As a hired-gun, this article is truly outside my depth. When I'm onsite with a client, I give everything for their success. But heck, I'm a rental. I'm conflicted on how such a strategy would work long-term.
I think the key question here, based on the anecdote provided, is: how was the sales lead treated? Ten times sales volume? 20 times market cap? In such a critical role was the guy well-rewarded for the difference he made? I assume so, but this should be spelled out. Because the whole thing reads differently if the guy got a much worse deal than he earned.
Oddly, this focus on what people can do for my organization is exactly the same kind of ambition that is derided in the article -- just the shoe is on the other foot. Of course, you can make the case that the organization is somehow a much greater and more worthy thing of devotion than some guy's family, but I'm skeptical. After all, you can bet the CEO or CFO is watching the numbers. One would think that any employee would be doing the same for his family finances. Respect is a two-way street.
I think the article is right on the money, don't get me wrong. I just think it could have been written better. There are lots of little holes in the reasoning. Perhaps this idea of understanding that you do better yourself when you help others succeed is difficult to pin down in the context provided. After all, there are lots of companies. And there are lots of people looking for "team players" who will not look after you. While the slogan is easy, the actual implications and implementation of this belief system is not easy at all.
I think the key question here, based on the anecdote provided, is: how was the sales lead treated? Ten times sales volume? 20 times market cap? In such a critical role was the guy well-rewarded for the difference he made? I assume so, but this should be spelled out. Because the whole thing reads differently if the guy got a much worse deal than he earned.
Oddly, this focus on what people can do for my organization is exactly the same kind of ambition that is derided in the article -- just the shoe is on the other foot. Of course, you can make the case that the organization is somehow a much greater and more worthy thing of devotion than some guy's family, but I'm skeptical. After all, you can bet the CEO or CFO is watching the numbers. One would think that any employee would be doing the same for his family finances. Respect is a two-way street.
I think the article is right on the money, don't get me wrong. I just think it could have been written better. There are lots of little holes in the reasoning. Perhaps this idea of understanding that you do better yourself when you help others succeed is difficult to pin down in the context provided. After all, there are lots of companies. And there are lots of people looking for "team players" who will not look after you. While the slogan is easy, the actual implications and implementation of this belief system is not easy at all.