Several business pundits describe the need for systems and processes for any successful enterprise. Without a set of guidelines based on experience and best practices, you risk floundering and failing. More importantly, you may suffer burnout as you do the wrong things over and over again.
Systematization is something of a two-edged sword, however. If you do what everyone else is doing, you might have a successful business but you are unlikely to go far beyond the norm. And, frankly, I don’t know too many entrepreneurs and business owners who are “normal” and eager to follow rules set down by others (including the rule that you should systematize your processes).
A solid systematization approach purportedly allows you to “put your business in a box” and market it as a franchise or business opportunity. The indivdual opening the box, and following the instructions exactly, will succeed. This adds real value to your innovation and enables you to replicate it.
Fair enough. I’m confident that most small contractors and start-ups need to learn how to implement systems and they can apply others’ thinking and standard best practices to achieve satisfactory results. We certainly now behave much more like a “normal” business with clearly defined processes for meetings, (including an annual planning session and semi-annual review), expense and client service policies and the like.
Some of our systems, however, are rather unique to our own company, built out of our own experiences, my personal values (after all, I still have a large say in how things run here!) and my wish to innovate. Certainly, we do things a little differently in recruiting and hiring employees. Yet we still have rules — and you will need to give me a convincing argument about when and how to break these guidelines.
This issue occurred in stark practicality yesterday and today. Our highly competent administrative employee, Angela Chow, had earlier proposed a change in her working arrangements, which if I had accepted it, would have violated several of our fundamental rules and policies. However, her requested change in working conditions (and her rationale for requesting the change) matched closely the job description and working environment of our sales representatives. When she requested the change, we had an opening for new sales representative, with a base salary significantly higher than her current income. So I proposed she consider applying for the sales career opportunity on a trial basis.
She accepted the proposal, meaning that now we have an opening for a new administrative employee. In the past, we’ve found candidates by using the free Service Canada Job Bank, using a questionnaire system to weed out the many resumes and candidates who we would not wish to consider hiring. The questionnaire includes a firm observation that references will be validated and that we need the name and contact information of immediate supervisors at previous places of employment. We also clearly state in the questionnaire that we do not want to see the actual references now. Our procedure is not to read the resumes when they arrive. We simply send the questionnaire out and then evaluate the responses — before reviewing the resumes for signs of inconsistencies or problems.
This hiring system treats everyone fairly. It also avoids us wasting time on candidates who just fire off resumes to everyone hoping something will stick, or who don’t really know about our business, location, or working rules. With the questionnaire we are also able to check basic literacy and numeracy skills. The questionnaire of course does not violate any equal opportunity or human rights rules against discrimination.
With experience, we’ve learned to watch for warning signs. For example, the reference question asks clearly for candidates to just confirm that their references are verifiable and tells them not to provide them right away with the application. Of course, many candidates actually provide reference names and numbers. When I see this, I sense a yellow warning flag. Why isn’t the candidate following the specific instructions? Is the individual trying to pull wool over our eyes by providing pre-positioned references of friends or colleagues, not the immediate supervisors we wish to assess?
Once we complete a brief phone interview, we invite finalist candidates to our office for a day’s (paid) work. This is where we really assess the person — and give the potential employee an opportunity to assess us. I think it is a much better way to select candidates than structured formal interviews.
Well, between Christmas and New Years, Angela selected a candidate to come to work for a day’s evaluation. I looked at the resume and saw that yellow flag warning — the individual had provided the reference name. Angela, after speaking with the person to set up the day’s work, also noticed a potential problem: When the candidate called back, our call display showed her reference’s surname.
I decided to call the candidate and validate the story. It turns out indeed the individual’s reference is a live-in roommate and the person had worked on informal contracts with her roommate for several years. She acknowledged that we could not independently verify the reference, nor that of previous employers, and admitted: “Yes, this is making it hard for me to find employment.”
At this point, I needed to make a few split-second decisions. I decided to invite her to continue with her day’s paid work for us but told her that her chance of success in being hired by our company would be very low. I made this decision because operationally Angela needed some casual help, anyways, to get a mass of invoices in the mail on time (and any business owner knows the importance of ensuring receivables management, another set of systems.)
As soon as the conversation concluded, I decided that we would not hire the candidate. When she showed up for her day’s work, I clearly said that without a verfiable reference, we could not take her application any further but we would pay her for her day’s work at the end of her shift — and we did.
Could I have chosen to bend the rules here? This potential employee had a good, valid reason (it seemed) for her inability to provide verifiable references. If we gave her a chance, would we not have a truly loyal employee who appreciated the chance we provided?
I thought about these issues, then concluded the risk simply didn’t match the reward. There are many candidates for the work — it isn’t too highly skilled and (unlike many administrative jobs in Ottawa), bilingualism is not essential — after all, we publish English-language publications. Reference verification is a key component of virtually every successful business’s hiring strategies and, when I’ve broken the rules, I’ve been disappointed. (More challenging are references which are mixed; you sometimes need to delve beneath the surface, but at least you know what you are getting.)
These observations suggest some guidelines for your own approach to business:
For most standard business activities, there are standard processes and systems. You don’t need to reinvent the wheel. These systems will most likely do what they need to do and you won’t struggle with changes. If you wish to avoid these systems, especially the back-office stuff which is not the core unique quality of your enterprise, you will likely run into serious problems sooner or later.
Most businesses (other than in-the-box franchise purchases) need to develop their own unique systems which reflect and define their character. Sometimes these systems are built from hard experience. Often they are built with a hybrid of standard practices and somewhat unique variations for the business.
“Rule breaks” — that is, when you choose to revise the system rules, need to be considered carefully and you generally should not throw your rules out the window unless the risk is relatively low, the reward is potentially very high or you just want to stir things up a little (sometimes it is good to be adventurous.)
Now, here is the question which brings us closer to the theme of this blog: What, if any, are your marketing systems? Can you put them in writing and codify them — or do you “just know” what you are doing. In the next posting, I’ll look at some ways you can build and maintain an effective marketing system without stressing yourself out too much, which reflects your values and business priorities.
