Great Leaders Teach

In an earlier blog post I talked about the proposition of teaching others to take my job. (Not away from me, mind you; speaking of preparing them for the same position.)

That short bit of dialogue, even with the explanation, drew questions asking for more information, more examples, and at least one person questioning my sanity for prepping anyone to move into my chair.

That single person questioning my sanity failed to understand – even after a second, lengthy explanation – the concept. For the rest…

Great leaders teach. As leaders share knowledge, they build stronger organizations. Since each of us has a unique set of life, education and work experiences, each has a different knowledge base to share.

Over the course of my first 29 years in the news business I worked for some terrific people. Because I demonstrated a strong drive and desire to learn, each of them stepped into a teaching position. And I should note that each accepted the role willingly.

My first publisher could crunch numbers 40 ways to Sunday. (Is that a Southern expression? If so, and for those who might not have a Southern background, it means he was really, really good at number crunching.) I admired not only his numerical analytical skills, but also how he pulled so many people together to work toward common goals.

I wanted to be like Mike. (No really, his name was Mike.) So I explained that at some point in my career I could see myself as a publisher.

There were neither snickers nor eye rolls. Instead, an immediate sit-down-and-let-me-show-you attitude surfaced. P&L explanations followed as did chats and talks about work flow, personnel and inventory management.

He taught. I followed and listened and absorbed…and later, taught, too.

Publisher #2 hailed from a strong editorial background. As a first-time daily newspaper editor, much was to be learned from my more-experienced boss.

Always willing to share, Tom would answer any question posed, and many were posed from me and my young, eager newsroom.

But Tom had another teaching method. He asked questions. Sometimes they seemed like riddles of sorts, but the reason for the inquiry always became crystal clear. He taught by making us figure out or seek the answers ourselves.

Back then I viewed the teaching as a sometimes maddening exercise. Now, I use it myself. Knowledge retention is higher when the answer is discovered instead of gifted.

Another boss (also named Tom) lived a few hundred miles away. We only spoke every couple of weeks, but every conversation was meaningful and helpful.

As I think back on his leadership and teaching, I know he made me a better listener because he was so good at listening. Even over the phone, it was always clear he was tuned in to what I said.

My last boss, Karen, taught me that sometimes – even in the most trying circumstances – you have to get out of the way and let people demonstrate their own leadership abilities.

After Hurricane Ivan rendered one of my properties uninhabitable, she told me to handle it. And by ‘handle it’ that meant insurance, corporate, contractors, relocation, utilities, etc. She was always just a phone call away for assistance and support, but my team and I forged ahead and continued to hit our numbers under some damn trying circumstances.

If you’re leading, but not teaching, you’re doing your organization and yourself a disservice.

After years of accumulating knowledge – some by book, some by experience, some from others – what are you going to do with all that learning if not share it? Take it to your grave? What a waste that would be.

This is not to suggest you hold formal classes, although for some information and under some circumstances you likely should. But it is to suggest that you teach, coach and mentor every chance you get. You’ll see the positive results in your people and your organization.

25 Commandments for Journalists

Former Guardian science editor, letters editor, arts editor and literary editor Tim Radford has condensed his journalistic experience into a handy set of rules for journalists. This is a complete re-post with credit to Mr. Radford for both his insight and his willingness to share.

Read them. Print them. Post them so you see them every time you report/write:

1. When you sit down to write, there is only one important person in your life. This is someone you will never meet, called a reader.

2. You are not writing to impress the scientist you have just interviewed, nor the professor who got you through your degree, nor the editor who foolishly turned you down, or the rather dishy person you just met at a party and told you were a writer. Or even your mother. You are writing to impress someone hanging from a strap in the tube between Parson’s Green and Putney, who will stop reading in a fifth of a second, given a chance.

3. So the first sentence you write will be the most important sentence in your life, and so will the second, and the third. This is because, although you – an employee, an apostle or an apologist – may feel obliged to write, nobody has ever felt obliged to read.

4. Journalism is important. It must never, however, be full of its own self-importance. Nothing sends a reader scurrying to the crossword, or the racing column, faster than pomposity. Therefore simple words, clear ideas and short sentences are vital in all storytelling. So is a sense of irreverence.

5. Here is a thing to carve in pokerwork and hang over your typewriter. “No one will ever complain because you have made something too easy to understand.”

6. And here is another thing to remember every time you sit down at the keyboard: a little sign that says “Nobody has to read this crap.”

7. If in doubt, assume the reader knows nothing. However, never make the mistake of assuming that the reader is stupid. The classic error in journalism is to overestimate what the reader knows and underestimate the reader’s intelligence.

8. Life is complicated, but journalism cannot be complicated. It is precisely because issues – medicine, politics, accountancy, the rules of Mornington Crescent – are complicated that readers turn to the Guardian, or the BBC, or the Lancet, or my old papers Fish Selling and Self Service Times, expecting to have them made simple.

9. So if an issue is tangled like a plate of spaghetti, then regard your story as just one strand of spaghetti, carefully drawn from the whole. Ideally with the oil, garlic and tomato sauce adhering to it. The reader will be grateful for being given the simple part, not the complicated whole. That is because (a) the reader knows life is complicated, but is grateful to have at least one strand explained clearly, and (b) because nobody ever reads stories that say “What follows is inexplicably complicated …”

10. So here is a rule. A story will only ever say one big thing. If (for example, and you are feeling very brave) you have to deal with four strands of a tale, make the intertwining of those four strands the one big thing you have to say. You may put twiddly bits into your story, but only if you can do so without departing from the one linear narrative you have chosen.

11. Here is an observation. Don’t even start writing till you have decided what the one big thing is going to be, and then say it to yourself in just one sentence. Then ask yourself whether you could imagine your mother listening to this sentence for longer than a microsecond before she reaches for the ironing. Should you try to sell an editor an idea for an article, you will get about the same level of attention, so pay attention to this sentence. It is often – not always, but often – the first sentence of your article anyway.

12. There is always an ideal first sentence – an intro, a way in – for any article. It really helps to think of this one before you start writing, because you will discover that the subsequent sentences write themselves, very quickly. This is not evidence that you are glib, facile, shallow or slick. Or even gifted. It merely means you hit the right first sentence.

13. Words like shallow, facile, glib and slick are not insults to a journalist. The whole point of paying for a newspaper is that you want information that slides down easily and quickly, without footnotes, obscure references and footnotes to footnotes.

14. Words like “sensational” and “trivial” are not insults to a journalist. You read what you read – Elizabethan plays, Russian novels, French comic strips, American thrillers – because something in them appeals to your sense of excitement, humour, romance or irony. Good journalism should give you the sensation of humour, excitement, poignancy or piquancy. Trivial is a favourite insult administered by scholars. But even they became interested in their subject in the first place because they were attracted by something gleaming, flashy and – yes, trivial.

15. Words have meanings. Respect those meanings. Get radical and look them up in the dictionary, find out where they have been. Then use them properly. Don’t flaunt authority by flouting your ignorance. Don’t whatever you do go down a hard road to hoe, without asking yourself how you would hoe a road. Or for that matter, a roe.

16. Clichés are, in the newspaper classic instruction, to be avoided like the plague. Except when they are the right cliché. You’d be surprised how useful a cliché can be, used judiciously. This is because the thing about journalism is that you don’t have to be ever so clever but you do have to be ever so quick.

17. Metaphors are great. Just don’t choose loopy metaphors, and never, never mix them. Subs on the Guardian used to have a special Muzzled Piranha Award, a kind of Oscar of incompetence, handed to an industrial relations reporter who warned the world that the Trades Union Congress wildcats were lurking in the undergrowth, ready to dart out like piranhas, unless they were muzzled. George Orwell reports on the case of an MP who claimed that the jackbooted fascist octopus had sung its swansong.

18. Beware of street cred. When Moses ordered his commanders to slay the Midianites he wasn’t doing it to show that he was well hard. When he warned Pharaoh to let his people go he wasn’t saying “give us room to breathe, man, and Pharaoh’s, like, no way feller!” The language of the pub or the café has its own rhythms, its own body language, its own signalling devices. The language of the page has no accent, no helpful signalling tone of irony or comedy or self-mockery. It must be straight, clear and vivid. And to be straight and vivid, it must follow the received grammar.

19. Beware of long and preposterous words. Beware of jargon. If you are a science writer this is doubly important. If you are a science writer, you occasionally have to bandy words that no ordinary human ever uses, like phenotype, mitochondrion, cosmic inflation, Gaussian distribution and isostasy. So you really don’t want to be effulgent or felicitous as well. You could just try being bright and happy.

20. English is better than Latin. You don’t exterminate, you kill. You don’t salivate, you drool. You don’t conflagrate, you burn. Moses did not say to Pharaoh: “The consequence of non-release of one particular subject ethnic population could result ultimately in some kind of algal manifestation in the main river basin, with unforeseen outcomes for flora and fauna, not excluding consumer services.” He said “the waters which are in the river … shall be turned to blood, and the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink.”

21. Remember that people will always respond to something close to them. Concerned citizens of south London should care more about economic reform in Surinam than about Millwall’s fate on Saturday, but mostly they don’t. Accept it. On 24 November 1963, the Hull Daily Mail sent me in search of a Hull angle on the assassination of President Kennedy. Once I had found a line that began “Hull citizens were in mourning today as …” we could get on with reporting what happened in Dallas.

22. Read. Read lots of different things. Read the King James Bible, and Dickens, and poems by Shelley, and Marvel Comics and thrillers by Chester Himes and Dashiel Hammet. Look at the astonishing things you can do with words. Note the way they can conjure up whole worlds in the space of half a page.

23. Beware of all definitives. The last horse trough in Surrey will turn out not even to be the last horse trough in Godalming. There will almost always be someone who turns out to be bigger, faster, older, earlier, richer or more nauseating than the candidate to whom you have just awarded a superlative. Save yourself the bother: “One of the first …” will usually save the moment. If not, then at least qualify it: “According to the Guinness Book of Records …” “The Sunday Times Rich List …” and so on.

24. There are things that good taste and the law will simply not let you say in print. My current favourites are “Murderer acquitted” and (in a report of an Easter religious play) “Paul Myers, who played Jesus Christ, emerged as the star of the show.” Try and work out which one has the taste problem, and which one will cost you approximately half a million per word.

25. Writers have a responsibility, not just in law. So aim for the truth. If that’s elusive, and it often is, at least aim for fairness, the awareness that there is always another side to the story. Beware of all claims to objectivity. This one is the dodgiest of all. You may report that the Royal Society says that genetic modification is a good thing, and that depleted uranium is mostly harmless. But you should remember that genetic modification was invented by people who were immediately elected to the Royal Society for their cleverness, by people already in there because they knew how to enrich uranium fuel rods and deplete the rest. So to paraphrase Miss Mandy Rice-Davies (1963) “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”

 

A matter of trust: ‘Good enough’ should rarely be good enough

Wikipedia defines ‘good enough’ this way: The principle of good enough (sometimes abbreviated to POGE) is a rule for software and systems design. It favors quick-and-simple (but potentially extensible) designs over elaborate systems designed by committees. (Though not a fan of Wikipedia, it does on occasion demonstrate a bit of utility.)

That definition may work in the world of software engineering (and may explain buggy software), but for me it doesn’t work in the profession of journalism.

A couple of years ago a colleague and I engaged in a long and rather heated debate over the concept of ‘good enough’ as it relates to journalism and in particular the dissemination of gathered information on the Internet.

As director of content for our group he insisted that ‘good enough’ is always good enough for posting on the Internet. Always. Grasp that word. No matter the topic or the situation or the content of the posting, ‘good enough’ is always good enough.

As a lowly publisher – and former reporter and editor – my insistence that the concept of ‘good enough’ shortchanges our Internet audience and diminishes our credibility fell on deaf ears. “They want immediacy,” he would calmly note, even as the veins in the forehead almost burst. “They don’t care about anything else.”

Malarkey!

I fully understood his notion that ‘good enough’ as it relates to the depth of factual information in a breaking news situation is indeed good enough. You add facts as they become available. For me, there’s a key word: Facts.

He, however, continued with the drum beat of putting whatever information/innuendo/rumor up, then correcting later if necessary as the story develops. Others stand in that drum line with him.

I do not.

As journalists battle credibility issues, we do ourselves no favors in the public eye by throwing garbage up online. A dearth of facts but a truckload of (many to be later unsubstantiated) rumors shine a dim light on individual journalists, news organizations and the industry as a whole. The public paints us with a broad brush, in case you hadn’t noticed.

I also see the dump of alleged factual information – damn the accuracy – as potentially dangerous is some situations. When we place people in danger, it’s safe to believe their trust quotient drops precipitously. Not good for our integrity.

But in my mind it gets even worse when ‘good enough’ extends to our writing and grammar.

The adversary referred to above sloughed off this argument, too, saying the public would be forgiving of bad writing and poor grammar skills.

OK, I’ll buy that to a point in the most extreme circumstances. I’ll cite the 9/11 terrorist attacks as an example of a time when Joe Public might have forgiven a misspelling or poor grammar just to get the latest news.

I, however, see that as the exception rather than the rule.

Mr. Content didn’t agree. He made no distinction. Again, there are others in his camp.

With journalism in a time of extreme flux on so many levels, this is not the time to shove quality off the front row and into the cheap seats. Quite to the contrary, it is a time to ramp up our quality at every turn.

If we continue to believe in journalism and believe journalism matters, ‘good enough’ should rarely be good enough.

(Other blogs by this author: Third Cup of Coffee and Hire This Journalist)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.