On: How to Become As Rich As Bill Gates

[henryl]

I've always wondered if the advice to avoid argument and criticism from "How to Win Friends and Influence People" was at odds with internal business meetings. It seems that extremely successful businessmen like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Larry Ellison create a culture where criticism and argument form the cauldron from which great ideas are culled. At the same time, the human mind is seldom changed by argument or logic.

My current opinion is that the Dale Carnegie way of business is great for sales or extremely flat organizations, but in larger or more established organizations, credible and aggressive (almost totalitarian) leadership can build "consensus" more effectively through argumentation, criticism, and decisiveness.

Does anyone have any tips on how best to arrive at decisions in a <4 person startup?

[krschultz → henryl]

In a small place like that, consensus must rule because the founders are basically equal. At a place like Microsoft, Oracle, Apple - the answer is that the big guys built the place and gave everyone their jobs so therefore they answer to them. Who are you? Some guy who just went through college and took no risk in joining some giant in their field. Who are they? The guys who took the risks to start those places. So if they think your ideas are shit, then they can say it and you have to take it. But at a company of 4 people, who are you? You are just a co founder of a (probably as of yet unprofitable) little startup company. Where are you getting the power to call their work shit from? Plus, if its a guy like that their time is extremely valuable and you are wasting it with your shit ideas.

I bet if you go into microsoft and sit in on the development meetings between a team on basically the same level on the org chart, they aren't nearly as hostile as top down reviews.