Creative Methods for Innovative Leaders

The June 2017 Leadership Training programme involved a workshop from Professor Mihaela Kelemen of Keele Management School. Professor Kelemen is the founding director of the Community Animation and Social Innovation Centre: a research centre which crosses traditional academic disciplines and works with local communities.

Professor Kelemen delivered an astonishingly creative session for our Mercia Centre for Innovation Leadership participants: 22 owners of innovative, growth-oriented firms from the Staffordshire area. Sue Moffat, the Director of the New Vic Borderlines, co-delivered the workshop with the professionalism expected of an experienced theatre director.

The theme of the workshop was Leadership in a Liquid Modern World: specifically, how SME owners could work with their teams to create an imaginative vision for their organisation.

The CASIC method, entitles Cultural Animation, uses playful, experiential exercises to create connections between participants, allowing them to step outside their day job as SME leaders.

MCIL participants creating an illustration of leadership
MCIL participants creating an illustration of leadership

In the image above, a group of SME owners created a beehive to illustrate the nature of a busy firm, where all the staff had an important role in creating value. The collaborative and hard-working nature of the firm could easily be understood through the analogy of the beehive.

Participants quickly learned that, despite the seriousness of the leadership themes, the creative nature of the exercises helped them see problems in a new way.

In other exercises, participants were asked to dramatise their leadership style: the image is the prelude to a group “high five” from one of the SME leaders, who has a participative and supportive leadership style:

2017-06-16 10.53.55
Group “high five” shows a supportive leadership style

The CASIC method was a powerful learning methodology: participants felt invigorated, challenged, but also much closer to each other as a result. Leadership programmes such as MCIL often show that improved networks are one of the most long-lasting outcomes. CASIC has certainly played an important role in helping participants learn to trust and work with each other, through creative play.

Stay private or go public? Firm funding strategies.

Innovative, growth-oriented firms, such as those on the Mercia Centre for Innovation Leadership project, often require additional funding. This could be to finance innovative new projects or to fund employee and capital equipment growth. This post looks at the advantages of going public versus staying private. (A longer version of this article was published in The Conversation)

Control over executive pay

First, founders and bosses get full control over senior executive pay. Because a small group of existing shareholders dictate who buys the shares, it makes it far less likely that activist shareholders will reject controversial pay awards.

Avoiding red tape

Staying private also avoids the onerous disclosure requirements from stock exchanges. Some companies fear that a small failing in due diligence could lead to troublesome interest from regulators, or even expulsion from a stock exchange.

High costs of firm listings

The costs can be significant too. A firm listing on London’s AIM stock exchange for small companies will have to pay in the region of £350,000-£400,000, with a further 6% of any funds raised being paid to brokers.

 

Public vs private.jpg

 

With these incentives to stay private, why go to the markets at all? The public markets are still the ultimate destination for a number of reasons.

Regulatory requirements

Prior to the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012, firms in the US had to go public if they had more than 500 shareholders. This is the ruling that forced Facebook to go public in search of more capital. Now that firms can have up to 2000 shareholders, fewer firms need to go to the public markets. Yet growth-oriented companies will still, eventually, have to go public.

 

Promises made to staff and investors

Innovative, growth-oriented firms often extract long hours from staff and patience from investors by promising shares when the firm eventually goes to the markets. Staff and investors cannot be placated indefinitely if they are waiting to cash in their shares.

Recruitment of top talent

Going public can also be a stimulus to recruit top talent. A company preparing for IPO is advised to bring in the best CEO and chief financial officer one to two years before so they can build relationships and galvanise staff.

Companies can also derive a moral benefit from the transparency of public markets. This is particularly true of growing global stars, like Uber and AirBnB, that are changing employment and social practices. A broad base of public ownership is more democratic than ownership by wealthy and invisible individuals. In the increasingly fractured world described in the June training session, companies need to demonstrate they deserve the trust of the public.

Following Your Vision

This is the excerpt for your very first post.

This post describes the first workshop on vision and strategy: creating a vision is essential for developing a strategy.  The strategy then becomes a roadmap for enabling innovation and growth. The session was delivered by Professor Kurt Allman and Phil Johnson from Keele Management School.  Both academics are experienced in developing strategy with SMEs and drew on their personal experience to lend authenticity to  this inaugural workshop.

The workshop focussed on how to engage in innovation through a strategic lens. Despite importance of innovation for business growth, the majority of SMEs in the United Kingdom are not planning to innovate. This surprising result is evidenced by the Small Business Survey, 2015 which found that only 48% of SMEs were planning to introduce new products and services in the next 3 years.  While 48% is a small increase from 2014, where only 42% SMEs were planning to innovate, it is worrying that the majority of SMEs are not planning to innovate.  The use of structure and planning results in better innovation: failing to plan means planning to fail (Slater, Mohr, & Sengupta, 2014). Also worrying is that a recent research report from the ONS found that that smaller businesses in the UK are less likely to engage in structured planning (Office for National Statistics, 2017).

So, given that innovation has long been linked to firm growth (Schumpeter, 1934) and that structured planning helps innovation, what tools are available to help an SME owner to develop a structure for growth and innovation.

Kurt and Phil introduced a simple strategy model based on the influential work of Michael Porter (1980). This model aligns a business along the axes of competitive advantage (“cheap and cheerful” or “high quality”) and competitive scope (as broad a base of customers as possible or being highly selective about which customers to target).

Strategy Model

Adapted from Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analysing Industries an Competitors The Free Press by Michael E. Porter, copyright 1980, 1998 by the Free Press.

A luxury brand, such as Porsche, would go for “Differentiation” by targeting their marketing to a relative few wealthy customers while also investing in a highly specialised product. A low-cost brand, such as Lidl, would market to as wide an audience as possible while investing in logistics and price control to produce a high number of low-cost goods.

The participants revealed that they, like many SMEs, are “stuck in the middle”. Many of our business owners have chosen a hybrid strategy which involves keeping  their options open. They do not want to deter potential customers by becoming too expensive. Our manufacturing business owners were also reluctant to invest heavily in expensive operational cost controls which would keep their prices down. Kurt and Phil warned that the danger is that an SME can be out-performed by companies who have decided on a single strategy.  And are pursuing it ruthlessly. The advice to SMEs for strategy selection was therefore: ensure you have  a strong understanding of the culture of your organisation, what your customers want, what your competitors are doing, and what legal and economic changes may be coming your way. In other words, choose to be “stuck in the middle” with your eyes wide open.

So how do you think SMEs should create a vision for growth? What tools could help SME owners map out their vision? Does it matter than an SME approaches innovation and growth without a clear strategic plan?

 

Further Reading

Office for National Statistics. (2017). Management practices and productivity among manufacturing businesses in Great Britain: Experimental estimates for 2015. Newport.

Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry Into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Piscataway, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Slater, S. F., Mohr, J. J., & Sengupta, S. (2014). Radical Product Innovation Capability: Literature Review, Synthesis, and Illustrative Research Propositions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 552–566.