Would you hire ‘Fonzie’ or ‘Richie’?

For followers of the sitcom ‘Happy Days’, the Fonzie-Richie duo is legendary. As similar as chalk and cheese, Fonzie is rough around the edges—a greaser who defies convention, he has a mind of his own; he has been on the downside of luck and yet beaten the odds. On the other hand, Richie is clean-cut and straight as an arrow; he has been sheltered by his loving family and will predictably play by the book. Despite their contrasting personalities, not only are they best buddies, but they always come through.

Here’s a question—if you were hiring, would you pick Fonzie or Richie? Over the years, I have often seen candidates in the Richie mould enjoy an edge over those in the Fonzie mould. An oft-repeated argument is that a Fonzie won’t make a good team player; his personality—opinionated and willingness to challenge status-quo—makes him a bad team player. Conversely, a Richie who is conforming and easy-going is seen as a safer bet. Perhaps there is some merit in that argument. But is that always true, or is there more to it than meets the eye?

An unpleasant truth is that several managers dislike dissenting opinions. A contrasting view (from a subordinate) which may potentially benefit the organisation could be shot down, because the manager believes that his authority has been challenged. Insecurity of being upstaged by a junior stalks and in turn, influences the actions of many managers. Admittedly, the organisation’s culture is an aspect too—some workplaces thrive on a familial structure wherein honchos are deemed to know what is best and juniors are simply expected to toe the line. It should come as no surprise if such entities always pick a Richie over a Fonzie.

However, should that approach be universally adopted? In an ever-changing and increasingly complex business environment, is it prudent to raise an army of compliant yes-men? What happens when the organisation faces a downturn or say the competition comes snapping at its heels? When the going gets tough, traits such as being driven, out-of-the-box thinking, resilience and courage are worth their weight in gold. Someone who has rolled with the punches is the man for the job. That’s when a Fonzie is better equipped to deliver over a Richie. For those who believe that a skilled manager is all it takes, think again. Even the best of plans (made by a manager) can be rendered useless due to poor execution (by subordinates who can’t rise to the occasion).

Like most things in life, I don’t think there is an unambiguous, ‘one-size-fits-all’ answer to the Fonzie versus Richie debate. But it is patently ridiculous that biases and insecurities result in organisations and managers inflicting damage on themselves. There has rarely been a greater need for a blinkers-off approach while hiring. As in ‘Happy Days’ itself, perhaps there is a case for Fonzies and Richies co-existing and driving the organisation’s success. To quote Fonzie—Ayyy!

The Lords of Flatbush: A small classic

The black & white image on the blog has evoked a fair bit of curiosity. I have had several queries on what it stands for. Here goes - it's an image from a 1974 movie called "The Lords of Flatbush" - TLF. A typical low-budget independent flick, over the years, it has acquired a cult status. Also, it happens to be one of my all-time favourites.

For most, TLF's claim to fame is that it boasts of several major stars in their pre-stardom days. Of the leading men, Perry King subsequently made a name for himself as a television star starring in the series "Riptide" and several made-for-TV films. Henry Winkler acquired iconic status playing "Fonzie" in "Happy Days". Finally, a lesser-known actor called Sylvester Stallone went on to become one of the biggest movie stars portraying legendary characters like "Rocky" and "Rambo".

But there's much more to TLF than its star cast. Set in the 1950s, it's a heartfelt coming of age tale. The central characters are a bunch of leather-clad, teen-aged delinquents who are resisting growing up. They identify themselves as members of a 'social athletic club' called the Lords of Flatbush. And their activities include indulging in boorish behaviour, picking up fights, chasing girls, stealing cars and playing pool. In fact, the opening credits unambiguously establish the credentials of the Lords.

As is often the case with low-budget flicks, TLF suffers from some serious technical flaws. Oddly, they add to the film's gritty and real theme. And that is one of TLF's fortes. Unlike "Grease" (the far more popular 1950s movie that hit theatres a few years later), which is about as real as Santa Claus, TLF offers an earthy look at life in the 1950s, despite the leather jackets, pompadour hair, vintage cars and bikes, drive-in, soda store et al. It's about believable characters in life-like situations.

While the performances are top-notch, the well-etched characters and perfect casting deserve to be applauded as well. Perry King enjoys maximum screen time; armed with a cool bike, he is the Casanova with a roving eye. Sylvester Stallone plays the archetypal tough guy with a heart of gold, with a lot of gusto. Henry Winkler has the brains in the gang and is clearly wasting his time. But then breaking ranks and doing something worthwhile wouldn't be Lord-like behaviour. Finally, the pint-sized Paul Mace whose only identity is that he is a Lord, and he couldn't care less. Each actor has his moments. However, the best scenes are undoubtedly the ones wherein the Lords are together doing what they do best - having a blast!

TLF's brilliant and apt soundtrack merits a mention. Another interesting aspect of the film is that it lacks a well-developed story line. Instead, what you have are various incidents in the life and times of the protagonists; each one offering an insight into the protagonist's character. One grouse I have with TLF is its runtime. At about 86 minutes, it seems a trifle too short.

While TLF-enthusiasts have lapped up the film on DVD and video over the years, they were in store for a bonus recently. TLF's co-director Stephen Verona authored a book titled "The making of The Lords of Flatbush". It offers some interesting insights, trivia and a behind-the-scenes look at the cult film. For instance, Richard Gere was set to play one of the Lords and his run-ins with Stallone were largely responsible for his exit. Also, Bette Midler was supposed to be a cast in TLF.

Anyone who has ever been a part of a closely-knit gang will easily identify with TLF and the nostalgic feel that it strongly evokes. Without doubt, TLF qualifies as a must-watch!