Charlie Rose

tabs  11/15/2011 03:30 PM Report

It is not that one feels fear it is what one does with it. For fear is one of natures survival mechanisms that one would do well to heed. The question is can one hold a steady course when one is under adversity. One was thinking of Wyatt Earp the other day, Wyatt was considered to be a fearlessly, deliberate man when taking aim under adversity. What was it that made him so fearless and deliberate? One thinks that it was his understanding from experience that it was only by acting deliberately that he could get himself out of the scrape he was in. In other words in spite of fear he saw what needed to be done and took the action necessary to resolve the situation.

beenthere2460  11/14/2011 04:21 PM Report

And holidays would be Helldays...

X'mas is coming again, too soon!

anne4444  11/14/2011 01:52 PM Report

He should write a book for our country before the names of the week would be changed to:

Moanday

Tearsday

Wasteday

Thirstday

Frightday

Shatterday

Sadday

lordwingate  11/12/2011 09:39 PM Report

Brilliant interview- I was once asked in an interview- "Have you ever been scared and what did you do about it?" I replied- I am not scared of anything which scares the hell out of those who travel with me. When my son was 8 we were screaming along on one hull out of the water on Lake Rotorua in our catamaran one cold windy winter's day. He was crying scared we would tip over and he would drown. I said to him if he feared dying and was hanging on doing nothing about it then would it not be better for him to try managing the event rather than being a passenger. He got the message and soon was helping me control the boat. That was one of his most important life lessons.

I tend to think that is what this interview is really about. Keeping calm under pressure and managing the reality of the situation.

OLAN  11/10/2011 07:10 PM Report

The British Royal Family’s rituals, ceremonies and celebrations are also an organic process of improving time after time again.

adamlarson14  11/10/2011 11:37 AM Report

So how do you account for cheating here? John Wooden was a lot of things, one of them was a big cheater. He bought more players than anyone and therefore was ahead of the game.

rgpenner1  11/10/2011 09:39 AM Report

Extremely interesting interview. Question: what about leaving enough room for the unexpected. I have found in my career (international agriculture) that I often allow for the "unknown" when developing a business strategy. Many, many times something comes up in the middle of the process that i could have never predicted which (more than 50% the times this happens) I am able to take advantage of and often turns out to be "the pivotal event" between success and failure. This requires a definite ability to embrace faith, which is uncommon in very "cerebral" people.

kelabit  11/10/2011 05:06 AM Report

I'm surprised that the emphatic comment around the importance of scaling a startup was not discussed more. It might be worthwhile to hear a discussion on this topic alone, possibly in a panel format w/ Collins, possibly the Blackbox team, and possibly w/ Liu Chuanzhai to understand what he may do differently in Legend Holdings.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/10/2011 02:08 AM Report

On eating dogs to make your goal--some might say this is merely a safety margin that had to be used. Others might say this is more like a do-anything-to-justify-the-ends philosophy.

So one guy eats his dogs and the other eats his ponies. Wonderful management style--"whatever it takes".

"The dogs were also part of the Norwegian's meal plan and at Butcher's Camp, about half way to the Pole, enough dogs were killed to feed the hungry men and the rest of the dogs. Amundsen and his men were sickened by such butchery but they knew it was key to survival. The British party never ate their dogs but they did eat the ponies, burying some of the carcasses in the snow for their return journey."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/south_approaches_01.shtml

SharkswithfrikingLazers  11/10/2011 01:35 AM Report

Yes, curiosity is an addiction and that is why I watch Charlie Rose.

The question does not choose me though, rather I have a need to know. Is it a false need? Many have told me so with statements like "Who cares?" or "What difference does it make?".

Most only want to know what they need to know and then it is a six pack and a sporting event.

beenthere2460  11/09/2011 02:48 PM Report

I think James Collins explained what a good game of chess is all about. People who are receptive as to what is ahead in their game, and who make truly good decisions based on logic and intuition, (with luck becoming your ally), will always be fortunate. It is not as easy as it seems, boldness is not sufficient and won't pay your bills. A good idea is not enough, it requires foresight and a certain rigor for it to follwo the trajectory of success.

On another note, curiosity is the spice of life. I totally agree. Curiosity is what keeps you growing, it drives your personal journey, whether for good or bad. Never give up on the idea of knowing, experiencing and assimilating more in your life. It makes you feel truly alive.

Very interesting show.

REMant  11/09/2011 01:16 PM Report

I think management gurus, particularly of the motivational speaker type, have a genuine talent for triteness. They are always good salesmen, good storytellers, which you feel must have been profound, but cannot be sure why. Part of it is the oratory, and part the simple mania. In this case I think the approach works against the message.

The first question I was asked at ROTC summer camp was: "What nationality are you?" Everyone in line in front of me answering Irish, Italian, German and what have you. I answered American, which got me in Dutch from the beginning. I would say tho when it comes to motivating ppl, the military does it worse than anyone, unless you are looking for sadists.

I never ask questions myself. I often think it is a failing. On the other hand, I'm not misled by them. Good scientists never ask questions. They make hypotheses - ie, answers - which they test. Good lawyers are said to never ask questions to which they don't already know the answer. Perry Mason doesn't appear to, tho the denouement always shows he did, but a closer examination shows he eliminated possibilities. Conan Doyle likewise has Holmes remark the truth is whatever remains after eliminating the untrue (or something like that).

I'm not sure you can learn anything from simply asking questions, at least not anything new. I don't know whom you would ask. You could try Erle Stanley Gardner. Job asked God, but it didn't get him anywhere. A question is really a matter of hindsight, unless it assumes facts not in evidence. This is not to argue against the idea of design, or profiting from experience, only against assumptions. I have no idea what creativity is either, unless it is this normal scientific method.

The professor leading the orientation session in B-school, I recall, asked an auditorium full of the youthful captains of industry to solve a complex mathematical problem, and he went on to say, answers would be graded equally. The latter was lost on the overeager matriculants, all of whom began calculating furiously, while I twiddled my thumbs. It pays to listen, too. But, of course, that was his point.

It is not possible to "manage" risk; that's an oxymoron. Risk is either risky, or it's not risk. Scott in part had bad luck with weather, but mainly had no idea what he was doing, no real experience whatever, and as a result nothing worked out right. And he managed to do it twice! He muddled okay, but unfortunately not through. It isn't that he didn't plan; he couldn't plan. What plan he had seems to have been taken from mountain-climbing expeditions. He became, however, a model for Michael Lewis' Irishmen.

I think Collins is just plain wrong about applying technological innovations. Nearly everyone applies them earlier and better than we do. And of course they benefit from the experience.