Dip and Double-Dip

Drat and double drat as Dick Dastardly used to say. Or should that be dip and double-dip. A Deloitte survey has just revealed that confidence has reached an 18 month low among CFOs in the City, and that more than a third of those questioned believed that the UK was heading for a double-dip recession.

Finance chiefs are not paid to be cheerful (well not until they become CEOs and are magically transformed into over optimistic flag waving cheerleaders for their businesses) so for them to be so pessimistic is clearly par for the course. But there is at best an eerie silence surrounding the economy at the moment as UK plc waits with bated breath for the comprehensive spending review to unveil its conclusions on October 20^th.

There is even a sense within the coalition government that maybe they have managed expectations too well, and Whitehall is now echoing to the sound of ministers furiously back peddling and letting it be known that these cuts may not be as bad as feared, or maybe scaled back if the economy starts tanking again.

Then you have Philip Green saying that the Government is rubbish at buying stuff and could save billions just by better procurement. Great stuff, until you realise that Government buys from the private sector and these “efficiency gains” are actually cuts by another name.

We all recognise that the public sector is living beyond its means, and that spending has to be reined back now to avoid more serious austerity in the future. However the necessary initiatives to help smaller businesses take up the slack are conspicuous by their absence.

Economies feed off of confidence, and this is a commodity that is in very short supply at the moment. It is particularly frustrating as many businesses are having a good year, and in normal circumstance would probably be planning for further growth. Now all I hear is “well let’s just wait and see how the cuts affect us.”

For what it is worth, most of the evidence I have come across so far is pointing to the fact that we will probably avoid a double dip. However there is a danger that it probably won’t seem like it, which to my mind is the worst of all worlds.

"M&S – You wouldn’t run your own company like this. Why do boards allow it?"

“If we don’t learn from history we’ll repeat the same mistakes.”

That’s an annoying phrase but in the case of Marks & Spencer it seems very appropriate.

You can’t have failed to notice that M&S has appointed a new chief executive and terms have finally been agreed with him. Marc Bolland will start on 1 May and will be paid a base salary of £975,000. Not excessive you might think except that there are six other components to his remuneration package which could mean that he receives £14.8m in his first year. This is quite a staggering amount for someone who until he joined Morrisons, had never worked in retail and who at Morrisons hasn’t had any experience of non-food retailing, which makes up the bulk of M&S revenues.

So, how did the board of M&S get to a situation where they have had the same CEO and then Executive Chairman for six years but haven’t got around to grooming one of their 75,000 employees to take over? If they had, they might find that they didn’t need to pay £15m to Stuart Rose’s successor. What does it also say about Sir Stuart Rose that he hasn’t been developing his executive team for the top job?

In any Chief Executive role, whether M&S or running your own small business, leadership skills are usually the most important characteristic of success. Every CEO should have as one of their objectives that they develop their successor and infact in good companies there will be two or even three potential successors who are then motivated to perform strongly with the hope of getting the top job. In smaller owner-managed businesses of course, the good Chief Executive develops the management team so as to make the company less reliant on him/herself which in turn makes the business more saleable at some point in the future.

In a business like M&S which has a board of directors of the great and good, how could the succession issue never have been addressed in all that time? Especially as M&S had been here before; Stuart Rose himself had been parachuted in during 2004 replacing internally-sourced CEO Roger Holmes, who clearly wasn’t the man for the job but had got the role anyway. Poor Mr Holmes was probably the least bad person for the CEO role at that time and might have muddled through had it not been for the hostile bid from Philip Green, at which point everyone recognised that he wasn’t the right person for the job after all. Stuart Rose came to the rescue having been snubbed for the CEO role previously as the M&S board obviously thought they had it covered when they didn’t.

What does this say about how large company boards operate? Well, its not an encouraging sign especially after the debacles of poor board performance at other companies over the last year or two such as Northern Rock and RBS. What does it mean for owner-managed businesses in Enterprise Britain? Probably too much to go into detail in this column but it raises questions you should ask about how effective your board is and whether your board members add value and have accountability (yes even the non-execs!) and whether you are building a strong management team and developing your high-flyers. Because if these things aren’t happening then sooner or later, like M&S shareholders, you may end up paying a hefty price to compensate for those failings.