Tim Fargo's Blog, page 2
May 16, 2014
Ponderous Product Packaging
Please don't sell me something in a package designed to thwart a rhino attack.
Your product package should not be more durable than your product.
I bought the product because I want access to it. It's not going to be a museum display or put into a time capsule.
It should be a requirement that a CEO be required to open every type of consumer product package their company ships with their bare hands while being filmed for a subsequent YouTube upload. Hilarity ensues...
Joking aside, the reality is that the package is part of the product: our gateway to using it. When the packaging is poorly thought out, it's an awkward beginning to the relationship with a customer at best. At worst, it creates a mood where your product is being set-up to be judged harshly.
Don't let ponderous packaging ruin your product.
Your product package should not be more durable than your product.
I bought the product because I want access to it. It's not going to be a museum display or put into a time capsule.
It should be a requirement that a CEO be required to open every type of consumer product package their company ships with their bare hands while being filmed for a subsequent YouTube upload. Hilarity ensues...
Joking aside, the reality is that the package is part of the product: our gateway to using it. When the packaging is poorly thought out, it's an awkward beginning to the relationship with a customer at best. At worst, it creates a mood where your product is being set-up to be judged harshly.
Don't let ponderous packaging ruin your product.
May 14, 2014
Lions and Tigers and Retweets, oh my!
The messages just keep on coming. "RT my name", "RT me", "RT my Facebook page".
Why, oh why, would I do that?
For one, I doubt you'd gain much in followers from me RTing your name. Second, I probably stand to lose a few people who would not feel like seeing a stream of unexplainable tweets flying around.
In short. It isn't going to happen. I value the people who stick around to see what I'm going to post too much to just throw out gibberish. Therein lies the key to growing "your following", post something worth retweeting. Engage with people, talk to them, post good content.
Of course, I do retweet. If you happen to be interested, here is what I recommend: tweet a quote you think fits with my "theme" with my handle @alphabetsuccess in the tweet more or less as follows in this example:
We have it in our power to begin the world over again. - Thomas Paine #quote via @alphabetsuccess
In case you're wondering why: The old style RT, that starts with "RT" is a visual stumbling block to reading the content. People tend to gloss over it. My observation is that leading a retweet with RT is guaranteed to inhibit engagement. Also, while I could re-work the tweet/quote you are counting on me having the time and inclination to do it. The more you "set it up" the better your chances.
If the quote is really good, and I don't already have it, I'll add it to my database. If I do, your handle will go right along with it. Never forget a friend. :-)
There are no guarantees. But what I have outlined will dramatically improve your odds.
Happy tweeting!
Why, oh why, would I do that?
For one, I doubt you'd gain much in followers from me RTing your name. Second, I probably stand to lose a few people who would not feel like seeing a stream of unexplainable tweets flying around.
In short. It isn't going to happen. I value the people who stick around to see what I'm going to post too much to just throw out gibberish. Therein lies the key to growing "your following", post something worth retweeting. Engage with people, talk to them, post good content.
Of course, I do retweet. If you happen to be interested, here is what I recommend: tweet a quote you think fits with my "theme" with my handle @alphabetsuccess in the tweet more or less as follows in this example:
We have it in our power to begin the world over again. - Thomas Paine #quote via @alphabetsuccess
In case you're wondering why: The old style RT, that starts with "RT" is a visual stumbling block to reading the content. People tend to gloss over it. My observation is that leading a retweet with RT is guaranteed to inhibit engagement. Also, while I could re-work the tweet/quote you are counting on me having the time and inclination to do it. The more you "set it up" the better your chances.
If the quote is really good, and I don't already have it, I'll add it to my database. If I do, your handle will go right along with it. Never forget a friend. :-)
There are no guarantees. But what I have outlined will dramatically improve your odds.
Happy tweeting!
May 13, 2014
Good enough never is.
This weekend I was in Eskilstuna Sweden for a basketball tournament. So one night we ventured out for some food, in this case Chinese food at Ming Palace. Being a somewhat cautious person, I did some checking on TripAdvisor beforehand to see what was decent. The place in question was 4th on their list.
As it turns out, 4th place was good enough to be pathetically mediocre. The food was served quickly, and it wasn't over or under cooked. But it was devoid of any flavor. All served under the watchful eyes of the owner who never once inquired if we were enjoying, or had enjoyed, the food.
How can that be? Well, I suppose that the standard of Eskilstuna isn't especially high, being a town of roughly 100,000 people, it isn't a likely spot for a top chef to hang their hat. Perhaps because of that, the restaurant had several customers who seemed to be contentedly grazing away. There isn't enough competition to force the Ming Palace to "up their game."
But let's consider it from another perspective: there is NO competition. In other words, here is a place with a facility that is already open, and is actively serving clients. They are already doing 97% of the job it will take to make the place a star. All they have to do is put a little love into the food. If it was well seasoned, they'd probably be jammed with people.
At a minimum I'd bet a fair sum that an addition 5% effort would yield at least a 20% increase in business. But I suspect it won't happen. They are probably puttering along OK, paying their bills and taking some time off every year. Business is good, or at least good enough. Right? Wrong.
For now, the owners are safe. The little eco-system of this Swedish town is allowing them to survive on what they are doing. But what if one of their competitors decides to bring their "A" game? All of a sudden they might be having very little business and struggling to survive. They might even be forced to close.
Such is the danger in playing the "safe" game of good enough. It provides an elusive veneer of comfort. They might be doing a little less business than before, but they can cut expenses, turn the heat down a bit. Slowly strangling a business that could thrive if someone would just look at it with a fresh set of eyes.
Don't be tempted to play the game of good enough. Bring your best game every day. Don't settle for being a little better than others. If the competition is poor, play hard anyhow. You never know when someone will show up ready to compete, so you need to be at your best.
Don't be lulled into complacency; good enough never is.
As it turns out, 4th place was good enough to be pathetically mediocre. The food was served quickly, and it wasn't over or under cooked. But it was devoid of any flavor. All served under the watchful eyes of the owner who never once inquired if we were enjoying, or had enjoyed, the food.
How can that be? Well, I suppose that the standard of Eskilstuna isn't especially high, being a town of roughly 100,000 people, it isn't a likely spot for a top chef to hang their hat. Perhaps because of that, the restaurant had several customers who seemed to be contentedly grazing away. There isn't enough competition to force the Ming Palace to "up their game."
But let's consider it from another perspective: there is NO competition. In other words, here is a place with a facility that is already open, and is actively serving clients. They are already doing 97% of the job it will take to make the place a star. All they have to do is put a little love into the food. If it was well seasoned, they'd probably be jammed with people.
At a minimum I'd bet a fair sum that an addition 5% effort would yield at least a 20% increase in business. But I suspect it won't happen. They are probably puttering along OK, paying their bills and taking some time off every year. Business is good, or at least good enough. Right? Wrong.
For now, the owners are safe. The little eco-system of this Swedish town is allowing them to survive on what they are doing. But what if one of their competitors decides to bring their "A" game? All of a sudden they might be having very little business and struggling to survive. They might even be forced to close.
Such is the danger in playing the "safe" game of good enough. It provides an elusive veneer of comfort. They might be doing a little less business than before, but they can cut expenses, turn the heat down a bit. Slowly strangling a business that could thrive if someone would just look at it with a fresh set of eyes.
Don't be tempted to play the game of good enough. Bring your best game every day. Don't settle for being a little better than others. If the competition is poor, play hard anyhow. You never know when someone will show up ready to compete, so you need to be at your best.
Don't be lulled into complacency; good enough never is.
May 7, 2014
To the most rockin, amazing group of people in the Twittesphere!
What can I say. I'm honored every day by all the retweets, favorites and comments. You guys are a motivational FORCE!
Just wanted to take a moment and say THANK YOU! I spend a fair amount on Twitter, and you make every single moment worthwhile.
Much love to you all. Stay awesome.
Upward and onward!
Just wanted to take a moment and say THANK YOU! I spend a fair amount on Twitter, and you make every single moment worthwhile.
Much love to you all. Stay awesome.
Upward and onward!
May 6, 2014
When you put profit before principles you'll end up with neither.
Bought a printer for your computer lately? I did. About a year ago I got myself a Brother MFC-6490CW. Sounds pretty impressive, and it even looks pretty impressive. But looks and sounds is about as far as it goes. When it comes to printing? Oh Brother!
For the purpose of context, I do not print many things. If I generate in excess of ten pages a month, I'd be amazed. The occasional document and boarding pass. That's about it.
In light of that, I expected a long and happy relationship with my large impressive printer. But it stopped printing a few weeks ago. The printer indicated that it was out of blue ink. Fair enough. But as I wanted black printing, I didn't think that was much of an issue. However, I have come to find that many printer companies now force you to install a new cartridge to proceed regardless of whether you'll be using any of that color ink.
Previously you could sort of fudge your way through having to buy one until there was almost no ink of any type left. The old way made sense. The printer did its best to sort you out with what it had "on-hand". Not any more.
For those who may be unfamiliar with the economics of the printer business, it is a low profit business on printers but high profit on cartridges. Thus the new "engineering" to force additional cartridge purchases. It's a sort of document extortion.
This blog is part love letter to an inventor, or printer executive that wants to take over the industry. People want a printer that prints, even when the inks a bit low. Ideally that'll be a very sporadic condition. I'm virtually certain you can charge more, way more, for a printer that screams "I'll be ready when you need me!"
In the interim, I managed to unearth an old laser printer from the closet. One manufactured before someone led the whole industry into a "profit before principles" mindset. How regrettable that nobody stopped to think that when you put profit before principles you'll end up with neither.
For the purpose of context, I do not print many things. If I generate in excess of ten pages a month, I'd be amazed. The occasional document and boarding pass. That's about it.
In light of that, I expected a long and happy relationship with my large impressive printer. But it stopped printing a few weeks ago. The printer indicated that it was out of blue ink. Fair enough. But as I wanted black printing, I didn't think that was much of an issue. However, I have come to find that many printer companies now force you to install a new cartridge to proceed regardless of whether you'll be using any of that color ink.
Previously you could sort of fudge your way through having to buy one until there was almost no ink of any type left. The old way made sense. The printer did its best to sort you out with what it had "on-hand". Not any more.
For those who may be unfamiliar with the economics of the printer business, it is a low profit business on printers but high profit on cartridges. Thus the new "engineering" to force additional cartridge purchases. It's a sort of document extortion.
This blog is part love letter to an inventor, or printer executive that wants to take over the industry. People want a printer that prints, even when the inks a bit low. Ideally that'll be a very sporadic condition. I'm virtually certain you can charge more, way more, for a printer that screams "I'll be ready when you need me!"
In the interim, I managed to unearth an old laser printer from the closet. One manufactured before someone led the whole industry into a "profit before principles" mindset. How regrettable that nobody stopped to think that when you put profit before principles you'll end up with neither.
May 5, 2014
Don't worry about your pride, worry about your principles.
Just about fifteen years ago I held my first press conference. It was at RIMS, which is an insurance conference my old business attended every year.
Everything was carefully coordinated, there was catering, and a wonderful room near the entrance so it would be easy for the media to attend. Except they didn't. Exactly one journalist was there. If I hadn't been an advertiser in their publication, the number would have dropped to precisely zero.
Unsurprisingly my initial reaction was to be a bit depressed. Thankfully I quickly reframed the incident in my mind. Business was strong, my family was good, my health was excellent, and furthermore, I hadn't compromised myself in any way to pull off the event. Thus, there was nothing to be ashamed of in the lack of attendees.
It illustrated a very important point: principles matter, pride doesn't. Valuing your principles means doing things in the right way, being honest, sticking to your commitments even when it is painful to do so. Pride revolves more around feelings. Principles are fixed, pride is fickle.
So when you are considering the success or failure of a situation, evaluate your adherence to principles rather than your sense of pride. Why does that matter?
When we are afraid of failing, that's usually our pride talking. Our worry over who is going to roll their eyes at our efforts, or ridicule our performance. By that standard, my first press conference was a dismal failure. But was it?
Even though there was virtually nobody there, I learned some valuable lessons (always book too small a room...crowded always is more intriguing than empty). There's more, but that alone was enough to make it worthwhile.
Now, I always try to remember whenever I feel fear creeping up: Don't worry about your pride, worry about your principles.
Everything was carefully coordinated, there was catering, and a wonderful room near the entrance so it would be easy for the media to attend. Except they didn't. Exactly one journalist was there. If I hadn't been an advertiser in their publication, the number would have dropped to precisely zero.
Unsurprisingly my initial reaction was to be a bit depressed. Thankfully I quickly reframed the incident in my mind. Business was strong, my family was good, my health was excellent, and furthermore, I hadn't compromised myself in any way to pull off the event. Thus, there was nothing to be ashamed of in the lack of attendees.
It illustrated a very important point: principles matter, pride doesn't. Valuing your principles means doing things in the right way, being honest, sticking to your commitments even when it is painful to do so. Pride revolves more around feelings. Principles are fixed, pride is fickle.
So when you are considering the success or failure of a situation, evaluate your adherence to principles rather than your sense of pride. Why does that matter?
When we are afraid of failing, that's usually our pride talking. Our worry over who is going to roll their eyes at our efforts, or ridicule our performance. By that standard, my first press conference was a dismal failure. But was it?
Even though there was virtually nobody there, I learned some valuable lessons (always book too small a room...crowded always is more intriguing than empty). There's more, but that alone was enough to make it worthwhile.
Now, I always try to remember whenever I feel fear creeping up: Don't worry about your pride, worry about your principles.
May 4, 2014
Don't Hire Anybody!
If you have a new business, it's pretty common to start thinking about hiring someone to help with the seemingly endless tasks you are presented with. Don't. Do NOT do it.
Eventually, you will have to hire people, but try to put it off as long as possible. While you might think there is an element of sadism involved on my part there are reasons...
First, you need to be able to present someone with a clearly delineated job. That's very hard to do in the beginning. In a start-up, many days end in a blur. But patterns eventually emerge in your work wherein you could explain a list of items to another person, you have the beginning of a job for someone. It takes some time.
Second, by doing things yourself in the beginning you gain a massive amount of knowledge. That helps in the operation of any business and it also gives you valuable empathy for the person you'll eventually have doing those tasks for the business.
Third, hiring is: easy in, hard out. Searching for your first "employee" is kind of exhilarating. You meet lot's of eager people ready to make a difference. Then you pick someone. But sometimes you blow it. You pick the wrong person. If hiring is fun, firing is the opposite. Firing people is a major buzz killer. The longer you wait, the better delineated the job will be, and the greater the chance for success in hiring.
Fourth, hiring people costs money. Unless you have been massively funded or were born into big money, you'll find cash has a quick evaporation rate. Employees are helpful, but they are also expensive. Be sure you are absolutely clear on how you're going to specifically benefit from having this person. Have enough clarity to explain the hiring to an investor, even if you have none.
With some luck, you'll grow and clear these hurdles. You'll hire lot's and lot's of people and live happily ever after. But applying this logic to each position will keep you lean and focused. That's a very strong quality for any business to possess.
Eventually, you will have to hire people, but try to put it off as long as possible. While you might think there is an element of sadism involved on my part there are reasons...
First, you need to be able to present someone with a clearly delineated job. That's very hard to do in the beginning. In a start-up, many days end in a blur. But patterns eventually emerge in your work wherein you could explain a list of items to another person, you have the beginning of a job for someone. It takes some time.
Second, by doing things yourself in the beginning you gain a massive amount of knowledge. That helps in the operation of any business and it also gives you valuable empathy for the person you'll eventually have doing those tasks for the business.
Third, hiring is: easy in, hard out. Searching for your first "employee" is kind of exhilarating. You meet lot's of eager people ready to make a difference. Then you pick someone. But sometimes you blow it. You pick the wrong person. If hiring is fun, firing is the opposite. Firing people is a major buzz killer. The longer you wait, the better delineated the job will be, and the greater the chance for success in hiring.
Fourth, hiring people costs money. Unless you have been massively funded or were born into big money, you'll find cash has a quick evaporation rate. Employees are helpful, but they are also expensive. Be sure you are absolutely clear on how you're going to specifically benefit from having this person. Have enough clarity to explain the hiring to an investor, even if you have none.
With some luck, you'll grow and clear these hurdles. You'll hire lot's and lot's of people and live happily ever after. But applying this logic to each position will keep you lean and focused. That's a very strong quality for any business to possess.
April 30, 2014
Beware of the quagmire of quantity.
We are often lead by our wants and desires. We'd like to have a holiday in a particular spot, some new clothes, a better body, better sex, you name it, we all have our "list".
But often we don't want the "thing" in question, we want how we think it will make us feel. We imagine that we'll be transported. Therein lies the trick. We might get that feeling, but only if getting access to what we want remains somewhat elusive.
For instance, earlier this week a woman in the UK was treated at the hospital for having a "two-hour orgasm". Crazy right? But I think of all the hullabaloo on magazine covers for "ultimate pleasure" and then it turns out, like most anything, that getting the quantity right matters.
Or consider the time I was on my first safari in Namibia. We all trundled into the jeep and sped away. The first zebras we saw were breaktaking. As the trip continued we saw more and more animals, but lots of zebras. By the end of the trip we'd see movement in the brush, and the inevitable conclusion, "It's just more zebras".
It can even apply to the wonderful feeling we get when someone slips us a love letter. It's grand and we savor the moment. But if they start sending note after note, leaving messages, and calling all the time, we quickly lose that lovely feeling. Then the word "stalker" jumps into our mind. All because the quantity was wrong.
Quantity counts, up to a point. After that point we start rapidly reducing the value of what was previously so valuable. Beware of the quagmire of quantity.
But often we don't want the "thing" in question, we want how we think it will make us feel. We imagine that we'll be transported. Therein lies the trick. We might get that feeling, but only if getting access to what we want remains somewhat elusive.
For instance, earlier this week a woman in the UK was treated at the hospital for having a "two-hour orgasm". Crazy right? But I think of all the hullabaloo on magazine covers for "ultimate pleasure" and then it turns out, like most anything, that getting the quantity right matters.
Or consider the time I was on my first safari in Namibia. We all trundled into the jeep and sped away. The first zebras we saw were breaktaking. As the trip continued we saw more and more animals, but lots of zebras. By the end of the trip we'd see movement in the brush, and the inevitable conclusion, "It's just more zebras".
It can even apply to the wonderful feeling we get when someone slips us a love letter. It's grand and we savor the moment. But if they start sending note after note, leaving messages, and calling all the time, we quickly lose that lovely feeling. Then the word "stalker" jumps into our mind. All because the quantity was wrong.
Quantity counts, up to a point. After that point we start rapidly reducing the value of what was previously so valuable. Beware of the quagmire of quantity.
April 28, 2014
A tale of scale.
In the past four years I have had the need to sell two houses. One in Stockholm, and the other in Florida. One sold, the other didn't. This is a tale of scale.
To many people the image of Sweden is probably of a chilly place with somewhat grumpy socialists marching across the frozen landscape. Florida by contrast is a wonderland of palm trees and happiness. But I digress...
When I contacted my broker in Sweden, he came by, we discussed the market conditions (a bit mediocre in 2010) and signed an agreement. Since I was on the road a bit we arranged for the house to be shown in my absence.
In Florida, I also contacted a broker I knew and arranged for the house to be listed. Market conditions were a bit better in 2012, so I was optimistic about the prospects for the house. This house was also being sold with me being out of town.
Two houses, both in desirable settings, were being sold in roughly the same manner, at least from my perspective as the seller.
Where things became very very different was in the approach of the broker.
My broker in Stockholm takes very few houses to sell. But they ALL get sold. He puts his time and effort into it, and the listings are exclusive to him.
He took a decidedly average house in a nice suburb and had it sold well above our expected final price within a matter of a few weeks.
Why? Because he is focused on very few things professionally. He takes in listings which he is confident he can sell, and then puts his efforts into making that happen. In this case he even, at his own expense, detailed the property.
By contrast, the broker in Florida has many many listings, all in the MLS. He's a good, hard-working guy, but he's focusing on running his business, rather than the individual listings his firm has.. His money is in having enough inventory that some houses move and they take a cut. He is, in a word, scaling.
In fairness, they did put some effort into it. But the focus of the business is too spread out. The effort to market the house was just not sufficient. It sat and sat, until the market just sort of forgot about it and I had it removed from the market after several months.
The moral of the story, is that while scale might sound very appealing, it doesn't work for all businesses. For me as a client, I was much better looked after by my broker in Sweden.
Client's don't care about your market share, or your reach. The internet reaches everyone. We want to be looked after. In a business involving such an intrusive process as selling a home, being another number feels lousy. Having the home not sell, worse.
I even wonder if scales works for the big broker. The smaller operation is less visible, but also less stressful, highly profitable (virtually no overhead) and he has the luxury of turning away business. The larger operation is a machine with a lot of moving parts. All of which must be kept working for the business to survive.
In businesses that are totally data driven, with wafer thin margins, scale is a necessity. But in businesses where humans matter scale can be a stressful, counterproductive mistake.
To me, the equation looks pretty simple. Sometimes scale just doesn't work. Grow at your peril.
To many people the image of Sweden is probably of a chilly place with somewhat grumpy socialists marching across the frozen landscape. Florida by contrast is a wonderland of palm trees and happiness. But I digress...
When I contacted my broker in Sweden, he came by, we discussed the market conditions (a bit mediocre in 2010) and signed an agreement. Since I was on the road a bit we arranged for the house to be shown in my absence.
In Florida, I also contacted a broker I knew and arranged for the house to be listed. Market conditions were a bit better in 2012, so I was optimistic about the prospects for the house. This house was also being sold with me being out of town.
Two houses, both in desirable settings, were being sold in roughly the same manner, at least from my perspective as the seller.
Where things became very very different was in the approach of the broker.
My broker in Stockholm takes very few houses to sell. But they ALL get sold. He puts his time and effort into it, and the listings are exclusive to him.
He took a decidedly average house in a nice suburb and had it sold well above our expected final price within a matter of a few weeks.
Why? Because he is focused on very few things professionally. He takes in listings which he is confident he can sell, and then puts his efforts into making that happen. In this case he even, at his own expense, detailed the property.
By contrast, the broker in Florida has many many listings, all in the MLS. He's a good, hard-working guy, but he's focusing on running his business, rather than the individual listings his firm has.. His money is in having enough inventory that some houses move and they take a cut. He is, in a word, scaling.
In fairness, they did put some effort into it. But the focus of the business is too spread out. The effort to market the house was just not sufficient. It sat and sat, until the market just sort of forgot about it and I had it removed from the market after several months.
The moral of the story, is that while scale might sound very appealing, it doesn't work for all businesses. For me as a client, I was much better looked after by my broker in Sweden.
Client's don't care about your market share, or your reach. The internet reaches everyone. We want to be looked after. In a business involving such an intrusive process as selling a home, being another number feels lousy. Having the home not sell, worse.
I even wonder if scales works for the big broker. The smaller operation is less visible, but also less stressful, highly profitable (virtually no overhead) and he has the luxury of turning away business. The larger operation is a machine with a lot of moving parts. All of which must be kept working for the business to survive.
In businesses that are totally data driven, with wafer thin margins, scale is a necessity. But in businesses where humans matter scale can be a stressful, counterproductive mistake.
To me, the equation looks pretty simple. Sometimes scale just doesn't work. Grow at your peril.
April 27, 2014
Forget your weaknesses, increase your strengths.
We get the message over and over, "work on your weaknesses". Nonsense. Do you think Michael Jordan should have studied Spanish instead of practicing basketball? Or maybe Michelangelo should have spend time learning more about banking from the Medici family? Maybe, or more likely, probably not.
When I was in high school, my parents were very keen for me to study engineering. A fine idea, except for the fact that I wasn't even remotely interested in it. I liked business, and frankly, making money. Learning more about how airplanes stayed aloft wasn't in my circle of interests.
Now to listen to many gurus, I should have worked on my weaknesses. Why? So I could be bored and disenchanted with school? Possibly knowing more about certain things would have served me in some way. Except I didn't care then, and I don't care now. I can buy the books, but I'll always read something else ahead of them, and they'll sit unread for the rest of my days.
I've taken the liberty of indulging my strengths. As a result, I've had a very nice business career, and a ton of fun. It's not to say that I haven't done considerable learning and growing along the way, but I think pushing myself into directions I wasn't interested in would have done pretty much nothing for me.
Truth be told, if you want to be really amazing at something it takes a focused effort. I'm no "super star" but I've done well, and I don't think it would have happened without having been extremely focused on business. Because I had a keen interest from an early age.
Furthermore, I could read something every day and not come close to knowing everything about the things I am interested in within my field. You just keep banging away trying to stay a few steps ahead of the competition.
If you look at the top people in virtually every field, they got there through a keen focus on one item. Yo Yo Ma is an amazing cellist, Warren Buffet is a remarkable investor, Wayne Gretzky was a phenomenal hockey player. Focus, focus, focus.
Given the limited amount of time available to all of us, I say focus on your strengths. It's enough work just to maximize them.
When I was in high school, my parents were very keen for me to study engineering. A fine idea, except for the fact that I wasn't even remotely interested in it. I liked business, and frankly, making money. Learning more about how airplanes stayed aloft wasn't in my circle of interests.
Now to listen to many gurus, I should have worked on my weaknesses. Why? So I could be bored and disenchanted with school? Possibly knowing more about certain things would have served me in some way. Except I didn't care then, and I don't care now. I can buy the books, but I'll always read something else ahead of them, and they'll sit unread for the rest of my days.
I've taken the liberty of indulging my strengths. As a result, I've had a very nice business career, and a ton of fun. It's not to say that I haven't done considerable learning and growing along the way, but I think pushing myself into directions I wasn't interested in would have done pretty much nothing for me.
Truth be told, if you want to be really amazing at something it takes a focused effort. I'm no "super star" but I've done well, and I don't think it would have happened without having been extremely focused on business. Because I had a keen interest from an early age.
Furthermore, I could read something every day and not come close to knowing everything about the things I am interested in within my field. You just keep banging away trying to stay a few steps ahead of the competition.
If you look at the top people in virtually every field, they got there through a keen focus on one item. Yo Yo Ma is an amazing cellist, Warren Buffet is a remarkable investor, Wayne Gretzky was a phenomenal hockey player. Focus, focus, focus.
Given the limited amount of time available to all of us, I say focus on your strengths. It's enough work just to maximize them.
