Comments

The number of idiotic corporate descisions that were very AIG like that I'm still seeing is abysmal. Scary thing is hardly anyone knows about these; they aren't high profile; they will still cost their companies, stock holders and employees dearly and in the end will be left to those 'good guys' who are coming after to clean up. Considering one I'm familiar with only cost it's company about 15M, I suppose it's chicken feed. Incredible.

Posted by Greg Cooper at April 30, 2009 2:26 PM

Wake up call via prosecution?

Posted by Fred H Schlegel at April 30, 2009 3:15 PM

The disgrace of Wall Street is so insidious they deserve everything they get at the hands of social media. Not content to scuttle American families and each other (Goldman, we're looking at you), they now seek to reward themselves for surviving at our expense. If they will not change behavior, even disingenuously, Main street is left with no recourse other than to dictate conscionable corporate behavior. The tools for that are amassing everyday and consensus among networked consumers are powerful things. Commerce, however tiresome it might appear to them, does depend on consumer participation as well. And as the new White House administration grows equally impatient with their selfish behavior, their only defender in the face of co-ordinated consumer response is fading. What Street is clearly no student of history, least of all their own. Their sense of entitlement is so self consuming they seem incapable of recognizing that those outside their hallowed halls are also entitled to a decent life. Any student of capitalism knows they are headed for a rude awakening and deservedly so. Even if they are capable of living with themselves, ordinary consumers no longer are.

Posted by Simon Mainwaring at April 30, 2009 3:31 PM

From a UK perspective, the thing that infuriates me is that technically our government is the majority shareholder / owner in a number of banks. So where's their representation on the Board of Directors and why are they not manning the Compensation Committee to stop precisely this kind of thing?

It seems pretty weird to me that government says it has no role to play in private enterprise when they've taken such an interventionist stance (with my tax money!) to keep these institutions afloat. Great: it's like saying you've fouled up and because it's such a large foul up with ramifications for the entire economy we'll give you some free, no-strings-attached money to see if you can do better.

Ironically, all it seems to be proving over here is that government really shouldn't get involved in business.

Posted by Mark JF at April 30, 2009 4:02 PM

"...government really shouldn't get involved in business."

Mark JF, I'm at a loss on this matter. On one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, in the U.S., government IS business... BIG business. Unfortunately, I think our government has become such a big business that it has become totally dysfunctional. Major problem: it doesn't seem to remember WHAT BUSINESS IT IS IN.

I often imagine the most common off-stage words between U.S. Congressmen/Women, as well as Cabinet chairs, to be "Tell me again, what is it we're supposed to be doing here?"

Posted by Dan Gunter at April 30, 2009 4:48 PM

Dan - I think a major part of the problem is that here in the UK the government can't decide if it's for free trade or state ownership. (This is a huge historical problem with the Labour party, but that's another debate.) It's stepped in and now it technically owns a couple of banks. But in practice it plays virtually no part in their running, despite owning them. Yet in other, i.e. non-banking, areas we find it wants to legislate in a highly prescriptive way. So the entities it owns, it won't run and the entities it doesn't own, it wants to dictate to. Bizarre!

Main problem: I think they're afraid of accountability. They're simple politicians whose first and over-riding instinct is to insulate themselves from blame. What we lack is conviction statesmen with the courage to do something bold. In many respects, it doesn't matter which way they decide to go: what we want is a bold decision, diligently and well executed.

Posted by Mark JF at April 30, 2009 5:45 PM

Hi Mark – hope you are well. Your expression ‘conviction statesmen’ is a great way of describing effective leadership. I don’t think we have any politician showing that in the UK. You may be surprised to hear that I (reluctantly) admit the Labour Party (of which I have always been a supporter) is losing (has lost?) the plot completely. I've recently even pondered whether I might vote in the next General Election for the "Monster Raving Looney Party." Come to think of it I may stand as a candidate for that party :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 30, 2009 6:36 PM

This is so very disgusting and outrageous! It is precisely the point I tried to make with regards to J.P. Morgan in another post here. We often think of him as being greedy and perhaps irresponsible during the 1901 crash. These guys make Morgan look like a saint and they are half the men he seems to have been. Plus, he seems not to be nearly as bad as his rap has been.

I completely agree with Fred about prosecution and Mark has made points that others have been consistently making now with regards to the irresponsibility of board members for some time now. I also very much agree here.

Here is Arianna in a short clip about these banks and bailouts. Should Citi go into receivership? Yep! Please consider this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4979325n&tag=main_home_MediaBox

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 30, 2009 7:25 PM

Tom I have been thinking only of down is up & up is down & soft is hard & hard is soft the last 2 months while the S&P 500 had its best 2 months since 1975 per CNBC just now ... so I almost missed making a cool $500k whatever.

Love it that you & Seth (did he net about $2M on Yoyodyne?) are non finance types - I can't handle the competition even though I try to model Taleb & Soros (shall we take down the UK once more?) :>).

People must vote with their feet & hit the streets even though the left wing hate sites & even Ellis objects to such behavior. When Nardelli looted Home Depot for $100M (golden parachute) after tanking their stock I wrote & said goodbye forever to HD - luckily we have a Lowes here. Now Chrysler & Nardelli - do the Boards never learn - scumbags indeed! And Scott Peters agrees with that I suspect! :>)

Mystery & peace to all. - C & B Love

Posted by C Love at April 30, 2009 8:06 PM

I suspect C is referring to my comments on those nearly nutcase teabaggers that took to the street donned in flinging teabags around brimmed hats with young children in tote listening to the hate being spewed by seemingly racist protesters carrying posters that refer to the President's ethnicity and distant supposed ape-like 'relatives' without a real inkling of his policies which would probably help the lot of those actual middle to lower class gun toting (Yes--many were actually packing!) hate spewing protesters--the majority these seemed to be. And C wants us to take these guys seriously? PULEASE!

Here is President Obama on the teabaggers at the Town Hall in Minnesota yesterday:

"When you see, you know, those of you that are watching certain news channels on which I'm not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security...But let's not play games and pretend that the reason (for the deficit) is because of the Recovery Act."

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 30, 2009 8:44 PM

C,

I am listening and concur. I used to be labeled one of the very scumbags (pre-pig virus and economic collapse) by those who bumped into glass ceilings looking at the souls (pun) of my shoes.

I found that I had more in common with those who "walk the talk" so to speak, which is very much in sync with your reference. I was at a meeting this morning and a lady delivered the Barbara Jordan keynote address (Democratic National Convention) given in 1976. Feel free to Google this speech because it really represents how far we haven't come and how much horseshit is involved in politics and business. She references Lincoln and his slave/master speech from a 100 years back. Sounds very similar to some of the references Barack and Michelle have made of recent...how original.

I believe government, much like organized crime, found out there is more money to be made from not playing by the rules. Then everybody that supposedly plays by the rules (most of them don't either) comes out wailing and whining about how they've been duped into believing the yellow brick road "theory" of government. I don't take exception to the tea bag (has other connotations) parties and people openly petitioning against their government.

A judge once told me, "Mr. Peters, the law was much easier to uphold when we handled issues with a handshake or six-shooter." Regression, even in the cases referenced above, may not be a bad thing for our country. With all of the budget cuts, many citizens KNOW that city and county police cannot protect us, or our property. Therefore, people feel safer defending themselves...very much a part of our history too.

Let's not forget that Bush was also drawn as an ape for years prior to Obama coming to power. However, because Obama is Whack (White and Black), any depiction of him as an ape in cartoons was horribly racist. Maybe Colin Powell abandoning his party was racist because a Whack man was running for, and won, the highest office in our land. Wasn't it the white and senior votes that largely elected our new President?

C----I very much respect your posts and I believe that most people are quite bored and tired of hearing about the same old policies and nonsense from news organizations, bloggers, etc. Most policies aren't even followed anyway...like our bankruptcy laws and other programs that are designed to protect shareholders. This will be the fastest bankruptcy ever!!! A new low for America and Detroit. Many people voted with their money decades ago when Honda and Toyota came on board. The big 3 was producing crap (for the most part) all through the 80's and 90's and everyone knew it. Now it's become a symbol/hallmark of American business...even though they made shitty cars and people didn't want to buy them. Now Obama will guarantee the muffler on your new American car for 100,000 miles. WTF?

I enjoy spewing protesters because they represent something very different from me...maybe someday we'll step it up and begin throwing rocks too.

We have become a society that attacks a beauty contestant for her genuine thoughts on marriage and sharing her beliefs. Too PC and too pathetic in my book. She didn't stand a chance...either piss off the religious right or gay people. I say piss 'em both off in your answer, you're safer that way.

www.droppingalmonds.com

Posted by Scott Peters at April 30, 2009 11:25 PM

I thought the posts were not supposed to be personal. Does J.E rack up frequent posting points putting her above the ground rules?

Posted by zircon-212 at May 1, 2009 1:40 AM

Tom and All;

Some days the right word is simply that the right word.

Don't lets angst or sweat this against any faux sensibility and most of all never apologise for what you feel, visceral is often underated and so often right.

As for those that post most often, good for you and long may it continue, keep the debate alive.

This is from a man with no bonus, but a job, a family that is provided for and loved: I am of reminded (again of my fathers favourite rhyme)

Just welath enough to give and spare
Just health enough to banish care
Just friends enough sincere and true
What more want we
What more want you...

Blessing should always be counted.

Patrick

Posted by patrick at May 1, 2009 5:11 AM

zircon-212 - Do you think Scott Peters points above are not personal? My thoughts are to "answer a fool according to his folly." Oops, is that personal?

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 1, 2009 5:46 AM

patrick - You have posted your father's favorite rhyme here before. I love it! After you did so I immediately posted it on my own blog and accredited the unidentified blogger "patrick" on Tom Peters' blog with the unidentified father who spoke such words of wisdom that touched my heart. Thank you so very much for posting these beautiful words. I so value them.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 1, 2009 5:54 AM

I watched a fascinating programme this morning on Al Jazeera in a series called Faultlines, about the vast difference in the respective treatments afforded to Main Street and Wall Street. What struck me was that no-one on Main Street minds suffering being spread about evenly and everyone having to look after themselves and their own community as best they can. What they DO mind, bitterly, is that the solution (bail-out) is only being made available to a small, already privileged, and highly culpable slice of the population, while the average joes are being hung out to dry. The conclusion of the programme was that this is storing up a huge groundswell of anger, resentment and division across the country, which the current Administration ignores at its peril. Next programme in the series will be looking at Detroit...

Posted by RobCH at May 1, 2009 7:01 AM

I appreciate your comment, Rob. One of the things that have been so incredibly disheartening is the disparity between how the banks are being treated, namely paper shufflers, with the auto industry that actually produce a product that more and more have been buying for some time now. Ford and GM have some incredible smart designs that are beautiful.

The groundswell of anger about which you spoke is most certainly building and the administration should most certainly take note. (TARP was supposed to help the housing crisis; this has yet to happen. Banks are posting profits and people are still losing their homes and banks are not lending but buying other banks instead.) To even think of the hundreds of billions that banks received to the mere 10 of billions that the auto industry received is worth noting. I recognize that we're talking billions and this in itself is alarming.

With regards to the Main Street vs. Wall Street in the banking and auto industry, I think Main Street will do just fine. There have been major changes in place for some time. By the way, it's good to see that Ken Lewis is no longer the Chairman at Bank of America. Why he was retained as CEO is beyond me. This is the man that came to Detroit early last year in all of his arrogance, speaking to our economic club pronouncing that one of the Big Three needed to fold. Perhaps Bank of America should fold.

C earlier spoke of hoping to model Taleb and Roubini. What he may not know is that Huffington is on the exact same page as these gentlemen with regards to the banking crisis; two of the three I am in constant contact. I consider them friends.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 1, 2009 7:31 AM

Judith, you're much closer to things than I am, so I can only go on what I'm hearing. The AJ journalist went to his home town, Lone Star (yes) in Texas. Population about 1600. There, the steel pipe plant had been closed down due to the oil industry no longer doing any new drilling. That was the town's main (ie only large) employer. The gas station had had its Chevron franchise removed from pumping too little gas, and had had to pay $1700 itself to get the Chevron signs taken down! Truck drivers were getting a fifth of the business they would usually carry. Shops were shuttered, people were having to cancel medical insurance. There were a lot of worried and tearful families. I'm not sure all that counts as just fine, and no-one seemed to expect just fine to come round any time soon. Except of course for Wall Street!

Posted by RobCH at May 1, 2009 7:55 AM

Rob - Thank you for that. Your story is occurring all across America and yet we go on with the plan to bolster many of these insolvent who won't lend. The Chevron franchise is probably family owned and been in business for many years. What we are doing in support of Wall Street is outrageous.

Why not bolster credit unions and small viable lending institutions like Grameen Bank of New York where 90% of clients have not defaulted on their loans instead of these large insolvent banks?. Of course, TP, champions Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus'success here often. This is where I came to know of Mr. Yunnus.

Yeah, you may be thinking, well, we're not talking billions here. Well, just maybe these Wall Street and insurance companies with hedge funds that are too big too fail should do their first works over again and go back to simple banking prinicples and not VAR models which appear reasonably probable but are not. Taleb proves this point over and over again as he has watched the banking bubble and bust cycle every ten years. Who gains here? NOT MAIN STREET!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 1, 2009 8:24 AM

Zircon-212
We do not have an official frequent commenter perks program, although we do hope that the readers of the blog will return and comment often as we all enjoy the sense of community that results. As with any community, it's important to have ground rules. Sometimes these are followed, sometimes not. As the moderators cannot always respond immediately, especially when the comments are left in the wee hours, we appreciate other commenters speaking up if they take offense to how something is being handled. We agree that the comment you were referring to falls into the realm of personal attacks and it has been deleted.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at May 1, 2009 8:24 AM

Just welath enough to give and spare
Just health enough to banish care
Just friends enough sincere and true
What more want we
What more want you...

Patrick, very nice. Reminds me in an odd way about a comment from a great friend, now deceased. He said the test of true frriendship was the willingness of the friend to lie under oath to support said friend. While I know that's contentious, and presumably doesn't stretch to violent crime, it always struck me as a quite honorable though dishonorable sentiment.

Posted by tom peters at May 1, 2009 10:30 AM

T.P.,

Life ain't all black and white, is it? Pondering thoughts like you just shared are the fodder of infinite debates. Unfortunately, life consists more often of judgment calls than clear-cut decision making processes. It is a true blessing to think you might have friends that would consider this a true dilemma, actually.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 1, 2009 10:43 AM

So if I was a Wall Street trader and my best buddy was on trial for some calamitous abuse of his position that bankrupted the bank and prompted an economic crisis, I should lie to save his skin? After all, it was a white collar crime and no violence was involved. I appreciate the moral dilemma but it seems to me to violate the recent Credo: "We will exude integrity..."

[My stance: I'd go as far as refusing to testify or refusing to answer certain questions and risking a contempt charge. But I will not break an oath.]

Posted by Mark JF at May 1, 2009 11:49 AM

Or maybe a true friend would never ask a friend to dishonour him/herself?

Posted by Lois Gory at May 1, 2009 11:57 AM

patrick - "The seed of blessings" is love. My brother, Rob, preached a sermon Sunday entitled the "The Seed of Blessings." Growing up we used to sing a song just about every Sunday in church that went like this: "Count your blessings name them one by one. Count your many blessings see what God has done. Count your blessings name them one by one. Count your many blessings she what has done." I agree with you that we should count our blessings, especially in difficult times.

The dilemma TP mentioned is something that I have thought of regarding family members, just as a pure ethical question. No one has ever gotten into trouble. But during a very famous murder case some years ago I wondered that if my brothers or sisters, whom I love dearly, were in such a situation what would I do. I must admit that I try not to think of it too often as it is a dilemma indeed. I would like to think that I would do the right thing. But what might appear right on that day may be very different from today.

God knows I hope I do what's right. These things are not easy, but nothing worth anything ever is. This I know for sure.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 1, 2009 12:00 PM

It's also that some things are looked upon as more egregious than others. Murder is a big one; lies are less so. In the way I was raised such things as lies, hate, jealousy, backbiting, envy, strife, and unforgiveness were just as major as any others; they could, in fact, be more detrimental to society over time, as they are often difficult to unearth and to deal with in both our personal and professional lives. We can feel these things but are often unable to define them or have the wherewithal to address them, especially in work environments. Perhaps this is were leadership plays a significant role.

These less notable wrongs are insidious "little" things that metastasized into large unbearable unmanageable things over time and bleeds into the culture. Motives and intentions are also very important to contemplate when considering moral dilemmas. It is also always easy to be gallant and righteous (I am aware that MY "righteousness is as filthy rags") until the situation hits home and it is YOUR wife we’re talking about or YOUR mother or father who had never done an unjust thing in their lives.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 1, 2009 12:43 PM

Mark JF,

I would just be happy knowing that a friend or loved one actually cared enough that the thought of sticking their own neck on the line would cross his or her mind. As THEIR friend, I would not want or expect someone to lie or commit a wrongful act. On the other hand, the thought that they might be willing to even ponder such a question speaks to what it means to say "I will stand by you no matter what." Those words are often said, but end up being a false promise.

In the end, a friend of REAL integrity would not put you in the position to even have to consider it.

I think you and I would probably agree that if standing up for someone by giving false testimony would amount to putting someone else in harm's way or the offense was of an egregious nature, then "sticking up for them" becomes less palatable. I don't think it's so much what the outcome of the decision would be, but the fact that one would CONSIDER doing it.

I'm reminded of a funny little saying I heard:

The difference between a friend and a real friend?

A friend will come bail you out of jail in the middle of the night.

A REAL friend would be sitting beside you in the jail cell saying "We really screwed up this time, didn't we?"

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 1, 2009 1:12 PM

I think it's a bit too easy to say that a friend wouldn't put you in the position to even have to consider perjury. The question is whether you would consider doing it, unprompted. There's a case that says your friend would neither ask nor expect you to do it and that a true friend would not want you to do it because s/he would not want you to to commit an offence and destroy your own integrity.

Dan - I like your saying. Another take on the true friend line is that a true friend would have talked you out of it in the first place. It's never black and white...

Posted by Mark JF at May 1, 2009 2:26 PM

On a more serious note, for friends in the TP community that like pondering "ethics" questions, here's a link to an installment of the "Ethics in America" program, wherein notable individuals, ranging from a Supreme Court Justice, a journalist, doctor, etc. are given an ethics scenario and weigh in as to their feelings and what they think THEY would feel to be right in the situation.

It's actually quite intriguing to watch. There are multiple episodes available, and there also is an "Ethics in America II" collection available. They are all very interesting viewing.

Watch this episode regarding ethics in government (and others) at: http://www.learner.org/vod/vod_window.html?pid=193

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 1, 2009 2:27 PM

Mark JF,

Totally agreed. If life and the universe were not so filled with "gray area" things would be much simpler. But then again, life might not be as much of an adventure and learning process. Plus, a lot of attorneys would be living under bridges, wouldn't they?

Sorry... actually, some of my friends are attorneys. Good sports about it, too ;-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 1, 2009 2:33 PM

Mark and Dan - great exchange. "Your friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you." - Elbert Hubbard

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 1, 2009 4:00 PM

Trevor,

Dead on. Just as "Home is the place that when you go there, they gotta take you in." At least you hope so. Otherwise, you'd better be hoofing it on over to that "friend's" house.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 1, 2009 4:03 PM

Trevor,

At the risk of sounding a bit fickle, I will say that I don't think a TRUE friend stops at mere acceptance. I recently introduced you to the speaker Andy Andrews. I really like the way he puts it.

Andy talks about asking the question in seminars: "Describe a TRUE friend." And you can guess what over 80% of the people give as their first answer: "A true friend accepts you as you are."

Andy describes that idea as a "dangerous load of garbage." As he goes on to say "The kid at the fast food drive thru accepts you as you are, because he doesn't care." He goes on to point out that a TRUE friend holds you to a higher standard. They expect you to be true to your word and mean what you say. And I agree, as you and I have already explored in related discussions.

Therefore, I am NOT being fickle. Instead, I am saying that a true friend might be understanding and forgiving of your shortcomings from time to time, but they don't expect you to be mediocre. They expect you to grow and strive to be better than you were yesterday.

That kind of friend might stick up for you in situations like we've explored in the above comments, but they won't expect you to keep making the same mistakes. Otherwise, they would be "making the same mistakes" to keep standing up for you, if you think about it.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 1, 2009 4:41 PM

Absolutely with you Dan - by the way Andy Andrews is terrific in my opinion.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 1, 2009 4:54 PM

Dan, at the risk of seeming offensive, and in complete ignorance of Andy Andrews and what he's selling, I think that his dismissal of that idea of friendship as "dangerous garbage" is itself dangerous garbage. He implies that any friendship which does not have this in-built demand for growth and improvement cannot be a "true" friendship. Sorry, but that's the sort of thing which makes people go through life miserably trying and failing to attain someone else's definition of 100% rather than being happy with the 95% they already have. Comparing a relationship between friends with that between a drive-through (excuse the UK spelling) server and a customer is just sound-bite trite; it doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny for a minute.

There are plenty of good, true friendships where Hubbard's definition holds sway. And many of them last for decades precisely because there is never that "can I tell you something as a friend...?" conversation.

Posted by RobCH at May 2, 2009 5:45 AM

YES!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 2, 2009 11:59 AM

RobCH,

I WAS writing what was turning into a rather lengthy treatise on "friends vs. 'true' friends." I abandoned that, realizing that for me -- PERSONALLY, thus they are MY feelings which doesn't make them better or more correct than yours or anyone else's -- life should be a process of always growing, improving, and being more than I was yesterday. Therefore, I consciously choose to share the majority of my time and energy with people who actually help me in various ways to make that happen. And that includes encouraging (and indeed expecting) that other 5% (or 10% or 100%) from me.

I guess it boils down to my desire to make myself a better person every day. I choose and endeavor to surround myself with people who support and encourage me to do just that.

I guess it's a matter of wanting to be growing instead of stagnant.

What others want is up to them. I choose growth.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 2, 2009 8:57 PM

Thanks Dan. I think the treatise would have been an interesting read. You're right, we choose our path and also the companions best able to help us on our journey. And, thankfully, we can all choose differently and aspire to different ends and means. For me, the word "true" in this context is highly loaded and subjective. It is what we make it. I remember in my late teens hanging around with a group of people who told me that the only "real" view of the world had to be via LSD (very fashionable at the time). Bollocks, of course. I decided then that I would decide for myself what was "real" rather than have a chemical do it for me, and I'm applying the same to "true" now, as you are. "True friendship" has one definition that works for you, and another that works for me. So we choose what best suits us. One is not better or "truer" than the other.

I don't think it's a matter of growth vs stagnation (although I do greatly appreciate the hint!). Both my parents made a lot of their lifelong and "true" friends in WW2. Those friendships endured not because of some commitment to personal growth thereafter, but because they had shared moments of very deep and raw human experience out of which came a special bond.

I'll stop before this turns into a treatise too, and return to the Sargasso :)

Posted by RobCH at May 3, 2009 1:00 AM

Rob and Dan – great exchange – and much learning as an observer – thank you. Do you think the difference between 'acquaintances' and 'friends' is an important distinction?

I guess the words we use are important. I feel the word ‘friend’ is used a bit more freely than it used to be when I was a kid many decades ago - its not a bad thing. As far as I am concerned one of the greatest things about modern technology is the ability to make virtual friends with many people worldwide and thus enhance learning. Happy Sunday!

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 3, 2009 5:39 AM

The very notion of "true" in this regards undermines that of growth, as we then often look for likeminded people to affirm as opposed to those who challenge or speak "truth" to us. ("Faithful are the wounds of a friend.") The necessary growth experiences, often those which challenge us, are then never truly experienced. The experience of what is true is then narrowed significantly based on our personal choice. This is, in fact, a kind of stagnation. There is a very limited sense of forever becoming more of what we would yet like to be. Opposites challenge me; sometimes these are not "true" friends, but very dear indeed.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 3, 2009 5:51 AM

Catching what I think is Judith's point, of course it's good to have friends who challenge us. Friends who help one grow by constantly expecting more, or in my case often by being examples I can aspire to, are great too. My point is not that "true friendship" excludes these, but that it is not limited to these either. There's room inside "true" for friends of different sorts, and friendships formed from many different bases.

Trevor, for me friends and acquaintances are certainly different, and the distinction is about what happens when the chips are down. I'm still mulling over Tom's definition of true friendship (lots of social psychology inside that one), but the friendship "contract" seems to imply a much higher level of mutual expectation than acquaintanceship. So for me I feel able to ask things of friends which I would feel unable to ask of acquaintances; I feel able to expose vulnerability and need to friends. The degree to which I feel able to do that is for me a sign of the depth of the friendship.

Posted by RobCH at May 3, 2009 6:38 AM

We all seem to be speaking a common language here, though the "dialects" of sort may be a bit different. We all seem to be saying "I want friends that bring out my best." I am even reminded of a comment Judith posted to another of Tom's blogs:

"...our relationship has made a difference. It has in my life. I do not even engage in such without the intention of making a difference in the lives of others. Our intentions and corresponding actions really do matter."

Beautiful words. With powerful connotations. Even within a slightly different context, the underlying theme still surfaces. It seems almost inevitable.

Regardless of the nouns and adjectives we use, such as "friend, acquaintance, true, faithful..." we all seem to be following the theme of wanting to surround ourselves with and invest ourselves, time, and energy in relationships that are at least a bit more than "neutral" in quality. We want to better ourselves and help those people in return, even if in small ways.

This exchange, for me, only underscores the points I was sharing in my "Board of Directors" blog post on the Heart of Excellence blog. I see life as too short NOT to pay attention to the influences I have consciously or subconsciously chosen in my life. And that includes "friends."

Thank you all for sharing your thoughts. I'm not interested in us agreeing on precise terminology as though this were some business matter that requires narrow definitions for contractual purposes. Yet I am encouraged at heart from hearing people describe in their own terms their desire to grow, improve, and enrich their lives and their recognition of the fact that those we call "friends" are a very powerful force in doing those things.

Great day to you all.

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 3, 2009 7:16 AM

The funny thing about friendship is that I think it often finds us.

Rob - I well received your point.

Trevor - Your distinction of acquaintances and friends is one that has long been established. I wonder, however, if we treated everyone as a friend would this make the difference in our relationships, personally and professionally. While we would be wise not to express ourselves to everyone generally, there is also the importance of simply being true and open that is most certainly good for relationships of all kind.

It is often very easy for executives to mistreat their employees based on the distinctions in rank and gender. If executives considered all employees as valuable as the next, as friends, a collective corporate body, this may make the difference; after all, this is what corporation literally means—an organized body. If we actually thought of such in this way, this may make the difference in work environments and profit.

The body is essential here. (But without the spirit of the corporation or person, who are we really?) Even with the human body there are contrary motions. Try walking with both legs in the same direction or both arms too. Contrary motion can bring about harmony where the exact would be disharmony and discomfort. Of course, we are also fully aware of contrary people who add no value. Without doubt, these have to be dealt with--for sure.

Here are some questions: Is there also a distinction the way men and women see and develop friendships? Is there also a distinction between how such is then played out in work environments? Are men more territorial? Is this nature or nurture? Do women develop relationship quicker? Are we more open? Does this matter? Does the fact the women, as breast-feeding mothers whether a mother or breast-feeding, handle situation differently with regards to our personal and professional lives? Is this nature or nurture? Can such be fostered in the other, male or female? Do such distinctions even matter?

When I was in graduate school I knew the most brilliant woman who was 25 years my senior. She had been a nuclear physicist and was now a senior executive at a Fortune 500, taking courses at night in philosophy, offering astonishing perspectives. She had come from a very wealthy east coast family and was well educated and boundless, perhaps to her detriment, she thought. I sought her out immediately. She also told me that she had wanted to introduce herself to me too, for I had said some things that made her think differently about matters.

She was transgender and had become so while a senior executive. We spoke often of her experience and of gender distinctions during breaks and after class. We also had lunch on some afternoons where we talked about everything under the sun, including her relationships with her colleagues and her wife and children. (They had remained a family, albeit very much fractured and injured.) In some ways we were very much alike; in other ways, we were totally different. I loved her; she was a friend.

We had found each other.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 3, 2009 8:00 AM

I had no input on the initial topic of Main Street or Wall Street but since we have touched on philosopy I'll take a gander.
Men and women develop friendships differently just for the mere fact they were created by the creator for different roles and purposes. I myself very much a woman communicate and enjoy the banter of those that carry the Y Gene. But I'm not the norm and truthfully not normal. I seem to think differently then everyone. Woman within the last 30 years having been learning the skills set to be effective in roles of management and communication. Both men and woman must come into communion with the corporate body previously described as the 'body of christ' in some really old book. People need to learn to get over themselves and what they need is management that has the knowledge, skills and tenacity to confront issues of corporate stupidity head on.Courage is the virtue for which every other virtue must stand upon. Everyone wants to be liked,management and employees alike and this need takes corporations down every year. I truly don't care who likes me but often wish I would be more liked.

Posted by Kellyann Curnayn at May 4, 2009 10:15 AM