“]

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.

The UK’s sustainable energy program is a public-private partnership at work.  And thus far, working well.

I recently had the opportunity to participate in what has become an annual “Cleantech Trade Mission” of Boston and New York cleantechers to the United Kingdom.    Our hosts?  The UK Trade & Investment team based here in the Northeast, part of the large mandate of the British Consulate  here in the U.S. to continue to put planks in the bridge between our two countries, especially when it comes to cleantech and sustainable energy solutions.

Although I joined midweek as was over there for a European-based executive search we were interviewing on, the group moved from North to South, starting on Monday up in Edinburgh, Scotland, then down through Newcastle, Cambridge, and ending with two days in London.

It was a comprehensive gathering of the UK cleantech ecosystem for an exchange of ideas and “show-and-tell” around the UK of their commitment to sustainability and cleantech thought leadership.   Our US band of cleantech brethren among others included investors from Rockport Capital and Kleiner Perkins.

There were  three notable differences between the UK and US surrounding renewable energy & cleantech:

1) Government superstructure like the Carbon Trust (keep in mind, the UK has cap-and-trade and the U.S. doesn’t) Cap & trade drives a true dynamic market in the UK while the US version is still mired in politics on Capitol Hill.  The UK succeeded in passing sweeping energy-related legislation in 2008 (http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/about-carbon-trust/pages/default.aspx ), and the result has been a fueling of the entrepreneurial engine in Britain to come up with new technologies, sciences, and Internet-driven efficiency and monitoring solutions to help drive adoption and integration of the new laws.

2) Landfills and methane is another interesting difference again brought about by the UK’s progressive legislation.  Britain is an island, and a small one at that compared to the U.S. (60+ million citizens, one fifth the size of the U.S.)   There is limited real estate for landfills, and one of the big offenders from landfill is methane gas.  A host of science-driven entrepreneurs have tackled what is referred to as anaerobic digesters (http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/anaerobic_digestion.pdf )

3) Massive investment in offshore wind generation capacity is the third area. It was truly remarkable the detail behind Britain’s likely ascendance to global leadership in offshore wind generation.   Historically, Scandinavia has held that claim.  However, with Britain’s aggressive 2020 goals, they’re going to no doubt lead in offshore wind expertise and GW installed base.

Some quick numbers related to the 2020 initiative:

* Capital expenditures:  £14 billion already spent in the last 5  years.

* £5.6 billion more in cap-ex planned for the next 5 years (keep in mind, this is a country with a population of ~ 62 million, about one fifth the size of the United States)

* Closure of 25% of traditional power stations (coal or other non-renewable sources)

* 25% of natural gas generated from UK sources

* Addition of 44GW of offshore wind power at distances up to 200km from shore, and in water depths down to 80m

Something like 40% of energy capacity is going to be wind, with a vast majority of that coming from offshore wind.  However, UK power generators like NationalGrid recognize that there needs to be a large redundancy due to the intermittent nature of wind as a resource.  NationalGrid is planning primary failover in the form of LNG and CCS capacity to power conventional generation, replacing virtually 100% of existing coal-fired plants with carbon-capture versions.  The best hope to reduce this reliance on traditional energy sources is to innovate a wind power storage solution that can be commercialized between now and the completion of the 2020 UK offshore wind initiative.

Britain is pioneering a number of other innovations, including a CO2 transportation network that transports CO2 for storage (think CO2 “pipeline”), taking a chunk of  the industrial complex’s CO2 emissions and capturing, storing and or repurposing it.

After all that cleantech knowledge transfer, what did the UK serve for dessert?  A cocktail party with London-based cleantech entrepreneurs and investors at Taylor Wessing’s offices on the top floor wrap-around patio on a gorgeous London summer evening (below was the mis en scene).

In addition, we had an opportunity to take a sneak peek from “The View, ”  an official viewing site of the 2012 Summer Olympic Park, at the top of an adjacent apartment building in East London that has impressively grown from a former area challenged by urban decay.   And the London Olympics stand to be the greenest one yet from what we were told, with prolific and cool sustainable innovation even built right into the very steps of the stadiums that use spectator energy expended in climbing up and down the stadium to power an LED lighting system.  One of their sustainability goals is to try to construct the Olympic venue with a net-zero carbon footprint.

Footnote:  Rob Dietel, Vice Consul, who heads the cleantech vertical for the British Consulate’s UK Trade & Investment New England office, is a terrific resource along with his colleague, Kevin McCarthy, also out of the Boston office.  Rebecca Lewis is  Rob’s New York-region counterpart. All three are bringing a select group of UK cleantech entrepreneurs to Boston and New York this Fall.  In addition, they’re planning on putting on a one-day “master class” of sorts showcasing UK offshore wind expertise here in the U.S.  Invitation-only, and for those who are lucky enough to get the invite, it should prove to be great content.  For more detail, Rob is at rob.dietel@fco.gov.uk.

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

]]> http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/aptitude-experience-important-hiring-equation/feed/ 0 http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/2009-green-tie-gala-brings-cleantech-community-jfk-library/ http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/2009-green-tie-gala-brings-cleantech-community-jfk-library/#comments Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:18:47 +0000 Clark Waterfall http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/?p=902

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

]]> http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/2009-green-tie-gala-brings-cleantech-community-jfk-library/feed/ 0 http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/experts-government-doe-brainstorm-ip-commercialization-improvements-boston/ http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/experts-government-doe-brainstorm-ip-commercialization-improvements-boston/#comments Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:01:46 +0000 Clark Waterfall http://www.bostonsearchgroup.com/blog/?p=906

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.

My itinerary?  Starting from home base of Boston, then to New York’s JFK, through London, with the ultimate destination– Singapore.  Total air time one way? 18 hours.  Total air and waiting in airport time one way? 24 hours.

What earned me the opportunity?  First, membership in the Entrepreneurs’ Organization (“EO,” www.eonetwork.org, formerly known as YEO, or Young Entrepreneurs’ Organization ) a global membership organization that is nearing 10,000 members across more than a 100 chapters.  EO is one of a group of leadership organizations, including YPO, WPO, CEO, and several others.  Qualifications for EO membership include annual revenues of $1 million or more, and either founder or majority ownership status in your business.

Hailing from the Boston chapter of 100 or so EO members made up of computer software and hardware entrepreneurs, legal and staffing professional services business owners, and a host of other small business founders  including franchising, travel, consulting, real estate, and medical devices, I was made aware of the strategic partnership between British Airways and the EO organization.  The following paragraph, detailing what a face-to-face opportunity would mean to the growth and expansion of our boutique retained executive search firm, BSG Team Ventures, was what I jotted down–

We have a presence in Boston, New York, Silicon Valley, and London. These are key global innovation centers. However, there is clearly a fifth and/or sixth  location to round out our client value proposition of “on the ground coverage in the key innovation centers in the world”– and those are India and Asia. Although there is a term sometimes used that combines the two (“Chindia”), we feel that there is perhaps a need to be able to service our growth-stage clients in each. One alternative is a meaningful position in a location like Singapore, which is equidistant from both these key innovation markets.

The ability to set up a series of meetings with potential partners, and then bring pre-meeting calls and video conferences to an in-person, face-to-face setting, would be extremely meaningful in taking our business from EU-American only, to truly global, capable of better servicing the needs of our clients who continue to demand the need to themselves expand globally.

I had been to Singapore and Hong Kong in 2008 on business, and knew that another trip there would allow us to cement some developing relationships “face-to-face.”  In 2008, we completed a VP Worldwide Sales search based out of Singapore, and are now working on another General Manager search based out of Tokyo for a leading global technology innovator.  And with the recession of 2008-2009 projected to recover in west-bound fashion this time (Asia first, Europe second, and the U.S. last), China, Japan, and the rest of the Asia-Pacific corridor is important to every business, both large or small like ours.

Having won the right to cash in the BA offer, a plane load of entrepreneurs amassed down at JFK airport in New York.  BA was everything they’ve built their reputation on-service-oriented and courteous, only as the British can be-with a send off in the first-class lounge that was rich in food, spirit(s), networking with other entrepreneurs, and a few humor-filled greetings speeches by both British Airways officials and the British government.   Example of the power-networking in the BA lounge? I met up with Morgen Newman, co-founder of IdeaPaint, another Boston-based start-up that was a BA travel recipient, with a company out of Babson (my alma mater so plugging here) that has formulated a special paint that can be applied on any work surface that then functions as a “whiteboard,” completely erasable when using dry-erase markers.  IdeaPaint is a tool for entrepreneurs that simply brilliant.  Most entrepreneurs are visual thinkers, and this now allows us to scribble on every surface…. (“Beware office cleaners-these walls aren’t “dirty”…. DO NOT ERASE!”)

My itinerary and goals for the trip looked like the following:

-          Tuesday:  Departure from JFK New York on flight into Heathrow, England, arriving at 9:30pm, with champagne reception at the end at the hip Sofitel Hotel in the new BA swanky Terminal 5.  “Bubbly” is the right term for a plane load of entrepreneurs bottled up for 5-hour trans-Atlantic flight….

-          Tuesday eve: Trip into London to stay at one of BSG Team Ventures’ partner’s flats, Simon Haworth, for early meetings the following morning

-          Wednesday morning: Meetings with an affiliated venture fund Dr. Haworth is a partner of, IPSO Ventures, focused on zero-stage technology transfer out of UK universities

-          Wednesday lunch: meeting with Simon and additional BSG Team Ventures staff in UK to review firm-wide global priorities

-          Wednesday dinner: Meeting with Sean Sean-Rogers, venture capitalist originally based in Boston with Commonwealth Ventures, then London with Benchmark Capital, and now out with his first cool media start-up venture fund of his own, called PROfounders Capital .

-          Wednesday late eve: Flight out of Heathrow to Singapore

-          Thurs eve: arrive in Singapore 13 hours later but given time zones crossed, a full calendar day later.  On way to hotel, bump into another fellow EO Boston chapter member, Warren Katz, who’s military software simulation company MAK Technologies based in Cambridge, MA was recently bought by a Singaporean company and where he had meetings completely unrelated to anything to do with EO, British Airways etc.  The probability of bumping into a fellow Bostonian and dear friend 9,500 miles and 15 hours away from home in the same hotel lobby in Singapore is….. rough math? Zero.  If anything proved Thomas Friedman’s claim that “the world is flat,” this certain did.  Serendipity works in strange ways.

-          Thurs late eve: After a run on the treadmill and a shower at the hotel to shake off the jet lag, meet-up with Warren at the hip Equinox Bar at the top of the SwissHotel in downtown Singapore for a nightcap on the 70^th floor overlooking the city (Warren holding porcelein statue of a lion, the symbol of Singapore, as proof of authenticity and handy memory jogger for old age).

-          Friday day: Meetings with the Singapore Economic Development Board regarding the state of the cleantech industry in Singapore, and the Ignite Clean Energy Competition I currently chair.  Potential partnership with Singapore on global cleantech competition expansion.  This was followed by three meetings with boutique retained executive search firms with a similar focus and specialization to our own firm.  Great meetings.  All three firms turned out to be potential partner-caliber opportunities.  And each of them had active retained executive recruiting practices that did search work in India, Singapore, Mainland China, Hong Kong and Korea.

-          Saturday:  Meeting with existing technology client who went public earlier in 2009 for lunch to discuss current and future expansion searches both in the U.S. and Asia

-          Sunday:  Originally, I had booked the trip to try to squeeze in one more business day by staying the weekend and leaving late Monday eve to allow for more business meetings.   However, once there, was greeted with the fact that Monday was a holiday, the end of Ramadan for the Muslim religion, and business was closed.  It’s a great example of Singapore as an Indo-Chinese melting pot not dissimilar to that of the United States.  However, in Singapore, it is a fusion of Chinese, Malay, and Indian cultures that co-exist and create not only incredible cuisine, but a vibrant cultural diversity where all three associated religions are celebrated and many languages spoken.   Moved from hotel in downtown Singapore out to a small island just 15 minutes out of the city called Sentosa, a former military base built by the British half a century ago to protect the island, now converted to a natural wildlife habitat and recreational weekend playground for Singaporeans with several resorts anchoring each end of the island, dotted with golf courses, tennis, beach, dolphin petting, and lots of beach and water sports.  Note to self-keep windows of hotel room closed….

Ran back into Singapore the city to do some late Sunday shopping, and again bumped into the cultural diversity of Singapore, with a street celebration capping off the end of a period in Chinese culture and I believe Tao religion that starts In May, and ends in September, often referred to as the “Moon Cake” festival.  This is a festival  and celebration on the streets of Singapore and many other parts of Chinese Asia I’m told that celebrates the return of all the ghosts to the underworld who each year are let out to roam the earth and make trouble for their living relatives.  At the end of September, these ghosts are all returned behind the gates to the underworld, rendering the earth safe again until the following May.  The Chinese celebrate with parades, demonstrations, the burning of special urns the night before on the streets, and the Chinese pastry called “Moon Cakes” made up of a bean paste with some sort of frosting over the top.

Below is a picture of several groups of Chinese children rehearsing before the start of the parade.  The boys were part of a martial arts school; not sure what the girls were part depicting.

All said and done,  in 4 business days the dash across the globe was a great opportunity, albeit an exhausting one.

Here’s to entrepreneurship and the pioneers in all facets of enterprise who take on the unknown every day, week, and month, in an effort to forge new business value.  Whether those pioneers are in the U.S., UK, Singapore, or India, we’re all very much the same, driven by a like urge to grow and nurture an emerging idea.  Hats off to the rest of that planeload of globe-trotting entrepreneurs.  Can’t wait to hear their stories no doubt more compelling and inspirational than mine….

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.  One of the big initial differences between causal and effectual reasoning is that causal reasoning demands a rigorous analysis before any test-marketing of a product begins.  MBA curricula herald that a best practice for starting a business is extensive market research before any products are actually offered up for public consumption.  Conversely, effectual reasoning relies on very early market and customer feedback to guide product development.  This interaction with the actual market and its users is a very iterative process.  Using this approach, at some point a clear path evolves, and one or more achievable goals (new products, services etc. that the customer likes) make themselves apparent.
At a deeper layer of analysis, Sarasvathy identifies three underlying principles at work in the process of effectual reasoning and how it is distinguished from the causal reasoning approach:

1.      While causal reasoning focuses on expected return, effectual reasoning emphasizes affordable loss. The key way to do this is to try to sell the product  before you’ve even made it.  See if you can get someone to buy something that doesn’t exist yet. “I will have “x” available in the near future, will you buy it?”  There is no sunk cost of manufacturing or development; a simple conditional close is used on a prospective customer.  If they say no, there is very little lost.  However, there is a lot gained regarding information, and perhaps a different product or service is articulated by the customer that they would buy.

2.      While causal reasoning depends upon competitive analyses, effectual reasoning is built upon strategic partnerships. Effectual reasoning dictates that once you find something a customer will buy, you then identify a few key players in that market, and establish deep strategic partnerships with them.  Make them premier or “flagship” customers, and dig into their further needs while selling them your first product to help refine, expand, and augment the value of your existing and future offerings.

3.      While causal reasoning urges the exploitation of pre-existing knowledge and prediction, effectual reasoning stresses the leveraging of contingencies. Sarasvathy puts it best, referring to it as “the ability to turn the unexpected into the profitable.”   One of the entrepreneurs she interviewed phrased it this way – “I always live by the motto of Ready-fire-aim.  I think if you spend too much time doing ready, aim-aim-aim-aim, you’re never gonna see all the good things that would happen if you actually start doing it and then aim.  And find out where your target is.”   It is similar to an old artillery approach to hitting a target. You would take your first shot, and then adjust the canon accordingly.  Causal reasoning on the other hand, tends to focus on the avoidance of surprises as much as possible.

Sarasvathy goes on to distill further the differences in the logic that underpins causal and effectual reasoning -

Causal reasoning is based on the  logic, To the extent that we can predict the future, we can control it.   Effectual reasoning, however, is based on the logic, To the extent that we can control the future, we do not need to predict it.

Sarasvathy gives several examples of how causal versus effectual reasoning might play out in different scenarios.  However, entrepreneurs all preferred to be in markets that were not predictable.  In unpredictable markets, the entrepreneur can shape the outcome rather than a predictable market where vast resources would be required to accurately render the predictive analytics required to succeed and win.  Business schools often teach the following mantra for sales:  you should sell either new products to existing markets, or existing products to new markets, but never sell new products to new markets.  For entrepreneurs however, effectual reasoning specifically targets new products for new markets.

Sarasvathy wraps up her research and results, concluding -

Entrepreneurs are entrepreneurial, as differentiated from managerial or strategic, because they think effectually; they believe in a yet-to-be-made future that can substantially be shaped by human action;  and they realize that to the extent that this human action can control the future, they need not expend energies trying to predict it.  In fact, to the extent that the future is shaped by human action, it is not much use trying to predict it – it is much more useful to understand and work with the people who are engaged in the decisions and actions that bring it into existence.

Also in her paper and of particular interest to our firm as executive recruiters, Sarasvathy makes the point that entrepreneurs –  whether the founders of a company, or those who join start-ups early in their existence –  need to feel emotional ownership in the goals and objectives of the start-up company and its mission, “…and can only be incentivized by the belief that the effects they create will embody their deepest passions and aspirations while enabling them to achieve their best potential.”  When we recruit executives for our clients, not only should they have the requisite resume experience with in the technology, medical devices, software, cleantech, or mobile, but we interview deeply against the less visible characteristics Sarasvathy refers to in her research.  We have adopted the term “eductive reasoning” for what Sarasvathy refers to as pattern recognition where patterns are not immediately obvious (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence).  When selecting an executive, resume is just the starting point, with thorough assessment of entrepreneurial DNA actually the more predictive of success in any given executive role in growth-stage companies.

###

Saras D. Sarasvathy is a member of the Strategy, Entrepreneurship and Ethics area and teaches courses in entrepreneurship and ethics in Darden’s MBA program. In addition, she teaches in the doctoral program and the research seminar on Markets in Human Hope. In 2007, Saras was named one of the top 18 entrepreneurship professors by Fortune Small Business Magazine.

Saras is a leading scholar on the cognitive basis for high-performance entrepreneurship and is the author of Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise (book overview). Effectuation is widely acclaimed as a rigorous framework for understanding the creation and growth of new organizations and markets. The research program based on effectuation involves over a dozen scholars from around the world whose published and working papers can be found at www.effectuation.org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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