First Friday Book Synopsis

"…like CliffNotes on steroids…"

Kevin Murray: An interview by Bob Morris

Kevin Murray is Chairman of the Public Relations Division of Chime Communications, a London-based international marketing services company. Chime’s PR Division is ranked number one in both the PR Week and Marketing magazine public relations league tables for the UK. He started his career as a Crime Reporter on The Star Newspaper in Johannesburg, South Africa. He later moved in to public relations in the UK and was Director of Corporate Affairs for the UK Atomic Energy Authority before becoming Director of Communications at British Airways.

He moved to Bell Pottinger in 1998 and has considerable experience in managing complex and global communications projects and departments. He has led significant issues and crisis communications campaigns amidst the heat of international controversies in the chemicals, nuclear, aviation, and banking sectors, to name but a few. He also has years of experience coaching chairmen and chief executives on communication, and has drawn on that experience to add to the content derived from his interviews with the leaders in this book, The Language of Leaders: How Top CEO’s Communicate to Inspire, Influence and Achieve Results, published by Kogan Page (2012).

Here is a brief excerpt from my interview of him. To read the complete interview, please click here.

*     *     *

Before discussing The Language of Leaders, a few general questions. First, who has had the greatest influence on your personal growth? How so?

There is no doubt my wife of 35 years has been the most influential on my development.  She has always shown me where I need to be a better man, a better friend, a better father or a better husband.  She’s also been a great counsellor to me in my career and a huge support.

The greatest impact on your professional development? How so?

I have been hugely privileged to advise leaders in all sorts of companies for the past three decades and to work closely with them in periods of incredible change and stress.  Watching them perform, observing how they behave and how they lead, all of this has been very impactful on my development.

Years ago, was there a turning point (if not an epiphany) that set you on the career course you continue to follow? Please explain.

A big turning point in my career was when I was fired from my job as Director of Communications for British Airways.  I had spent two years there being required to be a messenger of often bad news, with no ability to influence change in the organisation.  Prior to that, at the Atomic Energy Authority, I had been in charge of all change programmes and had become very used to being a change agent.  The huge contrast between the two jobs was very influential in the way I have thought for the past 15 years.

To what extent has your formal education been invaluable to what you have accomplished in life thus far?

When I was at school I intended to go to university and study to become a veterinary surgeon.  All my subjects were science-based.  However, while serving in the army during my national service, I engineered a weekend aptitude test at a university in Johannesburg.  The results were very clear.  A career in journalism or public relations was required.  This changed the way I saw the world, and I went into journalism at the age of 19.  Ever since that day I have been having so much fun that I keep thinking somebody is going to find me out because it never feels like working.

Here’s a hypothetical question about interviewing. For present purposes, let’s say you are writing a book about history’s greatest leaders. If it were possible, which five (5) do you wish you could meet with and interview? Why? What specifically would you be most interested in learning from each?

If I were able to I would love to interview Julius Caesar, Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Genghis Khan and Ronald Reagan.  Each would have the most amazing stories to tell and I would want to explore with them issues like the power of a grand vision, the art of delegating in huge organisations, the ways they thought about communicating in order to win support, and how much they thought charm and humour was necessary in leadership.

Long ago, one of the founders of Hill & Knowlton, John Hill, observed that public relations is (or should be)  “truth well-told.”  Do you agree?

I couldn’t agree more.  I hate that public relations is often dismissed as “spin”.  Public relations activities are about persuasion, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  In today’s transparent world not telling the truth is far too dangerous.  You will, ultimately, be found out and the damage will be great.  Public relations management is really what it says on the tin.  It is about trying to manage your relationships with your various publics.  Unless you have good relationships

All organizations need effective leaders at all levels and in all areas of operation. In your opinion, how best to develop them?

One of the things I kept hearing from all of the leaders I interviewed is that the only way you can build agile organisations today is to create more leaders everywhere.  The difference between leadership and management is that leadership is about engaging with people’s emotions to inspire them to the cause.  Management is about controlling behaviours to achieve results.  Great leadership appeals to both the heart and the mind.  In my opinion, the more leaders are taught these softer skills of relating to people, motivating them, recognising and uplifting them, the more successful they will be as leaders.

I am among those who think that crisis does not develop character in a leader, it reveals it. What do you think?

Having worked in the chemical industry, the nuclear industry, the airline industry, and many others I have had more than my fair share of crises, sometimes global in nature.  I have seen leaders implode during a crisis and I have seen leaders respond amazingly in these situations.  I do think those who are poor leaders are the ones who are most likely to fail in a crisis, because often the crisis has been caused by behaviours and decisions and poor leadership that preceded it.  But it also true you can see the real strength of a leader when he or she has to stand up and be counted.

Most of the companies annually ranked among the most highly admired and best to work for are also ranked among those most profitable and having the greatest cap value. In my opinion, that is not a coincidence. What do you think?

I agree.  All of my research has shown that happy and engaged employees usually deliver great results.  I sometimes believe that the customer should come second, because you can never put them first if you haven’t encouraged and inspired your employees.  Time and time again, I have seen examples of highly motivated employees giving effort that went beyond any contractual obligation, to achieve outstanding results for their companies.  I firmly believe that this issue of engagement and inspiration makes the difference between ordinary results and great results.

I think that films very effectively dramatize important business lessons. That is why, when conducting workshops and seminars on leadership, I use brief clips from films such as Paths of Glory, Twelve o’clock High, Lawrence of Arabia, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Tunes of Glory. Which films would you consider if teaching a workshop or seminar on teamwork?

What a good idea.  I think I would be looking at films like The Godfather, Groundhog Day, Seven Samurai (one of Ikira Kurasawa’s several masterpieces, on which The Magnificent Seven is based) and, yes, To Kill a Mockingbird.  Each of these will have powerful lessons about leadership and teamwork.  To be current I would throw in Avengers Assemble – a great story of a dysfunctional group learning to play to their strengths while working together.

In your opinion, what will be the single greatest challenge that business leaders will face during the next 3-5 years? Any advice?

I think one of the biggest challenges facing leaders in general today is that of sustainability.  Time after time I heard the leaders I was speaking to talk about the idea that you cannot have a thriving business in bankrupt society.  You have to have a healthy environment, a healthy society and only then can you have a healthy and thriving business.  I believe that businessmen are going to have to get a lot more long term in their thinking about business and try to find ways to get away from the tyranny of quarterly reporting.  This will take courage, it will take purposeful education of shareholders, but in truth there is no alternative.  Already consumers are demanding more of the brands they buy from, and more ethical, responsible behaviours.  This will be a movement that will gather pace and become unstoppable.  Leaders must get ahead of that curve or else risk being turned into dinosaurs.

*     *     *

To read the complete interview, please click here.

Kevin cordially invites you to check out the resources at these websites:

http://www.languageofleadersbook.com

http://www.koganpageusa.com/product/Language-of-Leaders,1929.aspx

Sunday, May 13, 2012 Posted by | Bob's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What to Do Against Disruptive Business Models (When and How to Play Two Games at Once)

Here is an excerpt from article written by Constantinos C. Markides and Daniel Oyon for MIT Sloan Management Review. To read the complete article and check out other resources, please click here.

*     *     *

Fighting against a disruptive business model by rolling out a second business model is one option for companies to consider. But to make that work, you need to avoid the trap of getting stuck in the middle.

Constantinos C. Markides

INCREASINGLY, ESTABLISHED COMPANIES in industries as diverse as airlines, media and banking are seeing their markets invaded by new and disruptive business models. The success of invaders such as easyJet, Netflix and ING Direct in capturing market share has encouraged established corporations to respond by adopting the new business models alongside their established ones. Yet, despite the best of intentions and the investment of significant resources, most companies are unsuccessful in their efforts to compete with two business models at once.

Daniel Oyon

According to Michael Porter and other strategy theorists, managing two different business models in the same industry at the same time is challenging because the two models (and their underlying value chains) can conflict with each other. 1 For example, airlines selling tickets through the Internet to fight back against their low-cost competitors risk alienating existing distributors (the travel agents). Similarly, established newspaper companies that offer “free” newspapers to respond to new entrants risk cannibalizing their existing customer base. By attempting to compete with themselves, Porter argued, companies risk paying a significant straddling cost: damaging their existing brands and diluting their organizations’ cultures for innovation and differentiation.2

THE LEADING QUESTION
: Should companies adopt a second business model in their main market?

FINDINGS

1. Responding to a disruption by adopting a second business model in the same market can be an effective strategy.
2. Your second business model should be different from your existing one and different from that of the disrupter.
3. Keep the two separate enough to avoid conflicts, but leverage potential synergies.
4. His view was that a company could find itself “stuck in the middle” if it tried to compete with both low-cost and differentiation strategies.3

The Case for Separate Units

The primary solution proposed to solve this problem is to keep the two business models (and their underlying value chains) separate in two distinct organizations. That is the “innovator’s solution” that Clayton Christensen proposed and that has been supported by others.4 Even Porter has accepted this organizational solution.5 The rationale for this approach is straightforward: Managers at the established company who feel that the new business model is growing at their expense would want to constrain or even kill it. By keeping the two business models separate, you prevent the company’s existing processes and culture from suffocating the new business model. The new unit can develop its own strategy, culture and processes without interference from the parent company.

Sensible as this argument seems, the separation solution is not without problems and risks. Perhaps the biggest problem is that you can’t exploit the synergies between the established company and the separate unit.6 In recognition of the need to exploit the
synergies, some academics have suggested an alternative: the creation of separate business units that are linked by a number of integrating mechanisms. Several studies have now identified a number of integrating mechanisms that successful companies have put in place to exploit synergies (see “How to Integrate Separate Units”).7

Why Separation May Not Be Enough

Although the idea of creating separate business units has received a lot of attention, this approach by itself does not ensure success. In fact, there are many examples of companies that have pursued this strategy and failed (such as British Airways with its Go Fly subsidiary and KLM with its Buzz subsidiary) while other companies, such as Nintendo and Mercedes, have succeeded in playing two games without creating separate units.

We have also found that competing successfully with two different and conflicting business models involves more than creating a separate unit. Several years ago, we studied the experiences of 68 companies that faced the challenge of competing with dual business models. Our main finding was that only a handful of companies that created separate units were successful in playing two games. Many had created separate units and still failed, suggesting that separation in itself was not enough to ensure success.

If separation is not sufficient, what else should companies do? From 2007 to 2009, we studied 65 companies that attempted to compete with dual business models in their markets (see “About the Research”). By comparing the experiences of the businesses that did so successfully with those that failed, we have identified five key questions that companies need to consider if they are to improve the odds of success in competing with dual business models in the same industry.

[Here are the five questions.]

1. Should I enter the market space created by the new business model?

2. If I do enter the new market space, can I do it with my existing business model or will I need a new one?

3. If I need a new business model to exploit the new market, should I simply adopt the invading business model that’s disrupting my market?

4. If I develop a new business model, how separate should it be organizationally from the existing business model?

5. Once I create a separate unit, what are the unique challenges of pursuing two business models at once?

Markides and Oyon respond to each of these questions, offering both insights and suggestions that can help leaders make appropriate decisions. To read the complete article, check out the notes, and obtain information about a subscription, please click here.

*     *     *

Constantinos C. Markides
is the Robert P. Bauman Professor of Strategic Leadership at London Business School. He is the author or co-author of several books, notably Game-Changing Strategies, All the Right Moves, and The Future of the Multi-national Company.

Daniel Oyon is a professor of management at HEC, Université de Lausanne, in Switzerland.

Monday, September 20, 2010 Posted by | Bob's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 247 other followers

%d bloggers like this: