What do you think?
Rate this book
The Prime Movers: Traits of the Great Wealth Creators
Get an inside, up-close look at some of the world's richest people--and learn what really motivates them. The super-rich really aren't like other people. They're a rare breed that inspires awe, envy, admiration--sometimes even hatred. They're idolized, criticized, and demonized. In short, they stand out from the rest of humanity. After all, not everyone can build personal fortunes worth billions or create dominant business empires. It takes a remarkable person, blessed with the "traits of wealth," to accomplish these things. THE PRIME MOVERS takes a penetrating look at some of these remarkable people--and reveals seven attributes common to all great wealth independent vision, an active mind, competence and confidence, the drive to action, egoistic passion, love of ability in others, and virtue. In the right mix, these traits are what makes someone a Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Mary Kay, or Ross Perot. Sometimes irreverent, sometimes surprising, but always fascinating, THE PRIME MOVERS sheds welcome light on the powerful personalities and driving forces behind the world's famous (and infamous) ultra-wealthy elite.
228 pages, Hardcover
First published March 24, 2000
2 people are currently reading
196 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 5, 2017
The Prime Movers: Traits of the Great Wealth Creators
©2000 by Edwin A. Locke
a Book Report by Ron Housley (4.4.2017)
At first glance what we have here is the same assignment that Andrew Carnegie gave to Napoleon Hill — to scour the country for successful people and to inductively assemble traits in common among them. The intent was to discover what was required for great productive success.
Whereas Napoleon Hill started off with some mystical elements, no such detraction spoils the process here.
Some would place Professor Locke’s book in the self-help section; but there’s also a business element and there’s a psychological element and there’s a philosophical element.
When I was in grade-school, I could see from our house one of the flare stacks at a Standard Oil refinery miles in the distance, on top of which that flame burned eternally. I hope that it’s still burning today.
And along with the refinery came stories about Rockefeller; and I managed to absorb the collective myths about how this massive oil refinery was the creation of an evil man intent on giving the world cheap and reliable light.
In other words, I heard that what he produced was a sought-after value, but in any telling of Rockefeller’s story there was always that dominant element suggesting that Rockefeller was evil incarnate.
It’s not that he criminally “hurt” anybody; there were laws against being a criminal. But many Americans came to hate him because he succeeded; because he was justly rewarded for his efforts; because he kept the fruits of his own labors.
Over the years, through the preponderance of anti-Rockefeller bias, the “other” story gradually began to reveal itself to me. The “other” story was that Rockefeller was one of the “Prime Movers.”
Ron Chernow’s biography, Titan, describes Rockefeller’s daily practice of retiring to an isolated, upstairs room in his Cleveland house, with only a pencil and paper. Nobody knows exactly what happened there every afternoon for an hour or two, but it sounded to me like he was executing Jean Moroney’s “thinking on paper” protocol, thinking, considering, questioning, making connections, forming plans — the steps necessary to create the world’s grandest oil refining empire.
And so, Professor Locke’s accounting puts heavy emphasis on the role of the Prime Mover’s mind — and the role of ethics, the role of doing the next right thing, the role of embracing a panoply of objective virtues --- all in service of the chosen productive goal. Those who “pull it off” become the Prime Movers of our world.
Locke’s book is not so much an ode to these men; but it is more in the spirit of Napoleon Hill’s “Think and Grow Rich.” It is an uncovering of the elements that make up such a person.
And beneath the surface is always the question: can I assemble these traits in myself and become capable of being a Prime Mover, myself?
We might take heart when we discover that many Prime Movers are not good communicators; we might also take heart to discover that productive genius involves mental discipline (the kind which can allow an average intellect to rise to the top through persistence).
On the other hand, the really great Prime Movers also could “think quickly,” could constantly move between concrete details and the abstract vision needed for business success, could readily reduce complexity to a few basic principles — things that may not be available to the average intellect, even one who applies discipline and persistence. One probably cannot become a “thinking dynamo” if the internal wiring is not there.
I purchased this book a decade and a half ago, when Amazon was in its infancy; Ii just read it last weekend. It contains good stuff.
©2000 by Edwin A. Locke
a Book Report by Ron Housley (4.4.2017)
At first glance what we have here is the same assignment that Andrew Carnegie gave to Napoleon Hill — to scour the country for successful people and to inductively assemble traits in common among them. The intent was to discover what was required for great productive success.
Whereas Napoleon Hill started off with some mystical elements, no such detraction spoils the process here.
Some would place Professor Locke’s book in the self-help section; but there’s also a business element and there’s a psychological element and there’s a philosophical element.
When I was in grade-school, I could see from our house one of the flare stacks at a Standard Oil refinery miles in the distance, on top of which that flame burned eternally. I hope that it’s still burning today.
And along with the refinery came stories about Rockefeller; and I managed to absorb the collective myths about how this massive oil refinery was the creation of an evil man intent on giving the world cheap and reliable light.
In other words, I heard that what he produced was a sought-after value, but in any telling of Rockefeller’s story there was always that dominant element suggesting that Rockefeller was evil incarnate.
It’s not that he criminally “hurt” anybody; there were laws against being a criminal. But many Americans came to hate him because he succeeded; because he was justly rewarded for his efforts; because he kept the fruits of his own labors.
Over the years, through the preponderance of anti-Rockefeller bias, the “other” story gradually began to reveal itself to me. The “other” story was that Rockefeller was one of the “Prime Movers.”
Ron Chernow’s biography, Titan, describes Rockefeller’s daily practice of retiring to an isolated, upstairs room in his Cleveland house, with only a pencil and paper. Nobody knows exactly what happened there every afternoon for an hour or two, but it sounded to me like he was executing Jean Moroney’s “thinking on paper” protocol, thinking, considering, questioning, making connections, forming plans — the steps necessary to create the world’s grandest oil refining empire.
And so, Professor Locke’s accounting puts heavy emphasis on the role of the Prime Mover’s mind — and the role of ethics, the role of doing the next right thing, the role of embracing a panoply of objective virtues --- all in service of the chosen productive goal. Those who “pull it off” become the Prime Movers of our world.
Locke’s book is not so much an ode to these men; but it is more in the spirit of Napoleon Hill’s “Think and Grow Rich.” It is an uncovering of the elements that make up such a person.
And beneath the surface is always the question: can I assemble these traits in myself and become capable of being a Prime Mover, myself?
We might take heart when we discover that many Prime Movers are not good communicators; we might also take heart to discover that productive genius involves mental discipline (the kind which can allow an average intellect to rise to the top through persistence).
On the other hand, the really great Prime Movers also could “think quickly,” could constantly move between concrete details and the abstract vision needed for business success, could readily reduce complexity to a few basic principles — things that may not be available to the average intellect, even one who applies discipline and persistence. One probably cannot become a “thinking dynamo” if the internal wiring is not there.
I purchased this book a decade and a half ago, when Amazon was in its infancy; Ii just read it last weekend. It contains good stuff.
March 7, 2015
This was a surprisingly good book. It basically follows Ayn Rands philosophy ( yes, it indicates that businessmen need to be exposed to the world of philosophy!) that egoism is what Spurs economies and creates great business leaders. It's shows, and quite simply so, that great leaders follow their own self interest in an incredibly passionate and competitive manner. BUT, lest anyone think the author condones greed and deceit, it also point out that these attributes will inevitably bring about the businessman's downfall. Yes, one must be driven by self interest, but only when playing within the bounds of honesty and virtue will he succeed.
It also talked about how these egoists in the business world love, and value very highly, the abilities of others. Which means they are lovers of ability; not just their own ability, as in the case of an egoTist, but the ability of others as well. They always have right hand men, who they select because of outstanding abilities. And they reward them generously for their work.
All in all, a great read. Unsettling to the liberal crowd no doubt, but really irrefutable for the most part in his logic. Of course, I may be a bit biased, already being a bit of an Ayn Rand fan coming into this one. However, if you don't mind challenging your previous assumptions about what makes a true business leader then by all means give it a read. You won't be disappointed.
It also talked about how these egoists in the business world love, and value very highly, the abilities of others. Which means they are lovers of ability; not just their own ability, as in the case of an egoTist, but the ability of others as well. They always have right hand men, who they select because of outstanding abilities. And they reward them generously for their work.
All in all, a great read. Unsettling to the liberal crowd no doubt, but really irrefutable for the most part in his logic. Of course, I may be a bit biased, already being a bit of an Ayn Rand fan coming into this one. However, if you don't mind challenging your previous assumptions about what makes a true business leader then by all means give it a read. You won't be disappointed.
April 18, 2009
Good book, but mostly repeats of previous lectures.
Read
January 23, 2022Life expectancy has increased from nineteen years in 1750 to seventy years today
Thomas Edison to Bill Gates are the Prime Movers of human progress. While these men amassed great fortunes, they raised the standard of living for all of us.
90 percent of the time, successful companies are created by powerful leaders. I have often seen mediocre-performing operations transformed into high-performing units by changing leadership.
The steam engine began to replace muscle power; iron and steel superseded wood; textile factories supplanted home weaving; the cotton gin and the reaper displaced field labor; railroads replaced oxcarts; automobiles supplanted the horse and buggy; and electric lights took the place of candles.
Just as the concept of rights had begun to free him from the vicissitudes of other men, so technology had begun to free him from the vicissitudes of nature.
Men were free not only to build but also to keep the profits of their efforts
each infusion of wealth allowed more investment.
men had always thought of wealth as a static quantityto be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.
even half-baked capitalism promotes far more wealth creation than would be possible under socialism. And if they try to manage the economy, such as by deciding which businesses should be encouraged, they will inevitably make wrong decisions. Dictators do not make good capitalists.
When some people are allowed to function freely, others will demand the same privilege. (e.g., if we can choose how to invest, why can't we choose our leaders, too?)
there is a swing to the right (freedom), only to be followed by a swing to the left (controls)
some people are much better at the process of wealth creation than others.
The Marxists deny the value of all work except physical labor
wealth creators in the past sneer that the day of the great leaders or the dominant individualists is now over and that, today, wealth is created by participative groups. To "prove" their point, they use the following straw man argument: If the individual were really important, he would create the wealth all by himself; however, since business leaders have to depend on others, the leader's role is not that important. This is a dangerously wrongheaded view, as well as a non sequitur
Metaphysical differences between people are not unfair; they just are.
It is not that one's childhood seals one's fate forever, but when children are deeply hurt, they can develop many wrong conclusions about themselves, other people, and the world (e.g., others are not to be trusted
unskilled at introspection
Like Walt Disney, they moved ahead as best they could and did not let their suffering stand in their way. In this respect, they are a good object lesson to the moderns who are urged to weep and demand special treatment as a compensation for every painful emotion they might feel.
today's culture of emotional indulgence
Thomas Edison to Bill Gates are the Prime Movers of human progress. While these men amassed great fortunes, they raised the standard of living for all of us.
90 percent of the time, successful companies are created by powerful leaders. I have often seen mediocre-performing operations transformed into high-performing units by changing leadership.
The steam engine began to replace muscle power; iron and steel superseded wood; textile factories supplanted home weaving; the cotton gin and the reaper displaced field labor; railroads replaced oxcarts; automobiles supplanted the horse and buggy; and electric lights took the place of candles.
Just as the concept of rights had begun to free him from the vicissitudes of other men, so technology had begun to free him from the vicissitudes of nature.
Men were free not only to build but also to keep the profits of their efforts
each infusion of wealth allowed more investment.
men had always thought of wealth as a static quantityto be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.
even half-baked capitalism promotes far more wealth creation than would be possible under socialism. And if they try to manage the economy, such as by deciding which businesses should be encouraged, they will inevitably make wrong decisions. Dictators do not make good capitalists.
When some people are allowed to function freely, others will demand the same privilege. (e.g., if we can choose how to invest, why can't we choose our leaders, too?)
there is a swing to the right (freedom), only to be followed by a swing to the left (controls)
some people are much better at the process of wealth creation than others.
The Marxists deny the value of all work except physical labor
wealth creators in the past sneer that the day of the great leaders or the dominant individualists is now over and that, today, wealth is created by participative groups. To "prove" their point, they use the following straw man argument: If the individual were really important, he would create the wealth all by himself; however, since business leaders have to depend on others, the leader's role is not that important. This is a dangerously wrongheaded view, as well as a non sequitur
Metaphysical differences between people are not unfair; they just are.
It is not that one's childhood seals one's fate forever, but when children are deeply hurt, they can develop many wrong conclusions about themselves, other people, and the world (e.g., others are not to be trusted
unskilled at introspection
Like Walt Disney, they moved ahead as best they could and did not let their suffering stand in their way. In this respect, they are a good object lesson to the moderns who are urged to weep and demand special treatment as a compensation for every painful emotion they might feel.
today's culture of emotional indulgence
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews