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

___________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dangers of Charisma

What are the pitfalls of charisma in the corporate context?

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

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

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

What can the charismatic leader do to counteract negative repercussions?

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

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

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

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

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

A few additional interesting links to resources on charisma and leadership

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

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

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.

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…

Location:         Mountain View, CA. USA.
Website:          www.google.com

Head of Product Management

Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.
In September of 1998, Larry Page and Sergey Brin set up their first workspace in Susan Wojcicki’s garage in Palo Alto, and over the last 10 years Google grew to being one of the world’s best known companies. Susan was employee number 18, and currently is responsible for managing Google’s monetization and measurement platform products including AdWords, AdSense and Google Analytics.

One of the most visible members of the senior management team is Marissa Mayer. Hired as employee number 20 and the first female engineer after receiving her Masters in Computer Science, Marissa is responsible for the consumer-facing (UI) side of Google, and has been called the Chief Experience Officer.
The opportunities for Directors of Product Management will report directly into Marissa Mayer or Susan Wojcicki , and will be responsible for working across Google in the innovation, creation, management, release, and lifecycle of new products that extend the improve the quality and measurability of search and advertisement monetization. They will establish short and long term product goals and strategies to build and manage a product roadmap to support Google’s goals and strategies. They will initiate and prioritize projects within engineering; track product development; develop product launch plan, and also engage closely with the engineering team to help determine the best technical implementation methods and reasonable execution schedules.

Product Management at Google is an engineering and deeply technically focused organization that is full of visionaries and entrepreneurs. They apply their core technical abilities to understand the capabilities and possibilities of computers, and then leverage insight and imagination to create new products that will allow users to gain better, faster, and more accurate access to information. They are fascinated with new products, and obsessed with making the best possible product for the largest possible audience serving the most important needs. They represent the visionary, the communicator, the leader, and the technologist all-in-one. Essentially, the Product Management team ensures that Google has the best worldwide product offerings by analyzing, positioning, packaging, and promoting their solutions
across a variety of countries and markets where Google does business.

Areas of core expertise for this PM role: More…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A good friend of mine from EO (www.eonetwork.org), David Hauser, rebranded his company recently, and as a concept piece, did a short video on who entrepreneurs are.  There is no advertising for his business.  It’s just a feel-good inspirational piece on who and why entrepreneurs are.  David happens to be a great poster-child as he started his business while at Babson College, and has since grown  it to more than $15M, bootstrapped over the last few years, innovating in the  telecom services sector for small businesses that allow them to move away from a PBX phone system and reduce their cost of starting up a business while improving features/functionality.    Take a look, and enjoy.  [Dave's website is at www.grasshopper.com ]

Vice President of Sales

The Company

World Leader in Eye-Tracking and Eye-Control

Our client is the founding pioneer in the field of assistive technology.  Being able to speak is something that most people take for granted. However, some are born with Cerebral Palsy, have ALS/MND or may have acquired a disability through an injury or a stroke — all of which can impair their ability to speak. Our client has released a range of new alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) solutions that help individuals with speech impairments communicate. The company develops both communication hardware and software solutions for people with physical, cognitive, and speech disabilities. The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Dedham, Massachusetts. Our client  has just launched nine new AAC products that give individuals with communication disabilities a voice and a way to live more fulfilled, integrated and independent lives.

The Position

Reporting to the President outside of Boston, Massachusetts, the Vice President of Sales will be responsible for the planning and execution of sales activities for the U.S. The VP will organize and lead a team of sales professionals divided into three regions, East, Central, and West.  Each of these regions is led by a Regional Sales Manager, focused on direct sales of the company’s products and services to end-user customers located primarily in the USA and Canada.  The current sales and marketing organization is comprised of a sales team of 20 spread across these regions.

Key deliverables include responsibility to create growth strategies and successful business solutions for branding and positioning of the product line as well as organize, develop, and grow the sales organization. Critical to success will be the ability to work closely with Technology business managers and R&D resources around the globe. More…

We get hired to build early-stage executive teams by our clients every day. So we’ve seen our fair share of “team-building,” and much of what follows is likely intuitive to many.  It is a combination of our experience and the collective wisdom of more than two dozen early-stage venture capitalists in the North East who we asked the question, “What does a ‘bankable executive team’ mean to you?”

Consider these criteria common denominators, or universal norms for investability. They are by no means exhaustive or complete, as each investor has his or her own individual criteria he or she leverages in selecting portfolio companies.

First, some qualifiers.

¨      Different stages require bankable teams with different profiles: angel versus early stage versus later stage mezzanine/pre-IPO.

¨      Different value kernels drive greater emphasis on one part of the executive team or another.  For a deep science company in biotech, the chief scientist is going to carry greater scrutiny by investors.  This also holds true for a software or hardware company where the technology leader will carry a greater weight.

¨      Investors tend to look at where the risks lie-technology risk or market risk for example.  Something referred to as “execution risk” is all about the team being able to execute on the plan.

¨      Almost all VCs want to see a strong core team consisting of a serially successful CEO, a chief technologist with domain expertise in the area of the company’s product focus, and a veteran sales leader with a relevant rolodex and experience building a team that can score early customer wins.

¨      A strong board of directors, advisors, or scientific advisory board can help immeasurably, although won’t make up for significant lack of experience among the rest of the team.

However, the above is like describing human anatomy as two arms and legs, a head and a torso.  To drill down to more specific details, the grid below outlines the bankable team by function, team, and other characteristics.

The overwhelming preference by investors regarding “bankability” is an “experienced team.”  The majority of VCs we talked to cited their number one concern as experience; those deals that get a ‘hard look’ have this fact in common.  When asked what percentage of all business plans they receive have requisite experience on the team however, the number is well under half.   And we all know that deals get done with first-time teams, even in this difficult financing environment.

Some of the other characteristics-when combined in the right amount and order-that are considered important criteria when an investor looks at financing a start-up team are listed below.

One VC actually tried to capture the essence of a bankable team with a mnemonic-FIRVOC: More…