[Stonehenge]

For those that know me, the last couple years I've been trying to find someone I can have on board to help handle the production end of things, to help grow the company. (Still trying to do that, so if there's someone out there with the requisite experience looking for a job, let me know )

With every new employee I hire, I think about the same issue: Do I try to teach them everything I know, in the hopes that they will become proficient enough to start handling additional responsibilities? Or do I just teach them enough to be able to do their job, and keep them in the dark about the rest.

The former might result in a more well-rounded employee, but may also result in my cultivating a new competitor if/when he leaves.

The latter may eliminate the possibility of a competitor, but may also stunt this person's professional growth, leading to their premature departure anyway.

What side of this issue do you fall on and why?

Thanks in advance,

Jeff

[agla]

In the fall of 1987 I was hired as a laborer to help a company finish out the year. The reason that it was for a short term was because the owner had died unexpectedly in his late 30's. It was an interesting thing to observe. A company that lost its top guy trying to finish out the year as the family was trying to sell the business.

The reason I bring this up is that it was a mess simply because the late owner did such a good job of delegating that each department head thought that they were in control, yet none of them could run the whole show. It was almost comical if not for the unfortunate circumstance.

The big lesson that I saw in it was that this late owner, whom I had never met, did a masterful job of making each key player feel vitally important in the operation of the business. They were trained and empowered to make decisions within range of responsibility, but only within that range. Each had a high level of self esteem, the training, knowledge, and empowerment to get things done, but not the training and knowledge to run the entire business or orchestrate the whole thing.

I would say that if you can get someone that has management potential, don't try to clone your job. Instead, have him do what aspect of your job that he is most capable and happy doing. It will free you up to do those other things and keep him content and untrained as a competitor. After all if he has all the burdens of your job he will want all of the benefits of it as well including his name on the side of the trucks.

There is a reason why those of us that are capable but work for others do so. If you try to strap us with all of the burdens we will go somewhere else or out on our own. An owner is destined to carry the burden of the problem customer, to handle the billing problems, the scheduling misunderstandings, problems with help,... Those are some of the things that you must shoulder in order to keep key people from bringing home the ownership stress. When you leave that stress on them, they will leave you. That is the price you pay for ownership.

PS. Feel free to substitute she for he. I just did not want to write he/she through the whole thing. There were women in the company mentioned above.

[diginahole]

I say teach him the whole system one step at a time. Make it his responsibility to teach what he knows to the next guy in order to move up the ladder. You can't eliminate the risk of a key employee leaving, but I agree if you look after his needs he will be more likely to stay.

Have you read E-myth revisited yet? Put it on your to-do list this week. It's time well spent. In fact, PM me your address I'll put my extra copy in the mail in the morning. It's my thank you for the help and advise this site has and will prove to provide. I'm certain it will spark a few threads here too.

[Stonehenge]

Digin,

It must be a great book - I don't know if I've ever gotten this kind of sustained pitch about a book. I'll PM you my address, and thank you.

Agla, I'm uncertain what to take away from your post - it sounds like that late owner did a great job of getting each person to excel at their given specialty, which is something that in itself is not easy to do. But if I'm hearing you correctly, giving them all the responsibilities so that the company would survive without him would have precipitated their departures.

I'm not at the point of cloning my job for another single person to take - and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't try that. However, I would like to be able to shed some duties as the company grows. Cultivate employees to become better at things they already show a knack for, and free me up to focus on the things I like to do. I just don't an wondering how well I should teach them, how much I should invest in them, as far as informal and formal education.

[Bexter]

Jeff ...very interesting topic.

I feel that if someone wants to go on their own it won't matter what you have taught them ...they just will. They may only know how to lay pavers and nothing about the business end of it but they will try if that is what their heart desires.
What do you teach them .hmm ... I think it depends on the size of the company and what YOUR heart desires ...
If an owner is happy doing the designs, estimating, bookwork and producing the work in the field then they will stay a certain size.
You have to delegate if you want the company to grow.
I feel that where both Managers and Owners go wrong is when they feel threatened by other people ... The true secret to being a great Manager or Owner IMO, is to surround yourself with people that are smarter/better than yourself ...perhaps not at everything...but at something.
Probably didn’t answer your question.

[Stonehenge]

Kinda yes, kinda no. You hit on an important issue - owners feeling threatened. Working in corporate America I found delegating to be much easier - if they got really good at what they were doing, worst case scenario they got a promotion, and subsequently felt a bit indebted to me for 'showing them the way' or giving them the chance. So the company now had a better employee and I looked good, which could mean more $$ for me.

But this is much different - worst case scenario they get really good at what they do and leave - doing two-fold damage:

• They open up a big hole where they used to be, that now has to be filled by you, or by someone less qualified.
• They are now more than likely a competitor who may steal a sliver of market share from you.

In the John Allin interview (in the Private Gardens) you'll see he gets good people around him, but never teaches any one of them the whole gameplan.

[JAA]

Guys in their 30's don't ever plan for their own demise....

Guys in their 50's should (and some do).

I'm just now looking for someone to groom to take it all over.... however, our VP's all have signficant areas of responsibility. At this juncture, we don't have anyone who could co-ordinate the whole show..... but I don't think they would struggle much. It would take at least a year for problems to develop.