Comments

I support every word of your latest customer rant here - more of the same please. Forgive me repeating what I wrote earlier today on your 'special presentation' post.

'In a 1 person business – such as my own - that 1 person must FIRST of all look in the mirror critically BEFORE talking to the customer in order to examine one’s own principles, prejudices and values. Sure as hell the customer will see straight away through bullshit if we don't show the necessary integrity.'

Have a great weekend.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 9, 2008 4:51 PM

I have absolutely no doubt that employees that don't experience the brand cannot deliver the brand. When I was consulting fairly often with the Big 3, I took considerable crap for driving Infinitis, especially since my Father was a UAW official. One of the key decision points for me, was the employees of the big 3 themselves. Working on the factory floor I continually heard how they hated their company, their bosses, etc. By the way, there was considerable reason for them to be unhappy. Regardless, I just imagined what that attitude did for their attention to quality and detail in the jobs they performed. I am with Tom on this one...show me disgruntled employees and I will show a damn good reason to shop elsewhere.

Posted by Mike Neiss at May 9, 2008 4:51 PM

This is an absolutely beautiful post. In all the me-ness there is a deep love for that which is outside of me, that which extends to the greater we. Passion is not passion without me. But I cannot express the passion of life and death and have it mean something to others unless I am passionate about something which is not me, though this passion is me, otherwise passion would not be. TP Slide: "Enthusiasm begets Enthusiasm!"

The statement above or the post may seem disingenuous or paradoxical but it isn't really. The only way to have the kind of all-consuming passion of the post to affect customers is to first have that thing begin in me and then see it, express it, introduce it, or change it so that others might see me and in so doing the me extends outwardly. TP Slide: "Leaders... 'Sell' PASSION!"

Yesterday evening I came across another TP Slide on leadership after printing it as one of many to read again and again. It reads: "Message: Leadership is all about love! (Passion, Enthusiasms, Appetite for Life, Engagement, Commitment, Great Cause & Determination to Make a Damn Difference, Shared Adventures, Bizarre Failures, Growth, Insatiable Appetite for Change.") Love is action!

What beauty! Thanks, TP.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 9, 2008 7:57 PM

TOM

I have often wondered, over the years, why you are always so worried about the details in your slides... I have seen pictures of YOU in YOUR jocks on a hotel bed somewhere at some horrid hour of the night - YOU reported that YOU were fixing the details on today's presentation... I always thought it is because YOU trained as an engineer BUT I also knew intuitively that it is because each of YOUR gigs is a 'life and death' struggle for YOU deep down inside - these presentation are all about who YOU really are...

YOU are a renowned speaker around the world - a guru - I maintain (about to get badly savaged for this I fear but 'what the hell') because of who YOU are as a person - its your honesty and integrity that wins people over in the room! YOU are not a management guru like Warren Bennis, the late Peter Drucker, et al... and there are not that many really... YOU are essentially a preacher who uses the best of other people's stuff. YOU are a preacher who has practiced what you preach - YOU have made a unique BRAND YOU - tompeters! YOU say things YOUR way - YOUR message is 'do not just follow the mob' but rather THINK for YOURSELF, be YOURSELF at all times, and let good things happen for YOU and to YOU!

TOM it is your integrity, passion, attention to detail, competitive nature, etc that is your real message to ME! whether YOU say BLACK is WHITE or WHITE is BLACK ..... More power to YOU...

As YOU know I do not agree with a lot of what YOU say, more and more as the world rapidly changes from labour-intensive/paper shuffling systems to digital networks, BUT I always just love the way YOU say it!!!! That is always worth the price of admission for ME... Keep up YOUR good work...

Richard..

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at May 9, 2008 8:39 PM

Tom, a simple insight I gained over 3 decades ago from my time in the music business was that the most creative & talented artists sought to satisfy themselves first. (They stood in sharp contrast to those who were sniffing for the trends.) From a fly-on-the-wall perch I saw the satisfy-thyself philosophy practiced from the very beginning by Joni Mitchell, Jackson Browne, Frank Zappa, Sly Stone, and Eric Clapton. Safe to say the market place rewarded their efforts. As you once quoted Larry King, "Talent doesn't ask will they like it? Talent pleases itself."

Posted by John O'Leary at May 9, 2008 9:11 PM

Thanks, John, for the memory of why it is that we produce improvisational jazz riffs or bel canto coloratura (fast running embellishments with trills) from within that speak our particular language.

The fact that others get what we do is just too awesome! This causes us to share more, although our passion for what we do is such that we would continue singing or making music even if no one got it at all.

Richard...what's with all the YOUs? Your comment is a tad weird to me. But..hey..TP might get it...others too.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 9, 2008 9:44 PM

"leaders have no interest in proving themselves, but an abiding interest in expressing themselves." Yup...that's it.

I have always disagreed with those who say that is no difference whatsoever in the labels supervisor,manager,or leader. You don't have to have the title to be a Leader, but in a practical sense it often is your pass to the stage or the audience that enables you to do it. Managers have nothing to say, they just enforce the "expressions" of others be they verbal or written. Leaders express themselves and are able to inspire others to do great stuff through their own words, thoughts, and actions.

Perhaps the reason we have to many managers and not enough leaders is the ease in which managers are able to hide behind positional authority and escape accountability, particularly as you near the top of the org chart. Leadership really isn't difficult, just different. I guess companies are not the only things that resist change.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at May 9, 2008 11:45 PM

It is quite tricky to defy lables and yet distiniguish between one or the other. By this I mean that it is rather difficult to try to distinguish between a leader and a manager by separating what each is or isn't if there are no labels. Solving problems destroys labels best, not focusing on positions or distinctions. The focus only matters in so much as it guides a project.

Understanding the distinction given between the leader and manager, for me a good manager is a leader in the best sense of the word. There seems to be a bias here on this blog towards a kind of flatlining positions in order to make all work equitable and all people valuable. But flatlining causes no sparks.

Rightly or wrongly, I am of the belief that even if flatlining occurs tiers would still probably be created and issues of value and respect arise. This may be part of the human condition that needs managing by oneself or others if self-regulation is not done. Besides managing, leaders/managers inspire. This seems essential.

Instead of flatlining positions, wouldn't it just be better to honor each team member's skill and yes! honor the manager/leader as such whether appointed or anointed? Even if there was not such a one, one would be probably arise from the midst or be created. There will always be leaders and followers and in the best sense in interchangeable roles.

I'm not sure if pointing the finger changes anything. What then can be done? Solve problems!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 10, 2008 1:43 AM

Judith

Just having some fun AND it seems to have worked with YOU! At least YOU noticed it....

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at May 10, 2008 2:23 AM

Tom, I agree with you, about you. However, if I were ever lucky enough to attend one of your events, I would be there with a very different mindset to the one I have when I, say, enter a hotel. The nature of the two relationships is very different, I suggest. By and large you define the terms of our engagement with you, and we choose (or not) to participate on those terms - which are very enjoyable, by the way. For a while in one form or another you become the centre of the universe and we cluster round.

Whereas, in a good hotel I expect to be, or at least expect its people to kid on that I am, the centre of the universe. I'd like people to cluster round me. If what it takes for that to happen is for the hotel people to love what they do, excellent, but that's an enabling objective. And as such it will probably have to be achieved first for core objectives to be achieved later. It doesn't, however, make it first in importance, only chronology.

Pip pip

Posted by Rob at May 10, 2008 6:18 AM

These employee "more first" comments have been driving me crazy as I think about them....

I'm working for a company where employees "more first" is the mission and we spend and act accordingly.

And the employees will tell you they feel they are the priority and are engaged.

But something is missing----employees say they are appreciated, engaged but they are not focused on the customers as much as we would like. Instead they are primarily focused on themselves---their next bonus, raise, promotion, etc. And why shouldn't they be--as a company we have told them they are most important.

Something just seems like it's missing--

Employees "more first" in my mind sounds good. In practice, it seems to turn the focus more inward instead of towards the customers---as we had hoped.

Am I the only one that's experienced this?

Posted by Randall at May 10, 2008 6:52 PM

"I am, I repeat, trying instead to satisfy me, my own deep neediness to reach out and grab my customer & connect with my customer over ideas that consume & devour me.
"
I bet this is what Bill Clinton believes too.

Posted by frank at May 10, 2008 7:07 PM

This idea first came to me from another direction. I once picked up the idea that for a parent to put children first actually puts the children at a disadvantage. To put children first, a parent must put the other parent first and the children second. Then children will be first!!

The same idea from a different context.

Posted by s g at May 10, 2008 7:17 PM

Richard...touche!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 10, 2008 7:29 PM

Frank...the difference between what's presented here and President Clinton may be that one extends beyond self and the other clearly doesn't.

While the me-ness here is certainly about me, it also about the other. It is the distinction of passion and selfishness. The former is efficacious, the latter off putting.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 10, 2008 7:41 PM

Randell....

I have experienced it at client sites and it is a very hard thing to combat... What you are suffering sounds like the early signs of what I call 'the Enron syndromme'... Enron had inside and outside brands - both turned out to be fakes...

Inside everyone was a Brand You!... McKinsey had sold them a bill of goods about a 'war on talent'... They sold Enron all its best and brightest young talent at top consulting rates - soon everyone who worked there thought they had some sort of unrecognised or unfulfilled talent! Everyone was 'looking out' for #1 not the customer and definitely not their colleagues, or mates, inside the company...

Outside the Enron Brand was of a 'Fast Company', a leader of the new-age pack, a breakthrough utility in energy provision (ie from generation to distribution), etc. The 'celebrity status' of Enron only served to re-inforced the message to those inside that they were the chosen ones...

All the 'gurus' of the time jumped on board and wrote about this amazing success story - some focussed on the outside brand and some on the inside brand - I really do wish it had all been true but it was all a mirage...

In the end the customers/consumers live on and find new reliable suppliers - the outside brand is dead. Meanwhile the inside brand lives on as the former staff all live with the shame of their association with Enron....

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at May 10, 2008 8:27 PM

Randell

I think what you are describing is the illusion of employee first. To me employee first does not always mean being nice or generous to them (pay raises etc) that often leads to the type of behaviour that you are seeing.

Often employee first means a bit of tough love - stretching those people to be the very best they can be. Basically Self actualising. When they reach that point then generally the rest follows anyway.

It also means being tough when they are letting themsleves down. Usually when you have the right culture the employee is far tougher on themselves than you can ever be. I have had people come to me and say "Boss I need to do more to contribute - I get paid well to do this and I am not sure I am fully earning that right now"

To me as a manager one of the coolest times you can work with someone is when they are talented but don't yet really know it (there is no ego or demands). To have one day of coaching someone who is quite literally petrified at the thought of something new and the next day to help celebrate "WOW - I did it!"

That is employee first

Posted by PaulH at May 11, 2008 1:38 AM

There is no more perfect example in the world of WHY employees come ‘even more first’ than Sir Alex Ferguson the 66 year old manager of my beloved football (soccer) team Manchester United. Today Man United won the English Premiership for a record 10th time. Sir Alex is still a ‘teenager’ – the greatest manager in British soccer history and with luck will be around for many years to come.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/7381807.stm

Sir Alex ALWAYS puts his ‘employees’ (players and backroom workers) first above the ‘customers’ – and those customers (fans) number many millions worldwide. And by the way those 'customers' love him! Sir Alex cares for all the EMPLOYEES, he loves them all and he is able to ‘manage’ them all with only very, very occasional ‘sticks’ and many, many ‘carrots.’ He is simply a living legend. I see no reason why any manager in any business cannot have the same love for the employee ... anyone who aspires to be a leader will understand Sir Alex’s mentality.

THAT is employee first!

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 11, 2008 12:52 PM

Paul H...you are absolutely on point. The culture of shared responsibility and accountability makes holding folks accountable for their performance a leadership imperative. The difference is in defining the performance expectation, enabling folks with the resources to meet it and frequent reviews of performance for coaching/mentoring and development. Don't do it you lose serious credibility capital. Competative pay,relevant work, "niceness" is the price of getting folks in the door. Keeping them requires more and that's where the attitudes and actions of "leaders" becomes key.

What's often missing is the accountability piece, a responsibility of leadership. It might be the cause of the scenario Randall describes...and the Enron's, Tycos, and so on and so on...

Posted by Dave Wheeler at May 11, 2008 11:04 PM

Amelie is my Dream Manager. Has anyone watched that movie?
http://filmup.leonardo.it/posters/loc/500/amelie.jpg

p.s.
Thank You Judith!
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Posted by Ina Matijevic at May 12, 2008 4:32 AM

I think the essence is that, for a manager, the customer is their staff. So, the end customer is second for a manager. Practising humility and striving for excellence seems to generate results (not always quickly) in those whose task is to process or answer phones or whatever. The difficulty in being a manager is that it is easy to drift from these precepts. But knowing how you want to travel brings you back to the right path when you wander away.

Posted by Gary Arcus at May 12, 2008 7:33 PM

Great post Tom, I agree 100%. I bet we've all had days where the customer has been satisfied but deep down we know we've cheated ourselves. And on other days felt like we couldn't have given anymore...but still fell short of the desired result - this can actually leave us feeling better than a 'shallow victory'. It's all about being the best you can be.

Posted by Gregg Utting at May 12, 2008 9:29 PM

I've always admired your brutal honesty, Tom. It's all about me. I serve myself first. Yes, you do. And how blessed is your life that so many want to hear what you have to say. Today you strike me as remarkably similar in a way to someone like Howard Pfinster. And I mean that as a sincere compliment.

Posted by Sam at May 13, 2008 9:40 AM

"'I am, I repeat, trying instead to satisfy me, my own deep neediness to reach out and grab my customer & connect with my customer over ideas that consume & devour me.'
"
I bet this is what Bill Clinton believes too."

Forget all the baggage for a moment, please. Fact: Bill Clinton was President of the United States of America. Neither you nor I were.

Posted by tom peters at May 13, 2008 11:28 AM

Baggage forgotten. I agree, TP. Sometimes our perceptions of what others are doing at any given moment clouds the reality of what they have done and the honorable position they were in. He was there; I was not. Your point is well taken.

I honor the service Bill Clinton has given as president of our great country. Being ticked about a few things of late has nothing to do with the service President Clinton rendered. Blessings continuously to him and his.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 13, 2008 1:17 PM

P.S.

We are all sometimes rather complicated beings even when our motives are of the best intentions.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 13, 2008 1:23 PM

You’re so right, Mr. Peters. No, insist roughly on it. Why? It’s the right thing to do. I will comment on something that I am seeing happen all over.

I see top CEOs, managers, entrepreneurs, and, in general, good people as seemingly absent-minded. In the meantime, they hold grave responsibilities. Too many of them, including clinicians at work. That’s why the communication process these days require a lot.

We took our own mother to the best medical doctors available to us. One was a prestigious clinician. Another was a lung expert. There was also a psychiatrist, since she felt in deep sadness. Many clinical assessments were practiced to here.

pfizer viagra brand For some reason, these doctors all looked somewhere between concerned with their own lives and falling themselves into own clinical depressions.

I told my brothers that all those doctors were—to me—in some degree undergoing clinical depression. How can this happen, one might ask? The critical patient being treated by this “bunch” of other patients? The zenith of irresponsibility to be kind.

The psychiatrist, also an anthropologist, is an expert on death, family losses, anxiety, and so forth. He has four MBAs in his field of practice. One was in “mourning psychiatry” and he studied it in Freud’s university at London. His face was a phantom of his own.

None of these MDs wished to, say, TAKING MY MOTHER AS A PATIENT FULLY, responsibly. They were out of it. They were avoiding the issue rampantly. All the way through, there was an extreme lack of competency and skill in these “renowned professionals.”

I use this dramatic, real story because it is eloquent that something deep is taking place indeed. I have increasingly seen it with clients and potential customers alike. So have I seen it with university professors and many other relevant incumbents.

My theory is that many of them are upset with themselves and don’t know why. The swirl of change-- extremely underestimated by some sectors-- has told them unambiguously that it is impossible to assume PAST as a SCRIPT for PRESENT and FUTURE.

Times of BLUR and BLURRING are all over. Subsequently, they stiff remained within (a) their areas of specialization, and (b) outside the gravest points of inflections after 9/11 (et. al.).

prescription viagra prices in canada

Many don’t get it and it is a tragedy. THEY REMAINED GLUED TO SUPERFICIALITY, CRITIQUING AND CRITIQUING AND CRITIQUING WITHOUT FIRST RESEARCHING WHAT HAS CHANGED.

herbal viagra canada Gary Hamel said in his 2000-year book, “Whoever is not paying attention has no right to complain that he [/she] does not understand the world’s spirit and how it had to be understood now….,” REGARDLESS OF HOW DIFFICULT TO DIGEST NEW PARADIGMS ARE.

Hamel, too, asks, How long a patient is going to be admitted into a hospital as if this persona were a sentenced criminal?

I am not fond of this extreme change. It is not that I like it per se. It’s, rather, that either I get and adjust or will not make it. Why? Because the worldwide systems, including globalization (among other powerful, driving forces), don’t allow a single citizen to call the shots on behalf of 7 billion people. Even the UN is powerless to begin with.

So, either one adapts or transcends, physically. Why many first responders did ZERO / INCONSEQUENTIAL (the most essential) to countermeasure the terrible consequences of the Katrina Hurricane?

I am into preparedness, disruption mitigation, restoration, and “business continuity.” Shouldn’t there be some “persona continuity” (with dignity)?

Some pundits have started studying the case (Katrina) and were concerned because many first responders, in the strictest hierarchical order, did not react AT ALL to the directions from the “chain of command.”

People at large, in many place, are focused on the dispersed. And there is too much to be unconcentrated. I see this more and more and it looks as a societal illness. As if it were taking shape—to some extent—a collective depression.

Those aforementioned (and in charge of their lives ???) have prominent jobs and families. At least, they do have that. Why do they not revise via professional service those states of malaise portrayed on their faces? I see this growing and growing everywhere.

Clearly, this subject matter (“CHANGE IMPACT”) requires an in-depth, multidisciplinary study NOW. Mr. Peters, I thank you for the Warren Bennis’ quote(s). I agree with them fully. Appreciate your efforts to make your wisdom easier to access and discern. By the way, your own self-motivation is of great inspiration to me and many.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at May 14, 2008 6:52 PM

Now! Who is the client? The true patient who ended up passing away? Or the ailing psychiatrist who is failing to be fully compliant (among others, to him to becoming an “excellent expert” is to rise up his own ANXIETY)?

I am serious. I miss her but this subject is helping me clarify the question of ages of about—in the healthcare realm—Who is really the one who deserves to being delighted (life saved)? Clearly, the supervisory human systems all failed.

For 18 years I have dealed with physicians to make certain that medical coverage (national and international) is available to a group of 210,000 (full universe) of Citgo's parent company.

Through unions, local governments, private sector associations, and the public at large, I also negotiated schedules to medical expenses for a group of 700,000 people with the most diverse demographics.

viagra pack best buy

Things are much more treacherous that we would like. Again, a good look at the horizon without seeing the atmosphere, ecology, universe (sic), etc.

No one would like treacherous initiatives for the sake of solving critical problems.

I have thought of the "Power of Simplicity" by Jack Trout, an author and consultant I really support and like.

Also, my friend and colleague Trevor legitimately speaks with BASIS of SIMPLICITY. I gave it some thought. We both have our thesis concurrently right. I will explain.

A system (non computational) can only be mapped/discerned/operated by using Systems Approach. Then, one has to use The Transformation Box. On the left, there is the "known inputs."

On the extreme right side, there is the "desired outputs." In between, yes, Trevor and Andy (to use a practical example) can institute concurrently "simplicity" and "complexity."

Between "known inputs" and "desired outputs" there is "throughput," something like the totality of efforts to administer the processes implicated.

Clearly, this involves (a) processes, (b) transactions, © stages, (d) facets, so forth.

To expand the example, Trevor has a mandate, by logic, not to make easier what WORKS PROPERLY IN COMPLEXITY.

Andy, by the same token, has a mandate, by logic, not to make more complicated anything (within said system) when it already WORKS PROPERLY IN SIMPLICITY.

Thank you, Trevor. It has been so fruitful integrate the framework a la Gestalt (holistically).

So SIMPLICITY, under its context, has a huge realm. So does COMPLEXITY. Harmonizing the whole picture to glean better?

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at May 14, 2008 9:15 PM

Tom Peters,
Your friends at 1800CEOREAD list a book "Hug Your People" at number 4 on their list of monthly top 25 best sellers.
I searched your site but found no reference to it.
But I did find the author in a list. That linked to another book of his. But I found no comment by you on that either.
Sounds like it fits this topic.
Should it be on my list?
John

Posted by Shakespeare's Fool at May 18, 2008 10:41 PM