Brad,

Insightful post! What happens when you put people in situations beyond their capability or comfort? How do we know when people are ready to be the CEO of their job versus when you're setting them up for failure?

Exactly. Whilst I find the notion of giving people a challenge fundamentally valid, the realist in me would argue many receptionists would just say "It's not in my job description, I'm paid to answer phones, not buy them".

True, such a person has no place in a startup – but sometimes you're just too busy to fill every single role with people having the entrepreneurial gene.

I think this is part of the reason Mark and Zynga have been so successful. As you suggest, it's one thing to talk about empowering employees and expecting them to be independent action-takers, and it's quite another to hand over the keys and tell them to do it. Creating and maintaining a culture of trust that allows people to exceed your expectations is both incredibly difficult and critically important.

Trial and Error. The best advice I pulled from this story was give people a chance to rise to a challenge (no matter how big or small) and surround yourself with those who succeed.

This is the way I have always managed people. Its a bit sink or swim, but it has never failed me and has produced vital, empowered, knowledgeable, and excited team members that want to work for me again. At first they are a bit nervous about it, but everyone loves being in charge. Not sure how I came to manage this way, but it took me time to realize that not everyone does this. It also means less hassles for me and less work.

Fear is the most powerful motivator. Fear protects life.

If someone is confident in themselves, you should make sure to put them in a situation where they will struggle.

Make skill meet challenge. People want to push themselves and get better. If not, they aren't playmakers and are irrelevant anyway.

Cute solution!

There is a long list of things that could go wrong, one of the worst being various cases of 'goal subordination'. E.g., middle managers can fight with, hold back, or retaliate against the receptionist, i.e., the employee acting as 'CEO' of their work.

So, have everyone declare in public of what they are the 'CEO'! NICE! Now when a middle manager starts to cause trouble, the receptionist can stand their ground and say that they are just doing the work of which they are the accepted CEO.

Of course, there could be some conflicts in the declarations!

How well the receptionist's decisions work out on performance, time, effort, money, etc., many people will see. Employees who make good decisions rise.

Nice!

Since the phones are of interest to nearly everyone, it can help if the receptionist builds consensus for the proposed solution.

Of course, might have an 'empire builder' who deliberately makes decisions to spend more money, hire more staff, get more power than necessary, use the power to throttle others, etc. For small decisions, give a person rope enough to hang themselves. For large decisions, may need some reviews. More generally, need people with a good track record of making good decisions and not building empires, etc., and developing such people, e.g., the receptionist who rose to manage the office, is part of the goal.

That former receptionist built some career success with a track record, credibility, and responsibility — praise, approval, acceptance in the desirable group, and both emotional and financial security (E. Fromm) — and may be reluctant to blow this situation on low quality work, silly empire building, goal subordination, arrogance, etc. and, thus, be a trusted, valued employee. Nice. The CEO needs to notice this situation and provide the praise, etc.

E.g., once I had a mad rush project and had to make some decisions quickly. One piece of equipment was maybe optional but seemed like a good idea; since there was no time to be sure, I guessed and got the item. Later circumstances meant that didn't need the item so returned it. Then one manager started to criticize me for getting the item to begin with.

Easy answer: My project overall was very successful (for the Board and literally saved the company, now famous). I acted as 'CEO' of that work. The main issue, as 'CEO', was that the project was on time and successful for the very important goals. That little item of equipment was a nit and close to irrelevant, "straining over gnats and forgetting elephants", and the CEO needs to let it be known that such destructive, 'Monday morning' nit picking at the significant accomplishments of others is not good.

As employees such as the receptionist do well, they will get attacked from above, below, and the sides, and the CEO has to anticipate, detect, and deflect such attacks and defend the employee doing well or risk having that employee not try such a project again. E.g., if the CEO hears person A is saying something bad about person B, then the CEO may conclude that there is more wrong with A than B.

Great thoughts Brad.
One thing I would add though is that in my experience CEO's are often on a different lanet to the rest of the company. They think differently, have a different perspective and generally run in front of the rest of the people. If everyone was doing this it could create quite a degree of chaos AND who would be there to help them. CEO's seem to be very good at delegating to other people

At Rally we follow some core principles which are a foundation for the way the company works. In reference to this topic is the principle of "Create your own reality" followed by "Make and meet your committments". These seem to be congruent with this message and it is great to have the executives support you as you do this and learn along the way. There will always be missteps. However, it provides a foundation to continually challenge yourself, explore what is available and take ownership to creating your role and impact. It certainly makes for a much more interesting place to come every day.

Enjoyed the post, thanks Brad. I like to think of this as a "risk versus reward" scenario. Enabling and empowering your team to tackle stretch responsibilities may be problematic initially, but with optimal mentoring the long term gains outweigh the initial risks. I would suggest this is one key behavior that leaders need to focus on if they wish to rapidly scale their business and organizations.

Hmm, I was thinking along a similar line. But I also wonder, do most people WANT to be the CEO of something?