Succession Troubles at Starbucks

Source: zeebiz

Last week, Starbucks announced disappointing financial results.  The stock dropped 12% in after-hours trading on Tuesday, April 30th when Starbucks announced a 2% decline in sales and a 15% decrease in earnings relative the second quarter last year. 

Former CEO Howard Schultz decided to comment on the subpar performance through a LinkedIn post.  He wrote:

At any company that misses badly, there must be contrition and renewed focus and discipline on the core. Own the shortcoming without the slightest semblance of an excuse...

Over the past five days, I have been asked by people inside and outside the company for my thoughts on what should be done. I have emphasized that the company’s fix needs to begin at home: U.S. operations are the primary reason for the company’s fall from grace. The stores require a maniacal focus on the customer experience, through the eyes of a merchant. The answer does not lie in data, but in the stores.

Senior leaders—including board members—need to spend more time with those who wear the green apron. One of their first actions should be to reinvent the mobile ordering and payment platform—which Starbucks pioneered—to once again make it the uplifting experience it was designed to be. The go-to-market strategy needs to be overhauled and elevated with coffee-forward innovation that inspires partners, and creates differentiation in the marketplace, reinforcing the company’s premium position. Through it all, focus on being experiential, not transactional.

Now, Schultz may be exactly right in his diagnosis and recommendations for the company.  However, one has to wonder about whether he should have publicly articulated these points.  After all, Schultz has twice returned to the CEO role after stepping down.  Each time, he has resumed leadership of the company after a successor stumbled.  In this case, Laxman Narasimhan has only been CEO for a short time (he formally assumed the role in March 2023).  Shouldn't Schultz give him a chance to put his stamp on the company before criticizing the firm so publicly?  What benefit is there for the company, its employees, and its shareholders if he publishes this commentary on LinkedIn, rather than simply talking privately with fellow shareholders and/or directors and executives of the company?   Knowing when and how to leave is a critical part of any succession.  Starbucks has struggled mightily in this regard.  The Board needs to navigate this situation carefully, lest they find themselves searching for a new CEO again far too soon. 

The NFL Draft: Are Teams Getting Better at Selecting Talent?

On Thursday, we will have the NFL Draft in which each team selects college players.   The draft has become a major television event, and an entire industry of analysts, scouts, and analytics gurus has emerged to flood the airwaves with "expert" commentary.  Teams have invested heavily in their scouting departments, and the assessment tools and analytics they use to select players are allegedly far more advanced than they were decades ago.  With that in mind, I decided to analyze the selection of quarterbacks in the first round over the decades.  I chose to analyze quarterbacks since that is the most important position on the field today.   You can see some interesting trends, although the 1990s appear to be a bit of an aberration (fewer stars and more busts than other decades).  Thus, I decided to compare the 1970s and 1980s to the two most recent complete decades (2000s and 2010s).  Here are a few observations:

• Teams are selecting more quarterbacks in the first round now than they did years ago.  We shouldn't be surprised at this fact, given that the passing game is much more important today.   Teams are clearly investing in a position which has much more value and contributes more to winning today than 50 years ago.  In the period from 1970-1989, teams selected 1.9 quarterbacks per year in the first round.  That number rose to 2.8 quarterbacks per year in the period from 2000-2019.  
• Despite the advanced scouting and analytics, and the tremendous investment in talent evaluation today, teams are not any better at identifying stars than they were in the past.  50% of the quarterbacks selected in the first round from 1970-1989 made at least one Pro Bowl.   Did the NFL general managers improve their hit rate in more recent years?  Not one iota.  50% of the quarterbacks picked in the first round from 2000-2019 made the Pro Bowl at least once.  No improvement despite all that work to allegedly improve talent evaluation!  
• How many champions did the teams identify in these years?  From 1970-1989, 8 of the 38 quarterbacks selected in the first round were the starting quarterbacks on Super Bowl championship teams.  That equates to 21% of the players selected.  From 2000-2019, only 5 of the 56 quarterbacks chosen in the first round have won a Super Bowl (just 9%).  Now, that number is lower, in part, because some of these players have many years left in their career.  Others will surely win Super Bowls.  It is also lower because a certain quarterback drafted in the 6th round, who played here in New England, won so many championships since 2000.  Having said that, the fact is that many of the most elite quarterbacks in NFL history win multiple championships. Thus, a small set of quarterbacks end up champions.  Consider that 5 players have won 36% of the Super Bowls ever played (Brady, Bradshaw, Montana, Aikman, and Mahomes).   12 players have won 60% of the Super Bowls ever played! Thus, the chances of selecting a future champion remain very low, despite all the investment in talent evaluation.  

What are the lessons from this analysis?  Can business leaders learn anything from the NFL draft?  First, if a certain type of talent becomes more valuable, don't count on simply improving your ability to identify future stars when recruiting and hiring.   You may need to simply recruit more people, knowing that your hit rate might not improve much despite new analytics tools.  Second, in some businesses, a few truly elite talents can have an unusually large impact on organizational success.  Yes, we like to emphasize that business is a team sport, much like football.  Yet, there is no way we can simply ignore that 60% of the championships in this sport have been won by 12 quarterbacks over nearly 6 decades.   Of course, they had tremendous talent around them, and great coaching, but still the impact of these individuals at this most important position is quite extraordinary.  Third, beware of the hype around various talent evaluation tools.  Yes, analytics can be helpful, as can other new tools for evaluating talent.  However, we should be skeptical of those who claim that these new tools and methods can dramatically improve our ability to identify top talent.  Beware the hype! 

When We Hire, Should We Consider How Well-Connected Candidates Are?

Does an organization benefit when its employees are highly connected to workers in other firms and industries? Or does the benefit simply flow to the employees themselves, as they perhaps are building better future job prospects through these connections. Shelley Li, Frank Nagle, and Aner Zhou set out to examine this question. They built an enormous dataset comprised of approximately 9 million employees with 2 billion individual employee relationships at more than 7,000 publicly held companies in the United States. The scholars discovered that companies whose workforces are more connected tend to produce more valuable innovations. The authors summarized their conclusions as follows:

Although employees do not necessarily make connections for the company’s benefit, we find that companies’ centrality in the employee network positively predicts company value. This effect is largely driven by mid-level employees. Furthermore, company centrality in the employee network predicts company innovation inputs (R&D spending), and controlling for these inputs, predicts the quantity, scientific impact, and economic value of companies’ patented innovation outcomes.

Nagle commented to HBS Working Knowledge about their findings: "What we’re trying to say is there are many more jobs than you might imagine where having the right connections can be helpful to your company.”  He also notes the implications for managers as they search for job candidates. 

“Managers, when they hire somebody, know to look for many different qualities. How well-educated are you? How much job experience do you have?  Today, in some jobs, such as sales or higher-level management, managers may think about how well-connected you are, but our work shows that might be a consideration for a broader set of jobs.”

I'm quite interested to know more about the particular jobs where these connections matter most.  Beyond science, engineering, and sales roles, are there other positions where these networks are important?  Moreover, rather than simply thinking about hiring people who are quite connected, I'm curious to know how organizations can help their employees build more relationships with workers in other organizations.  What can business leaders do to help foster these connections for their middle managers?  

Be a Loud Listener

I'm looking forward to hearing David Brooks speak at my daughter's graduation from Vanderbilt University next month.   Brooks, a writer for the New York Times, has written a new book titled, " How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen.  I'm reading the book now, and it has some terrific insights on how we can connect, empathize, and communicate with others more effectively.  Brooks appeared recently on Matt Abraham's podcast from Stanford.  Brooks introduces a very interesting concept.  He describes the value of being a "loud listener" when communicating with others:  

First, regarding attention, treat attention as an on off switch, not a dimmer. So, when you’re talking to somebody, it should be a hundred percent or zero percent. Don’t try to 60 percent it and have 40 percent of your attention on your phone. Be a loud listener, I have a buddy when you’re talking to him, it’s like talking to a Pentecostal charismatic church, he’s like, uh huh, yes, yeah, uh huh, amen, I preach, preach. I love talking to that guy. And some people are loud with their voices, some people are loud with their faces, they’re emotionally reacting. And so, I love talking to those people.

Brooks is emphasizing an important part of active listening.  It involves really showing the other person that you are paying attention.  You are truly leaning into the conversation when you are a loud listener.  Brooks also reminds us that we aren't very good at multitasking.  We have to give others 100% of our attention in a conversation, rather than trying to do two other things at the same time (which we all do, of course). 

Three Voices Every Leader Needs

Fortune's Michal Lev-Ram and Alan Murray recently interviewed Otis Elevator CEO Judy Marks at Deloitte University. Marks offered some great insights to the assembled group of leaders from a variety of companies.  In the interview, Marks offered a great comment about the types of voices that a leader needs to hear now and again.  She specifically mentioned three voices:

You need a group of very trusted people who are going to tell you truth because things get filtered and they really do. So you need to call one of them a loyal irritant as long as it doesn’t really bother them. You need someone who’s going to kick you under the table every now and then and say, “Okay, enough, Jude.” Right? They got your point. Okay, it’s enough. Let go. You need someone who’s going to say, I think be really good if this got on your calendar because you can’t be everywhere.

We often hear about the need for that first voice - the devil's advocate, the trusted confidante and truth-teller.  However, the other two voices are interesting and important too.  First, you have to have someone willing to tell you when you've made your point, and perhaps you need to back off.  Sometimes leaders need to give people time and space to digest tough feedback and to determine how they want to adjust their actions moving forward.  In the moment, people can be defensive when the leader is pushing back, and just pushing some more won't cause them to listen more effectively.  They might just put up a bigger shield.  Second, you do need people who can help you determine where your intervention is needed, and when you need to make time to attend to an issue(s) that might not otherwise be on your radar.   Marks offers some good advice here.  Having these three voices and listening to them attentively can be very helpful for leaders at all levels. 

Eliminate the Bosses? Organizational Transformation or Corporate Fad?

Source: https://www.organimi.com/

The Wall Street Journal's Chip Cutter has written about the transformation underway at Bayer, led by its new CEO, Bill Anderson. The article is titled, "One CEO’s Radical Fix for Corporate Troubles: Purge the Bosses." The 160-year-old company has struggled mightily in recent years, particularly after a problematic acquisition of Monsanto. Anderson's transformation plan calls for the establishment of 5,000 to 6,000 self-directed teams, as well as the elimination of many middle management roles.  He has taken aim at the pile of rules and regulations that govern employee conduct and decision making, hoping to streamline many processes.   

While the ambitious plan has many attractive features, it raises some concerning questions in my mind.  First, as I read the article, I'm reminded of the quote by the American writer and former State Department official Charlton Ogburn, Jr. He once said, "We tend to meet any new situation by reorganization, and a wonderful method it is for creating the illusion of progress at a mere cost of confusion, inefficiency and demoralization."  In many companies, attempts to redesign the organizational structure occur frequently.  Yet, CEOs are fooling themselves if they think that they will find an optimal organizational structure.  No such thing exists.  Each structure has its weaknesses.  Moreover, many transformation attempts create confusion and anxiety, as employees struggle to determine who has the decision rights on key issues.  

The WSJ article mentions that Anderson's transformation plan has introduced a whole new vocabulary regarding titles and processes.  Employees need to attend training to understand their new roles and responsibilities.  While a common language can be helpful, sometimes we are simply replacing one set of acronyms with another, without effecting profound cultural change.  Anderson will have to watch for signs of confusion in his workforce.  Moreover, there will always be some employees who think to themselves, "This too shall pass," having seen what they consider other corporate fads come and go.  Anderson will have to persuade them that this organizational transformation is not another fad.

One final thought from Wharton’s Peter Cappelli: he has compared serial reorganizing to the common tendency for doctors to administer antibiotics for minor illnesses.   He has argued that such prescriptions might address the pain and discomfort of the moment, but have adverse effects over the long run.   Why?  He argues that employees may lose faith in their senior leaders if they don't understand the rationale for yet another restructuring, if they are unclear about their roles and responsibilities, or if they think that it is yet another "flavor of the month."  

Anderson's plan has the potential to eliminate or streamline inefficient processes, while empowering employees closer to the actual work to make important decisions.  His goal is admirable and well-intentioned.  He just needs to make sure that he focuses on changing the culture and behavior, and not get too caught up in the boxes and arrows on organization charts.   

Action vs. State Orientation: Who is More Vulnerable to the Sunk Cost Trap?

Source: The MSLs' Liaison Newsletter

Some individuals have a strong action orientation.  Others have what is described as a state orientation. What's the difference?  According to James Diefendorff and his colleagues, 

"Individuals with a strong action orientation are able to devote their cognitive resources to the task at hand, thus enabling them to expediently move from a present goal state to some desired future goal state. These individuals flexibly allocate their attention for the purpose of task execution and goal attainment. Persons who are more action oriented are characterized by enhanced performance efficiency and the ability to complete tasks after minor failures or setbacks."

On the other hand, Diefendorff and his colleagues describe a state orientation as follows:

Alternatively, individuals with more of a state orientation tend to have persistent, ruminative thoughts about alternative goals or affective states, which reduces the cognitive resources available for goal-striving. This reduction of available resources impairs state-oriented individuals' ability to initiate activities and to follow tasks through to completion, especially when the activities are difficult, nonroutine, or both.

How do these contrasting orientations affect our decision making?   Are individuals with one of these orientations more vulnerable to certain cognitive biases when making critical choices?  Marijke van Putten and his co-authors examined this question with specific focus on the sunk cost trap.  In other words, they asked the question:  Are individuals with a strong state orientation more susceptible to throwing good money after bad than individuals with a strong action orientation?   They posited that state-oriented people would ruminate about past events and dwell on past failure. Consequently, they might try to recoup past losses and escalate commitment to failing courses of action.  Action-oriented people would, according to their hypothesis, focus on the future.  That forward focus would enable them to cut their losses and de-escalate commitment to an ineffective course of action.  

The findings from an experiment confirmed their hypothesis.  The sample size was rather small, and more work certainly needs to be done in this area.  However, the initial exploratory results are quite intriguing to me.   It speaks to a broader set of psychological research suggesting that people's well-being and decision-making abilities may suffer if we them to dwell or ruminate on their emotional state. Encouraging people to shift toward an action orientation may be beneficial.