Comments

Fabulous concepts. Fake it [professionally] until you make it.

Posted by John at March 21, 2005 1:37 PM

Hi Tom! One hypothesis on why these beautiful minds find and discover new worlds is because they don't enjoy their own identity and are searching, usually without sleep, for joy on the outside, hence the mania. But, because of that drive we are blessed with glorius things. On the downside, these people may be sad and irritible [a definition of mania]. I equate it to autism, they are both neuro-emotional equations. Both behaviors trying to express feelings without the right energy activator. Both methapors for marketing.

I love the behaviors of a hypomanic mind, I may just be one. But, let's say we keep the behavior but removed the mania. Have you read Dr. Whybrow's book, American Mania: When More is Not Enough? I believe we can help people find their identity and channel the hypo-warp speed high opinion of themselves to even higher levels.

A better way to be positioning all of this is to say these men / women were following their passions and ultilzing their true gifts, that they were leading purposeful lifes. Because if we all start to realize that we have individual gifts, unique gifts, then we will all benefit.
We need to call Dr. Gartner. We love people who "Show us their Stuff!" right?

Posted by Wendy at March 21, 2005 3:16 PM

just today i was thinking how much i like this site here, which i discovered a couple of days ago.

and then - knowing that all the things i truely like are a little bit "off" i typed "tom peters has lost it" into my google machine - and well, what can i say... my world is still intact.

and now, coming back to this site just before dinner, i am seriously shocked. this "madness is the new greatness" post really does it for me. have you no underdog-pride?

i am deeply concerned.

Posted by jens at March 21, 2005 4:12 PM

It could be possible that both the Collins and Peters views are correct even though they appear to be polar opposities. In a world where there are no absolutes, it makes sense the paths to success can be varied and many.

Posted by steve gettler at March 21, 2005 4:45 PM

I remember one time, early in my career, I accomplished a project and a "seasoned veteran" came up and told me that it was impossible to do. I told him that I was glad he didn't tell me that before I tried to do it.

Why do we undermine truly talented people by telling them it's impossible? Let talented people go crazy and we might just be astounded at what they can accomplish!

Only the "NUTS" can Do the impossible, "GO NUTS"

Posted by Dave Holland at March 21, 2005 4:47 PM

Did the author in discussing Christopher Columbus propose changing Columbus Day to "Indigenous People's Day" like the folks-with-too-much-time-on-their-hands here in Portland?

See: http://tinyurl.com/545ur

Al Nye

Posted by Al Nye at March 21, 2005 5:00 PM

Wendy. It's not about their "hypo-warp speed high opinion of themselves." It's their warped sense of optimism that "anything can be done if one puts their mind and passion to it."

Posted by Tom Asacker at March 21, 2005 5:33 PM

That was/is my point. I was trying to pull out the positives of "mania" while keeping the beauty of talent. I cheer optimism and gifts. I am in 100% agreement with you. Mania means you have a very high opinion of your self, an inflated self esteem. I want to encourage, acknowledge, strength and identity. Like your own. I've read your "stuff!"

Posted by Wendy at March 21, 2005 8:54 PM

I agree with Steve. It may be a case of AND vs. OR. And, I've seen execs (ala Collins Level 5) smart enough to surround themselves with the manic types this book appears to talk about. Sometimes we need quiet, confident, "normal" leadership to keep others from getting in the way of the "crazies."

Posted by Jeffrey Cufaude at March 21, 2005 9:46 PM

you can't hunt for hypo maniacs... a true hypomaniac has already created significant value or is in the process of doing so in his OWN organization... people that think they have what it takes... well...this concept validates them.. in turn they try and get a job with increased vigor... based on this are just plain nuts... a true "Hypomaniac" (dumb term)doesnt seek a job but creates it... STAY AWAY FRUIT CAKE!!! ... Peters wants orgs to hire all the nut jobs that can't complete a single coherent thought let alone create a re-imagined enterprise.

This is what a hypo maniac does to succeed:
he recognizes... RE-IMAGINES! the opportunity/enterprise... He then recruits all the sane people that have done it before to build his vision/raise capital to build his vision.... then he gets kicked out by the board after he has hopefully made his fuck you money....

Notice i don't mention women here.... Tom is right about women..they are great ants for hypomaniacs BUT they are not hard wired to create great enterprise... recognize it chicks!!!

Posted by McMaster at March 21, 2005 10:26 PM

One community that's DOMINATED by HMs is the rock & roll world. (No doubt true of the acting world too.) From my experience, that kind of "irrational confidence, ambitious vision, and unstoppable zeal" is a given in that environment - that's the BASELINE! And the REALLY successful bands & solo stars take it up a notch from there. I was just thinking this weekend about the many musical geniuses who didn't - or couldn't - live normal lives - or die normal deaths (Marvin Gaye, John Lennon, Jimi Hendrix, to name but a few).

Posted by John O'Leary at March 22, 2005 12:33 AM

As usual we polarise the debate when we don't have to

One person’s hyper maniac is simply another person's passionate believer

Some of the leaders I have worked for are quiet and reserved - some are outspoken brash and loud

The one thing that they have in common is they make me feel great!

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 22, 2005 4:45 AM

Was Gandhi a hypomaniac? MLK? The Dalai Lama? Thict Naht Hahn? Einstein?

Im probably a hypo-maniac myself, but I recognize great power in "quiet, dignified leaders with character". Maybe they dont cut it in the business world, but itd be hard to argue that the above mentioned people were not effective leaders.

In fact, I think we need a lot more of them. The problem with us hypomaniacs is that we are volatile. We often act first and then think. We get consumed by our ideas and concepts and lose sight of deeper (and more subtle) truths.

We need the balance of more centered leaders to keep us in check. And perhaps they need us to keep things going. In the end, I think a dance between the two is best.

Posted by AJ Hoge at March 22, 2005 7:23 AM

I want to embrace all sorts of different people with all sorts of different personality types. It's the variety that actually makes this world work. The Hypo-Maniac is nothing with out the deeply conservative book keeper who makes sure the finances stack up. The wacko creative is nothing without the process type who makes sure that the stuff ACTUALLY gets implemented.

One of the things I think businesses are very poor at is celibrating success in different ways for many different attributes. Great managers bring out great things out of different people in different ways.

Posted by PaulH at March 22, 2005 9:29 AM

McMaster: you say that Tom is right when he says "[women] are not hard wired to create great enterprise... recognize it chicks!!!" I've read a lot of Tom's stuff, but missed that one. And I'm not tracking on how women are "great ants" to hypomaniacs...do you mean "great aunts?" Or that they they are really small and industrious? Or...? I want to understand your point. Thanks.

Posted by Jennifer Warwick at March 22, 2005 2:32 PM

Jennifer,I liked that ;-)
I understad that coming from a psychologist this hypomaniac term is based on his “proffesional deformation”, upon my view we are referring here to artistic mentalities, highly creative pàssionate individuals, whether their creation could be the discovery of a New World, rising a multimillionaire’s enterprise or shaping a paradigmatic piece of art.
I wonder IF there is a link between hypomaniacs and monomaniacs… apart from this question, I know most artists have been travelling frecuently,if they didn’t do so voluntarily they were urged to do it, so it was, and is clearly, something very positive. They could fall into depressions because they saw – fortunatelly - that society, like today, was not even close to what their visions were, So? they commited to bring their part in re-imagining the situation. And so can the same kind of spirit do it today.
Did this great individuals make business themselves with their creations? I don’t think so, they established key alliances and friendship with the people who was smart enough to realise about their talents and had the resources to help them, and they all won. But remember that "to win it all one should be ready to lose it all": they dared.

Posted by Omara at March 22, 2005 8:00 PM

warwick: this is not toms quote... it is my belief.. well actually a reality.... women dont innovate or evolve.. they foster the change and act as muse and mother... NOTHING MORE!!!!

Posted by McMaster at March 22, 2005 11:17 PM

by the way .. i think tom has an very conscious motive for glorifying women... he wants to get laid!... yes they have their role... i recognize that and agree with many of peters points BUT for gods sake... get over it Tom... unfortunately the women Peters woos are not of the physical quality of those Stern (yes Howard!) does... so who at the end of the day is better off??

I'd say ster better embraces and recognizes the role from a mass perspective.

Posted by McMaster at March 22, 2005 11:22 PM

McMaster, sorry to let you know that this quote is not original of you, it has been in the western mind since the greeks and beginning of christianity. Have you been reading about the subject recently or did you forget you did?

What you called "Nothing More" it's not such "Nothing More", it was considered the key to unlock any process of creation, poets (aedos) in Ancient Greek didn't start composing without asking first for the protection of the Muses and I can asure you, based on my personal contact with poets, that this equation is a fact: no muse=no creativity, same than no motor/power engine = no car (plane, ship, etc). A "Nothing More" in regard to the figure of a mother seems like not appreciating the person who made possible (or trully co-laborated) you can be here today, it's not being grateful, not having good memory, doesn't show up the capacity of respect or appreciation and is a pretty ignorant thing to say. It's funny you use the name McMaster, who were your masters guy?

Posted by Omara at March 23, 2005 3:19 AM

McMaster is my name pal... not quoting anything just making MY OWN statement... AND not ignorant just stating the obvious to those that choose to put their emotion aside... My master is A'iin and thus am I.

Posted by McMaster at March 23, 2005 4:57 AM

Some women who never innovated, led, or evolved:

Frida Kahlo, Mother Jones, Jane Goodall, Jane Campion, Arundhati Roy, Toni Morrison, Janis Joplin, Aretha Franklin, Rosa Parks, Patti Smyth, etc., etc.

Posted by AJ Hoge at March 23, 2005 8:24 AM

viagra mg Mr. Peters

You have so much to say against Jim Collins, who was basically a spokesperson for the data he amased, why don't you challenge him to an open debate. Only your revenues would be at risk and since you have money it would only be your fear of losing face that would keep you from doing it. I doubt for one weak reason or another you would ever do such a thing.

Pfft - Re-Imagine!

Posted by Steve at March 23, 2005 9:31 AM

And while you are hyping hypnomaniacs try another read: "American mania : when more is not enough"

Posted by Steve at March 23, 2005 9:38 AM

you list a handful of women... BIG DEAL.... compared to thousands of men... wake up MORON!!!!!....

ANTS: they work for me and do my biding and all the mundane tasks thouroughly completed... women are a pain in the ass... NOTHING MORE!

Posted by McMaster at March 23, 2005 3:09 PM

Regarding Mcmaster's last post, I was just kindly giving an explanation of this sort of ideas considered obvious by the mass and incorporated like personal statements...not calling you personally ignorant and nothing bothering about your name, sorry.
That stuff of putting aside one's emotions doesn't convince me though, after obtaining a university course on psychobiology and based on my way of living my life, I'd talk about hiding them; emotions are not something susceptible of being erased from the human being (and without them gosh! this would be such a pain)

Posted by Omara at March 23, 2005 3:15 PM

Mr McMaster

Do you have a mom?

I resent that you include my mom in your statement that 'women are a pain in the ass' ... it is sad that you think that way about your own mom, I guess.

Posted by Trevor Gay at March 23, 2005 3:19 PM

McMaster - By my math and your logic, the thousands of men who have murdered, raped, robbed, vandalized and promoted hate over the centuries - since they greatly outnumber the women who have done the same - would seem to indicate being cruel and hateful is a male core competency, and that evil women are just staistical anomalies. Some would argue that this "competency" may even be part of the reason women were not allowed to be innovative and evolutionary until recent times.

The difference between us seems to be that I refuse to believe that all men are like that, just because some were/are. And so I am able to see your calling me a moron, saying women are a pain in the ass, hinting that they should do your biding [sic] as the ants do, and holding up Howard Stern as someone who really understands women's "role," as a perspective that does not represent all...or most...or even many men.

In fact, I'm not even convinced it represents you. Do you really believe this stuff or are you just having fun riling up others?

viagra in usa

Posted by Jennifer Warwick at March 23, 2005 4:24 PM

Being someone who has bi-polar disorder ie: manic depression. I love that we crazies are coming to the forefront for our courage, passion and reckless abandon for life and for having fabulous results and sucesses in our lives. I am a very sucessful sales person( not at all modest about that) and I hate structure. I just want to go out focus on my customers, what they need customize solutions and build great relationships/partnerships with them. I am committed to them all being the rock stars in their respective industries. I do not give a rats ass about tracking each call I have with them, and sending 150 page templated proposals. That pisses a lot of people off. They love the results and hate the rebelliousness. They do not know how to relate to me, conflict arises. Oh well!!!!

There is a lot of up side to this mania thing- success, energy, passion, creativity, the ability to be very present to people and the world. There is also the down side- because I am such a radical- people that I work with somtimes hate to work with me. I am not consistent-sometimes I have bursts of energy and productivity and other times I have no energy, do not give a damn about much and just want to hide from the world. The good outweighs the bad. Medication can be very helpful, but you have to be very careful- many shrinks will dope you up with 5 different meds and turn you into a lifeless zombie. There are other options- I call it the least amount of meds theory- find out what works for you and take the least amount you can get away- you do not want to loose your creativity and energy- but you also do not want to go over the deepend (Manic or Depressed) I often feel like a chemistry experiment titrating my meds to take care of where I happen to be on the mood continum. But I would not trade this condition for any other. I love the up side of the mania- Too bad if some people look at us as wierd. After all we produce all of the results and make stuff happen.

Name Withheld

Posted by Name withheld at March 23, 2005 6:46 PM

ive just realized that most people that admire tom and post here are both fruit loops and broke dicks!

Posted by McMaster at March 24, 2005 1:50 AM

One of the unfortunate aspects of web boards and blogs is that they always attract a few unbalanced folks who use them for adolescent attention-getting stunts-- such as sexist comments, racist remarks, or childish insults (in fact, we have no way of knowing their age... they may in fact BE teenagers).

This is not a phenomenon found only at TomPeters.com... its one Ive encountered on a wide variety of sites. While Im all for free speech, in the end these folks degrade intelligent debate and drive off the core readership of a site.

The best solution, I think, is to moderate the site and delete these folks submissions. Responding to them is pointless, of course, and only fuels them. But ignoring them often has no effect either. Once a pattern has been established, theres really nothing left to do but axe them.

Tom can do as he likes, but Im sure most of us would benefit from such a policy.

Posted by AJ Hoge at March 24, 2005 6:07 AM

I'm with you. If the moderators (who ever they may be) could step up their Troll Management efforts, that would be great.

Posted by Jennifer Warwick at March 24, 2005 2:39 PM

Regarding this mcmaster faulty person, I give up, can't be bothered by such stupid stats.

Posted by Omara at March 24, 2005 4:09 PM

BTW, still nothing personal about him, this pal dares, I give him that, actually, his posts are starting to make me laugh.

Posted by Omara at March 25, 2005 5:15 AM