Peter, thanks for suggesting this book. I haven't found the video yet, but the story was entertaining and thought provoking.
In contrast to 3rd Policeman, I didn't enjoy the early part of the book. I too saw a part of myself in Tom Rath, his inward critical nature; once this was realized, or perhaps admitted, I enjoyed the book more, in part because I saw the transformation in Tom that occurred when he was honest to himself and others. The story is encouraging to me, in that I can conquer my flaws, and that honesty really is the best policy.
The Ralph Hopkins character reminds me of the Wizard of Oz, an almost mythical man that people rarely ever saw. Mr. Hopkins was instrumental in Tom's journey (realizing who he wanted to be), just like the Wizard was instrumental in Dorothy's.
I would agree with you, Peter, that people like Ralph Hopkins are catalysts in this world, speeding up progress. Edison may be an example of that. But there is also something admirable about being balanced and being content.
A couple of additional thoughts:
The book may also have been appropriately titled, "The Men in the Gray Flannel Suit." Yes, Tom was the only one in a gray flannel suit, but I think the function of the title is more than just to point out to us who the main character is, there was a meaning there. To me, the suit symbolized the corporate costume, and when the individual was in dress, he had to act as he thought he was supposed to act and say what he thought he was supposed to say.
I found it ironic that the committee Tom and Ralph were working on is a mental health committee. All of the characters seem to have some "issues."
I liked the intermittent flashbacks in the novel that gave us insight into the characters and helped us understand how they got to the where they were and became who they are. It reminded me of the flashbacks in lost.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit -- My Hero
My thoughts on this month's book club, in no particular order.
9 to 5 vs. Mover and Shaker
This goes back to one of our earliest discussions. What's the relative value (or are they even commensurate) of the "heroism" of working day in day out, raising a family, going to church, participating in town meetings, etc. vs. giving your whole life over to your passion ( a la Paul Farmer). I felt like the moral of the book was largely that sacrificing the family life for the passionate life is a poor trade off, at least when the passion (as in the case of Ralph Hopkins) is for business, even good business. But then there's that little snippet of dialogue at the end, when Ralph let's himself go, and says (paraphrasing) "we're the ones who get things done." And he's right, I think. If there weren't those people who obsessively dedicated themselves to things, whether it's research, or business, or healthcare, the world would not progress at the speed it does.
Atonement, Honesty and Facing our Demons
A large part of the novel was about Tom recognizing that he couldn't run from his responsibilities. I loved the way, early on in the book, that he hid behind his cynicism. And it scared me that the cynicism seemed so familiar to me. I often find myself wondering about the "political" advisability of statements, relationships, etc. rather than the rightness of them. It wasn't until Tom faced his responsibilities, in the form of standing up for his beliefs about the big speech, that his life started to turn around. And it wasn't until he faced up to his biggest responsibility, his obligation to Maria and their son, and his biggest sin, hiding it from Betsy, that he became a whole man again.
Striving for Success
Another point that hit perhaps a bit too close to home was the Rath's struggle to succeed, particularly in the form of the nicer home in the nicer neighborhood. I'm a little sensitive about the fact that we bought a home in a "good" town, with a "good" school district, and paid tens of thousands of dollars extra to do so. The reason was to be close to work (which happens to be located within the "good" town), but I'm ashamed to admit that I get a little thrill out of telling people I live in Lexington, and having them tell me what a nice town it is, how great the schools are, etc. This sort of materialism is checked in the book by the Angel of Destruction, in the form of Edward Schultz. And it isn't until after the school board meeting, when the Raths stand up (in this case it's primarily Besty) and stop scheming and are up front and honest about their intentions that the situation starts to really turn around.
The Big Moral
So this is a big moral book. The moral seems to me to be: If you are honest with people, accept your responsibilities, and act with integrity the world will reward you. But when you turn your back on your responsibilities either out of fear (like Tom early on) or selfishness (like Ralph), or when you are dishonest, like Edward, the world will reflect that back at you as well. Sort of a karma-based capitalism.
While I think it's true that the world is largely what you make out of it, I also think that the idealized vision of everything working out if we're just honest and forthright is a bit misguided. It reminds me of one of the more powerful lessons I learned about tithing. It was a story from a returned missionary from, I believe, Guatamala (no one you know, Alvin). He told how a man, newly baptized, struggled to decide whether to pay his tithing or buy food for his family. He decided to pay his tithing, knowing the Lord could bless him. And then went hungry for three days until his next paycheck. Sometimes acting with integrity and honesty just has to be its own reward.
Last week in church our sacrament meeting talks were about having joy despite trials. I was conducting the meeting, and as I concluded shared one of my favorite Neal Maxwell anecdotes. After the Nazi invasion of France, when the British troops were withdrawing from Dunkirk, the rearguard were able to send a brief message to the troops in the channel. The message they chose was "but if not," a reference to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who told King Nebuchadnezzar that they believed if he threw them into the fiery furnace their God could save them. But if not, they still would refuse to worship the false idols of Babylon.
It also reminds me a scene near the end of "Man for All Seasons" when Meg is pleading with her father to sign the King's Act and save himself. I've copied the dialogue below:
(Meg) - In any state that was half good, you would be raised up high, not here. It's not your fault the state's three-quarters bad. If you elect to suffer for it, you elect to be a hero.
(Thomas) - That's very neat. But look now. If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice and thought perhaps we must stand fast a little even at the risk of being heroes.
(Meg) - But in reason! Haven't you done as much as God can reasonably want?
(Thomas) - Well, finally it isn't a matter of reason. Finally, it's a matter of love.
The End
That's enough of my random thoughts. I hope you all liked the book as much as I did.
9 to 5 vs. Mover and Shaker
This goes back to one of our earliest discussions. What's the relative value (or are they even commensurate) of the "heroism" of working day in day out, raising a family, going to church, participating in town meetings, etc. vs. giving your whole life over to your passion ( a la Paul Farmer). I felt like the moral of the book was largely that sacrificing the family life for the passionate life is a poor trade off, at least when the passion (as in the case of Ralph Hopkins) is for business, even good business. But then there's that little snippet of dialogue at the end, when Ralph let's himself go, and says (paraphrasing) "we're the ones who get things done." And he's right, I think. If there weren't those people who obsessively dedicated themselves to things, whether it's research, or business, or healthcare, the world would not progress at the speed it does.
Atonement, Honesty and Facing our Demons
A large part of the novel was about Tom recognizing that he couldn't run from his responsibilities. I loved the way, early on in the book, that he hid behind his cynicism. And it scared me that the cynicism seemed so familiar to me. I often find myself wondering about the "political" advisability of statements, relationships, etc. rather than the rightness of them. It wasn't until Tom faced his responsibilities, in the form of standing up for his beliefs about the big speech, that his life started to turn around. And it wasn't until he faced up to his biggest responsibility, his obligation to Maria and their son, and his biggest sin, hiding it from Betsy, that he became a whole man again.
Striving for Success
Another point that hit perhaps a bit too close to home was the Rath's struggle to succeed, particularly in the form of the nicer home in the nicer neighborhood. I'm a little sensitive about the fact that we bought a home in a "good" town, with a "good" school district, and paid tens of thousands of dollars extra to do so. The reason was to be close to work (which happens to be located within the "good" town), but I'm ashamed to admit that I get a little thrill out of telling people I live in Lexington, and having them tell me what a nice town it is, how great the schools are, etc. This sort of materialism is checked in the book by the Angel of Destruction, in the form of Edward Schultz. And it isn't until after the school board meeting, when the Raths stand up (in this case it's primarily Besty) and stop scheming and are up front and honest about their intentions that the situation starts to really turn around.
The Big Moral
So this is a big moral book. The moral seems to me to be: If you are honest with people, accept your responsibilities, and act with integrity the world will reward you. But when you turn your back on your responsibilities either out of fear (like Tom early on) or selfishness (like Ralph), or when you are dishonest, like Edward, the world will reflect that back at you as well. Sort of a karma-based capitalism.
While I think it's true that the world is largely what you make out of it, I also think that the idealized vision of everything working out if we're just honest and forthright is a bit misguided. It reminds me of one of the more powerful lessons I learned about tithing. It was a story from a returned missionary from, I believe, Guatamala (no one you know, Alvin). He told how a man, newly baptized, struggled to decide whether to pay his tithing or buy food for his family. He decided to pay his tithing, knowing the Lord could bless him. And then went hungry for three days until his next paycheck. Sometimes acting with integrity and honesty just has to be its own reward.
Last week in church our sacrament meeting talks were about having joy despite trials. I was conducting the meeting, and as I concluded shared one of my favorite Neal Maxwell anecdotes. After the Nazi invasion of France, when the British troops were withdrawing from Dunkirk, the rearguard were able to send a brief message to the troops in the channel. The message they chose was "but if not," a reference to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who told King Nebuchadnezzar that they believed if he threw them into the fiery furnace their God could save them. But if not, they still would refuse to worship the false idols of Babylon.
It also reminds me a scene near the end of "Man for All Seasons" when Meg is pleading with her father to sign the King's Act and save himself. I've copied the dialogue below:
(Meg) - In any state that was half good, you would be raised up high, not here. It's not your fault the state's three-quarters bad. If you elect to suffer for it, you elect to be a hero.
(Thomas) - That's very neat. But look now. If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice and thought perhaps we must stand fast a little even at the risk of being heroes.
(Meg) - But in reason! Haven't you done as much as God can reasonably want?
(Thomas) - Well, finally it isn't a matter of reason. Finally, it's a matter of love.
The End
That's enough of my random thoughts. I hope you all liked the book as much as I did.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
State of Fear, Science and the Dismal Science
By popular demand (the President of Merrill Hall no less!) I'm unearthing and posting my comments on "State of Fear" from several months back. I'm sorry I've been AWOL the last while...I've been hit with the double whammy of 1. working in finance where the world is melting down and 2. buying a house and moving. Not done with either just yet...
If it feels like it abruptly ends without much conclusion...well that's why it's been unposted for so long. I also have lots of other thoughts on the topic I wanted to share...will have to wait for another post (I'd also enjoy a serious book on the topic).
1. On the book. Now I know what it feels like to read a "dollar-theater" movie. It really felt to me like Crichton was writing a screenplay for an action film---with the lack of depth, predictable plot and totally unrealistic and unnecessary stunts. Of course, I did read it in about a week, while my book club selection (Men hating church) took me a month to get through. So I guess I have no right to complain.
2. On global warming. I am not a scientist. I therefore rely on an appeal to authority here, and my understanding is that most authorities are in broad agreement that global warming is occuring. I do, however, have several reasons I'm less sure of the details (and therefore the appropriate response) than I would like to be:
a. People are selfish. This includes grant- and publicity-seeking scientists. Incentives certainly play a role here.
b. Sample selection bias. People who believe strongly in global warming or "environmentalism" are much more likely to be passionate enough to devote their life to the study of these issues. Most civil rights attorneys think racism is a big problem; most nutritionists think people should be more careful about what they eat. They certainly have more information on these issues...but you can't ignore that they also are a biased sample.
c. Climate is a complex and unpredictable system. I will here make a comparison that may strike the scientists in the group as unfair. I will compare economics to climate science. Economics, my field of study, is known as the "dismal science." Many people believe this is a commentary on the quality of economic research---in fact the term originated as nothing of the kind. It referred instead to the predictions of economists like Thomas Malthus whose predictions about the future and fate of humanity were rather pessimistic. Malthus observed humanity as a system of production and consumption and used the data available to him to predict the path of that system. He predicted that overpopulation would devastate the human race within a short period of time---that standards of living were doomed to continuously decline. Of course he was wildly wrong. But his methods were sound. He tried to predict something very complicated based on observations on a much smaller (and simpler) scale.
Take a more recent example. Economists nearly all agree that increasing government debt raises interest rates. The relationship between debt and rates is simple and nearly irrefutable in theory---it's just supply and demand. Yet recently Dick Cheney declared he did not believe in this relationship because the data supporting it is so hard to interpret. And unfortunately it's hard to blame him for that conclusion. The economy is a complex system with many variables interacting. To quantify the effect of debt on rates requires a specification of the whole system. It requires controlling for all the other variables which affect interest rates. Economists can experiment with these things on a small scale and can build mathematical models to simulate. But in the real world the relationships are very hard to identify and quantify. Predictions can be and have been very far off. Economics cannot be as precise as science most of the time because economists cannot conduct controlled experiments. We have to infer from the data we observe in the world.
Isn't global climate science similar in this regard? You can know the greenhouse effect is real...you can understand the theory behind it, model it, simulate it, observe it on a small scale...but predicting it in a system as complex as world climate is no small task. Economists also tend to vastly overestimate their ability to forecast. It would not surprise me were global climate models to suffer from the same bias.
A common argument I encounter is that while the extent of global warming (or other environmental problems) may be unknown, why not have clean air and water? This seems to me a useless point. It conveys no information---if I say I'll pay $0 for something you know nothing about its worth to me. The cost is not $0. It may be $0 to much of the developed world, but it most certainly is not to the third world. It is unfair to duck the hard questions here---life (and public policy) is about trade-offs and it doesn't get us anywhere to pretend otherwise.
If it feels like it abruptly ends without much conclusion...well that's why it's been unposted for so long. I also have lots of other thoughts on the topic I wanted to share...will have to wait for another post (I'd also enjoy a serious book on the topic).
1. On the book. Now I know what it feels like to read a "dollar-theater" movie. It really felt to me like Crichton was writing a screenplay for an action film---with the lack of depth, predictable plot and totally unrealistic and unnecessary stunts. Of course, I did read it in about a week, while my book club selection (Men hating church) took me a month to get through. So I guess I have no right to complain.
2. On global warming. I am not a scientist. I therefore rely on an appeal to authority here, and my understanding is that most authorities are in broad agreement that global warming is occuring. I do, however, have several reasons I'm less sure of the details (and therefore the appropriate response) than I would like to be:
a. People are selfish. This includes grant- and publicity-seeking scientists. Incentives certainly play a role here.
b. Sample selection bias. People who believe strongly in global warming or "environmentalism" are much more likely to be passionate enough to devote their life to the study of these issues. Most civil rights attorneys think racism is a big problem; most nutritionists think people should be more careful about what they eat. They certainly have more information on these issues...but you can't ignore that they also are a biased sample.
c. Climate is a complex and unpredictable system. I will here make a comparison that may strike the scientists in the group as unfair. I will compare economics to climate science. Economics, my field of study, is known as the "dismal science." Many people believe this is a commentary on the quality of economic research---in fact the term originated as nothing of the kind. It referred instead to the predictions of economists like Thomas Malthus whose predictions about the future and fate of humanity were rather pessimistic. Malthus observed humanity as a system of production and consumption and used the data available to him to predict the path of that system. He predicted that overpopulation would devastate the human race within a short period of time---that standards of living were doomed to continuously decline. Of course he was wildly wrong. But his methods were sound. He tried to predict something very complicated based on observations on a much smaller (and simpler) scale.
Take a more recent example. Economists nearly all agree that increasing government debt raises interest rates. The relationship between debt and rates is simple and nearly irrefutable in theory---it's just supply and demand. Yet recently Dick Cheney declared he did not believe in this relationship because the data supporting it is so hard to interpret. And unfortunately it's hard to blame him for that conclusion. The economy is a complex system with many variables interacting. To quantify the effect of debt on rates requires a specification of the whole system. It requires controlling for all the other variables which affect interest rates. Economists can experiment with these things on a small scale and can build mathematical models to simulate. But in the real world the relationships are very hard to identify and quantify. Predictions can be and have been very far off. Economics cannot be as precise as science most of the time because economists cannot conduct controlled experiments. We have to infer from the data we observe in the world.
Isn't global climate science similar in this regard? You can know the greenhouse effect is real...you can understand the theory behind it, model it, simulate it, observe it on a small scale...but predicting it in a system as complex as world climate is no small task. Economists also tend to vastly overestimate their ability to forecast. It would not surprise me were global climate models to suffer from the same bias.
A common argument I encounter is that while the extent of global warming (or other environmental problems) may be unknown, why not have clean air and water? This seems to me a useless point. It conveys no information---if I say I'll pay $0 for something you know nothing about its worth to me. The cost is not $0. It may be $0 to much of the developed world, but it most certainly is not to the third world. It is unfair to duck the hard questions here---life (and public policy) is about trade-offs and it doesn't get us anywhere to pretend otherwise.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Happy Birthday Peter!
Peter,
I've been meaning to respond to your power post for a while, and what better time than on your birthday. I thought it was quite interesting, and I started to scheme up ways to become more powerful. Then I remembered what I learned from being President of Merrill Hall, namely that I really have no interest in power. But still, the post was thought provoking and I hope that others will post interesting things that they learn. My other question with regard to the post is if a person's power and leadership qualities should have any bearing in an election. Is it OK/good/bad to vote for the better leader even if I fundamentally disagree with his/her policies? What if I fundamentally disagree with both candidates' policies?
I'm sure everyone will be happy to know that I actually finished a book. It's next month's book and only because it was on audio. (I'm looking forward to the discussion.) However, Peter, I am on page 184 of your book, and I fully intend to finish it even though it will probably be after you start this discussion sometime this week. I also finished Season 2 of Lost.
Other things I've been meaning to say:
Jesse, you really need to finish the post that's been sitting in the draft section for months, so I can comment on it.
Karl, I have a cousin on a mission in Poland, Elder Hughes, if your brother ever runs into him.
Everybody, I said in an earlier post that I would disregard the Prophet's counsel to vote for the marriage amendment. I regretted it as soon as I posted it. My post was poorly reasoned. I won't rehash everything right now, but I had to clarify that and get that off my chest.
Well PBJ, I hope you have a fabulous day. If you ever want to be roommates again, you can always bring your family and live in my basement. I hope you include this blog on your list of great accomplishments during the last year. You rock!
Alvin
PS Sorry I don't know anyone else's birthday (except Paul's, which I missed in May), but if you want to tell me your birthday (vanordens@gmail.com), I'd be happy to write you a birthday post or email.
I've been meaning to respond to your power post for a while, and what better time than on your birthday. I thought it was quite interesting, and I started to scheme up ways to become more powerful. Then I remembered what I learned from being President of Merrill Hall, namely that I really have no interest in power. But still, the post was thought provoking and I hope that others will post interesting things that they learn. My other question with regard to the post is if a person's power and leadership qualities should have any bearing in an election. Is it OK/good/bad to vote for the better leader even if I fundamentally disagree with his/her policies? What if I fundamentally disagree with both candidates' policies?
I'm sure everyone will be happy to know that I actually finished a book. It's next month's book and only because it was on audio. (I'm looking forward to the discussion.) However, Peter, I am on page 184 of your book, and I fully intend to finish it even though it will probably be after you start this discussion sometime this week. I also finished Season 2 of Lost.
Other things I've been meaning to say:
Jesse, you really need to finish the post that's been sitting in the draft section for months, so I can comment on it.
Karl, I have a cousin on a mission in Poland, Elder Hughes, if your brother ever runs into him.
Everybody, I said in an earlier post that I would disregard the Prophet's counsel to vote for the marriage amendment. I regretted it as soon as I posted it. My post was poorly reasoned. I won't rehash everything right now, but I had to clarify that and get that off my chest.
Well PBJ, I hope you have a fabulous day. If you ever want to be roommates again, you can always bring your family and live in my basement. I hope you include this blog on your list of great accomplishments during the last year. You rock!
Alvin
PS Sorry I don't know anyone else's birthday (except Paul's, which I missed in May), but if you want to tell me your birthday (vanordens@gmail.com), I'd be happy to write you a birthday post or email.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Year of Wonders: Warning
I finished September's book yesterday and October's book today. As I had mentioned in the previous post, I had borrowed the audio version from the library, and it didn't take too long to finish it while walking the dog, commuting to school, working in the yard, etc. Being responsible for the content of the book, I wanted to finish the book early and be able to give warning if need be, as Paul did for State of Fear. I'm glad I did. I may be ruining the book for some, or perhaps jumping the gun a month early by sharing some of my feelings about the book, but it seems appropriate to me.
Two years ago I read Lost Boys by Orson Scott Card. At the end of the novel I felt cheated, betrayed, and disturbed, especially because I am a parent. This book caused me similar emotional strain, especially because I am human. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book, but like the atrocities of the Nephites in chapter 9 of Moroni, certain images from Years of Wonder shook me.
One more point of disclosure. While Geraldine Brooks was for the most part tactful when writing about matters of a sexual nature, two scenes very near the end of the book read similar to what I imagine a romance novel to be. For those of you listening to the audiobook, as I did, if you stop after track 1 of disc 9 and pick up again at 1 min 55 sec into track 5, you will avoid the worst of it while not really losing anything in the story. I used the "Search Inside" feature on Amazon.com to figure out what pages correlate with that section of the audiobook: stop at the end of page 274 and pick up again at 279.
...can't wait for the discussion on this one.
Two years ago I read Lost Boys by Orson Scott Card. At the end of the novel I felt cheated, betrayed, and disturbed, especially because I am a parent. This book caused me similar emotional strain, especially because I am human. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the book, but like the atrocities of the Nephites in chapter 9 of Moroni, certain images from Years of Wonder shook me.
One more point of disclosure. While Geraldine Brooks was for the most part tactful when writing about matters of a sexual nature, two scenes very near the end of the book read similar to what I imagine a romance novel to be. For those of you listening to the audiobook, as I did, if you stop after track 1 of disc 9 and pick up again at 1 min 55 sec into track 5, you will avoid the worst of it while not really losing anything in the story. I used the "Search Inside" feature on Amazon.com to figure out what pages correlate with that section of the audiobook: stop at the end of page 274 and pick up again at 279.
...can't wait for the discussion on this one.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
"Hard" and "Soft" Power
Last Saturday I went to a lecture by Joseph Nye. His premise was that there are two types of power: hard power, characterized by coercion, and soft power, characterized by persuasion. I thought his ideas were good, but his presentation was soft-headed (way too "soft science"). So my summary here probably reflects more my thoughts about the subject than what he said directly.
The premise is that power is the ability to compel others to do what you want them to do. You can accomplish this through coercing them, either through threats or bribes, or you can do it by changing their fundamental feelings about the task, through persuasion. The former is accomplished through exogenous stimuli (carrots and sticks) and the latter through endogenous stimuli (he called this honey, but I think that's a lousy metaphor. It's more like uncovering and exciting latent desires). He further suggested that "hard" power has been the bread and butter of industry and military organizations for the past 200 years, but that "soft" power is currently ascendant and will be increasingly important as organizations shift from being "pyramids" to being "networks."
As a result of this duality of power, Nye outlined six skills that he sees as necessary in order to lead effectively. Three he correlates with "soft" power, two with "hard" power, and one with balancing between the two.
Soft Power Skills: (1) Emotional IQ (in his formulation, but I'd call it more like self-knowledge or self-mastery). A clear knowledge of and control over yourself. (2) A vision which is inspirational and realistic (his phrase was "grand but not grandiose) and (3) communication (verbal and non-verbal). What it boils down to is, if you want to persuade people you need to discover and exploit something you are personally passionate about (self-knowledge), formulate it in a way that others can buy into it (vision) and then communicate it to them in a way that resonates (communication). Being quantitatively biased, I see this as an energy transfer problem: persuasive leaders have within themselves large stores of potential energy on some subject. They create a mechanism to transfer that energy to others. Then they jumpstart the process. And the tighter the resonance, the purer the energy transfer. Anyway, kind of geeky but it's the way my mind works.
Hard Power Skills: (1) Organizational ability (but what he really means is ability to acquire information, whether it supports or weakens your own agenda) and (2) Machiavellian insight into others fears and desires. I don't have any snazzy physical analogy here, perhaps because he spent a lot less time here, and being a more standard view of "power" it's less intellectually interesting.
The final skill: contextual intelligence (essentially the meta-skill of knowing what recipe to apply in any given situation).
In relation to previous subjects of discussion, I go back to our reaction to the Paul Farmer book. Here is a leader who offers no carrots or sticks to us (he has no ability to reward or punish us directly), but who seemed to inspire a degree of devotion and desire to change behaviors among us. Other examples of "soft" power leaders given during the seminar were (as you would expect) Ghandi, MLK, and the Dalai Lama.
I'm not completely convinced that there is a qualitative difference between "hard" and "soft" power. In some ways I see "soft" power as just another form of coercion, in which the bribe is the approbation of the charismatic leader. I guess it gets to whether people's private utilities can really be changed through endogenous stimuli.
The premise is that power is the ability to compel others to do what you want them to do. You can accomplish this through coercing them, either through threats or bribes, or you can do it by changing their fundamental feelings about the task, through persuasion. The former is accomplished through exogenous stimuli (carrots and sticks) and the latter through endogenous stimuli (he called this honey, but I think that's a lousy metaphor. It's more like uncovering and exciting latent desires). He further suggested that "hard" power has been the bread and butter of industry and military organizations for the past 200 years, but that "soft" power is currently ascendant and will be increasingly important as organizations shift from being "pyramids" to being "networks."
As a result of this duality of power, Nye outlined six skills that he sees as necessary in order to lead effectively. Three he correlates with "soft" power, two with "hard" power, and one with balancing between the two.
Soft Power Skills: (1) Emotional IQ (in his formulation, but I'd call it more like self-knowledge or self-mastery). A clear knowledge of and control over yourself. (2) A vision which is inspirational and realistic (his phrase was "grand but not grandiose) and (3) communication (verbal and non-verbal). What it boils down to is, if you want to persuade people you need to discover and exploit something you are personally passionate about (self-knowledge), formulate it in a way that others can buy into it (vision) and then communicate it to them in a way that resonates (communication). Being quantitatively biased, I see this as an energy transfer problem: persuasive leaders have within themselves large stores of potential energy on some subject. They create a mechanism to transfer that energy to others. Then they jumpstart the process. And the tighter the resonance, the purer the energy transfer. Anyway, kind of geeky but it's the way my mind works.
Hard Power Skills: (1) Organizational ability (but what he really means is ability to acquire information, whether it supports or weakens your own agenda) and (2) Machiavellian insight into others fears and desires. I don't have any snazzy physical analogy here, perhaps because he spent a lot less time here, and being a more standard view of "power" it's less intellectually interesting.
The final skill: contextual intelligence (essentially the meta-skill of knowing what recipe to apply in any given situation).
In relation to previous subjects of discussion, I go back to our reaction to the Paul Farmer book. Here is a leader who offers no carrots or sticks to us (he has no ability to reward or punish us directly), but who seemed to inspire a degree of devotion and desire to change behaviors among us. Other examples of "soft" power leaders given during the seminar were (as you would expect) Ghandi, MLK, and the Dalai Lama.
I'm not completely convinced that there is a qualitative difference between "hard" and "soft" power. In some ways I see "soft" power as just another form of coercion, in which the bribe is the approbation of the charismatic leader. I guess it gets to whether people's private utilities can really be changed through endogenous stimuli.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
October's book(s), part II
After reading the first chapter of the Film Club and flipping randomly through the rest of the book, I was disappointed, but perhaps not surprised, at the content and attitude of the book; while I am glad the author has a relationship with his son that fosters open communication, I don't think he should be telling his son that it's OK to $@#% a girl as long as he doesn't get her pregnant. It shouldn't be difficult to find thought provoking books devoid of profanity and vulgarity, but this book and one other that I had tried to read last year (The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time) seemed determined to challenge that idea. So as much as I looked forward to discuss parenting styles, I am instead formally proposing Geraldine Brooks' first novel, Year of Wonders. I have already listened to the first chapter (the reader of the audio version does a wonderful job, Alvin) and am completely wrapped up in the beauty the author can paint from such a bleak point in history.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)