Investment Wisdom Convergence from Clayton Christensen and Charlie Munger

When two great thinkers come to a similar idea from different starting points and careers, I pay attention.  For business and investment wisdom, Clayton Christensen of the Harvard Business School teaches his students a collection of “theories and frameworks” to help them understand and deal with different situations they may face — the trick is to know which theory to apply when.  Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway speaks of a “latticework of mental models” where a wise person is served by understanding 80-90 “mental models” from science, engineering, biology, and more.  The more cross-disciplinary are the models, the better. To him, that is the source of “worldly wisdom” rather than pure IQ.
Last week, Christensen gave a talk at Apple’s headquarters as part of a Duke in Silicon Valley event.  Talking with Christensen at the reception, the similarity struck me between Christensen’s frameworks and the ideas explained by Munger.  When I took Christensen’s class in 2001 or 2002, I remember being handed at the beginning of class a couple of summary papers with maybe 15-20 different hieroglyphic-like symbols representing different theories and models that are “true” in some circumstances.

Some of the Christensen frameworks from his class containing investment wisdom:

  • Disruptive innovation model — his classic model where “crummy” products get better over time and take over market segments the incumbents are happy to abandon
  • Intended vs. emergent strategies — I love this one as it throws out the idea of a CEO as the master strategist divining the best path forward and dictating from on-high.  In my experience, good strategy and competitive advantage more often emerges from the daily activities of the organization and evolves over time.  The CEO’s job is more to be a great observer of what’s already happening to find a way to encourage the activities that are building long-term competitive advantage and discourage bad habits in the organization.
  • Culture and capabilities framework — culture is a learned experience from solving problems.  Through those experiences, an organization develops a shared belief system on how to approach and solve problems.  Please see all these posts on culture.
  • Integration vs modularity — In some industries, the profits are in the integration and in others, the profits are in modules (Microsoft or Intel in the PC era versus IBM).
For Munger, his ideas of “worldly wisdom” have been circulated from talks he gave in the 1990′s.  The idea is that a wise person needs a “latticework of mental models” rather than the ability to crunch numbers in his head or regurgitate facts.  He explains that multiple models are better (shades of Christensen emphasizing a collection of frameworks rather than the singular focus of some academics), the models should be cross-disciplinary, and the best people can figure out which models are relevant to which situation.

Some Munger mental models related to investment success:

  • Compound interest
  • Math of combinations and permutations — he mentions how our brains are not wired for our instincts to be accurate in these calculations
  • Accounting — “one hell of an invention” but everyone knows it is at best a crude approximation
  • Back-up systems — it is wise to build a bridge for more weight than expected
  • Ask ‘why’ multiple times — helps reveal true reasons and clear thinking
  • Impact of subconscious on human decision-making — he often examines a situation on two levels, on one level are the more obvious industry or market dynamics and on a secondary level are his attempts to understand the subconscious and psychological effects that may be at work
  • Experience curve and advantages of scale — please see this post and Munger makes the simple analogy that as the size of a tank increases, the steel only increases by the square but the volume increases by the cube
  • How human institutions and bureaucracies behave
In fact, business school itself is a gathering of theories/mental models/frameworks to help one recognize situations and respond.  Of course, there is a risk that some of the models taught as gospel turn out to be more harmful than helpful (at the top of that list I would put ‘beta’ as a measure of risk and the efficient market theory).
Our brains are assisted by thinking in frameworks or models to help us remember important concepts, recognize the patterns where those concepts may apply, and provide ourselves a hint of what action to take.  To work on understanding and being able to apply many models is great advice from two great thinkers.

Predict Stephen Burke as Warren Buffett Successor

I first predicted Warren Buffett’s successor last year, and I am reiterating it today.  I believe Stephen Burke, current Berkshire board member, will succeed Warren Buffett as the Berkshire Hathaway CEO as explained below.  Furthermore, here is another post that discusses how Berkshire is likely to make their selection.

The Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting is tomorrow and I will be there, so please let me know if you will be.


Published May 2, 2012:  First, a little extraneous caveat about this prediction.  I have not spoken to anyone at Berkshire about this.  Frankly, I do not know anyone who works at Berkshire.  And, I have no special knowledge about this at all.  It is just a pure guess (maybe a slightly educated guess) and an attempt to have some fun.

I predict that Berkshire Hathaway Board Member Stephen Burke, CEO of NBCUniversal and COO of Comcast, will succeed Warren Buffett as the Berkshire Hathaway CEO.  To me, it is a very straightforward prediction because:

  • He is a Board Member which means he has inside knowledge of Berkshire and would have less to learn.
  • He understands the Berkshire culture — he has knowledge and exposure to the company over several decades.  His family has been friendly with Warren Buffett since the 1980′s (1985 investment in Capital Cities Communications and the American Broadcasting Company) and probably since the 1970′s as Cap Cities was listed as a Berkshire investment in the 1977 annual letter.  Stephen Burke’s father, Dan Burke, was the long-time business partner of Thomas Murphy, a long-time friend of Buffett’s and Berkshire Board Member since 2003, who ran Cap Cities and ABC together.  Buffett has referred to Murphy and Burke glowingly numerous times throughout the years and he wrote in the 1985 annual letter, “Tom Murphy and Dan Burke are not only great managers, they are precisely the sort of fellows that you would want your daughter to marry.”
  • Burke understands the Berkshire way of being hands-off with the business unit managers.  Burke has the track record and business reputation that he will not feel like he has to prove himself by making big moves or getting overly involved in the business units.
  • Burke seems to be about the broader purpose or meaning of being in business — something he will find in spades at Berkshire.  He will appreciate and understand the nuance of the role, and revel in the fact that the Berkshire job is being part of a legacy.  Berkshire prides itself on having strong values, doing things differently than most companies, having deeply rooted norms and ethics – things that I suspect Burke would enjoy supporting because these things have always been important to him and his family.  Burke will not strain against that unique culture.
  • He has the stature to gain immediate respect.  Comcast has $55 billion in annual revenue and NBCUniversal has about $20 billion in revenue.  Burke is also on the Board of JPMorgan Chase & Co.  He has reportedly been offered the CEO role at Coca-Cola, Nike, DirectTV and others.

Anyone else want to make a guess that is not the usual suspects?

Related post about how Buffett will make his slection:  Berkshire CEO after Warren Buffett – May 2, 2012.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Like Warren Buffett, Best Investment Philosophy Balances Discipline with Flexibility

Warren Buffett’s investment philosophy balances discipline with flexibility.

Warren Buffett is famous for his discipline in his early investing success.  Now, I think he is demonstrating his flexibility (some are critical of his recent flexibility) in investment philosophy.  Both are important skills for business owners and managers to master and to know when to utilize each approach.  A balance is required to be disciplined but not too rigid and flexible but not changing too much.  When someone tells you that there is one best way of always doing something, run away.  I have been thinking about this with the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting this Saturday and the evolution in philosophy by Buffett over recent years.  I will be at the Berkshire meeting, so please let me know if you will also be there.

Here are some examples of how Buffett’s discipline evolved to greater flexibility over time.  Many of these changes are probably logical given the increased size of Berkshire and the reality of finding attractive places to allocate large amounts of capital, but they are interesting because of the scope of these shifts in philosophy.

Warren Buffett Investment Philosophy Changes:

  • Not willing to use stock for acquisition, then used it in the acquisition of Burlington Northern.  For years, Buffett said that he did not want to utilize Berkshire stock for acquisitions “unless we receive more in value than what we give” which was never going to happen given his belief in the earning power of Berkshire.  Then, he bought Burlington Northern paying 40% of the purchase price in Berkshire stock and even paying a full price for Burlington Northern at a time when Berkshire stock was not overvalued and probably a little undervalued.  This made the dilution even more expensive for Berkshire making it even more out of character for Buffett.   In his annual letter for 2012, he estimated the dilution as 6.1% which is about $16 billion worth of value today up from approximately $10 billion in value via equity at the time of the deal, or about an 18% annual increase in the value of that stock that could have been kept for shareholders.  He also broke tradition and split the Class B shares 50-to-1 making it easier for retail investors even though he had liked the stock being expensive to discourage short-term investors which added 65,000 shareholders to the company.  I have not analyzed the available information to determine whether this decision worked, but Buffett seems to think it has given his comments in recent letters.  I still sense that it may be painful for him to have given up so much dilution for this acquisition.
  • Disdain of private equity playbook, then using that playbook in the acquisition of Heinz.  For years, Buffett trumpeted his low or nonexistent use of debt in acquisitions or no changes to the operating styles of the acquired businesses.  With the Heinz acquisition, he again reversed his beliefs and is using the private equity playbook of utilizing debt and relying on the cost-cutting mastery of 3G Capital to create value in the acquisition.  And, he paid a full price for the business and certainly much more than he would have paid for a business earlier in his career.
  • Preference changing from businesses generating capital to businesses utilizing capital.  Buffett has said that “the best businesses by far for owners continue to be those that have high returns on capital and that require little incremental investment to grow” (and, it is rare, but would love a business if it could use a lot of capital at very high returns).  Many Berkshire businesses are great at generating capital and do not have good places to put that capital — Buffett loved acquiring those businesses because he could take the capital and allocate it himself to other businesses or projects.  Given the huge cash balances and need to put capital to work, Buffett has shifted his focus to businesses that can put large amounts of capital to work at a reasonable (certainly not great) returns on capital, such as the regulated utility business of MidAmerican or the Burlington Northern railroad.  In the 2009 report, he wrote, “In earlier days, Charlie and I shunned capital-intensive businesses such as public utilities.”  Today, he is satisfied earning 10% returns through businesses that can soak up huge amounts of capital each year, for at least a portion of his portfolio.  I suppose earning 10% is better than earning zero.  This seems to be a logical evolution, but also one that not many people would have been able to execute a shift in strategy.
  • Loving newspapers to saying he will “never invest in newspapers again” to acquiring more newspapers.  Buffett loved newspapers in the 1970′s through the 1990′s.  He then said on a Charlie Rose interview when the Wall Street Journal was being sold that he would never invest in newspapers again and that “the circulation, advertising and profits of the newspaper industry overall are certain to decline.”  Now, he is buying newspapers such as the Omaha World-Herald and Media General.  He even said that he is rich enough that he can afford “sentimental” purchases like this.  This is all very out of character for him that would have refused to even consider a sentimental investment early in his career.  Given that these purchases are so small that they won’t impact the results of Berkshire, it makes me wonder why he is doing it other than the purchase prices may be so cheap that he cannot help himself.
  • Well documented evolution from cigar-butt value investing to broader definition of “value”.  Many people have written about how Buffett began his career buying $1 of value for 50 cents, often by just looking at a company’s balance sheet and not really the underlying nature and strength of a business.  That shifted to being willing to pay more for businesses with long-term competitive advantages.  While well examined previously, this shifts needs to be on the list because it was such a drastic shift in philosophy for him that many people would not have been able to make, particularly when they had such great success with the earlier model.

A great modern day investor is a contradiction of shifting philosophies and evolving beliefs.  My take from this is that a balance of discipline and flexibility, and when to utilize each, is an important skill to learn.  There is no one right strategy.

 Related articles

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Real Estate Institute Acquired by Greybull Stewardship

Greybull Stewardship, my long-term oriented partnership of business owners investing in exceptional small businesses, announces the acquisition of Real Estate Institute and its sister company, Bookmark Education.  Both companies are headquartered in Niles, IL, which neighbors Chicago. Real Estate Institute

Since 1992, Real Estate Institute has been a leader in Illinois providing high quality online, classroom, and independent study programs for professional licensees.  Known for outstanding customer service, the company’s positive reputation with loyal students has enabled growth beyond its real estate roots to include insurance, mortgage, and legal professionals.  Last year more than 20,000 professionals completed programs with the school.

After directing the company’s operations for nearly ten years, Larry Toban will become the Real Estate Institute President as part of a planned management transition.  Larry helped to select Greybull Stewardship from nearly a dozen firms that competed for the opportunity to invest with him in the company’s growth.  “This is a game changer for the organization.  We are excited to work with Greybull as we expand our expert team of employees and instructors who are all passionate about fulfilling our students’ education and compliance requirements,” said Larry Toban.

“I’m delighted that Greybull Stewardship understands the core strengths and potential of our business.  With Greybull’s investment, support, and long-term investment approach, I’m confident that Real Estate Institute and its employees will continue to prosper,” added Alan Toban, founder.  Former owners Alan and Ellen Toban will assist Greybull Stewardship throughout the transition.

“Real Estate Institute is an exciting acquisition for Greybull Stewardship.  The company is a leader in its space and poised for continued growth in the ever-expanding education market,” said Mason Myers, founder and general partner of Greybull Stewardship Business Investment Fund.  “We see exciting opportunities to offer new and more diversified programs.”

Unique Businesses Are A Force For Good

The best businesses are not just about making money.  It is necessary to make money to stay in business, but it is not sufficient for the business to be worth your time.  That is why the strongest businesses, in my opinion, are the ones that have a purpose beyond making money.  The work is more interesting for everyone involved if there is meaning for the customers, for the employees, for a certain community, or whatever it may be.  Why spend your time on something that has a single payoff (money) when you can have multiple payoffs (money and meaning) from the same investment of time and money?

And, by the way, I have found that the businesses that strive to have a more meaningful purpose also can get the best financial returns.

I put together my investment fund, Greybull Stewardship, so that unique businesses have a unique alternative for financing that will allow them to maintain their strategy.  Taking investment capital from an outsider means that a business owner has to incorporate the investor’s dreams, visions, constraints, and realities.  By selling to traditional private equity, that means another quick, disruptive sale of the company in 3-5 years (that may be the ideal plan for some businesses, which is totally fine).  By selling to a strategic acquirer, that means morphing the acquired company into the objectives of the acquirer.  Greybull Stewardship allows current management and owners to continue with their unique strategy because my fund structure allows greater alignment with the current owners and fewer outside constraints.

Related Topic: Book Conscious Capitalism by John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods

I found recent comments by Mackey to be a helpful addition to this discussion.  Mackey explained in a podcast from the Harvard Business Review that a business person should improve his ability to answer the question, “What do you do?”  Ideally, the answer should not be simply to “make money.”  It should be something with a meaningful purpose as a doctor says, “heal people” in addition to making a living.  As he writes, “all businesses operate in a broader system thick with interdependencies.  Being a conscious capitalist means that you don’t ignore those interdependencies by taking a narrow view of the impact you make.  You remain aware of the whole system. . . . But here’s what you would not be signing on for: the overthrow of capitalism. . . . Capitalism is the greatest system of social cooperation and source of prosperity ever devised — and we can make it even better.”

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Investment Strategy & Structure Is the #1 Thing Founders and CEO’s Should Watch In Raising Capital

To be better, one must first be different.  Thus, good strategy focuses on understanding differences and creating differences.  This also applies to investment firms — differences in structure often drives the strategy.  Any entrepreneur or business owner considering raising capital needs to understand the structure of the investment firm and how that will affect their strategy.

This hit home recently reading a book, The Outsiders, by William Thorndike.  The chart below is in the book showing the differences between the structure and strategy of Berkshire Hathaway and traditional private equity.  I have added a third column to the chart to demonstrate the structure and strategy of my investment firm, Greybull Stewardship, in comparison.

 

Traditional Private Equity

Berkshire Hathaway

Greybull Stewardship

Holding Period

3-5 years

“Forever”

No limitations

Management

New CEO (often)

Existing CEO

Existing CEO

Leverage

A lot

None

Moderate

Deal Source

Auction

Direct

Mostly Direct

Postacquisition management interaction

Frequent

Infrequent

Infrequent

Cost Cutting

Usually

Never

Not usual

Due Diligence

Extensive

Cursory

Extensive

Use of outside advisers

Always

Never

Not usual

Compensation System

Complex

Simple

Simple

 

In observing Berkshire Hathaway over the years, I learned how Buffett had a tremendous advantage over traditional private equity because his firm was structured differently.  As you can see, I have built the structure of Greybull Stewardship to have many of the same advantages to attract interest from the founders/owners/management of companies.  I want Greybull Stewardship to be the preferred home for outstanding businesses.

Related Posts:

Family Business Role Models: Blumkin Family of Berkshire Hathaway

Louis Blumkin

Blumkin family of Berkshire Hathaway a role model for family businesses.

Heroes have been a topic several times in talks by Warren Buffet.  ”Pick your heroes carefully,” he said one time, “as it will have a big impact on who you become.”  Another time he said, “Tell me who someone’s heroes are, and I will have a pretty good idea who they are.”

To me, the Blumkin family of the Nebraska Furniture Mart and Berkshire Hathaway are role models of family and American business.  Last week, the patriarch of the family, Louie Blumkin, passed on to great acknowledgement around Omaha, Nebraska and throughout the furniture world.  If you do not know, the Nebraska Furniture Mart is a very large business that has been a cornerstone of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway since 1983.  It is admired throughout the world of furniture retailing for its success and its innovations over the years.

Louis was a dynamo.  Because my business partner in the National Holistic Institute is related to the Blumkins, we have received great support, enthusiasm and encouragement from the Blumkin family over the years.  When Louie visited us, he was quick to ask insightful questions.  You could see him running the numbers in his head about how the business worked as we discussed the organization and its impact.  At 90 years plus, he was quick and fun to talk with.  It was also enjoyable to listen to his stories of fighting in World War II and liberating a concentration camp, and his train ride back to Omaha after the war full of anticipation of what to do with the Nebraska Furniture Mart.  From 1945 onward, he ran the Nebraska Furniture Mart, while his mother and the founder of the Nebraska Furniture Mart, Mrs. B, was the front person getting the press and acknowledgements.  Their philosophy, if you haven’t heard it before, is “Sell cheap and tell the truth.” They sold a majority of the Nebraska Furniture Mart to Berkshire Hathaway in 1983, and Louie’s sons Irv and Ron Blumkin manage the business today.

Family Business Lessons from the Blumkins and the Nebraska Furniture Mart

Several things have impressed me about the story of the Blumkin family and the Nebraska Furniture Mart.

  • It’s a strong family, working hard to support each other.  They are very good about making time to spend together and support each other. A favorite scene from these family gatherings is when they get together on July 4th and sing “God Bless America” at the family farm.  This particularly means something as Mrs. B (and others) immigrated to America from other countries.  When a trip seems too far or too difficult, I get inspiration from the Blumkins who make the trip and make the effort to spend time together.
  • Healthy growth for the long-term.  The store began in 1937, expanded to a larger Omaha location in 1980, added a Des Moines location in 1993, added a Kansas City store in 2003, and is working on a fourth location.  They have grown, but they have done it in a very measured, controlled manner that has kept an eye on the very long-term health of the organization.
  • Share with their customers.  Like other businesses that begin to get scale that leads to lower costs (Wal-Mart or Geico), the Nebraska Furniture Mart is good at sharing those cost savings with customers. This creates a virtuous cycle of more customers that leads to lower costs that is shared with customers that leads to more customers, etc.
  • Honorable organization & doing things the right way.  I don’t ever hear of complaints about customers not feeling that they received a fair shake from the Mart. Everyone should aspire to build organizations that have as strong of a track record over 75 years. After the Mart opened their Kansas City location, they were kind enough to share their “lessons learned” from the experience with my business partner and me at the National Holistic Institute. I had a couple of reactions to their list: a) most of the things seemed very nit-picky and small to me, but not to them — they are perfectionists; and b) everything they mentioned was about making sure things were done as well as possible from day one. These were things such as hiring more people so that they had an abundance of staff at the store opening or training people for longer to make sure that their entire staff and organization were primed for success. There was nothing more important to them than doing it the best way possible right from the beginning.

Many people contribute to our success in life.  Although I didn’t know him well, I had a few meaningful interactions with Louie and his wife Frannie that had an impact on me — it contributed to why I am building Greybull Stewardship in the way that I am.  Ideally, I want Greybull Stewardship to be a long-term home for businesses like the Nebraska Furniture Mart that are about long-term success and they have the best elements of family businesses — a long-term focus, continuity of beliefs and values, and a willingness to share with their customers, employees, and community.

Investment Returns of Venture Capital vs Greybull Stewardship

Investment Returns for Venture Capital

Greybull Stewardship investment returns are outperforming venture capital as an asset class. Table Source: Cambridge Associates.

Investment returns in venture capital as an asset class have not been good for a long time.  To me, that result is somewhat predictable.  Great investment returns are not going to come from anything where you have to swing for the fences with every investment (or should I say gamble) and expect to lose money on a lot of the investments.

Great investors know that the first rule of good investment returns is to not lose money on any investment, if you can.  It just takes too much good fortune on the rest of the portfolio to make up for the losses.  An investment philosophy that does not swing for the fences each time but instead hits steady singles, doubles, and triples should outperform every time.

20%+ Investment Returns for Greybull Stewardship

The early returns from my investment fund, Greybull Stewardship, have been very good — averaging over 20% net of fees.  We are focused on the marriage of companies and existing management that already have a good track record of financial results.  We make sure the management has plenty of equity to get us all aligned and let management run the company, helping when we can.  And, the most difficult of all, we do not try and change the company (culture, strategy, growth rate, etc.) and risk disrupting the company’s track record of success.  We can do this because we do not have to prepare the company for sale in another 3-5 years and we can treat the company as if it is our family’s only asset to be treasured and grown with care.

Our strategy takes several risks out of the venture capital equation.  First, the businesses are already proven so we aren’t gambling on a new product or “product market fit”.  Second, we are not gambling on management because the management already has a good track record in managing the business.  Third, we are not gambling on a new strategy to attempt to sell the company in 3-5 years.

My goal is to make Greybull Stewardship the perfect home for unique, well-managed businesses where the management wants to keep going and own a lot of equity (either minority or majority stake is fine for me).  There are not many places for owners to find this — strategic buyers will change everything and traditional private equity will only be focused on a sale in 3-5 years.  And, I want to earn good returns for my investors in exchange.  So far, so good.

NOTE: I know that venture firms in the top quartile or top decile outperform the class and do very well, so it may be unfair to compare Greybull Stewardship to the entire asset class of venture capital.

Cambridge Associates provided this data as of September 30, 2012.

 Related Posts:

BCG Study: Superior Investment Returns From Family Business

Deep wisdom exists in how family businesses are managed for the long-term.  In fact, the financial returns for closely held businesses outperform their peer groups across business cycles according to a recent study by the Boston Consulting Group and Sophie Mignon of Ecole Polytechnique.  While their returns may be lower in good economic times than their peers, returns are better in slower economic times and across business cycles.

 

To me, it is obvious how investment time horizons influence how any asset is managed.  If you own a car for one year, you manage it very differently than a car you plan to own for twenty years.  It is obvious that a short-term ownership cycle of a few years may generate good returns for those years, but this is also very likely to leave the company in a less than ideal position for the long-term.  A longer term time horizon seems to put the company in the best position to earn optimal returns overall.

 

Wise Management from Family Business

This article in the Harvard Business Review explains some differences about how closely held businesses are managed.

  1. They are frugal in good times and bad.
  2. They keep the bar high for capital expenditures.
  3. They carry little debt.
  4. They acquire fewer (and smaller) companies.
  5. Many show a surprising level of diversification.
  6. They are more international.
  7. They retain talent better than their competitors do.

My investment firm, Greybull Stewardship, is organized to be an ideal home for closely held businesses who want to sell the business or receive investment but not change the long-term orientation and culture of the business.  I am motivated to earn optimal returns over the long-term by allowing these businesses to pursue the unique strategies that made them successful in the first place.

Related Posts and Links:

Should CEO’s, Business Owners, Founders Focus Inside or Outside?

Founders, CEO’s, and business owners need to be skilled at knowing how to balance many competing ideas, priorities, initiatives, and more.  We explored this idea in the post the Art of Balance that listed 20 continuums that founders, CEO’s, and business owners must balance constantly. How much to focus your attention inside or outside your organization is one of the most important continuums to consider. There is no right answer. The focus should change constantly. Below are several contradictory points of view, any of which could be the most relevant for your organization at any point in time.

founder-internal-or-external-focus

Founders focus should shift between internal and external.

  • No one understands the market like the founder or CEO.  Jack Welch used to say that CEO’s should ask themselves what one or two things can they do that no one else in their organizaton can do.  Many times, the founder or CEO understands the marketplace better than anyone and has the best sense of where to go.  Therefore, they should constantly focus on making sure the organization is positioned well in the market.
  • Winning is all about execution.  Ideas are a dime a dozen.  Competitors come and go.  Analysts (particularly on Wall Street) talk about the latest fads that will only last a quarter.  It is all just noise.  Focus internally and execute because more companies fail to succeed because of lack of execution rather than being beaten by the competition.
  • The founder and CEO has the best access to people and information, and the organization needs that.  The CEO calling another CEO is totally different than anyone else calling another CEO.  The organization needs that information and access to players in the market (financing sources, strategic partners, acquisition candidates, etc.) for long-term success.
  • The best strategists focus externally.  The Chair of the Strategy Unit at Harvard Business School and my old professor, Jan Rivkin, says that the best strategists “are relentless in understanding the external world.”
  • Being different is the key to competitive advantage — if you focus externally too much it becomes tempting to pursue strategies done by everyone else.  When you see a competitor doing well, it takes a very strong organization not to copy them.  Sometimes you should copy good ideas.  Sometimes a strategy that works for them is not the best for you.  If you are constantly trying to catch-up to someone else, you will never be the leader.
  • Our market is changing constantly (technology) and we need our best people watching the changes or our market hasn’t changed in 100 years.

There is no one right answer.  It helps, however, for every founder or CEO to make a conscious decision about how they should balance their time and priorities between the interior and exterior of their organization.

Related Posts: