Trusting Partners and Non-Tech Worlds on the Web
How many people do you know that you would trust as business partners without a written agreement? My own definition of trust for this question includes being confident of a level of loyalty that is heightened and reinforced when your back is turned.
The real estate developers I met and learned from when I started out in business were old school entrepreneurs who led the North American post war building boom. The heyday of their youth was the 1960s. Some cut their losses in the 73-74 recession and gave up mainlining risk and growth for a somewhat more leisurely lifestyle, but for most the challenge of winning, building, and acquiring could not be set aside any more than drawing breath.
A majority of these developers had a European or Russian heritage, many of the developers Jewish and much of the companion construction business dominated by those of Italian ancestry. Whether they were first generation, arriving after WWII, or even second or third, they all derived their bases for trustworthiness from relatively insular communities and old fashioned values. The communities remained insular for generations to a great extent because of our WASP dominated class system. The father of an ex and late partner of mine worked as a waiter on the top floor of the Park Plaza hotel in the 50s and 60s, and would have forfeited his job if his employers had found out that he was Jewish.
Sure, there is unethical and dishonest behavior to be found in any society, but overall those smaller societal systems deal with it pretty well through time honored methods of community, reputation, respect, and peer groups. I watch with interest how such societal constructs might be re-developed within new peer groups in a flat world and without the very effective checks and balances at work constantly in a small physical community.
Those old time entrepreneurs are mostly gone from the business landscape. It has been a couple of decades since I saw a true partnership formed based on notes on a cocktail napkin and a meaningful handshake. I could write several posts on the reasons, but will just pick a few of the obvious for now …blame it on the lawyers, on the stockies, on those who leverage money.
In light of this background, my current experience is interesting. As many people as I’ve met and worked with in dozens of professions over the years, there are a few, met recently, that I recognize as people I would trust in the old way, based on communication leading to agreement on a common goal and sealed with a handshake. (lawyers documenting the thing after the fact being secondary) They are developers and geeks. This era’s dreamers and visionaries and entrepreneurs.
I’m starting to believe these new relationships can grow into something that’s worth more than just making money together. How far can that go toward the continued forming of new types of virtual core communities? So far, the virtual communities that are deep enough to establish that kind of reputation and trust among peers are pretty limited. My own place, the place I’m working toward in that landscape, is within broadening the number and scope of those overlapping circles in non-tech areas. To move forward on that, I’ve had to back into the core, and am very encouraged by who and what I’ve encountered so far.
This article in the NY Times would indicate that I’d be moving further ahead much faster in a different location, except for one thing. The core groups in the worlds I’m building for are in NY, London, continental Europe and Tokyo. I’m in Toronto, which is a secondary locale, yet connected enough, in the same way that Miami and Chicago are. If the fastest brains aren’t available to build platforms and bridges for non-business and non-tech interests, will the development of the web simply lag further and further behind for these interests?
November 18th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
I am LOVING your blog… Another great post!
On the subject of agreements (including contracts)… I met a wonderful elderly (Jewish) lawyer back in 1984 with the subject of discussion “contracts in business”. He said “intent of the parties will prove to be the critical factor relative to the successful outcome for a contract between two or more parties”. This is, honest intent equals better chance of things working. The value of a thoughtfully drawn contract contract is primarily ascertained if things began to go wrong… At least the documented performance requirements of the respective parties can be objectively evaluated by the courts, and at those times of time and money having to be wasted in court the contract will prove of some (limited) value. His concluding comment, “spend time and thought to evaluate intent before undertaking a contract”.
All these years later that elderly man’s wise and beautiful advise still resonates in my head and heart.
On another occasion we might discuss in depth the issues and implications of the “shark and sharkbait” model relative to a way of living in this world. In sum at this time… Many (including myself) take pride in not being shark, while at the same time, having some perverse measure of satisfaction in knowing that they are not sharks upon suddenly discovering that they have become sharkbait. It took me until 1991 to realize that while it is good I was not a shark, there also was no virtue in needlessly becoming sharkbait. Hmmm… Things do feel better now!
November 20th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Good point about intent, and thank you for contributing your reminiscence.
Agreeing on intent in business dealing, and addressing it in detail, saves not only on intial legal fees, but also reduces the likelihood of litigation later. Compatibility of the individuals involved is, in my experience, just as important.
From a legal perspective, a partnership is in many ways like a marriage. People generally consider all the aspects of getting married before doing so, yet often do not do the same before entering into a partnership. Take as an example, whether the parties are compatible in nature. We typically analyze business compatibilities in depth, yet often fail to give even a fraction of the same attention to personal compatibility. Part of this is because it takes time to get to know one another and develop trust, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered with equal gravitas. I am talking about individual business relationships here, but even in mergers or takeovers of big companies, where many people are ‘disposable’, culture clash can be a serious issue.
Some business landscapes are more crowded with sharks than others. When you find yourself ‘in bed’ with one, treating them to their own medicine is often the only antidote. (how many metaphors did I mix that time?). I’ll second your preference for being sharkproof, rather than one or the other.
Vera