Focus, Simplicity and Common Sense…..

I’m not a big fan of business journalists.

That’s because many of them talk at length and opine about how to run a company without ever having had a single day’s practical experience as an entrepreneur or business owner.

(Hmm, I guess that makes them like many consultants ………..)

But there are exceptions –Jason Fried and Norm Brodsky in Inc. magazine are 2 great examples. And this week I stumbled across 2 posts by Randall Litchfield on the Profitguide.com site that caught my attention.

Litchfield was a journalist when corporate strategy was the focus of business schools, executives and strategy gurus. During that time he interviewed companies; spoke to academics and management consultants; and read every new strategy book published.

He made the switch to entrepreneur in 1990 and, since then, has made the PROFIT 200 ranking of Canada’s Fastest-Growing Companies 4 times.

Both posts reflect his somewhat unique experience, a product of this combination of careers.

In the first post Litchfield praises Richard Rumelt’s book “Good Strategy, Bad Strategy” as the best business book he’s read. Why does that push my opinion of him way up there? Because I agree and, if you follow this blog, you’ll remember I wrote 3 pieces from the book last year.

The first point he makes in the second post was that he realized that the really important stuff – how to achieve the goal—was getting lost as the strategic process became increasingly complex.

As a result he turned to examples of military strategy because “Corporations can hide a bad strategy (or no strategy) for years while ………military battles……tend to be over more quickly and the superior strategy revealed.” Nicely put!

Litchfield’s third point is that a military strategy can usually be articulated in a phrase or sentence of crystal clarity (e.g. Hannibal’s “envelopment” of the Romans or “Stormin’ Norman” Schwarzkopf’s “left hook”). However, in my opinion, it also suggests that some concepts are ageless and can be adapted to wildly different environments.

The final thing he says that I really like is that a good strategy boils down to a simple rule – bring relative strength to bear against relative weakness. This is the “indirect approach”, used by great commanders like Alexander the Great, Cromwell and Napoleon, who chose the line of least expectation and struck at the point of least resistance.

So for any company that has to take on larger competitors with resources that are much greater than their own, success will come by finding the competitor’s relative weakness and concentrating their relative strength(s) precisely there.

And that covers every company either in startup mode or which is a “small to medium sized enterprise”.

Here’s someone successful who has both theoretical knowledge and practical experience confirming that focusing on execution (the how to) is important; that things work better when they’re simple, not complicated; and that common sense delivers results.

You can read Litchfield’s 2 posts here and here.

 

Click here and automatically receive our latest blog posts

Share

Tags: business, execution, goal, Jim Stewart, Process, ProfitPATH, strategy, strength, success, weakness

Add a Comment

*

Post History