When we are young we get used to plenty of rules. There are many things we are not allowed to do and even more restrictions to anything that even faintly sounds like fun. After getting out of school and in the working life it does not get any better. In reality there might perceive to be even more rules, principals and restrictions than ever before.

Freedom is something that goes hand in hand with responsibility. You have the liberty do things but you are also responsible of the consequences for the better or worse. How can we learn without extending and testing our limits? Being a grown-up should mean that you are in a full control of your life. You decide and act like an ass or a responsible person but it’s all up to you, right?

Become an entrepreneur and you soon realise that there are regulations and restrictions on pretty much anything and everything you do. Adults are not allowed to mutually agree upon the terms of their voluntary interaction—they are not considered competent enough to be in charge of their own lives. It does not matter whether we talk about building a house, renting an apartment or some equipment, hiring a person to do something for you, or even buying simple goods from your local shop. Did I mention there are even rules how and when you can walk and penalties for non-compliance?

Freedom means that you have the right to accept something but more importantly the right to decline from something. The latter part causes a lot of trouble for entrepreneurs. They are not simply allowed to carry out their trade without being pushed around continuously by various rules and regulations, penalties and compliancy issues. Large companies have it easier since they have the adequate resources and specialist to handle all the burdens of the public authorities. Small companies do not have the capital and manpower to deal with all the requirements without compromising their primary line of business: earning their living.

The entrepreneur must become the master of all trades without turning into a jack-of-all-trades. The challenge is not so much of how to be a productive member of the society but an obedient puppet that is not completely tangled up to the master puppeteer’s strings that tend to be pulled in random and often in self-contradictory order.

Tags: compliance, entrepreneurship, legislation, obedience, responsibility, rules

It starts very early on. You need to blend in and be like everyone else. The school teaches how to memorize, accept what others have said, and take things at face value without too many questions asked. What happened to unique ideas, creativity, innovation, and tools for independent thinkers?

Following others is easy. It does not require a great effort. You just take something that is already in place and recycle it. That’s how the majority of population is behaving and working. They are a large xerox machine that is streamlined and tuned in to become ever more efficient. Still, cloning has its pitfalls. For starters, it’s not possible to create something unique and different just by copying others. There needs to be something that is unique and personal—something that is contributing and creating differently, introducing novelty to the existing state of affairs.

Anything new is a threat to the status quo. It requires that someone needs to change something in the current way of doing things. This can be the mindset (i.e. see things differently or accept the change), existing business model, social status, political power etc. The resistance to change is one of the biggest hurdles to anyone who does not feel comfortable in the sheep mode of simply following the pack. They start to feel the pressure of the society, community, friends, colleagues and peers, and pretty much anyone who cares about the cause or is directly threatened about the new prospects.

Independent thinkers are considered as troublemakers in any society. They make people feel uncomfortable and uneasy due to their nature of exposing and questioning issues that may need some reconsideration or changing. No one likes to change his or her beliefs and old habits. Creating something new means destroying the old. Horses must go if cars are going to be used as transportation means. Someone is always losing their job when the demand changes but at the same time new opportunities are always opening up. The society discourages the brave who dares to introduce better and more productive ways of living and working. It is not the novelty per se but the giving up and letting go of the old that creates the friction and inertia. This is the doomed role of the innovator who often happens to be the entrepreneur at the same time.

Tags: change, creativity, free thinkers, independence, innovation

There is no doubt that most of us would prefer to have the money and freedom instead of making a choice between them. Unfortunately financial independence requires considerable amount of capital in order to become a self-sufficient situation where no additional labour is required to sustain a high quality life-style with the investment interest payments only.

The situation can be compared to a bond that comprises of the principal and interest payments. If you want to get the dividends you cannot touch the principal. Likewise you cannot get the dividends without committing the capital. Your intellectual and creative capital (your principal) works the same way. You would prefer to use your assets any way you prefer, when you want, and still receive the dividends to support all the activities. This is called self-employment or entrepreneurship. The other option is to temporarily hand over your principal to someone else (i.e. a work contract) and in return you expect to receive monthly dividends (i.e. salary). However, this exchange contract is similar to a bond deal. Your principal is working for someone else and there is barely any capacity or additional resources left to update or even maintain the current capital base unless you consume your dividends for it.

In plain English this means that while you’re working for someone else you seldom have the energy and the commitment to burn midnight oil to do something for yourself that enables in the future to get rid of the current employment and sustain your lifestyle without a need to work for a living.

Of course all the above is just an abstraction and it’s possible to get what you want since you’re only working some 8-10 hours for your employer 5 days a week (hopefully!). But it is easy to forget the psychological factors not even talking about the possible contractual restriction while being employed. A few people truly enjoy what they are doing. They have to work in order to earn their salary but they rather would do something else if not ‘forced’ to do so by their earlier choices and current life situation. This unpleasantness during the workweek consumes your spirit and energies and makes it even harder to have a double-life in the free time where the focus is solely on enjoyable things that also build the financially independent future.

How often people use part of the weekend just to recover from the previous workweek in order to get prepared for the next one? Just think about. Maybe your bond deal is only providing you enough dividends to cope with the inflation but nothing more. And don’t count either that your principal (i.e. your skill set) will be in high demand in the future without major upgrades or even despite of them—there are always bonds that go south. Some jobs are replaced by new technology or outsourcing…

Tags: bonds, career, dividends, employment, freedom, independence, principal capital

If there is one management rule to remember this is a very good candidate: have an infinite tolerance for stupidity. It can be combined with this corollary: don’t expect anything from anyone. These two together are any manager’s guide to personal peace of mind. Or at least it helps to remember them during the regular business hours when things are not going so well.

There tends to be an unspoken rule of thumb at play that applies to many employees in various stages of their career. This axiom says that everybody is continuously at his or her maximum level of incompetence. What does it mean and how can it be explained?

It’s very easy and logical indeed. What happens when you have stayed at your current position for a while and you turn out to know your work and be good at it? Right. You get promoted into a new position or even into an entirely different line of business you know nothing about. This results that you have to ‘climatise’ to the new situation and shift to the deeper learning curve again. The adjustment phase tends to last anywhere between 6 to 12 months or even longer. Imagine this happening to most of the middle and senior managers every 2 to 3 years and you start to get the picture. Of course operational level employees might be so ‘lucky’ to stick to their knitting and know their line of work and be good at it—often it is only the managerial people that tend to be in a constant movement either in or out of their current job descriptions.

And now back to the management rule, which should make more sense now. It is not written in stone that your colleagues are dense and lacking intellectual capabilities, as they may seem but quite the contrary. Very well it might be that they never have the time to properly excel on anything before they get moved around to new challenges. Naturally this causes a lot of frustration not just within the organisation but also among suppliers, clients, and business partners among others. The overall result is that there seems to be a never-ending hassle and struggle to get things going smoothly, even with the most bread-and-butter type of issues. And what about the regular employees who see lots of management people coming and going with new initiatives, organisation structures, strategies and business mantras that actually do not impact the underlying daily business a lot, except by making it harder and more difficult to accomplish? They have learned the management rule by the hard way and have to cope with the reality without joining the craziness by producing more chaos (while getting moved around).

A good manager needs to possess an infinite tolerance for stupidity in order to get his job done. He or she should not either expect anything from his colleagues or subordinates. It’s always better to check and double-check, explain and clarify even the very obvious tasks since assuming that everybody simply does his or her job is something that leads you into trouble, for sure. Dropping the ball is more common than standing on your feet and taking responsibility. However, this should not be interpreted so that people are mean or purely selfish without any interest in their job or project objectives. The truth might be far simpler—they might just work very efficiently at their maximum level of incompetence

Tags: competence, incompetence, management axiom, management rule

Competent people have a slight advantage over other employees. They tend to know what they are doing and get things done. Why is it then only a slight gain? There are no objective standards or measures of fairness. Competence is not always seen as a positive factor—it can be more a threat than anything else.

How can anyone consider virtues to be counter-productive? Easily. You just have to be the colleague who is not as career focused, prefers to take it easier, or who has stayed a long time in the company and has ‘earned’ the next promotion over the career rocket newcomer, or you just happen to be the boss of the competent employee who might start to turn into a threat to your position.

Mediocracy is the worst enemy of excellence. It cannot stand people who are good and devoted to their cause. Competent persons make the rest of the people look, well, average or less adorable to say the least. Contrast gives dynamics and variety but it also enables to set new standards and open doors for changes. Not everyone likes changes—it means that they have to learn something new and adjust to the circumstances. This might be an issue for you in case you have got your current position by favouritism or by means other than your skills and competence. Then everything is a threat that makes you vulnerable and open to environment where you may need to prove your worth and redo your magic. After all you have to stay put and hold your position since in the open market you may not get it again!

Competence is not the same as success. Some people attract the limelight and get the attention easily. Outside of the prime spot they may step over others, cheat and use dirty tricks, or hide their incompetence by taking credit from their subordinates. No doubt they are good at what they are doing but be aware since competence is only a matter of definition. This alternative career path does not certainly look very pretty even though the results may appear very impressive on the surface. Success, at all and any cost, may not be worth it after all.

Tags: career, competence, mediocracy, success, virtues

Corporate life is about politics. The sooner your admit it the quicker your lessons learned. Even if you are competent, more efficient and able than most of your colleagues you still need to take politics into account—or maybe especially in that case. When you are aware of the political games you have a choice. You can choose to join the game or stay out of it but on your terms. Ignoring or denying their existence is the worst of the three options. In that case you are playing the victim role and making yourself vulnerable for causes that are not worth it.

Facts are important but they are not the whole solution. So once again doing your job well is not good enough. Impression is everything. You have to present your case and ideas in a simple and attractive form. In another words you have to sell your ideas so that they are quick and easy to absorb. Pure facts will not get you the support you need when emotions are at play, too. Corporations are about people and people are humans. They are not rational machines. They have good and bad days, worries, domestic problems, and career aspirations. What does all this mean? Surprisingly frequently irrational decisions are made: the decision-maker(s) had a good impression or feeling about the person or the project, they loved the idea, or they had hidden agendas to satisfy (e.g. boost their own ego, increase the departmental importance/budget etc.). In some cases it’s more about who presents the idea than about the very project in question. In other occasions the complete ‘solution’ is more appealing than the more substantial alternatives. People who appear to be problem-solvers are liked. They remove worries from someone else’s plate and since everyone seems to have enough of them on their own it is no wonder that less trouble is received as good news. Naturally the reality might turn out to be an entirely different case but since impression is everything it counts only when it matters. The rest is only execution and reporting. Don’t be surprised to realise that project objectives and outcomes are not typically vigorously scrutinised afterwards, especially in cases when things turn south. It’s not uncommon that the very decision-makers have moved on or at least the management mantra or main objectives have altered along the new winds of continuous but often incremental change (read crises).

Tags: corporate life, politics

It is recognisable far away—those people who do things with passion. They are at ease and enjoy what they are doing. They feel, care, and often get other people joining their enthusiasm. It is fun to deal with these people. They share their expertise and make your life easier if you happen to need their help with their area of expertise. The difference is as clear as day and night when you compare a person that is just doing his/her job and the one who is having a thrill at work.

Doing things with bliss requires that you find your passion. That may not be easy and some hard soul searching might be required at first. There are always opportunities around you. Being able to do something is not the same as a must to do those things. Once in-a-lifetime opportunities are the right choices only when you know what you want and where you’re heading. A perfect opportunity without passion is the same as living someone else’s life and realising it only when it is already too late.

Picking your battles is easy to say and hard to practise. People around you are making choices. Some become famous and successful, others keep on executing their routine filled lives with little surprises. Still no choice is better than the other—they are just different. Often the unconventional decisions take more courage and receive very little support or even hard resistance from other people. Doing something differently makes other people uncomfortable. You are just the conduct and their main concern is themselves, and their life, not you. They compare your choices to theirs and play the what-if game. Still the results are projected at you. This often discourages to share your dreams and decisions with others who are not like-minded. That’s absolutely all right. It is better to let your deeds do the talking and, if necessary, it’s easier to talk and state about things that you have already done.

When you follow your hear and live your passion you cannot make wrong choices. The route may not be without rough drives but still there is no other alternate passageway to follow. At least there is one thing less to worry about—you already know you have made the right decision.

Tags: choices, devotion, opportunities, passion, right choices, soul searching, unconventional decisions

Paid employment is not typically your hope for financial independence. This leaves other available options open but unless you are hoping to get a substantial inheritance from your distant unknown relative, win a lottery, turn into a celebrity or a top athlete you have a very few other options ruling out the plain-outlawed ways for riches. The old fashioned ticket for success has been to establish a business and make your clients happy. Entrepreneurs are rewarded at the end by trade sales or making their companies publicly listed. Certainly this is still a relatively feasible way but don’t expect it to be any easier than the other options.

Entrepreneurial life is not for everyone. Your venture takes all your time, effort, and money and still it may not fly. Over 80 per cent of all new companies fail within the first three years. There are plenty of variables at play and you have to find the right combination but still your controllable factors are maybe around half of the total equitation.

It is not enough to have a brilliant concept. It is not enough to have the right people (but it certainly helps). You need to be at the right time at the right place with the right product together with the right business model and still beat the existing competition and substantially grow your company in line with the increasing demand. Sounds like fun? Surely it is but the trick is that it is often mere luck to have all those variables in place at once. Analytical work does not help you to find the formula—you have to jump into the water and learn to swim. Unfortunately you cannot predict and forecast everything, and therefore adaptability and huge tolerance for uncertainty need to become your friends. If you study successful entrepreneurs you may find out that they are not exactly sure why or what was the killer ingredient in their concept. Many will try to replicate their original triumph and succeed never again. Trial and error is often the best approach packed with plenty of experience and competence—and the next trial is always easier than your first. Persistence is needed but failing year after year might at some point turn into a plain stupidity…

Tags: business success, entrepreneurial life, entrepreneurship, financial independence, lottery, starting a business, startups, successful entrepreneurs, trial and error, uncertainty

Most of the working population is employed by small and medium-sized companies. In many countries over 95% of all companies are small. Still, having a small business is no pleasure ride unless you are merely just aiming to be a lifetime entrepreneur who wants to get his/her bills paid but expects nothing more.

Running a small company is like constantly being under-equipped and sleep deprived—you seldom are feeling happy and relaxed longer than a few moments at a time. Small companies have it harder. You pay higher interest rates on your loans, you have less real choice for financial instruments, you don’t have the extensive support system and network that larger companies rely on, and the legislative burdens are ever increasing, never reducing by the year. Expect hard work with very little complements and support for your concerns. You are the workhorse of the society everyone expects to do his/her job without much noise and complaints.

Having a plenty of small companies around you does not mean that it is easier to deal with other small companies nor that you’re especially supported by the public sector. Small means often incompetent, under staffed, and unreliable. Lots of hassle and very little payoffs.

And why politicians are not very interested of SMEs? These companies do not contribute to the fundraisers due to their chronic lack of capital and excess funds or because they have better use for their hard earned money. Larger institutions are capable of providing decision-makers with favours, power, and prestige that often motives them to trade special-interest privileges at the expense of the rest of the society. So small might be beautiful but you are on your own.

Tags: entrepreneurship, favoritism, politics, small companies, SME

In human action there are very few coincidences. What appears and what really is are two entirely different things: often there is a discrepancy between the ‘common knowledge’ explanations and the reality when observed and studied carefully.

For example, why it seems to be the case that large corporations, financial and public institutions together with politicians are in a different league and almost play by entirely different set of rules than the rest of the society? Because that is how our current political and economical system has been set up and evolved over the decades. It is not a fair and just system—there are no equal rules and opportunities for everyone. The odds have been tilted favourably towards the existing establishment and large corporations. The people behind these institutions are reluctant and afraid of change like most of the population. They prefer status quo to new entrants and rules that may jeopardise their existing wellbeing and social status. They are not willing to play by the same rules as the rest of the population has to. Open competition and transparency favour the competent and able, which is bad news for the incumbents and they fight against it.

The establishment is protecting the mighty and powerful. They are not helping the newcomers to offer superior products, services, and innovations for the benefit of the rest of the society. Don’t get fooled by the political rhetoric and keep your eyes firmly in the ball—in the real actions and outcomes. Deeds speak louder than any pep talk and it seems that where is the talk there is the lack.

Naturally this is not very good news for young people. They are placed in a hostile environment where they are considered as threats and troublemakers more than as valuable assets and resources enabling better future for everyone. Just observe the compulsorily pension legislation, labour law, small firm legislation, and every bit of government subsidies handed out to new or small enterprises vs. large corporations. It does not take a rocket scientist to realise that young people and small (or new) companies are not treated equally in respect to aging population or large institutions. The existing state of affairs is almost every time preferred over any changes that make the current status quo more vulnerable and exposed to circumstances that would favour merit, openness, transparency, and free competition. And let’s not forget that certain things and situation are way easier to handle and accomplish with adequate resources than with very limited or none at all. Money talks and the rest walk—especially with public affairs.

Tags: economical system, favoritism, incumbents, pep talk, political rhetoric, politics