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

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.”

We periodically survey the CEOs in our network on topics we feel are relevant to aggregate information around and rediseminate.

Below is our Q2 2010 CEO Survey.  Please participate, and we’ll share the results back with you once the survey closes in the next week or so.

Click on “Take my survey” below.  It won’t take more than a few minutes for mere mortal CEOs.  But, as you’re more the superhero CEO type, it will no doubt take you a fraction of that time to complete.

To see the results from our last survey, titled “Outpacing Competitors in the Recovery”, go to http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/3rd-quarter-innovation-ceo-survey-results-outpacing-competitors-recovery/

When It’s Time to Replace a CEO

During a moment in recruiting history when most executive search professionals are suffering, our practice in for-profit education has been thriving. Part of the reason is what I call ” board fatigue”–PE or VC partners and other board members who’ve grown impatient with the CEO of a portfolio company. In some cases their dissatisfaction is known to the CEO; in others, for various reasons (such as accreditation issues in the postsecondary education market), the board has chosen to conceal its desire for change, even from the sitting CEO.

The call to me typically begins, “We’re thinking of replacing a CEO. But we need this to be done in confidence. Can you do it and still be effective?” The answer, of course, is, “Yes, but first give me one good reason why you don’t sit down with your CEO and discuss why the change is needed.”

Answers vary, but the most common is, “We don’t want to lose momentum or cause uncertainly within the company,” i.e., “We’re afraid that news the CEO is being replaced might affect morale and revenues.”

This may be true, of course, but before embarking on a sub rosa search for a replacement, consider these issues–

•    Are you sure the situation cannot be resolved without the CEO being deposed? Have you tried everything to turn him/her around? Is the problem focused on a few concerns–work ethic, slow decision making, failure to address a single overriding market challenge, etc.–or is it overall leadership?

•    Are there intermediate steps you might take to at least put the CEO on notice? “Probation”? Come to Jesus? Sabbatical? Revisiting compensation?

•    Could the problem be resolved by bringing in the right support, e.g., a COO or new CFO?

•   Could the CEO be moved into a different to position, allowing you to bring someone in above him/her? Would your CEO accept demotion to President and COO, for example? Could the CEO be moved into a Chairman role?

•    How can you present the decision to replace in such a way that the CEO sees the wisdom in your decision? Obviously the CEO has a financial stake in the company’s success. Might it be that he or she will be relieved? See this as a win-win?

•    How valuable could the CEO be in the process to find the replacement? Do you want him/her to play an active role, and would s/he be effective in this role, if properly motivated?

•    What are the risks if word gets back that a search is being conducted for a new CEO?

•    What are the risks that a disgruntled CEO could sabotage the search process? Agree to participate in interviewing, then blow candidates out of the water?

•    What effect will conducting the search in confidence have on the overall quantity and quality of candidates? On your ability to secure the best among these?

•    How and when do you expect to inform the CEO what’s going on?

•    What role will the departed CEO have in the transition process once the new CEO is named?

click here for more 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…

One of the questions we as executive recruiters often get asked  is the trade-off between experience and aptitude.   Both sides of the equation are prone to asking it, clients and executive candidates alike.  Sometimes this teeter-totter is referred to as “domain expert versus best athlete.”

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]

More…

Our client is tearing down the walls of the pixel landscape.  The Company has developed proprietary breakthrough software that functions as a pixels operating system, moving video display from one source projecting one visual, to infinite sources projecting virtually unlimited visuals.  And all of this is at a pixel-density that can go beyond high-definition quality, at commodity projection device cost, with no manual calibration or image “stitching” required.  The Company’’s technology is used in various applications ranging from simulation and training to museum displays and digital signage.  The company serves corporate, government, and academic organizations.

Market Opportunity

Industry Outlook (software-enabled displays):

• •    Visual simulation and Large Venue Display – $1.4B and $22.2B
• •    Growing rapidly – 14.1% and 23.3% CAGR
• •    Incumbent companies expensive, inflexible, and manually aligned – the bottleneck to widespread use of advanced display
• •    Commercial public venue display increased from $16.5B to $22.2B from 2005-2007
• •    iSuppli (major research firm) predicts $51B by 2011
• •    Multiple options for use: API for large, seamless displays and computing clusters with over 6xHD resolutions displays; or seamless displays up to 6xHD with no application integration.

A single Company server can calibrate multiple displays and is not limited by projection hardware type or resolution.

The Position

The CEO’s core responsibilities will include:

Marketing direction:

Marketing strategy & product marketing– Establishing a short and long-term business direction the drives the company to become an industry leader and maximize the penetration of the markets served.

Business development, including channel sales, OEM & relationships, and all distribution agreements

Operations– Product delivery, deployment, fulfillment and post-sales customer relationship management.

Manufacturing & Operations:

Oversight of manufacturing and production teams responsible for commercializing the technology, establishing build/buy/outsource decisions, etcetera. Working with the rest of the team, oversight of quality assurance, working with the CTO to ensure that product development meets various international multi-regional market-driven specifications and is “rolled out” smoothly and on schedule.

Staff- team building, development, mentorship:  The CEO is responsible for human capital planning and hiring.  As important, the position will actively be responsible for developing new and existing staff to help prepare them for company growth and increased leadership responsibilities at all levels.  Finally, the new CEO will serve as leader and mentor to the founding team and as a complement to their existing skills.

Investors/shareholders & board - milestone management, follow-on fundraising, liquidity strategy: The new CEO is primary liaison to the board and will aggressively manage milestone deliverables, be a key contributor at board meetings and to board/investor communications.  The CEO will be responsible for developing and managing against an annual operating plan and in addition to possible follow-on fundraising, will be accountable for optimizing the harvest for all shareholders.

Ideal Candidate Profile

The diagram below illustrates the intersection of competencies critical in the new CEO:

Compensation

Compensation is competitive with the position’s requirements.  In a performance-based environment, this will include base salary, milestone/incentive bonus structure, and a stakeholder position in the company.

We’re often asked how to establish fair market compensation when it comes to CEOs of privately held companies, often with venture capital or private equity backing.

Below is one method that can be employed as a jumping off point for this calculus:

1)     “De-risked,” how much is a CEO worth?  Is  $500 -$1M a year too much?  For our purposes here, we’re talking about a talented CEO.  Not someone below average, but above the average, one that a retained executive search firm, venture or private equity investor, or board of directors would be proud to put in the role.   Rather than pick some arbitrary number, this should be  ”market set,” by looking at what someone working for any global 2000 company (i.e. General Electric or other similar) earns annually.  From our executive search experience and database of compensation comparables in these companies, base salary is usually between 250K and 400K, depending upon how big the divisional P&L responsibility is, there is usually a bonus that is between 50-100% of base, and an LTIP (long term incentive plan) that-once partial vesting begins-can generate from 100K up to 250K or more a year in cash.

2)     So, the cash component of a comparable, including average base, annual average bonus, and yearly LTIP pay-out looks something like this:

Base ~ 300K

Bonus ~250K

LTIP (cash only) ~ 200K

TOTAL: 750K

* This does not include any meaningful RSUs (restricted stock units) that are usually also part of that package, which could add another 200K or more per year in value to a general manager’s package with true P&L responsibility for their division, group, or sector/segment.

* This is also not indexed to geography/cost of living.  If the position is in New York City tri-state area (New York, northern New Jersey, southern Connecticut), San Francisco, Boston, London, Singapore, Hong Kong, or Tokyo, a multiplier factor needs to be used to level-set for cost of living increase required for those metropolitan areas.

3)      Now, back out the cash portion of a CEO’s compensation for the company that they’re stepping into (say 250K a year in cash in smaller companies as all base, or combination of base + cash bonus).  So you’re left with say 500K that needs to be made up in equity, on a per anum basis.

4)      Over how many years is the liquidity horizon (and/or vesting rate, 3, 4 ,5 years)? Let’s say it’s 4 years, at net 500K, equals ~$2 million

5)      Now, this is with ZERO beta risk factor.  Add back the beta risk of an earlier stage company.  Let’s assume a global 200 company equals “1.”  A CEO role in a privately held, externally backed company is not “1″.  It’s probably a multiplier of 1.5, or 2.  For a pre-revenue, VC-backed company with high burn rate, it could be as much as in the 3 to 5 range.  Note that any illiquid company is inherently risky in terms of cashing in any equity at a reasonable price.  Let’s pick a beta risk multiplier of 2.5 times riskier than “average.” So, 2M * 2.5 = 5M.  Note that when there are preferences for the investors that create an exit hurdle rate before any common shareholders get paid, beta risk goes up accordingly unless the CEO participates in any exit event via cash carve out or other instrument.   As mentioned above, a recent IPO that represents a reasonable market comparable netted a CEO who joined the company 4 years ago $20M.  Using this number, the CEO’s compensation was $5M a year, or a beta multiplier of approximately 5.

6)     Then, are there any combat pay provisions you need to add in (warts that a CEO or executive team member is required to overcome and vanquish in their role that are above and beyond the normal call of duty)-reconstituting the executive team, or raising an outside round of capital because existing investors are tapped out, or starting up an Asia manufacturing capability that will require the CEO to take a dozen 15-hour flights one-way to get up and running.

7)      Finally, you have to look at what likely dilution there is going to be to an initial options grant for the CEO.  If you start with a 6% stake in an early stage company in a Series A funding, and you then raise a series B and C, depending upon valuation for those rounds, the CEO will likely end up below 3% as a “fully diluted” stakeholder.  There is an argument to be made that any of the management team critical to the success of the company will be “topped off” at later funding events in order to keep them motivated.  However, there is no guarantee that this happens.  It’s only good business sense to do it.  For the CEO, it is more important what s/he ends up with, not how much with which they start.

8)     Add water, and stir…

Notes & disclaimers:

• * This is not intended to be biased in any direction, to any party, neither CEO candidate, nor company and/or investor.
• * This is only one way of calculating compensation, indeed there are many others.
• * There is no way an earl- stage emerging/growth company will be able to compensate a CEO in all cash, nor truly be able to offset the risks inherent in this stage of venture.  The CEO either accepts this, or is not truly capable of working successfully in this milieu.
• * Other than the impact of cost of living  adjustments to base compensation, each CEO candidate comes with what we refer to as their own subjective “keep the lights on” cash needs.  We calculate this simply as the amount of cash required on a yearly basis to cover their living/family obligations without having to write checks out of savings to cover it.  Some CEO candidates may have 3 children in private school or college, while others may have no children and no mortgage.  Cash needs therefore may range widely, and need to be adjusted for using equity as a “leveler” (less cash-needy, higher the equity, and vice versa)
• * Alternatives to paying bonuses in cash might be to pay bonuses in equity, upon achievement of key milestones for the company
• * This same calculus can be applied to the Vice President level as well, subject to appropriate adjustments downward in cash and equity
• * In a circumstance where there is a “turn-around” required, equity may not be enough of a certainly to attract a competent CEO for the challenge ahead.  In these circumstances, a cash carve-out may be warranted in addition and/or in substitution for a stakeholder role.  The cash carve-out may be just for the CEO, or for the key management team required to achieve the turn-around.  Often, the cash-carve out structure is a percentage of total sale price over a certain amount, with the possibility for an accelerator depending upon exit/liquidity circumstances/outcome.
• * Often the question of anti-dilution comes up in an effort to assure a CEO of a certain percentage of equity upon liquidity.  Granting 5% equity to a CEO at a Series A financing with anti-dilution would ensure that the CEO retained his or her stake across the growth and additional funding needs of the company.  However, this is rarely a good mechanism, as the CEO becomes less interested in new company valuations at subsequent funding events, and becomes misaligned with the company’s investors.

There’s a lot written about the entrepreneur, entrepreneurship, and what ingredients make for success over failure in the industry of business venturing.  Much of it is pretty shallow, pop psych fodder, meant to be read in a short trip to the commode, and disposed of similarly.

Books like Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers takes a much more thoughtful approach, one of myth-busting versus myth-making.

Another similarly thoughtful deconstruction of entrepreneurship was brought to my attention via Babson College’s new president, Len Schlesinger, and his efforts to better match entrepreneurship’s leading institution for  higher education and its curriculum with a more effective toolbox for start-up success [full disclosure, Babson is my MBA alma mater].

Dr. Saras Sarasvathy, Professor at the Darden Graduate School of Business, is the author of this piece, written back in the dark corners of the 2001 post-Bubble recession, when entrepreneurship was the worst nightmare of those smart enough to avoid its allure while clinging to safety in their day jobs.    The full piece can be found at www.effectuation.org/ftp/effectua.pdf.

As a foundation for the suppositions Sarasvathy makes in her article, she interviewed 30 founders of U.S. companies ranging in size from $200M to $6.5B across the spectrum of industries.  She also had them each tackle the same case study to see how each founder approached the problem-solving required.  Her goal was to try to determine whether there was a common denominator in the way entrepreneurs thought, and if so, could it be distilled to several core nuggets of “teaching wisdom” to help aspiring entrepreneurs.

After Sarasvathy completed her interviews, she transcribed the tapes in search of a common set of principles each entrepreneur operated from in problem-solving.  Sarasvathy strings the principles she identified together into what she terms “effectual reasoning” of the entrepreneur.  Effectual reasoning is a different approach to problem solving than what is used in large corporations, or already successful and established enterprises.  She refers to the mature company’s approach to problem solving as the inverse, or predictive, “causal reasoning” -

Causal rationality begins with a pre-determined goal and a given set of means, and seeks to identify the optimal – fastest, cheapest, most efficient, etc. – alternative to achieve the given goal.

However, effectual reasoning takes a very different approach, and the metaphor Sarasvathy uses paints an evocative image of the difference-

It does not begin with a specific goal.  Instead, it begins with a given set of means and allows goals to emerge contingently over time from the varied imagination and diverse aspirations of the founders and the people they interact with. While causal thinkers are like great generals seeking to conquer fertile lands (Genghis Khan conquering two thirds of the known world), effectual thinkers are like explorers setting out on voyages into uncharted waters (Columbus discovering the new world).

Sarasvathy identified that there is no question that creativity is the cornerstone of effectual reasoning.  Another metaphor she uses is that of cooking – a chef given a recipe, versus a chef given the ingredients.  The chef given the recipe can go out and shop for what they need, compare cost versus quality versus convenience given the time allowed to prepare the meal, and create a very “causal” approach to the preparation.  However, the chef given the ingredients must use his or her creativity and invent a dish out of a combination of what raw materials they were given, and the background and experience they have had in cooking across their career.  Sarasvathy refers to this creative chef as having three categories of means:

1.      Who they are – their traits, tastes and abilities

2.      What they know – their education, training, expertise, and experience; and

3.      Whom they know – their social and professional networks.

From these means, they start to cook up their idea, be it a product, service or invention.  More…