Sunday Edition

Get the Blog Feed
What is RSS?

Viagra Wholesale UK

Say It Ain't So, Jim!

The cover story in the Boston Globe "Ideas" section yesterday attacked the value and validity of the most popular business books, as always taking Bob Waterman, Jim Collins, and me to task. I agree with some of the charges leveled, and disagree with others. But there is one substrata of argument that I take near violent exception to. Namely, that Bob and I, at least, were purporting to provide a complete success prescription, based on flawless accumulation of data, which managers should follow like the Ten Commandments—or eight, in our case.

(1) What utter hogwash!
(2) What an insult to our readers!

In Search of Excellence was what it was and wasn't what it wasn't. And it surely never meant to challenge or displace the Holy Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.

Here's the story in brief:

(1) American companies were being roughed up by the Japanese in the late '70s—the first post-War II challenge to American business supremacy.
(2) A couple of Harvard B-school professors, Bill Abernathy and Bob Hayes, put the blame largely on our management practices, as taught at their school, among others. In "Managing Our Way to Economic Decline" in the Harvard Business Review, they argued that we [Americans] were paying too much attention to the numbers, not enough to the "basics" such as product quality—sound familiar?
(3) Bob Waterman and I, resident in another blameworthy institution, McKinsey & Co., agreed 100%. But rather than follow the habit of the moment—urge Americans to adopt, lock, stock, and barrel, Japanese management practices—we imagined that there must be some Western-American businesses that still worked (we subsequently labeled them the "saving remnant").
(4) Bob and I sought out expert advice in the USA and Europe and got a ton of nominations. IBM topped the list, which also included the likes of HP, Johnson & Johnson, Disney, McDonald's, Intel, and Wal*Mart. Incredibly (as viewed from today), almost nobody had examined these firms! Fact was that the likes of the B-schools only examined failures at the time—we were about the first to look at successes. (About which, incidentally, the Globe author is clueless, attacking us for what was—in 1980, and everything must be viewed in context—our primary useful point of difference; namely, surfacing successful examples. We were the business equivalent of Abraham Maslow's approach to psychology; Maslow de facto invented "positive psychology," arguing that we also have to study healthy people—not just sick people, as professional psychologists were wont to do pre-Maslow.)
(5) Bob and I and our colleague David Anderson then went off and interviewed like maniacs for several months—mostly folks "down the line," rather than CEOs—this was another break from the regnant "research" tradition of the B-schools and consultancies. Based on those interviews and our extensive literature research, academic and popular, we reached some tentative conclusions. Key phrase: "tentative conclusions." Dear God in heaven, we never imagined for a moment, nor a second, or a micro-, nano-, or pico-second that we were performing research in the physical sciences from which we would extract definitive solutions along the lines of a theory of planetary movement or the effects of gravitational forces on the bending of light! We looked at a ton of interview data, had a ton of discussions, "tested" our conclusions in literally hundreds of seminars, and concluded, very un-scientifically, that "this looks pretty good"—and that doesn't. This approach was made clear as a bell to anyone who came across our stuff.
(6) About five years after the research started, with America mired in its worst recession since the Great Depression (sound familiar, redux?), we published In Search of Excellence. Unlike Peter Drucker, who avoided storytelling and naming names like the plague, we named names and told stories—and they resonated with a bushel of readers. Incidentally, along the way we dumped about 60%, I'd guess, of the originally nominated companies because we deemed their long-term financial performance to have been inadequate—using some pretty common measures and the prior 20 years' data. There was no rocket science here either—just a "sensible" approach to confirming that we were talking about some pretty good performers. Incidentally, it drives our critics nuts that our surviving companies, indeed experiencing ups and downs (duh!), have apparently continued to perform very well—a 2002 Forbes analysis, performed on the book's 20th birthday, concluded that an "excellence index" based on a basket of "our" companies' stocks had handily outperformed the Dow and S&P 500; given the date, 2002, this encompassed the dotcom boom and bust.

The above is not meant to be a "defense"—to the contrary! I repeat: In Search of Excellence was what it was and wasn't what it wasn't. I'd call it "useful"—and very different from its predecessors in an apparently useful way. Namely, to repeat, (1) about successful rather than unsuccessful companies and (2) loaded with practical stories. I suppose that instead of calling our generic conclusions, around which the book was structured, "eight basics," we could have called them "eight tentative conclusions" or "eight pretty good ideas."

The far more important point is—and this has apparently eluded 100% of our critics: Our readers are not idiots! They are pragmatic businesspeople or managers in the public sector or, pastors or priests or football coaches—the essence of the practice of management in all of these disciplines is indeed pragmatism! That is, our book (and others like it) do not appear in the "religion" section of the book store with the Bible on one side and the Koran on the other. Businesspeople, and police chiefs and fire chiefs and public works directors and elementary school principals, are neither looking for Biblical guidance nor full-blown academic theories of the Einsteinian or Darwinian or Newtonian sort. The are looking for ... "a couple of good ideas" they can use now. They are far more capable than Bob Waterman or I or Gary Hamel or Warren Bennis or Rosabeth Moss Kanter of deciding what's worth trying and what's not in their peculiar context—and when to start trying whatever and when to stop.

And, indeed, for thirty years or so now I, at least, have been trying to provide "a few useful ideas that you can get started on this afternoon."

I am being a bit disingenuous, I admit. There is a "constant undertone" to my thirty years of work. I'd call it that, a "constant undertone," not a Unified Theory of Everything. That is, I stood—and stand—behind the likes of (1) being and staying in touch with reality (MBWA, or Managing By Wandering Around, which Bob W and I found at HP in 1978), (2) putting people first (the likes of Dana Corp and Wal*Mart '78, Southwest Airlines today), (3) innovation through decentralization (3M, J&J then and now), (4) staying close to your customer (IBM then and now—with a few hiccups in between), (5) core values (the likes of McDonald's and W.L. Gore—Bob and I loved Ray Kroc's "QSCV," Quality, Service, Cleanliness, and Value, at McDonald's) and (6) doing now instead of talking forever (3M and HP were masters in '78).

Oh yeah, and the most important one of all: (7) Excellence per se! Bob and I may have been about the first to suggest that "excellence" ought to be as much an aspiration for businessmen as for would-be Olympians. That was our "ardent belief"—and did not in any way pretend to be "teased from the data." "Excellence" was, is, and shall ever be totally subjective! And the notion, I'm delighted to say, seemed to have resonated then—and resonates now.

I'm willing to stake any modest usefulness of my career on the "usefulness" of these seven ideas, and a few more that are absent courtesy space constraints. And stake any modest usefulness, far more important, on having listened to and then done my best to share some terrific stories told to me by the likes of Bill and Vieve Gore of W.L. Gore, Frank McGuire of FedEx, Herb Kelleher at Southwest Airlines, or Master Educator Dennis Littky.

There you have it.

But not quite.

I must inject one sour—and sad—note. Jerry Porras and Jim Collins are pals and colleagues of mine. I think Built to Last was a terrific book with a ton of those "pretty good ideas" between the covers. (Though I don't really like the idea of merely "lasting" as an aspiration—but that's just me.) Likewise, I think Jim's Good to Great is terrific—loaded with "pretty good ideas" that are of immediate use. (Though again I have nitpicks.) But Jim and I are on absolutely opposite sides of the fence, indeed the universe, on two things he wrote or apparently said to the Globe guy. I went out of my way repeatedly to say to the Globe reporter: "The 'research' represented by the In Search of Excellence 'product' should never, ever be confused by the research-experimentation performed to confirm Einstein's theory of relativity. That is not nor will it ever be the standard in the so-called 'social sciences.'" In fact I added that I was one of the ones who think it's a travesty to award a Nobel in economics—economics ain't physics either, as you'll discover when you next check the status of your 401(k). Well, Mr Collins apparently disagrees! Not only does he compare his [note the italics] research to physics, but he also claims to have discovered "immutable laws of organized human performance."

Dear God!
Or, rather, God help us.

Alas, with those claims, I'm afraid Jim gives the Globe writer a boost beyond the fellow's wildest dreams! If "we"-the-gurus [I despise that moniker, by the way] think we are in the business of discovering and propagating "immutable laws," then we deserve all the opprobrium of the Globe writer, the rest of our critics, and our readers-customers.

As I said, Dear God!

NB: I have no desire to defend In Search of Excellence—the fact that some people are still pissed off about its success 27 years later is good enough for me! I am writing this almost entirely because of my irritation with Mr. Collins.

Tom Peters posted this on 04/13/09.

Comments

Tom, Thanks for giving credit to your readers, I think that is the point missed most when discussing business books (or MBA programs for that matter). Wise readers take great ideas and make them their own unique successful formula. Less-wise readers implement ideas as if they are magic formulas, not to be toyed with or upended. Your 'idea starters' have inspired me and others for a long time and I think are seen for what they are - solid ideas, inspiration, direction to be built on or altered as the times dictate. (although how one can ever argue with 'Excellence per se' is beyond me.)

Posted by Fred H Schlegel at April 13, 2009 1:25 PM

(1) Keep It Real
(2) Put People First
(3) Decentralize
(4) Stay Close To Your Customer
(5) Live Your Core Values
(6) Do It Now
(7) Make Excellence Happen

Sort of Credo, really.... :)

Posted by RobCH at April 13, 2009 2:14 PM

Don't golfers watch Tiger Woods' swing closely to learn from it and make adjustments to their own? Do those same golfers think they'll get Tiger's swing down perfectly? Do they think they'll suddenly become pros?

No.

They just integrate things they learn from watching the best so that they can become better.

And isn't it true that even excellent golfers sometimes need to be reminded of the basics?

We don't really read those books expecting a magic formula.

As for the 'mastering the obvious' comment. My question would be:

If these things are so obvious, why are there so many business leaders out there who don't do them?

All the best!
deb

Posted by Deb Owen at April 13, 2009 2:40 PM

Why do we continue to look at business performance through a lens like "physics" looking for the immutable laws? Business depends on people - and people do not behave like "laws of physics." Light travels at 186,000 per second. Never faster, never slower - and therefore can be used to predict other factors. People don't. People are rational and irrational - sometimes at the same time.

I think sometimes we're just too lazy to accept the fact that in order to have successful businesses we need to work at them - every day. And work with the people who make things happen.

Posted by Paul Hebert at April 13, 2009 3:58 PM

My biggest problem with most business gurus is that
they are not businessmen or leaders or managers - they are just writers. They are successful mainly for being good entertainers.
I have a theory that if Obama is as successful as he seem like he might be, people who write self help books will be out of a job. We will have an example of how to lead on the nightly news.

Posted by dan at April 13, 2009 5:04 PM

I like how you finish it off:
"I have no desire to defend In Search of Excellence—the fact that some people are still pissed off about its success 27 years later is good enough for me! I am writing this almost entirely because of my irritation with Mr. Collins."

Take it as a sign of success, you're still getting people to talk about it 27 years later, that is amazing! I hope people are that upset with my own ideas for such a long time.

Posted by Ben Young at April 13, 2009 5:15 PM

"immutable laws of organized human performance."

How boring, clinical and arrogant can you get? I remember reading ‘In Search of Excellence’ around 1983. Up to that point every management book I had read was a guaranteed cure for insomnia. The truth is I can’t remember finishing a single management book prior to ISOE such was their boredom factor. There seemed to be a competition among authors to see who could write the longest, densest book filled with obscure academic language that meant something only to academics. They were useless for managers who were crying out for practical tips on how to do stuff. That was (is) always the appeal of ISOE. In the 26 years I’ve been reading Tom Peters stuff I cannot recall him ever professing to have discovered undeniable truth – life is not like that – as John Lennon said ‘Life is what happens while we’re busy making other plans”

In any case, who’d want to work in a business with a sign over the entrance that in effect says – “Enter here only if you wish to conform to our immutable laws of being organised”

In Search of Excellence may not be an academic masterpiece but most importantly it’s grounded in reality.

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 13, 2009 5:17 PM

I have used the 7 S's as the definitive framework to evaluate any organisation. Not maybe your intended use, but for instance:
1. When conducting an internal environment scan for strategic planning purposes, it is much more useful than simply looking at the various departments.
2. When proposing a change management program, I organise my thoughts around these principles.
etc etc.

ISOE created a genre - good on you, and thank you for that.
And it isn't research - agreed. Most of what passes as 'market research' is just wishful thinking. It is just the best we humans can do to try and make sense of a very complicated world.

Posted by Dennis at April 13, 2009 5:47 PM

These stories about how ISOE wasn't really a good book seem to make the rounds every couple of years. I suspect that many of the critics never read the book. I suspect that a teeeeeninsy fraction of those who have don't put it in the context of the time.

The fact is that ISOE was a seminal part of two huge changes in the business landscape.

Change 1: ISOE and the One Minute Manager changed business books forever. Before them there were no business books on the best seller lists. Before them consultants didn't use books as a way of establishing credentials and reputation. Zillions of authors including me should offer up prayers daily thanking god for those two books and their authors.

Change 2. ISOE changed the nature of the conversation about management. Before ISOE management books were only about the virtues of the dispassionate rational thinker who, with enough equations would save us from ourselves.

Tom and Bob Woodward talked about the humanity of it all, the messiness of innovation, the importance of enthusiasm and other things that working managers knew made a difference, even if they had escaped the notice of the academics. The book made heroes of managers who wandered around and innovators who believed in live-fire trials. And the worst part for the hyper-rationalists was that the authors of ISOE could crunch numbers with the best of them.

Bottom line: ISOE may not have been perfect but it was one fucking great book and it changed the world of business and the world of business books. End of story. Critique that.

Posted by Wally Bock at April 13, 2009 6:43 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with Fred's comment. The fact that Tom Peters honored his readers then and does so now with stories and experiences that make our lives as largely businesspersons more relevant professionally and even perhaps personally, is much appreciated. Excellence goes beyond the office, and stories are connective tissue that gets to the heart of any effort. Drake Bennett seems to use Tom Peters and Robert Waterman as a draw, a kind of glossy window dressing. But the article left me wondering. Had we read the same authors? If Bennett had wanted to write an article about business guru demagoguery perhaps he should have chosen two others. By the way, I have not read Jim Collins.

It seems likely that Bennett has not read any of Tom Peters' books, as anyone who has done so would readily recognize that that they are not aligned with scientific theorems, suggestive or actual. (But the research is thorough, sensible and embraceable. This is the reason for the many millions in print!) The tone itself defies scientific study. Here is a quote from In Search of Excellence: "The excellent companies are better listeners. They get a benefit from market closeness that for us was utterly unexpected—unexpected, that is, until you think about it. Most of their real innovation comes from the market."

Actually, ISOE is more like a real science project itself in that there is an inescapable sense of discovery beyond even what has been found in these chapters, perhaps something that the readers too can bring. This is what the stories did for me. There is not the sense that this is, in my belief system, The Holy Bible. There is a continuum of variance and a dedication to search for great American businesses--hence the title, ISOE. There are various companies, various approaches, various sectors, but core principles are present. These principles, not laws or rules and regulations, can be seen in all 43 successful businesses in the book to which the readers reply with an amen or ouch. The emphasis on people is a core principle. We get this clearly by the style alone.

There is definitely no need for Tom to defend himself here or anywhere. (The post is beautifully written from this standpoint.) And there may not ever need be a reason to read such a writer again who himself has apparently not done the adequate research or read the necessary material needed for such an article. It's strange that he is writing a column on ideas. Perhaps had he read Peters' books he would have some ideas. As I said, it seems plausible that he has not read any; merely lifting quotes out of context does not a good article make. Speaking of luck, Tom Peters acknowledges this and has written about it. But to imply that luck is the core principle of successful businesses seems quite foolish to me.

Bennett writes:

"And the fact that Peters and Waterman had looked only at companies that they deemed successful - without comparing them with less excellent competitors - meant the authors were in little position to identify what factors mattered and which were irrelevant. They had no way of knowing, in other words, whether 43 utterly dysfunctional companies might be just as likely to be characterized by a "bias for action" and "loose-tight properties."

This sounds rational enough until you realize that the premise of the book was probably not a compare and contrast of bad and good companies, but more of what makes a company run successfully. The bad is inherently implied in it's very opposite. For example, when I read ISOE for the first time last year my bad habits were revealed to me as I read as well as those of the companies and governments that I served as a consultant. There need not be a direct comparison here. And, who's to say that there had not been a cut out of which some 43 remained? Perhaps the lack of unsuccessful businesses may be a matter of style too or simply this approach was most desired. Regarding "dysfunctional companies" that "might be just as likely to be characterized by a 'bias for action' and 'loose-tight-properties,' UH--NO! Plus, these quotes can't just be lifted without proper context. I have never read Bennet before but I do wonder about his maturation. He seems ill-suited to critique such a work.

Thank you, Tom Peters, for the inspiration in your books and blog. Your work is readable, inspirational and applicable. Many of your books I have just read within the last 1.5 years, although I have been an entrepreneur for many years now. Your books have inspired me to achieve greater things and strive for excellence in all that I do. I must also say that this I have always done. But there are those days of uncertainty and a quick read of only a few pages or a glance at a slide can re-align me again.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 13, 2009 7:00 PM

We are, indeed, intelligent enough to make the distinctions in what we read. Many of us even run successful businesses built on values that have stood the test of time. What is a bit remarkable is our amazement at the nearly-defunct Boston Globe and its reporters behaving any differently than they have in writing and publishing stories that have driven their readers away in droves. RIP Boston Globe and its ilk.

Posted by David Porter at April 13, 2009 7:55 PM

Indeed, David!!! I've been writing about their ilk for some time now in a series entitled "Being a Pundit, Newscaster and Analyst." I've also been writing on "think" tanks. It is no surprise why newspapers are in trouble and network news too. Duh!

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 13, 2009 8:55 PM

I liked the article - it was good fun. It is always interesting to consider the part luck plays in any endeavour - I have commented on this site several times before that I believe having a 'lucky outlook on life' gives one all the advantages of a self-fullfilling prophecy.

Tom Peters and Jim Collins can only be happy with the outcome of this article = free marketing for both of them. Tom has given the article a great 'kick along' with his brilliant post here - he has canvassed every angle to raise as many talking points as possible and that is what viral marketing needs. Tom has inserted himself and his storylines into the conversation in a truly relevant and remarkable way. This is the real gift here from Tom Peters to all of us = a practical 'demonstration effect' of how best to use Web 2.0 to market yourself, your products, and your services. This post is a practical demonstration of Excellence in marketing - clearly, Tom Peters still has the storyteller's gift....

Critics of Tom Peters and Jim Collins come and go but both these warhorses keep on keeping on = why they are sought after as public speakers.

[Also interested in the relevance of newspapers so a few hours ago I was Tweeting this about that topic

Newspapers are struggling to make money because 'now' is king. Newspaper are not 'now' even when online. They are 'delayed' = wrong model.

I would like to add that there is a digital model for newspapers it is what Guy Kawasaki does with Alltop. He gives us links to ideas, information, fads, fashion, etc all in a handy eMagazine format which we can customize to suit us. Newspapers should do that too - it will be delayed content but organised in an elegant way = provide use value to each of us. Articles like this one in the Globe will always find a place in that eMagazine type of format]

Cheers, Richard.

Posted by Richard Lipscombe at April 13, 2009 11:59 PM

I just finished reading "In Search of Excellence". I find it pretty good. Most of what was said in the book is more or less incorporated in the companies that I have worked - esp - productivity through people, lean form, stick to the basics, etc.

cheap viagra on line

The one thing and probably the main thing that is not assimilated well by the companies I work for are:

Experimentation and tolerance for failure
Autonomy and Small is beautiful

I enjoyed the book, though I would have preferred if the book was shorter. I always love reading 200 pages books. So, this one was a lil long for me - Small books are beautiful :)

Posted by Vijay at April 14, 2009 1:04 AM

Tom:
You're great.
Your words inspired / inspire / will inspire us.
Please, keep on being the way you are. Excellent.

Posted by Raul Cobos at April 14, 2009 1:44 AM

Tom, online ordering viagra australia

I worked for a professor for a couple of years in the early 1980's, he too enjoyed sparring with his counterparts, this is a beautifully crafted spar! I found the information to support his sparring, just to support you, it wasn't the book, though I do hve it, it was the video of you talking or was it passionately delivering during my MA later in the same decade that like many others here brought me into the world of TP and others.

I read this yesterday when there were no comments and chose to wait until this morning. I do hope that you felt better for having written it.

Patrick

Posted by patrick at April 14, 2009 2:19 AM

"immutable laws of organized human performance."
Laws of human behavior are probabilistic, not deterministic. Common proverbs such as "Waste not, want not" mean "Not wasting will probably lead to not being in want."
TP's 8 suggestions are probably probabilistic laws.
If JC is claiming to have discovered deterministic laws, then he is mistaken. If he is claiming probabilistic laws (paralleling the probabilistic quantum mechanics of physics) then he may be correct.

Posted by Mike L. at April 14, 2009 5:07 AM price viagra

Give 'em all hell Tom - they deserve it!

We got your back!

ISOE is as useful today as it was 30 years ago!

Here's some appropriate copy for a slide in one of your future presentations, "Illegitimi non carborundum!" Loosely translated as, "Don't let the bastards grind/get you down!"

Always remember, "living/doing well is the greatest revenge!" Loved your closing point.

Onward and upward my friend.

Posted by Stephen Wayhart at April 14, 2009 6:54 AM

Tom, I'd say The Boston Globe would be in a lot better shape just by following your seven basic ideas of the "Search for Excellence" seminal book.
Armando Ortega
P.S. You should see your book in this video of my personal library located at:
www.armandoortega.wordpress.com

Posted by Armando Ortega at April 14, 2009 7:27 AM

MMmmm... To think that 27 years later is still worth talking about. Now that is quite an accomplishment.

I can only hope the book I just released has the same shelf life.

Posted by Rodney Johnson at April 14, 2009 7:44 AM

Dear Tom

There is something beautifull and inspiring in the bifurcations "discovered" by Mitchell Feigenbaum.
If you take a look at "Order Out of Chaos" from Prigogine/Stengers, it doesn´t look very orderly at all (at least for a layman engineer like me). Maybe Physics is moving a little more towards mbwa..

Posted by gerson barbosa at April 14, 2009 12:34 PM

The more I think about critics of ISOE the more I'm reminded that envy is of course the greatest form of flattery. A well known football (soccer)expression over here is 'form is temporary, class is permanent.' Keep up your good work Tom.

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 14, 2009 5:02 PM

"urge Americans to adopt, lock, stock, and barrel, Japanese management practices—"

Suppose we had done both - apply Japanese style management (invented by an American by the way)
and also still had our IBM's HP, J&J's etc.
I think "In Search of" is partly responsible for the downfall of manufacturing because it became uncool.

Posted by dan at April 14, 2009 5:06 PM

One thing that ISOE did that was extremely important was to foster discussion in manager's offices all over this country. Remember the context...we were getting our butts beat in an arena that we had owned. ISOE gave us options to talk about in a very readable and accessible format. I was a mid level manager in a Fortune 100 company when it came out. Not only did my supervisors read it, but also the union leaders in the UAW plant where I had my main office. It is "IN SEARCH of Excellence"; not the Peters/Waterman cookbook. It encouraged us to SEARCH. Of course I am a bit biased; I think Tom is freaking brilliant and that is why I consider myself fortunate to have that red exclamation point on my business card. But I never considered Tom to be THE answer, or ISOE to be the rosetta stone. I actually think there is more value in his questions used in the search than discovering any irrefutable laws of business. And isn't it ironic that the Boston Globe, a member of the business set most likely to disappear (printed newspapers) finds fault with a book about excellence. Geesh..think I will go finish my taxes and get pissed off at something else for awhile.

Posted by Mike Neiss at April 14, 2009 6:32 PM

This TP rant has many of us sponsoring new ISOE book burnings " ... defile Excellence ..."
- the people chant/text/Tweet in unison as the flamelengths grow like state sponsored takeover of free enterprise.

"Be a smart careerist & let the Trevors & TP's of the world toil/work/slave needlessly ..." the people proclaim precisely.

The neoliberals go on to also sing out: "Let medical marijuana be our salvation & new healthcare system ..."

Peace & love of wealth & luxury in these challenging times :>).

Posted by C Love at April 14, 2009 6:38 PM

"I think "In Search of" is partly responsible for the downfall of manufacturing because it became uncool."

dan - This seems like a gross overstatement, even with your "partly." Deming's did indeed go to Japan and did great things there. But to imply that ISOE is even "partly" the reason for "the downfall of manufacturing" seems a bit far-fetched to say the least. I might have missed something.

By the way, is Johnson and Johnson not a manufacturer of products? Do you think ISOE tacitly or overtly imply that this company as a manufacturer of goods was "uncool?" Maybe the fact that Johnson and Johnson has produced such products excellently for so many years makes the company way cool.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 14, 2009 9:53 PM

"Suppose we had done both - apply Japanese style management (invented by an American by the way)
and also still had our IBM's HP, J&J's etc.
I think 'In Search of' is partly responsible for the downfall of manufacturing because it became uncool."

Dan: (1) Wrong book; In Search was almost all manufacturers--it was Liberation Management that focused on services. (2) Manufacturing is hardly dead in the U.S.; that is hogwash; it's microchips and software and biotech, not so much autos; mfg as a share of GDP has been steady for years in the U.S.--just doesn't take many people anymore (that's called productivity improvement). (3) Every major economy in the world, even Germany, is in effect a service economy. (4) Remember that the "service" part includes services added to manufacturing--think the likes of GE Aircraft Engines, GE Power Systems, GE Medical Devices--over half the revenues of these outfits comes from "services added." (5) Last time I heard, IBM-J&J-HP were all three very alive and very well--HP just became the first $100-billion computer company in the world. (6) The Japanese economy has been in or near the tank for a decade-and-a-half now; not clear they're a great role model; among other things they don't generate many enterpreneurs. (7) Fact is we did indeed re-import many if not all the "Japanese techniques" such as TQM and Continuous Improvement--and the car companies' problem is not manufacturing quality, it's mostly high wages and benefits, which ordinarily would be called a good thing; and by the way, Japanese auto companies' sales are as much in the tank as ours--for God's sake, even Toyota is reorganizing.

Posted by tom peters at April 15, 2009 8:18 AM

Ms. Ellis,

Does J&J's recent introduction of a larger (pouring) hole in it's packaging for Johnson's Baby Shampoo qualify as adding to their reputation for excellence and make them even "way cooler."
Of course, they introduced this larger hole to make things easier for the customer.

Ciaran McCabe

Posted by Ciaran McCabe at April 15, 2009 9:32 AM

Sir or Madame:

I do wish I was quicker this morning but unfortunately I'm not. I don't quite get your comment. It's probably the holes thing. Are you implying that J&J are not manufacturers? The company is cool for a number of reasons, profitability and longevity notwithstanding. J&J must be doing something right. I refer you to ISOE, jnj.com, and Google Finance. They're leading.

You write as if the company is not profitable. You also seem to disparage or miss the fact that their line of health care products and pharmaceuticals are many. J&J is not merely about shampoo holes, dear sir or madame. They are excellent in the diverse products they produce and sale and in employee relationships, not to mention their global charitable giving.

Judith Ellis

free viagra samples without prescription Posted by Judith Ellis at April 15, 2009 10:29 AM

"Fact is we did indeed re-import many if not all the "Japanese techniques" such as TQM and Continuous Improvement--and the car companies' problem is not manufacturing quality, it's mostly high wages and benefits, which ordinarily would be called a good thing;"

Wasn't it the year that Deming died that we began to widely recognize him here in the US? Re-importing was necessary. I also very much appreciate the point above about entrepreneurs and manufacturing. We forget about what innovators we are and tend to only focus on one industry alone when we talk about manufacturing, the car industry. What also cannot be denied is that we have exported a lot of our manufacturing overseas from all industries, from clothes to auto parts.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 15, 2009 10:41 AM

Ms. Ellis,
I'm assuming with the reference to "holes" that the Sir or Madame is addressed to me (I'm male). The larger hole in the shampoo bottle brought to mind the old story about the tooth paste manufacturer trying to sell more product. More ads? Better marketing? Or just make the nozzle bigger so people uyse more, and quicker.
Ciaran McCabe

viagra price comparison

Posted by Ciaran McCabe at April 15, 2009 11:01 AM

It's inaccurate to say that ISOE urged US companies to adopt Japanese management techniques. It's more accurate to say that ISOE was about making the case that good things were happening in the US at a time when most of the popular and business press thought the only good things were Japanese.

Posted by Wally Bock at April 15, 2009 5:36 PM

Mr. McCabe - I had no idea what you meant by holes. I thought it had something to do with manufacturing, but what exactly I was not certain of. I get your reference now, though! LOL!

Sorry. I had not heard your name before and I sincerely didn't know whether you were a male or woman. Since you addressed me rather formally I wanted to hit you back with the same. Irish, eh? Cool!

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 15, 2009 6:07 PM

Right on, Wally. In fact In Search was a purposeful counterpoint to Bill Ouchi's "Theory Z" and Pascale-Athois' "The Art of Japanese Management."

Posted by tom peters at April 16, 2009 8:03 AM

Just because sometimes I have to blog things out, just published "In Search of Excellence is a Great Book" at my Three Star Leadership Blog.

buy canadian pfizer viagra http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2009/04/16/in-search-of-excellence-is-a-great-business-book.aspx

Posted by Wally Bock at April 17, 2009 6:31 AM

Thanks, Wally!!

Posted by tom peters at April 17, 2009 10:48 AM

It's a sad day when critics slam literature in a manner that a financial analyst slams a company for failing to meet quarterly earnings expectations. Ultimately the goal of literature (anything other than an owner's manual or science textbook) is to provoke dialogue and introspection. From ISOE to Blink to Karoake Capitalism, I consider these works of literature as thought provacateurs, without which I would blandly roll out the predictable strategy with the predictable rhetoric.

Posted by Robert Gumiela at April 17, 2009 3:17 PM

buy viagra quick

Tom,

I think your perspective on this is right, although I would make a couple other distinctions. The first is that I agree with you that the ideas in Good to Great seem perfectly fine, and in fact are consistent with lots of more rigorous research. My problem, to build on your point, is that the book makes excessive claims about the rigor of the data, and ignores all other theory and research. I don't insist that every bit of advice or insight people give to managers be based on rigorous evidence, but I do think that authors have an obligation not to exaggerate the rigor of their research or the originality of their ideas. So, as I was quoted at the end of the article, I suspect that Good to Great has done a lot of good. But I just wish that Jim had not made such excessive claims about the rigor of his research and theory.

My second point is that, although I agree the social sciences still lag well-behind the physical sciences in terms of rigor, I think it is an oversimplification to lump the Good to Great research will all of the social sciences -- there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of studies on topic including organizational effectiveness and leadership that are more rigorous than Good to Great -- and the book draws on none of them and Jim acts as if his level of rigor is high. Having published a lot of research in peer-reviewed journals, and edited a couple academic publications too, I believe that the kind of methods that Jim uses could certainly be published, but as exploratory or tentative research. I guess this goes back to the claims about the rigor of the research-- in Excellence,as you suggest, you two treated the principles as opinions and inferences backed by great stories, which I think is completely fair.

Posted by Bob Sutton at April 17, 2009 5:49 PM

Bravos, Tom.

Two quotations come to mind. Drucker: "Information is data endowed with relevance and purpose." Hamel: "Perspective is worth ten IQ points." We have all been blessed, advantaged by the wealth of information you have shared via your many writings and speeches. Moreover, you have consistently provided us with what can be argued is one of the most precious gifts of all - perspective. Thank you TP! Rock on.

Posted by Dave Martin at April 21, 2009 9:01 PM