Blame Ends With M-E, Not O-B-A-M-A…

Blame Ends With M-E, Not O-B-A-M-A…

 I hesitate to wade into political waters, but as an entrepreneur, it makes my blood boil when the government becomes the scapegoat for the shortcomings of organizational leadership.  Less than a week after President Obama’s re-election, a spate of companies like Murray Energy have announced impending layoffs due to the election results. These pronouncements are entirely disingenuous and violate all that I believe as an entrepreneur.  First, nothing substantively changed last Tuesday because Democrats retained control of the White House and Senate while Republicans retained control of the House.   Second, and most importantly, a business that is that susceptible to political change shows a lack of planning on the part of the management team.  Successful entrepreneurs know that being successful requires appropriate planning for potential changes in government.

Whenever I hear a businessperson complain about the government, it always reminds me of when teammates on my high school football team used to complain about officiating.  In some games, the officials help your team; in others, they hurt it.  The exact same can be said about the impact new administrations at the state and federal level can have on business.  Because of that similarity, the advice from my football coach applies equally to entrepreneurs and football players: “you have to play the game as if the referees aren’t there; play well enough to win even if the calls are going against you.”  In other words, a business needs to be run to succeed whether the political winds are at your back or in your face.  If a business plan accounts for a negative legislative climate, the only impact of an election will be to speed up success if the results are in your favor.

Government headwinds are no different than dealing with changes in the marketplace due to new technology or competition.  A smart entrepreneur always has a contingency plan to deal with these changes, whether they are politically driven or not.  For example, EasySeat operates in an industry that is routinely on the regulatory agenda in the state of Connecticut.  As most ticket resale legislation is typically implemented at the state level, part of EasySeat’s contingency planning was to expand nationwide. If the regulatory environment in Connecticut changes, the company will be able to continue operations in other markets, thus mitigating the impact of legislative change.  There is no one to blame but yourself for lack of planning for a potential outcome that you can see coming for several years.

Part of that planning should include working with the government rather than unilaterally viewing them as an adversary.  Connecticut consistently ranks at or near the bottom of business friendly states, however, the state is not actively trying to undermine businesses.  In fact, programs like the Small Business Express Program are trying to provide capital to help businesses in the state grow.  On the federal level, organizations like SBIR are chartered to fund innovation and growth. These programs are opportunities at a state and federal level to ally with the government to grow a business. While the names and goals of these programs may change with administrations, the government, going back to initiatives like the Lewis and Clark Expedition, always has programs that will promote commerce.

Elections can always stir up changes to the business climate, but it’s nothing more than a cop-out to blame a business’ travails solely on an election.  If government contractors, like cyber-security firm KEYW, can transition their government-based expertise to the private sector, then any company can weather the storm of an election. Elections come on a predictable schedule that allows smart business owners to make plans.  In that sense, failing to plan for changes in the political landscape can only be laid at the feet of one person, the entrepreneur, not President Obama.

NOTE: In the interest of full disclosure, I supported NEITHER candidate in this year’s election.  I believe that government does have a vital role to play in providing for the coming good of not just citizens, but also businesses in this country.  However, when getting elected costs a billion dollars, I find it hard to believe that either candidate can fulfill an altruistic role that is un-tethered from the financial interests that funded the billion-dollar marketing campaign.