Completely offtopic, but every time I open one of your articles, my first point of focus goes on to the photo on the side. Was this intentional or an accident?
It's really cool though, normally I don't pay attention to who wrote an article, and just skim through to see if it's interesting. Here, the initial focus on the photo reminds me that you're a very good blogger, based on other articles that you've written in the past and grabs my complete focus right away.
It is intentional to draw some attention (though not to distract from the article), for two reasons.
First, some people complained that they liked the articles but didn't know what my credentials were, so while the initial design for swombat.com was much more minimalist (like DaringFireball's), I realised that I'm not John Gruber with a fanatical following of hundreds of thousands, and so I still need to convey who I am to the majority who haven't heard of me.
Secondly, a good friend advised me that blogs are much more memorable and engaging if the author's picture is visible (which your comment supports). And it makes sense - people are naturally very good at recognising and remembering faces.
Good vs. evil is a completely different debate from the practical balancing of concerns an entrepreneur faces on a day-to-day basis. The OP mixes these two radically different orders of decision making. Good and evil are not just about misprioritization of values, and most entrepreneurs are good people balancing decisions of a more practical nature, such as when to hire and when not, that don't really have moral "right answers".
Bad people have no problem with good values. Irreconcilable opposites are made from the same handful of values representing goodness.
As for evil vs. values, evil generally comes in two forms: fanatical and selfish evil, which may both exist in one person. Invariably, both exist in evil movements: Hitler being an example of fanatical evil and Eichmann being an example of selfish evil. OP's statement is only true (sometimes) of the latter. Fanatical evil is characterized by the insistence on one value, which may be good (economic equality, as in communism) or bad ("racial purity", as in Nazism) at its root but is, in either case, given such an absurdly high priority over other values (humanism, reason) as to have catastrophic results.
Selfish evil, on the other hand, is characterized by narcissism, psychopathy, and a complete lack of values, but also a willingness to adopt the appearance of whatever values are in fashion. A selfishly evil person cares only about self-advancement.
The fanatical kind is what we associate with villians like Hitler and bin Laden, and it's really destructive when such people get into power. In business, it's far more common to encounter the selfish kind of evil: the office psychopath. This is because, although they're less damaging to the world, office psychopaths are just a lot more common. You can think of selfishly evil people like tornadoes, which can cause a lot of harm on a local scale but rarely globally, and fanatical evil people like hurricanes, which have a broader effect.
On the small scale, selfish evil is more dangerous because these people are more common and, unlike the fanatically evil who usually end up institutionalized, there are a lot of them in high positions of power and it is impossible to spot them unless one directly sees them doing bad things, because they act like anyone else. On the large scale, fanatical evil is more dangerous to the world because it's better at PR. It can dress itself up as "virtue" and prey on weak minds.
> by the insistence on one value, which may be good (economic equality, as in communism)
If nothing else, experience with said insistence suggests that economic equality may not be good.
But, even if we ignore that experience, is there reason to believe that economic equality is a good thing. Is it even an "all other things being equal" good thing?
Thank you for writing this. I am relatively new to the whole entrepreneur / startup scene and I have already met some of the most RADICALLY different people I could imagine.
I have left startup companies based entirely upon the values of the co-founders. Their goals (REAL goals, not the goals listed in their mission statement) were simply too different from my own.
I feel this article had great potential, but it somehow strayed away and missed a lot of important points. As well, the title should be along the lines of “Understanding Entrepreneur Values” or of such. And Swombat I would love to hear your thoughts on the concept of “how to stay true” “questioning values” and digging deeper into the basic concepts we have build around the idea of “Entrepreneur”
That being said, here are my thoughts.
1) I don’t feel the notion of “Good Vs. Evil” is remotely relevant. They are labels we put on Social accepted behavior. Instead, the argument should revolve around then notion of how Entrepreneurs respond to incentives, for instances in the case of “Should I sell my company for x million, and leave my employees in the cold” or dealing with pressure “My company is not doing so well, shall I cut back on my CRM program, or fire employees”
These are more related to the notion of “entrepreneur value” where as serving the customers and having good employees are high value tasks, and choosing between one may come down to what is “valued” higher for the founder.
2) I would also like to take a minute to explore some of the entrepreneurial values as listed by OP and dissect reasons behind the actions. If we are talking why some Entrepreneurs put “treat customers right” above the “bottom line” or vise versa, it really isn’t much about being a “good” entrepreneur or a “bad” entrepreneur. In the book “Confession of an Ad Man” by David Ogily, he argues that the reason behind why companies are not putting a lot more marketing dollars into their marketing programs is because often consumer sentiment and marketing results is an un-measureable thing. As a business student, I can tell you that we are trained to be scientist, in the sense that we are taught scientific methods that are based on quality research that someone somewhere has quantified. Something that is unquantifiable is a scary thing, because
A) We cannot prove it’s success
B) We are not sure if we are doing it right
C) Shareholders would have a hard time grasping the results
As humans, we like to be right in the most efficient manner. Therefore anything unquantifiable, like investing behind raising consumer values is a scary thing. Hence why a lot of businesses care more about bottom line then customer experience. Although this trend is changing =]. Now you might be thinking, can’t we peg a value against returning shoppers and aren’t there a lot of studies in the recent support the notion that returning customers have a high value. Yes and yes! Again, companies are slowly moving toward that direction and almost all (and their shareholder) still measure success based on bottom line. Overall, It’s not the notion of Good entrepreneur vs Evil entrepreneur, but external and personality traits that affect action.
6 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 19.1 ms ] threadIt's really cool though, normally I don't pay attention to who wrote an article, and just skim through to see if it's interesting. Here, the initial focus on the photo reminds me that you're a very good blogger, based on other articles that you've written in the past and grabs my complete focus right away.
It is intentional to draw some attention (though not to distract from the article), for two reasons.
First, some people complained that they liked the articles but didn't know what my credentials were, so while the initial design for swombat.com was much more minimalist (like DaringFireball's), I realised that I'm not John Gruber with a fanatical following of hundreds of thousands, and so I still need to convey who I am to the majority who haven't heard of me.
Secondly, a good friend advised me that blogs are much more memorable and engaging if the author's picture is visible (which your comment supports). And it makes sense - people are naturally very good at recognising and remembering faces.
Bad people have no problem with good values. Irreconcilable opposites are made from the same handful of values representing goodness.
As for evil vs. values, evil generally comes in two forms: fanatical and selfish evil, which may both exist in one person. Invariably, both exist in evil movements: Hitler being an example of fanatical evil and Eichmann being an example of selfish evil. OP's statement is only true (sometimes) of the latter. Fanatical evil is characterized by the insistence on one value, which may be good (economic equality, as in communism) or bad ("racial purity", as in Nazism) at its root but is, in either case, given such an absurdly high priority over other values (humanism, reason) as to have catastrophic results.
Selfish evil, on the other hand, is characterized by narcissism, psychopathy, and a complete lack of values, but also a willingness to adopt the appearance of whatever values are in fashion. A selfishly evil person cares only about self-advancement.
The fanatical kind is what we associate with villians like Hitler and bin Laden, and it's really destructive when such people get into power. In business, it's far more common to encounter the selfish kind of evil: the office psychopath. This is because, although they're less damaging to the world, office psychopaths are just a lot more common. You can think of selfishly evil people like tornadoes, which can cause a lot of harm on a local scale but rarely globally, and fanatical evil people like hurricanes, which have a broader effect.
On the small scale, selfish evil is more dangerous because these people are more common and, unlike the fanatically evil who usually end up institutionalized, there are a lot of them in high positions of power and it is impossible to spot them unless one directly sees them doing bad things, because they act like anyone else. On the large scale, fanatical evil is more dangerous to the world because it's better at PR. It can dress itself up as "virtue" and prey on weak minds.
If nothing else, experience with said insistence suggests that economic equality may not be good.
But, even if we ignore that experience, is there reason to believe that economic equality is a good thing. Is it even an "all other things being equal" good thing?
I have left startup companies based entirely upon the values of the co-founders. Their goals (REAL goals, not the goals listed in their mission statement) were simply too different from my own.
Again, thanks for a great post!
That being said, here are my thoughts.
1) I don’t feel the notion of “Good Vs. Evil” is remotely relevant. They are labels we put on Social accepted behavior. Instead, the argument should revolve around then notion of how Entrepreneurs respond to incentives, for instances in the case of “Should I sell my company for x million, and leave my employees in the cold” or dealing with pressure “My company is not doing so well, shall I cut back on my CRM program, or fire employees”
These are more related to the notion of “entrepreneur value” where as serving the customers and having good employees are high value tasks, and choosing between one may come down to what is “valued” higher for the founder.
A more psychology related piece on being a founder: http://bhorowitz.com/2011/04/01/what%E2%80%99s-the-most-diff...
2) I would also like to take a minute to explore some of the entrepreneurial values as listed by OP and dissect reasons behind the actions. If we are talking why some Entrepreneurs put “treat customers right” above the “bottom line” or vise versa, it really isn’t much about being a “good” entrepreneur or a “bad” entrepreneur. In the book “Confession of an Ad Man” by David Ogily, he argues that the reason behind why companies are not putting a lot more marketing dollars into their marketing programs is because often consumer sentiment and marketing results is an un-measureable thing. As a business student, I can tell you that we are trained to be scientist, in the sense that we are taught scientific methods that are based on quality research that someone somewhere has quantified. Something that is unquantifiable is a scary thing, because
A) We cannot prove it’s success B) We are not sure if we are doing it right C) Shareholders would have a hard time grasping the results
As humans, we like to be right in the most efficient manner. Therefore anything unquantifiable, like investing behind raising consumer values is a scary thing. Hence why a lot of businesses care more about bottom line then customer experience. Although this trend is changing =]. Now you might be thinking, can’t we peg a value against returning shoppers and aren’t there a lot of studies in the recent support the notion that returning customers have a high value. Yes and yes! Again, companies are slowly moving toward that direction and almost all (and their shareholder) still measure success based on bottom line. Overall, It’s not the notion of Good entrepreneur vs Evil entrepreneur, but external and personality traits that affect action.