Kawhi Leonard doesn't say very much, but when he does, he tends to focus the discussion less on himself and more on the achievements of the Toronto Raptors as a whole. He has said many times before in interviews that he doesn't aspire to be the best player on the team; he aspires to win championships. It's not about him. It's about the team. And it's hard not to respect that kind of humility.
One the things that I try to be aware of in business and in life is how I use first-person singular pronouns (such as "I") and first-person plural pronouns (such as "we"). The subtleties of language are important and there's lots of research out there on this topic. Some have even tracked Jeff Bezos' use of "I" and "we" in Amazon's annual shareholder letters over time.
Harvard Business Review also argued a few years ago that "we" is the language of leadership because it tells you where someone is focusing their attention. Studies suggest that when people are self-aware or insecure they naturally tend to use more first-person singular pronouns -- they turn inward. Conversely, using pronouns such as "we", "us", or "you" suggest an outward focus or a focus on other people's thoughts, opinions, and contributions.
Kawhi Leonard doesn't say very much, but when he does, he tends to focus the discussion less on himself and more on the achievements of the Toronto Raptors as a whole. He has said many times before in interviews that he doesn't aspire to be the best player on the team; he aspires to win championships. It's not about him. It's about the team. And it's hard not to respect that kind of humility.
One the things that I try to be aware of in business and in life is how I use first-person singular pronouns (such as "I") and first-person plural pronouns (such as "we"). The subtleties of language are important and there's lots of research out there on this topic. Some have even tracked Jeff Bezos' use of "I" and "we" in Amazon's annual shareholder letters over time.
Harvard Business Review also argued a few years ago that "we" is the language of leadership because it tells you where someone is focusing their attention. Studies suggest that when people are self-aware or insecure they naturally tend to use more first-person singular pronouns -- they turn inward. Conversely, using pronouns such as "we", "us", or "you" suggest an outward focus or a focus on other people's thoughts, opinions, and contributions.
Of course, when you write a personal blog like this one, you naturally end up with a lot of "I." But when I write about broader topics, such as city building or the housing market, I do try and shift the focus. These are our cities. These are our buildings, streets, and public spaces. We're in this together. And I aspire to get even better at "we."
Jeff Bezos published his annual letter to shareowners this week. You can find it here. And as is his usual practice, he has attached his 1997 letter to shareholders at the bottom of it. This is his "Day 1" and he clearly likes the reminder.
I was somewhat surprised to learn that 58% of physical gross merchandise sales on Amazon are now by independent third-party sellers. This number has been steadily increasing almost every year since 1999.
And this is despite the fact that first party sales -- products sold by Amazon -- have grown at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 25% during this same time period. Amazon excels at the fulfillment component and you can have them do that for you as a third-party seller.
There are a number of other interesting facts sprinkled throughout the letter, but I particularly liked the bits on "intuition, curiosity, and the power of wandering." Here is an excerpt on how Amazon is working to scale the size of its failures:
As a company grows, everything needs to scale, including the size of your failed experiments. If the size of your failures isn’t growing, you’re not going to be inventing at a size that can actually move the needle. Amazon will be experimenting at the right scale for a company of our size if we occasionally have multibillion-dollar failures. Of course, we won’t undertake such experiments cavalierly. We will work hard to make them good bets, but not all good bets will ultimately pay out. This kind of large-scale risk taking is part of the service we as a large company can provide to our customers and to society. The good news for shareowners is that a single big winning bet can more than cover the cost of many losers.
A lot has already been said and written about accepting failure in life and business. Nobody wants to fail, but it can happen when you're trying to "imagine the impossible."
The two nuances here are that failures should scale along with the company. And that "large-scale risk taking" can actually be construed as a service. It might mean that the impossible becomes possible.
Of course, when you write a personal blog like this one, you naturally end up with a lot of "I." But when I write about broader topics, such as city building or the housing market, I do try and shift the focus. These are our cities. These are our buildings, streets, and public spaces. We're in this together. And I aspire to get even better at "we."
Jeff Bezos published his annual letter to shareowners this week. You can find it here. And as is his usual practice, he has attached his 1997 letter to shareholders at the bottom of it. This is his "Day 1" and he clearly likes the reminder.
I was somewhat surprised to learn that 58% of physical gross merchandise sales on Amazon are now by independent third-party sellers. This number has been steadily increasing almost every year since 1999.
And this is despite the fact that first party sales -- products sold by Amazon -- have grown at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 25% during this same time period. Amazon excels at the fulfillment component and you can have them do that for you as a third-party seller.
There are a number of other interesting facts sprinkled throughout the letter, but I particularly liked the bits on "intuition, curiosity, and the power of wandering." Here is an excerpt on how Amazon is working to scale the size of its failures:
As a company grows, everything needs to scale, including the size of your failed experiments. If the size of your failures isn’t growing, you’re not going to be inventing at a size that can actually move the needle. Amazon will be experimenting at the right scale for a company of our size if we occasionally have multibillion-dollar failures. Of course, we won’t undertake such experiments cavalierly. We will work hard to make them good bets, but not all good bets will ultimately pay out. This kind of large-scale risk taking is part of the service we as a large company can provide to our customers and to society. The good news for shareowners is that a single big winning bet can more than cover the cost of many losers.
A lot has already been said and written about accepting failure in life and business. Nobody wants to fail, but it can happen when you're trying to "imagine the impossible."
The two nuances here are that failures should scale along with the company. And that "large-scale risk taking" can actually be construed as a service. It might mean that the impossible becomes possible.
Back in 2016, the United States Postal Service published a report on the public perception of drone delivery in the US. This was nearly 3 years after Jeff Bezos announced on 60 Minutes that Amazon was working on a drone delivery service and that it would arrive within the next 5 years (so by 2019). I think USPS was trying to figure out how to be, or appear, more innovative.
Not surprisingly, the report found that Millennials were significantly more supportive of drone delivery (65%) compared to Baby Boomers (24%), who strongly dislike the idea. Generally, the report indicates that the percentage of people who think it's a good idea declines with every preceding or older generation. Again, I don't find this at all surprising.
But what I did find interesting was that, irrespective of age, respondents were primarily concerned with some sort of "malfunction." This was at the top of the list. Next in line were concerns around "intentional misuse," such as drones being used to transport illicit goods or to spy on people and/or property.
Closer to the bottom of the list was a concern that drone delivery "might make the sky less pleasant to look at." My own view is that visual clutter and noise pollution are critical problems to address here. There's talk of "drone highways in the sky", but how do you really manage the sheer volume of drones that would be needed to service a dense urban environment?
Back in 2016, the United States Postal Service published a report on the public perception of drone delivery in the US. This was nearly 3 years after Jeff Bezos announced on 60 Minutes that Amazon was working on a drone delivery service and that it would arrive within the next 5 years (so by 2019). I think USPS was trying to figure out how to be, or appear, more innovative.
Not surprisingly, the report found that Millennials were significantly more supportive of drone delivery (65%) compared to Baby Boomers (24%), who strongly dislike the idea. Generally, the report indicates that the percentage of people who think it's a good idea declines with every preceding or older generation. Again, I don't find this at all surprising.
But what I did find interesting was that, irrespective of age, respondents were primarily concerned with some sort of "malfunction." This was at the top of the list. Next in line were concerns around "intentional misuse," such as drones being used to transport illicit goods or to spy on people and/or property.
Closer to the bottom of the list was a concern that drone delivery "might make the sky less pleasant to look at." My own view is that visual clutter and noise pollution are critical problems to address here. There's talk of "drone highways in the sky", but how do you really manage the sheer volume of drones that would be needed to service a dense urban environment?
