When it comes to careers, business owners are a minority of the population. In conversations this week, I mentioned the statistics several times, and each owner I was discussing it with was surprised that they had so few peers. According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), there are over 33,000,000 businesses in the US. Let’s discount those with zero employees. Many are shell companies or real estate holding entities. Also, those with fewer than 5 employees, true “Mom and Pop” businesses, are hard to distinguish from a job. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Association, lists businesses with 5 to 99 employees at about 3,300,000, and 123,000 have 100 to 500 employees (the SBA’s largest “small business” classification.) Overall, that means about 1% of the country are private employers. Owners are a small minority, a very small minority, of the population. Even if we only count working adults (161,000,000) business owners represent only a little more than 2% of that population. So What? Where am I going with this, and how does it relate to our recent discussions of purpose in business exit planning? It’s an important issue to consider when discussing an owner’s identity after transition. Whether or not individual owners know the statistics of their “rare species” status in society, they instinctively understand that they are different. They are identified with their owner status in every aspect of their business and personal life. At a social event, when asked “What do you do?” they will often respond “I own a business.” It’s an immediate differentiator from describing a job. “I am a carpenter.” or “I work in systems engineering,” describes a function. “I am a business owner” describes a life role. When asked for further information, the owner frequently replies in the Imperial first person plural. “We build multi-family housing,” is never mistaken for a personal role in the company. No one takes that answer to mean that the speaker swings a hammer all day. Owners are a Minority We process much of our information subconsciously. If a man enters a business gathering, for example, and the others in the room are 75% female, he will know instinctively, without consciously counting, that this business meeting or organization is different from others he attends. Similarly, business owners accept their minority status without thinking about it. They expect that the vast majority of the people they meet socially, who attend their church, or who have kids that play sports with theirs, work for someone else. There are places where owners congregate, but otherwise, they don’t expect to meet many other owners in the normal course of daily activity. This can be an issue after they exit the business. You see, telling people “I’m retired” has no distinction. Roughly 98% of the other people who say that never built an organization. They didn’t take the same risks. Others didn’t deal with the same broad variety of issues and challenges. Most didn’t have to personally live with the impact of every daily decision they made, or watch others suffer the consequences of their bad calls. That is why so many former owners suffer from a lack of identity after they leave. Subconsciously, they expect to stand out from the other 98%. “I’m retired” carries no such distinction.       This article was originally published by John F. Dini, CBEC, CExP, CEPA on

Owner obstacles to the implementation of an exit plan are often unconscious, but they can be dramatic.  Their attachment to the business can be difficult to break. An advisor spends a lot of time and energy developing the vision for life after ownership in the hopes that it is far more attractive to them than their current role in the business. Yet no matter how well developed that vision is, or how well defined the action steps are, it isn’t unusual to find owners who behave in a way that ultimately sabotages the plan. Sometimes their actions are even intentional, but more often they aren’t. The problems arise in two ways.   “Death from Inattention” We always ask exit planning clients for two target dates. The first is when they want to be relieved of day-to-day operational responsibilities. The second is when they want to be completely free of any connection to the company. We tell a client that once we have achieved the first objective, the second may become more flexible. Freed of the task-based duties of running the business, an owner often becomes more strategic. He may start planning for new growth and value creation. She might go back to her role when the business first started, when she was the best salesperson or the designer of novel product offerings. Owners returning to their core skill set are usually a benefit to the business. The problem arises when they enjoy the lack of responsibility so much that they just become owners in absentia. There is no strategy. The company drifts along on the backs of the operations managers, but really doesn’t have a direction beyond “more of what we did yesterday.” There are no new initiatives. Companies are organic. They are either growing or shrinking. The lack of direction may take a while to have an impact, but eventually performance will suffer. Getting owners to re-engage after time away can be exceedingly difficult, but if they don’t, the transition is unlikely to accomplish their objectives. “Death from Over-Attention” The second obstacle to successfully implementing a transition occurs when owners have surrendered their task-based duties. In this case, they are unable to define their contribution in the absence of being “busy.” They begin looking for ways to contribute, often where their contribution isn’t needed. It’s not uncommon to begin demanding more accountability and greater detail than is really necessary. He or she pours over reports looking for errors, anomalies or declining results in an attempt to prove added value. Another technique used to prove contribution is “seagull management”. An owner may look for opportunities to make decisions, but does it without consulting the managers who are in charge of the function. Because they have always known best, they still know best. What isn’t as obvious is that they are now are working in a vacuum, with little knowledge of what went before. The results are usually not ideal. A third way owners might evidence over attention is with a “break the rules” mentality. They offer exemptions from policy, or circumnavigate systems because they can. Exercising authority shows who is in charge, even if there is little apparent responsibility. Preventing the Owner Obstacles We call these “good” obstacles because they typically occur only after some level of initial success in the exit planning process. They are a direct result of relieving owners of the more mundane duties of management, and freeing them up for more effective leadership. Each is preventable with some preparation. Either issue can be forestalled by including the owner’s next level of responsibility in the planning process. If the owner resists retained responsibilities, then the future become plain. Plans can then include transfer of higher functions to the management team. If the owner insists on retaining a level of day-to-day control, the coaching process should include defined parameters about what reporting is really necessary, and how often it will be presented. In either case, owner obstacles occur when the owner is crossing the no man’s land between total focus on the business and the time when it isn’t a recipient of their attention at all. Like any no man’s land, it is unfamiliar territory, and some pathfinding is necessary. That is the exit planning coach’s job.         This article was originally published by John F. Dini, CBEC, CExP, CEPA on