This year, as I predicted, there will be more business failures than last year (which was a record year and not in a good way!)

As with any disease, early diagnosis is always beneficial even if only to make the surviving period less traumatic.

For the business owner admitting there may be an issue is always the first hurdle to overcome just as no-one every really wants to admit they may be ill.

To allow you to act before it's too late a proactive review of your business on an ongoing basis must be worth some serious consideration, regard it as a 'BUPA' health check if you like.

Here are a few '"checks"

So, now what do you do if the diagnosis is not favourable?

The issues mentioned clearly require a two pronged approach;

1. Emergency room actions and
2. Long term palliative care

For the emergency room

For the palliative care

Finally, if the end looks inevitable try and leave with some integrity.

Ok, I realise that pre-packs have become the norm but reputations are what businesses are usually sustained on, don't lose yours and don't lose yourself.

It's a very pertinent question as your business grows, or maybe even when it's shrinking!

To attach the need for an FD purely to turnover or profit is not a robust guide and my experience tells me it's better to think in terms of staff numbers, and the management of such, to gauge whether the time is right to make an appointment.

To stick my head above the parapet and say an actual staff number puts me at risk of getting it wrong, but my approximate measure would be 35 staff. Generally when you reach this number systems and procedures need to be more structured and communication more formal. The entrepreneur who has, to this stage, possibly run the business "on the hoof", with a good dose of intuition, may find the shift to a more substantial business model means they may well be out of their depth in terms of analytical skills and, almost always, financial communication skills.

The need could have come as a result of a third party, possibly an investor or funder, requesting that systems are moved up a notch or a personal realisation that, actually, ignorance is no longer as blissful as it once seemed.

So, who to choose? What skills are desirable and which are essential? The FD is the most important executive on the board, after the CEO, often hated and revered at the same time by the other board members. It's a difficult role to sustain when the business doesn't perform well as often the FD is blamed as the causation.

Financially geared interpersonal skills are not top of the list of "must haves" for the usual ACA student, yet to be a great FD the ability to talk to, and understand, others who may not have the same levels of interest financially, nor indeed ability to interpret numbers, requires tact, diplomacy and exemplary communication skills .

A great FD will be a problem solver as well as someone who can identify problems in advance of them becoming insurmountable. They must be someone who is not afraid of being the whipping boy, or girl, when needed but can stand and hold their ground when everyone else falls apart.

The FD of this decade needs to be flexible in how they work in an owner managed business. They may have more operational duties than, for example, in a multi-national business and, as funds remain tight for the foreseeable future, rolling up their sleeves perhaps more than they may wish to will also be essential.

A full time FD is often an over indulgence and portfolio FD's are becoming very common. Take care when using such a person that they can give you their time when you most need it. Often their real value is cyclical rather than constant.

Research by Deloitte says the FD of today has four vital roles; catalyst, strategist, steward and operator, some of these skills are literally poles apart. So much so that getting, and importantly keeping, the right person is a challenging task in its own right, never mind finding the person with a split personality that you can actually understand.

So, if you want your Finance Director to stay with you, recruit on business acumen and skills rather than pure numerical accuracy. Conformance, as they say, is important but performance so much more.

At the December meeting hosted by member Rachel Goddard, the EB16 contingent voted for its Member of the Year 2010 and actually managed to produce a tie, having taken the votes from Gothenburg from where absent member Bob James phoned in his votes in to me!

So, the joint holders of the trophy are now Chantal Orlik and Nick Martin, both founder members of this Oxfordshire Group that started 12 months ago. Fellow Group members have been very impressed with the achievements of both these business leaders and their contributions to the Group as a whole.

In the photo, the last holder of the trophy, Peter Selkirk on the left, is seen handing over custody of Life Dreamer to Chantal and Nick who will each look after LD for six months. They follow an interesting list of special people whose names are inscribed on this trophy from my previous Academy groups in both Yorkshire and, more recently, Oxfordshire. We look forward to announcing the winning MOTY nomination for 2011 late this year.

ENDS

Richard Goodier
Chairman, Entrepreneurs Board 16 - Oxfordshire
Academy for Chief Executives Ltd
Tel: 07940 584 676

© Academy for Chief Executives 2011

Graham Davies is one of the few professional speakers that I would queue to see.

His content is always relevant and concise, his connection with the audience is unique and his sense of timing is exquisite. So it was with great interest that I picked up a copy of his new book "The Presentation Coach."

I was not disappointed – it is packed with great tips and techniques and offers a "map" that simplifies the process of getting from "start to finish" whilst at the same time revealing where the "treasure is buried" along the way.

I particularly liked the section on Micro Statements so here is one to finish this review......during the next year if you want to reduce presentation fears and increase presentation confidence and competence then you need to read this book during the next month!"

Phil Jesson
Academy for Chief Executives
January 2011

Graham Davies is a Keynoter, Facilitator and After Dinner Speaker who has become the UK's leading Presentation Coach

Whether on stage or TV, his success is built on an ability to juggle a serious message with entertainment.

As a founding partner in the consultancy Straight Talking, he coaches executives and politicians on how to get their message across in a brutally effective way, without addiction to PowerPoint Prozac.

Graham's clients include Ford, IBM, Tesco, Unilever, UBS, Porsche, ICI, Vodafone and KPMG, as well as 5 members of the current Coalition Cabinet.

Find out more on: www.grahamdavies.co.uk

The Government is in the process of reducing the size of the public sector. In October central government learned of the cuts to be made in their budgets in the Public Spending Review. Earlier this week, local government in England found out how big the cuts to their budgets would be. The FT published a useful map showing the effect of the cuts across England. The Government also published their Localism Bill which will devolve some powers to local government and communities.

The private sector is expected to step up and provide the growth that is necessary to replace (and build on) the reduction in the public sector. Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) are replacing Regional Development Agencies (also part of the Localism agenda) and will have to decide where to place their limited cash for the best effect. Do they go 'top down', choose sectors or companies to support and grow – a policy known as 'picking winners' or do they approach the problem from the bottom up, by creating the conditions in which any small business can become a medium business and medium businesses can become large?

"When you're looking for growth opportunities you don't stick a pin in a map and drop down a research centre here or arbitrarily back an industry there"
David Cameron, Prime Minister

In a speech to the CBI conference in late October reported by the BBC, David Cameron seemed to favour the top down approach.

"Mr Cameron said targeted government support for "those industries where Britain enjoys competitive advantage" would be a key priority." The BBC reported.

However, in a later passage they also note "The prime minister insisted support would not be limited to large sectors already in existence. "We've got to back the big businesses of tomorrow, not just the big businesses of today," he declared. Such support would not take the form of subsidies, however."

Cameron also appears to support a free market operating without constraints, "I believe in competition," he said. "I believe when new entrants challenge big business, everyone wins. This hasn't always been the view of the government."

A top down approach is also referred to, not always favourably, as 'picking winners'. Previous government approaches that attempted to do this have not always been successful. There are many variables involved and it could be compared with placing bets. Success depends to a great extent on the quality of research and decision making, on selecting the 'right' investment opportunities, with the right spread of risk and on good forward vision in a world market that can change rapidly. In this approach, money is spread across fewer businesses and sectors, with more money available to those chosen. There is a higher potential return on investment but at a higher risk. As a single approach, it excludes those who are not perceived as 'winners' but who have a good business plan and might, with support, have high growth potential.

The bottom up approach could be called 'growing winners'. It is a wider-ranging, less selective approach and usually involves stimulating the whole business sector by training, support, advice and mentoring. There is a much lower cost per business with a lower individual risk. Central provision can be supplemented by private sector services which have the effect of stimulating those businesses, too. There is the potential for moderate growth across many businesses, producing a broader front of growth in the economy.

For those of us who have been involved in arguments about the most effective approach to networking, this dichotomy has a familiar structure. It is the quantity vs quality argument where the selective approach = quality and the general approach = quantity.

Some businesses approach networking as a focussed exercise with set criteria and with only those who meet criteria worthy of further exploration. This produces a limited field of operation and effectively rules out random connections which may display unexpected potential.

Other businesses set out to meet as many other people as they can, to develop some understanding of who they are and what they do and develop further levels of relationship with those where there is a promise of further success for both parties. This approach does allow for random connections and presupposes that the answers are not all known at the outset.

As it has proved in networking, the solution to the business growth question may be a combination of both approaches. If growing businesses can be compared to gardening, and I think it can, it is likely that one would want to grow some prize specimens whilst having a good level of plant health and growth across the whole garden. To do this, the prudent gardener would

Developing business may not be so different. Some winners are obvious and some are not. Growing next year's top businesses will probably come from existing successes, finding the successful businesses further out requires seeding and cultivation. So bottom up AND top down approaches are needed to work together and to encourage private businesses to support other private businesses to supplement and develop government/LEP support.

This approach seems to support what David Cameron was saying to the CBI and, indeed, what Vince Cable and Eric Pickles are asking LEPs to do. It has been said that LEPs, being more local, will have their ear closer to the ground. It needs to be a listening ear, nuanced to recognise potential and act upon it. Time will tell if that will be the case.

New Year's Resolutions. Just going through the motions or using the idea as a motivator?

I think that people whose New Year's resolutions fail wanted to carry them out, but they didn't prepare themselves for the process well enough. After all, if you could do something differently – and successfully – so that your business, or your work in general, benefited, wouldn't you do it?

Why not make a resolution now to do something differently or better or new in the New Year? Something which is within your ability (even if it is a bit of a stretch). If it requires resources you don't have, you may be setting yourself up to fail. On the other hand, if it requires resources that you can reasonably call on (including money, your time and the support of other people), make sure they're all set up before you start.

It should be something which you can express positively. Don't resolve to have a less cluttered office, say. Resolve to have a tidier one. It is difficult to not do something: simply by thinking of the thing you want to stop doing, you bring it to the forefront of your mind.

Make it something which you can describe, which you can imagine yourself doing. If you can't define it for yourself, it's likely you won't really know what it is you're trying to do differently. Also, unless you can describe it, you're unlikely to know when it has happened, so you need to be able to define the criteria for success, too (don't be too demanding of yourself!)

And, of course, whatever it is you resolve to do, it shouldn't be at the expense of other people.

Now, once you have ensured that your resolution satisfies all the above criteria, that will go a long way to success. Here are the things that guarantee success. Firstly, have someone you can be accountable to. It can be a business colleague, a relative or friend: but it has to be someone who is committed to helping you – if only for ten minutes a month. It might even be a business coach! Being accountable to yourself is possible (indeed it is desirable) but the flesh is weak, even though the spirit is willing, and not having someone else to be accountable to can be a subtle way of setting yourself up to fail.

Secondly, and this might only need to be considered if you find yourself faltering, ask yourself why it would suit you not to do this thing. For example, the person who resolves to start networking might find that there are too many pressing needs in the office to let him go to the networking lunch. This is a plausible reason – it might even be true – but it is not a good enough reason, if the business really does need them to start networking. It is what psychologists call an excuse. In truth, the person is fearful of entering a crowded room full of people they don't know, going up to someone, and then talking to them. As it is apparently unacceptable to admit that that is the fear, their ego constructs a nice little plausible businesslike reason why they shouldn't do it.

It is important to recognise that the ego is not intentionally sabotaging the person, in this case, though that is the outcome. The ego's motive is to protect you and, correctly at one level, it sees the networking event as a threat. So it creates the excuse. The important thing is to understand what is going on.

Ask yourself how comes it suits you not to go networking (or whatever your resolution is). See if you can surface the real reason – often listening to the first thing that comes into your head, rather than censoring it, is the best technique – and then, calmly without irony or being patronising, speak to your ego inside your head saying something like "Thank you for your help and concern. I realise you are doing this from the best of intentions, but I am confident I can handle the situation". Say it repeatedly, with conviction, if necessary. Of course, if you think you'll feel a fool saying something like that silently to yourself, and so you won't do it, that is just the ego playing up again, so you need be aware of that, too.

This is why you need someone to be accountable to. So you can discuss with them the reasons why you might not be being as successful in your resolution as you want to be. They only have to be a sounding board, they don't have to know this emotional intelligence stuff. But you might need to apply it if you are mysteriously not as successful in your resolve as you'd like to be. After all, if you have previously established that the resolution is desirable for the business, within your capabilities and all the rest, why wouldn't you do it?

And, having a useful attitude to the resolution is helpful too. Here I can do no better than my Russian master at school used to do and quote the witches' advice to Macbeth in act 4 of the play: "Be bloody, bold and resolute!"

"Its given me a sense of humour failure", was the response of Duncan Bannatyne (of the BBC's Dragons Den) in the Daily Mail when reacting to the much maligned Equality Act 2010 which came into force on 1st October 2010. What was Duncan getting worked up about?

Consider this scenario.

This year you plan an office Christmas party, and on the basis of a recommendation from a fellow Chief Executive, you arrange a comedian. The comedian makes some racist remarks which several black members of staff find offensive. The next day they complain to you. They recently suffered racial taunts from a customer, and they are getting fed up with this sort of thing.

What should you do? You did not think the comedian was particularly offensive, other members of staff who are black did not complain, and in any case, these two members of staff have been known to make racist remarks themselves.

You may well feel compelled to do something, but the good news is that an employee will not have a case against you if you ignore them. The bad news is that if you ignore it when it happens again, you could be in serious trouble.

There is no cap to discrimination claims, and last year there was a successful £720k disability claim. There have been much larger out of court settlements, particularly in City law firms and bankers.

This sort of incident is called 'third part harassment', and one of the most notable cases occurred when Bernard Manning made some offensive remarks at a corporate event in a De Vere Hotel in 1995. In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal was sure that De Vere were liable, because Bernard was notorious for this sort of humour, and they should have protected their staff.

Nonetheless, since then the law has been a bit vague.

The essential purpose of the Equality Act 2010 is to tidy up legislation in this area and make discrimination law more consistent.

So, in relation to our scenario, which could equally be window cleaners or other contractors in your business. The law now says that if staff have been offended on at least two previous occasions which you know about, and it happens again, you must take reasonable steps to stop it.

You speak to the window cleaners, brief next year's comedian, highlight the staff's concern to the customer, or speak to the IT contractor who is continually making unwanted advances to members of your staff (apologies to window cleaners and IT contractors!). If you have done that, you are unlikely to be liable if it continues.

Not a lot to ask really, but what else does this Act contain?

For the average company, there's not a lot to worry about, although if you have an equal opportunities policy, it may need revising some time. The main changes(and the first is probably the most significant) are:-

Rather unfairly, in a reference to the previous Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, this Act has been called 'Harriet's PC equality law'. The Coalition Government disagreed with some original proposals, and has removed them. Hence, there should be broad political support for what is left.

And what is left is unlikely to make much difference to reasonable employers on a day to day basis.

For further information go to the ACAS site (http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3017.

Ken Allison is an ACE speaker who presents an interactive, challenging and entertaining session on employment law for busy executives. He dispels fears and explodes myths, and has provided follow up assistance to members from more than 90% of the groups he has spoken to.

© Paradigm Partners, November 2010

For many people, as the calendar moves into December with January not long in coming, this is a time for reflection and renewal – a time of endings and beginnings. As we approach the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011, the break between Christmas and New Year offers many of us an opportunity. It is a time to reflect on what has happened (and what hasn't) in the past year and a time to visualise and plan what will happen in the coming year.

This December, I have a very personal ending to consider – and some new beginnings, too. On Jan 1st, I will step down as Chairman of The Academy and hand over to a consortium of Chairmen and Members led by Andrew Morris. There will be more on this in the Newsletter and in a blog on this site towards the end of December. For now, I'd like to reflect on my endings and beginnings.

I founded The Academy for Chief Executives in 1996 from The Executive Committee (TEC) Groups that I ran. As I wrote in my book, The Entrepreneur Within -

"An opportunity came up to join the UK operation of an American organisation called The Executive Committee (TEC) which developed leaders. I joined as chairman of a group and eventually became the top chairman within the organisation in the UK, running four groups, and won several awards from America for my work. After four years, I was asked to become managing director and it was something I really wanted. This was at the age of 59. The UK franchise holder then changed his mind and, after subsequent discussions, I decided to resign. The groups that I was very successfully running decided to help me to start up on my own, which, with the agreement of the franchise holder, I did. I then began building the Academy for Chief Executives.

The learning through the whole of this period has been profound, particularly when I reflect on the thousands of leaders that have passed through my hands. Many of them have become millionaires. As the whole business is dedicated to learning, I feel I have to be a model for that learning and therefore spend a lot of time on my own personal development. Even at my current age, I am still learning to bring value to people and I intend to continue doing that for many years to come."

I will be handing over a vibrant organisation ready to move forward with the new team and I have every confidence in the direction they will take it.

My involvement with the Academy will change but will not be severed. I will still be running my Academy Group as Chairman. I will have continuing role in developing The Academy internationally and I will always be founder, of course. In addition to those activities, I will be developing my own private coaching and mentoring service under the name -Wisdom Forums. I am also launching a new charity – The Ella Foundation – to mentor and coach Chief Executives of charities using the Academy format. So no pipe and slippers for me at present! I'm still looking forward to new beginnings, new challenges and new achievements.

2010 had presented its challenges to the world and business has not escaped them. Nevertheless, businesses have grown and developed and businesspeople have learned valuable lessons that will be useful in the years to come. In this time for reflection, why not ask yourself – what has 2010 meant for you and what will you be doing in 2011 – and beyond?

Now is the time to start thinking about it because the time to act is not far behind.

Brian Chernett is founder of The Academy for Chief Executives (ACE) – He has 43 years' experience as managing director of private and public companies, including subsidiaries of Booker Bros McConnell, the Landmark Group, and several other major companies.