Comments

Retire? Forget about it. In terms of solving world problems: Just keep doing. First take care of yourself then your family then the community then the larger community then the country then the world. No one has the ability to do it all. Obviously!! Just keep doing. My shift is towards “Wellness”. That’s my Vocation now in the order above.

Posted by Frank J. Foti at August 24, 2006 9:52 AM

Hmmm...thoughtful subject here. I will admit that one of the reasons that I chose this profession and my particular employment model (my company and association with tpc!), was so I could be particular with whom I work. I also admit a bit of a bias here. My formative years spent in college brought me much more into contact with the Port Huron Manifesto than the ROTC manuals. I believed there was a social mandate for companys that benefitted from our economy. I must say I am not so sure anymore. Now I believe in free choice. Want to eat KFC? Help yourself. Need a light? Sorry, I threw my lighter away, but help yourself (just not in my space) I have come to appreciate that I am a free market capitalist. Let the buying public determine what has value. But then there is a crunch point. I do not want to pay higher health insurance premiums because Phillip Morris is pushing a known carcinogen funded by tobacco subsidies with my tax dollars. That is just plain wrong. I question when the government enables their success with subsidies and tax abatements. So if I serve them. am I also not enabling them? I have turned down work for three companies in my consulting life that has cost me a good deal of revenue. But I just plain loathe what they stand for. So I would be faking it, if I was there offering a solution. Crap, I would be happier if they just went out of business. There are also issue related reasons I have turned down business....my Father was a labor leader...I can't take any contracts that are part of efforts to keep workplaces union free...others may disagree, but "honor thy Father" works for me. So, this long ramble distills down to this point - each and every client opportunity needs to be evaluated against one's values. If you can't be authentic working with the client, you probably shouldn't. Unless, of course, your cash flow sucks (that is supposed to be sarcasm)

Posted by Mike Neiss at August 24, 2006 9:56 AM

I think one could talk themselves out of doing business with just about everyone if we live our lives placing judgement.

If you deliver positive messages that can change the world, then only speaking to positive organizations with squeeky clean records wont do much good. We can preach to the choir all day long, but that does not help the cause.

I think that those of us who deliver talks have the power to change the world. You cannot pre-judge every audience or you will never work again.

To retire would be to say "I quit, the world is full of immoral companies and I cannot make a difference".

Have A Great Day.

thom

Posted by Thom Singer at August 24, 2006 10:02 AM

I have had this quandry as well.

When I consult and speak to companies, I am invariably contributing to their bottom line. Helping them do better. Reach more people, etc.

So you have to consider the mass implications of your actions. It's like chaos theory. One flutter of the butterfly's wings in one part of the world may cause hurricanes in another part of the world.

If it's an obvious conflict...something that you don't want your name connected with...turn it down. I have turned down business for moral reasons. And I have been rewarded for that decision later.

But while I'm just a marketing speaker...Tom Peters needs to consider this::

Every company is run by both people with good and bad intentions/motives/morals. If 51% are either good or evil, so goes the organization. "things" (like companies and industries) are not immoral - people are.

So what to do?

Maybe bring in a speaker guru who can motivate / change perceptions / give a good kick in the arse and shift the mindset (even just a little) of those people so they are motivated to do better.

Jesus didn't preach to the converted...he went where the problems were (please excuse the "EXTREME" analogy...you're good Tom...but not that good)

I think in the end, you need to be able to sleep at night with your decisions....but also remember that you are a force of positive change that can help resolve some of these bigger issues.

Posted by Chris Houchens at August 24, 2006 10:06 AM

I work for an oil distribution company and faced a similar issue, whereby a charity we wanted to support wouldn't allow us to use their name as we were a 'nasty oil company'. But, we supply home heating oil to thousands of customers who are in the exact same demographic group as their largest supporters.

I think the world is a complicated place. For example how many presentations have you done, where some of the attendees smoked yet worked for more 'ethical' businesses? Personal freedom and choice are vital. If someone wants to eat Macdonalds, smoke and die young, then they can and should always be able to do so. Whether we encourage or discourage is yet again a personal choice.

The social good of any action is always difficult to measure - helping Phillip Morris remain profitable and employ people or punish them and make people unemployed. Jobs vs Healthcare. I guess it depends whether it's your job and family that are dependant on Phillip Morris for their income.

Posted by Mark at August 24, 2006 10:23 AM

Great question...made me think, mmmm Tom's back!

I agree with lots of the comments
1) Retirement NOT an option - the world needs more passion not less. Sorry, but we passion lovers need to flog you a bit more!

2) If you are health conscious then there are few companies you could talk to...energy ones - not really because of risk of pollution, coffee - no caffeine is bad, political parties - definately not as they are bad for anyone's health!

3) The truth lies in the message. If your message is about creativity, passion, community, being a "good" leader then that is relevant in any company. You can turn the message into how to move the industry forward. Cigarettes are not illegal, terrorism is illegal. Cigarettes are about choice the problem lies with the individual - if the individual chose not to smoke then the co in its present form would not exist. You can influence the thinking by speaking to them, you can influence the future by getting them to think about their social responsibility. Your speech is not about the greatness of cigarettes but about freedom, creativity, passsion for the future.

Anyway, I need a holiday now, rant over as my favourite speaker would say!

Posted by Anna Farmery at August 24, 2006 10:24 AM

Great to hear this question posed Tom. My view is that business has been a great asset to the world in developing us particularly since the second world war. And now the strains are starting to show. There are many people who have good reason to be annoyed at business - The Corporation book/movie gives a good overview of the reasons.

But does this mean that you or we shouldn't deal with them at all.

I think this is about the evolution both of corporations and of humanity.

If a corporation is making a lot of money on the back of third-world poverty, I think that if they don't admit that and any expansion of their business is an expansion of that misery - then you shouldn't deal with them.

Or if they are making a lot of money at the expense of their customers' health - then you shouldn't deal with them.

But where companies are open-eyed about what they are doing and want to move on to a more beneficial way of doing business, then I think they are to be encouraged in the way that you are so good in encouraging.

And where companies are not moving forward, the news that Tom Peters won't talk to them because of their poor business practices will likely cause some excellent shock waves in the board room!! And encourage the very changes that will benefit both us and them in the long run. And maybe you'll get some consultancy on moral turnaround!

Cheers

Mike

Posted by Mike Bennett at August 24, 2006 10:25 AM

Forget that talk of retirement. It'll be the death of you.

You are a change agent so it would be a nonsense only to address audiences that are already fully aligned with your thinking. So no, I don't think you should rule out talking to any organisation so long as you are free to say what you think.

That said, if you address an organisation that stands for values with which you profoundly disagree then I think you must say so. If that's not part of their deal then decline.

Posted by Phil Gott at August 24, 2006 10:26 AM

Personally... I've used this for years:

-------
'Take your work and shove it.'

I'm selective about the clients I accept and the projects on which I work and flatly refuse to even consider things which don't appropriately recognise and respect an essential blend of great ethics and high commercial standards. I won't hesitate to walk away from deals which have a 'just churn out crap and make money' ethos.

So, does this mean I exclude 'ordinary businesses'? Absolutely not. I'll work with anyone who has genuine desire to embrace the ethos outlined here.
-------
In turning away all comers we can develop a more satisfying client base.

Posted by gulliver at August 24, 2006 10:27 AM

I seem to remember that Jesus took some heat for bringing his message to "bad people" as well. I think one has to think about what good inflence ones presentation can bring to a "bad company/organization" regardless of how "bad" is defined.

Posted by Alfred Thompson at August 24, 2006 10:37 AM

Keeping it simple: The right way to achieve change is by talking. Keep talking to them Tom. They may even come round.

Posted by Dave at August 24, 2006 10:42 AM

You probably should draw the line where it makes the most sense for you and yours and then make sure not to judge the rest of us by where we drew ours. (I sometimes help Mexican manufacturers succeed, and some would say I was taking jobs away from Americans...)

I think as long as you don't take gigs from the KKK or start trying to empower the minions of somebody's drug cartel you are probably in the "right."

Posted by Mike at August 24, 2006 10:42 AM

OK, how about some (cliche warning) outside the box thinking. You surely don't do what you do for economic reasons. Even retirement would be possible if you weren't the passionate kind of guy you are. You've make a significant impact on the world of business. Why not take on a completely different challenge. Say a major reform of American K-12 education. Is there a need for a voice as powerful as yours? Could you have an impact? Lots of reasons to say no. Too tough a job?
Doug

Posted by Doug Kerseg at August 24, 2006 11:02 AM

"Church leadership groups, because extreme religious beliefs are responsible for most human conflict over the Ages?"

Responsible for MOST human conflict? Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, etc were unabashed atheists and kill 10's (maybe 100’s?) of millions of people. Think that counts as some serious conflict and suffering. May be you should take atheists off the speaking list too!

Posted by Kurt Donath at August 24, 2006 11:08 AM

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." Are you willing to settle for doing nothing?

Posted by Jeffrey Summers at August 24, 2006 11:09 AM

I don't think it's a matter of where you speak. It's a matter of what you say once you get there. Trevor's pretty much got his finger on it: "I am a pragmatist and I tend to let others be the judge of my authenticity and integrity. As well of course, that is, as having my own personal accountability code to the man in the mirror." Those who find value in your thoughts (at least some of the thoughts) will continue to engage you. Those who deny the value of an opposing viewpoint won't call. Likely they're not calling now anyway. Your message, in a place where it's least expected, may give someone the courage to do something extraordinary.

Posted by Ed Di Gangi at August 24, 2006 11:18 AM

Tom, you can look at it from two angles... one is the end result (which many half discussed here), the other is your motives. So why are you doing this? My guess it's a mix of financial reward, "ego" reward, and "making the world a better place" reward. You've been blessed with sizeable rewards in all three departments. And now your wife is telling you that you got enough of the first two so now become 100% Health-Wellness-Obesity-Hospital quality nut... not 60,70,80,90%, but 100%. Imagine!

Posted by Mike Sax at August 24, 2006 11:23 AM

When it comes to retirement, I am often reminded of a story regarding Branch Rickey of the fame Brooklyn Dodgers, St. Louis Cardinals and finally the Pittsburgh Pirates. He did so many great things for baseball, breaking the color barrier for blacks and Latins, inventing the farm system and a host of other great ideas. He was in his final years at the Pirates, age 74, when he was fired. At his farewell press conference, Mr. Rickey was asked by the reporters, "What was his greatest achievement in baseball". Mr. Rickey replied, "It has not happen YET".

Tom, you have much more to do. Your message is too powerful, too important, too vital, that this world needs your passion.

Just my thoughts.

Posted by Michael Lombardi at August 24, 2006 11:49 AM

PD had the key to that delimmma;

1) know thy time
2) Focus on contribution
3) Make strengths productive
4) Keep first things first
5) Continious learning

as long as you call truthfully do items (5-2), then when item#1 comes along, you will know what to do :)_

Posted by /pd at August 24, 2006 12:05 PM

My suggestion is to make changes in your mission-statement of your consulting firm towards a broad economic-social-ecological sustainability approach, to communicate them loud and clear and to go ahead with your work, no matter who pays for it!

Posted by Horst Schueberl at August 24, 2006 12:17 PM

Should any of us sell anything at all to cigarette companies, fast-food outfits, Dell, the military, oil companies or any of the other organisations you mention? And if you're not prepared to sell to them, should you buy anything from them? At the end of the day, it's a question each of us has to answer for him/herself. So long as a business is not exploitative (and I include adopting one set of standards in the 1st world and another set elsewhere) and it works within the laws of the land, only you can decide. If you don't like where the law draws the line, by all means take a personal stand - and try to convince your fellow citizens to democratically change the law.

Maybe what was going on behind your family debate was a re-appraisal of what you do. With all due respect to your accomplishemnts and impact, you talk. And whilst what you've got to say is great, it's then up to other people to implement it (the missing 98%) and live it. Maybe you've gotten to a point in your life where it's time to do something a little bit more concrete. (Oh no, I might be going back to the legacy debate....!) But if you're really and truly a Health-Wellness-Obesity-Hospital quality nut, why don't you really focus on this sector?

Maybe you should be giving (i.e. for free) not just some more talking, but also some time, consultancy and project work. Why don't you lobby for this, in the US and (please) Europe? Surely there's some NGO's or governmental organisations where you can start to make a difference? Why don't you find an healthcare organisation where you can go in, grab hold of it, implement some of the ideas you've talked about for so long and really make a tangible difference? There must be an organisation that would love to have you on board.

I mean this constructively (and a tad provocatively!) but how much of a Health-Wellness-Obesity-Hospital quality nut are you really?

Posted by MarkJF at August 24, 2006 12:24 PM

Tom - another quick thought. In another posting I talked about IQ, EQ and MBQ (mind and body intelligence). Why not take this forward?

Posted by MarkJF at August 24, 2006 12:26 PM

Before I comment, one question: In what way does your presentation change when you speak to these groups?

Alright, a couple questions. Is your primary concern when speaking to these groups your ability to be re-hired for future events (are you pulling punches, i.e., are you prositituting yourself)?

Do you use these opportunities to deliver your authentic message, hoping that it will make a difference--regardless of your future earnings?

Have your presentations to these groups made any difference? How many people give a shit about what Tom Peters said, and how many will change anything because of it? Is one person going to leave and say to the CEO/COO?CFO/CXX/VP/Manager/?, "Hey, we need to change this?"

I love you, man, don't go anywhere. . .

Posted by S. Anthony Iannarino at August 24, 2006 12:26 PM

I think at the core of the question is this: What is the intent behind your work? What are you trying to accomplish when you speak? If it's just about the money (and I don't think it is), then heck, speak to anyone who can pony up the $$$$$$. But if your work is about a greater purpose (and I do think this is the case), then think long and hard about the organizations to whom you will speak. I know, it's not at all an act then think approach, but that's just how I sort these things out for myself.

Posted by GraceAnn at August 24, 2006 12:43 PM

I really think you should speak to any and all groups who invite you. You never know who or how you might influence. Obviously, beat a hasty retreat from any who extend sarcasm, but your boycotting groups who might benefit from what you have to say and how you think and feel would simply prove you as prudish as those who also condemn.

Posted by edith at August 24, 2006 12:48 PM

"In matters of style, swim with the current. In matters of principle, stand like a rock" - Thomas Jefferson

Is your wife truly "principled" in her approach? Are you?

How can you effect change if you take the "bunker" (read liberal?) mentality of only talking to those who are perfect? Behind all these companies is intention--do they "intend" to hurt us with fast food, or is that an uninteded consequence of OUR choice?

Don't retire, inspire!

Posted by John at August 24, 2006 12:58 PM

Tom, I'm paraphrasing here (and I could wrong - won't be the first time), but I believe I once heard you say that you had started out a presentation to a group of healthcare IT executives by making a comment something to the effect of "I always love talking to a bunch of killers." This was in regards to the abysmal record of actually helping make people well. The beauty of this comment is that you are probably one of the few people in the world who can credibly make this kind of statement and back it up.

You have the ability to observe the benefits and faults of many industries (and people) and boil those observations down into simple, straightforward language. It may not make them comfortable, but it may help alter their perspective on what it is they do and the effect it has on more than just their share price.

Boycotting these groups does nothing other than reinforce any notion that what they are doing is right and correct and can further insulate them from the real world in which they operate. If you can make an impact on their worldview, say what you believe in good conscience and still take their money, I say keep doing it. If they get mad because you say something they don't like, or that challenges their beliefs, then they should have known what to expect.

Closed minds tend to be passionate about very few things; open ones tend to be passionate about many. Keep opening minds!

Posted by Andrew Hayden at August 24, 2006 1:13 PM

Tom:

Long-time reader, "In Search of Excellence" in '83, first-time poster.

This is simple. You cannot influence any of the people in these groups unless you talk to them. And, if your message makes the individuals in these groups do different things, whether policy shifts, or leaving said group, you're improving the world. That's a good thing, no?

What you might want to think about is what message to send to a group that is obviously doing bad things to others that allows them to think creatively about changing. It's tough because many of these groups have paradigms built up that don't allow them to think about the obvious alternatives, so the message has to be clever and under the radar. Something that makes them go 'Woah!' at the top of the stairs after your visit. (That said, you are a clever boy when it comes to stories, so I think you're up to the task.)

Good luck with this - it's important to your family, and it's important to so many others.

Dave H.

Posted by Dave at August 24, 2006 1:34 PM

I guess Tom's issue equates to reading materials written by someone who's politics or beliefs don't always align with my very own. For instance, I'm a conservative, independent-minded Christian who reads blogs and articles by others I may not always agree with. So what? The fact is, I find value in what they say and do. I find value in Tom Peters. He inspires me even if we didn't absolutely agree on religious issues, politics, etc.

If Tom were to present companies and organizations that he doesn't completely agree with, he could at least find value in highlighting the human potential of the folks that work there. He can encourage the PSF, the "rock star" projects, the rise of women in leadership, etc. Those people (talent) are the ones that may change the course of the organization into something that's better.

Posted by Jason at August 24, 2006 2:27 PM

I've heard (and believe) that we should judge ourselves by results and others by intent. But others' intent is often obscured, particularly in a business that's big enough to be a TP customer.

In the extremes--and Tom you said "be specific"--I think it's easy to see good/bad, e.g. Charities/food bank/humanitarian efforts or responsible makers of useful non-destructive products vs. big tobacco (addiction by design followed by slow death, all with prior knowledge and subsquent cover-up) or other bad-actors.

But there's a HUGE subjective middle. There are innumerable externalities that don't get accounted for in transactions or industries until/unless there's public outcry or epidemic-level visible death & destruction. And there's often no reasonable way to see those.

So here's my thought. Ask yourself four questions about the firm/group: 1) Would I want to be their customer? 2) From a conscience perspective, would I be able to stomach working on their front line?--how about their senior leadership team? 3) Is there a snowball's chance they'll follow the advice/warning I give them? and 4) If they did what I tell them, would that change my answers to 1 & 2?

Posted by Norm at August 24, 2006 2:59 PM

When the movie "Thank You For Smoking" came out, I heard a critic suggest it represented a modern-day Nuremberg Defense: "I'm just doing it to pay the mortgage". No doubt we all fight that battle periodically in our respective businesses (however, not usually while on vacation with the family). The fact that successful implementation stands between your ideas and any questionable product or service generated by your audiences' businesses seems to provide you with broader license.

Posted by Perspective at August 24, 2006 3:20 PM

Tom,

McDonald's can be a good, healthier, company if it tried and really wanted it. Dictatorships can move towards democracy if they tried and really wanted it. Weapons manufacturers can find more humane methods of attack if they really wanted it. If these companies, nations, etc, are on the road to ruin, someone should tell them.

A priest doesn't stay away from murderer's and convicts because he doesn't agree with them. He goes to see them because they need his help most of all.

What these organisations need is someone with candor to tell them what they are doing wrong, how they can improve it, and show them the greatness they could achieve.

Don't tell them what they want to hear (you never seemed to do that in the past)-- tell them what they need to hear. And if that stops the work coming in, you'll be able to look yourself in the mirror.

You know what's right.

Posted by Eric Wroolie at August 24, 2006 3:30 PM

If the engagement is with an organization that's really causing heartburn/sleepless nights for you and/or those you love, do it pro bono or don't do it at all. Go to Ben & Jerry's and say, I'm here today on my own dime because I have some serious personal concerns regarding your products. Then, provide them with an experience that money (literally) can't buy. If your bottom line suffers by doing this I would be very surprised. If I'm wrong, come hunt me down in Cleveland. DB

Posted by David Bachman at August 24, 2006 3:30 PM

Tom - I've heard you say that at 63 ‘I don’t have to worry about being ‘invited back’ so I can say what I really think.’ If that is really how you feel why not dedicate your time from now attempting to reverse the bias and obsession that healthcare managers have in spending money on the ‘treatment end’ of healthcare at the expense of the preventative/educational/individual self care stuff that you promote so well; that I am passionate about; and which we all know makes the most sense. 'Health' rather than 'healthcare' is your slogan. Putting my head on the block - and hopefully not ruining our relationship - I actually believe Susan is right (lets be frank the female partner usually is) and you would now be far more effective in a narrow, more focused area than trying to change the whole world of business which you have already done to a large extent. I think you can make a fantastic difference in the world of healthcare and I would be delighted to see you ‘rattle the cage’ even more loudly. Healthcare needs a real wake up call in the UK and I am sure it is the same in your country. Go for it and end up as the new 'Mother Theresa' of healthcare! – And congratulations Susan you sound like a great mentor. :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at August 24, 2006 4:17 PM

Tom –

In reading all these comments it seems very clear to me that you are making a difference and we aren’t willing to part with you just yet!

Through the years you’ve built your reputation. People generally know what to expect from you (of course you have many new ideas, what I mean is that your honesty, integrity and no BS nature is pretty clear). If the “bad” (according to your values) companies want that message – and you don’t dilute it or change it for them – then what have you possibly done wrong? It would be more of a sin to reject them outright because of who they are and what they do. It’s not like they’re going to change you – you’re pretty consistent. You never know who might be in your audience that takes your message and applies it (there or somewhere else).

If they want YOUR message – let ‘em have it!

Ann

Posted by ann michael at August 24, 2006 4:19 PM

Interesting reads to your request for feedback. I came to know you through a comment from a customer about his first order. He wrote, "Tom Peters would be proud". Nice compliment. Each person has to do the best possible by giving excellence. When you do that, everyone on the receiving end benefits...but it also completes the circle and excellence comes back to you, whether it's from the people you talk to or someone else, the law of reaping and sowing. You just never know when you reach out who is going to take that excellent morsel and pass it on. So why preach to the choir? Talk to everybody that needs "saving" whether they are aware they need saving or not. Perhaps we need to revisit the WWJD (what would Jesus do) mentality whether we think WE need it or not. Anyway, keep talking. Listening is an art people need to brush up on, too. Be happy and well.

Posted by M Squires at August 24, 2006 4:56 PM

In some ways I think others have already said what I'm thinking.

I see what you do as "bigger" than the things you listed. While you favor certain topics, I believe the purpose you share with many of us is to "change the world" as Farber would say.

You can't change minds about issues if you limit your audiences. The first step in changing minds is changing their thinking. In order to do that people/companies need to hear new messages.

As long as they're willing to listen, you've got a fighting chance. Why would you want to stop now?

You've got more work to do! Keep going!

Posted by Lora Adrianse at August 24, 2006 5:19 PM

Tom...you are forgetting your primary rule. BRAND YOU. Your question is a good one and will no doubt create great conversation. I would propose this. You are asking yourself the wrong question.

The question TOM you should be asking yourself is what the hell are you trying to do here. Are you flying around the country to get paid, get famous, or champion some kind of cause. I have heard you talk about what it is that you champion: capitalism, america, health, etc. But what I haven't seen is a TOM PETERS mission statement. What the hell are you trying to do here. What is the real Tom Peters cause? Would that answer tell you who you should be speaking to? YES!

Tom, you aren't getting any younger...what do you want to do with what you have left? You are in the 4th quarter here. Time to get serious about something. Flying around and talking to everyone who will listen is great...but where does this really get you? If you are doing it with a cause and speaking specifically to someone with a TOM PETERS goal in mind for a cause, well, that makes all the difference in answering the question you posed.

Thank you for everything you have done. I appreciate it and I admire you. I have watched from a far with awe. Some day I hope to be 1/10th as good as you at inspiring leaders. Thank you.

Posted by Stacy Gentile at August 24, 2006 5:53 PM

One of my mentors long ago led me down a similar path of self-assessment by posing the question: How will you feel if your passion and knowledge helps an organization become better at advancing a product or cause that is inconsistent with your values? As many others have already hinted, these types of decisions are rarely all or nothing or black and white. Thinking long and hard about this question did help me move the line in the sand a bit and change who I agree to work with and/or the terms on which I agree to do my work.

Posted by Jeffrey at August 24, 2006 7:33 PM

Tom, thanks for all the work on the blog.

With respect to your question, well, there's the world as one would like it to be, and the world as it is. If a fellow wants to move things closer to the former then he must work with the latter. After all, if he refuses to engage with the world as it is, he'll get the same result as if he'd accepted it in the first place. . . .

So keep on marching, I'd say.

Of course there's also the (strong) possibility that a guy is mistaken in some important way about how things really are, or about how life would be like in his preferred world.

Posted by MG at August 24, 2006 8:00 PM

As a follower of Tom for years-- and yes, I was in high school watching him rant on a PBS special which then prompted me to read In Search of Excellence-- I have followed with great interest ever since. One must understand that as a high school student, Tom spoke to me without ever knowing my intentions. He did not know what my motives were, and I’ll admit they were greed driven through my 20s. He did not know that I was not always the best boss I could have been or kind colleague. However, I kept listening, reading, and growing. I applied over the years what I read. Now reaching 40, I’d like to believe that I’ve grown, not only due to Tom, but yes, I’ve grown. I'm a better worker, colleague, and person. I’ve appreciated the words, the rants and over time incorporated them into my philosophy. However, if you had known me back then, would you have bothered to rant in my direction? You see where I’m going with this…

The real fact is that corporations, regardless of their business line, ethics, or governance need to hear the reality. It is critical to our nation’s way of life that the word continue to ring clear. The fact that they may be in an objectionable line of work is incidental, provided it is legal. People grow and change, so do companies. I find comfort in the mind shift I had at reading that everyone is their own PSF. That attitude is still sinking in around corporate America. However, the business and actions companies are in today do not follow, necessarily, tomorrow. It is an up or out world for companies today. Trudge onward.

Posted by Scott Thompson at August 24, 2006 8:32 PM

Big questions - and I think the answers are important.

My organization just took some money to add Philip Morris to our group. I didn't know how I'd feel about that - and whether we'd take the money - until their senior exec introducted herself to our group saying that a major part of her job is to reduce the harm that PM's products do to health - and I believed, and believe her. If I didn't I don't I'd work with her company.

I also have a problem with the ice cream problem - I love ice cream (and am overweight) and would never have thought (as Tom has) about NOT working with Ben & Jerry's - or, perhaps more to the point, their parent, Unilever.

Part of what goes on here is people you and I hang out with in the U.S. eat ice cream for all kinds of social-stratification reasons - but don't smoke, because of who we are demographically.

Food for thought. . . PT

Posted by Peter Temes at August 24, 2006 9:08 PM

Tom-

What's the most important thing? That your message gets out, or that you hold to your integrity, and a whole heap of people miss out on your message?

You're sticking it to the man by speaking to the man!

Posted by Steven Poor at August 24, 2006 9:44 PM

Always engage!

Posted by Thomas Alexander at August 24, 2006 11:44 PM

Those of us in the legal world have to face this precise issue every time a client comes in the door. Every one is entitled to representation -- but not necessarily my representation. Are tobacco companies entitled to attorneys? Is Halliburton? Obviously yes. Would I ever represent them? Clearly no.

On the other hand, might I represent a company whose competitive practices I might deplore -- like Microsoft [monopolist], but on an issue that did not force me to defend those practices [like patent infringement]? Sure.

Might I even defend [in a lawsuit] the former bad practices of a company who had changed its ways or was in the process of changing its ways? [Securities fraud] Sure.

I think that Tom already makes these same calculations -- his calculus has to be whether his advice will help these companies continue their bad practices or not.

I am particularly interested in Tom's talk to the Texas law firm Hughes & Luce this fall. Many [if not most] of the practices of large law firms are directly contrary to Tom's PSF principles, are almost deliberately inefficient [universal hourly billing] and virtually preclude hiring the best-in-the-world for a project. Why does Tom choose to speak to this group? What will Tom tell these guys? To make radical changes? To disrupt the way they do business?

I hope so.

But I hope he never retires.

Posted by Richard Cauley at August 24, 2006 11:55 PM

Wow! just Wow! So many points and comments, it takes a while to wade through them all.. Clearly the general tone is
1) be pragmatic
2) be universal, but set up criteria to reject customers
3) espouse a few organisations that implement your recommendations "to the fullest"

Tom,

JUST ONE POINT: A while back, my Dad (your generation) told me this about a consulting report I wrote. "It's good, but your customer will take just one point from it and implement that". May I repeat that to you? To borrow from Seth Godin, people will follow those ideas that fit their worldview and reject the rest.

PRICE AS INDICATOR OF VALUE: The people you talk to pay in order to listen to you. They value what you say, and they value only those ideas that fit with their worldview, and are willing to pay for that. Thus when you talk to a Tobacco Company, they'll disregard your entire "healthcare nut" observations and focus more on being "Wow" for e.g. They paid for "Wow"

DIFFERENT PEOPLE/ORGS CHANGE DIFFERENTLY: You're not changing organistions. You're influencing organisations, who then make an effort to change - on their own in the way they want to. So relax, you're not improving/assisting organisations that are contrary to your beliefs to work in a way that's even more contrary to your beliefs

RETIREMENT: is a state of the mind (apart from the obvious financial aspects). You could retire at 25, or you could retire at death. By retirement, I mean "not doing something commercially about something you're passionate about". You cannot stop yourself from thinking, and if you're really mad about something, you'll find a venue to say something about it. And that's not restricted to Tom, but almost anyone with some passion. The thing is - You need to get really mad about something.

DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR YOU: I really shouldn't expand on this point. It's up to you to decide what's right for you, and then to make a decision to do something or not about it; while doing all the other things that one collectively calls LIVING.

Warm regards

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at August 25, 2006 12:41 AM

If you decide you have ethical objections to, say, smoking, where do you draw the line in your own business dealings? You don’t talk to the tobacco companies but do you talk to their suppliers? They purchase packaging, office equipment, software, advertising etc etc. Their products are distributed and sold by the retail sector. So do you ask companies in all these sectors if they work with Big Tobacco and, if they do, what’s your stance about working with them?

Ideas spread and take hold because people like you travel, write, articulate, debate and advance them. Excluding anyone from this process stops the spread of ideas. Including everyone means that sometimes people will take great ideas and use them for dubious, immoral or illegal purposes.

One person, one speech on it’s own will not right the problem and you have to balance risk and outcome. There’s always a risk that your speech will be seen to endorse them and entrench or even strengthen the audience in what you regard as an unethical position. But is this the likely outcome? If your judgment is, "Yes" then don't go. Are you prepared to tell your audience head-on what you think is wrong as well as what you think is right? Do you think there’s a good chance your engagement will help to move that company to the right side of the ethical divide? Then go.

Posted by Mark JF at August 25, 2006 4:12 AM

I absolutely reject the notion that you should talk to one group of companies because they meet some standard of morality and don't speak to another company because they don't meet the same standard. Now of course there is an exception because we have extremes that we simply cannot touch. The Nazis for example. (But even then we have the luxury of standing decades apart from their actions. Who knows how we would have approached them had we been of their time?)

But anyway, back to my point. To make an absolute judgement about the morality of a "company" is false. Because we lose sight of the fact that we are making a judgement on the morality of people. Let us not forget that companies are about people first and foremost.

Now, if we accept that premise, the issue unfortunately becomes even more unclear not less. This is because people are inherently complex, complicated and contradictory. Even our heroes... Martin Luther King Jr the adulterer. Gandhi the racist. It is the curse of our humanity. So can we expect our companies to be any different?

The real point is not whether one is a good person or a bad person. The point is that one is conscious of the conflict within. And is therefore willing to engage on the journey to self realisation. The human tragedy of course is that there is never an end point where we can say. "Ok, I have arrived. I am now perfect." Mastery is all about the journey. And the journey is made through conversations with oneself and others.

So it is with our companies. Because again, they are about people. Companies will therefore always be infused with complexities and contradictions. Again, the point is not whether they are good or bad, but whether they are engaged in the journey of mastery towards greater enlightenment. It will wlays be so. I have no doubt that we will banish things like obesity, pollution, and lung cancer. But ten, twenty, years from now there will be new concerns.

It is the tragedy of the company. It can never attain perfection. The company has to engage in the journey, and it does so through conversations. And this is where you Tom are so important. For you are a vital voice in the conversation. So open up your ears, clip on your mic and go to work. You are desperately needed.

Posted by frederick kambo at August 25, 2006 5:09 AM

Interesting to note the examples people give as companies who are somehow "evil."

Weapons manufacturers? Ice Cream sellers? Lawyers? Oil companies?

As my mentor would say, "Good Grief!"

Posted by Mike at August 25, 2006 6:19 AM

Frederick Kambo wrote: "Let us not forget that companies are about people first and foremost."

If only that were true.

Posted by Jeffrey at August 25, 2006 6:21 AM

Jeff,

I mean that at their most fundamental, companies are simply a collection of human beings. People are the fundamental building block.I'm not making the claim that they necessarily see people as their most important element. Although they should of course.

Posted by frederick kambo at August 25, 2006 7:05 AM

Tom, you have plenty of feedback. I especially like Trevor's (the man in the mirror needs to be faced) and Stacy's (what IS the Tom Peter's BrandYou?). Decide your brand reason to be, check the mirror daily, and then as Ghandi: be the change you would like to see. If you don't talk with them, they won't have the opportunity to change.

Posted by Steve Sherlock at August 25, 2006 7:40 AM

Tom, you're well aware that many groups hire speakers like us to place a "brand name" on their brochures and draw attendees. That said, why not have those truly interested in gaining new insights and leaving inspired come to you? Less time travelling. Truly engaged participants. People who actually WANT to change things. You can also record and video stream your message weekly over the Internet so individuals lacking in the means to visit, have the means to gain from your wisdom. Less money? Probably. But it's not about the money, right? Problem solved! God speed.

Posted by Tom Asacker at August 25, 2006 7:45 AM

Have read some of the 57 posts here - many things to smile at.

Not much said about human potential. Do we really think that anyone other than BP (or the like) will come up with alternative fuels and what would happen to the health of our nations if McDonalds decided to only use organic incredients in its meals?

If we ailienated the sins because they are sins then we would have more devision and seperation and we have already proven that dosen't work. Expand the understanding!

There is dark side (Luke) in all of us and only through understanding and leadership can anyone or thing be convinced to make the effort to do better.

Plough on Tom! Take the vision and spread the word!

Our great, intergral communicators in a box not comunicating? No bloody thank you!

Posted by John Richardson at August 25, 2006 8:47 AM

ONE Word: Television & DVD's :>] ... BE the MEDIUM ... IN a RADICAL way.

Posted by sean at August 25, 2006 8:51 AM

Tom, there is a life force that is only expressed through you and your work and will not exist otherwise. As Steve Sherlock put it by quoting Ghandi, "be the change you'd like to see in the world". And I would venture that you are.

As for results, we can affect a great deal within when we act in integrity with the being we choose to be. This is the conversation we all have with our self. We can affect thinking... and consequently often behavior by inspiring others. This is the leadership conversation.

Look at what you just did with one post. People are tuned in... it is their choice to make, always [where they work, who they are, what they think, what they do, etc. etc.].

Posted by Valeria Maltoni at August 25, 2006 8:57 AM

Henry Ford was criticized for "putting humanistic values where they don´t belong" after declaring he preferred to build cars for everybody and share profits with the workforce. Wall Street did not like it.

Perverted pursue of profit is as killing as cigarettes.

I´d go "cold turkey" for tobacco industry, and try to incentive others to be more ecology and health driven.

After all the ozone layer is showing a trend of recovery, and the cfc producing companies did not shut down completely - they adapted themselves.

Posted by Gerson Barbosa at August 25, 2006 9:07 AM

A corporation has no responsibility to anyone with the exception of it's stockholders and it's only goal is greed. That may sound like strong words, but it's true. I believe in Capitalism. However, I also believe that companies must start building a conscience. I think there is a growing number of people would like to invest in companies that 'do the right thing'.

I don't think boycotting companies that may be irresponsible is a good idea, though. Rather, I think your concern may be a great message to bring to these companies. B&J isn't the root of the obesity epidemic in children; however, it can be responsible in it's own way to help fight it. That's good press for a company, in turn that equals good business, in turn that means good profit to feed the corporate beast.

Warmest Regards,
Doug

Posted by Doug Karr at August 25, 2006 10:11 AM

It's "Gandhi" guys, not "Ghandi"..

Pronounce the "G" sound the same way as you do in the word "go" and the "dh" the same way as you pronounce "th" in "there".

But thanks for quoting the "Father of my Nation".. (I'm an Indian citizen) :-)))

He's probably the greatest Marketing guy that ever lived.

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at August 25, 2006 10:32 AM

Tom, so happy to see you post this moral dilemma...as an employee of tom peters company i often struggle with this very same question....and quite honestly i thought it was because i was so much younger than everyone else (i am 25). People always tell me I dont understand the business world yet (frustrating), and will get more conservative as I get older(which i am already experiencing to be true), but no matter how old I get i dont think i will ever solve this problem in my morally conscious mind. glad to know you and i have this in common!

if i figure out a solution, you will be the first to know!

Posted by Rachel at August 25, 2006 11:15 AM

There are very few unambiguous evils in the world and many things that are bad. That's what makes this such a knotty issue.

Let's look at a simple example. Since Ben & Jerry's has been mentioned here, let's consider what might have to occur for you to decline an invitation to speak to that company.

You must decide that there is an obesity epidemic. The media says there is. You may believe there is, but you would, in good conscience need to research the matter.

You must decide that ice cream companies in general, and B & J in particular, contribute to the problem in a significant way.

You must decide if the obesity epidemic is a significant issue that needs to be addressed.

You must decide if it significant enough to you for you to address it and if you can make a difference.

You have to decide how to address it. When B & J approaches you about speaking for them you can say "Yes" and give your regular program.

You may decide to give a different program that addresses your concerns. If you decide to do that, you may or may not tell them in advance. In my experience, telling a client that I disagree with on substantive issues that I need to mention those leads to them finding another speaker. I do not have a big sample here, probably half a dozen times in the last 30 years.

You may tell them you won't speak to them. You can be upfront about why, and they will think you're a jerk. It's not likely they will do much reflecting on your reasons. Or you can say that you're booked, or have a funeral that day.

I think it makes sense to think about all of this in terms of purpose. What is your purpose as a speaker/consultant/author? Is it different than it was ten years ago, or a year ago?

I think that, in the end, this is not something you can come up with a policy for, only something that you can be constantly aware of. If you find that thinking about speaking to a particular audience makes you uncomfortable, it's probably a good idea to figure out why, and then whether and how you should go through with the engagement.

It may all come back to the Serenity Prayer. I prefer the longer version.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can; and
the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time;
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as the pathway to peace.
Taking, as He did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it.
Trusting that He will make all things right, if I surrender to His will.
That I may be reasonably happy in this life,
and supremely happy with Him forever in the next

Posted by Wally Bock at August 25, 2006 1:24 PM

Sorry for coming so late into the conversation...

Keep doing what you love to do to whoever feels a need for your knowledge and insight...

Gabriel S.

Posted by Gabriel Salcido at August 25, 2006 3:22 PM

Through many of these comments is an implied/expressed suggestion akin to 'spread change: if you don't engage with them [the 'bad' businesses], they won't learn to behave'.

Thing is though, the work of TP isn't 'morality' - instead it's 'how to be more profitable'... that's 'good' defined by markers almost wholly other than 'ethics'.

So let's not kid ourselves that TP accepting/rejecting various gigs will improve/worsen the oft-woeful lack of decency so common in commerce.

Posted by gulliver at August 25, 2006 7:20 PM

I think TP's message is ethical in the extreme.

Besides that- investors WANT ethical businesses to invest in!

I'm reminded of this article from Registered Rep magazine: http://registeredrep.com/mag/finance_bob_monks_year/ titled "Bob Monk's Thirty Year Crusade" and the Ave Maria mutual funds that invest in businesses that are compliant with Catholic doctrines.

And not just from this perspective- who here wants to own stock in the next Enron? Not me. It blew up due a concentration on a LACk of ethics other than share price. TP's ideas transcend this morass of unethical thinking.

Posted by Steven Poor at August 25, 2006 8:06 PM

Rachel...hmmm...be weary of advice suggesting you will become more conservative as you "understand business". An overly conservative approach to business kills innovation. And I remember a dear old friend and partner of mine at tpc saying...if we aren't careful, we might just end up becoming what we say we are out to destroy "just another big old dumb company". I still believe we have an obligation to live the values and celebrate the uniqueness of the tpc brand....

Posted by Mike Neiss at August 25, 2006 9:05 PM

Returning to the crimescene of my earlier 'the work of TP isn't morality - instead it's how to be more profitable' comment... I take issue with the Steven Poor/August 25/08:06 PM comeback: >I think TP's message is ethical in the extreme.

Really? I genuinely don't. That TP has little to say on the topic of 'decency' is a disappointment to me (just as Godin, Kawasaki et al are similarly quiet). But that's not why I read TP and I'm appreciative of the neatstuff he publishes and can get my ethical fix from Hawken, Kalman and Roddick.

Stepping aside, there's a nobility in rejecting work from those who 'behave inappropriately'.
Sure, it's rarely clear-cut as to who's in and who's not - but to not recognise and embrace at least some standard is - capitalism without conscience - indefensible.

Almost forgot The Old Man...
Ogilvy was a man of character who wouldn't advertise things in which he didn't believe - and still managed to build one of the world's most financially successful ad agencies. His approach and ethics are a million miles away from the 'little men out there'.
His leadership values, approach to clients and more suggest a 'right' way to do business.

So credit to SS for speaking wisely. We could do with more like her.

Posted by gulliver at August 26, 2006 10:24 AM

Tom

You can't retire PASSION... Your contribution to the debate (within your family, in this blog, or within business circles) is always listened to (if not always agreed with) because you bring you PASSION to every forum... Your PASSION led you IN SEARCH OF EXCELLENCE when most of America was "out to lunch" discussing the rise of JAPAN and the demise of the USA... Instead of going to lunch with them you chose to go to work and to find good stories to tell about what ordinary folk were doing in their workplaces... Those stories have inspired a generation of workers to be the best they can be (BRAND YOU!) to do the best work they can possibly do (WOW!) and to imagine a world of work where everything is possible (RE-IMAGINE!)...

I think you should make yourself a good strong cup of herbal tea, have a good lie down, and prepare yourself for your next adventure....

Tom follow your PASSION (as you always have) it has not, and will not, let you down....

Cheers
Richard Lipscombe.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at August 26, 2006 5:53 PM

TOM!

Don't just keep doing, figure out how to do and make a powerful, highly effective, exceptionally passionate difference. "Doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome" that's a definition of stupidity.

Tom,
do it to make a difference NOW, if its not working then alter it. So carefully consider keeping clear of certain industries and be holier than thou. Do an Oprah, have a TV show and sell it to the world, stop flying all over, send them a video link, your type (loosely, the visionaries of the world) need to push the human envelope to the edge, then over it.

Blow it up! Rebuild it! Yes all of it.

I dare you to try retirement by the way!!! don't think that would last! he he...

Posted by Steve Gray at August 26, 2006 6:14 PM

Tom, what a great debate to have on a summer vacation...lets hope everyone is speaking after :-).Its true you have to find a middle ground, and be open to hearing from others. Therefore, the isolationist option does not work. It closes the door to constant learning and improvement... and isnt the world changing so fast that we have to be open to change. Whats right today is not the best way to proceed tomorrow. So to your point about Dell and customers. We have recognized we let this slide and it is a core component, indeed a competitive advantage, of Dell's direct model. Its why we have invested over $150 million to fix issues, been retraining and hiring more staff, getting call times down and so much more. Is it perfect. NO! Do we have a ways to go? YES. Will we be successful. The turnaround is underway and we wont rest till its complete. and we have learned. To suggest we dont care is misguided. And rather than be isolationist about it, Id be happy to join you for a speech to compare notes anytime.

Posted by RichardatDELL at August 27, 2006 4:19 PM

Dear Tom,

thank you for asking for our opinions. I think you´ve already answered the question by asking it. But imho the answer is not retirement, but change. I agree with Tom Asacker, that some/many companies - inviting and paying you - are less interested in the message than "misusing" the TP-brand.

You´re quoting Ghandi with "Be the change you want to see in the world".

Perhaps you can effect "more" of that change by giving your speeches to us -small and medium business owners - rather than to the Fortune 500 (remembering the long tail). You can do this via internet, sitting on the farm´s porch. And 10.000 live viewers per session, each paying 5 $...isn´t that enough, preacher?

Cheers Stefan

Posted by Stefan Stockinger at August 28, 2006 12:28 PM

Just a thought: You are trying to reach those who are already been in ‘the system’ for years and are set in their ways. Those who have filled the ranks of corporations have been brainwashed by bureaucratic mentality. My feeling is many of these companies bring you in to believe they are staying current and making changes, but as soon as you leave things go back to just as they are.

Why don’t you change your audience to the younger generation (high schools, colleges, vocational schools)? They have the opportunity to be the ‘change makers’ for businesses in the future. They haven’t been sucked into the black hole which is corporate America. If younger workers aren't shown the 'light' - the way things ought to and should be - they go to the very same corporations and accept how things are because they think it’s the only way it will ever be. The current status can change though. I take the train to work everyday and I’m observant of those around me. I see the faces of the 40+ year olds and they just looked drained of life – you can read it all over their faces. Save the next generation so they don’t have to live like those who dread their work – those who feel powerless. Bring your message to those who can start at the grassroots and revitalize businesses.

Posted by Brandon at August 29, 2006 9:20 AM

Tom,
Just like you do in this blog, you stmulate people to think! You are an "energy experience" that bounces people out of their box the moment you say "hello." And to think, they must listen...intently. When people listen, they change.

The respect that your beliefs and perspectives have given you should be shared with any type of organization...as long as you're having fun.

Dave Sovde

Posted by Dave Sovde at August 30, 2006 7:21 PM

YES BRANDON!!!!! Couldnt have said it better myself!

Posted by Rachel at August 31, 2006 9:59 AM

Tom,

Hmmmm, is this really an issue? If you don't talk to the defense industry, is it because you are against wars and aggression or against the security of the U.S.? Most businesses have to balance 'good' forces against 'bad' forces. When you speak a group, are you really casting a vote for their 'good' efforts or 'bad' actions?

You speak, you blog, you think, you are. Good speakers communicate a message that will be received by their audience. That's what makes them good speakers. The world is made up of people. Businesses are made up of people. The reason businesses exist lies around people's needs and desires. Your efforts to stretch people's minds, to get them to think a little differently than what has become routine for them is a worthy cause. You really do not know who you will reach that will make a difference in this world, how you will touch them or in what audience they will reside. You don't know who will take action or the actions they will take. The essence of life lies in action-oriented experiences. The work of a seed-planter, a catalyst and a thought stimulator should know no boundaries (imo).

All of that said, you are a man with a wife and family. Listen to everybody, determine how your actions may affect their feelings. If you can still spread your message to the extent that maintains your chosen work/life balance without speaking to those groups that would upset the feelings of those you care about, then do so and save the aggravation. If you have a particular message that you want to deliver to an unpopular group, then ask permission and sell the need. In the end, you want to have no regrets.

Posted by Matt Thevenot at September 2, 2006 5:28 AM