All Blog Posts - Library Page 8

When should you move on?

Dear Clint,I’ve been working at my company for the past five years, and I’ve noticed that the people who get ahead do so by taking sole credit for team wins, playing office politics (of the negative variety), and constantly trying to one-up other co-workers.Is this normal? Should I find another job?Sincerely, LindsayDear Lindsay,This one is easy. Yes, you should leave. Today. We only get so many days in life. Losing one at a job or working for a leader who rewards "takers" is not worth it. In my experience, companies and communities led by takers almost always find themselves at the bottom of the ocean. Get off the ship!What do I mean by takers?I first learned the term after reading Adam Grant’s book "Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success." It's a must-read for any leader. In fact, I'll give away 10 copies to the first 10 people who share this newsletter with a friend and forward that email to me at dearclint@ceo.com. The book explores how different approaches to reciprocity — giving, taking, and matching — affect success in both personal and professional environments. Grant categorizes people into three types:1. Givers: Those who give more than they receive, focusing on others’ needs and contributing to their success.2. Takers: Individuals who strive to get more than they give, putting their interests ahead of others.3. Matchers: People who seek to maintain an equal balance between giving and receiving.The book argues that although givers can be exploited and end up at the bottom of the success ladder, they are also more likely to reach the top. This success is rooted in the trust, goodwill, and support they build, which leads to more sustainable and impactful relationships.Beyond success, ask yourself: Is where you end up on the ladder nearly as important as being able to sleep at night knowing you’re a good person?Find the givers and matchers. Avoid takers at all costs.Yours, Clint BettsContact Clint Email: dearclint@ceo.com Phone: (385) 217-0670

How did the Federal Reserve get started?

The book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin provides a comprehensive account of the founding of the Federal Reserve, revealing the true motivations behind its establishment.The Federal Reserve, a central institution in the American financial system, is commonly seen as a government entity aimed at ensuring economic stability. However, a closer look at its origins, especially the events preceding its establishment, presents a different story.The Jekyll Island Meeting: A Cartel in the MakingThe story of the Federal Reserve begins on Jekyll Island, where a secretive meeting was held in 1910. The participants of this meeting were not just any group of individuals; they were some of the most powerful bankers and financiers of the time, including representatives of the Morgan, Rockefeller, and Warburg interests.These men, who controlled vast amounts of the world's wealth, gathered with a clear purpose: to create a banking cartel that would allow them to maintain control over the nation's financial resources while minimizing competition from smaller banks.The meeting was highly secretive. Attendees, including Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip, Henry P. Davison, and Paul Warburg, took great pains to keep their identities and the purpose of their gathering hidden. They knew that if the public or the government found out about their true intentions, their plan would be foiled.Manipulating Public PerceptionOne key challenge the Jekyll Island group faced was presenting their plan in a way that would be acceptable to Congress and the American public.The concept of a central bank, particularly one controlled by private interests, was likely to be met with suspicion and opposition. To overcome this, the group devised a strategy to present the Federal Reserve as a decentralized institution that would prevent financial panics and ensure economic stability.They avoided using the term "central bank" and emphasized the Federal Reserve's regional structure to create the illusion of a system that was not dominated by Wall Street.The manipulation of public perception was crucial for the successful passage of the Federal Reserve Act. By convincing the public and lawmakers that the Federal Reserve was a necessary reform to prevent future financial crises, the architects of the system established a central bank that served their interests under the guise of a government agency.

Should you talk to the press?

Dear Clint,I’m observing a growing trend in which companies are bypassing corporate media organizations entirely when launching a new product, announcing a fundraising event, or generally wanting to get the word out to the public.Why do you think this is happening?Sincerely,OliviaDear Olivia,Every company and leader needs to be able to connect with the public directly, without depending on traditional media. This isn't a judgment on the ethical or moral standards of corporate news organizations (which should be apparent by now), but it's essential for staying competitive and establishing a sustainable community and communication channels you can control.Traditional media will tell you they’re undergoing significant changes due to technological advancements, evolving audience expectations, and the increasing decentralization of content creation and distribution. There’s a lot of truth to that. However, a big part of the industry's decline can be traced back to its stubborn refusal to adapt, take responsibility, or even acknowledge the trust it has lost.The simple reality of how we consume information has led to a decline in journalistic standards, especially in fields like business and technology reporting. Complex issues are often oversimplified or misrepresented to fit a narrative that attracts more readers.There are real and undeniable advantages to controlling your own narrative.The future of traditional media will depend on how they adapt to decentralized and expert-driven sources of information. In the meantime, we should reconsider their role in society until they move away from sensationalism and towards more responsible, fact-based reporting.A recent Munk Debate on this topic featured Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg against Matt Taibbi and Douglas Murray. It's definitely worth watching.Yours,Clint BettsContact ClintEmail: dearclint@ceo.comPhone: (385) 217-0670

Why are prominent business leaders so publicly involved in this election?

Dear Clint,As you know (how could you avoid it?), we’re in the middle of a presidential election in the United States. I’ve found it fascinating to see so many prominent business leaders vocally support and actively raise money for their preferred candidate. They’ve also taken to attacking other business leaders for supporting a different candidate.I don’t remember business leaders becoming so publicly involved in past elections. What do you make of this?Sincerely,JaniceDear Janice,You’ve made an astute observation. It does appear business leaders are diving into the political pool with flamboyant cannonballs.You have the likes of Elon Musk, David Sacks, Marc Andreessen, and Bill Ackman on one side. On the other, well, that’s where you’ll find Reid Hoffman, Vinod Khosla, Mark Cuban, and something called VCsforKamala.They’re following in the footsteps of a man named Donald J. Trump. In 2012, prominent businessman Trump enthusiastically supported Mitt Romney for president. They liked each other back then. It’s all a distant fever dream now, but Romney held a (pun intended) huge press conference at the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas to proudly show off his hard-earned Trump endorsement. Romney even brought his wife!In his book Romney: A Reckoning, McKay Coppins publishes an excerpt from Romney’s journal in which he writes, “This guy is not fake — he says 100% of what he thinks. No veneer, the real deal. Got to love him. Makes me laugh and makes me feel good, both. They just don’t make people like Donald Trump very often.”It’s possible one of the aforementioned business leaders wants to run for political office in the future. That’s almost certainly true for Mark Cuban and David Sacks.Why are they coming out so publicly? Three possibilities come to mind.There’s no such thing as neutral in our current environment. Stands must be taken; battles must be waged; silence is no longer an option. The future is at stake, they say. They may be right.Word of caution seems appropriate. Strangely enough, today, those words come from the least cautious philosopher to ever walk the earth, Friedrich Nietzsche.Yours,Clint BettsContact ClintEmail: dearclint@ceo.comPhone: (385) 217-0670

Harness Distracting Self-Talk

We all have the little voice in our heads that seems to be talking all the time! It’s part of the decision-making process to “think things through.”However, just like searching on the Internet can lead down a rabbit hole of twists and turns until you forget what you were searching for in the first place, so can thoughts.So, what can you do?Meditate – Center yourself – Relax – Focus.These all sound great until you realize they aren’t working. Not that they don’t work, they just aren’t working right now.Here are two excerpts from my book, It’s About Time: Time Management Tips from The Software Revitalist™ , published in 2009, to help you get past the distractions happening in your head.Give in to a busy mindThere are times when our minds are spinning with thoughts or ideas that are totally unrelated to the task at hand. Trying to suppress them rarely works and takes your attention so you are not focusing on what you want to be doing anyway.Instead of fighting it just stop, take a deep breath, finish the thought, and take notes.Now you can bring your focus back to the scheduled task, you no longer have the distraction, and you have not lost the thought or idea. Just put it aside and focus on it later.Schedule time to worry, but no more than 10 minutes a dayWhen you suppress worrying it hangs around and can easily creep up into your thoughts and distract you from everything else. Plan when you are going to worry, and your mind will calm down. Then, make sure you worry when you have scheduled it.However, during your “worry time” try to find solutions rather than just lamenting. End the session when you had scheduled for it to end and mentally acknowledge that you have completed your worrying about this topic.NOTE: This will take some practice, but I promise you it works because I have implemented it many times. One interesting side effect is that I hardly ever “worry: about anything anymore – I problem-solve instead.

New Member

Hello! I’m excited to be a new member at CEO.com.I’m interested in connecting with other CEOs and exchanging knowledge. My expertise is in digital transformation, and I also host Time To Press Pause: A Podcast for CEOs by CEOs. Please connect with me if you have a “press pause” story and would like to be a guest.I’m looking forward to participating in this community.