Have you ever asked a question only to receive the dreaded, “Because I said so,” response? This is often a phrase repeated to children, but even adults are prone to hear things like, “Because this is the way we’ve always done it.” If you’ve been on the receiving end of these statements, you know that they are never satisfactory explanations to questions. They’re a cop out—a way to evade the underlying issues and, perhaps, an unintentional admission of one’s fear of change or refusal to embrace innovation. And, that is exactly how we get stuck in patterns that don’t work within systems that are unwilling to adopt new structural paradigms—even when it’s the obvious answer.
Many people, myself included, have been writing on this topic for 5-10 years—reiterating time and again that our economy is dramatically changing and many analysts are ignoring the consequences. What is even more perplexing is that we continue to ignore some proven models of success.Several years ago, Walter Isaacson wrote in The Innovators about the impact of technology, the digital computer, and Internet revolution. These trends have only accelerated in recent years. One of the most interesting themes is the commitment, diversity, collaboration, and even friction, among diverse participants in almost every phase of the revolution, such as Jobs and Wozniak or Gates and Allen.
The results of this technological shift are evident in a comparison of stock performance of traditional companies versus newer tech companies. The stocks of P&G, I.B.M., G.E., Coca Cola, Dupont, and AT&T have DECLINED an average of 8% annually over the last 5 years. In contrast, the price growth of companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Amazon has increased at a rate of 24% annually. This trend is also evidenced by G.E. and other huge companies’ recent decision to dissolve their outdated structure.
To put that in perspective: investing $100,000 in the traditional companies 5 years ago, would be worth about $66,000 today. Investing $100,000 in the tech companies 5 years ago would be worth about $300,000 today.
Financial advisors also seem to be reluctant to embrace this shift. For example, much of their discussions focus on bonds versus stocks rather than tech stocks versus industrial or value stocks.
It’s really no surprise that so many businesses are failing considering both society and business refuse to recognize that old paradigms and structures are already obsolete or are well on their way. For example:
Large corporate structures (like print publications and brick and mortar retailers) are all gradual losers, or worse.
Companies as well as society continue to do what they have done in the past, often with poor results. Despite massive economic and political efforts, issues like income inequality, healthcare, and infrastructure investment will continue to hold back our economy.
With little real attention to these changing trends, the poor performance of many organizations is virtually a given.
Even more distressing is that it’s the structural paradigms of these organizations producing much of the deficient results, rather than the typical financial discussions. For instance, the long-held propositions that business advantages, like economies of scale and utilizing expertise and marketing synergies, are simply false in many cases. Rather, these and other former industry leaders are failing because of the following limitations:
Many large companies have tunnel vision, organizational constraints, etc., and ignore emerging technologies and opportunities.
They lack the flexibility to respond to the needs of the market and use outdated solutions to new problems.
They fail to allow the vision, entrepreneurship, and risk necessary to succeed, while heaping huge income growth on unproductive leaders.
In contrast, new structural paradigms are providing numerous opportunities for successful change:
The success of smaller, more innovative companies shows that many organizations should get smaller (or act smaller) in order to effectively deal with today’s environment.
Reducing layers and creating professional cultures are a start. Boards and management need to split up organizations like G.E., create spinoffs, or implement more independent groups. That may be what’s really necessary to maximize the potential of both individuals and organizations.
Large organizations say they want excellence, entrepreneurship, innovation, risk-takers, etc., but, really, they tend to encourage mediocrity. For example, short-term goals and reviews for both organizations and individuals actually inhibit the development of more positive cultural characteristics, rather than spur them on.
Testing and failure, which are critical parts of innovation, are punished more than rewarded. Even sound risk-taking is reduced because of the fear of repercussions within the organization. In short, organizations frequently ignore the advice, “you can’t score if you don’t take a shot.”
Organizations need to be open to measurement and feedback. Looking, understanding, and sharing financials, operations reports, and sales reports are the first step towards embracing new structural paradigms. Simple research studies, social media, and other devices are additional tools.
Open systems and collaboration are like winning the trifecta at the horse track. Open systems have been around for a long time but are becoming the norm for success. They reject bureaucracy, authority, hierarchy, and closed decision-making processes. They encourage participation, diversity, new rules, and to some extent, chaos.
These new structural paradigms, cooperation, smaller can be better, and open collaborative systems, offer great hope for organizations. While they rely on innovative approaches to problems, the solutions are readily available. Therefore, once we acknowledge that different strategies are needed, we can implement new tactics, provide opportunity and education, and allow our organizations to be effective.
I strenuously argue that if we do not learn to accept and accommodate innovation and deviant behavior both inside and outside of organizations, we cannot change or achieve excellence.
Innovation. What does it mean to you? Is it something you embrace? Or is it an idea you find daunting and shy away from? If you find yourself in the latter category, it’s time to reassess your relationship with innovation because it’s imperative if you want your business to stay relevant in an ever-changing world.
As we continue to navigate through a global pandemic, specific recommendations on how organizations and individuals can be more innovative have surfaced from various sources. I argue, however, that we need a more flexible approach to innovation.
Now, in order to enhance innovation, we must first understand it and consider what our goals are in trying to do it. For example: There is a big difference between writing a new song and developing a vaccine for the Coronavirus.
Some questions to consider:
Are you tweaking a problem, examining alternatives, or creating an entirely new solution?
Does the problem involve diverse expertise, extensive analysis, and extensive outside resources?
What resources, constraints, risk, and requirements will affect innovation?
Let’s expand on a few of these issues:
Are you solving problems or developing new concepts?
Much of corporate innovation revolves around finding better or new solutions to existing problems. For instance, for many years, car companies focused on developing better combustible engines, retailers focused on developing better shopping experiences, and IBM focused on building bigger and better computers. In contrast, other companies focused on developing entirely new solutions, which gave us the electric car, E-commerce, and the cloud.
Decisions regarding these issues involve a number of considerations. Do you give research groups complete freedom or do you require specific goals and financial objectives? How much risk and error do you encourage and allow? In general, venture capital firms allow more risk and pursue a home run while corporations tend to stick with more planned efforts.
While new markets and technologies are exciting, minor innovations can also be very productive. Logistics involving areas like inventory management, customer service, and sourcing can have dramatic impacts on cost, sales, and profits. In particular, Amazon has become extremely good at what they do: Prime, their own truck fleet, and automated safe warehouses have dramatically stimulated their performance.
Simple measurement and focus can dramatically improve results. Reviewing sales by product, P&L, and the 80-20 rule can inspire effective new practices. I have a client who switched 70% of her business from retail to E-commerce and has grown 40%. The process also requires new strategies on pricing, inventory management, and marketing. One huge advantage was that she was able to introduce new products on the Internet almost immediately rather than waiting 6-12 months for the retailers to make and execute decisions. In this instance, a problem was solved using existing concepts, but it was innovative for her specific company.
How are your decisions affected by analytics and intuition?
Decision-making used to be a simple choice between things like experience and intuition. However, Artificial Intelligence and other tools have added a new dimension to reduce the uncertainty of decisions. There are even major breakthroughs in medicine regarding the diagnoses and treatment of disease using improved statistics and analysis. The development of the Coronavirus vaccine has also been greatly accelerated by new technologies and processes.
Tools and presentations are also dramatically changing. For example, a colleague of mine objected to my website because it was too dependent on PowerPoint and Excel. While these are great tools and are the most used for analytical and presentation methodologies, they do have many limitations. The information can be old, longitudinal analytics is frequently lacking, they are not interactive, and they may not be visual enough. The lesson being: we must continue to challenge our ways of doing things…
Analytics as a new dimension requires consideration of new parameters. The most important is replacing hierarchal structures with collaboration, analysis, and facts. Many organizational structures are based on hierarchy and this simply needs to be replaced by a search for excellence and consideration of alternatives. Additionally, as we deal with more complex goals and analysis, we must remember that intuition is still important. In particular, the more creativity and uncertainty there is in a situation, the more intuition is required.
Some of this dilemma is created by the differences between “left-brain” and “right-brain” thinkers. Left-brained people are said to be more analytical, logical, detail and fact orientated, numerical, and more likely to think in words. Right-brained people are said to be more creative, free-thinking, intuitive, able to see the big picture, and can visualize more. So, whichever you are, perhaps try asking someone who thinks differently than you how they would handle something you’re working on—you might realize they have an entirely different approach that may or may not be better than your own.
The most important aspect of this discussion is to understand the use of analytics versus intuition in your decision-making process. We love to hang on to our hunches, beliefs, experience, and hierarchy. We even twist facts and ignore reality to provide continuing support for an argument. But, we need to invest time and money to analyze, filter, and review ideas. New analytical tools can enhance our flexibility, testing, ability to adapt, and the evaluation of alternatives.
Are you focusing on excellence and collaboration?
Innovation requires collaboration. It thrives with participation, diversity, new rules, and (to some extent) chaos. It also rejects bureaucracy, authority, hierarchy, and closed decision-making processes.
A major component of collaboration is excellence. Large organizations say they want excellence, entrepreneurship, innovation, risk takers, etc. However, they often fail to revise practices that encourage mediocrity (i.e. hierarchal structures and non-diverse cultures). Testing and failure (both critical parts of innovation) are punished more than rewarded. Even sound risk taking is reduced because of the fear of repercussions within the organization. In short, organizations frequently ignore the advice: “you can’t score if you don’t take a shot.”
It’s also important to note that exceptional people are often eccentric and can be challenging to manage. You may find that these employees like to work odd hours, need specific environmental stimuli for inspiration, and, generally, refuse to do things in a traditional way, which can often be disruptive to an organization’s flow. The upside, of course, is that they’re producing remarkable work.
Does your company culture encourage innovation?
While we tend to focus on innovative methods and technologies, we sometimes forget that culture can dramatically affect innovation. For example: California has about 15,000 patent applications a year compared to less than 200 in eleven other states. There are simply more resources and a more comfortable culture in California, which spurs innovation. Some organizations encourage testing, failure, and research while others believe in the “we have always done it this way” approach (which never stands up to the test of time). You need a forward-looking company environment for innovation. For example, market research should be a tool rather than an absolute. As Steve Jobs said:
Are we having fun yet?
In order to balance innovation, you must enjoy what you’re doing. You started your business because you had passion—Don’t lose that! If you’re truly happy doing what you’re doing, your customers will want to buy into that. They will feed off of your excitement!
You have to be willing to change with the times. And you have to give emerging business trends more than just a passing thought or you may miss out on big opportunities. Consider multiple and dynamic alternatives, goals, and methods. Innovation is the key to growth, profit, and sustainability. And the great thing is: there’s no one way to do it. Be innovative about innovation—the possiblities are endless!
Dr. Bert Shlensky, president of Startup Connection (www.startupconection.net) is a graduate of Sloan School of Management at M.I.T. He served as the president of WestPoint Pepperell’s apparel fabrics business as well as the President & CEO of Sure Fit Products. Having provided counseling to over 2,000 clients, he now focuses on working with select startups and small businesses.
Too many cooks spoil the broth. A child, looked after by
seven nannies, is a child with one eye… Phrase it however you want, but when many
manage one thing, some things are missed or turn out wrong. The camel analogy
specifically criticizes committees and group decision making, implying that
incompetence results when too many people are involved on a project. Therefore,
the camel’s humps reflect bad planning and inept design when the original concept
was a horse.
These proverbs speak to a number of current issues
regarding decision making, innovation, and performance. It’s worth asking: How
disciplined, organized, programmed, and/or fact-based should decisions be? Or are
we heading in the direction of unstructured, flexible, creative, and innovative
planning?
Unfortunately, we tend to rely on preset parameters or
stick to old habits rather than pursuing the most effective process. So, let’s
explore some topics that can help you decide what the best plan of action might
be for any given scenario:
Camel (Committee)
Versus (Horse) Individualism
The simple answer is it depends. If you have a thriving
company with ample market and internal capabilities, diversifying can be an
exciting option. In particular, vertical and horizontal integrations can assist
in achieving better use of your resources. Similarly, if you have operations or
marketing capabilities, cooperation can be highly productive in better
utilizing those resources.
In contrast, the less resources, knowledge, or experience
you have with cooperation, the less you should do it. Diversification does not
work effectively in business cultures that have no synergy. Similarly,
cooperation frequently fails when it is done to solve or cover up weaknesses. The
K-Mart and Sears merger is one of the best examples of failed diversification
which was executed with poor management and a prayer that two losers would make
a winner.
Innovation Versus Discipline
I believe innovation and discipline can coexist. You
simply need to focus on improving autonomy at all levels as you simultaneously
increase discipline. For example, Google, among other big corporations, are
developing artificial intelligence (AI) programs to write and develop artistic
works like music and art. They argue that this technology will greatly enhance
an artist’s ability to create. Others disagree, saying that it will just
replace artists. My own experience in the knitting industry showed me that
automation greatly enhances an artist’s potential and reduces mundane tasks. I
believe that similar improvements are evident in areas like digital photography
and animation.
George Bernard Shaw said, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the
world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” Similarly, Steve Jobs
quipped that if he asked customers what they wanted; it would be obsolete
before he got it on the shelves. So, it remains that innovation is a
necessity, but if it’s unmonitored, you may end up with that pesky camel…
Focus Versus
Diversification
Some businesses
try to randomly pursue diverse options by simply throwing s**t at the wall and
seeing what sticks. Others complete so much research and planning that, in the
process, aspects like goals, probabilities, and outcomes are overshadowed or
forgotten. Business owners need to identify priorities and focus. From there,
test and adopt or change as opportunities or issues arise. It’s important to
remember that many plans are based on wrong assumptions or are poorly executed
and, therefore, do not succeed or are unable to adjust to change.
For example, I
was working with a client who was trying to execute over 15 different
educational programs and was stressed out, over budget, and not managing
effectively. We simply cut out the least effective programs which saved money
and, as a result, were able to allot additional attention and resources to the
more effective ones. Focusing your strategy can be accomplished with a few
simple efforts:
Measure, Estimate, Prioritize, and Adapt.
Follow the 80-20 rule.
Make
mistakes and learn from them.
Be open to change and feedback.
Experience and
Expertise
In his book “Outliers,” Malcolm Gladwell became famous for stating
that, “10,000 hours of practice are required to become a world-class expert.” I
am not sure it is 10,000 hours, but my experience indicates that experience and expertise are probably the
most important factors in achieving success. That doesn’t mean you need expertise
in everything, but it does mean you need at least a hook in the field you are
pursuing. And if you know you are lacking expertise in a critical area, I
suggest hiring someone to help.
For example, right-brain creatives typically don’t like
financial analysis so it’s usually a good idea for them to hire an accountant.
In the last couple of weeks, I have had clients with seemingly great ideas and
passion who overestimated their gross margins by 10-20%. They simply didn’t do
the detailed financial work and didn’t understand that those numbers could make
a huge difference between profit and loss.
This argument is in no way intended to ignore the
importance of passion, commitment, innovation, testing, and even mistake making.
I’m just saying that both individuals and organizations need to realistically
assess the risk of failure and the reward of success. Expertise and experience
are critical for accurately evaluating opportunities and new innovations.
Risk Evaluation
Are all of the features of a decision understood?
Do you know the probability of reward, the amount of the reward, and the value
of the reward? For example, what are the goals of your efforts? My clients are
usually small businesses who need to make a profit and earn a living. Thus,
they frequently pursue less risk.
In contrast, venture capital firms are
frequently pursuing growth and worry whether the enterprise will be large
enough to generate large returns. Therefore, they expect a certain amount of
loss as well as some lost investments in order to generate large growth and
profits in other areas.
Analytics Versus
Intuition
The increased use of analytics over
intuition has been significant in improving the understanding and results of
decision-making. This shift was greatly influenced by the growth and confidence
in behavioral economics fostered by authors like Daniel Hahnemann, Richard
Thaler, and Michael Lewis. While there are no quick and simple resolutions,
there are a few simple rules to improve the decision process using both
analytics and intuition.
Analytics is simply the increased
use of research, models, probability, risk, numbers, and analysis to improve
decision-making. In some cases, it has proved to be a valuable tool to
understand and improve decisions or simply validate prior intuition—particularly
where there is plenty of stability and historical data. For example, I have helped
several of my clients improve their businesses by focus on the 20 percent of customers
or products, which we know, statistically, accounts for 80 percent of their sales.
Here are some simple
guidelines to help manage decision making dilemmas:
Understand goals,
tasks, and complexity. For example, the more uncertainty and unclear
information, the more you need to rely on intuition.
Integrate the proper
role of expertise. If you have complex tasks that require diverse resources,
incorporate collaboration. If you have standout experts with extensive
experience rely on their abilities. For example, I am always fascinated how
surgeons and lawyers delegate tasks to paralegals and surgical nurses.
Test, measure, and
adapt. Gather information, confirm ideas, adapt and improve winning ideas.
Incorporate risk to
evaluate the potential and results of success.
Don’t be afraid to
follow your passion, commitment, and instincts.
Take a break. We are
frequently too consumed and stressed with our tasks. We don’t take time to
incorporate efforts like training, casual lunches, social events, new ideas,
reading, and informal meetings into our routines.
The goal is really to find a balance between group decision making and individual efforts so you don’t wind up with a camel when you wanted a horse. Recognize when analytics, facts, and research can improve your decisions. And don’t be afraid to follow your intuition when traditional answers don’t seem correct. Taking probabilities, risk, and values into consideration, you should be able to find some harmony between the two ends of the spectrum.
There are two seemingly conflicting trends in organizations regarding technology and innovation. The first is a trend towards autonomy, which focuses on organizational goals, as well as cooperation and empowerment. The second is a trend towards automation, which simplifies work requirements and can result in fewer workers. I argue you can have both autonomy and automation… You simply need to focus on improving the autonomy at all levels as you increase the automation.
The autonomy approach is described by Fred Kofman, who promotes cooperation and voluntary exchange for mutual gain. According to this theory, motivation, culture and collaboration produce better solutions than pure self-interest. In short, organizations should focus on winning for the organization, and not just the individual silos of participants.
Organizations in Silicon Valley often devote their attention to things like automation and AI. However, they are held accountable for the trend that some jobs are being replaced by robots. This includes jobs like taxi drivers (replaced by self-driving cars), hedge fund managers (replaced by algorithms), or financial journalists (replaced by chatbots).
This idea was brought home to me a few weeks ago, during a visit to an 1850’s restoration community Sturbridge Village. They had little cottages doing various tasks to make clothing (like cleaning wool, spinning, weaving and sewing). The work that went into production of a few yards or one shirt was incredible. In contrast, my experience in the apparel industry was that we could weave millions of yards in short periods, thanks to automation.
Similarly, Google and others are developing AI programs to write and develop artistic works. They argue that this technology will greatly enhance an artist’s ability to create, while others argue that it will just replace artists. My own experience in the apparel industry is that automation greatly enhances the artist’s potential by reducing mundane tasks. Instead of it regretting the displacement caused by automation, we need to focus more on realizing its potential for individuals. For example:
Don’t let automation or analytics give you one simple answer. Programs and situations are diverse, and require a variety of solutions. A great example is the success of the Golden State Warriors and LeBron James in basketball. The Warriors win by an integrated team that gets the ball to the open man, and passes more than any team in history. LeBron’s teams have won by making LeBron the focal point, and supporting with complimentary plays and personnel.
Similarly, organizations need to consider their goals and processes. Do you need more expertise and experience, or more creativity? Are you maximizing the potential of your stars and developing collaborative solutions? Do you need diverse expertise on a problem?
Most people I see working care about their jobs and try to do them well, regardless of pay or status. A very simple recommendation is just to consider how can we can empower our staff to do even better. We should acknowledge that there will be mistakes, but they will be far less than the total gains.
“Need to know” should be a dead phrase, so help staff understand goals and strategies. The more we trust staff to understand these strategies, the more likely they are to embrace them.
I believe “leadership” is an obsolete term. The best leaders I have seen are people like head nurses, restaurant expediters, triage managers, and legal assistants. They coordinate and manage various (and frequently much higher paid) participants. The process involves gaining their cooperation and motivation to execute a great final result. In contrast, authoritarian (rather than expert or professional leadership) is usually more harmful than helpful.
Many financial and analytical models focus on a single or best solution. I recommend focusing on the parameters of alternative models. Then you can manipulate the model to evaluate alternatives. For example, we have developed a dynamic operating profit model that allows you to analyze the interaction and impact of various factors like price, cost, margin, distribution marketing etc. It has been effective in helping clients understand retail and online opportunities. Download it here.
In summary, automation and AI offer great opportunities to improve performance, especially when used with analytics. These strategies should also include empowering the organization. In particular, we should continuously challenge assumptions, review alternatives and evaluate progress.
Dr. Bert Shlensky, president of Startup Connection ( www.startupconection.net ) has an MBA And PhD from the Sloan School of Management at M.I.T. He served as the president of WestPoint Pepperell’s apparel fabrics business and President and CEO of Sure Fit Products. Having provided counseling to over 2,000 clients, he now focuses on working with select startup and small businesses.
These days business just isn’t about playing it safe or going with the status quo. Chances need to be taken. Such is the case for what is commonly called the business outlier, or in other words a professional who doesn’t follow the standard model of business in any given industry or market. Some might even call them trendsetters, whistle blowers, or even “contrarians.” I, of course, call them the hidden gems. The ones who might have an idea that’s never been tried before — and you never know, you just might be the first person to score a new niche, tap into a new market, or penetrate a brand-new revenue source no one ever thought existed.
So Here’s Some Strong Advice for You: Listen to That Business Outlier. And Take Some Chances.
The challenge, though, is the fact that oftentimes the outlier or contrarian might push a few buttons or ruffle a few feathers, because let’s face it: going against the grain can cause issues. And sometimes going against the grain means you’ve got that loud voice that yells out into the crowd that the old way of working just doesn’t work anymore, and you’re all stupid, when that’s also not true.
So exercise caution — and listen to that enthusiastic business outlier. You might pull some really clever golden nuggets out of that business networking conversation.
Think of the landscape we’re currently in. Changes are aplenty. Think of the fact that we have so many ways of borrowing money at 2% to 5% or even no interest on 6-month credit cards, but even now companies are going with 12-20% requirement for returns while passing on other opportunities.
I implore you: don’t. Never assume, especially on outdated stuff. Try something new. You never know if it’ll work if you’re not testing it in your business model.
So Are You, In Fact, Testing Out Any New Business Ideas and Challenges?
If so, fantastic. If not, please reconsider. Chances are pretty darn good that even if it doesn’t work, you just knocked another low card in the deck, which gets you to that ace in there. After all, good business is like a deck of cards. A numbers game. Keep going through all of them until you land the full house.
Dr. Bert Shlensky, President of The Startup Connection, directs all small business clients toward maximum sales and profit thanks to his 40 years of high-quality experience. He does this through technological, social, and online integration, supercharging your business success into the next level, so don’t hesitate to sign up for a free consultation RIGHT NOW.
When you want to stand out, reach out to Bert for the tools that will build your “sticky” brand. My focus is on understanding and analyzing your dilemmas and challenges, so your company becomes profitable faster.
Call (914) 632-6977 or email me at bshlensky@startupconnection.net. Don’t leave without signing up for our useful free eBook!
Feeling stumped or overwhelmed? Contact Bert at (914) 632-6977 or Email to start the process. Thanks!
There are two seemingly conflicting trends in organizations regarding technology and innovation. The first is a trend towards autonomy, which focuses on organizational goals, as well as cooperation and empowerment. The second is a trend towards automation, which simplifies work requirements and can result in fewer workers. I argue you can have both autonomy and automation… You simply need to focus on improving the autonomy at all levels as you increase the automation.
This idea was brought home to me a few weeks ago, during a visit to an 1850’s restoration community Sturbridge Village. They had little cottages doing various tasks to make clothing (like cleaning wool, spinning, weaving and sewing). The work that went into production of a few yards or one shirt was incredible. In contrast, my experience in the apparel industry was that we could weave millions of yards in short periods, thanks to automation.
niche, tap into a new market, or penetrate a brand-new revenue source no one ever thought existed.