Hasta La Gadget!

Have you ever thought, “I wonder if I have what it takes to be an entrepreneur”? I believe that everyone who has thought about starting a business needs to consider that question before making a decision to go into business. It has to be more than just thinking that you might want to do it, you also have to figure out the “why” you’re going to start and then build a plan for success.

But what makes a good entrepreneur?

In my book, Become Your Own Boss in 12 Months, 2nd edition, I say that entrepreneurs are motivated by one or more of the following:

• Control
• Freedom
• Money
• Problem solving
• Creativity

If these spark something in you, read on to find out if you have the right entrepreneurial mindset to succeed.

You Think Your Boss is Generally Clueless

You often scratch your head, wondering how he got where he is. You know so much more than he does, so why aren’t you on top?

You Always Think There‘s a Better Way to Do Things

As a kid, you were the one dumping out the Legos and remaking the buildings the “right” way. Now, you constantly think that your boss wastes way too much time doing things, and you come up with tips to be more productive.

You Prefer to Be in Charge

Some might call you bossy, but you consider yourself a take-charge kind of person. There’s nothing wrong with being a natural leader!

You Feel Dissatisfied with Your Job

You know you could do so much more, if only your boss would give you free rein. As a result, you rather detest your job. You spend every day hatching your exit plan from corporate America.

You Calculate How Much You Make, and Know You Be Better Compensated.

You’ll only ever get so far, getting your pittance of a raise each year. You know if you worked for yourself, you could double or triple what you currently make.

You are Convinced You Could Do a Better Job Than the Folks Above You

It seems unfair that companies thrive under incompetent people. How well you could do if you were a competitor? What market share would you’d take?

You Know You Would Do Things Differently if it Were Your Company

How many times have you said to yourself, “if I were in charge, I’d…”? You long to have the opportunity to be the one who calls the shots.

Did any of this resonate with you? It should. The only thing holding you back from becoming your own boss is just one idea. Of course, it takes consistent, hard work to build a successful business, but the payoff is being able to do things your own way. If you’ve thought of a better way to succeed where your boss hasn’t, you’ve already got what it takes. Begin by taking action toward starting your dream business and make the decision now and get started with your 12 month plan today.

This article was originally published under the title 7 Signs You’ve Got the Right Entrepreneurial Mindset to Start a Business at www.succeedasyourownboss.com

Melinda F. Emerson, SmallBizLady  is America’s #1 small business expert. She is an author, speaker and small business coach whose areas of expertise include small business start-up, business development and social media marketing. She writes a weekly column for the New York Times, publishes a resource blog, www.succeedasyourownboss.com which is syndicated through the Huffington Post. She also hosts a weekly talk show on Twitter called #SmallBizChat for small business owners. As a brand, she reaches 1.5 million entrepreneurs a week on the internet. As CEO of Quintessence Multimedia, Melinda develops audio, video and written content to fulfill her mission to end small business failure. Forbes Magazine named Melinda Emerson one of the #1 Woman for Entrepreneurs to follow on Twitter. Melinda has been featured on MSNBC, Fox News, NBC Nightly News, and in Fortune, The Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and Black Enterprise. She is the bestselling author of “Become Your Own Boss in 12 months; A Month-by-Month Guide to a Business That Works,” and the ebook How to Become a Social Media Ninja; 101 Ways to Dominate Your Competition Online.

Most small business owners have little time to attend seminars and train themselves on becoming an interviewing expert. But hiring the right people can dramatically impact the success of your business. The interview is the prime time to measure a candidate’s skill level and see if he or she is a great fit for your company. However, conducting an interview without preparation can result in choosing the wrong candidate or, worse, landing in some legal hot water.

As a small business owner, there’s a lot of information out there on interviewing. But these are some key interview tips to help you hire the right employee to help build your business.

Ask for Examples
Behavior-based interviewing can tell you a lot about a potential candidate. For example, ask the candidate to give an example of a moment they had to make a quick decision. This tells you how the candidate handles responsibility and, most importantly, how they handle working on their own. After all, as a small business, it’s unlikely that you’ll have employees under excessive review, so you need to know they can work on their own while still doing the job up to your standards.

Involve Other Staff Members
Candidates will show their true colors and attitudes around other employees. Involve other staff in the interview. If you can, step out of the room for ten minutes and let two or three other employees spend time with the potential hire. Then get their feedback. Since your other staff will likely interact with your new hire more than you, you want to make sure there’s a positive chemistry and also see how the candidate handles himself around his peers.

Ask “Why”
Asking the “why” is really important in an interview. For example, if you see on the candidate’s resume that he has short stints at past jobs, ask what and why that happened. You should ask the “why” in every question so that you can get to the root of the candidate’s answers.

You should also ask them, “What do you feel I need to know that we haven’t discussed?” This gives the candidate an opportunity to tell you about skills you may not have asked about or experiences that enhance their ability to handle the job. It’s the perfect opportunity to allow him or her to display their talents, show-off their best skills, and convince you why they’re a valuable asset.

Know What You Cannot Ask
While you probably have a lot of interview questions, you can’t ask some of them. There are literally hundreds of questions you legally cannot ask a potential candidate. If you are unsure of what you can or cannot ask, avoid any questions that have to do with:

• Nationality
• Race
• Gender
• Religion
• Age
• Marital or family status
• Health and/or physical abilities
• National Guard or reserve status
• Location of the employee’s home or his/her commute

Delve Deeper
Interviewing candidates can give you a sense for a potential employee’s personality and ability to have a professional conversation, but if you stick to the expected interview questions, you might miss the opportunity to cut past the canned responses and gauge how that person might perform in the daily realities of your workplace.

Hiring the right person to fill a position isn’t easy for a small business owner. But when you start with the right hire, you can limit how often you’re interviewing because you’ll reduce turnover. To learn more about how to avoid costly turnover, get your copy of Practical Tools to Manage Costly Employee Turnover today.

Margaret Jacoby, SPHR, is the founder and president of MJ Management Solutions,a human resources consulting firm that provides small businesses with a wide range of virtual and onsite HR solutions to meet their immediate and long-term needs. From ensuring legal compliance to writing customized employee handbooks to conducting sexual harassment training, businesses depend on our expertise and cost-effective human resources services to help them thrive. This article first appeared on the MJ Management Solutions blog.

Let’s connect: LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook | Google+

For the approximately 1.5 million people in the U.S. living with type 1 diabetes, 2014 was a year of significant advances. Treatments and technologies are improving. Research is uncovering new paths to understand the disease and develop better treatments. And public awareness of this chronic autoimmune disease is growing. There was much to celebrate last year:

1) Pioneering technology.
Last summer, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed how an experimental device, the bionic pancreas, made it possible to automatically regulate glucose levels in youth with T1D — even while they were running and playing outdoors. The wearable device, which consists of a smartphone-driven app paired with pumps for insulin and glucagon and a continuous glucose monitor (CGM), has now undergone several successful trials on young people and adults. Based on these encouraging results, scientists believe this technology has the chance to significantly ease the burden of managing T1D while achieving better health outcomes for people with the disease.

2) Stem-cell research breakthroughs.
In October, a team of researchers at Harvard University published a study in which they created insulin-producing beta cells from induced pluripotent stem cells on a scale that offers the clearest path yet to human trials. Observers said the cell study not only has significant clinical potential for people with type 1 diabetes, but also opens an important new path for researchers to understand and develop novel treatments for this disease. Science magazine rated it one of the top five scientific breakthroughs of the year.

3) Greater awareness.
Social media is raising the visibility of type 1 diabetes like never before. Celebrities like Sierra Sandison, Miss Idaho 2014 and proud wearer of an insulin pump, shot to viral fame while putting the realities of living with T1D in the public light.

We are moving in the right direction, but we are a long way from the finish line. Compared to type 2 diabetes, which afflicts more than ten times as many people in the United States, T1D receives considerably less attention from public and private funders, researchers and drug and medical device companies. As anyone affected by T1D knows, managing the disease is a constant grind that takes a toll on people with T1D and their families.

Fortunately, there are promising opportunities on the horizon in 2015:

1) Connected patient communities.
Patient engagement is changing the way research happens. The T1D Exchange, for example, features a network of 70+ clinics across the US, a registry with well characterized data on 26,000+ people with T1D, a Biobank housing a vast collection of biosamples, and Glu, an online community of more than 11,000 people affected by T1D. Together, these components are helping people with T1D become “Citizen Scientists,” enabling them to more readily participate in accelerating the pace of research and discovery, and improving their own treatment and care along the way. In 2015, the T1D Exchange will engage the patient community in a range of research studies about potential new treatments and devices, as well as disease characteristics and impacts across different demographic groups.

2) Devices that communicate.
Better devices are emerging, and interoperability paves the way for different medical devices to talk to each other. Partnering with the JDRF, the Helmsley Charitable Trust is funding work in 2015 that aims to begin facilitating the adoption and implementation of interoperability standards among diabetes devices so that individuals with T1D, caregivers and clinicians can use device data to improve their management of type 1 diabetes and ease the 24/7 burden of the disease.

3) A landscape of insulin access.
Global mapping will help us develop a comprehensive understanding of gaps and needs in the insulin market. While T1D in the U.S. is neither a safe nor a well-managed disease, it can be a death sentence in some low- and middle — income countries. With Helmsley’s support, Health Action International will assemble a team of global experts to create a first-of-its-kind map of barriers to insulin in under-resourced countries and develop new supply models — so as to reduce those barriers and improve life quality and expectancy for people living with diabetes.

Here’s to a healthy and innovative 2015.

David Panzirer is a parent of a child with type 1 diabetes and a trustee at the Helmsley Charitable Trust, the largest private foundation funder of T1D-related research, treatment and support services in the nation.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach recently wrote a piece titled “Bibi, Nevermind Offending Obama.” It is the antithesis of my recent Jerusalem Post article, “Why bombing Iran would be a strategic mistake for Israel and America,” where I cite three U.S. officials who explain that striking Iran would merely set them back “two or three years.” Essentially, one would have to continually bomb Iran every three years in order to even have a chance at completely ending their nuclear ambitions. Boteach also ignores the fact that Mossad chief Tamir Pardo has already stated a nuclear Iran would not be an “existential threat”:

Does Iran pose a threat to Israel? Absolutely. But if one said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an existential threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop and go home. That’s not the situation. The term existential threat is used too freely.

Like many staunch conservatives on the subject of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Boteach states that “One holocaust is quite enough” and paints an apocalyptic future. It’s a pity that Boteach didn’t cite Pardo’s quote in his recent piece, or the Mossad chief’s statement that “The term existential threat is used too freely.”

The repercussions on the global economy of continually bombing an OPEC nation, the geopolitical impact on Iraq and Afghanistan (guess which country is located between both), and the financial cost of striking Iran are all issues that Rabbi Boteach fails to mention in his article. In addition, world renowned international relations scholar Kenneth Waltz is quoted as predicting a different future from Boteach:

Most US, European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear- armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.

To assume that Iran, a country that once bought weapons from Israel during the Iran-Contra scandal (at the behest of the U.S.) isn’t more pragmatic than it is suicidal, simply ignores history.

Since Israel actually has nuclear weapons, any hypothetical strike by Iran would also lead to the destruction of Iran. Like North Korea and other rogue regimes, Iran is indeed a threat to the region, but hasn’t given anyone indication that it is willing to trade 80 million Iranian citizens for the destruction of Israel. Rather than spouting paranoid hyperbole like Shmuley Boteach, Kenneth Waltz takes a more realistic approach to a nuclear Iran. Considered one of the “giants” in the field of international relations, Waltz goes on to explain that when India, Pakistan and even North Korea obtained nuclear arsenals, their foreign policies were restrained by the magnitude of these weapons.

Boteach also makes disrespectful statements like “Perhaps the Obama administration should threaten President Bashar Assad to stop slaughtering his people in Syria and actually, this time, do something about it.” The theme of his article, in addition to urging the United States to stop Iran’s nuclear program, is found in the following sentiments:

The implications of a nuclear Iran for the world are far greater than such simple considerations as the wounded ego of the leader of the free world or a breach of diplomatic protocol…

I, for one, have become fatigued with the continuous threats issued to the press by “undisclosed sources” in the administration against Israel…

That Prime Minister has the responsibility to do everything in his power to protect the Jewish people in Israel from a nuclear annihilation…

Ignoring the fact that Pakistan and North Korea already possess nuclear weapons (I don’t recall anyone referring to North Korea as sane or rational), six other countries including Israel are now nuclear powers. If India and Pakistan haven’t had a nuclear war, and North Korea hasn’t bombed South Korea (all of these countries have made statements calling for the total annihilation of their enemies), the chances that Iran would instantly commit suicide simply to destroy another country doesn’t correlate to reality.

While he’s an accomplished author and popular media personality, Boteach is wrong about the importance of not offending Obama and urging further U.S. military involvement in the region. I love Israel just as much as Boteach, but I’m also well aware of America’s importance to Israel’s survival. To conflate a future Holocaust if the U.S. isn’t nudged incessantly by Bibi to strike Iran is pure folly.

First, people like the author of Kosher Sex and others with similar world views completely ignore the cost of two decade-long counterinsurgency wars upon the U.S. Armed Forces. After 4,489 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq and 2,356 U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan, close to 1 million U.S. soldiers injured in both wars, and a cost that will easily exceed $6 trillion, the last thing American soldiers and their families need is Shumley Boteach, Bibi, or anyone else pushing for yet another American war.

Yes, I had my Bar-Mitzvah in Jerusalem and care deeply for Israel, but I also realize that America simply isn’t in a position to strike Iran, or engage in another unilateral war of choice. If anything, allies of America shouldn’t interfere with the foreign policy goals of a sitting president, regardless if they aren’t conservative enough for a man like Bibi Netanyahu. As Hatnuah chairwoman Tzipi Livni eloquently states, “A responsible prime minister who first thinks of the good of his country’s citizens does not do such a thing… A responsible prime minister would know to work with the president of the United States — with any president — and protect our most important interests.”

The righteous indignation would be heard around the world from Shmuley Boteach if Obama went to the Knesset and sided with Livini over Bibi on Israeli foreign policy.

Boteach’s complete disregard for the thousands of American’s who’ve died in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as hundreds of thousands injured in these wars, is exemplified by his challenge to Obama to threaten Assad and “this time, do something about it.” Again, he fails to realize that Obama has recently sent over 3,000 soldiers back to Iraq and the Pentagon just recently deployed 400 Americans to train the Syrian rebels. As for our ever growing military presence in terms of special forces, Reason.com states that U.S. Special Operations forces were deployed to 133 countries (70 percent of the nations on the planet) in 2014. In terms of our air campaign that included hundreds of airstrikes, it has cost the U.S. over $1 billion dollars and ISIS is still entrenched in large swaths of Syria and Iraq. If anything, we should be scaling back our military presence, considering that Iraq and Afghanistan have failed to achieve their original objectives and the U.S. simply can’t afford perpetual war in the Middle East.

If anyone wonders why Obama is annoyed with Bibi or anyone else throwing a wrench in negotiations with Iran, it’s because an American president isn’t obligated to see things in the same manner as the head of state of another country. It’s the reason a Forbes article is titled “Bibi Netanyahu — aka ‘The Republican Senator From Israel’ — May Have Made A Fatal Political Mistake.” It would be nice if people like Shmuley Boteach just once acknowledged the number of American soldiers who’ve died in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ongoing military operations by the U.S. that are orchestrated daily, and the tremendous cost on America from two recent wars before advocating that America follow a course of action that runs contrary to the goals of its current administration.

Yes Mr. Boteach, Bibi should concern himself with offending Obama, because American public opinion isn’t guaranteed forever. A less overt and obnoxious approach than siding with a rival political party when presenting Israel’s security objectives would be good for everyone. One can simultaneously care deeply for Israel and want it to flourish forever while at the same time acknowledging that America is more important to Israel’s survival than Israel is to America’s survival. I’m not “self-hating” because I’m willing to comprehend this reality.

I’m also willing to see through Shmuley Boteach’s diatribes and the paranoid predictions of right-wing observers. Israel is one of the greatest allies of the U.S. and an amazing country, but to utilize the notion of another Holocaust in order to encourage the U.S. to alter its foreign policy goals is irresponsible and counterproductive. It’s also morally reprehensible and shamefully utilizes the memory of the six million souls who perished in the real Holocaust, but that’s another issue I’ve already addressed.

I’m not a huge fan of hot dogs to begin with. I look at them sort of the same way I look at fish; I might eat one once a year at most. Every now and again, I get a hankering for a Sonic foot long chili cheese, but as soon as I am done eating it, I remember why I never order one.

KFC previously rolled out the rather weird Double Down sandwich that crams bacon and cheese between two pieces of chicken. Now KFC has rolled out an ever stranger entree – the Double Down Dog.

It replaces the hot dog bun with a curved piece of chicken. The whole works is then covered in cheese. The Double Down Dog rolled out in the Philippines to begin with. Whether or not it will come to the U.S. remains to be seen.

If they released out the Double Down Sandwich here, I’d wager the Dog is coming too. It looks so gross.

[via Kotaku]