A Friendly Deal for Bud?

The Wall Street Journal reports this morning that Inbev may be raising its bid from $65 per share to $70 per share in an effort to secure a friendly deal with Anheuser Busch. It's not surprising to see Inbev up its offer, given that a friendly deal likely means a smoother integration process than a hostile takeover. Achieving key synergies becomes crucial to justify the takeover premium, and those synergies require the cooperation of Anheuser-Busch managers and employees. Most experts believe Anheuser-Busch would have a hard time devising a strategic plan that would allow it to argue to shareholders that it can get to $70 per share on its own, even if it sells noncore assets such as the theme parks and packaging business. It will be interesting to see if the two firms can hammer out a friendly deal. Moreover, it will be interesting to see how analysts and investors react to the larger takeover premium being offered by Inbev. Will they think that the potential synergies justify that acquisition price?

Deliberate Practice and Simulations

Research by K. Anders Ericsson and others has shown that elite performers in a wide variety of fields do not excel simply due to innate talent. Instead, these stars engage in a great deal of what Ericsson calls "deliberate practice." It's more than just hard work. Elite performers engage in practice that is aimed at a very specific performance improvement goal, and which provides immediate feedback. Moreover, deliberate practice involves focusing on the things that elite performers don't do well; many of us tend to practice that at which we already excel in our leisure sport activities. Finally, deliberate practice consists of extensive repetition of the very same activity, so as to hone a particular skill. It emphasizes focus over variety in the building of skills - i.e. working on one thing at a time. As famous tennis instructor Vic Braden has said, "“Losers have tons of variety. Champions just take pride in learning to hit the same old boring winning shots."

Can businesses leverage the power of deliberate practice to develop their human capital? Surely, they can. We can engage in deliberate practice when it comes to key activities such as drafting and making presentations. Leadership development programs can provide opportunities for deliberate practice at a variety of skills related to communication, negotiation, and the like. Beyond that, we can employ technology to create opportunities for deliberate practice. One innovative new methodology for doing so involves the use of simulations and video game technology to train employees. For instance, Hilton Garden Inn employs an interactive training game called "Ultimate Team Play." This game allows individuals to immerse themselves in various scenarios that take place in a hotel. They have to make decisions about serving customers, and they have to complete various tasks. The game provides immediate feedback to the trainees, enabling them to see how their efforts impacted measures such as customer loyalty and satisfaction.

Starbucks Closing Locations

Starbucks recently announced that it was closing 600 locations this year. Interestingly, it appears that the company will close company-owned locations, rather than any of its licensed locations (such as small airport shops). While this closure strategy may make sense economically, one still wonders about the strategic logic of the company's massive growth of licensed locations. It seems quite likely that the proliferation of licensed locations, including the abundant licensing to food service companies, has diluted the Starbucks brand.

It's hard to argue that you are one of the highest quality coffee companies in the country when you have your coffee being brewed and then sold from air pump dispensers in tons of different locations. How long does that coffee sit in those dispensers before it is sold? Is it really fresh? Does it always taste as good as Starbucks drip coffee sold in its company-owned locations?

In my view, the company must address this fundamental strategic question. The craving for growth above all else clearly drove them to expand at a frenetic pace in recent years. Now, retrenching can be painful. Stepping back from its licensing strategy won't be easy. It may even be economically a negative in the short run, but it may be precisely what the company must do strategically to position itself for the future.

The NBA, Referees, and The Wisdom of Crowds

The NBA has an interesting and quite serious problem these days. The league appears to have a lack of credibility among many fans. Disgraced referee Tim Donaghy claims that some games were intentionally manipulated by the officials, and NBA commissioner David Stern dismisses the claim as the desperate accusations of a criminal. However, many fans question the league's credibility when it comes to the officials. One of the games mentioned by Donaghy (Game 6 of the 2002 Lakers-Kings Western Conference Finals) raises serious questions in the minds of both sportswriters and fans. The commissioner cannot simply dismiss all of this as the fraudulent claims of a criminal. Whether true or not, the real issue is the credibility problem that the NBA has with its own fans.

What should the NBA do about it? Peter Keating has an interesting solution in this month's issue of ESPN: The Magazine. Keating draws on the work of James Surowiecki, the author of the best-selling book, The Wisdom of Crowds. He suggests that perhaps the NBA should allow fans to vote on key calls in an NBA game. After all, Suroweicki and others have shown that the collection of thousands of independent opinions often may yield an answer that is better than the judgment of any particular expert.

Keating's suggestion may sound preposterous, but perhaps there is a different solution that the NBA might experiment with, drawing on the same logic of mass collaboration. Companies in a variety of industries have employed mass collaboration effectively. For the NBA, perhaps fan voting could be used to EVALUATE referees, rather than to actually make calls in a live game. Rather than simply relying on an expert in the league office to judge the competency of officials, perhaps the NBA could take a look at how its millions of fans think referees have performed. Comparing the fans' collective judgment to the ratings by experts could be quite interesting. Not only might it yield informative results, but such a system might go a long way toward restoring the league's credibility in the eyes of its customers.

Airline Pricing

We have all seen the reports of new fees being imposed by the airlines, particularly for checked luggage. It's amazing to me that an industry with such an awful reputation for customer service would now choose to nickel and dime its customers in this fashion, rather than raise fares slightly. It's especially befuddling to charge for checked luggage, because this scheme creates an even bigger incentive for customers to try to carry on everything that they have. More carry-on bags means a slower boarding process and longer turnaround times. That means planes sitting on the ground rather than flying... which decreases profits, as well as angers customers.

Then, we have the befuddling news that United Airlines may require minimum stays on some routes. I'm not sure that I understand this policy. Does it mean that I can't fly from Boston to DC and back on the same day with United? Why would they turn away that business, when their goal should be to fill the planes so as to spread their fixed costs over as many passengers as possible? If this is true, then perhaps there is some economic reason for doing so, but again, it sure does not seem like a move designed to please its customers.

Exxon Mobil Selling Gas Stations

News reports indicate that Exxon Mobil plans to sell its 2,200 company-owned gas stations over the next few years. The articles suggest that, despite high gas prices, the company does not make sufficient margins in gas retailing, because the business is highly competitive. While that may be true, there is a larger strategic issue at play here. The company simply recognizes that the case for forward integration into gas retailing simply is not a strong one. That is why most of the Exxon Mobil gas stations around the United States already were operated by distributors, rather than being company-owned.

Apple owns its retail stores because it wants to control the consumer purchasing experience, gather critical marketplace information, and further enhance its product differentiation. Exxon Mobil has no such powerful rationale for forward integrating into retail gas operations. They can accomplish their goals by licensing their brand to distributors who own and operate the locations. Let those who are more adept at operating these businesses do so... after all, gas retailing is about much more than fuel these days. The business is much more about operating convenience stores profitably than it is about pumping gas.

The 3,000 Mile Oil Change

The state of California recently launched a campaign to persuade consumers that they may not need to change the oil in their cars every 3,000 miles. In fact, for most new cars, the manufacturers recommend that you change your oil less frequently. For my car, Honda suggests changing the oil every 5,000 miles, for instance. (For older cars, the 3,000 mile benchmark may still make sense.) If everyone changes their behavior, Americans could reduce their consumption of oil and reduce the amount of waste generated.

If more attention on this issue spreads across the country, we could see important implications for businesses such as Jiffy Lube and other auto maintenance centers. They have profited from the disciplined approach that many Americans take to changing their oil every 3,000 miles. If people begin to adhere to manufacturers' guidelines for new cars, we may see substantial challenges for these firms. It will be interesting to watch to see if this trend takes hold, and how the auto maintenance centers respond. With oil above $130 per barrel, it's also interesting to see how many different ideas are being pursued to eliminate wasteful consumption.

Guest Post on Decision-Making

Heather Johnson sent me the following guest post, with her take on a subject that I've spent a great deal of time studying over the years.

The Choices we Make

Any student of management should be familiar with the process of decision-making – describe and understand the problem, identify the objective, determine the alternative options available, evaluate each of these options either objectively or subjectively, and choose the one that fits best. Unfortunately, the simplicity of the statement of the process does not carry over to the actual process itself, which is why most people find the procedure of making decisions extremely difficult.

On one end of the spectrum you have people who agonize over every small thing, from what to eat to what to wear; and on the other, you have those who save their energy to rationalize choices that are life-changing, if not for them, then for the people whose livelihoods depend on them. I’m not trivializing the first category, only trying to highlight the fact that every one of us considers the decisions we have to make as the most important choice we make at the moment.

The art of making decisions is a theory that has been thrashed about, debated on, and put to effective use in almost every boardroom across the globe. But it’s not something that’s applied when it comes to the individual - personal decision-making is a process that’s often intuitive, based on circumstances that prevail at that point, and influenced by people who control aspects of our lives. From where I sit, this is what I’ve learnt about people and the decisions they make:

· The majority is happy to go with the flow; they do not take decisions that change their lives overnight or even set in motion the harbinger of positive change. Any change that happens is forced, and these people then rearrange their lives to fit around the change.
· Some people straddle the fence; they know they have to take a decision one way or the other (mostly a yes-no decision where there is no in-between ground) and they’re hesitant or afraid to choose. The more daring in this category call the shots and finally choose while the meek (who I don’t think will inherit the earth) fall on one side after being either pulled or pushed. If the decision is a success, the one who chose is elated that he made the right decision; if it’s a failure, the one who fell blames the one who pushed him over, a case of passing the buck once again.
· Some let other people decide; they are the laidback kind who are ok with following the leader rather than taking the lead themselves.
· A rare few are go-getters; they plan their lives and map out where they should be at what point of time. These people live their dreams, and if one or two of the dreams die a premature death, they’re back to the drawing board mapping out new strategies and alternatives. This kind thrives in challenges – they do not fear to take the road less trodden and delight in finding offbeat paths that lead them to the pinnacle they hope to achieve.

The choices we make have repercussions, both on ourselves and the people whose lives are intertwined with ours. Unfortunately, there’s no writing on the wall to guide us as we take decisions that sometimes, may be the difference between success and failure, wealth and mediocrity, and even life and death. But the fear of failure should not be a deterrent to attempting – just as you’d get back on a horse asap after a fall, do not hesitate to make a new choice even if the one you made earlier turned out to be a mistake.

The best way to make decisions is to let your head rule your heart and not vice versa. Rational scores way over emotional when it comes to decision-making. The time taken to make a decision should not outweigh the value of the decision itself – it’s not worth it to spend a whole day deciding the color of pants you want to buy. Think your choices over, and when you’re done, your instinct will tell you what’s right.

This guest post is written by Heather Johnson, who frequently writes on the subject of grants for nursing college degree. She welcomes your comments and freelance writing inquiries at:
heatherjohnson2323@gmail.com

Inbev Makes Bid For Anheuser Busch

Inbev officially announced its takeover bid for Anheuser Busch. They offered $46.4 billion for the American brewer, valuing the target firm at a 35% premium to the 30-day average stock price prior to recent speculation about the acquisition.

As I mentioned in a recent Reuters article, I think the Anheuser Busch board of directors will have a hard time turning back this bid without making other strategic moves. (Consider what has happened at Yahoo after that firm rejected the Microsoft bid). Shareholders are not likely to be pleased if the board simply rejects a bid that offers a substantial premium. The family only owns about 4% of the shares, so it cannot block the deal on its own.

If the Busch family does not want to sell to Inbev, what can they do? I think that one possibility would be to find a private equity buyer who would be willing to retain and work with the current management team in place, particularly CEO August Busch IV. Mature companies with strong, stable operating cash flows and valuable brands make attractive targets for private equity investors. The only question would be whether a private equity firm (or group of firms) could raise the required capital at the right price given this year's turmoil in the capital markets.

Regardless of what happens, I think you will see prospective buyers (Inbev, private equity firms, or some other white knight) taking a close look at some of Anheuser-Busch's ancillary operations. While the theme park business (Busch Gardens, Seaworld, etc.) is quite profitable, it's hard to make a case that strong economies of scope exist between the beer business and the theme park operations. One way to generate cash to help finance a deal would be to sell the theme parks. Other business units, such as the firm's packaging operations, might also receive scrutiny.

Shrinking Retail Floorplans

Gap announced this week that it plans to reduce the size of many of its stores, and suspend the opening of new U.S. locations. In particular, many of its 12,000 square foot stores will shrink to somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 square feet. Now, Gap has struggled mightily this decade; thus, it's not surprising that they are undergoing such changes. However, one could argue that we could be seeing the start of a trend in retail.

Over the past two decades, retail formats have gotten larger and larger, with superstores cropping up everywhere. It's not just the mass merchandisers such as Target and Wal-Mart, but a whole array of other specialty retailers as well. These giant stores perhaps made sense in an era of $25 oil, but executives will have to rethink the notion of optimal store size given oil prices in excess of $130 per barrel.

Heating costs represent a largely fixed cost. As they rise, the breakeven point for a retail store suddenly rises as well; in short, you need far more revenues to cover your fixed costs today. Given near term pressures on sales, companies need to rethink their cost structure. Reducing variable costs such as labor may be one option, but retailers do not want to cut too deep in that area, for fear of harming customer service. They may find that shrinking the size of the store helps bring down the breakeven sales figure, while also helping to improve inventory turns. Slower moving items can simply be sold on-line today, something that wasn't possible two decades ago. Overall, retailers may lose some revenue from shrinking their floorplans, but they could more than make up for it in higher asset efficiency (more sales per square foot, greater inventory turns, etc.).

Product Launch Failures

G. Michael Maddock and Raphael Louis Vitón have a thought-provoking new blog post at Businessweek.com featuring the top 10 reasons why new product launches fail. It's definitely worth reading.

My personal favorite on their list is what they call the "lemming effect" - i.e. companies decide to imitate their competitors' new products, rather than trying to truly deliver a distinctive product to the market. Me-too strategies are everywhere in the business world. Companies seem to so easily forget that enduring competitive advantage comes from distinctiveness, not imitation.

Walmart & Food Price Inflation

Fortune has an article about how Walmart is working to maintain low retail prices despite the surge in commodity costs. Here is a brief excerpt from the article:

Ever wonder why that cereal box is only two-thirds full? Foodmakers love big boxes because they serve as billboards on store shelves. Wal-Mart has been working to change that by promising suppliers that their shelf space won't shrink even if their boxes do. As a result, some of its vendors have reengineered their packaging. General Mills' Hamburger Helper is now made with denser pasta shapes, allowing the same amount of food to fit into a 20% smaller box at the same price. The change has saved 890,000 pounds of paper fiber and eliminated 500 trucks from the road, giving General Mills a cushion to absorb some of the rising costs.

The interesting thing about these types of moves is that they reduce costs, AND they are environmentally friendly. More and more companies are searching aggressively for ways to eliminate waste, and particularly, to reduce fuel consumption. The high oil prices are, in fact, driving fundamental changes in behavior. We are seeing innovation and increased efficiencies result from the desire to counter the high price of oil/gas. In the long run, such moves may have wonderful positive effects for companies as well as for the economy as a whole.

Retail as Entertainment

As I was shopping with my brother at a Stew Leonard's supermarket in Connecticut a few weeks ago, I began thinking about how successful some retailers have become by making shopping an entertaining experience. For those who are not familiar with it, Stew Leonard's is an independent grocer with several stores in the Northeast. The stores do a phenomenal amount of sales per square foot, despite a far more limited number of SKUs than the typical grocer. Stew Leonard's is known for what it calls its "WOW" factor. The stores aim to entertain customers, particularly children, as they shop the stores. Stew Leonard's has everything from petting zoos to costumed entertainment to fun animatronics throughout the stores. The company focuses on a simple truth: parents often bring their children to the grocery store, and that can be quite a challenge! Why not make it easier on parents as they shop?

Stew Leonard's is not alone in making shopping more entertaining. Consider Jordan's Furniture, a small chain in Massachusetts founded by the Tatelman brothers and now owned by Warren Buffett. My local Jordan's is designed to around a New Orleans theme, with the main portion of the store made to look like Bourbon Street. The store has hourly entertainment, someone handing out beads to at the front door, a virtual reality ride, and an IMAX theater inside as well. We could go on with many other examples, including Build-a-Bear and American Girl stores.

The trend is clear. Each of these retailers is trying to differentiate itself from the competition, and thus increase willingness-to-pay by enhancing the shopping experience. Retailers also compete more effectively against internet competition by making their stores more than simply a place to conduct transactions. Retail is a tough business with low margins in many sectors. Price competition can be ruinous at times. Differentiation can be difficult to achieve. These retailers have found a way to stand out from the pack by focusing on making shopping a truly entertaining experience that's about much more than buying products that can be found elsewhere, including on-line.

"Learning Jobs"

Vicki Swisher has an interesting piece on Businessweek.com about the types of jobs that can be the most powerful learning/developmental experiences for managers.

Swisher points to research by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) which shows that formal training accounts for only a small fraction of the learning/knowledge that managers need to to develop critical skills; the rest comes from experience. This finding is certainly no surprise. Formal training can only do so much. The real role for formal training has to be in helping managers accelerate the learning through experience that takes place on the job. It can do so in a number of ways. For instance, formal training can introduce managers to new ideas or perspectives, enable sharing of knowledge across the organization, help managers reflect on their experiences and identify ways to improve, and give executives access to practices and techniques being employed in other organizations so as to prevent a firm from becoming overly insular.

Still, Swisher rightfully points out that not all experiences are equally useful as development learning opportunities. Her list of what research shows to be the most useful developmental jobs is quite intriguing.

Blackberries and the Information Sharing Problem

At first glance, you might think that a Blackberry is a powerful tool for sharing information. After all, it enables people to stay in constant communication with others if necessary. It provides rapid access to data, regardless of where you are located. However, I have come to believe that Blackberries impede information sharing in one very important way.

Let's step back and consider the research on information sharing in teams. We know from academic research (by Gerald Stasser) that groups do not share information effectively when members possess private information. When members of a group have different pieces of information, Stasser observed an interesting phenomenon: people tend to discuss the information that they all posses in common, and they do not always share or emphasize the information privately held by each group member. The lack of proper information sharing and integration inhibits group problem-solving effectiveness.

Now consider what you surely have observed at many management meetings over the past few years. Someone is presenting at the front of the room, while others around the table listen and ask questions. However, people frequently duck their hands under the table to read an email on their Blackberry or to type out a quick reply. Sometimes, people duck out to take "important" phone calls. It's hard to imagine that effective listening takes place in such environments.

Given this behavior, consider this fact: Stasser's research shows a lack of information sharing in groups, even when everyone appears to be paying close attention! Imagine how much worse the information sharing problem has become given the distraction of Blackberries.

China's Cheap Gasoline

Donald Straszheim has a fascinating article about oil prices in China on the Forbes website. Here is what he reports:

Consider the following: Since January 2007, global crude oil prices have risen by 109%; gasoline prices in the U.S. have risen by 77% (roughly apace); gasoline prices in China have risen only 9%.

Gasoline in the U.S. now sells for around $4 per gallon, but it sells for $2.49 per gallon in China. Beijing last raised domestic gasoline prices in November 2007, by 9%, and that was the first and only hike since January 2007, when crude was $87 per barrel.

Given this information, we clearly can see that artificial price controls have driven the voracious demand for oil within China. Is it sustainable though? Straszheim estimates that the Chinese government is providing $40 billion per year in subsidies to maintain cheap gasoline throughout the nation. The Chinese government is in a bit of a quandary though. Inflation has hit 8% in China, and if the government lifts the price controls on gasoline, it will rise substantially - moving well into double digits perhaps. How will the Chinese economic growth engine be affected if inflation gets uncomfortably higher? Meanwhile, we have to remember that China is the second biggest consumer of oil in the world. If prices rise substantially, how much will that curtail demand in that nation? A correction in the Chinese domestic market could stem the rapid increase in the global price of oil that we have been experiencing.

GE Appliances

There has been a great deal of talk recently about GE selling its appliances division. Some observers seem to think that selling off this "low margin, low growth" business will help boost the company's stock price, which has languished for some time, and which took a hit when the firm missed its earnings target last quarter. However, I think that there are three big questions that must be answered before making a judgment on a potential appliance division sale. First, can we really expect the stock to make a substantial leap when the appliance division only accounts for $7 billion of the firm's $173 billion in annual revenue? Talk about a drop in the bucket. I do not think the sale of appliances is a panacea for the stock price. Second, how will GE deal with the brand name? A potential buyer clearly would want the GE brand name, which has such significance with the consumer. Allowing a buyer to license the brand name is risky. Third, and most importantly, what precisely are GE's criteria moving forward for what should and should not be part of the company's portfolio? Until GE answers that question clearly and concisely, I do not think investors will be completely pleased. It's not enough to say that the firm wants to be in higher growth, higher margin businesses, as some observers suggest that GE should be. That's not very limiting. Does any high growth, high margin business on earth fit at GE? Moreover, what about some of the other businesses within the portfolio, such as NBC? Broadcast networks clearly are not a high growth, promising business these days. Why does it stay and appliances have to leave? Clear answers to these questions must be provided for investors to feel comfortable with the GE strategy moving forward.

Anheuser Busch and Sam Adams

While Anheuser Busch worries about fending off a potential hostile takeover bid from InBev, leading craft brewer Sam Adams adopts an interesting strategy of actually helping the competition. What an interesting contrast... First, at Sam Adams, founder and CEO Jim Koch has described how he recently shared 10 tons of hops at cost with other craft brewers to help them deal with the rising cost of commodities. Why did he do it? Koch explains that he wants the craft brewing segment of the beer industry to thrive, and the price of commodities could cause some craft brewers to fail, and others to sacrifice quality to control costs. He doesn't think either is good for Sam Adams. Koch wants to grow the overall size of the craft brewing market, rather than fight for share with other microbrews. It's an interesting strategy of trying to cooperate with other craft brewers in their collective fight to continue taking share from large mass brewers, as well as other alcoholic beverages. Koch knows that he can make more money by growing the overall craft brewing segment than he can by fighting for tiny market share gains against other microbrews.

Meanwhile, at Anheuser Busch, the firm faces a hostile bid for a few reasons. First, the firm has struggled recently with a substantial change in consumer tastes in US. Consumers are buying more craft brews or imports when they drink beer, but the bigger problem is that they are substituting spirits and wine for beer. Spirits has grown with the innovations in that market in recent years (pre-mixed drinks, flavored spirits, etc.) Wine has grown with the continuing efforts to educate the public about the health benefits of wine, as well as with the branding efforts of major wineries. Second, Anheuser Busch is highly reliant on the North American market. They have not been able to expand successfully in many parts of the world. Thus, as American consumers have shifted away from beer, they have been quite vulnerable.

In general, the large brewers find themselves fighting for share in mature markets, and looking for growth in emerging markets. It's not surprising to see consolidation given the slower overall industry growth. The interesting question is whether further consolidation will yield the benefits that firms have seen to this point. How big is big enough?

In addition, the question is what will happen to diversified alcoholic beverage firms that own beer businesses. Will a firm such as Diageo, which is largely a spirits company, keep a hold of Guinness - its prime beer brand - in the face of beer industry consolidation? Will Foster's Group keep its beer businesses now that it's primarily a wine company (it owns Beringer's, Wolf Blass, Lindeman's, etc.)? Will these companies focus on wine and spirits and move out of beer? Or, will we see beer companies increasingly expand into wine and spirits to deal with the declining consumption of beer in some countries such as the US?

Retrenchment and Rebirth

Many firms ultimately encounter two fundamental liabilities of being large. First, they reach a point where increased size no longer translates into lower costs, i.e. they face diseconomies of scale. Second, they must address a large numbers problem, namely that growing revenues at historical rates becomes mathematically difficult, if not impossible. For instance, suppose a firm has grown revenue at a historical rate of 12% per year. That means that they are doubling sales every six years. That may be fine when a firm has $50 million in revenue, but it becomes a much more formidable challenge when the firm has reached $50 billion in sales.

What can firms do about this problem? Companies may want to consider the benefits of shrinking in the short term, and then recharging growth from that smaller platform. I mean more than simply selling off underperforming businesses from time to time, or disposing of unrelated units. I mean actually purposefully shrinking the scope of the corporation, even if certain businesses are related and performing fairly well - simply for the purpose of bringing the corporation back to a more manageable size, solidifying the firm's financial position, and returning a chunk of cash to shareholders.

Have firms done this in the past? Let's take General Dynamics, for example. Back in the early 1990s, General Dynamics was a Fortune 50 company, almost entirely focused on defense (with the exception of a few small businesses, such as its Cessna aircraft unit). In 1991, the firm had $10 billion in revenue, putting it 48th on the Fortune 500 list. The company, however, was not performing well at all. Moreover, its prospects did not appear bright, given the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union, which brought about defense spending cuts.

During Bill Anders' term as CEO, he shrunk the company dramatically. I remember it quite well, because I was working at the company at the time. By 1995, the company had $3.7 billion in revenue, and it was ranked 307th on the Fortune 500 list. Anders didn't simply sell underperforming assets, nor did he sell off only noncore businesses. For instance, Anders sold the company's fighter jet unit, which produced F-16s for the U.S. Air Force. That business was considered by many to be "the crown jewel" of the company at the time - a solid business that was clearly related to the firm's other defense units. By the time Anders was done shrinking the company, General Dynamics was a far smaller firm. The firm focused entirely on two major businesses - shipbuilding and land combat systems.

What happened next? Starting in 1995, Anders' successor begin growing the business once again through a careful acquisition program - focusing first on the two major platforms remaining after the reorganization, and then gradually adding two other lines of business. General Dynamics begin by acquiring Bath Iron Works, a firm that fit nicely with the company's shipbuilding business (it already produced submarines at its Electric Boat subsidiary). Today, General Dynamics is 87th on the Fortune 500 list, with $27 billion in revenue.

During the intervening years, the company has produced an incredible amount of value for shareholders since the early 1990s. During Anders' time, the company sold off businesses and returned much of that cash to shareholders in the form of stock buybacks and special dividends. Later, the company enhanced shareholder wealth by producing a steady stream of earnings growth by driving revenue gains both organically and through acquisition, and by constantly improving productivity.

What's the moral of this story? Sometimes, retrenchment and rebirth can be an effective strategy. Diseconomies of scale are real, and managers must be aware that growing $50 billion behemoths at double digit rates simply may not be feasible - at least not in a profitable manner. Moreover, charging ahead for growth at that rate and scale may lead to some very poor strategic choices. But, how many CEOs do you know that want to see their company fall from 48th on the Fortune 500 list to a 307th? Therein lies the problem in many large companies...

Starbucks and Licensing

We have recently learned that activist investor Nelson Peltz has taken a stake in Starbucks. Peltz, of course, has taken stakes in companies such as Heinz, Wendy's, Kraft, and Cadbury Schweppes in recent years, and he's pushed for strategic changes to bolster shareholder value. In a Wall Street Journal story about Peltz's investment, we see some conjecture about the types of changes that he might propose:

"John Glass, an analyst at Morgan Stanley, said Mr. Peltz could urge Starbucks to cut spending and use more licensing or franchising in opening locations. The money saved from that could go to buying back shares or a larger dividend for shareholders."

I can see why Mr. Glass has come to this conclusion. There is no question that licensing or franchising would reduce the capital investment required to continue to expand the Starbucks footprint around the globe, and it would free up cash to be returned to shareholders. However, Starbucks has relied on owning a majority of its locations for good reason (it does use some licensing in locations such as airports, as well as in other countries).

There's an important lesson about vertical integration here. Many firms rightfully employ franchising, because it gives local entrepreneurs great incentive as they run their own businesses. Moreover, it conserves capital. However, a company tends to own its own retail locations when they have concerns about controlling the experience, atmosphere, and customer interaction that takes place. Starbucks sells much more than coffee.

Some firms with premium differentiated strategies face challenges when they try to write into contracts the specific behaviors and atmosphere that they want to create and stimulate in their stores. Thus, one can see why these firms tilt toward owning their retail locations. Take Apple, for example, which operates its own retail stores; the retail location is about the entire Apple experience, not just selling computers and iPods. Apple doesn't want to leave that responsibility for guarding the brand, the relationship, and the experience to a licensee. Similarly, a Starbucks location is supposed to be about much more than selling coffee. It entrusts that relationship and experience to others at some peril.

If you examine what Schultz has done since returning as CEO, he's focused extensively on the Starbucks experience within their stores. He has always talked about the importance of Starbucks as a "third place" - outside of home and office. Shifting dramatically in the direction of franchising and licensing would seem to be at odds with his strategic direction. Starbucks would not have full control over the quality and the experience if they don't own these retail locations.

A Great Board of Directors

A recent article on Business Week's website discusses how a firm can create an excellent board of directors. The article makes a key point, namely that while a board can meet all of the structural requirements advocated by governance experts, that does not mean it is an effective board. In other words, one can have the correct percentage of outsiders, a nonexecutive chairman, and the like, and yet still not provide effective goverance. I have always believed that far too much attention is paid to structural dimensions of the board, and far too little attention is paid to process. Great boards of directors have highly effective group processes for dialogue and deliberation. Their process distinguishes them from less effective boards, not their structural characteristics.

Credit Rating Agencies

Roger Lowenstein has a great new article in this week's NYT magazine about the role that the credit rating agencies played in the mortgage meltdown. He speaks at length about the conflict of interest that the credit rating agencies face, since they collect fees from the very clients that they are evaluating. Of course, these conflicts have always existed, but Lowenstein explains why the conflicts are most pronounced and worrisome when it comes to mortgage-backed securities, as opposed to corporate bonds:

The evidence on whether rating agencies bend to the bankers’ will is mixed. The agencies do not deny that a conflict exists, but they assert that they are keen to the dangers and minimize them. For instance, they do not reward analysts on the basis of whether they approve deals. No smoking gun, no conspiratorial e-mail message, has surfaced to suggest that they are lying. But in structured finance, the agencies face pressures that did not exist when John Moody was rating railroads. On the traditional side of the business, Moody’s has thousands of clients (virtually every corporation and municipality that sells bonds). No one of them has much clout. But in structured finance, a handful of banks return again and again, paying much bigger fees. A deal the size of XYZ can bring Moody’s $200,000 and more for complicated deals. And the banks pay only if Moody’s delivers the desired rating. Tom McGuire, the Jesuit theologian who ran Moody’s through the mid-’90s, says this arrangement is unhealthy. If Moody’s and a client bank don’t see eye to eye, the bank can either tweak the numbers or try its luck with a competitor like S.&P., a process known as “ratings shopping.”

Oil Bubble?

I'm not an expert on the crude oil market, but naturally, we are all very interested observers. I was struck by this recent article in the Wall Street Journal, in which a number of people express the argument that we are in the midst of a massive bubble in the oil market. It will be interesting to watch this play out over the coming months and years.

Inside-Outsiders

One of my mentors, Joe Bower, has published new research on the very important topic of CEO succession. In his new work, Bower argues that firms should aspire to elevate "inside-outsiders" to the CEO post. Here is Bower's explanation:

The answer to problems with CEO succession is what I call inside-outsiders. These are men and women who have performed well and risen high, but have maintained their objectivity. They are aware ofhow much change is needed to sustain success or turn around a failure, but they also know the organization, its culture, and its people. They can do more than bring in consultants or make across-the-board cuts. Beyond getting short-term profits, they can build for future growth. These unusual people are often found at the periphery of the organization, managing new businesses or new markets.

The idea is that companies should try to find someone who combines the experience and knowledge of a typical insider with the fresh perspective and divergent thinking typical of an outside hire. I think it's good advice, and it's particularly interesting to note that these people often may have spent a great deal of time at the periphery of the organization, forging into new markets, launching new products, or coming up with entirely new business models. Those experiences at the periphery expose executives to new ways of thinking and give them a fresh perspective on deeply held assumptions and mental models to which many insiders perhaps become overly wedded over the years.

Capitalizing on a Recession?

Can companies actually grow stronger during a recession? What can they do to capitalize on the problems that their rivals encounter during tough economic times? Suppose you have a sturdy balance sheet, low debt, and plentiful amounts of cash. How can you employ these strengths to take on rivals who have been weakened considerably?

First, invest heavily in research and development now so that new products and services are ready for launch as the economy begins to grow again. Your competitors may be inclined to cut R&D, particularly if they face high interest payments, substantial drops in revenue, and the like. If so, your acceleration of investment now will yield a strong product advantage in the coming years.

Second, spend some time learning about the customers of your weakest competitors. You might be inclined to go after their largest and most attractive clients. However, be aware that your rivals are probably working desperately to save those customers. They might not, however, have the time and resources to focus on smaller clients. Focus your attention on these potential new customers, particularly those with attractive growth prospects and strong balance sheets.

Third, identify your most critical suppliers and distributors, and determine if any face the possibility of severe impairment to their business due to the economic downturn. Assess the risk to your business if they should falter badly or even fail completely. Then, examine ways in which you might help those supplies and distributors weather the downturn. Even the smallest gesture can sometimes build an enduring loyalty that will pay off for years to come.

Finally, think carefully about your talent needs. As weak companies lay off employees, many good people will find themselves searching for work. Other skilled workers may still have a job, but they may be disenchanted with their struggling firms. Capitalize on this opportunity to identify and attract talented employees, while slack exists in the labor market.

I'm reminded of the importance of considering these questions when I read Steven Jobs' recent quotes about Apple's strategy in the days and months ahead. Jobs promises to expand the firm's research and development efforts this year, even if economic growth does turn negative. Here is what he told Fortune magazine a few weeks ago, reflecting on the last recession as well as the current economic climate: "In fact we were going to up our R&D budget so that we would be ahead of our competitors when the downturn was over. And that's exactly what we did. And it worked. And that's exactly what we'll do this time." Of course, Apple sits in an enviable position. They have an impressive balance sheet, mountains of cash, and no debt. If your firm also finds itself in such a position of strength, remember that it too can use the recession to become even stronger relative to the competition.

Deciding how to Decide

Noted political scientist and former Assistant Secretary of Defense Joseph Nye applies my framework on decision-making in the opening to a commentary in yesterday's Financial Times. It's an interesting read, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum.

Guest Post: Leadership Training Through Virtual Worlds

The rise of virtual worlds like Second Life and World of Warcraft has led to innovative new ways to train corporate leaders. In a virtual world, people are represented by avatars and can practice their skills in a variety of settings with other professionals. This is a cost-effective way to train a large amount of people in various situations. In short, this is business training of the future.

While many video game aficionados were always told that their hobbies were pointless, even the youngest players are gaining leadership training without realizing it. John Seely Brown and Douglas Thomas of Wired magazine write:

When role-playing gamers team up to undertake a quest, they often need to attempt particularly difficult challenges repeatedly until they find a blend of skills, talents, and actions that allows them to succeed. This process brings about a profound shift in how they perceive and react to the world around them.

They become more flexible in their thinking and more sensitive to social cues. The fact that they don't think of gameplay as training is crucial. Once the experience is explicitly educational, it becomes about developing compartmentalized skills and loses its power to permeate the player's behavior patterns and worldview.

It isn't just the "accidental" training that companies are interested in, however. The aforementioned Second Life serves as a training ground and collaboration tool for many different industries. The Coalition Connection, for example, is a University of Maryland project that provides virtual training for a group of emergency responders.

Is this new age in leadership training free of problems? Certainly not, as there are cultural and technical obstacles people must overcome. Not everyone is Web-savvy and trained in PC gaming, after all. However, more companies are relating virtual world training to their bottom line. It is extremely cost effective to undergo this sort of widespread training, especially when remote workers must be brought together.

Elastic Collision is one of many consulting firms that helps businesses to develop their own virtual world presence. As the company states, corporate training sessions can "leverage the educational potential of virtual worlds." Will every company adopt this new technology? Perhaps not, but the most innovative companies already have.


Susan Jacobs is a freelance writer as well as a regular contributor for CollegeDegree.com, a site helping students select an online college degree. Susan invites your questions, comments and freelancing job inquiries at her email address susan.jacobs45@gmail.com.

Harvard Business School's 100th Anniversary

Geoff Colvin of Fortune has written a very interesting piece about my alma mater's 100th anniversary. Colvin sets out to ask some very succcesful alumni what they learned at HBS. After listening to their answers, he concluded, "All their answers are different, but they're all the same: none are about the content of the courses; all are about the experience." He goes on to say, "It makes sense that the content of the classes isn't what it's all about. That's constantly being commoditized."

At HBS, students learn to think, both individually and collectively, through the case method. It's active learning each and every day. At one point, Colvin quotes Yale Professor (and former HBS student and faculty member) Jeff Sonnenfeld, who says, ""I learned that yellowed lecture notes and blackboards filled with algorithms don't teach professionals how to think."

As a graduate and former faculty member of the school, I can attest to what Colvin and Sonnenfeld have concluded. We do easily forget the frameworks and theories that we learned at HBS, but we never forget the learning experience. As former Dean John McArthur once said, "How we teach is what we teach." In other words, the faculty member leads a process of collective inquiry, using the Socratic method, that can and should be emulated by leaders in any business. What do students learn at HBS? They learn the process of asking tough questions, stimulating debate, questioning assumptions, and generating alternatives. They learn to work as a group to identify and solve tough problems. These are the skills any aspiring business leader must master.

The Collapse of Bear Stearns

The collapse of Bear Stearns brings to mind a fascinating quote by a very accomplished CEO: "I am well aware that humans will always make errors. My irritation comes from the fact that these errors are not caught immediately." That quote is from Alan “Ace” Greenberg, former Chairman and CEO of Bear Stearns, in a book titled Memos from the Chairman, which was published in 1996.

Steve Jobs on Apple's Strategy

This Steve Jobs' quote in the current issue of Fortune magazine (Most Admired Companies) exemplifies Michael Porter's idea that business strategy is as much about choosing what NOT to do as it is about determining what a company will do. Here is the quote:

"Apple is a $30 billion company, yet we've got less than 30 major products. I don't know if that's ever been done before. Certainly the great consumer electronics companies of the past had thousands of products. We tend to focus much more. People think focus means saying yes to the thing you've got to focus on. But that's not what it means at all. It means saying no to the hundred other good ideas that there are. You have to pick carefully (italics added). I'm actually as proud of many of the things we haven't done as the things we have done. The clearest example was when we were pressured for years to do a PDA, and I realized one day that 90% of the people who use a PDA only take information out of it on the road. They don't put information into it. Pretty soon cellphones are going to do that, so the PDA market's going to get reduced to a fraction of its current size, and it won't really be sustainable. So we decided not to get into it. If we had gotten into it, we wouldn't have had the resources to do the iPod. We probably wouldn't have seen it coming."

The Isolated Executive

Far too many senior executives at large companies become isolated in the corner office. Their professional lives involve a series of handlers - people who take their calls, screen their email, drive them places, run errands for them, etc. They live in gated communities, travel in first class, and stay at five-star hotels. They have worked hard for these privileges; few would suggest that they don't deserve them. However, executives often find themselves living and working in a bubble. They lose touch with their front-line employees, their customers, and their suppliers.

Yes, many senior executives conduct town-hall meetings with employees, and they go on customer visits periodically. They tour the company factories or stores, and they visit supplier locations. However, these events are often highly orchestrated and quite predictable. People typically know that they are coming... which clearly alters the dynamic a great deal. Often, executives simply witness a nice show, put on by lower level managers to impress them. They don't actually come to understand the needs and concerns of people who work in their factories or consume their goods. Such isolation breeds complacency and an inability to see new threats or opportunities.

How can executives protect against becoming isolated at the top? First, engage your consumers and employees in authentic, unscripted conversations. At Xerox, CEO Anne Mulcahy and fellow corporate officers rotate serving as "Customer Officer of the Day" at the company's headquarters (one day per month for each executive). In that role, they must deal personally with all customer complaints that come to the headquarters that day. As Mulcahy says, "it keeps us in touch with the real world. It grounds us."

Second, go watch how consumers behave, rather than simply relying on the data summarized after marketing research folks have conducted surveys or focus groups. People call this "ethnographic marketing" because the researcher acts as an anthropologist watching people in their natural environment. At Proctor and Gamble, CEO A.G. Lafley engages in such direct consumer observation. A 2003 Forbes article describes Lafley making visits to consumer homes "incognito" so that he can learn directly from watching how people live and use his firm's products.

Third, go put yourself in your front-line employee's shoes for a day. Go work on the line - whether that be at the cash register in a supermarket or at a station along an assembly line. When I began working at Staples in the mid-1990s, after completing my MBA, my first assignment was to spend several days stocking shelves and running a cash register in a store. You learn a great deal about the business in this manner. Executives too need to periodically go to the front lines.

Finally, executives must interact with young people. Time spent with young people exposes executives directly to new societal and technological trends, as well as a different perspective on the world. They should visit college campuses, spend time learning about social networking sites, as well as listen to and watch some of the multimedia (music, books, television) that young people enjoy. Within their own firms, executives might even take up Gary Hamel's suggestion that they set up a "shadow executive committee" consisting of employees 20 years younger than the actual top team (2003 Harvard Business Review article). Seeking feedback from these young workers can provide a fresh perspective on the firm's strategies and initiatives.

In sum, executives must work hard to break out of the bubble that often forms around them as they rise to the top of large organizations. It takes a concerted effort, but the payoff is great. They will keep themselves grounded, as Mulcahy notes, and they will create bountiful opportunities for learning. That learning can drive innovation and improvement in their organizations.

The Powerpoint Doldrums

We've all been in meetings where a presenter slogs through a seemingly endless Powerpoint presentation. The graphics are wonderful; the fonts are just right. Still, it's boring. People are multi-tasking right and left. The Blackberries are all in hand. The questions are few and far between. Thus, I found it interesting when I read the following quote in a recent Business Week article:

Stephen Pratt, chief executive of Infosys Consulting, understands the power of the pen; he rarely walks into a meeting with a formal presentation. "People tend to fall asleep when they see very long PowerPoint presentations full of text," Pratt says. "But if you start drawing on the board, people sit up in their chairs."

I found this particularly interesting, because as a professor, I know that many faculty members rely on Powerpoint heavily. It can easily become a snoozefest. I do use Powerpoint, but for most of my classes, I use the chalkboard or the whiteboard much more often. My drycleaning bill can attest to the fact that I love chalk! I find that students are much more engaged when you use the chalkboard to communicate an idea and to trigger a conversation with them. That's why I think Infosys CEO Stephen Pratt is correct. If the chalkboard or whiteboard works more effectively in the classroom, then I think there's no question that it can have a powerful impact during management meetings as well.

Recessions and Differentiation Strategies

Eac day brings news of slowing economic growth. Moroever, we see many retailers reporting disappointing earnings and/or slicing their outlook for the year ahead. These reports raise an interesting question. How should retailers with a differentiation strategy react during a recession? By differentiation, I mean retailers who try to create better-than-average willingness to pay on the part of their customers, thus enabling them to charge premium prices. Limited Brands, for instance, employs a differentiation strategy in its businesses such as Victoria's Secret. Meanwhile, TJX tends to employ a low cost strategy in its businesses such as Marshall's.

The challenge during a recession is that many differentiated players may suffer larger declines in sales than low cost players, as budget-conscious shoppers flock to outlets that offer rock-bottom prices. My view is that differentiated retailers must be very careful during recessionary periods. The natural inclination might be to slash prices to retain customers during sluggish economic times. However, lower prices means lower margins, unless the retailer can also reduce costs. Herein lies the problem. If differentiated players are not careful in their cost reduction efforts, they may damage their brand, quality, and market reputation - thus compromising their position in the market and their ability to return to premium pricing in the future. Thus, the differentiated players in the retail sector have to be very careful, as efforts to shore up their financials during a recession can have long term detrimental effects that persist long after robust economic growth resumes.

New Strategies for the TV Networks

The Wall Street Journal reports today that the major broadcast networks are considering doing away with some age-old conventions of the television business in an attempt to entice viewers and advertisers back after the lengthy writers' strike. Well, it's about time!!! I've wondered for many years now why the broadcast networks have adhered to certain conventions, while their ratings have deteriorated. It's seems a classic case of a business being caught in a particular mental model, and not able to shake those basic assumptions while the world around them is changing dramatically.

Here are some questions that all the networks should consider: Why should most new shows premiere in September? Why must the season run from September to May for most shows? Why should nearly every series air episodes once per week? Why not have some series that run episodes in a more condensed fashion, perhaps with 2-3 episodes per week for a few months? Why not create an event, some hoopla, out of the testing of new pilots, perhaps creating a 2-3 day block several times per year filled with a whole array of pilots? Why not couple that with a huge web-based effort to collect feedback about those pilots? We could go on and on... this is clearly a business that needs to be re-tooled, and that begins with shaking the old conventions. I'm glad to hear some executives are beginning to question the conventional wisdom in the business.

Selling the Chicago Cubs

The Wall Street Journal has a story today on page B1 about Sam Zell's attempt to sell the Chicago Cubs. Apparently, Zell would like to sell the Cubs and Wrigley Field separately to different buyers. The paper reports that Zell is exploring the sale of the ballpark to a state agency in Illinois, while seeking a private buyer for the team. The paper also reports that "most observers believe he will make more money" by selling the two entities separately.

I wonder about this conclusion. Strong arguments can be made that, in fact, it makes more sense for the Cubs to remain a vertically integrated organization - with both the team and the ballpark sitting under one corporate umbrella. When we think about vertical integration, scholars tend to think about transaction costs, i.e. the costs associated with contracting and coordination between two parties. Some would argue that the transaction costs associated with the team and the ballpark trying to cooperate as separate entities exceed the transaction costs associated with that same cooperation if the two entities were part of the same corporation, with the same owner.

What drives transaction costs? Well, scholars like to think about what they call "transaction-specific assets." An example of a transaction-specific asset would be if a supplier had to invest in specialized technology in order to manufacture components for one of its customers. In that scenario, the two parties can become beholden to one another. The opportunity exists for what economists call "holdup" i.e. one party can try to renege on obligations and perhaps try to extract additional value from the other party. In that type of situation, we tend to see vertical integration arise, i.e. the customer merges with the supplier.

In this case, I think that there may be a high degree of asset specificity... to put it simply, the Cubs are closely linked to Wrigley; it's highly unlikely that the Cubs will have the option to play anywhere else in the foreseeable future. Thus, I think the potential for holdup and opportunitistic behavior exists if the two entities are owned separately and trying to negotiate contracts to cooperate with one another. I think that transaction costs associated with coordination and cooperation might be lower if the team and ballpark are owned by the same corporate parent.

Save the planet AND make money

Gary Hirshberg, CEO and founder of Stonyfield Farms, has a great new book about how his company has managed to become very profitable, while adhering to "green" environmental practices and principles. Stonyfield is quite a company; they generate $300 million in annual revenue, and have become the world's largest organic yogurt producer. Hirshberg's book offers practical advice for managers by detailing the specific ways in which his firm has managed to increase revenue and profits, while also promoting sustainable environmental practices. I'm looking forward to hear Hirshberg talk about his book when he visits our campus here at Bryant University on March 19th.

Yahoo in Play

With Microsoft's unsolicited bid for Yahoo, it's now clear that Yahoo is in play. It's likely that other offers will follow, particularly with Google now poised to perhaps help Yahoo find a white knight. My guess is that Yahoo's board and management will try to raise the selling price by attracting other bidders, recognizing that shareholders will not accept a rejection of the bid and maintenance of the status quo.

One key question is: Can Yahoo find a bidder whose culture represents a better fit than Microsoft? Cultural mismatch represents a key hurdle in many acquisition integration efforts, and it surely would be an obstacle if Microsoft purchases Yahoo. Perhaps another company could provide a better match.

Alternatively, we could see a bid by a firm such as News Corporation. Murdoch has a reputation for allowing each of his businesses to run fairly autonomously, though he intervenes selectively on key strategic choices. Perhaps Yahoo's board and management would conclude that they can live with a takeover by News Corporation, because those top managers who remain would maintain some autonomy, rather than facing full integration with other News Corp businesses.

The Financial Meltdown: From Blame Game to Collaborative Problem-Solving

The WSJ's Davos Blog has some interesting comments from Charles Dallara, managing director of the Institute of International Finance. Dallara argues that people around the world need to stop pointing fingers at the US for the current crisis, and instead, begin thinking about how central banks and governments can work collaboratively to improve economic conditions. He points out that the financial system is a global one, with many interconnections. All problems can't be solved at the national level.

I think Dallara makes a good point about the need to shift from the blame game to some collaborative problem-solving. Yes, the US regulatory system may need some fixing, but I'm sure that no nation has a perfect system. It's time to work together to iron out some of these issues that led to the current situation.

I find the finger-pointing so interesting because employees in companies do this all the time. Too often, managers spend far too much time assigning blame when a problem occurs, or trying to dodge blame, rather than confronting the issues openly and fixing them collaboratively.

Developing the Leadership Capabilities of Your Children

Michael McKinney of The Leading Blog points parents to a great article by Tim Elmore of GrowingLeaders.com about the attributes that we should be nurturing in our children. I especially liked the points about humility, gratitude, and being teachable - i.e. being willing to seek advice and wisdom from others, and being a good listener in those situations. We can all work on being more teachable - children as well as adults. As a faculty member, I think this list is useful to think about in terms of how we can nurture the development of our students personally as well as professionally.

Challenging the Tipping Point

Great article in Fast Company about Columbia sociologist Duncan Watts and his research that challenges a key assertion in Malcolm Gladwell's book - The Tipping Point. Watts studies social networks. He has done a number of studies, using computer simulations, to examine Gladwell's assertion that a small group of influential and connected people tend to trigger social trends. He concludes from his work that these influencers don't have nearly as much influence as Gladwell believes. It's a fascinating debate about how social trends emerge, and not surprisingly, many marketers are deeply skeptical about Watts' research findings.

Evaluating Companies...Lessons from the Jim Rice Debate

This week, Jim Rice, a famous Boston Red Sox slugger of the 70s and 80s, was denied entry into the Hall of Fame once again. To explain this, many sportswriters point out that he "only" hit 386 career home runs. Yet, he played when hitting thirty home runs in a season actually meant something. Many others have played during a more recent era in which balls have flown over the fences at an unprecedented rate. Rice was one of the game’s most feared hitters for a decade. How should we measure his performance? For starters, we should not focus on raw numbers alone, because today’s offensive numbers are grossly inflated relative to the 1970s (thank you, steroids and HGH). Instead, we ought to see how a player fared relative to others who competed during the same era.

Let’s see how Rice stacks up . One good measure of preeminence in a particular era is the Most Valuable Player award voting. Right away, we see a stark contrast between Rice and many other great ballplayers. Jim Rice earned one MVP award, but he also finished in the top five in the MVP voting on six separate occasions - a remarkable feat. To put this in perspective, Rice finished in the top five more often than many Hall of Famers including Reggie Jackson, Willie McCovey, Willie Stargell, Dave Winfield, George Brett, Tony Perez, and Boston's own Carl Yastremski!

Why do I bring up the example of Jim Rice? For one, I'm a Red Sox fan who believes that it is wrong for him to have been repeatedly denied entry into the Hall of Fame :-) However, I also bring up Rice's case because, too often, journalists, students, and practicing managers make the mistake of looking at company's financial results in isolation, rather than thinking about how they are doing relative to their competitors. They make the same mistake that sportswriters have made with regard to Rice.

With the economy slipping perhaps into recession, many firms are experiencing a deterioration in their financial results. The key question, however, is this: Are some firms able to weather the storm more effectively than others? The headlines shouldn't be: XYZ retailer experiences downturn in comparable store sales growth. Why is that newsworthy these days? Almost all retailers are experiencing softness in their numbers. What we really want to know, particularly as investors, is this: Is XYZ retailer experiencing more or less of a downturn in performance relative to its rivals? Too often, articles fail to explore this very important comparative data.

Entrepreneurship Myths

On Guy Kawasaki's blog, Professor Scott Shane of Case Western has a phenomenal post on the ten biggest myths about entrepreneurship. It's a must-read.

Schultz Returns as CEO of Starbucks

Breaking news this afternoon that Howard Schultz has returned to the role of CEO at Starbucks. The news comes on the heels of a front page article in the Wall Street Journal today, which focuses on how McDonald's is expanding its direct competition with Starbucks in terms of coffee sales. That article proved very interesting, because it is clear that the strategies and product offerings of Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, and now even McDonald's have been converging over time. Strategy convergence generally isn't a good thing in industries; it tends to enhance direct and intense rivalry among firms and diminish overall industry profitability.

Kudos to Schultz for finally recognizing that Starbucks needed to re-think its strategy. They had drifted from their core strengths in recent years, and ultimately, it began to affect financial performance. In the letter Schultz posted on the Starbucks website, he notes that the company will scale back the growth of domestic locations and even close some underperforming stores. Moreover, Schultz states that Starbucks will seek to reconnect emotionally with their customers, enhance differentiation relative to rivals, and launch new products.

Here are some issues that should definitely be on the table as Starbucks considers its strategy moving forward:

• Should the company continue to serve breakfast sandwiches? Does this really fit with the Starbucks experience? Do the sandwiches take away from the atmosphere in the store, and from the focus on coffee?
• Should the company continue to build drive-thrus? Do these fit with Schultz' initial vision of Starbucks as a "third place" where people gather and enjoy coffee together?
• Should the company take some products off of the menu? Is the product proliferation diluting both product quality and the quality/speed of the service by the baristas?
• Should the company consider offering free wireless, as competitors such as Panera Bread do, so that customers may come and spend more time in the stores?

Naturally, the list goes well beyond these questions. Schultz' return provides a tremendous opportunity for Starbucks to confront key strategy issues such as these and rekindle the magic that drew in so many customers over the past twenty years.

Training Generation Y

Fortune magazine had an article last month about how UPS transformed its training practices to address the unique ways that Generation Y tends to gather information, communicate, and learn. The story is fascinating for me as a professor because it shows the power of active learning.

Let me explain. Lectures invite passive learning; the student sits and listens quietly as the professor drones on and on... The student isn't involved in the creation of knowledge; they are an empty vessel hoping to be filled up with knowledge. Active learning involves participation by the student in the educational process. It involves discussion, hands-on projects, simulations, experiential exercises, etc. Ideas and knowledge emerge from the process of trying to apply concepts to real problems.

UPS recognized that Generation Y tends to react in a particularly negative way to passive learning techniques. Thus, they shifted to an approach that emphasizes hands-on training - very much an active learning orientation. Here is one great example from the article:

The final kinetic-learning module - or for non-academicians, hands-on learning tool - is the crowd-favorite slip-and-fall simulator. UPS incurs significant costs every year from slips and falls, and it is first-year drivers who succumb the most. Lucky for first-years then that Thurmon Lockhart, director of the Locomotion Research Laboratory at Virginia Tech, has devoted his entire life to the issue. In his studies Lockhart has found that the only way to help people avoid falling is to "perturb" them - i.e., to put them through the motions of falling - which causes their bodies to adjust during subsequent encounters with falling hazards.
To that end, Lockhart's lab houses a falling machine - a nine-foot-high metal frame with a body harness attached to it. A subject puts on the harness and gets comfortable walking back and forth, and then someone sneaks up behind her and spills soapy water, causing the subject to slip, scream, and flail around before getting caught by the harness. It sounds funny - until you wipe out. For the record, having experienced this first-hand, I was perturbed, and my gait remains adjusted. "This type of research has been going on since the 1920s," Lockhart says, "but UPS is going to be the first to apply it. And when their guys get out of the program, they'll almost be ergonomists. The training is that good." Now there's a shiny new brown version of the simulator at the training center.

The article reports that UPS has experienced much success with these new training methods. My belief is that active learning always trumps passive learning, though perhaps that is even more true with Generation Y. The lesson of this UPS story applies in a range of settings... from the classroom at business schools, to corporate training programs such as the driver training at UPS, and even to corporate leadership development programs populated by senior executives. Let the lectures cease!

Develop Teams, Not Just Individuals

Fortune recently published an article on how great companies develop future leaders. While the article did not provide any earth-shattering new insights, it did point out some key practices that are often discussed, but not always put into practice. One technique that warrants a great deal of attention has to to with team development. The article suggests that companies should "develop teams, not just individuals." They point out that General Electric now sends entire management teams to Crotonville, and each team goes through a developmental experience in which they apply what they are learning to their business. Given that many leadership development programs seek to address topics such as team dynamics, communication, decision-making, and the like, it makes sense for intact teams to experience these programs together.

Of course, organizations must not allow the intact teams to isolate themselves in these types of leadership development experiences. One key benefit of leadership development programs is that emerging leaders have the time to network with their peers in other parts of the organization. Often, these peers work in far-flung parts of the world, and they don't know one another quite well at all. The leadership development program offers them time to get to know one another, share best practices, and explore collaboration opportunities to advance the business. If intact teams attend these leadership development programs, one has to be careful that managers don't spend all their time with their own team, thus spending far too little time networking, sharing, and learning from their peers in other parts of the business.

Apple Video Rentals

Yesterday, Apple made major headlines with news of a possible deal with Fox to offer video rentals via iTunes. The fundamental question, in my view, is how Apple will leverage a movie rental business into the sale of more hardware. It's hard to imagine a dramatic new surge in iPod sales because of the movie rental launch. Moreover, it's easy to imagine price battles among the major players, such as NetFlix, who compete in the movie rental business . On the other hand, perhaps Apple is poised to build upon its early Apple TV product, or launch an altogether new product designed for consumers to easily view movies downloaded via iTunes. If Apple can couple the on-line movie rentals from iTunes with an easy-to-use piece of hardware, then they can generate substantial profits. Once again, they will have executed a successful blades and razors strategy, i.e. selling inexpensive blades (movie rentals) to generate high profits from hardware sold at a price premium (Apple TV or some other product used to view the movies, transfer them easily from PC to TV, etc.).

Moneyball & The Lessons for Business Leaders

Several months ago, I was interviewed by Bret Dougherty, author of The IronDog Chronicles, a very interesting blog about sports, media, and entertainment. Bret co-hosts WXYC’s ‘Sports Rap’ on Sunday nights in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, while also pursuing his MBA at UNC-Chapel Hill. Here is the link to the recorded interview, which focused on my case study about the rise of sabermetrics in baseball, and some of the lessons for business decision-makers.

Dsylexics as Entrepreneurs

Business Week had a fascinating article about new research suggesting that dyslexics may tend to become successful entrepreneurs, particularly in the United States. Here is a brief excerpt from the article:

That kind of rejection, along with a penchant for creativity, may help explain why so many dyslexics are inclined to become entrepreneurs. Julie Logan, a professor of entrepreneurship at Cass Business School in London, believes strongly in the connection.

In a study to be published in January, Logan found that 35% of entrepreneurs in the U.S. show signs of dyslexia, compared to 20% in Britain. Logan attributes the gap to a more flexible education system in the U.S., vs. rigid tracking in British schools, and better identification and remediation methods. "Most of the people in our study talked about the role of the mentor and how important that had been," Logan says. "The difference seems to be somebody who believes in you in school."

The broader implication, she says, is that many of the coping skills dyslexics learn in their formative years become best practices for the successful entrepreneur. A child who chronically fails standardized tests must become comfortable with failure. Being a slow reader forces you to extract only vital information, so that you're constantly getting right to the point. Dyslexics are also forced to trust and rely on others to get things done—an essential skill for anyone working to build a business.

The article raises some interesting points regarding dyslexics as entrepreneurs, but I think it also should cause us to consider some more fundamental questions about our entire education system . In the era of self-esteem promotion during the 1990s, our schools often heaped praise on children. They sought to bolster each child's self-image. For me, this article suggests that we should make sure that we also focus on building our children's capabilities with regard to coping with failure. All of us fail many times in life, and entrepreneurs, in particular, must be able to deal with failure. They must be able to experiment, learn from those experiments, and then adjust or adapt their strategies.

Back to the Blog

Sorry to those readers who have been wondering where I have been for the past two months. Well, it's been a busy time in the Roberto household, as we have welcomed a third child into the family. Baby Luke Roberto was born in November, and he's doing very well. I'll be posting again on a regular basis going forward.

Amazon vs. Apple

Amazon made big news lately when they launched a new digital music service to compete with iTunes. Some news reports suggested that Amazon would pose a threat to iTunes' dominance. Perhaps that may prove to be true, but there is one important way in which Amazon may actually HELP Apple. How is that?

iTunes songs and iPods are complementary goods. If consumption of digital music rises, it will fuel more demand for digital music players - and iPod is the dominant player in that market. Where does Apple make their money? They appear to make far more profit from selling iPods than from selling songs on the iTunes stores.

Think of it the way that Harvard Professor David Yoffie explains it in his classic case study about Apple. Yoffie draws on several sources that describe the Apple business model as razors-and-blades in reverse. He quotes Steve Jobs stating that Apple makes very little profit on a song sold through iTunes. Yet, the profit margins on iPods are very healthy. They essentially provide the blades (songs) at a low price as a means of driving demand for the razors (the very profitable iPods).

If this is indeed the business model, then Amazon's latest move in digital music may actually HELP Apple... by fueling further demand for iPods, iPhones, and iPod accessories.

The Ethics of Guerilla Marketing

This article, about a singer named Marié Digby, caught my attention. It appeared in the Wall Street Journal last week. One has to wonder about the ethics of such marketing tactics, in which a young woman presents herself on YouTube as a complete amateur, while in fact, she has been working with a large media company for some time. The record company helps create quite a stir on the web about this supposed amateur sensation. Then, the firm announces the signing of this young YouTube phenom, without making it clear that they had been supporting her rise in on-line popularity all along.

Selling Home Depot Supply

This article describes critics who think Home Depot should not be selling its Supply unit, which serves contractors. The critics argue that the firm is forsaking the potential growth in that segment simply because it wants to "exorcise Nardelli's ghosts." The critics argue that the private equity firms will make a great deal of money on the Supply unit.

The critics are missing a crucial point. The issue is NOT whether the Supply unit is an attractive and potentially quite profitable business. This issue is whether the Supply unit is BETTER OFF as an independent company vs. within Home Depot. Moreover, the issue is whether Home Depot's retail business is better off on its own or when combined with the Supply unit.

This example demonstrates a larger point. When firms consider diversification, they must not only look at whether a new business unit will provide higher growth and profits... they must also consider whether that new unit will perform optimally as part of the diversified firm, or whether it will be better off on its own or as part of some other corporation. Shareholders benefit most when a business unit is located in an organizational situation in which it can perform best.

Mike Watkins on The Mistakes New Executives Make

Michael Watkins has a wonderful new post on his blog about the mistakes executives make when they join a new firm. He points out that many executives stumble because they try to recreate the organizations from which they came. There is no question that this is true. I have seen this so many times in my research and consulting.

I can recall one remarkable incident in my class several years ago, when Emerson Electric's former Chairman and CEO, Chuck Knight, visited my class. We discussed Emerson's highly regarded strategic planning process. I told the class that there is no one best way to conduct strategic planning; instead, a firm must match its strategic planning approach to the industry dynamics, firm strategy, organizational culture, and leadership style of the CEO. To bolster this point, I shared a quote from Charlie Peters, one of Knight's top executives at Emerson. Peters once said, "

• "Many companies come to Emerson wanting to find out what we are doing and why it works. But often, the trip is wasted. Our process works for us because of the type of impact we are trying to have on our businesses and because of our CEO, Chuck Knight – how he likes to operate and his relationship and status with the divisions. Other companies can’t duplicate that."

Interestingly, a student then asked Chuck Knight if he would have tried to replicate the Emerson strategic planning process if he had gone on to another firm, rather than retiring after he stepped down as CEO of Emerson. Knight offered a fascinating answer. He said that it probably would have been the wrong thing to do, in that the new situation most likely would have called for a substantial adaptation of the Emerson process to fit the needs of that particular company. However, he said that he would have been tempted to simply transport what he done at Emerson to the new firm. He said that this is what CEOs do...they rely on what made them successful. It's easy to convince oneself that this approach will work anywhere.

Knight's remarkably thoughtful comments reinforce the point that Mike Watkins makes in his blog. It is incredibly tempting for executives to want to replicate the the methods and techniques that worked for them in other organizations in the past. However, in business, there is often not "one best way" to do things. Success in business is so often about fit or alignment. The methods and practices must be adapted to fit the current situation and context.

China, Outsourcing, and Transaction Costs

Each day seems to bring new headlines regarding tainted products from China. Mattel has been hit especially hard, with the discovery of many toys containing lead paint. For me, the news about tainted Chinese products offers an opportunity to remind students and executives how to think strategically about outsourcing, rather than focusing singlemindedly on manufacturing cost reductions.

Let's go back to the fundamental strategic choice regarding vertical integration. What should drive the decision by a firm to produce its own inputs (or to conduct its own manufacturing in-house) versus outsourcing these activities to external vendors? Firms need to consider more than simply the direct manufacturing costs of performing these activities in-house vs. outsourcing them. They must consider the transaction costs associated with outsourcing production. In other words, how expensive is it to write contracts with external vendors, to monitor vendor behavior, enforce contractual provisions, control quality, etc.? Many firms underestimate these "costs" associated with using the market (i.e. outsourcing to an external vendor) versus keeping certain activities within the firm.

Quality control can be a very important reason why production is kept in-house instead of outsourcing it. We are learning from the tainted Chinese products situation that the transaction costs associated with quality control of outside vendors can be very high. The transaction costs come not only in the form of expenses associated with monitoring external vendors, but also in the form of a damaged brand in the event of a major recall.

Let's take a simple example of how control can be a key reason for keeping certain activities in-house. Why does Apple choose to operate its own retail stores? One reason is that they want to control the customer experience and the quality of the customer service that people receive. Of course, there are other reasons as well, but control is a critical one. Similarly, Disney owns some hotels in and around its theme parks because it wants to control the quality of the customer experience. Consider the risks and costs associated with having external parties in charge of the experience that families have at a Disney resort.

My argument is not that outsourcing should never occur. I simply aim to remind managers that they must consider the nature of transaction costs when making the outsourcing decision. Of course, there are transaction costs associated with keeping production in-house. The key is to compare the transaction costs of using the market (outsourcing) vs. keeping production in-house.

Finally, firms have to remember these strategic decisions are dynamic in nature. It may make sense to keep certain activities in-house at this point in time, but then outsourcing may become more attractive down the road. For instance, Disney used to own its retail store chain. One can see why they might want to control that customer retail experience. However, once they had operated this chain for some 15 years, they made the decision that they now could establish a licensing agreement, and allow an experienced retailer (Children's Place) to run the chain. Think of it this way. In the 1980s, when they launched the retail chain, they might have felt it was quite difficult, costly, and risky to establish a contract with an outside firm to operate Disney stores. However, now that Disney has run the stores for many years, they may feel more comfortable that they can write an enforceable contract that allows them to maintain quality control without running the store themselves.

Merck & Sunk Costs

The sunk cost effect refers to the tendency for people to escalate commitment to a course of action in which they have made substantial prior investments of time, money, or other resources. If people behaved rationally, they would make choices based on the marginal costs and benefits of their actions. The amount of any previous unrecoverable investment is a sunk cost and should not affect the current decision. However, research demonstrates that people often do consider past investment decisions when choosing future courses of action. In particular, individuals tend to pursue activities in which they have made prior investments. Often, they become overly committed to certain activities despite consistently poor results. They “throw good money after bad”, and the situation continues to escalate.

Many companies face the problem of the sunk cost effect. In fact, it's particularly problematic for firms involved in extremely expensive and lengthy product development projects. In those situations, the sunk costs can be enormous, and it can be very difficult for managers, scientists, and/or engineers to walk away from a project in which they have not only invested a great deal of money, but also much time, energy, and personal reputation.

A recent Business Week article suggests that Merck has found a way to try to combat this problem. Here's a snippet from the article (for the entire article, click here):

Merck is rewarding scientists for failure. One of the hardest decisions any scientist has to make is when to abandon an experimental drug that's not working. An inability to admit failure leads to inefficiencies. A scientist may spend months and tens of thousands of dollars studying a compound, hoping for a result he or she knows likely won't come, rather than pitching in on a project with a better chance of turning into a viable drug. So Kim (Merck R&D head Peter Kim) is promising stock options to scientists who bail out on losing projects. It's not the loss per se that's being rewarded but the decision to accept failure and move on. "You can't change the truth. You can only delay how long it takes to find it out," Kim says. "If you're a good scientist, you want to spend your time and the company's money on something that's going to lead to success."

Jensen vs. Langone

Business Week has a good wrap-up of an interesting exchange about private equity between Harvard Professor Emeritus Michael Jensen and Home Depot founding investor Ken Langone. These kinds of spirited discussions aren't typical for the Academy of Management meetings. I wish that we could find more ways to infuse the meetings with these kinds of exchanges between practitioners and academics.

Private Equity IPOs

Private equity seems to be all over the headlines these days, with a range of issues coming to the fore. I'd like to focus here on the issue of private equity shops going public. To me, the rationale is very weak. One of the fundamental reasons why private equity firms add value is their superior model of governance and control. As I have written previously, private equity firms have expanded rapidly, in part because they solve some of the governance problems posed by the large publicly traded corporation, with its separation of ownership and control. In short, I believe the ownership and governance structure of a private equity firm has the potential to dramatically reduce agency costs relative to a publicly traded firm.

Going public changes things significantly. For years, strategic management scholars and consultants have argued (and shown empirically) that conglomerates (unrelated diversified firms) trade at a discount, that they are worth less than the sum of their parts. You all know the reasons - they have been well-articulated over many years. Well, if a private equity firm goes public, then precisely what is the difference between it and the typical conglomerate? The private equity firm begins to look much more like the usual unrelated diversified firm. A private equity firm no longer can argue that its governance structure poses a substantial advantage over the old style publicly traded conglomerate.

I have heard many of the reasons why private equity firms are going public, beyond the fact that it offers an opportunity for enhancing personal wealth. Access to capital, ability to recruit and retain talent, management successsion... none of these seems like a persuasive argument. These firms have been wildly successful raising capital and attracting talent, while remaining privately held. Even if there were some advantages to going public, they must be weighed against the substantial disadvantage outlined here with respect to agency costs and corporate governance. To me, those disadvantages clearly outweigh the possible benefits of conducting an initial public offering.