Ludwig Van Beethoven (1770 – 1827) was one of the most innovative figures in the music history. I recently finished taking a class on Beethoven at Stanford taught by a brilliant music scholar, Stephen Hinton. The class was a fascinating journey into Beethoven’s nine symphonies and into his life.

Beethoven played a key role in evolution of symphonies from classical period (1760 – 1820) to Romantic period (1820 – 1918). Following are a few key innovations he was responsible for:

1. Movements: A classical period symphony has three or four movements. They are usually in the sequence of Fast -> Medium -> Dance -> Fast tempo. The three-movement classical period symphonies follow Fast -> Medium -> Fast tempo. Beethoven experimented with and popularized the following in the Romantic period:

i) Changing the order of movements. Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is an example

ii) Expand the number of movements. Beethoven’s Sixth Symphony is an example

iii) Merge movements together. Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony is an example.

2. Symphony length: In the classical period most symphonies were around 30-minute long. There was a big uproar in the music world when Beethoven performed his Third Symphony which is 50-minute long. People thought that it was too long. And, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is 64.5-minute long [there are variations of this score which are longer]. In the romantic period most symphonies were 45-60-minute long.

3. Relationship of movements: I was surprised to learn that up to the classical period, the symphony was not performed as one piece of music. Symphonies were performed more like a variety show. After every movement there was another act like singing or juggling or some other form of entertainment. There was almost no relationship between different movements.

Each movement was considered a separate “state of the soul”. Beethoven led the change in romantic period when he started performing the entire symphony as piece of music and separation of movements became uncommon. Furthermore, there was a narrative across movements in Beethoven later symphonies.

4. Meaning of symphony: In the classical period, the meaning of a symphony was not specified. The prevailing idea at the time was “leave it to the listener” so it won’t fetter response. Symphonies did not have titles in the classical period. I think it would have been tough to assign meaning to a piece of music that is not performed as one piece and was interrupted by juggling etc. Beethoven often gave his symphonies descriptive titles and there was a “story” associated with symphonies in the romantic era. For example, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is titled Ode to Joy and Fifth Symphony is titled Fate and Third Symphony is titled Eroica.

5. Size of orchestra: In classical period, the orchestra size was ~40. Led by Beethoven, in romantic period, it grew to ~80-100.

6. Kinds of instruments: Main instruments during the classical period were gut strings, natural horns, classical woodwinds, and limited percussion. Beethoven introduced modern versions of the old instruments. For example, horns with valves. And, he introduced voices. Beethoven Ninth Symphony was the first popular symphony to include human voice. Hence, popularizing the music genre Choral Symphony. [Hector Berlioz was the first to use vocals in a symphony. Any French person would point it out to you]

7. Silence during performance: Prior to Beethoven it was common for people to talk during the performance of a symphony. Maybe because it was more of variety show. Beethoven required the audience to be silent and get immersed in the music and he raised the profile of the conductor. Before Beethoven it was not uncommon for the symphonies to be performed without a conductor.

There were other technical innovations Beethoven was responsible for related to measure numbers, music sections like codas which I did not understand enough to describe. I think I need to take Music 101 again.

There are more interesting things about Beethoven and his symphonies. See:

Beethoven started going deaf at the ago of 26, by the time he composed his Fifth Symphony he was partially deaf and when he composed his Ninth Symphony he was completely deaf. Critics say that he was composing music by visualizing it and hence it is difficult to perform the Ninth Symphony in the original measure numbers and tempos. That is why you see the Ninth Symphony performance can vary from 65 minutes to 79 minutes.

When the development of audio CD was being led by Sony and Philips, the Sony executive, Norio Ohga, determined that a single CD should be able to play London Philharmonic Orchestra’s recording of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony in its entirety. Hence, the length of the first audio CDs was ~74 minutes.

Leonard Bernstein conducted Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony at the Brandenburg Gate to celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It is a Japanse tradition to play Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony during New Year Eve celebrations.

Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony is the European Union’s anthem.

Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony opened the London Olympics.

Photo credit: algemeiner.com

Recently, I bought some JP Morgan stock [NYSE: JPM]. Following my hero, Charlie Munger’s advice, I did do my homework before purchasing the equity. Part of my homework was to read Jamie Dimon’s letter to JPM shareholders. It is a very interesting read. I was impressed with the clarity and detail Mr. Dimon outlined how he thinks about developing leaders for a multinational corporation. I practically agree with everything he said in the letter. Following is the edited version of Mr. Dimon’s thoughts on leadership:

Leadership is an honor, a privilege and a deep obligation. When leaders make mistakes, a lot of people can get hurt. Being true to oneself and avoiding self-deception are as important to a leader as having people to turn to for thoughtful, unbiased advice. Emotional Quotient [EQ] matters in management. EQ can include empathy, clarity of thought, compassion and strength of character.

Good people want to work for good leaders. Bad leaders can drive out almost anyone who’s good because they are corrosive to an organization; and since many are manipulative and deceptive, it often is a challenge to find them and root them out.

Below are some essential hallmarks of a good leader. While we can not be great at all of these traits, to be successful, a leader needs to get most of them right.

1. Discipline: This means holding regular business reviews, talent reviews and team meetings and constantly striving for improvement – from having a strong work ethic to making lists and doing real, detailed follow-up. Leadership is like exercise; the effect has to be sustained for it to do any good.

2. Fortitude: This attribute is often missing in leaders: They need to have a fierce resolve to act. It means driving change, fighting bureaucracy and politices and taking ownership and responsibility.

3. High Standards: Abraham Lincoln said, “Things may come to those who wait…but only the things left by those who hustle.” Leaders must set high standards of performance all the time, at a detailed level and with a real sense of urgency. Leaders must compare themselves with the best. Huge institutions have a tendency toward slowing things down, which demands that leaders push forward constantly. Ture leaders must set the highest standards of integrity- those standards are not embedded in the business but require conscious choices.

4. Ability to face facts: In a cold-blooded honest way, leaders emphasize the negatives at management meetings and focus on what can be improved.

5. Openness: Sharing information all the time is vital – we should debate the issues and alternative approaches, not the facts. The best leaders kill bureaucracy – it can cripple an organization – and watch for signs of politics, like sidebar meetings after the real meeting because people wouldn’t speak their mind at the right time.

6. Setup for success: An effective leader makes sure all the right people are in the room – from Legal, Systems and Operations to Human Resources, Finance and Risk. It’s necessary to set up the right structure. When tri-heads report to co-heads, all decisions become political – a setup for failure, not success.

7. Morale-building: High morale is developed through fixing problems, dealing directly and honestly with issues, earning respect and winning. It does not come from overpaying people or delivering sweet talk, which permits the avoidance of hard decision making and fosters passive-aggressive behaviors.

8. Loyalty, meritocracy and teamwork: Loyalty should be to the principles for which someone stands and to the institution: Loyalty to an individual frequently is another form of cronyism. Leaders demand a lot from their employees and should be loyal to them – but loyalty and mutual respect are two-way streets. Loyalty to employees does not mean that a manager owes them a particular job. Loyalty to employees means building a healthy, vibrant company; telling them the truth; and giving them meaningful work, training and opportunities. If employees fall down, we should get them the help they need.

Meritocracy and teamwork are also critical but frequently misunderstood. Meritocracy means putting the best person in the job, which promotes a sense of justice in the organization rather than appearance of cynicism: “Here we go again, taking care of their friends.” Teamwork is important and often code for “getting along,” equally important is an individual’s ability to have the courage to stand alone and do the right thing.

9. Fair treatment: The best leaders treat all people properly and respectfully, from clerks to CEOs. Everyone needs to help everyone else at the company because everyone’s collective purpose is to serve clients.

10. Humility: Leaders need to acknowledge those who came before them and helped shape the enterprise – it’s not all their own doing. There ‘s a lot of luck involved in anyone’s success, and a little humility is important. The overall goal must be to build a great company – then we can do more for our employees, our customers, and our communities.

There are many aspects of the leadership process that are open for interpretation. This grey area contributes to the complexity of the challenges and leaders – and those who govern them – face.

1. Successful leaders are hard to find

While there are possibly innate and genetic parts of leadership (perhaps broad intelligence and natural energy), other parts ar deeply embedded in internal values of an individual; for example, work ethic, integrity, knowledge and good judgement. Many leaders have worked their entire lives to get where they are, and while perhaps some achieved their stature through accident or politics, that is not true for most. Anyone on a team knows when he or she encounters the rare combination of emotional skill, integrity and knowledge that makes a leader.

2. Successful leaders are working to build something 

Leaders want to build something of which they can be proud. They usually work hard, not because they must but because they want to do so; they set high standards because as long as leaders are going to do something  they are going to do the best they can. Leaders believe in things larger than themselves, and the highest obligation is to the team or the organization. Leaders demand loyalty, not to themselves but to the cause for which they stand.

3. Compensation matters

Money should not be the primary motivation for leaders but it is not realistic to say that compensation should not count at any level. People have responsibilities to themselves and to their families. They also have a deep sense of “compensation justice,” which means they often are upset when they feel they are not fairly compensated against peers both within and outside the company. There are markets for talent just like products, and a company must pay a reasonable price to compete.

4. Big business needs entrepreneurs, too

Free enterprise, entrepreneurship and pursuit of happiness also exist in most large enterprises. Without the capacity to innovate, respond to new and rapidly changing markets, and anticipate enormous challenges, large companies would cease to exist. The people who achieve these objectes want to be compensated fairly, just as they would be if they had built a successful startup.

5. Performance isn’t always easy to judge

Managers responsible for businesses must necessarily evaluate individuals along a spectrum of factors. Did these individuals act with integrity? Did they hire and train good people? Did they build the systems and products that will strengthen the company, not just in the current year but in future years? Did they develop real management teams? In essence, are they building something with sustainable long-term value? Making these determinations requires courage and judgement.

6. Sometimes leaders should be supported and paid even when a unit does poorly

If a company’s largest, and perhaps most important, business unit is under enormous stress and strain, unlikely to make earn money regardless of who is running it, a manager might ask his best leader to take on the job. This may be toughest job in the company, one that will take years to work through before the ship has been rightened. When the manager asks a leader to take on the responsibility, she quite appropriately will want to know whether she will be supported in the toughest of times: “Will you make sure the organization doesn’t desert me?” “Will you stop the politics of people using my unit’s poor performance against me?” “Will you compensate me fairly?” The answer to all these questions should be yes. And, as long as she was doing a good job, she should be paid like the best leaders in the organization, profits aside. Conversely, we all know that a rising tide lifts all boats. When that’s the case, paying that leader too much is possibly the worst thing one can do – because it teaches people the wrong lesson.

To continue learning about cultures, I just finished reading a book - Figuring Foreigners Out-which gives very pragmatic advice on understanding and adapting to new cultures. Thanks to my teacher, Donna Stringer, for recommending the book. Following are some edited excepts that explain fundamentals of culture:

1. Culture. What is it exactly? Culture is describes as the shared assumptions, values, and beliefs of a group of people which result in characteristic behaviors. And, cultural generalizations are necessarily statements of likelihood and potential, not of certainty.

2. Behavior: An instance of behavior has no particular meaning other than what the people who witness that behavior assign to it. Behavior means what we decide it means – very often it means nothing at all.

3. Polar Opposites: If all human behavior were put on a continuem, the part related to culture would fall in the middle, between universal at one extreme and personal at the other.

4. Building Blocks: there are four building blocks for culture:

• Concept of self: individualist and collectivist
• Personal vs societal responsibility: universalist and particularist
• Concept of time: monochronic and polychornic
• Locus of control: internal and external
• Let’s look at these blocks one by one.

• Individualist: The smallest unit of survival is the individual. People identify primarily with self, and the needs of the individual are satisfied before those of the group. Looking after and taking care of oneself, being self-sufficient, guarantees the well-being of the group. Independence and self-reliance are stressed and greatly valued, personal freedom is highly desired. In general, there is more psychological distance from others. One may choose to join groups, but group membership is not essential to one’s identity, survival or success.
• US is a good example of an Individualist culture.
• Collectivist: The primary group, usually the immediate family, is the smallest unit of survival. One’s identity is in large part a function of one’s membership and role in a group (e.g., the family, the work team). The survival and success of the group ensures the well-being of the individual, so that by considering the needs and feelings of others, one protects oneself. Harmony and interdependence of group members are stressed and valued. There is relatively little psychological or emotional distance between group members, though there is more distance between group (ingroup)and non-group members (outgroup).

A lot of cultures fall between the continuem where individualist and collectivist are the opposite poles.

• Universalism: There are certain absolutes that apply across the board, regardless of circumstances or the particular situation. What is right is always right. Wherever possible, one should try to apply the same rules to everyone in like situations. To be fair is to treat everyone alike and not make exceptions for family, friends, or members of one’s ingroup. In general, ingroup/outgroup distinctions are minimized. Where possible, one should lay one’s personal feelings aside and look at situations objectively. Where life isn’t fair, one can make it more fair by treating everyone the same.

Germany is a good example of a Universalist culture.

• Particularism: How you behave in a given situation depends on circumstances. What is right in one situation may not be right in another. You treat family, friends, and your ingroups the best you can, and you let the rest of the world take care of itself. (Their ingroups will protect them.) One’s ingroups and outgroups are clearly distinguished. There will always be exceptions made for certain people. To be fair is to treat everyone as unique. In any case, on one expects life to be fair. Personal feelings should not be laid aside but rather relied upon.

• Monochronic: Time is a commodity; it is quantifiable and and there is limited amount of it. Therefore, it is necessary to use time wisely and not waste it. There is a premium on efficiency, hence a sense of urgency in may matters. Time is the given and people are variable; the needs of people are adjusted to suit the demands of time (schedules, deadlines, etc.). It is considered most efficient to do one thing at a time or wait on one person at a time. As far as possibile, you shouldn’t let circumstances, unforeseen events, interfere with your plans. Interruptions are a nuisance.

• Polychronic: Time is limitless and not quantifiable. There is always more time, and people are never too busy. Time is the servant and tool of people and is adjusted to suit the needs of people. Schedules and deadlines often get changed. People may may have to do several things simultaneously, as required by circumstances. It’s not necessary to finish one thing before starting another, nor to finish your business with one person before starting in with another. One always has to take circumstances into account and make adjustments. Strictly speaking, there’s no such thing as an interruption.

A lot of cultures fall between the continuem where Monochronic and Polychronic are the opposite poles.

• Internal: The locus of control is largely internal, within the individual. There are very few givens in life, few things or circumstances which have to be accepted as they are and cannot be changed. There are no limits on what you can do or become, so long as you set your mind to it and make the necessary effort. Your success is your own achievement. You are responsible for what happens to you. Life is what you do; hence, these represent more activist cultures.
• US is a good example of an Internal culture.
• External: The locus of control is largely external to the individual. Some things in life are predetermined, built into the nature of things. There are limits beyond which one cannot go and certain givens that cannot be changed and must he accepted. (“That’s just the way things are.”) Your success is a combination of your effort and your good fortune. Life is in large part what happens to you; thus, these represent more fatalist cultures.
• Middle East is a good example of an External culture.

A lot of cultures fall between the continuem where Internal and External are the opposite poles.

In cross-cultural communication, whether the message you send is the one that gets received and whether the message you receive is the one that was sent are no longer forgone conclusions.

How does one communicate effectively in cross-cultural environment? The differences between the directness and indirectness, probably account for more cross-cultural misunderstanding than any other single factor. The directness and indirectness are described below:

• Indirect (High Context): People in these cultures tend to infer, suggest, and imply rather than say things directly. At least that is how they appear to people from more direct cultures – though not, of course, to each other. These cultures tend to be collectivist, where harmony and saving face are the greatest goods.; hence, there is a natural tendency toward indirectness and away from confrontation. In collectivist cultures, ingroups are well established and members have an intuitive understanding of each other, in part because of shared experiences. This means that as a rule people don’t need to spell things out or say very much to get their message across. This intuitive understanding is known as context (in this context:-)) , and in high-context cultures messages often don’t even need words to be expressed; non-verbal communication may be enough, or the message may be expressed in terms of what is not said or done. The goal of most communication exchanges is preserving and strengthening the relationship with the other person.

Japan is a good example of an Indirect communication culture.

• Direct (Low Context): Direct cultures tend to be less collectivist and more individualist than indirect cultures, with less well-developed ingroups. People lead more independent lives and have fewer shared experiences; hence, there is less instinctive understanding of others. People need to spell things out and be more explicit, to say exactly what they mean rather than merely suggest of imply. There is less context, less that can be taken for granted. The spoken word carries most of the meaning; you should not read anything into what is not said or done. The goal of most communication exchanges is getting or giving information.

A lot of cultures fall between the continuem where Indirect and Direct communication styles are the opposite poles.

10. The Whole Living Self: to realize it takes all sorts to make a world, one must have seen a certain numbers of the sorts with one’s own eyes. There is all the difference in the world between believing academically, with the intellect, and believing personally, with the whole living self. – Aldous Huxley