Tag Archives: alignment

The Question that CEOs Too Often Don’t Discuss with the Board

Startup boards are complex.  While all board members own stock in the company their interests are not necessarily aligned.

  • Founders may be motivated by a vision to change the world, to hit a certain net worth target, to see their name in an S-1, to make the Forbes 500, or — and I’ve seen crazier things — to make more than their Stanford roommate.  First-time founders with little net worth can be open to selling at relatively low prices.  Conversely, serial successful founders may need a large exit simply to move the needle on their net worth.  Founders can also be religious zealots and take positions like “I wouldn’t sell to Microsoft or Oracle at any price.”
  • Independent board members typically have significant net worth (i.e., they’ve been successful at something which is why want them on your board) and relatively small stakes which, by default, financially incents them to seek large exits.  While they notionally represent the common stock, they are often aligned with either the founders or one of the investors in the company — they got on the board for a reason, often existing relationships —  and thus their views may be shaped by the real or perceived interest of those parties.  Or, they can simply drive an agenda that they believe is best for the company — whatever they happen to think “best” means.
  • Venture capitalists (VCs) are motivated by generating returns for their funds.  Simple, right?  Not so fast.  VC is increasingly a “hits business” where a few large outcomes can mean the difference between at 10% and 35% IRR over a fund’s ten-year life.  Thus, VCs have a general tendency to seek huge exits (“better to sell too late than too early”), but they are also motivated by other factors such as the expectations they set when they raised their fund, the performance of other investments in the fund (e.g., do they need a big hit to bail out a few bad bets), and their relationships with members of other funds represented on the company’s board.

In this light, it’s clearly simplistic to say that everyone is aligned around a single goal:  to maximize the value of the stock.  Yes, surely that is true at one level.  But it gets a bit more complicated than that.

That’s why it’s so important that CEOs ask the board one question that, somewhat amazingly, they all too often don’t:  what does success look like?  And it doesn’t hurt to re-ask it every few years as any given board member’s position may change over time.

I’m always shocked how the simplest of questions can generate the most debate.

Aside:  back in the day at Business Objects (~1998), I suggested bringing in the Chasm Group to help us with a three-day, strategic planning offsite.  I figured we’d spend a morning reviewing the key concepts in Crossing the Chasm, at most one afternoon generating consensus on where we sat on their technology adoption lifecycle curve, and then two days working on strategic goals and operational plans after that.

Tech-Adoption-Lifecycle-01

With about 12 people who had worked together closely for years, after three full days we never agreed where we sat on the curve.  We spent literally the entire time arguing, often intensely, and never even got to the rest of the agenda.  Fortunately, that didn’t end up impeding our success, but it was a big lesson for me.  End aside.

So be ready for that simple question to generate a long answer.  Most probably, several long answers.  In fact, in order to get the best answer, I’d suggest asking board members about it first individually (to avoid any group decision-making biases) and then discuss it as a group.

But before examining the answers you can expect to this question, let’s take a minute to consider why this conversation doesn’t occur more often and more naturally.  I think there are three generic reasons:

  • Conflict aversion.  Perhaps sensing real misalignment, like in a bad marriage the CEO and board tacitly agree to not discuss the problem until they must.  You may hear or make excuses like “let’s cross that bridge when we come to it,”  “let’s execute this year’s plan and then discuss that,” or “if there’s no offer on the table then there’s nothing to discuss.”  Or, in a more Machiavellian situation, a board member may be thinking, “let’s ride Joe like a rented mule to $5M and then shoot him,” continuallying defer the conversation on that logic.  Pleasant or unpleasant, it’s usually better to address conflicts early rather than letting them fester.
  • Rationalization of unrealistic expectations.  If some board members constantly refrain “this can be a billion-dollar company,” perhaps the CEO rationalizes it, thinking “they don’t really believe that; they’re just saying it because they think they’re supposed to.”  But what if they do believe it?
  • The gauche factor.  Some people seem to think it’s a gauche topic of conversation.  “Hey, our company vision statement says we’re making the world a better place through elegant hierarchies for maximum code reuse and extensibility, we shouldn’t be focusing on something so crass as the exit, we should be talking about making the world better.”  VCs invest money for a reason, they measure results by the IRR, and they can typically cite their IRRs (and those of their partners) from memory.  It’s not gauche to discuss expectations and exits.

When you ask your board members what success looks like these are the kinds of things you might hear:

  • Disrupting the leader in a given market.
  • Building a $1B revenue company.
  • Becoming a unicorn ($1B valuation).
  • Changing the way people work.
  • Getting a 10x in 5-7 years for an early stage fund, or getting a 3x in 3-5 years for a later stage fund.
  • Showing my Mother my name in an S-1 (a sub-case of “going public”).
  • Getting our software into the hands of over 1M people.
  • Realizing the potential of the company.
  • Selling the company for more than I think it’s worth.
  • Getting acquired by Google or Cisco for a price above a given threshold.
  • Building a true market leader.
  • Creating a Silicon Valley icon, a household name.
  • Selling the company for {a base-hit, double, triple, home-run, or grand-slam} outcome.

Given the possibility of a list as heterogeneous as this, doesn’t it make sense to get this question on the table as opposed to in the closet?

I learned my favorite definition of strategy from a Stanford professor who defined strategy as “the plan to win.”  The beauty of this definition is that it instantly begs the question “what is winning?”  Just as that conversation can be long, contentious, and colorful, so is the answer to the other, even more critical question:  what does success look like?

Using Time-Based Close Rates to Align Marketing Budgets with Sales Targets

This post builds on my prior post, Win Rates, Close Rates, and Milestone vs. Flow Analysis.  In it, I will take the ideas in that post, expand on them a bit, and then apply them to difficult problem of ensuring you have enough marketing demand generation budget to hit your sales targets.

Let’s pretend it’s 4Q17 and that we need to model 2018 sales based solely on marketing-generated SALs (sales accepted leads).  To do that, we need to decompose our close rate over time because knowing we eventually close 40% of SALs is less useful than knowing the typical timing in how they close over time.

decompose closed

In a perfect world, we’d have 6-8 cohorts, not two.  The goal is to produce the last line, the average of the in-quarter, first-quarter, second-quarter, and so on close rates for a SAL.

Using these time-based average close rates, we can build a waterfall that takes historical, forecast (for the current quarter), and planned 2018 SALs and converts them into deals.

waterfall

This analysis suggests that with the currently planned SALs you can support an ARR number of $16.35M.  If sales needs more than that, you either need to assume an improvement in close rates or an increase in SAL generation.

Once you’ve established the required number of SALs, you can then back into a total demand-generation budget by knowing your cost/SAL, and then building out a marketing mix of programs (each with their own cost/SAL) that generates the requisite SALs at the targeted overall cost.

Aligned to Achieve: A B2B Marketing Classic

Tracy Eiler and Andrea Austin’s Aligned to Achieve came out today and it’s a great book on an important and all too often overlooked topic:  how to align sales and marketing.

I’m adding it to my modern SaaS executive must-read book list, which is now:

So, what do I like about Aligned to Achieve?

The book puts a dead moose issue squarely on the table:  sales and marketing are not aligned in too many organizations.  The book does a great job of showing some examples of what misalignment looks like.  My favorites were the one where the sales VP wouldn’t shake the new CMO’s hand (“you’ll be gone soon, no need to get to know you”) and the one where sales waived off marketing from touching any opportunities once they got in the pipeline.  Ouch.  #TrustFail.

Aligned to Achieve makes great statements like this one:  “We believe that pipeline is absolutely the most important metric for sales and marketing alignment, and that’s a major cultural shift for most companies.”  Boom, nothing more to say about that.

The book includes fun charts like the one below.  I’ve always loved tension-surveys where you ask two sides for a view on the same issue and show the gap – and this gap’s a doozy.

sm gap

Aligned to Achieve includes the word “transparency” twenty times.  Transparency is required in the culture, in collaboration, in definitions, in planning, in the reasons for plans, in process and metrics, in data, in assessing results, in engaging customers, and in objectives and performance against them.  Communication is the lubricant in the sales/marketing relationship and transparency the key ingredient.

The book includes a nice chapter on the leadership traits required to work in the aligned environment:  collaborative, transparent, analytical, tech savvy, customer focused, and inspirational.  Having been a CMO fifteen years ago, I’d say that transparent, analytical, and tech savvy and now more important than ever before.

Aligned to Achieve includes a derivative of my favorite mantra (marketing exists to make sales easier) in the form of:

Sales can’t do it alone and marketing exists to make sales easier

The back half of that mantra (which I borrowed from CTP co-founder Chris Greendale) served me well in my combined 12 years as a CMO.  I love the insertion of the front half, which is now more true than ever:  sales has never been more codependent with marketing.

The book includes a fun, practical suggestion to have a bi-monthly “smarketing” meeting which brings sales and marketing together to discuss:

  • The rolling six-week marketing campaign calendar
  • Detailed review of the most recently completed campaigns
  • Update on immediately pending campaigns
  • Bigger picture items (e.g., upcoming events that impact sales and/or marketing)
  • Open discussion and brainstorming to cover challenges and process hiccups

Such meetings are a great idea.

Back in the day when Tracy and I worked together at Business Objects, I always loved Tracy’s habit of “crashing” meetings.  She was so committed to sales and marketing alignment – even back then – that if sales were having an important meeting, invited or not, she’d just show up.  (It always reminded me of the Woody Allen quote, 80% of success is showing up.)  In her aligned organization today, the CEO makes sure she doesn’t have to do that, but by hook or by crook the sales/marketing discussion must happen.

Aligned to Achieve has a nice discussion of the good old sales velocity model which, like my Four Levers of SaaS, is a good way to think about and simplify a business and the levers that drive it.

Unsurprisingly, for a book co-authored by the CMO of a company that sells market data and insights, Aligned to Achieve includes a healthy chapter on the importance of data, including a marketing-adapted version of the DIKW pyramid featuring data, insights, and connections as the three layers.  The nice part is that the chapter remains objective and factual – it doesn’t devolve into an infomercial by any means.

The book moves on to discuss the CIO’s role in a sales/marketing-aligned organization and provides a chapter reviewing the results of a survey of 1000 sales and marketing professionals on alignment, uncovering common sources of misalignment and some of the practices used by sales/marketing alignment leaders.

Aligned to Achieve ends with a series of 7 alignment-related predictions which I won’t scoop here.  I will say that #4 (“academia catches up”) and #6 (“account-based everything is a top priority”) are my two favorites.

Congratulations to my long-time friend and colleague Tracy Eiler on co-authoring the book and to her colleague Andrea Austin.