Comunicar com clareza!

“When you’re the CEO or the founder of a company . . . you’ve got to say ‘This is what we’re doing,’ and then you have to model it. Because if you don’t model it, no one’s going to do it."
...
For sound decision making, esprit de corps, and superior performance, top-line goals must be clearly understood throughout the organization. Yet by their own admission, two of three companies fail to communicate these goals consistently.
...
Leaders must get across the why as well as the what. Their people need more than milestones for motivation.
...
In other words: Key results are the levers you pull, the marks you hit to achieve the goal. If an objective is well framed, three to five KRs will usually be adequate to reach it. Too many can dilute focus and obscure progress. Besides, each key result should be a challenge in its own right. If you’re certain you’re going to nail it, you’re probably not pushing hard enough.
...
Keep in mind, though, that it’s the shorter-term goals that drive the actual work. They keep annual plans honest—and executed.
Clear-cut time frames intensify our focus and commitment; nothing moves us forward like a deadline. To win in the global marketplace, organizations need to be more nimble than ever before. In my experience, a quarterly OKR cadence is best suited to keep pace with today’s fast-changing markets. A three-month horizon curbs procrastination and leads to real performance gains.”

Excerto de: Doerr, John. “Measure What Matters: How Google, Bono, and the Gates Foundation Rock the World with OKRs”.

"reality denial is more about identity than information"

Relacionar "Afinal não há dinheiro"  com "How to Talk to Someone Who Refuses to Accept Reality, According to Behavioral Science":

"Facts don't win arguments.
...
When faced with threatening information, people often stick their heads in the sand.
...
The problem is almost certainly one of emotions, not knowledge.
...
And because reality denial is more about identity than information, throwing facts at the problem usually backfires. "Research on a phenomenon called the backfire effect shows we tend to dig in our heels when we are presented with facts that cause us to feel bad about our identity, self-worth, worldview or group belonging,""

reparem no impacte do turismo na desertificação do centro das cidades:
2006 - https://t.co/8PXRpffUhU
2011 - https://t.co/qnjB8DckdA
2013 - https://t.co/A7ZYGRaASP

Quando os factos estragam a narrativa... esquecem-se os factos

— Carlos P da Cruz (@ccz1) July 13, 2018

"the way you frame things affects how you make decisions"

"Reframe Your Situation

Most people are loss-averse. Multiple studies demonstrate that the way you frame things affects how you make decisions. The research shows, for instance, that if one treatment for a new disease is described as 95% effective and another as 5% ineffective, people prefer the former even though the two are statistically identical. Every innovation, every change, every transformation—personal or professional—comes with potential upsides and downsides. And though most of us instinctively focus on the latter, it’s possible to shift that mindset and decrease our fear.

One of our favorite ways of doing this is the “infinite game” approach, developed by New York University professor James Carse. His advice is to stop seeing the rules, boundaries, and purpose of the “game” you’re playing—the job you’re after, the project you’ve been assigned, the career path you’re on—as fixed. That puts you in a win-or-lose mentality in which uncertainty heightens your anxiety. In contrast, infinite players recognize uncertainty as an essential part of the game—one that adds an element of surprise and possibility and enables them to challenge their roles and the game’s parameters.

...

Chouinard [Moi ici: Fundador da Patagonia] has learned to face uncertainty with courage—and in fact to be energized by it—because he views his role as improving the game, not just playing it. “Managers of a business that want to be around for the next 100 years had better love change,” he advises in his book. “When there [is] no crisis, the wise leader…will invent one.”"

Depois de ler isto, recordar o que é mais comum em Portugal: resistir, chorar, chamar o papá estado, em vez de abraçar a mudança:

•  "Transforming An Obstacle Into A Design Constraint" 
• Curiosidade do dia
• Engaging emergence 

Trechos retirados de "How to Overcome Your Fear of the Unknown" 

Quem são os clientes mais rentáveis? (parte IV)

Ainda acerca do livro "How Companies Win" de Rick Kash e David Calhoun:
.
"It is a dichotomy that haunts almost every business on the planet: lose profits or lose customers.
...

• There are no commodity markets, just commodity marketing approaches (Moi ici: Recordo o precioso e "eye oppening" livro “How we compete” de Suzanne Berger and the MIT Industrial Performance Center, publicado em Janeiro de 2006:
  ---
  Na página 255:“… there are no “sunset” industries condemned to disappear in high wage economies, although there are certainly sunset and condemned strategies, among them building a business on the advantages to be gained by cheap labor” (isto é poesia, é bonito e é real)
  ---
  Na página 257:“If they prosper despite competition from foreign companies with very low-paid workers, it is because they bundle into the products they sell other desirable features, like speed, fashion, uniqueness, and image.” (um dia isto há-de ser ensinado nas boutiques de aprendizagem que entretanto terão substituído as universidades).
• The foundation of any successful pricing strategy is to price to demand, not to markets.
• The value equation for target consumers is optimized by understanding the ratio of benefits delivered for the price charged.
• Driving meaningful differentiation in your products is what separates you from competitors and what commands pricing premiums.
• Success with these first four principles creates the opportunity to be a market maker that sets prices or commands price premiums, rather than a price taker that merely accepts commodity prices.

...
FINDING TRUE VALUE
Principle #1: Pricing to demand profit pools within markets, rather than to entire markets, is critical for long-term success.
.
Experience has taught us that whenever products and services are priced to broad markets, businesses inevitably leave money on the table. This is because aggregating to the mean - that is, pricing to the average - always means forgoing the potencial to earn a higher profit margin from those specific demand profit pools willing to pay a price premium for benefits currently being "given away"". In effect, the differentiating benefits you worked so hard to add to your offers are now free.
.
By comparison, while pricing to those high-profit pools may mean losing some price-conscious customers (who are typically low-profit promotional buyers anyway), that loss - remember our 1 percent number - is more than recouped by pricing at a premium to the high-profit demand." (Moi ici: Sim, o efeito de 1% de variação que Rosiello calculou)
.
Continua

"Managing for Strategic Success"

Um excelente artigo, relevante para o desafio de co-construir uma estratégia para uma empresa, "What Makes Strategic Decisions Diferent", de Phil Rosenzweig, publicado no número de Novembro de 2013 pela Harvard Business Review.

"the bulk of the decision-making research published to date applies to one type of decision, and it’s not the type that’s most challenging for managers. Their most important and most difficult decisions - strategic decisions with consequences for the performance of the company - call for a very diferent approach.
The fact is that people need to make up their minds in a great variety of circumstances, and it’s a source of confusion that the same word, “decision,” is used for all of them.
...
A decision. The same term is applied to routine as well as complex deliberations, to both small-stakes bets and high-stakes commitments, and to exploratory steps as well as irreversible moves.
...
before we can advise people on how to make better strategic decisions, we need to equip them to recognize how decisions differ.
For that, we need to break the universe of decisions into a few categories. We can then suggest the
best approach for each.
...
Categorizing DecisionsDecisions vary along two dimensions: control and performance. The frst considers how much we can infuence the terms of the decision and the outcome. Are we choosing among options presented to us, or can we shape those options? Are we making a onetime judgment, unable to change what happens after the fact, or do we have some control over how things play out once we’ve made the decision? The second dimension addresses the way we measure success. Is our aim to do well, no matter what anyone else does, or do we need to do better than others? That is, is performance absolute or relative?

Decisions in the Fourth FieldThe crux of our discussion comes into focus when we consider the fourth field. For these decisions, we can actively infuence outcomes, and success means doing better than rivals. Here we fnd the essence of strategic management. Business executives aren’t like shoppers picking a product or investors choosing a stock, simply making a choice that leads to one outcome or another. By the way they lead and communicate, and through their ability to inspire and encourage, executives can influence outcomes. That’s the definition of “management.” Moreover, they are in charge of organizations that compete vigorously with others; doing better than rivals is vital. That’s where strategy comes in.
...
What sort of mind-set do they require? When we can infuence outcomes, it is useful to summon high levels of self-belief. And when we need to outperform rivals, such elevated levels are not just useful but indeed essential. Only those who are able to muster a degree of commitment and determination that is by some defnitions excessive will be in a position to win. That’s not to say that wildly optimistic thinking will predictably lead to success. It won’t. But in tough competitive situations where positive thinking can influence outcomes, only those who are willing to go beyond what seems reasonable will succeed."

Penso logo no desafio de fazer passar a mensagem, em algumas empresas, de que um consultor não pode tirar uma estratégia da prateleira para aplicação.
.
Uma estratégia tem de ser co-construída pela empresa, sob pena de não ser percebida, sob pena de não ser apreendida, sob pena do compromisso não ser suficientemente forte... é a tal história sobre a importância de partir pedra.

Act 9, 3-7 (parte III)

Parte I e Parte II.
.
Na senda dos nichos, na senda da criação de valor, na procura da subida na escala de valor, no aumento (salto) da produtividade à custa do aumento do preço praticado, mais um interessante artigo de Seth Godin, agora na Harvard Business Review de Novembro de 2010 "To Win, Create What's Scarce":
.
"If you can increase demand for what you already make, a lot of problems take care of themselves. It’s the promise of the typical marketing organization: Give us money, and we’ll increase demand.
.
There’s an overlooked alternative, though. If you can offer a scarce and coveted good or service that others can’t, you win. What is both scarce and in demand? Things that are difficult: difficult to conceive, to convey, to make. (Moi ici: Hoje em dia, produzir, fabricar é o mais fácil. Difícil é o vender... implica ser barato ou, ... sedutor) Sometimes difficult even, at first, to sell—maybe an unpopular idea or a product that’s ahead of its time. In fact, just about the only thing that is not available in unlimited supply in an ever more efficient, connected world is the product of difficult work.
...
Commoditization doesn’t apply only to making and selling cheap goods.
...
With a lack of difficulty comes more choice, more variation, and, yes, lower prices (lower margins, too). And so consumers of every stripe are jaded. This puts huge pressure on organizations, because the race to the bottom demands that they either do all this easy work faster or do it cheaper than they did it yesterday. (Moi ici: O mainstream está nesta corrida para o fundo, reduzir custos, reduzir custos, reduzir custos para aumentar a produtividade) And there’s not a lot of room to do either one.

The only refuge from the race to the bottom? Difficult work. Your only alternative is to create something scarce, something valuable, something that people will pay more for.

What’s difficult? Creating beauty is difficult, whether it’s the tangible beauty of a brilliant innovation or the intangible essence of exceptional leadership.
...
People who can do difficult work will always be in demand. And yet our default is to do the easy work, busywork, work that requires activity, not real effort or guts.
...
No longer. The world will belong to those who create something scarce, not something cheap. The race to the top has just begun."

"Giants invariably descend into suckiness" (parte XV)

Parte I, parte II, parte III, parte IV, parte V, parte VI, parte VII, parte VIII, parte IX, parte X, parte XI, parte XII, parte XIII e parte XIV.

“By the end of the twentieth century P&G had scaled up to a behemoth, offering more than three hundred brands and raking in yearly revenue of $37 billion. P&G was one of the world’s corporate superpowers.
.
In 2016 analyst firm CB Insights published a graphic showing all the ways unscaled companies were attacking P&G. [Moi ici: Por que não gostamos de ser tratados como plancton] It looks like a swarm of bees taking down a bear. In that rendering P&G no longer appears to be a monolithic scaled-up company that has built up powerful defenses against upstarts; instead, it is depicted as a series of individual products, each vulnerable to small, unscaled, agile, AI-driven, product-focused, entrepreneurial companies.
...
CBI called the overall phenomenon the “unbundling of P&G.” It is as clear an indication as any of what big corporations face in an era that favors economies of unscale over economies of scale. Small unscaled companies can challenge every piece of a big company, often with products or services more perfectly targeted to a certain kind of buyer—products that can win against mass-appeal offerings. If unscaled competitors can lure away enough customers, economies of scale will work against the incumbents as fewer units move through expensive, large-scale factories and distribution systems—a cost burden not borne by unscaled companies.
...
Over the past hundred years, as the era of scale unfolded, small companies of course continued to exist, and many prospered even as they stayed small. Small business was the US economy’s underlying strength throughout the scaling age. In 2010, according to the US Census, the nation had about 30 million small businesses and only 18,500 companies that employed more than five hundred people.
However, in an era when economies of scale usually prevailed, when a scaled-up company competed directly against a small business, the small business usually lost. Just think of all the small-town Main Street retailers Walmart bulldozed over the past twenty-five years.
.
We will see the big-beats-small dynamic reverse as we unscale. Over the next ten to twenty years companies that relied on scale as a competitive advantage will increasingly find themselves defanged. They will be at a disadvantage against focused unscaled businesses. Large corporations won’t disappear, just as small business didn’t disappear in the last era. But the big companies that don’t change their model will see their businesses erode, and some of today’s giants will fall. [Moi ici: Nada podem fazer contra a suckiness, têm de a abandonar]”

Excerto de: Taneja, Hemant, Maney, Kevin. “Unscaled”.

"missed out on the opportunity"

"Lucky people tend to be more relaxed, and anxiety can keep us from grasping opportunities. In an experiment, psychologist Richard Wiseman gave people a newspaper to read, and asked how many photographs were in it. Most participants took around two minutes and counted through quickly. Some double checked. None of them noticed the headline on the second page: ‘There are forty-two pictures in this newspaper’ in large bold letters. Nobody saw it because they were so focused on the photographs. They also missed out on the opportunity to win a hundred pounds – another large advert in the newspaper read ‘Stop counting and tell the experimenter you see this and win £100’. But again, the participants were too busy looking for photographs. When Wiseman asked instead if they saw anything unusual in the paper, they looked at it differently and saw the messages immediately. By busily (over-)focusing on a particular task they missed out on the real value.

As long as we have a culture of hyper-stress in organizations, with people focusing on not losing their job or trying to get to their meetings on time, it is more likely that we will miss serendipity. (In settings of poverty, the feeling of stress and anxiety is arguably even greater, which can have a negative impact on decision-making.)

But while a healthy state of mind can be important, often discomfort and pressure can be sources of achievement – as usual, it’s the balance that counts."

Trecho retirado de "The Serendipity Mindset" de Christian Busch.

Atenção, cuidado com a inércia.

"The plan was to come in ... but when debris on the track brought out the safety car, Webber and his crew quickly threw out the plan. (Moi ici: algo que faz recordar Napoleão e a sua frase de que a estratégia morre no primeiro embate da batalha) The problem was that the competition—Ferrari—would probably do exactly the sames. So he skipped that step altogether, taking the lead with a clear track in front of him. It was a risk. (Moi ici: mas sem risco não há recompensa!)

...

Formula 1 isn't the only place where success is dependent on going 'off strategy.' In organizations strategy often creates inertia, locking you into a course of action and commitments, a course of action which is also often clear to your competitors.

...

By suddenly going 'off strategy' you can wrong foot the competition and create new opportunities.

...

How will you know when it's time to go "off strategy?" Think through these simple questions, as a start:

• If we stick to the current plan, will we really achieve our full potential?
• What are the upsides from going off strategy, do they outweigh the downsides?
• What would the competition least expect us to do? And what would be the rewards for doing this?
• Does going off strategy allow us to exploit the things we do really well, and minimise the impact of the things we do less well? (Moi ici: em sintonia com o texto de Mark G Brown sobre uma má estratégia)
• Other than not in the plan, what's the argument for not doing it?

Being unpredictable in this way maybe the one way you can end up winning the race"

Trechos retirados de "Why Sometimes Going 'Off Strategy' Is How You Win".

Trechos em linha com o conceito de "palas para cavalos" como sendo o grande perigo da estratégia, como refere Mintzberg, o fundamental é estar atento aos sinais que vêm da realidade.

A revolução em curso

"The owner, the Airtex Design Group, had shifted an increasing amount of its production here from China because customers had been asking for more American-made goods.
.
The issue was finding workers.
...
The American textile and apparel industries, like manufacturing as a whole, are experiencing a nascent turnaround as apparel and textile companies demand higher quality, more reliable scheduling and fewer safety problems than they encounter overseas.
...
Wages for cut-and-sew jobs, the core of the apparel industry’s remaining work force, have been rising fast — increasing 13.2 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis from 2007 to 2012, while overall private sector pay rose just 1.4 percent. Companies here in Minnesota are so hungry for workers that they posted five job openings for every student in a new training program in industrial sewing, a full month before the training was even completed.
...
Like manufacturers in many parts of the country, those in Minnesota are wrestling with how to attract a new generation of factory workers while also protecting their bottom lines in an industry where pennies per garment can make or break a business."

Este artigo "A Wave of Sewing Jobs as Orders Pile Up at U.S. Factories" deixa-me com sentimentos mistos.
.
Vamos ao lado positivo, o reshoring e o consequente aumento do emprego, a iniciativa privada assumir como sua a tarefa de formar e preparar os seus futuros trabalhadores.
.
O lado negativo... ressoa na minha mente aquela frase "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat".
.
Se não notamos um refluxo da maré na Europa, em Portugal ou na Europa de Leste, ou até mesmo em Marrocos com esta dinâmica e dimensão... talvez isto diga muito sobre a desvalorização real do dólar.
.
BTW, na Turquia assiste-se a isto "50 Turkish textile companies to relocate to Ethiopia" com este nível de salários.

Apostar nas forças

Excelente reflexão, útil para empresas que sentem que têm de mudar de vida:

"In their efforts to compete, business strategists often forget a basic principle: Build from your strengths. [Moi ici: Começar pela análise do ADN] The most successful companies have a clear, well-articulated view of what's important to them and their customers. They understand that the way to win consistently is through what they do rather than what they sell.
.
These companies also understand that “what they do” is unique to them; they have their own capabilities and practices that no other company could quite duplicate, even if it tried. In that sense, building from your strengths is the most reliable way we have found to differentiate your company.
...
when you understand what you’re great at, and design your capabilities and strategy accordingly, you can define how you want to compete, and shape your own future rather than waiting for others to do it for you.
...
1. Accept Your Weaknesses
...
All of us — individuals, teams, and organizations — have weaknesses. These are not skill gaps; those can be corrected with learning. Weaknesses are inherent deficiencies of talent or capability that do not change even after aggressive efforts to improve them. Pride and our ingrained work ethic may cause us to deny our weaknesses, but acceptance is the first step toward designing for strength.
...
2. Recognize Your Specific Strengths
.
Weaknesses tend to be universal and broad. ... But strengths are often extraordinarily specific.
...
3. Solve the Right Problem
A moment of magic accompanies the willingness to quit. It involves gaining a better perspective. Prior to this moment, it is almost impossible to be objective about your challenges. Too many emotions and pressures intrude. But now, you can evaluate your options more dispassionately, and — in the language of design thinking — learn to ask better questions. The problem you are trying to solve may not be the right one to address.
.
In my case, fixing my weaknesses was the wrong problem to solve. I have since come to think that the same is true for many other people and organizations seeking breakthrough performance. Instead of solving for “how do I fix my weaknesses?”  [Moi ici: Isto é o que critico quando escrevo aqui sobre o Return-of-Attention das organizações patronais. Gastam demasiado tempo a combater a última guerra quando o mundo entretanto mudou, em vez de procurar uma nova guerra onde tenham vantagens únicas] I asked myself, “how can I design for my unique strengths?”

...
4. Double Down on Your Strengths"

Trechos retirados de "Design for Your Strengths"

Acerca das exportações (parte I)

O valor mensal das exportações no passado mês de Novembro foi o segundo mais alto de sempre, só ultrapassado pelo recorde de Julho de 2015.

Um excelente desempenho das PME. Quando excluímos as exportações de combustíveis e lubrificantes constatamos que Novembro de 2016 foi recorde absoluto de exportações:

Claro que a maioria dos comentadores e políticos, da oposição e da situação, não sublinham estes recordes para não prejudicar a sua narrativa do país-coitadinho, vítima do euro, que lhes dá munições para o seu capital de queixa e reivindicação perante Bruxelas.

Em Pre-suasion, encontrei uma história deliciosa e ao mesmo tempo preocupante:

"often try to convey to various audiences is that, in contests of persuasion, counterarguments are typically more powerful than arguments. This superiority emerges especially when a counterclaim does more than refute a rival’s claim by showing it to be mistaken or misdirected in the particular instance, but does so instead by showing the rival communicator to be an untrustworthy source of information, generally. Issuing a counterargument demonstrating that an opponent’s argument is not to be believed because its maker is misinformed on the topic will usually succeed on that singular issue. But a counterargument that undermines an opponent’s argument by showing him or her to be dishonest in the matter will normally win that battle plus future battles with the opponent."

Depois disto vamos à história:

"perhaps the most effective marketing decision ever made by the tobacco companies lies buried and almost unknown in the industry’s history: after a three-year slide of 10 percent in tobacco consumption in the United States during the late 1960s, Big Tobacco did something that had the extraordinary effect of ending the decline and boosting consumption while slashing advertising expenditures by a third. What was it?
...
On July 22, 1969, during US congressional hearings, representatives of the major American tobacco companies strongly advocated a proposal to ban all of their own ads from television and radio, even though industry studies showed that the broadcast media provided the most effective routes to new sales.
...
[Moi ici: Cá vai a solução para o mistério] In 1967, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had ruled that its “fairness doctrine” applied to the issue of tobacco advertising. The fairness doctrine required that equal advertising time be granted on radio and television—solely on radio and television—to all sides of important and controversial topics. If one side purchased broadcast time on these media, the opposing side must be given free time to counterargue.
...
That decision had an immediate impact on the landscape of broadcast advertising. For the first time, anti-tobacco forces such as the American Cancer Society could afford to air counterarguments to the tobacco company messages. They did so via counter-ads that disputed the truthfulness of the images displayed in tobacco company commercials. If a tobacco ad featured healthy, attractive, independent characters, the opposing ads would counterargue that, in fact, tobacco use led to diseased health, damaged attractiveness, and slavish dependence.
.
During the three years that they ran, those anti-tobacco spots slashed tobacco consumption in the United States by nearly 10 percent. At first the tobacco companies responded predictably, increasing their advertising budgets to try to meet the challenge. But, by the rules of the fairness doctrine, for each tobacco ad, equal time had to be provided for a counter-ad that would take another bite out of industry profits. When the logic of the situation hit them, the tobacco companies worked politically to ban their own ads, but solely on the air where the fairness doctrine applied—thereby ensuring that the anti-tobacco forces would no longer get free airtime to make their counterargument."

Imaginem o que seria um anónimo como eu confrontar Ferreira do Amaral com números que desmascaram a sua narrativa da falta de competitividade portuguesa com o euro.

Sinais de Mongo por todo o lado

Sinais de Mongo por todo o lado.

Desta feita a explosão de marcas, a ascensão das marcas das empresas pequenas, o triunfo do numerador sobre o denominador.

"The fast-moving-consumer-goods industry has a long history of generating reliable growth through mass brands. But the model that fueled industry success now faces great pressure as consumer behaviors shift and the channel landscape changes. To win in the coming decades, FMCGs need to reduce their reliance on mass brands and offline mass channels and embrace an agile operating model focused on brand relevance rather than synergies.
...
Consumers under 35 differ fundamentally from older generations in ways that make mass brands and channels ill suited to them. They tend to prefer new brands, especially in food products. According to recent McKinsey research, millennials are almost four times more likely than baby boomers to avoid buying products from “the big food companies.”
.
And while millennials are obsessed with research, they resist brand-owned marketing and look instead to learn about brands from each other. They also tend to believe that newer brands are better or more innovative, and they prefer not to shop in mass channels.
...
Explosion of small brandsMany small consumer-goods companies are capitalizing on millennial preferences and digital marketing to grow very fast. These brands can be hard to spot because they are often sold online or in channels not covered by the syndicated data that the industry has historically relied on heavily.
...
Retailers have also taken notice of these small brands. According to The Nielsen Company, US retailers are giving small brands double their fair share of new listings. The reason is twofold: retailers want small brands to differentiate their proposition and to drive their margins, as these small brands tend to be premium and rarely promote. As a consequence, small brands are capturing two to three times their fair share of growth while the largest brands remain flat or in slight decline"

Trechos retirados de "The new model for consumer goods"

"Never quote a price before..."

"So, when it comes to pricing, here's the most essential rule--the pricing rule that always produces both the most sales and the most profit:
.
Never quote a price before the customer fully understands the benefit of buying.
...
"The specific price varies depending on exactly what you order, how you pay for it, and so forth. I'm sure we can make an arrangement that will work for both of us, but in similar situations, companies like yours spend in the range of [low price] to [high price.]"
...
The client goes "Whoa! That's way more than we can afford!" You win, because now you know this isn't a prospective client, so you can end the conversation without wasting more of your valuable time.
.
Or the client nods and says something like, "Why such a large difference in price?" You continue with "it depends on exactly what you want to accomplish..." and segue back to talking about the benefits."

Trechos retirados de "The Single Most Essential Rule About Pricing"

Porque as estratégias não são eternas (parte II)

"Strategy has always required us to make hard choices in an uncertain context and managers have shown a disturbing tendency to seize on any pretext to avoid making those choices.
...
“the natural reaction is to make the challenge less daunting by turning it into a problem that can be solved with tried and tested tools”
...
we must continue to define “where to play and how to win,” but on a radically compressed time frame.  That doesn’t make strategy easier, it makes it exponentially harder."

Mais uma achega aquela ideia da perspectiva externa referida em "Porque as estratégias não são eternas"
.
Trechos retirados de "The Only Viable Strategy Is Adaptation"

Estratégia sempre antes dos objectivos

"Like most goals, especially those that come before strategy, ours was an arbitrary one, and it diverted our attention from some fundamental choices.
...
having goals come ahead of strategy is putting the cart before the horse. When this happens, companies often fall into trouble.
...
Beware leaders who tell you their company will be the best this or the largest that before they tell you their strategy for winning. When big, hairy audacious goals drive strategy, they can waste time and money. [Moi ici: Como não recordar os políticos que começam por dizer que o objectivo é aumentar o emprego] The goals companies adopt don’t have to prevent them from coming up with great strategies. But they often do, because the brightness of big goals has a way of blinding their owners to the realities of great strategy.
.
Another lesson is that maintaining sharp thinking about your value proposition is easier said than done.
...
Great strategies require an objective, self-aware, and up-to-date sense of the capabilities that give you the right to win. Most of us are smart enough to recognize when our capabilities have lost their edge. But it’s all too easy for our emotions to get in the way. Companies are often forced into this realization after making a costly mistake.
...
The fundamentals of strategy seem so obvious: Pick, choose, or design a winning value proposition for the right target market that requires the distinctive capabilities you really have — rather than those you used to have or wish you had."

Trechos retirados de "The Strategy Lessons of a Long Hike"

O trabalho que se devia iniciar hoje (parte II)

"9 Ways to Stand Out Among Lower Cost Competitors (Without Lowering Prices)":

"“When prices can’t be lowered, focus on the ways you’re ahead of your competitors in terms of quality. Clients care about price, but they care more about the quality of what they’re getting for their money. Customer service is also a key point.
...
“As our market becomes more competitive, we increased prices to help us tell the story of how we are different. When our prices were lower, it was harder to tell a compelling story.
...
“Competition is the ugly truth of business and sometimes it can get nasty. If a competitor is undercutting your price, then you need to react by further positioning your offerings as more valuable than others in the market. It is all about keeping your company on its own path. Racing to the bottom against someone setting the pace can easily end up with your business crashing and burning.”
...
“If you focus on price alone, you’ll never win the war. Focus on the value your product will bring your customers and why your product is what they need to become more profitable."

Muita gente que lê textos com este tipo de mensagem torce o nariz e reage como em 1992 reagi ao ler o artigo de Marn e Rosiello na HBR.
.
Seguir estes conselhos sem ter iniciado um prévio trabalho de diferenciação não é muito saudável.
.
Quando é que a sua empresa vai iniciar o seu trabalho para a grande viagem da diferenciação?

Preparar o day-after ... se calhar noutro universo competitivo.

Mais uma achega em defesa da minha ideia de que esta crise não veio alterar o tipo de forças em jogo, veio sim exacerbar as correntes e forças que já estavam em curso.
.
O artigo na revista Business Week "Three Steps to a Sound Business Model" é eloquente:
.
"All successful ventures need a clear business model, and any qualified investor will want to see it before making an investment. The poor economic environment means even more emphasis will be placed on your business model."
...
"On a basic level, a business model tells us how a business makes money. However, to get a deeper understanding—and to get investors excited—it's important to break up this concept into some key elements:
.
Customer Value Proposition: A strong customer value proposition means your product or service helps to solve a problem or provide a benefit."
...
"A foothold: Your customer value proposition, no matter how powerful, is worthless unless you get customer adoption. But it's often expensive to win customers, especially mainstream ones. One approach is to identify a niche customer segment of early adopters. These folks like experimenting with new things and can provide valuable feedback that improves your offering."
...
"Differentiation: In the 1990s, hundreds of companies entered the e-commerce space. But while many provided convenience and cost-effectiveness to customers, there was little differentiation."
...
"Pricing: Pricing can be another key way to build your customer value proposition."
.
Em boa verdade, sou tentado a escrever que, com a grande recalibração em curso, com a derrocada e colapso da procura, cada empresa deveria encarar o futuro como uma start-up. Não há recursos para mais nada, há que tactear o terreno e ver para onde se pode ou deve evoluir em função da capacidade de cativar clientes.
.
Ainda ontem li no Telegraph que um fabricante de pianos de luxo na Républica Checa vai começar a fabricar mobiliário lacado para cozinhas: "Luxury piano maker Petrof turns to furniture in global economic crisis"
.
Entretanto, nos telejornais da noite a par da notícia de que a venda de automóveis em Portugal, Espanha, e Estados Unidos tinha caído entre 40 a 50% durante o mês de Fevereiro, lá ouvi um representante qualquer do sector a pedir os habituais apoios. Até quando? Quando é que vão encarar a realidade de frente? Quando é que vão deixar de suster a respiração debaixo de água e começar a preparar o day-after?

Curiosidade do dia

"The aging trend is ratcheting up this pressure. The median age of the US worker was 34.6 years in 1980, but in 2013, it was 42.4 years. In advanced economies, one-third of workers could retire in the next two decades, taking valuable skills and experience with them. In Germany, Japan, and South Korea, nearly half of today’s workforce will be over the age of 55 in another ten years (Exhibit 30)."

Imagem e trecho retirado de "Playing to Win: The New Global Competition for Corporate Profits" de Richard Dobbs, Tim Koller, e Sree Ramaswamy.