Comments

Good bullets Tom.
I've spent most of today meeting with clients new and old. Talking about the challenges and opportunities of 2009. One thing I have reminded them all: The Importance Of Being Different. That focus has the potential to transform an organisation, by ensuring in all they do from organisational dna to market positioining, they strive to be distinctive and - in a crowded/ competitive market - stand out from the rest.

Posted by Ian Sanders at December 4, 2008 6:54 PM

28 Walking the talk means getting your hands dirty (Your credibility is linked to how dirty you are prepared to see your hands become)

29 Be humble, you are still learning: you can learn from anyone. (You are a role model - think about how you want to be remembered)

30 'Make it up as you go along' works. (Strategy helps as a stake in the ground but sometimes you just have to get on and do it)

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 4, 2008 7:21 PM

Thank, TP! When you write of a bias for action I often think of Fannie Lou Hammer, the lone southern housewife turned national political activist, who said "I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired."

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 4, 2008 7:22 PM

Oh no...no techno crutch, buzzword laden say nothing business babble??? How can anything this, uncool and old school be effective? It's the only thing that ever has been effective and no one has ever put it simplier, more clearly and conscisely than Tom has done once again.

"The "obvious" may be obvious, but "getting the obvious done" is harder said than done." This is exactly why many folks pass on being leaders. The use of one's posiional authority, the "because I said so" reply is so much easier to use than listening, learning, and enabling, that leaders must do to become leaders. It ain't easy, but what worth doing well ever is?

Posted by dave wheeler at December 4, 2008 9:46 PM

This is wonderfully relevant because common sense usually isn't common practice. Thanks, Tom!

Posted by Brent Burgoyne at December 5, 2008 2:43 AM

Way off the client brief! More isn't necessarily better, here or anywhere. Isn't one of the Basics (14) delivering what's asked for/needed, not what you think the customer should want?? Go on, pick five!

Posted by Rob at December 5, 2008 4:38 AM

I fully agree with Rob. At what point does giving 27 points when you've been asked for 5 become: a) showing off; b) not following the brief properly; c) just an outpouring; d) telling the client stuff he'd otherwise pay for; and / or e) a perceived inability to marshall and summarise your thoughts concisely? Tom - why not put another post up with your top 5 points? Mine would be:

1. "Putting people first" means making everyone successful at work (and at home).
2. Transparency in all we do.
3. A "bias for action" is a "bias for success." (Great hockey player Wayne Gretzky: "You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.")
4. Walk the talk. ("You must be the change you wish to see in the world."—Gandhi)
5. EXCELLENCE. ALWAYS. (What else?)
6. So long as it's ethical, be prepared to break / re-write / ignore / stretch / bend the rules.

Posted by Mark JF at December 5, 2008 5:43 AM

Mark JF. Good list.

Posted by tom peters at December 5, 2008 6:52 AM

Mark JF: Since I wrote a while back a paper called "The 209 things I've learned so far," I thought 27 was pretty damn concise.

27 may beat 4 because when you get it down to four it becomes platitudes.

With 27 you can put things like "saying thank you a lot" on the list--these are the things that will get the job done.

Hmmmm, I did get it down to four recently. I said In Search of Excellence's "eight basics" could be boiled down to four words:

People!
Customers!
Action!
Values!

How about some other short lists I've used:

Two:
Organizations exist to serve. Period.
Leaders live to serve. Period.

Four:
Enthusiasm!
Execution!
Experience!
Excellence!

Five:
Cause.
Space.
Decency.
Service excellence.
Servant leadership.

Eight (In Search of ...):
1. A Bias for Action.
2. Close to the Customer.
3. Autonomy and Entrepreneurship.
4. Productivity Through People.
5. Hands On, Value-Driven.
6. Stick to the Knitting.
7. Simple Form, Lean Staff.
8. Simultaneous Loose-Tight Properties.

One:
Put. People. First.

Or:
It's the people, stupid.

Posted by tom peters at December 5, 2008 7:16 AM

Thanks, Tom, for reminding us of the most important things that frequently get shoved to the back of the line.

Posted by Cesar at December 5, 2008 8:20 AM

Taking Rob and Mark's points about 'less is more' how about one word; PEOPLE

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 5, 2008 8:24 AM

In my graduate studies I had a brilliant Oxford professor who required us to deduce large portions of the most intense philosophical works into a 250 word precis. The precis' benefit was in the process of thought formulation that eliminated the unnecessary, keeping the barest of sentiment, yet the fullness of intent.

While the precis is great there is something also to be said for storytelling or longer lists that create many pictures and increased understanding. In a post entitled "Being a Sonnet or Haiku" I write of the difference. Someone commented that the post reminded him of a shirt he has that reads:

Haikus are easy
But sometimes they don't make sense
Refrigerator

I love both the sonnet and the haiku.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 5, 2008 8:38 AM

Judith: Amen.

(The reason I have this blog is In Search of Excellence. The reason ISOE made such a dent, according to the vast majority of reviewers--and almost all the readers I've crossed paths with, is ... good storytelling, or at least extensive storytelling; we were surely not first with a lot of our ideas, but we were close to first in the management world by concocting a book which was 95% stories. I am a great admirer of the thought processes Peter Drucker offers us, but the fact is he chose not to tell stories. Frankly, I think the number of people who swear by Drucker is much higher than the number who did much with his stuff--stories are what animate people, and we can prove that now courtesy the neurosciences; stories are the best calls to action, and great leaders have known that for centuries, millenia. Hmmm, I guess this comment may cause a little doo doo to hit the fan. ah, well ...)

Posted by tom peters at December 5, 2008 9:10 AM

Crisis? What crisis?

Ships in harbour are safe, but that's not what ships are built for!

So go sailing!!

Posted by Sven at December 5, 2008 9:15 AM

Trevor, I was seeking to make a point about response to requirement, not necessarily "less is more". Of itself brevity is no more a virtue than length. 27 may well be better than one, or the reverse may be true, but neither of them is 5, which was the original statement of need. A writer who turns in 8000 words against a request for 1500 hasn't done five times better than wanted, and vice versa. It's not a size thing, it's a delivery against spec thing. Arguably a core component of excellence?

Posted by Rob at December 5, 2008 9:18 AM

27 is
not 5, but 5 is enough
to say just as much

Posted by Mark JF at December 5, 2008 10:31 AM

Hi Rob – I understand what you were saying. Forgive me if I’m repeating this story - I love it on so many levels.

When "The Times" invited several eminent authors to write essays on the theme "What's Wrong with the World?" GK Chesterton's contribution took the form of a letter:

Dear Sirs,

I am.

Sincerely yours,
G. K. Chesterton

In my book that is brevity and meeting the spec :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 5, 2008 11:07 AM

The uniqueness of each of us is not only what and when we do a thing but HOW we do it. The client that hired TP knows well what they are getting. I am certain they know the breadth and depth of knowledge he will bring and hired him precisely because of this. Give me what you got and let me decide what is relevant. TP probably forever gages situations and decides which submittals will be best, be it a list of 27 or 8. To thine own self be true and to thyself know what is best to do.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 5, 2008 11:40 AM

Judith, again, bingo! They would have been surprised if they'd gotton less than 10. Besides, the list is roughly tailored to Client issues---they pay me too much for generic answers.

Posted by tom peters at December 5, 2008 1:48 PM

Tom....

I will rise to your bait about Peter Drucker...

You seem to have a thing about him just as you do about Jim Collins. Why? Both those men tell stories but they also provide us with useful case studies.

Drucker did an analysis of the Kennedy and Johnson White House that explained a lot about what went wrong in both administrations. In sum Kennedy was briefed in writing (he assembled gifted writers around him) and Johnson insisted on oral briefings - all the Kennedy staff were like fish out of water. Knowing how you like to be briefed is a key asset for a CEO. There are many more examples of lessons I have learned by simply reading Drucker. Lessons I have applied in my work and at home raising my two boys.

I love the way that Peter Drucker and Jim Collins tell stories - both have told interesting stories about how they work with their clients. Drucker has also told stories about his love of Eastern philosophy, art etc. Collins tells stories about his Level 5 leaders - one who loved to go home and ride his tractor rather than go to a fancy business dinner.... Collins tells stories about his time teaching at Stanford - he is a teacher at heart and so story telling is part of his make up. He tells great stories about the rise and rise of his wife as a world champion athlete too. He can tell you great stories about rock climbing which he loves doing and excels at....

But I must say I love the Drucker and Collins case studies more... Both Drucker and Collins give you a "framework for action" to complement what you talk about as a "bias for action".

Drucker only had two questions for you Tom....

!) What business are you in? You are one of the rare people who could have answered that question. You are in show business.

2) How is business? You must be doing fine when you can say as you did above.. "Besides, the list is roughly tailored to Client issues - they pay me too much for generic answers"

We will never get the deep thinking from you that we got from Peter Drucker and thus we will never get from you a "framework for action". We will get stories that entertain and encourage us towards a "bias for action" though because you are a showman. You tell stories prompted by lists on slides (one day, a long time ago, I saw you do that brilliantly in Sydney) - just as James Taylor tells stories with a guitar and his voice (he is equally brilliant at doing that).

People love what you do and so they pay you huge amounts of money to see and hear you perform. What I do not get is why you have to take cheap "pot shots" at the late and great Peter Drucker.

Drucker did what he did well and you do what you do well. Let's just leave it at that....

Richard

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at December 5, 2008 5:28 PM

Thanks for that haiku, Judith. Quite enjoyable.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at December 5, 2008 5:35 PM

I'm happy you liked it, Shelley. I liked "Refrigerator." :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 5, 2008 7:49 PM

Dear Richard,

How was your session today? I ask today after your current post but perhaps I should have asked the other day after you posted a letter here from the Obama/Biden Transition Project.

Your post of this letter in its entirety down to the very signature, undoubtedly generated for thousands of others, to prove your relevance to Tom Peters and others, perhaps points to the fact that you might need to change therapist--soon. I hear some of them are real quacks and can be pretty expensive too. Don’t waste another dime on your current one.

President-elect Obama sent me many personal letters throughout the campaign via self-generating software (Surely you know about this, Richard?) which I deleted upon reading, after getting each very public message. It looks like you have fallen prey to the quackery of your very own technological sermons on the mountaintop. But there remains grace.

Wishing you health,

Judith D. Ellis
Co-Chair
Get Richard Lipscombe Help Now Transition Project

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 5, 2008 8:49 PM

Mark J Foscoe
Chair
Thank Heavens Richard Lipscombe Brings A Fresh Perspective to This Blog Retention Project

Posted by Mark JF at December 6, 2008 4:06 AM

Getting back to the point of Tom’s reference to Mr Drucker. I’ve never particularly noticed snipes from Tom about the late Mr Drucker. On the contrary Tom has often spoken very highly of Mr Drucker on this Blog. It’s just that Tom and Mr Drucker came from different generations, different perspectives and each has a valuable message – and in any case it’s not a competition. Personally I love the story telling style far more than the harder, objective, scientific, rational stuff. Someone once said there is always plenty of room at the top. I pick the bits I like best from all the gurus. I learn just as much from many people who are not regarded as gurus. Those folks include many who contribute to this Blog including of course my friends Judith and Richard. At the risk of being accused of over simplifying the learning process, my take is that learning is not about who teaches best, or who is right or wrong, but about how open our mind is to receive the message.

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 6, 2008 6:58 AM

Richard, obviously your experience with Drucker is far more extensive than mine. I never heard him tell a story, and his books are remarkably story-free and case-free. (Peter, in my opinion, was a great-magesterial-transforming thinker and a lousy communicator except in small-group, intimate settings.) As to Bro Collins--he is a superb story teller, and I have never suggested otherwise. (Jim and I agree on all the stuff that's important in life. Period.)

Posted by tom peters at December 6, 2008 8:52 AM

Indeed, bingo's plainly the name of the game here, where a client asks for five, when really they would be disappointed with less than ten, and in the event gets 27. And everyone's okay, or at least saying they are. I think we will have to differ on this one, Tom. Seems to me it's like saying why be content with just one USP when you could have twelve.

Tin hats on...

Posted by Rob at December 6, 2008 10:09 AM

Tom Peters is not the oracle of oracles out of which comes infallible authority and infinite truth. Why are we trying to dissect what he said in a rather off the cuff statement and build a law around it? This is our doing and not his. He seems to have simply written rather offhandedly, in attribution to his mom – thanks to moms!? - these words: "As an overachiever since age 5, thanks (?) Mom, I offered up 27." We can believe with certainty that if Tom Peters has been an overachiever since age 5 he knows well when to hold them, while perhaps never folding them.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 6, 2008 12:54 PM

Rob - I think your statement is rather arrogant and ignorant. How do you know what a client of another wants and what their reaction will be? How do you know the relationship formed or being formed? You do not know these things, nor can you know them.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 6, 2008 1:09 PM

Excusing failure to deliver on a spec as an artifact of being an "overachiever" is both arrogant and disrespectful to the requester. Period. It is akin to excusing procrastination or failure to meet deadlines by saying it is due to one's perfectionism.

Posted by Helen at December 6, 2008 1:30 PM

Helen - Your "period" does not make it so. I am for certain that those who hire you have done so with some notion of what you can do and will deliver before any specifications. With some of us, clients know what can be expected and this is precisely what is desired. Also, the element of relationship building cannot be overstated. We get a better sense of what the client wants as we move forward, while having a pretty good sense of what they will expect.

There is something also to be said for research beforehand. The example here says little about the process obtained that you are not privy to. Also, some people have incredible instincts that pay off big. Anyway, staying within lines does not get us very far. This is not to say, however, that judgment in these matters is not necessary. When you hire any well-respected renowned management guru you know exactly what you're going to get. Period. Their books and reputation precede them.

For those who have not the confidence, judgment, or the track record to step outside of the line, the suggestion would be to stay within it—by all means.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 6, 2008 2:11 PM

I like the idea that if you want to say something is the right stuff to do, then you need to use a method based on science. The books: "The China Study", or one of the books done By Gallup Institute, they are all made with the huge research and the parciality of science. That is the kind of stuff i admire. And i would say that it is a big challenge keeping these preferences when the capitalism wants from you fast aswers and fast profits. This is what Tom Peter`s Clients wanted! Just my opinion!

Posted by Fausto at December 6, 2008 2:13 PM

I frankly cannot see what the hell the argument is about here. As a matter of interest Tom, did you get the gig? ... And if you did, then you gave the right answer with 27.

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 6, 2008 2:34 PM

Maybe i was a bit out of context in my comment above.
Sorry for that. I am new here for posting, and will give a better read at the rules of posting.

Posted by Fausto at December 6, 2008 3:32 PM

Tom...

"Frankly, I think the number of people who swear by Drucker is much higher than the number who did much with his stuff..." You are not even wrong!

I admit that I was dead set stupid!!!! to take up that point about Drucker - you can not take issue with some one who is not even wrong!

You are a great entertainer - you are superb at provoking your readers and listeners with your throw away lines. You are the best "self promoter" I have ever come across and it is always fun to observe just how you are going to sell "the same old same old" as new and vibrant stuff for the first time all over again. As I have noted before you are brilliant at it....

Tom if I am your client and you give me 27 points when I asked for 5 points then I would sack you period!

I do not know and can not know the context or content of your discussions with your client and frankly who cares. All I know is that you brag, with great gusto, that you overachieved (you even thank your Mum for this trait) by providing 27 points not the requested 5 points. On that basis I say you were inadequate to the brief and in any open and transparent tendering situation you would be automatically ruled out as a provider... Of course those are not the rules here. As Trevor, bless his cotton socks, says here you still have the gig so all is fine! What's the big deal he asks. The big deal is you say one thing and deliver something else. You preach Excellence Always and do not apply that to yourself.

When I read your blog I must have had a similar reaction as Rob had to it - I thought this is not Excellence Always. It certainly is not a clear and present demonstration of Excellent Always!

Excellence is being able to do what the client asks you to do and thus providing something of real value to that client - isn't it?

Tom you have bragged here before about how much you go out of your way to find out what your client wants (what the real issues are) before you map out your slides for a gig. I assumed this was one of those occasions. But without being there as the client I will never know.

My point is if a provider - even a celebrity showman like Tom Peters - gives me 27 points when all I want and need is 5 points then he MAKES WORK FOR ME! He makes work for me because I have to choose which 5 points it is going to be. Many others here have seen that practicality and so we have had some lists of 5 points appear.

I suggest that your client knows a thing or two about his audience for this gig because he wanted to limit you to just 5 points. The 5 key points. I would prefer 3 points myself and would have thus requested that but clearly your client did not want 27 points.

So in the spirit of being independent of the Tom Peters fan club assembled here... I will humbly submit my 3 points for the consideration of your client.

1) CLEAR.

Clear out YOUR old ideologies.

2) HOLD.

Hold YOUR best ideas in fast-track prototypes.

3) BUILD.

Build YOUR new digital business from those prototypes.

Merry Christmas Tom and may you have a happy New Year doing what you do best....

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at December 6, 2008 4:57 PM

I'm sorry to report to some that the client was thrilled. I am frightfully worng about a huge # of things, but I think after surviving 35 years in the professional services that I have a pretty good feel for Client service. (I have one client firing on my 35-tear docket, McKesson this summer. I was to tough on their clients on the topic of patient safety. I misjudged the sweetspot.)

Posted by tom peters at December 6, 2008 5:09 PM

I lost the last line of the above, which should have read: I misjudged the sweetspot between not pushing hard enough and pushing too hard.

Posted by tom peters at December 6, 2008 5:13 PM

Why am I not surprised you got the gig? ... and fired for being too tough on patient safety? - WOW CONGRATULATIONS!! :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 6, 2008 5:14 PM

"Some of the best business and nonprofit CEOs I've worked with over a sixty-five-year consulting career were not stereotypical leaders. They were all over the map in terms of their personalities, attitudes, values, strengths, and weaknesses."

--Peter Drucker

Great leaders are never stereotypical. Let this be a lesson to all mediocre leaders. Let me show humility. Let me show confidence. Let me display emotions. Let me be bold. Let me forever become more of what I shall be. But let me NOT be mediocre.

We are all forever becoming... Those who hire us decide whether they will do so again. Some of us have produced excellence for a great many years and this has stood us all in good stead. For this, we say thank you.

I will ALWAYS unabashedly be a fan of greatness. Only small ones whose ideas are greater than their station degrade those whose ideas have lifted generations and inspired people worldwide and will continue after they are no longer physically here.

We are grateful for Mr. Drucker; he was a great leader.

We are also most grateful for Mr. Peters who has shown us how to be excellent servant leaders and better communal citizens, for excellence does not start at 9:00 and end at 5:00. It is an ongoing pursuit, a forever way of being.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 6, 2008 6:15 PM

I'm basically a TP fan so don't jump on this as personal criticism but here's a couple of queries (and I suspect the second is one Tom's thought a lot about):

I do find it hard to reconcile "...they pay me too much for generic answers..." vs. a list of 27 "...Ideas That Will Transform Every Organization..."

Tom being such a well-known figure begs the question: does TP really have to sell his message, style and approach or does the prospect go to Tom with a fairly good idea of what he's going to get? Is it more a case that at Tom's level the customer is spending a great deal of money and wants to know what value he's going to get from it, rather than being overly concerned about exact wording of something in slide 127?

Posted by Mark JF at December 7, 2008 2:57 AM

I just took Paddy for a walk across frosty fields to the village shop to get the Sunday papers. The debate here about Peter Drucker was on my mind. The bottom line is: which 'guru' has had the most influence on your life's work? After all (excepting obviously their private clients) for most of us Messrs Drucker, Peters et al simply write and talk, i.e. they theorise.

I exaggerate a bit but fundamentally my boss is concerned with a) did I keep logistics costs at budget and do they still benchmark well against competitors and similar businesses; and b) did he go the year without customers or other managers mithering him about logistics issues? I can't excuse problems on either goal by demonstrating that I think I understand the theory about quality, execution etc: he's looking at the service and costs levels I delivered. Period. So, whose influenced me the most and helped me work with colleagues, customers, suppliers etc to achieve this? For me (and no particular order or ranking is implied in any of this) it's:

Tom Peters: Excellence. Always. (Numerous slides reprinted but especially the Bakers dozen, bedrock and PSF stuff, all over my organiser as reminders.)

Peter Drucker: What Makes An Effective Executive? (8 bullet points, page 1 of my organiser.)

Bossidy et al: Execution. (Execution is... + 7 essential behaviours, page 2 of my organiser.)

Posted by Mark JF at December 7, 2008 3:38 AM

Well, Judith, perhaps you're right, although I feel myself in some good company. Those of us lay persons outside the temple's inner sanctum can only go on the case as stated, and perhaps draw some inferences from its language. So let us pull on the deerstalker, tamp down the meerschaum and look intelligently at what was originally said. This was not a pitch - a new client is not the same as a prospect - but one of the first (perhaps even THE first) pieces of delivery. The task set was for a specific reason - "marketing purposes" - which certainly leads me to suspect that five was a small number chosen for good reason. Crisp marketing punch is not delivered by 27 of anything. Again as stated, the client request was not for "some" or "a handful" or "any number you like, Tom" of bullet points, it was for the specific number of five, which even extended to mean a figure somewhere between one and ten, was exceeded in the event by over 150%. Those were the facts as stated on which my original critique was based. Tom Peters has later said that of course a lengthy list was expected and the client was delighted, and I completely believe him, but what works for him and his clients is arguably an exceptional case. In my work, if the client asks for advice I give it, if they ask for five of something they get that too, and if they ask for it by next Friday it comes next Friday. And if they are looking for a "practical" list of ideas, it would probably have no more than four or five points on it, because any more than that can't be managed in practice. Ideas that aren't translated into action are just so much wasted attention. Which seems to be where the client service world that Tom Peters inhabits (and I do not doubt absolutely excels at) varies wildly from mine. He's earned himself a happy position, which I (humbly, mind) suggest has its own risks of over-respect. I'd get crucified (not least by myself) for tendering such a off-brief response to a new client. Which I see is almost the theme of the "Commonplace" posting below. Line drawn on that subject anway.

This rather lengthy explanation is prompted by the troubling inference - from your use of the word arrogant - that Tom Peters is somehow not there to be challenged by the likes of us. He's been an inspiration to me for decades, which means that I pay him the respect of looking at what he says critically, and not with with automatic deference (the forelock is long gone anyhow). If he is the expert who can do no wrong, then I fear he is in very much the same place as the "we know best" medical establishment he chastises so roundly. And putting himself in grave danger of an emperor's new clothes situation, through being surrounded by acolytes and perhaps also clients who don't, or don't dare to, state the obvious but unpalatable. As Tom Peters has made a career out of putting uncomfortable truths in front of organisations, it would surprise and disappoint me if he proved unwilling to get as he gives. I don't think it's the case at all, and I most certainly hope it's not, but I'm confident you will tell me on his behalf.

So many thanks Judith for your invaluable feedback. I fear that any more from me will be teetering on gotcha teritory, so depend upon it you now have this particular field to yourself.

Posted by Rob at December 7, 2008 5:05 AM

Before the image gets too vivid, I should say that I was using the world crucified loosely!

Posted by Rob at December 7, 2008 5:08 AM

Tom says: "I am frightfully wrong about a huge # of things, but I think after surviving 35 years in the professional services that I have a pretty good feel for Client service."

Is this not a public admission that the man knows he is not unchallengeable and that he gets it wrong just like all of us. I just don’t get this idea that Tom is in danger of somehow being arrogant and beyond challenge and all this stuff about the emperor's new clothes. In the 25 years plus I’ve been following his work TP has never self proclaimed he is a guru - that status is given to him by others.

And I am pretty tired of this occasional recurring suggestion that there is some ‘inner sanctum’ on this Blog. As far as I know everyone is in the same room. We all have access to TP and each other in this Blog so can I ask specifically … just where is this ‘special place’ inhabited by some?

Mark - I'm just back from a walk over the frosty field in Warwickshire with Rusty and Bertie, my two trusty dogs. What a fabulous winter morning – the sun is shining gloriously and life is wonderful on this, my favorite day of the week.

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 7, 2008 7:17 AM

"does TP really have to sell his message, style and approach or does the prospect go to Tom with a fairly good idea of what he's going to get?"

Mark JF, the list of 27 is for the Client to use to sell the event to the clients' prospective clients.

Posted by tom peters at December 7, 2008 7:39 AM

"The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth."

--Albert Camus

Truthfully, this discussion is frightfully teetering on the absurd.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 7, 2008 7:48 AM

The haiku shirt is from Threadless

Posted by David Porter at December 7, 2008 12:28 PM

David - Wow! What a great store and concept! I love the communal aspect of it and the display of "models." Love it! There are so many great tees to choose from. Cool! Thanks! I will now do a little shopping. Tis the season!

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 7, 2008 1:16 PM

David Porter...

Thanks for that reference to Threadless you bring sanity and calm to this discussion by merely mentioning them.

The business that Jake Nickell and Jacob DeHart have networked (rather than built) is typical of the "outside in" C21st business (which I have long advocated here at Tompeters! against the wishes of the "inner sanctum" yeah there is such a thing here Trevor my old mate) we will see more and more of in future. Unlike most C20th businesses this current financial crisis will help them not hinder them. The new green economy will help them not hinder them. The further development of Web 2.0 into Web 3.0 social networks will help them not hinder them.

Threadless is a modern day version of Tupperware in the 1950s and what a business that was in its simplicity, viral marketing, and innovative capacity born of its unique involvement of its customers in its distribution processes..

Threadless (I am told for regrettably I have not seen it yet) is funky and hip yet full of clients or consumers who participate in the design and delivery of their own products. Linux is another C21st cooperative that works to produce, provide, and upgrade software... There are more and more evolving around the world as I write this.

In a recent blog here I had a request from Rob for some suggestions of new thought leaders who I believe are shaping the wonderful new world of work. I suggested a few just off the top of my head... Of course, Jake Nickell and Jacob Dehart were there....

Recently I joined in an online discussion set up within a social network. This group is explicitly about innovation in the workplace. It was led by a Harvard Professor who used Threadless as his case study and of course he had Jake there to join the dots.

Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at December 7, 2008 4:47 PM

Had a frustrating week struggling with the to-do list so thanks for the reminder in #25: "Your calendar doesn't lie".

And except for advising that the team leaders and managers who don't 'get it' be strung up by their thumbs in the lobby as a lesson to the others, how exactly does one push 'too hard' when it comes to patient safety?

Posted by Lois Gory at December 7, 2008 6:02 PM

Brilliant Lois - That's a great new performance incentive for all health care CEO’s .... Zero safety issues this week and you don't get 'strung up by the thumbs' in full view of all front liners ... It could work... Better still how about we take away their car park space? – That would hurt them more.

Hi Richard – pray tell who is in this inner sanctum and what qualifications does one need? :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 7, 2008 6:14 PM

Reads like some in this group should be locked up in an "inner sanctum" to deal with their manic depressive behaviors :>) - especially Ellis who refers to "Mr. Peters" rather than Dr. & somehow feels a need to explain Obama email spam! :>)

Excluding Tom many here one would suspect are at a negative net worth due to too many comments & too few profit ventures!

28. Add value - make money & profit! :>)

Posted by Rahib at December 7, 2008 7:27 PM

Now, that's too funny, Rahib! :-) Hey, I kind of like your signature smiley face. Let's see, I may need a tutorial or at the very least an explanation on producing such a thing. (I'm not the savviest with such things.) But maybe not…let’s see…. Uh… : >) Presto! Cool! Once a very artistic commenter made a cat via such symbols here and after about 10 minutes or so I admitted to defeat. I couldn’t make the stupid thing. Regarding, Dr. Peters, I beg your pardon, how utterly disrespectful of me. Dr. Thomas J. Peters is what it will forever be. :-) But I'm not too sure that he'd down with this.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 7, 2008 8:00 PM

I may be a bit over my head in this discussion, but I looked at the list as "a list". I found it relevant, refreshing, and an extraordinarily helpful reminder of what's important. I plan to pass this along to many that also need the reminder.

What I do not get is all of the discussion about why 27 and not 5 -- and pardon me, who is smarter than who(m). Maybe we get lost in our quest for excellence because we get caught up in the minutia. Maybe we need to just read the list for what it is and get on to our own responsibilities.

Just two cents from a novice. Thanks Tom.

Posted by Janice at December 8, 2008 11:07 AM

Janice - Amen! - For a 'novice' that was spoken with the vast knowledge of a veteran - well said - common sense and simplicity rules!

My point - a few comments ago - was what the hell is the argument about?

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 8, 2008 11:42 AM

The top 27 are great. Sometimes when the chips are down and you have tried everything and it has failed,a leader with good spiritual intelligence is likely to prevail. I have read many of TP's books but i find that he pays little attention to the spiritual intelligence, im i right?

Posted by Brink Ramoleele at December 9, 2008 6:34 AM

Quite frankly, I do not know the meaning of spiritual intelligence. Wisdom is spiritual. Ethics is spiritual. Dare I say brilliance too, even when unacknowledged?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 9, 2008 7:42 AM

Number 5 is an especially timely one for me. I own a resume writing service and I have built my brand on customer service. When it comes to such an important document, clients appreciate personal attention and care. What I have found is that keeping good and attentive staff is difficult. The reason is that no one treats your customers quite the way you do. The issue comes in when you need to terminate a writer and replace them. It really puts dent in the production line.

I feel the key is having a seamless training program on the front end. This allows me to get new writers on board and operating quickly, and they have a full and complete understanding of what I am looking for in terms of writing style, writing quality, and customer service.

William Mitchell, CPRW

Posted by Resume Writer at December 12, 2008 7:16 PM