Skip to main content

How would you define success differently in the New Decade?


"The attainment of wealth, position, honors, or the like" is how dictionary.com defines success. The definition demonstrates the area of focus of a lot of people and organizations — self.

Selfish, short-term, money-above-everything-else behaviors are therefore common. All of which typically ignore excellence. All of which might even hurt people other than self.

So, could we instead determine an individual's success based on the Value he or she delivered to people (and organizations) OTHER THAN self or immediate family? Could we ask "What positive, new value have you delivered to OTHERS?"

Sure, this requires a fundamental change in thought, attitudes, and behaviors. Which might make it a long-term initiative. But, could we start now?

Comments

  1. Jan Gunnarsson & Olle Blohm say (in The Welcoming Leader) ...

    “Results are measured by the SUCCESS OF ALL THOSE who have purchased your product or service.”

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Explorer mentality Vs conqueror mentality

A fixation on competitors and on beating them is evidence of what Amazon's Jeff Bezos calls a conqueror mentality. In contrast, people waking up in the morning thinking how to innovate for the customer -- and having intense fun innovating -- is evidence of an explorer mentality.

The explorer mentality resulted in Amazon allowing negative reviews of its products. Reacting to this, a book publisher objected, saying "You make money when you sell things." But Bezos thought, "We don't make money when we sell things; we make money when we help customers make purchase decisions." So explorer mentality also demands a willingness to be misunderstood for long periods of time.

During his 16 years as CEO, Bezos' Amazon has delivered shareholder returns of 12,266% (industry-adjusted), and the company's value has grown by $111 billion. More in HBR Jan-Feb 2013.

M&A perspective: IT staffing Vs IT consulting

This report is a simple analysis by HT Capital -- a boutique investment banking firm in New York. It basically makes the point that being a staffing company (Vs consulting company) does not provide adequate returns to most investors, especially from an M&A perspective.

Peter Rozsa, co-author of the report, is a Senior Managing Director at HT Capital. He was also my "classmate" at a Columbia Business School executive education program. I have Peter's permission to make the report available here.

Click to download PDF report.

Leading Change Vs. "Leading" Status Quo

Change and Status quo can be as far apart from each other as a butterfly is from a caterpillar ...

Or ... as an Amazon.com is from a K-Mart ... Or ... as a BMW is from a Hyundai ... Or ... as laying a runway is from paving a cow path ... Or ... as a solution is from a product ... Or ... as experience is from service ... Or ... as customer success is from customer satisfaction ... Or ... as a distinct brand-you is from a me-too employee ...

Change can be triggered by innovation. Change can happen in corporate culture. And so on. There is a leader "behind" every Change. If you consider the corporate world, people like Lou Gerstner, Michael Dell, and Jack Welch may come to mind. Actually, there are scores of other lesser-known and unknown leaders that make change happen in their organizations.

Here's my question: What are some differences between those who lead change and those who "lead" the Status quo? Oh yes, we know about the staggering percentage of Change i…