Comments

I'd add a point, one that's made far more eloquently than I can by John C. Bogle in his recent book, "Enough." Finance has gone from being part of business to being a business in its own right, and its become too complicated and too divorced from reality.

And my own point: we've spent far too much time on 'financial engineering' and not enough on real engineering in real businesses with real customers and real staff and real products or services and real money.

Finally, let's remember: Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

Posted by Mark JF at February 6, 2009 9:12 AM

Mike: your comment on value rings true. Anybody can run a business into the ground and produce phenomenal results while doing so. Apparently it's also easy to do with an entire economy.

Let our current scenario be a lesson that the new focus of American business should be to build effective and sustainable value for employees, customers and ownership; and not to maximize profits, sacrificing all else...

Robert Stenhammer
Gen X
MBA

Posted by Roberto at February 6, 2009 9:23 AM

Mark F: Your comment on financial engineering is spot on.

I have a background in manufacturing and I can honestly say that at least these things add real value. Sure we may not need a new car in a financial crisis but a car is still a need, its a physical object that has a resale. I still struggle with this concept of economy's becoming completely service orientated. During the great depression people would stay at home and cook for themselves, give themselves manicures (if there was such a thing then) etc etc. Agriculture, transportation, textiles these things were bought because they were necessities not just a non-value adding "service" to make us feel better about ourselves.

If there's only a few positives we can take from this crisis, I hope its to reevaluate developed country's viewpoints on what industries a stable economy should be developed around.

Clint Bird

Sigma|Flow
http://sigmaflow.wordpress.com/

Posted by Clint B at February 6, 2009 9:55 AM

...we did this!!??!!!?? How about the good old fashioned U S Gov DID THIS!! Toooo much power, tooo much involvement in the private sector, tooo many restrictions, WAY toooo many TAXES and fees...when we shrink gov, lower taxes and put the power back in the hands of the people, things WILL improve. All this babbling blame game, poor, poor me crap is old / stale....

Posted by J D Duncan at February 6, 2009 10:27 AM

I'm part of the new generation, one that will crater under everyone else's weight. A huge impact to the change in values came with dual income households. I believe the pursuit of wealth and greed that came with it, left many kids not understanding the values of our greatest generation. To some degree, I was a latch key kid; however, my wife and I both work because we have to. We have to because we want the best for our children with regard to education; unfortunately, we haven't found the values in public schools that align with our morals.

At the end of the day, if I'm less wealthy than my parents, I don't fret too much. "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want." I don't force my beliefs on others and I understand the perspective of non-believers. With that said, I believe wealth will be lost but faith will grow stronger, especially in each other.

Great post Mike and I'm sure that you will stir the pot with those of us that follow this blog. Another resource you may want to pick up is the book Dropping Almonds by Bach Anon. The book is written by a very young executive that bails on his VP role for reasons that you've listed.

Click on Candy Man (my name) and you'll be taken to the website.

Thanks for helping me take stock!!!!!!!!

Posted by Candy Man at February 6, 2009 10:31 AM

I was going to take issue with JD Duncan and say that people get the government they elect... but the problem is that that isn't the case any more. Add 1 more thing to our list of woes: the appropriation of government by a professional political class who are driven by ideology, theory and dogma rather than by pragmatic, realistic experience - and who have spearheaded the unaccountable "Not my responsibility" culture. There are exceptions, of course, but it's a generalisation I suspect will chime with many people.

Posted by Mark JF at February 6, 2009 10:48 AM

For a while after reading that I was feeling a little guilty. Not for the fortune I've made at the expense of others, I have no fortune. However I do have a very comfortable life, a secure and rewarding job, no debts, a good marriage, good friends, a nice house in beautiful countryside.... I also have degrees, including the dreaded MBA.

So why might I feel guilty? Well there's a lot more I could have done to help others.

Then why did I decide on reflection not to feel guilty? Well things might seem bad right now, but it could have been far, far worse.

Despite decades of "cold war", there never was a 3rd World War. That's not just down to luck - a lot of folks worked damned hard to make sure it didn't happen, many died in order that it didn't happen.

Most people are living longer, again, not through chance, but because lots of people have worked very hard to make it happen.

OK, so some of us who work on "stuff that matters" (google on Tim O'Reilly) didn't always keep an eye on what the greedy folks work doing. So yes, we missed one of the less obvious threats, but I reckon, on the whole we've done a pretty good job. Although there are many, many problems still to fix - I now work in climate science, something that hadn't even been imagined when I was at school - there are some pretty good foundations to build on.

So get building young folk, us older folk won't stop you, heck we're here to help - we always were.

Posted by Michael Saunby at February 6, 2009 11:31 AM

Mike – great post - I will respond again shortly but I just wanted initially to endorse Candy Man's hearty recommendation of "Dropping Almonds." It is the best book I've read in the last 2 years. Easy to read, it will make you laugh and more importantly may make you cry. The author Bach Anon writes straight from the heart and tells it as it really is. Is honesty and integrity needed in business? - You bet - just read the book and see why it is more important than ever. I hope it becomes a best seller - it is not a traditional management book which is its greatest strength. Vive la difference!!

Candy Man – I love your reference to “The Lord’s My Shepherd” – very pertinent if I may say. Like you, I never force my beliefs on others but nonetheless I am very proud and indeed comforted to have my own :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 6, 2009 11:36 AM

I think you need to put this argument in context. If baby boomers had the same geo-politicalconstruct that the greatest generation had the results would, no doubt, be different. Every generation has its miscreants and huge errors, the depression for example. And, wasn't the original Ponzi scheme in the first half of the 20th century? We have greater opportunities today than every before. I, for one, am not going to beat myself up or worship at the alter of guilt. I am going to run my business the best way I know how and make the greatest contribution that I can.

Posted by Jim Outland at February 6, 2009 12:09 PM

I think one point which needs to be added (maybe as a addendum to point 1 about greed) is that the American Dream was not to have everything in the world on debt, but to achieve it with hard work, persistence, dedication and excellence. Sadly this was totally lost and credit became our panacea. We can blame anyone and everyone but it was us who took loans that were beyond our capacity to pay.
Thanks,
Nitin
http://nitnblogs.blogspot.com

Posted by Niitn Goyal at February 6, 2009 2:22 PM

Mike,
I'm going to start - and probably end - with your last point. Yes, "The Greatest Generation" did make things too easy for the baby-boomers (BBs). As a result, there is zero understanding of sacrifice, struggle or collective need among the BBs (and unfortunately the generation immediately after them - Generation ??????). What we're seeing today is the cultural consequence of several generations that have rarely, if ever really had to care for anyone but themselves. The recessions that have happened over the past 20-30 years have been comparatively mild and the rewards for selfishness have been massive.

You talk about Finance going from a business function to a business unto itself. The Finance business became this generations engineering, manufacturing and technology industries all rolled up into one, but without the tangible output to sustain itself - or provide anything for future generations to actually use. The only product was profits and "capital" increases, based on little more than the belief that the Finance business in and of itself could create lasting wealth. Unfortunately, it became the underpinning for much of our economic development and when it started to crumble there was nothing useful left. Only unemployed MBA's and bankrupt banks. No new technologies, no new roads, nothing that the next generation can actually use, other than a huge friggin' object lesson.

I'm not sure that we have too many MBA's (I've got one and I never worked in finance), but I think we did a huge disservice to many of them by making the only apparent path to wealth (wealth being defined as obscene amounts of money) run through the Finance business. A good MBA running a highly creative design and engineering department in a manufacturing company adds tremendous long-term value to the economy. Their output is tangible and long-lasting and I'm willing to bet they give a lot more back to their community than the MBA running a Finance business whose belief in charity stopped at writing a check to the United Way.

Finally, back to the question of whether our parents made us soft and whether this mattered. Personally I think the answer is yes and yes. I grew up in a fairly well off home, never had to really sacrifice and never had to really struggle. And I don't think I'm alone in this kind of an upbringing. The problem is that as a result when we are faced with a true crisis like the one we have now, we have absolutely no personal frame of reference (and reading about past crises doesn't make them real). Our grandparents were children during the great depression, our parents were hippies who's greatest economic crises were comparatively brief and shallow. We simply don't understand the fundamental problems we've created nor do we know how to react.

The good news is that we tend to be a very adaptable species and throughout history, when we get into something deep enough, we seem to have a way of pulling ourselves together and collectively digging our way out. The bad news is we're not sure how much deeper we have to go before we start pulling as one.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at February 6, 2009 2:25 PM

First, thanks to everyone for your contributions. My idea of a great blog is the free flow of ideas and this community rarely disappoints on that. Secondly, I blog the same way I might converse with you over a beverage of your choice...it is largely highly opinionated and through my own lens. I certainly did not mean to say that we should feel guilty...absolutely not! Guilt is often paralyzing. Instead, I was hoping for a call to action. And Andrew, I did not mean to demean MBA's. If anything, I find most MBA programs curriculum unbalanced with too much emphasis on finance. But again, just an opinion. Sure, government policies own some part of this problem, but last I checked, most in Congress are baby boomers as well. I find myself feeling a great sense of urgency as a baby boomer...is this the legacy we want to leave? And yes, like Andrew, I believe we are an incredible group of people who are maybe at their best when their backs are to the wall. I am extremely hopeful, I just think we need a new resolve, and we need it now.

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 6, 2009 3:24 PM

Andrew,

For every action, there is an equal and opposite, reaction.

My parents were pretty wealthy, still are to some degree, while I was growing up. With that said, I was part of the busing desegregation movement that occurred in the late 70's and early 80's. My parents allowed me to be bused into a low income district (we were middle class) and my eyes were exposed to the horrors of poverty. The bus had to pick us up early so the students riding the bus, that were impoverished and part of state assistance, could eat breakfast before school. The school was heavily populated with hispanics, moderately poplulated with whites, and a few blacks were mixed in here and there. I went to lower rent district public schools until 8th grade. I'd had it with getting my ass kicked, kicking ass, and spending time at day care (school).

I was so stupid from the experience that I tested for a Jesuit prep school to try and get in. I failed the math and english portions of the exam, I believe those were the only portions, and required to take summer school (both sessions) to get in. Luckily I passed summer school and got out of the public school system and began to attend private catholic schooling for high school. The only difference between me and the others, I was fortunate to have parents that could pay for private education.

Even to this day, my parents have never given me anything. While they provided for my college education, I knew, once I was done, that was it. There were always, and I repeat always, expectations that I would provide them something in return for what they provided me.

I've seen bad times for my peer group, when I was much younger and I cherish those memories of watching a handful of students get off the bus, go to the cafeteria, and eat for nothing. They were hungry and poor. There were kids that bathed at school as well...they may have been homeless for all I knew. Even though I didn't receive a very good education with regard to curricula, what I learned from sharing the experience with less fortunate kids was invaluable. I'm sure there are many bloggers on this site that have their own version of very tough times, by choice or circumstance. My wife was very poor growing up and only started to make a good living for herself at 18; her dad left the family. We will never forget our roots.

Posted by Candy Man at February 6, 2009 3:29 PM

As a proud baby boomer (and by the way proud MA Management (Healthcare) which is my MBA I guess) I desperately want my generation to be remembered for making this world a better place. I will always be optimistic. On the other hand there are things that worry me about what we may be remembered for:

• Creating a culture where allowing our kids to become obese is considered ok
• Creating a culture where image is more important than substance
• Allowing world poverty to get worse rather than better when we have the ability to completely wipe out world poverty
• Making marriage an outdated concept
• The promotion of the individual over society
• The promotion of money as a new religion

Mike is right – we have very little time if we want to make amends. There are signs of recovery – more emphasis in business on our social responsibility for instance. I also believe marriage is making something of a comeback among younger people in the UK.

As I am typing this I am thinking how negative it sounds. Believe me I am an optimistic person. The biggest tragedy is that we have the technological ability to solve most of the world’s problems – what we clearly don’t have is the will. We have created the monster of “I’m all right Jack” and I hope it is not too late to try and put that ugly genie back in the bottle.

Mike - If you are looking for measurements of whether we baby boomers did anything worthy of note in historical terms then why not look to how well we used our technological know-how to achieve world harmony.

I agree with Jim’s words;

“I, for one, am not going to beat myself up or worship at the alter of guilt.”

Beating ourselves up is not helpful but we boomers must ask ourselves; Have we done enough given the opportunities we have?

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 6, 2009 4:05 PM

Why be kind at this point? Your generation took the easy way out. Just because you could doesn't mean you should have taken the easy way out. An example of this is blaming our parents for making "us" soft. Talk about not taking responsibility for your actions. What happened with making your own decisions.

As I read about the Greatest Generation, my sense is they "gave" but this past generation took and squandered what they were given.

As I look at my young son, I hope I'm made with better stuff than this generation who blames their parents for making them soft. You certainly own that.

Posted by Dave Miklasevich at February 6, 2009 5:30 PM

Perhaps it is my writing skills, or lack of them, Dave. In NO way am I suggesting our parents are to blame. Quite the contrary, my suggestion is that we may have squandered the gift they gave us. If you read the complete paragraph, I put it all on "us". "honest-to-goodness-hard work" Thanks. And I am not convinced that X'ers have the work ethic that we had...but that is of course another can of worms...

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 6, 2009 5:36 PM

I agree we messed things up big time. Our vanity, wanton greed, and ignorance of a changing world has crippled the world.

My son, who is 22, doesn't mind the mess we are leaving behind. He believes the mess creates opportunity to create something new without the weight of the past. Of course he wishes it were not so but then again the only way his generation can build a new world is a on the ash heap of the babyboomers leave behind.

True there will be a financial weight on our kids however as I talk to his generation they feel optimistic because they can recreate without the baggage of babyboomers. His values are closer to his grandparents of being honest, reasonable, and middle of the road, and seeking compromise. The self-centeredness of baby boomers is lacking in his generation.

I hold out hope for the world because the coming generation is far more altruistic than their parents.

Posted by Frank Szewczyk at February 6, 2009 6:10 PM

Mike,

I thought the blog, in its entirety, was quite well presented. Very easy to take pieces out of context and pick them apart.

We didn't need to have the work ethic of the boomers, because, by the time we made it to our MBA, all we had to do was sit around and be strategic. I agree that MBAs, at least in my experience, are worthless. Many of them (degrees) can be found on-line and bought in a matter of a year (I'm supporting your work ethic argument).

I tell my kids, Generation Playstation, that "...those dishes aren't going to clean themselves, that hole isn't going to dig itself, that vacuum isn't going to push itself." They will be raised with a very strong idea of work, reward, and discipline. Every now and then, I may have to whack them upside the head too...but that is of course, in your words, another can of worms.

Posted by Candy Man at February 6, 2009 6:56 PM

Thanks Candy Man...greatest gift my Dad gave me was the belief that hard work pays off. Pretty proud of the dirt under my fingernails I gained along the way. Unfortunately, with Roomba, the vacuum actually does push itself :) Thanks man....

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 6, 2009 7:01 PM

I think your writing is just great, Mike! Thank you for a very thoughtful well-rounded well-crafted piece. I am a Gen-Xer, but in many respects I feel like a Baby Boomer, and even those who were a part of the Great Society, for everything that I now am I have gleaned from all of these, while forever looking forward to what I will leave.

I worry about future generations. I have no children, but have 26 nieces and nephews and an additional 25 foster nieces and nephews that my older sister raised and sent to college. While working on my PhD, I also taught as a substitute teacher and felt a great responsibility to each and every kid that I taught. I did house visits and principles requested me. On my daily walks I look for opportunities to say a good word or do a good deed. Even as a very young person, I was always very consciousness of how other influenced me or how I influenced others emotionally, spiritually, and practically--though not always with kid gloves.

There are a great many people and processes to blame for the mess that are now in, as well as a great many ill-conceived ideologies. But what is for sure is that we are now here at this particular moment in history and it behooves all of us to look at ourselves honesty and ask this day and every day thereafter, "How can I be better today?" "Have I loved my neighbor (anyone near me personally or professionally) as myself?" "Have I done unto others as I would like for them to do unto me?"

Thanks again, Mike. Great post!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 6, 2009 7:36 PM

I think new generations will be better, that´s the law...We made it, we made those brillinatns today boy, tomorrow they will built their son, better...

Posted by Guillermo Buelna at February 6, 2009 9:46 PM

Mike,

Thank you for the excellent informal 'white paper'. Being a late Gen-Xer / early Gen-Yer (I don't believe in using the M. word) your article really resonates with me.

I think Mark JF's comment stands true, that we have spent far to much time on 'financial engineering' and not enough time on developing 'real' business and products.

The global mess cannot be solved by more 'financial engineering' (i.e. printing more government T-bills), it can only be cured by hard work, sacrifice and compromise.

Cheers,

Tom

Posted by Tom at February 6, 2009 11:16 PM

I am right now at this very morning listening to Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman and CEO of GE on C-Span and reading the comment above regarding financial engineering. It is believed by some that GE got into trouble when it ventured more into financial engineering than producing products. Immelt is, however, making some good points about innovation.

Looking out into the audience, I am struck by the sea of sameness, typically older white males of wisdom and experience. As I look at these suits and I cannot help but to wonder how things might have been different with a little mix and difference of perspectives. Immelt seems like a likeable guy. This matters; I will now read more on how GE is progressing and being managed.

The conversation is now turning to the interesting point of who to trust: the finacial markets or the rating agencies. This has been a joke, as both seem to have been in the process of dupping for some years.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 7, 2009 5:18 AM

Overall, I was quite pleased with Mr. Immelt's responses and sense of leadership; I was especially pleased with his response regarding the industrial greatness of the US having been reduced to merely services; this would include financial services. This has to be reversed. From this discussion, I like this Baby Boomer, "this lifelong Republican" who believes in hope and rates President Obama's first few weeks in office "very highly."

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 7, 2009 6:04 AM

I don't know what generation I am (x/y/z/a/b/c?)- to be frank I have never really thought about it. I don't really care. Actually can someone reply with a definition?!

I am trying not to think in terms of fault (although as a person who saves rather than spends that's kinda hard right now!)

I don't think it is how much hardship or how soft people are. I think that we are just living in a time of such unprecedented change (internet, the speed of innovation and global economics etc) that the human race is struggling to keep up. That may not be a fault of a particular generation - more that it happened on their watch. That is not to condone what has clearly been complete idiocy in some areas.

One thing I learned at work is that there is a load of management best practice out there - but each generation of new managers has to learn from scratch and there simply isn't enough time. Our abilities to reason, plan and execute simply don't hack it. Orgs are simply playing catch up all the time. In the last 12 years my company has been acquired or changed ownership/status 4 times. We teach the "change curve" which goes through denial, opposition, interest, acceptance and then performance except we don't reach performance because the whole thing changes again before people get there. I have seen multiple IT system changes that have been put in before the previous incarnation has even been completed let alone produced any ROI.

So what are the skills that future generations will need to cope with such rapid and complex change?

Perhaps one area we have to work on in society is opposition. Business culture is paranoid about opposition. Resistance to anything is crushed (subtly through culture or brute force)

I got into trouble at a change management workshop for daring to ask "what if the people opposing the change are actually right" What part of the change curve deals with that?

I bet there were plenty of people in the finance industry who were quietly looking at the madness and thinking that "this doesn't add up" but corporate culture does not allow that to be expressed.

The one lesson for leadership going forward has to be around how we build concepts. In the west we typically have argument and counter argument - which frankly is rubbish as all that happens is that power, alpha male types argue and other (often intelligent and right) people simply remove themselves from the game as they view the alpha types as somewhat pathetic.

This has to end. Question is what skills should we be teaching our children?

Posted by PaulH at February 7, 2009 6:13 AM

Appauled you underestimate my children's ability to be better than us!

Posted by Patrick at February 7, 2009 6:21 AM

"Question is what skills should we be teaching our children?"

A great start might be to have more mothers and women in boardrooms who usually bring a different perspective to the discussion and how such discussions are framed; language influences and different concepts built.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 7, 2009 7:03 AM

There is difference between empathy and reality; there is also a difference between experience and empathy. All are valuable, but one cannot BE the other, therefore, cannot represent completely the other. I cannot, for example, be a white 65-year-old male Baby Boomer, though I can be empathetic and greatly learn from his experience.

What I may bring to the table by merely being present may very well be different from what this male Baby Boomer has already brought. He could never speak for me, though he could empathize with me. In speaking of generational differences, are these things not worth considering--by this, I mean, the mere presence and difference of others?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 7, 2009 7:25 AM

Could we just go back to 1980 and start over? Great post, Mike. Now seriously where's the book?? You already have your title (or maybe subtitle): Confusing Profit With Value.

Posted by John O'Leary at February 7, 2009 10:26 AM

J D Duncan is wrong and Mark JF is wrong to not make his original point.

JD Duncan,

The people decide who is voted into office.

The Boomers fueled the 1960s political revolution. The post-war Democrats prior to 1964 were primarily by today's standards "moderates."

The Baby Boomers revitalized many of the ideas that had thrived in the 1920s and early 1930s, which had fallen out of favor during the 1940s.

The majority in Congress during the 1970s was primarily focused on satisfying their new constituents.

Many GOPers look back on the Reagan years as if they were Golden-forgetting that the Congress continued to be dominated by the Democrats.

Mark JF,
I assume you are speaking of the Hopes of the "conservative movement" of the 1990s.

The people who were elected to Congress by the "conservative movement" in the mid-1990s and early 2000s were basically the blue-blood "Granddaddy was a Republican" and Moderates. Certainly there were some genuine small government types added but people like Ray Lahood caried on the legacy of the Bob Michels and Gerald Fords or earlier years.

Why do you think Newt Gingrich resigned in 1998. It was obvious what was going to happen next because the GOP contigency of Congress was not conservative.

And the GOP has been nominating the most mediocre Presidential candidates for the last 15 years. I guarantee you that if it had not been for the 9/11 disaster Bush 43 would have been viewed as one of the most mediocre Republican Presidents since Gerald Ford. And Bob Dole, what was the GOP thinking?

Now the Pendulum is swinging in the opposite direction - Dazzle and Charisma with very little substance was what reinvigorated the GOP for about a month.

In the last fifty years, the GOP has only had two Great nominees and one good nominee but Bush 41's accomplishments were done so quietly that measured against Reagan's showmanship, Bush 41 failed to look as impressive as he appears in hindsight. If it had not been for the apprenticeship which he served under Reagan ( in other words if he had defeated Reagan in 1980's primaries) Bush 40 (not 41, if he had been elected in 1980) would have been a disaster.

The other major problem that the GOP has is that there are two major segments of the GOP that are not full spectrum. One - are those who are so into foreign policy that they don't really care too much about the domestic issues unless it affects their re-election. When they use the word "freedom" they refer to "national sovreignty" and not to the liberties of the individual.

The other segment is the "Big Government Social-Conservatives", (a misnomer if I ever heard of one). These GOP voters are usually driven by either religion or a love of "old fashioned values" but they have little or no respect for the concept of federalism.

The fact that many of the people on this blog still praise John Maynard Keynes and are still impressed by the current rewarming of FDR's ideas is because a lot of them are Baby Boomers.

By the way, I don't care what the popular culture says - any family which did not "get underway" till more than 10 years after VJ day should not be considered Boomers even if they were born in the same year as the younger children of Parents whose older children were born in the 1940s!!!!

Those of us who were still in Grade school in 1968 have little or nothing in common with those who had already graduated in 1968. Don't mix my generation up with the immature brats of the 1960 "peacenik" movement.

Posted by JHS at February 7, 2009 1:32 PM

Mike,

I think you and several of the responders have hit on the fundamental root cause of the economic turmoil...the worldview of the generations has moved over the last 100 years away from the preciousness of truth and away from the enforcement of consequences for lying, deceiving, misleading, or other forms of untruth. We have failed to call out the liars and instead have continued to follow them in business and elect them to high office, and for any number of reasons -- but none of them good enough to assuage the guilt of tolerating them in positions of leadership. We can still clean up the mess but only if we return to a relentless pursuit of truth and trust in the marketplace and government. Good post. Very stimulating.

Walt

Posted by Walt at February 7, 2009 1:50 PM

"We can still clean up the mess but only if we return to a relentless pursuit of truth and trust in the marketplace and government."

Wonderful statement as the "pursuit of truth" is endless and trust necessary, but within reason. I wonder if our black and white decisions and never admitting wrong and shortcomings have also brought us here. Truth seems to have been defined by the notions of good and evil, rich and poor while being told to trust the better judgment of government officials and quants; the middle was destroyed and nuisances were defeated by THE TRUTH rammed down our throats coated with fear, glitter, and gluttony. Reality show this and that. Gucci. Louis. Aspen. Arizona. Big Foot Houses where cottages once stood. Distraction is the enemy of soundness.

We accepted these things, abdicating our individual and collective responsibilities and escaping to mere materialism. Bigger is always better, right? Distractions are dismissive. While discussions are great and necessary, I also wonder at what point will these discussions cease; many are laying low riding the wave of public discontent and disgust. But they will arise in due time. After all, we have no idea what happened to that 300+ billion of TARP. It most certainly has not gone to the people for reinvestment.

From what I gather there will be the final distribution of that original TARP next week. Does anybody know where it will go and if there are measures therein to assure responsibility and accountability? Although President Obama is empowered by the people to make executive decisions, the people should require that this upcoming TARP disbursement hold those in receipt of these funds accountable. To simply trust that Mr. Geithner, intelligent as he may be, will do the best thing it is a bit too much to ask. We’ve been there and done that. What happen to the dough, man? What is the truth here?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 7, 2009 3:08 PM

I am not sure I 100% agree with you Walt. The scrutiny of people in high places is way more than it was 50 years ago. I think Royalty (either constitutional as in GB or certain political dynasties and cliques in other countries) was much stronger then than now?

The odd thing to me is that increased scrutiny of leaders does not seemed to have led to better, sustainable results. We now know way more about publically quoted companies than before and yet what has happened.

Posted by PaulH at February 7, 2009 3:12 PM

google this

tom peters fake buisnessweek

Posted by billy at February 7, 2009 3:56 PM

Mike - thanks - a couple of points:

1. Yes the way things are going the next generations - in the US/Europe - may get less. Poor Detroit'ers especially - even the new Forbes magazine has Detroit as 1st city choice "to not move to". They have hope though & their Lions.

2. I earned an MBA (& masters in computer science) - but I totally agree - finance should be more like 2% of GDP rather than 21%. Make money supply governance similar to utility company management. Let me put the money to work & hire & pay high wages without dozens of middle women.

3. Blame the Tom Peters' generation early & often with their ready, fire, aim mantra. And their "Greatest Generation of Debt & Corruption" brand. We must call on the carpet all those who orchestrated &/or just were lazy about the plunge into this great recession. The new mistake prone president is a likely suspect also! :>)

Posted by Contraire at February 7, 2009 7:22 PM

Judith,

Maybe my words sounded high-minded and therefore unrealistic. I do agree that there is a missing middle all of a sudden...but it shouldn't surprise anyone. The last 25 years or more have seen the professional managers looking for the best places to make their mark on organization after organization. The easiest place to do so, was to flatten the org chart and remove the middle management layers. In the world of the farm, this is equivalent to keeping the fruit at the top and the roots at the bottom while removing the stem/stalk. Middle management was the part of the organizations that was sure to know the real capacity of the people and systems and tell upper management what the limits were. They were also the ones that could sell the big management visions to the critical people on the team so that change could and did happen. Gutting this vital communications pathway combined with a focus on numbers (not people or processes or their impact on producing value) led to the lack of adaptability or flexibility in corporation after corporation. Now when there's a big opportunity or threat, the whole company has to reorganize because there is no slack. One of the reasons I poke into this blog and Tom's site is that I believe he's been one of the voices consistently arguing for real value. At some point (a decision point), there has to be enough of a distinction between alternatives for a choice to made. Good is better than evil. Life with the inherent ability to influence the present and future appears to be better than death with no such ability.

Whenever somebody presses for a decision now or tries to ram their viewpoints down our throats with empty rhetoric or force of arms, we should all stiffen our spines and start looking for equalizers. When the other side cheats there are no rules anymore and we all revert to redneck.

Truth and transparency lead to trust. The founders of our nation did not give us a democracy...they gave us a Republic (the rule of law) with the ideals of Liberty and Justice for all...not equality of outcomes or fair distribution of wealth. I have no trust in either of the two dominant parties...we would be better off starting over with a clean slate of representatives made up of people from our communities that would never consider seeking public office...you know...people we can trust to do the right thing then come back to their homes and businesses in our communities. And while I'm on it, maybe we should move them to a hot, un-air conditioned wheat field somewhere in flyover country with one clerk and no access to lobbyists.

Walt

Posted by Walt at February 7, 2009 9:14 PM

Walt - Thank you. I appreciate both of your comments. I also did not take your words to be unrealistic and please do not read into my writing style as a direct response to your comments. Your words were not high-minded. I trust mine are understandable.

You have said some thoughtful things here. The ending paragraph was particularly so. Why couldn't we do as you suggested? It sounds good to me. I smiled reading your last sentence: "And while I'm on it, maybe we should move them to a hot, un-air conditioned wheat field somewhere in flyover country with one clerk and no access to lobbyists."

I also particularly like this line: "Good is better than evil. Life with the inherent ability to influence the present and future appears to be better than death with no such ability."

Your take on middle management seems analogous to the shrinking middle class, defined simply as "the middle." Can professional managers not effectively manage in the middle within a corporation? I understand your analogy regarding "stem/stalk." But tell that to the business owner who is trying to cut costs or to the professional manager brimming with great ideas. Can professional managers not intricately become a part of the team and system? I'm sure some industries would be more complicated than others.

I agree with you assessment on the concentration on numbers and the necessity of trust.

You are in good company:

John Bogle: "No business can trust everything and count nothing. Nor can any business count everything and trust nothing. It’s a question of balance, although my own instincts lead me toward far less reliance on counting and far more reliance on trusting."

I also appreciate your farm analogy; the farm is where seedtime and harvest takes place. Although technology has sped up certain processes, we must still plant seeds and wait for the harvest. But we don't want to wait for anything these days.

We also want to sow bad seeds and still reap a good harvest. This is where we seemed to have been. My mother used to say once we had made a bad decision that could not be easily reversed, "now we must pray for crop failure." Many times the bad seeds sprung up and other times grace was present. Most times we reap what we sow.

Growing up my uncle had a very large farm of thousands of acres 60 miles outside of Detroit. All of us kids (12) went to the farm for the summers and we were taught valuable lessons there. We were able to ride the horses and horseplay, but we worked. Well, the girls didn't work as much. But my (7) brothers worked really really hard.

My brothers are executives and entrepreneurs as well as ordained ministers. They range from Baby Boomers to Gen-Xers. If you asked them now, they will all tell you that it was on the farm where they learned invaluable lessons that affect their decision making today. My mother was very wise, though her wisdom was challenged. She didn't seem to care. We were going to do exactly as she said. Looking back, we're glad we did.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 8, 2009 1:45 AM

Mike - Thank you for using sensible words to describe what some of us would believe is a complex problem, recognising that the solution possibly is. It's a blinding flash of the obvious what is wrong (some author once used this term in his first book) and how we have ended up here. Whether you blame it on baby boomers, Gen X, corporism or just plain old greed, the fact here is most of us saw it coming for a long time.

It seems like ages ago when used to say "if we couldn't afford it, we didn't buy it." I just hope the next generation have learnt a damn lot from this.

I don't care if I'm less wealthy than my parents generation, wealth is certainly not the only measure of success and achievement, in fact, it's a little out dated isn't it?

Posted by Ann Holman at February 8, 2009 3:09 AM

Thanks Mike, nice thought-provoking post. I think "We" as a term is a bit broad-brush; there are lots of people within that "We" who have chosen other routes in life to pursue, and fought vigorously for a different set of values. Sadly, too few of them get celebrated as they should, while many have been vilified because they have fought against an establishment which promoted the haves over the have-nots, the individual over society, wealth over worth, the material over the spiritual, short-term over long-term. [And of course worldwide there are many within that "We" generation who have just never had the choice one way or another.] So I find myself pushing back against an assumption of collective guilt, even while recognising that much more could have been done, not least by me. That said, in terms of our sad legacy to future generations, along with all the other economic, environmental and political horrors, we will pass on almost uncontrolled population growth (apparently a taboo subject for many, even as we approach the limits of the planet's carrying capacity) and an emerging global water crisis - probably the next great source of global conflict and population movement. And meanwhile we consumers are currently all being encouraged to "spend our way out of the crisis", as if our (over-)consumption wasn't a large part (cause, effect) of the state you describe so well.

Posted by Rob at February 8, 2009 5:35 AM

Provoked to more contemplation by the spirit of the post, and to some sweeping generalisation, I wonder if the "greatest generation" (I believe that the men of the equivalent greatest British generation were cut down earlier, in WW1 - Contraire, any thoughts?) were the last to have a view of a distinct adult world with adult responsibilities. Debatably, one characteristic of the BB generation is its eternal-teenager mentality. There's a great difference between not growing old and not growing up, and maybe "We" have too often confused the two. Just a thought.

Posted by Rob at February 8, 2009 10:26 AM

"There's a great difference between not growing old and not growing up."

Rob's point above is, in part, my indirect response to PaulH's question: "Question is what skills should we be teaching our children?" We can teach children some things and, in fact, through our actions at home and at work display the exact opposite. What good is this for home or work, for themselves and others? I wonder if many men in positions of power and leadership have simply grown old and not up, especially when it comes to nuisances of leadership and the necessity of change.

I believe to a large extent many men have failed society in a very large way. Although raised by women, many men seem to live, to a large extent, double lives, the one at home and the one who they become in boardrooms. How does this affect their work, if at all? Has this changed overtime? It seems like a dichotomous existence.

What seems to have complicated this is women's larger role in society. Many men seem to have lost their voice when real respect for women is required with regards to equal pay and a voice at the table. Yet, these men, of course, were birthed and raised to a large degree by their mothers. What complicate things further is that these men are also raising sons.

In this regard, a great many men have failed society in many generations. Now, they appear to be somewhat lost; they appear to be going through a major identity crisis, one that they have brought on themselves.

The beauty is that there is hope. Hopefully, we will emerge from this crisis a more enlightened people and better leaders if we will begin to change things for the generations that will follow. Are not such crises good for us all to accept our shortcomings and failures of attitude and action?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 8, 2009 10:54 AM

Ian Sanders sent me a great video this morning of his interview with Kevin Roberts, CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi. It's really good!

Mr. Roberts seems like an inspirational brilliant Beatnik Boomer. He says some really great things. Among these he talks about work life balance; he speaks very gallantly about not needing work life balance but work life integration. True. But usually women have to be able to balance children and career. Balance is important and the necessity of others to realize this is crucial.

This points out a very real difference between mindsets. Men can say such sweeping inspirational statements as often times they are not required to balance; women seem by nature or nurture to be integrators, but they have to forever balance home and work. This, for many, is a beautiful challenge; for others it is harrowing.

There needs to be real consideration of the necessity of balance.

Here is the video: http://www.viddler.com/explore/iansanders/videos/15

Great work, Ian! Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 8, 2009 11:45 AM

Mike this post is right on! As you know I am part of the baby boomer generation....the one that was committed to making the world a better place for everyone.....so we got educations, joined the business ranks, squeezed the "souls" out of business, and as a result, made a goodly amount of money.....on a house of cards. I am hoping we, the baby boom generation, can reconnect with our youthful commitment and course correct....and champion meaningful work that adds value, community, leadership not management AND fiscal responsibility.....and to your point the time is short.

Posted by Deb at February 8, 2009 7:37 PM

Mike,

Regarding the last point you made about having made our children soft: We seem to be doing even worse now, to the extent that the U.S. Surgeon General has reported that, for the first time in the history of our country, the generation of today’s children will not have a predicted life span as long as their parents. We are shortening the lives of our children.

To me, this is a very sobering thought—what are we doing to our children? Why are we doing it?

Bob Foster

Posted by Bob Foster at February 8, 2009 8:04 PM

Yes Bob...I think that is what saddens me the most. But we have time to do something, and do it right, right now..thanks

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 8, 2009 8:43 PM

I watched how the cultural changed accelerated since the end of the 1990 recession. That acceleration has now resulted in a national economic disaster. And the best, the most powerful, the wisest, didn't even see it coming.

Simply put, what was a steady move in the late 1980's towards freer but more aggressive capitalism took off like a rocket, without a sound guidance system. Two world events triggered this - Japan economic bubble burst removed what was then a great challenge, and the Soviet Union termination did the rest. America was on a roll, master of the universe. We even believed it when the cunning French proclaimed the US a 'hyper power'. When the French congratulate you - be afraid!

Before you know it anything goes, confident the hyperpower can do no wrong. Politically, the neocon (and to a lessor extent Clinton) embed the superpower reality into their ideologies and proceed to conduct a 'full spectrum dominance' foreign and trade policy. America heavy hand bullying, dished out as we see fit, created the most severe backlash in the deep despair of the Muslim world, and an event called 9/11.

Economically, the big corporate business class took over and ran the show, in the form of globalization. Globalization American style that is. In non-MBA terms - dish out anything to cheap countries, print maximum amount of dollar to run the world, and run the country like a corporation. American take-no-prisoner corporation that is. The politicians obliged. Wall Street ran amuck doing its part to feed unlimited credit for unlimited growth, along with its own unlimited profits of course. This economic model produced maximum profits. For a while. Its like the whole country, and I mean the whole country, of 1849 ran to California for that gold. But found out there was no gold. Not a drop.

So here we are. But it was fun, for those in charge, for a good 2 decades.

What about the wreckage, the younger generations, one might ask. As you look at those boomers who have been in charge in the eyes, I suspect you will see the answer to this question: Treat them like outsourced, layoff people. They are no longer a business problem! They are the government problem. But government is bad. Right?

Posted by TomK at February 8, 2009 10:58 PM

TomK - WOW!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 8, 2009 11:35 PM

Rob you mentioned that you thought that the best generation of British was cut down in ww1. There is a lot to support this - Pals battalions etc. On the other hand what was also destroyed was the land owning ruling class. Never again was there quite the same level of power based on who your parents were. Women came into work in unprecedented numbers and although that didn't last 100% it paved the way for increments of gender equality (still fighting that one). So there is an argument that out of the horrors of that war a more equitable society was starting to emerge - less based on empire and hierarchy.

Posted by PaulH at February 9, 2009 2:33 AM

TomK - nice analysis although I'd debate one point. I don't think it was the rise of aggressive capitalism or big corporate business per se that has caused this problem so much as the rise of speculative financial "engineering" that it has brought in its wake. The fact that funds can exert so much pressure and influence but then those same funds (who are actually owners) don't even exercise their rights to vote at shareholder meetings speaks volumes for a capitalism in which investment, ownership and the long term have been sacrificed for the speculative short term chasing of next quarter's results.

Posted by Mark JF at February 9, 2009 3:19 AM

Understandably - There is a lot of soul searching on this topic. Searching for meaning, structure and relevance. This is the first time that I have felt people to be a little "lost" on this board - Perhaps, to an extent people are coming out of denial and into opposition a little here ?

Things will get better. Good people, of all generations, will learn from the mistakes of others and make a few themselves. New leaders will step forward and make their mark in improving the lot of mankind.

"And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."

Posted by PaulH at February 9, 2009 6:44 AM

Absolutely Paul...I did not post out of despair, just maybe a call to action. I am very hopeful, even to the point of excited at times. I have great faith in the human community. Thanks for your thoughts...I am thinking time for another subject,eh? Regards, Mike

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 9, 2009 7:21 AM

PaulH, I was thinking, perhaps naively, outside the class system, and more in terms of the sheer quantity of "brightest and best" from all parts of the spectrum who went cheerfully off to the front line and never came back.

Posted by Rob at February 9, 2009 7:26 AM

PAULH SAID:

"And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."

--This sounds like a bit of abdication to me. To some extent it can be understood. But "soul searching" is still needed and continued; we've only just begun.

-- "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will..." (Frederick Douglass)

"This is the first time that I have felt people to be a little ‘lost' on this board - Perhaps, to an extent people are coming out of denial and into opposition a little here?"

--I don't know what this means. It sounds like an opposition without chutzpah. If proper discussions are to be had, references are good. Perhaps a mere general commentary was the purpose, a kind of unloading. OK.

---Was my take on the ‘lost’ state of men here used as a marginalization end game? By the way, where are the women on this board in opposition or agreement? Do women read this blog? I’m cool. Just wondering.

"Women came into work in unprecedented numbers and although that didn't last 100% it paved the way for increments of gender equality (still fighting that one)."

--Has this by and large affected the way men actually do business on a day to day? Has this actually enabled women to have a real voice in governance? If we actually look at the players in this crisis, they are all men. I wonder had women been at the table would things have been different.

--There is also the notion here of allowance. Women were allowed to enter the work place. If we are allowed entrance, we can be denied entrance. How about flat out meritocracy? I sincerely wonder about the merits of these men who brought the financial world to the brink of collapse. This feels like a kind of war. I think Warren Buffett even likened it to Pearl Harbor.

MARKJF SAID:

"I don't think it was the rise of aggressive capitalism or big corporate business per se that has caused this problem so much as the rise of speculative financial "engineering" that it has brought in its wake."

--There does seem to be a difference between aggressive capitalism or big corporate business and small business owners whose focus is community. Grocery store and restaurant owners are not participants of aggressive capitalism or a part of big corporate business, but are nonetheless affected by the decisions of these. I’m for community banking.

--Is financial engineering a political correct way of saying "cooking the books?" In this regard, TomK's point has great significance. Aggressive capitalism in the financial industry seems to have included credit default swaps in the international markets. Americans are not the only one to blame in this game.

Not only have we let quants wild without oversight and corporations run buck wild without regulation, but credit agencies were enlisted to participate, without which such may not have occurred. The credit agencies seemed to have turned a blind eye.

In the meantime, fat fees were made by all and HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS were given that we know not where it has gone.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 9, 2009 8:16 AM

Some questions:

When you think Baby Boomer in business or life do you think men or women? I rarely, if ever, think women.

When Mike wrote this piece do you image he was thinking men or women in reference to Boomers?

What are the images evoked here in association with Boomers and business in reference to this discussion?

Can it be said that men have largely brought us to this moment of destruction and to a great many others historically?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 9, 2009 9:15 AM

Sorry, Mike, I will not agree to participate in your bullet points. I work very hard and try to improve whatever situation I am in. I have worked for three companies in my adult life and two have been top-notch operations with management that focused on the right things. The third died a long time ago. If "we" are guilty of anything it would be only that as individuals we had unreasonable expectations for our investments--401K accounts, etc. and as corporations, we have not wholly embraced continuous improvement enough.

I really can not understand comments such as Judith's that proclaim corporations have been allowed to "run buck wild without regulation." Corporations are regulated to within an inch of their lives by governmental agencies at local, state, and federal levels. I can understand her emotions, though. In fact, if we were to coldly and unemotionally examine the situation, we would find that the more a company actually produces--cold, hard goods and real services--the more it is regulated. It was only the financial "services" companies who escaped the radar of regulation, and they do not really produce anything. There is a lesson to be learned therein.

Finally, anyone who does not understand that government is the problem, not the solution should read more history. And our current crop of elected officials are, with notable exceptions, the biggest bunch of liars, thieves, and scoundrels to come around in a long, long time. God help us all if we look to them for solutions.

Posted by Useless Sam Grant at February 9, 2009 9:24 AM

All I was saying with the lost statement was what I felt from the comments. More questions and uncertainty than I ever have seen before - Less direct answers and ideas on how to move forward.

Coming out of denial - when this current financial issue first hit many posts were very much about positive thinking, action and leadership. I feel that the mood of the board has changed over the last week or so. This is just an observation not a crit or comment. It made me think that circumstances are unusual when the TP board changes tune!

Perhaps you are right Judith I am abdicating a little but to be frank apart doing the very best I can in my bit of the universe I am not sure what else I can do.

can we rephrase - "men have largely brought us to this moment of destruction and to a great many others historically"

To some men or certain types of men?

I don't believe that I, as a man, have contributed to any moments of destruction.

Posted by PaulH at February 9, 2009 9:47 AM

"I really can not understand comments such as Judith's that proclaim corporations have been allowed to 'run buck wild without regulation.'"

Useless Sam - What might you suggest happened here? Was deregulation by and large a good thing? I also understand Sarbanes Oxley that made it difficult for small businesses to do business when seeking to regulate large ones.

Bob Foster writes brilliantly on small business and government. Check out blog here: http://bizmaverickblog.com/small-business-hammered-again/. In a recent post on the subject he begins, "Well, our all-knowing Congress appears to be doing it again—hunting mice with a cannon." It’s a great line and very true!

I do agree with you that financial services have evaded regulations and that the bulk of businesses in America, namely small businesses that actually produce products instead of simply shuffling paper, are regulated. But the fact that financial services escaped regulation and caused such great harm is reason for alarm. By the way, this is not the first time either.

What is government? Does it do no good? What are corporations if not bodies that produce products or services governed by by-laws? Governance is necessary. Period. But it is a matter of getting the balance right and judging accordingly. Perhaps we should not be “hunting mice with a cannon.” Perhaps more of a nuisance approach is needed in regulating businesses with with an emphasis on size and sector?

I would agree with you about some elected government officials. But the same may be said of elected board members that enabled such disaster of private industry through their lack of governance and that required government intervention?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 9, 2009 10:10 AM

PaulH - Thank you for your explanation--appreciated. I do not feel that people are less secure here. I have found the comments quite reassuring actually. While I would like to assuage your particular sense of not being a part of the collective male species here, I'm afraid that I can't.

Men have certainly caused a great deal of harm in the world historically. Even when individual men have not participated in discriminatory attitudes and actions or those that have caused such harm, they still benefit largely by them often to the exclusion of women, not that we want to participate in some of these things.

Here's the brilliant Virginia Woolf, one of my favorite authors: "If you insist upon fighting to protect me, or 'our' country, let it be understood soberly and rationally between us that you are fighting to gratify a sex instinct which I cannot share; to procure benefits where I have not shared and probably will not share."

Now, I understand that all men cannot be held accountable for the failure of some, but they can most certainly be held accountable for allowing such to continue. Please allow me to also say that I have appreciated your voice here with regards to many issues, including those relating to women and family. You seem to be an intelligent and sensitive soul. For these, I am sincerely appreciative.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 9, 2009 10:32 AM

This is a stimulating call to action, Mike. Having read the responses and the diversity of opinions, what interventions do you think would either make a differnce or create the necessary changes over the next 10 years that would define the final era of the boomers'legacy?

Posted by Juli Ann at February 9, 2009 11:31 AM

Thanks JuliAnn...I hope your question spurs some responses. It is afterall what we do that matters; what we say is interesting, but without action it matters little. I will get the ball rolling on two fronts. One, what we might do as a community, and two, what we might do as individuals right now.

As a community, I think this is the time for reflecting on balance. Contrary to what may have been implied, I am not opposed to wealth creation. I always loved what Sinatra said, "I have been rich and I have been poor. Rich is better." The question becomes the focus of the wealth creation. I argue simply that building sustained value rather than quarter to quarter profit makes more sense looking to our future. Hopefully, to no one's surprise, I heartily endorse an evaluation of our enterprises based on our (TPC's) FSW model that quantifies the impact of our actions across the elements we believe will lead to sustained excellence. Perhaps a change in our incentives and bonuses that looks at a payout on a three to five year cycle, rather than an annual payout. Secondly, lets expand the notion of diversity to include a true multidisciplinary mix of professional and educational backgrounds in our executive suites. If we continue the bias for finance backgrounds, we will continue the strategic focus on numbers alone. (Before anybody flames here...finance is an incredibly important part of the mix..It shouldn't dominate the mix). Third, true shareholder nominations to the board, not just a vote on the choices the board makes.

Individually, if we don't like the greed, don't feed it. Take a look at your personal investments. If you have stock in an enterprise that is acting counter to your personal bias, dump it. As consumers, don't support the products and services of companies you feel are leading this economy in the wrong direction. As a voter, if you don't like the governments approach, do more than telling us...tell them. Get involved politically. I would be the first to openly wonder if this is truly a representative government anymore, but not actively trying to be part of the change feels wrong.

This certainly is not an extensive list...just something to get us going...jump in gang.

Posted by Mike Neiss at February 9, 2009 12:57 PM

How can I put this and still hit the mark? Americans are Fat, Lazy, Stupid, and Irresponsible. Ok, now let’s tear that statement apart. Are Americans Fat? Well, in a word yes. We eat too much, exercise too little, and think too little of our bodies. Are Americans Lazy? Well, take a look around. We don’t want to pull ourselves up from our bootstraps. Instead, we want the government to bail us out from homes to credit cards. Are Americans Stupid? Well, just because we now rank in the bottom 10% of education systems around the world is no reason to call us stupid. Are Americans Irresponsible? Has anyone taken responsibility for anything lately? Any CEO? Any government official? Reed? Pelosi? Frank? Maybe those words are over the top, but you can’t describe prior generations by those words or they would go to war over it. Now, pardon me, I need to get back to playing my Wii. Just put it on my overdue credit card because I deserve one.

Posted by Rob at February 9, 2009 1:32 PM

Judith Ellis: "Wow." Is that good or bad? ;-)

My take on Tom Peters 'blame' points:

• Greed
  Dead on Tom. Ues, US hit a new height of greed in modern society. Historically, however, the Europeans of 16th - 19th centuries empires in conquering and colonizing much of the world retains the sole honor of the 'greatest height' of greed.

• Profit v Value
  Confused? No. Don't care? Yes. Legions of MBAs for at least 2 decades deliberately, carefully, configured their businesses only for profits. Not just profits. Maximum possible profits!

• Too many MBA
  Not a question of too many. Very much a question of wrong MBA education on value system. That value is based on an overwhelming business culture for the short term.

• Reluctance for responsibility
  More like reluctance to accept the proposition that there are such things as public good, national good, environmental good, a society for all. Hell, even the idea of your colleague's good is questioned. This is me-me-good has been embedded deep into American culture.

• Parents made us soft
  I'd rather leave the previous generations out of it. They have their problems, we have ours. While the boomers' parents did make a historical mess of themselves (Great Depression, WW2), they did not pass much of that mess to the boomers. (At least in most of the countries on the winning side of WW2. Don't say this in front of Germans!) The boomers did work very hard and very smart, and did create the most incredible technological, most innovative, most artistic modern society after WW2. But, alas, they also created a great deal of mess up, and will leave a whole lot of financial mess to the next generation. But the boomers did not mess up the world with wars, and had enough sense not push the nuke button even with 40 years of Cold War. The next generations, who haven't done much of anything, should appreciate that. The challenge of the next generation is not fixing the boomers' leftovers. It's that they can't create, do, or fix, anything! (OK, they can play video games like no tomorrow.)

Posted by TomK at February 9, 2009 10:36 PM

Mike's response is very nice and neat, having agreeable parts. But somehow it did not grab me in the way the post did. I will read it again, perhaps even a few more times. The question almost feels too big for the reply and perhaps even the discussion itself on many levels. There was not a sense of consensus of the discussion in the reply for me, including a lack of a beating pulse. 10 years isn't that long away. Hell, neither is tomorrow. Maybe it's just me. Considering the time, maybe no one would be able to fully answer Juli Ann's question without the sense of lack in the response. Like I said, maybe it's just me. This being so…

I must say that I'm utterly sick of nice and neat. I'm utterly sick of the Old Guard. I'm utterly sick of patented answers. I'm utterly sick of tip toes. I'm utterly sick of obfuscation. I'm utterly sick of words behind the words. I'm utterly sick of rampant dishonesty. I'm utterly sick of masquerades. BUT I must also say that there is nothing in me that seeks to retreat, nothing that is despondent—no, not in the very least.

Rob - Try Iceland. Do you think the Icelanders are any better? Speaking of education and responsibility, it seems that these have not protected Iceland from financial collapse. Iceland is utterly bankrupt, perhaps with many others to follow. Prime Minister Brown seems to be warning of the same as I listened to the House of Commons very early this morning on C-Span.) As the Icelander diet consists of mainly fish, they may be healthier. How healthy are you, other Americans aside?

By the way, Rob, the whole pull yourself up by your own bootstraps is pure fantasy, though the spirit of the message may be real—as in go out and make something happen. But no one really pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps. There are no self-made men. Speaking of bootstraps, many people do not have boots. Got boots?

TomK – It's definitely good! I found your analysis very thoughtful indeed--much appreciated.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 9, 2009 11:26 PM

Lessons learnt during tough times are always too defensive and too critical. We should move to better times and then introspect our dark times from there. The introspection from better times gives better lessons!

Posted by Vijay at February 10, 2009 1:04 AM

Great post. I'm an X/Y, but identify strongest with Gen Y. @ Frank Szewczyk - yep, this mess is an opportunity, not a burden, for the next generation. There has been and will continue to be a lot of innovation and entrepreneurship... time to reinvent the wheel. Gen Y is creative and self-motivated, but also very pampered, I think, so here's hoping we can take a lesson from Boomers and own our mistakes. Thanks for being brutally honest.

Posted by Hayli @ Rise Smart at February 10, 2009 7:18 AM

I can see that I'm going to have to distinguish myself from my namesake to avoid charges of schizophrenia. Henceforth I shall be trading under a slightly longer name as below.

Posted by RobCH at February 11, 2009 1:22 AM

Ok, the comment regarding our parents making us soft hit a cord. Now I am at the very end of the baby boomer stage but I will say that my parents made us all work - all 5 of us! I inturn have done the same for my children - I believe that is where the breakdown in work ethic has happened. Our children, from what I have seen are the "entitiled" generation - why do they just get to go to school - why not have these kids work, or do something charitable or both. My children work - and understand the meaning of a dollar - my son is now in college and he spends his own money for what he needs - there was no brand new car for him when he turned 16 - he purchased a used car so he could get back and forth to work. It wasn't that we couldn't afford to get him one but he now understands how hard it is to make a dollar. How about your children what are you doing for them??? Or should I ask are you doing everything for them!!! School is not enough - they need to learn that life is not handed to you on a silver platter, they need to learn that actions that speak louder than words, lending a helping hand to a neighbor and an honest days labor - how else will they ever become the leaders of tomorrow??!!

Posted by Gigi Gummerson at February 12, 2009 4:01 PM

Gigi - Thank you so much for that. It's very important indeed.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 12, 2009 10:54 PM

Amen to this blog entry. As a consultant, traveling from company to company... I see it every week... Babyboomer losers without a soft skill in their body... but enough greed to eat their own young. What cracks me up the most about baby boomers is the simple fact that many of them either fought in and/or protested a war they recreated 30 years later. As a guy that executed hundreds of combat operations in this war, I can assure you that the hundreds if not thousands of baby boomers that I came in contact with during the first few years of the war were nothing but the true root cause of our prolonged campaign of wild west destruction on the other side of the world. Again, not a leadership bone in their body. Much of them happy and excited to see kids dying like they had too... american kids earning their way... many of them glad that after sitting behind a government desk for 30 years watching their peers amass fortunes in the stock market... they finally had a chance to "get theirs". Baby boomers make me sick. You are indeed the "worst generation"!

Posted by Manchu at February 16, 2009 10:08 AM

Wow Manchu – that’s pretty potent stuff. As a baby boomer (56 and counting) – it hurts when generalisations are made about the baby boomer generation ‘cos I take it that means me. I consider myself very skilled in what are often referred to as the ‘softer’ skills of management. HOWEVER I do agree with you in that my style was often seen as ‘weak’ by the macho managers who were my peers when I worked in a corporate healthcare setting. ‘You are too soft’ was definitely the underlying tone of the lectures I had from some of my bosses and peers. I regarded my use of softer skills as a personal strength then and I still do now that I am no longer in the corporate rat race, thank God. It was sometimes a pretty lonely place to be that type of manager in the environment I worked in … So I guess you make a good point. I think by far the easiest skills for managers to use are the hard, no debate, no inclusion ones. The most difficult skills to use are the soft skills. Ruling by fear is easy – coaching your people by showing them you care about them requires far more skills. I am not qualified to comment on your military expertise but I hear what you say. Your comment has made me really reflect about my generation … thank you Manchu.

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 16, 2009 10:56 AM

Thank you Tom.
I've been saying this for months if not years.
I am on the backend of the Baby Boom ,1961.
What I call the "Sandwich Generation"
...sandwiched between the baby boomers and their kids!! We are the ones...1960-1963 crowd that got it right. We've been picking up the mess for years but are too small in number to be noticed.
We WILL get it right again!!
Question: will the baby boomer's kids be able to take the future handoff, or fumble and screw it up again for my kids??
(more to come)

Posted by Angelo at February 18, 2009 11:54 PM