My AIG Temptation

A few months ago, I attended an investment seminar sponsored by an AIG affiliate. That was a few weeks after Bear Stearns hit the headline for their financial troubles.

During the forum I asked the financial consultant who was facilitating the discussion how would the sub prime problem affect the financial status of AIG. In a way I was asking them how strong is the financial standing of their company. The explanation of course were the canned type, where they would narrate where they invested the funds, and how safe it is to invest with them since they are dealing with the top 500 corporation and their BRIC 40.

And even when I mentioned the financial woes of City Group, they insisted that they are not vulnerable. They even ventured into the assumption that granting any problem would occur in the near future, the federal government of America will never allow one of its flagship companies to fall.

I never invested though, not because they never convinced me with their motivational speeches, but because I don't have the money to invest. My gut feel then was whispering that they are agressive in inviting investors because they need new infusions.

With todays woes that befell Lehman and of course AIG, the thought of what if I had the money then, I would perhaps be one of those whose blood pressure will be shooting up. And the lesson learned. The safest way to avoid financial losses is to never have any financial savings at all.

Critical Thinking

Justin Menkes in his book EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE opined the importance of critical thinking for corporate leaders. A quote from the book;"...some individuals can understand and navigate complex interpersonal situations but are hopeless when it comes to analyzing a new strategic intiative. Others might have tremendous analytic skills, but when it comes to dealing with other people, they do blundering things at inopportunate moments. Still others are simply blind to their own shortcomings and unable to correct for their own missteps." Based from the hypothesis that a leader have to have the exact mix with regards to; task, people, oneself, Menkes argued that a leader must master all three aspects of leadership to be considered a star leader.

I am just wondering why a CEO should have to master all three when a process could be followed to finetune the decision making of the leader. He even quoted Robert Johnson; "Even the sharpest thinkers need teams of sharp people around them. And these high-performing teams develop over time. It is one of the basic laws of attracting talent: the more talented people you have, the more talented people you can attract. You get the highest level of input in decision making and the best critique of things you should or should not undertake when you are surrounded by such individuals. Once you reach that critical mass of talent, there's literally nothing you can't undertake."

A talented team may offset the weaknesses of the leader. Can it be said that a star leader is not really they key towards success but a team of highly intelligent people?