[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]

Early in this decade, post-2000 recession, the mobile applications market had developed a reputational black eye– all sizzle, no steak.  The promise of revenues, followed by profits had not materialized, despite much venture capital investment in the mobile space.  The beginnings of GPS-enabled smart phones arrived, and slowly, the market started to deliver on it’s promise.  The confluence of GPS-enbabled location-based capabilities, the introduction of Apple’s iPhone that brought ease of use to the consumer masses, and the rise of Web 2.0 now leviathans like Facebook and Twittter finally brought the mobile market to a rolling boil in 2007 and 2008, just before the last U.S. economic recession.  What’s in store now that the economy seems to be thawing out, where is mobile headed next?

The challenge is getting the mobile landscape to stand still long enough to analyze it.  It changes. Often. And fast.  Domination of the mobile platform began with Palm early on, then to Blackberry, then Microsoft’s smart phone OS, only to be wrestled away by Apple’s iPhone, and most recently challenged by Google’s Android platform.  Word has it that at a recent developers’ conference, developers could join any of 3 breakout groups divided by OS development platform–  Apple, Android and Microsoft mobile OS.  The largest group assembled in the Android breakout room, second largest in the Apple room, and Microsoft’s audience was, well…. intimate.

So, in such a turbulent marketplace, what soothsayers to listen to for credible framing of the mobile future?  It turns out that it is none other than Mary Meeeker, newly minted venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins.  For those who were around for the initial rise of the Internet in the late 1990’s, Mary Meeker rose in parallel to the popularity of the Internet as star industry research analyst for Morgan Stanley covering the Internet sector.  I have a fond memory of watching Ms. Meeker work the stage, the audience, and the room at an Industry Standard conferene out at the Dana Point Ritz Carlton before the bubble burst.  I should have known that a private fireworks display better than Boston’s annual 4th of July extravaganza that was put on especially for conference attendees was a jump-the-shark moment for the Internet.

However, Ms. Meeker has never been light on analysis.  And her most recent run at foretelling the future of the mobile market sector is worth the read. She debuted it at the Google mobile conference in February.  Although long (56 slides), it’s worth the gray matter investment.  TechCrunch has reposted it, and highlighted what they felt the most impactful slides in the deck are.  Check it out.  Really good stuff.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/10/meeker-mobile-slides/

“]

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.

Each quarter we survey growth stage CEOs who are running innovation driven companies.  This quarter,  we had more than 60 CEOs responding.  CEOs were running companies in broadly defined technology (software, hardware, semiconductor, telecom), Internet (e-commerce, media, social, entertainment), medical devices, biotech, and cleantech / renewable energy sectors.

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 Q2 2010, titled “Impact of Economy and Renewed Growth”, go to http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/ceo-survey-results-q2-2010-%e2%80%93-impact-of-economy-renewed-growth/ .

ECONOMIC CLIMATE

The first set of questions was around the economic conditions in which each CEO felt s/he was operating.    One question we continue to ask and re-ask over the last six quarters or so targets the turbulence in the macro- economic climate.  It is interesting to compare CEO responses to the same question, “Do you anticipate a double dip in the near term future?”

* In Q3 2009, more than half  (54%) of CEOs polled were expecting a double dip, and planning accordingly

* In our Q2 2010 survey,  again 50% felt a second economic correction was likely, the biggest percentage of those CEOs believing it would be in either Q3 2010 or sometime in 2011.  The other half  of CEOs felt the specter of recession was behind them

* Currently in Q4 CEOs were consistent with prior quarters with a bit more than 50% indicating they didn’t feel a double dip was likely, and the other half of the CEOs saying either a 50/50 probability or greater (16% feeling more likely than not)

So less than 1 in 5 CEOs feel another economic dip is likely.  No CEOs selected the ” greater than 75%” probability.

It’s interesting to do a meta graph of the changing CEO sentiment on this question.  Surprisingly, the graph would be sloping downward, but not as much as many would hope.  The high point was certainly back in Q3 2009, but even throughout 2010, as many CEOs were fearful of a negative correction as those who felt it was behind us.  No doubt this “lack of confidence” index doesn’t inspire the CEO with a swashbuckling, damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead attitude toward growing their companies.  Rather, it makes CEOs think in short-term windows, perhaps 3 months at a time, with little appetite to make medium or long-term bets.

Those CEOs who felt another downturn was likey referenced several factors that might tip the scales negative–  gridlock in Congress due to midterm elections and likelihood that Democrats lose congressional majority, a belief that a bad Q4 holiday retail shopping was likely, and the persistent overhang of ongoing commercial and residential loan defaults.

As for when another economic dip might occur if it were to occur, the vast majority of CEOs pointed to Q1, 2011, with Q4 of this year and Q2 2011 tying for second at 18% each.

STRATEGY

Almost 50% of CEOs polled said that they had either made a shift in strategy in 2010, or were planning to in the near future.  Granted, growth-stage companies are prone to shifting strategy until they land upon the best formula for significant and sustainable growth.  However ~50% is a big number, and clearly a chunk of those companies have been driven to rethink their strategies because of the challenging economic climate, the concern over the future, and the possibility that 2010 might represent “the new normal” where with no economic “rising tide” no help generated to float all company boats as in periods of economic expansion in the past (1997-2000, 2005-2008, etc).

CASH FLOW

The majority of CEO survey respondents (49%) indicated that they were still planning on burning cash over the next 2 quarters.  24% indicated they would be profitable.  CEO comments regarding this question indicated an overwhelming drive toward cash flow break even.  That was the big push and focus for their companies in 2010, and if they hadn’t achieved it yet, they were gunning to by end of the first quarter of 2011.  CEOs also commented that they were trying to run their companies at break even, with any extra EBIT being reinvested back into the company for additional growth.

COST REDUCTION PLANS

When asked what were the top 3 areas CEOs were targeting for cost reduction, the following table summarizes their responses, representing a combination of spend reduction and staff reduction in non-core areas.  There was a preference by CEOs to favor non-staff cuts over cutting headcount if at all possible, but many acknowledged that in order to make meaningful cuts, staff had  to be considered in the equation.

CEO responses when asked about increasesin spend were logical.  The top three in order were sales, marketing, and R&D.  Many of the comments about this question noted the fact that outside of directly growing revenues, additional spend was hard to build in when many CEOs are driving toward a minimum cash-neutral mandate and economic uncertainties are driving CEOs to think conservatively rather than expansively.

[Click on "more" below for remaining 8 slides and narrative from Q4 2010 CEO survey]

RAISING CAPITAL

The largest segment of CEO survey respondents (40%) listed themselves as having raised capital in the last 12 months, and also planning on raising additional equity in the coming 12.  For those who indicated “other,” most of these CEOs had raised capital quite a while ago (2 or more years ago), were at cash flow positive, and some who were looking at liquidity event in the next few quarters, subject to market conditions.

OUTSOURCING & OFFSHORING

A quarter of CEOs surveyed responded that they were unlikely to ever use/need outsourcing or offshore resources to grow their businesses.

However, almost 70% of CEOs were using some combination of outsourced resources, whether domestic or offshore, full-time or project-based.  Those CEOs using domestic resources were the largest segment at 22%, while those with full-time offshore resources tallied at about 14%.  Nearly one in four CEOs had used contract (non-full-time) outsourced resources in the last 12 months.  A number of CEOs highlighted the fact that although they were users of offshore staff in some capacity, it was difficult to “get right,” and often the experience was less than positive early on in the relationship and took a great deal of work before CEOs could declare it truly accretive.

In answer to where global outsourced/offshore resources were being most utilized, manufacturing, product development, and customer service were the three biggest areas.  One in 5 CEOS (20%)  had already established an international sales presence located abroad.

GROWTH-COMPANY CLIMATE

Do CEOs feel it will be harder to grow companies in the future than in the recent past?  This is a question that many entrepreneurs who look to undertake a new venture (and venture capitalists looking to invest in them) are often quick to ask.

CEO responses were much more evenly distributed than one might think– slightly greater than a third of CEOs indicate “about the same” difficulty, a bit less than a third feel “somewhat more difficult,” and 27% indicating that they thought it would likely be “easier in the next 5 vs. the last 5 years.”  Many of the comments of CEOs responding “easier” pointed to the fact that advances in technology have allowed entrepreneurs to stand up companies for less cash and a lot faster than in years past.   Those CEOs who said it would be harder all pointed to the capital markets, and the medium-term challenges in both raising capital, and achieving liquidity.

DEBT LENDER APPETITE

CEOs were closely split on the question of whether debt has been harder, easier, or about the same to procure in the last few quarters.  37% indicated about the same,  33% responded that it feels worse, and 27% conceded that it appeared easier to get debt now than in the trailing 6 months or so.  However, CEOs commented that even if debt lending had stayed the same or improved slightly in the last six months, over the last year or two lenders have tightened up a great deal, and the lending climate today compared to 2008 is substantially worse.

FEDERAL POLICY IMPACTS

More than three-quarters of CEOs surveyed indicated that there was no impact on their companies due to  changes in federal policy, be it pending capital gains changes, mandatory healthcare, or potential tax increases.  Of those CEOs who did register an impact, the majority (10%) indicated that they would be offsetting any negative impact via headcount reduction.

CEO comments focused on the negative impact of rising healthcare costs as the biggest contributor to any decisions they were considering that were directly attributable to federal policy changes.

EQUITY INVESTOR APPETITE

CEO respondents reported that they saw equity investors as having become more bearish in their investing, with almost 37% holding that opinion.  In contrast, more than 25% of CEOs felt investors appear more willing to put money to work in the next two quarters than in recent past.  CEOs commented that investors don’t want to put money into B rounds, and the investing profile “is a barbell– 259,000 angels poured $17.6 billion into more than 57,000 startups last year, and there are a number of very well funded late-stage private equity firms looking to put $20-$40 million to work per opportunity. But almost nothing in between.”  Other comments indicated that even though investors may be more interested in putting their money to work, those same investors are squeezing valuations harder than ever and their expectations for return are increasingly difficult to meet as an operating CEO.

PRIMARY SURVEY INDUSTRY SECTORS

Of the 50+ CEOs who responded, 25% were running software companies, 16% cleantech, 15$ biotech, 10% interactive media/Internet, and 4% medical devices.  Much of the other 32% of CEO respondents were in the services sector across various industry sectors.

Location of the Companies Surveyed

The majority of responding CEOs were from the New England region (66%), 10% of CEOs’ companies were located in the Rocky Mountain region, with smaller numbers in Northern California (2%), Canada (4%) and the UK( 2%).

Registration is Now Open

4th Annual Benefit

VCs vs. Entrepreneurs – Davis Cup Challenge

Thursday, September 23, 2010
Longwood Grass Courts  /  2:00 – 7:30pm

Welcome Back!  BSG Team Ventures is proud to once again host the 4th 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.  Please click here to register!

For questions, please email Cristina Vieira Abramson at cvieira@bsgtv.com or call 617.784.4987

Agenda Overview

VCs vs. Entrepreneurs - Thursday, September 23, 2010

Format - Round Robin, Doubles

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

Location – Longwood Cricket Club, Chestnut Hill, MA

REGISTER

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.”

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]

One venture-backed CEO faced the challenge of a sense of creeping entitlement around having dinner served every night at the company.  It had become customary to provide engineering dinners to keep them on track and not leave the building.  It cost money (VC investor’s money) and the productivity gains were being questioned and balanced against real expense dollars.

What this CEO determined was that working hard in a start up was the price of admission for equity.  60 hours a week was expected.  What would earn merit-pay in the form of dinner?  They scheduled the meals for 9:30p for everyone in the company who was still there.  This removed the stigma of an engineering only benefit.  It also made sure that “real effort” was rewarded.  And it sure ended up generating significant cost savings since the number of employee dinner was demonstrably lower as a result of the dinner hour shift from early to late evening.

Perks Case Study C: The allure of the “exotic”

One CEO had seen a swelling food and beverage budget over several quarters.  Given that burn rate was still an issue, he decided he had to do something about it.  But what to do? If he cut the corporate gourmet lifestyle, he might lose employees, or start to hear grumbling about how the company “used to be generous to its hard working staff, but now seems more interested in penny-pinching.”   So, he devised a plan to attract a high-end coffee shop into the building in which the company was housed.  After landing a Starbucks down in the lobby, the food and beverage spend dropped precipitously, employees being lured away by what they perceived to be just a notch above what the company offered in its own pantry.

Perks Case Study Addendum (extra bonus points):

One CEO had determined that staying on plan or on schedule for technology companies is a chronic challenge.  At some point he decided to reward achievement with a champagne toast.  But it created a double-edged sword.  Once they truly scoped out the development schedule and locked in the Gantt Chart, the CEO would write it on the champagne bottle and have everyone on the team sign it.

Then on the date the goal or project was to be achieved the CEO opened the champagne no matter the outcome.  If team made the goal or were near it, it was a great celebration.  If the team missed, the champagne tasted like the worst thing you can imagine.  The CEO recounted that he even had one person refuse to drink it, stating that the thought of doing so was too distasteful!

The next time an opportunity for a champagne toast rolled around, the engineering team knew what was coming and they got much better planning and targeting their development goals.  The CEO mentioned that he still has many of the signed champagne bottles as mementos of past hard work and development team milestones but hit, and missed…..

***

Comments are welcome with other creative approaches to fueling the entrepreneurial engine.

What do they mean when they ask?  There’s actually a lot of nuance in the question-when are skills and experience most important to success in the role versus pure talent and aptitude?

• •    Just because a CEO is moving from one industry to another, does s/he lose his ability to successfully lead?
• •    If a VP Sales has been successful at one stage of company growth, can s/he take that same sales toolbox and be successful in another stage company, say either emerging-stage or mature-stage?
• •    Can a VP Engineering be equally effective managing in large companies and small?
• •    Do companies look for the same types of leadership in good economic cycles as well as bad?
• •    How does an executive’s move out of their wheelhouse of skills and experience impact their compensation and/or level in a new industry and company?

These questions are only a few of the factors that impact the answer.    The following discussion is aimed at trying to lend some clarity and context to question.

Let’s take a look at the hour-glass graph below to lay down some of these factors against our “expert or athlete” question:

1)     Level of management: The first factor is where an employee sits in the organizational chart.   In general, skills and experience are most critical at the “waist” of the hour-glass graph-mid-to-upper level management, starting at manager, through director- and VP-level.  At the top and bottom of the hour-glass, aptitude often ends up as the greater emphasis in “hireability.”  This may be fairly intuitive for many.

a.     Entry-level: When you first get out of school, employers often hire for a combination of attitude and intelligence and look for those who exhibit room to grow or “headroom.”   In fact, at entry-level, skills and experience for those roles are often a liability.  Employers may feel someone is overqualified, or a “flight risk” if that employee finds another better-paying and/or higher level position at another company.

b.     CEO-level: When you achieve P&L/CEO status, employers often will place more emphasis on the track record a CEO has in leading a company versus a tenured career history in a specific industry area.  Can a CEO move from rust-belt manufacturer to biotech?  Likely not.  However, there isn’t the same granularity of fit applied at the CEO-level as at the middle-management layer.  If a CEO has been broadly successful in in a number of software companies, it often becomes less important what type of software, or what industry vertical that software was developed for.  Certainly some screening is applied to industry, with some of the below more general industry characteristics takingi precedence-

i.      Experience in selling to similar customer base, B2B vs. B2C or government

ii.      Experience raising equity capital from venture capital or private equity

iii.      Experience creating exits for investors that have generated good returns for those investors

iv.      Experience taking a company from one industry into other industries, popularly referred to as “crossing the chasm”

c.     Mid-to-upper management:   Mid and upper management are where skills and experience over mere aptitude are often most sought after by employers.  Those who are hiring at this level will often even emphasize industry skills and experience above managerial experience, giving the edge to a candidate with industry-relevant background and a lesser degree of leadership experience, assuming that management is a learned skill and can be taught or picked up on the job.  Is this right?  That’s not the focus of our discussion here.  Rather, our goal here is to describe corporate hiring  norms from our observations.

[click more button below for rest of post]

2)     Stage of company:  Does stage of company impact whether you hire a best athlete or domain expert?  Common practice dictates that yes, the later stage more mature company can be successful hiring a “best athlete,” where a faster-growth company needs to hire a candidate with more domain experience relevant to that industry.  Why?  The theory goes like this-

a.     Fast-growth companies: The faster a company is moving and growing, the less time there is to cross-train an employee on anythng. This applies to all candidate characteristics: level of industry knowledge, stage of company experience, and management experience.  In fact, if a fast growth company needs a VP, if anything that company may want to over-hire, looking for an executive who has managed larger teams over broader geography because it’s only a matter of time before this fast-growth company will experience its next growth spurt, and hiring an executive who’s seen what’s around that corner before is priceless in order to smooth out the growing pains inherent to all fast-paced companies.

b.     Slowing-growth companies: As a company matures,  hiring in a “best athlete” may make a lot of sense.  First, there is time to train up the executive being hired on the domain areas in which he or she has little/no experience-industry, geography, etc.   Also, best-athlete executives often like to learn new things, and be in continual learning-mode.  If they can take their business athletic ability and learn a new sport/industry, it keeps them motivated, excited, fresh, and leaning into the role rather than what can be called “career-coasting,” where an executive is just doing the same thing for a different company-same industry, same title, same goals, etc.

3)     Large versus small companies: Similar to fast-growth versus mature companies above, common wisdom dictates that large companies can support the “best athlete” better.  Often, large companies have an established internal employee training group tasked with taking new and existing employees and helping to round them out, whether that be by offering management or leadership training, functional skills education, or industry knowledge and education.  Smaller companies rarely have this pre-existing infrastructure.  Yes, an executive can go outside the company for supplemental business education by taking courses offered by industry trade groups and universities. However, the fear by the employer is that it will take time, cost precious budget resources, and detract from the time an employee has to give to achieving critical company goals and objectives.

4)     Impact on hiring of macro-economic cycles:  It’s worth noting that the prevailing economic cycle creates another impact on whether a company may be willing to consider a best athlete versus a domain expert.   From our experience, in a growing economy companies are more willing to consider best athletes for the following two reasons:

a.     Supply/demand of domain experts-In a flourishing economy, demand for talent often outstrips supply.  We saw this in the Internet bubble where talent available was so scarse that it became a serious constraint on new company formation and venture creation.

b.     Cost of domain experts-as a growing economy impacts the supply-demand equation, this also drives up price.  Even if you can find the domain expert, it may simply be considered too expensive, and the company instead decides to take a “wean-and-train” approach to filling the need,  favoring the hire of a best athlete.

***

Related to the question of experience versus aptitude is how this may impact executive compensation and management level for the employee considering a change out of their area of domain expertise and into the new.

Below is a bull’s-eye diagram that represents what we believe to be the inverse relationship in play.  When an executive decides to change any of the following characteristics in their employer, they are likely to move out at least one ring:

• •    Impact of size of company on title/level: If an executive wants to move from a smaller company to a larger company and they were a VP at the smaller, they should expect that they will move out a managerial ring, from VP in a smaller company to a director-level or even manger-level title.
• •    Impact of industry shift on compensation: If an executive wants to move from one industry to another (say software and/or tech to cleantech / renewable energy), often this will have to come at the expense of a reduction in compensation. Of course, if this is a CEO candidate, compensation may be less impacted than if it’s a middle management employee.
• •    Impact of functional shift on compensation: If an executive wants to move from sales to marketing, or technology development to sales, or any of those to an operations-focused role, this too is likely to negatively impact compensation.

If you try to combine more than one shift above into two or more, expect that with each compounding factor you’re likely to move out another ring on the bull’s-eye.

Impact of industry & function shift on compensation & level

Senator Markey addresses the formal-wear only crowd at the JFK Library during Clean Energy Week in November.

An annual event in Boston punches up the fact that we have an incredible cleantech cluster-New England Clean Energy Council’s annual Green Tie Gala.

Although this event took place back during Clean Energy Week in November, I was reminded of it when out in Denver recently.  Denver has some great stuff going for it.  NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab), University of Colorado with multiple campuses in Denver and Boulder that have significant funding from both Federal and State agencies, and a history of technology oriented companies, albeit with a heavy emphasis on telecom (Qwest, Level 3).

However, what there isn’t as much of in Denver is what some call the “ecosystem.” Others call it the “cluster.” This is a body of people who hold different but overlapping responsibilities in the entrepreneurial ecosystem and whose fusion is its wellspring–

• Academics: These are those most often with the new disruptive technology or science breakthrough that serves as the seed of a new company
• Business entrepreneurs: those who have experience taking the seed of an idea, and building a company around it
• Investors: The first friends & family, then angel investors, and often venture capitalists or corporate strategic investors who pour money into these new ideas to fund the business entrepreneurs scale the disruptive idea
• Professional services providers: These are often the “connectors” in the ecosystem. They’re comprised of lawyers, accountants, executive search consultants, and start-up advisors. They act as the glue between the prior three categories, more often than not introducing one to another, supporting the growth of these companies with their area of specialty

[Footnote: If you compare Boston to Silicon Valley however, Boston is shallower in large technology and sciences companies that serve to spawn "runners" to new start-up companies.   The biotech industry is perhaps better in Boston at doing this than the pure technology industry in the last decade, with a growing base of larger biotech and pharma companies including Genzyme, Cubist, Biogen and Sepracor.  Medical devices companies also fair better in many ways to large tech, with Boston Scientific, ThermoFisher, and Perkin Elmer.  In technology hardware and software, beyond EMC, there are precious few large technology companies left in Massachusetts. ]

Details on the Gala?  This year’s Green Tie Gala was held at the JFK Memorial Library in Boston (last year was held at the Museum of Science).    There are many organizations in the innovation sector here in Massachusetts that have done a good job at galvanizing a broad cross section of constituents, including the Mass Biotech Council, as well as MITX (formerly MIMC), and the Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council, or TiE Boston (Indus Entrepreneurs).  However, we’ve had yet to participate in a gathering of any that approaches that of the cleantech cluster here in New England.

Senator Markey gave the opening address to punctuate the cocktail hour.  To a person it seemed, everyone knew everyone.  Yes there were a few outsiders (a small contingent from the UK had come over as part of a trade mission coordinated with Clean Energy Week in Massachusetts because of its target rich calendar), yet all of these were welcomed by the larger fold, and the gathering seemed to virtually breathe together as some sort of larger unified body, a cluster with so few degrees of separation that walking from group to group or table to table was akin to going back to your high school reunion…. You knew at least half those sitting at every table.  For those who have experienced the annual Nantucket Conference, it is this atmosphere if intimacy and familiarity that presides.

To cap the night off, venture capitalist Chuck McDermott of Rockport Capital led his band in an after-hours session that continued the beat of familiarity both given its leader as well as in its musical selection (Chuck stating that the band only plays “songs popularized before 1960″).

Chuck McDermott, leading cleantech venture capitalist at Rockport, moonlighting as 50's music band leader

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:

• “SPARK” = the novel ideas, innovations & discoveries that come out of the labs
  • + Create a centralized online portal for intellectual property created by the national labs. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has done this via their Massachusetts Technology Portal, http://www.masstechportal.org/.
• “FUEL” Funding resources for
  • + Create a www.grants.gov website, that clearly allows entrepreneurs the ability in a single location to see what grants are available for which to apply (SBIR, DARPA, ARPA-e, etc.).
  • + Create small “mini-grant” offering within the labs, that awards small amounts (between $50,000-250,000) to discoveries to help fund the next stage in proof-of-concept creation
  • + Create meaningful business competitions that galvanize scientists and business entrepreneurs to come together for a cause (great examples can be found with both The Ignite Clean Energy Competition (www.ignitecleanenergy.com ), and Clean Tech Open (www.cleantechopen.com )
• “OXYGEN” = the talent, teams, and professional ecosystem that is required to wrap around the “spark + fuel” to make the engine run.
  • + In addition to the current national laboratory scientists, technologists, and inventors there needs to be an institutionalized talent flow that includes:

§         The national labs equivalent of PhDs who currently work in universities under tenured professors.  These PhDs are the “free radicals” who are capable of taking some primary research breakthroughs through their subsequent next phases, focusing on improving the breakthrough beyond peer-reviewed publications in which professors announce them.  Also, these PhD-equivalents at times are capable of spinning out of the university setting with a newco that’s created around that innovation, as they are not already career-tracked as tenured professors in universities, or national lab scientists who have a relatively safe and secure position and more often than not don’t want risk leaving to pursue some much higher-risk venture.

§         Business-side talent.  These are the CEOs, marketing VPs, sales VPs, corporate development specialists, and VPs of Strategy, Operations, manufacturing, and engineering.   The subset of all of these business types who love the zero-stage venture, love entrepreneuring, discussing blue-sky opportunities, talking to the marketplace and potential customer segments to determine if a breakthrough could be harnessed into a product for various customer segments, and if it were, would the customer pay for it, how much, and how often.

§         Entrepreneurial Business Ecosystem. This is one of the last key elements.  Wherever you find a rich geographic region of serial entrepreneurs and innovation, they are always planted in soil that offers the nourishment and fertilizing properties essential to standing up new ideas in the form of new start-up companies.  These include the consultants and professional service providers who help the company-IP & corporate lawyers, accountants and CPAs, staffing agencies and executive search firms, commercial real estate advisors and investment bankers who are all critical catalysts to maturing the start-up idea.  The ecosystem also includes follow-on funding sources including well-organized angel investing groups, institutional venture capital investors, and industry associations that provide the virtual water cooler for much of the dialogue, introductions, and business ideation that is brought to bear at various stages of company growth.

The business element could be assembled in the form of an advisory board.  A good example of this can be seen in the structure of the MIT Deshpande Center, and the catalysts who are deputized by the Deshpande Center to work with the MIT lab professors (see http://web.mit.edu/deshpandecenter/catalyst.html )

§         Replanting/grafting: Ability to move an idea outside the labs in which they were discovered.  The ability to graft a discovery onto a team elsewhere.   Or house it in some sort of entrepreneurial “launch pad” or innovation Petri dish.  Could this look like an incubator, perhaps.  Although few if any incubators have succeeded.  One such here in Massachusetts, run as a for-profit private entity is the Cambridge Innovation Center (www.cictr.com ) which may prove a potential model.

§         More “conferences as mixers”:  the NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) just recently held it’s 22^nd annual conference out in Denver (http://cleanenergyforum.com/).  Holding more of these events with the right invitation list that would push together the sparks, oxygen, and fuel providers.  Perhaps hold them more than once a year, or in several different locations (West, Central, East) as a traveling road show of sorts.  The more frequently the “right” people meet together wrapped around a galvanizing theme, the more trust, openness and sharing/brainstorming becomes the norm rather than the exception.

At the minimum, the session demonstrated the interest and passion of both the private and public sectors to meet, share, explore, and innovate around federally funded cleantech commercialization.