Of motivational speakers and the substance of reality

By Farai Chigaru

With unemployment rate still escalating almost in all countries, many people especially the youth, are diverting their interest to entrepreneurship. 

Mostly these young ones are motivated by those people who have succeeded in life, playing role models and even those who give motivational talks. 

Malawi is one of the countries that has successful people in businesses and also very influential motivational speakers.

But not all people who are venturing into business are successful despite being influenced by these successful people or motivational speakers. 

There could be more reasons that may affect those into business not to succeed — many attribute the failures to political situation and economic environment. 

But how can we explain the successful businesses?

It is a well-known fact that mentorship programs and the motivational seminars do work and are necessary for development; however they are not sufficient depending on one significant factor; choosing the right mentor. 

It is imperative therefore to argue that mentor selection has been one of the differing ingredients between successful and unsuccessful business ventures.

Like any other trade, mentorship may produce successful and unsuccessful business people. How one book with many followers; one blog with many readers; he or she could be a right and wrong mentor for individuals within the same audience — where some of those individuals will grow to be successful whereas some will fail.

It is admirable to look at your neighbor and wish to be like him. There are advantages and disadvantages. It is advantageous if you can learn from this person and try to adopt principles in order for you to develop; disadvantageous if the person you are copying is not within your reach and therefore their lifestyle and strategies are not adoptable and implementable at your current level.

Regardless of multiple talks and seminars, the observation is that only a few entrepreneurs in Malawi sprouted or grew (improved by size or profits) from mentorship programs. 

It is prudent to point out the flaw identified in how mentors and motivational speakers are selected in Malawi; the flaw lies in the common practice in Malawi of using “success in that particular field” as the criteria of selecting motivational speakers. 

Many times, people identify the individual at the epitome of success in that field and are identified as the best candidate for motivational speakers/mentors. 

The current society targets the best performers in any industry, be it entrepreneurial or financial, and help them make speeches on how to become an entrepreneur. This criterion can be a flaw due to the following:

The most obvious reason would be a lack of contextualization, where differences in the initial conditions between different people depicts differences in their probability to succeed in different fields. 

This is seen where seminars are branded as ‘all invitation’ without being sensitive to different people. 

Does all financial advice apply to everybody at different states and initial conditions? No. One size does not fit all. 

For example, an individual growing up in a family of entrepreneurs has higher chances than one growing up in a family of religious parents. 

These two are brought up with two different ideologies; capitalism and socialism. Second example would be on differences in welfare status as a difference in initial conditions; if my mentor comes from a more affluent family, then our likelihoods of being successful in that business are not the same.

He started off with a fallback plan, whereas all my eggs would be placed in one basket. It’s prudent to note that different personalities have different ways of doing things; thus trying to mentor people depends on their intellectual capabilities and access to right and necessary resources.

In another scope, there is another important explanation that needs to be considered: The ‘success distance’ (success gap) between the two; in terms of success levels (measured differently conditional on industry).

For example, the success distance of entrepreneurs can be measured by the size of firm (measured by number of employees employed). The higher the distance (gap) between a learner and mentor, the harder it is for one to learn or achieve the goals and the higher distant mentors impose stringent strategies on their followers. 

These strategies are in most times unsustainable in the longer term and are not pragmatic. This is because those that are closer in terms of success distance, so happen to have migrated from your state not-so-long ago. 

However those with higher distance migrated from your state ‘ages’ ago, and probably would have operated under different business environment.

Put specifically, if A is richer than B. However B is richer than myself. In an instance therefore, where I seek to learn from both individuals, it is in my best interest to follow the advice and guidance of B over A. 

B’s goals will, in most cases, be more reachable and his advice more pragmatic, holding all else constant. 

In an effort to reach A therefore, it is imperative for me to aim and fully focus and follow the doctrine of B while ignoring A. After realizing and moving from my level to ‘B’ level therefore, it is when I can aim for ‘A’ status.

This distance can also be viewed as social distance (different social networks). In layman terms, this column argues that the way motivational talks and mentors are celebrated in Malawi is flawed. 

Beginners are paraded with ‘successful’ entrepreneurs who suffer from different contextualization (initial conditions) and higher distance (success gap).

An alternative approach to the “way of doing business” is therefore being suggested. It suggests that mentors or motivational talks should be context specific, as one size does not fit all. 

They should be sensitive to people of different initial conditions and this will be observed by price differentiation. For example, elite associations are convenient for people who have wealthy initial conditions as membership is based on networking and high membership fees; hence setting a price floor towards membership.

The second recommendation in mentor selection is to focus on pragmatism, by identifying mentors with the closest ‘success’ distance possible; these closer mentors better understand their audience challenges as they themselves were in that state not-so-long ago. 

Recommending a CEO to talk to a group of students is fallible; rather recommend a supervisor to guide the students (with closer distance). 

The ‘ways’ of the supervisor are more pragmatic to the students. For example, a restaurant owner targeting to learn from the strategies (marketing strategies) of an established hotel, would be costly and unrealistic since they target different caliber of clients. 

However he/she has higher chances of success if he follows strategies of a restaurant owner with 20 employees as they are highly possibly targeting the same clients; and therefore the marketing strategies are more pragmatic.

It is easier to chase dreams that are see-able and strategies that are pragmatic. It is recommendable that an aspiring entrepreneur to follow the crafts and advice of a restaurant owner with one building and 10 employees than to follow strategies of a franchise that operates internationally; a young business man/woman to seek advice from a loan shark than a bank owner. 

In short, simplicity is critical if one wants to develop. Learn to do simple things that match your financial and intellectual capacity than rushing to do things that may spring off your appetite to do business.—The author is a PhD candidate at Peking University, China (Feedback: chigaru2@gmail.com)