Comments

Great story - thanks for sharing Steve - 'We' is so much richer and deeper than 'I' .. keep 'em coming.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 9, 2008 4:15 PM

I must be strange.... When I think of hosting a meeting in a cafe then I first think of my guests (their likes and dislikes) not of myself and/or my relationship with the staff or owner of the restaurant... Other than that this is such a simplistic point I am wondering why you had to write a book about it - sure providing a good experience for your customers is the essence of doing business not a break through idea... duh?

Gary Hamel talked about this simple point at least 15 years ago when he asked "why does my bank leave me in a queue with all the other customers when they know I have such a large mortgage with them?" Answer they do not care about customers as much as they care about systems, processes, and security. In a bank some of what bankers tend to care about is probably more important to me - as a customer who has his hard earned dollars in their systems/processes - than having some "we" relationship with the teller or the bank manager.... Horses for courses....

At the end of the day I am fickle .... Most times I have great "we" relationships with the people who serve me or I do business with and that is because I put into that relationship to make it a "we" event... Sometimes it is not worth the effort so I go elsewhere .... Other times, because I am fickle and I love variety, I do not go to my best "we" cafe, supermarket, etc because I want to explore some new experiences and see how much better my "we" relationship can be with another provider... No risk taking on my part leads to no real or exciting gains on my part - I figure....

I find it depressing to think that consultants have to exist to tell business people they may indeed benefit from a "we" relationship with their customers.... If I tried that business model I would be laughed out of town....

One downside of a "we" relationship is that you - the business operator - may not get the full on negative feedback you need to innovate... The best innovators, in my experience, are those who wear the 'black hat' not the 'rose coloured glasses' around a business... Perhaps this is why Celebrity Chef Gordon Ramsay has such a successful set of TV series running in Australia today... Gordon runs around cursing and abusing everyone because they do not get the basics right... What are the basic 1) have a sensible menu with excellent food at a reasonable prices 2) be spotlessly clean 3) have front line staff who understand your 'revenue model' inside out and thus up sell the sweets and the wine 4) create a 'friendly but not intrusive' customer service 5) have people who love other people at every 'moment of truth' in your business (meet and greet and most importantly when paying the bill) 6) encourage all negative feedback you can possibly muster 7) if a fault occurs for any reason then the whole service is on the house.... There is no "we" there is just a good understanding of what it takes to run a successful business in one of the hardest industries in the world... What it takes is leadership in the kitchen, front of house, bookings for each setting, and ensuring the quality of service equals or betters the $ amounts paid at the end of each session....

Business is simple.... Delivering customer satisfaction day in and day out is complex....

That's all folks....

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at July 9, 2008 6:12 PM

"When I think of hosting a meeting in a cafe then I first think of my guests (their likes and dislikes) not of myself and/or my relationship with the staff or owner of the restaurant... "

It's my relationship with the staff and owner of the venue that gives me the confidence that they'll be just as passionate about my guests likes and dislikes as I am. I won't take them to a place until I'm reasonably sure that my guests will be well treated there.

This means of course the time- and money-consuming business of developing relationships with several owners so I have the option of large/small, energetic/quiet, Thai/Italian or whatever best suits the occasion.

And yes Richard-

"providing a good experience for your customers is the essence of doing business not a break through idea... duh?"

Aren't you continually surprised at how hard it is to get people to understand that, much less move up to the concept of 'We'?

Baby steps... baby steps..

Posted by Lois Gory at July 10, 2008 12:12 PM

IMHO, Steve has made a very important distinction, and valuable contribution to modern business thinking. Most business people are under the false impression that "they" create products, services, entertainment, information, etc. for "our" consumption. They even study how best to tell "their" unique and compelling stories to entice "us."

This is a myopic, self-centered view of the marketplace. Instead, business people need to realize that customers choose to incorporate companies "brands" into "their" unique stories; the one's about themselves. Companies may provide the actors, props, stage, lights and sounds, but when all is said and done, it is always the customer's story that matters most.

The concept of "we" makes it clear that there really is no "us" or "them." There's "the" performance, "the" dance, "the" relationship. After all, what is the sound of one hand clapping?

Kudos Steve!

Posted by Tom Asacker at July 10, 2008 2:01 PM

Steve...I loved the book and the concept! It's an eternal one.

Tom Asacker...I love "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" Thanks!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 10, 2008 3:35 PM

I've no doubt the "we relationship" will cement things in the short and medium term but surely it's only part of the story. What happens in the longer run? Unless the provider is able to change and adapt the offering, however charming the person is you are likely to change. You may simply grow tired of always buying the same thing and fancy a change. It may be that another provider offers a slightly different take on the service or product that appeals to you. Or the quality of the core product drops, however good the service around it may be. In Steve's example, if the coffee and doughnuts drop in quality, you'll go. (You may point out the problem and give the guy the chance to rectify it, but it's the coffee and doughnuts that will ultimately make your decision.)

I wonder if the danger in "we relationships" is complacency. You get so used to something that you forget the need to change, adapt and move on. Even if it means closing a "we relationship" in order to have a more profitable one with someone else, you've got to remember that the personalised bit - important as it is - is the wrapping and there's got to be something substantial within it.

Posted by Mark JF at July 10, 2008 4:19 PM

Hi Richard...I am not sure it's a matter of why the book was written, but if the book has merit and if it is applicable to how business is done. Again, have you read the book? And what's with the "duh?" What's that quote of TP's about innovation or design not being such unless it's been implemented? You know the one? What do you say about that? And by by the way, my friend, there's nothing new under the sun, including your Chattering Cluster idea.

You seem incredibly off base with this whole systems and processes thing, as if people do not matter, as if they do not exist, as if systems and processes will replace people. Who, then will, replace the systems and processes? Kinda silly, eh? I walked into my bank the other day, after banking with them for a few years, and forming a wonderful we relationship and bought the tellers lunch. Now, it was not for any specific reason, just that they take such good care of me when I enter and they are always so kind and pleasant, even when I am stressed and impatient. I bought lunch the other day because we have developed a we relationship that I so appreciate.

Today, I got a beautiful handwritten note signed by the tellers in the mail. I have since gone back and opened a second account there, even though I have other accounts at other banks. It is my relationship with them that is most important to me, besides the obvious banking necessary accounting systems and processes. These systems and processes must be the same worldwide. So, what would distinguish one from the others? We relationships! We relationships are so important; a systems and processeses will never suffice, though they most certainly do enhance things. But as I said, these systems and processes are undoubtedly the same everywhere.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 10, 2008 5:58 PM

And...Richard, regarding your last paragraph, I refer you back to the comments on the TP's post about Steve being the man. It seems that you indeed meant that to taunt and ridicule is OK. I thought I had it right the first time. Is this not what you're advocating or praising Gordon for? So, you gave me a cockimamy story about cultural differences and the relationship you have with your Australian mates, eh? C'mon, man!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 10, 2008 6:17 PM

Great story about the bank Judith – thanks for sharing - you clearly had a great ‘We’ experience

I will share a 'non We’ story to illustrate what happens when organisations forget about the ‘people’ bit.

A few years ago my oldest son (he was probably 18 at the time) found over £100 in the jaws of the cash machine – presumably left by the previous customer at the hole in the wall. Simon took the money inside the bank and handed it in. I was really impressed and proud of my sons honesty most of all but the point of this story is the bank never even thanked him in writing at all – never mind a hand written contact. This bank uses systems and processes and presumably employs robots to implement systems and processes … and forget the customer.

I’ve never met a system or a process that smiles at me.

I have read Steve’s book - It is brilliant - I’ve told him so - and I recommend it highly – ‘We’ has always ruled and always will for me.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 10, 2008 6:33 PM

MarkJF..I appreciate your comment. But complacency, which is basically taking the other for granted, is something to be aware of in any relationship. As with everything, shaking things up is essential, but even with this the shaking is not done in a vacuum and neither are the so displayed outcomes. The reality is, there is no getting around this we stuff, personally or professionally. We invades every facet of life. I agree with the necessity of sustainability. This point was also made in the earlier post.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 10, 2008 6:33 PM

Judith - I fear your definition of complacency is too narrow. Try: "A feeling of contentment or self-satisfaction, especially when coupled with an unawareness of danger, trouble, or controversy"

This post also falls into the trap of assuming every customer wants to be part of a "we relationship" and is prepared to work at it. Do they?

Posted by Mark JF at July 11, 2008 2:10 AM

Hi Mark – Happy Friday! – hope the sun is shining with you in our glorious (not) English summer!

As always your comments get me thinking.

Having read Steve’s book I don’t think Steve is saying all customers necessarily ‘want’ to be part of a ‘We’ relationship.

I think he is saying the smartest businesses and leaders promote the concept of a ‘relationship’ that is so much richer than a mere ‘transaction.’

I’m sure Steve will correct me if I’ve misunderstood.

Speaking as a self employed freelancer now for four years I try desperately to develop a ‘We’ relationship with every single client and customer. Transactional relationships – though important too for me – are fundamentally boring and are for machines, processes and systems. ‘We’ relationships are much richer, deeper and fulfilling and depend almost entirely on human beings – always have, always will.

Maybe this thing about ‘transactions’ is somehow different for big business though I fail to see why it needs to be.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 11, 2008 3:13 AM

MarkJF...You are right to take me to task on the formal defintion of complacency. I most certainly did not give one. Thank you. You may have also overlooked the use of the relative term "general" to connote non-specificity. While derivatives are oh so important, we often use words in a generally as a means of capturing a broader word useage. But your definition adds to my thought that complacency is not a good thing in any kind of relationship, personally or professionally.

You make a good point about whether customers would like to be in such a we relationship. But I'm sure that if you have walked into my store to purchase something, you very appearance forms this relationship of we. How it is built upon is something else. It's not about forcing a kind of relationship; it about providing excellent service time and time again, forming the we relationship singularly or repeatedly. But your point is well taken, though I don't think it's Steve premise.

Regarding customers, it's all about them. But that should not change the way we provide smiles, helpfulness, or any other service. If we come from a premise, that it's not about us, even though the results will certainly favor us, we don't ge caught up in trying to press any kind of relationship with the customer. We will take them as they come, remaining the same in spite of where they are on any given day. We will remain our steady, smiling, helpful selves. The results will pay off for us in the end.

Your point, Mark, is well taken. This is what irks me about customer service today. Service is to serve. Simply serve! Let the customer decide what relationship they would like to form by providing excellent service. We will probably win every time. Steve does not suggest once in his book that we push ANY kind of relationship with customers. In fact, the suggestion is the other way around -- provide the opportunity for a relatioship with the customer through excellent service. The book has a beautiful premise.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 11, 2008 5:22 AM

So, instead of fiddling while rome burns,
we all sit around and drone on endlessly about
customer service.
To solve real problems (think energy crisis, global warming)
we will need people who actually know something -
Atmosphere is no longer just a metaphor.

Posted by nero at July 11, 2008 10:12 AM

I've sat on the sidelines for a day, watching this wonderful debate unfold. A few thoughts ...

- Trevor is right, not every customer is looking for a We relationship with you, and you can't have a We relationship with every customer any more than you can be great friends with everyone you meet. This is the new way to look at customer segmentation; not by what media your customers are watching so you can advertise at them, but by what kind of relationship is appropriate with them.

Complacency ... actually, you will be less complacent and more in touch with feedback in a We relationship. A We relationship requires effort to sustain (but yields a rich return on that effort) and a customer in a We relationship is more likely to give you feedback and truly care about your success. (Chapter 4 in We)

Customer service: Creating relationship-building encounters transcends normal customer service. It's possible to give great service in a transactional way and not build a relationship. (Chapter 2 in We)

Trevor's story about his son at the bank is a classic. The bank employees are programmed to think "ATM = I'm not involved because the machine does the work." They can't conceive of seeing the possibility of human encounter in a situation involving a customer and the ATM.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at July 11, 2008 12:07 PM

One more thing ... Judith - "the sound of one hand clapping." It's on page 57 of We ... I can't remember where I originally heard that phrase. May have been author Alan Lew.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at July 11, 2008 12:09 PM

Steve, "What's the sound of one hand clapping?" is a classic Zen koan. Stay passionate!

Posted by Tom Asacker at July 11, 2008 2:56 PM

In a true We relationship, complacency will not be an issue. Your customer never thinks of you without thinking of both of you, but the flip side of that is that you never think about your customer without thinking of how you can benefit them more.

We isn't magic. You truly have to have your customer's best interests in mind and that includes innovating for their benefit. Steve wrote an interesting newsletter about this kind of reverse customer loyalty - http://yastrow.com/nlarchive/newsletter_06-17-08.html

Posted by Amanda Cullen at July 11, 2008 3:25 PM

Tom Asacker...The sound of one hand clapping is obviously soundless. The interesting thing about clapping is that its sound is wordless, though it speaks volumes -- usually expressing joy and affirmation in response to another. (Is clapping ever used in a non-joyous occasion or is it ever non-affirmative? Is it ever not in response to something?) It takes two.

Two hands clapping is a good analogy for we relationships, as "it takes two, baby, it takes two baby, me and you." (Sorry...any occasion to the quote lyrics of my main man, Marvin Gaye.) Anyway, one hand clapping is non-relational; it's non-responsive. Silent. Two hands clapping is its opposite.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 11, 2008 7:00 PM

Trevor's story about his son at the bank is a classic. The bank employees are programmed to think "ATM = I'm not involved because the machine does the work." They can't conceive of seeing the possibility of human encounter in a situation involving a customer and the ATM.

Duh.... The bank offers a 'self-service' facility to a customer... Self-service not a 'we' relationship... Along comes an honest person and he wants to do the right thing - well done Simon you must have had good parenting - and return these monies to its rightful owner.,. To do that he has to activate the systems, processes, and security arrangements of the bank... He has no way of finding the 'rightful' owner otherwise... He does this and leaves - end of story... Why does the bank have to write to him to thank him? I just do not get it???? There is no need to chop down trees to thank people who simply want to do the 'right thing'... If the bank reunites the errant 'self-serve' customer with his/her money then the bank has done a good thing in the spirit of the act by Simon... You guys are so good at making a point by making some other totally unrelated point....

The comments here are full of 'we' statements or stylistic presentations of hardcore ideologies, prejudices, and unrelenting mindsets. Anyone who is interested in why people resort to these tactics might like to read Umberto Eco 'Turning back the clock - hot wars and media populism'.... Go to page 337 for the context, and thus the full meaning of the following quote below, which is by Saint Jerome (in Adversus Jovinianum I) who was writing in the Fifth Century....

These days there are so many barbarous writers and so many discourses rendered so muddled by stylistic vices that one can neither understand who is talking nor what he is talking about. All expands and contracts like a diseased serpent that falls apart as it vainly essays to make its coils. All is entangled in inextricable verbal knots, and one has to agree with Plautus: "Here no one can understand anything except the Sybil." What's the use of this verbal witchcraft?

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at July 11, 2008 8:07 PM

Richard, my friend, have you just leapt off a cliff? What are you talking about with your last statement? Respond in kind or however you do what you do. But diseased serpent? Verbal witchcraft? This is some seriously weird stuff.

Regarding unrelenting mindsets, it seems that you have such a one. Have you no held onto your You have held onto your beliefs? So, why feel like the castigated outsider? It is so easy to quote Eco and Plautus when there is no agreement or when one feels like the lone voice of reason.

Richard, this kind of attitude is lame. If you are in opposition say so or not. But please do not play the lone philosophical martyr. It is rather unbecoming. Is that diseased serpent-like verbal witchcraft?

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 11, 2008 9:08 PM

Judith.... Thanks for your comment... I love difference... I love complexity and challenge... I love intellect... I love contributing something that people can think about...

If that is what you mean by leaping off a cliff - yep I love leaping off cliffs....

I thought it might add a bit of much needed 'comic relief' to offer some truly intellectual content... Eco is regarded by many as one of the best intellects of our times - if just one person goes and reads some of his essays (because I quote something from his excellent book) then maybe, just maybe, the world will be a better place for it....

I note that nothing is being advanced by this conversation of 'we'.... Please do me a favour and re-read the comments above and ask yourself, honestly, does this notion of 'we' offer us anything new or offer us anything we do not already know?

Thanks for your time, I appreciate it... Frankly there will be no more from me on this subject because I believe it is a total waste of our time....

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at July 11, 2008 11:57 PM

‘Why does the bank have to write to him to thank him? I just do not get it????’

Hi Richard – you are quite correct (technically in accordance with procedure) … of course the bank doesn’t HAVE to write to thank him. But think how I would speak about the Bank if they had … rather than speak of them as I do.

Not doing stuff 'because we don’t HAVE to' is one of the core reason some organisations and managers just don’t get this customer services thing.

Isn’t it a sad state of affairs in any business when we say words to the effect; ‘I didn't say ‘thank you’ because the system, the process or the procedure says I didn’t HAVE to do it ’

I suspect your comments Richard are tongue in cheek because I just can’t believe with your brain that you cannot see the correlation between going the extra mile to more than satisfy your customer. That to me is just a no brainer.

As regards the ‘intellectual’ discussion about Umberto Eco, Plautus and Saint Jerome, I have no useful contribution to make, other than to say – I know none of them ever played for Manchester United!! :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 12, 2008 4:21 AM

Richard...Jokes sometimes do not translate over technology, perhaps another reason for we relationships. But you have done well to recover with the jumping over the cliff bit. Good on you!Though, it wasn't exactly my take on it. I assumed that by your descriptives that you had lost it. But I see you are still with us :-)

As I have said before, it's not a matter of what's new or not but rather what has been enacted and what needs enacting...greater still. There is nothing new under the sun. We all present variations on the same theme. I think I mentioned your Chattering Clusters as an example. It's all a matter of how things are said and if they resonate. The concept of we resonates. And as I also said, this is a concept that has been around for some time.

Trevor, I love this line: "you are quite correct (technically in accordance with procedure) … of course the bank doesn’t HAVE to write to thank him. But think how I would speak about the Bank if they had … rather than speak of them as I do." Thank you. Word of mouth is the best advertisement. Others talking to others about products and services are the best salespeople.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 12, 2008 5:53 AM

And Richard...your "truly intellectual" bit, perhaps imply that you are still tittering on that non-comical lonesome cliff edge. Eco and Plautus are indeed brilliant thinker who make us better when we enact their sayings. But I've also read some brilliant posts and comments here, though there is no need to compare.

Perhaps your comment was not meant to be taken literally or in comparison with at all. This I acknowledge. But it's all good. I also love discovering brilliant thinkers that I had not known before. Recently, TP strongly recommended the book The Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his post I think entitled, "Read it, Dammit!" What an incredible thinker Taleb is! He WOWS me!

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 12, 2008 6:15 AM

"Nothing being advanced here," says who? You, eh? Others might disagree. Did you mean your particular viewpoint?

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 12, 2008 6:25 AM

Trevor .... Good link between Man U and Eco - the great Italian thinker - perhaps you could recruit him to play on the wing .... You have not had a truly great wingman since Georgie Best (he dazzled with his feet whereas Eco might dazzle with his brains)... Imagine the pre-match tactics discussion between Sir Alex and Umberto Eco now that could be a 'we' relationship made in heaven... You know Trevor I have the feeling they would actually love each other's company --- just a suspicion on my part.... Good luck to you my friend and to your Man U but next year Liverpool is coming to get you... I also think my beloved Oakland Raiders are going to win the next Super Bowl... Go figure!

Judith... My friend I just love your generosity towards me and especially your willingness to listen to my often 'stupid' rants... I have no particular point to make here unless it is that Tuypperware - in particular Ms Wise - invented 'we' relationships in the late 1940 to early 1950s... The great Tupperware Company was built to last (as per Jim Collins) because it was squarely based on that simple principle - it has also gone from good to great (as per Jim Collins) because it continues to innovate its 'we' relationships... For me this subject was done and dusted about 60 years ago... My viewpoint is it is better to climb onto the shoulders of a giant like Ms Wise or Umberto Eco than to listen to Chattering Clusters, Clans and Tribes of our day who think they have re-invented, innovated, or otherwise bettered a classic idea.... Thanks for your patience with me I must admit that my conversational skills are often found wanting...

Seeya....

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at July 12, 2008 5:58 PM

Richard, I love the Oakland Raiders too! Growing up they were my brothers' favorite team. So, I grew up all raiders! And, Richard, you are a fine thinker and good man. Seeya too...

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 12, 2008 7:31 PM

RIchard,

I just don't believe this subject was "done and dusted about 60 years ago," for a couple of reasons.

First, I spend tons of times working with companies on the subject of creating strong customer relationships, consulting and speaking, and it's very clear that most companies aren't coming close to developing the potential of their customer relationships. And, most executives are very willing to admit it.

Second, one thing that is much different today than 60 years ago is the proliferation of available products that can "do the job." I see this constantly in market research that we do: People don't see nearly as much differentiation in the quality of products between different companies, but they see major differences in the relationships they have with those companies. The strongest brand impressions are not of products, but of relationships.

I think we're talking about different topics. Sounds like you're thinking about customer service, and what you think "We relationships" mean just by hearing the phrase. I invite you to get better acquainted with the concept. I've found that it has helped me immensely in the way I conduct both my business and personal relationships.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at July 12, 2008 10:24 PM

Hi Richard - Liverpool may well challenge United this season .... I hope they do ... I would rather see Liverpool challenging than Chelsea ... the money driven club. Thanks too for the reminder about my all time hero the late immortal George Best - simply a genius.

Steve – Although I think Richard has a valid point about the increasing use of online purchasing I still believe it’s the human ‘relationship’ where the added value is.

I use the analogy of the customer shopping round for his/her new camera and seeing the identical camera for sale – same spec – same price …. In two retail shops next door to reach other in the high street. What is it that make me part with my money? It is certainly not the product. I would say it is the shop that makes me feel most special. (Of course the third option is to stay at home and purchase from my front room on the PC – but that way I can’t ‘feel’ the camera – look at ‘in the flesh’ as it were) buy viagra in toronto

I am the world’s biggest fan of e mail and electronic communncation. At the same time I think the word of mouth thing is still under estimated even in our modern technological world. Sure enough a bad news email can be round the world in seconds but ‘spoken’ bad news stories travel faster than the speed of light. And of course … you can’t ‘see’ into the eyes of an email; you can’t ‘hear’ the frustration; you can’t ‘feel’ the disappointment.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 13, 2008 3:21 AM

Steve.... Good luck to you...

I find that the world I deal with is definitively moving away from brands, carbon-intensive processes, and people-intensive systems... I guess I perceive my world of business as one very similar to that Carly Fiorina talks about in her speeches - a virtual, mobile, digital,networked, instant, and personal world. At the global levels it is machine-to-machine and at the local level it is people-to-people (but it is experience based not relationship based). Most people today have little time for relationships in the sense you are trying to convince me of here. What they seek is a sense of 'belonging to a group' that shares their values, ideologies, stories, and experiences.

From what I can tell even the Tupperware Company has moved on - it is now into the digital world with its purpose-driven groups that work online as much as they formerly did in family living rooms.

I do not doubt your research or the fact that what you are on about works for you. I just believe the world, in general, has moved on driven as it is by the use of personal technologies that allow people to have virtual friends and experiences and to do business with people they have never met yet have had a great experience with in the past - that is on eBay (buying from complete strangers), Amazon (using their EC2 or cloud computing services), etc. People trust these virtual experiences to levels that I am not prepared to do myself just yet and perhaps that is why I am researching why? and how come? it is that C21st people are becoming so different to consumers of the 1990s (it seems to be affecting both genders equally - as yet I see no signs of the "women bias' that Tom Peters talks about in C20th shopping habits)... I sense that C21st people/consumers Richard.are already becoming very different and acting very differently across all age groups, economic circumstances, and educational attainments... There is no 'killer application' as yet as far as I can tell - the iPhone is the nearest anyone can see to such a thing because it is a 'user friendly' hand held device that is changing people's mindsets, habits, and consumer behaviours. One tell tale sign that the world has shifted focus is the fact that downtown in my city the multi-story Nike Superstore is now a Mobile Phone Store.... I know that this is not factual evidence of anything but maybe it is a Big Black Swan in my simple world of Big White Ducks....

From what I can gather Carly Fiorina (former CEO of HP and now advisor to McCain Campaign) sees the same types of things I see emerging - I sense that she saw these trends clearly from her view of things as CEO of HP and she talks about those trends in her highly paid speeches - perhaps Tom Peters has talked with her about these matters so you could ask Tom..

Equally, Jamie Dimon (CEO of J P Morgan and the newly acquired investment house of Bear Sterns) had some interesting things to say in the New York Times a week or so ago, also at Aspen Ideas Festival, and on an extended interview with Charlie Rose... Dimon is calling for changes in Washington policy settings and within business processes to reflect the need to kick America's addiction to oil, to clean up the health insurance mess, etc. I recommend everyone read what Jamie Dimon has to say - he is on the money because he is thinking about the future not the past....

I guess I am just a humble researcher.. I am researching a world beyond Brands, addiction to Carbon-based Fuel Cycles, and People-intensive Organisations (NB public sector and health care systems excepted for the time being so sit down Trevor it does not really affect you just yet!)...

In conclusion, I do not agree with your 'we' proposition - I sense that the world has moved on.. Tupperware is certainly trying to keep up with the what Thomas Friedman calls 'the flat world of the internet' and so am I.... I love your passion for what you believe in... I wish you well with your business and your personal relationships....These comments are offered in the spirit of fellowship.....

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at July 13, 2008 3:48 AM

Richard...Thank you. I appreciate your comments above. I have yet to read the New York Times article, but I did catch the interview with Jamie Diamond on Charlie Rose. Hmmm? There were a few things that stuck out to me that I'd like to get clarification on. Perhaps the article you suggested is a good start. And, Richard, I love your final paragraph. It's generous...indeed.

Posted by Judith Ellis at July 13, 2008 5:16 AM

I can totally relate to the concept of WE. In fact I use this same notion when coaching executives to think this way when in meetings. Many executives sit at a board room table thinking that they are the only ones having internal dialog with themselves. The question is how does one get them to be present with me? How do I get the others to include me in their thinking?

I had a business partnership for 18 years growing our business from 2 to 2,200 people. I can still hear Rick's (my partner) voice in my head. My thinking incorporates his thinking even when he is not with me. How amazing this would be if our customers incorporated us into their thinking like that. I know in my executive coaching role clients will tell me that they had an issue come up and they had an internal dialog between themselves and me in there head before they reacted. I feel so honored and privileged to be with them in their minds during these stressful times.

Thank you for you entry it really got me thinking more on this topic.

Posted by Gary Cohen at July 14, 2008 10:20 AM

Hi Gary - You should consider reading Steve's book, We: The Ideal Customer Relationship. You can find it at http://yastrow.com

It seems you already have we relationships, and the book offers very practical advice for forming them with your customers.

Posted by Amanda Cullen at July 14, 2008 12:34 PM

Hi Richard - I try to stay out of your epic arguments, but I have one question. Isn't a virtual friendship still a friendship?

Posted by Amanda Cullen at July 14, 2008 12:35 PM

Amanda .... Yes!

I had an imaginary friend when I was five - did you?

My virtual friends exist somewhere between my imaginary friend - who I talked to by the way - and my tangible friends who I go down to the pub with and have a full on, in your face, debates....

A virtual friend is nothing new of course - it something akin to having a 'pen friend' in past when people still wrote about their inner most feelings in letters...

The difference is C21st technologies... Web 3.0 social networks are vast and people can have thousands of virtual 'friends'... They often do form a type of 'we' relationship with up to 150 entities (based on theory but supported by Facebook experiences of users).... How can I have a serious friendship with 'g'? I can have a much more serious friendship with Trevor Gay because he is transparent and accountable - even though TG and I agree on almost nothing of substance...

It is difficult - in theory if you do the maths almost impossible - to have truly, madly, deeply meaningful conversations with more than about 8 people... I always limit my workshops or tutorials to multiples of 8 (ie 16 -24 is the limit)... I work them as groups of 8 and have them work with each other... in those groups... Over a semester with students I tend to mix up the group members otherwise they become tribal in their attitudes and debating styles....

What I am suggesting is that business has to move on from 'we' relationships because business is being networked at the local and global levels...

What is still relevant today is the'experience' you have within your conversations... If you have a good experience you will market that fact - by word of mouth promotion - if not you equally market the fact that you harbour bad, or even hostile, feelings about the experience...

On this site some frustrations have built up and boiled over into 'bad' experiences for some participants here.... Those who are 'tight' with the 'good experiences' they have with their 'we' relationships are actually getting closer and becoming more friendly towards each other... Birds of a feather flock together is what my wise old grandmother told me...

To have a 'good experience' with a virtual friend that is robust and endearing you must be willing to be transparent, accountable, and inclusive....

Thanks for your comment....

Seeya

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at July 14, 2008 8:59 PM

Thanks Richard - I apprecaite your comments.

Posted by Trevor Gay at July 15, 2008 3:01 PM