INB Video Ch.

11 Max Groover

1) It is honestly difficult to think of a scenario where the “how” is the more important question
based on the video, considering he was clearly arguing that the “why” is underrated. However, I
suppose that if the “how” is presented to be an achievable way to grow as a company, the
“why” might follow. In other words, if an opportunity presents itself that the “how” is prepared,
the company may realize the “why” is quite clear.
2) The pros to that approach seem clear to me. Since the “why” is the overarching goals and
reasons for pursuing each venture, the strategic function should be the most capable section to
handle that job. For the actual “how”, the M&A function should be the best equipped to handle
the specific details of handling the deals. The only cons I can think of is that separating the two
jobs entirely could lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings when it comes to the
purpose and what can be done.
3) I assumed he meant that, before acquiring a target, they had to be confident and convinced
that their company is the best option for their acquisition. In turn, they would be more
confident that there is profit in the venture. However, he did say it in a rather vague way that I
don’t know necessarily if I interpreted it entirely correct. I just think he meant that the company
should be confident that they can make it work in a very profitable way.
4) I would assume that this scenario is entirely possible and probably happens regularly. If the
company is only caught up in the “why”, it is easy to overlook just “how” you are going to go
about your acquisition. Having cultural issues in the acquisition or deal could potentially cause a
completely failed acquisition. This shows that the importance of the “how” is still incredibly
important even if the “why” part is completely covered.