Comments

"What should "management gurus" do, or what should I do to participate in the cleansing process? Should management gurus resign their posts, as it were, en masse?"

It's something to think about.
If you guys didn't wave red flags when we
really needed to see them, what good are you?

"We agreed that regulation would come and should come—but we also agreed that it probably wouldn't matter much. All rules can be evaded. The issue really concerns civic virtue and moral responsibility—not the crafting of legislation."

This shows how out of touch you are with human nature. 'All Rules can be evaded so why have them? People just need to learn how to be good? Are you joking?

Posted by dan at March 18, 2009 9:02 AM

Go Underground Right Underground (GURU)
Get understanding real understanding (Guru)
Go underpin regal urchins (Guru)
Groucho understood real hUmour (Guru)
Grenerate useable real solUtions (Guru)

My top five suggestions as a non-guru, just an innocent bystander doing his best...

Posted by patrick at March 18, 2009 9:14 AM

By and large I don't think people look to management gurus for a moral compass, or for guidance on life outside work (however transferable the wisdom might be). Gurus sell what people want to buy, otherwise they're out of work. "An Inconvenient Truth" is not so inconvenient that people won't shell out to see it; just inconvenient enough for them to feel good doing so. And people choose gurus who say things they want to hear and blank out the rest. So even if you had been banging a louder drum, Tom, chances are not much would have changed. There are plenty of even bigger looming crises which we are mostly turning a blind eye to - climate change, population growth, water shortage - in spite of loud, well articulated, well-informed warnings going back many decades. We are generally much happier in blissful ignorance.

Posted by RobCH at March 18, 2009 9:32 AM

Until some disaster happens of course, when we run around looking for someone to blame.

Posted by RobCH at March 18, 2009 9:33 AM

Tom, I'm not really all that surprised that this happened. After all, within weeks of AIG receiving their first bailout dollars, they were surprised by the public's indignation relative to the $$$R&R retreat being planned. At the last minute, they backed down. The story The Emperor Wears No Clothes rings truer every day in this story. And unfortunately, there is likely more to come.

Posted by Rodney Johnson at March 18, 2009 9:36 AM

See this one :)

http://www.thelocal.se/18214/20090314/

Posted by Orjan Lundberg at March 18, 2009 9:39 AM

Resigning en masse is simply hoisting the white flag, walking away from the problem and avoiding responsibility.

You've ranted against B-Schools in the past. You've heralded recent ideas to take some formal steps to make "Management" a profession with meaningful qualifications. Why not put together the outlines for a formal qualification? It mightn't be the answer but it's a start.

Posted by Mark JF at March 18, 2009 9:44 AM

What do Guru's do?

Help free/shield the next generation of entrepreneurs from muddle headed thinking and to go and create something amazing.

Posted by PaulH at March 18, 2009 9:52 AM

Looking back is important in order to move forward. But cleaning house may be the first step. I reluctantly agree with Arianna Huffington when last night on Larry King she called for the removal of Geithner and Summers for their direct participation in TARP and deregulation. I'd also like to have removed Senators Dodd (D) and Shelby ®, Chairman and Ranking Member on the Senate Committee for Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Where were they?

I would humbly suggest replacing Geithner and Summers with the brilliant Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Nouriel Roubini. Both were major hits at Davos with Bill Gates and Michael Dell in line to hear them. I have been in frequent contact with one of these gentlemen and he would be an excellent replacement: brilliant, ethical, worldly and pretty much apolitical--getting him to do so may be the challenge. A clean house would be necessary.

There is a brilliant video with Taleb and Roubini. The only problem is the idiotic dimwit ditties offered by the pundits and analysts. Brilliant points are made by Taleb and Roubini in spite of the obstacles of the above. Ugh! Jon Stewart would have been a better more informed interviewer, at least the dimwit tag along ditties would not have been a part of the interview.

In spite of the glib idiotic responses and questions from the interviewers, Taleb and Roubini make their points: http://thebeingbrand.blogspot.com/2009/03/being-nassim-nicholas-taleb-viii.html. Taleb says that Geithner et al have failed before and they will fail again. This is hard not to see when considering what has happened under his watch as President of the New York Fed. Taleb is calling for systemic change.

While I so appreciate TP's introspection in all this, I am by far more interested in those who actually make policy. Taleb thinks that in order to have robustness we need to eliminate debt, change the culture, and perhaps the system too. Big order, eh? But we have to start somewhere. A crisis is the best time to initiate real change, even if it will take a bit longer to turn around.

My longtime friend and business partner and I have been buying houses with cash over this past year and putting people back into their homes. He says, "Debt is like cancer" and "cash is king." He has convinced me of this, not that I needed a whole lot of convincing. Taleb and Roubini have pretty much said the same thing with regards to the culture of debt. My friend will be happy to have this agreement. He saves like nobody I know, though he has been a trader for some 20 years and an engineer par excellence for 25 years. I'm confident we can make the necessary changes.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 18, 2009 10:21 AM

Well, "all" any of us can do is give advice and counsel, regardless of whether we're considered "gurus" or not. As one my long-time and loyal clients said, "Mary gives me advice whether I want to hear it or not." He knows that he pays me in part to tell him things he may not want to hear. Of course, that level of maturity and integrity is relatively rare in mega-companies such as AIG.

In any event, you can mandate behavior, but you can never legislate morality.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at March 18, 2009 10:21 AM

Mr Peters:
If this helps, and it's a bit of a non-sequitur, your blog posts have been very helpful to me as I built a talent development program through National Public Radio and now, beyond it. I was laid off from there in January, part of across the board cost cutting.
I referenced you and Seth Godin in a manifesto that was published this past Monday on a public radio website called Transom.org.

Try stuff, see what works, what fails miserably. Learn, rinse and repeat.

Posted by nextgenradio at March 18, 2009 11:14 AM

This is why I'm not really interested in the ins and outs of management anymore - however I am REALLY interested in managers. The behviours, skills, beliefs and values that drive managers to do what they do are fascinating. Most managers have precious little formal training in management and the square root of that when it comes to the behvioural skills you'd think essential for someone who achieves his/her results through other people. We now insist on professionalism in IT which used to be the wild west of industrial disciplines, but we allow our managers to remain amateurs.

Posted by Sean at March 18, 2009 11:30 AM

I'm hoping Jeff Zucker reads this.

Posted by chris at March 18, 2009 12:43 PM

How about sell different watches!

Posted by patrick at March 18, 2009 1:26 PM

"Resigning en masse is simply hoisting the white flag, walking away from the problem and avoiding responsibility."

Typically, when someone is accountable for a major screw-up, they show their accountability by resigning.

Posted by dan at March 18, 2009 1:37 PM

More laws and regulation? We already have enough. I was involved with a legal matter last year and the judge stated in reference to wordy contracts that didn't make sense, "Mr. Peters, law was much easier to follow and enforce with a handshake or six shooter." Until we take back control from politicians and lawyers, we'll continue to share these posts over and over and over.

Watching the Senate Inquiry, or whatever it is, is almost like watching convicts in orange jumpsuits on a jury prosecuting a criminal. Where do you start and stop with regard to terminating unethical business practices and people?

More like rinse and repeat in the current climate and looking at history.

What motivates managers? Money...earned either ethically or unethically. In most cases, the ethical issue is rarely explored to keep a manager from their money.

Think about it. There is more integrity in Vegas gambling than dealing with Wall Street. In Vegas, when you lose, you lose. You don't get to ask the pit boss, "Oh, by the way, can I have that 200 billion dollars back I just lost."

Posted by Scott Peters at March 18, 2009 1:46 PM

I've actually given similar questions a great deal of thought lately.

For me, personally, I got off track this past year because I became frustrated. I felt like I was saying the same things over and over again -- whether on topics of management, training, organizational development, what have you. And so I stopped saying them.

But looking back now, I feel like I dropped the ball. (Naturally, my 'reach' doesn't have either the breadth or depth that yours or others do. And my experience isn't at the "AIG" level. But, still.....the questions were similar.)

Eventually, this is the conclusion I came to:

My father is a preacher and has been for 33 years.
Just because some people or some congregations haven't heeded his advice -- even when they later experienced negative consequences when not listening to him -- doesn't mean that he gave up believing what he believed -- or gave up preaching.

Naturally, I'm not equating business with religion. But we could fill that blank in with....teachers, who sometimes have students who fail or....doctors, who sometimes lose patients.....

But just because some people don't get it, doesn't mean that 'we' (or the 'management gurus') necessarily did anything wrong or that we give up. We look back and learn and now know things we didn't know then and keep moving forward.

I personally think that some of the 'gurus' should shout even louder now than before. Because maybe this is the crisis that will allow some people to be open enough to finally hear.

Still, some people will listen. Others won't.
We just keep doing the best we can to help those who can and will and do respond.

I think that's all anyone can really ask for.

All the best!
deb

Posted by Deb Owen at March 18, 2009 1:59 PM

I really enjoyed your Manifesto, Doug, especially these two thoughts-

"As for me, for 15 of my 21.5 years at NPR, my version of teaching was giving back. That’s an old-school term meaning that at one point in my life someone helped me, and after a period of time, I “gave it back” to someone else who needed help."

"I’ve always believed that if I could choose the right person, that person in turn would choose the right people. The most crucial decision was on me. If I didn’t get it right, it wouldn’t work. That was something I had to learn along the way."

If the management at the top persues getting rather than giving, the whole organization will be avaricious.

People tend to hire reflections of themselves; ethical people search for other ethical people, and unethical people...

Is this why the top management of a faltering company with its snout deep in the public trough thinks it's okay to say 'Me First'?

Thanks again Doug for a great blueprint for developing talent in tough times.

Posted by Lois Gory at March 18, 2009 2:01 PM

"In any event, you can mandate behavior, but you can never legislate morality."

"But just because some people don't get it, doesn't mean that 'we' (or the 'management gurus') necessarily did anything wrong or that we give up. We look back and learn and now know things we didn't know then and keep moving forward."

Ah, I love these statements, Mary and Deb. Thank you much.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 18, 2009 2:56 PM

I am not sure management gurus have any special responsibilities in these times except to do what you have always said...SHOUT! It is funny, not haha funny, but the first people I think of are HR executives. Where are they in this debate? This has killed the whole idea of pay for performance and merit increases. For years we have watched the strategic role of HR getting weaker and weaker with little representation on boards and their role at the exec table often morphed into "vp of admin". I place a lot of the responsibility for this at their feet. They need to get the courage to step up to absurb compensation models and fight for their point of view; all to often I see them just supporting these efforts as effective "personnel administrators". Perhaps a bit unfair, but it is the way I feel at the moment.

Posted by Mike Neiss at March 18, 2009 3:07 PM

Oh my, Mike. As a former HR person myself....don't get me started. Due to the latest 'we hate HR' article circulating, there's been a lot of discussion out there about the state of HR in corporate America.

One person (and I'd attribute it if I could remember where I saw it) made the point that most 'good' HR pros get out well before the age of 40 because they're relegated to those administrative roles and get frustrated at not being able to significantly impact an organization. (Not to mention the party planning! It's all about the party planning, right? ha)

The role of HR IS getting weaker and weaker, for a variety of reasons. HR, as a group, needs to fix itself before it can move on to help fix organizations. (In other words, there are just too many poor performing HR people out there. Sadly.)

All the best!
deb

Posted by Deb Owen at March 18, 2009 4:03 PM

I don’t know much about the mega bucks world of AIG or other recent financial institutions that have gone down the pan. I do know leaders must be accountable for their own actions regardless of what management gurus might preach. Leaders must have moral integrity; humility; they must inspire confidence; and they must make their people feel good. Why the hell should management gurus feel any sense of responsibility for the failure of people who are supposed to be the best and the brightest?

‘Light touch’ regulation is the model advocated by a capitalist philosophy which is fine while the sun shines but when things go pear shaped we cry – “Why did this happen?”

Having our cake and eating it springs to mind - We reap what we sow.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 18, 2009 5:26 PM

TP, you have always spoken out against greedy, selfish, out-of-touch upper-management in both the private and the public spheres. Don't resign! Those of us struggling to make a real difference need you.

Posted by Mike L. at March 18, 2009 6:47 PM

Another big AIG story is Tim Geithner twisting in the wind - he knew early & often & let the bonus money go forward to now - and his weasel in the headlights look is NOT an asset.

I was surprised you supported the intial Paulson, et al $700M bailouts & seemed to be unable to carefully analyze the uneven & bizarre treatment of Lehman, Merrill, Bear Stearns, AIG, Washington Mutual, the 4 big banks, the 'big' 3 auto makers, Goldman-Buffet-Paulson, mark to market, etc.

Political capitalism as Pulitzer Prize winner Charles Krauthammer calls it. Charles was a MD pyschiatrist as you know & is the perfect cat to dissect Barack who was abandoned by dad & saved by Punahou & his loving Caucasian grandparents.

We are better off to let all businesses go bankrupt & operate under banruptcy accountability - that is how the natural law of the finance jungle works best - how can it be any worse than now?

The former means the tax payers are not $10T more in debt. The out year debt & finance bubbles may be super radical?

The new president is a major problem - getting an F by almost all the major economists. And I know you like me are concerned about the geopolitical plays that will develop that may be negative toward free world progression. No more enemy combatant & terrorist - accurate labels. Love is not nearly enough in 2009 - how about a legacy of excellent chaos?

Posted by C Love at March 18, 2009 7:21 PM

Re-Imagine Donald Rumsfeld
TP - talking about the first edition of re-imagine

"My goal has long been to repaint conceptions of business in Technicolor. Now, as the pace of change accelerates, the need for spirit and bravura and Technicolor approaches to everything from your and my career to Mr. Rumsfeld's war making, I felt the business book per se ought to enter the 21st century with a bang. It ought to exude the energy and passion and excitement (and madness) of the times. "

I'm sure that Rumsfeld has a tatoo on his arm that says
'Ready, Fire, Aim'

Take 'The persuit of WOW'
Give it to someone at AIG in the year 2000.
Result - credit default swaps - Can you say WOW!

at one point, TP thought Rumsfeld was going to be one of the best Secretarys of Defense. Is this the definition of a magnificent failure?
TP, you are lucky you are not as high profile as Jim Cramer - if you were, John Stewart would do a number on you.

In 2000, when TP spoke at Enron (yes Enron)

Here is a quote from one of his slides

“Assetless Company”

Here is another

“The virtual corporation is research, development, design, marketing, financing, legal, and other headquarters functions with few or no manufacturing capabilities – a company with a head but no body.”

Lets keep listening to this guy!

Posted by dan at March 18, 2009 7:29 PM

TP

Our capitalistic, free enterprise system has worked well over time, because all businesses were controlled by the market—as the market fluctuated, so did the success or failure of businesses. Now, we have a situation where we have companies that operate outside the control of markets, because they are too big to fail (they must stay in business to avoid calamity in our economy, and they need government money to stay in business). These companies have formed a new business model that is outside of our capitalistic system, and they should be approached in a totally different light.

University people and management gurus likely did not consider that there was such a new model forming in our economy. They rightly assumed (at the time), that if a company failed—it failed. Period. Little did we think that there would be companies too big to fail.

So, it is now time to develop a way to address this new business model—that operates outside our capitalistic system—in such a way as to avoid a future mess like the one we are in now. We should call on both the government and the private sector to devise such a system.

Management gurus are not “oracles” of the future—they primarily try to tell us how to run our companies better. Obviously, not everyone listens.

Posted by Bob Foster at March 18, 2009 9:47 PM

In 2000, when TP spoke at Enron (yes Enron, here is a quote from one of his slides

“Assetless Company”

Here is another

“The virtual corporation is research, development, design, marketing, financing, legal, and other headquarters functions with few or no manufacturing capabilities – a company with a head but no body.”

Dan, a brief clarification concerning Enron: I did speak there. In fact you can read about the speech in Sherron Watkins' [whistleblower-in-chief] book "Power Failure." She claims that I was the first outsider to question whether or not the emperor had any clothes--to the great discomfort of Skilling and Lay, who were sitting in the front row. As to the quotes, they probably were from slides I used--but the author of the quotes is not me.

Posted by tom peters at March 18, 2009 9:55 PM

"at one point, TP thought Rumsfeld was going to be one of the best Secretarys of Defense. Is this the definition of a magnificent failure?"

I absolutely acknowledge the Rumsfeld assertion. I had been--and remain!--a strong advocate for the socalled RMA/Revolution in Military Affairs; the idea was-is to move beyond the military tooling and strategy of the Cold War and construct an agile military that can deal with affairs in places like Afghanistan. David Petraeus was-is an RMA advocate as well. Rumsfeld's early battles against weapons systems that amounted to pork aimed to fight the old Soviet Unioln were loudly cheered by me.

Rumsfeld got way ahead of himself when he forced a minimal troop level down the throat of the Army. And I believe he deserves the heat he got for his recalcitrance in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

But I will not sign off on the wrongheadedness of Rumsfeld's initial vision--it is being implemented as we speak.

Life is to complex for one-line judgements. (Though you are welcome to yours.)

Posted by tom peters at March 18, 2009 10:06 PM

"Charles was a MD psychiatrist as you know & is the perfect cat to dissect Barack..."

Some of the most disturbed people are known to be psychiatrists, an unhealthily lot many tend to be. Who might a notable psychiatrist be who needed a psychiatrist himself? Dr. Freud? By the way, why the "MD psychiatrist" distinction? Aren't all psychiatrists, MDs? But this does not make them any healthier from their non-medical prescribing counterparts, psychologists. Many of them too tend to be rather unhealthy.

Now, I do not know Mr. Krauthamer personally and probably neither does the one above. But the fact that he writes such skewed columns praised and followed by googling-right-wing aggressors or angry clueless truck-driving-beer-guzzling- Dittoheads or hard-edged-loveless-sanctimonious religious-righters, probably points to the fact that he may not be altogether well. Ya think? I dunno.

Again, I must reiterate that I do not know Mr. Krauthamer personally. I'd also like to say that these words are not meant in any way to disparage the profession itself or the needs for its assistance.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 18, 2009 10:24 PM

I'm thinking the only thing that comes to mind when thinking of AIG execs specifically and many other business leaders and elected representatives in general is the title of one of Ron White's comedy tours "You Can't Fix Stupid..,". Their arrogance and ego's prevent them from "getting it"...now and forever.

TP and others provide invaluable advice and information. If you are smart enough to recognize you have issues to fix and changes to make you can adapt their words to what you are doing and get results. If you are too stupid however to see you always have "opportunities" to exploit and problems to fix ...well, you know!

Posted by dave wheeler at March 19, 2009 12:27 AM

Tom, if you can't state you position in how many words?

Posted by patrick at March 19, 2009 3:49 AM

Tom, many thanks for the post - especially the part where you say 'all rules can be evaded'. I entirely agree: any virtue that's worth having must be the conscious (that's not all of it!)choice from learning, experience and community of all of us. You still have to have rules but the real change in ourselves that can make a difference is individual and means getting the 'character' thing right. Tom and all who work with you, keep on keeping on with the inspiration and common, practical sense.

Posted by mark.aldridge at March 19, 2009 3:56 AM

We’re all beating up bankers and top leaders for getting us into this mess but we’re also missing one fundamental point: we’re their boss. We elect politicians. We’re the shareholders who own those companies. We’re the members of the pension schemes making a lot of these investments. These people work for us. So where were we?

In many cases, I suspect we were complicit through quietly benefiting from the overheated economy: getting cheap loans, watching our share portfolio grow etc. How many of us exercised our responsibilities as well as our rights: how many of made sure we borrowed sensibly, how many of us voted at AGM’s and how many of us piled into top-performing shares as a “get rich quick” move rather than as a long term owner?

How many of us focus on style over substance? How many of us focus on celebrity and not contribution? How many of us focus on exceptionals and not fundamentals? How many of us prefer snappy 1-liners to real thought? How many of us criticise and not propose alternatives? How many of us focus on someone's faults or differences and don't accept them and get on with it?

What can management guru’s do? Well, you could remind us that the first place we should look is to ourselves.

Posted by Mark JF at March 19, 2009 5:59 AM

Judith Ellis - written like a classic radical left wing hater. Charles Krauthammer used to work for Carter & Mondale & wrote for the liberal New Republic. Oxford & Harvard graduate - he is a clear voice for our times, especially on issues of stem cells & related science & relating to Israel since he has relatives there.

Posted by C Love at March 19, 2009 6:22 AM

The following has nothing to do with the politics of left or right.

Charles Krauthammer and Michael Kinsley, and to some extent Art Laffer [he of Laffer Curve fame], are of a piece, or have been to me.

Their writing is tight, brilliant and perfectly argued. ("Perfect" is the correct word.)

After 700 or 1,000 words I am in awe and have been seduced.

Perhaps a day later, when the glory of the writing has worn off, I realize that I have indeed been seduced.

I find that, to my mind, what they have saud is groundless bullshit--but it was parsed so well that for 24 or 48 hours they had me in the palm of their hand.

(The other side is well represented too--a piece of appallingly poor writing that, a few days later, you realize had within an extraordinary and original insight.)

Posted by tom peters at March 19, 2009 7:08 AM

Judith--the only problem with Taleb and Roubini holding high-level US government posts is that they are not Americans, (Taleb is Lebanese and Roubini is a Turk). I was struck by the reports from Doha that described the financial "elites" all believing Taleb was reinforcing their self-constructed belief that there was nothing they could have done to prevent the financial crisis--it was all a "black swan." Do we really want to let them off the hook like that?
Charles Krauthammer is a thoughtful, articulate proponent of common-sense government and for you to describe him and his readers in the way you have in your comments is unworthy of you.

online canadian pharmacy generic viagra

Trevor--just because there is some current trouble is no reason to abandon the philosophical underpinnings of the future of mankind (capitalism) in favor of the debillitating welfare/nanny-state (socialism).

Dr. Peters--throw away the visual sound-bite PPTs and start working again. Shouting the same thing over and over since 2003 has not gotten the message across. Start over. REIMAGINE.

Sincerely,

Sam

Posted by Useless Sam Grant at March 19, 2009 7:12 AM

I found it interesting that one of the key explanations offered by AIG executive(s) in this "bonus" farce was that they were "obligated by contract" to issue the bonuses. Perhaps I'm a stickler for semantics, but I thought bonuses were intended (at least in general) as rewards for helping a company perform exceptionally. If your company requires bailout funds from the Fed in order to avoid failure, that doesn't equate in my mind to good performance. Then again, the Fed sort of sets the (BAD) standard with economic stimulus payouts for industries, companies, and individuals while simultaneously spending its way into $trillion deficits. Oh, the sheer hypocrisy. Pass laws to make it tougher to file for bankruptcy, while doing things to boost credit card and revolving account use. Sometimes our government seems like the proverbial bad parent: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Stop with the madness, already. Please.

Posted by Dan at March 19, 2009 7:33 AM

"Their writing is tight, brilliant and perfectly argued. ("Perfect" is the correct word.)"

From what I've seen on youtube, your presentations are entertaining, engaging and
brilliant. But when the glory wears off, they
morph into the same product you mentioned above.

Posted by Dan at March 19, 2009 8:00 AM

I'm a bit stunned that you all have been seduced by this political theater that is the AIG bonus scandal. As the AIG CEO explained yesterday to Congress, all the bad actors were fired or left the company in 2008. The remaining executives began to leave as well and were pulled back to help resolve the issues. Pulled back by bonuses. A pretty standard practice in business for many years. The real story here is the fact that AIG was used to funnel money to foreign banks and other companies like Goldman Sachs. So we all argue over the crumbs of the bonuses (1/2 of one percent of the bailout) while the foreign banks and Sachs walk away with truckloads of money. When it all settles out, we'll find that AIG was a pawn that pales in comparison to Freddie Mae and Mac. The real theives are in Congress and the White House, both Democratic and Republican.

Posted by Bruce Bortree at March 19, 2009 8:42 AM

C-Love - I agree that Krauthamer "is a clear voice for our times on issues of stem cells." I disagree with many of his articles in tone and substance with regards to the President. I have not read his articles on Israel.

If Krauthamer's writing on Israel is to the far right, I would not care if he had relatives in Israel or not. Well, that's a gross overstatement. The point is: PEOPLE ARE DYING OVER THERE! ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS.

I also don't care at all which political candidates any journalist had worked for in the past. Journalists are only as good as their present words.

Speaking of political parties, you have no idea which political party I am a registered member of. Now, do you?

TP - I agree that both Krauthamer and Kinsley are both brilliant writers. Serpentine writing is often my feeling after reading Krauthamer’s articles, even though well-written they are. No one can justifiably argue this. I have read the articles in Kingsley’s book "Creative Capitalism" and appreciate his brilliance and voice very much. The diverse authors in the collection of essay are also great to read. Some write in opposition to Kingsley.

Perhaps I was ribbing C-Love a bit at the expense of Mr. Krauthamer for his notion that the good doctor could assess a person well merely because he is journalist who is a licensed psychiatrist. This does not necessarily equate to truth. It may indeed point to his ability to undermine truth. Psychiatrists are adept at twisting reality—hence, my Dr. Freud mention above. The "perfect" is often the enemy of the truth.

By the way, I often see through the seduction readily and am angered and appalled instantly. I loved this: "The other side is well represented too – a piece of appallingly poor writing that a few days later, you realize had within an extraordinary and original insight." So true.

The above made me smile. It reminded me of going to a little town in the deep South for the first time at the age of 16. The town was Ragland, Alabama which many may find apropos for this little sharecropping community. My sister had married a southerner who had relatives in this town. I had never been South before and they were more different from me than anybody I had met. Yet, I loved them.

The people spoke in broken English with thick accents and sentences that perhaps would appall many. For me, it was pure beauty; their truth of life and love reached deeper than anything that I had heard or read. Their lives were living testaments, well written parchments that spoke like none others. In my many travels abroad and after three languages learned, I have never forgotten these.

Give me this any day over "perfect" words, written or spoken.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 19, 2009 9:39 AM

"Charles Krauthammer is a thoughtful, articulate proponent of common-sense government and for you to describe him and his readers in the way you have in your comments is unworthy of you."

Useless Sam - Are you a Krauthamer lover, a reader perhaps? :-) Let me make something very clear. It matters not to me the regard of an individual. What matters most to me is the message being propogated. I refer you, Useless Sam, to my comment above. Perhaps the ribbing at his and his readers' expense could be offensive. By the way, is offense ever warranted?

Taleb and Roubini would be great advisers to President Obama, if nothing else. Are they not citizens? I have to ask. I did not know this. But this wouldn't matter to me with regards to advising the President.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 19, 2009 9:48 AM

"I was struck by the reports from Doha that described the financial "elites" all believing Taleb was reinforcing their self-constructed belief that there was nothing they could have done to prevent the financial crisis--it was all a "black swan." Do we really want to let them off the hook like that?"

Useless Sam - I also appreciate this comment very much, save the Black Swan bit, although I understand your particular point.

cheap generic viagra 100mg

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 19, 2009 10:07 AM

I'm going to distill this down by going to Jack Welch when he said "Deal with the world as it is- not how you'd like it to be."
While I'm a staunch disciple of TP and Seth, partial reality is where they live. My organization does not work the way they preach nor can I solely make it work in a "Re-Imagine" way. Let's all ask ourselves if we have laid people off to save budgets and then made a bonus from our actions. Yep, I admit it. Ask ourselves why we laid off the cleaning lady to only go to Boston and drop a few thousand at No.9 Park, Bricco and La Voile. Was that my money or her's?
There's no real answers- only ideas and opinions. I'm not proud of all my actions after so long managing- but I learned to work within the system that was given to me. Admit it- 99% of you did too. The quote on my monitor as I type this?
"Coping rests on your shoulders.
Forget "they." This is your life. Period." -Tom Peters

Posted by Scott Swift at March 19, 2009 10:36 AM

Useless Sam - Just heard from Nassim. Both he and Roubini are citizens.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 19, 2009 10:46 AM

Thank you Ms Gory. Always great discussions here and lots of ideas, disguised as they may be at times.

paypal viagra in canada

Posted by nextgenradio at March 19, 2009 11:16 AM

“Trevor--just because there is some current trouble is no reason to abandon the philosophical underpinnings of the future of mankind (capitalism) in favor of the debillitating welfare/nanny-state (socialism) “

Hi Sam – I hear what you say. Ideals and beliefs should not be thrown away easily. Let’s agree to differ about the definition of socialism. I prefer to see socialism as a system that ensures wealth is not an advantage and poverty is not a disadvantage when it comes to issues such as health and welfare. If people want to describe that as ‘nanny state’ so be it. To me, explicit caring for the most vulnerable in our society is a good marker of the intentions of any nation. The capitalist alleged ‘trickle down’ of money to reach those folks who most need it is a fairy story.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 19, 2009 1:07 PM

There are many ways of giving, and the State should not be the only way. But I do believe in helping the elderly, handicapped, and children. In fact, most Americans agree with some form of national healthcare, but it does not have to be a Canadian or British based model, nor does it mean that America is now a socialist country. Capitalism takes various forms throughout the world, as I'm sure Socialism must. Labels are often counterproductive. They also hold true to basic fundamental principles.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 19, 2009 1:25 PM

I agree State finance should definitely not be the only way. That is not my idea of socialism – I think that would be communism. I think we should all give money for those less fortunate than ourselves and that should be in addition to State finance. I also agree labels are less helpful than actions.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 19, 2009 2:20 PM

Tom, management gurus should do what they've always done, show us a better way of doing business, except from now on maybe put even more emphasis than you already have on ethics and decency.

Many people all around the world feel that their governments should have just let all these companies fail and good riddance. However, as much as it stinks and leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth, the bailouts have prevented a much worse meltdown which would have had even far more dire consequences for everyone. To be fair to these governments, urgent action was required to prevent a global economic collapse, so the luxury of time to carefully craft the bailout packages was not there. For the most part, the companies and institutions getting the bailouts have been somewhat more responsible than AIG in how they used the money (or at least they've covered it up better). Everyone, and especially Congress, need to put this behind them and move on. This obsession with AIG is taking their eyes of the real ball, which is stopping the decline in the economy and starting the recovery. It's like chasing after the kid with the matches while the house burns down. Fight the fire first, start the rebuilding, and worry about the kid later.

Posted by Bob Walker at March 19, 2009 3:49 PM

AIG is truly a mess - but not as big a mess as the bailout scheme that saved it from extinction.

The bailout moved AIG from a bankruptcy issue to a political issue. Congress screwed up big time! It will be interesting to see who pays the political price for this on Capitol Hill - I suspect it will be the Democrats as a whole in 2010 elections - we have to wait and see.

AIG 2009 = $170 Billion funnel to Corporate Default Swap holders at banks around the globe = 80% of nothing owned by US Treasury and/or future US taxpayers = political incompetence on a grand scale.

Informed discussion @ http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10153

Tim Geithner 2009 = more reputation than competence = not transparent nor accountable = no Treasury senior staff = one man band = sack him now before things get even worse.

Insights into Timothy Geithner @ http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10137

What lessons might we all learn from this mess? Fire, aim, ready! not always best approach to problem-solving. Fail fast not always possible. Uncertainty, complexity, obtuse detail can not always be remedied with simplicity. Ideology is no substitute for intellect and caution (Obama has both but those great assets of his have been replaced by short-term political scapegoating).

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at March 20, 2009 1:09 AM

This may be of interest:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/03/20/execed.power/index.html

Posted by RobCH at March 20, 2009 9:32 AM

You know, I appreciate and applaud this blog's commitment to free speech. But, it'd be more productive for all concerned if - oh, just for once - we could skip the inevitable and infantile "Nah-nahh...you liberals...President Obama is failing, it's all crap" negative comments. This post isn't about Obama - it's about "management gurus" and the challenges in dealing with companies such as AIG.

I'm personally not thrilled with Geithner so far, but he's been in his post for - what? - less than two months. Obama is in office 60 days as of today. In the corporate world, that's about enough time to (sort of) learn the customer list and make a couple of presentations on your own. You've not even started accruing vacation yet.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

Posted by Mary Schmidt at March 20, 2009 11:13 AM

"I'm personally not thrilled with Geithner so far, but he's been in his post for - what? - less than two months."

First of all, let me begin by saying that President Obama could not have a greater public cheerleader and supporter than I.

Regarding Timothy Geithner, I do not know what the motives of others are, but my motive is clearly related to the post. My comment is specifically in reference to TP’s notion of a "cleansing process." Geithner was the President of the New York Federal Reserve and being so he should have had some regulations in place with regards to Wall Street banks and insurance companies with hedge funds like AIG.

With regards to the first tranche of AIG and the allowance of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers to fail, pumping instead some $168 BILLION into AIG where $12.9 BILLION was given to Goldman Sachs where President's Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was CEO and the current CEO of AIG was on the Board of Directors, I HAVE CONCERNS.

Are these things not relevant to the post? Like I said in another comment on this thread, I am most appreciative that TP is being reflective; we all should be. But I am more concerned about those making policy and leading us out of this global financial morass. It's very difficult to believe that the likes of Paulson and Geithner were unaware in what was taking place on Wall Street. If they weren't aware, should have been. There's no excuse.

I also appreciate the fact that President Obama has only been in office for two months. I have also very reluctantly agreed with Taleb, Roubini and Huffington that Geithner needs to go. Personally, I have never been a huge fan of Geithner, especially after the tax scandal. But I did not speak publicly of it, allowing the President to pick his team as he saw fit, giving Geithner the benefit of the doubt. Now, he’s not looking so good at all.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 20, 2009 11:49 AM

Here is a very thoughtful comment I just read on the Huffington Post written by a Marion Watts:

"I live in the UK, where AIG is primarily known as the sponsor of Manchester United, the country's best-known soccer team and one of the wealthiest franchises in the world, which also happens to be owned by Malcolm Glazier, who's the owner of the Tampa Bay Bucs. What concerns me, as an American living abroad, who pays taxes on both sides of the Pond, is the fact that, a lot of these bonuses went to AIG's satellite investors, who are amongst the big investment banks in the City of London. We hear daily here about exhorbitant 7-figure bonuses some of these City whizzkids get and how they flaunt them with their bling-bling parties. And what annoys me further, here in the UK, is that the Brit Treasury intends to do Sweet Fanny Adams about confronting the crisis facing their own economy, instead wishing to ride along on the US coattails, expecting Obama to bail them out. Funny, how under George Bush, we were the pariahs of the Western World; now Obama's everyone's President with a solution to everyone's problems. Fact is AIG is as greedy as the next unregulated enterprise on Wall Street. Big bonuses are common. The company was, effectively, nationalised, and you'd think they would have had more common sense than to use what amounts to public money to reward overpaid employees for a substandard performance."

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 21, 2009 5:40 PM

Despite this woman’s anti-British comments I am delighted she is (presumably) happy to work on this side of the pond and, as a tax payer here in the UK, she presumably also enjoys the free universal welfare state. As far as I can see the most important words in her diatribe are these:

“Fact is AIG is as greedy as the next unregulated enterprise on Wall Street.”

As a non-expert in these matters it seems to me that when capitalism seems to be working then ‘light touch regulation’ is celebrated as the best thing since sliced bread … and then greed takes over. When things go pear shaped like now we like to blame the government. Heads you win tails you lose as far if you are the government.

“The forces in a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.” - Jawaharlal Nehru, Indian Prime Minister. 1889-1964

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 21, 2009 6:30 PM

Trevor - I think I remember reading you make the above point before about capitialism here before. And, of course, Nehru wouldn't be the first or the last to address the issue of "unchecked" capitialism.

When Prime Minister Brown was here he talked about a global stimulus package. Do you know what this entails?

Regarding the HuffPost comment, I guess it depends on whose reading it. What exactly did you find "anti-British" about it? Whatever that is, is it then the reason for the "diatribe" label?

As I said, it seemed pretty thoughtful to me.

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 21, 2009 8:18 PM

“And what annoys me further, here in the UK, is that the Brit Treasury intends to do Sweet Fanny Adams about confronting the crisis facing their own economy, instead wishing to ride along on the US coattails, expecting Obama to bail them out.”

Judith – Anti-British? - Maybe I exaggerate a bit but I guess I was reading the quote above to mean that all we are capable of doing in the UK is to brown nose the US President. I am indeed a great fan of Mr Obama and I think he provides hope for the world. This woman implies we have no ideas in this country – I am no economist but I’m sure she is wrong.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 22, 2009 10:06 AM

Well, what has Britain done? I haven't followed much what Britain or the EU is doing. But it does look at first glance that the West is waiting for movement from the United States in order to correct their own situation. (That may be somewhat of an exaggeration.) I guess this is the lot of leaders and perhaps the trouble with some aspects of globalization.

President Obama on The Tonight Show spoke of setting up an another system for secruitized market. Arianna Huffington speaks of blostering credit unions. They are healthy. I like it. This is great but it still seems to not address Wall Street banks that could land us here again. I'm assuming further plans will follow, but faith in the economic team is waning, especially when we consider that those who got us in this mess are now navigating us through it.

AIG paid millions of bonuses to British AIGers where Manchester United, a sports franchise where US Malcolm Glazer holds the controlling interest, probably gets more than "t-shirt" sponsorship as Trevor suggested in another post.

Because millions in bonuses went to a British AIG subsidiary where a great many credit default swaps occurred, the proposed 90% tax will not be assessed. There is also, of course, the many creditors such as Barclays that got billions of taxpayer dollars.

This is our global economy. Wouldn't you chose an insurance company like AIG over a British one or any others when it can be assured that such an American company will be too big to fail and taxpayers will step in?

Here's Times Online:

"Most of the bonuses went to the financial products unit responsible for creating the exotic derivatives known as credit default swaps that caused AIG's near-collapse. Many of those are British employees based in London. It also emerged that $7 billion of the US bailout money was paid to Barclays, a creditor."

Here's Bloomberg:

"The legislation wouldn't attempt to impose the tax on foreign employees of companies such as AIG," said Ways and Means Committee spokesman Matthew Beck. "Many of AIG's bonus recipients work in the London office of the credit-default swap unit."

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 22, 2009 1:00 PM

It is surprising that the intellectual leaders in the business community were not more vigilant or outspoken about the strategies used by people like AIGFP and Cassano.

Why were experts at HBS, Wharton & Stanford not speaking out more clearly about the stupidity of CDOs and extreme over leveraging? Surely this was not quite as obtuse and unforeseeable to an expert eye.

I recall that not so long ago, McKinsey (another alleged expert) was praising the Enron business model! Is this a success for Enron and their marketing or is it a failure of the intellectual verification process at McKinsey?

Are today's swindlers so much smarter than the management gurus and experts? Or are the experts so busy with other things that they cannot be bothered about long term public interest?

Perhaps, the contrasts I draw are unfair but I think we need to examine why so few "experts" focus on how some business initiative can damage public interest. We need a culture where experts are the voice of ruthless veracity and fact checking and play a role in educating people like me, who suspected that this did not make sense, but did not have the credentials to challenge "success" on Wall Street.

I hope that experts will lend more of a hand to the cleanup. Providing a view that scrutinizes, challenges and educates the Obama administration on real resolution that stops rewarding the people that created this.

I am not sure if Matt Taibi has all his facts right, but I certainly appreciate his passion and outrage, and willingness to drill into how this evolved and how it is actually being "resolved".

Here are some excerpts from the article which is reference below:

AIG not only allowed Cassano to keep $34 million in bonuses, it kept him on as a consultant for $1 million a month .. Taibi

Goldman Sachs, it turns out, was Cassano's biggest customer, with $20 billion of exposure in Cassano's CDS book

Eric Salzman is more blunt. "If AIG went down," he says, "there was a good chance Goldman would not be able to collect."

The AIG bailout, in effect, was Goldman bailing out Goldman. Taibi http://is.gd/or6o

Posted by Kirti Vashee at March 22, 2009 2:55 PM

What is thought of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's "socializing of losses and privatizing gains?" Is this not happening?

Posted by Judith Ellis at March 24, 2009 9:30 AM