Should I connect with you?

LinkedIn-Logo-2CNumerous times, I have either sent or received a blind LinkedIn connection request. These requests are sent when no prior relationship exists. Sometimes, they are people I want to connect with or struggled to contact. Sometimes, they are influencers in the community I want to get to know. Sometimes, I just like their profiles and find them interesting. Blind requests are one of the things I get questioned about the most regarding LinkedIn.

The question of connecting with someone you do not know is interesting because it depends on how you want to use the platform. Many sales people connect with anyone who sends a request because the more people they are connected to, the better. People in other careers are often more selective, usually only connecting with established relationships.

To decide who you should and should not connect with, figure out what you want the platform to do for you. Determine whether you want to keep your connections intimate or if you want to expand your influence and take a chance on individuals you do not know. Set some basic rules for how to deal with blind connections when they do come in.

My first rule is always connect to anyone within driving distance. If I can drive to you in less than a day, I will connect with you. By being in driving distance, I may get to meet you face to face.

My second rule is connect with anyone I find interesting after viewing his or her profile. If we have common hobbies, I connect. If we work in the same industry, I connect. If we studied the same things in school, I connect.

My final rule is try to meet all blind connections face to face at least once after we connect.

I like the final rule because it is another step in building real relationships instead of relying on online ones. I also like it because I am rarely turned down when I request a meeting after accepting a connection.

These meeting requests are done right in the LinkedIn messaging service, and I use the same dialog each time I set one up. “Thank you so much for connecting with me on LinkedIn. I noticed we have (specific detail) in common, and I would love to get together to learn more about you. Are you available for coffee next week?” This approach has led to long-term, beneficial relationships with people I may not have otherwise met.

The next time a blind connection comes through in your inbox, take a second before deleting it and go into the individual’s page. There is a reason they sent you a request. Maybe it is to sell you something or to expand the number of connections they have. More often than not though, the requests are made for nobler reasons.

Instead of denying the request, figure out if the stranger on the other end offers value. Schedule a meeting and turn that blind connection into an actual connection. You may be surprised by the results. 

Can I force my Iowa corporation to buy my stock?

Matt McKinney is an attorney at BrownWinick Attorneys at Law

PGP_1038Minority shareholders seeking to exit an Iowa corporation frequently ask, “can I force my closely-held Iowa corporation to purchase my stock.” A great question, but one that is frequently met with a variety of answers. On January 21, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court published an opinion on this very topic. And while the case applies Delaware law (not Iowa law) and each case is factually unique, the opinion illustrates how other courts, including Iowa courts, may decide a similar case involving a shareholder seeking to force their corporation to purchase stock. The FULL OPINION can be read here.

In short, the Delaware Supreme Court applied Delaware law and held that “[u]nder common law, directors of a closely held corporation have no general fiduciary duty to repurchase the stock of a minority stockholder.” The court went on to find, “[a]n investor must rely on contractual protections if liquidity is a matter of concern … [the shareholder] has no inherent right to sell her stock to the company at ‘full value,’ or any other price. It follows that she has no right to insist on the formation of an independent board committee to negotiate with her.” Upon concluding that Delaware common law did not permit the shareholder to force the company to purchase her stock, the court turned to the corporation’s governing documents, and in particular a shareholder agreement. The court opined:

[t]he Shareholders’ Agreement provides the only protection available to [the shareholder] … But the relevant provision, Paragraph 7(d), gives the stockholder and the company discretion as to whether to engage in a transaction, and as to the price. It does not impose any affirmative duty on either party to consider or negotiate any repurchase proposal.

Clearly, if the corporation’s governing documents contained additional language concerning a mandatory obligation to purchase stock from shareholders, the case would likely have turned out different.

Interestingly, the court did not address the merits of the shareholder’s derivative claim against the directors for breach of the duty of loyalty. The shareholder alleged the directors harmed the corporation and breached their duty of loyalty to the corporation by not “faithfully” considering an investment opportunity (i.e. purchasing her stock). She further alleged they did not consider the investment opportunity because they were concerned about “preserving their personal tax planning interests.” As stated, the court did not consider the merits of this intriguing claim. The court reasoned it did not need to consider the merits because the shareholder failed to make a required derivative demand and otherwise properly plead the claim. Consequently, the merits of proceeding upon such a claim based upon the case facts are still uncertain and warrant consideration.

If you or someone you know are interested in learning more about how you can exit your Iowa corporation, you should consider contacting a licensed attorney.

Evidence-Based Strategy and Peter and the Wolf

Joe Benesh is a Senior Architect with Shive-Hattery and President + CEO of the Ingenuity Company, a strategic planning, diagramming, framework development, and design thinking consulting firm.

When I was a kid, my father bought me a cassette of a recording of Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf. Dad enjoyed classical music and that rubbed off of me; Aaron Copland especially. Lincoln Portrait is one of my all-time favorite works. Peter and the Wolf came up in a playlist that I was listening to recently while I happened to be reading an article about evidence based strategy and my mind started to wonder if there were overlaps between one and the other.

I read up on trends in strategic planning. It seems like every year there is a hot new thing people want to try as an emerging thought on how to make organizations work more efficiently. Some seem to work, others do not. Evidence based strategy seems obvious – base decisions and actions on information that exists in some sort of reference format. Recently though, I have noticed that this is not the norm.

“Blue Sky” strategy is actually the most common thing I see emerge in planning sessions. The tendency to want to start from scratch or “think outside the box” can be so overwhelming at critical moments when strategy is being developed, but that can lead to very important and relevant historical data being neglected or omitted completely.

This leads to several problems that can have adverse effects on planning efforts. The first of which is that there are really very few original ideas out there in terms of organizational development. This isn’t because of a lack of innovation or anything negative, it’s just that some really smart people have established some best practices that work, and there is a good chance that even within your organization that things have been tried and have either worked or failed. Remember what your organization excels at, and don’t succumb to new and completely untested (or worse yet - tested and failed) ideas, based solely on enthusiasm.

It’s important not to fall to the “new blood, old idea” model that a lot of groups fall into. New enthusiasm for an idea that has already been tried and has not been successful should not re-enter the conversation unless there is some critical variable that has changed or new information has emerged that makes the failed model viable. Thinking outside of the box is important, but sometimes it’s more important to remember what is actually in the box to begin with.

Peter’s observations in Prokofiev’s work are based on what he sees – what already exists; the bird escapes the cat, the duck, frustrated by the interaction with the bird, is eaten by the wolf. Peter ultimately disregards his grandfather’s warning and catches the wolf with the aid of the bird. So, what does any of that have to do with evidence based strategy?

The initial steps in the story are about trial and error and what resources exist. Peter’s grandfather sets the initial parameter (don’t go into the meadow, or the wolf will eat you) and peter observes interactions between the animals and determines what resources he can use to ultimately formulate and execute his end goals. The experience of seeing how the animals in the story interact and based on what he determines is the best course of action forward, he executes a successful plan. From Peter’s perspective, maybe he initially thought that running out into the meadow was just fine – blue sky strategy - but later decided that line of thinking would have likely led to a much shorter story, with a far more negative ending. As for his grandfather, with the benefit of his experiences, likely knew of many other boys who ran out into the meadow and were eaten - Peter seems to have taken this evidence into account in his final plan.

When you set out on formulating a strategy, remember to base decisions on observations and evidence. Best practices and established norms can ultimately build a robust, well-conceived path forward, allowing for innovation, increased efficiency, and bolstered effectiveness.

This site is intended for informational and conversational purposes, not to provide specific legal, investment, or tax advice.  Articles and opinions posted here are those of the author(s). Links to and from other sites are for informational purposes and are not an endorsement by this site’s sponsor.