Almost two years ago, Brad Feld put up an excellent blog post called "Be the CEO of Your Job" based on an interview with Mark Pincus of Zynga by the NYTimes. I loved the concept and have tried to apply it even since before I had a name for the attitude of independence that great companies tend to grant their team. From Brad's article:
Pause and ponder the idea. Assuming you are in an entrepreneurial organization, are you being the CEO of your job? Is this culturally (and functionally) acceptable? Do you get rewarded for taking risks and succeeding (or failing) like your CEO does? If not, would you be more effective if you did?
Now, if you are the CEO of an entrepreneurial organization, do you encourage everyone in the company to be CEO of their job? Is this culturally (and functionally) acceptable? Do they get rewarded for taking risks and succeeding (or failing) like you do? If not, would they be more effective if they did?
At the Mozplex, "CEO of Your Job" has come up in a few exec meetings and several hiring discussions, too. When it does, it's always as a positive quality we're seeking, e.g. "How can we empower so-and-so to be CEO of their job?" meaning "How do we remove restrictions (imagined or real) so that so-and-so can work on this independently, execute and take pride in that accomplishment?"
But in the last few weeks, I realized that there's a nuance to the logic behind being "CEO of your job" that can cause strife and frustration if it's not well-understood by the entire team. Here's an illustration that (hopefully) says the thousand words I'd rather not type:
Owning your job is awesome. Empowering people to make decisions on their own and giving them flexibility is, too. But a danger arises when multiple people or teams are being CEOs of their job to the exclusion of the larger organization. This can happen at two-person startups or huge enterprises equally. Heck, I'm guilty of it myself! I get passionate about a particular aspect of the business at Moz (for example, this blog), and overinvest my own time in it, along with those of folks I manage or influence (which is quite a good number at this point). That pulls resources off other mission-critical projects and, potentially, hurts the company's ability to accomplish all those things that desperately need doing.
Mike King recently dropped by Seattle for our mini-Mozcation/charity bake sale (he gave a killer presentation called "What Being an Indie Rapper Taught Me About SEO"). On our walk to dinner after the event, I mentioned to him that it embarrassed me to say that, in the past few years, I've knowingly prioritized projects over SEO, social media or other inbound marketing efforts during our roadmap meetings at Moz. I know.... I complained for years about how the companies I advised as a consultant didn't put SEO first, and then, when I have the power to change things at my own organization, I put other projects first. I'm a hypocrite!
But, I'm also responsible for the success of the whole business, and sometimes that means stepping away from being CEO of just your job to seeing the bigger picture and knowing when your projects deserve to be on the backburner or even when something you're working on needs to be scrapped entirely in favor of a new direction or wholly new task. Autonomy and freedom to kick ass at your work is a great power, but also a great responsibility. If you put your job CEO-dom ahead of the broader goals, things can get messy.
p.s. Hopefully, this post can also help in-house, agency and consultant marketers who get frustrated with executives for not pushing through their agendas with the speed or passion we'd put behind it. Sometimes, especially if resource allocation is a roadblock, it might actually be the right decision (rarely, though). :-)
A very similar, and in my opinion even better concept is used in Agile projects. It's called self-organizing teams and what it means is that each team member is expected to take responsibility for their actions, pro-actively solve problems, make their own decisions and in the end deliver the results without pushing the responsibility to someone else.
It doesn't mean that such team doesn't need a manager. It sure does. The main role of a manager is to remove any obstacles that may prevent a team member from doing their job. Another important role of a manager in a self-organizing team is to provide a framework, set the goals together with team and adjust them along the way.
One important thing to note is that there is a good reason why it's called self-organizing team, not self-organized team. It's because self-organization in this case should be a constant process rather than a set of hard rules which are followed.
The bottom line of this approach is that each individual should feel joy and pride in what they do. And allowing them to make their own decisions plays an important role in this.
Rand, I've been wondering if you at SEOMoz follow the Agile principles. From an outsider point of view it would seem like a great match considering the fast-changing demand and requirements in the world of SEO.
You're spot-on. The Moz engineering and product teams use agile methodology. You can find them talking about it on the dev blog - https://devblog.seomoz.org/
I think this is an interesting line of thought. For sure, it puts a premium on hiring the right people and identifying both hiring mistakes and developing issues quickly, so that they can be addressed.
I think that, in my experience, a lot of the time you find people who have started their own businesses or who have reached a management position can struggle with delegation and to trust others with important work. It is as important to have the right leaders as it is the right workers.
That's why I think this process represents a ideological challenge to many organisations. The perception that empowering employees to this extent represents a relinquishing of control is a barrier to be overcome.
Thanks Rand!
I've read that post by Brad a year ago, and I agree, its a great principle, I applied it and indeed works great for me. However, it will be a challenge to inspire other people, your subordinates, to apply and live up to this principle, but if they do, it will surely makes a lot of differences to your organization.
I always believe that the highest calling of a leader is to really inspire other people to realize their highest potential, and be the CEO of not just their job, but CEOs of their lives, that is, someone who take charge and take responsibility of everything that they are doing.
Really interesting points Rand and I have to say I agree with you.
In theory the idea of everyone taking ownership of their role and working on it with the same passion of the CEO sounds great. However, in practice it can make for a pretty difficult environment to work in.... everyone wants a say, everyone thinks they're the boss and everyone is trying to drag the company in different directions because they have their own "micro" agenda. Eventually all that actually happens is that nothing gets done, projects and ideas are left half finished and no-one is pulling together as a team.
Unfortunately, like it or not there always needs to be a boss and a leader who can direct the company and make the decisions, sometimes good and sometimes bad.
Very Seth Godin-ish I must say :P
Rand ... are you feeling light now ? After recognising yourself through this post :)
Hi Rand, very nice of you to share the post of Brad Feld "Be the CEO of Your Job" & writing a post on that. Now only read that post & was amazed by the writing & also there was an example shared by Fred about his receptionist which shows how much love that girl was having when she was finding out that new phone system which points out the whole concept. Great to see that you sometimes too made wrong decisions.
Few months before only our company had a long discussion on setting a singular goal & also to make sure that each & everyone should follow that goal being the master in the services every other employee provide & make it achievable, which definitely makes you CEO of your job. I love it when having such a beautiful atmosphere around the office to feel yourself the pride of achieving that success on your own. But sometimes it is almost not possible to depend on every other sub-ordinate & provide them the freedom of working on their own because of their tendency towards a work. There may come times where you've to teach them each & everything & before getting done you can hardly get any success rate.
Thanks again.
I'm a big believer in this style of management. It reminds me of David Ogilvy's motto 'hire people who are better than you are' - then just let them at it!
You know, this reminds me of some things... As a child I have made promisses like, most likely any of us have done, to not to make the same mistakes as our parents... Than years pass and we do the same mistakes, over-and-over.
BUT, here comes the but part... it doesn't mean, that we didn't evolve with time.
Rand, while focusing more on other projects("like this blog") lately, you have helped others to evolve faster in SEO, you have helped members and community to build up a valuable Q/A section, with a lot of very interesting debates, questions and case studies. Possibilities to learn for everyone.
Big thanks for you and seoMoz team for this.
Crackin' :)
Really interesting post Rand and some good observations for us to learn from, in particular when trying to deal with 3, or 4 intersted parties: web dev agency, seo consultant, PPC team and site/brand owner. I guess it's down to each individual/group to understand their role and that of the others and the 'CEO' to ensure each party is moving in the same direction.
PS. one minor problem - three L's in equally in infographic ;)
I worked for Mark at support.com and we had a way of dealing with the problem you're talking about. When a specific area of the business required special attention, we'd often put together a SWAT team that was responsible for making this happen. This approach was incredibly effective ...when a group of Type A people are given a very clear goal and then given carte blanche to make it happen, it's pretty amazing how much is accomplished.
One example of this - we were competing in three markets and we were lagging behind a competitor in two of them. We knew that we needed to turn it around in the other two markets or else the business was going to be in trouble. To do this, a SWAT team was tasked with winning a specific set of marquis deals in those markets. The team included someone from every department that could impact the deal (a sales rep, a technical sales engineer, a developer and a marketer). The mandate we were given was very straightforward and the urgency was communicated very clearly. The basic message was "we have to win these deals...you do whatever the **** you have to do to make it happen." The result of this was that we didn't lose a single one of these deals, which was a big part of why we were able to go public (even after the tech bubble had burst).
What?!? Indie rapper? No wonder Mike has so much charisma, he's an entertainer. I had no idea. :)
If it's not too idealistic, I think things are headed in the right direction to enable more CEO-of-your-own-job-ness.
Being creative and responsible for your own set of stuff is more the norm. Here's some more about that: https://wordfruit.com/blog/whats-the-best-marketing-advertising-and-copywriting-for-our-new-creative-society/
Even I have faced the same situation as mentioned by Rand “I mentioned to him that it embarrassed me to say that, in the past few years, I've knowingly prioritized projects over SEO…..” When I researched something and enthusiastically shared it with my clients they agreed with my research and facts I shared with them but most of time they never proactively respond to its implementation.
I am not sure whether I am right or not but now I have opted a strategy that after sharing a research I do not tell my clients how would this update benefit them but I suggest them the consequences of not implementing that update. Sometimes I feel that it’s a rather negative strategy but I could not help it as it is more acceptable.
Moreover, as a result I have shifted my core enthusiasm to the development project than SEO, and to my consideration that is injustice :-(.
This style of managment is what most companies should put in to effect. Micromanaging is out and self-organizing teams are in! Communication of expectations is impotant initially but self managing can give team members the freedom to perform at their best potential.
Thanks for your honesty and transparency, Rand - refreshing and appreciated. I'll quote the venerable, Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibility." I believe in-house culture starts at the top.
It's great to empower workers; some gravitate towards independency and run with that sentiment while others feel more secure in a team-centered environment. I think open communication throughout the organization is key; it allows workers to express thoughts and job aspects or projects of special interest, while providing CEOs opportunity to vindicate short-term and long-term maneuvers, stopped or started due to the best interests of the company.
Also, hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to be hard on yourself if things don't go as planned. In these cases, separating intentions with results, and extracting lessons for future leverage is the best way to keep moving forward.
Ironically, although I have been in the Appreciation & Recognition industry for over 5 years, recognition & inspiration to team members is a brand new area to me and to my company as my small business grows.
I agree that having a single same goal is critical for team members, while giving autonomy and freedom is the hardest part to balance.
Thanks for sharing, Rand. I adore SEOmoz not just for the SEO posts, but also for your insights and thoughts on business, start-up culture and leadership.
When you work 40 hours a week in a job and it takes up the majority of what you do, I think everyone becomes a little guilty of priorisiting what they do over what the organisation does or should be doing. I'd happily tell people to concentrate on SEO over other forms of marketing, but they might see it differently.
As someone who's worked both agency-side and in-house, I used to get frustrated in the former that the clients wouldn't necessarily take on-board my recommendations, so when I did a stint in the latter, thinking "now's my chance," I'd get frustrated that the management wouldn't instead! I used to think "I cannot win" but of course, I'm just one person pushing one angle when the CEO/Director/Manager has lots of other angles to consider.
I wouldn't say your example was hypocritical at all - it's more a realisation that there are other things to prioritise; to focus on, which isn't easy.
You just need to know how to push! ;) I used to have a similar view a few years ago when I first started out but over time you learn that there is a lot more at stake then one piece of the jigsaw.
You're not wrong in the way that you think - but it's a very "agency" driven focus... you shouldn't think "I cannot win" - you need to ask yourself "How can I win?"
That's the difference between getting what you want and not getting what you want.
Great comment, James - and great to see another Wales-based SEO on here ;-)
I completely agree. I didn't mean for "I cannot win" to sound so defeatist (even though that's exactly what it is), but for the best possible results, a lot of SEO comes down to collaboration, whether it's with IT/web folks, other offline marketing/PR efforts or trying to obtain content, especially guest blog posts. These days there's not a huge amount we can do all on our lonesomes.
From an agency POV, the "fight" (if there is one) is with the client - has the client got time to get involved? And from an in-house POV, it's whether the marketing department has the resources to be able to get those changes made themselves. Of course there's always perfect clients/sites - people who are willing to give a hand and understand that the more they get involved, the better it'll be - but there'll always be those who expect the earth for a penny and want nothing to do with "that CEO stuff" (and yep, that's an actual quote I've had in the past)!
That's where the "I cannot win" mentality comes in, and the angle I was considering: fighting hard, doing your best, but other external factors are holding you back, yet you're the one getting the blame. It can be tough and frustrating. But hey, it happens! :-)
It's a nice idea but I wouldn't take advice from Mark Pincus - he pretty much sold-out to Facebook anyway... so doesn't that make him Zukerberg's dog of the female variety?
But CEO of your own job has a nice ring to it... however, I'm inclined to agree with you Rand - when you head up your entire organisation then other projects will take priority over things such as SEO / social. It is about seeing the bigger picture and part of the joy of being a CEO is the fact that you can always get a colleague to take care of all the other smaller jobs for you.
Every company (especially new companies) have an agenda and that usually means sales first and the rest comes second. Sounds a bit silly but when you're first starting out it's very much like that. In essence you have to get your business structured and the right people in the right job before you can concern yourself with all the little things that crop-up on a day-to-day basis. The same is true if you're a general worker / dogsbody - get your head together, get your plan of action and then make it work.
Sometimes the hardest error to avoid is the exclusivity that springs from enthusiasm for a new project :)
...and sometimes the key there is empowering those who feel the pressure at the end of the chain to feel comfortable mentioning the problem.
-Sha
I think this is a really interesting idea. It encourages people to take responsibility for their own tasks, and for their own actions, and I can see how if implemented properly it can help everyone in the organisation think strategically. That would be a great bonus to any entrepeneurial organisation, and to the individuals in that organisation as they look to progress their careers.
I think the only people who may not be entirely happy with this philosophy would be those who as Pincus says "want the comfort and structure of a job where they’re given tasks and told what to do". But I can't somehow see those people being attracted to entrepeneurial organisations precisely because that's not what those organisations offer.
Great post and has really made me think - one of my worst habits is taking so much on that I start to lose focus on everything I'm working on, then I have to take a step back and re-prioritise (normally at about 4 in the morning!). I think one hole in the concept is that a CEO gets to delegate certain tasks, if you empower your whole team to start thinking like they are the CEO they risk not having the backup to successfully sort the tasks they are working on. I think it's generally important to recognise that there's got to be a good mix of people in a team - if everyone wanted to be the boss (or to act like the boss) it would probably be a bit of a difficult place to work.
Guidelines are very meaningful. thank you
Great stuff as usual on SEOMOZ. I am glad to be part of it as a newbie.
I think that the type of person "I" look for would be an person who is hungry for success. You see, I started off at a web marketing firm and took off because I outgrew the company. I work from home now and have a few clients. If I ran into a guy like I was in my late 20s, I would nurture their growth, but I would always keep in mind that employee will want to work from him/herself at some point.
Great Post Thank You
Good thoughts, helps ease frustrations with too much to do and too little time and people to do it.
It was really the most informative blog that was shared with us I would like to give thanks to Rand for sharing this fruitful information. I really impressed with the Title "Be The CEO Of Your Job". This blog help us to know about our potentials which is depending on person to person because within every person there is la huge potential & quality, it is just to realize our potentials & this blog would play a crucial role for our growth.
You are really well in your niche..always presenting the great ideas to discover our real personality.. Again"Thanks" for this amazing Post!!
If you willingly chose to prioritize another project over SEO, with clear expectations on the results, then I wouldn't call it hypocrite but a clever business decision.
There are even more obvious problems with being the 'CEO of your job'. First of all, recall that these words came from a CEO that overworks his employees, threatens to fire them if they do not give back their stock, and basically allows them no independent identity other than as workers for him.
Phrases such as 'CEO of your own job' are merely terminology meant to glorify the average worker. Giving people high titles instead of a salary gives them false motivation to work harder. As such, it is basically propaganda.
absolutely wonderful post :)
Good post, I rather than been a CEO of your work, a better way to say things would be "Taking owner ship" of a specific section in your job.
For example at our company we have industry experts who "are experts" in a specific area which they love.
For example:
- link building
- social media
- content
And then people who are juniors or work in other devisions learn from this specific specialist.
Sure some people branch out to multiple areas yet it is hard to be accross various sub sections.
Very Good Concept, I read the receptionist example in the reffered URL, that's really great and the image given in this post is really equal to thousand words!!!!
Thanks for sharing
very good information thank you very much for post .I will follow your other posts.
<removed link>
Nice one....................
Really a good job to your side.Thanks for sharring this post...
I felt so touchy after read this experince and somehow it will boost me up.. Thanks Rand :)