Let’s conduct a short thought experiment. You have two candidates to whom you could offer a business partnership, let’s call them candidate “A” and candidate “B.”
Candidate “A” is a fairly successful, intelligent person with high but not extraordinary results. He doesn’t have anything particularly remarkable to boast about, but there’s no mess in his life either. A solid middle-of-the-road person without a crown on his head.
Candidate “B” can be described as an outstanding entrepreneur. Two bankruptcies, three successes, lots of acquaintances everywhere, endless stories of overcoming crises and victories. The life of the party, a bearer of luxury items and status. A social ace, without a doubt.
At first glance, preference should be given to candidate “B”; he is more experienced, more successful, wealthier, has more connections, and is an interesting person—in the end, it’s fun to be with him. And… most likely we will make a mistake.
The explanation for this is far from obvious. We tend to attribute greater overall potential to those who:
- talk more than others (regardless of what exactly they say);
- look and speak confidently (regardless of their actual competencies);
- are constantly busy, on the move (regardless of what exactly they are doing).
This is not a trivial academic insight; people always seek the best option available, demanded by evolution, and everything would be fine if not for cognitive biases. When choosing candidate “B,” we focus on his visible success, while ignoring the fact that the amplitude of the pendulum of his life is extreme, and we do not soberly assess the real chances of a positive outcome in crisis situations that he has survived. Behind the external noise of incredible success stories, which we equate to high potential, the following can be hidden:
- inability to adequately assess the situation;
- poor decision-making quality;
- inept process management;
- belief in one’s own uniqueness.
Close interaction with such a “high-amplitude” candidate can lead to unexpected results. Often negatively unexpected.
Continuing the thought experiment, both candidates need to cross a raging mountain river. Candidate “B” jumped into the water at full speed and, fighting the elements, on the brink of life and death, ended up on the other side. All set for an action-packed story. Ichthyander, the champion!
Candidate “A,” in turn, studied the riverbed, the speed and direction of the current, measured the depths, and prepared necessary medications just in case. Yes, he entered the water later than the first but in the right place, and without visible effort, systematically, without fanfare, reached the other shore. Externally, candidate “B” is a hero, and the second is a dull bore. To an external observer, it seemed easy for him, no epic story.
Entering into a partnership with Candidate “B,” you must understand and be prepared for the fact that you will often find yourself in the epicenter of uncontrollable events, and it is far from certain that in your specific case, luck will turn in your favor. Successes in the past do not guarantee successes in the future.
Choosing candidate “A,” it is not known if together you will grow a “unicorn,” but with high probability, you also will not get into a detective story. However, the result, all other things being equal, is likely to be achieved. The absence of deep crises in the past with above-average results is not a guarantee but a good insurance against possible failures, and hence the likelihood of success for your joint potential business is also above average.
Creating a partner’s profile is an effective tool from the arsenal of conscious partnership means. Its preparation before entering into a partnership allows you to understand what kind of partner you need and to qualitatively assess how suitable a specific person is for you.
