Bound by paperwork, short on hands, sleep, and energy... nurses are rarely short on caring. ~Sharon Hudacek, "A Daybook for Nurses"
It struck me as I stood there in my shorts, sneakers and polo shirt that I had entered a new phase in my life. I was in pre-op as I have been many times before. Only this time, it wasn’t one of my parents lying in bed in a hospital gown. It was my best friend and companion of literally half my life. My most ardent protagonist and most formidable antagonist, the love of my life, my beautiful wife, Suzanne.
It was only outpatient surgery and no one seemed too worried. Everything turned out just fine. Yet, I was left wondering, as they rolled her out of the room towards the O.R., was this the beginning of that time of life where we take turns, she and I, chauffeuring, waiting and watching worriedly?
On that day, last Friday, the nurses of the Jupiter Outpatient Surgery Center went about their business without wasting any time. They were constantly in motion, making sure that everyone was prepped for their surgery, knew what to expect and when it should happen. Yet, all the while they maintained a connection to the human beings in the room – their patients and the hand wringing spouses. There was never a moment when our needs were not met whether clinical or emotional. They dealt with us with a blend of compassion and gallows humor that seemed just right.
What a contrast to the experience of a few days ago when I “fired” a doctor I have been seeing for over a dozen years. I think he finally got his “practice model” on track. He sees 10 to 12 patients per hour leaving little time for questions or discussion. He has invested in some equipment so he can perform procedures that generate high income per event. So, of course, he must steer you toward those procedures to earn enough revenue to achieve his return on investment target. Somehow, the fact that his patients are human beings got lost in the shuffle.
Florence Nightingale observed that nursing is an art that “requires an exclusive devotion”. She compared her art, nursing, to those of sculptors and painters. Theirs deals with “dead canvas or dead marble”. Hers deals with the “living body, the temple of God’s spirit”.
I have an insatiable appetite for history, economics and public policy. My focus for this blog is Leadership with a capital L. But, this week it struck me that Leadership takes many forms. It isn’t always about big institutions and big societal initiatives. It can be about doing the right thing one on one.
So, this week, my answer to the question “WHO WILL LEAD?” are the good nurses of the Jupiter Outpatient Surgery Center.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
IT'S NOT ONE OR THE OTHER -- IT'S BOTH!
“To control our own destiny, America must develop new forms of energy and new ways of using it. And this is not a challenge for government alone -- it's a challenge for all of us."
--- President Barack Obama
“Drill, baby, drill.”
--- Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska
My old friend Richard came to town and joined me for lunch in West Palm Beach last week. Back in the day, Richard was a “playah” in South Florida. In the 90’s, he had his fingers in aviation, timeshares and technology and we were briefly business partners in an Internet venture.
Now that he has moved to Houston, he has gone into -- what else? The oil business. The higher price of oil has made it economically viable to take oil out of the ground in the Great Plains again. And, Richard’s Tulsa based company is doing just that.
Richard grew up in Birmingham and I grew up in New York. As you might imagine, we wear different political stripes. But, on the topic of a national energy policy, we agree. Democrats want the government to invest in green tech and eschew domestic opportunities to drill for oil. Republicans want to drill, baby, drill and let the free market decide what green technologies are viable.
And, they are both wrong. It’s not one or the other, it’s both!
A good friend of mine, who began his career as a manufacturing executive in Germany, is fond of saying that the American economy is based upon cheap energy. Coal is dirt cheap (no pun intended) and Pennsylvania and West Virginia are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We don’t tax gas at the pump to the extent the Europeans do which is why we drive Yukons and F-150’s and they drive Minis and Fiestas.
It has served us well for the last 100 years. So, why change the current paradigm?
My answer does not come from concern about global climate change. My concerns are based in economics and foreign policy.
US oil production peaked in 1970 while demand has continued to rise. Unless something changes, we will continue to import a greater percentage. Meanwhile, the global demand for oil is expected to increase by 60% over the next 20 years, largely driven by the economic development of China. The economic implications to us are obvious. Higher energy costs, more imported oil (larger trade deficits) and a less competitive economy. To continue on the current course will only lead to economic disaster.
We read a lot about alternative energy every day. Wind, Solar, nuclear and natural gas all have viable applications. But, we don’t know how all this will scale up or what the unintended consequences may be. We do know that any major transition will be expensive and is likely to take decades. Yet, it needs to be done if we are to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Our political quagmire prevents us from doing what we have done throughout our history, namely invest. By that I mean government investment.
Our infrastructure – roads, seaports, railroads, airports, the electric grid and telecommunications – is absolutely critical to our economy and much of it was developed with the help of the US Government. Land grants, government funded R&D, loan guarantees and tax breaks were the impetus for getting much of it started.
Technology? The silicon chip was developed by NASA. GPS systems and the Internet itself were developed by the Department of Defense. The US Government funds research at universities and private companies that have resulted in pharmaceuticals, carbon fiber and countless other products.
So, why not alternative energy? Our economic future relies upon it.
Complicating matters are the implications of our dependence upon unstable governments in the Middle East, Africa (Nigeria) and South America (Venezuela). Do we really want to bet our future on those relationships? If one of their leaders passes gas, the price of a barrel of oil jumps 5 bucks.
While I am on the topic of foreign relations, do you ever think about how much of our Defense budget goes to protecting the supply chain that delivers oil to our shores? Ever think about the connection between Middle East oil money and the terrorists that took down the World Trade Center?
How about the amount of turmoil in which we have found ourselves in the Middle East over the past 60 years? American soldiers have spilled their blood and lost their lives in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and, of course, Afghanistan.
Wouldn’t it be nice if imported oil was not so important? Remember how our economy was humming along in the 90’s with low taxes, low Defense expenditures and budget surpluses?
A British historian, Paul Kennedy, wrote a book in 1987 called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. He analyzed the great empires throughout history from the ancient Egyptians to the British Empire and used the data to predict the eventual fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of China. Key factor: the percentage of GDP consumed by military expenditures. While the Soviets and the US were escalating, the Chinese were de-emphasizing.
If that’s too esoteric for you, think of it this way: in 25 years time, do we still want to be spending 5% of GDP to defend the supply chain of our enemies? If you don’t think so, you have to be supportive of any effort to become more energy independent.
So, to return to the beginning, what should we expect from our political leaders in Washington? Will the Democrats recognize that we must continue to develop domestic oil sources to maintain a viable economic platform? Will the Republicans support the development of alternatives to fossil fuels even if it means increased government spending and intervention in the free market?
Or, to put it another way: WHO WILL LEAD?
--- President Barack Obama
“Drill, baby, drill.”
--- Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska
My old friend Richard came to town and joined me for lunch in West Palm Beach last week. Back in the day, Richard was a “playah” in South Florida. In the 90’s, he had his fingers in aviation, timeshares and technology and we were briefly business partners in an Internet venture.
Now that he has moved to Houston, he has gone into -- what else? The oil business. The higher price of oil has made it economically viable to take oil out of the ground in the Great Plains again. And, Richard’s Tulsa based company is doing just that.
Richard grew up in Birmingham and I grew up in New York. As you might imagine, we wear different political stripes. But, on the topic of a national energy policy, we agree. Democrats want the government to invest in green tech and eschew domestic opportunities to drill for oil. Republicans want to drill, baby, drill and let the free market decide what green technologies are viable.
And, they are both wrong. It’s not one or the other, it’s both!
A good friend of mine, who began his career as a manufacturing executive in Germany, is fond of saying that the American economy is based upon cheap energy. Coal is dirt cheap (no pun intended) and Pennsylvania and West Virginia are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We don’t tax gas at the pump to the extent the Europeans do which is why we drive Yukons and F-150’s and they drive Minis and Fiestas.
It has served us well for the last 100 years. So, why change the current paradigm?
My answer does not come from concern about global climate change. My concerns are based in economics and foreign policy.
US oil production peaked in 1970 while demand has continued to rise. Unless something changes, we will continue to import a greater percentage. Meanwhile, the global demand for oil is expected to increase by 60% over the next 20 years, largely driven by the economic development of China. The economic implications to us are obvious. Higher energy costs, more imported oil (larger trade deficits) and a less competitive economy. To continue on the current course will only lead to economic disaster.
We read a lot about alternative energy every day. Wind, Solar, nuclear and natural gas all have viable applications. But, we don’t know how all this will scale up or what the unintended consequences may be. We do know that any major transition will be expensive and is likely to take decades. Yet, it needs to be done if we are to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Our political quagmire prevents us from doing what we have done throughout our history, namely invest. By that I mean government investment.
Our infrastructure – roads, seaports, railroads, airports, the electric grid and telecommunications – is absolutely critical to our economy and much of it was developed with the help of the US Government. Land grants, government funded R&D, loan guarantees and tax breaks were the impetus for getting much of it started.
Technology? The silicon chip was developed by NASA. GPS systems and the Internet itself were developed by the Department of Defense. The US Government funds research at universities and private companies that have resulted in pharmaceuticals, carbon fiber and countless other products.
So, why not alternative energy? Our economic future relies upon it.
Complicating matters are the implications of our dependence upon unstable governments in the Middle East, Africa (Nigeria) and South America (Venezuela). Do we really want to bet our future on those relationships? If one of their leaders passes gas, the price of a barrel of oil jumps 5 bucks.
While I am on the topic of foreign relations, do you ever think about how much of our Defense budget goes to protecting the supply chain that delivers oil to our shores? Ever think about the connection between Middle East oil money and the terrorists that took down the World Trade Center?
How about the amount of turmoil in which we have found ourselves in the Middle East over the past 60 years? American soldiers have spilled their blood and lost their lives in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and, of course, Afghanistan.
Wouldn’t it be nice if imported oil was not so important? Remember how our economy was humming along in the 90’s with low taxes, low Defense expenditures and budget surpluses?
A British historian, Paul Kennedy, wrote a book in 1987 called The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. He analyzed the great empires throughout history from the ancient Egyptians to the British Empire and used the data to predict the eventual fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of China. Key factor: the percentage of GDP consumed by military expenditures. While the Soviets and the US were escalating, the Chinese were de-emphasizing.
If that’s too esoteric for you, think of it this way: in 25 years time, do we still want to be spending 5% of GDP to defend the supply chain of our enemies? If you don’t think so, you have to be supportive of any effort to become more energy independent.
So, to return to the beginning, what should we expect from our political leaders in Washington? Will the Democrats recognize that we must continue to develop domestic oil sources to maintain a viable economic platform? Will the Republicans support the development of alternatives to fossil fuels even if it means increased government spending and intervention in the free market?
Or, to put it another way: WHO WILL LEAD?
Monday, July 26, 2010
IS YOUR KID'S TEACHER AN IVY LEAGUER?
“My education was dismal. I went to a series of schools for mentally disturbed teachers.”
Woody Allen
In the great debate about the deteriorating quality of American public school education, the quality and talent of America’s educators is often questioned. The answer to the headline question – is your kid’s teacher an ivy leaguer – is likely NO. Ivy Leaguers are meant for more prosperous careers. They are not only the best and brightest but also among the nation’s wealthiest college students. Many go on to top business and law schools, become captains of industry and our leading politicians.
Teachers more typically come from state colleges and universities. They are underpaid, overworked and much maligned. The quality of their training is questioned; as is their effectiveness.
I recently was introduced to a contemporary who had just retired from a 30 year teaching career. What an eye opener. Imagine, if you will, heading out for work every day with an absolute requirement that you be “ON” at 7:30. By ON, I mean ready for anything. Forget that long walk with your dog. Skip the trip to the gym. That third cup of coffee will have to wait until after 3rd period.
No matter if you are just too tired, too bored or just fed up. There is an honor student wanting to show her prowess; a malcontent disrupting your class; or, worse, a physical threat that must be contained.
Meanwhile, we read news reports almost daily that tell us about deteriorating student performance and Washington’s plans to reverse that course. Billions have been spent but the news keeps getting worse anyway.
A career in teaching is both physically and emotionally challenging. Why would an Ivy Leaguer want that job when a more luxurious future awaits elsewhere?
Teach for America.
Ignoring the national debate and foregoing government funding, a non-profit organization called Teach for America (TFA) has been working for the last 20 years to solve to improve education from the front lines.
Recently, the NY Times published an article about how difficult it is for graduates of Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth to be accepted by Teach for America. With only 4500 openings, less than 10% of applicants are admitted. Imagine if you will, America’s best and brightest college grads going into the teaching profession.
TFA doesn’t just drop these young recruits into the classroom. It provides a five week summer course in classroom practices before assigning its graduates to teach in inner city and rural schools. The organization sets goals for its teachers and assigns Program Directors to follow up and monitor the members of its “corps”. According to Education Week magazine, each of TFA’s corps members is expected to achieve at least one of the following goals: “…move student learning forward at least 1 ½ grade levels, close achievement gaps by 20 percent, or ensure that 80 percent of students have met grade-level standards.”
But, this blog is not about education; it’s about leadership. What struck me about the Times article was the number of Ivy League grads who applied. Eighteen percent of Yale and Harvard undergrads applied. Those rejected had to settle for alternatives like becoming a Fulbright Scholar, attending University of Virginia Law School or teaching at their alma mater.
TFA’s founder is Wendy Kopp who proposed the creation of Teach for America in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton – and then followed through upon graduation!!
So, when we ask the question that serves as the theme of this blog – Who Will Lead? – we need look no further than Wendy Kopp and the 4500 college grads who, this year, will dedicate their considerable intellect and energy to the task of improving student achievement throughout the United States.
Each sacrificed other opportunities to become teachers. Each dedicated themselves to making a contribution. Each of them will lead.
Woody Allen
In the great debate about the deteriorating quality of American public school education, the quality and talent of America’s educators is often questioned. The answer to the headline question – is your kid’s teacher an ivy leaguer – is likely NO. Ivy Leaguers are meant for more prosperous careers. They are not only the best and brightest but also among the nation’s wealthiest college students. Many go on to top business and law schools, become captains of industry and our leading politicians.
Teachers more typically come from state colleges and universities. They are underpaid, overworked and much maligned. The quality of their training is questioned; as is their effectiveness.
I recently was introduced to a contemporary who had just retired from a 30 year teaching career. What an eye opener. Imagine, if you will, heading out for work every day with an absolute requirement that you be “ON” at 7:30. By ON, I mean ready for anything. Forget that long walk with your dog. Skip the trip to the gym. That third cup of coffee will have to wait until after 3rd period.
No matter if you are just too tired, too bored or just fed up. There is an honor student wanting to show her prowess; a malcontent disrupting your class; or, worse, a physical threat that must be contained.
Meanwhile, we read news reports almost daily that tell us about deteriorating student performance and Washington’s plans to reverse that course. Billions have been spent but the news keeps getting worse anyway.
A career in teaching is both physically and emotionally challenging. Why would an Ivy Leaguer want that job when a more luxurious future awaits elsewhere?
Teach for America.
Ignoring the national debate and foregoing government funding, a non-profit organization called Teach for America (TFA) has been working for the last 20 years to solve to improve education from the front lines.
Recently, the NY Times published an article about how difficult it is for graduates of Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth to be accepted by Teach for America. With only 4500 openings, less than 10% of applicants are admitted. Imagine if you will, America’s best and brightest college grads going into the teaching profession.
TFA doesn’t just drop these young recruits into the classroom. It provides a five week summer course in classroom practices before assigning its graduates to teach in inner city and rural schools. The organization sets goals for its teachers and assigns Program Directors to follow up and monitor the members of its “corps”. According to Education Week magazine, each of TFA’s corps members is expected to achieve at least one of the following goals: “…move student learning forward at least 1 ½ grade levels, close achievement gaps by 20 percent, or ensure that 80 percent of students have met grade-level standards.”
But, this blog is not about education; it’s about leadership. What struck me about the Times article was the number of Ivy League grads who applied. Eighteen percent of Yale and Harvard undergrads applied. Those rejected had to settle for alternatives like becoming a Fulbright Scholar, attending University of Virginia Law School or teaching at their alma mater.
TFA’s founder is Wendy Kopp who proposed the creation of Teach for America in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton – and then followed through upon graduation!!
So, when we ask the question that serves as the theme of this blog – Who Will Lead? – we need look no further than Wendy Kopp and the 4500 college grads who, this year, will dedicate their considerable intellect and energy to the task of improving student achievement throughout the United States.
Each sacrificed other opportunities to become teachers. Each dedicated themselves to making a contribution. Each of them will lead.
Monday, July 19, 2010
CAPTAIN BILLY AND THE BOUNDARYLESS ORGANIZATION
An organization's ability to learn, and translate that learning into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive advantage.
---Jack Welch
Long time GE Chairman, CEO and visionary, Jack Welch, coined the term “boundaryless organization”. When he began his tenure as GE’s top dog, he began to define a new culture to break down GE’s bureaucracy. In his alternative universe, GE would be boundaryless, an organization that is not defined by, or limited to, the horizontal, vertical, or external boundaries imposed by a predefined structure.
It’s a wonderful concept and many a corporate leader has striven to achieve it. Few have truly succeeded.
I never had the privilege of working for Neutron Jack. I learned about the boundaryless organization from Captain Billy.
At the ripe old age of 23, I was Chief Engineer of the USS Alacrity, a Navy minesweeper based in Charleston, SC. Our Commanding Officer (CO) was a Mustang Lieutenant named Billy G. Taylor. Captain Billy, as he was called when he wasn’t in the room, was from Waco, TX and brought all bluntness and country wisdom that origin implies to the job of being the CO.
During a minesweeping exercise off the Atlantic coast one sunny afternoon, we experienced a bearing failure on the minesweeping cable reel. I won’t bore you with a technical explanation. Suffice it to say that it was a big honkin’ reel that let out and (theoretically) retrieved a cable that was about 6 inches in diameter and several hundred feet long. When a bearing fails, it’s not very easy to retrieve that cable. When we opened up the gearbox, it was clear that salt water had fouled the oil that kept this machinery working right.
It was also clear that the planned maintenance for the equipment hadn’t been done. As you can imagine, it wasn’t long before a young sailor appeared at my side to tell me the Captain wanted to see me.
Climbing the ladder to the Captain’s quarters, I got my all my arguments (some would say excuses) straight in my head. “What happened?” said Capt. Billy.
“Well, I don’t know, sir,” I started. “That equipment is the responsibility of the deck department and…” I didn’t get to finish.
“You’re the Chief F___ing Engineer. Anything on this F___ing ship with more than two moving parts is your F___ing responsibility.”
A boundaryless organization.
Six months later, we won the squadron award for engineering efficiency. I got the message!
About 20 years ago, global corporations began to eliminate layers of management. Information technology had enabled senior managers to get quantitative information about the performance of their companies. They no longer needed (or desired to have) qualitative information from their middle managers. It was the beginning of the evolution of the “big box” model. The term is more often applied to retail stores – as in Big Box Retail. However, it applies to many industries that pursue a similar management model.
Over a generation, sophisticated systems have allowed multi-billion dollar corporations to wring out much of the cost that used to be required to run a large enterprise. That same trend has reduced the level of service.
We can no longer go to a bank and expect branch personnel to serve all of our needs. They now refer us to the call center and the dreaded voicemail tree. Retailers staff their stores with people who can tell you where the products are located but rarely offer qualitative advice. Flight attendants deliver standardized service. Their authority to make the customer happy is limited by the cost structure that is imposed on them by their corporate masters.
Customers complain but they have only themselves to blame. As a nation of consumers we have consistently stated a preference for low price over good services.
For the 21st Century Corporation, what this inexorable trend has meant is that fewer and fewer managers understand the concept of the boundaryless organization. Ever wonder why there are so many choices on the voicemail tree? Because functional specialization drives down costs. You can talk with someone in customer service about the mistake the bank made. But, to get the credit to your account, you need to talk to someone in another department. No judgment allowed.
My point of reference is generational. I am a baby boomer. We grew up in a world where we were coached by our mentors to develop business acumen and good decision making skills. I wonder how the next generation will develop those skills. How will it be possible for them to run a global enterprise when their perspective is limited to the narrow function they have learned to manage?
Let me put it this way……
WHO WILL LEAD?
TO POST A COMMENT, CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW.
---Jack Welch
Long time GE Chairman, CEO and visionary, Jack Welch, coined the term “boundaryless organization”. When he began his tenure as GE’s top dog, he began to define a new culture to break down GE’s bureaucracy. In his alternative universe, GE would be boundaryless, an organization that is not defined by, or limited to, the horizontal, vertical, or external boundaries imposed by a predefined structure.
It’s a wonderful concept and many a corporate leader has striven to achieve it. Few have truly succeeded.
I never had the privilege of working for Neutron Jack. I learned about the boundaryless organization from Captain Billy.
At the ripe old age of 23, I was Chief Engineer of the USS Alacrity, a Navy minesweeper based in Charleston, SC. Our Commanding Officer (CO) was a Mustang Lieutenant named Billy G. Taylor. Captain Billy, as he was called when he wasn’t in the room, was from Waco, TX and brought all bluntness and country wisdom that origin implies to the job of being the CO.
During a minesweeping exercise off the Atlantic coast one sunny afternoon, we experienced a bearing failure on the minesweeping cable reel. I won’t bore you with a technical explanation. Suffice it to say that it was a big honkin’ reel that let out and (theoretically) retrieved a cable that was about 6 inches in diameter and several hundred feet long. When a bearing fails, it’s not very easy to retrieve that cable. When we opened up the gearbox, it was clear that salt water had fouled the oil that kept this machinery working right.
It was also clear that the planned maintenance for the equipment hadn’t been done. As you can imagine, it wasn’t long before a young sailor appeared at my side to tell me the Captain wanted to see me.
Climbing the ladder to the Captain’s quarters, I got my all my arguments (some would say excuses) straight in my head. “What happened?” said Capt. Billy.
“Well, I don’t know, sir,” I started. “That equipment is the responsibility of the deck department and…” I didn’t get to finish.
“You’re the Chief F___ing Engineer. Anything on this F___ing ship with more than two moving parts is your F___ing responsibility.”
A boundaryless organization.
Six months later, we won the squadron award for engineering efficiency. I got the message!
About 20 years ago, global corporations began to eliminate layers of management. Information technology had enabled senior managers to get quantitative information about the performance of their companies. They no longer needed (or desired to have) qualitative information from their middle managers. It was the beginning of the evolution of the “big box” model. The term is more often applied to retail stores – as in Big Box Retail. However, it applies to many industries that pursue a similar management model.
Over a generation, sophisticated systems have allowed multi-billion dollar corporations to wring out much of the cost that used to be required to run a large enterprise. That same trend has reduced the level of service.
We can no longer go to a bank and expect branch personnel to serve all of our needs. They now refer us to the call center and the dreaded voicemail tree. Retailers staff their stores with people who can tell you where the products are located but rarely offer qualitative advice. Flight attendants deliver standardized service. Their authority to make the customer happy is limited by the cost structure that is imposed on them by their corporate masters.
Customers complain but they have only themselves to blame. As a nation of consumers we have consistently stated a preference for low price over good services.
For the 21st Century Corporation, what this inexorable trend has meant is that fewer and fewer managers understand the concept of the boundaryless organization. Ever wonder why there are so many choices on the voicemail tree? Because functional specialization drives down costs. You can talk with someone in customer service about the mistake the bank made. But, to get the credit to your account, you need to talk to someone in another department. No judgment allowed.
My point of reference is generational. I am a baby boomer. We grew up in a world where we were coached by our mentors to develop business acumen and good decision making skills. I wonder how the next generation will develop those skills. How will it be possible for them to run a global enterprise when their perspective is limited to the narrow function they have learned to manage?
Let me put it this way……
WHO WILL LEAD?
TO POST A COMMENT, CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Our Mission
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.
Peter Drucker (1909 - 2005)
I went to the “Un-college”. At least that was our joke at the time. It was a play on words from the popular 7-Up commercial. 7-Up, the Un-cola was an alternative to Coke and Pepsi. And the US Naval Academy was an alternative to a real college, it was the Un-college. So, despite my pursuit of a business career, I never studied finance, marketing or industrial engineering. In fact, I never even studied management.
At the Un-college, we studied Leadership. I don’t mean by observation or inference; we took college courses on the topic. That formative era in my life has provided me with a perspective I often find lacking in our institutions, in our sense of civic duty and, indeed, our approach to solving the multitude of strategic challenges we face today.
If I sound a bit pious or arrogant, I am sorry. But, the anger felt by Main Street for Wall Street, by Republicans for Democrats (and vice versa) or by labor for management has resulted from a lack of leadership in our institutions. At the core of this anger is the faith the citizenry placed in our so-called leaders.
Throughout our history, the little guy has always known that rich guys make the rules. American institutions have always attracted people and capital because the rules made it possible for everyone to have success and for many to become rich guys. How long can this continue? Will global investors continue to have faith in US investments in the face of a rising debt burden and a lack of transparency? Will America continue to thrive when its high tech manufacturers can’t find enough workers with the math skills to operate complicated machinery? Will we continue to lead the world in innovation while our grad schools are populated largely by foreign nationals?
Millions of Americans, who have done the right things, have been wronged. People who have worked hard and trusted government and their corporate bosses have been betrayed. Their jobs have been shipped overseas, our schools are deteriorating and our financial underpinnings have been undermined.
Last week was my inaugural of this blog, “Who Will Lead?” My mission is to look at the issues of the day, the contradictions and hypocrisy and ask that question – who will lead?
I hope to keep you entertained and perhaps to enjoin you in a dialog. I would also like to expand the audience. So, if you find something interesting or provocative, please click the button to “Follow” this discussion and tell your friends.
And, as you follow current events, ask yourself that question:
“Who Will Lead?”
Peter Drucker (1909 - 2005)
I went to the “Un-college”. At least that was our joke at the time. It was a play on words from the popular 7-Up commercial. 7-Up, the Un-cola was an alternative to Coke and Pepsi. And the US Naval Academy was an alternative to a real college, it was the Un-college. So, despite my pursuit of a business career, I never studied finance, marketing or industrial engineering. In fact, I never even studied management.
At the Un-college, we studied Leadership. I don’t mean by observation or inference; we took college courses on the topic. That formative era in my life has provided me with a perspective I often find lacking in our institutions, in our sense of civic duty and, indeed, our approach to solving the multitude of strategic challenges we face today.
If I sound a bit pious or arrogant, I am sorry. But, the anger felt by Main Street for Wall Street, by Republicans for Democrats (and vice versa) or by labor for management has resulted from a lack of leadership in our institutions. At the core of this anger is the faith the citizenry placed in our so-called leaders.
Throughout our history, the little guy has always known that rich guys make the rules. American institutions have always attracted people and capital because the rules made it possible for everyone to have success and for many to become rich guys. How long can this continue? Will global investors continue to have faith in US investments in the face of a rising debt burden and a lack of transparency? Will America continue to thrive when its high tech manufacturers can’t find enough workers with the math skills to operate complicated machinery? Will we continue to lead the world in innovation while our grad schools are populated largely by foreign nationals?
Millions of Americans, who have done the right things, have been wronged. People who have worked hard and trusted government and their corporate bosses have been betrayed. Their jobs have been shipped overseas, our schools are deteriorating and our financial underpinnings have been undermined.
Last week was my inaugural of this blog, “Who Will Lead?” My mission is to look at the issues of the day, the contradictions and hypocrisy and ask that question – who will lead?
I hope to keep you entertained and perhaps to enjoin you in a dialog. I would also like to expand the audience. So, if you find something interesting or provocative, please click the button to “Follow” this discussion and tell your friends.
And, as you follow current events, ask yourself that question:
“Who Will Lead?”
Monday, July 5, 2010
STOP WATCHING CABLE NEWS NOW!
The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands.
Oscar Wilde
-- Irish dramatist, novelist, & poet (1854 - 1900)
This quote from the great Oscar Wilde tells us not much has changed in the last 100 years. Not much except the capacity of the pipeline delivering journalistic content and the financial investment at stake.
Pundits have declared the print media to be on its death bed and, indeed, one might have predicted it 25 years ago when industry consolidation began in earnest. Today, content is more often delivered to us by 24 hour cable news channels. The mega corporations behind it all – Time Warner, GE and News Corp -- are not in the game to win the Pulitzer. They are in it to make money.
When I was a kid, TV journalism was viewed by their corporate parents as a public service. Was that really the case or is just my nostalgic imagination? Would Wilde have said the same thing if he were alive mid-20th Century? I can’t be sure but it seemed to me that when the Greatest Generation was in charge of those institutions, they felt more responsible for the quality and accuracy of the content. They were among the leaders of our society and knew they had an obligation to its citizens. Perhaps that’s why we remember Cronkite, Huntley, Morrow and Sevareid so fondly.
Overwhelmed as we are by a constant barrage of infotainment, purveyors of cable news must attract viewers by being outrageous. Journalism is no longer about providing information for viewers to make intelligent decisions about issues that affect them. It’s about the battle – Republicans vs. Democrats, conservatives vs. liberals, red states vs. blue.
There is an essential laziness to this approach. Covering politics is easy. You just report what people say. What we want, what we need, what we are desperate for is reporting on policy not politics. But, that would be hard work. Imagine how difficult it would be for a reporter to research his or her topic, consult with experts reflecting a variety of opinions and provide a concise report on that topic. Why bother? It’s much easier to report what the politicians are saying about the issue.
This weekend, Fox News reports about Elena Kagan’s “unabashed liberalism” while MSNBC describes her as “Confident but still cautious. Smart and then some. Disarming. Knowing. Wicked funny.” Which of these comments informs us about her qualifications or her likely predispositions on matters that are important to us? Neither!
I could provide hundreds of examples but that’s not the point. I am here to report that I stopped watching all of them – Fox, MSNBC, CNN – about two months ago and I have not suffered from a news deficit. Indeed, I have used the time I normally devote to watching the news to finding the news. My Yahoo home page is now flooded with feeds from a variety of news sources. When you find one you like, you can get it delivered to your email or your cell phone. For me it’s the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times, Marketwatch and Barron’s plus newsletters from John Maudlin, Jeff Nichols, Dan Primack, McKinsey and PIMCO. For you, who knows? The Washington Post, USA Today, ESPN.com, People magazine. It’s easy to find something that suits.
So, take my advice and give up cable news. I guarantee you will be better informed and enjoy it more.
Oscar Wilde
-- Irish dramatist, novelist, & poet (1854 - 1900)
This quote from the great Oscar Wilde tells us not much has changed in the last 100 years. Not much except the capacity of the pipeline delivering journalistic content and the financial investment at stake.
Pundits have declared the print media to be on its death bed and, indeed, one might have predicted it 25 years ago when industry consolidation began in earnest. Today, content is more often delivered to us by 24 hour cable news channels. The mega corporations behind it all – Time Warner, GE and News Corp -- are not in the game to win the Pulitzer. They are in it to make money.
When I was a kid, TV journalism was viewed by their corporate parents as a public service. Was that really the case or is just my nostalgic imagination? Would Wilde have said the same thing if he were alive mid-20th Century? I can’t be sure but it seemed to me that when the Greatest Generation was in charge of those institutions, they felt more responsible for the quality and accuracy of the content. They were among the leaders of our society and knew they had an obligation to its citizens. Perhaps that’s why we remember Cronkite, Huntley, Morrow and Sevareid so fondly.
Overwhelmed as we are by a constant barrage of infotainment, purveyors of cable news must attract viewers by being outrageous. Journalism is no longer about providing information for viewers to make intelligent decisions about issues that affect them. It’s about the battle – Republicans vs. Democrats, conservatives vs. liberals, red states vs. blue.
There is an essential laziness to this approach. Covering politics is easy. You just report what people say. What we want, what we need, what we are desperate for is reporting on policy not politics. But, that would be hard work. Imagine how difficult it would be for a reporter to research his or her topic, consult with experts reflecting a variety of opinions and provide a concise report on that topic. Why bother? It’s much easier to report what the politicians are saying about the issue.
This weekend, Fox News reports about Elena Kagan’s “unabashed liberalism” while MSNBC describes her as “Confident but still cautious. Smart and then some. Disarming. Knowing. Wicked funny.” Which of these comments informs us about her qualifications or her likely predispositions on matters that are important to us? Neither!
I could provide hundreds of examples but that’s not the point. I am here to report that I stopped watching all of them – Fox, MSNBC, CNN – about two months ago and I have not suffered from a news deficit. Indeed, I have used the time I normally devote to watching the news to finding the news. My Yahoo home page is now flooded with feeds from a variety of news sources. When you find one you like, you can get it delivered to your email or your cell phone. For me it’s the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times, Marketwatch and Barron’s plus newsletters from John Maudlin, Jeff Nichols, Dan Primack, McKinsey and PIMCO. For you, who knows? The Washington Post, USA Today, ESPN.com, People magazine. It’s easy to find something that suits.
So, take my advice and give up cable news. I guarantee you will be better informed and enjoy it more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)