Comments

I agree. I read a lot of stuff and think, "Man, it would be cool if we could do that at my company". I think that the old fogies are too risk averse and too staunchly against change to try something that I read in one of Tom's books.
What can we do about? It takes too long to wait on me to get a position where I can make change happen.

Posted by M. Alverson at January 30, 2006 2:57 PM

You're wrong, Tom!

You ARE so smart.

Western business has more "winners" in it because of you and Peter and Jim, etc.

Sure, there are lousy doctors, but that doesn't mean medical school is a failure. And there are lousy restaurants too... you get the idea.

My point (I do have one) is that you invented something that actually works. It doesn't work so well at big slow atrophying companies, but it changes the lives of people who are busy building companies that matter.

25 years ago: no fax, no web, no google, no hotel chains that cared, no Jet Blue, no organic tofu, no purple cow companies making cool products worth crossing the street for.

It's okay to be hard on yourself, but not this time.

Posted by seth godin at January 30, 2006 3:33 PM

"It's okay to be hard on yourself, but not this time." Nice try, Seth. Appreciated. And there's some truth to what you say. But here was the deal with In Search of Excellence, the 1977 "commissioning papers" if you willl. Ron Daniel, new Managing Director of McKinsey, more or less said to me: "We are a bunch of very clever guys. We invent very clever strategies for our Clients. But 90% of the time they don't get implemented. Your mission, should you accept it: Why do we-Client come up short on implementation?" And the "why-no-imp" Waterman & I came up with was, more or less: "Strategy don't matter for diddly if the 'corporate culture' [an anathema word at McKinsey at the time], is disfunctional/mis-aligned." That is, if the "strategy" ain't implementable, it's de facto a shitty-useless strategy. I'll grant you a little, ole [and kind] buddy, but at least some of the self-flaggelation is warranted. In my "official" bio, we use an apparently praiseworthy from the New Yorker: "Corporations today have become pretty much what Peters told them to be." With GM And Ford teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, that's exactly what I'm afraid of.

Posted by tom peters at January 30, 2006 3:50 PM

No, that's not so, Tom. They bought the strategy thinking they "got" it, but they only "got" the heart not the "soul" of it. The inherent flaw in writing a strategy and then handing it over is that the intiutive detail leaves with the writer. So the company is left to fill in those little gaps with their own biased interpretations, which over time degrade the strategy bit by bit, generation by generation. Can't be helped.

I had to face it when I taught school. I did what I could with those first graders. Then I had to know that the second-grade teacher might totatlly undo it.

Posted by Liz Strauss at January 30, 2006 4:12 PM

"Then I had to know that the second-grade teacher might totally undo it." But at our best, Liz, the idea is to make those kids immune to crappy second-grade teachers. (I know that's damned ambitious, with 7-year-olds, or 37-year-olds.)

Posted by tom peters at January 30, 2006 4:26 PM

"I" teach them how to think deeply and put their hands in their heads pull the thoughts out. Then "I" accept that no one human being can follow them all around and make sure that they remember how after "I'm" gone. Because not to accept so would be to think "I" am more than every other human on the planet.

Someone did just that for every leader we've got, so I have to believe we'll get more from that process too.

Making leaders isn't the problem, it's the insecure folks in positions of power, who see a leader and get threatened that that the leader will expose them for what they are.

Posted by Liz Strauss at January 30, 2006 5:26 PM

The validity of an idea isn't necessarily based on how many people use it successfully, but that even a few are smart enough to use it well.

There are many things that only a few people are smart enough to do - splice genes, entertain a room for an hour with a stand-up routine, be fluent in 5 languages - that doesn't make these things less valid.

Tom, 6 years ago we were at an HR conference in Chicago where you told the crowd that you thought only 5% of them would ever implement the ideas you talked about in your speech. Remember what happened at the book signing afterwards? 95% of them said told you they would be in the 5% that would successfully implement the ideas.

1st point: Even for those who never implemented the ideas the moment was rich and valid. You charged them up and inspired them. You made them think. That counts.

2nd point: If even 1% implemented the ideas, you hit a home run.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at January 30, 2006 8:33 PM

Tom,

The stuff you dole out challenges the establishment (as it is intended). . . you didn't really think (or intend) for THOSE guys to embrace it, did you? Pahlease.

And please don't tell me that what you write is for a bunch of panty-waste, corporate paper-pushers, is it!?! The machine is . . . well, the machine (it isn't going to break all that easy now). You don't think THE MAN has a shelf of Peters, do you. He might have a Collins, but he sure as Hell doesn't have a Peters.

Regardless of what you say, think, or believe, I am going to hold firm to the idea that you are writing for us revolutionaries--those of us creating real value and making a difference on the front lines of business--those of us with Clients.

BTW: Steve is correct: 1% is a home run.

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at January 30, 2006 8:47 PM

I agree with Tom.

Walking home from work tonight I was thinking that most everything written about innovation is useless. It's generic banter. Fixing companies must be done in the context of their problems by people passionate enough to constantly push against the dead weight of status quo.

If we learn anything useful from Tom et al, it's the need for this passion.

Posted by Victor Lombardi at January 30, 2006 9:33 PM

Does the economy just keep on rolling with its ups and downs or can we actually make a difference? Can we make conscience choices, implement them, and thus make the world a better place?
In the big picture, I believe the answer is yes. But we have to be patient. Structural problems persist - until the structure finally starts to tilt. Did the capitalists feel they we're losing power to the new "management class" at the turn of the century. Now there is no guarantee that things will change, but there are so many signs that a major shift is coming (might not be the Singularity). It will be at that moment when we will truly see who has learned your lessons. Comes back to the Drucker tribute - he looked out the window and saw what others couldn't.

Posted by Steve Robert at January 30, 2006 9:48 PM

Tom - don't let that old black dog get to you! You've made a huge difference. You've enthused and motivated a whole load of people who've then gone out and spread the word. A lot has improved. You're part of a movement that will bring change and improvement but it just isn't an overnight thing. Thank you! And as Michael Jordan said:

"I can accept failure, I just can't accept not trying."

Posted by Mark J Foscoe at January 31, 2006 4:54 AM

Millions of people sign up to your ideas Tom and to paraphrase 'It only takes a committed few to change the world.'

Don't beat yourself up - you and your 'peer Gurus' always challenge us and that is what progress is about. Honest - It's ok being p****d off for a day or two :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 31, 2006 5:12 AM

Rome wasn't built in a day.

Progress comes in small incremental steps. Like Seth mentioned above, the implementable guts of your message might get lost in the beaurocracy of dinosaur corporations; but they are most certainly heard,hugged and delivered in many new smart-ass, new-school, women-centric, people-focused, customer-driven business environments that are emerging TODAY.

It took some time to evolve from the Industrial Revolution - and it will take some time to see, pervasively, the benefits of the Peters et al. Revolution.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 31, 2006 5:14 AM

Dilution of ideas is a major problem. You come away from a seminar pumped up with ideas. You sit down eat, watch Lost/ER whatever, sleep. Into the office with boundless enthusiasm... and then reality hits... Turning a one man operation around just takes willpower and commitment. Turning around a team, within a department, within a division within a corporation takes something else... An avalanche from the top!

Posted by Bob Hail at January 31, 2006 6:59 AM

So what about the followers? Leaders can only do so much, even when they are committed, inspired, enthusiastic, etc. But 98% of the people in their organization act more like sheep than leaders / revolutionaries / risk takers, so that enthusiasm wanes as fatigue sets in (again and again). All that stuff about the "committed few" sounds inspiring, but in the end it just doesn't happen very often.

Besides, it isn't possible for every company and every person to excel. Many (most?) just aren't hard-wired for it.

Posted by Mike at January 31, 2006 7:12 AM

This question is not about Tom (or anyone else)avoiding a "black dog." The very real question is that if Drucker and Tom Peters and others are actually more honored in the breach than in the observance, even when people concede they are absolutely right, then what should they (and WE) learn about how to actually make a differnce in the world.

It's not enough to say we're right, nor show sympathy for the difficulties of changing your life when you leave a seminar. The real question is: what are the methodologies that really help people change their lives when they understand messages like Drucker's and Tom's? What should they/we be doing diffrently with our books, our speeches, our videos? Is there a more eefective way to actually help people change and make a diffrence on the world?

Posted by David Maister at January 31, 2006 8:24 AM

Yes, continue to beat yourself up as we all should be doing. If 90% of what we (yes, all of us) think isn’t getting implemented then we really haven’t done much more than babble like a drunken sailor. If and when large businesses fail, are we not to blame? We worked for these companies, consulted for these companies, and shopped with these companies. We foretold of this happening but couldn’t do anything about it other than standing on our blogs screaming change, re-imagine, and Wow!. Mark McCormick once remarked on three types of professional athletes. The First had natural talent but didn’t practice, didn’t do the road work, didn’t hit the practice range, and relied on their God given talent but these people faded fast (ie. The Boz). The second type would put in the effort but always held out for the possibility of failure. You here remarks like they could have ran farther if it wasn’t raining, they could have scored lower but the greens were too fast, etc. These people rarely win on the big stage. Then, there is the final type of athlete. The ones that do what ever it takes to win and accept no excuses. None of this I didn’t have my “A” game, just I lost and I’ll kick your xxx next time. As Emerl says, let’s kick it up another notch…

Posted by RTodd at January 31, 2006 9:13 AM

My theory is that Implementing change is a function of "The Structure" within a company. The current leadership, their priorities as of today, their ethics, their focus, their tolerance of dissent, incentives for change and number of other factors like ingrained culture and even a "national psyche" (The Japanese DO THINK differently than Indians than do Americans than do the French). The GE structure is different from that GM and GM is different from Toyota in terms of "The Structure". It does not mean one is better than the other, it just means they are all geared up for change in different ways in the results they CAN produce given "The Structure". And there is no fighting the structure when it comes to implementing change.

The closest analogy I can come up with is the American Government Architecture compared to Parliamentary systems like U.K or India. Each structure predetermines a set of outcomes and propensity to change. I would say that the American form is best suited for the fastest and nimblest change just given its separation of powers and the way the structure influences governance.

I would hold up Edward Deming as the person who proves this theory. He would not take up any consulting assignment if he cannot talk to the top person in charge and if he does not feel that The Structure is committed to quality improvements and change. His theories appealed to the Japanese very much and the American companies like Ford took them up but did not take them as seriously as the Japanese. Now we have Ford and Toyota on opposite ends of performance!

May be right, may be wrong but something to ponder!

Posted by Nari Kannan at January 31, 2006 11:29 AM

This is your best post thus far, Tom. Thank you for sharing. It's transparent, vulnerable, and aching for insight (especially from yourself). Everything a blog post is supposed to be.

IMHO, perhaps your audience's acceptance of your theories should have been a warning sign. For as Milton Erickson astutely put it: "Change will lead to insight far more often than insight will lead to change."

Instead, you may have said, "B.S. you get it! Show me!" That's what Deming said, and why he was forced to go to Japan where companies actually put his theories into practice.

Just a thought.

Posted by Tom Asacker at January 31, 2006 11:41 AM

TOM - Please Read - Just over a year ago I began to closely follow your web page, your presentations and writing. You totally inspired me! Since then I have used all of your tools and your presentation material and worked with my staff to reinvent an old economy company I run up in Canada. In just 1 year the results of following your teachings have been incredible. We have used design, innovation, and creativity to engage our staff and customers with a new direction that is growing sales and revenues once again.
This is a relatively small $80 million company in Canada but your influence has meant new jobs (with excellent pay and benefits), re-engaged staff who thought they were in a dying market. We have recently travelled across Canada launching our new vision and position to our sales force and in my 13 years with the company I have never seen people more excited.
You don't have to change GM or Ford to make changes in the world. I can't thank you enough. The only negative is I talk about "Tom P" so much that some of my staff start to roll their eyes when they hear it BUT they also know it works.
THANKS TOM

Posted by G. Neath at January 31, 2006 1:40 PM

It isn't about ideas, it's about CHANGE. There are antibodies in every organization that are resistant to change. People resist change, thus organizations resist change.

What do you hear in the organization? Be happy, Smile, get along, be part of the TEAM! For change to happen you need tension and until an organization gets comforatable with tension, little will change. And change has a risk, you can accomplish great things, but try to changes something and fail will get you fired! Thus, why are we suprised when we see so little change in our organizations.

What a company needs is a CCO (Chief Change Officer) and he/she should be measured as follows: the most pissed off people are at him/her, the better job they are doing!

Oh, you guessed it, I work in HEALTHCARE! BUT, I'm trying to be a change agent!

Posted by Dave Holland at January 31, 2006 4:42 PM

So the question really is, how shall we judge the success of Drucker, Bennis, Peters, et al?

Is it simply a question of quanity - i.e. how many companies were able to implement their wise counsel? If 100 companies listened, executed and did well, would that count? Or maybe we'll run the percentages - but is 50% a good score or a bad one? Or does this stuff only count if particular companies figure it out (i.e. GM, Ford, etc)? Or maybe... it's not about numbers at all...

It goes without saying that I think Tom Peters rocks, and he has dramatically impacted my professional development. I think that's something.

Posted by Dan Ward at January 31, 2006 8:14 PM

Strains of TS Eliot's East Coker:

You say I am repeating
Something I have said before. I shall say it again.
Shall I say it again? In order to arrive there,
To arrive where you are, to get from where you are not,
You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstasy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.
In order to arrive at what you are not
You must go through the way in which you are not.
And what you do not know is the only thing you know
And what you own is what you do not own
And where you are is where you are not.

Posted by Jeffrey Cufaude at January 31, 2006 9:01 PM

It could be worse... you could work for or consult the public sector! Imagine Drucker, Bennis, Collins, and Peters on a blue ribbon commission for the role and functions of the US federal government. Wow!

But seriously, is there a good "batting average" for being an "agent of change?" Drucker taught me to write down my decisions and look back at them nine months later to see if it was a good decision. I'm too embarrassed to tell the world my average... Barry Bonds, I am not...

Drucker also said that "the only things that evolve by themselves in an organization are disorder, friction, and malperformance" and "The problem is usually not with technology, but with mentality."

Posted by Mike at January 31, 2006 11:30 PM

I think in many cases the "solutions" offered by consultants might be brilliant for a "generic" company, but may fly in the face of the personalities involved. Often times the solution may go against how these managers view themselves and, secondarily, their companies.

Change at all levels is hard, but it is especially difficult if that change requires you to see yourself in a much different way. COntrary to what managers might say or consciously want, they most likely will only respond to solutions that build onto and reinforce their preconceived notions of themselves.

If a CEO see himself as "king" of their organization (not to be sexist), in order to be fully accepted, the "solution" has to reinforce this self image at some level. A solution which promises great results if the CEO would only "share his power", may never see the light of day. The CEO may think he has the best intentions in the world, but will "choose" not to implement the idea in order to preserve something much more valuable..his self image.

Posted by Jeff W at February 1, 2006 2:23 PM

You guys are smart. No doubt about it. Your ideas and the articulation of your ideas is first class. That said, it is one thing to conceive of new ideas, another to know how to apply them. I think these are different types of thinking. There are plenty of us out here trying to figure out how take a great idea and make it work. Without you guys,we'd be lost. We all need each other.

Posted by Ed Brenegar at February 1, 2006 8:17 PM

Aren't we guilty of assuming that the Peters / Drucker et al approach is correct? I'm also reminded of the Chairman Mao quote when asked what he thought of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell."

You can beat yourselves up about Management. Other folks are beating themselves up about climate change. Or about sustainable energy. Or Creationism. Or about how welfare programmes should work. Or pensions reform. Or how the UN should work.

It seems to me that in all these areas, there are about as many opinions as there people involved and they all think they're broadly correct. (OK - some are more adamant than that!) Even scientific paradigms from Plato's Cave to Copernicus and Gallileo through to Einstein's Relativity work have struggled and taken a lot of persuasion and demonstration and time to become accepted.

What matters here is that Management has been recognised as important and that you guys are all putting forward ideas, providing a forum for disseminating, discussing and progressing these ideas and actually doing something.

I think Mike provided a great quote above. The problem often lies with mentality - well, we are talking about human beings, after all. To me, the important thing is that we've made a move to persuade and influence and change and re-shape the old mentality. That's realistically as much as you could hope for, and only time will tell if it's the right change.

Posted by Mark J Foscoe at February 2, 2006 4:17 AM

Hey Tom,
I sent you this via email and got a response asking me to put it here in the comments, that you are more likely to read it this way.

So since this post mentions Jim Collins, I thought you might like to read why I don't care for "Good to Great." (my name has the link) Sure, I've got a little hate mail from the post, but that's ok. I didn't think about most of this stuff the first time I read it. But when someone pointed out that some of the good-to-great companies were screwed up during their great runs, I re-read it, footnotes and all.

Posted by Rob at February 2, 2006 3:13 PM

Your ideas ultimately, it seems to me, attempt to provide an alternative to the mainstream corporate structure. But that corporate structure exists just well enough to work, usually, except when the market is truly rejecting its products (domestic car manufacturers are having this latter problem...)

But the “best” long term corporate structure would be flexible – not only with regard to new products -- but as to the actual structure. In other words, the structure itself would be able to adapt in a manner most favorable to the market. Corporations can’t do that now – they have fixed costs and facilities and mindsets. So the ability to change in order to adapt the structure – not just introduce new products -- isn’t an ability found in corporations. The old structure works well enough for the most part and when it doesn’t the corporation dies.

On the positive side it seems to me that the modern “business office” type corporate structure, which is really rather recent, being 120 or so years old, is still developing. Communication and other tools permit more rapid reconfiguration – think of nanotechnological (!) elements being put together in a new way. Many new ways will be tried because the ability to try them now exists. That ability simply didn’t exist before. So it may be only a matter of time before basic tenets of corporate structure are reworked, a new structure ends up with control of the marketplace, and its framework and structure are adapted by others as a success mechanism.

It is then that the right ideas on how to conduct business and the structure a business will gain currency and be used effectively.

Posted by Joe Chovanes at February 8, 2006 6:01 PM

The original post makes a great point, and one that comes to mind often for those who witness the ubiquitousness of absurdity in the corporate universe. BUT, TP I say you get a free pass, as your tone seems to grow more creatively urgent to address this. You've embedded the wake up call in your tone and your examples. If it falls one deaf ears, I imagine you'll add another exclamation point or a few more decibels. Here's to you!!

Posted by Michael Place at February 8, 2006 8:35 PM

If no one was listening, the charter members of Guru Nation would not be the charter members of the Guru Nation. I believe many have listened and many are listening, but little things like Sarbox and Security and Shareholder value have prohibited and continue to prohibit revolutionary change.

Instead, organizations are evolving slowly but steadily toward the leaner fleeter animals Tom et al have envisioned. Diversity within the corporate ranks is one example. No, we are not anywhere close to where we need to be, but progress is being made. See Diversity, Inc. Keep your eyes peeled. The evolution continues. But be [a little] patient. Because you can't shortcut the process.

Posted by troy at February 8, 2006 10:51 PM

I have read most of Dr. Druckers books, all of Collins' books and many other management books, which have given me a pretty good understanding of concepts and screw-ups. The keys to success are simple. HAve a difference, make a difference and be maniacle about being the best at what you do. All the rest is window dressing. I read something by Tom Peters every day and every day I find a new way to be better.

Posted by Jim Outland at February 13, 2006 4:25 PM