Leaders, managers, and impostors

We are experiencing these weeks crucial elections which will seriously impact our personal life, as well the IT business on a long run. We had two rounds of presidential fight in the Republic of Moldova, then US voting, and a bit later, presidential, most probably in two rounds, and parliament elections in Romania. That is why I would like to discuss leadership and management in this post.

I think most of us agree that, while democracy may be overrated, it remains arguably the best solution humanity has found so far for leading the masses. Companies, as I often told my colleagues, don't follow democratic rules, which gives them a major advantage when it comes to making and acting on important decisions. After spending around six months in an entrepreneurial soft exercise, I quickly realized that there are fundamental differences between a high ranking manager in a corporation and one who fulfills an entrepreneurial role in a small company.

One of the most important differences is that corporations have rules, regulations, procedures, and approval chains very well established. Even the CEO reports to a Board and company shareholders. Everyone has a boss, everyone must follow internal procedures, and there are numerous watchdogs ready to step in if anyone bends the rules. In a small company, however, the owner can make decisions independently, as long as they stay within legal boundaries—though sometimes even beyond those. This lack of autonomy, often viewed as a burden by corporate managers and referred many times to as bureaucracy, has positive impacts in several areas. First, it reduces the risk of legal breaches, and second, it lends the organization a stronger sense of professionalism.

Two examples. We were looking for IT professionals in several countries like Romania, the Baltics, and Turkey. Our client, a London-based consulting firm, has a client in Turkey and wants to be more cost-competitive expanding its team of UK specialists (mostly managers!) with Eastern Europeans.

To ensure the quality of professionals, they sent us a link so our candidates could take an online exam. The results were average, with about 40-50% of candidates passing. But here's the interesting part: over 50% of the Romanian and Turkish candidates were caught cheating by the testing application, while none of the Baltic candidates were. Our lead recruiter told me she had never been so embarrassed in her entire 10-years recruitment career. I shared the story with a leader of one of the partner companies that provided the candidates, and he just shrugged: 'It was a difficult exam!' Such a situation would rarely happen in the corporation I worked for in Romania—or if it did, there would be serious repercussions for those caught cheating.

And it is all about the managers taking care of those people. We cannot hold responsible the people, they pick always the easy path.

The second example relates to how things function in a small company compared to a large corporation. Over time, I've had many colleagues leave IBM, and I still keep in touch with several of them. Most admit there are significant differences between IBM's environment and the more chaotic, unpredictable nature of their current workplaces. They primarily mention scheduling: meetings and calls change daily, and even travel plans are rarely followed. Task prioritization is similarly inconsistent, with priorities lasting only a few days before being replaced by new, more urgent ones. I have indeed met corporate managers who frequently changed their plans and were hard to reach for a discussion, but they were rare. In a corporation, there's always someone else available to offer an opinion or even provide approval. I can now confirm what my former colleagues have been telling me.

Entrepreneurs don't place much emphasis on internal meetings and calls, as their priorities lie elsewhere. In a corporate environment, however, internal meetings—especially with upper management—are almost as important as those with customers or partners. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad; I'm just presenting the findings. Personally, I used to believe that in large operational organizations, chaos is disastrous. Order and a structured approach to running things are key, though not necessarily democratic! Communication between different management layers is key too. It's also true that there are people—both employees and managers—who excel in a chaotic, less-regulated environment. A good example is a close acquaintance of mine who began the career in consulting almost 10 years ago at a company with over 300,000 employees. After changing jobs three times, that person is now a happy Director at a company with over 1,000 employees, very entrepreneurial in nature. This person always said that was feeling uncomfortable with the habits of large corporations. Considering the way the U.S. voted last week, I'm not even sure that order is the recipe for success—these days, it seems that less disciplined people who follow their instincts, their intuition often triumph more easily.

I read daily posts on LinkedIn about leaders and managers, and it's hard to say whether professionals posting these articles are complaining more about corporate leadership or entrepreneurial management. It seems pretty even; there are horror stories from both models, with no discrimination. Despite the differences I've highlighted, much still depends on the quality of the people involved. I include not only native traits but also education—both family and formal—and experience. I strongly believe that only a good blend of these three factors can make a strong manager. As I mentioned in another post, to be recognized as a leader requires all three factors plus something else: a 'leadership DNA,' which I believe can't be taught. It can be refined, yes, but not developed from scratch. You either have it or you don't.

Recently, I've met a few entrepreneurs—both Romanian and foreign. Some of them I knew from past encounters, some I don’t. Few surprised me; while some are excellent, others seem closer to impostors or frauds than genuine business people. One thing that has bothered me is that several of them don't keep their word or act professionally. They are often late for calls or meetings, or worse, don't show up at all or reschedule multiple times. There are always more important things that must be performed. Which I can understand, but only to a certain extent. As annoying as that, are the promises made and not kept in terms of staffing, operations, financial transactions, or others. Everyone wants to sell and make money, but one shouldn't ignore reality to do so. It looks more like a Robin Hood type of business.

My third observation concerns feedback, or what we might call constructive criticism. God forbid you object to a habit, action, situation, or even an employee—you're instantly seen as an adversary of the entrepreneur and their company. Feedback is rarely accepted, even when it's constructive.

Another thing I've noticed about entrepreneurs is that they work many more hours than corporate managers. They practically dedicate 90% of the time to their business, including weekends and long evenings into the night. While I assume their time management and task prioritization skills may not be great, it's more than just that. Unlike corporate managers, they don't have an army of support functions behind them, as I did in the company I worked for. They need to micromanage, which ultimately damages their work-life balance.

Almost all of them had some experience in a large corporation at some point in their careers, but none reached high positions within those corporations. They were developers, architects, salespeople, and so on—often without much prior management education or experience. Furthermore, they had no real plans to study management theory. It's a pity, as some of them possess excellent qualities that could make them not only successful but very successful. I admire their courage, though I must acknowledge that, in some cases, the lack of management knowledge was quite evident.

Most of them chose an entrepreneurial career because they couldn't cope with the limitations, obligations, and hierarchy of a large corporation. They enjoy a more chaotic, less regulated environment with no bossy people around. They like to be their own boss. I believe this is the main reason people pursue such an endeavor—because it's not an easy life, I can certainly affirm that.

Someone reading this post might think I'm making an apology for corporations. Not at all. I myself should have done this entrepreneurship exercise earlier in my life and I believe the future belongs to small and medium-sized companies, which are more flexible and better able to adapt to the challenges of the IT industry. However, I recognize that a good entrepreneur isn't made out of thin air—they need a solid base of knowledge and some experience in leading people. And there's no better place to learn than in a large corporation, which has faced almost every challenge one might think of over the years. Of course, there are exceptions, but from what I experienced lately, they are extremely few.

In one of my previous posts I touched the issue of poor skills and misconduct showed by many managers in large corporations. In a lower percentage there are impostors among entrepreneurs only because the market is washing them faster. In corporations they can last for many years.

I've tried to raise a few red and white flags for those considering this path, encouraging them to pay attention to both the good and bad behaviors they might encounter. For those already established as entrepreneurs, just a raised eyebrow would suffice. If I achieve that, my goal will be accomplished.