Over Achievers

Setting a goal for oneself and trying to beat it is a trait of a champion and leader. An overachiever is someone who surpasses expectations.

Imagine finding out that the class clown is mayor but the class president is now a municipal councilor. What would this mean to you and what would it mean to them?

Need To Have Positive Reinforcement

Some individuals need a pat on the back to motivate them. This is often the case with people who have a superior skill set (either creative or technical), but who lack confidence.

One advantage of outside approval is that it acts as a control mechanism. If you are working on a new product and management agrees that it will meet a need and sell at a profit, the positive feedback could serve as wind in your sail. If people are critical, then you may get dejected.

While this type of overachiever may accomplish great things, they will not usually break new ground. In other words, they may improve an application or compose great music within an existing genre, but they will not revolutionize life as we know it. A moderate risk taker by nature, they engage in careful and methodical planning.

Nice To Have Positive Reinforcement But No Need For It

The second type of overachiever is someone that appreciates the positive feedback but does not need it to execute their vision. These are people of great intellectual capacity that have confidence and charisma. While some may consider them to be arrogant, such criticism is disregarded.

These people defy the conventional paradigm and think outside of the box. They may create little in terms of tangible goods or products but their outlook is different. As you can imagine, anyone with a bold version is a target for controversy.

Two men worth looking at in the computing industry are Steve Jobs and Michael Dell. Steve Jobs was the founder of Apple and developed both the Macintosh computer and the laser printer. In 1983, Jobs recruited Pepsi Co.'s John Sculley. A power struggle ensued and Jobs departed from the firm. He founded Pixar Studios and went on to produce the blockbuster films Toy Story, Toy Story 2, A Bug's Life and Monsters Inc. Not too bad for someone that started Apple out of his garage. When Jobs was not at Apple, the company was saddled with two inept chief executives, an ineffective Board of Directors, and a weak product line. It racked up $1.5 billion in losses in 1996 alone. Apple was suffering from a lack of focus when Jobs came back, giving himself a $1 salary and basing his compensation on company stock, which was at an all-time low.

He struck a deal with supposed enemy Bill Gates and Microsoft. While critics gave Jobs little "positive reinforcement," he knew what he was doing. Microsoft would invest $150 million in Apple and the two firms agreed to share some technological knowledge.

Apple slashed the product line and focused on 4 segments: the iMac (a huge success), the iBook laptop, the Cube (this was not successful) and a new iMac. This innovative form of thinking has earned Apple ardent supporters around the world. Such creative and original thoughts were also in two marketing campaigns: the famous 1984 "Big Brother" ad during the Super Bowl as well as the more recent "Think Different" campaign.

Michael Dell has often been beyond reproach. His firm has emerged as the standard in computer related services. The value of a Dell stock has appreciated roughly 50,000% over the 1990s. In 1999, the Wall Street Journal named Dell tops amongst total return to shareholders over the previous three, five and ten years. Both Dell and Jobs have proven to have tremendous intellectual, technical and creative capabilities. While Jobs thought outside of the box in terms of product development, Dell thought outside of the box in terms of the process and the business. But for the sake of this analysis, he has never jumped on bandwagons nor created something radically different (his computers were originally the hardware that stored Windows software and Intel chips). But it was this simplicity that made his company the leader in its field.

This nuance is also at the forefront of one of the great questions in Rock 'n' Roll music: who was better, Led Zeppelin or The Beatles (although many would also consider Rolling Stones and The Beatles as a good toss-up). Liverpool's Fab Four put out gems like Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and dominated the charts in the 1960s. Led Zeppelin's self-titled first album was released in 1969 and contained blinders like "Dazed and Confused" and "Communication Breakdown". The album set the stage for what ensued in rock music, classic rock and heavy metal.

While many view The Beatles as the greatest band ever, some give that credit to Led Zeppelin, if for no other reason that their genre of music was out-of-the-box. This is not to say that The Beatles lacked creativity.

So, who was the better band? You can answer that if you can say who between Steve Jobs or Michael Dell is the better mind.