20 Jul 2016
Sticky Post By Posted in Funding, Start-ups With No Comments Permalink

Venture Capital May Stop Unicorn-Hunting

Sticky Post By On July 20, 2016 With No Comments

A few months ago, Oscar Williams-Grut wrote a great piece in Business Insider talking about the shift in investing interest from “unicorns” to what he coined “cockroaches.” His definition of a cockroach was a company that could survive anything. These were companies that were more interested in profits, self-funding, minimizing costs, and measured growth. Certainly a departure from the kinds of pre-revenue VC darlings that received massive funding in 2014 and 2015.

I was surprised that his article didn’t gain more traction and that #cockroaches didn’t become a thing.

At present, he is looking prophetic.

Theranos has all but imploded. Twitter is looking a lot less shiny than it once did. Zenefits is worth half what it was a year ago. Tesla cars are driving themselves into other objects at high speed.

During last year’s $4.2 billion spike in private investment deals, 59% of that total went to just three companies: Airbnb, Spotify, and Zenefits. There were 39 other “tech” deals in that same period for the remaining 41% of the $4.2 million. That’s a lot of investment money living in only 42 companies.

With this kind of concentration in private investment, fund-raising that used to be an incredible long-shot for the average non-valley-based startup just became impossible. At some point, the money is all spent.

Theranos, Twitter, and Zenefits could turn it around. With that much investor money involved, the sunk cost fallacy should encourage investors to pour in more cash if things get dire. If, however, these companies improve PE and VC rationalizations in value and fund-raising, that could be a very good thing for the rest of us.

Potential, rather than probability, has been favored for a long time among the millionaires providing VC cash to build various funds. The biggest of gambles were worth it because it only required 1 in 15 startup investments to actually make it. Now that ratio seems to be slipping further and private investment may find incremental growth far sexier than it did in the past. Risk mitigation, at some point, becomes a basic fiduciary responsibility and cockroach companies could benefit from that shift in investment theory.

Here are three fundamental shifts I predict could happen in the next 18 months:

  1. VCs start putting together “balanced” funds that act more like low-risk securities. Filled with smaller investments across more “bets,” these funds start to look for companies that exhibit clear paths to profits. This would also create a way to attract lower net worth investors to a fund.
  2. VC money will shelve tech-for-consumer concepts in favor of tech-for-business solutions. Private investment money isn’t willing to put down the app develop crack pipe just yet, but they will look more closely at those companies creating B2B applications as that market is, historically, less capricious.
  3. PE firms will be increasingly interested in finding opportunities in non-traditional hotbeds. GE Capital just partnered with Lamppost Group on their new logistics accelerator, Dynamo, in Chattanooga, Tennessee. There is a concentration of capital in a handful of places in the US, but ideas and innovation are not landlocked. The return on invested capital will be far greater in less expensive locales.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. Money can be inherently dumb and illogical. Companies who’ll champion the moniker of “cockroach” will focus on the things that make them hard to kill. Their survivalist mindset will lead to different decisions than one betting on run-rates, future value, and traffic monetization.

 

 

28 May 2016
Sticky Post By Posted in Business Headlines With No Comments Permalink

How will each presidential candidate affect your bottom line?

Sticky Post By On May 28, 2016 With No Comments

Owning or running a small business is precarious in the best of circumstances. Like the “Butterfly Effect,” small gyrations by legislative and regulatory bodies can have a hurricane’s effect by the time it filters down to entrepreneurial businesses.

Just last week, the Department of Labor issued new rules regarding overtime pay for salaried employees that could help compensate exempt employees for extra hours worked. This, of course, seems exceedingly fair on paper and was squarely aimed at large companies that employ thousands of people in the salary range this regulation covers. Having them add several million to their payrolls hurts but is more annoying- like getting a papercut when reviewing a multi-national corporate P&L.

Having spoken to several small business owners over the last two weeks, their reaction is not encouraging. The immediate response was to start planning for more part-time employees, contractors or shipping work overseas. If the average small business sees wages increase 10% -15% across the board, that isn’t something many of them can digest between now and the first of the year. With one act, the DOL has put thousands of small businesses in jeopardy.

Couple this DOL legislation with the presidential race and three candidates with very different views on the economy and you have an incredibly uncertain environment for small businesses. Sanders, Clinton and Trump all have spoken directly about issues that affect businesses and their platforms are largely full of promises that speak to their base’s most fervent beliefs. So which candidate would be the best for small businesses?

Bernie Sanders

An admitted democratic socialist, Sanders fits the role of the working man’s candidate. A champion of raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% and increasing minimum wage more than 100%, Sanders has spoken to a segment of the voting public that has been underserved and underrepresented since the formation of our current political system. He has been relatively quiet on the issues of small businesses outside of the obligatory mention about how they are an integral part of the US economy.

Sanders has supported initiatives such as increasing the lending limits for SBA loans as well as the Small Business Jobs Act that created $30 billion in funds for smaller banks to loan.

Unfortunately for small businesses, Sanders’ minimum wage proposals, higher taxes on the wealthiest individuals and no concrete plan to pay for all of the other programs he has proposed will make it very difficult for businesses to scale. Running a successful business would be more expensive and less lucrative for the founders.

Donald Trump

Pinning Trump’s policy down is extremely difficult as his position seems to change hourly or depending on which cable news outlet is interviewing him. He has positioned himself as the only candidate who understands business, the economy and trade.

I’m extremely skeptical of his business acumen. He started his career as the president of his father’s firm which was worth about $200 million at the time. If that company had been liquidated and all of that cash rolled into the S&P 500, he would be worth roughly the same amount as he is now based on the last estimate of his wealth by Forbes- about $8.7 billion. Of course, Trump also claims his “brand” is worth in excess of $10 billion. I’m not sure how his brand has created jobs or stimulated the economy outside of his own bank accounts.

He has been sued excessively in his business career by partners, investors and employees. As of February of this last year, he has been party to at least 169 federal suits. He has filed bankruptcy 4 separate times and while a Chapter 11 restructuring can help a large business survive, it is usually not a viable option for small business owners.

Trump wants to significantly penalize foreign products through raising tariff rates- believing that will create more demand for American-made products. Unfortunately, the US is no longer the world’s manufacturing leader with labor rates 10-15 times higher than foreign countries. Many small businesses use strategic outsourcing to create advantages needed to compete with larger vertically-integrated companies. If their supply chain costs go up, they lose the ability to turn meaningful profits and self-fund their own growth.

Hillary Clinton

Clinton is probably the most mixed of the three candidates. While Trump can’t be pinned down to commit or even be consistent in his messaging, and Sanders is very pro-labor, Clinton seems to occupy a confusing middle ground.

Like Sanders, Clinton is pro-labor and pro-union. She has proposed a number of new regulations that would be imposed on businesses of all sizes. Pay transparency, fair scheduling, a rising minimum wage and employer-provided child care are all causes she has promoted vigorously. For the average small business owner, these regulations will certainly add direct operational costs as each business must expand its employee services and prove compliance.

Unlike Sanders, she has a long reputation of being Wall Street-friendly. A regular paid speaker for big Wall Street firms and the Clinton’s charitable foundations are direct beneficiaries of donations from those firms. She has talked about assessing “risk fees” to companies that are more likely to contribute to a potential financial crisis in the future and closing loopholes for hedge funds. She has not intimated she has any issues with Wall Street’s ability to generate capital itself and has not proposed putting any limitations on raising that capital.

There is no Truman Here

There were at least 8 presidents who owned and operated small businesses prior to being elected to the White House. Lincoln owned a general store and law practice. Harding bought a struggling newspaper. Harry S. Truman was a partner in a haberdashery. Many decades later, both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush were successful business people before they became president.

Having the unique experience of being a small business owner or operator is not something that can be adequately imagined or synthesized. The only way to understand that is to actually do it.

Unfortunately, we don’t have any candidates currently running that have that background. Sure, Trump turned $200 million into $8 billion, but that seems like starting a marathon at mile 22 and only having to get to 26.2. Truthfully, none of these candidates can really commiserate with small business owners and hold any real credibility.

The Choice

Small business owners would need to choose between dealing with the increased regulations and legislation that Clinton and Sanders propose or the likely increase in supply chain costs with Trump. In many ways, it’s a coin flip between Sanders and Clinton as their policies are very similar. It’s probably simple enough to think of Sanders’s policies as a more extreme version of the Clinton platform.

Companies that would be better off with Clinton or Sanders:

  • Businesses with fewer than 25 people
    • Most current federal regulations apply to companies a bit larger so the extra operational cost of future regulations will not likely apply to smaller companies.
    • Minimum wage increases are going to hurt, but there may be equitable ways of mitigating that cost with some careful planning.
  • Operations that need access to small business loans or government-sponsored lending programs
  • Companies that use imported products or supplies to build products or support services
    • This would also include operations that manufacture overseas and ship into the US

Companies that would be better off with Trump:

  • Large companies that need to find cost savings in their human resources
    • Increases in minimum wage for companies with a large percentage of hourly employees could be difficult to absorb and would likely get pushed through to customers.
  • Vertically integrated companies that manufacture domestically and haven’t been able to compete on price with foreign competition
  • Companies that are trying to grow rapidly and have the ability to self-fund that growth

It’s important to recognize that all the candidates talk about doing things they really don’t have the constitutional authority to do. Most of the things they promise require some level of involvement from Congress, so this isn’t something they can magically create. I know many people will point to the number and frequency of President Obama’s executive orders as precedent for a future executive branch to make sweeping changes, but there are limitations to the President’s executive powers. The President does, however, expect their respective party to vote in support of their agendas. For that reason, it is very important to understand what each candidate would likely push and vote accordingly.

16 Apr 2016
Sticky Post By Posted in Redhawk Permalink

Redhawk teams with Tripp Watson and the Watson Firm

Sticky Post By On April 16, 2016

Redhawk Consulting is pleased to announce the addition of Tripp Watson and The Watson Firm to our team of entrepreneurially focused consultants and advisors. Tripp and his firm specialize in representing entrepreneurs and helping them navigate the various legal hurdles from formation through operational maturity. He’ll join Redhawk founder Matt Hottle and Marketing Director Jen Barnett.

“Entrepreneurship is exploding in Birmingham, and along with that growth comes the need for business services,” says Watson. “More than any firm in Birmingham, we’re uniquely positioned to advise those businesses on issues from formation and licensing to HR and sales.”

Redhawk and the Watson firm will work together to provide cross-functional expertise to clients of both firms. While Watson offers legal counsel, Redhawk offers management, HR, sales, and marketing support based on a client’s needs.

Legal requirements for businesses can often derail their success. “We see a fair amount of entrepreneurs with poorly drafted operating agreements and other formation paperwork that lead to partner disputes and business disruption,” says Hottle. “Tripp and the Watson firm can be huge asset for them.”

12 Apr 2016
Sticky Post By Posted in Audio & Video, Digital, Marketing & PR, Redhawk Permalink

Welcome Marketing & Digital Consultant Jen Barnett!

Sticky Post By On April 12, 2016

Redhawk Consulting is excited to add Jen Barnett to our consulting team. You may know Jen from her businesses Freshfully and Bottle & Bone, both local Birmingham food endeavors with e-commerce components. She also has 24 years of marketing experience with clients from hospitals and banks to foodservice and retail. She’s worked with blue-chip veterans and day-old start-ups on marketing and digital strategy, web development, and branding.

Jen has an MBA from Emory University’s Goizueta Business School, with concentrations in marketing and innovation.

She spoke at TEDx Birmingham on being brave, one of the core tenets of entrepreneurship. Watch her talk below.

29 Mar 2016
Sticky Post By Posted in Redhawk Permalink

Welcome New Client Rock Wool Manufacturing!

Sticky Post By On March 29, 2016

Redhawk Consulting is pleased to announce it’s newest client engagement with Rock Wool Manufacturing. Established in 1943, Rock Wool is one the most respected brands in the mineral wool insulation market. Their products are used for both residential and commercial insulation applications throughout the country.

Known for their best-in-class customer service, Rock Wool engaged Redhawk to help them design and implement a sales process that delivers actionable reporting, data capture, a more predictable sales pipeline and greater visibility into sales activities for the executive team. This information and process orientation will allow Rock Wool to continue to improve their customers’ experience. To fully realize the benefits of this new sales process, Redhawk will also program a fully functional and customized CRM solution using the Nutshell platform.

According to Matt Hottle of Redhawk, Rock Wool’s willingness to try new things was key to creating this project. “This company has been well-known and respected in their industry for more than 70 years. The fact that they are willing to re-examine their existing processes is a testament to their leadership and their commitment to always get better at everything they do.”

Rock Wool is headquartered in Leeds, AL with plants in multiple US locations. They supply pipe, sheet and blanket insulation to the distributor and contractor markets throughout the country.

28 Mar 2016
Sticky Post By Posted in Funding, Start-ups With No Comments Permalink

Read this Before Taking on Investors

Sticky Post By On March 28, 2016 With No Comments

There comes a point for all startup businesses where they have to consider taking on investors versus bootstrapping their operations to grow the company. For a lot of founders, they wrestle with this decision several times in the first few years.

While I do think bootstrapping is sexy as hell, I’m not opposed to investors. Some startups can’t even take a business idea off paper without significant seed investment and many investors are absolute rock stars that will do anything they can to help an investment succeed.

With that stated, there are a few things to consider before taking on investors. For the sake of this article, I’m going to consider accelerators, incubators, venture capital and any other scenarios where equity is exchanged for cash or subsidies as an “investment.”

  1. A VC fund is considered successful if 10% of their investments do well while you could 100% fail like any of the other 90% of their plays that don’t pan out. Don’t believe the hype; succeeding as a company is way better than “learning from failing.”What is it about that VC fund that makes sense for you- other than their stacks of cash? A typical VC probably only has about 2% of their capital invested in your company while you may have every credit card maxed out, loans from friends and family due and employees to pay at the end of the week. The stakes for you are ALWAYS much higher than your VC investors. Choose wisely.
  2. Who is actually managing that accelerator or incubator? Are they a subject matter expert in the markets their incubated companies are competing in or are they just a big name in the startup world? Name recognition can be a huge asset as long as it’s big enough. Minor celebrities in those communities are probably not driving enough value if they aren’t also providing super-relevant industry experience.
  3. Be careful not to fall for the “easy” country-club deal. Raising money among friends and acquaintances can be a legit way to generate capital but they require much of the same structure, governance and construction as a VC/ PE deal.For example, I found one deal where a minority owner provided capital in exchange for equity but then expected their investment to be paid back first before any other owners could receive any distributions of profit. That’s a pretty crappy provision considering this came with a measly $20k investment.
  4. Pick your startup competitions with care. As I have previously pontificated, startup competitions can be a total waste of time when they are poorly conceived, executed or judged.There was a competition recently announced here in Birmingham where the contestants have to pay $50 to enter, compete in three rounds over a 6 month time frame, 50 companies could enter and the prize was only $10k.The lost-opportunity cost alone is higher than $10k and the contestants are actually subsidizing 25% of the prize money through their own “application fees.” By winning, you would be doing so on the backs of other start-ups. That just seems crappy and it a massive waste of time and resources.

Capital, or the lack thereof, is always a primary concern for a company wanting to start, grow or innovate. Every founder needs to seriously consider their individual opportunities for outside investment. It should not be an easy question to answer and the more thought expended when considering funding options, the higher the likelihood that a company finds investors that are passionate, supportive and truly helpful. If the total value of what they offer is measured in decimal places, you may need to consider other options.

24 Mar 2016
Sticky Post By Posted in Redhawk Permalink

Welcome our New Client Reliance Financial Group!

Sticky Post By On March 24, 2016

Redhawk Consulting is pleased to announce its new consulting engagement with Reliance Financial Group. Working with the executive team at RFG, a new strategic framework has been designed and Redhawk will continue working with them to implement that strategy.

Speaking about the new engagement, Matt Hottle reflects on the incredible potential ahead for RFG, “They are in exponential growth mode right now and they want to be aggressive while maintaining their service and performance standards. They have the challenge of capitalizing on their outstanding RIA platform while delivering the support and resources their independent advisors have come to expect. It’s exciting to work with their energetic and high-performing culture.”

With more than $1.3 billion in AUM, RFG is poised to become a major force with their hybrid RIA. In just a few short years, RFG has grown from a small group of individual producers to more than 35 independent advisors in 4 offices throughout the US.

21 Mar 2016
Sticky Post By Posted in Redhawk Permalink

Welcome our new client Two Bros Bows!

Sticky Post By On March 21, 2016

We are excited to start working with Two Bros Bows out of Charlotte, NC. Started by two brothers, Hayden and Duncan, the young entrepreneurs created the company when they were 7 and 10 years old. TBB’s chief executive and rock star is their mother, Elisha Duncan, who has helped the boys grow the company from a small operation in a bedroom to a nationally-celebrated toy and imagination company. After their recent success at the New York Toy Fair, TBB has gained interest from some of the largest retail and wholesale outlets in the country.

By combining the fascination of outdoor play with safety and handmade quality, TBB is the hottest boutique toy manufacturer in the country. Currently exploring massive distribution and licensing deals, Redhawk will help the boys and Elisha navigate each opportunity.

As the founder of Redhawk, Matt Hottle, puts it, “We are thrilled to be working with Two Bros Bows. Young entrepreneurs, engaging toys that inspire kids to get outside and explore, and made in the USA—what’s not to love about this company? We are humbled and grateful for the opportunity to engage with TBB. We believe the trajectory for this brand is significant.”

For those interested in hearing more about Two Bros Bows and their story, visit their website at twobrosbows.com.

18 Feb 2016
Sticky Post By Posted in Entrepreneurship, Funding, Start-ups With No Comments Permalink

5 Things Startup Competitions Get Wrong

Sticky Post By On February 18, 2016 With No Comments

Every city seems to be hosting startup contests where founders pitch their companies to a dais of “experts” live on stage in an effort to win some funding. Sometimes these competitions are massive and worth millions but many are much smaller; awarding $5k to $20k. It’s within these newer and smaller competitions that I have noticed a recurring series of mistakes.

1. The judges are not experts in entrepreneurial businesses

You see this when sponsors become the judges or the panel includes commercial bankers who are really not business-builders. I love bankers and many of my friends are a part of that industry but they are institutionally bad at valuating and understanding start-up businesses. They tend to judge a business idea in terms of if they would give them a loan and for how much.

2. Contestants are often post-funded companies that have been in business for a year or more

When you are awarding $10k to a company that already has employees and overhead, you have given them 6 weeks of operating costs. That $10k could have launched a prefunded company’s business plan and allowed them to get a credible pitch together to secure additional funds. Instead, you have floated an established company’s payroll for a few weeks. You’ve created almost zero value. If the contest is awarding $100k or more, that’s a different story but when you are giving away small amounts of prize money, focus on those for whom it has the greatest impact.

3. The best idea almost never wins

Based on the sponsors, the event’s host, the constituency of the audience and other non-business-related factors, the least deserving of companies often win these events. There are always ulterior motives at play and when those are allowed to propagate, you see some truly awful business models walking away with money that would have served a greater purpose being set on fire in the parking lot. Nobody wants to admit this happens- but it does.

4. The event tries to be “like” Shark Tank

As soon as one of these competitions invokes the Shark Tank name in its promotional materials, it immediately loses credibility with me. Mark Cuban is not coming to your event. It is a TV show that is 50% substance and 50% manufactured drama. The best contests hold non-public and lengthy discovery sessions between the companies and the judges. Financial details are poured over and every assumption is challenged. By the end of that process, a business plan has been credibly reviewed and vetted. When those judges name a winner, it’s a very carefully considered verdict. The contestants come away with invaluable insight and advice from experts that will benefit them in perpetuity.

5. Read the fine print for the award money

More needs to be done to explain to contestants any requirements that will be imposed on claiming the prize money after it is “awarded.” This includes details around benchmarking or timing thresholds required before the money will be made available. What tax implications exist and was that explained to them? One competition I watched closely actually had a very short window where the winners could claim their award and it required hours of drafting financial reports and updating the business plan. At one point, the 2nd place winner decided the $6k they won wasn’t worth the effort and forfeited the money.

It is truly outstanding that more of these competitions are popping up all over the country. These events can be future-altering opportunities for start-up businesses or they can be thinly-disguised advertising events for the paying sponsors.

As with most innovative ideas, the shift toward commercialization happens at some point and the original altruistic motivations are supplanted by the attraction to revenue and marketability. We’ve seen this shift happen with the best events. If you think that AOL purchasing TechCrunch won’t turn Disrupt into an event where sponsors look to sticker-up everything that moves like a NASCAR, you may be sincerely disappointed.

If organizers can focus on creating the best possible value for their sponsors while maintaining the worth of the experience for contestants, these competitions can help launch the next big idea.

25 Jan 2016
Sticky Post By Posted in HR & Recruiting With No Comments Permalink

Why You Should Share Your Profits with Millennials

Sticky Post By On January 25, 2016 With No Comments

Like two warring factions, there is a pro-millennial camp and an anti-millennial camp who rigorously debate the benefits and challenges of a growing Gen Y workforce. On the pro side, millennials are celebrated for their ideals and stubborn vision of disrupting the status quo. On the con side, they are viewed as narcissistic, lazy and entitled neophytes who almost refuse to work a meaningful 40 hours per week.

I have wrestled with these opposing perspectives in real-world applications. Many of my clients have owners that struggle with this emerging workforce as they feel “forced” to hire increasing numbers of millennials. This collision of establishment and new order mentalities leads to strife in almost everything they try to accomplish as an organization. Even office parties can become a blood-letting as opposing views on the importance of cultural sensitivity, dietary considerations and inclusionary activities battle for dominance.

Once you spend some time working in this push and pull between the old guard and new workforce, you start to see where common ground may exist.

Money.

Regardless of age or the corporate cultures you cut your teeth on, money still creates a bridge between the two sides. Despite the popular notion that millennials aren’t driven to acquire material possessions, that just isn’t the statistical truth.

According to Goldman Sachs’ survey of millennials in 2015, 30% said they have little interest in buying a home and 33% said they have no plans to buy a car. For a minute, let’s consider the counterpoint of those numbers. With the inverse nature of percentages, this survey also shows 70% of millennials want to buy a house and 66% plan to buy a car. Additionally, many millennials are carrying crippling student debt and entering an employment market that is increasingly tight as the sharing economy grows without a correlating growth in job creation. Even if millennials don’t want to focus on the accumulation of money or wealth, they are bound by the same economic realities as people twice their age. Even if money may be motivating for Generation X and seen as a necessary evil by Generation Y, they both understand it’s role.

I worked with a client who rolled out a performance plan for all employees that paid an additional 15% of their current salaries as a bonus at year end€”provided they met revenue and profit margin goals. This company is comprised almost 100% of Gen X management and 100% of Gen Y front line employees. Previously, they had not published strategic goals and had no meaningful monetary incentive for reaching specific performance levels. This straight-forward program created a 26% increase in top line revenue, and net income grew 135% in one year.

What we found was a millennial workforce that still had enough need wrapped around money that they worked hard to make this bonus. I also believe the very nature of working toward a common goal provided a sense of purpose and community. For the first time, there was some consensus between the Gen Y and Gen X populations.

Even with some massive checks being written by the owners of the company to pay those bonuses, there was little pain in signing them. The program was a massive success for them personally and professionally. After backing out the bonuses, they still had one of their highest profit margins ever.

I’m not suggesting to simply throw money at a millennial workforce and consider the problem solved. I am suggesting that a thoughtful approach to using it as starting point has merit. Here are some things to think through when considering a profit-sharing program.

Tie the Money to Performance Goals
The business should benefit from the program and the program actually gains meaning when it is tied to some achievement. It helps to create alignment and shared purpose. Without goals to reach, the bonus becomes the corporate version of a participation trophy.

Pick 3 Goals that Everyone Impacts
Don’t pick 12 metrics to hit. That’s just wasting your time. Pick 3 that really matter and that everyone in the organization can impact.

Measure and Share Constantly
Progress toward a goal or series of metrics should be measured and shared as often as possible. Remember, you are working with millennials who are used to information being available on-demand and in real time. Publish the results or progress with the highest frequency possible. Internal social media programs are great conduits for this.

Create Meaning Behind the Goals
Use the opportunity to explain why these goals are important to the employees as well as the company. Revenue improvement can mean expansion and more opportunities for the employees. Excellent profit margins represent ownership’s ability to reinvest in the business which can mean growth in a number of ways. If you spend some time explaining the what’s-in-it-for-me (WIIFM) components to the program, you can maximize the motivation.

It’s important to recognize that many of us Gen X’rs wanted the same things as these “millennials.” We wanted our work to matter, to be recognized for our achievements and have the opportunity for rapid advancement. The only difference is we folded like cheap shirts when our parent’s generation said no. I admire that Gen Y is being so hard-headed. I think many of us old curmudgeons are envious of their resolve.

Again, I don’t believe this is some magic bullet to solve all disconnects between a millennial workforce and Gen X management but it provides one bridge between the two. If you are an owner or manager currently ignoring this dynamic or believe it will go away, consider there are 50% more millennials than Gen X’rs. At some point, if it hasn’t happened already, your workforce will be more Y than X so you need to focus on how you can engage and motivate them.

Hire Us

Just-in-Time Resources for Entrepreneurial Businesses

Contact Us
First
Last