cdixon - Latest Comments in Man and superman

Re: Man and superman

Elie Seidman — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:10:18 -0000

all the greats are geniuses but not all the geniuses are greats. Even the greats need a lucky break here and there and sure, there are probably a few Gates's who did not get there for lack of the lucky break. But the truly great ones create their own luck for the most part. Steve Jobs spent ten years investing - out of his own pocket in Pixar and Next way ahead of the curve. Like you say below - he had some lucky breaks but the vast majority of his luck is luck he created.

Re: Man and superman

Mark Essel — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:53:13 -0000

Anytime Chris. You can see I love batch processing information :D

Re: Man and superman

chris dixon — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:05:17 -0000

thanks mark! for this and all your comments...

Re: Man and superman

Mark Essel — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:59:19 -0000

Loved this post the first time
I read it 10/10 for your third popular post. It's related to my current investment strategy, only partner or buy into businesses where you know and trust the leadership team.

Re: Man and superman

meanlittlechimp — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:48:35 -0000

Chris,

I agree with your superman theory for the most part, but I don't think Jobs or Gates would have necessarily accomplished what they did, if they were born 30 years earlier.

My hunch, is there are many other talented (non-actualized "supermen"); who could have developed into one with slightly different circumstances or environments.

Re: Man and superman

Tyler Willis — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:23:12 -0000

It sounds like something Marc Andreessen wrote awhile back about picking investments based on market forces instead of the ability of the entrepreneur or the soundness of the idea.

If I remember correctly, basically the latter two were binary "good-enough" type rankings and the market opportunity was what drove his investment decisions.

Could be remembering that wrong, but his blog has been taken down so I can't check it.

Re: Man and superman

chris dixon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:17:25 -0000

Hmm, not sure. Seems like there is some correlation but not 1 to 1.

Re: Man and superman

chris dixon — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:15:53 -0000

Not really. Maybe has implications for public stock market investing. And if you can find/partner with a person like that.

Re: Man and superman

samfjacobs — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:06:38 -0000

Given that most of us aren't at the Jobs or Gates level, is there a prescription implicit in the post?

Re: Man and superman

Rand Fishkin — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:36:08 -0000

Thanks for the kind words!

I agree that to show the "super-ness" you're describing takes multiple remarkable acts. I guess my question is - does the degree or quantity of "super-ness" relate proportionally to the company's growth + ability? Do the two metrics scale together?

Re: Man and superman

Ankesh Kothari — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:00:52 -0000

Very interesting post and comments!

Can't think of any company that has had successes after successes with different leaders at the helm. Maybe GE comes closest.

But maybe the lessons can be learnt from religion. The successful religions were started by 1 superman - but they built inherent momentum which makes them grow bigger and bigger - no matter who becomes the chief of the entire religion in the future. In fact, they grow despite the leaders. The Pope is no longer influential in growing Christianity. Who knows who is the chief of Buddhism? (except Tibetan Buddhism who has the Dalai Lamas.) Same for Islam? Hinduism? But these religions keep on growing...

So... just thinking out loud here...
1. The product has to become way bigger than the superman.
2. There has to be inherent momentum.
3. The solution has to be unchanging more-or-less over long periods of time.

I think point 3 is where companies suffer and religions don't - in having longevity after the superman. 10 commandments will never change... People will always have this curiousness about what purpose we serve - and no scientific answer seems to be forthcoming - so religions fulfill a psychological purpose and don't really need to change much to keep on fulfilling this purpose.

But the environment the company is in is bound to change drastically as technological innovation becomes faster and faster. Companies have to adapt constantly to keep on fulfilling their purpose. So how can you find evergreen solutions in ever growing fields?

Re: Man and superman

antrod — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:19:09 -0000

Same with Mark Hurd but in both cases, these are great incremental managers.
You don't get the kind of wealth creation from the work that they do, say
relative to a Jobs or a Morita.
It takes all kinds.

Re: Man and superman

chris dixon — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 13:05:07 -0000

True, being founders gives them a lot of respect, but I think there are other ways to gain respect. Jach Welch seemed to be respected among the troops even though he wasn't a founder.

Re: Man and superman

antrod — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:23:06 -0000

This is a great piece, but in the case of both SJ and Morita, there is another component Chris— the founder power they have in the company that comes from the fact that they were the guys who gave the initial vision. I once heard SJ talking to a group of us at the D conference basically say as much— when he came back to Apple and started canceling projects left and right, most of the old guard (who has now become critical to the company's rebirth) went along with it because he was SJ and not some "suit" who had no idea how much blood, sweat, and tears had gone into what he was canceling.

Even at HP, the mention of Bill&Dave and the time that they came back out of retirement to fix the company carries with it a level of respect (and frankly latitude) that no one else has gotten since.

That said, I completely agree that most of us are too uncomfortable to admit that there are leaders and visionaries who are just that much better than the rest of us mortals.

Re: Man and superman

chris dixon — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:08:49 -0000

Hey Rand - Good question. My intution says that at a minimum someone needs to do more than one great thing to show their superness. What is so amazing about, say, Steve Jobs is he really had huge, separate hits multiple times (Apple 2, Mac, iPod, iPhone).

Very cool to see you here - I've been an avid reader of SEOMoz for years.

Re: Man and superman

Kishore — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 04:11:55 -0000

Though it seems a little counter intuitive, we do observe that countries have done well in democracy and companies under a dictator.

Companies that stood for a single vision got somewhere and the ones that took decisions democratically based on multiple visions more often got nowhere. I strongly believe in the roles such leaders have in building great companies.

I am not sure whether Gates or any others can do it again, but the second coming of Steve Jobs does make him extra special.

Re: Man and superman

Eran Galperin — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:53:38 -0000

Collins does allude to those "supermen" in his book. His theory is that when those "supermen" step down from their role, the company is not able to maintain its excellence for a lack of sustained company culture. Companies headed by "supermen" become too dependent on the outstanding abilities of one person, and develop no lasting culture, as you've demonstrated with the Bill Gates case.

I thought collins' analysis was very interesting. The companies he calls "great" are those that show sustained success compared to the market median over a long period of time (25 years), outliving short periods of any specific genius leader. Only time will tell if Apple can become great over such a long period, or will it descend back to mediocrity after Jobs steps down.

Re: Man and superman

Jason Crawford — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:42:41 -0000

In *Built to Last*, Collins and Porras studied companies that had had sustained performance over multiple generations of leaders. So they can't have been the product of a single leader. In contrast, some of the companies in their control group did start off with a single charismatic leader, who had no succession plan. Those companies didn't do as well. See, e.g., their discussion of Motorola vs. Zenith.

The article you linked to, about Collins' "portfolio", is not talking about *Built to Last*, but actually about *Good to Great*. Those companies all did outperform the market for a sustained period, but I don't think Collins ever claimed that they had all put in place the "Built to Last" measures that would keep that performance going for generations.

Re: Man and superman

Rand Fishkin — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:24:45 -0000

Chris - long time reader, first time commenter :-)

How do you think about this principle as it applies to the many small and mid-size "successful" businesses in the technology and startup world. Did Mint.com/Farecast/SurveyMon... have semi-Supermen? Is the concept that all businesses need this superman at the top to achieve success or that the ratio of "super-ness" is in proportion to the business' achievements? Or is this principle only ascribed to the very top of the top - where billion dollar companies are changing the world?

Re: Man and superman

Ben Atlas — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:36:56 -0000

I have seen many geniuses. You can spot them with ease. But the skill you are referring to is the skill of translating ideas into actual innovations. That talent is very hard to spot, virtually impossible.

Re: Man and superman

Donald Livingston — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:25:37 -0000

I agree. There is a saying attributed to Pasteur, "Fortune favors the prepared mind." There is little doubt that Gates and Jobs had favorable circumstances, but hard work, wit, and intelligence are needed to take advantage when fortune smiles on you.

Re: Man and superman

Mark Essel — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:45:02 -0000

I get the feeling being a super entrepreneur is more than just destiny. I believe it's related to a combination of character traits of which ultra marathoners exhibit one (near malevolent will).

Anyone who has the capability of datamining, pattern matching, or following a gutt instinct to these ladies and gents is likely to find themselves with a large pile of cash. Good hunting as an Angel investor and entrepreneur!

Re: Man and superman

chris dixon — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:41:57 -0000

I think you can spot great talent, but not these very special people. I agree you also need a wave. I think genius is a necessary but not sufficient condition for greatness.

Re: Man and superman

chris dixon — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:41:07 -0000

all of the above?

Re: Man and superman

Mark Essel — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:40:06 -0000

Is it magical, genetic, or some act of will beyond our comprehension that makes these super leaders tic?