newCFO

• planning
• execution

The combination of these two activities results in 4 possible combination, but only 2 possible outcomes:

1. GOOD execution of a BAD plan: leads to failure;
2. BAD execution of a GOOD plan: leads to failure;
3. BAD execution of a BAD plan: leads to failure;
4. GOOD execution of a GOOD plan: leads to success.

Any other way is only running a business from the seat of your pants, not breaking the rules.

What’s your Action Plan?

If your actions reward activities, you’ve got a problem, too many people spinning too many wheels, while you are going nowhere.

I don’t mean to pick on cab drivers but . . . If you take a cab during a slow day, in a city that you don’t now, and you ask to be taken to the airport, will you be given the tourist ride of the city and surroundings, and will you be driven expressly to the airport? The cab driver’s interest is in having the meter running for as long as possible. What if you change the rules of the game, before getting into the cab you ask: how much will it cost to get to the Airport? Somewhere between 40 and 50 dollars. What if you offer the cab driver 60 dollars to get you to the airport in as little time as possible, safely and respecting all the traffic regulations?
Now the cab driver has a vested interest of earning that $ 60 in as little time as possible.

What if you selected an handful of mini CEOs to delegate to:

• CEO of Finance (formerly known as CFO)
• CEO of Operations (formerly known as COO)
• CEO of Revenue (formerly known as Chief of Sales/Marketing/Advertising/Branding)
• CEO of Information (formerly known as CTO/CIO)

Make sure you do NOT assign ONE person the STRATEGY function, it is too Strategic to be left to the CSO or CEO of Strategy, and do NOT have a CTO or a CEO of Technology, Technology is a mean, Information is the end game.

Why call them CEOs? Because within the Vision of the company, each mini-CEO has a mission to accomplish. Make it clear to quantify what the goals of the mission are; make sure to give them resources (time, money, people & infrastructure), and demand a plan in return. Call it the game plan, or action plan, but please, don’t call it business plan, too boring. Measure progress against the game plan on a weekly basis (executive committee is not optional and it’s not a waste of time) and demand to be informed of major issues on a timely basis. Be available to help with your influence and resources, and to shield them if necessary. Then step back, try to NOT overstep their mandate, don’t give in to the temptation to overrule their day-to-day decisions to play “nice CEO”, let it flow. It’s the end results that count, not the individual actions. Of course you always have the option to fire their sorry derriere if there’s no performance! We are talking about mini-CEOs here, there’s no time for corrective measures, training, development, it’s show time, it’s where the rubber meets the road.

There’s a difference, a HUGE difference.

If you hire people with your same worldview, who share your visions, and your ethics, it’s no different than multiple people naturally pushing toward the same direction.  If instead the majority of people do not share the vision, worldview, and ethics, the pushing toward the envision direction can still happen, but requires:

• supervision
• management
• training
• . . . . .
• . . . . .
• . . . . .

All these initiatives are non-core, have a monetary cost associated with them, and require time.  In a business environment extremely transparent, where achieving corporate milestones is to be equated to a race against the competition, can you afford to waste time, money and resources when your more nimble competition does not, or does it to a lesser extent?

The choice of people that you make affects directly your P&L.

Reading: EXECUTION by Larry Bossidy, Ram Charan, Charlies Burck (the part about hiring is a MUST DO for everyone)