????巴爾扎克曾說過，“每一筆巨大的財富背后都隱藏著罪惡。”

????在過去的幾周里，我們已經(jīng)聽說了有關Facebook和Twitter的一系列惡性傳言。據(jù)這些傳言稱，F(xiàn)acebook的創(chuàng)始人盜用了美國一對奧運會選手攣生兄弟的創(chuàng)意，又從做木板生意的騙子那里弄到了2,000美元的第一桶金，隨后，他還使得向他提供過發(fā)展資金的哈佛同窗的發(fā)財夢化為泡影。而Twitter就像是那個歪門邪道的創(chuàng)業(yè)者的私生子。他告訴最早的投資人Twitter一文不值。這樣，他就能自我標榜英雄一般以成本價回購Twitter的股份。而在此以后，他又向人們展示Twitter真正的價值，奇怪的是，即便他們死命地想要重新投資，這個創(chuàng)始人卻根本沒有讓他們?nèi)缭傅拇蛩?。哦，忘了提一句，他不但炒掉了Twitter真正的創(chuàng)始人，而且具有奧威爾式（Orwellian）諷刺意味的是，他在媒體采訪中假裝從沒有這樣一個人存在過。

????我不知道這些故事哪怕有半句屬實。坦白地說，我倒不在乎，而且，我也相信，任何沒有真正牽扯其中的人除了“八卦價值”之外，都無需太在意它們的真實性(不過也許“八卦價值”本身就是一種矛盾修飾法的表達方式。)也會有一些人堅持認為這些事件的真實性直指兩位創(chuàng)始人的道德品行，甚至可能是這兩家公司的企業(yè)文化，因此公眾必須知道真相。我認為這太荒謬了，這就是本文所抨擊的。

????如果要我用一個形容詞來描述所有極度成功的創(chuàng)業(yè)人士，那就是“離經(jīng)叛道”。要創(chuàng)辦一家公司，重新定義一個行業(yè)，或是像Facebook那樣重新定義社會的大部分，就需要這種特質(zhì)。這絕非君子可為。表面看來，其膽大妄為，且顛覆常理，又荒誕可笑。創(chuàng)業(yè)者必須堅持不懈(頑固不化)，具有說服力(靈活應變)并且立志高遠(癡心妄想)。

????請不要把這些話看作是對真正的犯罪或不道德行為的辯護。我們絕不會和一個真道德淪喪的壞家伙共同創(chuàng)業(yè)。而且，可以肯定的是，如果所有有關Facebook和Twitter的惡意指控都是真的，它們的創(chuàng)始人將面臨更多的質(zhì)問。如果要查看一個創(chuàng)業(yè)者的背景資料，我絕對是會重點了解他的道德品行。這對于我而言極其重要，因為這樣我就能完全相信那些和我在同一戰(zhàn)壕并肩作戰(zhàn)的伙伴。

????話雖如此，我卻痛苦地意識到，這個世界充滿了“灰色地帶”。所以，除了追求創(chuàng)業(yè)者優(yōu)秀的個人特質(zhì)之外，我還希望他們能夠和我團結(jié)一心。坦白說，假如一個我非常敬重的企業(yè)家突然跑過來說要按照原價收購我的股份，讓我退出他獨自單干，我是一定不會答應的，絕對不會。

????投資人給我錢，是希望我能幫他們生錢，我從來沒想過要把股份賣給創(chuàng)始人（不過出于其他的原因，有時候我會收購一些創(chuàng)始人愿意出售的股份）。再進一步來說，當我打電話調(diào)查他們的背景的時候，我有時會聽到一些看似很糟糕的事情。不過我會往好的方面去理解。比如，“約翰有一個壞習慣，向客戶承諾根本不存在的事情，然后抓狂似地去兌現(xiàn)承諾”，“吉爾交代你做事的時候非常苛刻，不達目的誓不罷休?！庇只蛘?，“賽斯對自己的手下要求很多，有時會讓一些實力欠佳的員工崩潰累趴。”

????要知道，說出上述之言的，是和一個企業(yè)家結(jié)了婚，而且和一個企業(yè)家合伙創(chuàng)業(yè)的人（謝天謝地，這兩個企業(yè)家不是同一個）。我自己就是一家公司的創(chuàng)始團隊成員之一。我在大學期間同住的10個男生幾乎全都自己開了公司，或是和別人合伙創(chuàng)業(yè)了。也許我的工作最好的地方就在于能夠和那些超出常人效率的多面手共事(我投資的那些公司的首席執(zhí)行官們)。但我們也應該坦誠地面對改變世界所需要的力量。不僅是咄咄逼人的強勢，而是巴爾扎克那樣的境界。

????本文作者馬特·哈里斯（Matt Harris）是Village Ventures的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人和公司董事合伙人。Village Ventures是一家初期風險投資公司，旗下管理著1.75億美元的資金。

????翻譯：C.Z.

????As Balzac once said, "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime."

????In the past few weeks, we have been treated to scandalous-if-true stories about the foundings of Facebook and Twitter. Allegedly, Facebook was founded by the guy who stole the idea from a set of Olympian twins, ripped off a wood-chip dealing fraudster for his first $2k of investment and then screwed the college buddy who provided him with additional growth capital. Twitter was the bastard child of a devious founder, who convinced his early investors that it was worthless so he could look like a hero for buying them back at cost, only then to reveal the true glory of the product and, oddly, not even let most of them invest back in later when they tried their damndest to do so. Oh, he also fired the real founder and, in an Orwellian turn, pretends the guy never existed in press interviews.

????I have no idea if these stories are even partially true. Frankly, I don't care, and am pretty sure anyone who isn't actually involved shouldn't care much either, beyond gossip value (though perhaps "gossip value" is an oxymoron). There will be those who insist that the veracity of these claims goes directly to the moral fiber of the founders, and hence perhaps the culture of these companies, and that therefore we all have to know the truth. I think that take is ridiculous, and that's the thrust of this post.

????If I had to pick one adjective that describes all radically successful founders, it would be "transgressive." That trait is what it takes to start a company that attempts to redefine an industry, or, like Facebook, redefine large parts of society. It is not a polite thing to do. It is audacious, disruptive and preposterous on the face of it. Founders have to be persistent (bullheaded), persuasive (flexible with the truth) and visionary (delusional).

????Please don't take this as a defense of actually criminal, or even unethical, behavior. We would never work with a founder who was guilty of what we considered an actual ethical lapse, and surely if all of the allegations regarding Twitter and Facebook are true, those founders have a lot to answer for. When I'm checking references on a founder, I definitely focus about integrity and ethics. It's incredibly important to me that I can implicitly trust the people I'm in a foxhole with.

????Having said that, I'm painfully aware that the world is full of gray areas. So what I always pursue, in addition to positive character references, is 100% alignment. To be honest, if an entrepreneur I really respected came to me and offered to buy me out for 1X my money, and said he was going to carry on with the project without me, I WOULD ALWAYS SAY NO. Always.

????I don't get paid to return 1X to my investors, and I never want to sell when one of my founders is buying (although occasionally I do buy when they are selling, for other reasons.) Further, when I'm doing these reference calls, I sometimes hear things that seem bad, but I interpret as good: "John had a bad habit of promising things to the client that didn't exist, then scrambling like mad to backfill those capabilities;" "When Jill wants something, she can be pretty hard to deal with until she gets what she's after;" or "Seth asked a lot of his people, and would occasionally burn some of his weaker performers out."

????You should know that all of this comes from a guy who is married to an entrepreneur, and started a firm with one (different people, thankfully). I am a charter member of the cult of the founder. Of the 10 guys I lived with in college, nearly all have started a company or been on a founding team. Perhaps the best part of my job is getting to spend time with people who do 10 impossible things before breakfast (i.e., my portfolio company CEOs). But we should be honest about what it takes to change the world. It takes more than chutzpah. It takes Balzac.

????Matt Harris is co-founder and Managing General Partner of Village Ventures, an early stage venture capital firm with over $175M under management.