Entrepreneurial Mindset Quotes

Success in life is not for those who run fast, but for those who keep running and always on the move.

An entrepreneur is a man who knows he can fail, but he does not accept to fail before he actually fails, and when he fails he learns from his errors and moves on.

Starting each day with a positive mindset is the most important step of your journey to discovering opportunity.

Entrepreneurs don’t usually fail from circumstance, they fail from what I call entrepreneurial rigidity—a fixed mindset and unwillingness to change the business model.

REAL Entrepreneurs will be the one's who change the world for the better. Governments must become PUBLIC servants to create the best context and mindsets for people to succeed. We need to ReThink Entrepreneurial success and the role of Public Service in supporting that... or we, and our children, will pay the ultimate price.

Don't wait until you feel confident in your abilities before you create something. Confidence is not required.

Remember, mindset is the #1 most important thing as you start your entrepreneurial journey, and it will continue to guide you the entire way.

An entrepreneur is not deterred by his lack of perfection, he knows no one else is

By definition, a remarkable product is something that is worth talking about. Your goal is to create your product in such a way that people want to tell their friends how good it is.

And to start with I would focus on five of these killer apps that have immediate application to governing today: (1) the ability to adapt when confronted by strangers with superior economic and military might without being hobbled by humiliation; (2) the ability to embrace diversity; (3) the ability to assume ownership over the future and one’s own problems; (4) the ability to get the balance right between the federal and the local—that is, to understand that a healthy society, like a healthy tropical forest, is a network of healthy ecosystems on top of ecosystems, each thriving on its own but nourished by the whole; and, maybe most important, (5) the ability to approach politics and problem-solving in the age of accelerations with a mind-set that is entrepreneurial, hybrid, and heterodox and nondogmatic—mixing and coevolving any ideas or ideologies that will create resilience and propulsion, no matter whose “side” they come from. Of

The earlier the entrepreneurial mind-set is introduced in our young people, the more potent it can be. Start teaching young people to observe the needs of others and to think about how to satisfy those needs through voluntary trade and make a profit. When you see a store, discuss it. Point out prices. Point out quality. Raise their consciousness about ownership. Ask them who owns that building? What would that building sell for? How could we get money to buy that building? What problems does our community have? What new businesses would solve them?

The disappearance of American optimism would be a bad thing. Much of the dynamism of American life springs from the habits of risk taking, innovation, and entrepreneurialism that an optimistic mindset creates. A more pessimistic America might be a wiser country that made fewer foreign policy blunders, but it would be weaker, poorer, and less influential than the America we know.

Unlike John Lasseter’s bosses at Disney, Bezos was open to the entrepreneurial contributions of Amazon’s individual employees—even when those ideas were outside what Wall Street (and even his own board of directors) considered the company’s core business. AWS represents precisely the kind of value creation any CEO or shareholder would want from their employees. Want your employees to come up with multibillion-dollar ideas while on the job? You have to attract professionals with the founder mind-set and then harness their entrepreneurial impulses for your company. As Intuit CEO Brad Smith told us, “A leader’s job is not to put greatness into people, but rather to recognize that it already exists, and to create the environment where that greatness can emerge and grow.

The former head of this operation, Gary Wendt, who is credited with much of the enormous success of GEFS, used his personal agenda as a simple but inordinately powerful tool for growing the business into ever new entrepreneurial arenas. Over the years, he used his personal agenda to make it unequivocally clear that he expected entrepreneurial business growth from every member of management. At every major meeting, the topic of business development was on the agenda (usually in the number one spot). In every annual review, managers were asked to demonstrate the revenues they had created from businesses that did not exist five years before. From division heads to newly hired analysts, everyone was held accountable for some set of activities having to do with creating entrepreneurial revenue and profit streams. In short, no one who worked in the organization could avoid the unremitting focus on new business development. You need to make sure that you are similarly consistent, predictable, and focused, and that you sustain this emphasis over a long period. Pressure applied only once is soon forgotten, and alternating pressure (as in flavor-of-the-month management) will cause people to be confused, disillusioned, or angry. Wendt’s consistent, visible, and predictable attention to business development created a pressure in GEFS for entrepreneurial business growth that took it from the $300 million installment loan portfolio we looked at in chapter 6 to a financial services behemoth with $250 billion in assets under management when he left in 1998. Examples of Wendt’s single-minded determination to drive growth through entrepreneurial transformation at GEFS are numerous. Years ago, for instance, he was asked whether his agenda would change if someone rushed in and told him that the computer room was on fire (implying that his business could be completely destroyed). Wendt replied that he employed firefighters to handle such emergencies. As the leader, his most important job was to keep people focused on business development. Since business development is an uncomfortable and unpredictable process, Wendt knew that if he allowed it to appear to be a low priority for him, all those working for him would heave a sigh of relief and go back to business as usual, with new businesses struggling to find a place on the priority list. In fact, as he remarked, even if he did try to get involved in putting out the fire, he would probably only interfere with the efforts of the highly competent people employed to do so.

SOME MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT TEAMWORK 1. Effective teams work together a lot. We found instead that smoothly functioning groups work just as well when individuals are able to work independently, yet confidently. 2. Conflict between group members is bad. Many researchers agree that this is dangerous. But constructive conflict is essential to prevent such dysfunctions as individual apathy, group-think, and the so-called Abilene paradox, in which members agree to agree, even if they have qualms. What makes conflict constructive is controlled disagreements over ideas (not personalities) and a common commitment to, and mutual confidence in, execution after a decision is made. 3. Teams are better off when members like each other. True, it’s tough to work with someone when you have an overwhelming urge to throttle the person. On the other hand, there are plenty of groups whose members would not care to spend any time together on a personal basis but who do leverage each other’s experience and skill effectively. The key seems to be mutual respect rather than affection. 4. Team satisfaction produces performance. We found no necessary correlations. When a group puts more energy into its own good feelings than into the task at hand, performance suffers. In one extreme example, an IT project manager was so concerned about morale that she would hold pizza parties when deadlines were missed so that people didn’t feel discouraged.

SOME MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT TEAMWORK 1. Effective teams work together a lot. We found instead that smoothly functioning groups work just as well when individuals are able to work independently, yet confidently. 2. Conflict between group members is bad. Many researchers agree that this is dangerous. But constructive conflict is essential to prevent such dysfunctions as individual apathy, group-think, and the so-called Abilene paradox, in which members agree to agree, even if they have qualms. What makes conflict constructive is controlled disagreements over ideas (not personalities) and a common commitment to, and mutual confidence in, execution after a decision is made. 3. Teams are better off when members like each other. True, it’s tough to work with someone when you have an overwhelming urge to throttle the person. On the other hand, there are plenty of groups whose members would not care to spend any time together on a personal basis but who do leverage each other’s experience and skill effectively. The key seems to be mutual respect rather than affection. 4. Team satisfaction produces performance. We found no necessary correlations. When a group puts more energy into its own good feelings than into the task at hand, performance suffers. In one extreme example, an IT project manager was so concerned about morale that she would hold pizza parties when deadlines were missed so that people didn’t feel discouraged.

The most important behavior on your part involves dedicating a disproportionate share of your own time, attention, and discretionary resources to creating new business models. Existing businesses, and the leaders in charge of them, face little difficulty in articulating their needs, building a case for their support, and attracting people. Entrepreneurial initiatives, on the other hand, are usually seen as marginal or unimportant in their early stages. Unless you personally allocate to them disproportionate attention, disproportionate resources, and disproportionate talent, they will get squeezed by the existing business to the extent that they never have a chance to take off. Your challenge is to provide counterpressure to the inertial forces that lead your people to constantly attend to the demands of today’s business. [...] By disproportionate resources, we mean budget, access to operating capacity or operating assets, and, most vitally, the very best people. Ironically, these are the very resources that are highly desired by managers of the existing business, who are apt to hotly contest any other claim on them. Like the payment of disproportionate attention, the disproportionate allocation of resources to new business models has its costs. Every dollar and every hour of operations capacity allocated disproportionately to entrepreneurial initiatives is money and time denied the existing business. Disproportionate allocation must be a deliberate process, with commitment of resources being visibly recognized as a matter of strategic choice, not a struggle between long- and short-term goals. [...] Finally, you must be prepared for your organization’s top talent to work on entrepreneurial initiatives. This can create a painful dilemma. When top talent works on an entrepreneurial initiative, the current business is weakened accordingly. However, if only mediocre talent is assigned to the difficult task of new business development, the ventures are doomed. Furthermore, allowing ventures to be run by mediocre people sends an even stronger signal to the rest of the business about your real priorities. The smart people in the firm will recognize that business development is not truly a priority for you, and they will organize their own priorities accordingly. The message: If you don’t walk the talk, only the dumb people will listen.

Trying to do more than the firm is capable of handling is tantamount to doing nothing.

How Much Innovation? When designing their first product, founders must decide how much to innovate. Some entrepreneurs believe that more innovation is always better, but as we’ll see, that mindset can get them in trouble.

Hanging on to disempowering worldviews kept people stuck in their comfort zones.

Our mind has the power to heal us. When you can control your mind and develop a strong mindset, you can reinvent yourself, you can change, you can accomplish one dream after another, and improve your odds in overcoming tough times.

Ecosystems require organizations that are constantly on the lookout for new possibilities, constantly scanning the horizon for new opportunities to make cross-sectoral plays and forge cooperative partnerships with others. Organizations can only be open to those possibilities and opportunities when their employees are curious and open minded. And employees are most likely to be curious and open minded when their leaders are holistically looking out for their best interests and actively searching for ways to provide them with everything they need. This is clearly most relevant to those within the senior ranks of your organization, but it really applies to everyone who serves in key roles. Above all, servant leadership helps organizations adopt all of the ideals that the ecosystem economy demands: openness, entrepreneurialism, decisiveness, a fail-fast mindset, long-term thinking, and more.

The origin of innovation and entrepreneurship is a creative mindset

Entrepreneurial Leadership is where your vision, influence and creativity converge; it is where opportunities become limitless and your capabilities boundless.

Entrepreneurial employees possess what eBay CEO John Donahoe calls the founder mind-set. As he put it to us, “People with the founder mind-set drive change, motivate people, and just get stuff done.

Sir Richard Branson (CEO and Founder of Virgin Company) inspires me to build my best...and then continue building. An entrepreneurial mindset can always benefit from a daily dose of what I buzz 'Branson-spiration'...

It's usually the crazy ones who win. I’m crazy.

Imperfection is a part of any creative process and of life, yet for some reason we live in a culture that has a paralyzing fear of failure, which prevents action and hardens a rigid perfectionism. It's the single most disempowering state of mind you can have if you'd like to be more creative, inventive, or entrepreneurial.

After comparing desired with available resources, it became crystal clear that the company was pursuing many more projects than it had people to staff. In particular, by trying to engage in many highly demanding platform launches at the same time, the company was unlikely to do justice to its portfolio of options. Nor was it likely to manage the enhancement launches (as opposed to platform launches) that current customers were demanding, because many of these were still on the drawing board and were competing for the same scarce design and engineering talent as the major platform launches. In short, the company was taking on too much. The results of this overcommitment meant that project deadlines perpetually slipped, promises to key customers were often broken, and people were beginning to feel burned out. This situation is not uncommon. The processes through which companies take on projects usually lead them to discover that they haven’t got the resources to do justice to everything on their plates. In particular, when managers have not clearly thought through which resources for projects will be needed to support their needs to either build new platforms or learn through options, the different types of projects compete with each other, creating confusion. This lack of coordination is also typical of companies that haven’t matched their strategy to available resources. A far wiser approach is to pursue a few well-run projects than to chase down a grab-bag of forever-behind-schedule and over-budget initiatives.

Though part of the puzzle is obviously capital budget allocations, most companies seem to have a much higher awareness of the rules by which capital and assets are allocated than they do about how skilled people should be spending their time.

If your business is anything like our exemplar firm, or indeed like most companies we have worked with, the projects you have committed to complete represent over 100 percent of your carrying capacity. This can have surprising effects on the length of time each project takes to complete. For instance, imagine a project that will take a skilled software developer six months to complete. The lead time to completion if this person is working full-time on the project is six months. Divide this person’s time between four projects, however, and three-quarters of the time, each project is being ignored by the person. The lead time to completion of all four projects stretches to two years! Delays like this can be deadly in a world where speed matters.

This much being said, don’t get trapped into microallocating people’s time. Allocating personnel-months is sufficient for most projects of any strategic significance.

Here is the key point: Once you have determined how many projects you can support, and what mix of projects you need to support your strategy, similar projects must compete against other similar projects for budget and staff for the resources dedicated to that category of project. Let’s say that you have decided to allocate 20 percent of your available resources to positioning options. Any new candidate for getting resources that is a positioning option should compete for that 20 percent against all the other positioning projects. They shouldn’t compete against other kinds of options or against platform or enhancement launches. This ensures that you will pick only the very best positioning options for your portfolio. What’s more important, it gets you out of the constant tug-of-war between short-term and long-term projects. The strategic choice is how many of your resources you will put into each category. Then within each category, the very best projects should compete against one another for consideration.

Just because the resources are there doesn’t mean that they should be spent.

The best leader cannot provide the necessary constant renewal if he or she lacks entrepreneurial skills.

The audacity of Elon Musk to ask for $100,000 to reserve a yet‐to‐be built Roadster, or a more modest sum for a new Model 3. The courage of John Erceg to keep spending every spare euro to buy more AdWords. The personal conviction of both that they were on sound paths. The trust that Jay Gupta built with his suppliers. The self‐belief of all three that, in the end, they would do what it takes to survive and succeed, no matter the prior odds. It's your own personal attributes—your mindset—that make this kind of “ask for the cash” funding possible. These attributes—audacity, courage, trustworthiness, faith in oneself—are not part of everyone's personality, to be sure. Setting forth on an entrepreneurial path, whether from your garage or within an established business, is not for everyone, either. But if the entrepreneurial path is one you wish to pursue, in one way or another, there's no better or more hospitable way to finance your journey than by finding a need that's so compelling for your customers that they'll pay you up front, and finding suppliers that will take payment later, if only because they trust you and they believe you'll bring value to their business, too.

I often hear entrepreneurs say they require seed funding to build their initial prototype. I always respond, “Not so!” In my first entrepreneurial venture, I convinced a high school metal shop teacher to have his students undertake, as a class project, building the prototype I needed, for free. It was win‐win for the students and for me.

Your clients need you to look after them better than you said you would. This means that you must strategically undersell your core product.

Having a team of people with an employee mindset means you have to cater for employees. But people with an entrepreneurial mindset can wear different hats and tackle problems creatively. They will help you run your business instead of just doing whatever they’re told so they can get their paycheque. I suggest screening out anyone who shows signs of dependency. It may sound harsh, but you’ll end up with a far more motivated, productive workforce and better results

I saw the figure of 178 Billion wasted/stolen from the people of a country by its corrupt and inept government. Surely such a figure could truly transfom and change the entire country; education, health, shooling, entrepreneurial environment... of millions of people, rather than be secreted away as a few more 0000's in global bank accounts for the greeders. We need to Rethink Public service, values, ethics and leadership.

How can we, as parents, raise resilient, self-driven children who are truly prepared for a world that’s rapidly changing, when traditional schooling often prioritizes outdated facts and test scores over essential skills, character, and an entrepreneurial mindset?