Ceos on The Huffington Post

White House CEO Visit List: See Which Execs Dined With Obama

2009-12-03T10:18:16Z

The White House has made a quiet but extensive effort to reach out to corporate executives in a series of dinners and lunches at the White House with President Barack Obama and off-site at local restaurants with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers and Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.

Chip Conley: When an Entrepreneur Becomes a CEO

2009-11-09T16:20:47Z

Why are entrepreneurs loved and CEO's hated? It's a bit of irony that has not been lost on me this past week as a bunch of cyber-strangers weighed in on their perception of me based upon a photo. Is this a crazy entrepreneur or a CEO who has lost his mind and proper bearings?

Back in June, the Rasmussen Reports released a survey of Americans' favorable vs unfavorable ratings of various professions. At the top of the list with almost no negativity were small business owners and entrepreneurs. Religious leaders were a fair percentage back, but still near the top. Bankers were evenly loved and hated, while journalists, lawyers, and stockbrokers started to make up the bottom of the list. But, in the valley of the despised were CEO's and Members of Congress. Three times as many people give these two professions negative ratings as compared to the positives.

So, what happens when you start out as an entrepreneur but grow into being a CEO due to the success of your company? Is Steve Jobs an entrepreneur or a CEO? How about Richard Branson? So much of it has to do with how you show up - are you still yourself or have you become the empty, shifty "suit"? Well, I started my company almost two dozen years ago as sort of an artist entrepreneur and I've been getting "atta boys" along the way. Yet, when I showed up in the Nevada desert to enjoy a few days of artistic utopia at Burning Man, had a few pics taken of me, and then posted them on my Facebook account, the question of whether I was a wacky entrepreneur or a father figure CEO made me a cause celeb the past few days. Take a look at the blog I wrote for BNET and the nearly 150 comments that arose from this topical question of how much of a CEO's personal life should we be exposed to?

What's most fascinating is to read that those who championed my right to be myself saw me as a grown-up entrepreneur, but those who thought I'd crossed the line by posting my Burning Man photos to my private Facebook account saw me as the CEO who had a certain decorum of professionalism that I needed to maintain (even though, frankly, that sterile decorum may be one of the reasons why Americans score CEO's so low). One of those who counseled me on being a little more professional writes as if he were a self-hating CEO, "As much as you may not enjoy it, being a CEO brings with it the serious responsibilities of being a parental role model." Clearly, this parental thing ain't working based upon the Rasmussen results. More encouraging were the comments like "I am glad to see someone can be successful and not turn into a soulless robot" or "how refreshing it is to see a CEO who is also a human."

One common comment was that I should separate my friends from my business associates on my Facebook page and only let my friends into that part of my site that might have photos like this. I don't know what century they're living in, but many of us - especially those who work long hours in business - find that some of our closest friends are those we connect with during our business day. This work/life frappe has created a blended experience in which it's harder than ever to compartmentalize. Thank God....we may put a few shrinks out of business, but we're likely to be a whole lot happier. Public image should equal private reality.

Ironically, my first book's subtitle was "Daring to be Yourself in Business," and I'm seeing how vital that is in the age of transparency. With the internet and social networks taking a more prominent place in our lives, being true to yourself (and everyone else) is almost a requirement. In fact, I'd suggest that the Rasmussen poll is really a litmus test for authenticity. The more people see the participants in the profession as authentic, the more heroic they become in the eyes of the public. Authenticity is where the culture is headed. It's an evolutionary process (coincidentally, the theme of this last year's Burning Man was "Evolution"). And, I'm still just figuring out my evolutionary process of gravitating from being an entrepreneur to being a CEO. Yet, this experience has just reinforced a powerful lesson. Maybe the role model CEO I'm supposed to be isn't the traditional icon that people don't like and don't trust, but it's the CHO: the Chief Human Officer. That's really the conundrum a modern age role model CEO must solve: how can we be human and be a CEO at the same time?

Chip Conley is the Founder and CEO of Joie de Vivre Hospitality and the author of PEAK: How Great Companies Get Their Mojo From Maslow.

Leslie Pratch, Ph.D.: Men, Women, and Balance

2009-11-03T16:07:33Z

When Arianna Huffington introduced Marcus Buckingham as a new blogger she wrote that she was particularly interested in how women achieve balance. I am too. Much of the work I do is with men: In fact, 98% of the executives I assess (all executives I assess are for senior management roles) are men. The one study I performed on successful CEOs of private equity funded ventures found that their wives played pivotal roles in their success as executives and in their sense of balance.

The choice of wives was no accident: No developmental psychologist could view it as such. The CEOs generally came from intact, upwardly mobile families with each parent playing a distinct role. The fathers were ambitious and hard working, and while they supported the family, the sons characterized them as distant. The mothers stayed at home to raise children and were described as the emotional center of the family. As the first born or first male child, the CEOs identified closely with their parents' values while seeking to actualize their fathers' aspirations in terms of status and wealth. This is an important source of the son's motivation to achieve. I believe that the CEOs' needs for achievement and integrity had their roots in their nuclear families and the surrounding cultural milieu.

The importance of the early nuclear family was manifest in the kinds of families that they created as adults. All described themselves as having successful marriages, with family life vital to their happiness and emotional equilibrium. They did not, however, describe themselves as having important household and child-related responsibilities. These were handled by their wives, whom they characterized as capable and independent. The CEOs married well-educated, intelligent women who devoted themselves to their families. To the extent the wife sacrificed her career ambitions in favor of her children and husband, we hypothesize that this becomes a powerful source that allows the CEO to achieve his own career ambitions.

The CEOs thus appeared emotionally nourished by the connection to a loving wife and family, while being free to devote themselves to work and career. Such a family life is important for explaining, in part, the career successes they have enjoyed. Competent but nurturing wives, who have primary responsibility for children and the household, become a means for the CEOs to recreate the psychological and emotional circumstances of their own upbringing. From this perspective, the CEOs use their wives to play a role similar to the one their mothers played, leaving them psychologically free to pursue career goals, much as their fathers had done. Such sharp distinctions between roles enable ambitious executives to focus on their careers while still meeting their basic developmental needs.

It should be noted that in the sample there is only one female CEO who was married to a successful executive but she had no children, a fact that liberated her time to devote to her career. Given our findings, though, related to the men's needs for nurturing wives, one would need to embark on a separate study investigating female CEOs to determine what familial constellation of personal lifestyles might contribute to the success of the CEO. Women might have very different dynamics for how to structure their lives.

Private equity investors would do well to consider whether a potential CEO of one of their portfolio companies has a private life arranged to support his career ambitions rather than having it be a distraction or a source of guilt or anxiety. We find that more experienced investors have learned to give the circumstances of a CEO's family life appropriate consideration when making hiring and funding decisions.

But what about women? How can their lives be arranged to avoid the guilt created by striving to be engaged parents, achieve career success, and support their husbands? Society has a long way to evolve before such balance can be achieved.

Paul David Walker: CEO Secrets Part Two: A Meditation Practice

2009-10-27T20:45:40Z

The best leaders are able to be totally present at will. In a board meeting or when closing an important deal, the best leaders can be in the present while integrating their knowledge and all the events that are happening around them simultaneously.   The truth is anything can cause your conscious mind to let go of comparative thought and find "Integrative Presence." It would be impossible to catalog all experiences people have had. What is important is to know the difference between the two states of mind. Meditation is a practice that will help you find your personal road map into this powerful state.  

When I have asked people to describe how they feel when they experience "Integrative Presence" they say things like: confident, at peace, exhilarated, powerful, graceful, focused and present. Some report a slow-motion effect. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar told how the five seconds he had to win the NBA championship with one shot seemed like five minutes. He felt relaxed, as if he had all the time in the world, yet he appeared to move like lightning to the rest of the world -- the very definition of "Integrative Presence." His creativity, within these few precious seconds, was nothing less than pure genius. He was integrating the skills he had learned over the years, his desire to make the shot, and the flow of the moment, without interruption from his thoughts. 

There Is No Substitute For Practice  

Most people have experienced this state of mind; the question is what percent of your life is spent in this state. The art of getting into this state of mind is letting go of thoughts and connecting with the flow of events in the moment. Meditation is practice for your mind and body. An athlete must practice their sport, a leader must practice disciplining their mind. Meditation is a time-tested form of practice.   There is no Substitute for Practice.  As in sports, there is no substitute for practice. Knowing how to move from "normal thinking" into Integrative Presence comes from practice. Take time to connect with your peak experiences and observe how you transitioned yourself. Find ways to still your mental chatter and connect with the present, and you will become a much more effective leader and a happier person.

  Meditation Technique 

The following is a simple meditation technique that can help you clear your mind. It will help establish an inner road map to stillness, which allows you to flow with present reality.

The Right Environment: Find a quiet place and arrange to have no distractions or interruptions. A special place in your home or a place out in nature. It is especially important in the first stages of meditation to find a special place. It helps you move towards stillness naturally. Over time you will be able to meditate anywhere, at any time, even as you walk through hallways.

Sit Comfortably: You want your body to be at ease. Find a chair that is comfortable and sit up straight; be sure not to cross you arms or legs. Sitting up straight in a way that you will not have to move should one of your limbs fall asleep is important.

Three Deep Breaths: Take three deep breaths and hold the oxygen in as long as you can on each breath, and let the oxygen out suddenly once you can no longer hold the air.

Breathe Normally: Return to your normal breathing pattern. Close your eyes and put your attention on your breathing process. Follow your breath in and then out. Notice the rhythm and depth of each of your breaths. Spend 2-3 minutes just following your breath with your attention.

Imagine a Beautiful Place: Imagine yourself in a beautiful place in nature.
Choose a favorite spot or create a spot that would be ideal for you. Each time you begin meditating come back to this place. It will serve as an anchor for peace and help you to relax each time. Once you have felt the peace of this place, use it as a background and return your attention to your breathing.

Let Go of Thoughts: As thoughts arise in your mind, do not resist them. Practice observing without processing, and then letting go of them. You can imagine them floating up into the sky or being absorbed by nature. As you let go return your attention to your breathing.

Deepen Your Breathing: Once you have found your natural rhythm increase the depth of your breathing. Inhale 10-15 percent deeper and exhale 10-15 percent deeper. Play with this deeper rhythm until it becomes natural. Continue to let go of thoughts as they arise.

Notice Stillness: Notice that at the moment you fully inhale, just before you exhale, there is a still point. Likewise, after you have fully exhaled, there is the same still point. One, the inhale, is full and the second, the exhale, is empty. Notice the difference.

Fall into Stillness: At times when your total focus is on this deeper breathing process, you will notice the stillness inside you. Let your consciousness fall into this stillness. Let go and don't be afraid; it is your destination. Stay there as long as your ego will allow. It might take a number of sessions before you achieve this, but it is worth the practice and discipline.

Open Your Eyes: In about 20-25 minutes gently open your eyes without moving and notice the world around you. Notice your state of mind and journal your experience.

Take This State of Mind With You: Practice staying with this state of mind as you get up from your chair and walk, focusing on your breathing as before. Find a rhythm between your steps and your breath. Count how many breaths per step until you find a comfortable pace that is a little deeper than normal. This will help you begin to integrate this state of mind into your daily life.

Do Short Meditations: Once you have mastered this practice you will be able to take a few minutes to clear your mind between meetings or even with short pauses during meetings.

Meditation creates the same state of being that Florence Joyner and other athletes achieve when they are in "The Zone." Your consciousness will deepen and widen and you will be able to perform more effectively. Remember, there is no substitute for practice.  As you continue to meditate, you will find the quality of your thought improving. You will have great ideas and find it easy to solve problems. Creating this space of stillness within you leads to Integrative Presence. Meditation is a powerful tool for those who are creating the future. It helps with idea generation and stress reduction. If you are a leader, you need both to be successful.

Richard Trumka: Showdown in Chicago

2009-10-22T13:44:00Z

I'm going to Chicago next week for the American Bankers Association meeting. Oddly, I haven't been invited to the Roaring '20's dance party I hear they're having.

Why wouldn't they celebrate the era of wild money and hot times (which slid into the Great Depression)? After all, the bankers are doing well these days.

They're doing well because after financial institutions caused the global economic crisis, we bailed them out, to the tune of some $700 billion.

Now they're in good enough shape to pay the suits $7 billion in bonuses for driving working families and our economy to our knees -- to the verge of a second full-fledged depression.

Things might be turning around for the bankers, but for the rest of us, unemployment heads toward 10 percent and home foreclosures continue to devastate families and communities. Working families have lost health care, pensions and savings--and in exchange we've gotten predatory lending, outrageous overdraft fees and sky-high credit card interest rates.

Meanwhile, the bankers are doing the Charleston, taking taxpayer money, handing out bonuses for disastrous failure, becoming profitable without lending money that could put people back to work -- and spending billions lobbying Congress to kill financial reform.

Shameless. Absolutely shameless.

On Tuesday, about 5,000 of us will be in Chicago to tell them what we think.

It's called the Showdown in Chicago. We're gathering outside the American Bankers Association meeting to demand financial reform and re-regulation that will allow us to rebuild our communities, our lives and the real economy.

We've got a lot to rebuild.

For decades, these bankers have been dealing to each other in what amounts to their own private casino, inventing more and more exotic financial vehicles together and basically regulating themselves. Their Wild West capitalism allowed them to take outsized risk with no oversight and then come hat in hand to the American taxpayers when their house of cards collapsed.

They've become a menace. No one is safe while their private casino bankrupts the real economy and ignores necessary investments in jobs, health care and retirement without oversight or regulation.

This is a complicated topic, but we can break down a plan for reform into four basic needs.

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) that President Obama has proposed. This agency would protect the public against credit card and mortgage rip-offs. The agencies that were supposed to protect us from financial meltdown failed. The CFPA would place consumer protection authority in the hands of a single agency that would monitor banks and other institutions and their credit products like mortgages and credit cards -- but not your butcher, as a ridiculous over-the-top ad by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claimed.
A council of regulators to identify and fix systemic risks that could threaten the entire financial system -- risks such as institutions becoming "too big to fail," too complex or too interconnected. When the government intervenes, the purpose has to be to protect the public, not just rescue executives and rich investors. The past year has proven that the Federal Reserve Board is just too close to the banks. We need either to reform and democratize the Fed or to give this job to a true public agency. Let's do it right.
Bring the "shadow markets" into the daylight. Most people probably don't really know what hedge funds, private equity funds and derivatives are or do. You're not supposed to -- it makes them easy to manipulate. They've been unregulated and totally lacking in transparency. These vehicles need serious regulation and oversight before they suck more money into the black hole of convoluted transactions.
Reform corporate governance and CEO compensation to protect the interests of long-term investors -- people saving for retirement, not speculating.

It's time we hold banks and other financial institutions accountable for making this mess that required trillions of our dollars to clean up.

It's time to hold them accountable for the pain they've inflicted on working families.

It's time to put them back to work for working people, supporting families and jobs.

I've been spending a lot of time on Capitol Hill, calling for reform in meetings with committee chairs and other members of Congress. And everywhere I go, financial industry lobbyists are there, pushing back all out to block reform.

Congress is deciding right now how it will shape financial reform -- we need congressional support and intense presidential leadership.

Call your members of Congress. They're sure hearing from front groups for the banks. They need to hear from you, too. Tell them to produce a financial system that isn't set up to reward big banks at the expense of everyone else. The money has to start flowing to regular people and businesses that can create jobs.

And if you're in Chicago on Tuesday, join me. We'll meet up at 10:30 a.m. at Wacker Drive and Michigan Avenue to march to the Sheraton Chicago Hotel & Towers where the bankers are meeting.

See you at the Showdown.

Are you going to be attending the protests? Consider covering the protests as a citizen journalist for the HuffPost. You can sign up here.

Greg Coleman: "Sharpen the Saw," Whether You Like It or Not

2009-10-21T09:54:22Z

There are a lot of stories about corporate layoffs in today's cruel world. Mine is different than most, and I certainly don't want anyone to feel sorry for me. Over the five months that I took off, I learned a lot of very valuable lessons and came out of this experience feeling like the luckiest guy in the world. But it didn't start out that way.

In early February of 2009, I was recruited to run a very large division for AOL. My tenure only lasted 10 weeks. The CEO who had hired me was fired five weeks after I started, and the new boss wanted to bring in his own team. I had a significant contract that AOL fully agreed to honor, and I was out the door and, for the first time in 30 years, without a job. Many executives will tell the story of "loss of identity" when a job is lost, and in my case, I was put in the position of having to throttle down my life after ramping up for 10 weeks in my new role. I was immediately thrust into "the twilight zone."

When I was let go, it was late April. Many of my friends who were trying to cheer me up reminded me that I had the whole spring and summer ahead of me. I was fortunate in that I did not have to worry about getting a new job immediately. I had real free time for the first time in my life.

As nice as all of that sounded, I still felt that I needed to tell everyone that I wasn't a loser and that "every new manager needs to bring in their own team" and blah, blah, blah. It had not hit me then that I was just given a gift of a lifetime. But I would soon find out that I did get very lucky indeed.

I was fortunate to have a house on the beach out in a town called Amagansett on Long Island. I had always dreamed of taking some time off and had actually openly discussed with my friends and family that one day I would take a whole summer off. This was going to be my chance, and in the first week of May, I left for the house on the beach and did not return to New York City until late August, and that was to take care of a few chores.

I had been asked to meet some important people and some important companies about job opportunities over the summer, but I declined and I kept true to my word -- that I was taking the entire summer off. I have been a real fan of Dr. Stephen Covey who wrote The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and over time, I had become a friend of Stephen. His last Habit of the 7 was called "sharpening the saw." This is a time in our daily life that Dr. Covey suggests that we all take, away from the daily grind, to clear the mind. He feels that in order to be truly effective, that we need a vacation and some time to just get away to gain perspective. Well, I thought, by the end of the summer of 2009, my saw was going to be the sharpest in the world. By mid May, I had stopped trying to make everyone feel that I was not a loser for being fired. I just went with it and tried to get into a rhythm all my own, and it started to work.

There is no roadmap for taking a few months off, but there is lots of advice that everyone wants to share. I listened to my friends, but this was my time -- no rules and no one to impress but me. This was a special time, and very spiritual in that for the first time in my 55 years on this planet, I had nothing to prove. I had worked since the day that I got out of business school in 1978 (31 years) and had never taken more than 10 days off in a row. Ever. This was my time, my scorecard. I didn't care what anyone thought. I felt selfish and that was good. I was given a gift of time, and it was getting more clear every day.

I had bought eight books in early May, and as it turned out, I did not open one of them up all summer. I like to read when I am on vacation, but this was not a vacation, this was a sabbatical, an awakening, a hoot! I was only accountable to me and honestly, that was a first and it was a little scary and a lot of fun. I kept thinking that I was not going to engage in the "real world" for another four months! My only obligation was that I had a class to teach at Georgetown University in the fall, and I needed to organize the lectures. As I found out later in the summer, getting motivated to prepare for my classes was not going to be so easy. My dad used to say, "Give a busy man a job and it will get done." Well, I was not busy, and my preparation almost didn't get done!

On the first day of my "lucky time" that I was by myself at my beach house, I woke up and walked down the beach and started to laugh uncontrollably. I was free to come and go as I pleased. My calendar had nothing on it, no trips, no dinners, no 12 meetings a day. It was like I had been shot and gone to the real heaven, only better than the one that I had imagined. I finished my walk, went into my garage and pumped the tires up on my bike, and that summer, I rode my bike like Forrest Gump ran across the country. I was riding. I must have biked two hours every day, and I don't have a fancy road bike; I have a good, old-fashioned, heavy hybrid bike, but it was my companion all summer.

Besides the biking, I golfed almost every day, walking between 18 and 36 holes, and then I would take my little sunfish sailboat out and sail for an hour or two. I repeated this ritual every day that it was not raining heavily. I saw every movie that was made, and I ate well and tried to stay on a smart diet, which I am proud to say I did. With all of the exercise, I found that I could sleep between eight and nine hours per night and that I was remembering my dreams for the first time (and they were splendid).

I started to gain perspective on life and what I thought I wanted to do next. I found that I craved having no schedule and was not thwarted by the fact that I did not want to engage in the real world of business. I did read all of the New York and national newspapers every day (yes, including the New York Post) and also spent a lot of time on the Internet exploring many of the interesting ideas that I never had time to look into. I contacted friends that I had lost track of and had many close friends come over to my house for weekends. I became connected to the people that I valued the most, and I had real time to listen to them (and my BlackBerry was not in my hand or pocket). My friends called me Benjamin Button after the character that got younger with age.

I did all of these activities for four months and never craved the "fix" of the job. It never hit me until one day in early September, and for some reason, I knew it was time to go back to work. This time, it had to be 100 percent on my terms. I was ready to venture out, and I had made a series of promises to myself as to how I could work hard and smart but keep a much better balance of my life and to keep my priorities where they should be.

The big difference between taking a week or two off and taking four months off, was that I found that I regularly challenged myself to make sure that I was true to myself, and I had enough time to make sure that I was going to take the right path.

What I had never expected was that after so many years of continuous work, even though I had a variety of jobs at the three companies that employed me, was that I had many layers of history and business mentality and business "acting" to shed in order to get to the root of who I was and what I wanted to do next. My perspective changed almost every week during the summer on what I wanted to do, and as this was happening, I knew that I still was not ready.

The changes were too continuous. I actually found that my "idleness" was not idleness at all. I was going through the process of self discovery, and I found that I did not want any distractions (including reading, traveling, consulting etc.) to get in the way. The first part of the summer, I felt kind of guilty, but after the second month, I found this clear time off to be invaluable to my thought process. I realized that I had not been alone with myself for any real time in the last 30 years, and this was an amazing discovery. I'd had big jobs and knew a lot of people, but I really did not know myself. I became an amalgamation of what others expected of me during my working life, and separating that from who I was could never have been accomplished during a regular vacation.

I have been back in the saddle now for three weeks in my new job -- I am writing this note on a plane between San Francisco and New York -- and I still have a clear head and a skip in my step. It's hard to describe the difference that I feel now versus where my head was at the beginning of the summer, but it is different. I will be at the gym tomorrow at 6:30 a.m. and in the office at 8:30. I don't have 12 meetings per day any more. I have four to five good ones, and that should do it as long as my team is strong and committed.

I found that I spent a good chunk of my first three weeks working on the strategic framework for the road ahead, and we should be able to move smarter and faster with that plan. In the past, I would have been far more tactical. I have promised to check in with myself with a kind of self evaluation to make sure that I am keeping the promises that I made during the summer.

It is very rare that I had the chance to take this kind of time off without the financial pressures that usually accompany being laid off, but it will not keep me from preaching to my children and close friends the value of finding a way to truly get in touch with yourself in a significant way. As I said earlier, getting fired turned out to be the greatest gift that I could have ever been given. Now let's see if I can keep the dream going.

Diane Tucker: Who Duped Rolling Stone Gonzo Reporter Matt Taibbi?

2009-10-06T12:35:37Z

It's starting to look like basketball-player-turned-political-reporter-turned-overnight-authority-on-Wall-Street Matt Taibbi may have fallen for a stock-trading ruse. Heaven knows he's an easy mark. "I can't even balance my checkbook," he told radio talk show host Don Imus.

Taibbi, Rolling Stone magazine's teen heartthrob, became a sensation last month after calling Goldman Sachs "a giant vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity." His piece contained as many errors as facts, but few of us minded because the imaginative writer memorably captured the national zeitgeist.

Taibbi knows you're only as popular as your latest record, so in this month's issue of Rolling Stone he takes on short selling, a controversial Wall Street stock trading practice. His report offers the usual cocktail of half-truths, which you can read about at Business Insider, Economic Policy Journal, Fraud Files Blog, The Atlantic, New York Times DealBook, and Investment News.

To tell you the truth, I haven't lost any sleep worrying about Taibbi's sloppy reporting or his obscene language. He's colorful, he's cute, he admits he'd rather be writing fiction ... oh, fiddle dee dee.

But I am intrigued by the video Taibbi posted on YouTube to make his point about short selling. People who know about these things say the video is a fake ... a hoax. Taibbi claimed the video showed a Penson Financial Services trading platform transaction, but today Penson dashed off a fast letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, alerting them that the trading platform identified in each of Taibbi's posts is not Penson's. "While we are uncertain whether Taibbi's article is the result of a hoax or something more deliberate, we are contemplating sharing our concerns with YouTube and the blogger directly," wrote Penson's associate general counsel, in a two-page letter to the SEC that was made available to the Huffington Post.

If all these folks are right, it begs a few questions:

-- How did "short selling" happen to catch Taibbi's attention?
-- Who slipped Taibbi the fake video?
-- For what purpose?

Well, Matt? Who's screwin' with ya? We're waiting ...

* * *

For more details on this story I recommend business writers John Carney, Dan Jamieson, Megan McArdle, Gary Weiss, and Robert Wenzel. You can also read fraud examiner Tracy Coenen. If you think this is all a bunch of silly nonsense, you might enjoy satirist William K. Wolfrum's hilarious Taibbi video.

Anthony Tarricone: Fool Me Once: The Insurance Industry Looks to Tort Reform to Pad Profits

2009-09-30T13:35:26Z

In the immortal words of the 43rd President of the United States, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me ... you can't get fooled again."

Tort reform has made fools out of a lot of people for many years. First, it is touted as the answer for doctor's skyrocketing premiums, then for the exploding cost of health care. Yet time after time, the only group that ever really profits from it is the insurance industry.

In the early part of the decade, doctors clamored for tort reform in response to insurance companies jacking up their rates for malpractice insurance. Now, 46 states have passed some version of it. But ironically, malpractice premiums are lower in states without caps. Doctors did not benefit, and the patients who had their rights eliminated certainly did not benefit. So who came out winners from a decade of destroying the civil justice system?

That would be the insurance industry. Tort law changes made medical negligence cases so difficult to pursue that claims dropped precipitously. Between 2000 and 2006, the amount of money insurance companies paid out decreased by 15%. But that did not help the doctors because insurance companies never passed on those savings. In fact, the amount of money insurance companies took in from doctors increased by 120%.

To their credit, insurance industry execs and enemies of civil justice never denied they had pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. "Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings," said the American Insurance Association in 2002. "We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates," said Sherman "Tiger" Joyce, head of the tort reform movement in 1999.

Now, times are good for the insurance industry. Insurance company CEOs make more money than CEOs in any other industry. Malpractice insurers themselves are enjoying the best operating margins for 20 years. In 2008, the average profit of the top ten malpractice insurers was higher than 99% of the Fortune 500. But now they call for tort law changes under the guise of reducing health care costs. Never mind that the costs associated with medical negligence are such a small fraction of health care costs that almost all academic and government researchers agree that limiting patients' legal rights would do nothing to fix health care.

They fooled everyone once before. Now 46 states have made it harder for injured people to seek recourse, and American families still shoulder exorbitant health care costs. All the facts and data say it doesn't work. There's still 98,000 people dead every year from medical errors. And the insurance industry is enjoying booming profits. Tort reform is nothing more than a bailout for an industry already awash in money. You can't get fooled again.

Allen Schoer: Are All Bosses Delusional?

2009-09-23T20:39:17Z

Why do so many bosses think everyone's happy just to have a job, when more than half of the country's workers are dissatisfied and nearly 20 percent are plotting to take their skills somewhere else?

A recent USA Today article reported this disturbing disconnect. It highlights what I call the "Ostrich Syndrome." Tragically, this misalignment between workers and management could imperil the recovery of many companies.

The article quoted a Monster.com survey which found that more than eight of 10 employers say their workers are "just happy to have a job." Actually, only half of their employees feel that way. Even in the current market a SnagAJob survey says nearly 20 percent of employees are thinking about changing companies in the coming year.

So what's going on? Why are employers so complacent when many of their people are so unhappy that they're thinking of jumping ship? On what are those employers basing such powerful -- and delusional -- assumptions? Here's my take.

Often it's a combination of laziness and fear. Assumptions about what others think are not truly examined. It's easier to keep treating employees as things rather than people. And finding out how employees really feel is risky.

If companies don't take action now then their sharper competitors -- globally -- will scoop up the talent. And let's not delude ourselves. More cash is not always the answer. Some experts say money is often the last reason motivating people's moves. Employees need to know they're being heard, that they're having an impact, and that they're being treated with respect.

So if you're one those CEOs who's just realized you're a victim of the "Ostrich Syndrome," here's what you must do right now.

First, take a good look at yourself and your assumptions. Challenge the idea that everyone working for you is simply "happy to have a job." Second, commit to creating new relationships with your employees that develop their skills, talents and resources.

Ask real questions to real people. Walk the floor. Hold town halls. Don't leave it to your HR team. Take the lead yourself. Dialogue builds trust. And believe me, the employees will be thrilled that you -- not a department head or one of your managers -- actually care enough to ask them yourself.

Find out their values and principles. Ask how they're doing in these tough times, and what they need from you. Encourage them to reconnect with why they're working for you and what they bring to the business. Ask them about their deeper motivations. Find out what they want to create and the impact they'd like to have.

You'll learn what they need in order to stay and how they think they can contribute more to the business.

Dig deeper. Ask for stories about the company and where they see it heading. Prompt them to see themselves at the center of the business. Commit to making this an ongoing conversation. It must become part of your firm's DNA. This will reduce the risk of your best talent walking out the door.

This process can at times feel overwhelming and you'll certainly get answers you don't like hearing. But if you invest your time and energy, you'll be rewarded with committed, creative employees.

While it won't cost you a penny of your precious cash flow, I guarantee you'll be rewarded with a dramatically more robust culture. You'll see increased alignment across the business, greater collaboration and employees taking ownership of their work. Most important of all, productivity and profitability will benefit.

You can't afford to rest on your assumptions. Take your head out of the sand now.

Allen Schoer is the CEO of The TAI Group, an international leadership and organizational change consulting firm based in New York City.

Amy B. Dean: Labor Day Investing

2009-09-07T12:04:42Z

Today in Cincinnati, Ohio, President Obama will participate in the AFL-CIO's Labor Day Picnic event. It is encouraging that we now have a chief executive who recognizes that Labor Day is about employees and their future. But let's take stock before we get too excited.

While most Americans associate Labor Day with the end of summer and an extended weekend for spending with family and friends, it is important to acknowledge that Labor Day is a significant day for working people and the American labor movement.

Labor Day is a celebration of employees' rights that is synonymous with the American labor movement, still the single most important institution in ensuring quality of life for America's families.

Labor Day is a reminder of what workers can achieve when they organize: improved working conditions, fairness in the work place, holiday and vacation pay, health care and pensions. At one time these benefits were commonplace in American workplaces.

So while on the one hand Labor Day serves as an important reminder of what can be achieved when workers join together, it should also on the other hand remind us that many of these achievements have been rolled back.

Over these past two decades and at an accelerated pace under the Bush Administration, the rights of employees have been challenged and in many instances legally rescinded. Whereas employers once respected the rights of employees to bargain collectively, a whole new industry of union-busting consultants and law firms have cropped up with the sole purpose to train employers on how to squeeze their workforce into giving concessions.

Today's unions have a plan for restoring an American middle class and lifting up the plight of the growing number of working poor. In spite of numerous attacks against working people and their organizations, the American labor movement has an infrastructure that stretches out to communities and states across the country.

But In order for today's unions to be effective advocates for employees they must be advocates on behalf of all workers. The general public must once again have proof that when today's unions win they win too.

That means unions must not only be advocates of collective bargaining -- as important and as central an issue that is -- but they must also be strong advocates for progressive policies around health care, housing, transportation, land use as well as giant federal budget issues like the stimulus package and the bailout of major industries.

First, the labor movement must act with a strong social vision and have the policy and economic research to back up that vision. The labor movement must become the watchdogs of all public resources and investments.

When we pass a stimulus bill who else but the American labor movement should act as effective watchdogs to ensure public resources are indeed creating jobs and that those jobs pay a living wage, have health care and guarantee the rights of workers to form unions.

When government invests in bailing out an industry, whether it is the car industry or financial markets, the labor movement must take steps to ensure those resources benefit all working people and not just high paid CEO's and their shareholders.

But the labor movement can only do that if it has strong, effective and smart organizational capacity in regions and states. It is at this level of government that these public resources are expended. The labor movement can no longer yield to the local business community on regional public policy that impacts the economic direction of our regions and communities.

In many ways, it is at the regional level where there is greater ability to craft innovative proposals that have an immediate impact on the lives of working families and their communities. And that is one place where we need to focus new energies starting this Labor Day.

Judge H. Lee Sarokin: Do Corporate Fines and Punitive Damage Awards Serve Their Purpose?

2009-09-03T20:36:48Z

Corporate fines and punitive damage awards are meant to punish and deter wrongful conduct. Pfizer agreed to pay $2.3 billion to settle fraud claims regarding its marketing practices. According to the New York Times, it is the largest criminal fine of any kind ever. But whom does it punish and does it deter? Usually when corporate fines are imposed, the corporate officers who authored and implemented the fraudulent conduct either remain and continue to receive their salaries, options and other benefits, or if they have left the company, their pensions and benefits remain intact.

Shareholders are the ones truly punished. Those that held the shares during the wrongful conduct may have benefited indirectly by an increase in the value of their shares, but it would be very difficult to attribute such conduct to a specific rise in the price of the stock. They, of course, are innocent of any wrongdoing. However, many of the stockholders may not have owned their shares during the wrongful conduct, and they, nonetheless, are punished for the past misconduct of others. It is also likely that the fines are merely passed on to the consumers in the form of increased prices.

The same is true of punitive damage awards. I presided over cases in which punitive damage awards did not become final until five or even 10 years after the wrongful conduct. The persons responsible are long gone, taking with them the benefits of their misconduct and leaving the fine to be paid by persons who had no interest in the company at the time of the misconduct.

As to deterrence, it is one of those mystical concepts about which we can never be sure -- like the death penalty. There is no way to measure whether the death penalty stops anyone; nor can we determine whether corporate fines or punitive damage awards change behavior. Apparently in the case of Pfizer, this was its fourth settlement over illegal marketing activities since 2002. So much for deterrence!

When I read the Times article, I was excited to read that Mr. Kopchinski's share of the settlement is expected to exceed $50 million, thinking he was an officer contributing to the settlement, but a careful reading revealed that he was one of the whistle-blowers (for which I am still excited). If we truly wish to have corporate fines and punitive damages serve their intended purpose, then they should be imposed upon those individuals responsible for the wrongful acts rather than innocent shareholders and consumers.

Leslie Pratch, Ph.D.: What Makes Successful CEOs Tick?

2009-08-25T13:00:29Z

This past Friday, I met with a tennis coach who wanted advice about instilling the killer instinct in the high school children of ambitious parents. Did my work with successful CEOs have implications?

Two days prior to that, I met with a friend who has been extremely successful on every measure (in my book) of adult development. He reminisced about growing up as the only child of immigrant parents in a small rural Southern town. Here, he experienced persecution from which his parents could not protect him. He became known as the "Savage Italian." He boxed competitively but was lethargic in practice. Until he took a blow to the head. "Hit me once and I am focused." He has the killer instinct.

My career has focused on predicting performance among already highly successful executives. In 2004, I published an article describing the personality characteristics of successful CEOs. This fall, I have another paper coming out, comparing the personality, cognitive, and developmental characteristics of high and low integrity executives.

The findings of these studies pierce some myths about performance success but reinforce others. Highly successful CEOs do feel different from their early environments. "I always felt there was more for me. My oldest sister would say I was always different from the time I was about 10. I decided I would play football and go to college and I worked hard to do that." Or "I was just different from the rest of my family." These CEOs also have the desire and tenacity to focus on develop their ability. They take the time to practice and find mentors intent on improving their skills. Many grew up with fathers who were entrepreneurs. The CEOs started working at an early age, usually at age eight. They got in their hours of practice early and then built from there. They modeled their work ethics from their fathers but found mentors who nurtured their skill and got them to focus on their mistakes.

One CEO I assessed used to be an NFL player under Don Shula, who was just one in a series of powerful mentors with whom this CEO identified. This CEO had a vision of who he might become but it did not come directly from his father or an early coach; in fact, his high school coach said he would never get a football scholarship in college unless he could get his 40-yard dash to below 4 seconds and gain 40 pounds. By the end of that summer (without the aid of steroids), he had achieved both. With this ambition, he competed athletically, and, when cut from the team, in business, without end. This immersion in football and work gave him the core knowledge of his field.

What makes for uber-success? It is not sheer intellect, and it's not only social skill. It is, as Malcolm Gladwell defines talent, deliberate practice. Top performing executives spend more hours (many more hours) rigorously striving to improve their leadership skills. The recent research is summarized in two recent books: The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle; and Talent Is Overrated by Geoff Colvin, reviewed by David Brooks.

As one CEO in my integrity study put it:

In college, I was active in leadership, president of my fraternity, involved in class government associations, I had a good time in school, I did well in the subjects I liked and marginally well in subjects I didn't like, I accomplished a lot in terms of early leadership skills, learning what turns people on, learned a lot, I got a Ph.D. in the social sciences as far as I was concerned, put myself through school working as a bartender, I enjoyed the restaurant business and when I graduated I wanted to apply the skill sets I learned on the business side.

He learned to chunk individuals into different groups, based on demographic traits.The former NFL player had a similar ability to place individuals into chunks, defined by role. "The wide receiver got all the attention but when we played our attention was on the game." This ability to chunk information improves memory skills. Both CEOs were able to see leadership in deeper ways and quickly perceive its inner workings.

Then they practiced leading. As Brooks suggests, their practice was painstaking and error-focused. They learned more from their mistakes than their successes. Their mentors helped them develop a philosophy of leadership. They also provided a constant stream of feedback, correcting the smallest errors, pushing them to take on tougher challenges. By now they are each in their 50s and are redoing problems -- how do I build a brand; how do I build a cohesive team; how do I position a company strategically -- dozens and dozens of times. They are ingraining habits of thought they can call upon in order to understand or solve future problems.

As Malcolm Gladwell explains in talking about Outliers, the primary trait they possess is not a mysterious talent. It's the ability to develop a deliberate and strenuous practice routine. This is the talent that leads to great achievement. Genes and IQ may place a leash on our capacities and luck plays a role. Those factors aside, as Brooks points out, "the brain is also phenomenally plastic. We construct ourselves through behavior. It's not who you are, it's what you do."

Michael Russnow: My GE Dishwasher Tragedy, Manufacturer Parts, Car Repairs and Doctor Visits: Let's Be Mad as Hell and Not Take it Anymore!

2009-08-23T03:54:52Z

I had some experiences recently I thought I'd share that may have happened to you. Experiences that cost time and money and seem designed to screw us, while perpetuating a steady flow of income for other parties. In the first case, before you remind me, I will readily admit I caused the problem. My objection is with the available solution that now confronts me.

I bought a General Electric portable dishwasher a number of years ago. It has worked fine, and I have no complaint with its operation. The problem is its design. In order to connect it to my sink, I have to fasten a unicouple -- a device that delivers water to and from the dishwasher -- to the faucet and over time it has become worn, making it a bit more difficult to disengage. After the last usage when I tried to take it off, the entire faucet adapter (which connects it with the faucet) came along with it. Try as I might to detach the unicouple, I couldn't get it to budge. I finally tapped it against the sink and, in the process, the unicouple broke.

Okay, it was my fault. However, instead of being able to replace a cheap plastic part that might have set me back a few bucks, I am stymied by the fact that the unicouple, designed by mega-corp GE, is attached to two hoses that extend well inside the machine.

Now it's a humongous job. The part alone costs over a hundred dollars, not to mention a repairman who would charge anywhere from $75-$100 an hour. A new machine costs about $450, so it'd be dumb to pay so much just to get my dishwasher repaired. However, the simple question is why wasn't the machine designed so that the unicouple might click in and out of the hoses or attach with common screws, enabling a simple and inexpensive replacement instead of combining all elements of the operation into one device? Not to mention the fact that the hoses go all the way inside the machine, requiring me to open the dishwasher up and figure out how to disconnect and reassemble the part.

It's absurd that a simple appendage made of cheap plastic and thus easily breakable under many circumstances cannot be replaced without undergoing the options I've described. And yet without the unicouple, the machine, even with its primary operating functions working perfectly, is now kaput!

And consumer headaches don't stop there. Have you looked under your car hood lately? In order to repair something otherwise very cheap, a mechanic often has to disassemble many of the parts to get to where your $5.95 hose or fuse might be. The other day a dashboard light came on in my Toyota Corolla -- one I'd never seen. I looked in my manual and discovered it was the "Check Engine Light." I went to my local PepBoys, and they said the "Check Engine Light could be a myriad of causes and they'd have to hook my car to an analysis machine, costing $90, which was in addition to any work they might have to do. Fortunately, I'd secured a coupon from their website for, among other things, checking the engine light. They happily agreed to do so and later informed me it was smog device related, referring me to a Toyota dealer.

As I was headed for an important appointment, I got their assurance that my engine was not in jeopardy and the car wouldn't break down. However, out of curiosity I called the Toyota dealership and gave them the engine analysis code number PO 404, and was told the repair could cost over $400.

I consulted the Internet about this PO 404 code -- thank God for Internet "Ask" sites -- and was advised the light might simply be due to a loose gas cap (which I tightened) or possibly some water in the gas. Such circumstances might correct themselves after a few days of driving. Sure enough in a couple of days the engine light went off.

But why is this "Check Engine Light" such a catchall of scary possibilities? There are separate light indicators for oil and battery and overheating problems. Since newer cars have computer systems, couldn't they have a number system that would identify the problem, e.g. a "32" appears on the dash, and your manual lists the problem or at least localizes the area of the dilemma?

Manufacturing CEOs do very little to reduce the need for maintenance work and perhaps there should be legislative enforcement requiring them to do so. We have laws about emission controls and gas mileage. Why not for manufacturing devices mandating modular parts that are easier to get to and for systems that would more easily identify the problem and not subject us to "analysis" costs?

And while I'm at it, there should be a recoupment procedure available when doctors make us wait an unreasonable amount of time. It's quite common to be made to wait more than an hour -- sometimes two and three -- and when you complain to the receptionist you are treated in a "how dare you" manner, as if it's unconscionable to gripe about a doctor. Not to mention the fact that many people are intimidated from doing so, perhaps after years of being told that that profession was the gold standard when nailing a husband.

A friend of mine, who has severe glaucoma, waited two and a half hours, having already inquired about the tardiness of the doctor after the first hour. Only after almost three hours of waiting was she told there were emergencies that had come through the door. My question, of course, is why weren't the waiting patients notified so that they could determine whether they wanted to reschedule? Indeed, my friend decided not to wait further and she told me the receptionist looked at her like she was crazy for not hanging out longer.

Why can't we bill a doctor for our time when we are kept waiting -- let's say -- more than half an hour? What's our time worth? After all, they have the cheek to bill us if we cancel our appointment within a short time frame or don't show up at all.

It's time to rise up and not take crap, like Peter Finch's character Howard Beale advised us in Paddy Chayefsky's classic film Network. Isn't it time for Anderson Cooper to do a Keeping Them Honest report on CNN? How about 60 Minutes on CBS, Dateline on NBC or 20/20 on ABC? Maybe Oprah could do a show.

Meanwhile, as I live alone and mostly cook for myself when I'm home, I'll just deal with washing my dishes the old fashioned way. As I said at the outset, this particular problem was my own fault. Pity the solution isn't less costly and complicated.

Michael Russnow's website is www.ramproductionsinternational.com

Bloomberg: Pharmaceutical Companies, CEOs Don't Make Much Money

2009-08-21T13:09:52Z

NEW YORK — Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and their chief executives on Friday, declaring that they "don't make a lot of money" and shouldn't be scapegoats in the health care debate.

The mayor – and wealthiest person in New York City with a fortune estimated at $16.5 billion – made the comments on his radio show Friday during a discussion about health care.

Tom Morris: The Triumph of Symbolism over Substance

2009-08-12T17:44:42Z

It's good to be back here after an extended summer vacation away from blogging. I've missed this opportunity to think about things philosophically and hear back right away from all my Huffington friends and readers. I look forward in the coming days to many more lively philosophical exchanges over topics that matter to us.

There's an issue that's been on my mind for the entire summer. And I finally want to say something about it. I'd love to hear what you think.

We live in exceedingly strange times. Of course, you didn't need a philosopher to tell you that. But I have in mind a form of strangeness that I haven't heard many people talk about. We're in danger as a culture of allowing symbolism to triumph over substance in a way that's deeply self-defeating.

Right after "The Big Bailout" - the launch of our much-discussed national TARP plan of economic rescue - my filmmaker son conjured up a thought experiment that I found very telling. Imagine, he suggested, a well-known CEO at one of the TARP recipient companies, sitting alone in a New York City restaurant, having a sandwich for lunch.

Scenario #1: Our CEO is drinking a beer with the sandwich. No one pays any attention.

Scenario #2: He's drinking a glass of sparkling wine in a tall champagne flute. Cell phone photos are taken, journalists are alerted, and headlines the next day blare out the egregious injustice of the overpaid chieftain "celebrating" and indulging himself "at taxpayer expense," while his company suffers and employees are being laid off. Fingers are wagged, sound bites are broadcast, columns get written, and letters to editors fly in to papers and websites around the country on the flapping wings of fevered outrage.

Now further imagine, my son continued, that the beer is a rare, expensive micro brew, and the sparkling wine is an inexpensive cava, or domestic wine, much cheaper than the beer. With the "champagne," he is actually spending less money. But the symbolism will end up choking him. Champagne Charlie may simply have picked the wrong beverage, despite how it might have complemented the food. But should it be wrong?

I recently spoke for a prominent company that had a national meeting in a major city. It took place at a very nice hotel, but perhaps not one widely known for luxury. It was part of a great chain that has a solid reputation for comfort and good functionality. The person in charge of the meeting told me that the Ritz Carlton in that city had offered a much better deal, at a significantly lower cost to the company, but that they could not possibly have their meeting in the Ritz, since it's very well known for luxury in a way that could symbolize indulgence and extravagant expense, at a time when that's the last thing their company needed to be associated with in the public eye. So they had to spend more money to look like they were spending less. And a famous hotel chain was basically being punished for nothing other than their excellence, along with the positive public image that this longstanding tradition has created. Should a business ever be penalized for its superior achievements?

This little story is not unique, but increasingly common, and I've heard versions of it many times. It always involves symbolism triumphing over substance in the selection of locations for meetings that are actually being held. But a similar concern over symbolism can stop companies from having offsite meetings at all.

Top executives of big corporations often feel that they can't have the large meetings they need, because of negative public perceptions that could be generated over the symbolism involved. And even small gatherings have increasingly been cancelled for the same reason. Few corporate groups believe they can risk getting away like they have in every other economic environment to recharge their batteries for a few days in anything remotely like a resort setting, despite the unique opportunities that this has always provided for renewing their vision, reestablishing their energy, and taking on new goals. Worries about symbolism are triumphing over substance and preventing what's needed more than ever before in our lifetimes.

Have some corporate meetings in the past gone too far in expense and luxury? Certainly they have - there's no doubt about this at all. A few extravagant gatherings have been well publicized in the media and soundly criticized for their extremes. But they're not typical or representative of the many hundreds of such meetings I've attended over the years as a presenter.

The executives who have canceled all or most their offsite meetings this year know that these events normally more than pay for their cost - in corporate spirit, vital education, enhanced interaction, future innovation, and overall productivity. They are investments in the future that have a rare guarantee of positive return in an overall climate with few such guarantees. But they have unfortunately come to be viewed as symbolic sources of poisonous public perception.

The sad fact is that this sort of symbolism is trumping substance everywhere. I bet you can come up with your own examples of it. Recall our last presidential election, where anything from flag pins to a casual mention of arugula could offer a chance for symbolism to displace substance from the real debate that should have been taking place. The problem is not, of course, unprecedented. Daniel Boorstin warned us long ago about how images were quickly replacing realities across American life, in his groundbreaking 1961 book, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America.

In North Carolina where I live, the state motto is: "To Be Rather Than To Seem." Somehow, the events of our recent past, filtered through current media driven public concerns, have largely reversed this adage. When forced to choose, we'd rather seem frugal than be frugal. We'd rather appear prudent than be so. We cultivate perceptions assiduously and too often, as a result, leave reality to its own devices.

One of the earliest examples of the triumph of symbolism over substance in our current economic challenges involved the image of the corporate jet. Is there anyone in America who hasn't actually used one, who would accept for a second the idea that a company plane can be an important tool of productivity? It sounds laughable to many even to suggest this. Almost everyone, it seems, wants to take the cynic's pose here and ground all the high flyers of commerce. The corporate jet, or the private plane generally, is now widely resented and parodied as the ultimate in wild, irresponsible self-indulgence and over-the-top luxury. But, for busy executives, it can make all the difference between business won and business lost, to a degree that renders the expense involved a sound and necessary investment.

As a simple philosopher, the humble servant of ideas and individuals, I've actually had to charter jets now and then to give presentations that would not otherwise have been possible, due to considerations of space and time. Everyone knows that we philosophers need togas, or at least tweed jackets. Beards and beers might also be thought essential to the enterprise. But hardly anyone would guess that an occasional jet could be necessary for bringing people ideas they can use. The symbolism can just seem insane. But the substance involved is quite different.

Three car guys from Detroit famously flew in separate jets to Washington to request emergency federal money for their companies. Could they at least have jet-pooled? In reality, they could have been more prudent, and much more efficient in their travel, and there might not have been such a huge public backlash over their choice of conveyance. I don't think we need to insist that they engage only in long, slow rides in small, compact cars. Their time might be better used in different ways than that - a fact well attested by their balance sheets at that historic moment. We can't let appearances, even extremely ironic ones, dominate our thinking and determine all issues. The realities involved matter more.

Appearance and reality - this is one of the oldest philosophical distinctions. Of course, appearances are certainly, in a sense, among the realities with which we have to do in our world. So I understand the need for careful public relations and the vigilant avoidance, whenever possible, of awkward and inappropriate signals that could be sent out by appearances. But, really, if we as a culture could calm down about matters of symbolism a bit, we might be better positioned to do what's really necessary in order to get the substantial results we need during this historic phase of our national life.

To favor symbolism over substance is to allow the proverbial tail to wag the aphoristic dog. And that's never a good idea. Ask any such dog, but especially a top dog - any substantive or symbolic CEO that you happen to see. Share a beer, rather than anything that sparkles, and you may get an earful about how the current public outcry over symbolism and appearances is causing us much greater difficulty in dealing with the realities we face that alone actually determine our future.

Let's strive to make symbolism subordinate to substance in our thoughts and actions as we move forward into this new century.

Obama Says He's Angry -- But Won't Name Names

2009-08-03T12:19:32Z

If President Obama is mad, who's he so mad at?

Let me explain. On Friday afternoon, at the daily White House press briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs was explaining why his boss this week will be making his second trip as president to hard-hit Elkhart, Ind., which has an unemployment rate of 17 percent.

Jonathan Tisch: Beyond the Boardroom : 4 Lessons for Season 4

2009-08-03T11:23:00Z

As a hotelier, I know a thing or two about having guests and one thing is generally true -- they stay for a limited time. Well there was one occasion in my life when I was an invited guest...and I never left. In 2005, as I was finishing my first book tour for The Power of We, I got a phone call from the Plum TV network asking if I would be the guest on a pilot show they were developing where CEOs would be interviewed in a relaxed setting. "Sure, why not," I answered, thinking additional exposure for my book's message of succeeding through partnerships wouldn't hurt.

On a snowy January day, we taped the interview in front of glowing fire at my friend's well-regarded restaurant, The Laundry, in East Hampton. The interview seemed to have gone well and my intention was to simply send a thank you note to the show's producers and look forward to watching. But about a month later, I got another phone call. The producers who edited the show had a new idea -- they wanted me to be the host. Four years and some 30 CEOs later, Beyond the Boardroom with Jonathan Tisch, is still going strong.

Some of the early experiences were amusing. One of my favorite moments was when we had just finished a casual shoot at the Southampton home of Steve Ross, CEO of The Related Companies.

He looked at me and said, "That was great."

And I looked at him and said, "Thanks. This is the first time I've ever done this."

Yet, what was more unexpected than what started as this somewhat accidental experience of making television was the exceptional learning process that came my way as the show's host. Beyond the Boardroom show has taken me on a professional journey in television but the human side of every business story has taken me on a personal one that has taught me a few things.

Starbucks founder and CEO Howard Schultz won my admiration. He was broke with an expectant wife and a father-in-law who wanted Howard to leave this coffee business dream of his and "get a real job." Howard told me about an awful time in his life and his own resilience. He never quit and created the now global Starbucks franchise in the face of personal distress -- an incredible human story. Howard also spoke of his passion for health care reform in that revealing Beyond the Boardroom interview, long before the national health care discourse permeated the American consciousness as it does today. Howard was out in front, a CEO leader in the private sector, with a vision for his company's own version of universal health care.

CEO of NBC, Jeff Zucker, was extremely self-effacing in our conversation and told me that he had never really seen the Today Show when he accepted his first job on the broadcast at age 24 and that actually worked to his advantage as he had a fresh eye. Fresh enough that he eventually got the top job at Today and is credited with making it the successful franchise it is now. Our conversation revealed Jeff's savvy personal judgment and acute business instincts, in addition, the importance of looking at something in a new way.

Dick Parsons made me think about leadership. As we sat in the beautiful new Time Warner Center (at the time he was Chairman and CEO) not that far from where he grew up in Brooklyn and Queens, it was clear he had taken lessons from the street and life and applied them to business. After a foolish bet playing poker in college caused him to lose his car, he learned a tough axiom that he practices today, "Never gamble what you can't afford to lose," Dick said. Something any manager or business school student might need to hear. He also invoked a famous quote when we spoke, "A good leader causes the people he is leading to believe in him or her. A great leader causes people to believe in themselves."

And just last week, as we began taping episodes for our fourth season, we heard an inspiring lesson about "dreaming big." I interviewed an accomplished executive with a big personality -- from an industry where larger than life personas aren't the norm. The CEO I spoke with is an insurance guy. Yes, insurance. He's the Chairman and CEO of Willis Group Holdings Limited, one of the world's most prominent insurance companies. Joseph Plumeri's large yet grounded personality energized me and our entire crew when he spoke about the ability for anyone in this world to do anything. From the street corners in Trenton, N.J. where he grew up, to sitting at a desk half-wedged in a closet fetching coffee in Sandy Weil's office during law school, all the way to the chairman's office today. Joe doesn't even think the sky is the limit. Literally. Two weeks ago, under Joe's leadership, the Sears Tower in Chicago became the Willis Tower, the tallest building in the country. Joe believes in his work, calling insurance the DNA of capitalism referring to its linkage to every aspect of our lives. More importantly, he believes in himself and everyone around him. A contagious feeling I won't soon forget.

There is no doubt we are living in a world today where CEOs are vilified, and in some cases, justifiably so. But there is also no doubt that what I have learned from Beyond the Boardroom is true as well: stories of guts, smarts, hard work and integrity in American business are still all around us.

For me, Beyond the Boardroom allows me to be on television (which I must admit I enjoy) but more meaningfully, through these interviews I continue to learn. In speaking with these talented leaders from diverse backgrounds and various industries, two consistent themes have emerged: 1) they wouldn't be successful without the support and help of many people around them; and 2) there is no substitution for hard work.

It's also been very gratifying when viewers come up to me -- from young people just starting out, mid-level managers trying to get ahead, or executives at the pinnacle of their career -- and tell me that by watching the program, they've learned about perseverance, instincts, leadership and people.

So what was supposed to be a half hour guest appearance has morphed into a bit of a side career for me. Another lesson, I suppose, that you never know where life will take you so be open-minded and seize opportunities as they present themselves.

Jonathan Tisch is Chairman and CEO of Loews Hotels, Co-Chairman of the Board for Loews Corp. and host of television's Beyond the Boardroom with Jonathan Tisch. Beyond the Boardroom airs on Plum TV and on Fox Business Channel Sundays at 5:30 p.m. EDT.

Mike Elk: Democrats Need to Wake Up and Regulate CEO Pay

2009-07-31T16:29:49Z

A report released from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sheds light on the big bank practices that have to be reined in: doling out huge bonuses while profits plummeted. According to the Cuomo Report, the nine major banks while taking $175 billion in bailout money, doled out $32 billion in bonuses despite taking net losses of nearly $81 billion.

Is it just me, but aren't bonuses suppose to be given out when you do good work? In fact if you gave some one a bonus for doing a bad job, wouldn't that just encourage them to do a bad job in the future?

Paying people outrageous benefits has perceived incentives on the Wall Street executives to do what's in regular people's best interest. CEO's that receive multi-million dollars bonuses no matter how their companies perform, have little personal incentive to make safe bets on behalf of their share owners. They will not ask tough questions of their superiors about the decisions they are making since it could jeopardize their ability to get extraordinarily wealthy. Why should a banker care about how risky their decisions are if in the end they are taken care of

As financial expert Rich Feralauto of AFSCME says "Current corporate pay policies reward executives regardless of if their companies' performance contributed to our current economic crisis. It's time to reform the way these banks structure their pay. American investors have been clear that they want shareholders to have a larger say in the pay of top executives. It is more important than ever for Congress take action on compensation reform by passing "say on pay" legislation for all companies and to make it permanent as the center piece of needed reforms to encourage executive accountability."

Earlier this week the House Financial Services passed a bill regulating executive compensation.The legislation would give share owners a "say on pay" for top executives and ensure that they have a nonbinding, advisory vote on their company's pay practices. The bill would require federal regulators to proscribe inappropriate or imprudently risky compensation practices as part of solvency regulation of all financial institutions, and all financial firms would be required to disclose any compensation structures that include incentive-based elements.

The White House, while supportive of the measure allowing non-binding resolutions on executive compensation by stockholders, is opposed to giving regulators the power to ban bonuses that promote risky behavior. Speaking yesterday at a press conference, Robert Gibbs said that the Administration is concerned the measure may give regulators too much say on incentive pay.

Its time for Democrats to wake up. The Country is calling for reform and if the Democratic Party stands in the way, the country will merely throw the Democratic Party overboard in the next election. It's time for Democrats to take on the Golden Parachutes Brigade of Wall Street.

Michael Maslansky: Handling the "Whoopses": Judge Sotomayor and The Art of Fixing a Misspeak.

2009-07-16T10:48:03Z

She'll never admit it but you can bet Judge Sonia Sotomayor wishes she never mentioned her "hope that a wise Latina woman... would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male."

But in today's age of the media microscope, every judge, politician or CEO has at least one "whoops" that they wish they hadn't said or done. And until time travel becomes an option, the challenge is in how well you handle your critics when these events come to light.

And they always come to light.

The Senate Judicial Committee's Sotomayor hearings provide an excellent window into how people should -- and should not -- handle these situations. The risk, of course, is that the exception -- the "whoopses" -- will overshadow the rule -- people's long history of saying or doing the right thing.

Based on the communications consulting we do for Fortune 500 CEOs and politicians, I would offer the following advice to Judge Sotomayor and any other public figures who find themselves under similar criticism.

1. Own the Headline

Rule number one: Change the headline and repeat, repeat, repeat. Though the pre-hearing press on Judge Sotomayor focused on her "wise Latina" comment, she effectively changed the headline after day one of the hearings. Thanks to a strong opening statement yesterday, the headlines today were all about her "fidelity to the law" and "cautious approach to jurisprudence" -- a direct refutation of the accusation her opponents are making, symbolized by the "wise Latina" comment.

If "a judicial activist bent on imposing her personal views from the bench" is the critics' story, "fidelity to the law" needs to be her story. It should be her mantra. Every answer should be connected to the idea that she has decided cases in the past and will decide cases in the future based on a "fidelity to the law." If, by the end of the confirmation process, the press isn't rolling their eyes at her constant repetition of "fidelity to the law," she isn't communicating as effectively as she should be.

If you want an example of what not to do, look at Governor Sarah Palin. Instead of identifying a simple, clear narrative to define her resignation and taking control of the story, she has allowed herself to be largely defined by the media. Protecting Alaska is not a credible story. And mixing up that reason with three or four others only muddied her narrative further. Maybe creating a mystery was her goal. Assuming that wasn't the case, she has decidedly failed communicate a clear and consistent message that would turn the conversation to her advantage.

2. Don't Say You "Misspoke"

The go-to defense for many public figures -- from dishonest politicians to troubled CEOs -- is to try to explain away their Whoopses. While the goal is correct, attempts to justify a misstatement usually have the opposite effect -- exacerbating the story and lengthening its time in the media spotlight. Claiming that one "misspoke" or that one's comments were "taken out of context" -- even if true -- keeps the focus on the comments, providing further ammunition for one's opponents.

During her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton was famous for this -- although many politicians as well as corporate CEOs have had plenty of practice trying to explain and defend.

The "taken out of context" defense lost its punch long ago, and for most observers -- whether true or not -- the headline is the context. Put simply, if you say you misspoke or that you were taken out of context, that becomes the story -- and it isn't a good one.

For this reason, Judge Sotomayor missed an opportunity when responding to the "wise Latina" remark. Tomorrow's headlines are like to echo her comments that the remark was a "bad" joke that "fell flat," rather than on something more substantive and more positive about her testimony.

3. Keep it Simple'

Perhaps Judge Sotomayor's most effective response so far to attacks regarding her Whoops has been her silence on the matter. By refusing to dignify her critics' comments in the press, she did a lot to dampen what could have turned into a disaster if she had tried to over-clarify her position.

In times of crisis or controversy, it's human nature to fight back, defend yourself against every accusation, and correct anything you perceive as misinformation. But such an approach can backfire if you say too much. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is an example of someone who took the bait. If you're like me, you grimaced and yelled, "Shut up, already!" at your TV during Sanford's seemingly endless monologue confessing his affair. He couldn't resist explaining himself in excruciating detail, assuring that an already embarrassing story would most likely become a career-killer.

To borrow from The Godfather, communicating in the public sphere isn't personal, it's business. Many a politician and company have overreacted to criticism based on emotion and a desire to explain the truth -- just to see the effects of their reaction snowball into full-blown PR disasters.

4. Seize the Opportunity

With the right communication approach, criticism of a Whoops can provide a valuable opportunity to reinforce people's perception of what you do actually stand for. Nobody enjoys being criticized but taking a strategic approach to how you communicate can end up strengthening your reputation instead of damaging it.

Mark Payne: Innovation's Greatest Guru Doesn't Wear Black Turtlenecks: A.G. Lafley's Legacy

2009-06-24T16:18:39Z

After such a sterling run, CEO A.G. Lafley's departure from P&G stirs an amalgam of feelings -- gratitude ringing the loudest.

Over the past decade, A.G. did more to shape the innovation business than anyone else on earth -- including innovation's Mystic-in-Chief Steve Jobs. A.G. hasn't just worked his magic behind the curtain. He's been innovation's most public Pied Piper.

He showed what was possible, proved it and invited us all on the journey.

His proof lay in a torture test demonstration: Taking the staid-and-stumbling P&G he inherited, and making it dance to innovation's drumbeat in a way that most businesses could only envy.

Signs of A.G.'s innovation-centric mindset were apparent when I first met him in the mid-nineties. A.G. was in Japan to sign-off new product plans for Olay. But A.G. wasn't just interested in whether all the P&G process boxes were ticked; he went deep on the ideas and what they meant to the consumers he considered his boss.

If that sounds normal now, it wasn't at all in that moment in P&G history.

During the Ed Arzt era, the company's global edict was Search & Reapply. This mandate to replicate rather than invent treated globalization not as a source of much-needed fresh perspectives, but as an institutional wet blanket.

Later, under Durk Jager, the highly caffeinated talk was about the hunt for the big breakthrough. But the walk often wasn't.

While Jager's right hand explored bold forays into pharmaceuticals, his left crusaded to put all of P&G's beauty brands in identical bottles to save a penny a pack. The unsubtle philosophy: Grow margin through standardization rather than imagining new, premium-priced consumer experiences.

A.G. had a different vision, and he wasted little time showing it.

Soon after becoming CEO, A.G. came to New York for a symposium on everything from Latino marketing to new digital research techniques.

I'd been given a half-hour on the dais to share a new innovation model built to create bigger ideas and drive them faster to market. Intrigued, A.G. focused his remaining comments on what that model could do.

His endorsement inspired me co-found Fahrenheit 212 with P&G as our flagship client.

In the ensuing year, A.G. grew increasingly public about his belief that becoming world-class at innovation was pivotal to P&G's future.

He foresaw the two greatest threats any branded FMCG player would face: Domineering retailers and insurgent private labels. Innovation was the only way to future-proof P&G's core - upping differentiation to insulate his growing stable of billion-dollar brands.

Innovation could no longer be thought of as a mere activity stream of random hits and misses. It was now a mission-critical strategy to be delivered and monetized.

To jumpstart the change, he fired a shot heard around the innovation world.

He told P&G's brilliant scientists and marketers to abandon their famously insular ways and look outside for catalytic perspectives, ideas and solutions.

Connect and Develop became the new paradigm. Its metric? Half of P&G's new offerings would come from outsiders, up from 10 percent. As with nearly every other ambition, A.G. surpassed that 50 percent goal with room to spare.

A.G. spawned a new best practice and a new industry: The outsourcing of innovation. But he didn't stop there. He hard-wired innovation into every aspect of P&G's business:

· HR had to find a way to single out and cultivate P&G's catalytic innovation leaders.

· Finance had to make innovation a strategic line item in every business unit's P&L.

· Design had to become a new company competency.

· Business unit leaders had to learn to balance their innovation portfolios -with both low-risk iterations and bolder, game-changing bets - and to prove that their budgets could deliver a potent, long-term pipeline.

At the heart of this was and is perhaps A.G's greatest legacy: Appreciating innovation not simply as a game of test tubes, theories and org charts, but of people and ideas.

A special breed of people with innate restlessness, a gift for synthesizing connections others don't see and for developing transformational ideas that change lives and businesses.

A.G. showed how this power could be tapped, harnessed and leveraged - giving the world an innovation roadmap.

His principles are by now more than proven. As are the formidable talents of Bob McDonald, who steps into big shoes, but will find them more than comfortable.

As fans, disciples and beneficiaries of A.G.'s indelible stamp on the business of innovation, we say: Thanks, A.G.

We'll keep the torch hot.

Mark Payne is President and Head of Innovation at Fahrenheit 212 in New York.

Only 2 Fortune 100 CEOs Have Twitter Accounts

2009-06-24T12:36:52Z

We're surprised, but not shocked, to find that the top CEOs in the country appear to be mostly absent from the social media community. That's the result from research we conducted over the past several weeks. We looked at Fortune's 2009 list of the top 100 CEOs to determine how many were using Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Wikipedia, or had a blog. The results show a miserable level of engagement. Here are the topline results:

Get HuffPost Business On Facebook and Twitter!

Paul Szep: The Daily Szep --Jobs

2009-06-16T17:05:15Z

Read more: Unemployment, Cartoon, Job Search, Ceos, Comedy News

Henry Blodget: How To Get Richer Than God

2009-06-12T15:54:22Z

A lot of moguls have done the Commencement speech thing in recent weeks. Over at The Business Insider, we compiled 10 of the best of recent years.

Here's one of the most inspiring excerpts, from J.K. Rowling:

So why do I talk about the benefits of failure? Simply because failure meant a stripping away of the inessential. I stopped pretending to myself that I was anything other than what I was, and began to direct all my energy into finishing the only work that mattered to me. Had I really succeeded at anything else, I might never have found the determination to succeed in the one arena I believed I truly belonged. I was set free, because my greatest fear had been realised, and I was still alive, and I still had a daughter whom I adored, and I had an old typewriter and a big idea. And so rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.

That one, unfortunately, might give you the impression that, if you just do what you love, you're guaranteed to be almost as rich as The Beatles--while many people would be best advised to just do something they like. But Rowling makes an excellent point about the benefit of learning what really matters.

Here are some others:

Apple CEO Steve Jobs: "Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish."

Google CEO Eric Schmidt: "It's possible to spend your life inside the computer. Life is the people around you."

Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone: "It's not about the money - it's about winning."

Google "business founder" Omid Kordestani: "Think and act like an immigrant."

Click through for the full speeches and the full 10 >

The Worst CEOs Ever

2009-06-08T10:37:24Z

No explanation necessary.

Please let us know if we've forgotten anyone.

Andy Borowitz: My Multitasking Secrets Will Change Your Life

2009-06-05T13:26:48Z

Q. What are some things you do to manage your time effectively?

A. I get up at 4:30 every morning. I like the quiet time. It's a time I can recharge my batteries a bit. I exercise and I clear my head and I catch up on the world. I read papers. I look at e-mail. I surf the Web. I watch a little TV, all at the same time. I call it my quiet time but I'm already multitasking. I love listening to music, so I'll do that in the morning, too, when I'm exercising and watching the news.

--An interview with Robert Iger, the C.E.O. of Disney, in the Times.

Whoever said that the early bird gets the worm could have been talking about me, only I'm a person, not a bird, and I'm not interested in getting worms, more like getting things done. But I do get up early. In fact, the secret to my success could be boiled down to three little words: my quiet time. It begins at 1 A.M., when I get out of bed, check my e-mail, brush my teeth, scan some documents, and floss. Then I'll surf the Web, maybe order a sectional couch or trade zloty futures. Last week, I bought a Swiss chalet and sold it at a twenty-per-cent profit while I was still in my pajamas. I wanted to high-five someone, but no one else was awake. Sometimes I can't remember if I've flossed already, so I'll do it again, just to be sure, while checking my e-mail and maybe sending a fax. Did I mention that the early bird gets the worm? That in many ways applies to me.

By 1:03, I've had two cups of coffee, I'm down in my basement on the elliptical, and my heart is pounding like a cheetah's. I know that cheetahs have a fast heart rate because I often watch Animal Planet while I'm on the elliptical, although sometimes I'll do the picture-in-picture thing so I can watch CNBC Asia while I'm watching the thing about the cheetahs. It isn't always about cheetahs; it's about other animals, too, like meerkats. I just said cheetahs as a for instance. I do the elliptical naked. One time when I was on the elliptical, I patched myself into a conference call in Jakarta and accidentally hit the camera thing on my phone, so everyone wound up seeing me in the buff, all flopping around and everything. Another time when I was on the elliptical, I saw an amazing documentary about cheetahs.

Continued here.