Quick Study: Why Founders Shouldn’t Double as CEOs; Corporate Alliances; Web Watch Survey

*4 Reasons Not To Have two CEOs: TechStars founder David Cohen, after working with two companies that have founders as co-CEOs, has concluded the structure is a bad

idea. Here's why:

  • Equal founders shouldn't need the same title in order to feel equally important. They should be able to work as equals while assuming different outward-facing titles;

  • Having two CEOs sends a signal to customers, employees and partners that there is no clear chain of command, especially in a small company;

  • Friction between co-CEOs is likely because it's not clear who is ultimately responsible for the company's direction;

  • Company outsiders may assume there's an internal struggle, regardless of the truth.

Instead, Cohen suggests that founders pick titles that accurately reflect areas of responsibility, while maintaining mutual trust and respect.

Source: BusinessWeek.com

*Alliances in Action: Corporate alliances grow by about 25% each year, and account for nearly a third of revenues at some companies. But almost 70% of alliances fail. In

response, Jonathan Hughes and Jeff Weiss of Vantage Partners have developed five simple rules to complement conventional strategies of alliance management, which they

characterize as not so much wrong as incomplete. Use these to fill in the blanks:

1. Focus more on how you and your partner will work together and less on defining the business plan;

2. Develop metrics not only for the goals of the alliance, but to measure performance in working toward them;

3. Leverage differences for value instead of trying to eliminate them;

4. Encourage and facilitate collaborative behavior beyond formal systems and structures; and,

5. Manage your internal stakeholders with the same diligence you manage your relationship with your partner.

Source: Harvard Business Review

*Sustainability in the Workplace: A new international study released by the Economist Intelligence Unit, in conjunction with BT, reveals that organizations

are failing to realize the business benefits from sustainability programs. Among the findings:

  • While 46% of survey respondents said that sustainability programs help improve brand value, only 20% felt they improve profitability;
  • 33% said their companies only make sustainability efforts in markets where it is perceived to have an impact on customers' perceptions of the business;
  • In 40% of responding organizations, the person responsible for sustainability issues did not report directly to the board, while 23% had no person responsible for such

    matters

  • 31% said their company's sustainability efforts center mostly on communication rather than action;
  • 32% of responding organizations have their sustainability practices most firmly embedded in investor/public relations activities, and 29% have it within the human resources

    function;

  • 37% of respondents said they have been given specific sustainability goals to achieve as part of their responsibilities; and,
  • 24% agreed that their organization's sustainability efforts are primarily driven by staff at the grassroots level rather than by senior management.

*Web Watch: A recent survey from Arketi Group examines how B-to-B journalists use Web 2.0 technology when reporting industry news. Here's what they found out:

  • 68% of journalists write primarily for a print publication, but also contribute to their Web site, and 90% say their website is allowed to "scoop" their print

    publication;

  • 90% reported that they use industry sources for story ideas, and the same number said they use news releases and PR contacts;

  • 60% of journalists said they spend more than 20 hours a week on the internet;

  • 84% say they would or already have used blogs as primary or secondary sources, and 25% say blogs make their job easier;

  • 98% of journalists prefer e-mail for receiving news releases from known sources, an 93% for unknown sources; and,

  • Journalists are split on whether it is ethical for an employer to discipline an employee for posting negative comments about the organization on a public blog. 33% say it

    is ethical, 32% unethical, and 36% are uncertain.

Source: 2007 Arketi Web Watch Survey PRN