Comments

Tom,

Would you also be able to recommend some books to get started on learning to negotiate - Alternately, one of the readers of this post could comment here with tips and titles.

I do believe that change begins with myself and I'd really appreciate this help...

Warm regards,

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at May 18, 2009 8:48 AM

Sounds like a good book. I'll check it out in time.

"As you know (see my 'Heart of Strategy' post and PDF), I fervently believe that "all this stuff" is the true basis for lasting 'strategic EXCELLENCE,' not the battle plan for conquering markets.’We will conquer X market, a 'Blue Ocean,'' is utterly meaningless (deleterious) if not married to the 'all-important last 98%' called Execution or 'Implementation through the Enthusiastic Cooperation of 100% of our People.'"

THIS is, in fact, terrific! The conquering of the internals, how we do stuff around here, is more important than the externals, how they do stuff around here. Competition first begins within. The battlefield begins in the mind: What are we doing daily? Do we "Screw Around Vigorously?" What's most needed? Are we becoming "Black Belts in Strategic Listening?" The latter requires a sort of disengagement from our own ideas. For many this is very difficult to do. But it's paramount. Practice makes better.

After these considerations, the all-important battle of profits margins with implementation through the "Enthusiastic Cooperation of 100% of our People" matters. But others decide this. But majority buy-in from the people who build products probably has a greater impact on how the product sales in the market, not to mention preventing fewer production errors.

The 98% is essential. Isn't both consensus building and implementation based on the experiences of the people's past trials and errors? This has an impact on sustainability and branding. People matter.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 18, 2009 9:32 AM

"...building the under-structure ain't no walk in the park."

This is never easy as it depends on building a unit made of people who are at various stages, professionally and emotionally, with various ideas of accomplishing an end. But this is also the fun and challenge.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 18, 2009 9:37 AM

Arun - check out the books by Chester Karrass published a while ago- you can get them stupidly cheap 2nd hand on Amazon now - I went on one of the Karrass courses years ago - only course I have proved an ROI on! (saved the company more than the course fees the next time I had to cut a deal)

His books do cover longer term relationships (if you screw someone on price they will claw it back somewhere!). Also covered are a lot of the tricks and tactics that you might face.

No connection apart from a satisfied customer. I went into the course hating the very idea of negotiating (I had an old fashioned view that it was win loose or make sure you get the best deal). I came out much more in tune with how to build rapport and gain trust and understanding leading to partnership and a more valuable deal for all.

Posted by PaulH at May 18, 2009 11:05 AM

Arun - the best book about understanding the art of negotiation I’ve read is “Why men don’t listen and women can’t read maps” by Barbara and Allan Pease. And its fun – not a word you will find in any management book on the subject I imagine :-) To understand how to negotiate effectively why look to a business author anyway? Instead just talk to anyone who has a happy fulfilling relationship/marriage. Negotiation is another of the many things made unnecessarily complex by managers. Learning how to give, take and compromise is a fair summing up.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 18, 2009 12:33 PM

Thanks PaulH and Trevor. I appreciate your advice, and will follow what I can of it.. :-)

Arun

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at May 18, 2009 3:39 PM

"...building the under-structure ain't no walk in the park."

Life & true wealth is so EASY for we - the truly deserving. Be related to royalty whenever possible. Meanwhile - once g - Judith & Trevor are living out of shopping carts in Shakespeare country - then & only then shall the front line finally be free!

Suddenly the C Love UK edition Rolls streaks by the trio - holding their hands toward the sky in adoration while the limo's occupants laugh the laugh of wonder & heavenly grandeur.

Cool zillionarie friend Jim Collins on the cover of the new BusinessWeek - new book excerpt "How the Mighty Fall And How to Stay on Top":

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/09_21/B4132jim_collins.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories

Posted by C Love at May 18, 2009 5:53 PM

Negotiation & leaving the cubicle life forever.

Zillionaire cool Seth Godin in the new Time cover story segment "The Last Days of Cubicle Life".

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1898024_1898023_1898077,00.html

Posted by C Lovefest at May 18, 2009 6:03 PM

C - Man, why you wanna put me in Shakespeare country? I mean, I've got nothing against it and all, but hey I've never even been across the Pond, well, to England--that is, and I'm like not even on the royalty tip. So, back that thing up, bro. :-)

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 18, 2009 6:09 PM

C - Just a small point of detail on your geography. All these months I have been talking of Shakespeare’s 'COUNTY' not 'Country'! – ‘Warwickshire’ is what I talk of – this is my home COUNTY. Every Sunday afternoon throughout the year, Stratford-Upon-Avon in the COUNTY of Warwickshire - home of the Bard - is invaded by thousands of our wide-eyed US friends whom we welcome with open arms …. As we gleefully accept your great wealth to keep us poor English cousins in the manner to which we have become accustomed. Have no fear our wonderful friends from the right hand side of the pond use all the shopping trolleys, eat all the ice cream and burgers ... All our US visitors are made very welcome I assure you my friend :-)

Have a great Tuesday.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 19, 2009 1:16 AM

Trevor - just a small point of detail on your Eng Lit / history / geography. It's long been believed that 'William Shakespeare' didn't write those plays and the leading alternative is Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfordian_theory He wrote under a pseudonym because it would have been considered disgraceful - especially at the English court of the time - for an aristocrat to be writing for the public theatre. Anyway, the point is that this means 'Shakespeare's county' is in fact the great county of Oxfordshire.

Posted by Mark JF at May 19, 2009 2:09 AM

Trevor's writing above is somewhat frightening. It's amazing to see one morph into another. It's like he's copied C's stuff --no creativity or orginality there. Yikes! Wouldn't want the likes of that.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 19, 2009 6:04 AM

There are a lot worse writers that Trevor could turn into, Judith...

Posted by Mark JF at May 19, 2009 6:57 AM

LOL, MarkJF!!! Way funny!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 19, 2009 8:39 AM

Judith - thanks for the compliment. Many would sacrifice much to be compared with the great ‘C.’ It is a great honour you bestow upon me that I will try my best to live up to. I guess we cannot all posses the ‘great creativity or originality’ clearly possessed by so many others.

Mark – cheers - I think I read between the lines. On WS - there seem to be many myths and few facts about the Bard …. It depends what we read and what we believe … sounds a bit like life actually. Historians continue to argue and in the meantime we keep taking the money in Warwickshire :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 19, 2009 9:27 AM

Methinks the charge nurse forgot to make medication rounds this morning.

;-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at May 19, 2009 10:00 AM

methinks you're right, dan.

Posted by erik at May 19, 2009 11:09 AM

Trevor - I have read your articles and think that they are fine indeed. My comment above, largely made in jest, had to do with C's distinguishable style made indistinguishable for me. There was no disparage meant on your writing by and large--none.

BTW - Mark's comment is quite clever. I think I got the dissing and it's still way funny!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 19, 2009 1:27 PM

Judith - there was a very, very funny Irish comedian called Dave Allen. At a time when Irish jokes (i.e. jokes at the expense of the Irish) were all the rage, he told this one. "You can mock but there is one Professor in Ireland. We're not entirely thick." (Audience loves this.) "The problem is, he's about to accept a job at the University of Cambridge so when he moves to England, the average IQ in Ireland will fall by 50%!" (Audience howls with laughter.) Dave Allen pauses and takes a sip from his ever-present glass of whisky. Another pause. He looks at the audience. "And the average IQ in England will rise by 50%!" Silence, with maybe a few nervous titters. Another sip, another look at the audience. "I always felt you could judge a person by his ability to laugh at himself." Audience suitably chastened. My 2nd favourite gag of all time.

Posted by Mark JF at May 19, 2009 3:42 PM

Mark - Now that's TOO FUNNY! Love it!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 19, 2009 5:32 PM

I stand corrected on Shakespeare County!

I spent 11 fun filled years in Ashland, Oregon (90 miles from the ocean) which has the largest USA Shakespeare festival - internationally proclaimed.

The Victorian home laden town of 21,700 claims to host close to 1M/year visitors for outstanding theatre/art/music/sports/restaurants of all types with a focus on Shakespeare.

It is a university town with high quality healthcare & developed as an early wellness center featuring Lithia (lithium) water - which tastes terrible if you drink it at the downtown plaza fountains.

Lithia Park there was designed by John McLaren who designed Golden Gate Park - Ashland is a 7 hour drive to San Francisco / 1 hour flight.

It is the most beautiful town we've ever lived in - Florida's "Who's Your City" comes to mind. The theatre players are so talented there is no more me/you - we become the play.

Picture me running every morning early in Lithia Park (& picture me finding a front liner trying to sleep for free in said park & getting a thorough thrashing in their sleeping bag). :>)

One of several theatres:

http://www.ststours.ca/cms_images/ElizLLL%20-%20from%20press%20kit.jpg

Posted by C Love at May 19, 2009 6:56 PM

C - Good to see so much English influence in your homeland. So it was you thrashing me as I slept rough in Lithia Park :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 20, 2009 2:54 AM

Apologies Judith - I clearly misunderstood the humour.

Posted by Trevor Gay at May 20, 2009 4:58 AM

No worries, Trevor. It's all good.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 20, 2009 7:26 AM

C - I love the theater and its very real connection with the audience. (If only we as businesspersons could get this very real and immediate connection with our clients each and every time in various "acts" or "ages" on any stage. "All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players." Seize the opportunity!) The setting at Lithia Park is great! It reminds me of when I saw "Aida" at the Coliseum in Rome as a student after having seen it at the MET in New York.

The experiences were very different. One was in the open air and the other not. At the Coliseum elephants, horses and a great many other animals roamed the stage setting the scene for Verdi's great opera set in Africa. Above were the heavens. It left an indeliable impression on my friend and I who were trekking through Europe for the summer. We were both transfixed.

From "As you like it" by Shakespeare, 1600:

Jaques:

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.

Thanks, C, for the memory and beautiful photo.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 20, 2009 8:00 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=1&em

Posted by magilla at May 21, 2009 12:17 AM

Magilla – Thanks for the article, "In Praise of Dullness." While I sometimes appreciate David Brooks’ opinions, I think he misses some very important points here. Brooks posits that listening and communication are overrated and that never has/shall the twine mix successfully, as one is about execution and the other merely about charm and ideas. He distinguishes between the politicians and the business leaders with regards to execution. By the way, not once while reading the article did I picture women business leaders. Hmm? I wonder why?

There need not be a separation between ideas and execution and there also need not be not be a specific model from which every CEO is hewed. Personalities matter and there are as many diverse personalities in this position as there are people. In fact, person is the root of personalities. While the core characteristics of any venture, government or business, is execution, ideas on how it is done is what allows for execution, even when the CEO ultimately makes the decision on how things are done. Listening and communication are essential in our time especially.

Brooks seems to be writing about CEO's that had not been a part of the information age by and large. It was a different era. While the basics of business have not change i.e., "execution and organizational skills, attention to detail, persistence, efficiency, analytic thoroughness and the ability to work long hours" the way in which these things are done within a global market, if not more than the necessary communication with others globally, has changed. It's a global market and a CEO better be listening and communicating, not only to his teams but to others outside of them and these team members better be listening to each other and the general public. Business has never been done in a vacuum.

Brooks' opinion also does not take into account small business owners who are the backbone of this economy who rely on communication with their staff and clients and where listening is paramount. These also build community in ways that big business does not and where perhaps a lack of communication and listening on some levels is not as paramount. (Maybe the lack of such has been the downfall of community in some sense. Or, perhaps it is being somewhat redefined.) But it is not an either/or situation—to listen or not in this age. It is the only solution. The past environment may have lend itself to a more centralized power structure where all people thought alike and a diversity of input was not as welcoming. But this is an altogether new global technological age and how we communicate and listen is most important.

It's funny. Brooks says that "business and politics do not blend well. Business leaders tend to perform poorly in Washington, while political leader possess precisely those talents – charisma, charm, personal skills - that are of such limited value when it comes to corporate execution." Hmmm? I wonder about the correlation between Mr. Cheney and Halliburton here, Washington and corporate execution. This solitary image utterly defies what Brooks has written. Cheney was a CEO, Vice-President, horrid listener by all accounts, and lacked communication skills. He left the country in a BIG MESS. An opposite Washington type, but a more hard-line non-communicative dictatorial type according to Brooks’ standard would be Donald Rumsfield. And just look at where his leadership in Iraq left us before the thoughtful more communicative Secretary of Defense Dr. Robert Gates.

where to get generic viagra with mastercard

Brooks and his elk also like to pretend that there is some big separation between government and big business when in reality they have been in bed for years. Can you say Halliburton—now KBR? (It's the same business different name.) There need not be a disconnection between ideas and execution, government and business in this regard. In fact, government allowed big business to prosper. It was a union of sorts. Without such there would have been no roads and highways, for example, which enabled Ford, Firestone and Edison to prosper in their business ventures of cars, wheels and street lights. But we have to demand of our public officials on all levels, local and national and be active citizens in our government. We need to hold them accountable. The big problem is self-interest in government and big business.

Opining the death of CEOs' control as he sees it, as if they have not been culpable in the current mess and not in need of imposed regulation as they seem unable to regulate themselves, Brooks writes: "We now have an administration freely interposing itself in the management culture of industry after industry. It won’t be the regulations that will be costly, but the revolution in values. When Washington is a profit center, C.E.O.’s are forced to adopt the traits of politicians. That is the insidious way that other nations have lost their competitive edge." Does this not sound like there have been no culpability with the likes of CEO in finance and the auto industry? This statement is utterly asinine from this perspective.

Brooks makes this statement: "People in the literary, academic and media worlds rarely understand business." Tell that to Arianna Huffington! It is nearly impossible to think of a novel that accurately portrays business success. Can you say Ayn Rand? The problem with David Brooks here is that his views are narrow; he also apparently cannot possibly conceive of women in his neat dull scenario. Brooks seems to be trying to hold on to a crumbling all white male CEO image that he himself has become accustomed to writing about rooted in political ideology that limits both perspective and reality. Tom Peters' book, In Search of Excellence, lists as many diverse CEO personalities as there are successes. And that was over 25 years ago!

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 21, 2009 10:27 AM

cheap viagra overnight shipping

The Brooks article is not primarily an opinion piece. (thats my opinion)
Brooks is reporting on the results of a study based on data. He does not interject too much opinion until near the end when he awkardly ventures into politics.
Last week, Brooks reported on two books endorsed by Tom, one of which was 'The Myth of Talent'.
The premise of that book (based on research) is that talent comes more from practice than innate ability. Boring, dull practice.

Posted by magilla at May 21, 2009 1:47 PM

Magilla - Does all data agree? Is data not ever shaped by opinion? The data presented in the article reminds of all of the various "think tanks" in Washington all purporting rigorous data which is essentially based on their particular ideology. This is what this piece seems like to me. I also appreciate the premise that leadership is not all glitz and glamour; in fact, it rarely is. It is, however, functional and sometimes boring does not inspire. But as I said above there need not be an either/or scenario as long as the basics of business, essentially that which innovates and executes well, is done.

I guess that while the business of garbage collecting and basement drying is not inspiring in some regards, it can be quite profitable even though what's needed to inspire may not require the same kind of motivation from a CEO of another company. But if there were piles of uncollected garbage lying about or basement with black mold because of standing water the inspiration might come on its very own or even bring about innovative techiques to effectively and efficiently deal with the problem. But even here innovation and execution are necessary. This seems to be what Larry Janesky has been able to do. TP has been speaking of his success for some time now. He actually kind of proves one of Brooks' points about business and through extension CEOs: They need not be out there.

While innovation and execution are most important, we have to get there and the way we get there is through ideas that are produced by people who possess personalities that lead to innovation. It seems to me that CEOs need not be flamboyant if that is not their personality but they need to inspire. I have not read the two books reported on by Brooks, but perhaps I will. Got a link? Oh, I guess I can look for it. By the way, Brooks is a writer and to divorce opinion from what he has written here does not seem plausible. I have followed him for years and the article you link is purely Brooks - boring. :-) But as I said I appreciate much of what he writes and used to watch him regularly on the "MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour." Is he still there?

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 21, 2009 4:55 PM

"'The Myth of Talent.' The premise of that book (based on research) is that talent comes more from practice than innate ability. Boring, dull practice."

No discrepancy here. While some of us are clearly more gifted in certain areas, "boring, dull practice" is still necessary. It was discovered that I had a unique singing voice at the age of 10. Did that mean that I did not have to practice long hours every day of the week, including Sunday? Absolutely not. I had to do those same scales every day of the week, day after day after day. I have never heard the idea here that innate ability precludes practice.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 21, 2009 5:03 PM

I found the source article and it is not ideological. Brooks does twist the findings to suit his agenda, but the source article does not. The CEO's it based its finding on are all from leveraged buyout firms and venture capital firms and the authors point out that could have a effect on the results. The authors contend that their study is the first of its kind - a statistically rigorous study of CEO traits that attempts to uncover the specific traits that lead to success. The mention the work done by Jim Collins and agree with some of his findings. They have a problem with the methodology that Collins used. Collins had a small set of data and he only looked at successful CEO's. Doing a study this makes it difficult to tease out what actually separates effective CEO's from ineffective CEO's. The authors of the source article collected data on over 300 effective and ineffective CEO's. Since they are academics, they could very well have an agenda, but the agenda wouldto uncover something new (because that's what they get rewarded for). Someone like Brooks has an ideology to push (thats what his readers want) His 'brand' is to be a very thoughtful conservative.
BTW - he still shows up on McNeil/Lehrer.

Posted by magilla at May 21, 2009 7:10 PM

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/steven.kaplan/research/kks.pdf

Here's the link to the source paper.
Its long, but a lot of it consists of tables
of statistics

Posted by magilla at May 21, 2009 7:17 PM

"His 'brand' is to be a very thoughtful conservative."

This Brooks most certainly is whether I agree with all of his positions or not.

Thanks for the link. I'll copy it and check it out.

Posted by Judith Ellis at May 21, 2009 7:59 PM

Dear Mr. Peters,

First, I am going to start off with a comment about this website in general, so I hop that's ok. I discovered this site late last year or early this year through David Perry's "The 12 Days of Christmas Job Hunting." I am extremely grateful that he referenced your site. I am also grateful that you invest so much of your time and work to, basically, help others succeed. I have not made the time to thoroughly read your blogs, but I fully intend to visit your website frequently. (A lot of "I" here, not sure how to change this). Anyway, just one of your postings is chock-full of useful and intelligent information to last me a week.

Re: the book, I fully intend to read this book. I am grateful to Ms. Sandhashivan (sp.?) for her question, too. I don't feel comfortable nor confident with "negotiation." I'd rather take whatever the other party offers and then be done with it. So this will be good for me to learn about. Lots of titles you reference in your site that I will have to write down.

Thanks again for all that you do. Looking forward to learning lots from here.

Sincerely,
Colin

Posted by Colin Chisek at May 23, 2009 10:22 AM