Re:Focus

If You Want To Attract The Best Talent, Give Them A Cause To Champion

Wanted: Talented executive to rebuild the economy for the next 100 years.

Since the decline in our economy, a remarkable opportunity has arisen – to redefine how banking works in this country if not the world for decades to come. If you have ideas about  the ways a large US-based financial institution needs to change the way it operates to avoid another meltdown and sustain growth and lead the world into a new era, then we’d like to hear from you.  The pay is competitive and very handsome bonuses are available if sustainable success is achieved.  

Do you have what it takes?    

What kind of person do you think the above ad would attract?

Recently five executives at the AIG insurance company announced they would resign if the government restricted their pay to $500,000 per year.  Bank of America is complaining that unless they can pay whatever they want, they will not get the talent they need to right the company.

And that’s where they are completely wrong.

If money is the primary lure to get someone to join a company, then it will attract those candidates who are attracted to money as the primary incentive to show up and not for the real reason the company needs them - to change the way they do business.  Offer someone the opportunity to rebuild a company or reinvent an industry as the primary incentive and it will attract those drawn to the challenge first and the money second.  And which would you rather have running the company?  

More importantly, after an economic downturn caused in large part to a money-first mentality, who do you think we should hand the keys to now? The executive driven by the cause or the one driven by the money?

We're all so offended by how much bankers pay themselves that we've lost sight of the real issue. Money, even obscene amounts of it, is not the problem. But it should be the reward for building strong, long-term sustainable organizations and not given as the primary motivation for showing up or simply making the quarter or even the year. That's the strategy that drove Lehman Brothers into the ground and caused the mess in the first place.

There is nothing wrong with compensating someone handsomely for the work they do and the results they achieve, but not in a vacuum.  Money is a short-term result that incentivizes short-term decision making.  A cause is something that lasts and is the foundation of sustainability. 

As we’ve all had to suffer in the economic downturn, it falls to us to speak out louder and demand that the banks hire executives inspired to be a part of something bigger than themselves over those who demand something bigger  before they feel inspired.  If we don’t, start saving your pennies for the next collapse in 10 years time.  

As the would-be CEO of Bank of America, I'm pleased to hear the deal fell apart over a debate over compensation.  Though I'm disappointed to hear the executives at AIG won their argument – I hoped they would quit and find better paying jobs at less influential companies in less important industries.  That way we'd all get what we want. 

When The Two Parties In A Two Party System Don't Know Why They Exist

Republicans are completely befuddled by Obama’s “star power” and don’t seem to have a clear or effective strategy to compete. Though they are able to coordinate their messages better than Democrats, absent a leader who can clearly articulate a Republican vision for America, the only thing they can do is attack, attack, attack.

Democrats have a leader who defies all the political odds. Obama became president with little experience, he’s making headway reforming health care, and won a Noble Peace Prize which, even he admits, he probably didn’t deserve. But as a party, they bicker, they can’t coordinate messages and they seem more obsessed with “setting the record straight” than advancing their vision for America. Absent the ability to focus, the best they can muster is defend, defend, defend (and sometimes, maybe, if it’s not too harsh – attack).

Leadership is not derived from having the loudest voice or the biggest base.  Leadership isn’t about having all the answers or having all your i’s dotted and t’s crossed. Leadership doesn’t necessarily even come from simply having your name on the door. True leadership comes from inspiring people to focus on where they are going, not fighting against whatever is happening now.  This is what it means to offer a “vision for America.” This is what it means to inspire. 

Democrats are flummoxed by Republicans ability to stall or redirect progress. No matter the message Democrats develop, Republicans almost always come up with a better sound bite for the headlines. The Democrats response throughout the healthcare debate? Give the people more statistics.

Republicans are perplexed how Obama’s star shines so brightly. No matter how much they attack, Obama seems to keep moving forwards. Just this week, we learned the Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) supported the health care bill in the finance committee. The Republican response? Attack Olympia Snowe.

But neither party does a good job of contextualizing why they have the opinions they do in the first place. Both care about America, both believe in upholding the values laid down by our forefathers. Both are deeply patriotic.  And both know why America exists – it’s all about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The difference lies in how they think we should deliver on that American Dream. Though both parties know why America exists, neither party can tell you why they exist.

Republicans are the party of “I”. They believe the responsibility of government is to support those who pursue the American Dream – which is why their policies have historically favored the rich and businesses. Buried in the pages of their newly designed website, the RNC hints at why the Republican Party exists, “The Republican Party is inspired by the power of ingenuity of the individual to succeed through hard work, family support and self-discipline.” Instead of opening their website with their cause, with their Why, there is a video about how bad America is doing and how bad Obama is. It’ll make you angry, it may rally a crowd…but it’s not inspiring. It’s not leadership

Democrats are the party of “we.”  They believe the responsibility of government is to try to help everyone pursue the American Dream – which is why their policies have historically favored labor and the poor.  Buried in the pages of the DNC website they also hint at why the Democratic Party exists, “The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American.” Instead of leading with their cause, with their Why, one of the first things is a section called “Call ‘em out” devoted to correcting the lies being spread by Republicans.

Instead of trying to plan the next attack strategy, it may benefit the Republican Party to try to understand why Obama's star shines so brightly. After all, it is this “star quality” that Republicans attribute to Obama’s winning the Nobel Peace prize last week – an observation that would be entirely correct. I understand why Republican leadership invests so much money and energy trying to dim his star, but the benefit to trying to understand it and even learn how to turn up the wattage of one of your own is not only better for the Republican Party, it’s better for the country. A strategy of attack, attack, attack – from either party – inhibits progress and divides us as a nation. 

Though he's not always perfect at expressing it, Obama has a vision for America, one born out of optimism, that comes out whenever he gives big speeches. Sadly, that’s the only time it does. He believes that any people, no matter how divergent their differences, can always find common ground to advance a common cause. He believes America can work together to mend its economy. “Yes we can.” He believes that America can come together to reform healthcare. “Yes we can.” He believes the nations of the world can come together to find common understanding. “Yes we can.” And it is his optimism in this belief that inspires and gives him his star quality. Democrats need to focus around Obama’s vision and focus their message and energy on drafting legislation that will breath life into the vision.

Republicans don’t need to look to Obama to learn how to make a star. Go back and study Ronald Reagan – a visionary leader who confounded Democrats at the time with his own star quality. Reagan spoke about “morning in America” – he oozed an optimism for what America could be. Reagan had an undying belief that each American has the ability to make their own lives better if they put our minds to it. In stark contrast, the modern Republican Party defines itself by what it’s not rather than what it is.  Republicans need an optimistic leader who can present an alternative vision for America’s future instead of just rallying against Obama’s vision of it.

The way the two party system is supposed to work is that both parties present their vision for America and then the people will choose which they believe best suits them based on the challenges they face at the times.  Sometimes we want to celebrate the ingenuity of the individual – like in the booming ‘80s and sometimes we feel the need to band together and work to support those who can’t support themselves – like in times of war, economic crisis and when the social security and health care systems are ailing.

I’ve studied great leaders and great organizations, those with the ability to inspire. And they all have something in common. Regardless of their party or their politics, unrelated to their business or their industry – they all think, act and communicate the exact same way, and it’s the complete opposite to everyone else.  In all cases, the “stars” clearly communicate an optimistic vision of the future, they tell us why they do what they do. It is so clear that the rest of us know why they do what they do also, even if we disagree with the specifics of how they aim to do it. When there is clarity of Why, those who believe the same will take it upon themselves to join the cause. A following, by its definition, are those who share a common set of values and beliefs. This is the reason great leaders command a loyal following.

Democrats have a leader with a vision, but lack focus. Republicans are focused but lack a leader with a vision. Perhaps, in a day-and-age when both parties can only point at each other and define themselves as “not that,” we need a president who can find their common ground. Yes he can.

To learn more about how great leaders lead, read Simon's new book Start With Why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action, available for pre-order now and on shelves Oct 29th.

This post originally appeared on the HuffingtonPost

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-sinek/when-the-two-parties-of-a_b_321568.html

If You Want To Rally People, Don't Bore Them With Facts

Leadership is only part vision. The other part is the ability to communicate that vision. President Obama is failing to lead America into a new era of healthcare reform not for lack of vision, but because he's not talking about it properly. Worse, he's starting to sound like "just another Democrat."

Too many Democratic politicians suffer from an under-diagnosed and often incurable affliction - Democrats Disease; that insatiable need to always want to "correct the facts" and "set the record straight." Democrats often seem more concerned with being technically right than advancing their cause. Though it is important to have all your t's crossed and i's dotted, the facts never inspire people to rally for a cause...which is exactly what the President needs America to do.

What inspires people to raise their hands to volunteer to make change happen is the feeling of being a part of something larger than any individual. A noble cause. What's more, that noble cause must be stated in terms that people can relate to - i.e. themselves. Ronald Reagan, a great communicator, understood this better than most. He was the first president to invite a "hero" to sit in the balcony during the State of the Union address to personify the benefits of a policy - a tradition that has continued in every single State of the Union since.

In his recent speech to a joint session of Congress, Obama started to make his case for national health care reform by laying out some numbers. "We are the only democracy," he implored, "the only advanced democracy on Earth -- the only wealthy nation -- that allows such hardship for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone."

Though I appreciate that he is trying to tell Americans that we need to do this because it could happen to you, unfortunately, all those big numbers get in the way of the message. What most people actually heard was, "you have to be responsible for giving insurance to 30 million people." No wonder there is so much animosity to such an idea - it sounds big, expensive and nearly impossible.

More important than the number of people without insurance or what the statistics might prove, is the answer to the question why? Why should I bother? Charity and goodwill on a massive scale are not good enough reasons to take the risky journey into the unknown. This cause can only be championed with relevant, human language not statistical reasons to act.
Obama defended the fuzzy (and dare I say socialist sounding) language of a "public option" by saying that fewer than 5% of people would need it. If that is the case, then he should have used language that communicated why we need a public option in the first place. Call it, "assistance for extreme cases," for example. Without any statistics, this revised language clearly communicates that such a system would not be a financial burden on the general population. Facts and stats should only ever be used to reinforce a message not define it.

The President has a clear vision of what American could look like if his plans are enacted. The irony is that he has had to spend too much time to set the facts straight because he wasted so much time making a rational case for "national health care reform," instead of rallying the country to look forwards and find a way "to provide a doctor for every child." Clear, simple language that explains why this matters to America.

This article originally appeared in the Huffington Post

The Best Leaders Show Up For The Cause Not The Result

Offering CEO's big money to come and run companies does not guarantee great leadership. In fact, the practice may attract the wrong leaders altogether.

With banks failing, the auto-industry in a mess and Steve Jobs returning to work after his secretive liver transplant, it's a good time to raise the subject of succession again.  

Wall Street was quite upset that Apple was so close to the vest about Jobs's health.  And well they should be, the last time Jobs left in 1985, the company slumped and didn't re-emerge as the powerhouse they are now until Jobs returned to the helm a decade later. But Jobs's health is irrelevant. Cancer or new livers aside, the fact is he can't lead the company forever and knowing how to find a good leader to succeed him is important.

But Apple is just one of many succession conundrums.  Many of the banks are sailing rudderless into the future as are companies like AIG, Chrysler and GM. Rick Wagoner, for example, was ousted from GM for mismanaging the company, only to be replaced by a man who, well, lets just say he's not much of an inspiring leader. And given the desperate need for real leadership these days, there is an ongoing debate in boardrooms and on Capitol Hill about how much we should pay these leaders for their contributions. 

The argument is that companies can not attract the best leaders, the leaders they need, unless they are very well compensated. And that, believe it or not, is actually the problem.  The flaw in the logic is that the best leaders do it for the money, which they don't.  Great leaders show up for the challenge or the cause. The bad leaders show up for the money.

Instead of finding someone with an impressive resume who is willing to help if you pay him or her enough, imagine if the Obama administration made this appeal:

The recent economic melt-down has taught us a valuable lesson - that the way we did things in the past is not the way we can do things in the future. We may have enjoyed the short term riches of the past decade or more, but we have done so by weakening the very foundations of our corporations and indeed our economy.

Now is the time for change.  Now is the time for new ideas and new leaders to emerge to rebuild our economy and our nation so that we may, once again, be the beacon of how a great free market economy should run.

We are looking for the men and woman who want to help shape the corporations of the future and help build the new American economy. The salary will not be big. The challenge will be great. And the opportunity to influence the future of our county is real.

Are you up for the challenge?  If so, please contact President Obama and tell him you want to lead.

Such an appeal does not mean that prior experience is ignored, it just means it is considered second to the leaders desire to help.  If a leader shows up for the cause, they will work with blood, sweat and tears and they will inspire those around them to do the same.  If the leader does not believe in the cause, then they will work for the money.  The very fact that got us into this mess in the first place.

Click here to download a PDF version of this article

This blog also appeared in The Huffington Post

Why So Many Successions Don't Succeed

There were three words missing from Bill Gates’ goodbye speech when he officially left Microsoft in July of this year.  They are three words he probably doesn’t even realize need to be there.  Three little words:

“I’ll be back.”

After abdicating his role as the head of Microsoft to Steve Balmer in 2000, Bill Gates has completely relinquished influence over the company he built so he can lend more time and energy to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  But Gates forgot to do one thing that would allow his plan to work. This one oversight could have a devastating impact on Microsoft and will require him to come back in 3 to 5 years to right the ship.

 Bill Gates is special.  Not because of his brain or his management style.  Though important, those two things alone are not the formula for building a multi-billion dollar corporation from scratch.  Like all visionary leaders, Bill Gates is special because he physically embodies what he believes.

When Gates founded Microsoft just over 30 years ago, he did so to advance a higher cause.  A noble purpose.  He believes that technology is the great equalizer.  Give people the right tools, make people more productive, and everyone, no matter their lot in life, will have an opportunity to achieve their real potential.  “A PC in every home and on every desk,” he envisioned (which is remarkable from a company that didn’t make PCs).  He saw the PC as the great equalizer. Microsoft’s most successful software, Windows, allowed anyone to have access to powerful technology. Tools like Word, Excel and PowerPoint, gave everyone the power to realize the promise of the new technology – to become more efficient and productive.  Small businesses, for example, could look and act like big businesses.  Microsoft’s software are the tools that helped Gates advance his cause to empower the “every man.”  It was Gates who is responsible for the advancement of personal computer.  Gates put a PC on every desk and in doing so he changed the world. 

Gates is important to Microsoft because he physically embodies his vision.  He is the “every man.”  He dresses like you and me.  He drives his own car.  He is understated.  He his not flamboyant with his wealth. Bill Gates is the original vision of Microsoft.

So what happens now that he’s gone?

Such a departure is not without precedent among companies with equally visionary leaders.  Steve Jobs, a man who personifies the notion of challenging the status quo, who is the physical embodiment of “Think Different,” left Apple in 1985 to start Next.  He left the company in the hands of a capable executive, Pepsi’s John Scully.  The problem was, Scully ran the company as a business and not as a tool to achieve a higher purpose.  The company thrived on Jobs’s fumes for a few years and then it started to falter.  Not until Job’s return in 1996 did Apple reinstate it’s power for innovation, for thinking different and to, once again, redefine industries.

Michael Dell had a cause.  One he didn’t effectively communicate before he stepped down as CEO in July, 2004.  And when the company started to weaken with him gone, he came back in fewer than 3 years.  In 2000 Howard Schultz resigned as CEO of Starbucks.  And for the first time in it’s history, Starbucks started to crack.  Schultz returned in 2007 to put things right. 

Jobs, Dell, Schultz and Gates are not God’s gift to management.  Their companies are thousands of people deep and they alone can’t pull all the strings or push all the buttons to make everything work properly.  They rely on the brains and the management skills of teams of people.  In this respect, they are no different from any other executive.  But what they all have in common, something not all CEOs have, is that they physically embody the cause around which they built their companies.  Their mere existence reminds every executive and every employee why they show up to work.  Put simply: they inspire. 

Like Bill Gates, these inspired leaders failed to properly articulate their cause in words that others could rally around.  And as a result, they are the only ones who could lead their movement.  But they still have the same challenge – what happens when they leave again? 

  

The best thing Dell, Schultz and Jobs can do while they are back is to make sure that everyone knows why the company was founded in the first place.  What’s the cause they are there to champion?  What movement are they leading?  Why should anyone care? 

Schultz hasn’t done it yet. He is back at Starbucks talking about coffee.  There aren’t many employees at Starbucks who are truly inspired by coffee.  In fact, if you go back to the history of Starbucks, it wasn’t even coffee that originally excited Schultz, it was opening coffee shops.  It was the vision of building a space between work and home that allowed Starbucks to single-handedly drive a coffee-shop culture in the United States. Talking about coffee will not re-energize employees at Starbucks and it will not drive innovation.  And, more importantly, it will not prepare the company for when Schultz leaves again.  Schultz needs to refocus the company around the coffee shop experience, not the product they serve.

Gates made the same mistake.  As the company grew, he stopped talking about what he believed and how he was going to change the world and started talking about what the company was doing.  Microsoft changed.  Founded as a company that believed in making people more productive so they could achieve their highest potential they became a company that simply made software products.  Such a seemly subtle change impacts behaviors.  It alters decisions.  And it impacts how a company structures itself for the future.  Though Microsoft has changed since its founding, the impact was not as dramatic because at least Bill Gates was there, the physical embodiment of the cause that inspired his executives and employees.
But now he’s gone.

Gates left to do something else that also embodies his cause – to use the Gates Foundation to help people around the world wake up everyday to achieve their potential.  The only difference is he’s not doing with software anymore.  Steve Balmer, a smart man by all accounts, does not physically embody Gates’ vision of the world.  Balmer is not seen as a humble man.  He is not “one of us.”  He has an image as a powerful executive who sees numbers and not people.  Like John Scully at Apple, Jim Donald at Starbucks and Kevin Rollins at Dell – all the CEOs who replaced the visionary founders – Balmer might be the perfect man to work alongside a visionary but is he the perfect man to replace one?  The entire culture of all these companies was built around one man’s vision.  The only succession plan that will work is to find a CEO who believes in and wants to continue to lead that movement, not replace it with their own vision of the future. Balmer knows how to rally the company but can he inspire it? 

Successful succession is more than selecting someone with an appropriate skill set, it’s about finding someone who is in lock-step with the original cause around which the company was founded.  Great second or third CEOs don’t take the helm to implement their own vision of the future, they pick up the original banner and lead the company into the next generation.  That’s why we call it succession, not replacement.  There is a continuity of vision.

Gates’ departure from Microsoft is no different from the founder/CEO departures at Starbucks, Dell and Apple.  If Microsoft does not clearly articulate the cause around which the company was built, then no matter who takes over, Gates will have to come back in 3 to 5 years.  Like the other examples, he will need to return to remind everyone the cause by simply being Bill.  If that cause is not clearly articulated and if Gates doesn’t come back, then Microsoft probably only has about 5-7 good years left before it starts to look like AOL, Netscape or Yahoo – other once-mighty forces who, after the vision left with their respective founders, floundered about only to become irrelevant in the long-term shaping of an economy.

Have fun in Africa Bill and see you in a few years.


This piece also appeared in The Huffington Post.

I Miss Starbucks

Want to know what's going on with Starbucks?  Like so many companies that achieve such levels of success, Why the company was founded in the first place has been forgotten.  The cause that drove them to change American culture has now become something much less inspiring - now, it's all about What they do.  A company devoted to "the third space" is now just selling coffee.

The following is a letter I sent last week to Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks (his version didn't have the picture...otherwise it's a carbon copy).

July 29, 2008

Dear Howard:

I miss Starbucks.

There was a time, not too long ago, that Starbucks stood for something.  There was an underlying cause, a purpose, a belief you had about the world.  It was that idea that I bought, not the coffee.  And it was inspiring.

But those days are gone. 

Now it’s about coffee and money.  Lets be honest, it’s an open debate if Starbucks coffee is really better (and even if it is, I can get about the same from someone else).  And the money?  Well, as soon as a company starts focusing on the money, they certainly can’t focus on the customer experience. 

It’s pretty remarkable.  Starbucks is signally responsible for creating a coffee shop culture in America.  Starbucks didn’t bring coffee to the United States – it brought the coffee shop experience – the third space, you called it.  The space between home and work. People bought into the Starbucks belief – I know I did.  Your cause was clear and your actions proved it.  But over time the cause has lost its clarity, and your actions prove it.    

There was a time when you invited people to spend time in the third space – giving those who wanted to stay a ceramic cup and ceramic plate.  But then a focus on the money started to erode that purpose.  Certain decisions started to muddy the cause...dilute the belief.  And paper cups became the standard.  Nothing says to a customer, “we love you now get out” like a paper cup.  It started to be about the coffee and not about the experience.  It’s no longer about the third space.

I hope you rediscover why you do what you do.  I hope you once again become a champion for your cause, not just a purveyor of caffeinated drinks.  I miss the third space.  I’m not telling you anything you don’t know, in fact, it was you who told me over the past 20 years what you believed…and I believed you.
I would love to help you rediscover your Why.  I would love to help you inspire people again.
Hell – I just miss you the way you used to be.  I loved that Starbucks.

With great respect,

Simon Sinek

Listening to Financial Analysts Can Distract A Company From Its Vision.

A conversation I had this week motivated me to make some observations about the value of staying focused on a vision versus changing strategies at the drop of a hat...or in this case, an analyst recommendation.

Over the years I have had the privilege of studying and working quite closely with some amazing CEOs and equally amazing public companies. They have taught me so much about what makes a great business. No matter the industry and no matter the personality of the Chief Executive, all these companies have something in common: they are all obsessed with their employees, their customers and their vision. And shareholders should be grateful, for they have earned average-beating returns from these companies.

But you’d never see any of that money if you listened to half the analyst community. Sadly, my experience with these companies has taught me something else: how listening to analysts can do  damage to shareholder value.

Proof: Analysts See What They Want To See.

The most obvious case is Enron. It was a company built entirely on the salesmanship of Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling...and not real results...not even many real products. But few, if any, in the analyst community – those the investment banks pay to research the companies they track inside and out – failed to raise any flags. The kept recommending Enron as a strong buy. That said, Enron existed during the dot com boom and it proved to be the largest dot com out there. An empire built on the promise of future earnings. And, like pets.com and so many others, it imploded. So perhaps we’re all to blame for that one.

 

Proof: Analysts Don’t Run Companies Themselves.

In 2003 FORTUNE magazine ran an article comparing Costco to Wal-Mart. When the article was written, Costco’s stock was $33.54 where as Wal-Mart’s was at $53.70. The article reported how analysts “pounded” Costco to trim the company’s generous health benefits and to reduce labor costs. As one Deutsche Bank analyst was quoted, “Costco continues to be a company that is better at serving the club member and employee than the shareholder.” Clearly the highly paid Deutsche Bank analyst has never actually run a company himself and fortunately Costco did not heed his advice...and shareholders should be grateful.

 

As FORTUNE reported back in 2003, Wal-Mart had 70% more stores (Sam’s Club) in the

US

than Costco, but Costco had 77% higher sales per location, 60% higher sales per square foot. Costco’s investment in employees also seemed to pay off. They enjoyed 23% employee turnover per year vs. Wal-Mart’s 45%. And since the introduction of Costco and Sam’s Club in 1983, Costco has had 1 CEO to Wal-Mart’s 7. But the real shareholder value can be seen in the current day numbers. While Wal-Mart battles charges of sexism and racism, locking workers in stores overnight, mistreating immigrant janitors, abusive conditions for Chinese and Bangladeshi workers, paying poverty-level wages in the US, failing to provide adequate affordable health care and more, Costco has enjoyed a scandal free existence. But lest we forget, the analyst was saying that Costco was not worrying about the shareholder. Well, since Nov. 2003, Costco’s stock price is up 49% whereas Wal-Mart is down 8% for the same time period.

Proof: Some Analysts Don’t Do The Job They Are Paid To Do.

 I offer one more example that truly scared me. I worked with a client some years ago, a billion dollar public company and largest player in their category. My client invited me to attend their annual analyst meeting at which most of the analysts would be attending.

I watched presentations by all the C-level executives. They touted all the innovative initiatives in which they were engaged...some of them industry shaping. The analysts were all oohs and ahs. In fact, I would estimate that over 65% of the analysts in the room had no prior knowledge of most of this information. Let me be clear – 65% of a room of people paid to track this industry and this company specifically, the largest player in the category had no prior knowledge of publicly available information, much of which had existed for years. Most of the information was on the company’s website and every one of the executives was available to talk with the analyst community at any time. The company would love to have given tours of their facilities...if anyone asked.

But no one did.

But still, these analysts felt confident to issue buy/sell ratings day after day with, what seemed to be, barely an informed opinion. What were they basing their recommendations on? And what were they studying if they weren’t studying the largest player in the category they were paid to track?

Who to trust?

There are responsible analysts out there, I know that. But I point out these examples just to illustrate that great performance does not come from listening to the analysts. The analysts are not the ones with the vision. The companies and CEOs that are fixated on their employees and customers are the ones that excel in the long run – and I’m talking shareholder value here. And that’s what the analyst community should be reporting on. Or are their bonuses not based on that?