Comments

I had the good fortune to see Marshall speak at the comedy store in London - a truely great speaker. Moved me to laugh one minute and choke up the next. Makes fun of himself as much as anyone - but puts across very clear and serious points. I gained a lot from this session - I totally agree with Tom read this book and pick one or two bad habits and make a change for the better!

Posted by PaulH at October 13, 2008 2:38 PM

The other two big Marshall Goldsmith points that I've come back to again and again for my clients and myself are these. 1) the higher you rise, the more your success will depend on your communication/people skills and the less it will depend on your technical skills and 2) the very skills and strengths which got us to this position are the ones likely derail our performance in the future.

Posted by Wally Bock at October 13, 2008 4:36 PM

Nice, Wally.

Posted by tom peters at October 13, 2008 5:41 PM

My response to what you shared of Goldsmith's wisdom

Have a meal in a good Chinese Restaurant. The food will be good and the fortunes in the cookies will enlighten as much as what I've seen here - period.

Posted by zed at October 13, 2008 9:08 PM

I'm with zed on this one. No disrespect intended to those who coach, mentor, author, and consult. Maybe it's the story of the AIG execs and the 440,000.00 they spent on a retreat after they needed a 85 billion dollar bailout. What is it about "leadership" that is so intrinsically difficult to compre-freakin'-hend? Treat people like you would like to be treated? Be the boss you want your boss to be? The techniques and concepts are the same regardless if you're in the corner office or on the floor leading a team. You aren't gonna find the answers and advice you need on the golf course or spa. What you need to do is ride your ass (donkey, or take the car if you don't have a donkey) down to the public library and find the 658 shelves...that's where the answers are. No off sites...LIBRARY CARDS! If you really want to have someone "coach" you to better performance and productivity, find the lowest paid person on the latest shift in your company....then work your way up from there. Ask them what the top two challenges and barriers to excellence are. What your customers are telling them about your products and services. No consultant or coach can give you the kind of accurate and actionable advice or feedback that your front line can. What have you got to lose? Your ego? Take some of the resources you spend on consultants and coaches and pay your folks a living wage...improve employee retention and improve the bottom line! It's not the science of rockets folks...really! I learned that at the library reading a book called "A Passion for Excellence"!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 13, 2008 10:35 PM

Dave - no disrespect intended but if leadership isn't so difficult to compre-freakin'-hend then a) how come you had to learn it from a library book; and b) how come you feel a need to come to this website for topups?

Management is one of the few professions where you can be a good operative - be it a salesman, research scientist, fork truck driver or whatever - and then get promoted into a position where you're managing people. And purely because you're good at selling widgets or had an accident-free record as a fork truck driver you're assumed to be a top notch supervisor! How often do we hear consequent disaster stories or tales of people making a multitude of mistake before maturing into good man-managers?

The Roman Caesars used to have someone whispering in their ear, "Remember Caesar that you are only human." It seems like this is a lesson we still need teaching after a further 2000 or so years and maybe coaches, mentors and trainers are their 21st century equivalents.

Posted by Mark JF at October 14, 2008 1:39 AM

Dave - Agree with a lot of what you said. Just want to make one very picky comment. The widely accepted definition of coaching (at least in UK) is that coaches do not give advice. There are some differences in opinion on this (US tends to be much more directive in style than UK). Pure coaching is different from consultancy and mentoring

Posted by PaulH at October 14, 2008 1:45 AM

Mark JF...excellent point and a great question. I to this day still see folks promoted for many reasons, performance sometimes being one, of them who fail completely or develop themselves into good managers. The military was a classic example of rank=knowledge advance. Leadership however is about "people", more difficult to learn, particularly when your position gives you authority. I look at how my "leadership" skills developed and to me it's a kind of Shewart's Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. The Plan piece is in large part what was learned and observed before you are placed in that role. Teachers, bosses, my high school football and baseball coach. I learned from the benchmark and the great bad example alike. The Do-Check-Act is the development piece after you are given the opportunity to lead. You still observe and learn which is where the books and visits to this site come in. A great deal of this is validation,my way of reminding me I'm only human because I get nervous thinking "why do I see a lot of this real clearly when others far more educated and knowledgeable don't seem to grasp the basics?" A Passion for Excellence, The Change Masters, and others made me see I was on the right track, it is about common sense, people, the need to constantly see if change is needed and how critical leadership not management is to getting results. The visits to this site for the same reason and for ideas on execution or implementation. There is a lot of "what to do" out there, not necessarily a great deal of how to it. Again, this is still learning from benchmarks and bad examples alike!

Paul H...thank you for the clarification as the point is significant.

I'm not saying there isn't a need for coaching leaders etc. I guess I just question the methods of how it is done perhaps and don't see the real value. I see the organization from a different perspective, one where the senior executives direct involvement would remove a lot of barriers for me and my team. I learn and try to get better because of the level of accountability I have? Who holdS "the top guys" accountable? There is also no a better place that they could visit than the front line to learn or be reminded that they are only human.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 14, 2008 7:38 AM

Is topups sorta like dissing someone for their opinion with an opening nicety, a mid slam, and an ancient history ending bit that points towards self analysis? Ecce homo. The relevance of the comment itself is indeed a good one, minus the one addressed.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 14, 2008 8:32 AM

Judith - "topups" = to top up, i.e. to add to an existing stock of something (in this case ideas and knowledge).

Dave - I agree with you about the way of lot of people use coaches and training. Too many people seem to assume you're going to learn something and come out immediately and fully trained. But how can that be in a management art that demands judgement and other soft skills? Or they assume that someone is going to transform you and your colleagues overnight. It's a bit of a hobby horse of mine but it seems to reflect a, "We want it and we want it now" attitude and overlook the fact that leadership is something you're always learning and you've always got to work at.

Posted by Mark JF at October 14, 2008 10:02 AM

MarkJF - Thank you for the definition and the seemingly succeeding relevance. So, the opinion referred to was a relevant addition to the discussion and not literally a top up as in a one up? OK. It's just that "the need to come to this website to topups" didn't relay the respect for another's opinion for me, thereby reducing it to oneupmanship. I may have misread what was believed to be a wry snarky opening. If so, my bad. As I've said, your comment itself had value for me, as did Dave's. Thank you both.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 14, 2008 10:45 AM

Mark - I don't see the connection with Coaches and "want it now". The business people that I have coached have gained some feedback or have learned something about themselves that they want to change. This is long haul stuff over many months. I admit I am selective in who I coach but most people who I deal with are coming at this from a deep values based perspective to make themselves better people and managers and they turn to coaching to move away from the quick fix solutions (which haven't worked for them)

Posted by PaulH at October 14, 2008 11:28 AM

Paul - my point is that some people engaging coaches, trainers etc seem to "want it now" - and possibly have no real idea of what "it" is - and not that coaches are offering this. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Posted by Mark JF at October 14, 2008 12:29 PM

Great post, TP! Thank you. While reading the ending admonishment for effective leadership and the comments here, I immediately thought of the great existential philosopher, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche.

Human, All Too Human, is a book of aphorisms that requires one to first look inwardly before seeking to understand the forces of humanity collectively. It is not that one determines how a thing should be based on one’s own experience alone. However, it is determining who one is that allows for thoughtful existence and impact upon others.

Self-knowledge enables a leader to effectively lead and a follower to effectively follow; this also happens in reverse order or interchangeably among the same leader and follower. The best leaders become followers too. This is the humility of acknowledging others and admitting wrong that so marks great leaders.

Humanity is not so enigmatic or perplexing; it is not so questionable or broad when you consider that we are “All Too Human.” This consideration comes with first with self-knowledge.

“For what purpose humanity is there should not even concern us: why you are there, that you should ask yourself: and if you have no ready answer, then set for yourself goals, high and noble goals, and perish in pursuit of them! I know of no better life purpose than to perish in attempting the great and the impossible...”

--Nietzsche, unpublished note from 1873

Now, I will order What Got You Here Won’t Get You There. As I wait for the delivery of the book, I will meditate on the words of this post which has great personal significance. Thanks again, TP.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 14, 2008 1:14 PM

Dave - the front line is where it’s at my friend - you are spot on with your incisive opinions rooted in the reality of leading people for the best part of your working life.

Your voice of realism, pragmatism, common sense and 'groundedness' (probably no such word) needs to be heard ABOVE the chattering clusters and clans - or whatever - as our great Aussie pal Richard Lipscombe might describe them.

You know the sort Dave – those who promote the view there is some complex academic mystique about all this common sense behaviour we persist in calling leadership and management.

Keep saying it as it really is Dave. Keep questioning why we have to buy in consultants – like me – to help solve problems that front line employees know the answers to already.

The best way to gain power is to let go of power and the best managers/leaders do that naturally as a normal mode of working.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 14, 2008 6:34 PM

I trust that "the word" according to Marshall is about to coach, mentor, inspire, or otherwise produce for us all a C21st Henry Ford. We need a leader, or many many leaders, with his insights into the problems of distributing new age wealth. Ford showed his leadership when he built his new factory in 1908 we need a new leader to step out of the shadows in 2008...

If you want the job then here is a description of the task you need to come to grips with over the next 5-10 years... No need to apply for this job just get started as Henry Ford did over 100 years ago....

"C21st affairs are complex because they differ from C20th affairs in two key dimensions 1) they are global 2) they are about access to, connection with, and use of digital networks.

Most C20th affairs were about people. Why? Because people were the key asset in all organisations. So it is not too surprising to me that most commentators still blame people for the current financial crises. These crises, yeah they are a series of crises not a singular crisis, are blamed on the people who run derivative trading on Wall Street, on mortgage brokers on Main Street, and on any group of people around the world who can be tagged with "greed".

What has really happened is simple to explain. We have a new global economy that produces more wealth than we have ever seen before. This is a good thing not a bad thing. The problem with it is there is no distribution system that enables people around the globe to share in this new found wealth.

Our C20th banking system was the beneficiary of this new wealth creation and it sought to do what it does best - make money off it while the money was in its care. In respnse to this new situation the bankers on Wall Street accidentally came up with a new distribution system, of sorts, that could have worked brilliantly.

The most clever talent on Wall Street worked out a new way to lend money to people who otherwise would not qualify so they might buy assets - primarily real estate assets. Thus they enabled a group of people who were never going to share in this new found wealth to share in some of the action. The notion was that these "sub-prime" borrowers could buy appreciating assets and so build wealth. This system actually worked well for about 5 years and then it came unstuck.

It came unstuck because bankers and banking systems are C20th entities not C21st digital networked systems. They networked the risk of lending to these "sub-prime" folks in ways that could only be sustained if their global networks continued to expand. Unfortunately their global networks began to contract because these banks became less and less transparent about what they were doing. The dam broke once they began to ignore their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders - probably around 2005. Thus they were running a business/banking model that was not sustainable - they were running the banking systems' equivalent of an Enron scam.

As per Enron, but on a much wider scale, eventually the money trail led accountants and even shareholders to ask questions about the soundness of their lending practices. This began the implosion of the whole system.

Significantly it was not falling house prices as some now claim but the inability of the banks to be transparent in their lending practices. Credit got squeezed to new borrowers and so the prices of houses had to come down.

The real crisis here is the lack of a wealth distribution system. The C20th had jobs as the distribution system. Ford built cheap cars in 1908 and paid his employees a high wage of $5 per day because he wanted them to be able to buy the T-model cars they produced. Ford had a wealth creation and distribution system that re-inforced each other.

Today we have an emerging C21st wealth creation system that is totally detached from the C20th wealth distribution systems."

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 14, 2008 8:00 PM

Here is Nassim Nicholas Taleb on banking institutions and the current crisis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABXPICWjFIo

Are we prepared to scrap what we believe we knew to start fresh, to enter into a brave new world?

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 14, 2008 9:11 PM

Judith..."This is the humility of acknowledging others and admitting wrong that so marks great leaders." You so correct. It's not suppressing one's ego, it is humility, about showing respect and honoring the knowledge and contribution of those you work with. Outstanding! The
Nietzsche quote is terrific as well...

Mark JF...I agree about the quick fix mentality that some have...the executive coaching niche excluded since my perception of what it does may be incorrect. Consultants and trainers are hired so executives can avoid involvement in the process or initiative completely. Research shows leadership credibility is the number one reason change or improvement initiatives succeed...or fail in organizations. This or the impression that outside help=better results. In-house is not a four letter word!

Trevor...the value of consultants like you is to make the case for doing the what's obvious to all but the senior executives. Sometimes they have to hear the words from "outside experts". I also agree with the letting go of power thought. The best leaders know you only have the power the front line "grants" you anyway. The frontline giveth, and the frontline can taketh away! You can have allies or enemies. My goal as a leader is that my tent will always be crowded but dry!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 14, 2008 11:14 PM

Richard - I think your assertion that the issue is with, "...the problems of distributing new age wealth..." is putting the cart before the horse. The issue seems to me to be more linked to the fact that we haven't yet discovered a sustainable way of generating "new age wealth." The credit boom we've seen burst recently didn't simply "...come unstuck..." but was revealed as fatally flawed, to the extent that not only did it collapse but it destroyed the wealth it had created and then some.

At the risk of sounding like a luddite, I think we need to put sexy-sounding things like "digital networks" (which are enablers and not really an end in themselves) into their proper place and more focus on real products and real services that real people will pay real money for.

Posted by Mark JF at October 15, 2008 2:59 AM

Mark... Thanks for your comments...

I have a real digital product - a mobile phone - and I receive real digital services on it each and everyday which I pay my provider real money for I can assure you... Of course, I may or may not be a real person by yours or anyone else's definition so that might be the flaw in my argument...

Instead of trying to re-state any part of what I said above I refer you to a recent interview between Sir Howard Stringer, CEO and Chairman of Sony Corporation, and Charlie Rose... As I watched that interview I thought Sir Howard was the type of business leader who I would like to have as a boss or a client...

Sir Howard is a Welshman, he is an American citizen, his family lives in England and he runs a Japanese icon corporation. He actually lives a great deal of his life in an aircraft traveling around the globe... Sony is a corporation that makes real things that real people spend real money on all around the globe...

Sir Howard is certainly aware of the need for new business models to run digital networked corporations like Sony in the C21st... Sir Howard points to the limits of analogue corporations with their vertical communication patterns and the resultant silos. He told Charlie Rose that Sony needs to operate as a digital corporation wherein the communication is lateral... Remember Sony is a corporation that makes TV sets, Blue-ray DVDs, movies, etc. etc....

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 15, 2008 5:04 AM

Richard - The banking problem seems to have been one of receivables that led to the financial institutions not being able to lend. There is no question that the pools of securities backed by mortgages were securitized again and again lead to the crisis which was tantamount to those shady investment vehicles of Enron. It may not be the issue of the lack of technology. Technology abounds in most business, especially on Wall Street. In fact, it might be that technology may be such that people will be needed more to determine irregularities and max leveraged securities that look good on the screen but in reality will cause a crash.

The price of houses came down because of the lack of liquidity in the systems. (My partner and I have bought more than a few beginning in March without mortgages. As many others, we understood the bank's liquidity problem.) The fact is there were no receivables. The product (the secruritzed backed mortgage--the house, essentially) had been leveraged to the max and when mortgages reset in reality there were no receivables; thus, there was no real cash for lending.

Banks don’t have products proper; they shuffle the money of people. People could not pay. How could technology have assisted in this real problem of liquidity if the issues of practices and people were not honestly dealt with? When Lehman, a bellwether institutuion which began in 1850, bought BNC they went into this market FULLY aware of the mortgage company's faulty lending practices. This is the greed spoken of today.

Business devoid of people seems like a far stretch. Technology is great, but who will mind the shop? Who will train customers? Who will answer questions? Have you seen the great Toshiba commercial which speaks about the necessity of people by having rogue technology roam an office without the assistance of people? It goes something like "we send our people in first and then our technology." I think there has probably has been a backlash of sexy technology over mass know-how. Technology cannot subsit without people. The commercial makes a valid point.

People create products, assemble products, repair products and buy products. People are the core of businesses of any type. This will not change. Even if we go to the outer extremities to reduce the influence of people and replace them with technology around the bend there you will find them. There is a somewhat unsettling quality about merely replacing technology with people instead of working from the premise that technology should enhance the lives of people. Sir Howard is flying around the world to secure his company's position with people, not technology. Otherwise, he could just send off messages throughout the world on the sexiest newest Sony tech product soon to enter the market.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s fear that this is only the beginning probably has validity. Have we seen large hedge funds and institutional investors besides investment banks that entered the securitized subprime mortgage market looking for high yield assets collapse yet?

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 15, 2008 8:36 AM

Judith....

There are two kinds of people in the new digital global economy... Rich and poor people... Rich people work in global entities and they are experts in what they do (they make movies, they invent new drugs, they own/run/maintain/fix communication corporations, or social networks, etc)... Poor people work in local, regional, and national entities as service providers...

The digital economy or corporation is primarily about scale and reach - it is about aggregation of assets, revenue, and opportunities.... Everyone who wants a job will have a job - that is not the issue here (the exciting thing is there are millions upon millions of people in China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc who are now becoming the innovators of our new economy)... The issue is rather that so much of what people call jobs now will not be jobs in the future...

Henry Ford changed the nature and the meaning of jobs with his assembly lines - those lines also produced socio-economic changes that lasted around 100 years...

What changes, exactly, the new digital economy and its business models will bring I do not know (and probably can not fully comprehend) so I am the last to even make a good guess about such things... All I want to do here is raise the issue and see if anyone out there in TPC comments land is interested in going beyond thinking about what is and present us with ideas - thought leadership if you like - about what might be...

The important thing is the new rich will not necessarily be the happiest nor the luckiest people on the planet they will just have a greater command over income producing assets whether those assets are virtual or technology based will depend upon what they find they love to do... Their greatest asset will be their brain - they will leverage their thinking to command a high return in what will become more and more an information based society....

In the 1960s the local butcher, baker, milk supplier, fruit and vegetables provider, etc all came to my parent's house to provide a personal service - we had a strong relationship with each of them... Some of this type of business will and must exist in 2060 but I am guessing it might have more to do with energy provision and carbon footprints - will they have become the staples of life? I can not predict the future and I do not want to try all I can do is to open my mind to new and exciting possibilities because we have discovered some exciting new ways of organising economic activities.

Taleb is full of fears... Much brighter people than him (in my humble opinion) are also fearful of the upheaval ahead and the dislocation to people and their current way of life in the next 2 out to 10 years... I wrote a long time ago on my own weblog that we are all drifting into the worst Depression the world has seen... I based what I wrote on what I had read and heard from the dark-side economists/commentators warnings over the past 18 months or so because they seemed to make sense...

Last weekend I unilaterally declared it was over - I wrote on my weblog that we have seen the bottom of this thing and so we have about 2 years for it all to play out... I could be horribly wrong of course but my mindset is that we are on the otherside of the worst of this thing...

Let's see how it all plays out - one thing is sure we are not going back to how things were in 2006... The digital economy is here and people have to adjust to it as best they can.... Well that is how I see the world so back to you and your friend on TPC!!!

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 15, 2008 4:15 PM

Thanks, Richard. It's funny that empirical thinkers are called fearful and negative. The same can be said of other brilliant thinkers in many fields from philosophy to science. David Hume was considered such. Have you read any of Taleb's books or interviews? I, in fact, find him not only brilliant, but honest, positive and humorous. He was warning about the impending financial crisis for some time now. He made a direct reference to it in The Black Swan. Perhaps there are more brilliant persons than he, but that for me would not be the question. The question for me is who’s out there that has not been a part of the crisis that can now come together with new ideas to assist Paulson and Bernanke. Some believe that a complete overhaul or perhaps a purging of sorts is needed.

Regarding technology, the universal discussion does not seem to be whether it has a place in society. No one will argue that it does not. It clearly has a prominent place. My assumption from reading your comments here over more these months, though perhaps mistakenly, is that you see technology in effect replacing people en masse. I don't think it will happen and if it leans that way it will spring back the other. People are important; they will remain important. People are central.

Another thing that struck me about your comment is the rich/ poor class distinction, which does away with what we in American consider the middle class. Now, there have been discussions about the shrinking middle class which not only came through small businesses but through manufacturing jobs that elevated status, bringing many families into the solid middle class. With the exporting of jobs and the closing of factories, this in part has caused the shrinking middle class. But I do believe with green initiatives that the middle class can once again be strong. The rich/poor class distinctions that I have seen in my travels are not very welcoming to me.

I do not ever remember milk being brought to my home as a service. But I would certainly welcome the service now, as my house has an old fashioned milk chute and I am not terribly big on shopping. Services, like anything else, will undoubtedly be created and re-created again and again in all industries. Technology will not replace service. Service evolves with the needs of society. Until we are replaced with machines, if you believe in such a day, service will be around.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 15, 2008 6:02 PM

Interesting discussion …..

Glorious, wonderful, digital technology is here to stay and I celebrate that.

I feel so happy to have lived at this time of such great change. I’m sure Richard is right about the need to open our eyes and, more importantly, our minds to possibilities we cannot even dream if we continue to wear our traditional and logical hat.

Though I love this new stuff it turns out it's all that 'new' and its not all that earth shattering .... Funny thing is my late beloved Dad who lived too short a life from 1924 to 1994 always told me things had changed pretty damn quickly and dramatically in his lifetime too.

I’m old enough to remember people saying the electric (note ‘electric’ not electronic) typewriter will never catch on and replace the good old Imperial 64 manual typewriter. In fact as I am typing this I have a vision of Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman banging away on their manual typewriters in ‘All The Presidents Men’ – one of my favourite films …. Sorry, I digress … but why change the habit of a lifetime?

My point is …..

People adapt to progress - Progress is around us every second of every day - always has been - and whether or not 'progress' changes our lives in a good way or a bad way is probably as much to do with our mindset and our perception about 'progress' as it is to do with the technical advance ….

I’m pretty sure many people thought it was stupid to think one day we could get money from a hole in the wall at 3 am if we wished to …

Seeing the future in some complex unimaginable way is not a territory reserved for those with some ‘special’ gift … it is simply to do with whether we WANT to see digital advancements as opportunities or threats … and that will determine the shape of the horizon we see as individuals …

In the meantime .... back on planet Earth ... and in li'l ol' England .... It’s Thursday afternoon .. The sun is shining and all is well in good old Shakespeare’s County …. The England team has 12 points after 4 games (100% record) in the World Cup 2010 qualifying matches.

Just goes to show there is a God!

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 16, 2008 9:22 AM

Trevor....

Sensitive and sensible comments as always my friend.... So England has God on its side - I was wondering what turned them around so quickly and that would explain it.... Good luck to all you Prisoners of Mother England (POMS!)....

I want to say thanks to Tom and all at Tompeters! for providing this forum - it is a godsend for so many of us... We can "air" our commonsense ideas (Trevor) or our total lack of them (me) here... I sincerely hope and trust what we discuss here contributes in some small way to the "common good"...

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 16, 2008 5:32 PM

Great response Richard - and I hereby promise you that pint of POMS real English Ale on the Thames in 2012 at the Olympics as we witness young Gerrard taking the Gold!

By the way even I admit God has had a bit of earthly help from the great Italian Mr Fabio Cappello to put England on top of the qualifying group.

Your comments about TP Blog are hereby fully endorsed buddy :-)

Roll on the Ashes!!

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 16, 2008 6:18 PM

WOW! I just love America...

Only in America could you have the debate that I saw yesterday (my time) between two fine candidates for the highest office in the land... The final debate, more is the pity, between Senators Obama and Mc Cain was amazing - I have been in and around politics all my adult life and I have never seen anything like it... Talk about leadership - both of them showed it in spades... I wonder if any other nation in the world could have had their two most senior politicians sit and discuss the core issue facing their country in such a civilized way without the usual "shadow boxing" and punch pulling that goes on at these events...

The microphone picked up what Mc Cain said to Obama at the end of the debate and to me it summed it all up for both of them "nice job, nice job"...

viagra uk paypal

This debate was about "wealth distribution" fair and square... There is one issue in America today that over-rides all else - "its wealth distribution stupid!!!" Both Obama and Mc Cain know that and so they sat there and they calmly debated that issue - WOW!

Each of them comes to this issue with a different "ideology" but each of them came to the issue - this is a rare event in politics and it should be a cause of great celebration across America...

Obama talked about his centralist government approach to sharing the "wealth around"... Mc Cain taunted him with that tag line (sharing the wealth around) as he talked about his small and decentralized government approach and his emphasis on "Joe the plumber" who wants to grow his own wealth through his small business.. The difference in approach between these two candidates was there for all of us to see and to see through...

America has a huge problem with "wealth distribution" and both candidates know it...

I don't believe that either ideology (Democrat or Republican) has a suitable answer right now but both these candidates are capable of getting the right types of people around them who could make a good start at fashioning a new distribution system to better suit this emerging digital economy...

Election 2008 has been all about the need for a new "wealth distribution system" in America... The narrative has been there all the way through the Primaries and now the general election... Key tag lines for this discussion have been "greed", CEO's pay, Wall Street bonuses, Washington pork barreling, lobbyist in the political system, big oil, etc, etc...

If you have to time and the interest to spend on this topic please watch this clip from the PBS Newshour show - it is a case study in economic inequality in America... This program contrast the richest community in America - Los Alamos yeah where they built the bomb - with its poor neighbours...

One community has access to, is connected with, and provides it service to the new global economy while the other community provides services to locals.... See it at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/module.html?mod=0&pkg=14102008&seg=4

On the hill you have the rich folk who are an integral part of the new global wealth creation system. In the valley you have the poor folk who are working at discount box retailers or providing services to locals... There is no middle class in this region... Thus there is a huge need for a new wealth distribution system...

Obama and Mc Cain have both focussed on the right issue - its the "wealth distribution system" stupid... In the current circumstances Obama must win this argument and thus this election to the White House... Americans need him to do much more than just win the White House however, they need him to hit the ground running in February 2009 to help them all build a new wealth distribution system that complements the new digital economy that is creating C21st wealth...

WOW! I just love America... it is truly the home of the free!

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 16, 2008 6:27 PM

I'm sure it's me but I'm having difficulty squaring the concept that there are two kinds of people in the new digital global economy...rich ones and poor ones...yet wealth distribution is the core issue facing America in this election. Wealth distribution would require significant increases in income that would enable folks to acquire a home, bank deposits, stocks, and pension assets to name a few that create sustainable wealth. Buying power will not be increased through tax cuts and increases. Tax increases on businesses result in price increases on their goods and services, offsetting any increase in income created through tax cuts. Wage growth is needed. One candidate supports raising the minimum wage to 9.50 by 2011. This would be Senator Obama. Senator McCain says he supports a "living wage", yet I could find few specifics on how good of a life that would provide. It seems that both parties are at a loss for new and creative/innovative ideas on how to increase buying power for low wage workers. What incentive is there for companies to pay folks more when there executives bonuses are often linked to profitability targets that can be achieved by cost cutting rather than employee retention? Look at what the costs of childcare does to the buying power of low wage workers, particularly among single working parents. Anyone talking about subsidizing childcare...perhaps more important to low wage workers than health insurance? Naw...and why? How can you develop solutions to problems if you don't have a clue as to what the real problems are? Or any incentive or accountability to fix them! Real solutions to increasing buying power and wealth acquisition might first be found in political reform. In viable third and fourth political parties to keep the current two attentive to the needs of the electorate!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 16, 2008 11:39 PM

David... I believe we now have a two tiered world economy ... One is global, one is local...

Those who work in the global economy - which is what I refer to "loosely" as the digital economy - have access to high wages and benefits... They work at Google, Los Alamos Labs, News Corp, CNN, MGM, Apple, Morgan Stanley, etc... They live in Silicon Valley, Los Alamos, New York/Sydney, everywhere, Beverly Hills, Seattle, New York/London respectively... They are the rich folks because they work for the corporations that are or have global networks and thus deal in billions of dollars - these corporations can afford to pay high salaries and benefits and if they don't then the people who work for them right now will leave and go where they will get the income and benefits they want or think they need... They have "transportable skill sets" and even in these uncertain times they will get a high paid job in some part of the globe....

The other economy is local... In this economy people primarily work in service sector jobs - including hospitality, retail, health care, local administration, etc... These local economies do not have the scale or the wealth creation to enable them to sustain a high salary and benefit regime - even local doctors in the health care system often struggle to earn really high incomes these days... Indeed over the past 10 years in America most of the pay rates in these sectors have struggled to increase in purchasing power... These local entities are closed looped economies that have a dedicated pool of money - including earmarked government assistance from Washington - that has to provide for everyone within the community... There is no wealth creation within this system - there is an attempt at a market based redistribution of this pool of money amongst all the people who live within its community, state, or nation...

These two economies have become irreconcilably decoupled... There is no trickle down of the wealth from those in the global economy to those in the local economy... Those in the global economy increasingly do not pay a lot of tax - save sales and consumption taxes - because they can arrange their affairs in ways to ensure they pay minimal income or "pay as you go" tax....

In the old C20th economy there was a middle class because the wealth creation of GM (as an example) was spread around through a multiplier effect of 5-7 with jobs in auto parts, dealerships, even car detailing, etc (people could own their own business in these GM affiliated enterprises and live in the GM wealth creation shadow)... The wealth was redistributed through market linkages and mechanisms - those linkages and mechanisms are not there in this new economy... In the old economy GM hired people but so too did the local Buick dealership... The wealth creation system was linked to an effective wealth distribution system - now it is not... GM is a good candidate to fail and cease to exist in 2009 as the full impact of the second wave of this financial crisis hits Main Street America... There is reportedly $US55 Trillion in debt swaps - a totally senseless risk derivative that is so highly leveraged that when it starts to unravel the impact on Main Street America will be devastating...

I have to stop now because I am depressing myself... I don't pretend to understand this stuff - no one really does with the exception of a few high profile "doomsayer economists" who have been warning about all this since 2005 - of course they were drowned out by the good times commentators... All I am attempting to do for you here is to give you an inkling of the fact that distribution of income is the key issue in America today... Consumers have a mountain of debt right now so the retail sector is about to contract with it will go the local, regional, and even national consumption-based economy of America... That is not where the wealth is created it is where the wealth has been redistributed throughout America for the past 30 odd years...

The world ahead is exciting and challenging - I hope that Obama will make a good President for you all... There are major economic inequalities developing within the American economy right now but I trust you all will work your way through these difficult times...

Good luck to you and yours in these interesting times....

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 17, 2008 1:21 AM

Whether I have agreed with President Bush's policies all the time or not, I am most appreciative of his service to our great country. His speech today before the US Chamber of Commerce was one of the best that I have ever heard him give. While others have criticized our president for what was perceived as his lack of leadership in the beginning of the crisis, I have withheld judgement, appreciating his current position and realizing that this is indeed an extraordinary historical time.

In such an extraordinary historical time a kind of simultaneous reflection and progression is needed. Without the latter the former is not possible. In such a time finding the right pitch and process may take a little time. Secretary Paulson's admission of mistakes in the process was indeed appreciated and necessary, and President Bushes' speech today was timely. Yes, some may say that it is 30 days late. But is it?

President Bush's speech before the US Chamber of Commerce this morning was reaffirming, descriptive and hopeful. Over these past weeks had he come out with a rosy picture of the financial crisis the money need to infuse the system with liquidity would not have been able to allotted through the congress.

Capitalism needs regulation and it also seems to need occasional infusion of assistance as history bears out. But the outline of the government's temporary role in private enterprise and the taxpayers' investment into the system and return, along with CEO accountability, was re-assuring. I am thankful to President Bush for his service to America.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 17, 2008 8:56 AM

Richard - The beauty about the system as founded here in the US is the diversity of industry and the notion and reality that average Americans can make a difference in their communities by providing needed services. The large companies alone do not fuel the economy. And technology alone will not be able to fuel the needed diversity.

The fact that there are Fortune 500 companies will undoubtedly always be, tech ones or otherwise. Business is about the needs and desires of people. Fundamentally, our needs are basic and or desires can be titillated, creating industries that evolve beyond its initial purpose. The Internet proves this point.

Yes, large companies spurred other smaller companies. The Big Three, for example, created suppliers that assisted in the building of the middle class in America. The largest problem with what occurred in Detroit, Pittsburgh, and other industrial cities, is the lack of diversity. Once plants closed there was nothing else in place to sustain the community. Industry diversity seems like a necessity. This includes technology.

The redistribution of wealth does not readily mesh with capitalism. The systems are not singular. I have always associated the former with a system of bedrock socialism and the latter with free markets. Now, you might consider that in such a time as this that there are no clear cut distinctions. But I beg to differ considering the evolution of both systems. While the temporary intervention of government into private industry may be necessary from time to time, the core belief that we can en masse produce for ourselves and communities remains.

The rich and poor we will probably always have with us. But the solid middle class is also necessary. The beauty about a system whose core is freedom, which isn’t that far from the ideas found in our founding documents, remains even if adjustments and re-adjustments are needed.

I believe in a New Testament idea of the “perfect law of liberty.” But the awesomeness of this law is the necessity of being your brother’s keeper. Now being such a one does not mean enabling one or eliminating the sense of fair competition that spurs innovation and excellence. It does require thoughtful deliberate actions and the necessity of considering others always.

Your evolution here from the rich to the poor to the global and local has not been lost. You write of a new world order without nationality and a core essence that supercedes real communities. This may indeed happen over time, not from a physical standpoint obviously, but from an intellectual one. But jobs besides tech ones are necessary.

The average households in America, Africa, Eurpoe, India and China must be considered. Many are without computers; many cannot even feed their families. How will these participate in this new tech economy? Perhaps this is where you were initially going with the rich/poor distinction. Maybe it is government’s role to assist in this effort. Work matters. Here is the great Pope John Paul II on work and humanity:

“When dealing with human work in the fundamental dimension of its subject, that is to say, the human person doing the work, one must make at least a summary evaluation of developments during the ninety years since Rerum Novarum in relation to the subjective dimension of work. Although the subject of work is always the same, that is to say man, nevertheless wide-ranging changes take place in the objective aspect.

“While one can say that, by reason of its subject, work is one single thing (one and unrepeatable every time), yet when one takes into consideration its objective directions one is forced to admit that there exist many works, many different sorts of work. The development of human civilization brings continual enrichment in this field.

“But at the same time, one cannot fail to note that in the process of this development not only do new forms of work appear but also others disappear. Even if one accepts that on the whole this is a normal phenomenon, it must still be seen whether certain ethically and socially dangerous irregularities creep in, and to what extent.”

Technology is but a form of work. It will take all kinds of work to rebuild the American middle class that doesn't have roots in the redistribution of wealth but rather a retooling, work ethic, and belief that all things are possible.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 17, 2008 12:31 PM

Richard...thank you for the clarification sir! I have spent the past several months reading and researching poverty,low wage workers. wage gaps, education as a weapon against poverty, and many other issues regarding single and working parents. Although the words "wealth redistribution" tend to evoke images of Karl Marx, socialism and communism in the U.S.,there is clearly a need increase the capacity of our low wage and middle class to "acquire wealth."

The billions and billions of dollars spent on education, crime and drug prevention, and poverty often do not produce results because they do not address the "whole" problem or cause of problem. How can a child achieve in school when they are hungry, have no electricity, can't speak English so they have no idea of what is being taught, live in fear, or are absent 30 to 40 days a year? Millions of dollars are spent on redundant and highly paid administrators who do little more than collect and distribute reports. Schools are not funded trained or equipped to deal with the many socio-economic factors outside the school that affect student achievement. Solve this issue and then test away...most schools will achieve and produce tudent prepared for college or the workforce should they choose.

Judith...what a terrific thought "It will take all kinds of work to rebuild the American middle class that doesn't have roots in the redistribution of wealth but rather a retooling, work ethic, and belief that all things are possible." Federal, state, local and municiplal government solutions have not worked. Neither political party has anything other than the repackaged ideas and policies that have produced the sad state of affairs we're in. Labor Unions, community organizations, non-profit organizations that have funded been for decades and have become just pawns of the poliical parties do not have the answers. The folks who have the answers, and the power to change things are folks like you and me and the thousands of others who work to bring change to our local communities. Gotta believe all things are possible...absolutely!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 17, 2008 9:21 PM viagra uk next day delivery

Dave - Thank you for your words. Systems and organizations are always ripe to be used as pawns, for people, the corporate body of organizations of all kind, often follow the crowd. (Change begins individually and internally first.) What becomes absolutely necessary is the acceptance of opposing views and the fostering of these views from those who would otherwise be considered out of the box. My mother did this with us, though she was without doubt the leader.

While there may be a type of revolutionary call or response to change, I am one who more readily believes in the systematic evolutionary one that consistently work at the core of issues. Politics, though, can shroud such issues whether iniatiated by people on the frontline (represented by unions) or the front office (representing the shareholder.) Both seek power of sorts, but perhaps by different means. Both should be heard, but focal leadership is still needed.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 18, 2008 7:46 AM

Judith, I agree completely. It is truly all about collaboration not conflict when it comes to organizational or community development and improvement. I believe part of the reasons these efforts fail is that they tend to regress to a "us vs them" mentality or the "no invented here" syndrome. Folks however do need to know and understand that they have as much right to a seat at the table of progress as those who have been there for decades. This is the change that begins internally, convincing one's self they can be a valuable part of the solution.

Thanks Judith...your thoughts and input are invaluable to me as I begin the process of becoming a part of the solution for folks in my community.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 18, 2008 12:08 PM

Many thanks to you too, Dave. I have also learned a lot from you and many others here with whom I agree and disagree. I appreciate your words. I would beg to differ, however, with your comment that collaboration is not about conflict; often times it most certainly is, especially with opposing views. Though, perhaps conflict isn't the essence of collaboration. Then what is? Change? Progression?

Instead of being merely reactionary to others, it is the evolving historical notion of change that interests me. For example, how does it evolve and how long does it stay around before the inevitable next phase? What is of interest to me also is how one comes to be seated at that table you spoke of. Often time it appears they have dropped out of the sky, but in reality it has been a long time coming through both collaboration and conflict.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 18, 2008 1:27 PM

Judith...I see your point. I used the phrase collaboration not conflict to illustrate the mindset that should govern what is done. It's like the idea that we aren't solving a problem we are exploiting an opportunity to do it better. Problem solving always has that element of assigning blame or responsibility. Exploiting an opportunity begins with "hey, this needs to change" and gets past that blaming or who's responsible stage.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 18, 2008 4:41 PM

Tom,
"Winning too much" is huge today. As a developer of leaders, we find there is a 'unresourceful' definition of success that equates to winning. But what if an outcome that you wanted prior to the project beginning--actually is NOT in your best interest? Then what? price viagra

What many leaders do is ignore the changing 'track' conditions and put pressure on themselves and those around them to "lock, load and keep moving."

Not always the best strategy. Well, market conditions have changed--markedly. The excellently led companies will prevail. And sometimes they will abort their current path and begin anew. That's not failure.

Posted by Bill Caskey at October 18, 2008 4:50 PM

Nice, Dave. Thanks.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 18, 2008 4:55 PM

Judith... I was pleased to see you acknowledge President George W Bush for his service to your nation. If you are able to find good points in President G.W.Bush at this time in his public life then you are truly "blessed". I urge you to hang on to "the spirit within you" that made you first observe those feelings and second to acknowledge them publicly.

America will need more and more people like you Judith - people who are able to see the good in their leaders when most others can only find fault.

One of the great criticism leveled at President G W Bush was that he told all Americans ' go shopping' after the 9/11 attacks on American Capitalism. If you look at what he meant rather than what he said you might glean an insight into this much misunderstood President. I hasten to add here Judith, like you I am not writing here to defend him, but to acknowledge that he did his best in trying circumstances and sometimes that is all we can hope for from our leaders. They are not always EXCELLENT. What Bush meant in my humble opinion was go spend your money so we keep the consumer-based economy of America going in this time of panic (remember this is after 9/11). Why? Because that is how the market system in American "redistributes wealth". Because that is what drives American capitalism (apart from direct government spending on military, education, health, infrastructure, etc). Bush was pleading with Americans to keep their capitalist system going in the wake of a direct attack on it in downtown New York.

America is about to experience a "rapture" for their new President Barrack Obama. He is articulate, politically savvy, expansive, and popular so he will be greeted around the world as the next coming of JFK or FDR.... Will he prove to be that I don't know - I doubt it given the meltdown that is about to take place in the US economy. The economic inequalities are going to grow not shrink and so he will have to be better than those great leaders that have come before him - I hope he is that good...

What is important now however is that every American think very carefully before they give the Democrats a landslide victory in both the upcoming elections. A total dominance of Washington by the Democrats from the big White House to Capital Hill probably sounds exciting right now but it will prove problematic...

The second most powerful politician in America in February 2009 will be Nancy Pelosi not Joe Biden. With that in my mind I looked at the recent interview of Nancy Pelosi by Charlie Rose. What I heard from her both impressed and depressed me.. Given the economic meltdown in the US economy most Americans are headed into 'harms way' - a united block of Democrats in Washington who are itching to change America via "big central government programs and regulation" is perhaps what the voters think that they need right now ... Voters collectively have a great amount of commonsense and so this might be precisely what America needs and if so we are all about to have ringside seats to view the outcomes of these changes...

What I hope each voter does before casting a ballot is to take a "Judith moment" and reflect on what George Bush and the Republicans tried to do or more importantly what they might have been trying to do... We all know the unintended consequences of the Bush and Republican years so this knowledge should be a sobering thought for most who want know to entrust the whole ball game to the Democrats...

Be careful what you wish for... America!

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at October 18, 2008 5:26 PM

Richard - Thank you for your words. Your admonition is herewith taken. I might add, however, that if Barack Obama is elected as the President of the United States we might be quite surprised that his governing policies may not be so far to the left as assumed. Senator Obama is quite wise and he seems to be great at listening. He also appears quite thoughtful and objective. I can't imagine him ignoring good advice from anyone regardless of political affiliation or even status.

We can probably expect that both parties will be represented in an Obama cabinet should he become the president and that he will undoubtedly have an ear to the average American. Personally, I am utterly unmoved by political parties. But you might also be surprised as to which political party I am indeed a member of. I am one who forever seeks to look at all sides of every issue and not be narrow in my approach. Narrowness restricts. Openness enlightens.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 18, 2008 7:14 PM

I saw someone on MSNBC. He said that Obama's current policies are extremely liberal.
In fact, he said, his policies are as progressive as the
ones we saw under Richard Nixon.
We have come so far right, we don't know where we are any more.
People get bent out of shape because Obama had a former Weatherman as an associate on a committee.
This is not something he sought out. It just the way it happened to be.
Ronald Reagan launched his Presidential campaign in a park in Mississippi that was well known as a place where the KKK held rallies. This was not just a happenstance. This was a deliberate choice.
Who created more terror? The weathermen or the KKK?
Why did Jim Crow laws exist at all? This is why. After the civil war, there were three types of people in the south. Rich whites, poor whites and poor blacks. The rich whites were worried that the poor blacks and the poor whites would get together and revolt. The Jim Crow laws were created to keep poor whites and poor blacks apart from each other so they would not realize they had a lot in common. This game is still being played today in a more subtle way by the Republicans. They want the middle class to think that they will have thier money taken by the govenment and given to poor people. What has actually happened since 1979 is that 600 billion dollars have been taken from the middle class and have been given to the rich. The big difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is the direction of the redistribution of wealth.

Posted by zed at October 19, 2008 9:02 PM

I was thinking about how allegedly ‘advanced’ we are in 2008, what with ‘technological’ and ‘complexity’ solutions to almost everything. We can put people on the moon; we continually amaze ourselves by the pace of development. We are so bright ….. And yet … We forgot that we can’t spend money we don’t have ….Duh!….Think I learned that in maths at junior school ... Isn’t ‘progress’ wonderful? ….Whilst we all must take individual responsibility ... Where was the leadership while Rome was burning?

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 20, 2008 4:31 AM

There are many very thoughtful points here, zed. Thank you. Your words are appreciated. Yes, we don't really think of redistribution of wealth through the tax system that rewards the rich whose benefits perhaps never trickle down to the middle class and working poor as thought. We don't want to be challenged at all. If we are, name-calling is forthcoming. Senator Obama is now a socialist. I wonder if anyone thinks that Warren Buffett, who supports Senator Obama, sees the Obama tax plan as socialist. You would be hard pressed to align Mr. Buffett with socialism. But are socialists terrible people? As Senator Obama walked into a barbeque joint while campaigning a misinformed woman shouted "socialist," as if it was a bad word.

"The Word" According to General Colin Powell thoughtfully addressed the issue of name-calling and negative campaigning wonderfully. Why is the great general and stateman even concerned about the negative tone of the McCain campaign? Socialists and Arabs are indeed terrorists and pansy-like who want to take away your hard earned money and give it to the poor, right? Seriously, besides the usual election mudslinging, I like, General Powell, is very much concerned about the tone we are setting nationally and internationally. We have allies and NATO members that are socialists and Arabs. How do we reconcile this? There need not be complete agreement for there to be harmony and benefits for all.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 20, 2008 8:54 AM

I was glad to hear Powell talk about Muslims the way he did.
He is the first national figure to say something like that. I always felt that what made the U.S. strong was pragmatism - do what works.
Idiology does not work. Use capitalism where it works well - use socialist concepts where they work well.

Posted by zed at October 20, 2008 2:28 PM

Zed - if you were standing as a candidate and I could vote you would get my tick in the box. Pragmatism rules! I find it exciting watching your election from over the pond. I love the quote from Mr Powell - "He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, What if he is [a Muslim]. Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?" - Classic pragmatism and realism.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 20, 2008 6:03 PM

Bravo, zed! I love your "ideology does not work. Use capitalism where it works well-use socialist concepts where they work well." But thoughtful actions need ideas without which even actions themselves are dangerous. Ideology is born of ideas from which policy is set.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 21, 2008 8:45 PM