Failures – exposed, reflected upon, considered

Here is a piece about leadership “sins” as categorized by management/leadership guru Drucker.

The Sin of Pride

The Sin of Pride is almost always considered the most serious of the Seven Deadly Sins. Yet it seems so innocuous. My wife calls it “being full of oneself.” I believe feeling proud of what a leader has accomplished or is accomplishing is perfectly acceptable. The problem comes when one feels this pride to the extent that the leader believes himself so special that ordinary rules no longer apply to him. That’s where many leaders go awry.

The Sin of Lust

I once heard a retired leader of a large organization of almost a million members speak about his challenges of leading this organization. “One of the biggest problems,” he said, “was newly promoted senior executives. I may be exaggerating a little,” he continued. “But it seemed almost that as soon as we promoted a man to be a senior executive, he suddenly decided that he was God’s gift to women.”

This individual spoke at a time when almost all senior executives had been male. However, I do not think that one would find much difference with female executives. There is unfortunately a feeling among some leaders that they have “arrived” and are “entitled” to additional sexual gratification as some sort of fringe leadership benefit. In one online survey done by the White Stone Journal, The Deadly Sin of Lust was the most frequent of the Seven Deadly Sins self-reported as “my biggest failing.” So this sin is hardly uncommon. However, it can have very unfortunate consequences. In any workplace it creates jealousies, feelings of favoritism, a lack of trust, damages people and relationships and more.

The Sin of Greed

The Sin of Greed is a sin of excess. It frequently starts with power. Leaders have power, and unfortunately having power has a tendency to lead to corruption if the leader isn’t careful. This may start with the acceptance of small favors and grow into vacations, loans and worse. How do these things happen? A leader sees others with more than he has. Questions may be raised in the leader’s mind as to why others have so much more, yet (in the leader’s mind) are far less deserving. Maybe a small bribe is accepted. It may not even be seen as a bribe, just a favor between friends. If the leader allows himself to be seduced in this way, greed can take over. Unlike the movie, greed is never “good,” even as a motivator, and though Drucker analyzed and approved many motivations, greed was not one.

The Sin of Sloth

The Sin of Sloth has to do with an unwillingness to act. Sometimes this is due to laziness. More often it is an unwillingness to take on work that the leader considers is beneath him. I have many times seen leaders watching critical work that must be completed and for which they were also qualified to do. Yet they stood around “supervising” when they could have given real help to their subordinates and to the mission that they were responsible for accomplishing. In too many cases, good men and women fail because their leader failed to help or take action in other ways. Make no mistake about it, The Sin of Sloth leads to disaster. Leaders must be proactive and they must take action.

The Sin of Wrath

This sin has to do with uncontrolled anger. There is a time for anger in leadership when it serves a definite and useful purpose. As Kenneth Blanchard and Spencer Johnson taught us, you can take one minute to make a correction and include the words “I’m angry” and then tell the recipient why. Moreover, anger does have a useful function in that it can mobilize psychological and physical resources to do something about a problem.

However, leaders need to avoid repeated and uncontrolled anger because it can have negative impacts on their leadership. It can destroy morale, does not guarantee a lasting effect in correcting problems, and in effect requires surrendering anger as a tool for the times when expressing it is really useful and appropriate. Moreover when in an angry state, anger causes the leader a loss of self-monitoring capacity and the ability to observe objectively.

Drucker taught leaders to analyze their environment and to determine what actions that have already occurred mean for the future before taking action. Using anger as a single response to all leadership challenges prevents us from doing this analysis. It prevents the leader from making good decisions and may prevent the leader from taking the correct action appropriate to the situation. Actions taken during uncontrolled action are frequently in error and require additional work to undue the consequences of these mistakes later.

The Sin of Envy

With the Sin of Envy, the leader is envious of what is enjoyed by someone else. This may or may not be incorporated with greed. The sin usually leads the leader to make decisions and to take actions that will be to the disadvantage to the object of his envy. So a leader who falls victim to this sin may deny an earned promotion to a qualified subordinate, attempt to destroy another’s reputation or in other ways attempt to make himself feel better by lowering the situation of another. This is obviously harmful to this other individual, hurts the organization and is probably harmful to the leader who perpetrates these actions.

The Sin of Gluttony

Most think of food or drink with this sin, but for the leader it has a far more ominous connotation. The Sin of Gluttony was the one that most frustrated Drucker. Expensive food or drink is scarce. Therefore excessive consumption can be seen as a sign of status. But gluttony need not apply only to food.

Drucker knew how hard managers had to work to do their jobs as they needed to be done, and he had defended high salaries for top managers early in his career. However skyrocketing executive salaries caused him to drastically alter his opinion. Drucker said and wrote that executive salaries at the top had become clearly excessive and that the ratios of the compensation of American top managers to the lowest paid workers were the highest in the world. Moreover, this difference wasn’t slight, but differed by magnitudes. He said this was morally wrong. The ratio of average CEO compensation in the United States to average pay of a non-management employee in the United States hit a high in 2001 of 525 to 1. Drucker recommended a ratio of no more than 20 to 1.

The Sin of Gluttony was to be avoided for good leadership. Interestingly, Drucker drew a parallel of high executive salaries with the demands of unions for more and more benefits without an increase in productivity. He said we would pay a terrible price for these examples of gluttony and that “it is never pleasant to watch hogs gorge.” As I write these words, we are paying this price.

There are things that a leader must do, and things he must not. The Seven Deadly Sins are those that Drucker maintained that leaders must not do.

The current and foreseeable “big” thing, as seen from an Internet user’s perspective, is the social media. As for anything considered or perceived as fashionable, social media has its own caveats. Testimony to that are (some of  the) social media approaches illustrated below (see the full article here), which guarantee an eventual failure of any sustained endeavor, be it in personal or professional life and career.

Doing nothing ’cause you’re scared of what people will say. People are going to talk, with or without you. Wired)

Pretending to be somebody else. When is it ok to lie to a customer? (mumbrella)

Selling your product all day, everyday. Social Media is about capturing interest, not just sales. (The Next Web)

Failure to respond when asked a reasonable question. It’s a crime to have a presence yet ignore customers. My favourate is @VlineInform

Plagiarising bloggers content. Most bloggers are overtly happy with a mere hat tip. (Journalism.co.uk)

Not personalising your profile. People want to know who you are, what you’re about. (Webinknow)

Blocking access to Social Media in your workplace. For so many reasons Social Media can be an allie or enemy. (Chris Brogan)

Thinking people care about your product. Your product, probably boring. Find an interesting angle. (Emergence Marketing)

Calling your product green when your website isn’t. Many make big claims, few think about their power sucking web presence.

Not understanding how Social Media fits into your marketing mix. Hailed the death of print media… it’s not, it’s a communication tool. (The Oyster Project)

Relying too much on online research. There’s a wealth of info online, it may not all be valid. (Pigs Don’t Fly)

Failing to listen. Social isn’t always about talking, it’s just as much about listening. (Just Another PR)

Not recognizing that you are shooting at the moon…You’re going to fail, lots. Social requires commitment.

Thinking you can’t contribute to a community, just sponsor it. Enthusiasts are already coming together? Why not ask how you can get involved?

Thinking ‘news’ is the only thing that can be talked about online. There’s a plethora of opportunity on the social web. (Search Engine Land)

Saying something, just for the sake of it. There’s no rules to success, just be honest and interesting. (Online Marketing Banter)

Relying on strategic thinking alone. Social media is the worlds largest experiment – recognise you may need to fail to learn.

Using the exact same strategy and content across multiple networks. Love it, you update Facebook & Twitter with every new presser. (Search Engine Guide)

Not measuring / monitoring your activity. Yes it’s possible! (I.e. – Radian6, Buzz Metrics, Dialogix)

Trying to get as many followers as possible. Large unresponsive list = bad, smaller profitable base = good. (digitalOZ)

You treat Social Media as another advertising medium. It’s different. (MediaPost)

The list above is what I consider the most relevant and important failure-leading  approaches espoused frequently by both individuals and businesses while using social media.

Umair Haque is one of luminaries who deserves to be read and reread by all those who care for or envision a better, less consumerist and money-bogged future.

In the article below he shows his take how venture capitalists are stiffening innovation by focusing on numbers, short term goals, quick profits, etc. Read this englightening piece and look around for many examples. Below are his strategies (based on Jeremy Liew’s analysis) of Apple’s iPhone AppsStore outlining how not to manage innovation.

Focus on short-run numbers

When venture investors or middle managers act like, well, middle managers, innovation is likely to wither.

Apply surface economics

When venture investors or managers don’t look deeply at the economics of the markets and industries they are investing and competing in, the result is a hodge-podge, often unsuccessful innovation portfolio — one where potentially successful innovations are under-invested in, and almost certainly unsuccessful innovations are over-invested in.

Be strategy-blind

When venture investors or managers alike act like purely financial backers — instead of partners who acknowledge and encourage a durable, shared strategic interest — the disruptive potential of innovation is sapped.

Fail to see the right context

When investors or managers fail to place innovation in the right context, value is difficult to assess. Context is what makes numbers meaningful: it adds validity, reliability and accuracy to financial logic that is otherwise bereft of it.

Never have an ideal

The mistake isn’t particular to venture guys. It is what happens when we misapply the mechanics of finance to the art of innovation. The fallacy of inferring economic meaning from financial numbers is what’s bankrupting Sony, what eviscerated Detroit, and what, ultimately blew up the investment banks.

The full article is here.

I am a big fan of Guy Kawasaki (and his blog), having recently purchased and consumed his last book “Reality Check.” One of the chapters of the book, and the corresponding post on his blog, he refers to a book called “Why Smart People Do Dumb Things” pointing out four reasons why smart, intelligent, powerful, and rich people end up in disastrous situations.

Hubris. Pride to the point that you no longer feel shame, no longer believe that you are subject to public opinion, and no longer need to fear “the gods.” Examples: Gary Hart’s involvement with Donna  Rice that ended his run for the presidency and the Dennis Kozlowski’s (Tyco) $2 million toga party.

Arrogance. From the Latin word arrogare: “to claim for oneself.” Arrogant people believe they have  claim to anything and everything they want–they are “entitled” to it. King David, for example, felt  entitled to the wife (Bathsheba) of one of his soldiers. Modern day King Davids feel entitled to corporate jets and an entourage to tell them that their keynote speech rocked.

Narcissism. Self absorption to the point that you are blind to reality. The world only exists to provide you gratification. Examples: Richard Nixon and Watergate; the Clintons and Whitewater—really just about every politician and CEO who falls from grace.

Unconscious need to fail. If you think failing is hard, try winning. The questions that go through people’s minds when they they are on the doorstep of success are: Do I really deserve to win? Do I want the pressure of constantly having to win in the future? Can I really handle success? Perhaps this explains why professional athletes still take performance enchancement drugs even after watching their colleagues get busted.

The authors of the book prescribe a six-dimensional set of remedies:

1. Accept yourself
2. Accept others
3. Keep your sense of humor
4. Accept simple pleasures
5. Enjoy the present
6. Welcome work

The same book goes on mentioning why smart companies do dumb things. Here the list is more sophisticated.

• Consensus
• Conviction
• CEOs
• Experts
• Good news
• Lofty ends

Guy adds another three additional factors that make smart companies do dumb things.

• Budgets
• Greed
• Arrogance

From my limited experience, I would also add (to make few implications more explicit):

• Lose of focus/vision
• Lose of touch with reality
• Willingness, inability and perseverence to overstretch

Finally, an excellent book (that took six years to complete) by Syney Finkelsteen, “Why Smart Executives Fail,” draws on an unprecedented research of the corporate history and showcases some of most flagrant examples of brilliant and smart executives who caused their companies to fail.  He lists seven habits of spectacularly unsuccessful executives

1. They see themselves and their companies as dominating their environments.
2. They identify so completely with the company that there is no boundary between their personal interests and their corporation’s interest.
3. They think they have all the answers.
4. They ruthlessly eliminate anyone who is not 100 percent behind them.
5. They are consummate company spokespersons obsessed with the company image.
6. They underestimate major obstacles.
7. They stubbornly rely on what worked for them in the past.

First Wall Street and now it seems GM and Chrysler came begging at the governments doors for additional $20+ billion dollars. What do they offer in exchange for this money? They want to give buyouts and early retirements packagesin their effort of cost cutting and layoffs. This means essentially that the two companies aim at reviving themselves the old, traditional way adding perhaps an edge of efficiency, leanness and flair of cautiousness in these new realities or do they offer a radical shift, a ideological quantum leap enabling reconstruction of an automotive industry that befits well the expectations, technological progress and strategic vision inherent in the 21st century?

GM and Chrysler so far seem to have chosen what is best characterised by Albert Einstein’s saying, “You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created.”

Below is an illuminating piece on what (six) mistakes were made by Detroit industries during the 20th century from Umair Haque, one of visionary thinkers on this aspect. These errors, while allegedly bringing automobile industry to their knees in the 21st century, were largely paralleled, ideologically, by other mainstream industries of the 20th century.

1. Old rule: Choose evil. Industrial era business is unrepentantly and almost sociopathically evil: shifting costs onto others, while striving to internalize benefits. Detroit chose lobbying, marketing wars, and low-cost hardball – to always and everywhere try to socialize costs and privatize benefits. Never was this truer than Detroit’s lobbying against public transport throughout the 20^th century. Why does public transport in the States suck? Because Detroit’s lobbying machine doesn’t.

New rule? Choose good. In the 21^st century, every moral imperative is also a strategic imperative:doing good – for customers, employees, suppliers, or society – is a radical strategic choice that unlocks new pathways to innovation and growth. The opportunity cost of defending evil for Detroit was never learning how to choose good – and that’s a crucial mistake other auto players didn’t make. Tata chose to make a car that was accessible to the world’s poor. Porsche and BMW chose to invest in talent, people, and imagination. Honda and Toyota chose to invest in renewables and partnerships with the public sector. All opened new avenues to growth for an industry at the brink of extinction.

2. Old rule: Selfishness is self-interest.What’s strategic is supposed to be what’s in the firm’s self-interest. But how do we define self-interest? Consider for a second the fact that as recently as this year, Detroit’s lobbyists were hard at work, opposing stricter fuel efficiency standards. That’s 20^thcentury self-interest at its finest – not authentic interest for one’s own long-run outcomes, but simply a childlike selfishness, both myopic and narrow, where cutting off the nose to spite the face is as rational as mutual nuclear annihilation.

New rule? Purpose is self-interest. The 21^stcentury demands a more enlightened self-interest: one factoring in a longer timescale, fuller contingencies, and an honest and broad consideration of hidden and unintended consequences to people, society and the environment. When we understand all that, have begun to develop a purpose – a way in which we will change the world radically for the better. By confusing selfishness with self-interest, Detroit vaporized it’s own purpose – and will stay trapped in a wilderness of economic meaninglessess until it rediscovers it.

3. Old rule: Maximize destructiveness. The goal of orthodox strategy is to destroy the ability of others’ to imitate or commoditize you. And Detroit was a master of the art of destructive strategy: patenting, trademarking, and litigating; playing hardball to control distribution channels, defending brands with disproportionately steep marketing investment, and building entire new marques to gain share in key markets and segments. The point of all these tired, stale 20^th century strategic moves was the same: strategy as an exercise in exclusion, isolation, and barrier-building.

New rule? Get constructive. True 21^st century businesses can be judged in the blink of an eye: how intensely do they put the “co” in constructive? Can they let demand spark and fuel co-creation, can they co-produce from a pool of shared resources, are they capable of letting value activities be co-managed, are they tuned to cooperate? Detroit can’t get constructive because it’s spent the better part of a century playing the games of destructive strategy.

4. Old rule: Seek differentiation. When is a Jaguar really just a Ford? When it’s an S-Type. Under Alfred Sloan, GM famously organized itself divisionally – Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac… – for the sole purpose of differentiation. But industrial era differentiation is too often just skin-deep: the same lemons with slightly different marketing, distribution, and branding. So why pay a steep premium for a Buick if it’s just a Chevy with slightly nicer trim? Detroit discovered the hard way that in the 21^st century, the concept of differentiation is increasingly stale.

New rule? Seek difference. Ultimately, the problem is simple: differentiation is about perception. Difference is about reality. People in the 21^stcentury aren’t the zombified, braindead consumers of the 20^th century. And so the 21^st century demands not mere differentiation – a bean counters’ eye view of the world if ever there was one – but true difference. True difference is built by making different choices from the ground up – different in the very essence of the value activities that make the wheels of production and consumption spin. Porsche and BMW strove for difference – not mere differentiation – and it is that choice that is at the heart of their global leadership of the automotive sector.

5. Old rule: Seek agility. Strategy is in many ways simply the avoidance of crisis – the evasion of threat, weakness, and vulnerability. The goal of strategy as the avoidance of crisis is simple: agility. Industrial-era corporations seek agility, in other words, by insulating themselves from real-world economic pressures – that’s what Detroit did bar none, by always seeking to game the system: lobbying, marketing, and wheeling-and-dealing it’s way straight into oblivion.

New rule? Seek crisis. By insulating themselves from real-world economic pressures, boardrooms also dilute and sap incentives for innovation and renewal. Detroit wasn’t innovating because the opportunity cost of strategy as gamesmanship was, ultimately, foregoing innovation itself. In the 21^stcentury, gamesmanship – and its attendant dilution of incentives – is a sure path to near terminal strategy decay. Forget Detroit – just ask big music, big pharma, or big food.

6. Old rule: Advantage happens against. Orthodox econ holds that it is through the pursuit of competitive advantage that corporations create the most value most quickly and reliably. And that’s a mistake Detroit made to the hilt. It sought a nakedly competitive advantage – against suppliers, dealers, consumers, and society alike. The result is an industry crippled by structurally antagonistic relationships with labour, buyers, suppliers, consumers, and society alike.

New rule? Advantage happens for. Competitive advantage against bears a striking resemblance to simply bullying. Bullying is easy: just as in the sandbox, any boardroom with market power can jack up margins by forcing others – buyers, suppliers, consumers, society – to bear costs. But if every corporation across the economy is playing that game, the economy’s just a game of musical chairs.

In normal times as well as hard times, trust is the foundation of any collective human endeavor, be it in business, in politics or in any other social or group activity. “Does your behavior damage trust?” is a key question and following are 25 behavioral patterns that contribute to creating mistrust within your team/group.

1. You fail to keep your promises, agreements and commitments.
2. You serve your self first and others only when it is convenient.
3. You micromanage and resist delegating.
4. You demonstrate an inconsistency between what you say and how you behave.
5. You fail to share critical information with your colleagues.
6. You choose to not tell the truth.
7. You resort to blaming and scapegoating others rather than own your mistakes.
8. You judge, and criticize rather than offer constructive feedback.
9. You betray confidences, gossip and talk about others behind their backs.
10. You choose to not allow others to contribute or make decisions.
11. You downplay others’ talents, knowledge and skills.
12. You refuse to support others with their professional development.
13. You resist creating shared values, expectations and intentions in favor of your own agenda; you refuse to compromise and foster win-lose arguments.
14. You refuse to be held accountable by your colleagues.
15. You resist discussing your personal life, allowing your vulnerability, disclosing your weaknesses and admitting your relationship challenges.
16. You rationalize sarcasm, put-down humor and off-putting remarks as “good for the group”.
17. You fail to admit you need support and don’t ask colleagues for help.
18. You take others’ suggestions and critiques as personal attacks.
19. You fail to speak up in team meetings and avoid contributing constructively.
20. You refuse to consider the idea of constructive conflict and avoid conflict at all costs.
21. You consistently hijack team meetings and move them off topic.
22. You refuse to follow through on decisions agreed upon at team meetings.
23. You secretly engage in back-door negotiations with other team members to create your own alliances.
24. You refuse to give others the benefit of the doubt and prefer to judge them without asking them to explain their position or actions.
25. You refuse to apologize for mistakes, misunderstandings and inappropriate behavior and dig your heels in to defend yourself and protect your reputation.

This list is especially relevant for leaders and those appointed to leadership positions for trust is the foundation of successful leadership.

Another excellent article (below) about virtues of business/entrepreneurial failure.

I believe that failing daily does two things, it teaches me what I need to do better; and it reminds me of what failure feels like. Both are awesome outcomes.

Temperance (Gluttony)

“The downside to this level of ambition is that it’s not complicated to overload yourself. I’ve learned that ambition minus realism often equals failure.”

The truth is that ambition always has a lack of realism. Its impossible to believe you will one day be the best without believing first that you are capable of being the best. You have to be unrealistic in your expectations to truly become successful. Its the lack of realism that creates the potential for failure.

The best failures are measured and tempered with self control. Understand the downside of any potential failure. Keep the failure contained through careful understanding.

Charity (Greed)

“Sacrificing your core business by spending too much time on non-core ideas…It’s important to realize that not all ideas are worth pursuing”

Yet many people eventually fail through anlysis paralysis. I have a standard equation, out of 10 ideas, 8 suck. 1 is decent, and one is fantastic. To understand success through failure, one must be willing to become creative and think uniquely about the problem. By ideating, over time, several solutions are born. Being generous with yourself and allowing the ideation to occur, develops the potential for mass, measured failure.

And, failure always leads to success.

Diligence (Sloth)

“Where it can become mostly problematic is when it keeps you from seeing a project through to the end.”

I get what Jeffrey is saying here. Starting projects is easy. The middle is not that hard, but to finish? Often its a Herculean effort. Why? Because the completion of a project allows you to determine if it was a success or failure. The completion of a project allows OTHERS to say if its a success or failure.

Its often easier to live in the grey area of undone, than it is to live in the world of definition.

With failures its the same way. My favorite saying is “failure is not what you do, but what you do after.”

Persevere. Fail a lot. Fail early. But be amazing once the failures teach you how to succeed.

Chastity (Lust)

“Getting lured away from what you need to do by what you want to do.”

Lust is an interesting sin. By definition, Lust involves a lack of thought with a focus on immediate gratification. So how does the virtue, Chasity or Purity work with failure? Failure is pure. There is nothing about failure that can be soiled. Each failure creates the same emotions, usually regret and disappointment, and each failure creates the same reality. Yet, each failure, when learning occurs, also creates the very real case of being one step closer to success.

It is impossible to do nothing but succeed if each failure is coupled with learning. You dont have to lust after success to achieve it.

Humility (Pride)

“Success has this extra-special way of super gluing on the ‘I’m so awesome’ blinders and fooling you into thinking that you’re the smartest person alive.”

The greatest thing about consistent failure, is that it reminds you that you cant solve every problem. That you arent the greatest. That at the end of the day only the outcome matters in the measurement of success, not the process.

Failure teaches us that the real talent is the recovering and learning from failure. Turning that failure (perhaps matching it to a previous failure) into a road map for success is what separates the great from the good.

Allow the emotion of humility to provide you the open-mindedness to review your failures in such a way as to improve incrementally and move towards success.

Patience (Wrath)

“Wrath is energy, and like all energy it can be used to good or evil. I like to think about the ratio of windshield to rear-view mirror and use that idea to focus my energy on what’s next.”

If wrath is energy, then patience is focused energy. Its hard to fail, fail and then fail again. You want to push, you want to accelerate the process. You move into a world of immediate gratification and would rather skip to the success part of the adventure.

Patience is not just a function of waiting, or sitting idly by. Patience is actually a function of perseverance.

If you read Jeffrey’s post, and remove the “Seven Sins” metaphor, every point he makes actually is interwoven. Words like energy, focus, hard work are repeated themes.

Failure becomes a part of the process, removing the need for a perceived failure end point.

Satisfaction/Kindness (Envy)

“Just stay true to your original plans; see them through; and understand that more-often-than-not, these new and exciting concepts are rarely vetted for use beyond their original purpose, thus having the extreme ability to only add layers of complexity to what you already do.”

Envy kills success. Focusing on competitors is a horrible action that causes most companies to lose focus. If you are doing what you need to do, focusing and understanding the market, your competitors dont matter.

Envy creates failure. Simple enough.

But, the key to all of this, is if you understand the importance of failure to the creation of success; you will also experience true satisfaction.

You have succeeded and failed completely.

And, becoming a success at the end of the day is the greatest satisfaction.

John Osher, a serial entrepreneur who launched several successful companies (notoriously, Cap Toys with sales of $125 million per year and sold it to Hasbro Inc.  in 1997 ), came up with an informal list of “16 Mistakes Start-Ups Make” – since expanded to 17 – where he put every blunder and error he made during his entrepreneurial career. Ever since, this list has been used in Harvard  Business School case studies and in many business publications. He also used the list in 1999 – he wanted to build a company and product  deprived of all his previous blunders – when he started SpinBrush, $5 electric toothbrush (hitherto costing circa $80), which he sold to P&G for $475 million in 2001. Below is his “17 mistakes start-ups make” list:

1. Failing to spend enough time researching the business idea to see if it’s viable.
2. Miscalculating market size, timing, ease of entry and potential market share.
3. Underestimating financial requirements and timing.
4. Overprojecting sales volume and timing.
5. Making cost projections that are too low.
6. Hiring too many people and spending too much on offices and facilities.
7. Lacking a contingency plan for a shortfall in expectations.
8. Bringing in unnecessary partners.
9. Hiring for convenience rather than skill requirements.
10. Neglecting to manage the entire company as a whole.
11. Accepting that it’s “not possible” too easily rather than finding a way.
12. Focusing too much on sales volume and company size rather than profit.
13. Seeking confirmation of your actions rather than seeking the truth.
14. Lacking simplicity in your vision.
15. Lacking clarity of your long-term aim and business purpose.
16. Lacking focus and identity.
17. Lacking an exit strategy.

And finally, one of the commenters on this article, Trevas from eBookGuru, suggested an essential mistake which causes many (which have inexperienced founders) of  startups fail (and is not explicitly present among the 17 mistakes above).

18.   Lack of commitment to see the idea through.

Below is a selected list of entrepreneurial mistakes, originally posted on The Toilet Entrepreneur, which I liked most.

1. Too Much Office Space

I made the mistake of getting more office space than I really needed.
It cost me too much money, which of course came from my pocket. I was way too caught up in the ego of having a nice space. These days, I am into virtual businesses and telecommuting–why waste money on rent?

Kathryn Korostoff, President, Sage Research

9. Not Getting Money Up Front

The biggest mistake I made as an entrepreneur is not to get money up front. I become a bill-collector, not a businessperson as a result and spend needless amounts of time following up on money owed.

Dr. Linda Seger, Script Consultant (since 1981), Seminar Leader, Author

13. Not Prepared With Clear Deliverables

Not having clear deliverables in writing before beginning a project.  As a result there was a lot of ambiguity and my client and I had very different points of view.  In the end, it was just a case of having different expectations.  We ended up parting ways and neither party was happy.

Danielle Luffey, Managing Partner, DVA Brand Communications

14. No Separation Agreement

Three of us went into business together and formed an LLC.  However, when creative differences caused us to go our separate ways the lawyers made out to the tune of over six figures between us.  And, friendships were ruined!  Always have a prenuptial for the unexpected.

Mark Smith, Founder, iKids Play (the next generation of the business)

22. Making Too Many Promises

I made too many commitments to appear in front of live audiences and had to re-negotiate where I would appear live to present my workshops or keynote  It was the “thrill” of being booked to speak that caused me to mis-judge how much I could accomplish in a month.

Amy Dorn Kopelan, Co-Creator of The Guru Nation

24. Trying To Get Rich Quick

My two biggest entrepreneurial mistakes were trying to get rich quick and not creating a business that helps others. When you chase money, the quality of your product or service suffers. And creating a venture that doesn’t help others is a selfish pursuit.

Andrew Galasetti, Founder & Editor, Lyved.com

25. Thinking You’re A “Special Case”

Even though I taught business plan classes for those seeking funding, I thought that I didn’t need on.  Finally creating one .. using the One Page Business Plan ® program really helped my business.

Maria Marsala CBC, Chief Strategy Officer, Informational Speaker, Author www.ElevatingYourBusiness.com

26. Trying To Do Everything

I tried to do everything myself instead of hiring help. For example: I wrote features, did the layouts, updated the mailing list, did the bookkeeping, updated the website, etc. I was spread too thin and wasn’t doing any of it well. It would have been worth the money it cost to hire help in order to have the extra time to meet my publishing deadlines.

Cindi Leeman, Editor/Publisher for WALK Magazine

28. Not Being Clear With Your Companies Name

I designed my business name using my last name thinking it was clever.  Huntingtax when my last name is Huntington.  I didn’t consider the fact that new clients or even clients who don’t know my last name would wonder what in the hell Huntingtax meant or was.  Clients always just say or use Huntington tax accounting or Huntington accounting instead of my actual business name “Huntingtax Accounting Services”.

Kristi Huntington, Owner, Huntingtax Accounting Services, Inc.

29. Underestimating The Companies Growth

When I began a previous start-up, I underestimated the company’s growth and had to move four times before I finally leased too much space.

Blake Squires, Founder & Chief Strategy Officer, Findaway, makers of Playaway®

30. Working Without A Signed Contract

Hungry to grow my consulting business, I agreed to work without a signed contract for what promised to be a long-term relationship. The client worked me to death –far beyond my retainer hours limit and then dropped me as soon as his big project was done. What a bargain for him. What a lesson for me.

Joyce Wilden, President, Buzz Biz Public Relations

31. Investing Too Much On Self-Promotion

Investing too much money on self-promotion. When I started my agency, I went out and spent a ton of money on mailers, I did custom photography and invested the time to design and print a beautiful piece, but in the end it directed recipients to my website, which really didn’t have anything substantial on it at the time to get clients interested. In hindsight, creating a much simpler mailer, would have been so much smarter and would have gotten me the same results.

Jordan Mauriello, Founder & Creative Director of moreYELLOW

Apart from the loss of life of 1000 Palestinians and 13 Israelis and the vast destruction after 19 days of aerial bombardment, the Israeli invasion of Gaza has seemingly failed to achieve its strategic objectives, chief among which was to stop rocket fire from Hamas. The Palestinian resistance still seems to be quite functional – there is still rocket fire. So, what has been gained? Hamas has withstood the ferocious Israeli assault without knuckling under or making any concessions.

For Israel, the military campaign has been a public relations disaster. Photos on the internet of bloodied and dismembered children rushed off to make-shift hospitals or wrapped in their funereal shrouds has generated unprecedented sympathy for the plight of Palestinians. Israel has come across as a bully condemned by many international bodies including Red Cross and Human Rights Council. On top of that, Jerusalem Post reported that Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu had written a letter to PM Olmert informing him that “all civilians living in Gaza are collectively guilty for Kassam attacks on Sderot….Eliyahu ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings.”

Besides, it deserves a consideration that Israel’s economy has been on a downturn and started feeling consequences of the global economic recession. It has been ordering closure of chemical and other plants, some of them producing military-related materials and equipment.

Hamas chief Meshaal knows well that Israel doesn’t want to reoccupy Gaza. He also knows that DM Ehud Barak doesn’t want to be bogged down when elections roll around in few weeks – current advance of Israeli forces to suburbs of Gaza city is mostly due to increasing pressure from the PM Ehud Olmert who wants to put an end to what he sees as military capacity of Hamas. Initially, Israel was hoping to rout Hamas quickly and install Abbas’s PA security guards at the Rafah crossing, but now they’ve hit a glitch and the battle is starting to look like a quagmire, with Israelis increasingly reluctant to go deep into the city in fear of incurring significant casualties and where artillery and air force will only be able to have very limited operations.

And let us not forget the cost of Gaza war, estimated to be around NIS 2.4 billion (620 million USD) two weeks ago, 1.3% (a huge number considering the time length) of the annual GDP estimate of NIS 186 billion in 2007. And this was before the major callup for reservists and advance into the suburbs of Gaza.

And still as of yesterday there were reportedly 25 mortars and rockets fired into into southern Israel.

What about Obama’s administration in matters related to the Middle East? A report in the IHT says that the people who are most likely to play significant roles on the Middle East in the Obama administration are “Dennis Ross (the veteran Clinton administration Mideast peace envoy who may now extend his brief to Iran); Jim Steinberg (as deputy secretary of state); Dan Kurtzer (the former U.S. ambassador to Israel); Dan Shapiro (a longtime aide to Obama); and Martin Indyk (another former ambassador to Israel who is close to the incoming secretary of state, Hillary Clinton).” The only difference between this group of pro-Israel hawks and the Bush claque is that they are more adept at creating the illusion of a “peace process.” Other than that, the differences are negligible.

And there are already reports that Israel is going to receive an unusually large weapons shipment from the US. Is this a sign of a weakening military capacity of Israeli military, a strain on their budget or a resolution to proceed with military campaign until the complete eradication of Hamas?

And what about Hamas itself? In name of protection of its own people, as it loudly claims, it brought not only the wrath of Israeli air force but the entire might of Israeli artillery and ground forces deep into the Gaza city. Perhaps the Israeli allegations of Hamas fighters intentionally using innocent civilians as cover are exaggerated, but BBC’s Gaza correspondent and many other eyewitness accounts tell of Hamas fighters launching RPGs and bombs on Israelis from rooftops of densely populated buildings and from nearby hospitals, without reflection of possible Israeli retaliation and casualties entailed. Israelis claim to only fire on those who fire on them. If a grenade is thrown at them from around a corner of an inhabited building, they fire on the building…

Israel is the bully and the aggressor but no finger points at Hamas’s own “losing” tactic which brings nothing but death and havoc upon its own people, without themselves coming even close to their aspired goals, leaving for the moment aside the morality, righteousness and other aspects thereof.

And Meshaal? A coward hidding in Damascus…Afraid to come out of his safe-house (whom Mossad attempted to assassinate some 12 years ago), he is only as good as a violent but short wind, which blows and passes without any longterm consequences. He talks, only…

It is perhaps time that someone, a Palestinian in particular, pointed a finger at Hamas and questionned their goals and most importantly their means of achieving them.

Anyhow, as one Israeli settler leader recently argued during a conversation with a visiting American peace activist that ‘if it was right to commit genocide during Biblical time, why can’t it be right to commit genocide now. Has God changed his mind,’ the settler wondered sarcastically.”