Small Business. Big Game

By Alexander Visotsky

• Do you still think that a great idea is the most important thing for business success?

In fact, this is far from being the case. And if you look at the most well-known large companies, it is obvious that they are not based on any revolutionary ideas at all.

• Why then do small businesses with go

• Language: English
• Publisher: Business Booster
• Release date: Apr 2, 2024
• ISBN: 9798869292742

Book preview

Chapter 1

Team Play

The first thing one must do is to understand what administration is. Most people are firmly convinced that administration is something unrelated to work itself, something extraneous. Administration is frequently perceived as a synonym for bureaucracy — a waste of ink and paper that only complicates work and adds nothing of value. It imposes the burden of submitting reports, participating in planning meetings, and filling out standardized report forms and documents that measure and guide the productivity and overall activity of the company. It seems to employees as well as to managers that all these reports have been imposed for the sole purpose of impeding work. And instead of simply selling or producing, people are forced to waste time filling out forms as part of reporting to management. It is not surprising that administration has such a bad reputation, and that administrators seem like bureaucrats of a sort, people who are not interested in the real business of the organization and merely shuffle papers.

Often, when a management consultant — essentially an administration specialist — comes to a company, employees do not greet him with ovations. And when a company manager tries to set up a planning system or implement regular reporting, employees perceive this as an infringement on their freedom and a questioning of their competence and productivity, so they respond to such measures with hostility. Yet everyone, for some reason, forgets the simple truth — that for a game to exist, there must be certain rules.

Try to imagine a football game with no preplanned game schedule, no score charts, no system for counting points, no rules for the coin toss, or other administrative tools. Of course the game itself does not consist of these schedules or score charts, but what would happen if all of these administrative tools in football were suddenly to disappear? The world would lose a great sport.

In any business, a technical and an administrative component can be distinguished. For example, in the work of a salesperson, the technical aspect is how he interacts with the customer, demonstrates the advantages of the product, overcomes objections, and closes the deal. But even if that salesperson is working on his own, he still needs to engage in some sort of administration — at a minimum, accurately recording his clients’ names on a notepad and adding up the amount of goods he has sold. This is obviously necessary, and if he does not keep a daily count of his sales volume, he will be unable to understand what technical actions are improving his results. He will not even be able to assess whether his work is going well or poorly. If he does not keep notes on his work with customers, then in only one month he will not be able to recall the details of his work with each of them, which sooner or later will have an impact on his sales. The work of the factory or of the purchasing department depends on the work of the salesperson, and if he does not have a plan to monitor current sales accurately and estimate future sales volume, the factory workers or buyers will not be able to plan their work, either. If a person works in a team, administration becomes an important component of a business activity, since it makes it possible to coordinate the actions of each employee with the other members of the team.

It may be an unusual idea, but only through capable administration is it possible to create an interesting and inspiring game! This sounds like a paradox, since in the minds of many, administration is something terribly boring, whereas the exciting activity of a game is entirely different– something full of emotion and enjoyment. Administration is associated with formalities, a game represents freedom and drive. So let’s take a look at this sharp distinction.

People really like playing games, and even if there is no chance of participating in a game oneself, just watching a game can bring pleasure. Nothing can compare with the interest and emotion aroused by an NFL or college championship game; cities come to a standstill during a final game, and discussions of how our guys played become the main topic of conversation. Sports — the Olympics, major-league baseball, professional football, college football — all enjoy lucrative media coverage and draw huge audiences in the United States, while soccer has made remarkable inroads thanks to its popularity in schools, opening America to the worldwide excitement that the game generates.

Or consider video gamers who battle virtual monsters. They move their heroes around, devise tactics, and are prepared to spend all their time on this. It is so entertaining that it is simply impossible to drag them away from the computer, and what is amusing is that victories in a computer game bring them nothing in the real world. Yet they are frequently prepared to sacrifice their real lives for the sake of the adrenaline rush that they get during a game. The game consumes all their attention, and they spend all their time on it, frequently at the expense of their health. You have surely said to yourself at some point, If only he would put as much energy into his work! And it is true: The enthusiast not only can achieve unbelievable results but he also takes pleasure in the game itself.

You don't really think, do you, that top athletes who set incredible records do so for the money or from a need to support their families? Of course, prizes are nice, and when prizes in a game liberate you from thinking of earning your daily bread and allow you to devote yourself fully to the game, that is wonderful. But people play games just because they enjoy playing, and they like to reach the mountaintop — to become champions in their field of activity. What can we do to turn work into a game and make it inspire as much emotion and passion as ordinary games do? First of all, to do this, we must understand how a game works.

First, participating in any game involves a personal choice. In order for a person to really and truly play a game, he must choose that area of activity himself, and he must have a desire to prove something, to achieve some goal. Try to make a man play football if he does not want to, or try to drag a person who hates team sports to the stadium. Remember those unfortunate ones whose parents sent them to law school even though they dreamed of pursuing art. In the best case, such people will waste several years at a higher-education institution before eventually taking up their favorite work. In the worst case, they will actually become lawyer’s against their will and will do that work with loathing for the rest of their lives, taking no pleasure from the work and, as a rule, achieving little of any importance.

It is difficult to create a masterpiece if you do not love the work that you do. This is probably why it is so difficult to manage soldiers who have ended up in the armed forces only because they couldn’t evade the draft. You see, these fellows, once in the armed forces, continue to actively struggle to avoid playing the armed forces game, and to actively demonstrate that they have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Their favorite game in the armed forces is to compete among themselves to see who can do the least work and to count the days until they are honorably discharged. For them, being in the armed forces is not a game; it is more like being in prison. Then look at professional soldiers, who have chosen to play in this very demanding game. They seem to be made of different stuff, and most of them truly like this activity. In spite of the difficulties and danger, they are proud of their work. The only difference is that some play the game of their own free will, while others have ended up on the playing field by force of circumstances.

Look at how much easier it is for many people to get carried away in a game involving killing virtual characters on a computer screen than by earnestly pitching in and helping their company become a market leader. Although it is illogical, many people nevertheless may sincerely believe that the success of a company is not their business, while the illusory win in a computer game is worth the investment of their time, energy, and passion. The same type of person may earnestly root for his favorite football or baseball team and be utterly indifferent to the success of the company he works for. The reason for this is simple: For many people, the company where they work is not the place in which they seek to achieve something of worth.

How do you think the average employee of a company will answer the question, What do you consider to be the goal of our company? My experience says that in small business, you will very often hear this response: Profit. This means that the employee considers increasing the owner’s wealth to be the meaning of the existence of the company in which he works. Naturally, in this case, there can be no talk of the attractiveness of the goal, of a desire to play the game to reach that goal, or of creativity. Why should he play the let’s make the boss richer game? Perhaps, of course, that employee receives some portion of the profit and is therefore interested in increasing it. But in that case, he is playing the earn a bit more game, and this is not team play. Managers are surprised that employees have little motivation to work productively when they are playing the game of work simply to enrich the owners and managers. But who wants to run around on the field after a ball for the sake of lining the boss’s pockets? If this is the case, it means the company’s goals do not inspire employees to share these goals, do not arouse passion, so essentially, these people are not players in the company’s game.

The most common reason for this is a company's lack of worthwhile goals that team members would find attractive, or a lack of understanding of such goals. If a person does not understand the goals of an activity, there will be no game. He may of his own choice aspire to achieve the company’s goals only if he is aware of them and, of course, if his manager capably promotes these goals. Simply imagine a person who has been told to dig a pit but has not been told why this is necessary. Only a robot will put its all into such an activity. But explain to the same person that this pit is needed in order to supply hot water to an orphanage, and you will see how his attitude toward the work changes, and how enthusiasm and energy appear.

Setting goals for a group has to do with administration, not the technology of a company’s activity. Thus in football, the technology is the methods that players use on the field, of which they must have perfect mastery, whereas setting the goal let’s kick our opponent’s ass is administration. Without such a goal, even the most sophisticated technological methods lose their meaning.

The next integral component of a game is rules that establish the boundaries of the game and describe the possible actions. Without rules, there can be no game, and if the rules fail, the game collapses. If there were no precise rules in football and every player acted as he saw fit, the game would turn into chaos. A company must also have quite specific rules, which precisely define the rights and obligations of team members. Of course, all rules create restrictions that are necessary for the game to continue. Quite often, when rules such as a fixed work schedule, a dress code, or reporting standards are introduced in a small business, it leads to employee resentment.

There are two reasons for this. The first is clear enough; the introduction of a new rule, reasonable and useful as it may be, is a change to a preexisting rule, albeit an unwritten one. If a dress code is instituted, this means a change to a previously existing tacit rule that allowed employees to dress for work however they liked.

At one of my companies, a new policy¹ was implemented that regulated the appearance of employees, the use of makeup by female employees, and the use of fragrance. Even after employees became familiar with this policy, considerable effort was required to achieve compliance with these requirements. These rules were reasonable and simple, and indeed no reasonable person would dispute that professional employee appearance inspires greater confidence in clients, whereas loud makeup or strong perfume undermine it. Nevertheless, managers had to apply considerable effort to get employees to comply with these rules. After repeated reprimands, the CEO was obliged for a time to implement a morning appearance check at the company’s entrance. Violators simply were not allowed into the office and were sent home to change. Only by means of this rather harsh measure we were able to get all employees to follow the rules. Setting and maintaining such rules is a key part of administration. If no reasonable rules are imposed on employee appearance, behavior, or interactions with customers, getting the company’s work done effectively is in jeopardy.

Therefore, when new rules are introduced that contradict previously established ones — even tacit ones — employees must be made aware of them, and it is necessary to reach a consensus about the changes. After all, in order for a game to take place, every team member must want to follow the rules. If the rules change, it is essential to clear this with the team members, or else they will either try to keep trying to play in the old way or they will even make a game of let’s show the bosses that they are wrong. In any case, no good game will come of it.

The second reason why introducing new rules causes employee dissent is more complicated, and it involves people's yearning for self-expression. Everyone yearns for self-expression. If someone senses an effort to restrict him in this, he perceives it as an attempt to undermine his individuality.

As a result, imposing rules may indeed seem to conflict with freedom of self-expression, but this is not the case. Everyone experiences the urge to become a member of a team, to collaborate with others. One of the greatest pleasures that a person experiences in life is cooperative activity and communication with others. If a person is cut off from communication with others for some reason, he or she suffers. This is why one of the most severe punishments inflicted on criminals is isolation from society, the extreme measure of which is solitary confinement. From childhood on, we are surrounded by friends and classmates; we become members of clubs and engage in group activities with like-minded people. This makes for a full life. Most people have the urge to belong to a group, and not only as observer’s, but also as participant’s who make a valuable contribution. This is also part of self-expression. If this role is missing from a person’s life, he most likely will feel.

So there is no contradiction between consciously accepting some restrictions as a member of a group and expressing one’s own individuality. These are two natural impulses, ones present in every person. If he does not obey the rules of a team game, he will be unable to achieve self-expression as a team member. Therefore, everyone tries to maintain some sort of balance between these aspects of life.

A problem arises only when some person does not want to be a member of a team, and then he perceives any rules of a game as a restriction of the manifestation of his individuality. Conscious acceptance of rules is the necessary cost of participation in such a game. A member of a football team wears the same uniform as all the other players, and he is assigned a number to make him readily recognizable. This is similar to a loss of individuality, but, in fact, it is simply a means of his self-expression as a member of the group. And participating in this game gives him genuine satisfaction. Therefore, following rules that are truly intended to make a person successful in a group activity facilitates his self-expression, rather than restricting it. A real problem arises only when a person does not understand how these vital restrictive aspects of rules contribute to the activity of his entire group.

Disagreement with the rules arises either when the rules really do not facilitate the success of the activity or when employees simply do not understand why they are necessary, important, or reasonable. In both of these situations, the administration is in error, since in people management it should be understood that no matter why a rule is imposed, it is important to know what people think about it.

In my archives I recently came across one of the policies written fifteen years ago. It was a policy about discounts for customers. To be honest, when I read this document, I felt ashamed. There was not a single word in it about why this policy was even needed, what problems it addressed, or how it facilitated the work of the company. It is not surprising that in those days I experienced many difficulties as chief executive. It took a lot of effort to overcome employee disagreement with my instructions. If I, as a company employee, had received such a document imposing a new rule from the chief executive, I myself would have had a lot of questions and disagreements about