Seth Godin had a good post today about getting versus taking. Getting an education, waiting to get something of value from your professor, waiting for your boss to give you the responsibility you have been waiting for, really just waiting for your turn to get what you deserve (or at least what you think you deserve).

Then there are the takers, now at first glance this may come across as a negative trait. Someone who always takes seems like the kind of person you want to avoid, right? After all, if they are so busy taking, then what do they have to give in return? Not that kind of take, the kind of take he is talking about is those that take a risk, those that do not sit idle and wait there turn to get what they deserve. The ones that have no sense of risk aversion, they go out on a limb to try something new, understanding that they may crash and burn miserably, but at least they took a chance.

I think that is one of the defining characteristics of an entrepreneur, someone who is a taker and not a getter. There is a fine line that you have to walk, one cannot just take any risk, it should be somewhat calculated (at least in my opinion, others may argue what is the point if you take calculated risks, then you are not really a risk taker, we can save that for another post). Bottom line is that without taking a risk, you are left with the what ifs, which can reek havoc on you if you let it (well, on second thought if you are a getter chances are that you do not play the what ifs, so I guess it would not really come into play for you).

It is better to have tried (take a risk) and failed than to never have tried at all. So, at what end of the spectrum of risk do you fall? Total aversion or full guns a blazing? I fall towards the later, perhaps with just guns cocked and loaded, not full on blazing.