Most entrepreneurs want to make a lot of money and also run the show, keeping control of their company. But those two impulses conflict and trying to maximize one imperils achievement of the other.

"Entrepreneurs face a choice, at every step, between making money and managing their venture. Those who don't figure out which is more important to them often end up neither wealthy nor powerful," Harvard Business School Professor Noah Wasserman writes in Harvard Business Review.

In blunt terms, he says you can be rich or king, but it's unlikely you can be both. Try too hard for both, and you likely end up a failure.

For most founders, the company is equivalent to their baby. But as it takes on customers and grows, the marketing, sales, and finance functions become more complicated. The organization has to become more structured, with formal processes and a management hierarchy. "The dramatic broadening of the skills that the CEO needs at this stage stretches most founders' abilities beyond their limits," he notes.

Usually it's investors who trigger the change, taking control to protect their investment. "The faster that founder-CEOs lead their companies to the point where they need outside funds and new management skills, the quicker they will lose management control. Success makes founders less qualified to lead the company and changes the power structure so they are more vulnerable," he warns.

Stay small or go big? Grow gradually or quickly? Rich or king? You must decide.

Leadership inevitably involves conflict. And in dealing with those conflicts -- and the decisions that can spark divisions -- it helps to keep some percentages in mind.

In Leadership Brand, University of Michigan professor Dave Ulrich and consultant Norm Smallwood share the 20-60-20 rule. About 20 per cent of people will immediately agree with your leadership decisions, about 20 per cent will never agree, and about 60 per cent will be open to be convinced.

"Accepting that a sizeable segment of your audience is unlikely ever to agree is part of the leadership reality. Leaders who make bold and courageous decisions often have naysayers," they observe.

Often leaders face tough decisions, such as whether to invest in project A or B or hire person A or B. If the answer seems clear, with about an 80 per cent chance of being right, it's probably best to let others make the decision. But if it's a close call, a 55-45 decision, they say that's the leader's responsibility to decide. Obviously because it's a close call, some people on your team -- perhaps many people -- might disagree. But because it's a close call, a 55-45 decision requires a 95-5 personal commitment to action and implementation, or the choice will fail.

Keep those percentages in mind, as you face your decisions.

On Broadway, it's common to tell someone to "break a leg" as you wish him or her success. In business, consultant Thomas Ordahl says that success comes from breaking a rule. Do something that disrupts a fundamental tenet of your market or industry.

"If you look back at some of the most successful examples of innovation, you'll observe that in many cases innovators didn't come up with some entirely new product or service, but instead directly challenged a sacrosanct practice of their industry and bested their competitors by changing the rules of the game," he writes on MarketingProfs.com, citing super-bookstores, Starbucks, and Commerce Bank which grew its business by being open on Sundays and late on weekdays.

Consider what are the natural laws of your business -- practices so familiar that they are almost unnoticeable. Also: What rules that everybody follows are no longer relevant? Consider what changes you could make that would have the most disruptive impact on the marketplace.

When you have two great employees who don't get along, forcing you to spend your time refereeing, one option (if your team is large enough) is to split them up. But in his Winning At Work newsletter, Ottawa consultant Shaun Belding suggests another possibility is to talk to each individually, to get their perspective of what is wrong. Then meet with the two of them, and apologize for creating an environment that has caused the rift. Validate each of their positions, and point out the things you could or should have done to correct things.

"This approach disrupts the mutual blame game between them. They will respect you for taking the heat on your shoulders, and you will have opened a door for a renewed relationship," he advises.

• Instead of a terse, cookie cutter phone message, consultant Scott Ginsberg suggests trying something that reinforces your brand, like his friend, a professional home stylist: "Hi, you've reached Gina of It's Your Stuff. Sorry I missed your call, but I'm out making someone's home beautiful! Please leave a message."
  (Source: RainToday.com)



• Do deadlines creep up on you? When you face a deadline tied to a date, calculate how much time you need to prepare and then set an alarm in your Outlook or other online calendar to remind you sufficiently in advance. Then use the snooze feature to keep the reminders coming back during the interval you must work on it.
  (Source: Productivity Café blog)



• When was the last time you asked your board members how you could engage them more? Executive coach Grace Andrews suggests asking them individually or in small groups what would bring value to them and re-ignite their passion? A one-way relationship where board members are asked to keep doing things for you without getting anything back is a path to divorce.
  (Source: Fast Company blog)



• Buy up common misspellings of your domain name so you aren't losing traffic. Get a number of people in your office to type in your name 100 times each in a browser and see what misspellings occur, suggests small business consultant Anita Campbell.
  (Source: Inc.com)



• Management consultant Karl Albrecht says the greatest thinking tool ever invented is the three-inch by five-inch index card. Keep stacks of them at your desk, in your car, and by your bedside. When an idea strikes, write it on an index card and first thing in the office every morning unload all that you have accumulated.
  (Source: Practical Intelligence)

This is a complex question, but you might find it helpful to use a checklist of five "moral instincts" when planning for or implementing change. They are described in more detail in an article in the New York Times (The Moral Instinct, by Steven Pinker, Jan.13, 2008).

Anthropologists and psychologists have identified five universal moral instincts that cut across cultures:

• Harm: The belief that it's bad to harm others and good to help them.



• Fairness: The instinct to reciprocate favours, reward benefactors and punish cheaters.



• Community (or group loyalty): We value sharing and solidarity among the members of a group and conformity to its norms.



• Authority: A value that involves deferrence to legitimate authorities and respecting people with high status.



• Purity: The instinct to exalt purity, cleanliness and sanctity while loathing defilement, contamination and carnality.

If these are the "primary colours of our moral sense," as Pinker calls them, it makes sense to take them into account when implementing change.

For example, it will be difficult to build support for your change project when it clearly hurts staff, peers or customers and seems to be applied unfairly. You may discover key players withholding their support out of loyalty to a group of close colleagues who are bearing the impact of a change, even though the change makes sense and is good for the majority. Some may resist change, arguing that your approach is tainted, unprofessional or "not the right way to go." The response of others may reflect their orientation to authority if it's not seen as legitimate, when leadership is not credible, or change is strictly imposed rather than accomplished collaboratively.

When you are planning change, or if you have already started and run into deep value-based opposition, take a look at this checklist to consider whether these moral instincts are shaping responses at a fundamental level.

It may be a sign of the times. Recently we've had occasion to conduct public consultations on particular issues using a mix of both online input and open meetings -- the traditional method of seeking input from stakeholders.

In terms of participation, the online channel is winning hands down (in some cases, 10-to-1 more participation). With an online input tool, stakeholders can rate options, vote for preferred choices and submit comments -- each writing 150 words or more, typically, to describe their concerns. Having all the input in electronic form also means more efficient processing of the input.

8020Info offers counsel to help you consult with your stakeholders in an effective, timely and cost-efficient manner. We would be pleased to discuss your needs and welcome enquiries at (613) 542-8020, or by email at watercooler@8020info.com.