Wednesday, December 06, 2006

What Didn't Happen at Yahoo!



An article from today's TheStreet.com by Vishesh Kumar:

What Didn't Happen At Yahoo!

By Vishesh Kumar

TheStreet.com Senior Writer

12/6/2006 3:15 PM EST

Click here for more stories by Vishesh Kumar

Despite the hype, the most important piece of news to come out of Yahoo! (YHOO - news - Cramer's Take - Rating) recently is what the company didn't do.

The intrigue swirled Tuesday evening as news of a Yahoo! senior-executive meeting spread through the blogosphere. And while speculation ranged from the company announcing that it would be acquired to the eagerly gamed resignation of CEO Terry Semel, the end result was seemingly lackluster.

Chief Operating Officer Dan Rosensweig, Senior Vice President Jon Marcon, and Media Group Chief Lloyd Braun will be departing. The company also said it would reorganize itself into two separate business units.

The news may have rattled -- or soothed -- investors at other tech behemoths. But Yahoo! is a company with recent antics such as the famed Peanut Butter manifesto, a leaked internal memo urging a firing of up to 20% of the workforce, and another claiming last quarter that the Internet-advertising sector was facing an overall slowdown -- only to see rival Google (GOOG - news - Cramer's Take - Rating) blow away its numbers.

Investors shrugged off the news, with Yahoo! shares decreasing a modest 50 cents to $26.93 in midday trading Wednesday.

Still, investors should be relieved by a few predictions that did not pan out Tuesday.
First, Yahoo! CFO Sue Decker did not get promoted to the top CEO spot, as a growing chorus of commentators was hoping for. Decker, who will now head up a new group responsible for ad sales, deserves kudos for her solid performance as a CFO and more.

But much of the gushing support for the former Wall Street research analyst comes from people who are accustomed to thinking about Wall Street first -- not the least of whom are other research analysts.

"Institutional investors love Sue Decker," Laura Martin, an analyst with Soleil/Media Metrics, told Forbes in November. "She was there as the stock plummeted, providing a very material piece of information that the prior management team didn't give out," Mark Mahaney, a Citigroup analyst, said in the same Forbes article.

When CFOs Take the Reins

Though Decker may have done a top-notch job managing Wall Street and giving research analysts the data points they need to do their job, there's no guarantee that this translates into the ability to take the helm of one of Silicon Valley's iconic tech companies.

In fact, there are virtually no examples of CFOs with research-analyst backgrounds who have gone on to run tech companies as CEOs in the tech field, with the closest example perhaps being Charles Phillips, who garners the number two spot as co-President of Oracle (ORCL - news - Cramer's Take - Rating).

But the nearly 30-year-old Oracle is a much more mature business than Yahoo!, with more predictable revenue streams that lend themselves to a CFO's acumen.

More importantly, the last thing Yahoo! needs to elevate as a priority right now are Wall Street's concerns. Just take a look at the roaring success of rival Google, famous for snubbing Wall Street and putting the long-term prospects of its business ahead of all else.

Shares of Google, which does not provide quarterly guidance and has mocked analyst concerns about its growing technology spending, continue to march forward, trading up $3.99 at $490.99.
How Yahoo! is thought about in Silicon Valley will have much more bearing on the company's success in the long term than Wall Street's daily machinations. Yahoo! is increasingly seen as a technology laggard when compared with Google and the hundreds of cutting-edge startups blossoming in Silicon Valley's latest renaissance.

The company will need to enlist the best and brightest technologists to thrive in an industry famous for dependence on the innovativeness of its rank and file. A companywide push toward the short-term, cookie-cutter metrics Wall Street considers paramount will only alienate these people.

Google, an engineers' paradise famous for encouraging employees to spend 30% of their time working on ambitious pet projects, again provides a useful foil.

Yahoo!'s already-stifling posture would only be furthered by a greater orientation toward Wall Street. "We believe Yahoo!'s myopic focus on protecting its margins has come at the expense of technology investments, as evidenced by two consecutive quarters of R&D spending declines," writes Jeetil Patel, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, which has a banking relationship with Yahoo!

"In contrast, its competitors continue to aggressively spend on R&D and product innovation as a means of user growth," writes Patel.

That said, Sue Decker may demonstrate the makings of a fine Internet CEO over time, even if she is the first to come from a financial background. "Her's is not seen as the traditional background to come from, and when you are working with a board to find candidates, there is often the hope you will come up with a magic bullet," says Eric Jackson, CEO of consulting firm Jackson Leadership Systems and among the first to call Decker the odds-on favorite to succeed Semel.

"But all candidates have their strengths and weaknesses, and when you look at Decker, she is the top person from an internal perspective on balance."

That's why Yahoo!'s wait-and-see approach -- giving Decker a promotion and a good chunk of operational responsibility, without vaulting her to the top spot -- is the best of both worlds.
The position will test Decker's operational ability, leaving the door open to an outside CEO down the road if things don't work out. And it will give Decker, who is lately being noticed more and more, greater incentive to stay with Yahoo! in what promises to be an uphill battle.

The other piece of good news was that Yahoo! signaled that it would not be cutting any jobs, despite the Peanut Butter memo's pushing for one-in-five employees to be canned.
Instead, Semel wrote on the company's blog that Yahoo! was positioned for growth and would be hiring -- not firing -- in the near future.

While Wall Street often reacts positively to the cost-cutting that comes with layoffs, the announcement could prevent many Yahoo! employees who were previously afraid of losing their jobs from preemptively jumping ship.

And at a time when it's imperative for the company to deliver its new advertising platform, dubbed Project Panama, on time, Yahoo! needs those people more than it needs Wall Street.

Sphere: Related Content

New Day for Yahoo!


Congratulations to Susan and the rest of the organization. They are a great company with a great future.
Reuters
Yahoo reorganizing, CFO Decker gets key role
Tuesday December 5, 11:45 pm ET By Eric Auchard
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Yahoo Inc. (NASDAQ:YHOO - News) on Tuesday announced a reorganization that marks Chief Financial Officer Susan Decker as a potential successor as CEO and simplifies its structure as it battles faster-growing rival Google.Decker, 44, will take the lead of a new unit focused on advertising, which is Yahoo's main source of income but has also seen growth slow in some areas. Media, communication, and other product groups will be merged into a unit focused on marketing and international businesses.
Chief Operating Officer Daniel Rosensweig, a possible rival to Decker for the mantle of successor to Chief Executive Terry Semel, will leave the company in March.
Also leaving is Yahoo Media Group chief Lloyd Braun, a former ABC TV executive hired two years ago to help Yahoo blend its Internet services with Hollywood-style showmanship.
Ushered in to help the company define a new hybrid that blended Hollywood and Silicon Valley, Yahoo was caught out by the explosive rise of video-sharing phenomenon YouTube, which was recently bought by Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG - News) for $1.65 billion.
"This is just the beginning of what Yahoo needs to do," said RBC Capital Markets analyst Jordan Rohan in New York.
"It may take all of 2007. Change like this is evolutionary, not revolutionary. The new division heads will need time to grasp the enormity of the task at hand."
A spokeswoman said Yahoo does not publicly discuss its succession plans. Semel, 64, who is also Yahoo's chairman, has no plans to leave the company and is re-energized by the changes under way, she said.
SHIFT IN AD MARKET
Yahoo, a 12-year-old Internet pioneer, has struggled with a shift in the online ad market as corporate advertisers chase younger customers on new social networking sites such as MySpace and YouTube.
In its latest quarterly results, Yahoo posted a 37 percent drop in quarterly profit, prompting Semel to say he was not satisfied with the financial performance of the company.
Google, by contrast, said its profit nearly doubled as it tightened its grip on the online search market.
Shares of Yahoo are down about 30 percent this year, while Google shares are up about 17 percent.
Some of the details of the reorganization were prefigured in an internal memo written in October and leaked out in November, which was dubbed the "Peanut Butter Manifesto."
The memo argued Yahoo's investment strategy was like spreading peanut butter too thinly on bread -- and argued for "radical reorganization" and job cuts of 15 percent to 20 percent of Yahoo's 10,000 employees.
Yahoo said on Tuesday that no layoffs were planned in the restructuring. "As far as layoffs go, we are absolutely organizing for growth," Semel told Reuters in an interview to discuss the moves. "We continue to hire."
The company is reorganizing into two business segments: Audiences, which will oversee search, media and communication products and services, and Advertisers and Publishers, which makes money from ads aimed at the audiences. Yahoo's e-commerce business will join the ad group.
Decker, who will head the latter, was a top-ranked Wall Street media analyst, who joined Yahoo in 2000. She has emerged as one of Silicon Valley's most high-profile woman leaders.
As Yahoo moves to serve customers not only within its own network of properties but also via partnerships on other online properties, the need to restructure grew apparent, Semel said.
He pointed to high-profile advertising and Web services partnership deals Yahoo has struck in recent months with online auctioneer eBay Inc. (NASDAQ:EBAY - News), 170 U.S. daily newspapers and mobile phone powerhouse Vodafone (London:VOD.L - News) in Britain.
RBC's Rohan argues that Yahoo faces less competition from Google, but, like Google, it must become more nimble in order to grasp emerging opportunities on the Internet, where two- or three-year-old companies frequently set the industry's agenda.
"The competition with Google in search is done. Google won," Rohan said. "But Yahoo has a real audience advantage in everything except Web search," he said of its vast audiences for e-mail, instant messaging, news and other properties.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 04, 2006

Memo to Yahoo’s Board: Fire Semel


This is taken from this morning's edition of Matt Marshall's VentureBeat:

Recent troubles have engulfed Yahoo! with the sharp earnings miss relative to Google, delays on the Panama advertising platform roll-out, slowing growth rates, and low-level VP Brad Garlinghouse’s now infamous “Peanut Butter Manifesto” leaked to Kevin Delaney and Page One of the Wall Street Journal and highly critical of Yahoo!’s management. TechCrunch now says that Michael Marquez is leaving and Xie Wen left their China group last week.

Criticism has taken many forms. Some are saying that nothing is wrong at Yahoo! except for better monetizing its traffic, and others that Yahoo! needs to more dramatically upgrade the quality of its search and embrace "de-portalization" of itself. However, most of the criticism in the wake of the leak has been directed at Chairman and CEO Terry Semel. It really should be directed at Yahoo’s Board, which -- to this point -- has escaped any mention in press coverage of the tech giant.

Boards serve many functions but their most basic job is to hire and fire the CEO. It’s time for Yahoo!’s Board to fulfill its responsibility to its shareholders, users, and employees by firing Terry Semel and hiring someone else to get the company back on its footing.

In April 2001, Yahoo!’s Board hired Terry Semel. After the go-go days of the late ‘90s and a relaxed culture under its first CEO, Tim Koogle, the Board chose a 24-year Hollywood power broker. Semel was to bring marketing and focus to the company and inimitable connections with the old media content providers that could be harnessed by Yahoo! He has overseen a dramatic turnaround in Yahoo!’s stock price from $4.05 at its nadir to $26.50 today.

Yet, chronic complaints about ‘silos’ of competing groups after many acquisitions, lack of vision for where the company is going, some acquisition hits (e.g., Flickr, del.icio.us) but many misses (e.g., DialPad) and several notable bridesmaid non-moves (e.g., not doing deals with Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, or AOL), and general unease from within the ranks about where Yahoo! is going suggest that Terry Semel’s best days at Yahoo! are behind him. The company needs fresh eyes at the helm to avoid Yahoo! languishing only to be ignominiously acquired by a Microsoft or merged with an eBay down the road. Yahoo!’s shareholders, users, and employees deserve better and the Board should do its part.

Here is a short-list of what Yahoo’s Board needs to do now:

1. Fire Terry Semel. He’s lost his credibility to lead and he’s approaching 64 after 5 years in the job. There was a time for Tim Koogle to go, now is the time for Terry to go.

2. Hire a Credible Successor. Yahoo! employees and shareholders need to believe in this person. He/she must be able to clearly articulate a vision for where the company is going, fix the internal inefficiencies which exist, and drive a culture that ensures personal accountability. I recently suggested Susan Decker fits the bill. Vishesh Kumar of TheStreet.com has speculated to me that Jerry Yang might make a good fit. There are also many able external candidates.

3. Install a new “Presiding Director.” It’s admirable that Yahoo! took the step of creating the role of “Presiding Director” to constructively challenge its CEO and ensure sufficient debate on the Board. However, if I was Robert A. Kotick, the current “Presiding Director” who is also the full-time Chairman and CEO at Activision – brought in by Semel 2 years after Semel’s appointment and 20 years Semel’s junior – I would find it difficult to speak out in Board meetings against Semel. There is a natural deference to "the one who brought you to the dance." A new approach is needed in this important role.

4. Demand that all Yahoo! Directors buy meaningful amounts of YHOO stock. Yahoo! requires all its executives to buy and hold 3000 shares of stock, and it suggests its Directors own 12,000 shares of stock. Yet, as mentioned in an earlier post, these can be as a result of generous stock options or grants from Yahoo! At the moment, all outside directors are well above 12,000, thanks to these options. The problem with grants and options is that they are treated as "found money." Our research shows that companies where the outside Directors dig into their own pockets -- putting "skin in the game" -- and purchase meaningful amounts of stock enjoy significant returns compared to their industry returns in subsequent years.

5. 10-Year Term Limits for Yahoo! Directors. It’s inevitable that even the best Directors become a little stale in the saddle after a certain amount of time. You simply can’t continue to see the company with fresh eyes. The best Boards rotate in new talent in an orderly way. In the case of Yahoo!, two of its ten Directors just celebrated their tenth anniversary on the Board: Eric Hippeau and Arthur Kern. Yahoo! defends this in their governance policies by saying: "While term limits could help insure that there are fresh ideas and viewpoints available to the Board, they hold the disadvantage of losing the contribution of directors who over time have developed increasing insight into the Company and its operations and therefore provide an increasing contribution to the Board as a whole." Yet, several respected scholars have found definitive evidence that tenure leads to an increased commitment to past decisions and a lack of willingness to try new approaches. Besides, Yahoo!'s board can always ask Messrs. Hippeau and Kern to come back from time to time as consultants to the board, so they can tap into their insight, if necessary. While they have served the company well, it’s time for some new blood.

6. Ask all Yahoo! Executives not to serve on other Non-Internet Boards. Although it symbolizes how well she is thought of by F500 companies, Yahoo! shareholders, employees, and users do not directly benefit from Susan Decker spending time each quarter as a Director for Costco and now Intel. Her professional time should be 100% focused on Yahoo!’s problems and solutions -- not on reviewing the quarterly board packages for Costco and Intel. One response to this suggestion might be that serving on these boards is good for Ms. Decker, as it exposes her to new ideas and practices that she can bring back to Yahoo!, making her less insular. I respectfully disagree. In this post-SOX world, serving as a Director is a major time commitment and there are many able non-executives to fill the need. There are also many other ways that Susan Decker can stay abreast of new trends and practices in her current role without being a Director elsewhere, guarding against a closed-minded view of the world. There is also evidence in this study that executives serving on boards of other companies (like Costco) that are outside the "computer" industry are bad for the home company's stock price.

It’s been over two weeks since the “Peanut Butter Manifesto” appeared in print for all to read. To this point, the Board and Yahoo! have remained silent on it. The Board needs to move swiftly to replace Terry Semel with someone else who can go through the necessary and difficult work of breaking down the internal silos that exist at Yahoo! and drive it through its next stage of growth. This is not a quick-fix. The new CEO will need time to facilitate this make-over.

However, Yahoo’s Board has two choices: (1) proactively move to get someone in place to do this necessary work or (2) wait for the many willing activist hedge funds (like Bill Ackman at Pershing Square, Bruce Sherman at Private Capital, Ralph Whitworth at Relational, Eric Knight at Knight Vinke, Eric Rosenfeld of Crescendo Partners, Barry Rosenstein at Jana, or Carl Ichan) to accumulate positions in Yahoo!’s stock above a certain threshold when they will dictate their terms to Yahoo! and change its Board composition themselves.

Sphere: Related Content

How Family Businesses Can Significantly Reduce their Risk with a Corporate Early-Warning System


The following article is included in Winter 06 Family Business magazine's special issue on family business boards:

A Corporate Early-Warning System

In the post-Sarbanes-Oxley environment, companies are seeking to reduce their risk of failure. Here’s an effective way for family business leaders and boards of directors to identify and manage risk.

By Sydney Finkelstein and Eric M. Jackson

Business failure has been one of the most discussed topics in the corporate landscape for the past five years. With the deflation of the “Internet bubble” in 2000 and the corporate scandals engulfing Enron and WorldCom, understanding and lessening risk has become more important to CEOs and boards than ever before. And just when those debacles are beginning to fade from our collective memories, a new one seems to erupt, such as Refco in the U.S. and Livedoor in Japan. Clearly, there is more work to do to improve the level of corporate governance and to lessen the risk of future imbroglios.


In our experience, family-owned businesses are sometimes held even more under the microscope than other businesses. Adelphia Communications, unfortunately, gave family businesses a poster-child case of corporate failure. Beyond these extreme cases, however, outside analysts, media, customers, suppliers and directors are more commonly speaking out in favor of tighter internal controls that ensure that family-run businesses, especially those held under majority control, are transparent and beyond reproach in terms of their risk practices. At times of succession from one generation to the next, there is even more concern about business continuity and avoiding a major catastrophe.


What can family business leaders and their advisers do to avoid breakdowns in their organizations? Although we have greatly improved our understanding of business failure, business risk and corporate governance over the last five years, in truth, most organizations’ conception of business risk today is limited to implementing additional financial controls, protecting information technology and preparing for disaster recovery or business continuity. We are still in our infancy when it comes to understanding business risk in relation to leadership, strategy and the internal processes. Yet what is more important to a company’s success, and its survival?


If there is one thing that all family owners and board members will agree on, it’s that a major breakdown or failure cannot be allowed to take hold on their watch. When you get right down to it, there are dozens -- even hundreds -- of decisions that are made in companies that keep the ship moving forward, and no CEO, senior team or board can possibly control them all. But if these decisions (and sometimes non-decisions) push an organization to the precipice of failure, the owners and directors will be the ones held responsible. The solution, we believe, is to develop an early-warning system that can identify -- in real time, not after the fact -- a company’s vulnerabilities that can lead to failure. Armed with this information in a timely manner, family leaders can make the necessary real-time adjustments before it is too late.

Measuring business risk today


To serve organizations’ growing interest in better understanding and managing their exposure to risk, a number of large accounting and consulting firms have set up “enterprise risk management” practices. Of course, this work typically zeroes in on an organization’s financial controls and whether they are in compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Opinions are also rendered on the quality of an organization’s internal audit. “Business continuity planning” is another service designed to allow organizations to quickly recover and resume operations after a large disaster. Some critics have pointed out that such analyses are conducted in isolation and can result in redundancy across the organization. Others have complained that, beyond the high cost of financial control compliance, Sarbanes-Oxley can distract managers from focusing on the factors critical to organizational success. A recent study by IBM and the Economist Intelligence Unit found that chief financial officers are so swamped with earnings reports and compliance work that only a third thought that they were highly effective at growing their companies and driving shareholder value.


While Sarbanes-Oxley compliance procedures and traditional enterprise risk management activities serve a useful purpose, they fall far short in addressing the most critical issue facing business leaders: the effective long-term stewardship of their organization. Companies today have precious few models and tools for assessing their vulnerability to major breakdowns. Doing so requires direct attention to what our research has identified as the major drivers of long-term success and failure: leadership, strategy and organizational processes.


Organizational problems of this type are not often readily apparent to outside observers. And how often do insiders take the time to check where they stand on the seemingly fuzzy topics of leadership, strategy and process? In our speeches to senior executives and boards, we often ask participants to tell us about their early-warning system for identifying failures. The most common answer we hear is something along the lines of: “We look to our quarterly returns for signs of trouble.” The problem is that by the time financial reports provide evidence on breakdowns, it is usually too late. Financial reports do not identify risk, they report on what happened in light of the risks that already existed.

A new way to measure risk


We have spent the last eight years conducting research with companies in the United States and Canada, Europe, Asia and Australia to try to understand the underlying causes of business failure. Much of this research came together in the 2003 book Why Smart Executives Fail, but since its publication we have extended our research to identify the early-warning signs of business failure -- the key factors that differentiate high-performing firms that stay successful from those that are successful for a while and later fail.


According to our research, most successful organizations (family-owned or not) fail because they choose to ignore information -- or focus on the wrong data -- about their leadership, strategy, structure or internal processes. In contrast, the most enduring and successful organizations equip themselves with a corporate early-warning system that ensures that “lost signals” vital to the organization’s long-term success are tracked down and monitored consistently. This system benchmarks for an organization’s senior executives and directors the degree of risk they face, providing critical information on the barriers that prevent them from fully executing their stated vision and strategy.


According to our research, you must constantly focus on three important dimensions in order to ensure your family-owned organization does not slip into some of the patterns that derailed other previously successful companies:

* Leadership. Have you addressed the family succession issue? Who are you grooming to take over in key positions, and how are you doing this? Do your executives and directors exhibit the right knowledge, attitudes and behaviors? Do you possess the best top team/board structure and process to optimize debate and rigorous analysis? Who are your company’s outside outside directors (besides family members), and how do they participate?


* Strategy. Like many other family-run businesses, are you relying too much on the formula for success that’s worked in the past (as opposed to what will work today)? Have you examined the underlying assumptions on which your strategy is based, and are they still accurate in light of recent competitive pressures? Are key stakeholders aligned with the strategy, or are there “blockers” present?


* Process. Is there a clear organizational structure and process in place, or does the organization still operate as it did when it was smaller? Are the values of the organization from the past being passed on to the next generation of leaders? Does information from the far reaches of the organization get to board or management team members in a reasonably unfiltered fashion so that they can act on it in a timely manner? Does your culture and employee commitment support the implementation of the strategy?


A corporate early-warning system can be instituted through annual surveys of directors, officers and key organizational leaders for their views on the keys areas listed above. Of course, there will be differences in opinions among these groups on how well the organization is doing in each of the areas. These differences should serve to provoke further discussion about whose perceptions are the most accurate.


In our experience, the survey results can be even more powerful when tracked year-over-year, as well as when compared against other organizations (especially family-owned ones). If the survey questions are constructed properly, the company will understand where it stands in these key areas and what its vulnerabilities are in each area. For example, our research has found that the most critical attributes of leaders in organizations that continue to thrive when compared to their peers in failing organizations are:


1. The degree of open-mindedness to new ideas, criticism, and different perspectives. This is sometimes problematic when there is a strongly opinionated founder-CEO still present in the organization.


2. The extent to which each senior management team member exhibits a bias toward personal accountability, going beyond their assigned job description to speak out with questions, comments, or criticisms about some aspect of the business that they don’t understand or like.


3. The degree of energy that key executives direct toward learning new management practices and competitive moves.


While there are countless tomes (and advisers) on strategy and its design that business leaders can consult for guidance, our research suggests the major differentiators between success and failure boil down to strategic alignment and analyzing underlying strategic assumptions. Take the latter point. How often do senior leaders or the board of directors take the time to identify the underlying assumptions that form the core of a company’s strategy (especially when this has worked well in the past)? Time and again, we found that critical assumptions that no one thought to question were actually outdated, outmoded or just plain wrong -- and yet, the founder-CEO couldn’t believe that was the case.


A corporate early-warning system should assess the extent to which the most common assumptions that lead to failure are still operative in a company. By identifying the strategic vulnerabilities in a company that emanate from inappropriate or incorrect assumptions, and doing so in real time, executives can take corrective measures before the costs of failure have substantially accumulated.


Think of the two cases of Adelphia and Comcast. Six years ago, an outside observer would have said that both were successful family-run businesses. We know that’s only half-true today. Yet, were the directors and management of Adelphia to ask some tough questions about their internal leadership, strategy and process factors, they might have been surprised at the answers. More important, however, they likely would have had time to take corrective actions before it was too late. Today, their reputations have been tarnished forever. By contrast, Comcast continues to power away, with Brian Roberts now firmly in command. Even though Comcast has been very successful, you do not breathe a whiff of “entitlement” when you speak to those in command. They know they are only a few bad moves away from falling behind in their very competitive market. Therefore, they retain a form of “proactive paranoia” about working hard to stay on top.


Insurance against business breakdowns


There is no way to guarantee that business breakdowns will not occur. But CEOs, senior executives and boards can at least reduce the odds that such breakdowns will happen in their organizations. Traditional risk assessments are essential weapons for companies to use, but they are not designed to get to the core elements of a company -- its leadership, its strategy and its processes. Our research suggests that implementing a corporate early-warning system that surveys board members, senior managers and key leaders on these important areas can identify a family-owned organization’s vulnerability to fundamental business breakdowns. Such a system helps uncover the “red flags” that exist in many companies but are left unseen.


The logic behind an early-warning system is compelling. Of course, it is important to identify what might be going wrong, or could go wrong, in a company. In fact, the opportunity to address these risks in real time is a make-or-break issue for executives and boards. It is a form of insurance. Without regularly monitoring the signals that come from an early-warning system, companies are actually increasing their risks, something that no senior executive group or board of directors can let happen on their watch. FB


Sydney Finkelstein (sydney.finkelstein [at] dartmouth.edu) is the Steven Roth Professor of Management at the Tuck School at Dartmouth College and the author of Why Smart Executives Fail (Portfolio, 2003). Eric M. Jackson, Ph.D. (emj [at] jacksonleadership.com) is the president and CEO of Jackson Leadership Systems in Naples and Toronto.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Why Yahoo!'s and other Outside Directors Should Have Skin In the Game

In 1999, I got to work with Don Hambrick at Columbia on a major research study funded by McKinsey and Korn/Ferry. Academics from across the country were chosen to study particular domains of management and how they impacted corporate performance over the long-term. For example, one academic studied executive compensation, another studied organizational structure, etc.

Don was asked to study corporate governance and my job, as his research assistant, was to sift through hundreds of corporate proxies in the library (and the SEC’s office at the tip of Manhattan), coding all the possible corporate governance characteristics that might impact an increase in total shareholder returns over time.

This project, called “Project Evergreen,” studied about 200 companies from 50 industries over a 10-year time period, roughly from the mid-80s to mid-90s. For each industry, we looked at 4 companies: 1 “Star” (which outperformed the industry benchmarks over the 10 years), 1 “Found It” (which underperformed but later outperformed the industry benchmarks), 1 “Lost It” (you get the picture), and 1 “Never Had It.”

We coded every corporate governance variable you can imagine that might have had an impact on a company’s stock price: director age, board size, director background, how many committees or other boards they served on, whether the CEO and Chair role was split, how much stock they owned, etc. Of all these various characteristics (and we looked at well over 50), only one predicted an increase in company performance over time (controlling for company age, size, and its previous success): whether the company had a majority of outside directors who had purchased sizable equity stakes in the company (as opposed to being given stock or options).

The complete article was published in California Management Review and is located here. It’s worth a read, if only because it’s remarkable how few companies today (even in our post-Enron world) can claim they have outside directors that do this.

Most companies still dole out big options or grants to their directors, which, according to our research, had zero impact on later company stock performance. Very few require directors to dig into their own pockets. The claim I have often heard made by companies in response to our research finding is that “If I did that, I couldn’t get anyone good to serve on my board.” Our reaction: “If that’s the case, what does that say about your company and what are you doing to fix it?”

Let’s take Yahoo! as an example. They claim 8 out of their 10 directors are “outsiders” or “independent” (although 2 of the 8 have been on the board over a decade making it arguable how much of an outsider’s eye they can really bring to board discussions). The stock has certainly been depressed in the last 2 years (down from $40 to under $26.50 yesterday), while their chief competitor’s stock has vaulted ahead. Their policy is that outside directors should try to hold 12,000 units of stock (or $320,000 at recent prices). However, this stock can be held in the form of grants or options. Yahoo! pays its directors in stock for serving on its board, not cash (each director received 50,000 options in 2005, except 1 who received 100,000). Almost all the outside directors have total options today between 300,000 – 750,000 with strike prices well below the currently depressed level. These options should make them feel like ‘owners.’ Yet, where has been the board vigilance in the past two years? Where has been the ‘tough questions’? Just giving out lots of options has not led to increased performance. Yahoo! has no requirement for directors to buy stock. They should.

In the previously mentioned 2000 CMR article referred to above, we quoted a recently retired CEO about how putting ‘skin in the game’ and buying stock affected his behavior as a director:

I’m convinced that having a significant financial stake in the company affects the alertness and behavior of directors. I’ve seen it in others, and I’ve seen it in myself. You seek more information, you spend more time with the information, you ask more questions, you probe much more. And, best of all, the CEO knows you’re super-interested, and so he does a better job too.

I’ve been on several boards. I’ve always held small, token amounts. But now I’m on a board where the CEO encouraged us to buy and hold significant shares. I’m in for about a half a million dollars, and I can tell you I’m a heck of a lot more attentive to this company than I have been to the others. If this company faces a challenge, I lose sleep at night – which is what you want from your directors.

All outside directors should be investors in the companies they are involved in. If they aren’t willing to drop a quarter or half million of their own money to be involved, should the company’s investors really want them to have a say at board meetings? The evidence overwhelmingly says no.

A couple of closing caveats. We recognize in the paper that some directors can’t easily invest this kind of money due to their jobs, yet they make fabulous directors. You can’t simply set a financial number as a threshold and limit these people from the pool of possible directors. We offer some suggestions for how to handle this tricky issue in the paper.

Finally, when I slogged through the proxies (with the help of several Columbia College students) coding governance characteristics, we necessarily had to look at “governance structure” variables not “process” variables as predictors. After all, we weren’t in the room to observe how these directors asked questions and conducted meetings. How a board operates is even more important that who sits on a board and how much stock they own. We’ve just completed some new research with over 150 organizations that bears this out. More on this in a future posting, but for now, check out more details on our Breakout Performance Index tool and some information on our recent study here.

All directors should have ‘skin in the game’ – this makes them, according to our research, not passive observers, but active and more effective fiduciaries.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Laying Odds on Semel's Successor for the Corner Cube at Yahoo!




*Updated6/20/07: Congratulations to Jerry Yang who was announced as Yahoo!'s next CEO on Monday.*

After the pre-turkey "Peanut Butter" memo, speculation is swirling on who's in the running for Terry Semel's corner cube in Sunnyvale.

Here are Breakout Performance's odds on the front-runners:

  1. Susan Decker: 3 - 2. Positives: Insider; well-respected by most Yahoo!s, well-liked by street. Question Marks: Technical enough?, too 'analysis paralysis'?, technical vision for company.
  2. Dan Rosensweig: 4 - 1. Positives: Insider; technical enough background; COO tenure on the surface makes him first in line. Question Marks: Arrongant?, will the Yahoo!s trust/follow him?, too close to Semel?
  3. Steve Berkowitz, SVP at Microsoft: 8 - 1. Positives: Knows search from Ask, MSN experience, relevant industry leadership experience with views of big and small companies, learned from Diller, Gates, Ballmer. Question Marks: Vision for company?, What are the big accomplishments he can point to on his resume.
  4. Ross Levinsohn, Ex-President of Fox Interactive: 9 - 1. Positives: Great Internet track record: Fox, Altavista, Sportsline; Ideal time in his career trajectory to take that next step; He's gone from Hollywood, FL, to Hollywood, CA, and now he's ready for the Hollywood of Northern California; Available. Question Marks: He's a deal-maker, but can he integrate?, No turnaround experience with a company the size of Yahoo!, Another guy from Hollywood? Would the Yahoo!s get on board? Would this be as attractive to him as starting a hedge fund? Raising a fund while at Fox -- can the board trust him?
  5. Shona Brown, EVP BD, Google. 10 - 1. Positives: Rhodes Scholar, PhD, McKinseyite, Best-Selling Business Author before coming to Google -- i.e., bright!; Been studying/working in this industry for 12 years. Question Marks: Too junior for CEO slot; Why leave when Google's on a roll?
  6. Joanne K. Bradford, new head of MSN: 15 - 1. Positives: Got online Ad religion before anyone else at MSFT, helped turn culture around at MSN, big company experience and ad experience, lives in Bay Area. Question Marks: Seasoned enough for top slot?, could use more time leading major team at MSN.
  7. Bob Pittman, ex-head of AOL: 35 - 1. Positives: Disciplined; holds others accountable; large media company experience; Internet experience; 53 years old -- still time left on the clock. Question Marks: Does he want to get back in to the spotlight?, His departure from AOL was tied to his lining up with the aggressive AOL targets - credibility with Wall Street? Does the Yahoo! board want this baggage, especially from a competitor?
  8. Jonathan Miller, ex-head of AOL: 45 - 1. Positives: Relevant CEO-type experience at Yahoo! competitor; can point to some content innovations and general turnaround of that group; fiercely loved by some ex-employees. Question Marks: Vision?; too slow; could he gain loyalty of Yahoo!s?
  9. Jerry Yang, Chief Yahoo!: 50 - 1. Positives: 1 of the co-founders; well-respected; knows the culture; technical vision. Question Marks: Too junior? (37); Does he want it?; What leadership experience does he have to take on this role?
  10. Jeff Mallett or Anil Singh, ex-Yahoo!s: 250 - 1. Positives: There from the start; Who doesn't love a "prodigal son"/redemption story?; Yahoo!s would rally round the old guard; Think John Mack at Morgan Stanley. Question Marks: The Board and Jerry Yang would be reluctant to go back on an old decision (although it's not inconceivable, especially if there was board turnover as well); Would the new Yahoo!s rally as much as the old? -- old guard/new guard culture conflicts; Yahoo! is much bigger today than it was and -- as much as I love a "feel good" story -- what have these guys done since leaving to keep their management skills sharp?
  11. Guy Kawasaki, The House of Kawasaki: 275 - 1. [Squeaked in ahead of Calacanis.] Positives: Visionary to the extreme; Who doesn't love this guy?; He's local. Question Marks: Not an operator (but a great blogger); Why would he want the stress - he's got a pretty good gig as it is.
  12. Jason Calacanis, ex-AOL: 285 - 1. Positives: Well-known among the Valleywag set; Small & large company experience at Weblogs and AOL. Question Marks: Too young; not ready for prime-time CEO.
  13. Marissa Mayer, Google: 10,000 - 1. Positives: Well-known/respected by tech folks. Question Marks: Too junior; little leadership experience.
  14. Brad Garlinghouse, Yahoo! VP: No Chance. No board would ever pick him after leaking the memo.

Sphere: Related Content

Embracing Your Weaknesses




I was recently on the show Workopolis TV on Report on Business Television.

The topic was: 'How can Executives Embrace their Weaknesses... and Should They?'

If you're interested, click here, go to the Novermber 8th episode and go to the 11:45 mark.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Yahoo China Boss Quits after 2 Months


The Wall Street Journal is reporting this morning that Xie Wen, Yahoo China's Boss for less than 2 months, has quit.

It is likely the first sign of internal changes within Yahoo! overall since the 'Peanut Butter Manifesto' made its debut on Page One of the Journal. Yahoo China is of course now owned by Alibaba.com (although Yahoo! owns 40% of Alibaba since last year). At the very least, the departure of Mr. Xie signals internal disagreement within Alibaba. One analyst has speculated that there was disagreement internally about whether Yahoo China should focus more on search versus video and web communities. Yahoo China is trailing Baidu.com and Google badly.

Anytime a senior executive departs, it is a potential warning sign that there are troubles ahead. With Brad Garlinghouse's memo coming to light, this management shuffle at Yahoo China is under the microscope even more -- not so much for what it means for Yahoo!'s fortunes in China but whether it is a sign of other changes to come at Yahoo! overall.

Over 70% of Breakout Performance readers answering our recent poll said that Garlinghouse's leaked memo was a political move by him designed to raise his profile within and outside of Yahoo! (as opposed to being a sincere attempt to affect change in the company). Many are wondering if Garlinghouse or Terry Semel will go in the wake of the memo.

I am all for internal debate, but it's evident that having this spill out into the pages of the business press makes it difficult to keep with the status quo.

I recently suggested that it was time for Semel to go and that Susan Decker was the best choice to succeed him. Henry Blodget appears to be on board with this and claims others are in "universal agreement" with this assessment. However, one anonymous commenter to my post (and there was a similar one to Blodget's), who claims to be an ex-Yahoo! exec, disagreed saying that Decker "personifies the term 'analysis paralysis'". Another journalist complained that Decker had already made a major blunder earlier this year, when she suggested that Yahoo! can't win in search.

Can Yahoo! win in search? It is probably unrealistic, with the current approach. However, there are always new approaches. Whether the likes of Powerset or others can truly do a leapfrog remains to be seen, but that is the great thing about the technology world -- no lead, however daunting, is ever insurmoutable.

In the meantime, we'll keep watching for the next shoe to drop at Yahoo!...

Sphere: Related Content

Why 360 Programs Fail -- and Why they Succeed


360 degree feedback has been around for some time now. You know it's reached the level of common management practice when it gets featured in Dilbert cartoons and "The Office" episodes.

In case you haven't gone through the process, here's how it works. Your boss, your direct reports, and your peers give you feedback on what are your strengths and weaknesses (or "developmental needs" or "opportunities"). Therefore, you get feedback from everyone around you who knows you well -- hence, you're hearing it from 360 degrees around you.

When it's done well, 360 programs allow all your team members to improve in key areas that might be limiting their upward career path or actually causing major conflict within a team. When it's done poorly, 360 programs create mistrust, anger, conflict and can leave a team with lower morale than when you started the exercise.

Why 360 Programs Fail:

  1. The Boss doesn't get involved or discounts the program's importance. 360 programs that get driven by HR without much attention from the boss are not effective. Whatever the boss gives importance to gets the attention of his/her reports. The boss has to be a believer that this stuff helps the team.
  2. The 360 tool/questions are too vague. We've seen a lot of 360 programs that consist only of personality profiles. "Are you an ESTJ or an INFP?" "Are you a red or blue color?" It's amazing how popular personality profiles have become. Some people get to be "true believers" in them. However, if that's the extent of your 360 questionnaire, you're likely going to have a hard time translating your team's profiles into specific and measureable actions. Make sure that the tool you select is going to give back actionable information.
  3. People offer comments that are personal in nature rather than constructive. Some people have had really bad 360 experiences. These are usually what gets depicted in Dilbert and they usually turn people off on the process going forward. This is a shame. You've got to ensure that everyone understands the purpose of the exercise is to be constructive, not personal. Don't say anything to others that you wouldn't mind being on the receiving end of (assuming it's true).
  4. No plan is set following receiving the feedback. 360 data is only helpful to the extent that it gets acted upon and used. The majority of programs we see simply give the feedback and then it gets swiftly forgotten. No plan = no change in behavior.
  5. If there is Follow-up post-360 plan, it happens only once. If companies do follow up on the 360 results, it's usually only once. However, behavioral change is hard and takes several reminders. You need to revisit a post-360 plan periodically. We recommend you do it quarterly for two years (at which time, it's appropriate to recirculate the same 360s again to see how perceptions have changed).
  6. Lack of confidentiality. People who have never gone through the 360 process before are usually initially worried about how the data will be used and if it will remain confidential. You need to ensure you assure them up-front that it is a confidential process and won't come back to haunt them at performance review time. However, in many of our clients, they ask us to play the role of "coaching" the people through the two-year quarterly follow-ups instead of internal HR people because (1) internal HR is usually busy with other stuff anyway and (2) their people seem more comfortable opening up to an external coach during a two-year follow-up period about how they're progressing on their plan, rather than an internal HR person.
  7. Forgetting the strengths and only focusing on weaknesses. We've seen some companies that totally disregard the strengths that get uncovered in the 360 process. The attitude seems to be, "we've got to locate your weaknesses and obliterate them." Type A execs feed on this and usually want to zero in on their weaknesses and also tend to forget about their strengths. The reality is that your strengths are what got you to where you are in your career. Work on your weaknesses but never stop relying on your strengths.

If you do the opposite of the points made above, you're well on your way to making the experience a positive one and, more importantly, one that will actually help each person on your team and the team as a whole. When 360s are done poorly, they can be a disaster; however, when they're done well, they can be a major part of driving accelerated growth for a team and an organization.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Stressed out? Drop that BlackBerry and go home

From last Saturday's Globe & Mail:


Overworked executives looking for relief must carve out personal time, WALLACE IMMEN writes

WALLACE IMMEN

One thing Trish Wheaton has been unable to escape is that every step up the career ladder has eroded the amount of time she has left for the rest of her life.

"By the time you are president, you have to recognize that the job is a 24/7 commitment," says Ms. Wheaton, who has been president of Toronto-based marketing company Wunderman Canada since 1998.

But she says she didn't want that to happen at the expense of her husband and son. So to take control of her personal life, she literally schedules time in her agenda each day to go home "and reconnect with my family and decompress." But carving out time for a personal life is becoming more difficult for managers and executives, who are increasingly being controlled by their jobs, according to a new study.

In fact, the prestige and material advantages of higher job status are being outweighed by the personal costs of moving up the corporate ladder, concludes University of Toronto sociology professor Scott Schieman. He's co-author, along with Yuko Whitestone of the University of Maryland and Karen van Gundy of the University of New Hampshire, of the study The Nature of Work and the Stress of Higher Status, published in the current Journal of Health and Social Behaviour.

The study asked 1,000 employees at different levels of responsibility in Toronto businesses to rate their ability to escape the pressures of work in their personal lives. This "work-to-home conflict" was lowest for both men and women in unskilled occupations and was, on average, 25-per-cent higher among managers and executives.

And the conflict grows with the level of responsibility. In the survey, 44 per cent of executives said they routinely think about work-related problems while they are at home and 25 per cent said work regularly interferes with their family life.

The numbers are almost as high at lower management levels, with 42 per cent of mid-level executives and 41 per cent of administrative professionals saying they routinely think about things going on at work while at home. That compares with 18 per cent of sales people surveyed and 11 per cent of non-skilled workers.

That represents a shift from previous generations, Prof. Schieman says. "It was long assumed that people in lower occupational levels tend to have it worse in terms of mental and physical health and job satisfaction because they have less control and authority in their work," he says.
Studies done before 2000 generally reported executives had the highest levels of control over their personal lives, because they had power and prestige and could compartmentalize their work and have time for themselves after leaving the office, he explains.

But technology has ended all that. "The demands for many higher-status workers are now becoming never-ending. And that's in large part because of things that might be seen as helping people become more productive and efficient, like e-mail, cellphones and BlackBerrys," Prof. Schieman says.

"The career message is the nature of the workplace is changing. The things we typically consider favourable work qualities, like a lot of authority and variety in their work and a lot of involvement, come at a price."

But that doesn't mean you have to abandon dreams of reaching the corner office to have a life -- as long as you develop strategies to keep the price to a minimum, says Eric Jackson, president and chief executive officer of Toronto-based executive coaching company Jackson Leadership Systems Inc.

"The most important step for executives is to acknowledge that this is a serious issue. A lot of managers don't recognize work-life imbalance and the stress that comes with it until they are told by their spouse that it is creating a problem in the relationship" or by their doctor that their stress is hurting their health, Dr. Jackson says.

Once they acknowledge the need to make a change, Dr. Jackson advises overworked executives to set up a plan to create more balance between work and home.

To start, he recommends executives figure out what tasks they can delegate to others.
"A lot of times people get promoted into executive positions because they are simply very efficient at getting work done. But as they rise in responsibility, they need to realize they may be taking on too much."

It's also important to carve out time for physical activity. Being sedentary can result in weight gain and rising blood pressure, but also reduce energy levels, drag down moods and, over time, you are less able to focus your thinking.

Equally important is to make a commitment to setting up non-work time at home, Dr. Jackson says.

He recommends committing to be home for dinner with the family, and setting limits on work and personal time. He suggests an 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. rule.

"Ask everyone in the team not to send messages or expect replies outside of those hours."
These are just the kinds of strategies Ms. Wheaton has adopted. She avoids answering phone messages or looking at e-mails during meal times, and tries to clear office problems from her mind as she spends time with family and friends.

Crises can still erupt and if a call from the corporate brass comes in, she says "I still have to answer it."

But at least she can lead from home. As president, it's her decision alone whether she stays in the office or goes home, Ms. Wheaton says.

"So there is still an advantage to being at the top."

Strategies for the stressed

Define the problem. Write down the issues that cause you stress. Taking steps to reduce these issues will help you relax in your off time.

Set a goal. Too often, executives fall into a career path without understanding why they chose it. Ask yourself, "What do I want to accomplish for the duration of my career?" and set goals to achieve it.

Stay healthy. Exercise, sleep and a healthy diet should be priorities. You can't keep running without taking time to recharge the batteries.

Make time for your family It's not a sign of weakness if you don't pull an 80-hour week in the office.

Don't bottle it up. Talk to your spouse and discuss with a trusted friend or executive coach your workload. It can help you frame strategies to reduce the burden.

Look ahead. Don't waste time dwelling on past miscues. Once you set goals, move forward on
them.

Work with your weaknesses. By recognizing your weaknesses, you can work to improve your skills or delegate tasks to people who are strong where you are weak.

Be thankful for what you have. When you get stressed out, stop and ask yourself, "What am I thankful for? That will put things in perspective."

SOURCE: ERIC JACKSON, CEO,
JACKSON LEADERSHIP SYSTEMS

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 17, 2006

An Open Letter to Jerry Yang and David Filo


Dear Jerry and David:

I am writing this letter to you as a loyal Yahoo! user since 1996. Who could have imagined that, what started out as an experiment in the Stanford computer lab in 1994, would grow to become what is today a media titan? Who would have imagined that, 12 years later, you would be working in a megalopolis in Sunnyvale, rubbing elbows with heads of state, and -- most importantly -- positively influencing the lives of millions of Yahoo! users?

I knew Yahoo! was a special company when, about 10 years ago, I was writing my doctoral dissertation at Columbia Business School on the effects of officers' and directors' backgrounds on their firms' IPO and post-IPO performance. With the help of a couple of Columbia College undergrads, I was coding the IPO prospectuses for all the software and restaurant/hotel chain IPOs between 1994 and 1996. Yahoo! was a different kind of company the moment I saw the two of you listed as Chief Yahoos! on the management team. Since then, you've only gone on to prove to everyone what a special organization is Yahoo!

Although the historians might quibble, there have really been two phases in Yahoo’s development as a company: (1) under Tim Koogle's leadership and (2) under Terry Semel's leadership. You both had a hand in selecting these CEOs and both were right for their time.

Terry Semel was appointed CEO in 2001 and he has had a number of big accomplishments over his tenure. These include:

  1. Stability. After the deflation post-bubble, Terry brought a sense of calm and order. He righted the ship when it was needed. Numerous Yahoo! executives complimented how he instituted a number of policies and procedures which helped give a greater sense of stability to the organization.
  2. SBC. The first of its kind, Terry played a role in doing the deal with SBC that married Yahoo!'s rich content with broadband. It's proved to be a dynamite deal for Yahoo! in the years since.
  3. Media expansion. Terry's brought 24 years of Hollywood contacts and know-how and helped build on Yahoo!'s initial foray into new media and accelerate it. Today, richer content is available on Yahoo! in more breadth and depth that any other site. Although companies like Brightcove and Joost get ink for what their plans are in internet and TV, Yahoo! is leading the way. 'The Nine' is a model of what's to come, as we continue to move forward.
  4. Overture. As the WSJ reported, Yahoo! snapped up Overture where MSFT feared to tread. In retrospect, this was a huge blunder for them and win for you.
  5. del.icio.us & Flickr. Need we say more? Huge accelerators for Yahoo!, showing how a large platform can take a great idea and move it to the next level.
  6. Jack Ma. Alibaba.com's investment was a stroke of genius for Yahoo! from 2 respects. It gave you a foothold into a market leader in China (just as the early Yahoo! Japan-Softbank deal did back in the day) and it gave you (indirectly through Alibaba) a great leader in Jack Ma -- someone who will play a key role as Yahoo! moves ahead in the coming years.
  7. Engineering Excellence. Yahoo! has always coveted this trait. It's what made you what you are and is what will see you through the next 20 years.

Why it’s time for Terry Semel to go:

Despite these great successes, there came a time for TK to move on and now is the time for TS to pass the baton. Here's why:

  1. He’s going to be 64 in February 2007. Neither you both nor Terry expected that this job would last 10 years. Five years has been suitable to make the changes he and you both wanted him to make. He has certainly left Yahoo! a better place than how he found it. Now is the perfect time to enjoy retirement, moving back full-time to Bel Air and making a significant contribution to a number of important boards across the country.
  2. He’s lost the support of Wall Street. Following last quarter's disappointing results vis-a-vis Google and with Panama's delay, there is pressure from Wall Street to demonstrate that he's in control of this ship. The continued excuses given, and the reports of discontent from within the organization (see below), have exacerbated this problem within the last few weeks.
  3. He’s lost the support of the Yahoo!s. Everything published in Valleywag needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Yet, reports of booing within internal company meetings are not helpful. A few weeks ago, we published a post on what steps Terry could take to turn things around within Yahoo! It was surprising to read the number of strong comments that came back from current or past Yahoo!s which displayed such strong emotion against Terry. It's clear the organization would respond well to a fresh approach. The "Peanut Butter Manifesto" is not a direct indictment of Terry, but it is symptomatic of a general malaise existing within the ranks showing that change is necessary -- and now.

What Should be Yahoo!'s Phase Three?

Let me clear. If a change is not made now, I think there is substantial risk that the organization will be taken out as a stand-alone firm. Microsoft, Comcast, Disney, Google, Viacom, and even News Corp. would love to add this jewel to their collection. I don't believe Yahoo! users, employees, and shareholders would be best served by this. What's more, the hedge funds are starting to circle. There will inevitably be suggestions of their own for what actions to take. You need to get ahead of this train.

It's easy to point out problems, but what are some solutions? What is needed now at Yahoo!, beyond just a new CEO for the sake of one, to take it into its third phase of growth for the next 5 - 10 years?

  1. Dan Rosensweig will have to go too. Dan has also failed to be embraced by the Yahoo!s. There is a distance which appears to exist. No leader can drive an organization forward when this trait is present and it's a difficult thing for the leader himself to flip the switch on and change. Quite simply, the Yahoo!s will not follow Dan as their leader. He is also seen as too close to Terry. This will be difficult. It was difficult to say goodbye to Jeff Mallett, but it was for the best of the organization.
  2. Internal CEO over External. All the academic studies agree that an internal CEO is a less risky proposition than an external one. However, an external CEO is needed when the organization needs a dramatic shift. You both were more than justified to make that shift 5 years ago when you brought in Terry. The environment is different today. A respected internal leader would be embraced and rallied around by the Yahoo!s. You have the perfect candidate within your midst.
  3. Don't appoint a COO. Recent evidence exists that appointing a COO is linked to negative firm performance. Apparently, CEOs who appoint COOs are out of touch with some of the important operational aspects of the business.
  4. Your continued product leadership will be critical. Most organizations don't have the benefit of the two sage founders continuing to play an active and helpful role. You have made a huge difference to Yahoo! in the last 5 years and you will continue to be strongly needed as we move into the company's phase three, especially on the product side.
  5. Elevate more internal talent like Jack Ma, Bradley Horowitz and Brad Garlinghouse. Jack has been a great addition you've picked up through acquisitions and investments (through the investment in Alibaba.com). Bradley is playing an important role with your "talent brickhouse." Reward their hard work and show the rest of the Yahoo!s that success gets rewarded. Don't shoot the messenger with Brad. Thank him for his passionate memo by rewarding him. Demonstrate to the entire organization that Yahoo! welcomes this passion; it doesn't try to snuff it out.
  6. Indefinite Moratorium on Celebrity Appearances at Yahoo! The stars of this company are its employees. This isn't Hollywood. This is a business. Celebrities don't bring up team morale; great leadership does. Tom Cruise has left the building and let's keep him and other A-listers away.
  7. Articulate the Vision. The new CEO must articulate a definitive vision for Yahoo! As I said above, you have a vast array of assets. You can truly define how we will all interact with the Web and rich content moving forward. Yet, the company's leadership has failed to. Into this vacuum, the Skype guys have wrestled this opportunity away from you and are seen - currently - as the 'thought leaders' with Joost. It's not too late. Take back the mantle by having Yahoo! blare its vision from the hilltops and then achieve it!
  8. Streamline, Streamline, Streamline. Kudos to Brad for identifying this in his manifesto. Yahoo! has become bloated and -- consequently -- inefficient. Let me quote him: "• YME vs. Musicmatch • Flickr vs. Photos • YMG video vs. Search video • Deli.cio.us vs. myweb • Messenger and plug-ins vs. Sidebar and widgets • Social media vs. 360 and Groups • Front page vs. YMG • Global strategy from BU'vs. Global strategy from Int'l". Inefficiency = opportunity. Just streamlining these areas alone should go a long way towards the cutting headcount by 15 - 20% that he suggests.
  9. Build a Culture of Personal Accountability. This starts from the top, but through effective performance management, challenging assumptions, pushing for change, rewarding success, and learning from (as opposed to burying or chastising) failure, you will ensure that no one at Yahoo! will ever say "that's not my job." Everyone has to have a vested and maniacal interest in seeing this organization achieve its vision.
  10. Reconnect with the "!". As companies grow, they must build in process and policies. They cannot operate like a 10 person, 'cowboy culture' start-up. But the best companies remember their roots. Yahoo! has incredible roots. To me, it all goes back to the "!". Somewhere in the last 5 years, Yahoo lost its "!". It's still there and the Yahoo!s need to be reminded of it. When they are, I'm sure they'll rise to the challenge like they never have before.

You both control 9% of this organization. You are the co-founders. You have a responsibility to make the tough calls that will ultimately take this company to its next level of development. I applaud your continued passion and the courage you've demonstrated through the last 12 years. We will support you and we will support Yahoo!.... Leadership starts at the top.

Sincere regards,

Eric Jackson

Update: 6/20/07: In January, we launched a "Plan B" Community to gather Yahoo! shareholders who want to propose a new way forward for Yahoo! which will greatly increase shareholder value compared to the past 2 years. Go here to sign-up to the community: http://www.youchoose.net/pledge/yahoo_shareholders_unite_for_plan_b.

You can also read our finalized "Plan B" here: http://breakoutperformance.blogspot.com/2007/02/finalized-plan-b-sent-to-yahoo-today.html.

This is the first time shareholder activism has utilized the web, blogs, and wikis. We have a wiki version of the current iteration of our "Plan B" here: http://yahoo.wikia.com .

We wish Jerry, Sue, and David the best of luck in this exciting new stage for the company.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 13, 2006

Yahoo is In Play



The word is out that the hedge funds are circling Yahoo and Terry Semel. Valleywag is reporting that several prominent hedge funds are smelling blood in the water. Fred Wilson and Eric Savitz picked up on this a couple of weeks ago too.

There are many reasons for this, including several suggestions we made a few weeks ago here about steps Semel needed to take immediately to turn the tide operationally and with the hearts and minds of Wall Street. We repeated many of these same comments today in this radio broadcast.

What's worse, Valleywag is now suggesting that Semel recently presented Yahoo's strategy to the Yahoos and was booed. Even Henry Blodget is saying it's time for Semel to go.

Whether he was or not, Yahoo is attractive for many strategic (read: GOOG, MSFT, Fox, Viacom, Comcast -- even Disney... and don't forget eBay), as well as financial (read: hedge funds), buyers. Great underlying assets + one of the best known brands in the world + well-meaning but ineffective management = great opportunity at $27.40.

Look for something to happen, potentially sooner rather than later.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Market Share Myopia and The Growth Trap




Earlier this week, Dell announced that it would no longer place as much focus on its market share, instead focusing on profits. The market cheered this announcement. "Unprofitable growth for the sake of growth is really not a good strategy," said Marty Shagrin, a research analyst at Victory Capital Management Inc.

What are the right metrics for your business? Here are some of the most common:


  • Revenues/Revenue Growth

  • Profits/Profit Growth (and there are many definitions of "profit" to choose from)

  • Stock Price

  • Cash Flow

  • Enterprise Value

  • Market Share

  • Day Sales Outstanding

  • Rate of A/R

  • Rate of A/P

  • Subscriber Growth

  • Cash-in/Cash-out

Some of these metrics are more important than others, depending on your industry or stage of organizational development. However, all are important. Organizations do themselves harm when they overly fixate on one and only one of these metrics. To most effectively steer your organization, you need to look over your business as an airline pilot surveys his/her control panel -- constantly scanning a range of indicators.


However, too many companies these days -- especially public companies -- are finding themselves caught in "the growth trap." 'We need to grow at [pick a number between 10 - 20]% this year.' Why? I've heard explanations ranging from "we'll be acquired, if we don't" to "our stock price will tank, if we don't keep up this pace."


Of course, keeping up a pace of X% a year gets more and more difficult with each passing year. Smaller, tuck-in acquisitions must yield to larger and riskier acquisitions. Few if any acquisitions done in the name of growth pan out. Culture clashes, unexpected surprises that you didn't get what you did they deal, and painful IT integration are some of the most common heartaches experienced for years after these "quick fixes" in the pursuit of sustaining a high growth rate.


The truth is that, whether you are Dell or a 100 person company, growth is only sustainable when it is profitable and a good cultural, as well as strategic, fit with your existing business. A pursuit of market share and an outsized growth rate year-on-year is a warning-sign for any investor that trouble is ahead. Although it can't be reported in a newspaper headline, all organizations must focus on all key financial metrics. Progress on a range of metrics is proof that a business is growing in the way that will last for more than a few quarters.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Keys to Building a Talent Firewall in Your Organization



It's been 100 days since I launched the Breakout Performance blog. And so far, one of my blog posts has been more popular than any other: Top Ten Reasons Why Large Companies Fail to Keep their Top Talent.

This post came about after I read on GigaOM about how a team at Yahoo! (led by Flickr founder Catherine Fake) was working at building a brickhouse around their top talent. Since that story was published in mid-September 2006, Yahoo's stock has trended down from $29 to $26 amid luke-warm results and calls by some for a larger player to snap-up Yahoo! or for Terry Semel to enact changes (inlcuding on this site). There's no question that uncertainty swirling around an organization's future makes it a difficult environment in which to keep top talent around. However, there are solutions.

The truth is that Yahoo! is not all that different from thousands of organizations who are desperately trying to think of strategies for keeping their talent. No matter your industry, you know that it's much more difficult and costly to find and train new talent than keep them (just as it's more costly to get a new customer than keep one happy). And the demographics are only going to make this more difficult in the next 5 - 10 years -- over 50% of C-level execs will be leaving their posts in the next 5 years.

There are many strategies for building a "talent firewall" in your organization. Here are ten of the most effective:

  1. Set up a Leadership Development Program in your Organization. Most but not all organizations have some kind of leadership development program. Most include some kind of executive training -- either in-house or additionally through B-Schools. The best ones also include some formalized assessment on an executive's strengths and weaknesses at the front-end, some coaching over a significant time period, and a later follow-up measurement of an executive's improvement.
  2. Set Developmental Goals for the Executive and Track it. An assessment of an executive is only as good as an action plan that gets devised to address the points that come out of it. The action plan should key in on the developmental areas identified in the assessment. It should be complementary to a regular performance review plan. It's not simply a list of job tasks that need to be done. A developmental plan zeroes in on competencies such as strategic thinking, coaching and team development, and delegation. Once set, the action plan then needs to be tracked regularly -- which leads to the next point.
  3. Use Executive Coaches. Executive coaches serve a couple of purposes. They are the gel that often helps ensure a Developmental Action Plan gets followed up on. We suggest they meet once a quarter with an executive to review and update the plan. They are not there to chastise the executive if they don't achieve their previously set goals, but they do ensure accountability in a positive way. They also help keep the momentum going. Another major goal they serve is by giving the executive ideas on how to improve, which they have utilized with talent at other organizations. This broader perspective helps supplement the internal HR resources that are available to top talent. We often find that this wider organizational experience also gives the talent some additional perspective on where they rank in the universe of other executives with whom the coaches have interacted. (What makes for the best executive coach? There are many out there to choose from. However, we strongly believe in 3 things: (1) academic training at the graduate level in a related field like organizational behavior, strategy, or organizational psychology, (2) senior-level executive coaching experience, and (3) real-world executive-level experience to better relate to the exeperiences that the executives are going through.)
  4. Use Internal Coaches and Mentors. Although external coaches are helpful, the best organizations don't think of leadership development as an outsourced activity. Beyond support from HR, senior leaders should be an active part of the process, as coaches and mentors. For every executive going through a leadership development program, he/she should have an internal coach and mentor. We define a coach as the executive's boss; a mentor should be one-level above the executive's boss. There is critical knowledge that can only be passed on to executives from those inside the organization. Both the coach and the mentor should be aware of the Developmental Plan that the executive is working on. The boss should chat with the executive quarterly about their development plan; the mentor only needs to speak to the executive annually or semi-annually. A final point about mentors: they should never be assigned to an executive, nor should the executive be given free reigns to select the mentor. Our suggestion is that the boss and executive meet to chat about a possible short list of candidates. When they agree on who would make the best fit, the boss should be the one to approach the prospective mentor. This match-making approach seems to work best in pairing up the best possible mentors to executives.
  5. Discuss Long-Term Career Goals and build an Action Plan. In many cases, top talent has not worked out a clear long-term career path. For those in HR, this is a major opportunity. The best organizations are arranging "career planning" discussions with all their key people, in order to open the dialogue. Quite often, the executives appreciate the conversation (which happens first with their boss and then, if they are comfortable, expanded to include HR as well). Engaging talent on where they want to go helps to make them understand where they are going.
  6. Eliminate Extraneous Meetings and other Bureaucratic Tendencies. In a recent poll, asking for why top talent leaves larger organizations, the #1 response was "big company bureaucracy." Some bureaucracy is inevitable as a company grows. You can't run Google like a start-up. Processes and structure add value, when done well. However, we've all lived through Dilbert-type large company bureaucracy. As someone concerned about keeping your talent, you've got to wage a war against these tendencies. Eliminating extraneous meetings is a great place to start.
  7. Never Promote on Potential -- only on Performance. We sometimes get blinded by potential. Certain up-and-coming employees acquire a halo around them and are quickly promoted past their current performance level -- classic "peter principle." Peter Drucker correctly advised, decades ago, that organizations should never promote on potential, only performance. That means, an executive must demonstrate success in his/her current role before moving up to the next rung on the ladder. Many talent, promoted too quickly, will end up failing and leaving the organization under a cloud due to poor HR practices.
  8. Eliminate "Deadwood" acting as "Blockers" in your Organization. Too many organizations have important leadership positions filled with "blockers" -- taking up slots that could be more ably filled by other talented people reporting to them. Organizations might be reluctant to let them go because of the cost of letting them go or a thought that "the-devil-you-know-is-better-than-the-devil-you-don't." Yet, top talent won't suffer fools gladly. Organizations need to remove poor performers clogging the talent system or find a different spot for them that plays to their strengths but lets others take over key positions and do a better job.
  9. Use a Talent Management software system. You can't change something unless you measure it. There has been a lack of easy software systems to track talent management and development in organization until recently. We have worked with some of our clients on manual systems of tracking talent on an annual basis and it is a labor-intensive effort. It no longer needs to be painful. There are many new software packages available that can do this and integrate with your existing Oracle/SAP/PeopleSoft systems. One I like particularly is Sonar 6, because of its highly intuitive approach to presenting its results.
  10. Reward and Recognize, while also Giving Constructive Feedback. There are some bosses who never reward or recognize their talent; others who do it too much with never a negative word. If you treat your talent with kid-gloves -- only praising, never providing constructive feedback -- they will not be getting a balanced view of their strengths and weaknesses. You need to do both on a regular basis.

A talent firewall is not built over night, it reguires a series of steps. These 10 will make a significant difference in your organization. Good luck. The effort will be well worth it.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 03, 2006

Are Angels the New VCs?




This week brought the announcement that Charles River Ventures would launch Quick Start -- a more angel-oriented approach to funding start-ups than traditional VC.

Combined with the earlier announcement that Sevin Rosen Funds would be returning money to investors instead of putting it to work (and not raising a new fund), speculation has started that the traditional VC model is dead.

The argument goes:

1. Large amounts of capital are no longer needed to launch very successful start-ups. Joe Kraus famously opined that it only took $100K to start Jotspot, and $3MM to start Excite.com.

2. The IPO window doesn't exist today as it once did, thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley.

3. There's too much VC money chasing too few deals.

Fred Wilson disagrees with this view and correctly points out that people have been complaining about the too-much-money-too-few-deals for 25 years. He thinks VCs will just get leaner and meaner by (1) raising smaller funds, (2) going for $100 - $250MM exits, and (3) doing more M&A exits than IPOs.

However, Josh Kopelman of First Round thinks that CRV's announcement does portend of a major shift in the VC market. He points out that angel investing has better risk-adjusted returns over the last decade than any other stage of investing. Plus, a more conservative going-forward assumption would be average exits far south of $150MM. Therefore, there are likely to be more CRV-type announcement from "traditional" VCs over the coming years. Will they be able to do it well? That's less clear.

There are winners and losers from these confluence of trends.

Winners:

  • The bluest of "blue-chip" VCs. The Sequoias and KPCBs of the world shine brighter when the maddening crowd is rushing to chase the latest trend of VC investing. They've been there and done that time-and-again.
  • Existing Angel Investors who have a track-record. When a space gets hot (i.e., angel investing), those who have been there for a while are the old wise men. Josh Kopelman, Jeff Clavier, and others will see a rise for their services even as others rush in. There will be a flight to quality.
  • Traditional VCs who are able to make the leap and really differentiate from other angel investors. Although CRV is a great firm, their success is not guaranteed. They need dealflow; their GPs needs to be seen as credible by non-nascent entrepreneurs; and they really need to be able to deliver value to their investments (beyond the simple "we love to roll up our shirtsleeves alongside our investee companies" platitudes).
  • 2nd and 3rd Time Entrepreneurs: They're even more sought after following this news than they were before. We are heading for a Hollywood-type star system where Bill Nguyen announces his idea for his next start-up at lunch and the deal is done by dinner.

Losers:

  • Stuck-in-the-middle VCs: Those VCs who do a little bit of angel investing and a little bit of traditional are likely to do neither well.
  • Former Great VCs who don't adapt to changing times: Remember when Softbank was king of the hill? Hot VCs who have yet to reach the echelon of Sequoia and KPCB are not assured of long-term success. They are also likely to stick-to-what-they-(think-they-)know-best. Dangerous, when the rules of the game are changing
  • Later-stage/Mezzanine Investors: They just got even less relevant.

These are interesting times. Enterpreneurs are more exposed than ever to demonstrate whether their ideas will succeed or not. The same goes for traditional VCs. May the truly value-added players win.

Sphere: Related Content