Over the past two weeks, I’ve read Adriana Gardella’s
case study and follow-up
blog post about hiring a No. 2 with great interest. The pieces discuss the advantages of using a recruiter and whether it makes sense to hire someone who will focus on tasks or on vision, and they make a lot of good points. Based on my own experiences, however, I have an alternative suggestion: Don’t!
Let me tell you about my experiences. I started my picture-framing business by myself when I was 22 years old. It grew quickly, and after six years or so I was up to about 15 employees and spent most of my day putting out fires. I was a salesperson, the buyer, the chief accountant, the marketing director, the machine mechanic, the deliveryman and occasionally the toilet plunger. Things were simpler, but not easier. All of my employees were hourly, and most of them were young. It became obvious that I needed a No. 2 not only to help me build the business but just to get through the day without a nervous breakdown.
I hired a guy a few years older than I was who had an art degree — I had yet to expand beyond the framing business — and some skills that I didn’t have. It took the pressure off and made things easier — for a while. Years later, the business had grown to 50 employees and needed more of a manager-type No. 2. The resulting issues led to a very unpleasant parting.
Not being that smart, I again hired a No. 2 and again made the same mistake. It took a few years for the issues to surface, but the business wound up confronting situations that were different from those that led me to hire my second No. 2. Same problem, same unpleasant ending. But by this point, the company had several divisions and 100 employees, and I began to consider whether there was some way to fill the No. 2 position without meeting the same fate. Twice was enough. Actually, once was enough but I was too slow to get it.
I was in my 40s, I had developed five capable managers, and I had managed to go from spending my time putting out fires to spending my time looking for opportunities (I made the transition, slowly but surely, by identifying and getting rid of the arsonists — a subject for another post that I will get to in a few weeks). I was beginning to understand the benefits and importance of knowing who you are and what you want your company to be.
I realized that I wanted my company to be big enough to provide me with a good income but also with something else: contentment, the satisfaction of having happy employees working together toward the common goals of taking care of customers and building a healthy company. That’s why my business was included in Bo Burlingham’s book “
Small Giants,” which is about companies that choose to be great instead of big.
It was with that in mind that I had a revelation: I don’t want or need a No. 2. It is eight years later now, and it has worked. I have eight key people overseeing five businesses plus accounting, marketing and human resources. Six of them report to me. They are competent and they care and it works. I don’t get phone calls or e-mails from them all day long (I have time to write a blog!). I do still occasionally plunge the toilet, but it’s not as bad now that I own the toilet.
So, for those of you contemplating hiring a No. 2, here’s some food for thought.
Yes, it can be lonely at the top. It feels good to have someone who is with you, someone you can have candid conversations with. But how can you know that your No. 2 is going to grow with the needs of the company? How long will it be before you will need a No. 3 — possibly someone who is more talented and expensive than your No. 2?
Lots of owners want to hire someone to do two of the three key tasks — sales, management and finance — so they can “focus on what they are good at.” Unfortunately, what many really want to do is give away the two areas they don’t want to do. From my experience, this doesn’t usually work. Declining to deal with the whole picture, I believe, is one of the reasons the failure rate for entrepreneurship is so high.
So here’s a different approach. Instead of hiring someone and giving this person a title he or she might not be qualified for or might outgrow, hire someone who is great at one area. Hire a sales manager, or hire a production manager, or hire an account manager, or hire a technical guru — whatever it is you need. If this person later proves competent to handle another area, you can certainly expand his or her responsibilities. But do not call this person a No. 2. There is no upside — other than making yourself feel less alone.
Naming a No. 2 makes it very hard to bring in someone else to take over another responsibility and report to you. If the new person reports to you, what does that make your No. 2? No. 2½? No. 3? Actually, it can just make the person mad, hurt, resentful or jealous — he or she may even feel betrayed. I see no reason to set yourself up for that. I’m not suggesting that hiring a No. 2 can’t work. But I am saying that if you have 30 people and plan on growing to 100, the company is going to change and the needs are going to change. Cornering yourself by calling someone No. 2 could ruin a good employee and a great relationship. Trust me, it can happen anyway, but having to change a title down the road is just salt in the wound.
One organization. Everyone gets a job title. No numbers.
