Writing Boots

Babe Ruth-like, I recently left one publisher’s freelance employ and took up with a rival. Before bringing me into their freelance fold, the new organization put me through a couple of psychological tests, which revealed, among other things, that I am not graceful in receiving criticism.

Which enraged me, of course.

For two reasons, actually:

The first being my agreement with my pal Bill Sweetland who once refused to submit to a performance review because, he told his supervisor, "I know my faults in infinitely more detail than you ever will!"

More importantly: I’m a writer—a real writer. Most of the time, when I give you a work product, it means I’ve considered a number of approaches, painfully settled on one, sweated and reconsidered most lines at least twice, stood and applauded at a few of my own phrases and eventually gazed, exhausted, at the whole thing and thought: Yes. This works.

So if I seem a little uptight, or "defensive" or "sensitive" during our "feedback" session, it’s not because I think it’s impossible that my piece could be improved. It’s because I’m waiting for you to prove that you’ve thought about the product as hard as I have; it’s because I need you to prove that there really is something wrong with my creation, or something that could be more right. (And yes, I take it "personally"; I made it, didn’t I?)

When you prove your thoughtfulness, coherently explain the reasons behind your criticism, I’ll be fine. Indeed, if you help me improve my work, I will be grateful. And if you do this frequently enough over time, I’ll come to trust your judgment and look forward to hearing what you have to say. But until you do so, I’m going to sound a little uptight on the phone, okay? (Don’t you be so sensitive!) *

To all corporate types who think the highest of all human values is professionalism and the graceful acceptance of "constructive criticism," I reply in the words of a construction crew foreman I know who once told a client who was badgering him, "You think I’m unprofessional? You think I’m unprofessional? Well, fuck you!"

* Has anyone discovered a way to somehow defer the defensiveness until you’ve had a chance to consider the feedback fully? I would be grateful for that.

An odd and spontaneous call from Vibe magazine had me covering an event at Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH headquarters on the South Side Saturday.

It was a pleasure to hear the Reverend preach (he’s funnier and more charismatic in church than when debating Pat Buchannan on MSNBC), and an equal pleasure to hear his followers respond.

In response to Jackson’s imploring of young people to vote, a woman seated behind me shouted an amen:

"Get off your booty and do your duty!"

I was a bit taken aback by the remarks of Procter & Gamble CEO A.G. Lafley, published in the Financial Times yesterday. Lafley, who in light of his success in turning P&G around and in the absence of a huge personality like Jack Welch, is one of the most admired CEOs in the U.S. at the moment, decided to escape the surly bonds of business strategy and talk some politics with an FT reporter.

He urged U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain not to push the U.S. into a "worse recession" by portraying the economy gloomily during the election season. Lafley said he objected to the "woe is me and ain’t it awful" rhetoric Obama and Hillary Clinton used during the primaries.

In case you’re with him so far, here are some of his quotes, and my responses:

“In my business we don’t need excessive negativism. You know we are in a business where psychology matters—even in the staples business—and in the economy psychology matters. It could go negative on the economy, that could be a problem . . . We will talk ourselves into a worse recession.”

CEOs are borderline superstitious about communication. As the world’s biggest advertiser, P&G spends a billion dollars every year talking you and me into buying brand names like "Cheer" over generic products we know in our hearts are probably just as good. Now he’s worried that, by acknowledging the insane oil prices and the foreclosure crisis, the presidential candidates could "talk" us into buying cheaper toilet paper?

This is the same logic that frustrates employee communicators who only want to help employees understand the marketplace and their company’s position in it, but who are told: Morale will suffer if employees know we’re number three, and it’ll cause us to sink to number four. Probably better not to say anything.

“I wish there were a little less rhetoric about the evils of trade and especially international commerce. I really do believe . . . that while there are always winners and losers in any transition, by and large the standard of livings have been improving around the world and that in the end is the measure right? I am hoping McCain and Obama will be a different dialogue on trade than Clinton and Obama.”

I haven’t heard much anti-trade talk in this election, have you? I’ve heard a few remarks about eliminating tax breaks for companies who outsource jobs overseas. Are even those timid murmurs too much for Lafley to take?

Lafley should also understand that thinking grownups are not reassured by a CEO’s remark, "I really do believe" that "by and large the standard of livings have been improving around the world and that in the end is the measure right." We’ll be the judge of our standards of living, thank you; and P&G doesn’t get to "measure" human progress. Humans do.

“We have never seen the energy cost and commodity cost scope or scale that we have today. There is not a material that we are buying that is not under inflationary pressure and I honestly haven’t seen that before. In the 1970s it was oil and oil derivative materials, now it is agricultural products, it is the full range of minerals and everything is up.”

Oh, now who’s Chicken Little! In the area where P&G’s bottom line is suffering, we’re sounding the alarm!

Lafley, you go back to worrying about how the economy will affect your margins; the rest of us will worry about how it’ll affect the losers in the transactions.

Deal?