Then, Powell explained that the agency would get the function and the bodies, but not the positions and funding.
“
Drucker found that consultants were supposed to know more than clients. The old saying was that a consultant is someone that borrows your watch to tell you what time it is. But Drucker found that the client usually had greater knowledge and the experience regarding the issue, the industry, and the corporation. From this fact, Drucker decided that what he brought to the consulting engagement was not so much his knowledge or experience having to do with any company, industry, product, or service, but his ignorance and lack of experience. Based on this incongruity, Drucker began a unique consulting practice in which he asked his clients five basic generic business questions such as, “What business you are you in?” followed by more questions of the experts (his clients) which led to the clients solving the problem while Drucker facilitated the process.
THE THIRD SOURCE: PROCESS NEED
This has to do with the old proverb that necessity is the mother of invention. So, this source is straightforward. You need something done and you simply work on this something until you figure out how to do it. The Wright brothers, Orville and Wilbur, struggled to invent a workable flying machine. They calculated that they would need an engine weighing less than 200 pounds which would generate eight horsepower. They searched and discovered that no such engine existed. All existing engines were either too heavy or too weak to meet these specifications. They decided that they needed to develop such an engine themselves. They estimated that they would need one made of four cylinders with four-inch bore and four-inch stroke, weighing not over two hundred pounds, including all accessories. This they did. However, by itself, an engine was useless if it could not generate the artificial wind thrust over the wings to create lift. Where to find a propeller to generate the wind for thrust? No data on air propellers existed, so the Wright brothers found themselves working in a theoretical vacuum. They concluded that a propeller was simply like a glider travelling in a spiral course.
As they could calculate the effect of a glider travelling in a straight course, they realized that theoretically there was no reason why they could not calculate the effect of one travelling in a spiral course. But what in theory does not appear difficult, may be misleading. It was hard to find even a point from which to make a start; for nothing about a propeller, or the medium in which it acts, remains stationery. Eventually they solved that problem which led to yet another problem which they eventually solved too: their invention of three-axis control allowed the pilot to control his machine. Step by step they innovated as they solved problem after problem. Finally, everything came together on 17 December 1903 with man’s first powered flight.8 Where there is a need, there is always a way.
John Dewey, economic philosopher, Charles Kettering, who headed research for GM, and Peter Drucker concluded that defining the problem was of primary importance and that in effect a problem well stated was half solved. So stating the problem well is not to be ignored. Think about the importance of a medical doctor diagnosing the right disease before deciding on a treatment.
THE FOURTH SOURCE: INDUSTRY AND MARKET STRUCTURES
People tend to keep doing things the same way forever, and this carries through to industries and markets. I heard a story once about a husband who asked his wife why she cut the ends off her roast before cooking. Her answer: “That’s the way it’s done.” The husband noticed that his wife’s mother made her roast in the same way. Her response was the same: “That’s the way you cook a roast.” One day, he and his wife visited her grandmother. She prepared a roast, too. But she didn’t cut the ends off. So, the young husband asked her why she didn’t. “Well,” she said, “for many years I did. But finally, about the time our daughter left home and got married we bought a pan large enough to hold the roast without my having to cut off the ends.” Amazingly that way of roasting passed through two generations as ‘that’s the way it’s done’. How many ‘roasting processes’ do you have in your organization done that way because ‘that’s the way it’s done?’
All organizations make these assumptions. What was magic about Henry Ford and his Ford Motor Company? Contrary to widespread belief, Ford did not invent the assembly line. Moreover, the assembly line wasn’t even needed for enormous success and high profits. Rolls-Royce proved that. They never had one. What Ford did was to observe that the market structure had changed such that the ‘horseless carriage’ was no longer just a rich man’s toy. Ford designed a car that could be mass-produced at a relatively low cost and driven and maintained by the owner himself. The assembly line was only part of this innovation. In developing his cars, using the assembly line and cutting costs to the point that a customer could have any colour car he wanted so long as it was black, Ford changed both the way the industry and the market worked. He changed an important part of market and industry structure.
As Drucker pointed out, innovation could work equally well going another way, but still using existing industry and market structure in the same business as a source. About the same time as Ford was innovating, Rolls-Royce introduced its own innovations. But it was the exact opposite of what Ford introduced. It more than quadrupled its already high price, abandoned the assembly line and returned to manufacturing methods and materials that had been used since the Middle Ages. Unlike the Ford Motor Company, Rolls-Royce guaranteed its product would last forever. It made a vehicle that was not designed for the owner to drive or maintain. Rather than envision everyone as its future customer, it sought to restrict sales to royalty, or those that had the financial resources equated with royalty. Rolls-Royce, too, achieved great success and high profits.
THE FIFTH SOURCE: DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographics have to do with the characteristics of a human population. These may be characteristics of education, culture, income, and more. These characteristics are not static. They change over time. For example, people live longer and tend to be in better health at older ages than in generations past. They say that today’s age demographic of the eighties were previously that of the sixties. Can you see sources for innovation in this? These changes have caused an explosion in the interest in and maintenance of health among seniors, which has led to health maintenance organizations, health newsletters, vitamins, spas for seniors, and more.
Approximately 20 years ago Drucker predicted that the future of executive education was online. His prediction was based partially on technology and convenience, but also on the fact that computer literacy and computer ownership was growing even faster than the demand for executive education. Many traditional educators disparaged the idea of so-called distance learning. They said it had to be done in the classroom face to face by lecture as it had been done in antiquity. They said that discussions had to take place and questions be asked and answered in this environment or it wasn’t effective. Students might be exposed to information and ideas online, but they just wouldn’t and couldn’t learn this way. It had to be in the way done over the millennia in the classroom. Well, Drucker was right again. Research found that learning online was even faster and more effective than classroom learning in many instances. This is probably because students tend to focus on the material to be learned more efficiently. Today leading universities, Harvard, Stanford, and the like, all have online programmes. Others such as Boston University even offer doctorate degrees entirely online.
THE SIXTH SOURCE: CHANGES TO PERCEPTION
How we look at things is critical. There is a very old example from psychology that demonstrates this wel
l. When I first encountered it, I was amazed. It was an ambiguous picture either of a young, attractive woman, or an older, ugly one. It all depended on how you looked at the picture. You could see either depending on your perception at the time. Later, I discovered that you could influence which picture viewers would see by simply having them first view a picture of an image in which a few lines were redrawn, in doing so viewers would only see the young woman, or the old one, but could not see both in the same drawing as in the full drawing.
Here’s the way I used this in the classroom. I would put the doctored picture in which viewers could only see the young, attractive woman in one set of envelopes and the doctored picture in which viewers could only see the older, ugly woman in another set. I would distribute envelopes with the young woman to students in the left side of the room, and the envelopes with the old woman to students in the right side of the room. I would than instruct everyone to open their envelope and look at the picture for 10 seconds and then return the picture to the envelope. Next, I would project the ambiguous picture on a screen by a projector.
I would then ask innocently: “How many see a picture of a young, attractive woman?” The hands on the left side of the room would go up. Those on the right side of the room would look puzzled, and I would appear puzzled, too. “How many see an old woman?” I would ask. The arms on the right side of the room would be raised, and now those seated on the left side of the room would look puzzled.
Drucker employed a much easier example which required no props, that was by asking, “Is the glass of water half full, or half empty?” It all depends on how you look at things. Moreover, your mood, values, beliefs, or what you see or know previously can all affect that perception. How can we take advantage of perception as a source of innovation? At one time a rip in clothing would have caused quality inspectors to reject the product and it would have been destroyed or if the tear was minor, it might be sold at a significant discount. However, the 1960s began the onset of the hippie generation, with young people wearing clothing which was frequently intentionally ripped. Almost overnight stressed, faded, frayed, and yes, even ripped, jeans became status symbols and desirable. In response to this new perception of what was considered desirable, jeans manufacturers began to manufacture clothing that was intentionally produced to resemble clothing that would once have been considered damaged and thrown away or donated to worthy organizations that could recycle it.
THE SEVENTH SOURCE: NEW KNOWLEDGE
You might assume that new knowledge would immediately become the source of innovations and competitive advantages which would encourage companies to advance positions in their industries at the same satisfying needs and wants, some of which were not even recognized until the innovations were introduced. Sad to say, this simply is not true. It frequently takes years, sometimes decades or longer, before new knowledge is applied to result in innovations.
Consider the ‘wonder drug’ penicillin. Alexander Fleming is generally credited with the discovery of penicillin in 1928. But the first documented cure didn’t occur until 1942. That would be 14 years. However, the first published paper on the use of these fungi as a cure goes back to the 1870s, which would place the time between knowledge and innovation as considerably longer. However, hold on. The blue mould of this antibiotic on bread was observed to help speed the cure of wounds of battle in the Middle Ages. So, between knowledge and innovation could more accurately be described as about a thousand years.
The knowledge needed to develop the internet became available in the early 1960s. The knowledge for the internet’s close relation, the personal computer, has been around since 1962. Even ideas not requiring high technology may take a surprising amount of time. Consider the marketing plan. Search in vain for examples prior to World War II. Postwar articles in the Journal of Marketing began to tout the idea of a marketing plan like plans of strategy that became more familiar during the War. But it took more than another 20 years before most organizations began to innovate and adopt the process and produce the marketing plans resulting from it.
What this says is that ‘there is gold in them thar hills’. That is, there is knowledge that has been uncovered and is available today which is the potential source of innovations but is yet unseen and unexploited until some innovator comes along to utilize this knowledge.
Drucker was a change leader and as innovation demands change, he was an expert in change and innovation leadership and practised what he preached. However, he didn’t stop at proving that we must innovate or suffer the consequences of failing to become change leaders ourselves. He showed us exactly what to do and what we should avoid in using innovation to build and maintain the success of our organizations and ourselves with the best sources of innovative ideas. He strongly recommended becoming change leaders to ensure the survival and success of futures and our organizations.
1. Drucker, Peter F. Innovation and Entrepreneurship (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 130-132.
2. McLellan, Dennis. “Harry Wesley Coover Jr. Dies at 94; Inventor of Powerful Adhesive Super Glue”. Los Angeles Times, 31 March 2011, AA4, https://lat.ms/2nh7aCa.
3. Schultz, Howard, with Katie Couric on TV CBS Sunday Morning, 27 March 2011.
4. Malek, Frederic V. Telephone interview with the author 21 January 1998 and fax 22 January 1998.
5. Powell, Colin L. with Joseph E. Persico, My American Journey (New York: Random House, 1995), 167.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. For a complete and detailed discussion of the Wrights’ innovative processes in inventing the aeroplane, see Wright, Orville. How We Invented the Airplane (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1988).
CHAPTER 16
MARKETING AND SELLING YOURSELF
The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer so well the product or service fits him and sells itself.
– Peter F. Drucker
It may seem strange to consider marketing and selling yourself as one of Drucker’s recommended ways to the top. Drucker never seemed to do this. But as we’ll soon see, these are necessary actions that Drucker not only recommended, but followed in his own career, and which led to his success. It is one thing to invent or to do something for the good of humankind that has the potential for the betterment of all, but the challenging work that goes into such an accomplishment is utterly worthless if no one takes advantage and uses it. Drucker would have said that it is a societal obligation to do the marketing and selling required to let the maximum number of others know about and take advantage of your contribution to society. Drucker learned from his work with General Motors that he could contribute to organizations from his knowledge and methods of analysis. Yet he did not market and sell what he had to offer organizations or even to his associates in academia in the usual fashion, and his success with organizations as a consultant and as an academic was not achieved by marketing and selling himself in the ordinary way. Yet the ideas and a methodology he used were effective in enabling him to reach the pinnacle of his several professions.
THE METHODOLOGY DRUCKER USED TO MARKET AND SELL HIMSELF
The usual steps recommended for academic success and an eventual ‘Father of Modern Management’ title would probably be, first, completion of a terminal degree in management (a doctorate), then acquisition of a tenure-track position at a top research university. Harvard would do nicely. Drucker did neither of these and that’s just for starters. And remember Drucker began his academic career by obtaining a PhD in law, not management.
In academia in the US, a tenure-track position is usually one that leads to tenure at a university and is not a temporary or short contract teaching position. A tenured position is a contract of lifetime employment with the university from which the professor can only be terminated for a serious offence. Attaining the position is just the beginning.
Acquisition of tenure is the next step. The common model for the period of probation is six years until a ‘new’ professor is recommended for and reviewe
d for tenure. Of course, tenure may be, in infrequent instances, granted early. More and just as often, it may be deferred indefinitely or deferred for an additional fixed period of trial before it is given. That’s a lot more common than getting early tenure and sometimes even attaining it on the first attempt when a professor is eligible is uncommon. The non-tenured professor may be given three chances at achieving tenure through an annual tenure and promotion board’s review. Frequently there are three levels of boards of review, any one of which can veto the recommendation of a lower board. So, one starts with approval at the department level and proceeds to the school level (the school of business, for example). And then, if one has been successful so far, it goes to the university level. A board may not be able to overturn the rejection of a lower board. Finally, it goes to the president of the university, who makes the final decision, thumbs up or thumbs down.
The primary determinant for tenure at most universities is important research published in peer-reviewed research journals that have an established reputation as being of high quality. In Drucker’s discipline of management, highly quantified articles of research are usually considered better than so-called think or theoretical pieces. Books, by the way, are usually not considered as important a vehicle for disseminating research or theories for tenure as articles published in academic journals. Neither is teaching considered an overly important aspect for gaining tenure.
Peter Drucker's Way to the Top Page 20