After reading this article at TIME, I was left wondering if Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) can really come back from what is considered "a brink" and reinvent itself as the retailer of the world. Wal-Mart's already had a second act in a manner of speaking, adding grocery lines and auto centers (and more) to its Supercenters to become the world's largest retailer.How can the company top that? Well, it doesn't need to top that but the laggard mentality can cause problems when consumer and economic changes happen to core customer bases, and that's what Wal-Mart is facing right now. It's hard to imagine Wal-Mart going anywhere, but then again, the unrealistic expectations of Wall Street means that it must constantly find new life amid the competition and even in its boring stores.
Remodeling stores and making "mini-department stores" under the big-box roof are areas I've covered in past Wal-Mart columns, but from what I have seen, change is coming very slowly. I'll stress again: the sheer size of Wal-Mart makes any company-wide change incredibly hard and long to implement.
Wal-Mart's management structure up until recently sounded like an ant colony: there was a mother nest and a bunch of drones that would go out to perform chores before returning to the nest. It's hard to fathom that managers from nationwide Wal-Mart locations would all come from far-flung stores to the retailer's headquarters in Bentonville (talk about highly centralized) with such rapid growth happening. Many companies treat areas of their business as separate entities (read: companies), all of which are responsible for their own performance. Yes, those are two different corporate cultures, but which would work better for Wal-Mart in its current (and future) state.
I'm not so sure Wal-Mart needs a restoration more than a reinvention -- across many areas.
Wal-Mart's management structure up until recently sounded like an ant colony: there was a mother nest and a bunch of drones that would go out to perform chores before returning to the nest. It's hard to fathom that managers from nationwide Wal-Mart locations would all come from far-flung stores to the retailer's headquarters in Bentonville (talk about highly centralized) with such rapid growth happening. Many companies treat areas of their business as separate entities (read: companies), all of which are responsible for their own performance. Yes, those are two different corporate cultures, but which would work better for Wal-Mart in its current (and future) state.
I'm not so sure Wal-Mart needs a restoration more than a reinvention -- across many areas.
Nuclear power is on the comeback trail
Apple backs AT&T in continuing spat with Verizon
Closing Bell: The recession is still over, still... do you feel it?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-07-2007 @ 10:32AM
nummer1 said...
Thanks for linking to the TIME article. I read it and found it balanced, told a good narrative. I think one of the lines from the 'CEO of Wal-Mart Stores USA' in the opening paragraph about sums up one of Wal-Mart's biggest oversights: "they weren't connecting with their neighborhoods."
Could it be that along with a need to watch square footage and glammed up competitors like Target that, oh, I dunno, maybe Wal-Mart needs to be a better neighbor? Whether it is the way it treats its employees (healthcare, OT, to name a few misgivings), or pressures suppliers abroad (which results in lowered quality... aka lead, recalls, etc), or the small, medium and large towns where it opens shop... one approach seems universal: LET'S GET OUR'S FIRST.
There's gotta be a better approach? You mention that "the sheer size of Wal-Mart makes any company-wide change incredibly hard and long to implement," but the sheer size of their public image issue seems like problem enough to warrant a serious company-wide overhaul.