Comments

I think you've just described one of closest friends - someone I've made a case for over the years, and others still don't get my ample respect for him. :-) Got to love the hardboiled persons of action.

Posted by aleah at July 19, 2005 1:05 PM

Tom, I also have a very soft spot for the type of person you've described, but what HR department on earth is gonna hire them?! I think that's why these people are always placed in the role of private eye or renegade lieutenant or possibly in the future, compulsive blogger! Pity in real life it doesn't pay AND you don't get the girl!

Posted by Noel Guinane at July 19, 2005 1:20 PM

Tom: I too am a James Lee Burke fan, all the more so since he moved his venue from Louisiana to Montana where I am from orginally. I read a very short editorial on leadership recently that your "doership" phrase caused me to recall. I am full agreement on the observation that the number of books on leadership being published is in direct proportion to our need for actual leaders!
It came from of all places, a magazine devoted to presentations.

http://www.presentations.com/presentations/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000962752

Posted by walter white at July 19, 2005 1:37 PM

Interesting Do vs Be?

I read this the other way round. I am very much a Be person. But in a positive sense - I let my values guide my actions - what is the right thing to do - You must be the change you want to see.

All I see around me is sycophantic Do-ers. Yes Boss I will DO that - yes that is part of the project plan. I have more imagination in my little finger than the lot of them.

No where near enough reflection happens before actions - incidently I believe in action but just not thoughtless action.

Posted by PaulH at July 19, 2005 2:51 PM

Ah yes, the luxury of contemplation. I agree some time should be set aside for it before doing something, but in business it comes down to how quick and effective your decisions are. That's why there are so many people that are in reality flying by the seat of their pants that other people think have been blessed with some sort of divine insight or Midas touch.

Posted by Noel Guinane at July 19, 2005 3:12 PM

Tom, I have to raise an objection. My objection is that those who you referred to as "be" people are not in fact "be" people at all.

Neither rank nor praise changes who a person truly is.

Stephen Covey wrote of the difference between "honors" and "honor." What you described as "be" is actually people who receive their sense of validation from how much applause they receive. Yet many frauds have received promotions and media praise. They are all surface and no substance, all hat and no cows, white washed selpuchres full of dead men's bones.

The person who is truly a "be" oriented person will do what is right regardless of whether he is criticized. A good example of a truly "be" oriented person is Harper Lee's character Atticus Finch.

Posted by J. H. Shewmaker at July 19, 2005 3:58 PM

The old adage comes to mind: "Measure twice, cut once." There are different schools of thought on this. In the construction industry, for example, the Japanese and American project models are very different. The Japanese invest much more time on initial planning while the Americans tuck in to work early and continue to plan as they go. While the American construction team may appear to be ahead based on physical work completed at early stages, both projects complete more or less in the same time.

In business, doing is driven by need, whereas being is guided by vision - both are necessary.

Characters in such fictional works have the luxury of doing and being as they please because they are flying solo, with no regard to team, organization, partner, or family. Sadly, I found myself relating very closely to Mickey Rourke's character in "Barfly"! Talk about the delicate balance of capacity and non-conformity! Favourite quote from that movie: "No, I don't hate people, but I seem to feel better when they're not around."

Posted by Tom O'Leary at July 19, 2005 4:16 PM

This idea that we have to subvert our individuality for the good of the team is absurd. Speaking of construction, look at the Empire State Building. Not built with a lot of the fancy machinery we have today. Rivets were cast as the foundation to the building was going up and riverters would literally toss the red-hot rivets to each other and hammer them in. These men were very much individuals and had their own characters, yet they worked very successfully as part of a team. Teamwork is necessary, but it does not have to come at the expense of individuality.

Have we no tolerance for other points of view or other ways of doing things? That if one person on the team makes a comment the others don't like (or God forbid, actually does something without consulting five times with everyone 'in the loop'), that this is some catastrophe? Please! What are we 3 years old? It's getting ridiculous.

Posted by Cassandra Helm at July 19, 2005 4:49 PM

Tom,
Do versus Be describes two alternative and valid paths to an objective: one abstract and the other concrete. To achieve the objective is a measure of competence not direction. As a novice you cannot take both paths: you cannot talk about what you will do and do it. In a team Doers and Beers (!*) are synergistic provide BOTH are competent. The TRICK is to have both skills: observe the master craftsman - some time spent planning and some time spent doing. The novice starts one way or the other and strives to achieve both through practice and learning from the master.

Posted by Simon at July 19, 2005 4:53 PM

Concrete and sequential to be understood 1,2,3 listen to me and raise your hand before speaking.

Random and abstract to sense new things and to speak openly moving from topic to topic and ocassionally action.

Concrete and random to find things that have always been in places that many did not consider.
Nutrinos come to mind

Abstract and concrete to drive em crazy, lay down the law, invent letters, numbers etc...

Random and concrete to hit the pavement with your thumb out. Use the resources that come to you. Store many resources. Every thing has a use.

Posted by Gary Fox at July 19, 2005 6:49 PM

Noel I think you misunderstand me. When I talk about reflection I am not talking about contemplation for hours on end. I am literally talking about a couple of minutes to check some basic facts and check in with your emotional state (am I over reacting to something).

The amount of times I see replies to even basic emails where it is obvious that the orginal has not been read properly - This then costs more time to sort out the mess - this is not dynamic fast moving business this is a mess!

Posted by PaulH at July 20, 2005 1:54 AM

Sorry Paul, put like that I absolutely agree with you. It's just that I've known people who took forever to come to decisons and thought this was what you were describing.

Posted by Cassandra Helm at July 20, 2005 2:52 AM

Hi Paul and Noel

Guy Claxton wrote a good book 'Hare Brain Tortoise Mind' about the relative benefits of contemplation versus quick decision making. If you can plough your way through the complicated scientific bits in the book it is a great read.

Claxton reckons the world has become such a busy place we have lost the ability to take our time in decision making - he says quality of decision making is better when one takes ones time - nothing radical about that assertion I guess. Wow Rocket Science!!

Like on most things, I take a pragmatic view about this one - quick decisions and immediate action when needed (which to me seems most of the time) – and reflection only when we have time to reflect. Sounds like common sense to me.

The pace of work and life has forced us to always think we have to do everything today – actually this minute – and Blogging is a great example of that – I love to do it but it is something of a habit that I need a break from every now and then to get some real work done. And yet I then miss the banter …such is life.

I actually think TP has it right when he takes a break.

In a nutshell I guess I am agreeing with both of you Noel and Paul – how’s that that for decisiveness?

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 20, 2005 3:33 AM

Cassandra: I have no problem with joe blogs wearing his g-string underneath his trousers at work; but most well oiled machines require consistency in policy and conformity in practice (there are some creative businesses where randomness of actions and individual approaches might work).

Of course, individuals will bring unique skills to the team, but the team must work in unison, on the same page, to achieve the mission most effectively. That's why people with characteristics like those of Dave Robicheaux in this book are 1. Repeatedly exiled to professional "Siberia" and 2. Work mostly solo

In order to most effectively complete a mission, the military condemns individualized thought. The idea is that there must be an unquestioned trust and belief in, and obedience to, the chain of command to minimize error. There is no time to question...just do. Errors in a military mission cost lives. We were often told that "you aren't paid to think!" when we put our own stamp on a process without authorization because we "thought" it would be more effective or efficient. Plans, processes and procedures were carefully scripted by senior officers to optimize mission effectiveness.

That doesn't mean that we weren't individuals, and we relished in our differences and dynamics when we weren't engaged in the mission. But when we came to work, we put our game face on and did what we needed "to do" as a unit - as a team.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at July 20, 2005 6:22 AM

Just a few more thoughts on doer-ship; and then, I promise, I will relinquish the keyboard on this subject!

Firstly, I think that we all agree with Tom that a nod should be given to the doers, regardless of our opinions on which is more vital (i.e. roll-up-the-sleeves action or strategic thought and planning)

Secondly, Lt. General Charles Franklin (that's a 3 star general to those unfamiliar with the naming conventions of generals) was very respected in our office because he showed a willingness to be a "doer" by constantly picking up debris from the office floor as he walked by. This simple action showed that it wasn't beneath him to tidy up as he walked by, and that he was willing (although usually too busy) to pitch in with the ground floor operations. He also showed sincere appreciation for the day-to-day "doers" in every speech, presentation, or memo that he presented.

Good leaders show a willingness to work with the "doer" team (don't ask someone to do something you wouldn't do yourself!) and an appreciation (a sincere appreciation) for the "doer" efforts.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at July 20, 2005 6:46 AM

I would add one more trait as in, "Will blow up bridges when necessary" - intolerant of arrogance, incompetence and unethical behavior - worships accountability.

Posted by sheryl at July 20, 2005 7:00 AM

Do.
Be.
Do-be-do-be-do.
Frank Sinatra

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Posted by Mike at July 20, 2005 7:35 AM

Nice one Mike! rotflol That about sums it up! Put that in your IPod and smoke it!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at July 20, 2005 9:07 AM

Tom, accomplishing the 'mission' sounds very military to me. Military men often have a hard time readjusting to civilian life after they leave the army and often one of the most apparent reasons is that after several years of following orders, they find it difficult to stand on their own two feet. In civilian life one would feel much more comfortable saying to ones boss "Hey Joe, are you sure this is the way you want to do this, I only mention it because..." You really don't tend to find that sort of attitude in the army. You also find it less and less in corporations. My pet suspicion is that military men find themselves more comfortable in large corporations than they do in small independent firms and that since the end of WWII they have been infiltrating their HR departments, writing policy manuals.

While I have a great respect for the military and I understand the practical reason for not having long discussions about orders in the field, I do not feel the same applies in business and in trying to combine military obedience with personal drive and ambition, what I find we end up with is a kind of inertia that wants to be seen as being part of a team while being entirely out for themselves. In the army you have the advantage of camaraderie, in the rationalizing world of the modern corporation, no such benefit exists unless you spend a lot of time cultivating special ‘friends’.

I appreciate that capitalism is amoral, but I am having a very hard time with the self-serving unimaginative sycophantic consensus-driven nonsense that is cropping up everywhere.

P.S. Paul H, Noel is going to kill me later when he discovers that the answer he asked me to type in is indeed word for word accurate but signed in my name - the Former Mrs. Cassandra Helm-Guinane!

Posted by Cassandra Helm at July 20, 2005 11:48 AM

Just a point of correction. Tom credits me with having turned him on to James Lee Burke. Which is true, but it was our very own Cathy Mosca who first gave me a James Lee Burke audiobook that got me hooked.

Posted by Erik at July 20, 2005 3:16 PM

I suppose it depends on the business. In smaller businesses, project milestones might not be too affected if everyone sort of heads in their own direction and gets things done in their own way. In larger organizations, there is a need for more conformity to processes and procedures. That doesn't mean that everyone has to be robotic; just adhere to the methods, policies and procedures as designed by the business they're in, and the team they're on.

I agree that military methods don't adapt very well to private industry (who would have it!) The government has a budget that affords specialization and multi-tasking in the military, for example, is rare. Do this one thing, do it well, and make no mistakes is the charge. Regarding a military woman's transition from the ranks to private industry; it depends on how long she was in the military and how engrossed she was in the culture. I spent 7 years with the US Air Force (the most corporate-minded of all services, and more forward thinking and tolerant than many private businesses) and have worked predominantly in smaller companies and as an independent consultant since separating without any difficulty. If anything, my brief military experience made things easier for me. If I needed to come in a few hours early or work a weekend; I didn't think: "Like, that's just not fair." I was used to regularly managing change, engaging in alternate duties, short-notice travel requirements, extended shifts, conflict, and barking bosses trying to put a fire up my ass.

Every organization should encourage suggestions for improvement; but this should be done in a systematic way (i.e. the suggestion box or during performance reviews) and incorporated into the "system" if it makes sense.

All I'm saying is that if you have an organization of 500 people doing their own thing, their own way, it's hard to manage and even harder to replicate (if successful) -

"How did we do this?"
"I don't know, Joe blogs did that for us, but he's not here any more."
"Shite!"

Posted by Tom O'Leary at July 20, 2005 3:17 PM

Many people, especially those attached to large organizations feel that they cannot function without a set of rules governing each and every process. This is not necessary, not every aspect of our lives needs to be run by regulations especially when we're out of diapers and able to be reasoned with.

The way you manage people who like to do things their own way is by using good old fashiond hands-on management. Many managers today do not like having to actually manage their people and would much rather automate the whole task. Unfortunately people are not robots and management, as with every human relationship be it parenting, marraige or bar tending, requires a good deal of patience and healthy dose of flexibility. I do not like this pressure that is on everyone at work to conform to a system.

If I am in a decision making position, say HR director, and am relatively intelligent and at least atempting to use my common sense then why is it necessary to use someone else's system to arrive at my decisions? We all think differently.

Ditto if I am in a subordinate position, say a temp. My photocopying skills may very well be hampered if I feel compelled to follow Rick's three tier maga copy procedure to make a quick copy of the chinese menu for my boss. Is it really necessary for me to submit a formal suggestion though a suggestion box and wait for a memo on the subject, or should I just use my initiatve and slove the problem.

YES lets reprimand that intern for stealing the all the doorknobs - or YES lets copy that menu!

Posted by Cassandra Helm at July 20, 2005 6:04 PM

I suppose that we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think that what you're suggesting is great in theory, but like independent media, leaves alot to be desired in practice. I thought independent media was a great idea until I started going to the Irish Indymedia site and realised how anarchic and muddled it is.

Obviously, we're not talking about micro-managing photocopying styles here. But in complex, project driven organizations; like software localization for example, processes are necessary to ensure consistency of product delivery and quality assurance measures (bug tracking documentation, image sizes, file transfer methods). For example, if every graphic artist decided to save their .gif files (required for use in multiple ongoing projects) in different locations, there would be unecessary effort required to locate the files needed. In fact, there would be chaos.

Some order is necessary in life, and in work.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at July 20, 2005 7:33 PM

Absolutely. To bring order out of chaos there is no subsitute for a hands-on manager who can keep a group of people in line without wasting their time with a lot of unnecessary paperwork. Under his or her guiding hand, they can go ahead and accomplish the jobs they were hired to do without unnecessary interference from paper-pushers!

Posted by Cassandra Helm at July 21, 2005 2:46 AM

Tom / Cassandra - we seem to be battling with the eternal conundrum: how much control and how much freedom? I'm not the biggest Donald Rumsfeld fan in the world but he made a great point about the skirmish in Afghanistan. Rather that just sending in several brigades with a careful plan and specific tasks, he first unleashed a small number of special forces troops with some objectives, some great kit and a huge amount of discretion.

This seems to me to be a bit like another recent posting about benchmarking vs. futuremarking. We can easily write a procedure or benchmark an operation but do you then take that as a static position to be repeated with 6 sigma consistency forever more by cubicle slaves? Or do you say, the only way we are ever going to improve is if we encourage initiative / mavericks / even a few different ways of doing the same thing so long as the basic output measure up?

I think - in most situations - a good manager will encourage this latter approach and encourage people to show each other what they're doing so they can pick up on each other's good ideas.

Posted by Mark JF at July 21, 2005 5:50 AM

Mark, I don't think that any of us would consider our mission in Afghanistan successful really. I know many guys who have been over there in the past couple of years and apparently there's more chaos than accomplishment. There are some contractors doing very well for themselves over there though ;)

This might sound strange if you read my postings in this discussion, but I am and always have been the maverick type, very adaptive and flexible and always thinking of better ways of doing something (even in the Air Force.) Unfortunately, most people in the workplace, like children, WANT structure. That's the reality. Most people want to minimize the need for decision making at work. They want to come in at 9am and leave at 5pm (Irish time) and get on with their life. Work is an unpleasant necessity for most "workers".

Posted by Tom O'Leary at July 21, 2005 7:00 AM

And brow-beating them into submitting to some soulless "system" only makes the problem worse.

Posted by Cassandra Helm at July 21, 2005 7:12 AM

One more thing - and then, I swear, I'll abort the issue!

Take the character from Tom's original piece, the maverick Dave Robicheaux. As a manager do you want your employees to:

1. Stay on the case long after being ordered to drop it.

Not when your other employees are disgruntled when they need his help on the project with a timeline that they are working on now.

2. Drink too much.

Not when their productivity wanes every morning after long nights out. Worse yet, not when they show up 2 hours late each day, or not at all.

3. Don't work out enough, Sneak fast food

Not if you believe that preventative health measures contribute to less sick leave, absenteeism, etc.

4. Excessive work has estranged from family

Not if you believe that the most successful people are successful in all aspects of their life, including their relationships. And not if you don't want personal stress to affect their productivity at work. As a manager, you should ensure that your employees maintain a healthy work-life balance.

5. More or less shabbily dressed.

Not if you believe that physical impressions count for your existing and potential clients/customers

Yes, they'll get the job done; but at what expense to the organization.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at July 21, 2005 7:34 AM

Tom - I enjoy reading your postings and I genuinely do want you to stay on the case long after being ordered to drop it!

I agree with all your points above and I know a lot of people crave structure but I also think that it's important to retain flexibility. I worked on a small call centre project a while ago and we went out of our way to say to the people: here's a system. You all say "Company name, good morning, your name, how can I help you." Then they had a lot of flexibility about how they took orders because that was what our customers wanted; they had discretion to answer stock or credit or other queries; they could make some decisions about discounts. Most - not all, but most - of the staff said they appreciated having some variety and responsibility in the job. It was, one told me, much better than a McJob in the local hamburger joint...

Re. Afghanistan: I agree we (US / UK / coalition) have not got a great deal done. However, my point about the initial deployment was that putting a small team in there with a lot of discretion went a very long way to achieving the immediate military objective.

Posted by Mark JF at July 21, 2005 9:09 AM

Thanks Mark. Personally, I can't tolerate doing the same thing over and over again; and so I appreciate and applaud the value of flexibility.

While the thought of a McJob might not appeal to you and me (and many others!) Process driven businesses, like McDonalds, prove very successful when they get the "recipe" right. Why? Because they can replicate the product/service that people like, with minimal deviation, time and time again. What's more, they can hire minimum wage employees to do it, because the processes work. Might not be an stimulating environment for the workers, but it's great for business!

Call centres in Ireland are notoriously the most brain-damaging places to work in, fair play to you for easing the pain for some in the industry!

I simply can't think of any successful large businesses that aren't process driven; especially if they are Quality Assured and needing to show process documentation for accreditation for a Quality Standard. Although, I've always thought quality was best measured by customer feedback rather than a QA Mark!

A good process will be transparent to the users and flexible to allow for deviation without derailing a project.

I think you hit the nail on the head by presenting your own example of allowing flexibility above the foundation of a good process. As always, balance is essential.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at July 21, 2005 9:28 AM

Process and procedure are one of my pet subjects. I think a lot of the problem stems from how people use them.

To my mind Process tells you HOW to do something not WHAT to do. The distinction is useful because it allows creativity and flexibility to co-exist with quality and smooth running.

One of my fav books on this is the "Maneuver Warfare Handbook" by William Lind. In this book he puts forward some compelling arguments for real delegation. i.e. orders based on mission (i.e. what to do) rather than how to do. The interesting point is that he says that great techniques(processes) are essential for a free wheeling chaotic environment. For example a process would cover the loading of a tank main gun (and you want that to be fast, safe, error free!)and many other drills but what you DO with that tank requires imagination, experience and tactical skill. The process is there to make sure decisions are carried out slickly but should not become doctrine. Well worth a read if you can get past the fact you are reading a military manual!

Posted by PaulH at July 23, 2005 3:27 PM

Semper Fi PaulH!

The proper balance is dictated case by case. There are some industries (manufacturing, pharmaceutical, IT, etc.) that simply require process and procedure driven environments because of their need to replicate a production line requiring a great deal of consistency in output and quality. Analyzing deviations in output requires a system that is predictable and measurable.

Other industries are more creative in their output and can afford a more natural, holistic and/or less structured approach to work projects.

P.S. Thanks for the tip on the book!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at July 23, 2005 5:25 PM

Absolutely Tom. I work in an environment that needs both. I manage technical specialists on a Help desk. they help resolve problems on very complex, mission crit systems. Process plays a big part in what we do (cases are documented, service level targets met etc) but on the other hand for some of the really tricky problems we have to grab a bunch of people together and brainstorm how we are going to approach a problem. Process and free thinking have to go hand in hand. This is a LOT easier said than done!

Posted by PaulH at July 24, 2005 4:01 AM

Thinking again about doers versus be-ers (mmmmmmmm beer!). Good orgs cultivate many different types of people. Then employ great leaders who get the best out of those types.

Most orgs on the other hand are very poor at recognising people who don't fit. They don't understand the intangible benefits they bring consequently people leave and the org struggles. You see this a lot when a new boss is brought in. People who don't suck up and fit the metrics go. They are often the best.

One of the things I have noticed with technical people (I have also been and managed PSO IT consultants) is that the real pro is often the quietest. The elite do not need to go around rah rah ing and hi fiveing - that is the behaviour of the merely average to good level

Posted by PaulH at July 24, 2005 4:17 AM

When I think of successful misfits/flawed heroes, who embody most of the qualities listed by Tom, I always come back to successful rock & roll bands. To support Cassandra's earlier point, the best bands haven't had to suppress the individuality of their members. And despite their highly-publicized dysfunctional habits, “business teams” like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Who, and Grateful Dead have been examples of whopping commercial success. Methinks there’s a lesson here for business in what qualities to look for (and allow!) in their teams.

Posted by John O'Leary at July 27, 2005 2:13 PM

Great comments as always Paul H and - as usual - I agree with your pragmatic view of the world. It is remarkably similar to the world I live in too.

I just posted something on another discussion thread on TP Blog that supports your view of the world methinks and in my experience he or she who shouts loudest often says least.

Strangely enough Tom Peters is highly effective with words when he is soft spoken. Tom's loud rants are awesome and wonderful and inspiring and he is exempt from my previous statement of course!

Anyway this what I posted elsewhere:

"You cannot teach passion - impossible."

I do think people can have passion without showing it. Focus determination and persistence are perhaps not as sexy words as passion but I feel that some of the most determined characters I have met in my life have an inward passion that drives them - even if it never shows outwardly.

You must all have met them - you know .... those people who just quietly and very effectively get the job done with no frills - no histrionics and no shouting.

They are inwardly passionate about what they are doing. And they are usually very effective at what they do.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 27, 2005 4:58 PM