Category: Management

Founder-Led Firms Do Better

(p. A19) A study out earlier this year from Bain & Company, where we work, shows that over the past 15 years founder-led companies delivered shareholder returns that are three times higher than those of other S&P 500 companies.
. . .
Great founders imbue their companies with three measurable traits that make up what we dubbed “the founder’s mentality.”
The first is insurgency: The founding team declares war on its industry on behalf of underserved customers.
. . .
The second trait is an obsession with how customers are treated–an attention to detail that borders on compulsive.
. . .
Third, these companies are steeped in an owner’s mind-set. Too often in business, the founder’s vision becomes distorted.
Bain’s research found that the best companies–the top 20% of performers, founder-led or not–exhibit the three traits we’ve described four or five times as often as the bottom performers. The bad news: Only about 7% of companies, founder-led or not, manage to maintain these traits as they grow to scale. Yet those that do create more than 50% of the net value in the stock market in any given year.

For the full commentary, see:
CHRIS ZOOK and JAMES ALLEN. The Company Founder’s Special Sauce; No one leads a firm as effectively as the person who started it.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., Dec. 19, 2016): A19.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Dec. 18, 2016.)

The Bain research mentioned above, is:
Chris, Zook. “Founder-Led Companies Outperform the Rest — Here’s Why.” Harvard Business Review Digital Articles (March 24, 2016): 2-5.

The passages quoted above are related to the authors’ book:
Zook, Chris, and James Allen. The Founder’s Mentality: How to Overcome the Predictable Crises of Growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press Books, 2016.

“You Never Know for Sure Where Good Ideas Will Come From”

(p. B1) The best-performing U.S. stock over the past 30 years isn’t a household name like Costco Wholesale Corp. or Johnson & Johnson. It’s Balchem, up 107,099% since the end of 1985, according to FactSet Research Systems.
You’d never heard of Balchem? Me either; stocks don’t come much more obscure than this. Based in Wawayanda, N.Y. (population 7,266), about 70 miles northwest of New York City, Balchem makes flavorings, fumigating gases and nutritional additives for animal feed. Its total stock market value is about $1.7 billion.
Since the end of 1985, Balchem has gained an average of 26.2% annually, compared with 10.3% for the S&P 500 and 15.7% for Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
. . .
(p. B7) But you can learn from Balchem and its peers for free. Over the past 30 years, 44 U.S. stocks generated cumulative total returns of 10,000% or more, according to FactSet. The 10 behind Balchem are Home Depot Inc., Amgen Inc., Nike Inc., UnitedHealth Group Inc., Danaher Corp., Altair Corp., Kansas City Southern, Jack Henry & Associates Inc., Apple Inc. and Altria Group Inc. All grew by at least twice the rate of the S&P 500. Investment manager William Bernstein of Efficient Frontier Advisors in Eastford, Conn., has christened such companies “superstocks.”
Perhaps the most notable thing they share, says David Salem, chief investment officer at Windhorse Capital Management in Boston, is that “they have all undergone at least one near-death experience.”
. . .
Balchem shows the patience, grit and good luck it takes for a company to turn into a superstock.
The firm began in 1967 as a specialty-chemicals company that made ingredients for hairspray and ink, among other things, says Raymond Reber, who stepped down as chief executive in 1997.
In 1996, Balchem was losing so much on a new technology to coat nutrients that “it was crazy,” says Mr. Reber. “We couldn’t operate that way.” So, he recalls, he told the company’s factory workers, “‘You have to figure out a way to double our production without raising our costs.’ And they did it.”
But the transition was rough. Balchem’s shares dropped 57% in 13 months between late 1997 and the end of 1998.
Dino Rossi, who was Balchem’s chief executive between 1998 and last year, remembers a staff engineer pointing out long ago that its nutritional choline salts might have a nonfood purpose: to help stabilize clay deposits. Years went by before fracking for oil and gas created a bonanza for that use. The end result: tens of millions of dollars in revenue for Balchem.
“You never know for sure where good ideas will come from,” says Mr. Rossi, “and it doesn’t happen overnight.”
It took years for Balchem to perfect microcapsules that could survive the harsh acids of a cow’s first stomach and then release nutrients farther along in the animal’s digestive system. “You have to be constantly working the technology harder,” says Mr. Rossi.

For the full commentary, see:
JASON ZWEIG. “No. 1 Over 30 Years? You Will Never Guess.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Jan 30, 2016): B1 & B7.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the article has the date Jan 29, 2016, and has the title The Best Stock Over the Last 30 Years? You’ve Never Heard of It.”)

“A Corporate Jargon of Uplift That Turns Sensitive Souls Suicidal”

(p. C1) Though Dante cataloged many forms of diabolical torture in his “Inferno,” a guided tour of hell, he somehow missed out on what could well be the most excruciating eternal punishment of all. I mean (ominous organ chords, please) the staff meeting that never, ever ends.
You’ve surely been a part of such sessions. They’re those gatherings in which people waste time by talking about how to be more productive, with algebraic visual aids and a corporate jargon of uplift that turns sensitive souls suicidal.

For the full review, see:
BEN BRANTLEY. “A Circle of Hell: The Staff Meeting.” The New York Times (Mon., OCT. 10, 2016): C1 & C4.
(Note: the online version of the review has the date OCT. 9, 2016, and has the title “Review: ‘Miles for Mary,’ a Sendup of the Interminable Meeting From Hell.”)

Blockchain Is a Process Innovation That Will Make Financial Records More Reliable and Easier to Access

(p. A13) Until the mid-1990s, the internet was little more than an arcane set of technical standards used by academics. Few predicted the profound effect it would have on society. Today, blockchain–the technology behind the digital currency bitcoin–might seem like a trinket for computer geeks. But once widely adopted, it will transform the world.
Blockchain offers a way to track items or transactions using a shared digital “ledger.” Blocks of new transactions are added at the end of the chain, and encryption ensures that it remains unbroken–tamper-proof and error-free. This is significantly more efficient than the current methods for logging and sharing such information.
Consider the process of buying a house, a complex transaction involving banks, attorneys, title companies, insurers, regulators, tax agencies and inspectors. They all maintain separate records, and it’s costly to verify and record each step. That’s why the average closing takes roughly 50 days. Blockchain offers a solution: a trusted, immutable digital ledger, visible to all participants, that shows every element of the transaction.

For the full commentary, see:
GINNI ROMETTY. “How Blockchain Will Change Your Life.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Nov. 8, 2016): A13.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Nov. 7, 2016, and has the title “KEYWORDS; Is Engine of Innovation in Danger of Stalling?”)

Spreadsheets and Committees Are Enemies of Innovation

(p. B4) “As we became more sophisticated in quantifying things we became less and less willing to take risks,” says Horace Dediu, a technology analyst and fellow at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, a think tank. “The spreadsheet is the weapon of mass destruction against creative power.”
The same could be said of university research, says Dr. Prabhakar. Research priorities are often decided by peer review, that is, a committee.
“It drives research to more incrementalism,” she says. “Committees are a great way to reduce risk, but not to take risk.”

For the full commentary, see:
CHRISTOPHER MIMS. “KEYWORDS; Engine of Innovation Loses Some Spark.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., Nov. 21, 2016): B1 & B4.
(Note: the online version of the article has the date Nov. 20, 2016, and has the title “KEYWORDS; Is Engine of Innovation in Danger of Stalling?”)

Firm Success May Depend on Being Allowed to Create Corporate Culture Through Hiring

(p. B1) After submitting an online application, completing a video interview and meeting with a hiring manager, the last thing standing between many applicants and a job at G Adventures Inc. is a roughly two-foot-deep ball pit similar to what you might find at a Chuck E. Cheese’s.
Candidates remove their shoes and join three of the Toronto-based tour company’s employees, who spin a wheel with questions such as, “What’s a signature dance move and will you demonstrate it?”
Sitting in a pool of plastic balls seemingly has little to do with selling package tours, but company founder Bruce Poon Tip says it reveals a lot about who will be successful at the 2,000-employee company.
Culture is “like a tribal thing for us,” he says. Lately, many companies seem to agree.
Employers are finding new ways to assess job candidates’ cultural suitability as they seek hires who fit in from day one. While few go as far as G Adventures, companies such as Salesforce.com Inc. have experimented with tapping “cultural ambassadors” to evaluate finalists for jobs in other departments. Zappos.com Inc. gives company veterans veto power over hires who might not fit in with its staff–even if those hires have the right skills for the job.
Though employment experts warn that fuzzy criteria such as culture fit may permit bias in the hiring process and result in a lack of diversity, companies say culture often determines who succeeds or fails in their workplace.

For the full commentary, see:
RACHEL FEINTZEIG. “‘Culture Fit’ May Be Key to Your Next Job.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., Oct. 12, 2016): B1 & B6.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the title “Culture Fit’ May Be the Key to Your Next Job.”)

Complex Regulations Stifle Innovation

(p. A15) In “The Innovation Illusion” . . . [Fredrik Erixon and Björn Weigel] argue that “there is too little breakthrough innovation . . . and the capitalist system that used to promote eccentricity and embrace ingenuity all too often produces mediocrity.”
The authors identify four factors that have made Western capitalism “dull and hidebound.” The first is “gray capital,” the money held by entities such as investment institutions, which are often just intermediaries for other investors. Their shareholders, say the authors, tend to focus on short-term outcomes, a perspective that makes company managers reluctant to invest in the research and development that is the lifeblood of the new. The authors’ second villain is “corporate managerialism,” which breeds a “custodian corporate culture” that searches for certainty and control instead of “fast and radical innovation.”
A third villain is globalization, though the authors have a novel complaint: The global economy, they say, has given rise to large firms that are more interested in protecting their turf than pursuing path-breaking ideas. Finally, they decry “complex regulation” for injecting uncertainty into corporate investment and thus stifling the emergence of new ideas and new products.
Echoing the views of Northwestern economist Robert Gordon, Messrs. Erixon and Weigel lament the paucity of big-bang innovation, writing that “the advertised technologies for the future underwhelm.” They wonder why there hasn’t been more progress in all sorts of realms, from the engineering of flying cars to the curing of cancer. Responding to those who worry that robots will drive up unemployment, they say that the real concern should be “an innovation famine rather than an innovation feast.”

For the full review, see:

MATTHEW REES. “BOOKSHELF; Bending the Arc of History.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., December 13, 2016): A15.
(Note: first ellipsis added; second ellipsis in original.)
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Dec. 12, 2016,)

The book under review, is:
Erixon, Fredrik, and Björn Weigel. The Innovation Illusion: How So Little Is Created by So Many Working So Hard. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2016.

The Case Against “Mindful Dishwashing”

(p. 9) I’m making a failed attempt at “mindful dishwashing,” the subject of a how-to article an acquaintance recently shared on Facebook. According to the practice’s thought leaders, in order to maximize our happiness, we should refuse to succumb to domestic autopilot and instead be fully “in” the present moment, engaging completely with every clump of oatmeal and decomposing particle of scrambled egg. Mindfulness is supposed to be a defense against the pressures of modern life, but it’s starting to feel suspiciously like it’s actually adding to them. It’s a special circle of self-improvement hell, striving not just for a Pinterest-worthy home, but a Pinterest-worthy mind.
Perhaps the single philosophical consensus of our time is that the key to contentment lies in living fully mentally in the present. The idea that we should be constantly policing our thoughts away from the past, the future, the imagination or the abstract and back to whatever is happening right now has gained traction with spiritual leaders and investment bankers, armchair philosophers and government bureaucrats and human resources departments.
. . .
So does the moment really deserve its many accolades? It is a philosophy likely to be more rewarding for those whose lives contain more privileged moments than grinding, humiliating or exhausting ones. Those for whom a given moment is more likely to be “sun-dappled yoga pose” than “hour 11 manning the deep-fat fryer.”
On the face of it, our lives are often much more fulfilling lived outside the present than in it.
. . .
Surely one of the most magnificent feats of the human brain is its ability to hold past, present, future and their imagined alternatives in constant parallel, . . .
. . .
What differentiates humans from animals is exactly this ability to step mentally outside of whatever is happening to us right now, and to assign it context and significance. Our happiness does not come so much from our experiences themselves, but from the stories we tell ourselves that make them matter.
. . .
So perhaps, rather than expending our energy struggling to stay in the Moment, we should simply be grateful that our brains allow us to be elsewhere.

For the full commentary, see:
RUTH WHIPPMAN. “Actually, Let’s Not Be in the Moment.” The New York Times, SundayReview Section (Sun., NOV. 27, 2016): 9.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date NOV. 26, 2016.)

Cloud-Computing Firms Run Key Services on Private Servers

(p. B8) For nearly a decade, Amazon Web Services, the giant retailer’s cloud computing division, has told prospective customers: Ditch your data center and trust us to run your applications, store your data and host your internal software development.
Yet Amazon.com Inc. itself doesn’t fully run in the cloud.
Amazon isn’t alone. The other top cloud providers– Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and International Business Machines Corp.–use their own cloud services for some purposes, but they continue to keep certain functions on private servers. Their struggles are a microcosm of the issues that dog their customers: Worries about reliability, security and risks inherent with change that have made it hard to move critical computing tasks to the public cloud.
“The vast majority of Amazon.com runs on AWS,” a company spokesperson said, and it intends to run everything there eventually.
The fact that Amazon still uses private servers is “ironic,” said Ed Anderson, an analyst with Gartner, which advises customers on both cloud services and data center servers. “That’s exactly why we tell people evaluating cloud services, ‘Do not buy into the hype. Do not buy into the myths. You have to be pragmatic, just like these vendors are,'” he said.

For the full story, see:
ROBERT MCMILLAN. “Companies Touting Cloud-Computing Don’t Always Use It.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., Aug. 5, 2015): B8.
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Aug. 4, 2015, and has the title “Cloud-Computing Kingpins Slow to Adapt to Own Movement.”)

Not All Secure Jobs Are Good Jobs

(p. C8) The village idiot of the shtetl of Frampol was given the job of waiting at the village gates for the arrival of the Messiah. The pay wasn’t great, he was told, but the work was steady.

For Epstein’s book recommendations, see:
Joseph Epstein. “12 Months of Reading.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., December 10, 2016): C8.
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Dec. 7, 2016, and has the title “Books of The Times; Review: ‘A Truck Full of Money’ and a Thirst to Put It to Good Use.”)

Best Entrepreneurs, and Managers, Help Workers Lead Meaningful Lives

(p. C6) In “Payoff,” Dan Ariely makes the strong case that the best way to motivate people, including ourselves, is not through persuasive tactics, however subtle, but by providing the groundwork for meaning in people’s lives.

For Altucher’s full book recommendations, see:
James Altucher. “12 Months of Reading.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., December 10, 2016): C6.
(Note: the online version of the review has the date Dec. 7, 2016, and has the title “James Altucher on con artists.”)

The book recommended, is:
Ariely, Dan. Payoff: The Hidden Logic That Shapes Our Motivations, Ted Books. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2016.