Comments

Well, that´s also the fate of Anakin skywalker, isn´t it?

Posted by felix gerena at May 23, 2005 10:19 AM

Tom and Horatio: Well said. I would agree that many of our problems in business come from this very issue. It very much accentuates one of your early rules of success about not being afraid of making mistakes. (You may recall I suggested it would be one of the most significant of the 100) Too many people want to tend the garden rather than create paradise.

Posted by walter white at May 23, 2005 10:50 AM

Offense is the best defense!!!

Posted by GJ at May 23, 2005 11:02 AM

Agreed. Way before Lord Nelson, this sage advice was given:

http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:14-30

Posted by Dustin at May 23, 2005 11:09 AM

Brilliant Tom

The healthcare business is full of defensive management - cover your back ... or other parts of the anatomy - hey we could use Sadams undperpants for that too when the tabloids have finished with them!

Offence is usually associated with risk ... but hey .... nothing ever got done through risk aversion.

More power to Horatio - another great fellow Brit!

TP site is turning into a British Appreciation society - and I love that - thank you guys!!

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 23, 2005 11:42 AM

I sing pirate songs to my children nearly every night. One of their favorites is: "And a drop of Nelson's blood wouldn't do us any harm ..." Better stop there!

What I liked about Nelson was that he expected independence from his captains (his "band of brothers") which showed most dramatically at the battle of the Nile in 1798, when Captain Thomas Foley in HMS Goliath spotted an opening, sailed through the French line and began the demolition of Napoleon's fleet, a hugely risky move that payed off, a move that wouldn't have had he waited for approval.

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 23, 2005 1:51 PM

I think the fear/risk-aversion is compounded through built-up structures of overhead departments such as Finance and Legal. Not that they're not necessary functions, but they tend to plaque-up the organisation's flow with additional overhead they create. Departments like these tend to suck the aggression out of an organization's strategy and put in their stead other overhead activities that justify the overhead department's functions.

Hot example: Sarbanes-Oxley can be an accountability engine, but once most corporate entities get their implementations doen, it's just going to be a giant lard-ball of overhead.

Posted by jeff angus at May 23, 2005 2:30 PM

I agree, play to win! However, you get real freedom when you can play to win without being attached to the outcome. I'd argue that it's being attached to winning that has a person not really play the game...

Posted by Gretchen Hartke at May 23, 2005 2:32 PM

Amen Tom & Horatio,
I am constantly amazed by the paralysis indecision can bring to an organization. I've seen it in corporate environments where people are so afraid of making a mistake that might make them look bad, they refuse to make any decisions at all. Even worse, when it happens far enough up in the ranks it's sort of like watching a major flood on the news - it's a disaster in slow motion. You can see it coming and there's little you can do about it except start filling sand bags. The worst part is often the rank and file can see it coming while the "leadership" is caught totally off guard and unprepared.

I've always believed that a little risk now can save you from a lot of failure later.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at May 23, 2005 4:06 PM

I agree with Jeff, Our USA government is forcing massive record keeping with the objective of “Pretending” control of financial operations. The problem is that there are so many movements of money that can be done in a controlled manner. SarBox is just a overhead/job making tool.

More than that, we are a culture where we continue to punish Risk takers; we can see it with our soldiers that are playing between life and death. Our media coverage, Geneva conventions, Left wing movements, Humanitarian engagements influence the outcome of normal activities. Our soldiers must be afraid to take risks. The ENEMY does not have any of those Issues. How can we become winners when there is so many GHOSTS attacking our soldiers? (I am not implayng we do not need regulations.)

Applying this principle in my life; I am scared. I think that other people are scared as well. “I am scared”; I have to feed 6 people, + mortgage+ car + cc’s+ utility bills etc…. Therefore, in my world, Risk taking is harder to do. Or may be, Risk taking and winning is just a perception! I have health, happiness with my family, LOTS OF LOVE, food in my table, and FAITH in the future. Or; it could be that Risk taking was not part of my foundation. I am part of the education system that CANNED my thoughts into a logic set of activities. That is the reason why I love this BLOG; It calls me to WAAAKKKEEEEE UUUUPPPPPP!!!!

Posted by Luis at May 23, 2005 6:34 PM

Yes play to win... Mclellands motivators support this with the Achiever being the one to go forth bringing those that want to follow in their wake.

Whereas those that are 'stuck in security' would be saying "I have to move forward, but I can't..." to wit failure.

Luis (above me in the blog) says "Risk taking is harder to do." Yes Luis it is especially when you come from a serurity motivated 'quadrant'.

Posted by Steve Gray at May 23, 2005 6:47 PM

These coments about Admiral Nelson reminded me of one of Napoleon Bonaparte's famous quotes about the art of war: "When in doubt, attack."

Posted by Chris at May 24, 2005 1:39 PM

LUIS SAID:
I agree with Jeff, Our USA government is forcing massive record keeping with the objective of “Pretending” control of financial operations. The problem is that there are so many movements of money that can be done in a controlled manner. SarBox is just a overhead/job making tool.
==

Let me clarify. What I was trying to say was that a tool like Sarbanes-Oxley can be a valuable accountability engine (without accountability, capitalism doesn't work), BUT that the way it's being implemented at the corporate level is pure overhead. The law as intended can be a positive for organizations that intend to make money honestly; but as implemented it tends, as all these things tend, to become overhead functions and internal hiring programs for overhead departments like Finance and Legal.

So in this particular case, the U.S.' governemnt is not the culprit; it's the overhead-addicted heads of overhead departments in big companies.

Posted by jeff angus at May 24, 2005 3:52 PM

Hellen Keller said this: "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing."

So what is your daring adventure? Are we really willing to have the courage to believe and the will to make changes?

Posted by Randy Reynolds at May 26, 2005 1:39 AM

Or as Sir Walter Scott put it:

"One hour of life, crowded
to the full with glorious action,
and filled with noble risks,
is worth whole years of those mean observances
of paltry decorum."

I think one of the most daring things people can do is speak their minds, which thankfully isn't a problem on this forum!

Posted by Noel Guinane at May 28, 2005 6:38 AM

When appointed First Lord of the Admiralty shortly before the outbreak of World War II, Winston Churchill sent the following cable to the hundreds of Admirals then existing in the British Navy...
"Prey tell me the current state of the Royal Navy, and please do it on one side of one sheet of paper."
Probably saved a few forests.
Fortunately "Management GarbleSpeak" and Power Point didn't exist in those days.

Posted by George Parker at May 30, 2005 6:28 PM