dispatches from the new world of work

Department of Amplifications

#1. Re Generals. Many interpretations of my recent Post about the talent and pay of Generals have appeared in Comments. Hooray! Let me speak a bit more clearly about my implicit message that was perhaps too implicit:

I think 4-star generals have a much tougher job than the average CEO, in fact harder than most any CEO's job. They deal daily with the politics of the White House and 535 Members of Congress; and other services and defense contractors; and the other headstrong generals in their command—etc, etc, etc. (None of these people—from Private to President do what she or he is told upon being ordered to do so. CEOs' ability to give orders and expect them to be obeyed is, in my experience, higher than that of the average general.) (And Congress treats generals like fans do football coaches—every Congressperson is a military expert, in his or her own mind, who knows the 4-star general's business better than the general.)

On a daily basis, 4-star generals must oversee issues of readiness that affect the lives or deaths of thousands or tens of thousands of soldiers—not to mention the safety and very future of the United States of America. (Sorry, it ain't the same when P&G boss A.G. Lafley is considering whether or not to approve a color change—heaven forbid—in the Tide box.) Four-star generals also may have to make quick decisions that could lead to the life or death of thousands of soldiers; and in response to an act of WMD terrorism, perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Despite these incredible challenges, we get, in my experience, with amazing consistency, enormously talented and thoughtful people holding these top military jobs. That is to say that the "supply" of exceptionally talented people in these positions of incredible power and significance is not dependent on the amount they are paid. In private CEO land, we are led to believe that only bozos would be leading companies if we were unwilling to fork over immense sums of money; I think that's mostly ego as one boss compares his pay packet to his 499 Fortune 500 peers'. I likewise take delight in the relatively low ratio of top boss to corporal pay in the military—seems to work for them.

I am a vociferous champion of the Laws of Market Forces. And no particular enemy of high CEO pay. On the other hand, I think it is a lot less related to "supply and demand for extraordinary talent" than these corporate chieftains would admit. (Please feel free to discount all this—remember I am Commander in Chief of the cadre of thinkers who believe that "luck is the last 99%" in the making of great leaders—or management gurus; and ego and luck are the "99.9% factor" in the eclipse of said "great men"—usually men, of course.)

#2. Turkeys. My emphasis was on the word per se—and the implied valuation of one's fellows. Of course there are people who are misfits from the start who evaded the selection process. And of course there are those who cannot grow with the job. Etc. Etc. And etc. But I object—passionately—to the labeling of any one other than the likes of terrorists or serial murderers as "turkeys." I don't mean to play the "religion card"—I'm not very formally religious—but I am Jeffersonian in my belief that "all men are created equal" (while fully acknowledging the "slave oversight" and the "women oversight"). Thence, calling a total misfit of an employee a "turkey" is offensive and inexcusable to me—and revelatory of the speaker.

Tom Peters posted this on 12/28/06.

Comments

1 Generals - I bow to your greater knowledge of Generals and the nearest equivalent I know of is the CEO in NHS hospitals over here who have one hell of a difficult job. Senior Medical Staff are nominally â€˜responsibleâ€™ to CEOâ€™s on the management structure diagram but frankly do what the hell they like in spite of the CEOâ€™s existence â€“ Doctors often see the CEO as merely a pen pusher who gets in the way of real work. This often makes the CEOâ€™s job at best tricky and at worst impossible. Add to that the pressure of politicians who have an interest in using the NHS as a political pawn at a local and national level and the increasing demands of patients as informed customers. I would be surprised to find one NHS CEO who understands the word 'relax.'

2 Turkeys â€“ I agree it is insulting language to refer to any other human being in such demeaning terms. All men (and women) ARE created equal and please donâ€™t apologise for the â€˜religious cardâ€™ I think it is wonderful to highlight the role model of our greatest guru who welcomed the poor as well as the rich, the sick as well as the healthy and the sinners as well as the pure.

3 Happy new Year to all at TP

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 28, 2006 5:55 PM

Generals:
Since there are 30 active duty 4 star generals at any one time and a bazillion CEO's you are, of course, correct. But they are supported by 302 other generals and who knows how many colonels.
I'm surprised that you endorse an organization that is the polar opposite of flat.

Posted by Mark at December 28, 2006 7:35 PM

Tom,

Totally agree with assesment about 4 star generals-superior leaders who are probably underpaid.

Also wanted to point out that in addition to the hundreds of thousands of military and civilian professionals under their direct control, many 4-stars (Combatant Commanders)can also play a significant role in the lives of the millions of people who inhabit his area of responsibility. Not only in military action, but also humanitarian missions like the 2004 Tsunami response.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to come up with a CEO anywhere who has that much total responsibility.

The lack of flat-ness in the military is less a symptom of inability to change and more one of a fail safe organization that can lose ANY person in the chain and continue to operate.

Posted by kurt w at December 29, 2006 12:16 AM

I agree with both points, though I'm not sure the issue of generals is very relevant to the corporate world. I think one reason the pay ratios are much saner in the military is loyalty. It's not like some other military or service branch is going to try to hire away your 4-star generals - and it requires a great deal of loyalty just to get to that position in the first place (having to work your way up from lieutenant - actually all the way from cadet or ROTC student). I imagine that mercenary forces wouldn't have an incentive to pay millions of dollars to pull away a 4-star general because they don't have the same scale of logistical issues. They might do better with a colonel.

In CEO-land, there will always be some pressure from outside to pull away a relatively low-paid CEO who is producing great results. I suppose there are some things which can be done in terms of corporate culture to encourage loyalty, and I think companies need a longer-term view of CEO compensation, so that disloyalty and short-term gimmicks are not rewarded.

About calling employees "turkeys", that is a pretty cold-hearted shorthand way of saying that an employee is not a good fit for the needs of the company. The problem in fit may have more to do with how the employee has been managed than with anything intrinsic in the employee's character or capacities. Even if there is a flaw in the character and capacities, it was arguably a management failure to hire someone like that in the first place.

Posted by 123fun at December 29, 2006 5:10 AM

Tom - was in a van pool with [Ret. Maj. Gen.] Edward Grillo, Jr., president of new Air Force memorial ... they are a cool breed - he seemed to always wear his black leather flight jacket - even when Arlington was 10 deg. F.

http://www.hilltoptimes.com/story.asp?edition=255&storyid=7012

Posted by sean_gen_grillo at December 29, 2006 9:07 AM

Tom - re: Your turkey amplification. What I found more peculiar about Welch's Law of Turkeys was the "2 out of 16" employees will fall into this category. This premise is ridiculous to begin with - it is entirely possible to have a team with 16 employees who are all great. Yes, if push came to shove, you might have to acknowledge that some are stronger than others, but this doesn't mean that the others aren't worthy. I can think of few things more demoralizing than working in a place that's perpetually looking to weed out "2 out of 16" employees. Good management practice calls for handling employees who aren't working out, but it sure doesn't call for artificially creating the category.

Also a kinder, gentler replacement for the word turkey: wrong horse for the course. (I heard this one from a board member of a small company I worked for. He was a retired Marine officer, so this may have been a military expression. I wasn't familiar with it until I heard him use it.)

Posted by Maureen Rogers at December 30, 2006 6:05 PM

Tom
Please explain what you mean by the 99.9% factor of ego and luck being the eclipse of said great men. Thanks.

Posted by Paul at January 1, 2007 8:52 PM