Comments

As a competitor, I might be open, early, more convieniently and an extra day, but thank you for the training?

Posted by patrick at June 1, 2009 7:58 AM

Not only the Qty of training but the type as well. Armies typically actually go out and (as near as possible) simulate the real thing.

In business you might get to role play a situation if you are lucky but most training is conceptual (with a few exercises) and very far removed from actually doing what you are going to do.

One of things I have seen in Technical Support is taking a newbie from start of an issue to end - they had to extract real information from a real person (in another office) and DO the entire support case from start to finish. We were able to really look at the whole job not just their tech know how and customer skills in isolation but also their documentation and proactivity in driving the case. Made a huge difference in the feedback we could give them right at the start of their careers

Posted by PaulH at June 1, 2009 8:23 AM

PaulH, the same initial thought about "role playing" struck me, too. True, it sometimes doesn't make as big an impact as we'd like, but it is a step in the right direction. I see the key being a two-phase approach: first, drill them in handling the more ordinary scenarios, then -- when they are comfortable in that -- take them out of that comfort zone and throw some real curves at them. Test their mettle BEFORE A CUSTOMER DOES. That's the military idea -- make the simulation as realistic as possible before facing a real enemy with real bullets. The same with pilots (commercial and military): godawful sums of money have been spent (quite appropriately) to develop more and more realistic flight simulators. There's a reason for that. It's not just have a fancy video game... it's to add more sensory input and emotional pressure to optimize learning and testing.

Good mentoring also helps here, although differences in personalities must be taken into account. It's usually not so important that the mentor teach particular techniques as it is for him or her to help foster a sense of "valuing the customer" and "going out of your way whenever necessary." We've had some interesting and closely related discussions over on Steve Yastrow's blogs recently. Modeling can be a fabulous tool. Also, the fact that leadership is willing to invest the time and resources in such mentoring underscores and reinforces the idea in the employee's minds that "We're serious about customer relationships."

I think a lot of companies and businesses would be well served to do what Tom is suggesting. Maybe it doesn't have to involve closing during usual hours. If you're a M-F operation, do it, say, one or two Saturdays a month. It might mean dishing out some overtime pay, but it's an investment that can have huge dividends; whereas, doing what most companies do in this area (which is NOTHING) is not only cost-cutting, it's ultimately cutting your own throat.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 1, 2009 8:50 AM

It might have something to do with most business world training being ineffective. Typically, no one connects it to real day-to-day operations. It gives people a break from their duties and a chance to play some games -- but doesn't really effect any change.

Maybe corporate America could learn more from the Army about how to train

All the best!
deb

Posted by Deb Owen at June 1, 2009 8:51 AM

One of my pet peeves is that there is often no link between the line manager and the training. i.e. in an ideal world the line manager would have received guidance on how to help the person coming back from the training implement what they had learned. You should have training material for the manager as well as the attendee

Posted by PaulH at June 1, 2009 9:00 AM

This seems a very timely message. Right now, when times are tough, business excellence/ survival may well be a matter of life and death. So yes, the army is different; it is structured to have "slack" in its system for rotating troops out of front-line tours of duty, and to allow training to happen. Business, on the other hand, tends to look at slack as inherently inefficient, and as a result has 100% of its strength on the front line all the time. So it would be worth businesses and other organisations redefining that slack not as waste, but as the capacity within the system that enables them to properly train and develop their people. In other words, train and train, but keep the shop open too.

Posted by RobCH at June 1, 2009 9:10 AM

PaulH, I meant to also say that your idea of "Start to finish" training is excellent, too. This helps newcomers (and maybe the supposedly "seasoned veterans" alike) better deal with the INTERNAL CUSTOMERS... it's hard to expect a team to function as a team if they are clueless as to how everyone else fits into the scheme and flow of things. It also helps avoid the case of over-promising things to the customer and ending up with serious egg on your face when something actually CAN'T be done.

Specialized military teams are big on cross-training. If your radio guy gets taken out, somebody else on the team had damn well better know how to work the thing. Backups to backups. The same philosophy benefits teams in businesses. Hyper-specialization may have its advantages, but it helps if others on the team can at least help fill in the void in a crunch. It's not always feasible, but when it is, it's often quite useful.

This notion taken to the extreme is an example Tom shared years ago about a hospital in Florida (I believe it was Lakeland Regional, or something like that.) They came up with "Care Pairs" -- teams of a couple of people who could darn near do everything from basic patient care to X-Rays and lab work. It cut WAY down on the number of patient-staff and staff-staff interactions and on the delays, too. I don't know if they are still using this, but I loved it. When I was in nursing, in charge of the E.R. at night, we often had nights and weekends when the radiology tech was "on-call." One of them lived about 25 miles away. When an auto accident, gunshot wound, or abdominal pain patient came in, the 30-45 minute delay in getting chest or abdominal X-Rays done just wasn't cutting it. One of the better radiology techs invested a fair amount of time teaching me to actually do the X-Rays myself (on all the machines -- fixed and portable) as well as making copies of X-Rays to send with patients on emergency transfers. I can't count the number of times (or put a value on it) that I had the X-Rays shot, developed, and in the doctor's hands before the tech even arrived at the hospital.

Optimal? Definitely not. But possibly life saving in at least a couple of situations. The tech that taught me could have said "Hey, you're invading my turf... you're no radiology tech... you can't do this..." but he knew better and he (like myself) was willing to go above and beyond (and say "screw the rules") if need be to take care of patients as best we could. We simply did what we thought we could. Under the radar. Well, it was for a while. When the hospital administrator found out, we stuck together and said "Well, it's that, or put our night/weekend techs back in the hospital where they belong." We got them back fairly soon. ;-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 1, 2009 9:16 AM

Tom, in response to your question of "What would happen if...?"

Probably more than a few customer service miracles. Maybe even business growth that results in revenue outpacing the associated expenses. Everybody is screaming "It's the economy..." Yeah, and Chicken Little was right this time. It ain't ALL the economy. For many, the major downturn in revenue is a self-inflicted injury: the result of loss of business (especially repeat business and referrals) because the cutbacks in staffing and training have customer service going straight down the toilet.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 1, 2009 9:26 AM

How about a related idea? Give employees time on the clock (and related travel reimbursement) to go "mystery shop" a competitor? I know that WalMart (at least at one time) sent employees to "price check" K-Mart and other competitors and at the same time they would occasionally send a new employee (out of uniform, someone not recognized as a WalMart employee) to test the competitor's customer service.

Instead of spending money on hiring outside "Mystery Shopper" services, it makes as much sense to me to send your own people to a well known, reputable competitor with the mission of "Come back and tell me what they're doing really well and how we can top it!"

That's not only useful in terms of getting ideas, but it directly engages your employees in the quality improvement process and in helping shape the culture of your business. As I always say "People tend to support that which they helped to create."

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 1, 2009 9:35 AM

One of the things that often irritates me is the training budget is often seen as an easy touch when the going gets tough. I’ve always felt the time to train most is when the going is tough. I guess it’s a soft target for the accountants. Look at all the very best sports performers throughout history – they are invariably obsessive trainers – surely that tells us something. Sport may not be a fair comparison but whoever won a gold medal at the Olympics by reducing their training schedule?

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 1, 2009 10:31 AM

All good stuff BUT

I own my career?
I own my development?
I will fashion a career consistent with my life goals?
Earned versus Entitled?
Core versus Peripheral?
Budget versus value?
In-house versus External versus Mentor?
Always focus on the customer
Customer first !!!!

Create the right environment such that training/learning/development is a by product of a creative open and HONEST working environment?

I would challenge the linkage between what the Army needs in terms of training (friendly fire comes to mind!!!) versus that required by a retail outlet (sorry I gave you the wrong size) the outcomes are hardly comparable?

Posted by patrick at June 1, 2009 10:48 AM

Is training the primary constraint to reaching your goal? If not.... don't sub-optimize your efforts.

Posted by Todd Canedy at June 1, 2009 11:08 AM

Todd, perhaps training is not the primary constraint, or at least not for all businesses, but it is so often right at the top of the list. On the other hand, so many businesses are feeling the need to cut back on staffing that now -- if ever -- is the time to make doubly sure your existing employees are up to the task. They might actually appreciate you doing so, because if they are taking on added workload due to cutbacks, being better prepared to deal with customer service issues can only be of benefit to them. I hate to use the "efficiency" word in lieu of "effectiveness," but that could be part of the picture in tough times. True, it would have been better if such preparations were handled during "good times," but that is a moot point if it wasn't handled that way.

The way I look at it, good training is really never a bad investment. If you're already at the top of the customer service heap, then this whole discussion is moot. On the other hand, if you aren't, why not? Would it be a bad idea to get there? Not in today's economy. But I agree with you on the need to look at all the constraints fairly.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 1, 2009 11:42 AM

"Why does the Army ... train and train..." Some reasons:

- Their outcomes aren't just a matter of life and death but of national security, so results are all.

- They have ginormous publicly funded budgets that are often protected by powerful lobby and Government interests.

- They virtually 'own' the soldiers in their employ, 24/7/365 and that's a lot of time to fill.

- They can cajole, abuse, encourage, command, lead and treat all their employees with very little comeback.

- Their induction processes basically dismantle the recruit and turn him into someone who will respond to orders automatically.

I've simplified some matters. There are obvious arguments here about having to treat soldiers responsibly, developing leaders and so forth. But putting aside any "Because they should" argument, a big part of the reason why they train and train is "Because they can."

Posted by Mark JF at June 1, 2009 1:09 PM

Mark JF, I see where you are coming from on the military training "because they can." But we still should take into account that there are more than personnel time/availability expenses involved in the military's training. As you alluded to quite well, their budgets are handled a bit differently -- quite simply, the government obviously isn't overly concerned about bankruptcy/insolvency. Great example for businesses and families, huh? :-( But I digress slightly.

Perhaps businesses can do likewise, though. True, to close up shop for a few hours and give up revenue while still generating expense might be more of a hit than some businesses could stand. On the other hand, can a business that is in serious need of some serious training (not all -- just the worst cases) really justify NOT doing it? If they end up in bankruptcy and another company takes them over, would they find themselves having to justify why they DIDN'T find some way to invest in the training that they knew they needed badly? What if the new parent company says "Sorry, we're not keeping your employees because they aren't as well trained as the ones we're bringing from our own company?" I can see a ton of scenarios here. Only limited by the imagination. But I'd certainly hate to see a business go under -- and even worse, someone lose a job -- over training issues when some creative thinking might have made a difference.

Then again, if the company's really in that much trouble already, what the heck's it gonna hurt to try? Bankrupt is bankrupt. At least a "Hail Mary" sometimes ends up in the end zone, and to me it beats crying over the loss and just taking a knee before the clock has run completely out. Don't just sit there. Try something.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 1, 2009 1:38 PM

Dan - I agree about the need for sufficient, targeted and on-going training. To me, it's a no brainer. But I think comparing training in an institution like the armed forces to a commercial operation is like asking if you prefer apples or moondust. Don't blindly copy: look at each and cherry pick the appropriate bits.

Posted by Mark JF at June 1, 2009 4:38 PM

I'm not impartial where the comment I'm posting is concerned, and if you'd be offended by what amounts to an ad, stop reading now. I share office space with Enterprise Media and I care about all the people who work there. Here's my comment:
Enterprise Media produces Tom videos, but the videos they make and sell are intended as training programs. The videos come with trainer's guides and lesson plans, etc., and, as such, they cost upwards of $500.00. Sometimes, $900.00. The business at Enterprise Media has gone down since the downturn, and they're struggling like so many others in the weakened economy. To me, this is the exact opposite of what should be going on with them. Where else can you find a way of training your entire staff for less than $1000.00? And isn't now the time to train, train, train? Maybe your staff even have more time to attend training now that other tasks have slowed down. Don't you think now is the time to give staff a dose of inspiration rather than to leave them alone to worry about the economy, or, worse, their job security?

So, go to http://www.enterprisemedia.com, and buy, buy, buy.

Posted by cathy mosca at June 1, 2009 4:40 PM

I wouldn't close the store but I certainly would provide significantly more training for front line people. The issue that these businesses usually face is the hard dollar costs associated with paying for training time or paying for a loss of productivity during training time.

What I think the businesses could use is a method or study that clearly identifies that the financial benefit outweighs the required expenses, then it should be a no-brainer for them.

Posted by Bryan Schueler at June 1, 2009 4:58 PM

Mark JF, as for picking the appropriate bits, that's definitely a given. The old adage of "He who's good with a hammer tends to think everything's a nail" comes to mind. There is no "one size fits all." In these economic times, spending decisions and the investment of time does need to be handled wisely.

That's not to say that there are NOT wise investments, just carefully directed and tailored ones.

Cathy, I've actually only had the pleasure of seeing a couple of the films, and I have and still do recommended them. "In Search of Excellence" is still my favorite and I doubt it will ever be dethroned. I can imagine E.M. is feeling the crunch as most are, but that is by no means a reflection on the quality of the materials, that I'm sure of. I'm feeling the same effects in the advertising portion of my business. Fortunately, there are small businesses (especially people in businesses like appliance repair, auto repair, etc. that can actually see increases in business in this economic climate) that see the wisdom of investing in their marketing now more than ever. Perhaps a bit more targeted, but they are investing. Some don't get the paradox.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 1, 2009 5:04 PM

(What would happen, for example, if you were a retail store owner, and were open one less day than normal each week—and devoted that full day you were closed, with full staff, yes, once a week, to training of various imaginative—and boring—sorts?)

I don't know Tom, open up a retail store, do the type of training you suggest and find out.

Posted by dan at June 1, 2009 5:11 PM

We are seeing proof-positive right now of a very common mistake in the business world: resting on our laurels when the economy is booming, followed by panic when things turn sour.

When the economy is great, companies tend to think that the bottom line is great because they are doing such a great job. Not to say that they aren't, but sometimes it's akin to the era after WW-II when it didn't matter if you made total junk -- people bought it. Pent up demand, as Tom so well described it. Unfortunately, during those busy times, in-depth training is often shoved aside because "We're just too busy. Besides, we're doing great... any more business and we couldn't stand it."

How quickly that turns to "If we don't pick up some business soon, we'll all be standing in the unemployment line." There is no money set aside. Reserves (if any) are all gone. No budget to train people to do a better job and get a larger market share of a smaller amount of total market spending.

Age old paradox. And the odds are unfortunately very high that when we go full circle again, most will totally forget the lessons that should have been learned this round.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 1, 2009 5:12 PM

When did we actually forget the lessons of the past?

Maybe back in 1982.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1

Posted by dan at June 1, 2009 5:26 PM

I can't speak for the Army but I can about the Air Force. I have always been somewhat amazed by how wrong folks can be when thinking of leadership and management in the military.

I own my career?...if not me then who? Don't progress you get shown the door.

I own my development?...ABSOLUTELY! Promotion is performance based...

I will fashion a career consistent with my life goals?...Why wouldn't you as military training opens a lot of doors in the civilian community...

Earned versus Entitled?...huh?

Core versus Peripheral?...skills wise, both.

Budget versus value?...uh, the budget is hardly unlimited...training is linked to mission and functional responsibilities...

In-house versus External versus Mentor?...yes, yes, and if you have a chance to work with Senior Leadership it's the best damn leadership training on the planet!

Always focus on the customer...believe it or not we do have "stakeholders"...customers/suppliers. I kind of have to know that as like here is accountability, and standards, and more "external" functional assessments than you know what to do with. Fail an Operational Readiness Inspection and see how accountability works

Customer first !!!!...that's why I got to keep my job for all those years.

Create the right environment such that training/learning/development is a by product of a creative open and HONEST working environment?...try using positional authority. Rank doesn't equal knowledge and respect is earned. Credibility is your greatest capital. HONEST???? (not my caps) but I'm curious as to what is meant...

We're our "own' consultants and coaches. Our bosses come and go so there is always an adjustment to be made. I actually did use a TP series of video's to train our senior leadership and nobody could break it down better...it's all about the stories! I'm not sure the military trains because it can...it's just like any other enterprise that does it because it has to to meet it's mission requirements! You want to get the most of your training $$$$$...make sure it is linked and aligned to your mission and go back and assess how behavior and performance changed because you trained. If you can't link it to your "mission"...why are you wasting time and money doing it????

Posted by dave wheeler at June 1, 2009 5:56 PM

Dave, not having been in the miltary, but having spent years in the fire service, I get it. There was "mandatory" training (very mission specific, because somebody could easily die if you screwed up), and there was self-driven. The department didn't force you to train on things like hydraulics, hazardous materials, search and rescue, paramedic, instructor's training, etc. But if you wanted promotions and pay raises, you got off your duff and did it. You BEGGED to be tested and tested often. Bottom line was that the ones who didn't want to step up in that way didn't get pay raises and they weeded themselves out. On the other hand, the ones with the drive were also the ones you counted on in highly specialized situations. They were also the ones that the new guys turned to for teaching and help in advancing, which in turn reinforced the skills of the more advanced ones.

Is this JUST like the military? I'd be a naive fool to say yes or no because I honestly can't say. But I do know that beyond a certain point, we DID control our own fate as far as advancement was concerned. The opportunities were there. Ample opportunities. But you didn't advance unless you proved yourself. And the fire service was focused on the lives of the public (external customers) and our team (internal customers)... saving property was ALWAYS secondary to human safety.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 1, 2009 6:18 PM

"it's all about the stories!"

Dave - In a nutshell with those 5 words you hit the nail on the head. We might owe much in our human development to science, technology and rationality but we owe a hell of a lot more to the art of story telling. The best leaders always tell great stories. Story telling is perhaps the most underused skill of those managers who rely on the rational, cold and clinical (alias for boring stuff). Your tales of your experience of the military Dave is always refreshing to me.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 1, 2009 6:18 PM

I've just started reading a book titled
"Hard Facts, Dangerous Half Truths and Evidence Based Management"

It stresses making decisions based on evidence that a process/idea works. For example, the book points to the current trend in education not to promote students to the next grade level if the student does poorly at the current level. Common sense would say this is a good idea. The problem is that is not effective. It just keeps students in the same grade until they eventually drop out and they do not eventually perform better when kept back. It costs more money, (because the students keep repeating classes), leads to more class room disorder and leads to higher drop out rates and students who in the end know less. This was discovered in 1918, 1980, and will be rediscovered in the next few years and touted as a new idea. Also, it has be shown several times in the past that merit pay does not make teachers more effective. Again. something that goes against common sense, (just like the sun orbiting the earth went against common sense at one time) Most everything discussed on this blog falls into the category of seeming like a good idea that has no evidence to back them up. In fact, the main methodology used by In Search of Excellence is the perfect methodology to 'discover' half truths. In that book, successful companies were chosen and then analyzed for common traits (the traits could have been cherry picked because they were in themselves interesting) and these traits were touted as to what makes companies successful. The problem with this methodology is that no unsuccessful companies were analyzed - unsuccessful companies could very well have had some of the same traits the successful companies had - no one knows because unsuccessful companies were not analyzed. For example, I'm sure all the successful companies were run from offices, had employee parking lots and employed human beings. Were these the reasons they were successful?
So, I'm back to what I've said before - this blog is entertaining and Tom is a great writer and entertainer or no one would have bought his books or pay to hear him speak. But he may not have anything we should be taking seriously, because there is no real way to know what its actual value is. I like watching shows about UFO's, but I don't believe in them. Not until one damages my car. 121 random ways to improve quality is far from excellent. Quality is Love? How about Quality means you never have to say you are sorry.

Posted by dan at June 1, 2009 6:31 PM

BTW - starbucks has already done the type of training tom mentioned in the is post.
About a year ago, they closed all their stores for two days and trained all their employees on the coffee machines and taught the coffee the store sells.

Posted by dan at June 1, 2009 6:34 PM

I thinking there has not been a great deal of "original thought" in the areas of leadership and management for what...4 or 5 decades now. I'm thinking "management by fact" (spin it "Evidence based Management") is not exactly the newest concept on the planet. I'm also thinking you can pretty much find research, statistics, surveys or polls to support pretty much any position on the planet you want to take. I'm thinking if I am leading a team of 72 folks with a budget of 1.7 million (or more)and follow a few basic concept from In Search of Excellence like MBWA, involving folks in planning and decision making and these folks figure out ways to streamline processes and eliminate wasted resources that save 1200 plus manhours per month and a couple hundred thou a year, screw research because I've seen it work. It's all about leadership...Productivity through People...Life is about choices. I have seen through my own career how these "simple" things work. Don't believe what you read...it's words. Apply them and measure results...Actions speak louder than what? Or don't...your choice!

Posted by dave wheeler at June 1, 2009 7:10 PM

There was a Malcolm Baldrige recipient some years ago named Pal's Sudden Service, a hamburger chain in Tennessee. The owner/founder, when asked why he spent the money to train his employees over 200 hours per year only to have them quit stated, "Imagine if I didn't train them and they stayed!"

Exactly.

Posted by David Porter at June 1, 2009 7:11 PM

Talent Code resonates for me in that the deep practice (training) may be very minimal - like an hour per day once the trainee is proficient.

1. Ignition
2. Deep practice
3. Master coaching

PS - we try to model our military retiree neighbors in that their homes, yards, garages, cars, boats & all else is immaculate ... they check their gear twice on a regular basis. :>)

Posted by C Love at June 1, 2009 7:19 PM

David, I love it. From what I've seen at most fast food joints, the untrained ones ARE the ones that stay. And they rapidly advance to become "Managers."

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 1, 2009 7:21 PM

"Imagine if I didn't train them and they stayed!" - Wonderful - thanks David - that's definitely a keeper! :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 1, 2009 7:24 PM

"Evidence Based Management"

Its not a new concept - the book 'Hard Facts, Dangerous Half Truths and Evidence Based Management' stresses that there are no such things as new ideas - in fact, the book says that anything you 'discover' should not be thought of as 'new' because the fact that you think its new will bias you toward championing it when it may not deserve championing - many of the studys the book points to are quite old - but the evidence in these studies keeps getting ignored or forgotten and rediscovered by 'revolutionaries'
- the point of the book is that evidence gets ignored - people can't handle the truth! - just like the evidence that the earth circled the sun and not the other way around got ignored.

This blog repeatedly reinforces ignorance -

The book also points out that Gurus (the book calls out Tom by name) tend to be always looking for the next new thing - they sell new ideas like fashion designers sell new looks - the book (written in 2006) mentions how automobiles became uncool and were therefore ignored by gurus (How many teenagers have pictures of Cisco Routers on their bedroom wall - places where images of Mustangs used roam - who in the hell is proud of a frigging specific brand of web browser?)

The book also mentions that there was little difference in the performance of the companies cited in In Search of Excellence and any company in the forture 1000 in the year 'In Search of' was written.
Tom discovered nothing more than a way to make a lot of money writing business books. That he deserves credit for.

Posted by dan at June 1, 2009 8:45 PM

"when asked why he spent the money to train his employees over 200 hours per year"

200 hours a year for a hamburger chain?
Do they cook them on fusion reactors?

Posted by dan at June 1, 2009 8:48 PM

"I'm also thinking you can pretty much find research, statistics, surveys or polls to support pretty much any position on the planet you want to take"

This is the perfect blog to bring this up because Tom made a mint doing just that.

Its easy to fool people with statistics because very few people understand the procedures that need to be followed in order to make valid statistical inferences. The book I was referring to suggests that this happens all the time, especially in the business press - and the results discussed in the book "In Search Of Excellence" are suspect because the rules of statistical inference were disregarded.

Posted by dan at June 1, 2009 9:38 PM

"They can cajole, abuse, encourage, command, lead and treat all their employees with very little comeback.

- "Their induction processes basically dismantle the recruit and turn him into someone who will respond to orders automatically."

Such an army would lose every battle.

Posted by tom peters at June 1, 2009 9:40 PM

Perhaps the difference is in the view. On the out side looking in, or from the top looking down, if you were ever at "ground zero" on factory floor, customer service call center, or on a front line leading folks...the concepts and processes Tom describes and advocates work! Been there in the past, lead the same way today, and in the little piece of my place of employment that I control or influence we're making a difference. With all due respect, I guess that's the difference between "words" and "actions"...I ain't tryin to sell books. I'm accountable for getting results...

Posted by dave wheeler at June 1, 2009 9:48 PM

I'm in academic and we just finished a training on Learning and Teaching. (A new initiative for the institution)and this is done while our newly acquired institution is seeing some layoffs.

As an attendee, I benefited greatly since I don't hold an education degree. HR's memo indicated that this is part of performance review (honesty). The training was rescheduled for our convenient (happy internal brand steward).

Now, weeks after, some changes are taking place... in classrooms and in syllabus. And assessments. And we will be seating again soon for faculty meeting. Looking at statistics (evidence) of course. And standards will be either maintained or changed to reflect the goal of my department.

Personally I feel couple of specific training in the academia is relevant... like so in the military. But then, Allegory of the Cave is also important to understand that in the core, we are looking at changing our behavior.

My first year students are discussing this, and they do get it!!! ;-)

Posted by GM at June 1, 2009 9:55 PM

Most of the working life, we are either "doing" or "learning to do."

Most often, people end up "learning to do" what they need to do in the immediate future.

The kind of training that one should focus on should serve the following:
a. help the person "excel" at what is in store in the immediate future.
b. set the foundation for gaining "competitive advantage" in the mid-term and long-term future.

When everyone around is focused on gaining short-term advantage, it takes a whole new level of discipline and commitment to invest for the "long-term."

Thanks.

Posted by Rajesh Setty at June 1, 2009 11:01 PM

It is pertinent to impart training atleast to the store staff if not the managers of a retail store as they are the face of the organizations and their interactions with customers can make or break the store. Training session need not be always bring direct benefits to the associates it can be the other way round also. A lot of new initiatives or knowledge can be gathered from these staff which might become the competitive advantage for the store.
Its best if the trainer is one who has grown through the ranks from being a store associate.

Posted by Sathyaraj at June 1, 2009 11:41 PM

Training, training, training EQUATES to GETTING PREPARED FOREVER AS YOU FLOW IT AND MARSHAL IT IN CRESCENDO. Out of it, one can capture EXCELLENCE (TRUE QUALITY).

The “Voice” (Frank Sinatra) believed in this in extremis. I practice this ruthlessly in real-time and especially so when solving problems.

Self-training and self-preparation are, as per my POV, even of greater relevance. Though, all trainings and all preparations are wonderful. I have the good luck or otherwise, in some instances, to operate only under scientific and methodologically indoctrination.

If you step outside the indoctrination’s pathway, you breach (expensively) a service contract. WHY? Because the designated “pathways” are so critical and intertwined that will augment the likelihood of (massive) life and resource saving/securing and continuity.

This, perhaps, might get one closer to the military training. Peter Senge might have something useful to add, “Organizations learn only through individuals who learn.” As Benjamin Franklyn remembers the reader: “Energy and persistence conquer all things.”

In the mean time, as innovation keeps its progression in a more dramatic and dramatically subtle way, nanosecond by nanosecond. I appreciate Lincoln's (1862) wise words,“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.”

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at June 2, 2009 1:17 AM

Dave W good morning from a sunny Warwickshire.

The honest bit in my mail, is I believe from the view that in my experience is the key element to most things, in this post for me it was a case of don't hold training out as a benefit if you are going to take it away, don't offer me training and say I haven't earned it (I am not entitled to training!) don't make training an issue make it part of the day to day.

I have never been in the Army, I have a brother who is an ex marine and I have seen what training has done for him on his journey to being a relationship counsellor, quite a journey of personal learning and commitment.

And that's what training comes down to for me is a personal challenge as a manager (not with all the best ides) every day. It is about taking each opportunity to learn no matter how it presents itself.

There is plenty of other stuff in your mail, but to be honest the only thing I wanted to deal with was the concern my use of capitals and honesty seemed to give you. Hope this has helped.

Have the most splendid of days.

patrick

Posted by patrick at June 2, 2009 2:19 AM

patrick - A sunny Warwickshire morning indeed! I've just taken my dogs for an early morning walk by the Avon - feels like being on the Costa Brava this morning in the finest county in England. Maybe Warwickshire is slowly taking over :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 2, 2009 2:34 AM

It may also be worth noting that before they teach recruits any skills, the army teaches values, camaraderie, history, tradition, and the importance of people, of relying on your mates, your team, your leader. In the UK, such initial training takes the first few weeks. As Wilfred Owen wrote in 1917, "Men die for men, not flags."

Posted by Jonathan Wilson at June 2, 2009 2:35 AM

interesting book on the subject:
The battle for hunger hill - Daniel P. Bolger

To take the topic a slighty different route from training. I think higher education should be a constant through people's lives not just do a degree and then work. I know some people do additional courses later in life (Open University etc) - but it's not a part of society's DNA really is it?

How many people have a degree that is still relevant - I know mine isn't!

Posted by PaulH at June 2, 2009 5:35 AM

dan (small d) – Thank you very much for your good points above relating to knowledge and theory. Nassim Nicholas Taleb writes quite lucidly about the "narrative fallacy" that essentially builds knowledge "where the statistical application is data mining." To a certain extent this is often so, as research usually begins on assumptions and built on data to sure up that assumption. It is not always that research begins and is built on what is not known; or, initiated to disprove a theory. I often delight in disproving assumptions that I have about a great many things, including the very existence of God which in itself is scientifically not provable. But, of course, there is simply that element of faith which is not calculable in scientific research. There is also that which is not known not being that which is does not exist.

In research generally, there is also often not the desire to measure what evades us, as it has obviously gotten away from us or has never been introduced to us. But does that mean it does not exist? So, we build on what is known and pass it off as knowledge until, of course, great knowledge is gained. Or, often we brush it off in favor of what we have become accustomed to. You point above regarding our ability to ignore evidence until it resurfaces as new is a good one. You will be happy to know, if you don’t already, that Taleb spends a great deal of time in the area of statistics and posits its randomness as there is "silence evidence" to equate. (This might indeed go against your notions above.) You also hit on what he calls "narrative fallacy" and "randomness as incomplete information." These are excellent points presented by Taleb in his brilliant book, The Black Swan, and you have done so well above. All knowledge is incomplete, except the "quality of love." Love is the essential element of a life and work of quality. :-)

I do, however, think you might have missed an essential point as it relates to Peters and his work. It is not my belief that his books are base on scientific knowledge or hard core statistical knowledge, as Taleb, for example would say that there is not such thing as there is always the element of the "ludic fallacy" where there are forever elements of uncertainty, which is the application of this fallacy to randomness. In other words, In Search of Excellence was not meant to be a statistical work based on scientific knowledge that purported infallible truth for others to follow. The data mining to which you refer is probably not the basis of how this work evolved. Rather, it seems to me to be a collection of companies with stories that have succeeded based on very assured business models that value people. If I'm not mistaken, I don't think Peters purports any new ideas in the book or has even said thereafter that there are such. The newness was simply the form the book took in telling stories that got people's attention. That can't be disparaged. Can it?

dan, I appreciate very much your ideas about "looking for the next new thing" that is tantamount to selling new ideas like fashion designers sell new looks." This is also so very relevant: "the book mentions how automobiles became uncool How many teenagers have pictures of Cisco Routers on their bedroom wall - places where images of Mustangs used roam - who in the hell is proud of a frigging specific brand of web browser?)" Who's deciding cool? Thank you for the mention of this book, "Hard Facts, Dangerous Half Truths and Evidence Based Management." I haven't read it, but I'll order it soon. But I do get a sneaky suspicion that Taleb's theories will probably debunk a lot of the "hard facts" based in this book. Dunno. But I'll read the book and let you know my impressions on this blog when I'm done.

Your words here, dan, are very much appreciated. Thanks again.

One other thing...I LOVE this:

"when asked why he spent the money to train his employees over 200 hours per year"

200 hours a year for a hamburger chain?
Do they cook them on fusion reactors?

It is this kind of very real interjection that refocuses us from la la land.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 2, 2009 6:39 AM

dan - Reading through your comments again, they are quite witty and funny too! I'm laughing aloud. Thanks also for that!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 2, 2009 6:59 AM

patrick - Thank you sir for the clarification. I understand and agree that learning opportunities need to both be relevant and constant. I was trying to recall circumstances where access to training was based on anything other than relevance to position or meeting basic performance pre-requisites for attendance. Thanks again and enjoy your day!

Again, perhaps it is the difference in viewing from above or at "ground zero". Not sure I need a great deal of research to tell me if I slam my hand in a door it's gonna hurt any more than I need it to know if I treat the people I lead like crap we aren't gonna get the results that are expected of US. Guess that's the difference between words/theories and having functional responsibility for EXECUTION. Common sense may not be statistically significant...it is just an operational necessity.

Posted by dave wheeler at June 2, 2009 8:04 AM

"Common sense may not be statistically significant...it is just an operational necessity."

This is beautiful, Dave. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 2, 2009 8:09 AM

JE - Taleb & (me to a lesser extent) know how to trade up & down in markets - isn't that "wealth creation" that you abhor though to a certain extent? Taleb is master at shorting markets - profit from mega losses of others (picture grandma losing her pension) ... while Taleb smiles big on a TV panel of economic experts!

To me training is like talent development - often less is more. Get in the flow with minimal effort. Tiger Woods (more Asian than black but black is a current niche market) competes using maximal myelin & nervous system talent just 20 times per year - maximal deep practice 20 times per year only. However of course he deep practices almost every day for a bit too. :>)

Posted by C Love at June 2, 2009 8:24 AM

Business vs. Military,

On the surface comparisons may be easy to draw from; however, businesses must drive revenue and profits to survive. The military, unless I'm unclear of their balance sheet, gobbles up enormous amounts of taxpayer (business too) monies to exist. The last time I checked, the military didn't make any money. They draw from the private sector to run their operations. The private sector benefits from our military's protection greatly. Because they don't have the same structure and goals, comparisons to the "private sector" so-to-speak, are flawed.

With that said, maybe we should subcontract our military to other countries to drive revenues. This is done in the private sector all the time to save on costs and create jobs for trades. The military trains all the time because that's what they do...in preparation for war. Businesses have to manage and account for every penny they spend, so they don't become owned by the federal government and 60% of the American taxpayer. Might as well have GM build military vehicles and aircraft.

While references to the ubiquitous "burger flipper" have become a theme in this particular blog for training, or the lack their of, I happen to think that fast food, particularly Chic-fil-A, are fantastic money makers. Not to forget, the 20k losing their positions with GM will need all kinds of opportunities to feed their own families. Much like the Bud Light (now Belgium) commercials allude to...the "burger flipper" is a real American Genius in my opinion (at least they have job security).

Posted by Scott Peters at June 2, 2009 9:11 AM

C - Taleb is most certainly a master trader and has been for many years. Empirica, LLC made $500 million speculating against the market. A very good friend who is also a trader, to lesser degree too, sells shorts regularly, doing well in any market, bear or bull. Of course, these are the principles of the likes of Livermore and Darvas. Great books, if you haven't read them, by the way. In trading balance between speculating and investing seems to be essential for the health of the economy. I also wonder about the number of people trading now as opposed to those who were doing so in Livermore and Darvas' times.

Presently, I am with Bogle who believes that both investing and speculating are needed, but that we have been speculating too much during these last decades and not investing. There is also perhaps an element of bloat in the system itself that needs adjusting, perhaps shorting plays this role to some degree. Perhaps to another degree it’s merely the natural ebb and flow of the markets, though a lot of our volatility seems to be avoidable. (I am no expert.) With his latest trade, Taleb has said that he merely wanted to stick it to those Wall Street types, having "been" one himself. :-)

Taleb is not interested in the money himself and has not needed it for many many many years, protecting his family and loved ones, advising and warning them about what was going to hit well beforehand. He talks about this. Taleb is essentially a philosopher now who dabbles in trading. It just so happens that when he trades it pays BIG! He’s a great person with a brilliant mind. I love it when he’s on with these economic experts. He completely blows them out of the water! Many seem lost without a script.

Your analysis of Woods made me smile. I loved the opening: "To me training is like talent development." There is without a doubt a beauty in Woods flow, requiring minimum effort. But, of course, in order to reach to that level he had to practice endlessly; it’s an ongoing thing. It seems not to have been merely "using maximal myelin and nervous system talent just 20 times per year." I read and heard him speak of practicing daily from sun up to sun down tirelessly year after year.

I completely understand the necessity of talent development and deep practice as it was most certainly required in singing opera, where placement and breath as it relates to the body itself is essential, especially as placement and breath are non-physical but so important in producing tone. The same can be said for seeing placement of a golf ball and the swing before the swing is taken. Practice never stops and neither does training of any kind for those looking to excel continuously. I am not yet what I will be.

Regarding Woods' ethnicity, I don't which prevails, his Asian or black roots, or the necessity of it really. But what is without dispute is that he is a great golfer and he did not achieve such through merely thinking, but through a lot of doing. This is practice and training. In fact, training without doing is useless.

Thanks for the myelin reference. Did a little research. Way cool! I'll definitely do more.

Back to Taleb: He's a god! :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 2, 2009 10:08 AM

A long time ago, I was in an European city. I ran across a group of police cadets. Apparently, they were in a four year training program. In their third year, they were being "let out" for the first time in order to practice their very stylized traffic control in a 6 lane by 6 lane intersection.

I had travelled there from an American city that put its police cadets through twelve weeks of training.

Hmmmmmmm...

In the same country, cashiers in a retail store were also trained for multiple years in all aspects of retail operations. Rarely here in American are beginning retail employees that well versed in the aspects of a business... and often are in temporary jobs until something better comes along.

Hmmmmmmm...

Alas, I understand that the changes in that European country has brought its people more in line with the American average.

Hmmmmmmm...

I am in mourning...

Posted by Stephen Garner at June 2, 2009 1:14 PM

Good points on fusion. However....

Drive-thru times average 18 seconds during peak (200 cars per hour)
1 mistake per 3,600 orders
56% turnover of employees in an industry averaging 300%
2% manager turnover

And all of that to get a $4.20 US check average!

Only a $15M a year business (or so). Great things can come in small packages and profitability continues to improve. Maybe they are on to something in Tennessee.

Posted by David Porter at June 2, 2009 2:47 PM

Great point, David. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 2, 2009 3:33 PM

I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that Google leaders allow all employees 20% of their working week (i.e.1 day per week) for folks to do whatever they want to do on the basis they will do something interesting that will add value to the company. I love this and how I wish it were the case in healthcare where we have a predominant culture of mistrust as do most businesses. The Google training model is the sort of ‘training’ I believe is best suited to the modern business world. In fact I think it has always been the best model. People can be trusted and up to now most businesses haven’t REALLY believed that - despite the fluffy supportive lip service words most business leaders speak about trust. You can’t ‘half trust’ someone – it’s like being half pregnant. So I suggest the word ‘training’ needs to be completely re-defined with perhaps self-directed personal development being a more accurate term. Feels to me like it works damned well for Google :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 2, 2009 5:29 PM

Quote: In their third year, they were being "let out"

Yes, I had that type of training. Sure wish we had been "let out" (in a small way) from day one. The training would have been far more effective.

And it is really annoying when a business is "closed for training" during normal business hours. Please keep at least a minimal staff on duty.

Posted by Mike L. at June 2, 2009 5:41 PM

Once we "train" the Trevors to love their life as poorgeoisie - then & only then shall we all truly be free. (Someone must toil & make our fish & chips while we thrive on new wealth happiness.) :>) Thanks JE for the insight - shall follow Taleb more carefully.

Posted by C Love at June 2, 2009 6:37 PM

C - Being poor is good - I know my place. You have taught me to be humble and grateful for the crumbs from your wealth table. Though I am not worthy I ask one favour. Save me some Fish and Chips please Oh great one :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 2, 2009 7:01 PM

If I was a retail store owner I suspect I would have to spend more time replacing the employees who quit because they were sick and tired of every Tuesday being 'training day'.

Posted by terrago at June 2, 2009 9:50 PM

Ray Kurzweil will be the president of the Singularity University (his TED.com video at http://AgostiniPress.blogspot.com/). He's a magnificent scientist and inventor and his initiative is being backed by NASA and GOOGLE jointly.

The term "singularity," in the context used by Dr. Kurzweil is explained at http://www.slideshare.net/andresagostini/hitechvisionary-andy

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at June 3, 2009 1:09 AM

It's amazing how we deplore "One size fits all" and yet we say we should copy the army's commitment to training or we should mirror Google or Pal's Sudden Service or Starbucks or whoever.

Well done to patrick for pointing to a mixture of training / learning / development / mentoring within the right environment. We've used the word "training" without really differentiating between the different elements of training and which are more appropriate in which situations.

That said, I hope everyone has used the debate as part of their own continuous personal development and has gone away to think about the training regimes within their own businesses. And then revamped them. It's been an interesting debate but if that action happens, it's been a great debate!

Posted by Mark JF at June 3, 2009 2:28 AM

TG - indeed you are not worthy - though all appreciate that you keep g in line as a resident of your dank tiny windowless basement ...

At Lovefest, Inc. we pay an actor to sneak into our executive dining room - then in front of all we discover said actor as a front-liner who has snuck into the executive elite locale. Suddenly she is taken by security kicking & screaming from the dining room (napkin still tucked in her shirt). It is such fun for we elites to laugh at the plight of others - we write it off as "training".

Her exit line is: "But Dr. Peters said it is all things women all the time for all women." Later we show a video of her pocketing crackers to feed her starving children - oh how we laugh with our stimulus dollars flowing in like fine wine/whine! Indeed laughter is the best medicine ... :>)

Posted by C Love at June 3, 2009 5:37 AM

On the thanks front, thanks to everyone on this its a real fine page of beauty, much appreciated...

Trevor, I commute!!! Nottinghamshire is indeed God's own county!!!

Posted by patrick at June 3, 2009 7:33 AM

From a different angle...

It could be said that if we DON'T invest in formal, recognized training with specific objectives, improvement, and change creation in mind, then we are inadvertently investing in training of a different sort: complacency and maintenance of the status quo.

To put it another way: sometimes what you DON'T do sends just as much of a message as what you DO. It might seem a wise decision not to invest the time and money in training, and it's probably easy enough to "justify" not doing so -- "It's the economy." And it will probably be easy to justify not being there for the customers when you go out of business because of less than optimal customer experiences and relations. That would totally eliminate the need to worry about any of these matters -- training investments included -- but it's all good, right?

Choose your fate and train folks for it, or just go along for the ride. One costs in the short term, the other over the long haul. One usually ends up being far less expensive. Venture a guess as to which one?

"Which road should I take?"

"Where are you going my dear?"

"I don't know."

"Then any road will do."

"Guess I'll take the one with a lower toll today."

"Then I do have a map to offer, my dear."

"You do? Thank you! But to where?"

"The bankruptcy attorney and the employment service."

"But I have a golden parachute."

"I meant for you to give those to your employees. They are all walking the path right behind you."

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 3, 2009 9:02 AM

C- You are right - g is here with me. We are currently under lock and key, shackled with ball and chain so you are safe. We are happy in our dingy dungeon in the Tower of ye Olde London Town. We are both enviously watching the affluent elite worldwide enjoy the current financial boom – still enjoying crumbs from your wealth table. You will be pleased to know we smile a lot in our squalor – laughter is indeed a great motivator :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 3, 2009 2:26 PM

Patrick – I was working in Nottingham today – no sign of Robin Hood so my wheel trims remained intact. Sorry – I must disagree on ‘God’s County’ – Nottinghamshire is a poor second to Warwickshire :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 3, 2009 2:29 PM

Dan (AKA Dorothy) - brilliant! - I predict that somewhere over the rainbow, the answer to the training dilemma will truly be found. But hey what do I know - I am just a simpleton with no brain :-)

Yours truly,

The Scarecrow

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 3, 2009 2:40 PM

Trevor (a.k.a. "Scarecrow"), better a simpleton with no brain than to have no heart for your employees and customers and be lacking in the courage to do whatever it takes to succeed, lest we be saying "I have a feeling we aren't doing business in Kansas anymore... or anywhere else, for that matter."

If we hire for hearts and courage, we can always train for brains, can't we?

Sincerely,
Dorothy

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 3, 2009 4:15 PM

online pharmacy australia viagra

Amen Dorothy!

Yours Scarecrow :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 3, 2009 4:35 PM

Trevor: I would rather have your spirit and joie de vivre than all the money in the world! You have something a billionaire (and the U.S. President) no longer possess - the ability to walk down the street unaccosted, unencumbered by security, essentially completely anonymous to all around you. You can stop and smell the flowers of the season, watch birds build a nest... whatever you want to do. That HAS to be enough.

Posted by David Porter at June 3, 2009 7:40 PM

Tom you missed the point of Army training (leave it to a old Navy man to miss it)if you screw up in the real Army, people die. The worst in business is you loose money and people leave. If you train them right and things don't go to hell, you come out ok and go on to the next. Hopefully if you a business you make a dam profit. If not you will end up like GM; a totaly bad scene.

Posted by Alan Thederahn at June 3, 2009 8:27 PM

"What would happen, for example, if you were a retail store owner, and were open one less day than normal each week—and devoted that full day you were closed, with full staff, yes, once a week, to training of various imaginative—and boring—sorts?)"

Which day?
What kind of retailers. Supermarkets? Target? An Office Depot?
Well, if I happened to stop by that supermarket or Target or Office Depot on the day they were closed (which would appear to me as customer to be completely random) I'd never go back. I would not be able to depend on them - I'd never be able to remember which day they were closed. Of course, Blue Laws could be reinstated and then there would be no problem.
Being closed when I expected them to be open would be the worst service they could possibly offer.

The answer to your question is the store would go loose customers, but they would have the best service in town.

Posted by dan at June 3, 2009 9:14 PM

David - you are so right about what we have around us. I walk every day with my beautiful wife and our dogs to the tree lined crystal clear River Avon just 100 yards from my door. There is no traffic, no hustle or bustle, just beautiful peace and quiet, nature at its most wonderful. Though my bank balance does not show it - and never will - I AM a billionaire many times over in my own currency of life. Thanks for your kind words Sir.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 4, 2009 1:01 AM

Trevor, I'd humbly agree with your Nottingham assessment, I was being regionalist for effect, sorry. As a fellow billionaire in the currency of what matters, hope this morning's walk has been as beneficial to the day as I am sure it always is.

Warwick remains sunny if not somewhat colder today.

Posted by patrick at June 4, 2009 2:07 AM

cheap viagra from india Trevor - an inspiration as always. Different routine this morning - went out to vote and enjoyed a wonderful walk rather than charging off to work - sun was shining, bird singing, flowers are blooming - it doesn't get much better.

PS
Can I just respectfully point out that officially Yorkshire is God's own county. (Berkshire is a fine place - but nothing compares t' where thee wer brunged up)

Posted by PaulH at June 4, 2009 2:31 AM

I too enjoy a fabulous early moring walk with my model/trophy wife - laughing all the way to the bank as a millionaire in what truly and righteously counts - money, lire, sterling, gold, silver, manna from heaven - we elites so enjoy our place of royal privelege! :>)

PS - nothing like early morning calm then suddenly firing a front-liner that got us into this great recession! :>) Life is so magnificent here in "Debts R US"!

Posted by C Love at June 4, 2009 5:58 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3YqaIxDp_0

The Lovefest theme while firing/hiring front-liners. :>)

Posted by C Love at June 4, 2009 8:09 AM

C – Continued good wishes O Master from your loyal and humble underlings…..

Paul H – Glad you enjoyed your walk and it must have been difficult to place your ‘x’ against any candidate! Yorkshire is indeed magnificent. Actually my birthplace and original home for 22 years was Cambridgeshire. To be precise a small village called Parson Drove in “The Fens” – a tiny corner of England renowned for …er … err…. errr …nothing actually. Apart perhaps from the fact that the famous English diarist Samuel Pepys stayed overnight at “The Swann Inn” in Parson Drove. This was in the 19th Century and Pepys described my village as ‘A heathen place” – some claim to fame aye? By the way The Swann still serves a fine pint Paul if you are passing through. I say passing through as few tend to stay :- )

patrick – Maybe we should form a club called "Billionaires in the Currency of What Matters" - or maybe a new social networking site with that title :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 4, 2009 8:31 AM

'Tis the simple things that really matter most. Or as a wise old father-in-law once said "Pay attention to the little things, 'cause pennies make dollars."

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 4, 2009 8:43 AM

How much money did Malcolm Forbes leave when he died?

All of it.

Posted by David Porter at June 4, 2009 3:51 PM

"The data mining to which you refer is probably not the basis of how this work evolved. Rather, it seems to me to be a collection of companies with stories that have succeeded based on very assured business models that value people."

Judith - the problem with Tom's methodology is that it did not compare successful companies to unsuccessful companies. It was a survey of successful companies and then common traits were compiled. Unsuccessful companies could also have these same traits and this is not known because unsuccessful companies were not studied. Studies such as these can spread half-truths, which the authors believe are harmful. By the way, the authors are Professors from Stanford, so if Talib has a theory that contradicts something these guys have to say, the only way to resolve the conflict would be to flip a coin.

Posted by dan at June 4, 2009 4:11 PM

LOL. Love it, David. Like that old line about you never see a Hearse pulling a U-Haul trailer.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 4, 2009 4:12 PM

dan - OK. But we really don't know exactly how the study was complied do we? Maybe the kind of study you are suggesting was done, but not included. Maybe between Peters and Waterman, and other McKinsey consultants, there was complied experience and evidence to determine the traits of unsuccessful companies. Regarding the coin flip with the Stanford authors and Taleb, I'm not sure if I get your point. If going to Stanford makes one's scholarship or study infallible, TP would be in that class, eh? :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 4, 2009 6:53 PM

My point is that if Talib disagrees, we have a draw, because both authors credentials are about the same. To end the draw, we'd have to flip a coin.
And as far as the study goes, its simple - no unsuccessful companies were part of the study.
That flaw was also mentioned in a Boston Globe article Tom linked to a few weeks ago.
I've seen it mentioned in several other places - it is one of the main criticisms of the book.
It doesn't mean Tom's conclusions are wrong. But the authors of the 'Half Truths' book consider the results to be suspect.
I feel Tom is less than rigorous which is not that important when he is talking to small business owners (retail shops, motel owners, car dealerships) but I don't think this lack of rigor is helpful if he starts advising people in the health care industry for example. Ready, Fire, Aim is not a philosophy that should be practiced by drug companies. Finding out how to keep drug-resistant staph infections from spreading requires rigor when gathering and analyzing data. When he suggests that cheerful employees are more important than the skills of a knife wielding surgeon, he might very well be right, but he needs good data to back it up. I do not want to find myself hospital that practices 'fail forward fast'.

Posted by dan at June 4, 2009 10:15 PM

Did you actually just explain the coin flip? LOL! If I'm not mistaken, I think TP has a PhD from Stanford. Where might he fall? Don't answer that! Anyway, all of this is neither here nor there for me. Wherever the audience, no matter the profession, management consultants by and large deal with issues pertaining to people and their interrelations in achieving results.

I'm sure TP has the wisdom to tailor his presentations for each audience, although people are the same in all professions. Also, sometimes simply repeating what others already know in different ways makes the difference in results. I'm remembering some of TP's healthcare presentations. Good stuff.

dan - You have made some thoughtful comments on various posts over the last few days and I am appreciative. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 4, 2009 11:25 PM

"Maybe we should form a club called 'Billionaires in the Currency of What Matters' - or maybe a new social networking site with that title."

Money does matter. It's just how we attain it and what we do with it that matter most.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 7:51 AM

The fact that Tom has a Phd from Stanford is a big reason to question his methodology. He knew his method was flawed. Why did he do it that way? A cynic would say that it gave him more control of what to write about which made for a better story, but not a better analysis. I think Tom has a bias towards being entertaining and this bias can over ride good advice.

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 8:09 AM

Perhaps Tom and Waterman COULD have done a highly statistical and analytical treatise on "Excellence vs. crappy." I'm sure that would have been a big seller (at least in the dozens of copies) among accountants and actuaries. My take (and it's purely that, so I'll claim full ownership, blame, what have you) is that statistical analysis was NOT the intent. It may have started out that way, but they made a discovery that was well overdue (if not flatly ignored) that it's people, not management theory that ultimately takes a company to the top.

Not every Excellent company is using Japanese management "techniques," or Korean, or any other definable "style." I don't recall reading anything ever saying "Walt Disney spent years studying Japanese management techniques and used those ideas to build an entertainment empire..." Nothing of the sort. If there ever was evidence that you can be "American as hell" and "Excellent," Disney to me is THE example. But I admittedly digress (out of passion, mostly.)

When Tom and Waterman wrote "In Search of Excellence," we'd already had the numbers for as long as business had been conducted. They had done us little good, quite obviously. What they ultimately discovered and so eloquently shared with us all was something nobody had taken the time to really explore. They should, indeed, be credited with kicking off a dialog that has endured. We can question the method behind the madness from now until eternity. But what you can't question is the plain and simple fact that if you put "humanity" back into "human resources," and start giving a damn about what it's like for people to work for you and do business with you, you've already stacked the deck in your favor.

I know Tom to be a numbers guy as much as he is an entertainer. He's both. But I don't need or want him to bore me with spreadsheets and graphs trying to give me a rock solid, irrefutable, scientific breakdown on financial performance as related to what is largely immeasurable (which is precisely why so many "numbers" people simply don't "get it.")

When I go into a store, deal with a company online, hire a plumber, buy a car, whatever, I know Excellence when I experience it. And I know lousy customer service and products. I don't have to see the company's balance sheet and annual report to figure it out. I don't want to see those. Whether or not I will do business with them again or recommend them (or post a nasty review about them) has nothing to do with numbers. It's all personal.

In the end, you know what you know, you see what you see, you feel what you feel. When they got to a point that they realized that there was something way beyond the numbers going on, Tom and Bob had the curiosity to chase it down, and the courage to put it in writing. I for one am thankful as hell that they did. I have been a part of and felt firsthand the positive impact of what they deserve credit for starting. Nothing less than a movement.

If they ignored the numbers, twisted the numbers, or even outright lied about the numbers, who the hell really cares? I count on Tom as my consultant/guru (unpaid, except for book royalties, etc. -- sorry, Tom, but the R.O.I. has been awesome, thank you) on the "people" issues. If I want financial analysis, I know some people at some of the big accounting firms. Most of them bore the living hell out of me and have done nothing to help my clients have a good experience. If I'm oversimplifying or doing it wrong by somebody else's standards, so what? Business went well for me last year and that involved dog-earing even more pages in Tom's books and a few others. Not once did a client say "Show me your financial statement and I'll decide 'yes' or 'no'." I just had fun, tried to make it fun for the clients, and at the end of the year, the numbers said my business had grown over 600%. And this year is looking even better.

Not bad for a recession, huh?

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 8:54 AM

dan, you're right, and so is Dan. Some years back there was a great fuss about TP and RW having "fudged the data" for ISOE. For those who wanted (and still want) to pick holes in the ISOE thesis, fine, there's plenty of ammunition available in the methodology on which it's (sort of) based. For those like me who found for the first time a business book that was about people dealing with people, told stories that inspired, and didn't have a graph anywhere, it was a complete revelation. It has shaped my approach to being in, forming and leading teams ever since. Not because it's left-brain logical and fact-based, but because it's right-brain intuitive and emotional. I see TP as right-brain dominant (world of possibilities, imagination, belief, big picture, design, philosophical, welcoming risk and the unknown, etc) - interested to find out if that's just me imprinting my own dominant state on him.... Anyway, which is, in my view, what makes him stand out from the more left-brain business guru norm, and what I suspect will always make him frustrating to more data-driven analysts. And so inspiring to others.

Posted by RobCH at June 5, 2009 9:33 AM

RobCH, right (brain) on, brother! Tom said it best and most succinctly: "The numbers can only take you so far." They are important. But they don't define your business or whether or not someone wants to do business with you. Surprisingly, even some banks have figured that out (and are still in business.)

It takes both. But if you get hyper-focused on analyzing the relationship or mutual causality between the two, you stand to lose the very passion that probably led to the business starting up in the first place.

Do what you love. Do it in a way that you and the customer can love. If you're not doing that, the numbers become irrelevant, because they're likely to be stored in Banker's Boxes in the garage long after you shut the business down.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 10:11 AM

dan, my friend, I think that we will have to simply disagree on this one. But I do value you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 10:55 AM

"I see TP as right-brain dominant (world of possibilities, imagination, belief, big picture, design, philosophical, welcoming risk and the unknown, etc)"

When Tom first came along, we were too left brain dominant - I think today, we have moved to far in the other direction. The housing bubble was built on hyped up right brain oriented stories. The Internet bubble was built on hyped up right brain oriented stories. I believe that a big reason we flopped so hard is as a culture, we became way to enamored with 'going with our gut'.
The 'going with our gut' philosophy made it to the highest office in the land when we invaded Iraq. About a year ago, Maureen Dowd wrote a column called 'The Blink Generation' that pointed how out biggest problems today are rooted in some of the ideas in the Malcolm Gladwell book 'Blink'. This book was basically about 'going with your gut'. Tom's the Pursuit of Wow is all about going with your gut.
It's time for the pendulum to swing back. We can't keep shooting from the hip. We need to take less risks and have more of a long term view. Tom must actually agree with that, because he keeps pushing the idea of putting women in positions of power. That latest data on female decision making processes point to the fact that they take less risks than men and are more concerned with the long term view than men are. Of course, he could always just ignore this if it does not fit in with his narrative.

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 2:27 PM

"That latest data on female decision making processes point to the fact that they take less risks than men and are more concerned with the long term view than men are."

dan - Thanks. I appreciate your grounding insistence. Most of the women I grew up with in our church of 10,000 as well as those that I have come to know around the world make decisions based on a "long term view." I think TP has written of this too.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 3:46 PM

"I know Tom to be a numbers guy as much as he is an entertainer. He's both. But I don't need or want him to bore me with spreadsheets and graphs trying to give me a rock solid, irrefutable, scientific breakdown on financial performance as related to what is largely immeasurable (which is precisely why so many "numbers" people simply don't "get it.")"

What are you attempting to do with the numbers? Find a new cool gadget to sell or get the death rate to drop in hospitals? I think we as a society have the gadget thing down fine. In fact, we need more gadgets like we need a hole in the head.
But if we want to lower health care costs, for example, we will have to get used to digging through boring data. Slogans won't get use there.

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 5:37 PM

little "d",

I cut more than one tooth in health care. I get the numbers and their importance. And at the risk of sounding arrogant, if there's a soul reading and commenting on these blogs today that appreciates the importance of those numbers in achieving improvement in every single aspect of health care, it is me.

And I am quite experienced and qualified to say that I know (not believe, not think, but genuinely know) that there comes a time when you can talk numbers all you want, but it takes something else. And that something else is EXACTLY when I (personally) put Tom's materials to work.

You can teach damn near every employee in a hospital to understand numbers and graphs. But you can't teach them to embrace them, to appreciate them, to try and improve them UNLESS you reach their hearts first. Sure, you can threaten to fire them. You can tell them that they might get sued. You can use all the scare tactics and "carrot and stick" techniques you want. It doesn't work.

Fire up some genuine passion. Motivated learners learn. Scared and indifferent ones don't.

Not for one second do I think that Tom disregards the numbers. He knows the numbers, as do I. But I know what it takes to actually create the kinds of change needed to affect the desired changes in those numbers. I lived it day in and day out for years. I did it.

"What gets measured gets done." Horse shit. At least not until the people who actually DO whatever it is you're measuring know WHAT you are measuring and WHY, and actually give a damn about it. Otherwise, what you get is randomness, short-lived improvements (and if it don't stick, it really ain't improvement, it's just a temporary fix at best, or dumb luck), and totally out of control run charts.

Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Nash with all their mathematical skills combined would be hard pressed to lower health care costs without the help of people like Tom, Leland Kaiser, and others helping people understand and embrace the very necessity of it all.

Yes, we DO dig through the boring data. We've all done it until we more than KNOW that the numbers suck. Try telling your hospital staff "Hey gang, the numbers suck," then sit back and see what happens. Nothing.

Truly convince your staff of the importance of good patient care, controlling costs, minimizing hospital acquired infections, reducing length of stay, and decreasing in-hospital mortality -- from a patient's point of view especially -- and you will see the numbers improve without even showing them to anyone. Then -- and only then -- can you address the numbers with them and achieve real improvements. The health care industry as a whole is failing miserably at the former. That's EXACTLY why the numbers look so bad.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 6:15 PM

Dan – well said. The problem in my experience about numbers in healthcare comes when front line employees are not involved in determining what we should measure. The numbers are invariably imposed on them by accountants, statisticians and managers who have not seen a patient for the last several decades. Front liners simply don’t own imposed numbers. We need a few meaningful numbers and the best way to arrive at what we measure is to engage front liners in the design of the metrics. It really is as simple as that.

pfizer canada viagra Posted by Trevor Gay at June 5, 2009 6:47 PM

Trevor, agreed. I guess what gets under my skin most is the fact that the numbers are nothing new. Everyone talks about how bad they are. But like the weather, everyone talks about it, but nobody does anything about it.

If we've had these numbers all this time and they are so powerful in and of themselves, why haven't they gotten better? It's because the numbers themselves are dead and powerless. It's people that determine those numbers. And those people don't talk in numbers, they talk experiences and feelings.

So get your people to FEEL what it is that needs to be done. Not just slogans or "programs of the month," but real, honest dialog about what we're REALLY trying to do, which is take damn good care of patients. If they care about that, they will develop a genuine interest in the numbers and you'll get some momentum toward improvement.

That's been my take on Tom's work all along. He's one of the few people I've met that truly share my gut feeling about what the right order is: PEOPLE first, numbers to follow. And it works. Do what you do with a real passion for excellence (not just a slogan) which is all about PEOPLE and amazing improvements are possible (most especially in the numbers/data.) Without it, you're screwed from the outset. Just another bean counter.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 5, 2009 7:01 PM

“The world of the 1990s and beyond will not belong to 'managers' or those who can make the numbers dance. The world will belong to passionate, driven leaders - people who not only have enormous amounts of energy but who can energize those whom they lead”
- Jack Welch

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 5, 2009 7:11 PM

Welch isn't talking about quality control stats. He's talking about accounting figures. And don't forget, it was during Welch's watch that GE got into the financial industry which is currently pulling the company down. GE is also very big in six sigma - which is all about numbers - due to Jack Welch.
Making numbers dance is about squeezing profit out of your operations. Stats for quality control would be used to uncover operational problems and would not neccesarliy be concerned with profit. When a airliner crashes, accountants are not sent to the scene to uncover what went wrong. The investigation may or may not have anything to do with numbers. Stats would be used to compare outcomes, staffing, education levels, management styles, staff working hours, training, etc between hospitals to see if there are coorelations between these variables and outcomes.

Posted by dan at June 5, 2009 9:46 PM

Brilliant, dan!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 5, 2009 10:53 PM

dan, if I am following your latest comment correctly, you are stressing the importance of the numbers within the right context. I agree with you on that. I think Tom's comments from an earlier date could equally be placed in the wrong context and misconstrued. I can't speak for Tom, but I am certain that he appreciates the numbers regarding patient mortality, infections, etc. as much as anyone alive. But I took his point to be similar to the point I harp on so frequently, which is that patients don't want to be considered one digit in a bigger set of numbers: they want to be treated as individual, unique human beings worthy of dignity and respect.

viagra overnight order

Patients enter a hospital assuming that the primary concern of the staff is getting them well or through whatever procedure safely and discharging them in better shape than they came in. At least they do until the hospital staff treats them in a way that makes them think otherwise, which is (sadly) all too frequently the case. They don't expect to go home feeling like a million bucks. So when they are asked about how their hospital stay went and what was important about it, they don't think about outcomes specifically. They think about the things that their minds considered to be variables well within the control of the staff, such as courteous treatment, responsiveness to their calls for assistance, the quality of the food they ate, those sorts of things.

Yes, it is indeed shocking to most people to hear that patients don't list outcomes on their list of priorities regarding their stay. But part of the reason it is shocking to many of us is the very fact that we DO track, monitor, and try to improve upon those outcomes. We see it as very important and that makes it hard to believe that the patients don't. Which takes us back to Tom's point (or what I believe was a major part of it.) When we get hyperfocused on outcomes it is easy to see that as THE priority and too easily push other factors that are important to the patient WAY down the list. As a result, we often pay too little attention to those and don't work as we should to improve them. At the same time, some hospitals do the exact opposite and let the patient's "importance" scores determine what gets priority treatment in terms of Q.I. efforts. That means outcomes aren't being considered and improved upon as they should. Total over-correction, because ALL the numbers are important.

Despite all our technology, too many patients get hospital acquired infections. Too many patients end up with unnecessary, avoidable complications. Too many patients die in hospitals. Which is the other half of the point I think Tom was making an effort to get across.

Many years as a hospital C.Q.I./Risk Management Director taught me a hard lesson that I tried with every ounce of my energy to convey to every new employee and veterans alike: if you start by thinking in terms of "what is best for the patient," you get your heart into the need and reasons for improvement. You WANT to make the patient care better. Then you can look at the numbers, share the numbers, track the numbers, and improve the numbers.

Quality improvement is more than just a process. It has to be a way of doing things that starts with the heart. It's like Dr. Stephen Covey's description of a "habit," which he says is the intersection of knowledge, skill, and attitude.

Knowledge: understanding the numbers and the process of C.Q.I.

Skill: practicing and applying the methods of C.Q.I. in the work and constantly getting better at it.

Attitude: "wanting" to make continuous quality improvements and understanding "why" it matters.

Tom, I believe, was pounding hard on the "attitude" component of these three necessary components.

Teaching the knowledge and even the skills is the easy part, because it's all academic. But teaching the attitude part is very, very hard, because it's a matter of heart and emotion. I am more thankful than I can begin to express that there are people out there like Tom that specialize in attitude development. Without that, skill and knowledge are purely academic and virtually impossible to utilize in any way that creates noticeable, lasting change.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 12:30 AM

dan good points. Too much of anything is usually, well, too much. I remember a cartoon a few years ago of a teacher in class looking at a blackboard on which was written 7-4=. And saying "Now children, I'd like you to write down how you think Seven feels about having Four taken away from it". It can certainly all get too fluffy.

Posted by RobCH at June 6, 2009 3:08 AM

Rob - LOL - That school probably had counseling services on campus for all such bereaved '7's' :-)

Happy Saturday - the rain has arrived - our summer on Tuesday and Wednesday this week was nice don't you think?

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 6, 2009 5:08 AM

Trevor, it was certainly very nice here in the Middle East!

Posted by RobCH at June 6, 2009 5:50 AM

LOL, Rob!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2009 8:43 AM

dan - I'm with you on the gadget and slogan thing. But there is a time and place for everything as well as various products on the market and various means of achieving the goal of a healthy economy.

Gadgets are invented by scientists, engineers, inventors and the like and "Re-imagined" by others, produced by workers, and bought by people on the market that boost the economy and sures up a nation.

Regarding slogans, they can be important reminders but we most certainly know that they themselves do not necessarily bring innovative ideas or actions. We do. Produced here are pushes and nudges that insist upon actions.

Words are not merely slogans here.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2009 9:11 AM

"Words are not merely slogans here."

That's why so many listen to Tom. He's NOT just talking to get paid. He wants to make a difference. We all do. At least I hope so, because the alternative way of living really sucks, to put it in technical terms.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 9:38 AM

I do not KNOW Tom Peters. I do not KNOW his intentions. All I KNOW is that a lot of what he says makes a whole lot of sense. It is this sense that I sensitize and apply. I do BELIEVE, however, that Tom Peters is a good man and that his heart is in the right place, not to mention his head. This is my belief.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2009 10:09 AM

Judith,

Your beliefs are no doubt well founded and accurate. If life really was as simple and cold as going by the numbers, he'd probably still be with McKinsey & Co. I assume that where the numbers are concerned (and they do matter) they do a great job.

I do find it hard to conceive of Tom sitting at a computer all day, or standing in front of an easel going over graphs, talking numbers. That would have to be sheer torture for Tom.

Everything in its place. Tom definitely has a place in the hearts and minds of a lot of us, and he has made more than one positive mark on more than one business that's serious about Excellence.

Thank God.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 11:02 AM

The other day, I was walking around Borders and saw a book titled "Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths And Total Nonsense: Profiting From Evidence-Based Management"
I mentioned this book before. The title interested me because I've been thinking that a lot of books in the business press are more interested in being interesting than presenting good research. I opened the book and looked in the index and found a reference to Tom Peters - in the entry under Tom, the authors expressed the same reservations I had. A point the book stressed was that its not good to stress advice from a single individual because everyone has their biases - (where have I heard that before) - the book discussed Toms methodology and so forth. One problem I have with Tom is that as far as I can tell, he has never actually tried out his own ideas in any real world long term situation. As far as I can tell from his writings and power points, he has never run a complex organiztion, never developed a product - - and although he stresses measurability and accountability, there is absolutely no way to measure what he does in any real way. He also says we all need to change - everyone except him - he has been saying the same thing for 25 years. Does he know how to change? Probably not, because he does not need to - he has all the money he needs. Also, his attitude towards average everyday people sucks. The rant he had the other day about the flagman peppered with quotes from Martin Luther King was absurd. Yet many of the blog entries thought he had said something profound. Several years ago, he had several rants about how Netscape (which made a big splash and flamed out) would be a better company to work for than a company like GM -(A good point if you are raising fruit flies and not human children) - a long lasting but fading company. He ranted against the Jim Collins idea of building companies that last. Tom is an influential person in the world of work and people with his with his views in my opinion are one of the reasons why we are so willing dump companies that create lots of middle class jobs that pay well, but people like Tom don't value (or would ever want). Apple is not as important a company as GM once was. Steve Jobs is a marketer - a genius marketer, but a marketer just the same. Tom is basically a marketer. We need people interested in industry - We need more than just idea people.
Tom's ideas are old - they are Internet boom ideas. They are ideas that appeal to the ADD tendencies in all of us. Chucking out market regulation is a short term idea. Looking at a real estate boom on a month to month basis without reflecting on the fact that it is not sustainable is an ADD tendency. Invading Iraq with no plan as to what do do once you are there is a short term idea. Creating adrenaline rush power point presentations by peppering them with cool quotes from cool people is short term. I think Tom stuff is simply out of date.

Posted by dan at June 6, 2009 11:45 AM

dan, point thoroughly made, I would say. Thank you. But I'm curious. Imperfect though the TP universe may be in your eyes, you seem to quite like it round here!

Posted by RobCH at June 6, 2009 12:13 PM

RobCH, LOL. I suppose Tom's site must be the last page of the internet. A handful complain and make it sound like this is a horrible place to be, but they stick around like there's no place left to go, don't they? man on viagra

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 12:50 PM

What the point of everyone agreeing?

If I agreed,I'd have no need to say anything, because someone else would have already said it.

I actually think that's one of Tom's problems.
For example, would there be any funny comedians if the only audiences they stood up in front of were people who were being paid (people at work) and their bosses paid for the tickets, hotel, meals and airfare? Aside from this blog, who tells Tom he might be wrong?

Posted by dan at June 6, 2009 1:03 PM

"One problem I have with Tom is that as far as I can tell, he has never actually tried out his own ideas in any real world long term situation."

-- So one wonders, then, how is TPCo. still operating? I've talked with folks working there. They have all said they love the work. Decades of operating a company is not a real world, long term situation?

"...never developed a product..."

-- Books, tapes, CD's, videos, and seminars produce themselves, then?

"...he stresses measurability and accountability, there is absolutely no way to measure what he does in any real way..."

-- so continuing to track the success, rise, and fall of the organizations he consults for and impacts by countless means is not "measurement?"

"...he has been saying the same thing for 25 years. Does he know how to change?"

-- I remember Tom's work from the pre-internet days. There was no possibility of websites for companies to use for customers to place orders, get information, or talk to customer service. Tom certainly wasn't posting comments (for no fee) on blogs, or doing webcasts. Now he throws URL's to company sites and talks about social networking and shares real time with us on this site. I suppose that is not adapting to and embracing change?

"He ranted against the Jim Collins idea of building companies that last."

-- For as long as I can remember, Tom has talked about "self destruction" meaning that in order to stay relevant and viable, you have to be willing to abandon old ways of doing things when necessary and devise or adopt newer better ways. The analogy being tear it down and rebuild it before the competition and/or market simply destroy it for good. The ultimate form of sustainability (building a company that CAN LAST) is to make sure it changes with the times, even if that means that tomorrow the only thing left that looks the same is your company logo. Is that A.D.D.? Or the reality of how a great company stays in business?

I suppose I could continue, but the point I am striving to make is that Tom's ideas are as on-target today as they were 25 years ago. The basic principles don't change. The environment in which they are being applied and affecting results does. The technology with which they are being applied does. The products and services being made, sold, and provided to customers and clients does.

Put people first. Provide great products and services. Deliver them in a way that everybody enjoys. Be willing to change rapidly. These are the sort of principles that apply to a high-tech startup as well as an auto manufacturer, hospital, bank, restaurant, or even a web based company.

Perhaps some people do as Alan Webber so well describes in his recent book and confuse "content" and "context." Although he has updated the content continuously, I also draw upon his stuff from a quarter of a century ago with good results, because the "content" was based on underlying principles that hold true regardless of changes in the "context."

If you look at Tom's work from a workable perspective, you ultimately end up writing your own content to fit your own context. He plows the field. Whether you're interested in taking it from there is up to you. What you choose to plant and grow is up to you. I don't expect him to do all the gardening. Even Tom can only do so much with that Kubota. Although some days there seems to be enough horse manure being dumped around here to fertilize the whole state of Vermont.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 1:34 PM

Some of us visit Tom's site and his blogs because we like his way of thinking, thus we expect to find thoughts and ideas we can use.

I guess it IS possible that some people come to Tom's website merely to find something to argue with Tom about, but surely that never happens??? If it does, it makes me wonder why such people don't have wildly popular "Come in and share drab, dull, stale ideas and negativity and join us disgruntled workers in prolonging our own agony" websites, which I imagine would totally dwarf Tom's site in popularity, wouldn't they?

At least if they did, any miserable person looking for a place to go so they can become even more miserable would have the perfect website to hang out on. I guess the demand for that is too small. Maybe that's why said people don't actually spend all their time operating such websites, and choose to hang out here?

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 6, 2009 1:46 PM

To paraphrase one of my co-workers, I'm not negative, I'm positive Toms viewpoints are somewhat outdated.
Disagreement and negativity are not the same thing.
On a positive note, I like what is in the book I've been mentioning.
The books main point is that there are a lot of half truths around - The author believes that Half truths are more troublesome the complete falsehoods because complete falsehoods are usually more obviously wrong. There are many things the book is in agreement with Tom. What the authors are not comfortable with is his lack of rigor in backing up findings. The book struck a chord with me, because I believe our current mess is due in part to lack of rigor. Times have changed. The Internet Boom, supply side economics, ready-fire-aim, weapons of mass destruction - they were testosterone fueled and somewhat reckless - To dip into a different thread, the most important trait women leaders may have to offer is they are more likely to look at the long term and are less likely to take risks.

Posted by dan at June 6, 2009 2:27 PM

"Apple is not as important a company as GM once was. Steve Jobs is a marketer - a genius marketer, but a marketer just the same. Tom is basically a marketer. We need people interested in industry - We need more than just idea people."

If this were so, dan, would it be then possible for them to do their jobs as marketers and others do to theirs as well?

"I'm not negative, I'm positive..."

For what it's worth, I do not think that you are negative, though perhaps a bit redundant. :-)

"I believe our current mess is due in part to lack of rigor."

I think you are right about this, dan. Just at lunch today a very astute friend and businessman said, "Judith, we really didn't think this globalization thing through." I thought of you and told him of some of your words here.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2009 4:03 PM

Byron Dorgan, Senator from North Dakota has been making the cable show rounds. He has a new book - I forget the title. In 1999, a bill was passed called the banking modernization act which is the source of a lot of the deregulation that did the economy in. Only 8 Senators voted against it - he was one of them. At the time, he could not believe what was happening with the bill and he said so in a speech on the Senate floor. In those days, the stock market was going gang busters - its as if the heights of the market did the same thing that geological elevation does - it makes the air thin and many important people just stopped thinking.

Posted by dan at June 6, 2009 5:57 PM

Here is part of what Senator Dorgan said in 1999.

"I think we will look back in 10 years’ time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010".

Now this is a guy worth listening to. He also wrote a book in 2006 called "Take this Job and Ship It"

Posted by dan at June 6, 2009 6:14 PM

dan- It sounds like Senator Dick Durbin's bill to protect homeowners. The banks lobbied with money we gave them to kill this bill and many senators, Democrats and Republicans, voted against our interest in favor of the banks out of their own self interest. I'm thinking that campaign financing has to cut cold turkey for the interest of the peoople.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2009 6:24 PM

dan, about Not Thinking Things Through - I completely agree, 100%. For me, it's not an either-or thing though; it's possible to have good analytical thinking and strong processes(which by the way I don't believe TP is saying can be dispensed with) AND an emphasis on people and soft stuff. Both are vital. Over-concentration on either at the expense of the other is a recipe for business disaster.

I Deny Nothing, But Doubt Everything (Byron)

Posted by RobCH at June 7, 2009 12:34 AM

dan's voice to me is a rather empathetic one, though one with a determined calculated end which seeks the same ultimate results, the soft stuff, people. There is no either/or there for me in his words. Rather, there is the belief that we have swung too far to one end, resulting in devastating effects, and it is now necessary to swing back to the other end. (Of course, finding the balance is always most important.) Strangely, it seems to me that his respect and regard for TP pushes him forever forward.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 7, 2009 3:55 AM

Also, dan's voice does not seem to be about the singular, but the necessity of the whole which is the focus on people. free viagra sample pack

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 7, 2009 3:58 AM