Bird's Eye View

You Need To Talk To Get a Job

No matter where I go in the world (and I've done a fair bit of traveling this past year), I end up in conversations with employers who decry the fact that the young people they take into their companies don't know how to talk.

Oh, yes, they are prolific texters.  And Twitter addicts.  And use their Facebook account as the basis for their social life.  But they don't know how to talk.  Face to face.  Words that you have to put together on the fly, in front of the person with whom you are speaking.

Scares the heck out of them, I'm told.  They prefer to sit at their desks and converse through their keypads.

That's a concern to people looking for the next generation of leaders among their young employees. 

It occurs to me that there may be yet another class distinction shaping up here.  One based not just on where you went to school, or how much your stock portfolio is worth, but whether you know how to carry on a conversation about a topic that has more gravitas than the latest "Jersey Shore" episode.

I remember a senior executive at a New York City company talking about how he determined which candidates he would vote for when the next round of hirees came in front of him.  He said, "our HR people had already culled out those that couldn't meet our standard in terms of smarts.  The people introduced to me were all smart.  The big question for me was simply, "Do I want to sit next to this person on a plane?  Will he/she be able to carry on a conversation on a cross country flight?

That was a number of years ago.  I wonder what he would say about the current crop of college grads, many of whom I fear can't put two sentences together that have obvious subjects and predicates and none of those hated phrases like "You know" or "I mean" or "I was like..."

Do we need to teach conversational skills in our schools?

 

Talk About Debt Ceiling Schmeiling

I've adopted Oxford Dean Theodore Zelden's view that for a great conversation to take place, both parties have to enter it with the intent to be changed by it.  When I say that, I'm especially intrigued by the fact that in a great conversation, something new takes shape that did not exist before.  In other words, the parties don't just adopt one party's view over the other, they fashion a new way to look at something, or a new opinion, or a new idea that neither of them had come up with in the first place.

The same thing is true of negotiation.  The best negotiators aren't the ones who cram their position down the other person's throat.  The very best are those who are willing to craft--together with the other side--a position they both can live with.  At it's very best it's not a compromise (where both sides feel they lost something but are willing to live with it), but rather a newly craftier position that makes them both feel they won.

That's what great mediators do for a living: help the parties work together to build something that did not exist before.  That's the gold standard.

What's going on in Washington is a mess.  And it's a mess mostly because one side--the Tea Party-influenced Republican Caucus--has decided that they have no interest in crafting something new.  They simply have decided not to negotiate at all.  It's literally "my way or the highway." 

That's not a conversation.  It's not a negotiation.  And it is surely not a way to show leadership to the people who put them in office.

As David Gergen say, this state of affairs is "announcing to the world that America is in a state of decline."

For shame.

News Corp vs New York Times? No Contest!

Yes, yes, I know Murdoch and his News Corp have created a juggernaut in the media world around the globe.  I've had mixed emotions while following revelations of the sleazy underbelly of Murdoch's way of delivering what he considers news."

So it was a profound pleasure the other night to view the documentary about the New York Times entitled "Page One" at the Angelika, my favorite movie theatre in Manhattan.  The cameras follow around as Times reporters and executives do their job.  And their job, as they describe it, is providing the best journalism in the world on "all the news that's fit to print."

None of them refers to that famous tagline in the movie.  But it was on my mind as I watched them voice their opinions and decisions regarding just what is worthy of reportage and just how that reportage should be done.  These are journalists at the top of their game and passionate about it.  Excellence is the standard against which their work is measured.  Putting out the Times, especially the thrill of competition over what is deemed appropriate for Page One every day is in their DNA.

Ironically, the questions that hangs--unresolved--over the documentary is whether the New York Times will survive the cataclysmic upheaval of the world of traditional journalism, and if it does, in what ways it will have to change to sustain that survival.

The central players in the film discuss what is at stake to ensure the "Grey Lady's continued longevity and it's not at all a sure thing."  I found myself immensely impressed with each of them, even inspired with their dedication to the standard of excellence to which they have committed their work.  It's real time dialog and I loved it. 

As documentaries go, it's not the greatest and the back and forth of the story line is frustrating.  But this film makes me have even greater reverence for this extraordinary world class institution.  And I feel privileged to be a New Yorker, knowing its drama is played out daily right here on the streets of the Big Apple.

I hope they figure out a survival strategy that works.  The New York Times is at the very heart of what makes America great.

Murdoch, for shame. You represent us at our sleaziest and some of us resent it.  I'm one of them.

 

Are Tattoos One-way Conversations On Skin?

I've talked with many about how the practice of people riding the subway, jogging through the park, just walking the street--all the while wearing ear phones which connect them with something, anything but the sounds around them--has chilled the opportunity to engage in spontaneous conversation with those around them.

For example, I am sitting in a Manhattan subway just now in Manhattan and note that all but about a dozen people in this crowded subway are disconnected, via their ear buds, from the rest of us. 

So I've gotten used to the fact that many people in the city don't speak with the people around them.

But it just dawned on me that a surprising number of these people on the subway today are speaking to me and others through another medium: their tattoos.  Has there been something in the drinking water lately that has caused so many people to get themselves tattooed?  Or is the hot weather just exposing more skin so I'm acutely aware of all the artwork?  Not just one or a couple of them...LOTS of them.  In some cases the tattoos literally cover their skin with messages.  So they are talking at us, sometimes shouting at us, through their tattoos.

It is a one-way conversation, to be sure.  The messages are about their deeply held respect for particular institutions or organizations (U.S. Marines, Harley Davidson) to their brand loyalty (New York Yankees, Apple computer) to their love interest (Mom, Georgina or Marie or David or Jose or whomever).

So they are talking.  At anyone who sees them.  But apparently they have no interest in our response to their messages.  Because even if we voiced our reaction, they wouldn't hear it.  They've got those ear phones on.

 

 

 

Cool Guys Steven Sacks and R. Luke DuBois

At the Inner Circle this week, which I facilitated at the New York Stock Exchange, the topic was "System Reset: Leading the Reinvention of Business."   Yes, those of you who follow this blog know that we've covered this topic in similar discussions in Hong Kong and Beijing and now New York City.  It's been a fascinating ride with an extraordinary set of people in each venue.  And New York was no exception.  Everyone in the group found the others fascinating and, with few exceptions, they had not met before.

One of the coolest guys in the room was Steven Sacks, who ran a successful digital business before he decided to throw himself into the real passion of his life, the art world. I included Steven in the conversation because he is involved in the reinvention of art, or at least in creating whole new avenues of experience that comprise art and his focus is on digital art.   He runs a Manhattan gallery in Chelsea called bitforms and everything he shows there is cutting edge, smart, and absolutely fascinating.

One of the artists he's turned me on to is R. Luke DuBois and for any lover of words (yes, my hand is raised!) this guy is remarkable.  He uses technology to play with words in ways no one else has dreamed up and the result opens windows on thinking and experience that is fresh, provocative, totally cool.

Take, for example, the DuBois work called "A More Perfect Union," which in Steven's words "looks at American self-identity through the medium of online dating services.  Culling data from over twenty online dating sites, the work is organized according to the same heuristics as the U.S. Census, sorting dating profiles by Congressional District and subjecting the imagery and text to statistical analysis.

Revealing a 'dating lexicon' of each state, DuBois built maps using the words provided by 16.7 million people describing themselves and those they desire.  Comprised as a romantic atlas of the United States, each regional geography uses keywords from dating profiles in lieu of the city and town names."

You've got to check out this brief video where he talks about the work.  Without question, one of the coolest things to come around that gives one a whole new appreciation for words and the ways we use them to describe ourselves and even shape our lives.  

Personally, I can't wait to meet R. Luke DuBois.  (What do you think the "R" is for...? )

Is Freedom Of The Press An Anachronism?

So just how important is freedom of the press to an open society like ours?  Does it really matter whether one entity controls much of what is reported to a society's citizens?  We know in China the press is muzzled by the Chinese government and they make no excuses for it, indicating that control of media is crucially important to maintaining the stability of their country.  Scary stuff, that. 

Censorship of any kind scares the heck out of me.  But I understand that the Murdoch scandal in the UK (and possibly America as well) has unleashed a barrage of criticism from the Chinese who point out the hypocrisy of our so-called free press when people like Rupert Murdoch can clearly has his way with the reported word, involving bribery to get sensational stories, cozying up to politicians to get his way, and using Draconian methods to scare people from crossing him and his powerful media machine.

I've heard it argued that it doesn't much matter what kind of television and print media we have in this country because, after all, "everyone is now a journalist" and big news stories are often first reported by individuals who happen upon a scene or a story of importance.  I guess the thinking is that so many people get their news from the web, what does it matter if what we used to consider great journalism is continually degraded by the likes of Murdoch stooges who, rather than report news from as objective viewpoint as possible, give us the news through their unabashedly biased opinion (think Glenn Beck, think Bill O'Reilly).

This is preposterous and beyond scary.  Freedom of the press is protected in the United States by the first amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions.  It goes without saying we as a nation have taken this right seriously, so we should be just as suspicious of an individual or one company--as we are of our government-- interfering with the distribution of information or opinions.  And using bribery to get information from police authorities--as Murdoch's team has been accused-- to get information otherwise unavailable to the public seems to stand the whole freedom of the press notion on its ear.

Freedom of the press is a crucial right.  And I hope this News Corp fiasco will awaken American citizens to the importance of having responsible journalists leading the conversation on matters of interest to citizens of a free country.  And let's hope we all agree it goes without saying that using skullduggery to get stories from crime victims or air crash victims or people directly affected by disasters like 9/11 is not considered "responsible." 

 

 

 

 

Murdoch Slapstick Complete With Pie Throwing

Can it get any crazier?  We have Rupert Murdoch and his son James testifying humbling themselves (or at least professing to do so) before the British Parliament and up comes an interloper who thrusts a pie tin filled with what looks like shaving cream into Rupert's face.  In the throes of it all, Wendi Deng (Rupert's third wife and a former volleyball player) leaps to Rupert's defense and whacks the pie thrower on the head.

 

It all looked like something you would see in the tabloids.  Oops!  That would be Murdoch's media, right?

Enough to make one think the entire world is at sizes and sevens.  You couldn't make this stuff up.  Well, if you tried to, people would say it is too whacky...

Lots to talk about over dinner, no?

 

Murdoch Schadenfreude Part II

The whole Rupert Murdoch story gets better and better, no?  Or worse and worse, if you prefer.

I guess it makes me crazy to see how corrosive Murdoch's leadership has been and how the sleazy way in which his operatives worked on his behalf has made such a negative impact on so many lives. 

As someone dedicated to significant, life-enriching communication, I have been a member of the "I hate the News Corp" group for a long time.  Its effort to create sensational stories rather than report the news responsibly has galled many in the world.  It has degraded journalism, no question.

You may have seen that a recent Wall Street Journal article stated that "The schadenfreude is so thick you can't cut it with a chainsaw..." and then went on to defend Murdoch who happens to own the Wall Street Journal these days.

Yes, the schadenfreude is that thick and then some.  Joe Nocera of the NYTimes said it so well, I'll just copy the heart of his op-ed piece from today's Times:

The whole thing reminds me a little of the ending of Ian McEwan's wonderful novel "Solar," in which the many awful things the central character has done in his long life suddenly come together to bury him in an avalanche of comeuppance.  I'm OK with that."

Nocera then goes on, "Although I generally admire entrepreneurs who build giant companies, Rupert Murdoch, despite giving us Homer Simpson, generally has not been a force for good over the course of his long career.  His Bill O'Reilly-ed, Glenn Beck-ed Fox News has done a great deal to coarsen the political discourse. His tabloids have lowered the standards of journalism on three continents--and routinely broker the law on at least one of them. He had dumbed down his prestige papers, like The Times of London.  He has run roughshod over cross-ownership rules meant to prevent one man or company from having too much power--and then used his lobbying might to get those rules diluted.  He has put kowtowing to China ahead of freedom of the press, even killing a book set to be published by his Harper Collins unit that the Chinese authorities projected to.  He has consistently used his media properties to reward allies and punish enemies.  It's a long list."

What a sad legacy.  And we are all the poorer for it, when one thinks of all the great journalists who have not been heard from, all the reporting that has gone silent because the low standards of News Corp devalued them.

His anguish these days?  Couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

Does Summertime Joy Beat The Heat?

It's hot out.  Yeah.  As for the Midwest, where I grew up, we're talking seriously hot.  Feeling like Death Valley temperatures.  That's a lot of ice cream cones to keep the kids from whining.

 

Ask almost any adult to name summertime memories that gave them the joy and you'll get answers that involve the simple things in life.  Besides ice cream, water is right up at the top, as in "...swimming in the lake with my Dad," or "the super slide at the amusement park that landed you in water,  or simply "running through the sprinkler in the backyard."

What is it about running through a sprinkler on a hot day that sears the sensation of joy in our memory?  Is it the relief of the cool water on our skin?  The shock of the water on our skin as the sprinkler makes it turn to you and douses you front on?

Take a look at these pictures, of Ellie Bird running through a fountain in a shopping area in Beijing.  It could just as easily have been in her backyard in Columbus, Ohio.  She was clearly oblivious to geography.  She was fully open to pure blissful joy.  And a Thompson Reuters photographer on assignment there couldn't help but pull out his camera and capture the moment.

 

 

Can't get much better than this, right?

Whaddya say about turning on that sprinkler of yours and inviting all the neighborhood kids over?

And maybe over dinner tonight, you ask around: what are the fondest memories of summer.  Betcha there are a lot of answers that center on water.  Think of what it will mean to future generations if it's true that soon people will fight over water rights with more vigor than than they fight over oil drilling rights today.  Maybe then you'll be able to charge a few of people running through your sprinkler.  Hope it doesn't come to that.

Rupert Murdoch And Schadenfreude

Pleasure derived from the misfortune of others...is that part of what's going on re Rupert Murdoch?  How did so many people get so far under his thumb?  Well, we know why.  Desire for influence.  Greed.  Ambition.

Looks like everyone is out to get Rupert since the scandal broke out in the UK. 

The whole thing is somewhat sad.  What a distance the world has traveled from the time when journalists were the reporters of the news and helped us--in as objective fashion as possible--interpret the meaning of events taking place in our countries and communities.  Here is a man who has become a colossus in the media world, and under his watch once proud institutions of journalism have become shills for small minded, highly arbitrary, often prejudicial "reportage".  Think Wall Street Journal.  Think, well, too many to list. 

I suppose an irony here (and there are many) is that the newspaper business already appears to be an anachronism, with or without Murdoch.  Is digital journalism taking the same path of vulgar, hyped up, sensationalist, often angry reporting as Murdoch's rags and TV shout-programs?

Has Murdoch improved the global conversation?  Has he left a mark of excellence?  Naah.  And what a pity.  All that money.  And all that sleaze.