Biggest Is Not Best

By Steven Pearlstein
Friday, January 18, 2008

We've been hearing it for years from corporate executives, management consultants and industry analysts: To survive in highly competitive markets, you either have to be big enough to have scale or small enough to find cover in protected niches. In between is a competitive no man's land where no company can make it.

There's some truth to this conventional wisdom. Bigger companies enjoy all sorts of economies of scale that give them a big cost advantage over smaller rivals. They also have easier access to capital and the wherewithal to ride out the inevitable hard times. So it's no surprise that most of the mid-sized firms and regional chains that we once knew as customers, suppliers or employees have either been forced to close their doors or gobbled up by the national and international giants.

What may also be true -- and what I'd like to suggest here -- is that the focus on size has been taken too far, that there's been too much mindless consolidation and growth-for-growth's sake.

Much of the blame for this falls on Wall Street, whose investment bankers are constantly knocking on doors of executive suites with proposals for mergers and acquisitions that earn them huge fees, whether the deals eventually work out or not. (Mostly they don't.) There are also the industry analysts and fund managers, who are addicted to double-digit earnings growth and punish companies that don't deliver it.

And let's not forget ego-driven corporate executives who like nothing more than to look at a competitor and think, "Mine is bigger than his."

But as the country slides into recession, we are going to discover that this absurd fixation on scale and growth has made many companies weaker rather than stronger. Newly acquired divisions will be shuttered, spun off and written down. And many more industry leaders are likely to follow Starbucks and Wal-Mart in slowing the pace of organic growth.

What companies in many industries are about to discover is that the competitive sweet spot may not be in being No. 1 or 2 in your category, as General Electric's Jack Welch once famously declared, but in being slightly back in the pack, where it's possible to deliver a more profitable trade-off between price and quality.

Think for a minute about what happens, particularly in the service sector, when companies get big. What do they do? They get more efficient. And how do they get more efficient? By coming up with sophisticated systems that allow them to produce consistent, predictable outcomes in everything they do while using as few and low-paid workers as possible.

In the restaurant business, for example, the big chains spend lots of time and money coming up with demographic and financial parameters for locating outlets. They hire executive chefs who whip up industrial-style recipes for menu items that they test on focus groups and can be replicated by line chefs with little experience and culinary flair. They come up with standard prototypes for how the restaurants will be laid out, how they'll be decorated and equipped, what plates, uniforms, napkins and menus they'll use. They purchase a computer system that not only takes care of processing meal orders and keeping track of the money and reordering food from the central warehouse, but also identifies any store or shift or employee producing results that are outside the desired norms. They even come up with the standard responses the hostesses and waiters use in greeting customers and handling complaints.

In the end, what you wind up with is a company that has a small corporate headquarters full of highly-paid people who design and refine these systems. At the restaurant level there are large numbers of low-skilled workers who are easily replaced and paid relatively low wages for essentially showing up and following the standard procedures. Together they create a giant company with lots of scale efficiencies producing a predictable product at a competitive price that appeals to large numbers of consumers.

With variations, of course, the same approach is now taken by hoteliers, airlines, insurance companies, retailers, banks and customer service centers. You see hints of it even in such supposedly creative fields as software development, accounting, journalism, medicine and the law.

There are two reasons, however, why I think this model won't dominate the future the way it has the recent past.

CONTINUED     1        >

© 2008 The Washington Post Company