Authors:
Historic Era: Era 8: The Great Depression and World War II (1929-1945)
Historic Theme:
Subject:
May/June 1994 | Volume 45, Issue 3
Authors:
Historic Era: Era 8: The Great Depression and World War II (1929-1945)
Historic Theme:
Subject:
May/June 1994 | Volume 45, Issue 3
In 1984, IBM had the greatest after-tax profit of any company in the history of the world: $6.58 billion. Eight years later, it had the greatest corporate loss in history up to that time: $5 billion.
How could so profound a reversal of fortune happen to so powerful a company in so short a time? Simple. In those eight years the computer world changed and IBM didn’t.
IBM’s greatness lay in mainframes, the powerful computers that are now indispensable to every big business and government agency. With the introduction of the revolutionary Series 360 system in the mid-1960s, IBM came to dominate the mainframe business worldwide. And once IBM mainframes were installed, companies were very reluctant to change to another brand, because the risk of a system crash and the consequent loss of data in the changeover was too high. IBM had a monopoly.
And, like all monopolies, IBM became fat, dumb, happy, and almost incredibly bureaucratic. One executive vicepresident, for instance, although among the top fifty people at IBM, still had no fewer than seven layers of management between him and the chairman. In many billion-dollar companies there aren’t seven layers of management between the janitors and the chairman.
This, of course, stifled innovation. Although IBM had been trying to develop a personal computer for years, it was only when the chairman cut through the bureaucracy and established a separate task force reporting directly to him that the IBM-PC came into being in 198. It was one of the great commercial success stories of all time, and IBM quickly grabbed 80 percent of the exploding PC market.
But the PC, combined with the onrushing increase in the power of the microprocessors that are the heart of the beast, changed everything about the computer market. Only IBM didn’t realize it. A mainframe company to the core, IBM thought PCs could be sold in the same way. The two markets are utterly different, but IBM simply could not change its ways to deal with the new reality until disaster forced it to begin the process last year.
A reluctance to change a winning formula that no longer applies has cost many a company dearly. Henry Ford’s insistence that the Model T’s 1908 technology was just what the people needed and wanted in the mid-1920s is perhaps the most famous example. But Sewell Avery and Montgomery Ward is also a cautionary tale worth the telling.
Born in 1874, Sewell Avery had ideas about how a company, or for that matter a society, should be run that were a bit old-fashioned even in the late nineteenth century. For most of his career, these ideas stood him in good stead as a chief executive. Then the New Deal and World War II changed everything about the U.S. economy, except Sewell Avery.
Avery’s family had become prosperous in the Michigan lumber trade and had investments in two gypsum companies. (Gypsum is the raw material from which olaster and,