I recently watched the video below, Alain de Botton describing and defining success in our age, including the fabulous opportunity of success like no other time in history, and the shortcomings and downfalls that such thinking brings.  This is a good TED talk that helps ground the over-ambitious entrepreneur.  It allows you to do a little introspection regarding your ambitions and desires.  I liked as well the open identification of the weaknesses of a such a “success-driven” society, including meritocracy.  One must be careful, however, as the spectrum goes from “everything is my fault, good and bad” to “nothing is my fault”. Neither end is correct.  We do control much of our own future but not all of it (you never know when tragedy strikes, etc.). And, sorry, but the odds are you are not the next Bill Gates.  Which brings me to the next interesting point.

I found it interesting, yet logical, that essentially where success is treated as “easily accessible to all”, depression and suicide tend to be accessed much more than where it is not.  We all decide we must be failures since it is so readily available and yet, we’re not successful yet.  Although I feel it is more available than it has ever been, success has become a game of envy, jealousy, and comparison instead of individual opportunity to be YOU.

He also points out the concept that realistically, you can’t be good at everything.  He goes so far as to say that work-life balance is bunk.  I may not agree 100% but it is true.  I mean, the most successful mega-companies have typically been run by work-aholics with little, if any, “personal” life.  This doesn’t mean their have not been extremely successful people with some resemblance of balance, only that the most achieved individuals in one area often are lacking in other areas, no matter what you see (no one is touting their shortcomings…).

A recent post at “bootstrap business” defines the issue entrepreneurs continually have with this balance and validates, to some extent, the point Alain states in the video.

Check out the vid and do a little thinking about success and you want.  As he states, we often accept other people’s definitions of success which is a terrible thing as many arrive at their destination realizing it isn’t what they wanted all along.

Now there is your philosophy for the day.  Good luck in whatever venture you currently face.

A recent essay by Paul Graham found here illustrates two types of schedules that persons may run, particularly in tech-related businesses.  He defines two duties first of all, or “hats” as I would call them.  First, you have managers and second, technicians or “makers” as he calls them.  The manager will be your typical ‘business person’ with meetings running throughout the day, typically an hourly schedule.  The Maker, in a tech business, is the programmer who gets into the challenge, the task of programming, and once in the groove, is best left in the groove, not interrupted hourly for new activities.  Their schedule is often run in, say, two half-day blocks.  A meeting in the middle of a block often kills the entire block as a groove is difficult to obtain and even more difficult to maintain.  He says:

When you’re operating on the maker’s schedule, meetings are a disaster. A single meeting can blow a whole afternoon, by breaking it into two pieces each too small to do anything hard in. Plus you have to remember to go to the meeting. That’s no problem for someone on the manager’s schedule. There’s always something coming on the next hour; the only question is what. But when someone on the maker’s schedule has a meeting, they have to think about it.

This is not simply with programmers but others that “make things” as Paul puts it, such as writers.  Anywhere that ‘groove’ exists in making something.  While the management can be effective with hourly shifts, the maker is not typically so.

Each type of schedule works fine by itself. Problems arise when they meet. Since most powerful people operate on the manager’s schedule, they’re in a position to make everyone resonate at their frequency if they want to. But the smarter ones restrain themselves, if they know that some of the people working for them need long chunks of time to work in.

Which brings us to Paul’s purpose for the essay:

Till recently we weren’t clear in our own minds about the source of the problem. We just took it for granted that we had to either blow our schedules or offend people. But now that I’ve realized what’s going on, perhaps there’s a third option: to write something explaining the two types of schedule. Maybe eventually, if the conflict between the manager’s schedule and the maker’s schedule starts to be more widely understood, it will become less of a problem.

So which are you, a manager or a maker? Would it be a good idea to switch schedule styles for more productivity? For most, a good assessment is recommended.  See how those in your company work and think about better ways to work in light of these differing hats.  Get a grasp on this, read the essay.  Some are following Paul’s methods of late night work such as Sam at Leveraging Ideas here.

The concept of coopetition is one I’ve heard a fair amount of over the last few years.  It is a word-mash of cooperation and competition that implies just that, a level of cooperation with your competition.  A recent post by Startup Professionals Musings gives a little insight into the idea and a few thoughts on doing it effectively. Here are some examples given there.

Cost sharing and scale economies. A common type of coopetition is where companies work together on parts of their business where they believe they can minimize common costs, and not jeopardize their unique attributes. For instance, many car companies share major components to reduce costs, yet compete vigorously on the end product.

Best of both creates a new market. Your competitor has strengths (maybe sales), and you have a different strength (maybe technology), appealing to overlapping segments. A strategic combination can win in a third segment, which neither of you could do alone in the same timeframe, or at the same cost.

Up-sell related products after the initial sale. If your customers would benefit by having both of your products, you might negotiate the opportunity to include your competitor’s product inside your own box, or vice versa. This is called up-selling, or cross-up-selling, and both parties share the profits.

Integrate products and services. If your competitor has a similar product that could complement your own, you might consider arranging a deal where both you and your competitor would offer an integrated bundle, or new product. This, like an up-sell, increases the sales volume of both parties.

Cross endorsement. If your “competitor” isn’t really competing with your direct market, you can refer business to each other without anyone losing customers. Affiliate marketing might actually be one of the more effective (and easier) ways to partner with someone else in the industry. Online, this starts with link exchanges.

Possible investor. Once you have established your credibility and value, a strategic partnership may lead to other business relationships. They may have the finances you need, and be ready to invest in a business area they know. Also this competitor will have become a prime exit strategy alternative.

Some organizations a groups lean on a more cooperative model while others are more competitive.  I have been parts of entrepreneurial groups that continually sought cooperative solutions in the marketplace which, in many cases, created new, open-minded, relatively creative opportunities for those involved.  Sometimes, however, you will still compete at some level.  This is not a bad thing of course as it pushes all to continually improve the offering as to performance and cost alike.  The beauty of coopetition is the opportunity to elevate both companies through common strategy, in other words, no loser.  Wikipedia gives a few examples and explanation here.  There are also books such as:

“Co-Opetition” found here.

These are all good resources and I would say all entrepreneurs ought to look at cooperative opportunities that may enhance their growth, open up new possibilities, and ultimately increase your bottom line.