The e-myth myth
According to Michael Gerber, businesses fail because the owner and manager is a technician. He draws up a wealth quadrant, where being an employee sucks because someone else owns your time, being self employed is only slightly better because you still have to work to get paid, being a business owner is better still, but you still have to run the business, and the best thing of all is an investor, where you can sit in St Tropez while your money works for you.
Sure, that sounds great.
But I've been thinking that this doesn't account for the person who is utterly passionate about their business and committed to what it does. When I see people like Steve Jobs talking about Apple, he is talking about something that he believes in, not something that he had an analyst write a business plan for to take to a VC to fund some focus groups to decide on the best colour for the iPod logo, meanwhile all his competitors are way ahead.
I'm sure Steve has a nice investment portfolio too, so he doesn't have to work, in which case why does he?
I wonder if being an investor and having your money work for you - yes it does sound good - and also Tim Ferris' 4 hour work week are both based on the presumption that "work" means "stuff you don't want to do but it's what you get paid for"
So of course, why would you want to do any more than 4 hours of that a week, or any of it at all if you could avoid it.
But what if you love what you do? Aren't I allowed to do more of it if I like it? And what if there isn't a distinction between work and whatever else I do with my time? Well that means I have a zero hour work week. Or a 168 hour work week, if you count the problem solving and creative thinking I do when I'm asleep.
What does it mean? Does it mean I'll never be successful? I'll never be rich?
Does it mean I'll have to make do with enjoying whatever I'm doing, every day?
Sure, that sounds great.
But I've been thinking that this doesn't account for the person who is utterly passionate about their business and committed to what it does. When I see people like Steve Jobs talking about Apple, he is talking about something that he believes in, not something that he had an analyst write a business plan for to take to a VC to fund some focus groups to decide on the best colour for the iPod logo, meanwhile all his competitors are way ahead.
I'm sure Steve has a nice investment portfolio too, so he doesn't have to work, in which case why does he?
I wonder if being an investor and having your money work for you - yes it does sound good - and also Tim Ferris' 4 hour work week are both based on the presumption that "work" means "stuff you don't want to do but it's what you get paid for"
So of course, why would you want to do any more than 4 hours of that a week, or any of it at all if you could avoid it.
But what if you love what you do? Aren't I allowed to do more of it if I like it? And what if there isn't a distinction between work and whatever else I do with my time? Well that means I have a zero hour work week. Or a 168 hour work week, if you count the problem solving and creative thinking I do when I'm asleep.
What does it mean? Does it mean I'll never be successful? I'll never be rich?
Does it mean I'll have to make do with enjoying whatever I'm doing, every day?
posted by Peter Freeth at 00:38
2 Comments:
This post has been removed by the author.
There is a saying that goes something like this: If you do what you love, and love what you do, you'll never work another day in your life.
Clay
Post a Comment