10 August 2007
There is a very interesting little anecdote I want to share about an entrepreneur, Broadway, and her SMB, so I ask for your patient indulgence because I really think it a worthwhile lesson:
As with most SMBs run in a 'family-oriented' manner, the acting Co-Founder ran her business overly reliant on one young person for all her administrative, general office/IT, and design needs. Although not necessarily a bad thing, she did lend herself to an extreme level of vulnerability. The individual she relied on was a young 20-something male from Europe. He was literally like family to her and so, like the virtual 'good son', he tried in ernest to 'do right by her' and help her company grow. And grow it did.
Her company caters to the Broadway set - thespians and talented performers - and really developed into quite an extraordinary network. As she flourished, he shouldered more responsibilities until at one point, she had to promote from within, an individual as her General Manager. Good person, great choice, and more growth ensued. Unfortunately, the inevitable day arrived when he had to leave - return to Europe - and the search for an Office Manager was forced to begin.
As with most announced job openings in major cities, the hiring process was overwhelming. However, after careful consideration and interviewing, the three - Co-Founder, General Manager, Office Generalist - found their candidate. This candidate listed such qualities as:
multiple language fluency
impeccable attention to detail
six (6) years of QB experience
ten (10) years of efficient and effective multi-tasking ability
Program Management experience (with landmark building renovations)
six (6) years of Computer Programming experience
ten (10) years of IT & Troubleshooting experience
an extensive list of Computer Software experience including but not limited to:
Viseo
Publisher
Illustrator
PhotoShop
MS Office Suite
...just to name a few!
When the candidate was interviewed, the Co-Founder mentioned a few stressors, the principal ones being:
moving into an office space for the first time (previously worked out of her home-office)
blindness to accounting - never saw her Accountant's QB entries or reports
updates to her company website being long overdue/the need to overhaul her website
the desire to design brochures/company publications in-house
the need for impeccable attention to detail from the person who would fill the position
the need for a multi-tasker for this position
Within the first week after the chosen candidate's training period, the candidate brought QB in-house, updated the company website, organized the office, and began writing up a training manual for the new company database commissioned by a third party. So far, so good.
Until the candidate received confidential information - negative comments and doubts casted about the candidate's abilities - written by the Office Generalist who is in Europe by this time. Unfortunately, based off his negative comments, the Co-Founder acts as if those comments are FOUNDED - despite all actions to the contrary.
This probably would not pose a problem for the candidate until s/he pieced a few bits of information together:
S/he was hired on a 30-day trial basis.
The Office Generalist - leaving for Europe - was set to return within just a couple of weeks.
The Co-Founder relied very heavily on a third-party (the same party she commissioned for the database) almost to the point of entrusting him as a Priest/Consultant.
The only problem with this relationship (Co-Founder and Third Party) is that by entrusting him with her financial and other highly sensitive information, she entrusted someone who was NOT IN-HOUSE OVER HER IN-HOUSE EMPLOYEE. Theoretically, the candidate was to be her 'right hand' and especially being in-house, much more easily trusted because she could WATCH OVER all the candidate's actions and thus have complete control. Therefore, there exists no real reason to distrust the candidate.
So why did the Co-Founder cast so much suspicions on the candidate she hired? Why did the candidate's worthy actions not alleviate her concerns? What is the purpose of her deep-seated doubts? Did she hire the candidate as a 'bench-warmer' until her former-Office Generalist's return from Europe?
Perhaps the answers will be uncovered. Perhaps she will be too late.
To entrust is to empower. A leader empowers. The Co-Founder is a quasi-hyphenated leader because she has yet to realize her creative potential to lead respectfully and with integrity of distinction. She is a very good example of an individual caught in her own hyphenation paradox net.
In looking for fault, casting aspersions, and living in suspicion, there is always the very real possibility of creating a new reality that grounds those suspicions. There exists great creativity in the potentiality of hyphenation. On the other end of the spectrum, there is a powerful level of destruction that implodes from psychosis-level paranoia.
When good is treated as evil and something to be eradicated, there is no room for truth and light, no matter how brilliantly it shines. Sometimes it would be wise to acknowledge the light, bask in its warming glow, rather than be blinded and distracted by the glare.
Hitchcock, anyone?
