“Trust people and they will be true to you; treat them greatly and they will show themselves great.” — Ralph Waldo Emerson
Entries categorized as ‘honchos’
a buddha? or a person of subnormal intelligence…
March 30, 2008 · No Comments
I watched Being There last night via Netflix. I loved it! A hilarious story about an illiterate, mentally slow gardener who accidentally stumbles into high power circles. He inadvertently impresses a dying tycoon with his simple ways, and all kinds of doors start opening up for him. A myth forms around his persona … it takes on a life of its own and has little to do with the man himself and his actual capabilities. I’ve seen this happen in the business world quite a bit. A CEO or other top dog takes a shine to a New Dude. People’s instinct is to follow the leader and embrace New Dude. For a time, whatever New Dude says, people hail as “genius.” Experience unfolds and the reality sets in that New Dude is just like many of the older dudes, but with less organizational baggage. They realize he’s NOT the messiah they’d all hoped for. As for Chauncey Gardiner, brilliantly played by Peter Sellers … you’ll have to see it yourself to decide.
Being There is a quiet but important fable about society.
The story line centers on a slow-witted gardener named Chance (Peter Sellers), who knows only gardening and what he sees on television, and what transpires when he is suddenly put out into the world. Because Chance speaks so simply and so directly, his words are mistaken for profundities; everything he says is mistaken for a metaphor by the media-mad society. By film’s end, Chance — who has become an adviser, of sorts, to one of the world’s most wealthy men — is spoken of in glowing terms by men seeking a candidate for the presidency.
The often double-edged fable, scripted by Jerzy Kosinski and based on his 1971 novel, looks at a media obsessed society, and particularly at Chance, a man who has been literally drained by television. He is emotionless; he is unaware of his sexuality; his face forever an empty look.
The Tortoise and the Hare
March 29, 2008 · 1 Comment
i’ve always loved the story of the tortoise and the hare. it’s the classic case of authenticity and stick-to-it-tive-ness trumping arrogance and laziness. good things come to those who wait. who hang in, who keep chipping away. who don’t expect quick, cheap, easy solutions. stories like these validate me. i’ve always been one who wins not because i am quicker and more athletic… or because i SELL myself well or slept with someone powerful or kissed the right asses.
i do well because i am dogged, persistent and dedicated to whatever i am focusing on. i am loyal to my purpose. i don’t give up.
does it take me a long ass time to finish my marathons? yes. a LOOONG ass time. but i do it, i get it done. and i don’t hurt myself in the process because i’ve trained and am prepared.
yet sometimes, shit happens that i can’t prepare for. realities that are out of my control. bad weather, bad people, bad luck. at that point, i have to trust my instincts that things are not going to get better — that my purpose may have changed — and have the courage to make a clean break.
i am reading seth godin’s the dip … about strategic quitting. it’s a great little title for people pondering moving on from relationships — whether they’re personal or professional.
a honcho i used to work for at a Fortune 100 financial services company who led a large sales team and dozens of managers around the country said that most people’s downfall is quitting right when they are on the brink of a breakthrough … right when things are about to turn around … most people are scared of their own potential.
mediocrity is the known … it’s what they are used to and they can’t conceive of rising above that.
everything i’ve seen and read tends to reinforce this. at the same time, it takes wisdom and courage to leave when it’s time to go. you’ve gotta know when to hold em, to know when to fold em, know when to walk away, know when to run.
the sweet spot between those two extremes — persisting and quitting — is where the best careers are built.
aretha on yeswecanhas!
March 19, 2008 · 2 Comments
like wanda skyes, aretha’s asked herself which has been more problematic for her — being a she-cat or being a black-cat. she decided to go with her black-cat roots. aretha supports obama. see her on yeswecanhas.com!
brain frittata
March 18, 2008 · No Comments
been writing a speech for three and a half days now. my head and back say: ouchie. note to self why i put myself through this:
i’m a writer and a thinker and an all-around tinker –RER.
i love to write speeches and things because i love to solve intellectual problems. or at least learn about what’s at stake … and zone in on possible solutions … pointing people towards them.
get the dialogue started, get people to notice and take action.
do it through COMMUNICATION, dialogue.
enough of top-down, command control. that just doesn’t work anymore. you cannot control people because you can’t control the flow of information. you cannot see what you are not looking for.
it’s a new world, where leaders need to engage with those they lead. they must be able to listen well and influence people horizontally. they must get others to cooperate and collaborate and participate … across disciplines, across borders, across all divisions — social, economic, biological.
how to do all that? who knows. but a sense of humor is a good start.
dare to be fair …
March 14, 2008 · No Comments
In the Game of Business, Playing Fair Can Actually Lead to Greater Profits Knowledge@Wharton.com
Tune into “The Apprentice,” and you get an all-too-common view of business. Every week, the contestants try to impress Donald Trump by preening, cajoling and conniving. In this world, toughness is the measure of every CEO, and the boss glories in firing people and squeezing every penny out of suppliers. Yet according to John Zhang and Jagmohan Raju, both Wharton marketing professors, and Tony Haitao Cui from the University of Minnesota, many people aren’t purely mercenary in their business dealings. They care about fairness — and they should, the researchers say, because doing so can maximize their profits. Call it a new glove for the Invisible Hand: The manufacturer sets his price, and the retailer’s sense of fairness takes care of the rest.
the role of speech
March 13, 2008 · 1 Comment
a honcho i used to write for taught me a lot about nuances of speech. he didn’t like the phrase: “to tell you the truth,” because it implies that you are otherwise being deceptive. he was (and is) an amazing guy. when he walked into the room, the room changed — it was an aura, a feeling, a presence he had and it didn’t have to do with his title or the fact that he was the dude in charge. it had to do with his authenticity. he knew who he was, who he wasn’t and was very aware of his impact on others. i’ve often heard that bill clinton had the same magical effect. you can’t buy what these guys have: presence.
all the hub bub over Hillary’s anti-Obama catchphrase of ’speeches versus solutions’ has got me thinking of the role of the speechwriter. not just because i am one, but also because of what it means on a broader level. there’s an awesome podcast on the economist web site talking about the history and philosophy of political oratory.
Check it out: Audio: Joy Connolly on campaign rhetoric
Some key ideas:
- it’s the leader’s job not only to come up with (or identify) new ideas, but also to clarify and articulate those ideas, however complicated, to the masses, using persuasion to inspire them to act.
- getting into too much detail and saying too many arcane things doesn’t work for two main reasons: 1) people can’t process/absorb/retain all that information and 2) it creates an unequal ethical divide between the speaker and audience, establishing the speaker as some sort of higher god-like entity that the audience ultimately resents and rejects.
- the purpose of public speeches should be to unify people and give them confidence in taking risks as a collective … confidence to face the future/the unknown. orators who focus on the negative often descend into demagoguery.
- So what’s a demagogue? According to H. L. Mencken: “One who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.” (Hey, I think I know one or two of those … )
Atonement’s a hot theme lately.
March 13, 2008 · No Comments
The cover story of the March issue of CFO magazine: ATONEMENT: Companies in all industries are paying for the transgressions of the banking sector.
Spitzer: “In the past few days I have begun to atone for my private failings with my wife, Silda, my children, and my entire family.”
And of course, there’s that book-turned-movie.
Why do we continue to create a world dominated by such extremes of good and bad, right and wrong, sin and retribution? It seems to be an excess of ego in the Western society, and appears to be pushing the planet to a crisis point. I don’t think we can (or should) obliterate ego, but we can do a better job in attaining balance ─ as individuals and as a society.
favs
March 13, 2008 · No Comments
“What is your theory of speechwriting?” Obama asked.
“I have no theory,” admitted Favreau. “But when I saw you at the convention, you basically told a story about your life from beginning to end, and it was a story that fit with the larger American narrative. People applauded not because you wrote an applause line but because you touched something in the party and the country that people had not touched before. Democrats haven’t had that in a long time.”
The pitch worked. Favreau and Obama rapidly found a relatively direct way to work with each other. “What I do is to sit with him for half an hour,” Favreau explains. “He talks and I type everything he says. I reshape it, I write. He writes, he reshapes it. That’s how we get a finished product.
In His Candidate’s Voice: Obama’s Speechwriter Speaks Up (Newsweek)
Categories: honchos
