Top Ten : - Ways to Avoid Becoming a Jerk-Boss in any company

Top Ten : - Ways to Avoid Becoming a Jerk-Boss

I’ve seen it countless times – you emerge from solo success and discover that you’re going to need help. When you assume the role of “people-manager”, you also discover that this is an entirely different role from that of “Lone Ranger.” Success as a solo is no guarantee of success as a leader of people. In order to create a motivating, highly-productive workplace, you must avoid earning a reputation as a jerk.

Herewith, the top ten things to steer clear of (no matter how tempting), these I have learned from the school of hard knocks...

1.Micro-managing. Just because you know it all doesn’t mean you should do it all. A great way to wreck productivity and motivation is to look over another’s shoulder and nit-pick.

2. Punishing mistakes. (read my blog entry on the M word) Expect mistakes. Chalk them up as the price of progress. Focus instead on the gold within the mistake – the lesson to be learned and control your temper.

3.Yelling at people. We’re not on the playground anymore. Recognize that your yelling is probably closely attached to anger. Adults don’t respond well to being yelled at. (If this is a toughie for you, hire a coach.)

4.Nonchalance in hiring help. Getting the right talent on board is the most important determinant of your future success. Make sure you choose wisely and gain people whose work styles, expertise and preferences are different from yours. Casually loading the payroll with your clones creates an ugly outcome.

5. Over-demanding. Just because you’re a workaholic, don’t expect your employees to surrender well-balanced lives in order to meet your expectations.There are always times to push hard but when it is a time not to then ease of and relax the team a little, don't burn them out

6.Ignoring outstanding achievement. Nothing is more demoralizing than having one’s efforts go unappreciated. Ignoring it is also a good way to ensure that the extra efforts will cease.

7. The appearance of favoritism. Just because she’s your relation doesn’t mean she deserves special consideration or that the rules don’t apply to her. Don’t think others don’t see it. They’re neither blind nor stupid and the last thing you need is to breed resentment in your staff.

8. Not walking your talk. Even in small matters (e.g. “I’ll get back to you on that.”– followed by silence) the discrepancies add up, sometimes to the point that nobody either believes you or is willing to depend on you. Not a rosy work picture.

9. Threatening. Intimidation never brought out anybody’s best. Instead of threats, simply describe consequences (in a calm manner and voice) and leave the decision to the individual. If the person fails to deliver, impose the promised consequence again in a calm manner and voice. (See number 8.)

10. Not making your expectations clear. Even the best-intentioned employees aren’t mind-readers. You tell them (preferably in writing) the WHAT and let them figure out the HOW. That’s what makes their job challenging. (See Number 1.)

11. BONUS! Taking credit for others’ work. Probably the most effective way to drive talent out the door! Nothing is more demoralizing, disappointing, frustrating, angerinducing and resentment-creating than having your insecure, egomaniacal boss step up proudly and display your work as his own

Slainte Gordon

PSS have a read at Adelino de Almeida's Blog @ adelino.typepad.com, some excellant stuff on analysis of markets etc...a good read you should pay him a visit..

What it takes to attract an investment

This was the summary of a pitch I gave to some of the scottish executive last year, I wish they got it and really thought through there game plan for new buisness creation in Scotland, there are some good guys involved in the business gateways, but there needs to be some education of the Scottish Executive ,Jack Mconnell and the Scottish Parliment. I was trying to get over that the Academi in Scotland and the Scottish executive need to devlop focused teams that can help build new buisness in Scotland and cut away a lot off the cover there ass attitudes that prevale which in turn creates a lot of red tape. There also needs to be better use of the incubator sites of which there are to few, and they need to kick out companies like MED ( Micro Emissive displays) at SMC (the scottish microelectronics center) and the like who hog the facilites and abuse the intent of these facilites, anyone can run a company if you have subsidized rent and free access to facilites. I would like to hear your opinions on this subject guys and gals and I will see you on Friday, meanwhile have a read through the summary below...nothing new I hope.

This is what it takes to attract an investment (and a management team) to some science. It won’t be easy, but it can be done

• The right attitude: Something is better than nothing. It might gall organizations to learn that their science is the basis for a multi-billion dollar exit, but that’s a high-quality problem. More or less, their research is a sunk cost—if not, indeed, something that taxpayers underwrote—so anything they get is upside.

  This means expectations for ownership in the new entity should be in the 10-20 percent range. Royalty, if there is any, is also in that range. Upfront payments should be zero—or less. Finally, very few investors are interested in backing a non-exclusive, short-term deal (where “short term” is defined as anything less than “forever”).

• A product or a tactical path to a product. Customers buy “products” not “technology,” “science,” or “research findings.” Technology, science, and research findings are a long way from a product. The closer the technology is to an actual product the better.

• Warm bodies. Technology is the first 90% of what is necessary to create a successful company. Unfortunately, the second, and more important, 90% is the employees who invented or discovered the technology. Simply giving a startup CD-ROMs or white papers doesn’t cut it. The company needs the brains behind the science because it’s one thing to discover something in a lab, and it’s quite another to ship a product on a large-scale basis.

  These employees will have to reboot their brains, and they may choose to stay in their current jobs. (Or the startup may choose not to take them.) Here’s why:

  • They have to chose revenue over peer acclaim in scientific journals. The choice boils down to being famous or rich--although if you make enough money, you can be both. :-)

  • They have to pick “good enough” over Nobel-Prize-winning state-of-the-art. Most customers don’t care about being at the bleeding edge of technology and are happy if something simply worked dependably. Computer operating systems, for example, fit in this category.

  • They have to listen to, if not love, customer feedback. At the end of the day, either customers buy the product or doesn’t. This isn’t the same as “submitting research findings to a journal.”

  • They have to understand that investors don’t invest on a cost-plus basis. The size of the bank account is limited, and the clock is ticking. And there's no politician who is trying to protect jobs by influencing budgets and cost-over runs.

  To put this in a positive light, startups should find the gems who are frustrated that their work isn’t seeing the light of day much less changing people’s lives. For them, a startup dedicated to commercialization is great news.

• A hands-off attitude. The final ingredient is that organizations/ universites can either actively help but at least get out of the way of the company. It’s tough enough dealing with customers, competition, investors, and the government. To add another stakeholder might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. It might look like it’s fun to start a company, but it’s very hard work. Harder, in fact, than “doing research.”

Slainte

Gordon