Comments

Thanks, tom; I remember the original post, and I enjoyed seeing it again (and your update). It's a great example of how life happens to us despite all our plans.

Posted by Tom Maloney at September 9, 2008 8:55 PM

Tom, it's a terrific thing that you have found something to challenge and renew you...keep you young in mind and spirit. Seems that you epitomize the Seabee motto of "Construimus, Batuimus"...We Build, We Fight... both personally and professionally! Outstanding sir!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at September 9, 2008 9:22 PM

Thanks Tom for a very timely post. Although not a farm ('only' a 1,00sqm) my own property, once magnificently green has become a semi relandscaped victim of very tight water restrictions (Australia and in particular my state of South Oz is fast running out of water). The end of another southern hemisphere winter has seen me turn my attention to getting it back to a standard I'm proud to call my own. Your post has reinforced my thinking - it's the project and being in the moment that matters. Anything worthwhile needn't (in fact can't be) finished overnight. Thanks again - love your work

Posted by Gregg Utting at September 9, 2008 9:38 PM

I wrote the following thought last month. Not a rebuttal per se but perhaps a different perspective.

A lot of people dismiss strategy in different ways. I remember when I was at the V&A sitting at a lunch next to Gyles Brandreth, a television "personality" who had (as public faces sometimes do) become a Conservative MP and had been given a junior spokesman role for culture. I suggested in our conversation that it would be helpful for museums such as the V&A to know on a longer than one-year basis what the Government's aims for the cultural sector were. As things were, we were effectively putting our five-year plans forward in a vacuum. What did I mean exactly? Well, I explained, some form of framework that would guide museums' planning, which could show the Government's own longer-term priorities (financial, social, intellectual, etc) in this area, which might encourage some form of cohesion in the sector, which... "Oh", said Brandreth, with distaste dripping from every syllable, "you mean A Strategy." Well yes indeed I did, but apparently the taste of the word Strategy was so little to the MP's liking that he promptly turned to his neighbour on the other side and didn't speak another word to me.

Then there are others who dismiss strategy as if it were a straitjacket, or incapable of change once drafted, of necessity a thirty-page all-inclusive document at least, or somehow only required by weak and indecisive minds. All wrong in my view.

To me, strategy is just the process of Engage Brain, completely indispensable, but also no more complex than it needs to be. The result could be half a page or twenty pages or a Post-It note; the important thing is setting out the thinking behind a course of future action. Yes, it's liberating to hear from Tom Peters that the best order of events is Ready! Fire! Aim! But the real question in that new threesome is not the unexpected order of the last two elements, but the meaning of the first (which by the way remains in first position). Ready for what? What does "ready" mean? To be ready, someone somewhere must have done some prep, must have assessed the broad picture, must have set the compass direction, must have scoped the opportunities. That is strategy forming. The problem with much of the current how-to strategy literature is that it over-emphasises the single massive total organisation business strategy, turns strategy-making into an exam (have you answered every question?), and suggests a model that requires such an investment by people that they will never want to throw the result away. I prefer lots of smaller strategies (frame condition: if they compete unproductively then the owners need a talking-to). There's more openness to change (tune or replace) one or more as conditions change. There's less distance between strategy and action, hence less abstraction and more reality, and as a result less of an issue with achieving conformance. And each smaller strategy will almost certainly be a better fit for the people who apply it than a one-size-fits-all solution from on high.

So don't dismiss strategy, do it, but do it small and simple and often.

Posted by Rob at September 10, 2008 12:11 AM

The immortal John Lennon said it best - 'Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans'

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 10, 2008 12:28 AM

Ah, I love that quote, Tom, about 'the very moment'. Something didn't happen today that reminds us of the energy of being in 'that very moment' - The end of the world didn't happen.

The Hadron collider at CERN didn't blow us all up when they switched it on. But, it did generate a wave of human energy, didn't it, all the media coverage about what might happen when the particle accelerator at CERN was turned on this morning (European time). Did you notice how much more 'alive' and animated people were/are when talking about it? There was a thrill attached to the minutely possible (or, as most scientists were saying, vanishingly possible, in fact IMpossible) chance that the mundane would suddenly stop.

Apparently the first high speed clashes between particles won't happen till October 25th or something, so we'll go through it all again then. But, what interests me from our leadership perspective here is...What can we, as leaders, do to generate that frisson of energy about our organizations; that sense of 'buzz', sense of aliveness that you describe in your brushcutting? Leaders tap into, generate and channel energy in people; that's the leader's main job description.

There's a line of thinking that says we sleepwalk through most of what we do; that the 'highs' people seek are a seeking after a sense of aliveness and alertness that the Hadron collider inadvertently generated today. That's what happened today, it seems to me. Paradoxically, we become aware of that aliveness - of our self and our purpose, some would say - most clearly when we sense an end, or anticipate one. It's why millenial cults are full of wild-eyed people buzzing with energy.

Most organizations are the opposite, according to some organizational behaviorists. The routine, the process, the familiarity of the working day, dull our senses and our sense of the possibility.

What's the alternative? The 'conscious company' is the phrase that has emerged in recent years to describe organizations with a sense of buzz, purpose, nimbleness, aliveness about them. So, let the Hadron collider human energy emission that took place this morning (European time) be a 'wake up call': what can we do as leaders to help generate the alertness, agility and buzz of energy that will turn our organizations into a conscious companies, and generate the passion of Tom's brushcutting?

You could Google 'conscious company' for starters. 'Cos. here's a clue: the world may not have ended today; but in an overcrowded world marketplace, with far too many suppliers, and tough trading conditions for the next year or more, organizations that haven't woken up and injected some energy and 'aliveness' about them - become 'conscious companies' - won't be around anyway.

Posted by Phil Dourado at September 10, 2008 5:35 AM

"There is a goal but no way; what we call the way is mere wavering" - Franz Kafka

Posted by Russell manley at September 10, 2008 6:14 AM

My fav book on this subject is Strategy Safari - really brings to light the comment above that strategy means different things to different people. For example Trevor can take Simplicity as a valid strategy (one I would support!)

I hate the way managers band words like strategy around with so little insight. I worked with a very great facilitator a while back who was good at challenging what he called "FAT words" - i.e. words that are so big in their meaning that they actually cease to have true meaning. Phrases like "we need to think strategically here" or "we need to improve communication" need to be broken down to the point where it is clear in the room what is really needed.

I have literally just come out of a meeting about management development which has an objective of developing "strategic thinking" in the management team. It took a lot of will power to constructively nudge the conversation into something usable rather than blurt out what I was really thinking!

Posted by PaulH at September 10, 2008 6:22 AM

You're forgiven. It just means I've been away too long. Photos probably wouldn't do it justice anyway. Although many of us have really enjoyed the recent ones you've posted from the farm.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at September 10, 2008 8:04 AM

Good stuff, Tom - great stuff.

Kelleher had enough "strategy" to get started when he had the napkin sketch of the triangular routes between Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. Supplement with the strategic idea that Southwest wouldn't fly loss-making routes for the sake of "footprint." Build everything around people giddy at the opportunity to work at such a fun place. And then just do things do things do things do things.

That "strategy" beats the heck out of many a 200-page document, with more devoid-of-substance bullet points than anyone could ever digest.

I'm taking what you've written here and applying it immediately to my own day's work toward my own (grand, hazy, subject-to-constant-change) vision of the future.

Posted by Tim Walker at September 10, 2008 8:16 AM

I still don't think that understanding how a system works and how the pieces interrelate prevent someone from taking action. I continue to be amazed at the continued bashing of "Systems Thinking". All Systems Thinking is saying is understand how the pieces fit together and their interactions. Don't just work on a single component and think that it will fix the whole.

Dr. Russ Ackoff tells a great story on the subject. Let's try to make the best possible automobile. We will collect one of every make and model of auto sold in the U.S. and find the best components out there. The best engine, the best battery, the best transmission, the best passenger side door, etc etc etc. Then we will assemble the best possible automobile out of all of these best possible parts. What will you have? Likely the contraption won't even move.

This is all Systems Thinking is. What about it prevents you from taking action?

Steve Prevette

Posted by Steve Prevette at September 10, 2008 9:54 AM

Tom,

I found your original post so inspirational and powerful that I decided to let it roll on my own turf with a solarium project http://pa-parazzi.blogspot.com/. Of course I preach to the choir, but the ability to drop the need for the grand plan has resulted in observable productivity. The shackled artist within has been set free. Thank you.

Rick

Posted by Rick in VT at September 10, 2008 11:03 AM

Tom,
Action is the new competence.
Even some Scriptural support from Phillipians 4:
May people "do" and stop at verse 8: "...whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anyting worth of praise, think about these things". Wonderful stuff, let's just "think about them"? NO!

Verse 9, the strategic plan, must come along:
"What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, DO; and the God of peace will be with you."

"Action is the new competence".
Thank you Paul the Apostle, and Tom for carrying it out in your own way. THAT is a strategy based upon knowledge, experience, wise mentors, wisdom, and a trusted feedback loop!

Not new, only a 13 word strategy, with only a 34 for word preamble, and a 9 word expected result.
"Action is the new competence".

Posted by Randy Bosch at September 10, 2008 11:25 AM

Good passage, Randy. Thank you for the reminder. Another good passage regarding doing is found in James 1:22-25:

22. But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, DECEIVING YOURSELVES.
23. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a does he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror
24. for he observes himself, goes away, and IMMEDIATELY forgets what kind of man he was.
25. But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty (we have choices) and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer, but a DOER of the WORK, this one is blessed in what he does."

Regarding the farm photos TP, we understand. But we are glad that you have shared those few with us. They have made me, for one, smile.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 10, 2008 1:18 PM

PaulH - I recall many of the type of meetings you describe where some alien language is spoken. My biggest plea for simplicity has always been in the language used in management. There is far too much unnecessary jargon in management. (Frankly a lot of it is about point scoring and pretentiousness in my opinion) This silly language seems to me to be designed to confuse. One of my favourite quotes that Tom pointed us to in his writing is this one:

“Strategies are Okayed in boardrooms that even a child would say are bound to fail. The problem is there is never a child in the boardroom." - Victor Palmieri

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 10, 2008 4:37 PM

Tom, undoubtedly Grant was an exceptional soldier. However, taking the logic of your favourite author Nicholas Taleb (who argues that, e.g. from any large number of financial traders a small number will rise by sheer statistical chance to the top, whereupon they will be regarded as geniuses) and applying it to your hero, was Grant exceptionally good or exceptionally fortunate? And if the latter, as I think Taleb might argue, is his disinterestedness in strategy a good thing, or actually irrelevant.

Just wondering...

Posted by Rob at September 11, 2008 4:46 AM

I totally agree with Steve Prevette – I too am amazed at the continual bashing of Systems Thinking. Tom, I fear you’ve got Systems Thinking completely and utterly wrong. I think you have this image of a systems loop diagram in your head, with someone becoming trapped in the loop, thinking in circles infinitely.

But as Steve says, there’s nothing in Systems Thinking that talks about inaction. In fact, Systems Thinking advocates exactly what you do – that often, where there’s complexity and inter-relatedness, there are no perfect solutions knowable in advance. Hence, trial and error becomes the method towards a solution. In fact, Systems Thinking even says that there is no such thing as a perfect solution – only one that works, and we must constantly work towards improving that imperfect solution.

That said, Systems Thinking provides a tool that makes us step back and consider the impact of our actions. If the medicine-making industry didn’t think in systems terms, we’d all probably be dead by now. Systems Thinking talks about feed-back, ie, the responses of a system based on the action we take – it’s critical to take these possible responses into account before we take action.

The human body is a great example of a system - if doctors treated only one part without worrying about how other related and inter-connected parts would respond (ie, side-effects), there’s no telling where we’d all end up.

I think you’ve confused analysis paralysis with Systems Thinking.

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at September 12, 2008 5:26 AM

I want to put a response to Steve Prevette's post (I don't think this is an answer but it is a response!)

I think the problem with things like systems thinking and perhaps strategy is not that these are not valuable in the right hands. It's just that they are rarely in the right hands!

Too often it ends up as meaningless Dilbert waffle which actually slows things down.

I do agree with a lot of what you say. In addition I actually think that good thinking is very underrated in business. I recently had a meeting with my boss who asked what I was going to do about a fairly big topic - I told her I was going to think about it. The response was "yes but what are you going to DO - what are the outcomes?".

It was this point that I reminded her that "thinking" is a VERB and that ideas are outcomes. Bit of a light bulb moment for my boss.

By the way, the "outcome" of Thinking was a barnstorming presentation to snr management and I am transitioning to a new job based on my ideas.

One of the challenges thinkers face in business is that perception of talent is very lopsided.

Thinkers know they are good at thinking but usually understand their challenges at executing (often have to find ways at getting stuff done)

Action oriented people know they are good at executing but also think they are good at thinking. In reality they are often very very poor at this (e.g. only able to use one style of thinking).

This leads to a situation where thinkers are undervalued in business. In my experience Action oriented types are very uncomfortable with thinking as an action. Thinking often happens underground in many orgs - many thinkers are expected to "DO" during working hour and they often have to find time elsewhere to persue their real passion.

Posted by PaulH at September 12, 2008 5:35 AM

I agree with Tom, Steve and Chetan… O_o

It can be argued that Tom used a core attribute of 'systems thinking' in his reasoning, if somewhat unintentionally. Just to recap; systems thinking is generally thought of as the anti-theses to analysis/ analytical thinking ('lysis' meaning to break-down or separate); the two main schools of thought… hard/soft systems, determines how you view the situation, i.e. is the problem well defined —or not? With Toms example, we may well ask what is the real problem? The problem was redefined from "how can I better view my pond" to something more open, such as "how can I make my Farm more exciting" —the redefinition of the problem, was a consequence of shifts in perspective.

In systems methodologies, perspective is considered an important concept —it changes from person to person, across boundaries and (as in Toms case) —across time and through discovery and iteration, eviscerating the original view of the problem and subsequent action. Had analytical thinking been used, we'd be benchmarking best in-class views of ponds (…maybe lakes), analyzing growth rates of shrubbery and conducting focus groups on sublime vistas, well maybe not… but you catch the drift.

Good example of problems as perspective (audio: 30:10 --- 36:00 minutes).
http://www.archfoundation.org/aaf/audio/Events.Summit.Ackoff.mp3

Posted by Edwin Riggs at September 12, 2008 9:28 AM

I am intrigued by your reluctance to share the photos of the brush cutting work in progress. It reminds me of Mack's friend in Steinbeck's "Cannery Row" whose boat building project was not about actually constructing a sea worthy vessel but rather the Buddhist like appreciation for the process. Come on....cough up some photos!

Posted by Sven at September 12, 2008 2:24 PM

This might be of interest. Finlay's Little Sparta garden in southern Scotland is one of the most extraordinary and moving places to visit.

http://www.ianhamiltonfinlay.com/ian_hamilton_finlay.html

Posted by Rob at September 15, 2008 12:59 AM

PS I have been sporadically conributing comments here for a number of years. Today, for the first time a comment was held for moderation "the first time you comment"(!) Is this a sinister new development on the TP site, or just short-sightedness?

Posted by Rob at September 15, 2008 2:26 AM

I highly doubt it. Did you try to send more than one link?

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 15, 2008 7:38 AM

rob, your paranoia is showing. i pulled your comment out of the filter. when you supply one link and your url, the filter sees that as two links and that's what the filter considers spam. not to worry. (i'm regularly plucking comments out of the filter.)

Posted by erik hansen at September 15, 2008 8:28 AM

Thanks erik. You know what they say, just because you're paranoid....

Posted by Rob at September 15, 2008 11:14 AM

good point, rob.

Posted by erik hansen at September 15, 2008 11:22 AM

Speaking of paranoia, I'm getting pretty paranoid with all of these financial institutions collapsing. Maybe a return to some sort of system of regulation is necessary? After all, isn't it the tax payers dollars that secure banking institutions anyway? Some sort of overseeing seems obligatory. Obviously, the current system is broken.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 15, 2008 11:22 AM

Rob – Many years ago I had a sign on the office wall that read:

‘I’m NOT paranoid, I KNOW the b*******s are out to get me’

Good point Judith – I agree with you and I suggest the regulation we need is both self regulation and business regulation.

I’m a crap economist but I reckon the current worldwide financial crisis is because of our personal greed as individuals and definitely the greed of business whilst the boom years have been happening. I’ve said for many years that it is obscene the size of bonuses paid to city money dealers who are paid to just shift money around the world.

Money has become the new ‘God’ and as the chickens now come home to roost why are we acting so surprised?

You are right to be paranoid Judith – we are going bust big time it seems to me.

While we’ve been spending for the last several years, 20,000 people – mainly children - have died EVERY DAY due to poverty. Sorry to repeat that point for the umpteenth time on this Blog. I know you are bored with it, but I find it is ironic at best and criminal at worst. They just couldn’t make this stuff up! alternative viagra

Where are the world leaders who can grab this and inspire us?

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 15, 2008 1:19 PM

Yes, Trevor, you are right about the necessity of personal and corporate responsibility. But I must admit to getting really nauseated with the fallacy that the little guy, who gets assistance through government agencies be it grants for college or milk for a baby, is the problem when, in fact, billion dollar corporate bailouts and war contracts in the billions have pushed us to the breaking point. At least that's the way it feels!

Would some brilliant economic expert (slim chance?) please explain it to me like I'm a two year old what's going on? No corporate or Wall Street talk as my Tax dollars and my nieces and nephews' children's childrens' tax dollars are/will be used to secure these failing financial institutions. We've got a right to know right? It seems pretty simple, but I've gotta be missing something. Yes, I'm TOTALLY for personal and corporate responsibility. But it's the hypocrisy that kills me.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 15, 2008 2:12 PM

With you every step of the way Judith. As usual the individual struggling to keep his/her family together is the victim not the cause.

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 15, 2008 2:30 PM

I was with you every step of the way while you were with me (:-)) until you used the word victim. I'm not big on the term at all, but I think I understand your usage. And, often times, "victims" are a part of the cause indeed.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 15, 2008 3:30 PM

Maybe victim is too strong a word for me to use in this context because of course we all must take individual responsibility for the management of our finances. Regulation is probably the right way to go.

I recall over 30 years ago when we got our first mortgage to buy our first house, we had to jump through many hoops to borrow two and a half times the combined salaries of my wife and I.

I believe in the UK it is not unusual nowadays to obtain mortgages up to five times the salary of one wage earner.

Whilst prudence, responsibility and restraint are essential I’m sure the temptation must be great when that sort of purchasing power is dangled under one's nose by a smart mortgage sales person.

Even under those tempting circumstances discretion is the greatest part of valour but clearly many people opted to ‘go for it’ and we end up where we are now.

Like you Judith I wish someone could explain it simply.

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 15, 2008 4:45 PM

Edwin makes the crucial point that in Systems Thinking, "perspective is considered an important concept".

In fact, the perspective that Systems Thinking offers is itself a different perspective (ie systems 'interactions/whole' view vs analytical isolation/break-it-up-into-parts' perspective).

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at September 16, 2008 12:09 AM

generic viagra online canada