It concerns one law of nature that cannot be ignored.  It is the law of immutable change.  Businesses constantly have to adapt to changes in technology and market conditions.  The survivors and winners learn to adapt.   Change might be hardest for those owner managed businesses who are inward focused and don’t evolve as the world around them changes.  As Tom Deans says in Every Families Business, businesses are temporary organizations always moving toward obsolescence. 

This view of the business world has relevance for baby boomer owned businesses because the owners are moving toward what we usually think of as retirement age.  Many, if not most, of these businesses likely have not been refreshed to reflect current conditions.  This is an important observation for baby boomer business owners because typically 80% of their potential wealth is tied up in their businesses. 

Another statistic baby boomer owners should consider is that 78% of them don’t effectively plan for their transitions out of their businesses.  Typically, an owner decides it is time to leave and quickly shuts down, selling the business at a fraction of its potential value or simply liquidating.  This, of course, is bad for the owner and his family, hurts employees who depend on the business, and because of the large number of baby boomer owned business, will also hurt the overall economy. 

In recognition of the opportunity created by the demographics of the baby boomer generation, greater numbers of business advisors are becoming interested in getting the message to owners and helping them with more effective exit planning.  These advisors realize owners have limited, if any, experience selling a business and need a well-planned approach that covers all the bases, prepares for an effective transition, and achieves a successful exit.  These advisors are often experts in their own areas but are becoming team focused so every owner can have his or her dream team that addresses the needs of that particular owner in terms of achieving all of his or her goals.

Continue……

The argument for superior exit planning is compelling and logical, but is the message getting through to owners?  There is that nagging statistic, mentioned earlier, that 78% don’t plan.  The reasons appear to be rooted in a combination of a lack of understanding, inertia and fear.  Specifically, many owners tend to feel that:

• It is easier to focus on the urgent rather than the important (and sometimes both together).
• It is too early to start creating a transition plan – besides, it’s complicated.
• They are not emotionally ready to begin the transition process (“it’s like planning my eventual funeral”).
• They are afraid of an unknown future – after all, what is so special about retirement life?
• They do not know experiences advisors who can help them plan and implement a successful transition on a personal and confidential basis.

 I don’t know if owners will become more conscious of the need for more effective planning as exits accelerate because of demographics.   But, because I am aware of the problem, I have become active in the Exit Planning Exchange, an organization of advisors committed to becoming experts in the exit process in order to better serve their clients. 

XPX’s mission is that every owner achieves a successful exit.  We are ahead of owners in indentifying the problem.  Our task is now to spread the word and make owners more fully aware of the consequences of not planning and at the same time, provide emotional and intellectual support for them throughout this important process.

Twenty eight years ago, when we lived in Philadelphia, we enjoyed a second home in Maryland on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay.  About four years ago, my wife Kathy and I decided we wanted to go back to the Bay.  I have been in the Boston area for 28 years and although I will always feel part Bostonian, I was ready for a change and this adventure.

Once we changed our family dialogue from should we move to actually selecting a target date (it was October 2011), the problem definition changed dramatically for us.  Since I have no desire to retire, my really big question was how I could move without damaging my business.   My specific questions were (1) how do I maintain business in Boston; (2) how do I build a network and become known in this new territory; and (3) should I change my business model to accommodate these changes?  I had two years to find answers to these questions.

Although I will briefly describe some of the decisions and changes I made, my main point is more existential.  I believe I have worked through the issues and arrived at good answers to my questions.  For this, I give the most credit to the fact that I stopped and consciously asked them in the first place.  In my view, and from my experience, something magical happens when we identify and clarify our goals: life’s energy and gravity works in a mysterious way to help us fit problems and opportunities together.

The opportunities I discovered include:

• Refining my executive search model to make it more unique and less bound to New England.
• Seeing that the Exit Planning Exchange was seeking to expand to Philadelphia, helping to launch the chapter.  I am now its President.
• I also have been active in the Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the Family Firm Institute.  This gives me presence in Philadelphia, a major city near my new home.
• Seeing Personal Transition Planning as something that could help make my search practice unique, getting trained to deliver the service, and then integrating it into my practice and launching it as a separate element within my business framework.
• Changing the name of my company from Fulcrum Search to Fulcrum Transitions (with the corresponding tag line: Better Lives, Better Businesses), to reflect the new excitement I feel about my business future.

I approach my transition with some fear that it might not work as well as I hope it will, but also with great excitement and careful optimism.  I hope to help others making transitions feel the same way in my new career as a transitions coach.

I am happy not to be saying goodbye to my Boston friends and look forward to continuing to work with you all as I develop new friends in Maryland.   Feel free to call me if you would like to talk.  Starting Friday, the number will be 877-694-1855

What is the missing ingredient in “Traditional” Succession” Planning?

Succession planning refers to an owner designating successors to lead the business.

Last month, we showed how when an owner became committed to exit planning, he or she was far more likely to achieve their personal and financial goals.   Despite this, the sad fact is that most owners do not plan and thus do not maximize estate value, thus harm themselves, their families and the business’s stakeholders.  We said that the missing ingredient is emotional readiness.   Quoting myself:

“Although I have heard there are owners who want to retire, I don’t know them. The ones I know have their identities and lives so wrapped in running their companies that they do not have a clue about what they might do with their lives if they didn’t have the business to go to. Instead, they ask themselves, “If I sell my business on Friday, what do I do Monday morning?” When they contemplate the prospect of not actually not “going to work” at the business, they figuratively (and sometimes literally) grow cold and clammy because they feel that without the business, they would drop into a black hole that feels somewhat like a walking death. In a sense, the business is their life and without the business, life seems pretty empty.”

As one antidote, we summarized a process for Personal Transition Planning that provides a pathway for owner’s being motivated to move on to the next exciting stage of their lives.

When succession planning only focuses on the needs of the business or just considers the dynamics in the family, we miss considering the needs of the owner and forget that nothing will happen unless the person in control is excited by the prospects of his or her life after the transition.  This excitement is necessary for the owner to be motivated to make the transition happen.

A second factor is a bias toward viewing multigenerational businesses as a good thing. In this view, the “fact” that 30% of businesses don’t make it to the second generation is a sign of failure.   A few newsletters ago, we mentioned a study that turned this notion around by focusing on families, not businesses.  It identified enterprise oriented families that stayed in business for generations even when it sold particular businesses.

Besides referring to this study I recommend Every Family’s Business by Thomas Deans.  This book examines the value of a perspective on maximizing wealth.  In this view, a family should only hold onto a particular business when the family feels it offers the highest return.

Clarity and My Own Transition

I am going to share a bit about my own transition from a home in Newton (that we sold two years ago) to my new digs in Worton, Maryland.  The picture shows a view from my new deck.  Although I will continue to spend much of my working life in Boston, the Maryland address will be my primary residence.

Twenty eight years ago, when we lived in Philadelphia, we enjoyed a second home in Maryland on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay.  About four years ago, my wife Kathy and I decided we wanted to go back to the Bay.  I have been in the Boston area for 28 years and although I will always feel part Bostonian, I was ready for a change and this adventure.

Once we changed our family dialogue from should we move to actually selecting a target date (it was October 2011), the problem definition changed dramatically for us.  Since I have no desire to retire, my really big question was how I could move without damaging my business.   My specific questions were (1) how do I maintain business in Boston; (2) how do I build a network and become known in this new territory; and (3) should I change my business model to accommodate these changes?  I had two years to find answers to these questions.

Although I will briefly describe some of the decisions and changes I made, my main point is more existential.  I believe I have worked through the issues and arrived at good answers to my questions.  For this, I give the most credit to the fact that I stopped and consciously asked them in the first place.  In my view, and from my experience, something magical happens when we identify and clarify our goals: life’s energy and gravity works in a mysterious way to help us fit problems and opportunities together.

The opportunities I discovered include:

• Refining my executive search model to make it more unique and less bound to New England.
• Seeing that the Exit Planning Exchange was seeking to expand to Philadelphia, helping to launch the chapter.  I am now its President.
• I also have been active in the Mid-Atlantic Chapter of the Family Firm Institute.  This gives me presence in Philadelphia, a major city near my new home.
• Seeing Personal Transition Planning as something that could help make my search practice unique, getting trained to deliver the service, and then integrating it into my practice and launching it as a separate element within my business framework.
• Changing the name of my company from Fulcrum Search to Fulcrum Transitions (with the corresponding tag line: Better Lives, Better Businesses), to reflect the new excitement I feel about my business future.

I approach my transition with some fear that it might not work as well as I hope it will, but also with great excitement and careful optimism.  I hope to help others making transitions feel the same way in my new career as a transitions coach.

I am happy not to be saying goodbye to my Boston friends and look forward to continuing to work with you all as I develop new friends in Maryland.   Feel free to call me if you would like to talk.

The first baby boomers have passed the traditional 65 year retirement age and every year, that number will increase.  This will impact the economy because it is estimated that this age quadrant owns about 8 million businesses.  This is an important time for making some key decisions in the life of a business owner, especially since it is estimated that 80% of his or her wealth is tied up in the business.  Since a business is not a liquid investment, it must be sold for the owner to realize its value.

There are two problems with exits.  The first is that the owner has spent his life operating the business and usually doesn’t have the skills to sell it.  What generally seems to happen is that the owner has a crisis or gets fed up and seeks an immediate sale.  Since owners often have unrealistic notions of the value of the business and have not done anything to prepare it for sale, selling the business can be very problematic.  One statistic that shows the result of that lack of expertise is that 78% of businesses presented to M&A firms do not find a buyer and are subsequently liquidated.  Many others find buyers, but don’t maximize the selling price.  These transitions are not good for the owner, his or her family, employees, or customers; it also represents a loss of jobs and value added for the economy.

Advisors who understand that most owners do not have the skills to sell their businesses have begun to focus on the idea that bigger picture exit thinking needs to be coupled with their specific professional expertise.  Many money managers, M&A firms, lawyers, accountants and business consultants are realizing that each situation has its own complexity and it will take a team of specialists (legal, tax, accounting, and others), plugged into the needs of the owner, to help guide that person to a successful exit.  These advisors help the owner understand the process and form the team needed for success.  And in this case, the term success is defined as the completion of a transaction wherein the owner is able to monetize his or her investment to the greatest financial benefit possible, while at the same time ensuring employees, customers, vendors, and the buyer are also benefited.

Thus, the initial approach to the realization that “exits” would become increasingly prevalent was financial.  The questions most often posed to owners were “how much money do you need to fund the life you would like when you no longer have cash flow from the business?”, and “what is your business worth – assuming you can sell it?”  If the business was worth more than his or her needs, the owner could sell it and was encouraged to create a plan around value maximization. If the business was worth less, the challenge was to create a plan that included steps to increase the businesses value (and its likelihood of sale).  However, these insights often don’t necessarily lead to action. Why? What is the missing component?

The missing ingredient is emotional readiness.    Although I have heard there are owners who want to retire, I don’t know them.  The ones I know have their identities and lives so wrapped in running their companies that they do not have a clue about what they might do with their lives if they didn’t have the business to go to.  Instead, they ask themselves, “if I sell my business on Friday, what do I do Monday morning?”  When they contemplate the prospect of not actually not “going to work” at the business, they figuratively (and sometimes literally) grow cold and clammy because they feel that without the business, they would drop into a black hole that feels somewhat like a walking death.  In a sense, the business is their life and without the business, life seems pretty empty.

Understanding the emotional component has led to the next generation of exit planning, more properly called transition planning.  With this focus, the owner considers his or her (and often the spouse is included) emotional readiness early in the process.  If an owner can get excited about the prospects of an interesting and meaningful life after leaving the business, they are motivated to proceed.  Otherwise, they nearly always put off needed planning; avoid the subject altogether, or (unconsciously) sabotage planning and selling efforts because of this lack of emotional readiness to move into another phase of life.  This emotional component of the situation has many variables – and they differ from person to person.  The point here is that those variables should be carefully examined, planned for, and resolved as part of the transition process.

I have gone through my own transition planning which I will discuss in the next newsletter.   During my planning I discovered the Successful Personal Planning Institute which has created a systematic, business oriented process to help owners deal with emotional issues.   I have been certified by them to use their process and am now working with business owners to help plan and effect a successful emotional and financial transition from their business to a new and equally fulfilling life.  We will continue on this topic in the next newsletter.

In other blogs we have documented the sad truth that less than forty per cent of executive candidates last 18 months, and have shown you that one of the leading and a most respected search firm admits this is true.  Given these statistics, you might ask, “What is going on and why is successful search so difficult?”

The executive search firm’s business model is straightforward in its simplicity.  There are three major elements:

• Client tells the search firm the position it wants to fill and skills and personality desired,
• Search firm finds excellent qualified candidates, and
• Client selects the candidate it thinks is best, and hires him or her.

The first step in the process, the client setting the specification, sets up a fantasy situation that can be likened to the fable of the Executive’s New Clothes in that the Emperor’s vanity gets in the way of his discerning the simple truth that the garment he was promised couldn’t be produced.

The success and failure of an executive placement is not only about whether the right executive is hired!  It depends on many factors including:

• Realistic understanding of what the new executive should accomplish to be successful,
• Particular challenges posed by the hiring company and the way it operates in achieving that result, and
• Hiring executive and organization’s being willing to accept flaws in their processes and take some of the responsibility for making the new executive successful.

When search firms join their client in the belief that they only variable making for success is the candidate, they are buying in to the client’s fantasy of his or her omnipotence in understanding the needs of the organization, because they benefit from it.   They don’t risk alienating the client by telling that he should dig deeper to understand what is needed for success; they deliver strong candidates, let the client chose, and collect their fee and leave.    This is a safe and profitable business.

We don’t want to overstate and say that the traditional executive search model is never appropriate or that search firms never do a good job.  That clearly isn’t the case.  However, we believe that every search should start with an assessment that helps the organization dig deep and understand what is most important for the success of a new executive and what needs to be done to ensure that the executive isn’t in a job that can’t be done.  Only then, we believe, should the focus turn to the hiring specification.

Unfortunately the original study is often misquoted and the resulting popular conclusion is misleading.  We have come to believe that there is something inherent in family businesses that cause them to fail at the sited “rapid” rates.

I wanted to share some highlights from Rob’s presentation since this goes a long way toward reframing our understanding of the survival rates of family businesses and asks us to consider their strengths anew.  To me, the main take away messages were:

· The now shop worn 30%, 13%, 3% statistic is often misconstrued to mean that 30% of businesses fail in the second generation.   That is wrong. The numbers were meant to show, to use the first number, 30%, as an example that 30% of family businesses last through the second generation and begin the third.   As a further consideration, even if the business does not go beyond the third generation, this  does not always represent a failure.  Is it, for example, a failure if the business is sold?  The study used the family, not the business, as its unit of focus.   By doing so, it confirmed the positive result of the older study by showing that the average longevity of these businesses is about 60 years (2½ to 3 generations). It also presented a new and very provocative statistic: most of the families in their study owned multiple businesses so that the family’s involvement in enterprises outlasted its tie to any single entity.

· It makes a significant difference in perspective when you use overall survival rates as a benchmark.  As we all know, the world is ever changing and businesses fail all of the time.  The statistics show that only 25% of new businesses last 10 years.   Another way of saying the same thing is to consider that one company that was in the original Dow Jones still survives.   That is GE.  From this perspective, everything is turned around.  If the 30% number is valid, then it doesn’t show the weakness of family businesses; rather it is a testament to their strength.

Businesses are created by entrepreneurs.   The study ask us to consider that the family business is compatible with entrepreneurship and may even be a breeding ground for entrepreneurs.  I want to applaud Rob and his team for the study and invite anyone to learn more about by going to :
http://www.ffi.org/default.asp?id=411

“We’ve found that 40 per cent of executives hired at the senior level are pushed out, fail or quit within 18 months.”

Some industry observers who saw that quote used it to bash the firm.  For example, Staffing Advisor says “Astonishing.  He’s describing a 40% failure rate by one of the most trusted and reputable brands in the executive search business.  (If that statistic is true, I’m glad they didn’t build my house or service the breaks on my car.)”    

Staffing Advisor was being disingenuous because they know that Kelly is only admitting what other observers have known for years.  It is hard to find and integrate executives into a new company.  Failure rates are high and the reason is cultural fit, not skills.

Kelly is a young CEO who earned his recent promotion because of his successes building revenue in the Heidrick regions he managed.   He is using  this research as a basis for introducing new services and income streams to the company.  To continue quoting the Financial Times article: “The firm now offers companies everything from initial training and early feedback for their new recruits to regular assessments of current executives and succession planning and staff development programs.”   The article then quotes a killer analogy.  “Mr. Kelly likens the services to the work of an organ transplant team, which not only locate and attaches the new heart or liver but also follows up with the patient to make sure the transplant is not rejected.  Such “leadership and advisory services” now account for 10 per cent of Heidrick’s revenue.  Mr. Kelly hopes to push that number to 40 per cent over the next five years….”

I am sure these new services will be attractive to the Fortune 1000 firms who are most apt to use the services of Heidrick & Struggles and the other big brand search firms.  This is the CYA mentality immortalized in the phrase, “You can’t go wrong with IBM!”

If Heidrick and the other big search firms had the courage to take a deeper look, they might take a Deming approach and consider the failure rate as having something to do with their processes and business model and tackle the question: What can we do to improve our processes?

At Fulcrum, we have recognized the problems in the big-company search model for years.  We improved our processes several years ago and we provide a 100% satisfaction guarantee.  We are happy to see that a giant like Heidrick and Struggles is beginning to get it, and is offering (for an additional fee) many of the services we already provide as part of our stand search package.  

If you go to Heidrick’s website, you will see the array of services they offer and learn about the many experts who provide them.  On the other hand, if you go to the Fulcrum web site, you will see a simple promise:  a guarantee that we will get it right.  Let the clients decide which firm gets it right.

As this goes on we get angrier and  feel more hopeless.  We wonder how and why the parties could have done what they did, why we can’t fix it faster, and last, who exactly is responsible. 

Assigning responsibility is tricky. Certainly BP underestimated risks and cut corners and deserves its current prominence for malfeasance.  But, the responsibility is  broader.  The  oil industry wasn’t prepared and this isn’t the first leaking rig.  The government structure for regulation was in place, but the people who did the regulating didn’t act in the public interest.  Despite the warning signs, our appetite for petroleum fuels remains unabated.  The consequence seems to be riskier and riskier drilling.  Should we hold successive administrations responsible for insufficiently dealing with this potential crisis?  

Besides bail out, the solutions that are now being proposed address responsibility and punishment.   The mechanisms are increased penalties and better regulation.  Given the current malaise in Washington, the Congressional debate on how exactly what to enact will go on for years and will end with the public having little confidence in the final result.

Last week the news also brought the story of a Tylenol recall because bottles manufactured in Mexico gave off an offensive, and to some, sickening odor.   Before BP took them off the top half of the page, Toyota also showed offensive irresponsibility.  The problems caused by the Greek governments irresponsible  stewardship of the country’s economy have also impacted us all.  The sources of threat are everywhere!   If you believe that global warming is in progress, that ups your level of concern about the fate of our earth.

Our ability to cope hasn’t kept up with our ability to  manage global interdependency.   National governments are now dealing with issues of international impact with agreement between nations almost impossible because of diverging interests.

Dealing with these issues will require systems thinking on an international scale with a corresponding  recognition of the problems and a will to deal with them.  The track record isn’t good so this is highly unlikely.  I can only anticipate a long series of unanticipated disasters.   These issues don’t have a single culprit or even a root cause.  The problem is that we can’t manage a diverse system.   Fortunately a company is a smaller entity than the world economy and some are managed very well.    

Executive recruiting is more problematic than the search industry wants to publicize.   Just to get you oriented, recent surveys have shown that 40% of newly hired CEOs don’t last 18 months.  For more metrics that show how dismal executive retention rates are, click here.  

When you are an owner who sees that a hiring mistake has been made, you are seeing an oil leak on a smaller scale as the business makes bad decisions, looses market credibility, experiences drops in profits and morale, and begins to lose its best people.   The cause can be summarized by this phrase: people get hired based on their resumes and get fired because of their personalities and their failure to provide leadership in the right way in an organization with a specific culture.  

A non-systems oriented search will list the skills and experience that the resume of the new executive should contain.  On the other hand, a systems perspective would consider the culture of the organization, its strategic plan, the role a new executive can play in implementing it and the obstacles the new executive would have to overcome to be effective.  The specification would go beyond the resume and consider personality, character and ability to fit into the culture while simultaneously being a change agent. 

The systems view would then go broader still: It would consider that the organization and its current leadership need to collaborate for success and therefore will have as much or more responsibility for achieving the organizations goals as the new executive.  That  is  follow up and integration is included as an important step for success.  Both the organization and the new executive need feedback to ensure they stay on track to achieve the larger goals of the organization. 

Conclusion

The time for limited, non-systems thinking has past.  Those who are engaged in executive search can continue to make the mistake of seeing the responsibility for success as only being in the hands of the person hired (e.g. if that person doesn’t work out, we hired the wrong person) and begin to take a broader systems look at what the organization wants to achieve and the responsibility of the whole for achieving it.

Scope of Knowledge and Wisdom to Select the Right Problem

Most advisors have been well trained as specialists in their disciplines.  The good ones are on top of their profession and supply the contracted product and service with precision and at the state of the art.  However there is also parochialism that comes with their training.  What if they provide an excellent solution to a problem their client asked them to solve that was really the wrong problem for the client to expend resources on?  That wastes resources.  Worse, what happens if the advisor knows that this isn’t an essential issue but provides a solution in any case?  Is that ethical?

Like a well trained advisor, an entrepreneur who has developed his or her business has been trained by success and has habitual ways of responding to business situations.

Most of the time, the good advisor will be solving the right problem and most of the time the owner’s solution to a problem will be the right one.  It is at the margins where interesting situations occur.  These margins occur at those moments that call for “out of the box” thinking.  In those cases,  wisdom involves stepping back and identifying the right problem as a precursor to solving it.  The Great Advisor can stand back and identify critical issues.

An owner should look for an advisor who challenges him or her to find the right problems to solve.   Advisors who meet that criteria might be ones who have run businesses or who belong to multi-discipline groups such as I have mentioned previously, Exit Planning Exchange or The Family Firm Institute.    This exposure to other disciplines and ways of thinking helps train them to step back from the problem a client presents and help identify a deeper or more fundamental problem.  This directs resource to solving problems that will benefit the business. 

 As good as this broad knowledge is, it not enough for Greatness.  I think a second characteristic is needed for a person to qualify as Great Advisors. 

Respect for and Acceptance of the Client

 Because of the broad experience in dozens or even hundreds of companies a good advisor brings to any one client, that person will often see opportunities for improvement.  It is very common for advisors to be frustrated because their client doesn’t get it!   Why is he or she resisting good recommendation?    

I am going to make my point by asking you to drawn on your own experience.  Let’s say you have a problem bothering you and you talk to a few people about it.  The first person doesn’t have the patience to let you “get it all out” and gives advice on how to solve the problem.  How annoyed and frustrated are you?   The second listens and asks a lot of questions.  After awhile you solve the problem yourself (eureka) or are more open to discussing alternative solutions.  Does that feel better to you, and are you more likely to go with the decision made in that situation? 

 The Great Advisor takes the time to explore, understand, and respect the psychological and cultural context and then works within that framework to get done what the person or system is capable of doing.   The Great Advisor has developed skills as an active listener and has learned to understand and explore before jumping to action.  

Trust 

You will notice that a Great Advisor doesn’t always get great results.   However, the Great Advisor does build relationships and acts in a trustworthy manner.   They understand that they can be influential but in the end, the decision is with the client and that the client has the right to do “the wrong thing”.   At the end of the day, The Great Advisor has the satisfaction of knowing that he or she worked in the client’s best interest, has not been self serving, has done no harm and hopefully has helped the client make progress.  The Great Advisor stands ready to provide greater value when the client is ready to take a broader view.  

The books I recommend are Dirty Rotten Strategies: How We Trick Ourselves and Others into Solving the Wrong Problems, Precisely by Ian I. Mitroff and Abraham Silvers, and Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help, by Edgar H. Schien.

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?