Tuesday, April 13, 2010
I know there are lots (i.e. millions) around the country who think that the New York Times is so liberal that when you even mention the name Bill O'Reilly breaks out in hives, but that is not what this post is about nor is this about trying to make a case for the Times in general.
It is, however, to suggest that anyone who either doesn't have the time to get their TV news from the News Hour or haven't got the time to read BusinessWeek, Fortune, Forbes or The Economist either in hard copy, on a Kindle or the new iPad that you stayed up all night to get, you might find reading the Op Ed columns in the Times very wothwhile.
It makes no difference what your political persuasion might be as they have a nice mix of both liberal and conservative viewpoints. More importantly, whether you agree with what folks like Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, Gail Collins, Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich or David Brooks have to say, the writing is usually both provocative, not infrequently eye-opening and often very funny.
Not surprisingly these writers often are commenting on the issues of the day, but from time to time they also have some interesting perspectives on leadership, and it was a piece by David Brooks which he called The Humble Hound that caught my attention over coffee on a recent Sunday morning.
In short Brooks helps the reader to both think about and understand that the sterotypical vision most of us have in our heads of how leaders lead isn't the only game in town.
Living as we do in a time that seems to push everyone toward faster and faster responses, taking the time to think things through is not a bad way to go either.
Point being there is a fair amount of middle ground between intuitive instant knee-jerk reaction and "analysis paralysis."
Said differently, when it comes to leadership we sure don't live in a WYSIWYG world. All one need do is look at the turnover at the leadership levels across the corporate spectrum for all the data you need.