Sometimes at work we obfuscate what we think and feel, to the extent that when we speak our point, it becomes nearly unrecognizable. Yet when we’re completely up front with ourselves about our work, we’re able to relate more directly with those around us. And the outcome can be truly transformational.
George Papandreou is a surprising example of saying what he means. Surprising, because he’s a politician!
In December 2009, the Prime Minister of Greece was in Brussels for his first meeting with European leaders. From the New York Times story:
[Prime Minister George Papandreaou] might have tried to play for time. Instead, he told them everything. Not only was the Greek deficit twice as high as previously reported, but his country’s finances were also a mess. Corruption was pervasive. Tax evasion, rampant.
“I said, listen, let’s not, you know, beat around the bush,” Mr. Papandreou recalled recently, sitting in his cavernous office at the Maximos mansion, his backpack at his feet, his Kindle on the coffee table. “This is a problem. I will tell you what my view is and what I am trying to do.”
Improbably, perhaps, his strategy worked. Within months, he had managed to secure the bailout he needed while still maintaining good relations with his fellow European leaders — quite a feat, many observers say.
The Prime Minister doesn’t present a candy-coated picture in order to look more favorable. He understands that he needs help, and to procure the assistance he desires, he chooses to be totally candid with his European peers. Which is necessarily a product of being honest with himself, first.
In showing his country’s vulnerabilities, he demonstrates personal confidence, which then yields his allies’ confidence in him. So brilliant.
Have you had a conversation with a peer in which you were up front about the problems you were facing? How did it go?
Photo via
Natural seetclion? I do not see anything in the article that smacks of social Darwinism or patriarchal Darwinism (both distortions of Darwin’s theory). Is the researcher a man? Yes, he is. The formerly patriarchal assumptions about pregnancy are dishonest and based on no scientific fact, truth or inquiry unlike this issuee/article.Do these processes apply to all areas of modern human life? No. Just as we have changed the course of global warming, we have interfered with the processes of natural seetclion for humans and species affected by our weediness. Does that invalidate Darwin? No. Has Darwin been over- and under-interpreted and distorted and not only over-simplified but applied too broadly? Yeah, that too. Are some aspects close to being on target? Yes. Do men and women, children and parents, mothers and fetuses have at times competing wants/needs and goals? Damn straight. It is impossible to neglect or starve a fetus–it will suck the calcium from your bones and take protein from your internal organs if it has to b/c its goal is to thrive, survive, be born.As far as your ” ‘men’ in science” statement, would it be fairer if there were only women in science? I try to look at the product rather than the producer first and if I find problems, I inquire aboout the prroducer. But just as i do not assume all black people are into hip-hop, i do not assume all men are in cahoots against women. Both smack of essentialism. One may bear out more often than the other but that is still not evidence of essentialist truth.Does that mean we have been produced by an equitable society? No. Does it mean everything produced is suspect? Yes and no. Should all things be condemned or praised indisciminately? No. Should critical thinking be key? Absolutely.