Smart Growth

Acabei a leitura de "Smart Growth" de Edward Hess.
.
Valeu a pena!
.
O autor empastela um bocado, mas a leitura do capítulo 8 "Managing the Risks of Growth - Private Companies" só por si vale o livro todo.
.
Nele, o autor, lista as conclusões de um estudo que fez a 54 empresas "I looked at companies that were part of the small group that had survived the start- up phase and had been through a high- growth phase."
.
As conclusões gerais são:
.
"I found that growth equaled change. Growth changed the companies— their culture, their people, and how they did business. Growth changed the human dynamics of how people communicated and with whom they communicated.
It challenged peoples’ competencies and interpersonal skills. Furthermore, for these companies, the human dynamic of growth proved to be one of the biggest challenges of managing growth. And this challenge recurred as the companies grew because many management teams were not able to manage a bigger or more complex business. As a result, CEOs had to continuously upgrade these teams and face the difficulties of hiring and integrating new players into existing management teams, which oft en stirred up difficult emotional and loyalty issues for remaining team members.
These human dynamics made growth difficult to manage, and it also made smooth and continuous growth rare."
.
Quem conhece este blogue sabe o quanto aprecio "Volume is Vanity, Profit is Sanity", e o quanto duvido do crescer por crescer:
.
"1.Most companies did not plan for growth. In some cases, it just happened. Those CEOs regretted not thinking about what a bigger company would look like and regretted not thinking about how much growth their company could accommodate. Some companies were overwhelmed by growth and had to slow growth down in order to survive. Others understood the risks of growing too fast before they had the people and quality and financial processes in place and, thus, they turned away business until they were more prepared for growth.
...
2.As they learned that growth was a difficult process and was sometimes a one-step-forward-and- two-steps-backward process, they learned the need to manage the pace of growth. Many CEOs said their companies became better when they learned to say no to new opportunities. Learning to focus and being strategic in taking on business led to a “sweet- spot” strategy for many.
...
3.Growth changed things. Growth changed what the CEO did. Growth changed what the employees did. Growth added people and more structure. And when they added new people to the mix, they got different human dynamics than before. The chemistry changed. When the management teams expanded, the different combinations of interpersonal dynamics multiplied the people complexity, which impacted execution. Growth increased the complexity of communications and the chance of miscommunications and interpersonal misunderstandings.
...
4.CEOs had to learn how to delegate and, as one said, “Delegation is not a natural act.” Delegation was a consistent diffi cult issue for CEOs.
...
5.Most companies had difficulties in building a management team because of multiple hiring mistakes. These mistakes were financially and emotionally costly.
...
6.Even if assembling a management team went well, many CEOs were surprised at the difficulty of getting that team to work together effectively.
...
7.Managing the pace of growth presented a major challenge for many companies. For some, growth happened too fast, forcing companies to put on the brakes to allow the people, processes, and controls to catch up. Some, in fact, came close to losing the business because they grew too fast.
...
8.As these private companies grew, the roles of CEOs changed, often dramatically. CEOs who initially did everything had to shift to managing everything, to managing managers, and then to coaching managers and leading culture and strategy.
...
9.Most CEOs learned that growth required them to upgrade their people. This caused stress because such changes adversely affected loyal employees who had helped build the business. Many CEOs stated that they had to undertake these difficult upgrades more than once. Given the risks of making mistakes in hires described above, the added stress of disrupting loyal employees and changing team dynamics was wearing on CEOs, who yearned for team stability. Many CEOs said the challenges of hiring and managing a leadership team was the hardest part of the job.
...
10.Growth was not an easy process and the various tensions usually resulted in a zig-zag pattern of growth. Managing company growth created tensions between professional accountability and having a family environment; between managing the rate of growth versus delivering quality; between being cautious about turning business away and also worrying that too much business would overwhelm people and processes.
...
11.Many CEOs stressed that they had to get honest with themselves and at some point question why they should continue to grow and whether growth would change them and their company so much that the business would no longer be fun.
...
13.Some of the CEOs were cognizant of the fact that at a certain revenue level they were likely going to engage bigger, well- capitalized competition.
That competition would expose them to significant risk and may require taking on an institutional partner or selling. Both alternatives meant big changes for the company, the CEOs, and the employees. In some cases, the CEO’s goal was to keep his or her revenue level below that
inflection point."

Volume is Vanity, Profit is Sanity

Estes artigos:
.
"An American innovation in light bulbs, but will manufacturing stay in the U.S.?" e
.
"Where are the jobs? For many companies, overseas"
.
Deixam-me sempre uma interrogação para a qual não tenho uma resposta definitiva.
.
Acredito na máxima: Volumes is Vanity, Profit is Sanity!
.
E acredito, apesar de pertencer a uma minoria, que crescer por crescer não é uma boa política. Estes artigos deixam-me na dúvida:

• estarão a crescer por crescer?
• não será que estão a trocar o crescimento imediato, por um futuro com mais qualidade de vida?
• não será que estão a concentrar-se demasiado na exploração da situação actual (exploitation de March) e a descurar a exploração de oportunidades futuras (exploration de March)?

Por tudo isto fiquei confortado com o que encontrei no livro "Smart Growth" de Edward Hess:
.
"In this book, I challenge some commonly held business beliefs about growth. First, I challenge the commonly held business beliefs (“Growth Mental Model”) that

1. businesses must continuously grow or they will die;
2. growth is always good;
3. public company growth should occur continuously and smoothly; and
4. quarterly earnings should be a primary mea sure of public company success.

These beliefs drive short-term business behaviors that in too many cases defer or destroy long-term value creation, decrease competitiveness, and can lead to premature corporate demise. Adherence to these beliefs can also result in the creation and manufacture of earnings that have no business purpose other than to help companies meet quarterly earnings estimates.

These earnings neither are evidence of a company’s future earning power nor provide meaningful information regarding a company’s economic and strategic health and competitiveness.
.
Unfortunately, the Growth Mental Model reigns and permeates the public markets as well as private businesses. Many privately owned businesses believe that they must grow or they will die and that all growth is good. In reality, for both public and private companies, growth can be good or growth can be bad. In many cases, it is just as likely that growth can harm a business as it is likely that growth can enhance its survivability."
.
Encontro a mesma mensagem no livro "Rework" de Jason Fried e David Hansson:
.
"Why grow?
People ask, "How big is your company?" It's small talk, but they're not looking for a small answer. The bigger the number, the more impressive, professional, and powerful you sound. "Wow, nice!" they'll say if you have a hundred-plus employees. If you're small, you'll get an "Oh ... that's nice." The former is meant as a compliment; the latter is said just to be polite.
Why is that? What is it about growth and business? Why is expansion always the goal? What's the attraction of big besides ego? (You'll need a better answer than "economies of scale.") What's wrong with finding the right size and staying there?
...
Small is not just a stepping-stone. Small is a great destination in itself.
Have you ever noticed that while small businesses wish they were bigger, big businesses dream about being more agile and flexible? And remember, once you get big, it's really hard to shrink without firing people, damaging morale, and changing the entire way you do business.
Ramping up doesn't have to be your goal."
.
Ontem, num programa na RTP1, a seguir ao telejornal, alguém dizia que a falta de capital foi desde sempre o problema das PMEs portuguesas... se as PMEs portuguesas tivessem capital suficiente, teriam copiado o que algumas fizeram, ou seja, assim que Portugal começou a perder competitividade pelo preço emigraram para a Índia e para a China. Porque têm falta de capital, muitas PMEs fecharam, mas as que resistiram, sem hipótese de fuga para o "ultramar" tiveram de se re-inventar para terem futuro... tiveram de abandonar o negócio do preço e evoluir para outras propostas de valor. Nos EUA, com o acesso ao capital muito facilitado, não há paciência, por parte dos donos do capital e das empresas, para subirem na escala de valor.