Michal Silhacek

Founders and early hires shape it, and it guides how people communicate, decide, handle risk, and define success.

• When a small supplier works with a large customer, three frictions often emerge: unequal power, resources, process maturity, and speed, as low-context urgency meets high-context patience; different readings of yes and no, disagreement over whether a contract is a partnership or a control tool, and different approaches to escalating problems; and a customer's stated values being contradicted by its representatives' behavior.
• Culture, Silhacek says, can be an anchor and accelerator—or an invisible brake.

A large customer says it values simple, long-term win-win relationships.

• Then the supplier meets representatives whose behavior suggests otherwise.
• For Silhacek, that gap is a practical culture risk to plan around, not a contradiction to ignore—and sometimes a signal that the smaller company's culture needs to evolve as it grows.

Silhacek argues that friction is not purely bad: clashes can show where a growing supplier's culture needs new ingredients.

Read original

Competitive pricing should rest on competitive preconditions, not tactical undercutting.

• Expecting to fix prices later without fuel clauses, raw-material indices, or other contractual triggers—and without consequences when conditions change—is, they say, naive and expensive.
• Growth also changes the cost structure.
• Suppliers must plan for higher working capital and financing needs; inventory build-up caused by shorter lead times; equipment and systems investment; longer cash conversion cycles from extended payment terms; and hidden scaling costs such as complexity, ramp-up inefficiency, and system integration.
• Risks include volume deviation, product-mix change, late investments, cost information revealed after price acceptance, unsecured compensation, and revenue concentration.
• Silhacek recommends offering structured price-development mechanisms proactively, tied to concrete preconditions.

A manufacturer wins a larger order from a global customer.

• The deal looks like growth, but it also requires more raw material and inventory, faster delivery, and longer payment terms.
• Without a clause tying price to fuel or raw-material costs, the supplier absorbs those changes.
• Silhacek warns against this trap: a supplier later asks for a price correction without a contractual trigger.

Read original

These ecosystems let the customer combine companies and industries into setups it orchestrates.

• For a smaller player, recognizing value in the ecosystem can be a competitive advantage, but participation usually means accepting the customer's coordination.
• In practice, that means open books and full cost transparency, plus common rules for data exchange, lead times, ways of working, and pricing frameworks.
• The trade-off is access to arrangements beyond a simple buy-sell relationship: pre-selected supplier pools with approved quality, price, and lead times; technical and logistics development led by the large player; capacity financed by the customer in exchange for transparency; multi-party agreements such as heavy-duty transport electrification connecting OEMs, carriers, charging providers, and the customer; joint product development; horizontal collaboration among carriers; and taking over steps the customer used to handle.
• Silhacek's warning: success for the smaller player usually requires accepting the larger company's rules, not negotiating around them.

Heavy-duty transport electrification is Silhacek's clearest example: an OEM, carriers, charging providers, and the global customer must work under one umbrella.

• No single supplier can deliver that alone.
• The large customer sets the common rules that make it work.

Read original

Big players consolidate supplier bases, restructure regions, change procurement strategies, internalize capabilities, and change requirements—often for reasons unrelated to the smaller supplier's performance.

• When they do, the contract remains; pleasant statements are forgotten under pressure.
• People are another exposure: new contacts or managers on the customer side bring new ideas, different preferred partners, and sometimes hidden agendas.
• One new decision-maker can put a working collaboration at risk.
• Mitigation: build relationships beyond one contact, stay visible to several stakeholders, connect with management where possible, and stand on more than one leg.
• Revenue concentration reduces strategic flexibility and hurts most when cooperation ends.

A smaller company has most of its capacity tied to one global customer, and the relationship has run smoothly for years.

• Then a new decision-maker arrives on the customer side and changes direction.
• Silhacek's point: the supplier's protection is not the memory of good meetings, but a strong contract, multiple relationships, and other customers to fall back on.

Read original

Silhacek says 'not easy' is not the same as impossible, and that when those conditions are in place, size becomes secondary.

• They then announce the next theme: leadership in a world where new illusions replace old ones, different truths compete, traditional anchors disappear, and the Overton window shifts.
• Does that change leaders' priorities, focus, and role?

The checklist is concrete enough to test a real supplier: do they have the products and capabilities, understand the customer's problems, and have they thought through both the opportunity and the difficulty of working with a big name?

• Have they accepted that luck plays a part?
• The post then sets up the next series rather than stretching this one.

The series shifts from partnership mechanics to leadership under changing public and commercial assumptions.

Read original

This post answers the question: "we agree on price and volume, so why is the relationship grinding?"

Silhacek argues that company culture, not price, often decides whether a smaller supplier and a large customer can work together over the long term.

• Culture is the default operating system of an organisation: shaped by founders and early hires, it determines how people communicate, make decisions, manage risk and define success.
• Three areas tend to cause friction when a small supplier and a global customer meet.
• First, asymmetry: the large player has more power, resources, process maturity and speed.
• That gap becomes visible when a low-context, fast-moving counterpart meets a high-context, slower one.
• Second, differing interpretations: signals of yes and no get misread; people have different tolerances for direct confrontation; one company escalates problems openly and formally, the other informally; and one treats the contract as evidence of partnership while the other sees it as a control mechanism.
• Third, stated worldviews: representatives of a large player may behave in ways that contradict its well-communicated claims about being straightforward or committed to long-term win-win relationships.
• Culture can be your anchor and accelerator, or your invisible brake.

For brands planning a campaign

For a consulting firm, this could anchor a webinar or lead magnet on cultural due diligence in SME-to-corporate partnerships: an audit checklist covering decision-making, escalation, contract interpretation and communication style, positioned before pricing negotiations, not after them.

It answers: "how does winning a big account quietly turn into a financial problem?"

This post treats pricing as fundamental homework for any business and asks whether profitability is a decision or a hope.

• Setting transactional business aside, Silhacek focuses on long-term partnerships, where three things matter.
• Competitive pricing must rest on competitive preconditions, not tactical undercutting.
• Expecting to correct prices later without contractual mechanisms such as fuel clauses or raw-material price indices—and without consequences attached—is naive and expensive.
• Financial planning must account for how growth changes the cost structure: higher working capital and financing needs, inventory build-up caused by shorter delivery lead times, investment in equipment and systems, longer cash conversion cycles from extended payment terms, and hidden scaling costs from complexity, ramp-up inefficiencies and system integrations.
• Risk management should weigh what can affect the cost base: deviation from agreed volumes, product-mix changes that quietly cross-subsidise one product with another, investments taking longer than planned, cost-relevant information disclosed only after a price is accepted, compensations never secured contractually, and revenue concentrated in one customer.
• That concentration reduces strategic flexibility and is especially painful when the cooperation ends.
• The post recommends proactively offering structured price-development mechanisms tied to concrete preconditions, showing the partner that both sides think ahead and consider costs together.

For brands planning a campaign

A consulting firm can turn this into a practical pricing-and-cash webinar: work through an example of a supplier whose big contract consumes working capital, then provide a template for clauses, indexation and price-development triggers that open the conversation before renewal.

It answers: "what does a large customer want from us that is more than a purchase order?" and offers a menu of roles a smaller company can aim for.

Silhacek describes forward-thinking global players that build collaborative ecosystems of suppliers, partners and service providers instead of buying products or services outright.

• These ecosystems let the large player create setups where production spans two or more companies, or several parties work under one umbrella to combine different industries into something new.
• Seeing and creating value within an ecosystem orchestrated by the large customer becomes a competitive advantage.
• For a smaller player, that usually means accepting the customer's coordination.
• In practice, it requires working with open books and full cost transparency, and following common rules for data exchange, lead times, ways of working and pricing frameworks.
• In exchange, the post lists concrete arrangements beyond a simple buy-sell relationship: pre-selected suppliers of raw materials, components or machinery with pre-approved quality standards, price levels and lead times; technical and logistical development led by the large player based on its own assessment and a jointly agreed development plan; capacity financed by the customer in exchange for full cost transparency; multi-party agreements such as the electrification of heavy-duty transport, connecting OEMs, carriers and charging providers; developing products or services for the customer as part of a broader partnership; horizontal collaboration between several carriers inside a predefined network; and taking over parts of the process the customer previously handled itself.
• For smaller players, there is often more to gain than to lose by joining such an ecosystem.

For brands planning a campaign

This supports an article or workshop on becoming an ecosystem supplier rather than an interchangeable vendor: what transparency a buyer will demand, which of the seven arrangements fit a given supplier, and how to price full cost transparency so it is not handed over for free.

It answers: "what protects us when a large customer decides to end the relationship?"

This post is about endings, not beginnings.

• Silhacek notes that big players consolidate supplier bases, restructure regions, change procurement strategies, internalise capabilities and change requirements—often for reasons unrelated to the smaller supplier's performance.
• When that happens, the contract matters, especially how easily the smaller company can exit if most of its capacity is tied to a single customer.
• When negotiations turn difficult, pleasant statements are forgotten and the contract remains.
• People are another exposure: business is done between people, and new contact persons or managers on the customer's side bring new ideas, other preferred partners and sometimes hidden agendas.
• A single new decision-maker can put a working collaboration at risk.
• To mitigate that risk, build relationships beyond one contact, stay visible to several stakeholders and connect with management where possible.
• Above all, stand on more than one leg.
• The biggest risk is not losing the customer; it is being unprepared when it happens.

For brands planning a campaign

A resilience angle for a consulting firm: a concentration-risk review mapping revenue dependence, contract exit terms and multi-stakeholder relationships. Run it as the second or third module of an SME growth programme for suppliers with one dominant account.

It answers: "is working with large brands worth it, and on what conditions?"

The post opens with the reminder that "not easy" does not mean impossible, then names the conditions under which a smaller company can succeed and grow through collaboration with large brands: having the right products, services and capabilities; knowing the customer, their problems and needs; being prepared and aware of both the challenges and opportunities of working with big names; and having a bit of luck.

• At that point, Silhacek writes, size becomes secondary.
• The final post in the series, at least for now, signals the next theme: leadership in a world where new illusions replace old ones, different truths compete, traditional anchors disappear and the Overton window shifts.
• It asks how that changes leaders' priorities and focus.

For brands planning a campaign

Use this as the closing piece in a series or webinar: a short readiness self-assessment against the four conditions, with the question about leadership under shifting information conditions as a teaser for a follow-up session.

Silhacek names three recurring friction points: large gaps in power, resources, process maturity and speed that meet directly in low-context/high-context encounters; different readings of "yes" and "no", different comfort with open confrontation, and different views on whether a contract is a sign of partnership or a control mechanism; and the gap between a large customer's stated values ("we are simple and straightforward", "we focus on long-term win-win relationships") and the behaviour of its representatives. Culture, in Silhacek's framing, is either an anchor or a brake.

A single claim comes first, then three numbered points, each illustrated with arrow-marked examples drawn from how suppliers and customers interact in practice.

Silhacek treats friction as more than a negative: these situations show where a smaller company's culture needs to evolve as it grows, building on a proven base rather than replacing it.

For brands planning a campaign

Strong material for a consulting firm's culture angle: use the three friction points as the agenda for an article or webinar on cultural due diligence before a smaller company signs with a large customer. Let the anchor-or-brake framing carry the argument.

Examples: Source 1

Expecting later price corrections without contractual mechanisms — fuel clauses, raw-material price indices — and without consequences is, in their words, naive and expensive.

• Growth changes the cost structure, and they list the effects a supplier should plan for: higher working capital and financing needs, inventory build-up from shorter delivery lead times, investment in equipment and systems, longer cash conversion cycles from extended payment terms, and hidden scaling costs such as complexity, ramp-up inefficiencies and system integrations.
• They then map risks that hit the cost base: deviation from agreed volumes, product-mix changes, investments running late, cost-relevant information disclosed after the price is accepted, unsecured compensation, and rising revenue concentration.
• They recommend proactively offering structured price-development mechanisms tied to concrete preconditions.

Silhacek explicitly sets market pricing and transactional business aside, then covers three numbered areas — day-one pricing, financial planning and risk management — with bulleted cost and risk items under each.

Revenue concentration is singled out as a risk that reduces strategic flexibility and hurts most when the cooperation ends, rather than as an ordinary cost item.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful for a finance-facing angle: a diagnostic or workshop on the cost and risk checklist a smaller supplier should run before committing capacity to a large customer, closing with the price-development recommendation.

Examples: Source 1

To take part, smaller players usually have to accept the large customer's role as ecosystem orchestrator: working with open books for full cost transparency and following common rules on data exchange, lead times, ways of working and pricing frameworks. They list concrete forms the collaboration can take — pre-selected supplier pools with pre-approved quality levels, prices and delivery lead times; technical and logistical development led by the large player under a jointly agreed plan; capacity expansion financed by the customer in exchange for cost transparency; multi-party agreements, illustrated by electrification of heavy-duty transport connecting OEMs, carriers, charging providers and the global customer; joint product development; horizontal collaboration among several carriers within a predefined network; and taking over process steps previously handled by the customer.

The post moves from a general argument about how ecosystems work to a bulleted catalogue of real arrangements, attaching a concrete deal shape to each claim.

Silhacek is explicit: success for the smaller player usually means accepting the larger company's rules, not negotiating around them.

For brands planning a campaign

Good basis for a session on whether ecosystem participation is worth its cost: pair the transparency requirements with the list of collaboration forms to help suppliers see which entry points are realistic and which demands are non-negotiable.

Examples: Source 1

Large players consolidate supplier bases, restructure regions, change procurement strategies, internalize capabilities and change requirements, often for reasons unrelated to the supplier's performance.

• Then everything depends on how well the contract is structured, especially when a large share of capacity is tied to a single customer: when things get tough, nice statements are forgotten and the contract is what remains.
• They identify a second exposure in staff turnover on the customer side, where a single new decision-maker can put an entire collaboration at risk even after years of smooth operation.
• Their mitigations: build relationships beyond one contact, stay visible to several stakeholders, connect with management where possible, and stand on more than one leg.

Two risk categories get their own headings — shifts at the big player and sub-changes in people — each followed by concrete measures to reduce exposure.

For brands planning a campaign

A clear hook for a session or article on exit readiness and contract structure: the two risk categories provide a ready-made structure, while "stand on more than one leg" is a strong closing message for smaller suppliers weighing capacity commitments.

Examples: Source 1

"Not easy" is not the same as impossible, and in Silhacek's framing these conditions are the point at which size becomes secondary. The post then announces a shift in subject — leadership in a world where new illusions replace old ones, different "truths" compete, traditional anchors are disappearing and the Overton window is moving — and asks whether that changes a leader's priorities, focus and the role of leadership altogether.

A short checklist framed as a prerequisite, followed by a hand-off to the next series that signals the partnership topic is complete for now.

Silhacek includes luck as one of the listed conditions, keeping the checklist from reading like a formula.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful as a qualification checklist to open a webinar or article, and as a signal of where this creator's attention is heading: toward leadership under changing public and commercial conditions, a different brief from partnership mechanics.

Examples: Source 1

Each opens with the same framing sentence about smaller companies building sustainable, win-win collaboration with large global customers.

• Each entry focuses on one aspect of that relationship, with two to four numbered or arrow-marked points backed by concrete business situations: fuel clauses and raw-material price indices, inventory build-up from shorter delivery lead times, multi-party electrification of heavy-duty transport, supplier-base consolidation, and capacity tied to a single customer.
• Recommendations are direct instructions — plan liquidity, stand on more than one leg, offer price-development mechanisms even when not asked — rather than options.
• Numbered posts, coloured markers and styled-character emphasis carry part of the structure.

Each post follows a consistent structure: a framing sentence, numbered claims, arrow-bulleted evidence, and a short closing line or question that leads into the next entry.

For brands planning a campaign

The material is easy to reuse in campaign formats: each post maps to roughly one agenda item or workshop module, and the series order gives a natural sequence for a webinar, email course or downloadable checklist. Since formatting carries the emphasis, hosts should recast it as plain-prose headings rather than reproduce character-level emphasis.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5

Hodgkinson explains digital fitness, platform-and-agile work and ecosystems of co-production; Silhacek focuses on how smaller suppliers work within partnerships and ecosystems built by large customers.

Hodgkinson’s examples centre on digital transformation and public-sector delivery, including AI readiness; Silhacek’s selected series centres on supplier economics, culture and commercial relationships.

Read original · Original 2

Hobson connects procurement choices with freight decarbonisation and emissions reporting; Silhacek examines supplier partnerships with large customers.

Hobson’s examples focus on sustainable logistics, emissions data and procurement bottlenecks; Silhacek’s series focuses on partnership structure, pricing and relationship risk.

Read original · Original 2

Gelb compares financing structures for commercial real estate; Silhacek shows how pricing, cash flow and scaling costs affect supplier partnerships.

Gelb’s examples concern real-estate capital and borrowing; Silhacek’s focus on supplier relationships with large customers.

Read original · Original 2

In a post on AI, Hodgkinson argues that organisations need digital “fitness” before they can make AI work: secure platforms, sound data governance, in-house delivery skills and repeatable ways of working.

• Another post reports on the Vested approach to relational contracting, which uses formal governance to align partners’ interests and sustain collaboration as circumstances change.
• Hodgkinson is a closer fit for a campaign about partnership design or digital transformation than Silhacek’s supplier-side advice on pricing, culture and preparing for customer loss.

The tradeoff is perspective.

• Hodgkinson focuses on the buyer or organisation designing and governing collaboration; Silhacek speaks more directly to smaller suppliers navigating powerful customer relationships.
• A campaign aimed at SME owners would need to translate Hodgkinson’s material into practical questions about cost transparency, working capital and customer concentration.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Reporting from Smart Freight Centre Week, Hobson argues that procurement focused on lowest cost can stall promising low-carbon solutions, and that suppliers need to help customers assess viable alternatives.

• In another post, Hobson connects proposed Scope 3 reporting changes with ISO 14083 and makes the case for better transport-emissions data.
• This focus is more specific than Silhacek’s broader guidance on building and managing supplier relationships, and suits a campaign about freight emissions, procurement or supplier differentiation.

The tradeoff is breadth: Hobson’s posts address freight sustainability and emissions, not the wider relationship issues Silhacek covers, such as pricing mechanisms, cultural differences, ecosystem collaboration and planning for the end of a major customer relationship. Choose Hobson for a sector-specific campaign, not a general SME partnership brief.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

One post outlines alternatives including bridge and permanent loans, mezzanine capital and debt funds, emphasizing competition among capital providers.

• Another compares financing on a property with $500,000 in net operating income: approximately $3.8 million in usable bank proceeds versus $5.1 million from institutional or life-company financing.
• The example gives a capital-advisory campaign a concrete comparison to discuss; it is a closer fit than Silhacek’s posts, which focus on commercial relationships between smaller suppliers and large customers.

The tradeoff is both subject and tone.

• Gelb’s posts concern property finance rather than supplier partnerships, and the quantified comparison leads into a direct second-opinion offer.
• A campaign seeking neutral educational content would need to present the financing example without adopting its sales pitch.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2