This article touches on many themes I have talked about here over the years...
We also have their article on the same day, Putin Swaggers Into Hungary.
I tend to see them as cynically juxtaposed articles, but what do I know?
I tend to see them as cynically juxtaposed articles, but what do I know?
Or is it just blatant blundering, on the part of the NYT editorial staff, to publish, on the same day, two articles whose implications contradict each other? Who knows?
Just ask yourself a few questions (There are many other possible questions here):
1. Is Putin successful at governing?
2. What kind of business management style does he embody?
3. Is that consistent with the NYT view in its article on Trump and chaos?
4. If Putin is a good model for a business manager, based on his record as a political leader, where did he get his good business management experience?
So, where to begin? (Parenthetically, an old friend wrote a book, both literary history and criticism re improvisation, entitled A Taste For Chaos. I recommend the book.)
NYT today trotted out Greer, Pfeffer, organizational behavior, Stanford MBA program, 'Power, why some people have it and others don't', responsible management approach..., Polzer, human resources, Harvard, openness self awareness humility,..., consult cabinet or not..., chaos not productive, no good business makes decisions based on falsehoods, Trump takes no one's counsel but his own...
So, the NYT says, it seems to me, these academics are right.
So, the NYT says, it seems to me, these academics are right.
What does that mean? It means, or at least strongly implies, for example, that good business management and good governance operate on the same or very similar principles.
It means that good top management leads to the most profit for the individual company in the business world, and to the most prosperity for society under a market capitalist model of good management.
But in America it also means that successful business entrepreneurship and successful business management must mean more or less the same thing.
But in America it also means that successful business entrepreneurship and successful business management must mean more or less the same thing.
It means that the models of entrepreneurship, good management, and good governance, all imply management and governance principles which are inclusive, open, self aware, humble, multicultural, transparent, consensual, collegial, empathetic, and many other liberal things.
What is wrong with this picture?
One thing wrong is that the identification of the successful business entrepreneur with the successful business manager, necessary for moral, political, and commercial consistency in American academic thinking about both business and government, often does not work, either in practice or by example, this way, and contradicts business research, as well as actual business practice, as well as actual governance practice, and certain writings on governance, in the real world.
The usual American academic and media model of the successful entrepreneur is often inconsistent with, and contradictory to, the actual practice of the successful business manager, or the successful government official, in most ways.
Let's cite some examples from the NYT itself. How about that? They have published many articles over the years about entrepreneurship as a wonderful ideal, on the one hand, and a scary and psychotic reality on the other.
They are not only in the business of selling a particular ideology, after all, that of the good model of business and government, but also want to sensationalize and scandalize their subjects, to muckrake to sell more papers to muck-hungry readers.
They have ctiticized entrepreneurs in the past. Some examples have been cited on this blog. Terms search; rail to rail, Pre Batch, etc.
The true successful entrepreneurs are sometimes characterized by the NYT, and by their own venture capitalist investment bankers, as sort of anti social, psychotic, maniacs.
One can cite to similar negative accounts of politicians' actual practices, in the real world, which are both successful and which contradict the academic and liberal humanist model of business and governance as well.
One thing wrong is that the identification of the successful business entrepreneur with the successful business manager, necessary for moral, political, and commercial consistency in American academic thinking about both business and government, often does not work, either in practice or by example, this way, and contradicts business research, as well as actual business practice, as well as actual governance practice, and certain writings on governance, in the real world.
The usual American academic and media model of the successful entrepreneur is often inconsistent with, and contradictory to, the actual practice of the successful business manager, or the successful government official, in most ways.
Let's cite some examples from the NYT itself. How about that? They have published many articles over the years about entrepreneurship as a wonderful ideal, on the one hand, and a scary and psychotic reality on the other.
They are not only in the business of selling a particular ideology, after all, that of the good model of business and government, but also want to sensationalize and scandalize their subjects, to muckrake to sell more papers to muck-hungry readers.
They have ctiticized entrepreneurs in the past. Some examples have been cited on this blog. Terms search; rail to rail, Pre Batch, etc.
The true successful entrepreneurs are sometimes characterized by the NYT, and by their own venture capitalist investment bankers, as sort of anti social, psychotic, maniacs.
One can cite to similar negative accounts of politicians' actual practices, in the real world, which are both successful and which contradict the academic and liberal humanist model of business and governance as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment