Author: admin

By: Manuel Lorenzo – President – CONAZUL

In the business world, few experiences generate as much uncertainty as the question that arrives without warning: “How much is your company worth?” For many founders and owners, this simple phrase opens an abyss. Not because the company lacks value, but because after years of effort, sacrifice, and difficult decisions, they have not had the time—or the habit—to measure it, understand it, or optimize it. And then, when the opportunity appears, it comes with a bitter feeling: being unprepared.

Throughout my career, I have seen this pattern repeat itself dozens of times. Entrepreneurs who have spent many years building successful companies, yet have never conducted a formal valuation. Not out of disinterest, but because they have been busy operating, solving problems, growing, firefighting, keeping the company moving, and generating income. Until one day someone knocks on the door with a purchase offer—sometimes unexpected, sometimes tempting—and that is when the rush, the doubt, and in many cases, regret, begin.

The reality is that opportunities do not wait. Neither does the market. When you do not know what your company is worth, you are likely to miss the opportunity—or worse, leave money on the table out of ignorance. A buyer always has a clear strategy, financial capacity, and price range. The seller often does not.

But there is another type of entrepreneur: those who build their company from day one with a potential exit in mind. Not because they want to sell immediately, but because they understand that every company is, at its core, an asset. And like any asset, its value can grow, deteriorate, or transform depending on the strategic decisions that are made. These founders develop what we call an exit strategy—a clear roadmap aimed at increasing company value through every micro and macro decision. From how information is documented, to how teams are structured, scalable processes are built, revenues are diversified, and risks are mitigated.

This approach is not only for startups or technology companies. It applies to any business that aspires to outlast its founders, to grow, attract investors, merge, or eventually be sold. And above all, to any entrepreneur who understands that cycles exist. Just as people go through life stages, so do companies. There are periods of expansion and periods of maturity; moments of succession and, at times, closure. There are owners without heirs interested in operating the business, family companies without generational succession, or entrepreneurs who simply want to realize the value they have built over many years.

Planning for these scenarios is not a luxury. It is a responsibility.

This is not only about legal, estate, or family matters—important as they are—but also about financial and strategic factors: the quality of accounting information, the true profitability of the business, customer concentration, dependence on founders, robust processes, scalability, market competitiveness, and clarity of future strategy. All of these elements directly influence a company’s value. And all of them can be worked on, optimized, and strengthened—if you start in time.

It is never too early to value your company. But it is also true that it is never too late to begin. Many companies start this process midway, once they have a more solid structure or finally realize that valuation is not a document, but a compass—a decision-making tool, a way to prioritize, and a means to understand where value is being created and where it is being destroyed.

Knowing your company’s value allows you to see your business with new eyes. It forces you to step away from daily operations and look at the bigger picture. It helps you anticipate scenarios, prepare for difficult conversations, and seize opportunities that may only come once. And above all, it allows you to stop reacting and start planning.

At CONAZUL, we support entrepreneurs through this process every day. Yes, we value companies—but we also build strategies to increase that value over time. Whether you are thinking about selling, merging, seeking investors, or simply understanding the financial health of your business, the important thing is to start. Because when the next opportunity arrives—and believe me, it always does—you should be ready, informed, and confident that every decision you made contributed to maximizing the value of your effort.

Your company’s value is not improvised. It is built. And it starts with deciding to understand it today, not tomorrow.

In many organizations, strategy is planned in the main boardroom and communicated through memos and formal meetings. However, the real transmission of values, perceptions, and attitudes happens elsewhere: in hallways, cafeterias, internal chats, and affinity groups. The classic Colombian series Yo soy Betty, la Fea, with its universe of characters at Ecomoda, is a perfect example of how informal leaders and networks influence—positively or negatively—organizational culture.

At Ecomoda, several “tribes” coexist, each with its own codes. El Cuartel de las Feas—the group of secretaries and administrative staff led openly by the warm-hearted Inesita and, behind the scenes, by Betty herself—is a subculture within the company. Its existence emerges as a response to exclusion and to management’s superficial emphasis on appearance over talent.

This group functions as a safe space where its members share information, support one another emotionally, and build mutual loyalty. Beyond its comedic caricature, the Cuartel embodies an organizational truth: informal groups often form to compensate for gaps in the formal structure, whether in communication, recognition, or a sense of belonging.

In real life, understanding these subcultures is key to aligning the entire organization with the desired culture. Ignoring or underestimating them is equivalent to allowing a segment of the team to feel disconnected—or even opposed—to the strategic direction.

In Betty la Fea, the Cuartel is the main channel of unofficial communication. The gossip that circulates there—sometimes trivial, sometimes critical—reaches staff faster than any presidential memo. The messenger, the doorman, the executive assistant, and even Hugo Lombardi all contribute to this information ecosystem.

In many real companies, informal networks are faster and more trusted by employees than formal channels. They are the “nervous system” that connects areas that do not even interact on the organizational chart. Although often seen as a risk for rumors, they are also a powerful asset if managed intelligently: a message conveyed through informal leaders can dramatically amplify its reach and credibility.

The challenge for senior management is twofold: identifying these nodes of influence and ensuring that what they transmit reinforces—rather than erodes—the desired culture.

Before becoming president, Betty was already a leader at Ecomoda. Her ability to listen, her work ethic, and her willingness to help made her a point of reference for the Cuartel and for other characters. Inesita, with her experience and calm demeanor, exercised moral leadership, mediating conflicts and reminding others of values such as respect and care. Hugo Lombardi, though distant from financial matters, had a decisive influence on the brand’s aesthetics and internal perceptions.

This reflects a common organizational phenomenon: leadership does not always align with the organizational chart. True influencers may hold administrative, technical, or support roles, yet command respect and attention from their peers. In many cases, these are the figures who determine whether a cultural change is embraced or resisted.

The lessons from Ecomoda can be translated into concrete steps for real-world leaders:

• Map the informal network: Identify the natural connectors. They are not always the loudest voices; sometimes they are the ones everyone listens to or consults before acting.
• Involve informal leaders in change initiatives: If you aim to transform processes or culture, securing their support early can ensure smoother adoption.
• Listen to what circulates in the informal network: Rather than fighting it, use it as a thermometer to understand the organizational climate and adjust messaging.
• Reinforce coherence: When formal and informal messages contradict each other, the informal network will win on credibility. Consistency between what is officially said and what is lived day to day is essential.

In the storyline of Betty la Fea, the disconnect between management and peripheral staff generates misunderstandings, resentment, and resistance. Had leadership integrated and recognized the value of the Cuartel earlier, many internal crises could have been mitigated. In real organizations, overlooking these dynamics can lead to talent loss, passive sabotage, and erosion of internal trust.

Ecomoda—with its mix of glamour, tension, and camaraderie—is a mirror of any company where formal and informal structures coexist. El Cuartel de las Feas shows that informal groups and leaders are not an inevitable threat, but a valuable resource for communicating, motivating, and sustaining organizational culture.

The key lies in recognizing their existence, respecting their influence, and bringing them into the shared project. As in Betty’s own journey, the deepest transformations are not achieved solely through formal power, but through trust, respect, and the communication that flows in those spaces where—between coffee and laughter—the true culture of the organization is decided.

There is an uncomfortable truth that reveals itself in moments of tension: when emotion takes the helm, leadership often runs aground. In corporate settings—especially under pressure, whether in a difficult conversation with a subordinate or in a board or executive committee meeting among peers—poorly managed emotions can cause us to lose influence, respect, and even clarity.

That is why an old saying, recently reminded to me after an inappropriate reaction of my own, rings so true: “he who loses his temper, loses.” Not because feeling anger is wrong, but because acting from that place almost always leads us to lose control of the narrative, the relationship, and the outcome.

Cultivating emotional intelligence is not a romantic notion. It is a strategic skill. And while I freely admit that I do not master every technique and that from time to time I still “lose my cool,” some practices have proven useful in critical moments. I share them here:

1. Breathe before responding. It sounds basic, but it prevents you from reacting like a spring. Three conscious breaths slow down the reactive impulse and restore your ability to choose your response.
2. Meditation and mindfulness. You do not need to be a monk. Five minutes a day are enough to train the mind to observe without judgment. That creates a space between stimulus and response. In that space lies freedom.
3. Radical assertiveness. It is neither staying silent nor exploding. It is saying what you think, directly and respectfully. At times you may not respect the other person’s opinion or way of acting—and that is okay—but you can always choose to respect the person. That consistency is felt. It is noticed. And it makes a difference.
4. Identify the real objective. In a tense conversation, do you want to be right, or do you want to achieve a result? The best decisions are made when the ego steps aside and the shared purpose takes priority.
5. Emotional post-mortem. After a stressful episode, ask yourself: what did I feel? what triggered me? what will I do differently next time? Not to punish yourself, but to grow with awareness.

Emotional intelligence is not passivity or empty diplomacy. It is the courage to face discomfort with self-control and mutual respect. And above all, it is remembering that leadership does not come from the loudest emotion, but from the one that listens best.

In my experience as an entrepreneur and advisor to both emerging and established companies, I have observed a key pattern that separates successful ventures from those that stagnate or even fail: alignment among partners.

Whether you are launching a startup or building a traditional company, it is crucial from day one to clearly and jointly define the business model and the long-term strategy: is the company aiming to create value for a future exit, or to generate steady income for its shareholders? This initial conversation may seem obvious, but it is often overlooked—and it frequently becomes the root cause of future conflicts.

A lack of alignment in vision, leadership style, and especially in the core values that define what each partner is willing—or unwilling—to do, leads to fragmented decision-making, weak corporate governance, and mediocre results. Companies whose founders and partners hold divergent visions are destined to fail, or at best, to experience very limited growth.

My recommendation is always clear: formalize this alignment first through a solid founders’ agreement, and later through a robust shareholders’ agreement when the time comes. Ensure that every new partner who joins the project fully shares that original vision, the chosen leadership style, and—above all—those fundamental values.

This is the first step toward ensuring that the company succeeds, grows sustainably, and reaches its full potential, whether through steady dividends or a successful exit. Remember: early alignment leads to lasting success.

The countless studies of success factors in cities, regions, and countries that have achieved high levels of social and economic impact through innovative practices show that there is one element that has never been missing and has proven to be indispensable for entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems to function. This element is trust.

There is a theory used by innovation experts, which in my opinion is mistaken, that posits that if ingredients such as business accelerators, business plan competitions, co-working spaces, angel investors, university-based applied research centers, and companies acquiring technology developments from universities and startups, among others, are placed in a pot and cooked, the resulting dish will be a successful entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystem. Nothing could be further from the truth than this simplified input-output model, as it lacks the most important element without which nothing works: trust. As long as there is no trust between
entrepreneurs and investors, or between companies and universities, for example, high-quality and sustainable relationships with impact cannot be established.

Spending a week in Silicon Valley, Estonia, or Cambridge attending events and talking to entrepreneurs, investors, academics, or policymakers is enough to realize that there is no mistrust that limits exchange, thus enabling the establishment of solid and sustainable relationships that underpin and build a robust ecosystem.
The same applies to crisis management. A country where there is no trust in the government or in entrepreneurs, or among citizens themselves, has no way of dealing with a national crisis in an orderly fashion. This is evident when we compare ourselves with countries where health systems have never been under pressure, and the economy has functioned relatively well, even with cases and deaths. In a term popularized during the pandemic, we can say that in countries where there is trust, we can “dance” appropriately with Covid-19.

The concept also applies to political life in general. An immature society, where mutual mistrust between groups or individuals still persists, where most people unethically cut corners or think that someone else will take advantage by unethically cut corners, has no way of articulating itself properly.

Trust is achieved by working one-on-one on the quality of relationships between individuals and organizations and gradually making these relationships effective, which in turn generates trust for other relationships to be established. It is indicated that in this way, it takes more than one generation to see effects in a society so that innovation and entrepreneurship work for the creation of wealth and human well-being. Undoubtedly, for the functioning of a country in general, with its people and its institutions, the work takes more time. But it must be done. We must take charge. There is no other way than trust.

One of the topics on which many of us agree during this unusual time we are living in is the importance of science. Few people can say they are not keeping an eye on the announcement of a vaccine or better therapies against Covid-19, even if they have little knowledge or do not regularly value science as the most important factor in human evolution. Whether we like it or not, we are dependent on science as the only human discipline that will get us out of this crisis.

Science, as a source of knowledge, is fundamentally based on the scientific method, whose main axis is the trial and error methodology. That is, scientists work to test hypotheses that they formulate based on observation, inference, or other methods, and they do so through the execution of experiments that either prove their hypothesis or discard it for being incorrect.

This cyclical process is repeated with new hypotheses generated from previous cycles until a solid hypothesis is validated with conviction, which becomes a theory or a statement.

One of the elements of the scientific method is error. Without error, there is no science, because every experimental process leads either to an error or, alternatively, to a validation of the hypothesis. The error, which occurs at least half the time an experiment is conducted, is not the end of the process, but rather can be a source of new hypotheses that initiate new cycles of experimentation.

We have seen many people criticizing scientists over the past few months for having been wrong on pandemic-related issues. Such criticisms ignore the foundation of science that knowledge is acquired through trial and error, and that these errors are an inevitable part of the process. Covid-19 is a new disease about which scientists still know little, and from which more will only be learned by applying the scientific method, which necessarily includes errors.

Error has a negative connotation in our culture. From the moment we think of an error, what comes to our minds spontaneously is a negative idea of failure. This is not the case in other cultures, where errors are seen as sources of new knowledge. In fact, the word for “fail” in English is used to describe a process that does not succeed, while in Spanish it is called “fracaso”, a word that has a heavy negative connotation. The same unfortunately applies to school grades and business ventures. Our culture punishes errors and stigmatizes them, even in the way they are named: “fracaso”.

Business models are now more than ever undergoing forced transformations due to the pandemic. These transformations can be temporary or permanent, with the latter often deciding the long-term survival of businesses. No business transformation, especially one that is abrupt like those happening now, is exempt from errors.

Just as there is the scientific method, there are widely tested methodologies for modeling and executing improvements or new businesses that allow errors to occur with the least cost, in the shortest time, and causing the least reputational damage possible. They are the business evolution of the scientific method. They do not avoid errors – which are necessary in the process – but rather decrease their impact. And their mechanics are exactly the same: hypotheses of market needs and solutions are proposed and then iteratively tested with bounded experiments until a solution fits and is adopted and consumed by the market. The main reference for these methodologies was created in the past decade by Eric Ries and is called Lean Startup.

These methodologies acquire much more importance in the current situation, given that what is at stake today is much more than just improvements or new businesses, but the survival of companies, which are often the family legacy and livelihood of many people.

It is imperative that business people get rid of the cultural paradigm that errors or failures are essentially bad. In reality, they are an inevitable part of the process of business transformation or reinvention, but with the proper use of modeling and execution tools, they can be minimized in cost, time, and even damages to the business reputation.

Those with responsibilities in companies or organizations have faced a complex situation in recent weeks, which has led them down paths never before taken, and they are having to make complicated decisions and act almost immediately. How important and decisive are these decisions and actions for future success, and even for the survival of their companies or organizations?

Many see the pandemic as a tragedy and calamity that has brought suffering and death, and also potentially will bring secondary effects such as poverty, hunger, and other diseases.

However, as Eastern philosophies dictate, every problem is actually an opportunity.

And not just a business opportunity, but an opportunity for adaptation, change, improvement, and evolution towards new ways of living, acting, enjoying and suffering, traveling, buying and selling, among many other aspects of life.

Those of us who have the privilege of living in this moment, and are in a position to drive these changes through our companies, organizations, and projects, can take advantage of it to rethink our work in order to adapt to the new reality, through marginal improvements in what we do or, in contrast, designing new products and/or services from a radically different perspective that adds value to a world that is and will continue to change rapidly.

Carrying out these changes requires not only the will and courage to make them, but also using a methodology that allows for the management of current activities that generate short-term resources, together with the ideation, validation, and implementation of new initiatives, in a way that allows for the efficient use of resources such as money and time. It is not easy to manage day-to-day operations in parallel with the gestation of new projects, but there are proven work schemes that allow for efficient management with moderate risk.

Another angle of the current opportunity before us is the ability to detach from current activity, or even completely initiate, scalable initiatives that do not depend on high fixed costs or huge investments, taking advantage of the inevitable and urgent trend towards digitization, remote work, virtual shopping, distance learning, and many other emerging and rapidly adopted trends. Scalability is a term still little known but widely used by companies that we have all seen or used, such as Uber, Airbnb, Degusta, Appetito24, among others, which allows the organization to scale to large sizes without the need to grow in the same proportion in fixed costs. Scalability is a science, studied for at least a couple of decades now, from which powerful and proven methodologies can be derived to successfully design and manage scalable projects, companies, or organizations.

The world is changing, perhaps in one of the worst possible ways, but this presents us with the opportunity to be protagonists of the inevitable evolution that is happening, to improve people’s lives, change the way industries work, or even create new industries, always adding more value to society and, therefore, capturing part of that value to create wealth. Will we be part of the change or just witnesses to it?

One of the most important hidden costs for companies, especially those with research and development departments, or IT development for sale or internal use, is the resources dedicated to improvements, fixes, or new developments once products are sent to production and are first used by customers or collaborators. The same happens with companies that offer services or manufacture products, whose costs for improvements, redesigns, or sometimes even failures are sometimes higher than those of manufacturing and/or design.

This is because we are trained to use linear product development systems, in which -in general-the order of analyzing, designing, programming or manufacturing is followed, and only then is the product or service launched for use or sale. The costs incurred from that moment on are very high, and are practically never in the development budgets. Failures are multiple because of this.

Innovation methodologies allow for reducing the costs associated with the late confrontation with the reality of the market, through successive iterations of validation of the solution. The most valuable factor about these methodologies is that they allow for successive and increasing validation of hypotheses about what the market would adopt. This way, we go from a minimum viable product, through successive improvements from customer feedback, to a final solution.

But this is not enough. Perhaps the critical success factor of these methodologies is that prior to validation of the solution, it is proposed to validate the problem or need of the consumer. Very few times do we think that the hypothesis we create about the customer’s need may be incorrect, leading in numerous occasions to avoidable, disastrous failures. Innovation methodologies include the validation of the need as a fundamental element of the product or service development process, which is where everything begins.

In the end, validation is an essential mechanism in any company that sells products or services, big or small, to reduce hidden costs when launching novelties, to decrease the risk of failures, and to face competition, especially from innovative startups that naturally use these methodologies to operate.

The key to everything is that customers are at the center of the strategy and the product development process, and they are the main source of information from the stage of initial hypothesis formulation. If we do not have customers at the center and see them as part of the product or service development process, we will be out of the market sooner or later.

During the last few years, we have heard the word innovation in an exaggerated way. If we ask ten high-level executives for the meaning of that word, we will almost certainly get tendifferent definitions. It is a term with a diffuse definition, but paradoxically exerts a power fulattraction to be incorporated into the strategies and mission statements of many companies and organizations.

Probably the best definition of innovation that I have heard in the last fifteen years, and that remains valid, is one that mixes two concepts: new and useful. That is, innovation is any action hat leads to doing new and useful things. A very simple definition, almost childish, but it is the one that best fits what I consider innovation based on experience.

This means that, for example, not all inventions belong to the realm of innovation. Only those inventions for which a practical use is found can be considered innovations. Now, what do we call practical use? Well, anything whose use is adopted by human beings, in any scope and reach, because it improves quality of life, whether it be for speed, efficiency, comfort, pleasure, health, aesthetics, or any other criterion of improvement.

Similarly, we refer to innovation in products and services, which can only be considered as such if there is adoption by collaborators and/or customers. In many cases, to be a successful innovation, it must be demonstrated – beyond increasing adoption (traction) by customers – its measurable benefit in savings or profits for those who adopt its use.