If you ask people how to become successful, the default answer is to “get better.” It certainly makes sense, but there’s another way:

Find weaker games.

In his paper, Alpha and the Paradox of Skill, Michael Mauboussin shares the experience of Jim Rutt, former CEO of Network Solutions and the Santa Fe Institute.

Mauboussin explains:

He [Jim Rutt] mentioned that he played a lot of poker when he was young, became pretty good at it, and made some money. Rutt assumed that the best way to ensure continued success was to improve his skill, so he worked diligently at honing his game by learning the probabilities of each hand and studying other players for clues about the strength of their positions. At that point, an uncle pulled him aside and doled out some advice. “Jim, I wouldn’t spend my time getting better,” he advised, “I’d spend my time finding weak games.”

Great ideas don’t matter. It’s great ideas, actually shared, that matter.

Many people have great ideas. But because they hold back, they can’t be debated, discussed, or implemented.

Some people hesitate because of social anxiety. But most people hold back due to cultural expectations: those who get to speak are the “senior” people. People with the most experience. People who have “paid their dues.”

What an outdated, awful way to find the best ideas.

In her book, Rebel Talent: Why It Pays to Break the Rules at Work and in Life, Francesca Gino tells the story of Mellody Hobson, president of Ariel Investments:

I received precious and unforgettable advice on my first day at work from Ariel’s founder and CEO John W. Rogers Jr. He said to me, “You are going to be in rooms with people who make a lot of money and have big titles. But it does not mean your ideas are not as good or even better. I want to hear your ideas. It is incumbent on you to speak up.”

Every investment manager, since the beginning of time, promotes the success of their winners while deliberately distracting investors from the losers.

I get why they do it. They want to look good. It makes perfect sense. I’d probably do the same if I were in their shoes. Just highlight the good stuff and hope no one notices the bad stuff.

At the risk of sounding naïve, I wish managers would own their mistakes and talk to us about problem investments. Don’t bury it on page 107 of the annual report. Don’t conceal it in the appendix.

Emphasizing how great your realized investments were? That’s fine. But acknowledge the mistakes with the same amount of detail and description.

Be up front and explain what happened. Talk to us about the mistakes, what you learned, and what, if anything, will change going forward.

We see the overall return data. We know by cherry-picking a handful of winners there’s likely an equal number of losers dragging the fund down. Don’t pretend like it doesn’t exist.

Organizations struggle to hire talent, mostly from self-inflicted mistakes. Talent sourcing is relegated as an afterthought, a second-tier priority at best. It’s an unwelcome distraction when there’s so much other work to do. At no point do companies treat talent recruitment as a strategic skill.

It’s done by gut, intuition, and feel. In other words, it’s mostly made up.

How well does your company hire talent? Struggling to attract great people?

Fortunately, Tyler Cowen has several insights on how to change the hiring process. Tyler is an economics professor at George Washington University. He’s as close to a renaissance thinker as I’ve come across. He’s the founder of the popular blog Marginal Revolution. He hosts an exceptional podcast, Conversations with Tyler. He’s the author of several books (I count 13).

One of those books is Talent: How to Identify Energizers, Creatives, and Winners Around the World.

Below are 12 ideas from Tyler to change how you hire talent…

The CIO role is the pinnacle for most institutional investors. The prestige, the pay, and the ability to lead a team is a big draw.

However, the challenges of leading an investment team are rarely discussed. Your success or failure as a CIO isn’t determined by the glamorous parts. It’s determined by all the organizational and team issues you’ll inherit as you step into your new role.

As if investing alone isn’t hard enough, it becomes a nightmare when you join an organization that is completely different than what you were “sold” during the recruiting process.

What is not being addressed with clarity and honesty?

How can I separate the sales pitch from reality?

What’s being hidden from me?

No one is going to offer you the ugly truths. You must ask for it. And keep asking until you get it.

While the CIO role is the desired endgame for many investors, the question is, are you sure you want it?

Remember, you don’t get to just choose the exciting aspects of the job.

You must take the good and the bad. And often the negatives will dominate the positives.

So how do you know what you are walking into?

Here’s what I’d be asking:

Sam Zell passed away earlier this year but left no shortage of wisdom and one-liners.

Sam shared many lessons in his book, Am I Being Too Subtle? Straight Talk From a Business Rebel.

But you won’t find any lessons on cap rates or property types.

Instead, they are foundational ideas on being a good investor, a good leader, and a good person.

Below, I’ve shared 12 of the best lessons you should take away.

If you are really good at what you do, you have the freedom to be who you really are

One of the biggest raps about me is that I’ve been known to use profanity. Sure, sometimes my real estate colleagues will make over/under bets on whether or when I’ll drop the f-bomb onstage at a conference. I simply don’t buy into many of the made-up rules of social convention. I think people often get distracted by these superficialities. For example, I’ve been wearing jeans to work since the 1960s, long before it was acceptable. And to this day, I’m usually the only one at a business conference or on CNBC’s Squawk Box set in jeans. The bottom line is if you’re really good at what you do, you have the freedom to be who you really are.

Bob and I originated the unique culture at EGI that became our company trademark. We abandoned all pretense and established a casual-dress office policy—which, believe me, was unheard of in the rigid world of finance in the 1970s. We invented business casual. Our thinking was that if you dress funny and you’re great at what you do, you’re eccentric. But if you dress funny and you’re just okay at what you do, you’re a schmuck. We were determined to show everyone that we could excel without conforming.

I normally enjoy investment conferences. But many investment conferences are in a race to the bottom. It’s become a commodity. The same topics are included because they’ve always been included. The same format is followed because it’s always been followed.

Conferences could be so much better for all parties involved. Organizers could build a sustainable model, managers could get quality leads, and allocators could get useful information and networking.

Lately, it seems like it’s all a short-term profitability maximization exercise – how can we get as many paying managers as possible, without regard to the quality of the event, the topics, or the participants itself.

I get there’s a profit-motive for the organizer and asset managers. That shouldn’t change. But how they go about it should.

The lack of thought and strategy that goes into some of these events is mind boggling.

Allocators can’t attend every event, and they’ll choose what works for THEM.

If you don’t get allocators, you don’t have an event.

So here’s my 12 ideas to make conferences better from the allocator perspective, which ultimately benefits all parties:

I recently attended ILPA’s 2023 Members’ Conference. It’s an LP only event that has a number of great presentations and discussions on private markets. It’s always helpful to see how other LP’s are dealing with the numerous issues we face as private markets investors. It’s nice to have a conference where the content is built around practical issues and solutions, not managers promoting their strategies.

Below are my notes from various panels and discussions.

On Fund/Asset Valuation

• LP’s are very skeptical on fund/portfolio company valuation. There was (and always has been) justification from the GP/accounting teams emphasizing the substantial rules, process, work, etc, of the audit process. But in my experience, there is 1) incredible variability and flexibility in valuation assumptions, and 2) GP’s know the companies much better than accountants and will craft a compelling narrative on why adjustments should shift in the desired direction. Are accountants really going to tell a GP they know the assumptions/value better than the GP? I doubt it. In my experience, auditors want to document their process and limit their liability, not push back against the GP.

• Of course, GP’s will never deliberately ask for a specific valuation to maintain certain IRRs so fundraising is easier. But GP’s are great at telling stories about why the relevant comparable set needs to be “updated” to reflect what a great asset the investment is…