10 July 2025

The Future of Success

Recommendation

Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich, who served during the Clinton administration, hasn’t really unearthed any strikingly original discoveries in his look at the new economy, but the sheer power of his intellect allows him to follow well-documented trends to fresh conclusions. After restating the many economic benefits that technology has wrought in the past decade, Reich moves to the topic that arouses his deepest interests: the changing dynamics of the labor market and the implications of these changes for unskilled workers. His take on the diminished importance of the family and the undermining of social relationships is very interesting. He says these trends have turned community into a kind of commodity that can be bought and sold. Although he prepared the book during the high-tech boom, he foreshadows the bursting bubble, using examples from familiar news stories in novel ways to support his analysis. BooksInShort.com recommends this thoughtful book to anyone concerned about the future of work or workers, both skilled and unskilled. Will your job survive?

Take-Aways

  • The new economy offers terrific products, investments and jobs.
  • Technological developments in communication, transportation and information processing are the motors of growth.
  • The availability of better deals has increased sales competition and innovation.
  • Social disruptions accompany the rush to compete and innovate.
  • People feel they must sell themselves continually to succeed financially in these unpredictable, competitive times.
  • The search for the best deal has contributed to a decline in loyalty.
  • People are working harder, since earnings are less predictable and jobs are less secure.
  • Because business now demands people with ideas and knowledge, talented workers are making more money, while those doing routine work are falling behind.
  • At the heart of innovation are the "geeks" - who develop ideas - and the "shrinks" - who understand people and commerce.
  • The fastest growing markets offer products that are not necessary, such as entertainment.

Summary

What Hath the New Economy Wrought?

The new economy is bringing an array of first-time deals and choices to your doorstep. You can choose among innovative work assignments, fresh consumer goods, flexible business arrangements, new kinds of investments and even distinct communities to join - if you have the right resources and abilities.

“Now you owe your career to yourself. Financial success depends on how well you sell you.”

This economic growth is driven by technology, including new developments in data management, mass transport and communication, among other elements in the social infrastructure. Technological innovations make it possible to locate and obtain better deals from all over the world - and to change from one deal to an even better one. The result is vastly more competition among sellers, as manufacturers jostle for market position. They rush to cut costs, add consumer value and create innovative, competitive products. This boom in production means that you can buy better products and services more quickly and less expensively.

“The way paid work is coming to be organized and rewarded in the new economy is inducing people to work longer and harder, and to sell themselves with ever greater urgency. As a result, there is less room for families, which are being downsized and outsourced.”

This dynamism has created a windfall of economic benefits but, like other storms, it includes some disruptive gusty weather. These innovations affect aspects of modern life beyond products and services, and have had a particular impact on relationships, job continuity and both family and corporate stability. Society is unsettled because everyone pushes all the time. Buyers push to switch to better deals. Sellers strive to get and keep customers and clients. As people scramble, it’s harder to be confident about anything - from earnings to relationships. Everyone’s life is increasingly unpredictable, less secure and more frenzied. Such instability affects your personal life with your family, friends and community, your work and even your sense of self.

“The first and most obvious reason that Americans are working harder is to prop up family incomes.”

In this supercharged environment, corporations are clamoring for more people with ideas and knowledge. Of course, that pushes salaries higher for crucial employees. But, while income is rising rapidly for the most talented, most educated people, wages are declining for those who do routine work, which is already poorly compensated. The gap between the skilled haves and the unskilled have-nots is growing. At the same time, because trained people can and do switch easily among jobs, even these prized employees find it more difficult to form close links with their peers. This kind of society also finds it simpler to exclude those with deeper needs, including the impoverished, the uneducated, the ailing and the untrained. As a result, society is increasingly fragmented and stratified.

"The Age of the Terrific Deal"

This has become the era of the good, better and best deal, in which buyers bounce from one product or service to the next. When switching products is this easy, the market influences how people react, leading every company to try more diligently to satisfy its customers. People work harder than ever as the economic locomotive roars by and they try to get or stay on board.

“The basic reality is that jobs at the bottom of the income ladder don’t pay enough to support a working woman and her children, even if she’s living and sharing expenses with a man who’s also at the bottom of the income ladder.”

Until recently, getting the exact product you wanted was a challenge because mass production promoted sameness. Under the old system, producers invested up front and sought economies of scale by accurately replicating and selling more of the same items. The logic of this system led to mergers between producers, leaving only a few survivors in each industry. This dynamic created a kind of oligarchy by the 1950s, with prices and standards set by regulatory agencies. Organized labor played a role in helping to regulate industries. Deals between labor and management avoided strikes and work stoppages. In turn, mass marketing supported mass production and consumers got more things more cheaply.

“A child’s world requires some stability and reliability if the child is to grow and thrive. Yet the emerging economy is discontinuous, and is anything but stable and reliable.”

In the 1970s, digital technologies enabled additional capability, so manufacturers began shifting from high-volume production to high-value production. As a result, sellers could tailor products to buyers while reducing production costs. Economies of scale may still help control costs, but the advent of this technological shift made such economies less important.

“The faster the economy changes - with new innovations and opportunities engendering faster switches by customers...the harder it is for people to be confident of what any of us will earn...what they will be doing, where they will be doing it. ...Our lives are less predictable.”

Today’s expanding global market gives buyers more choices. Manufacturers promote variety and buyers connect directly with a broader spectrum of sellers. The overall result is that sellers have to compete by improving their services and products, and by creating new offerings that appeal to buyers. Sellers are pressed to cut costs, since buyers can get reliable wide-ranging comparative data on product prices and quality, and are no longer limited by where a product is made or sold. No wonder sellers feel both innovative and insecure.

Competing in the Faster Marketplace

As societies become richer, the industries that provide non-essential products and services become the fastest growing segments of their economies. These fast-growing markets include entertainment, intellectual stimulation, personal contact, family welfare and financial security. The main strategies for competing in this fast-moving, innovative marketplace are:

  1. Cut costs.
  2. Improve your product, a step that carries some element of risk.
  3. Devise new products, which is an even riskier endeavor.
“Entrepreneurial vision depends on combining the geek’s insights into what’s possible with the shrink’s intuitions about what’s desired.”

Even if a new product succeeds, its success is likely to be temporary, because competitors and copycats emerge quickly. As in a lottery, the more bets you make, the more likely it is that one will result in a big pay-off. In a crowded, noisy marketplace - where it may be hard for customers to find you - offer multiple selections and team up with a big brand that has a reliable reputation. Consumers increasingly look to such brands to guide them through the jungles of the new economy. Given the resources of large companies, their brands tend to earn the most consumer trust. This leads to higher profits and market value. Even if your company links its products to a large brand, you must maintain public trust by offering excellent wares, otherwise, you can lose your reputation quickly.

"Geeks" and "Shrinks"

Two types of personalities will be in more demand during this push for innovation and will be able to command higher wages:

  1. The "Geek" - This creative innovator or financial wizard can exploit the full potential of his or her medium, be it technology, the stock market or music.
  2. The "Shrink" - This savvy advisor, agent or marketer discerns market possibilities by identifying consumers’ wants or needs and knows how to respond to those demands. Call him or her a "shrink," because he or she really understands the market.
“It’s not unusual for a 23-year-old geek with a hot skill to be earning several times more than a ’senior manager’ three levels up.”

The "geek is fascinated with the medium;" and the "shrink is fascinated with people." Together, they constitute an entrepreneurial whole. The geek’s ability to understand a product’s potential meets its perfect match in the shrink’s skill at knowing what the market wants and how to present it. Companies need both kinds of talent. One has the insight to create new ideas and the other knows what the market wants. Your profits depend on the medium and the market or, as they are called on the Internet, "content" and "traffic."

Where’s the Loyalty?

However, while the demand for both the geek and shrink has increased, the value and wages of workers who do repetitive or routine jobs have declined. Increasingly, machines or software can do their work quicker and cheaper. Driven by the quest for the "better deal," firms feel free to drop such workers in response to competitive economic pressures and the decline in employee loyalty. Thus, the once reliable, long-term relationship between employees and organizations has eroded, causing a decline in the traditional social contract. Firms no longer feel a duty toward their staff or communities. Rather, they feel pressured to maximize returns. Investors, who also seek better deals, have gained tremendous power. As a result, everyone’s jobs and earnings are less secure. While geeks and shrinks may do better financially, routine production workers are suffering, particularly as more companies move rote jobs to foreign nations to benefit from lower labor costs.

“The greater the number of bets you can make, the more likely one will pay off big enough to cover the other bets and allow you to keep a step ahead when your rivals catch on.”

Other shifts are also changing the way employment has always worked. Now, organizations are being flattened into networks of entrepreneurial groups and teams, each of which does a series of projects. Less management is necessary since people increasingly coordinate themselves, in many cases using the Internet to communicate among distant individuals and groups. Even full-time employees are affected, more and more becoming sellers of services to customers and clients under the brand name of their organization. Their income depends on how much buyers are willing to pay, and on the reputation and draw of the brand name. This trend foretells the end of steady work, the need for continuous effort and the widening inequality between those who are paid well and those who aren’t.

Changing Lifestyles

Your lifestyle may be affected by these technological and economic changes:

  • You are working harder - It has become difficult to predict what your wages will be and your employment is not as dependable as it once was, so you are putting in more labor, striving more diligently, for longer hours. More women are in the workforce, shifting from home into the workplace, and from part-time to full-time work. Work overlaps more into everyone’s personal life, as today’s intrusive but convenient machines - from the mobile phone to the PDA - demand constant, immediate attention.
  • You must market yourself more - Because incomes and jobs are so unpredictable, you may feel a growing pressure to sell yourself. Succeeding at self-promotion increasingly depends on having the right connections to get a job, because businesses are more likely to rely upon referrals from people they trust, just as consumers seek trustworthy brands.
  • Making a name for yourself matters more - If you must remain focused on attracting new business, you need to become known in your field. The trend is for people with talent to invest in their personal brand, rather than investing in their present organizations, since one’s future in an organization is uncertain. You will make more money if you increase the value of your personal brand, but selling yourself can interfere with your relationship with your organization and with your personal relationships. "When the personality is for sale, all relationships turn into potential business deals."
  • Families are becoming smaller - Overall, women are having fewer babies. Fewer women need to marry to have economic security. Couples are having fewer children, and are delaying children due to work. The intensity of family life is diminishing because relatives are separated. Parents work, grandparents live elsewhere and kids have multiple activities.
  • More people pay for tending and attention - The job market for care or attention-givers is growing. This includes those who care for children, the elderly, the disabled, the psychologically troubled or even healthy adults who buy more help or attention. A primary reason for this development is the decline in the number of nearby family members or friends who might provide attention that is based on affection.
  • The community is becoming a commodity - People join activities now as consumers, not participants. They purchase care for their children and health care, or join investment and buying clubs. Communities are becoming marketable goods, where people seek to gain the best deal when they join a group. Today, people choose their affiliations based on the benefits they will get from the group, whereas at one time people were part of broader, more enduring communities, such as clans and villages. All sorts of sorting mechanisms - residence, college, interest groups - operate as people choose affiliations and pay to join.
“You will never reach a point where you can relax. Even if you succeed, your success will be temporary, because your competitors are sure to follow quickly.”

Given these developments, it is time to make choices about what you want individually and what our society wants. What personal and public choices should you make? And how can society achieve a better balance between economic dynamism and social tranquility?

About the Author

Robert B. Reich is a Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as Secretary of Labor under U.S. President Bill Clinton. He is co-founder and national editor of The American Prospect, and his writing has appeared in The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. He has written several books, including Locked in the Cabinet, The Work of Nations and The Resurgent Liberal.


Read summary...
The Future of Success

Book The Future of Success

Knopf,
First Edition:2000


 



10 July 2025

Forces of Fortune

Recommendation

Since September 11, 2001, the media has saturated Westerners with information about radical Islam. Many people view Islam as a monolithically fundamentalist creed whose followers hate the West. International politics professor Vali Nasr addresses this misconception, explaining that the members of the expanding Muslim middle class, notably in Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Dubai (as seen before its economic woes), want many of the same things that Westerners want, but within an Islamic framework. Readers may find this unexpected, but Nasr makes the journey understandable by serving as economist, investigator and tour guide. BooksInShort, which recommends books but takes no stand on politics or religion (the opinions in the summary are those of the book's author), suggests his solid analysis particularly to those interested in these four breaking-news countries. While Nasr thinks religious extremism has peaked, he believes Islam is not yet ready for Western-type religious reform, though he sees that as a potential future path. He predicts that religious moderation will slowly evolve to trump fundamentalism, but that change must come from within the Muslim community.

Take-Aways

  • Islamic fundamentalism remains a prevalent, violent force in many Muslim nations, but its power has peaked and it does not abet national development or prosperity.
  • Economic growth is fostering a growing Muslim middle class, the “critical middle,” especially in Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Dubai.
  • This group can produce political change but still seeks religious traditionalism. Many people balance modernity with traditional Islam, as “an anchor in changing times.”
  • More Islamic nations are pairing consumerism with their Muslim beliefs.
  • Given a choice, Muslims vote for candidates who support jobs, security, public services and fiscal growth.
  • Muslims will view Western support for Islamic reform as subverting their religion.
  • Westerners must see the distinctions among fundamentalists.
  • Fundamentalist groups have helped people when secular governments have not.
  • Estimates say that Islamic financial institutions will soon hold $1 trillion in assets.
  • Historically, when military forces assume power in a postcolonial society, they “scorn” democracy. That pattern has repeated itself often, most recently in Pakistan.

Summary

The Force of Fundamentalism

Two milestone dates mark the growth of Islamic fundamentalism: Ayatollah Khomeini’s return to Iran in 1979 and the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. Since then, Islamic fundamentalism has become a violent, prevalent force in many Muslim nations. In response, many Western nations, especially the U.S., have prioritized the fight against terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. Terrorism has led to a cold-war mentality, reducing policy analysis to binary decisions asking whether an action promotes or deters the expansion of fundamentalism.

“We will do ourselves a disservice if we think of our future with the Muslim world only in terms of today’s conflicts.”

This view, which dominates U.S. policies, ignores events in Muslim societies that point in a different direction. The West doesn’t seem to realize that even if Iran had nuclear capability, it would not become a regional power. Iran’s gross domestic product is about the same as Massachusetts’, its military budget is less than one-third of Saudi Arabia’s and it is very “isolated.” Iran’s nuclear program has two goals, both intended to forestall any attempts to change the current regime. The first is to “improve its military.” The second is to distract Western nations and activist Iranians from the nation’s deep-rooted economic problems stemming from its “corrupt and inefficient” state-run bureaucracy.

“The distinctive blending of Islamic values and economic vitality is a crucial development in the Muslim world that should shape our approach to building better relations with the region.”

India and Pakistan took similar development paths in the ’70s, but only India became a great regional power, due to its “economic growth rate, newfound friendliness to free markets and ability to integrate into the global economy.” Islamic fundamentalism alone cannot fuel such national economic development. But, free markets and a growing middle class, especially in Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and Dubai, can trump radical fundamentalism and offer the higher living standard many Muslims seek. This “liberalization through capitalism” process pairs consumerism and free markets with traditional beliefs and a better lifestyle. The West should “fuel” the new Islamic middle class’s potential” and not let “the chimerical power of fundamentalism” dominate.

“Economics has more to do with determining the pecking order in the Middle East than the region’s miasmic tumult of feuds, wars and saber rattlings would lead one to believe.”

As more Muslims invest according to “Shariah” law, they will reshape the global financial industry. Persian Gulf monarchies, including Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), posted more than $1.5 trillion in oil and gas exports from 2001 to 2007. This may reach $9 trillion by 2020. Other forecasts say that Islamic financial institutions soon will hold more than $1 trillion in assets, and GDP is on the rise in Muslim nations. The annual rate of increase in 2007 was 6.1% in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Persian Gulf. While somewhat lower in Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey, it still exceeded the 2.2% growth in the U.S. and Europe that year. Muslims participate in the global economy and embrace modernity while following traditional religious practice. Such trends indicate that the middle class will continue to grow.

The Dubai Story

Dubai is one of the seven members of the UAE. Its GDP expanded 267% between 1995 and 2008. In 2007, even on the cusp of the recession, Dubai had an 11% growth rate. It undertook the region’s most frenzied building expansion as oil exports declined. It also expanded its service industries, which contribute more than 80% of its GDP. This crucial trading hub combines Muslim lifestyles with capitalism. It invested billions in Citigroup and Barclays Bank and owns 20% of Nasdaq. Dubai uses public-private investment partnerships to create government-financed conglomerates based on capitalism, not nationalized businesses. This structure is radically different from those in Egypt, Syria, Iran and other Muslim nations that favor state ownership, high taxes and heavy regulation, including restrictions on foreign investors. Dubai, which admits foreign corporations, had prospered by streamlining its bureaucracy and reducing regulation.

Revisiting Fundamentalism

Westerners err when they fail to distinguish between various strains of Islamic fundamentalism. As a broad religious swath, it is quite different from the move toward conservative Islam now growing in Pakistan, Turkey, the Persian Gulf and Egypt. Fundamentalists believe Muslims should live in Islamic states in order to achieve their higher spiritual goals, including piety and attainment of heaven. They concur that Shariah law should govern an Islamic state, but they do not agree on how to implement it or on how an ideal Islamic state should operate. Modernity, rationalism and fundamentalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, none of the 9/11 hijackers had a traditional Islamic education; some were science and engineering students who had lived in the West. After 9/11, some clerics, such as Iraqi Shia leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali al-Sistani, promoted social activism and downplayed violence. Merchants in Iraq and Algeria have backed less radical leaders to promote social stability and a secure business environment.

“The great battle for the soul of Iran – and for the soul of the region as a whole – will be fought not over religion but over business and capitalism.”

Westerners who don’t distinguish among fundamentalist groups miss many political openings. Western nations have supported inept or corrupt secular governments. When those governments fail, fundamentalist clerics or groups fill the void. For instance, when an earthquake hit Cairo in 1992, the bureaucratic Egyptian government was ineffectual in leading the relief effort, so the Muslim Brotherhood took the lead. Such stories emerged in Turkey in 1999 and Pakistan in 2005. Poverty and fundamentalism are not necessarily connected. A Gallup poll in Muslim nations found that many fundamentalists get more education, make better salaries and hold more responsible positions than do “self-described moderates.” The Muslim masses and the middle class care more about responsive government and social services than about radical fundamentalism or jihad. In 2008, Pakistani fundamentalists won only 2% of the vote. Turkey’s AKP Party had strong gains after advocating honest, responsive government that elevated leadership over religion. Given a choice, Muslim voters elect Muslim candidates who support “jobs, public services and economic growth.”

Islam and Pluralism

After World War I, Reza Shah Pahlavi and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk tried to remake Iran and Turkey respectively into European-style secular states. Both efforts failed over time, due to political mistakes, corruption, patronage, repression, mismanagement and the slow emergence of middle class opposition. Yet Iran’s middle-class businesspeople and academics faced grave danger after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This “made an enormous impression on their [Muslim] counterparts.” Later, the region’s “secular middle class” mostly avoided aligning with “Islamic forces.” Ultimately, the Islamic Revolution did not spread widely and “secular states survived.”

“We fear Iran’s ruling clerics and their designs for the Middle East, and rightly so.”

Now the Muslim middle class is becoming more pluralistic, as seen in its ongoing conversations about women’s rights, economics, democracy and new interpretations of Islamic teachings. These discussions occur in movies, blogs, books, TV programs and even in sermons by a new breed of Muslim televangelists. The advent of these new sources of religious instruction outside traditional mosques is a major development, especially in the matter of issuing fatwas clerical decrees with the weight of religious legal interpretations. Now, media-savvy clerics issue religious rulings via websites or phone calls and interpret Islamic laws to be more responsive to modern demands.

“Fundamentalism and extremism speak to the Muslim world’s deep-seated yearning for change.”

Such modernization is not the same as religious reform. In fact, the rise of the middle class has fostered a need for traditionalism as an anchor in changing times. The West should not push for Islamic reform, since Muslims would see that as an effort to subvert their religion. Instead, world powers should encourage Islam to undergo a transformation like the one that helped modernize Catholicism in the 1990s. This is happening as modern clerics encourage people to read the Koran and form their own opinions, rather than relying on politically inspired religious leaders. Women are pivotal in this reform.

“Most countries have a military; in Pakistan, the military has a country.”

Young people have adopted the Internet and Western leisure activities and music, but that does not indicate a growing liberal movement in Islam, though young people make up the majority of adherents in many countries. More than 50% of the 300 million inhabitants of the Middle East are younger than 25. Modern youth tend to remain “pious,” even when they rebel against “the yoke of clerical rule.” And millions of young people join fundamentalist, anti-democracy paramilitary groups.

Pakistan’s House of Mirrors

For about 60 years, the U.S.’s Middle East policy has supported authoritarian regimes. This has produced corrupt nations governed by military forces that have fostered sectarian and ethnic strife. In June 2005, then-U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said U.S. foreign policy was changing; it would promote prodemocracy governments and disavow secular dictatorships. Yet the U.S. continued to support Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf, who vowed to fight Afghanistan’s Taliban. Musharraf liberalized the media and promoted banking as consumer spending grew. He endorsed Ataturk’s policies, including prioritizing secular society above traditional Islam. He consolidated his military and political power, and pushed for judicial control and election reform. But in 2008, he stepped down in the face of rebellion and upheaval. Historically, when a military force assumes power in a postcolonial society, it disdains democracy and human rights. Pakistan was no exception. After Musharraf left, the military emerged to restore order, igniting a cycle of manipulation and corruption, and moving to control a weak, temporary civilian regime even as people demanded elections.

“Fundamentalism is...a peculiar call to modernism, one that wants to rely on bureaucratic and legal structures to bring about the fruits of modernity, but that wants modernity without secularism.”

Pakistan’s rivalry with India is a primary reason for its downward political spiral. Pakistan has opposed India since its traumatic partition in 1947. This huge social upheaval separated Muslims from Hindus, creating Pakistan as a polyglot Muslim state including “Bengalis, Punjabis, Pashtuns, Sindhis and Baluchis.” Pakistan was always hard to govern, but its ethnic groups agreed on the need to confront India and to control disputed Kashmir.

“There is very little in the way of liberalizing reform going on in the Muslim world today.”

In 1994, to prevent Afghani Pashtuns from reclaiming border territory and to counteract Indian influence, Pakistan began supporting a separate, mostly Pashtun group: the “puritanical” Taliban, which strengthened with the support of the poor. Pakistan let the Taliban build bases in its mountainous northwest so they could establish a republic in north Afghanistan. The Taliban gained power and supported Pakistan.

“It is too soon to conclude that fundamentalist parties will all moderate and happily coexist with democracy.”

Until 2004, Pakistan nurtured the jihadist al-Qaeda on its border. Al-Qaeda gained a stronger grip, eventually fomenting a crisis in Pakistan in 2007 when thousands of guerillas attacked targets in Islamabad. From March 2007 to January 2008, Pakistanis rebelled against Musharraf’s militarism and his support of Islamic fundamentalists. By early 2008, Pakistan ousted Musharraf. The newly elected government has been no match for the military, and the “economy has begun to unravel.” Pakistan earned $267 million from tourism in 2007 and nearly nothing in 2008.

The Struggle in Turkey

Turkey now balances the national secular model of Kemalism against the fundamentalist-leaning Adalet ve Kalkinma Partisi (the Justice and Development party, called the AKP). Tensions may mount, but Turkey will not become another Iran because it has embraced economic market reforms and it has an entrepreneurial middle class. Turkey’s planned admission into the European Union requires it to hold elections, reduce its military and improve its human rights practices. Turkey’s modern secular development never penetrated below the upper classes or those with university educations. When the military liberalized Islamic practices in the early 1980s, a variety of religious groups became popular. Turkey remains a Muslim state where observant practitioners seek economic development, political pluralism, globalization and liberal economic policies.

“The great transformation in the Middle East is just beginning, but...all great transformations start small, and they are driven by trends that are little noticed before they gather full steam.”

Under Prime Minister Turgut Ozal, Turkey promoted exports, legalized Islamic banking, removed protective tariffs and pushed for a market economy. By 2002, the AKP had become Turkey’s governing party. From 2002 to 2007, GDP tripled and exports soared from $30 billion to $125 billion. Turkish voters accepted the AKP because it promotes pro-European, procapitalist, prodemocracy messages. Turkey faces challenges, but it is on the way to becoming a large Muslim capitalist democracy. The West should encourage its growth.

About the Author

Tufts University professor Vali Nasr is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior fellow for the Dubai Initiative at Harvard University. The author of The Shia Revival, Democracy in Iran and Islamic Leviathan, he writes for major U.S. newspapers.


Read summary...
Forces of Fortune

Book Forces of Fortune

The Rise of the New Muslim Middle Class and What It Will Mean for Our World

Free Press,


 



10 July 2025

Just Ask Leadership

Recommendation

The Greek philosopher Socrates, father of the famous Socratic method, never met a question he did not like. Executive coach and consultant Gary B. Cohen shows a similar enthusiasm for the power of questions, believing that you should measure great leaders by what they ask rather than how they command. And to that end, he provides a number of specific leadership questions designed to accomplish five broad goals: “improve vision, ensure accountability, build unity and cooperation, create better decisions and motivate [people] to action.” Although Cohen’s writing style is quite basic, his colorful anecdotes and case studies effectively tackle an often overlooked facet of leadership. If you are uncertain about which question to start with, BooksInShort has one for you: Why not check out this book?

Take-Aways

  • No one likes receiving orders, but everyone likes an opportunity to offer input. However, the majority of leaders prefer to issue commands rather than to ask questions.
  • This authoritarian form of leadership is passé. To lead modern workers, “just ask.”
  • By asking questions, you acknowledge others’ expertise and show them respect.
  • Questions enable you to “improve vision, ensure accountability, build unity and cooperation, create better decisions and motivate [people] to action.”
  • When you face a decision that could affect your reputation or your firm’s, consider how you would feel if the “issue made the front page of the newspaper,” and act accordingly.
  • If your employees are repeating mistakes, “provide choices with real consequences.”
  • Increase participation in the meetings you organize by opening with a question. Then encourage everyone to respond.
  • Be a good listener. Stay alert and pay attention to nuances in the conversation.
  • Ensure that the questions you ask are authentic and are not meant to demean others.
  • Eliminate “escape routes,” so employees stop asking why they should do a task and focus instead on how they should do it.

Summary

Ask, Don’t Tell

Do you like being told what to do? Or do you prefer that people ask for your thoughts and opinions instead? Ninety-five percent of leaders interviewed prefer the latter. Ironically, nearly 60% of the same individuals would rather issue orders than ask others for input. Isn’t it time for leaders to extend the same courtesy and respect to others that they want for themselves? Don’t lead by telling; lead by asking. Learn from Jack Chain’s example. When he was a Pentagon staff officer, he described his job thusly: “I answer questions.” He has since become a four-star general and says, “Now, I ask the questions.” The best advice for any leader is “just ask.”

“Improve Vision”

Asking questions can help you better understand yourself, your colleagues and your company. Use questions like the following to test your values and goals:

  • “Are our values as strong as our profits?” – Marketing Architects, a Minneapolis-based firm, buys radio time on behalf of direct-response advertisers. When the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks occurred, many other advertisers quickly pulled their ads. However, Marketing Architects continued to honor previous agreements to buy airtime. The firm even said it would compensate for any shortfalls its clients experienced due to low response rates. To the company, values trump profits. As things turned out, more people tuned in to radio after 9/11 than before. So Marketing Architects’ altruism paid off for the company and its clients. How would your firm have handled this situation? Consider this guideline: Ask yourself, “What is the right thing to do?” Then do it.
  • “Is there a gap between our stated values and our operating values?” – The business decisions you and your employees make should align with your firm’s stated values. If your company doesn’t have stated values, change that. Involve your staffers in establishing a firm ethos for your organization.
  • “How true are the stories we tell?” – People’s viewpoints take “the form of stories.” With each retelling, such stories seem less subjective and more real to the individual. Encourage your employees to share the stories they’ve formed about your organization by asking questions such as, “What responsibilities or daily tasks are you tied to, and why?” or even, “Why did you react so strongly to the speech our CEO gave?” Discuss any misperceptions they may have.
  • “How would I feel if this issue made the front page of the newspaper?” – Apply this question to any decision that could have an impact on your reputation or the company’s. Basing your actions on the answer may help you avoid negative publicity.
  • “Am I leading into the future or am I managing the present?” – CEOs and other senior leaders must take a long-range view and decide their organizations’ actions accordingly. As you move up within the ranks, adopt an increasingly macro viewpoint. Whereas a manager should maintain a “day, week, month and quarter perspective,” a president should have a “month, quarter, annual and three- to five-year perspective.”

“Ensure Accountability”

Avoid micromanaging your people. That will only inhibit their creativity and development. Instead, focus on increasing accountability by asking questions such as these:

  • “Are my team leaders leaving a trail of frustrated people behind?” – Some leaders have a good reputation with their superiors, but a bad one with their subordinates. For that reason, the U.S. Navy is now looking into the possibility of using 360-degree evaluations, which include feedback from co-workers at many levels, to gauge its leaders’ performance. When evaluating your direct reports, always “ask the ones who know best – those who are below.”
  • “How do I get co-workers to stop repeating the same mistakes?” – The solution is simple: “Provide choices with real consequences.” For example, if a colleague is constantly disorganized at meetings despite your repeated reminders to plan ahead, ask, “Do you want to be part of the team and start coming prepared to meetings, or would you rather move on?” He or she will quickly get the message.
  • “Am I an interrogator or an interviewer?” – Interrogators aim to induce stress in someone else, whereas interviewers try to create a pressure- and blame-free environment. Curt Carlson, CEO of Carlson Companies, routinely interrogated his employees – for example, drilling them about various facts and statistics – to keep them on their toes. His approach unnerved his employees, but it also made them more responsible. Whether your organization fosters a culture of interrogation or of interview, be consistent. Otherwise, “your co-workers will occasionally feel misled.”
  • “What am I afraid of losing?” – Researchers say that the “fear of loss” is more influential than the “desire to gain.” As a leader, examine your mind-set. If fear is ruling your decisions, it can keep you from making necessary changes. Force yourself to take risks. Keep your firm moving ahead.

“Build Unity and Cooperation”

To create a more unified workplace, seek your co-workers’ opinions on issues. Treat their questions with courtesy. Nurture “a culture of trust” by asking yourself:

  • “Why am I the only one who talks at meetings?” – The answer may be that you talk too much, so other people cannot get a word in edgewise. Follow Mike Harper’s example. This former ConAgra executive started his meetings with a question and then let everyone respond. He encouraged the more reserved staffers to voice their opinions.
  • “What’s the difference between good questions and gotcha questions?” – Within boardrooms, gotcha questions rule. Often, a board member will try to outshine his or her peers by asking questions designed to stump them. People who pose such questions want to make themselves look good by making others look bad. Good questions, on the other hand, are “both challenging and inviting.” Be constructive – use good questions.
  • “How can I be more present in conversations?” – Stay fully alert during conversations, and pay attention to nuances. Don’t try to multitask. If you’ve ever spoken with someone over the phone who was clearly occupied doing something else, you know how annoying that is. Avoid treating others in this fashion.
  • “What will it take to win over the people against me?” – Don’t assume that everyone who opposes you or your ideas is obtuse. Adopt the “GPSing” approach to home in on your “goal,” “position” and “strategy” in the situation. Your goal is to earn dissenters’ support. “Your position is that they are against you,” but have you asked yourself why? Their reasons for disagreeing should inform your strategy, whether that’s compromising, conceding a point or some other tactic. Become a bridge-builder. Work to get them on your side. If you can’t close the gap, consider delivering an ultimatum.
  • “How can I learn bad news sooner?” – Avoid responding to feedback in a thoughtless or irresponsible manner. If you engage in “public shaming” or betray someone’s trust, you can’t expect the individual who spoke candidly with you to do so ever again.

“Create Better Decisions”

Three factors, “context, clarity and objectivity,” affect leaders’ decisions. Ask these questions to make more informed, unbiased leadership choices:

  • “In a crisis, is it better to ask or command?” – According to research from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), taking charge in a crisis, rather than asking questions, is not the best response. In a study of 1970s aviation disasters, NASA found that “the pilots learned that when a captain centralizes authority in himself, he in effect shuts out information that others are capable of contributing.” The lesson: Seek information during a crisis, no matter how stressful the situation may be.
  • “Do you think, or do you know?” – Ask your colleagues this question to understand if their information is based on sound “reasoning and research” or on emotions and speculation. The Greek philosopher Socrates always began his discussion of a topic by defining relevant terms. For example, in a conversation about great leadership, he would first develop a definition of “leadership.” Similarly, you should ensure that you and your staffers are “working with the same definition” when you discuss an issue.
  • “How can I avoid getting ‘wishy-washy’ answers?” – Words like “perhaps,” “maybe” and “possibly” aren’t worth much in business conversations. Insist on firm responses from your workers. If necessary, question them at length. Use the “Five Why” approach: Ask, “Why?” five times in your conversation until you glean the exact information you need. This may annoy your staffers, but it will train them to improve their responses.
  • “How can I seek clarification without being judgmental?” – Judgmental questions elicit no useful information. For example, a person who asks, “You decided to send the survey to our customers even though you knew it was full of misspellings?” clearly intends to shame someone, not to gather information. Such a question will cause the other person to “disengage” from the conversation. Check whether your questions are authentic and judgment-free by ensuring that you have “genuine interest in the answer.”
  • “What should I do if I encounter conflicting data?” – Choosing the data you are most comfortable with, and disregarding the rest, is the easiest path. However, “cognitive dissonance (the conflict of different cognitions)” enables you to expand your knowledge and understanding. Keep an open mind. Work to reconcile the data.

“Motivate to Action”

Strong leaders know how to motivate their people, create a good rapport with them and earn respect. To build an effective work environment, ask:

  • “How do I generate a sense of urgency?” – Legend has it that Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés prodded his soldiers to fight the Aztecs by burning his own ships. By removing his men’s only escape option, he left them with one choice: Attack the Aztecs or die. This strategy worked. The Aztecs were so afraid of such a confident enemy that they immediately fled. Eliminate “escape routes” in your organization, so employees stop asking why they should do something and focus instead on how they should do it.
  • “What medium should I use – meeting, phone or e-mail?” – Meetings enable you to judge others’ reactions. The phone lets you communicate a certain tone. E-mail messages are less disruptive, and they provide “a written register of the exchange.” Consider the pros and cons of each medium before choosing how to communicate your question.
  • “How can suspending my beliefs inspire my co-workers and resolve conflicts?” – Apple marketing guru Jay Chiat always carried this message on a card: “What if they are right?” Even a genius like Chiat is not right every time. No one is. Put your own beliefs aside and listen to others’ opinions – you may very well learn something.
  • “Why did the Catholic Church create the devil’s advocate?” – Until the early 1980s, the Catholic Church appointed a prosecutor known as a “devil’s advocate” to investigate candidates for sainthood. This person’s role was to “seriously challenge each candidate,” thereby maintaining impeccable standards for sainthood. CEOs often appoint their own devil’s advocates who can oppose practices and decisions without fear of retaliation. The result: improved decision making. Always “ensure that the tough questions get asked.”
  • “How do I gain respect by admitting ignorance and seeking to understand?” – Don’t try to conceal or deny your knowledge gaps. Here again, Mike Harper sets a worthy example. The former ConAgra executive also worked at Pillsbury, where one of his jobs was to head the firm’s research efforts. His employees held Ph.D.s in nutrition and food production, and they clearly knew more about food research than Harper did. However, this did not bother him. He routinely asked questions that demonstrated his lack of knowledge while affirming the employees’ expertise. By doing so, he gained their trust.
“The leader of the past was a person who knew how to tell. The leader of the future will be a person who knows how to ask.” (management consultant Peter Drucker)

All leaders should follow two heuristics: “When in doubt, ask” and “When not in doubt, ask.” Questions, not commands, build morale. Always strive to ask the right ones.

About the Author

Gary B. Cohen was co-founder and president of ACI Telecentrics and is managing partner at CO2 Partners, an executive coaching and consulting firm.


Read summary...
Just Ask Leadership

Book Just Ask Leadership

Why Great Managers Always Ask the Right Questions

McGraw-Hill,


 




All Articles
Load More