At a networking event a few weeks ago, the discussion turned to the idea that Americans set up businesses with the goal of building a great business and Brits set up businesses with the goal of selling up, pocketing the cash and strolling off into the sunset. It was remarked that many of the most influential and largest corporates founded in the last 50 years, had their founder as CEO, President or another pivotal role in the company: Larry Page and Sergey Brin at Alphabet/Google, Jeff Bezos at Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, Steve Jobs (until his illness made it impossible) at Apple to name a few. It was widely agreed that the American model should facilitate more passion, better corporate governance, better working environments and ultimately, by virtually any measure, better businesses. After all, how can you truly love something if your plan all along is to part with it for the right price? Having spent most of my career in recruitment, I have worked for companies that have been acquired and seen many competitors acquired. In the vast majority of cases the culture of the business changes; what made that business so attractive to the purchaser in the first place is lost. I left the event in the unshakeable belief that for a business to be truly great, the founders must never want to sell up and leave completely.
So convinced was I of the unequivocality of this that this article started life as a cheerleading piece for businesses that are built with an inherent plan for succession from within; the model of most accountancy and law firms. I had envisaged this piece to be geared towards highlighting that professional partnerships have a significant natural advantage in this regard that very few of them truly capitalise on. I would also conveniently ignore the fact that legal and accountancy practices are far more confined by history, consolidation, and regulation in terms of rules and norms of ownership than the wider corporate world.
A few days later, I had that theory debunked, at least partially. Travis Kalanick, its Founder, was ousted as CEO of Uber in the wake of a torrent of negative publicity: sexual harassment scandals and the total lack of an adequate HR response, sexual assaults by its drivers, revelations of its drivers having to live in their cars due to the crippling repayments of the ‘Uberloans’, the video of Kalanick berating one of Uber’s drivers. Kalanick’s defenders often state, “no-one cares about Uber more than Travis.” A picture has formed of a man with no regard for Uber’s employees, its drivers (who Uber still refuse to accept are employees) or its customers. He may care more than anyone about Uber but only in as far as it serves to elevate his profile, wealth, and influence. Uber’s issues are a reflection and a magnification of their CEO’s and form the cautionary tale of the man who had the idea and the impetus but was wholly unsuited to the role that CEO of Uber became. His recent alleged agitation to return as CEO just a few weeks after his demise would suggest that no lessons have been learned and having his ego at the wheel is more dangerous than Uber’s prototype driverless cabs.
There are many idiosyncrasies to Uber/Kalanick saga and it doesn’t take much research to show that my Anglo-American divide in terms of entrepreneurial ethos is far from absolute. For instance, the example of Sir Richard Branson, a man who has built and sold many businesses and is consistently lauded for the environments he creates and the care he has for his staff and brand.
Business organisations are defined by their leaders; their suitability for their roles and their motivations. The business will reflect and possibly magnify their strengths and weaknesses. When consulting on law firms of staff retention and when representing ‘rising star’ performers looking for a new role, a key theme is that top employees who leave to go to competitors often do it because they feel the people above them in the chain are more interested in the preservation or enhancement of their own status than taking the business forward; “it’s the ‘(insert relevant partner name here) show.’” If you want your business to transcend the cult of personality and actually be a brand, it is this that needs to be addressed. You need the staff to be enfranchised in the idea that they are part of something bigger than any one individual.
A vision of what the business looks like beyond the (insert partner name here) era that is clearly communicated goes a very long way. I don’t mean when (insert partner name here) retires, the current era should be replaced by the (insert partner name) and (rising star name) era, the next era it becomes three names and then it becomes the team at (insert firm name) era. That’s when you become bigger than any one person. Communicate to your staff a) how that will be achieved and b) what role the staff members want in that future and c) how they can fulfill that role and you will be a lot further forward that the vast majority of your competitors
Conor Dilworth
Director – CA Legal