Skip to main content

WHAT DO LEADERS DO?



In a broad sense, what leaders do is stage revolutions. They are constantly challenging the status quo and looking around to see if they are doing the right things, or if those things can be done better or smarter. And most importantly, when they do spot something that needs to be changed, they do something about it. In more concrete terms, they do two specific things:

  •   See reality size up the current situation as it really is, not as it used to be or as they would like it to be, and

  •   Mobilize the appropriate responses

This is a lot harder than it sounds. Seeing reality requires that leaders remove the filters that screen out the things they might not want to see, acknowledge their own and their companies’ shortcomings, and accept the need for change. When you miss a delivery, it’s easy to blame a supplier for not getting the parts to you on time, or to blame the customer for having demanding specifications. It’s a lot tougher to admit that your procurement system is messed up or to accept that the failure to give the customer what he wants is your failure and not his failure to be satisfied. Facing reality is about personally accepting the case for change. This is often referred to as “acknowledging the burning platform.” At Ameritech, former CEO Bill Weiss and current
CEO Dick Notebaert faced reality by grasping the fact that the Chicago-based Baby Bell could not survive without entering new businesses. Merely offering phone service, even reliable, economical phone service, would no longer be enough. In a global telecommunications market, it needed to be playing in more arenas. It meant making the tough calls to stop doing some of the things it had always done, and the even gutsier calls to build new businesses. Founders of new businesses often see realities that older competitors in the field miss. Fred Smith started Federal Express because he saw the reality that there would be an enormous demand for rapid delivery of packages in the new global marketplace and that this would make the economics of setting up such a service highly favorable. While people already in the business fretted and complained about the difficulty of modernizing older delivery systems, Smith set out to build a completely new one. In retailing, while others were battling for the Pocket books of America’s increasingly urban populace, Sam Walton saw the reality that there was a huge customer base in small towns across the country that was being ignored. His response was to create a company that revolutionized the concept of the general merchandiser. The founders of Southwest Airlines had a different sense of reality about air travel when they began offering short-haul, low-fare, no-frills flights. That Southwest Airlines has become the most consistently profitable American airline is a testament to the reality that Herb Kelleher and his colleagues defined. While their competitors were looking inward, trying to maintain “business as usual” and doing a bit of fine-tuning around the edges, Smith, Walton, and Kelleher were looking outward to see what was actually going on with real customers, in the real marketplace, and taking the radical actions needed to please them. In established businesses, seeing reality is often more difficult because it means letting go of ingrained ways of thinking and working. Andy Grove of Intel, in his book Only the Paranoid Survive, describes the shakeouts in the computer industry in the 1980s as some companies—including Intel and Microsoft—adapted to new realities, while others such as IBM, DEC, Sperry, Univac, and Wang failed to do so. As Grove explains it, around 1980, there were several successful computer companies that had proprietary designs for the chips and hardware in their computers, as well as proprietary designs for the operating systems and application software that ran them. These companies sold their large and expensive machines through their own sales and distribution networks, and they all made lots of money. Grove calls this the vertical period of the computer industry, because each company was a self-contained, vertically integrated player. Then the invention of the microprocessor changed everything. The microprocessor carried the same power as its bigger brethren, and the same microprocessor could be put into any desktop computer. Suddenly, a dozen different companies, including Compaq, Packard Bell, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and others, were able to start making and selling virtually the same high-powered computers. As advances in microprocessors accelerated, Compaq was quick to adopt the latest technologies. In 1983, it introduced its first portable computer eighteen months before IBM’s hit the market. The company, founded only in 1982, reached $1 billion in sales in 1987, the shortest time ever for an American public firm to reach this milestone. Michael Dell also spotted the opportunity. As a college student at the University of Texas in Austin, Dell had lots of energy and a love for computers and risk. He did not, however, have much love or patience for attending classes. So rather than go to lectures about business, he set about creating one. He would toil away in his dorm room lashing together standard parts into uniquely configured PCs that delivered just what his customers wanted. Dell saw that the new reality of interchangeable components meant a massive opportunity for his business to reach millions of buyers. The company now does over $5 billion a year in sales and continues to build all of its computers to order. Among those who ignored the tide and clung to their old line industry maps was IBM. At first it appeared that IBM was embracing the PC revolution. Its PC machines were among the hottest-selling in the market. But deep down, IBM fundamentally misunderstood the new shape of the industry. Grove, who personally witnessed the revolution as a supplier to IBM, says the company was “composed of a group of people who had won time and time again, decade after decade, in the battle among vertical computer players. The managers who ran IBM grew up in this world. When the industry changed, they attempted to use the same type of thinking regarding product development and competitiveness that had worked so well in the past.” As an example, Grove cites the development of OS/2. This operating system was technically outstanding. However, IBM didn’t see the importance that open architecture and interchangeability had come to play in making PCs attractive to customers, so it was painfully slow in making OS/2 available for computers from other manufacturers. It took IBM almost three years to sell 600,000 copies of OS/2 (of which very few were used), while Microsoft only needed ten months to sell approximately 13 million copies of Windows 3.0. When IBM finally decided to make some aggressive changes to OS/2, it was too late. Microsoft had captured people’s imagination with Windows. OS/2 was a dismal failure, and a waste of money for IBM. The same misunderstandings that plagued IBM’s development of OS/2 virtually killed its efforts in PCs. Initially strong in PCs, IBM squandered its lead in the 1990s by being a “laggard with products,” according to Bob Stephenson, who took over the PC business in 1995. The company was a “wholly unreliable supplier” as it clung to its vertical model for the industry and behaved antagonistically toward retailers and resellers, who actually sell a majority of the PCs in the U.S. It started to turn this around in 1993 and was losing billions as late as 1994. It took the company until 1996 to fully revamp its attitude and operations. Similarly, DEC failed to see the realities of the PC revolution. The company had burst onto the scene and broken into the mainframe dominated market in the 1960s with its minicomputers. But faced with the next wave of technological development, the company was nearly killed in the early 1980s because it stuck with proprietary designs. In 1984, its leaders were still describing PCs as “cheap, short-lived, and not very accurate machines.” DEC and IBM both almost died as the result of their leaders’ failures to confront reality. As I think about their blunders, I imagine knights headed for the battlefield. Decorated with medals from past wars and flush with praises of others, they enter the battle confidently. But they enter it blindfolded and are slaughtered mercilessly. From its peak value of $106 billion in 1987, IBM had destroyed approximately $80 billion in stock market value by 1993. It also went from being ranked No. 1 in Fortune’s 1986 list of America’s most admired companies to No. 206 in 1993. In 1987, DEC’s sales were growing at more than 20% a year. It was the darling of Wall Street when its stock hit a peak price of $199 before the 1987 crash. After demand for their once-popular mini-computers began to lag, its “matrix” management system of interlocking and overlapping committees was too slow to stop the company’s downfall. At the close of the 1990 fiscal year, DEC reported it’s first-ever loss as a public company. What followed were three years of poorly executed and ineffectual turnaround plans that robbed even more value from shareholders. The company’s market value, which peaked at $26 billion in 1987, had shrunk to $4.6 billion in July 1992. That’s when founder Ken Olsen was ousted and Robert Palmer was asked to try to save the sinking ship a job he is still struggling to do. Facing reality is the first crucial step that leaders must take if their organizations are going to respond appropriately. But that is just the starting point. Once the leader has figured out the problem/challenge/opportunity, he or she has to:

  •   Decide on a response,

  •   Determine what actions need to be taken to deliver that response, and

  •  Make sure those actions get implemented promptly and well.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FUNCTIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Function of the Holy Spirit. This list of the 70 Functions of the Holy Spirit come from her research. He leads and directs. (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 2:27; 4:1; Acts 8:29; Romans 8:14) The Holy Spirit speaks – in, to and through. (Matthew 10:20; Acts 1:16; 2:4; 13:2; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7) He gives power to cast out devils. (Matthew 12:28) He releases power. (Luke 4:14) The Holy Spirit anoints. (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38) The Holy Spirit “comes upon” or “falls on”. (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 2:25; 3:22; 4:18; John 1:32,33; Acts 10:44; 11:15) He baptizes and fills. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 1:15,41,67; 3:16, 4:1; John 1:33; Acts 1:4-5; 2:4; 4:8,31; 6:3,5; 7:55; 10:47; 11:24; 13:9,52; 1 Corinthians 12:12) He gives new birth. (John 3:5,8) He leads into worship. (John 4:23) He flows like a river from the spirit man. (John 7:38-39) He ministers truth. (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) He dwells in people. (John 14:

SETTING A DIRECTION VS PLANNING AND BUDGETING

Since the function of leadership is to produce change, setting the direction of that change is fundamental to leadership. Setting direction is never the same as planning or even long-term planning, although people often confuse the two. Planning is a management process, deductive in nature and designed to produce orderly results, not change. Setting a direction is more inductive. Leaders gather a broad range of data and look for patterns, relationships, and linkages that help explain things. What’s more, the direction-setting aspect of leadership does not produce plans; it creates vision and strategies. These describe a business, technology, or corporate culture in terms of what it should become over the long term and articulate a feasible way of achieving this goal. Most discussions of vision have a tendency to degenerate into the mystical. The implication is that a vision is something mysterious that mere mortals, even talented ones, could never hope to have. But developing

ON BUHARI, NEW YORK TMES WROTE

Four months after seizing power, Nigeria’s military leaders appear to be suffering an erosion of popular support. Last Dec. 31, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Buhari led a group of young officers in a coup against the civilian Government of President Shehu Shagari, saying the takeover was necessary to save Nigeria, Africa’s richest and most populous nation, from economic collapse. The military intervention appeared at the time to enjoy enthusiastic support from a broad range of Nigeria’s population. Many intellectuals argued that the corruption and incompetence of the Shagari administration had made drastic action both necessary and inevitable. Traders, merchants and people in the streets welcomed the soldiers and looked forward to a quick improvement in their standard of living. Growing Disappointment Recently, however, there seems to be growing disappointment with both the military Government’s approach and pace. Since coming to power, this Government has not found a sing