Here’s one to keep in mind – we did this a few times at Return Path, and I was just reminded of it when I was coaching another founder who is doing the same thing right now.

Sometimes when you’re doing a strategic acquisition and it’s an all-stock deal, you can insist as a term of the acquisition that the target company’s investors invest more capital into your company.

That’s right, not only do you not have to put cash OUT for the deal, you’re getting additional cash IN. Think of it as a contemporary corporate version of the dowry.

Why would the cap table of the target company agree to this? Here are a few reasons:

• you’re in a strong enough negotiating position – best home for the business, best chance of the target company investors getting a return
• the target company investors have more dry powder and want to double down – they love your vision for the combined company
• you’re only offering the target company investors common stock in the deal, and they are pushing hard to get preferred

The Dowry is not something you can get to with every deal, and you might not need it. But think of it as a tool in the M&A/financing tool belt.

The Rumors of Email’s Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated, Part IV

This one could also be entitled “What Are The Bloggers Smoking?”

Reports from last week’s Blog Business Summit like this one are starting to filter in (pun slightly intended).  This one gets a big yawn from me, even more so than the other times I’ve posted on this subject, here, here, and here.  I’m as much of a blogger and a believer in blogs and RSS as the next guy — maybe even more so — but honestly, people, blogs are going to replace email?

I’d like to address a few critical points here head on, although a large part of me doesn’t even want to dignify yet another empty “email is dead” quote with a response.

Basic error #1. The article seems to confuse blogs with RSS feeds.  RSS feeds are data streams coming into an RSS reader application.  Blogs are web sites.  Hello?!?

Fallacy #1. Because blogs/RSS are interesting new media, email will go away.  To paraphrase my colleague Mike Mayor, why is it that whenever something new comes along, its proponents have to bash the current paradigm to make their thing seem more important?  Let’s go through this one — TV came along, and people said radio would go away.  Cable came along, and everyone said the networks were toast.  The fax machine came along, and FedEx was said to be relegated to legal documents that needed to be signed personally.  The Internet came along, and people said everything else was insignificant (newspapers, TV, radio, snail mail).  So yes, new media do arrive on the scene and perhaps make a dent in all prior media, but I’m having a hard time thinking of that one comes in and clocks another one mano a mano.

Fallacy #2. Spam has made email more difficult, therefore email will go away.  There’s a whole industry out there fighting spam.  I know, I know, just because we want the problem to go away doesn’t mean that we can will it away — but filters are working better by the day (did everyone catch this posting about Postini this week?), false positives can be managed down by vigilant clients working with vendors like Return Path, and whitelists, whenever they start really working and charging money to clients to guarantee delivery, will still leave email as the cheapest medium for targeted commercial messaging out there.

Naive belief #1. Spam has harmed email, but blogs/RSS are immune to the same problems.  I’m sorry, do you think the bad guys, or as Fred always calls it, the Internet Axis of Evil (spam, viruses, spyware, DNS hacking, phishing, and the like) are going to leave blogs and RSS feeds alone?  Not a chance.  The bad guys are already hard at work expanding their Axis of Evil.  There’s already comment spam for blogs (or blam, as some call it).  People have and can hijack RSS feeds (no cool name yet).  There’s Instant Messenger spam (spim).  Last week, I heard about a new one that blew me away, which is that someone figured out how to hijack a Voice Over IP phone call and insert an audio ad/porn into the call (spip).

Naive belief #2. Blogs are truly interactive.  Other than a couple of very popular blogs during the height of last fall’s election, I just don’t think this is true for the mainstream.  There are certainly some people who have a little too much time on their hands who spend hours every day blogging, but most people skim most blogs as one-way communication.   While there are mechanisms for commenting, there aren’t ready mechanisms for publishing comments back to the blog audience (thank goodness), so this medium hasn’t turned out nearly as interactive as people had hoped at the onset.  RSS feeds, in case the writer/speaker was confused in this argument, are completely non-interactive.

Naive belief #3. People will read blogs with an agenda of marketing specific products and services.  The beauty of the blog is that it’s not corporate, and it doesn’t have marketing spin on it.  Blogs are much more journals and publishing tools than marketing vehicles.  Who the heck is going to read a blog on Coke?  Or Nike?  Or Microsoft?  Sure, I might read Howard Shultz’s blog if he had one (his book was good enough), but that’s very different than reading the Starbucks official blog.  Why bother?  Where’s the value there?

Ok, I’m done with today’s rant.  As I said, I love blogging as much as the next guy, but puh-lease!  And for the record, I do believe that RSS feeds and maybe even IM from marketers/publishers will supplement email and in some cases maybe even replace it, but email just isn’t going away any time soon.

Are You As Versatile As Running?

Today was my first day back in the city after two weeks working and playing at our house in the mountains.  And a beautiful day it was — 46 and sunny!  I went for a great run, reflecting on how incredibly versatile running is.  Less than 48 hours before, I had also been running, but bundled up, in a 17 degree snowfall, wearing my new Icebugs (thanks for the tip, Brad), up and down the hills of a quiet country road at 6500 feet in Idaho.  Today — sea level, flat, urban, sunny and crisp out, wearing shorts (I’ll let you guess which was easier).  How versatile can a sport be?

Are you as versatile at work?  Can you be that go-to person for your manager, the all-weather team member who gets called on to take on any kind of project as needed?  I don’t care how specialized your job is or how big your company is.  That’s the kind of employee you want to be, trust me.

But, you say, what about me?  Don’t I get a say in things?  Can’t I have my own career ambitions and interests and steer the kind of work that I do?

You can!  You should!  I tell people at Return Path that all the time.  And the best part about is that while the two above statements may seem at odds with each other — be able to do anything (with a smile) and do what you want to do — they’re actually not.  The very best employees who I’ve worked with or who have worked for me over the years do both and mix them together to their advantage.

Work your career path with your manager, your mentor, your HR leader, your CEO.  Understand what’s possible long term at the company.  Figure out what you’re good at and what interests you (read, among other things, Now, Discover Your Strengths to get there).  Learn what it takes to earn a promotion to the next level.  Get yourself generally in line to rise through the ranks the way YOU want to.  Obviously, to get to that next level, you’ll need to work your butt off, harder than others around you, with better results and higher quality.

But you also have to be a utility infielder, to mix sports metaphors.  If your company or your team needs you to do something a little different from what you’re doing today, the difference between doing it well with a smile on your face and doing it merely satisfactorily with a grimace could be the difference between that next promotion and not.  And it’s really both those things — doing it well, and having a great attitude about it. 

I love running, because I can do it at any place, at any time, as long as have my running shoes.  Our best employees are similarly versatile, because they are self-directed and work hard and do things right, but also because they do what needs to be done when it needs to be done, even if it’s outside the scope of their day-to-day or not explicitly in the critical path of their next promotion.

There’s been much coverage in the news of Saturday’s passing of President Ronald Reagan, but I will add a new wrinkle by trying to distill down what I know and remember of The Great Communicator’s leadership style into a few simple lessons of note for CEOs.

Lesson 1: Sunny optimism motivates the people you lead, but only when it’s balanced with hard-headed realism. Reagan’s message that tomorrow can be a better day than today was powerful and timely for the American psyche, but he didn’t just assume that because he said it, it would be true. He backed up his message with (a) an understanding that the American economy itself was in the doldrums in the late ’70s, and (b) policies designed to fix the economy. Whether you agree with those policies or not, you have to respect the fact that Reagan as a leader wasn’t just talk — he combined the talk with reality-based action. That’s super important when communicating key messages to a company of any size.

Lesson 2: Simplicity of messaging beats out measured intellectualism in broad-based communications. Reagan’s view of the 40-year-old Cold War when he took office was “we will win, and they will lose.” Much easier to rally around than messages of detente and containment (this quote came from an editorial by former Reagan staffer Peter Robinson in today’s Wall St. Journal). Similarly, the bigger and more diverse the group you’re talking to inside your company or in a speech or in the press, the more important it is to boil your key message down to something people can easily take away with them and repeat at home later to their spouse or friends.

Lesson 3: Nobody’s perfect, and you don’t have to be perfect either. He may have been, electorally, the most popular president of our generation, but Reagan certainly had his many and sometimes glaring faults. History will acknowledge his faults but overall judge him on his performance. It was noted (also in today’s Journal, I think) that Reagan got a lot of little things wrong, but in the end, he will be remembered because he got a few big things very, very right. Perfection is something that most mortals can’t achieve, certainly not in a high profile position like President or CEO of anything, whether a 10-person startup or a nation.

Love him or hate him, the man was one of the most prominent leaders of our time. I’m sure there are more lessons from Reagan’s legacy than these three for CEOs, but this is a start, anyway.

I love the concept of Servant Leadership.  From the source, the definition is:

While servant leadership is a timeless concept, the phrase “servant leadership” was coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in The Servant as Leader, an essay that he first published in 1970. In that essay, Greenleaf said:

“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.

“The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?“

A servant-leader focuses primarily on the growth and well-being of people and the communities to which they belong. While traditional leadership generally involves the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the “top of the pyramid,” servant leadership is different. The servant-leader shares power, puts the needs of others first and helps people develop and perform as highly as possible.

This is a very broad societal definition, but it’s fairly easy to apply to a more narrow corporate, or even startup environment.  Are you as a CEO oriented primarily towards your people, or towards other stakeholders like customers or shareholders?  By the way, trying to do right by all three stakeholders is NOT a problem in a world of being oriented towards one.  It’s just a philosophy around which comes first, and why.  Our People First philosophy at Return Path is fair clear that at the end of the day, all three stakeholders win IF you do right by employees, so they do the best possible work for customers, so you build a healthy and profitable and growing business.

CEOs who practice Servant Leadership aren’t necessarily focused on power dynamics, or on helping those least privileged in society (at least not as part of their job)…but they are focused on making sure that their employees most important needs are met — both in the moment, as in making sure employees are empowered and not blocked or bottlenecked, and over the long haul, as in making sure employees have opportunities to learn, grow, advance their careers, make an impact, and have the ability to live a well balanced life.

I was in a meeting a couple weeks back with another leader and a few people on his team.  He *seemed* to practice Servant Leadership the way he was speaking to his team members.  But he wasn’t, really.  He was doing something I refer to as Sucking Down.  He was telling them things they clearly wanted to hear.  He was lavishing praise on them for minor accomplishments.  He was smiling and saying yes, when what he really meant was no.  He was practicing the art of Sucking Up, only to people on his team, not to a boss.  I got a sense that something wasn’t right during the meeting, and then post meeting, he actually fessed up to me — even bragged about it — that he was being disingenuous to get what he wanted out of his people.

There’s a clear difference between Servant Leadership and Sucking Down in the long run.  The danger comes in the moment.  Just as managers need to build good detection skills to sniff out evidence of someone on their team Sucking Up, employees need to be able to understand that clear difference in their managers’ behavior as they think about how to manage their careers, and even where to work.

One of the things I love about the business we’re building at Bolster is that we’re creating a whole new way for companies to access executive talent. It’s not just that we do full-time searches better, faster, and cheaper than traditional search firms. It’s that we approach the whole topic differently and with a more flexible mindset that matches the dynamic needs of our startup and growth stage clients.

As I wrote last week in You Don’t Need a CRO, CEOs often come to us thinking they need a full-time executive – usually a CRO or COO. And sometimes they do. If we were an executive search firm, we might agree and sell them the thing that we have to sell, which is full-time searches.

But a full-time senior executive is often the wrong answer to whatever problem the CEO is feeling at the moment. Sometimes it’s that they’re just overwhelmed and need help. Sometimes someone on their team isn’t scaling. There are a lot of other options out there for getting executive-level help, advice, and deliverables without making a full-time hire, for example:

• Fractional executives who can work as much as half time and as little as a day or two per month, giving you many of the benefits of an experienced executive without all of the cost and risk and equity commitment
• Project-based executives who can come in and help you with a specific thing you don’t know how to do or don’t have time to do yourself
• Functional mentors to help level up someone on your team with expertise you may not have yourself
• Independent directors to help add whatever voice is missing from your leadership team, whether it’s the voice of the customer or an experienced operator in a given function or domain

In the world of startups and growth companies, staffing at the most senior and expensive levels needs to be nuanced. That’s why I’m glad we have a lot of different options to help CEOs out. Because if all we were holding was a hammer, everything would look like a nail.

Book Short:  Multiplying Your Team’s Productivity

No matter how frustrated a kids’ soccer coach gets, he never, ever runs onto the field in the middle of a game to step in and play.  It’s not just against the rules, it isn’t his or her role.

Multipliers: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter by Liz Wiseman and Greg McKeown (book, Kindle) takes this concept and drives it home.  The book was a great read, one of the better business books I’ve read in a long time.  I read a preview of it via an article in a recent Harvard Business Review (walled garden alert – you can only get the first page of the article without buying it), then my colleague George Bilbrey got the book and suggested I read it.  George also has a good post up on his blog about it.

One of the things I love about the book is that unlike a lot of business books, it applies to big companies and small companies with equal relevance.  The book echoes a lot of other contemporary literature on leadership (Collins, Charan, Welch) but pulls it into a more accessible framework based on a more direct form of impact:  not long-term shareholder value, but staff productivity and intelligence.  The book’s thesis is that the best managers get more than 2x out of their people than the average – some of that comes from having people more motivated and stretching, but some comes from literally making people more intelligent by challenging them, investing in them, and leaving them room to grow and learn.

The thesis has similar roots to many successful sales philosophies – that asking value-based questions is more effective than presenting features and benefits (that’s probably a good subject for a whole other post sometime).  The method of selling we use at Return Path which I’ve written about before, SPIN Selling, based on the book by Neil Rackham, gets into that in good detail.  One colorful quote in the book around this came from someone who met two famous 19th century British Prime Ministers and noted that when he came back from a meeting with Gladstone, he was convinced that Gladstone was the smartest person in the world, but when he came back from a meeting with Disraeli, he was convinced that he (not Disraeli) was the smartest person in the world.

Anyway, the book creates archetypal good and bad leaders, called Multipliers and Diminishers, and discusses five traits of both:

• Talent Magnet vs. Empire Builder (find people’s native genius and amplify it)
• Liberator vs. Tyrant (create space, demand the best work, delineate your “hard opinions” from your “soft opinions”)
• Challenger vs. Know-It-All (lay down challenges, ask hard questions)
• Debate Maker vs. Decision Maker (ask for data, ask each person, limit your own participation in debates)
• Investor vs. Micromanager (delegate, teach and coach, practice public accountability)

This was a great read.  Any manager who is trying to get more done with less (and who isn’t these days) can benefit from figuring out how to multiply the performance of his or her team by more than 2x.

I hosted a CEO roundtable dinner the other night, and someone in the group asked me what my favorite question was to ask in interviews. I kept thinking about something I read years ago, that the late legendary Zappos founder Tony Hsieh used to ask, “do you consider yourself a lucky person,” about which he said, “Lucky people approach the world with an open and optimistic mind that enables them to see unexpected opportunity more readily.“

That’s a good thing to find in a future team member of course, but the question is a little too indirect for me.

My favorite question (ok, it’s a compound question) is to ask someone “What are you great at? What do you absolutely love doing, what gets you out of bed in the morning? And what’s the intersection of those two things?”

In terms of an interview question, it’s one that’s hard to game and also one that gets someone talking authentically about themselves in a way that you can use to evaluate both their cultural fit and their role fit.

This also happens to be the approach I take when I’m giving someone career advice. Think through those three things, and you should start narrowing down the kind of job you want to go after.

I help mentor CEOs on executive hiring all the time. One common refrain I hear when we’re talking about requirements for the job is about something I like to call The Mythical Playbook. If I only had the exec with the right playbook, thinks the hiring CEO, all my problems in that executive’s area would be magically solved.

I once hired a senior executive with that same mentality. They had the pedigree. They had taken a similar SaaS company in an adjacent space from $50mm to $250mm in revenue in a sub-group within their functional area. They had killer references who said they were ready to graduate to the C-level job. They had The Playbook! 

Suffice to say, things did not go as planned. I ignored an early sign of trouble, at my own peril. The exec came to me with a new org chart for the department, one with 45 people on it instead of the 20-25 who were currently there. I believed the department was understaffed but was surprised to see the magnitude of the ask. When I pushed back in general, the response I got was “I plan to overspend and overdeliver.” Hmm, ok. I don’t mind that, although a more detailed plan might be useful.  

Then I pushed back on a specific hire, pointing to a box in the org chart with a title that didn’t make sense to me. The response I got was “Yeah, I’m not entirely sure what that person does either, but I know I need that, trust me.” Yikes. 

There are two reasons why The Playbook is mythical. 

The first reason there’s no such thing as a Playbook for executives is that every situation is different. No two companies are identical in terms of offering or culture or structure. Even within the same industry, no two competitive landscapes are the same at different points in time. If life as a senior executive were as simple as following a Playbook, people would make a zillion dollars off publishing Playbooks, and senior executive jobs would be easier to do, and no one would get fired from them.

Now, I’m not saying there isn’t value in analogous experience. There is! But when hiring an executive, you’re not solely looking for someone who claims to know all the answers based on previous experience. That is a recipe for blindly following a pattern that might or might not exist. The value in the analogous experience is in knowing what things worked, sure, but more importantly in knowing when they worked, why they worked, under what conditions they worked, what alternatives were considered, and what things fell apart on the road to success. A Playbook is only useful if it can be applied thoughtfully and flexibly to new situations.

The second reason there’s no such thing as a Playbook when it comes to hiring executives is that the person who might have written the Playbook is actually not available for your job. Most CEOs start a search by saying, “I want to hire the person who took XYZ Famous Company from where I am today to 10x where I am today.” The problem with that is simple. That person is no longer available to you. They have made a ton of money, and they have moved beyond your job in their career progression. What you want is the person who worked for that person, or even one more layer down…or the person who that person WAS before they took the job at XYZ Famous Company. Those people are much harder to find. And when you find them, they don’t have the Playbook. They may have seen a couple chapters of it, but that’s about all.

In the end, the department I referenced above was more successful, but not because of adherence to the new exec’s entire Playbook. The Playbook got the department out over its skis – we overspent, but we did not overdeliver. The new exec ended up leaving the company before they could implement a lot, and that person’s successor ended up refocusing and rightsizing the department. That said, the best thing the department got out of the exec with the Playbook was their successor, which was huge — one element of a strong exec’s Playbook is how to build a machine as opposed to just playing whack-a-mole and solving problems haphazardly.

(Note – I am using the singular they in this and in other posts now, as Brad. Mahendra, and I chose to do in Startup Boards. I don’t love it, but it seems to be becoming the standard for gender neutral writing, plus it helps mask identities as well when I write posts like this.)

I’m pretty close to the executive coaching world. My wife Mariquita is an extraordinary CEO coach. I’ve worked for decades with Marc Maltz from Hoola Hoop, who helped me transform everything about how I lead organizations. I’ve been friends with Jerry Colonna of Reboot fame for years (I did a fun podcast with Jerry last year called “Everyone is Scalable). I’m pretty good friends with Chad Dickerson. Bolster’s marketplace helps place CEO coaches and even has a programmatic approach to coaching and mentoring called Bolster Prime. The list goes on.

My friend Mitch, a fellow baseball coach, gave me a fun book a couple years ago that is a page-a-day called Coach: 365 Days of Inspiration for Coaches and Players, by Matthew Kelly. It’s a compilation of quotes. Some are better than others. But I just love this one from a couple weeks ago. While obviously it is in the sports context, the sentiments are the same around executive coaching.

Marc and I had one senior executive who we worked with years ago. They had significant personality and style issues that weren’t working well in our culture. They were abrupt, needlessly angry, and cultivated relationships based on fear, not based on trust. Marc and I were tearing our hair out trying to give this person feedback and coaching. Nothing was working. Then I delivered a 2×4 between his eyes. They argued with me and Marc and said that the problem was us…not them. That we were soft.

Two days went by. Then we met with them again. They came into the meeting visibly upset, shaking their head and a bit choked up. They opened the meeting by saying, “I went home and complained to my spouse about your feedback. And my spouse told me that, actually, you are right, and that I should ask my kids. My whole family feels the same way you do. More than my job is at risk — my marriage and family are at risk, too.”

Months and years later, with a ton of coaching and feedback and support from Marc and me and the rest of our executive team, this person had really turned it around. They were doing better at work. They were doing better at home. The work was long and painful and not without its bumps and backtracks. But the person made changes that were meaningful and permanent to all their relationships, not just something in the moment at work. It’s a clear case of this quote — coaching changed his life.

As I’ve said before, People are People. It doesn’t matter if you’re at home or at work. It doesn’t matter if you’re a B2C person or a B2B person. While there are some prominent examples of individuals throughout history who have very different work and home personae (John D. Rockefeller is one that comes to mind, but I’m sure there are other famous ruthless businesspeople who were empathetic and loving spouses and parents), most of us are simply humans, works in progress. We learn something in Context A, and it’s part of us when we are also in Context B.

The impact of a good coach goes way beyond how you lead your organization.

Not Dead Yet

Ah Spring.  Flowers bloom.  Love is in the air.  And it’s time for the annual round of “email is dead” articles and blog posts.  With apologies to Monty Python, and on the heels of last week’s fracas about social networking having more users than email, once again I say, email is Not Dead Yet!

Three articles of late are pretty interesting and point out that the trends in online channel usage are far murkier than meets the eye.

First, Sherry Chiger’s story in Direct that One in Five Merchants Shuns Marketing Email has a poor headline for an interesting, data-rich article.  The article should be about how “Four in Five” adopt.  The article has links to a bunch of interesting in-depth reports you can download, but some of the eye-catching stats include the fact that more B2C companies use email than their own web site for marketing (96% vs. 90%); that the #1 use of “if I had more money in my marketing budget, it would go to” is “creating more sophisticated email”; and that email is the “most valuable online strategy,” beating out SEO and materially ahead of Social Media, SEM, sending offline traffic online, affiliate, display, and abandoned shopping cart marketing.

Sherry’s follow up article entitled E-mail and Social Media: The New Chocolate and Peanut Butter

 and Liana Evans’ article in ClickZ, Email Can Be Social Media’s Best Friend, both explain the interplay of email and social media nicely.  You can’t, or at least shouldn’t, have one without the other.  This matches our experience at Return Path, where a number of our largest clients are the biggest social networks.  We always say that “social networking runs on email.”  Look at your inbox sometime and see how many messages are from Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc., which prompt you to create page views for them, um, I mean, visit their sites.

And of course the recent Morgan Stanley data is somewhat problematic (chart published here among other places).  First, I’m not sure where their base data came from, but I’ve never seen an estimate of worldwide email users that’s only 850MM.  The Morgan Stanley report says there are 1.8B people online worldwide, and there are been stats consistently published over the years that between 80-95% of people online use email.  This report from Radicati has the number of email users worldwide growing from 1.4B last year to 1.9B over the next few years. That sounds more like it.  

There’s no question that people spend more time in social networks and will continue to. They’re more multi-faceted. But that “error” in reporting on number of email addresses pretty dramatically changes the two charts. Plus, don’t you have to have an email account to sign up for most social networks?  And as my colleague Ezra Fischer noted, how the counting works in these two charts is important. For example, I have 2-3 email accounts, but I have 10-12 social network accounts. Am I counted once in each category, or 2-3 in the first and 10-12 in the second? Or worse, once in the first and 10-12 times in the second?

Anyway, every time I write one of these “in defense of email” posts, I get criticized for having too vested an interest in the subject matter to be objective.  If that’s the case, so be it – but who else is going to highlight the positive counterpoints when the buzz is all pointed to the demise of email?