Comments

Tom,
As usual you hit the nail on the head. But why haven't more companies built exciting, dynamic, spirited, creative, entrepreneural, professional, and employee focused cultures? It's hard work. It's scary for some senior leaders and many don't know how to do it. It's a lot easier to simply say--"Our mission is to provide great customer service." This statement is a shield that allows non-leaders to make a change here and there but for the most part it's business as usual. Producing the type of work cultures you recommend requires strong leaders who themselves are spirited, creative, entrepreneural and professional. It also takes great commitment and perseverance. But the results are a "Wow" first for employees and second a "Wow" for customers. Bottom line for me--it's a war to find and select leaders who know how to build great cultures that attract great recruits and unleash the potentail in current employees.

Posted by Paul B. Thornton at September 16, 2007 7:12 PM

As far as I'm concerned, if your company is concerned about headhunting and recruiting talent, you're doomed. The companies that will succeed in the future will have an external focus and as you say Tom will have an internal focus that drives attention to external issues that are requirements for success. One of the great examples that come to mind is Nau, Inc. What Eric Reynolds' has done is found the business model of the future.

Posted by Justin Davey at September 16, 2007 8:26 PM

Tom -
It's interesting that you find it to be a wee bit adversarial out there with HR execs. HR! execs (clients of yours!!! ha! -don't they know what you're about?). If the perception that culture which fosters talent mattered (maybe most) were normative - you wouldn't get to globe trek. Be thankful:)

Posted by Stephen b Henault at September 16, 2007 8:33 PM

Yes, Tom.

I focus a ton with my clients on their internal brands, which are represented by what employees believe about the company. I have found that the best indicator of a strong internal brand is what I call a "Shared Belief of Who We Intend To Be." ... I'll do a post on this soon.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at September 16, 2007 8:42 PM

Fabulous 36 slides. Gen. Powell - he's been so all over the place - hard to see authentic much of anything. The Philo of Alexandria quote to me is overstatement ... most of us have it made with an easy lifestyle far removed from 'great battle' ... though the point is well taken about providing incredible respect ... life success yes!

Posted by Sean at September 17, 2007 9:04 AM

"The Philo of Alexandria quote to me is overstatement ... most of us have it made with an easy lifestyle far removed from 'great battle' ..."

John, I'd have to respectfully disagree. On the one hand, of course yes, we (the likes of me and presumably you) are spoiled rotten compared to the billion or two of our fellows living on $1 a day or less. On the other hand, there's that quote about many-most of us living lives of "quiet desperation." I run into numerous "successful" (by all normal measures) people dealing with a troubled child, spouse, parents, a job that is apparently the job of their dreams that brings zero satisfaction. And many fighting those interior wars have perfected a sunny outside persona. I do agree it's hardly the average person, but I also think there is a lot of "heavy stuff" going on with a lot of folks of which we are unaware and therefore insensitive to. The operational consequences of this are the subject of a much longer discussion.

(You may have caught me at the wrong moment, not only jet lagged in Australia, but in the midst of dealing from afar with two deeply distressing personal-family-peer situations, and feeling stratospheric guilt at my continued absenses.)

Posted by tom peters at September 17, 2007 10:53 AM

Agree then Tom - shall have to research Philo a bit more! Important to convey respect to the $1 per day person the same as meeting a billionaire potential customer. And everone's chemistry is different - so who knows what emotions & mental challenges one may have day to day?

Posted by Sean at September 17, 2007 11:15 AM

Tom,
From your faithful (free) editor:slide 24 mentions that three books are named on the next slide. None are listed on either the next "note" slide or the next "slide slide"!
Thanks.

Posted by Randy at September 17, 2007 1:44 PM

Yes, by god, YES!!!

Posted by s g at September 17, 2007 2:35 PM

Wish our managers were paying attention. Heard today about a youngster who has the fire for our business, got the training, took a closer look at us and moved on. Didn't even finish filling out the application. OUCH!

Thanks for continuing to yell, Tom, and may all become well with those you care for.

Posted by Lois Gory at September 17, 2007 3:45 PM

Hi Tom,

You may be interested in some of the posts about material competition vs. spiritual competition on my blog. If you can't find them, please let em know and I'll hunt them down.

We are moving from an age of material competition into one of spiritual (or creative/abstract/imaginary) competition. The tools and methods and emphases will be radically different--if not reversed--but there will still be competition, growth, priorities and "better". The victors will have radically different skill sets but I can assure you it is not a matter of "just being nice".

This is mirrored in science by the move from Newtonian (material) physics to quantum (particle or wave--material or spiritual) physics to the latest discoveries regarding dark energy and dark matter (completely imaginary and unmeasurable stuff estimated to comprise 96% of the universe--and the only way to account for the now enormous inaccuracies in quantum math).

In business it's a move from manufacturing to services to information to creativity.

Strictly speaking I guess you could say everything's moving from tangible to intangible to untangible.

As we're at the end of the intangible age, it appears that things like competition are leaving us, or that we'll become even more relativistic in the future, but that's not accurate.

It is a war, and although there will be much less blood spilled (maybe none), and many new, more loving weapons applied, the stakes are just as high, and the outcome just as important and the effects just as real.

The victors will almost certainly not come from inside existing businesses--they'll be the drop outs and freaks who just didn't fit.

And they'll make more money than even the most harried hedge fund managers doing a fraction of the work, enjoying themselves four hundred times more and maintain a belly laugh into the old age.

How?

It's all extremely simple. And happening right before out eyes.

Visit whiteg.com.

Posted by Eben Carlson at September 17, 2007 4:16 PM

Interesting that you use the example of the Royal Navy in the 18th and 19th Centuries. True, it was a model of excellence in many ways, due mostly to training. The training of Nelson's gun crews was a huge advantage over whoever was on the other side.

What the Royal Navy and the British Army of the time were good at was getting maximum results from unsophisticated sailors and soldiers. But in their "war for talent" the Royal Navy of the period relied on the press gang. Perhaps that's not the best recruiting model for us to use.

Posted by Wally Bock at September 17, 2007 4:22 PM

Bah.

Our people can't be that smart, after all they work here.

And our customers are obviously morons, after all they buy our product.

Posted by Billy Oblivion at September 17, 2007 10:26 PM

There are few absolutes in this lifetime. Death, taxes, and taking care of the people who take care of the customers as the "secret" to organizational excellence however have, in my experience" consistently proven to be among them. What good does attracting folks do if you are unable to retain them, especially given the "me,me,me "attitudes of those who wear the label "Millenials" (the various author's observations not mine)that I have read about recently? As you pointed out in "A Passion for Excellence", a strong people philosophy is essential to excellence in service and innovation......period. " People don't dislike work....help them to understand mutual objectives and they'll drive themselves to unbelieveable excellence" was one of the tenets of a company you spoke of named Teleflex in the book and something I have seen work in every organization I have had the pleasure to lead a team in. Accountability is definitely higher in a "humane" workplace as you point out in a later post because,like motivation, it is "unlocked" from within. Much of what passes for leadership and organizational theory today seem to me to be just variations of the themes of the Juran's, Deming's, Drucker's, Crosby's provided us and folks like you "translated" by giving examples to illustrate how they perhaps could be adapted (or perhaps not)at any level of any organization. Why can't the HR types see this? Maybe they are isolated from the realities of the frontline and afraid to find out from the source perhaps? Meeting a customers needs and expectations, whether internal or external, is essential to retain them. A work environment that promotes trust, an environment that is challenging and with opportunities for development, progression, and rewards for performance,and one where all people are treated with respect is a good start. Rocket science it ain't.....

Posted by Dave at September 17, 2007 11:46 PM

"I" (TALENT!) want to go and work for GOOGLE!
Its NOT about "you" choosing/selecting me anymore, its about "I", want to go and work for.... and if "I", want to go and work for...it really does'nt matter if you choose/select me or not. "I", decide where I go now, not you.

Posted by Craig Jones at September 18, 2007 3:55 AM

Craig

I agree with you but!

I think it largely depends on the market - which way the advantage lies. With the employer or employee

Increasingly I am seeing young people coming into business looking out for themselves to an extent but more often looking for work that is meaningful in the world. They want to make a difference. They are looking for companies with strong community programs as well as big bonuses To some extent they are less Me Me Me than in the past. The companies that thrive will have to meet their needs on a moral as well as a personal level.

The Royal Navy was made great through training - true but also great through experience (on the job training!). The RN blockaded much of the French fleets into staying in harbour. The RN had to learn seamanship the hard way sailing on a lee shore in adverse conditions.

Two great examples of leadership of this period are Sir Edward Pellew in his epic encounter with Droits de l'Homme (a much bigger ship) during a gale and most of Thomas Cochrane's naval career.

Interestingly when the RN came up against equal seamanship and bigger ships (class for class) in the form of the upstart United States in 1812 the results didn't always go Britania's way...

viagra online uk no prescription

Posted by PaulH at September 18, 2007 6:52 AM

Interesting too Paul that it used to be England's mandate that it have TWICE the Navy as any other country - naturally finances & worldviews change - change & taxes as certainty ... ah for the days of the sun never setting on the British Empire!

Tom, - Philo is quite the stoic & if here now may be doing oratory on the Mall.

" ...jet lagged in Australia, but in the midst of dealing from afar with two deeply distressing personal-family-peer situations, and feeling stratospheric guilt at my continued absenses ..."

Aristotle might say " ... take care of the divine gift first since it manifests high spirits ... metaphysics is key." And lucky we wealthy world citizens that may have an impact - lucky family to have us as peers - no time for guilt!

Posted by Sean at September 18, 2007 9:43 AM

Hi Paul

I think your missing the point, no, thats not true, Its me that needs to improve my communication.

Anyway back to TPs comments - "but a 99% internal effort to create such an exciting, spirited, entrepreneurial, diverse, humane "professional home" that people will be lining up by the gazillions (physically or electronically) to try and get a chance to come and live in our house and become what they'd never imagined they could become!"

I (TALENT! the top 5% of a very narrow task) Want to go and work at GOOGLE! I, want to go and work, at - an exciting, spirited, entrepreneurial, diverse, humane "professional home" and, live there. AND (and this is so beautiful), become, what I never imagined I could become.

The name does'nt have to be GOOGLE its just the closest, well known eg. I could think of Paul.

GOOGLE dont attract, intice or "bribe" with material gain. GOOGLE is just being GOOGLE, a culture, an environment, that pretty much fits the description above. And IF, you are talent, then come and "live (not literally, but "live" suits there culture more than the word "work"...since "live" means I have no fear of being punished by a boss) here - its entirely up to you. Advantage I know not of.

Posted by Craig Jones at September 18, 2007 10:19 AM

PS: BusinessWeek new cover story Careers Special Report - Best Places to Launch a Career - link below:

1. Deloitte
2. PriceWaterhouse
3. Ernst & Young
4. IBM
5. Google
6. Microsoft
7. Disney
8. Accenture

Posted by John at September 18, 2007 11:00 AM

While RFK indeed said, "Some men see things as they are...", as quoted in your slides, the quotation is properly credited to George Bernard Shaw.

As an HR guy, I am pleased that I have an ally in trying to convince that the "talent war" is less about dragging bucks bait than creating a place and products worth the effort, which will attract and entertain talented people. Our office motto, thunk up by management, of course, is: "Serving Our Most Valuable Asset - People."

Posted by Brian at September 19, 2007 12:31 PM