The Other E-Myth

The Other E-Myth http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2007/03/21.html#a1813

The above article was written by Dave Pollard in his "HOW TO SAVE THE WORLD" blog. The following is most memorable point:

"If your ambition is to create a pyramidal growing organization providing a large volume of identical goods competently, then I'm sure Gerber's advice will work."

How do you guys think about that? In particular, I can't wait to hearing from James since I truly admire his way of systematizing the business.

Thanks for posting that.

The author makes a few good observations but I would have to totally disagree with most of his main points.

It's more than I've got time to comment on at the moment but I'll read some more of his stuff later and show you why he's wrong.

Jim

Okay, I've read through the guy's site and I don't even know if I should comment because I could take up pages arguing almost every point he makes.

The main difference in the way he thinks and the way I think is that he wants to play a major role in doing whatever it is he does. I don't.

He sees a lot of things as "overrated" ....

"Gerber argues that there are seven critical skills in entrepreneurship: Leadership, marketing, money, management, client fulfillment, lead conversion and lead generation. My experience has been that, except in the most mundane businesses, six of these are overrated and largely unnecessary"

And possibly, if he's there every day to personally oversee these things, they might be overrated if he doesn't put a lot of importance in them.

Me, I don't want any involvment whatsoever in the day-to-day stuff of my businesses. Those elements that seem overrated to him, my businesses couldn't run without, and without me being there, there needs to be systems, policies, and procedures in place to make sure that they are all taken care of.

He feels the need to enjoy what he does, and so do I. The big difference is that he needs that enjoyment at work, where I prefer to let the work (that I'm not doing) provide the enjoyment for my life. I can honestly say that I wouldn't enjoy any full time position in my businesses. I don't see why I should need to.

So let me ask you this.....

Would you rather have a business that you enjoyed that you HAD to work at every day, or would you rather have one that you OWNED that allowed you to do whatever you want, wherever you want, and enjoy every day however you want without the hassle of having to go to work?

When work becomes a CHOICE, life takes on a whole new meaning and direction.

Some days, actually, most days, I still decide to "work" because I enjoy the process of putting things together. Not because I need to, but because I want to. Building new businesses or expanding ones I've already got is what I consider "work"

Other days, I enjoy margaritas with my toes in the sand.

Those are my two favorite things and I've got the CHOICE to do either one, or not, any time I like.

But I couldn't do either if I didn't have systemized businesses in place in the background making it all happen?

Did any of that make any sense? Really. A lot of people have a real hard time understanding the difference between "running" a business and "owning" a business

Jim

Jim I like the way you do it with businesses. The key and this can be difficult is to hire reliable and trustworthy employees that can get the job done when you are not there.

Mark

Mark:

Thanks for raising this point.

I have found - and my conversation with others shows it's the same with them too - that the Hardest thing to find is a Reliable person who is also Competant (has ability) and who can Work Unsupervised.

There are plenty of incompetant and unreliable people. Many reliable but incompetant. Many unreliable but competant. But reliable, competant and work without being watched over... That is a rare person indeed.

Michael Ross

[GordonJ]

Thanks Michael,

The SECRET I'm referring to is to take the JOB out of the job. Incentives.

When a person's compensation is tied to performance as Jim does it, and also in Ben Suarez's business too...

It won't take long to find out who is ready, willing and able.

The problem I see is the thinking of "employees". Change that to partners, in the real in your bank account sense...and it may produce a change in conduct and performance.

So yes it may be "difficult" to hire trustworthy employees, but that is building a problem into the process...the mind set that Mark has.

Ben Suarez shows up ONCE or twice a year. Other biz owners have checklists and reports.

The small minded businessman wants trustworthy employees, but in many instances isn't willing to pay for them. And as for the employees, recently it was announced that Goodyear is compensating 4 executives over 31 million dollars, the same day many former HARD WORKING, loyal, reliable and trustworthy employees were told they were no longer being offered life insurance. Imagine a 60 year old guy with 33 years of service suddenly being cut off of his life insurance (which he was contributing to already)...

My POINT is that there is a lot of distrust among potential "employees' of employers "sticking it to them".

Jim and Ben and others build trustworthy employees by making them part of the act and not thinking of them as tin soldiers in their little tin box business. Many employers have the "worker bee" mindset, and that is what they get.

Give them part of the action, and you'll see the trustworthy worker rise to the top where she should be.

Gordon

Originally Posted by GordonJ

.

So yes it may be "difficult" to hire trustworthy employees, but that is building a problem into the process...the mind set that Mark has.
Gordon

I stated it can be difficult to find reliable and trustworthy employees. (Many employers say this)
I don't see how I am building a problem into the process.
Mark

[GordonJ]

The problem YOU and those you have talked to (the" many employers" )about finding is the whole Employer/Employee mind set.

Many employers are JERKS. Many are not. But MANY are restricted to what they can pay and/or are willing to pay.

Mark, I'm not going to BANTER with you, which by the way I take great offense to your "bantering" on the forum. If you want to banter go somewhere else and do it.

Lots of places like the "banter".

Your "me too" posts and "yea right" have little to no benefit to MANY readers and MOST moderators.

But back to the PROBLEM...the problem to finding good employees is a two road highway.

IF the employer is LOOKING to compensate his trustworthy employees as Jim does in his business...the pool of prospects widen. MANY empoyers are microscopic. The begin with PAY.

What are your salary requirements? Is a question MANY employers ask these days and if the answer goes over their pay rate, MANY good to great employees get put into the "B" pile of candiates.

That is the problem that you and MANY employers have. Quality employees are NOT all that difficult to find...and some, perhaps MANY would even say...

A trustworthy and QUALITY employer is even more difficult to find.

Gordon

Thanks Gordon

Gordon:

Thanks for mentioning what Ben does.

It's an Employee/Employer Model that Can produce Great Results. However, as you so rightly added into your writings...

It won't take long to find out who is ready, willing and able.

Meaning, you will Still get the Deadbeats, just that you'll weed through them faster.

The problem I see is the thinking of "employees". Change that to partners, in the real in your bank account sense...and it may produce a change in conduct and performance. (bold added by me)

Thus, is May Not produce any change at all. AND, Could begin to create infighting as different departments Blame each other for lapses in productivity. (I've seen this happen in companies)

So yes it may be "difficult" to hire trustworthy employees, but that is building a problem into the process (bold added by me)

I'd like to Bring Back to the point of not just using a catch all phrase like Trustworthy - what's that mean in this context anyway - and to Stick with the Three elements - reliable, competent, work unsupervised.

A project I am Involved with at the moment has allowed me to see up close and personal, the performance of two dozen people working for the same company. Of those two dozen I would judge only two of them to be Reliable, Competent and able to Work Unsupervised.

One of them told me he has, just recently, come to the realization that he needs to just do His Work instead of trying to cover for the less able, less reliable or those who need supervision to work. To stop getting dragged down. As a result, he is still there while those others have been Let Go.

The other has told me how his Work/Team/Crew Mates are incompetent and need supervision, otherwise they would spend all day walking around and talking (something I have seen for myself). And how he also tries to Distance himself from them to keep his Work Ethic and Standard and Rate of Production up to scratch - what he deems that to mean - to avoid being dragged down by them.

It's interesting how my outside judgement of them - how they fit the 3 elements - has proven correct and how both of them have resorted to the same actions, based off the same reasoning, as the solution to keeping their income being generated.

It's also interesting that while the income of all two dozen is tied to their productivity, these two are the only ones to embrace that, know it, understand it, and make use of it. While the others either underperform and are summary dismissed, or just cruise to maintain an income level they are comfortable with for the effort expended.

What Jim does is hire, what we in Australia call, Subcontractors - independent one-man-show business owners. Many businesses down here work like this - garage door businesses hire independent Installers, Kitchen businesses hire Independent Installers, Office Fitout companies hire Independent electricians, dry wallers, carpet layers, tilers, painters, cubical installers, etc. All their income is dependent on their performance - they quicker they work the more money they make, plus get production bonuses.

But it is No Guarantee you will get good people, reliable people, competent people or people who can work unsupervised. While MOST such people can work unsupervised, that doesn't make them reliable or competent. Heck, even the Supervisors can be incompetent! Then you've got real troubles.

One company I know of, pays Top Dollar to its independent workers. Sure they get Everyone wanting to work for them. And sure it does Not stop them putting on people they need to let go down the track. But it does keep their Standard a Tad Higher than other similar companies as people know: do good quality work within the time frames possible and you'll stay and you'll be rewardewd financially, fail to do so and your place is opened to someone else.

Either way, reliability, competence and working unsupervised are still hard to find in people. MOST do not have all three elements. Profit Sharing just brings those with the elements, together under one roof. Leaving the dregs for the other companies to fight over.

Michael Ross