LEADERSHIP - IS IT A MYTH???

I often wonder if the behavior of top management of various companies, businesses, or for that matter any organization is just short sighted now or if has always been so myopic through the ages. Could it be that due to greater scrutiny and supposed greater oversight we are able to observe their fallibility much more often than was possible in the past.

Look around closely at almost any organization be it public or private and you will see supposedly brilliant individuals who we look/looked up to and revere make meaningless and absurd decisions that effect the lives of hundreds and thousands, if not millions, of people in their immediate vicinity. Yet these folk go about living their lives as if nothing has happened, completely oblivious to the plight of all the people around them.

This leads me to contemplate - Is Leadership really such a great trait, and if it is, what exactly is the secret sauce? I know, have read, and even written about the qualities that make a supposedly good or even great leader, but is it really so...

Let's take a few luminaries who are hailed as some of the greatest leaders objectively dissect their behavior as leaders... I know I am probably going to get raked over the coals for bringing up these names...

John Francis Welch, Jr.- Chairman of GE Corporation for 20 years from 1981-2001, more commonly known as "Jack" and "Neutron Jack".

Here is a recent quote from him -  “On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world,” he said. “Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy … your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.”

However, this is the same man who initiated the concept of "Shareholder Value" or pursed the concept by laying off more than a quarter of GE's workforce within 5 years becoming CEO to pursue higher profits, and increase market cap.

He also pushed the managers of the businesses he kept to become more productive, by constantly working 70-80 hours a week. "Jack" worked to eradicate perceived inefficiencies by trimming inventories and dismantling the workforce. He shut down factories, reduced payrolls and cut lackluster old-line units. For a company that touts innovation and new products what is there to show right now? He is also the same person who pushed for the expansion of GE Capital which almost took the entire company down and caused it to lose it's 'AAA' credit rating. As well as begging the Feds for a TARP bailout, as it was deemed too big to be allowed to fail! Now granted Jack was not at the helm when these things went down, but he took credit for everything good that happened with GE even after he left office, often boasting how he had laid the foundation for everything during his 20 year reign at the company.

If Jack was such a great manager as he has been made out to be then how did everything start to unravel so fast as soon as he left office, that too only after he was assured of an $8,000,000.00 annual pension with lavish company perks. Was there a great smokescreen and mirror show going on, which made him larger than life!?!

His so called "VISION" has decimated so many lives, leaving carcasses all over while he lives in his glass tower in New York, oblivious to the plight of many, still pontificating now!!!

Does anyone ever stop to think that it's not all about widgets and processes, there is a human element to it also! Widgets and processes are there for the use and consumption by human beings. If people can not afford to buy and use the widgets and services no matter how great they are what is the use of creating them. That is exactly the situation the US landscape is in right now. The likes of Jack created this "Shareholder Value" ponzi scheme to pay themselves and now we are there to pick up the pieces...

Maybe one should read Jack's biography with a new perspective, after taking off the rose tinted glasses....

More to come...

"Mercy killing of Brands... Pros & Cons"

A really thought provoking issue. Secondly, what a question... probably good enough for a Phd dissertation in marketing.

Anyway, to keep it simple and see other viewpoints also. My take is fairly simple - business is there to provide a return on capital employed, when there is no significant return on the capital employed either in the short or long term the business should be liquidated. Obviously, this is a very simplified scenario, hopefully all due diligence is done and all tangible and intangible cost benefit scenarios have been objectively evaluated.

If after doing all the above there is a negative trend for future ROI yes by all means the brand should be killed, otherwise it will negatively impact the overall business, giving a perception that not just one brand is doing poorly, but the entire business is also subject to the same malaise.

To touch upon GM, in my opinion they were too slow and too late in pulling the plug on - Oldsmobile, and even to some extent are doing the same with Buick now. GM makes some of the best vehicles around technology wise, but their perception is that of a stodgy car manufacturer.

The reason you think of "mercy killing" or using the proper term in my opinion "euthanasia", for a brand at-least, would be mainly because the product, service, and it's communication is no longer relevant to the market audience the - consumer. So removing any support would not really have a backlash from the customer. If enough consumers really wanted to use the product or service you wouldn't be thinking about "mercy killing" a brand.

If you look through the marketing history of the major FMCG organizations worldwide there are numerous instances of killing off various brands and not all of them mercifully! In 1993 Phillip Morris Companies, killed off their corporate name when they renamed themselves Altria.

Sometimes there are perfectly good reasons to initiate the killing of established brands, this may sound quite shocking, but look at the marketing from Microsoft which has a history of such behaviour. BTW, I do not want to get into discussing the merits of the product itself.

In 1995 they purposely killed "Windows X.1" OS to introduce "Windows 95". Then in 1998 they killed "Windows 95" to introduce "Windows 98". In 2000 they killed "Windows 98" to introduce "Windows ME". In 2001 they killed "Windows ME" to bring out "Windows XP", and this year they officially killed "Windows XP" to introduce "Windows Vista".

In each cycle of killing off a major brand MS had a perfectly good product at the stage and an established revenue stream that generated billions of dollars, yet they chose to start completely afresh rather than create a line extension.

The above was done as part of a planned strategy known as phased obsolescence, which is based on the theory that if one rests on their laurels too long someone will come and eat their cake, so rather than have that happen one eats their own cake and goes out searching for more. Again another simplistic viewpoint, but it should get the message across.

Hopefully, that provides some fodder for thought. There will never be a right or wrong answer to a query like this, only hindsight will make us comment more on the merits and demerits of each.

"What Consumers Want... As a Marketer if you had the power to know..."

As a professional in the "Product Development" business I get to hear and know all the time, directly from consumers, middle men, sales reps, etc.; what kind of products and services the consumers want and desire.

However, as a person with operational and fiscal responsibility towards my company I have to evaluate objectively whether I 'can' and more importantly 'want' to respond to those demands by putting out a product/service that is financially viable for us, and meets the needs to the consumer also.

In my opinion the reason the marketing landscape is littered with stories of failed products and services is because marketers put too much faith in listening to what the consumer wants. Most marketer's also forget way to often and conveniently how fickle the consumer is and what they want and need is a puzzling dynamic to the consumer themselves.

If you see the most common and basic service almost all consumers want across the globe is 'good supportive customer service', however almost every major global organization fails to deliver on that one service repeatedly. Even the ones that have failed or are failing on this count were once evangelical about the merits of deploying good supportive customer service, yet have in the long term determined that 'not' offering good supportive customer service does not alienate customers once a significant user base has been built up. Is there a certain loss of dissatisfied users - absolutely, however the gain from new customers more than offsets the potential losses due to consolidation and lack of competition that is now becoming rampant in various industries.

What all consumers want is choice, but due to market dynamics and governmental regulations we keep limiting that option. So in the end do we really want to listen to the consumer or just use that as an excuse to gain false empathy with the consumer, similar to the way Mel Gibson used his powers in the movie? Point to ponder....

"Brands on Steroids"

Brands on 'roids' quite an interesting concept...

Brands are built and nurtured in relation to the corporate business philosophy to execute a business plans, having said that let's examine the concept.

Usually, a branding plan is strategic in nature and to introduce a new greenfield product / service a 'nurturing' approach strategy may be employed to gain market traction in response to whatever opportunities and constraints that may have been evaluated by the business unit.

Sometimes a branding plan may be tactical in nature, to either be a offensive or defensive response to market opportunities, due to this issue you may see the emergence of - 'Brands on Steroids' syndrome. Sometimes the defensive or offensive tactical moves may open up significant opportunities for the brand to move in the limelight and from a tactical launch it may morph into long term strategic role, but still employing the original tactical moves that brought it in the limelight. The above would be the disciplined and rational explanation to the 'Brands on 'roids' syndrome.

However, as mentioned there are definitely situations when due to a change in management focus or to maximise short term revenue generation you may observe the same syndrome. When you see 'Brands on 'roids' in such a scenario quite often they follow the way of 'Humans on 'roids' , a brief spark and glimpse of a meteoric rise and then discarded and forgotten in the depths of oblivion once the spark is extinguished.

Irrational Exuberance or Stupidity? Part - I

For an individual that has been closely associated with the two business sectors in the US - IT Enabled Services and Retail, that have or are about to take off in the Southeast Asia region, especially India I sometimes find myself having a feeling of deja vu when reading excerpts of the astounding economic growth happening there. I have used the terms ITES in the US context because just as in India they were part of the IT growth boom in the US also.

This sense of deja vu is not of the same optimistic kind promoted and shared by a lot of other evangelists of developing world growth patterns.

I rejoice at the phenomenal growth that has and is continuing to happen in India; however I keep waiting to see some measure of hardcore economic activity in the development of physical infrastructure take place. Even when any activity to shore up physical infrastructure has / does happen it is only in response to an ancillary investment in islands of economic boom in places where there is already an ITES infrastructure.

Let's not forget what the acronym ITES stands for - Information Technology Enabled Services, in the majority of cases this is nothing but once again a fancy term for low end backroom processing support work that has been offshored to India from the more developed nations.

Support activity can only happen if there is primary business activity to be supported, if we keep on creating and encouraging an environment where home grown physical industries are decimated and discouraged we will face the same consequences that the US is currently facing.

The home grown US economy is already frayed at the edges and is starting to tear apart due to the lack of regular investments in in the physical infrastructure for almost the last 30years. Let's not forget even the robust internet era of the 1990's in the US could not keep the economy going for long.

I understand all investments follow the money trail, but you cannot have isolated islands of economic prosperity and growth in a land of 1.2billion people, not have some kind of equitable balance being maintained without having nasty repercussions. We have seen the former USSR implode and explode over ten years ago, which had similar kind of isolated pockets of growth. Granted India does have a wider base of business, but we have already seen the erosion and extinction of numerous small scale businesses and industries all over India, especially in areas far from these Special Economic Zones - SEZs.

At the time when I was moving to the US in the early '90s, major trans-national consumer (hard and soft goods) corporations were making a beeline to India to capitalize on the spending power of the - emerging Indian middle class. Many of them lost their shirts in the ensuing years and some have barely managed to stay around profitably even after all these years. This despite all the years of boom activity.

There is risk in all activity, however when people lose sight of rationality in understanding and accepting risk, it is politely termed - Irrational Exuberance, or in layman terms - Stupidity!

The Indian stock market has been growing at a double digit rates for the past few years, the real-estate situation is even worse prices are going up in triple digits and the lay people are lapping it up in the name of growth, being led around by organized opportunists - like rats dancing to the tune of the Pied Piper!

My opinions may seem harsh to many, but I have my reasons and will elaborate on them going forward.

Sample of my musings on Linked In - 10

*
Google is a leading company on Internet, in the ads market, in video distribution services, mail services, map services, in networks and datacenters. They're everywhere, before everybody, how long do you think the others will survive ?



“Disruptive new offerings that would take peer to peer social networking technology and apply them to the CRM and ecommerce fields, making the marketing and sales of various services on a peer to peer targeted basis. This would eventually lead to greater and more diverse outsourcing of various services / functions by large corporations, as their scale would prevent them from entering this realm. These customized offerings could be monetized or be offered gratis depending on the provider of such services. The above could be achieved by advances in technology - hardware and software, which would come from the creation of the much anticipated and hyped ‘neural net P2P computing grid’ where each peer node would be a server and client simultaneously, thus doing away with the massive data centers that companies like GOOGLE have. Secondly, a lot of information being part of the public domain would be the base on which individual services would be built. Once again making the individual the master of their domain. I’m sure someone will point out privacy and security concerns; however I’m sure supporting technology would be available to filter and scrub the relevant personal information and yet make the information meaningful enough to others for various purposes. That’s my vision of the future…”

Sample of my musings on Linked In - 9

*

Is 'BRIBING' the right thing to do to become really powerful?


“Was that a ‘real question’ or a ‘rhetorical question’ and what is the context of this question?

The reason I ask is to determine how to answer it, instead of giving an answer full of moral platitudes and ethical values.

Depending on where you are and what the business environment values are, a referral fee commission may be viewed as a ‘bribe’ in certain situations, whereas a ‘bribe’ in another environment may be business as usual somewhere else.

The second part of the question ‘ becoming powerful’ is an enigma in itself to the person asking the question. So without knowing the context of this query I guess all answers are moot…”

Sample of my musings on Linked In - 6

*
How Do I Introduce Western Style entrepreneurial skills Into countries like Malaysia, Russia, India, China, Philippines, etc.


“I am trying to understand the scope of your question/comment, based on some of the answers I'm even more confused. Are trying to provide a service to encourage entrepreneurial talent in these countries to use western marketing concepts within their own countries? If so, then you might as well take India off your list as there is no dearth of entrepreneurial skills or the knowledge of any proven marketing concept there. I would venture to go as far to say that business in India may offer concepts that are light years beyond what is currently being practiced in the west, not to mention they have been validated in their own markets. All this due to a thriving capitalist economy, despite strict government oversight. If you are trying to provide a service to assist businesses in these countries market their services and products in the west, then there may be opportunities. However, all that depends on your contacts, cost structure, and the services that you can provide. All of which is no different from any other business service - B2B, B2C, MLM, etc. ”

Sample of my musings on Linked In - 5

*
Is everyone at Linked in Single? or am I missing my 'prospects' :-) ?


“Maybe I'm missing something, but the link to your site is password protected...even before you see a web page???? Could that possibly be the cause of your problem...???? I used IE & FF, access issues...preventing even a look see?”

Sample of my musings on Linked In - 4

*
How do you ask a former star employee to leave?



“Your question on "How to?" seems a little more in-depth than just a superficial question to a performance related situation.

You mention - - this person is emotionally attached to the company

- Why / How ? - is this person a former partner who is not happy with a new direction the organization may be going?

- Was this person promised / awarded with high rewards compared to initial baseline
expectations than what the company initially had? Now that that the business is maturing the expectations are different? So a change in star status????

- Since yours may still be a fledgling organization you may not have a formal HR setup and everyone maybe viewing themselves as having potential ownership of the company, though in reality there may be only one or two real owners.

- No matter where you are or what you do a - 'friend' is never perceived as a - 'boss' or 'mentor', so don't try to become a 'boss' now after being a 'friend'. You will usually be ignored at best and / or be viewed with antagonism and being arrogant otherwise.

My suggestion is to have a peer of your's have a formal heart to heart talk with this associate and plant a seed of separation on either a voluntary or involuntary basis. Sometimes even the office grapevine has it's uses in resolving such issues. This way if and when you finally discuss the separation issue directly it will not come as a surprise to this individual as then it would be viewed as inevitable since others in the work place knew of it also.

Lastly, I can't imagine having dead weight around as you imply is good for the company bottom-line, so also mention that the organization's finances cannot support operational inefficiencies therefore separation would be the most mutually beneficial option. Keep the discussion focussed on the organizational needs and expectations, do not delve into personal issues, habits, or behaviour as this would be counter-productive.

Be firm, but compassionate. Offer a personal recommendation to assist with new endevours if the person requests and keep it brief and business oriented. Hopefully, your friendship will survive this incident."

Sample of my musings on Linked In - 3

*
Greed is good. But what’s better than greed?



“Having your CAKE and being ABLE TO EAT IT !

Greed is only a CONCEPT, a means to an end... THE CAKE !

If you never get the CAKE, and always keep running after it - You are labeled GREEDY !

Those that have are - CONTENT, those that don't have are - GREEDY !

CONTENTMENT IS BLISS !!!!!!!!!”

Non-Corporate Indian Brands - 2

Recently, one of my friends in India asked for my views on Non-corporate Indian brands that have had global impact.

His question was -

What is your take on these global brand concepts from India. How does world see it? Do they have momentum of their own which could turn them into a big global phenomenon?

# 2 in the Series

As far as other brands go - "Indian Eateries", are probably the 2nd most pervasive "Brand Category" (Don't know whether it is proper to label a "Category" as a "Brand Category") to have an impact at least in the US. I'm quite sure the rest of world follows the US lead just due to the innovation and economic aspect of it. (This is not American arrogance, just a fact!)

Indian food is no longer "Exotic", "Esoteric", or plain "Weird". It does not give the "Delhi Belly" (diarrhea), the "Bombay Burp" (heartburn) or any other similar symptoms. It is not served - just in very "Swank" downtown restaurants, or "Dirty & Dinghy Hole in the Wall places" in ethnic Indian neighborhoods, it has and is going mainstream.

This is a mass upheaval from the cultural aspect - Indian food, no longer smells and tastes strange to most people. Funny these days - Indians, per say no longer have the - "Funky curry odor", they have a "Unique aroma" emanating from them.

Indian Eateries are now dotted in almost every metro area in the US. From my personal experience my friends will ask me to bring - 'samosas', 'barfies', 'kababs', 'nans', and the perennial favorite 'TANDOORI CHICKEN'. My friends and colleagues regularly ask me for Indian recipes, how I cook, where they can get supplies and 'masala curry' to try their hand at Indian cooking. With growing emphasis on eating healthy the vegetarian lifestyle, which used to be bland, uninspiring, and unpalatable is now something to look forward to by using different Indian cooking techniques and spices to give flavor to food.

Pre-cooked Indian food is gaining mass traction and respectability by being available in local as well as ethnic supermarkets alongside offerings from the Hispanic, Jamaican, Oriental palate. You have pre-cooked "Daal Makhani", "Palak Paneer", "Bhindi Masala" "Gobhi Aaloo", "Paranthas", etc from brands like - SWAD, DEEP FOODs, MTR, etc, secondly, you know you have arrived when Wal*mart starts carrying Indian food products on it's shelves. When you say "Basmati" in a store they know you are talking about high quality rice, lentils are not just for making soup, and "kulfi" is better than any ice cream for desert.

Almost 30years ago when we lived in Arlington, VA, less than 10miles from Washington DC, my parents would take us on these everlasting 35-40mile long drives to buy rice, 'daal', 'ataa', 'dry masala', loose Indian tea, Dettol, etc. from the Indian grocery store. Now you don't have to drive more than 5 miles in most metro areas to get any of the stuff, if your local grocery store doesn't have it.

As inconspicuous as this phenomenon is there is no stopping this cultural -"Juggernaut".

Non-Corporate Indian Brands - 1

Recently, one of my friends in India asked for my views on Non-corporate Indian brands that have had global impact.

His question was -

What is your take on these global brand concepts from India. How does world see it? Do they have momentum of their own which could turn them into a big global phenomenon?

This started me thinking and the result is printed here... as an ongoing series...

In my opinion and observation, the biggest, most recognized, with the most impact, and one of most visible non-corporate brands is definitely - "IIT". The mere mention "IIT" in almost any forum draws an immediate response of admiration. IIT Alumni having been having a tremendous impact in the US, especially since the 1990's, leading upto the highly visible pre-dot.com success and subsequent bust of various start-ups fronted by various IIT Alumni.

Brand "IIT" has given a majority of the Indian Diaspora a great deal of visibility, material well being, and an extremely powerful lobbying platform in the US. Caused upheavals in the US immigration rules for H1-B, L-visa categories, caused a huge and ongoing economic & IT/BPO boom in India, and a perceived negative on impact on the US economy and employment.

Brand "IIT" has given the Indian education system credibility and respectability, which was severely lacking before the dot.com success of various IIT Alumni - Entrepreneurs and Venture Capitalists.

Though the Indian Medical Community was quite successful in the US, they did not belong to a single monolithic establishment where they were groomed for future success.

Earlier success by Indians in the US was usually termed as a individual and fleeting moment to celebrate.

Brand "IIT" currently has the momentum and should continue gathering momentum as highly visible force in the future, if it does not fall victim to it's own success.

That being -

1. The growing perception among various US employers, and even major Outsourcers, is that the current crop of IITians and graduates of other Tech schools from India are starting to act like mercenaries. Running after the money without having the genuine skills and experience to plod through some of the basic task oriented stuff that needs to be done on a daily basis. A process through which prior IIT alumni went through before breaking out and achieving their visible success.

2. A perception and a possible move towards the dilution of the core IIT curriculum in a manner to reflect and be able to integrate easily with the US higher education standards.

3. As mentioned in point -1, higher turnover from the IITians in the corporate world leading to a disruption in corporate growth due to the re-assignment of multiple individuals to the same project, resulting in lower productivity. A pattern that is being commonly encountered by various US companies off-shoring work to India.

4. The above would lead industry to look to alternatives outside of India, which would greatly inhibit any further growth on brand "IIT". Schools have impact, but ultimately it is industry that employs them and provides them a platform to excel and gain recognition.