 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:08:38 |
On this episode, our hosts are joined by Matthew Barzun, an American businessman, diplomat, and longtime political fundraiser. Sarah and David dive into his paradigm-shifting book, The Power of Giving Away Power, and what it teaches about leadership. Along the way, they also discuss everything from what Barzun learned during his time fundraising for former president Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, to the etiquette of bowing to royalty while working as an American ambassador abroad.
Show Notes:
-Matthew Barzun’s book, The Power of Giving Away Power: How the Best Leaders Learn to Let Go
Agree with the others posting that the “arena” can be many things, not just politics. For example, it can be a social situation or networking event where you aren’t sure who to talk to, but just go for it and try to strike up a conversation. You are putting yourself out there, being vulnerable, subjecting yourself to potential criticism. Dating is another good example or when you are the new person at work. Those situations take courage and there are many others everyday at work, church, or in the family. Those arenas matter and they are applicable to everyone.
The phrase that I hate is, “better to be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt.” F that, get in the arena and give it a go.
The Man in The Arena is framed on the wall in my bedroom. I had never interpreted it the way you guys described.
I’ve always thought we are all going through our own struggles in life to find success, greater glory, pride, accomplishment in life, and that everyone had their own arena, and that in that arena there would undoubtedly be harsh critics of whatever you do and however you do it. Critics who have malice in their hearts and a predisposition to criticize wherever they can.
The language of the speech refers to the critic who “points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could’ve done better”
I’ve always interpreted these critics, not as those who offer supportive and constructive criticism and want to help you get better, but as those who say “The Dispatch is terrible, it’s full of a bunch of never trumpers!”
Self awareness researched Tasha Eurich separates people who give feedback into four categories. Loving critics (those who criticize to give you the information you need to improve), unloving critics (those hoping you fail, who criticize out of malice) and uncritical lovers (those who support you regardless, and don’t have the ability to tell you things that might upset or disappoint you about yourself) I’ve always categorized these specific critics as unloving ones.
I always saw the critics Roosevelt references in this speech as people who have no positive intentions whatsoever but those lost in a sea of predisposed opinions that they look up information to support. Not those who look up information to give themselves a knowledge base to create an opinion.
I firmly do believe critics count and I think we only get better if we seek and are open to criticism but I never saw this speech as about those kinds of critics.
I loved the speech mostly because it was about the personal glory within that comes with truly striving for and pushing to be someone or achieve something.
It’s about the sacrifices associated with making yourself vulnerable enough to receive criticism, and risk public failure in the pursuit of some higher achievement.
It’s also kind of about the satisfaction in public failure because you had the mental toughness to attempt scary, and hard things that make you incredibly vulnerable.
Immediately I was taken aback that Sarah felt she was no longer in the arena. Taking a career risk to pursue journalism, with a start up publication that is trying to redefine the way people consume news and push back against basically all major voices in the media in order to restore the public trust in institutions, making them vulnerable to attacks from the right and left. If that isn’t the arena I don’t know what is.
I obviously acknowledge there’s room for other interpretations but I always interpreted it as telling those who fought valiantly in whatever they did that there’s dignity in failure, and strength in vulnerability.