The era of the Visionaries
What are the defining character traits of true visionaries? Funny how a football match can take you along a stream of consciousness.
When Ruben Amorim of Manchester United and Ange Postecoglou of Tottenham Hotspurs faced off in the high stakes Europa League final back in May, quite naturally comparisons were being drawn between the two men on both their style of play and tactics on the pitch. Part of the spotlight was also on the similarities in their personalities and the defiant style of dealing with the press off it, and the state they (and the club) found themselves in at the end of a long and arduous season.
The Athletic ran an interesting piece back in January on the rise of Visionaries in football using both Amorim and Ange as an example, and how results, although still of prime importance have given way to an ‘identity’ and principles focused approach at most clubs. It is important to win still, but its even more important how you win.
The game has evolved and fans (and the players) need to believe in the ‘project’. Literally this is the word clubs use to sell the vision to get both players and fans on board. Managers or Head Coaches who are in the driving seat are therefore more suited for the role if they themselves are more visionary than pragmatic, not focused on just getting the next 3 points or the title but creating a style and culture in and around the club.
“I do not know what a Plan B or C is, … If people want me to change my approach, it’s not going to change. We are doing it for a reason.” - Ange Postecoglou after losing 6-3 to Liverpool last season
“I cannot change my idea in one day because we will lose much more now,…I was here because of my idea and I will continue to do my idea until the end,… “I have to sell my idea,… I don’t have another one.” - Ruben Amorim after one of the many losses last season
I wondered, so this is what defines a visionary then. The psychological resistance of falling short time after time but sticking to your identity and what you believe in. And then came the night of the final, two visionaries facing off for a European title, and most importantly a spot in the Champions League next season.
One of them stayed their visionary self sticking to their principles, and the other got their most Jose Mourinho style pragmatism out. Defending deep and counter attacking. Something they had not really turned to throughout the season. And no it was not Jose’s compatriot Amorim, but Ange.
This was where one could separate the real visionary who put everything on the line for what he believed in (and fell short most of the times), from someone who shifted to a relatively safer approach when the stakes were the highest - A European (or any) title the club never won, and his own job being at risk. Interestingly, the pragmatist won but still got the axe, while the visionary who lost, and lost badly is still there trying to build something he believes in from the start.
It was fascinating to notice and think about the tiny details that could have made a difference. The environment they were in - one being told he can keep building even if he fails at the first big test, while the other probably told that it was now or never. The difference between having the option of taking a risk, failing, getting embarrassed while still sticking to the path you want to be on. Long term vision and identity vs delivering short term results under pressure.
Similar instances can be found throughout history - in business, technology and investing about certain visionaries who did not give in when the going got tough and found certain early backers at their side who bought into that vision, being equally, if not more critical to turn that into reality.
A few examples below, albeit from the ‘extremistan’ - rare instances of unforeseeable events where many unknown unknowns play a role in driving the outcomes. Also guilty of ignoring the embedded survivorship bias in them in picking the best of the best. But we can all of easily relate to these stories and famed companies and founders, which makes it easier to drive home the point.
Steve Jobs and the Apple Resurrection (1997-1998)
When Jobs returned to a near-bankrupt Apple, board member Ed Woolard Jr. took enormous personal risk bringing back someone known for uncompromising decisions. Larry Ellison offered to help Jobs buy Apple outright, understanding that integrated hardware-software vision wasn't just different but necessary. With this backing, Jobs killed profitable product lines, bet everything on the iMac, and launched "Think Different" while hemorrhaging money. The early believers provided cover for decisions that looked insane but proved transformational.
Jeff Bezos and Amazon's Dot-Com Survival (2000-2001)
As Amazon's stock fell 94% and critics called it "Amazon.bomb," board member Tom Alberg and investor John Doerr provided crucial support for Bezos' "Day 1" philosophy. Alberg defended long-term infrastructure investments when other directors demanded immediate profitability. Doerr helped articulate the customer obsession strategy to the skeptical Wall Street. This patient capital allowed Bezos to accelerate expansion during the crash rather than retreat to short-term thinking.
Elon Musk and Tesla's Production Hell (2018)
During Tesla's near-bankruptcy, early investor Antonio Gracias of Valor Equity and Larry Ellison doubled down when others fled. Gracias understood from the PayPal days that Musk's refusal to outsource manufacturing wasn't stubbornness but strategic necessity. These believers absorbed massive paper losses while providing the capital that let Musk sleep on factory floors and build production tents rather than compromise on vertical integration.
Zuck’s Facebook and early challenges
Peter Thiel's investment in Facebook is another example, from a time when it was still limited to college campuses. He recognized that Zuckerberg's obsession with authentic identity and real-name verification represented a fundamental shift from anonymous internet culture. When other social networks were adding games and entertainment features, Thiel supported Zuckerberg's insistence on maintaining Facebook's core identity focus. This patient capital allowed Facebook to resist the temptation to become a general entertainment platform and instead build the infrastructure for what became the social media revolution.
What connects all these examples to what I noticed about Amorim and Ange is that moment of ‘push come to shove’ - when external pressure demands compromise of core vision. Each visionary and their backer faced their ‘Europa League final moment’ where they could have pivoted to a safer, more conventional approach.
Which is also why the world of tech and finance and the amalgamation of it - venture investing fascinates me the more I learn about it and read stories like above. The early believers fail as often as the visionaries, but that one visionary may eventually compensate for all others that did not fulfill their vision (no offense to Adam Neumann and Sam Bankman-Fried ofc). They look for telltale signs about their builder’s character like:
What drives them to get up every day and work towards realising the vision?
Do the even believe in it themselves? Or is it borrowed conviction?
How do they think about failure? And uncertainty? And the high risk of never reaching their goal?
Most importantly, when the going gets tough, would they ‘pivot’ towards the safer bet? Or double down?
Something very intangible and hard to back by KPIs and data points but still of utmost importance. Not just for the investors but for the visionaries themselves. Managers with their players and founders with their founding team and early investors. A symbiotic relationship built on mutual risk-taking, where both parties understand that protecting the vision's integrity is more important than immediate returns or social approval.
Another thing I think about often in this context is a section in Jeff Bezos’ Amazon annual shareholders letter in 2021 on differentiation being key to survive today and avoiding being typical:
“In what ways does the world pull at you in an attempt to make you normal? How much work does it take to maintain your distinctiveness?
To keep alive the thing or things that make you special? We all know that distinctiveness – originality – is valuable. We are all taught to 'be yourself.' What I'm really asking you to do is to embrace and be realistic about how much energy it takes to maintain that distinctiveness. The world wants you to be typical – in a thousand ways, it pulls at you.
Don't let it happen. You have to pay a price for your distinctiveness, and it's worth it. The fairy tale version of 'be yourself' is that all the pain stops as soon as you allow your distinctiveness to shine.
That version is misleading. Being yourself is worth it, but don't expect it to be easy or free. You'll have to put energy into it continuously. The world will always try to make Amazon more typical – to bring us into equilibrium with our environment. It will take continuous effort, but we can and must be better than that."
The natural tendency of any system is to push us towards the mean, towards normalcy and what is safe and predictable. But building something special requires people who can resist this gravitational pull.
Today when ideas and thoughts propagate at light speed all over, and our thinking is being increasingly abrogated to algorithms and probabilistic models, the world starts to look even less distinctive than it already is. You see a lot of ‘safe and predictable’ everywhere you look. The proven business models, used playbooks, business school driven strategies, borrowed investment ideas, non original content, undifferentiated creators, the X thread bois, and the cringe inducing LinkedIn slop.
But every now and then you also see visionaries and their backers trying to stand out on their non conformist paths fighting this entropy Bezos talks about in the letter. We must cherish and respect their successes and failures, and support them when we can.
And if you did not know it already, Ruben Amorim has my full backing for this season, yet again. This is me not being delusional, but just a believer.
Until next time,
The Atomic Investor
👊