Author: Tom Koor

Tom Koor

Traditional succession planning dooms your company to failure. V3

What is the purpose of this article?

Enable investors, the board of directors, and C-Suite to discuss how to improve succession planning.  The focus of this article is on the board of directors and C-Suite.

You can download a PDF of this article from: Traditional succession planning dooms your company to failure. V3

What are the critical learnings in this article?

  • Board directors and C-Suite executives must be able to make major decisions on the day they are appointed. Need to learn about the company for 6-12 months risks failure.
  • Board directors and C-Suite executives need to have the capabilities to succeed in a future which is very different from the past. These leaders are of limited value if they only have the skills and experience to solve yesterday’s problems with the day before’s solutions.
  • Board director and C-Suite talent requirements must be defined in terms of the 10 core components of talent. The traditional approach of focusing on crystallized intelligence (i.e. historical skills, knowledge, and data) is insufficient in today’s turbulent and hyper-competitive world.

What does traditional succession planning look like?

  • A person is interviewed for a board director or C-suite position.
  • There is an assessment and due diligence process.
  • The C-suite candidate accepts a job offer and on the first day of their job has accountability and delegated authority to make decisions.
  • The board director is put forward for election. On the date that they are elected they have accountability and decision-making authority.
  • Give them lots of time to get up to speed.
  • Once they are up to speed, see what happens – do they succeed or fail?
  • Failure is tolerated with the hope that the leader will improve.

BUT

  • “Two-thirds of US publicand private companies still admit that they have no formal CEO succession plan in place”1
  • I assume that the board of directors’ succession planning is in a similar state.

How effective has traditional succession planning been?

Close to half of successors fail.  Most board directors have limited knowledge of their company and approve plans to fail.

  • 40-to-50 percent of new leaders fail within the first 18 months.2
  • One in three CEO successions fail.1
  • Most companies successfully execute their plans to fail.3
  • Most company directors do not understand: the strategy, how the company creates value, and industry dynamics.3

How long did it take for leaders to get up to speed and make an impact?2

  • Most new leaders—92 percent of external hires and 72 percent of internal hires—take far more than 90 days to get up to full speed. Many executives admit it took them at least six months to achieve real impact (62 percent for external, 25 percent for internal hires).
  • CEOs face an even longer runway: On average, stakeholders give them nine months to develop fully a strategic vision and win support from employees, 14 months to build the right team and 19 months to increase share price employing that direction.
  • I assume that board directors also require significant time to get up to speed.

Why did this approach work in the distant past?

  • Customer requirements and needs changed slowly.
  • Competitors did not emerge or grew slowly.
  • Technology changed slowly.
  • Crisis were few and far between.
  • In the past, the near-term future looked similar to the past

 Why does the traditional succession plan execution often lead to failure?

  • Customer requirements and needs change very rapidly.
  • Now, competitors suddenly appear and rapidly grow to global scale. Unlimited capital is available to new companies who are successfully destroying existing companies.
  • These days, new technologies suddenly appear, and old technologies rapidly change.
  • The selection process is flawed or doesn’t exist.
  • Today, and in the future, there will be never ending crisis. Crisis will not wait until a director or C-Suite leader gets up to speed. Massive damage will have occurred by the time someone gets up to speed.
  • The near-term future will be radically different from the near-term past. It has become impossible to predict the future.
  • The preparation and onboarding process is flawed or doesn’t exist.
  • Exiting of failing leaders takes too long or doesn’t happen. A weak or non-existent succession process results in failing leaders remaining. There is no pool of qualified successors.

What are the three fundamental changes that must be made to succession planning?

  • Board directors and C-Suite executives need to be up-to-speed on the day they assume accountability and decision-making authority.
  • The potential successors need to learn, develop themselves, and be assessed prior to day one.
  • Successors need to have the capabilities to succeed in a future which is very different from today and from the past. Assessment and development processes must change.

What does a successor look like on the day before they assume decision making authority.

The leader:

  • Understands who the key members of the company’s ecosystem are, their expectations, and has (or creates) relationships with them. Key members include: employees, team members, customers, suppliers, partners.
  • Is self-aware of their strengths and weakness. Self-awareness is very different from personal opinion.
  • Announces changes to their team on day one.
  • Understands the company’s culture and know what actions to take to change it.
  • Understands the company’s past performance, priorities, and actions. Know what actions to start taking on day one and what priorities to change.

What are your next steps?

  • Be clear on how the future may be different from today and the past
    1. What will be the purpose of the company?
    2. Who will be the ecosystem members?
    3. What will be the long-term trends, both likely and unlikely?
    4. What will be the near-term challenges?
    5. What will be the future scenarios? The future is impossible to predict
  • What’s the value the director, or C-Suite member must enable?
  • What are the implications of the above regarding talent components the successor will need to have? 4
    1. Self-awareness? Both internal and external.
    2. Character? Values, morals, and ethics? Courage? Perseverance?
    3. Relationships and relationship building skills? Persuasion? Negotiation? Creating and maintaining followers?
    4. Communications? Writing? Speaking? Body language
    5. Crystallized intelligence? (i.e. historical skills, knowledge, and data)?
    6. Fluid intelligence? (ability to solve problems without past experience)?
    7. Cognitive skills? Long0term memory? Working memory? Logic and reasoning? Visual processing? Processing speed? Attention?
    8. Able to quickly learn and unlearn?
    9. Creativity?
    10. Physical? Senses? Strength? Endurance?
  • Identify potential successors, inside and outside your company.
  • Assess talent without direct contact with successors.
  • Assess talent via direct contact with successor e.g.
    1. Reference checks
    2. Formal background checks
    3. Behavioural interviews
    4. Psychological and cognitive ability testing
    5. Simulations, both a day-in-the-life and crisis simulation
  • Prepare:
    1. Development plans for successors and a monitoring process.
    2. The onboarding plan leading up to the day the person assumes decision making authority.
    3. The ongoing assessment and development plans, which evolve over time. The regular assessment considers whether or not the person must be replaced with one of their successors.

 Footnotes

1 CEO Succession starts with developing your leaders, McKinsey

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/ceo-succession-starts-with-developing-your-leaders

2 It really isn’t about 100 days, McKinsey

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/the-organization-blog/it-really-isnt-about-100-days

3 Is your company planning to fail?  Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/avoiding-business-failure/is-your-company-planning-to-fail/

4 Core components of talent

https://koorandassociates.org/creating-business-value/core-components-of-talent/

What further reading should you do?

Your company will fail.  Koor & Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/avoiding-business-failure/your-company-will-fail-v1/

Why are value, morals, and ethics important? Koor & Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/values-morals-and-ethics/why-are-values-morals-and-ethics-important/

Tom Koor

Your survival depends upon what you’ve learned.

Your survival depends on what you’ve learned.  In the past three months, what have you learned about your customers that no-one else knows? What have your learned about how to enable your customers to achieve more value from your solution than from your competitor’s solutions?

The purpose of this email is to share my learnings and unlearnings, with the expectation that some will be of value to you. This email was 100% written by me – not by AI.  When you send me an email, my response is 100% written by me.

My biggest learnings in the past three months:

  • AI has been very powerful in finding fact-based research regarding the issues and challenges I’m dealing with.
  • Facts alone don’t tell me what to do. I have to think about the implications and the next steps.
  • The facts may also be out-of-date and not relevant in todays turbulent, fast changing, and hyper competitive world.

Sharing my learnings

Below are links to my website containing new and revised points-of-view since my last update. The critical learnings are included. Each article designed to enable discussion among founders, owners, shareholders, investors, CEOs, and boards of directors. The learnings and unlearnings are applicable to any size company, ranging from early-stage startups to large global enterprises.

Links to my points-of-view articles:

Traditional Business Transformation dooms your company to failure. V2

  • Most transformation efforts fail and destroy company value.
  • The failure is due to leadership flaws with the company leadership: the board of directors, CEO, and C-Suite.
  • The leadership has limited understanding of employees and how to gain employee commitment to transformation.

https://koorandassociates.org/business-transformation/5920-2/

Do you need to transform your company? V4

  • Many business leaders think that they need to change the direction of their company, in order to be financially viable.
  • Transforming while ahead of the competition is more successful than transforming when you are forced to.
  • Cost cutting is not the solution to under performance.
  • If your company is underperforming, compared to the competition, determine what changes are required to the board of directors and C-Suite,
  • Often the board of directors and C-Suite do not know that their company is in crisis or heading toward crisis.

https://koorandassociates.org/business-transformation/do-you-need-to-transform-you-company/

What is business transformation? V3

  • There is no commonly agreed upon standard definition of business transformation.
  • Your company must create your own definition and criteria for what is business transformation, which everyone understands.

https://koorandassociates.org/business-transformation/what-is-business-transformation/

Is your company planning to fail? V5

  • Most companies are successfully executing their plans to fail. Most companies fail or produce poor investor returns. (Read “Your company will fail”, which is the first article under “What further reading should you do?”)
  • Plans are comprised of two parts: what is in them and what’s not in them. Plans reflect decisions made and decisions not made.

https://koorandassociates.org/avoiding-business-failure/is-your-company-planning-to-fail/

Your company will fail. V3

  • Most companies will: fail, disappear, or provide poor returns to their investors.

https://koorandassociates.org/avoiding-business-failure/your-company-will-fail-v1/

How profitable are search funds? V2

  • The IRR for traditional search funds in Canada and the US has been 35.2%.
  • Traditional search fund investors provide far more than capital. They also provide coaching, mentoring, board directorships.
  • You need to fund between 30 to 45 searchers, to have a high chance of approaching the IRR for the asset class as a whole.

https://koorandassociates.org/selling-a-company-or-raising-capital/how-profitable-are-search-funds/

Personal Update:

  • Mentoring a startup at the University of Toronto Department of Engineering. The approach was based on weekly advisory board meetings.
  • Continuing as Board Director at a private company.
  • Continuing as a Patient Family Advisor at Sunnybrook Hospital.
  • Continuing my long-term fundraising for the Geoff Carr Fellowship at Lupus Ontario. Over the past 18 years family, friends, neighbours, and colleagues have contributed almost $270,000. You can use the donation link later in this update
  • Continuing with the Angel Capital Association in the US.
  • Focusing on my two professional purposes: #1 Enabling current and emerging business leaders to succeed, #2 Enabling business leaders to have a positive impact on society.
Tom Koor

Traditional business transformation dooms your company to failure. V2

Traditional business transformation dooms your company to failure? V2

 What is the purpose of this article?

Help shareholders, investors, founders, the board of directors and C-Suite discuss and improve business transformation.

This article does not provide tax, legal or financial advice.

You must do your own research and fact-based analysis using current and relevant information.

You can download a PDF of this article from: Traditional business transformation dooms your company to failure V2

What are the critical learnings in this article?

  • Most transformation efforts fail and destroy company value.
  • The failure is due to leadership flaws with the company leadership: the board of directors, CEO, and C-Suite.
  • The leadership has limited understanding of employees and how to gain employee commitment to transformation.

What are some definitions of business transformation?

#1 “Transformation is about improving performance, not just cutting costs. Companies boost the odds of achieving breakthrough results when they simultaneously improve their operating discipline and make portfolio moves that collectively redefine their business.”1

#2 “Transformation spans your entire organization, to address all the changes needed to reach your full ambition.“2

#3 “…rapid, visible, and sustainable step-change improvement in business performance; strengthen their organizations to win in the future; and turn their companies’ upside potential into radical performance gains.” 3

#4 “Business Transformation is the process of fundamentally changing the systems, processes, people and technology across a whole business or business unit, to achieve measurable improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and stakeholder satisfaction. As such, a business transformation project is likely to include any number of change management projects, each focused on an individual process, system, technology, team or department”4

 What is the Oxford Dictionary definition of transformation: “a thorough or dramatic change in form or appearance. “its landscape has undergone a radical transformation”

Transformation usually fails.

  • Major changes almost always fail. 12% achieve their target; 20% are total failures; 68% diluted the value of the company.5
  • More than two-thirds of large-scale tech programs are not expected to be delivered on time, within budget, or within their defined scope. 6
  • Efforts to recover a poor business typically fail. 33% of the companies grew; 35% went bankrupt or were acquired; 32% stalled. Only 10% of the stalled companies recovered.  7
  • Roughly 70% of transformations fail.8
  • More than half of M&A deals destroy value for investors.9
  • McKinsey research shows that companies who disregard analysis of employee mind-sets NEVER have an extremely successful transformation.10

What is one consulting firm’s perspective on why most transformations fail?11

I have paraphrased the comments from the article.  Any misinterpretation is my fault.

  • CEO doesn’t set a sufficiently high aspiration.
  • CEO unable to persuade the C-Suite regarding the need for transformation.
  • CEO and the leadership team doesn’t address skills needed to drive transformation.
  • The organization doesn’t buy in.
  • The organization won’t make the effort to make the change happen.
  • Lack regular performance management discussions.
  • Lack leadership oversight meetings.

Why do I think transformation efforts fail and doom your company to failure?

  • The consulting firm above points out the leadership flaws, especially with the CEO and C-Suite.
  • But where was the board of directors? Did they appoint and retain the right CEO? Did they approve the transformation plan?  Did they monitor the ongoing execution.  Did the have the appropriate skills to make decisions regarding: CEO appointment & retention, transformation plan approval, and monitoring of the transformation plan?
  • The board of directors and C-Suite are excluded from the transformation. The culture, skills, processes, values morals, and ethics of the board of directors and C-Suite do not change.
  • The CEO and C-Suite have not built the urgent need for transformation and ensured that every employee understands and will support major change. g. Telling employees that they need to make major changes in order to increase company profit and C-Suite compensation ensures failure.
  • The board of directors and C-Suite don’t understand the employees and therefore don’t have the understanding necessary to craft a successful transformation plan and communication’s plan.
  • The C-Suite does not have good two-way communications with the company.
  • The transformation does not make the talent and processes changes to ensure that future transformation will not be required. The transformation does not create a company which is continually changing and improving, driven by deep understand of the customers, employees, competition and how the company’s ecosystem is evolving.
  • A continuously successfully evolving company does not need two sets of organizations structure i.e. does not need a Chief Transformation Officer, Transformation Office, and transformation managers/teams throughout the company.
  • The word “Transformation” is usually misused and thus causes confusion. Many large projects are called “Transformation” when all they actually are a large project.
  • The Transformation is not driven by the future scenarios for customers and the company ecosystem, but is rather focused internally. One major consulting firm (I won’t share the name) states that their approach to transformation is “Start with the balance sheet and then profit and loss statement.”

 What are your next steps?

#1 Define the words/concepts you’re using, in a glossary.  I’ve seen major confusion when the same words mean different things to different people.

 

#2 State the facts as to what is driving your need for transformation:

  • Declining customer and employee satisfaction, declining market share, declining profits, declined return-on-equity, ecosystem pressures, etc.?
  • Passion to increase customer and employee satisfaction, increase market share, increase profits, increase return-equity, position company to succeed in more of the future scenarios, etc.

If all you have is assumptions and opinions, get facts.

#3 Review the purpose of the company.  Ensure the transformation supports the purpose of the company.

#4 Estimate the impact and degree of change required to your: customer relationships, ecosystem relationships, talent (at all levels), technology, and processes.

#5 Based on the above facts and analysis, assess the degree of resistance to the transformation e.g. if the transformation will result in the termination of employees, why would the current employees support the change?

  • Resistance to change can occur at all levels e.g. will board directors and C-Suite support the company being bought if this results in the directors and C-Suite losing their jobs.
  • Be able to answer the question that everyone who needs to change has: “What’s in this for me?”

#6 Determine if this transformation is a change which can be planned, executed, and benefits achieved by the existing board of directors, C-Suite, organization talent, and processes.  If not, what needs to change?

#7 Determine if you need an interim Transformation Officer to enable the creation of a future organization which will be constantly evolving i.e. no future need for a Transformation Officer.

Footnotes

1 McKinsey, “The truth about transformation”,

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/the-truth-about-transformation

2 Bain, “Business Transformation”

https://www.bain.com/consulting-services/transformation

3 Boston Consulting Group, “Business Transformation”

https://www.bcg.com/en-ca/capabilities/business-transformation/overview

4 Change Associates, “What is business transformation?”

https://changeassociates.com/what-is-business-transformation/

5 Patrick Litré, David Michels, Sebastian Walter, Melissa Burke, “Soul searching: true transformations start within” Bain

https://www.bain.com/insights/soul-searching-true-transformations-start-within/

6 November 13, 2024  Boston Consulting Grouphttps://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/most-large-scale-tech-programs-fail-how-to-succeed#:~:text=BCG’s%20latest%20research%20shows%20that,year%20for%20a%20single%20program

7 David Jacquemont, Dana Maor, Angelika Reich, “How to beat the Transformation Odds”, McKinsey

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/people%20and%20organizational%20performance/our%20insights/how%20to%20beat%20the%20transformation%20odds/how_to_beat_the_transformation_odds.pdf

8 Harry Robinson, “Why do most transformations fail?” McKinsey

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/transformation/our-insights/why-do-most-transformations-fail-a-conversation-with-harry-robinson

9 John Kotter, “Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail”, John Kotter, Harvard Business Review, January 2007

https://hbr.org/2007/01/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail

10 Scott Keller, Bill Schaninger, “Getting personal about change”, McKinsey Quarterly

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/getting-personal-about-change

11 “Why do most transformations fail? A conversation with Harry Robinson”

https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/transformation/our-insights/why-do-most-transformations-fail-a-conversation-with-harry-robinson

 

What further reading should you do?

What is business transformation? Koor & Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/business-transformation/what-is-business-transformation/

Do you need to transform your company? Koor & Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/business-transformation/do-you-need-to-transform-you-company/

Why is trust critical for transformation success? Koor & Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/business-transformation/why-is-trust-critical-for-transformation/

Transformation success depends upon human behaviour change. Koor & Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/business-transformation/transformation-success-depends-upon-human-behaviour-change/

Your company will fail. Koor & Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/avoiding-business-failure/your-company-will-fail-v1/

Is your company planning to fail? Koor & Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/avoiding-business-failure/is-your-company-planning-to-fail/

Tom Koor

Do you need to transform your company? V4

Do you need to transform your company? V4

 What is the purpose of this article?

Enable the board of directors, C-Suite, investors, and founders to understand whether there is a need to transform the company.

This article does not provide tax, legal or financial advice.

You must do your own research and fact-based analysis using current and relevant information.

You can download a PDF of this article from: https://koorandassociates.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/do-you-need-to-transform-your-company-v4.pdf

What are the critical learnings in this article?

  • Many business leaders think that they need to change the direction of their company, in order to be financially viable.
  • Transforming while ahead of the competition is more successful than transforming when you are forced to.
  • Cost cutting is not the solution to under performance.
  • If your company is underperforming, compared to the competition, determine what changes are required to the board of directors and C-Suite,
  • Often the board of directors and C-Suite do not know that their company is in crisis or heading toward crisis.

Global CEOs recognize that there’s a good chance their companies will not survive.

  • In 2023, 45% of global CEO thought that their company would be financially viable for 10 years or less, if it kept running on its current path.1
  • In 2024, four in ten CEOs believed their company will no longer be viable in ten years if it continues on its current path. The majority of CEOs believed they will not be in their current role in five years time. 2

Transforming while ahead of the competition is more successful than transforming when you are forced to.3

  1. Transforming while SR (Total Shareholder Return) matches or exceeds industry averages creates significantly more return in both the medium and long term, compared to transforming when you’re behind industry averages.
  2. At any point in the past 20 years, 30% of companies are significantly underperforming their sector but only 25% of transformations will result in outperformance in the short and long term.

Cost cutting is not the solution to under performance. 3

  • Long term *five year) value creation TSR out performance is due 43% to revenue growth and 32% to successful (note the world SUCCESSFUL) cost reduction.

What did the analysis of 4,446 CEOs in 2021 reveal about the impact of consumer trust?4

  • Consumer trust and company performance are linked. Consumer trust is the second biggest determinate of performance variance, after industry conditions.
  • Most business leaders have little understanding of their consumers. 87% of business leaders said consumers highly trust their company. 30% of consumers said they highly trust.

 What are the symptoms of a need for transformation?

The obvious facts demonstrate that the company is in crisis. E.g.

  • Losing customers or losing market share. Net Promotor Scores dropping.  Customer churn increasing and customer retention decreasing. The lifetime value of customers is exceeding customer acquisition costs.
  • Benchmarked performance is poor compared to competition.
  • Debt and interest payments are causing major losses and negative free cash flow. The company is profitable with positive free cash flow, if debt and interest payments are not considered.
  • The company is unprofitable with negative free cash flow, even if debt and interest payments are not considered.
  • Employee turnover is unacceptable.
  • Employee ratings of the company are unacceptable.
  • Potentially valuable employees are not applying or accepting offers.
  • The overall market size is shrinking.
  • Not being able to meet payroll in the short-term or meet covenant requirements in financing.

Often the board of directors and C-Suite do not know that their company is in crisis or heading toward crisis.

  • No ongoing monitoring and analysis of: the number of customers or market share, the Net Promoter Score, customer churn and retention; lifetime customer value and customer acquisition costs.
  • No benchmarking relative to the competition.
  • No free cash flow forecasting and related scenario analysis
  • No monitoring and analysis of employee turnover.
  • No monitoring or analysis of employee ratings.
  • No forecasting of long-term ability to meet payroll or meet covenant requirements in financing.
  • No monitoring and analysis of the market size i.e. the number of customers with urgent problems and needs who are willing and able to pay for the company’s solution.
  • No scenario planning.
  • No challenges from external advisors, consultants, and experts.

What is the root cause of the need for transformation?

The leadership talent (i.e. the board of directors and C-Suite) is the root cause of the need for transformation.

The leadership talent may not know what skills, experience, and knowledge they personally need in order to:

  • Continuously evolve the company to keep pace with customers, users, and the overall ecosystem.
  • Identify if the company is heading towards crisis, as noted above in the section regarding not knowing if in crisis
  • Avoid decisions which can result in crisis.

Your next steps

  • Define the words/concepts you’re using, in a glossary. I’ve seen major confusion when the same words mean different things to different people.
  • If your company is matching or exceeding your industry peers, determine how transformation can maintain or increase your lead. In today’s hyper competitive world, your competition is changing.
  • If your company is underperforming relative to your competition, first define the talent characteristics of a board of directors and C-Suite that would outperform the competition. Then assess your current board of directors and C-Suite relative to those characteristics.
  • Determine whether or not your company is in crisis or heading towards crisis.

Footnotes

1 PWC’s 27th annual global CEO Survey

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-survey/2024/download/27th-ceo-survey.pdf

2 PWC’s 28th annual global CEO Survey

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/c-suite-insights.html

3 Bain, April 12, 2024 “Five truths (and one lie) about corporate transformation”

https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/five-truths-and-a-lie-about-corporate-transformation

4 PWC Strategy + Business, “Translating trust into business reality”

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/trust/translating-trust-into-business-reality.html

What further reading should you do?

  • What is business transformation?

https://koorandassociates.org/business-transformation/what-is-business-transformation/

  • Is your company planning to fail?

https://koorandassociates.org/avoiding-business-failure/is-your-company-planning-to-fail/

  • Do you understand your customers?

https://koorandassociates.org/understanding-customers/do-you-understand-your-customers/

  • How do you succeed with transformation?

https://koorandassociates.org/business-transformation/how-do-you-succeed-with-transformation/

Tom Koor

What is business transformation? V3

What is business transformation? V3

What is the purpose of this article?

This article enables shareholders, the board of directors, C-Suite and others to discuss business transformation.

This article does not provide tax, legal or financial advice.

You must do your own research and fact-based analysis using current and relevant information.

You can download a PDF of this article from: https://koorandassociates.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/what-is-business-transformation-v3.pdf

What are the critical learnings in this article?

  1. There is no commonly agreed upon standard definition of business transformation.
  2. Your company must create your own definition and criteria for what is business transformation, which everyone understands.

What are some definitions of business transformation?

#1 “Transformation is about improving performance, not just cutting costs. Companies boost the odds of achieving breakthrough results when they simultaneously improve their operating discipline and make portfolio moves that collectively redefine their business.”1

#2 “Transformation spans your entire organization, to address all the changes needed to reach your full ambition. “2

#3 “…rapid, visible, and sustainable step-change improvement in business performance; strengthen their organizations to win in the future; and turn their companies’ upside potential into radical performance gains.” 3

#4 “Business Transformation is the process of fundamentally changing the systems, processes, people and technology across a whole business or business unit, to achieve measurable improvements in efficiency, effectiveness and stakeholder satisfaction. As such, a business transformation project is likely to include any number of change management projects, each focused on an individual process, system, technology, team or department”4

#5 Business transformation has three categories of effort:5

  1. Operational: Do what you are currently doing, better, faster, or cheaper
  2. Core transformation: do what you are currently ding in a fundamentally different way e.g. Netflix changing from sending DVDs through the mail to streaming video.
  3. Strategic – Change the very essence of the company e.g. Amazon from retailing to cloud computing services.

#6 Transformation is described in terms of the changes to the company’s business model. The business model describes how a company creates value for itself while delivering products or services to C&U (Customers and Users). 

There are 9 components to the business model:

  1. Target C&U segments
  2. C&U value proposition
  3. C&U relationships
  4. Channel
  5. Key partners
  6. Key resources
  7. Key activities
  8. Cost structure
  9. Revenue streams

Each type of transformation is described in terms of changes to the three critical customer components of the business model and other business model changes.

  1. Who are the target C&U segments?  Who exactly is the company creating value for? What are the geographic, social, and demographic characteristics of each C&U segment? What is the market size?
  2. What is the value proposition of each target C&U segment?  A value proposition is the C&U perception of value i.e. All of the C&U perception of achieved benefits vs all of the C&U perception of incurred costs.  Benefits may include: financial and non-financial e.g. time savings, convenience, status, etc.  Costs may include financial (purchase costs, costs to switch, other adoption costs, ongoing costs) and non-financial (e.g. time, inconvenience, loss of status, etc.)
  3. C&U relationships.  What type of relationships do C&U expect to have with the company?

Customer needs, the competition, technology, the economic and political climate are constantly evolving and changing.  Successful companies understand the outside world and evolve as the world around them changes.

Transformation becomes an issue when the company’s leadership no longer understands the outside world, makes decisions in this isolation, and then has a crisis.

There are five types of transformation. A company may be undergoing more than one type of transformation at the same time.

#1 Restructuring

  1. Target CU& segments: The company remains focused on the same (or subset) of target C&U with the same set of problems and needs.
  2. C&U value proposition: The value proposition perceived by C&U is little changed.
  3. C&U relationships:  Limited changes to C&U relationships
  4. Other business model changes: The actions taken have a financial focus: reducing debt, selling assets, reducing the number of C&U (Customers and Users), reducing unprofitable C&U, reviewing all components of the business model to reduce debt and costs, selling pieces of the company, etc.

#2 Turnaround

  1. Target C&U segments: The company remains focused on the same (or subset) of target C&U with the same set of problems and needs.
  2. C&U value proposition: Focus on fast major improvements to the perceived value proposition.
  3. C&U relationships: Focus on fast major improvements to the C&U relationships.
  4. Other business model changes: Changes necessary to support the value proposition and relationship changes.

#3 Operational Transformation

  1. Target C&U segments: Focused on the same (or subset) of target C&U with the same set of problems and needs.
  2. C&U value proposition: The value proposition perceived by C&U is little changed.
  3. C&U relationships: The C&U may expect major changes to their relationships with the company e.g. move from in-person to mobile app.
  4. Other business model changes: Components of the business model are improved by a large factor e.g. 10 times.

#4 Business Model Transformation

  1. Target C&U segments: The focus is still on the same C&U, but their problems and needs have fundamentally changed.
  2. C&U value proposition: The solution perceived by the C&U requires fundamental change.
  3. C&U relationships; The C&U expect fundamental change in their relationships with the company.
  4. Other business model changes: Most or all components of the business model require fundamental change. 

#5 Strategic Transformation

  1. Target C&U segments: There are new C&U with new problems and needs requiring a new business model.  Think of Google.  It started out to be the best search engine.  Now Google produces the Android operating system, smart phones and has been working on driverless cars.
  2. C&U value proposition: These new C&U will have different value propositions than those for existing C&U.
  3. C&U relationships: A strategic transformation is basically creating a new company.
  4. Other business model changes:

What are potential measures of transformation outcomes?

  1. Customer perception e.g. NOS (Net Promoter Score), Customer Satisfaction, Customer perception of competitively differentiated value proposition)
  2. Customer behaviour e.g. Retention, Market share, spending per customer
  3. Employee perception e.g. Employee satisfaction, employee engagement
  4. Employee behaviour e.g. % of desired hires who accept, retention/turnover
  5. Company operational e.g. productivity measures, elapsed time for tasks.
  6. Company financial e.g. Return on investment
  7. Shareholder e.g. perception, total shareholder return
  8. Partners and suppliers e.g. perception, ease of doing business, revenue and profit.
  9. Regulators e.g. perception and compliance reports
  10. Politicians
  11. External analysts e.g. variety of measures
  12. Society and the public e.g. a variety of perceptions.
  13. Board of directors

Who needs to change or act differently in order to achieve the target outcomes?

  1. It depends upon the scope and type of transformation.
  2. People could include: cash paying customers, users, partners & suppliers, board of directors, CEO, C-Suite, employees.

What is the greatest challenge in achieving the outcomes?

  1. Those who need to change do not understand the benefits to them and thus resist or do not change.

What are your next steps?

  1. Define the words/concepts you’re using, in a glossary.  I’ve seen major confusion when the same words mean different things to different people.
  2. Define for your company the criteria for what is business transformation. Not every project is a transformation project. Use some examples.

Footnotes

1 McKinsey, “The truth about transformation”,

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/the-truth-about-transformation

2 Bain, “Business Transformation”

https://www.bain.com/consulting-services/transformation

3 Boston Consulting Group, “Business Transformation”

https://www.bcg.com/en-ca/capabilities/business-transformation/overview

4 Change Associates, “What is business transformation?”

https://changeassociates.com/what-is-business-transformation/

5 Scott Anthony, Harvard Business Review, Feb 29, 2016, “What do you really mean by business  transformation”.

https://hbr.org/2016/02/what-do-you-really-mean-by-business-transformation

Tom Koor

Is your company planning to fail? V5

Is your company planning to fail? V5

 What is the purpose of this article?

Enable Corporate Leadership (the board of directors, CEO, C-Suite, and any controlling shareholders) to discuss the degree to which your company is planning to fail.

This article does not provide tax, legal or financial advice.

You must do your own research and fact-based analysis using current and relevant information.

You can download a PDF of this article from: Is your company planning to fail V5

What are the critical learnings in this article?

  • Most companies are successfully executing their plans to fail. Most companies fail or produce poor investor returns. (Read “Your company will fail”, which is the first article under “What further reading should you do?”)
  • Plans are comprised of two parts: what is in them and what’s not in them. Plans reflect decision made and decisions not made.

The board of directors lack the knowledge and skills to make decisions.

  • A McKinsey survey of board directors showed that most had little understanding of their companies. Only 16% said directors strongly understood the dynamics of their industries; 22% said directors were aware of how their firms created value; and 34% said directors fully comprehended their companies’ strategies.1
  • A survey of board directors asked how many directors agreed that their members collective skills and backgrounds are appropriate for their organization’s needs: 54% of directors of high performing companies agreed, 40% of directors of low performing companies agreed.2

The board of directors and CEO lack the capabilities to align HR and IT with the strategy and ensure that most employees are working to achieve the strategy.3

  • 67% of HR and IT organizations are not aligned with business unit and corporate strategies.
  • 60% of organizations do not link their financial budgets to strategic priorities.
  • Incentive compensation is not tied to achieving strategy (70% of middle managers, over 90% of front-line staff).
  • 95% of employees are not aware of, or do not understand the strategy.

Corporate decisions and actions are not fact-based.

Leadership has a “seriously inaccurate perception of reality”.4

Leadership:

  • doesn’t measure the value the company is creating nr the potential value it can capture.5
  • makes the incorrect assumption that the main historical competitors will be the main future competitors.6
  • cannot learn from other companies’ failures or successes.7
  • is focused on the company mission and doesn’t hear what their customers are saying.8
  • thinks they have all the answers.9
  • fires anyone who questions plans or strategies. 10
  • relies on yesterday’s answers to solve current problems.11

 Corporate leadership has poor decision-making behaviours. 12

  • Good analysis done by good managers with good judgement produces poor strategic decisions.
  • Only 28% of executives thought good strategic decisions were frequently made.
  • 53% of business improvement is due to the quality of the decision-making process, only 8% is due to the quality and detail of the analysis.
  • One cause of poor decision-making behaviors is that leadership neither recognizes their biases nor takes steps to overcome biases in decision-making.

Corporate leadership does not understand the difference between risk and uncertainty.13

  • Risk-based decisions are determined by probability determined from analysis of historical facts.
  • With uncertainty, there are no historical facts from which to derive a probability.

The confusion between risk and uncertainty results in leadership believing they are making fact- based analytical decisions when the decisions are actually based on guesses and hopes.

Corporate leadership is not competitively differentiated in its core components of talent.

The core components of talent include:14

  • Self awareness, both internal and external
  • Character, including values, morals, and ethics.
  • Relationship skills
  • Communications, especially two-way communications
  • Crystallized intelligence
  • Fluid intelligence
  • Cognitive skills
  • Ability to quickly learn and unlearn
  • Creativity

Corporate leadership has five biases resulting in poor decision-making.15

  • Insufficient thought before action.
  • Tendency towards inertia, if uncertain.
  • Misaligned incentives, misunderstanding of strategies and objectives, and emotional attachments to personal perspectives.
  • Preference for harmony over conflict, leading to group think.
  • Recognizing patterns that do not exist.

Companies that have financial success develop behaviours leading to their decline.16

  • Success leads to entitlement and arrogance, believing success will occur no matter what happens.
  • Corporate leadership neglects focus, understanding, and renewal of the root causes of success.
  • “What” replaces “Why” (“We’re successful because we do these specific things.” Replaces “We’re successful because we understand why we do these specific things and under what conditions they would not longer work”. Corporate leadership is no longer inquisitive and learning.
  • Corporate leadership believes success is entirely due to their superior capabilities, and that luck had no role.

 Executive leadership development programs are broken. 

A survey of more than 500 global executives showed that only 11% strongly agreed their leadership development programs achieved results. What were the program flaws?17

  • Not specific to the companies’ strategic plans and drivers of business performance (e.g. turnaround, multiple M&As, organic growth, etc.).
  • Not organization-wide and not at all levels within the organization.
  • Not using digital learning embedded in day-to-day workflows. Too much use of the old teacher and classroom model.
  • Leaders did not use social media (blogs, video messages, etc.). to communicate with staff.
  • Senior leaders did not act as sponsors, mentors, and coaches.

 Companies do not recover from crisis.18

  • 20% of companies grow from insurgency to incumbency, but then two-thirds of them stall out and less than 1 in 7 stall-outs recover.
  • At any given moment, 5%-7% of companies are in free fall or about to tip into it. Only10%-15% of companies pull out of free fall.
  • 94% of large company executives site internal dysfunctions as their key barrier to continued profitable growth.

During turbulent times, the number of sinking ship companies increases 89%.19

 Founders are often the cause of start-up failures20

  • 65% of the failures of high-potential start-ups are due to people problems: relationships, roles and decision-making, and splitting the income.
  • More than 50% of founders are replaced as CEO by the third round of financing. In 73% of these founder replacements, the CEO is fired rather than voluntarily stepping down.
  • The founder’s passion, confidence and attachment to the start-up is initially a great strength. Founders often refuse to revise their strategy, misjudge the need for additional skills, and make decisions that don’t reflect the current situation.

 Leadership is the underlying cause of start-up failure.

The top nine reasons for start-up failures were identified by CB Insights. 21 I’ve shown below my point-of-view as to why leaders and leadership were the root cause.

  • 42% no market need – leaders did not validate that there were large number of potential cash paying customers who perceived they had needs and problems they were willing and pay for.
  • 29% ran out of cash – leaders did not understand cash flow management
  • 23% not the right team – leaders did not understand the talent required, how to hire, retain, and develop the right talent as the company evolved.
  • 19% get outcompeted – leaders did not understand how customers and users perceived the competition’s value propositions.
  • 18% pricing/cost issues – leaders did not understand how customers perceived their company’s value proposition.
  • 17% poor product – leaders did not understand how to oversee solution design and rollout to ensure meeting customers perceived value proposition.
  • 17% need/lack business model – leaders did not understand that a business model is needed or were unable to define one.
  • 14% poor marketing – leaders did not have marketing skill, understand their role in marketing, know the necessary cash to marketing.
  • 14% ignore customers – leaders did not believe it was important to listen to customers and take action based on what customers were saying.

The appropriate VME (Values, morals, and ethics) are not understood or agreed upon.

  • Inappropriate VME can result in:
  • Your company losing your social license to operate.
  • Your ability to attract and retain appropriate talent.
  • Reputation damage which impacts sales
  • Legal action by governments and others.
  • etc.

What are your next steps?

  • Define your terms and concepts to enable a common understanding.
  • Prepare your own set of evaluation criteria. The above reasons for failure may form some of your evaluation criteria.
  • Have your company assessment by members of your company’s ecosystem.
  • Analyze the results. Probe deeply into anything not related to talent to ensure talent is not actually the root issue.

What further reading should you do?

“Your company will fail”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/avoiding-business-failure/your-company-will-fail-v1/

“Traditional corporate governance dooms your company to failure. V2”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/2023/03/17/traditional-corporate-governance-dooms-your-company-to-failure-v2/

“Traditional strategic planning dooms companies to failure”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/strategy-and-strategic-planning/traditional-strategic-planning-dooms-companies-to-failure/

“Traditional risk management dooms your company to failure”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/corporate-governance/traditional-risk-management-dooms-your-company-to-failure/

“Traditional business transformation dooms your company to failure”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/business-transformation/5920-2/

“What are the three greatest risks to your company?”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/avoiding-business-failure/what-are-the-three-greatest-risks-to-your-company/

 

 Footnotes

1 “Corporate Boards need a facelift”, Eric Kutcher, (McKinsey Partner) McKinsey website, May 4, 2018.

2 “A time for boards to act” McKinsey Survey 2018 March

3 “Creating the Office of Strategy Management”, Harvard Business School; paper 05-701, by Robert Kaplan and David Norton

4 Sydney Finkelstein, Why smart executives fail, Penguin Publishing Group, 2004, Chapter 6

5 ibid., Chapter 6

6 ibid., Chapter 6

7 ibid., Chapter 7

8 ibid., Chapter 7

9 ibid., Chapter 9

10 ibid., Chapter 9

11ibid., Chapter 9

12 “The case for behavioral strategy”, McKinsey Quarterly, 2010 Number 2

13 Adapted from “20/20 foresight: Crafting strategy in uncertain times”, by Hugh Courtney

14 What are the core components of talent? Koor and Associates

What are the core components of talent? V4

15 “Think again: Why good leaders make bad decisions”, by Sidney Finkelstein, Jo Whitehead, and Andrew Campbell, Harvard Business Review Press, 2009

16 “How the mighty fall”, by Jim Collins

17 “What’s missing in leadership development?”, Claudio Feser, Nicolai Nielson, and Michael Rennie, McKinsey Quarterly, August 2017

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/whats-missing-in-leadership-development

18 “The founders mentality”, by Chris Zook and James Allen, 2016

19 https://www.bain.com/insights/the-new-normal-is-a-myth-the-future-wont-be-normal-at-all/

20 “The Founder’s Dilemmas”, by Noah Wasserman.

21 “Top 20 reasons start-ups fail”, CB Insights, Oct 7, 2014

Tom Koor

How profitable are search funds? V2

How profitable are search funds? V2

 What is the purpose of this article?

Help investors think about whether to invest time and money into the search fund asset class.

The audience for this article includes: investors considering search fund investments, and search fund founders.

This article does not provide tax, legal or financial advice.

You must do your own research and fact-based analysis using current and relevant information.

You can download a PDF of this article from: How profitable are search funds V2

What are the critical learnings in this article?

  • The IRR for traditional search funds in Canada and the US has been 35.2%.
  • Traditional search fund investors provide far more than capital. They also provide coaching, mentoring, board directorships.
  • You need to fund between 30 to 45 searchers, to have a high chance of approaching the IRR for the asset class as a whole.

What is a search fund?

What is a traditional search fund?1

An investment vehicle formed by one or two entrepreneurs (i.e. “searchers”) along with investor mentors.  They search for, acquire, and lead a privately held company for the medium to long-term. The searcher and investors exit at that time.  Investors fund the search costs and the acquisition costs.  The entrepreneur becomes the CEO after the acquisition.

  • These investors are very actively involved as: coaches, mentors, advisors, and board directors. The investors do far more than provide capital.
  • The searchers typically have an MBA.
  • The searchers search for a private company to acquire, lead, grow, and sell.
  • It takes 2-6 months to find the investors and capital to launch the search fund.
  • The search takes 12-24 months.
  • Growing the value of the company takes 4 to 7 (or more) years.
  • The exit process takes 6 months.

What are alternative search fund models?2

  • Self-funded search: the searcher funds the search themselves, without investors.
  • Single investor model: only one investor e.g. single professional investor, family office, private equity firm, etc.
  • Long-term hold: hold for more than 10 years.

 How profitable has the search fund asset class been

The following metrics are for the U.S. and Canada

  • 681 traditional search funds formed from 1984 through to Dec 31, 20233

The IRR has been: 4

  • 1% for all investments made, and 33.0% if the top 5 companies were excluded.
  • These IRR returns have been relatively constant from 2008 to 2023.

66% of search funds with an investment return lost some or all their investor money.

The following analysis is based on the data in “2024 Search Fund Study – Research Overview”

524 search funds have concluded

358 search funds have an investment return to investors. This excludes search funds that were still operating.

196 lost all investor money, due to no acquisition

162 exits 40 of which were negative

236 search funds (of the 358 with an investment return) lost some or all their investor money

How many search funds do you need in your portfolio?

You need a large number of search funds in your portfolio. Why?  Many funds lose money with their acquisitions or have poor returns.  You need a large number to reduce the risk of too many poor performing funds.

A Monte Carlo simulation of search fund performance suggests a portfolio size of 20 to 30 funds that have made acquisitions.6 Given that 37% of search funds don’t make an acquisition, you’d need to fund between 32 to 48 searchers, to have a high chance of approaching the IRR for the asset class as a whole.

What is the capital you require?

The following is my brief analysis of the capital you require for your search fund portfolio to approach the IRR returns of the asset class as a whole.

  • As an investor, your initial search fund investment might range from $25,000 to $50,000. Funding 32 to 48 searchers would require from $800,000 to $2,400,000.
  • Additional funds would be required to support acquisitions.
  • In the traditional search fund model, you must provide much more than capital: you need the skills and knowledge to: coach, mentor, advise, and deliver value on the boards of search funds.

If you have a small portfolio, you have a high chance of returns below the asset class as a whole.

What are your next steps?

  • Review your investment thesis, asset allocation, and investable assets to determine if you have the capital to create a portfolio of search funds.
  • Assess your skills, experience, relationships, capabilities, and time availability to determine your potential to coach, mentor, and provide value as board director.
  • Consider if you’ll create and manage a portfolio of search funds OR if you’ll invest in a fund which has a large portfolio of search funds.
  • If you’re considering investing in a fund with a portfolio of search funds, you should: Build a financial model which considers the fees and exit times of the fund; and create a due diligence process to assess the fund’s: talent, processes, business model, and historical results.
  • Regardless of the path you decide to take you must also assess the talent of the other investors. Why? The success of the traditional search fund model depends on the ability of the other investors to provide value via coaching, mentoring, and board directorships.

Footnotes

1 Sara Heston and Peter Kelly, “2024 Search Fund Study – Research Overview”, Stanford Graduate School of Business. Page 3

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/case-studies/2024-search-fund-study

2 Ibid., 27

3 Ibid., 4

4 Ibid., 8

5 Ibid., 5

6 Andrew Locke, Diversification in search fund investing: The only free lunch?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/diversification-search-fund-investing-only-free-lunch-andrew-locke/

 What further reading should you do?

Stanford Graduate School of Business – search fund primer

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/experience/about/centers-institutes/ces/research/search-funds/primer

Search Funds – What has made them work? Rob Johnson, IESE

https://media.iese.edu/research/pdfs/ST-0357-E.pdf

International Search Funds – 2024 – Selected Observations, IESE Business School, University of Navarra

https://www.iese.edu/media/research/pdfs/ST-0658-E

Tom Koor

Your company will fail. V3

Your company will fail. V3

 What is the purpose of this article?

This article enables a discussion about your company’s long-term survival and competitively differentiated returns to investors.

The audience for this article includes: boards of directors, CEOs, the C-Suite, individual investors, and institutional investors,

This article does not provide tax, legal or financial advice.   You must do your own research and fact-based analysis using current and relevant information.

You can download a PDF of this article from: Your company will fail. V3

What are the critical learnings in this article?

Most companies will: fail, disappear, or provide poor returns to their investors.

Most companies will not survive.

Few major companies survive:

  • 16% of major companies in 1962 survived until 1998.1
  • Of the 500 companies in the S&P 500 in 1957, only 74 remained on the list in 1997. Only 12 of those 74 outperformed the 1957-1997 S&P index.  An investor who put money into the survivors would have done worse than someone who invested only in the index.1
  • 31% of Fortune 500 companies went bankrupt or were acquired from 1995 to 2004.2
  • 52% of Fortune 500 companies went bankrupt, were acquired, or disappeared between 2000-2015.3
  • 50% of the S&P 500 will not be on the list in 10 years’ time.4

 Most public companies will not survive.

  • A Fortune 500 company will survive an average of 16 years.5
  • The typical half-life of a North American public company is 10 years.5
  • Global public companies with $250 million+ market cap have a typical half-life of 10 years.5
  • 28,853 companies traded on US public markets from 1950 to 2009. Half life was only 10.5 years.6

Global CEOs recognize that there’s a good chance their companies will not survive.

  • In 2023, 45% of global CEO thought that their company would be financially viable for 10 years or less, if it kept running on its current path.7
  • In 2024, four in ten CEOs believed their company will no longer be viable in ten years if it continues on its current path. The majority of CEOs believed they will not be in their current role in five years time. 8

Most companies will not recover from a crisis.

Companies do not recover from crisis.9

  • 20% of companies grow from insurgency to incumbency, but then two-thirds of them stall out and less than 1 in 7 stall-outs recover.
  • At any given moment, 5%-7% of companies are in free fall or about to tip into it. Only10%-15% of companies pull out of free fall.
  • 94% of large company executives site internal dysfunctions as their key barrier to continued profitable growth.

During turbulent times, the number of sinking ship companies increases 89%10

 Few major companies have sustained value creation.

Few major companies have sustained value creation:

  • McKinsey analyzed the world’s 2,393 largest corporations from 2010 to 2014. The top 20% generated 158% of the total economic profit (i.e. profit after cost of capital) created by those corporations.  This was an average economic profit of $1,426 million per year. The middle 60% generated little economic profit, an average of $47 million per year. The bottom 20% all generated negative economic profit, with an average loss of $670 million per year.11
  • Less than 13% of global companies had sustained value creation in the 1990s.12
  • 12% of public companies had sustained value creation from 2002 to 2012.13
  • Mark Leonard, CEO of Constellation Software, in his final annual CEO letter said: “Qualified and competent Directors are very rare, and not surprisingly, the track record of most boards is awful. According to the 2017 Hendrik Bessembinder study of approximately 26,000 stocks in the CRSP database, only 4% of the stocks generated all of the stock market’s return in excess of one-month T-Bills during the last 90 years. The other 96% of the stocks generated, in aggregate, the T-Bill rate over that period. This means that 4% of boards oversaw all the long-term wealth creation by markets during that period. Even more disturbing, the boards for over 50% of public companies saw their businesses generate negative returns during their entire existence as public companies.”14
  • John Rekenthaler study of the largest 5,000 US companies stock prices rom Jan 2011, to Dec 2020 showed that after 10 years, 42% ended in the black, 36% lost money, and 22% had disappeared. 15
  • In 2023, 0.4% of large companies had SVC (Sustained Value Creation) for 10 years. 10% had done it for 8 years. Half the companies had 6% or less annual shareholder return over 10 years. 16

Major changes almost always fail or create limited value.

  • Only 12% of major changes produce lasting results. 17
  • 50% diluted the value of the company.18

 Most large-scale tech programs fail

More than two-thirds of large-scale tech programs are not expected to be delivered on time, within budget, or within their defined scope. 19

Most public companies underperform the indices.

  • The 1,000 biggest publicly traded US stock from January 2011, to Dec 2020, 80% underperformed the Morningstar U.S. Stock index.20
  • In 2023, 72% of the stocks in the S&P 500 index, underperformed the index.21

Most actively managed public market funds underperform the indices.

Over a 20-year period, over 93% of large cap US funds underperformed the S&P 500 index.22

The average hedge fund underperforms the public market indices.23

  • From 2011 to 2020, the average hedge fund underperformed the S&P 500 every year.
  • In 2007 Warren Buffet made a bet with Protegé Partners that an S&P 500 index fund would outperform a group of hedge funds. Protegé Partners selected 5 fund-of-funds, which were invested in a total of 200 funds. In the 2008-2017 time period, a $1 million investment with Protegé Partners selection would have earned $220,000. The S&P 500 index earned $854,000. In 9 of the 10 years, Protegé Partners selection under performed the S&P 500 index. Warren Buffet won the bet.

Many private equity funds underperform the public market indices.

In the 10 year period ending 2024, the top quartile of private equity funds significantly outperformed the S&P 500 index. The bottom quartile significantly underperformed the S&P 500 index.  If you could have predicted which PE funds would end up in the top quartile, you would have beaten the S&P 500 index. If you could have predicted the top quartile stock in the S&P 500 index, you would have beaten the S&P 500 index. 24

Many venture capital funds underperform the public market indices.

Half of VC funds underperform the public markets.25

What are your next steps?

  • Define the words/concepts/data you’re using, in a glossary. I’ve seen major confusion when the same words mean different things to different people.
  • Your next steps will vary, depending upon the type of company you are. E.g. public, private, investment fund (e.g. Private Equity, VC fund, etc. The following suggestions should be reviewed an adapted to your situation.
  • Ask the question “Will your company be economically viable in 10 years if your company continues the current course? If yes, why? If not, why not”. Ask: your major shareholders, your board of directors, your C-Suite.
  • Review the results of your scenario planning. You must have at least three scenarios: your company fails, your company is wilding successful, the future based on currently approved plans and
  • Based on the above analysis, what changes are needed to reduce the chance of your company failing. Step one is to consider the talent on the board of directors. Step two is to consider the talent in the C-Suite. Additional steps are specific to your situation.

Footnotes

1 “Creative Destruction – why companies that are built to last, underperform the market”, by Richard Foster & Sarah Kaplan

2 “Unstoppable” by Chris Zook, 2007, page 7

3 Accenture 2016

4 “2018 Longevity Report” by Innosight Consulting

5 “Corporate Longevity”, Credit Suisse, February 7, 2017

6 “Scale” by Geoffrey West, 2017, Penquin Press, New York, Page 402

7 PWC’s 27th annual global CEO Survey

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/ceo-survey/2024/download/27th-ceo-survey.pdf

8 PWC’s 28th annual global CEO Survey

https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/c-suite-insights.html

9 “The founders mentality”, by Chris Zook and James Allen, 2016

10 Bain website article “The “New Normal” Is a Myth. The Future Won’t Be Normal at All”

https://www.bain.com/insights/the-new-normal-is-a-myth-the-future-wont-be-normal-at-all/

11 Chris Bradley, Martin Hirt, and Sven Smit, “Strategy to beat the odds”, McKinsey Quarterly February 2018, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/strategy-to-beat-the-odds

12 “Profit from the Core” by Chris Zook. 1,800 companies in seven countries with sales in excess of $500 million analyzed.  Criteria were: 5.5% after inflation sales growth; 5.5% real earnings growth; total shareholder returns exceed cost of capital.

13 Christoph Loos, CEO Hilti Group, Swiss AmCham Luncheon, September 1, 2015.  Analysis based on about 2,000 public companies in 2002 with revenues greater than $500 million.  Sustainable value creation defined as: real revenue growth exceeding 5.5% per year, real profit growth exceeding 5.5% per year, and earning cost of capital.

14 https://www.csisoftware.com/docs/default-source/investor-relations/presidents-letter/presidents-letter-april-2018-final.pdf

15 “How many stocks beat the indices” John Rekenthaler, April 26, 2021 Morningstar

https://www.morningstar.com/markets/how-many-stocks-beat-indexes

16 “Sustained value creation – the test of the best”  Bain Jan 21, 2025. Bain’s SVC definition: net profit exceeds cost of capital and real top line growth

 https://www.bain.com/insights/sustained-value-creation-the-test-of-the-best-infographic/

17 Transformations that work, Harvard Business Review May June 2024 Michael Mankins, Patrick Litre, Bain Partners

https://hbr.org/2024/05/transformations-that-work

18 “It’s 8-to-1 against Your Change Program”, Bain website, Managing Change Blog, 2017 June 23

https://www.bain.com/insights/its-8-to-1-against-your-change-program-how-to-beat-the-odds/

19 November 13, 2024  Boston Consulting Grouphttps://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/most-large-scale-tech-programs-fail-how-to-succeed#:~:text=BCG’s%20latest%20research%20shows%20that,year%20for%20a%20single%20program.

20 How Many Stocks Beat the Indexes? Unlike the children of Lake Wobegon, most companies are below average. John Rekenthaler Apr 26, 2021

https://www.morningstar.com/markets/how-many-stocks-beat-indexes

21 Marketwatch, Dec 30, 2023

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-record-share-of-s-p-500-stocks-have-underperformed-the-index-in-2023-as-weirdest-bull-market-in-decades-marches-on-5d3b4cf5

22 SPIVA U.S. Mid-Year 2023 report

https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/spiva/article/spiva-us/

23 “The S&P 500 index out-performed hedge funds over the past 10 years. And it wasn’t’ even close”

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-sp-500-index-out-performed-hedge-funds-over-the-last-10-years-and-it-wasnt-even-close/

24 CCC Google Gemini Deep Research Analysis, March 25, 2023

25 Robert S. Harru, Tim Jenkinson, Steven N. Kaplan, and Ruediger Stucke

Has persistence persisted in private equity?

November 2020, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics at University of Chicago

https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/BFI_WP_2020167.pdf

What further reading should you do?

“Is your company planning to fail?”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/avoiding-business-failure/is-your-company-planning-to-fail/

“Traditional corporate governance dooms your company to failure”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/corporate-governance/5786-2/

“Traditional risk management dooms your company to failure”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/corporate-governance/traditional-risk-management-dooms-your-company-to-failure/

“Traditional strategic planning dooms companies to failure”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/strategy-and-strategic-planning/traditional-strategic-planning-dooms-companies-to-failure/

“Traditional business transformation dooms your company to failure”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/business-transformation/5920-2/

“Scenario planning – what is it?”, Koor and Associates

https://koorandassociates.org/strategy-and-strategic-planning/scenario-planning-what-is-it/

Tom Koor

Why should employees and investors support you?

Why should employees and investors support you?

What is the purpose of this article?

This article enables a discussion about to maintain, or gain, the support of your employees and investors.

The audience for this article includes: controlling shareholders, the board of directors, and C-Suite.

This article does not provide tax, legal or financial advice.

You must do your own research and fact-based analysis using current and relevant information.

You can download a PDF of this article from: https://koorandassociates.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/why-should-employees-and-investors-support-you.pdf

What are the critical learnings in this article?

  1. The core reason for support is that people understand “what’s in it for them”.
  2. Support is emotional.
  3. Support has become much harder to get in today’s world.

#1 What is the core reason employees and investors will support you?

  1. They understand “what’s in it for me” and they want that. Negative reasons for support (e.g. do this or you will be fired) create limited support.
  2. Support is emotional and requires an emotional connection.
  3. Lack of support or active resistance is also emotional.

#2 What are the pre-requisites for getting support?

  1. Employees and investors must understand and trust what you’re saying.
  2. Trust must be earned.  It starts with understanding your audience by listening to them.  You need to understand, and demonstrate that you understand, their problem, needs, values & morals, and emotions.
  3. People need to perceive that you understand the world from their perspective.
  4. They need to trust the facts that you are sharing.
  5. Understanding requires that you use words and concepts which the audience understands.
  6. Often people expect that their values, morals, and ethics are the same as yours.  And that they and you have a common purpose.

#3 What destroys support or prevents support?

  1. Your audience does not understand the words and concepts you are using.
  2. They don’t believe your facts.
  3. They think you are misleading, deceiving, or lying to them.
  4. They think you neither understand nor care about them.
  5. They perceive that you are not listening to them.
  6. You are not providing value to them or helping them understand “what’s in in for them”.

#4 What are your challenges in getting support?

  1. Society does not trust its leaders and institutions. 1
  2. People don’t agree on what the facts are.  The world is swamped with misinformation and lies.  Groups of people passionately believe that they know the facts and that others are wrong.
  3. People have a broad range of values, morals, and ethics.
  4. We live in a world where massive changes happen more often.  The natural reaction to change is resistance.
  5. It can be very hard to explain to people why they should support having their livelihoods destroyed e.g. jobs disappearing due to offshoring.

What are your next steps?

  1. Define the words/concepts you’re using, in a glossary.  I’ve seen major confusion when the same words mean different things to different people.
  2. Prepare your plan, which addresses the points in #1 to #4 above.

Footnotes

1 “Society does not trust its leaders and institutions” Koor and Associates website

Society does not trust its leaders and institutions. V6

What further reading should you do?

“Managing the people aspects of supervisory change” An article I wrote for the Toronto Centre which trains financial services regulators around the worl.https://stage.torontocentre.org/media/acfupload/Managing_the_People_Aspects_of_Supervisory_Change_Updated_Links_copy_1.pdf

Tom Koor

Scenario planning – what is it?

Scenario planning – what is it?

What is the purpose of this article?

This article enables a discussion about scenario planning and why it’s critical to your company’s success and survival.

The audience for this article includes: boards of directors, CEOs, the C-Suite, and investors.

This article does not provide tax, legal or financial advice.

You must do your own research and fact-based analysis using current and relevant information.

You can download a PDF of this article from: https://koorandassociates.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/scenario-planning-what-is-it.pdf

What are the critical learnings in this article?

  1. It is impossible to predict or forecast the future.
  2. Scenario planning is a process to prepare to succeed in a broad range of futures. It is not an attempt to predict a single outcome.
  3. Your strategy is one component of scenario planning.
  4. Scenario planning is not enough for success and survival. Your need a competitively differentiated talent pool (board of directors, CEO, C-Suite, etc.)

Why do you need scenario planning?

  1. It is impossible to predict or forecast the future.
  2. Scenario planning helps your company prepare for the unexpected.
  3. Basing all your decisions, plans and actions on a single, assumed to be perfect, forecast will likely result in failure.
  4. An unknown future provides you with lots of opportunities as well as risks.
  5. Future success depends on your company responding quicker and better than your competition.
  6. Scenario planning helps to reduce the natural biases that all decision makers have.

In 2019, who could have predicted:

  1. A 2020 global pandemic with massive economic impacts.
  2. In early 2022 the largest land war in Europe since WW II started
  3. Nov 30, 2022 ChatGPT was announced, and the Generative AI revolution began
  4. In late 2023 large scale war began in the middle east.
  5. Jan 20, 2025 President Trump was inaugurated.  Massive changes within the US Government and around the world began immediately.

The future is a black swan. 

What is scenario planning?

  1. Scenario planning is a process to prepare to succeed in a broad range of futures. It is not an attempt to predict a single outcome.
  2. Your strategy is one component of scenario planning.
  3. Without scenario planning, you are hoping that you have guessed the right strategy for the unknown future.

The scenario planning  process has three stages

Stage 1 Prepare the initial set of scenarios

  1. This is a one-time event.
  2. There are a minimum of three scenarios: 1) the base case which represents your current strategy, strategic plan, and related plans; 2) your company fails in the future; 3) your company is a wild success in the future.

Stage 2 Monitor the external and internal factors of your scenarios on an ongoing basis

  1. Has anything happened which requires your strategy to change?
  2. Has anything happened which requires updates to your scenarios, including your base case which represents your strategy and strategic plan

Stage 3 Update your scenarios.

  1. You may need to create new ones

What is the definition of a scenario?

A scenario is a point-in-time description of your company and its environment. The description may include:

#1 External Components e.g.

  1. Key members of your company’s ecosystem E.g. competitors, suppliers, partners, politicians and regulators,
  2. Technology
  3. The economy
  4. The talent pool
  5. Demographics
  6. Social upheaval – from local to global.  This includes war.
  7. Climate change

# 2 Internal components e.g.

  1. The talent pool – board of directors, CEO, C-Suite, etc.
  2. Processes
  3. Technology
  4. Knowledge
  5. The ability or inability to quickly learn and change

#3 4 different scopes to consider

  1. What will the world look like?
  2. What will the countries you operate in look like?
  3. What will your marketplace look like?
  4. What will your company look like?

#4 A scenario has multiple points in time e.g.

  1. Today The current situation
  2. Year by year into the future.
  3. The second last year is the final year of your value creation plan.
  4. The last year is at least 10 years out.

#5 Trigger points

  1. You may identify changes in external and internal factor which will require immediate revisions to your scenario.

What is a very simple example of a scenario?

Appendix A has an illustration of a very simple scenario, created by a one sentence prompt to the free version ChatGPT.

Why will one of your target years be 10+ years?

Many organizations make decisions and take actions where the outcome can be more 10+ years. Some examples include:

  1. Some Japanese companies look out 100 years to see if they will survive and prosper
  2. Some organizations start their talent recruit in school with students as early as 10 years old. One example of why do this is because many students start to lose interest in STEM subjects between the ages of 11 and 15.
  3. Private Equity firms are often focused on maximizing value creation by the years 10-12.
  4. New planes, natural resources development, and other investments may take more than 10 years to pay off.
  5. Demographic and immigration change can take a long time to transform a country.
  6. Families with large wealth can have a multi-generational perspective.
  7. Government policy and legislation can have a long-term impact.
  8. The appointment of supreme court judges can transform a country over the long-term.
  9. Hiring permanent employees may be a long-term commitment.

Is scenario planning enough to ensure your future business success?

  1. Scenario planning is not enough.
  2. You need the right talent (board of directors, CEO, C-Suite, etc.) to be able to make decisions and execute more quickly and effectively than the competition.
  3. Your team of talent needs to be competitively differentiated.  This does not mean that every single person is the best in the world.

What further reading should you do?

  1. “Your company will fail” Most companies will fail, disappear, or provide poor investor returns.

https://koorandassociates.org/avoiding-business-failure/your-company-will-fail-v1/

What is your business strategy?

https://koorandassociates.org/strategy-and-strategic-planning/what-is-your-business-strategy/

What are your next steps?

#1 Define the words/concepts you’re using, in a glossary.  I’ve seen major confusion when the same words mean different things to different people.

#2 Outline the three stages of scenario planning.

#3 Identify who is develops the scenarios.  Consider using 3rd parties (such as MBA interns) to create success and failure scenarios.

#4 Complete Stage 1 – creation of three scenarios – in one week.

#5 Launch stages 2 and 3.

#6 Learn and improve on an ongoing basis.

Appendix A scenario created by the free version of ChatGPT

The intent of this simple scenario is to generate discussion.  The scenario is not intended to be accurate in terms of the cause-and-effect relationships. I am not recommending the use of ChatGPT vs other AI tools.

My prompt to ChatGPT

Create a scenario for a hypothetical Canadian bank called OldBank, in which the bank fails in 2030. Include: financial metrics, political changes around the world, and technology developments from China and Africa. List what happens year by year, starting with 2025

The response from ChatGPT

The Collapse of OldBank: A Year-by-Year Breakdown (2025–2030)

OldBank, a once-stable Canadian financial institution with deep roots in conservative banking, faces a dramatic collapse by 2030 due to a combination of poor financial management, political instability, and disruptive technological shifts from China and Africa.

2025: Early Signs of Strain

  • Financial Metrics:
    • OldBank reports a 3% decline in profits due to higher-than-expected loan defaults in the commercial real estate sector.
    • Rising interest rates cause mortgage delinquencies to rise by 18% year-over-year.
    • The bank’s stock price drops 12% over the year, amid investor concerns over its exposure to high-risk sectors.
  • Political & Global Economic Changes:
    • The U.S. Federal Reserve maintains high interest rates, slowing global economic growth and increasing borrowing costs worldwide.
    • Canada’s federal government tightens banking regulations in response to growing concerns over housing market instability.
  • Technological Developments (China & Africa):
    • China’s central bank launches a global digital yuan initiative, allowing international trade to bypass traditional banking systems.
    • African fintech companies introduce blockchain-based banking networks, drastically reducing reliance on Western financial institutions.

2026: Increased Competition & Technology Disruptions

  • Financial Metrics:
    • OldBank’s loan portfolio shrinks by 9%, as businesses shift to alternative lenders offering lower fees and better digital services.
    • Net income falls 15% year-over-year.
    • The bank cuts 5,000 jobs due to cost-saving measures.
  • Political & Global Economic Changes:
    • Canada’s housing market sees a major correction, with prices in major cities dropping 20%.
    • Global trade becomes increasingly fragmented, with nations forming regional financial alliances outside of Western banking influence.
  • Technological Developments:
    • China expands its AI-driven financial services, allowing direct AI-managed investments in emerging markets.
    • African digital payment platforms partner with Chinese banks, bypassing SWIFT and reducing reliance on Western financial infrastructure.

2027: Major Losses & Market Share Decline

  • Financial Metrics:
    • OldBank reports a $3 billion loss in Q2 due to bad loans in the collapsing real estate sector.
    • Stock price drops another 25%, causing panic among shareholders.
    • Deposit outflows increase as customers shift funds to decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms.
  • Political & Global Economic Changes:
    • The U.S. dollar weakens as the global financial system becomes more multipolar.
    • Canada’s government proposes a digital loonie, reducing the need for traditional banks in everyday transactions.
  • Technological Developments:
    • China’s AI-driven credit rating systems outperform Western models, leading businesses to prefer Chinese-backed financial services.
    • African economies integrate blockchain-based identification systems, allowing seamless banking access without traditional infrastructure.

2028: Regulatory Pressure & Liquidity Crisis

  • Financial Metrics:
    • OldBank’s liquidity ratio drops below 8%, triggering regulatory concerns.
    • Large corporate clients withdraw over $10 billion, fearing insolvency.
    • The Canadian government intervenes, forcing OldBank to sell $20 billion in assets to stay afloat.
  • Political & Global Economic Changes:
    • Canada enters a mild recession, increasing banking sector stress.
    • The government increases support for state-backed fintech solutions, competing directly with traditional banks.
  • Technological Developments:
    • African digital currencies become widely used in global trade, further reducing reliance on Western banks.
    • Chinese AI-driven financial advisors replace human wealth managers, offering ultra-low-cost investment solutions.

2029: The Final Collapse Begins

  • Financial Metrics:
    • OldBank fails to secure emergency funding as investor confidence collapses.
    • The bank’s market capitalization drops to $2 billion, down from $40 billion in 2025.
    • A bank run begins as depositors rush to withdraw funds, overwhelming OldBank’s liquidity reserves.
  • Political & Global Economic Changes:
    • The Canadian government signals it may not fully bail out OldBank due to the growing digital banking sector.
    • Major pension funds and institutional investors dump OldBank’s stock.
  • Technological Developments:
    • African and Chinese digital banks offer direct international accounts, siphoning off millions of OldBank’s customers.
    • AI-driven credit systems become the global standard, rendering traditional credit analysis obsolete.

2030: OldBank Declares Insolvency

  • Financial Metrics:
    • OldBank declares bankruptcy in Q2, unable to meet withdrawal demands.
    • The Canadian government splits OldBank’s assets between fintech startups and remaining competitors.
    • Shareholders and uninsured depositors lose billions.
  • Political & Global Economic Changes:
    • Canada launches a government-backed digital financial network, eliminating the need for traditional banks in many sectors.
    • The global banking landscape is now dominated by AI-driven, decentralized financial systems.
  • Technological Developments:
    • Chinese and African AI-powered financial services become the dominant players in global banking, pushing out legacy institutions.
    • Western banking collapses in several markets, marking the end of an era for traditional financial institutions.

Conclusion

OldBank’s failure in 2030 is not just a result of financial mismanagement—it is the consequence of global economic shifts, technological disruption, and changing consumer behavior. By the time it collapses, the world has moved beyond traditional banking, leaving OldBank unable to compete in an era dominated by AI, blockchain, and decentralized finance.