The Weekly Fearful Roundup

This is a new feature that I am starting this week to highlight examples I see in business & life where fear is ruling our decision making processes.

1. Lets start this week with a Vanity Fair article on the Brian Williams mess, but more specifically the fall of NBC News and how it happened. It is a fascinating read on the impact of mergers and acquisitions on corporate culture and how not to handle employment decisions.

My favorite excerpt from the article is the following two paragraphs that highlight poor leadership, lack of trust, corporate politics and how they each can play a role in fear-based decision making.

According to one view, the Burke administration’s troubles at NBC News can be traced to the Ann Curry episode at Today, a messy situation it inherited from the Zucker regime. Line executives were sharply split over Curry’s desire to ascend from newsreader to Lauer’s on-air partner. The head of news, Steve Capus, was in favor; Today’s executive producer, Jim Bell, and Matt Lauer were wary. Capus prevailed, only to watch Curry’s ratings slide. By June 2012, when she memorably and tearfully announced her departure from Today, Capus and Bell were not speaking. “That’s where this whole thing begins to fall apart,” says the onetime executive. “Burke was the principal player [who made the decision to demote her], though he hid desperately behind this. Finally he makes a deal for her to go away and then gets cold feet about pushing her to announce it. Despite pleas from everyone, Burke would not push the situation. He just felt uncomfortable doing it, and he wouldn’t explain why. Which leads directly to this thing being a national ‘Oh, poor Ann Curry’ story, which was the furthest thing from the truth.”

The Curry saga convinced Burke that the news division under Steve Capus’s direction was broadly dysfunctional. “The prevailing line from the Comcast people when Steve Capus was in charge was all News needs is a real grown-up in there,” says a top NBC executive at the time. “You know, ‘These people don’t know how to run a business. What they need is organization. Change the structure, business development, better H.R., get some women in there.’ I mean, that’s verbatim. That was the script.” Bell was removed from the equation when Burke gave him the Olympics to supervise, but Burke wanted deeper changes. Insiders believe he found the Curry episode so distasteful that he resolved to distance himself from the details of talent management altogether. “This thing exploded into a soap opera, and let me tell you, it scared the hell out of Steve Burke,” recalls an executive who met with Burke regularly. “And that’s not a phrase you use about a tough guy like Burke. But I saw it.”

2. Next, I recently read about this new company that is participating in a business accelerator that I am familiar with.

Fear of Failure is Hurting America's Entreprenuerial Standing

As Americans we are hard wired from generations dating back to Ellis Island to be a part of the opportunities that America created.  We were risk takers, crossing the Atlantic against all odds in the search of a better future.

But our sudden and startling transition to a market based on fear was driven home by a headline in the USA Today in December 2013 - “Is too little market fear something to fear?” Do you mean to tell me that we don't have enough to fear that we now have to worry about not having enough fear?

A recent study by the Brookings Institute shows that in 2008 for the first time in at least decades (but possibly in the nation’s history due to poor historical data) job destruction now outpaces job creation - see chart below.  It isn’t that companies are failing more on a percentage basis, but rather there is a drought of new business creation - and our own personal fears of failure or risking the safety of what we have today is a big reason for this trend.

Each year the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) publishes an annual report on the environment for entrepreneurship around the world.  The GEM is a research program initiated

in 1997 as a joint venture between academics at London Business School in the UK and Babson College in the United States. From its first survey in 1999, GEM has grown into a consortium of more than 400 researchers from 99 economies over its 14 year history.  In the 2012 report it had this to say about the environment for new business creation around the world:

Risk-taking can pose considerable challenges for potential entrepreneurs. Universities and business schools around the world can generally teach the basics of entrepreneurship, boosting peoples’ abilities to perceive opportunities and their skills for starting businesses. A key stumbling block, however, is one’s inherent fear of failure. This can counteract the drive to start a business, even when the expected returns from entrepreneurship have better prospects than the next best alternative. People may have differing levels of fear of failure and conditions in the institutional environment, such as bankruptcy legislation, which could deter would-be entrepreneurs.

While obviously reflective of the economic environment in those countries the startling evidence in the report shows that those countries with the most to lose in terms of real economic value (meaning opportunity cost of leaving a high paying job, blowing through a savings or retirement account, etc) were the countries showing the most fear.

Google's Innovation

Time Magazine this week featured Google's innovation machine and what Google refers to as "moonshots" or innovation that is 10x greater than anything else in the marketplace.

Another key feature of brave companies or corporate leaders who know the face of bravery are those with a long-term perspective.  They understand that enduring companies are built over long periods of time and not quarter to quarter succumbing to investor pressure.

The article had a great quote about Google's view on innovation.  Many companies are more focused on how to incrementally improve on their core products to protect it against competition.  What ends up happening is a myopic view of innovation that prevents companies from making real breakthroughs.  Google's moonshot approach can be summed up in one quote:

"Guys like Larry (Page) don't focus on preserving value; they just work on building new value."

That sounds fine when you have tens of billions of dollars to spend on innovation and create many expensive flops but that can't work for all companies.  But the mindset is an important one and practically, even Google takes a rational approach - they don't just throw billions of dollars at a given category:

"Page has also concentrated on avoiding flops like Wikipedia knockoff Knol and Google Buzz, a Twitter clone almost nobody wanted to use.  He has done this in part by ratcheting down the number of new product introductions and axing existing projects in period 'spring cleanings'.  He has in a memorable phrase, declared his intention to put 'more wood behind fewer arrows'."

Tesla's Elon Musk

This week's profile in corporate bravery is Elon Musk of Tesla motors.  If you haven't heard of him by now you must be living under a rock.  He is an eccentric innovator - most recently making headlines for his hyperloop idea and also known for his space company and his intergalactic aspirations.  I know, it sounds a bit like Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory but instead he is a billionaire with a really good business strategy in the automotive space.

Tesla has been on a roll recently and the stock price and media coverage have followed.  Including the basis for this post - the recent BusinessWeek article on Tesla entitled "Why Everybody Loves Tesla".
I am not going to focus on why everybody loves them though and instead focus on all the 'brave' things they are doing as a business - led by Elon who dares to do things differently.  To underscore this philosophy the article includes this quote from Consumer Reports after giving their Model S a 99 out of 100 rating:

"It’s what Marty McFly might have brought back in place of his DeLorean in Back to the Future”

Tesla's business strategy has focused on all the things that prevent people from buying not only a new car but also an electric car including:

• Range of an electric charge and re-charging - by pushing the envelope on innovation of batteries and creating an entire network of refueling stations.

"Higher-end versions of the Model S can go up to 300 miles on a charge, which has helped separate Tesla from rival vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf, which run about 75 miles before needing more juice. Musk has hinted that Tesla has a 500-mile battery pack in the works. At the company’s solar-powered Supercharger stations, Tesla owners can replenish about 200 miles of range in 20 minutes for free. (Most electric cars take hours to recharge.) Or customers can opt for the battery swap, which will cost about what they’d pay for a tank of gas, and be back on the road in 90 seconds." 

• Integrating software and hardware for a seamless driver experience.

"Even the flaws of the Model S seem to resonate with geeks. Early versions of the outside handles malfunctioned—they sometimes wouldn’t extend out of the door—and the windshield wipers seemed to have a mind of their own. Tesla fixed those and other problems with a software upgrade delivered via the car’s high-speed wireless connection. An engineering leader at Ford says he’s envious of what Tesla has achieved by starting from scratch and interweaving software on the touchscreen with the vehicle’s internal systems. “The level of integration that the software has into the rest of the Model S is really impressive,” he says."

• Creating a direct to consumer strategy for car sales

"Unlike every other major car company, Tesla has also kept its retail business in-house. It’s trying the Apple model of placing its own stores in high-end malls and shopping centers instead of relying on dealer franchises. Salespeople, who don’t receive commissions, help buyers configure their cars on giant touch screens." 

• An innovative insurance program that guarantees the value of the vehicle over the long-term
• Maintenance program that includes pickup service and only minimal necessary maintenance

These are all ways that Tesla didn't listen to conventional wisdom; they weren't afraid of perceived advantages that the large, legacy car makers had and they weren't afraid of challenges they would encounter from various stakeholders that would have their very business models disrupted.  As the BusinessWeek article points out they will continue to see challenges but it isn't likely to stop them from continuing to push a business model that they believe is likely to be successful in the long-term.

There’s also the possibility that Tesla is overdoing it with the high-tech whiz-bang. The 17-inch touchscreen, for example, is equipped with a Web browser. Distracted driving laws vary by state, but obviously no one behind the wheel should type out Internet searches in a moving vehicle. There’s no stopping determined drivers from trying. Tesla’s in-car technology “is almost too good,” says Munley. “Detroit is leery about it, and would never go that way for fear of safety and lawsuits. We’re all waiting to see if there are accidents.” Meanwhile, car dealers around the country see Tesla’s direct-to-consumer sales as a violation of laws that separate car manufacturing from selling, and are engaged in a statehouse-by-statehouse lobbying effort to block the company from opening its own stores.