Comments

Amen! Perhaps Mr. Colvin should leave his desk and spend some time in the flyover states to gain some much needed perspective. Too many pundits drinking their own bath water to provide meaningful insight built solely on stock indexes and bonus pools.

Posted by David Porter at November 23, 2009 9:13 AM

Isn't a recession a macro-economic phenomenon? And aren't unemployment, problems in housing and financing, bankruptcies, etc. the consequences of it?
If so, why would it not be possible for the cause to be over while the damage it has caused will still take a long term to fix?
When is a storm over? When the wind and the rain have gone? Or when the houses have been re-built?
I think Geoff Colvin is right in making this vital distinction....

Posted by Guido Thys at November 23, 2009 9:36 AM

Guido, I don't technically disagree with you. But the point is the staggering insensitivity of people who ought to behave like leaders and have an obligation to behave like leaders. The auto-CEOs arriving in D.C. in 3 private planes to beg for taxpayers' billions. The Goldman guy defending the importance of his lot, and hence their bonuses, to the world. And a respected Fortune writer declaring that the worst is in our rearview mirror while 10 million of his fellow citizens are fearful of dawn's early light. This is simply thoughtless behavior which ignores the real world of the pain of others.

Posted by tom peters at November 23, 2009 9:47 AM

"But the point is the staggering insensitivity of people who ought to behave like leaders and have an obligation to behave like leaders."

That is brilliant Tom.

It's like the MP's over here in the UK who have been caught with their fingers in the till over their expenses. One after another, after another comes out with the well rehearsed party line no doubt written by spin doctors: "I did nothing against the rules"

Excuse me ... What about ethical behaviour???!!!

Most of us ordinary folks know that the 'staggering insensitivity' and complete lack of self-insight about the words that come out of their mouths would be laughable were they not so tragic.

And these MP's (ditto Mr Colvin) are our 'leaders'????!!!!! - God help us.

Posted by Trevor Gay at November 23, 2009 10:28 AM

Interesting distinction, Guido. From another metaphorical perspective, when do we say someone is recovered from an illness? When the virus (or whatever) has been treated, or when the patient is out of bed again and back to their old self? I would argue the latter (macro-economics notwithstanding).

Posted by RobCH at November 23, 2009 10:42 AM

Ah, beautiful response to Guido, Tom! All I could think of initially was Guido! Guido! Guido, mio amico, non si puo essere seri?! (Guido, my friend, you can't be serious?!) :-) While there may be "technical" agreement, there mustn't be an implicit acceptance that moving on includes doing business as usual. This is seen in statements such as we are doing "God’s work," uttered by Lloyd C. Blanfkein, the Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs. If we only looked at the "technical" aspects which are themselves rooted in practice, whether good or bad, we may not have a real recovery at all. Technical things are repeated endlessly regardless of mere short-term benefit or long-term detriment. Recovery without reform is not sustainable recovery. It's just temporary systems gamming.

Last week, Blankfein, gave a half-ass apology for Goldman Sachs' significant role in the crisis by engaging in collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and securing these bogus derivatives with AIG. (The government bailed out AIG for $90 billion of which Goldman Sachs got $12.9 billion on top of the $10 billion it received directly from the government.) Blankfein said that his company "participated in things that were clearly wrong," but did not say what it did nor offer an acceptable solution to repair the damage. Americans are suffering.

Goldman Sachs seems blinded by greed and engulfed in a particular elitism that enabled it to not as Blankfein said to do "God's work" but to be the beneficiary of an unjust god who rewards executive failure with billions and makes the people bear it. Goldman Sachs recently announced a $500 million token to small business. (It set aside $16.7 billion this year for bonuses to those who brought on the crisis.) The New York Times had a brilliant response: "The money will be welcomed by recipients, but if Goldman wants to make a meaningful contribution, it would have to be in the billions and aimed more directly at taxpayers."

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 23, 2009 11:52 AM

This event was first called an economic downturn and then it was characterized as a recession.

Are we all losing our grip on the reality of this....

The proper term for the starting point of all this is "Grand Theft" and from which point both of their discussions are moot and pointless...

We have so called "leaders" who should be in jail....

Posted by Todd Spare at November 23, 2009 5:20 PM

Very good point, Tom. There is a great of over-simplication and flawed analyses.

Lots of talk about "leadership" by people who disrupts systematically Leadership' Set of Traits No. 1, Values, Morality, Ethichs, Integrity.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at November 23, 2009 8:53 PM

Raising costs and stagnant wages, if one remains lucky enough to be employed,have plaqued working class folks for decades now. Working folks get "taxed" by proxy as increased costs to businesses get passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. All the while the government continues to waste billions of dollars on programs and policies that yield zero results that don't reach or meet the needs of the folks they are supposed to be helping. I was speaking with a couple of the terrific folks from the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families who pointed out. to my amazement because I hadn't considered these things before, how expensive it is to be poor. Taxes such as personal property, sales and others consume a higher percentage of paycheck for one. The costs associated with getting credit and loans for transportation and housing are much higher. If you don't have a bank account, the costs associated with cashing checks and paying bills are ridiculously high for those who don't have an abundance of extra in the first place. I'm talking about working people, those with jobs. These are but a few of the many examples. Signs the recession may be waning don't necessarily mean a great deal in many neighborhoods where many live as if the depression never ended. All this ARRA is going where again? Benefitting whom?

Posted by Dave Wheeler at November 24, 2009 2:25 AM

I'd like to thank you all for finding the words, Mr Colvin needless to say I am speachless, simply dumbfounded by his reality?

Posted by patrick at November 24, 2009 3:39 AM

It's interesting how someone can use a phrase that winds you up and then the overall message - however good - gets ignored, overlooked or lost. Also, the debate gets sidetracked.

I tend to agree with Guido's point that he's used an economic term and we've rather jumped on it. Suggesting the recession is nearly over is technically correct but rather aloof. A more canny sub-editor might have canged it to, "With the worst of the crunch behind us and as we prepare for the long march out of crisis..."

But when you look at Mr. Colvin's 3-point checklist, what's to disagree with?

Stand up and be seen.
Steer the culture with stories.
Upgrade your people standards.

Posted by Mark JF at November 24, 2009 4:48 AM

"But when you look at Mr. Colvin's 3-point checklist, what's to disagree with?

Stand up and be seen.
Steer the culture with stories.
Upgrade your people standards."

Mark:

Stand up and be seen ... DOING WHAT?
Steer the culture with stories ... IN WHAT DIRECTION?
Upgrade your people standards ... TO LOOK HARDER FOR WHAT TRAITS?

Posted by tom peters at November 24, 2009 8:34 AM

Tom - I fully agree... but you're being provocative again! You could make the same point about any bullet point list (including yours) as they are essentially a distillation of the points made elsewhere.

The 3 things I don't like about Mr. Colvin's piece, and what I do think is worth getting worked up about, is a) its utter blandness; b) it's "3 easy steps to recovery" tone; and c) his "people" point was rather negative as it was focused on getting rid of c-players rather than what you should be looking for.

That said, I do think he's ended up with 3 good summary points - it's a pity he didn't give much analysis or any insightful examples to flesh them out. But for me, we shouldn't be wasting our time tut-tutting about someone's insensitive use of the "R" word. We should be throwing around constructive and positive ideas about what you should be seen doing, where the culture should be going etc.

Posted by Mark JF at November 24, 2009 8:59 AM

"The 3 things I don't like about Mr. Colvin's piece, and what I do think is worth getting worked up about, is a) its utter blandness; b) it's "3 easy steps to recovery" tone; and c) his "people" point was rather negative as it was focused on getting rid of c-players rather than what you should be looking for."

Perfecto!!

Posted by tom peters at November 24, 2009 9:08 AM

Tom, I fully agree with your point about the lack of leadership in times of crises. The "if you manage things, you don't need leadership" delusion which has victimized scores of businesses around the globe also has many followers in politics. All over the world. Although governments are managing the recession with rules, regulations and measures (the quality and effect of which remain to be judged) they show poor or no leadership. By contrast, Churchill didn't stop Hitler with management techniques and Gandhi didn't chase the British with spreadsheets.

I still think Geoff Colvin has a point, though. Technically speaking, when he says "the worst is over", as you put it, I think he is right. We are looking back at a long period during which all the indicators were negative and now they are, be it slowly, turning around one by one. Indeed, the worst is over. Which does not mean that all the pain is gone.

Oh, and BTW, you also make an interesting distinction, RobCH... I think there is a nice parallel between a recession which is over and an illness which has been cured on the one hand, and all the damage of a recession being repaired and a patient who has recovered on the other. One can be cured but still have a long way to go in order to recover. Same difference!

Which does not mean that the patient "economy" has been fully and definitively cured, I full agree with Judith on this. More and more symptoms disappear but we know the malignant cells are still there.

In short, Colvin wrote a column. Colums should cause debate. It has.

Posted by Guido Thys at November 24, 2009 10:12 AM

Guido - you're quite right that columns should provoke a debate but it should be a debate about the right thing. My issue with it is that we've been debating the wrong thing! So in my view, the column failed.

Posted by Mark JF at November 24, 2009 10:26 AM

The "illness" analogy is a good one, but perhaps not the best (and I cant' think of "the best" one - so have at it!) Why? Depends on the patient's illness. Was it genetic, environmental, self-imposed, virus, bacterial, etc., etc. Each has a different genesis, prognosis, recovery. Some survivable illnesses lead one to change behavior of self, their family/team/society, the environment, or find "cures" and preventatives. Others lead to going back to the same behaviors with no lessons learned or advances made. Many are very life-changing regardless of the patient's follow-through - if they recover.

Any thoughts on a better analogy?

Posted by Randy Bosch at November 24, 2009 2:18 PM

Randy: since "noblesse oblige" I will take the challenge: what about natural disasters: some of them are "natural" in the very sense of the word and cannot be avoided. Neither can some economic fluctuations.
Natural disasters can be manmade, such as landslides caused by deforestation. Sounds a lot like the burst of the internet bubble and the credit crisis.

The effects of some of them can be minimized or avoided by putting in place defense systems, but sometimes these fail, causing e.g. New Orleans to flood. Looks a lot like the effect of the subprime collapse on the general economy.

When the rain stops and the water retracts, the aftershocks disappear, etc., one can safely say "the worse is over" in the same way as this applies to the redressing of economic indicators.

Which does not mean that the misery is over. The cause has disappeared by the effects still linger on.
Any flaws in this analogy?

Posted by Guido Thys at November 25, 2009 3:38 AM

Guido, we agree. One definition of (and perspective on) "over" is technical (economic meteorological or whatever), another human. Tom's perspective was reassuringly human.

Posted by RobCH at November 25, 2009 11:02 AM

"Although governments are managing the recession with rules, regulations and measures (the quality and effect of which remain to be judged) they show poor or no leadership."

Guido - What would your example be of leadership in this case that differs from management? President Obama, for example, has shown leadership in how he views America as a part of the global community in the tone that he sets as he travels and also manages the performance of his cabinet. The distinction between management and leadership is obsolete. For me, good managers are good leaders and vice verse. I deal with managerial and leadership issues daily in my business as I employ a ton of subcontractors. I am conscious of what needs to be done and in how I will get those to do what I need done in a timely fashion and within budget. (I don't think that it's merely an issue of size that the larger the company the more difficult to manage and lead. It’s probably more a matter of culture.) Sometimes I'm full throttle and other times I'm not. Sometimes I excuse a subcontractor’s lax for a day, others times I do not. I am always looking at the big picture which does not only include what I need done but who each subcontractor is and what each has to bring and build on this. I consider the details with the realization of the skills and limitations of each subcontractor. (Building is not only about business but about people. Tom has written of this endlessly.) Some I carry along, others I fire posthaste. The numbers matter too, but I am fond of giving unsuspected bonuses for those who do a job well done or those who need encouragement. They are more diligent I have found when they are honored, even if they have not delivered 100% but have done their best and not caused a major disaster. For trainees, I have allowed even this. "Rules, regulations and measures" are essential and management and leadership overlap continuously.

I appreciate your thoughtful voice, Guido. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 25, 2009 11:24 AM

With all due respect, this Colvin guy and anyone else who claims to know that we are on the upturn out of this recession is full of it. We will not know with any "certainty" for several YEARS after the real turnaround occurs, and then there will probably be debate even then. Guido, try this natural disaster analogy: the eye of the hurricane. Why?
- Unemployment is going up not down
- Insane Fannie and Freddy are back
- Foreclosures are going up not down
- Taxes are up and going higher
- The commercial real estate bubble hasn't hit yet
- Government intervention is way past stifling
- Inflation, serious inflation, is very likely
- Bad consumer debt is still rising
- The government is propping up losers that will still eventually fail
- Cap and trade hasn't passed yet but may
- Taxing healthcare for 10 years while paying for 6 might pass
- No one believes any of the government entitlement programs can be supported by the current birth rate
- The US debt is so daunting that I cannot think of a printable term for it

And there are probably a few Black Swans lurking. Predict at will fools.

buy viagra generic online

Posted by Terry Ransbury at November 25, 2009 9:27 PM

Bravissimo, Terry! I laughed aloud reading your opening and closing statements. "Predict at will fools." Uh...yeah!

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 25, 2009 9:57 PM

Judith: as you might have read in my posts, I am pretty careful when choosing words, phrases and terms. My being a theoretical linguist by training probably accounts for that (though this also is a chicken/egg conundrum).
I use the words management and leadership in the traditional sense of managing processes and leading people, which are two different things, implying different skill sets. Whether these two should always be combined into one person or not, is a completely different discussion.
In my view governments as teamns and politicians as individuals are very zealously managing macroenconomnic processes by lending money, adjusting rates, issuing control measures, etc.
But are they also leading? In the sense that they appeal to people's hearts and minds, inspire trust and profoundly influence their behaviour?
Take those people we all consider to be great leaders: did they do more than give great speeches and "manage the performance of their cabinets" as you write?
Or is this, when push comes to shove, a rather poor performance in this area we have grown accustomed to and have therefore set as the new standard? While still reproaching them to reside in ivory towers?
(note to avoid a lurking misunderstanding: I am not critisizing Obama nor any other individual for that matter. It's just that IMHO even politicians who are doing above average don't really distinguish themselves in this respect.)
I am enjoying our meeting of minds!

Posted by Guido Thys at November 27, 2009 3:35 AM best price on viagra with prescription

buy viagra in canada

Good questions, Guido.

"Take those people we all consider to be great leaders: did they do more than give great speeches and 'manage the performance of their cabinets' as you write?"

Reading this, I wondered if there is a difference with regards to eras and expectations. Did we expect more from those in generations gone by? Are Eisenhower and Roosevelt considered a blend of both--inspirational and performance driven? Style and presence seem to be a factor also. Sometimes we confuse bravado and broad shoulders with leadership and strength. This is sometimes the case and the outcome is not good. Other times we oppose a leader because of style and a difference could have been made but wasn't. We had our own image and ideas of what leadership looked like and how it spoke. What to do? Honesty and openness seem essential for all.

"Or is this, when push comes to shove, a rather poor performance in this area we have grown accustomed to and have therefore set as the new standard? While still reproaching them to reside in ivory towers?"

It's pretty profound that poor performance becomes the new standard, isn’t it? But I think this happens more times than we like to admit. Implicit in these questions is the lack of responsibility in the outcome of those being lead or managed. After all, we are all a part of the outcome and should make a difference right where we are. No one says that this is easy, especially when leadership is lacking. This is a situation that I have in the past reveled in.

Posted by Judith Ellis at November 27, 2009 9:18 PM