THE ENTERPRISE--No Brainers & Other Stuff
COMPLACENCY?
I think it was Yogi Berra who said, "There's a lot you can see by just looking." How true; in business, in politics, in sports, and in life. This weekend, an Ohio State football team that is loaded with talent struggled to beat a nearby in-state "rival" Ohio University that was loaded with motivation and passion. For a large part of the game, that motivation, passion and intensity overcame the talent deficit. In business, there are many times when a more talented company takes a competitive situation for granted, and loses to an upstart who just simply "wants it more." No matter how much you might agree with this, it requires constant vigilance to avoid it happening. I know, I've been there, and made that mistake--and it hurts--but there was no way to warn me.
"NO BRAINERS"
There's also the business situation I call a "no brainer." Funny how it happens, but I found that there are two kinds of "no brainers." No brainers are meant to be those situations that are so simple, straightforward and easily within a company or a person's capability, that it almost seems "no brains" are needed. Do it by rote, by habit, by memory, almost automatically. Until the other kind of "no brainer" strikes. That's where you don't use any brains, and overlook a different set of circumstances that changes everything. Taking a competitor for granted; assuming a customer won't notice; failing to attend to details, dot the i's and cross the t's, and so forth. Be careful, because the difference in talent between the best and the next tier isn't great enough to win with a "no brainer."
SHAPE SHIFTERS REDUX
How things change and times change. Dell is looking into selling its factories. Once a huge competitive advantage in making whatever kind of computer you wanted--and ordered on line or via 800 number--now a remnant of a "shape of value" that no longer wins. Most computers come with all the most popular features. Just like Japanese cars did when they grabbed a big chunk of the US car market from the slow, "order the options at extra cost and wait for the car" business model of the US carmakers. Or the time Burger King's "have it your way" started taking customers away from McDonald's "have it one way" mass production burger business. As the "shape of value" is constantly shifting, companies that don't shift with it, lose--sometimes fatally. Remember "film cameras" and the roulette of wondering how those pictures came out? The irony is that leaders seldom realize they are becoming obsolete until the upstart has knocked them off their lofty perch and taken a big chunk of share from them. It's really hard, nearly impossible, for a leader to abandon what got them there for some new, risky new way of doing things.
POLITICS TOO
Both candidates are imploring followers to let them lead the change of the US government. God knows it needs to change. The irony in this case is that the one thing they agree on is that the government needs to change, and their way is the best way. Devotees of Obama are sure that his approach is right. Those who favor McCain (and now "plain talking" Sarah Palin) think they have the best ideas. Wouldn't it be nice if the best elements of both candidates could be combined? Of course no one would agree on that. What they can agree on is that whoever gets elected will have arguably the hardest set of problems of any president in our memory. Worse yet, after the Republicans in control of Congress did little but spend a lot and get into trouble, the Democrats took over and now appear to be heading in the same direction. The best ideas are coming from a bunch of "moderates" that the Democrats call "Blue Dogs" and that the Republicans have yet to name (but they sound a lot like John McCain).
INSANITY
I've heard this definition so many times I forget who said it first. "Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." Companies like GM still don't get it. Even with some noticeably better cars, when you spread your resources across too many brands, models, dealers, etc. complexity cripples the company. I only hope our governmental leaders have heard it--and believe it too. Albert Einstein said, "Today's problems cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when they were created." This leads to a similar conclusion. The question is how differently to think? What to do differently? What is the truth? What will work? Where can compromises be reached? Which assumptions are still valid? Has the USA become a nation of special-interest-driven "can't do?" No matter what you want to do, some special interest is either offended, violated or simply doesn't like it. Look at the response to Sarah Palin, her family, etc.
If that isn't daunting enough, there are huge global uncertainties. Last week a PORTFOLIO magazine article stated the belief that oil will return to the $50/bbl. range within the next 2 years. His premise was that Europe and Japan will follow the US into a recession or near-recession, dampening demand, and that Asian demand would be damped by declines in developed countries that buy from China, et. al. And yet, another pundit postulated that oil could easily reach $200/bbl. What to do in business and in government changes a lot depending on which of those assumptions are closer to reality? I know that both have to be considered--and neither one of them is a "no-brainer."
AFGHANISTAN--THE MODERN "TAR-BABY"
An old Disney story about Uncle Remus (now considered politically incorrect, and out of favor) told about Bre'r Rabbit and the Tar Baby. When Bre'r Rabbit attacked the Tar Baby, the harder he struggled, the more entangled he got. As we consider what to do in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) it would be well to heed the message of the "Tar Baby." Iraq looked that way, but now appears to be moving toward a better resolution. Afghanistan will be much more intractable. Just ask the Russians who tried for a long time to get it under control--to now avail. Will we learn from history? Or are we destined to repeat it?
LESSONS AND UNKNOWNS
I think that is enough of what we might learn from history, from experience and from "sweating the details." I don't know the answers; I just know a lot of questions, and what worked in other (but different) situations. Are we better off with a President who has experience, character and resolve or one who has new ideas and inspiring rhetoric--but as yet, unproven? Psychologists have proven that the part of our brain that converts thoughts into verbal form simply cannot explain all the knowledge that is drawn from experience, forgotten learning and "gut feel." Me, I'm going with experience, character and proven toughness under pressure. The other guy is young enough to have another chance if I'm wrong. How about you?
Best, John
Comments