On May 24, 1626, Minuit was credited with purchasing the island from the natives (most likely the Lenape tribe [2]) in exchange for trade goods valued at 60 guilders.

I use this example because I wish to underscore several aspects of entrepreneurship that stand out — primarily because they were not very well established in this case, and that has led to hundreds of years of deeply lacking “goodwill“.

Goodwill is a central element in business, but it hardly gets noticed — indeed: it is usually overlooked. Goodwill was perhaps the only thing that made the deal to buy Manhattan Island on May 24, 1626 possible — but goodwill did not suffice.

First of all: This deal did not involve any kind cultural (or “inter-cultural”) understanding. It is often stated that the Native American Indians had little or no notion whatsoever of “land ownership” or similar property rights. Therefore, there was probably no mutual understanding of what the deal meant (or whether it could even be called a “deal” at all).

Another element that is apparently missing here is the idea of a partnership that transcends the moment-in-time transaction.

Yet perhaps the gravest failure is the exploitation aspect — the idea often referred to by the colloquialism: “take the money and run”. This undermining of trust in partnerships is the hallmark of fly-by-night operations lacking lasting cooperation and/or commitment.

The most significant point, in my opinion, is to recognize that achievements are always achieved through the cooperation of several “stakeholders”, they are not the work of individuals alone. Any successful entrepreneur could easily name a long list of “collaborators“. Anyone who is out to ditch or dupe people they have entered into partnership with are doomed to fail (and that should be obvious).

What may not be obvious enough is the recognition given to partners. In contrast, the territory is littered with cases of poor business ethics — e.g. Google’s recent high profile poaching case.

Group Nominations Post Forum