Backstory: What’s the Genesis of Self-Fueling Partnerships?

The word “coopetition” has been around much longer than most people think. I first encountered it when my boss Ray Noorda, Novell CEO, brought it back into use in the early 1990s to describe his insight about the then-emerging market for local area networks (LANs).

Novell was one of a number of companies competing to become the LAN market leader. Ray decided to encourage his competitors to focus on “growing the pie”, i.e. the networking market, rather than continuing to fight for a bigger slice of a small market. We created the Networld trade show (later renamed Networld/Interop) and invited every company related to the networking industry to participate, including our closest competitors. The show rapidly grew to become the largest tech gathering of its time, engulfing Las Vegas for a week every year.

Working in and leading a group of a dozen highly talented people who built partnerships with the largest companies in the industry was one of the most exhilarating experiences of my career. During that time, Novell’s partnership efforts helped it hit a billion dollars in revenue faster than any company to that point. In addition to a network of over 20,000 resellers who depended upon us for a significant share of their revenue, we grew partnerships that aligned leading companies (e.g. CA, Compaq, HP, IBM, Lotus, Oracle) behind our network operating system and encouraged them to develop new solutions for our customers.

Observations made during that time led me a few years ago to coin the term “self-fueling” to describe partnerships carefully constructed to last. Like most useful concepts, the definition of a self-fueling partnership is simple:

“a relationship structured so that positive results for the first party drives it to act in ways that increase positive results for the second party, and vice versa.”

The partnership between ATT and Apple is an excellent example. It lasted several years enabled each to them to capture significant market share. We all owe a debt to the late, great Ray Noorda for pointing the way to self-fueling partnerships by selling the idea of coopetition to the industry.

 

CEO Flow v. Multitasking

In a recent article in Small Business Trends, CEO Curt Finch of Journyx contrasts the benefits of “flow” over “multitasking” in achieving optimal employee productivity. Recent studies show that multitasking can be highly unproductive, while flow is much better:

“As defined by author and psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, flow occurs when you enter a state of intense and effortless concentration on the task at hand. It is often referred to as ‘being in the zone,’ and employees are far more productive while in this state than at any other time.”

That made me wonder to what extent the same principle applies to CEOs and how they use their time. Most CEOs are paragons of multitasking. Each day comprises formal and informal meetings and calls that address a multitude of topics across multiple domains. A CEO friend once described it this way: “It feels like I’m walking the halls of the office and people are ripping off pieces of flesh as I walk by. At the end of the day, I’m exhausted.”

As with employees, multitasking would seem to be the natural enemy of flow for CEOs. Of course a CEO must necessarily handle more than one issue at a time, but if you continually find yourself without enough time to adequately address important but not urgent issues, multitasking may be slowing your company’s growth.

Finding uninterrupted time to consider how to grow the company is a common CEO challenge. Achieving “CEO flow” may require a level of discipline above what you’ve applied in the past. Delegating more tasks to your executive team, encouraging them to be more mutually accountable, and becoming more protective of open space in your calendar can enable you to become the chief visionary officer that your company needs.

Are you spending time in the zone that’s needed to create the right vision, or are you always multitasking?

Self-Fueling Partnership: Apple and AT&T

“In this new wave of technology, you can’t do it all yourself; you have to form alliances.”                           -Carlos Slim Helu 

Addressing startup entrepreneurs at RISE Week Austin, I asked, “If the richest man on the planet thinks alliances are critical, shouldn’t you?” (As a four-time startup survivor – 1985, 1995, 2000, 2002 – I’m driven to give CEOs the knowledge and passion they need to accelerate growth through partnerships.

The Apple/AT&T partnership was a classic: Apple sought broad distribution while AT&T needed new technology. Together they demonstrated how to create a self-fueling partnership, i.e. one that is structured such that positive results for the first party drives it to act in ways that increase positive results for the second party, and vice versa.

Let’s dissect this well-known business case to identify a few principles of “self-fueling partnerships”:

Principle #1   “Partner when the impact of a threat or opportunity is high, and your ability to respond is weak.” 

Apple had an innovative product that needed to be deployed rapidly in order to grab the top spot in the emerging smartphone market. The opportunity was huge, but the carriers controlled access to the customers. AT&T, on the other hand, wanted to grow its data services revenue, and a killer product would help to capture more subscribers.

Principle #2   “Develop a compelling approach before approaching the other party.” 

Apple based their approach to AT&T on its need to capture new subscribers by raiding other carriers. Since people are reluctant to change carriers, AT&T could afford to heavily subsidize the iPhone in exchange for the long-term annuity they’d build from people who switched to their network.

Principle #3   “Be willing to provide exclusivity if you can limit the time and geography.” 

While Apple wanted to grab the #1 spot with rapid deployment, they knew they’d later have to extend distribution through other carriers after significantly penetrating AT&T’s base.  A good bet is that Apple agreed to extend exclusive access to iPhone for as long as AT&T continued to meet aggressive growth goals, then at a later date, Apple would be free to sell through other carriers.

If you have other interesting partnership examples, let us know!.  

 

What You Think You Know May Blind You To Growth Opportunities

TexasCEO magazine just published my latest thoughts about partnerships. In addition to correcting myths about partnerships in general, it describes major types of self-fueling partnerships and the series of steps you can employ to accelerate the growth of your business.

As always, let’s hear your feedback, either below or the TexasCEO web site.

 

Is Your Company Geared Up for Growth?

“Gear up” means “to prepare for something that you have to do” or “to prepare someone else for something” (source: Cambridge Dictionary). To assess whether your company is prepared to grow, ask whether your management team has clear answers to 4 questions:

1. Does the company offer something special enough to compel customers to spend money?

The instinctive answer is “of course it does.” After all, a customer base exists and the company is stable, even if growth is slow. But can the management team relate a shared, crystal clear vision of the company, its category, and its primary benefit? The kinds of companies it sells to? The roles of people within those companies that are involved in purchasing? Other unique qualities that differentiate you from competitors? Answers to these questions comprise a company’s strategic positioning, and a lack of team alignment on it leads to huge inefficiencies.

2. How does the company fit into the bigger picture of the market served?

Understanding which companies are competitors and which are potential allies is essential for sales success. Companies often assume competition exists when there may be a chance to partner effectively instead. Understanding the needs of other key companies leads to a clearer understanding of current opportunities, where value exists in your market space, and the potential to leverage the success of potential partners to provide better customer solutions.

3. What relationships with other companies can accelerate growth?

Most CEOs are skeptical about partnering with another company because it’s perceived as too difficult to be successful. While most partnerships fail because of poor analysis, poor planning, and poor management, a well-planned partnership can enable a company to leapfrog its competitors.

4. How can the company operate more effectively to bring the CEO’s vision to reality?

Having the right growth strategy is important, but execution ultimately determines success. Once a company reaches a certain size, growth can be limited by having outmoded or inappropriate processes in place. “We’ve always done it this way” is not an acceptable answer. Outside help may be required to drive the strategy into successful execution.

The chart below illustrates three levels of “gearing up” that a company can find itself in: stalled, moving, and accelerating.




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Learning how to accelerate your vision and take your company from “stalled” to “accelerating” will be the topic of a subsequent post.

20/20 Outlook’s Third Anniversary

It’s been three years since the launch of 20/20 Outlook as an advisory service for CEOs, and I’ve been blessed with wonderfully rewarding and interesting experiences along the way. By acting as a sounding board for creative business leaders and helping them get clarity about their purpose, value, and relationships, each one has accelerated the quest to achieve his/her business vision.

Recently, Brad Young came into the 20/20 fold as another trusted CEO advisor, bringing with him a whole new set of gifts and talents. His major focus is on initiatives that complete strategies with flawless execution.

Our client discussions cover every aspect of each business, and we often discuss areas of personal challenge and growth. Similar to traditional executive coaching, building trusted CEO relationships has enabled discussions of their strengths and weaknesses, passions, and even the personal search for meaning and purpose. A side benefit that clients have cited is more effective communication with board members, leading to more productive relationships.

Along the way, a wonderful network of people has evolved around us. Each one has generously supported 20/20’s steady growth with introductions and recommendations, suggestions for new offerings, adoption of 20/20 processes, and partnering to help clients. Because of this network, LinkedIn recently recognized my profile as among the top 1%  frequently viewed profiles in 2012.

To our friends and colleagues, thank you for your continuing support!

 

 

Too Broad, Too Narrow, or Just Right

Driving down a major boulevard in a city where we lived at the time, my wife spied a new restaurant in a place where many others had failed. In the window, it advertised food from multiple ethnicities, including both Mexican and Chinese! I’d be surprised if “Bueno Wok” lasted long.

There’s a truism about how a lack of focus can kill an enterprise. Being “a mile wide and a quarter inch deep” is widely recognized as a cause of failure.  Typically, a desire to increase revenue leads to pursuit of business that doesn’t leverage the company’s strengths and results in lower margins and muddled branding. But, are there instances where too narrow a focus can be just as harmful?

The diagram below categorizes organizations according to two attributes, focus and potential. The Focus axis ranges from single domain to multiple domains through all domains, while Potential ranges from restrictive to growing through saturated. Companies focused on several verticals are distinguished from those whose offerings are truly horizontal (i.e. domain-independent). Of course, each axis represents a continuum so that an infinite set of combinations is possible, allowing for the unique positioning of any specific company.

Back to the original question: is it possible to be too focused? Consider the example of a company providing a niche offering to several vertical markets. In the diagram it would be classified as “saturated domain-specific.”

Suppose you’re advising a new CEO hired to grow this “plateauing” company, Your first inclination may be to assess each of the company’s currently targeted vertical markets in hopes of focusing on the one with greatest growth potential. However, if the frequency of opportunities within each vertical domain is found to be sporadic and sensitive to changing business cycles, it may make more sense to remain diversified. Finding additional verticals that the company can target may represent a more fruitful direction.

So a key factor in opting to narrow or broaden our focus ia available market opportunities. Other factors include strength of brand, plus the company’s ability to execute (e.g. capitalization), integrate, partner, and acquire. These affect companies in each of the diagram’s nine categories in different ways. (NOTE: future posts will consider how, so if one of the nine categories is of particular interest, let me know when you sign up on this page to be notified by email when the next post is available.)

Translating the CEO’s vision for growth into breakout strategies requires careful thought to determine the best way to target and deploy finite corporate resources. Too often a new direction is based on an unrealistic view of the company’s position and capabilities. While it takes an optimist to run a company, it takes a realist to lead one toward its highest value.

 

Two Reasons for Five Common Strategy Mistakes

Growth relies on having a superior strategy, and in her recent HBR post, Joan Magretta identifies five common strategy mistakes. In reading the piece, two common antecedents became apparent. Hopefully, naming them will amplify rather than oversimplify her points, since she expertly explains how to correct each of the five.

The twin antecedent causes are a lack of clarity and a lack of focus:

  1. Confusing marketing with strategy – While good marketing is important, simply identifying your value to customers is insufficient to win big and often. A clear understanding of why you’ll win using focused execution is vital.
  2. Confusing competitive advantage with “what you’re good at” – Just being good at certain things isn’t enough to win business. Most companies are good in multiple areas, but sometimes the “strengths” they identify are merely minimum requirements to stay in business, like good customer service. Clarifying what you’re uniquely good at and how your unique blend of products, services, and relationships delivers higher value than competitors’ offerings leads to real growth.
  3. Pursuing size above all else, because if you’re the biggest, you’ll be more profitable – A young, smaller company with a clear and focused strategy can maintain higher margins than larger competitors. It happens in many industries, and Joan’s example of BMW versus GM makes the point.
  4. Thinking that “growth” or “reaching $1 billion in revenue” is a strategy – Desiring to “grow the business” and “enhance revenue” constitute objectives; they don’t identify the strategic moves needed to fulfill them. As discussed often in this blog (e.g., see “Attacking Business Entropy“), clarity about positioning is crucial and fundamental to a successful strategy.
  5. Focusing on high-growth markets, because that’s where the money is – The retail sector was not a high growth market when Amazon entered it. It’s a classic example of finding a new, better way of attacking an old, slow growth market to take share from existing competitors.

Why is it important to get strategy right? Operations-focused CEOs sometimes wonder if strategy is about hiring high-paid consultants to create pretty slides and well-written plans for consumption by boards of directors and investment bankers. As pointed out here before, clear and focused strategic thinking is the key to effective execution. Clarity and focus provide the foundation, and the value of the results – accelerated growth, higher margins, and increased understanding of the market – profoundly surpass the value of a new presentation.

“It’s Hard to Understand If You Haven’t Lived Here”

When I was recently interviewed for a Wall Street Journal article, answering questions about doing business in Texas came remarkably easy. The interview was nominally about Rick Perry, but almost all our time was spent discussing the state’s relatively healthy job scene.

When asked why Texas is special, I told Dan Henninger about a Brooklyn native and friend named John who worked for me in Dallas in the late 80’s. After having lived in half a dozen cities across the country during his career, he deliberately targeted moving to Dallas when he and his wife were ready to start a family. What inspired him was the attitude of businesspeople in Texas when they lived there once before in the early 80’s.

At that time, the energy sector was spiraling downward at a record pace, but he remembered that, instead of bemoaning their situation, the Texans around him were talking about what they were going to do next. In some cases it meant starting over in new areas of the energy sector, while others were planning how to start anew in other markets. No one spent time crying about their dire situation. The optimism he saw in Texas was like nothing he’d seen elsewhere, so he and his wife deliberately returned a few years later.

My friend Ed Trevis (also quoted in the article) provides another perspective from a non-native Texan. As the long-time CEO of a high tech embedded computing business in Silicon Valley, Ed finally became fed up with California’s overbearing tax and regulatory environment, so he surveyed locations in many other states, looking for the best place to relocate. His criteria included a strong, well-educated labor force, less government interference, and an attractive cost of doing business. Texas came out far ahead in his analysis, and the city of Cedar Park outside Austin provided the perfect place to move his business, which has thrived there since the move two-and-a-half years ago.

To be fair, there are great people everywhere, there are thriving businesses in other states, and there are spots that beat out Texas in one way or another. What is unique about Texas, though, is not only its labor force, its supportive governmental policies, and its low cost structure, but the optimism and collaborative attitude so prevalent among its people. As David Booth, who moved Dimensional Fund Advisors’s headquarters to Austin from California, said, “It’s hard to understand if you haven’t lived here.”

 

Elephant in the Room

The Elephant in the Room

Ever been in a conference room with multiple people where the dialog circles around without coming to closure? It eventually dawns on you that the one big issue blocking a decision isn’t being discussed.  Then you realize why. Now hold that thought.

In Getting Naked, Patrick Lencioni says willing to be vulnerable is a virtue for those of us who advise CEOs and their teams. Calling out the elephant in the room is a prime example. He suggests sharing what your intuition tells you, even at the risk of being blazingly wrong. While you might experience occasional embarrassment, overcoming your fear enables you to provide far higher value over the course of your client engagement.

So, let’s pop back into that meeting where everyone is circling… the reason for lack of progress is obvious – it’s an issue that could humiliate someone or at least cause some discomfort, right? In this case, let’s say it’s a boss with an intimidating presence who has directly or indirectly made clear his or her desired outcome. Everyone else in the group knows the solution is impractical, yet they fear the CEO’s wrath or lowered respect if they point it out.

For a trusted adviser, this is a defining moment. We clearly have a moral obligation to do what’s in the best interest of our client, regardless of personal consequences. While it may be tempting to focus on staying in the CEO’s good graces, being willing and able to directly address the issue openly while maintaining and even growing rapport requires business acumen and emotional intelligence that distinguishes advisers from consultants.

« Previous PageNext Page »