i would be curious for someone here to answer this simple question... how in a severely declining market can a company that sells largely undifferentiated value products (and always has), mostly through retail locations, survive except by cutting aggressively store locations, people and rushing to move as much as it can to digital channels and internationally (ie what our mgmt is doing)?
____
Despite the perhaps somewhat sarcastic tone of this post, I think its author @6yvb+1aC416qo deserves answers.
6 replies (most recent on top)
In other words, you can change the "what" and the "who" all you want - even smartly. But if the "how" not only stays d-mb but gets increasingly d-mber then change in the other aspects will not net success or momentum but will instead net little bumps (fewer salaries and stores = momentarily favorable numbers) and bigger dips (overall trajectory remaining negative, not just in terms of "smaller more profitable" but just losses) - all moments with no cumulative value improvement. Pretty much every other thing in life is like this, so it should not be surprising even though it is not an easy answer. Low energy solutions and chopped up process chains will not make a company better; but smart, hard work (as opposed to d-mb, difficult work) has possibilities.
How else? The answer is in the question - HOW. They only look at how MANY - skus (finally), people, stores, dollars. But never do they do the work to improve HOW things are done. Processes, cross-team accountability, documentation, transparency, org chart....the work...the stuff that takes thought and effort but is less fun that engagement theater (huddles and pulse surveys)...how and how well things are done. In the midst of cuts and decline, the processes etc of how things are best done now and better done tomorrow should be among the most important things. Instead we have lip service (do more with less), silos that shrink and develop mini-silos inside with walls that become increasingly impenetrable, executives whose sole responsibilities seem to be simply managing their direct reports rather than leading their teams into survival-enhancing synergy, expensive softwares implemented exactly the way you would expect Fossil to that cannot ever replace or make up for the lacking processes that were never developed in the first place, utter lack of functional documentation and no meaningful ongoing training on things that matter more than how to create your goals or conduct a review, and talk about math but without meaningful budget accountability and lacking disciplined adherence to development calendars.
So...asking how else it could have been done makes me want to ask if poster really works or has worked at Fossil?!?
@2fiw+1aJAJctL I'm assuming most mean lower level management. At least that's my opinion...over half of those in lower level management at Fossil never should have been allowed to manage there nor anywhere else for that matter. Future 'buyers' beware...ijs!
Just changing management doesn't change a company's direction and is not a strategy. See Sears and JC Penney.
Replying with a simple reply to the simple question:
Hire new management team and say bye bye to the actual ones especially VPs, (most of them are disconnected from real word)
Once this is done things will change in a positive way.
All ridiculous questions. It's just business, and decisions have been made according to the best info and gut feeling the leaders have. And that's it. Nobody owes anyone an explanation beyond that.