Eleven years ago on a scorched Storm King Mountain in central Colorado Don Mackey made a series of decisions that cost the lives of a dozen firefighters, including his own.
In the Heat of the Moment by Michael Useem
Fortune Magazine
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fortune75/articles/0,15114,1071660
,00.html
This tragedy ultimately changed how wild-land firefighters are trained to battle blazes. No longer is technical equipment training and the study of fire behavior enough. Today, firefighters are also schooled in how to make timely decisions under complex and stressful conditions.
Thankfully, lives are not on the line in corporate decision-making. Yet, the choices we make every day in business can have a profound impact on profit and loss, valuation and job stability – all of which can create a high-stress work environment.
It was faulty decision-making that helped crash Enron, Worldcom and Adelphia, resulting in thousands of share****ers and employees losing their life savings. In the Washington, DC area, a poorly timed decision to expand to Boston by respected business magazine Washington Business Forward forced the publication to shutter operations.
Along with hard work, timing and a bit of luck, good decision-making is a key ingredient to corporate success. And it’s up to a company’s management team to create a system and environment that produces and rewards quality decision-makers.
During the past ten years, Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) has had the good fortune of working with a tier one group of clients with diverse product and service offerings, different markets of focus and unique challenges. We’ve seen lots of good decision-making during times of stress.
Here are a few ideas we have picked up along the way:
1. Focus on customer needs rather than engineering. It’s only a solution when a product or service helps someone more quickly or efficiently address a problem.
2. Gather intelligence, heed warnings. Talk to as many people as you can – customers, partners, competitors, colleagues, investors, etc. The more informed you are the better your instincts and the easier it will be to spot signs of trouble.
3. Test your assumptions. Formally and informally...it will help prevent a misstep from turning into a decision with major consequences.
4. Temper your optimism. A positive outlook is essential for a healthy, productive environment, but it’s critical to be a bit paranoid about obstacles and challenges. Surprises are rarely pleasant in business.
5. Clarify authority. While collaboration is an essential part of decision-making, there has to be a single person with the responsibility for making the final call and the willingness to accept the accountability.
July 6, 2005, 3:06 pm
Lessons from Storm King Mountain
Posted by jeffM
Comments (0)
Send this
June 13, 2005, 4:59 pm
Not Right for Rock Stars
Rock stars are rarely right for global organizations.
When Anne Mulcahy stepped to the podium last week to deliver the key note address at the 400+ corporate executives and government officials at the AeA Annual High-Tech Dinner she certainly brought presence and poise. But, you sure didn’t get the feel she viewed herself as the most influential, high-impact female technology CEO in North America. And I suspect that’s just the way Anne wants it.
Rather than hyping her own agenda and applauding her accomplishments like so many successful (Oracle’s Larry Ellison and GE’s Jack Welch) and unsuccessful (HP’s Carly Fiorina) technology CEOs, Mulcahy works hard to focus the attention on the two audiences who most greatly steer her company’s success – customers and employees. In fact, her first comment on the podium was to thank the members of the audience who are Xerox customers for their support. “We will continue to work hard to earn your business,” Mulcahy promised.
Since rising to the president/COO position in May 2000, Anne has made tough decisions about Xerox’s focus in the market, its staff levels, cost cutting and its areas of investment. Those decisions have paid off. Xerox's profits are up, thanks to rising sales of color printers and copiers, as well as a new focus on services, which now account for 20% of revenue.
A few other observations from Mulcahy’s key note worth noting:
1. Nearly 60 percent of Xerox’s $16B in worldwide revenue is derived from products introduced in the past two years. Mulcahy stressed the importance of R&D and innovation in helping a company retain its leadership, while giving its employees interesting and exciting new initiatives to tackle. Equally important, Xerox is validating the positive impact of its investment in R&D through their PR/promotional activities.
2. Mulcahy’s first corporate position at Xerox was VP, Human Resources from 1992 to 1995. This is quite a surprise when you consider that most executives rise to the CEO position through finance and sales/marketing.
Long after Mulcahy’s specific comments have faded from memory, I will retain the impression she truly loves Xerox and is committed to the company’s success. That means serving customers and employees, often at the expense of her ego and reputation.
When Anne Mulcahy stepped to the podium last week to deliver the key note address at the 400+ corporate executives and government officials at the AeA Annual High-Tech Dinner she certainly brought presence and poise. But, you sure didn’t get the feel she viewed herself as the most influential, high-impact female technology CEO in North America. And I suspect that’s just the way Anne wants it.
Rather than hyping her own agenda and applauding her accomplishments like so many successful (Oracle’s Larry Ellison and GE’s Jack Welch) and unsuccessful (HP’s Carly Fiorina) technology CEOs, Mulcahy works hard to focus the attention on the two audiences who most greatly steer her company’s success – customers and employees. In fact, her first comment on the podium was to thank the members of the audience who are Xerox customers for their support. “We will continue to work hard to earn your business,” Mulcahy promised.
Since rising to the president/COO position in May 2000, Anne has made tough decisions about Xerox’s focus in the market, its staff levels, cost cutting and its areas of investment. Those decisions have paid off. Xerox's profits are up, thanks to rising sales of color printers and copiers, as well as a new focus on services, which now account for 20% of revenue.
A few other observations from Mulcahy’s key note worth noting:
1. Nearly 60 percent of Xerox’s $16B in worldwide revenue is derived from products introduced in the past two years. Mulcahy stressed the importance of R&D and innovation in helping a company retain its leadership, while giving its employees interesting and exciting new initiatives to tackle. Equally important, Xerox is validating the positive impact of its investment in R&D through their PR/promotional activities.
2. Mulcahy’s first corporate position at Xerox was VP, Human Resources from 1992 to 1995. This is quite a surprise when you consider that most executives rise to the CEO position through finance and sales/marketing.
Long after Mulcahy’s specific comments have faded from memory, I will retain the impression she truly loves Xerox and is committed to the company’s success. That means serving customers and employees, often at the expense of her ego and reputation.
Posted by jeffM
Comments (0)
Send this
May 31, 2005, 12:34 pm
Always Someone to Fight
Business is filled with competitors…some real, some imagined.
This was my initial reaction after reading the Fortune cover story titled "Gates vs. Google: Search and Destroy." Senior writer Fred Vogelstein provides an interesting narrative of Microsoft’s realization that Google has emerged as more than a worthy competitor in the search market, but as a potential threat to their dominance of the desktop.
From Bill Gates rooting around Google’s Web site studying the technical qualifications of job specs to a host of their executives acknowledging that Google’s success is causing a corporate identity crisis in Redmond, it’s apparent that Microsoft has grown fanatical about knocking Google off.
“Google is interesting not just because of Web search, but because they’re going to try to take that and use it to get into other parts of software,” Gates tells Fortune’s Vogelstein. “They are more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with.”
Let’s be realistic about this. Microsoft should certainly have a healthy paranoia about Google, but what is with this obsession? With nearly $40B in annual revenue, Microsoft is ten times Google’s size. And let’s not forget about the $34B in cash Microsoft has on hand.
Even Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and CEO Eric Schmidt acknowledge to Fortune that any talk of them unseating Microsoft is Harry Potter-like fantasy.
The typical market leader stance is to avoid acknowledging competitors by name as that merely validates their credibility and positioning. Cisco’s John Chambers has that strategy down pat. When asked by Network Computing magazine about the company he perceives to be their most formidable competitor, Chambers responded, “We track a lot (of companies). But the last thing I’m going to do is give them any credit.”
I suspect Microsoft’s leadership has concluded the internal energy and momentum generated by rallying against a perceived foe outweighs the validation they are conferring to Google.
It reminds me of a scene from the film Gladiator starring Russell Crowe. After finally crushing the Barbarian tribes in Germania, Maximus stands before Emperor Marcus Aurelius and says, “There is no one left to fight, Sire.”
To this, Marcus replies, “There is always someone left to fight.”
This was my initial reaction after reading the Fortune cover story titled "Gates vs. Google: Search and Destroy." Senior writer Fred Vogelstein provides an interesting narrative of Microsoft’s realization that Google has emerged as more than a worthy competitor in the search market, but as a potential threat to their dominance of the desktop.
From Bill Gates rooting around Google’s Web site studying the technical qualifications of job specs to a host of their executives acknowledging that Google’s success is causing a corporate identity crisis in Redmond, it’s apparent that Microsoft has grown fanatical about knocking Google off.
“Google is interesting not just because of Web search, but because they’re going to try to take that and use it to get into other parts of software,” Gates tells Fortune’s Vogelstein. “They are more like us than anyone else we have ever competed with.”
Let’s be realistic about this. Microsoft should certainly have a healthy paranoia about Google, but what is with this obsession? With nearly $40B in annual revenue, Microsoft is ten times Google’s size. And let’s not forget about the $34B in cash Microsoft has on hand.
Even Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and CEO Eric Schmidt acknowledge to Fortune that any talk of them unseating Microsoft is Harry Potter-like fantasy.
The typical market leader stance is to avoid acknowledging competitors by name as that merely validates their credibility and positioning. Cisco’s John Chambers has that strategy down pat. When asked by Network Computing magazine about the company he perceives to be their most formidable competitor, Chambers responded, “We track a lot (of companies). But the last thing I’m going to do is give them any credit.”
I suspect Microsoft’s leadership has concluded the internal energy and momentum generated by rallying against a perceived foe outweighs the validation they are conferring to Google.
It reminds me of a scene from the film Gladiator starring Russell Crowe. After finally crushing the Barbarian tribes in Germania, Maximus stands before Emperor Marcus Aurelius and says, “There is no one left to fight, Sire.”
To this, Marcus replies, “There is always someone left to fight.”
