Are Self-Starters Privileged
Dear [Mentat],
Yes, compared to the ones who didn’t start businesses or whose businesses failed, the people that did succeed, in all likelihood, did indeed benefit from factors working in their favor _besides_ voluntary tenacity. In fact, voluntary tenacity may not be quite so _voluntary_. Like most of the other aspects of personality, a man’s strength of will can be shown to be a product of his upbringing. It could have originated either because of that environment, or sometimes, in spite of it. Yet in either case, whether the child
- learns from his parents what _to do_ to succeed, or what _not_ to do,
- or he’s driven by a desire to emulate his parents or to defy them,
the upbringing contributes markedly to how far he ultimately travels toward success.
Finally, in reference to the huge conglomerates such as Sun Microsystems, Amazon, and the biotech companies: It’s important to note that the people who started these [organizations] cannot be given _full_ credit for their growth into fortune five-hundred companies. These empires, particularly the publicly held ones, got to where they are due to the work and leadership of many people – not just the founders. So while we might credit the founder for the creation of the company, the company’s growth into a huge economic machine is generally not the sole responsibility of the creator, though admittedly, without him, there would have been no company in the first place.
Also, discussing success of corporations opens a new can of worms and may excessively complicate our talk. Why? Because the dynamics of corporate, or more generally, economic success differ markedly from those for individual success, since the decision-making processes for a company happen so dissimilarly from those of the individual. Thus I don’t think we can meaningfully treat them as one in the same. That is: The ultimate success of a corporation and the ultimate individual success of the people who start them are two separate and often disparate entities.
So just because the company is tremendously successful doesn’t mean that the founding individual is successful. Specifically, the ups and downs of a corporation frequently don’t track with the ups and downs of its creator(s). Indeed, many a top-notch corporation has founders that either have become druggies, or lost their families (wives and kids) due to their career-oriented, philandering, overly detail-oriented, perfectionist natures. Indeed a person’s traits that promote his success in the business world may in fact, preclude success on the home front.
I’m remembering our landlord, [Darnell], at [...] McKee Place. Though the realty was named after him, he seemed like a doofus; I had the dubious pleasure of meeting him a few times. He looked burned out and just not quite there, as though his mind was always everywhere else. Thus, it’s reckless to blindly attribute all of a corporation’s ongoing successes to its founder(s), and it’s certainly hasty to assume that because a corporation is successful, that its founders are successful too.
We may rightly congratulate a founder for generating that initial momentum which propels the small business into fortune five-hundred status. But the bigger it gets, the less responsible for its ongoing success the founder is. So given that, I’d suggest that we confine our talk to individual success – the wealth and happiness a single individual accrues within himself and at home. This letter is already very large, and adding explanations of the dynamics of corporate success and how they can make or break the personal successes of the creator would prohibitively increase the length. So I’ll omit all of that here.
Also, see my The Chance Part Of Success piece. for a discussion of the significant role that luck plays in anyone’s success.
[A self-starting entrepreneur] would have to be pretty damn poor [before I'd not consider him privileged];
- no nest egg,
- no help from his parents,
- no affirmative action aid from the government,
- no loans that are granted based on race, financial standing or some other restrictive criterion,
- no donations or trust funds,
- nothing.
Of course, finding such a truly destitute person (one who started out with truly nothing and went on to create a financial dynasty) would be practically impossible, since we all depend on the achievements of previous generations to varying degrees. But my point here is that no two people start at the exact same spot on the success track. Some must travel great distances on that track, while others need only take a few steps. The person whose parents create a one-hundred thousand dollar trust fund for him has more resources to throw into his endeavors than he who comes from a broken home that provides no financial support.
In fact, as I’ve probably noted elsewhere in this “book”: You seem to suggest that tradition and success don’t mix, because your examples are of people who you say, broke away from their families to achieve their greatness. But it also happens that people succeed _precisely because_ they’re carrying on their family’s traditions. Again, I site Hollywood. Most of the people living in the mansions of Beverly Hills come from families whose parents and relatives also succeeded in show business. Particularly in the music and acting businesses, early teaching and encouragement from parents really does make or break the child. But I think I’ve covered this point enough. Hmmmm. I’m starting to forget what I’ve said and what I haven’t. So do forgive any redundancies. J
May 30th, 2011 at 6:43 am
[...] Are Self-Starters Privileged [...]