Tsunami On Hold

In a recent article, “Six Reasons the Tidal Wave of Business Transitions Has NOT Happened,” Wayne Rivers of The Family Business Institute in Raleigh NC suggests why the huge predicted transfer of closely held business ownership and management has not occurred. He writes of delayed retirement, lack of specific vision for retirement, and inability to sell the businesses as key factors. The result is that the outcomes anticipated have been put on hold–but it’s still a question of when and not if.

We concur with Mr. Rivers’ assessment that most businesses are not ready for sale. Some do not generate enough top line revenues; others do not create enough earnings/profits. As we have mentioned in prior posts, a critical part of any business–be it a family-owned one or professional services firm, or any of a myriad of other combinations–is the executive acumen of the team leading the business. If too many decisions are made by to few people, the business is flat out worth less money. Since the person/people selling are planning an exit, what executive prowess exists prior to the sale either will not persist in the near term or soon thereafter. Any buyer studying this phenomenon would have to be wary of buying a controlling position or entire company under these conditions. The buyers, in most cases, do NOT want to manage the company; they want a qualified team in place who can manage it well on their behalf.

When privately held business owners recognize this major hurdle, they can begin to devise a way to leap over it. Often, the advice of a consultant or coach can help in multiple ways. First, by preparing the management team to grow in their authority and decision-making. (The team must, of course, be committed to stay as well.) Secondly, the senior and retiring leaders can be coached to build a new future for themselves that is challenging and rewarding. Finally, a plan can be developed that takes into consideration how to prepare the various stakeholders for the transition to come.

For those who prepare their business systematically for sale, there is better news on the horizon. Private equity groups have money to invest, are paying more than they have in four years, and are looking for opportunities to build a segment presence through roll-ups or narrowly focused portfolios. According to a mergermarket.com report last year, 19% of deals were in industrials and chemicals, 18% in services, and 15% in technology, media and telecommunications in the twelve month lookback period.

In the same mergermarket report, private equity executives said that inadequate management reporting was a top problem 47% of the time and management capability limitations 33% of the time. Shore up your management methods! Prepare to ride the tidal wave of interest in buying private companies as an outcome of the hard work you perform to get your leadership team up to speed to lead without you.

 

 

Cultural Due Diligence Breeds Success(ion)

In a blog post (“The Human Side of Due Diligence”) of October 2011, Michael Bittle talks about the challenge of sizing up a company’s culture in the midst of a private equity transaction. Even if your team is savvy in its financial analysis, interviews customers and executives, and puts together airtight LOIs, he argues, you can miss the important undercurrents that are culture.  Too many companies are dressed up for a suitor, only to prove to look to good to be true.

A recurring drama plays out wherein performance swoons, key managers leave, and morale sinks as well. The investors scratch their heads and wonder what has happened. Enter the concept of the informal culture–what values, unspoken agreements, collaborative tendencies, etc existed prior to the transaction. Bittle argues that, in the heat of getting a deal done, that the quant jockeys often have neither the time nor the training to be extra discerning about these nuances than can be a company’s undoing.

In the Research Triangle Park, we are developing a national reputation for angel or venture-backed technology and life science start-ups that all aspire to make their commercialized product/service a household name. Along the way, they receive outside investment and some matriculate to a successful revenue path that ultimately leads to a liquidity event. Very few take an approach wherein the founders want to stay with the company as it matures. This can be good and bad. In the cases where the founder brought an academic mindset to enterprise, it is often better that professional management run the company longer term.  On the positive side, emotional bonds are built between employees 1, 2, 3 …and #50, #100, etc. These bonds create stability, a sense of community that can be disrupted by the introduction of outside ownership/management.

George Bradt, in an article in Forbes on February 8, “Corporate Culture: The Only Truly Sustainable Competitive Advantage,” takes the position that competitors, given time and money, can duplicate almost anything except culture. “In sustainable, winning cultures, behaviors (the way we do things here) are inextricably linked to relationships, informed by attitudes, built on a rock-solid base of values, and completely appropriate for the environment in which the organization chooses to operate.”

Organizational development principles can be brought to bear in the due diligence process if the consultant focuses on soft issues rather than concrete, easily measured ones. Whether an EQ assessment is administered to managers, or some type of DISC or MBTI with their direct reports, it can be helpful to understand who is the backbone of the company and how they may behave/make decisions. Transparency can drive smooth transitions if the former owners/executive team is willing to give the private equity/acquiring company access to employees earlier in the process. If people are made aware of the potential transaction and given an opportunity to design their own future, they are more likely to be/remain engaged in positive behaviors and outcomes.

Eventually, the first generation leadership will have to give way to new leaders, even if there is no transaction. The succession is more likely to be successful if the culture is aligned with the company direction through thoughtful interaction with employees and casting vision for how their contributions will continue to be needed. Such best practices are more likely to reinforce trust and a desire to build something great together.

One-man rule vs. One-man band

Businesses often can be managed by a strong leader who seems to be involved with every significant decision. In some cases, this type of one-man band is almost unavoidable (e.g. a company with less than five employees, four of whom are in support roles.) However, in organizations that have been fortunate to grow, add management teams, and have complex issues, the controlling leader can either be an icon or an albatross. When is it good–and when is it bad–that the proverbial “buck” stops on one person’s desk?

art by Eldon Doty

 

Chief executives who make decisions without the input of colleagues engage in one-man rule. This practice is a two-edged sword. While few will argue that group management can slow progress and that one can move more nimbly than many, there is always the latent risk that decisions that are made lack depth, insight, and the benefit of buy-in. The biggest travesty of the urge to “go it alone” is that it undermines management succession by depriving others from the opportunity to make meaningful choice on behalf of the enterprise.

Management depth is always in the list of prime characteristics of best managed companies. Management change then, by default, becomes a disorderly process, at times exacerbated by recession or prosperity. The entire organization is often thrown into chaotic operation and often requires a turnaround thereafter.

Instead of putting one’s peers–and, perhaps, one’s own retirement via earnout/sale–at risk, better to avoid one-man rule and seek to engage others. This concept holds true in may of the sexy technology start-up models as well, wherein the “one-man” is equivalent to the group of initial founders who can function as to inhibit the contribution of successive hires. Often, these top executives are extremely bright and have a very high IQ, but lack the EQ (emotional quotient = emotional intelligence) to build out the model and achieve the important milestones due to an unwillingness to invite the input of others.

More to come on how to build out the management team and empower them to make meaningful contributions…

Succession is Passing on Enterprise Capital

What Does It Look Like to You?

Usually, succession planning is done with the assumption that the family intends to pass a singular business to the next generation. But, in an article published in Family Business magazine (Summer, 2011, pp. 60-62), Greg McCann and Rich Morris encourage a different construct. Proposed is the thought that, instead of passing The Business down, the capital can be passed along. By capital, they mean:

  • Values
  • Knowledge
  • Professional Team
  • Financial Assets &
  • Family Legacy

Their perception is based on macro trends in the business world regarding innovation and the implications for privately-held (family-owned specifically) businesses in particular. Trends that are referenced include globalization, technology, and diversification. Combined, these trends necessitate greater innovation than ever before to stay competitive. “Traditionally, family enterprise has been thought of as three generations operating one business. In today’s marketplace, it’s wise to think about three business concepts for each generation to come.” (McCann & Morris)

What do they mean about three business concepts for each generation? The Family Firm Institute, in a study funded by FFI member Joe Goodman on family business longevity, found the following:

  • 10.6% of the families studied controlled only one business.
  • 21.3% of the families controlled five or more businesses.
  • Over the history of the participating families, they had owned an average of 6.1 firms.
  • The families added an average of 2.7 firms through M&A.
  • Over the history of the families’ business activity, their main industry shifted an average of 2.1 times.
  • Over the families’ history, they spun off an average of 1.5 companies.

If privately owned businesses can take note of these facts, different strategic plans will be developed. More focus on the entrepreneurial spirit of the founder, awareness of market shifts, adaptability, and resource stewardship will yield strong results that help make smooth succession a more realistic goal.