[ad_1]
In September 2017, Julian Dunkerton, co-founder of Superdry, was questioned about the problem "What would you like to have that you do not currently own?" "I do not really like that much," he replied, badessing his level of satisfaction in life at 10 out of 10.
It was then. At present, there is no doubt that the entrepreneur aspires to sit on the board of the branded clothing company he founded, having left his exasperated post last year. He told me that he would only recover that perfect satisfaction if, at an extraordinary meeting tomorrow, he persuaded his shareholders to resettle him at the head of the product and brand, as part of from a plan to revive the group down.
The desire for success of founders of companies is a basic strength. They aspire to change the world, to be the best, to create and sell more products to more satisfied customers. This lust is however overwhelmed by their desperate need to protect what they have created when it is threatened.
The sensation is even stronger when the name of the founder is on the door – and the founder looks out. Designer Diane von Furstenberg told me last year how she suffered from having her brand diluted in the 1980s and 1990s after selling fashion. business. Tim Waterstone repeatedly tried, unsuccessfully, to buy back the bookstores that bore his name when HMV owned the channel.
Steve Morgan, founder of Redrow, made a comeback in 2009, eight years after leaving the British home builder to pursue other interests. His return, like that of Mr. Dunkerton to Superdry, opposed the board of directors of the day. The company "was my baby and you do not stay out of the way to see it in trouble". Speaking last week, on his last day in Redrow before his final retirement, he recalled: "I could see everything that was wrong and I was very frustrated because I did not could do nothing about it. "
Once back in the chair, Morgan changed Redrow's strategy and pulled it out of the depths of the financial crisis. In his presentation to investors, Dunkerton named him as one of the many kings of the successful return, from Steve Jobs at Apple to the eponymous entrepreneur Michael Dell.
A theory, published in 2014 and based on examples such as Apple and Dell, highlights two essential conditions for a successful return of the founder: the performance of the company must deteriorate and the succession planning of the CEO must to be badly spent. A founder – especially if he is still part of the board, has links with the directors and owns a significant share of the stock – then becomes the obvious solution to the problem.
But just as often, founders can be a source of thorns for boards of directors who are trying to open a new era or change their strategy. Leonardo del Vecchio, the octogenarian founder of the Italian Luxottica, has shown repeated reluctance to step back from his creation. It continues to weigh all its weight, even after the merger of the eyewear company and lens manufacturer Essilor. True, his holding company is the largest shareholder in the group and he is the executive chairman. But his recent attacks on his counterpart Essilor are more motivated by an unquenchable entrepreneurial desire and the founder's control instinct. As an investor said, he "would not bet against a self-proclaimed billionaire orphan," such as Mr. del Vecchio.
The founders have other ways of keeping control. Stelios Haji-Ioannou, founder of easyJet, retains a stake in the low-cost airline and the ownership of the "easy" brand. He used his term to express himself when he felt the name was in jeopardy.
Technological entrepreneurs such as Jack Ma, Mark Zuckerberg and, more recently, the founders of the carpool company, Lyft, have used new shareholding structures to ensure their control in the future.
Entrepreneurs would not be what they were if they did not think they always had more to offer. "By definition, they're idiosyncratic," says Ryan Krause of the Neeley School of Business, co-author of the 2014 paper. "Exactly."
Rare people – Steve Jobs was one – adapt brilliantly to the new conditions. Executives and investors who join them for the benefit The problem of the rigid and lasting protection of these people is that it is impossible to predict when, or even if, the fizz of the founder will disappear. Sometimes their superpowers fade or, as Superdry's board claims in Mr. Dunkerton's case, they fail to apply their original winning strategies to a changing market. If necessary, boards should be able to invite the founders and keep them at hand.
Mr. Morgan left Redrow voluntarily in 2000. He told me last week that if "I knew then what I know now, I would never have left". In a word, this is the dilemma. In the case of Redrow, a return was richly justified. But it is also easy to convince adherent founders to convince parents to stop worrying about their adult children.
Twitter: @andrewtghill
[ad_2]
Source link
