It's not easy being a daily columnist.
Some days, you gotta call in sick.
Otherwise, all you're left to you can do is regurgitate a bogus pop-social science study and hammer on a half-relevant concluding paragraph to justify the previous 12.
But it sucks when the columnist's bad day concerns a subject you actually care about.
To wit, today's David Brooks column, in The New York Times. Brooks cites a new study that tells us what we already know about CEOs and fails to account for the exceptions that prove the rule:
measured their companies’ performances. They found that strong people
skills correlate loosely or not at all with being a good C.E.O. Traits
like being a good listener, a good team builder, an enthusiastic
colleague, a great communicator do not seem to be very important when
it comes to leading successful companies.
What mattered, it
turned out, were execution and organizational skills. The traits that
correlated most powerfully with success were attention to detail,
persistence, efficiency, analytic thoroughness and the ability to work
long hours.
(Yes, yes. Better to have a humorless bean-counter than a mindless cheerleader. But what about Jack Welch?)
Brooks elaborates (and elaborates) on this theme, until he gets to the bottom of his column and with 150 words to go, appears to realize in a panic: Hey, what the hell does this column have to do with the milqutoast conservative political view that my readers come to me to have legitimized every day?
And so we get this odd last paragraph, saying that the requirements that CEOs be dull and boring is "changing." Why?
interposing itself in the management culture of industry after
industry. It won’t be the regulations that will be costly, but the
revolution in values. When Washington is a profit center, C.E.O.’s are
forced to adopt the traits of politicians. That is the insidious way
that other nations have lost their competitive edge.
Ah, finally an explanation for those hordes of hilarious, persuasive, charismatic German, British and French CEOs who don't know the difference between accounts payable and accounts receivable.
David Brooks, what in God's name are you talking about? You don't know yourself, do you?
You shoulda called in sick.
>>>>Hey, what the hell does this column have to do with the milqutoast conservative political view that my readers come to me to have legitimized every day?<<<< David . . . do you suppose anyone considers you to have a milquetoast liberal political view? After all, you do come at things from only one side, and viciously attack anyone--from Notre Dame moms to pretty smart columnists---who dares to disagree with your world view. I happen to think David Brooks is one of the rare voices of reason on the conservative side. He's no Rush, or Sean. In fact, he's ridiculed those people before. He's come out in favor of Obama in many instances . . . something unheard of in conservative circles. He actually went and MET with Obama, and then wrote a really thoughtful column where he was forced to back off some of the stuff he had written . . . and confirm some of the other stuff. I happen to think this column was pretty good. After citing years of research on the topic (which I found interesting), his basic premise is: Those people who succeed in politics aren't fit to run companies . . . and those people who succeed in companies don't fare well in politics. If you question that, you haven't been inside too many companies, and you certainly haven't been inside too many government agencies, or paid attention to too many political campaigns. And as the Current Occupant of the White House continues to blur the lines between business and government, and put government's nose and fingers into more parts of business, don't you think it's a valid concern to at least talk about? Or does the Current Occupant, based on the fact that he's not Bush, get a free pass on everything he wants to do from you? Sometimes, it's tough to be a daily blogger. Sometimes, you gotta call in sick. Hope you feel better soon. Steve C.
>>>>Hey, what the hell does this column have to do with the milqutoast conservative political view that my readers come to me to have legitimized every day?<<<< David . . . do you suppose anyone considers you to have a milquetoast liberal political view? After all, you do come at things from only one side, and viciously attack anyone--from Notre Dame moms to pretty smart columnists---who dares to disagree with your world view. I happen to think David Brooks is one of the rare voices of reason on the conservative side. He's no Rush, or Sean. In fact, he's ridiculed those people before. He's come out in favor of Obama in many instances . . . something unheard of in conservative circles. He actually went and MET with Obama, and then wrote a really thoughtful column where he was forced to back off some of the stuff he had written . . . and confirm some of the other stuff. I happen to think this column was pretty good. After citing years of research on the topic (which I found interesting), his basic premise is: Those people who succeed in politics aren't fit to run companies . . . and those people who succeed in companies don't fare well in politics. If you question that, you haven't been inside too many companies, and you certainly haven't been inside too many government agencies, or paid attention to too many political campaigns. And as the Current Occupant of the White House continues to blur the lines between business and government, and put government's nose and fingers into more parts of business, don't you think it's a valid concern to at least talk about? Or does the Current Occupant, based on the fact that he's not Bush, get a free pass on everything he wants to do from you? Sometimes, it's tough to be a daily blogger. Sometimes, you gotta call in sick. Hope you feel better soon. Steve C.
“you do come at things from only one side, and viciously attack anyone–from Notre Dame moms to pretty smart columnists—who dares to disagree with your world view”
That doesn’t sound like milquetoast, nor does it sound like me. (For instance, I like Brooks too, generally, and am as likely to read him as to read Maureen Dowd.)
But regarding this column, I think had Brooks known where he was going with it, he would have made some brief reference to the CEO/politician business in his lead, instead of asking, “Should CEOs read novels?”
More to the point: Whether or not CEOs are now more likely to be forced to move gracefully through Washington–many have been abject failures at creating and sustaining relationships with various constituencies, from employees to the community to the media–and thus CEOs and their companies now have little credibility.
So for Brooks to draw the conclusion that we’re torturing the wonderful technocrats currently running our corporations by forcing them to build their political and communication skills … well, I think it’s asinine, that’s all.
Taken from that side, your views make more sense.
(I thought you meant milquetoast as in just kowtowing to the political right all the time, which he doesn’t do; you meant milquetoast, I believe, in the sense that he goes back and forth on some issues . . . which I view as the sign of a thoughtful columnist).
I think the entire point of his column was not that we should force CEOs to read books, or torture them by forcing them to learn political skills . . . . the entire point was to throw a red flag up when business and government get too close in bed with each other.
Your point in that case is valid. He did come around to that in a very roundabout way.
Mea culpa.
Steve C.
Taken from that side, your views make more sense.
(I thought you meant milquetoast as in just kowtowing to the political right all the time, which he doesn’t do; you meant milquetoast, I believe, in the sense that he goes back and forth on some issues . . . which I view as the sign of a thoughtful columnist).
I think the entire point of his column was not that we should force CEOs to read books, or torture them by forcing them to learn political skills . . . . the entire point was to throw a red flag up when business and government get too close in bed with each other.
Your point in that case is valid. He did come around to that in a very roundabout way.
Mea culpa.
Steve C.
Newsflash: CEOs ARE politicians. Maybe neither of you, Dave or Steve, nor Brooks, has spent enough time actually working in corporations to understand that CEOs are in a constant cycle of selling themselves to their board, their employees and Wall Street.
Honestly, I don’t really care if my CEO is a politician, as long as he or she also reads novels.
>>>> And as the Current Occupant of the White House continues to blur the lines between business and government…<<<< I understand there is a fine line here, but I don’t see any corporations turning down bailout money. The Current Occupant has attempted to do more in the last 100 days (whether good or bad, up to you to decide) than the Previous One did in the last 8 years. Which is better: regulating corporations, or being owned by them?
K:
Look harder. Companies have turned down bail out money when they saw that it came with over-the-top government intervention.
In fact, TWO HOURS AGO, according to Google, Allstate became yet another company to turn it down:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRwPDouSWvjb2-yoYZgiFvEu58SQD989D4C81
And I’ll bet dollars to donuts that I’ve met more CEOs than you, up close and personal.
Yes, they are constantly selling themselves to the board, the employees, the community, the Street.
But that’s a different kind of politics. You can be a real son of a bitch and if you get results, it doesn’t really matter.
In most government agencies, which DON’T have to justify themselves to the Street or make a profit, you aren’t judged by results. You’re judged by how well you can navigate the political waters, who you support and when.
Whether you survive has as much to do with who’s elected in that cycle as it does with your performance.
That goes from local politics up to national agencies. You could be the most talented Democratic government agency executive in the world . . . and you’re still out on your ass if a Republican takes over in the next election cycle.
Government rewards different things than does business.
And it’s dangerous when you start to blur the two together. There’s a word for it, but I won’t dare say it on David’s blog.
Steve C.
K:
Look harder. Companies have turned down bail out money when they saw that it came with over-the-top government intervention.
In fact, TWO HOURS AGO, according to Google, Allstate became yet another company to turn it down:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRwPDouSWvjb2-yoYZgiFvEu58SQD989D4C81
And I’ll bet dollars to donuts that I’ve met more CEOs than you, up close and personal.
Yes, they are constantly selling themselves to the board, the employees, the community, the Street.
But that’s a different kind of politics. You can be a real son of a bitch and if you get results, it doesn’t really matter.
In most government agencies, which DON’T have to justify themselves to the Street or make a profit, you aren’t judged by results. You’re judged by how well you can navigate the political waters, who you support and when.
Whether you survive has as much to do with who’s elected in that cycle as it does with your performance.
That goes from local politics up to national agencies. You could be the most talented Democratic government agency executive in the world . . . and you’re still out on your ass if a Republican takes over in the next election cycle.
Government rewards different things than does business.
And it’s dangerous when you start to blur the two together. There’s a word for it, but I won’t dare say it on David’s blog.
Steve C.
Touche Steve – I shouldn’t have made a blanket statement about all corporations, but even if there’s at least one then the lines are automatically blurred – and from both sides.
I definitely would lose in a comparison of our CEO rolodex files, but that wasn’t my point. The difference between you and me is that I actually work for a corporation and my job is directly affected by decisions my CEO makes. A son of a bitch CEO will NEVER have better results than if he/she were not a son of a bitch. It directly translates to productivity level of employees.
I appreciate the work you do and respect what you write about employee communications. In fact, as a low level manager, I count on people like you and Dave to help bridge the gap between the upper and lower echelons of corporate society. I just ask that when you’re out there talking to all those CEOs to remember that their employees ARE watching and listening and hoping that they have a leader that understands and appreciates them. Reading novels is good.
(Side note: as I am literally sitting here in my 6’x6’ cubicle – among a sea of hundreds of cubicles – I overhear a co-worker next to me just say on the phone, “Oh Hi, how are you?…I’m doing ok, well, we just lost 30% of our group and the rest of us have been moved to another group and so now I’m basically doing two jobs…yes, it was based on a corporate decision” to do blah-blah-blah……..)
Dear K Bosch: You said to Steve: “The difference between you and me is that I actually work for a corporation and my job is directly affected by decisions my CEO makes. ” As someone who also works for a corporation, I agree – that’s very true.
You also said: “A son of a bitch CEO will NEVER have better results than if he/she were not a son of a bitch. It directly translates to productivity level of employees.” That, however – I have not found so true! I’ve been working for corporate entities my entire 15+ year career, and I am here to tell you that the “son of a bitch” CEOs had plenty of success, and so did the companies, because YOUR definition and MY definition of success is, I fear, substantially different than the definitions of either the CEO, or the Boards of Directors and it’s THOSE groups who determine the success of the CEO’s choices. If “employee satisfaction” is on the list at all, it’s usually WAY down near the bottom, unfortunately.
That’s not to say, of course, that a CEO who is attentive to the satisfaction and development of his/her employees won’t be successful. However, your contention that the ones who DON’T put any attention to doing the things that would make employees happy will “never” have better results just isn’t true in my experience.
Although I would absolutely love for you to be right on this, I fear that so long as the defining criteria for “success” in most of the corporate world remains as it presently is: 1) share price; 2) Quarterly shareholder dividends; or 3) Increased Revenues/Sales + Decreased costs, whether the CEO is more like Mother Theresa or Jack the Ripper in relation to the employees will remain largely irrelevant.
Finally, I must be missing something, because I just don’t get what this question of whether the CEO reads novels or not has to do with anything. Frankly, I’d rather that the CEO of a company my livelihood depends upon spend his time supporting and developing our shared business, and maybe – just maybe – thinking about how to engage and reward the employees, than paging through Moby Dick, or The DaVinci Code.
@Steve: “Government rewards different things than does business. And it’s dangerous when you start to blur the two together. There’s a word for it, but I won’t dare say it on David’s blog.” Steve, it’s okay to say “progressive” on my blog.
@Kristen: I think what K Bosch is saying–or what I’d be saying if I were making her argument–is that we want to work for people who see their corporation, their jobs and our jobs in context of the broad sweep of history and the wide view of social meaning.
The most desperate feeling in the world is when you realize you’re working for someone who is in charge and has created a working context where the fortunes of XYZ Corporation–or of one department inside that corporation–are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Unfortunately, reading novels doesn’t turn corporate bastards into poets who put shareholder meetings in perspective.
But we allow ourselves to hope. And in any case, we’re right to wish we didn’t have to work for monsters.
No argument on that last comment at all!!
Just to be clear, when I said “A son of a bitch CEO will NEVER have better results than if he/she were not a son of a bitch,” I did not mean that a son of a bitch CEO will not have good results, just that his/her results would be better if he/she were not a son of a bitch. And, I still believe that it is tied directly to employee productivity, which in turns leads to better revenues, share price, happy board of directors, etc etc.
Wanting my CEO to be a reader of novels was a metaphor for wanting them to be a ‘normal’ human being that thinks about regular stuff and has a regular life like me. Call it touchy-feely stuff, but this is what makes me appreciate a person more.
I realize I’m asking a lot of my CEOs, but I know they’re out there (in fact, my current one isn’t far off)…and dare I say that I think Obama would make a fine CEO.