My overriding objective is excellence, or more precisely, constant improvement. First and foremost, l want to have a culture of excellence that results in a superb and constantly improving company in all respects. To achieve excellence truth, or more precisely, one's accuracy in understanding reality, is essential. Openness, though it can be uncomfortable, is essential in getting at truth. Truth serves as the foundation for excellence, and openness helps to assure truth.

I'll do whatever it takes to make the company great, including the difficult and uncomfortable things. I need to have people around me who are similarly motivated, both because I cannot achieve the company's goals alone and because I would not want to (l want to work hard and celebrate the success with others). I have been very lucky in this regard

Conflict in the pursuit of excellence is a terrific thing and is strongly encouraged - in fact demanded. I want people to explore disagreements because this allows us to identify truth and overcome possible impediments to excellence. There should be no (or as little as possible) hierarchy. Certainly, there are organizational "superior/subordinate" relationships; however, every "subordinate" is encouraged to debate with his or her "superior" if he or she thinks they know the better way, and every "superior" is required to encourage this. These discussions should take place openly and, if disagreement remains, appropriately knowledgeable parties should be consulted. The "superior" is encouraged to only rarely use the authority of his or her position in determining the outcome. I want power to lie in the reasoning, not in the position, of the individual. While there are drawbacks to this approach (a lot of time can be spent in discussions, disagreements can produce tensions, etc.), the advantages (the decisions are likely to be better, evolution occurs faster, people who don't have seniority know that they can drive the decisions, relationships are often strengthened, etc.) outweigh them. Clearly this approach isn't perfect, but it is the best I know of because I believe it is most likely to foster excellence.

Like conflict, identifying problems and mistakes is an essential ingredient in the improvement process. The biggest impediment to improvement in most companies is that people tend to tie their egos to problems and mistakes and, as a result, are reluctant to identify and talk openly about them. They inevitably view identifying problems and mistakes as personal attacks and shy away from dealing with them. lnstead, problems and mistakes should be expected and criticism (i.e., the identification of problems and mistakes) should be viewed as constructive, not destructive. Problems and mistakes are good things—if we learn from them and improve. What matters most is how people deal with them. lf they objectively diagnose mistakes and establish ways of not repeating them, that's great. lf they avoid facing up to them and don't alter what they are doing, this is unacceptable. As with conflict, there should be no hierarchy in the giving or receiving of criticism and it should be done openly. I have learned a lot from people pointing out my problems and mistakes, and I genuinely want criticism; I assume the same to be true for all others here.

I believe that another ingredient for success is having a group of people that want to be on a shared mission of excellence. By shared mission, I am referring to:

1) one's recognition of the responsibilities one has to help the team achieve its common goals.

2) the willingness to help others (i.e., work within a group) toward these common goals. This involves the realization that we are a community in which our fates are intertwined. For the company to be successful, every area of the company must work very well; if one area fails, the system breaks down. As the saying goes, we are as strong as our weakest link, and this is why the individual must recognize his or her importance and obligations to the whole organization. When this behavior exists, people also know that others can be relied on to go to extraordinary lengths to help. As a corollary, substandard performance cannot be tolerated anywhere in the company because it would hurt everyone. Poor performance and/or uncooperative attitudes undermine the team. One of the most difficult responsibilities a team leader has is to cut poor performers, particularly those who are trying but don't have the ability. This is often perceived as harsh or unkind, but it is ultimately best for everyone, including the person who is being cut. If you like being challenged and performing up to your potential, SUPER is the right place for you. If you are thin-skinned and don't like conflict or criticism, you should be somewhere else.

Obviously, everyone here has high standards for their own achievement, but it is not likely that individuals hold themselves to standards that they might not be able to achieve. The philosophy of SUPER is such that individuals are held to the highest possible standards, and the goal is to get people to achieve far beyond their previous standards and expectations. You have to understand that SUPER is not about plodding along at some kind of moderate standard; it is about working like hell to reach a standard that is extraordinarily high, and then getting the satisfaction that comes with that kind of achievement.

To be clear, it is not to make lots of money. lf faced with the choice between pursuing excellence and making lots of money, l'd choose the excellence, though they are integrally tied (not only does this mode of operating often produce financial success, but financial success provides the resources to pursue excellence). Because they are so integrally related, they can easily get confused. I don't think one can achieve real excellence in order to make money because making money would then be the goal, not excellence. They are two different goals. When faced with the choice, excellence will be cheated. Money doesn't bring happiness; the pursuit of excellence does. Pursuit of excellence can take many forms

The company is like an ecosystem in that for us to flourish, people have to be both productive and nourished. There has to be a healthy balance. lf there's lots of productivity and not commensurate pay, we will experience turnover and ruin the system; similarly, if there isn't productivity, there can't be good pay. So, I want to pay people in proportion to their contributions and above the market. I believe that while money is a relatively poor motivation for people (because good people will work well regardless and poor people won't improve because of it), we will certainly lose the right type of people (i.e., motivated and capable) if they are not well paid. Besides, it would undermine the high morale that comes from sharing the benefits and treating people well.

As an extension of the 'pay-and-promote based on productivity' philosophy, there is comparatively little age and seniority-based hierarchy in terms of compensation and responsibility. Over time people will develop track records. Based on these track records, their responsibilities and compensation can change quickly. For this reason, quite young people who have what it takes can advance at a fast pace. Seniority and experience only matter if they contribute to superior performance.