I recently read a terrific new book by Les McKeown called Predictable Success. While the title makes McKeown’s book sound like the antithesis of When Growth Stalls, I was amazed by the parallels between his work and mine.

Of the many passages that caught my attention, this one in particular stood out: “Just like any other complex entity, the Predictable Success organization is far from perfect—it will make mistakes, hit roadblocks, and is just as exposed to the impact of external events beyond its control as any other organization. The difference is in how the Predictable Success organization responds to those difficulties.”

I couldn’t agree more with that statement, and two recent announcements in the business press prove the point.

The first is about the incredible second quarter results announced by Whole Foods, where same store sales rose 8.7 percent. That’s a far cry from the company I wrote about back in August that was distracted by its 2007 acquisition of rival Wild Oats and the drawn-out antitrust battle that resulted. In a Wall Street Journal article around that time, Whole Foods’ founder John Mackey was dismayed by how the company had lost its way, saying “We sell a bunch of junk.” It was then Mackey decided to refocus the brand back to its natural foods roots. Less than a year later, here we are talking about the “predictable success” that resulted.

The second is Ford’s recent announcement that it was shuttering for good its 71-year-old Mercury brand. Ford has done a tremendous job under CEO Alan Mulally of sharpening its focus as a company, but was unfortunately unable to resuscitate a brand that had become unfocused since its 1960′s heyday.

In his book McKeown quotes Jack Welch, who said, “The only way to change people’s minds is with consistency.” Whole Foods recognized the error of its inconsistent ways and quickly recovered, while Mercury languished too long in its own and has paid the ultimate price as a result.

Business is a contact sport, and there are many things that can derail a company for good when growth stalls. But as McKeown points out in his book, each of us can increase the odds of attaining “predictable success” if we’ll stay as alert to what’s happening within our organizations as we do to external events.

Thousands of years ago King Solomon said, “Know well the condition of your flocks.” It’s as good advice now as it was then.

April 26, 2010 was a big day for Apple. That was the day it surpassed Microsoft as the most valuable technology company.

Kids who have grown up with the iMac, iPod and iPad may greet the news with a yawn. But those of us who remember the early days are somewhat stunned. Who would have thought ten years ago (let alone twenty or thirty) that Apple, which proudly refused to compromise its way to market share, would ever overtake big, bad Microsoft?

Nobody knows what’s going to happen from here, whether this is a temporary blip or a permanent changing of the guard. But as I look at the future prospects of both companies I can’t help drawing a parallel to similar organizations in another rapidly-changing, highly-competitive sector.

Microsoft is GM. Apple is BMW.

Microsoft, like GM, is big, covers just about everything, and makes products that work well most of the time but have a spotty quality reputation and for the most part don’t excite anyone.  Apple, like BMW, sticks to its core competency, is relentless about design and performance, and as a result is able to command a premium price.

Microsoft, like GM, seems to think building better products is enough, not understanding (or in denial about) the legacy of mediocrity associated with its brand. Apple, like BMW, is completely clear about the power and value of its brand and the vital importance of remaining true to it.

Take two stylish new cars, identical in every respect. Badge one with one of GM’s brands and attach the BMW brand to the other. Which one will people prefer? For which will they pay a premium? Do the same with a new computer or wireless device using the Microsoft and Apple logos, and ask the same questions. The difference is attributable to the brands, the meaning and value of which are driven by the quality and performance of the products to which they’ve been attached over the decades.

I don’t suggest anyone write Microsoft off. The company is run by really smart people, and it’s possible they have the next killer app in the garage right now. But Apple is smart, too, and it understands the whole-brain dimensions of its industry better than anyone.

None of us—and none of them—can predict the future. But I have more confidence that Apple and BMW understand people better than Microsoft and GM. For companies whose focus must always be on the next generation, that’s the holy grail.

Wal-Mart is a study in contrasts.

Its low prices are awesome. Its shopping experience, not so much. Its positioning is terrific, but its advertising leaves something to be desired. It serves well its paycheck-to-paycheck customers, but panders too much to the politically correct.

Wal-Mart has a rock-solid heritage in founder Sam Walton, but too often loses sight of what makes it special.  The latest example came in the form of an announcement last week that the company was cutting prices on some 10,000 items. With any other retailer that would be cause for celebration, but with Wal-Mart it’s just disappointing.

Wal-Mart = Low Prices. Period. Not margins. Not promotions. Not rollbacks. If prices are always as low as possible—as Wal-Mart has worked so hard for so long to convince us of—how then can they be cut, especially across such a wide swath of products? In one of its “rollback” TV commercials, “Mike the truck driver” says, “just by driving smarter routes and making sure our trailers are packed fuller, we save millions of dollars on fuel costs.” Does the world’s leanest company expect us to believe that it just figured that one out?

In an April 9 story about the price cuts, the Wall Street Journal’s Miguel Bustillo and Timothy W. Martin cited a J.P. Morgan analyst whose regular Wal-Mart price survey resulted in a bill 2.3% higher than it was in the previous month. That’s a pretty big jump. While it’s any company’s prerogative to raise or lower its prices, Bustillo and Martin wondered  “…whether Wal-Mart is committed to pushing the envelope on pricing as it did in the days of its late founder, Sam Walton, or is merely hyping promotions as it pursues a  more margin-driven approach…”.

Judging from what Wal-Mart CMO Stephen Quinn said of the cuts, it appears to be the latter: “We felt we needed to increase the intensity and excitement with our customer, especially the feeling that Wal-Mart has great deals.”

Yuck. “Great deals,” “hyping promotions” and “a more margin driven approach” are what you’d expect from Kroger or Macy’s, not Wal-Mart.  I don’t know about you, but I expect the “great deals” at Wal-Mart to be baked into its everyday low prices, not used as underpinnings of a grand promotion.

Like many companies trying to cope with slowing sales, Wal-Mart can be its own worst enemy. Instead of fiddling with margins and flirting with upscale customers, Wal-Mart should aggressively tout its all-the-time, every-day, low-low-lowest prices. Always. It’s the one company with the credibility to do so, and promotions like this threaten that very crediblity. Wal-Mart needs its customers to believe that it always—always—gives them the lowest prices it can.

That’s what made Wal-Mart Wal-Mart. It shouldn’t mess with success.

Now that we’re well into 2010, how’s your company doing?

Are your objectives clear? Is your team operating like a well-oiled machine? Are you focusing on your core? Are you taking prudent risks?

If you aren’t sure about—or don’t like—the answers to the above questions, click here to take a confidential, anonymous, three-minute self-diagnosis. By answering twenty questions you’ll get a snapshot of how well your company is resisting the destructive internal dynamics I discuss in When Growth Stalls. And you can encourage other members of your team to take it to so you can compare results.

Spend a few minutes today reflecting on how your company is performing and, if necessary, make a minor course correction. It could make a major difference.

It’s hockey time at the Winter Olympics, and for anybody older than 40 that brings back vivid memories of the 1980 Lake Placid games and Team USA’s incredible victory over the Soviet empire.

There are some obvious comparisons to 2010. In 1980 the country was mired in the worst economic crisis since, well, today. We were also coping with a belligerent Iran. Gas prices were on everybody’s mind, and there was a great deal of public dissatisfaction with the nation’s political leadership. “Malaise” was the word of the day.

But there’s another parallel I’d like to draw out; one that serves as a metaphor for today’s business environment.

If you saw “Miracle,” the thrilling movie chronicling Team USA’s formation, ascent and ultimate triumph, you’ll remember one particularly compelling scene. After the young team mailed in a lame performance during its first European tour, coach Herb Brooks made the players stay behind for an extra practice session. He forced them to skate a seemingly endless series of sprints, shouting “Again!” after each one even as the young men choked and puked from fatigue. They had no idea when it was going to end, which only added to their misery. It was difficult to watch, and one can only imagine what it was like to experience. But it was a defining moment and played a pivotal role in their crystallization as a championship-caliber team.

It’s easy to remember the miraculous victory Team USA pulled out when it counted. It’s also easy to forget that these young players had no idea what they could (or would) accomplish when it hurt the most. All they could do was pick themselves up and skate as best they could, fighting through the pain and trusting that somehow it was all for their good.

The economy is still fragile, and capitalism is under attack. Yet we can all take heart from America’s energetic, entrepreneurial and perhaps somewhat naive 1980 hockey team.  They were able to face down a seemingly invincible foe and find a way to prevail only because when things were most difficult for them, they stayed on their skates, stepped up to the line, and sprinted forward. Again and again and again.

This little illustration is from the January 29, 1954 issue of the Cass City (Michigan) Chronicle. Fifty-six years old it may be, but it’s a good reminder that the times in which we’re living are not so special after all. Businesses throughout history have had to cope with rainy days.

While the tools of advertising continually change, the need for it never does. That’s a lesson I learned the hard way through my own company’s stall (which began the journey that ultimately resulted in When Growth Stalls). Consistency is just one of the principles critical to recovering from (or preventing) a stall.

My business partners and I took our own medicine in 2009, and our firm is the better for it now. We’ll continue to keep it up this year, sluggish though the economy may be. I hope your company will too.

As 2009 draws to a close, I have bad news and I have good news.

First the bad news. According to the Wall Street Journal, stock performance in the decade now ending is the worst ever–worse even than the woeful 1930s. For the past ten years, the value of NYSE-traded stocks has declined by an average of 0.5 percent a year. Compare that to the 1990s, when the average annual increase was an incredible 17.6 percent.

Factor in inflation and it gets even more depressing, with the S&P; 500 declining an inflation-adjusted 3.3 percent annually. During the 1930s, stocks showed an inflation- (deflation, really) adjusted annual gain of 1.8 percent. And the decade now ending saw many notable companies fall out of the S&P; 500, for reasons of scandal (Countrywide, Enron), excess (Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia), misfortune (Circuit City, Lucent, Reebok) and just plain changing dynamics (AT&T, Compaq, Dow Jones & Co., Maytag, Wyeth).

Pretty discouraging, when you think about it. But here’s the good news. The vast majority of American corporations found a way to move ahead during the turbulent ten years past, and all of them–all of us–are the stronger for it. We face challenges ahead, but having muddled through the most difficult decade in two centuries we’ll face little that will surprise us. And those of us who have maintained our focus, kept our nerve and remained consistent throughout should profit all the more.

Here’s to 2010, the dawn of a new decade. May the old one rest in peace.

[Note: Today marks the one-year anniversary of this blog. Prior to launching it last December I wondered--and worried--if I would have enough to write about. If there's any silver lining to the year now past, it's that it provided plenty of content for a blog called "When Growth Stalls." Let's hope next year is a little tougher on me.]

“Most of the world seems to be focused on the Americans who are unemployed. We’re focused on the 90% that are still employed.”

Those are the words of Ron Shaich, CEO of Panera Bread, the 1,300-unit bakery-cafe that has found a way to thrive in spite of the recession. Its formula? A combination of smart financial management and keen understanding of its core customers, most of whom remain gainfully employed (and ever-more attuned to good value).

Rather than cutting corners, Panera has focused on offering more to its broad range of middle income customers, including free wi-fi access and frequent new menu offerings. “In many ways, we’re renting space to people and the food is the price of admission,” said Shaich. Panera COO Rick Vanzura agrees, saying, “A bunch of folks have been cutting quality to cut price to go after the marginal customer. We said a better strategy that addresses a bigger group of people is providing better value.”

The strategy is working. In 2008 (a very bad year for most fast-casual restaurants), Panera Bread grew by double digits. In 2009–the worst economic year in generations–the company managed to keep same store sales from declining, and in the third quarter actually increased them by 3 percent. Food industry analyst Darren Tristano pinpoints why: “Panera’s on-trend with what consumers are asking for: fresh, customizable, convenient, won’t break the bank.”

Panera Bread has been able maintain its focus because of careful cash management. Rather than using debt to expand, assuming the good times of years past would keep on rolling, the company grew slowly and deliberately over the past decade. That kept it healthy from a cash flow perspective and prevented it from having to cut corners or cut margins (or both) when times got tough. As Shaich says, “Every chain is cutting something — portion size, quality, hours of labor. The result is that ultimately the customer feels it.”

Most players in the restaurant industry—in most industries, for that matter—think the current game is all about price. Panera Bread is an all-too rare exception, demonstrating that companies that keep their focus, nerve, consensus and consistency can thrive even in bad times. I’m a fan.

It’s a classic When Growth Stalls scenario: start with a fast-growing and profitable company; add an aggressive new competitor that begins to successfully woo the same customers; watch as the previously flourishing company loses its nerve, its focus, and its consistency, leading to languishing sales and lackluster results.

When Gap, Inc. launched Old Navy in 1993, the spare retail chain sporting affordable merchandise and wacky ads was an immediate hit. Rather than risk losing focus at brand Gap (which was near its zenith atop the retail world), parent company Gap, Inc. used Old Navy as a counterforce to the big discount stores that were trying to ride on Gap’s fashion coattails by ripping off its designs.

Within four years Old Navy sailed past the billion-dollar revenue mark, accounting for nearly half of Gap, Inc.’s top line and some 40 percent of its profits. Offbeat commercials featuring has-been celebrities made the chain the talk of the retail industry, as well of teens and young families that comprised its core market.

Enter H&M;, the trendy Swedish retailer, which opened its first U.S. store in 2000 offering discount apparel with a more fashionable edge. Fearing that H&M;’s success marked a sea change in the industry, Old Navy shifted its focus from the basics to more trendy, upscale merchandise. It didn’t work. Sales fell by more than a billion dollars between 2006 and 2008, with last year’s same store sales sinking an incredible 17 percent.

It was then that Gap, Inc. decided to do something about it. As the Wall Street Journal put it, “Returning Old Navy to its roots was the central theme of Gap’s remaking of the brand.” The Journal quoted Old Navy’s interim president, Tom Wyatt, as he reflected on the brand’s original recipe: “We got tired of it. The customer never did.”

Eighteen months ago Old Navy recommitted to its original focus and began redesigning more than a thousand stores, hoping to leverage consumers’ renewed frugality in this toughest of tough economies. Year-to-date 2009 revenue is up 1 percent, due largely to a third quarter same store sales increase of a healthy 10 percent (the first rise in five long years). Pardon the pun, but Old Navy seems to have righted its ship.

There’s no guarantee that, having returned to its former course, Old Navy can count on smooth sailing. The retail industry is too dynamic to let any successful company alone. But Old Navy’s experience is one more point of evidence that when even the most successful concept runs into a rough economy, a tough competitor, or some other external threat, destructive internal dynamics can turn it into its own worst enemy.

Not a day goes by without more news about Detroit’s beleaguered automakers. While each new development is notable in and of itself, I find it more telling to take a few steps back and look at the big picture.

Below are a few clips from selected Wall Street Journal articles I’ve run across over just the last few days. Take a minute and scroll through them. They tell a fascinating tale.

First, GM continues its inability to focus, revealing a growing lack of consensus between management and the board:

“In a dramatic change of course, General Motors Co. backed out of a deal to sell the company’s European operations to car-parts supplier Magna International Inc., and now plans to spend billions to restructure the money-losing business itself.”

“The decision…was made at a board meeting Tuesday in which the company’s directors strayed from the plan of Chief Executive Frederick “Fritz” Henderson, who had spent months negotiating the Magna agreement.”

“The Opel deal is the second major transaction to fall apart for Mr. Henderson in little over a month.”

“Whereas Mr. Henderson’s predecessor, Rick Wagoner, had often won in the boardroom by relying on the support of long-serving directors, Mr. Henderson appears to be tiptoeing through land mines of strong opinions by adjusting his game plan.”

“Carl-Peter Forster, who worked for GM for more than nine years, is quitting as chief executive of GM Europe. The decision follows a vote by the company’s board of directors on Tuesday to scrap a plan to sell control of the German Opel unit…”

“Despite his dissent of late, Mr. Forster was long viewed as a strong asset on GM’s executive roster and his departure serves another blow to Mr. Henderson, who has seen his management bench shorten since the company’s exit from bankruptcy.”

Across town, Chrysler is making fairy-tale sales and market share predictions to try to convince investors (that means you, taxpayer) that it will repay the $9 billion it owes us by 2014:

“The company said it is counting on a slew of new models to spark a surge in sales over the next five years and drive its revival.”

“Chrysler—which has seen its sales plunge by half in the last few years—predicted revenue will rise about 20% a year, from $42.5 billion in 2010 to $67.5 billion in 2014, and said it would break even in 2011.”

“To hit its financial targets, Chrysler expects to double its world-wide sales, from 1.3 million cars and trucks in 2009 to 2.8 million in 2014, and predicted its U.S. market share will rise from about 6% in 2009 to 11% in 2014.”

Meanwhile, Detroit’s only private automotive company, Ford, has gone about regaining its focus, finding its nerve and sticking to its game plan.

“Last week Consumer Reports gave the company quality ratings comparable to those of Honda and Toyota.”

“On Monday, Ford reported its second consecutive quarterly profit—and more impressively, a swing from a $7.7 billion cash burn a year earlier to positive cash flow of $1.3 billion in the just-ended third quarter…”

“The company gained a percentage of market share in the first 10 months of this year, no easy feat in an ultra-competitive market.”

“The company’s turnaround actually began three years ago with decisions that amounted to zagging every time that General Motors zigged, which was remarkable for a company whose strategy for decades was to follow GM.”

“While GM kept its unwieldy assortment of eight brands, Ford sold Jaguar and Land Rover, cutting its brand lineup down to a manageable size.”

“What’s more, shedding brands and shunning the mortgage business has helped Ford focus on quality, where it had slipped badly early in this decade.”

“Consumer Reports said last week that 90% of Fords, Mercurys and Lincolns rate average or better in quality, right up there with Honda and Toyota.”

“When the economy recovers and car sales increase, Ford could be in great shape.”

The automotive business is complex, but it doesn’t have to be that hard. Focus, nerve, consistency, consensus—no matter the industry, all tend to diminish when growth stalls. And all are essential to getting it back.

At the moment, Ford is the only one of the Big 3 to be paying attention.