18
ALTERNATIVE PATHS FOR THE HIGH-FF
Entrepreneurship can be a terrifying experience, even for those with high achievement motivation. For the High-FF it can feel like a leap too far, as well as a move that might destroy our progress – sending us reeling back to our “I’m not good enough” worst after just minor setbacks.
This is partly due to the enormity of the endeavour. Support mechanisms such as publicly sponsored schemes or incubators (such as Metrocube) go only so far. Mostly, we are on our own, which can undermine the Me Inc. robustness we may have been developing.
Yet there are alternatives to “going it alone,” of which the most common is to go into business with a partner. Indeed, partnerships represent a significant milestone for the recovering High-FF capable of mastering them. The thought of running a business as a joint venture with another person (or persons) as equal partners is both enticing – our partner may bring some of the entrepreneurial requirements we still lack (such as confidence, optimism, courage and other traits typical of those with high achievement motivation) – and at the same time concerning. We are likely to harbour typical High-FF concerns regarding trust.
Certainly, my own experience with partners has been a bad one. So much so that I spent years adopting the typical entrepreneurial mantra that partnerships don’t work, which is patently untrue: there have been as many successful companies built through partnership as there have been by single operators, if not more.
Both Metrocube and Moorgate were founded as partnerships, although both barely survived the experience. At Metrocube my partner put in more money (including family money) and it was his initial spark. Neither he nor I managed to get beyond this, which meant that – despite being CEO – I felt constantly undermined, sometimes even humiliated in front of colleagues. He assumed his greater shareholding (a majority if his friends and family were included) gave him additional authority, and he thought me a little flaky, perhaps assuming I was filling in time between banking and the publication of my first book.
Yet the experience was reversed at Moorgate. A journalist and former colleague suggested we team up. Needing a catalyst for my own nascent plans of creating a specialist communications agency for banks, and confirmation from someone with high achievement motivation, I jumped at his offer of a 50:50 partnership, although I provided the majority of the resources – at first using Metrocube as an incubator.
My assumption that he would play my former role of full-time executioner in this venture – while I finalized the sale of Metrocube and potentially dabbled elsewhere – was, however, flawed. We had very different notions of what it took to start a company, with his eventually angering me, as did his work on other projects (ignoring my own activities in this regard).
Of course, my reaction to both scenarios was typical of someone with a high fear of failure: frustration, followed by distrust, followed by emotional rather than rational responses. Yet my experiences are poor and, probably, self-fulfilling. Partnerships can be a sound way for businesses to grow, especially if the partners can provide different skills. Partnerships are based on trust, however, and – as with my two examples – if the trust is absent or breaks down they can quickly dissolve into feuding and destructive rivalries.
With both my experiences I felt I was let off lightly, mainly because of the people involved (other than me, that is). Looking back I realize it was my High-FF status that was the main cause of the problems in both cases. My weakness at the start of the relationship translated into distrust during it. This caused me to behave in ways that led them to distrust me (probably correctly), creating – as is so often the case with the High-FF – a self-fulfilling vortex of destruction.
In his book Let’s Go into Business Together (2001), Azriela Jaffe states strong communication as the “platinum rule” for a successful partnership, which of course sounds obvious until we try and put it into practice. In my case, I was so busy trying to get my own points across – inwardly shouting “listen to me, listen to me” – that I had no time or inclination to listen to them.
Not for the first time, Jaffe compares partnerships to a marriage. He suggests that, like all intimate relationships, partnerships begin with a romantic phase with giant helpings of harmony, compromise and charm. Both partners are trying to look and act in ways the other will find attractive, and the tendency at this stage is to only see the other’s attractive qualities. Yet reality inevitably kicks in – perhaps at the first crisis when those warning signals that have been actively ignored start flashing red.
“The honeymoon stage never lasts forever – in marriage or in a business partnership,” writes Jaffe. “Power struggles and disenchantment are painful but necessary processes that all intimate relationships pass through.”
Jaffe suggests that the romantic phase is the key moment to put in place the foundations for a strong partnership, which include (again, with some of my own thoughts thrown in):
Slow down. Don’t rush into partnership. Why not “live together before getting married,” suggests Jaffe, meaning first working together on a few projects?
Prepare a pre-nuptial. A partnership agreement is essential. It should state each partner’s investment in the venture and commitment to it, as well as other commitments that may get in the way.
Account for strengths and weaknesses. The agreement can include the skills and qualities each brings. This is essential in modern (and more mature) partnerships where individuals actively seek partners from different backgrounds (sales and IT being a typical one) – part of what Jaffe calls the “paradigm shift in partnering” and a far more effective approach than two mates going into business because they got on well at college and had an idea over their third beer.
Introduce the family. Would you introduce your business partner to your mother? If not, why not? You may have the same problem with potential clients.
Prepare a mission statement. Even if a marriage of two established businesses, a new business is being created and that requires a new business plan and, most importantly, a mission statement. The creation of such a statement may shed light on differing objectives and motivations, and – once agreed – the shared goals should help iron out minor disputes.
Of course, every element above is aimed at breaking the fall when the inevitable “day of disillusionment” arrives, says Jaffe.
This is a key moment for the High-FF, who may have gone into the partnership naively thinking his or her partner provided the props they lacked. Almost certainly, the disillusioned High-FF will focus on a perceived loss of trust – behaviours and actions by the other that have eroded what was probably an untenable level of trust or emotional investment in the first place.
Jaffe states that, at this point, you will probably focus your energies on getting your partner to change, an approach that will quickly have you in your corner – hurling insults and perhaps destroying any potential for salvation. If you instead try and see it from their point of view, focusing on how you can change (at the very least in terms of your approach), and how you can accommodate their view, you may see them also soften their stance.
Even if you suspect your partner of dishonesty, you should stay honest. Even if you suspect your partner’s motives, you should remain frank about yours. And even if you are consumed with anger, you should stay calm – communicating with your partner the way you expect them to communicate with you (my biggest challenge, for sure).
But this all seems so negative – as if the best result available is gritted tolerance and stale endeavour. Hotel entrepreneur Jonathan M. Tisch rails against such negativity in his book The Power of We (written with Karl Weber in 2004) – stating that partnerships offer a different approach to leadership and a strong reaction to the testosterone-fuelled “titans of industry” approach that, he suggests, most often ends in disaster and disgrace.
“The myth of the go-it-alone business hero is just that – a myth,” says Tisch.
To prove this, Tisch widens the definition of partnership to embrace clients, suppliers, social agencies, employees and even competitors – not least because it transforms our attitude away from the “me first” ethos. Partnerships at all levels should be equal and based on compromise and commitment, says Tisch. Finding reasons not to cooperate is easy, he says, while finding reasons to cooperate requires creative thought (echoing Carnegie).
Yet this is all very easy to write. For High-FFs at least, such concepts are far more difficult to undertake, especially consistently. Help comes from the great man himself, Stephen Covey, in The Seven Habits … His sixth habit is “synergize,” which he describes as “bringing together a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts.” Covey states that synergy is everywhere in nature – even in the way a man and woman bring a child into the world.
“The essence of synergy is to value differences,” says Covey. “To respect them, to build on strengths, to compensate for weaknesses.”
Yet being effective depends on trust, which can be difficult if we react defensively, or by being authoritarian or even passive. These are reflexive reactions, says Covey, which – as High-FFs well understand – can be disastrous. We may oppose or we may tolerate, but we do not actively cooperate and, according to Covey, cooperation and communication are the two legs of a successful synergistic relationship.
Covey states that truly synergistic relationships – that produce “solutions better than any originally proposed” where all parties “genuinely enjoy the creative enterprise” – are produced from positions of sincere trust: where we have fully and co-operatively invested in the other party.
Again, my own experiences – where the motivations and objectives of my partners were seemingly at odds with my own, making trust impossible – makes me wonder whether Covey is being naïve here, although he covers this eventuality.
“There are some circumstances in which synergy may not be achievable,” he says, before adding that – even in these circumstances – we will benefit from the spirit of sincere trying because it means we avoid a damaging intransigence.
And this means we can walk away with a smile, a shrug and an effective compromise, rather than with further confirmation of our insecurities and fears. Certainly, compromise and spiritual generosity – whatever the physical cost – is a whole lot better than digging trenches while nursing feelings of injustice, although – of course – some High-FFs are programmed to prefer it that way.
But partnering is far from the only way of forging your own path. Another option – and one that chimes with the modern economy – is freelancing (if offering your skills) or consulting (if offering your expertise). Certainly, the regulatory burdens of employment have encouraged many larger companies to source skills from independent individuals, rather than keep growing the workforce. And this has led to a growth in the opportunities for freelancers and consultants. For freelancers, this is especially the case in the creative industries (including IT) – and in construction – where projects may be “lumpy”: meaning that a large workforce may be a requirement one week and a burden the next. For consultants, professional services companies often contract consultants on particular projects – again because maintaining a team of professionals is expensive when the work being won comes in fits and starts. And many also appreciate an external view when it comes to strategy.
Yet such options are also attractive to the freelancer/consultant. Many freelancers live lifestyles incompatible with corporate life, or are simply not cut out for the discipline of the workplace. Meanwhile, consultants are often professionals nearing retirement who may find commuting (at least in rush-hour) a drag and corporate life somewhat overbearing. Both may have been uncomfortable with the brutality of office politics, or may have felt their contribution was unrecognized within the organization that won their exclusive output – in all cases making freelancing/consulting a strong alternative path.
In Going Solo (1997), William Bond tackles the requirements for growing a successful “home-based” consultancy (i.e. a one-person, skill-based, time-billing business). He states that consultants are in demand in many fields. They also attract good money and win flexible employment arrangements. But you must have something to offer, he says, and be able to effectively communicate that offering to your potential audience. His tips for sustainable consulting include (inevitably including my own thoughts):
Create your workspace. Make sure you can work from home. Kitchen-table businesses will soon fail if the table is too regularly invaded by noisy kids, demanding spouses or visiting neighbours. As with “managing the process,” you need to set yourself up to succeed. “Your business will [only] be successful when you get the support and cooperation from others within your household,” says Bond.
Communicate. Tell everyone you meet what you do. Bond suggests developing your own 30-second “elevator speech” so that people quickly understand your skills and the circumstances of your offering (a 10-second version will be even more effective). Business cards and flyers help. Obscure but clever names for your business do not.
Get marketing. Many freelancers/consultants fail to prosper because they become too dependent on one client – perhaps their former employer. Do some research and make some approaches to likely buyers, or you may soon exhaust your options.
Follow up. “Success results from following up every enquiry and response,” says Bond. You are no longer in a corporate environment, so your networking needs to be more urgent and with a stated purpose, which is to win business. Yet don’t pester. New contacts can be quickly lost if you become too demanding.
Please. It is far easier to please an existing client than to find a new one – so make sure you deliver. One common mistake for freelancers, in the early days, is to over-charge for unfinished work (thinking that the client is undervaluing their skills). Most corporates are used to this, but it irritates. And they will come back again and again to the person that offers good value and a professional (i.e. reliable, timely and complete) service.
Learn about your client. This is true for targeting clients as well as executing their projects. Distance makes it easy for a freelancer/consultant to miss the brief and take projects in the wrong direction. This is wasteful for the client and can turn positive communication into defensive conflict – all of which could have been avoided by listening carefully to the client. Again, High-FF insecurities can obscure this simple rule – making you more interested in winning praise for your “brilliance” than in listening to their needs.
Think vertically as well as horizontally. It isn’t just about selling your skill-set to the widest number of potential buyers. It’s about exploring what you can offer the clients you already have. This is the classic “farmer/hunter” divide in sales, with the farmer (of existing clients) a potentially neglected opportunity. There may be tangential work available for those with a good track-record of client delight. For instance, at Moorgate we often employ freelance writers, but one has proven adept at page-layout for newsletters – a skill we can market on her behalf.
And then there’s franchising – sometimes called “soft entrepreneuring” because much of the hard work of building a brand and marketing its products and services has been done for the franchisee by the franchiser. Some of the world’s most famous brands are franchises, with franchisees buying the rights to open an operation and receive marketing and operational support (as well as a famous name) in return. MacDonalds, Subway, Dunkin Donuts, Pizza Hut, Domino’s Pizza, KFC, Prontaprint, 7-eleven, Kwik-Fit, Londis – all are franchise operations with each branch a separate business owned by the man or woman behind the till (or their manager out back). Even professional services are getting in on the act – with law firm Baker & McKenzie operating along franchise lines (making it the second largest law firm in the world).
That said, franchising is an entrepreneurial option that comes with strings attached.
“Franchising is a negotiated relationship in which franchisers and franchisees must live with some degree of flexibility regarding each other’s performance,” writes Stephen Spinelli Jr (of Never Bet the Farm fame), Robert M. Rosenberg and Sue Birley in Franchising (2004).
By flexibility, the trio can mean the opposite. For obvious reasons, franchisers are fierce defenders of their brand and reputation. So while some of the entrepreneurial terror is reduced – not least through travelling a well-tested operational path – some of the frustration is not.
This is freedom with limits, although this may actually suit the High-FF entrepreneur. We spend our life scouring the horizon for icebergs – often bailing out at the first white-spec on the horizon (when it was a perfectly navigable obstacle, or even a potential opportunity). So here’s a route that comes with a pilot – albeit one we’ve had to pay for. For the High-FF, that may be a price worth paying.
Finally, you should consider the ultimate alternative to running your own business – developing an enterprising attitude within your current workplace. This is perhaps the easiest of the Me Inc. recovery steps on offer for the High-FF, although it still requires a complete change in attitude if it’s not to be eroded over time. And it does require some support from the organization you work for.
Workplace entrepreneurialism is a big theme for company guru Tom Peters in In Search of Excellence. He implores companies to “atomize” an organization in order to “induce zest, creativity, and … symbiosis with the customer.” A key part of this, according to Peters, is “entrepreneurizing every job” – making each employee a businessperson with the mindset of the independent contractor.
“Businesses, in order to compete, have to be not just decentralized but deorganized,” writes Peters. “The logical limit of deorganization is the entrepreneur – the business unit of one.”
What’s required, he insists, is a focus on individual proactivity. And while his philosophy is obviously trying to influence managers, in Thriving on Chaos, his influential 1987 follow-up to In Search of Excellence, he offers attitudes and values that every employee should adopt, no matter what the over-riding culture of the corporation. These include an obsession with service and responsiveness to customers (including serving those we report to); the creation of new ways to organize yourself and to measure your progress (perhaps via strong “customer” feedback); the sourcing of partnerships in every direction (above, below, with colleagues, externally); and the removal of office paranoia by developing transferable skills.
“Be ready to change everything,” says Peters. We should embrace the “love of change.”
And if you cannot find this much room for manoeuvre within your current organization – move to one where you can. Indeed, this is an important final point for those recovering from fear of failure in their career pursuits. Many High-FFs will have found employment within an organization that shares their previous intolerance of failure – perhaps because of the level of external scrutiny upon it (by regulators, shareholders or – if within the public sector – voters, politicians and the media). As someone soaked in your own fears, this may have been a comforting place to work. But as someone recovering from such insecurities, it may – in fact should – frustrate you, making your next move one to an entrepreneurial organization no matter what its purpose or ownership structure.