I was reading a recent New Yorker and what should I come to but a Malcolm Gladwell article. With the same spirit that leads us to gawk at car crashes, I read it.
I gotta give Gladwell some credit for misdirection on this one. It was an article about corporate executive and financial fraudster Jack Welch, and in the magazine’s the table of contents the article was listed as, “General Electric’s legendary C.E.O.” The article itself was titled, “Severance: Jack Welch was the most admired C.E.O. of his day. Have we learned the right lessons from him.” And, right near the beginning of the article is the Gladwellesque line, “The great C.E.O.’s have an instinct for where to turn in a crisis, and Welch knew whom to call.”
“The great C.E.O.’s” . . . nice one! But then, as the article goes on, Gladwell ultimately gives it an anti-Welch spin, arguing that the famously ruthless executive had no values. An interesting twist, actually. As I said, a nice bit of misdirection, which the New Yorker kinda ruined in its online edition by changing the title to, “Was Jack Welch the Greatest C.E.O. of His Day—or the Worst? As the head of General Electric, he fired people in vast numbers and turned the manufacturing behemoth into a financial house of cards. Why was he so revered?” Kind of gives the game away, no?
“But shouldn’t we prefer these outside delusions . . .”
What really jumped out at me when reading this article, though, was not the details about Welch—some guy who had a talent for corporate infighting and was willing to cheat to get what he wanted—but this bit from Gladwell:
It has become fashionable to deride today’s tech C.E.O.s for their grandiose ambitions: colonizing Mars, curing all human disease, digging a world-class tunnel. But shouldn’t we prefer these outsized delusions to the moral impoverishment of Welch’s era?
This is horrible in so many ways.
First, there’s the empty, tacky, “It has become fashionable” framing. I can just imagine this dude when Copernicus came out with his ideas. “It has become fashionable to say that the Earth goes around the Sun. But . . .” Or, during the mid-twentieth century, “It has become fashionable to claim that cigarette smoking causes cancer. But . . .” Or, more recently, “It has become fashionable to claim that university officials should take responsibility when children are being sexually abused on campus. But . . .” Or, “It has become fashionable to argue that planes take off into the wind. But . . .”
I absolutely detest when writers take an idea they disagree with and label it as “fashionable,” as if it makes them adorable rogues to take the other side. What next, a hot take that Knives Out was really a bad movie? After all, it sold a lot of tickets and the critics loved it. It’s “fashionable,” right? Let me, right here, stake out the contrarian position that a take can be unfashionable, contrarian, and dumb.
And then the three examples: “colonizing Mars, curing all human disease, digging a world-class tunnel.” Which one does not belong, huh?
– “Colonizing Mars” may never happen, and it might be a bad idea even if it could happen (to the extent that such a hugely expensive project would take resources away from more pressing concerns), but it’s undeniably cool, and it’s bold. OK, the concept of colonizing Mars isn’t so bold—it’s century-old science fiction—but to actually do it, yeah, that would be awesome.
– “Curing all human disease”: that would be absolutely wonderful. I can only assume it’s an impossible goal, but it would be amazing to get just part of the way there, and there’s no logical reason that some progress can’t me made. I can see how this would appeal to a tech C.E.O., or to just about anyone.
– “Digging a world-class tunnel” . . . Huh? That’s not much of an ambition at all! World-class tunnels already exist! It’s hardly an “outsized delusion” to want to do this. All you need is a pile of money and a right-of-way. But . . . when referring to a “world-class tunnel” Gladwell couldn’t possibly be referring to this public relations stunt, could he?
Anyway, kind of revealing that he puts digging a tunnel in the same category as colonizing Mars or curing all human disease. I guess those Hyperloop press releases really worked on him!
In any case, the idea that “outsized delusions” are a good thing: it’s just kinda funny to hear this, but maybe not such a surprise coming from Gladwell. I was curious on his take on other executives with outsized delusions so I googled *gladwell theranos* and came across this interview where he answers a question about “The book I couldn’t finish”:
I [Gladwell] don’t finish books all the time. But the last book I couldn’t finish? I really, really wanted to finish John Carreyrou’s book on the Theranos scam, Bad Blood. But halfway through, I started saying to myself: “I get it! I get it! She made it all up!”
“Halfway through,” huh? I think all the other readers of that book caught on in the first few pages what was going on.
Gladwell sounds like the kind of guy who turns off the Columbo episode after 45 minutes because he’s finally figured out who the killer is.
I (Fishbone) don’t always finish books I read either. I stopped reading Gladwell 71 pages in when I read about Igon values….
I would read Gladwell there as saying that the book is repetitive and the amount of repetition contained in the first half of the book exceeded what he could tolerate, not as saying that the book is presented as a mystery and he stopped reading once he figured it out.
Michael:
Could be. Maybe Gladwell just found the book boring. That’s possible. Tastes differ.
Just one thing, though . . . I don’t think the message of Carreyrou’s book is “She made it all up.” I think the message is that she and her partner conspired, that they conned a bunch of Silicon Valley culture heroes and supposedly canny operators such as George Schultz and Rupert Murdoch, and then their high-priced legal team successfully intimidated whistleblowers for about a decade. That’s all pretty amazing! It’s interesting that Gladwell—a person who has a long track record of getting conned by smooth talkers—missed all that I guess it was more convenient for him to focus on the Holmes being a bad guy than to think hard about how the team (Holmes, Balwani, and Boies) succeeded for so long in manipulating the news media (including Gladwell-magnet NPR) and the legal system.
Absolutely agree. The real hero(in)es of Carreyrou’s book – and what captivated me from first to last page – are the whistleblowers. Scams and scammers are everywhere these days, but the moral fiber it takes to stand up and speak up is rare. I am also fascinated by the unspoken part – the other employees who were effectively accomplices in the scam.
In case you’re not aware, there is this recent news about hyperloop
The other books mentioned in the Guardian piece are on brand too, including Guns, Germs and Steel as the “most underrated” book. It was insanely popular, well reviewed, and won a Pullitzer, and that’s the little underdog Gladwell is sticking up for. I know experts in the field don’t like it nearly as much as the lay reader, but that doesn’t seem to be the point Gladwell is making.
I absolutely detest when writers take an idea they disagree with and label it as “fashionable,”
By far the best thing Pinker ever did is coin the term the “straw we” to what’s going on with Gladwell: “We all think [X], but really it turns out [Y]!” Where X is not, in fact, something everyone believes and Y is, on its own, pretty trivial. But it gives a paragraph or essay the structure of something that appears to provide special insight, which is apparently enough to satisfy a lot of editors.
Yeah, everybody wants to be Jared Diamond, that’s the problem.
I didn’t realize that was a Gladwell article. As I read it, I found myself wondering ‘has it really been that long that people don’t remember what happened at GE?’ IMO, the article recited superficialities about that. I not only remember Welch but was involved in business with GE Credit and went to various presentations by GE entities about their businesses. There was a culture of bragging in which every presentation focused on how they would only be number 1 or 2 in that line of business. That was how they framed everything. They used that framing to make you not look at the risks of those businesses: they’re 1 or 2 in the business made all the risks of the business itself appear vanishingly small.
The irony is GE Credit did a good job of identifying those credit risks. They were careful about approving loans backed by what looked like good credits, if they didn’t trust the underlying business. This was especially true with longer term loans.
The actuality of the business was, of course, that GE Credit was used to make the books work, that they’d manipulate the numbers to make it look like GE was constantly improving. These manipulations would occur in the last days of a quarter.
They weren’t alone. I remember before one of the banking crises running into one of the bankers for the company I worked for. On the train platform, he told me, in a very low voice, that we were ‘responsible’ for the bank’s profit. That explained why they were lending money to us that appeared as payments to them at closings and why they were refinancing the company loans in the first place. They gave us a slightly better interest rate, and booked huge fees that they paid to themselves. Bank went under.
“The great C.E.O.’s have an instinct for where to turn in a crisis, and Welch new whom to call.”
Is that “new” a typo and should have been “knew”?
Also, on the question of judging how great a CEO is, there is always such a big element of randomness involved that it is difficult to measure any such quality in a veridical manner – the book “The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives” by Leonard Mlodinow covers this nicely.
Typo fixed; thanks.
Do today’s CEOs really have ambitions to to colonize Mars or cure disease? Or do they just say stuff to get money? I think a lot of the derision is not towards the ostensible goals, but towards the veracity of the statements of the goals. I feel like Gladwell should have learned from his profile of Jack Welch that we shouldn’t always take CEOs at their word.
Eradicating all human disease is just one of the goals of the Chan Zuckerberg Foundation. As part of that effort, they’re funding open-source software, including Stan, for which we are most grateful.
oops – that’s “Chan Zukerberg Initiative” – CZI
“Gladwell sounds like the kind of guy who turns off the Columbo episode after 45 minutes because he’s finally figured out who the killer is.”
Ouch
Not that it matters, but the Columbo episodes I saw were from the point of view of the murderer, and the mystery was how Columbo was going to catch them. Reading a Michael Connelly “Harry Bosch” novel might work better. The Columbo shows were good though irrespective of the plot, which I guess was the point. (The Harry Bosch character is good too.)
I think that’s the point, everyone knows who the Columbo murderer is right from the start… except Gladwell who is a doofus.
Oh. Wow! I see it now, you’re right. Thanks.
I assume this is a typo but who is the originator?:
“The great C.E.O.’s have an instinct for where to turn in a crisis, and Welch new whom to call.”
Gladwell’s response to the Theranos book is a real “whoosh!” moment. Of all the people that should’ve read that and taken something away, a perpetual “hype-man” is really one that could’ve benefited the most.
This was ostensibly a book review of William Cohan’s ‘Power Failure’ that was published at the same time as The New Yorker came out (I pre-ordered the book but have not read it yet). Gladwell turns what should be an opportunity to review Cohan’s book into a piece that is more about Malcolm in the Middle than it is about what Cohan’s view of Welch is. It’s too bad The New Yorker feels so invested in Gladwell. They should have sent him out to pasture some years ago to play with his cars.
The quote about Carreyou’s book on Theranos was just dumb. Everyone who has their head above ground knew the story and how it turned out before reading the book. The book was great as another object lesson about hubris.
Gladwelll and Michelle Goldberg of the NY Times debated Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi last night on the proposition: Be it resolved: don’t trust mainstream media at the Munk Debates in Toronto. The debates are scored by the change in opinion by the live audience. Taibbi and Murray scored the largest victory in the history of the Munk debates, with a 39% vote swing. https://munkdebates.com/debates/mainstream-media
That’s pretty wild. Given that there’s not much public trust in the media to begin with, a 39% change would have to have been that by the end pretty much every single person in the audience had no trust in the media. I’m thinking even Gladwell and Goldberg must have changed their views.
It was a Candain crowd, so it started at 52-48 in favor of the mainstream.
Argghhh… Canadian. (And I assume somewhat more educated than the poll averages)
Well, Taibbi is a beast and that’s pretty much his schtick and Murray’s a take no prisoners guy also, and claimimg media bias is about the easiest thing to argue, ever (which is why both sides on pretty much every issue have made the claim for pretty much forever that they’re victims of media bias) so maybe it’s not really surprising that they got their asses kicked.
The “39%” was a change in the margin. It appears that only 19% of the audience actually changed their view.
Still, 19% changing their view strikes me as a really big number.
Joshua:
I’m guessing that you’ll get a high percentage of people changing their response because of the framing of this as a “debate” where audience members know they will be giving before/after opinions. Also I’d guess there will be many people who will cast their vote as a judgment on which debating team they found more impressive. Especially for a claim as poorly defined as “don’t trust mainstream media.”
Taibbi published his initial reaction to the debate on his Substack today. In his opinion, the change in opinion was all about the crowd turning on Gladwell. In Taibbiesque prose, he described Gladwell’s final thrust thusly: “I watched this performance with awe. If douchebaggery were an ice cream cone, the guy would be melting all over the stage. I almost felt bad. When the results were announced, he scurried off stage, doubtless already carrying the germ of a new bestseller…”
Andrew –
I don’t get the first part of your comment. Agree with the second part.
But here’s why I think that’s a big number: This is a fairly identity-associated issue. Typically, on those kinds issues motivated reasoning kicks in. Information that threatens an identity-related belief tends to actually get people to dig in and double down. And if that information comes from someone affiliated with “others” it only exacerbates that tendency. Maybe Taibbi wouldn’t trigger identity-defensive cognition in lefties but it’s hard to imagine how Douglass wouldn’t.
Maybe it’s less of an identity-focused issue in Canada than here.
Seems the debate is behind a paywall and so I haven’t watched it but maybe looking at the numbers in the abstract misses important contextual detail. No, doubt, getting a picture of who comprised the audience would be a critical piece.
Joshua:
I wasn’t there, so I have no idea . . . To me, though, the answer to the question, Do I trust mainstream media? is just not clear. I trust some of mainstream media and not others. I don’t trust Alex Jones at all . . . I guess he’s not mainstream media. The New York Times is mainstream media and I trust some things in it but not others. Is Fox News mainstream media? Gladwell writes for the New Yorker and that’s mainstream media, and I don’t trust Gladwell at all. I trust him more than Alex Jones, I guess. I trust other New Yorker authors. Etc etc. I expect there are a lot of people like me who do not think of the mainstream media as a unified object, and if people like me had to respond to the question, it could depend a lot on how it is framed. If Gladwell starts talking about how airplanes take off in a tailwind and how the Penn State administrators were victims, then, yeah, this would remind me how much I hate the smug loop of mainstream media. On the other hand, if he were to talk about important stories that mainstream media has covered well, I might respond more positively to the question. It would similarly depend on what issues the other side focused on. If Taibbi starts yammering on about how the mainstream media doesn’t put Hunter Biden’s laptop on the front page every day, this will remind me that the mainstream media isn’t so bad. But if he talks about famous failures of the mainstream media, then I might be inclined to agree with him when it comes time to cast my vote.
Andrew –
> Do I trust mainstream media? is just not clear.
Yah. OK. I totally agree.
It’s very subjective. It’s always hilarious when someone on Fox complains about “the MSM” as if Fix or rightwing talk radio aren’t part of “the MSM.”. What are the inclusion/exclusion criteria?
I looked briefly at Taibbi’s substack and not surprisingly he includes MSNBC in his definition which must then mean he includes Fox and so then he really should include rightwing tak radio and…. So what media aren’t included?
And then yeah, what does “trust” even mean in this context? Blind faith? Thinking that they get stuff right more often than not? And on what issues? Whether a bill got passed or what he unemployment rate is, or whether Trump’s a dick?
Again, in his substack transcript Taibbi refers back to the glory days of trustworthy Cronkite before the media got so biased. Like reporting on the Gulf of Tonkin or the yellow journalism of Wllliam Randolph Hearst?
So yeah, it really would matter very much on how the debate participants framed the questions.
Can’t resist – speaking of Taibbi:
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1598924855021170689?s=20&t=feWCq4CtDoOpcf8Y6Jer8w
(He’s in the top 50 of my top 10 worst people in the world.)
Or, during the mid-twentieth century, “It has become fashionable to claim that cigarette smoking causes cancer.”
You’re referring to sociologist Peter Berger, right? That was pretty much the line he took when he was a paid shill for Tobacco — that the anti-smoking people were just trying to be fashionable or self-righteously moral.