In the comments on the aforementioned Tom Peters post, Sean offers this cryptic statement: “Steve F. – ‘cept any praise of yours of Fiorina is perverse – she known as the “F word” @ HP & in free enterprise world.”
Let me decipher.
On page 28 of The Radical Leap (type “Fiorina” in Amazon’s “search inside this book” box) I quoted former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina, from her MIT commencement address of June, 2000. You can read the full speech here, but here’s the passage I cited:
“A leader’s greatest obligation is to make possible an environment where people’s minds and hearts can be inventive, brave, human and strong, where people can aspire to do useful and significant things, where people can aspire to change the world.”
At the time, Carly was riding high at HP, and, for the most part, Hewlett-Packardites liked and respected her. Now, not so much. That she’s known as the “F word” (assuming that’s true) pretty much captures the sentiment of most of the HP folks that I’ve talked to.
Her words, though. What about them? Does her fall from esteem make them any less true?
We’re always careful to cite the source of a quote, not only because it’s the ethical thing to do, but because it’s supposed to lend credence to the message.
Kouzes and Posner said (the link to their site giving credibility to the following quote), “If you don’t believe in the messenger, you won’t believe the message.” But I’m not so sure. For example, how many times have you heard some variation of this:
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
I’ve heard that quote attributed to Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, and Rita Mae Brown, and I’ve heard it recited more times than I can count as an inviolable and indisputable statement of truth. If Einstein said it, it must be true. Oh, not Einstein, but Franklin? Still true. Rita Mae Brown? Okay, not as good, but, yeah, still true.
But what if we discovered, after all this time, that the source of the quote was really Elmer Fudd? Would you put it in your next PowerPoint presentation? I bet you wouldn’t–but why not? If the statement was true before, shouldn’t it still be?
If the source’s credibility falls, does it make the words any less true? And, conversely, does a rise in credibility inject the words with greater power, import and meaning?
Yes, it does.
And, no, it shouldn’t.
Fiorina’s words are true. Maybe her desire or ability–perceived or otherwise–to live up to them fell short of the promise, but it’s still a powerful–and let me say it again–true message. And it’s also true that I used to quote her in my speeches, but I don’t anymore. The reality is that the controversy around her name has clouded the beauty of her words–particularly to those who used to work for her.
So here’s where I land on it: To paraphrase the previous quote, “If you don’t believe in the messenger, you won’t believe that the messenger believes the message.” It doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t–although that’s probably what will happen.
So back to Sean’s comment: I didn’t–perversely or otherwise–praise Carly Fiorina; I praised her words.
I think there’s a difference.
And you can quote me on that.
But, steve, Mr Fudd is a genius.
Maybe what Kouzes and Posner should have said is, “If you don’t believe in the messenger, you won’t believe in the message.” It seems to me that this makes it clearer that if you have no faith in the messenger then however common-sensical the message, you’re simply not going to listen to anything h/she says.
How true. This is the quote that I learned to attribute to Nelson Mandela, who I consider as one the greatest human beings ever to walk the earth:
Then someone said that it was Mariam Williamson who said this. I was disappointed, I was. I realized how stupid that was of me, but I was. The quote is great and what it should have done is make me more interested in Mariam Williamson. There must be more to her than I previously thought. I will go an find out.
I love using quotes to illustrate points and – perverse as I am – might even use one from Elmer Fudd (just to shake up the audience).
You’re right on point re the source shouldn’t matter if the words are powerful and thought-provoking.
(Of course, “I have a dream” means something totally different coming from say Martin Luther King than if President Bush says it…it is about context sometimes…)
And, I’m gong to wade right in here re Ms. Fiorina. Would she have flamed out so quickly and (apparently) now be the “F” word if she was a “Carl?”
Perversely, I take a different tack. How sad is it that you have elected to remove quotes from Carly from your speaking work?
That’s censorship.
Should we not listen to the words of Thomas Jefferson because in today’s world his illicit relationship with a human he felt he owned would make him a pariah? Or should we acknowledge that he was like us all – brilliant in many ways but flawed.
Carly’s autobiography includes solid leadership insights. Whether or not she was consistently able to execute against them or even had any intention of executing against them, she was smart enough to write them down. By not using them because some devalue her abilities – we’ll, you’re censoring yourself because of the lack of open minds of your audiences.
Censorship is too strong a word for this case. A communicator’s job it to communicate. If s/he feels that a quote won’t help get across the message the quote is supporting, or would even hinder it, then s/he is entirely at liberty to pull it and replace it with another one.
I suspect that in a few years time, when we’ve got a bit of perspective on the Fiorina issue, it will become perfectly OK to quote her again. But in the near aftermath, and given public attitudes, it will always be risky.
Ann:
Point well taken, and, while I agree with the sentiment, I also agree with Mark that censorship isn’t the right word. If I forbid you from quoting Carly–that would be censorship. I have to make choices as to what quotes, materials, stories, stats, etc I use given the time that I have with an audience, as do you or anyone else who communicates with other human beings (that would be all of us).
I typically have an hour to 90 minutes to “make my case” for Extreme Leadership in a way that will inspire people to act. So I dropped the quote for one simple reason: I can’t afford to spend the time it takes to give the right background and context–to tell the Carly/HP/Board broohaha story, for example–to get past the biases that many will have.
For the record, I happen to think highly of Carly Fiorina, and I believe that history will show that she was following the right path. And I’m looking forward to seeing what she does next. But the time it takes for me to explain that to an audience is simply time better spent on other examples.
Steve:
As we discussed off line, I think the real issue is one of trust of our own intrinsic wisdom. When we are afraid to believe in what we know and what resonates within us no matter who says it, we then want to place that trust outside of ourselves in the messenger. And when the messenger fails us, we no longer have the courage of our convictions to admit that this idea still resonates within us. Audacity would seem to support the notion that what is key is the resonance of the message, not so much our belief in the messenger. The answer would seem to lie somewhere in the notion of trusting that we know what we know and with courage that wisdom doesn’t necessarily require the confirmation of someone other. I think from a leadership perspective, this is what we do whether or not our decisions are confirmed by Carly or Elmer.