Do All Business Strategy Books Suck? (#5) Guest Post by Northwestern’s Don E. Schultz

5 May 2009 | Culture, Internet, Marketing, Media, Social Media | Comments

The story so far (skip this paragraph if you already know): Last week, Brian Reich threw down a challenge about all business strategy books sucking, to which I replied, set up the Twitter hashtag #bizstratbooks, and additionally asked a few friends who read everything to comment. The first respondent was Accuquote’s Sean Cheyney; next were responses from Upstream Group and Upstream Habitat CEO Doug Weaver and Northwestern University and Catalyst:SF CEO and Managing General Partner John Durham.

Today’s guest post comes from Don E. Schultz of Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism and Agora, Inc.

Universally acknowledged as the father of integrated marketing communications, here’s what Don has to say on this week’s topic:

****************************************************
Sorry I’m late in responding but have been struggling to develop a clever and witty response. Unfortunately, my muse is out this week (she’s busy unloading my GM and Chrysler bonds in Iceland), so I will respond on my own.

I agree with you, Doug and John… that is, it may be a better use of time to read widely and in other areas than simply trying to find the nuggets in the published business books.

There are some very good reasons for the level of business books we have available.  Here’s my speculation o why they’re like they are.

As Doug has said, in order to generate sales, business strategy books have to be simple and have some sort of whiz-bang mnemonic, i.e., the infamous 4Ps or Positioning or Porter’s five forces.  If the book is too sophisticated, with some really good ideas, concepts and approaches, many will extensively quote passages from the text but few will (a) have read it, (b) know what it means or (c) have any idea on how to apply it in their own organization.

So, if the question is:  Do business strategy books really help improve business or organizations or even the reader? I suspect not.  I think that is particularly true for those toiling in the interactive vineyards.  We have to remember that almost all existing businesses have been built on three pillars.

1. A group of assembled functional silos that often don’t work together very well
2. A business model based on a supply chain: i.e., find a way to sell what the organization makes or does. Customers are of interest only in terms of what can be extracted from them
3. The primary goal is to provide short-term returns for investors; i.e., the 90 day financial model

Given these three elements, interactivity is a problem.  It doesn’t fit the executive’s background, training or current situation.  Therefore, most business strategy books are designed to create incremental change in the existing business model, not to provide transformational change to a new approach.  Interactivity and all the things that go with it are an anathema to current business leaders who simply want to keep the silos happy, manage the logistical chain and generate short term profits… then, head off into retirement, with a well feathered nest, to work on their golf game.

The one thing business strategy books do, however, is keep people employed in publishing, printing and distribution.  In today’s economic climate, that’s probably not all bad.

In reflecting back on the business strategy books I have read, scanned, perused, flipped through or whatever, over the years, I’ve found the following.

1. Most of the content is generally common sense. That’s what many of Peter Drucker’s concepts were; i.e, a company is built to generate and hold on to customers.  The only thing he did was put the concepts in a way that seemed relevant, important and quotable.  Most of Drucker’s musings are as — or perhaps more — important today than when he wrote them 50 years ago.  The problem is:  few managers have the gumption or capability to implement them because of the three factors noted above.  Thus, not as much has come from his work as should have… with the exceptions of selected quotes used as chapter headings in strategy books.
2. The basic ideas of most business books, including strategy, is in the first three chapters.  For the most part, after Chapter 3 the books become, not just turgid, but, in too many cases, appalling. The concepts may be fine but the implementation is simply not there.  Again, when you’re stuck with an outbound-only business model, it’s hard to think very creatively.  It’s like the well recognized industry titans who want to teach at the university but find they only have enough content for a couple of lectures.  There really isn’t any magic bullet in terms of describing a good business plan.  The challenge is in implementing it and making it work.  The problem is: the basic principles are no longer relevant.  Customers are now in control, the marketplace is dynamic, markets are not linear, they’re networked, and I can’t see the smokestacks of my competitors if they’re in India or China– so I don’t know what they’re doing.  In this type of situation, incremental change isn’t the answer and that’s what most business strategy books are about.
3. Most of the business strategy books that succeed are successful because we, as readers, agree with the views of the authors.  They have said what we’d like to say, but haven’t or didn’t.  So, we like their ideas because they fit with our own, and so we quote them and advocate for them.  Or, we write blurbs for the jacket covers because we like to see our names in print, too.  Just look at all the quotes at the end of every email. The problem? When we agree with the authors, we’re generally agreeing to incremental, not break-through thinking.
4. No revolutionary business strategy book will ever be published.  It can’t because the publishers don’t think it will sell.  Let’s face it, publishers are in business to sell books, not to provide for the common good.  Publishers won’t touch a book if it is radical in its views or unique in its approaches anymore than you can get an academic journal article published through the peer review journal process if it challenges the existing literature.  We’re comfortable with things we know and uncomfortable with things we don’t know or haven’t experienced.  That’s why you see many of the posts, blogs, comments, articles and reports on the interactive marketplace focused on how to use the new forms of communication to solve or resolve the same old outbound only problems, i.e., how to get people to pay attention to your email blast.    As a result, we keep plowing the same ground year after year, with new graphics and perhaps a few new cliches.

In all the books I have read in the past few years, the only one that really stands out is “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid” by CK Prahalad. It gave me a view of a world I’ve never really experienced.  And, for that, it was worthwhile.  The problem is, the topic represents about 80% of the world’s market, but I don’t see business people rushing to get into those markets. It doesn’t fit the business model they are committed to following.  If I were a business manager, could I implement some of Pralahad’s ideas?   A few have but for the most part, managers stick to established markets with known competitors, trying to sell to people just like themselves.

In looking back at this note, I realize I didn’t really answer your question.  Do all business strategy books suck?  If you’re committed to a traditional business model, they likely provide some incremental benefit.  If you think the world needs to be changed, i.e., interactivity and dynamic models, probably not.  But, in writing this response, I did answer some of my own questions.  That likely will be beneficial to me in the long run, but I’m not sure it will help anyone else.

In summary, thanks for the venting facility.  Hope this helps you and others.  It certainly helped clear my own mind.

****************************************************

More to come on this, and please join the party! Weigh in at will with comments and additions both here and on Twitter.