Here are some things that help: titling is usually best done in the morning, when people are the freshest. And as one of the most creative parts of the process, it is best to be as inclusive as possible. That is, bring everyone to the table, regardless of what former GE chairman Jack Welch calls “the stripes on the shoulders” of people. In other words, bring every marketing and editorial assistant and even your interns, for you never know who will come up with a breakthrough title. But the reality is that when it comes to titling—especially the big book—experience matters. Correction: experience matters a great deal. That’s why publishers and senior editorial people usually come up with the right title before the author does.

I know that may be counter-intuitive. Doesn’t the author know more about his or her book than anyone? Yes, of course, but that is part of the problem. The author may be too close to it to come up with a great title for her own book. 

Also there are many moving parts to a title: there’s the main title, the subtitle, and a possible third element referred to as a reading line which explains the book in even greater detail than the title and subtitle. Only a small percentage of business books have a reading line, but most have the title and subtitle. The title should really attract attention while the subtitle should describe as specifically as possible what is in the book.

The other thing that makes it harder for authors to come up with the right title is that while titling a book is is an art form, there is some science to it as well. That’s why experience is so important, and I mean on the publisher’s side of the ledger, not the author’s. Another problem is that even when the publisher comes up with what they regard as a kick-ass title, the author sometimes does not agree.  This is why this is one of the areas that can cause real friction between a publisher and the author. Ultimately, the publisher and author have to agree on the book title. That’s because the last thing a publisher wants is an unhappy author. That would poison everything. So even when the publisher comes up with what they regard as the perfect title, we won’t go with it if we cannot get the author to see our side of the argument (even though almost all publishing contracts allows the publisher to choose the final title from a legal perspective).   

As an aside to the discussion, one thing that has always perplexed me is how is it that authors think they have the same ability as a publisher to choose the right title. Most don’t. Among  the top people at our imprint, we have published many hundreds of books, if not a few thousand. And we have seen how these scores of titles have sold (or didn’t sell). And that is one of the things that helps publishers to be so good at the titling process—it’s not only the titling—it’s the titling and then seeing what happens to the book that makes experience so valuable.

So, if you are an author and your publisher suggests a title that you think is really off the wall, give it a chance. Think about it, sleep on it, and ask the publishing team why they are so convinced that is the right title. You may be surprised by how much you come around.   

But I want to talk about the market meltdown on  a more personal note. Thanks to the Internet, we now have the ability to check out 401k’s and personal stock market accounts weekly, daily, hourly, or God forbid, from minute to minute. And I am convinced there are millions of people who are transfixed by their accounts, watching their money far more often than they would ever admit. It’s like having a gambling addiction without taking any action.  Of course, this phenomenon would have been impossible in the last extended bad bear market of the 1970s. Then, when I bought my first stock with my Bar Mitzvah money in 1974 (200 shares of Gulf Resources at $14 per share), there were only two ways to find out the share price of any stock on any given day.

The most common way was the newspaper, which would give you the previous day’s closing price. Back then I delivered the New York Post in my Bronx neighborhood, so I checked there.  Or you could call your broker—mine was a friend of the family who worked for the old E.F. Hutton (the people everyone listened to), who could give you a “live quote.” Obviously we have come a long way since then, but I am afraid that we have come three steps forward and four back. Here’s why. 

We have become a nation of scorekeepers, with stocks being one of the worst parts of the phenomenon. Scorekeeping naturally started with sports, and there was certainly nothing wrong with that. Numbers and statistics lend themselves beautifully to sports. Without them, we would not have known that Ted Williams had a batting average of 400 or that Roger Maris edged out Babe Ruth’s home run record in 1961 with 61 home runs (Ruth hit 60 in 1927).

But over the years we have become a nation obsessed with numbers. Now we pay attention to dozens of numbers, some more ridiculous than others. On Monday mornings most every news show tells you which movie was #1 at the box office that weekend, and precisely how many millions it brought in.

We also follow scores and stats on a whole host of diverse topics, such as: how much money rich former wives receive as payments in divorce settlements, how much money a presidential candidate raises in a single month, which actors are in the $20-million-per-movie club, how much money Oprah Winfrey is worth, and how much former big time CEOs get in books deals. And the list goes on.

But more important numbers escape us. Does any of us remember exactly how many electoral votes Barack Obama received—or John McCain?

But back to our fading 401k plans and other stock market accounts. The financial and cable networks, which of course did not exist until the 1990s, certainly do not help the situation. They make us all froth at the mouth while hanging and analyzing ad nauseum every number and tick of the Dow. When that is combined that with millions of on-line trading accounts and Internet-access to millions of others, you get panicked far faster than ever before…and why not? When someone nearing retirement sees a $200,000 account turned into a $110,000 shadow of its former self—while hearing the D-word (Depression) on every cable news channel nearly every day, you can understand why people would want to cash in their chips and try to hang on desperately to what’s left.

Unfortunately, nothing I say here is going to change anything. We will only become more obsessed with the scoreboard in the days, months, and years ahead. Instead, I will impart only one modicum of advice: keep your holdings diversified—stocks, bonds, cash, and maybe, dare I say it—even real estate. If the time to buy is when there is “blood in the streets,” how much more red can there be? At some point, a crisis turns into a genuine opportunity. Oh…yes…and try not to watch your stocks so closely. They are going to look better from a distance for the foreseeable future.

While our incoming president will have democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the problems facing this nation are simply too daunting for any quick fix, no matter who is minding the store. Let’s set aside two wars (and one getting more dire in Afghanistan by the day), the health care crisis, and education. Let’s stick with the economy—the fourth leg to the stool that Barack Obama  has named as his four greatest priorities. 

Here is what plagues this country—and what faces lawmakers and the executive branch in the current lame duck session (there is still well over two months before the new administration takes over):

* The biggest crisis in confidence in our economy in many decades, that has caused the second huge problem that follows below.

* A complex, global financial crisis that has shaved well over 5,000 points off the Dow, shredding millions of people’s 401k plans, individual, and other retirement accounts. And this problem is unprecedented in its size and scope.

* The big three automakers are all facing possible bankruptcy with millions of jobs on the line, directly and indirectly (incredibly, a cup of Venti Starbucks now costs more than one share of General Motors, as shares of the world’s largest automaker have plummeted to under $3 per share today, a 65-year low).

* A housing crisis that continues to this day, one so powerful that it helped to ignite much of what has been outlined above—with no signs of things getting better anytime soon.

* An unemployment rate that has increased to 6.5 percent, and could go much higher if a few more things go wrong (like one or more of the U.S. car makers declare Chapter 11).

* A trillion dollars already pledged to bail out Wall Street—and that number could easily skyrocket as more and more bad commercial paper is discovered.

Because of the complexity of the global financial system—which has never before been dependent  on such a fragile foundation of confidence, there are no simple fixes to be found anywhere. According to David Smick in his groundbreaking book, The World is Curved  (Portfolio, 2008), “for the financial markets, the world is curved. We can’t see over the horizon. As a result, our sight lines are limited. It is as if we are forced to travel down an endless, dangerously twisting and turning road with abrupt steep valleys and risky mountainous climbs. We can’t see ahead. We are always being surprised, and that is why the world has become such a dangerous place.”     

No wonder we are all so hungry for change—we have never been in in such need of it, not to mention a little stability!  So consider this post as a request for both patience and confidence. We in America want things when we want them. Which is now, yesterday, immediately, pronto, stat. But at this time, facing these circumstances, change and improvement will not happen overnight. I believe things will get better, as so many smart people are focused on lifting us up from the bowels of what plagues us. But only if we don’t panic when change doesn’t arrive with the morning paper.

But       

On Friday Barack Obama had his first press conference (not pictured) following his historic victory (pictured) and stuck to the Drucker playbook. It is Drucker who has said that an executive can only focus on one or two priorities at a time. On Friday, President Elect Obama had only one priority—the flailing economy that continues to disappoint with each and every new number released. (Just this morning Circuit City declared bankruptcy and thousands of other jobs were cut at other large firms).  

Surrounded by his VP and new Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and a crowded team of economic heavyweights that included former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, President Elect Obama gave a sobering statement on the economy.

Just that morning a report was released that unemployment had increased to 6.5 percent, the highest since 1994. We now have lost 1.2 million jobs in 2008. The Dow has lost a stunning 5,000 points amidst the greatest collapse in confidence since the 1929 stock market crash.  

However, what struck me most about the press conference was not the substance but the demeanor of the newly elected president. Gone was care-free candidate Barack; in his place was President Elect Obama, whose future burdens and responsibilities weighed heavily enough on his mind to alter the very way he carried himself.

It was clear that he understood the enormity of the task ahead and what is expected of him. Peter Drucker felt that a man of character “sees leadership as responsibility rather than rank and privilege.” He also said ”the new tasks demand that the manager of tomorrow root every action and decision in the bedrock of principles, that he lead not only through knowledge, competence and skill but through vision, courage, responsibility and integrity.” He added “when things go wrong—and they always do—they don’t blame others.”

Drucker also stated :”In the final analysis it is vision and moral responsibility that define the manager.” Only time will tell if Barack Obama can live up to Drucker’s vision of the ideal leader—one who acts in a way consistent with his bedrock principles—one who leads through moral courage and responsibility.  However, when it comes to an Obama administration, in which expectations soar as high as the rhetoric, vision and moral responsibility is only the cost of admission. What is expected of this new president—especially one who has already inspired so many millions—is results.

“Management,” said Drucker “must always, in every decision and action, put economic performance first. It can justify its existence and its authority by the economic results it produces.”

Perhaps there has never been a time in our country’s history in which economic results are so important to the future functioning of our republic. Drucker espoused those words in 1954—but they have never been more true than they are today.

Photo credit: CBS News

Drucker spent much time talking about “naturals”—those gifted people who are viewed as “born” managers. Naturals set the right priorities, spark others to perform, and know how to make the “life and death” decisions (who to hire, fire, and promote).

Naturals do not micro-manage people to death. They understand intuitively that autocratic, bully-like leaders are not effective and are part of yesterday.   

Naturals know a lot of things that others do not. They understand that intimidation and scare tactics have no place in an organization. That kind of toxic behavior is stifling and hurts the morale of the unit. It also shuts down creativity. After all, who wants to take a risk by presenting a new idea when they are likely to be slapped down? 

Naturals are confident. That’s no small feat.  GE’s former chairman Jack Welch once said that finding a truly confident individual is rare indeed.

Naturals trust their own judgment and have “edge”—they know how to make the tough decisions. They say yes or no and eschew the maybes. 

                                                          Barack—the Natural?

By most anyone’s judgment, Barack Obama closely adheres to Drucker’s definition of a natural. He would have to be to defeat all comers in a grueling, two-year campaign at the young age of 47. Not that he will be the youngest president—that honor goes to Teddy Roosevelt who was only 42 when he was sworn in after the assassination of McKinley in 1901. Next comes John F. Kennedy (43) and Bill Clinton (46). On January 20th, Obama will be sworn in as our fifth youngest president, knocking Grover Cleveland out of the top five (#4 is Ulysses S. Grant, who, by the way, wrote the best presidential autobiography in history).     

Obama ran an incredibly disciplined campaign, as was discussed in the last posting. What I left out was some of the other qualities that made him one of those once-every-other-generation type candidates. His incredible ability to remain cool under fire. No matter what was thrown at him he remained incredibly unflappable. That was in marked contrast to McCain’s lurching behavior in the final days of the campaign.

Perhaps the greatest evidence of Barack, the natural, is his lack of any substantial unforced errors throughout the campaign. Pundits called it the most disciplined campaign they had seen in decades. In all those many months and dozens of debates he did not make any major gaffes (the comment about Pennsylvanians sticking to their guns and religion does not rise to the level of a significant “operating unforced error”).    

As important is the lack of unforced errors on the part of Obama staffers. Well, there was one Obama staffer who called Senator Hillary Clinton a “monster” during the primaries, but she was summarily dismissed and the incident was quickly forgotten.

What does all of this tell us about how Obama will lead? He will be incredibly well disciplined, will lead by inspiring rather than intimidating people, and run a very tight ship. With his second major hiring decision (Joseph Biden was first)—Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, Obama is also showing us his pragmatic self as well. Emanuel, a seasoned politico, worked as a top level aide in Bill Clinton’s  administration, and is well versed in the ways of Washington (from Congress to the White House). And he was selected for the right reason: Obama said “no one is better at getting things done as Rahm Emanuel.” Once again, we have the President-elect focused like a laser on performance, accomplishment, and achievement. And that is vintage Drucker:

 “Management, in every decision and action, must put…performance first,” declared Drucker.

So far Obama has followed the Drucker script quite closely. Come back in future days and weeks to see if Obama continues to stick to the Drucker playbook.  

Peter Drucker was a shrewd observer of our presidents. Ever since the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960, the candidate most able to exude charisma not only won the majority of elections, but also stayed in power the longest.  There was John F. Kennedy, of course, but there was also Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, the only two-term presidents to complete both of their terms since Dwight D. Eisenhower (Nixon won but didn’t finish his second term).

However, Drucker felt that charisma was a poor indicator of how a prospective candidate would perform as a president.

Drucker felt that charisma—by itself—was a dangerous leadership quality. “Indeed, charisma becomes the undoing of leaders…leadership is not magnetic personality; it is not ‘making friends and influencing people’—that is salesmanship,” asserted Drucker. “It makes them inflexible, convinced of their own infallibility, unable to change,” he concluded.

His choice of America’s greatest president of the 20th century confirms this: Harry Truman, America’s 33rd president, “the-buck-stops-here” president. Drucker’sadmiration of Truman had nothing to do with charisma. “Truman was as bland as a dead mackerel,” asserted Drucker. However, continued Drucker, “everybody who worked for him worshipped him because he was absolutely trustworthy.”  

The most charismatic leaders of the 20th century, proclaimed Drucker, were Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini. He called them “mis-leaders!” In addition to Truman, he rated Ronald Reagan as one of the most effective presidents of the last century. “Reagan’s great strength was not charisma, as is commonly thought,” Drucker explained, “but that he knew exactly what he could do and what he could not do.”

                                                    Unique Leadership Qualities

Drucker felt that the qualities that made leaders great were specific to each leader. He regarded Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, George Marshall, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bernard Montgomery, and Douglas MacArthur as extraordinary leaders during the second World War.  However, “no two of them shared any ‘personality traits’ or any ‘qualities.’”

Given Drucker’s view on charisma, he would have been cynical of Barack Obama, at least at the outset. It is likely he would have viewed Obama as a JFK-like contender, and despite Kennedy’s iconic popularity, Drucker did not give America’s 36th president high marks: “John F. Kennedy may have been the most charismatic person to occupy the White House. Yet few presidents got as little done.”

But Drucker would have known weeks before the election that Obama would have won. The following factors would have been decisive in Drucker’s mind in evaluating an Obama victory:

Exhibited Consistency and Decisiveness: Drucker felt that consistency was an absolute critical quality of effective leaders. From the first day of the campaign to the last, Obama’s message of change did not waver. He also defined his opponent’s campaign by describing it as a third Bush term, which resonated with most voters since Senator McCain’s voting record was almost identical to President Bush’s. Also, McCain’s message was anything but consistent, shifting from “experience” to “change,” to Obama’s alleged “association with domestic terrorists,” and back again.       

Won Customers and Non-Customers: Drucker urged leaders not to forget non-customers who had the potential to be turned into customers. From the start—in fact, from before the start, from the stirring speech he made at the 2004 Democratic Convention—Obama said “there are no red states, there are no blue states, there is the United States of America.” He reached out to democrats and independents, but also to Republicans as well. He also turned out the most enthusiastic and eager youth vote since JFK in 1960. Those moves allowed him to win over red states that would have been unthinkable only four years ago, such as Indiana, Virginia and Colorado. 

Maintained only One or Two Priorities: Drucker felt that the best leaders maintained no more than two priorities at a time. He said he never met a chief executive who could handle more than that at one time. The Obama campaign stayed focused on a very few, core ideas throughout the campaign. Whenever the topic of the Iraqi War came up, for example, he pointed to the 2002 speech he made denouncing the idea of an offensive, non-premeditated war in the Middle East. Another example: once the financial meltdown hit, his stump speech was all about creating jobs and lowering taxes for the middle class.  

Obama Showed he Could Hire: Drucker felt that the most effective leaders could hire, fire, and promote people. The one hiring decision a presidential candidate makes is the selection of a running mate. Obama’s choice of Joe Biden proved that he was not afraid to be surrounded by strong personalities (which bodes well for his selection of a cabinet). He showed that same important quality when he sat down with economic heavyweights like Paul Volcker, Warren Buffett and Robert Rubin. McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin was an ill-fated choice which became a constant, living example of Senator McCain’s erratic, shoot-from-the-hip, style of leadership.  

 A Superior Organization and Ground Game: In Drucker’s world the most effective leaders are organized, able to prioritize and maintain a high level of morale. Obama’s campaign was nearly flawless in its execution. It held together beautifully to the final day—in marked contrast to McCain’s “circular firing squad” organization which developed in the final weeks of the campaign as it became increasingly clear that their candidate would not win. Also, Obama’s campaign often did unprecedented things. For example, Obama’s “50-state strategy” seemed like a fool’s errand early on, but his organization in red states helped him to win several key states that seemed out of reach only a few months earlier. With his huge money advantage, it is not surprising that Obama had a better get-out-the-vote ground game. Obama’steam used the Rove-Bush playbook to beat McCain and the republicans at their own game. Every aspect of the Obama campaign seemed better executed—steadier, less erratic and more consistent with Drucker’s principles of organization, discipline and accountability.     

As the supreme example of a leader who operated incredibly well under the worst of conditions was Winston Churchill. Drucker called Churchill the 20th century’s most successful leader. But even Churchill wasn’t Churchill until his country—and history—called upon him. He explained that for a dozen years, from 1928 through Dunkirk (codenamed “Dynamo,” that’s was when more than 300,000 allied soldiers were successfully evacuated and saved), Churchill played a minor role at best. Drucker suggested he was an onlooker, “almost discredited, because there was no need for a Churchill.”     

When chaos and Hitler struck and England was forced to declare war with Germany in September of 1939, Churchill was precisely the right leader at the right time—a decisive, iconic figure on the world stage. And, for the record, the praise was not all one-sided. Winston Churchill reviewed and praised Drucker’s first book, saying ”the amazing thing about Peter F. Drucker was his ability to start our minds along a stimulating line of thought.” 

Drucker once declared “Fortunately or unfortunately, the one thing in any organization is the crises. That always comes. That’s when you do depend on the leader.” Drucker felt that the Churchills were a rare breed. “But another group is, quite common,” insisted Drucker. “They are the people who can look at a situation and say: This is not what I was hired to do or what I was expected to do, but this is what the job requires–and then roll up their sleeves and go to work.”

That’s the brand of leader we need in these tough times, when an economic meltdown is bringing down so many of our great companies. Time will tell us which leaders were the most successful in helping their organizations weather the storm. Of course, war is a far graver challenge than even the worst economic collapse, but Drucker knew that certain situations create great leaders: ”To every leader there is a season,” explained Drucker. “Winston Churchill in ordinary, peaceful, normal times would not have been very effective. He needed the challenge. Probably the same is true of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was basically a lazy man,” proclaimed Drucker (who didn’t like FDR, despite his great popularity).  I don’t think FDR would have been a good president in the 1920s. His adrenalin wouldn’t have produced,” concluded Drucker.     

Drucker’s analysis of our 20th century global leaders gives us much to think about, and raises some obvious questions. If you are a manager—or a manager of managers—do you have a fair-weathered team that will do well when times are good? Or a foul-weathered team whose “adrenaline is likely to produce” when things get rough? Given today’s economic realities, you may be about to find out.   

When we discussed this topic during our day together, Drucker brought up the topic of hospitals to provide some context.  He made me think about hospitals in a different way : “Hospitals love crises.” He explained that hospitals don’t like people who aren’t seriously ill, but they do great in a crisis. He gave me the perfect example: “if an old woman goes into cardiac arrest at three in the morning the floor nurse gets a team to work on her within minutes. However, other than dealing with life-threatening emergencies, hospitals are “totally disorganized.” Anyone who has been kept waiting for hours in a hospital emergency room with a non-life-threatening-injury knows that Drucker is right. “Hospitals are organized for crises, but 80 percent of the patients are not crises—the 80 percent they do very poorly.”

And of course, crises are not restricted to hospitals. “The most important task of an organization’s leader is to anticipate crisis. Perhaps not to avert it, but to anticipate it. To wait until crisis is already abdication,” said Drucker.  Ironically, one of the other causes of crisis is success. “Problems of success have ruined more organizations than has failure, partly because if things go wrong, everybody knows they have to go to work,” asserted Drucker. “Success creates its own euphoria. You outrun your resources,” he added.

For a company to be sucessful—and stay successful—the senior management team must be able to stay one step ahead of an impending storm. That is called “innovation, constant renewal,” says Drucker.

“You cannot prevent a major catastrophe,” he declared, “but you can build an organization that is battle-ready, that has high-morale, and has also been through a crisis, knows how to behave, trusts itself, and  where people trust one another. In military training, the first rule is to instill soldiers with trust in their officers, because without trust they won’t fight.”

Come back next week for more discussion of dealing with crises, especially in these tough times!

]]> http://jeffreykrames.com/2008/11/01/leadership-is-a-foul-weathered-job/feed/ http://jeffreykrames.com/2008/10/29/the-invention-of-management-and-the-first-corporations/ http://jeffreykrames.com/2008/10/29/the-invention-of-management-and-the-first-corporations/#comments Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:56:04 +0000 jeffreykrames http://jeffreykrames.com/?p=165 Before meeting Drucker, I had always wondered about how management and the modern day corporation was born. Without prompting, “Professor Drucker” launched into a discussion of just that shortly after my arrival that December, Monday morning.

First a bit of background: The topics Peter Drucker chose to discuss with me during our day together gave me the impression that he viewed me as his biographer, even though I told him what I was writing was something quite different. My goal, I told Drucker, was to shine the spotlight on his most seminal management and leadership ideas and update them with modern examples, and then show how they can be applied in today’s hyper-competitive global marketplace. 

Still, none of this stopped Drucker from telling me story after story from his life. Because we never got to the items that we agreed to discuss in advance, I thought that I did a poor job interviewing him. However, as I transcribed the interview over the next many months (with his thick accent and hearing problems, it took forever to transcribe the interview), I realized that he had given me more than I had hoped for. He gave me a rare glimpse into his thought process, including stories and lessons that he had never revealed before (such as his assessment of JacK Welch visa vi other GE leaders). 

The discussion of the birth of modern corporations came about as a result of Drucker’s effort to put his career and contributions into context. He thought the best route was to take me back to the birth of the modern day corporation, providing details of when and where  they was created, structured, etc.    

He began by tracing the advent of the modern day corporation back to the 1870s and 1880s. The really large corporations came after the civil war.  Somewhat coincidentally, large companies were created simultaneously in the U.S., Japan and the United Kingdom. France did not develop as quickly. Drucker said France held on to “family companies longer than any of the major powers.”

“There had been managers all through the ages but they were very few and far between,” continued Drucker.  Before the large corporation was born, the most gifted members of the family ran the [family] business. Drucker referred to the best of these as “naturals,” born leaders. “But suddenly,” he said “you could no longer depend on the supply of naturals,” since they were so few of these. “You could only depend on the supply of naturals when the demand is low. But when you need large numbers of talented managers, you have to convert management into something that can be learned or taught. And that’s what I did.”

In other words, when there were too many companies to be managed by members of the family, there was a sudden need for hundreds and then thousands of managers. But before Drucker, there was no way to educate managers in the ways of the corporation. That’s what Druckers’ books accomplished. By establishing management as a discipline, he provided the much-needed tools that could transform “non-naturals,” into competent, practicing managers.

Tom Peters, lead author of In Search of Excellence—one of the two books that launched the modern day boom—sums it up nicely when he says ”no true discipline of management existed before Drucker.

“Every business has its ‘broken washroom doors,’ its misdirections, its policies, procedures and methods that emphasize and reward wrong behavior, penalize or inhibit right behavior.” 

He described one very funny example of a dysfunctional organization to me, when he told me how Henry Luce—the founder of Time, Inc. as well as Life, Time & Fortune Magazines—managed his company. 

Drucker told me a few of the highlights of Luce’s story: Luce was “a very peculiar man.” He had been raised in China and managed Time, Inc. “by misdirection and by running around people.” Drucker told me Luce could not fire anybody, especially any classmates. (Remember that Drucker’s ideal manager could hire, fire and promote people, and here he was telling me that Luce could not fire anyone). 

That was a problem.

That’s because when Luce and Drucker met, about 70 years earlier (Luce apparently loved Drucker’s first book), the chief editor of Fortune Magazine was someone named Mitch Davenport. Drucker described him as “a very fine writer but a hopeless editor, and hopeless for one reason: he did not believe in deadlines. Simply did not believe in them,” he repeated for emphasis. Of course, deadlines are the lifelines of a magazine, whether it be a monthly or weekly. So Luce kept him “but managed around him,” asserted Drucker. He then made some noises that suggested that Luce wanted Drucker to take a management position at Time, Inc.

“And he [Luce] had another problem,” said Drucker.  He had a foreign editor at Time who was [allegedly] an ardent admirer of Hitler. And paranoid, by the way, but a classmate [of Luce's], who eventually killed himself by jumping out of the 36th floor!”

Drucker then told me flat out that Luce wanted to hire him: “He wanted me to come to Time and be the foreign editor around that man (I assume he meant the man that admired Hitler). Fortunately, I said said no to all of these things,” said Drucker. ”I wanted to do my own writing.”

Somehow, all of this helped Drucker make the decision to get into consulting, something he would do (and love) for the rest of his life.

The moral of the story? If you are interviewing with a company and sense that they have as much dysfunction as the company Drucker described…run! Even if the company is very successful, as Henry Luce’s Time Inc. certainly was.

If you are currently working for a company with as many “broken washroom doors” as described above, then prepare your resume and quietly make some industry inquiries. The company doesn’t have to have a manager who admires Hitler or a manager who cannot live by deadlines. There are a million other ways a company can be dysfunctional. In fact, if you work—or have worked—for a company that is dysfunctional in some unusual manner, I want to hear about it. So please drop me a comment and tell me about the dysfunction. I am curious by nature, and would love to hear how other organizations harbor, contribute to, or tolerate dysfunction. And who knows? Your story might make it into my next book (with your permission, of course).