[This is part 1 of a 3 part series on the evolution of leadership theory—the history, most recent thinking on the topic, and what to look for when trying to identify it, including a look at charisma, executive presence and their contributing roles to successful leadership]

___________________________________________________________

As retained executive search consultants, we are constantly interviewing and assessing executive talent for our clients.  After interviewing these candidates, our clients often reference key characteristics they found (or didn’t) in an executive that are not found in their resumes—charisma, executive presence, or other purported leadership behaviors that are generally thought to be important to success.

But clients continue to ask questions about these traits that sit in the invisible spectrum.  Is charisma an essential ingredient to leadership? If so, for all sizes and types of companies?  Are there other types of leadership where charisma isn’t present and are they successful and in what types of circumstances? What about management versus leadership?  How do we define the differences, and when is a manager better suited than a leader?  And what’s up with “executive presence”? Is that just another term for leadership, or is it different? How? Are these differences important?

All great questions.   And—although we won’t be able to answer them all here in appropriate depth and breadth—we’re going to try to lift the curtain a bit.

With the book and now movie, “Moneyball,” the question of what to look for and what to measure in picking leaders for organizations should be rethought.  In “Moneyball,” the fulcrum of the book is based on a different way of measuring the potential and future performance of pro baseball players.  In the book, the Oakland A’s general manager turned upside down what had been considered the gold standard for sports talent assessment by baseball scouts in favor of a much less obvious and intuitive set of statistics.   Pro baseball would never be the same.

So, adapting this concept, it’s worth reviewing some popular (mis)perceptions of what makes a leader.

First principles—What does an organization need: Leaders or Managers?

Leaders/leadership by its own definition indicates the following situational characteristics—

Where one is now is not where one should be.  Rather

1) One should “follow” someone or something to another place, in theory a “better place”

2) This “better place” is both NOT self-evident (convincing is required), AND

3) It requires effort to get there, and is not frictionless, calorie-free, or zero-cost.

Managers, on the other hand, are most often those who create efficient operating systems once the “better place” has been reached.

Charisma as an essential ingredient to successful leadership—True or False?

The world “charisma” comes from the Greek word for “gift.”  Charisma is better thought of as a skill that enhances leadership effectiveness by dint of a superior ability to influence others to change their initial positions, perspectives, or opinions.

I was first offered a deeper insight into the concept of charisma in leadership by the teachings of Rakesh Khurana, a professor at Harvard Business School.  Dr. Khurana has done extensive research and writing on the topic, from articles in Harvard Business Review (“Curse of the Superstar CEO”, HBR 2002, http://hbr.org/2002/09/the-curse-of-the-superstar-ceo/ar/1) to complete books on the topic (Searching for a Corporate Savior: The Irrational Quest for Charismatic CEOs http://www.amazon.com/Searching-Corporate-Savior-Irrational-Charismatic/dp/0691074372).  More popular business authors like Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, wrote about “Level 5 Leadership” and addressed charisma in relation to this “top leadership level.”  Collins has been quoted as saying, “Being charismatic and wrong is a bad combination,” and “I’d go so far as to say that [The Level 5 leaders Collins chronicled in the good-to-great success case studies in his book] were uncharismatic for the most part.”  (http://www.amazon.com/Good-Great-Companies-Leap-Others/dp/0066620996/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_0_0)

Regardless of good or bad use of charisma, there is still a great deal of additional research and writing on the topic.  Clearly we associate the effects of charisma with enhanced motivation, inspiration and intellectual stimulation it engenders in the listener.  But can it be taught?  One branch of research surrounds this argument.   If you read the works of Professor Robert House at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, he deconstructs “how” charisma works.  From House’s work, one could infer that charismatic behavior may be both “born in,” but also taught with enough study and practice (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/papers/674.pdf).

The Dangers of Charisma

What are the pitfalls of charisma in the corporate context?

• Charismatic executives tend to suppress individual thinking and leadership development in subordinate teams.  Leaders with charisma can create a culture of “followers,” rather than young, budding leaders and the next generation of a company’s executive team.  Narcissistic tendencies don’t allow others to flourish instead creating dominant monolithic thinking, “I don’t even argue with him anymore because I always lose.”

• This in turn leads to challenges for succession planning.  Often charismatic leaders leave a vacuum of next generation leaders, having created instead a strong set of followers.

• Life of the party isn’t always “engine of achievement.”  Charisma can be used to achieve personal goals as the primary objective, at the expense of organizational goals.  There is no question it is always best to have alignment of personal and organizational goals so that by achieving one, the other is also achieved.  However, this mandates that the charismatic leader be programmed to strive for a “win-win,” vs. a “win-lose.”   In fancy organizational behaviorist language, this ends up being the difference between those leaders who have “higher activity inhibition” and those who have lower levels.  If a leader has lower activity inhibition, they tend to seek win-lose outcomes with the “win” side being the individual over the organization.

What can the charismatic leader do to counteract negative repercussions?

The charismatic leader needs to ensure that they either surrounds themselves with others who have strong self-confidence and ideation, or that the charismatic leader makes a great deal of effort to cultivate an environment open to sharing other opinions, perspectives, and ideas rather than defaulting to “the charismatic boss.”

As referenced earlier, charisma is really more situationally valuable.  Typically, charisma is most valuable when change is the goal.  Innovation, revolution, new paradigm adoptions are the best projects for the charismatic toolbox.

Some popular examples of positively and negatively directed charisma include the following:

Good = Sir Ernest Shackleton, and the failed Antarctica expedition he saved | John F. Kennedy | Martin Luther King

Bad = Hitler |Jim Jones and the 909 deaths in the Jonestown massacre in 1978 where Jones as dogmatic cult leader got all his followers to commit mass suicide

A few additional interesting links to resources on charisma and leadership

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1996/01/15/207161/index.htm [lighter reading]

http://www.aom.pace.edu/amj/february2001/waldman.pdf [heavier reading]

Planning for executive staff additions or replacements seems to be higher on CEOs’ New Year’s resolutions again in 2011. Just a year ago, in December 2009 and January 2010, CEOs broke out of their executive hiring deep-freeze and search activity showed unprecedented momentum.  CEOs had been holding their breath for all of 2009, witnessing Wall Street carnage, plummeting consumer spending, and massive macro-economic uncertainty.  Just as consumers in the 2010 Christmas season finally decided to spend more,  boards of directors and CEOs are counting on better economic conditions in 2011 and executive hiring is again back on the corporate shopping list (see recent growth-stage CEO survey, Q4 2010, http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/q4-2010-ceo-survey-of-growth-stage-companies/)

So, what to be aware of when looking at executive talent acquisition this year?

Here are 5 tips:

1)     Candidate shelf-life is shorter than you think

Just as the warning on automobiles counsels that “objects in mirror are closer than they appear,” a similar mantra exists for talented executives.  Recession is a great retention tool, and has allowed many CEOs to keep their executives with little fear of their departure.  However, today’s market for executive talent is heating up.  We’ve read the articles about companies poaching Google talent, but this is not exclusively in Silicon Valley, or with the big tech behemoths.  Talented executives may be willing to consider a move, but they are savvier than ever, will look to try to identify several opportunities to evaluate in parallel, and pick the best perceived fit in a narrow time window.  Companies who in 2008 and 2009 had the luxury of interviewing twice as many candidates as normal due to temporary supply/demand imbalances no longer have that extra time on their side to interview more, or take longer to make decisions.  Candidate shelf-life is finite.  And the market window is shorter than we might think for any given talented executive.

2) Q1 2011 bonus payouts make candidate resignations difficult

Candidates may have a hard time giving notice in Q1 due to pending 2010 bonus payouts.   There are often 2 options—

a)     The finalist candidate will accept the new company’s offer, but won’t give their notice until after bonus checks have been cut (sometimes coming as late as February or early March)

b)     Finalist candidates will ask that their new companies include in the offer a signing bonus that helps to “keep them whole” on any bonuses they are walking away from.  This can quickly get expensive for the new employer, with numbers ranging from $50,000 or $100,000, to $.5M or more, depending upon the position, the compensation package, etc.

3) Relo has always been hard, but today’s real estate values make it much harder

Many executives are upside down in their residential real estate.  Again, this creates a two option decision for the new employer—

a)     Increase the boilerplate relocation package to include relief on any equity deficit the executive faces in selling in a down market.

b)     Be more flexible on where the executive can live.  Yes, there is no question that a best practice is to have the executive live within an easy drive of corporate HQ.  However, with ubiquitous email access in trains, planes, and automobiles, there is an every growing body of evidence that “local” isn’t the only choice for executive domicile.

4)  Equity is often no longer the great equalizer

When the public markets allowed IPOs more readily, and there was generally more liquidity for fast growth and mature companies alike, the tradition of 10-20% base salary increases  in moving from one company to another became subordinated to “how much stock/equity can I get?”  That popular refrain has been replaced by a much more pragmatic and balanced approach to executive compensation, where cash is again king.  Except in rare circumstances, executives want to have some of their incentive on a cash basis, balanced off with an equity upside. (for example of CEO Equity Compensation Calculator, see http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/ceo-equity-compensation-calculator/)

5) Executives know now more than ever what their peers earn

Whether it be due to frequently published executive compensation surveys, unprecedented numbers of databases providing comparables earnings info, or newly imposed Sarbanes-Oxley disclosure rules on public company executive compensation, executives are much more sophisticated about what their worth on the open market may be.  They also share much more readily with their peer group.  Employers in 2011 should be cognizant of this when crafting a package, and care should be taken to engage the executive in what they feel their worth is, and the data/information they are using to establish that value. (for example, see http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/venturebacked-executive-compensation-study-vp-levels-west-east/)

6)     [bonus tip] International is more important than ever in ‘11

Yes, China and India may both represent great offshoring opportunity and new revenue markets, however talent from these markets are an equally or more important asset.  Just sending US citizens abroad as ex-pats doesn’t cut it anymore.  Hiring foreign nationals with experiences in certain international target markets is key to breakout performance.  An Indian national with several years experience selling/managing in Asia is a wonderful combination of skills and experience critical in driving companies through the next level of global growth (for more, see http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/collision-course-between-executive-leadership-succession-and-global-demographic-trends-in-coming-decade/)

“]

Rob Day, Black Coral Capital | Michael Balmuth, Edison Ventures | Alexis Borisy, Third Rock Ventures

Once or twice a year we as a firm gather CEOs from the Boston innovation ecosystem to share thoughts amongst themselves.  Often, the format is lubricated by a panel to kick things off.  Always, the format is lubricated by an open bar and dinner.

 This Fall’s CEO gathering in early November brought together 50 or so CEOs around the topic of planning for 2011, and what to expect as a CEO. 

Whether early-stage venture, or mid-stage growth, investors are adopting a different approach to what they are looking for, how much they are putting to work, and what they expect to see as an end result.  This is proving true not just in the tech sector, but cleantech, medical device, and biotech.

 If CEOs are looking for more investment, whether growth equity, seed capital, or something in between, what are the “new normals” to think about going into 2011.  And if CEOs aren’t looking for money, but looking for exits, what are the expectations of investors in 2011 and beyond? 

 We assembled a panel of venture capital investors who all had raised new funds in the last year or so.  These investors also represented a different flavor than traditional venture capital.

 On the panel? 

• Michael Balmuth, General Partner, Edison Venture Fund
• Alexis Borisy, Partner, Third Rock Ventures
• Rob Day, Partner, Black Coral Capital

 What were the “new normals” CEOs and VCs talked about?

 Here are a few that got some air time:

2011 is likely to be an economic “ground hog year.”  The current economic cycle of “flat is the new up” is here to stay for the medium term;  In taking a flash vote of the room, the overwhelming majority felt that the economic conditions in which companies are being created are not going to change for the better any time soon.  Simply turning the calendar over from 2010 to 2011 is not likely to yield a more fertile or forgiving economic climate in which to grow innovation-stage companies.  In our recent survey  of growth-stage CEOsfor Q4 2010, we noted in a prior blog post that the vast majority of CEOs had already shifted their strategies or were planning to in the near future as a direct result of an expectation that 2011 might look a lot more like the end of 2009 or 2010 than ‘07 [see CEO survey pie chart below]

Seed rounds are becoming pervasive compared to prior quarters.  And these aren’t for Web 2.0 companies only.  CB Insights in their Q3 2010 summary demonstrated that this is a trend that is occurring in cleantech / greentech as well as healthcare IT.  All 3 investors on the panel agreed that seed funding makes sense.  Alexis Borisy, Partner at Third Rock Ventures, talked about their approach to seeding, saying that they tend to help start the companies, not just fund them, often taking an interim role on the executive team to incubate to a point of value inflection.  Michael Balmuth mentioned that although Edison Ventures doesn’t do “seed stage investing” per se, he loves to see companies that get seed rounds, as it often is an effort to drive toward profitability faster.  At that point, Edison may be more interested in a seed-funded company that achieves an early positive cash flow position than a typical heavily syndicated, multi-series venture-backed portfolio company.  Black Coral’s Rob Day added that he felt that investing in capital-efficient companies, even in the cleantech sector, was something he has advocated for a long time.  [see CB Insights graph of growth in seed round funding over last 5 trailing quarters, 2009-2010]

• As an asset class, venture funds have lost money for a while now.  Limited partner investors in venture capital and even private equity believe that they still have to invest in this asset class because it does make money during economic or industry sector bubble periods, and to invest once a bubble has been established would mean missing the upside.  During other times, LPs try their best to pick the funds that outperform their peers.

• Using investment banks to raise equity capital  should be done selectively.  If the industry is a small one, and the network is well established (like biotech investing Alexis pointed out), using an i-bank at an early stage is not the best idea.  However, in the cleantech sector where there are more total number of investors, they are internationally distributed, the industry is younger and less well-networked, and there is an imbalance in demand-supply (more money chasing fewer good deals), the investment banking solution may be just the right one.  One CEO, Larry Letteney of Second Wind in the cleantech sector, shared just such a recent positive experience in going out for their next round. 

• Seek out funds that have real capital to invest, preferably “fresh.”  Each of the three funds represented on the panel had all raised funds in the last twelve months or so.  But there are a lot of funds that are at the end of their last fund.  Many are unlikely to raise another fund.  Many investors are taking meetings, but setting the bar exceedingly high because they have only an investment or two left, and they don’t want to get caught making a bad one given the challenge in delivering returns to LPs in the most recent investing vintages.  There was also a “beware” comment about funds who are making seed round investments at the end of their funds.  They are more likely to do so, as it is an easier story to message an investment mulligan to LPs if you can just say, “It was just a small seed investment, so no biggie.”  Caution was also expressed that an investor at the end of a fund making a seed investment will be less likely to have additional capital to invest even if the company is doing well.

We hope to post a video snippet of the the VC-CEO dialogue for a flavor of the evening’s conversation in the near future.

Survey of 50 of the Fortune 500 companies reveals how long executive searches take, the average number of candidates interviewed,  how many of them actually get completed, and what percentage of those candidates are female or minority.

As executive search consultants, we often get asked a series of questions by our client companies surrounding the executive search process.  Many of these questions are driven at gathering market intelligence around our executive recruiting.   The aim?  To create some third-party benchmarks to help companies understand whether a search has gone about average, better than average, or (gulp) “below the mean.”  Keep in mind, these could be internally run searches done in the “DIY” fashion.  Or searches executed by in-house recruiting departments or human resources staff.

Historically, there has been precious little data generated by third-party sources with enough statistical heft to garner much credibility.

One of the sources that at least aims to collect good data is created by David Lord, who heads the Executive Search Information Services organization.  David is a veteran observer and analyst of the executive recruiting industry, and has run a roundtable of senior talent executives from Fortune 500 companies for the last 20 years or so.  For further information, see www.davidlord.com.  Some of the data that ESIS collects is via an annual survey of those senior human resources executives who participate in these roundtables.

For our clients, we often reference ESIS data when made available.  At our request, below is a data table we created from some of the information ESIS kindly provided that shows some longitudinal data over the last 4  years, 2006, 2008, and 2009.

Trends worthy of note?

Search completion times have come down by almost a month from near 5 months down to 3.5 months.  Good news for all, the company, the candidates, and the search firm.   It will be interesting to see if this flattens out, or jumps back up for 2010 due to tightening talent pool on the supply side as the economy began to pick back up this year.

Number of candidates interviewed per hire dropped from 6.5 to ~5.  This could be an indication of a company’s increasing confidence in what they’re looking for, or an indication of sense of urgency around key hiring to help companies as they struggled through a very tough 2009.

Female and minority hiring at the executive level has improved, but not as much as many would have thought. Women executives were hired 29% of the time in 2009 versus 23% in 2006.  Compared to the workforce percentages of women to men, this is still inversely proportioned.  Minorities have seen a nominal increase of 1% more hired over  the last 5 years, which–when considering rounding errors– is effectively no increase at all.

Search completion rates have remained flat, with 4 out 5 searches engaged getting completed. Over the last 5 years,  search completion rates have hovered around 80%.  This is reported by corporations only, so subject to different numbers search firms might proffer.

Retained executive search statistics, 2006-2009

For deeper data, please contact ESIS.

Additional footnotes worthy of note:

1) For some reason, executive search firms specializing in the financial services sectors and related areas often calculate their “days to complete” numbers counting only business days, excluding weekends and bank holidays.  This can often make comparing normative data a bit more troublesome

2) Days to completion numbers are calculated using the date of accepted offer of employment, not candidate start date/first day of work.  This is done because resignation periods vary widely and would undermine data integrity.

Should you hire a veteran or wean & train when building a growth-stage company?

[originally written for Mass High Tech]

In our role as executive search consultants for growth-stage companies, one of the questions that seems to continually vex the CEO is how best to build out their team.   This question often narrows to a discussion around whether it would be better to hire a senior level person first in each of the key functional roles in the organization chart, or rather to hire a more junior level person and hire at a higher level once the company has built up some “traction.” For our purposes, traction can be defined as any or all of a number of indicators, including revenue, funding, or product development milestones.

Short answer, “It depends…”

When asked this question, the CEOs and venture capitalists we talked to universally responded, “It depends….” So then the question became, “On what?”  The answers came back and included the following key variables to balance when trying to decide on whether to hire high or low when you first fill a key position in your early-stage venture—

• • Funding—Money is certainly a gaiting factor for most early-stage companies, and often the largest line item on the P&L is salaries & wages.  Putting in a leadership team too early all at cash compensation that runs north of $150,000 can certainly create a net-cash-burn that would rival the bubble days.   However, “talented people hire talented people,” says Lou Volpe, Managing General Partner of Kodiak Venture Partners.   And talent doesn’t necessarily mean ‘experienced.’ Talent alone is usually less expensive.”
• • Composition of the Incumbent Team— You need to have a balanced team.  Companies are often referred to as “engineering culture,” or sales, or finance-driven.  This speaks to an inherent imbalance in the leadership team.  Kodiak’s Volpe emphasized that, “you need to think of the entire picture, the entire team.  You need to have it balanced.  If you have too much strength in one function, you’ll be out-of balance and the company will suffer accordingly.”
• • Stage of Company— If too early-stage a company, it may be difficult to attract the world-class talent you need.   This conflicts to some extent with the current thinking today popularized by Jim Collins in his book, Good to Great.  In one of the areas Collins explored with the “great” companies he studied, he and his team learned that these companies focused on “getting the right people on the bus,” then deciding where they were going to drive it.  David Power, a Partner at Fidelity Ventures, qualified Collins’ observations, saying, “If you’re a charismatic enough leader, you might be able to get everyone on the bus BEFORE you start to drive, but every company doesn’t have that privilege, especially when young, and often capital-constrained/higher-risk.  You need to be able to give talented executives that you are seeking to attract some general direction, to be able to explain to a ‘hire-high’ A-player why the company and role should have great appeal to the candidate.”
• • Which Function It Is — There are certain functions in an early-stage company where hiring the best is critical early on.  One such critical area is hiring into the leadership roles responsible for the product development in the company—engineering in the case of technology product, or science in the case of biotechnology/life sciences.  CEO Tuan Ha-Ngoc  said that it was critical for Genpath’s success to get the best Chief Science Officer they could find, and they did.   One of the VC’s commented however that the finance function is a perfect example of where hiring low is often the right thing to do—the company only needs a part time finance person at its earliest stages, then a controller later on, and then if the company is looking to go public, a world class CFO.
• • Speed of Anticipated Growth— If the company is anticipated to grow slowly, it is possible that a person can grow in parallel with the company.  However, given the often-cannibalistic nature of technology and sciences companies, “slow” is often not an option due to fears of product obsolescence, time limits on patents, or pure competitive pressures.    Globespan’s David Fachetti put it clearly, saying, “Hire higher for fast growth companies.  The opportunity will grow into the people, rather than the people grow into the opportunity.  Talented and experienced executives will bring up the level of the opportunity to meet their needs, and in so doing will accelerate the company’s growth.”
• • Price point of Product /Service— Enterprise software or very expensive hardware sold into the C-levels within the Global 2000 may put pressure on the upside of the high/low spectrum.  Kodiak’s Lou Volpe feels that if price-points are high, it is likely the company will need more senior/experienced talent to get it to market.

Universal Truths

All those interviewed agreed on a number of best practices.  The one that stood out most is the need to hire what was referred to as “quality.” There are two primary axes on candidate qualifications briefly mentioned earlier—the first is quality or “talent,” and the second is experience.  If you hire someone with both, this defines the “hire high” approach.  If you hire someone with only quality, but less experience, it points to the “hire low” approach.

Hire quality

Those we spoke with also included several other must-have characteristics further define “quality.”  Fidelity Ventures’ David Power ticked off the first four:

• • Motivation
• • Intelligence
• • Integrity
• • Ability to produce results

Joel Rosen, veteran CEO and former venture capitalist  at Charles River Ventures added two more:

• • Passion about the business
• • Cultural fit with the rest of the team

One other CEO punctuated the list:

• • Work ethic

Though no doubt there are many more, these rose to the top of the list when trying to describe what “quality” in a hire looks like.

Hire experience

The other half of our working definition of “hiring high” we’ve termed earlier as “experience.”  David Fachetti at Globespan Capital articulated four key areas he probes to determine whether candidates he interviews have what he defines as experience:

1. 1. Lifecycle experience: prior experience at a similar stage of company development
2. 2. Domain experience:  prior experience in the same industry sector as the current company
3. 3. Functional experience: prior experience playing a similar functional role (marketing, sales, technology, finance, etc.)
4. 4. Relationships experience:  has the individual worked with others on the team before?

Don’t skimp when it comes to Leadership experience

One more key experience criterion, especially when “hiring high,” is leadership experience.  One CEO emphasized that, “experience and skills aren’t a surrogate for leadership.  If you’re going to be growing a team, you’ll fail without it.”

Determine where you need your best gene pool

Another common refrain was that–in an early stage company–there are at least three key roles where you want to hire high, rather than low.  Dave Fachetti, Principal at Globespan Capital Partners, summed it up, saying, “For a company to have a solid foundation for growth, bench strength needs to exist at the highest functional levels in technology (VP Engineering/CTO), sales, and the senior P&L role of CEO.  Scott Griffith, Zipcar CEO emphasized that each company can differ, so “get the strategy right, and THEN hire high into the key stress points of that strategy.”

One qualifier made by Genpath CEO Tuan Ha-Ngoc was the impact of the differences between technology companies and life sciences companies.  In pure technology companies, there is an additional emphasis on the importance of hiring a high level of experience into the position where the technology meets the customer, someone who has the pulse and understanding of the market into which the technology will be selling.    In life sciences, the pain of disease is more often self-evident, where technology can sometimes mistakenly be developed for technology’s sake, a “build it and they will come” approach.

Make sure executives can “zoom out and zoom in”

The individual has to be able to both lead a function and do the function.  In other words, if the decision is made to hire a VP Sales, that VP Sales has to be able to “carry the bag” and actually do the selling, as well as hire, train, motivate, and manage a sales force when the time comes.    Similarly, an early-stage VP Engineering should be able to code as well as architect early on, until more hands can be hired.  Early on at Yahoo!, the company determined that one of the key hiring criteria for any employee was that they could “zoom in and zoom out.”   Every new hire had to be able to think strategically at the 50,000 foot level, but also be able to go back to ground-zero and execute the strategy.   Zipcar’s Griffith—a licensed airplane pilot—added, “You have to be a pilot, willing to get under the plane and check all the equipment yourself, take off, navigate, AND safely land in order to get successfully from point of origin to destination.”

Biases & Cautions

Not surprisingly there were biases that had formed from the individual operating experiences of each CEO or VC with whom we talked.   And interestingly, despite these biases, many gave examples of a hiring circumstance that ran counter to their bias that worked out particularly well, or a hire that fit their bias that failed.   Following are some of the biases and cautions that stood out.

If you’re the CEO, don’t hire low in an area just because it’s your functional strength

There was a great deal of alignment on this issue, and it’s a chronic mistake the venture capitalists we talked to saw in their portfolio companies.   David Power at Fidelity Ventures elaborated saying that “If a CEO hires a weaker player into a function where that CEO has expertise, say the marketing function, the CEO ends up still managing marketing instead of doing what the CEO should be doing—running the company.  You want to hire at equal levels across the functional spectrum.”  Joel Rosen at Charles River Ventures added, “younger companies don’t have a lot of training infrastructure.  The company is running too fast to have the leeway to train much.  Although this isn’t a law of nature, the biggest gaiting factor to growth is often bandwidth, particularly that of the CEO.”

Don’t hire talent too late

Genpath CEO Tuan Ha-Ngoc put it simply and elegantly—“It is rare that the company fails because you hired high-caliber talent too early.  It’s usually that the company hired too late.”

If you hire high, think about assigning multiple roles

One of the ways you can often get top talent in early-stage companies is to offer multiple roles that will allow the higher-level executive an opportunity to stretch their wings.  Lou Volpe at Kodiak added, “If hiring a senior engineering executive early-on, think about giving them QA, support, and/or manufacturing, even product management.”

The probability of a successful high/low hire is predicated on the clarity of the task

Put another way, the murkier the goals, strategies, and tactics of a particular functional area, the more you will bias your hiring toward the high side of the spectrum of experience.  Conversely, if the responsibilities of the position are well defined and clear, a lower-hire might be just the right fit.  As EquipNet CEO Roger Gallo put it, “Is the hire going to be focused on fulfilling known initiatives,

or rather creating and forging entirely new ones?”

Think about making a “high-low sandwich”

To this point, no mention has been made of the obvious question when talking about whether to hire high or hire low—what about “hiring in the middle”?  Kodiak’s Lou Volpe admits a bias to a combination approach of hiring a low with a high—“Hire high, and then do a step function, and hire low.  In sales for example, hire the VP, and then hire one or two lower-level individual contributors, one or more of which can be step-up candidates into the middle role of manager or director further down the company development cycle.”

What about hiring high/low when it comes to hiring the CEO?

This question is complex enough to support itself as a single topic of discussion with the venture capitalists and CEOs we consulted.  However, Fidelity Ventures’ David Power listed three circumstances where hiring a step-up/“low” candidate into the CEO position can work—

1. 1. When a particular functional area is important to the stage of company growth (hiring a VP Sales or VP Marketing into the CEO position when the company is just entering its revenue stage)
2. 2. When continual technological innovation/engineering is inherent to an industry sector (hiring a VP Engineering or CTO into the CEO position because of the pressures for recurring and sustainable technology innovation)
3. 3. When you can get someone who is traditionally “out of reach” (hiring a superstar VP level candidate into the CEO position because a step-up is the only way you can attract that particular talent)

With all of the above thoughts on best practices regarding hiring for early-stage companies, an image formed to sum up some of the wisdom of the CEOs and VCs we consulted.   Perhaps it’s not too different from how many parents buy clothes for their fast growing child—you pick the color and the style, and then have them walk up the rack trying on increasingly larger sizes until the piece of clothing actually falls right off.  You then step it back one size, and buy that one.   It’s just small enough that it can be worn now, but it leaves plenty of room for future growth.

I have it on good authority that  June has been declared New England Innovation Month, per Scott Kirsner who has been tireless tender of the innovation flame here in New England for years now (http://www.boston.com/innovation).  See the growing list of June events at http://neinnovation.com.

In honor, a few thoughts follow on Innovation in New England.  First, a pointer to a related concept, called National Entrepreneurs’ Day to recognize what entrepreneurs do for this country.  It’s an idea sparked by a fellow New Englander, David Hauser, founder & CEO of successful tech start-up Grasshopper.  The date being requested of the Obama administration happens to be the first day of spring each year.  [Coincidence that the French word for “start up” also references the spring season–“jeune pousse,” loosely translated as “young sprout” or seedling).

See the video clip below for serious entrepreneurial inspiration, and the other link to add your John Hancock (yes, yet another famous New England innovator) to the virtual petition.

* Killer link for entrepreneurial inspiration– http://grasshopper.com/idea

* Link to petition– http://www.entrepreneursday.org/dh

Now, back to June’s month-long celebration of innovation.   Indeed, New England  has a storied innovation past.  However,   what may begin as a strength in our region can at times turn to weakness, the metaphorical double-edged sword.   I’ve penned a wish list of five ideas for innovation here in New England along that thematic refrain, akin to “innovation on innovation”:

• #1 “Coopetition” in New England to foster national visibility
  New Englanders are known for their fierce independence and self-reliance.  We needed this when we came over as settlers 300+ years ago and put our MacGyver-esque skills to the test to survive (note, MacGyver was no doubt was an Irish immigrant from good New England pioneering stock).  It’s been said that unless you can trace your lineage to the Mayflower, you’re still considered an outsider.  New England has never been known for leaving fresh-baked pies for the neighbor who just moved in next door.  In fact, at times, neighbors live next to neighbors for years without getting to know each other, all in the name of “independence” and a desire to not meddle in others’ affairs.  However, New England could benefit a great deal if we pulled together and collaborated just a wee bit more.  Example, Peter Rothstein, recently named Director of the New England Clean Energy Council, has been driving for both State and Federal government resources (Department of Energy and other), to fund the concept of a “Regional Consortium” that would bring together all the components of the cleantech ecosystem in New England in a thoughtful, harnessed approach.    The only way New England can achieve this national recognition (and funding) is via collaboration.  OK, just to prove to hardy New England stock, we’ll call it “coopetition” just to retain a bit the independence streak that runs so deep up here.

• #2 Greater sense for openness for new ideas/ways of doing things
  New England also has a wonderful sense of tradition—Mayflower, Plymouth Rock, the Boston Marathon, Red Sox, clam chowder… we’ve pioneered our fair share of “we were first to….” And “we have the oldest of….”  I’d like to see us bring back a bit more of the revolution versus  evolution.  A bit more General George Washington and Lexington/Concord derring-do, rather than what has grown to be our reputation as conservative  in all things “blue sky”-oriented.  Wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t have to wait for the imprimatur from an MIT lab or a Harvard Business School professor before we tried something new?  New Englanders are possessed with pedigree.  And until something has been anointed with pedigree pixie dust, an innovation often languishes in ignominy.

• #3 Be more “what you know” versus “who you know”:
  As an outgrowth of #1 and #2 above, New Englanders often suffer from an acute case of “who you know.”  This to some extent is a derivative of the circular logic involving #2 above on pedigree.   Despite our reputation as the nexus of sophistication and erudition, New England seems to grow more and more insular in letting outsiders into board rooms as well as bar rooms.  New England, despite being the original crucible of diverse cultures, has homogenized. Amazing ideas and innovations come from equally surprising and diverse sources.  One of the best examples of “what you know” is exemplified in one of my favorite recent Malcolm Gladwell articles in the New Yorker Magazine (dare we say also a New England masthead), chronicling a Silicon Valley entrepreneur from India who heretofore knew nothing about the sport of basketball, who—when tasked with coaching his daughter’s middle school basketball team—innovated game strategy to turn a weakness into a strength and a last place team into a near division winner (see http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/type-leaders-required-to-outpace-competitors-in-recovering-economy/ )

• #4 “Hold” vs. “Fold” or “Sold”
  OK, so I’m not pioneering this idea, but if imitation is the highest form of flattery, I’m a big fan of this growing mantra in the innovation community here in New England that goes like this.  Massachusetts used to have an incredible set of tech & science crown jewels:  in biotech, Genzyme, Biogen & Millennium Pharma.   In tech, companies in hardware and systems like Data General, Digital, Wang, 3COM, and Banyan Systems.  In software & Internet the likes of Lotus & Lycos.  However, over the years, these companies have either been sold or forced to fold.  One of the few remaining companies embracing the “hold” mentality is EMC, preferring to buy others than sell themselves out.  However, just one EMC, or even a handful more doesn’t make for a robust, sustainable innovation ecosystem.  Innovation can metaphorically be cast in the same light as combustion– that combination of spark, oxygen and fuel that powers innovation and drives creativity.  Spark is the new idea, fuel is the money provided from investors in the idea.  And oxygen is the people who take the idea and the money, the business-saavy entrepreneurs who partner as the steel to the innovator’s flint to spark the novel idea, tech innovation, or scientific breakthrough.  I wish we were making more oxygen in New England.  This type of oxygen only comes from the talent that grows up and makes small companies into big companies.  These bigger companies serve as a training ground for the next generation of entrepreneurs to cut their teeth, get their training, build their network.  These larger companies offer entrepreneurial training wheels.  When we sell companies too early, they never get the chance to develop a critical mass of next generation talent who can apprentice at the knee of others and with greater security to make mistakes without having each decision be a bet-the company-one that risks putting the company in mortal peril.  When there is no larger company safety net, fewer young talents practice jumping into the uncertainty of innovation acrobatics, often key experiences required to be able to drive younger companies to success later in their innovation careers.

• #5 Create a “Celebrate the student Week”
  I’ve always been in awe of many of the Asian countries who celebrate things that we in the U.S. might find odd.  I believe they have a day that celebrates children.  And a day that celebrates the elderly wise ones in their communities and cultures.  There is likely no region in the U.S. that has more undergraduate and graduate students than New England.  And these students are the equivalent to our regional “innovation fountain of youth.”  Undergrads, Masters students, PhDs, Post-docs, Fellows.    I wish we could celebrate them.  What better time to do it than during New England Innovation Month.  Make them feel welcome.  Give them social stature to counterbalance the grumblings around U-Haul vans that descend like locusts in late August, or parties that get a bit too raucous.   New England students should be lauded.  Perhaps a regional “student innovation awards” as capstone to this celebration.   OK, at minimum, a free scoop from yet another New England innovation legend, Ben & Jerry’s.  A  scoop of a new flavor in their honor, “College Cram Crunch.”

One of the many challenges for early-stage technology and science-driven companies revolves around compensation for founders.  When a start-up is created, how do those there at the beginning get compensated?  When there isn’t any cash in the bank yet, and there may be a period of time where products are in development, do founders get compensated, and if so, how?  When angel investors seed the company, what happens then? Founders usually will get cash compensation, but perhaps not at the same levels as when the company later gets venture capital funding.

We were asked by one of our clients to help determine appropriate compensation parameters for an angel-funded enterprise.  From this, there were clear norms that emerged–

Looking at a half-dozen angel-funded companies in the New England region (Boston, Massachusetts, New Hampshire), we assembled some data that helped inform the above mentioned principles.

Note that there are rarely more than 2 founders.  Therefore, two can initially split the equity 50/50, and even with significant dilution, still end up with a meaningful equity stake after either angel, venture capital rounds, or both.  If a higher number of co-founders split the equity pool, fully diluted equity stakes can dwindle to amounts that make it hard for those founders to retain meaningful upside in their enterprises at later growth stages.

Just food for thought for those who are creating new companies in today’s market conditions.

The Q2 2010 CEO survey has logged more than 50 respondents, so although additional responses may roll in, we’re posting the results in order to make the feedback to those who participated as timely as possible.   Additional responses are unlikely to skew the percentages significantly.

We at BSG Team Ventures periodically take the temperature of the markets we serve.  Below are the results.  This survey’s focus was on the economic recovery (is it indeed here, and if so, measured how?), and where CEOs are budgeting their spend in the 2010 recovery year.

A note on methodology.  We send these surveys only to those who fit the category (in this case, sitting CEOs or board member/founders of technology/science-driven growth-stage companies).    All responses were anonymous due to the web-based survey technology employed. The majority of respondents were in the United States, with the highest concentration on the East and West coasts (New York, Boston, and San Francisco/Silicon Valley areas).

For prior survey results from Q3 2009, titled “Strategy & Outpacing Your Competitors in the Recovery”, go to http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/3rd-quarter-innovation-ceo-survey-results-outpacing-competitors-recovery/.

The response to the first question clearly demonstrates that CEO sentiment versus our last survey has demonstrably shifted, with almost 75% of CEOs indicating that the economy has either bottomed out, or is recovering.

Similarly, for those growth-stage tech or sciences driven companies, when looking at revenues, more than 40% of CEOs reported that revenues were up from Q1 to Q2, with the largest percentage revenue increases in the 1-25% range.  Approximately 10% of CEOs reported revenue increases of 25% or more.

CEOs and executive leaders of innovation-stage companies often ask themselves what is the best approach to employee appreciation, productivity and retention.

We’ve all heard the stories around the lengths some venture capital-backed companies go in their efforts to service the needs of their employees.  What started as the water cooler and drip coffee pot, fast-growth companies have super-sized, continuing to up the employee pampering ante–  installing company-paid cappuccino machines and Kurig coffee makers with what appears to be an endless supply and variety of coffees and teas.  Keeping well-stocked office kitchen pantries with either favored junk food, healthy snack choices, or both.  Catering lunch, breakfast, dinner, sometimes all three meals plus a midnight snack that rivals food options found on luxe cruise liners.  Car valet services, onsite dry-cleaning pick-up/drop off, massages, yoga, concierge services, onsite daycare/nanny service, bring-your-pet-to-work options.  And on and on and on, the calories and comfort food arms race continues its grim march toward caffeine OD and adult-onset diabetes.

However, there’s a moral and dilemma CEOs often face when trying to strike the right balance of perks and austerity.

The argument for pampering:  In the new knowledge-worker driven economy, there is often precious little machinery or automation.  So every time an employee walks out the door to Starbucks, Dunkin’ Donuts, the sandwich shop, or the drycleaner, the corporate engine slows down a notch.  Therefore, the logic emerges that if you can remove all interruptions for employees, you’ll get far more in productivity out of them than junk food and pampering you put in to them.

The argument against:   It’s expensive.  It creates a sense of entitlement in employees.  It creates a false sense of prosperity in a company that may be pre-revenue and in need of several more rounds of funding before it can stand on it’s own two financial legs.

Some might say that economic recessions pound the potential for excess back to square one.   OK, so perks have slowed down a bit after each economic set-back in the last decade, starting with the Internet bubble bursting and post-Y2K malaise, the aftermath of 9/11 on the U.S. economy and, most recently, the banking sector melt-down.  However, after each setback it seems a new “floor” gets set that’s just a bit tonier than the last one.

So how do CEOs handle this arms race in employee perks you ask?

Below are a few lessons learned and secrets shared by a number of CEOs who know a bit about the word “value” in serving up employee perks-

Perks Case Study A: Intra-office “micropreneurship.” The secret of the concession license

One venture-backed CEO wanted to offer some of the perks, but not all when it came to stocking the pantry.    So, rather than facing an all-or-nothing approach, the CEO decided that a business principle was in play that could be exploited in a win-win-win fashion–  what the company had as an asset was the equivalent of a monopoly.  He reasoned that employees were a captive audience.  If the CEO offered the “vendor concession” contract to an aspiring employee who wanted to make a few bucks, the company would offer exclusive stocking/inventory rights to that employee to stock the pantry.  However, in trade, the employee had to agree to offer below-market pricing on food and beverages, and also manage the “SKU requests” that the employees would log from time to time regarding food selection and preferences.  His formula in a nutshell looked like this:

-          win for employees-as the got a below market food and beverage offering, the equivalent of a “company subsidized” pantry offering

-          win for the “intra-preneur”-who was given the food concession to run, and could make a few extra bucks running the business

-          win for the company-the company didn’t have to provide all the food gratis, nor had the headache of fielding all the requests from employees

Perks Case Study B:  Serving dinner not as an entitlement, but only to the truly meritorious

[click more button below for rest of post]

More…