Connect with us

Strategies

10 Things CEOs need to know to survive in 2020

The innumerable challenges and crises that arise more quickly each day are forcing CEOs to adopt a new skill set and a new mindset.

Published

on

Photo by Brooke Lark from Unsplash.com

“CEOs are facing a daunting new level of challenges around social media, technology, political standoffs, and stakeholder pressures, says Stephen Miles, CEO of The Miles Group/TMG. “How a CEO acts and reacts around these challenges and crisis events today – and gets the company on board around the changes necessary – will be the moment of reckoning for a company’s survival.”

The person in the CEO role today is very different as a whole from 10-15 years ago, says Miles. “The innumerable challenges and crises that arise more quickly each day are forcing CEOs to adopt a new skill set and a new mindset.”

Below are 10 factors Miles and his colleagues at TMG have identified as essential focus areas for CEOs entering 2020.

1. Handling “social emotional events.” 

As we move into a ‘social economy’ with leadership actions being scrutinized and judged by millions over social media, CEOs are learning the hard way the consequences of not addressing this reality – and it often translates into their leaving the company. Responding to or taking a stand on today’s ‘social emotional events’ or issues – from plastic waste to the NRA to LGBTQ issues – as well as to a company’s own crisis events requires a new CEO skill set of being able to connect with the public at a completely different level.

2. Shifting from a “know-it-all” to a “learn-it-all” company with a growth mindset. 

The story of Microsoft under the leadership of Satya Nadella is a powerful example of embracing what Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck has identified as a ‘growth mindset’ – and how this approach can save a company. Nadella took the same assets that the previous CEO had and has added more than $850 billion in market capitalization. He has focused on a cultural transformation, moving from the fixed mindset Microsoft had held onto for too long. Under his watch, Microsoft has shifted from a ‘know-it-all’ to a ‘learn-it-all’ company that is open to learning and new ideas. More companies can learn from Nadella’s model as nothing can be taken for granted any longer in today’s rapid business climate.

3. Prioritizing investment in a business’s digital future. 

Digitization of every business has been talked about for the past 20+ years, but we have finally reached the point where this is real. For companies not in the tech space, investing in digital development means focusing on the ‘business of tomorrow.’ Many of them are so focused on winning in the business of today that they risk being late or outright missing the transformation to digital. But getting a company to prioritize digitization is not like Star Trek where a CEO can just ‘Make it so.’ The CEO must make this imperative part of their drumbeat from the top so that it gets the attention and investment required. Digitization requires a real focus and investment in building the organizational capabilities needed for a company’s future success.

4. Training the company, and the CEO, as an Olympic athlete.

The pattern of a company’s adding some excess during a good run and then shedding the excess when the run was over is coming to an end. Today, many CEOs see their companies as Olympic athletes – where it’s essential to maintain a top level of ‘fitness’ at all times and it’s everyone’s role to stay focused and not allow excess to creep in. CEOs themselves are also prioritizing their own fitness to stay sharp and withstand the physical toll of working in today’s very demanding global business climate with extensive travel, 24/7 communications, and more – a far cry from the wining-and-dining CEO of before.

5. Getting ahead of ESG “fails”.

The ESG – environmental, social, and governance – agenda for many CEOs has gone from altruism to ‘license to operate.’ ESG is the new normal. With plastic, for example, the companies affected have largely lost the narrative. The story has moved from ‘waste is bad’ to ‘plastic is bad,’ with plastic becoming the symbol for single-use excess. Corporations today need to stay out in front of the narrative before it gets hijacked and then turns their entire business model on its head. It is now sport to shame corporations and build a critical public mass to drive an agenda, so CEOs must stay hyper-attuned to the emerging issues that could pushed by stakeholders anytime.

6. Adapting to “shop local” as a possible new reality for supply chains.

Most multinational corporations have set up their supply chains to be truly global, but the 25-year business model developed around free trade and the frictionless movement of goods is now under real threat through trade disputes and protectionist policies. Companies are trying to assess whether this is merely a Trump administration blip or a new era of global protectionism threatening their existing business models and supply chains. If this is the new reality, many companies will have to shift their business models to a more local approach, which will cost more and take time to fully adjust. Many arbitrage opportunities around labor and other costs will be lost if companies are limited to more local markets for production.

7. Bracing for stronger regulatory action.

From heightened privacy concerns around technology companies to the newly appointed CEO of Boeing Corporation saying that the company now welcomes oversight, regulators around the world are finding a new sense of power – supported by a growing populist movement and an increased disdain for the corporation. Taking on monopolies is another area of focus, as the technology space has shifted dramatically in the two decades since the DOJ took on Microsoft, a company far less of a monopolist than what exists in many areas of technology today. We’re likely to see more actions taking on monopolists to either break them up or regulate them with a much heavier hand of the law.

8. Building competitive muscle as growth gets harder.

Every CEO we have advised over the past decade would tell you that each year has been harder than the previous year to find growth. In a ‘hard growth’ economy, the only way for companies to grow is to take market share from others, but the relentless focus inward on cost-cutting and disciplines such as zero-based budgeting have made it difficult to find executives who have built enough of a competitive muscle. CEOs will need their teams to get out of their more internally focused thinking and embrace a market-based approach that is driven by calculated risk-taking and creativity.

9. Preparing now for the next synchronized global recession.

Many industrial companies have been feeling recessionary pressures for the past six to eight months, and this is a worry for many CEOs. While the consumer remains strong, there are signs of the next recession being closer rather than further away. The swing card is the 2020 election and the potential for the Trump administration to complete further rounds of a workable trade deal with China. A deal would take a considerable amount of uncertainty off the table and likely extend the expansion for a period of time.

10. Shifting from linear leadership to managing to an outcome.

Companies are increasingly moving away from the vertical corporation, with its silos and asymmetries of information and linear paths to achieving goals. In today’s highly matrixed organization, executives must also lead horizontally, working with others and collaborating in a way that requires a lot more range to their leadership toolkits. They must consider the direct and indirect constituencies that will influence their strategic objectives. We have moved away from linear ‘Point A to Point B’ leadership – it is now about managing to an outcome.

“What all these actions have in common is a hypervigilance to external factors,” says Miles. “The always-on, 360-degree CEO who takes in input from everywhere and adapts quickly is the one who will outperform.”

BizNews

Tweak pitches based on how innovative an idea is

Pitches promoting radical ideas are better received when framed in concrete and explanatory ‘how’ terms, while progressive ideas do better with abstract ‘why’ style of pitches.

Published

on

In a study examining styles of pitching ideas to audiences, researchers found that pitches promoting radical ideas are better received when framed in concrete and explanatory ‘how’ terms, while progressive ideas do better with abstract ‘why’ style of pitches.

Previous research found that professional audiences, like investors, prefer concrete pitches with how-style explanations, while lay audiences such as students and crowdfunders respond better to ‘why’ style pitches for abstract ideas.

Professor Simone Ferriani, Professor of Entrepreneurship at Bayes Business School (formerly Cass), City, University of London, said: “We wanted to identify the best way for entrepreneurs to pitch their ideas to get audiences’ attention and investment. Could the way they pitch affect their success? What if they had great ideas but were pitching them in the wrong way? We wanted to explore which styles of pitching work best with differing types of ideas.”

To test this, academics conducted two experiments using an online survey with business students evaluating pitch decks, to see when new ideas were more likely to be viewed positively. The study used entrepreneurial pitches and varied the ideas’ originality and the style of abstract ‘why’ the idea works versus concrete ‘how’ the idea works. They looked at how these factors influenced people’s reception of the idea and their willingness to support it.

The results indicate that the pitching strategy should match the idea’s novelty to make it more appealing and likely to attract investment.

Professor Ferriani added: “Imagine a tech startup introducing a groundbreaking new virtual reality (VR) gaming platform that revolutionises the gaming experience. Our findings suggest that in their pitch to potential users, they should emphasise concrete usability details such as the advanced feedback technology, the immersive 360-degree visuals and the seamless integration with existing gaming consoles. When ideas have the potential to disrupt the status quo, this explanatory approach is key to offset the puzzlement that novel ideas can cause. Conversely, when ideas are less of a leap and more of a step forward, such as with incremental innovations, abstract language that paints the ‘why’ can be more effective.”

Denise Falchetti, Assistant Professor of Management at George Washington University School of Business (GWSB), added: “This strategy taps into the audience’s existing knowledge and expectations, connecting the new idea to familiar concepts and emphasizing its place within a broader vision or goal.”

Gino Cattani, Professor of Management and Organizations at New York University Stern School, concluded: “The research advises a tailored approach: for groundbreaking innovations, detail the practicalities; for incremental improvements, focus on the overarching vision. As the language of entrepreneurship continues to evolve, this study offers a compass for navigating the intricate dance of persuasion and influence, providing a linguistic toolkit for turning novel concepts into embraced innovations.”

The paper, ‘Radically concrete or incrementally abstract? The contingent role of abstract and concrete framing in pitching novel ideas’ is published in Innovation: Organization & Management.

Continue Reading

BizNews

Companies in strategic alliances get better access to financing, more desirable terms

Companies in alliances can gain access to new technologies and customers while keeping their autonomy.

Published

on

Shoppers browsing through blouses and blenders at Target know they can also quaff a cappuccino at one of more than 1,700 Starbucks cafes housed within Targets. The strategic alliance benefits both corporations by helping them reach new markets, boost their brands, and add incremental sales.

Collaborative partnerships such as this have grown at a pace of 3,600 per year, according to the SDC Platinum database. That’s partly because companies in alliances can gain access to new technologies and customers while keeping their autonomy.

New research from Texas McCombs highlights another advantage of alliances: They also make borrowing money easier.

Urooj Khan, associate professor of accounting, finds that companies entering strategic alliances can get both better access to financing and better terms through the financial networks of their partners. Banks that have already lent to one partner offer lower interest rates to a company entering the alliance.

The reason is that having a relationship with one partner helps them get insight into the other company, beyond what’s found in financial statements and alliance agreements, such as the strength of its commitment to the alliance and its ability to execute the alliance effectively. Such inputs are critical for assessing the credit risk of a borrower.

“It’s really hard to see whether a company will live up to its strategic alliance commitments, even if they put it on paper,” says Khan. “But these alliances have significant consequences for the companies’ financial futures, cash flows, and revenues.”

Knowing that an alliance can improve a company’s bottom line, banks can lend with less uncertainty, he adds. They can spend less on screening and monitoring, making it possible to extend a lower-interest loan to the new partner.

With Vincent Yongzhao Lin of Washington University in St. Louis, Zhiming Ma of Peking University, and Derrald Stice of Hong Kong University, Khan analyzed 5,343 U.S. bank loans issued to 1,254 borrowers in strategic alliances from 1991 to 2016.

The average company got loans from banks that had existing relationships with an alliance partner, as well as other loans from banks that did not. That allowed the researchers to compare lending outcomes. They found that in the four years after an alliance commenced:

  • Borrowers in alliances were 6% more likely to get financing from alliance-related banks than from non-alliance-related banks.
  • Interest rates on loans from alliance-related banks were 0.13 percentage points lower, on average, than loans from banks with no alliance connection. These cost savings represented a 7% decrease in the average cost of borrowing.

Alliance-related banks gave even more favorable rates when:

  • An alliance was economically important, as measured by its closeness to the company’s core businesses, similar markets for the partners’ products, or the equity markets’ reactions upon the alliance’s announcement.
  • The borrower’s transparency and accounting quality were low, making inside information from its partner even more critical to assessing its risk.

The findings have implications for banks and for companies considering entering a strategic alliance, Khan says.

Banks can look at new alliance partners of their existing clients as avenues for potential business growth.

For companies — especially those that anticipate needing a loan — the findings can help them decide whether to pursue an alliance in the first place.

“Companies typically consider access to new markets and technology or cost savings as the main benefits of forging strategic alliances,” he says. “Our research shows that partners can also benefit from each other’s financial networks through alliances.

“Thus, the quality and extensiveness of a firm’s banking relationships is an important factor in choosing an alliance partner.”

Strategic Alliances and Lending Relationships” is published online in The Accounting Review.

Continue Reading

BizNews

To promote your brand, stop hiring rogue social media influencers

Social media influencers are using bogus claims, deceptive editing and reinforcing gender stereotypes in a bid to gain popularity.

Published

on

Rogue social media influencers are relying on gender stereotypes, bogus claims and deceptive editing to monetise their content and increase their following, a new study has found.  

Influencers using these questionable tactics, which would otherwise be impermissible under marketing rules, are seemingly able to hide in plain sight thanks to the existing focus on ad labelling within the influencer industry.  

In the absence of a legal definition and comprehensive guidelines on influencers, some are able to operate in regulatory blind-spots, with the only real requirement that sinks its teeth is for them to be transparent on what type of content they are producing (eg. advertising) rather than the substance of their messaging. 

New research by the University of Essex’s media law expert, Dr Alexandros Antoniou, has unearthed some of the dark arts being used by rogue influencers.  

He has identified four questionable strategies which were recurring themes during his analysis of more than 140 rulings from ASA between 2017 and 2024. 

The rulings related to advertising and promotional content, which had been referred to the watchdog amid concerns it broke marketing regulations. 

Dr Antoniou, of Essex Law School, said: “Even though influencers are seen as trustworthy figures in online brand communities, my findings expose long-standing issues of non-compliance with established marketing rules. 

“The current heavy emphasis on ad labelling is misguided as site users are already aware of potential paid endorsements by influencers.” 

The four recurring themes and breaches identified by Dr Antoniou were: 

  • Promo-masquerade – exaggerating products through visual enhancements, mishandled give-away campaigns and prize mismanagement that leaves deserving participants empty handed or confused about terms of engagement. 

Example: The ASA found an influencer failed to deliver a £250 voucher from a fast-fashion retailer without justification and lacked evidence to show they had distributed three out of four prizes as part of a competition they were running.  

  • Risk-fluence – making impermissible and baseless health and nutrition claims, showcasing prohibited products, and the irresponsible promotion of age-restricted goods. 

Example: An influencer was found in breach of marketing rules by ASA after they promoted an alcoholic product which used playful words to suggest the drink was low in calories. 

  • Mone-trapment – encouraging followers to part with money through questionable ‘get rich quick’ schemes and high-risk investments. 

Example: The ASA ruled an influencer broke marketing rules when they promoted betting and gambling as a good way to achieve financial security 

  • Stereo-scripting – using stereotypical images of masculinity and femininity as basis for promotions, reinforcing harmful gender norms. 

Example: The ASA found an influencer used cheerful visuals and energetic soundbites to recount her experience of breast augmentation surgery, which merely reinforced societal norms tying a woman’s worth to physical appearance, thereby perpetuating superficial ideals and unrealistic beauty standards. 

Dr Antoniou is calling for a new regulatory framework to be established to ensure there are clear expectations and boundaries in which influencers can operate in. 

He has also suggested a new certification scheme, backed by the ASA, could be used in the influencer sphere to give the industry a more professional outlook.  

Dr Antoniou hopes these measures will make influencers more responsible for their content and help the influencer sector evolve into a mature industry.   

“The existing approach to regulating social media influencers is not working as it’s reactive, and seeks to apportion blame after bad ads have already had their impact on followers,” he said. 

“Instead, the aim should be to establish a clear baseline of expectations; a ‘floor’ through which influencers cannot fall.” 

Dr Antoniou added: “There is currently no evidence that influencers’ malpractice stems from wilful disregard as opposed to mere ignorance and it is the lack of specific guidance that impedes their ability to learn from mistakes.” 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Trending