Or put another way, are you a vitamin or a pain killer?  The cliches abound, but the basic notion is whether or not your product / company / service (insert whatever pertains to you here) is something that solves a real problem or just adds to the noise.

When sitting down to create a new product, one of the first things to do is to take a look at the market you are trying to serve and ask yourself if what you are about to build solves a problem that that market faces?  If the answer is yes, then you do your market research, determine if there is scale in the market to make serious money and set off on your merry way to building the next greatest thing since sliced bread (obviously I grossly simplified the process, there are more than three steps to building a product, but you get the idea.)  There are certain very high level decision blocks that you traverse, and one of the firsts, if not the first, is to determine whether or not your offering / product /service / company is solving a problem, or just simply giving the potential user something to distract themselves with.

Just because you have determined that you are a need, that does not necessarily mean that you are a stand alone product or company, perhaps you are a nice feature set of a much larger product or offering (Just when you thought you had a solution to a problem and you were off to the races).  So what happens if you are solving a problem and you are a viable stand alone product, does that mean it is a recipe for success?  Nope, not at all.  Perhaps the problem you are solving is not that big enough of a problem that potential users are going to change their current habits and switch to what you are offering (and just when you thought you had it all figured out).  However, with all that being said, you chances are increased if you are solving a problem and you are a viable stand alone product.

There is of course, the flip side to this equation, and we have all seen products / companies that are a nice to have and seem as if they are just a feature of something much larger take off and grow like wildfire even when  all the odds seem to be against them.  Why does that happen?  Sometimes something comes along that does not seem to have much purpose other than wasting time, but even still it captures the users attention and draws them in.  I can think of a few of these, but I will not mention them specifically as I do not want sound like I think they are a waste of time, in fact I use them myself.

So at the end of the day, ask yourself whether or not you are a need or a nice to have?  If you are a need, congrats you are on your way to viability (but remember it is a long road), if you are a want, good luck catching lighting in a bottle.  Good news is you are not the first one to accomplish this feat, nor will you be the last .

The other day I was having a deep conversation with someone about leadership, management, entrepreneurship and everything in between.  We spent a good deal of time talking about each three, but the first two seemed to go together and we chatted about what the difference between them were or were they even different at all?  I have long felt that there is a distinct difference between the two, and when I was asked if I thought there was a difference, I did not hesitate to voice my thoughts on the matter.

A long time ago, a co-worker of mine schooled me on what the difference was, and it went something like this:  managers will always do things the right way, but leaders will always do the right thing.  Since hearing this, I have never thought of the two to be the same, they are distinctly different, and there are certain types that are one and certain types that are the other.  I do believe that leaders can manage as well, but I do not think that managers can lead.  I believe management is something that can be taught and learned, however leadership is something that you either have or you do not.

The person I was talking to about the subject had a very good perspective on the two and what the differences were.  He too felt that they were distinctly different, and he felt that people are led and things are managed.  I never thought of it that way, but hearing it put that way made total sense.  You can manage processes, requirements, deliverables, but you do not manage the people responsible for them, rather you lead them.

Take a look back in history, we honor those that have been considered great leaders.  Take a close look at the “greatest” leaders, they all have something in common.  They have all been good people persons, they knew how to lead, they knew what it meant to motivate individuals to do courageous and great things.

Last I checked, no where in the history books is there any mention of great managers