Showing posts with label CEO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CEO. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

The seven things that surprise new Chief Executives

Harvard Business School professors Michael E. Porter, Nitin Nohria and Jay W. Lorsch, write on surprises that new CEOs get at the workplace

Most new chief executives are taken aback by the unexpected and unfamiliar new roles, the time and information limitations, and the altered professional relationships they run up against. Here are the common surprises new CEOs face, and here’s how to tell when adjustments are necessary.

Surprise One:
You Can’t Run the Company

Warning signs: You are in too many meetings and involved in too many tactical discussions. There are too many days when you feel as though you have lost control over your time.

Surprise Two: Giving Orders is Very Costly

Warning signs:
You have become the bottleneck. Employees are overly inclined to consult you before they act. People start using your name to endorse things, as in “Frank says…”

Surprise Three: It Is Hard To Know What Is Really Going On Warning signs: You keep hearing things that surprise you. You learn about events after the fact. You hear concerns and dissenting views through the grapevine rather than directly. Surprise Four: You Are Always Sending A Message

Warning signs: Employees circulate stories about your behaviour that magnify or distort reality. People around you act in ways that indicate they’re trying to anticipate your likes and dislikes.

Surprise Five: You Are Not The Boss

Warning signs: You don’t know where you stand with board members. Roles and responsibilities of the board members and of management are not clear. The discussions in board meetings are limited mostly to reporting on results and management’s decisions.

Surprise Six: Pleasing Shareholders Is Not The Goal

Warning signs:
Executives and board members judge actions by their effect on stock price. Analysts who don’t understand the business push for decisions that risk the health of the company. Management incentives are disproportionately tied to stock price.

Surprise SEven: You are still only human

Warning signs:
You give interviews about you rather than about the company. Your lifestyle is more lavish or privileged than that of other top executives in the company. You have few – if any – activities not connected to the company.

Implications for CEO Leadership

Taken together, the seven surprises carry some important and subtle implications for how a new CEO should define his job.

First, the CEO must learn to manage organisational context rather than focus on daily operations. Providing leadership in this way – and not diving into the details – can be a jarring transition. One CEO said that he initially felt like the company’s “most useless executive,” despite the power inherent in the job. The CEO needs to learn how to act in indirect ways – setting and communicating strategy, putting sound processes in place, selecting and mentoring key people – to create the conditions that will help others make the right choices. At the same time, he must set the tone and define the organisation’s culture and values through words and actions – in other words, demonstrate how employees should behave.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2013.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
 
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

The worst ceos of 2012 and why smart ceos make bad decisions

CEOs today face far greater challenges than just perfecting the art of outperforming bottomline target estimates quarter after quarter. From keeping activist shareholders at bay, to satisfying consumers who demand innovation at the blink of an eye, today’s Chief Executives have their hands full. Not surprisingly, many of these highly-regarded strategists stumble. Prof. Sydney Finkelstein, Steven Roth Professor of Management, Tuck School of Business, writes on why such business leaders fail

2012 has been an eventful year as far as business is concerned. The global economy was stuck somewhere in between managing a full blow financial crisis on one hand and dealing with its after-effects on the other. However, this year did give CEOs an opportunity to reconsider changes that had been impacting their businesses and reinvent in response. And I would say that this is one area where business leaders have faced a great deal of trouble.

For many CEOs, adapting to change – especially dramatic and technological change – is disturbing. Companies like Motorola, Research in Motion and Kodak had to deal with big changes in the recent past mostly due to technological shifts in the economy and their respective industries. What they’d been doing effortlessly in the past stopped working. And unfortunately, they continued doing what made them successful in the first place. Business model innovation is a tricky proposition because even from a psychological point-of-view, it’s difficult to stop doing something for which one has been amply rewarded – and consistently so – in the past. However, the repercussions of not adapting are evident. Motorola was acquired by Google (not for a great line-up of products but more so for the patents), Kodak filed for bankruptcy and Research in Motion is struggling to sustain operations.

Nevertheless, there have been two chief executives in particular who, despite their short tenures, have demonstrated phenomenal leadership and a strong strategic outlook. Marissa Ann Mayer of Yahoo! and Tim Cook of Apple definitely stand out this year.

If you consider Meyer, she’s really given Yahoo!! a shot in the arm. She’s given the company a sense of purpose and if you ask employees and shareholders at Yahoo! today, they’ll tell you that they have much more confidence in the future direction of the company. In recent past, she has proved herself a leader at one of the most successful Internet businesses of our times – Google. And currently, that shows in her understanding of strategy. There is clear consensus now that Yahoo! is a media company – something which previous CEOs could not clearly establish. Further, Meyer has started unlocking some value that lay dormant in Yahoo!’s assets.

On the other hand we have Tim Cook, who has put up a commendable performance at Jobs’ exit. He launched the iPad Mini (despite Steve Jobs’ belief that the market wouldn’t like a small tablet) demonstrating that he is ready to adapt and change. He also had the courage and honesty to accept that Apple Maps was a mess. Some critics have been blaming him for the loss in the stock value of the company. But I don’t see how he’s responsible for any of that. Agreed that Apple didn’t launch a freakishly great product, but the iPhone 5 still sold record units. Apple’s market capitalisation is a case study in itself. To justify such high valuations, you literally need to reinvent the world. And I think Cook has done a fairly decent job till now. He deserves a little more time to demonstrate something even better.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2013.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
 
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles
 
2012 : DNA National B-School Survey 2012
Ranked 1st in International Exposure (ahead of all the IIMs)
Ranked 6th Overall

Zee Business Best B-School Survey 2012
Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri’s Session at IMA Indore
IIPM IN FINANCIAL TIMES, UK. FEATURE OF THE WEEK
IIPM strong hold on Placement : 10000 Students Placed in last 5 year
BBA Management Education

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

International

PATRICIA DUNN DIES

In what seems to be an instance of the world losing one of the most influential woman in corporate America of her time, Patricia Dunn, former Chairwoman of hardware giant Hewlett Packard passed away at her home in Orinda California, after a brave fight with ovarian cancer. She was described by her husband as a tenacious cancer patient, outliving the three-year life expectancy for her type of ovarian cancer by nearly five years. Dunn was also CEO of Barclays Global Investors from 1995 until 2002. After serving on the board of HP for several years, she was named Chairwoman in 2005. As chairman of HP, Dunn helped lead a CEO search that recruited Mark Hurd from NCR Corp. to replace Carly Fiorina, his ousted predecessor. Dunn had good intentions for HP but the act of hiring spies to find out which board member was leaking information to the press eventually backfired on her. She had to step down within months on September 22, 2005. The California State Attorney General’s office brought charges against her for fraudulent tapping of wire communications, misuse of a computer, identity theft, and conspiracy on October 04, 2006. The charges were later dismissed after declaring Dunn’s behaviour a misdemeanour. Dunn had earlier suffered and survived breast cancer and skin cancer.

Global BANKs’ Woes

The Volcker Rule of the Dodd Frank Act, which limits banks from betting their own capital in the market seems to have taken a toll over major banks in the US. After Bank of America announced its plans to slash 30,000 and cut $5 billion in spending earlier this year, the Vikram Pandit-led Citigoup has also announced its plan to cut 4500 jobs by the end of Q3, 2011. The move would cost the bank $400 million in severance expenses. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, major banks around the world have cut a total of 200,000 jobs in the wake of difficult financial conditions prevailing in the global economy. So far this year, Citibank has saved $1.4 billion from its cost cutting initiatives. The ones who get to keep their jobs aren’t happy either.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPM, Malay Chaudhuri
 
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles
 
2012 : DNA National B-School Survey 2012
Ranked 1st in International Exposure (ahead of all the IIMs)
Ranked 6th Overall

Zee Business Best B-School Survey 2012
Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri’s Session at IMA Indore
IIPM IN FINANCIAL TIMES, UK. FEATURE OF THE WEEK
IIPM strong hold on Placement : 10000 Students Placed in last 5 year
IIPM’s Management Consulting Arm-Planman Consulting
Professor Arindam Chaudhuri – A Man For The Society….
IIPM: Indian Institute of Planning and Management
IIPM makes business education truly global
Management Guru Arindam Chaudhuri
Rajita Chaudhuri-The New Age Woman
IIPM B-School Facebook Page
IIPM Global Exposure
IIPM Best B School India
IIPM B-School Detail

IIPM Links
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

B-SCHOOL SURVEY PANEL MEET, 2010

August 12, 2010, saw Planman Media and Business & Economy magazine play host to eminent corporate personalities of India, in a Panel Meet discussion, for Business & Economy magazine’s highly coveted annual issue – India’s Best B-Schools Special Issue 2010. The most unique element about the B&E B-school ranking is that in this particular ranking, the B-schools are ranked by renowned industry leaders (please refer to ‘List of 20 Panel Members’ section for the names of panelists). The final list of 30 B-schools, which is handed over to the panelists for their individual ratings, is chosen from an initial list of 150 B-schools (the initial ratings are obtained from 5,000 respondents across the cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Chennai, Pune, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad, using a structured questionnaire). Considering the importance of the meet, four distinguished industry leaders – Dr. Wilfried Aulbur (CEO, Mercedes-Benz India), Mr. Michael Boneham (MD, Ford Motor Co. India), Mr. Naresh Gupta (MD, Adobe India) and Mr. Brian Tempest (Former CEO, Ranbaxy and presently, Independent Director, Religare Hichens Harrison) – sent their comments and discussions through the audio/visual format. The round-table discussion revolved about the parameters on which B-schools are judged today, and means by which such ranking can be made more transparent and just. Professor Arindam Chaudhuri, Editor-In-Chief of Planman Media expressed his views on how “faculty and course contents” are the two most important elements to deliver overall knowledge in B-schools. He also stressed upon a need for a constant focus on personality development and communication skills. Mr. Sandeep Aneja, MD of Kaizen PE, elaborated on why a “right student base and world-class faculty” is mandatory for any B-school, adding that his most valuable learning during his Stanford days was from a course that prompted students to question who they were, sociologically. Mr. Girish Vaidya. Former Director, Infosys Leadership Institute spoke about why B-Schools should be ranked on the basis of “curriculum, global exposure and cultural stability, along with the extent to which entrepreneurial programs” are encouraged. Mr. Dhiraj Mathur, Exec. Director, PwC gave a strong argument on why “a strong orientation towards ethics” is important for a B-school. While K. M. Nanaiah, MD, Pitney Bowes India, also highlighted the need for a “globalised curriculum and industry interface”, Mr. Sumeet Nair, Chairperson of Fashion Foundation of India justified the need for “encouraging an entrepreneurial zeal” amongst the B-school students. The event was a huge success and all the participants concluded that much more needs to be done to arrive at the ideal B-school of tomorrow. [The aggregate of ratings given by the 20 panelists will be released in print in the November 26, 2010 B-school Special Issue of B&E.] 


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.
An Initiative of IIPMMalay Chaudhuri
and Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist).

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles


Thursday, November 8, 2012

Time to (re)reorganise

Unilever continues to restructure its operations, but to truly revive, it must focus on market shares

It has some of the world’s best managers and some of the most prolific brand portfolios. Yet, Unilever seems to be way past its prime, the days when the mere mention of its name commanded tremendous respect and admiration. Thanks to inability to cope with market trends, the company is desperately seeking a route back to good ol’ days.

Although 2007 has been a better year, there still remains a lot to achieve. While announcing results for the nine months ending September (turnover increased by 4% to €30.3 billion & net profit by 20% to €3.3 billion), CEO Patrick Cescau had enthusiastically commented, “Focus on our growth priorities, together with stronger innovation, improved speed to market & better in-market execution, is delivering consistent & sustainable organic growth.” 2007 results, to be announced as this magazine goes to print, are expected to be in line with company expectations of 3-5% organic growth.

Yet, as always, there are some devils in the details. As per Credit Suisse analyst Charlie Mills, a large part of the increase is due to rise in prices, i.e. value growth (around 2.5% in price growth estimated in Q4, 2007). The company underperforms peers like Reckitt Benckiser, Nestle & Cadbury in organic growth for 2007. Market shares are lower in 2007 compared to 2006 in most categories across Europe & US; deodorants being the only clear saving grace. Morgan Stanley analyst Michel Steib also maintains an underweight rating. He adds, “Unilever’s headwind from commodity costs will double from around 200 bps in 2007 to over 400 bps in 2008 estimate for the full year.”


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.

 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face


Friday, October 26, 2012

It’s a business deal

It’s a business deal. They have your asset (son) and you have the consideration (Rs.60 lakh)…

But Sanjay is bravely trying to pick up the pieces and move on. Speaking to B&E, a tormented Chawla turns philosophical and offers a few words of advice to fellow entrepreneurs and CEOs, “Law is technically reactive in nature, and it comes into picture, only after the crime is committed. Even the Government is trying to put in place a CISF security system for the corporates, but keeping in mind the population of India, it is practically impossible to assign a policemen or a security guard for everyone. Citizens need to be more proactive in nature...”

Given the dysfunctional nature of the law and order and police system in India, virtually every citizen is vulnerable to some kind of crime – from chain-snatching to car-jacking to rape and murder. But particularly vulnerable as ‘soft targets’ are CEOs like Anant Gupta and entrepreneurs like Sanjay Chawla and their near and dear ones. And almost everyone concerned with this “industry” agree that the danger will become even more potent and menacing in the months and years to come. “It’s a big business these days... and is constantly on the rise! And we can do little about it at the moment,” states V. M. Pandit, a former official of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) who runs his own private security outfit. A top cop of Haryana Police, who has been privy to information regarding scores of kidnapping cases and who doesn’t want to be named says, “The number of rich businessmen and senior corporate managers is growing manifold every year. It is but natural for criminals to target them. The problem is, many such potential victims are simply not just aware of the simple steps that they and their family members need to take to prevent such crimes. You have to be proactively careful too!” (See Infographics)

Virtually every security expert agrees that there are three things that a family must do when a kidnapping has happened and the ransom calls start coming in – do not lose your cool, do not succumb too easily or too fast to ransom demands and always seek the help of a ‘professional’ who understands the psyche of the criminals.


Source : IIPM Editorial, 2012.

For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles.

 
IIPM : The B-School with a Human Face

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Big Oil’s ‘split’ting headache

The world’s largest publicly-listed oil majors did achieve operational efficiencies by riding the M&A wave that began post the Asian Crisis. But times have changed and with their merged state being questioned today, some are mulling over a new strategy to split upstream and downstream operations. Is this a wise move?

The reason was obvious. On a cold December evening in 2003, ExxonMobil’s (former) CEO, Lee Raymond, made public his decision to extend his occupation of the corner office until mid-2006. Why? Integration at the four year-old, $230 billion-worth merged entity called Exxon Mobil was still incomplete, rendering it unfit in terms of “operational efficiencies” to be handed over to the younger oilman Rex Tillerson. Raymond wanted to give Tillerson more face time with Wall Street. In a little over two years, Tillerson was handed over the reigns. Since then, onlookers have watched Exxon’s share chart rise with their mouths gaping. If Tillerson today seems as though he knows his way around rigs, it is because he has steered handsomely a big ship, for over half-a-decade. [Today, had Exxon been a nation, it would be counted as the fourth-largest oil producing country, with a daily production volume of 4,968,000 barrels of oil-equivalent per day (boepd), only behind Russia, Saudi Arabia and US (source: US Energy Information Administration).] For Tillerson, the “grow big” story has worked. He has toiled hard to make the company the most integrated player in the oil business today, through superior capital allocation plans and a relentless pursuit of technology and operational improvement. It has delivered the highest returns on capital relative to peers since the past five years. But Exxon’s tale only represents the pretty part of the merger mania. Conoco Phillips is on the other end of the see-saw.

There is a new fad in town. That of merged entities trying their hands at spin-offs to improve efficiencies and market value. Even experts and Wall Street bankers – who had previously championed the cause of the inorganic way forward – are today questioning whether these individual companies would have been better off as individual entities, and more valuable in terms of aggregated market capitalisation. Truth is oil companies, over the decades, have increasingly lost control over the price of oil, which fluctuates at the whims and fancies of oil producing nations and the derivatives market. This further means that for big oil, improving on operational efficiencies has become most critical. And to achieve that, the not-so-happy merged oil companies like ConocoPhillips are contemplating a split of their upstream and downstream operations into two independent public entities – one dealing with exploration and production (upstream) while the other with refining and marketing (downstream).

And such contemplation – to undo what the merger wave did a decade back – is coupled with action. Months after Marathon Oil (an oil and gas firm with revenues of $73.6 billion in FY2010) split into two independent entities in January 2011 (Marathon Oil – the upstream arm, and Marathon Petroleum – the downstream arm), ConocoPhillips (COP), the world’s third largest integrated energy company (on July 14, 2011) followed suit. Although it is too early to analyse the outcome of this move, fact is that the popular market reaction has not been too encouraging.

In the case of Marathon, a day before the announcement of the split, its m-cap stood at $31.3 billion. Today, it is down to $30.5 billion. Definitely not a positive sign. If a split unlocks value (as it happened in the case of Motorola Inc., ITT, Daimler Chrysler), it starts showing loudly in the investor crowd almost instantly. In case of Marathon, it didn’t. Our case of analysis to understand why a split for an integrated oil company is a tough pill to swallow (and better not undertaken for operational reasons), is COP. Since the announcement, it has shed value to the tune of $16 billion – down by 15%. Why is it that the investors are not optimistic about the split strategy to work for COP? Given that the company has already closed much of the valuation gap with its industry peers – exceeding it in some cases – any extraordinary appreciation in m-cap over the short term is highly unlikely. Also, there are factors that will make all gains from the split partially ineffective. The first and foremost being its recent walk on the inorganic path, which has increased the job for the taskforce supposed to work on the split. Acquisitions have dominated its growth strategy during the past 4-5 years. The company bought American natural gas assets (Burlington Resources), Russian oil supplies (20% stake in Lukoil), and stranded gas in Australia (Origin Energy). These “expensive” deals culminated in a $34 billion goodwill-impairment charge. With its ill-timed acquisitions and a $11 billion share repurchase plan failing to deliver returns, the investors understand that this split strategy is “only” a survival attempt.


Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Is Apotheker destroying HP?

Nine months back, B&E had questioned whether Leo Apotheker was the right choice to fill Hurd’s shoes at HP (article titled, “Wrong person. Wrong place?”). With his recent announcement to restructure HP’s healthy business, the questions are back. Will his bet pay off; or is it a fatal move for HP?

A week before former SAP CEO Leo Apotheker was set to assume the corner office at HP’s Palo Alto headquarters (on November 1, 2010), B&E had put forward two forecasts for HP. First, was an adoption of inorganic means to grow in the enterprise space. [Claim #1: “What is inevitable, is that HP under Apotheker will join the battle to capture the enterprise space from the likes of Oracle and IBM. This would call for an expensive acquisition.”] Second, was a tamper with HP’s old order – the hardware business. [Claim #2: “He (Apotheker) has options. The most irresistible one will be not to tamper with HP’s pride – its hardware business – which he will.”] Both became reality on August 16, 2011, when HP announced the purchase of LSE-listed software-maker & cloud-search specialist Autonomy for $11.69 billion and decided to spin-off (and put on sale over the next 12 months) its $40.74 billion-a-year topline earning Personal Systems Group (PSG unit that includes hardware – PCs, tablets & mobility devices).

Many claim that such a prediction would have been easy. Not so. Even as recently as April 2011, Apotheker was heard singing hymns about HP’s webOS and how it would make up for the core OS on all HP PCs shipped post-2012. In fact, it was only on July 1, 2011, that HP’s tablet – the TouchPad – was launched. The company’s announcement to therefore acquire Autonomy and pull the shutters on hardware is a sign that Apotheker was undecided until the first week of August 2011 (when it announced a discount of $100 on all variants of its tablet to clear out inventory), whether or not he was to adopt enterprise software & services as the sole breadwinner for HP. Now that he has made a public appearance on the subject, question is – will this decision work in favour of HP?

The thoroughly flummoxed stock market thinks otherwise. In the trading session that followed this announcement, the company’s m-cap shrunk by $16 billion – the single-largest fall in a day since the Black Monday crash of 1987 (taking the tally of HP’s value destroyed by Apotheker to $47.52 billion in 10 months; under him HP’s m-cap as on August 29, 2011 had fallen by 47.47% to $51.48 billion). Frankly, the bourses have it rightly calculated. There are reasons.

Forget the risks. Even at face value, the Autonomy purchase is an expensive one. What logic explains the pricing of an entity, whose current revenue equals 1% of your expected annual topline (FY2011), at 13.12% of your est. revenues of $89.12 billion for FY2012 (as per Credit Suisse)? Even if paying a 75% premium over Autonomy’s closing price on August 15, 2011, is not an indication of the deal being overvalued, then a valuation in excess of 64x of Autonomy’s current P/E and 16x its forward revenue (for FY2011) surely is.

The purchase does carry an upside in the sense that it could provide exposure to HP’s enterprise software business (which currently contributes to 46.51% of its topline; FY2010), as well as a push into the analytics arena. But the opportunity cost renders the deal unappealing. What the Autonomy buy has in store for HP is better understood in the light of revenues that will be lost due to the coupling of this inorganic strategy with the hardware unit sell-off. Competition has lowered profits in the hardware business, but “brave” is the only adjective to describe the sacrifice of a business, where HP is currently the indisputed leader. Be it in US, EMEA or globally, HP controls the largest share in the PC market, across geographies (see chart titled “Global market shares of PC sellers”). Financially therefore, it is difficult to imagine a future without the PSG division starting FY2012. The revenues lost?

A $73.64 billion sacrifice at the altar of the enterprise software and services gods between just the two years FY2012-FY2013. Not to say that the hardware unit is not faced with greater competitiveness by the day, but to jettison it in a single shot is absurd. What makes us believe that HP’s most recent shot at restructuring (and Apotheker’s attempt to win over his shareholders) is more about hype than hope? Read the numbers.

Even if you were to go by the rate at which the contribution of hardware (PCs and mobility devices) to HP’s topline has been declining over the past half-a decade (4.09%; primarily because on one hand, while the former CEO Hurd focused little on innovation in the mobility platform, on the other, Apotheker, had little clue about what could potentially be done with a PC-plus-services portfolio), post sell-off of the PSG unit, the company stands to lose $400.74 billion in expected revenue earnings over the next 20 years (arrived at using a binomial regression forecast model; R2=0.99; Eq. y = -37.75x2 - 1395x + 42154). In stark contrast, the complimenting move of buying Autonomy – assuming optimistically that the entity’s current CAGR of 20% in revenues will be maintained – will end up adding $49.03 billion to HP’s topline over the same period. Translation: a direct loss of more than $350 billion over the next two decades! This comparison especially assumes importance considering the valuation of HP’s hardware business. Based on a review of PC focused peers (Lenovo, Dell, Acer and Asus), HP’s PSG segment could warrant a valuation of 0.3x EV/Sales (or 4.8x EV/EBITDA) multiple, which would put the pure enterprise value of the business at roughly $12 billion – the amount that is being spent on Autonomy to save its service dream. A bad bargain. The restructuring also brings to surface the inability of HP to keep its head above the water in a world of devices where convergence is the magic word. The company has made clear its intentions to wash its hands off webOS devices. The HP management has confessed that it lacks the innovation and the execution to become an Apple in any decade soon. Come Q4, 2011, and webOS will live no more. The webOS write-off will further put pressure on HP’s cost base, as there will be a $1 billion cash charge over the next quarter due to inventory clearance costs and supplier commitments with respect to the Touchpad tablet. In addition, there could be a non-cash charge at a later date if goodwill is marked down.