Turning Idealism into Good Business

Having the skills, the enthusiasm and the right drive is necessary in order to succeed. But as Bjarke Ingels Group experienced, it takes more than that. Without a good business minded CEO, the company will be closer to bankruptcy than success.


Sheela Soegaard, CEO at BIG – Photo credit Flemming Leitorp

Having the skills, the enthusiasm and the right drive is necessary in order to succeed. But as Bjarke Ingels Group experienced, it takes more than that. Without a good business minded CEO, the company will be closer to bankruptcy than success.

The Danish architectural firm Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) has been drawing headlines around the world with their impressive projects like the Manhattan Courtscraper and the Waste-to-Energy/ski-resort. Bjarke Ingels, the founder, is being hailed as one of the most innovative and creative minds around and has received numerous prizes for his architecture. Their success is, however, not only based on Bjarke Ingels’ creative mind. Working behind the lines CEO Sheela Søgaard has managed to turn a company on the verge of bankruptcy into a prime example of an architectural firm. But how did she succeed in making this transition and what lessons has she learned from the process? We visited Sheela Søgaard at BIG’s office in Copenhagen to find out.

Avoiding bankruptcy

Bjarke Ingels started BIG in 2006, after co-founding PLOT architects in 2001. Building on the success from PLOT, they did a lot of interesting projects, and from an architectural point of view they were doing great. However, the financial side of the business was not nearly as healthy. In 2008 the lack of financial results forced Bjarke Ingels to pawn his own apartment in order to keep BIG from bankruptcy. It was obvious to all that they needed someone who knew how to run a healthy business to relieve them from the financial chores, so they could stay focussed on developing amazing architecture.

They decided to bring in Sheela Søgaard as CFO, a former McKinsey consultant, with experience from GN ReSound and Meyer Aps, to address the situation. In her own words, it was a fairly simple task: “The first processes were very basic. It was down to the level of sending out invoices, and making sure that the customers paid those. Then I needed to find out what people were actually doing. They came to work, but what were they doing. Was it debitable? And if not, why were they doing it, and who had “allowed” them to do that? It was all about establishing some simple structures and getting an overview of the company.”

But for Sheela Søgaard it was also a fascinating space to enter. Bjarke Ingels had started the company, hired some friends, colleagues, and former students, and somehow they had managed to establish an unspoken agreement of how to do things: They were actually doing all right. It was working for them. Right up to a point where it suddenly did not work anymore. But the problem was clear to all: They needed money.” The unique work culture brought an extra dimension to the task Sheela Søgaard was facing. She needed to sort out the finances, while being careful not to make too big of an impact on the BIG culture.

One of her first initiatives was establishing a Business Development team which was basically a sales team, but “people like the term Business Development better”, as she puts it. This approach was also a testimony to her non-architectural background. Sales teams in architectural firms wwere not a common sight and are still rare today, but from her experience it was a natural thing to do. And it proved to be the right decision, bringing in new projects without tampering with the work culture. 

Miniature model of the Manhattan Courtscraper project – Photo by Sofie Kirkeby

“We are not here to make loads of money” 

After only seven months Sheela Søgaard was promoted CEO, putting her in charge of the operational and strategic elements of the business and thereby giving Bjarke Ingels a more free-floating role. It was not as big a change as it might sound. It was more a case of aligning the organizational structure with how they were actually working. However, there were some new responsibilities accompanying the new title. Amongst those a project management role. But being CEO of an architectural firm without an architectural background does create some limitations: “I can in no way take credit for the final product. I am not an architect, and therefore, for obvious reasons, I cannot sit down and draw or do quality control. I can only evaluate the projects on predefined standards on economy, deadlines, customer expectations and the like. So I do not in any way get involved in that part of the process.” Sheela Søgaard’s involvement is limited to the strategic and operational areas of the projects, eg. finding the right projects and customers, making sure the right people are assigned to the right projects and negotiating contracts. She then trusts her team to create amazing architecture that lives up to what the customers want.

Even though this might be an untraditional role for a CEO it seems like the right division of labor for BIG. They do not need a CEO that tries to cost optimize everything, as Sheela Søgaard tells us: “We are here to make really cool architecture, not to make loads of money. [...] My job is then to make sure that we do this as profitable as possible. In that respect we might operate differently than other architectural firms. I have not yet found a way to measure it, but our bottom line primarily reflects the value of the architecture we make.”

While Sheela Søgaard explains that they potentially could make more money, but that they constantly have to balance it, and that they furthermore spend a lot of money on design development - processes that they are not necessarily being paid for - one cannot help but wonder whether they would actually be willing to put their money where their mouth is. But before we get to address this Sheela Søgaard backs her statement up with an example, eliminating any initial doubts: “Recently, on a project in Elsinore where we are building the Danish Maritime Museum, we have put some of our own money into buying some aluminium that was otherwise going to be left out due to budget cuts. We have been working on this project for five years and it simply cannot be that we right at the finish line would cut something that is of such great importance for the value of the architecture. It is a bit crazy, [...] but we do it because this is what we are here to do.” 

At the same time, she makes it crystal clear that they are not naive or philanthropic. They know that they need money in order to do what they do. After all, it was exactly the overly idealistic focus on architecture that lead to BIG’s threatening bankruptcy in 2008. So they are very focussed on running a healthy business, and despite not wanting to reveal their financial results, she is willing to reveal that “2012 has been a very good year”.

A LEGO miniature model at BIG – Photo by Sofie Kirkeby

Learning how to be a grown up

The question of how they have managed to turn a looming bankruptcy into a thriving business in just 4 years is, however, still partly left unanswered. And according to Sheela Søgaard there is a very good reason for that: “I could easily sit here and sound very clever, talking about how we did this and that. But in reality, five years ago, we launched something like 54 different initiatives. Some died because they did not work or because no one was feeling passionate about them. Some we had to close down because they were only costing us money. And then there were maybe something like five of the things we did that turned out to be reasonable, and the right thing to do. It is extremely easy in hindsight to make it sound as if it was like pearls on a string. But it wasn’t. We just threw a lot of things out there and hoped that some turned out right.” So in the words of Sheela Søgaard, the secret behind the success is actually quite simple: “I think the secret is just to throw enough things out there, launch enough ships, and then follow up on them. Having the courage to shut them down or simply let them sink.”

This approach might not be textbook material, but it has worked for BIG. They are a company in constant development and on a steep learning curve. They do not launch as many ships anymore. They have gotten wiser, Sheela Søgaard tells us. But that does not mean that they are completely in control. In only five years they have grown from 40 employees and a single office in Copenhagen to 160 employees and three offices around the world. Their customers and projects have also changed significantly. So there is also a sense of trying to catch up: “We have probably grown faster than we have matured. There are things where we try to catch up and be more like an “adult”. It is kind of like moving away from home at the age of 12 and then having to learn how to be a grown up.”

Creating a scalable business is not about growth

With the financial part of BIG running more or less on tracks, Sheela Søgaard’s main task is now to create a scalable business that does not depend on specific people and in her own words: “That is much more difficult than making the company financially sound.” But scalable does not necessarily entail growth: “The most unintelligent solution is growth. That is not what we are here for. So if it makes sense to be smaller, then we will be smaller. We just need to be able to scale the business to match what we need to do.”

A big part of that is making the company less dependent on specific people. Up until now, BIG has relied on some key people to keep the company going, making it extremely volatile to any of these people leaving. To make it scalable BIG needs to install some structures and practices that enables other people to take over in the situation where a key employee decides to leave. However, it is important that it does not become instrumentalized: “I do not want to lead a company that is not interested in the specific person. Obviously, it makes a difference if it is ‘Nicole’ or if it is you who holds the position. And there needs to be room for that. You need to be able to be yourself when you are at work, at least here at BIG. But we also need to make sure that everything does not fall apart if ‘Nicole’ leaves. And that is what it is all about: Creating a scalable business that can both be scaled up and down and that does not fall apart if one person decides to leave.”

By pursuing this goal Sheela Søgaard has also had to come to terms with having a less hands-on approach than usual. A challenge that has been bigger than expected: “What has surprised me the most over the last six months is how much time I have to spend assigning the right people to projects and making sure that people know what they need to do. [...] It was so much easier when I did it all myself. Back then I did not have to talk to everyone to check up on things. But that is my role now. I find myself making less and less results on my own and instead creating the results through others.”

BIG’s headquarters in Copenhagen – Photo by Sofie Kirkeby

Maintaining the enthusiasm

All this points to BIG establishing itself as a larger company. Even though Sheela Søgaard holds firm on growth not being the answer to everything, growth is what they are experiencing right now. So how is the original BIG culture that Sheela Søgaard met in 2008 holding up? Maintaining it can only have become more difficult as the company has expanded. She is not afraid of highlighting this dilemma as a constant challenge: “This is what makes it so difficult. Having to find the balance. To maintain the entrepreneurial spirit and not become too corporate. To control the growth so that the employees are still able to recognize themselves in their work. [...] We just have to address it one step at a time.”

The head on approach shines through in the cultural aspect as well. They have not made a clear plan of how to maintain the BIG culture. Having such an approach would probably not be of very much help, anyway. But according to Sheela Søgaard they have managed to maintain the culture so far: “We still have some sort of entrepreneurial spirit. We address the problems that arise”. But it is not neccesarily the entrepreneurial spirit that needs to be maintained. “I don’t know if it’s ‘the entrepreneurial spirit’? It’s just words. What is important is to maintain the enthusiasm for the architecture. And that is done on the specific project. It is achieved by creating a company that is present and involved in each single project.”

This article was originally published in GRASP magazine. 

Scientists find a horrible new way cocaine can damage your brain

Swiss researchers identify new dangers of modern cocaine.

Getty Images
Mind & Brain
  • Cocaine cut with anti-worming adulterant levamisole may cause brain damage.
  • Levamisole can thin out the prefrontal cortex and affect cognitive skills.
  • Government health programs should encourage testing of cocaine for purity.
Keep reading Show less

How to vaccinate the world’s most vulnerable? Build global partnerships.

Pfizer's partnerships strengthen their ability to deliver vaccines in developing countries.

Susan Silbermann, Global President of Pfizer Vaccines, looks on as a health care worker administers a vaccine in Rwanda. Photo: Courtesy of Pfizer.
  • Community healthcare workers face many challenges in their work, including often traveling far distances to see their clients
  • Pfizer is helping to drive the UN's sustainable development goals through partnerships.
  • Pfizer partnered with AMP and the World Health Organization to develop a training program for healthcare workers.
Keep reading Show less
Politics & Current Affairs

Political division is nothing new. Throughout American history there have been numerous flare ups in which the political arena was more than just tense but incideniary. In a letter addressed to William Hamilton in 1800, Thomas Jefferson once lamented about how an emotional fervor had swept over the populace in regards to a certain political issue at the time. It disturbed him greatly to see how these political issues seemed to seep into every area of life and even affect people's interpersonal relationships. At one point in the letter he states:

"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

Today, we Americans find ourselves in a similar situation, with our political environment even more splintered due to a number of factors. The advent of mass digital media, siloed identity-driven political groups, and a societal lack of understanding of basic discursive fundamentals all contribute to the problem.

Civil discourse has fallen to an all time low.

The question that the American populace needs to ask itself now is: how do we fix it?

Discursive fundamentals need to be taught to preserve free expression

In a 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey by Cato, it was found that 71% of Americans believe that political correctness had silenced important discussions necessary to our society. Many have pointed to draconian university policies regarding political correctness as a contributing factor to this phenomenon.

It's a great irony that, colleges, once true bastions of free-speech, counterculture and progressiveness, have now devolved into reactionary tribal politics.

Many years ago, one could count on the fact that universities would be the first places where you could espouse and debate any controversial idea without consequence. The decline of staple subjects that deal with the wisdom of the ancients, historical reference points, and civic discourse could be to blame for this exaggerated partisanship boiling on campuses.

Young people seeking an education are given a disservice when fed biased ideology, even if such ideology is presented with the best of intentions. Politics are but one small sliver for society and the human condition at large. Universities would do well to instead teach the principles of healthy discourse and engagement across the ideological spectrum.

The fundamentals of logic, debate and the rich artistic heritage of western civilization need to be the central focus of an education. They help to create a well-rounded citizen that can deal with controversial political issues.

It has been found that in the abstract, college students generally support and endorse the first amendment, but there's a catch when it comes to actually practicing it. This was explored in a Gallup survey titled: Free Expression on Campus: What college students think about First amendment issues.

In their findings the authors state:

"The vast majority say free speech is important to democracy and favor an open learning environment that promotes the airing of a wide variety of ideas. However, the actions of some students in recent years — from milder actions such as claiming to be threatened by messages written in chalk promoting Trump's candidacy to the most extreme acts of engaging in violence to stop attempted speeches — raise issues of just how committed college students are to
upholding First Amendment ideals.

Most college students do not condone more aggressive actions to squelch speech, like violence and shouting down speakers, although there are some who do. However, students do support many policies or actions that place limits on speech, including free speech zones, speech codes and campus prohibitions on hate speech, suggesting that their commitment to free speech has limits. As one example, barely a majority think handing out literature on controversial issues is "always acceptable."

With this in mind, the problems seen on college campuses are also being seen on a whole through other pockets of society and regular everyday civic discourse. Look no further than the dreaded and cliche prospect of political discussion at Thanksgiving dinner.

Talking politics at Thanksgiving dinner

As a result of this increased tribalization of views, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to engage in polite conversation with people possessing opposing viewpoints. The authors of a recent Hidden Tribes study broke down the political "tribes" in which many find themselves in:

  • Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry.
  • Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious.
  • Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned.
  • Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic, conspiratorial
  • Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant.
  • Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic.
  • Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising,

Understanding these different viewpoints and the hidden tribes we may belong to will be essential in having conversations with those we disagree with. This might just come to a head when it's Thanksgiving and you have a mix of many different personalities, ages, and viewpoints.

It's interesting to note the authors found that:

"Tribe membership shows strong reliability in predicting views across different political topics."

You'll find that depending on what group you identify with, that nearly 100 percent of the time you'll believe in the same way the rest of your group constituents do.

Here are some statistics on differing viewpoints according to political party:

  • 51% of staunch liberals say it's "morally acceptable" to punch Nazis.
  • 53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
  • 51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people's preferred gender pronouns.
  • 65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
  • 58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
  • 47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.

Understanding the fact that tribal membership indicates what you believe, can help you return to the fundamentals for proper political engagement

Here are some guidelines for civic discourse that might come in handy:

  • Avoid logical fallacies. Essentially at the core, a logical fallacy is anything that detracts from the debate and seeks to attack the person rather than the idea and stray from the topic at hand.
  • Practice inclusion and listen to who you're speaking to.
  • Have the idea that there is nothing out of bounds for inquiry or conversation once you get down to an even stronger or new perspective of whatever you were discussing.
  • Keep in mind the maxim of : Do not listen with the intent to reply. But with the intent to understand.
  • We're not trying to proselytize nor shout others down with our rhetoric, but come to understand one another again.
  • If we're tied too closely to some in-group we no longer become an individual but a clone of someone else's ideology.

Civic discourse in the divisive age

Debate and civic discourse is inherently messy. Add into the mix an ignorance of history, rabid politicization and debased political discourse, you can see that it will be very difficult in mending this discursive staple of a functional civilization.

There is still hope that this great divide can be mended, because it has to be. The Hidden Tribes authors at one point state:

"In the era of social media and partisan news outlets, America's differences have become
dangerously tribal, fueled by a culture of outrage and taking offense. For the combatants,
the other side can no longer be tolerated, and no price is too high to defeat them.
These tensions are poisoning personal relationships, consuming our politics and
putting our democracy in peril.

Once a country has become tribalized, debates about contested issues from
immigration and trade to economic management, climate change and national security,
become shaped by larger tribal identities. Policy debate gives way to tribal conflicts.
Polarization and tribalism are self-reinforcing and will likely continue to accelerate.
The work of rebuilding our fragmented society needs to start now. It extends from
re-connecting people across the lines of division in local communities all the way to
building a renewed sense of national identity: a bigger story of us."

We need to start teaching people how to approach subjects from less of an emotional or baseless educational bias or identity, especially in the event that the subject matter could be construed to be controversial or uncomfortable.

This will be the beginning of a new era of understanding, inclusion and the defeat of regressive philosophies that threaten the core of our nation and civilization.