Comments

One of the important things I learned years ago about strategy is that it is as much about what you're not going to do as what you are going to do. It's always a tough decision, but as you say, terrifically important

Posted by Dan Erwin at June 17, 2009 7:35 AM

"Less is more."

Posted by UK Love at June 17, 2009 8:03 AM

Or perhaps, to adapt Herb Kelleher: "We have a strategic plan. It's called 'not doing things'".

Posted by RobCH at June 17, 2009 11:37 AM

Interesting to ponder this thought. I’ve been doing a lot of work recently with a Stop Smoking Service Manager. She tells me the motivation for people wanting to quit smoking has to come from within themselves. It has to be a personal decision rather than being pressured by others e.g. family and/or friends to quit. In other words ‘It must be for me’ mentality. Many people attempt to quit and don’t last the course because their heart was not really in the decision to quit. With help and support many who want to quit smoking succeed and that is actually what her service is all about. Other people make the decision to quit and do it without help from her service or any other. However the one common theme is they are intrinsically motivated to stop smoking. They want it to happen. Then it becomes easier – even if it is not simple. As a smoking quitter 6 years ago I recognise the issues as do many others I’m sure.

Anyway …. Cutting to the chase I was just wondering if there is any sort of synergy here with Tom’s suggestion that we think about what it is we want to ‘stop doing.’ Am I on any sort of ‘right track’ with this thinking of ‘the motivation to stop?’; am I comparing apples with pears?; is there any synergy? – I’m sure my fellow TP commenters will soon tell me and add their thoughts. As a non Psychology graduate just my simple two pennyworth or should I say two cents :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 17, 2009 2:36 PM

Sounds like we're talking a combination of "time management" and "conservation of resources" on the corporate level here. Same principles, but on a larger scale. On a personal level, we complain that there just isn't enough time... not enough hours in a day. But when I teach time management to a group, the first thing I do is clear up a misconception. My opening remarks include "If you're here today to learn time management, I hate to tell you this but I can't teach you that. There's no such thing. What I AM going to help you wrap your mind around and hopefully put to use is "self-leadership."

Usually gets their attention. Similar principles apply to the corporation, etc. It's a matter of getting the wasteful, non-productive stuff out your own way. But it should be stressed that it takes some real effort, thinking, and soul searching to determine what is truly "waste" activity. Just like Tom talks about many of the "people" issues that you can't necessarily measure, just because you can't draw a straight line from an activity to the bottom line of the balance sheet does not mean there isn't a relationship. I wouldn't be too hasty to say "Well, we could conduct fewer or shorter meetings," for example. Perhaps the way you USE the meeting time is the problem. There are a lot of things to think about here. It's not as simple as it might sound. And what I think is wasteful activity might be something genuinely critical from another person's perspective.

I'm with Tom, the "to do" list could be accompanied by a "not to do" list. But the latter deserves just as much (if not more) careful consideration than the former. In fact, it stands to reason that as the "not to do" list grows and gets implemented, you'll probably find the "to do" items getting accomplished faster and better than ever before. There might also be time freed up to explore even better "to do" items. Who knows?

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 17, 2009 4:07 PM

"stop doings" - Yes!
My calendar was filling up with "good things to do", each of which contributed in a small way to corporate goals. But a Draconian axing of "good things" freed up my time to focus on those few activities which contributed in a big way.

Posted by Mike L. at June 17, 2009 10:08 PM

Fascinating debate. I like what you are saying about time management Dan - I have long held the view that time management training works well for people who are good at time management and naturally want to do the techniques. There has not been nearly enough work done on time manangement for different personality types.

Another point:

how much of "not to do" is bound up in emotional attachement to the thing rather than so called rational cost benefit.

I would imagine that people in idealism driven orgs (like conservation) would want to continue to do everything - to not do everything feels like failure even if rationally they know they can't do everything.

Many people hang on to old stuff because they feel safe doing it - it's comfort zone.

At a corporate level, what often happens, is a line in the sand has been drawn so deep that the leadership can't change without losing face. I have seen so much corporate BS stay in place because the leadership had to force the original change through at the point of a sword - turning back from that usually only happens with a change of leadership.

Posted by PaulH at June 18, 2009 1:04 AM

There are many attractive things about this idea. It requires Thought, which sometimes gets overlooked in the Ready, Fire, Aim and Fail Fast culture of action (Doing) first. It emphasises an understanding of the core of the business - its essential fundamentals in terms of meaning, purpose and capability. And it implies a determination not to let the important must-do stuff be scuppered by little bits of nice-to-do.

The inherent challenge, it seems to me, is to recognise that sometimes the whole future of the business may lie in the non-core (or what seems now to be non-core) stuff. The process of Stopping Doing has to be one in which the organisation challenges assumptions in both directions - both Stopping and Doing - or it risks ending up incapable of necessary Reinvention.

Posted by RobCH at June 18, 2009 1:47 AM

"My calendar was filling up with 'good things to do', each of which contributed in a small way to corporate goals. But a Draconian axing of "good things" freed up my time to focus on those few activities which contributed in a big way."

Mike L, you said this so much better than I did. Nice!

Posted by tom peters at June 18, 2009 5:22 AM

Tom, I want to draw upon your language and quotes here, if you'll allow me...

We talk about "Ready, Fire, Aim" and "Fail Forward Fast" thinking. To some, that might seem like an easy way to waste time on "not to do's." I maintain it's just the opposite. Perot described GM's culture of one of "Ready, Aim, Aim, Aim, Aim Aim..." There are two extremes of failure here. I'll bet GM is just as guilt of the second form of failure, too.

I maintain that the second form of failure is what we're exploring in this thread -- a "Ready, Fire, Fire, Fire, Fire..." problem. It's easy to forget the "Aim" part. Drawing upon my trips to real world firing ranges, I understand that at some point you have to stop shooting for a moment and look at the target. If you're hitting it, great, you can resume firing. If you're missing, adjust and fire again. Unfortunately, a lot of folks have a hard time getting something started (GM is a good example) and once they do finally get it going, they aren't quick or nimble enough to stop "firing" even if they DO realize they've missed (GM included/especially again.)

It's about RAPID experimentation. Don't spend forever in the "Ready" stage. Rapid prototype it. Then "Fire." Implement it quickly. Then "Aim," meaning quickly assess whether it's productive and at least fairly on-target. If it's not, adjust quickly and "Fire" again. Or abandon it totally if that's appropriate. It's only a waste of time, money, energy, and all your resources if it's a miss but you can't stop yourself. In keeping with Paul H's comment, management often lacks the ability to change its battle plan (for fear of losing face, quite often) and won't adjust to simply say "That was a screwup. Let's change tactics and keep fighting."

"Aim." Learn to assess each tactic and activity rapidly. If it's hitting the mark (productive and adding value) keep it up. If it's not, adjust. Fast. Or drop it and move on to the next experiment.

Is this not a HUGE part of GM's problem? They can't implement fast (or cost effectively) and they lack the ability to drop things or adjust rapidly. It's that huge, bloated, sluggish culture.

Switching to my own analogy here: GM trying to compete in today's marketplace is like an aircraft carrier in a yacht race. It's too damn big to take off fast, and it damn sure can't make quick turns. The market conditions (rules of the race, if you will) are essentially saying to GM "You're not fast enough to compete. You've taken on far too much water. Sink and be gone."

Pictures of GM's headquarters are starting to look more and more like a giant, very expensive buoy with a plaque on it saying "GM went down here."

And I don't think American tax dollars should be used as a tugboat just towing a sinking ship around. The only way it's not going under is if it finds shallow water fast, which there isn't any of in the auto industry anymore. A part of me would like to think differently, but I see them as out of the race already. Sinking money in GM should be on the "Not to do" list.

If you think I've gotten off topic, I say think about the topic of Tom's post again. It really is all about "Ready, Fire, Aim." That includes speed, efficiency, AND the sense to know when you've missed and do something about it FAST.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 18, 2009 7:51 AM

Sorted, calendar and ipod, feel great, onwards!

Posted by patrick at June 18, 2009 8:21 AM

Well Dan, I was sort of with you right up to the point where "Stop!" 'really is all about "Ready, Fire, Aim"'. Then it all went a bit blurry, I'm afraid. They're just in completely different parts of the thesaurus for me. I'm not arguing against RFA or SAV or FFF, just proposing that they all work within some larger strategic organisational context which Stop! sharpens.

Posted by RobCH at June 18, 2009 9:10 AM

RobCH, maybe we need to add a "Ready, Fire, You Shot the Range Instructor, Holster Your Weapon" possibility?

I'm all for "Stop" if that's the right thing. Why would you simply "Stop?" Because you're missing the target ENTIRELY. So badly that no simple adjustments or tweaks will fix it. You're wasting brass and possibly doing damage. Maybe you have the wrong weapon. Maybe you're firing down the wrong lane? Maybe you're not even on the right firing range. To me, "Aim" in the RFA way of doing things means "Look at the target. Did you even come close?" If you didn't (or worse, you're not even SEEING the target) for God's sakes "Stop" firing. At least long enough to figure out the problem.

RFA is a CYCLIC "process," not just a totally randomized event. There IS method behind the madness. Just like the old P-D-C-A cycle. We are basically talking about a modified, hyperspeed version of PDCA, basically (perhaps altered slightly to PDAC.) Even PDCA calls for the good sense to "stop" completely if the situation warrants. Warning -- analogy shift: you've gotten PDCA down so well (thanks to your Six Sigma Blackbelt) that you have 0.00% defects in your widget manufacturing process. You've hired the best engineers for your widget business. You're networking out the wazoo. Your human resources folks have become flawless at motivating your employees to make perfect widgets at unprecedented speeds. Zero absenteeism. No on the job injuries or workmens' compensation claims in ten years. Your advertising is winning award after award for elegance. FABULOUS! Except for one thing: you're still manufacturing widgets and the whole world switched to using thingamajigs 5 years ago. You just can't bring yourself to "stop" making those widgets. It's what you're good at. It's what you "do." If you still keep "firing" simply because that's your comfort zone, due to reflexes, muscle memory in your fingers, or you're afraid you'll be considered insignificant after all those years of being recognized as THE marksman of all marksmen on the range, then you are wasting your time and everyone else's. And you probably look like a fool.

Man, talk about some mixed metaphors?

Sure, I'm using a more extreme, corporate-level example. So what about me on a more PERSONAL level? Am I investing time talking with a lot of people who are not contributing anything to my life or work in any way? Am I spending money keeping up a car that would be more economical to replace? Am I spending time just hanging out with buddies at the expense of time I need to spending with my family? Same principle. Different scale is all.

Even "Wow!" man Tom Peters has the good sense to "stop" and smell the peonies. I dare say doing so must add something of value to his life. I won't ask him to provide me with a spreadsheet or graph to signify how or to what extent it adds value. If it enriches him, makes him and his wife happy, and keeps his batteries recharged so he can do another seminar, write another article, or post another excellent blog, we ALL win. Plenty of Wow! to go around.

Speaking of which, I need to go and water my tomato plants.

Are we having fun yet?

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 18, 2009 10:34 AM

This is the real bugbear of strategic planning--every group we work with in the private, independent school and higher education sectors has a raft of new programs to start, but few ideas as to which need elimination. The problem frequently seems to be about old-fashioned and low tech stuff like turf and territorality. Every senior leader can say exactly what should be stopped in someone else's area, but of course everything in his or her own is still valuable.

Maybe we need a different analytic rubric; different questions to ask that elevate the dialog above what are we all going to lose. Something like, "What parts of our program deliver MOST on our value proposition," or "What aspects of the program are mission-critical?"

Posted by Marc Frankel at June 18, 2009 10:37 AM

Marc, very well stated. I particularly like the idea of shifting from the "what are we all going to lose?" mindset. Especially since what we're pushing to "lose" in this thread are the things that rob us of the ability and the resources needed to develop or expand upon what IS adding value or IS mission-critical.

So what DO we do to shift that thinking? Would you agree that it involves digging into our decision making skills, self-awareness levels, habits, and perhaps putting a lot of pride aside?

What would you add to that list or take away? Would love to hear more of your thoughts.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 18, 2009 10:55 AM

Dan your central widget point is exactly what the second part of my earlier post was saying, so we are (somehow) agreeing. Are you sure they're tomato plants you're watering?

Posted by RobCH at June 18, 2009 11:10 AM

LOL. Yep. Tomatoes, RobCH. And thank you. My mind never stops exploring, so I appreciate the chance to dive head-first (well, maybe "heart-first") into these thought threads. Something useful always comes up. It's my way of continuing and increasing my own learning, which I find to be much more fun in groups. Even when it appears I'm solely advocating for an idea, I'm really inquiring, because I walk away with more ideas to consider. Sometimes that reinforces my prior thinking, sometimes it shifts it. And there are times (obviously) that it leads me down a totally different path of thought, which I can live with.

You want a really wild adventure? Come on over to Alabama and we'll sit out on the patio and talk about this stuff over a couple of cold brews while two or three Boston butts are smoking on the grill. I get even more fired up when I'm relaxed. There's a frightening paradox for ya! LOL.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 18, 2009 11:36 AM

The STOP button is vitally important. Given that most organisations I visit tell me they are incredibly busy, just the simple idea that if there are only 24 hours in a day and they are going to add new strategies, something has to give.

Even though most clients understand the logic of this perfectly well, they still find the 'STOP' strategy very troublesome. If I offer them 'START', 'STOP' and 'MODIFY' inevitably very few things end up in the STOP pile.

Peter Cook

Posted by Peter Cook at June 18, 2009 12:32 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2yLMpGPU8A

Posted by Stop in the Name of Love at June 18, 2009 1:50 PM

IMO, this is all tied back to strategy, or the lack thereof. If the activities are adding value to the customer in a way the creates meaning, margin, and sustainable advantage, keep doing it. And if it doesn't, how and why did we allow it to become a time and resource draining activity in the first place?

I'll tell you why: most people's activities have not be connected in a meaningful way to real value delivered to the customer. It's complacent leadership and management pure and simple. And it's why most brands are seeing steady declines in their market value.

Posted by Tom Asacker at June 18, 2009 1:55 PM

The "stop Doing" plan is even more important in these hard economic times.

Managerial accounting is important in this instance. Find the operation that has a negative return and figure out how to change the operation or just get rid of it, which is what many companies are already doing.

Do the opposite of what your told. Follow the trend because now is the time to save money to keep your company afloat.

"Stop Doing" doesn’t only have to do with business. Look at people you spend time with or a habit you have. If they don't add value to your life or have negative effect on your life then write a plan on how to remove yourself from the person or habit.

Posted by Evan at June 18, 2009 3:16 PM

Evan, I would add that it's not applicable ONLY to operations with negative returns, although as you well stated, in the current economic climate, if you DO have such, that's a good priority item to address.

A lot of times, we do things in PROFITABLE operations that keep us from experiencing the real potential (in terms of profits and in terms of customer relationships -- both internal and external customers.) Are there four steps to the process of a customer placing an order where only one is needed? If so, we're wasting effort, money, and time. Are managers requiring front-line people to submit travel vouchers to them, only to have them needlessly change hands six times before getting signed and submitted to the accounting department? If so, why not just have them submitted to the person with the authority to approve them? Do we really even have to have them go through someone to be approved? Is it a trust issue? A control issue? A process left over from 30 years ago when every department was tracking its own expenses for internal use?

A lot of companies might be weathering this financial drought a lot better if they'd been less wasteful during the "good old days."

Yesterday's waste = the reserve you DON'T have to work with today.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 18, 2009 5:16 PM

Agree with these comments. Part of the problem is that however 'past their sell by date' STOP items become, they share some common characteristics:

They are much more familiar than the START items. Familiarity breeds comfort,

In many cases, people have built part / all of their careers around them,

Leadership is about building comfort and commitment to the unknown and the unknowable, plus helping people to put down the familiar things.

Peter

Posted by Peter Cook at June 19, 2009 2:59 AM

Stop! in the name of love.
Stop! pampering the front-line and fire their lazy backsides.
Stop! and fire those 1st who speak of "hope, transparency & bi-partisan".
Stop! the madness in our beloved UK and create new mega wealth/health/happiness from Labour's destruction.
:>)

Posted by UK Love at June 19, 2009 5:26 AM

The "UK Love Independence Party" has hoards of new members. Rumours abound in the chattering classes in England of total chaos in the scramble to join this radical new political Party whose manifesto is underpinned by the principle of retention of wealth. The party slogan SEEIA (Sod Everyone Else I’m Alright) is seen on all hoardings and on the back of London Buses! Old men, young men, old women, young women, look up to the platform hoping to catch the slightest glimpse of our esteemed and charismatic leader ‘UK Love’ ...

Britain expects!! :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 19, 2009 9:03 AM

Trevor, somebody goofed. The slogan -- along with lots of fine print detailing the party's platform, website URL, and application process, and UK Love's mugshot -- is supposed to be displayed on the FRONTS of the buses. The ones that move fastest, preferably.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 19, 2009 9:11 AM

Fronts of trains and the nose sections of jets work equally well, if not better.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 19, 2009 9:14 AM

Same stuff but from an artistic perspective. Here's some principles for reinvention from Bill Nelson, the leader of a successful rock group Be-Bop Deluxe who enjoyed fame in the US and UK. Bill rejected the trappings of fame long ago and has become less visible but still very influential on other artists such as David Bowie, Brian Eno et al. Bill is a great person and kindly allowed me to use these principles within my last book 'Sex, Leadership and Rock'n'Roll'

You will see that his principles No 6 and 9 pretty much equate to the STOP strategy. The others would probably not make the front cover of the HBR, expressed as they are in more arty language than business speak - perhaps they should! :-) Anyway, here they are as they stand:

1. Be afraid of neither the future nor the past but make a mark on the moment
2. Do not give in to the temptation to elicit favour
3. Resist the obvious but embrace it when it becomes perverse to do so
4. When gazing in the mirror, look for the artist rather than the guitarist
5. Build a bridge between melody and dissonance
6. Do not be afraid of the ‘off’ switch
7. Hang no hopes or importance on your actions
8. Act only when there are no alternatives to stasis
9. When no words appear, refuse to sing
10. Ignore all extraneous noise
11. Cease to seduce
12. Trust the muse, she always knows best

Peter

Posted by Peter Cook at June 19, 2009 11:04 AM

Peter, thanks for sharing this list. It's fabulous! Looks like rules 3 and 10 apply to this thread also, since they are about grabbing onto the obvious when you see the foolishness in not doing so, and ignoring the things that only interfere (respectively.)

I might want to steal these for future use. Just applying rule #3. ;-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 19, 2009 12:37 PM

"More is less."
"Up is the new down."
"Hard is the new soft ice cream."

Posted by UK Love at June 19, 2009 3:13 PM

Topped with nuts, as made possible by the "USUK Free Trade Agreement" recently hammered out by politicians on both sides of the pond.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 19, 2009 5:57 PM

LOL – love the acronym :- )

The real latest news over here is that dozens of our elected MP's now face criminal prosecution for fiddling their expenses. These politicians are from all 3 major parties. They really couldn’t make this stuff up. If it wasn’t so serious it would be funny. Only last week our illustrious (?) Prime Minister told the country and the world how he was going to be ‘more open and transparent.’ Now just 7 days later he announced the Iraq War inquiry is not going to be held in public but instead behind closed doors. Everyone (including all the Military leaders and experts) in the UK are crying out for a public inquiry – not least the families of the almost 200 UK military personnel killed in Iraq.

Is there any wonder we have no faith in politicians?

I hope the US makes the most of your new leader who as far as I can see provides hope. All hope is rapidly disappearing over here when it comes to any politicians. Please wake me up when this is over Dan.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 19, 2009 6:12 PM

Wake you up when it's over? More like we should leave word for our great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren to exhume our corpses when it's over. I see little hope of political corruption and abuse of power vanishing in our lifetimes. Far too many of them dedicated to elevating the art form to unprecedented levels from what I see.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 19, 2009 6:38 PM

At 2.00 am Saturday morning its time I went to bed. Dan I’m an eternal optimist but the one thing I can raise no optimism about is the future political leadership here in the UK. We have:

• Labour Party Leader and Prime Minister Gordon Brown – just look at the evidence

• Conservative Party Leader David Cameron - tells the world recently how he will discipline any Tory MP found guilty of abuse of expenses – now Cameron has to pay back £940 he claimed wrongly

• Nick Clegg - Liberal Democrat Party Leader – Has said nothing worthy of the word ‘leadership’ since he was elected two years ago. Frankly he is hardly recognised in his own house

I rest my case.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 19, 2009 7:02 PM

Clearly, taking care of the environment in its amplest meaning, as well as the geology and the biosphere, if possible.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at June 19, 2009 8:33 PM

Hi Dan,

Oh, I'm glad that Bill Nelson's 'artistic ramblings' work well as a 'stand alone' item without translation. I'd thought it might be just me that saw their transferability in their current form.

Bill is extremely focused (rule 10), perhaps to the extent of missing opportunities and I think companies must have a manic focus on what they are good at, BUT ALSO the ability to see and seize new opportunities. As an artist with a niche, Bill is able just to have the focus bit.

Peter

Posted by Peter Cook at June 20, 2009 1:38 AM

Trevor,

Re the state of our leaders, I am reminded of the title of a book I once read:

"The situation is hopeless, but not serious"

or perhaps Michael Stipe's pithy summary of the problem via REM's classic:

"It's the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine)"

:-()()(

Peter

Posted by Peter Cook at June 20, 2009 1:41 AM

Peter - Brilliant thanks. I love graffiti. I saw this the other day: "Politicians, like underwear, should be changed often, and for the same reasons"

Have a good Saturday :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 20, 2009 3:56 AM

I am the best politician and public servant that money can buy - and if the front line does NOT like it just wait 'til I cut off their pub privileges - then they shall know the power of the Love I truly have for their sniveling lazy backsides. Comments of PRAISE/cash may be sent to my homes in Monaco and/or Zurich. :>)

Posted by UK Love at June 20, 2009 6:08 AM

UK Love - Oh humble one - your modesty, humility and charm is only exceeded by your good looks :-)

Happy weekend!

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 20, 2009 6:12 AM

Trevor,

Does that explain why you have pictures of UK Love hanging all over your house? I thought you were just gathering those to make campaign posters.

Peter,

One of the things I learned from my own studies and experiences is that in order to gain a deeper, broader, and more functional understanding of what business and work are all about, one of the best things you can do is look at it from a non-business or non-work perspective. Shades of the team that was gathered to make the Apple Macintosh computer. At the time they put that team together, the common mindset among venture capitalists, what have you, was probably "These guys have no clue how to run a business." Today, that mindset is still far too prevalent, but at least it has been tried successfully in enough little enclaves of genius and productivity that maybe a few VC's and bankers are starting to lean back in their chairs and say "Hmmm... I think I've seen something like this before. This could be JUST the right mix for a hell of an upstart startup. Why not? I'm in."

Although some might see Bill Nelson's (or similar) thoughts as totally unrelated, when you realize that they are really rooted in some principles of life and interacting with people, you start to see the connection. Our lives, our businesses, our work... they are ALL about people. Get to know yourself better, develop self-leadership, and your odds of success in any of life's endeavors increase exponentially.

You're definitely no alone in seeing the applicability of Nelson's thoughts.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 20, 2009 8:23 AM

In 1970 Robert Townsend published 'Up the Organization- How to stop the Corporation from Stifling People and Strangling Profits'

From the chapter headed Killing Things, V P in charge of-

"General Foods, the AFL-CIO, the Bureau of the Budget, and the Ford Foundation should make it a practice to wipe out their worst product, service or activity every so often. And I don't mean cutting it back or remodeling it- I mean right between the eyes."

Great ideas are timeless.

Posted by Lois Gory at June 20, 2009 11:40 AM

Lois, if nothing else, it might be good practice for them, ey? Practice at something they seem to have little (if any) skills in.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 20, 2009 12:50 PM

Hi Dan,

Thanks for your encouragement. Whilst I see no barrier / boundary between arts and business others do erect them from time to time.

Peter

Posted by Peter Cook at June 21, 2009 6:31 AM

Peter, conceptually speaking, there should be no boundaries between the two. But as you say, others do erect them. Far too often. That is possibly one of the largest hindrances to achieving maximum potential and greatness for many businesses and even individuals. I don't mean to sound cheesy, but when we ignore the potential beauty and creativity that can serve to take business and life to a higher level, we should not turn around and wonder where the passion and love for what it is we're doing went. There is a virtuous cycle that we can and should draw upon. Whether it's the work, or our personal lives, the principle holds true.

If I didn't choose to love my wife (verb form of "love") and didn't take the time to think about what it is that what makes her so special and that leads me to want to spend the rest of my life with her (the "beauty" part of her and our relationship) I would most likely become complacent (if not downright uncaring,) which would in turn make it less beautiful... the circle goes round.

I use this analogy because the same thinking applies. If we don't seek out the artistic, creative side of the work (the beauty) and appreciate it for its potential AND its connection to the bottom-line (however hard that can be to uncover at times) then we are robbing ourselves and our organizations of a lot of potential. Failure in this area is a "vicious" cycle just as sure as we live and breathe. cheapest viagra online without prescription

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 21, 2009 11:11 AM

Dan,

You are preaching to the converted here! :-))

Very best

Peter

Posted by Peter Cook at June 21, 2009 11:34 AM

Peter, pretty much knew that already ;-) But maybe -- just maybe -- someone else perusing the comments will take it to heart and find reason to ask themselves "Am I robbing myself or my organization of something by falsely convincing myself there is no connection between art, beauty, creativity, and business?"

Best to you, my friend, and all who meet up here.

Dan

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 21, 2009 12:23 PM

“Whilst I see no barrier / boundary between arts and business others do erect them from time to time.”

Peter – anyone who erects such pointless barriers must do so out of elitism/ protectionism. There can be no other logical reason.

We can all learn from each other and in my experience I learn as much – if not more – from opposites. Anyone with an IQ above freezing point can see business can learn so much from the arts about sustained excellence over time; focus; hard work’ the importance of practice; customer (audience) satisfaction; and of course creativity and innovation.

I, needless to say would say The Eagles personify all these qualities …. Sorry …Just had to get a plug in for the boys :-)

With people like you and John O’Leary writing books to nudge business toward rock and roll ... who knows ... one day we might see Chief Executives chill out a little, lighten up a bit and start thinking about how they can delight their ‘fans’ through the sheer creativity of their company! … Maybe we will even see a few wrecking the odd Boardroom here and there :- )

Keep rocking Sir!

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 21, 2009 3:03 PM

I tell myself -- regarding bein and acting thoroughly ENVIRIONMENTAL -- the human race must reduce the rate of growth increase of the already super-population. We fisrt need to conquer one astrophysical "element" (planet or the Moon) to be able to extend life on to one of those.

There are many phenoma taking place. I will cite two easy one. Many people considers dolphins the Angels of The Seas and a good friend to people. There has been registered cases in which they proppeled themselves (as a torpedeos) and leave a person without life after having impacted his / her abdomen area.

In the second case, "harvested bees" -- in many places in the world -- are not returning to their "domesticated" farms.

Any person "transfers" a great deal of toxicity and toxin to the flulial current underground. Wherever he / she lives? That goes to the sea and the biosphere. Evil coral reef goes wild (killing marine wildlife), compromising the life of every specie on the Face of Earth.

How could I be and act as an environmentalists if I do nothing about the complex problem of super-poluation? I question to my own thought!

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at June 21, 2009 4:45 PM

Great question Andres. I am not an active environmentalist but I share your anxiety. As long as money remains the new religion in western society I fear we will continue to disrespect our environment; just as we continue to do far too little to alleviate world poverty; and re-distribute wealth on our one planet. It seems to me we have forgotten we only have this planet on loan for future generations. I sometimes wonder how we will be remembered.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 21, 2009 5:07 PM

Trevor and Dan,

I agree that the artificial barriers between art and 'science' need to constantly be challenged. Many scientists (managers) are romantics at heart - which explains the sales of Harry Potter to business executives! :-) I recall that Tom himself was hanging on a cliff wondering whether J.K. Rowling would kill Harry!

On the subject of elitisim and protectionism, I'd add that it is not all logic. Many people's denial of change is emotional / irrational and that explains why the STOP strategy does not always work - logically everyone agrees to stop certain things, but to misquote the Troggs, people find that 'They Can't Control Themselves' and go back to what they were doing.

Creativity in the boardroom (that's an Eagles album title! NOT :-)) has taken a bit of a knock of late with everyone walking around trying to look rather serious in the recession. It is however vital in terms of gaining sustainable advantage and smart leaders understand this.

Re books on the music / business theme, there is a small amount of this in the book 'Group Genius' by Prof Keith Sawyer of Washington State Uni. Keith is a visiting prof at Cambridge and has arranged to meet me later this year when he comes over for a dialogue / jam session.

Peter

Posted by Peter Cook at June 23, 2009 4:13 AM

Peter,

As I see it, younger executives and entrepreneurs have an advantage in some of these areas: the lower the number of years a person has been indoctrinated in older styles of business management and "the way we've always done it at XYZ Corp.," the more willing they are to say "Well, why won't this new idea work?" Since they are fairly new at the game of business and leadership, they are still in more of a learning and experimentation mode. It's all relatively new to them, so they're more accustomed to the idea of "Try something and if it doesn't work, call it a failed experiment and move on to something else."

Next, you have a group that's sort of the middle of the bell curve in terms of experience and age. These are the ones that hit on an experiment and style that worked. So they became comfortable with it and they decided "THIS is THE way." Unfortunately, times change. Markets and consumers change. But these leaders have gotten stuck in a rut. They are determined to keep doing the same things, thinking "It's the economy; it's the staff we have right now; customers are fickle; there's no loyalty anymore." They simply don't WANT to change, or even adjust.

Finally, we have the far end of the bell curve. This group is seasoned veterans. But they're more seasoned than the middle group in that they've learned lessons and developed skills such as introspection and self-evaluation. They have learned that things like ambiguity and vulnerability can be assets provided you acknowledge and embrace them. They have truly matured in their leadership to the point that they realize it's not ONE leadership or management style (and certainly not just one person) that has helped the company weather the times and grow. These are also THE best mentors: the ones willing to say to a new, younger manager or leader "I am here to help and encourage you, but there are a lot of things I can't 'teach' you because you have to try a lot of things and fail even more in order to grow."

To review this "bell curve" notion, there are basically three groups:

the real viagra for sale

Far left: Young, green, willing and eager to experiment, fail, and adjust. Haven't quite figured out what "The status quo" consists of (thankfully.)

Middle: Comfortable, blinded by a taste of success. Self-appointed keepers of the status quo.

Far right: Wise enough not to take themselves too seriously. The ones who realize that there IS NO status quo.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 23, 2009 5:37 AM

Peter - "Creativity in the Boardroom" - I love that - what a great BOOK title – unless of The Eagles do snatch it as a new album title! BTW - 14 days and counting to The Eagles at the NIA Birmingham - can't wait! 38 years at the top (with a 14 year break that Glen Frey famously called 'a long vacation') and still selling out concerts on every tour. On this current UK leg of the “Long Road Out of Eden” world tour The Eagles have agreed to fit in one additional date because of excessive ticket demand. Not bad for a bunch of four 60/61 year olds I'd say ... and real practical evidence of SUSTAINED EXCELLENCE. Business can indeed learn from rock bands.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 23, 2009 4:50 PM

Dan.. This article is very well written..I have learnt something new today.

Posted by Freshers Jobs at June 24, 2009 1:45 AM

Dan - Like the Bell curve idea and Trevor - Murder in the Boardroom could be an even better title for an album.

p.s. I've just been told that I have been given a free place at a conference tomorrow (THURS) that I can't use. If anyone lives in reach of North London, you are most welcome to the ticket (Full Price of conference is £895, so not a bad freebie). you have to get yourself there etc. and let me know in advance so that I don't double book - my e-mail is peter@humdyn.co.uk

Conference details at http://www.informatology.com/forum/informatology-learning-conference-2009.pdf

A bit of a long shot at this late notice, but it would be waste to let the space go unclaimed, so if you know of anyone that would appreciate this.

BTW, 'STOP in the name of Due Diligence' will never be a hit for the Supremes! :-)

Posted by Peter Cook at June 24, 2009 12:44 PM

Peter, one of those crazy epiphanies. As much as Tom dislikes things slides with graphs, I doubt we'll ever see it in any of his presentations. LOL. But I have created a flash video to explain it in detail. I cherish visual thinking.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 24, 2009 4:01 PM

Where is the flash video?

p

Posted by Peter Cook at June 25, 2009 7:43 PM

Peter, I hope to have it on the website later tonight. Polishing up a couple of things. It will still be an early "draft" so to speak. But watch this thread and I'll post a link to it. By tomorrow morning at the latest.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 25, 2009 8:39 PM

Peter, here's a link to the video version of the Anti-Innovation Bell Curve video. I went ahead and uploaded it to our YouTube page to avoid compatibility/playability issues. I will be doing a narration track for it soon. But this will give you an idea of where my thinking is going on this.

You can watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr9svcK1h-c&feature=channel_page

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 25, 2009 10:30 PM