I like the idea of a magazine named Condi.
Lets do it.
First, change the name to Condi!
Now, Oprah!
Geez, it does seem like Simran's splitting hairs. She's a brand--A Warrior for Seekers--that's a great business. And she's a business leader because of it.
You can find any $25/hr guy to read a balance sheet for you. Interpreting the simple facts of it as overlayed on your ideas, operating environment and the markets you want to capture, now that's business leadership.
Andy Pearson could read a balance sheet, but not people. David Novak taught him that true differentiation comes from the latter. Pearson was a true leader--he got out of his own way.
Poor Condi - she's in such a mess.
But on to Oprah-
Fouro - I've stated before that I admire her for her accomplishments, and she can read her market well (although I'm not sure how much skill it takes to exploit the emotions of housewives), but it is her attitude towards business skills that dismisses her as a business leader.
Andy Pearson was a great leader because he understood business, and could see how sound management translated to the bottom-line. He also had the same insight that Oprah had in knowing his weaknesses, and allowing others to take care of them.
The big difference is that Andy Pearson is a businessman while Oprah is an entertainer.
Oprah values the skills that she has- which relate to entertainment. She is a media leader - and values different skills than a business leader would. Pearson values the corporation, and the skills it takes to run the corporation.
I think that you can see the difference in attitude when comparing interviews with Oprah and another entertainer - Martha Stewart. Martha knows the game of business, she belongs in the world of business - and I expect that regardless of which business you place her, her skills would allow for success.
What it comes down to is whether you Would you feel as comfortable with Oprah running your business as you would with either Andy Pearson or Martha? regardless of the business, I would not trust Oprah to manage my assets (although I do consider Oprah herself to be a valuable asset).
Well, I do hear you (read you) Simran, and I wouldn't put Oprah! ahead of say Warren Buffett or (ugh) Jack Welch, but in my book she's tight in there with Ralph Lauren, Steve Jobs or perhaps even Kelleher.
The latter are playing a slightly different offense than the standard wishbone of "business" guys. I think for them, business is a means to an end other than measuring their height in 10k's. Jobs, for instance, needed Scully BECAUSE Steevie wasn't a "business" guy. I wouldn't say that doesn't make him a business leader though.
It's funny, your balance sheet comment reminded me of something: You know all those superbowl commercials we laugh at and even the ones that win Effies? They're done by "art" directors who proudly admit they can't even draw a decent stick figure and by copy-"writers" who freeze when asked to write more than 200 words. For me, the result qualifies the appellation. Titles, I find, indicate job descriptions, not always skill levels.
Simran, can't let your (although I'm not sure how much skill it takes to exploit the emotions of housewives) hang there unaddressed. I'll tackle it at fouroboros so as not to clog up Michael's comments. Hope you'll stop by.
Commenting by HaloScan
