Often when we think of the Gurus of today’s markets, we think of them as the true innovators - ones who’s concepts changed market paradigms. But, as I am reading more and more stuff on founders of great companies, my (amateur, limited and self developed) knowledge of psychology says that treating things in this heroic way is just something that brings a feeling of charm and perhaps thats why everone is not ready to look into the details and see if it was that princely.
I have been reading the book Founders at Work that captures interviews of many legends in the technology business arena on the initial days they spent starting their companies. And the more I read this stuff, more I get convinced to something I have thought in past but never got convinced at.
Reading that GUI and mouse was not Apple’s idea sounded like an exception to me earlier. The fact that Six Sigma was not Jack Welch’s baby again was taken down as exception. But, now reading this book, I have noticed very interesting aspects.
Max Levchin, PayPal cofounder started with ideo of building crypto for mobile devices. Catarina Fake, Flickr cofounder, started her company with her husband with the concept of making an online game. Mike Ramsay started Tivo with Jum Barton creating network servers for home to build a complete computerized home entertainment network.
These insights have all been very interesting to bring out a fact that great visionaries havent been Godly creatures knowing what’s going to happen 10 years down the line and building exactly that stuff. But probably, Godly creatures are the ones who have identified concepts from laboratories or changed their minds when they have seen something that will click. That way, its more about identifying a concept and then applying it in the right way that has been as important as the actual concept, or probably more important. And these things have not happened all pre-planned; one has to move ahead keeping the radars open - perhaps an important lesson - to analyze things but not over analyze (or in words of one of my friends, not to get caught in the analysis paralysis).
Well first of all, I guess this is a kind of book I might like, and may get a copy of it soon. Should be interesting….
About the point that you have put across, I would say that you are trying to differentiate between two classes of people - “innovators”, and “revolutionist business men”. I understant that the latter class has been more successful in terms of recognition and earning, but if you look deeper, both are “Godly creatures”. And may be the first class is more successful in terms of self dignity, and self satisfaction. As they say, success is a relative term
And about the analysis paralysis thing, which we have talked a number of times, I think it requires more than intelligence to know exactly where you need to stop analyzing. That may also depend on your risk taking ability. If you are capable of taking higher risk, in terms of sustaining a failure or loss, your threshold to stop analyzing may come earlier……. Every idea might not be great, but every great, as well as well thought idea may also not succeed. I mean analyzing things itself requires a lot of intelligence, but to know where to stop analyzing, and start, require more, maybe a sixth sense. Finally, I don’t think there is any general rule for it. If there would have been any, everyone would have been a “Godly creature” as you say it. So, the bottom line is, do analyze, and follow your instincts on where to stop analyzing, and get going.
Comment by Nimitt — July 5, 2007 @ 4:35 am