Lessons from the Change of Guard at HSBC
According to the New York Times, HSBC has settled management succession at the top after its current Chairman Stephen Green departs to become UK Trade Minister. It has been a week of tumultuous week of public relations damage control. HSBC is not known to be flamboyant or attention seeking. The amount of speculation surrounding succession in the last week has been somewhat unusual, especially when at times the company appeared to have been caught off guard. Speculation started when the Financial Times reported that current Chief Executive Michael Geoghegan had threatened to resign if he was passed over for the top job. The New York Times quotes Glen P. Suarez of Knight Vinke, an HSBC shareholder and a critic of the bank’s strategy in the United States, as saying: “It is not the most glorious episode in HSBC’s history, but…it will all come down to execution.” This “episode” in the history of HSBC highlights some fairly universal issues concerning management, succession planning and leadership: Nobody can be indispensable An organisation functions because of all its people working together, not because of any individual. For an organisation, the old adage that “nobody is indispensable” is not enough. It should be: nobody can be indispensable. All organisations have some reporting structures, with some positions senior to others making decisions with greater impact, but they need to exist above and beyond the individuals. Management cannot be seen to succumb to threats Only insiders will know whether Geoghegan really threatened to resign. If he did, that threat alone would have justified HSBC not appointing him Chairman. As a long-suffering executive who has risen through the ranks to Chief Executive, Geoghegan is entitled to think he has the credentials to take the top job. He is certainly entitled to put that view to, and argue the case with, the board. Threatening resignation to achieve an objective is always bad tactics. It forces the organisation to take a stand for which it may not be ready, and is fraught with the danger of setting unpalatable precedents. Succession planning needs to be more comprehensive All organisations do some succession planning, formally or otherwise. Many managers have a rough idea what to do when selected members of staff leave. Unfortunately, we often scramble because of inadequate scenario and contingency planning. Identifying individuals to take over certain positions is one thing, implementing succession when resignations happen is another. Many unforeseen factors get in the way. Anointed successors usually show high potential, making them the target of rival firms. They may not want to wait until a higher position is available. The timing of a change may not coincide with personal plans, for example the need for frequent travel with young children in tow. Their skills may not be fully developed when the vacancy occurs. It will do us well to have a few scenarios in mind in the planning process. “Alpha” leaders need to keep their egos in check Some personality traits and styles render executives particularly suited to be effective leaders: decisiveness, larger-than-life presence, self-confidence and a razor-sharp intellect. In turning around companies or when faced with an adverse operating environment, leaders with these qualities help the team move swiftly to overcome obstacles. At other times, these same qualities could prevent leaders from being inclusive and collaborative, being good listeners and showing empathy. Self-confident leaders with a big ego need to remind themselves constantly to keep it in check, in case on the odd occasion they are wrong. Doing so will also help them avoid falling into the I-am-too-important-not-to-be-taken-seriously trap. Geoghegan is not quite Chainsaw Al Dunlap, but he certainly seems to have over-estimated his importance, or under-estimated HSBC’s need for organisational integrity. Corporate Values vs. the individual In his books Built to Last and Good to Great, Jim Collins shows how celebrity executives fail to turn good companies great. According to him, leaders who turn good companies into great ones tend to be comfortable being humble and with exerting a strong professional will at the same time, the so called “Level 5” leaders. Great and enduring companies also tend to have a robust set of core values. Talented people promote these values consistently and pervasively in the organisation. In its most recent succession decision, HSBC has clearly asserted its corporate values over the importance of individuals. Although it was unfortunate that some of the dirty linen was washed in public, I’m sure it will emerge to be even stronger in time.
What it takes a middle manager to be an effective leader is the right behaviour
Gurus and guru wannabes have made the topic of leadership a vastly profitable speaking circus supported by voluminous publications. The expansive literature on leadership devotes a large amount of space to analysing the characteristics, qualities and styles of successful senior executives. Unfortunately, this analysis is woefully irrelevant, and delivers little practical value, to middle management. Middle managers get things done and are the foundation of the success of an organisation. Yet they often feel helpless as the “sandwiched class” between senior executives who have the power to issue orders, and junior staff who have the luxury of merely taking them. In a blog post entitled “We’ve Got Leaders. What we need is leadership.” author Wally Bock claims that we have leaders in abundance, but “What we need is good leadership.” “If you are responsible for the performance of a group you are leader, because you have followers,” he continues, “You can lead well, or you can lead poorly, but lead you do.” Let’s not forget that being a leader is merely a position. Often you are put in that position willy nilly; sometimes you may choose to be there. Leadership, on the other hand, involves certain types of behaviour. Let me try and translate leadership literature aimed at senior executives into some practical pointers for middle managers on becoming effective leaders: Developing a vision – this usually means having a clear idea of what outcome you wish to see and being able to describe it accurately. The outcome doesn’t have to be grand. In fact, sometimes the outcome can be simply the absence of a problem. Inspiring others – this means talking to anyone in your circle of influence, including your boss, peers and subordinates about the outcome that you would so much like to see and convincing them that it’s a desirable cause to fight for. Instituting change – this means that you should not be happy with how things have always been done or thought about; in fact, you should develop the habit of asking why things can’t be done or approached another way. Setting goals – this means that you should always have an objective in mind for any activity you undertake, and you should repeatedly tell others what this is and how far you are from it. Setting examples – your behaviour as a leader is always under scrutiny, and often imitated by others. It also carries symbolic value. Behave only in a way that you are comfortable for others to imitate, and that carries the right message. Always hold yourself to higher standards than anyone else. Thinking strategically – this means recognising that there are many ways to skin a cat; thinking about what choices you have, and what reasons and information on which you should make a choice. When you decide to do one thing, you are also deciding not to do other things. You need to help others understand and buy into your choice. Taking charge – people naturally look to leaders for decisions. Many are afraid of doing the wrong thing and taking the blame for it. In the face of uncertainty, you need to have the courage to take action and bear the consequences. Giving praise and support – everyone wants to be told that he or she is doing a good job, especially when the going gets tough. In the face of adversity, you need to rise above your own emotional reactions and help others overcome their fears and doubts. Being helpful – the process of change, and the road towards an ambitious goal, is full of difficulties. Not everyone is up to the task. Never be too busy to lend a helping hand. It’s not about you, it’s about them. The above is clearly not an exhaustive list, nor is any of the items easy. Besides, getting things right takes a great deal of practice. I’m sure you can think of many other types of behaviour that help a middle manager become an effective leader. Do let me know what else you can think of.
Lessons from Recent Political Leadership Changes
The second quarter of 2010 turned out to be very noisy on the political front. A change of leadership took place in three major developed economies, one through the due process of election, and two before the incumbents had finished the term for which they were elected. David Cameron replaced Gordon Brown as Prime Minister in the UK, Naoto Kan replaced Yukio Hatoyama in Japan, and Julia Gillard ousted Kevin Rudd in Australia. To paraphrase Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest, to lose one prime minister may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness; and losing three is downright recklessness. Yet the tumultuous events of May and June in these three countries are rich with lessons for leaders who live under more salubrious circumstances. Be sincere and respectful By the time the polls took place on May 6, few in the UK expected Gordon Brown to return to Downing Street after the election. As Chancellor under Tony Blair, his wait for the leadership role had long outlasted his patience. He was often criticised for being rather dour. Yet for all his faults the one thing that put the last nail in his electoral coffin was making derogatory remarks about a supporter he had just met. Settling down into the car after meeting a long-time Labour supporter, not realising that he still had a microphone pinned to his shirt, he was heard calling one Mrs Duffy “a bigot”, saying to his aide: “That was a disaster – they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It’s just ridiculous.” Brown’s tendency to find someone to blame was characteristic of him and probably not catastrophic, but Mrs Duffy later said that she was most upset about being described as “that woman”. This exposure of Brown’s scorn for his supporters was devastating. Have a vision and stick to it, and explain any change clearly Kevin Rudd came to power in more or less a landslide. Climate change featured prominently in his campaign against the Howard government, calling it “the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time”. According to the Herald Sun, in December 2007 Rudd “did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia’s delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali”. He apparently changed his mind after hearing warnings that it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices. The Guardian called his subsequent abandonment of the carbon emissions trading scheme legislation in April “a remarkable act of political cowardice, if not ineptitude”. Yukio Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan swept to power nine months ago after defeating the Liberal Democratic Party with promises to return more power to local governments, especially on Okinawa bases which local residents resent. Yet instead of moving the deeply unpopular Futenma US military base off Okinawa altogether, he decided to relocate it to another part of the island. Neither Rudd nor Hatoyama appeared to have taken much trouble explaining to their followers why they had changed their minds on key planks of their campaign platforms. Consult, consult, and consult According to Kevin Rudd, his Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard informed him on the evening of June 23rd, 2010 of her request to hold a leadership ballot the following morning. Factional leaders within the Labour Party were worried about losing the next election. The last straw that broke the camel’s back in the party caucus was Rudd’s insistence on pushing through a massive increase in a special profits tax on the mining industry, apparently without much consultation with his colleagues. Although the proposal was part of a report on tax changes, the magnitude of the tax increase surprised the mining industry. In the end, Rudd had lost touch with his colleagues and supporters in the party. Swift symbolic acts upon assuming power What of the successors to Brown, Hatoyama and Rudd? They all appeared to have moved quickly to make important symbolic changes, exploiting their political capital during their honeymoon as newly elected leaders. David Cameron and Nick Clegg, in the first coalition government in the UK for 65 years, were falling over themselves to show how they had put aside their ideological differences to work together. They also lost no time in sternly warning the nation about the austerity needed to bring the UK out of its economic quagmire. At their first meeting, members of the cabinet declared a 5% cut in their salary as a symbol of collective belt-tightening. Julia Gillard in Australia moved quickly to declare publicly in her acceptance speech that she would cancel the government’s planned advertising in support of the mining tax. In return, she asked the mining industry to abandon its advertising opposing the tax. Within two weeks, she reached agreement with the mining industry on the tax, although by making important concessions on the government’s position. Succession by a member of the same team Both Rudd and Hatoyama have been replaced by a member of the team who had worked closely with them. As Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard would have had a hand in formulating the key policies for which Rudd suffered ignominious defeat in the hands of his own party’s power brokers. Quite apart from the implications of her appointment on the democratic process of electing leaders, why would her succession as Prime Minister signal any change? Did she genuinely express dissent during discussions about the mining tax, or was there no discussion at all? Likewise, Naoto Kan was Finance Minister in Hatoyama’s government. How can one expect that as Prime Minister, he can implement economic policies which will help Japan reduce its mountain of debt and revive the economy? Did he have the guts to stand up to Hatoyama when he decided to give in to the Americans on the military base in Okinawa, or was he a willing partner? When a political leader is ousted for policies which appear to have failed, why should the electorate believe that an important member of the team succeeding him or her will bring
Hugh Sheridan in Newley Discovered at Sydney Opera House
Singer, songwriter and popular entertainer Anthony Newley was not a musical genius, but with no knowledge of music theory, he left behind a body of works that would put many a formally trained composer to shame. Although I never saw him live in performance, I suspect what set him apart was his ability to connect with the audience. Newley Discovered,a one-man chronological account of Newley’s life told through a compilation of his most popular works, debuted in the Adelaide Cabaret Festival in 2009. It’s intimate, but not overly cosy, and the Sydney Opera House Playhouse was the perfect setting for it. As soon as he stepped onto the stage, Hugh Sheridan engaged the audience directly and established strong rapport with the trio supporting him. For a little over an hour, Australian actor Sheridan, known for his role as Ben Rafter in the TV series Packed to the Rafters, slipped comfortably into the role of Newley, eliciting smiles from the audience with clever one-liners. Young for the role at only 24, he showed maturity and wisdom far beyond his age, switching from flippancy to melancholy with ease, telling the story of a life marked by tortuous excesses and personal tragedies typical of the early baby boomer generation of entertainers. The show charts Newley’s rise from humble beginnings in East London to acceptance by demanding audiences in Hollywood and Las Vegas. In his birth certificate, his mother’s name was “Grace”, and his father’s name was…”blank”. Growing up with an accent that would appear to count against his chances of a theatrical career, he entered the acting profession through the backdoor, as an office boy in the Italia Conti Stage School, in which he could not afford to study. His breakthrough came when David Lean cast him as the Artful Dodger in Oliver Twist in 1948. Surfing the wave of rock and roll in the 50s, he went almost to the top of the UK charts with I’ve Waited So Long. Together with Leslie Bircusse, he penned and starred in the musical Stop the World – I Want to Get Off. Bircusse was to be his partner in many other productions, including The Roar of the Greasepaint – The Smell of the Crowd and Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Although often introspective and contemplative, especially when dealing with the tragedy of his first born child who died of a congenital condition, Newley Discovered examines the tumultuous events of the singer’s life without pathos. In fact, the many playful and clever one-liners that intersperse the songs highlight his ability to turn whatever life has to offer to something good. Sensing that he is losing his battle with cancer, he says, “I didn’t want to die, but nobody else could do it for me.” That Sheridan sings well is a delightful surprise. He follows the footsteps of Some Mothers Do ‘ave ‘em star Michael Crawford in forging a musical career, releasing his first album Speak Love towards the end of 2009. With his mildly husky voice, he sauntered through most of Newley’s important hits during the show, from What Kind of Fool Am I at the opening, to the theme tune for the movie Goldfinger, the popular hit Candy Man, and On A Wonderful Day Like Today. Yet his acting instincts were the ultimate triumph of the evening, when he mimicked the mannerisms of Sammy Davis Jr in Candy Man. Like many popular entertainers who find it hard to resist the calling of their libido, Newley was married three times, and had many other companions beyond these relationships. Diana Carroll of the Independent Weekly says that Newley “might be best remembered as Mr Joan Collins”. Although he was quite smitten with Collins, he was less keen than she was on marriage. Despite his reluctance on commitment, romanticism got the better of him. Collins gave him an ultimatum in Central Park for a reply within a week, but Newley “didn’t need a week”, and gave her the answer the next day. Newley Discovered is a little gem worth exploring – enjoyable light entertainment on a well-earned evening out.
Alexander Lazarev slows down with the HK Philharmonic at the Cultural Centre
The last time I saw Alexander Lazarev he was somewhat like a prancing hyperactive teenager, and nearly botched Tchaikovsky’s Serenade for Strings at the Festival Hall in London. In the Hong Kong Cultural Centre Concert Hall on June 3rd, he was a changed man. Stepping on to the stage slowly behind the soloist of the evening, he was the very epitome of composure and maturity. Together with the Hong Kong Philharmonic Orchestra and its principal clarinettist Andrew Simon, Lazarev opened the programme with Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto in A, K622. Mozart completed the Clarinet Concerto, said to be his last purely instrumental work, a few months before his death in 1791. It’s one of several works for the clarinet he wrote for fellow Freemason and master clarinettist Anton Stadler. My introduction to this work was some 30 years ago, in a recording by Jack Brymer and the London Symphony Orchestra under Sir Colin Davis. At the time, Brymer also happened to be the host of a weekly BBC music programme I played on the radio. When Brymer made this recording in 1964, he was almost 50 years old, probably a tad older than Simon. I had high expectation, which Simon fulfilled. Before the orchestra launched into the work, Simon explained that he was going to use the “basset-clarinet”, for which the work was originally composed. The basset-clarinet has four more semi-tones than the modern clarinet with which we are more familiar, reaching the low C instead of just the E. Lazarev meticulously coaxed a gentle and subdued tone out of the orchestra in the delicate and somewhat bashful introduction, in a measured tempo Mozart would have approved, maintaining an even rhythmic pace throughout the rest of the first movement. Simon handled his entry with equal finesse. The fine interplay between soloist and orchestra was balanced and lively. Although Simon’s fluency in the rapid scales and arpeggios was less silky than that of Brymer, his tone was fuller with the resonance of his instrument in the lower register. Simon brought out the best of the wistful lilt in the Adagio – popularised by the movie Out of Africa in the 1980s – a melody you could almost sway to in a reverie. In the last movement, he was able to maintain the vivacious pace without becoming overly ebullient, with the orchestra always a step behind lending solid support. The second work in the programme, Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 11 in G minor, Op. 103, with the title The Year 1905, was no less than a “great leap forward” from Mozart’s Clarinet Concerto in historical as well as musical terms. An evocative work that surveys 50 years of suffering by the Russian people in the first half of the 20th Century, the work spans a range of moods, melodies and harmonic structures, sometimes adopting the somber pace of a funeral march, and sometimes the heady pace of blood-curdling violence born of desperation. As a first generation “baby boomer”, born just after World War II, Lazarev would not have suffered cultural persecution under Stalin. Nevertheless, as an ethnic Russian, he would no doubt have empathised with Russian composers from that era in their pain. He clearly succeeded in transferring this empathy to the Hong Kong Philharmonic, which effectively captured the contrasting moods and raw emotional power of the four consecutive movements of the Symphony, culminating in a deafening combination of percussion and clanging bell in the final movement, entitled The Tocsin. At the end of the concert, a small gesture by Lazarev showed that he understood the essence of leadership. As the audience raved in rapturous applause after the concert, he re-entered and stood at the side of the stage rather than the centre to acknowledge the contribution of the orchestra. Under Edo de Waart as Artistic Director and Chief Conductor in the past few years, the Hong Kong Philharmonic has honed a mature and subtle tone of world-class quality. It’s said to be one of the finest orchestras in Asia. Its handling of the diversity of the two works on June 3rd demonstrated its coming of age.
Philosophy education goes down the drain at Middlesex University
In the money-frenzied and celebrity-gossip-hungry world of modern media, it is not surprising that the decision by Middlesex University in the UK to close its philosophy department did not make the headlines. It would have passed unnoticed had it not provoked a three-week sit-in by a small group of students terminated by a court injunction. It has also stimulated opposition among international academics, although admittedly mainly in the area of philosophy, but it has not yet reached a level of general debate. The politicians and policy-makers have not seized upon it as the issue of the day because the electorate does not yet feel it’s important enough in the midst of the economic turmoil. As The Times reported it, the closure of the philosophy department is on account of student numbers being “unsustainably low”. Apparently, the department has failed to “develop any strengths in continuing professional development or consultancy”. In other words, The Times concludes, “it costs too much and doesn’t do anything practical”. At a very basic level, Middlesex University’s decision highlights a flaw in the approach to the allocation of resources to tertiary education funding based on how much courses cost to run. It is also symptomatic of the heavily utilitarian and vocational bent of tertiary education in recent years. Above all, it exposes a trenchant lack of respect for culture and humanities at universities in the 21st century. Perhaps I shouldn’t generalize. Middlesex University was, apparently, born a polytechnic. It should be forgiven for taking an above average utilitarian approach. Tariq Ali says that “a university that closes down subjects like philosophy should lose its status as a university and be returned to a polytechnic”. The UK also has a fine tradition of excellence in the humanities, a la Oxford and Cambridge. Nevertheless, it is easy to imagine that in an environment of fierce competition for dwindling job opportunities, students tend to neglect subjects which are not seen to be directly related to a ready career post graduation. The more fundamental question is: is it true that graduates in humanities are less professionally competent? They certainly can be more professionally disadvantaged, but only if we decide that they should be so. We must change our way of thinking. Let’s confine the discussion here to the study of philosophy rather than the humanities in general. Having been, nay still being, a student of philosophy, I have direct experience. To my mind, the study of philosophy has a number of characteristics: – it sharpens critical thinking The study of philosophy emphasises discourse and the examination of premises. As in the study of law, philosophy teaches the construction and defence of arguments; but unlike law, it uses values and humanity rather than practical considerations as rules of engagement. Above all, students of philosophy are taught to take nothing for granted and to challenge assumptions. – it breeds curiosity and freedom Philosophy is man’s quest for truth. Its importance lies not in the observation of phenomena, as in science, but in pursuing the underlying reasons. The need for curiosity to challenge the status quo, to stress test reasonable assumptions and to persist stubbornly in charting new territories leads to real freedom, of the intellectual kind. – it reinforces values Philosophical discourse enables man to delineate good from bad, right from wrong, and reasonable from unreasonable. It develops a framework of values for human interaction as well as social order. – it demands clarity and consistency Human discourse relies on language, which is often a blunt tool for the purpose. The study of philosophy helps promote precision in the use of language, and reduce inconsistency or muddiness. If we accept certain assumptions to be correct – or if we define them to be so – philosophical investigations will compel us to accept certain other related assumptions to be correct as well. – it enhances humility and tolerance One of the first things we discover in studying philosophy is that the more we know, the more we know we don’t know. Getting an answer to one question often opens up many other questions, to which there may or may not be answers. Further, it makes us appreciate the vastness of human intelligence, and the validity of opposing points of view. Although philosophers are no less opinionated than others, they tend to be more respectful and accepting of dissent. All of the above characteristics of studying philosophy point to its value in building character, in shaping a tolerant society, and in enabling better decision making. We should persuade more people to engage in philosophical discourse, and not to dismiss it as an activity irrelevant to the practicalities of life. In doing so, we may equip them better to reject pursuit of unbridled materialism as progress and achievement, temper extremist views that defy reason – and the use of violence to defend them – and develop innovative solutions to cope with rapid changes in technology that wreak havoc with the comfort of relative certainty. The notion that studying philosophy is of no practical value in life is pure hogwash. For the benefit of future generations, whether they decide to specialise in science, commerce or the arts, we have the responsibility to encourage the study of philosophy as a means to ensure more ethical, tolerant and reasonable behaviour. In fact, it should be a required foundation course.
Alexander Lazarev in a hurry at the Festival Hall
By all accounts, Maestro Alexander Lazarev is a hyperactive conductor in a hurry. According to Tennant Artists, from 1987 to 1995 he was “Chief Conductor and Artistic Director of the Bolshoi Theatre, the first person for over thirty years to hold both positions concurrently”. Not only is his repertoire said to be “particularly enterprising in its scope, ranging from the eighteenth century to the avant-garde”, he is also said to be “a prolific recording artist”, having made over 35 recordings for Melodiya, in addition to many others with the Bolshoi Symphony, the BBC Symphony, London Philharmonic and the Royal Scottish National Orchestras. His unbounded energy was obvious the moment he stepped, nay leapt, on to the stage at the Festival Hall in London recently, nearly tripping in the process. Hardly had he steadied himself on the podium did he start waving his hands to the Philharmonia Orchestra to begin Tchaikovsky’s Serenade for Strings, Op. 48. His conducting style was passionate and animated. Unfortunately, it was a false start. Although Tchaikovsky apparently worked on the Serenade at the same time as the 1812 Overture, the fact that it is called a serenade suggests that it should be treated with tenderness, intimacy and leisureliness. Lazarev’s interpretation, on the other hand, was anything but intimate, tender and leisurely. The opening passages were certainly too loud, and the tempo was too fast at times and the emphasis too intense. Lazarev gave the impression that he was trying to finish the piece to move on to the next one. Curiously, the audience started clapping at the end of the third movement, making one wonder whether they are keen to see Lazarev finish. The second in the in a programme of works by Russian composers was Rachmaninov’s famous Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini, Op. 43, with Nikolai Lugansky at the piano. In contrast to Tchaikovsky’s Serenade, Lazarev and Lugansky got it just right in the Rhapsody. Although it would have been easy to over-romanticise the lyricism in this work, it wasn’t so. Lugansky tackled those passages at breakneck speed with ease, clearly demonstrating his confident virtuosity. The fine balance and rapport between the piano and the orchestra was maintained most of the time, except brief moments in which the brass almost totally drowned the piano. The lilting variation 18 left the audience in a trance. Last on the programme was the Sixth Symphony by Dmitri Shostakovish. In this, Lazarev totally redeemed himself. Completed in 1939, the work consists of three movements – an unconventional slow first movement marked “largo”, a second marked “allegro” and the finale marked “presto”. Lazarev effectively brought out the gloomy sense of foreboding in the first movement, possibly a representation of the composer’s concern about persecution by the Stalinist machinery of repression. The light-hearted sense of mischief in second movement and the compelling rhythmic gallop in the finale were finely captured, bringing the evening to a dramatic close. All in all, it was an evening well spent among Russian giants. Posted via email from alanayu’s posterous
An epitaph for the €uro
Here lies the €uro A fine dream born of Lofty ideals Brought down By the brutal reality Of the difference Between rich and poor It is sometimes amazing how simple things at a personal level can become such complicated matters when raised to the national level. Paying for things we can afford is a good example. What has happened in Greece, at the personal level, is akin to Warren Buffet asking me to join his exclusive club to throw a lavish party. The bill will come to millions of dollars, and we have to put up our respective share. Mr Buffet will dip into his billions and easily pay his $1 million dollars share of the bill. I, on the other hand, have only savings of $100,000, and have to borrow $900,000 just to leave the party. So what do I do? I say to Mr Buffet: “Thanks for the invitation, but I really can’t afford to be at your party. Have a good time. It’s been nice knowing you.” I will go home, have a soup and some salad, go to bed early with Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being and wake up the following morning ready to tackle the world. Greece, on the other hand, said to Chancellor Gerhard Schröder: “Thanks for the invitation Herr Schröder. We’d love to join the party. We can’t afford it, but we’ll borrow what we need to pay our share of the bill, and worry about it long after the fun is over.” Should we be surprised that the party turned out to be a bad dream for Greece? In the meantime, Mr Papandreou says to Frau Merkel: “It was a lot of fun at the party, but you know we had to borrow to even be there. Now you have to help us fend off all these loan sharks wanting their money back. By the way, the loan sharks knew there was no way we could pay them back.” Should we be surprised that Frau Merkel tells Mr Papandreou to go jump in the lake? In an article carried by Project Syndicate, Professor Stiglitz at Columbia University suggests that the Eurozone might have to disband if it is not prepared to implement necessary institutional reforms. In another article Professor Feldstein of Harvard University explains why Greece will default. The moral of the story: PIGS have no place to be in a rich man’s party. Posted via email from alanayu’s posterous
Grammar, leadership and clarity of thought
It has been a harrowing few weeks, and finding time to write original material for the blog has been a challenge. I tried to recycle material I had received from friends and associates, but that turned out to be quite inadequate as well. Instead I spent the little time I had to re-read an article by an actor I admire, about a fascinating new product from a company I respect, in a magazine long established as one of the best in the world: Stephen Fry’s article in the April 12th 2010 edition of TIME magazine on the iPad: http://bit.ly/bY9ah5 Doing that opened the floodgates. I noticed something in the article which I had missed altogether when I skimmed through it the first time – a grammatical mistake! No, I said to myself, that can’t be true. A grammatical mistake in a TIME magazine article by a world-renowned actor and author spotted by an ignoramus like me? That’s not possible. I rubbed my eyes, and read the offending sentence over and over again. I concluded that it was a mistake. Here’s the passage where the error occurs (page 29 of the written article and at this link on the web: http://bit.ly/aP7eWa), as Fry describes Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO: “…I do believe Jobs to be a truly great figure, one of the small group of innovators who have changed the world. He exists somewhere between showman, perfectionist overseer, visionary, enthusiast and opportunist, and his insistence upon design, detail, finish, quality, ease of use and reliability are a huge part of Apple's success..” Job’s insistence on the variety of factors that account for Apple’s success is a singular noun, and therefore should be followed by “is” rather than “are”. Had the first part of the sentence been written “The aspects of the product he insists on getting right – design, detail, finish, quality, ease of use and reliability…”, then it would have been appropriate to use “are”. Let me be clear: finding a mistake in TIME magazine is a rare occurrence. Its editors are human and therefore susceptible to the same chances of oversight as everyone else. To err, after all, is human. Which is not to argue that we should consider it acceptable, as many writers nowadays do, on the pretext that when the English language becomes more common as the medium of communication among people from different backgrounds, we should be more tolerant towards grammatical mistakes. That’s codswallop, as it’s tantamount to saying that Pidgin English is good English. Grammar is a set of rules by which sentences in a language are constructed and therefore understood. To tolerate grammatical mistakes is to condone fuzzy thinking, which makes for bad leadership. A simple grammatical mistake does not a bad leader make. Perhaps, but an important skill of a good leader is the ability to communicate clearly. How can a leader do so when grammatical mistakes clutter up speeches and proclamations, thereby creating confusion, ambiguity and suspense? Besides, leaders are supposed to set examples. If they tolerate sloppy use of language, woe betide their followers when they write and speak. Recently I came across an excellent talk by Clive James, an Australian raconteur and author who has been living in the UK for some time. In May 2006 the Australian magazine The Monthly carried an article he wrote on the English language, entitled “The Continuing Insult to the English Language”. He explains further on his web site: The piece …attracted a gratifying amount of attention, although I got the impression that I was preaching to the converted, whose numbers were dwindling. Even if that were so, I got the chance of preaching to a lot more of them when Jill Kitson of the ABC asked me to turn the text into a broadcast… The broadcast can be heard at this link: http://bit.ly/dhNym5 James continues: That melancholy long withdrawing roar you hear in the background is generated by all the surviving members of my generation who were taught to parse a sentence. The text of the piece is filed under "Recent Essays" — two versions of the same doomed campaign. The text James refers to can be found at this link: http://bit.ly/bbicwT I am one generation down from Clive James, but if he is right, I must be one of the endangered species of purists who insist on getting things right in language, as I am dead scared of fuzzy thinking. I am happy to be so.
Easy listening is lazy listening when it comes to Harry Connick Jr.
I’m a late comer to the music of Harry Connick Jr. I had heard his name often, and had been aware that some considered him heir apparent to Frank Sinatra, but I had never bothered to find out what his music was like, until recently. After all, I thought, Michael Bublé was the true heir apparent to Sinatra, and his records had been on the charts far more often than Connick’s. Furthermore, I had heard Bublé live by pure coincidence in a Manhattan bar and grill. It was standing room only, and I stood all the way. Connick’s latest CD Your Songs is listed in the Air Canada in-flight entertainment programme as “easy listening”. I often wonder what easy listening means, as opposed to other types of “hard listening” music. Since the flight was not long enough to do much else, and most of the music in other genres was eminently unappealing, I decided to give him a try. As far as I can tell, Your Songs consists purely of covers, and no original material. The opening track, Sinatra’s All the Way, is followed by Billy Joel’s Just the Way You Are, the Beatles’ And I Love Her, the Carpenters’ Close to You, Your Song by Elton John and, among others, Nat King Cole’s Mona Lisa. Covering other artists’ material in itself does not mean that the effort has no creative value – even “hard listening” artists have tried their hands at covering material of another artist, another genre, or another era. Linda Ronstadt broke new ground collaborating with the Nelson Riddle Orchestra in What’s New in the 80s, and Rod Stewart set new standards for the full gamut of the classics in The Great American Songbook. Black Sabbath front man turned reality show superstar Ozzy Osbourne released Under Cover a few years ago; as did Bette Midler a collection of Rosemary Clooney songs. Peter Gabriel’s latest release Scratch My Back probably ranks among the most interesting cover project to date. According to his web site, this is “a very personal record with the twelve songs performed only with orchestral instruments and voice”. The project is a “song swap”, in which the next phase involves each of the original artists whose songs Gabriel covers performing one of his in return. The mark of true artists is that even when covering someone else’s material they bring an interpretation uniquely their own. Ronstadt and Stewart both cover the Gershwin classic Someone to Watch Over Me, yet they each instil the song with such unique vocal qualities and phrasing that they may as well not be the same song. Ronstadt never seems to be able to shake her nasal twang, and Stewart’s husky voice is distinctly well aged. Stewart’s interpretation of Hoagy Carmichael’s Stardust is far and away better than my next favourite rendition by Nat King Cole. What about Harry Connick Jr.? Granted, he does have a smooth voice and sing well, but it’s hard to pin down what new angle he brings to the various songs he covers, apart perhaps from sugar-coating them until they blend into the background. All the tracks on Your Songs are so watered down and evenly paced that they don’t command a lot of attention. Somehow something is missing. The whole point about an artist covering someone else’s material is that it brings a challenge to our assumptions about him or her. It makes us sit up and listen. Ozzy Osbourne certainly does that with the Beatles’ In My Life and the Mott the Hoople classic All The Young Dudes. Peter Gabriel’s version of David Bowie’s Heroes is hardly recognisable. Osbourne and Gabriel present a musical as well as an intellectual challenge. To enjoy their covers, you have to suspend disbelief and view them in a different light. With Harry Connick Jr. all you have to do is sit back, relax and take it all in, as the music simply glides over your consciousness and leaves nothing behind. You don’t have to suspend disbelief, as you don’t know what to believe in the first place. There is no challenge, as his smoothness is amorphous and defies description. So it seems Harry Connick Jr. is not only easy, but lazy, listening. It goes to show that in music, as in everything else, I do it the hard way. Posted via email from alanayu’s posterous