*

Our team has completed executive summaries of our final eleven companies (in alphabetical order):

• Allegheny Technologies
• American Eagle Outfitters
• ETrade
• Hanover
• Harris
• Humana
• JM Smucker
• Mohawk
• Motorola
• Questar
• Staples

Next on our schedule:

• brain storm for potential book titles
• interview CEOs and personnel of the above companies

Last week, I received an email from someone who had just finished reading Think Big Act Small, and could personally relate to the difficulties the research team had in getting inside the companies chosen for the book. She was frustrated because she had a great business idea that would save companies money, but she was having no luck in reaching the right decision-makers at the companies in her industry.

I had just finished reading Never Eat Alone by Keith Ferrazzi, which I thought might be just the ticket. Keith has been called a "master networker." In his book, he describes how it’s possible to achieve success by connecting with others. The key is that the more you help others achieve their goals, the more help you’ll have in accomplishing your goals.

Some ideas from Keith’s book that could help anyone trying to gain access to decision-makers:

* Do your homework to learn as much as you can about the people you want to connect with.

* Warm up cold calls by using a reference and stating the value of what it is you have to offer.

* Get the most out of conferences by meeting the right people.

In a previous post, I wrote that Staples was the only company on our final list that is a member of Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), an organization that promotes respect of ethical values, people, communities, and the environment. I was wrong.

American Eagle Outfitters isn’t listed as a member on the BSR website, but American Eagle says it is a member of the organization. The main focus of American Eagle’s corporate social responsibility is on global labor compliance. Their website outlines what steps they take to ensure that suppliers comply with local requirements and human rights standards.

It is not a common occurrence for the head honcho of a multi-million dollar company to admit the mistakes he’s made. In fact the contrary is usually the case where head of departments try to pass the buck. This refreshing honesty and sincerity came from none other than Arthur Ciocca, Chairman and Owner of The Wine Group.

Through his support of the Entrepreneurship Program at the University of San Francisco, Art agreed to guest-speak for a second time at the Wednesday night MBA class for Entrepreneurial Management. This time, at the request of some students, his focus was on succession planning, where he spoke from his vast experience as CEO of The Wine Group for 26 years. During his tenure, he led a dramatic turnaround which included a leveraged buyout from Coca Cola, and the introduction of a revolutionary brand, Franzia WineTap.

The three lessons he learned while he was finding a successor:

1. Know when it is time to leave. Art felt he was contributing diminishing returns by the 20th year of his tenure and the company had hit a plateau. The strengths of his incredible management team had evolved into weaknesses by virtue of the fact that they had all been doing the same job for years and had become too comfortable, conservative and complacent.
2. Always have an independent Advisory Board. For one reason or another, Art dismantled a wonderful Board a few years after TWG gained independence through the LBO only to realize that the Board helped management, who tended to work too closely to the field, to think strategically. To this day, this same Board continues to work together to solve problems, albeit for different companies/reasons.
3. Surround yourself with great people. The wonderful Board he dismantled was comprised of people he felt were the best and brightest in their respective areas of expertise, and were better and brighter than management. The current CEO of TWG, David Kent, increased sales and profitability dramatically since he took over in 2001.

On a related note, my husband (also a USF MBA student) was promised a copy of Art’s first book, "Thinking Outside The Box - The Wine Group Story", fresh off the printers.  As a result, I had the good fortune of reading the book this evening and it only served to impress upon me the character of a true entrepreneur and CEO. Art thought like an owner even before he became an owner (through the LBO), understood the inverse relationship of politics and performance from the outset, and helped develop a set of core cultural values for TWG along the way.

Business for Social Responsibility is “a global organization that helps member companies achieve success in ways that respect ethical values, people, communities and the environment.”

Staples is the only company on our final list that is a member of BSR. At first, I wondered why Staples was a member of this organization. Does it really mean anything to the company?

A quick look at the Staples website shows their commitment to corporate responsibility. The company has a particular focus on four areas: ethics, environment, community, and diversity. Their 2005 corporate responsibility report follows Global Reporting Initiative standards, which provide a common framework for sustainability reporting.

Do any of the other companies on our list have a similar focus on corporate and social responsibility?

The standard bio for an executive is usually a cookie-cutter paragraph that provides age, rank, previous significant positions, and board memberships. They all pretty much look like this bio of Keith Rattie, CEO of Questar, the energy company that’s on our short list of companies who made it through four phases of research into their financial performance and corporate culture.

In other words, the standard bios are boring. Why is that? Is it because executives are concerned about privacy? Is it because companies fill in the blanks for the same three questions on the standard bio form for all their executives? Or is it because personal details about executives don’t (or shouldn’t) matter?

Whatever the reason, the end result is that most executive bios don’t really tell you anything about who a CEO is. They’re missing the details that could make executives seem more real and interesting and passionate than their standard bios would lead you to believe.

That’s why, for perhaps the first time ever, I was excited to get my issue of the University of Washington alumni magazine in the mail this month. Keith Rattie, UW class of 1976, was profiled in a feature about UW alumni who are CEOs of Fortune 1000 companies. Sure, the profile focuses on Keith’s formative years at UW, but it gives you a great insight into what he’s all about.

When I read that Keith grew up in Aberdeen, about an hour away from the small town where I grew up in Washington state, I liked him immediately. There’s something about knowing where a person is from, really knowing in the way that you only could if you are from there as well, that gives you a different insight into who they are.

Such a small detail – but that personal detail makes me want to trust Keith, to root for the success of his company, to give him the benefit of the doubt. Imagine if other executives shared those kinds of personal details – where they’re from, their passions, what they believe in. Could those details create a shared affinity with broader groups of customers, suppliers, and regulators?

Should an executive’s brand matter just as much as the company’s brand?

I had my first golf lesson last weekend in Palm Springs. Sweating in the 103-degree heat, I tried as hard as I could to whack the hell out of the golf ball, which kept plopping a short distance down the driving range. It wasn’t long before my back started to get sore.

“I don’t think I’m doing this right,” I told my instructor.

He watched me swing the club as hard as I could. “Stop trying so hard,” he suggested.

Easy for him to say. I’ve been playing sports all my life. Give me a bat, or a stick, or a racket, and I’ll swing as hard as I can at whatever ball is in front of me. It’s what I’ve been trained to do.

“It’s not about how hard you can hit the ball,” my instructor said. “It’s about hitting the ball the right way.”

I adjusted my grip and let gravity help guide the path of the club as I took another swing. The ball cut a graceful arc through the air and sailed far down the driving range. The solid connection my club made with the ball felt natural. It felt right. I wanted to do it again.

But no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t duplicate that satisfying swing – the one where I got everything right. Pretty soon, I was back to my bad habits, swinging the club as hard as I could, trying to hit the ball just a bit farther. Swinging the club hard was easier than swinging it right.

I find myself slipping into the same bad habits in my job. Often, it’s easier to work harder by staying late or working on the weekends than it is to work the right way by working more productively. I know I’m more productive in the afternoons if I eat a light lunch and spend a half hour exercising and stretching at the gym.

But when faced with a looming deadline, I often push through the day without a break. I’ll find myself dragging in the afternoon, which means I’ll have to stay late to finish the work. Working harder, by not taking a break, means that I’ll have to work longer than I would have if I’d just taken some time out for lunch and the gym and had a really productive afternoon.

Why is it easier to work longer hours than it is to work more productively? Do long hours matter more rather than a really productive 40-hour week when it comes to getting a bonus, or a promotion, or a choice assignment?

Maybe it’s because the long hours are the visible, measurable proof of hard work. Besides, if everyone’s doing it, it’s hard not to go along with the crowd.

I wonder if success can be achieved with just one side of the equation – working longer or working more productively. For the CEOs on our ultimate short list, it’s probably not an either/or proposition.

Maybe I just need to learn how to hit the ball the right way and hit it as absolutely hard as I can.

AMR is the parent company of American Airlines, the world’s largest airline.

The company had some good news recently by posting a second-quarter profit of $291 million, just the second quarter the company has posted a profit in the past five and a half years. One could argue that ARM is doing much better than other airlines, and didn’t deserve to be categorized as one of the weakest links. It didn’t declare bankruptcy in 2005, when five other major U.S. airlines did.

But when it came down to it, AMR still has lost a whole bunch of money in recent years. Just because they lost a little less than the others wasn’t a good enough reason for them to make it to the ultimate short list.