Bessen (2004) Offers a Compelling

¶ … Bessen (2004) offers a compelling look into the way our pop culture values have changed over the last century and a half as a function of the leadership traits that we appear to value most as a society. The author considers the role that inventors once played in society, with their innovations not only driving us forward as a civilization but with their personalities also becoming quite prominent in American culture and history. Bessen argues that there was a time when the ability and will to invent were sufficient to render one a superstar in the public eye. According to Bessen, "although we live in an era of rapid technological change, it is surprisingly difficult to identify today's Great Inventors comparable to James Watt, Thomas Edison or Jonas Salk. The picture of technological innovation found in history textbooks an science museums -- centered on such inventive geniuses -- somehow seems different from modern reality." (Bessen,

As Bessen points out, our celebrity culture today is driven much by the glamour and excess of film and sports stars. And perhaps if composed a few years thereafter, the article may have lamented the total permeation of reality television in mainstream culture and the consequent set of personality values that accompany fame. These qualities are hardly the same as those features of ingenuity and vision which defined the inventor stars of yesteryear. The article by Bessen suggests a number of explanations for this change, indicating that this is the result of some combination of a changing in patent laws and an absence of real media or marketing attention for individual inventors. In fact, more than anything else, the article elucidates the fact that we are more wholly familiar with the corporations which market innovations than with the visionary individuals who invented them.

Reading 2:

The article by Mendona & Sneader (2007) is essential a profile in leadership excellence. The introduction and interview with technology maven Bill Campbell draws some parallels between his respectable, if unsuccessful run as a football coach in the 1970s and his incredibly successful run as the CEO or advisor to various technology giants, including Apple and Intuit. The article identifies Campbell's leadership style as one of the more powerful forces driving success over the last several decades in Silicon Valley. According to the article, Campbell deserves a great deal of credit not just for the considerable innovation that emerged from this setting but also for the leadership and organizational orientation of many of its most important entities. Setting the tone for the type of mentorship and straightforward management that would drive Palo Alto's incredible growth, Campbell demonstrates both the character and the drive that are critical to great leadership.

The article, particularly through the interview, provides great insight into the features that have helped some companies in the Silicon Valley not only persist but continually improve their public image, product offering and technological advancement. According to Campbell's own report, a common feature of those companies which have succeeded is that "they have founders, CEOs, and management teams that really care about building durability and lasting value. . . I care about the ones that care a lot about operating values, that care about durability and lasting value. I'm not interested in 'quick in and out.'" (Campbell, p. 69)

Campbell's response here sums up the contribution of the article to our greater discussion. Namely, this helps us to identify values and a long-term vision as leadership skills determinant of long-term success.

Reading 3:

Also on the subject of long-term success, the article by Moosa & Panaruch (2008) points to a number of qualities that may be indicative of such. According to their discussion, innovation is a process which must be encouraged and implemented throughout the company. Good leadership will not simply innovate but will also facilitate a context where employees are in a position to innovate. This approach gives personnel a greater stake in the day-to-day affairs of an organization while simultaneously capitalizing on the knowledge economy and intersecting skills sets present within.

According to the article by Moosa & Panurach (2008), "setting broad corporate challenges, teaching employees new skills and engaging them in the quest for innovation can produce powerful insights, innovative approaches to problems, and an increase in the capacity of an organization to implement new ideas. It also produces the positive side-effect of aligning the employees efforts with major strategic goals and encouraging quick and effective action toward those goals." (p. 5)

These twin objectives of encouraging innovation and allowing personnel a sense of ownership of company projects are, according to the article, likely to yield positive results both in terms of productivity and morale.

Fun/Fail Activity:

As I reflect on a Fun/Fail Activity that stands out in my memory, I am inclined to think of soccer practice as a child. When I was growing up, it was common for most of the children in my neighborhood to sign up for a youth soccer league. My parents believed that it would be good for me to learn to be a part of a team, to play in a context where rules and regulations govern events and to learn the value of fitness. Most importantly, of course, the activity was designed to be Fun.

Unfortunately, especially for a young child, the consequences of poor performance in this 'Fun' activity would manifest as a sense of 'Failure.' As a result, soccer became a Fail/Fun activity for me. Though I was a good student as a child, my abilities did not extend onto the field of play. I was a highly uncoordinated athlete at that age, even though some of my young classmates seemed already to have developed considerable skills within the context of the game. I also recall having a decidedly limited grasp on the rules of the game and my role there within. Therefore, I frequently didn't know where I was supposed to be standing or what I was supposed to be doing. I tended to daydream from boredom during practice drills. The consequence was that during our weekend matches, I had little to no idea what I was doing.

It became a highly nerve-racking experience because I was most assuredly failing at an activity that was supposed to be Fun. The coach would frequently yell at me for being out of position, which made me feel bad. Simultaneously, I didn't get a lot of quality playing time, which also made me feel pretty bad. By and large, the imperative to have fun while playing soccer became increasingly difficult because I had come to associate the experience with my own general and consistent performance failures.

That said, I reflect today on the subject and feel extremely fortunate for having had this experience. I did not enjoy soccer at the time, but in retrospect, it was my first exposure to so many forces that would be important later in life. First and foremost, my soccer team would be one of the first contexts in which I'd witness both examples of positive and negative leadership. As to the latter, some of my coaches -- usually volunteers and parents of other players -- failed to cultivate a love for the game, a sense of personal investment or even a basic knowledge of how to play. By contrast, some of the young players who were most blessed with natural talent would lead by positive example. These individuals tended to play hard, to exhibit the kind of willpower it takes to win and to even share some of their insights with lesser players such as myself.