The Delecate Art of Delegating

Throwing that ball up and passing it to your people to catch is tough. Delegation is a thorny issue for many bosses who prefer to do the job themselves. But a good leader gets more satisfaction when able to get others to do tasks at expected high standards.The worst thing a boss can say is "It's going to take me two hours longer to explain this to my employee than if I just do it myself." Then you justify this to yourself: The quality and standard is better, plus the job is done.

But what about the employee? Where is their challenge, their opportunity to grow?The owner of a teen computer camp shared with me his frustration over his staff and their botched efforts at doing the job. How could he motivate his team to work at, or close to, his level? If the boss had used a little bit of emotional savvy, he would have seen the employee physically deflate, her spirits sinking faster than when the judge told Paris Hilton she had to do time, again.

What this approach to delegating misses is that a few hours of rigorous coaching will save hundreds of hours over the next year, freeing up time for revenue- generating tasks and for taking more responsibility yourself. A reputation for teaching is gold. Star performers gravitate toward companies that train skills and push them to embrace scary tasks that challenge. Bill Gates, despite his questionable haircuts, set an outstanding performance level for programmers; this itself attracted talent. But Gates was able to balance the creative tension of setting the standard by encouraging the programmers to meet – and overshoot – expectations.

As the boss, your role is to instill the highest standards of performance and adherence to a shared vision of excellence. Only then can you up the ante and really let go. If you are having problems delegating, mull over these three questions:

1. Am I recruiting in the same old places, in the same old way? I read a business plan for a nail manicure franchise and was astounded by the suggestion to hire university students part time. That's when it hit me that many more people are going to university and ending up in low end jobs. To help their graduates, universities have terrific job posting internet services. The teen tech camp owner hired students from Waterloo's co-op program who were thrilled to work in a tech environment rather than flip burgers (or paint nails).Make it a rule to hire people who are smarter than you. In the interview, talk about the high level of work expected until their eyes pop. The stars will be excited by the expectations, and you don't want the ones who say "no" anyway.

2. Have I really defined my standards?The process of delegating is as fragile and complex as weaving a spider's web. How are you going to teach your skills and level of expectations? How can you illustrate how the end result should look? How can you make sure employees get the job done – building a web to catch the flies – even if it's not quite how you would have done it yourself?With an early-stage business, such as the teen tech camp, there may not be enough in place to show how to do the job. Asking employees to come up with their role and the end result that they think is expected is one way to build up a training culture. Another tactic: Don't underestimate the role of storytelling and myths in building the results you expect. For centuries, little children have been told fairytales to prepare them for "real" life. It works. Business magazines are full of tales of how an employee ran through a burning building for their client. Get one of these stories in your culture too.

3. Am I prepared to let go?Ask yourself this: Do I really step away when I delegate? Once I've set the standards, do I really let go? Alarm bells should go off if you hear your employees saying, "We know you are just going to change everything we do anyway."

Working with managers and being one myself, my experience is that disasters happen when I have not been clear about the end result and I keep popping my head in randomly, interfering with the process.

Green Does Not Make It At The Till

Were you to count the copies of Naomi Klein’s book No Logo that sold globally, you would think that millions of consumers would be switching to green’s top values – curb your consumerism and if you have to buy, shop green. It’s easy to paint business as the only anti-green boogieman but surely the government (municipal, provincial, and federal) also plays a role. Must government only set rules, impose carbon taxes, freak out oil investors, and make doing business generally more difficult?
"Part of being green," says John Loewen, CEO of Loewen Partners, "is caring for the environment and for indigenous people." Tsonga Shoes became “green” and manufactures in an 80%-unemployment-riddled area of South Africa. On-site childcare and educational facilities were established in order to encourage the mostly female workers to create micro businesses and sell their shoes to Tsonga for a living wage. It was working well until, as all manufacturers around the world are discovering, consumers started responding to cheaper goods from China.Tsonga management visited China to look into combining manufacturing locations and were astounded by their discoveries.
The massive, half-empty shoe factory they visited had marble floors. Stunned, they asked the manager how he had raised the capital to build such a place. He told them the Chinese government had paid for the factory. Workers came from hundreds of miles away and stayed in dormitories for stretches of up to a year.
“How can we compete?” asks Russell Lindsey, CEO of Tsonga. “We can put a story about our Zulu shoemaker and her child in each shoebox, but ultimately, the consumer won’t buy Tsonga if cheaper shoes are available.”Indeed. Are those No Logo readers in fact rejecting Wal-Mart’s cheap goods for Bono’s sustainable (but pricier) line EDUN.
We seem to have ADHD consumers this side of the world who, once they enter a store, ignore Naomi’s advice and stampede for the latest lead-painted Barbies from WTO members, such as China. How does our government help our businesses compete and how do we reconcile the fact that green is difficult to achieve when competing with China’s support of their own manufacturers?
Our government talks of Toronto following London’s traffic access restrictions. A good idea for London, but Toronto has much fewer travel options in its infrastructure and few trains to link our cities. Indeed, our transportation seems to be planned by Monty Python with Hamilton’s train track from Toronto stopping 16km away from the city, while other trains pass through without stopping. A functional train for passengers between Hamilton and Toronto would reduce a wretched two-hour trek to 30 minutes. Attractive enough to leave the car behind – you bet!
Instead, our government’s priority is the bun fight about inter-provincial transfers. It’s hard to believe that Canada is one country. And who suffers? Entrepreneurs. With so much inter-provincial paperwork, it’s death by a thousand cuts. Take a lesson from business: Centralized IT departments charged each division service fees so as to share costs. In reality, however, division heads ended up arguing so much about the fairness of the system they eventually turned to outside IT companies to get the job done. Outsourcing became the norm and boomed. Perhaps we could outsource government action for basic transportation services because there is more argument about payment for services than green action. Indeed, it’s time for the government to create joint public-private partnerships with green as the goal.
Canadians balk at these sorts of private-public partnerships despite their success in other countries. Mike Harris’ Superbuild project demonstrated how business backs a project if the government provides initial financial support. When ROM received a $30M commitment from Superbuild, Frank Potter, chairman of ROM’s fundraising arm, said, "This lead investment from the Ontario government will be leveraged many times over by the private sector.”
Potter’s words were prophetic as the private sector followed the government, contributing the bulk of cash and project stamina.Let’s go beyond idealism and get down to action.

What's Building Value in Canada?

According to a report released Thursday by the Canadian Venture Capital & Private Equity Association, buyout investors added $25 to $30 billion in value to the Canadian economy and created 114,000 jobs between 2002 and 2006.

Take another look - 114,000 jobs created. No doubt - private equity builds value for Canadians.

Posted by Jeffrey Watson at Loewen & Partners, the Private Equity partner working with integrity for Business Owners and Family Businesses.

Private Equity Growing

Despite reports of Private Equity firms under siege in the current financial markets, the sector is continuing to prove resilient. Serent Capital, a mid-market fund from San Fransisco, was able to raise $250 million last month, 25 percent above its fundraising goal of $200 million.

Posted by Jeffrey Watson, Loewen & Partners., Toronto, Canada.

Private Equity at 2006 Levels

There were 29 private-equity buyouts in Canada in the first quarter. Only nine deals disclosed their values, of which purchase prices came to $2.4 billion. That tally is consistent with performance in 2006.

Posted by Jeff Watson, Loewen & Partners.

Canada's Biggest Private Equity Deal

On Wednesday, May 28 BCE asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal of a lower court decision that could kill its planned buyout, saying it was important to clarify rules governing corporate boards. Bondholders successfully argued before a Quebec court that the C$34.8 billion privatization of BCE would unfairly devalue their bonds. This decision imposes obligations on company directors to creditors that have never before been recognized by a court in Canada.

Posted by Jeffrey Watson, Associate at the private equity firm, Loewen & Partners.

Raising Capital - A Fresh View From Toronto

A Guest to Canadian Private Equity Blog

A warm welcome to Jeff Watson, our guest columnist. We hope Jeff will visit us on a weekly basis to give an update on what is hapening in the world of private equity. Here's what's new from Jeff Watson:

Private Equity Funds are turning their attention towards the emerging markets as the U.S. and Western Europe economies continue to withstand economic slowdowns and the global credit crunch. New York-based private equity giant Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co (KKR) announced this week that it will be opening an office in India by the end of this year.

KKR has a history of investing in the region, having acquired Flextronics International for $900 million in 2006, the largest ever leveraged buyout in India. Earlier this year, the private equity firm said it would invest $250 million in Bharti Infratel Ltd., India’s largest private telco firm.

That's some key note speaker at the CVCA Conference

Sometimes Private Equity people get poorly characterized as Gordon Gehko from the movie Wall Street. Remember Michael Douglas playing the smooth talking, phone throwing, "lunch is for wimps" smoothie? Oliver Stone, the director says Gehko was supposed to be the greedy, materialistic financier who the audience would vilify but instead, the character probably inspired thousands of MBAs to swerve away from careers in industry and head for Wall street instead. According to John Loewen at Loewen & Partners, "that unsettling, cartoonish image still lingers in the heads of many when thinking about private equity finance people."

But there are some private equity guys who are changing this stereotype. How? By playing in their own garage bands in public and having U2's famous lead singer - Bono - on their investment team. How can you not trust those guys?

Check out the story in the Globe & Mail. Here is their amusing description of McNamee's band:

Canada's Venture Capital & Private Equity Association is in Montreal this week for its annual conference and claiming a record number of investors will attend over three days beginning tomorrow. At the gala on Thursday evening, Roger McNamee, who is managing director and a co-founder in 2007 of Elevation Partners, is the marquee entertainment, performing with his rock band Moonalice. Mr. McNamee goes by the name Chubby Wombatt Moonalice when he's playing bass and guitar with the band. Shades of Frank D'Angelo and his Steelback beer and.Mr. McNamee's private equity fund, operating out of San Francisco and Manhattan, runs $1.9-billion (U.S.) focused on investments in media and entertainment companies. Among those on the investment team are a former Blackwater Group principal and a former CFO of Apple. Mr. McNamee is also addressing the conference as a keynote speaker.

Private Equity Fishing for Deals

Raising capital might seem to be a difficult task at this time in the economy but sit tight as the fish are biting.

Now is a great time to invest in private equity, David Rubenstein of Carlyle Private Equity said at Davos, noting that deals with the best returns are historically done during downturns. One problem is that sellers are in denial over their companies’ values, refusing to accept lower valuations. Instead, they’re postponing selling, hoping that prices recover.
“And sellers are probably going to take six to nine months before they realize it's not coming back anytime soon, and so they probably will sell,” Rubenstein says. “But, once we're through that, I think we'll see some extraordinary deals and extraordinary returns generated for investors.”
For the time being, deals are much smaller and have less leverage. Private equity is moving overseas. Rubenstein says, “It's clear that some of the greatest growth opportunities for private equity moving forward are in China and India and other so-called emerging markets.” John Loewen says, “We will see more and more firms begin to invest overseas.”

Innovate Before You Raise Capital

"Before your go for financing," says John Loewen,"make sure you do some innovating."

Want to design the next great service or product? Upgrade your product, but can't decide what to add or change? Add a new feature to your product, but can't decide how to implement it?

Forget focus groups. Forget endless meetings and brainstorming sessions. Throw an ultra-rapid-design party, and do it in a single day. This approach exploits the wisdom-of-crowds through a process of enforced idea diversity and voting, so no consensus, committee, or even agreement is needed. And it's way more fun.

The Innovation Dinner Party takes 9 people, a pile of diverse "inputs", and has each of the 9 people voting on--and pitching--one another person's ideas to continuously reconfigured groups of 3 people, letting the best ideas rise to the top. The process is a little complicated, but it's derived/modified from an existing rapid-prototyping design. The basic idea looks like this, although there are a million ways to modify it:

1) Preparation:
Pick 9 people, ideally from different parts of your company and including some customers. (If you don't have a company yet, pick 9 friends--preferably those who don't know each other well) Buy/borrow/find at least 20 "input materials" including books, magazines, a short film, graphic novels, etc.
Assign (randomly) at least 2 "inputs" to each person. Do NOT let them choose (it's important they not be allowed to gravitate toward things they're already comfortable with)
2) Idea Generation

Give the group 30 minutes to generate 4 ideas (if it's a feature/upgrade party, then 4 different features or feature sets... if it's a feature implementation party, then 4 different ways to implement the already-decided feature, etc.) These 4 ideas don't have to come directly from their input materials, although participants should be highly encouraged to describe at least one new thing they learned that inspired their idea.
3) Round One begins:

Split into 3 groups of 3 people (see chart below). Each person gets no more than 10 minutes to "pitch" four ideas to the other two in their group. There are 12 total ideas for this group, so allow about 30 minutes. Record (anonymously) the selections of each person, which represent a "vote" for the ideas.
At the end of Round One, each person must select their two favorite ideas from each of the other two members of their group. So if Group One had Fred, Mary, and Sue... then Fred must select his two favorite ideas from the four that Mary pitched, and his two favorites that Sue pitched.
4) Round Two begins:

Reconfigure the groups so that each person is now with different people (see chart below). Instead of pitching their own four ideas, each person pitches the four ideas they chose from their previous group members. Again, they have about 10 minutes to pitch the four ideas. Remember, the point is that each person is no longer pitching their own ideas! At the end of Round Two, each person must again select their two favorite ideas from each of the other two members of this new group. Record (anonymously) the selections of each person, which represent a "vote" for the ideas.
5) Round Three begins:

Reconfigure the groups again. Each person in the group now pitches the four ideas (two from each of the two members of their most recent group) they chose in the previous (Round Two) round. At this point, each person has pitched a total of 12 ideas:

• Round One: pitch your own four ideas*
• Round Two: pitch four ideas from your Round One group to your new Round Two group -- two ideas from each of your previous group's other members.*
• Round Three: pitch four ideas from your Round Two group to your new Round Three group, as before.

At the end of Round Three, again each person selects their top two favorite ideas from the ones pitched by the other two members. Record these as a vote. You should now have a total of 108 votes. Choose the top 9 vote-getters (you'll have to be creative about tie-breaking... you could choose more than 9, for example). Give each person a copy of the 9 ideas, and send them back for another round of "inputs." Again, assign each person different materials from the ones they used at the beginning. Give the participants 30 minutes to use their inputs and flesh out a single idea from the nine.

Their one idea can be a modified version of one of the nine, based on their "research." Their one idea could be a mashup of two or more of the nine ideas. It cannot, however, be something completely new. Participants should be prepared to explain how something they got from their inputs helped in some way (not an absolute requirement).

Go Ahead and Choose
Now it's up to you what to do with the ideas. You might choose just one, or take all 9 "winners" with their pitches back to another person or group.