Thanks for the interesting article, Jim. As Drucker says, some leaders are readers and some are listeners. For Drucker, either style can be effective, it's more a matter of understanding what your boss needs so you can present it to him in a way he can understand.

In my case, I'm a listener. That's funny given how much I read, but it's the truth. I've seen more people get into trouble reading reports than I can say. I prefer to look the briefer in the eye and see if he believes what he's saying, if there's anything left out of what's on paper. The thing I like about Clinton's style is that he asked questions. What I would like most to know about Bush's briefings, particularly the Aug 6th briefing, is what questions he asked. He should have probed the nature of the evidence for the assertions and the nature of the investigations that were supposed to be ongoing. He should have asked if any of the information suggested that something was going to happen soon. If the briefer couldn't say, what was being done to find out. If the briefer couldn't sya because he didn't have first hand knowledge, I'd insist he get back to me.

In the case of the Aug 6th briefing, even if I had completely trusted the briefer and what the people working for him were duing (at some level you have, they're the experts and you're not - if you can't you should replace the Director of the CIA), I would still have wanted to know if he thought the situtation was under control, what else could be or needed to be done, and what did he need me to do, provide more resources, knock down barriers, whatever. Unfortunately, we don't know what questions Bush asked, do we?