I sought the help of MTP’s leading strategy tutor Chris Goodwin for this review because, as often happens with articles on this topic, it is difficult to be sure whether this is breakthrough thinking or a recycling of previous writings. In fact the article is at neither of these two extremes; it puts forward a new theory of strategic success but the arguments and examples are not convincing enough to make you believe in its practical application.
The basic argument in the book is that there are two ways to achieve success; you can either operate in the ‘Red Ocean’ where all the competitors are fighting it out and where blood is flowing into the water. The authors claim that this is the traditional ‘structuralist’ approach advocated by many writers on strategy, most famously Michael Porter. This can work but, as Porter convincingly argued, success needs competitive advantage by means of the right strategic positioning in terms of differentiation or cost leadership..
These authors argue that an alternative approach is to enter the ‘Blue Ocean’ where you are able to adopt a ‘Reconstructionist’ approach by changing the economic landscape and avoiding competitive pressures. This happens in circumstances where the product is so game changing that you are able to achieve competitive advantage via differentiation AND cost leadership.
This theory seems interesting at first but some of the examples are not sufficiently convincing to suggest that it is capable of general application. These examples include Cirque de Soleil, Dubai, Comic Relief and the Chrysler Mini Van in the USA. The first three seem to be rather too specialised to be the basis of wider application and our view is that the latter soon lost its uniqueness as it was copied by other car companies. This example raises the issue that the authors do not really address – how do you keep competitors from invading your nice blue ocean?
So when you get down to the fundamental crux of the article, it is saying that a unique product will be successful unless and until competitors copy it, which is not really anything new in strategic thinking; in fact Porter's more recent work made a similar point. In his article ‘What is strategy?’ he quoted for instance, IKEA, South West Airlines and Enterprise Car Rental as examples of companies that had developed offerings with strategic positioning that could not easily be copied, though he did not use the ‘Blue Ocean’ label.
The other main point made in the article – that the companies who develop unique products are often merely applying existing technologies in different ways – was made much more effectively in another recent strategic publication, ‘Fast Second’ by Markides and Geroski. This book talked about companies who were ‘consolidators’ of existing technology and contained much more convincing arguments, as confirmed by my review here earlier this year.
To read this article go to http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2009/09/how-strategy-shapes-structure/ar/1
Thursday 15 October 2009
How strategy shapes structure by W Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne, Harvard Business review, September 2009
The Changing L & D Skillset by Paul Fairhurst, Training Journal September 2009
There have been several articles on this theme in recent months and I have chosen this one because it makes some new and interesting points and is part of a research project sponsored by TJ. It also contains some convincing examples from high calibre companies including our own client Rolls Royce, and looks to the future rather than the past and present.
The article starts by confirming that two of the most well documented current trends in L & D – the move towards a more continuous learning culture and a greater emphasis on informal approaches – are likely to continue into the next decade. Even more important – not least for us as specialists in business learning – is that L & D people will need greater business acumen so that management needs can be more easily understood.
This need for greater understanding of business is confirmed by all four of the senior L & D people interviewed, including quite surprisingly the two public sector organisations – the Department of Work and Pensions and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Other suggested trends in the future are suggested as:
• Less focus on internal delivery and therefore the need to manage effective outsourcing of training services
• Increased need for facilitation skills rather than content expertise
• Greater focus on internal relationships, requiring good consultancy and business partnering skills
• All of this making L & D people effective and credible when dealing with senior managers who will increasingly question the cost/benefit of L & D investment
The most convincing example is the Rolls Royce story which talks of a transformation over the last two years, moving from internal people delivering ‘stand-up’ training to a new model where the majority of delivery is outsourced. This allows ‘the flexibility to turn delivery rapidly on and off in response to business needs’. In addition to business acumen and partnering skills, Rolls Royce also emphasise change management and the need for an international perspective.
There is a rather unconvincing attempt at the end of the article to summarise all this by introducing the need for ‘T shaped people’, with business acumen at the horizontal top of the T and in-depth HR skills as the vertical support, all surrounded by a circle of consulting skills.
Despite this stumble at the end, this article is well worth reading for the L & D professional who wishes to look ahead for the skills required into the future.
To read this article go to http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/2391.html
The article starts by confirming that two of the most well documented current trends in L & D – the move towards a more continuous learning culture and a greater emphasis on informal approaches – are likely to continue into the next decade. Even more important – not least for us as specialists in business learning – is that L & D people will need greater business acumen so that management needs can be more easily understood.
This need for greater understanding of business is confirmed by all four of the senior L & D people interviewed, including quite surprisingly the two public sector organisations – the Department of Work and Pensions and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Other suggested trends in the future are suggested as:
• Less focus on internal delivery and therefore the need to manage effective outsourcing of training services
• Increased need for facilitation skills rather than content expertise
• Greater focus on internal relationships, requiring good consultancy and business partnering skills
• All of this making L & D people effective and credible when dealing with senior managers who will increasingly question the cost/benefit of L & D investment
The most convincing example is the Rolls Royce story which talks of a transformation over the last two years, moving from internal people delivering ‘stand-up’ training to a new model where the majority of delivery is outsourced. This allows ‘the flexibility to turn delivery rapidly on and off in response to business needs’. In addition to business acumen and partnering skills, Rolls Royce also emphasise change management and the need for an international perspective.
There is a rather unconvincing attempt at the end of the article to summarise all this by introducing the need for ‘T shaped people’, with business acumen at the horizontal top of the T and in-depth HR skills as the vertical support, all surrounded by a circle of consulting skills.
Despite this stumble at the end, this article is well worth reading for the L & D professional who wishes to look ahead for the skills required into the future.
To read this article go to http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/2391.html
How to harness the special talents of clever people, by Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones, Management Today, September 2009
This article is a summary of a book recently published by the authors and is impressive. I intend to buy the book to make a deeper assessment and will maybe review it on a future blog.
The argument for the need to identify and manage clever people is that, as the ‘knowledge economy’ develops, retaining and motivating such individuals will be almost the only opportunity for sustainable competitive advantage. The authors define ‘clevers’ as highly talented individuals with the potential to create disproportionate amounts of value, but who need an organisation to achieve their full potential. This latter caveat distinguishes them from artists and other free agents who can survive on their own.
There is so much in the article about the nature of such people and how best to manage them that it is difficult to summarise everything here. Key points are that they are difficult to manage conventionally and hate any trappings of hierarchy; they will only work well for leaders whom they respect and whose value they appreciate; they want to work closely with other clever people yet paradoxically do not work well in teams; they need recognition but the recognition they value most is from peers and external sources, not the hierarchy; they hate red tape, tight discipline and ‘bullshit’.
There is a summary of do’s and don’ts at the end of the article that is helpful but perhaps simplifies and devalues the earlier content. Maybe this even briefer summary does so even more but I will try:
Do – give them space and time, protect them from the organisation, talk straight, provide challenges, agree boundaries
Don’t – use the hierarchy, interfere, try to deceive, give too much feedback, impose discipline, expose to politics
The overall message is in the final paragraph; you must manage the delicate balance between giving clever people the freedom they need to experiment and grow, and the minimum discipline that sets them useful boundaries.
Looking back over the history of MTP and all the ‘clever people’ that have come and gone during our history, I can see that we did not always follow these rules and believe that we have learnt the lessons. This article confirms much of what we have found out the hard way.
This is a contribution of high quality and depth, much more so than the normal content of Management Today. It is highly recommended.
To read this article go to http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/search/article/929304/9-ways-harness-special-talents-clever-people/
The argument for the need to identify and manage clever people is that, as the ‘knowledge economy’ develops, retaining and motivating such individuals will be almost the only opportunity for sustainable competitive advantage. The authors define ‘clevers’ as highly talented individuals with the potential to create disproportionate amounts of value, but who need an organisation to achieve their full potential. This latter caveat distinguishes them from artists and other free agents who can survive on their own.
There is so much in the article about the nature of such people and how best to manage them that it is difficult to summarise everything here. Key points are that they are difficult to manage conventionally and hate any trappings of hierarchy; they will only work well for leaders whom they respect and whose value they appreciate; they want to work closely with other clever people yet paradoxically do not work well in teams; they need recognition but the recognition they value most is from peers and external sources, not the hierarchy; they hate red tape, tight discipline and ‘bullshit’.
There is a summary of do’s and don’ts at the end of the article that is helpful but perhaps simplifies and devalues the earlier content. Maybe this even briefer summary does so even more but I will try:
Do – give them space and time, protect them from the organisation, talk straight, provide challenges, agree boundaries
Don’t – use the hierarchy, interfere, try to deceive, give too much feedback, impose discipline, expose to politics
The overall message is in the final paragraph; you must manage the delicate balance between giving clever people the freedom they need to experiment and grow, and the minimum discipline that sets them useful boundaries.
Looking back over the history of MTP and all the ‘clever people’ that have come and gone during our history, I can see that we did not always follow these rules and believe that we have learnt the lessons. This article confirms much of what we have found out the hard way.
This is a contribution of high quality and depth, much more so than the normal content of Management Today. It is highly recommended.
To read this article go to http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/search/article/929304/9-ways-harness-special-talents-clever-people/
Climate of change (e-learning), by Julian Dable, Training Journal, October 2009
I chose this article because I am interested in the issues and the trends around e-learning but, after reading it, I found myself focussing on what was missing rather than the points that were made. The other problem with the article is the lack of definition of what is meant by e-learning, for instance it appears not to embrace delivery by Virtual Classroom technology which, in our view, can be much more flexible, interactive and cost effective than the more conventional e-learning packages.
The basic argument of the article is that e-learning is on the increase because of desires to cut costs and avoid travel during the recession. At first sight this seems logical and likely until you think about a longer term perspective.
I realise that our own focus on management learning may give us a different view from those involved in training at lower levels but, from our perspective, e-learning has been around for a long time now. Our first experiences in partnership with Unilever were in the mid nineties yet the author implies that this technology has only just arrived.
Our other impression is that e-learning has a part to play within blended learning solutions but there are all sorts of issues and barriers which impact its wider use as an alternative to face to face delivery, none of which are addressed in this article, for instance:
• For which topics is the e-learning approach most suitable?
• For which levels of management and age groups will it work best?
• How best can you simulate the sort of interactivity that allows learning to be retained?
• How do you persuade busy managers to give valuable desk? time?
• How do you create a culture that makes giving desk time OK?
• How do you assess learning retention?
• How do you track completion?
The article does make the valid point that there are new authoring systems that make e-learning more affordable and easier to tailor but it is still not likely to be cost effective unless it is done well and the questions above are answered positively. There is a danger that people will start to think that e-learning is easy to develop and you end up with a cost driven solution that does not meet the learning objective. This happened with the early ‘text on screen’ computer based learning packages that were no more effective than text books.
We would also question the article’s assumption – without much convincing evidence from top companies - that e-learning has ‘increasing popularity’. Our feeling is that, at least in a management training context, it may have peaked and that on line trainer delivery via the Virtual Classroom is now seen as a preferred solution. The capital investment is usually less and the flexibility so much greater.
This is an article that shows the narrow perspective and limited experience of the author rather any new insights.
To read this article go to http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/2469.html
The basic argument of the article is that e-learning is on the increase because of desires to cut costs and avoid travel during the recession. At first sight this seems logical and likely until you think about a longer term perspective.
I realise that our own focus on management learning may give us a different view from those involved in training at lower levels but, from our perspective, e-learning has been around for a long time now. Our first experiences in partnership with Unilever were in the mid nineties yet the author implies that this technology has only just arrived.
Our other impression is that e-learning has a part to play within blended learning solutions but there are all sorts of issues and barriers which impact its wider use as an alternative to face to face delivery, none of which are addressed in this article, for instance:
• For which topics is the e-learning approach most suitable?
• For which levels of management and age groups will it work best?
• How best can you simulate the sort of interactivity that allows learning to be retained?
• How do you persuade busy managers to give valuable desk? time?
• How do you create a culture that makes giving desk time OK?
• How do you assess learning retention?
• How do you track completion?
The article does make the valid point that there are new authoring systems that make e-learning more affordable and easier to tailor but it is still not likely to be cost effective unless it is done well and the questions above are answered positively. There is a danger that people will start to think that e-learning is easy to develop and you end up with a cost driven solution that does not meet the learning objective. This happened with the early ‘text on screen’ computer based learning packages that were no more effective than text books.
We would also question the article’s assumption – without much convincing evidence from top companies - that e-learning has ‘increasing popularity’. Our feeling is that, at least in a management training context, it may have peaked and that on line trainer delivery via the Virtual Classroom is now seen as a preferred solution. The capital investment is usually less and the flexibility so much greater.
This is an article that shows the narrow perspective and limited experience of the author rather any new insights.
To read this article go to http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/2469.html
Three articles on the issues around business school education
• The pedagogy of the privileged, Economist September 26th
• Enlightenment rules, Director October 2009
• MBA focus report, Times 5th October
• A recipe for MBA success, Management Today October 2009
For this review I have taken three recent articles and a Times Supplement that all cover the issues around business school education. I am taking the Economist article first because, despite being the shortest, it is the most interesting and challenging.
The Economist’s message is mainly directed at the top business schools in the USA but should have meaning for all those who claim to prepare potential senior managers for their future roles in business life. It is reflecting the widespread feeling in the USA that places like Harvard and MIT should be feeling some guilt and responsibility for the irresponsible actions of their graduates that led to the financial crisis, for instance the former CEOs of Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch and HBOS were all MBAs at the top schools. Enron was also a company that was’ stuffed with Harvard MBAs from top to bottom.’
The issue raised in the article is whether this means that management education should start again from scratch or merely initiate changes in tone and curriculum. The anonymous author comes out in favour of the latter, making the point that, despite financial crises and scandals, companies that are run in accordance with MBA theory are generally more successful. There is therefore still a steady demand for top MBAs from leading companies and countries.
The main change required, it is suggested, is more challenge and scepticism about the companies that are studied on MBA courses and a more realistic study of genuine history, not the ‘puffs’ that companies like Enron have received in case studies of their transient success. It is argued that it is not enough to paper over the cracks with token sessions on business ethics; there is a need for professors to move away from their tendency to boost their favourite companies via fawning case studies and to be more challenging around fads and ‘supercorps’. They must show greater independence of thought, a surprising criticism of institutions that are supposed to lead the way in the development of theory.
How then do the other three contributions match up against the Economist article? The answer is – not too well, because all three are barely hidden puffs for some business schools, presumably selected on the basis of willingness to contribute and advertising potential.
The Director’s contribution is the best of the three because it does face up to the issue raised by the Economist and allows the Heads of several UK schools to say how they have adapted to the recession. Most claim that these hard times have not materially reduced numbers enrolling for MBAs and there are the usual platitudes about the need to invest in people during the downturn. There are also several comments about business ethics receiving more attention but no sign of the more challenging approach suggested by the Economist article.
The Times supplement confirms the apparent buoyancy of the MBA market though one wonders if this is a concerted attempt to raise morale and present a ‘hard to get’ image to potential applicants. The supplement contains a number of interesting contributions, though one has to accept that its whole purpose is clearly to generate more business for the schools who contribute. The short article that stands out is from Leigh Drake, Dean of Nottingham Business School, who also seems to realise that business schools must bear some responsibility for the financial scandals and crises and recommends fundamental changes if they are to retain credibility.
The Management Today article adds very little, making some general and obvious points about the need for ROI and the requirements of a successful MBA student. There is however some interesting data on cost which is frequently bypassed by those who are advocating MBA benefits. The examples quoted are not the top UK names and these reveal a range of £20K to £40K, depending on whether part or full time. The issue that would have justified more attention is who pays the bill and whether the ROI on such an investment is likely to come to the individual or the company.
This could have been extended to an interesting debate on the pros and cons of in-company MBAs and why these, with a few honourable exceptions (for instance the IBM course at Warwick as mentioned in the Times Supplement) have not achieved as wide popularity as was initially expected.
To read these articles go to:
http://www.economist.com/node/14493183/comments
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2009/9%20October/ed_bus_ed_63_02.html
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/940675/mba-business-education-guide-autumn-2009-recipe-mba-success/
We cannot locate the Times article online, if you have a link or an electronic copy please send it to alanwarner@mtpplc.com
• Enlightenment rules, Director October 2009
• MBA focus report, Times 5th October
• A recipe for MBA success, Management Today October 2009
For this review I have taken three recent articles and a Times Supplement that all cover the issues around business school education. I am taking the Economist article first because, despite being the shortest, it is the most interesting and challenging.
The Economist’s message is mainly directed at the top business schools in the USA but should have meaning for all those who claim to prepare potential senior managers for their future roles in business life. It is reflecting the widespread feeling in the USA that places like Harvard and MIT should be feeling some guilt and responsibility for the irresponsible actions of their graduates that led to the financial crisis, for instance the former CEOs of Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch and HBOS were all MBAs at the top schools. Enron was also a company that was’ stuffed with Harvard MBAs from top to bottom.’
The issue raised in the article is whether this means that management education should start again from scratch or merely initiate changes in tone and curriculum. The anonymous author comes out in favour of the latter, making the point that, despite financial crises and scandals, companies that are run in accordance with MBA theory are generally more successful. There is therefore still a steady demand for top MBAs from leading companies and countries.
The main change required, it is suggested, is more challenge and scepticism about the companies that are studied on MBA courses and a more realistic study of genuine history, not the ‘puffs’ that companies like Enron have received in case studies of their transient success. It is argued that it is not enough to paper over the cracks with token sessions on business ethics; there is a need for professors to move away from their tendency to boost their favourite companies via fawning case studies and to be more challenging around fads and ‘supercorps’. They must show greater independence of thought, a surprising criticism of institutions that are supposed to lead the way in the development of theory.
How then do the other three contributions match up against the Economist article? The answer is – not too well, because all three are barely hidden puffs for some business schools, presumably selected on the basis of willingness to contribute and advertising potential.
The Director’s contribution is the best of the three because it does face up to the issue raised by the Economist and allows the Heads of several UK schools to say how they have adapted to the recession. Most claim that these hard times have not materially reduced numbers enrolling for MBAs and there are the usual platitudes about the need to invest in people during the downturn. There are also several comments about business ethics receiving more attention but no sign of the more challenging approach suggested by the Economist article.
The Times supplement confirms the apparent buoyancy of the MBA market though one wonders if this is a concerted attempt to raise morale and present a ‘hard to get’ image to potential applicants. The supplement contains a number of interesting contributions, though one has to accept that its whole purpose is clearly to generate more business for the schools who contribute. The short article that stands out is from Leigh Drake, Dean of Nottingham Business School, who also seems to realise that business schools must bear some responsibility for the financial scandals and crises and recommends fundamental changes if they are to retain credibility.
The Management Today article adds very little, making some general and obvious points about the need for ROI and the requirements of a successful MBA student. There is however some interesting data on cost which is frequently bypassed by those who are advocating MBA benefits. The examples quoted are not the top UK names and these reveal a range of £20K to £40K, depending on whether part or full time. The issue that would have justified more attention is who pays the bill and whether the ROI on such an investment is likely to come to the individual or the company.
This could have been extended to an interesting debate on the pros and cons of in-company MBAs and why these, with a few honourable exceptions (for instance the IBM course at Warwick as mentioned in the Times Supplement) have not achieved as wide popularity as was initially expected.
To read these articles go to:
http://www.economist.com/node/14493183/comments
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2009/9%20October/ed_bus_ed_63_02.html
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/940675/mba-business-education-guide-autumn-2009-recipe-mba-success/
We cannot locate the Times article online, if you have a link or an electronic copy please send it to alanwarner@mtpplc.com
Managing Creativity and Innovation by Richard Luecke, Harvard Business Press (Business Essentials series)
It is interesting that the author’s name is very much played down in the book; this series appears to be an attempt to use the Harvard brand to sell short practical publications on key management topics. The Harvard book that was reviewed last month - on the topic of private equity investors and the lessons that we can learn from them – was an encouraging introduction to the series but this book is less powerful. It is perhaps because any attempt to reduce such a complex and challenging topic to a few short chapters is almost bound to lead to accusations of over simplification and superficiality.
This is certainly how it felt reading the book though there were some useful reminders of key issues and success factors around innovation. However these were usually in the form of bullet points and checklists that seemed rather out of place in the context of such a creative topic. For example a list of key success factors that just says – create right climate, reward idea generators, hire innovative people, provide necessary support etc – is not going to help those who are seriously looking for fundamental change.
But there are some useful reminders and insights, for instance that there is no proven correlation between intelligence and creativity, yet intelligence is often the criterion that is seen as most important for selection throughout life. Even more interesting – particularly to me as MTP’s senior citizen - is the lack of any proven link between age and creativity, which is counter- intuitive and, from what one hears, is not always followed in advertising agencies and similarly creative organisations.
There are also some very practical references to the need for the key innovators in organisations to be in physical proximity to each other with confirmation that most good innovation comes from collaborative efforts rather than individual brilliance. This led me to think of an issue that maybe could have had more attention in the book and elsewhere; does the modern tendency for more people to work at home or other remote locations put a damper on creativity and what are the best ways in which this can be mitigated?
There is also useful coverage of the criteria by which creativity should be rewarded which must relate to customer needs and the strategic context; the three tests of strategic fit, within technical competence and within business competence seemed to be sensible and practical as screening questions.
On a similarly practical note there is reference to the need for innovation to extend to the ‘commercialisation’ of the idea, which links to ‘Fast Second’ - the book on innovation that we mention above and was reviewed earlier in the year. The reference confirms that the people who make most money out of innovations are those like Steve Jobs of Apple who take other people’s ‘un-commercialised’ ideas and take them to market.
Overall this is a book that could be useful for someone just starting to think about innovation and creativity as key issues for the future, but not one to create new insights for more experienced managers.
This is certainly how it felt reading the book though there were some useful reminders of key issues and success factors around innovation. However these were usually in the form of bullet points and checklists that seemed rather out of place in the context of such a creative topic. For example a list of key success factors that just says – create right climate, reward idea generators, hire innovative people, provide necessary support etc – is not going to help those who are seriously looking for fundamental change.
But there are some useful reminders and insights, for instance that there is no proven correlation between intelligence and creativity, yet intelligence is often the criterion that is seen as most important for selection throughout life. Even more interesting – particularly to me as MTP’s senior citizen - is the lack of any proven link between age and creativity, which is counter- intuitive and, from what one hears, is not always followed in advertising agencies and similarly creative organisations.
There are also some very practical references to the need for the key innovators in organisations to be in physical proximity to each other with confirmation that most good innovation comes from collaborative efforts rather than individual brilliance. This led me to think of an issue that maybe could have had more attention in the book and elsewhere; does the modern tendency for more people to work at home or other remote locations put a damper on creativity and what are the best ways in which this can be mitigated?
There is also useful coverage of the criteria by which creativity should be rewarded which must relate to customer needs and the strategic context; the three tests of strategic fit, within technical competence and within business competence seemed to be sensible and practical as screening questions.
On a similarly practical note there is reference to the need for innovation to extend to the ‘commercialisation’ of the idea, which links to ‘Fast Second’ - the book on innovation that we mention above and was reviewed earlier in the year. The reference confirms that the people who make most money out of innovations are those like Steve Jobs of Apple who take other people’s ‘un-commercialised’ ideas and take them to market.
Overall this is a book that could be useful for someone just starting to think about innovation and creativity as key issues for the future, but not one to create new insights for more experienced managers.
Business stripped bare by Richard Branson, published by Virgin Books
This is a difficult shift for Branson, from writing his biography - ‘Losing my Virginity’ - to setting himself up as a guru who can help others to achieve the same sort of success, following the path of other high profile businessmen like Jack Welch and Lee Iacocca. This is a particularly difficult transition for Branson as he is such a ‘one-off’; someone to be admired rather than copied, as I used to say in my sessions on business success in years gone by. I am embarrassed that I also used to predict that Branson would never achieve lasting success because of his lack of strategic logic and focus on core competences. My excuse now is that he really is a ‘one-off’ individual who has been able to create a unique brand on the strength of his personality and charisma.
The book benefits from a simple chapter structure - people, brand, delivery, innovation, learning, leadership -and the advice is a mixture of common sense and business acumen, what you would expect from someone with his track record. From anyone else it might seem like motherhood and apple pie (particularly as he produces Kipling’s poem ‘If’ as a finale) but, because it is Branson and because it is laced with relevant examples and anecdotes, it comes over well. He has the great advantage of many friends and acquaintances who have also achieved success and his close relationship with them provides both credibility and insight.
Examples of his advice are:
• People – give them freedom to develop
• Brand – promises must match delivery (shame about Virgin Rail!)
• Delivery – attention to the details that customers value
• Innovation – capitalise on luck and go where ideas lead you
• Entrepreneurship – must be continued when you become big
The final chapter on social responsibility is the least convincing; his message is – make a difference where you can. He does not address the question of how going into the airline business makes the right kind of difference but perhaps this is expecting too much!
Overall this book is impressive but mainly because it is Branson. Like most of his businesses!!
The book benefits from a simple chapter structure - people, brand, delivery, innovation, learning, leadership -and the advice is a mixture of common sense and business acumen, what you would expect from someone with his track record. From anyone else it might seem like motherhood and apple pie (particularly as he produces Kipling’s poem ‘If’ as a finale) but, because it is Branson and because it is laced with relevant examples and anecdotes, it comes over well. He has the great advantage of many friends and acquaintances who have also achieved success and his close relationship with them provides both credibility and insight.
Examples of his advice are:
• People – give them freedom to develop
• Brand – promises must match delivery (shame about Virgin Rail!)
• Delivery – attention to the details that customers value
• Innovation – capitalise on luck and go where ideas lead you
• Entrepreneurship – must be continued when you become big
The final chapter on social responsibility is the least convincing; his message is – make a difference where you can. He does not address the question of how going into the airline business makes the right kind of difference but perhaps this is expecting too much!
Overall this book is impressive but mainly because it is Branson. Like most of his businesses!!