Comments on: Leading a dynamic life

By: brenda o

brenda o — Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:19:24 +0000

My experience with Corporate America has been restricted to 6 years of working with startup biotechnology companies (2) in the Bay Area. I can speak to some of your assertions on entrepreneurship from my vantage point in this limited arena. In doing so I will keep in mind-with bemused awareness-my personal bias. My observations may be speaking equally to entrepreneurialism and my personal preferences in working environment!

The idea that childhood liberty and tolerance of curiosity into young adulthood correlates with a skillset found in entrepreneurs fits with the history of the founders of both companies I’ve worked with.

In considering the similarities between the founding groups I know, I can also list several other variables that correlate with my-admittedly small-sample size. I’ll include seemingly obvious traits and characteristics in the list, for completeness:

1. Pre-existing friendship: including the capacity to play, argue and get drunk together. They clearly know and understand who they are working with.

2. At least one “interminable bond”: childhood friendships lasting > 20 years in one case, marraige in the other.

3. Previous collaborations in the field relevant to the startup. This greatly facilitates item 4…

4. Unsurpassable communication between founders. This is The Most Important Variable. This communication is often only achieved through 1, 2, or 3. It is unspoken, secret language that allows founders to simultaneously understand one another’s motivations (both personal and professional), nature of inquiry, purpose, scope and key strengths during any discussion.

I see this all boiling down to trust. There are infinite recipes for trust, and I find it hard to describe the end product separate from the formulation requirements.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:42:07 +0000

I did read the book a couple months later. It is excellent, as you say. But I hadn’t made the connection between the thoughts in that book and the stuff I’m talking about now. That’s a really interesting idea, and it makes a lot of sense. Finite games happen within a given structure, infinite games are about creating new structures. It’s another perspective on the same set of ideas.

Thanks for reading!

By: Abe

Abe — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:13:25 +0000

Excellent post! I stumbled on your blog after reading your notes on a talk give by James Carse (“Finite and Infinite Games”). Did you ever read the book, yourself? It’s brilliant.

One thing I think is odd is just how disconnected our generation (I’m guessing you and I are approximately the same age; I’m 28) is from that of our parents. Though our parents were raised on the cusp of the movement into a wildly unstable social/work era, their lives were still FAR more stable then ours. Which wouldn’t bother me if I were an master Infinite Player (though “master” is almost a contradiction with “infinite player;” perhaps “adept” would be a better word choice) as our world seems to be rapidly becoming one of many surprises and constant uncertainty–which is hyperstressful to me.

I don’t know about you, but I feel caught between the maeltrom of the past era–which was oriented toward finite games and gamesmanship–and the maestrom of the future–which is disposed to infinite playing. It’s not a happy sensation.

I appreciate the thoughtful nature of your blog–keep it up!