[mrr2]

God, this is classic Gladwell. Skip critical details to come out as a "holier than thou" contrarian.

Kitchin's qualification for running EnronOnline, it should be pointed out, was not that she was good at it. It was that she wanted to do it, and Enron was a place where stars did whatever they wanted.

EnronOnline was one of the most successful units of Enron. In fact, UBS picked up the platform and now many of the techniques developed at EnronOnline was picked up by the electronic energy trading platforms.

Kitchin is still considered one of the foremost authorities in the world of energy trading and finance. I believe she is a MD at Deutsche Bank in the field of energy structuring and got her development of the business turned into a Harvard Business School case study.

Clearly not only was she good at organizing the business, she succeeded at it. This is exactly what I really dislike about reading Gladwell's stuff. His job is to find a previously successful story-line that has hit snags, in order to act as an armchair quarterback. He is just like most other journalist and historian - seemingly wise because of post-hoc analysis but incapable of actual prediction.

[jallmann]

"Give me six words written by any man and I will find reason in them to hang him." --Cardinal Richelieu

> He is just like most other journalist and historian - seemingly wise because of post-hoc analysis but incapable of actual prediction.

No, but he tells an interesting story very well. Point, counterpoint, point. I wouldn't take Gladwell's words (or anyone's) as gospel, but I found this genuinely fascinating. I'll be damned that if isn't a tantalizing portrait of Enron, even more so because you know what happened to them at the end. It sounds like someplace I would want to work.

And I learned a few things from this, so what's the harm?

[j_baker]

I don't see him as coming out as "holier than thou", although admittedly a bit contrarian. Plus, the point about Kitchin wasn't that she was unsuccessful. Quite the opposite in fact. The point was that these decisions affected the whole company.

And for the record, I think that Enron goes well beyond having "hit snags".

[mrr2]

Definition of holier than thou: Exhibiting an attitude of superior virtue; self-righteously pious.

Gladwell tries to come off from a moral high ground where he preaches about certain concepts (in this example the benefits of talent) by self-selecting evidence.

I really find it funny how the entire employee grading process has become a huge area of contention amongst arm chair quarterbacks. Recently, there was another article where it talked about Wall Street's excessive competitiveness as having caused the crisis. Gladwell and similar authors forget the one company (and the one manager) credited with popularizing this entire concept: General Electric and Jack Welch. I like the off-handed way Gladwell mentions a specific quote from a G.E. exec without talking about the success G.E. had with this approach I can use Welch and G.E. in order to argue against this entire article. In fact, Welch's biographies do the job. Not only did he grade employees into three tiers, he graded entire businesses into tiers. If a business wasn't #1 or #2, its shuttered. I will bet I can actually construct a better argument for supporting the quest for talent.

Enron blew up because upper management was a bunch of liars. What does talent have to do with it? In fact, Enron failed at following the "promote talent" concept. If they did take this philosophy to heart, they would have fired the international heads that bled billions of dollars from Enron's bottom line. In fact, Skilling and the top protected those sub-par managers and execs leading to the shady accounting to hide the carnage. The talent they picked up in their energy trading department was (and is) great. Go into any of the nation's energy trading floors and Enron alumni enjoy great reputations.

As for the record, I think Gladwell goes well beyond being "a bit contrarian". ;)

[bhoung]

Gladwell is an enjoyable read and is able to pull together seemingly unrelated threads. Telling plausible coherent stories is really the most effective medium of communication, which explains his popularity. He is clearly more an entertainer than practitioner. Warren Buffett is capable of prediction but he is probably boring (I'm probably wrong about this...)

Besides, the fact that Kitchin has moved on to bigger and better things does not really discredit Gladwell's critique. Could be another disaster unfolding as we speak. Just saying.

[endian]

Warren Buffett is capable of prediction but he is probably boring (I'm probably wrong about this...)

You probably are:

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2009ar/2009ar.pdf

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2008ar/2008ar.pdf

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2007ar/2007ar.pdf