Comments

Isn't there an element of self-fulfilling prophecy here in that if we, as leaders, teachers, coaches, (parents?) treat those we are tasked to lead or guide as being dunces they will respond accordingly to our level of expecatation.

And conversely, don't great leaders, teachers etc make us believe we have more to give than we thought we had and accordingly raise the bar for our expectations of ourselves.

Brain research seems to indicate that most of us are seriously underusing our brain's innate capacities, so maybe we all have much more within us than we think.

Tom, I think what has kept me tuned into your writing is a consistent thread that comes through it all, that excellence is within reach of everyone, not just the Einsteins of this world.

Posted by tomjam at September 12, 2006 8:43 AM

Tom - it shows that PEOPLE and TALENT are fun for you.

PD of a different time/place and maybe a born and raised skeptic - the Stalin/Hitler/WWI-II/Depression ordeal put many of that AGE perhaps on "edge".

Posted by sean at September 12, 2006 8:54 AM

Great quote from William James

" Most people live, whether physically, intellectually or morally, in a very restricted circle of their potential being. They make very small use of their possible consciousness, and of their soul's resources in general, much like a man who, out of his whole bodily organism, should get into a habit of using and moving only his little finger."

Posted by tomjam at September 12, 2006 9:03 AM

Tom, I think you might need to modify the commonly accepted definition of excellence. Here's why...

The common theme that comes out of your powerpoints seems to be "Only the BEST" is "Excellent".

While that's an absolutely amazing concept when you want to set a goal, or design something new, it's not possible that everyone is "Excellent". There has to be someone who comes in second, if someone comes in first..

And extending that definition, anyone who comes in second or later is mediocre.. These mediocre guys are the folks who are going to need your help the most, to be a little less mediocre.. :-)))

Maybe Excellence itself should be on a sliding scale, where on one end, you're mediocre, and on the other, you're excellent. A company can make the choice to move slowly, step by step towards excellence, or take a huge risky jump towards excellence, with the attendant risk of failure..

Hmmm.. maybe Drucker and you could both be right..

Oh, and I'm proud to be mediocre.. hahaha

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at September 12, 2006 9:04 AM

Tom – I love reading about how you view people and the world. I agree with you – but in some ways I see PD’s point as well.

There are millions of people out there. The ones that are tuned in to your work and the work of others like you (not that anyone is like you!) truly desire to learn and grow and change. However, there are many that don’t. They don’t see the need, or the value, and they won’t invest what it takes. They don’t like being asked the hard questions and they certainly don’t like to hear that change begins (and continues) personally – with each of us as individuals. These are the people that believe all their company’s issues are caused and perpetuated by everyone else but them.

While it might be possible to move these people, direct confrontation with new ideas often doesn’t work. It annoys them and frustrates the “change agent”.

I believe that there are enough people that want to move forward and grow on which to concentrate. I also think that when you concentrate your efforts there you expand the influence of new ideas (e.g., these people might be better positioned to reach the “hardliners”).

The fact is – you’re invited to speak – so someone wants to hear your message! The rest are along for the ride – they’ll either do something with it immediately, they won’t, or it will be something in the back of their minds that surfaces at some point in the future when enough has happened to make them ready to change.

Posted by ann michael at September 12, 2006 9:26 AM

I always enjoy the variety of subjects covered in your blogs. They get me thinking along a different path and those different paths are usually where some interesting solutions lie.

"The purpose of professional schools is to educate competent mediocrities."..... I find the same to be true of many large corporations.

"The purpose of corporate culture is to: educate and reward competent mediocrity, develop only enough work to keep busy (or appear busy), take way too long to launch new products, allow employees to quickly migrate back to their safe little silos and comfort zones (most presidents and CEO's give up after a couple of years as the system fights hard to return to warm and fuzzy mediocrity), attack outside resources and creatives that create too much activity and too much success in too little time as the devil himself."

Tom

Posted by Tom at Proteus at September 12, 2006 9:29 AM

All excellent performers rise above the processes, procedures, and rules of thumb that are taught in school (and are necessary for the proper functioning of large organizations). By definition, we can't all be excellent at the same thing. And no one can be excellent at everything. Maybe the average manager (a competent mediocrity from B-school) is a great kids hockey coach. Which is more important? Each individual has to decide where they are going to have an impact.

Furthermore, mediocrity is a prerequisite for excellence. Every excellent performer has at least a brief layover at mediocrity.

Posted by Matt Richards at September 12, 2006 9:35 AM

I don't think Drucker disrespected all people in management (or staff, either).

One thing Drucker knew (and I heard him say it explicitly in a presentation once) is that everybody knows something you don't. (To which I add my own "everybody knows something IMPORTANT you don't".) Which is why he was such an advocate for Management By Walking Around.

His cynicism around business school training was, I believe, this: They were structured by people who thought either like academics or people who thought like manufacturers. The first group were too vaporous for his taste, the latter too military. In management, excellence rarely springs from uniformity, s.o.p. The whole QA movement, to standardize away from failure and excellence, reinforces median outcomes, for example, intentionally stomping out any chance for excellence. So when a school is attempting to reinforce s.o.p. at the cost of experimentation, it's basically QA for management-units, and it (happily) guarantees uniformediocrity. EVen biz-school innovation generally tries to apply a standards-based set of methods. (Exception: Rotman School in Toronto.)

In uncompetitive systems, mediocrity has a decent chance to survive, occasionally thrive. In competitive ones, well...

Posted by jeff angus at September 12, 2006 9:48 AM

Jeff Angus puts it well above, actually illustrating Drucker's use of a warning track before the outfield wall of management imitations.

My reading of Drucker says he simply expected that ordinary people could accomplish a lot in teams, if properly organized. His use of the term "idiots" in response to Bennis is simply a bit of overstatement to pull the thinking back to the middle.

His writing consitently neither over nor under-estimated the ability of people. Rather, it was about very ordinary people, full of frailties, accomplishing something much bigger than themselves.

I don't think he had a beef with you or Bennis, Tom. Simply a slightly different perspective.

Posted by Joe Ely at September 12, 2006 9:57 AM

Perhaps it was more an indictment of "professional schools" than a label of the people they produce. Perhaps what PD was thinking, and I've heard you lament the same thing, was how MBA programs (for instance) produce conformity, etc.

While I work with and around some terrific people (and know many people who may be mediocre in some areas while being stellar in others - I mean, we can't all be Renaissance men who are spectacular at all things), I know some real idiots, too. I imagine we're all morons about something. Perhaps PD was really stupid about somethings. Chronic stupidity is what I'm hoping to avoid. Some days it's quite hard.

Posted by Randy Cantrell at September 12, 2006 10:23 AM

Maybe Mr. Drucker didn't mean that it was about organising a bunch of people who are idiots, but that the people who try to do the organising are idiots, i.e. the organisers are the organising idiots.

BTW, when are you Americanz going to learn about using "s" and not "z" ?!?!?!? :-)

Posted by Mark JF at September 12, 2006 10:31 AM

At least with respect to the mediocrity comment, couldn't he simply been expressing disdain for classroom environments over real world business situations? In other words, those who come out of MBA programs are often doomed to mediocrity because the "psychology of previous investment" fools them into thinking they have learned what it's like out there or how it should be from a sterile controlled classroom environment. Reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield in back to school :-)

Posted by Michael at September 12, 2006 10:33 AM

viagra toronto

Pessimists & cynics like to call themselves "realists," but my assessment of the world is that the only realists around are the optimists - the ones who see the possibilities and opportunities, not those who inappropriately focus on the mediocrities and challenges.

So I contend there is no such thing as rose colored glasses - that's just an insult tossed around by people wearing "dookie-colored glasses," who see the world (& the people in it) as much worse than they actually are...

Posted by Dan Ward at September 12, 2006 11:03 AM

"His cynicism around business school training": Jeff, running to Seoul; no time for a thoughtful reply. But the extract from your Post above is a misreading. (Doubtless my fault.) Peter was indeed a vociferous critic of B-schools. But in this case he was talking about an aspiration. As I read it he was saying that ... AT THEIR BEST ... the contribution of professional schools was to convert "mediocrities" into "competent mediocrities."

Posted by tom peters at September 12, 2006 11:04 AM

Sorry for 2 posts, but another thought occurs to me. Sometimes being stupid (aka "mediocre") pays off. Coming to a problem with no idea about where to go can lead to some innovative solutions. Others, who have superior knowledge vow, "That'll never work" and begin to provide evidence (see Sutton/Pfeffer's work on half-truths and total non-sense) why. Trudging forward in complete stupidity/ignorance/mediocrity, it can often work out quite well. Something like that quote (don't remember who said it) about behind every genius were others who told him why it wouldn't work. Perhaps some value is found in holding ourselves in a more humble view of "not knowing" so we can grow more. For years, I've told new hires (regardless of the job), "I already know what I know. What I don't know is what you know. So teach me." It does provide a more interesting life, and greater knowledge/experience. It also happens to be true.

Posted by Randy Cantrell at September 12, 2006 11:07 AM

Elaborating upon the view of Mark JF above,
I´d say this statement from Drucker is best interpreted as:

We need disorganisation - only geniuses can disorganise the "right" way, so they must be viwed by present organisations as idiots - the only way out left....

Posted by Gerson B at September 12, 2006 11:49 AM

My belief is that there are large numbers of people that do not (today) have a passion for excellence, who do not “get it” when it comes to personal growth and investing in oneself. It is certainly not uncommon for young people in particular to have a predisposition towards other activities … of a more social nature … that can provide a distraction from work, learning and commitment. Engaging these people is a challenge that when met provides great satisfaction and the realization that there are many, many bright and capable people in the world! I can also understand how great people, like Drucker, might feel the effort should lie more with the trainee rather than the trainer … and that the result may well be mediocrity! I would find it hard to believe Drucker could be so successful if his views were generally so negative.

Posted by Kevin Dee at September 12, 2006 11:53 AM

I greatly admire both Tom and PD. And I think I understand both of their viewpoints. I still cling to the belief that most employees come to their work with great hope of doing great things. Then years later, I find many of them embracing mediocrity and just holding on. It is easy to have cynicism creep in. But I am rarely cynical about the person. I have come to believe that our strucure and practices in most corporations conspire to produce mediocrity through entitlement and risk aversion. Tom, that is why I get excited about PSF...fundamental change in practice and structure. Maybe Mr. Drucker just got tired...it reminds me of the day Dr. Deming stood up in front of our assembled group of execs at GM and said "You're all hacks!". Patience is a virtue, but just maybe there is a finite limit. As a learner, I am glad to have lived in a time of great teachers, and I certainly consider Peter Drucker one of those...

Posted by Mike Neiss at September 12, 2006 12:19 PM

Maybe I missed it but I read his comment as being an indictement of the schools - not the attendees (well at least not directly). Saying that they create educated, competent mediocrities. If that is his point my only disagreement would be that I wouldn't limit it to professional schools - I'd include all schools.

Posted by Steve B. at September 12, 2006 12:33 PM

I fall into the Arun Sadhashivan and Tom at Proteus camps from their comments in terms of two things:

1. You and PD are both right, and excellence is for the very few and the rest of us fall into the mediocre camp. and
2. Professional schools and corporations are safe havens for the mediocre and best serve those in that camp. Occasionally, a few of them join the ranks of the very best.

By the way, your examples of Starbucks and Virgin are noteworthy in that neither Howard Schultz nor Richard Branson attended professional schools nor received a boost from previous corporate experiences.

Posted by Lewis Green at September 12, 2006 12:59 PM

Mediocrity and excellence are states of mind and not characteristics of a person. We are not born medicore - we achieve it. Thus to call people mediocre is incorrect understanding.

Posted by Thomas Alexander at September 12, 2006 8:29 PM

Great discussion here, although I think the impulse to rationalize away the apparent contradiction between Drucker's misanthropy and his inspirational genius is misguided. Drucker was like Walt Whitman: Did he contradict himself? Very well, then. He was large; he contained multitudes. In the end, I respect Drucker even more for his ability to maintain a steely-eyed, even misanthropic view of humanity while continuing to hope for our future and inspire us all to do better.

Ed

Posted by Ed Batista at September 12, 2006 11:57 PM

Peter Drucker was the first author I read that insisted on the fact that in business as in life problem definition is more important than problem solving.
I belive that in his view professional schools were/are increasingly focused on solving the compentency issue in a given framework. In a sense the problem is already defined prior to joining the school: by focusing on this particular curriculum we, the professional school, have already decided that these are the tools you need to succeed. And, by the way, we have this post-school employment figures to prove it.
Along the same line I feel that his use of the word mediocre hinted at the quality of aspirations that are fostered by the professional schools rather than at the intellectual capacity of the attendants.
Perhaps in his way he wanted to point out that all good professional schools are efficient in solving a given problem but ineffective in the choice of the problem / definition of the problem they choose to solve.

Posted by Mihai Muntean at September 13, 2006 6:24 AM

I concur witht those who said that Drucker's comment was more a statement of reality about what many professional schools churn out. Isn't that why Mintzberg is trying a different approach to curriulum for his graduate management degree?

Posted by Jeffrey at September 13, 2006 7:07 AM

Drucker addressed this question of mediocrity explicitly in "The Effective Executive". He says that the effective executive should play to his strengths and should forget about working on his weaknesses. He goes on to say that when you spend your effort on working on your weaknesses, the best that you can achieve is to improve from being utterly hopeless, to being mediocre.

Based on this, I think Drucker's statement which is highlighted by Tom is really an indictment of B-Schools in that they concentrate on trying to fill gaps in the students' knowledge (weaknesses), rather than in helping the student turn what he is good at, into what he will excel at.

where to order viagra

Posted by Fredd Kambo at September 13, 2006 5:40 PM

Define "mediocre".

Small children believe everyone can be better than everyone else. Are they right?

Posted by Will at September 15, 2006 2:11 PM