Three special questions every successful entrepreneur asks

Successful entrepreneurs are constantly asking three key questions –

1. ‘what isn’t working’
2. ‘why isn’t it working’ and
3. ‘can I do anything about it’?

These three questions are the most important questions in the entrepreneurs vocabluary and a lifetime can be spent on developing the skills and abilities to answer those as successfully as possible.

So, what might these questions mean in practice? Let’s have a look…

Well, you might say that the European labour market isn’t working. That is, unemployment levels are much higher than in Asian countries or the US and the long term unemployment rates are far higher too. Why isn’t employment working? Well, mainly due to taxes, costs and the bureacratic burden of employees.

But is there anything you can do about this? Well, taxes are political – so let’s not go there – but knowing how the structure of the labour market works means that companies would be attracted to simple and cost efficient ways to hire staff. So, the freelance and contractor sectors of employment are the growth areas. And, therefore, can you build a business to meet this increasing demand?

Another typical complaint – house prices – might lead to a different answer. That is, house prices in the UK are very high – relative to earnings - and therefore it is hard to sell your property and move to another. This has all sorts of macro-economic disadvantages, but leaving those aside, it has lead many entrepreneurs to believe that the solution lies in either a direct sale approach to house sales (ie. cut out the agent) or a digital online database (property portals).

Now, let’s ask why houses don’t sell easily in the UK? Well, high price is one reason, but is it the agent? Evidence todate of 10 years of would be websites dedicated to cutting out the no-win/ no-fee agent – and replacing with a fixed adverting charge have failed to make any inroads into the market.

In fact, as it becomes harder to sell property, so it seems that the commission motivated agent in the middle is critical to ensuring that the two parties agree and close the deal.

Equally, the rapid proliferation of property portals suggests that property sales are going online? But no… instead, property adverts are going online – but the quality of those adverts is poorer now than before. Why?

Well, the agents treat the property portals as an advertising cost and therefore, don’t want to display all their stock at once – only those properties most likely to generate sales leads.

Hence, the all comprehensive promise of property portals is falling apart and anyone wanting to buy a house now has to look at multiple websites to see what they might buy.

It seems that property and property sales are – once again – returning to the existing structure of buyers, sellers and media used to generate leads.

Hence, it seems that business plans dedicated to changing the way that we buy and sell our houses have failed.

Now, the quickest way to make houses easy to buy and sell would be to cut their price in half – and that could be achieved by a massive increase in the availability of cheap land. Ah, back to politics then.

So, as we all agree, there is something deeply inefficient about how property is transacted. But there isn’t an obvious way to change it – other than by radical politically lead reform. Which isn’t easy either. It is a bit like capitalism – it is the least worst system.

The risk is that many young entrepreneurs may spend too much time (and money) attempting to make perfect an imperfect system.  Sometimes we just have to accept that there is ‘nothing much we can do to help’. If so, then find out fast and move on.

You see, often the successful entrepreneur is portrayed as someone who never gives up – where as, in fact, he (or she) may simply be willing to give up faster – and therefore find something that works quicker.

If you perfect the use of our three special questions then you’ll get there faster, waste less money and time and achieve a greater result.

Freelancing is a hit - even for business old boys?

The article points out that the hiring process for CEOs is ‘hopelessly inefficient’ yet ends with the old adage that

The most successful companies, such as Procter & Gamble and General Electric, are more than just ever-shifting nexuses of contracts. They are self-replicating organisms that possess distinctive cultures and unique habits—cultures and habits that are preserved and perfected by a loyal cadre of managers. You can certainly buy lots of wonderful managerial skills on the open market. But true corporate greatness is home-grown.

Now, this is an important point, but is this true?

I think firstly, it is important to distinguish between an entrepreneurial company and a huge global conglomerate or business. In the case of entrepreneurial companies, you will almost certainly want to hire on a contract basis.

Larger companies may also like to consider this – if we can deal with three key prejudices.

Firstly, a CEO directs a number of senior managers and is him or herself directed by a board of non-exec directors (or at least this is the best balanced solution).

In this scenario, it is already well established that the non-exec are part time, perhaps one day per week or one day per month. It is also agreed that they are more effective in their role if they hold a number of non-exec posts.

In addition, any decent CEO is going to appear on boards on a number of other companies. Hence, the idea of freelancing or contracting or part time work is well established and considered to have benefits.

Secondly, if the board and the directors of the business do their job well, then the CEO is not the be all and end all of the company. Therefore, continuity in this particular seat is an overblown concern.

Lastly, if a company hires a team of senior execs to launch a new product and that project comes to an end, then one of two things will happen. Either the management of the project will be considered a success or failure. In the later case, the contract will no doubt be completed. But in the case of a success, then the key players may be offered a new role in a different company within the conglomerate or a part time role to maintain continuity, or the manager may leave for a new project, but return to the original company in 12 or 24 months time.

Essentially, if contractors are treated a key members of the team, then the freelance legal structure underpinning the relationship should increase the likelihood of success and the ability to maintain continuity will depend on whether both the contractor and company are happy to do so.

Which is what everyone would want wouldn’t they?