Do you want it now, or do you want it forever?

By Robbie Dale

Henrik Larsson. Swedish footballer, one time donner of dreadlocks and, to Celtic fans in particular, living legend. When he first went out to play in a Celtic shirt however, things went less than well…

In his first league game, Larsson managed to pass the ball directly to an opposition player resulting in a conceded goal, and a 2-1 loss for Celtic. In his first European game for the club, he scored an own goal (though Celtic did win the game). Not a great start. In fact, after that kind of start to a club career, you wouldn’t be surprised if he’d been sidelined, and quietly sold on. But he wasn’t. Because he was a class act.

Wim Jansen, the manager who brought Henrik Larsson to Celtic, knew he was onto a good thing. He knew that Larsson was the footballing equivalent of Pele, and so he kept playing him. Which was a good thing really, because he soon became a firm favourite. He scored goals, he changed games, he won trophies. Everything you want in a star player. In return for six years at the top, you should be able to forgive a couple of early slip ups.

And that’s the point. Overall everything was good. Great in fact. Henrik just took a little time to get going.

Sometimes ideas are like that.

Let’s say you believe in an idea that has real longevity. Something that will, in the long run, almost certainly prove to be a success. You show it around, and people dismiss it.

‘We need results they say’.

‘When?’ you ask.

‘Now’ they reply.

‘What about forever, but only starting soon?’ you respond.

‘Get out of my office’, they say.

Good things take time to mature – cheese, whiskey, children. You can’t just dump them out fully formed and expect them to succeed. Give things a little time. If you think they’re good enough, they should deserve them.

Next time you’re trying to find ‘just the right idea’, stop and think awhile.

Do you want results now, or do you want results forever?

Like this?

Brought into the world on Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009 and filed under Uncategorized.

  • http://twitter.com/c_davies Chris Davies

    Your tongue-in-cheek examples (cheese, whiskey, children) don’t quite line up: two of them don’t require much in the way of ongoing investment, beyond a secure shed, whereas one demands ever-increasing financial outlay (unless you want social services to get involved).

    Perhaps part of peoples’ reluctance to consider relatively slow-boiler ideas is that they can’t define the necessary degree of investment as readily?

  • http://www.1000heads.com Robbie Dale

    Hey Chris, thanks for your comment.

    You raise an interesting question on investment, which is not something I was considering.

    To take cheese, wine and children, you’re undoubtedly right that they need nurturing in different ways, but my central point remains the same for all three. They take time to reach their potential.

    Sometimes it isn’t that success in the long term means constant attention, it just means going with a different strategy. A strategy that might not pay off immediately.

    In terms of defining investment, maybe one issue could be a misapprehension that a long-term strategy necessarily requires more time/money/stress than a short term one. I don’t think that always needs be the case.