As a consulting company, we tracked each hour of each employee’s day. We knew what they did and for how long they did it. We could calculate an employee’s total number of hours worked per year, average hours worked per day/week/month, what activities they spent most of their time focused doing, and therefore, each employee’s chargeability. That is consulting slang for how much profit we could squeeze out of each lemon employee.

As it turned out, I had some leverage concerning the big disagreement that I had with my partners on this yet-to-be-revealed work-style issue. For each of the years I worked at the firm (except for the first year), I had the highest average working-hours-per-month total out of all the employees in the firm (over a hundred). To make matters worse (from my partners’ perspective), the division with which I had P & L responsibility was not only the most profitable in percentage terms but also in real dollars. Finally, before I came along, this division had never turned a profit and was a significant cash sink from the corporate coffers. I turned my division around in 18 months and it stayed strong from that point on.

So, when I did or suggested something that was not popular, I managed to at least get a slight pause and a few moments of consideration before the arguing would begin. I was a stellar model of an exemplary employee, manager, and director. But to most of my fellow partners, I was not a stellar example of a partner. Why? Because I was seen as the maverick who not only looked at things differently, but also who was constantly trying to stir things up.

Of course, I was trying to evolve the corporate culture so that our employees would enjoy their time at the company, so that they would have less stress, so that they would not only feel more appreciated but would actually be more appreciated. This would lead to greater productivity, faster growth, and more profits. My partners could not see this.

The Big Work Style Issue Revealed

I never liked the inherent, non-spoken, holier-than-thou, outdated and absurd mantra, and sacred covenant that businesses and their employees buy into — that it is not appropriate for employees to bring their home issues to work. Whereas it of course can be distracting to the productivity of the workforce when an employee lets her or his personal issues mix with their work issues, we are human beings after all and it is almost impossible — except maybe for true sociopaths — to avoid periodically letting home life impact work life. Furthermore, companies never have issues with employees bringing their work life and issues home. In fact, for most white-collared workers, it is often expected that you will always be available for contact when you are at home or on vacation. This is a double standard with which I could not tolerate.

To that end, I did two things that most partners at successful consulting firms would never dream of doing — mostly because they would view it as abhorrent and unprofessional behavior. 

First, I allowed my employees to bring their personal lives to work. I sat down with employees who were having a bad day, week, or month as a result of personal issues at home or their own serious health issues. I became someone who did not frown upon those who showed vulnerabilities. Second, I used each and everyone of my vacation days each year and did not allow my firm to contact me when I was on vacation.

It is unfortunate that most employees feel that by not taking all their allotted and earned vacation days, that it shows dedication. Employees also often sub optimize their vacation days taken as they feel that their managers frown on them when they use their vacation days. To me, however, I knew that I earned and deserved each and every one of those vacation days — and even more.

So, I took all my vacation days each year and would leave explicit instruction with my employees and partners not to call me. I made that especially easy as my wife and I usually traveled to an exotic, remote locale where it would be very difficult — if not impossible — to contact me. I also strongly encouraged each of my employees to use all of their vacation days each year (some did, some did not). I even promoted this practice outside of my division, although it was up to my partners to allow that for their employees.

Why did I do this? Because our employees deserved the time off. They earned it. I also believed that if someone could not afford to take all of their earned vacation days in a given year, then that meant that either they were poor time managers or, that we needed to hire more quality employees to distribute the workload.

Most employers give vacation allotments as an incentive but then when it comes time for an employee to use them, they make the employee feel guilty. However, they appreciate employees who underutilize time off. In fact, they use an awful trick to “reward” them for not using vacation days — they pay them for those days. Of course, this is a much better deal for the employers than the employee. An employer expects to earn a profit for each hour an employee works. So, paying them not to take their vacation days results in them making more money than if that employee had taken the vacation day.

Stirring The Pot To Make Gold

I stirred up the pot in other ways as well. I fought to share a larger portion of profits in an equitably manner with each employee (and not in the ridiculously formulaic way in which it was done — and then, not with any regularity or real fairness). I pushed for better wages and salaries. I argued that the company should award more aggressive bonuses. I even lobbied to have our employees treated and viewed as assets instead of resources.

Resources, after all, are something that is mined, consumed, and then discarded when every last drop of usefulness has been extracted. The phrase Human Capital was just beginning to come into vogue, but I disliked that term just as much as Human Resources. Capital expenditures are depreciable investments. No, instead I pushed, with very little success, to be innovators in the HR field, to treat and view our employees as appreciable assets.

Fight For Your Life

So, if you are a startup founder, a partner, manager, or lower-lever employee, do you live for work or work to live? It is up to each of you to decide how you are treated and to treat others in a way that lets them thrive, grow, and lead a life in which work is not viewed as an all-consuming necessity but instead is welcomed as a wonderful partner in achieving personal and family goals.

Comments?

Please feel free to comment below or join the active conversation on this article on Google Plus.

Image Credits

Royalty-free image thanks to Image: digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

The Apple boys used Jobs’ parents’ free garage. The Google boys used a friend’s garage for free (initially). HP founders used an unattached garage that was part of the home for which they shared the rent (Dave Packard and his wife lived in the house).

Thus the G+ thread was a discussion about what has replaced real garage spaces as a place where startups should startup. In the post’s comments, a number of apparent startup founders were praising the virtues of co-working spaces, claiming that they are the new startup garage.

I found this statement odd. Bootstrapping founders don’t pay for anything until they absolutely need it. Even if a startup has more money than they know what to do with, wise founders don’t pay for something until it is essential. To me, whatever is the cheapest location option for a startup is the new garage.

The key with the startup-bootstrapping approach is to minimize expenses upfront. Use space for which you are already paying but not using efficiently–your bedroom, dining room, garage, shed, basement, one-room apartment, or dorm room. Or borrow (for free) extra space in your parents’ or friend’s home or apartment. Coffee shops or even libraries might work too but co-working spaces definitely do not. Why spend precious resources when you can get space for free. Once you have an initial product to demo, and you’re beginning to gain traction, it may make sense to look for better facilities.

Renting an expensive place will not make you successful. The “it’s key for networking” mantra is a thinly veiled excuse. Nothing prevents you from networking if you work out of your house. If people only networked with people whom they share the same physical office building, then the world would collapse.

Whether you’re a bootstrapped startup or a well-funded startup, the key is execution on building your prototype, creating your MVP. Don’t foolishly waste cash just to be in a cool place. If you don’t have a founder’s team that can successfully execute the startup’s vision, then the team is flawed. Having the coolest place on earth will not change that. Besides, what can be cooler than starting up in a real garage — especially in the winter!

Note: Before any of my readers get a guilty feeling that I’m talking about you and your startup, relax. I’ve held this view for years and decided to share it after reading the interchange on the aforementioned G+ post. After all, my current startup uses the already-paid-for space in my house and my business partners’ houses. Although there is a fabulous co-working space in a high-tech park less than three miles from my house, I have zero interest in paying for more real estate when I already have real estate that I can use.

Whereas it is clear that a person who can be classified as a reluctant leader is currently a bad fit for the position, the brunt of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of that person’s immediate superior. Should they have been hired or promoted to project manager in the first place? Did they receive proper guidance and training? Were clear expectations and responsibilities proactively communicated?

Project Manager versus Managing a Project

In smaller firms, a person who is called a project manager may actually be a single person working on a single project. In that case, whereas they are managing a project, they are not truly a project manager. Project mangers usually oversee more than one project at a time and have a team of people whom they lead.

When a company’s backlog grows large enough, it is crucial to appoint a few, results-oriented project managers. Each project manager leads their own team of people. Each project team is tasked with handling a number of the firm’s overall projects in the backlog. The project manager will delegate various chunks of a project’s workload to the team, only keeping a small portion of the project work to his or herself.

Signs of a Reluctant Leader

To me, one of the telltale signs of a reluctant leader is that they would rather be doing the “real” project work and not that “other stuff”. How is that desire communicated? In different ways, but often like this.

When sitting in a meeting discussing a project issue, that project manager seems uncomfortable, maybe even frequently looking at their watch. They finally get the guts to say, “I need to get to work on the project,” or “can we end this discussion because I have to get back to work.”

It is not uncommon for reluctant leaders to assume that all the other duties of a project manager are subordinated to the project work itself. What they fail to realize is that successful project managers have many responsibilities that must equally be performed. Their share of an overall project’s work is just one of many duties.

Successful Project Managers

Successful project managers need to be proficient multitaskers. They need to accept as well as give constructive feedback; proactively communicate with clients and employees; build motivated, results-oriented project teams; sell their vision to their team, to clients, and to recruits; have a passion for leadership; and derive a good portion of their energy from coaching team members and helping each member reach their potential.

In addition to these basic requirements, successful project managers need to manage project chargeability (if measured), organize and lead team meetings, and oversee their share of an organization’s strategic plan. They also need to be results oriented, handle difficult employee issues, and oversee project QA/QC.

A project manager needs to respond in a timely fashion to all team-member inquires—even if it is uncomfortable to them based on his or her communication style. It is imperative that project managers provide clear guidance and direction, effectively delegate the work load, and, finally, perform their share of the project work—what reluctant leaders call the “real” project work.

What Makes a Project In Itself Successful?

Well, that depends on the overall goals for a given project. But a general definition is as follows: hitting the profitability goal, completing the project on time and on budget, and achieving more than satisfactory results for all parties.

In the end, it is up to a project manager’s superior to hold them accountable for project successes and failures. By doing so, it increases the success rate of future projects and can help mold a reluctant leader into a successful project manager.