Comments

So what of company cultures create the kind of fear or promote the kind of manager (leader is too kind) that responds this way? 50, 75%, 90%? Hmmm.

Posted by David Porter at September 15, 2009 10:41 AM

Where does the "not" really go in his quote? It may be literally true as quoted; most people, even at the exec levels, are paid to accomplish something, whether or not they rock the boat. In other words, as phrased, it's a defensible-in-court but meaningless statement.

However, I think he literally meant "You are paid to not rock the boat," which is indeed somewhere between unfortunate and appalling. That's how Tom read it, and it's how I and I suspect most people read it. The great companies may not pay people explicitly to rock the boat as their job description, but they recognize and encourage rocking on the way to getting the job done and making the company more successful.

Unless it's a very big ship, you cannot move around without rocking the boat. And you can't get much done without moving around.

Posted by Steven Levy at September 15, 2009 12:27 PM

That quote grabbed me by the throat also. It immediately went into my files.

As an aviation and glider addict that is not in aviation, I must note that Mr. Linton is in aviation (nice Grob!!).

The first part of his quote, “Anyone at our level who had a different view from senior management would find themselves going somewhere else quick” is applicable to more people and more companies than we would like to think!

And that is a great pity!!

Posted by Stephen Garner at September 15, 2009 12:46 PM

Tom – it is wonderful that you continue to put the skids under supposedly ‘senior’ people who come up with that sort of crap. The reality sadly is its absolutely typical of the people I’ve met in my entire working life who sit (THAT’S SUCH AN APPROPRIATE WORD) at or near the top of organisations. They don’t like risk takers full stop. They don’t like their comfortable boat rocked. They like to stay in the shallow water and stick close to the shoreline. Storms are definitely not welcome.

How ironic it is that front liners are told ‘Its not your job to rock the boat’ because the best and most original ideas still come from those front liners who know the customer best; know what needs to be done; and most importantly know how to do stuff.

I argue that most innovation and change comes from front liners who DO rock the boat. I love this quote from Tom that says it all.

“Nearly 100% of innovation – from business to politics – is inspired not by ‘market analysis’ but by people who are supremely pissed off by the way things are”

The problem with the likes of Mr Linton is he is clearly not pissed off enough.

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 15, 2009 12:56 PM

From the banner atop of www.tompeters.com...

""Leadership is ... the Ultimate Responsibility! It's an assumption of accountability." Tom Peters

I think that says about it all... No one quote can describe Mr. Peters and his insight BUT that quote goes a long way.

Posted by Stephen Garner at September 15, 2009 1:02 PM

It is SO unfortunately true (and sad) that a decent paycheck causes some people to be reluctant to speak out when they see a problem. But what's downright disgusting (if not criminal) is how a little sweeter paycheck (or bonus -- even if it comes from government bailout money) can so easily transform reluctance into absolute refusal.

"Power corrupts..." I suppose "absolute power" comes from being able to pay people enough to stomach absolute corruption.

Posted by Dan Gunter at September 15, 2009 1:20 PM

From my blog in March. Sound Familiar.

Today from the New York Post comes a story titled, “Star Power Dimming At Some Street Firms” (I hate that title). Here’s a brief caption of the story.

Some of Wall Street’s harshest analysts — and, as it turns out, most prescient — are discovering that there’s a steep price for being honest. A growing number of analysts who were either critical of the financial sector or were early raisers of red flags in the mortgage market are getting the cold shoulder from their employers, which has led to the analysts being forced out or silenced. .. Highly regarded mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman, who when she worked at UBS was one of the first researchers to sound the alarm about the dangers of the subprime market, is said to have drawn the ire of UBS brass as her clarion calls crimped the bank’s ability to sell billions in bonds backed by subprime loans. Goodman stopped publishing her 15-year-old weekly research studies in October and a month later left UBS to join boutique Austin, Texas-based firm Amherst Holdings as its research head.

Posted by Rodney Johnson at September 15, 2009 2:58 PM

“Nearly 100% of innovation – from business to politics – is inspired not by ‘market analysis’ but by people who are supremely pissed off by the way things are”

Funny, I never got the idea that Newton was pissed off -
but then, all he did was invent Calculus.

I doubt the guy who invented the integrated circuit was pissed off -
but then again, how important was that.

Was Les Paul pissed off when he invented the electric guitar?

Maybe much of Tom's audience has anger issues and he's just trying to let them know it OK.

Posted by zorro at September 15, 2009 9:42 PM

zorro - Those are good exceptions - Tom did say NEARLY 100% :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 16, 2009 10:26 AM

Regarding my own anger issues. I have no value or respect for people that come forward after the damage has been done. Many executives and politicians point out details of the "I knew" or "Had an idea of a..." proverbial snowball running down hill and crashing into the most deserving of Americans (those that happen to be working at Wal-Mart pre and post crash).

Near the city I reside, there is a smaller bedroom community that houses more wealthy residents. Recently, the city has received much attention because a homeless person has taken up residence right on the main drag on a piece of the county's property. Business owners and residents went to the local government to try and oust the man and his belongings...they failed and couldn't. I see him each time I visit the smaller city now. Yesterday he was reading the paper and looked like a man with pride surrounded by his sleeping bag, belongings, and other items.

This man reminds me everyday of what I have...my pride and dignity. Regardless of what our stories may be and how we have been affected, the most honest, least highest paid individuals have been affected the most, and that is disgusting in today's world.

I'm glad he's there...

Posted by The Joker at September 16, 2009 1:11 PM

An interesting interview with Goldman Sach;s CEO, Lyod Blankfein with comments along TP's points:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/business/13corner.html?ref=businessspecial4

Posted by Stephen Garner at September 16, 2009 8:50 PM

And yet another article related to this...

In the New York Times article "Talk of Deceit Where Honor Is Taught," there is the following passage:

"On the other hand, the officers, he said, were creatures of a culture in which certain commands were not always spelled out but nevertheless everyone knew what was expected.

"'There are a lot of officers who will risk their lives for their country, but damn few who will risk their careers,' he [Jon Krakauer, author of Where Men Win Glory] explained. 'This isn’t little stuff to me. It’s not like you lied about your expense account. This kind of deceit is endemic in the military and goes to the highest levels of government.' "

Posted by Stephen Garner at September 17, 2009 3:13 AM

On the regulation of finances, the main difficulty is enforcement (audit). Perhaps there is adequate regulation, but little enforcement.

For example, a recent book on the $65 bn Madoff scandal in the asks where was the Securities and Exchange Commission; apparently the downside for regulators and enforcers who annoyed Wall Street was far greater than the upside of exposing what was thought to be the fraud of the century.

Posted by euroscot at September 17, 2009 10:41 AM

People on the audit team happen to be rewarded for not finding or looking at certain things.

As Andy Dufrain said in the movie Shawshank Redemption, "I had to come to prison to learn how to be a criminal." Framing an overly devout warden in a money laundering scheme may be the only time justice is served during the flick.

Or better yet, The Firm, when Tom Cruise learns that he can't trust anybody (firm and authorities) and utilizes law and blackmail to free his brother from prison.

Unfortunately, in our overly dishonest societies across the globe, matters taken into their own hands may yield very positive, lucrative, individual results.

Find out who is on the take first and figure out how to play their own game against them. There will be people scattered (few) along the trail that you can trust! Once high level officials know that you're onto them, you can either keep a good secret and maintain good reviews with pay increases, or risk everything to escape Shawshank and blow the whistle (don't forget the 500 yards of shit that you'll wade through for freedom). Your choice will determine personal character more than anything else (this isn't measured very highly today---unfortunately). Do you want to upset the applecart with all your worldly possessions, or prefer to have dignity and integrity through truth? I've already answered this question for myself...

Even though people have died for others (Christ for example, and he isn't the only one), we still haven't learned (collectively) that this life is fleeting and we should treat each other a little better.

Thanks Mr. Garner

Posted by The Joker at September 17, 2009 1:23 PM

The Joker and Mr Garner - given your excellent exchange I thought you two may like this - It made me laugh anyway :-)

"The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much trouble to put makeup on two faces." Maureen Murphy

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 17, 2009 2:41 PM

Trevor,

Brilliant as always. I laughed out loud. Thanks my English friend. See you in 2010, come hell or high water!

Love the Brit Wit...

Posted by The Joker at September 17, 2009 5:41 PM

A pint of real English Ale in a real English Pub in Shakespeare's County - its a deal Scott - Cheers :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 17, 2009 6:28 PM

"Maybe much of Tom's audience has anger issues and he's just trying to let them know it OK."

Entirely possible, but I still stand by my point. Speaking as a Protestant, albeit not much of one, wasn't Martin Luther "pissed off" at the Pope?

The larger point, I don't think the guy who is perfectly happy with the purchasing department's invoicing system gets to work in the morning and says, "Golly, I think I'll spend the next eight months creating a new purchasing system and defending to the powers that be the $73,000 cost of changing the old one and the cost of three months changeover and consequent disruption and the fact that 99% of my peers will be pissed off at me for having created what they judge to be a temest in a teapot."

No, I think our friend in purchasing "knows what's coming" if he stirs things up, but is willing to move forward only because he is "at the end of my rope about the clunkiness of the current system." I will admit to being crude, and substituting "pissed off" for "end of my rope."

(P.S., who says Les Paul wasn't pissed off? Are you sure?)

Posted by tom peters at September 19, 2009 8:27 AM

Stephen Garner: Thank you!

Posted by tom peters at September 19, 2009 8:30 AM

John Boyd had it sussed. He made the distinction between To Be and To Do and told his acolytes that at some point in their (military) lives they would come to a fork in the road where they would have to choose between Being Someone, and squashing their principles to climb the greasy pole, or Doing Something, which would probably end their chances of reaching a senior rank. Boyd, whom I admire more each time I read his biography, called out the top brass for consistently putting their vested interests in the military-political-industrial machine ahead of the safety, tactics and combat-readiness of their troops. He was hated for it by those above him (with a few notable exceptions) and loved by those who knew what it took to do what he did, and who fought in combat. Boyd had principles and was relentlessly pilloried for them; it takes an extraordinarily tough person to stand up to the system.

Posted by RobCH at September 19, 2009 11:54 AM

Oh, and (what I really meant to start with) John Boyd was Seriously Pissed Off about almost everything!

Posted by RobCH at September 19, 2009 11:55 AM

NY Times article "Talk of Deceit Where Honor Is Taught" about Jon Krakauer's book Where Men Win Glory...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/books/17krakauer.html

Posted by Stephen Garner at September 19, 2009 8:00 PM

Have you ever seen an interview with Les Paul? He just doesn't seem like a guy who ever got pissed off.

The whole 'pissed off guy who saves the day' thing is so late 1970's movie plot - think Dirty Harry.
I'm sure anger motivates people, but so does the desire to do something cool and it doesn't have to be motivated by anger. I bet the anger angle plays more to the male point of view than the female point of view. Unless "Die Hard" or "Lethal Weapon" or "Dirty Harry" can be thought of as chick-flicks.
Was anger the main motivation for Julia Child or Julie Powell?
What about E-Bay. From my understanding, it was started as an exchange for people selling Pez dispensers. I just can't imagine people who collect Pez dispensers have a lot of anger.

Posted by zorro at September 20, 2009 12:44 PM

"(P.S., who says Les Paul wasn't pissed off? Are you sure?)"

Maybe the only stories about invention that get popularized have a hero as the central character fighting a big system - its the Ameican Myth -

Tom, you're the one who who put the 99% on the thing. I'd be ok with 30-40 maybe even 50%.

In the 1940's, tape recorders were expensive - Bing Crosby bought one of the first ones available. His neighbor and freind was Les Paul. Bing bought him one also. It took Les about a week or so to invent multi track recording by fooling around with the tape recorder. I doubt anger had much to do with that invention. And I doubt anger motivated the invention of the electric guitar.

Jack Kirby, the inventor of the silicon chip, invented it when he was working at Texas Intruments in 1959 - to very little fanfare - he was a button down guy who was putting in just another day at the office and kicked off the electronic revolution - but the story of his invention doesn't have all the 'cowboy' that the Wozniac/Jobs story does, so it rarely gets told -

Posted by zorro at September 20, 2009 1:20 PM

Tom - Thanks for the reminder to "rock the boat." I shall continue on my present path. Regarding Martin Luther, I think it was Christ Himself who "rocked the boat" of the religious status quo at the time with a single phrase "I and My Father are one." He then went even further and engrafted us all into this oneness: "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, 'You are god.'" This drove them mad. He then moved forward in words and deeds that "pissed off" the establishment even more and forged a great message of faith, that of love. He did not establish a religion or denomination. Others did this.

Christ was often considerably ticked off. The Apostles Peter and Paul and others that came thereafter were also ticked off at the establishment and became followers of the most beloved One, albeit imperfectly, though not for their anger. Christ was perfect and often angry. "Be angry but sin not." We all get angry and are imperfect. (I am often angry at injustice and stupidity and often sin.) Perfection is not the point. This is: That we are forever striving, for that which is born of man is born of suffering and fire which often produces great beauty and excellent examples. Consider Edison. Consider Christ's message of love. Consider DaVinci. Consider Hawking. Consider Annealing: diamonds and glass. (I watched the process of Venetian glass blowing up close in amazement in Italy as a student.) Consider Gates. Consider Galileo. Consider Beethoven. Consider Tesla. Consider Tom.

Consider James Baldwin in his great polemic, "The Fire Next Time."

"I do not mean to be sentimental about suffering--enough is certainly as good as a feast--but people who cannot suffer can never grow up, can never discover who they are. That man who is forced each day to snatch his manhood, his identity, out of the fire of human cruelty that rages to destroy it knows, if he survives his effort, and even if he does not survive it, something about himself and human life that no school on earth--and, indeed, no church--can teach. He achieves his own authority, and that is unshakeable."

James Baldwin rocked the boat in his way. Martin Luther King Jr. did the same in his way. Both expressions were born of love.

Zorro - Thank you very much for your most wonderful words above. They are so appreciated. I smiled throughout reading your comments. You have outlined a very important point: While the squeakiest wheel gets the oil it is often the quiet ones that keep steadily rolling along that enable the weight of the load to be equally leveled and firmly established. But, of course, it is sometimes noise draws attention to the necessity of change. It is not and either/or situation; it's a matter of prescience, personality and persistence in all cases.

Wisdom is the principle thing in discerning the what, when and how of moving forward. But to not question there will be no movement at all whether with fire or quietude. This is the real essence here as I understand it: questioning and acting. Rocking the boat, not out of some ego trip, is important for it demands a necessary questioning and acting for improvement. Even a single-Mom with two kids needs to do this in productive ways whether in an interim or long-term position. Plus, who know where any position will lead. I have had my share of surprises. You don’t stop thinking and questioning in any position. But the what, when and how are also very important.

Thanks again, Zorro. I appreciate your voice.

Thanks Tom for the post.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 20, 2009 3:28 PM

Why is it forgivable for the mom at the golden arches or the ex GM worker at WMT and not the Lehman employee? All 3 are just trying to take home a pay check by doing their job. It so happens that one deals in a product allowing his W2 to have a few more digits come year end. A senior VP at Lehman would most likely just have a fancy title well removed from the executives making the 'real' decisions and would certainly not be one of Fuld's bridge buddies. His role was to get this product through so the company makes money (and he takes home a juicy bonus). This is no different than a mom working at MCD knowing full well the food is full of heart attack juice or the old guy at WMT stocking shelves with piece of crap made in china products knowing they will fall apart well before their sell by date. Both do not put their hands up to make their opinion known to senior management and save the general public from the great evil because they want to protect their own jobs. In the case of the Lehman guy people are pissed or feel it is unjust because the guy made boatloads of money and drives a Ferrari (ok probably drove as he had to sell it to pay the mcmansion mortgage in Greenwich when the stock went to zero)

Posted by Zircon-212 at September 20, 2009 10:01 PM

Zircon, it's a fair question. But in my view, the more seniority you achieve in an organisation, the less the job is just about a paycheck. Want no responsibility, stay a junior. With management responsibility (and the pay) comes a duty of care, to the organisation and to its employees, and arguably to wider society as well. And how one exercises that duty of care depends in large part on whether one brings to bear any sort of intrinsic moral values, as opposed to assuming that if everyone's doing it then it must be okay.

There is a lot more to say on this, but the "no qualms, no responsibility, I'm okay so who cares" theme from one person within the article is not a great advertisement for trusting the capitalist system to do the right thing except when forced to. We've heard the "I was only obeying orders" line before, and each time it reveals a morally bankrupt (and often downright evil) state of affairs.

Social psychologists since the 1960s have been demonstrating how far down we will go (eg inflicting pain, killing) if we believe we are acting on "authority". The people most likely to stand up against such "authority" are those with a capacity for free/independent thinking and a well-developed moral code. It would be good to think that at least a few of those people could be found at the top of the financial industry, but if none of them accepts individual responsibilty then the prognosis is not good.

Posted by RobCH at September 21, 2009 4:22 AM

It would be interesting to see what correlation there is with the pain experiments results and those that rise to snr management.

I suspect that a lot of mid level people basically feel trapped. They have a mortgage to pay, the feeling that this is what they know and do (i.e. they feel they couldn't jack it all in and become a pig farmer). Note I am not saying they are trapped - just that they feel it. It takes a lot to walk away from a lifestyle - Many (most?) can't do it unless they are forced into it.

Posted by PaulH at September 21, 2009 5:55 AM

A few random thoughts:

- Isn't it odd that all the interviews you read with ex senior staffers from just about any failed BigCo seem to say, "Well, obviously I could see it was all going to the wall, but what could I do?" It seems quite frightening that we have a huge number of people in positions of responsibility who... don't act and don't take responsibility. These interviews couldn't be motivated by the idea of giving their own reputation a retrospective clean up, could they?

- Should you be an SVP if you think in terms of "rocking the boat" and not in terms of how you go around the organisation to resolve the problem? Don't present it as a problem but as an opportunity to improve bad debt, risk management or whatever.

- This question, in a wider sense, goes to the issue of how much regulation you want. If you never, ever want a management to create a culture in which this kind of thing happens than you have to be prepared to a) regulate and b) create enough regulators of sufficient quality and clout to enforce the regulation. (And I think a lack of point b) is one very strong reason why we're in the mess we are, but that's another debate.)

- It also goes to the question of whether there should be a compulsory qualification system for senior managers and what level it kicks in. (Preferably a TPACSC * and absolutely not an MBA.)

• Tom Peters Approved Common Sense Certificate.

Posted by Mark JF at September 21, 2009 6:00 AM

women viagra australia

Paul, I agree that is the case. And I also believe Edmund Burke: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’

All the best

Posted by RobCH at September 21, 2009 6:48 AM

There were a lot of people in the boat -
all the 'little guy' loan officers who appoved loans. The people who bought McMansions when they
made much to little money to afford one. Greed overtook many of us. We need to quit thinking it is all about them. Its a lot about us. What happened with the economy was nothing as dramatic as evil. We all just beleived in a fairy tale. I still have the 1999 issue of Wired with a big smiley face on it - the magazine contained articles in it making the case we were in for 25 more years of economic boom.

Posted by zorro at September 21, 2009 9:33 AM

While we're referring to boats...

I wonder what the crew of the Titanic thought the minute they realized that they were, in fact, sinkable.

pfizer viagra 100mg canada Then the recovery effort of launching life boats half full, even though the crew understood they didn't have enough boats for all passengers to begin with...

GM receives billions of tax payer dollars to revitalize the company and reinvent itself...supported by a cash for clunker program...the company still doesn't perform well because people aren't buying their cars. Toyota looks to pound US auto makers with a $1 billion marketing campaign in the 4th quarter of 2009.

Stimulus helps ??????? Even government officials and regulators don't know where much of the money went. Michael Moore looks to have a field day with his new movie. Who is more guilty? AIG for mismanaging cajillions of dollars or the government for coming to the rescue and penalizing few, if any.

Uncharted territory and we may have gone too far this time. Cowboys losing opener in their billion dollar + stadium while Jerry picks a winner on national tv may sum up our nation better than anything else.

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Posted by The Joker at September 21, 2009 9:43 PM

generic cheap viagra I have been away and celebrating my wife's 40th birthday, a good time.

However, as I have read this, the phrase...." You build them up and you knock them down" comes to mind? Not sure why, its just a feeling I get.

Posted by patrick at September 22, 2009 2:41 AM

Patrick - good to know you got the work/life balance right - happy birthday to your wife. I trust your message in the birthday card was brief :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 22, 2009 6:23 PM

Two more comments from others that apply to this subject:

http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/apr2009/ca2009043_853577.htm

Especially the first paragraph: "There is an old business adage that says, "Organizations are perfectly aligned to get the results that they get." Case in point: AIG. The blunders of their leadership on the global economic stage highlighted the staggering audacity of AIG executives who were willing to accept (or even demand) ludicrous bonuses to be delivered from the backs of U.S. workers."

From Michael Lewis' Liars' Poker: Quoting an anonymous executive at Salomon Brothers: "Bad management drives out good management." "Only after imploding is good management restored [paraphrase]." Describing the training class: "The bad drove out the good, the big drove out the small, and the brawn drove out the brains."

*****************************************

I am not interested in focusing on AIG or Salomon Brothers. Of much more interest to me is the filtering that goes on within organizations.

Quite often one must "drink the koolaid" to advance. The ones that the company actually needs, the ones that do not do so, fall by the wayside and the problem then gets bigger and bigger.

I think that often senior management's key attribute to success is successfully being filtered in as opposed to having the characteristics that the company really needs.

In my mind, the following model works. There is a very heavy ball on top of a hill. The further down the hill, the steeper the slope.

The position of the ball on the top of the hill represents the fully realized "proper" management. The further down the hill the ball is reflects how far management is from that ideal position.

Once the ball starts to move away from the top of the hill, the tendency is for the ball to move away from that very precarious equilibrium.

"Proper" management is not an equilibrium and the tendency is to move away from it, unless great work is done to keep the ball at the top of the hill in a juggling act full of art and science.

This movement away from "proper" management happens in the short-term. Correction happens in the long-term. The gap allows for organizational implosion.

Often this results in organizations complaining that they can not find particular talent, which is often right in front of them.

Posted by Stephen Garner at September 23, 2009 11:26 AM

Reminds me of the saying "what gets measured gets done.".

I have long held this to be true but not to be aspired too. What get measured is often the only thing that gets done. Mostly the "right thing to do" is done extra to what is measured by people who believe it's just right.

Integrity is an interesting word. I read a definition recently in a management guide (this wasn't a dictionary definition but a guide to how to become effective and respected) that I found somewhat scary:

Acting with integrity is "doing what you say you are going to do". It added, as an afterthought, "acting acording to some values." (it didn't say what or who's values!)

Pathetic

I think the best thing we can do right now is remove useless words like integrity and professionalism from our business vocabularies. They have become useless wall paper, mission statement garbage - every company has them somewhere - what's special about that?

Interestingly I came across a small startup recently that had Humility as a stated core value - you don't see that one often enough.

Posted by PaulH at September 24, 2009 9:32 AM

Zircon-212 – You have brought up an interesting question relating to personal responsibility and accountability, which for me addresses the question of corporate hierarchy and industry. You seem to say that we are all lemmings no matter our position and it is only the likes of Fuld and his bridge buddies who hold the power to make "'real' decisions." Everyone else is largely powerless to do so if we want to eat or drive a Ferrari.

To a certain extent your point is well taken in that we all have to ultimately answer to someone who may affect our decision; even entrepreneurs and small business owners answer to their customers. (Fuld, by the way, should have answered to his board of directors who were all obviously unaware of what was occurring. I wonder how this was possible. Most of these were leading professionals in the same industries. Hmm?) We do what we do in any industry that enables us to make a living; it's just that some have the potential to make more than others depending on the industry. The distinction that I would make is based on the industry itself and the potential for greater disaster.

For example, hamburger flippers at McDonalds or Walmart stockers could not bring the global economy to a stretching halt by their collective or individual actions. But that senior VP at Lehman with the fancy title and all of his lemmings, with projections and instruments that are beneficial to them in the short run but detrimental to the whole in the long run, can cause great economic upheaval as we have seen time and time again.

It is not merely a question of envy why so many have such disdain for the financial industry; it is rather a faulty system based on incalulable risk projections of an industry that rewards talent--some would say non-talent--for producing instruments that fatten individual pockets while the whole suffers. Someone whom I love dearly texted me the other day to say, "I have just made in three days half of my salary for the year." He makes some $350,000 annually. There was no love lost when I read the text, but I was deeply concerned how this was so.

How is it that a senior VP in the financial industry can make such in a climate where the national and global economy lag along, where people are unemployed, losing homes, unemployed and can’t pay their credit card payments? For one, it does not seem difficult to create a profitable spread when given billions of dollars with a low interest rate while not adjusting the credit card interest or mortgages of those whose money insurers theirs. Now, let me assure you that this is a good guy. He is essentially legally working in an industry that profits him, but will in the long run not profit the whole--again.

So, I ask you, Zircon-212, who would be more dangerous to society—my beloved one or the McDonald burger flipper or Walmart stocker? While all should be personally responsible and accountable, there has to also be a rationality that considers the greater risk to the whole. There is also something to be said here for the added zeros for those in executives in leadership positions. After all, the reason they can drive that Ferrari is because of the added responsibility and supposed leadership talent rendered through words and deeds. No?

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 24, 2009 12:26 PM

Hi Paul - I love your rant :-)

Personally I've no problem seeing the word 'integrity' appear in management speak. However I prefer to look for actions from managers that demonstrate it. Words mean nothing - we can all see through BS.

I have much more of a problem with completely unintelligible management crap language in mission statements and business that is usually just another sign on pretentiousness from managers long since out of touch with front line employees and customers.

Humility is in my opinion the greatest quality of any leader.

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 24, 2009 12:26 PM

Also, let me add that sensible regulations for all industries are important, not the laxing of such from President Reagan through President Clinton. The financial industry was duly in check since the Great Depression until the present time.

It seems that the current administration needs to return to regulating financial institutions-not further deregulating them as our "esteemed" former VP candidate espoused in Japan yesterday.

While regulations will undoubtedly affect how many Ferraris will be bought, it may also affect the number of young people who will choose other worthy fields besides those that glitter glaringly.

I am inherently not opposed to making large sums of money, but I think not everything has to be about obscene amounts of it.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 24, 2009 12:40 PM

"Greed overtook many of us. We need to quit thinking it is all about them. Its a lot about us. What happened with the economy was nothing as dramatic as evil. We all just beleived in a fairy tale. I still have the 1999 issue of Wired with a big smiley face on it - the magazine contained articles in it making the case we were in for 25 more years of economic boom."

Excellent, Zorro. Thank you. buy generic viagra online in australia

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 24, 2009 1:00 PM