The Humble Hound
By DAVID BROOKS
NYT
Some leaders are boardroom lions. They are superconfident, forceful and charismatic. They call for relentless transformational change.
The Times’s Sunday Business section this week had an interview with Andrew Cosslett, the chief executive of InterContinental Hotels Group, who seems to fit this general model. “I’ve always been very positive and confident,” he told Adam Bryant in the Corner Office column. “I can talk about changing things for the better, even if I don’t know what it is we’re going to change. I’ll just say we’re going over there somewhere. And I don’t quite know what that looks like, but it’s going to be fantastic.”
Cosslett went on to talk about the skills that have helped him succeed: “I’m very sensitive to how people are thinking and feeling at any given moment. That’s really helpful in business, because you pick things up very fast.” He added, “I’ve always had a slightly maverick side that actually stood me in great stead.”
We can all point to successful leaders who display this kind of self-confidence. It’s the sort of self-assurance that nearly every politician tries to present.
(Original here.)
NYT
Some leaders are boardroom lions. They are superconfident, forceful and charismatic. They call for relentless transformational change.
The Times’s Sunday Business section this week had an interview with Andrew Cosslett, the chief executive of InterContinental Hotels Group, who seems to fit this general model. “I’ve always been very positive and confident,” he told Adam Bryant in the Corner Office column. “I can talk about changing things for the better, even if I don’t know what it is we’re going to change. I’ll just say we’re going over there somewhere. And I don’t quite know what that looks like, but it’s going to be fantastic.”
Cosslett went on to talk about the skills that have helped him succeed: “I’m very sensitive to how people are thinking and feeling at any given moment. That’s really helpful in business, because you pick things up very fast.” He added, “I’ve always had a slightly maverick side that actually stood me in great stead.”
We can all point to successful leaders who display this kind of self-confidence. It’s the sort of self-assurance that nearly every politician tries to present.
(Original here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
I'm refering to The Humble Hound article in New York Times.
Watson-like Summary
(1) Good leaders are humble.
So, 1) they seek and find devices to compensate their weaknesses.
2) they budget for their failure "Every move is a partial failure, to be corrected ... "
(2) Good leaders have "intense professional will” i.e. discipline
So, they use the above-mentioned devices.
My Conclusion
(1) David Brooks and Jim Collins haven't been in real leadership roles.
(2) They haven't read or understood biographies of Mao Zedong, Ghandi, General Grant, Montgomery, President Lincoln and Reagan, etc.
My Reasons
(1) Humility is necessary for leaders. But not enough. Groupthink-driven, consensus-seeking leaders will get no where. e.g Kennedy and Bay of Pigs ops?
(2) Leaders have vision and will to impose on any situation and circumstances. I'm not preaching "mind over matter" stuffs, or Hitler-like "superman" "will" stuffs.
Given the same set of situations and factors, Jimmy Carter saw something and did something WHEREAS Reagan saw something different and did something different.
Will discipline and humility compensate for such stuffs?
(3) I believe in leadership processes. But they are more than humilty and discipline.
More at
ETHICMINDS
Post a Comment
<< Home