Admire But Not Learn from Lance?


Pokie

Administrator
May 7, 1999
1,698
1
Galena, IL
July 27, 2005---- Learning From Lance
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

There is no doubt that Lance Armstrong's seventh straight victory in the Tour de France, which has prompted sportswriters to rename the whole race the Tour de Lance, makes him one of the greatest U.S. athletes of all time. What I find most impressive about Armstrong, besides his sheer willpower to triumph over cancer, is the strategic focus he brings to his work, from his prerace training regimen to the meticulous way he and his cycling team plot out every leg of the race. It is a sight to behold. I have been thinking about them lately because their abilities to meld strength and strategy - to thoughtfully plan ahead and to sacrifice today for a big gain tomorrow - seem to be such fading virtues in American life.

Sadly, those are the virtues we now associate with China, Chinese athletes and Chinese leaders. Talk to U.S. business executives and they'll often comment on how many of China's leaders are engineers, people who can talk to you about numbers, long-term problem-solving and the national interest - not a bunch of lawyers looking for a sound bite to get through the evening news. America's most serious deficit today is a deficit of such leaders in politics and business.

John Mack, the new C.E.O. at Morgan Stanley, initially demanded in the contract he signed June 30 that his total pay for the next two years would be no less than the average pay package received by the C.E.O.'s at Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. If that average turned out to be more than $25 million, Mr. Mack was to be paid at least that much. He eventually backed off that demand after a howl of protest, but it struck me as the epitome of what is wrong in America today.

We are now playing defense. A top C.E.O. wants to be paid not based on his performance, but based on the average of his four main rivals! That is like Lance Armstrong's saying he will race only if he is guaranteed to come in first or second, no matter what his cycling times are on each leg.

I recently spent time in Ireland, which has quietly become the second-richest country in the E.U., first by going through some severe belt-tightening in which everyone had to sacrifice, then by following that with a plan to upgrade the education of its entire work force, and a strategy to recruit and induce as many global high-tech companies and researchers as possible to locate in Ireland. The Irish have a plan. They are focused. They have mobilized business, labor and government around a common agenda. They are playing offense.

Wouldn't you think that if you were president, after you had read the umpteenth story about premier U.S. companies, such as Intel and Apple, building their newest factories, and even research facilities, in China, India or Ireland, that you would summon the country's top business leaders to Washington ask them just one question: "What do we have to do so you will keep your best jobs here? Make me a list and I will not rest until I get it enacted."

And if you were president, and you had just seen more suicide bombs in London, wouldn't you say to your aides: "We have got to reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. We have to do it for our national security. We have to do it because only if we bring down the price of crude will these countries be forced to reform. And we should want to do it because it is clear that green energy solutions are the wave of the future, and the more quickly we impose a stringent green agenda on ourselves, the more our companies will lead innovation in these technologies."

Instead, we are about to pass an energy bill that, while it does contain some good provisions, will make no real dent in our gasoline consumption, largely because no one wants to demand that Detroit build cars that get much better mileage. We are just feeding Detroit the rope to hang itself. It's assisted suicide. I thought people went to jail for that?

And if you were president, would you really say to the nation, in the face of the chaos in Iraq, "If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them," but they have not asked. It is not what the generals are asking you, Mr. President - it is what you are asking them, namely: "What do you need to win?" Because it is clear we are not winning, and we are not winning because we have never made Iraq a secure place where normal politics could emerge.

Oh, well, maybe we have the leaders we deserve. Maybe we just want to admire Lance Armstrong, but not be Lance Armstrong. Too much work. Maybe that's the wristband we should be wearing: Live wrong. Party on. Pay later.
 

Patman

Pantless Wonder
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Dec 26, 1999
19,774
0
I think Lance has several admriable traits but like the rest of us he has made plenty of mistakes as well. If we could all learn only the good and make none of the mistakes of every other person we've ever met we still wouldn't be perfect but I'm sure the world would be a lot better. Lance is not the first nor will he be the last to beat cancer but he did a remarkable job of coming back to his chosen sport. He's won a hugely difficult sporting event 7 times which again is a great feat. In the end though I think I'll choose to be me and use him for an inspiration in SOME parts of my life and realize we both have the same chance of being able to walk on water.
 

dante

Member
Mar 24, 2004
555
0
If I was a UPS driver, and I went to Fed Ex, I'd want to get paid at least as much as I did with UPS, in fact I'd expect to earn a competitive wage... I don't understand your take on John Mack, the new C.E.O. at Morgan Stanley... Just because the numbers are larger why should'nt he demand a competitive compensation plan? Go J Mack, I hope he gets that cash...
 

High Lord Gomer

Poked with Sticks
Sep 26, 1999
11,790
34
That wasn't Pokie's article, he merely copied it (with proper credit).

Btw...Walking in and saying "I made $40,000 with UPS so I want at least $45,000 here at FedEx" is very different than saying, "I want $45,000, but if the UPS guys start making $50,000, I want you to increase my pay to $55,000 so I know I will always make more than them and then I can brag about it while bowling with them!"
 

dante

Member
Mar 24, 2004
555
0
High Lord Gomer said:
That wasn't Pokie's article, he merely copied it (with proper credit).

Btw...Walking in and saying "I made $40,000 with UPS so I want at least $45,000 here at FedEx" is very different than saying, "I want $45,000, but if the UPS guys start making $50,000, I want you to increase my pay to $55,000 so I know I will always make more than them and then I can brag about it while bowling with them!"



your right I read that essy too fast
 

dante

Member
Mar 24, 2004
555
0
High Lord Gomer said:
That wasn't Pokie's article, he merely copied it (with proper credit).

Btw...Walking in and saying "I made $40,000 with UPS so I want at least $45,000 here at FedEx" is very different than saying, "I want $45,000, but if the UPS guys start making $50,000, I want you to increase my pay to $55,000 so I know I will always make more than them and then I can brag about it while bowling with them!"



your right I read that essy too fast, and did'nt get it til I re-read it...
 

Patman

Pantless Wonder
LIFETIME SPONSOR
Dec 26, 1999
19,774
0
Yeah I know it was a copy, just posting up my opinion to it.
 

Timr

LIFETIME SPONSOR
Jul 26, 1999
1,972
6
High Lord Gomer said:
That wasn't Pokie's article, he merely copied it (with proper credit).

Btw...Walking in and saying "I made $40,000 with UPS so I want at least $45,000 here at FedEx" is very different than saying, "I want $45,000, but if the UPS guys start making $50,000, I want you to increase my pay to $55,000 so I know I will always make more than them and then I can brag about it while bowling with them!"

BTW, that's exactly what Nick Saban did when he became the head coach at LSU. He had a clause in his contract that automatically kicked in to generate a raise of his salary any time another coach in the SEC got a new contract. The purpose of the clause was to make sure that he remained the highest paid coach in the league.

I think the point that the author is trying to make is that your compensation should be performance based, not arbitrary to your competitors or peers who may be doing a much better job at their chosen tasks than you are. If you suck you deserve to get paid less. If you're great, then you'll make more. Period.
 

Top Bottom