FAQ: As A One-Man Band, Do You Really Have All The Relevant Skills?

No. Of course I don't, but that's irrelevant. This is why...

Let's say you're a king and the neighbouring king wants to invade your kingdom. Who do you hire to defend your country? The best archer, the best tank man, the best submarine commander or the best swordsman? Superman, Spiderman, Batman or Robocop? Or even the Men in Black? Or the international man of mystery, Austin Powers? Not to mention secret agent Bluebottle, the highly esteemed stud of East Finchley from the British comedy Goon Show.

No. You hire the best general you can afford. The general is the "broad generalist" who understands strategy (context). The archers, tankmen, submariners or swordsmen are tacticians, that is, content experts? But they don't understand the "big picture."

Without a strategist the tacticians are doomed. The general is the man who can co-ordinate the tacticians to work in concert and harmony to achieve victory. But the general doesn't have to know how to draw a bow and arrow or how to drive a submarine, a fighter plane or a tank. Although he might.

I look at my role the same way. I am the proverbial general in business development projects. I've been told that, thanks to my military past, that I'm a master at creating a conducive environment that excites, enthuses and inspires all the subject matter experts working on the project to do their absolute best without so-called "managing" them. As Jim Collins writes in his book, Good To Great, when you have to manage someone, you know you've made a hiring mistake. You can't manage a turkey to become an eagle, only to become an extremely pissed off turkey. Or a roasted turkey around Christmas.

While I have good knowledge of several skills needed, I have my gray areas. I have no eyesight for graphics design, so I don't do it. Also, after many years of heavy-duty programming in the late 90's, due to lack of passion, I got out of programming. But I still have a good understanding of the concept of programming, so I can collaborate with programmers because I understand how they think and work. But I don't do programming myself.

Based on my past track record, I seem to have an innate talent for bringing out the best in the people I work with. Also, having an engineering background, I'm a master at designing processes and systems. And my method is pretty simple: I set high expectations and create an environment in which people are ready, willing and able to step up to the plate. The rest is irrelevant. The main thing is that the project gets done and my clients advance their businesses. Yes, and they enjoy the process.

And since I have high expectations (I guess it's a by-product of my military service too), the people I work with are damned good at what they do. In an oddball and quirky way, I could even say, we operate with a commando's deadly precision and effectiveness. It may sound brutal but clients like the end results. And we don't even kill anyone in the process.

When I've asked clients why they chose some small boutique firms like mine instead of larger "more established" firms, they have said...

1. "Because we're tired of glib, smooth-talking peddlers who don't know shit about technology."


2. "Because I don't have the patience to deal with ostentatious junior account reps of the "reputable" behemoths who try to bullshit me. I pay premium fees and want premium service."


3. "Because we don't feel comfortable to hand over the fate of our business to freshly minted MBAs who've never seen real business before."


4. "Because we've grown fed up with paying for "one more analysis" and "some more research at a competitive hourly rate."


5. "Because I'm sick of brown-nosing "yes-men" (well, and women too) who do and say anything to please me in order to get the next piece of business from me. I need more honesty and less boot-licking."


6. "Because we've had enough of the 'pinstripes' who can 'corporate-talk' about philosophy and strategy all day, but pull back into the safety of their corner offices and hide behind their secretaries' skirts in fear of getting 'dirty' when it's time for action."


7. "Because we know our intellectual property is better protected by working with only one outsider than by working with a whole consulting army."


8. "Because we're through with dealing with an army of implementers who try to change everything at once, leaving us more confused than a Billy goat after his first space walk."


9. "Because paying competitive rates to an implementing 'legion', 95% of which is learning the profession on our dime, is annoying. We need competent consultants, not eager business students who want to get paid for their learning. Most large firms are famous for 'overstaffing' projects with school kids, so they can top up their competitive hourly rates with the humongous volume of people. No thanks."

You probably have your own reason(s).

Back to main FAQ page.