In the normal context, a company as corporate citizen should
have a life, an essence and a personality, which will distinguish it from other
companies which offer similar products or service. However,
most companies as corporate citizens take the definition of their life,
character and personality from individuals who are either founders or operators.
Indeed, companies are defined by the character and personalities of their
founders or those who run them.
This is so because, the values, the philosophies and the
characters of these individuals usually rub-off on these entities and determine
their success or failures. Hence, it is difficult to think about Apple without
thinking of Steve Jobs, or Microsoft without Bill Gates or Virgin without
Richard Branson or South-West Airlines without Herb Kelleher or General Electric
without Jack Welch. These individuals function as the lifeblood of their
enterprises in such a way that the company takes its functional existence from
these eponymous personalities. In other words, there is a kind of symbiotic
relationship between corporate brands and the personality brands of their principals.
The pertinent question to ask then is: what is the significant
correlation between the success of a Corporate Brand and the personality of its
CEO? The obvious answer is: the personality of the CEO either as a change
agent, a deal maker, a quiet and conservative builder, a hardline technocrat or
a people person, will have an impact on the direction of the company he / she
runs. Since the buck stops on the CEOs table, the direction of the enterprise
is certain to be shaped by his/her temperament.
Cases abound of enterprises that were stipe in legacy, losing
market share and tottering on the brink of collapse. However, the arrival of a
CEO on the scene turned-around the fortunes of the company. In this instance, a
CEO does not just make the company to rise above water; he also rethinks the route
to market – either by selling under-performing units of a company, acquiring
another either in similar industry or a complementary one. The CEO’s managerial
ingenuity can further be demonstrated by vertically or horizontally integrating
an acquired company into the old either to gain scale and scope advantage, overcome
legacy issues, move to primary production from the secondary market in order to
leverage the value chain approach to resolving critical supply and access to
market hurdles. Aside from the strategic
focus enumerated, the CEO may also take a soft or human approach to waking up a
dead enterprise – either aligning a demotivated work-force, rousing them to
rebuilding the enterprise through a better management of soft-issues.
From Roberto Goizueta in Coca Cola to Lou Gerstner at IBM,
CEO’s as eponymous characters are critical factors in corporate success. This
can be attributed to the fact that not only does a CEO carry the burden of
change and progress at critical times in the life of an enterprise, the man at
the driver’s seat determines how the company he drives travels. He / She may
decide to toe the line of tradition and maintain the well-travelled road as Tom
Cook is doing at Apple with the demise of Steve Jobs. Or at other times may
decide to make a U-turn like Jack Welch who shut down the white-goods side of
GE because it could no longer compete with the Asian white-goods market. Jack
Welch upon taking over from Reg Jones in 1981 embarked on a number of reform measures.
His first strategy was to either fix or sell any business within the
conglomerate that was not playing either as number one or number two in its
industry. The second was to refocus the enterprise by choosing to acquire
companies in Broadcast and Finance Industries and integrating them into the
operations of the erstwhile electrical and white-goods business. Welch prioritized
the chemical plant, turbines, heavy-duty and medical equipment business by leveraging
the GE heritage while acquiring strategic companies which were either
competitors or had critical skills needed to consolidate GE’s market growth.
The earnings of the business grew by well over a thousand percent before his
exit in 2001.
Furthermore, beyond following tradition or departing from tradition,
a CEO may decide to do a mix of both in order to bring back the spark in his /
her business—Robert Goizueta did just that at Coca-Cola. Goizuieta, a
Cuban-American, arrived as CEO of the Coca-Cola Company in 1981 at a time when
the company’s mystique had begun to wane as Coke was fast losing its market-share
to rival Pepsi. Immediately he got on the job, Goizuieta made a detour from
legacy by radically re-inventing the brand portfolios of the Coca-Cola Company,
essentially focusing on consumer preferences such as the need for less sugar, a
demand of the emerging health conscious consumer, positioning the diet range
for this class of people. He toyed with the age-long formula of Coke, making a
departure from what was the original mix by John Pemberton. This experiment
immediately raised a quest for the original coke taste, which he later brought
back as Coke Classic. This action drove sales northward and created exceptional
shareholder value never before witnessed in Coca-Cola’s contemporary history.
Aside from adopting a mix of tradition and inventiveness,
Goizuieta’s witty personality and grass to grace story, having arrived in
America as a Cuban immigrant and rising to the top of corporate America also
captured the popular imagination and broke down a lot of resistance to his
corporate moves while at the CEO suite at Coca-cola.
Bringing home the point I am making on the relationship
between the personality of the CEO and corporate success, let us look at the
story of Guaranty Trust Bank in Nigeria. A bank started by two young turks
seeking to change the banking landscape in Nigeria. Fola Adeola and Tayo
Adenirokun before venturing into owning a bank at the behest of the
liberalization of the Banking and Financial Services Industry by the General Ibrahim
Babangida regime, had jointly owned a barbing saloon and had used this
experiment to hone their skills as entrepreneurs as regards what a consumer
actually desires from a player in the service industry. While running the
barbing saloon, they discovered that central to the success of any service
business, is the ability to create a differentiated service experience. Based
on their antecedents as professional bankers, who had risen through the ranks,
they transferred their insights from running a barbing saloon into the banking
industry. Upon winning a banking license, they immediately raised service
experience, a value-added strategy that most bankers usually avoid in order to
save cost and created a value proposition which differentiated Guaranty Trust
from its competitors. Looking at the drab way in which service was delivered in
the banking halls of the old order, Fola and Tayo from the outset, resolved to
build banking halls with grandiloquent facades and boutique interior designs
which offered comfort and style and beyond ambience, also elevated customer
experience using people and technology. This apparently attracted the young and
young at heart. The strategy paid off because it immediately won converts to
this “new generation” banking style and it created exceptional shareholder
value in the process. It is note-worthy that despite Fola and Tayo’s exit from
the management of the Bank, this novel tradition continues today with the
result being the creation of a huge banking franchise that ranks as one of the
most efficient bank in the Nigerian banking industry in terms of cost to income
ratio and return on equity, easily defeating the earlier held notion that a
value-added strategy such as the like pursued by Tayo and Fola will make a bank
uncompetitive in terms of cost. That said, the magic at Guaranty Trust Bank did
not just happen, it took the over-riding influence of Fola Adeola and Tayo
Adenirokun – two out-going and cosmopolitan individuals – who created a system
which placed a premium on customer experience and pursued a strategy that
elevated customer value and changed the way banking service is delivered. It
did not take much for the magic at Guaranty Trust Bank to happen; it took the
personalities of the founders and successive CEO’s of the enterprise.
THE CORPORATE PERSONALITY - IS IT HUMAN OR INSTITUTIONAL?
From the fore-going, a critical question arises: is the
corporate personality human or institutional? This may appear to be a difficult
question, but I will attempt an answer.
a. Corporate Governance and the Institutional Route to Creating Value
Corporate Governance often lays water-tight rules which
prevent individuals from over-powering an enterprise. This perspective looks at
an enterprise as institutional citizen which must be protect and seeks to
create barriers which will mitigate the overpowering influence of individual(s)
over the enterprise, because such influence, when not exercised with a
conscience, often-times corrupts a system and destroys shareholder value.
Taking a cue from corporate history; with the movement of
business from Laissez-faire attitude at the advent of the industrial
revolution, to the era of corporate citizenship which dictates a need for the
operations of business to come under regulatory scrutiny and statutory
contributions to society in the form of taxes to government, to the era of
enlightened self-interest, which gave rise to corporate philanthropy; to the
era of Corporate Social Responsibility, which presupposes that because companies
draw their profits from society, they must of necessity exercise a duty of care
by giving back to society; and the most recent being the era of sustainability which preaches the need to ensure continuity
of business by ensuring that the social, economic and technological environment
in which businesses operate is not destroyed. Looking at developments through
these various epochs, corporate historians discovered that the concentration of
too much power in the hands of an individual in the quest at raising
shareholder value may be counter-productive as such individual in exercising
his discretion, if not checked by written corporate rules and the board which
needs to exercise the needed oversights, may become power drunk or corrupt. Therefore,
the thinking is that creating processes and procedures which defines the
corporate direction of an institution as opposed to allowing the discretion of
the CEO prevail all the time, is a better route to attaining year-on-year
growth and stability of the enterprise. Hence, the widely held notion CEO’s as individuals
operating within the corporate context must operate within an institutional
framework for corporate success.
However, the problem with this approach when rigidly followed
is that an enterprise may not be nimble and fast enough to re-invent itself in
the face of changes within the operating environment. We have seen businesses
such as IBM before Lou Gerstner and Apple before the comeback of Steve Jobs go
under because of the rigid application of the Institutional approach.
Let us look at the Apple story: Apple was founded by two young and ambitious
geeks – Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniack - who wanted to put the computer on every
table in America. Along the line, Apple needed venture capital to expand its operations
and this gave rise to a need to have an institutional framework with a board at
the head of the whole company’s structure. The board, aided by Steve Jobs
himself, appointed a CEO, John Sculley, who had a responsibility to expand
Apples product portfolio and market-share. Steve Jobs and John Sculley
disagreed on a number of issues regarding Apples product and marketing strategy
and given that John Sculley had garnered a lot of goodwill coming from his
success as a President in charge of operations and marketing at Pepsi, the
Apple board sided with John Sculley and Steve Jobs had to exit from the
business he founded. What followed Steve Jobs exit was years of near-misses and
outright blunders by Apple which Sculley’s exit and a succession of other CEO’s
could not fix until the comeback of Steve Jobs himself in the mid 1990’s. And
upon his arrival, the board agreed to take a back-seat and gave Steve Jobs a
free hand to re-launch Apple’s success, leading to the creation of the world’s
most valuable company before the death of Steve Jobs.
b. The CEO’s Personality Being Synonymous with the Enterprise
Beyond tight corporate governance, another school of thought
believes that the CEO’s personality and the corporate personality should be
subsumed in each other, in such a way that the CEO’s personality becomes the
hallmark of the brand and business.
Here the reference is Richard Branson and the Virgin brand
and Donald Trump and the Trump Organisation. Both personalities define their
enterprise and not just doing so, they continue to capture the popular
imagination because of their maverick and unusual approach to business. Both
personalities have grown their enterprise, surpassing expectations and creating
exceptional shareholder value. However, one critical risk that dogs this
approach is the key-man risk! A risk which comes as a result of placing so much
premium on the discretion and ability of one human being at the expense of other
variables which may catalyze corporate success. Hence the share price of such
enterprise will react either positively or negatively to physical and
intellectual as well as the psychological disposition and mortal existence of a
personality while tying it pungently to the enterprises they run. Imagine what
is today happening in Apple without Steve Jobs? Imagine how Samsung a company
without an eponymous character and a charismatic CEO is stealing Apple’s fire
and creating exceptional shareholder’s value at Apple’s expense? Imagine what
the situation would have been like if Steve Jobs were to be alive?
Striking a Balance – The
Asian Example
The scenario above shows that while the CEO has the power to
create exceptional shareholder value, he or she also has the power to destroy
value and given the need to keep value growing, organizations need to strike
the right balance.
Let’s look at the success of Asian companies like Toyota, Honda,
Tata, Samsung, LG and Hyundai. Let’s consider the context in which these
companies grew to become global power-houses in their industries. It is glaring
that a lot of these companies focused on building systems as opposed to
promoting the CEO’s image.
An example is Toyota’s focus on six sigma as part of its
quality assurance and customer experience strategy; building automobile
products that outperformed their American counterpart and not only dominating
the American market and giving Detroit a run for its money but also conquering
the world.
Another example is Samsung, a global Original Equipment
Manufacturer, Mobile Phone and Electrical Appliance Company, which leveraged
its access to cheap but skilled labour to create a scale and a scope advantage
which its western competitors could not beat even with offshoring and
outsourcing. Samsung built a learning organization, one that was receptive to
changes within its external environment, adaptive to new trends and nimble and
fast in its market roll-out.
It must be noted that one critical fact that cannot be
controverted is that all the successes recorded by these Asian companies is
that success cannot be traced to just one individual as opposed to the
Hollywood styled CEO’s in corporate America, but rather to systems and
processes with a usually unseen and oftentimes uncelebrated eponymous character working behind the scene
and leading change, while embarking on an aggressive succession plan which
leaves no room for the erosion of corporate value upon his or her exit.