Facebook's story: From dorm room to Nasdaq

Source :indiaTimes , posted ON 12 Feb 2012 AT 12:53:42 


SAN FRANCISCO: Facebook filed to raise $5 billion in an initial public offering. Here are a few highlights of its meteoric rise, several of which were chronicled in David Fincher's seminal Oscar-winning 2010 movie, "The Social Network":


October 28, 2003
Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard psychology sophomore, writes "Facemash," a website that asked users to judge students' attractiveness based on their dorm-directory photos. The authorities -- and many students -- were not amused.

February 4, 2004
Zuckerberg launches Thefacebook.com, a social network that allows users to create basic profiles including personal information and photos.

February 10, 2004
Harvard students Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss and Divya Narenya send Zuckerberg a cease-and-desist letter, accusing Zuckerberg of independently developing thefacebook.com while he was hired to work on their social networking project, HarvardConnection.

June 2004
Peter Thiel, PayPal co-founder and venture capitalist, invests $500,000 in Facebook.

May 26, 2005
Accel Partners, the venture capital firm headed by investor Jim Breyer, invests $12.7 million in Facebook, valuing the company at roughly $100 million.

October 24, 2007
Microsoft Corp announces that it purchased a 1.6 per cent share of Facebook for $240 million, giving the company a total implied value of around $15 billion.


April 7, 2008
Facebook settles with the founders of "ConnectU", the Winklevoss twins and Divya Narendra, for a purported $65 million, according to promotional material later published by ConnectU's lawyers.

May 26, 2009
Russian investor Yuri Milner's Digital Sky Technologies invests $200 million for a 1.96 percent stake, bringing Facebook's value down to $10 billion.

June 3, 2010
Zuckerberg sweats profusely as he takes questions about Facebook's privacy policy while onstage at the All Things Digital conference. The episode, which the Twittering classes dubbed a "Nixon Moment," renewed questions about Zuckerberg's viability as the CEO of a company rumored to go public soon.

June 30, 2010
In one of the more bizarre twists in Facebook's history, New York businessman Paul D. Ceglia files suit against Zuckerberg, claiming he had struck a deal with the founder in 2003 for half of Facebook's revenue and rightfully owned 84 per cent of the company. Three successive lawyers withdrew from his legal team within a period of four months in late 2011. The litigation remains ongoing.

October 10, 2010
Columbia Pictures releases " The Social Network," a film about Facebook's beginning, directed by David Fincher and written by Aaron Sorkin.

January 2, 2011
Facebook raises $500 million from Goldman Sachs and Digital Sky Technologies in a deal that valued the company at $50 billion.

January 2011
Goldman controversially markets as much as $1.5 billion worth of Facebook shares to its private investors, but withdraws the offer from American clients on January 18 following intense media coverage and scrutiny from the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The offer was withdrawn because of accusations that it ran afoul of regulations prohibiting share-placement sponsors from aggressively promoting a deal to potential investors.

November 29, 2011
Facebook agrees to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it deceived users on what information it would keep private. The incident underscored how user concerns about privacy were spurring top-level government scrutiny of Silicon Valley.

January 25, 2012
Trading of Facebook shares is halted on the secondary market as rumors of an impending IPO gain steam.

February 1, 2012
Facebook files its Form S-1 with the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking to raise $5 billion in a highly anticipated IPO. Reuters

Are Successful People Nice?

Source :HBR:Art markman :9 feb 2012

Since Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence, we've recognized the importance of tuning into social and emotional factors in the workplace. But many popular depictions of the workplace don't show any evidence of that sensitivity. Mad Men, Wall Street, and others impress that in business, only the strong survive.

But emotional intelligence implies that successful leaders should be nice. And while being nice may have social benefits, does it pay?

The key is in how agreeable you are. Timothy Judge, Beth Livingston, and Charlice Hurst examined this trait in a paper[PDF] in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology this year. By way of background, conventional personality research defines agreeableness as two related qualities: (1) the extent to which you value getting along with others, and (2) the degree to which you are willing to be critical of others.

Using earnings data, the researchers found that men who rank high in agreeableness make substantially less than men who are less agreeable. Across studies, this difference was as high as $10,000 per year. Conversely, women's earnings were less affected. There was only a small earnings difference between women high and low in agreeableness, and it was often not statistically reliable.

So, why do these results differ for men and women? And why do nice guys finish last?

There is a stereotype that when men lead, they make decisions without concern for what other people think. Indeed, a final study in this same paper asked people to evaluate potential leadership candidates. Agreeable men were rated least attractive as potential leaders.

And as for nice guys (and to a lesser extent, nice women) finishing last, let's recall the two related qualities of agreeableness. Concerning a value for getting along, career advancement requires a willingness to ruffle feathers from time to time. Good leaders need to be able to tell people things that they do not want to hear. And honestly, putting yourself forward for a promotion means putting yourself before others.

Career success also involves being critical. While some managers may want to surround themselves with people who obediently agree, most want those who will find the flaws in a plan before it is implemented. Less agreeable people are prone to give this kind of criticism.

Of course, this is not license to be a jerk at work. The data also suggest that people lacking agreeableness are more likely to lose their jobs than agreeable ones. There is a big difference between being disagreeable and being unpleasant.

So, what can you do, whether you're more agreeable or not?

First, get to know yourself. There are plenty of quizzes out there to measure the "Big Five" personality dimensions. Find one, take it, and get an objective sense of how agreeable you are.

If you are more agreeable, go out of your way to find the flaws in plans that you hear. Put aside your personal relationships and think about what can go wrong. It helps to imagine that the idea is going to be implemented by another company, to help separate the people from the ideas. Next, find ways to express your concerns. People can be upset with you for a day if they recognize the long-term value of your advice. Express your concerns with empathy, but directly. Try practicing giving negative feedback with a friend first, before doing it for real.

If you are more disagreeable, balance criticism with empathy. Remember that it is difficult to hear criticism of your ideas and your performance. You can be firm while still recognizing the impact of your message. If you think you're developing a reputation for being unsympathetic, practice giving bad news to a friend. Find out which parts of your delivery are causing people to bristle. A strong leader can guide without being mean.

Nice or not, without a doubt you can still be a great leader — you just have to adjust your strategy.