Thursday, January 27, 2011

Fear of failure and public speaking: the rules

My speech to the School of Life Self-help Summit was over a week ago now, so I’ve had time to reflect. Typical of a High-FF (someone with high fear of failure as described in What’s Stopping You?) I’ve started to focus on the negatives, now the first rush of adrenalin from simply getting through the process has dissipated. I rather fluffed the question on “charlatans”, asked right at the end of the day and directed towards me by the chairman Oliver Burkeman of The Guardian. In fact, I had a neural hijacking, wondering whether Oliver thought me a charlatan – ignoring the fact I’d spent much of my speech criticising the genre for over-promising, hyper-titling, over simplifying complex mental conditions and being generally a bit cheesy (making me the obvious speaker to address the issue).

Yet that’s the key problem with fear of failure – it’s an innate condition. Those reactions are inevitable, making our only hope the ability to generate a better second response. Nonetheless, there I was – a confirmed High-FF making a speech that seemed to go down rather well. At least, I made people laugh, got a round of applause, engendered a good debate and had people saying nice things to me in the break.

Being a High-FF is certainly no barrier to presenting to an audience, although there is no doubt that it is one of those terrifying episodes – a key moment for the monkey on our shoulder to appear and start whispering disabling thoughts into our head along “you can’t do this”, “you’re an idiot and you’re about to be found out” lines. Indeed, my High-FF persona was even capable of scouring the audience for the one person looking less than delighted with my speech and focusing totally on him (who’d probably been chucked by his girlfriend that morning).

So can I offer any advice to the High-FF fearing presentations or speeches (as nearly all will)? These are purely my own thoughts – and purely in retrospect given that it seemed to go OK – but the following seemed to get me through it without the need for beta blockers (which a friend had offered and I’m now glad I refused).

1) Prepare. Powerpoint presentations are actually for the speaker rather than the audience. I used Powerpoint to help me structure the discussion, work out the narrative and order of points, to illustrate what I was saying with images, and to help me remember my lines. In fact the Powerpoint was my beta blocker – just knowing it was there calmed me enormously.

2) Work out the message. I had one point I wanted to make – that self-help cannot cure you of innate conditions but it can help you make progress once you realise no cure is on offer. I thought this a strong message so it ran throughout, repeating it on the last slide to remove any doubt.

3) Practice. My wife heard it twice, a colleague in the office also heard it twice. I practiced it twice alone before work each morning prior to the summit and three times on the day. I learnt to smooth out the sticking points and, in fact, pretty much knew it by heart by the time I stood up. Ultimately, knowing the material inside out was what allowed me a confident delivery.

4) Especially know the opening. This is worth knowing verbatim – those first few lines after “good morning ladies and gentlemen”. Make absolutely sure you are happy with these lines – because it is here you win or lose your audience.

5) Remember they are on your side. In nearly all situations in which you are making a speech the crowd are with you. Unless you are a Tory addressing a Labour rally, the audience is willing you to do well and couldn’t care about the odd verbal clumsiness. So don’t alienate them. My guess that the School of Life crowd was likely to be cerebral, sceptical but open minded was correct (I think). I therefore addressed their sceptical side (winning them over) before appealing to their open-mindedness (with positive messages about self-help).

6) Give it pace. This may be just me but that old advice to slow down doesn’t suit the nervous speaker. With the Powerpoint as an aide mémoire, why not give it some welly? Rattle through the slides making fast but clear points that have your audience’s hearts racing. Certainly, it’s a great way to cover up any signs of nervousness.

7) Be funny. Levity is certainly appreciated. Because they are on your side, jokes tend to work, even if not that funny. I used visual gags – showing them the cover of my last book (with “me” standing in Union Jack boxer shorts) and the "surgically-enhanced" grin of Anthony Robbins on the jacket of Awaken the Giant Within to illustrate the cheesy aspects to self-help. They loved it!

8) Never slag the other speakers. Try and repeat their message (as long as you agree with it). This is a collegiate endeavour, after all. In fact, Philippa Perry, the previous speaker, said that psychotherapy could help build new neural pathways (challenging my claim that our insecurities were hard-wired). Actually, we were saying the same thing – differently. Try and find the common ground.

9) Be careful in the Q&A. The “charlatans” question threw me so I ended up just repeating my message about “the afflicted desperate for a cure” (though with much less clarity). In fact, this isn’t a bad strategy – repeat the message. Otherwise anecdotes that support the message may work. A trick I use when presenting at work is to answer the question by repeating the message but then asking the questioner if my answer satisfied. If not, that's fine as, by then, I’ve usually had a chance to think up a strong answer to the actual question.

10) Thank your hosts. And compliment them.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

On “nudge” – is it OK to agree with both sides?

Buoyed from my contribution to the School of Life’s Self-help Summit I had intended writing a blog about overcoming nerves when presenting to an audience. I may yet, but something happened at the event that created a more urgent need for me to articulate my thoughts: a major clash between two of the participants.

With my piece said and the Q&A navigated (in fact I was probably a bit full of myself by then and the chairman – Oliver Burkeman of The Guardian – had trouble wrestling back the microphone) I sat back to listen to Frank Furedi: a professor of sociology at the University of Kent. His big thing is scaremongering, and how competing groups in the modern world have fostered a culture of fear and paranoia.

Of course, the self-help industry is a small part of this but, for Furedi, the worst offender is government. Nearly all governments of whatever stripe indulge in behavioural management to try and manipulate their citizens, he said (going as far as to use the word “brainwashing”). Governments have assumed the role of suggesting what is and isn’t appropriate for the rest of us with respect to acceptable behaviour and have even shaped policy accordingly (witness this week’s minimum alcohol price imposition in England). Yet, according to Furedi, this has become so ingrained, he feels we are heading towards a form of “soft totalitarianism”.

Furedi was immediately followed by Nic Marks – who walked down to the speaking area loudly berating Furedi for his criticisms of what Marks called the “well-being agenda”. Indeed, Marks is founder of the Centre for Well-Being, part of the New Economics Foundation, although his ire appeared to have been particularly tweaked by the criticisms of the current government’s “nudge” initiative.

For Furedi, Downing Street’s “nudge unit” is the government “elbowing into our private lives”. It is “telling citizens how to think”. Meanwhile, for Marks, not only does he support the idea of government taking up the cause of well-being amongst the citizenry (a stated aim of the nudge unit), he saw it as a vital factor in community cohesion and even sustainability. In fact, Marks’s main problem wasn’t government intervention into the private realm but the fact the well-being initiative was being championed by the Tory-led coalition (giving rise to such verbal contortions such as “libertarian paternalism”).

For me, the clash was a coincidence because I’d been reading the book behind the controversy (and the inspiration for the creation of the nudge unit within Downing Street) – Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein.

So what is “nudge”?

“A nudge...is any aspect of choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding options or significantly changing their economic incentives,” write Thaler and Sunstein.

The book states that every choice presentation is weighted and shaped by the way it is presented. So we can frame choices consciously and ethically in order to “help” people make better decisions regarding their lives. Of course, they remain free but have been nudged in the right direction.

Much of the concern here is focused on the lower orders – helping people choose work rather than benefits-dependence, for instance, or contraception over unprotected sex, or social responsibility over unsociable behaviour.

Yet it can extend to moral concerns further up the social scale. One example is organ donation. Currently, most jurisdictions require “explicit consent” from donors but if a democratic society decided organ donations are a social positive they could switch to “presumed consent”, or perhaps “mandated choice” in which, say, driving licence holders must specify a preference. Such a change – from an “opt in” to an “opt out” – maintains freedom of choice but makes the commonly-perceived social benefit clear and nudges society forward.

The environment provides other examples. For instance, with recycling, simply labelling litter bins “for landfill” and “for recycling” allows people to make an informed choice while being encouraged towards the socially beneficial action – or at least informed of the true consequences of taking a certain path.

So what could be wrong with this? Plenty, according to Furedi. He stated four clear objections:

1) The devaluation of moral independence – basically the notion that others not only know what is or isn’t in our interest, but morally engineer us towards their will.

2) Nudge and other such initiatives erode our capacity to develop a capacity for judgement, he states. We end up simply outsourcing our judgement to the government.

3) It also erodes the separation between the public and private sphere, and devalues the private sphere while doing so.

4) Having the government dictate our well-being will disorient us and even increase our anxieties.

The trouble is I agree with Furedi on every point – yet I still support the “nudge” initiative. Apart from being morally and intellectually confused, can I explain myself? Well, yes. Furedi is morally and intellectually right – his four objections are all valid in my view. Yet this isn’t about morals and intellect, despite being presented that way. In reality – given the stresses and strains on the tiny piece of real estate called the UK – “nudge” is a very practical way of trying to rub along without having to get too authoritarian about it.

Here’s my take on a very practical defence:

1) Given the growing population and growing competition for resources (especially in crowded cities such as London) waiting for others to develop judgement – and meanwhile suffering the consequences of their behaviour – is unfair on those with judgement. Most people agree that personal freedom only extends to the point it impacts others. Yet increasingly, (and with respect to noise, light, rubbish, parking, resources, education and just about anything else you can think of) someone else’s behaviour has an impact sooner rather than later.

2) It is ridiculous to assume there is no such thing as a vulnerable person. Judgement, like intelligence, is not a given – it varies wildly. Just as some people need help with their reading, others will make poor decisions without guidance. Especially given the decline of the nuclear family, someone has to offer (unforced) guidance – if not a government agency, who would you suggest?

3) Indeed, who should be the arbiter of our behaviour? The loudest, the greediest, the most aggressive – even the richest? Seems like a democratically-elected government is the best potential arbiter, although it should perhaps work within a framework of limitations (such as a Bill of Rights).

4) Sure “nudge” can be patronising, but – in many ways (such as the bin-labelling mentioned above) – it is encouraging the liberation of judgement. For instance, who now is against food labelling? Yet left to itself, I think it unlikely the food industry would have willingly adopted a practice that so liberated the judgement of the consumer.

5) Sure, government intervention can increase dependencies, even moral dependencies – if that’s the result you are after – but they can also encourage autonomy. For instance, if people are made aware of the consequences of their behaviour (such as the wayward youth impregnating unemployed teenage women and generating a £1m plus benefits liability) then we have at least sorted the arrogant from the ignorant – and can therefore take a view on how we deal with both.

Friday, January 14, 2011

The revenge of the nerd

A long flight and I finally get to see The Social Network, the recently released movie on the founding of Facebook. As an entrepreneur I find the execution of ideas into reality fascinating, hence my addiction to programmes such as Dragon’s Den and The Apprentice despite their being run through the inevitable anti-business mangle of the BBC (making anyone interested in business appear dodgy, unlikeable and/or criminal). No less so Hollywood, it seems, as The Social Network quickly descends into a near-farce of backstabbing perfidiousness and intrigue, whatever the historical reality.

Like most people, I watch movies developing either sympathy or antipathy towards the main characters, although I’m often attracted or repelled in the inverse to the director’s most obvious intentions. Yet this was a difficult one to call, as the scriptwriter’s (Aaron Sorkin’s) obvious intention of pointing out accredited founder Mark Zuckerberg’s character flaws was balanced by the lack of other characters deserving support.

The narrative focuses on Zuckerberg’s defence against two law suits aimed at recognizing the significant role played by others in the creation of Facebook. Zuckerberg is portrayed as an disagreeable misanthropist whose lack of empathy for his fellow students borders on Asperger’s Syndrome (although an online debate on the subject concludes against this notion). His misanthropy – it seems – extended to shafting a group of New England aristos (Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra) who claimed the idea as their own and Zuckerberg as originally no more than their recruited programmer. It also extended to freezing out Paul Ceglia, the original funder of Zuckerberg’s venture, and apparently the only person on campus with a favourable view of our inventor prior to his success with Facebook.

My empathy was certainly not triggered by the plight of the aristos. As Zuckerberg said (at least in the movie), their ire was triggered by the fact this was the first time in their lives that something had not gone their way. Astonished by Zuckerberg’s chutzpah – a boy they seemed to consider an unattractive, unclubbable outsider – they used daddy’s attorney to plot retribution for the “stolen” idea.

Partly, my lack of empathy for the aristos comes from my former role as Metrocube CEO, where we witnessed many start-up companies in our London incubators and developed an insight into what entrepreneurial contributions counted, and what didn’t. One contribution that counted for very little was the idea. In fact, it counted for nothing – zilch – in our view because we saw that execution was everything. And if you lacked the skills to execute your idea – as the aristos appeared to – you were vulnerable to those that had such skills, as the aristos discovered. One of the reasons we believed this at Metrocube was because it was clear that, in any given set of circumstances, several if not many people were capable of having the same idea simultaneously.

In the case of Facebook (again going by the movie), it was various houses at Harvard College that had the original online “facebook” (yes, even apparently using that name) for undergraduates. So to make the leap into a cross campus Facebook, with added functionality for further personal details, was such a small leap of imagination that it hardly even deserves the credit of being an idea (not least because MySpace was well established at the time). From what I could see, it was simply a race to market and it was the aristos’ bad luck to “employ” (there was no sign of a contract) a programmer with entrepreneurial ambition.

Or was it such bad luck? I’m just going on the movie (and some fact-checking on Wiki) but the aristos won a substantial settlement ($65m according to the movie, $20m according to Wiki), which – in my view – they can put down to their fabulous luck in choosing Zuckerberg as their programmer. Anyone else and no enterprise would have gotten off the ground, giving them no one to sue for "their" brilliant idea (and I’d wager there are others who also claim the idea). Daddy’s attorney certainly earned his fee on that one (as stated, just an opinion based purely on the movie).

Yet my empathy did extend to Zuckerberg’s “only friend” (as he called himself during his lawsuit) and the original funder of the venture – roommate Paul Ceglia. While ideas are cheap (free even), risking cash at such an early stage deserves reward. And Facebook would have remained no more than an idea without Ceglia’s $1,000 – making his “three-F” stage investment (friends, family and fools) crucial.

So what of Zuckerburg himself? The misfit, the geek, the social outcast – this is a difficult character to empathise with, not least because he doesn’t seem to seek our empathy. In the movie, at least, he seeks revenge – against his girlfriend for dumping him, against all womankind (at least on campus) for finding him unattractive, against the college establishment, against the WASP jocks that guarded entry to the elite clubs and houses at Harvard.

In terms of social skills Zuckerburg appears to follow the Millwall FC mantra of “no one likes us, but we don’t care”. At least, he seems to accept his unpopularity as a price for his genius. Arrogance is the result, as well as an entrepreneurial clumsiness that most will see as typical of the billionaire mindset although, in most cases, leads to disaster and no eventual movie portrayal. Even for Zuckerburg, it resulted in lawsuits that – in the case of Ceglia at least – could and should have been avoided with a more synergistic approach.

One obvious question for this blog is whether Zuckerburg is a High-FF (someone with a high fear of failure, as described in What’s Stopping You?)? I think not. Certainly his social awkwardness is a High-FF trait, although the key aspect of High-FF behaviour he lacks is avoidance. He jumps right in – elbowing others out of the way in the process. Convinced of his messianic mission, he remains focused on the end result and is happy to make small adjustments on the way (such as dropping “the” from the title). This makes Zuckerburg more a classic High-AM (those with high achievement motivation – the opposite to a High-FF).

Nor Ceglia, who was happy to back Zuckerburg with cash on more than one occasion prior to the website earning a dime. No, the real High-FFs in the story (at least as portrayed by the movie) were the three aristos who claimed the original idea, outsourced it to a “doer” – thus ceding control to the High-AM – and then complained bitterly that their idea had been stolen. Only their rich daddy and his attorney saved them from achieving nothing from “their idea” – like millions of High-FFs before them who have also had ideas and then failed to act.

Not all High-FFs, it seems, are deserving of empathy.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

Don’t let the “laws” of power render you powerless

A while back, struggling to win influence over a business partner that seemed to out-fox me at every turn, I read the newly-published book by Robert Greene called The 48 Laws of Power. It was a great book – full of intrigue and subterfuge. Yet it did me no good at all. My partner seemed to have power in his DNA and I so lacked the courage to implement the “laws” that I actually found them alienating. Far from giving me power, the book seemed to point out my innate lack of power.

The 48 Laws... is enjoying a revival, so I thought I would revisit it. Given my research for What’s Stopping You? - my book on fear of failure (TBP March 2011 by Capstone/Wiley) - could I now make use of Greene's prose? Could I even feel that he was addressing me: a confessed High-FF (as I call someone with high fear of failure in the book)?

Many of the laws still seem to be addressing somebody else in my view – the school bully perhaps or the overly-ambitious office toady. Even after my immersion into the world of self-help and psychology – aimed at making me a more effective human being – I’m unconvinced that such aggressive traits will work for the High-FF, or anyone else for that matter. Why? Because the book forgets one crucial piece of information – THERE IS NO WAR.

For instance Law 15 states you should “destroy your enemy” – “drowning every smoldering ember”. Sorry, you mean we have to murder the guy in the office that also wants that promotion? Jeez, this seems a bit of an over-reaction to me but, agreed, anything short of that does mean they will live to potentially plot against us (especially if they have read Greene’s book).

We are not in the medieval court of an Italian prince so such advice is total garbage as far as I’m concerned – not least because it is also contradictory. For instance Law 2 tells us to “…understand the utility of enemies”, and even suggests we go as far as hiring them – not that they’ll be much use if we’ve “drowned their every smoldering ember”.

Certainly, hiring “enemies” seems like a more mature response than drowning them, but why see them as enemies? We’re in an office, not on a battlefield. Our colleagues have the same hopes and aspirations – and probably many of the same insecurities. Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People suggests we should “synergize” with people – which, indeed, means seeking their utility for our needs (and vice versa). Another Covey habit states will should seek “win:win” outcomes. Again, this seems far more effective to me than constantly fighting battles to some theoretical death – especially for the High-FF who has a poor record when it comes to “win:lose” outcomes.

Quickly – once again – I became disillusioned with The 48 Laws..., although this time from a more learned perspective. In the modern age, these laws couldn’t teach us anything useful – could they? Certainly, the High-FF reads such a book and spots the traits of his or her rivals rather than feels they’re applicable to his or her own situation. There are 48 of them, however. So surely there’s something we can learn beyond the simple truth that we are unlikely to make our way to the top via Machiavellian scheming? In fact I thought around 20 of the rules had some applicability – listed below with my added interpretation for the High-FF.

Law 1: “Never eclipse your superiors”. Your role in any subordinate situation is not to point out or exaggerate their failings but to be useful and support their needs. The unsupportive route caused universal frustration, where you are the most likely loser. The supportive route – even for someone you disrespect – engenders progress. Don’t worry: their defects are known (but may be less than you suppose), as are your competences (ditto).

Law 5: “Protect your reputation”. Given my last book, I can speak from experience here. Once damaged – by foolish or poorly thought-through acts – you will struggle to regain your standing. In What’s Stopping You? I talk of becoming “principles centred” (another reference to Stephen Covey). Undermine those principles and any attempt to publicly impose them will be almost impossible.

Law 6: “Make yourself the centre of attention”. This is not as vain-glorious as it sounds. The main aim here is to not toil in obscurity. Ensure that your acts become known. Don’t be boastful but don’t deny your talents.

Law 9: “Win by deeds not by debate”. Don’t tell people your intentions – show them. Never argue with people (a trait of mine that has won me no friends and lost me many). Act.

Law 10: “Shun losers”. My own interpretation of this is not as harsh as it sounds. At work, many High-FFs hang out in what I call the Negative Club – the malcontents huddling together and moaning about the company or a particular line manager. Progress while part of this gang is all but impossible.

Law 11: “Tell part of the truth and be tactically generous”. Just about every other “law” recommends some form of deceit, so here’s one that states the opposite (albeit in conspiratorial language). Truth is crucial for trust. And trust radiates positivity. People relax in your company and offer you insight and opportunity. Don’t abuse it.

Law 13: “When you ask for help, let people know what’s in it for them”. This takes us back to Covey’s synergistic win:wins. Again, couched in the language of deceit – all this is saying is that human relationships need to be a two-way street that you should initiate. Just make sure you repay your debts, with interest.

Law 14: “Seem to be a friend to gather intelligence”. I’m getting a bit tired of the cloak and dagger stuff to be honest. How about “be a friend”? “Disarm rivals by seeming to be a friend” says Greene. Remove the word “seeming” and this is good advice for the High-FF. Add the word “seeming” and you’ll be found out and distrusted for evermore.

Law 19: “Know with whom you deal: give no offence to the powerful”. In Why Should the Boss Listen to You (2008) strategic adviser James Lukaszewski states that your advice to the boss should always be constructive. “Constructive criticism” is an oxymoron for Lukaszewski as negative comments will stop the boss listening. Seniors are mostly looking for confirmation from juniors. As for “being able to read people” as the law suggests: fine, but don’t over analyse – most characters are complex, and your misjudgements may lead to mistakes.

Law 20: “Make no promises”. Part of this law states “avoid inseparable allies”, which I agree with. These are mostly weak people clinging to a lifeboat. You should not seek nor be a lifeboat. Develop your own goals and judge everything (people, places, situations) by those goals. Alliances (especially “inseparable” ones) can easily lead you from the path.

Law 21: “Play dumb”. Disarm your “victims” (oh, dear) by making them feel smart, Greene states. Certainly, parading your intelligence is setting you up for a fall, while compliments regarding the astute acts and habits of others will be fondly remembered, so this is good advice despite the aggressive language.

Law 22: “Surrender to gain power”. Forget going down in a blaze of glory – defeat is always inglorious so you may as well live to fight another day. When we judge a fight unwinnable we should back off and wait, says Greene. Of course, this is a recipe for sulking and scheming – two traits that will undermine you. Seeking a win:win, meanwhile, makes the notion of surrender redundant.

Law 23: “Focus your strength”. This is good advice to anyone with a lot on their plate. I always tell my team to imagine themselves guarding a footbridge with the marauders (i.e. tasks) being tackled one-one-one. Far better than standing on a beach and watching the invaders overwhelm you from all angles. “Pick one point and bring all your forces to bear on it” is really just effective task management – battle analogies aside.

Law 24: “Be courtly”. “The courtier is adept at intrigue and manipulation” says Greene. But, as a High-FF, you are not – so best focus on other courtly traits such as good manners and flattery.

Law 29: “Plan everything”. Absolutely. What’s Stopping You? goes into meticulous detail regarding goal-setting, strategising and planning. With long-term goals and detailed plans towards achieving them, progress is almost impossible to avoid. In fact you could rename the “self-help” section of the bookshop “set goals and plan” and it would be no less accurate.

Law 34: “Play the king and people will treat you royally”. This is not a treatise for pomposity. It is simply saying that if you conduct yourself well it will be noticed and you will be treated well. Look and act like a loser, meanwhile…

Law 35: “Timing is everything”. Sometimes impossible to know without hindsight but poor timing can destroy your plans. Yet this is more than mere luck. Detailed plans and strong research can usually uncover the secrets of good timing.

Law 38: “Don’t look for a free lunch: disdain it”. If something is worth having it is worth paying for. All freebies extract a price eventually – so even a favour from a colleague MUST be repaid, in triplicate. Again, this is a law the High-FF has to most often learn the hard way – so often have they baulked at the cost of their own journey and jumped on the free bandwagon, only to find it taking them to the bandwagon owner’s destination.

Law 43: “Win hearts and minds”. Forcing anyone to act on your behalf will breed resentment and eventual rebellion. Even Greene's recommendation of winning them by “guile, flattery and craft” will explode in your face if caught. What’s wrong with persuading someone something’s in their long-term interest: because it is? Spend your life building alliances, not fighting enemies.

Law 47: “When you reach your goal stop”. Carry on selling once the sale is made and, the chances are, you’ll talk yourself out of a sale. Yet I’d change “goal” to “target” here, as stopping the moment a long-term goal is reached risks undermining the achievement with stagnation. In fact, we should also replace "stop" with "set new ones" as we should always be setting future goals, especially once our original goals have been achieved.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Rules for alpha (and beta) males

Picked up a copy of FHM magazine in the gym and became fascinated by a feature entitled: How to Become an Alpha Male. In fact the feature consisted of no more than a series of pithy statements from various individuals the magazine had judged as qualifying for the title.

These statements, and their authors, were a diverse bunch including Clint Eastwood, Sean Connery and assorted actors, sportsmen and entrepreneurs who all had “life pretty licked” according to FHM. So I was interested to hear their philosophies, some of which were – frankly – nonsense. Actor Michael Madsen, for instance, thought it important to “knock out” strangers in hotel lobbies for staring at his wife (what a hero!). Indeed, there were plenty of other “take no shit” offerings from professional hardnuts with too much testosterone but there were also some everyday statements from successful people I thought worth noting – not least because many of those included in the survey had overcome barriers of one sort or another to achieve success.

So here they are (although most – please note – would have been much improved by some strong editing from FHM) – rules for wannabe alpha (and probably beta) males (and females) everywhere (at least my top 10 pick from around 50 statements).

Alan Sugar (entrepreneur with humble East End origins)
Be better: To succeed, you have to perform. Get on and do what you’re paid to do and come up with results. That’s the best way – if it’s selling something sell more, if it’s recruiting, recruit more people. In business, results are the only things that will get you noticed. Nothing else.

Accept your failures: You have to fail in order to know what not to do. There might be products that fail which you thought would be a big success, and products you thought would be a mild success which turn out to be blockbusters. In business, life is all about learning what not to do.

Donald Trump (property magnate and three times bankruptcy filer)
Never take your eye of the ball: In the ‘80s I was riding high, but I lost focus. I’d fly off to Europe to attend fashion shows, and I wasn’t looking at the clothing. My lack of attention was killing my business and when the real estate market crashed I ended up owing $9bn. But I learned my lesson.

Duncan Bannatyne (entrepreneur with Clydebank-hardman background including time spent in prison)
Don’t be a jerk: You don’t need to be. Whether it was health clubs, nurseries or nursing homes, I bought the land from someone who wanted to sell it, hired builders who wanted to build it and filled it with people who wanted to be in it. Why be ruthless?

Theo Paphitis (entrepreneur and dyslexic)
Decisions: Never be scared of getting a decision wrong – the simple trick is to get more right than wrong. The person who’s never got a decision wrong is the person who’s never made a decision.

Delegate: The trick is to aim to make yourself redundant. I promise you, you won’t actually be made redundant, because everybody looks for people who have got time on their hands. Make yourself redundant and you’ll get more work, and because of that you’ll progress.

Ron Jeremy (the world’s most famous male pornstar despite being quite unattractive)
Have an ego: A lot of people are very selfless; they’ll do things and never tell anyone that it was their idea. If you make a suggestion that the boss goes for and takes the credit for keep it in mind. And if there comes a day where your boss gets fired, remind your boss’ boss that it was actually your idea.

James Caan (entrepreneur with humble East End origins)
Sharpen your image: The boss has to lead, to be inspirational and motivational. And if you have a poor image or you’re a poor communicator then how can you be a good leader?

Valentino Rossi (motocycle racer and a bit of a spoilt lad by all accounts but had something to prove to daddy)
You’re nothing without back-up: I surround myself with the right people, the kind of team-mates who could lead me to my goals. That’s why my victories have never been down to coincidence. Everything has followed from the choices I made. I choose my teams.

Daniel Craig (commands the James Bond role despite many doubters)
You don’t have to be a show off: Can you imagine me driving around in an Aston Martin? To me, it’s kind of like, urgh. So I drive a small car. The important things in life have less to do with the amount of money I earn. It’s the simpler things.