A site of endless curiosity

Posts Tagged ‘jim collins

Be Greedy; Be Patient

leave a comment »

“People need to be more greedy and more patient” –
Roelof Botha

Some interesting words from Roelof Botha, a partner at Sequoia Capital

Be more greedy.  Greed has a pejorative connotation.  Here’s the dictionary definition of greed: An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

But what if everyone stopped thinking, dreaming, inventing, producing, and creating when they had enough to satisfy a basic level of subsistence living?  Who would be around to invent the steam engine that ignited the industrial revolution, invent radio that gave us global communication, or invent the airplane that gave us domestic and international transportation in a matter of hours?  What if Bill Gates was satisfied just being a computer programmer in his basement?  What if Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were satisfied with computers as a hobby among friends and never created a company called Apple?  Why should any company not be satisfied with just “breaking even”?  If you can pass your high school or college courses with a grade of C or D, then why put in the extra effort to get an A?  Do you really need an A to pass that course?  Perhaps in going after that A you are showing … “An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs…”  In general, why do more when you can get away with doing less?

Let’s look at the definition of greed again

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth.

Then we should all be greedy.  Let’s call it ambition, or vision, or as Jobs might say, be greedy enough to put a dent in the universe.

If someone’s greed (read: desire, vision, ambition) creates value for someone else, or society in general, then the more greed the better.  What’s at the opposite end of greed?  Mediocrity?  Complacency?  If we had more of this, would that be better?  What about average?  Is average, “good enough”?  Do you marry an average person and make them your wife of husband?  Average products for average people is exactly what Steve Jobs never wanted to produce. Why?  We could do with less.

When I heard Botha’s quote I was reminded of the club scene between Mark Zuckerberg and Sean Parker in the movie The Social Network.  The YouTube clip is below and the dialog important to this posting is below…

SEAN takes a sip of his drink…
SEAN (simply)
A Stanford MBA named Roy Raymond wants to buy his wife some lingerie but he’s too embarrassed to shop for it in a department store. He comes up with an idea for a high end place that doesn’t make you feel like a pervert. He gets a $40,000 bank loan and borrows another forty-thousand from his in-laws, opens a store and calls it Victoria’s Secret. He makes a half-million dollars his first year.
He starts a catalogue, opens three more stores and after five years, he sells the company to Leslie Wexner and The Limited for four million dollars. Happy ending, right? Except two years later the company’s worth 500 million dollars and Roy Raymond jumps off the Golden Gate Bridge.
Poor guy just wanted to buy his wife a pair of thigh-highs, you know?
Was that a parable?

Yes, the meaning of the parable is this – don’t sell out too early.  Be greedy.

The Take

Last week the Facebook IPO generated 100 billion dollars.  Facebook has 800 million active users.  What would have happened if Zuckerberg was not greedy and not patient and sold Facebook when the next growth increment was “A hundred schools by the end of the summer.”  If you have a good thing, be patient, be greedy – that’s the message of Sean Parker to Zuckerberg and the message from venture capitalist Roelof Botha.

Here is the constraint on greed.. This comes from Jim Collins book:  “Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck–Why Some Thrive Despite Them All”

So, why do people follow them? Because of a deeply attractive form of ambition: [they].. channel their ego and intensity into something larger and more enduring than themselves. They’re ambitious, to be sure, but for a purpose beyond themselves, be it building a great company, changing the world, or achieving some great object that’s ultimately not about them.

Who would say that Zuckerberg’s greed (read: ambition/vision/commitment) and patience did not result in a good thing (Facebook) for the people on this planet in general?  And it made him wealthy far beyond his needs in the process.  So what’s the problem?

As long as greed is not about personal self-aggrandizement, and is about ambition, intensity, vision, and commitment that ends up generating value for other people then the more greed – and the more patience for greed people have – the better for all of us.

See more

An interview with Roelof Botha – here

The club scene from the Social Network …

Who can forget the famous quote from Gordon Gekko from the movie, Wall Street

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.

Adam Smith from the 1776 book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”

…every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.

Read more about the “Invisible Hand” here

Written by frrl

May 29, 2012 at 2:59 am

A couple of models for team membership assessment

leave a comment »

Individual commitment to a group effort – that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.   –Vince Lombardi

Companies are only as good as their leaders and leaders are only as good as the teams they create.  Some team gel and some teams don’t.  A collection of clever individuals does not necessary make a high performance clever team.  If fact, sometimes the opposite is true.  An assembly of clever people may be less clever than any single team member individually due to mis-matched personalities and the inability to get along and collaborate.  In many cases, a diverse set of complementary-skilled clevers is what is needed along with a clever leader that can orchestrate the collaboration to produce measurable results against a clarity of vision, mission, and goals.  It also requires the clever team leader to make changes to team membership as needed – without gettting caught in work avoidance (read What Makes Men)

Here is a start on making an assessment of each individual team member.  Many folks never take the time to make an objective, and perhaps brutal, assessment of who they have as team members and make adjustments as needed.  If you never do this, and wonder why the team or organization under performs against similar organizations, an industry benchmark, or some other criteria  then the answer could be as close as the composition of the team that you lead.

The model below is based on the work of  Howard M. Guttman. 

The Questions

Take a look around you and see who is on your team.  Ask yourself these two questions

  1. To what degree does the individual agree with the teams mission and/or what you are trying to accomplish?
  2. To what extent will this person support you as the leader and the other team members on the accomplishment of the teams mission and goals?

For each of these questions rank each team member on a scale  from 0-10.  Zero is low (or none) and 10 is high.

The Assessment

Based on your assessment, the individuals will fall into these categories along the dimensions of agreement and support.  Obviously, low agreement and low support – why do you have them on your team?  High agreement and high support – these are keepers.  But what about those who don’t fall at these extremes?  How would you describe or classify these team members?  What action do you need to take to ensure the mission and goals of the team, group, or organization are successful?  A team leaders, you take the blame for failure and share the rewards for success.

Double-dealer.  These folks agree with the team’s mission and goals but, for whatever reason, will not support you or the effort.  Don’t waste your time explaining the goals to these folks – they are already converted.  The key challenge is to win their support.  What are their concerns? Listen carefully.  Listen to what they do not say as well as to what they do say.  Look for hidden agendas.  As a team leader, this person will not advance your goals or the mission or goals of the team or organization that you represent unless you can gain their committment and support.

Foe.  Treat them as immovable forces in the work environment.  They neither agree with your goals, nor will they support you.  These folks, like the Double-dealer will not advance your goals or the mission or goals of the team or organization that you represent.  These folks might even try to actively undermine you or the teams efforts.  The diagram to the upper left does not show negative values but it’s possible – watch out.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by frrl

October 25, 2010 at 7:04 pm

%d bloggers like this: