Out-thinking or Innovation: What is the key?

I think most of the readers would agree with me over the fact that companies like Google, Apple, Facebook etc. have made interesting ideas into huge businesses. They have changed what was once considered a boring lonely journey, into an interesting one. They just do interesting stuff and they have made billions out of it.

But this is not a bubble and they are here to stay. These guys do serious business and competition is as severe as one can imagine. Let us try to understand various major business developments and changing market dynamics in some of the top tech companies from an amateur’s point of view:

Microsoft is the oldest of the lot. Established on April 4, 1975 by a Harvard Drop-out, it is an American public multinational corporation headquartered in Redmond, Washington, USA. It made software and that is what it does today and is a world leader. It was ‘innovation and out the box thinking’ that brought it to where it is today. To talk about computer software would have been nothing but a joke in 1975. It had created a new market and it reigned. It kept on improving itself and kept moving ahead in the same direction. It killed any competition that came in its way.

Apple is an American multinational corporation that designs and markets consumer electronics, computer software, and personal computers. It started almost at the same time as Microsoft but it gave equal importance to Hardware as it did to software unlike Microsoft. It made complete computer systems. It was on its own way but crossed its lines with Microsoft occasionally. But it lost its way and Microsoft went far 

ahead in the Race.

Nokia, though an old company with different business interests, it came into limelight as a telecom equipment manufacturer in 1980s. It became the leader in the Mobile Equipment market with presence in almost the entire world. Traditionally Consumer always preferred better hardware and a workable software and Nokia made the most of it. It had put all R&D efforts in hardware and came up with amazing phones.

Google is a relatively new company as compared to Microsoft, Apple and Nokia.  It was first incorporated as a privately held company on September 4, 1998. The company's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" and the company's unofficial slogan is "Don't be evil”. It eats drinks and sleeps innovation. Its products like the Search engine, Chrome, talk, Picasa, Reader, Android et al are path breaking. It has a different approach to business and it earns in a rather amusing way. For some, Google can become the father of all Tech companies and it is said to be working on every conceivable idea. Last heard we would be having Google kitchenware. Their R&D is their strength.

facebook Do I need to say more? facebook has engaged generations. It is the last entrant among the others that I have discussed. Most of us are on facebook and most of us would not be comfortable sharing with others, the time we spend on it. Some tout it to be poised to overtake Google. For those who haven’t seen the Academy award winning ‘The Social Network’, you don’t know how you, yes you and each one of us who use facebook, have made a guy called Mark Zuckerberg a billionaire.

Circa 2011, Apple has overtaken Microsoft. It is probably the world’s strongest brand. It still makes the complete equipment and not just software. iPod, iPad, iPhone, Macbooks and others are nothing the world has seen before. Apple not only makes world's best OS and apps but it gives equal importance to the aesthetics. ‘If you don’t have an iPhone, well, you don’t have an iPhone.’

It completely changed the rules of the game. It changed the direction of the industries, yes industries not one industry but many. Not only Microsoft but it has overtaken (probably killed) Nokia in its own backyard. Apple makes Music Players, Mobile Phones, Macbooks and Macs among others. It has re-invented from a company that made computing machines. It has out thought its competitors by innovative products and approach to market.

While companies like Microsoft were strengthening their position in their own market, Apple changed the entire Market and is moving in such a way that an Apple consumer won’t need (probably can’t use) a product other than an Apple product.

Nokia, which was a market leader in the mobile equipments market, has lost its battle on the software front. It failed to innovate in OS and lost the market to Apple which provides an equally good hardware as Nokia’s does but a far better iOS Platform.

Hence Nokia joined hands with Microsoft. Both need each other to compete with Apple. But will they give a good competition? Only time will answer.

Google is creating its own history; it started as a search engine but has given Nokia (already battered by Apple) and now even Apple, a stiff competition in mobile space by its open platform called Android. The Android platform is free for all and Google earns by advertising and other means. So all other manufacturers Samsung, Motorola, Sony Eriksson etc are making products powered by Google’s Android.

By this innovative business model, which they apply across various industries, Google has a bigger platform and it competes with Apple on various fronts. But the best part about Google is that it is an unpredictable competitor. You never know what it may bring for free and eat the market. (No pun intended)

What about facebook? The father of all Social Networks is out-thinking others on every step. The biggest threat it poses to Google is that it has the access to the real time data of its users. So it can offer you, let’s say, products/service in future that are based on the information you provide on facebook or the activity you do on it. So there would a better chance of selling you something if one knows what exactly you like or you do. Google on the other hand does not have the access to real time information of its users; it relies on the historical information.

Hence the late the entrant the more chances of it to kill the predecessors. So what is the key?

Is it Innovation or Out-Thinking?

I think it is a combination of both, on some fronts companies like Google have used their R&D to bring innovation and on other fronts companies like facebook have used their out-thinking to beat the competition. 

Probably Apple uses both. So it depends on the situation of the market that one relies on either Innovation or Out-thinking or both.

I await your views/arguments and comments on the same. You can also write to me at nitinaddress@yahoo.com.

Mission with a Mission

Every success has a story and every story has a hero. Most of the successful organizations had a modest beginning with limited number of employees/ stakeholders and the ‘Founder’ acting as the guiding force to them. But as an organization grows and expands, the number of stakeholders increase and
more employees are hired.

So what happens when the organization grows huge and the one who is the ‘Guiding Force’ is not able to personally direct so many of them?

The organization continues to exist but will it continue to grow in the same manner as the guiding force
wants it to?
May be that is why the concept of Vision and Mission Statement came into the picture. In other words,
they serve as the Guiding Light in the moments when the path is unclear. They work as the substitute of
the original Guiding Force. The Vision and Mission Statement are the reference points in the situation of;
let’s say confusion or a deadlock. Let us now try to understand what Vision Statement and Mission
Statement really mean.

Vision: Defines the way an organization or enterprise will look in the future.
Mission: Defines the fundamental purpose of an organization or an enterprise, succinctly describing
why it exists and what it does to achieve its Vision. The mission statement should guide the actions of
the organization, spell out its overall goal, provide a sense of direction, and guide decision-making. Thus
in a way, the Mission statement becomes more important than the Vision itself.

Let’s examine, from an amateur’s point of view, the Mission Statements of some of the well known
Multinational Companies. I have chosen 6 of them:

Ford Motor Company:We are a global family with a proud heritage passionately committed to
providing personal mobility for people around the world.
(This statement appeals to the Employees and Customers and talks about being the older player in
the global market at the time when the market is flooded with many big players. It tries to appeal on
the emotional level. Also it makes it clear that their forte is in ‘Personal Mobility’ and thus clearly
sends the message across.)

Global Gillette: We will provide branded products and services of superior quality and value that
improve the lives of the world's consumers. As a result, consumers will reward us with leadership
sales, profit, and value creation, allowing our people, our shareholders, and the communities in
which we live and work to prosper.
{We might think of Gillette as a company making products for Men’s Personal Care, but the mission
statement clearly widens the scope by saying it wants to ‘improve the lives’ of the world’s
consumers and is not restricted to shaving creams and blades, as we might think. It gives a clear
indication to the Management/ Employees. It also talks about social welfare in the end. It also
appeals to the Consumers very strongly.}

Harley-Davidson, Inc: We fulfill dreams through the experience of motorcycling, by providing to
motorcyclists and to the general public an expanding line of motorcycles and branded products and
services in selected market segments.

{It clearly mentions its core product in the statement – Motorcycles and talks about the Experience of Motorcycling, hereby appealing to the Consumers at an emotional level. It also appeals to the Employees or future management about the fact that it wants to expand the market size and expand their ‘line of motorcycles’ and also the associated Branded Products (remember the classic Harley Davidson Jacket) and Services but ‘in selected market segments’ only (Harley doesn’t come cheap baby!!)}

IBM: Operating a safe and secure government.
(Ideally a Government Serves and it takes care of its people and so does IBM. Great Impact, it
makes you think of IBM as a JUGGERNAUT! and it is. We say ‘I am an Indian/American/British’
they say ‘I am an IBMer!’.)

Microsoft: At Microsoft, we work to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full
potential. This is our mission. Everything we do reflects this mission and the values that make it possible.
{‘People and Businesses’ cover the entire conceivable market. ‘Realize their full potential’ is another
way of saying ‘making them 100% dependent upon us’. Windows is the leader in operating system
and software and will probably continue to remain the same in the Future. (’It is just so tough to
graduate to a Mac!!’) }

The Walt Disney Company: The mission of The Walt Disney Company is to be one of the world's
leading producers and providers of entertainment and information. Using our portfolio of brands to
differentiate our content, services and consumer products, we seek to develop the most creative,
innovative and profitable entertainment experiences and related products in the world.
{They realize by their experience, that their core competency is in ‘Entertainment’ and since they have a
strong presence in ‘Media’ – Media Networks (ABC Television Group, ESPN Inc. etc) and DIMG
(Disney Interactive Media Group) hence ‘Information’. Having ‘Entertainment’ at heart, they already have
the world best known brands and using the same, they want to create different experiences and
Products. Hence they are strongly appealing to the Employees/ Stakeholders, among others. (It is
enough to leverage what Walt Disney did in his lifetime!)}

So it seems Mission Statement itself has a goal to achieve and this goal can be anything ranging from a
strategy around a threat to addressing a challenge or to showcase the strength etc. You might think
about these/others in many ways and I am all ears.

You can send your Views, Arguments and suggestions to nitinaddress@yahoo.com.

Leadership and Management

This Article is given by me and would come in the April-2011 Edition of 'Horizons' under the  head 'Management Quotient' in A2Z Group.

As I sit down to write this Edition’s Management Quotient, I want to produce something that is exciting and something that is not complicated. So I ask for a Coffee from the Pantry in the Ground Floor and expect it to invigorate me, so that my creative Juices come out from a certain corner in my brain.

But does it work?  Let’s see.

Something Exciting can be, Management or Leadership. Are they different? They seem to be the same. But they also seem to be bookish and complicated. So let me not go nuts over them but still understand the difference between the two. So, Let’s Google them. The Results are as under:

I searched for Definitions and got these results:

Leadership has been described as the “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task”.

Management in all business and organizational activities is the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively.

They seem pretty much the same and I have confusion between them, thus I keep googling.

Then other page said ‘Over the years the philosophical terminology of "management" and "leadership", in the organizational context, have been used both as synonyms and with clear differentiated meanings’.

Another page said ‘Managing and leading are two different ways of organizing people. The manager uses a formal, rational method whilst the leader uses passion and stirs emotions.’

I noted some difference but then I need to understand it clearly so I looked for some quotes from well known personalities and management thinkers and I got these good ones:

‘The task of the leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been.’
By Henry A. Kissinger
and

Management is responsibility for the performance of a group of people. It’s a simple idea, yet putting it into practice is difficult, because management is defined by responsibility but done by exerting influence. To influence others you must make a difference not only in what they do but also in the thoughts and feelings that drive their actions.

By Linda A. Hill and Kent Lineback (Harvard Business Review)

Then somewhere I got this:

"Leadership and management are two distinctive and complementary systems of action. Each has its own function and characteristic activities. Both are necessary for success in an increasingly complex and volatile business environment...strong leadership with weak management is no better, and is sometimes actually worse, than the reverse. The real challenge is to combine strong leadership and strong management and use each to balance the other." — John Kotter, Management/Leadership Author and Professor of Organizational Behavior, Harvard Business School

That makes it clear but more light was thrown on the same idea by the following:

In a nutshell, the difference between leadership and management is:

Leadership is setting a new direction or vision for a group that they follow, ie: a leader is the spearhead for that new direction.

Management controls or directs people/resources in a group according to principles or values that have already been established.

Leadership without Management

...sets a direction or vision that others follow, without considering too much how the new direction is going to be achieved. Other people then have to work hard in the trail that is left behind, picking up the pieces and making it work.

Management without Leadership

...controls resources to maintain the status quo or ensure things happen according to already-established plans. Eg: a referee manages a sports game, but does not usually provide "leadership" because there is no new change, no new direction - the referee is controlling resources to ensure that the laws of the game are followed and status quo is maintained.

Leadership combined with Management

...does both - it both sets a new direction and manages the resources to achieve it. Eg: a newly elected president or prime minister.

Leadership and Management Summary

Leadership is about setting a new direction for a group; management is about directing and controlling according to established principles.

My Creative Juices are limited to the space provided, but not yours. I await your comments, arguments and views on this Topic. Write to me at nitin.sharma@gmail.com.

Management Quotient

This Article is given by me and would come in the February-2011 Edition of 'Horizons' under the  head 'Management Quotient' in A2Z Group.

For an exponent of Management, to ignore ‘Harvard Business Review’ (HBR) is similar to ignoring an Elephant in the living room.

Personally I am a big fan of HBR and by its help I have lined up some excerpts from the blog posts by the well known Management Gurus, Thinkers and Leaders from around the world.

These would certainly help you in your endeavors.

3 Ways to Cultivate Your Proactive Brain

Studies have shown that a good memory helps you better navigate the future. And in business, anticipating and negotiating future demands is an asset. A proactive brain uses details from past experiences to make analogies with your current surroundings. It then helps you determine where you are and envision future possibilities. We are all born with proactive brains, but these three things can help improve brain performance:

1.     Give it a lot to work with. Create a richer pool of information to draw from. Expose your brain to diverse experiences and situations.

2.     Borrow from others. Find out as much as you can about others' experiences by talking, interacting with, and reading about other peoples' lives.

3.     Let your mind wander. Undisturbed time gives your brain the space it needs to recall and recombine past experiences in ways that help you anticipate the future.

-         adapted from "How Your Brain Connects the Future to the Past" by Jeff Brown and Mark Fenske.

3 Tips for Asking Better Questions

For leaders to be effective, they need to connect honestly with others: investors, direct reports, fellow leaders. Asking good questions can not only help you find out essential information, but also lay the groundwork for collaboration. Often it's not about what you ask, but how. Here are three tips for improving the way you ask questions:

1.     Be curious. Doing all the talking doesn't make you an effective leader. Be inquisitive and ask about topics that are important to you and to the person with whom you're talking.

2.     Be open-ended. Use what, how, and why questions. Don't just ask about events, but about thoughts and motivations as well.

3.     Dig deeper. Don't accept the first answer you get. Ask follow-up questions to get more detail and surface the real story.

-         adapted from "Learn to Ask Better Questions" by John Baldoni.

3 Steps to Recover from a Mistake

While most people accept that mistakes are inevitable, no one likes to make them. The good news is that even large errors don't have to be career-enders if they are handled well. Next time you make a blunder, follow these three steps to recover gracefully:

1.     Fess up. Trying to hide a mistake or downplay its importance can be fatal to your career. Be candid and transparent about the mistake, take responsibility for your part in it, and don't be defensive.

2.     Make necessary changes. Mistakes are important learning opportunities. Explain to your boss and other interested parties what you will do differently going forward.

3.     Get back out there. Don't let your errors keep you from ever taking risks again. Once the mistake is behind you, focus on the future.

-         adapted from "You've Made A Mistake. Now What?" by Amy Gallo.

3 Ways to Bring Out the Best in Your People

The brightest leaders don't just rely on their own intelligence to succeed, but use it to help their people shine as well. Here are three ways you can help your employees not only feel smarter, but act smarter:

1.     Look for ideas everywhere. Don't assume you know where all the new and creative ideas will come from. Involve people on projects not because of their titles, but based on their ability to contribute.

2.     Encourage openness. Create a safe environment where your people know they can — and should — think, act, and speak with reason. Have a high tolerance for mistakes so people aren't afraid to take risks.

3.     Challenge them to get better. Offer opportunities for people to stretch their thinking and behavior. Set the expectation that everyone, including you, should improve their skills.

-         adapted from "Bringing Out the Best in Your People" by Liz Wiseman and Greg McKeown.

3 Ways to Manage Clashing Leadership Styles

If everyone had the same management style as you, life at work would be easier, wouldn't it? Not necessarily. While managing the tension can be challenging, working with someone who has a different approach than you can often yield innovation and creativity. Here are three ways to make the most of differing styles:

1.     Unpeel the onion. On the surface, you may seem to have little in common with your coworker. But if you look deeper, you are likely to see shared values or a mutual goal. Focus on what you have in common, not on what you don't.

2.     Manage your expectations. Recognize that you and your coworker are going to have different expectations about how things should be done. Communicate about these disparities and be open to doing something another way.

3.     Push for innovation. The true value of diversity is a richer end product. Use your relationship to find innovation and benefit in the work you do together.

-         adapted from "Three Ways to Capitalize on Creative Tension" by Amy Jen Su and Muriel Maignan Wilkins.

3 Steps to Stop a Team Fight

Working with teams can be a frustrating experience, especially when seemingly straightforward conflict devolves into personal or protracted disputes. Next time your team members start throwing proverbial punches, take these three steps to get them to stop fighting and start working:

1.     Intervene early. The sooner you step in the better. A simple disagreement can turn into a serious conflict within seconds when emotions are running high.

2.     Focus on team norms. Refer the parties back to something they can, or hopefully already have, agreed on. Use team norms to guide behavior and help the parties identify common ground.

3.     Create a shared agreement. To reach an accord, have the team members talk it through. With all parties' cards on the table, facilitate an outcome that is amenable to all. Avoid a lowest common denominator solution. Instead find one that integrates both parties' interests.

-          adapted from "Get Your Team to Stop Fighting and Start Working" by Amy Gallo.

3 Tips for Keeping Your Action Plan on Track

The best-designed and articulated plans mean nothing if they aren't executed. Yet, we have all action plans languishing on a desk or in a drawer never to be carried out. Here are three tips for keeping your plan on track:

1.     Make it a living, working plan. Be sure the plan is specific, realistic, and has clear time frames. Don't bite off more than you can chew.

2.     Ask what stands in the way. All plans have potential threats. Whether they include your own waning motivation or your boss's inability to cooperate, knowing what those threats are can help you prepare to face them.

3.     Develop strategies to mitigate challenges. Your implementation approach needs to compensate for or respond to any opposing forces. If threats loom too large, consider revising your plan accordingly.

-         adapted from "How to Keep Your Action Plan on Track" by Gill Corkindale.

3 Ways to Leverage Your Best People

Too often managers unintentionally hinder or discourage their star performers. This counter-productive behavior is not ill-intended. It's often because the manager isn't sure how to motivate someone who is so exceptionally talented. If you are lucky enough to have such high-performers on your team, try these three things to make the most of them:

1.     Push them to the next level. Stretch and challenge stars. Find out what they are good at and what they need to learn and craft assignments accordingly.

2.     Let them shine. Don't hide your stars. Give them visibility. Let others know what they are doing. When they look good, you do too.

3.     Let them go. Top performers need room to grow. If it makes sense for their development, let them move on.

-          adapted from "Leverage Your Top Talent Before You Lose It" by Ron Ashkenas.

Stop Bringing Down Your Team

Chances are you've worked with someone who drains all the intelligence and capability out of a team. Sometimes, despite your intentions, that person may be you. Here are three things you can do to get out of your team's way and let it shine:

1.     Don't be a hero. You don't always need to have an answer. Give your people the opportunity to think things through themselves.

2.     Don't make abrupt decisions. Quick decisions can short-circuit a team. Let your people in on your decision-making process and whenever possible, cultivate debate about an issue before coming to a conclusion.

3.     Don't talk too much. You may think your excitement is infectious when in reality it is stifling. Try keeping quiet and leave room for your employees to share their ideas.

-         adapted from "Bringing Out the Best in Your People" by Liz Wiseman and Greg McKeown.

Your Views, Comments and arguments are welcome. You can personally reach me at nitin.sharma@gmail.com.