would look like with just one standard offering -- like Henry Ford's Model T, which came only in black. On the customer side, firms need to understand where variety really counts -- something Ford missed when competitors introduced colorful autos in the 1920s.

Choosing the right "Model T" can be tricky. Firms should identify a basic version of their core offering. This allows managers to imagine whole systems and processes that could be radically changed in a simple environment. Big companies that find it difficult to isolate a "typical" offering should look for a proxy -- a smaller, perhaps non-traditional competitor operating with a simpler set of offerings.

Having established the baseline, companies need to add back those options valued by attractive segments of their customer base. The secret: Add only a single variable at a time and then trace the effect through the value chain.

Of course getting rid of complexity is only half the challenge. Companies also need to keep things simple. Four practices help stem complexity creep:

-- Start by raising the hurdle rate. Requiring a higher rate of return on new products not only makes it more difficult to arbitrarily add variations, it also boosts innovation discipline.

-- Postpone complexity. The further down the value chain you introduce complexity, the less it costs. A few years ago, Starbucks began "semi-automating" its latte-manufacturing process. Today, Starbucks patrons can still customize their lattes by size, type of milk, temperature and flavors -- but everything works off the same standard platform. Smart suppliers to do-it-yourself chains offer products that can be customized at the last step in the assembly or distribution process.

-- Institutionalize simplicity in decision making. Executives must pinpoint responsibility for making innovation decisions. Take the example of one food company. Marketers used to order up numerous packaging concepts for a popular snack, creating manufacturing nightmares. Today, its brand managers must meet checkpoints with manufacturing and sourcing managers.

-- Stay balanced. A company's innovation fulcrum can shift over time. Japanese auto makers provide a classic example. In the 1970s, U.S. auto makers competed on their breadth of car choices. Toyota and Honda went another route. Rather than offering millions of possibilities, Honda offered 32 build-combinations with four colors. Today, Honda has redesigned its engines to reduce fuel consumption and emissions, and streamlined engine manufacturing.

What's the right balance? It's a question Henry Ford should have asked before his competitors' colorful vehicles started appearing everywhere. Eventually, he introduced the Model A, done up in multiple hues. But the lesson remains: Companies that hit the right balance between innovation and complexity create more efficient operations and more profitable customer relationships.

From:http://www.bain.com/bainweb/publications/publications_detail.asp?id=23848&menu_url=publications_results.asp 

2009-05-14

In the right hands, big turnarounds do happen.

Once upon a time, there was a car company that was one of the world's sickest. Its managers spent their time fighting one another. The one thing its workers did most reliably was go on strike. Its bankers debated how big a bailout would keep it out of bankruptcy.

The company was Fiat. Yes, the same Fiat that is now taking over Chrysler. What kind of shape was Fiat in? Well, back in 2000,General Motors (GM) had signed a deal to buy Fiat. Then when the deal was supposed to close, in 2005, GM decided it was hopeless. "Being forced to buy Fiat," Business Week reported, was "GM's nightmare scenario." To avoid having to go through with the purchase, GM paid Fiat $2 billion just to get out of the deal. Most folks thought it was money well spent.

The man who let GM out of the deal for a mere $2 billion was Sergio Marchionne. He was a financial expert who had taken the helm of Fiat in 2004. Fiat then was on the verge of bankruptcy. Marchionne had never even worked at an auto company, let alone run one.

By 2007, just two years after GM walked away, Fiat was profitable. Now Marchionne is not only taking over Chrysler, but looking at buying GM's European division, Opel, as well. So recently deemed completely worthless, Fiat now has a market value of about $12 billion. A combination of Chrysler, Opel, and Fiat would leave Marchionne running the second biggest auto company in the world, after Toyota (TM).

By Mark Gimein

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/money-trail/2009/05/10/worlds-best-ceos?page=full

2009-05-06

Global Economic Crisis Hits China HR

Changes Recruiting/Retention and Compensation

We asked an outstanding ILR graduate student to update our research on HR trends in China in light of the landscape of the current global economic crisis and recession:

Recruiting and Selecting Talent

Investing in Employees for Multiple Benefits

Compensating HR Employees

Retaining High Potentials

Rapid Change: Increasing Maturity of a Profession

from HR Spectrum News

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cahrs/hrSpectrum/May09-globalEconomicCrisis.html