What's better: (a) Budget 100% revenue growth and come in at 80% (b) Budget 50% revenue growth and come in at 70% IMO, option b is much better for two reasons: (1) Option a will have an unexpectedly high burn. (2) Option b sets a culture of outperformance. Some thoughts: This is very frequently the case - companies that miss their revenue budget don't miss their opex budget. Meaning, they spend in line with plan but generate less revenue and less gross margin than plan which translates to an unexpectedly high burn. This normalizes inefficient spending which is a problem that compounds. Depending on the capitalization of the company, an unexpectedly high burn rate can also create all sorts of problems related to the liquidity of the company with consequences ranging from moderate to devastating. The flipside is also true. Usually when companies beat their revenue budget, they still spend within their opex plan which leads to a lower than expected burn rate (or higher than expected profitability). This means the company ends the period with a stronger than expected cash position while still posting strong growth. It also reinforces the expectation of efficiency and operating leverage across the organization. Furthermore, consistently beating your budget sets a culture of outperformance which begets further outperformance. On the flipside, consistently missing your budget sets a culture of underperformance such that often times the budget loses meaning within the business because no one expects to hit it. When the budget loses meaning, efficiency, ROI, KPIs, etc. lose meaning and companies can become rudderless. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, my best companies consistently met or beat budget. And of course, my most challenged companies almost never met budget. It's much better to walk in the path of the winners.
Couldn't agree more. B sets the culture in an "efficient growth", do more with less mindset. Over the long term valuation premiums are derived more from the efficiency of growth (underlying return generated by the business, ROCE, etc.) than of the absolute growth rate.
In start up companies, it's always harder than you think it's going to be, it always takes longer than you think it should, and the business plan should always be more conservative that your sales targets especially with a small team.
The cliche "shoot for the stars, land on the moon" I think might be more to blame (than maybe a lot of things) for teams almost planning around an option A mindset. And you point out so much of why that just doesn't work out. B is Best!!
Worse, with option A, your team members on variable comp plans are demoralised and eyeing the door despite the amazing growth.
Option B. Always a culture of overperformance
Option C3 Buy more GME
Option B shines brighter. Efficient growth builds resilience.
Mr. Cheng with yet another “E.F. Hutton” like post…🥇🙏🏼
Executive Coach, Board Member, Business Builder, Senior Advisor
6moTotally agree on option B. While keeping burn rate in check is a positive by product, the impact on performance of your team is far more valuable. I've always said you can work your tail off and be exhausted or your can work hard and be energized. Constantly overachieving infusing the team with energy and resilience which feeds on itself and fuels more growth.