First Friday Book Synopsis

"…like CliffNotes on steroids…"

Twyla Tharp and Steve Jobs – (There are Good Tough Bosses and Bad Tough Bosses…)

Everybody probably has a bad boss horror story or two.  And there are some genuine horror stories out there.

But, there are good bad tough bosses and bad tough bosses.  What is the difference?  One difference may be this:  is the boss tough because the end result is worth all the coaching, coaxing, demonstrating, demanding, until the people get it right?

I think Steve Jobs and Twyla Tharp are two great exemplars of this kind of tough boss.

Twyla Tharp:

I recently ran across this wonderful 2006 article about the Kennedy Center Honoree Twyla Tharp, To Dance Beneath the Diamond Skies by Alex Witchel.  Here are some key excerpts:

But it is probably time to say this: There was not a person in that theater, including the 19 performers, musicians and production staff, who did not admire Tharp. Those new to her are scared of her, those used to her are over her, because they know that behind the barking lies a devotion to them, to the work — always, always the work — that is religious in its fervor. Yes, she is a control freak, a perfectionist, a zealot in forming a vision and stopping at nothing to see it realized. But when it is realized, when her dances are good-better-best, flying off the stage like some biblical fire on a mountaintop, there is nothing in the world like them. Twenty-three years ago, Robert Joffrey said that Tharp’s work “didn’t look like anyone else’s.” It still doesn’t.

“There is nothing in the world like them.”  The end result may just be worth the cost it took to get there.  She simply made the best better.  And she also made the “average” much better than ever before.  In her book, The Collaborative Habit, Tharp wrote:

As a choreographer, my task is to make the best possible work with the dancers I find in the room on any given day. 

This is simply the greatest description of the day-to-day work of being the boss I have ever read.  It is the job of the boss (manager, supervisor) to make the best possible work with the people in the room, on the team, at any given time.

By the way, there is a wonderful story in the article about the time Twyla Tharp had to show Baryshnikov how it needed to be done:

Huot sat at one of the computers and played footage of Baryshnikov in rehearsal.  “What’s that?” Tharp asked shortly.  “This is the one where he can’t do what you do,” Huot said, his tone gently teasing. “It’s your favorite thing in the world, which is why I kept it for you.” On the tape, Baryshnikov held a cigarette, shirtless, as Tharp demonstrated the steps. Hers were vivid, crisp. His were blurry, indistinct. Impatiently, she showed him again. He turned away.

“That’s right, go pout,” Tharp said mockingly to the screen. The next shots were of him in performance, his steps breathtaking. “Yeah, he got it,” Tharp said.

She knew how to do the steps; she demonstrated the steps, and she pushed Baryshnikov until he “got it.”

…To be a Tharp dancer is to master complex, intricate movements and steps that can defy gravity — in 1975 Baryshnikov told The Times: “It is very difficult to learn her steps.. . .One variation alone took me three weeks to learn, working a few hours every day.”

Steve Jobs:

Regarding Jobs, the stories are endless, and somewhat legendary.  He certainly could be something of a world-class pain to work with.  But, he too could bring out the very best in people – more than they knew they had in them.  Consider these revealing excerpts from the Walter Isaacson book, Steve Jobs:

For all of his obnoxious behavior, Jobs also had the ability to instill in his team an esprit de corps. After tearing people down, he would find ways to lift them up and make them feel that being part of the Macintosh project was an amazing mission. Every six months he would take most of his team on a two-day retreat at a nearby resort.

Jobs had latched onto what he believed was a key management lesson from his Macintosh experience: You have to be ruthless if you want to build a team of A players. “It’s too easy, as a team grows, to put up with a few B players, and they then attract a few more B players, and soon you will even have some C players,” he recalled. “The Macintosh experience taught me that A players like to work only with other A players, which means you can’t indulge B players.”

“What I’m best at doing is finding a group of talented people and making things with them,” he told the magazine.

Business Week asked him why he treated employees so harshly, Jobs said it made the company better.

…and his great talent, Jobs said, was to “get A performances out of B players.” At Apple, Jobs told him, he would get to work with A players.

The literature about leadership is pretty unanimous about this key role a leader plays.  In Liz Wiseman’s book, Multipliers, she writes that the leader has to “multiply” the good effects of the workers, and never diminish them.  A good leader “multiplies’ the results of the workers he/she leads.  In Kouzes and Pozner’s Encouraging the Heart, they argue that for people to be their best, they must be encouraged, in their hearts, by the one who leads them.  And when they are so encouraged, they become more productive, actually better at their jobs.

Whatever Twyla Tharp and Steve Jobs had, or did, it worked.  They both developed quite a track record of bringing out the very best in the people who worked for them.  (Of course, Twyla Tharp is still at it…).

If you are a leader, this is the test, isn’t it?  Are you making your people better?  Are you pushing them to do more than they even knew they could do?  Are you making the average much better, and the best even better still?

If not, you’ve got some leadership skills to develop.

Sunday, May 6, 2012 Posted by | Randy's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

We Need More Good Stories, with Fewer Simple Chronicles

You might not realize it, but you are a creature of an imaginative realm called Neverland.  Neverland is your home, and before you die, you will spend decades there. 
Jonathan Gottschall, The Storytelling Animal:  How Stories Make Us Human

If you say, “The queen died, and the king died,” that is a chronicle.
If you say, “The queen died, and the king died, from grief,” that is a story.  (Joe Lambert and Nina Mullen, drawing from E. M. Forster).
Bob Johansen:  Get There Early:  Sensing the Future to Compete in the Present

———-

I heard Krys Boyd on KERA interview Jonathan Gottschall about his book, The Storytelling Animal.  (Krys is a great interviewer).  And I remembered the brief description of the difference between a chronicle and a story from Get There Early.

We care about stories.  We learn from stories.  We place ourselves within stories, because we all know that every story, is, in some way, our own story.  Last night I watched House.  Wilson has cancer.  A very close friend of my wife has cancer.  The fictional story is her story – our story.  You know…

Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.  
(John Donne, For Whom the Bell Tolls)

In the interview, Gottschall observed that stories always include two elements:  some form of dilemma, and some form of resolution.  It is the old “problem-solution” formula for persuasion.  And when a story is told well, it always makes us stop and ask:  “What is my dilemma?  Can I find a way out; a solution; a resolution that works for me, and hopefully for others?”

I read a lot of nonfiction books — but, sadly, too little fiction.  Gottschall observed in the interview that people who expose themselves to more fiction have an easier time interacting with others.  They are more socially connected; better connected.  And, thankfully, he reminded us that stories preceded printed books, so maybe I get almost enough fiction from my favorite television shows.  I guarantee that, in House alone, there is enough dilemma and conflict to last a while.

In my own reading, I have come to realize that the best nonfiction writers are, in fact, superior story tellers.  I think this explains the popularity of Malcolm Gladwell, and why I have so warmed to The Power of Habit and Imagine just recently.  They are both written by superior story tellers  (Charles Duhigg and Jonah Lehrer).  Books that are principle-rich and story-poor just aren’t quite as engaging or gripping.  Or insightful.

And I think it is why I remember some books I read years ago more than others.  David Halberstam is always at the top of my list, because he was such a wonderful story teller.

In the realm of organizational culture, story plays a major role.  To build corporate culture, to build corporate strength, to build a true community, tell the stories of your organization.  Yes, tell the good stories, the stories of success — but tell especially the “struggle” stories.  “This is what we faced.  This is how we overcame it.”  A well-told struggle story can help a current struggle seem not quite so overwhelming.

We love a good story.  And, it turns out, we need a steady dose of good stories.

—————

Good stories move us. They touch us, they teach us, and they cause us to remember.  They enable the listener to put the behavior in a real context and understand what has to be done in that context to live up to expectations. 
…storytelling is the ultimate leadership tool.   (Elizabeth Weil).
James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Pozner:  Encouraging the Heart — A Leaders Guide to Rewarding and Encouraging Others

Tuesday, May 1, 2012 Posted by | Randy's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Cory Weismann, two Coaches, and a Story Told by Frank Deford

We lead by being human. We do not lead by being corporate, professional, or institutional.  (Paul G. Hawken, founder, Smith and Hawken)
Quoted by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Pozner — Encouraging the Heart:  A Leaders Guide to Rewarding and Encouraging Others

————–

Frank Deford

A suggestion – stop what you are doing and listen to this segment on NPR’s Morning Editon by Frank Deford:  When There’s More To Winning Than Winning.   (audio, plus transcript, available here).  (Frank Deford’s commentaries are consistnegly great treasures).

Here’s how he starts:

When last we left the NCAA, it was February madness, colleges were jumping conferences, suing each other, coaches were claiming rivals had cheated in recruiting — the usual nobility of college sports.
And then, in the midst of all this, the men’s basketball team at Washington College of Chestertown, Md., journeyed to Pennsylvania to play Gettysburg College in a Division III Centennial Conference game.
It was senior night, and the loudest cheers went to Cory Weissman, No. 3, 5 feet 11 inches, a team captain — especially when he walked out onto the court as one of Gettysburg’s starting five.
Yes, he was a captain, but it was, you see, the first start of his college career. Cory had played a few minutes on the varsity as a freshman, never even scoring. But then, after that season, although he was only 18 years old, he suffered a major stroke. He was unable to walk for two weeks. His whole left side was paralyzed. He lost his memory, had seizures.

The story is one that will stop you in your tracks.  It is a about a basketball coach, and another basketball coach, and a group of players, who remembered that being human was more important than anything else.

Cory had worked so very hard — to walk, to run, to participate in the pre-game drills.  But he was far from being a college-level basketball player after his stroke.

On the last game of his last season, the coach started Cory Weissman.  He played just a few moments.  But what moments!

And then, at the end of the game, with the game fully decided, the coach put him back in the game.  The other team’s coach called time out, and asked his players to intentionally foul Cory to give him a shot, a chance to score a point from the free throw line.

Shot number two:  The ball left his hand and flew true – swish, all net.

Deford ended with this:

The assistant vice president for athletics at Gettysburg, David Wright, wrote to Washington College: “Your coach, Rob Nugent, along with his staff and student-athletes, displayed a measure of compassion that I have never witnessed in over 30 years of involvement in intercollegiate athletics.”
Cory Weissman had made a point. Washington College had made an even larger one.

“We lead by being human.”  Yes, we do.

Cory Weismann -- "The ball left his hand and flew true - swish, all net."

Thursday, February 23, 2012 Posted by | Randy's blog entries | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“The Story Needs A Great Storyteller” – Alan Rickman (Severus Snape) Reminds Us Of The Centrality of Story

Severus Snape (Alan Rickman)

It is an ancient need to be told stories.  But the story needs a great storyteller.  Thanks for all of it, Jo.
Alan Rickman, speaking to/of Jo Rowling, shortly after his “final moments” as Severus Snape

————

There’s a letter making the rounds.  Alan Rickman wrote it, and put it in a full-page ad in Empire to say his very sweet good-bye.

In Encouraging the Heart, Kouzes and Posner write:

Marshall McLuhan is reported to have said, “Those who think there’s a difference between education and entertainment don’t know the first thing about either one.” 
Good stories move us. They touch us, they teach us, and they cause us to remember.  They enable the listener to put the behavior in a real context and understand what has to be done in that context to live up to expectations.

We need more, a lot more!, good communication going on in the corporate world.  This is a really nice reminder that story – good storytelling – is at the heart of all good communication.

Here’s the full letter:

 

Click on letter for full view


Sunday, June 19, 2011 Posted by | Randy's blog entries | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When the Person at the Top is a Jerk – a lesson from Aaron Sorkin’s Sports Night (Casey Learns the Names)

Honored and not diminished.  That’s how we all want to feel.
James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Pozner, Encouraging the Heart: A Leaders Guide to Rewarding and Encouraging Others

—–

I have probably presented my synopsis of Encouraging the Heart by Kouzes and Posner more than any other book synopsis.  (I presented this again at a conference this week).  It is the “perfect book,” the best book I have read for building people, for knowing what to do to help people get better at their work.  The subtitle says it well Encouraging the Heart:  A Leaders Guide to Rewarding and Encouraging Others.

There is so much great value in the book, but here is one point that is crystal clear, and critically important — a leader has to notice, to pay attention, to give credit, in order to successfully and effectively encourage others.

Recently, I thought of a scene from one of my all-time favorite tv shows, Sports Night, that reinforces a critical lesson from this book.  It was the first television show created by academy award winner Aaron Sorkin (he later created The West Wing and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. He won his academy award for The Social Network).  Many still believe that Sports Night was his greatest work.

One of the characters is Casey McCall (Peter Krause), something of a self-absorbed jerk…  In this particular clip, you can see his flaws – flaws close to deadly for a man in such a top position on a team:

1)    He is totally self-centered.

2)    He is oblivious – oblivious to practically all other folks around him  He does not see their value; he does not acknowledge their gifts or skills; he does not share the credit.(in fact, he does not give the credit where the credit belongs).  In fact, he simply does not see them.

3)    And he is “deaf” – he will not listen, and seemingly can not hear.

So how do you solve a problem like Casey?  You create a “stasis moment” – you bring him to a standstill, a moment when he is slapped in the face with the reality of his own self-centeredness.

Enter the brave, brilliant, Monica (Janel Moloney).  She confronts Casey in an assertive, yet humble, moment as she acts as a champion of others — teaching him a valuable lesson, in just the right way.

If you lead a team, or serve as a leader of manager, this is a great video excerpt to watch.  A clip is worth a few thousand words.  Take a look.  (it is just over 6 and a half minutes.  It is worth the look).

• here’s the key moment, from the script (it’s from a truly wonderful episode, The Six Southern Gentlemen of Tennessee):

MONICA
My name’s Monica. I’m the assistant
wardrobe supervisor for Sports Night
as well as two other shows here at
CSC. I think you hurt the feelings of
the woman I work for. Her name is
Maureen and she’s been working here
since the day you started.

CASEY
I know Maureen.

MONICA
Can I ask you another question?

CASEY
I’m sorry I didn’t know your name.

MONICA
(HOLDING UP A NECKTIE) Do you know
what color this is?

CASEY
It’s grey.

MONICA
It’s called gun metal. Grey has more
ivory in it, gun metal has more blue.
Can you tell me which of these shirts
you should wear it with?

CASEY
I don’t know.

MONICA
No you don’t. There’s no reason why
you should. You’re not supposed to
know what shirt goes with what suit or
how a color in a necktie can pick up
your eyes. You’re not expected to know
what’s going to clash with what Dan’s
wearing or what pattern’s gonna bleed
when Dave changes the lighting. Mr.
McCall, you get so much attention and
so much praise for what you actually
do, and all of it’s deserved. When you
go on a talk-show and get complimented
on something you didn’t, how hard
would it be to say “That’s not me.
That’s a woman named Maureen who’s
been working for us since the first
day. It’s Maureen who dresses me every
night, and without Maureen, I wouldn’t
know gun metal from a hole in the
ground.” Do you have an idea what it
wouldn’ve meant to her? Do you have any
idea how many times she would’ve
played that tape for her husband and
her kids?
(BEAT) I know this is when it starts
to get busy for you, and I hope I
didn’t take up too much of your time.
Please don’t tell Maureen I spoke to
you, she’d be pretty mad at me.

——-

You can purchase my synopsis of Encouraging the Heart, with audio + handout, at our companion web site, 15minutebusinessbooks.com.

Saturday, April 2, 2011 Posted by | Randy's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

One Size Fits All; Right?! – Not Any More (Motivation 3.0 Has Arrived)

One Size Fits All; Right?! – Not Any More.  This is true in so many ways.  And one way is “motivation.”  In the old days, the days that Daniel Pink calls Motivation 2.0, motivation was simple.  Carrots and sticks. Going back to the days of Frederick Winslow Taylor:

You simply rewarded the behavior you sought and punished the behavior you discouraged.  The way to improve performance, increase productivity, and encourage excellence is to reward the good and punish the bad.  Rewarding an activity will get you more of it.  Punishing an activity will get you less of it.

But we have now moved into the new era of Motivation 3.0.  This is the premise of the book DRiVE:  The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us by Daniel H. Pink.  For much of the working population, we still need to use the carrot & stick/rewards approach.  In fact, Karl, my colleague at the First Friday Book Synopsis, presented a synopsis of the practical book, Make Their Day:  Employee Recognition that Works by Cindy Ventrice.  One key piece of advice is this:  “recognize unique contributions with personalized recognition.” And the book has tangible ways to make this work to maximum effect.  This is common, common-sense advice.  (It is also a critical part of the plan recommended in the terrific book Encouraging the Heart by Kouzes and Posner).

But, for the newest “heuristic” workers (Pink’s term), there must be a new understanding of and approach to motivation.  Here is my attempt to summarize the key findings in Pink’s book:

The Three Elements

Of Motivation 3.0

What This Might Mean/

Might Look Like

Autonomy:  a renaissance of self-direction “ROWE” – Results Only Work Environment – everyone is/has to be/wants to be a self-starting, self-directing person
Mastery: the desire to get better and better at something that matters (only engagement leads to mastery) (to learn, to create, to better the world) Individuals always keep learning.  With deliberate practice.  (the 10,000 hour rule, with deliberate practice — deep, deepening abilities)
Purpose:  very simply, doing something that matters because it should matter; something done in the service of something larger than ourselves Either have a product/service that matters; or, provide “work time” to do something that matters…

And here is Pink’s own “twitter length” summary of his book:

“Carrots & sticks are so last century.  Drive says for 21st century work, we need to upgrade to autonomy, mastery, & purpose.”

Who should read the Pink book?  If you work alone, and you have to be your own self-starting, self-directed worker, you should read it.  If the people you supervise are heuristic workers, you should read it.

And what is a heuristic job – any job that requires creativity, any job that creates something “new.”  From the book:

Working as a grocery checkout clerk is mostly algorithmic.  You do pretty much the same thing over and over in a certain way.  Creating an ad campaign is mostly heuristic.  You have to come up with something new…

Whatever your own job, you should read it.  Because, more and more, you will have to rely on internal/intrinsic motivation.  Because, in my opinion, “carrots and sticks” will slowly disappear from the scene.  Because, to quote Pink again:

…in today’s environment, people have to be ever more self-directed.  “If you need me to motivate you, I probably won’t hire you.”

—————————-

{To watch Dan Pink speaking on the key principles found in this book, from a recent Ted Conference, go here).

(I presented my synopsis of Drive this morning at the First Friday Book Synopsis. The two synopses from this morning will be available soon, with audio + handout, at our companion web site, 15minutebusinessbooks.com.  And, Encouraging the Heart is available on the site now).

Friday, June 4, 2010 Posted by | Randy's blog entries | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

And, yet – in the midst of hard and honest truths, we all need to be encouraged

Honored and not diminished. That’s how we all want to feel.
James M. Kouzes & Barry Z. Pozner, Encouraging the Heart:  A Leaders Guide to Rewarding and Encouraging Others

discourage: verb. To deprive of confidence, hope, or spirit.
encourage:  verb. To inspire with hope, courage, or confidence; hearten.

discourage: dishearten.
encourage: hearten.

I don’t remember the source, but years ago, I heard an interview with a laid off auto worker.  His plant was being shut down. He said something like this:  “I did everything right.  I worked hard.  I never missed a day of work.  I was promoted.  I did what they told me to do.  And now…,” and then he trailed off.

He sounded…  disheartened.

There really are forces beyond the control of many individual workers.  And of all the things I sense about today’s work environment, fear is seemingly omnipresent, and growing greater.  People are worried about their jobs, their careers, their futures, their mortgages, their children’s future…  It is a tough time.

So, I thought about the terrific book I read and first presented years ago, Encouraging the Heart.  But I did not just think of the content, though it is excellent.  I thought of the title itself.  I thought of the need of the hour – and I think that need is the need for encouragement.  People are discouraged, disheartened.  And they need to be heartened.

Whatever else a leader brings to his or her workers, encouragement needs to be at the top of the list.

Do you lead people?  Are you encouraging them – or discouraging them?

Here’s how I worded it in my introduction for my presentation for Encouraging the Heart:

we all need to be encouraged to do our best. Literally — we need to be encouraged; we need to receive encouragement, in order to do our best.

And this much is clear — no leader should ever do any discouraging.  There will be more than enough discouragement coming from other sources…

Saturday, February 27, 2010 Posted by | Randy's blog entries | , , | Leave a comment

“Knowledge is Out, Focus is in” – or maybe, how will books differ from what is accessible through the “internet?”

Let’s think about/talk about how we learn.

I recently gave a synopsis of The Black Swan for a major corporate client.  One person said after the session, “This was really interesting.  But I’m not sure how I’m supposed to use this.”  He was describing what I would say is the difference between a “practical” book vs. a “big picture/let’s think” book.

Which kind is more important to read?

Well, if you have not mastered a skill, then you need a “this is how you do it” book.  Something like Encouraging the Heart on how to treat and build people who report to you at work, or The Tyranny of E-mail to provide concrete suggestions on how to handle your e-mail come to mind.  These are what I would call “read once and you’ve got it” books.  You might refer back to them for reference.  They are valuable, helpful, practical books.  But increasingly, we live in a world where a gigantic ever-available library of “this is how to do stuff” is ready to be accessed at a minutes notice on the/through the internet.

The other books are the “big picture/let’s think” books.  That’s where The Black Swan, much of Malcolm Gladwell, and other authors fit in.  You don’t know what to “do” after reading such books.  But you have a bigger world-view, and you may just think bigger picture after reading such books.

I thought about this after reading a brief post by Andrew Sullivan: The Age Of External Memory:

David Dalrymple finds that “filtering, not remembering, is the most important skill” in the digital age:
Before the Internet, most professional occupations required a large body of knowledge, accumulated over years or even decades of experience. But now, anyone with good critical thinking skills and the ability to focus on the important information can retrieve it on demand from the Internet, rather than her own memory. On the other hand, those with wandering minds, who might once have been able to focus by isolating themselves with their work, now often cannot work without the Internet, which simultaneously furnishes a panoply of unrelated information — whether about their friends’ doings, celebrity news, limericks, or millions of other sources of distraction. The bottom line is that how well an employee can focus might now be more important than how knowledgeable he is. Knowledge was once an internal property of a person, and focus on the task at hand could be imposed externally, but with the Internet, knowledge can be supplied externally, but focus must be forced internally.

Sullivan is quoting from this piece:  KNOWLEDGE IS OUT, FOCUS IS IN, AND PEOPLE ARE EVERYWHERE, by David Dalrymple Researcher, MIT Mind Machine Project.  Dalyrymple begins with this:

Filtering, not remembering, is the most important skill for those who use the Internet. The Internet immerses us in a milieu of information — not for almost 20 years has a Web user read every available page — and there’s more each minute: Twitter alone processes hundreds of tweets every second, from all around the world, all visible for anyone, anywhere, who cares to see. Of course, the majority of this information is worthless to the majority of people. Yet anything we care to know — what’s the function for opening files in Perl? how far is it from Hong Kong to London? what’s a power law? — is out there somewhere.
I see today’s Internet as having three primary, broad consequences: 1) information is no longer stored and retrieved by people, but is managed externally, by the Internet, 2) it is increasingly challenging and important for people to maintain their focus in a world where distractions are available anywhere, and 3) the Internet enables us to talk to and hear from people around the world effortlessly.

Dalyrymple’s point is about the accessing of knowledge, which will become easier and more omnipresent, so that the time will come when a person might do the equivalent of “think” a question, and the answer becomes instantly available.  The how of that is beyond my puny mind to think about.

But this is what I do think about.  What kinds of books will people read?  I think they will read books that do not have parallel content in quick grabs of knowledge through the internet/technology of the era.

So – maybe his phrase describes it partially: knowledge is out, focus is in.  But thinking will also be in, and thinking may be facilitated by fewer “practical” books and more “big picture/let’s think” books.

What do you think?

—–

Important footnote:  The Dalrymple piece is part of a page at the World Question Center, How Has The Internet Changed The Way You Think? Check out (the) Alan Alda’s piece about actual conversation (you know, with “tone of voice” possible) vs. the internet.  An excerpt from Alda:

In email, there’s no instant modulation of the voice that can correct a wrong tone as there is on the phone, and even though I avoid irony when emailing anyone who’s not a professional comedian or amateur curmudgeon, I sometimes have to send a second note to un-miff someone. This can be a problem with any written communication, of course, but email, Web postings, and texting all tempt us with speed. And that speed can cost us clarity. This is not so good because, increasingly, we communicate quickly, without the…  modulating voice…
Somehow, we need what taking our time used to give us: thinking before we talk and questioning before we believe.

I have a hunch I will get lost in this web site a few more times…  Interesting!

Monday, January 18, 2010 Posted by | Randy's blog entries | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 307 other followers

%d bloggers like this: