The belief that one is special and therefore is entitled to special treatment is rampant these days from those who feel they deserve more to join—more stock, more money, more title—to the frequent epidemics of founder ego that sweep across startup land.
But what about the not so obvious, such as a lack of accountability and favoritism?
Both are forms of entitlement that kill initiative, which, in turn, kills innovation right along with productivity, engagement, loyalty and a host of other desirable attitudes and actions.
Many younger employees are entering the workplace with no real understanding of accountability and many older employees have worked for managers who don’t enforce viable accountability in their organizations.
Accountability requires consequences and consequences need to be implemented evenly across the entire organization, with the only exceptions being made publicly and whose basis is obvious and acceptable to the rest of the team, e.g., serious illness, death, etc.
Founders and managers who claim to have no time to spare for accountability and use termination as a solution exacerbate the problem.
Bosses, whether entrepreneurs or not, have a responsibility to both their company and their people—enforcing accountability while stamping out entitlement is a big piece of it.
“It’s all about sales. I’ve never seen an entrepreneur who wasn’t a salesman. I always feel like, with an entrepreneur, it’s not just about convincing someone to come in but it’s really about getting them to see life the way you see it through your eyes.” –Barbara Corcoran, Shark Tank
Corcoran is right, but it isn’t just entrepreneurs; it applies to everyone.
“See it through your eyes.”
Isn’t that what everyone wants?
From convincing investors to give you their money to selling yourself to a potential boss (or selling the company to a candidate), to making the case to your boss for a new piece of equipment to deciding what movie to see, it’s all sales.
Persuade, influence, blandishment, brainwash, cajole, con, conversion, enticement, exhortation, force, induce, inveigle, sweet talk, wheedle, preach, manipulate—call it what you will it’s still sales.
Folks do tend to get upset when “negative” words—manipulate, brainwash, con—are included in a discussion of sales, but then, there are people who think ‘sales’ is a negative action.
Which is ridiculous.
Without all the myriad ways we sell every day not only commerce, but religion, relationships and most of life would grind to a halt.
The actions that are termed sales or any of its synonyms aren’t good or bad; as with any tool it is how you choose to use it that defines whether it’s positive or negative.
Or, to paraphrase, sell to others how and what you would want sold to yourself.
Now take a look at the companies with the potential to unseat, or at least rattle, Zynga’s social gaming crown.
Many people died last year, some famous, but many just everyday people. They were important in their own world and their stories make fascinating reading. I especially liked the story of Keith W. Tantlinger; few have heard of him, but he profoundly changed our lives.
Are you familiar with the Pogie Awards? They “celebrate the best ideas of the year: ingenious features that somehow made it out of committee and into real-world products, even if the resulting products aren’t that great.”
I get really sick of all the lousy ads, especially those for drugs. Ugh! That said, I do enjoy good ads, such as 2011’s top ten ads based on analysis by Zeta Interactive.
Finally, here are enough 2011 trivia questions to make your get togethers interesting for at least three or four months.
Have you been following the News Corp phone hacking scandal?
Obviously, as a corporate culture maven I find New Corp’s endemic culture fascinating—in much the same way that a snake fascinates a bird.
The phone and email hacking, dumpster-diving and snooping are disgusting in themselves, but it is Rupert and his son James’ denial of any knowledge despite extraordinary proof and testimony to the contrary that amazes me.
Moreover, I find the idea that ignorance excuses bosses from responsibility for the actions of their organizations to be ludicrous, whether country, conglomerate, company or team.
I felt that way when Nixon denied knowing about Watergate; when Reagan denied knowing about Iran-Contra; and when Beech-Nut President Niels L. Hoyvald denied knowing about the fake apple juice; the list goes on and on.
In my mind it doesn’t matter if the top person knew or not, because as top person he (a pronoun of convenience) should have known.
IdeaPaint is the perfect gift for your team, your kids (teens to toddlers), yourself or anyone with a smooth surface that’s just sitting there. And you can pair it with magnetic paint for a truly useful fun result.
I found the ultimate gift for your favorite gadget nut or workaholic at Mashable, but you’ll have to wrap an IOU, because the EXOdesk isn’t actually available until next year. But I doubt they will mind waiting for a tabletop computer with 40 inches of high def space where you manipulate virtual objects by touching and dragging them around. It’s only $1,299, which may sound pricey, but is downright reasonable when compared to Microsoft Surface 2.0 at nine grand.
The thing she [behavioral psychologist] taught me—and this sounds obvious—is that behavior is a function of consequence. We had to change the behavior in the organization so that people felt safe to bring bad news. And I looked in the mirror, and I realized I was part of the problem. I didn’t want to hear the bad news, either. So I had to change how I behaved, and start to thank people for bringing me bad news. –Joseph Jimenez, chief executive of Novartis
The behavioral psychologist was brought in after a consulting group was paid to provide “better, more robust process, with more analytics,” which changed nothing.
When we started RampUp Solutions in 1999, we spent a good deal of effort coming up with a tag line that easily explained the services we provide.
After several iterations we finally settled on “To change what they do change how you think”
Over the years, I’ve heard and read story after story of how all kinds of changes—from turn arounds to improved productivity to retention—all started with a change in the way the boss thought.
And that applied whether the boss was CEO, team leader or somewhere in-between.
Stories and discussions about change tend to focus on the actions that bring about the changes, instead of starting at the beginning with the hardest work,
Work that requires the boss, at whatever level, changing the way she thinks and then dispersing and embedding those changes throughout her organization.
So before you hire expensive consultants or seek help from advisors look in the mirror to determine how much of the problem is you.
I find it amusing to read about research that proves what most of us already know—things such as healthy food costs more or that managers play favorites.
While 84% of those surveyed say favoritism takes place at their own organizations, just 23% acknowledged practicing it themselves, and 9% say it was a factor in determining their last promotion.
“I think the really interesting point is that almost a quarter admit to practicing it themselves, but only 9% believe that favoritism played a role in their own achievements. I guess it is therefore safe to assume that the other 91% believe they made it strictly on their own merits and hard work. Now I would call that either delusional, or defying the odds, though more likely the former.”
Many managers who believe they are fair are influenced in ways in which they are totally unaware.
When I was a recruiter I knew a manager who would not hire a blonde; he wasn’t aware of it until I proved it to him. Another manager refused to promote a talented woman until he realized it was because she looked like his ex mother-in-law.
Both of them worked through it, but before you can stop something you have to recognize that you’re doing it.
That means being aware of your personal prejudices and making a conscious effort not to let them influence you.
By the same token, you need to be aware when you’re playing to the boss-gallery because you figured out what floats his boat.
I’m not saying you have to admit it, but at least don’t kid yourself.
I read an interesting article from a Forbes advisor called A Young World is No Place for Old Corporations; in a nutshell it talks about nostalgia for “what the WSJ calls America’s ‘Midcentury Moment’, those post war “golden years of the 1940’s, ‘50s and early ‘60s?” The boom years when Americans forged the world’s new super power, as those in Europe diminished.“
It goes on to say, “During this time US companies became dominant corporations on a world stage, strongly influencing how business was conducted all over the world.
Fast forward to 2011, America now competes in a fierce global market against young and dynamic economies.”
It lauds the dynamic spark that drove the US economy; a common theme, but one I get tired of seeing.
Tired because it only tells only the upside of the story and ignores so much.
I am neither an economist nor an historian, but here is my view of the same history.
European industry didn’t diminish, it was crippled by WWII.
The US became dominant because we were the only country in a position to produce as opposed to spending our efforts and money to rebuild.
In other words, in comparison to the material and psychological devastation experienced by the rest of the world what the US suffered was more like a serious inconvenience.
But not too inconvenient, since we kept on producing and selling.
War’s end left us in the cat-bird seat—not rebuilding, just retooling to sell what the rest of the world needed to rebuild.
A lack of competition breeds arrogance, sloppy practices and fat—fat management and fat labor; it is easy to succeed in a world with little-to-no competition.
When countries no longer needed us because they produced their own we were surprised; when they went beyond and more efficiently produced what we produced and innovated where we had not bothered we were shocked.
When comfortable, we humans seem to believe that some version of what is will always be; it isn’t that we don’t believe in change, but we seem blind to radical change.
We are taken by surprise when it happens and long instead for whatever version of the “good old days” brings us back to our (false) comfort zone.
I never did understand the frenzy around startups and small biz as an engine for job creation, but I kept still—no one makes a fool of themselves intentionally.
Then last July I read an article by Andy Grove about what it takes to create jobs and my thoughts didn’t seem quite so ignorant. In September I read that after the first rush of hiring small and large companies are fairly even regarding job creation.
I also couldn’t understand the economic value of companies such as Groupon, Twitter, Zynga or even Facebook. I really couldn’t see how new ways to sell stuff was going to rebuild the middle class; it just didn’t seem that anything new and real was actually being created, but I didn’t broadcast those heretical views, either.
So if this tech bubble is about getting shoppers to buy, what’s left if and when it pops? [Steve] Perlman [founder or WebTV] grows agitated when asked that question. Hands waving and voice rising, he says that venture capitalists have become consumed with finding overnight sensations. They’ve pulled away from funding risky projects that create more of those general-purpose technologies—inventions that lay the foundation for more invention. “…But they are building on top of old technology, and at some point you exhaust the fuel of the underpinnings.”
Beyond all this is the fact that selling stuff requires a strong middle class to buy it and even startups with real products aren’t contributing to the manufacturing jobs that underpin that same middle class.
“The scaling process is no longer happening in the U.S. And as long as that’s the case, plowing capital into young companies that build their factories elsewhere will continue to yield a bad return in terms of American jobs.” –Andy Grove
China and India are consumer powerhouses not because of their newly minted uber-rich, but because of their growing middle class.
Most of this has been said in one way or another, but it doesn’t seem to have sunk in. I certainly don’t have the answers, but I am sure that the conversation needs to become a lot louder before anyone notices, let alone takes action.
Entitlement is a hallmark of many Millennials, but if you have a startup entitlement can literally kill it, as it has done many times.
It’s the time for Best and Worst lists, so here are links to some I found interesting.
Have you been following the News Corp phone hacking scandal?
I find it amusing to read about research that proves what most of us already know—things such as healthy food costs more or that 
I never did understand the frenzy around startups and small biz as an engine for job creation, but I kept still—no one makes a fool of themselves intentionally.
Subscribe to MAPping Company Success 