Foco, foco, foco.

Há anos que aqui no blogue escrevo sobre as empresas que querem continuar a ser decatlonistas como o Bruce Jenner. Por exemplo, em 2015 escrevi A sua empresa tem cada vez menos espaço para ser um Bruce Jenner, e há dias no outro blogue escrevi "How to increase the economic return on certification? (Part XII)" onde voltei a referir que as emperesas decatlonistas não têm qualquer hipótese contra "salami slicers".

Entretanto, ontem Roger Martin publicou "What has Changed the Most for Strategy". Sublinho:

"Pick a WTP in which you aim to create a matching and powerful HTW. 

Invest in that WTP/HTW combination quickly and aggressively.

If your WTP is too broad and/or your investment is slow or tentative, someone else will be able to out-invest you — and customers will figure that out fast.

And when they do, it is a quick downward spiral for you."

Roger Martin descreve aqui o colapso da estratégia “decatlonista” — empresas que tentam cobrir demasiados “Where to Play” (mercados, produtos, clientes) acabam por não investir o suficiente em nenhum deles.

A empresa especialista, ao contrário, concentra investimento e foco, ganha escala e vence. 

"The path to a logical competitive conclusion is shorter. In 1981, mediocre companies could survive as viable entities for decades.

...

They could then but they can’t now.

If you can’t find a Where-to-Play (WTP) in which you can put in place a How-to-Win (HTW), the clock is ticking fast for your demise."

Num mundo de custos fixos elevados e de descoberta instantânea de valor, as empresas generalistas não têm tempo nem margem. O mercado elimina rapidamente quem não tem uma vantagem clara — exactamente o que acontece às empresas “decatlonistas”, boas em tudo e excelentes em nada. 

"If you are investing energy and capital in activities without an intention of winning, you are fooling yourself. I hear it all the time: Roger, we can't exit that mediocre product line/business unit because our overall sales will shrink. [Moi ici: Eu também e sempre me fez impressão] They foolishly assume that their position in that mediocre business is stable. It isn't. It will be crushed — quicker than ever. And it will continue to bleed investment resources away from product lines/businesses that have a chance of an upward spiral.

Figure out a place to stand - and fight to win. Out-invest your competition. If you can't, you are fooling yourself. If you can, double down and take the fight to your competition."

Voltamos às formigas num piquenique. 

Estratégia trocada em miúdos

O conceito de estratégia numa linguagem comum.

No artigo que escrevi (Parte XII) (original de 2015 aqui), tentei mostrar a importância de distinguir quais os processos que merecem excelência e quais os que apenas precisam de fiabilidade. Usei a metáfora do decatlonista: um atleta completo, capaz de competir com outros generalistas, mas que perde inevitavelmente quando enfrenta especialistas — os chamados salami slicers. O mesmo acontece com empresas que tentam ser boas em tudo sem decidir onde realmente têm de brilhar.

É nesse ponto que as palavras de Joe Rogan ressoam. Ele explica que não é possível ser o melhor em todas as frentes ao mesmo tempo. Para alcançar o topo, é preciso aceitar limites, escolher onde colocar foco e energia e reconhecer que esse foco transforma não só o desempenho, mas também a forma como nos relacionamos com os outros e com o mundo.

A estratégia, como Michael Porter nos recorda, é sobre escolhas e compromissos.

• Não se pode ser o melhor em tudo.
• Hiperfocar numa área acarreta custos noutras.
• A arte está em decidir conscientemente: o que priorizar e o que deixar para trás?

Para as empresas — e também para as pessoas — o mesmo princípio aplica-se. O sucesso não vem de

fazer mais, mas de escolher deliberadamente onde se quer ser excelente e aceitar os sacrifícios que

acompanham essa escolha.

Onde é que a sua empresa escolheu ser excelente — e o que decidiu não seguir? 

"Estratégia para outros, a minha empresa não precisa"

"I frequently get challenged by leaders of companies in highly fragmented industries as to why I am I so obsessed about them winning. They argue that they don't need to think about winning over every other player. They just need to do a good job serving their customers."

Parei a leitura deste artigo, "Strategy in Highly Fragmented Industries" para recordar experiências com este tipo de lideranças:

• Falta de fogo no rabo - Análise do contexto (parte VIII)

Por falar em rabo, alguns leitores deste blogue hão-de lembrar-se da estória de um destes líderes dizer:

"Os clientes são como os peidos, uns vão e outros vêm"

Voltemos ao artigo: 

"That was the case because playing in my highly fragmented market taught me how to play at a level of competitiveness that was completely inadequate for the world outside my little market."

Tão verdade que até dói!!! 

Recordo outro tema: Bruce Jenner - A sua empresa tem cada vez menos espaço para ser um Bruce Jenner

Um último recorte:

"But, if those inside the industry aren't making the investments that produce a better way of serving customers, somebody else outside the industry will. And the best targets are fragmented industries in which no single player thinks that it needs to invest to Play-to-Win."

Pois, gente que acha que pensar estratégia é para outros, não para a sua empresa. 

 

Beware of the invisible water in the tank

Seth Godin in a recent blog post, “The dominant culture”, wrote:

 “One of the great cartoons involves two goldfish in a tank talking to one another. One responds in surprise, “wait, there’s water?””

This remind me of a growing concern in my analysis of the business world. Too often we analyze information about certain cases, about certain solutions, about certain methodologies and approaches, without being aware of the assumptions on which they are based. Why? Because no one cared about the water in the tank. 

 

For example, for years and years I have heard comments and stories, I have read wonders about the Toyota Production System.

 

Is it spectacular? Yes!

 

However, it was only in 2017 that I read in an article something that nobody ever says, either because they are unaware or because it is the water in the tank ... - Toyota "freezes" production 8 weeks in advance.

 

How many companies can afford to do this? And how many companies cannot do it, but try in good faith to implement the Toyota Production System in their production?

 

Recently also, the Wall Street Journal published an interesting article, “The Surprising Way Companies Can Shore Up Their Financial Strength”:

“The Drucker Institute’s statistical model serves as the basis for the Management Top 250, an annual ranking produced in partnership with The Wall Street Journal.

…

In total, we examined 820 large, publicly traded companies last year through the lens of 34 indicators across five categories: customer satisfaction, employee engagement and development, innovation, social responsibility and financial strength.

To construct our ranking, corporations are compared in each of the five areas, as well as in their overall effectiveness, through standardized scores with a range of 0 to 100 and a mean of 50.

…

Our model reflects shareholder returns, along with a variety of metrics that capture how effectively a firm has deployed its capital, among other things.

.

For companies in the health-care sector, we found over the course of the seven-year period a significant statistical relationship between financial strength and one other category: employee engagement and development. To be precise, a five-point gain in the latter produced a 0.79-point increase in the former.

.

That may not look like a big deal on its face. But it would have been enough to vault a company from the 50th percentile in financial strength to the 56th in last year’s rankings—up 38 spots on the list.

…

Meanwhile, it is a whole other story for companies in the industrial sector, which includes the airlines. There, it is social responsibility that should command the most attention. A five-point rise in that category translated into a 0.49-point upturn in financial strength.

…

For example, a health-care company wanting to lift its customer-satisfaction score can expect to reap an extra 0.49 points in that category for every five-point advance in employee engagement and development. But an industrial company hoping to achieve a similar bump in customer satisfaction should shoot for a five-point improvement in another area: innovation.”

While reading the article I thought about the water in the tank. Do these recommendations, do these relationships apply equally to all companies in the same economic sector?

I don't think so.

 

Some days ago, someone made the following comment to me:

 

“KPIs for production are simple: efficiency, low losses.”

 

When I heard that the picture of Bruce Jenner came to my mind.

Beware of the invisible water in the tank.