Target Marketing

You will be automatically redirected to targetmarketingmag in 20 seconds.
Skip this advertisement.

Advertisement
Advertisement
 
 

In Praise of Non-workaholics

A Primer on Management Technique

September 2007 By Denny Hatch
10
Get the Flash Player to see this rotator.
 

In the News

At the Home of F.D.R.’s Secret Friend
On a secluded bluff in Rhinebeck, N.Y., in one of the most beautiful spots overlooking the Hudson River, a 35-room Queen Anne mansion with a five-story turret is getting final touches on its first paint job since 1910. On one side, its rambling porch shines in bright maroon and green. On the other, where the painters and the grant money still haven’t penetrated, it looks like a crumbling wreck. This is Wilderstein, a stepchild among the Hudson River mansions, one of the last to be restored and despite its beauty one of the least visited—partly because its owner, Margaret Suckley (usually called Daisy), stayed on so long, cheerfully dispensing tea to strangers and far outlasting her family’s fortune. She died there in 1991, a few months before her hundredth birthday.
—Barbara Ireland, The New York Times, Sept. 7. 2007
One of the most shadowy, behind-the-scenes characters of recent history was a sixth cousin of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a plain little spinster lady named Margaret (Daisy) Suckley (rhymes with “book-lee”), whose Hudson River mansion is being renovated.

Suckley died in 1991 in her 100th year. For years she maintained she had nothing to add to what had been written about Roosevelt and his presidency. But when her house was cleaned out, a suitcase of letters was found under her bed, and to the astonishment of historians and family members, Suckley and Roosevelt had a long-term and very close relationship. Although the words are veiled in the mists of time, something magical seems to have happened between them—some kind of Monica Lewinsky moment that changed the dynamics of their interaction.

The story is told in an extraordinary book, “CLOSEST COMPANION: The Unknown Story of the Intimate Friendship Between Franklin Roosevelt and Margaret Suckley,” edited and annotated by Geoffrey C. Ward—alas, now out of print. (Amazon.com has one copy available for $98.)

What is interesting is how much light she shed on how Roosevelt relaxed during the 12 years of his presidency. He made for himself a life completely separate from the burdens of office—virtually impossible in this era of e-mail, BlackBerrys and instant satellite communications that can turn a person into a workaholic.

Being a workaholic does not guarantee success.

Some Current Workaholics
In the course of my daily vacuuming of the media for stories of people and events, I came across a number of workaholics—guys who were so consumed with their careers that they virtually had no other life. Among them:

* Frank Perdue, chicken mogul. “In building his poultry business, Perdue was the consummate entrepreneur and workaholic, who would put in 18 hours a day and get by on three or four hours’ sleep,” said the Associated Press obituary writer in April 2005. “He had a cot in his office and often spent the night there, even though his home was 50 yards away.”

* Robert Nardelli, former CEO of The Home Depot and recently appointed CEO of Chrysler. New York Times writers Julie Creswell and Michael Barbaro called him “an obsessive workaholic who rose at 4 a.m., logged 14-hour days and routinely worked through the weekend, splitting his time between Home Depot’s headquarters in Atlanta and shuttling from store-to-store in a chauffeured black Chevy Suburban.”

Takeaway Points to Consider:

* To be a workaholic is very likely to be incompetent.

* It is imperative to frequently get your head out of the business and into something else. If not, you chance becoming one-dimensional and going stale.

* “[Marshall] suffered fools badly and couldn’t stand people who came before him and stuttered or postured and didn’t get to the point. But he listened. He listened to everything that was told him, and his sure control of all the activities reported to his department from an obscure raid on an island outpost in the Marianas to the latest report from the Ultra intercepts enabled him to keep a heavy, palpitating, often frenetically busy organization under smooth, efficient control.”
Leonard Mosley

* “Marshall had always been a dedicated delegator of duties, who believed in picking the best man or woman for a job and then letting him or her get on with it.”
‑—Leonard Mosley

* “Remember: A’s hire A’s and B’s hire C’s.”
—Donald Rumsfeld

* Always hire A’s. In the first place, they are more fun to work with. Secondly, they always force you to strive for excellence.

* “THINK.”
—Thomas J. Watson, founder and CEO, IBM

Web Sites Related to Today's Edition:

Wilderstein Historic Site, Daisy Sukley’s Hudson River home
http://www.wilderstein.org/

Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, Hyde Park, N.Y.
http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/

Top Cottage, getaway house designed by Franklin D. Roosevelt
http://tinyurl.com/39xtab

“No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II” by Doris Kearns Goodwin
http://tinyurl.com/2unydp

“Marshall: Hero for Our Times” by Leonard Mosley
http://tinyurl.com/3477lk
 
10

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Bart Farris - Posted on September 18, 2007
Readers who want a copy of Closest Companion can go to www.campusi.com. Prices start at $15.16 for a used copy. Campusi is a great resource for Denny's readers who want to buy the books he talks about.
Lawrence Hansen - Posted on September 17, 2007
I'm coming late to this discussion, but I can't resist commenting. Many American executives and managers seem to have a strangely simplistic notion that the sheer quantity of hours put in by themselves and employees equates to high productivity. Nothing can be further from the truth, of course. The result of this attitude is that nobody thinks in terms of getting a task done as efficiently and quickly as possible. Why bother? You'll still have to put in the "face time," so inefficiently taking 2 days to do something that can adequately be accomplished in 2 hours helps fill that time. This obsession with "quantity time" also strikes me as a demonstration of the ol' Peter Principle in management promotions. I can't count how many times I've seen--or suffered under--this. Somebody who's a good worker gets promoted to management, which suddenly requires of him a totally different set of skills. But he/she knows how to function only as a high-achieving solo act and won't trust subordinates to delegate tasks to them. The work piles up, Boss responds by putting in more and more hours--all the while loudly complaining that his employees are slackers who don't work nearly as hard as he does. My current favorite saying: The amount of work expands to fill the amount of available time.
Mitzi - Posted on September 13, 2007
One of my favorite quotes, posted in large print by my desk is from Peter F. Drucker:

"There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all."

Andrew Billmann - Posted on September 13, 2007
As an employer, I would much rather have 5 or 6 good hours from my employees than 10 or 12 crappy ones. If anyone ROUTINELY puts in 12 hour days, they either need help or are completely incompetent. I've yet to see an exception to this.
Rick Olson - Posted on September 13, 2007
It's remarkably easy to find ways to work longer days. It's much harder to establish boundaries and have a life, which is what we work for anyway, isn't it?

I use 2 techniques and get tons done is a reasonable 5-day work week.

1) Ask the question, why are we doing this and what if we didn't. In other words, who cares? (posed as a legitimate
question). So much of what we do is busy work.

2) As a manager, it is sometimes easy to "just do it" rather than do something else with it. I use the "6D" method to evaluate tasks:

>Don't do it (least effort)
>Delay it
>Deflect it
>Delegate it
>Do it imperfectly
>Do it (most effort)

It's amazing how many things don't make it through the list and onto your desk.
Dave Hendricks - Posted on September 13, 2007
Denny - at the risk of outing myself as a slacker I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment about workaholics and their illness.

Roosevelt and Marshall certainly belong in the pantheon of 'most influential', but I would also add that there are some workaholics who come pretty close, namely Robert Moses and LBJ. Both of these men exhibited mastery of their domains similar to FDR and Marshall, but did so in perhaps a more intense fashion with the same lasting effect. With Moses, it was his vision or parks and highways combined with his single-minded determination to let nothing get in his way that fundamentally changed NY and the concept of transportation. Does it equal WWII or the Marshall Plan? Not sure about that.

With LBJ, it was a 30 year slog from poor soon of failed farmers to the creation of the Great Society which reflects a single-minded effort to both acquire and wield power that affects each and everyone of us today, for good and bad.
Robb Ruyle - Posted on September 13, 2007
Denny, I had always heard and read that General Marshall was the only person in government whom Roosevelt didn't address by his first name, but only as "General." I'd be interested in the source of your quotation in the first paragraph of your section on Marshall.

Fascinating article, particularly regarding President Roosevelt and Miss Suckley. Thanks!

Joe Barcia - Posted on September 13, 2007
Denny, America is in desperate need right now of another Roosevelt and Marshall. Unfortunately, all we have is a Bush. God help us!
David Culbertson - Posted on September 13, 2007
It's amazing - these men and their subordinates did so well without computers, cell phones, etc!

By not having such devices, only the most important communications arrived by "fast" means.

Today, all communications are received by "fast" means - email, chat, text messaging - so people are having difficulty determining what is truly important and urgent.
Ray Butkus - Posted on September 13, 2007
Denny:

Bravo on a fine piece. FDR and Marshall are my picks as most influential American's of the 20th century as well. I visisted Hyde Park again just a few months ago and came away with the reaffirmed conviction that FDR is amoung the 3 greatest US presidents. Your story was the highlight of my day!
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Bart Farris - Posted on September 18, 2007
Readers who want a copy of Closest Companion can go to www.campusi.com. Prices start at $15.16 for a used copy. Campusi is a great resource for Denny's readers who want to buy the books he talks about.
Lawrence Hansen - Posted on September 17, 2007
I'm coming late to this discussion, but I can't resist commenting. Many American executives and managers seem to have a strangely simplistic notion that the sheer quantity of hours put in by themselves and employees equates to high productivity. Nothing can be further from the truth, of course. The result of this attitude is that nobody thinks in terms of getting a task done as efficiently and quickly as possible. Why bother? You'll still have to put in the "face time," so inefficiently taking 2 days to do something that can adequately be accomplished in 2 hours helps fill that time. This obsession with "quantity time" also strikes me as a demonstration of the ol' Peter Principle in management promotions. I can't count how many times I've seen--or suffered under--this. Somebody who's a good worker gets promoted to management, which suddenly requires of him a totally different set of skills. But he/she knows how to function only as a high-achieving solo act and won't trust subordinates to delegate tasks to them. The work piles up, Boss responds by putting in more and more hours--all the while loudly complaining that his employees are slackers who don't work nearly as hard as he does. My current favorite saying: The amount of work expands to fill the amount of available time.
Mitzi - Posted on September 13, 2007
One of my favorite quotes, posted in large print by my desk is from Peter F. Drucker:

"There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all."

Andrew Billmann - Posted on September 13, 2007
As an employer, I would much rather have 5 or 6 good hours from my employees than 10 or 12 crappy ones. If anyone ROUTINELY puts in 12 hour days, they either need help or are completely incompetent. I've yet to see an exception to this.
Rick Olson - Posted on September 13, 2007
It's remarkably easy to find ways to work longer days. It's much harder to establish boundaries and have a life, which is what we work for anyway, isn't it?

I use 2 techniques and get tons done is a reasonable 5-day work week.

1) Ask the question, why are we doing this and what if we didn't. In other words, who cares? (posed as a legitimate
question). So much of what we do is busy work.

2) As a manager, it is sometimes easy to "just do it" rather than do something else with it. I use the "6D" method to evaluate tasks:

>Don't do it (least effort)
>Delay it
>Deflect it
>Delegate it
>Do it imperfectly
>Do it (most effort)

It's amazing how many things don't make it through the list and onto your desk.
Dave Hendricks - Posted on September 13, 2007
Denny - at the risk of outing myself as a slacker I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment about workaholics and their illness.

Roosevelt and Marshall certainly belong in the pantheon of 'most influential', but I would also add that there are some workaholics who come pretty close, namely Robert Moses and LBJ. Both of these men exhibited mastery of their domains similar to FDR and Marshall, but did so in perhaps a more intense fashion with the same lasting effect. With Moses, it was his vision or parks and highways combined with his single-minded determination to let nothing get in his way that fundamentally changed NY and the concept of transportation. Does it equal WWII or the Marshall Plan? Not sure about that.

With LBJ, it was a 30 year slog from poor soon of failed farmers to the creation of the Great Society which reflects a single-minded effort to both acquire and wield power that affects each and everyone of us today, for good and bad.
Robb Ruyle - Posted on September 13, 2007
Denny, I had always heard and read that General Marshall was the only person in government whom Roosevelt didn't address by his first name, but only as "General." I'd be interested in the source of your quotation in the first paragraph of your section on Marshall.

Fascinating article, particularly regarding President Roosevelt and Miss Suckley. Thanks!

Joe Barcia - Posted on September 13, 2007
Denny, America is in desperate need right now of another Roosevelt and Marshall. Unfortunately, all we have is a Bush. God help us!
David Culbertson - Posted on September 13, 2007
It's amazing - these men and their subordinates did so well without computers, cell phones, etc!

By not having such devices, only the most important communications arrived by "fast" means.

Today, all communications are received by "fast" means - email, chat, text messaging - so people are having difficulty determining what is truly important and urgent.
Ray Butkus - Posted on September 13, 2007
Denny:

Bravo on a fine piece. FDR and Marshall are my picks as most influential American's of the 20th century as well. I visisted Hyde Park again just a few months ago and came away with the reaffirmed conviction that FDR is amoung the 3 greatest US presidents. Your story was the highlight of my day!