A creative way to take risks

Risk is talked about a lot but I feel we do not fully justify what it actually represents.

Why do companies who have dominated their industries mitigate risk? And why do disruptive companies welcome risk?

"If you cannot disrupt your self, your idea, or your project, someone else will disrupt you."

Through disruption comes a new idea. Let me rephrase that, old ideas bring out new ideas, the combination of ideas bring out new ideas, rarely do new ideas emerge out of thin air.

Creativity is a curse, we can either welcome it or resist it. When we resist it we do a disservice to ourselves and everyone else who gains from our creativity. So why resist? Because it is the safe thing to do.

Being safe means staying comfortable.

CEO's of large corporations would rather make sure that they do not risk losing their current positions by doing the things that are safe and that look after the stake holders. Even though, if they make risky decisions they may make the company better, stronger and faster. Meaning the stake holders will be better off as well.

"If they do, they may" words that are not very promising. There is that chance that they could make the company worse, lose money for the sake holders and worst of all lose their jobs.

Would you take the risk if you knew that you had a 50/50 chance of either winning and disrupting or losing everything you worked so hard to attain?

Depends on your character. Not everyone who takes risks disrupts. Let me repeat that, not everyone who takes risks disrupts.

Psychologist Aptor makes claim that it is better for one person taking the risk and going first rather than the whole group taking the risk. This dates back to our ancestors when a tribe would enter a new territory they would assess the risk by having one person drink the water and try the fruit to see if it is safe for the rest of the group.

Risk is not a sure bet however, some disrupters understand, sorry all disrupters understand that risk is not only a necessary element but is regarded as the life line of the disruptor. Without risk you cannot disrupt because the status quo will keep you locked up in a cage.

To disrupt it is necessary to break free from the cage and to think outside the box.

People are not geniuses, their not born geniuses and they do not become geniuses. They are regular people just like you and I. The difference is that they work hard, they have a purpose (destination), and they attain knowledge along the way.

So why do we classify people who are disrupters as geniuses? They are simple man who had a vision, who clearly saw a path of least resistance and who decided to take the risk to go first. The appropriate word for these people is leaders.

We have established that all disruptors are risk takers so are all risk takers disruptors? No.

Is it because some risk takers fail? No.

I will have to stop here, I know you enjoyed reading it this far but there is so much more to this post, and of course an actionable take away at the end, so why don't you continue with the rest OVER HERE. If you don't find it useful let me know and I promise I will make it up to you.

The tragedy of having nice things.

Yes, it sucks when you lose something that is expensive. We value it so much more because we worked so hard to attain it, even though we all know that our happiness with material wealth is a short life.

"I would rather excel in the knowledge of what is excellent than in the extent of my power and possessions." Plutarch

This is not what this post is about.

When someone else recognizes what you have, they cannot afford it and they understand the value of it, what do you do? Do you dismiss it and be modest, pretend like its no big deal? Or do you praise what you have, be realistic, and iterate the amount of the hard work that it took to get it?

I was having a conversation with my girlfriend, and this is how most of my topics are ignited, through controversial conversations. This conversation was about her bike and how one of her friend's commented on it.

She played it off like it's "just a bike". Yes, of course it is just a bike but, to her friend it is much more then that. It is something that is unattainable, it is something that seems more precious than gold.

People will value possessions differently. I cannot afford a Lamborghini yet, so when I see someone else driving a brand new Centenario it will make my head turn, my mind wonder, and my ego sink.

Why is that? Is it because I cannot afford it? Is it because I want to afford it? Will that bring me peace and happiness once obtained?

"Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others. He who envies others does not obtain a peace of mind." Buddha

Freedom comes from within. Having more stuff will do nothing for you except enslave to the system we call society. By thinking that having the next big thing so that you can impress others or be "happy" is just that, your "thinking" of it.

You are probably saying well Lev if it makes me happy than what's wrong with that? Okay so it makes you happy now, how about 3 months from now? How about a year from now? How about 5 years from now?

Will you still remain happy with your expensive material possession? If not, then why not?

Is it because it's half-life is at it's end? Is it because there are now newer models and shinier things to go after? Is it your status your so concerned with?

Not everyone can think the way you think, obviously, and people who cannot afford nice things, if they do not have a peace of mind, will envy you.

Then we should ask ourselves, is envy bad or is it a good thing? I believe it is neither good or bad. How so?

Read the rest of the article HERE, I will give you some actionable items, my thoughts, and I will relate it to business for anyone who cares.

Which moral principles do you follow?

Would you do something that is morally wrong? First we need to ask ourselves what are morals? According to the dictionary morals are a standard of beliefs concerning what is and what is not acceptable for someone to do.

Okay so basically they are our principles that guide us into doing either good or bad. I think you know what I am about to ask next, who defines what is morally right or wrong? Is it society? The status-quo? Or do you decide for yourself?

If everyone jumped of a roof top of a building and this was accepted as morally the right thing to do by society when you are sad, would you do so?

If you have certain moral principles and someone else has a different view on it are they wrong? Even if they make a strong argument supporting their claims?

So we all know about cults and their leaders. Most famous the Charles Manson cult. How he has imposed certain moral principles on his followers of which completely ignore the humanistic values that the majority of people follow.

No I will not take this post into this direction, however, I want to point out that not only do we have outcomes that are out of our control which the results are based on the decisions we make. As well other people have a strong influence over those decisions, as I discussed in my last post.

So why am I telling you this? I need you to understand that we are also guided by our pre conceived beliefs and notions which are based on our past experiences. What we experience and what we see other's do, especially those who we aspire to be like.

We emulate their personas, we value their morals and teach ourselves to be like the people we aspire to whether it is a conscious or an unconscious choice that we make.

It becomes our destiny, a rule guide that we follow and is seldom revised.

"Associate with people who are likely to improve you." Seneca

Let me tell you a story about my friend, her brother, and her brother's girlfriend. The background story is that my friend's brother got involved with a girl and she became pregnant. He has known this girl for about a year and a half and now she is almost in labour.

My friend and her brother have never really had a father figure. Her brother never had a long lasting relationship, and he is constantly head butting with his girlfriend. I don't think age is a factor here so I will not bore you with the details of that.

During this time of the girlfriend being in labour my friend has bonded with her especially during the times of her brother's absence. Due to ongoing clashing with his girlfriend.

This pregnancy seems more important for my friend rather than her brother. I get this feeling because of the conversations I have with all three parties.

Is it the void that my friend is filling? Not having a partner or any children herself. Is it because she feels guilty that her brother is being himself and neglecting his girlfriend when she needs him the most? Is it because my friend is a girl, and so she has commonalities with her brother's pregnant girlfriend? Is it because her brother is not ready to be a father?

The other day I got into a discussion that inspired me to write this post.

My friend's intention is for the girlfriend to get pregnant one more time so she has two children with the same father. Even though her brother may not be the best suited father in the children's lives. My friend feels that she will fill the void, and also that the children will be taken care of financially, if the girlfriend didn't decide to have another child with someone else.

With this information, what would you say is the right or wrong thing to do for the girlfriend who is pregnant? Which path should she take?

Enjoyed this post? Finish reading it here Karasin Group!