With a crying infant and a growing toddler, I’ve been suffering from severe sleep deprivation, which means that I’m finding it hard to think on my own. Creativity? Gone. Writing? On hiatus. Dreaming? How do you dream when you never sleep? So these days it makes me happy when someone does my thinking for me.
David Brooks once again nails it with this awesome Op-Ed about what makes a good CEO: In Praise of Dullness. Brooks likes to simplify things by speaking in general terms. Except for where he takes that non-sequitur, illogical shot at Obama at the end, Brooks is right on. Unidimensional people make great CEOs. You don’t need to be sensitive, a good listener, empathetic, or thoughtful in order to succeed in the business world. In fact, thoughtfulness and empathy might actually bring you down. It’s far better to be persistent, analytic, and able to execute tough calls without letting the weepies get in your way.
Here it is in a nutshell:
The market seems to want C.E.O.’s to offer a clear direction for their companies. There’s a tension between being resolute and being flexible. The research suggests it’s more important to be resolute, even at the cost of some flexibility.
The second thing the market seems to want from leaders is a relentless and somewhat mind-numbing commitment to incremental efficiency gains. Charismatic C.E.O.’s and politicians always want the exciting new breakthrough — whether it is the S.U.V. or a revolutionary new car. The methodical executives at successful companies just make the same old four-door sedan, but they make it better and better.
CEOs like to tell themselves that they’re creative, visionary, thoughtful, and empathetic, and because they have so much money, people listen and believe them. But the truth is quite different. Showing up is 80% of the battle, and if you want to be a great moneymaker, just show up, pay attention to details, and don’t be afraid to make tough calls. Jack Welch did okay for GE, but he’s probably not the kind of guy one would like to hang out with outside of business. I’ve read his book, and even though he offers great advice on how to become financially successfully, he comes across as a total jerk. He confirmed it when he divorced his wife. Conversely, Kurt Cobain came across as a genuine, if disturbed, individual. He would have made a crappy CEO.
So here’s how this is related to Asian American activism:
The greatest gains in Asian American activism have taken place among movements to increase or improve Asian American consciousness. The literature movement of Frank Chin, for example, made huge strides, as did the fight for recognition of historical wrongs by both Frank and Lawson Inada. The foundation of this movement was deep thinking and empathy, something far removed from what CEO-types are usually good at.
However, the same social progress came about because leaders were able to execute. Frank Chin, Lawson Inada, Shawn Wong, and Jeffrey Chan rallied people and reached out. Helen Zia did the same during the Vincent Chin trial. Each was a CEO in his or her own way, and each managed to combine cold execution with a heightened awareness and sensitivity to the community’s needs.
The difficulty in Asian American activism comes from this duality of needs. A good Asian American activist needs the sensitivity and empathy to see and to communicate the human needs of the community, more so than just the material needs. Material needs are easy to explain–”These people are starving and need food.” Human needs are much harder–”These people suffer from post-colonialist trauma.” In terms of mass change, Asian American activism needs people who can think deeply about issues.
On the other hand, Asian American activism also needs people who can execute. Too often we see ultra-liberals who can’t organize because they get their feelings hurt and are unable to think rationally when they’re under even the smallest amount of emotional stress. We saw some of this during the last days of the 44s, and we see it from time to time in Thymos. What happens in these instances is that people hijack the conversation and prevent action. It’s almost like saying, “Things are bad, and we will ensure that they remain bad.”
I think the lesson to be learned in all this is that progress requires all types. In the same NY Times paper today, there was an article about Michelle Obama and her support of the arts. Without thinkers, we grow stale. Without leaders, nothing happens. The best results come from a merging of the two or when the two work in concert with each other.
Related posts:
But here is an...
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...