|
General Electric’s Mission Statement from 1981 through 1995 under CEO Jack Welch is described this way in Welch’s best-selling book, Winning: “to be the most competitive enterprise in the world by being No. 1 or No. 2 in every market—fixing, selling, or closing every underperforming business that couldn’t get there.”
Being competitive is not synonymous with being the best, if you define “best” based on results as perceived by the customers, clients and employees you serve. Welch suggests that being the best means being No. 1 or No. 2 in every market (which in this case relates directly to revenues).
If you work for a company with this mission, I suspect at least some would do anything possible to achieve the goal, perhaps things that are unethical or beyond the boundaries. Welch specifically calls for playing by the rules and expresses his belief in integrity, but every business person and every athlete knows about stretching the rules, and I believe the GE Mission Statement might encourage that.
I believe in another kind of “winning,” which is inclusive rather than exclusive and that does not shun competitiveness but does not embrace it as the central theme of a mission statement. I want businesses to instead strive to be the best they can be, the most innovative they can be, the greatest business in their industrial arena, the most honest, and the most trustworthy. And so I encourage you to align your missions and values in order to achieve those goals, but always with an eye to making the world better, instead of just to make individuals wealthier.
I am a fan of Jim Collins and his book Good to Great. Collins tells us how “geniuses” seldom build great management teams and great companies because they don’t see a need to. Instead they focus on the “what”—“where to drive the bus and a road map for driving the bus” and then they enlist “a crew of highly capable ‘helpers’ to make the vision.” Great companies, instead, focus first on the “who” by getting “the right people on the bus…” and then the “what”—once you have the right people in place, figure out the best path to greatness.”
The “who” must ensure that everyone has a seat on the bus to achieve greatness. Creating a culture that is people-centered falls more into the Collins definition of rigorous instead of ruthless, which often is the driver behind bottom-line business models.
“To be ruthless means hacking and cutting, especially in difficult times, or wantonly firing people without any thoughtful consideration,” Collins says. Instead, he recommends that companies create rigorous cultures.
“To be rigorous means consistently applying exacting standards at all times and at all levels, especially in upper management. To be rigorous, not ruthless, means that the best people need not worry about their positions and can concentrate fully on their work.”
What he’s saying falls within the goals of leading with your heart.
P.S. Excerpted from Lead With Your Heart.
|
Comments
Lewis, I'm with you on this.
Sometimes focusing on the "who" means moving seats around, and removing underperforming people from seats. That said, it should be done with compassion and diginity.
I've found the real challenge is when you inherit someone else's mess.
Posted by: Paul Barsch | 02.19.08
Good stuff, Lewis. As you say in your book on page 98, "Leading with the heart is not about eliminating competitors. You might weaken them and grab market share, and you should aim to do just that. Nevertheless, we need to approach competition as a good thing: It makes us better, stronger, and smarter."
Posted by: Elaine Fogel | 02.19.08
If you work for a company with this mission, I suspect at least some would do anything possible to achieve the goal, perhaps things that are unethical or beyond the boundaries.
Without that leap, is the rest of your post still applicable?
Posted by: K T Cat | 02.19.08
KT Cat,
Absolutely!
Paul and Elaine,
Thank you!
Posted by: Lewis Green | 02.19.08
"I believe in another kind of “winning,” which is inclusive rather than exclusive and that does not shun competitiveness but does not embrace it as the central theme of a mission statement."
While that is true of a growing economy - that is, poverty is reduced best by economic expansion rather than wealth redistribution, it certainly isn't true at the micro level. I've worked for tiny, struggling retail shops that eventually went under because they weren't #1 or #2 in the market.
Competition is what makes the free market work. In competition, there are winners and losers. In the market place, the losers go home poor. There is no gold star for trying. There is only the contents of the cash register at the end of the day.
Feeling good about yourself even when you fail may be the latest PC fad in public education, but it doesn't work very well when your $40,000 investment in a small retail shop has just vanished into a puff of smoke because you didn't compete well.
Posted by: K T Cat | 02.20.08
KT,
Failure isn't a result of winning or losing as defined by Welch. Failure is usually a result of such things as under-captilization and failed business acumen and strategies. Ruthless will lead to failure; rigorous will lead to success. When we don't put people first, we take a short path to failure.
Posted by: Lewis Green | 02.20.08
Excellent post, Lewis, and I too loved "Good to Great." Outstanding book.
As for Welch, removing under performing lines is a good idea. However, in this world of niches, I do not think it is necessary for a line to be number 1 or 2 in the market to meet the criteria as a keeper. If you are making a profit why would you need to create such an artificial criteria?
Posted by: Neil Anuskiewicz | 02.25.08