Tags

  • Published on

    Moving beyond 'USP' and 'point of difference'

    Decision Making Governance Leadership Performance Strategy
    A couple of weeks ago, I met with a recently appointed chief executive who wanted to test some ideas in his quest to identify the company's USP (unique sales proposition) and, therefore, its point of difference. Paul's concern was that the company was operating in a crowded and competitive marketplace without a coherent strategy, and that success was dependent on standing out. We had a fascinating conversation—the essence of which is repeated here because Paul's question seems to be topical (I have just come off a phone call with a chairman (different company) who posed a very similar question). ​
    I asked Paul to describe the company and summarise the present reality. He recounted the company's past successes, current capabilities, market position and strong product line. Then he said that market share had drifted downwards in recent years. After sipping my coffee, I asked Paul why the company existed. He looked blankly at me as if I had come down in the last rain shower. "To make a healthy profit, of course".
    "Of course", I said. "I expected to hear that. But doesn't every company have that goal? How does being different serve this goal, especially when barriers to entry are so low these days that difference is only temporary, at best?
    "Apart from serving our collective egos, that you have something different (or even unique) to offer is of little consequence to most busy people. It matters even less when a competitor offers something seemingly similar for a lower price. When this happens, it's a race to the bottom—and that's dumb. Shouldn't your motivation be to make a difference and help your clients achieve their goals? With this in mind, might a better objective be to identify your company's 'point of impact'? In my experience, people choose to embrace your ideas and buy your product because they believe in you and what you represent. Imagine the response if MLK had uttered "I have a plan"—that speech would have been a footnote, gathering dust in the annals of history. But he didn't."
    The conversation moved to other matters. Then, as we finished our coffees, Paul smiled knowing that he had some work to do. I wished him well and we parted ways.
    Do you know why your company exists? The next time your board and executive gathers to review strategy and set future goals, start by asking this question. I respectfully suggest that you don't move on until a lucid answer is both determined and agreed.
  • Published on

    Proposal for shareholders to approve management work. Why?

    Accountability Decision Making Ethics Governance Leadership Performance
    Image description
    News has emerged from Volkswagen this week that the board has proposed that shareholders formally approve the work of the company's top management team. Wow, I'm amazed. Isn't that the board's job?
    The board exists as a decision-making proxy for absent shareholders and, in so doing, the board should provide oversight of management including of its work. Regular board meetings and other board–management interactions provide the appropriate forum for this reporting, verification and monitoring to occur. In contrast, annual meetings provide a forum for the board and management to provide an account of the resultant company performance to the shareholders.
    That the Volkswagen board of directors is recommending that the work of management is approved by the shareholders creates the impression that the board is not doing its job of overseeing management adequately. While this could be an obfuscation (following the trouble the board and management found itself in over the emissions scandal), if the board is attempting to shift responsibility (for oversight of management away from the board) it needs to be called out. The shareholders then need to determine whether the current board is delivering value or simply defending a position—it's own.
  • Published on

    What is going on with New Zealand's largest company?

    Accountability Decision Making Ethics Governance Leadership Management Performance Strategy
    Picture
    After several years of paying high milk prices to its farmer-suppliers, Fonterra has hit hard times. International demand for milk products has slumped. On the supply side, prices paid to farmer-suppliers have tumbled. Some have said the problem is primarily related to changing demand especially in China, whereas others have suggested that Fonterra is complicit having stimulated supply to 'feed' its massive processing plants. To make matters worse, Fonterra has started losing farmer-suppliers to its competitors and it seems to be exercising "considerable discretion" with payment terms as well. 
    The latest commentary, an interview on Paul Henry's breakfast show today, lay out some of the challenges in plain English. Click here to watch the video clip. (disclosure:  James Lockhart is my doctoral supervisor, but had no prior knowledge of this interview.)
    The situation, which has been brewing for a several years, is messy to say the least. Other companies including Tatua and Open Country Dairy seem to coping much better. This begs several questions including whether the Fonterra board and management are actually in control; whether the corporate strategy is sound or not; and, whether the company has the financial and managerial resources to respond effectively. While I'm nowhere near close enough answer these questions, the old saying "where there's smoke there's fire" seems to apply.
  • Published on

    Would you like to learn more about #corpgov and board effectiveness?

    Conferences Decision Making Governance Leadership Performance Research Speaking Engagements Strategy
    Are you based in or near London or Paris? Do you want to learn more about board effectiveness, corporate governance and how boards can exert influence from and beyond the boardroom?​ ​If so, please read on.
    In a few weeks I will be visiting London (24–31 May) and Paris (1–4 June) to speak with directors and trust board members about board practices, board effectiveness and emerging trends in corporate governance; share the results of my latest research; attend meetings; and, to present a paper at the EURAM conference.
    ​If you have a question (perhaps along the lines of these ones below) or a request and would like to take advantage of my proximity, please get in touch. I'd be delighted to hear from you and to schedule a meeting. ​
    • Do you want to increase the effectiveness of your board?
    • Would you like to know about my latest research on boards and firm performance?
    • Do you have a question about boards, board practice, corporate governance or a related topic?
    • Do you want to explore how to apply some of the suggestions I've shared on Musings?
    • Are you looking for a speaker to address an event or conference sometime in the next 12 months?
    If you've answered 'yes' to any of these questions...you know what to do. I am at your service.
  • Published on

    Beyond 'unique' and 'different': Is your strategy impactful?

    Decision Making Governance Performance Strategy
    About 25 years ago, I remember seeing, for first time, a rather compelling video on competitive strategy. Michael E Porter, a Harvard professor, spoke about competitive strategy and sustainable competitive advantage. He said that competitive advantage (and, therefore, business success) was largely a matter of deciding whether to pursue a cost (price) or differentiation strategy. More recently, others have suggested that every product/service/company needs to have a unique selling proposition (USP) or a point of difference.
    Fast forward to 2016. Is this pathway still viable? In a crowded world, new entrants come and go, all the time. Barriers to entry for new products and services are getting lower. In this environment, how realistic is it to think that any USP might actually be unique, let alone sustainably so? Also, a product that is different or cheaper is of little consequence if no one buys it.
    Difference is important, but not in the way most people think (unique features &c.). Difference works only until someone copies you. Then you are the same. Your difference, your USP, is no longer unique. Further, at a population level, product or service success doesn't depend on price or feature set. ​Most customers don't care what products or services do. They do care about the what difference it will make to them.
    This challenge is arguably even more important at a company level (i.e., corporate strategy). So, next time your board and management team convenes a strategic thinking workshop, as part of a strategy development process, change the playing field. Ask you facilitator to write these two questions on the whiteboard—and to keep coming back to them throughout the session.
    You might be surprised at the result.
    ​
  • Published on

    What does the Age of 'self(ie)' mean for business?

    Decision Making Governance Leadership Performance Strategy
    One Saturday morning, about fifteen years ago, my elderly father-in-law and I sat in the morning sun, sharing a few stories over a cup of tea. He was asking about my then burgeoning advisory business and family life. I was interested in hearing him reflect on his experiences in business, particularly his career-long journey with the same employer—from a junior staff member to, eventually, chief executive.
    As he spoke, Bill reminded me that he only ever had one employer, and that although he had been blessed to contribute at many levels he had only ever completed one job interview, that being when he first got a job. He went on to talk about the power of team over individual, and of loyalty to both your employer and your own principles. Much has changed since he retired in 1984, not the least of which has been the erosion of the values that served as Bill's North Star throughout his career.
    Today, most things are negotiable. For many, the motivation has changed, from providing service (to the employer) to self-service. Never has this been more apparent in the everyday behaviours of staff, particularly the younger generation. If we don't get want we want, or if we get a better offer elsewhere, we act. That staff and customers are more interested in self(ie) has huge implications for productivity and value creation in the longer-term. While team productivity is a matter for the chief executive, value creation is the responsibility of the board on behalf of the shareholder. How is your board wrestling with this? Does your board regularly allocate time to understand the changing environment, consider strategic options and make strategic decisions? Companies that expect to thrive in the future need to address the emergent challenge of 'self(ie)'. 
    The best place to start the discussion is in the boardroom.