HUMAN CAPITAL BEST PRACTICES: REAL

Transcription

WHITE PAPER • NOVEMBER 2014
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS FROM DHR’S PRIVATE E QUITY CONFERENCE ON HUMAN CAPITAL
HUMAN CAPITAL BEST PRACTICES:
REAL WORLD CHALLENGES WHEN
CREATING VALUE IN PRIVATE EQUITY
FUNDED COMPANIES
BY KEITH GIARMAN, GLOBAL
LEADER PRIVATE EQUITY
PRACTICE
Copyright © 2014 DHR International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Human Capital Best Practices
Dear Private Equity Professional,
As global leader of DHR’s Private Equity Practice, it is my honor to present our
summary report gleaned from our 2014 conference titled “Human Capital
Best Practices: Real World Challenges when Creating Value in Private Equity
Funded Companies.” As one of the largest and fastest growing retained
executive search firm in the world, DHR has made a strategic commitment to
the private equity industry. As a result, we have successfully completed
hundreds of C-level search assignments – CEO, COO, CFO and many other
roles – working with our private equity clients. These assignments have been
executed working with small and mid-market, as well as larger private equity
funds, family offices and other principal investing entities around the country
and around the world. The assignments cut across all industry segments,
including technology, industrial, consumer, retail, healthcare, aerospace, and
many others. We pride ourselves in our partnering mentality working with
our private equity clients. We are hands-on and quality oriented.
We hope you enjoy the conference report and look forward to being of
service to you and your firm in 2014 and beyond.
Best,
R. Keith Giarman
Global Leader, Private Equity Practice
Introduction
DHR International’s conference, “Human Capital Best Practices:
Real World Challenges when Creating Value in Private Equity
Funded Companies,” explored the impact that human capital and
organizational decisions and issues have in facilitating value
creation and investment success of private equity sponsored
companies. The goal of the conference was to provide a forum for
approximately 50 investment and operating partners to explore
value creation challenges and corresponding human capital
issues encountered by their portfolio companies. Keith Giarman,
Global Leader of DHR’s Private Equity Practice, oversaw the
event with support from key members of the firm’s PE practice
who served as moderators of the panels. Like the conference
itself, panels consisted of investment and operating partners from
various PE firms, as well as successful operating executives with
significant experience working with PE firms.
“This was my first time attending [the DHR Conference} and it was well worth the trip.
The speakers were extremely informative and the networking opportunities were
excellent. A first class event put on by a first class organization.”
Tim Fischer
Senior Managing Director
Republic Financial Corporation
Agenda
The conference consisted of a keynote presentation, three panels that addressed specific
issues, and a lunch workshop. The daylong agenda included the following:
Keynote - State of the Union in Private Equity: Key Findings and Trends from Bain &
Company’s Ongoing Research and 2014 Report
Read Simmons, Partner, Private Equity Practice, Bain & Company
Read Simmons, Partner in the Private Equity Practice at Bain & Company, discussed key
findings from Bain & Company’s recently published 2014 report, notably the importance of
human capital in achieving value creation improvements inside portfolio companies. Does
an explicit correlation exist between better investment returns and the discipline applied by
funds regarding human capital and portfolio support more generally? As funds strive to
meet their investment return thresholds, what are they doing to better assess
management – before and after making an acquisition – to ensure they secure the best
executives with proven abilities to drive value and financial results?
If you would like to learn more about Read’s presentation or Bain & Company’s services,
please contact him at 646.562.8773 or [email protected]
“The keynote speaker was phenomenal and the data very helpful in a discussion about
potential liquidity for a privately owned technology business. In our portfolio companies,
the insights of panelists on outside board members and appropriate compensation
prompted my fellow board members of a private equity owned firm to revise our thinking,
recruit several new outside members and compensate them appropriately. I hope those
changes bring benefits for many years to come.”
Jim Hansen
Chairman
JAMF Software and Reliable Property Services
Board Member
Tolomatic, Braas Company, Sign Zone
Panel One
The View from the
Board Room
Moderator
Jay Millen, Global Leader, Board & CEO Practice
Panelists
Jim Hansen, non-executive chairman, JAMF holdings
Charlie Kittredge, non-executive chairman, Crane & Co.
Tom Penney, Chief Executive Officer, LS3P
Jim Twining, former Chief Executive Officer, Southern Tide
Synopsis
Our last conference addressed issues regarding the leadership and functional attributes of
CEOs and management teams working with investors in private equity sponsored
companies. Invariably, the discussion turned to the critical role the Board plays (and the
Chairman in particular) working with the CEO and his or her team to stimulate real value
creation. Without the right people on the Board, however, how can it effectively coach and
guide a company’s team in pursuit of strategic objectives? Similarly, even with an
optimized Board “architecture” that aligns with business imperatives, a productive working
relationship between the Board, the CEO and the management team is essential in seeing
the strategic imperatives established at a Board level “operationalized” to produce true
business impact. This panel addressed the intersection of Board structure and the need
for effective bi-directional relationship management between the Board and management
in order to realize investment objectives. Specific topics included:
■
The technical or functional advisory model – purpose built for business support
■
The liquidity event board model – creating a pre IPO board positioned for short
and long term success as a public company
■
Compensation and equity participation for private board members – alignment
with value creation objectives
"I would say that the May 2014 DHR Private Equity conference gave me a unique
opportunity to meet with practitioners from virtually all segments of the mid-market
PE/Buyout realm—portfolio and corporate managers, operating partners, fund
administrative executives and fund principals. Networking with this group, along with the
DHR panels and presentations, gave me a clear picture of the opportunities and
challenges the PE sector faces today."
Dick Schneider
Partner
Easton Capital Investment Group
Panel Two
Moderator
The View from the
Executive Lens: Chief
Executive Officers
Craig Randall, Managing Director, Chicago (DHR Headquarters)
Panelists
Tony Armand, Chief Executive Officer, Shock Doctor Sports
Bob Tangredi, Chief Executive Officer, Pure Health Solutions
Synopsis
When considering their career options, CEO level candidates carefully scrutinize
opportunities when engaging with private equity firms and their partners. The quality of the
role from a business and financial perspective is obviously important, but executives are
also very conscious of their “fit” with the Board, the Partner on the Board and the PE firm
more generally. Different firms and their partners have different working styles in how they
manage the day-to-day working with their companies. Unless they have worked with PE
firms in the past, executives will go through a learning process as they map their style to
the needs of the owners and vice versa. What is the CEO’s perspective before he or she
accepts a position? How do they size up PE firms and their partners? What do they
perceive to be the challenges and benefits working with PE firms? How did they manage
the situation and personally develop as a leader and manager? This panel consisted of
proven CEOs of PE sponsored companies and addressed these issues from the viewpoint
of seasoned operating executives.
"Everyone in the PE industry understands the importance of human capital in achieving
targeted returns and mitigating risk. It is encouraging to see firms like DHR that
understand the difference in the mindset of PE firms when it comes to portfolio company
management and have built a practice that specializes in that thinking. Participating in
the conference with other PE firms as well as PE-backed operating companies was a
good forum for exchanging ideas and sharing best practices."
Peter Cimmet
Managing Director
Olympus Capital Asia
Panel Three
The View from the
Executive Lens: Chief
Financial Officers
Moderator
Ron Woessner, Global Leader, Financial Officers Practice
Panelists
Tony Abate, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Echo360
Janet Caldwell, former Chief Financial Officer, Kronos Foods Inc.
Steve Gray, EVP and Chief Financial Officer, WestPoint Home
Brian Marley, Chief Financial Officer (retired), Belk
Synopsis
Besides the CEO, the effectiveness of the CFO is potentially most critical as investors
strive for accelerated value creation. There seems to be broad agreement that the CFO
should be fluent in more than accounting, systems, reporting, process and control.
Effective CFOs are strategic and operational in their capabilities, team well with the CEO
as a business partner and know how to engrain the analytic engine of finance into the
fabric of the business working with their peers. Moreover, as a strategic leader on the
team, CFOs interact often and closely with investors on the Board. The need for more
granular and forward-looking analysis based on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is
pronounced in an environment where cash flow is king and effective relationship
management working with banks and capital market players is essential. This panel of
proven CFOs of PE sponsored companies discussed their experience working with
investors. They offered advice on the best way to partner with a CEO and the Board to
achieve as much alignment as possible in pursuit of strategic and financial objectives.
“Great event in a great location. DHR provided the opportunity for all of us to share best
practices. While many of the attendees directly compete on deals and opportunities, we
all have unique views on talent acquisition and development. It was extremely helpful to
see what leading firms are doing as it relates to finding, attracting and retaining top-tier
talent.”
Jonathan Pressnell
Principal
Greenbriar Equity Group
Lunch Workshop
Effective ExecutiveLevel Selection and
Succession Planning:
Art, Science, Both?
Barry Conchie, Founder & President, Conchie Associates
Mr. Conchie discussed a research-based approach to improving executive talent
identification, selection and development. His interactive presentation specifically
introduced the audience to research studies in cognitive bias and explained how these can
affect the functioning of leadership teams. Specifically, Mr. Conchie addressed:
■
Current approaches to succession planning and why most of them fail.
■
Identifying and quantifying the talents that truly predict executive leadership
performance.
■
Does experience matter?
■
The limits of human cognition and how this influences self-management and team
composition.
■
How a scientific approach to succession planning influences culture and
performance.
If you would like to learn more about Mr. Conchie’s presentation or the services of
Conchie Associates, please contact him at 720.508.4335 or
[email protected]
"Leadership assessment is tricky under the best of circumstances as we search for
executives who really understand the value creation component of what we do. Barry
Conchie's presentation was especially insightful. It helped me understand how truly
biased everyone is when they are assessing candidates and how critical it is to use a
more data-driven process where possible."
Dan Pelton
Operating Executive
Dominus Capital
Overall Summary &
Findings
As noted in Exhibit 1 below from Bain & Company, the fundamental underpinning in a
private equity firm’s goal to ensure sustained wealth creation for itself and its partners is
the quality of its “talent, organization and culture.” The importance of this underpinning is
just as true inside the multiple portfolio companies that comprise the short and long-term
wealth creation potential sought after by these same investors. More and more, investors
understand that they can only meet return objectives with a highly disciplined approach
that emphasizes human capital. This approach to human capital transcends the partners
themselves, fund support staff, operating partners, and Board members and necessarily
must include the C level executives and management teams that work inside portfolio
companies every day in support of business and investor objectives.
Exhibit 1
State of the PE Industry and Human Capital
The private equity industry is more competitive than ever and, as it matures, the need to
institutionalize best practices that result in the acquisition, deployment and development of
top talent is crucial. As noted by Read Simmons in his keynote address, research on the
part of Bain & Company has proven that high performing teams can help portfolio
companies significantly improve their results. Please see Exhibit 2 below.
Exhibit 2
Indeed, PE investors are increasingly aware of the importance of their management teams
in driving investor returns (as evidenced in Exhibit 3 below), but the process leading to
improved results offers many potential stumbling blocks along the way.
Exhibit 3
The stumbling blocks that may interfere with an organization’s difficulty in meeting investor
expectations are numerous. As noted in Exhibit 4, “People & Performance” are specifically
noted as one of six primary areas that should be considered across a range of
organizational, leadership and communication issues that can negatively impact PE
funded company performance.
Exhibit 4
Private Equity and The War for Talent
Private equity funds must recognize that they are in a war for talent. CEOs and others will
carefully scrutinize opportunities from a business perspective (is the plan achievable?) and
evaluate the investment thesis in terms of potential wealth creation. They will also assess
their new partners in terms of fit with their style and the kind of working relationship they
want to establish with their Boards. Some executives will fit better with certain types of
firms and vice versa. This fit should be explored during the interview process on both
sides and firms should be transparent about their culture and expectations.
Given this competitive market for talent, firms are constantly exploring creative ways to
keep the pool of talent as broad as possible in order to find top talent. There seems to be
a willingness to consider a candidate’s “potential” versus “proof points” but such thinking is
quite situational depending on the issues and opportunities confronting the business at a
particular inflection point. On the other hand, firms have gotten much more diligent about
specifying the leadership and behavioral attributes as well as operational competencies
required in their key executives – especially an ability to fully embrace and succeed in a
business model where disciplined value creation is required – and position specifications
are generally much more prescribed in the key attributes they seek.
While there is general agreement about the need to deploy the best executive talent
possible to yield better returns, firms will have different approaches to securing that talent
depending on the structure of the firm, their market focus and the investment thesis they
employ. Effective talent acquisition is one of the foundational elements in accelerating
value creation as firms seek to meet investor returns in a market flush with capital chasing
too few high quality deals. The effectiveness of management – and the kind of culture that
is established inside a company -- really do make or break the deal. Trends suggest an
ever-increasing emphasis on talent management, including:
■
Human capital expertise inside the funds – As firms have built out their
portfolio support function, more and more firms are hiring specific individuals to
focus on the talent function working with portfolio companies. There is wide
variation in the type of models used and the background of the individuals
selected for these internal roles. Techniques and structures employed by smaller
funds are obviously different than the larger ones.
■
More interest on part of LPs regarding human capital – Limited partners are
now more exposed to the deeper human capital thinking utilized inside some
funds versus others given how it has been engrained into the operational fabric of
their fund portfolio operations. Certain LPs look at the human capital approach
employed by firms as a potential differentiator.
■
Even greater focus on leadership assessment - Large or small, there would
seem to be a majority of firms today who are employing more data-driven
techniques to increase objectivity when making hiring decisions. In some cases,
firms are standardizing on a particular “score card” approach or set of
psychometric testing tools when working with executives inside portfolio
companies.
Human Capital Evolution Related to Private Equity Boards
Based on the panel discussions, it would appear that private equity firms are more
carefully monitoring the capacity of their internal staff to handle board responsibilities
throughout the portfolio. How many boards do operating partners and investment partners
sit on; do they have adequate capacity to sit on so many Boards and still be effective in
those roles; is there a lack of bandwidth that may be affecting the Board’s effectiveness
working with the CEO and the management team?
Given potential bandwidth issues facing many private equity firms, outside independent
directors are becoming more prevalent in a blended board model. Perhaps more
importantly, board members are being recruited to provide specific domain or functional
expertise and the “position player” acumen that will allow better coaching of key
executives in various functional areas. Firms are getting more “surgical” in addressing
their Board needs. This is a bit of a change from past practice where firms often looked for
and embraced more generalized leadership and / or industry-specific domain experience.
These type of Board members often emerged through existing relationships within the firm
(informal process) versus a more proactive formal outreach to senior level executives who
fit a certain set of well-defined criteria. Most of the time, Operating Partner or Advisors
attached to the firm fill these Board seats.
More boards are being developed to look and function like a public or pre-IPO board with
governance structured around what the board can do to assist the company in its mission
to realize the value creation plan that has been established by the private equity sponsors.
It is more common now to see boards of PE funded companies employing outside
resources as opposed to attempting to handle duties only with internal staff. While
perhaps not a radical change versus the boards in prior years, those trends seem to have
crystallized over the last 36 to 48 months in the PE community. There is ample anecdotal
evidence that Boards are rethinking the role and structure of their boards as they own
assets for longer periods of time in pursuit of investor returns.
The capability and functional insight of a company’s advisory board members or those in a
more formal governance capacity has become increasingly important as portfolio
companies seek to stimulate business improvements. PE firms are recognizing the
benefits associated with a more focused and functionally or domain literate Board
regardless of: the nature of their product or service; specific markets or geographies
served; stage of growth and expansion aspirations; legacy and history as a business; or
other factors.
Trends in Leadership Assessment & Performance Evaluation
In short, there is a massive disconnect between how executives feel about their success in
picking great people as opposed to how great those people actually turn out to be. How
people view their effectiveness in executing hiring decisions -- a crucial area of
management responsibility -- does not align with how in fact executives actually perform
that task (that is, hiring great leaders).
Barry Conchie from the leadership assessment firm Conchie & Associates described a
longitudinal study in which every single new hire made by a representative sample of 100
executives was evaluated against performance for seven years. The executives were
asked to rate themselves in terms of their success at hiring great leaders from one to five
with five being the highest. “Great” was intentionally left undefined to be interpreted by the
subject. Significant findings included
■
73% gave themselves a five, the highest score possible, thus indicating they
believed they were extremely successful at hiring great executives. No one gave
themselves a score below three.
■
11% of those executives claimed to pick top performers 100% of the time. In
reality, only 3% of the executives pick top quartile performers.
■
According to the subjects, 68% of their hires turned out to be top performers.
However, analysis of the data revealed that the actual number was actually 12%
based on business performance and other factors.
Therefore, given this rather weak performance from the hiring managers, it is not
surprising to see the following findings of current research on the effectiveness of
executive leadership:
■
Leaders show more consistent progress managing profitability than they do
growth at a time when they need to and want to expand their businesses.
■
Most executive leadership teams have self-replicated their dominant leadership
capabilities in their selection of leaders beneath them.
■
Related to the last point, many leadership teams lack talent diversity and are
exposed to a whole series of covert biases influencing their choices and priorities.
■
Many executive teams are systemically challenged in terms of strategic
capabilities, unable to identify or exploit key strategic imperatives.
■
Many systems and processes designed to improve leadership effectiveness are
either failing or are, at best, sub-optimized, lacking rigor, objectivity and predictive
validity.
While they may not appreciate the following characterization, executives are really no
different than the general population. They tend to be biased in their assessment of
people and generally risk averse. Mr. Conchie notes: “People are massively conservative
on the upside and will gamble the house on the downside consistently, time and time and
time again.” The natural tendency is for people to attack negative variance rather than get
excited about the potential for positive growth on things that lie outside their comfort level.
Those are the very areas, however, which contain the most opportunity for growth.
Cultural fit is often seen as a predictor of success within an organization, and that was
addressed in the same research involving the 100 leaders discussed earlier. Out of the
2,681 candidates studied, 88% or 2,359 were identified as having a strong cultural fit.
However, 37% of these individuals were terminated or voluntarily left within three years;
more often than not, this was due to performance issues. Only 7% of the 2,359 candidates
became top quartile performers. Companies tend to emphasize cultural fit over other
factors in determining the success of employees, but the data suggests that either (a) their
process for determining fit is flawed (using typical interview techniques without a datadriven approach) or (b) they are not assessing well enough for other factors that are
critical in determining how these employees will generate business performance.
Interestingly, while people in the private equity space tend to be highly analytical and datadriven, it does not necessarily follow that they are applying an appropriate and consistent
data-driven approach when evaluating their people. There could be many reasons for this:
■
From an executive’s perspective, experience with the hiring process has been
subjective over the years (“I’ll know it when I see it”) and they have accepted that
such subjectivity will always underpin the process.
■
Even when people start to embrace a more data-driven approach, the market for
such services and different methodologies is confusing at best.
■
There are a number of assessment methodologies that focus on the wrong
factors and therefore are not predictive of success in the work place. Once
someone has had a bad experience with certain tools or a particular approach,
they may reject them entirely.
■
There is a perception that a more data-driven approach adds time to an already
time-consuming and mysterious process and, often, hiring managers are in a
hurry to make the hiring decision.
■
People do not want to believe the data generated by tools -- even when the data
is correct in pinpointing attributes that may increase or decrease potential
business performance in a particular candidate. High performers, in sales, for
instance, have personality traits that make them more difficult to manage. Those
traits are often the very ones that contribute significantly to their success; yet they
are also the ones that may result in a negative assessment if a subjective process
is employed.
In summary, no matter how smart or successful, all hiring managers are inherently biased
when it comes to assessing talent. This bias cannot be overcome without a more datadriven approach (and even then the process is not perfect). Companies and their
investors can and should focus on developing objective systems around evaluating people
and their performance in an effort to increase effectiveness in bringing the right people into
an organization and increasing the responsibilities of those individuals who deliver. It is
critical to track and refine those measures, ensure hiring managers are held accountable
for employing a more disciplined data-driven process, so organizational performance can
improve over time.
The View from the Executive Lens: Chief Executive Officers
Private equity groups and their partners obviously have their own individual personalities
and styles dealing with their portfolio companies. When considering an opportunity inside
a particular PE funded company, CEOs look for personal and professional career upside
based on a deal’s attractiveness and the opportunities for personal wealth creation. Just
as importantly, these same executives see the “partnering” aspect of the arrangement as
critical to their personal success as well as the overall business and financial performance
of the company:
■
Are these partners who share our vision and will stay the course?
■
Are they in a hurry to exit or will they work to optimize value working with us?
■
How do they evaluate the CEO and others on the management team?
■
How much time do they invest in the assessment process?
■
Will they support the CEO and the team even during more difficult times?
Once employed, CEOs prefer a more flexible environment where there is give and take on
both sides, but they are realistic about the need to deal with investor expectations:
■
Can we maintain comfortable boundaries in how we report and communicate on a
routine basis?
■
When and in what situations can and should we talk outside of a formal quarterly
board process to stay in touch as issues arise?
■
When should a CEO pick up the phone and talk about an issue that may not be a
board related issue, but is certainly an issue that the private equity firm may have
an interest in?
“I think what has made me successful as a CEO, running the board, making my team
successful and managing private equity relationships,” said Tony Armand, CEO, Shock
Doctor Sports, “is being sensitive to the key drivers that they [the private equity firm] are
really interested in. We may have different views on strategy from time to time, but you
have to agree on the metrics – the metrics that make them tick. Then, you have to build a
process around those metrics and that will sometimes require flexibility on the part of the
CEO.”
Executives being approached for a CEO position and with no experience with private
equity are often concerned about the relationship with the private equity group. How
involved are they? How autonomous will the CEO be in running the business? The
answer is that it is different with every private equity group; it varies based on the needs of
that particular board, the personality of the firm and the investors and the situation facing
the company. In general, however:
■
Mega funds tend to behave differently than those that have just raised their first
fund. Mega funds can be less involved with the daily operations and, if the
business is performing well, tend to be more hands-off.
■
Independent directors may be asked to provide advice or coaching during key
milestones or decision points. The advice of these directors can be extremely
valuable during these times and it is important that the CEO take the advice
seriously, but ultimately the CEO needs to set and drive the course of the
business.
■
M&A strategy may involve more interaction with the private equity firm, but the
strategic direction of the business should originate internally with occasional input
from counsel that the independent directors may provide.
Again, a successful relationship with private equity often comes down to the dynamics of
the relationship itself. “It’s all about who you work with,” says Bob Tangredi, CEO of Pure
Health Solutions. “You get to a point in your life where you know what you’re good at. Your
quality of life is important and that’s got to do with the relationships that you’ve built and
the ones you step into when you take a CEO role. It is really important to ask … is this
going to be a good fit for me? Because you can have a great PE partner and you can have
a great company, but if your style and disposition don’t match, maybe it isn’t something
that you're really going to enjoy.”
Even with the heavy demand for senior level talent in PE funded companies, it is a very
competitive job market for executives seeking opportunities in these companies. C level
executives need to be fully informed on key issues so they are prepared to make the best
possible presentation as a candidate in terms of their ability to truly drive value creation.
This means they must have purposeful and well-crafted resumes that show clearly the
deeper quantitative and / or measurable aspects of the results achieved under their
leadership. They need to be prepared for a line of questioning during the interview
process that seeks to uncover, at a granular level, the results achieved across various
dimensions – development and deployment of key performance indicators, specific
initiatives implemented to improve business performance, management techniques that
created true followership in their organizations and so forth. Finally, they must be prepared
for a rigorous score card or testing process that generates supplemental data useful to the
firm as it finalizes a hiring decision; this kind of process is being institutionalized much
more often in many firms.
Chief Financial Officers in Private Equity Sponsored Companies
Today’s CFO needs to be a true strategic and operational partner with the CEO where the
CFO is focused on the factors that drive a profitable business model. Communication with
peers outside the financial organization, and in such a way that conveys the sense of the
CFO as a fellow player and not a “policeman,” impacts the company in a positive and
productive direction. Tactics that facilitate this integration of the finance function into the
business include:
■
Determine with the CEO the most effective and appropriate method for
communication, including participation in staff meetings and development of an
inclusive strategic planning process. Finance should not be “hidden in the back”
but viewed as a fully present team member, working with everyone for the larger,
well-articulated and agreed upon common organizational and performance
objectives. With such an approach, operations are then fully transparent; changes
can be made and actions taken as needed and more quickly.
■
Implement a reporting process in which every functional area -- sales and
marketing, operations, R&D, etc. -- actually present their numbers for the month
and the reasons behind them to the executive team. Coaching those teams prior
to presentation imparts and reinforces the message that the relationship with the
CFO is a true partnership. Hearing data from every department allows the team to
run the business versus each executive running their individual silos.
■
Be clear what the structure is around the governance processes, but don’t be
overly structured. Develop and utilize metrics, but not too many. Though it may
require significant training and conversation, putting the metrics in the hands of
operations allows them to handle forecasting themselves. Educating those
stakeholders around the key metrics and how they can be changed and
managed, if incentive compensation is aligned, usually results in productive,
positive conversations because their success is being supported and encouraged.
Optimization of the CEO relationship enhances the CFO role. Areas in which this
relationship can be fostered, improved and fully maximized include:
■
Mutual respect and trust is critical and powerful in terms of developing a
productive dynamic. Understand that working together to accomplish respective
goals is imperative but, “Ultimately, the CFO is serving the CEO so you've got to
make them look good in everything that they do,” says Tony Abate, COO and
CFO, Echo360. “The key is to quickly get in alignment as to where you're going
as a business and then make the CEO shine as a result of your great work. That
would be my advice.”
■
Aspects of the CFO role involve performance in areas in which CEOs cannot.
Even if they are former CFOs themselves, the CEO does not have the time to drill
into the more granular elements of the business from a finance perspective.
Understanding the division of labor is important and should be clear between the
two parties.
■
Establish an open and honest relationship immediately and determine what
respective skill sets and experience complement the other. “You can't avoid the
tough conversations,” says Janet Caldwell, CFO of several PE funded
companies. “You may not like what you have to say to the CEO, you may think it
will be difficult for him or her to absorb, but you have to say it. It is your fiduciary
responsibility to say it. And don’t just bring problems, bring solutions.”
Creating value for the organization is an ongoing responsibility that takes many forms and
the implementation of a wide variety of initiatives that lead to an effective platform for
growth, including:
■
Effective CFOs are not just reporting on the numbers. They are determining the
most profitable business model available to the entity. This involves thinking
regarding price models and price strategy, for example, that will lead more
consistent top growth and bottom line margin expansion.
■
From a business model perspective, the cost of acquiring customers is always
something worth examining. Sometimes, you need to transition to a new model
where you will need to win over customers who realize the higher cost they are
going to experience over the life cycle of your product. You will also likely have a
sales force that will see their commission impacted. It is imperative that everyone
understand the value of making certain changes to the revenue model from a
corporate perspective. Once that is achieved, you will need to work with
operational and sales teams in transitioning legacy customers in terms of pricing
initiatives and developing a new commissioning incentive.
■
If M&A is part of the strategy, the CFO needs to facilitate by building or enhancing
IT infrastructure needed to acquire and integrate companies and report the details
of finding and assessing acquisition targets. The finance team should lead the
integration process and determine how to take out cost once companies are
assimilated. Where possible, drive to achieve synergy above and beyond the
original return on investment.
■
Forecasting can be difficult, so thoroughly preparing a company for all possibilities
can relieve uncertainty and, in a worst-case scenario, provide a plan for dealing
with what had previously been the unexpected. In such circumstances ongoing,
regular communication among all stakeholders is the key.
The CFO position in a PE funded company is critical in achieving the value creation
objectives established by the PE firm. In working to achieve these objectives, it is critical
that the CFO built a tight and trusting relationship with the CEO. It is equally important
that the CFO establish a communication style working with the management team and
other leaders of the business where constructive and transparent communication is the
mantra. The CFO must be aligned with the CEO in terms of the profit drivers of the
business and, when issues arise that may affect projections, he or she must be willing and
able to engage in difficult conversations that lead to proper resolution.
Established in 1989, DHR International is one of the largest
retained executive search firms in the world, with more than
50 offices around the globe. We conduct search assignments
at the board of director, C-level, and functional vice president
levels. DHR’s renowned consultants specialized in all
industries and functions in order to provide unparalleled
senior-level executive search, management assessment and
succession planning services tailored to the unique qualities
and specifications of our select client base.
DHR International
W orldwide Headquarters
71 South W acker Drive • Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606
P 312.782.1581 • F 312.782.2096

HUMAN CAPITAL BEST PRACTICES: REAL

Transcription

Similar documents

EQUITY - RBFCU

Medsin at PHAST

INVESTMENT CRITERIA ACTIVE PLATFORM

Growco Thursday AM Gen Session.pptx

Mocse_Equity insert - Mocse Federal Credit Union

Lord Abbett Firm Profile - Lord Abbett Passport Portfolios

American Savings Bank Employees Help to `Stamp Out Hunger`

Delayed Financing - Loans by Upen Patel

Jack Ampuja Supply Chain Optimizers Niagara University June 8

PRBI at a Glance - PR Boutiques International