adminspoons or spinners, two small boxes of worms, a box of crickets and flying ants.
He did not mince his warning. He said: “Gentleman I have come so that you may have a taste of the new kind of fishing. I have done my homework and am fully prepared to win this game.” As the day progressed it was very evident that Alister was struggling to deploy his assets to his best advantage.
His assets overwhelmed him. He was tempted to try all the tackle at his disposal hoping that he would eventually strike the right cord. Most of his time and efforts went to changing tackle. He did not bother to copy from us or to eliminate some of his tackle by taking into consideration the colour of the water, the type of the weed in the water and the cloud cover.
While the three of us were busy harvesting bass, Alister was busy sorting out his tackle. By the end of the day he caught merely three when the average between the three of us was about 30. By the time we left the dam, he was visibly exhausted and he slept all the way home.
Alister toiled throughout the day but his results did not complement his efforts. His assets militated against his noble conquests. Going through all the rapplers was not a joke, let alone all the types of his rubbers. He made one big mistake, trying out his entire arsenal in nine hours.
He avoided making a hard decision of not trying other rubbers and other tackles. He also did not respond to the environmental demands of the day. He could have used similar tackle to and harvested reasonable bass. Alternatively he could have used the association between the day’s weather, colour of the water and the weed pattern to determine the colour of rubbers and rapplers to be used. He could have got some information about tackle, which was doing well at the time from the people who were assisting us to launch our boat. Though they discussed the rubbers that were likely to be good for the day, he did not pay attention, as he was busy admiring his assets.
It does not follow that if you have different types of tackle you are obliged to try all of them in one day. This experience is similar to the challenges that confront most people with so many dreams or businesses with huge product lines. Some companies and individuals fail to compete because they spread their resources too thinly across too many activities. Among the numerous explanations for this type of behaviour is lack of focus and confidence. Some companies are operated like casinos where you are able to increase your chances of winning by playing as many cards as possible.
Examples of Casino-like operations
in Zimbabwe
Government Departments and Ministries
Most Government departments and ministries are input-oriented and not output-oriented. The more projects they have on paper the more comfortable the bureaucrats. They chew more than what they can swallow. They are mainly interested in the volume of projects they want to undertake with very little attention being paid to the feasibility of attaining the desired results. In their modus operandum once a project is politically acceptable, it must be written and talked about.
Maybe it can be implemented in the near future. As a result most projects by Government departments remain beautiful paper plans with no implementation mechanism.
When asked to account for persistent failure in implementing varied national projects the sacrificial lamb would always be the Ministry of Finance. However, it is a mountain climb to convince the various Government departments to focus on few manageable projects. This behaviour has also encroached into private companies.
Diversified Companies
One of the popular strategies of achieving growth is diversifying into related or unrelated industries. The main argument for diversifying is to spread risk of the company across many industries and countries. For related diversification it could be to control the value chain (either suppliers or distributors) of the company.
However, Zimbabwean experience (since 1990) demonstrates that it is difficult to manage different stakeholders in varied industries from a holding company. In most cases companies experience diseconomies of scale from diversification.
Most diversified companies encountered mixed fortunes in Zimbabwe’s operating environment. Companies such as Delta, Nedlaw Investments, TA Holdings, Apex
Corporation, Anglo American Corporation and Lonrho had to change their business models after failing to navigate Zimbabwe’s commercial landscape towing several unroadworthy trailers. Delta maintained its blue chip status by shedding off non-core companies such as Pelhams and OK. As a result, Delta is now a near monopoly in the beverage manufacturing sector.
TA offloaded Blue Ribbon Foods, United Refineries, Aroma Bakeries, TA Electric, Highfield Bag, and Northern Transport. It is now an investment company with interests in tourism and finance. Anglo American Corporation sold Bindura Nickel Mine, Zimbabwe Alloys and it is now focusing on platinum mining only in Zimbabwe. Lonrho disinvested from Zimbabwe and is slowly re-establishing itself again.
Companies with huge product lines
Most senior managers misinterpret “unprecedented customer focus” to mean everything for everyone. In our colloquial language we call this “bambazonke”. Wiersema (1997) correctly puts it when she argues that no “company can excel in all dimensions of value”. One company cannot hope to excel in manufacturing sweets, chocolates, sugar, cereal, fruit juices, powdered milk, bread, coffee, beans, butter, sausages, eggs, clothes, and patapata even if this is what the customer
needs during breakfast time.
Competencies required in processing sausages, patapata and butter are so different that most companies end up making losses due to spreading their capital too thinly across too many unrelated products. Product galore can also be a recipe for disaster if the leadership at the company believes in trying out everything possible with the hope of striking the right chord in the process.
Even if the products are similar, experience as Apple demonstrated that a company finds it difficult to make super products if they are manufacturing too many different products.
Companies with everything for everyone are also problematic in the long run. They spread their resources thinly across too many activities, which makes it difficult to nurture their brands to become super brands.
To be continued
Bongani Ndlovu
Online Reporter