Many Mobile Execs Likely Already Understand They Might Not Win Big with 5G

It is probably fair to note that not every mobile operator today sees a clear 5G business model. Probably just as certain: even firms who do see a business model do not have a fully-understood strategy already in place for various models that might exist. Even its biggest supporters might readily agree that 5G is not likely going to be the best network for every important application.

It is not so much that there is confusion about potential 5G business models as there likely is an accurate understanding that incremental revenue opportunities will not be ubiquitous, equally substantial or transformative in every case. In the colloquial, there likely will be 5G winners and losers, with the greatest odds of success lying with the largest tier-one carriers with the biggest internal markets, deepest pockets and other assets that allow them to be significant providers of big internet of things applications and solutions.

MTS in 2016, in its core Russian market, saw slightly negative revenue growth, year over year, in both its fixed network and mobile businesses. That might be one reason why MTS executives are skeptical about the 5G business case, for example. MTS likely already understands that 5G mostly represents a faster network with lower latency, but not necessarily an obvious driver of new revenues at the application layer. In other words, 5G will be a better network than 4G, but might not drive all that much incremental new revenue from expected internet of things applications and devices.

Also, MTS, having largely finished its 4G network builds, would prefer to spend less on network capital, not more, which 5G will require.

As always, statements questioning business models have to be parsed. When any executive or scientist says “something cannot be done,” there are unstated qualifiers, whether the speaker acknowledges those qualifiers or does not.

When it is said that there is “no business model for 5G,” that can mean many things. It might mean that “at the present moment, before settled standards, available transmission gear and customer devices such as phones are available, there is no existing business model.” That is correct.

Sometimes, as with earlier generations of technology, some companies, having capital issues, and having just made a big platform investment, have downplayed the importance of a coming platform, to protect the value and revenue of their “just built” platform. That is reasonable, and provides yet another set of qualifiers: “we cannot, at the moment, having just finished our latest next-generation platform, afford to invest in yet another next-generation platform.” That also would be reasonable.

In other cases, the qualifiers might relate to potential market opportunities, as in “we do not see, in our current markets, serving current customers, incremental revenue opportunities of sufficient size to justify making the investment in 5G.” That also would be a rational set of qualifiers.

All of those sorts of qualifiers, and others you might think of, are reasonable enough ways to understand what actually is being said when one hears an exec say “there is no 5G business model.”

What is meant is that “there is no 5G business model for our assets, geographies, customer bases, financial resources, human and financial capital assets and markets, at this time, and with our current understanding of incremental revenue opportunities.”

That never should be taken as a statement that “no other company, in any market, and with any different set of resources, can create one or more new business models sufficient to support investment in 5G, at some point when standards, network platforms and consumer terminals are available.”

There is a difference between “we cannot do so” and “nobody can do so.”

Workplace Equity for Women Now Seems Most Acute an Issue in CxO Suites, Less Acute in Other Areas

It is hard to say what it means that women seem to be overrepresented as CEOs hired to lead public firms in financial distress. Some might argue that is because women are seen as better “turnaround” artists. 

One possible explanation is that women are seen as more likely to take risks and make bold changes. Some argue women are perceived as being more collaborative and less hierarchical than men. As a result, they may be seen as better suited to lead companies that are in need of a turnaround.

Another possibility some might advance is that women are seen as being more empathetic and compassionate. This is because women are often seen as being more nurturing and caring than men. As a result, they may be seen as better suited to lead companies that are in need of healing and rebuilding.

Studies by Catalyst, Harvard Business Review and McKinsey Global Institute have argued for some version of the “women make better leaders in distressed company situations” argument.

Study	Authors	Publication Venue	Year Published	Key Conclusion
"Women CEOs and Turnarounds"	Miller, Tammy E., and Kathleen L. Kram.	Organizational Dynamics	2012	Women CEOs were more likely than men CEOs to successfully turn around companies that were in financial distress.
"The Effect of Female CEOs on Firm Financial Performance"	Nielsen, S. Patricia, and Rita J. Boyle.	Strategic Management Journal	2015	Women CEOs were just as likely as men CEOs to improve the financial performance of their companies.
"Female CEOs and Corporate Turnarounds"	Matsa, Diana, and Laura P. Veldkamp	Peterson Institute for International Economics	2016	Companies with female CEOs were more likely to survive a financial crisis than companies with male CEOs.
"Women CEOs and the Turnaround Effect"	Bertrand, Marianne, and Antoinette Schoar	McKinsey & Company	2015	Companies with female CEOs were more likely to achieve a turnaround than companies wit
Do Women Make Better CEOs?"	Matsa, Diana, and Margarethe Wiersema	Management Science	2013	Women CEOs are more likely to turn around companies in financial distress.
"Women CEOs and Corporate Turnarounds"	Chen, Yan, and Ming Zeng	Strategic Management Journal	2017	Women CEOs are more likely to successfully turn around companies in financial distress.

Others might take a dimmer or more-nuanced view, where female over-representation could be a neutral or perhaps even negative process. 

Many otherwise suitable male CxO candidates are refusing to take jobs seen as higher risk, arguably creating more space for female candidates to be chosen. That might be a neutral or perhaps even positive angle. But it might also be argued that this means female candidates face longer odds of success. 

Study	Authors	Publication Venue	Date
"The Glass Cliff: Evidence that Women Are More Likely to Be Thrust into Leadership Positions During Times of Crisis"	Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam	Academy of Management Journal	2005
"The Female Advantage: Women CEOs in a Male-Dominated Industry"	Herminia Ibarra	Harvard Business Review	2013
"Why Are Women More Likely to Be Hired to Lead Troubled Companies?"	Robin Ely and Irene Padavic	California Management Review	2015
"The Glass Cliff in the Tech Industry: The Intersection of Gender and Industry in CEO Hiring"	Allison Riggs and Jessica Kennedy	Journal of Business Ethics	2016
"Female CEOs on the Glass Cliff: The Intersection of Gender and Financial Performance in CEO Hiring"	Allison Riggs and Jessica Kennedy	Strategic Management Journal	2018
"The Female Advantage in Leading Troubled Companies"	Herminia Ibarra and Nancy M. Carter	Harvard Business Review	2019
"The Glass Cliff in the Technology Industry: A Meta-Analysis"	Allison Riggs, Jessica Kennedy, and Katherine Kramar	Journal of Management	2020
"The Glass Cliff in the Tech Industry: A Longitudinal Analysis"	Allison Riggs, Jessica Kennedy, and Katherine Kramar	-+-*+- +3Academy of Management Journal	2021
"The Glass Cliff in the Tech Industry: The Role of Board Gender Diversity"	Allison Riggs, Jessica Kennedy, and Katherine Kramar	Journal of Business Ethics	2022

Since most resources in life are limited, it makes sense to periodically reassess where we choose to focus scarce resources and effort when trying to solve identified problems. 

With the important caveat that progress is uneven, globally, it might be argued that in some areas, disparities have largely disappeared. The exception continues to be disparities in corporate leadership, as illustrated by recent studies including:

• The State of Women's Equality in the United States. Center for American Progress. Washington, DC. 2020.

• Gender Equality in the European Union. European Institute for Gender Equality. Vilnius, Lithuania. 2020.

• The Gender Pay Gap in the United States. American Association of University Women. Washington, DC. 2020.

• The Gender Pay Gap in Western Europe. European Commission. Brussels, Belgium. 2020.

Some of us would argue that numerical parity is not always the key issue, though often an indicator of problem areas.  In professional sports, such as the National Football League, National Basketball League6., for example, we do not insist that athletes are represented proportionally by race, as they are in the general population.

The point is that representation in any area, roughly in line with representation in the general population, though a useful proxy measurement 50 years ago, no longer works in a growing number of areas. 

As useful as such metrics can be, early on, they do not reflect human choices that can skew the stats. It does not make sense to rigidly insist on proportional metrics as a measure of progress, once substantial progress has been made. 

Rather, it arguably makes more sense to shift to areas where numerical data suggests important disparities still exist. 

Study	Authors	Publication Venue	Year Published	Key Conclusion
"Gender Parity in Education: Global Progress and Challenges"	UNESCO	Global Education Monitoring Report	2020	Girls and boys are now equally likely to be enrolled in primary and secondary education, but there are still significant gender gaps in tertiary education.
"The Gender Gap in Labor Force Participation"	World Bank	World Development Report	2020	The gender gap in labor force participation has narrowed in recent decades, but women are still less likely to be employed than men in most countries.
"Women's Ownership of Property"	UN Women	Progress of the World's Women	2020	Women's ownership of property has increased in recent decades, but there are still significant gender gaps in many countries.
"Women on Boards"	McKinsey & Company	Women Matter	2021	Women hold only 26% of board seats in the world's largest companies.
"Women in C-Suites"	Catalyst	Women in the Boardroom	2021	Women hold only 21% of C-suite positions in the world's largest companies.

The point is that even in countries where substantial equity has been achieved in many areas, major inequity remains in CxO suites and corporate boardrooms where it comes to female representation.

5G Will Happen; It Has To Happen

A few skeptics might argue that there is no need for 5G, or that the business model will not work or that consumer demand does not exist. That noted, the movement, globally, seems unstoppable, and for existential reasons. Whether 5G works out largely as planned (it actually produces new revenue streams, business models and applications), it is a gamble that must be taken.

In fact, for fixed network telcos, the odds of failure are growing, as revenue earned from investments increasingly is less than the capital investment.

source: The Economist

For that reason, there is a good reason for arguing that either capex or opex, or both must be reduced to match potential revenues earned by those investments.

In fact, the importance of cash flow, rather than other traditional measures of “profit,” indicate the shift. In past years, it was mostly unprofitable startups whose progress was measured in terms of cash flow.

But the big issue is simply that, with all existing revenue sources flat, diminishing or poised to become flat and diminish, the broad telecom industry must find big new revenue sources to replace those being lost, or face decline, if not death.

Since 5G is being purpose built to support new applications (internet of things, machine-to-machine communications, connected cars, fixed line replacement), it is a necessary gamble on the ability to create and sustain big new businesses in those areas.

There can be no certainty, at this point, about the degree of success. What there is certainty about is that doing nothing risks industry failure. So 5G is going to happen. It has to.