Passion vs Conviction

Some time ago I heard a presentation from someone who directs a non-profit. This director's organization provides a valuable work in their community, seems to be a trusted partner, and makes a real difference. The problem is that the presentation was boring. The director seems to be a nice enough person, but the presentation lacked passion, even as the director told the 'heart string' stories designed to evoke the audience's emotion.

I think each of us tends to favor either passion or knowledge. Those of us who favor passion get wrapped into the story, can paint the picture of how project XYZ will change lives and make differences, and can connect with people in such a way that leaves them having to work on project XYZ. Those of us who favor knowledge get wrapped into the data and the facts, define goals and objectives for project XYZ, and connect with people in such a way that leaves them thinking that project XYZ is sensible and makes sense. The question is, do we favor passion over knowledge? Or does knowledge trump passion? Is it possible to have or do both?

The author of Iconoclast quotes Jim Lavoie, CEO of Rite-Solutions, a software company from Rhode Island as saying this: “I made it to executive VP not by being bright, but by being theatrical. By being passionate. You can fake passion. And the better ideas were being shot down because the other guy didn’t do theater as well” (72-73).

Reading this, and thinking back to the presentation I heard, I realized I discounted the director's presentation because it lacked the theatre. The organization was still excellent, and the work being done really is quite good, but I snubbed it down because there was no passion. Sometimes, substance ought to trump style.