Once a Turnaround Guy/Gal, Always...?

There are a number among us who have had a great deal of experience in turnarounds and restructurings. Our numbers have grown, with the worsening of the economy and its effect on our organizations. As a result we may find ourselves being cast as "a turnaround person". Being pigeon-holed as a "type" (whether turnaround, technician, small or large company, start-up or whatever) is likely to affect the way we're viewed by peers and others in our field.

I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss the skill sets we have developed in doing turnarounds, that create value for diverse organizations. The purpose here is to shine a light on how you should think of your own areas of expertise, and how your experience has prepared you for other challenges, whether within your existing organization or in a new situation.It also illustrates the need to educate peers, potential employers and others that what you have been doesn't preclude you from smoothly transitioning to what you want to be.

Organizations in need of a turnaround are generally deeply distressed. Cash flow deficits may exist. Vendors may be withholding goods and services. Employee morale is low. Management may not have a plan to address the issues. The Board may have lost confidence in management. The community, regulators, and reimbursement sources may have serious concerns. Processes and systems are probably not effective.

Did I paint a gloomy picture? So, forces are gathered to effect a turnaround. What's the common (inaccurate or, at the least, incomplete) view of how a turnaround occurs? Cut staffing and other costs, reduce programs and services...slash and burn! But successful turnarounds are the result of careful, albeit expedited, planning. Strengthening the top line is more effective and less morale-crushing than arbitrarily cutting costs, which can lead to service issues and a downward spiral. I don't argue that productivity should not be reviewed in the context of processes, or that other cost containment measures not be pursued.

Here's the point: As a result of the multiple issues to be confronted in a turnaround, we have developed valuable skills. We're stronger, hands-on strategic leaders, because we need to be. We've developed concise, meaningful timely financial reporting and established metrics to measure progress toward strategic objectives. We've been innovative and creative, in order to "operate in the grey" and to team with the rest of senior management to develop a turnaround strategy.

Our communication skills have been honed by the necessity to communicate with all internal and external constituencies, and to convince them the strategies devised by management are the right course of action to turn the ship around. We've developed mentoring and team-building skills, and re-designed functional teams, because we've had to, in order to be effective. Not least, we've developed a sense of humor to help deal with the tribulations of a turnaround, and a flexibility in the way we approach strategic, operational and financial opportunities. Finally, if we have achieved a successful turnaround, we have strengthened our confidence to accomplish what we set out to do.

I liken turnarounds to setting your hair on fire and putting it out with a hammer. Does that mean we wouldn't be comfortable and effective applying our skills in an organization that is, or has become, stable and poised for growth?

These skills would be of as much value in a stable, profitable organization, as they are in a distressed situation. We have skill sets we've developed in the course of our careers. It's up to each of us to recognize, utilize and communicate those skills, as circumstances dictate.