Generations at Work--2nd edition

There has always been a pattern to generations.   Historically youngsters accept their parents idea of what they are supposed to do, but around puberty there is normally a little rebellion.  When youngsters transition from school to work there are adjustments that can be difficult for all parties.  But now it is safe to say the world  has changed at such a rapid pace that generations can be differentiated  each with a different approach to work.  The old patterns have been complicated by revolution in one sense.  This second edition was needed to refine our understanding and reduce conflict.

What has changed much more than human nature is the times.  History is going at a faster pace and the way we grow up and integrate ourselves into the work world is constantly changing.  Although we are all  essentially human differences are significant enough that they can cause friction in the workplace.

The authors discuss the differences and the causes in enough detail that the reader can look around themselves and see much truth and perhaps some exceptions. There are many dates thrown about, but the authors found the following the most practical at this time.  Traditionalists born before 1943 experienced World War II and the Korean War.  Boomers born 1943 to 1960 experienced an expanding economy, teenager power and the assassination of Kennedy.  Generation X experienced economic turbulence and major technology advances.  The Millennials grew up in modern technology and perhaps more than any previous generation had their lives programmed, but ran into still more economic downturns.

As a Baby Boomer myself it is easy to observe the general characteristics of the three older groups that give some insight, but few surprises.  I was at first surprised by descriptions of the Millennials.  Naturally they are more comfortable with new technology than the rest of us.  They lived through a much more protective age than us older people and consequently are more concerned over safety and risk.  On the other hand they have been greeted with a rough job economy.  Some of them with strong technology credentials are able to get jobs, often high paying, but if they didn't possess noticeable skills they were forced to study or accept lesser jobs when they were available.  They had good relations with their parents and many rely on them for advice.  Their priorities are different--they work to live, not live to work and would disappoint many of their elders in their work ethic.  They are very much into collaborative efforts.

Pretty well everyone has had a generational conflict.  It boils down to the other person doesn't see things the way you do, but it doesn't have to be fighting all the time.  The authors believe that there is an opportunity to benefit from multi-generational businesses.   Companies can be more creative with input from different perspectives.  They can provide a comfortable response to a wider group of customers.  Decisions made as a group are more broadly based and more acceptable to the workers and managers.

Of course there are a few obstacles.  Two principles to pave the way are to communicate effectively to everyone and to develop differences as a strength.  Mentoring can be helpful, but one concern is that Boomers who lecture are resented by Generation X.  Also mentoring should be two way from older to younger, but also younger to older.  Some larger companies provide formal education to help one generation better understand another generation. Each generation needs to have its perspective respected and each can benefit from a general understanding.

To learn more visit the Generations at Work website:  http://www.generationsatwork.com/

My short, but educational political adventure

This is another post that gives away my age.  When I was 20 and not eligible to vote I was swept up with Trudeaumania.  Pierre Trudeau had just been declared party leader and called a national election for the summer of 1968.  I was in university and my room mate amongst others was very excited.

Looking back after many years I would reassess one factor. Trudeau was noted as always having a quick answer.  Robert Stanfield, the Conservative candidate was noted for not having the quick answer, but would take some time before responding.  I now think a quick response is a poor way to evaluate anyone.  However I still thought Trudeau was the deeper thinker.

I was between semesters without a job and got my parents to accept that I would look for a job in Oshawa (we lived in Haliburton about a two hour drive away) and live with my Grandmother Coakwell.  Really I just wanted to be with my friends.  I volunteered for the local Liberal association and at first they had me stuffing envelopes.  Then they paired me up with another fellow and we put up lawn signs.

There were three main candidates.  Michael Starr was the incumbent Conservative who had been the first Ukrainian cabinet minister and was well regarded.  Our Liberal candidate was Des Newman who was the mayor of Whitby and president of the Canadian Mayor Association.  The third candidate was Ed Broadbent for the NDP who had a lot of union support.

After a week or so of this my father decided if I didn't have a paying job I should come home.  I explained this to the organizers and shortly they offered to pay me.  Well this was welcome news; making some money and enjoying myself.  I put in several hours each day helping with signs and at night often attended rallies.

My work partner was about two or three years older than me and we had a lot of interesting conversations.  One project he came up with was to use campaign signs on a hillside between Oshawa and Whitby that drew a lot of traffic.  We spelled out TRUDEAU in big letters.  Apparently it made television news.  My partner then realized that voters in our riding were not going to vote for Trudeau so we re-configured the signs to spell out NEWMAN.

I often talked about the election to my Grandmother as well as her sister, my Aunt Flo.  They had probably voted Conservative all their lives and greatly admired Michael Starr.  At one point she said she had never heard of Desmond Newman.  I had been reading a newspaper from Edmonton and had noticed one of their campaign ads that said  "You should know this man."  That hit a nerve.  Whitby was only a small fraction of the Oshawa population, so naturally people in Oshawa felt little awareness or loyalty to the Whitby mayor.  I went to the campaign manager, Ted Curl who used to host a tv show I had watched aimed at teenagers.  He dismissed my idea at first, but later came to use the idea which probably helped close the gap in awareness.

I thought as an intelligent university student I could reason with voters, but there was a limit to that.  This was the beginning of my disillusionment with voters.  Very seldom could one engage in serious discussion of the issues.  Some women thought Ed Broadbent was handsome, others voted along ethnic lines with Michael Starr getting the Ukrainian vote, and some elderly women at a picnic said they were disgusted that Trudeau had invited a young woman to swim with him in a hotel pool.  At another time the local Liberals decided to hold a three riding rally at the Oshawa Shopping Centre with Trudeau making a campaign speech.  This was so popular that it created traffic problems which was given as another reason for rejecting Trudeau.

My work partner was experienced with campaigns and explained to me the effects of signs.  In one sense it was just like the soap ad effect.  When people see a lot of signs they want to hop on the bandwagon of the winner and their thinking is swayed.  On the actual voting day it is beneficial for voters to see the signs as they work their way to the ballot box.  We not only put signs up by request, but looked for public spots to boost our candidate's awareness.  Many people feel obligated to vote, but don't have the time or interest to study the issues.

The local paper had a column where readers could send in questions for the candidates who would all answer the same question.  The answers almost always fell along party lines and were careful not to offend anyone.  On one occasion our campaign manager got upset at the amount of time Des Newman took to answer a question of an elderly lady who complained she didn't have enough income to live on.  Des did a lot of research and found that there were several programs in existence to help extend her income.  The problem was that the research time cut into the hand shaking time that wins a few votes each run through.

February 24, 2022:  Responding to a current Ontario Liberal promise to institute ranked balloting I recall a conversation between the Liberal campaign manager with a close friend.  The close friend said he couldn't bring himself to vote Liberal and the campaign manager said in that case to avoid NDP taking over he should vote Conservative.  Strategic voting.  In fact the Liberals are the second choice of both Conservatives and NDP.  Very self serving, but not really giving people more choice as it would still not represent the views of all the voters.

We don't really have endless election campaigns in Canada and election day arrived.  I was not eligible to vote and asked what I could do to help.  I was told about scrutineering, for the first time.  I asked to be taken to a place where the Liberals were out numbered and they found one in what might be described as a union neighborhood.  The rules have changed, but as I recall we were able to see the names checked off for those who voted.  The vote is anonymous which afterwards I reflected on--you really couldn't tell who voted for who, except when a driver obviously affiliated with a particular party brought in some voters.  At least you thought you knew the connection. Tallying up the votes was a lengthy process, with several minor problems resolved with a consensus of opinions involving the polling staff and all of us scrutineers.

It was a momentous election.  Pierre Trudeau won a majority government with breakthroughs all over the country.  I was disappointed that Des Newman who I had come to admire personally finished third.  I didn't appreciate the significance for several years.  Ed Broadbent became the first NDP candidate to win the riding, but beat Michael Starr by only 15 votes (there was a recount).  My impact was not all that great, but I did get both my grandmother and aunt to switch their vote away from the Conservatives to the Liberals.  I would like to think all the sign work, my ad idea and the few serious discussions I had helped make the difference between the top two candidates.  Ed Broadbent went on to become the head of the Canadian federal NDP party and had a lot of illustrious accomplishments many of which I admired.  Des Newman finished about 310 votes further behind making this the closest 3 way race in Canada.  He made a gracious speech.

I attended the party afterwards and it was a downer.  I didn't feel as bad as some; after all Trudeau did get in and I didn't live in this riding. The next day I helped take down the signs.

Back at university I received a letter inviting me to join the youth wing of the Liberals and to some event.  My decision was not to get involved in a political party.  Although I was pleased the Liberals were in power I did not want to tie myself to a long list of policies that I wouldn't necessarily agree with.  My thinking was shaped by my sociology and philosophy professors at the University of Guelph and I don't regret that at all.

That was over 45 years ago and I look back at it as an educational experience.  I have retained an interest in politics, but have tried to separate myself from the mechanical aspects of getting elected to actual government policies.  Politics is a dirty business--getting elected and re-elected.

I now live in a riding that includes Hamilton downtown.  From my municipal ward we have sent the current head of the Ontario NDP party, Andrea Horvath to Queen's Park and the current mayor of Hamilton, Bob Bratina.  My daughter, Heather years ago persuaded us to support one councilor candidate with a lawn sign and we quite willingly voted for her.  On another municipal election we supported the winning mayoral candidate with another sign.  Since then we have decided not to display political signs.

I have volunteered as a poll clerk for a few elections.  The money was significant and I can appreciate the job is important for our country.  I was very impressed at how the Ontario government was trying to make it easier to vote.  They advised us volunteers how to deal with language problems, physical handicaps and even mental/emotional handicaps.  Quite a contrast to the attempts of Republican governments to restrict voting.  When voting is restricted it diminishes the credibility of the government.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/06/a-few-thoughts-on-recent-ontario.html

Lately my preference is for the Green Party after some discussions with my son Michael.  One of their problems is that under our current system they don't have much opportunity to make an impact.  I remember at one time the NDP was considered the conscience of our Parliament and from that platform accomplished lots of good things including our current health care system.  The federal Liberals had a system where each party would get $2.50 per vote after an election.  It wasn't much, but it gave the less powerful (really all) parties some independence.  The Conservatives took that away which is one of their many decisions I deplore.

My biggest concern is over the election process.  The biggest underlying problem is the uneducated voter.  None of us can understand the complexities of issues that affect our lives and so we end up trusting a big part of our lives to people we really don't know.  The education starts in school and should be strictly factual as far as how our government works.  Logic is often abused in campaigns so needs to be understood better.  Science and history are also important.  Beyond school I think the media has a responsibility which has been subverted.   The press (all media) needs to be free, but it also needs to be factual or at least transparent.

Another part of my concern is the first past the post system.  I attended one general meeting when Ontario was considering offering a proportional system to be voted upon.  One fellow got up and said that we only wanted to change the system because "our guy" didn't get in.  For myself he is at least partly right, but more than that the whole process is tainted.  Many people wrestle with their vote and end up voting for their second choice, because they fear a third party might win.  Others are so discouraged by their prospects they don't bother.  And of course many don't bother to study the issues.

Proportional voting has a few variations, but the basic idea is that every vote counts.  Under the present system there are only a very few votes that actually count--the one that puts one candidate into the leader spot.  The others might have psychological impact.  If you voted for the winner and they won by more than one vote, your vote wasn't needed.  If you voted for the loser, well you lost.  It is a  complicated issue, but basically everyone should realize their vote does make a difference and take the time to study the issues.  When the voter has real power the politicians will listen more carefully.  Dalton McGuinty mocked the results of the proportional option, during one election while he personally got something less than 40% of actual votes (and even less of eligible voters).  It only shows how ignorance can be manipulated.  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/12/your-guy-didnt-get-in.html

Over the years I have voted for at least three different parties at the provincial and federal elections and have admired politicians from different parties.  I follow American and international politics with great interest.  I accept that nobody gets into power without a lot of effort and not all that effort is completely ideal. 

The Bully Pulpit by Doris Kearns Goodwin

Theodore Roosevelt is not remembered by many today, but a study of him would open eyes.  His personality lent itself to caricature and many were merciless.  Many faults and mistakes are uncovered, but he had a driving force that overcame a lot of obstacles, many of which are prominent  today.

As with her book on Abraham Lincoln, Doris sets the context.  We are individuals moulded by our context and it makes more sense when trying to understand an historical person that their historical context be part of the story.  The Bully Pulpit pairs Theodore Roosevelt with William Howard Taft, two different personalities, but with a common political philosophy. Of course their families were important to their success, but Doris identifies another important part of the situation--journalists.

Journalists were a key part of Roosevelt's success.  There is quite a contrast with today's politics.  Roosevelt courted journalists not only to promote himself, but to get their opinions on society and the economy.  Roosevelt encouraged journalists to do exposures  of corporate abuses and felt often that was the only way for the public to overcome corrupt politicians.  Sam McClure who is covered in great depth as publisher encouraged his reporters to expose abuses in America.

How Roosevelt got to be president was unconventional.  The party bosses found him annoying because he was not sympathetic to big business abuses and kept putting him places where they felt he could do no harm.  He was police commissioner in New York and found all sorts of abuses (often by masquerading his identity and taking a reporter to check on patrolling police or slum landlords).  He became a young Governor of New York and antagonized party powers so that they arranged for him to be nominated as Vice President for the 1900 election.  In those days it was not fashionable for presidents to campaign the way they do today so Theodore did most of that and was instrumental in getting President McKinley re-elected.  As vice president he was not consulted very much nor given very much to do, but an assassin's bullet ushered Roosevelt to be the youngest President.

Once in power, Roosevelt energetically set about correcting what he saw as faults.  He felt big corporations were very abusive in their treatment of employees and customers.  At the same time he rejected socialists thinking that they would throw out the baby with the bath water.  Instead he felt regulations were the answer.  Big corporations resisted his efforts and were able to buy a lot of support from Congress, but Roosevelt tempered this by encouraging journalists to expose abuses.

Roosevelt was relatively liberal in his views, but  recognized you could only push so far.  He invited Booker T Washington, prominent black leader  to dine at the White House and was criticized for it, none the less he managed to appoint some blacks to positions.  He was an advocate for giving women the vote.

It was amazing what he could accomplish despite the opposition of big money, but he realized compromise was a step on the way to making improvements.  As a hunter and outdoors man he set up conservation areas realizing big business would take over any land they felt they could make a profit on.

He admired and befriended William Howard Taft.  Their wives were opposite in some regards.  Roosevelt's wife avoided the limelight and hated campaigns. Taft's wife discouraged her husband from pursuing what he really wanted which was a judicial appointment and pushed him to politics.  Roosevelt also pushed Taft towards politics, but twice offered him Supreme Court positions.  Taft was Governor of the Philippines and felt duty bound to help set them towards democracy. 

Taft and Roosevelt had a falling out due mainly to Roosevelt if I read Doris correctly.  Teddy, still a young man desired to have power and felt he had demonstrated he could use it to good effect.  Taft was not as charismatic, but a very intelligent ethical man.  In the end the squabble between the former friends allowed Woodrow Wilson to win the 1912 election.

In a short review there are many interesting and important details that are skimmed over.  Doris Kearns Goodwin is excellent at describing the political maneuvers of the time.  She recognized the role of journalists and has given whole chapters to describe their efforts which were inter-twined with the politics. This has been only my second reading of a Doris Kearns Goodwin book, but her writing is something to explore and look forward to.

AGE OF GREED by Jeff Madrick

"Age of Greed" reinforces my feelings of corporate conspiracies.  If you are a member of the 99% you must sometimes wonder why you are relatively poor and some others are so rich.  It is easy to  pick up on conspiracies that explain that others have played unfairly.  Really there is more to it than that, but it is sometimes comforting.  Not to relegate" Age of Greed" to weird conspiracy literature, but rather to use it as an example of how our western Capitalism works.

Jeff Madrick brings in history, starting from the 1960s' but with references further back, such as Roosevelt and the hatred of his New Deal.  Although we can become pretty disgusted with the shenanigans of today's political and economical power players, the problem goes back to human nature.

The first steps are bankers wanting to evade regulations.  Banking has always seemed a safe vocation, but not terribly exciting.  When they are able to evade, distort and change the rules banking becomes more exciting and profitable.  Risk taking increases and fraud becomes more common.

Around the 1970's a movement grew where conservative philosophers proclaimed that rich people deserve to be rich.  It was framed a little differently.  The marketplace was the tool of rationality and central government planning was disparaged.  The truth as others see it is that powerful people resent restrictions on their freedom.  They are attracted to philosophies and stories that justify their view of the world.

William Buckley,Jr. was able to articulate a conservative philosophy that was respected by other intellectuals.  Alan Greenspan, an admirer of Ayn Rand was accepted as adviser to presidents. Ronald Reagan, was able to use Hollywood looks and charm to convince many that "Government is not the solution.  Government is the problem. "  Lots of fraud artists such as  Ivan Boesky are described, but it was the philosophical and political groundwork that enabled them to prosper.

The proof that all men are not equal comes with the statistics that show productivity and wages not aligned as before.  The 1% are able to skim off what might have gone to the 99%.

One counter trend was exemplified by "In Search of Excellence" by Tom Peters who demonstrated that more money could be made by respecting and empowering the workers.  This movement had influence for awhile, but gradually waned as other forces took over.

George Soros, famous left wing sympathizer felt the markets were not rational and was able to take advantage of that amassing billions.  Herd behavior is not always predictable, but for those like George Soros who can pick out a trend overlooked by others there is an opportunity to make money. He is a man who is aware of social inequalities and has taken a good part of his fortune for progressive causes.

Eliot Spitzer, a very effective prosecutor of Wall Street abuse was put out of the picture.  It is true that his own human weaknesses brought him down from power, but it seems strange that few if any Wall Street bigwigs suffered from the financial shenanigans that led to disaster.

Inequality starts when someone is able to use leverage to gain an advantage.  At the same time that is the advice we are often given.  Save money, make a deposit on a house, borrow some money and wait for the price to go up.  Saving and risking can be virtues, but at some point some people are able to manipulate finances for their benefit, but to the detriment of others.  Finances do serve many valuable causes, but if they are not regulated problems can and do result.

Recently one story that caught my eye is from Tennessee.  As I understand it, Volkswagen with a history and comfort level with unions agreed to a vote of the workers to form a union.  Senator Corker announced that it would endanger expansion in Tennessee.  Volkswagen has denied  that an expansion decision would hinge on the vote results.  It does seem that part of the power structure resists any strengthening of weaker elements.

If you would like to learn more of Jeff's thoughts visit his website at:  http://www.jeffmadrick.com/

TRIPLE PACKAGE: A USEFUL STUDY IN GROUP DYNAMICS

This book has been discussed in many quarters and it seemed the authors Amy Chua and Jed Rosenfeld (a married couple) were often fighting the charge of being racist.  In fact they were discussing group dynamics and identifying what groups were most successful.  Why one group grabbed onto the success factors while others didn't is the result of a lot of history.  The dynamics are limited in many ways and naturally tend to change.

The groups they chose to explain their theories are ethnic centric and as such are not only normal, but illustrative of general principles.  When stereotypical behaviours are pointed out it only reinforces racist images to some people, but the explanations are important because they do apply to other groups.

If you read this book you are likely to gain a better understanding of group dynamics that lead to success and like the authors be able to point out examples.  There certainly are exceptions and the same dynamics have and will apply to other groups.  The authors admit that individuals can encompass the Triple Package.  Amy and Jed, also were able to identify and analyze some of the dynamics of (financially) unsuccessful groups such as Amish and Appalachians.

The  main immigrant groups studied are Asians, Nigerians, Jews, Iranians, Lebanese, Cubans and Mormons.  There are trends within these groups that they also examine.  The three factors are: superiority complex, insecurity and impulse control.  It may seem that the first two are contradictory, but not really.  For instance it is common for groups to feel pride in their ancestral past, but also recognize they are not respected in the present.  Impulse control does not necessarily require the first two factors, but they often contribute to the motive for impulse control.

The three factors have a downside and in reality seldom last more than to the third generation.  The downsides include arrogance, neuroses, and the inability to live in the present.  They can propel people to great success, but immigrants normally sooner or later assimilate and enjoy the fruits of their success.  A common phenomenon is that the grandchildren of self made millionaires are often happy to spend the money, but not interested in duplicating the effort that created the wealth, regardless of ethnic background.

One trend that counters the Triple Package was the self esteem movement.  Instead of prodding youngsters to do better it was considered better to build their self esteem by avoiding criticism or high expectations.  A strong current trend is towards instant gratification.  Today's youngsters and even those not so young get frustrated if they have to wait more than a few seconds for a response after a keyboard click.  The authors contend that these trends have contributed to financial bubbles and the increase in national debt.

The Triple Package is more critical to upward mobility than intelligence.  Many observers feel that Jews and Chinese are just more intelligent (arguably a racist assumption), but the authors cite studies that debunk that notion.  The superiority complex and the insecurity drive hard work and demand strong impulse control.

Impulse control is being recognized as a key factor in success.  A famous study was done with young children and marshmallows.  They would be offered a marshmallow and told that if they could wait a few minutes they would get another marshmallow.  Most youngsters couldn't wait and when they were visited many years later it was learned those who were able to wait were more successful by most measures.  A more modern study delved deeper into the issue.  This time youngsters divided into two groups:  one was promised something exciting and it was followed up while the other group's promise was not followed up.  Those who had promises fulfilled were more trusting and waited for the second marshmallow.  Essentially this was another proof that impulse control can be developed.

Many years ago I read an earlier book of Amy Chua's,  "World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability."   For many people it also seemed racist but I believe it also just explained group dynamics in a way that made the world more understandable.  In many third world countries minorities often become dominant and are resented by the majority. Democracy can sometimes exacerbate the situation.  The two books illustrate how frustration can get tied into racist excuses, but if you understand the dynamics, the reality is much deeper.

GLENN FORD, FORGOTTEN MOVIE STAR FROM CANADA

Most young people have not heard of Glenn Ford, unless by stretching the definition of young they remember a small bit in "Superman."  He was also forgotten by me until I stumbled on a DVD from the local library that launched an effort to see more.  Many of his movies were part of my youth, but as I shifted to colour a lot of the black and white classics seemed less interesting.  Although born in Quebec in 1916, Glenn moved to California as an eight year old and was not a staunch Canadian.

What did I like about him?  Basically a quiet masculinity.  He played mostly good guys, but occasionally bad.  He did demonstrate versatility, not always playing himself.  Having said that, like many actors he had a persona that was consistent and perhaps it was  the real reason he attracted attention.

His first big success was "Gilda'" in 1946 with Rita Hayworth.  I read somewhere that a photo of Rita from this movie was part of the plot for "The Shawshank Redemption."

Shortly after he appeared in "A Stolen Life" with Bette Davis who played two roles that demonstrated her acting ability.  In "The Big Heat" he played a crusading cop who eventually came out on top.  A young Lee Marvin played the villain.

"Blackboard Jungle" was a movie I watched with my father on tv. It was also probably the first time I had seen Sidney Poitier who left an impression.  Apparently this movie generated some hate mail due to Poitier's sympathetic role.  Glenn played a novice teacher who had to deal with some difficult to control teenagers.  One of the first movies to show how rough classrooms can be.

"Jubal" is the movie that started this project.  Jealousy and deliberate misleading were the key elements. Ernest Borgnine and Rod Steiger were major co-stars.  Peter Ford commented that his father did not appreciate method acting and was annoyed at some of the preparations made by Steiger.   It was a well done movie or it might have killed my project.

"Teahouse of the August Moon" was not at all what I expected.  Hammy in some ways, but had a point.  Marlon Brando also in a role I would not associate with him.  Eddie Albert, Paul Ford and Harry Morgan all future tv characters took part.

"3:10 to Yuma" was a good movie with lots of tension.  Originally Glenn - was offered the good guy role eventually given to Van Heflin.  Glenn preferred to accept the bad guy role.  At one point Glenn is whistling to annoy his captor and we later learn that he was whistling the movie theme.   Story from Elmore Leonard.

"Pocketful of Miracles" was another movie with Bette Davis, but quite different from the earlier one.  Hope Lange played the romantic interest.  This was a comedy with lots of familiar character actors, Thomas Mitchell, Edward Everett Horton.  Peter Falk who went on to better things had a strong supporting role.  Ann-Margaret was introduced.  Glenn won a Golden Globe award.

"The Courtship of Eddie's Father" was still another comedy.  Ron Howard now a well regarded director played the cute Eddie.  It was funny, but very realistic.  Glenn played a flustered father with personal issues.  Shirley Jones, Dina Merrill and Stella Stevens played the three women that got Glenn's attention.

"The Rounders" with Henry Fonda was according to son Peter, Glenn's favorite role.  It was meant to be a fun movie, not profound and I guess it achieved that level.  For my horse loving friends this was not exactly like the Horse Whisperer.  Glenn loved westerns and his son told us that he had learned horsemanship from Will Rogers

I rounded off this project by re-watching "Superman"' to view Glenn in about two minutes screening as the adoptive father.  Another movie combining Marlon Brando and Glenn Ford.

It can be a letdown to realize the person on the screen is not the real person.   I was disappointed to learn Glenn Ford had many affairs and that he worked with Ronald Reagan's election campaigns.  He did voluntarily serve in the US military, but not in combat.  Married to Eleanor Powell who at the time was more famous than him.  They had one child, Peter who became a biographer and supplied some information for this blog in a DVD special feature.   He went on to marry three other women and divorced them all with no other children.  He made the top 10 Hollywood list of popularity in 1956 and 1958 and topped the list in 1959.  I still enjoyed his movies.

The Art of Doing

Like many of us, the authors, Camille Sweeney and Josh Gosfield were trying to figure out the way to success.  They were able to contact a number of successful people and convince them to tell us how they did it. A wide variety of success stories in such fields as tennis, baseball, business, wine growing, music.  Going off standard success stories they also included marijuana, erotic movies for women, dog training, television game shows, blog writing, big game hunting.  The variety chosen illustrates there is more than one way to succeed.  Many of the subjects were allowed to express themselves in crude, but easily understandable ways.

Success can be measured in many ways, most easily in terms of money or ranking.  In this book success meant being at the top, or near the top for a chosen endeavor.  For me a lot of the fields would not be of strong interest, but the critical factor is that each field was important to the teller and how they got to the top or near the top had significant common denominators as well as a strong effort.

Given a different set of successful contributors you would have gotten different details, but I suspect the general themes would be similar.  The underlying factor was that each person felt a unique calling to conquer a particular field.  Monetary profit was not the primary driving factor.  A motivating spur was just to do it better.

In order to do that the authors use the phrase that they all had" intelligent persistence."  That doesn't mean that you need to keep banging your head on the proverbial wall, but when an obstacle is insurmountable you are ready to pivot to a new and strategic effort.  There are sure to be setbacks, but they help to redirect efforts.

The successful ones are all good listeners.  Other people have made similar efforts or are able to take an objective view of the challenges and can help steer someone in a more practical direction.  Taking the time to really listen is an important key to understanding the choices to be made.

They are able to compact their strategies into story form.  A lot of statistics and facts can overwhelm someone you are trying to explain yourself too, but a well thought out story can make a point much more quickly and understandably.  A lot of the stories are very interesting, maybe especially in fields not commonly written about.

Nobody succeeded all by themselves, despite what Mitt Romney supporters might tell you.  Each of the success stories involved support from family, friends and colleagues.

One quote I want to remember is from E. L Doctorow (not one of the subjects).  "Writing is like driving a car at night.  You only see as far as the headlights go, but you can make the whole trip that way."  It seems that we can not always see the end of our efforts, but if we keep going we get a better vision as we go forward.

The chapters are all short and to the point.  The variety means you will likely identify with some more than others, but if you pay close attention you will realize there are many niches out there that you can strive in to not only be successful, but also to give your life more meaning.