Water cooler wisdom

When it comes to picking a new CEO, most boards reach for the usual suspects: executives with deep industry experience, often from within the same company or sector. That approach can feel safe, familiar candidates, known resumes, and minimal learning curves. But sometimes, playing it safe is the riskiest move of all. Two bold CEO appointments, Lou Gerstner at IBM in 1993 and Luca de Meo at Kering (home to Gucci, Saint Laurent, and Balenciaga) in 2025, offer compelling lessons in why bringing in an outsider can not only revitalize a struggling company but completely redefine its future. When a company is facing a critical inflection point, whether due to market shifts, internal stagnation, or a crisis of identity, looking beyond the usual talent pool may be exactly what’s needed. The IBM Pivot: Why the Best Choice Isn’t Always the Obvious One When IBM was on the brink of collapse in the early 1990s, the board had every reason to hire a tech industry insider. The company’s mainframe business was declining, and pundits believed the only way forward was to break it apart. The business media circled around technologists like John Sculley (Apple), Ben Rosen (Compaq), and George Fisher (Motorola) as obvious successors for IBM. It seemed clear: IBM needed someone with computer experience. Instead, the board chose Lou Gerstner , a marketing-focused executive with no background in tech. He had led American Express but had never worked at a tech firm. To most, it seemed like a wild bet. But Gerstner had what IBM truly needed: a clear-eyed view of business fundamentals, customer orientation, and the courage to challenge entrenched thinking. Within weeks, he diagnosed IBM’s core problem - not a dying mainframe business, but a bloated cost structure and poor pricing strategy. He slashed costs, dropped prices, and pivoted the company toward software and services. The result: IBM swung from an $8 billion loss to a $3 billion profit in under two years. The stock doubled in less than three. The takeaway? Gerstner succeeded not because he understood technology better than the insiders, but because he saw the business more clearly. His outsider lens became his greatest asset. Kering’s Gamble: When a Fashion House Needs a Fixer Fast-forward to 2025. The luxury giant Kering , home to Gucci, Saint Laurent, and Balenciaga, is flailing. Once a cultural powerhouse, the company has lost over 60% of its market value in two years. Gen Z is turning away. Investors are panicking. Gucci, the group’s crown jewel, has lost its sparkle. Leadership is uncertain. The traditional luxury playbook isn’t working. Enter Luca de Meo , a car executive. Best known for his turnaround successes at Fiat, SEAT, Volkswagen, and most recently Renault, de Meo is a brand strategist, not a fashion insider. But in an unexpected move, Kering’s longtime CEO François-Henri Pinault tapped him as his successor. To some, the decision was shocking. To others, it was exactly what Kering needed. Like Gerstner, de Meo is a seasoned operator with a history of revitalizing stagnant brands. He brought the Fiat 500 back to life. He revived Renault’s design appeal. And, importantly, he understands how to manage complexity at scale, just like a fashion conglomerate demand. Pinault explained the decision simply: “His experience at the helm of an international listed group, his sharp understanding of brands, and his sense of a strong and respectful corporate culture convinced me that he is the leader I was looking for.” In other words, Kering isn’t betting on fashion expertise. It’s betting on vision, brand building, and courage , qualities that transcend sectors. What Great Boards Understand About CEO Selection These two stories - IBM in 1993 and Kering in 2025 - share a deeper lesson about board behavior: great boards don’t just look for experience. They look for fit, capability , and contextual leadership . According to governance experts, the best board members do four things related to CEO selection that others often overlook: Clarify essential qualities : They define the two or three critical capabilities required to lead the company now , not a generic list of leadership traits. Stay open-minded : They don’t default to insiders or industry lifers. They consider external candidates who might bring unconventional strengths. Understand true fit : They go deep to match the candidate’s strengths to the business’s unique challenges - not just resume credentials. Accept imperfections : No candidate is perfect. Great boards don’t let minor gaps outweigh major potential. The IBM board, for example, didn’t get fixated on Gerstner’s lack of tech experience. They focused on his customer acumen, strategic thinking, and execution muscle . Kering is doing the same with de Meo: prioritizing brand vision and organizational agility over fashion-world familiarity. Why Outsiders Sometimes Make the Best Insiders There’s a myth that only someone “from the industry” can understand a company’s product or sector. But often, industry veterans are too close to the way things have always been done . They bring assumptions, biases, and sometimes too much reverence for tradition. Outsiders, on the other hand, are unencumbered. They ask disruptive questions. They bring fresh playbooks. They’re more willing to cut sacred cows or challenge failing strategies. And when paired with a strong leadership team that fills in any gaps, they can create transformative results. In both IBM and Kering’s case, their challenges weren’t about industry-specific knowledge. They were about strategic misalignment, outdated business models, and fading relevance. And those are problems a great leader, regardless of background, can solve . So, When Should You Look Outside? Hiring an outsider isn’t always the right call. But it can be the smartest one in situations like: An identity crisis (like Kering): when the company no longer knows who it is or how to connect with a new generation of consumers. A deep turnaround (like IBM): when the internal culture is stuck and bold change is needed. A strategic pivot : when the business must evolve quickly, and current leadership lacks the skills or courage to get there. A stagnant succession pool : when the internal candidates reflect the past more than the future. Bold Moves Create New Futures Both Lou Gerstner and Luca de Meo walked into the industries they weren’t born in. They remind us that leadership is less about where you come from, and more about how you think, act, and lead. Boards that have the courage to look outside their industry not only to widen the talent pool - but they also give their companies the best shot at meaningful transformation. In moments of crisis or reinvention, you don’t need more of the same. You need someone who sees things differently and has the guts to act on it.

How the Youngest Team in the NBA Won a Championship, and What It Teaches Companies About Rethinking Experience.  In one of the most remarkable and inspiring seasons in recent sports history, the youngest team in the NBA defied all odds and clinched the championship title. Even more remarkable was that the Thunder were the youngest No. 1 seed in NBA history. Without the weight of veteran stars or a legacy of experience to lean on, this squad demonstrated that youth, agility, and fearless innovation could overcome the status quo. This isn’t a fluke. It’s the result of a deliberate, long–term vision, drafting and developing young talent, investing in player development, and creating a culture that prizes collaboration and growth over seniority. Their journey offers more than just a great sports story; it challenges the way companies view experience and value within their teams. The Traditional View: Experience as a Default Proxy for Value For decades, most organizations have equated years of experience with effectiveness. When hiring senior leaders, companies often use tenure as a key filter. Promotions frequently go to those who have "put in the time." And while experience certainly brings value - especially in decision-making, risk assessment, and stakeholder management - it should no longer be treated as the only or best predictor of future success. The Thunder’s 2025 title flipped that thinking on its head. They didn’t win because they had a deep bench of battle-hardened veterans. Their victory reminds us that in fast-moving environments, potential often outperforms pedigree. The Business Parallel: Rethinking the Experience Premium In corporate environments, experience has long been equated with value. Resumes laden with years of service and past roles often carry more weight than fresh ideas or untested energy. While experience can bring insight and stability, over-reliance on it can lead to stagnation. The NBA championship victory of this young team disrupts that thinking. It underscores a powerful idea: in rapidly changing environments, adaptability, curiosity, and the ability to learn fast can be more impactful than tenure. Companies today operate in a world that’s evolving faster than ever. Technology, consumer behavior, and market dynamics shift constantly. In such a climate, organizations that prize agility and fresh thinking often outperform those clinging to traditional hierarchies and outdated assumptions. Experience Is Still Valuable- But It’s Not Everything This isn’t a dismissal of experience. Seasoned professionals bring wisdom, historical context, and leadership that’s often critical. Just as a team might need a veteran presence in the locker room, companies benefit from experienced leaders who can guide and mentor. Similarly, companies should build environments where experience and youth are complementary, not hierarchical. That means creating mixed-age teams, mentorship programs that go both ways (reverse mentoring), and decision-making processes that value ideas over job titles. Cultural Transformation Begins at the Top For this kind of transformation to occur in business, leadership must challenge their own biases. Hiring practices, promotion pathways, and meeting dynamics often default to favoring experience over potential. To change this: Redefine Value Metrics : Shift from measuring success solely by tenure or past accomplishments to include adaptability, innovation, and team impact. Empower the Young : Give younger employees meaningful projects and leadership opportunities. Let them prove what they can do, not just what they’ve done. Encourage Risk-Taking : Just as the young NBA team took bold shots and played an unpredictable game, companies should reward intelligent risk-taking rather than punishing failure. Foster Intergenerational Collaboration : Combine the best of both worlds—pair youthful energy with seasoned insight for more balanced, resilient teams. The Future Belongs to the Fearless The youngest NBA team’s victory wasn’t just a basketball achievement; it was a cultural statement. It challenged the myth that experience is the ultimate determinant of success and showed the power of trust, teamwork, and youthful fearlessness. For businesses watching from the sidelines, the lesson is clear: if you want to build a championship organization, don’t just look at the old playbook. Cultivate fresh energy, bold thinking, and dynamic execution that youth can bring. Create space for new voices to rise. Experience will always have its place, but in the new era of work, potential might just be the most valuable asset of all.

At 180one, we see A LOT of resumes. Some look like they were typed on a Brother Word Processor 30 years ago, some are 6 pages long, 2 pages long, some have different fonts and sizes of fonts throughout, and then there are third party professionally written resumes - easy to spot, hard to comprehend, and make the reader ask the question – if the candidate can’t write their own resume, what else can’t they do that they said they’ve done? In the high-stakes world of job hunting, a well-polished resume is believed to be the gateway to securing an interview. As a result, many job seekers turn to professional resume writers to boost their chances. While this can be helpful, it can also create inconsistencies and red flags that hiring managers and recruiters quickly learn to recognize. If you're on the hiring side or the job seeking side, here are 5 factors to consider when reviewing or submitting a professionally written resume. 1. Overly Polished or “Corporate” Language One of the most obvious signs is language that sounds more like a press release than a personal statement. Phrases like “forward-thinking professional with a proven track record of leveraging synergistic strategies” may impress at first glance—but they often signal a generic, massaged resume. Why it’s a red flag: Recruiters are increasingly wary of “buzzword bingo.” In fact, a 2022 study by Cultivated Culture found that over 50% of resumes included vague jargon or fluff that made it difficult to identify actual achievements. Many professionally written resumes are filled with generic buzzwords like "results-driven," "synergy," and "dynamic leader." While these terms may sound impressive, they often lack substance and fail to convey meaningful information about a candidate's actual skills or achievements. According to a study by Cultivated Culture, 51% of resumes included fluffy buzzwords, clichés, or the incorrect use of pronouns, which can turn off potential recruiters. 2. Mismatch Between Resume and LinkedIn Profile Professionally written resumes often use a distinct tone, layout, and terminology. If a candidate’s LinkedIn profile is far less polished or completely different in format and language, it could indicate the resume was outsourced. Why it’s a red flag: Consistency matters. Hiring managers want to see that a candidate has a clear sense of their professional identity. Discrepancies raise questions about authenticity. 3. Inability to Explain Resume Content in Interviews When a resume is written by someone else, candidates often struggle to elaborate on the content. They might stumble over project details, metrics, or use terminology incorrectly. And sometimes, the candidate just comes right out and say that they had someone else write it for them – which then opens up a bunch of assumptions of the candidate. Why it’s a red flag: You can’t trust a resume at face value if the candidate can’t speak to it with confidence and clarity. It shows that they lack ownership of their work product (or the work product of someone who they hired). 4. Generic or Inflated Achievements Third-party writers often try to make every bullet point sound impressive, even when the underlying work was basic. A line like “Spearheaded initiatives to drive cross-departmental alignment” might describe routine weekly meetings. Why it’s a red flag: Inflation makes it harder to evaluate the real value a candidate brings. It also shows a disconnect between what they actually did and how it's being presented. Plus, does your organization need another blowhard in the conference room who controls the meeting with word salad? 5. Too much information being presented While everyone thinks that AI is controlling the review of every resume and that you need to have every keyword included in your resume to make it to the next step when applying, the truth is that at some point the resume will be reviewed by a human. Professionally written resumes tend to be jam packed with information with visually stunning sections, tables of information, and varying fonts to draw the eye – but it’s just too much for the reader to comprehend what you’ve actually done. Why it’s a red flag: Employers are looking for future leaders who know how to convey their thoughts, ideas, questions succinctly. So if you are unable to accomplish this with your resume – that you’ve had plenty of time to write, edit, modify before distributing – what will happen when you’re on the job presenting in the boardroom? Final Thoughts A professionally written resume isn’t inherently bad, many candidates benefit from outside help, especially if they’re unsure how to present themselves. However, authenticity matters. When hiring managers sense that a resume doesn’t align with the person behind it, they’ll dig deeper and often move on to more transparent candidates.  Resumes are personal. They are a summary of all that one has accomplished in their career. This is their professional fingerprint and no one else should have the same fingerprint. So, make sure that the next time you are updating or creating a new resume, make it yours, not someone else’s or trying to be someone you’re not.

In the 2025 NFL Draft, Shedeur Sanders, once projected as a top five pick, experienced a surprising fall to the fifth round before being selected by the Cleveland Browns. This unexpected drop raised questions about his draft stock and the factors influencing team decisions. Despite his impressive college career, including setting school records and other accolades, Sanders' draft experience underscores a crucial lesson for companies: hiring decisions are multifaceted and not solely based on past performance or potential. Just as NFL teams must consider various factors beyond a player's statistics, businesses should adopt a comprehensive approach to hiring, evaluating candidates holistically to ensure the best fit for their organization's needs. While the NFL Draft might just look like a televised event where young athletes get picked by professional teams, beneath the fanfare is a highly strategic, data-driven process that offers invaluable insights into one of the most important business practices: hiring . If you're in the corporate world and responsible for recruiting talent—whether you're a founder, HR executive, or team leader, there's a lot you can learn from how NFL teams approach drafting. Let’s explore how this intense, high-stakes selection process mirrors and can elevate traditional corporate hiring. Understand What You’re Hiring For The first step in great hiring is clarity. In one NFL team, draft results consistently lagged for one side of the ball. A simple survey revealed why: there was zero consensus among scouts and coaches about what success looked like at a key position. Without a shared vision, decisions were scattershot. In business , the same thing happens. Teams rush to hire without aligning on goals. Do you need a disruptive innovator or a steady team player? A generalist or a deep specialist? Skipping this conversation sets you up to fail. Tip : Clearly define roles with specific traits, values, and performance goals before interviewing even begins. Structure Beats Technology Despite all the tech, there’s no magical algorithm that guarantees a good draft pick. What separates the top NFL teams is process , consistent, disciplined evaluation systems. The same principle holds true in business. Unstructured hiring decisions are noisy and prone to bias. Managers get influenced by irrelevant factors: a great handshake, a shared alma mater, or how the last interview went. Consistency comes from structured scorecards, checklists, and predefined evaluation criteria. Tip : Use structured interviews and weighted scorecards to keep evaluations focused and replicable. Keep Evaluators Independent One underrated tactic NFL teams use: separating scout opinions. Some teams purposely blind scouts to each other's evaluations to preserve independent judgment. That’s critical, because once someone hears a strong opinion, they’re prone to “anchor” on it, consciously or not. In corporate hiring , it’s the same story. If the first interviewer gushes about a candidate, others may unconsciously lower their guard. True diversity of opinion only exists if assessments are made independently. Tip : Have team members submit their evaluations separately before group discussions. Interviewing is Like the Combine – But Not Everything The NFL Combine is a week-long showcase where draft prospects go through physical and mental tests. But teams don’t draft solely based on who runs the fastest 40-yard dash. They look at long-term potential, game tape, and coachability . In companies , i nterviews are important, but they’re just one part of a broader evaluation. Candidates may be nervous, overly rehearsed, or misrepresent their skills. Supplement interviews with trial projects, references, and past performance reviews. Tip : Give candidates real-world problems to solve that mimic the work they’ll be doing. Fit Over Flash Some of the NFL’s biggest draft busts were players with jaw-dropping athleticism who simply didn’t fit into the team’s system. Conversely, many late-round picks became legends because they were a great fit for a team's specific needs and culture. In business , skills can be taught, but cultural fit, adaptability, and motivation are harder to instill. Ask: Will this person thrive in our environment? Will they complement our team dynamics? Tip : Ask culture-focused questions and involve future teammates in the interview to assess chemistry. Break Candidates into Components NFL teams don’t evaluate a player as just “good” or “bad.” They break skills down: footwork, decision-making, toughness, coachability. Then they score each attribute separately. In hiring , we often rely on vague impressions. But global ratings are prone to bias and inconsistency across interviewers. Instead, decompose the job into core competencies—communication, technical ability, leadership, and score each explicitly. Tip : Break job performance into 4–6 distinct traits and rate each on a consistent scale. Rebuild the Full Picture- Mechanically After breaking down a candidate’s attributes, NFL teams reassemble their evaluations into an overall rating. Some simply average scores across scouts. It might sound simplistic—but it’s surprisingly effective. In companies , intuitive judgment often dominates. The loudest voice or most senior person can sway the group. Instead, use aggregated, weighted scores as a starting point. It creates a more objective, repeatable process. Tip : Let the data guide your shortlist, then use discussion to refine (not override) decisions. Data-Informed Decisions Are Key NFL franchises now use advanced analytics to measure player performance in ways the eye test alone can’t. From GPS tracking of player speed to AI-assisted video analysis, decision-makers are armed with data. Lesson for companies : Go beyond gut feelings and use structured hiring practices . Utilize assessment tools, skill tests, and personality inventories. Tip : Implement scorecards during interviews and pre-hire assessments for objectivity. High Draft Pick ≠ Guaranteed Success Tom Brady was a sixth-round pick. Kurt Warner went undrafted. Meanwhile, many five-star athletes flamed out. The lesson? Success isn’t always visible on a resume. In hiring , don’t over-rely on pedigree. Grit, curiosity, and coachability are better predictors of future success than past prestige. Tip : Ask candidates about setbacks, learning moments, and how they seek feedback. Final Whistle There is no silver bullet for hiring- no AI tool, test, or gut instinct that will always get it right. But there is a better way: a repeatable, structured, thoughtful process . The NFL Draft, for all its hype, works because the best teams stick to principles: define goals, evaluate consistently, prioritize fit, and learn over time. These same principles can help any organization—from startups to Fortune 500s—build stronger teams and better futures. So next April, when the draft rolls around, don’t just watch for your favorite team’s pick. Take notes. Because if you want to win the talent game, the playbook is already out there.

180one is pleased to announce our recent partnership with Pike Street Capital and the successful placement of a new Board Member for Superior Duct Fabrication, a Pike Street portfolio company! Superior Duct Fabrication is a leading provider of commercial and industrial HVAC duct systems, known for its high-quality fabrication, reliability, and customer service. The company serves a wide range of industries, delivering complex ductwork solutions with precision and speed. Pike Street Capital, a Seattle-based private equity firm focused on industrial growth companies, acquired Superior Duct Fabrication as part of its strategy to invest in scalable, high-performing manufacturing businesses. Pike Street partners with management teams to accelerate growth and build long-term value through operational improvements and strategic leadership. As part of this effort, Pike Street Capital partnered with 180one to recruit a new board member to help guide Superior Duct’s continued expansion and success. Congratulations to Pike Street Capital, Superior Duct Fabrication, and the 180one Search Team on a successful board placement!

Let’s face the music, or the new reality that attracting executives to move across the country for an opportunity has become increasingly difficult for a variety of circumstances. As businesses look to recruit top talent at executive levels, understanding the shifts in migration trends before you launch a search, better yet, as you plan a position, might be the difference of landing a great candidate in a reasonable amount of time, or dragging out a search for the unicorn who can’t be found. Let’s look at some of the factors and trends together that might shape how your organization moves forward in conducting a national executive search. Understanding the 2024 Relocation Landscape The 2024 Allied Migration Report paints a picture of a U.S. population increasingly seeking affordable living spaces, a better work-life balance, and more favorable economic conditions. Despite a 20% overall decrease in interstate relocations from 2022 to 2024, the main driver of those relocating is the alignment of their personal and professional goals. The report also underscores the shift toward midsize cities and suburban areas as more desirable destinations. This trend is being driven by a combination of rising housing costs in major cities, economic uncertainty, and a greater demand for improved quality of life. Companies looking to relocate candidates must consider a range of factors to ensure that they are not only attracting talent but also providing a work environment that matches these evolving preferences. Here are 5 key aspects that companies should score themselves against to determine how desirable their location is for the market. Depending on how one scores, it can help highlight the probability of relocating or needing to adjust the candidate profile to match candidates in the current geographic market not needing relocation. 1. Housing Affordability and Living Costs One of the most significant motivators for relocation in 2024 is housing affordability. In 2023, soaring housing costs in urban centers like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Chicago pushed many people to consider smaller cities and suburban areas where the cost of living is lower. When relocating candidates, it's crucial for employers to consider how the cost of housing in their city or region will impact the candidate’s overall financial well-being. If your company is in a higher cost area, providing a sign-on bonus towards housing can be one lever to pull to cover the gap. 2. Remote Work and Flexible Work Arrangements The rise of remote work in the wake of the pandemic continues to shape relocation patterns. With many employees now able to work from anywhere, some candidates are looking for jobs that allow them to live in more affordable or attractive locations while still benefiting from a competitive salary. The ability to work from home (or a hybrid model) has made relocation less about proximity to the office and more about finding a place that offers a better quality of life. For employers, it’s essential to evaluate whether the role can be offered remotely or with flexible work arrangements. If the company is headquartered in a high-cost city but allows employees to work from anywhere, the business might be able to attract candidates from more affordable regions while offering competitive salaries. On the other hand, if the position requires in-office attendance, it’s important to highlight the benefits of relocating to that city—such as lifestyle factors, community offerings, and career advancement opportunities. 3. Job Market and Industry Opportunities Candidates are increasingly moving to regions where job markets are thriving, particularly in industries like technology, renewable energy, healthcare, and finance. The 2024 Allied Migration Report noted that states with growing job markets are experiencing strong inbound migration. How would classify your region’s overall job market? Candidates want to know that if they were to relocate, and for some reason down the road they leave the organization – what other opportunities exist for them locally. If there are no other reasonable and likely options related to their industry, or expertise - this can pose another hurdle that needs to be addressed. It’s essential to evaluate whether the region offers the kind of industry opportunities that will keep the candidate’s career trajectory on track. 4. Tax Policies and Financial Incentives Tax policies are a key factor influencing relocation decisions in 2024. States with no income tax have seen an increase in inbound migration, with people moving to these states in search of more disposable income. The economic uncertainty and high inflation rates in 2024 have made individuals more conscious of their financial situations, and tax-friendly states are becoming increasingly attractive. Employers looking to relocate candidates should consider the tax implications of moving employees to specific regions. 5. Quality of Life and Lifestyle Considerations Beyond financial factors, candidates are also considering lifestyle factors when deciding where to relocate for work. According to the 2024 Allied Migration Report, many people are moving to regions that offer a better balance of work and life, which includes access to quality healthcare, good schools, recreational activities, and a desirable climate. For employers, this means understanding the lifestyle preferences of potential candidates and emphasizing how the region supports these needs. What’s the Score? So how did your region score? How will it impact how you go to market with the position? Did you adjust the candidate profile to mirror what exists in the local candidate market, or is your region highly desirable to attract the unicorn? As migration patterns evolve, companies that adapt their candidate profiles and expectations to these shifting dynamics will be well-positioned to thrive in an increasingly mobile workforce.

Long Term Incentive Plans (LTIPs) and Why to Implement Executive compensation is a nuanced and multifaceted subject that involves a delicate balance between rewarding top talent and aligning their interests with the long-term success of the organization. Typically, executive pay packages consist of three primary components: base salary, annual bonuses, and long-term incentive plans (LTIPs). While base salary and annual bonuses have historically been the most visible and commonly discussed elements of executive compensation, LTIPs are increasingly being recognized as the third and arguably most important leg of the stool. LTIPs serve as a tool for aligning the goals of executives with those of the company over the long term, offering rewards that are tied to the sustained growth and profitability of the organization. As businesses evolve and face growing challenges, LTIPs have become a central component in shaping how executives are compensated, ensuring they remain focused on creating long-term shareholder value. Over the past 75 years, LTIPs have been a common feature in public companies, where stock options, performance shares, and other equity-based incentives align executives with shareholder interests. It hasn’t been until the past couple of decades that private companies have implemented LTIPs to align executives' interests with the long-term success of the company, but also almost out of necessity to compete for the same talent who might already possess an LTIP as part of their compensation. What Are Long-Term Incentive Plans (LTIPs)? Long-Term Incentive Plans (LTIPs) are compensation structures designed to reward executives for achieving long-term business goals. Unlike annual bonuses, which are typically tied to short-term financial metrics, LTIPs are structured to reward performance over a longer time horizon—usually three to five years or more. The primary purpose of LTIPs is to ensure that executives are motivated to focus on sustainable growth, value creation, and the long-term health of the company. The Factors Driving the Adoption of LTIPs in Private Companies According to a survey by WorldatWork, approximately 63% of private companies are using LTIPs as a means of rewarding executives and aligning their interests with the company’s long-term success. Several factors have contributed to the rise in popularity of LTIPs in private companies, ranging from the quest for competitive advantage to changes in organizational dynamics and evolving employee expectations. But the following reasons might shed additional insight: Companies with LTIPs Have 30% Higher Revenue Growth: Research by the National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO) found that companies that implement equity-based LTIPs experience 30% higher revenue growth compared to those that do not. The statistic underscores the positive impact of LTIPs on a company’s overall performance, as they drive executive focus on achieving goals that lead to sustained revenue growth, innovation, and market expansion. 91% of Executives in Private Companies Cite LTIPs as Key to Retention: A survey by Korn Ferry found that 91% of executives in privately held companies consider LTIPs an essential factor in their decision to stay with the company. The statistics demonstrate the significant role LTIPs play in retaining key talent, ensuring that executives are motivated to stay with the company over the long term. By offering equity-based compensation, companies can reduce turnover and keep their leadership team focused on long-term objectives. Companies With LTIPs Are 50% More Likely to Meet Exit Targets: According to a report by Bain & Company, private companies that implement LTIPs are 50% more likely to meet or exceed their exit targets during mergers, acquisitions, or initial public offerings (IPOs). By aligning executives' interests with long-term value creation, LTIPs motivate leadership to work toward achieving the performance metrics that will maximize the company’s value at the time of sale or public offering. Transitioning Ownership and Succession Planning: For family-owned businesses or privately held companies with a significant ownership stake held by a small group, succession planning is another critical factor in the decision to adopt LTIPs. As the company grows and the leadership team evolves, there may be a need to transition ownership to new management. LTIPs can help retain key executives during this period of change, providing financial incentives that keep the team focused on the company’s long-term growth even during periods of uncertainty. As businesses strive to remain competitive and evolve in an increasingly dynamic marketplace, the adoption of LTIPs has evolved as a key driver for optimizing performance. No longer limited to public companies; private companies have increasingly recognized the benefit and need for these compensation structures. Perhaps adding these 4 simple letters (L-T-I-P) to a company’s compensation program could be the difference maker that they’ve been looking for.

180one is pleased to announce our partnership with Fair Market, Inc. and the resulting placement of their new Board Member! Fair Market is a leading distributor of frozen foods, serving healthcare, universities, retail, and foodservice sectors across North America. Renowned for delivering high-volume, low-cost products, Fair Market specializes in ready-to-cook braised meats, sauces, and custom private label offerings. Their commitment to quality and efficiency has solidified their reputation in the industry.​ Backed by private equity, Fair Market continues to expand its reach and enhance its product offerings, aiming to meet the evolving needs of its diverse clientele. The company's strategic focus on innovation and customer satisfaction positions it for sustained growth in the competitive food distribution landscape.​ Congratulations to Fair Market, Inc., and the 180one Search Team on a successful executive placement!

Ready Or Not- Here They Come! As Baby Boomers reach retirement age in unprecedented numbers, businesses are facing a significant leadership gap. This generation, born between 1946 and 1964, has long been the backbone of the workforce. However, with the wave of retirements already underway, organizations are now tasked with filling the void left by these seasoned leaders. By 2030, all Baby Boomers will be over 65, and many are already stepping down from key positions. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 11,000 Baby Boomers are retiring every day, creating “The Silver Tsunami” phenomenon See 180one 2023 Year in Review: Silver Tsunami The scale of this shift is staggering. By 2029, an estimated 72 million people in the U.S. will be 65 or older, making up about 20% of the population. The workforce is shrinking, and with fewer younger workers entering the market, businesses must focus on developing talent from within. This demographic change is creating a talent gap that organizations cannot afford to overlook, particularly in industries where seniority and experience have historically been critical to career progression. A recent Fortune study highlighted a concerning trend: for "lifers", those who start at the bottom and work their way up, it takes an average of 33 years to reach the CEO position. If businesses continue to rely on the "seniority" model for leadership, it could be over a decade before Millennials are ready to step into top roles. The Need to Develop Younger Generations So, where will the next generation of leaders come from? Millennials and Generation Z are the natural candidates to step into these roles, yet many companies have not made sufficient investments in their development. These younger generations are tech-savvy, adaptable, and eager for career progression, but they often lack the depth of experience that Baby Boomers accumulated over decades in the workforce. The transition to a younger, more diverse leadership team is not just necessary, it's inevitable. With Millennials expected to make up 75% of the global workforce by 2030, businesses must prioritize succession planning and leadership development to ensure a strong pipeline of talent. According to a 2023 Deloitte report, only 21% of organizations globally are confident in their succession plans for leadership roles. This is a critical gap that must be addressed immediately. Without focused investment in leadership development for younger workers, companies risk losing their competitive edge and innovation capacity due to a lack of experienced leaders to guide them through the changing landscape. Preparing the Next Generation of Leaders To close the leadership gap, companies must begin investing in younger generations to develop their leadership skills and prepare them for executive roles. Programs that focus on mentorship, training, and fast-track leadership development are essential for ensuring Millennials and Gen Z are ready to step up when needed. Research from Gallup shows that organizations with strong internal leadership programs are 2.5 times more likely to have high employee engagement. Developing younger talent not only strengthens the leadership pipeline, but also fosters a more engaged workforce, as younger employees are more likely to stay with a company that offers growth opportunities. Companies can also implement job shadowing, leadership courses, and rotational programs, which allow younger employees to gain experience across various departments. These initiatives help build a more well-rounded skill set and ensure a smoother transition when it’s time for them to take on senior roles. Act Now The Baby Boomer retirement wave presents both challenges and opportunities. While the departure of experienced leaders creates significant gaps, it also offers the chance to bring in fresh talent and develop the next generation of executives. Companies that act now to invest in leadership development for Millennials and Generation Z will be better positioned to maintain business continuity, drive innovation, and thrive in the years ahead.

Ever wonder what the true impact of the abrupt adoption of remote work had on productivity? What’s the real impact of remote work on productivity? Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of U.S. workers operated under traditional office-based arrangements. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2019, only 24% of U.S. workers had access to flexible work arrangements such as telecommuting, and just 7% of employees worked remotely on a full-time basis. By May of 2020, 42% of the U.S. workforce was working from home full-time. This was a massive shift from pre-pandemic numbers, highlighting the widespread adoption of remote work in a short period of time. But now in 2024, we are seeing industry leading companies mandate a return to the office for its employees. Amazon, one of the largest employers in the U.S., has recently made headlines with its decision to require a return to the office for many of its corporate employees. The company, which had embraced remote work during the peak of the pandemic, has now adopted a more structured approach to in-office work. This policy shift aligns with a broader trend among tech companies such as Google, Apple, and Meta where there is a growing recognition of the benefits of in-person work. Amazon has stated that its return-to-office policy is designed to "reinforce its innovation culture," which relies heavily on team interaction, cross-department collaboration, and rapid decision-making. Additionally, the company has indicated that employees who do not comply with the new policy may face the risk of being moved to other roles or being let go, emphasizing the company's commitment to this change. So what does Amazon know that other organizations don’t about having employees in the office? Are they more productive? An interesting study published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics sheds some insight into this question and we’ve summarized the findings in our “Readers Digest” recap. A Surge in Remote Work Across Industries Remote work grew rapidly across industries between 2019 and 2021, with substantial gains in sectors like professional services, finance, and information technology. According to data from the American Community Survey (ACS), industries such as professional, scientific, and technical services saw a dramatic increase in remote work, with over 39% of their workforce working from home in 2021, compared to less than 17% in 2019. The surge in remote work was not limited to a few sectors. By 2021, over 40% of workers in multiple industries, including insurance, securities, and publishing, transitioned to working from home. The ACS data helps to map out these shifts, demonstrating that more industries were able to embrace remote work during the pandemic than ever before, driven by necessity and technological advancements. Productivity: A Complex Relationship The link between remote work and productivity remains nuanced, with findings varying depending on the method of analysis. Randomized experiments within companies show a slight increase in individual productivity due to remote work, evidenced by higher output in metrics such as emails sent or video calls made. Some studies also found that remote work improved job satisfaction, which could reduce turnover rates and save businesses the costs associated with hiring and training new employees. However, at an aggregate level, studies examining economic performance across industries show mixed results. Research by Fernald et al. (2024) found little correlation between labor productivity and the ability to work remotely, suggesting that remote work did not drastically impact overall productivity across sectors. Yet, when examining the period from 2019 to 2022, a positive relationship emerged between the rise in remote work and Total Factor Productivity (TFP), which measures the efficiency of all inputs used in production. This correlation indicates that, while remote work did not cause a significant productivity spike, it may have had a stabilizing effect on industry-level productivity during the pandemic. The Economic Implications of Remote Work The transition to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic brought about mixed results in terms of productivity. While productivity growth was not uniform across all industries, data suggests that the rise in remote work had a generally positive effect on productivity growth from 2019 to 2022. Particularly, remote work led to significant savings in office-related costs and more efficient business operations. Despite these gains, workers did not see a corresponding increase in compensation, though they did benefit from improved work-life balance. To Be (productive) or Not to Be (productive) – That is the Question Overall, while the productivity gains from remote work were evident, they were more apparent at the industry level, with businesses benefiting from lower non-labor input costs. Whether remote work remains a long-term productivity driver will depend on future management practices, technological advancements, and worker preferences, but the pandemic has certainly set the stage for more flexible work arrangements in the years to come.

Ever hear from a colleague that the reason the organization is passing on a candidate who seems to have all the right skills is due to them not being a “culture fit”? In the contemporary job market, the debate over whether to prioritize cultural fit or technical skills in hiring decisions has become increasingly relevant. While aligning candidates with a company’s values is essential for long-term retention and team cohesion, research indicates that hiring for skills is equally crucial for organizational success. So before “passing on” the next candidate due to their cultural fit, here are few reasons we should shift some focus on skills rather than solely on cultural alignment. Skills Correlate with Job Performance A significant body of research supports the idea that technical skills are a better predictor of job performance than cultural fit alone. A meta-analysis conducted by the American Psychological Association revealed that cognitive ability and job-related skills are among the strongest predictors of an employee’s effectiveness in their role. Specifically, the study found that cognitive ability tests can predict job performance with a correlation of 0.51, which is substantial compared to the lower correlations typically associated with cultural fit. This evidence suggests that while cultural alignment is important, it should not overshadow the necessity for candidates to possess the specific skills required to perform effectively in their roles. Hiring decisions that prioritize skills can lead to enhanced productivity and better overall performance within teams. Divergent Thought Fuels Innovation Prioritizing cultural fit can inadvertently create a homogenous workforce, which limits diversity of thought and inhibits innovation. According to research from McKinsey & Company, diverse teams are 35% more likely to outperform their peers in terms of financial performance. A study published in the Harvard Business Review found that teams that encourage diverse opinions and constructive conflict are more likely to achieve better outcomes. Moreover, hiring solely for culture can lead to the phenomenon of "groupthink," where team members conform to the prevailing opinions and ideas, stifling creativity and preventing necessary change. Encouraging a culture of openness to different ideas can ultimately drive business success. Hiring for skills allows organizations to cultivate diverse teams that challenge the status quo and drive innovation. By embracing candidates with varying experiences and viewpoints, companies can foster an environment where creativity thrives, leading to improved problem-solving and adaptability in a rapidly changing marketplace. Adaptability in a Changing Workforce The modern workforce is evolving, with rapid technological advancements changing the skill sets required for many roles. Research from the World Economic Forum emphasizes the importance of upskilling and reskilling, predicting that by 2025, 85 million jobs may be displaced by a shift in labor between humans and machines. In this context, hiring for skills becomes critical, as organizations must adapt to changing demands and ensure their employees possess the necessary capabilities to thrive.  While hiring for cultural fit has its advantages, prioritizing skills is essential for organizations seeking to enhance performance, foster innovation, and adapt to an ever-changing workforce. Research consistently shows that skills are a stronger predictor of job performance and that diverse teams generate better outcomes. By adopting a more balanced approach that values both skills and cultural fit, companies can build a robust workforce capable of driving long-term success in a competitive landscape.