Southwest Virginia Blogs

So why is it so hard for corporate CEOs to say that they are wrong?  As far as I can tell they are all sort of human.  Yet it is very rare that we ever see a CEO admitting a mistake.

While formal education might have a part in it, I think it goes even farther than that.  We're in a world where it is easy for people to live in a cocoon that says they are never wrong.  We even have parents that will argue with teachers.

In the fifties and sixties that was unheard of.  If a teacher said you did something wrong, you were toast.  While we were taught to respect authority, many of the generation after us learned by experience they are the authority if they  just play their cards right.  If you assume the impossibility of  making an error, then everyone else is wrong including your parents.   It's not too big a reach to assume that a rule might not apply to you.  Look at how many people run red lights.  Does the red light not mean them.  Is it only for the guy following.

Just maybe we've gone a little far with building the self esteem of our future leaders.  While organizations such as the Boy Scouts with a structured authority system have fallen out of favor, we've have seen the growth of the cult of personality.  Athletes often believe themselves more important than their teams.  Individuals put themselves ahead of society as a whole.  It's all about the individual.  It's like everyone wants to be on the stage alone with the lights shining on them

Unfortunately that doesn't work in a society where people have to work together for success.  Eventually you end up with no loyalty to anyone but yourself and maybe your family.  With the number of divorces, you have to wonder if loyalty to family is even important.   While the business world needs to be ruthless,  it doesn't need to be stupid.  Making decisions with input from others is smart.  Unless we can teach CEOs and other supposed leaders that collective intelligence usually beats the brains of one, we're going to face a long haul in the next few years.

How many times have you heard that there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians? Fame, fortune, and a CEO title means never having to say you're wrong.   It shouldn't be that way.  Leadership involves more than thinking you're right.  Building a company that is successful is a real balancing act, but the odds of success decrease in proportion to the increase in difficulty of the company's CEO in admitting his own mistakes.

So why is it so hard for corporate CEOs to say that they are wrong?  As far as I can tell they are all sort of human.  Yet it is very rare that we ever see a CEO admitting a mistake.

While formal education might have a part in it, I think it goes even farther than that.  We're in a world where it is easy for people to live in a cocoon that says they are never wrong.  We even have parents that will argue with teachers.

In the fifties and sixties that was unheard of.  If a teacher said you did something wrong, you were toast.  While we were taught to respect authority, many of the generation after us learned by experience they are the authority if they  just play their cards right.  If you assume the impossibility of  making an error, then everyone else is wrong including your parents.   It's not too big a reach to assume that a rule might not apply to you.  Look at how many people run red lights.  Does the red light not mean them.  Is it only for the guy following.

Just maybe we've gone a little far with building the self esteem of our future leaders.  While organizations such as the Boy Scouts with a structured authority system have fallen out of favor, we've have seen the growth of the cult of personality.  Athletes often believe themselves more important than their teams.  Individuals put themselves ahead of society as a whole.  It's all about the individual.  It's like everyone wants to be on the stage alone with the lights shining on them

Unfortunately that doesn't work in a society where people have to work together for success.  Eventually you end up with no loyalty to anyone but yourself and maybe your family.  With the number of divorces, you have to wonder if loyalty to family is even important.   While the business world needs to be ruthless,  it doesn't need to be stupid.  Making decisions with input from others is smart.  Unless we can teach CEOs and other supposed leaders that collective intelligence usually beats the brains of one, we're going to face a long haul in the next few years.

How many times have you heard that there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians? Fame, fortune, and a CEO title means never having to say you're wrong.   It shouldn't be that way.  Leadership involves more than thinking you're right.  Building a company that is successful is a real balancing act, but the odds of success decrease in proportion to the increase in difficulty of the company's CEO in admitting his own mistakes.

So why is it so hard for corporate CEOs to say that they are wrong?  As far as I can tell they are all sort of human.  Yet it is very rare that we ever see a CEO admitting a mistake.

While formal education might have a part in it, I think it goes even farther than that.  We're in a world where it is easy for people to live in a cocoon that says they are never wrong.  We even have parents that will argue with teachers.

In the fifties and sixties that was unheard of.  If a teacher said you did something wrong, you were toast.  While we were taught to respect authority, many of the generation after us learned by experience they are the authority if they  just play their cards right.  If you assume the impossibility of  making an error, then everyone else is wrong including your parents.   It's not too big a reach to assume that a rule might not apply to you.  Look at how many people run red lights.  Does the red light not mean them.  Is it only for the guy following.

Just maybe we've gone a little far with building the self esteem of our future leaders.  While organizations such as the Boy Scouts with a structured authority system have fallen out of favor, we've have seen the growth of the cult of personality.  Athletes often believe themselves more important than their teams.  Individuals put themselves ahead of society as a whole.  It's all about the individual.  It's like everyone wants to be on the stage alone with the lights shining on them

Unfortunately that doesn't work in a society where people have to work together for success.  Eventually you end up with no loyalty to anyone but yourself and maybe your family.  With the number of divorces, you have to wonder if loyalty to family is even important.   While the business world needs to be ruthless,  it doesn't need to be stupid.  Making decisions with input from others is smart.  Unless we can teach CEOs and other supposed leaders that collective intelligence usually beats the brains of one, we're going to face a long haul in the next few years.

How many times have you heard that there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians? Fame, fortune, and a CEO title means never having to say you're wrong.   It shouldn't be that way.  Leadership involves more than thinking you're right.  Building a company that is successful is a real balancing act, but the odds of success decrease in proportion to the increase in difficulty of the company's CEO in admitting his own mistakes.

So why is it so hard for corporate CEOs to say that they are wrong?  As far as I can tell they are all sort of human.  Yet it is very rare that we ever see a CEO admitting a mistake.

While formal education might have a part in it, I think it goes even farther than that.  We're in a world where it is easy for people to live in a cocoon that says they are never wrong.  We even have parents that will argue with teachers.

In the fifties and sixties that was unheard of.  If a teacher said you did something wrong, you were toast.  While we were taught to respect authority, many of the generation after us learned by experience they are the authority if they  just play their cards right.  If you assume the impossibility of  making an error, then everyone else is wrong including your parents.   It's not too big a reach to assume that a rule might not apply to you.  Look at how many people run red lights.  Does the red light not mean them.  Is it only for the guy following.

Just maybe we've gone a little far with building the self esteem of our future leaders.  While organizations such as the Boy Scouts with a structured authority system have fallen out of favor, we've have seen the growth of the cult of personality.  Athletes often believe themselves more important than their teams.  Individuals put themselves ahead of society as a whole.  It's all about the individual.  It's like everyone wants to be on the stage alone with the lights shining on them

Unfortunately that doesn't work in a society where people have to work together for success.  Eventually you end up with no loyalty to anyone but yourself and maybe your family.  With the number of divorces, you have to wonder if loyalty to family is even important.   While the business world needs to be ruthless,  it doesn't need to be stupid.  Making decisions with input from others is smart.  Unless we can teach CEOs and other supposed leaders that collective intelligence usually beats the brains of one, we're going to face a long haul in the next few years.

How many times have you heard that there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians? Fame, fortune, and a CEO title means never having to say you're wrong.   It shouldn't be that way.  Leadership involves more than thinking you're right.  Building a company that is successful is a real balancing act, but the odds of success decrease in proportion to the increase in difficulty of the company's CEO in admitting his own mistakes.

I guess the electronics big box stores think we're walking around in a fog.  Yesterday at Staples I bought a HP Photosmart D5160 for $59.95 after a special store instant savings of $40.  I am hoping to use it to print directly onto to printable DVDs.  I did not buy the suggested USB cable because I knew that I had one at our other house.  I thought I would sneak one from another device until I had time to pick the spare one up.

Today I had some time at lunch between my real estate classes so I decided to go into Best Buy and maybe buy a cable instead of waiting.  It seems that the only USB cables that the Wilmington, NC store is stocking are the "Best Buy Gold Plated" USB cables.  The cheapest USB printer cable was $34.95.  I guess I could imagine that they were out of all the inexpensive USB cables, but I did not see any spaces for cables that had sold out.

I don't know of any study that demonstrates that gold plated USB cables do anything but add extra profit to the big box store bottom lines.  I actually went over to Staples to check their prices.  They had one $17.95 cable in damaged packaging and the rest of their cables were $24.95 gold plated ones.

I guess they all think we are gold plated fools.  It's bad enough we are carried to the cleaners on ink jet ink but why add insult to injury and sell cables at a ridiculous price.  I thought going to USB was going to bring cable prices down since they would all be standard.  I have had USB cables since USB was introduced on the iMac.  I have yet to have one of my USB cables go bad.

I couldn't face Walmart on a Sunday afternoon, or I would have checked their prices also.  Hopefully theirs are more reasonable.

I'm glad I have an extra cable at home.  Buying a $34.95 USB cable is just ridiculous.   I am wondering if anyone has any experience with 123inkjets.   From them  one USB printer cable, 10 feet long, complete with shipping is $11.90.   I would guess they're also making some money on their cables, just not hand over fist like Best Buy.

Now if you're wondering why I didn't check prices at Circuit City, wonder no more.  I have already written them off, "Why Circuit City is exactly what I don't need."

I guess the electronics big box stores think we're walking around in a fog.  Yesterday at Staples I bought a HP Photosmart D5160 for $59.95 after a special store instant savings of $40.  I am hoping to use it to print directly onto to printable DVDs.  I did not buy the suggested USB cable because I knew that I had one at our other house.  I thought I would sneak one from another device until I had time to pick the spare one up.

Today I had some time at lunch between my real estate classes so I decided to go into Best Buy and maybe buy a cable instead of waiting.  It seems that the only USB cables that the Wilmington, NC store is stocking are the "Best Buy Gold Plated" USB cables.  The cheapest USB printer cable was $34.95.  I guess I could imagine that they were out of all the inexpensive USB cables, but I did not see any spaces for cables that had sold out.

I don't know of any study that demonstrates that gold plated USB cables do anything but add extra profit to the big box store bottom lines.  I actually went over to Staples to check their prices.  They had one $17.95 cable in damaged packaging and the rest of their cables were $24.95 gold plated ones.

I guess they all think we are gold plated fools.  It's bad enough we are carried to the cleaners on ink jet ink but why add insult to injury and sell cables at a ridiculous price.  I thought going to USB was going to bring cable prices down since they would all be standard.  I have had USB cables since USB was introduced on the iMac.  I have yet to have one of my USB cables go bad.

I couldn't face Walmart on a Sunday afternoon, or I would have checked their prices also.  Hopefully theirs are more reasonable.

I'm glad I have an extra cable at home.  Buying a $34.95 USB cable is just ridiculous.   I am wondering if anyone has any experience with 123inkjets.   From them  one USB printer cable, 10 feet long, complete with shipping is $11.90.   I would guess they're also making some money on their cables, just not hand over fist like Best Buy.

Now if you're wondering why I didn't check prices at Circuit City, wonder no more.  I have already written them off, "Why Circuit City is exactly what I don't need."

I guess the electronics big box stores think we're walking around in a fog.  Yesterday at Staples I bought a HP Photosmart D5160 for $59.95 after a special store instant savings of $40.  I am hoping to use it to print directly onto to printable DVDs.  I did not buy the suggested USB cable because I knew that I had one at our other house.  I thought I would sneak one from another device until I had time to pick the spare one up.

Today I had some time at lunch between my real estate classes so I decided to go into Best Buy and maybe buy a cable instead of waiting.  It seems that the only USB cables that the Wilmington, NC store is stocking are the "Best Buy Gold Plated" USB cables.  The cheapest USB printer cable was $34.95.  I guess I could imagine that they were out of all the inexpensive USB cables, but I did not see any spaces for cables that had sold out.

I don't know of any study that demonstrates that gold plated USB cables do anything but add extra profit to the big box store bottom lines.  I actually went over to Staples to check their prices.  They had one $17.95 cable in damaged packaging and the rest of their cables were $24.95 gold plated ones.

I guess they all think we are gold plated fools.  It's bad enough we are carried to the cleaners on ink jet ink but why add insult to injury and sell cables at a ridiculous price.  I thought going to USB was going to bring cable prices down since they would all be standard.  I have had USB cables since USB was introduced on the iMac.  I have yet to have one of my USB cables go bad.

I couldn't face Walmart on a Sunday afternoon, or I would have checked their prices also.  Hopefully theirs are more reasonable.

I'm glad I have an extra cable at home.  Buying a $34.95 USB cable is just ridiculous.   I am wondering if anyone has any experience with 123inkjets.   From them  one USB printer cable, 10 feet long, complete with shipping is $11.90.   I would guess they're also making some money on their cables, just not hand over fist like Best Buy.

Now if you're wondering why I didn't check prices at Circuit City, wonder no more.  I have already written them off, "Why Circuit City is exactly what I don't need."

If you've ever been in sales, you know that the best way to sell a good product is get people to try it.  I was around when Apple did its original "Test Drive a Mac" promotion back in the early eighties.  We rarely had someone who seriously tried the machine and didn't buy one.

Our local Acura dealership has always been very generous with test drives. They know people do not want to give up the new cars when they bring them back.   There's nothing like using a product to figure out whether or not a product works.  Unfortunately it is also the best way to get hooked on a product.

I've always been a blade guy except I believe when I was in the early part of high school when I took the fuzz off with an electric shaver.  It's not that it feels particularly manly dragging a sharp piece of steel across your face, you just get used to the smooth skin sensation which makes changing not worth the effort.

We guys are famous for not changing.  If we could keep them from wearing out, we would wear the same pair of jeans or shorts all the time.  As far as I'm concerned khaki is a basic color and doesn't have to be tampered with when it comes to casual dress.  Is there any other color of shirt besides blue?

I have been using the same three bladed Gillette razors for ages, and one day I forgot and left my razor handle at home.  I had to buy some inexpensive Bic Comfort disposable razors.  I thought they might actually be giving me a little better (or at least different shave) so when I ran out of the few I bought, I bought another pack.

I figure that sent an alert direct to Gillette headquarters that they were about to lose a lifetime customer.  I'm sure the data collection at the grocery or drug store is what picked up the change.

A recent Saturday I got a new Gillette Fusion razor with one blade cartridge in the mail.  I resisted for a while since I know the whole strategy is to make the money on the blades.  Then after a couple of days of not shaving I thought I would give it a try, fully swearing to myself that I just wouldn't buy any refill cartridges which have some pretty steep prices.

Well, once I put the razor to my face, it was over with for me.  It's like riding in a limo compared to a compact car.  The width of five blades seems to make for a smoother shave.  It sounds absolutely ridiculous.  I was perfectly happy with three blades, and now I have gone all the way to five blades.

Now at least no one can say that  I'm too old to change.  At least I didn't go to an electric razor.  That would have been far to radical. 

Last night I bought a pack of cartridges.

If you've ever been in sales, you know that the best way to sell a good product is get people to try it.  I was around when Apple did its original "Test Drive a Mac" promotion back in the early eighties.  We rarely had someone who seriously tried the machine and didn't buy one.

Our local Acura dealership has always been very generous with test drives. They know people do not want to give up the new cars when they bring them back.   There's nothing like using a product to figure out whether or not a product works.  Unfortunately it is also the best way to get hooked on a product.

I've always been a blade guy except I believe when I was in the early part of high school when I took the fuzz off with an electric shaver.  It's not that it feels particularly manly dragging a sharp piece of steel across your face, you just get used to the smooth skin sensation which makes changing not worth the effort.

We guys are famous for not changing.  If we could keep them from wearing out, we would wear the same pair of jeans or shorts all the time.  As far as I'm concerned khaki is a basic color and doesn't have to be tampered with when it comes to casual dress.  Is there any other color of shirt besides blue?

I have been using the same three bladed Gillette razors for ages, and one day I forgot and left my razor handle at home.  I had to buy some inexpensive Bic Comfort disposable razors.  I thought they might actually be giving me a little better (or at least different shave) so when I ran out of the few I bought, I bought another pack.

I figure that sent an alert direct to Gillette headquarters that they were about to lose a lifetime customer.  I'm sure the data collection at the grocery or drug store is what picked up the change.

A recent Saturday I got a new Gillette Fusion razor with one blade cartridge in the mail.  I resisted for a while since I know the whole strategy is to make the money on the blades.  Then after a couple of days of not shaving I thought I would give it a try, fully swearing to myself that I just wouldn't buy any refill cartridges which have some pretty steep prices.

Well, once I put the razor to my face, it was over with for me.  It's like riding in a limo compared to a compact car.  The width of five blades seems to make for a smoother shave.  It sounds absolutely ridiculous.  I was perfectly happy with three blades, and now I have gone all the way to five blades.

Now at least no one can say that  I'm too old to change.  At least I didn't go to an electric razor.  That would have been far to radical. 

Last night I bought a pack of cartridges.

Living a life without trust would be a huge challenge.  I don't think even the most wired and connected individual can survive without trusting a few real people. 

Still finding a real person to trust is a lot harder now that families are scattered around the world.  I've never thought of trust as a national trend, but Sebastian Mallaby's article, "The Decline Of Trust," in today's  Washington Post makes some interesting points about the decline of trust in today society, in both business and government.

And the absence of trust can feed on itself. Leaders function under stifling oversight; this causes them to perform sluggishly, so trust continues to stagnate. But occasionally there is a chance to escape this trap: A shock causes trust to rise, leaders have a chance to lead and there's an opportunity to boost trust still further.

We've recently had a double opportunity. The boom of the 1990s boosted trust in business; the 2001 terrorist attacks boosted trust in government. But CEOs and politicians abused these gifts with scandals and incompetence. Such is the cost of corporate malfeasance and the Iraq war: Precious social capital is destroyed by leaders' avarice and hubris.

I often found it strange that my former employer, Apple Computer, would bring in high level management people from outside the company and trust their opinion far more than employees who had been working for the company.    I don't know if the  steadily declining trust that Apple showed it employees is mirrored at other companies, but I am sure that the lack of trust hindered productivity in Apple field teams.

Mallaby also talks about the Internet encouraging "acerbic negativity."  On the one hand Mallaby might be right if you let yourself listen to only certain parts of the Internet.

However, I would make the argument that new communication techniques arising from the Internet actually encourage building new webs of trust.  While there are parts of the Internet, like anncoulter.com, that I'll likely avoid, there are lots of other communities where I can find kindred spirits.

As someone who doesn't like large government, but believes that if we are going to have government it should be good government, there aren't any political parties locally where I really feel at home.  Yet through contact established from my Internet presences, I've met a number of people with similar beliefs.

Most of us who regularly post have communities of readers who have self selected to the point that  our audience cares about many of the same things that we do.  I trust  the opinions of many of my regular blog friends more than I do any politician.  I value their opinions as highly as I do some well known pundits.

So while Sebastian Mallaby might be right to indict part of the modern world, there are many on line communities where modern technologies are driving new levels of trust and cooperation.  Besides blogs, you cannot  discount the social changes happening through instant messaging and on line communities.

Technology hasn't created a virtual southern village yet, but I have a confidence in new ways of communicating that will bring us closer together rather than drive us farther apart. 

I don't believe we'll end up a nation of people listening only to their individual iPods or screaming at the rest of the world from our blogs.

Living a life without trust would be a huge challenge.  I don't think even the most wired and connected individual can survive without trusting a few real people. 

Still finding a real person to trust is a lot harder now that families are scattered around the world.  I've never thought of trust as a national trend, but Sebastian Mallaby's article, "The Decline Of Trust," in today's  Washington Post makes some interesting points about the decline of trust in today society, in both business and government.

And the absence of trust can feed on itself. Leaders function under stifling oversight; this causes them to perform sluggishly, so trust continues to stagnate. But occasionally there is a chance to escape this trap: A shock causes trust to rise, leaders have a chance to lead and there's an opportunity to boost trust still further.

We've recently had a double opportunity. The boom of the 1990s boosted trust in business; the 2001 terrorist attacks boosted trust in government. But CEOs and politicians abused these gifts with scandals and incompetence. Such is the cost of corporate malfeasance and the Iraq war: Precious social capital is destroyed by leaders' avarice and hubris.

I often found it strange that my former employer, Apple Computer, would bring in high level management people from outside the company and trust their opinion far more than employees who had been working for the company.    I don't know if the  steadily declining trust that Apple showed it employees is mirrored at other companies, but I am sure that the lack of trust hindered productivity in Apple field teams.

Mallaby also talks about the Internet encouraging "acerbic negativity."  On the one hand Mallaby might be right if you let yourself listen to only certain parts of the Internet.

However, I would make the argument that new communication techniques arising from the Internet actually encourage building new webs of trust.  While there are parts of the Internet, like anncoulter.com, that I'll likely avoid, there are lots of other communities where I can find kindred spirits.

As someone who doesn't like large government, but believes that if we are going to have government it should be good government, there aren't any political parties locally where I really feel at home.  Yet through contact established from my Internet presences, I've met a number of people with similar beliefs.

Most of us who regularly post have communities of readers who have self selected to the point that  our audience cares about many of the same things that we do.  I trust  the opinions of many of my regular blog friends more than I do any politician.  I value their opinions as highly as I do some well known pundits.

So while Sebastian Mallaby might be right to indict part of the modern world, there are many on line communities where modern technologies are driving new levels of trust and cooperation.  Besides blogs, you cannot  discount the social changes happening through instant messaging and on line communities.

Technology hasn't created a virtual southern village yet, but I have a confidence in new ways of communicating that will bring us closer together rather than drive us farther apart. 

I don't believe we'll end up a nation of people listening only to their individual iPods or screaming at the rest of the world from our blogs.

Living a life without trust would be a huge challenge.  I don't think even the most wired and connected individual can survive without trusting a few real people. 

Still finding a real person to trust is a lot harder now that families are scattered around the world.  I've never thought of trust as a national trend, but Sebastian Mallaby's article, "The Decline Of Trust," in today's  Washington Post makes some interesting points about the decline of trust in today society, in both business and government.

And the absence of trust can feed on itself. Leaders function under stifling oversight; this causes them to perform sluggishly, so trust continues to stagnate. But occasionally there is a chance to escape this trap: A shock causes trust to rise, leaders have a chance to lead and there's an opportunity to boost trust still further.

We've recently had a double opportunity. The boom of the 1990s boosted trust in business; the 2001 terrorist attacks boosted trust in government. But CEOs and politicians abused these gifts with scandals and incompetence. Such is the cost of corporate malfeasance and the Iraq war: Precious social capital is destroyed by leaders' avarice and hubris.

I often found it strange that my former employer, Apple Computer, would bring in high level management people from outside the company and trust their opinion far more than employees who had been working for the company.    I don't know if the  steadily declining trust that Apple showed it employees is mirrored at other companies, but I am sure that the lack of trust hindered productivity in Apple field teams.

Mallaby also talks about the Internet encouraging "acerbic negativity."  On the one hand Mallaby might be right if you let yourself listen to only certain parts of the Internet.

However, I would make the argument that new communication techniques arising from the Internet actually encourage building new webs of trust.  While there are parts of the Internet, like anncoulter.com, that I'll likely avoid, there are lots of other communities where I can find kindred spirits.

As someone who doesn't like large government, but believes that if we are going to have government it should be good government, there aren't any political parties locally where I really feel at home.  Yet through contact established from my Internet presences, I've met a number of people with similar beliefs.

Most of us who regularly post have communities of readers who have self selected to the point that  our audience cares about many of the same things that we do.  I trust  the opinions of many of my regular blog friends more than I do any politician.  I value their opinions as highly as I do some well known pundits.

So while Sebastian Mallaby might be right to indict part of the modern world, there are many on line communities where modern technologies are driving new levels of trust and cooperation.  Besides blogs, you cannot  discount the social changes happening through instant messaging and on line communities.

Technology hasn't created a virtual southern village yet, but I have a confidence in new ways of communicating that will bring us closer together rather than drive us farther apart. 

I don't believe we'll end up a nation of people listening only to their individual iPods or screaming at the rest of the world from our blogs.

I really don't know much about David Brooks who writes for the New York Times, but I'm willing to bet that he has never spent much time doing work besides writing in a large corporation.

His article today, "The Populist Myths on Income Inequality," (NY Times Select required) asserts that workers are actually doing well and that jobs aren't insecure.

I actually know a fair number of corporate refugees who would argue with many of Brooks' statements.  The one that really gets me is the following.

In other words, the market isn’t broken; the meritocracy is working almost too well. It’s rewarding people based on individual talents. Higher education pays off because it provides technical knowledge and because it screens out people who are not organized, self-motivated and socially adept.

Most people that I know believe that Scott Adams of Dilbert fame lives within their organization.  I have little doubt that our corporate culture is in much poorer shape than Mr. Brooks would have us believe.  If you haven't seen a corporation where promotions are more related to whom you know than the skill level of the people trying for a promotion, you probably haven't done a lot of looking.  I'm sure there are good corporations out there, but there are plenty who aren't using their people effectively specifically because the whole idea of "meritocracy" is broken.

Large corporations typically reward those know how to manage upwards.  I'm not sure that's a great skill for companies to cultivate.  If things are working so well in corporations, why are our auto companies doing so poorly and why do we have a huge options backdating scandal? Perhaps Mr. Brooks needs some real corporate experience on which to base his opinions.

Maybe after he watches a corporation get rid of some of their best people like I've recently seen, he might understand that corporate reality and what he is writing about are two different things. As one person commented recently on someone who got a promotion, "He got the job because he'll do whatever he's told, no questions asked."  That's not exactly a "meritocracy."

Since I wrote this last night, Paul Krugman has come out with a piece,"Whining Over Discontent," that does a really good job of putting some real perspective on the issue with numbers to back up his argument.

More broadly, right-wing commentators would like you to believe that the economy’s winners are a large group, like college graduates or people with agreeable personalities. But the winners’ circle is actually very small. Even households at the 95th percentile — that is, households richer than 19 out of 20 Americans — have seen their real income rise less than 1 percent a year since the late 1970’s. But the income of the richest 1 percent has roughly doubled, and the income of the top 0.01 percent — people with incomes of more than $5 million in 2004 — has risen by a factor of 5.

I don't always disagree with David Brooks as my posts, "Agreeing with Mr. Brooks" and "Agreeing ten times over with David Brooks on immigration" indicate, but this time he's off base again with his rosy colored view of the corporate world.  Krugman's view is much closer to what I have seen in my corporate days.

I really don't know much about David Brooks who writes for the New York Times, but I'm willing to bet that he has never spent much time doing work besides writing in a large corporation.

His article today, "The Populist Myths on Income Inequality," (NY Times Select required) asserts that workers are actually doing well and that jobs aren't insecure.

I actually know a fair number of corporate refugees who would argue with many of Brooks' statements.  The one that really gets me is the following.

In other words, the market isn’t broken; the meritocracy is working almost too well. It’s rewarding people based on individual talents. Higher education pays off because it provides technical knowledge and because it screens out people who are not organized, self-motivated and socially adept.

Most people that I know believe that Scott Adams of Dilbert fame lives within their organization.  I have little doubt that our corporate culture is in much poorer shape than Mr. Brooks would have us believe.  If you haven't seen a corporation where promotions are more related to whom you know than the skill level of the people trying for a promotion, you probably haven't done a lot of looking.  I'm sure there are good corporations out there, but there are plenty who aren't using their people effectively specifically because the whole idea of "meritocracy" is broken.

Large corporations typically reward those know how to manage upwards.  I'm not sure that's a great skill for companies to cultivate.  If things are working so well in corporations, why are our auto companies doing so poorly and why do we have a huge options backdating scandal? Perhaps Mr. Brooks needs some real corporate experience on which to base his opinions.

Maybe after he watches a corporation get rid of some of their best people like I've recently seen, he might understand that corporate reality and what he is writing about are two different things. As one person commented recently on someone who got a promotion, "He got the job because he'll do whatever he's told, no questions asked."  That's not exactly a "meritocracy."

Since I wrote this last night, Paul Krugman has come out with a piece,"Whining Over Discontent," that does a really good job of putting some real perspective on the issue with numbers to back up his argument.

More broadly, right-wing commentators would like you to believe that the economy’s winners are a large group, like college graduates or people with agreeable personalities. But the winners’ circle is actually very small. Even households at the 95th percentile — that is, households richer than 19 out of 20 Americans — have seen their real income rise less than 1 percent a year since the late 1970’s. But the income of the richest 1 percent has roughly doubled, and the income of the top 0.01 percent — people with incomes of more than $5 million in 2004 — has risen by a factor of 5.

I don't always disagree with David Brooks as my posts, "Agreeing with Mr. Brooks" and "Agreeing ten times over with David Brooks on immigration" indicate, but this time he's off base again with his rosy colored view of the corporate world.  Krugman's view is much closer to what I have seen in my corporate days.