Being passionate about the product

[The Original Henry]

So here's the deal - it's almost gospel to hear people say that if you're going to start or own a business you absolutely must be passionate about the product or service that you're selling. If you're even one notch less than full-out slobbering with passion then you should not even consider owning or starting the business you have in mind.

I get that, and I can see where it makes a lot of sense........up to a point. And there's the topic that I'd like to throw out for discussion.

At what point, if any, does the owner or CEO of a business become disengaged from the product it sells and focus only on the business mechanics? Is there a point where it can be reduced to a system of numbers and inputs that can be applied to any generic widget? Did Jack Welch slobber with passion about GE's products, or was he a savvy businessman who only needed to focus on the levers and gears that made the business function? When he fired the bottom 10% of his employees, was it to improve the products or to improve the piece of machinery that he was driving at the time?

If Jack Welch was able to turn GE into a dominant company, do the same skills and focus that he had with GE translate to Acme Corp, which sells a different kind of widget? Would Jack Welch have to be slobbering with passion about Acme Corp's products in order to successfully operate the company? If he wasn't, would he be advised to not buy Acme Corp even if he thought he could turn it into the next GE? Is there a point where the mechanics of operating a business can be separated from the products or services that it sells enough that the owner can focus entirely on the mechanics and not give two squirts about the product beyond the profit margin that it produces? Can the owner of Dow Chemical even *name* all of the products they sell? What about the owner of Wal-Mart?

I hear an awful lot of preaching about the absolute necessity of having a blinding passion for the product, but I just don't see that as being an absolute requirement for companies large enough to have a hierarchy of employees. At some point the hierarchy separates the owner from the product so that the owner's concern with the product is an exercise in trickle-up metrics followed by trickle-down adjustments. Am I way off base here?

(I'm not picking on Jack Welch for any particular reason other than as an example. The reader can mind-map him to someone else if they are so inclined)

[Richardk]

I think that's a fair thing to say. At some point the product or company speaks for itself. You might need a techie or some slobbering marketing person to explain the details and options but you're selling the company brand.

To randomly pick another company, let's look at Sony. What does that name mean to you? Junk or quality? Do you need someone to explain what Sony sells or do you want to jump into the details of getting their brand into your store?

[The Original Henry]

But wouldn't the brand and its public perception be the responsibility of the marketing department? Ultimately the executive at the top has control over all that he sees, but it seems that the day-to-day focus of the executive would be mostly internal to the company. Sort of like a corporate internist. Does such a person really need to be passionate about the product in order to successfully lead the company?

[The Gorn]

"Passion" is necessary for younger, non market dominating companies. It requires imagination, vision, drive to figure out how to compete against entrenched leaders.

As the business grows, passion and personal engagement with the product becomes completely unnecessary, and the problems of running the business move from problems of market penetration to problems of managing large numbers of employees, products, inventories, distribution channels, etc.

In other words, a smaller business is a custom, personality-driven enterprise out of necessity. As it grows the exact nature of the product or service that it provides becomes a commodity, not because it has to but because there is no penalty for it not to.

Microsoft need have no "flava", but an ISV better have a unique quality. Google need not distinguish its unique character, but a startup web portal had better have some overriding special buzz.

That's how I see it.

[JavaMouse]

So here's the deal - it's almost gospel to hear people say that if you're going to start or own a business you absolutely must be passionate about the product or service that you're selling.

I think what matters most is being committed to delivering high quality products or services.  For example, starting a carpet cleaning business - I can't imagine being truly "passionate" about that. But if I'm a person who is dedicated to making the customer happy, I think I am very likely to succeed (provided there's a viable business model).  In this case, my behavior is driven by working towards financial and personal success, maybe also by the desire to be my own boss.  In addition, I must have some knowledge of what people consider excellent carpet cleaning (getting the edges of the carpet clean, or whatever).  So I must be truly engaged in my product or service.  I don't necessarily have to care about it that much myself, but I have to care about it enough to do the legwork to get that specialized knowledge.

In another scenario, suppose I'm the founder of a small technology company.  I may be most passionate about my company because it's my "baby," not necessarily because the new technology is the best thing in the world.  That passion makes it possible for me to make the sacrifices in time, energy, and money which may help me succeed.  I think this is why "passion" is important.  Even if I fail in this case, it won't seem like a total waste of my life because I really cared about it while it lasted.

Jack Welch's case is another thing.  He wasn't a founder, he was a CEO of an extremely large organization. I suspect his "passion" was ego driven (from the small bits of info that I've read about him).  He wanted to maximize his dollar profit and his visible success.

[DG9]

I am not a fan of the Jack Welsh model.  I have seen great teams where people had to be put into the bottom 10% that should not have been punished and people being left out of the top 10% that should have been rewarded, just because of a number game.   Made me glad I was a contractor at the time...

 

[The Original Henry]

I agree with everything that's been said so far. What I'm finding so frustrating is that I continue to hear the spiel about how one must be passionate about a company's product before they should entertain the thought of owning some particular company. I'm talking about supposedly seasoned business experts and established (but not huge) companies that have already penetrated their market with boring but effective products. I just can't reconcile the two ideas together. There's nothing that says you can't be passionate about the product regardless, but at some point that just doesn't seem to be necessary any longer. If it were there would be some really strange people out there running toilet seat companies.

[The Gorn]

passionate about the product ... just doesn't seem to be necessary any longer. If it were there would be some really strange people out there running toilet seat companies.

O Henry, you have some of the best lines on this board. 

[Richardk]

Do what feels right.

On a tangent this reminds me of an interview a long time ago. The company wanted me to be jumping up and down like a puppy begging for a treat, to show them how passionate I was about them. Needless to say, I'm not a puppy so it wasn't a good fit.

[The Gorn]

To extend what T.O. Henry is saying, the passion for the products still exists even in huge companies. Remember all of the Steve Ballmer videos like "developers, developers, developers"?

But I think that passion is pushed down the ranks to individual division and product managers. It requires someone who specializes in producing, supporting or selling that product to maintain the passion.

I know that you run into gung-ho product and sales managers even from huge companies. They are jazzed about their localized mission. Probably much less so about the overall company.

The overall company resembles a multi-tentacled ship destroying giant squid. It encompasses too much to maintain excitement about one small tentacle. Well, perhaps a bad metaphor but it says what I am trying to say.

[The Original Henry]

But I think that passion is pushed down the ranks to individual division and product managers.

I agree completely. I just can't figure out why so many people are still saying that the owner of such a company must have the same passion or the company is doomed. I'm not just talking about random internet boobs repeating what they've heard others say; I'm talking about retired executives and other so-called business experts talking about what it takes to be successful. Are they just over-generalizing or is there meat on them bones?

[The Gorn]

My opinion: the bones are stringy, overcooked, cheap spare ribs that would be better used throwing to your dog to gnaw on.

I believe that "passion" as a business prerequisite is just a passing business management fad.  Like rightsizing, offshoring, TQM, etc.

I think that it's manufactured subject matter. It's something for management consultants to talk up and specialize in and it's subject matter to write books about. It's relatively new for now, until the entire management-book-blog-consulting industry runs it in the ground and moves on to the Next Great Thing.

"Passion" sounds Seth Godin-ly wise without providing one iota of substance. Would you like a meatball sundae with those ribs?

My cynical take.

[DG9]

Just a side comment.  People buy on emotion and rationalize after a purchase.  Passion is a powerful sales tool and we're always selling something, internally and externally...

[The Original Henry]

G.B. - I think you nailed it. The whole thing does seem rather faddish to me, especially when it's always being applied with such a wide brushstroke.

[The Gorn]

I read his autobiography when it came out in the late 80s. I was mystified by the entire concept of a sales guy selling a commodity product and staying juiced up about it. The description of a salesman's life blew my mind because at the time I was used to my comfy, constrained geek engineer's career path.

I think Kiam was an example of a company head who was genuinely and notoriously passionate about his product. But I also think he was even more passionate about his own internal game of staying motivated and pushing to the next level always. I sort of regarded the razors and the other products as a means to an end for him, and he generated the passion for product as a way to stay motivated and centered.

I can't think of another big company head who exemplified passion. And Kiam did not do so in the way that current management heads advocate.

So when you say "meat on those bones" that means (to me) how many top execs are passionate about their product and its usage? I say, very, very few.