Comments

Jeff,
Aren't you comparing watermellons and grapes. Welch was leading a major organization--200,000+ people. Granville is an individual contributor. Leaders create change--change creates conflict which is stressful and painful. How do you convince a 1000 people to pursue excellence--5 or 6 sigma. Don't get me wrong--I don't believe leaders need to dictators who thrive on putting people down. However a lot of what I have read about Welch is that he was tough and demanding, but also frequently took action to develop people and build their confidence.

Posted by Paul Thornton at January 23, 2008 4:56 PM

I think the key point is the numeric/achievement difference between Five Sigma and Six is non-significant. Many people, it seems like Welch is one of them, lose their sense of perspective in trying to squeeze the last bit of juice out of the subject profession/organisation/craft. And in doing so, they lose perspective/humanity. Glanville is a Five Sigma who retained his perspective/humanity. So what I said (probably not clearly enough) is that if going after the insignificant (statistically 0.000057133) difference that separates Excellence from "Whatever It takes" can lead to a less-excellent final outcome.

I think you suggested it may be more complicated than that, and if so, I'll agree with you. Like "red hair" and "freckles", there are human behavioural attributes or organizational affects that aren't linked deterministically, but that appear together a lot. And, I'll suggest, that the "Whatever It Takes" gene seems to appear together a lot with "functional sociopath" or "operantly monomaniacal/low regard for consequences to others", like Welch (who had such a tin ear for how his retirement package would look ( http://tinyurl.com/2974dg , http://tinyurl.com/28nnqy).

The functional sociopath boss DOES build people up and tears them down both. Each makes the other a more powerful fear motivator. The fear of disapproval, the fear of losing the approval one got, the relief of not being singled out this time ( http://cmdr-scott.blogspot.com/2003/12/part-i-yankee-leadershipsociopathic.html ).

Regardless of Welch's other wonderful attributes, I haven't seen that what it takes to do "whatever it takes" yields net gains between the Fifth Sigma and the Sixth, certainly not enough to cover the human cost to the doer or the done.

Posted by jeff angus at January 24, 2008 1:54 AM

I do wonder a bit about the whole JW legend. I did some temporary work a while back in 3 different bits of GE and I can honestly say the cultures in them were very very different to each other (perhaps reflecting the length of time since being acquired by GE?). I find it hard to believe only one overriding style existed in an organistaion that big.

I don't mean this comment to put down JW - he was a strong leader who has had a lot of influence but my experience of grass roots at GE was very much "Jack who?" (not literally!). Are we in danger of reading too much into the style at the top?

On the subject of fear. I think the whole fear thing is complete gibberish. I have never seen anyone perform well whilst afraid. Sure they will do their utmost to deliver what YOU want to YOUR deadline according to YOUR criteria - That is not a performing team, that is reliance on one individual - you. At best you get short term burst in activity but you can kiss creativity, risk taking, initiative and above all speed of Boyd cycle good bye.

Posted by PaulH at January 24, 2008 4:03 AM

Great comment on fear, Pauk H. Fear is indeed crippling, even if the desired performance is achieved. It's a question of sustainability, even health. The shared respect and responsibility of a project "In Pursuit of Excellence" may bring a new meaning to life-work balance. Excellence is its own competition.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 24, 2008 8:01 AM

Paul H.
Doesn't fear make you focus. I was recently skiing and somehow wound up on a black diamond (most difficult) trail. The fear of falling off the cliff forced me to focus and perform at my best. However if fear is present 24/7--that's a different story!

Posted by Paul B. Thornton at January 24, 2008 9:06 AM

Paul B. You make a valid point and I think the key, as you say, is the length of time that the fear is present.

My experience is that managers who use fear gain an advantage for a short period. Remember that the worst kind of person is disengaged but still working for you. Your attrition may be low but you have turned folks off.

It's often about balance. Hard driving types often loose more creative sensitive souls who appear "not to be upto it". When you need creativity in the business then you don't have it. Good managers motivate each individual in a way that suites that person.

Yes some people thrive on the competition and the excitment. Like fear I think that competition turns more people off than on. The problem is that competition and fear can often motivate one or two people who really perform. This confirms to the manager that their approach works and it's upto the other staff to respond.

Posted by PaulH at January 24, 2008 9:25 AM

Put bluntly, any management technique that works on negative emotion has a short shelf life.

Posted by PaulH at January 24, 2008 9:26 AM

Bulletin:

This is NOT a word game. Change...

Fear to reverance...

Competition to excellence.

These things the individual control. With this change, I wonder if the sustainability of a project through team effort can move forward without negative energy.

I also wonder if with the flattening of the world through technology a la Mr. Friedman, if "soft skills" will increasingly become the determing factor, the profit enhancer, the global distinguisher.

As Tom says, "Words matter."

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 24, 2008 10:45 AM

I wholeheartedly agree that fear is but a short term motivator. And when management relies on it, it often turns into a "crying wolf" scenario. In my years at GM, the mantra was improve or we will shut you down. And by the way, there was some truth to that. However, after hearing it again and again, people became numb to the message. Paul, I may be reading something into your comment that you didn't mean, but I think competition is an absolutely necessary component of excellence. The best performing organizations I have been part of were full of people who knew who our competition was and how we were performing compared to them. Bluntly, if you don't want to win, don't complain about losing and paying the price of job losses and lack of monetary rewards. thanks all...

Posted by Mike Neiss at January 24, 2008 10:47 AM

I don't like the way that Tom's opinion, "Welch comes across as ... soulless" is taken here as a given. Nor that 6 sigma = soulless. Any management system looked at in forensic detail will look dry and soulless; what gives it colour and life is the management culture that operates it.

On the subject of fear, and acknowledging that I don't know anything about baseball or Doug Glanville, as balanced and charming as he sounds, I'd be prepared to bet a few shillings that he's experienced fear and learned how to use it to his advantage. What he seems to have in abundance is perspective.

BTW: I'm not sure your stats about 6 sigma are correct.

Posted by Mark JF at January 24, 2008 11:44 AM

I wonder if how we look at competition matters. Yes, it can be agreed that competition is a fact of business life, meaning mere numbers. But as an internal means of motivation, I wonder if "the pursuit of excellence" through a process of team effort will be the distinguishing factor.

After all, it's billions of people in the world, increasingly using the same technology. Yes, competition matters. But excellence seems better. Excellence is itself a motivator. How do we get everyone working in this way? Through processes and tools like the PSF. Is it simply a matter of process and how we do what we do that will in the long run have a greater impact world-wide? Mike, I completely defer to your experience.

Another thought...why is it that we do not like to talk about issues like stress and health in the work place? Do these all-important issues have no relevance to performance, hence profit? Maybe this is where the billions of people come in? If one's health is compromised or if one doesn't quite measure up in a negative environment, there will always be another. Negativity squashes creativity. Beauty is everywhere.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 24, 2008 11:46 AM

Judith I am not sure I agree (or more likely I don't understand). Fear is an emotion by it's very nature it's hard to change that to reverence. I can stop fearing somebody perhaps, but I am not going to respect (revere) that person because of how they made me feel - the most I would feel is pity for that person's failings as a manager.

Mike - I think there is a difference between competition and negative competitive behaviour. I totally agree that knowing your competition and driving towards excellence them is essential.

What I am talking about is negative internal competitive behaviour often setup artifically where the culture is to beat your peers not the real competition. This tends to defocus the org to what is really important.

It could be argued that Excellence is a values based factor whereas competition is a situational based factor. Excellence transcends competition and becomes a goal in it's own right (and often means you beat the competition)

Posted by PaulH at January 24, 2008 11:49 AM

Judith I think we posted at the same time. My disagreement was to your earlier post!

Posted by PaulH at January 24, 2008 11:51 AM

FEAR AS MOTIVATOR
Paul Thornton said: Doesn't fear make you focus. I was recently skiing and somehow wound up on a black diamond (most difficult) trail. The fear of falling off the cliff forced me to focus and perform at my best.

Certainly. And if you have a minute and read Glanville's op-ed, you'll see he agrees with you and me. Glanville's point seems to me to be that it's a critical ingredient in the recipe, not the dish. Managing that (enough to movitate, not so much as to degrade judgement or human factors/performance) is the challenge. If you don't contain it, you stop playing the game, the game ends up playing you.

Another note: There ARE staff people who respond best, or in some cases only to fear. Usually these individuals has an abusive parent or guardian. But the executive who behaves as though he or she is a sociopath can get what seem to be good results out of such employees. And because of Angus' First Law of Organizational Behavior (All human systems tend to be self-amplifying), the acts-as-though-sociopath tends to collect and retain those thus motivated. Of course as PaulH and Judith Ellis both stated cogently, it's a short-term performance push that requires ever greater affect to sustain & almost guarantees that whoever inherits the operation won't be able to hold it together (in a more transparent, visible and extreme realm, see "Saddam Hussein", "Dr. François Duvalier")

STATS
MarkJF suggested: I'm not sure your stats about 6 sigma are correct.

I'm open to correction; will you point out/point me to a better one? Thanks.

Posted by jeff angus at January 24, 2008 12:55 PM

When I learn of companies
that ultra-prioritize six sigma,
I get worried we are becoming
a culture of numbers worshipers
like the Pythagoreans –
with an obsession on numbers above all else.

Like most all others
I applaud quality,
but the fixation on six sigma
is a classic case of
confusing the method with the goal.
And while one of our goals should always be product quality,
It should never be the only one.
There are larger, over-arching goals,
which includes quality –
but it is not quite so mono-cultural.
You simply can never forget the people.
Everyone says this,
but precious few deliver.

False dichotomies abound.
We all know examples (never enough though)
where great quality is achieved in companies
where people actually love to work as well.
You can have both.

Would you what your son to work for a
six sigma-fascinated place?
Would you be happy if you daughter worked there?
Would you like a job there?

Posted by Jerry Brown at January 24, 2008 1:27 PM

PaulH-- great comments. Let me try to clarify the distinction made between fear and reverance and competition and excellence. Whereas fear more often demobilizes (or in the case of danger ignite a quick response, reverence more often engages this mind at least, sparking creativity.

Feelings? I not terribly big on them--that is, at least, on how others make me feel. (The operative word is here is make.) Reason generally sets in. The idea is not to focus on how others make us feel, but rather on engaging our own minds to a response, or better yet a solution.

Regarding changing competition to excellence, it's all about transformation and your words are so well spoken. So much so, I'd like to repeat them, if not for others, for my benefit lone: "Excellence transcends competition and becomes a goal in its own right (and often means you beat the competition." Beauty is everywhere...indeed.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 24, 2008 1:36 PM

What a fabulous bunch of comments.

99.99999980268th percentile,
99.99994266969th percentile

Pass the pills please Nurse … I just don’t understand numbers - so I have an annoying (to some) habit of ignoring them …. But I think I know something about feelings and I’ve yet to meet the person who says;

*‘I can’t wait to go to work tomorrow because I’m terrified of the boss’
*‘I get such a fabulous buzz out of worrying about making mistakes at work because of the fear culture’
*‘We get results in our organisation because everyone is scared sh******s of the boss’
*‘Come and work for us – you will hate the boss and that’s good for you’

I do agree a short term fear never can be positive – I like the ski-ing analogy.

David Beckham said recently on TV that the two best coaches he’s played under gained his respect through being in fear of them (Sir Alex Ferguson and Fabio Capello). Beckham went on to say they were caring and supportive as well. He regards Sir Alex as a father figure in his life - not because of the ‘fear factor’ but because he helped him develop as a person as well as a footballer.

Motivating by fear just never works if it is continuous.

Actually I get a sick feeling in my stomach when I read the ‘celebration’ of ANYONE who rules by fear. There is something simply very uncaring about that whole belief system. Sorry it’s just not for me .. Ever .. Never!

I remain firmly and very proudly in the camp of positive reinforcement, encouragement, caring for people and supporting people

‘Balling out’ does immeasurable damage and not only to the vocal chords of the speaker.

My feeling is that effective leaders today (‘coaches’ in reality) will get far more done by developing what has historically and insultingly been called ‘softer skills’ - i.e. humility, respect, dignity, listening, caring instead of continuing to celebrate what are laughingly referred to as ‘hard’ skills … But then I would say that wouldn’t I?

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 24, 2008 3:06 PM

Hear, hear Trevor. In "The Ape in the Corner Office" Richard Coniff says that ruling by fear works - but only for so long. He says that eventually people stop trying, stop innovating and only bring 75% of themselves to work. In graduate school (degree in organizational mgmt) I heard over and over again that the truly exceptional manager/leader is one that has excellent human skills, not technical skills. Execution is important - but at what cost? At the end of the day it is relationships that matter most...

Posted by Sue Mosher at January 24, 2008 4:28 PM

Amen Sue and thanks. BTW I just spotted a mistake in my previous comment ... Should read ....

'I do agree a short term fear can be positive'

What percentile does that mistake fall in? :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 24, 2008 6:04 PM

Sue Mosher advised:
Execution is important - but at what cost? At the end of the day it is relationships that matter most...

I'VE GOT TO SAY WHOA HERE
It's not that I think the human factors don't matter, but a manager with all the right ideas and values and relationship skills won't be able to perform adequately without the ability to execute.

I strongly believe it's not either/or.

Operational ability, inductive and deductive problem solving, resource allocation, project management, those foundation skills, MAKE the people skills deliver something. Without them, you can get people to burrow through an elephant or slam repeatedly into walls through deserved personal loyalty, but one'll be wasting some or all of their loyalty because one is frittering away the best use of their talents & efforts through less-than-adequately-effective execution.

Human skills are indispensible, not optional. But in and of themselves I think, don't provide effectiveness in many roles outside the counseling professions.

Posted by jeff angus at January 24, 2008 7:34 PM

I must admit I am struggling to see how fear either enhances or how a lack of it diminishes one's ability to execute. I also am challenged to grasp the concept of Angus' First Law of Organizational Behavior (self amplifying?). I did however note the use of the word "staff" and it helped me gain perspective. The reality of the frontline is that folks will excel IN SPITE OF POOR MANAGEMENT for a variety of reasons, some personal (charecter, pride, work ethic), usually socio-economic (single parent/working parents with bills to pay/families to support). This does however come at a cost and it eventually leads to job abandonment/turnover. The costs of turnover and the constant learning curve are virtually incalculable, especially in the service industry. The line between being a leader and being a manager is not a fine one at all. Manager hide behind their positional authority. As Trevor points out, developing one's "soft skills" is essential to getting things done and improving performance, productivity, and results. That's leadership! HUGE difference!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at January 25, 2008 1:38 AM

Going back to the competition part. I had a bit of a mull overnight about my issue with competition is.

The Problem is that the average Jane Bloggs in any org is hard pressed to articulate their competition. This is not because they haven't tried or a failing in them it's more to do with the fact that the subject is too complicated for the average person.

Let me give an example. I work in large software comapany. A highly competitive fast moving environment. In 12 years the "company" I work for has changed ownership 4 times. On two of those occasions I found my new colleagues (who I was expected to seamlessly work with) were from an org who a few months before I was told were my biggest threats. In terms of our main competitors (now the likes of IBM, Oracle, Microsoft etc) we partner, cooperate and compete with all of them to an extent on different customers and deals.

I must admit I do worry about statements like "you should know who your competitors are" To most employees this comes across as a huge joke - not because it is not important but because no one (at any level) can really articulate the answer!

Now I can see the need for drive and competitive behaviour to win that deal at a tactical level. but generally that is a temporary arena. This is why I think the concept of competition has had it's day - In all of the M&As I have been through in the last 12 years one thing has held me and my teams together and made them perform - Values and driving excellence. Doing what was right for 1) Our Customers (who, don't forget were acquired in the M&A as well!) 2) our people 3) What ever company I happen to be working for at the time!

Posted by PaulH at January 25, 2008 3:45 AM

Jeff - 6 sigma is a yield of 99.99966% or 3.4 defects per million defect opportunities.

Re fear. As a long-term and/or primary tactic, it's not going to work. But sometimes it's essential: a complacent organisation often needs a mighty scare to lift it out of its rut. The trick surely is to know when to use it. Like so many other things (diet, for example) it comes down to a question of balance: too much of anything is usually bad and a little bit of what's bad for you is good for you!

I'd also suggest that it's also essential to follow up fear with hope and direction, which suggests that effective leadership means being aware of and deploying a deep basket of tools.

Posted by Mark JF at January 25, 2008 4:02 AM

JEFF ANGUS--WOW! "Operational ability, inductive and deductive problems, resource allocation, project management, these are foundation skills. Make the people skills deliver something." What beauty! The idea that products, services-business in general, void of human skills, is simply silly. Who is, in fact, inventing the product, providing the service? HUMANS! Equally as silly is not to consider the product or service, providing both rigorus ongoing quantatative and qualatative metrics of products, services and human performance. It is the method that matters here--how we do what we do.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 25, 2008 7:35 AM

Another thought….Jeff Angus halts a blazing fire, seemingly aimlessly armed with the mantra of “human skills” without execution. In so doing, he makes the comment, “I strongly believe it’s not either/or,” referring to the discussion of human factors and execution means—soft skills vs. hard skills. As a student of philosophy, I immediately thought of the work EITHER/OR by Danish philosopher and theologian, Soren Kierkegaard.

Angus:

“I strong believe it’s not either/or.”

In EITHER/OR Kierkegaard, deals with two paradigms, the aesthetic (beauty) and the ethical (morality). (Change these two paradigms with any i.e., soft skills and hard skills.) While the aesthetic is endless possibility of the creative--music, seduction, drama, beauty, the ethical is moral, transparent, critical analysis, civic responsibility and union.

Recap:

Either: music, seduction, drama, beauty

Or: ethical, moral, transparent, critical analysis, civic responsibility, union

Kierkegaard interjects the voice of the judge to bring the two together, intrinsically interlocked. The same can be said of the interlocutors, soft skills and hard skills. They are forever and intrinsically linked, as one is the inventor, the other is the invention. Differences and dynamics need to be acknowledged (this is important for metrics). But the “how” of how we do what we do seems to be of equal importance.

Upshot:

There is no EITHER/OR. There is only us, our creativity, and in my personal belief, the great Creator.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 25, 2008 11:13 AM

PaulH..First I can't believe I am actually on this side of this debate...but. I do see so many businesses with cool stuff, cool people, cool cultures, but they go belly up because they don't perform at a level that attracts investors or fills the coffers so they can pay people great wages. Saturn had its moment because at its origin it was focused on one thing..producing a vehicle higher in quality and lower in cost than the Honda Civic. Of course we believed the new way of working was the key to becoming competitive, but it wasn't the goal. The goal was compete, and win. I hear my Detroit Lions have a lot of nice guys, and Bill Ford keeps Millen around because "he has great family values". But they suck. And ultimately, that means they lose revenue (especially network exposure). People like to see winners...Please don't construe this as winning at any cost. If the folks around me aren't business and market savvy, the end is near...thanks

Posted by Mike Neiss at January 25, 2008 1:13 PM

Mike

Excellence is not about not competing or not executing. I am arguing exactly the opposite. Excellence may not even be high quality. Your excellence may be producing something cheap and nasty but doing that very well.

pfizer viagra india

I do struggle with this argument that people with good interpersonal skills or the so called soft stuff can't execute. In this day and age people without those skills can't execute. period.

It all starts to sound like locker room male macho BS that you have to hard and tough in business. Software, the business I know, is highly competitive it is also staffed by people who will walk out in a nano second if the way you treat them sucks.

I think Judith hits the nail on the head - there is no either or.

To an extent I think perhaps the term "competition" covers too much and means too much to different people. It's a bit like the debate we had here a while back on politics - some see that as a negative term and some see it as normal business.

Perhaps our problem on this and other blogs is we are not precise enough in our meanings?

for instance

Competition could be construed in the following ways:

to win
to better yourself
to be the best
To achieve something new
to push mankind forward
drive
ambition

also

to back stab
to hate
to destroy
Win lose
burn out
win at all costs
jealosy
greed
egotism

Posted by PaulH at January 26, 2008 2:44 AM

Another thought….Jeff Angus halts a blazing fire, seemingly aimlessly armed with the mantra of “human skills” without execution. In so doing, he makes the comment, “I strongly believe it’s not either/or,” referring to the discussion of human factors and execution means—soft skills vs. hard skills. As a student of philosophy, I immediately thought of the work EITHER/OR by Danish philosopher and theologian, Soren Kierkegaard.
Angus:
“I strong believe it’s not either/or.”
In EITHER/OR Kierkegaard, deals with two paradigms, the aesthetic (beauty) and the ethical (morality). (Change these two paradigms with any i.e., soft skills and hard skills.) While the aesthetic is endless possibility of the creative--music, seduction, drama, beauty, the ethical is moral, transparent, critical analysis, civic responsibility and union.
Recap:
Either: music, seduction, drama, beauty
Or: ethical, moral, transparent, critical analysis, civic responsibility, union
Kierkegaard interjects the voice of the judge to bring the two together, intrinsically interlocked. The same can be said of the interlocutors, soft skills and hard skills. They are forever and intrinsically linked, as one is the inventor, the other is the invention. Differences and dynamics need to be acknowledged (this is important for metrics). But the “how” of how we do what we do seems to be of equal importance.
Upshot:
There is no EITHER/OR. There is only us, our creativity, and in my personal belief, the great Creator.
Posted by Judith Ellis at January 25, 2008 11:13 AM

PaulH..First I can't believe I am actually on this side of this debate...but. I do see so many businesses with cool stuff, cool people, cool cultures, but they go belly up because they don't perform at a level that attracts investors or fills the coffers so they can pay people great wages. Saturn had its moment because at its origin it was focused on one thing..producing a vehicle higher in quality and lower in cost than the Honda Civic. Of course we believed the new way of working was the key to becoming competitive, but it wasn't the goal. The goal was compete, and win. I hear my Detroit Lions have a lot of nice guys, and Bill Ford keeps Millen around because "he has great family values". But they suck. And ultimately, that means they lose revenue (especially network exposure). People like to see winners...Please don't construe this as winning at any cost. If the folks around me aren't business and market savvy, the end is near...thanks
Posted by Mike Neiss at January 25, 2008 1:13 PM

Mike
Excellence is not about not competing or not executing. I am arguing exactly the opposite. Excellence may not even be high quality. Your excellence may be producing something cheap and nasty but doing that very well.
I do struggle with this argument that people with good interpersonal skills or the so called soft stuff can't execute. In this day and age people without those skills can't execute. period.
It all starts to sound like locker room male macho BS that you have to hard and tough in business. Software, the business I know, is highly competitive it is also staffed by people who will walk out in a nano second if the way you treat them sucks.
I think Judith hits the nail on the head - there is no either or.
To an extent I think perhaps the term "competition" covers too much and means too much to different people. It's a bit like the debate we had here a while back on politics - some see that as a negative term and some see it as normal business.
Perhaps our problem on this and other blogs is we are not precise enough in our meanings?
for instance
Competition could be construed in the following ways:
to win
to better yourself
to be the best
To achieve something new
to push mankind forward
drive
ambition
also
to back stab
to hate
to destroy
Win lose
burn out
win at all costs
jealosy
greed
egotism

Posted by PaulH at January 26, 2008 2:44 AM

Paul H. While there is not an Either/Or, there needs to be a process that each of us undertakes individually and experience corporately to arrive at this acknowledgement; proclaiming there is no Either/Or in and of itself will NEVER be enough for proper execution. (Culture sanctions this particular mindset with sound bites that have no real internal relevance--therefore, inhibiting execution.) There must also be acknowledgement of the factors of Either/Or. When there is no acknowledgement, there will be complete denial. This too leads to poor execution and faulty metrics.

Your floating bar of excellence concerns me to some degree. It leaves us all with nothing to aim towards. This is, in part, what’s wrong with so many parts of our culture in business and life. There are fewer high bars AND fewer visible role models. There is no process, no “Pursuit of Excellence.” “Implementation” Slide 177: “Isn’t it crazy that your child is learning different material and being held to a different standard than say your sister’s children in another state? –Mike Petrilli”

There must be a high standard of excellence. Some have set the standard in the long on-going pursuit of excellence. Among many others these are Michelangelo, Bach, Prince, Michael Jordon, The Beatles, DaVinci, Tiger Woods, Caravaggio, Nijinsky, Oprah, Beethoven, Babe Ruth, Newton, Tom Peters, Biggie Smalls, Bill Gates, Tupac Shakur-- to name only a few. Excellence goes beyond situation; nor is it subjective.

I liken excellence to Kant’s The Beautiful, though he may be turning over in his grave as I write, and Kantian purists subjugating me to that lowest part of the earth. Kant’s Beautiful is all-encompassing, the Spectacular i.e., Mount Rushmore, Grand Canyon, Niagara Falls—God’s terriority. But I think that together we can re-create in this sphere, amid rough terrains and failures, the Beautiful, the Spectacular in full recognition. But excellence is not intrinsically linked to recognition. I dare say the greatest of us “in pursuit of excellence” are those, the least of us, who have died or are among us unrecognized. Do you know any? “Implementation” Slide 58: “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle—Philo of Alexandria.”

There is a distinct different to me between value and excellence. While all team members are indeed valuable, they all may not execute with excellence. (Real respect of our various roles needs to be fostered.) Excellence is about executing. Why the pursuit of excellence? Why aim for anything at all? There is stagnation in your critique, a pop-culture-like analysis –no offense to you or the culture, that has me somewhat uneasy. While excellence is not for me situational, nor marginal, it is inclusive, embraceable. The question is how we do what we do to move forward.

Culture dictates the dictum of making everybody feel good. (The operative word is “making.”) But at what overall cost? While it is pretty ridiculous to oppose a society of those who feel good, it is the arrival that is most important. (By the way, feeling good and being healthy are not synonymous.) We all like to feel good. But by what means do we get there? My concern is that we are so inclusive to the point of inactivity. This statement, I MUST add, is NOT meant for every bigot to come to the fore espousing ignorant ideologies, but rather to acknowledge that everybody has something to give, just differently. It is an acknowledgement that how we contribute is fundamental to execution. Everybody has value; we all do not execute excellently. But together, all things are possible. The Either/Or is an on-going process “In Pursuit of Excellence.”

And…PaulH…I don’t about the many definitions of competition above. Not only because I have never seen them used, but because of universal context. We all know precisely what the competition both means and implies. While root of words do not change, they often take on universal meanings and connotations of their own, not meant for private interpretation. This is interesting in our discussion, as the Latin root for the verb to compete is “competere” which means to "to seek together" or "to strive together." Wouldn’t that be nice? But, needless to say, this is NOT the universal accepted meaning or implication. Is it much easier to deal with the accepted meaning, unless writing a thesis? And is this case how applicable will it be to life or business?

where to buy viagra in canada I know this is long. I hope you have made it to the end. I’ll return the courtesy.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 26, 2008 1:11 PM

While I can appreciate the eloquence of the discussion on the theories, the application in the work place is actually a lot simpler. It is an "either or on" preposition the floor. You do it well or you don't, Execution is a process, a series of tasks that produces something. I can measure it, I can use that feedback to improve the level or degree of "excellence" I am achieving. Leadership is a process. I "control" my performance through my actions .....knowledge,personality, inter-personal skills, for example. I can choose to be either a leader/or I can choose to be a manager. I can measure how well I'm doing and use that feedback to drive decision making. My customers...those I lead....decide how effective I am.

Paul H-Your " I do struggle with this argument that people with good interpersonal skills or the so called soft stuff can't execute. In this day and age people without those skills can't execute. period." is 1000% on point. The days of the autocratic "sociopath" manager ended a couple of decades ago...only to be repaced by the disingenuous and non-credible manager whose mouth says one thing while their words, policies and processes say another. I "control" what happens below me in the organization and can influence what happens above. I can either excel or fail. Those I lead play a large part in determining which one of those levels of performance I achieve.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at January 26, 2008 5:21 PM

This is such a brilliant discussion. So much wisdom from so many people. I feel fortunate to be able to share in this forum. My view is basic, straightforward and non academic. From my earliest memories of starting work at 16 years of age right up to now 39 years later I’ve ALWAYS found people respond best to carrots rather than sticks. That is how I respond best. That is how my three children have always responded best. PaulH makes such a fantastic point - It is just a crazy idea to suggest those who are driven by the softer skills (I am proud to be one of them) can’t execute. Thank you all for your inspiring points.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 26, 2008 6:58 PM

it was a good chat, eh Trevor?

Posted by Mike Neiss at January 26, 2008 7:47 PM

Dave Wheeler-Thank you. I too appreciate your comment. We are on the same page seemingly, though this is not necessary. Your analysis is lovely. But what is beauty? Beauty is simplicity but awesomeness that strikes one profoundly, creating in others more beauty via creation or application. (Creativity is action.) Beauty sparks innovation in business, the arts, science, technology, medicine etc. And yes, even theory-which is in its most excellent form the principles on which an ACTivity is based. Thank you for your words; they matter.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 26, 2008 8:29 PM

Ditto Judith about Dave's profound words - he is indeed a wise man. Front line is where the power needs to be and leaders are only as good as their followers.

Mike - did you mean the Fox interview http://www.simplicityitk.blogspot.com/

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 27, 2008 3:25 AM

Judith- I see many parallels between "beauty" and leadership which, as you point out, sparks innovation and brings the best in others. I recall a quote from John Quincey Adams, " If your actions inspire other to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader". Your words, as always, are insightful and thought provoking.

Trevor-Based on Mr Adams definition and my interpretation of it,you sir, are a Leader!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at January 28, 2008 8:36 AM

Thanks Dave - do you have an email address - let me know - trevor.simplicity@gmail.com

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 28, 2008 12:40 PM

Great post, Jeff. Your usual insight, thank you.

Doug Glanville was a major breath of fresh air in baseball and he continues to be. I always loved watching him play and, even more, listening to interviews with him. Shoot, he nearly overcame the Steve Bartman-led collapse of the Cubs in the playoffs vs the Marlins. His example illustrates the necessary human-ness of a relentlessly results-oriented culture of baseball.

That point, alone, is worth it. Well said, Jeff.

Posted by Joe Ely at January 28, 2008 2:52 PM

Dave Wheeler-What a beautiful John Quincy Adams quote! Thanks...tons...

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 28, 2008 11:21 PM

Regarding our discussion on fear, I have a personal comment to make. I have been reading Jeff Angus' post, comments, and Cool Friends interview repeatedly. (Sometimes in discussion only one element of a thing is grasped.) There are so many beautiful points to consider. They strike me as so utterly beautiful that I literally have no words. But there is no fear; there is simply reverance. After I have digested such beauty, after fully taking it in, as I had Ayres Rock, Niagara Falls, Michelangelo's David and Sistine Chapel, words will definitely come and corresponding actions will definitely follow. But for now, more reflection is needed as I continue pressing forward. I have so much yet to learn and so much yet to give. But there is no fear here. Jeff Angus writes profoundly and invitingly. I accept. Thank you, sir.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 31, 2008 12:35 PM