Bad Research: From The Pages of The Wall Street Journal

Two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal's "Managing" page carried an article by Phred Dvorak entitled, "Dangers Can Lurk in Clinging to Solutions of the Past."

This particular column seems to be, in my opinion, cursed to provide opaque or nonsensical advice on purportedly serious topics. The idea that a one-third page synopsis in the Journal can deliver valuable, actionable management prescriptions seems, on its face, preposterous.

Consider this passage from the article in question.

"Vijay Govindarajan, a professor at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of Business, started looking into experience 25 years ago, when considering why some companies failed at long-range strategy. After studying businesses like Encyclopedia Britannica and Sears, Roebuck & Co., he concluded that some managers are so set in their past ways that they can't cope with new situations."

The author then goes on to cite the professor's conclusions in the cases of Sears vs. Wal-Mart.

But, just from reading the quoted passage, you can see the error both in the companies' approaches, and Mr. Govindarajan's.

Wouldn't you assign long-range strategy to, well, a strategist, rather than hidebound managers who are "so set in their past ways?"

This is why businesses schools purport to teach strategy. It's supposed to be an abstract skill or practice which can be applied by those without a deep experience in a particular function, business or sector.

If not, why do McKinsey, Bain and Mercer exist and prosper? Isn't their entire raison d'etre one of objectivity, external perspective, and the ability to gather and process relevant information without necessarily having 20 years of experience in the product/market at hand?

So, perhaps Professor Govindarajan has it all wrong. Maybe he's looking in the wrong places for the wrong examples.

Could it be that he suffers from, well, too much past experience researching the success or failure of long-range strategy development?

In truth, this is not a simple subject. Having been a strategist, consultant, and the first head of research for what is now the financial sector arm of Mercer Management consulting, I can attest to the difficulty of separating strategy development from implementation. And to the written documents alleging to be strategies, versus the processes by which they were developed.

The activity of strategy development for major businesses is much more about imagination, fresh perspectives and bold vision then about mere product line extensions. If there is any place in a company where you probably don't want veteran line managers, it's in corporate strategy development.

I'm surprised that a professor from Tuck would have been so narrow-minded as to miss this distinction.