SHOULD A BUSINESS OWNER TAKE CONTROL FROM MANAGEMENT DURING WAR

          At the end of 2019, I stepped away from the operational management of Pet Technologies, a process I had been preparing myself and my team for over three years.

          Turning off the lights in my office, I didn't return to my home in Chernihiv, located a few blocks from the plant, but moved to Kyiv to more effectively resist the temptation to dive back into the processes.

          When I almost managed to adjust and get used to the new format of interaction with the team, the war broke out and threw everything off balance.

          I was on the verge of returning to operational management. The desire to roll up my sleeves and take charge was so strong that it took me some time to catch and suppress it. In April 2022, when we restarted the plant after an almost two-month break, I returned to Chernihiv and commuted to the office almost every day, immersing myself in various processes of our business.

          I even enjoyed it – realizing that I missed the business. I got carried away with this state and went to Kyiv, spent four days contemplating my actions and their consequences: "So, you got involved there, and what changed? Nothing. Made a lot of noise, but didn't have a global impact."

          But it could have harmed!

          The owner's return deprives management of the opportunity to prove themselves and grow real teeth under critical conditions. Moreover, while preparing to step out of operations, I deliberately created internal crisis moments so that the team would get used to independently solving complex situations.

          If "Homework" is done conscientiously by the owner, there's no need to confuse the team and "castrate" it even during war

          I realized that my top management had grown teeth after the CEO of the company said: "We used to be afraid of everything. We had fear – of losing a client, losing the market. But we've already survived the acute stage of the war and didn't collapse. So what should we be afraid of now? All previous fears have taken a back seat."

          It's crucial for the company not only to operate steadily without the owner under any conditions but also to develop because business is like a person: it either grows or degrades. Like everyone else, we faced many problems and disruptions with the war – in supply, sales, finances.

          Nevertheless, the team initiated two new promising projects that are gradually developing. The main thing is their ideas, motivation, and responsibility, not another "enlightenment" from the owner imposed from "above."

          Of course, I visit the plant, but I don't abuse this opportunity. Our meetings with top management are very different from what they used to be. Now, I really like the position of not telling the guys what to do but advising: what is better to postpone and what is worth trying.

          It's a great chance to change the approach: not to impose decisions but instead to ask: in your opinion, what's the best course of action? Such trust and respect from the owner motivate them a lot.

          And if the fear of losing the company prevails over moderation and patience? What to do? Give people a month or two to independently solve the problem, observe.

They can't figure it out – then it's time to intervene with all your entrepreneurial energy, non-linear thinking, and enthusiasm – typical traits of Ukrainian businessmen, toughened by the necessity to survive and thrive in conditions of permanent crisis.

          By the way, the inability to contain this energy often becomes a major obstacle on the owner's path to stepping out of day-to-day operations. It's important to channel it into a constructive direction so that it doesn't (literally) hinder the main business.

          For me, these new directions became startups in entirely unfamiliar fields. For example, the production of electric bicycles, which started during the war. Also, in creative projects, including writing books and mentoring.

          Most of the characters in my book "It’s not f*king MBA: hard business lessons of the war against Ukraine," which I am writing for readers in Western Europe, share my perspective on involvement in operational management.

          For instance, the owner of one of the largest companies producing goods for pets notes a significant change in his attitude towards business development provoked by the war. "I realized that time is limited – at any moment, trouble can happen to you or your company, so you need to weed out all the trivialities in your work. Instead, focus on serious matters, strategy – move as far away from operational processes as possible and build a truly large company."

          Having made this decision, in the midst of the war, instead of diving into operations, he focused on export markets. The result – a signed contract with one of the largest pet supply chains in Europe.

          Another character in the book, the founder of an IT company, had ambitious plans for 2022 – to grow the business by over 50% within the year. Strategic investors with attractive offers to buy the company were already persistently knocking on the door. The war shuffled the cards.

          Instead of immersing himself in the rescue plan, the owner only approved it and entrusted its execution to the management team. He focused on strategic matters himself. "I was pleasantly surprised – my trust motivated people, and even under critical circumstances, they brilliantly pull the company forward like a locomotive. The main thing is that they treat it as their own business," says my interlocutor.

          The situation is under control – the business has almost returned to pre-war levels, and along the way, it has gained new talented specialists who joined the company from competitors with fresh ideas and valuable contacts.

          In which situations is deep involvement of the owner in operational processes justified? In my opinion, only when the life of the company is at stake. Among the stories I describe in the book, there are dramatic examples directly opposite to those mentioned above. Many during the war physically lost production facilities, warehouses, people, and clients.

          In some cases, businesses were completely destroyed, in others – halfway. Without the direct involvement of the owner in such companies, it might be impossible to salvage them, as there are tasks that even the most talented top managers cannot handle. The issue is not in professionalism but in energy, a taste for risk, and a degree of pure entrepreneurial madness.

          Interestingly, all the heroes of such stories, after the hard stage of rescuing their business, which on average lasted from six months to a year, also stepped away from operational processes. "I went through this path with a team that toughened so much that now I can confidently entrust them with managing the business, knowing that these people will handle it better than me," comments the owner of a network of private clinics.

          Ukrainian entrepreneurs tend to treat their businesses as their favorite toys. It's difficult for them to trust it to someone else: "What if it breaks?" Through my own experience, I've come to realize that this is a direct path to the so-called "founder's trap," as described by Ichak Adizes.

          War is a hyper-crisis that forced us, the owners, to reach a new level of perception of both our business and ourselves, as well as our teams. It taught us to think on a larger scale and to trust people more.