We have defined a "Builder Type" CEO who is not charismatic yet is defined by being able to build and ship things. Like Mark Zuckerberg minus his team of PR people.
Then we have a "Charismatic Type" CEO who people like but who can't get anything done.
By this definition, Obama would be the useless yet charismatic CEO. Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify), would be a "Builder" type (apparently?). And Donald Trump...who indisputably has built things despite being both charismatic and hated would blend both of these together?
I don't agree with this analysis. It isn't that easy to slice this one.
> By this definition, Obama would be the useless yet charismatic CEO.
Useless, no, charismatic, yes. PG isn't saying that you can't be both powerful and charismatic - he's saying if you are to become powerful, you'd better be charismatic as well. His comment about them being the best person for the job is over the "schmoozers", who are charismatic but aren't building things.
> Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify)
I agree here. I don't think a clean dichotomy is being discussed. I think PG is just lamenting that charisma is necessary to hold power over other people.
>Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify), would be a "Builder" type (apparently?).
Well what do you define as building? She was a successful legislator and built up a charity and public speaking business for herself out of almost nothing.
I think PG makes a few assumptions in this musing that deserve more though and criticism. Power and charisma together often brew megalomania, and I don't see charisma itself as a powerful person's antidote to being hated. Without diving into politics, I think there are a few good arguments out there for "lack of charisma" being the least of HRC's problems.
I'd be more interested to hear PG explore his own relationship to charisma and power on a personal and professional level than read this oddly deflecting set of statements.
This is a false dichotomy.
How does one "build things" without deploying the charisma necessary to change processes and people?
How does one "build things" without schmoozing nay-sayers into agreement and finding acceptable modifications to the original plan.
Is there any data that 'builder' type presidents are better than charismatic ones? In our hyper-media age you need charisma or you'll fail to effect change. This may or may not be a good thing as the change charismatic leaders want may or may not be ultimately good for the nation but it seems to be a necessary (but not solely sufficient) ingredient for greatness.
Donald Trump is both a powerful builder and very charismatic. He builds buildings and has loads of charisma.
The dichotomy between Trump and Hillary is false in this case on dimensions other than simply having charisma.
Trump had more charisma than Hillary as well as the 16 or whatever ridiculous number of GOP candidates there were at one point.
Bernie Sanders was the only candidate in this cycle with a similar level of charisma and Democrats did the thing that the GOP did the previous 2 elections - and it cost them.
Trump is many things, and charismatic may be one of them, although personally I don't see it, but "a powerful builder" is not one of them.
Trump doesn't build buildings - he licenses his name to buildings other people build. He doesn't even own most of the properties that bear his name. The only thing he can feasibly claim to have built is his own celebrity, and prior to his recent status, his celebrity might generously be described as b-list - he was a reality show star who was once a professional wrestling celebrity heel and sometimes guest starred as himself on various tv shows.
The distinction is important, I believe, because to me, "builder" implies someone with a passion and a deep understanding of the art of whatever they make their living at. I don't see a passion about architecture or design from Trump, nor do I get a sense that he understands how they work, or that he cares.
So that's the problem, "we" virtually never recognize that the builder is the right one for the job. The charismatic person always gets the job/money/fame/whatever.
Hillary Clinton as a Builder?
Building for whom?
Have we already forgotten her disastrous State Dep. run? Has she built or destroyed in the Middle East?
Warren Buffett is both. He's a very capable schmoozer now after decades of practice (he wasn't when he was very young). His style of schmoozing, the disarming folksy charm etc., is a huge part of what enabled him to buy the companies he did, luring in very talented owner/operators. And he's an empire builder of the scale few in world history have ever managed in financial terms. To manage to put something like Berkshire together and not have it collapse under its own weight after 50+ years (due to mismanagement or any number of dozens of common reasons), is an extraordinary accomplishment of building.
[+] [-] auternach|9 years ago|reply
We have defined a "Builder Type" CEO who is not charismatic yet is defined by being able to build and ship things. Like Mark Zuckerberg minus his team of PR people.
Then we have a "Charismatic Type" CEO who people like but who can't get anything done.
By this definition, Obama would be the useless yet charismatic CEO. Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify), would be a "Builder" type (apparently?). And Donald Trump...who indisputably has built things despite being both charismatic and hated would blend both of these together?
I don't agree with this analysis. It isn't that easy to slice this one.
[+] [-] mattnewton|9 years ago|reply
Useless, no, charismatic, yes. PG isn't saying that you can't be both powerful and charismatic - he's saying if you are to become powerful, you'd better be charismatic as well. His comment about them being the best person for the job is over the "schmoozers", who are charismatic but aren't building things.
> Hillary, who has never built anything (that I can identify)
https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041
> It isn't that easy to slice this one.
I agree here. I don't think a clean dichotomy is being discussed. I think PG is just lamenting that charisma is necessary to hold power over other people.
[+] [-] jolux|9 years ago|reply
Well what do you define as building? She was a successful legislator and built up a charity and public speaking business for herself out of almost nothing.
[+] [-] kaiku|9 years ago|reply
I'd be more interested to hear PG explore his own relationship to charisma and power on a personal and professional level than read this oddly deflecting set of statements.
[+] [-] quirkot|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] siliconc0w|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsx147|9 years ago|reply
Naturally they both excel at each, ultimately 2 different means to the same end
[+] [-] programminggeek|9 years ago|reply
The dichotomy between Trump and Hillary is false in this case on dimensions other than simply having charisma.
Trump had more charisma than Hillary as well as the 16 or whatever ridiculous number of GOP candidates there were at one point.
Bernie Sanders was the only candidate in this cycle with a similar level of charisma and Democrats did the thing that the GOP did the previous 2 elections - and it cost them.
[+] [-] krapp|9 years ago|reply
Trump doesn't build buildings - he licenses his name to buildings other people build. He doesn't even own most of the properties that bear his name. The only thing he can feasibly claim to have built is his own celebrity, and prior to his recent status, his celebrity might generously be described as b-list - he was a reality show star who was once a professional wrestling celebrity heel and sometimes guest starred as himself on various tv shows.
The distinction is important, I believe, because to me, "builder" implies someone with a passion and a deep understanding of the art of whatever they make their living at. I don't see a passion about architecture or design from Trump, nor do I get a sense that he understands how they work, or that he cares.
[+] [-] untilHellbanned|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bassman9000|9 years ago|reply
Whitewashing comes early.
[+] [-] eachro|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostsock|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] programminggeek|9 years ago|reply
He is literally off the charts both. He builds very large, impressive buildings for a living.
He is enough of a charismatic individual that through force of personality won the presidency.
[+] [-] Tulip68|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]