Talk with Tom
Get the dispatches from the new world of work
Calling Daniel Goleman!
Boston-Cambridge is buzzing at the possibility of Harvard president Larry Summers stepping down before being subjected to a second "no confidence" vote from the Arts faculty later this week. (Perhaps it will have happened before this Blog sees the light.) "Some" are saying that if he steps down it will prove that Harvard is ungovernable; "some" are saying that the general faculty-spurred unrest is a symbol of its unwillingness to deal with Summers' vigorous change agenda. All the above, and more, doubtless have many grains of truth enclosed. But my take, based on utterly no inside knowledge, is that Summers is, as he long has been, "abrasive" (a repeatedly used descriptor) and notably lacking in Daniel Goleman's EQ/emotional intelligence.
It is axiomatic that a change agent will meet resistance, in Cub Scout Troop #349 or when attempting to lead Harvard. And the thin-skinned had best not attempt such change. On the other hand, determined change agents are not allowed to claim that the mountain was impossible to scale because of "their" recalcitrance—it is up to the leader to muster as much "emotional intelligence" as relentless determination to get the job done through those who will be subjected to the newfound approach. Summers' manner apparently borders (crosses the border) on rude and demeaning. Frankly, I think his change agenda is long overdue at Harvard, and I am saddened that he seems to have been born, or developed along the way, such a ratty, haughty, even misanthropic, attitude toward his fellow men and women.
The larger lesson is obvious: "Revolutionary approaches are needed in revolutionary times"—but they'd better be accompanied by first-rate "political"/people skills.
(Come to think of it, Summers in his 20s could have benefited mightily from having read and absorbed the lessons of B. Frankin's autobiography. America's most successful man at its most perilous time had, along with an incomparable vision, people skills to burn.)
ARCHIVES
pfizer viagra brand viagra mgdiscount online viagra generic - July 2007
- April 2007 get viagra overnight
best quality viagra online generic viagra cheapBefore blogging became all the rage, Tom was posting book reviews and Observations (essentially early blog posts) to this site. You can find the archives below.
What Tom's Reading Archives
buy cheap viagra on line - April 2001
- September 1999 viagra for sale without prescription and next day delivery
OBSERVATIONS ARCHIVES
right now
What we're talking about
on the front page.
Comments
There is a direct relationship betwen the elite unviversities and their inability to accept change. Maintaining the statusquo in their security blanket .
Posted by tom omalley at February 20, 2006 11:40 AM
This seems to go hand in hand with the post from last week on sharpening presentation skills. I would agree that change agents must have very good people skills. The timing couldn't have been better, or, it was very well planned in writing this post.
Posted by Rocky at February 20, 2006 9:24 PM
Hmmm... "abrasive" and even occassionally "rude and demeaning" are words I've seen used to describe one Jack Welch. Maybe that's what it takes to wake up a sleeping organization.
Posted by Paul at February 21, 2006 12:03 AM
Paul, will say more later. Jack was abrasive in an abrasive organization--a big difference. He was not demeaning! And, with his great Irish gleam-in-the-eye, he was hardly misanthropic. In a recent Wall Street Journal interview he said "you gotta love people" .. and I think he did. (Vince Lombardi: "You don't need to like your players, but you must love them" ... or some such.) Sorry, I'm racing to an event in Madrid.
Posted by tom peters at February 21, 2006 2:35 AM
Reminds me of a conversation I had with a business owner who was labeled "high IQ—low EQ" by those around him. This fellow had a penchant for roiling his engineering staff with excoriating emails and vmails—which he described as “talking straight†or “letting off steam.†He initially resisted my suggestion to be more thoughtful about his communications. He said things like, “What’s wrong with being direct?†or “Why do I have to be so careful about how I talk to people?†My reply was, “You don’t have to. You're the boss. It’s just a matter of what RESULT you want to produce. If you want to publicly let off steam, and you don’t mind the unintended consequences of that, fine. But if you want to prevent certain outcomes—for instance, resentment by your staff, which will show up in turnover costs, or decreased productivity, because everyone is in private meetings nattering about your emails—there are other ways you can choose to communicate. What are the outcomes you want?"
Posted by John O'Leary at February 21, 2006 11:14 AM
In his letter to the Harvard community , Mr. Summers did not admit to making any mistakes, but he seemed to acknowledge missteps in his leadership. "I have sought for the last five years to prod and challenge the university to reach for the most ambitious goals in creative ways," he said. "There surely have been times when I could have done this in wiser or more respectful ways."
Wiser and respectful = Daniel goleman's EQ = Tom's right :-)
Posted by Namith at February 21, 2006 11:40 PM