Comments

cubs are kind of like the beatles if you consider the explosive "personality" of sammy sosa that led to the cubs "breaking up" off their playoff run a couple years ago. i don't know about continuity with cubs fans. i've been to many games at wrigley over the years. sadly the past 20 years have seen a growing contingent of attendees who care more about sitting outside on a sunny afternoon than the action on the field.

Posted by jd at April 7, 2006 9:02 PM

I think you are seeing the difference between "being part of" the company and "working for" the company. Just calling it a team doesn't make it so.

If you always talk (and act) about raising the stock price, raising the dividend, and meeting quotas you are talking about externals.

When you talk (and act) about doing good things for good people, making breakthroughs, discovering you are talking about internals.

Its the difference between making records and making music.

Posted by Steven Muncy at April 7, 2006 10:59 PM

What's wrong if they make so much money? They perform tremendously well and push the team ahead! Doing so, their team's revenues increase, which pays for so much!

I think that there are three main ways that a team coalesces -

a) around the strong players
The strong players rule the team. The team works to emphasise the strengths of these players and mitigate the weaknesses of these players

b) around the uebercoach
Here a bunch of similar players (whether gifted or average) looks up to the coach and he decides how the game is to be played.

c) one for all and all for one
Strong members give up a bit in order to fit in with the team.. there is a danger that this tends to mediocrity, but it's not necessarily so! The camaraderie fosters learning and even average players can come up to much higher levels.

What do you folks think of this?

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at April 8, 2006 2:46 AM

Individuals can always be accommodated in a great team but not in an average team. The late great and immortal George Best is the classic example in UK Soccer. George was a gifted genius on the football pitch but was not considered a team player by some. If you listen to his team mates from the time (1960's and early 70's) they considered it an honour to play in the same team. Great teams will always welcome difference.

The Beatles analogy is a good one Steve - as a Beales Fan at the time I would say it is better that we had 8 years of wonderful Beatles performances and memories than 30 years of 'averageness' which is the case in most long life bands - Not the Stones I hasten to add - they are almost as good as the Beatles.

There is nothing more embarrasing to see aged rock stars trying to stay young!

Posted by Trevor at April 8, 2006 4:04 AM

Steve, this is the ultimate "no brainer" to me. The Beatles changed the world, and will be one of music's "Top 25" all-time stories-historical monuments 300 years from now. The Rolling Stones will have long, long been forgotten.

The Rolling Stones will have been seen as a fabulous, long-lasting group of performers. The Beatles changed the entire world---the world of politics and society-as-a-whole as much as the world of music. Honestly, how could there be any comparison at all?

What is this absurd obsession with "built to last"? "Built to make an impact" is my mantra--and if you last you last, if you don't you don't.

I've long said that Netscape is one of my favorite companies ever: Born, changed the world, and died ... all in the space of 60 months. I'll stand by that remark.

Posted by tom peters at April 8, 2006 5:58 AM

The people in an organization/team are part of the brand as much as the inside workings of a Dell computer are. These inner workings - the parts that make the machine work could be thought of as contributors to brand performance. If the machine doesn't perform well because of the individual performance of the parts, the brand image will be tarnished. A good ball player, like Derek Jeter (Sorry Cubs fans!) makes the brand perform better. Brand performance is well worth the money.

Good brand performers cause crowds to respond, often in anticipation of performance. When the Yankees are down 2-1 in the bottom of the 9th, there is an almighty charge in the crowd when Alex Rodriguez comes to bat.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at April 8, 2006 8:51 AM

I'm with Tom on this one. I think people have a hard time accepting the idea of "built to make an impact", though, because it's so threatening. It means you have to keep going and keep trying. There are no laurels!

Steve - As annoying as they might be to manage, I think the real question is do the powerful personalities on this guy's sales team get the desired results???

Posted by Ann Michael at April 8, 2006 9:38 AM

THE CUBS BRAND [LIKE MICHAEL JORDON SAYS] is they are always rebuilding - they never win it all - so they may feel homey but they are legendary losers.

Posted by Sean at April 8, 2006 10:11 AM

The stones are like the gratefull dead - they are the only ones that do what they do - the cubs (on and individual level) are not the only ones that do what they do - they can be replaced -
when keith and mick bite the dust, so do the stones.
keith and mick complement each other -
keith is the music half, jagger the front man and lyric writer -
the rest all fit in -
the beatles overlapped - paul and john did not complement each other - they competed - real teams each have thier own specified territory - everyone on the cubs has a job that does not compete with another player -
- each person in the dead had a special place -
for example, one guy just wrote lyrics -

Posted by bill at April 8, 2006 10:27 AM

The PLAYERS/MUSCIans earn it [?] - they are worth the $1 - 100 Million + per year they make - seems to be simple supply and demand for entertainment "value". Agree with Tom on Beatles' INTENSE impact vs. RS longevity / long-term playlist.

The E channel [maybe VH1] had a show on how young entertainers now routinely rake from multiple revenue streams: video, TV, movies, clothes, scents, producing-directing, food-drink - perhaps smarter free enterprise capitalists these days.

Posted by Sean at April 8, 2006 2:55 PM

yes, brand does transcend. It's really customer loyalty issue. Cubs have quaint ballpark in "local" neighborhood setting, makes it like your special team. Plus cheap bleacher seats. Plus ability to duck out of office, catch El, watch game and back to the office before 5:00. Even the lights were controversial. If Cubs moved to Schaumburg much of that appeal would be lost. Rockies and RedSox enjoy sort of similar "local" feeling. Other teams have to make up for "sterile" or undesirable location ballparks by hiring $$ stars - Do Cubs have to pay $$ to maintain brand - probably not. Maybe non-macho name plays to image. "Bears" have less appeal. Moved away 20 yrs ago, still feel "go Cubbies!"

Posted by john at April 9, 2006 10:42 AM

I swear, in all the years I've been reading Peters, that 'built to impact' post is the most 'succinctly dramatic' I've seen.

Puts a whole new twist to 'burn it down'... great enterprise won't need to be burned down - it'll self-combust.

Better to burn out, than fade away - make yourself irrelevant by changing the industry so it doesn't need you. Sweet.

Posted by gulliver at April 9, 2006 11:16 AM

Gotta weigh in on this one, cuz I'm writing a book about the Beatles & Stones in the context of business teams. I love the fact that the Beatles "self-combusted" relatively early (13 years together but only 7 years in the pressure cooker of stardom). John, Paul, & George were strong individuals who wanted to go in different musical directions but many insiders insist that they also wanted to go out on top and they KNEW they couldn't sustain their peak popularity indefinitely. But whether or not that was the primary reason for the Beatles' demise, Mick and Keith were strong personalities also (who didn't get along for many periods in their relationship) who made life miserable for fellow member Brian Jones (he died a few years after the troubles began). I don't think strong personalities in conflict cause bands (or teams) to break up. Witness Townshend & Daltry of the Who, the Davies brothers of the Kinks, or the love entanglements of Fleetwood Mac. In fact such conflict if properly harnessed and exploited can propel a band or team to greatness. And John & Paul competed with each other WHILE complementing each other. They wrote superb songs "eyeball to eyeball" (as John used to say) in the early period of their songwriting partnership and recorded brilliantly together til the end. Lotsa lessons here for business teams.

Posted by John O'Leary at April 10, 2006 12:17 AM

I'm not sure the brand / sports club analogy stands up. Clubs go through phases: this year and next year, they may be excellent and they may keep it up for a decade or so but in time, they're not so good. Why? Generally because someone has built an exceptional and winning team, often (but not always) built around some exceptional talents. In this respect, the brand or the club is like The Beatles: a group of people comes together, changes the world and then ages or moves on. It's not easy to keep up world-beating performance forever - and maybe the realistic position is to recognise this, maximise the opportunity and move on. Maybe you'll get a second chance or maybe you'll have to accept a place amongst the "merely excellent" but even though world class is only ever temporary, its an achievment to have ever defined it.

Posted by Mark J Foscoe at April 10, 2006 3:54 AM

I feel differently Tom. Even Elvis is dead to young children today. The Beatles will not be significant even to the next generation, and will eventually fade from the memory as superstars of the 1920s did with my generation. So much happens in 50 years now. So much content/competition in a short span fogs the light from any one performer/event. There's too much going on to focus on any one thing to the point that it will be memorable for generations. Doesn't mean that it won't be historical - just won't be part of the living memory of those around at the time.

For this reason, I think that your suspicion of 'built to last' is even more founded. There isn't much that will last in terms of cultural significance. Again, not that these things aren't culturally or historically significant. It's just that their significance will be overshadowed by more immediate events that are impacting our lives. Our attention spans are getting shorter and shorter. We don't sip lemonade anymore, looking at the clouds passing above in the sky, nostagically thinking about last summer's big movie. Why? Because there were 15 new movies released this week, and we're too busy consuming them.

Immediate impact. Immediate gratification. Immediate response. This is what we are driving. Why? What is wrong with something lasting. Personal and professional relationships used to last for decades. There was comfort in that. Trust takes time. I grew up in a family home that is still there today, with roots of my childhood memories. Many people don't have that today. If something lasts today, it is extra-ordinary. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at April 10, 2006 4:12 AM

Interesting discussion. To me it seems to be about ‘time’ versus ‘impact.’ There is nothing wrong with building a reputation to last but equally I believe a world changing impact can be achieved ‘briefly’ and made immortal. I don’t necessarily want to take us down a spiritual path but Jesus is surely the best example. Here was a ‘young man’ who made his mark on the world forever in less than less than five years ‘at the top’ as it were.

'Built to impact' and 'built to last' – both never better illustrated.

Posted by Trevor at April 10, 2006 7:48 AM

"Built to fade like blue on denim"
"Built to be ... Sunday's on the phone to Monday - Tuesday's on the phone to me ..."
"Built to be under my thumb ..."

Posted by Sean at April 10, 2006 8:18 AM

Fantastic posts everyone!

Disney would be another example of 'Built to Make an Impact' and 'Built to Last'...

No comparisons with Christ intended, although I appreciate there are some superficial similarities i.e. Disney can be seen as a religion for some. On the longevity stakes though, Trevor's example will take some beating!

Posted by Stephen Spencer at April 10, 2006 4:44 PM

I'm with Tom on this one - in this ever-cyclic world I think "impact" is the most realistic aim a business enterprise can have, although some have truly "lasted" for longer than others (Jim Collins' book "Good to Great" highlights a few of them, for example). Whether the impacts are immediate or spread out over a period of time is irrelevant - every cycle is unique. Thanks for the great posts.

Posted by Starbucker at April 11, 2006 1:57 PM

I think that as in business, it comes done to "what is the measure?" If the measure is the "impact of the band", the Beatles are the benchmark; if the measure is the "longevity of the band", then the Stones are the benchmark. If the measure is "longevity of the music", then the benchmark might be Beethoven and Bach.

How is success defined and how is it measured?

Posted by Rick Garcia at April 12, 2006 12:42 PM

How timely this discussion of the Beatles and business. There was a fascinating article in the Spring 2006 issue of Strategy + Business called The Beatles Principles by Andrew Sobel. He describes how we could learn lessons about teamwork and creativity from "the most successful band in history." I've shared it with my colleagues and many of them said it was refreshing to look at a musical group as an example of a successful team. By the way, I disagree with Tom O'Leary. My twenty-something nieces do appreciate the Beatles but the family member who enjoys them the most is my four-year-old granddaughter.

Posted by Sue Mosher at April 14, 2006 4:46 AM

"Sting like a butterfly, sting like a bee" and "I am the greatest". Ali was light years ahead of branding guru's, but what he figured out instinctively is that you must believe you are the greatest before you are, when you are and after you are.

When I look at high achievers they all have this in common to some degree.

As long as you have a leader that shares this ethos, passion and desire to win and has the ability and pure guts to encourage a team to do the same it doesn't matter if you are in the spotlight or spend most of your time sitting on the bench. Look at coaches for example. Apart from a few how many of us know the names of coaches versus players?

As a wise man (my Dad!) once said - "If there's a choice between fame and fortune, I'd take the fortune."

Posted by Andrea Ogunkoya at April 26, 2006 12:00 PM