Home
About
Apple
Career
Experiences
General
Graphics
Hardware
History
Humor
Interface
Networking
OS
Opinion
Politics
Programming
Quotes
Reviews
Security
Software
Sound
Thought
Web
Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
|
Leading or Following
The past is not the future
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
2002-11-29
6 KB |
|
|
 |
 common mistake I've seen businesses repeat, over and over again - or more accurately I've seen many companies do once or twice, since they often don't get a chance to repeat the mistake too many times, is to drive by watching the review mirror.
What do I mean by that? Driving by watching the rear-view mirror is when companies or managers do not think and analyze; learn the technologies, markets, reasons for things, and instead just follow by what everyone else is doing. They crush brilliant new ideas, or cost saving measures because that's not what others are doing. We should buy PC's because everyone else does it. We should price our products at X, because everyone else does it. Our features should be Y, like our competition. And so on. Marketing even teaches this principle, or knowing your markets by comparing potential or perceived value to everyone else.
This all makes as much sense as driving while watching all the cars behind you; this means you aren't leading you are following. By the time they slam on their brakes or swerve, and you notice and react, it is probably going to be way too late for you. A lot of them are following your lead so are going to plow into the same obstructions you do.
           
I guess some managers feel it is a good safe, "cover your butt" method of managing; "Wow, look at all the other companies that failed to predict this one too", "at least we're not alone", or "I shouldn't be fired for following the biggest/best". But what they ignored is that they aren't the other companies, it doesn't matter if you drown alone or with a ship of fools because you still drown, and you damned well should be fired for failing to do your job which is make decisions based on what's good for this company. This world doesn't need more bleating sheep, it needs the few that will think on their own, take reasonable risks, and try to do the best for the company, not just the safest or easiest moves for themselves politically.
All the time companies make these same kinds of decisions. Why are we choosing Java based development? Because everyone else is. But why? Because it is safe. Why do you think that? Because the big boys are using it. But we're not the big boys, we don't have their staff, money or time to waste, we need to be smaller and lighter, so should choose the best tool for us, not follow what's the best tool for them. Many, dare I say most, companies that go out of business do it while following all the popular trends. Usually you get blank stares like you're talking some alien language. Then you get the, "but if it wasn't good then others wouldn't be doing it". That's what all victims of pop-culture say, right before they learn the hard way that pop-culture is fickle and often wrong.
It is much easer to manage this way; after all you don't have to know nearly as much, or think and weight all the potential futures. And there's less risk to following. And realistically, there are trends and patterns that repeat themselves. But all new trends, emerging market, and organizations that became big businesses, did so based not on what had been going on in the past; but by riding the wave of a future that others had not foreseen and had failed to predict. All new industries or successful companies got that way not by following but by leading. All right, maybe Microsoft is an exception; but exceptions are rare, and you are not Microsoft. The point is that business is done this way because it is easy for managers; not because it is good for companies.
Engineers joke that the most dangerous thing in the world is a manager with a technology magazine. Not because the managers shouldn't have a clue as to what they are managing; but many of them will take their little scraps and pieces of information and think it makes them qualified to make sweeping decisions. The people with the real domain knowledge are often not consulted because that would show weakness, or a clue. Most of the technical information in organizations is contained in the lower ranks; the doers or people that are neck deep in the trenches. You need to pull that information up the food chain and not just push orders down.
Big companies are just that; big. They are slow, and reactive. Occasionally, a rogue group in them escapes the political mire long enough that they can innovate or do something without corporate micromanagement and bureaucracy crushing them under their jack boot, but that's usually a complete accident. Those companies are just so big and inefficient that there are many groups trying this at once. The ones that luck out and succeed are the exceptions. Smaller companies can't afford all those failures for those few successes.
Big companies aren't in business to take more risks and win more markets; they are in business to keep the markets they have and not take any risks. As a small or mid sized business you don't want to follow them, you want to stay ahead of them, as they will crush anything that gets in their way or under their wheels. Their leftovers aren't worth having, so you have to get there first and let them eat your scraps.
Rarely, you can play by someone else's rules and still win the game. You can choose their tools, and their processes, and their markets, and just do things better, and still win. But if they are big, and you are small, that is not a good bet.
Generally, if you want to beat them, then it is better if you make them play by your rules. Find out where the markets are going, and beat them to the goal. You can do that by being faster, lighter and more adept. Don't choose their tools; choose the tools that get you there faster. Don't use their processes; use processes that get you there faster. Don't use their bureaucracy; while process and bureaucracy is necessary, you want enough of it to have a clear path of operation and process, without holding everything back. Choose wisely, or business based Darwinism will teach you some harsh lessons.
    
While it might be good for managers to mitigate their personal risks by just following; it is not good for most companies. Those companies could be so much more efficient if they had leaders (and not followers) at the helm, that were piloting courses for their organization, based on their organizations size, goals and the likely future trends of the industry (not the present or past trends of others in the industry). That leading and risk taking has to be at all levels.
Of course you need to know what is going on in the industry around you, and not be a risk monger and try to jump ahead of every new trend as well. There are always balances. But the art of being a good manager and leader is learning these balances and when to take these risks. Too many never learn this, and sadly the organizations and people they are responsible for and to, often pay the price. 
 Format for Printing  Mail
|
|
|
|
