Luck, Money, and Happiness

“If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru,” Warren Buffett has said, “you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil.” The Nobel Prize-winning economist and social scientist Herbert Simon estimated that “social capital” is responsible for at least 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like those of the United States or northwestern Europe. By social capital Simon meant not only natural resources but, more important, the technology and organizational skills in the community, and the presence of good government. These are the foundation on which the rich can begin their work.

If you have a rich friend who keeps talking about "all my hard work and all my money that I earned", go send them the above passage from Peter Singer’s NYT magazine cover article on why people should be giving much, much more to charity. As I’ve said before, luck and circumstances are vital.

In a somewhat related piece in the December Atlantic Monthly, the wonderful Clive Crook writes enthusiastically ($) about the British documentary Seven-Up which interviewed children at age seven and then every seven years after that to see how they grew up. The filmmaker’s thesis: "Give me a child at seven, and I will give you the man." After watching the privileged children prosper materially and the unprivileged children flounder but still make it to adulthood in one piece, Crook concludes:

Does privilege early in life make it easier to prosper as an adult? Yes. Do early setbacks spoil your chances? Of course they do. The children of rich parents tend to be rich; the children of poor parents do much less well. One cannot watch these films without wanting to lean hard against the unfairness of this world. Yet one sees, also, that satisfaction in life is not the same thing as material success. Though one emerges disinclined to mold these lives to theories, one comes away suspecting that happiness, contentment, and self-respect are character traits as much as they are fruits of success. Money matters, obviously, but so do whether you are crushed by disappointment or spurred by it, sociable or solitary, restless or settled, capable or incapable of intimacy, deserving or undeserving of trust. And loneliness, maybe, is worse than poverty.

Ideally, have lots of money and a large capacity for happiness. But if you had to choose just one, these films suggest which it should be.

Is Business Intellectually Stimulating? If Not, Does Overwhelming Focus Preclude Non-Business Exploration?

A friend recently told me, "If I were to invest in startups, I would pick CEOs who had emotional baggage that caused them to feel an internal need to succeed, like their dad didn’t love them enough or something. Those are the people who are the most driven and obsessed."

Another entrepreneur friend told me over lunch, "I haven’t read anything outside my industry the past six months. I’ve been totally focused."

Ah yes, focus and obsession, those critical components of successful entrepreneurship. Here’s my question: How do you square a natural urge for broad intellectual stimulation with the singular focus a start-up company (or any initiative) usually requires?

I sure as hell don’t want to spend three years in the dark when building a company by only living and breathing my niche within a niche within a niche of an industry. For me, business is kind of intellectually stimulating, but there’s other interesting stuff out there, too. Is it possible to do a start-up while still getting broad intellectual exposure?

Venture capitalists enjoy a more diversified intellectual portfolio in the sense that they have their hand in a variety of companies. But if that’s "diversity" then you could also argue a start-up CEO’s day is diverse since he’s dealing with people issues, tech issues, product dev issues, media issues, etc. Is an "RSS" investment intellectually different from a "security software" investment? Maybe not.

What do you think? Is start-up entrepreneurship intellectually interesting or is it, as one of my CEO friends put it, merely an exercise of applied psychology? If the latter, is it possible to pursue intellectual endeavors outside your business niche (like reading books on race or philosophy), or does the requisite overwhelming obsession preclude such exploration?

Who Cares About Money or Status. It's About Making a Mark.

In her essay on Julius Shulman’s photography of Los Angeles (subscribers only), Virginia Postrel, in the November Atlantic Monthly, notes:

Los Angeles, like New York, was and is a “city of ambition,” the title of Alfred Stieglitz’s 1910 photo of a New York waterfront of towers and steam. But ambition takes a different form in California. West Coast ambition is not the upward thrust of a skyscraper, the drive to be the tallest in a small and crowded space. Californians like fame and money as much as anyone, of course. But (Hollywood agents aside) their dearest ambitions, like their architecture, are more horizontal, with room for everyone to erect an individual marker. This ambition may be less cutthroat, but it is, in its very openness, more universally demanding. Opting out of the quest for status or money is easy, even virtuous, compared with saying you don’t care whether your life leaves a mark. The things outsiders find absurd or threatening about California—the self-fashioned spiritual practices, the bodybuilder/action-star governor, the crazy diets, the junk bonds, the endless supply of new fictions, the UCLA- and Palo Alto–born Internet—do share a certain grandiosity, a ridiculous desire to change the world, or at least oneself. Better not to admit such ambitions, or so goes the fable easterners love to repeat: the story of the disillusioned California dreamer. (emphasis mine)

Is Love the Killer App? Do Nice Guys Win?

The Silicon Valley Junto, the Bay Area’s preeminent intellectual discussion society for business and technology executives, convened this quarter to discuss: Love is the Killer App: The Soft Heart in Business. Do nice guys finish first?

Chris Yeh and I started the Junto to continue the tradition of Ben Franklin, a remarkable guy, who in 1727 hosted 12 of his friends on a weekly basis to discuss the issues of the day. The Silicon Valley version attempts to bring our smartest friends into a room over pizza once a quarter to talk about something other than web 2.0. Past topics have included Americanism, humor, and happiness.

"Love is the Killer App" is the name of Tim Sanders book, which I just read, and enjoyed quite a bit. You can find my rough summary here.

After participating in both the Palo Alto and San Francisco discussions, I can safely say that I think compassion and love in the workplace — if defined as a genuine sense of caring and a proactive drive to help others out selflessly — is a killer app. Here are some of my notes:

  • Remember the Buddhist loop — to be selfless can be selfish.
  • Compassion will be beneficial in the long run, just remember the long run may be 20 years.
  • Yes, assholes sometimes win in business. Life’s not fair. But most highly effective CEOs lead with warmth.
  • With an increase in transparency thanks to the internet, nice guys should win more.
  • To show love in the workplace means you will share your knowledge and network.
  • How can you be more compassionate in the workplace?
    • Actually listen to people, and care about what they say. Everyone yearns for respect.
    • Understand people’s responsibilities — what are they trying to get done everyday
    • Look to help others — "Let me know how I can help you"
    • Care about their life outside work
    • Look for the best parts of someone and compliment it. Reinforce someone’s strengths.
    • Most important: be genuine. It’s gotta come from the heart.
  • It takes 100 positive interactions / actions to make up for one negative interaction.

What’s your experience been? Are the successful people you know (by traditional definitions) compassionate and "nice"? Or does the hard ass win more often? How do you express compassion?

Here are Susan Etlinger of the Horn Group’s thoughts on the Junto.

Junto_blog

Is There Someone In Your Life Who Tells You Your Zipper Is Down?

A "consigliere" is "an adviser or counselor, especially to a mafia boss. The consigliere is a close, trusted friend and confidant."

Do you have this kind of person in your life? Do you have someone who will tell you your zipper is down?

A true consigliere seems to have these two qualities:

1. No agenda. This is why your parents don’t count, nor do your subordinates or superiors. People in your life who have their own agenda (try as they might to keep it independent from you) cannot be a close confidant.

2. Close but not too close. The person needs to know what’s happening in your life. But your success can’t affect his or her successes. Your actions can’t directly impact his life. This probably elimiantes people in your immediate family, people in your company, people in your industry. All these kind of people are too often the direct recipient of your actions.

In the cutthroat business world, where everybody is trying to get ahead, it can be difficult to find someone who meets these two criteria. Maybe that’s why they say the job of CEO — surrounded by power-hungry yes-men — is one of the loneliest.

Do you have a trusted advisor who can cheer on your success and offer wise counsel without becoming too involved so as to develop his own self-interested agenda?

(Hat tip to Kai Chang for this idea)