This morning I read an analyst view about the recent problems at MEA telecommunications company, MTN. The broad statement that was made, was that it was time for MTN to appoint a new management team that was more able to steer a mature company.
That in a sector that in itself faces serious competitive threats from a host of indirect competitors. Hence a category where strategic, creative and visionary thinking is now required more than ever before.
Yes, MTN made grave mistakes. They need greater governance, new leadership and they need stability. So in some ways, the analyst view is correct.
Yet context is important.
MTN is a company historically run by a visionary man. It was the first African company to enter many new markets in Africa. Becoming the first mover into many green fields markets. The first African company to recognise the importance of a generation of consumers eager to become part of a global brandscape. Targeting Africans who are proud of whom and what they are. The company built-up incredible depth of talent in marketing across Africa. It created operations in 22 countries in Africa, the Middle East and Southern Europe. Its competitors included global icons like Vodafone, Airtel and Orange. It became the first global brand from Africa and the first African brand to become a global sponsor for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. MTN became a top ten telecommunications company with more than 250 million subscribers within record time.
MTN was a brand with purpose.
It risked and the investors loved it.
At the root of it all, was an entrepreneurial company that took risks and had a “can-do” mentality. Where the question was never “why”, but “why not”. Or as someone once put it, MTN became “the enemy of can’t”. The kind of company that changes the paradigms of how business is done. It did this whilst most global multinationals were still “scared of Africa” – literally, as a main board director of a global multinational listed in London once told me.
Most executives love companies that push the risk envelope. The most notable example is Apple, creating many new revenue streams, high margins – all with novel thinking and new products. But risks – well – entail risk!
The difference between strategy and tactics is simply painting a picture of a future few can conceive of and then putting the mechanisms in place to achieve that. Tactics are simply doing what needs to be done to play the game. The latter has little incentive to do anything beyond the ordinary. Strategy should be visionary, otherwise it lacks motivation. In that time, the energy within MTN was magical. It was an inspiring business.
My tongue-in-cheek analogy is that whilst MTN had to themselves build the transmission towers, provide security guards for them, ensure that they have fuel to run, put the logistics in place to support all that, some of their competitors were looking for the electricity plug to plug the transmission towers into! The tactics of differentiation in itself create strategic competence.
Risk requires a different way of thinking. You can’t employ the same rules as everybody else and expect another result.
Everyone can run a company well, it just requires strong management skills, the right processes and governance. To have the vision to create a new generation company, requires a great aptitude for risk and a dedication to make to work.
Imagination inspires and achieves. People buy into purpose – then a job is no longer a job.