tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7949713243144118764.post9166539412648061213..comments2009-03-04T04:55:31.018-06:00Don Frederiksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14717893193584172186noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7949713243144118764.post-20241469944763728532009-03-04T04:55:00.000-06:002009-03-04T04:55:00.000-06:00@Dave<BR/><BR/>Thanks. It's a nice notion. Focus on the positive is certainly a key element of my thinking. <BR/> <BR/><BR/>@David Z<BR/><BR/>Thanks. I'm sure the "brand" isn't going to change. But I still feel challenged. If you offer an executive a chance to hire one of two leaders, a quiet leader or a more charismatic leader, the standard hiring process feels heavily inclined to select the charismatic leader. Selling "quiet" takes time. It's not conducive to a 30 minute hiring interview. It's not a very sellable label. <BR/><BR/>DonDon Frederiksenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14717893193584172186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7949713243144118764.post-37555117115816307442009-03-02T16:18:00.000-06:002009-03-02T16:18:00.000-06:00I like quiet. It gives space to others you lead to voice. It means noticing and slowing down. I think quiet is quite great and encourage the staying with it.David Zingerhttp://www.davidzinger.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7949713243144118764.post-45951784047824149912009-03-02T11:46:00.000-06:002009-03-02T11:46:00.000-06:00How about "Positive"?Davehttp://www.davecrainonline.comnoreply@blogger.com