People don't like to lose.
Anything.
Ever.
Americans seem to be more upset about losing than people in other cultures. Especially when Americans lose to people of other cultures.
But what is "American culture," and how does it differ from others, especially about not being victorious in everything?
One way to avoid losing, of course, is to not play.
Either that, or if one must play, be better than the competition.
Alternatively, if one is not better than the competition, the player can cheat.
That's the issue American political candidates face when they deal with an opponent who is, by any neutral measure, better qualified.
But qualifications don't always matter in American politics. Perception does, and that can be an issue of salesmanship. And that differs from management skills.
Ask any senior business executive. Sales agents are good at persuading others to buy a product or service. But managing a production department and persuading workers to do a better job is a different skill.
The big difference is in who pays whom.
The customer pays the sales agent. Indirectly, of course, but that's what it comes down to. Compare that to the production department, where management must pay workers.
There is, of course, one overall similarity. If sales agents are not courteous to the customer, there is no sale. And if management is not courteous to workers, production suffers.
That conflict is what led to the formation of labor unions, which forced management to be courteous to workers and to pay them a decent wage. Even today, when management is courteous to workers and pays them well, there is no need for a labor union to intervene and force management to respond.
One would think that after many years in business, a manager would learn that success follows fair treatment of staff and customers, and similar behavior would lead to success in politics.
But if a manager has behaved otherwise throughout his career and found that bullying others brought long-term personal success, and was able to simply hire others to replace those who would not tolerate abusive behavior, that manager would see no need to change, since personal success was his paramount and only goal.
But such behavior, while it may be successful in business, does not succeed long term in politics. And just as customers who have been cheated stop doing business with the cheater, so also do citizens who have been similarly abused stop voting for the abuser.
Perhaps a political candidate with such a background might or could learn something from that example.
But if that candidate does not listen to those who cite potential problems, then that candidate will also become that which is most abysmal.
A loser.
Anything.
Ever.
Americans seem to be more upset about losing than people in other cultures. Especially when Americans lose to people of other cultures.
But what is "American culture," and how does it differ from others, especially about not being victorious in everything?
One way to avoid losing, of course, is to not play.
Either that, or if one must play, be better than the competition.
Alternatively, if one is not better than the competition, the player can cheat.
That's the issue American political candidates face when they deal with an opponent who is, by any neutral measure, better qualified.
But qualifications don't always matter in American politics. Perception does, and that can be an issue of salesmanship. And that differs from management skills.
Ask any senior business executive. Sales agents are good at persuading others to buy a product or service. But managing a production department and persuading workers to do a better job is a different skill.
The big difference is in who pays whom.
The customer pays the sales agent. Indirectly, of course, but that's what it comes down to. Compare that to the production department, where management must pay workers.
There is, of course, one overall similarity. If sales agents are not courteous to the customer, there is no sale. And if management is not courteous to workers, production suffers.
That conflict is what led to the formation of labor unions, which forced management to be courteous to workers and to pay them a decent wage. Even today, when management is courteous to workers and pays them well, there is no need for a labor union to intervene and force management to respond.
One would think that after many years in business, a manager would learn that success follows fair treatment of staff and customers, and similar behavior would lead to success in politics.
But if a manager has behaved otherwise throughout his career and found that bullying others brought long-term personal success, and was able to simply hire others to replace those who would not tolerate abusive behavior, that manager would see no need to change, since personal success was his paramount and only goal.
But such behavior, while it may be successful in business, does not succeed long term in politics. And just as customers who have been cheated stop doing business with the cheater, so also do citizens who have been similarly abused stop voting for the abuser.
Perhaps a political candidate with such a background might or could learn something from that example.
But if that candidate does not listen to those who cite potential problems, then that candidate will also become that which is most abysmal.
A loser.
Great content John! Thank you!
ReplyDelete