The last Wigder Report described a dilemma faced by one of my clients, who I named Tom. His profitable company has two Divisions, Research and Commercial. Desirable synergy has not developed between the Divisions, leading to frustration and possibly causing recent poor performance in product development. (Full report is at www.fulcrumgroup.com/articles/wr-0401.htm

The case reported that Tom contacted four types of advisors, each of whom gave different advice. The advisors, their point of view and their advice is summarized below. I asked my readers: "if you were Tom, what would you do?"

• Strategic Advisors (you need to know where you are going and organize properly to get where you want to go) advocated creating a strategic planning process plus a third division, Product Development.

• Talent Snatchers (irecommended replacing the head of Commercial and also finding someone from outside the company for Product Development.

• Management Team Coaches (strong teams move mountains) recommended a planning process to break down barriers between Divisions and focus management on developing the company as a whole. They also advocated group incentives to reinforce plans.

• Self Development Advisors (before you manage others, manage yourself) recommended self-analysis and self-discovery to remove personal blocks to more constructive leadership.

The responses took two forms. Some, who I call the optimists, recommend strategies for moving the organizations forward. They assume that with the right support Tom can overcome his limitations and elevate the company. Others, the pessimists, assume that Tom has limited ability to change his management style so they advocate simpler solutions. Before, sharing their responses, I make a few comments about this case.

This started out to be an article called Four Basic Change Strategies. When writing it I realized I could categorize change strategies, but not prescribe one over another. Fitting a strategy to a situation is an art. Given that insight, I thought it was more fun to present a case than an article. The case evoked more response, and raises the same issues.

My view is that all change processes are very difficult and require patience and long-term commitment. Without realism and commitment nothing will work. With it, there is hope. For those of you who haven't read it yet, I highly recommend Jim Collin's Good to Great. This book presents conclusions from research that identifies the differences between firms that achieve sustained growth and profits and those who do not. I also invite you to enjoy some of the reactions to the case which are below.

TOP OF PAGE

Lets start with the optimists.

• Tom Dennis, President of Effective Engineering Services, (www.effectiveeng.com) recommends processes to improve product development.

  The company needs a clear and concise Company Vision. It should state what the company is and where it's going. This vision must be well understood by all in the company (including Research and Commercial), and everyone must buy into this vision. Further, every individual must understand his/her role in achieving this vision. . ….Similarly, the company needs a clear Product Vision that clearly indicates what markets the company serves and what its products and product directions are. ….Next a Product Roadmap that lays out plans for directed research and timely development. With all of this must come a meaningful product development methodologies, effective project management discipline, and timely development goals. Further, Research and Commercial must clearly recognize that their success is tied to their effective joint efforts, and behaving as two isolated companies within the company is unacceptable.

• Dr. Pamela Waite, Principal of Critical Questions Research, gives more emphasis to broader management processes. She says:

  …I think it would behoove Tom to get some personal management coaching (apart from any of these consultants) on understanding his own motivations and what role he may have had in the making of this schism first. My hunch is that the solution may lie in a combination of what SA is advocating - a third function - and some MTC team building. But I would make sure that I made that third team up of folks from both sides - and would institute bonuses based on company wide met goals. This would force the issue of teamwork - and perhaps that's what Tom hasn't fostered himself."

• Art Currier, CEO of Currier & Associates (www.currierdesigns.com) echoes Pam's theme.

  Harvey - it seems to me that the third, long term POV, is the perspective that he needs to adopt. Obviously, an overall plan needs to be developed and the process of developing it could include the establishment of a planning team - if he has any true planners on his team -and it could include using all of those advisors in some way. These advisors represent operation issues and skills that need to be considered. However, the first priority, in my opinion, is for him to understand his own leadership (versus management) potential and foundation. He should participate in a program that will help him develop new and solid insights in this area - such as offered by the Vail Leadership Institute. This will allow him to get clear on his purpose and mission for the firm - the true starting point.

TOP OF PAGE

The pessimists offer simpler solutions.

• Rod Conard, President of Conard Associates (www.conard.com) is the ultimate pessimist or realist. He says:

  I'm betting "don't rock the boat" receives more votes than you expect. Given that they are still profitable I doubt there would be enough pressure on your client to make the necessary commitment for a successful change management effort.

• Jack Lyons, Principal, Lyons Hollis Associates (www.lyonshollis.com), which does M&A and other financial consulting, advocates simplification and focus. He says.

  "I would do something different. I believe that the best solution to solving Tom's issues lay in the recognition that the two divisions are in essence two very different companies, each requiring its own strategy, resources, attention, etc. Based on my experience, it is unlikely that either will reach its full potential if they are kept together. So if I were Tom, I would decide which division I wanted to have be the future of the company, sell the other one off, put all my eggs in the one basket left and do whatever was needed to grow that business successfully to its full potential."

• Ivan Drootin, the COO of Webster Engineering (www.webstereng.com) males this recommendation.

  Put someone with vision in the driver's seat.

The optimist in me sees that Tom has created a base to build a bigger, stronger company. The pessimist wonders whether Tom has the desire or will to make the changes that would be needed to take his company to a higher level. This part of me agrees with Ron Conard. We both expected more people to say, "don't rock the boat."

Any of the approach or recommendations from readers could succeed in solving the problem and helping it make a transition for more growth and profitability. Alternatively, maybe none would succeed. There is more than one solution and some businesses are stuck where they are. This case is based on a real situation. Tom is starting by looking for new ways to accelerate product development. Although this will take time to evolve, I intend to report on the choices made and the consequences of the choices in a future article.

TOP OF PAGE