A weekday morning in late November.  A brownstone residence on Beacon Hill in the shadow of the State House.  A dozen of the foremost experts in technology transfer and intellectual property in the Boston innovation cluster.  And a representative from the Department of Energy.  We at BSG Team Ventures had the recent opportunity to host a salon-style meeting in a home of a friend of the firm during Clean Energy Week here in the Commonwealth (for more on Clean Energy week, see http://greenovationconference.com/conference-info/cew.html).

The purpose?  Bringing the best minds in the Boston venture, entrepreneurship and innovation community together for a brainstorming session with the Department of Energy around best practices in technology transfer out of our national laboratories.   Attending the meeting were Alan Gordon from Harvard University Technology Licensing Office, Chris Noble from MIT’s TLO, head of the Mintz Levin cleantech practice Tom Burton, Peter Rothstein from the New England Clean Energy Council, Director of the Massachusetts Technology Transfer Center Abi Barrow, Director of Partners CIMIT John Collins, General Partner at Flagship Ventures Jim Matheson, and CEOs Chris Hobson and Peter Vandermeulen each running cleantech start ups with technology licensed out of several of the national labs themselves.

The challenge the current Obama Administration is taking on under Secretary of Energy Chu is how to better mine the metaphorical gold created inside the U.S. Department of Energy-funded  national laboratory network of some 15 that are spread across the country.  Some of these labs are household names–Los Alamos and  Sandia (New Mexico), and Lawrence Livermore (California).  Others are less well known-Argonne (Illinois), Brookhaven (NY), and Ames (Iowa).  Even the National Renewable energy Lab (Colorado, known more often as NREL), are not as well known as one would hope.  The history of these national labs springs from energy research spurred by World War II.  What the layperson may remember is that many of these labs were where secretive nuclear energy research was conducted.  However, much of the mandate for these labs some 60 years later is focused on discoveries that will broadly contribute to advancing the United States’ understanding of energy, renewable energy, energy conservation, and all the various scientific disciplines that can contribute-physics, materials engineering, chemistry, and more.  These labs are panning for a 21^st century gold-energy discoveries and breakthroughs that will create new batteries using renewable resources, wean the U.S. dependence on oil and coal as primary energy sources, and break new barriers in energy efficiency.

However, the problem has been that these labs have explored a lot, and engaged in extensive primary research, but have punched below their weight class in bringing innovation from discovery through to successful commercialization.  The DOE budget in FY 2009 topped $25 billion.  The national labs budget made up approximately $10 billion of that.  And with the Obama administration’s  stimulus package, these numbers only look to be increasing.  One example brought up in the conversation to punctuate the problem from one of the Boston-based attendees was that fact that Argonne National Laboratory in the last decade has created less than a dozen successful out licensing/royalty events that generated meaningful returns.   Logic holds that in terms of return-on-investment, there remains much room for added improvement.

So, two hours later, what were the issues that were brought up by the braintrust, and potential solutions that were tendered to improve the return on investment the DOE makes in the national laboratory’s innovation mission?

Some of the key issues with the current structure that came out of the dialogue:

•    Risk aversion of national labs researchers to leave the security of the lab to spearhead a risk-laden venture

•    Innate interest of lab researchers is more geared toward research and “discovery” versus market-matching and commercialization

•    Low/no financial incentive to take a discovery beyond research phase

•    No business ecosystem or business-savvy catalysts to help focus lab research talent on “known problems,” or the sifting through lab breakthroughs to match-make with existing  business  problems

Suggestions for improvement focused around the three ingredients that are key to metaphorical “combustion” of the innovation commercialization engine: More…

Every few months we survey the innovation-stage community of CEOs with the goal of leveraging our C-level relationships as executive recruiters to generate collective wisdom to share back.    We hope below you find insights that help to run your companies more strategically.

In August, we surveyed our CEO community and had more than 60 CEOs participate.  Thanks to all who contributed.   The theme of this survey was centered around whether a different strategy is required to succeed post-recovery than that which was in place pre-recession.  These CEOs came from those practice areas in which we focus, and included broad based technology companies in the media, software, mobile and telecom sectors, Biotechnology, medical devices, and cleantech / renewable energy.

The 60-plus participating companies were spread across the growth-stage spectrum, ranging from pre-revenue through profitable/shipping product, most being seed-funded through post-Series C, as well as private equity-backed–

To set the stage for the survey questions, when asked when CEOs were expecting the recovery to materially reach their companies, the results were still quite bearish, with more than 50% responding Q2 2010 or later–

Although entrepreneurs are supposed to be eternal optimists, when asked what sort of recovery CEOS expected, again, the majority picked the worst of the alternatives, with more than half opting for a “W” recovery (in graphical terms, a double dip, with the last year starting September 2008 to now equalling the first “u” of the “W,” and another anticipated dip between now and Q2 2010 or later.  Almost as bearish, 28% of CEOs chose an “L” recovery, indicating that they felt “recovery” was really better defined as a flatting out of the downward trendline, but no corresponding upward rebound–

The next several survey questions focused on business strategy.  58% of CEOs indicated that they were not planning on pursuing the same strategy after the recession than before–

In executing on their strategies, CEOs responded somewhat intuitively that sales & business development functions would be two of the most important executive level functions that would help them in executing successfully post-recovery.  Somewhat less intuitively, the third most important functional area ranked was product development–

The last strategy question posed to CEOs was whether - if a majority of the CEOs were executing on a different strategy in post-recovery than pre-recession – did CEOs feel that the same executive team they had could execute effectively on both.  More than a third of CEOs surveyed indicated, no, their current executive teams were not the right teams for their new post-recovery strategies.

As for their companies’ financial condition, 60% CEOs responding indicated they were still burning cash, 15% were cash flow break-even, and 25% were running their companies in cash positive position–

And answering the perennial question as to whether CEOs were planning on raising equity capital in the near future, slightly more than half responded in the affirmative–

In conclusion, the survey pointed up the fact that innovation-stage companies are still very cautious around the economic forecast, have recast their strategies as different from pre-recession in preparation for the recovery, but still have some retooling to do within their executive teams to optimize the chances of outstripping their competitors in 2010.

Thanks again to the CEOs who participated.  Knowledge is power.  Collective knowledge is actionable.

Below is the hyperlink to our latest CEO peers “speed-survey,” exclusively for growth-stage CEOs.  Topic– “Preparing for Recovery?”

http://surveys.polldaddy.com/s/D3642F14267CCC14/

We at BSG Team Ventures periodically take the temperature of the markets we serve. This speed survey is no more than 10 questions, simple multiple-choice.

Knowledge is power.  Aggregated peer-provided knowledge is “actionable power.”

We make an effort to survey only those who fit the category (in this case, sitting CEOs or board member/founders of technology/science-driven growth-stage companies). [Note, if you don't fit the aforementioned description, please refrain from responding.]

Feel free to forward to the qualified CEOs in your sphere of influence.  The more data generated, the more accurate the trend lines.

All responses are anonymous due to the web-based survey technology employed.

We will forward the survey results within the next two weeks to the email address on file.  Please let us know if there is another email address you wish us to send the results to as well.

August 7th, 2009

INmobile.org released their first collective intelligence research paper today, titled “Harnessing Collective Wisdom to Forecast the Near Future of Mobility.”

INmobile.org – Harnessing Collective Wisdom to Forecast the Near Future of Mobility Aug 2009

The Idea in Brief

A problem presents an opportunity: Periods of economic slowdown such as the one we are currently operating within offers us the unique and incredibly valuable opportunity to reflect upon past periods of expansion and prepare strategically about the upcoming period of recovery and growth.�This practice should be universal but often is not and too often the methodologies used are flawed, outdated, or both. The remarkable opportunity for assessment and planning may in part be unintentionally squandered when companies continue to rely upon the same perspectives and methodologies that have disappointed in the past regardless of where they are in the economic cycle.Previous techniques to forecast vary historically based upon cost and theory.Some rely upon internal perspectives, outside or analyst input, and market data.Often they range greatly in their level of sophistication, objectivity, and conjecture.While many remain valuable, they are perhaps too often relied upon.Here we begin to offer a more innovate and arguably more accurate means to acquire that knowledge.It is the tool of collective intelligence.

The idea of collective intelligence: Collective intelligence can perhaps be best understood as the intelligence which results�from the competitive collaboration of a group of individuals. Published in 2004, The Wisdom of Crowds � Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations by James Surowiecki argues that the aggregations of information in groups results in decisions that are better than those which could have been made by any single member of the group. In Surowiecki�s book, he argues that under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent and often smarter than the smartest individuals within them. When faced with a cognition problem such as, Who will win?, the idea of posing it to 100 experts was suggested as a collective �wisdom of the smart crowds exercise.As we currently seek to gain more informative and credible insights into the next five years of mobile technology, we should begin to take hold of this incredibly useful and adept tool called collective intelligence and apply it to the task.

The power of INmobile.org: INmobile.org is a private, global community of senior executives focused on mobility and convergence.This vital community of global wireless industry leaders enjoys both on-line and in-person events. Its private forum is fueled by a genuine and generous exchange of ideas, informed observations, timely information, empirical knowledge, and analysis.

The opportunity taken:In order to harness the collective intelligence and predictive abilities of INmobile.org, we interviewed one hundred senior executives from within this on-line community.We independently asked these executives the identical question during a one on one conversation and under similar circumstances.No previous conversations or predictions were referred to during these interviews in order to avoid the potential problem of group think.Based upon this methodology, it is our expectation that the whole of the INmobile.org community represented by these one hundred executives will show itself to be significantly more than the sum of its many parts.

The question:We posed the question, What industries will be most affected by the growth of wireless technology over the next five years? This question was suggested during the INmobile.org member reception held on March 31^st at the Wynn Hotel in Las Vegas, NV.�Over 200 senior executives attended the private reception where the concept of �capturing the collective intelligence� of INmobile.org was initially discussed.

The executives who answered:�The identification and selection of the 100 interviewees was done in two stages.The initial selection targeted fifty senior executives to represent the vital components of the mobile ecosystem with the broadest and most relevant perspectives for this specific question.These included mobile carriers, handset OEMs, OS vendors, and mobility focused venture capital and private equity.A call to action was then sent out to the INmobile.org membership requesting additional participants in this research project. Those additional participants provided increased geographical reach and diverse areas of mobility.Telephone interviews were conducted from April to June of 2009 and were conducted by either Matthew Corbett or Mark Newhall.

The results:Consensus predicts industries most likely affected by mobility because the predictive likelihood is heightened if and when a majority of experts independently think the same industry will be affected. These findings have been aggregated and documented in the report.

For more imformation, contact Matthew Corbett at mcorbett@bsgtv.com or at 1-617-266-4333 x241.

www.bsgtv.com

www.inmobile.org

A few months back in the New Yorker Magazine (May, 2009, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/11/090511fa_fact_gladwell ), Malcolm Gladwell penned a really interesting article on the subject of how underdogs-when they change the rules of the game-can beat stronger, bigger rivals. This is a story told many times over, starting with the Biblical story of David beating Goliath, which Gladwell uses in his article as the first of two fulcrums to work the concept out. The other fulcrum he uses is a girls basketball team on the West Coast that had as its coach a successful entrepreneur, Vivek Ranadivé, accustomed to innovating the rulebook to a start-up’s advantage as founder, Chairman and CEO of TIBCO Software, $1+B enterprise value publicly traded start-up success.

In the case of Gladwell’s article, the girls basketball coach was not given any special “talent” as an asset to build around. In fact, kids’ teams at younger ages are most often randomly assembled, with no “draft picking” involved. So, Randivé had to play with the hand he was dealt. He ended up with no tall girls, nor good shooters, just moldable clay, where a winning strategy would have to prevail over a special selection of talent.

In professional sports as well as business, however, coaches/CEOs get to pick their teams. And for business, there is no more crucial time to think about executive team-building than now. According to most analyst reports, markets are preparing for growth. The strongest competitors in each industry were the first to streamline operations at the beginning of the downturn and make sure their financial houses were in order. Now these leaner and meaner companies are looking to leapfrog their competition as recovery sets in. If a rising tide floats all boats, the top companies in each industry sector are looking for a way to rise at a faster rate than their weaker rivals. A recent McKinsey report framed this competitive dynamic, saying:

Roughly one in three industry leaders was toppled during the previous recession as attackers used the downturn to their advantage. Recent big acquisitions in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and information technology suggest that the current slump will be no different.

Our research shows that while all companies in an industry typically suffer during a recession, the performance gap between strong and weak rivals tends to widen. This gives strong players more opportunities to reshape their competitive environment. [http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/hbr/hbr-now/2009/07/trend-to-watch-industries-taki.html]

But, how should these companies go about accelerating around the executive curve into the straight-away of economic expansion?

Sticking with basketball as a parallel for what one business can do to accelerate their rise over their peers, is it possible to consider hiring a superstar in a key area of the business?  A Michael Jordan of the Bulls, or Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics, or L.A. Lakers’ Kobe Bryant?  However, what should the latest definition of “superstar” be in light of all the change the recession has wrought in the business landscape?  McKinsey’s article went on to chronicle 10 key changes in the global competitive topography that are “must-be- aware-of’s” when re-engaging in strategic planning for the recovery in 2009 and beyond.  In July’s issue of Harvard Business Review, one answer is to bring on an executive with what Ron Heifetz and Marty Linsky call “adaptive leadership” ability-

The current economic crisis is not just another rough spell. Today’s mix of urgency, high stakes, and uncertainty will continue even after the recession ends….

Instead of hunkering down and relying on their familiar expertise to deal with the sustained crisis, people in positions of authority-whether they are CEOs or managers heading up a company initiative-must practice what the authors call adaptive leadership. They must, of course, tackle the underlying causes of the crisis, but they must also simultaneously make the changes that will allow their organizations to thrive in turbulent environments.

Adaptive leadership is an improvisational and experimental art, requiring some new practices.

[http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2009/07/leadership-in-a-permanent-crisis/ar/1 ]

The adaptive leader has a greater agility than other leadership types. The adaptive-leader type also allows for optimal breakthrough performance coming out of a down cycle.  Generic adaptive leadership is not enough, however.  You still need to figure out where you topgrade your executive team to best capitalize on the upside afforded in an executive change.  Do you seek this new “adaptive leader” for marketing, strategy, operations, sales? General management of one business unit that’s high growth versus another that’s slower growth but lower risk? Or is it in new product development, R&D, or international/global specialization?  At the risk of overplaying a metaphor, coming back to basketball for a moment, it’s interesting to note that each successful professional team has often been built around one “superstar” player, but not always playing the same position.   There are 3 traditional positions in basketball-guard (2), forwards (2), and a center.  Magic Johnson was a guard (point guard to be specific) and he took the Lakers to several championships.  A current L.A. Lakers superstar, Koby Bryant, as well as the Boston Celtics Paul Pierce are also guards.  However, Larry Bird and Julius “Dr. J” Irving were forwards.  And not to leave out the third successful superstar permutation, Shaquille O’Neal, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Patrick Ewing were all “superstar” centers who repeatedly drove their teams to pennant victories.

Once you identify where the biggest impact can be made via topgrading your current executive team, and you pre-select for a leader with proven adaptive leadership skills and experience, the final question presents itself-where are adaptive leaders most frequently bred?  Where should you look for them, what ecosystem have they been building there leadership toolbox within?

Our experience indicates that a disproportionate  number of adaptive leaders come from professional backgrounds they’ve honed in two specific stages of the company lifecycle-

At our firm, where we specialize in recruiting adaptive leaders, we’ve broadly referred to the executives who are best equipped at leading the green-highlighted columns above of emerging and growth-stage as “Builder-Leaders.” However, whether we refer to them as “builder-leaders” or “adaptive leaders,” their experiences creating and growing companies in these stages are the foundational criteria for success for those companies looking to outpace their competitors as we come out of a down cycle and head into the next growth phase.

The winning formula for extra-ordinary company performance in this next economic expansion is a combination of good internal executive assessment as to which role(s) will give you the biggest step-function impact if you topgrade them, and a key attribute of “adaptive leadership” in the new executive you bring. This is the very same leadership characteristic Malcolm Gladwell’s Vivek Ranadivé demonstrated when he was coaching his daughter’s basketball team to compete and win against the rest of their basketball league.

Registration is Now Open

3rd Annual Benefit

VCs vs. Entrepreneurs – Davis Cup Challenge

NEW DATE:  Thursday, September 24, 2009
Longwood Grass Courts  /  2:00 – 7:30pm

Welcome Back!  BSG Team Ventures is proud to once again host the 3rd Annual  Benefit: VC vs.  Entrepreneur Tennis Tournament – Davis Cup Challenge, and we are thrilled to have you join us.

The VC/Entrepreneur tennis community has been growing every year so please register now so we can build the teams early.

Entry is by donation of $175.00.  *Payment must be received in advance of the tournament.  Please go to our PayPal link , it gives you the option to either pay with your PayPal account or with a credit card.

Register by email to Cristina Vieira Abramson at cvieira@bsgtv.com or call 617.784.4987

Agenda Overview

VCs vs. Entrepreneurs - Thursday, September 24, 2009

Format - Round Robin, Doubles

Time - 2:00 – 7:30pm (includes tournament, finals, cocktails, dinner and networking)

Location – Longwood Cricket Club, Chestnut Hill, MA 

We’ve just compiled the results from the most recent CEO survey we sent to our Rolodex of CEO relationships.  The theme for this survey was a combination of economy-oriented questions like “What three cost reductions are you planning” and  “Do you continue to anticipate further staff reductions,” to following results to the opposite question, “What are you spending more on this year than last?”–

Great feedback and insights were provided by all, and thanks to all those who participated.  Below are the slides of the responses, along with some of the content of the responses to questions like “What questions would you like to ask your peer CEOs if given the opportunity?”

When it comes to prognostications as to when the recession will end for innovation-stage companies these CEOs are leading, there was an overwhelming opinion that we still aren’t out of the woods, with more than 60% voting that it won’t be until 2010.

CEOs who responded were overwhelmingly venture-capital backed (~60%), with the balance of CEO respondents spread pretty evenly between private-equity backed, bootstrapped, and angel-funded.

When CEOs responded to the question of what other cost cuts outside of staffing they felt were the most likely, the top 3 responses were:

1)     Delaying specific new project or product development

2)     Outsourcing of key responsibilities (development, testing, sales, etc.) to make variable that cost, and

3)     Reduction of cash compensation for staff, replaced by more equity (options or other stock grants)

As for other areas CEOs were considering cutting, or other ways in which CEOs are considering burn-rate reduction, these included the following:

• – External legal and accounting fees
• – Eliminate bonus and reduce benefits
• – Delaying office expansion
• – We made adjustments in Q4 2008. We are judiciously incrementing investment as traction increases in 2009. We have already added headcount.
• – Taking-on contract-development work to keep developers attached
• - Salary freeze

When CEOs were queried as to the potential for further reduction to headcount in Q2 2009, three-quarters of them responded “No,” which was an encouraging sign that they feel that perhaps the bottom of the economic miniscus had been hit.

For the 25% or so who said that they were indeed considering more staffing cuts, more than half of these CEOs were looking at staff reductions of less than 20%.

When CEOs were asked what questions they’d like to pose to their own peers, the most popular topic was funding-related questions (38%), followed by questions about the economy (28%), staffing (17%) and burn-rate/expenses related questions (also 17%).

Some of these CEO peer questions in each category are listed below:

• -burn rate  | How are you lowering non-core costs such as health, insurance, WC etc?
• -burn rate   | What are companies doing for benefits. How much does the company pay, versus employee. What are innvovative ways to contain, reduce cost
• -burn rate  | I’d want to explore issues around forecasting revenue in a non-linear world.
• -economy   | When will you start spending money at a normal pace
• -economy   | What are the drivers for economy to  turn around
• -economy   | Do you think that eliminating benefits such as a 401k match or bonuses will have a significant impact on employee morale or will they be happy just to have a job?
• -economy    | Are you able to confidently recognize the biginning of a shift back to a more positive business environment?
• -economy/funding  | When will credit markets open and when will VCs start to invest again?
• -funding | How does present economic situation bear on raising additional operating capital? For Series-A companies, what is likelihood of any funding becoming available in 2009?
• -funding  | “Do you receive funding or revenue from US Govt? Have your receipts of US Govt cash increased or decreased compared to prior years? Are you counting on US Govt cash to make plan in 09?”
• -funding  | Congress should increase funding for SBIT and STTR to $250 thousand in Phase 1 which would increase jobs immediately rather than year delay; when people get a SBIR grant they immediately spend the money hiring folks.
• -funding  | which sources of early stage funding feel open still?  My sense:  family offices, corporate venture funds. Where is blocked?  My sense:  most VCs, Angels
• -funding  | “How will marketing and sales budgets change in the coming year?
• -funding | What types of fundraising options are your reviewing?
• -funding | Are you looking at merging, selling or acquiring rather than raising equity financing?”
• -funding  | are you cash flow positive/economically sustainable without a raise, if not when do you need to raise cash again?
• -funding |  How have the criteria for outside venture funding/financing changed in your sector?
• -staff |  How are you linking compensation to performance?
• -staff |  What success have you had with outsourcing
• -staff |  Where are the best software developers in Boston?

A majority of responding CEOs came from the software/internet/telecom sector (61%), while the balance were distributed across cleantech, medical devices, life sciences/Biotech, and interactive media/content/community.

The last time I saw some confusion around why an executive was making a change in industry was back in 1997 to 2000.  This was the dawn of the “internet age.”   Executives were leaving traditional industries like financial services, management consulting, retail, and even manufacturing, because there was a new thing called the Internet that was going to “change the world.”  In the earliest of those  years of 1996 and 1997, there were the early adopters.  These executives were truly missionary.  Money hadn’t been made yet in the Internet sector, and trails hadn’t been blazed.  Those early pioneers had caught a glimmer of a powerful disruptive technology, and were keen on experimenting with it, with the aim of changing the world as we know it, and how things get done.

There are some industries that have always been missionary, and have attracted a consistent flow of executive talent toward them.  The education industry attracts innovators who want to find a better way to sculpt and expand the minds of our children and young adults.  The  medical devices industry wants to help innovate tools and components that will allow us to repair our bodies, or extend their useful life.  The biotech industry wants to find new ways to pinpoint the reasons and sources of disease and develop novel ways to cure them, whether seeking the cure for cancer, cure for Alzheimer’s, or other terrible human disorders.  Cleantech is likely the newest addition here.

The reasons executives decide to change industries are many.  One popular reason is “I’ve done well, now I’d like to do good.”  You see this often in the investment banking industry, where wealth can be made, but “doing good” is rarely part of the equation.  Therefore, frequently these and other similar executives achieve doing well and doing good in a “serial” fashion, when Maslow’s hierarchy of needs kicks in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs ).

Back to our comparison of the Internet craze and today, and how this impacts why executives decide to change industries, during the Internet craze, we were in an economic upswing.  Yet, it wasn’t such a stark contrast as we see today in our current state of economic adversity.  Then, in the late ’90s, there was a much smaller difference between an ability to earn a good living versus create an insane “wealth creation event” via a dot-com IPO in less than 2 year’s work.  It’s wasn’t perceived as binary, “if I’m not in Internet, I’m at risk of being unemployed.”  In today’s market, this is often the reality.  Is the motivation, drive, or reason to look at the cleantech industry altruism, or self-interest in the executive’s value system?  Or, is it possible and desirable to have “enlightened self interest” in a leader who is changing from one industry into one more in vogue like cleantech?  One where the sheer proliferation of terms to alternately describe the industry is an indicator of its popularity–  greentech, renewables, sustainable energy, and other popular terms used interchangeably today.

Now, the vast majority of both growth-stage and mature-stage industry sectors are suffering.  As a result, it pushes our challenge as executive recruiters-or for anyone who’s assessing talent to add to their teams-to determine how much missionary versus mercenary is driving an executive’s decision to make a change.

This teeter-totter of altruism versus self-interest John Doerr popularized in the late 1990s as a Partner at well-known venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.  For a good snippet from Doerr’s thinking, go to blog post http://constructiveventures.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/mercenaries-vs-missionaries-the-next-wave-of-entrepreneurs/ .  For a deeper dive, you can see Wharton article, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=170 .

Today’s executive assessment challenge is to first determine what the mix of mercenary (M1) and missionary (M2) is in the executive’s motivation to change career focus from their current industry to cleantech.  We need to make sure that there is a healthy enough balance, 5X% missionary, 4X% mercenary, and then make sure that this DNA matches that of the existing executive team to maximize the probability the executive will stay through good times and bad.

A derivative question arises at this point-Is it best to mix M1s and M2s together in a team, or select for homogeneity?  If you had a subset of executive team members who were missionary, and another faction who was mercenary, the cohesion of the entire team is likely doomed.  Offsetting too missionary a culture by counter-balancing with a few mercenaries is not a recipe for success.  Rather, there should be a balance within each individual.

The risk of missed assessment?  A fair-weather executive.  Someone who-when the going gets tough, or when a more lucrative, safer, or easier role pops up on the radar-will fledge the existing nest for what they perceive as a more attractive roost. What the next more attractive sandbox will be is hotly debated.  However, in this economy, other than government and eHealth/healthcare IT, cleantech is the new land of opportunity, and it will attract both missionary and mercenary entrepreneurs.   If you agree with any of the above, the challenge is to figure out how to tell them apart.

Footnote to assessing “motivation“: In assessing this decision to make a change, there is sometimes confusion around the use of the word “motivation.”  At times, executives are assessed for their “motivation,” which is referring to drive, not motive for seeking a new role.

I was traveling on business recently and spent some time down in New Orleans.  It was the first time I’d been there after Hurricane Katrina.  My hosts were fellow entrepreneurs, also part of EO (www.eonetwork.org) and on the board of the local chapter there.  They put together a private tour of New Orleans, with a focus on the issues that led to the spectacular and tragic failure of so many systems post-Katrina.  As one of my hosts put it, it was a breakdown of three things –   vision, leadership and communication.  The more we drove around New Orleans and the more I saw of the devastation, the more I heard of how these entrepreneurs responded to it.  I got this strange feeling of metaphoric déjà vu.  And then it dawned on me.  Katrina is a parallel for the current economic crisis America finds itself in– a sudden, unpredicted disaster for which none of us were prepared.   So I asked Jude Olinger, the current EO New Orleans Chapter President and CEO of market research firm the Olinger Group, if he had any “lessons learned” that he felt might apply to any unpredictable, catastrophic disaster.  His response? Oh yeah.  In fact, Jude had sat down several months after Katrina, and tried to capture the lessons learned.  He emailed them to me after our meeting.  And what I saw was an eerie parallel in the lessons Jude learned surviving and succeeding post-Katrina to what each of us--entrepreneur, business person, head of household, individual–could also adopt as survival strategies in one of the biggest financial hurricanes ever to hit the U.S. in modern times, perhaps the globe.   As much as entrepreneurs drive the economy, and no doubt recovery, we all should think of heeding these lessons.  In reflecting on the below, I saw them universally applicable to all current innovation sectors in which we as an executive search firm have practice areas, whether cleantech / energy, medical devices, software, biotech, distance learning / education, Internet Web 2.0, mobility / wireless.  In chatting with CEOs in each of these sectors to test my assumption, they too felt these were “universal truths.”

Below is a partial list of Jude’s lessons learned, selected for those that carry strong correlation both to a natural disaster such as Katrina as well as an economic disaster.  Following it is some interesting Q&A in dialoging with him about the experience.  And to learn more about Jude Olinger’s firm, go to www.olingergroup.com.

After crisis strikes…

-         Lesson #1 - Don’t panic but act quickly.  Stay focused on the tasks that you have to accomplish to recover.  Prioritize tasks and act upon them immediately.  Time, or rather lack of time, is your enemy.  Everyone is going to want your time… so have to prioritize and think ahead.  Anticipate things that might happen and prepare for them.  If you know you have to lay people off, and it’s a reality, then do it.

-         Lesson #2 - [In knowledge worker industries] Don’t lose your greatest asset – your employees.  Be decisive.  Communicate with employees quickly and frequently.  Be a leader and let them know the plans and intentions of the company and how they fit in.  Evaluate what you can do for them immediately and provide as much assistance as possible.  Don’t lose the key people that make you successful every day

-         Lesson #3 - Communicate with your clients and vendors quickly.  Let them know that you are still in business and intend to fulfill your obligations.  There often is  client empathy and understanding for about a week.  Then clients start to look to mitigate their risk by moving business-all or at least part of it-to another provider just to reduce their risk.   Keep them from defecting.  IF they don’t hear from you, then they’ll assume that risk is real in continuing to work with your firm..

-         Lesson #4 - Locate your advisors (accountant, insurance agent, banker, attorney) quickly and leverage their knowledge/expertise in the recovery.  These relationships should become PERSONAL…  you need to know your banker’s wife, husband, and children….  For accountant/bankers, questions like:  ”Should I do a 25% paycut?” (accountant/CPA), or “Will banks offer any forebearance in the interim?”

-         Lesson #5 – Be selfish with your time - everyone will want it, and you won’t have enough of it to go around.  Tend to your personal relationships and yourself.  Crisis will test you mentally, physically, and emotionally and you will need all of your strength and energy to survive it.

-         Lesson #6 - Get the facts - not things reported as fact by the media – before making any major life or business decisions.  Lots of false rumors will abound.  Filter information carefully.  Be as close to the information as possible – the further you are away from it, the less accurate it is.

-         Lesson #7 - Don’t consume too much media.  It will discourage you and take away from your focus.  Expect lots of inaccuracies in the news – see Lesson #8.

-         Lesson #8 - CASH is KING – even more so in a crisis.  Build up cash reserves.  Manage cash flow very wisely.  Be prepared for a 3 to 6 months cash flow crunch and figure out how to survive it.

-         Lesson #9 - Don’t count on ANY government assistance (FEMA assistance, SBA loans, or other federal/state assistance).  By the time you get it, if you get it, it may already be too late.

-         Lesson #10 - Keep a positive attitude - no matter how bad your situation – or you are done.  It’s the one thing that you have total control over and is critical for you to persevere.

-         Lesson #11 - Don’t expect things to be what they were before.  They won’t be the same.  Adapt, adjust, and keep moving.  It will never be “what it was before.” And don’t expect it to be.

Times of crisis test us in ways that we can never imagine.  It’s these times that makes us stronger and more determined.  Don’t let ANYTHING, not even a catastrophe, get in the way of reaching your goals and achieving success.

In further discussing the lessons Jude took away from the Katrina experience as an entrepreneur/business owner, here are some of Jude’s sentiments some three years out from ground zero:

Q: How are you entrepreneurs in New Orleans different after than before?

A: We’re smarter.  We had a chance to start from scratch, and can be anything we wanted to be (operationally).  When you lose everything, you have an opportunity to start all over again, and you can do it better the second time you build the house versus the first.  All of us have gotten smarter about who we want as clients, focusing on more profitable clients that fit the core value proposition of the company, versus taking on all comers.

Q: Has it permanently changed, or only temporarily changed your prioritization of work, family, and personal?

A: Jude said that one word was crucial on keeping balance…. “perspective.”  It’s all about perspective, keep proper perspective, and realizing that not everything may be as bad as you might think it is.  Put all things in perspective.   Events like Katrina [or the current economic crisis] create incredible stress.  Perspective is critical to subdue this stress.

Q: And “that which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”?

A: True.  But it’s an unfinished sentence.  The end of the sentence is “but leaves deep scars.”  Think about PTSS (Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome… Vietnam/Iraq…) Your life is turned upside down, you spend 3 years re-building it, and you always will fear that something will happen again.  “I cry a lot more.  Am much more empathetic… in a good way.   I believe the Katrina experience has allowed me to can connect to people better than before.”

In this past weekend’s New York Times, Tom Friedman’s op-ed article stomped a virtual foot at the stimulus bill’s omission of venture capital as a bailout category (www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22friedman.html ).   His point is pretty simple– “the losers clamoring for help” are upstaging the potential winners when it comes to subsidy and aid.  If We (the U.S. Government, which is indeed representative of not just Joe the plumber, but Bob the builder, Andy the accountant, Edward the entrepreneur and yes, Vic the venture capitalist), are going to offer Chrysler $20 billion, we should also offer a matching amount to the top 20 venture capitalists, a billion each, to invest in the most promising technologies and science they can find, and if any of those investments return profit, there is a profit share between the VC and the Federal Government.

If one of the goals is to create jobs, and another to foster competition, and a third to retain the U.S.’s status as leader in knowledge capital and innovation, this venture capital co-investment would go a long way to helping all three.  The government would be just another limited partner.  All those cynics who worry that venture capital might not invest it wisely need only look as far as the S&L bailout 15 years ago, or this past (and present) year’s Wall Street bailout, or the insurance bailout (AIG) for examples of venerable industries who screwed up.  Perhaps venture capital would be a better steward of our rebuilding efforts in this fashion than creating a “bad bank,” or nationalizing financial institutions.  And perhaps we could at the same time find new breakthroughs to ease our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce the potential for global warming.  Imagine that, it’s a two-for-one deal.  Now we’re talking.  I haven’t heard anything that sounded this good since the IPO window closed a year ago or more.  Oh, and about that IPO window.  Perhaps this could ease that problem too….

We wouldn’t be the first country to try this.  For years, England has had regional investment pools totaling more than £500M that get co-invested by venture capitalists to stimulate innovation in their  various regions  (British Midlands for example).  Singapore has done this as well through their sovereign wealth fund and related entities.

There’s a management adage that has become popular in the last several years.  It’s a twist on the old 80/20 rule.  In the past, managers ended up spending the vast majority of their time with those underperformers in their team.  The latest research and urgings by top management and leadership gurus like Marcus Buckingham (www.marcusbuckingham.com ) goades us managers to “cultivate employees’ strengths rather than simply improving their weaknesses” and in so doing, we  stand to dramatically increase efficiency while allowing for maximum personal growth and success.  In other words, invest 80% of your management efforts in your top 20% of high performers.

If this is true, why can’t government also adopt this principal?