I saw Michael Moore’s latest film, Capitalism: A Love Story, on opening day. This was my first viewing of one of his documentaries (I know, I know, the rest are on my list, OK?).
Love him, hate him, or otherwise, I think this is an important film for most everyone to see. The stories are heart-wrenching, in a really good way, and his points are good.
I have two thoughts about it.
First, I’m not sure he’s using the word “capitalism” correctly. Leaving this film I got the impression that Michael equates “capitalism” with “greed, tyranny, and abuse of power.” These can clearly be effects of capitalism (God knows we’ve seen enough of that in the last year), but they are no more defining to the concept than “healthy competition,” or “innovation” — effects of capitalism which allow people to, say, make movies. I don’t have a suggestion for a better title — Ingloriously Greedy Wall Street Basterds has kind of already been taken, and just doesn’t have the same marketable ring — but vilifying the concept of capitalism isn’t exactly fair, either.
In addition, it occurred to me, more than once during the film, that the heinous acts Michael is describing could not have occurred without significant government involvement. To be fair, he actually points this out multiple times… but then stops short of seeing the contradiction in his argument. If government is involved in the ways he says they are, we’re actually not talking about capitalism anymore because the free market has been drastically tampered with.
These two thoughts aside, it is a fantastically enjoyable film.
P.S. The “Cleveland” segment made me laugh so hard I was crying. If you’ve seen it, you know exactly what I’m talking about.
P.P.S. Here’s a great article by a great author on the subject.
//
This might seem like common sense: the amount of talent an individual has is inversely proportional to the amount of preparation they need to create something excellent in their particular field.
Or more simply put, the more natural ability you have to play the piano, the less you have to practice to get good. Like I said; pretty common sense.
If this is logical, then the reverse would be equally true: the less talent you have at doing a particular activity, the more time it takes to present an acceptable product in that field.
Also fairly widely accepted. If you are bad at math, it takes you longer to do the homework.
Now, when confronted with these realities, it seems like the right thing is to focus more time on making our weaknesses better. After all, this is what we are taught our whole lives in school–if I suck at math, I spend the most time working on that subject.
But we are wrong.
Focusing on our weaknesses is usually completely futile. Let me ask you this: if you were a poor math student and spent an exorbitant amount of time studying in school, how are you at math today? Did you get really good at it?
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
By focusing on what already comes naturally to us, we can get exponentially better. And, it’s a heck of a lot more fun.
This is basic strengths theory and we’ve discussed it a lot. But the topic I want to explore a bit more today is actually weakness. How do we approach weakness from a strengths perspective?
Here’s the key to understanding this paradox: a strengths-based philosophy NEVER means ignoring your weaknesses. Instead, it means managing them.
First, let’s accept it: we all suck at something. And even more, what we suck at sucks the life out of us.
So why do we keep doing these things!? How can we stop sucking?
If we want to get better, we have three possible responses to the problem of weakness:
The first option is by far the best. This is called using complementary talent and it’s an incredibly powerful and enriching experience for you and your new teammate. You get to do what you’re good at, and so do they–win-win.
Although not preferred, the second option is sometimes necessary for a time. Because if your job REQUIRES you to play the piano, if you want to keep your job you better damn well practice. The piano isn’t a perfect example, here–replace it with “communication,” “strategy,” “starting things,” “building relationships, “executing” or whatever your hang-up might be.
The third option seems drastic, and might be. Sometimes for the health of our souls, families, etc., we do need to quit our jobs and find something new. But many times your manager will be more than happy to accommodate a discussion about how you could better use your strengths by modifying your job description or making a lateral move.
So, stop sucking. Just do it!
//
Welcome to the new blog design! The WordPress theme is called Press and was designed by the great folks at Obox.
I still have a few bugs to work out, but I’m hoping this makes the site a bit more aesthetically pleasing and my oft-long posts a bit easier for you to read.
Take a look around, and let me hear your feedback below!
//
Copyright © 2005-2012 Josh Allan Dykstra
