In executive search at the conclusion of the selection process two things happen; a candidate is either offered the position or they are not. Usually there are many factors why a candidate finishes second; perceived personal or professional shortcomings are often factors communicated as determining items (interpreted correctly or misinterpreted) often surfaced in the momentary pressure of an interview. Sometimes one candidate totally eclipses another through the weight or preciseness of their experiences on what is perceived they bring to the table under the circumstances of fortunate timing. Yet in this new energy age that is unfolding, I am finding another separation component that is becoming quite evident, namely----"sustainability". What is it, how it is deeply understood how sustainability is a tangible consequence in operating a profitable growing business in today’s global economy.
Recently I have placed three C-level individuals in the cleantech sector and had one finish second. Looking back it was each individual's deep understandings of sustainability and how that was reflected in the business opportunity they were being presented with and the value propositions the company's possessed going forward in this new market place. Let me explain deeper.
Sustainability is not something that can be learned reading an article or researching what a company's stated position is with firms actively focused in developing cleantech businesses, it is something that permeates their entire business philosophy. It is analogous to how Microsoft or Intel or Silicon Graphics developed their corporate structures at the dawn of the Information Age three decades ago. They were evangelistic about incorporating IT into every business system they had, pushing the envelope and being both the example and experimenting with a fully integrated business model.
In the same light sustainability is more than a PR concept for cleantech companies, it is what makes them different and why ultimately senior executives chosen to lead those companies must be fully versed in what that means and how it projects to the future of the marketplace and the firm's ultimate corporate culture. Sustainability means that the future is a clean carbon footprint as the ultimate goal in conducting a profitable business. To the previous generation this sounds "impracticable" (quoting the recent Bush Administration statement about the proposed new carbon emissions targeted to be 50% of 1990 total by 2050). Yet to the new cleantech world reducing carbon emissions to this level or less is not only practicable, but profitable. Translated into fiscal measures, not unlike the investment into IT which fostered extraordinary gains in worker productivity's replacing direct labor costs of whole workforce divisions of support labor, cleantech offers the same direct costs replacement and a extraordinary return on resource investments.
How does this translate into 2007 considerations of executives attempting to transfer into or lead cleantech businesses with experiences in non-cleantech industries---plenty, it is the difference maker. This is no doubt in my mind that C-level, VP-level and even senior management professionals who are only superficially cognizant of sustainability will either not be offered the position if up against a competitive candidate who is or the eventually the hire or the client company will not ultimately succeed into the cleantech market.
My last three hires all prevailed because of this component where sustainability was not only identified but their attitude considered superior to all the other candidates, My one second-place finisher failed in this area but was seemingly superior in other areas of consideration. Looking back at earlier searches in cleantech related industries, the same thread has run through as a decision component although I did not recognize it as such then. My potential clients access my attitude towards sustainability as part of an overall assessment of my capabilities in this field. It is more than lip service and anyone denying it is fooling themselves. We are at the dawn of a new age and it is exciting and compelling. Consequentely I will be adding this to my overall assessment of viable candidates also. So I ask the reader, how can you translate the value of sustainability into a businesses' value proposition?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Bob,
let me address your last question - "So I ask the reader, how can you translate the value of sustainability into a businesses' value proposition?"
My experience, coming out of the
SC Johnson family of companies, has been that there are two different approaches to sustainability.
1 - Minimize the impact of your operations on the environment
2 - Actually provide products, services, and technologies that improve the environment
#1
SC Johnson's consumer company has always taken this first approach to sustainabilty. Minimizing the impact on the environment is a high priority and in the long run even benefits the company financially. Their move to replace CFC's in aerosols 20 years before the rest of the pack is a great example. A very expensive move, but eventually it was recognized as a benefit by consumers, and the lower cost of propellant even gave them a competitive advantage. They do other things as well like burning gas from the local land fill to fire boilers.
You've probably even seen Walmart move in this same direction lately. For all the Walmart bashing that goes on, I've been to Bentonville and they have created an amazing passion within that company for reducing the environmental footprint of bringing consumer goods to market. And as my depression era parents always said, waste not -want not. By reducing wasteful packaging practices Walmart is reducing the cost of some prodcts even further.
#2
I had the good fortune to work in one of the Johnson companies that practiced the second approach. Johnson Polymer, a recent BASF acquisition, exisited for the sole purpose of replacing solvent based polymers in printing inks and paints. How exciting to work for a company that was constantly tying to develop new products so that even more VOC(volatile organic compounds known to produce ground level ozone and smog)containing products could be repalced with water. We never quite got to the place where high end publications could be printed water, but many types of packaging and most paints are now water based or low VOC.
However, would you believe that National Geographic is still printed with solvent ink - even with plant level capture technology, the ink still retains tons (literally) of solvents that are later released into the environment during shipping and handling.
Both approaches are noble. Who can argue with reducing the environmental footprint of a companies operations. But from my experience, the real reward is in operating a business that actually helps to improve the environment.
Best Regards,
Mike Dalton
Guided Innovation Group, LLC
www.GuidedInnovation.com
Post a Comment