Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

Craig,

We`ll have to disagree on this "manager" versus "leadership" description. All I can tell you is that I teach my clients to stay away from using the term "manager" in most situations in business. When they do, and start thinking in terms of leaders and leadership, we make progress and they see progress and their companies see progress and they start operating better and making more profit. I`ve been practicing and teaching this business philosophy for over 15 years and it works for me and my clients - maybe it`s not for everyone. The results I see are phenomenal. Just this one little change makes a big, big difference. Finding potential leaders in a company and training them to become real leaders can make a big difference in a company and allows the owners and key leadership team more time to work "on" the business - the original thought of this post.

Leadership can be taught to adults. I see it more times than not. And it is contagious. This is why I preach it so much and try to get my clients to buy into it. It works. People can readily see leadership qualities. The tone of the voice. The desire to hear both sides of a story. The listening skills. The desire to ask lots of questions. The list goes one. The average everyday Joe has a good feel for recognizing leaders. This is because the average everyday Joe WANTS to be led - not managed. Most folks think they can "manage" better than the next guy - especially THEIR manager. But most folks don`t feel they are leaders. Otherwise, the whole world would be a better place.

R@

PS: To learn more on leadership, I highly recommend checking out John Maxwell and his websites and signing up for his eNewsletter called Leadership Wired. Every issue is packed with great info.

-------------------------

Richard Arnold · Key Concept Writers · Business Communication: The "Key" To Success· Law of Attraction Blog · Life Ain`t Brain Surgery Blog

Richard,

Even though I used the "distributive manager" description and talked about managers, I agree with you - the way manager is used in business is completely bankrupt and doesn`t have any constructive meaning anymore.   I tried to make a distinction between good managers and bad managers because I can`t be sure I`m in a conversation with someone who sees the word "manager" as simply a bad thing (which I would agree it has become).

I think my view of working "in" the business would be that bankrupt big business view of "manager", and working "on" your business is true leadership and in a sense, true business ownership.   I think either mode (in vs. on) could apply to everyone who has a job, and it sounds like you are having great success helping turn employees from working "in" their business (doing tasks), to working "on" their business (leading people and giving strategic direction to the business).




-------------------------

Team Nimbus facilitates peer teams who advise each other from their collective business experience to raise profits in less time, so they can focus on the passion that brought them into business in the first place. We help move their business from survival, through profitable success, to significance.

Blakeman - I knew where you were coming from but thanks for the clarification. I still use the word, too - sometimes you have to for understanding the transition and the reasons why not to use it.

Bottom line is this - finding/making the time to work "on" the business is not easy for most owners/entreprenuers. There are lots of reasons and I don`t believe - based on my experience - there is one set way to get to the point where one can work "on" the business. Every person and situation is different and when you are called upon to assist owners, you have to look at the entire operation and people.

One issue that pops up on the radar many times is simply time management. Maybe this is a sunject for another thread. Poor time management by owners/entreprenuers is a real killer. People are distracted so easily and there is so much time wasted that could be put to better use. But like I said, another subject for another day. Just thought I throw out a tease on that one - maybe we`ll get around to it one day.

R@

-------------------------

Richard Arnold · Key Concept Writers · Business Communication: The "Key" To Success· Law of Attraction Blog · Life Ain`t Brain Surgery Blog

Richard, we`re actually not far apart at all. No need to disagree about the meaning of manager, as I think we`re both saying the same thing. My interest in this relates more to what Blakeman says, when he gets caught in the use of "good manager," v. "bad manager."

Obviously, a manager isn`t subject to a global moral evaluation of good and bad. So the implication is a successful manager or not, a quality manager or not, a practical manager or not, and so forth.

I do agree that by changing a single word we can produce massive changes. By exchanging the word "manage" for "lead," which is what you`re saying, this routinely devalued `semantic` process has tremendous impact. So again, we`re in agreement there.

Based on your post, I`m changing my position somewhat, and consdering that it might be possible to train an adult in leadership. I`m not all THAT vested in it, so I`m not going to take the time to try it, experiment, and so forth; I`ll take your word for it, as you sound as if you`d accomplished it. In that case, there`s hope for the world yet! :-D

The bigger problem is Blakeman`s observation that "management" is bankrupt in the corporate realm. I see the same in philosophy, saying that philosophy in general, as it`s known today, is bankrupt. It`s not to say that philosophy has no function or use. Nor is it to say that corporations are a failed model.

In some ways, an increasing number of people say something similar. There`s the expression, "I`m a religious person but I don`t agree with organized religion." It`s not that the principles of religion are wrong or failing. It`s that the human beans who interpret the application of religion are failing. I`d say it`s the same with management and philosophy, not to mention (although I will) critical thinking.

With all that said, we`re still in the same place: Why do so many entrepreneurs CHOOSE to manage rather than lead "themselves" in their business ventures? Do they choose?

We all know the "voting for/ voting against" expression. Consider this: When someone says, "I want to run my own business, be my own boss. I hate working here! I want to do my own thing!," they`re voting against a boss, being told what to do. And so they end up creating a boss (themselves), and being told what to do (crisis management).

But then someone says, "Hey, I`ve got an idea for a whole new product! I can`t get anyone to try it, so I`m gonna try it myself!" Those, in my opinion are voting FOR leadership, right from the git-go.

The issue is how to keep them on track as leaders, process-independent, and so forth. Writing the SOP manuals is one very good way. Is there a self-evaluation checklist we might develop, to assess whether or not a person is working (stuck unawares) IN or ON the business?

When you get right down to it, most entreprenuers have a lack of clarity. Many entrepreneurs simply don`t know what they want from life. Without clear goals and an understanding of what you truly value, life can get out of whack very quickly. This lack of clarity contributes to the conflict between working "on" and "in" the business. Another reason to really and seriously work on the life planning phase as the Sloan Bros. preach here at SuN.

There are many business people - small and large - long-term and startup - that confuse job success with life success ... "success = happiness."  We (as a culture and as individuals) cling tightly to the notion that "If I succeed at my job, I will succeed in life." This may have been true in the past, but not anymore. To achieve balance, you have to embrace all aspects of life, not just those related to the business environment. More important for entrepreneurs, you have to find an identity above and beyond your business.

Personally, I don`t think anyone will ever get to the point of working "on" the business until they figure out the life/work balance. For startups, this is hard to develop into a total business plan and bad habits just continue on as the business grows. A vicious circle for many.

R@

-------------------------

Richard Arnold · Key Concept Writers · Business Communication: The "Key" To Success· Law of Attraction Blog · Life Ain`t Brain Surgery Blog

A side note on one of the comments, looks to me that Keycon is on to something here.



In the not too distant past it was a simple formula, the couples were supposed to amaze wealth and it would be the next generation that would enjoy a rich and full life. Well, as it happens we are the next generation, and it looks like that for the most part our generation is not living up to the expectations, we find that we need people to teach us to create life plans so that we can at least attempt to make this vision a reality. Of course every person must look at life through his/her own prism, what is true for me may not be so for somebody else. That said, I believe that it would be productive to realize what link (stage) you as a person are in the ‘life fulfilment’ chain among generations, then, go on to make those plans to enjoy life or become the wealth generator, the ‘enabler’ if you will, for the next generation. 

How interesting that we come back to the life planning step! I`d also gone through the various loops, always coming back to that same thing, understanding the basic, historic questions, "Who am I, why am I here, and how does this place work?"

From what I`m reading on this thread, it seems encouraging that a philosophy Web site, based on practical application of philosophy, might be an actual product line. I`ve been thinking of it more like an information, reference, and advice site, mostly to just write out my thoughts and stuff.

But repeatedly we make references to seriously important words, which then have dramatic consequences. The difference between "manage and lead," for example, and now a call to the definition of both "success" and "happiness."

Eli sparks an analogy for my own writing, which is that we all look at life through our own metaphorical prism. Although that`s true, the nature of a prism, in and of itself, remains objective. In other words, although we all use a different shape of prism, all prisms must have a degree of transparency, and break apart white light into its components.

So too, we all view reality through our perceptions and mind, but all human beings must have a mind. We all use language to speak and organize our thoughts, but without common definitions, we might just as well have no language at all.

The prismatic rainbow in the metaphor translates to our "context," in real life. So it`s true that we all use the word success, and we all assign differing values to what constitutes success. However; we all have to know what sort of values to assign to the word. The word itself has an objective definition.

The problem then, is where do we go for that definition? Random House has five senses, but the only one that isn`t a recursive loop is:

• the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors.

It`s my contention that without a reasoned analysis of the word, we can`t even formulate a plan or a way to assign values to the word. But no dictionary picks apart each word for its semantic meaning, applies a context to the word, and produces a discussion of examples.

Rhetorically speaking, what does "prosperous" mean, or "favorable?" What`s catastrophic to the person who sold their Google stock on day 5, is favorable to the person who bought it. When do we determine "termination?"

How do we isolate time segments, and know when we`ve passed from one endeavor into the next? What`s the end of one thing, and the start of the next? Those are critical words we use when forming the steps, stages, and phases of a Plan.

In the past two days, partly due to this thread, I`ve come to realize that I`m not really putting a "philosophy" together, so much as a complex dictionary of definitions, words, and perhaps more importantly, "context."

Who knew? :-D