Doesn't it stand to reason thata company's owner should be the most responsible for performingtheir role and driving results? (Photo: Shutterstock)

We always talk about how we want our employees to approach theirjobs with an “ownership mentality.” It's pretty obvious why. Thelogic goes, if they think like an owner, they will perform theirjob more effectively, right? Well, not so fast. It all depends onwhat kind of owner we're talking about.

Kevin Trokey is founding partnerand
coach at St. Louis-based Q4intelligence.

I was having a conversation with a good friend whose agencyrecently sold to a large, national broker. WhenI asked how it was going, I was a little taken back by hisresponse.

It wasn't so much that I was surprised that things were goingwell, but I was surprised by what he described as going well. Hesaid that he couldn't remember a time when the sales team was soengaged and motivated, and that they were now setting the tone forthe whole agency.

Related: Doing CEO succession planning right (andwrong)

He pointed out that the sales team was also the previousownership team and, before the sale, had gotten to the point thatthey used their ownership as a “free pass” to not be accountable toanyone and therefore to not have to perform. However, after thesale to an organization with a real sales culture, they foundthemselves the most accountable of all.

Leadership accountability

If you have been reading this column for any length of time, youhave heard me talk about the responsibilities that come withleadership. And shouldn't the owner(s) of any organization be rightthere with the highest level of leadership? And doesn't it alsostand to reason that they should also be the most responsible forperforming their role and driving results?

Sadly, the pre-sale situation my friend described is all toocommon in small, privately held companies. There is no doubt in apublicly traded company that the leaders would be the mostaccountable and under the greatest amount of scrutiny. Whyshouldn't it be the same in our agencies?

Behavior sets the example

I think it should, but I also see why it isn't. Theproducer/owner is happy with his/her level of income, rationalizesthat past efforts continue to drive revenue, and then stopsproducing. I couldn't disagree with this position more! They mayhave taken care of themselves, and they may not have Wall Streetbreathing down their necks, but there is an entire organizationdepending on their leadership, engagement and motivation. When thisdoesn't exist, a whole host of problems occur:

• The rest of the team is not afforded opportunities for personalgrowth.
• The financial reward available to the rest of the team is alsotaken away.
• The energy, belief and morale is taken out of theorganization.
• The industry watches and loses respect. It becomes harder toattract/retain top talent.
• The competition watches and starts circling like vultures.

However, when the owners/leaders are engaged and motivated,there is no limit to what can happen. So, before you ask your teamto “behave like an owner,” be sure to evaluate what kind ofownership example is being set. If the example is one of a “servantowner” who makes himself or herself the most accountable, then Iapplaud the expectation. However, if the example is one of an“entitled owner,” I would caution you to be careful what you askfor. You will most likely get it.