Taking too long? Close loading screen.
Connect with us


4 Outdated Rules Every Business Owner Needs to Ditch



October 19, 2020 7 min read

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Whether you like it or not, things have changed. The traditional “rules” of work simply don’t apply to a majority of jobs anymore, and that can be a hard truth to hear. Many of us are already overwhelmed with the sheer volume of tough decisions, changes, and new responsibilities we have to juggle, but — in order to do what’s best for our businesses — it’s critical to take a hard look at how things used to be, what’s changed since then, and, most important, how we must respond to those changes. 

Old Rule: Traditional office hours
New Rule: Active hours

For many industries, the introduction of remote work created a major shake-up that, if we’re honest, not everyone was completely prepared for. However, as working from home continues to change how we do , it’s important for us employers to realize that we can’t change the entire work format and enforce the same rules. “This is how we’ve always done it” is irrelevant. Circumstances have changed, and it’s time for business owners to adapt. 

Sorry folks, but the traditional Monday-through-Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. schedule is officially dead, and it’s time for business owners to make the leap. Instead of keeping with an outdated format that, let’s be honest, was never actually great for , don’t be afraid to rethink things. 

Replace your traditional work hours with predefined “active hours” that work for you, your employees, and your business. That might be 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. every day (or some other chunk of time that makes sense), and encourage your employees to be available and/or on call during these hours. 

Don’t forget to ask your employees for input on what works best for them — and it doesn’t necessarily need to be the same active hours for each employee each day of the week. Whether they’re working from 5 a.m. to 7 a.m., 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., or 8 p.m. to 11 p.m., when they’re working matters significantly less than whether or not the work is getting done.

Related: Do You Trust Your Employees? Your Office Might Be Telling Them Otherwise

Old Rule: Standard 40-hour work week
New Rule: Flexible scheduling

I love reminding people that the eight-hour workday is over 200 years old. Robert Owens, a Welsh labor rights activist, is credited with coining the phrase “Eight hours labor, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest” back in 1817, and it’s a concept that quickly made its way to America. By the early 1920s, the idea of the eight-hour workday hit the mainstream, and we’ve relied on that structure ever since. 

Obviously, a lot of things have changed over the last two hundred years — so why are we still clinging to a concept that is literally centuries old? Research proves that shorter workdays (and shorter work weeks) are both fantastic ways to improve both quality of life and quality of work for your employees. We know that employees who are happier (and more productive) help improve the bottom line, so why aren’t we making the switch? 

As a business owner, you need to take a critical look at whether or not the eight-hour workday actually works for your business. Resist the urge to make decisions based on what you’re comfortable with. You might love the eight-hour workday because it makes it easier for you to keep tabs on your employees — but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s best for your business. Instead, maybe you need to focus on hiring employees you trust so you don’t need to keep tabs on them every single day.

Studies show that employees work better in concentrated periods — and when they’re in control of their own schedules — and boosting your employees’ well-being pays off. Businesses that introduce more flexibility into their work week can see increases in productivity, employee health and wellness, and profitability. Clinging to a rigid work schedule might be hurting your bottom line more than it’s helping your peace of mind. 

Related: Why Business Owners Need to Show Employees It’s Okay Not to Be Okay

Old Rule: Too much (or too little) oversight
New Rule: Accountability

One of the reasons why many business owners resist introducing flexible schedules or work-from-home options is because they’re worried it’s going to be difficult to oversee employees if they aren’t in the office or logged in at the same time. 

While these new ways of doing work can require a fair amount of trust in your employees to actually get things done instead of watching on the company dime, it’s all about creating a structure where you get what you need while allowing your employees to thrive. Accountability is critical, and it allows your employees to have a clear understanding of responsibilities and expectations, giving them the freedom to flourish in a nontraditional work environment while creating enough structure for you to make sure work is being accomplished. 

Unfortunately, if you don’t know what your employees are up to on a daily basis, that’s not always a “them” problem. If your employees don’t have clear expectations of what they should be doing (and how they should be doing it), it’s harder for them to give you the reassurance you need that things are getting done. 

Instead of being disconnected from your team — or, on the opposite end, becoming a dreaded micromanager — try to be a touch point, not a bottleneck. Want to keep your team on track? Establish a few key metrics, and then introduce weekly check-ins where employees can tell you the top three items they’re working on that week. You can do a quick check-in throughout the week via Slack or email, but, for the most part, it’s about learning to trust the people you’ve hired to do great work. 

Related: Leading By Accountability Is Contagious

Old Rule: Be a good manager
New Rule: Be a great leader

When it comes to being a business owner, one of the most important things you can learn is the difference between a manager and a leader. Anyone can manage a team (with varying degrees of success), but it involves a lot of time, energy, and effort that you probably don’t have at your disposal right now. 

Instead of viewing your role as if you’re managing a team of employees, focus on learning how to be a fantastic leader as well. Be creative and flexible. Instead of pointing fingers at your employees (or the pandemic), learn how to be proactive instead of reactive. What can you do better as a leader? Where can your team improve? Learn how to empower your team to function autonomously and at a high level. 

Remember, this isn’t just about doing what’s best or most comfortable for you. It takes practice, but eventually you’ll find a solution that’s best for your customers, your employees and your bottom line. 


Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The Trump campaign celebrated a growth record that Democrats downplayed.



The White House celebrated economic growth numbers for the third quarter released on Thursday, even as Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s presidential campaign sought to throw cold water on the report — the last major data release leading up to the Nov. 3 election — and warned that the economic recovery was losing steam.

The economy grew at a record pace last quarter, but the upswing was a partial bounce-back after an enormous decline and left the economy smaller than it was before the pandemic. The White House took no notice of those glum caveats.

“This record economic growth is absolute validation of President Trump’s policies, which create jobs and opportunities for Americans in every corner of the country,” Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign said in a statement, highlighting a rebound of 33.1 percent at an annualized rate. Mr. Trump heralded the data on Twitter, posting that he was “so glad” that the number had come out before Election Day.

The annualized rate that the White House emphasized extrapolates growth numbers as if the current pace held up for a year, and risks overstating big swings. Because the economy’s growth has been so volatile amid the pandemic, economists have urged focusing on quarterly numbers.

Those showed a 7.4 percent gain in the third quarter. That rebound, by far the biggest since reliable statistics began after World War II, still leaves the economy short of its pre-pandemic levels. The pace of recovery has also slowed, and now coronavirus cases are rising again across much of the United States, raising the prospect of further pullback.

“The recovery is stalling out, thanks to Trump’s refusal to have a serious plan to deal with Covid or to pass a new economic relief plan for workers, small businesses and communities,” Mr. Biden’s campaign said in a release ahead of Thursday’s report. The rebound was widely expected, and the campaign characterized it as “a partial return from a catastrophic hit.”

Economists have warned that the recovery could face serious roadblocks ahead. Temporary measures meant to shore up households and businesses — including unemployment insurance supplements and forgivable loans — have run dry. Swaths of the service sector remain shut down as the virus continues to spread, and job losses that were temporary are increasingly turning permanent.

“With coronavirus infections hitting a record high in recent days and any additional fiscal stimulus unlikely to arrive until, at the earliest, the start of next year, further progress will be much slower,” Paul Ashworth, chief United States economist at Capital Economics, wrote in a note following the report.


Continue Reading


Black and Hispanic workers, especially women, lag in the U.S. economic recovery.



The surge in economic output in the third quarter set a record, but the recovery isn’t reaching everyone.

Economists have long warned that aggregate statistics like gross domestic product can obscure important differences beneath the surface. In the aftermath of the last recession, for example, G.D.P. returned to its previous level in early 2011, even as poverty rates remained high and the unemployment rate for Black Americans was above 15 percent.

Aggregate statistics could be even more misleading during the current crisis. The job losses in the initial months of the pandemic disproportionately struck low-wage service workers, many of them Black and Hispanic women. Service-sector jobs have been slow to return, while school closings are keeping many parents, especially mothers, from returning to work. Nearly half a million Hispanic women have left the labor force over the last three months.

“If we’re thinking that the economy is recovering completely and uniformly, that is simply not the case,” said Michelle Holder, an economist at John Jay College in New York. “This rebound is unevenly distributed along racial and gender lines.”

The G.D.P. report released Thursday doesn’t break down the data by race, sex or income. But other sources make the disparities clear. A pair of studies by researchers at the Urban Institute released this week found that Black and Hispanic adults were more likely to have lost jobs or income since March, and were twice as likely as white adults to experience food insecurity in September.

The financial impact of the pandemic hit many of the families that were least able to afford it, even as white-collar workers were largely spared, said Michael Karpman, an Urban Institute researcher and one of the studies’ authors.

“A lot of people who were already in a precarious position before the pandemic are now in worse shape, whereas people who were better off have generally been faring better financially,” he said.

Federal relief programs, such as expanded unemployment benefits, helped offset the damage for many families in the first months of the pandemic. But those programs have mostly ended, and talks to revive them have stalled in Washington. With virus cases surging in much of the country, Mr. Karpman warned, the economic toll could increase.

“There could be a lot more hardship coming up this winter if there’s not more relief from Congress, with the impact falling disproportionately on Black and Hispanic workers and their families,” he said.


Continue Reading


Ant Challenged Beijing and Prospered. Now It Toes the Line.



As Jack Ma of Alibaba helped turn China into the world’s biggest e-commerce market over the past two decades, he was also vowing to pull off a more audacious transformation.

“If the banks don’t change, we’ll change the banks,” he said in 2008, decrying how hard it was for small businesses in China to borrow from government-run lenders.

“The financial industry needs disrupters,” he told People’s Daily, the official Communist Party newspaper, a few years later. His goal, he said, was to make banks and other state-owned enterprises “feel unwell.”

The scope of Mr. Ma’s success is becoming clearer. The vehicle for his financial-technology ambitions, an Alibaba spinoff called Ant Group, is preparing for the largest initial public offering on record. Ant is set to raise $34 billion by selling its shares to the public in Hong Kong and Shanghai, according to stock exchange documents released on Monday. After the listing, Ant would be worth around $310 billion, much more than many global banks.

The company is going public not as a scrappy upstart, but as a leviathan deeply dependent on the good will of the government Mr. Ma once relished prodding.

More than 730 million people use Ant’s Alipay app every month to pay for lunch, invest their savings and shop on credit. Yet Alipay’s size and importance have made it an inevitable target for China’s regulators, which have already brought its business to heel in certain areas.

These days, Ant talks mostly about creating partnerships with big banks, not disrupting or supplanting them. Several government-owned funds and institutions are Ant shareholders and stand to profit handsomely from the public offering.

The question now is how much higher Ant can fly without provoking the Chinese authorities into clipping its wings further.

Excitable investors see Ant as a buzzy internet innovator. The risk is that it becomes more like a heavily regulated “financial digital utility,” said Fraser Howie, the co-author of “Red Capitalism: The Fragile Financial Foundation of China’s Extraordinary Rise.”

“Utility stocks, as far as I remember, were not the ones to be seen as the most exciting,” Mr. Howie said.

Ant declined to comment, citing the quiet period demanded by regulators before its share sale.

The company has played give-and-take with Beijing for years. As smartphone payments became ubiquitous in China, Ant found itself managing huge piles of money in Alipay users’ virtual wallets. The central bank made it park those funds in special accounts where they would earn minimal interest.

After people piled into an easy-to-use investment fund inside Alipay, the government forced the fund to shed risk and lower returns. Regulators curbed a plan to use Alipay data as the basis for a credit-scoring system akin to Americans’ FICO scores.

China’s Supreme Court this summer capped interest rates for consumer loans, though it was unclear how the ceiling would apply to Ant. The central bank is preparing a new virtual currency that could compete against Alipay and another digital wallet, the messaging app WeChat, as an everyday payment tool.

Ant has learned ways of keeping the authorities on its side. Mr. Ma once boasted at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, about never taking money from the Chinese government. Today, funds associated with China’s social security system, its sovereign wealth fund, a state-owned life insurance company and the national postal carrier hold stakes in Ant. The I.P.O. is likely to increase the value of their holdings considerably.

“That’s how the state gets its payoff,” Mr. Howie said. With Ant, he said, “the line between state-owned enterprise and private enterprise is highly, highly blurred.”

China, in less than two generations, went from having a state-planned financial system to being at the global vanguard of internet finance, with trillions of dollars in transactions being made on mobile devices each year. Alipay had a lot to do with it.

Alibaba created the service in the early 2000s to hold payments for online purchases in escrow. Its broader usefulness quickly became clear in a country that mostly missed out on the credit card era. Features were added and users piled in. It became impossible for regulators and banks not to see the app as a threat.

ImageAnt Group’s headquarters in Hangzhou, China.
Credit…Alex Plavevski/EPA, via Shutterstock

A big test came when Ant began making an offer to Alipay users: Park your money in a section of the app called Yu’ebao, which means “leftover treasure,” and we will pay you more than the low rates fixed by the government at banks.

People could invest as much or as little as they wanted, making them feel like they were putting their pocket change to use. Yu’ebao was a hit, becoming one of the world’s largest money market funds.

The banks were terrified. One commentator for a state broadcaster called the fund a “vampire” and a “parasite.”

Still, “all the main regulators remained unanimous in saying that this was a positive thing for the Chinese financial system,” said Martin Chorzempa, a research fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

“If you can’t actually reform the banks,” Mr. Chorzempa said, “you can inject more competition.”

But then came worries about shadowy, unregulated corners of finance and the dangers they posed to the wider economy. Today, Chinese regulators are tightening supervision of financial holding companies, Ant included. Beijing has kept close watch on the financial instruments that small lenders create out of their consumer loans and sell to investors. Such securities help Ant fund some of its lending. But they also amplify the blowup if too many of those loans aren’t repaid.

“Those kinds of derivative products are something the government is really concerned about,” said Tian X. Hou, founder of the research firm TH Data Capital. Given Ant’s size, she said, “the government should be concerned.”

The broader worry for China is about growing levels of household debt. Beijing wants to cultivate a consumer economy, but excessive borrowing could eventually weigh on people’s spending power. The names of two of Alipay’s popular credit functions, Huabei and Jiebei, are jaunty invitations to spend and borrow.

Huang Ling, 22, started using Huabei when she was in high school. At the time, she didn’t qualify for a credit card. With Huabei’s help, she bought a drone, a scooter, a laptop and more.

The credit line made her feel rich. It also made her realize that if she actually wanted to be rich, she had to get busy.

“Living beyond my means forced me to work harder,” Ms. Huang said.

First, she opened a clothing shop in her hometown, Nanchang, in southeastern China. Then she started an advertising company in the inland metropolis of Chongqing. When the business needed cash, she borrowed from Jiebei.

Online shopping became a way to soothe daily anxieties, and Ms. Huang sometimes racked up thousands of dollars in Huabei bills, which only made her even more anxious. When the pandemic slammed her business, she started falling behind on her payments. That cast her into a deep depression.

Finally, early this month, with her parents’ help, she paid off her debts and closed her Huabei and Jiebei accounts. She felt “elated,” she said.

China’s recent troubles with freewheeling online loan platforms have put the government under pressure to protect ordinary borrowers.

Ant is helped by the fact that its business lines up with many of the Chinese leadership’s priorities: encouraging entrepreneurship and financial inclusion, and expanding the middle class. This year, the company helped the eastern city of Hangzhou, where it is based, set up an early version of the government’s app-based system for dictating coronavirus quarantines.

Such coziness is bound to raise hackles overseas. In Washington, Chinese tech companies that are seen as close to the government are radioactive.

In January 2017, Eric Jing, then Ant’s chief executive, said the company aimed to be serving two billion users worldwide within a decade. Shortly after, Ant announced that it was acquiring the money transfer company MoneyGram to increase its U.S. footprint. By the following January, the deal was dead, thwarted by data security concerns.

More recently, top officials in the Trump administration have discussed whether to place Ant Group on the so-called entity list, which prohibits foreign companies from purchasing American products. Officials from the State Department have suggested that an interagency committee, which also includes officials from the departments of defense, commerce and energy, review Ant for the potential entity listing, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Ant does not talk much anymore about expanding in the United States.

Ana Swanson contributed reporting.


Continue Reading