In other words, acquisitions that fit within an existing strategy have the most likely probability of success. Those that represent attempts to buy new positions in new marketplaces or that involve smashing together two very similar companies are fraught with risk.

Like Harvester’s, they do not identify and come to grips with the fundamental obstacles and problems that stand in the organization’s way. Looking at most of this product, or listening to the managers who have produced it, you will find an almost total lack of strategic thinking. Instead, you will find high-sounding sentiments together with plans to spend more and somehow “get better.

If you continue down the road you are on you will be counting on motivation to move the company forward. I cannot honestly recommend that as a way forward because business competition is not just a battle of strength and wills; it is also a competition over insights and competencies. My judgment is that motivation, by itself, will not give this company enough of an edge to achieve your goals.

Whenever a company succeeds greatly there is a complementary story of impeded competitive response. Sometimes the impediment is the innovator’s patent or similar protection, but more often it is an unwillingness or inability to replicate the innovator’s policies.

In our work with companies that successfully withstand the onslaught of focused competitors, we've found that most organizations aren't terribly resilient in the face of the challenge. When a focused competitor comes into an industry, incumbents tend to suffer. And they often respond with a buying spree. Acquisitions mask many sins. You feel better because you're bigger, but it often means your company is weaker. That strategy only lasts so long.