The Advisor’s Dilemma
May 4, 2010 by Harvey Wigder · 3 Comments
I belong to two professional associations that consist of seasoned advisors who consult to family and private businesses. To get the juices flowing, we sometimes discuss cases that highlight issues and make us think about common concerns and ways we can collaborate to provide the most value to our clients.
Let’s look at the structure of a typical case. The case starts with the history that resulted in the company’s origins and place in its market. Generally the cases present a company that is a going concern and has, at its core, a foundation for a good future. However, there are problems. It almost always is declining profits. Underlying and contributing to this are problems with funding, sales, marketing, customer service, and operations. There will also be further underlying concerns about family dynamics, the quality of owner leadership, and the quality of the management team.
The advisors who discuss these problems offer different perspectives:
- Those who are accounting oriented, analyze the content and nature of financial data to get to the issues that seem to most affect the bottom line.
- The M&A specialists talk about what has to improve to make it more attractive for buyers and fetch a higher price.
- The business and turnaround consultants focus on the strategies they implement to turn the company around.
- The lawyers offer up the legal tools to draw up buy sell terms and related succession plans, but usually need to hold off until other issues are resolved.
- Estate planners outline strategies to preserve and grow wealth.
- The money manages optimize security and investment income.
- The organizational development people will see problems with leadership and will propose programs or coaching to improve planning and communications to better link human resources together to better achieve the mission of the company.
- Insurance people think of how to provide a financial safety net for the owners.
- I, as a recruiter, see opportunities to strengthen the company by introducing new talent.
We come out of these discussions with two conclusions:
The first is that the situation is much too complex for any single discipline, and in an ideal world, several would collaborate to help the owners solve complex and interrelated problems.
The second is a desire for, what I will call, the Holy Grail. By this I mean each discipline knows it has an important role to play with a focused successful company. What we all seek is company leadership that has an intelligent, well implanted business plan which leads to growth along with leadership who has an exit or transition plan to ensure the continuity of the business for the long haul.
Result: This can lead to the ultimate win-win. The owner has the experience of meeting business and life goals and advisors have the satisfaction of providing valued support along the way.
As advisors, our thinking about the company is not limited by its culture, and we know all companies go through cycles and leadership strengths in earlier stages can be weaknesses in later stages. We understand there is strength in coming to grips with change and being open to new ways of thinking necessary for the company’s present reality. We also know the owner who plans for the future dramatically increases the odds of achieving the highest quality result.
Put another way, our client may benefit from a changed way of thinking but doesn’t see the need or resists taking the risks inherent in implementing change.
The dilemma is tantalizingly simple:
How hard (or perhaps, in what way) should a trusted advisor push the owner to take a broader perspective and engage the support of other advisors and coaches who will help incorporate new ways of thinking and a more planning oriented approach to the transition that is inevitable?
The best advisors put their clients first and are consistent advocates for what is best for their clients and their clients businesses – but how can they do this if the client simply does not see the forest because of the trees? What do you think?
Machiavelli’s Take on Advisors
May 4, 2010 by Harvey Wigder · Leave a Comment
The word Machiavellian is often regarded as synonymous with manipulation. But, is that really what Machiavelli was about?
I recently read The Prince and was taken with Machiavelli’s sensible and straightforward message. He showed how applying an understanding of human nature would allow a ruler to increase power and territory. The manipulation inherent in the concepts was based on strategies that increased the ruler’s power through providing influence and wealth to supporters.
When he classified states in terms of how they were governed, it was clear to Machiavelli that democratic states were more lasting than despotic ones. They found a way to balance extremes and give each class a piece of the action. Sooner or later, he observed, a ruler in a monarchy would get caught up in himself and forget to govern for the common good. This would alienate subjects, leading to revolution and vulnerability to ambitious rival regimes.
Leadership requires wisdom and knowledge and no one individual has a monopoly on it. As a result, Machiavelli understood how important it was for a Prince to have advisers who could help him stay grounded in reality. Sustained power required that policies and decisions spread rewards and minimize discontent.
He cautioned that the price of choosing advisors who were sycophants would sooner or later be high. Conversely, he documented that Princes who had the wisdom to use advisors with knowledge and skill and the backbone to be truthful had a better chance of survival and enhanced success.
These insights are as relevant today for a business owner as they were for a Prince in Machiavelli’s time. (Read more.)
The business owner whose advisors are cronies or dependent vendors and employees without the background and insight to provide needed advice or who have been trained not to offer it will lose out in the end. If you are an owner, it might meet certain human needs to have your judgment reinforced by yes men. (We will review the tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes on the right hand side bar.) However, it isn’t good business practice. Here are ways you can evaluate your advisors and your ability to benefit from good advice:
- Does the advisor have experience and success in an area where you need help and where you are seeking guidance? (This could be in domains as distinct as general management, whether to invest in new plant or technologies, or financial management.) You should seek people with the resume to provide guidance and bolster your strengths.
- When you ask for advice, are your views reinforced or are you challenged (respectfully) to see things in a new way, think out of the box, examine prejudices, or question past policies?
- If you take the risk of following advice and doing something that is out of your comfort zone, does following the advice lead to hoped for improvements?
- If yes, you are probably on the right track and have a valuable advisor and should followed his/her advice literally and in sprit. Treasure that person and your collaboration.
- If no, there is a problem. Then you need the wisdom to find out if the problem was the advice or the way you implemented it or something else. Whether the problem was with you or the advisor, the business will be preserved and enhanced if you show the courage to deal with reality.
Machiavelli remains pertinent today because human nature remains the same. We can get caught up in our technological world and forget the universal principles that tend to repeat themselves through recorded history. One universal principle is that self insight and the ability to learn and change behavior remains problematic. People are complicated.