Category Archives: Middle Market

Lead Me – Don’t Manage Me!

 

“People don’t want to be managed. They want to be led. Whoever heard of a world manager? World leader, yes. Educational leader. Political leader. Religious leader. Community leader. Labor leader. Business leader. They lead. They don’t manage. The carrot always wins over the stick. Ask your horse. You can lead your horse to water but you can’t manage him to drink. If you want to manage somebody, manage yourself. Do that well and you’ll be read to stop managing. And start leading.”

-Printed by United Technologies Corporation in the Wall Street Journal

One of the most heated conversations we had in the MBA program at Elon (ranked #1 part-time program in the USA) was over the value of management versus leadership. One of our courses was in organizational leadership and many of the younger students did not enjoy the finesse and nuances of the subject matter. They wanted to stay in the realm of concrete, numbers driven topics wherein there is a clear cut “right” answer. Leadership, for people who have not held positions with substantial responsibility, is challenging to describe, pursue, evaluate, and articulate. Management, on the other hand, was easier for the cohort to articulate in terms of metrics and definitions that met with consensus.

Whether in class or on the job, very few people want to be managed per se, they would prefer to be led. Managing is a process better applied to resources rather than individual people. Even in our home lives, when we are trying to get our children to do the right thing, it is incumbent upon us as parents to inspire them to make good choices. Inspiration is one of the key results of leadership.

Cynthia Stewart, writing for the Lead Change Group’s website last week, made some keen observations about the dichotomy between management and leadership:

“One specific example of what I am talking about comes to mind that illustrates this perfectly.  In fact, I was speaking with a President of a company today and she mentioned the same example.  Most of us have been part of a United Way campaign.  In the early days, these campaigns were delegated to management to run.  Typically management would take the tact of talking to their employees about the importance of being a good citizen and helping to fund helping agencies so their patrons could have a hand up (effectively trying not to appear to strong arm you into giving so that the company goals could be met.)

Then, one year things changed.  The leaders asked for employee volunteers to lead the campaigns. Everyone couldn’t wait to show up to the next new event, and attendance and giving doubled and tripled.  You saw people showing their true talents, coming alive, doing things you had no idea they could do.  The fun quotient spiked, the giving exceeded goals, employee morale improved, and the new office stories were accompanied with more laughter.   Hmmm – no management in the picture.”

Stewart’s commentary reveals a gap in thought leadership. Many Millenials are misunderstood because Boomers think that they are too revolutionary and almost insubordinate. That’s because many in management are not leading them; they are trying to only tell them what to do. My experience with the younger generation is that they are in search of authentic leadership.

How can we individually and collectively make a commitment to leadership?

 

 

Add Value to Your Privately Owned Business

Most corporate governance articles, presentations, and conferences are focused on publicly owned businesses. With corporate and executive scandals galore occurring over the past few years, there have been outcries for better controls, systems, and oversight guidelines. Yet, the same emphasis and attention is grossly lacking in the privately owned business community. One of the areas in which governance best practices could be applied is in the realm of mergers and acquisitions. Nick Miller of Clayton Utz law firm in Australia offers some insights below for this unique situation:

Increasing the level of formal governance can assist in reducing risk, identifying issues that might emerge upon a sale and generally enhancing the credibility with which the business presents itself to potential buyers. Perhaps even more powerfully, governance is a means by which, both in fact and in perception, a business can present as less dependent on the involvement of its founders than it would without governance. This can add very significantly to value.

Many private business owners think that the absence of governance procedures makes them more flexible, more adaptable and more opportunistic. That may be so, but the benefits of that should be weighed against the benefits of formal governance when planning a sale. 

There are a range of ways to adopt some greater formality in governance:

  • without changing the make up of the board of a company, the company could implement a more structured system of monthly meetings. These may or may not be formal board meetings, but should nonetheless involve the directors and those who report into the CEO;
  • a company can set up one or more committees. These can be formal board committees or more informal, but they are set up to address areas of need, to bring in expertise and focus on how risk management can be improved and issues for the business addressed. Examples are an audit and risk committee, a brand development committee and an employee policies committee, to assist in developing those aspects of the business in readiness for sale. These committees might have outsiders on them and they might not, depending upon the need and the expertise available in the business;
  • an advisory board could be established. Properly structured, members of an advisory board will not carry director duties and liabilities and this can be a sensible stepping stone towards a more fully independent board;
  • one or more outsiders can be brought onto the board. This can be very beneficial, but it needs to be right for the business; and
  • governance can also be improved by developing appropriate governance policies and procedures.

Corporate buyers and private equity see many poorly organised privately‑owned businesses. They will take the opportunity to highlight the possible risks to them in undertaking an acquisition of a poorly organized or more risky business. Some investment in governance can dispel most of these apprehensions, and allow private business owners to defend the level of risk in the business and so achieve higher value for a seller. Nonetheless, formal governance should be introduced carefully, to ensure the owner’s ability to drive and control the business is not unduly impeded.

In summary, shareholder value is enhanced in privately owned businesses through better corporate governance. Opinions of value are enhanced by checks and balances, independent processes, and a decreased dependence on the founder(s). Make the necessary adjustments to your business. You will make better decisions, increase the market value of the business, and create an environment wherein others can grow in their roles and responsibilities.

 

Need Outside Investors? Choose Wisely

Is private equity in your future? Many closely held businesses reach a point where their capital structure is not supportive of their cash and other financing needs.  When internal resources and bank money is no longer enough, the business owner and/or CFO has to find outside sources. Seeking outside investment is not, however, an easy process. The search needs to resemble a courting relationship that used to be so common in interpersonal relationships. You are, after all, seeking to build a long-term partnership.

Inc. online has a column entitled Herding Gazelles. In a post today, Karl Stark & Bill Stewart point out what to look for in private equity investors:

1. Find the right investor.

Angel investors, venture capital funds and large corporations all have different investment profiles. Each has a specific motivation and a process they typically use to create value.  Partnering with the wrong investor often means that your business will be asked to meet investor goals that may not align with your goals for the business. Find an investor whose objectives are in sync with the business you are building. 

2. Agree to a common view on how to maximize value.

At the outset of your partnership, spend time to align on the facts around the business and its markets, then discuss your strategy and how it will maximize value for the business.   Make sure both parties are clear on the roles they will play and the expectations for how the investors will participate and add value to the business. A successful relationship is all about setting and communicating the right expectations and engaging in open communication when events necessitate a change in those expectations.

3. Align on the right incentives and desired outcomes for both parties.

Clearly lay out the personal, professional, and financial goals for both you and your investor. Identify areas where you can work together to help each other reach his or her individual goals. The investor will likely have a specific timeline in mind for an exit and may have expectations about an exit price. This will have a large impact on their view of various strategic decisions. As a CEO and management team, you may also have specific expectations about how to grow the business. Put these all on the table, especially if they may be in conflict, so you can manage expectations upfront and amicably.

4. Leverage your investor’s experience, not just their money.

Brainstorm with your investor about ways in which he or she might help push the business forward. In some instances this may be obvious, such as a partnership with a corporate entity, but you may be surprised at other things the investor can offer beyond financial support. Investors typically have seen successes and failures and can share their advice.  They may have a wealth of contacts, even potential customer relationships, that could provide value to the business. Don’t overlook these intangibles.

A private equity investor will be a key member of your management team, so you need to build a strong, lasting relationship with them-just as you would with any of your key team members. Using your investor to the fullest will be critical to fueling the growth of your business.

Following these guidelines is just good common sense. We would add to the suggestions that it is important to identify “fit” before anything is on the line. Discussing how decisions will be made, what outside professional services firms will be used, and how the composition of boards of directors and advisors ahead of time is a good way to learn about the investor’s priorities and values. While agreeing on how to maximize value is important, it is even more important to identify what metrics represent value.  Great advice on leveraging an investor’s experience–ask what they plan to bring to the partnership beyond money. You may be very pleasantly surprised!

 

Local Client-Focused Innovation Fertile For Consultants

When companies look to innovate, they have a choice of using internal or external resources. One of the chief sources of external assistance is the category of consulting firms (“consultancies”). A study by the Management Consultancies Association (Czerniawska 2006) suggested the top reason consultancies were recruited was because client staff did not possess the relevant skills (66 per cent). While original and creative work took second place (45 per cent), getting access to proprietary methods and tools prompted a response from only 17 per cent of respondents. What does this mean? That  consultancies themselves may need to become more innovative in the way they interact with clients.

Globalization and the ensuing stiff market competition suggests consultancies need to identify and respond to these factors, and then modify their responses to fit their clients’ changing needs and expectations. Improving thought leadership within the consulting industry is critical. Yet, formal innovation processes alone can hinder innovation itself and contribute to loss of market position. One-person shops as well as national firms will benefit from becoming “more innovative and adaptive in their proposals, methods and solutions, while traditional client/consultant boundaries need to be challenged, stretched and even broken. Consultancies may also need to be more open to partnership working with other agencies, such as academia or even competitors, if they are to respond effectively to the pressures of the current high-cost, low-resource business environment.” (Institute of Consulting, 2011)

Clients need to learn how to work with consultants in this new environment. We should be cautious, however, to say that consulting has ceased to be innovative; the creative processes have simply shifted. Rather than looking at the bellwethers of old, BPR or TQM programs, local, client-focused innovations are the new frontier. Such projects are driven by a more discerning client who is often wary of being sold a ‘one-size fits all’ product, and are frequently undertaken as joint initiatives between clients and consultancies. Such arrangements provide clients with more control and consultancies with reduced overheads.

 The Institute of Consulting Report recommends the following to improve innovation inside consulting firms so that the organizations they advise can, in turn, become more competitive: 

For Consultancies:

Think small: clients are more sophisticated and demanding, requiring ideas that are tailored for their local needs.

Share costs and expertise: there is little that can be done about diminishing margins or higher utilization rates, but universities, research institutes, clients and other consultancies will often jump at the chance to share resources on interesting innovative activity if the case is made well enough.

Explore new frontiers: innovation is to be found in bringing fresh ideas in and listening to them. Develop boundary-spanning roles, recruit graduates that are not from business schools, interview new recruits about what could be changed in your company, seek out different sources of research and knowledge and organize cross-silo spaces for discussion.

Enable talent: providing bright, motivated consultants with autonomy and the ear of senior management is more likely to generate useful innovations than trying to formalize the process through bureaucracy. Innovation involves risk so loosening controls is no bad thing.

Be proactive: innovative activity depends greatly upon clients and procurers leading the way in taking risks, having conversations and enabling creativity. This can be supported though communication, education and persuasion.

Develop your people: over half of all respondents reported that training, conference attendance and professional, accredited staff were important enablers of innovation. Continuous professional development, it seems, is crucial for developing innovation as a strategic capacity for consultancies.

For Client Organizations:

Work with consultants: research shows that companies which invest in innovation during a recession are more likely to come out of it faster than their competitors. Co-working with consultancies on management innovation generates a number of benefits: a closer match of solutions with your needs, more motivated and skilled employees, a potential sharing of intellectual property and association with ground-breaking ideas.

Take risks: examine and prioritize the areas of your business where new ideas could put you ahead of the competition. Put aside some of your budget to work with consultancies on new ideas, if possible using a risk-reward form of payment so that risks are shared with the supplier.

Improve procurement: sourcing consultants solely on the basis of cost is risky to both the delivery of the project and the innovation that it might bring. Good procurement practice will acknowledge this and purchasers should have both the expertise and the freedom to select the best consultant for the best price. An over-specified solution may mean you are not getting the best out of your consultants and minimal consultant interaction with the business owner during the tendering process can sometimes mean the project requirements get miscommunicated.

Enable expertise: your consultants will have witnessed the challenges you face dozens, if not hundreds of times, in similar companies. Making the most of this not only involves conversation with the consultancy when defining solutions but also ensuring as much of their skill and knowledge is passed on to your staff before they leave. Clients must enable consultant expertise as much as consultants enable that of clients.

Retool for Catalytic Success

Business macrotrends are illuminating. With sufficient data, organizations like BCG, McKinsey & Bain can advise their clients better as to thought leadership positions, best practices, and optimization. As the national economy has improved from recession to stagnation or slow growth, businesses have shifted their focus from expense reduction to growth. Increasing revenues is important to companies providing goods, services, or non-profit benefits.

When Bain performed a study last year, 80 percent of the executives believed innovation to be important than cost reduction for long-term success. Also, 68 percent of respondents believed that taking care of customers and employees should come before shareholders. Bain’s interpretation: executives realize that growth depends on having happy, productive employees and satisfied customers. Shareholder returns will be the natural byproduct.

Growth Catalysts:

In the Bain survey, popular management tools were rated by respondents. Of 25 total tools, the top 3 were:

  • open innovation (expanding the sources of breakthrough products)
  • scenario and contingency planning (testing the “what ifs” to plan for the future/minimize risks) &
  • price optimization (addressing rising commodity prices). 

Social media was seen as an additional emerging tool of choice. Whether websites, micro-bogging, or online communities, there has been a growing commitment to explore the value of the medium to enhance relationships–internally as well as externally. “While only 29 percent of all respondents say they used social media in 2010, usage is expected to surge to 56 percent in 2011. Even so, executives tell us they’re uncertain about how to measure the effectiveness of this tool.”  

The standard approach with the introduction of new tools is to make a limited investment to vet the value of the tool, then make a more sizable commitment if it proves to have merit. Bain study leaders felt that this approach presented two risks:

First, while it’s understandable that companies do not want to make major investments before they fully understand how a tool will work, we have found that using tools on a limited basis consistently leads to lower satisfaction, so caution may inadvertently result in failure. The second risk we have found: companies start using a tool because their competitors are using it, or because it’s the hot topic in the business press, but if they do not fully understand how and why to use it, the experience ends up in failure.

Think of business process reengineering, where we witnessed an inverse relationship between usage and satisfaction rates when it was the hot tool of the 1990s. We witnessed reengineering drop from the tool with the fifth highest satisfaction rate in 1993 all the way to 21st in the late 1990s. It was only after usage rates declined that satisfaction began to improve again. Any time we see high usage but low satisfaction, there is cause for concern.

What Tools Work & What to Degree?

Benchmarking made a comeback a couple years ago and displaced strategic planning, a perennial No. 1, as the tool of choice. In addition to benchmarking, the most widely used tools during the recession period were strategic planning and mission and vision statements. These tools have rated in the Bain top 10 for usage over the years, regardless of the economic climate.

The survey found the least used tools included open innovation, decision rights tools and rapid prototyping. One tool that was surprisingly unpopular was mergers & acquisitions. During a downturn, M&A deals often create bargains that give the acquiring company increased scale and broadened scope. Yet in each recession we see relatively few deals. 

Among the  preferred tools, strategic planning was the tool with the highest satisfaction rating. Other tools with above-average satisfaction scores included mission and vision statements, total quality management, customer segmentation and strategic alliances. On the other end of the spectrum, downsizing, outsourcing and shared services centers–despite being seen as expense reduction tactics–were three of the five tools with below-average satisfaction scores. The other two tools with low satisfaction ratings were knowledge management and social media programs.