For years I professed that
success in business is easy and that failure takes work. Now after almost two decades of this mantra I
see the subtle wrinkles. Success is easy
when one has focus, vision and determination.
Without which, darkness ensues and the frustrations of continuous
failure stimulate the production of more lackluster plan; in its best case lackluster
organizational results, in its worse torturous organizational failure.
Several news releases of this
week solidified the revisions to my beliefs. This week amidst market indecisiveness
Radio Shack stock was downgraded to a sell with the projected one year stock
price of $0.00. How does an organization
go from a high of $80 per share in 2000 to a projected stock price of $0.00
within the next twelve months? Although
there is probably a multitude of contributing factors; the end result is a
history of spiraling stock price. Once
the cornerstone of home electronics has given way to the likes of Amazon, eBay
and Wal-Mart, was it the pricing, location or simply not being in tune with
customer needs.
However, I truly believe that the
desire of executive leadership was never mandated to crash the enterprise in
some kind of retail kamikaze explosion.
What I do believe, and I am only an outsider with no knowledge of the organization,
is that at some point the organization lost their vision; their identity. Like a ship in the storm, the loss of
identity made it drift where ever economics would have it.
So many organizations have their
vision statement framed in each conference room, etched on their pens and as
cute pop-ups on their intra-net.
However, if not part of every breath taken by every staff member, the
vision is simply cute words on a wall.
The vision of an organization must be a living breathing part of the organization;
it must be emblazoned in every heart and mind of each team member. It gives meaning and purpose to each task,
but most importantly it is the acoustic resonance for each decision. Decisions made without the resonances of the
visions statement could as well be made in the dead of space.
The power of corporate decision
making is tantamount to each breath of the organization. Until recently I never
appreciated the depth of corporate decision making running the spectrum from
decidophobia to self serving ego driven gains.
Decidophobia is only enhanced when decisions are circumscribed with prizes
and punishments.
Making decisions on behalf of
someone is easy, because the decision maker has no ‘skin in the game’. A spectator at a football game can easily say
to swap out a player. Likewise a
shareholder can easily make recommendations for corporate change. However, until the decision maker has boots
on the ground and are in the trenches they have no ‘skin in the game’. Such
was the lunacy of stakeholders producing a 300 page treatise on what is wrong with
Oliver Garden and how it is losing market share. Some of the suggested changes outlined were,
salting pasta water to cutting back on the number and size of breadsticks. With no boots on the ground and no vision
statement to lean into, salty water may be the only perceived saving grace –
maybe not.
Decision makers must have ‘skin
in the game’ and boots on the ground to make sound directional decisions. According to John Maxwell in The 21
Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, leaders need to sacrifice self for the
better of the organization; to do that strengthens the leader and the
decision. Decisions where leaders
sacrifice personal gain for the betterment of the organization sends a message
to the entire organization, but more importantly focuses the decisions on
longer term goals of the organization.
In Emerging Markets Rule: Growth Strategies of the New Global Giants,
authors Mauro Guillen and Esteban Garcia-Canal researched how emerging market
multi-national organizations are outperforming their US counterparts and some
of the contributing factors. After
considerable research Guillen et al. identified three main traits that emerging
multinational organizations share which are also those attributes US organizations
struggle with. Emerging market multi-nationals
are quick to execute, exploit corners of the market and acquire smart.
Guillen et al. have basically clarified
the perennial debate about which is more important in an organization, strategy
or execution. It is execution. Without execution the only thing that changes
is time, which impacts the market, and those who are willing to executive on
decisions. The take away here is indecision
is a decision. Indecision is the decision to take a timeout, while the market
and its participants continue to play.
Recently I have been privileged enough to witness the results of
decidophobia, in a few instances, and it is truly amazing. As the fly on the wall, one can easily
observe what is not being seen by those within the organization. From the most
seemingly innocuous sense of losing multi-million dollar contracts on the need
for ‘more data’ before making a decision, to moral decimation as the teams
endure continued chaos while leadership action that never arrives.