THE STORY
After 17 years, the tragic crash of TWA flight 800 is back
in the news. A documentary has come out claiming that the official explanation
of the crash (static electricity igniting the fuel) is wrong. Instead, the
documentary endorses the alternative explanation that the plane had been
attacked with a rocket, perhaps sent by terrorists.
I have a couple of thoughts about this. First, I can easily
understand why so many prefer the rocket attack explanation. After all, it always
feels better to blame some outside force (beyond our control) for our problems
than to admit internal incompetence, either in the plane design, maintenance or
operation.
My
second thought is that for the 230 aboard that flight who died 17 years ago, it
largely doesn’t matter anymore which theory is correct. Neither explanation
will bring them back to life or restore the plane so that they could reach
their original destination. For them, it is too late.
The business world is full of tragedies. Companies crash and
burn, negatively affecting hundreds, if not thousands, of people. In terms of
financial impact, these corporate tragedies are larger than the tragedy of TWA
flight 800.
When these events happen, it is common for the leaders of
these destroyed organizations to take an approach similar to the one in the TWA
documentary—they try to blame it on outside forces beyond their control. “It
wasn’t me or my leadership which caused the disaster,” they say. “No. It was
the fault of some evil outside force which nobody could have prevented.”
Outside forces which get the blame can include international
economic conditions, the weather, political unrest, too much (or too little)
government intervention, illegal market manipulations, unfair competitive
environment, and so on. The logic is that despite the Herculean effort of
management to counter these evil outside forces, the situation was just too
great. Nobody could have saved the company.
In a narrow sense, there may even be some truth to these
claims. Dire situations can be devastating to companies. But this explanation
only works if your time horizon is narrow.
In reality, strong, well run companies can anticipate most
of the potential tragedies which could occur. Using strategic planning and
scenario analyses, they can anticipate and be prepared for the worst. In fact,
the great strategic plans avoid the disasters entirely by steering their
company in a new direction before the outside forces come to pass.
Sure, it’s easy to claim that nothing can be done if you
wait until your “plane” is on fire and already close to crashing before looking
for a solution. But, in most cases, advanced strategic thinking years earlier
could have provided a solution so that you avoid the fire altogether.
The best time for analysis is not after the crash occurs. By
then, it is too late. The tragic results have already occurred; the damage is
already done. No, the best time for analysis is years, if not decades in
advance. That way, you have sufficient time to use the knowledge to create a
path which puts a company out of harm’s way.
The underlying principle here is that the best time for critical
strategic analysis is not during (or after) a crisis, but before the crisis,
when times are still relatively good. By attacking potential future disasters
while times are still good, you have many advantages:
1)
You have more time to prepare and implement a solution;
2)
You have more cash flow to apply to the solution;
3)
You still have a strong reputation, good market share,
and a consumer following, making the transition easier for your key
stakeholders;
4)
You can analyze the problem more rationally, instead of
making rash moves in the heat of the disaster.
5)
If you have to retreat from a business to avoid the
future disaster, there is still time to find buyers for it who will pay a good
price.
By contrast, if you wait until the disaster is upon you
before creating an exit strategy, the situation is working against you:
1)
You have very little time to find and implement a new
course;
2)
Your options are limited because your cash flow is
already decimated and customers have already started abandoning you.
3)
The crisis is so obvious that nobody wants to bail you
out by paying a handsome sum to take over your disaster.
Example #1:
Department Stores
Look at the situation JCPenney is in. It’s on fire and looks
like it could be headed for a crash. There is a lot of speculation about what
or who to blame for the disastrous results of late, such as losing about a
third of their business.
Some would say that the problems for the department store
industry are so bad that there was really nothing that any leader could have
done to save JCPenney, be that Ron Johnson, the recently fired CEO, or Mike Ullman,
the replacement executive (as well as having been the top executive prior to
Johnson). The reasoning is that the
department store industry was doomed due to outside economic, technological and
competitive forces. It is beyond redemption.
But that is only if you start trying to fix the problem now,
after the plane is already on fire.
Look at the Dayton Hudson Corporation. They used to be a
major player in the department store industry decades ago. The executives there
were smart. They knew that the best days for the department store format were
behind them. They knew that the format was on a course headed for eventual bad
times.
So while times were still good, Dayton Hudson started
selling off its department store properties. First, they got rid of their
holdings in the fast-growing southwestern part of the US in the 1980s, when
competitors were trying to out-bid each other to buy them. They finally sold
the remainder of their department stores to the May Company (another department
store company) in 2004 (for a good price).
But then the bad times started to hit the industry. Soon
thereafter, the May Company was in such bad shape that they had to sell
themselves to Federated (now called Macy’s) at a terrible price. And now, almost
all the remaining department store companies are struggling to find a winning
strategy, like JCPenney, Sears and Bon-Ton.
What did Dayton Hudson do? They took the money from the sale
of the department stores to invest in the future, their Target store chain. Dayton
Hudson (now called Target Corp.) is doing well and avoided the department store
mess.
The point is that if you wait until the industry is in
trouble (like JCPenney) before crafting a solution, you will find it very
difficult. But if you start crafting a solution while the times were still good
(like Dayton Hudson), you have a greater chance of success.
Other Examples
A similar situation occurred in grocery wholesaling. To an
astute observer, it was obvious decades ago that the small independent grocer
(the key customer of grocery wholesalers) was entering a troubling future.
Walmart supercenters and the big grocery chains were putting pressure on many
of the independents. Eventually, it was likely that many of these independent
grocers would be out of business. It doesn’t take an expert to figure out that
if your key customer is going out of business, it doesn’t bode well for those
supplying them.
Therefore, while times were still good, Cardinal Foods
decided to act. They used their cash flow to diversify into a field where their
distribution expertise had longer life—pharmaceuticals. Now, Cardinal Foods,
whose name was changed to Cardinal Health, is a strong #21 on the Fortune 500
while many of the few remaining grocery wholesalers are in challenging times.
Google did not wait until its computer-based business model
was in trouble before pushing hard into the smartphone space with Android. Google
did it while it could still leverage its strength. Amazon did not wait for its
strength in the computer-based ecommerce era to end before launching
Kindle. By contrast, Zynga was already
in trouble from smartphones taking over gaming from the computer when it
decided to take the challenge seriously (and is having serious problems now
making the transition because it waited until it was in a position of weakness).
There are many more examples I could mention. I’ve talked
about some in previous blogs here, here and here.
All strategies eventually fail. If you wait until failure
comes before starting to change, you will most likely not change
successfully. By contrast, if you start
adapting while times are still good, you are more likely to make a successful
transition.
Think of strategic planning as a parachute to help escape
problems. But a parachute is of no use if you wait until the plane has already
crashed before putting it on. It only helps if you escape while the plane is
still flying.
Gerald,
ReplyDeleteThe whole concept of what needs to happen before a disaster seems like it would embody the basic idea of being strategic.
In fact I think you could push your point further by pointing out that strategy is nothing if it isn't tested first. Since all strategies are basically a set of assumptions and subsequent choices, they lend themselves to needing to be tested or validated... regularly.
I write it better in this blog, let me know your thoughts:
http://rodneybrim.com/think-strategy-think-risky-assumptions