No. of Recommendations: 27
Apparently, some of his friends read the book and were surprised that there were some things about Warren's personal life that were portrayed in the book that weren't particularly flattering.
Like a lot of things in life the truth is probably somewhere in the middle but I always kind of thought that Warren handled the situation regarding Alice somewhat poorly.
Warren Buffett frequently reiterated his rule of thumb on criticizing and complementing: Criticize only in the general (citing a role, etc); and complement in the specific (individual person).
I have found it to be a pretty useful rule of thumb myself, even if not strictly followed, certainly skewing in that direction. I would add a third element: When complementing in the specific, do so publicly (or with others witnessing) rather than only privately.
Warren embodies this well in practice, and not just conceptually. Try to think of a situation in which he criticized any individual. Can you think of even one? The rare exceptions are probably only David Sokol and John Gutfreund (Salomon Brothers Scandal, way back in 1991) and that's about it.
Indeed Alice was a biographer, but biographer or not, I imagine it boils down to this difference in exactly this particular value. For Alice (and, frankly, most people) it is simply normal to gravitate towards personal details of an individual in the analytical sense, but for Buffett it is profoundly out of bounds. So when he sees others doing it, he will consider it uncultured. Good on him for trusting Alice to investigate Berkshire Hathaway (which was how he framed the project when asked about it at an annual meeting - he viewed the book as chiefly about Berkshire than about Buffett) with values he would concur with, he took a risk.
It is, in theory, possible to be a biographer whilst not being analytical over normally private matters, or at least not digging into personal nuances, without diluting the substance of the biography. If you read a biography about Balakirev, there is a lot to criticize with his personality flaws, but far more to write about what he achieved, and the historical intrigue of the composing environment at that time.
But still, many people like personal nitty gritty, and Alice is writing for a large modern audience. Note that she exposed details about his unconventional marriage, strained family relationships, and psychological quirks. It could be argued that such things are common to millions of other random people, and not really causally relevant to his achievements. But again, she is writing the wide audience.
I can understand the situation from both Alice Shroeder's and Warren Buffett's perspectives.
- Manlobbi
