>>James Fallows: The question I have for any of you is related to the themes of optimism
versus pessimism, leadership versus helplessness, et cetera.
When I came back from a number of years living in China, I wrote a big article on the "Atlantic"
essentially on the subject of whether America was going to hell. The conclusion I came to
is that the fear that we are going to hell chronically through American history has been
what's kept us from going to hell. The first real Jeremiah sermon on America's
fall from grace was in 1628. I said, boy, back in 1620, it was wonderful. But in 1628,
things had really gone downhill. So would any of you say on the optimism-pessimism
spectrum, hearing all the things we have heard about national and corporate troubles, how
do you stand? Are you basically optimistic about the resilient capacity in American culture
-- in American business culture or basically concerned?
Is anybody basically concerned? Basically on the pessimistic side?
Good. Well, that's news in itself. And make the case for your optimism.
>>Edgar Bronfman: I think if you -- aging more than any of us, but those of us who manage
businesses around the world and spend time in other countries, there's a lot to recommend
to all of them. But I would say with perhaps the exception of China, there is no country
in the world that has the optimism of America. And that optimism, it is just -- it is somehow
inherent in our nature. We need to make sure to protect it and to nurture it and to do
all the things to preserve it. But that optimism, that belief that we can
do better than we've done, that the next generation can do better than we've done, that forward-looking
sense, it simply doesn't exist in most other countries. And it has served us well for centuries,
and I think, can continue to serve us well. >>Martin Seligman: I think the fact that we
are a nation of immigrants and you ask who stays and who leaves, that in general it is
optimists who leave and see the future. It turns out optimism is 50% heritable.
>>Sanjay Jha: I think the notion of immigration has been so central to this country, I do
think that there are some changes that need to be made in terms of our visa situation,
in terms of allowing the people who get educated in this country to find jobs, that has been
-- if you look at the papers being published, 75% of the papers are now being published
by non-American side of U.S. schools. And then we have created an environment where
they can't stay in this country. I think that makes no sense at all for us.
And there has been a huge campaign. I think Bill Gates has been leading it. I think Eric
has been involved in it. We really need to find the solution to that. I think that's
an important part of the renewal that we have in this country.
>>James Fallows: And just on that point, has that situation abated at all in the time since
the 9/11 attacks which was when the big switch came on visas?
>>Sanjay Jha: Not to my view. Not to my view. I think if anything, it has got slightly worse,
yeah. >>James Fallows: Again, I would invite people
who would like to ask questions. I have some more. I will ask another one which follows
-- Yes, a question here? >>> Hi. Being a musician who comes from a
part of the world where there was no business model 20 years ago when I started a rock band,
Junoon, yet, you know, the consumer, the customer, the music listener, there is 1.5 billion people
in south Asia. So the business model evolved. How do you -- Edgar, this is a question for
you. How do you see the business model evolving in the next ten years, the music model, for
artists? >>Edgar Bronfman: Well, as I said, I think
that there's going to be far more partnership, I think, between artists and their those business
parters, whoever those business partners may ultimately be. I think record labels, music
publishers will be a part of that. But I think that we're going to see a globalization
of content that we've never seen before because of the technology that's really here but not
really deployed in full force. So, that people in the U.S. will be able to
listen to your music. You will be able to listen to their music in a much more free-flowing
view -- way. You will have playlists that you will be sharing with people in this country
and all over. And that will allow music to travel in ways that it hasn't really been
able to travel before. In almost every country outside of Japan,
western Europe and North America, there is no music model. Music is basically stolen,
pirated, et cetera. And it is impossible for musicians to make money other than through
live performances and other kinds of things. And I really do think that that's another
opportunity for technology, to allow compensation to flow so that much more creativity will
come to all parts of the world where there are genius musicians.
>>> Thanks. >>James Fallows: So I have a question I'm
going to ask Professor Seligman and see if the other panelists agree or disagree with
his reply. One could make a case that this is a time
of failing leadership on many fronts for United States in particular. It is very difficult
in the political front to find people who are willing to put interests beyond the next
election, the next filibuster vote or whatever, talk about -- some of the issues Ted Turner
was discussing of long-term issues of national welfare and international survival.
The financial community is probably in its lowest esteem it has been in public view for
70 years or so. My own media establishment, with the exception
of Tom Brokaw, is not looked on too well by the world in general. Objectively, is the
quality of leadership now any better or worse than it has ever been? And is this something
that changes over time? >>Martin Seligman: Well, I have a confession
to make about leadership. I actually once was the Fox leadership professor. Every time
I hear the word "leadership," I hold on to my wallet. And let me tell you why.
[ Laughter ] I think followership is homogenous, and I
will tell you what I think it is. And I think leadership is domain specific, that it depends
on what you are leading. So I believe when I talked to drill sergeants
or CEOs about PERMA that what you want to instill in followers is more positive emotion,
more better relations, more meaning and more accomplishment.
So I actually think the measure and the purpose of leadership is PERMA. It is followership.
And that's homogenous. But the way you do this at Procter & Gamble
or Motorola, the University of Pennsylvania or the U.S. Army is fantastically different
in that the leaders are not interchangeable. So I'm very interested in followership.
>>A.G. Lafley: I agree. I don't think leaders are interchangeable. I think a big part of
what you try to do is find a person's -- help a person find his or her meaning, his or her
inspiration and then find the position for them to play that brings out the best in her.
And the beauty of a place like P & G is we have lots of positions, okay?
But I think that is -- I think that is a really important part of it. And if you think about
growing over a lifetime, we're going to live longer, you are going to work -- we are going
to work longer. If companies like ours are going to have any
kind of a chance -- See, I believe our employees vote every three to five years about, first
of all, whether they are going to join us. We don't select anymore. They choose us. And
I'm sure that's true at Google, okay? Second thing is, then they re-choose us every
two or three years. So we've got to keep winning those elections. And manipulation doesn't
work. Control doesn't work. None of that stuff works.
So they have to be re-energized. They have to re-commit. I totally agree with you.
I can think of a lot of things that you would not want to put me anywhere near because I
would make a huge mess of it. But for some reason, I landed in this and it has worked
out okay. >>James Fallows: We have one more minute here.
Did any of you hear anything in your colleagues' discussions that you wanted to second, rebut
or elaborate upon? >>Sanjay Jha: Just Professor Seligman's notion
of flourishing, it is a very central one that I think I heard today, very interesting. And
interesting to think about how that concept can be used in corporations, in terms of measuring
flourishing. And I don't think it is surveys. I think it has to be something much more subterranean
than that. Survey is probably a start. But I would like
to hear your opinion as to how that applies to corporations, Dr. Seligman.
>>Martin Seligman: I have spent most of my life working on negative emotion, anger and
sadness and anxiety. And there is a very important difference between the positive emotions and
the negative emotions. And it has to do when you're in negative emotion, you fall back
on what you already know. It is not an innovative emotion.
So to the extent -- if what you're dealing with in your own life, your nation or your
corporation is stopping hemorrhaging, then it is a good idea to be a performance manager
about anger and fear and sadness. But all of you have spent your life in innovation.
And I think we know, both experimentally and otherwise, that when people are flourishing
and in states of positive emotion, that's when they expand and do things new.
And that's why my guess would be that for growth, that flourishing and the positive
emotions are the evolutionary substratum of what we call positive sum games, growth.
>>James Fallows: There is more to discuss here, but we have time for just a two-minute
surprise session which is going to come. And although Professor Seligman didn't know this,
this wasn't a setup, his comments about the importance of followership are the exact perfect
segue to what we are about to see. So I and my fellow panelists are going to go back to
our seats and Derek Sivers is going to show us a surprise. And thank our panelists.
[ Applause ]