Growth Isn’t Everything

(Did not mean for this to be a play on ‘Size isn’t everything’)

A couple months ago, I got to visit two tech companies that I’ve heard about a lot: Groupon and 37Signals.  I’ll get to Groupon, but want to start with 37Signals. It’s the quietest office I’ve ever been it – it was explained that the best work is done in areas of silence, and the office should be no different. Every aspect of this office is designed with careful thought; even the walls are covered with foam to muffle the noise. The office holds 12 employees; the other 18 of the company are based remotely. We were shown around by the CEO and Founder, Jason Fried.

Groupon was a totally different story – it was a loud bustling office with hundreds of people, and that was just on one floor. There was an excitement in the air, and whatever else that intangible startup vibe is. Our group was taken into a room with 6 Groupon employees – many of whom had never met each other. Andrew Mason was unfortunately not our tour guide; he was most likely busy with the executive team preparing for the IPO.

There are a lot of contrasts between the two companies. 37signals is 10 years old and has 30 employees. Groupon is just over 3 years old, and has somewhere around 10,000 employees. One is the fastest growing organization in history; the other is a privately held company where every employee has the same sized desk. Groupon’s revenue is around 300 million; 37Signals has about 1/20^th of that (though, as Jason and DHH would fairly argue, they are more profitable). Groupon is more similar to the 21^st century startup hitting it big culture that we’re all exposed to; 37Signals is an exception reflecting sustainability.

There’s a fascinating allure to growth and hitting homeruns that makes Groupon a very attractive company and the more popular story. And this reflects a greater societal trend: So many things in this world rely on growth for success. If a company’s revenues aren’t growing, then it’s likely in trouble. If the economy isn’t growing, there’s a recession. If the population isn’t growing, then Social Security is going to run out (a more complex issue I agree). If a college’s application numbers aren’t increasing, then there’s concern that the college is no longer as ‘prestigious’. It annoys me when writers use a few examples to validate a general statement – but I think there are enough examples of where growth is equated with success. And not growing, conversely, means failure.

The thing is, I think the guys at 37Signals love what they do. They don’t work 80 hours weeks, in fact they only work 4 day weeks in the summer. Sure there revenue is closer to 10 million than 100 million, but there are only 30 of them anyway. Millions of people use their products, but they are by no means a massive company and they probably never will be. But I also don’t think they want to be. They are happy being a sustainable, highly profitable company.

So the conflict here is this: Not growing is often considered failure, but is constant growth sustainable? How do not growing and constant growth coexist? I’ll start by looking at companies. Apple is almost worth 400 billion dollars today, is that really going to double? And when it doesn’t, is it going to be a failure for Apple to “only” be worth 400 billion dollars for a few years? Well we have an example, Microsoft. In 2000, they were worth almost 600 billion dollars. Today they are worth a bit over 200 billion dollars, and have been that way for a few years. There are two ways to look at this.

1. Microsoft is failing, they are nowhere near where they used to be, and the future does not look bright for them. Not a place where I’d want to work.
2. Microsoft isn’t as big as they used to be, but 200 billion is still a huge company that serves millions, it still provides important products and services.

1 is the prevailing attitude (at least for me), but I think 2 is the more reasonable one. Because Microsoft has been so stagnant in its stock price for its recent history, it’s now the butt of many jokes (Balmer is not helping that cause) rather than a top place to work. Many people, given the opportunity, would rather work at a Facebook or Zynga than Microsoft – some place that’s poised to grow explosively rather than an old company past its prime.

My argument is that there is a huge need for Microsofts of this world. Cutting-edge companies and industries are often thought of more important, but that is absolutely not true. It is not bad to work or be involved with a “non-growing” organization/industry. The most basic example is farming – which is never going to generate huge profits but is an absolute necessity.

There’s a cycle of innovation and commoditization in play here. As the lifetimes of new products advance, they become cheaper to make and eventually commoditized. Innovation keeps the profit cycle alive, and that’s why most ‘great’ companies are so good at innovating – they make new markets for profit after existing markets fail. And companies that aren’t as great as innovating (Microsoft) fall behind.

But just because a company is not good at innovating doesn’t mean that they serve no purpose. A company who minimizes the costs of developing a drug is just as important as the company that developed the drug – the former company should still be considered ‘great’. We need tables, we need affordable food, we need pens and pencils, and we need generic drugs. Most necessary goods are commodities – great companies have to be able to make them efficiently.

While I believe that efficient companies can be just as good and important as innovative companies (and the two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive), I still want to work for the innovative one. A buddy made me realize this the other day, but it doesn’t sound like that great a job to lead a company whose sole purpose is to make paper (or any other commodity). These lifestyle companies have an indisputable purpose, but they are not at the forefront of innovation.

I don’t think I’m alone in wanting to work on something groundbreaking, where innovation and growth are part of everyday business. And that’s not a bad thing to want either, but it’s a dangerous thing if everyone wants it. The reality is it doesn’t make sense for everything to grow rapidly, most companies are efficient and provide necessities. What’s scary to think about is that many of those people who want to work on growth and innovation might have to “settle” for sustainable, commoditized companies/jobs/industries. It’s not settling, it’s not failure – I believe that objectively. But given the environment I’ve been raised in (I’m not saying it’s society’s fault) I don’t truly believe it yet – still working on that.

If I had to pick a company to work for today, hands down it’s Groupon. There’s so much going on there, and so much potential that it’s just an exciting place to be. But as I say that, I wonder if I’m just following the norms I’ve been raised around to be enthralled by explosive growth. Who knows, I might have a more meaningful impact working at a less innovative but more established business.

I don’t think everything can grow forever; it’s natural for once groundbreaking discoveries to become commoditized. That being said, I think growth and innovation push the world forward and improve quality of life. But those commoditized, sustainable companies – those paper companies of the world – they’re what spread that quality of life and keep the rest of the world running.

The case against IQ Tests

I read an article today titled The Curse of Giftedness that got me thinking about something I’ve wanted to write about for a while. You can check out the article here:

The first time I seriously thought about IQ tests was 8th grade, when we read Flowers for Algernon for English class. If you haven’t read it, the story centers around a mentally retarded man named Charlie. Through some new technology, scientists are able to artificially increase Charlie’s IQ for a brief period of time. And during that time, Charlie masters all sorts of academic material, even picking up foreign languages, all because of his innate drive and curiosity. The paradox here is: How does a mentally retarded man parallel the ability of a genius?

My English teacher used an analogy that sums up my views on IQ. He compared IQ to the size of your mental bucket. And drive, fittingly, is how often you use the bucket. Algernon, even in his mentally retarded state, was perpetually curious and showed much potential. When his IQ was increased, his bucket became larger, and his potential was realized. Rather than frequently using his unusually small bucket, he frequently used his artificially large bucket. I don’t look at IQ independently; I think it always has to be linked with drive, initiative, or whatever you want to call it. So with that, here’s why I don’t like IQ tests.

There are three general things that can happen when you take an IQ test – you score below average, average, and above average (there are different degrees, but I don’t need them for my main point). Let’s just go case by case; assuming you have no clue what your IQ is before taking the test.

• Case 1 Below Average: This isn’t what anyone hopes for when they take the IQ test, and chances are the person with this result is going to be disappointed. You could just accept the result, think nothing of it, and move on – I don’t think this is very likely. Maybe this result gives you motivation to work extra hard so you can still do something great – still don’t think this is as likely, but when it happens it’s a good result. And many people, dejected by the results, will feel as if they are inherently disadvantaged and let their low score become a self fulfilling prophecy in leading a less successful life (however you define success).

• Case 2 Average: This isn’t the worst result, and for many people won’t have a bad or good effect. But the people who come in thinking they are truly above average and get this average score will be very disappointed, even bitter. There are a lot of people out there that fall into this category, and again because of the drive-IQ relation. You don’t need to be “naturally brilliant” to do well in high school, college, or even life. But finding out that you’re “average” in terms of IQ can still be a lousy feeling. Finally, to be fair, there will some people who think they are below average and will score average. This could be the thing that gets the drive in those people going, but I think the reason for their below average self concept is chronic underperforming and low drive – which is a deep problem.

• Case 3 Above Average: Perhaps surprisingly, I think this is the most dangerous category. The implications are pretty universal, most people in this category is going feel like he/she has a naturally greater potential, higher ability than the general population. This could lead to that “I don’t need to try” mentality, which might work for a while but rarely works for life. Or it could verify one’s self belief in being able to do great things. More dangerously, it can instill a necessity to do great things. Great expectations come with great IQs, and that’s very dangerous for long-term fulfillment. Many of the “smartest” people, or those with high IQs and potential, still do remarkable things in their lives – but they don’t always do the “great” things they are capable. Falling short of expected greatness can be as much a vice – if not more so – as having limited potential.

When break it down case by case, there’s not a whole lot of good that can come out of IQ. I get why it’s interesting, and admittedly I’ve been curious to take a test. But I haven’t, and I don’t plan on doing it any time soon – I don’t see the point.

The difference between Facebook, Twitter, and Foursquare

“Facebook is literally everyone I’ve ever shaken hands with at a conference or kissed on the cheek at Easter. Twitter seems to be everyone I am entertained by or I wish to meet some day. Foursquare seems to be everyone I run into on a regular basis.”

-Dennis Crowley, CEO of Foursquare

Couldn’t say it better myself

The Public Private Life

Most people realize how much information is on the internet. If you know what you’re doing, you can get employment history, real estate data, and lots of random information just from a person’s name and location. And especially now, with social networks, there’s so much you can get from a simple search. In fact I just did a test search right now, and I pretty much found everything I mentioned (and creeped out my friend along the way).

So it’s pretty easy to find information on almost anyone. Thanks to social networks, larger parts of our lives are out in the public than ever before – and that’s not just for celebrities. What interesting is how we keep any sense of privacy in our lives, in a world that’s becoming ever more public. We can go around accusing others of being facebook creeps and stalkers, but I don’t have much sympathy for the so called ‘victims’. If you’re putting the information out there, don’t be surprised when someone unexpected finds it.

In fact, I’m skeptical to think anything on the web is truly private. If you have some top secret Gmail thread with a friend, I don’t think the guys at Gmail would have a lot of trouble reading the message. That is, if they cared in the first place. But the point stands – if you have something so secret that you don’t want anyone else to know, then don’t put it online in the public domain in the first place.

The thing is, I don’t think a lot of us have these “top secret” bombshells to hide – at least not as many as we claim we do. Yes, I absolutely believe there are a few things that are truly personal and should be kept personal for good reasons. But we go to such lengths to hide things that I just don’t understand.

Things that come to mind are grades, relationships, salaries, jobs, most failures, etc. I get that a lot of these things can associated with disappointment, and so it seems natural to hide them. If you have a low salary, you might feel lame. And if you’re making 7 figures, friends might judge you. Same goes for failed relationships, low test scores, etc.

But only two questions matter to me. Does the world care? And do I care if the world cares? (And by world I mean all the people you might try to hide things from, not the close friends and/or family that you do share your private life with.) A lot of the times, the world just won’t care. Say you break up with your girlfriend, and it sucks – you might even look at it as a failure. But is the rest of the world really going to care that you’re no longer in a relationship? Probably not, so why waste your time trying to hide something that no one is looking for?

And if they do care, if they are going to judge you, do you care? Here’s my example. When I bombed a midterm, I felt like shit. And yeah, it is embarrassing, I’m not denying that. But if someone asked, I openly shared, and I shared without being asked too. Most of the people I shared with were close friends, and weren’t ones to negatively judge. But even those who did think I was dumb for bombing the test, I really could care less what they thought. I felt shitty because I had failed my own standards, not because I was weighed down by the disappointment of others. The disappointment didn’t help, but it didn’t hurt either.

Our lives are more public than ever before. But privacy is, and will always, be necessary. It’s just overdone right now; we don’t need as much ‘privacy’ as we claim we do. So much is hidden, but not because it needs to be hidden. It’s hidden because we can’t deal with it. By falling to outside disappointment or judgment we just validate a self-created need for privacy. It’s not that we need to hide more, there’s enough of that already. We need to get better at dealing with judgment, that’s the crux of happiness in today’s public private life.

Crowdsourcing and 99Designs

Last week at work, I reviewed 99Designs and Crowdspring. Both are fairly similar sites, specializing in logo design and art creation. What both sites use, and what I want to write about, is crowdsourcing. The idea is simple. Rather than go to a single person or entity for a solution, crowdsourcing employs the masses to solve a problem. So for logo design, sites like 99Desgins Crowdspring let users view potential designs from the masses - rather than just a single designer.  And that’s exactly what happens, both sites have gone a long way in perfecting their product. When a user submits a draft (on both sites), he will on average get near 100 responses. From there the user can post comments to perfect designs, and ultimately pick a winner and pay the creator accordingly.

At first glance I loved this idea. Coming from a purely consumer standpoint, it’s incredible. I checked out a few of the logos people were making, and they were ones that I’d be satisfied with. Granted, I’m no professional designer and have very limited training. But if I was looking for a logo for some company I’m starting, the quality of the designs on 99Designs would be great. And from a price point, there’s no comparison. If I went the old fashioned way, and hired one professional designer, I’d be paying way more than what I pay at 99Designs. For 300 bucks, 99Designs will let me look at dozens (maybe hundreds) of options and give me the power to pick what I like best. With one designer, I’m limited to the mock-ups he creates, and there’s no guarantee that we see eye to eye or have compatible visions. And of course, I’d be paying him way more than 300 bucks. Using 99Designs is like hiring dozens of designers for the price of one - nothing else will take my dollar further.

Even outside the experience, the idea of crowdsourcing is something I fully support. The beauty of something like 99Designs is that maybe the design I like best is actually made by a bus driver who happens to have some photoshop skills. Or maybe it is made by that graphic designer who majored in design. Frankly, it doesn’t matter. Crowdsourcing breaks down barriers to entry, creates a condition of near perfect competition (knew those econ terms would come in handy someday), and gives the consumer more selection at a lower cost. Before, it’d be almost impossible that I would ask a bus driver to design my logo; it wouldn’t make any practical sense. Rather, I would ask a designer, something who’s tried and tested. Not surprisingly, it’s that group of people who most vehemently opposes crowdsourcing.

I get the designer perspective. If you’re a designer, you log onto this site, and see that there are thousands of people claiming to be “designers” when they do things like, well, drive buses. And you, the designer, spent a lot of time and money learning the ins and outs of true design. As if that’s not enough, crowdsourcing essentially makes it so that you have to do the work, and then maybe get paid. It’s called spec work, and to a designer it’s just a slap in the face. After spending that money and time, at the end of the day your painstakingly constructed submission might lose out to something a bus driver put together in a few minutes using a few Photoshop filters. And if you win, you just win a fraction of what you would have gotten working with a client individually. Either way, it sucks. And in response, many designers have banded toegether fighting against 99Designs and other forms of spec work. They say it degrades from the art of designs and severely dents designer salary.

Still, I’m in favor of crowdsourcing. I understand the opposition, but I really think every advancement comes at a cost. What designers say today is not so different from what laborers said in the past when machines replaced human jobs, and it’s not too different from what domestic workers have said about immigration/outsourcing. But both of those practices - technical progress and immigration, are huge net goods. Without either, America’s standard of living would be a lot lower. Crowdsourcing leaves consumers better off, for reasons I’ve already said. To quote an overused saying, “The customer is always right”. Trendy designers can complain that the submissions are not “true design” and a disgrace to the art. But if I like what I see, and think it’s going to serve my purposes, I don’t care if it was made by a designer who knows “true design” or a bus driver. All I care about is if it works.

Because I’m not a designer,  I fully admit that it’s easier for me to support crowdsourcing. And honestly there are probably some designers out there who have lost their jobs or are living a tough life because of sites like 99Designs. I truly empathize with those people. But if we stopped advancing every time someone was negatively affected, horses would still be the fastest way of transport.

Sophomore Year

As I was writing the last post I remembered that I’d written a reflective post on freshman year after spring finals. I’ll continue the tradition.

I liked sophomore year more, that’s my holistic view. A large part of that was me becoming a lot more comfortable. Comfortable with the campus, the people, who I am, everything. I really neglected a few things - mainly Delta Chi. My own fault, and I’m hoping to make more of it next year when living in the house. Still not sure if fraternity life is the right thing for me, but I’ve never given it a fair chance. Distant isn’t the right word, but I don’t talk to high school friends as much anymore. It feels weird, but less weird than it used to. Distant isn’t the right word because some of my friends came to visit a few weeks ago, and it wasn’t that different. After I get home (eventually…) I’m pretty sure we’ll hang out like we did in the past. Frequency, more than quality, is what will change. That’s life right?

In terms of extracurricular stuff, I’m cutting back. Or at least prioritizing. I don’t want to do things I don’t care about, and I don’t need to - so I’m not just going to sign up for any random thing that sounds nice. Beginning of the year was dominated by PARC, and the end was dominated by Field Day - so still involved in res life. And SCNO is the other big thing I really care about on campus, so I’m just focusing on those two things. I did Windows 7 repping for a quarter and a third, but I quit after that. Honestly, I think I’m more of a mac person than Windows. At the very least, I’m not enough of a Windows person to pitch it to random people. But with the iPad and iPhone 4, I’d definitely spend money on Apple over Microsoft.

Classes. I still don’t love econ, and I found out there’s no ‘deadline’ to declare it - so I’m not going to. I don’t know why, it’s more of a principle because I’ll still take econ classes. But I would rather tell someone that I’m undeclared than say I’m an econ major. It’s interesting, but definitely not my passion (still searching for that). I also realized that you can do well in a class even without fully understanding the material. I’ll take it, but I don’t like it. That’s just saying I can prepare for a class, not master material - I’d rather do the latter.

I’ll apologize now for the scattered pseudo-coherency of this post - didn’t really logically structure this but whatever, it’s a blog.

I don’t need billions. Don’t even know if I need millions honestly. But that was my materialistic ambition not so long ago - build an incredible house, drive an Aston Martin, own fancy hotels, etc. To be clear I don’t not want that stuff (The Vantage is still a sick car). But it’s not necessary, it’s not even close. happiness, both personally and professionally, is honestly what I care about. Happiness and materialistic fruits aren’t mutually exclusive, but if they were I’d choose happiness without hesitation. Materialism alone could never bring me happiness.

I used to think it was cool to be a stone wall, to be so independent and void of emotion that there was never a need to have people. I liked to say things like “Well I don’t know who I’ll actually be in touch with in five years, but I could care less, I don’t need to be in touch with anyone.” That’s bullshit, I absolutely care. Not with the random kid I did a class project with, but I want to stay in touch with the meaningful friends I make, and it’s an outright lie for me to say otherwise. Honestly. it’s more than a lie - it’s a defense mechanism. By saying I don’t need others, there’s never a need to show the vulnerability that starts deeper friendships (and relationships).

I listen a lot more than I talk - and I used to think that was so logical, stoic, strong, etc. But consider the situation. In meeting someone, you might want to share something about yourself that will elicit an  unknown reaction. Let’s make it simpler - say you want to share something that will result in a significant judgement. On one hand, you could never follow through. You never throw yourself out there to be vulnerably judged, and there’s little chance people will think less of you. Or you could reveal a vulnerability, you could throw yourself out there. Then there are possibilities: rejection and acceptance. Getting rejected sucks. I hate saying something that is bugging me, or tough for me to say, only to get a sarcastic or joking reply. And if you get rejected a few times, the option of never showing vulnerability is really tempting. But say you get accepted. Say the person understands, sympathizes, or simply genuinely respects what you throw out there. Then that means something, that’s the stuff that binds the true friendships. By showing and respecting the act of being vulnerable, and reciprocating, friends establish trust, and to me that’s the basis of any ‘real’ friendship. That’s why showing vulnerability is important. Sure it leads to rejections, but it also leads to the creation of real friends. Never being vulnerable is tantamount to never truly trusting that person (as sweeping a statement as that might be). So in terms of me, I want to work on that. Rather than be a hard shell, I think it’s worth showing vulnerability, and it’s a strength rather than a weakness.

I still hate coffee - I had a cup today and it just reminded me how much more I love smoothies. But that being said, a lot of the sweeping judgement or generalizations I’ve had are retarded. I still don’t drink, but I have no idea why. Honestly, right now, it’s probably just because I don’t like how beer tastes. The smartest people I know drink, my best friends drink, people I respect and admire drink - how is it even logically fathomable that I make sweeping judgments on such a limited act when I personally know so many counterexamples. And with judgments in general, I’m trying to always realize how little I know and how unique situations are.

Alright so now time for the most pressing issue in my mind: I still have no idea what the hell I’m doing in life. Still just planning a quarter in advance, and sometimes not even that. I’m liking a lot of the stuff I do and learn, but I don’t know if I’m “loving” it. I don’t need to love what I’m doing to make money, but I would rather love what I do than make money. Consulting is looking like the thing right now, but I’m worried that’s just because consulting is the most recent of cookie-cutter paths exposed to me. I’m working at my first startup in a couple days, and I’m really excited for that; hopefully it’ll give me a better idea of what I want. But the general fact that college is half over and my future is as cloudy as ever can be terrifying. I’m definitely not the only one in that boat though, which is comforting in a weird way.

Time for summer 2010. Not the ideal start with today (3 more hours at the airport), but I’m really excited to sleep on my bed tonight.

Random sidenote - I don’t know how I could have gotten by the last 5 hours if I hadn’t bought the airport’s WiFi. Ridiculous that it’s not free, but completely worth it.

2 posts in a day, I think I’ve done my quota for a month. Actually I’m going  put time aside every Sunday for this sorta thing, but no promises as always.

Today

It’s actually sort of funny, but today was just a lot of things going wrong - might make for an interesting post. I’m at the airport charging my laptop as I write this, and I’ve been here for the past 5 hours (and I’ll probably be here for another 4).

So the day really started yesterday, when I started packing. Packing is always something that I underestimate, and it took forever as usual. I had my friend’s car which made it easier, but turned out to be the first bad thing. In the morning, I saw that a car had parked an inch in front of the car I was borrowing - so there was no way for me to get out. I called University Police because I needed to get out, and by a strange turn of events, it turns out that it was a reserved packing place and I got a ticket for even parking there (which is funny because a cop had told me in the night it was okay to park there for moving out).

So after getting the ticket and getting the details, I was already an hour behind schedule. I had to cut packing short and ask a friend to move my last things because I really had no time left. He helped me get to the train station, and it was a pretty tough situation after that.

So I’m on the l with two 50 pound backs, and a backpack that’s probably around 30 pounds - needless to say I wasn’t moving that fast. Also it’s ridiculously humid and I decided to wear jeans and long-sleeved shirt (brilliant). Oh, also the Chicago Blackhawks just won the Stanley Cup and of course the victory parade was happening exactly while I was going to the airport.

At one point I was taking all my stuff up a flight of stairs when hundreds of others were going in the opposite direction to watch the parade. Definitely one of the better recent workouts I’ve had. I got onto the right train and got to the airport at 1:05.

My flight departs at 1:15.

By the time I get to the check-in desk, the lady tells me that I have 6 minutes, and the next open flight is at 10pm. So I check-in, get through security the fastest I’ve ever been in my life, and look for the gate. Continuing the theme of the day, the gate was at the opposite end of the terminal. I make a run for it, see the plane, but the attendant adamantly says that the gate is closed off - there’s no way I’m getting on that plane. She puts me on the stand-by list for the 5pm flight, and I decided to go looking for the tennis racket I lost along the way (I still don’t know where that is….)

I’m still waiting so the standby thing didn’t work though. On top of all this, the whole reason I really even care that much is because today is my sister’s birthday. I was going to go to her recital and the family was going to go to dinner afterwards, but that’s long gone now.

Definitely a shitty situation, but I guess it’s good to get all the bad things done with in one day.

This post really has no purpose other than to vent, and maybe inspire a script for some sitcom episode one day?

Leadership and Insecurity

I don’t know a great way to define a leader, and I haven’t heard a definition that I love yet. At the highest level, a leader is someone who has followers. But even that’s a tricky statement, because sometimes the followers are coerced, and sometimes they follow willingly. A lot of people will say that a leader is someone with charisma, and a few weeks ago I would have believed you (maybe more on that in some other post). A leader could be someone who just does what has to be done, and sometimes the leader is the one who just talks the most.

I’m not saying this statement applies to all leaders, but I would add to that potpourri of traits that a leader is someone who is insecure.

I’m talking about the person who has to be at the front of every group. Or the person who joins the exec boards of half a dozen organizations. This is the person who has to dominate the conversation, and wants to be the center of attention. It’s the person who likes to get the laughs because they’re an affirmation of acceptance.

I saw this firsthand recently, and it annoyed the hell out of me. In a two hour conversation with 15 people, said person would literally contribute every other sentence. When we’d walk to places, said person would always somehow be at front, sometimes even walking backwards and addressing the whole group, as if to “lead” us. But as annoying as it was, said person is a good guy, and I don’t despise him at all. But I sympathize because I think there’s a lot of insecurity behind those actions.

And that’s what I really want to say, insecurity is a surprisingly powerful force behind leadership. Many people are motivated not by passion for a group, or a determination to lead. Rather, they’re motivated by a desire to seek acceptance from their peers, or validate some preconceived notion of success. They’re motivated by a desire to fight their insecurities.

I see it at Northwestern a lot, and the setting has a lot to do with it. The vast majority of the people here are very smart, and that can be intimidating. In a place with so much talent, it’s so easy to feel inadequate or inferior. And so, you have your insecure leaders emerge. By gaining a leadership position, insecure leaders often seek some sort of acknowledgement. Something along the lines off: “See, I belong here, and I’m accomplished, smart, and talented. I’m doing a lot of difficult things here; doesn’t that say something about me?” And often times it works, people acknowledge the position, admire the hard work, and grant respect.

But there’s something twisted about this, if leadership is inspired by wanting to fight insecurities, there’s something wrong. To be sure, an insecure leader can be a good leader. They can get things done, rally an organization, and make positive change.

But I don’t think an insecure leader can ever be a great leader.

This is for two main reasons: weak motivation and thin skin. So the first reason – weak motivation. The fuel of insecurity can be powerful in getting a position, and it can carry you through the beginning and inspire you to do good things. But it’s tough to make that motivation last over the long term. The title of President sometimes just sounds impressive, let’s be honest. Because of that, respect and acceptance often come just by virtue of the position; the importance of job performance is secondary. And if a desire for respect and acceptance are the motivations, there’s no incentive to work hard to do something truly risky, difficult, and great. Maybe there’ll be a little more respect, but nothing close to the amount of extra work that would have to go in. Rather, it’s easier to just do a good job, continue to get that respect, and call it a day. And that’s what a good leader does, but not a great one.

The second reason is that insecure leaders usually have a weak skin. That’s probably somewhat obvious, as the insecurities are more likely to happen to someone with a weaker skin. When it comes time to lead, the weak skin is a huge crutch. Leaders often have to make unpopular and difficult decisions, or play the disciplinarian to make things happen. (I know it sounds good to say “Oh I don’t need to discipline, people work at our company because they want to work there”, but let’s be realistic). Because insecure leaders become leaders to gain acceptance and respect, is it likely that they would make the tough call or play the hardass? Probably not. An insecure leader is unlikely to do what’s unpopular, because that comes at a cost of the short term acceptance, respect, and likeability he sought in the first place. And the unwillingness to do what might be unpopular keeps him from being a great leader.

Ultimately this is an important topic to me, because it’s something I absolutely don’t want to be. And to be honest, I think as early as a year ago I would fit some of the traits I’ve listed above. Even today some of them apply to me. An insecure leader is a leader doing what he does for the wrong reasons, and their potential is accordingly limited. I don’t hold anything against insecure leaders, because I personally can understand some of the motivations.

It’s interesting, and ironic, that some of the leaders around us are actually some of the most insecure among us.

And the great leaders, they have their insecurities too, but that’s not what drives them.

Childhood Dreams

“Remember brick walls let us show our dedication. They are there to separate us from the people who don’t really want to achieve their childhood dreams.”

Randy Pausch was a professor at Carnegie Melon University. A few years ago he was diagnosed with terminal liver cancer and told he had three to six months to live. Over those months, there was much he had to do, including his famous Last Lecture. For those who haven’t seen it, it’s by far the most inspiring lecture I have ever heard and something I would recommend to everyone. There aren’t too many people who have to courage to face imminent death and do what he did, and he does it perfectly. I’m not going to go into his lecture, but I want to build on his main topic: childhood dreams.

When I was a kid, I loved to build things. I don’t know why I’m using the past tense—I still do—but I’ll get back to that later. For birthdays I would get huge K’nex sets and excitedly spent hours in my room building roller coasters and five-foot towers. My parents were probably worried their kid seemed to be on path to become a construction worker, but I loved (and still love) putting things together.

After watching “Titanic,” I spent a week putting together a model of the ship and hooking up a motor so it would actually move. I’d love to imagine navigating something that enormous, since when this happened around fifth grade, I really wanted to be a pilot.

Probably sometime in late middle school I decided a pilot’s lifestyle is not exactly feasible and probably not what I could do best. I shifted away from it. (But as I’m writing this right now, I still think it’d be really cool to pilot a 747.) So I shifted more toward entrepreneurship, and my new dream became something along the lines of, “I really want to make my own company and have it succeed.” Most of us grew up in the dot-com bubble, and some of the biggest companies of the day—like Google and Amazon—became what they are after starting up in garages. And that’s what I dreamed of doing, too.

There are a few patterns in the evolution of my childhood dreams. For one, I think they became more “practical,” at least in how we view it in society. I started out with a passion for building things and dreaming of becoming a construction worker—not exactly the most glamorous thing. I grew to want to be a pilot, which is more reasonable but still a bit out there. And today, I think I’m in a pretty large group of hopeful entrepreneurs.

Some might view that pattern of evolution as a good thing. I don’t. Childhood dreams are lofty, frequently unrealistic and difficult to achieve; they’re dreams. But that’s what makes childhood dreams great. The pattern I’ve noticed is dreams are so often reduced from idealistic hopes to watered down remnants that fit well within society.

I said earlier I still love to build things. The problem is there just isn’t the time. And I’d love to fly a 747, but there’s a huge sacrifice I would have to make to do that. I would essentially have to give up a lot of career options to focus on flying. And I still want to start up a business as much as I ever have. But where’s the time?

That’s the problem. It’s not that the childhood dreams go away, it’s that our time starts running out, and childhood dreams are often too risky to pursue.

So many of us will back out. We’ll give up on something we really wanted so we can do something safer, more secure and more certain.

If you told me the first business I start up will be successful, I would leave school and commit all my time to that. But I can’t get that guarantee, so it’s not that simple. I can’t just say, “Screw school, I’m going to move to California and hope my idea works!” I’ll try to do the best I can and still keep up in school, but again time is always an issue. Schoolwork, extracurriculars and such take up a lot of time. At the end of the day, there isn’t always enough left over to work on your childhood dreams.

This is when I think about Pauch’s quote. Growing up, time and reality—all of those could be seen as brick walls to childhood dreams. And to be fair, a lot of people will accomplish their childhood dreams of wanting to be a doctor or engineer or economist. But for those who don’t have dreams that fit in so nicely with the college curriculum and life style, there are a lot of obstacles. And when that happens, it’s easy to lose focus.

So what I really want to say is, don’t lose that focus. And that’s not some preachy statement because it applies to me just as much. College is a great place and a fantastic experience, but if you come out of it having lost the childhood dreams that initially were sources of motivation—I don’t know if I can call that a good four years.

College isn’t worth the sacrifice of losing childhood dreams, and childhood dreams often don’t get the respect they deserve. Some of the adults I admire the most are the ones who still have the childish ideology, that mentality of, “I don’t care if it’s difficult or unrealistic. I’m going to do it.”

Childhood dreams are what really make us who we are. They’re the things that give us uniqueness and show what we really want to do. And they’re things that are too often lost at the expense of a more standard, typical reality. It’s great to grow up and learn more—I truly don’t see myself as a construction worker anymore—but growing up doesn’t have come at the cost of losing who we really are.

Who actually reads this?

It’s an honest question, not some whiny rant, because I’ve been surprised lately.

When I first started this blog, I really had no expectations. My best friend blogged and suggested to me, he bought me my domain name, even installed the wordpress software for me (so if you don’t like the layout it’s his fault), so I really just had to write. And I did, though not as frequently as I thought (it’s surprisingly hard for me to write regularly).

If I had to classify this blog as something, it would be a public diary. That’s an oxymoron right? And obviously what I write isn’t the most absolute personal thing in my life - I don’t ever plan for this to become some place where I recap my day and talk about what I ate, who I like, who I’m annoyed with, etc. But it’s a diary in the sense that I write the thoughts in my mind (not random one sentence thoughts). There’s no way to quantify this, but I feel that I think a lot. And they aren’t necessarily brilliant ground breaking thoughts, but one of my favorite parts of the day is walking between classes. And that’s because the walks between classes are times when I can just put on my headphones and think - no conversations, no lectures, no work, just flat out thinking.

But this “diary” is online, so it’s undoubtedly public, and that’s by choice. But it’s not as public as facebook, or talking about these things head-on in conversation, and that was always appealing to me. Not because I don’t want to have those personal conversations, but because I like the feeling of being able to write whatever I want to write and throwing it out there. I don’t want to parade what I think to everyone in the world, but I like having it out there for people (some which I probably don’t even know) to see, agree, disagree, whatever. Honestly I didn’t think many read it other than a handful of close friends, 3-5 at most.

So that’s why it’s so interesting for me when I hear that people actually have read it, and continue to read it. Even if it’s not meant as flattery, I somewhat take it as that - because to me it means that a person actually thought it worth his/her time to read what I have to say. At first I thought having more people read my blog would ruin the relative anonymity I get from posting on it. But it doesn’t, it actually makes me want to write more. I don’t care who reads this, but it means a lot to me when people I actually know do read it.

An hour ago I saw that a friend on campus actually went back about 10 posts to comment on something I’d written a long time ago - I would have never seen that coming. I apologize if this post kind of seems poorly constructed or without a point; it’s definitely stream of consciousness. But really I want to thank anyone who does read this, and voice my appreciation. I’ll admit most of the comments I get are spam, but it feels great to get one that has thought and effort behind it. And it’s really cool to have someone mention something I blogged about in conversation,, it’s not something that I wouldn’t have predicted when I first started this thing.

I have to start working on a more focussed post now that’ll hopefully be up in a day, but thanks again to anyone who reads this.