The time to rethink three widely believed, but outdated management ideas is long overdue.
1. There are “good” and “bad” industries
In the late 1970s, Michael Porter’s seminal article on business strategy -- How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy -- established five industry characteristics to explain why some companies are inherently more profitable than others.
Porter advised managers to seek out businesses with strong bargaining power over buyers and suppliers, low threats of entry from similar or substitute products, and minimal competition, giving rise to the notion that there are “good” and “bad” industries, more or less conducive to attractive financial results.
Take airlines for example, plagued by intense price competition, high structural costs and fickle customers. Most airlines historically failed to earn their cost of capital, and every major legacy carrier has gone bankrupt -- at least once. Who would want to enter such a fraught industry?
But if structurally challenged industries are destined to suffer, how can one explain that Southwest Airlines’ market cap since 1980 has grown more than four times faster than the S&P 500 and more than 90 times faster than the airline sector as a whole?
If a company’s choice is either to enter a poorly performing industry, playing by the same rules as incumbent market leaders, or to stay out of the business entirely, Porter's advice is well taken. But there’s a third choice: recognizing opportunities to address poorly served customers by playing by a different set of rules.
Southwest Airlines initially focused on passengers who neither valued, nor were willing to pay for a broad range of amenities offered by legacy airlines, instead delivering no-frills, efficient and friendly one-class service.
Similarly, companies like Casper, Costco, Netflix and Warby-Parker have attacked sources of customer dissatisfaction and/or high costs to prove that there’s no such thing as a bad industry, except if you’re an incumbent mired in an outdated business model.
2. The objective of management is to maximize shareholder value.
Perhaps no management principle is preached more dogmatically than that management’s objective should be to maximize shareholder value.
But this belief has led too many executives to focus on boosting quarterly earnings and stock prices with actions that compromise long-term growth -- a serious problem that’s been getting worse.
For example, 80 percent of CFO’s recently reported that they would cut R&D spending if their company risked missing a quarterly earnings forecast. Moreover, S&P 500 companies have spent an unprecedented $3 trillion on stock buybacks over the past five years, partly at the expense of R&D, capital expenditures for expansion, workforce training and other value-creating activities. Share buybacks increase a company’s short-term EPS – that’s just math -- but there is growing evidence to suggest that excessive stock buybacks can undermine long-term value creation.
The real issue here is that maximizing shareholder value should be the outcome, not the driver of management priorities. Corporate strategy should be guided by a customer-centric corporate purpose, a clear articulation of the time horizon for planning, decision-making and capital allocation, and how tradeoffs between stakeholder interests should be resolved.
As an example, Jeff Bezos’ first letter to shareholders clearly articulated that Amazon would prioritize long-term market leadership over short-term profitability, and that the company would relentlessly focus on customers. By consistently putting customers at the center of Amazon’s strategy and new business development, the company’s market cap has increased almost 1,000X since its IPO. Customers and shareholders have been exceptionally well served by CEO Bezos’ overarching commitment to a long-term customer-centric corporate purpose.
3. Mature businesses inevitably decline
Recent research has found that less than 15 percent of Fortune global 100 companies have sustained above-market growth over multiple decades. Does this suggest a Darwinian form of corporate evolution where large corporations are destined to decline?
Those who question the feasibility of long-term growth point to three seemingly immutable marketplace constraints:
These “laws” are not only flawed, but they could become a self-fulfilling prophecy of corporate failure. After all, if managers truly believe that long-term growth is impossible, they will seek to protect and harvest current assets and customers for as long as possible. But such an approach—playing not to lose, rather than playing to win—only serves to hasten the decline of incumbent market leaders, as Kodak, Blockbuster, Sears and others have painfully discovered.
But there are counter-examples, where businesses have continued to prosper by maintaining the same core values, entrepreneurial spirit and adaptability that led to their success in the first place:
Amazon became the fastest company to exceed $100 billion in sales last year following this approach. Over an even longer term, Johnson & Johnson and 3M are still outpacing overall GDP growth more than a century after their founding.
Long-term profitable growth and shareholder value creation is possible in all industries – good or bad.
After 40 years in management consulting and venture capital, I joined the faculty of Columbia Business School, teaching courses in business strategy and corporate entrepreneurship
Archives by title
How MIT Dragged Uber Through Public Relations Hell
Is Softbank Uber's Savior?
Why Can't Uber Make Money?
Looking For Growth In All The Wrong Places
Three Management Ideas That Need to Die
Wells Fargo and the Lobster In the Pot
Jumping to the Wrong
Conclusions on the AT&T/Time Warner Merger
What Kind Of Products Are You Really Selling?
What Shakespeare Thinks About Brian Williams
Are Customer-Friendly CEO’s Bad for Business?
Uncharted Waters: What to Make Of Amazon’s Chronic Lack of Profits
What Happens When David Becomes Goliath…Are Large Corporations Destined To Fail?
Advice to Publishers: Don’t Fight For Your Honor, Fight For Your Lives!
Amazon should be viewed as a fierce competitor in its dispute with publisher Hachette
Men (And Women) Behaving Badly
Why some brands “just don’t get no respect!”
Courage and Faustian Bargains
Sun Tzu and the Art of Disrupting Higher Education
Nobody Cares What You Think!
Product Complexity: Less Can Be More
Apple's Product Strategy: No News Is Good News
Willful Suspension of Belief In The Book Publishing Industry
Whither Higher Education
Timing Is Everything
Teachable Moments -- The Curious Case of JC Penney
What Dogs Can Teach Us About Business
Are You Ready For Big-Bang Disruption?
When Being Good Isn’t Good Enough
Is Apple Losing Its Mojo?
Blowing Up Old Habits
What Is Apple's Product Strategy--Strategic Rigidity or Enlightened Expansion
Archives by date