Comments

Great news! I think that the Vimeo option you decided to choose is just perfect. No server problems for you, everything is running nice and smooth.

Posted by Todor Christov at May 20, 2008 2:44 PM

Tom ... Politics is an art - it takes talent just like most other things in organisations to be a good and effective politician... I totally agree with you that people who frown upon those who 'do' politics also usually frown on what these gifted politicians actually do, do ..that is what they achieve, get done, implement... those who say 'he or she' is a politician are usually ideologues (blockers of change and often cynics) who want things to stay the same or want things always to be done the way they believe they should be done! the solution to this problem is simple really - if you want to get things done and you are not good at the art of politics (reading people, putting propositions in ways that will win acceptance not rejection, stroking egos, being the invisible hand that gets things to happen but also is adept at not taking the glory, etc) then go recruit one of your colleagues who is good at it and get him or her to take up your project, cause, execution issue, etc.. Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at May 20, 2008 4:15 PM

With the recent news of Senator Kennedy's ill health, I am reminded that he is a great politician in the very best sense of the word. From civil rights to handicaps rights to the rights of the poor, Senator Kennedy garnered the support of Democrats and Republicans alike for worthy causes. He seemed so selfless in his efforts. True politicians in the best sense of the word are not self-indulged; they are among us as He who served. Many thanks to Senator Kennedy. We wish him Godspeed...indeed. We all know that he's a fighter.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 20, 2008 4:18 PM

Wow! What an energy! It's great to watch You and listen to You!!!
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/cgo/lowres/cgon387l.jpg

Posted by Ina Matijevic at May 20, 2008 4:51 PM

Tom - that was so much fun to watch you and I am revved up by your comment on politics.
I think politics is unnderstanding the process and you are right, if you can't work politics, you can have wonderful ideas but they ain't going to get done. It's why the C student does better in life than the A student so many times, they are more in touch with people.

Posted by Jacoline Loewen at May 20, 2008 5:14 PM

Thanks for putting over so brilliantly something we all know. Politics is ok - it’s more than ok actually – it is the most important ingredient of implementation. I got loads done in my healthcare career for patients and their families by playing politics. I blatantly used the names of the Chairman and Chief Executive (with their knowledge) to push any agenda that meant improving services for patients. It was always done with integrity and it worked. Execution is mainly about politics. I know little about the US political scene but I share Judith’s endorsement of Mr Kennedy – He is in my prayers.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 20, 2008 5:31 PM

Love the Tip O'Neill quote - politics is the art of getting things done. When we decry someone in a business of playing politics, it is usually because he or she is standing in the way of something we want (or got something we do not think was deserved). Good work should stand for itself! we cry - knowing all along that it doesn't. But the real issue is that the person decried is getting something else done than what we want - however suspect their goals may be to us.

How many times have we heard that a good product markets itself only to find that the smug people who thought they had the better product and did not work at marketing got their lunch eaten by a company whose product may not have been as good but worked harder? Excellence is not sufficient. Politics is the same way. People who sit around and act above the fray are usually not players in the fray. Those that sit on the sidelines only have their "principles" to eat afterward. (more mixed metaphors...)

Good companies will reward people for getting the right things done. So avoiding politics means you diminish the talent/energy/love working to get the right things done for the company.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at May 20, 2008 5:53 PM

Politics? Me, politics? My bosses called it leadership. Label it as you will but the statement "Life is politics" captures it perfectly.

I'm reminded of the posts regarding the book "Charlie Wilson's War" and the long list of examples of how Charlie and Gust got things done...build and work your network, bank favors, grow relationships with folks 2-3 levels above and 2-3 levels below and so on. I learned leadership in the Air Force and saw the vast majority of the things on the list is either stuff I had done or stuff I do today. No one ever called it politicking but it sure walked like it and quacked like it. I hope every one who views themselves as being above getting "political" in my company absolutely keeps that point of view. It will just make my job and my team's job that much easier.

Although there is not a great deal of personal agreement with his politics, I too share Judith and Trevor's comments regarding Senator Kennedy. He has "played" the political game masterfully over the years and has earned my respect as being an advocate for working class folks. I wish him well

Posted by Dave Wheeler at May 20, 2008 8:24 PM

If it's not too much trouble, could we please also have a text (transcribed) version of the video please?

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at May 21, 2008 1:38 AM

I just looked up the word politics. No direct mention of getting things done

Main Entry: pol·i·tics
Pronunciation: \?pä-l?-?tiks\
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology: Greek politika, from neuter plural of politikos political
Date: circa 1529
1 a: the art or science of government b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
2: political actions, practices, or policies
3 a: political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b: political life especially as a principal activity or profession c: political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices
4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5 a: the total complex of relations between people living in society b: relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view

I agree with Tom on what he is saying but I think Politics is the wrong word.

The problem with the word politics is that it has become so connected with the negative side that I don't think it's possible to rescue it to the meaning that Tom has (which I agree with)

Second point - Many people are not good at politics - Tom you frequently talk about nurturing the wierdos and people who don't quite fit. Typically they are not strong on politics. How do you get the best out of them?

Posted by PaulH at May 21, 2008 7:34 AM

Yes you need some people who can operate in a political manner to get things done but you need other types as well. Going back to Martin's comment about great products that don't sell - yes you need sales guys and you need marketing but without any kind of product there would be nothing to sell

You need politicians to execute but also you need dreamers and idealists etc to have something to execute. I would put forward that you need non political types to balance an organisation.

As for people who don't like politics standing on the sidelines - they perform 2 vital functions in most organisations

1) They keep the Hubris of the politicians in check by keeping things down to earth and real.

2) They actually do the work!

Posted by PaulH at May 21, 2008 7:49 AM

Well I really did not have any problems with the former videos, but the quality of Vimeo is much better. I love the energy behind the political statement; I am up to my ears in this subject on a daily basis. The "one person" comment was best. I work with some of those types. "Aimless human circus" applies here.

Posted by Kate at May 21, 2008 3:41 PM

I once heard scientists that they require a scientist to be the CEO of USA Incorporated. Many people, a la business like, just don’t like talking politics. Given you’re a noted thinker, Mr. Peters, it’s truly useful your video. I posted it in my site (www.AgostiniNews.blogspot.com). Thanks.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at May 22, 2008 2:39 PM

Paul - In a way you are definitely right - for many the word politics carries with it negative connotations - "All he does is play politics", "that's just political BS", "X did not get done because of stupid internal politics where people were more worried about how they looked than how the company does", stuff like that. In this light, politics denotes frivilous, dishonest, and selfish actions.

But perhaps it need not be - if we think of politics as the way to create and nurture relationships so that the things that you value can get done, then there is room for the term.

Also, the level of person (e.g. management, etc) determines what sort of relationships she or he will have to cultivate to get something done. Where the rubber begins meeting the road is at the project level (not at a particular function or bit of code, or particular job on a machine), and THIS is where politics (a mishmash of convincing, personal relationships, trust, vision) comes in.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at May 22, 2008 4:03 PM

When I first started in this field of work, I had the great privilege of meeting Peter Block when he was consulting with a company I served an OD role with. This was before any of his books were published, but he had a beautiful little booklet called "The Positive Use of Politics", which in my many moves, I have sadly lost. I still use the model with my coaching clients to understand that politics is about influence, and therefore, leadership. Of course organizations are political...human beings are political.

Posted by Mike Neiss at May 22, 2008 7:28 PM

I think it is far better to talk about the art and science of execution or implementation.

I think it's interesting that when you talk about this stuff many peoples eyes look upwards (in terms of where they think they need to influence).

Personally I have been much more successful in using this downwards.

I while ago I was struggling with this whole politics thing. I was finding it difficult to influence. I did what TP said you shouldn't do I withdrew from the stage. I stood on the sidelines. I got on with my job.

As a consequence I achieved a lot LOT more (measurable results). I also gained a lot more respect and consequently influence. So forgive me if I struggle to 100% agree with TP's ideas on this one - My personal experience is that the exact opposite achieved more.

Posted by PaulH at May 23, 2008 2:02 AM

Can it be said that politics is not merely the absence or the presence of being in the game, but how the game is played? It seems that PaulH's sideline stance perhaps better gave him influence. But was this not a political tactic that paid off? His not being present may in itself been political. Talking about "the art or science of execution or implementation" does not inherently exclude politics. In fact, it often very much includes it, as does getting on with ones job may not mean the absence of politics but the very presence of it.

Regarding PauH's comments earlier and Martin's response, etymologically speaking, it is perhaps difficult to reclaim a word that has negative connotations. But does that mean that the word cannot have transformative properties? I'm thinking of the "N word" that has gone through a transformative phase by the Hip Hop culture. But the question still remains of its long-term influence. Are such words indeed transformative or are they mere disruptions that revert back to their original intentions? There is something here in general that begs the question of the necessary importance of disruptions. Are they transformative or mere systemic hiccups?

By the way, I disdain the use of the "N word" as if we as people, made of the same stuff, cannot understand by context the usage and meaning of words. This reaks of hypocrisy and a kind of syllogism. Syllogisms are often both logical and illogical. For example, consider this:

Some African Americans thrive on brilliance.
All African Americans that thrive on brilliance have gone to college.
Some college-educated African Americans thrive.

Logic sometimes is illogical, sometimes not. There is this mixture in syllogisms. With the use of the "N word" by the Hip Hop culture this mixture is apparent, the transformative power of an illogical word to demean a whole section of people becomes for them logical. But regarding slights, do we all not inherently know when one is given? And when we have misspoken can we not make it right with sincere words of apologies? Who's perfect among us?

DISCLAIMER: I am not suggesting the wholesale use of such words. I understand well the sensitivity and emotions they evoke. I also understand the need not to openly use them in work enviroments or on newscasts. (But why say the "N word?" Perhaps, it's a softening tactic in the mouths of some.) I agree that such words could have explosive reactions. I simply seek here to honestly address the question of sincere intentions, a necessity of politics in the best sense of the word.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 23, 2008 6:31 AM

Judith,

I agree with the tenor of your post - words gain meaning in context and sometimes carry cultural/institutional baggage with them that is difficult to lose (wish we were more like airlines in this regard!).

However - your syllogism isn't one (although your point is well taken). From the two premises:

Some AA thrive on brilliance
All AA that thrive on brilliance are AA that have gone to college

We could only say:
Some AA have gone to college

So, logic, in this case, doesn't tell us much.

viagra sales australia

Saying logic is illogical is a nice way of saying that formal logic (in this case Aristotlean Logic) has little connection to real life. In fact, it can be quite dangerous, since the simplifications necessary to adhere to logical construction lose so much context and detail that any conclusions garnered by the simplification are suspect. But logic makes them seem inevitable. And this can be horrible. In this sense, "logic" can be oppressive (or used to oppress).

Remember "The Bell Curve" from the mid-nineties? Herrnstein and Murray argued with a syllogism (at least what they called one) that the poorer performance on IQ tests of African Americans was caused by inherent/genetic differences of IQ - an invariant, inherited quality (instead of, perhaps, test bias or something else). It was all BS - pure rhetoric and slight of hand. But under "guise" of logic meant it became a significant discussion item in our society.

And now we have come full circle. The use of words, such as "politics", the "N" word, "logic" (take your pick) can have impact far beyond the definition of the word because of how it has been used or how it is used in certain contexts. The lesson in all this is to pay particular attention to what someone is DOING when they use a term - and this sensitivity is not always easy or straightforward. Tom's point is that if we think about how things get done in a company, the personal relationships, handshakes, winks, nods, bargaining, horse-trading, (a.k.a. politics) are very important for success.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at May 23, 2008 12:12 PM

Martin...thank you for your response. But I am not sure if you have said much different from what I have indeed said, save perhaps your point about the Bell Curve. In this regards, I point you to a comment I wrote here about "difference and deficient."

You have done well to sum up the Aristotlean point. It is, in fact, the difference of context and the use of language. Sir Francis Bacon made this point about the illogic of syllogism and I find merit in his findings. I am not sure, however, if all logic is pure rhetoric, having no basis in reality. The sense of logic stems from some form of observation. But the question becomes in what context and with what use of language is such logic based? To whom is it focused? Is logic universal? Is it cultural?

You have done right to change that line in the cited syllogism above. Thank you. The point that I tried to make, as stated above, was that all logic is not logic where there is context to consider. Whether there is a philosopher or manager who does not understand and consider in many aspects the frontliners or customers there will always be issues of what is logic and what isn't. Logic without empathy makes it illogical, often nonsensical.

Regarding paying attention to what one is doing while one is speaking there is merit. I think we pick up many cues that give us context. The tone of voice, the eyes, the corners of the mouth, and the body language in general. These things are discerned in a nanosecond by sensitive ones, and we are all such ones if we take time to be empathetic. In this sense, we can all be logical.

TP's point, as you have cited here, is great indeed! Thanks again, Martin.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 23, 2008 4:31 PM

Judith You make an interesting question about if removing oneself from politics as a political tactic. I am afraid I am not that sophisticated. I simply made a decision to withdraw from the BS around me - it was a concious decision to avoid political behaviour on my part and to get back to basics and get the job done and what my heart told me was the right things to do for my people, my customers and the business. It's probably a career limiting move for me personally but I see too much energy spent on playing the game and too little spent on actually doing things. What I see of politics is the opposite of what TP has always advocated which is to go and DO stuff!

viagra next day uk

Polite request - can we keep the language a little simpler around here please. I am afraid I lack the brainpower to make sense of complex philisophical debates. I am a simple guy just trying to grope towards some kind of simple sense of a chaotic business world (a futile quest perhaps but one I enjoy!)

Posted by PaulH at May 24, 2008 4:10 AM

Martin...you appear to be far more sophisticated than I on the matter of syllogism as you spoke rather outright of my blunder. I received it as such. But do tell, what do you make of the definition below found on changingminds.org? The proposed sentence that "All African Americans that thrive on brilliance are African Americans that have gone to college" I put it clearly within such categories that perhaps persuade but are not true.

"Syllogisms are particularly interesting in persuasion as they include assumptions that many people accept which allow false statements or (often unspoken) conclusions to appear to be true. There is a difference between truth and validity in syllogisms. A syllogism can be true, but not valid (i.e. make logical sense). It can also be valid but not true."

Please advise.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 24, 2008 4:50 AM

PaulH...regarding your brain power and sophistication, I have witnessed such power here in your words that have given me wonderful actionable food for thought. Did you not follow my thoughts well? All simple writing do not give food for thought that is actionable, neither do all such complex writing. What I wish is to be understood.

If my writing needs explanation, please let me know and I will most certainly attempt to do so. I am afraid, however, that I may not know to what point of simplicity you would like for me to arrive at. I will, however, most certainly try my very best to explain things that the masses can understand. But are the masses represented here?

Another thought...is it the subject matter of the discussions that are objectionable or the way in which such matters are discussed?

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 24, 2008 5:13 AM

Just returned home to find that my copy of The Black Swan has arrived on my doorsteps. I've only just begun reading the first paragraph of the prologue and am hit by a profound truth:

"The sighting of the first black swan might have been an interesting surprise for a few ornnithologists (an other extremely concerened with the coloring of birds), but that is not where the significance of the story lies. It illustrates a severe limitation to our learning from observations or experience and the fragility of our knowledge. One single observation can invalidate a general statement derived from the millennia of confirmatory sightings of millions of white swans."

This quote seems appropos to our recent discussion here. I can't wait to read further. Gotta go...

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 24, 2008 4:12 PM

Judith,

(First apologies to Paul - "here be Dragons")

As to formal logic - yes, the distinction between truth and validity in logic is an important one. An argument is valid when the conclusion must follow from the premises (irrespective of whether the premises themselves are true). If a syllogism is valid and the premises are true, then so must the conclusion also be true. If the premises are not true (or not known to be true) the argument could still be valid.

Realize, however, that this is all FORMAL logic - it has more to do with mathematics than day to day arguments or disagreements. In those cases, we talk about logic as making sense or reasonableness. In the case of Formal logic, whether syllogistic or predicate, we have a system that is created to be deterministic or closed. A quick example perhaps could help. In predicate logic, a statement is always true or false. The way it is constructed, we can easily get crazy ordinary statements coming out as true. Any conditional (if A then B) is True if A is false. So, "If I ate an apple for lunch then my nose is two feet long" is True so long as I did not eat an apple for lunch. Now, this is of course necessary for predicate logic, since it must be a closed system in order to work - but of course our regular speech or even extremely complicated legal oratory is not this way at all.

In the end, what that means is the point Bacon was getting at in the Novum Organon - that deterministic/deductive logic is so artificial that it is almost useless with regard to most human endeavor. Bacon's answer is that we need is to look at inductive logic. Now Bacon was an amazing thinker - but inductive logic is fraught with difficulties, too. Forgive me - I am prattling on...

I used to teach this stuff, so my apologies. Formal logic has its place - Mathematics, Philosophy, and computer programming. But as something that helps us understand each other, it is pretty miserable. Usually, if someone uses it as a method of persuasion, it falls under an informal fallacy - called "blinding with science". I learned this first hand with Formal logic nearly 20 years ago now. It is really hard to hold up your end of the argument when someone starts using terms and methods you do not know very well (if at all). Thus, someone with mastery at formal logic could make it seem like they were being reasonable or scientific or (insert laudatory term here), when they really were saying something that few would agree with. When someone pulled this on me I set myself out to learn it well enough so that no one could do it again.

The art of persuasion is usually found in rhetoric or what is called "informal" logic. In a lot of ways informal logic is more fun - you see real arguments people use and see fallacies and mistakes in reasoning. You see it everywhere - commercials, politics, in meetings. Real eye opening. The biggest danger here is that you can easily become a real pain in the neck, pointing out fallacies everywhere.

Donald Norman did this with regard to design in the 80s. "You call that a door? Sheesh, which way does it open?!" After a while, it can get annoying, correct as it may be.

And now I must have tried your patience long enough.

Posted by Martin Koning-Bastiaan at May 27, 2008 2:38 AM

No prattling at all. Thank you much, Martin. I'm all for re-defining terms and meaning, as well as superimposing past and current thought, as all learning is, upon another. Post-modern thought with the likes of Derrida, Foucault, and Deleuze perhaps turns what is formal and informal logic on its head. There are no strict defining lines.

I am well aware of the premise of Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science which debunks many theories of such thought, some of which are being played out in the culture en masse in somewhat disturbing ways. The "truth" lies somewhere betwixt in that not so neat yet forever renewable existence called life.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 29, 2008 6:49 AM