Align Board and Company Goals

           Are the goals of the leadership of your company in alignment?  Does the Board of Directors and Advisors communicate effectively with the C-suite?  Screening and selecting the proper advisors/board of directors is critical in developing a well-balanced leadership team.  

The company does not want a homogenous team of “yes” men/women.  Rather, it is important to have a variety of skill sets and experiences that complement one another.  You are building a “Dream Team” to lead the organization, don’t you want the best players available in each role?  Founders typically have a defined set of skills that led them to start the company in the beginning.  Whether it is subject matter expertise (SME), or finance skills (typically a co-founder with the SME), or simply a desire to fill a specific need. (In which case both SME and finance may need to be hired). The point of the advisors and the board of directors is to fill the gaps in leadership and create a strong team with which to guide the organization.  Having many varied personalities is not always easy to harness though.  Sometimes it can be like trying to herd kittens or trying to get a room full of small children to sit quietly without a distraction.  How does one handle conflict when it arises?

Potential conflicts should be identified and dealt with immediately before they have an effect on the leadership of the organization.  I have found that the earlier a potential conflict can be identified, the more likely a quick resolution.  

In the early 2000s, I was working with a small family-owned company.  The third generation of the family was running the organization, but because they had grown up “in the business”, they had little practical experience with dealing with the problems they were encountering.  Namely, the short-term vision of the previous generation of leaders was now jeopardizing the very existence of the company.  I was asked to come in and guide them through setting up a sustainable operation for future generations.  

After the initial consultation, it was clear that this was going to be a multi-year project, as they not only needed a “quick-fix” to stop the bleeding, but also an education in corporate governance and a plan to pass along the skills to the future generations.  I created a plan that encompassed a buyout of investors that were not a part of the family (stopping the bleeding), and reduced dividends for a period of time to pay for it (That was not a popular decision), and then partnered with SME’s that had the needed skill sets to sustain the company going forward.  One of the requirements for the SME’s was an educational component to bring the family to a conversational level on each subject.  No need to become experts as they planned on continuing the outsource the process, but understanding what is being said will help to keep them out of trouble later on.

Finally, the family needed to create a Board of Advisors and a Board of Directors that would help to guide the C-suite with strategic decisions.  Because it was a small family-owned company, I didn’t want to scare them with a huge board and dozens of advisors, they simply didn’t require that formality.  

We decided on two family members (each representing half of the family as defined by lineage) and one outside director (the “tie-breaker”). Typically when assembling a Board of Directors, major investors should be represented (They were) and outside experts should be brought in as needed.  The larger the organization, the more experts needed.  (Always creating a board with an odd number to avoid a potential stalemate situation)  Additionally, the terms of the board members should be staggered to maintain continuity during a transition. 

The family members were an obvious choice for them, each “side” had a clear leader that none of the others questioned.  The obstacle was that they didn’t necessarily get along with each other.  Taking that into consideration, the third director needed to be a strong leader experienced in conflict resolution.  After interviewing a dozen candidates, they asked me if I would consider the role.  I accepted and worked with them in that capacity for over 10 years.  The advisors consisted of a representative of their legal firm, their CPA, and the owner of a strategic partner company.  These positions were easily filled as the family had good working relationships with all.

The company had weathered the immediate storm and now had a structure that was sustainable, in alignment, and poised to grow for the benefit of future generations.

Too Many Chiefs

Have you ever worked for a company that had Co-CEOs, where both were extremely strong personalities and didn't always see “eye-to-eye” on issues?  How about an indistinguishable chain of command?  Maybe it was a board of directors that didn’t understand or value the CEO/Presidents role in the organization, and took it upon themselves to give guidance to the staff directly.


These scenarios are played out in companies all over the world on a daily basis, and are causing trillions of dollars in lost productivity and missed opportunities.  It is impossible to get multiple personalities to agree consistently.  Trying is an exercise in futility, so preparing for the situation is an imperative.  If a company is to be governed by a board, the board needs to have an odd number of members to provide a "tie breaker" vote.  All of the board members need to commit to provide the appearance of agreement to staff once that vote has been settled in order to maintain a cohesive operation.  Daily operations require a clear chain of command so as not to be confusing to the team members.  The employees report to their managers, the managers report to the VP’s, the VP’s report to the President/COO/CEO (depending on structure), the President/ CEO reports to the board.  Simple right?  These are absolutes in business.  No “special circumstances” or “just this one time” scenarios.

When I was in my early twenties, I worked for a company that had four owners, three of whom worked in the company daily.  There were “official” titles for each of the owners, but all of the employees knew that the titles really didn't mean anything as they frequently made decisions in each others areas of responsibilities.  What happened when an employee didn't get the desired answer was akin to going to “ask Dad” when mom said “no”.  As you can probably imagine, this created a tremendous amount of tension among the partners and the employees alike.  Eventually, communication deteriorated into a completely dysfunctional mess and the company closed down, taking their investment and many years of service with it.


Co-CEO’s don’t work because in order to be a good CEO, a person must have certain leadership qualities.  Those very same leadership qualities make it very difficult to share the role.  I can hear many of you chiming in already, “What about Oracle, or Chipotle or Whole Foods, they have Co-CEOs?”  Yes, technically they do, but if you look at the division of labor, that is not necessarily the case.  In regards to Chipotle and Whole Foods, keeping the Founder in place as a Co-CEO was an effort to keep the “spirit” of the company alive while a stronger manager came in to bolster the systems.  In the case of Oracle, the two CEOs have very specific areas that they attend to, and cross the line only when the responsible Co-CEO is otherwise occupied.


If a company doesn’t define the roles very succinctly, with significant consequences for “crossing over”, the result is often chaos or worse.  It is better to title the roles closer to their actual duties.  If you are responsible for daily operations (sales, manufacturing, logistics, etc.) then a COO title is more appropriate.  If you are responsible for strategic vision, administration and acting as a liaison between the board and/or investors, that is more of a CEO role.


I can provide many examples where this type of situation became unworkable.  Big companies, small companies, and anything in between, are not immune to its effects.  In fact, sometimes the larger companies try to “correct” the issue by spending money on consultants, subject matter experts and lawyers, examining “problem areas”.  These areas are designated by leadership, deflecting their own culpability, and creating a loop that continues until the money runs out or one of the leaders gets frustrated and leaves!

To avoid this in your company, simply make sure that the roles are clearly defined, the penalties for crossing into another leaders area of responsibility are meaningful, the leadership respects each others role and how appearances effect the rank and file employees.  Simple Right?







Eric Johnson is  a Strategic Business Consultant, Executive Coach, Private Equity Investor, and has started 11 companies on his own.  For more information, go to www.JohnsonCapital.solutions 

x

Team Vision has Better Focus

A Diverse Team Can Drive Success

An individual may create and lead the initial vision, but the team will provide distinct viewpoints that will be invaluable as time goes on, bringing to the project an appeal and insight that will give the project "legs".

This is why it is important to assemble a well-rounded team of individuals that all complement each other, yet retain their own distinct voices the process.  I have lead many teams during my career and have had experiences ranging from the “rag-tag” team with no formal education but the tremendous heart and a hunger for learning, to the “all-star’ team with tremendous pedigree, whose incessant politicking ultimately spelled doom for the organization as it was envisioned.  I have learned that team building is an art, and as such, it is not always perfect, rather it takes nurturing and tinkering to get it to the point where you have the right combination of knowledge, motivation, hands-on skills, and leadership.  There is no room for ego, everything must be done for the benefit of the common goal.

When this is accomplished, it is beautiful and I liken it to riding a wave.  Everything seems to flow naturally and effortlessly.  Every member doing their part selflessly and co-authoring a grand sonata of achievements on their way to greatness.

In the late nineties, I led a team where this occurred.  I would love to take credit for assembling the team, but it was handed to me fully formed, all I had to do was my part.  Sure the team was financially successful, that was expected, but we also accomplished many great things that had never been dreamed of previously, and developed life long friendships with each other in the process.    We had all come from similar but varied backgrounds, so there was a commonality that provided us with a base for communication and relating to one another.  The variance provided us with different vantage points that were beneficial when solving difficult and complex problems.  The resulting business processes and techniques are still being widely utilized today in that industry.

Sometimes you can “stack the deck” with well-qualified individuals with decades of experience and not get the anticipated results because the team didn't “buy-in” to the leaderships vision, or worse, actively sought to undermine it, feeling they were more qualified or otherwise superior to the current leadership.   There is a great truth in the idiom “One bad apple spoils the whole bunch”.  The negativity of one employee can bring a whole team to its’ knees, so they must be dealt with quickly and decisively, either through counseling or dismissal.

This is actually a more common scenario than you would think.  It is also a very difficult situation from which to recover.  There are often many ways to operate a company, and especially in the start-up phase, many of them could be highly profitable.  In this situation, the leadership has an obligation to assess the merits of each scenario, including any resource allocation, strategy, and motivations, and make adjustments for the benefit of the company without the ego.  Many high-level executives, and especially founders, can have difficulty with this.  If there is a (business) need for a founder/CEO to step aside, there can be a sensation of loss akin to losing a loved one, especially if the start-up process was long or particularly difficult.

I have participated in nine of my own start ups and this situation has occurred in more than half of them when an unfamiliar team is assembled.  It is very difficult to predict the path an unknown entity will take when under pressure to perform.  Does this mean that you should forego the experienced team in favor of the “heart” of a younger, more malleable team?  I believe the answer lies in a balance of experience and leadership with a malleable young team with “heart”.  I see great value in “seeding” your team with people you know well.  They in turn know what is expected of them and can help to relay and maintain the vision with the newer team members.

Once you have the right team in place, and a clear, fact based strategic path laid out, there are very few obstacles that can deter the team from achieving their goals.  So tell me, do you have your “dream team” in place?

For more information or to engage my services, please go to www.JohnsonCapital.solutions