The Japanese have a saying that “you cannot chase two hares”. What this means to business leaders is that organisations with conflicting objectives are not sustainable. At some point you must make a choice or watch your company wither on the corporate vine.

The BBC, for example, is stuck between its twin objectives of (1) meeting specific public service commitments (covering areas such as education, creativity, and citizenship), and (2) achieving national reach and remaining relevant to the nation (i.e. able to attract large audiences).

Modern TV is essentially about entertainment, which is why programmes like the X Factor and Coronation Street top the ratings. There’s nothing wrong with that, but pure entertainment is not part of the BBC’s public service objective.

Sure, there are times when great public service broadcasting also delivers big audiences, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. As a result, the BBC is forced to include pure entertainment programmes with little or no public service element to them, particularly at peak viewing times. Last Saturday night’s schedule, for example, included these programmes:

• A game-show, where people have to jump 50 feet into a pool if they get a question wrong;
• A light entertainment show, where members of the public get a chance to sing with celebrities;
• A lottery draw;
• Two stand-up comedy programmes; and
• Two football highlight programmes.

Not one of these programmes could be said to be pure public service broadcasting, and could just easily be delivered by one of the many other commercial channels now available. Indeed, the media choices that consumers now have ­– alternative commercial channels, specialist channels, internet TV, cable and satellite broadcasting – make a ratings objective and a general programming remit increasingly difficult to sustain.

The time is coming, therefore, when the BBC executives and governors will have to make a choice. Either they must focus the organisation on entertainment and ratings, in which case it should forego its public and government funding, or pursue its public service objectives more single-mindedly, in which case the nature of its programming should be radically changed and its pursuit of ratings drastically reduced.

The BBC’s management will fight making these choices but at some point they must choose. If they fail to make a clear choice the corporation will continue to fall short of both of its objectives, and the pressure on it will increase. There is simply no escape from this reality.

The consequences of either choice are enormous, but at some point they must be faced into. As with any other organisation or business, it is generally better to make the choice early and then determinedly and creatively pursue it, than it is to defer the painful, but inevitable D-Day.

© Stuart Cross 2010. All rights reserved.

Qn 1: Where are you going to play?

Qn 2: How are you going to win?

The first question requires you to define the world in which you will participate – your target customers, the products and services you will offer them, the channels you will offer them through and your geographical reach.

The second question asks you to articulate how you will be #1 in your chosen world – what you will be famous for, how you will gain an edge over the competition and which capabilities you need to succeed.

Three critical things to remember:

1. Your world does not have to be the world. It could be the UK, or the North West, or Manchester, or even Eccles. And you don’t need to focus on everyone. You can target women, or women under 30, or women under 30 with a family. Well, you get the picture – have you defined the world in which you wish to play? And if you have, how attractive is it?
2. You do have to be #1 in your chosen world. Only market leaders succeed and generate adequate returns and growth. You have no choice but to be #1, so do you have the capabilities and points of uniqueness that your customers value? And can you deliver them in a way that allows you to generate adequate profits?
3. The two questions are inter-linked. As you answer these questions it becomes clear that you need to answer both at once. Your chosen market helps define the types of competitive advantage you need, and your capabilities help determine the markets in which you can succeed. It is an iterative process.

Only when you have crisp, focused replies to these two questions are you likely to have a strategy that has a chance of being delivered by your organisation.

Worryingly, many executives struggle to come up with a clear response, although, unsurprisingly, they tend to lead organisations that are struggling to succeed.

© Stuart Cross 2010. All rights reserved.

When England won the rugby world cup in 2003, it was the culmination of six years of driven effort by the coach, Clive (now Sir Clive) Woodward and his squad. The team’s victory had built on a steady improvement in the performance of the team, and it seemed that English rugby would finally dominate the game for a decade or more.

However, it didn’t work out that way. Key players retired, the coaching staff changed and the mix of skill, determination and teamwork that had characterised the team’s success seemed to simply melt away. In fact, the last-minute drop goal from Jonny Wilkinson’s that defeated Australia signalled the decline of the England team as much as it defined the team’s greatest victory.

Contrast the English rugby team with the country’s leading soccer team, Manchester United. The manager, Alex (now Sir Alex) Ferguson has led the team since 1986, unprecedented in the modern professional game where the average tenure of a football manager is a couple of years. At the time of writing, Ferguson has led the club to two UEFA Champions’ League titles, 11 Premier League victories, five FA Cup triumphs and 16 other recognised titles and honours.

Where the English rugby team were able to climb the mountain once, before quickly returning to base camp, Manchester United have managed to stay at high altitude and repeat their success year after year.

I see the same differences in the business organisations I work with. Some, like the English rugby team, are able to achieve a certain level of success but simply cannot sustain it and quickly return to the pack of competitors that are pursuing them. A critical few, however, seem able to use their success as a launch pad for further growth, rather than as the end of their mission.

But what makes the difference between those businesses that are like shooting stars, shining brightly for a moment before disappearing from view, from those true stars that shine brightly every night?

There are many great business books that define what makes companies achieve breakthrough levels of performance – for example, In Search of Excellence by Tom Peters and Bob Waterman and Good To Great by Jim Collins. As we shall see, however, many of the companies quoted in these books subsequently fall from the pedestals on which they’ve been placed.

Massive differentiation and operating excellence – two critical drivers of success – are only relevant at a point in time. There is a third factor that is often overlooked by managers and writers alike, and that is agility. An organisation’s ability to periodically reinvent itself and to find new ways to grow is the missing link between companies that can achieve high levels of performance for a brief time and those that dominate their markets for sustained periods.

But even where writers recognise the importance of agility, there is precious little practical guidance as to how business leaders can take pragmatic steps to drive their company’s ongoing success.

We need to remove the mystery out of how to create a high-performing and agile business, and give our leaders practical tools and approaches to help them sustain performance. Agility, on its own, will not create success, but without it your performance will wane and decline.

Which sports team is your business most like – the England rugby team or Manchester United?

© Stuart Cross 2010. All rights reserved.

In today’s FT, Martin Wolf cogently argues that neither of the two main UK political parties – Labour and Conservatives – has a clear vision for the future of this country. Instead, both parties are focused on sorting out immediate issues and being seen as competent, hoping that voters’ assessment of their competence and toughness will be enough to see them into power when the election is called.

But it’s not enough; it never is.

Without a future vision people find it difficult to engage with the necessary actions you may wish to take. And what is true for nations is equally true for businesses.

Being competent, efficient, organised, capable, operationally effective, systematic, rigorous, consistent, relentless, persistent, tough, decisive, analytical and thorough are all admirable qualities.

But people need a sense of where all this good stuff is taking them. They want to understand and believe in the goals you are trying to reach and the future you are trying to build.

Without this critical element, your teams may comply with your requests, but a capable organisation that also has a clear, compelling and shared sense of direction and purpose creates its own energy and momentum that can dramatically accelerate its performance.

The party that will win the next election is likely to be the one that can craft and communicate the most compelling future vision. And, as we come out of the recession, the companies that will best succeed are those that understand where they’re headed.

Do the people in your organisation share and buy into a common vision of the future?

© Stuart Cross 2010. All rights reserved.