Comments

Style over substance is proving to be Obama's downfall. Merkel's substance over style has proven to be her key to success. Can Obama deliver on substance? Doubtful in that he has no track record of ever delivering anything of substance. Including his own memoirs.

Posted by Mike Smock at September 29, 2009 1:18 PM

>what followers are looking for in their leaders in these difficult times.

This whole followers-and-leaders thing is beyond a joke.

Hell, we should be discouraging 'follow' in favor of enabling greater self-accountability and responsibility.

But of course, that's harder to profit from, so it'll hardly be a popular strategy.

Now, who was it that said 'Don't follow leaders.' all those years ago?

Posted by g at September 29, 2009 2:02 PM

Reliable. Trustworthy. Boring. All excellent leadership traits at a time when certainty is arguably the most desired human need across the globe. Clearly, the cult of personality is failing miserably in the USA as an alternative.

Posted by David Porter at September 29, 2009 2:17 PM

Merkel's secret to success is that she wasn't elected after a German version of George Bush.

Posted by zorro at September 29, 2009 3:02 PM

"Are followers looking for substance over style?"

In such a time the question itself is lacking. It's not a matter of substance over style but a matter of solutions. I agree with g.

Personally, I'm more interested in Meg Whitman's run for the governor of California after it has been just revealed that she had not voted in 27 years up until recently. This may be her downfall for bringing fiscal responsibility to the state--personality aside.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 29, 2009 3:06 PM

Smock,

Funny and a lol. Some people see others for who they are, while some people see others as they want them to be...

The paradigm is found in biz leaders that are wordy and carry multiple degrees and MBAs. They manage car companies even though they've never changed oil or an air filter, drove one of their own vehicles that came off the line for an extended period of time, and manage their family members like business associates.

In some carry over from the previous blog, our country relies heavily on philosophy and comes up SMALL on production. Kinda like the CEO that develops $1 million dollar strategies with consultants while cutting the labor costs to implement an idea.

Jerry Maguire....show me the money...quit hiding the pickle stuff.

A new college degree should focus on all of the un (under) employed that stand outside of closing retail outlets and chicken restaurants waving those stupid signs. They wear their iPods, dance like Eddie Murphy in Raw making fun of white people dancing, and lack appropriate protection (bodily and sunscreen).

Cream Puffs vs. Pound Cakes

Potato vs. Potatoe

I'm largely finding that most people don't G.A.S. anymore because of their level of disgust.

Politicians are just what they are... boy I hope we get the Olympics in Chicago! No pay back there! No politics involved in our current Prez becoming involved in the lobbying for Chicago for 2016. He's probably heading to Denmark for the hookah instead.

Posted by Joker at September 29, 2009 4:10 PM

My hero Tony Benn says "To find a leader don't look up to a platform - just look around you"

The best leaders don't have to have charisma. What great leaders stand for and what they do to set an example is what really matters to followers who very quickly see through bullshit. Having said that it would be good to see our Prime Minister Gordon Brown have a charisma implant to take him above zero on the charisma scale .... JUST a wee bit of charisma would be nice.

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 29, 2009 4:43 PM

This blog has officially reached a new low of rehashing the same drivel over and over for 5 years; 5 years of financial and intellectual bankruptcy.

Posted by Michael at September 29, 2009 6:20 PM

Thanks Michael...at least some of us are doing our best to reach new lows on this blog. Same drivel over and over for 5 years...I resent that because I've only been blogging here for about a year.

I have learned a lot from the blog and some from TP himself. I have met people I like and people I don't like...you happen to be the latter. Feel free to check out another blog that is more intellectually stimulating, so you can drivel all over yourself.

Posted by Joker at September 29, 2009 8:15 PM

Thanks Michael...at least some of us are doing our best to reach new lows on this blog. Same drivel over and over for 5 years...I resent that because I've only been blogging here for about a year.

I have learned a lot from the blog and some from TP himself. I have met people I like and people I don't like...you happen to be the latter. Feel free to check out another blog that is more intellectually stimulating, so you can drivel all over yourself.

Posted by Joker at September 29, 2009 8:15 PM

"I was focused on raising a family, on my husband's career, and we moved many, many times. It is no excuse. My voting record, my registration record, is unacceptable."

Meg Whitman is admirable. But this response is itself unacceptable. It's amazing how we use gender for our purposes. Here Whitman was talking to a group of Republican women. She seems to be trying to garner support from women voters, perhaps to stave off future criticism and get some sympathy points.

Her excuse is utter hogwash. Women fought for the right to vote while raising families, focusing on their husband’s careers and moving many, many times. There is nothing atypical about this at all. Many women have been in the same position and voted. Whitman did not even vote for issues relevant to her family locally like school board proposals. What does this have to do with anything? Whitman is 56 years old. She just began voting 10 years ago. This is what is unacceptable for someone seeking the office of governor. Now, this does not mean that she will not be able to effectively govern.

Perhaps we need more business minded people in political office. But Whitman's excuse already sounds quite political from someone who just herself gotten involved in the political process with the election of George H. Bush and now desires to be the governor of California. I don’t know about Whitman’s charisma but her business acumen seems to be sharp while her citizenry has been quite wanton. I would, however, still be interested to hear what she has to say.

In the Washington Post Saturday Fred Barnes wrote of Meg Whitman and Sarah Palin: "If you combine Meg Whitman and Sarah Palin, you’d have an incredible candidate. With Sarah Palin, people want to hear her (I guess it matters what kind of people.) Touch her—and I don’t mean just men. (Uh…I’m not too sure about that! But she’s working it, although the it is debatable.) With Meg Whitman, I haven't seen that kind of star power, but she certainly has the intellectual power." I imagine Merkel could never win the vote in California.

Of course, none of this means that either can govern, Sarah Palin as quite every political position she has ever taken, while Whitman has succeeded in business but does not mean that she will necessarily be able to run a state. By the way, have we heard such comments made in the same way about male candidates? Such may have been said about John Edwards but I never heard that we needed to combine him with the intellectual political star power of Al Gore, for example, to make the perfect candidate. Usually the talk is about running mates, the strengths and weaknesses of both--the ticket. Fred Barnes talks about the physical amalgamation and physicality of the candidates. Sarah Palin herself has much to do with this in the way she handled herself during the campaign.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 30, 2009 12:12 AM

I don't actually believe in one leadership style over another. I personally prefer a certain style that works better for me but I am not everyone else.

The interesting thing about our PM is that Mr Brown seems more respected outside his country than in the UK.

I am however energised by this post. As someone who has worked very hard all my life to avoid having any kind of charismatic ability whatsoever - my time for great leadership has clearly come!

Posted by PaulH at September 30, 2009 1:41 AM

Surely the issue with "style" is that it's a fashion and fashions change. Maybe we're guilty of thinking that there is one ideal (idealised?!) leadership style and someone who ticks all the right boxes will automatically succeed.

I think what Mrs. Merkel is proving is that she has the right style (and results) for the German people at this particluar time. I also think that in due course the German people will tire of her current style. The question is: will she adapt it and move forward or will she recognise that her time has gone and that she should hand over power gracefully to the next generation?

Posted by Mark JF at September 30, 2009 2:22 AM

Charisma, in the absence of things of PRIMARY concern, does not work. Same is true with many leadership attributes such as "Leadership presence" (which is outlined in this recent post:
http://pradeephenry.blogspot.com/2009/09/leadership-greatest-performing-art-of.html

Posted by Pradeep Henry at September 30, 2009 2:59 AM

Scott Peters Joker as self admitted grunt; feel free to inspire drivel as your legacy.

Posted by Michael at September 30, 2009 6:45 AM

Thx Michael...enough of this fodder.

PaulH...very funny. Good drivel and your anti-charismatic style may win you elections in the near future.

I believe that charisma is very important to leading, coaching, acting, and other skills that require the attention of others. As far as politicians go, many people have elected to vote against something as opposed to for something. Many people in the US were voting against Bush and the conservative party (who can blame them).

There may be some de facto winners of elections because people are voting against the worst evil so-to-speak. I wouldn't look to a politician as a model for leadership or charisma. Obviously Jay Leno needs to read this post as his new show lacks charisma and people are turning the channel.

Posted by Joker at September 30, 2009 8:14 AM

Is Scott Peters a Joke? Well, I know he is The Joker.

I agree with Michael with regards to Scott Peters aka The Joker. Yes, I am well aware that Tom Asacker praises this guy saying that Scott Peters is the reason he comments though not really addressing Scott Peters' comment save to reiterate Tom Peters while giving The Man himself a backhanded compliment with his absence and too funny bit with smiley face and all--of course the post itself, that is—Steve Yastrow’s excellent post--wasn't worthy of a comment, and quoting Demming while Trevor Gay jumps on the usual backslapping bandwagon to praise them both: "Tom Asacker and The Joker rock--OK!!" The self-described grunt is a grunt is a grunt. He comes to this blog drivels about, distinguishing himself from Tom Peters by not agreeing with everything as he writes above and proceeds to drivel some more. It's not about disagreeing; it's about the outsider's effort to actually get inside. I don't like his style.

Scott Peters aka The Joker is a guy who whines and whimpers albeit it sarcastically (surely it can't be anything else for someone to write with a moniker about other people and bashes education (I'm assuming his is lacking) and writing style as he himself often produces the drivel he writes of—while positioning himself as the outsider as frontline simplicity hawk, Trevor Gay) while his own spineless moniker often produce the kind of vaunted drivel (who really cares how long he's been commenting here and his particular effort to do anything? It sounds like Trevor’s repeated "I've been here five years" and counting reprise) above about Michael. Did you get that Scott Peters aka The Joker? And, no, you don't get to turn fodder on and off. Blogging is a public forum--although monitored by Shelley here. (I think I'm cool Shelley :-))

By the way, I often sincerely appreciate Tom Asacker's style and substance.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 30, 2009 8:44 AM

As soon as you try to figure out what type of leader your followers want and then try to be that type--you have ceased leading.

Posted by The Dude at September 30, 2009 9:18 AM

Mark JF - The whole of your comment is much appreciated. While reading it I could not help but to think of FDR. I think his popularity had a great deal to do with the time, but also the great strength he exuded even in a wheelchair. The real backbone of his domestic policies was a tenacious and tireless fighter by the name of Frances Perkins.

Over the weekend I came across this extraordinary woman while researching the history of health care in America. Perkins was actually the legislator of The New Deal. FDR seems to have been the mouth piece. Now, this goes directly to the heart of this post with regards to style and substance. Obviously, during The Great Depression solutions were what mattered most. The very same is true today. It's not a matter of style over substance but solutions. Of course, how these are accomplished matters too.

According to all accounts Perkins was a hard-line legislator, valiantly fighting for minimum wage and for universal health care. Not passing universal health care was her personal disappointment. The entrenchment of banking and insurance power in government remains steep indeed. (I personally want a public option but want reform the matters most for the people however it evolves.) As the chairwoman of the Committee on Economic Security the Social Security Act of 1935 was passed which included unemployment insurance. The New Deal and the Social Security Act are two of the most important legislations in this country and what was most important were solutions to a major crisis, The Great Depression.

Frances Perkins delivered BIG TIME!

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 30, 2009 9:29 AM

Of course, as the longest Labor Secretary in the history of America, Frances Perkins, had time on her side to deliver these major victories, The New Deal and Social Security Act, for the American people. Leaders today do not have such time.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 30, 2009 9:34 AM

JE,

I have not addressed you nor will I.

No more fodder from me with regard to Mikey. Let's stick to more charismatic postings!

Peace and Love to my buds Trevor and Tom. Feel free to click on their names as they promote some pretty good stuff on their own consultation blogs.

Posted by The Joker Grunt at September 30, 2009 9:49 AM

Well, there is a saying “Every country has the leader it deserves". For some it's sad and others is good, but very true..
In politics unfortunately it depends on the voters, and if the voters are uneducated like many in Latin America, they will go for Charisma, and not much for substance. I would hope we learn that substance is more important, charisma is just a necessary plus in politics, but not in business. The necessary plus would be vision.

Posted by Berta at September 30, 2009 12:00 PM

Madeline,

I was listening to talk radio in Denver this afternoon and the topic of conversation was about two political candidates. The reporter covering the story mentioned charisma about 4 times and how one candidate had more charisma than the other. Even though she didn't prefer one candidate over the other, she mentioned charisma as a trait or factor for the candidates.

Posted by Joker at September 30, 2009 2:23 PM

Followers don't want leaders. Followers want to lead. Great leaders inspire leadership in others through vision, direction, inclusion, and, most importantly, their own inspired action!

Talk is not cheap anymore. During a time of crisis, it is VERY expensive. And that includes charismatic talk.

Posted by Tom Asacker at September 30, 2009 3:41 PM

"Followers don't want leaders. Followers want to lead"
Actually, we need followers. We talk up leaders a bit too much. I think it a hangerover from the 1960's. The United States (and corporations) accomplished much when being a follower was not denagrated so much. We won world war II by fighting and turning out more tanks and ships than anyone else. Most of this was actually done by followers.

Posted by zorro at September 30, 2009 4:24 PM

Agreed...

We call charisma ADHD in children and medicate them heavily for it; yet, we would prefer to deal with a charismatic used car salesman when purchasing a car. Why? Because we can blame him and say we were duped by his style, quick wit, and that's why we bought the bad deal. Much easier when they're charismatic and show us absolutely no substance...easier to blame them then.

Posted by Joker at September 30, 2009 4:24 PM

We won WWII because our leadership had the balls to drop A bombs on Japan. Didn't take long for them to wave the white flag after that...

The followers did the work of leaders and vice versa. Much leadership and charisma came from that war.

Posted by Joker at September 30, 2009 4:28 PM

And there were thousands of people working at Los Alamos that were simple followers. There would have been no bomb without them.

Posted by zorro at September 30, 2009 4:39 PM

Zorro/Tom,

Great examples of this in the mission of Apollo 13. At first glance, the heroes appeared to be in a tin can thousands of miles from earth. However, without the tireless, charismatic work of mission control (front liners), that mission would have failed.

Wonder how we let this get away from leadership in our modern era and everyone playing an important role on the team?

Posted by Joker at September 30, 2009 5:47 PM

"Management consultants" should be morally, legally, and financially responsible for the havoc they cause; most should be locked up for the damage they've done.

This blog is a dead end at best; the new Peters' landing page should say "Dead End" with a link to order a free black T-shirt saying "Dead Ender" in big red letters.

Posted by Michael at September 30, 2009 6:05 PM

An analogy to "Blogging for 5 years." is "I took out the trash for 5 years." It served a purpose but in the end it is still trash you are dealing with.

Posted by Michael at September 30, 2009 6:27 PM

Yawn. To say any more would be redundant.

Posted by David Porter at September 30, 2009 6:54 PM

Joker
The space program in the 1960's was always the best thing on TV. Typically, the rockets wouldn't launch on time and the likes of Walter Cronkite and Jules Bergman would start interviewing engineers to discuss how to make it work - and that is exacly how it was always presented - how do we fix this and no one started accusing anyone of doing anyhting wrong - they were just facinated with the problem solving that was taking place in real time - Appllo 13 was just and more extreme example of that -
It was always about being presented with a problem and fixing it - even with Applo 13, no one talked about who screwed up - it was just about getting it done - all done in real time on national TV.

Posted by zorro at September 30, 2009 7:09 PM

With regard to some prior thoughts on management consultants by one of my bestest friends, I worked with a company that hired the Boston Consulting Group back in the mid 90's. The company spent $1 million to have the consulting group study trends, develop data, provide solutions to current business models, and look at potential client segments and markets.

The company, which is no longer in business after filing 2 chapter 11's and finally a 7, and executive leadership tossed much of what was recommended by the consulting group. The executive group didn't want to believe the trends and thought they had a better understanding of the marketplace and the $1 million work done by Boston Consulting was discounted.

Boston Consulting was spot on; yet, the egos of management couldn't move forward with somebody else leading. The company capsized at the beginning of our new century and used to be the largest players in its industry.

Taking the emotion out of business decisions and industry = consultants from my history. I'm not sure of the meaning written above, other than its inherent nature to inflame and piss off people that largely write on this blog.

In the words of one of America's finest Senators, "You Lie!"

Posted by Joker at September 30, 2009 9:04 PM

"Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose." (Gertrude Stein) Grunt is a grunt is a grunt is a grunt. Charisma is charisma is charisma is charisma. To Scott Peters aka The Joker: To "address" is to "address" is to "address is to "address." Substance is substance is substance is substance. Style is style is style is style.

The very essence is its core.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 2, 2009 8:36 AM

For the little puppy dog that follows me around and bites at mine, and others, heels to annoy; a new rule from your Joker, aka---the name you gave me, alias Scott Peters (you're so clever). Every time you nip at my heels or others, I shall promote my 4 favorite people in response to your nipping.

Including this blog, these blogs are very good as well:

http://simplicityitk.blogspot.com/

http://blog.threestarleadership.com/

http://www.acleareye.com/

Posted by Joker Grunt at October 2, 2009 11:52 AM

LOL, Scott Peters aka The Joker! I literally laughed out loud reading your opening. But what is it exactly about my last comment that got you all linked up? You needed some bolstering, eh? You needed your boys, eh?

By posting these links, why would you assume that others care about who you wish to highlight with no real relevance to anything here? Perhaps you think more highly of yourself than you ought or perhaps you are, in fact, weaker in constitution than I thought. In the case of the latter, I guess I'm sorta sorry...kinda.

Now, regarding your name, your mother undoubtedly named you Scott Peters as you have identified yourself and described yourself here as a grunt and the writer of the book, "Dropping--what was it again--Lug Nuts?" You mechanic, you! I have not read your book but Trevor Gay has praised it repeatedly on this blog. I think he's into mechanics on the side. :-)

Oh, Scotty, my boy! Muah, to my little Joker! I hope you're sleeping tight. Good night.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 3, 2009 3:02 AM

The comments about rehashing and nothing new have set me thinking - thank you

The problem we have in management today is really one of speed and time available. Each generation of manager has to learn so much in such a short period of time before they move onto new things.

So the question for me isn't whether we are rehashing old stuff that's a given in the world of leadership - it's how quickly and effectively can we rehash old stuff for the next generation of leaders?

Posted by PaulH at October 3, 2009 3:58 AM

Puppy...keep nipping,

I highly recommend this blog and the opportunity to share in Mr. Peters new book. Others...

Simplicity Blog with Trevor Gay
Three Star Leadership with Wally Bock
A Clear Eye with Mr. Asacker

http://simplicityitk.blogspot.com/
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/
http://www.acleareye.com/

On the three listed, there are less nippy puppy dogs running around promoting themselves and shunning others. Highly recommend 'em.

buy viagra with paypal uk

Posted by Joker Advertiser at October 3, 2009 11:37 AM

By the way, it's "meh", which is now official in the dictionary----thank you Bart Simpson!

Posted by Joked Vocabulary at October 3, 2009 1:39 PM

Yeah and Paris Hilton's expression "That's hot" got added recently in the "Oxford Dictionary of Quotations." Talk about the lack of both substance and style. This brings up something that I hit on earlier. Style or substance that screams for self-satisfaction sucks.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 3, 2009 2:04 PM

Judith - your comments about me increases traffic to my own Blog so thanks. I have indeed been a visitor and commenter to Tom's Blog since it started. It seems this is a source of frustration for you because you found the need to mention this for no good reason and completely out of context in your earlier comments.

Sorry my response is late as I've been away for five days. I don't intend to say any more on this subject - just wanted the right of reply.

Scott - Do keep rattling the cage my friend :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 4, 2009 11:12 AM

Trevor,

You have some very strong bloggers and one of the most spiritual in JK. You obviously attract those that insist on making a difference and becoming better leaders and managers; hence the connection with TP.

Your blog stands on its own feet and is a great asset to many. I shall not rattle the cage, but hopefully be a help to others as you have been to me. Peace and love and I still miss the Truelove of all...even though he suggested that we may have a brokeback relationship :).

Posted by The Joker at October 4, 2009 1:17 PM

Trevor - Why can't impressions or opinions be expressed? It is also not a matter of wishing you harm. I do not.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 4, 2009 2:06 PM

Impressions and opinions are expressed all the time on this Blog - that's why I keep coming back. I was merely expressing mine of course.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 4, 2009 6:09 PM

Trevor - Very good. I'm cool with that.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 4, 2009 7:17 PM

This is an excellent debate and summarizes my observation of management styles and how people affect other people by sheer weight of their personality.

As a manager, I look for the following criteria.

viagra sales australia

a) Clear, Concise, Directed speech.
There's nothing like a conversation or action item that starts off in the middle, goes to the beginning, and ends up with another action item that does not relate to it at all.

b) Non-Personalization
There's just too much "passion" being placed into how we converse with one another. It has its places, in a speech, that's fantastic, but in general business banter. You're just downright annoying

c) Charismatics = Risk Takers
For some time now, I've noticed the trend that charismatics love stretch goals. And the reason why they're so good at talking is that they don't really know the risks of their vision and action items. That's why they're that convincing. Perhaps ignorance is good.

d) People who deliver tends to have a dour attitude.
They're probably angry because they're wondering why no one else is doing as much work as they do. Or perhaps it's just a bunch of people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). You pick; unless they're really off substance I'd go with NPD.

Posted by Dr. Kervokian at October 5, 2009 4:40 AM

Dr. K – There are excellent observations--really fine, sir. Thank you. Now if you are indeed, sir, THE Dr. Kervorkian, I used to see you quite often walking around Royal Oak. It is good to hear from you here and your blog is distinct indeed. Cool! I’m glad to have found it. In your comment on this here I especially appreciate (d). I assume that the dour personality could also influence people by their sheer discontent and presumed negatively, though perhaps others come themselves dourly along, even the charismatic ones. (For some reason now I am thinking of my beloved Jewish philosophy professor who once told me that his parents, while supporting Dr. King beliefs could not join the cause wholeheartedly because of the force of his charisma, though he spoke in love and truth, were too powerful to receive. For them, they put them in the mind of that other, yes, charismatic opposite in Nazi Germany and couldn’t be convinced otherwise.)

Sir, I wonder if charismatic people or dour people have to all keep their egos in check in order for there to really be progress. By this, I mean, if I moved people by the force of my personality without substance there can be disaster. If I move people by my insistence on my belief or even -- dare I say scientific proof -- of what is proven, even though this too often changes over time, even if I have worked nonstop and other haven't, this too may be a negative in that my view is so narrow or my proof so dense that I have excluded large numbers of others in that I am not even heard or my studies not received. Scientists often need translators. The beauty in Einstein, Darwin or Hawking is that they don’t. Charismatic people often sale things while dour people do. Both seem needed and there are those that have both.

The question perhaps is: Which would be more detrimental in the long run. A movement out of sheer charismatic force without any real substance or a lack of movement with more substance but that is so narrow in scope that others refuse to participate or neglect buy in--even if the solutions presented would be the best. So, I say all of that to say that the charismatic one and the dour one both need to keep their egos in check because substance or style both need buy in for forward movement and it is seems to me always necessary to defer to others when necessary in the process of discovery. Scientists, such as Darwin or Stephen Hawking, are never hawkish in their beliefs, even though their opinions and studies are strong.

I am now thinking of Darwin's many many discoveries of very small things from the time that he was a kid that evolved into his magnum opus, but all along he seemed to be open to the possibility of the opposite of what he was espousing. Hawking in his continuous discover of an ever-expanding universe or even his notion of God-less one includes the possibility of its opposite. I wonder if charismatic people are more often than not dogmatic people AND dour people are often the same but the expression of such is merely different. So, it is all about proving a hypothesis but the manner in which it is believed varies. In any case, it seems important that no matter the scientific proof or management style a sense of deference is essential in moving forward on anything because buy in is also always necessary.

Thanks again, Dr. K. I defer to you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 5, 2009 5:40 AM

Please allow me to briefly expound on something said above: While charismatic people typically sale things and dour people typically do, BOTH are, in fact, doing--just differently.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 5, 2009 9:33 AM

About Darwin - he wrote origin of the species and at first decided that it would not published until he passed on
(he knew it was too controversial) but others had hit upon the same idea - so Darwin published it while he was still alive -

Posted by zorro at October 5, 2009 3:36 PM

Yes, Zorro, even Darwin's wife seems to have been greatly dismayed by it. I have read more than a few of her letters. I have studied Darwin for years and so appreciate how intricately he looked at even the smallest flower or the tiniest bug. With regards to others hitting on the same idea, the same is true of the Theory of Relativity. In fact, there are books written that posit that Einstein even "stole" the theory from another. It is probably more that it was a race for publication.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 5, 2009 7:29 PM

They're brilliant. As I read Dr. K's points closer, the explanations belie the very points themselves. They are contradictory. For example, the dour deliverer is preferred less to the narcissistic visionary, perhaps because the latter delivers future possibilities on a wider scale beyond the immediate challenge. But the question in the real world becomes the delivery and not endless possibilties.

The brilliance for me, however, in the contradictory points is that there are no set patterns really with regards to game changers, even though personality types define basic generalities. Style (the narcissist) AND substance (the dour deliverer) supercede categories. Game changers are both.

But perhaps the types above need not be one person but what is more likely to be in work environments everywhere, various personality types in abundance albeit generally catergorized. The focus then becomes leadership that brings about the best in all types to actually deliver AND inspire future deliverables.

Contradiction (friction)matters.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2009 7:06 AM

To add a footnote to this discussion, I watched BBC TV's Question Time programme last night and Ian Hislop, Editor of Private Eye, was first to answer the first question which asked whether Conservative Party leader David Cameron had yet shown the qualities necessary for him to be Prime Minister? Hislop replied that Cameron had made a long, dour and boring speech to round up the Conservative's National Conference earlier that day which showed that he was now well qualified for the job!

Posted by Richard King at October 9, 2009 3:40 AM

I saw a great interview recently with David Cameron and Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Cameron didn't seem dour in the least in this interview. He seemed sharp and energized. Maybe it was the company. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 11, 2009 1:20 AM

Judith - I agree with you ..... about the company making Cameron look good :-)

David Cameron does at least register above zero on the charisma scale. Mind you he is competing directly opposite Gordon Brown who (I am sad to say as a lifelong Labour Party supporter) has negative charisma.

On the charisma scale therefore Mr Cameron is made to look the best of the most boring bunch of UK Politicians I can remember in my entire adult life.

I'm pretty sure there must be a secret training school hidden away somewhere in deepest, darkest England that produces politicians off a production line. This training school teaches them all to dress the same, look the same, speak the same and certainly never even dream of deviating from the leader's party line.

Charisma is not everything as we all know and charisma can sometimes be a fragile, thin facade with little substance behind. But it would just be nice every now and again in the UK to see a politician of any of the three leading parties with just a little bit of personality saying something that would remotely resemble rocking the boat. canadian pharmacy for viagra

I think this is a direct result of the obsession with 'image above policy' that now dominates politics in the UK.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 11, 2009 5:14 PM

"I'm pretty sure there must be a secret training school hidden away somewhere in deepest, darkest England that produces politicians off a production line. This training school teaches them all to dress the same, look the same, speak the same and certainly never even dream of deviating from the leader's party line."

Trevor - This is too funny! But I have watched British Parliament more than a few times in the wee hours of the morning on C-Span as I worked and thought that Cameron's challenges to the current government did not seem terribly off mark. Of course, I am not terribly immersed in your political system, but the macro right/left divide seems pretty familiar. What are your three parties? The House of Commons currently seems largely liberal.

viagra uk paypal

By the way, Tony Blair may not have gone to that aforementioned school. :-) Even if he had, he caught on rather quickly. Blair seemed to emulate the master politician, Bill Clinton. I guess if a formula worked in one place, the assumption seemed to be that it could work in another. Did it? Clinton is very charismatic. He's also quite intelligent. He can break down the most complicated issue so that anybody can understand it.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 11, 2009 6:37 PM

The 3 main Parties over here are Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat. You are right about Cameron - he is asking the right questions to the Government. Its not difficult right now as the current Government can't answer ANY question without shooting itself in the foot under an inept, negative charisma, out of touch leader.

We are actually watching the rapid demise of the current Government. With each passing week the margin of the inevitable defeat Labour faces in the General Election which will probably be held in May 2010 widens.

Mr Brown - perfectly illustrating his total lack of leadership decisiveness - dithered and dallied at the time he had the opportunity to win a majority last Autumn and his chance went forever at that point of ever winning a General Election as Labour leader.

Tony Blair on the other hand won 3 successive General Elections as you know. I liked Mr Blair and he unfortunately will now be remembered more for the Iraq disaster and following GWB like a lemming on the road to political suicide and anonymity.

I always said Mr Blair was the best Prime Minister in my lifetime but then along came the Iraq situation and his 'Bush poodle image' forced me to change my mind about his judgment I'm afraid.

Blair was undoubtedly the master of communication - he invented 'spin' over here. I'm not sure if he based his style on Mr Clinton but there were similarities no doubt about that.

1 am Monday morning - and I think sleep is over rated ... I do need some :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 11, 2009 7:02 PM

Speak of the devil (I guess the angel to some, especially considering the surrounding backdrop of clouds and blue which surrounds the podium at this Conservative convention), I may now catch the speech about which Richard referred. C-Span is now broadcasting the speech of the Conservative Party's Defense Spokesman at their convention. It looks like he's been to that aforementioned school. :-) Oh, no such luck. I guess it was just Liam talking about Cameron. Was his speech that bad that C-Span chose not to broadcast it?

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 11, 2009 7:03 PM

Thank you, Trevor. Sleep well.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 11, 2009 7:12 PM