Self help platitudes vs plot
The last two audio books on CD I’ve listened to, “How to become a Great Boss”, and “Use What You’ve Got”, are both self-help books. I love self-help books. But in both books there were parts I liked and parts that bored me to the point of nearly falling off my treadmill.
Platitudes are boring. Platitudes are statements like “networking is important”, “don’t quit”, and “use what you’ve got”. Yeah yeah, I know all that. What I need is a good story to entertain me and make me remember the point tomorrow morning when I go in to the office. When we argue at work about key points, it’s pointless to try and have the other person see your point of view based on a platitude.
Far more effective are analogies and stories. Jeffrey Fox, in his audiobook on great boss-ness, had me snoring on statements like “praise in public and criticize in private”. Uh huh, been there, heard that track before. Much better to hear a story about yelling at an employee in public, seeing that employee quit, go work for a bigger company, do really well, and eventually original boss applies at that company for a job. Haaaa ha ha. That’s a good story. And it will give me some potential satisfaction next time my boss yells at me.
I love Harvey McKay’s business wisdom books. Short homilies, long stories. To be fair, both Fox and Corcoran do have lots of stories, but I’d rather hear just a series of stories with implied platitudes. Where are THOSE self-help books? I suppose “The Google Story” is kind of like that, but not enough platitudes. Aaah, you can’t win.
January 18th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
It’s funny you mention “yelling.” From “Good to Great” to “The One Minute Manager,” the lion’s share of management books shy away from the issue of conflict like a deer at a halogen lighting tradeshow.
It seems to be an all or nothing with management theory. Conflict is either indicative of a failure on the part of management, or a failure on the part of the employee.
Rarely (if ever) is conflict ever approached as a healthy, and inevitable by-product of intelligent debate and the “plate tectonics” that inevitably occur when different approaches and personalities grind against each other along the fault lines of ego, ambition and personal conviction.
There’s nothing wrong with employees arguing occasionally if they’re both fighting to see their vision of the company realized – it shows passion and commitment to the business and their role.
Conflict and strife is key to growth (just read your “Art of War” or Machiavelli).
It’s better to build a team of empowered generals who question, berate and criticize, than an army of privates who secede without question when faced with the slightest resistance.
I should push this philosophy the next time I screw up. Maybe I can turn failure into a long weekend!