"1-2-3" Creator Mitch Kapor

 

INC.: Were you chastened by that experience with Symphony in terms of what people expect for "second acts"?

KAPOR: Well, expectations are higher the second time.

INC.: Was that something that hung over you? Do you worry about being 36 and known as the former Mitch Kapor?

KAPOR: But see, that's an attribution of someone else's. As for me, I've been working for some time now on a product with a couple of other people at Lotus, which should come out sometime in 1987. I have fond hopes that it will be a major success and moot this whole issue -- that I might be moved into the category of those who have, individually, in some sense, done it twice. If that happens, great. And if it doesn't, then I'll have to think about why it didn't. I can't control the judgment of history, and I'm not looking to history as a source of self-esteem.

INC.: Were there other impacts that your initial success had on the psychology of the company?

KAPOR: By any reasonable standard you may care to choose, Lotus has been remarkably successful, and the people who work there should all be immensely proud of it. But not so proud that it leads to arrogance. That's a big problem in any successful company, one that requires very conscious efforts so that you remain permeable to the environment and open to criticism that can be taken in and understood -- and corrective actions can then be taken. I don't think we did as good a job at that as we could have. And if there is a next time, I'm going to think about that more.

INC.: What is it about an organization that makes itself impermeable, arrogant?

KAPOR: Insecurity. Thinking, "Here we are, we're number one. But did we really work to deserve this? Maybe we were just lucky. Well, we can't afford to entertain doubts about this, so we'll just shut it off." It's that kind of insecurity, the kind that comes with inexperience. And I think the answer is to feel confident enough that the degree ofsuccess is merited but has to continue to be earned -- that's a cliche, but I think it's true. Success has a short half-life. If customers aren't happy, they're not complaining just to eat you up. They're doing it because they're not happy. And it is really worthwhile understanding what it's about, even if you don't agree with it. The worst thing you could do is to write it off.

INC.: You've run through a number of very common, understandable frustrations that you encountered as Lotus grew and that preceded your decision to leave. I think most people listening to you -- most entrepreneurs, anyway -- would think it unusual that you would actually act on those frustrations by leaving the company you started.

KAPOR: In one sense, I'm not surprised that people don't understand it. It was very difficult. I spent several days at one point in pure agony about the issue personally, about the fundamental separation of identify between myself and the company. But, having done that, it was done.

INC.: Can you describe those days?

KAPOR: It was over a long weekend, so I had a lot of time to think about it. And it felt like it feels when you're breaking up with somebody. It's a sense of loss, emptiness, anger, helplessness.

INC.: Was there something specific that prompted it?

KAPOR: It was about the time that Jim Manzi [Lotus's president] was named the CEO. That was the proximate cause of it.

INC.: That appointment led some people to wonder, "Did he jump, or was he pushed?"

KAPOR: I suppose it is one of the manifestations of a company's growth that people begin to ask questions like "Did he jump, or was he pushed?" The question implies that those are the only two alternatives. But from where I sit, real life is not that simple. I don't know what it is that you particularly care about, but whatever it is, I bet that you don't see it as a simple black-and-white kind of thing. It has nuance to it, texture. And the subject here is me and my life and I'm passionate about it. I care about it. I suppose it's the function of journalists or industry analysts to reduce things to black and white. But the danger is that, even using my own words, you'll produce a much more simplistic rendition of reality than I'd like. I don't want my life -- my work -- turned into a cartoon.

Now let me try to answer the question: I did not jump, nor was I pushed. Fundamentally, my leaving was a function of the company's growth, of my own growth. I will always be somebody who is highly motivated by things I regard as challenges, and I tend to be terribly unmotivated by -- if not outright resistant to -- anything else. And because Lotus grew so large so fast, it rapidly ceased to play that central role in helping me give meaning to my life. And therefore, the honorable and responsible thing for me to do -- and the best thing for me and for 1,350 employees and for several million customers and all of that -- was to remove myself from the company sooner rather than later.

INC.: As you were saying that, I was struck by how unusual a statement that is for a corporate executive. Can you imagine Roger Smith saying he was leaving General Motors because it no longer helped give meaning to his life?

KAPOR: I can't imagine him saying that in public.

INC.: Do you think he might say it in private?

KAPOR. I don't know. Perhaps it's the kind of thing he would say to his wife or to a shrink, but never in public -- in which case it's really a generational difference more than anything else. It would be considered somewhat inappropriate when one is holding the reins of power, when there are employees and customers and shareholders to consider.

 PREV  1 | 2 | 3 | 4  NEXT