In business, have a plan. Apply strategic thinking to the plan. Implement.
That about sums up this common sense book.
Books that tout a methodology for business success are always problematic, in my view. They point out failed companies because they've failed, saying, "See, if the company's leaders only did x, y, and z, they'd still be in business." And, "Now, these companies, still in business, are obviously applying x, y, and z correctly." 20-20 hindsight.
Take General Motors. In 2009 General Motors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Before this time, it was an example of a company with a strategic plan (which apparently was to sell large, gas-guzzling cars and trucks). You hear that call from the stands for fuel efficiency? Author Rich Horwath writes that Bob Lutz, former chairman of GM, stated "The customer is at best just a rear-view mirror. He can tell you what he likes among the choices already out there. But when it comes to the future, why expect the customer to be the expert in clairvoyance or in creativity? After all, isn't that really what he expects us to be?" (p. 64). The Wall Street Journal lamented, "For the many individual General Motors Corp. shareholders wondering what their stock is still worth, the answer looks pretty bleak." So, what does this mean? Before, they were strategic thinkers, and then they were not strategic thinkers, and then they failed, and if they reemerge from their new organizational structure then they must be strategic thinkers again?
I have a diver's headache.
Here's what I want, one time. I want authors like Horwath to make predictions. "Companies A, B, and C are not applying the type of strategic thinking that I believe is required for their success. Ninety percent of their employees don't even know that they have a strategic plan. Therefore, they will fail, or fail to grow." And "Companies D, F, and G are applying the type of strategic thinking that I believe is required for their success. Ninety percent of their employees know that they have a strategic plan. Therefore, they will succeed, and grow."
Is that asking too much? After all, this book IS subtitled "...The Proven Method..."
Horwath also tries too hard to use the "dive" analogies throughout. It feels like an scheme to make his diving hobby a legitimate business-related expense. Seriously! And I winced at his attempts to co-mingle biological concepts into the discussion. For example:
For microorganisms in a test tube, "If the animals were of the same genus and a different species, they were able to live together peaceably. However, if the animals were of the same genus and the same species, they were not able to coexist. This led to the Principle of Competitive Exclusion (POCE), which states that no two species can coexist that make their living in the identical way. Open the newspaper and read about the companies that are struggling and it's a good bet one of the reasons is their failure to heed the Principle of Competitive Exclusion" (p. 29). The principle really states that two species that compete for the exact same resources cannot stably coexist. So two different species, using the same exact (and limiting) resources, cannot coexist. Horwath wrote, "If the animals were of the same genus and a different species, they were able to live together peaceably." No, that's not what the POCE says... they DON'T coexist. And he writes, "However, if the animals were of the same genus and the same species, they were not able to coexist." No, that's not what the POCE says... if they are the same species, they are... the same species! There's no interspecific competition by definition! So when Horwath states, "Open the newspaper and read about the companies that are struggling and it's a good bet one of the reasons is their failure to heed the Principle of Competitive Exclusion," this may or may not be true. However, clearly Horwath doesn't understand the concept. Ecology 101.
Frogs changing "... into another form of life..." (p. 36)? I think they are still frogs, not domestic aliens. Horwath also stated "Failure to understand and adapt to the changing context can ruin even the most successful of companies. As Charles Darwin said, 'It's not the strongest of the species who survive, nor even the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change'" (p. 56). Darwin was not discussing business strategy. Natural selection works because more organisms are produced than can survive, and there is differential mortality and reproduction based on heritable characteristics. There is no Darwinian goal to be the most successful company.
Finally, Horwath uses an example from an alleged 2500 year old story about Chinese General Sun Tzu executing two women to make a point to the king (p. 115). Horwath concludes "Now that's strategy execution" (execution is italicized). It is difficult for me to understand why Horwath would use the horrific execution of women (as concubines, they were probably slaves), to make a point. There's a level of insensitivity here that bothers me.
Another 20-20 hindsight business book...