Tell me who your carder-mentor is: how to find a good mentor in carding life
Now almost every less intelligent leader is called mentors, but finding a real mentor is not so easy. How to recognize a good mentor in a person - in the book by Alexander Kravtsov.
About the author: Alexander Kravtsov is a methodologist, researcher of mentoring practices in the post-Soviet space. The book can be bought on the website of the publishing house MYTH.
Mentor criteria
How to recognize a mentor
The rapidly growing popularity of mentoring has certain negative consequences. On the one hand, the growing demand for mentoring services is certainly a good thing. But, on the other hand, when something hidden, exclusive becomes a common property or an object of wide interest, there is both an inevitable transformation of the concept and its devaluation.
This is what we are seeing now. Under the word "mentoring" today we mean a standard tool for solving applied business problems - from familiarizing ordinary employees with their job responsibilities to planning succession for CEOs.
The concept of "mentor" is perceived as an honorary title that is assigned to all the slightest intelligent leaders - those who help colleagues and take care of their subordinates, creating conditions for them to grow.
However, real success is still the piece goods. And you can still meet a real mentor. If you decide to find such a person, then you need to look for him, guided by the following criteria.
Superiority
The first and most obvious criterion is superiority. The mentor must be superior to the student. At least - in the area in which the student wants to advance. Ideally, in everything. The greater the gap in resources and opportunities between the mentor and the student, the more the former can give to the latter.
But there are nuances. First, it is important that this difference is of a fundamental, qualitative nature. A mentor is needed in order to help you make exactly a qualitative leap - not just to climb, but to move to the next level. To do this, he must himself be at this level, or even better - several levels higher.
Secondly, a mentor is not a steam locomotive that drags cars from station to station along a once laid track. A mentor is a rocket stage. Its task is to raise you to new heights, to take you out of the atmosphere. Give a concentrated impulse in the right direction. After that, "the stage is fired off," and then the next stage should carry the rocket.
In other words, the potential of a mentor-student relationship is always limited in time. Sooner or later, one of two things will happen: the student will catch up with the mentor or the trajectories of their movement will diverge so much that the mentor will no longer be able to give impulses in the direction in which his ward is moving.
Both are normal. The student should strive to reach the level of his teacher. Otherwise, he will not achieve anything at all. The student must find his own path. You cannot come to your goal if you follow someone else's trail.
This is why you need a big difference in level. Then, even being on the same trajectory with you, the mentor will be able to give out an accelerating impulse for a longer time. And he will have time to reach a new level in order to maintain this distance between you.
It is equally important that the mentor outperforms you in as many directions as possible. In this case, he will be able to offer you a wide choice of trajectories for further advancement, even if you end up in different orbits.
The difference in level often manifests itself in the difference in age. Usually it is about 20 years, but it can be longer.
Proximity
The second criterion you should look at when considering someone as a potential mentor is closeness and the trust that is based on it. There is no success without trust. A productive relationship is impossible without trust. The more at stake, the more trust there should be.
Mentoring is a special case. Trust is critical here. But even more important is the source of trust. Trust between mentor and student must be based on a sense of mutual closeness. There are things that cannot be shared with friends. It so happens that it is better for spouses not to know something about each other. However, with a doctor or a lawyer, you have to be completely frank. Otherwise, they will not help solve your problem.
But this is difficult. Doctors, lawyers, and anyone else whose business fits the definition of a "consultant" always keep their distance. Their interest in you should remain purely businesslike. You are a client for them, their participation in your destiny is a service for which they receive money. There is an exchange of one value for another. In other words, it is a formal transaction based on mutual benefit. If trust is a prerequisite for her conclusion, then intimacy in such a relationship only hurts.
However, real mentoring without intimacy doesn't work at all because it's not a bargain. Just as love or friendship is not a deal, there are other types of relationships that require closeness. While there is mutual interest and mutual benefit in these relationships as well, the difference is that the parties in them do not exchange values. They share values. If there is mutual interest between the parties in such a relationship, but there is no intimacy, a situation inevitably arises when one of the parties begins to abuse trust and exploits the other.
It always ends badly. Friends don't just part - they become enemies. Love gives way to hate. And the relationship "mentor - apprentice" turns into another archetypal plot: "the sorcerer's apprentice." No less ancient and very popular. If we turn to Star Wars again, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker, who turned into Darth Vader, play out this scenario like clockwork.
In this case, the injured party, as a rule, turns out to be the student - the mentor, by default, has more opportunities to use his ward. This is reflected in the film - in fact, it was Obi-Wan who made Anakin disabled.
Neither mutual trust nor mutual benefit will prevent a relationship from collapse if there is no intimacy in it. Intimacy holds all relationships together. It lowers costs, smoothes corners and dulls the contradictions that inevitably arise when two bright, active and ambitious personalities collide. It is a willingness to make certain concessions and even sacrifices. Willingness to share, to give without demanding immediate reimbursement. It is a willingness to do more than is necessary and to act before you are asked to do so. And when the relationship comes to an end - the ability to leave, remaining in the black.
Michael Bloomberg and William Salomon
Michael Bloomberg is a legendary figure. His name has become synonymous with success. He is the founder of one of the largest players in the financial analytics market, consistently occupies the top lines in the list of the richest people in the world according to Forbes, and was elected mayor of New York three times.
According to Bloomberg, he owes this to William Salomon, with whom he began his career in 1966. As a graduate of Harvard Business School, Michael could afford to choose, so he came to interviews at all the leading brokerages on Wall Street. One of them was a relatively small but actively developing company Salomon Brothers. The order established in her surprised Bloomberg. In other places where he came for interviews, trading floors were small, and traders sat in separate offices. At Salomon Brothers, everyone, from executives to rank-and-file clerks, was in one large room. And we communicated with each other at times very emotionally.
While waiting for the meeting, Michael got into a conversation with some person. He stopped to chat with the newcomer. The employee who introduced himself as Billy was very welcoming and even gave Michael some tips on how to better behave in the interview. It turned out that it was William Salomon himself - the managing partner of the company and the son of one of its founders.
This fleeting meeting turned out to be fateful. Half a century later, at the height of his fame, Michael Bloomberg wrote on his LinkedIn page:
“In life, we rarely meet people who can change the way we look at the world and decide what is most important to us. For me, that person was Billy Salomon ...
… Working with Billy, I learned more about management than anyone else, and the company I started with three fellow Salomon guys was built thanks to his lessons. And although Salomon Brothers no longer exists today, the rules that Billy laid down with his actions continue to live in those he inspired".
In other words, Salomon possessed a strategic superiority that predetermined his effectiveness as a mentor for Bloomberg: despite his lack of education, Salomon had tremendous experience in the stock market. More importantly, Salomon knew how to work with people and enjoyed great authority both inside and outside the company.
At the same time, there was a closeness between them. It was William Salomon's openness and friendliness that made the greatest impression on Michael. Even though Goldman Sachs offered Bloomberg more, he decided that having a leader like Salomon was much more important than a good salary.
As subsequent events showed, this was the right decision. After seven years at Salomon Brothers, Michael Bloomberg became a partner and millionaire. In 1981, when the company was sold to the trading firm Phibro, he left with a $ 10 million check and started his own business.
Important addition
Now you probably have a logical question.
So, there are two criteria that allow us to consider a person as a mentor: this is superiority and closeness. With the first, everything is simple - the difference in level between the mentor and his charge is, as a rule, visible to the naked eye.
But what about intimacy? It is impossible to measure it. This is "chemistry" - it is either there or it is not. Not only that, to understand this, you need to be in a personal relationship. But even in this case, it must be borne in mind that it does not arise immediately. For example, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet didn’t like each other very much when they first met, although they have been friends for over 30 years since then. And sometimes "chemistry" does not appear at all.
Can you somehow influence this?
We have not yet learned how to manage mutual sympathy.
Perhaps it's for the best. But to estimate your chances in advance is quite realistic. You've probably heard that opposites attract. Or at least complement each other. Belief in this is an important part of culture - there are a lot of relevant stories in art, literature and cinema. This belief is so strong that it even leaked into the writings of some psychologists. But people are not magnets. The correct principle sounds exactly the opposite: "Like attracts to like."
The reason this story is so popular in the mass consciousness is simple: opposites create the basis for conflict and drama. This is what makes any story interesting. But what is good on the screen or the pages of a novel is not always good in life. Statistics are unforgiving: the strongest relationships arise between people of similar temperament, character and outlook on life. That is why the more alike you are, the better. The values, principles and priorities of the mentor and the student must be the same. In this case, the chances for the occurrence of "chemistry" are maximum.
The following story is an excellent illustration of this rule.
Richard Branson and Freddie Laker
Sir Richard Branson is perhaps the brightest and most controversial figure in modern business: a billionaire, an adventurer, an outrageous lover, the author of many bold business ideas that have become examples of both resounding success and grandiose failure. It would seem that there can be no second such character.
But long before Sir Richard, the role of the general troublemaker in the business environment was played by another no less legendary Sir - Freddie Laker. Like Branson, Laker did poorly in school, but from childhood he was distinguished by an entrepreneurial spirit. Coming from a poor family, he had to earn extra money and was constantly trying new business ideas. He early became interested in aviation: before the Second World War he worked at an aircraft factory, with the beginning he became an aircraft mechanic, repaired combat aircraft and trained as a pilot. After the war, he experimented with various business ideas in aviation - he founded several air transportation companies. Some business ideas turned out to be successful, some failed.
But the real breakthrough came in the early 1970s, when Laker came up with the idea of revolutionizing the market and launching a transatlantic route that would cost much less than other airlines. According to his idea, a flight across the ocean should have cost the same as a train ride. In modern terms, he decided to create a low-cost airline.
It took nearly six years a war with the aviation authorities before the maiden flight of his new airline, Skytrain, took place. The industry was even more regulated back then than it is now. In addition, major airlines reasonably feared that the impudent newcomer would "bring down the market." Laker did not hesitate to call a spade a spade. His harsh remarks about competitors and the authorities have made it onto the pages of newspapers more than once. He actively used non-standard moves to advertise his company and used aggressive strategies bordering on adventurism. And this had an effect: the load on his flights ranged from 75 to 80% - an unprecedented figure for that time. The cost of a one-way London - New York flight started at $ 135, while competitors' prices were around $ 500.
However, this could not last long. Pan American, Trans World Airlines and British Airways began to systematically reduce the cost of tickets, depriving Skytrain of its main trump card - cheapness. The fact of collusion was not proven, but these actions, together with the growing economic crisis, did their job - in 1982, Skytrain went bankrupt. Laker sued British Airways and won the lawsuit, but that didn't save the company.
Nevertheless, the authority and fame of Sir Freddie Laker was so great that when three years later Branson decided to found Virgin Atlantic Airways, he did not think for a long time who to turn to for advice and help. He invited Laker to lunch and shared his idea. As Branson later wrote in his book, Fuck It All! Take it and do it! ”Laker told him:
“Get ready for British Airways dirty tricks. It was their dastardly tricks that ruined me. Don't let them do the same to you. File complaints with all authorities. My mistake was that I didn’t complain. ”
Branson took this advice and filed a lawsuit against British Airways in 1992, when increased competition between the two did result in a series of dirty tricks on the part of the national carrier. British Airways decided not to bring the matter to trial and paid Branson compensation. Later, Richard said: the best thing that Freddie Laker advised him was to sue British Airways before they ruin him.
For us, the most interesting is another important piece of advice that Laker gave to his student. Virgin Atlantic Airways could not boast the same advertising budget as its competitors. Laker suggested to his protégé a way out of the situation - to become the face of the company himself and to promote it with the power of his own charisma. In his book, Branson writes about it this way:
“He told me:“ Use yourself. Don't be afraid to make a fool of yourself. Otherwise, you will not survive. "This advice influenced my whole approach to business. I accepted it and since then I have been looking for original ways to stand out from the crowd. I have found that using unusual and funny ways is more likely to be on the front page of the newspaper than on the last".
The fact that Branson followed Laker's advice reflected their similarities to each other. Thanks to this, two bright, extraordinary and rather quarrelsome personalities managed to find a common language, moreover, to build long-term trusting relationships.
