Back | Up | Next

Conversations in Management

Harry S Truman

The trouble with you guys is you don’t understand human nature.

This was a, “told you so,” moment for Harry Truman—who seems to have enjoyed a lifetime of such moments. The issue at hand was his response to Washington Post critic, Paul Hume’s unflattering review of young Margaret Truman’s concert at the Capitol’s Constitution Hall. In his review, he characterized Margaret as, “extremely attractive,” and “a unique American phenomenon with a pleasant voice of little size and fair quality.” He went on to note, “Miss Truman cannot sing very well; she is flat a good deal of the time.” This was a bit too much for Harry Truman to bear. He dashed off a short note—on White House stationery—that said, in part, “I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. …Someday I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!”

It’s generally assumed that the President’s intemperate note was quickly written and dispatched, but when politics are involved, things are never quite that straightforward. While the letter was, indeed, hastily written in the heat of anger, it was reviewed by, discussed with and evaluated by aides. Truman expressed some disappointment with his staff when they encouraged him not to send the letter. They feared it would seem “un-presidential” and would further tarnish his already dismal political reputation. Not one to back down when he believed he was right, Truman bet them all that public opinion would be, “80 percent on my side of the argument.” And so the letter was sent. Neither Hume nor the Washington Post printed the President’s rant, but it was picked up by the rival Washington News and became front page news across the country. When pressed for her opinion of her father’s letter, Margaret responded, “I’m glad to see that chivalry is not dead.” Apparently the country agreed with her. A week after the firestorm broke out; Truman led his aides to the White House mail room. The clerks had sorted the responses into pro and con piles and even graphed the results. Sure enough, 80 percent of the writers were squarely with the president. It seems human nature trumped politics—once again.

Like common sense, human nature is one of those things that’s hard to pin down. You recognize it when you see it, but it’s difficult to put into words. In Truman’s case, most people recognized that it was only natural for a father to defend his daughter’s reputation. His aides, however, were thinking about the 1950’s equivalent of nuance, fallout and spin. They would have preferred a measured and bloodless response or even better, no response at all. Their problem was that they were over-thinking it. We tend to do a lot of over-thinking in the workplace today. When we see some benign demonstration of curiosity, spontaneity or light-heartedness we become immediately suspicious for fear that it might take a dark turn and lead to some policy violation or other. Good faith questioning of routines or practices are often taken as challenges to authority and the pretext for a lawsuit. We can easily find a hundred reasons why people caught in the act of being people need to be closely supervised. Perhaps a lighter hand on the reigns of leadership is called for. Perhaps less timidity in response to human nature might make us all feel a bit better about going to work. When in doubt, remember human nature includes large measures of tolerance and good will.

—Ebert