“My old boss, former British prime minister David Cameron, thought Obama was one of the most narcissistic, self-absorbed people he’d ever dealt with,” Mr Hilton said on his Fox News show.
“Obama never listened to anyone, always thought he was smarter than every expert in the room, and treated every meeting as an opportunity to lecture everyone else. This led to real-world disasters, like Syria and the rise of Isis.” - Steve Hilton
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ith-obama-a-myth-says-ex-advisor-steve-hilton
I didn't know this about him... I thought he was just the opposite, willing to listen and open minded. Does anyone know this Hilton dude? I'm not up on Britain's politics but I gather he's a Trump supporter and pro-Brexit. This sounds like a description of Trump... Are leaders typically narcissists?
Consider the following approach to a meeting (or even a 1:1):
And consider as well that if you reckon yourself to be the person for which time is more scarse or valuable than the other person(s).... and/or want to keep the control of the agenda, the focus, the angle of approach, etc of a meeting.
In that case:
You will not have those other persons get into lenghty talking, going into details (to explain better), wandering of in disclaimers, etc, etc.
What you typical do is grab the talking firmly in your own hands, seemingly ignoring what others say or could say.....
AND ALL THE TIME be very perceptive HOW those others react on what you say while you are talking.
React by the way they sit, look at you, look at each other... the full bodylanguage scope
React by the way they try to come in all the time.. forcing them to the most important part of their info, their essence opinion.
ALL THE TIME forcing them WITHIN your frame, the frame you demand to be the frame wherein solutions, improvements, amendments must be contributed by the other persons.
You have several big advantages to do it this way (assuming you are perceptive enough while talking !!!)
- It is highly time efficient
- It is crystal clear what your general direction is on the topic
- you confirm the pick order, or force them into it yet again
- if you have info that does play a significant for the outcome, but you cannot disclose, a more free discussion becomes meaningless
- etc
So... it is conventional wisdom to act that way.... the one better in it (perceptive) than the other.
And yes... not something you learn at highschool.
But at high level management, especially at the level where the manager OWNS the strategy (typical CEO's), it is quite common, if he is in a meeting where he cannot talk freely.
I think the issue with Obama is, that he is already by nature a bit of a lecturer, a professor... that agrevates such impressions as "not listening, self-absorbed.
ALSO thinking and talking from out more broader and general considerations than a typical British Cameron is used to (being more like "we see while we get along with it")
EDIT
oh.. to prevent a misunderstanding
This behaviour is typical more prominent when among relatively higher ranking people in non-public, more confidential meetings.
You can use it as well in more public settings, but there you start to add a component of PR and how to sell it to the press and the masses.
And ofc THERE you want to have your profile to be one of a "listening" leader.
But that is usually just a voters PR facade.
