The best route for creative people with business impulses (or vice versa) is to hatch one's own startup. And then sell out to puddy pudpuds who'll follow procedures to maintain it and apply relentlessness to profit from it.The same analysis was back-linked in this later short posting.
Well, have a look at this exploration of the gaping differences between companies in "founder mode" or in "manager mode".
Interestingly (and well-explained by my writings in that series), creative types would instinctively roll their eyes at the very notion of "manager mode", while corporate types (aka "puddy pud-puds") would do likewise at the mention of "founder mode". It's every bit as partisan a divide as Harris vs Trump. Yet I think there's something to be said for both. In the epilogue of my series, I strained to be terribly mature, taking a higher perspective:
Both sides screw up when they encroach too far on the other's territory. I am absolutely a poster child for the woes of a creative founder hitting a wall after sticking around too long. With some funding, I might have instituted the revenue scheme on my own early on. But I lacked the funds and the time, and that's on me (though, in my defense, I was perennially being drowned by relentless scaling). I should have been talking to investors (learning to polish my shoes, to carefully modulate my voice, and to project gravitas), when I was mostly freaking out about the latest spammer, or getting the newsletters out on time. But, as I've explained, there's a point where you're so locked into daily overhead that the marginal time to push forward disappears.
I make a terrible pudpud, and CNET made a terrible creative founder. I stuck around too long and, paradoxically, they jumped in too early. The operation suffered from my poor pudpud skills as well as from CNET's poor creative skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment