
The Right Kind of Ambition - dwynings
http://bhorowitz.com/2010/08/29/the-right-kind-of-ambition-2/
======
nostrademons
I'm still a little skeptical, simply because what people _say_ and what they
_do_ often aren't in complete agreement. There are some people out there that
will cynically talk in terms of personal advancement all the time, but when it
comes to actions, they tend to do the right thing even though they grumble
about how it's not to their advantage. And then there are people who say all
the right things, give all the credit to their team, and yet when it comes to
actions, they'll do what advances their career over what advances the team.

~~~
il
I think you're right- I'm in the first group you mentioned.

I think to myself that I'm willing to do anything to get ahead...but when it
comes time to act, I can't bring myself to screw others over.

As I've learned, the best way to succeed is actually to enable other to reach
their goals- who will in turn help you reach yours.

------
friendstock
A more cynical view is here:

[http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-
principle-o...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-
the-office-according-to-the-office/)

The "psychopath" executives need "clueless" middle managers who believe in the
team in order to manage the "losers" (regular employees).

(I'm not advocating this... just pointing out that the "right kind of (team-
oriented) ambition" could also be viewed in this way...)

~~~
ilkhd2
IMHO whole title is kind of psychopatic - Right Kind of Ambition. Why in the
hell anybody would tell me which ambition is right or wrong?

~~~
pmjordan
I didn't take it as _ethically_ right or wrong, but right or wrong for the
company. Right or wrong in the context of hiring.

------
akkartik
"For a complete explanation of the dangers of managers with the wrong kind of
ambition, I strongly recommend Dr. Suess’s management masterpiece _Yertle the
Turtle_."

For those who like me want to fill in this hole in their education:
<http://www.archive.org/details/jessyertletheturtlepodcast>

------
amalcon
This is essentially the main idea described in Jim Collins' _Good to Great_
[1]. It's pretty boring (to my taste, anyway), but it's also short.

The idea makes sense if you think about it. You're liable to get less
accomplished if you spend most of your time covering yourself and positioning
for your own advancement. The same applies to everyone else. The hard part,
then, is identifying and removing people who waste a lot of time covering
themselves and positioning to the detriment of what they're nominally being
compensated to do.

[1][http://www.amazon.com/Good-Great-Companies-Leap-
Others/dp/00...](http://www.amazon.com/Good-Great-Companies-Leap-
Others/dp/0066620996)

------
ndl
This "team" ambition depends equally on the environment as the candidate. I
agreed strongly with this article until I realized that I was assuming an
equity-for-all startup, rather than the much maligned office job.

There is definitely a personal component too. I've seen people co-found a
company only to wreck it for personal convenience, and others who will work
well beyond their contract with seemingly no incentive.

------
amirmc
_"On the other hand, people who view the world purely through the team prism
will very seldom use the words “I” or “me” even when answering questions about
their accomplishments"_

In various interview training sessions I've been told to use statements with
"I" rather than "We". The purpose being to clearly articulate your direct
contribution to the team or goal.

In fact, I've been rejected from a few roles in the past with the feedback
that I was not specific enough about my own accomplishments [1].

Therefore, I'm not convinced about this specific aspect of Ben's screening
process. People who use _I/me_ rather then _we_ may simply have been
conditioned by other interview processes or might really not have contributed
much to their teams.

Since this is only one aspect of the screening, I'd probably give it less
weight than other factors.

[1] There may also have been other reasons but I never heard about them. :)

------
healthyhippo
The post boils more fundamentally down to hiring managers who have well
developed skills of empathy. When people can put themselves in the shoes of
others and feel as they feel, its a lot easier for them to act in the
collective good. Most average managers I've worked with have competence; the
exceptional ones combine it with empathy.

------
DanielBMarkham
As a hired-gun, this article is truly outside my depth. When I'm onsite with a
client, I give everything for their success. But heck, I'm a rental. I'm
conflicted on how such a strategy would work long-term.

I think the key question here, based on the anecdote provided, is: how was the
sales lead treated? Ten times sales volume? 20 times market cap? In such a
critical role was the guy well-rewarded for the difference he made? I assume
so, but this should be spelled out. Because the whole thing reads differently
if the guy got a much worse deal than he earned.

Oddly, this focus on what people can do for my organization is exactly the
same kind of ambition that is derided in the article -- just the shoe is on
the other foot. Of course, you can make the case that the organization is
somehow a much greater and more worthy thing of devotion than some guy's
family, but I'm skeptical. After all, you can bet the CEO or CFO is watching
the numbers. One would think that any employee would be doing the same for his
family finances. Respect is a two-way street.

I think the article is right on the money, don't get me wrong. I just think it
could have been written better. There are lots of little holes in the
reasoning. Perhaps this idea of understanding that you do better yourself when
you help others succeed is difficult to pin down in the context provided.
After all, there are lots of companies. And there are lots of people looking
for "team players" who will not look after you. While the slogan is easy, the
actual implications and implementation of this belief system is not easy at
all.

------
ilkhd2
What a disgusting propaganda of corporate communism. A person, that is
completely lacking sense of his/her own achievements is either liar or stupid
or some kind of manipulator. It does not mean that narcissists are the best
people, but the other extreme is not good either.

~~~
hugh3
Could you define this "corporate communism" term you're using, and how this
post is linked to it?

~~~
ilkhd2
I think little imagination can help you.

