Entitlement is a hallmark of many Millennials, but if you have a startup entitlement can literally kill it, as it has done many times.

A first-hand example is provided in Battling Entitlement, the Innovation Killer.

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.

Image credit: Warning Sign Generator

A few days ago an article about titles in Forbes caught my eye—and got my goat.

It caught me because I’m not a lover of sweeping generalizations, since very few hold up against reality and this was one of them.

In this case, the author, with a typical consultant-pundit in support, denigrates as silly the raft of new CXO functions in business.

While I agree that they can be empty window dressing, the majority I’ve seen are powerful positions. You can tell the difference by the report structure—if the position doesn’t report directly to the top boss—CEO, COO, President or owner—it’s likely fluff.

Another statement, that titles were “likely dreamed up by the marketing team,” was really hilarious considering the corporate examples cited.

Kodak and Dell appointed Chief Listeners. Facebook recently added two Chief Privacy Officers. Coca-Cola is really gung-ho on the trend, employing a Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Sustainability Officer, Chief Scientific and Regulatory Officer, and Chief Quality and Product Integrity Officer, among others. Microsoft has a Chief People Officer; IBM a Chief Information Officer; Xerox a Chief Strategy Officer; and New York City has its very own Chief Digital Officer.

I find it hard to believe that the likes of Sam Palmisano, Michael Dell or Steve Balmer, let alone Michael Bloomberg, have marketing designing their organization.

The list also displays a high level of ignorance, since several of those “silly” titles, e.g., Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) have been around for decades, while others reflect important new priorities.

It’s not that I condone title inflation, but making sweeping statements that disparage efforts by companies to focus knowledge, skills and resources on specific problems and increase accountability by putting one person in charge are worse.

Creating new areas of responsibility to meet the needs of a changing world is necessary and bosses who ignore the changes or the need are setting their companies up for failure sooner, rather than later.

As long as the CXO has a well-defined mission, the authority to achieve it and direct access to the top the position deserves respect and support.

Outsiders who belittle that effort should be ignored.

Flickr image credit: Bengt Nyman

Lynn Blodgett, president and C.E.O. of ACS, a Xerox company, believes that all 85,000 ACS employees should think entrepreneurs. He sees a direct correlation between accountability and great the performance—increase the former and the latter goes up. This includes pushing P&L deeply into the organization, which encourages people to spend as if it was their own money.

“So you give people control, hold them accountable, give them control of their resources, and then monitor what they do.”

He also believes the right kind of incentives fuel motivation and engagement.

“I believe that a really important management principle is that if you get the incentives aligned, people will motivate themselves far better than you’ll ever motivate them. But, again, you have to get the incentives right.

It’s not only financial.  It’s being able to feel like they have a level of control over their destiny, that they are valued in what they do, that they’re being successful, that they’re contributing.  Those things are actually probably more important than the money.  But you’ve got to get the money right, too.”

An additional benefit of this approach is that people will “self-select,” i.e., if they can’t/don’t achieve the incentives they will realize much faster that they’re in the wrong type of work.

I especially like this because it is a better career development tool. Being terminated for non-performance allows people to rationalize, whereas missing incentives tied to viable goals offers the insight that they may need to find more fulfilling work and not keep making the same mistake over and over and that’s not a bad thing

Notice I said “viable goals,” which mean feasible, possible, doable; not goals that only one in a hundred can achieve them.

Goals that set people up for failure have a boomerang effect; they’ll return to their place of origin and smash a large hole in that manager’s reputation.

This is also not a bad thing, since “holey” managers seem to align with “holey” companies making it easier to avoid them.

Flickr image credit: zedbee

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

“Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for ’tis better to be alone than in bad company.” –George Washington

For early stage companies (and for all well-run private, Pre-IPO or Pre-Acquisition firms), the stock awarded to employees and the executive team is a form of “social contract” that promises them unusually high “return” for their risk, hard work, “sweat investment” and belief in the company.

The unstated social contract goes something like this:

I will initially forego a higher salary and cash compensation, in lieu of stock options that will increase in value at a faster rate than possible elsewhere, and will “return” more than the forfeited cash compensation might have, over time.

This is both an investment risk approach (“Do I believe the company’s product or service can win in the marketplace?”) and a simple ROI calculation (“Is the salary/cash compensation I forfeit going to be made-up (and then some) in a reasonable amount of time?”)

Because I am now an “owner” (“investor”) in this company (seeking to boost stock value. i.e. company value), I presumably have strong incentive to help the company thrive.

This includes being diligent and helping avoid risk, helping to find and fix problems everywhere, as well as going above and beyond my “job description” to help the company thrive and grow. I am super-diligent and respect and protect the company’s assets, reputation and product/service quality.  I treat this as “my” company.

In short, as an owner-employee (at any level), I understand that I have to “have the company’s back” and that others in the company “have my back.” We all watch-out for one another.  Our stock positions fairly and accurately reflect our contributions and risk “investments” we’ve made in this venture.

If the workers and/or the exec team come to disrespect, disbelieve or ignore this social contract, the company is lost.

Option Sanity ratifies the social contract

Come visit Option Sanity for an easy-to-understand, simple-to-implement stock process.  It’s so easy a CEO can do it.

Warning

Do not attempt to use Option Sanity™ without a strong commitment to business planning, financial controls, honesty, ethics, and “doing the right thing.” Use only as directed.

Users of Option Sanity may experience sudden increases in team cohesion and worker satisfaction. In cases where team productivity, retention and company success is greater than typical, expect media interest and invitations as keynote speaker.

Flickr image credit: Kevin Spencer

When I went looking for quotes from P. J. O’Rourke I expected a bonanza considering he is a political satirist, journalist, writer and author. I only found three worth sharing, but those three are excellent.

You certainly don’t have to be a Boomer to relate to the sentiment in this comment.

“I like to think of my behavior in the sixties as a ”learning experience.” Then again, I like to think of anything stupid I’ve done as a ”learning experience.” It makes me feel less stupid.”

All you can say about O’Rourke’s view of blame and responsibility is ‘ain’t it the truth’.

“One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it’s remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver’s license.”

Finally, O’Rourke does a spectacular job of identifying the real source of human travails throughout history.

“No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we’re looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn’t test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.”

As I said, quality is worth more than quantity.

Image credit: Wikimedia

By now you all know that I am a digital dinosaur, no cell phone, no iAnything, and a careful participant online.

I would rather brand my company, RampUp Solutions, and product, Option Sanity™, than brand myself.

I probably qualify for residency in the privacy nut house.

However, I read with interest an opinion piece by Richard H. Thaler, an economics professor, who makes a great point.

If a business collects data on consumers electronically, it should provide them with a version of that data that is easy to download and export to another Web site. Think of it this way: you have lent the company your data, and you’d like a copy for your own use.

He goes on to offer specific examples of ways in which people would gain significantly from having access to that data if it was in a user-friendly form.

(His comments reminded me of the legal fight by people whose genomes were added to data bases without their consent.)

Senators John Kerry and John McCain (wow, that is an odd couple) have co-authored a bill called the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights, which is good (if it passes), but Thaler says it only addresses privacy and security issues, not useable access.

Both sound like a good idea.

The UK already has both.

US marketers claim that any kind of privacy or data control will affect the economy adversely; I even heard some say that any kind of limitations on the use of data in the US could impair the global recovery.

Pu-leeeze!

If, as Thaler demonstrates, giving useable access to collected data would allow consumers to better evaluate pricing to find the best deal the result would be less smoke and mirrors and (slightly) more authenticity.

It seems to me that would benefit the recovery—at least for those companies that aren’t playing games.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/smemon/4478876573/

John Warrillow, at BNET, writes that the best question for weeding out victim mentality is “Tell me about the last time you made a mistake.”

He says that if the person accepts full accountability and doesn’t try to excuse or blame anyone else he almost always hires them.

While I agree it’s a great question and that the response tells you a lot about the candidate, I disagree that taking full responsibility necessarily makes a good hire.

There is a substantial difference between making excuses and a situation that leaves the person with no choice but to make the mistake.

There are too many managers who set their people up to fail, whether unintentionally or not. (Yes, there are mangers who do it intentionally.)
There is a difference between stating why the mistake was made and describing what could/should have been done differently and playing victim.

I advise creating a different dialog.

Manager: Tell me how [whatever].

Candidate responds.

Manager: Is that how you would have done it if you were in charge?

Candidate responds yes or no.

Manager: Why?

Asking why gets you to what you really want to know, which is how the candidate thinks.

How the person thinks is the crux, whether the candidate is a senior exec, admin or somewhere in-between.

And while it’s a good question to add to your interview repertoire I don’t think it’s strong enough to stand on it’s own as a ‘make or break’.

While discovering if the person has a victim mentality is useful, what is the advantage of hiring someone willing to take responsibility for a mistake that really isn’t theirs?

You need to know more; extenuating circumstances that at first may sound like an excuse can turn out to be plain facts.

Explore why the mistake happened, if and how it was rectified and what could have been done to prevent it.

In short, take time to dig deeper into any response that brings up a red flag, but do it with an open mind.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wadem/2808468566/

How often do you encounter ID ten T errors?

Do you think ID ten T errors are technology or human based?

How accurate is your identification of ID ten T errors?

How often is your analysis influenced by your own preexisting ideas or MAP?

How do you deal with ID ten T errors?

Do you ever produce ID ten T errors? (I do.)

How do you deal with your own ID ten T errors?

Image credit: Street Sign Generator.com

I had brunch today with two friends.

During the conversation one told me that he couldn’t believe I was still such an idealist at my age (older than dirt:).

His wife disagreed, saying that she couldn’t believe how cynical I had gotten.

They are both right.

I am, and always have been, a pragmatic idealist.

How do you become a pragmatic idealist?

By always striving to implement the ideals in which you believe, while fully functioning within the reality in which you actually live.

Image credit: http://www.warningsigngenerator.com

“Entrepreneur” is the new black.

The term/title is being applied to a multitude of people, from the consultant/coach making ends meet until businesses start hiring to the bleary-eyed kid in his dorm room hoping to be the next Facebook or Google; from the preteen mowing lawns to the Boomers using severance pay to follow their passions; from the person using the proceeds from the sale of one startup to launch the next to the woman using a micro loan to lift her family up from poverty.

Some are entrepreneurs by choice, some by chance; some run and leap into new opportunities with a battle cry on their lips, while others drag themselves kicking and screaming into the fray, but all are fascinating.

All face one particular challenge and the need to overcome it is great, because these days there are fewer choices, fewer options to pay the bills, fewer paths from here to there.

It’s motivation and it’s the biggest challenge faced by every working living person on the planet.

Whether you are a solopreneur, a founder/member of a startup or one in a cast of thousands you need to keep yourself and your people motivated.

While clear visions and strong passions help, motivation is in the doing—not the talking or the planning.

This is especially true for entrepreneurs, because the fewer the people the fewer the places to hide.

There’s no way around it, being an entrepreneur means full responsibility and full accountability, but it also means undiluted pride in the results.

Please join me Saturday for a look at a few of the more unusual entrepreneurs.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/csatch/4309778208/