Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

GuidoNius · Nov 2, 2003, 05:54 am

castille,

Far from me to suggest one can make a template for everyone to follow and dream that that would be an ideal fit for all individuals.

First, any individual is more important than any template. Second, I am too much woman to see much sense in abstract concepts.

Nevertheless, whilst we can´t control thing fully, we can make concrete steps to avoid people going down an alley just because many are going there.

In my last post I gave some measures I think would be helpful. We can discuss them since, even if we´re politically on different sides, our view of this issue appears to be the same and therefore not very interesting a topic to discuss further.

Agnes

castille · Nov 2, 2003, 11:24 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I think it would be saner for people to like doing something & then doing great deeds with it or in it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Entrepreneurship IS that thing entrepreneurs like doing. Building a business, creating an empire, becoming leaders, etc. I think in fact it is the workforce who often fail to follow their dreams (few people want to be accountants). Entrepreneurship isn't chasing money, its a passion. Those without a passion will not survive in the business world - imagine losing your life savings several times before you turn 18! Too hard for most people to bear.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
just as raising kids in security does not necessarily have to be a show of conformism<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

True, security (or sleep at night factor) is important. It is part of humans to want security. Those few who prefer achievement to security often become our leaders (people like Hitler, Stalin, Clinton, all risked a LOT to become leaders, and especially Stalin who avoided assassination dozens of times).

Anything that is done by the majority is conformism. Conformity isn't positive or negative. Leaders need conformity, as do confirmists need leaders.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
society would do well to get rid of many hurdles to entrepreneurs, but it would do equally well in having them pay a part of their success to all those creating a market for their products<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

One of the schemes useful could be teaching entrepreneurial skills to members of society, especially humanitarian/social workers. The base of entrepreneurship is simply creativity and determination. In fact I can say its got nothing to do with capitalism or politics - a cavemen who finds a better way to hunt is as much of an entrepreneur as Richard Branson.

Ultimately some people choose to become leaders/entrepreneurs, while others choose to become followers/workers. Its all about the human mind, and something we can't alter whether we have capitalist/communist/fascist governments. Somebody will rise above the ranks to lead.

Obviously, the leaders need followers, and vice versa. We're really just animals with bigger brains.

GuidoNius · Nov 2, 2003, 01:09 pm

No, castille, we´re not just animals with bigger brains. If we were you´d not be here trying to convince others we all need leaders.

Animals don´t go around convincing if they´re leaders and they sure as hell don´t need convincing with words if they´re followers.

As to undertaking things just for the sake of undertaking, no, it does not do much by way of achieving anything (except keeping busy). You need to undertake something in which you´re better, know more, have more passion for you to have success.

Sure, there are those who´re better, know more or have more passion in making money grow. Most often they´re helped by having money to start with - even the best carpenter is at a loss without wood. But let´s assume it works, then you´re "in" the money. So what?

Don´t think it´s people like me asking "so what?", it will be you. You´ll be at a loss to answer yourself.

No problem with making money or wanting to have it, but it helps - I´d put it as lesson number one in entrepeneurial school - to first check the things you´re better in, know more of or have more passion for, before going off into perennial restlessness.

AO

castille · Nov 2, 2003, 11:54 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,)

Animals don´t go around convincing if they´re leaders and they sure as hell don´t need convincing with words if they´re followers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, animals usually use brute force. Stronger wolves dominate weaker wolves, get larger share of the food, etc.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,)

As to undertaking things just for the sake of undertaking, no, it does not do much by way of achieving anything (except keeping busy). You need to undertake something in which you´re better, know more, have more passion for you to have success.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Entrepreneurship IS that passion. Maybe its not as visible as something like "woodworking" or "hunting", but it is nonetheless a valid passion and interest. The end result of entrepreneurship is building a business that is successful.

Most people actually enjoy the process of undertaking rather than the achievement.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,)

Sure, there are those who´re better, know more or have more passion in making money grow. Most often they´re helped by having money to start with - even the best carpenter is at a loss without wood. But let´s assume it works, then you´re "in" the money. So what? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So I've built a successful business. Thats what. I've achieved, I've succeeded, and I've risen above the crowd. Money is insignificant; I'm happy as long as I have enough to be comfortable.

I know its difficult to understand why anyone would be interested in entrepreneurship without having an interest in money, but its like enjoying reading books. You gain nothing physical, but mentally you feel fulfilled.

GuidoNius · Nov 3, 2003, 03:27 am

But castille, I do not doubt that one can undertake things without a view of making loads of money. I did not even question it. I merely believe it to be lacking stability, the endless restlessness can well be a top feeling but - as you say yourself - one has to achieve something.

If that something isn't money, it has to be something you are better in, know more off or have more passion for. Stating that one can have the great passion for undertaking is a categorical mistake. One does never undertake "as such", one undertakes something & for really successfull undertaking it's really the something that's crucial (the rest is just your brain).

But let me be clear, I'm not pronouncing some somethings good & other somethings bad (see Britney, hehe). I'm just pointing out that there has to be a certain something. One might additionally qualify that it needs to satsify the needs or wishes of others - but I'm sure an entreprenuer will be the last to debate that.

That's it: we're homing down on something. It's a pleasant conversation ans I'm learning from it.

AO

PS: but don't give me the BS on "wolves use brute force" because, yes, they do but they don't use it willingly after reflecting on & discussing the options. It is probably one of the most self-destructive opinions to have: that man & beast are the same.

G. Adams · Nov 3, 2003, 06:49 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,)

Animals don´t go around convincing if they´re leaders and they sure as hell don´t need convincing with words if they´re followers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, animals usually use brute force. Stronger wolves dominate weaker wolves, get larger share of the food, etc.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,)

As to undertaking things just for the sake of undertaking, no, it does not do much by way of achieving anything (except keeping busy). You need to undertake something in which you´re better, know more, have more passion for you to have success.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Entrepreneurship IS that passion. Maybe its not as visible as something like "woodworking" or "hunting", but it is nonetheless a valid passion and interest. The end result of entrepreneurship is building a business that is successful.

Most people actually enjoy the process of undertaking rather than the achievement.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,)

Sure, there are those who´re better, know more or have more passion in making money grow. Most often they´re helped by having money to start with - even the best carpenter is at a loss without wood. But let´s assume it works, then you´re "in" the money. So what? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So I've built a successful business. Thats what. I've achieved, I've succeeded, and I've risen above the crowd. Money is insignificant; I'm happy as long as I have enough to be comfortable.

I know its difficult to understand why anyone would be interested in entrepreneurship without having an interest in money, but its like enjoying reading books. You gain nothing physical, but mentally you feel fulfilled.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is only a side point, if you look into wolves you'll see although the bigger wolves will take more, they ensure everyone gets some. Theres no point have members of the pack dying off because they didn't get enough food. Unlike humans, who just pretend that nobodies hungry and dying of starvation as long as we can't see it.

castille · Nov 3, 2003, 09:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,)
If that something isn't money, it has to be something you are better in, know more off or have more passion for. Stating that one can have the great passion for undertaking is a categorical mistake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Entrepreneurship is a pretty broad catagory of interest I suppose....

I've met entrepreneurs with different visions. Me, I want to transform the business world, build an empire, and change the way the world works. One of my friends wants to change the way people think about each other. I know of people who want to see their name in the "Billionaires 100", above Bill Gates (yes I know that is money, but understand that they want to see their *achievement*, they don't care about owning a billion dollars, they just want to have achieved it). One young woman wants to build a business empire, then use the money to build the first flying cars!

Ultimately, their passion is for entrepreneurship, but their vision extends beyond it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Stating that one can have the great passion for undertaking is a categorical mistake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I like the "undertaking" because of the vision it leads to. I dont enjoy making phone calls for hours on end and get rejected 1000 times each hour, but I enjoy it because of the lingering hope the next person will say "Yes, I'll put an ad in your magazine!". And when that happens, I know I have fulfilled part of my vision.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
One might additionally qualify that it needs to satsify the needs or wishes of others - but I'm sure an entreprenuer will be the last to debate that.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What I dislike about people wanting to satisfy others is that they often apply their logic (ie. "What is good for me is good for everyone") in doing so. I would much prefer a world where everybody satisfies themselves (obviously with limits, like no wild murder) before thinking about others.

Wolves - While less evolved form of humans, they are nonetheless a representation of humanity. As G Adams said, pack leaders get the biggest share of the meat, but ensure the follower wolves enough food. We do the same in our tribes (or countries) with social welfare. However, keep in mind the pack leader will kill a wolf who is too injured to be of use to the group. Be glad this only happened in Hitler's Germany, otherwise we would be killing our sick and maimed.

There is always leaders and followers. Gangs have their leaders (or an older guy with experience) who teaches us about stuff, while in return the followers stick by him. Nations have leaders, even social gatherings will see leaders and followers. We're animals inside - I can assure you any human raised to kill will do so without hesistating, as any guard dog trained to kill does.

GuidoNius · Nov 3, 2003, 12:15 pm

Mr. Adams, that is if you insist on looking at the gloomy part of human nature. One could also insist on the bright part: wolves in a pack won't be easily tempted to help wolves of another pack, humans do care for people in other packs. The point is: we're not the same as wolves. AO

RebelWithanAK · Nov 3, 2003, 12:20 pm

=p

But should we really be aiming for the lowest common denominator? Art shouldn't be commercialized. Art never should have been.

GuidoNius · Nov 3, 2003, 04:42 pm

castille,

I almost missed that post of my favourite entrepreneur ;)

You now qualify with the word "vision". That´s fine but it shows that you have difficulty yourself with the concept of entrepreneurial spirit as such.

Vision towards something, I suppose. I don´t buy the vision to be in this or that rank. Once you get there (if ever you get there without a vision, of some sort different from rank), what then? People don´t buy "that is that". Surely one can find one´s vision duing one´s undertaking but it´s still the vision that´s the material thing - the achievement is just a show that one has accomplished something "in public" with respect to a vision.

Really, your talent or your vision can well be to conduct telephone calls in an efficient manner. You can investigate why you´re good at it, hire a couple of people that are not bad at it, teach them the tricks & succed in being the best direct marketing agency in the world. Surely that means big bucks but it mainly means big bucks, because you´re damned good at making phone calls.

I did not say that you need to "want" appreciation. I just said that you´ll need appreciation. That´s the free market. Nothing goes without it. You should be the last to call that into question.

On the wolves, no and no again. Get off it. You are so very wrong it will stand in the way of your success. Imagine a wolve & a human in a test, for test´s sake. If the wolve succeeds & is returned to the pack he´ll be happy & remain happy. The human will be happy (his reflex if that of a wolve) but he will quickly turn unhappy for having to have undergone a test like that. On the other side, imagine the wolve & the human in brief eating fest. After being returned to the normal habitat the wolve will be unhappy & remain unhappy for not finding back the conditions that led to the fest. The human will certainly start out unhappy but turns happy, once he knows it was a wonderful experience but not one that anybody has a chance to enjoy many times.

Wolves & humans are different. So different that in the latter case they can become entrepreneurs ;-)

Agnes

GuidoNius · Nov 3, 2003, 04:46 pm

Rebel, no we shouldn´t.

We should aim for the highest single differentiator.

So high & so single that many people will feel compelled to enjoy it.

I don´t share the issue with commercialization. Rubens was very highly commercialized. If there ain´t no public for it, there ain´t no value in it.

Subsidizing art may work well but only if it is designed to help the artist to get over the threshold of costs to find his public. Or, but that is a bit more tricky, if conditions are such that a substantial public doesn´t give him the means for subsistence.

AO

Geoff332 · Nov 3, 2003, 07:01 pm

I've read this thread with some interest -- given that my specialty is management and organisational theory. I've also done a bit of work developing business plans for a couple of new enterprises (and will hopefully be off doing a couple more in a few weeks). I'm sort of going to skim over a bunch of issues.

One interesting study I read was based on a census of data on small business survival. They controlled for all sorts of variables (business age, location, legal and organisational structure, and industry), and then looked at the gender and racial differences. They used businesses owned by white males as the base line (they were the largest group), and compared other owners. They found:
1. Businesses owned by asian's performed better than those owned by whites.
2. Those owned by blacks and hispanics performed worse.
3. Those owned by women performed worse than those owned by men (except for black owned businesses, where this was reversed).

These results suggest that there are issues related to race. If you are not a white or asian male, you are going to find it harder to establish a small business.

Other studies have looked at the most common motivations for founding a small business. The most comprehensive I've seen is a UK studiy that found seven basic motivations: need for approval, need for independence, need for personal development, welfare considerations, perceived instrumentality of wealth, tax reductions and indirect benefits, and the desire to follow role models.

Interestingly, the same data was used to compare 'novice' and 'experienced' entrepreneurs -- those who had succeeded in the past were compared to those who had not. They found no difference, suggesting that past success in entrepreneurship does not contribute to future success. All of that hints at the idea that success in entrepreneurship is not something that can be adequately modelled or predicted -- something which my experience supports.

Taking these sorts of findings one step further, you see that the classical model of the entrepreneur as a driven, innovative risk-taker is not confirmed by looking at actual entrepreneurs. Some can be described this way, but other's cannot. The most common way to solve this is to develop typologies, usually based on the entrepreneur's motivations and management methods. A basic typology will seperate the entrepreneurs from the small business owners. Small business owners are focused on their business -- usually it's operations. Administrative tasks are kept to an absolute minimum and the motivation usually centres on intrinsic rewards (doing a job well) -- it is sometimes called the artisan mentality. The entrepreneurial type is generally focused on the growth of the business. They tend to delegate more readily and develop administrative structures to handle the expected growth. Motivation for the entrepreneur tends to be more extrinically based -- financial rewards and esteem of others through achievement are the main drives.

Another area is that the entrepreneurial demands of a business vary as it grows. The operational excellence of the small business owner is great when the business is small, but needs to be augmented by the delegation as the business grows. Formalising administrative processes and practices becomes more important as the number of staff gets larger. At the same time, large businesses require operational excellence and innovation to maintain their long-term survival; but the ways that these are manifest is quite different from how they are embodied in small businesses.

The final point is the focus on THE entrepreneur is generally something of a mis-representation. Successful start-ups are almost inevitably a combined effort of several people. The tendancy to associate entrepreneurship with flamboyance reinforces the myth of the solo entrepreneur. Vision is all nice and good, but requires structure to actually make it functional. William Blake wrote that reason is the circumference of energy. He was getting at this point: energy, without reason to organise and direct it, is either dangerous or useless. this balance, between energy (vision) and reason (structure or organisation), is the one that most entrepreneurs tend to trip over.

GuidoNius · Nov 4, 2003, 03:22 am

Very very fine, Geoff, you are certainly a very intelligent man that has a tendency to wear its brain in much the same way in which he wears this apparel between the legs.

Anyway, your study - what was the geographical extension of it?

AO

Geoff332 · Nov 4, 2003, 06:15 am

None of these were my studies. The gender differences analysis was based on US census data (fairly complete, from what I can tell: I can't remember if the author was from the census bureau of the SBA, but bother we involved). The second was a series of UK studies (nationwide, around 500 respondants). I've seen smaller replications in other countries (including US, Australia, and NZ). The results are similar, if not identical. The key point is there are always different motives behind entrepreneurship, and these are always tied to the socio-economic history of the people and the cultures involved. Simplifying it to say "they're all motivated by money" or "they're never motivated by money" is going to be inaccurate.

GuidoNius · Nov 4, 2003, 10:22 am

Geoff,

You said :

"They found:
1. Businesses owned by asian's performed better than those owned by whites.
2. Those owned by blacks and hispanics performed worse.
3. Those owned by women performed worse than those owned by men (except for black owned businesses, where this was reversed).

These results suggest that there are issues related to race."

No qualifiers whatever.

Now you say the studies were relative to US, UK, Australia, NZ.

This is an important qualifier because these are typical WASP countries.

So your studies do not support your conclusion. They could equally well be interpreted as non-WASPs having less chances then WASPs in what's basically a WASP-dominated territory.

I don't know what your studies themselves say, I just now it is not very polite to use studies to support a conclusion that can't be supported, and most probably was not intended to be able to be supported, by them.

Such mistakes are not conducive to getting lots of interest in what you say for the remainder nevermind the erudition with which you say them.

That's all.

Agnes Ostic

RebelWithanAK · Nov 4, 2003, 10:34 am

I'm not even so sure about "performed better" or "performed worse;" but I know there are FEWER businesses owned by minorities and women. But that's just a bias and discrimination thing in secondary and tertiary education.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic)
I don´t share the issue with commercialization. Rubens was very highly commercialized. If there ain´t no public for it, there ain´t no value in it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Whoever said art had a monetary value to it? It would appear to me that art is the most free and universal thing to all humankind.

GuidoNius · Nov 4, 2003, 12:58 pm

I said it and I stand by it.

Artists need to eat.

Free & universal are not contradictory in terms with money.

AO

RebelWithanAK · Nov 4, 2003, 02:25 pm

You talk as if having a day job and being creative are mutually exclusive.

Geoff332 · Nov 4, 2003, 02:27 pm

AO

You are correct -- to some extent. The comments with respect to race were related to the US. However, given that the majority of this discussion, including your own contributions, focused almost exclusively on the US, I don't consider it a serious error.

I don't partricularly care if you chose to ignore me or not -- that's your decision. You've demonstrated that one conclusion I drew needs to be contextualised -- which is true. If this damagess my credibnility in your eyes, so be it.

GuidoNius · Nov 4, 2003, 03:41 pm

So be it indeed, Geoff, if you can add "to some extent" to that you have a flexibility of mind which is too much for me.

I´m not in the US, nor am I an American, nor am I overly interested in the US.

Your whole thesis was based on not contextualizing, so if admitting that it needed to be contextualized doesn´t damage your credibility "in your own eyes", no, don´t care what I think.

Agnes

Nov 2, 2003, 11:24 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I think it would be saner for people to like doing something & then doing great deeds with it or in it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Entrepreneurship IS that thing entrepreneurs like doing. Building a business, creating an empire, becoming leaders, etc. I think in fact it is the workforce who often fail to follow their dreams (few people want to be accountants). Entrepreneurship isn't chasing money, its a passion. Those without a passion will not survive in the business world - imagine losing your life savings several times before you turn 18! Too hard for most people to bear. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by just as raising kids in security does not necessarily have to be a show of conformism<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> True, security (or sleep at night factor) is important. It is part of humans to want security. Those few who prefer achievement to security often become our leaders (people like Hitler, Stalin, Clinton, all risked a LOT to become leaders, and especially Stalin who avoided assassination dozens of times). Anything that is done by the majority is conformism. Conformity isn't positive or negative. Leaders need conformity, as do confirmists need leaders. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by society would do well to get rid of many hurdles to entrepreneurs, but it would do equally well in having them pay a part of their success to all those creating a market for their products<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> One of the schemes useful could be teaching entrepreneurial skills to members of society, especially humanitarian/social workers. The base of entrepreneurship is simply creativity and determination. In fact I can say its got nothing to do with capitalism or politics - a cavemen who finds a better way to hunt is as much of an entrepreneur as Richard Branson. Ultimately some people choose to become leaders/entrepreneurs, while others choose to become followers/workers. Its all about the human mind, and something we can't alter whether we have capitalist/communist/fascist governments. Somebody will rise above the ranks to lead. Obviously, the leaders need followers, and vice versa. We're really just animals with bigger brains. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 2, 2003, 11:54 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,) Animals don´t go around convincing if they´re leaders and they sure as hell don´t need convincing with words if they´re followers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, animals usually use brute force. Stronger wolves dominate weaker wolves, get larger share of the food, etc. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,) As to undertaking things just for the sake of undertaking, no, it does not do much by way of achieving anything (except keeping busy). You need to undertake something in which you´re better, know more, have more passion for you to have success.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Entrepreneurship IS that passion. Maybe its not as visible as something like "woodworking" or "hunting", but it is nonetheless a valid passion and interest. The end result of entrepreneurship is building a business that is successful. Most people actually enjoy the process of undertaking rather than the achievement. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,) Sure, there are those who´re better, know more or have more passion in making money grow. Most often they´re helped by having money to start with - even the best carpenter is at a loss without wood. But let´s assume it works, then you´re "in" the money. So what? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So I've built a successful business. Thats what. I've achieved, I've succeeded, and I've risen above the crowd. Money is insignificant; I'm happy as long as I have enough to be comfortable. I know its difficult to understand why anyone would be interested in entrepreneurship without having an interest in money, but its like enjoying reading books. You gain nothing physical, but mentally you feel fulfilled. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 3, 2003, 06:49 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,) Animals don´t go around convincing if they´re leaders and they sure as hell don´t need convincing with words if they´re followers.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, animals usually use brute force. Stronger wolves dominate weaker wolves, get larger share of the food, etc. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,) As to undertaking things just for the sake of undertaking, no, it does not do much by way of achieving anything (except keeping busy). You need to undertake something in which you´re better, know more, have more passion for you to have success.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Entrepreneurship IS that passion. Maybe its not as visible as something like "woodworking" or "hunting", but it is nonetheless a valid passion and interest. The end result of entrepreneurship is building a business that is successful. Most people actually enjoy the process of undertaking rather than the achievement. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,) Sure, there are those who´re better, know more or have more passion in making money grow. Most often they´re helped by having money to start with - even the best carpenter is at a loss without wood. But let´s assume it works, then you´re "in" the money. So what? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So I've built a successful business. Thats what. I've achieved, I've succeeded, and I've risen above the crowd. Money is insignificant; I'm happy as long as I have enough to be comfortable. I know its difficult to understand why anyone would be interested in entrepreneurship without having an interest in money, but its like enjoying reading books. You gain nothing physical, but mentally you feel fulfilled.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is only a side point, if you look into wolves you'll see although the bigger wolves will take more, they ensure everyone gets some. Theres no point have members of the pack dying off because they didn't get enough food. Unlike humans, who just pretend that nobodies hungry and dying of starvation as long as we can't see it. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 3, 2003, 09:51 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic,) If that something isn't money, it has to be something you are better in, know more off or have more passion for. Stating that one can have the great passion for undertaking is a categorical mistake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Entrepreneurship is a pretty broad catagory of interest I suppose.... I've met entrepreneurs with different visions. Me, I want to transform the business world, build an empire, and change the way the world works. One of my friends wants to change the way people think about each other. I know of people who want to see their name in the "Billionaires 100", above Bill Gates (yes I know that is money, but understand that they want to see their achievement, they don't care about owning a billion dollars, they just want to have achieved it). One young woman wants to build a business empire, then use the money to build the first flying cars! Ultimately, their passion is for entrepreneurship, but their vision extends beyond it. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Stating that one can have the great passion for undertaking is a categorical mistake.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I like the "undertaking" because of the vision it leads to. I dont enjoy making phone calls for hours on end and get rejected 1000 times each hour, but I enjoy it because of the lingering hope the next person will say "Yes, I'll put an ad in your magazine!". And when that happens, I know I have fulfilled part of my vision. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by One might additionally qualify that it needs to satsify the needs or wishes of others - but I'm sure an entreprenuer will be the last to debate that.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What I dislike about people wanting to satisfy others is that they often apply their logic (ie. "What is good for me is good for everyone") in doing so. I would much prefer a world where everybody satisfies themselves (obviously with limits, like no wild murder) before thinking about others. Wolves - While less evolved form of humans, they are nonetheless a representation of humanity. As G Adams said, pack leaders get the biggest share of the meat, but ensure the follower wolves enough food. We do the same in our tribes (or countries) with social welfare. However, keep in mind the pack leader will kill a wolf who is too injured to be of use to the group. Be glad this only happened in Hitler's Germany, otherwise we would be killing our sick and maimed. There is always leaders and followers. Gangs have their leaders (or an older guy with experience) who teaches us about stuff, while in return the followers stick by him. Nations have leaders, even social gatherings will see leaders and followers. We're animals inside - I can assure you any human raised to kill will do so without hesistating, as any guard dog trained to kill does. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 3, 2003, 12:20 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	=p But should we really be aiming for the lowest common denominator? Art shouldn't be commercialized. Art never should have been. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 2, 2003, 05:54 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	castille, Far from me to suggest one can make a template for everyone to follow and dream that that would be an ideal fit for all individuals. First, any individual is more important than any template. Second, I am too much woman to see much sense in abstract concepts. Nevertheless, whilst we can´t control thing fully, we can make concrete steps to avoid people going down an alley just because many are going there. In my last post I gave some measures I think would be helpful. We can discuss them since, even if we´re politically on different sides, our view of this issue appears to be the same and therefore not very interesting a topic to discuss further. Agnes

Nov 2, 2003, 01:09 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	No, castille, we´re not just animals with bigger brains. If we were you´d not be here trying to convince others we all need leaders. Animals don´t go around convincing if they´re leaders and they sure as hell don´t need convincing with words if they´re followers. As to undertaking things just for the sake of undertaking, no, it does not do much by way of achieving anything (except keeping busy). You need to undertake something in which you´re better, know more, have more passion for you to have success. Sure, there are those who´re better, know more or have more passion in making money grow. Most often they´re helped by having money to start with - even the best carpenter is at a loss without wood. But let´s assume it works, then you´re "in" the money. So what? Don´t think it´s people like me asking "so what?", it will be you. You´ll be at a loss to answer yourself. No problem with making money or wanting to have it, but it helps - I´d put it as lesson number one in entrepeneurial school - to first check the things you´re better in, know more of or have more passion for, before going off into perennial restlessness. AO

Nov 3, 2003, 03:27 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	But castille, I do not doubt that one can undertake things without a view of making loads of money. I did not even question it. I merely believe it to be lacking stability, the endless restlessness can well be a top feeling but - as you say yourself - one has to achieve something. If that something isn't money, it has to be something you are better in, know more off or have more passion for. Stating that one can have the great passion for undertaking is a categorical mistake. One does never undertake "as such", one undertakes something & for really successfull undertaking it's really the something that's crucial (the rest is just your brain). But let me be clear, I'm not pronouncing some somethings good & other somethings bad (see Britney, hehe). I'm just pointing out that there has to be a certain something. One might additionally qualify that it needs to satsify the needs or wishes of others - but I'm sure an entreprenuer will be the last to debate that. That's it: we're homing down on something. It's a pleasant conversation ans I'm learning from it. AO PS: but don't give me the BS on "wolves use brute force" because, yes, they do but they don't use it willingly after reflecting on & discussing the options. It is probably one of the most self-destructive opinions to have: that man & beast are the same.

Nov 3, 2003, 12:15 pm	#28 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	Mr. Adams, that is if you insist on looking at the gloomy part of human nature. One could also insist on the bright part: wolves in a pack won't be easily tempted to help wolves of another pack, humans do care for people in other packs. The point is: we're not the same as wolves. AO

Nov 3, 2003, 04:42 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	castille, I almost missed that post of my favourite entrepreneur ;) You now qualify with the word "vision". That´s fine but it shows that you have difficulty yourself with the concept of entrepreneurial spirit as such. Vision towards something, I suppose. I don´t buy the vision to be in this or that rank. Once you get there (if ever you get there without a vision, of some sort different from rank), what then? People don´t buy "that is that". Surely one can find one´s vision duing one´s undertaking but it´s still the vision that´s the material thing - the achievement is just a show that one has accomplished something "in public" with respect to a vision. Really, your talent or your vision can well be to conduct telephone calls in an efficient manner. You can investigate why you´re good at it, hire a couple of people that are not bad at it, teach them the tricks & succed in being the best direct marketing agency in the world. Surely that means big bucks but it mainly means big bucks, because you´re damned good at making phone calls. I did not say that you need to "want" appreciation. I just said that you´ll need appreciation. That´s the free market. Nothing goes without it. You should be the last to call that into question. On the wolves, no and no again. Get off it. You are so very wrong it will stand in the way of your success. Imagine a wolve & a human in a test, for test´s sake. If the wolve succeeds & is returned to the pack he´ll be happy & remain happy. The human will be happy (his reflex if that of a wolve) but he will quickly turn unhappy for having to have undergone a test like that. On the other side, imagine the wolve & the human in brief eating fest. After being returned to the normal habitat the wolve will be unhappy & remain unhappy for not finding back the conditions that led to the fest. The human will certainly start out unhappy but turns happy, once he knows it was a wonderful experience but not one that anybody has a chance to enjoy many times. Wolves & humans are different. So different that in the latter case they can become entrepreneurs ;-) Agnes

Nov 3, 2003, 04:46 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	Rebel, no we shouldn´t. We should aim for the highest single differentiator. So high & so single that many people will feel compelled to enjoy it. I don´t share the issue with commercialization. Rubens was very highly commercialized. If there ain´t no public for it, there ain´t no value in it. Subsidizing art may work well but only if it is designed to help the artist to get over the threshold of costs to find his public. Or, but that is a bit more tricky, if conditions are such that a substantial public doesn´t give him the means for subsistence. AO

Nov 3, 2003, 07:01 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	I've read this thread with some interest -- given that my specialty is management and organisational theory. I've also done a bit of work developing business plans for a couple of new enterprises (and will hopefully be off doing a couple more in a few weeks). I'm sort of going to skim over a bunch of issues. One interesting study I read was based on a census of data on small business survival. They controlled for all sorts of variables (business age, location, legal and organisational structure, and industry), and then looked at the gender and racial differences. They used businesses owned by white males as the base line (they were the largest group), and compared other owners. They found: 1. Businesses owned by asian's performed better than those owned by whites. 2. Those owned by blacks and hispanics performed worse. 3. Those owned by women performed worse than those owned by men (except for black owned businesses, where this was reversed). These results suggest that there are issues related to race. If you are not a white or asian male, you are going to find it harder to establish a small business. Other studies have looked at the most common motivations for founding a small business. The most comprehensive I've seen is a UK studiy that found seven basic motivations: need for approval, need for independence, need for personal development, welfare considerations, perceived instrumentality of wealth, tax reductions and indirect benefits, and the desire to follow role models. Interestingly, the same data was used to compare 'novice' and 'experienced' entrepreneurs -- those who had succeeded in the past were compared to those who had not. They found no difference, suggesting that past success in entrepreneurship does not contribute to future success. All of that hints at the idea that success in entrepreneurship is not something that can be adequately modelled or predicted -- something which my experience supports. Taking these sorts of findings one step further, you see that the classical model of the entrepreneur as a driven, innovative risk-taker is not confirmed by looking at actual entrepreneurs. Some can be described this way, but other's cannot. The most common way to solve this is to develop typologies, usually based on the entrepreneur's motivations and management methods. A basic typology will seperate the entrepreneurs from the small business owners. Small business owners are focused on their business -- usually it's operations. Administrative tasks are kept to an absolute minimum and the motivation usually centres on intrinsic rewards (doing a job well) -- it is sometimes called the artisan mentality. The entrepreneurial type is generally focused on the growth of the business. They tend to delegate more readily and develop administrative structures to handle the expected growth. Motivation for the entrepreneur tends to be more extrinically based -- financial rewards and esteem of others through achievement are the main drives. Another area is that the entrepreneurial demands of a business vary as it grows. The operational excellence of the small business owner is great when the business is small, but needs to be augmented by the delegation as the business grows. Formalising administrative processes and practices becomes more important as the number of staff gets larger. At the same time, large businesses require operational excellence and innovation to maintain their long-term survival; but the ways that these are manifest is quite different from how they are embodied in small businesses. The final point is the focus on THE entrepreneur is generally something of a mis-representation. Successful start-ups are almost inevitably a combined effort of several people. The tendancy to associate entrepreneurship with flamboyance reinforces the myth of the solo entrepreneur. Vision is all nice and good, but requires structure to actually make it functional. William Blake wrote that reason is the circumference of energy. He was getting at this point: energy, without reason to organise and direct it, is either dangerous or useless. this balance, between energy (vision) and reason (structure or organisation), is the one that most entrepreneurs tend to trip over.

Nov 4, 2003, 03:22 am	#33 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	Very very fine, Geoff, you are certainly a very intelligent man that has a tendency to wear its brain in much the same way in which he wears this apparel between the legs. Anyway, your study - what was the geographical extension of it? AO

Nov 4, 2003, 06:15 am	#34 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	None of these were my studies. The gender differences analysis was based on US census data (fairly complete, from what I can tell: I can't remember if the author was from the census bureau of the SBA, but bother we involved). The second was a series of UK studies (nationwide, around 500 respondants). I've seen smaller replications in other countries (including US, Australia, and NZ). The results are similar, if not identical. The key point is there are always different motives behind entrepreneurship, and these are always tied to the socio-economic history of the people and the cultures involved. Simplifying it to say "they're all motivated by money" or "they're never motivated by money" is going to be inaccurate.

Nov 4, 2003, 10:22 am	#35 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	Geoff, You said : "They found: 1. Businesses owned by asian's performed better than those owned by whites. 2. Those owned by blacks and hispanics performed worse. 3. Those owned by women performed worse than those owned by men (except for black owned businesses, where this was reversed). These results suggest that there are issues related to race." No qualifiers whatever. Now you say the studies were relative to US, UK, Australia, NZ. This is an important qualifier because these are typical WASP countries. So your studies do not support your conclusion. They could equally well be interpreted as non-WASPs having less chances then WASPs in what's basically a WASP-dominated territory. I don't know what your studies themselves say, I just now it is not very polite to use studies to support a conclusion that can't be supported, and most probably was not intended to be able to be supported, by them. Such mistakes are not conducive to getting lots of interest in what you say for the remainder nevermind the erudition with which you say them. That's all. Agnes Ostic

Nov 4, 2003, 10:34 am	#36 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	I'm not even so sure about "performed better" or "performed worse;" but I know there are FEWER businesses owned by minorities and women. But that's just a bias and discrimination thing in secondary and tertiary education. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Agnes Ostic) I don´t share the issue with commercialization. Rubens was very highly commercialized. If there ain´t no public for it, there ain´t no value in it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Whoever said art had a monetary value to it? It would appear to me that art is the most free and universal thing to all humankind. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 4, 2003, 12:58 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	I said it and I stand by it. Artists need to eat. Free & universal are not contradictory in terms with money. AO

Nov 4, 2003, 02:25 pm	#38 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	You talk as if having a day job and being creative are mutually exclusive. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 4, 2003, 02:27 pm	#39 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	AO You are correct -- to some extent. The comments with respect to race were related to the US. However, given that the majority of this discussion, including your own contributions, focused almost exclusively on the US, I don't consider it a serious error. I don't partricularly care if you chose to ignore me or not -- that's your decision. You've demonstrated that one conclusion I drew needs to be contextualised -- which is true. If this damagess my credibnility in your eyes, so be it.

Nov 4, 2003, 03:41 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
GuidoNius Molten Ash Posts: 51	So be it indeed, Geoff, if you can add "to some extent" to that you have a flexibility of mind which is too much for me. I´m not in the US, nor am I an American, nor am I overly interested in the US. Your whole thesis was based on not contextualizing, so if admitting that it needed to be contextualized doesn´t damage your credibility "in your own eyes", no, don´t care what I think. Agnes