Comments

Mr Peters,
I really respect you and appreciate your work. I read your blog every day, i even mentioned it in blogroll on my blog.
But today i have to ask myself (and you) what's with these words concerning Mr Welch. He proved over the years he is capable and open-minded.
Thank you,

Vlad - Romania

Posted by Vlad Maior at June 24, 2009 4:15 PM

I'm uncomfortable with the implication that anything Jack Welch says that contradicts how he behaved years ago in a different climate is fatally compromised.

OK, so he was big on shareholder value and used to boast about the long, long run of earnings growth under his stewardship. But the fact the man has been there, done it, got the t-shirt and now, after a period of reflection, has the balls to say "I wuz wrong" gives him more credibility in my book. One thing about Welch's management style was that there was no complacency and a constant drive to change, improve and move on. The fact that he's able to do this on the bigger picture issues is great.

(Tom - you turned your back on excellence for a while and came back to it. Why can't Jack also change?)

Posted by Mark JF at June 24, 2009 4:21 PM

Well, Tom, give them credit for one thing: they've got a damn good track record for reinforcing the theory that business schools can't teach agility or adaptability for one reason: you can't effectively teach what you can't comprehend.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 24, 2009 4:46 PM

Tom, I am floored that you would make this comment about Jack. Surely you have a nuanced enough understanding of his career and thinking to understand that there was nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about what he said concerning shareholder value. Just a stunning remark.
Suzy

Posted by Suzy Welch at June 24, 2009 6:24 PM

The new "Trevor-MBA-School" (mail order) maxims: 1. Greed is good - 2. ALL the money to "Trevor" - 3. Did we mention "greed is good?" :>)

Posted by UK Love at June 24, 2009 6:39 PM

Thanks Suzy Welch - I agree 100%.

Posted by UK Love at June 24, 2009 6:44 PM

Suzy - What about the rest of us? I have read Mr. Welch's books and have learned from him. For this, I am grateful. But I must say that watching him on television during this whole financial crises I have also wondered about seemingly inconsistent and hypocritical statements, though not directly related to the astute comments written of in this post.

It was Mr. Welch, if I'm not mistaken, who delved into shadow banking which, increased shareholder value, only to have it plummet after such disingenuous innovative instruments that seemed hypocritical from the start-- a perfectly designed storm it all seem to be for short-term value, the value of the CEOs, et al.

Now, I completely and utterly acknowledge that I am no financial expert like yourself, Jack Welch and Tom Peters, but I'd be damned if nuiasance have helped anyone. Nuisance is partially the reason that we are in this big financial mess right now. Nuisance be damned. And, you will forgive...please.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 24, 2009 6:51 PM

"The new dean is a white-male-economist. Dear God-oh-God-oh-God-oh-God, why why why why why why another economist? Solaner, the latest poster child for non-diversity ..."

Perfect racist & sexist rant TP as usual. A French, Swedish, Greek & Italian Caucasian male heritage is "white-male" per the US government & liberal regressives. Slip Spanish in there though or Brazilian - & suddenly "Latin" makes that person/heritage soooooo diverse - we must elevate them as so "wise" ... like a self-proclaimed "wise Latina".

Love it the way some social liberals seem to self hate their Caucasian heritage - masochistic - the problem is they are sadistic too and are eager to pass over & down grade the wonderful Caucasian male experience. :>)

Posted by UK Love at June 24, 2009 7:06 PM

Ellis - "Nuanced" is the word - not "nuisance". TP is branded in some circles as "fake the data" but that is nuance that may never be resolved.

"Now, I completely and utterly acknowledge that I am no financial expert like yourself, Jack Welch ... "

That is easy to discern. Is the new JE being brand "nuisance"? :>)

Posted by UK Love at June 24, 2009 7:16 PM

Thanks, UK Love. Would you now like that same word in four different languages and in similar contexts with paragraphs and all? I can produce such should you now desire to be taught. How many languages do you speak, "wonderful Caucasian male?"

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 24, 2009 7:34 PM

I've been following the MBA Oath initiative and written about it several times over at my blog at www.withoutwarningcoach.com. Here is what I stated earlier today,

Your journey has just begun. This is the real world. As you well know, change is hard, and this initiative is no different. What you’ve envisioned seems plausible. The early responders have given your efforts credibilty and the encouragement to move forward. The naysayers hava also lined up. To have a vision simply is not enough. What lies in front of you is 100X more difficult than any class you’ve taken. This is the real world. I’m certain that you learned about the book Crossing the Chasm by Geoffry Moore. I’m concerned that you’re quickly approaching the chasm and wondering if you can make to the other side. If you don’t, your efforts will be remembered, but mostly forgotten. If you succeed, the roles each of you will play in the business community will be huge. Good luck.

Rodney Johnson

For the remainder of this article including recommendations to pursue proceed to my blog.

Posted by Rodney Johnson at June 24, 2009 8:54 PM

To my recollection, the only person that took a bullet for this financial mess was Jim Cramer and he didn't cause it, he just yucked it up from the sidelines. I mean, who would man-up and take responsibility for trillions in losses? Anyone in DC? Hah! Fat chance. They all still have their jobs (except for Bush.)

As for b-school economists: in Las Vegas, isn't an economist called a 'pit boss'?

What is the difference between a Wall Street Economist and a fortune teller with a crystal ball? Location, location, location.

As Tom would say, "If you aren't ready to fail, you aren't ready..." (with a little twist from Randy)

Rim shot, please.

Posted by RandySpangler at June 24, 2009 11:21 PM

Perhaps Tom was a bit blunt in his comments concerning Jack Welch, but heh, he's Tom! The point is still well taken. I see Jack and others of his time like major leaguers who have made a helluva contribution and belong in the hall of fame...but it is time to retire. I am somewhat skeptical about any leader that has had a hand in shaping our current economy. Jack produced some gems, but also some real turds. Immelt yes, but so far Nardelli is 0 for 2..Home Depot and Chrysler. Let's pay Jack his due, but I think we should start focusing on the young leaders out there who have a natural inclination to reject the "wisdom" of the past. Time to move on.

Posted by mike Neiss at June 25, 2009 7:31 AM

"Tom - you turned your back on excellence for a while and came back to it. Why can't Jack also change?"

This question may not be comparable or suitable, as there is a difference between being so pigeonholed to the point of wanting to get out from under a thing, even a good thing, and that which have assisted in bringing systems to their near breaking point. But admission and change are laudable indeed.

It is obvious in all the books that I have read and the video clips that I have seen that TP’s message of Excellence has not changed. It permeates everything, as it is a way of being. Excellence has and is the core of TP's message. He probably couldn’t get away from it, even if he tried--obviously.

For clarification, please know that by my pigeonhole statement above, I do not claim any such upfront knowledge. It's a pure assumption on my part based on human nature, as his message Excellence is very much active and nothing about it has caused harm, such as the kind that we are witnessing today.

Excellence itself is forever changing, forever adaptable. At the heart of it is love, beyond self-love, which often has basis in greed, toward servant leadership, people, innovation, accountability and responsibility. While business is about profit, how that profit is made is what makes the difference. We need Excellence now more than ever.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 25, 2009 7:42 AM

BRAVISSIMO, MIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 25, 2009 7:43 AM

I WANNA BE LIKE MIKE!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 25, 2009 7:47 AM

Suzy, I understand your point. The real fact is--and you'll have to consult my shrink on this-- that every morning, afternoon and evening I beat myself up about what I might have done differently, and how I sat on my ass for a decade without folowing my instincts.. I am not so arrogant as to believe it would have mattered. But there this incipient mess was, screaming at me, and a lot of stuff felt wrong, including our obsession with shareholder value. (You and Jack and I were and are pals with Bob Nardelli. I love the guy, but the Home Depot compensation fiasco was not Bob's finest hour--and I sat by quietly because I loved the old bulldog, and rather laughed off the excess.)

So I "Greenspanned it," bought into the excesses of capitalism as a necessary part of growth. Etc. Etc. And so I am pissed off at most everybody, including Jack, and, I suppose you in your HBR life. A lot of good was done by Jack and others--and an unnecessary mess was made along the way. So, Suzy, I'm pissed at Jack, at you, at myself, at Gary Hamel and Michael Porter and Warren Buffett and you name it. The only person I can think of I'm not pissed off at is the late Peter Drucker. He was by nature appalled by excess of any sort.

He died too soon. He would clearly have taken all of us to the woodshed.

(Actually, there's one other person I'm not pissed off at. Susan. She would come home from her Mom's in New Canaan, where megamansions built by 32-year-old-Lehmanites were descecrating the landscape, and say to me, "Something is out of whack." And in fuul condesension I'd say, "You just don't 'get' capitalism. Sure it's on the excessive side, but that's the nature of things--it's all for the longterm good.".)

Posted by tom peters at June 25, 2009 8:43 AM

"So, Suzy, I'm pissed at Jack, at you, at myself, at Gary Hamel and Michael Porter and Warren Buffett and you name it. The only person I can think of I'm not pissed off at is the late Peter Drucker. He was by nature appalled by excess of any sort."

This is a beautiful statement. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 25, 2009 8:47 AM

FYI, I never turned my back on Excellence for a nanosecond. I got sick and tired of working my ass of and having nobody remember anything except the first book. (We should all be so lucky as to have a success like that--Im being a spoiled brat.) So I left Excellence per se out of the mix and attempted to move on; but "reject it"? Not in a million years.

Posted by tom peters at June 25, 2009 8:49 AM

In fact, the whole statement is pure beauty.

Thank you! Thank you!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 25, 2009 8:49 AM

To have those as Tom Peters honestly make such a statement and work within their area for restoration is the ONLY WAY we will learn from our mistakes. This will only come through personal and collective examination followed by actions and adjustments.

Thank you, Thank you, Tom Peters, for your great example!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 25, 2009 9:05 AM

TP - I dont want to interrupt the flow, but I have not spent much time with In Search of Excellence. Where I have kept 3M afloat with much use of post-it are The Circle of Innovation, Thriving on Chaos, The Pursuit of Wow, and Re-Imagine and A Passion for Excellence.

I find them much more enlightening and pertinent than In Search of Excellence, which I view as a beginning to greater insight for me, defined as getting into my head with the latter writings.

Posted by Stephen Garner at June 25, 2009 10:13 AM

I am one of those who reacted to Mr. Welch's comment about the primacy of shareholder value as a repudiation of a critical aspect of his term as CEO of GE.

Frankly, I do not see how there has not been a change. I do not see it as two sides of the same coin; I see it as complimentary colors on the color wheel - diametrically opposite.

Posted by Stephen Garner at June 25, 2009 10:36 AM

Regarding the HBS voluntary oath...

If I was lucky enough to be there, I would not take the oath. From my perspective it devalues what it claims to reinforce. I see it as too much public theatre. I prefer in-the-gut private values against tremendous pressure otherwise.

My opinion is that the B-schools need to get people that do not need an oath.

Admit people who have done the right thing and have been damaged by doing so, to the extent that they do not have the credentials to get in.

I also see it in a context of business that speaks highly of integrity but when push comes to shove, does not value it.

The primary example I like to use is Cynthia Cooper, the internal auditor of WorldCom and one of Time's Persons of the Year.

If companies valued integrity, Ms. Cooper and her team would have been flooded with calls from corporate recruiters. Referring to Chirp #17, she and her team clearly demonstrated value of their employment. Any public company that truly values integrity would have paid top dollar for such a team.

But it did not happen...

Perhaps Whistleblower: Broken Lives and Organizational Power by C. Fred Alford also supports this criticism.

Posted by Stephen Garner at June 25, 2009 11:03 AM

Stephen...I really suggest you check out Liberation Management. My personal fav and I think you will find it to be foundational tom stuff..

Posted by mike Neiss at June 25, 2009 1:07 PM

Liberation Management was left out by my failure to ensure Excellence!

I agree.

Posted by Stephen Garner at June 25, 2009 2:58 PM

Tom - I didn't make my "turned your back" comment as well as I could have so I stand corrected on that point. I would point out I never suggetsed you rejected it, though.

However, my main point is this. JW is branded as "a self-anointed laughingstock" for taking a position now that's opposite to what he actually did x years ago; you do the same thing and the principle doesn't apply. (For example, you admit to laughing off Bob Nardelli's foul up back then and now cite it as an example of what's wrong.) Why are some folks not allowed to move on from the past when they could be providing us with some of the most illuminating insights?

Posted by Mark JF at June 25, 2009 3:28 PM

Stephen, I wanted to stand up and shout "Hell, Yes!!!" at your comment above about oaths. Oaths do NOT instill character. They are like advertising promises: 99.9% sales pitch, only to have the customer find out later it was a lie.

Character. That's what we need. Good, old fashioned, honesty, concern for other people, and the ability to say "I don't know" when it's the case.

B-school oaths remind me of a brand of hot dogs we'd always bought because we loved them. Then one day, I went to buy some and the package was noticeably different. "New and improved" it read. When we cooked them, they were the toughest, nastiest excuses for franks we'd ever tasted. All our friends that tried them said the same thing.

I am not saying all b-school students are liars or bad. What I AM saying is the oath is a joke. It doesn't prove or determine anything. Just as it hasn't for doctors, either.

You can have them recite an oath in b-school, but that will by no means make future b-school grads "new and improved." It just gives some of them the chance to lie "on the record" sooner.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 25, 2009 5:59 PM

Tom, I understand your feelings, guess you feel dissapointed for "extreme capitalism", but I´ve seen the other side of it, I´m from Nicaragua, and I can asure you without any doubt, Capitalism is the best. Including this crisis, this crisis is just helping everyone remember that the most important things are honesty, serving others, LOVE, but also remember FORGIVENESS!!!.
You are one that I look up to very much, but I´ve read also Mr. Welch, and it seems to me as someone very clear on Important Values, please don´t be so tough.
Bless you,

Posted by Berta Serrano at June 25, 2009 9:40 PM

If I am wrong on this and I hope that I am wrong, but regarding Jack Welch's comments on pursuing shareholder value, in a short-term feeding long term goals manner...

I saw the video where Mr. Welch (on CNBC?) made his comments deriding chasing shareholder value.

I get the distinct impression that Mr. Welch does not feel that he has changed his opinion in any meaningful way and that he did not chase short term shareholder value during his time as GE's CEO.

From my limited field of view, it does appear that GE did exactly that during his tenure as CEO.

It appears to me that Mr. and Mrs. Welch feel that Mr. Welch did not chase shareholder value in this manner during his time at GE and that his recent comments do not reflect any type of change and is very much in line with his time as GE's CEO.

I would like to hear how I might be wrong.

Posted by Stephen Garner at June 26, 2009 8:16 AM

Crikey, Dan et al, of course an oath of itself doesn't change the world, any more than a constant mantra of Excellence Always automatically results in excellence always. It has to be acted on, and most probably those who will act upon it would have been inclined to do so anyway. But if this oath encourages MBAs to verbalise good intentions, to nurture positive peer pressure, to see other definitions of excellence than personal gain, then what's not to like? Articulating common purpose is never a bad thing in my book. It's easy to say too little, too late, too facile, but at least it's something. If it's still working in twenty years' time we may just have been looking at a truly significant event.

Posted by RobCH at June 26, 2009 9:16 AM

RobCH, I agree that the "peer pressure" effect would be quite worth all the effort if it actually yields fruit. However, my experience with human beings and professionals as a whole makes me feel like a hopeful cynic, you might say. Doctors take an oath, yet they stray from that oath all too regularly. Moreover, there are books and books of laws and regulations put into place by the government, accrediting and licensing agencies, standards published by professional associations, yada yada yada, and it's often questionable as to whether any of it really makes a difference. I do hope your hopes (and mine) are fulfilled and over time we see these oaths contribute to improvements -- "contribute" being a key word, here.

If these oaths are accompanied by genuine efforts to ramp up the teaching of ethics AND by new crops of b-school students that are speaking them with conviction (that remains lifelong conviction) then surely we will see positive change. On the other hand, if these oaths are little more than the b-schools way of trying to improve the public's perception of what they do and the students that go through their programs, then I'd kindly recommend they stop reading Adam Smith, et al for a little while and dive into Steve Yastrow's and Tom Asacker's newest pubs. It would also bode well for them to start engaging more deeply in seriously critiquing the performance of some of the business leaders that are going so badly astray. In other words, engage in the conversation (try being one of us -- the public) and be honestly critical, even if the evidence seems a bit self-incriminating. Don't "Plea the Fifth" or merely hang around backstage. As they say, you're either part of the problem, or you're part of the solution. I for one would like to see more than just oaths as evidence that they are trying hard to be part of the solution.

I guess I am wondering: "How will they react when students go on to violate these oaths?"

But yes, RobCH, it is at least a start. And their next step forward will be...?

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 26, 2009 10:29 AM

Dan, I think that quite justifiably we all get a bit cynical after looking at how people routinely trash both the letter and spirit of oaths, credos, constitutions, bills of rights and other well-intentioned articles. It seems to me that no sooner is something down on paper than a lawyer is looking for a loophole. So I don't pin much hope on this. But at least, if not part of the solution, it may signal recognition of the problem, which is something.

Posted by RobCH at June 26, 2009 11:52 AM

RobCH, awareness is most definitely one of the stones in the foundation of change. I guess we should take heart that the b-schools appear to be adding another couple of stones upon that one, those being public acknowledgment that there is a problem, and instituting these oaths. They should be credited for at least trying to build, instead of tearing down.

Let's hope that another critical stone is present to support these: sincerity of intention (maybe that's really two.) If that isn't present, then it will all become another pile of rubble.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 26, 2009 12:44 PM

I just think there is a huge difference between creating shareholder value and maximizing short term returns. I have no problem as a shareholder with the companies I invest with trying to build a sustained record of excellence, with corresponding return for my investment. I do have a problem with companies trying to increase margin and make short term profits, that from an investment standpoint, makes them significantly less strong in the future.

Posted by mike Neiss at June 26, 2009 5:27 PM

"Why are some folks not allowed to move on from the past when they could be providing us with some of the most illuminating insights?"

Mark JF’s statement is a bit strange. Why would anyone be inhibited from receiving "illuminating insights" based on the opinion of another, guru or not? If one desires to hold another in esteem, what others say should not matter, eh? Mark's comments above seem to disavow the opinion of another, even if that opinion also admittedly includes mistakes of the one who holds the opinion. There is no holier than thou aspect in the opinion that Mark seeks to expose. There is simply no hypocrisy in the post or the comments above. And it's an opinion after all--accept it or not.

What I most appreciate is the openness and honesty of the entire post and comments. We are often so touchy about "important" people based on our own self-interest. But it is a great value to speak forthrightly and openly. Perhaps if many would have done so earlier about a host of issues instead of being concerned as MSNBC and CNBC were at the beginning of this crisis when Mr. Welch was often a guest, perhaps because of GE's far-reaching tentacles, maybe we would not be in this big mess right now. Anti-trust laws were important for a reason.

Scarborough was consistently a serious suck up whenever Mr. Welch appeared on his show. (Mica's dad, Dr. Brzezinski, by the way, ate his lunch and dinner too when he appeared there.) I have some deep concerns about such companies as GE with such large diversified holdings from production to finance to healthcare to media. Who do these guys answer to outside of the board which in such large conglomerates do not seem to have a real role save to shake their heads in agreement or turn it the other way? The boards do not seem to be active as it should. I guess shareholders were also negatively impacted considering that GE seems to have sought after short term value through GE Capital over long-term investment. Berkshire Hathaway seems to have been devalued for the same reason.

GE stock seems to be rebounding now, perhaps after being bolstered by bailout funds via GE Capital (Saw Immelt on Charlie Rose last night and he seems like a smart affable guy.) GE Capital seems to have brought its stock down. By the way, how much is GE actually producing these days? How can GE Capital bring it down so?

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 26, 2009 6:07 PM

Now, it should be obvious why I want to be like Mike: short and sweet. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 26, 2009 6:09 PM

My exact thoughts!!! B-schools should be ashamed of themselves. Way to go Tom!!!

Posted by Mike Wadley at June 27, 2009 12:33 AM

Regarding oaths: Dan Ariely in "Predictably Irrational" shows how effective oaths can be in shaping a person's actions... subconciously. But, an oath has a short shelf life. Perhaps that is the reason that just about every religion requires weekly meetings, prayer before meals and some even REQUIRE direct communications 5 times per day.

Point being that oaths do work, but their edict needs to be constantly moved from the back of the mind to the front of the mind to be really effective.

Very few people cast off the religion they were born with and grew up with. Yes, they may abandon the religion, but the moral imprinting has occurred. Perhaps, kindergarten and pre-school is where the oaths of business morals should be inculcated... not in B-school at age 22. Then, it would be reinforcement, not retraining.

Posted by RandySpangler at June 27, 2009 8:53 AM

Randy, Excellent points. Another example is how many people treat marriage vows. When they first get married, a lot of people are really big on doing the things that the vows mention. Then, over time, those spoken words become more and more just a distant memory. True, underlying character starts to dictate behavior more than conscious awareness of the promises made. When reminded of their vows later (by the spouse, a counselor, friend, etc.) people start to rationalize as a self-defense mechanism for the psyche.

Why would anyone expect b-school oaths to be any different, given that underlying character drives behavior more than verbal or written promises, agreements, contracts, etc.? More attention on exemplifying the behaviors for the students, reinforcing the positive aspects of their character, and instilling and reinforcing basic, core values would likely accomplish much more than oaths. The oaths are okay, but I contend staunchly that it's the underlying character (which can be shaped or at least influenced either positively or negatively, even by b-schools) that determines how a person will conduct themselves in various situations -- present and future -- and that it is NOT the oath that will do the trick.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 27, 2009 9:27 AM

Doctors at one time took the Hippocratic Oath but nowadays my understanding is that doctors are required to act within the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath but no longer have to recite it as part of their qualification to practice as a physician.

Political correctness and ‘modernisation’ has done away with the actual recital ceremonial of perhaps the best known Oath.

Feels to me like ‘saying something’ is good surface dressing and image creation. It’s in the hearts; the bloodstream; and most importantly the ACTIONS of leaders in business that we see whether they are acting ethically and in accordance with a set of words.

An Oath that’s taught and learned in a business school classroom is a good academic concept I guess but it’s only as good as the ethical actions taken by graduates who have recited it when they leave the classroom and join the real world of work as managers and leaders. How refreshing it would be to see a business oath that did not contain the words 'money' or 'profit.'

I know ..... Keep on dreaming Trevor :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 27, 2009 3:10 PM

Jack Immelt spoke before the Detroit Economic Club yesterday. Here is some of what he said:

"Many bought into the idea that America could go from a technology-based, export-oriented powerhouse to a services-led, consumption-based economy — and somehow still expect to prosper. That idea was flat wrong."

NO KIDDING!!!!!!!!!! I LIKE THIS GUY!!! (HOPE HE'S NOT HERE IN DETROIT MERELY PREACHING TO THE CHOIR!)

"Recently my colleague Peter Loescher, the CEO of Siemens, extolled the importance of Germany as an exporting country. In my career, I have never heard an American CEO say that the United States should be leading in exports. Well, I am saying it today: This country ought to be, and we can be, not just the world’s leading market but a leading exporter as well. GE plans to lead this effort. We have restructured during the downturn, adjusting to the market realities. At the same time, we are increasing our investments. We plan to launch more new products during this downturn than at any time in our history. We will sell these products in every corner of the world. We are creating a better company coming out of this reset. Similarly, America needs a dramatic industrial renewal. We have to move forward on five fronts."

UH....YEAH!

First: Increase investment in research and development. "GE has never forgotten the importance of R&D. Each year, we put six percent of our industrial revenue back into technology — so much that more than half of the products we sell today didn’t even exist a decade ago. As a consequence, we are a huge exporter… GE’s R&D budget has not been cut. And that’s a course of action I’d recommend to every company that wants to get through the economic crisis even stronger than before."

YES!

Second: America should get busy addressing the two biggest global challenges — clean energy and affordable health care. "There is no question whether there will be breakthroughs in these areas — just by who and when. The leader in these fields will dominate the global economy in the decades that come."

WE SEEMED NOT TO HAVE CARED MUCH ABOUT THE FUTURE, BY SIMPLY NOT ADEQUATELY PREPARING FOR IT.

Third: We must make a serious commitment to manufacturing and exports. "This is a national imperative. "We all know that the American consumer cannot lead our recovery. This economy must be driven by business investment and exports… America has to get back in that game … and it starts with a strong core of innovation."

MANUFACTURING AND EXPORTS??? YES!

Fourth: We should welcome the government as a catalyst for leadership and change. "There’s a long history in this country of government spending that prepares the way for new industries that thrive for generations. Think of the NIH or NASA, and all the new innovations that came out of these programs — from computing to communications to healthcare. America has that kind of chance with unprecedented levels of new government investment. ... The key is making sure those hundreds of billions of dollars fall on the fertile ground of innovation, and not bureaucracy."

INNOVATION, NOT BUREAUCRACY??? HELL, YEAH!!! I WONDER HOW, MR. IMMELT TAKES CHALLENGES TO HIS OWN IDEAS AND AUTHORITY? I HOPE WELL! GOD, I HOPE SO!!!

Fifth: It is possible for a global business leader to also be a good citizen. "We must partner in our communities. Big business should work with smaller companies in our supply chain to help them compete globally. And we should partner with local governments to fix our education system. In the end, business leaders are accountable for the competitiveness of their own country. We must say so publicly. This will not hurt our ability to globalize. Rather, I think it will make other countries admire our business leaders more. We must end the impression that American CEOs are short-term speculators."

NO TRUER WORDS COULD HAVE BEEN SPOKE! WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF GE COULD ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH THESE THINGS???

I WISH MR. IMMELT AND HIS TEAM ALL THE VERY BEST!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 27, 2009 4:46 PM

Sorry about the mix-up: Of course, JEFF IMMELT wass here speaking before the Detroit Economic Club yesterday, not JACK...

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 27, 2009 4:51 PM

Trevor, et al, if the b-schools do want these oaths to mean something to the students, I think that the tenets of said oath(s) should be used as part of the criteria for evaluating every method and every case study they go through in the course of their studies. A measuring stick for questioning everything. As in "Does this notion, or rule, or case study meet the 'Is/was it the right thing to do?' test we want to be measured by?" And openly discuss gut feelings about that. Perhaps if the students actually apply the ideas of that oath consciously on a regular basis, they will become subconsciously implanted to a greater degree and stand a chance of lasting.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 27, 2009 9:37 PM

Judith, I thought maybe "Jack Immelt" was a Freudian slip :)

Put his fourth front in the context of wealthy parents guiding their child through his education. Of course they put him in the "Academy" instead of high school. But, now he wants to go to the college of his choice instead of Dad's school. Do the parents allow this and provide funding anyway? Fight the child and tell him that unless he goes to Yale they will not pay for college? Provide a stipend for either school and expect that he will have to get a job to get through school? And, what if he just doesn't go to college, wanders for 10 years and then grows up and becomes a successful entreprenuer? Which is the better result?

I present that analogy with all of those choices (and there are more...) because when the gov't sets policy, and you choose to get in bed with them, there are rarely any options besides "Here is a butt-load of money. Go invent this thing that we want, hire the people that match these criteria, provide these benefits, build your building this way, and show us an ROI, or else you are a fraud."

Even if a company accepts no gov't funds, gov't is a huge burden. Could the gov't just get out of the way and let innovation flourish? I really doubt it. Especially with the spectre of new mandates and taxes coming onto us like a Thai tsunami. Is this the message to our young entrepreneurs: "Come on in, the water's fine", forgetting to tell them that there are sharks and pirhanna in the water and a tsunami is on its way?

What if GE invented the perpetual motion machine? Do they make it expensively and exclusively until the patent runs out, or do they release the rights out for the common good (especially if it was developed with gov't grants or support) and watch their profits plummet?

When I heard Mr. Immelt's comment about RESET last fall, it gave me chills because I truly believe that is the case. We truly are at an inflection point, but we are governed (literally and figuratively) by OLD rules and OLD thought. How do we get there from here? I don't know. Maybe we watch Iran and see how they handle their tectonic shift.

Posted by RandySpangler at June 28, 2009 10:56 AM

Randy: Wonderful insight.

It is so obvious that I missed seeing it until you spoke!!

It is not just the repeating of the oath. It is repeating the oath with private reflection for what it means.

And I agree - I think business schools should not think so much about how to change their product but to change who they accept. That would buy into your reinforcement not retraining issues. Most people can not be changed by their mid-20s.

Also, the business schools should move away from the idea of producing a product like an extrusion. Instead they should think of fostering and supporting the right people, providing a wonderful garden for the right people to grow.

Posted by Stephen Garner at June 28, 2009 11:04 AM

Randy - Your thoughts are appreciated. Thank you.

Big business flourishes to a large extent because of the government. Just think of all of the services needed to maintain our armed forces. Who do you think gets those contracts? It is an utter and complete fallacy to think that there will ever be a separation of government and big business. The twine shall forever meet, excusing each other's shortcomings and supporting each others allegiances through our representatives in Congress. Perhaps we can "RESET" by getting big business or any business for that matter, out of campaign financing and see how this affects the cozy relationship. And we wonder why there can't a public option in the health care bill. HELLO? What happened to competition? It doesn’t look like competition is looked on to favorably after all.

Your analogy somewhat left me confused. There will always and forever be choices and variances based on the desires of people and the time. Not only do proclivities play an important role in direction in the careers that young people enter, but the era too. Many probably went onto Wall Street, not because their hearts were in it or that they were particularly gifted in this finance, but because it was believed that they could make a lot of money and live the good life—one with an abundance of wealth, of course.

While ascertaining wealth is by no mean a negative in and of itself, the focus on it instead of guiding young people in the direction of their dream based on their gifts, abilities, and desires, has been detrimental. This wouldn’t matter whether it’s the parents or school counselors that have given ill advice. As an aunt, I am keen on my nieces and nephews’ abilities and desires. I both support AND guide them.

Just yesterday, I took my niece, Raven, on a shopping spree at Somerset Mall. This place would have never seen me on a Saturday, but it was her choice and I was all too happy to oblige. It was my opportunity to ask her about her first year in college and to assist her in the direction of her career. I listened a lot AND insisted upon certain things, those things that are most important but do not require money. I shelled out quite a bit yesterday, which I do quite often. And it’s not that I am rich. But I spend less on myself from year to year so I can pour into their lives, all 26 of them and a host of others at one time or another throughout the year.

The best as you have asked would be a society that requires accountability and responsibility for individually and collectively based on our actions. Your Iranian example, seems a bit extreme, as there is very little similarity today as the immediate fear our government shooting us to death of the street seems implausible. But your global example is not lost. Perhaps in some sense we have become so global, through technology and outsourcing, that we have become a detriment to ourselves, our local communities. We lack the more immediate sense of community that require we be held responsible and accountable not only for ourselves but for or neighbors, those closest to us.

"How can you say you love God whom you have not seen and hate your neighbor whom you have seen? Is this the message to our young entrepreneurs: 'Come on in, the water's fine', forgetting to tell them that there are sharks and pirhanna in the water and a tsunami is on its way?"

Well this would be disingenuous indeed. But when has there ever not been sharks and piranhas not in the water? And, where has there ever not been a tsunami on it’s way. I guess there are always such generation after generation after generations. And, there is always the need to reset. My greatest concern for the future generation is whether we are giving them the tools that have less to do with making money, but building ethics, responsibility and accountability. From there we can build a better economic system, a better world system governed by respect of differences and ideologies.

Yes, this world's system seems to be crashing. But there is a better system based on better promises.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 28, 2009 1:05 PM

Dr. Spangler - I'll have to give that "Freudian slip" analysis further consideration. Thank you for that too. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 28, 2009 1:21 PM

The point I was trying to make with my analogy is that the Cloaking Device of the Invisible Hand is starting to lose its effectiveness. It isn't so invisible anymore. I blogged recently that it frightens me that so many of our youth (ages 18 to 30-something) are so pro-government. Well, at least, pro-government when the Democrats are in charge. I kind of miss the mistrust of authority that was rampant back in the 60's when I had a 28" waist. It wasn't Blue or Red then, it was Don't Trust "The Man."

So much of our national policy is irrational. We grow massive amounts of corn so that we can have cheap, subsidized food and subsidized fuel that isn't cost effective. We cannot drill in new fields offshore because of some perceived threat of environmental damage, but we will buy oil from Russia, Nigeria and Venezuela. (How are their green credentials?) Ditto for ANWR. Nuclear power is hamstrung by NIMBY, while nuke waste builds up in barrels behind a chain-link fence and Yucca Mountain remains empty.

'They' say that there is consensus on Man-made Climate Change, but the dissenters are routinely shusshed and impugned. Is that how Galileo felt?

Even Plato complained that the youth of his time were disrespectful of their elders and that they ignore the law and riot in the streets. That was 2400 years ago!

I guess that my opinion is that the more things change, the more they stay the same and each generation has to make their own mistakes. We seem to be very good at passing down knowledge in the form of facts. But we are not so good at passing down experience. I am sure that Gov. Mark Sanford's mom taught him to not cheat on his wife, but he had to learn the harsh truth himself.

History show us in unequivocal terms that all great nations and societies fail. RESET. With the hyper-compression of time and events that we now have to deal with, I hope that our time in the sun can last a few more hundred years. Or at least until I shrivel up to the point that I can fit back into those 28" jeans.

Posted by RandySpangler at June 28, 2009 10:53 PM

Excellent points above, Randy. Thank you. In a recent comment on my blog I wrote a similar response which is relevant here:

I am quite sure that with each generation the one before it thought that the village had changed and I'm sure in many ways it had indeed. However, I do wonder if these times of profound change are circular and if we get back to the essence of those things which are most important in time. I am now considering the ancient battle for the soul of humanity between the Stoics and Epicureans. Both could be considered extreme in many ways.

(With regards to Randy’s point above about technology and time, I don’t think that the latter often influences the former when dealing with the evolution of human beings who have no personal past experiences from generation to generation. BUT wisdom dictates another approach. Wisdom is not necessarily knowledge or facts. Wisdom determines HOW knowledge and facts are applied and it does not need personal experience.)

Yes, the village changes over time, but the basics that make us human never change at core; it just shifts from time to time. The key is to recognize when we have gone too far one way or the other--since we do not seem to be good with being moderate--and adjust sooner rather than later.

Regarding the right dishonorable self-righteous excessively selfish prick of a governor from South Carolina who called for the resignation of others who had similar shortcomings, but for himself evoked King David and other biblical examples as an excuse for his failures, whose lives tell us what NOT to do as the consequences not only for themselves but for those around them are great indeed, I refer you to this post and comments:

http://thebeingbrand.blogspot.com/2009/06/being-self-righteous-prick.html

Isn't it strange that men in leadership in politics or business find themselves in these kinds of situations by far more than women? What's up with that?

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 29, 2009 8:05 AM

Judith and Randy, as I see it, what we're talking about is a lack of mental "integration." There's a huge difference between ideas, facts, etc. in their ability to influence our behavior, and those same ideas, facts, etc. when integrated into our cognition through personal experience.

Try as hard as you might, until you've actually walked that proverbial mile in the same shoes, you don't really know the pain of the blisters. But once you do and you can feel them for yourselves, you can honestly say "I FEEL your pain." Otherwise, companies wouldn't be able to sell nearly as many pairs of cheap shoes to people who can easily afford better ones, would they?

Sadly, humans don't tend to truly incorporate the lessons handed down to us or shared with us. We foolishly end up repeating far too many of them.

To wit...

Most famous last words of a redneck: "Hey, y'all. Watch this!"

Second most famous: "Hell, I can do do that..."

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 8:30 AM

"Isn't it strange that men in leadership in politics or business find themselves in these kinds of situations by far more than women? What's up with that?"

Judith, I'm not saying this IS the case, I'm asking COULD IT BE that the brains of women are wired a bit differently? More specifically, could it be that the female brain is better wired for taking the stories, the facts, the outcomes of other people and situations that were not their own, and mentally associating emotions and pain with them? It would definitely be a beneficial ability for mothers, raising their ability to associate possible decisions with potentially disastrous outcomes.

Mom says "Don't play in the street" because she can imagine her child being struck by a car and the grief and pain that accompany it.

Dad says "Do what your mother tells you."

If there's any truth to my theory here, could it equate to women being at least a bit more adept at leadership -- at least in their ability to really weigh options quickly and make better decisions?

Would that tend more often to negate the ability of women to be innovative risk-takers? Or would it actually drive them to be MORE INNOVATIVE risk-takers who seek UNIQUE approaches (ones which haven't been tried and thus have no associated failure experiences and bad consequences to mentally ponder.)

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 8:45 AM

"Try as hard as you might, until you've actually walked that proverbial mile in the same shoes, you don't really know the pain of the blisters. But once you do and you can feel them for yourselves, you can honestly say 'I FEEL your pain.'"

Your personal pain and blisters be damned, if by removing you things will better for the whole. (Well, you might need to consult your priest or other spiritual adviser but GO AWAY and do so!) I don't want to feel YOUR pain. Just do the right thing! You're a leader, for God's sake! Or, perhaps it's not for God's sake at all! My mother used to quote this scripture to us often to keep us forever aware of our actions: "Whatever you do in word or deed do it all in the name of Jesus."

Now ask me if I do the above all the time. I most certainly DO NOT. Now ask me if everyday I try to keep a consciousness of what is right, adjusting accordingly. I most certainly DO! I don't know about others but if the same mistakes are done repeatedly, again and again in a different version of the same every ten years or so, I would tend to believe not.

You cannot make be believe in this financial crisis that these mainly egocentric money grubbing guys did not know what they were doing, having manipulated numbers and credit agencies. They did! Even if these financial types did not know what was going on, BE GONE. You have become by far too hazardous! Your ignorance is detrimental.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 29, 2009 9:00 AM

Dan - In the system to which I often refer, which is the Kingdom of God, God's way of doing things, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one..."

This oneness includes many variances, but it is the working through of those variances every day that makes the difference. I personally would not say that women are better leaders or more innovative. What I would say is that culture influences a great many things where biology alone cannot determine. We are often formed by our words, even though our bodies have long been on the earth. The oneness above is predicated on a system of love. This same system needs to be transferred into work environments where deference to ideas is valued, where diverse thinking is appreciated, where fairness reigns, and where innovation comes from everywhere. The competition to excel in the marketplace will then be driven by another modus operandi.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 29, 2009 9:26 AM

Judith, your latter comments underscore my point, thank you. Until they experience real consequences for their mistakes and manipulations, they won't significantly (effectively?) alter their course. They should KNOW what a mess they have made of things. The data is there to show it. But they don't FEEL it.

Big bonuses (especially government funded ones) are a mighty powerful mind numbing drug. I suspect that the income tax "stimulus payments" to individuals over the past couple of years were as much an attempt at a placebo effect -- numbing our awareness of how bad things have really gotten -- as they were intended to be a little more discretionary money for people to spend and give the economy a little jump start.

It didn't work. In fact, I hear a lot of people starting to use a little worthy logic and ask "Did the government REALLY think that was going to fix the economy?" Now the data says it didn't work, leaving taxpayers even MORE suspicious of the government's logic in handing out money to big corporations and financial giants. We've wisely come to the conclusion that the government is clueless as to how to "fix" the economy.

I think I know WHY they are clueless: it CAN'T be fixed. We are going through a natural contraction which is the system's way of adjusting itself. You can use the biological term "homeostasis." You can refer to it by the computer systems term of "reset." Whatever you want to call it, the bottom line is that the big bankers, et al, have made a huge mess. Failure of some of the big finance firms and big corporations (and even small businesses, etc.) are a natural and inevitable event. It is going to happen. All the government is doing is compounding the problem and prolonging the agony.

You can fight natural processes all you want, but sooner or later, nature will win. You learn to live within the parameters of natural systems (by gaining better understanding of the environment and adjusting YOURSELF, developing the tools and materials you need to survive, etc.) But you don't CHANGE natural laws.

When is someone going to figure out that creating artificial wealth is bogus and stupid? There is only so much of anything to go around. You can promise me a bigger chunk of the money, the stuff, whatever, but I know that the only way I get my hands on it is for it to come from someone else. If it's supposed to come from the hands of someone who doesn't actually have it, I'm the fool for expecting to ever actually receive it.

If I'm ignorant enough to believe that I can invest $100,000 dollars and they can let someone borrow it with a promise to pay back $200,000 in exchange for it, but because I don't know that they are loaning it out to people that they should have sense enough to know are never REALLY going to pay it back (not even the original $100,000) then one of us is going to lose. Either the borrower gives up something else of value in return (okay, the bank gets the house, but then THEY can't sell it to recover even my $100,000.) Everybody loses.

Except the bankers. They get paid a bonus... a BIG, FAT "foolishness facilitation fee."

Duh.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 9:44 AM

I have never been a fan of Timothy Geithner whose past performance at the New York fed has brought us to this moment now. But it is certainly not by mere coincidence that Republicans and Democrats alike gave him a resounding stamp of approval.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 29, 2009 11:22 AM

Judith, the inmates are running the asylum. Probably being advised by lobbyists for the big financial firms. You'd think we could elect politicians smart enough to just go and LOOK at what's happening and end up saying "What we're doing and how we're doing it obviously ain't working. So why invest MORE money in more of the same?" Let's just have a big bonfire right outside the U.S. mints this Winter and burn all the new paper currency they print. At least then we'd be doing something of value with it: providing heat for the homeless while cutting down on our dependence on oil and electricity for a little while.

Oh, that's right... the E.P.A. would probably throw a fit and asked to be appropriated another $billion for a study on the impact of the bonfire, and Congress would spend countless hours (meaning our $$$ in the longrun) fighting to pass new laws and regulations to fix the problem.

Then we'd have the whole matter of figuring out how to replace the paper currency and waste. Probably end up being replaced by worthless mortgages, bonds, etc. We could just order such recycling of those and ban shredders, could we not? But that would run the rats out of the sewer -- lobbyists for the electric companies screaming that it would be better to use the shredders because they produce lower carbon footprints. That wouldn't be a problem. Just pass more laws and dump more money on THAT problem... wait, wait, there would be no money left because we burned all the real stuff. On second thought, maybe there never was any REAL money to begin with because it had nothing to actually back it up. Then again, that never stopped us before. Certainly isn't now... nowadays we create our own forms of currency in the form of IOU's -- all of which are getting blown away by the current winds.

Then, the big financial firms could brag how right they were all along -- after all, they created imaginary/virtual value and profits that didn't even NEED to be printed and probably shouldn't be anyway, since they are little more than vapor... "Oops... don't let the E.P.A. know about the 'vapor' issue..."

Hello? Damn.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 11:49 AM

I am today poignantly reminded of the story of two farmers...

One has a mule, the other doesn't. Wanting to plow his garden, farmer #2 buys the mule from farmer #1 for $5 and goes about the work of plowing his garden.

Then, farmer #1, now without a mule, realizes he has a problem: he can't pull his cart to town to sell his chickens and eggs. So he goes to farmer #2 saying "I want to buy that mule back. I need it."

Farmer #2 says "Well, I've been feeding the old mule and I fixed his shoes, so I've invested money in him and he's now worth more. I can't sell him for less than $10." Farmer #1 pays him $10 for the mule.

At harvest time, farmer #2 needs a way to haul his harvest to market. He asks farmer #1 to sell him back to him. "I've had the veterinarian treat him for those worms and that leg problem he had. He's worth more because he can do more now, and I need to get back the $20 I spent on the vet bill. I can't sell him for less than $50." Farmer #2 forks over the cash.

A couple of weeks later, farmer #1, now needing way to pull materials home to fix his barn, goes back to farmer #2, desperate to buy the mule back.

"Don't reckon you'll be doing that."

"Why NOT?"

"Well, last time I bought the mule back from you, I got him home and hitched him up to a wagon. First time the poor old mule tried to pull a load, he fell dead as hell from a heart attack."

"You sorry S.O.B. You done went and killed the most profitable business either one of us ever had."

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 12:06 PM

"The competition to excel in the marketplace will then be driven by another modus operandi."

Judith, Excellent thought. That new M.O. will likely be a return to the understanding that there is no actual "competition" unless two or more agree to enter the competition. In other words, we're all racing toward an agreed upon objective, but somewhere in the process lies the (tacit, perhaps) "agreement" of what the objective is.

Both between organizations within an industry, and among the people within said organizations and industry, there needs to be dialog about where we strayed and what we can do to get back on track.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 2:27 PM

Can't keep up with Judith and Dan...

My question... If you don't have morals to guide you, what about the fear of getting caught?

I have always considered a person guilty if they hid, ran away, lied or otherwise covered up what they did. Even if they personally or morally didn't believe in the law or edict that they broke. If I do 55 mph down a back road that has a 35 mph sign and I see a police, I am slowing down, even if I think 35 is absurd. It is just plain CYA and survival.

Maybe I can answer my own question by the fact that most any 'crime' can be gotten out of if you have the resources. Harsh consequences are becoming increasingly rare, so what is there to fear?

Posted by RandySpangler at June 29, 2009 3:16 PM

Dan - Competition does not have to be a bad thing. In fact, I think it can propel us to be better in many cases. Competition in business will always exist. There need not be an agreement of any kind, I think.

Shouldn't the objective be to bring the best products and services to the market from a technical and design standpoint? It seems as simple as that. Of course, how that's done internally and externally matter. This spurs compeititon or forbades it.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 29, 2009 3:47 PM

Randy - You have longed answered your own questions and I have not sought to answer them. They are reflective and appreciated. Thank you.

The moral compass needs to come from within, taught by elders and upheld by the community at large. There are also variances in issues of morality i.e., going 55 mph in a 35 mph as opposed to murdering someone. All things are not equal in this regard.

I laughed aloud at your driving example. I think we have all been guilty of that one.

Speaking of crime and harsh consequences Madoff got 150 years. The judge obviously sought to send a serious message. With regards to consequences also, there may be a difference here between white collar crimes and others.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 29, 2009 3:58 PM

Randy and Judith, good discussion going here. A friend of mine (a professor of psychology) and I have had some interesting discussions about different topics over the years, and he repeatedly points out that fear as a good motivator is largely a fallacy. Pain is a far greater motivator to human beings. Seeing Madoff get 150 years does not inflict direct pain on others who know they are guilty but haven't been caught. There's even a chance that others feel some sense of relief, as though Madoff was the scapegoat and now they have a better idea of how to avoid being caught -- by using him as an example/case study.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 4:31 PM

P.S. to my post (above):

What I didn't raise is my agreement that a strong moral compass is indeed valuable. It may be a stronger motivator than fear. Why? Because deeply instilled morals bring about internal dissonance and pain when violated. This idea applies to many discussion threads here on Tom's blogs. We can cite violations of laws, standards, codes, regulations... so many things in regard to these matters. But deeply embedded morals and ethics that were acted upon would have averted at least some of these disasters. I mentioned Gandhi's "Seven Deadly Sins" in another thread here a bit earlier. Look at them. Think about them. They're quite intuitive. Good lessons to think about. And oh, so very easily and very often ignored.

So how have morals disappeared from our inner landscape? Can we get them back? Or have we decided that we've evolved and transformed our society beyond their applicability? I certainly don't think we have. At least I hope not.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 4:41 PM

"A friend of mine (a professor of psychology) and I have had some interesting discussions about different topics over the years, and he repeatedly points out that fear as a good motivator is largely a fallacy."

Ha! Let me assure you that both FEAR and PAIN are great motivators. My mother did not spare the rod, whipping us while speaking calmly, never above a whisper. We used to wish that she would do one or the other. But both?

We were definitely motivated by fear and pain. But MORE importantly we simply did not want to disappoint. After all, our mother was doing so much to raise 12 kids alone. We talked about this among ourselves, keeping each other in check.

Of the three, LOVE was the greatest motivator I must say but not without discipline and expectations.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 29, 2009 6:18 PM

Judith, I am not questioning your logic, but exploring things here. Would you say that there is any possibility that the "fear" you refer to was mentally associated with the real "pain" of the rod, which you had actually experienced? Had she never actually used it, do you think the fear would have perhaps been a bit less of a motivator?

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 7:21 PM

Pavlovian conditioning is possibly worth considering here. Once rewards or punishment are administered in conjunction with a behavior, they do not have to be used every single time with a subject in order to "stick." Periodic reinforcement is all that's necessary in order to maintain the desired behavior. Even realizing that we are not Pavlov's dogs, I reason that under Pavlovian conditioning, if a punishment were never actually inflicted, then fear would not be a motivator at all. True we have the ability to mentally associate the potential negative consequences with the possible behavior, but I don't think that is the same as actually having the MEMORY of painful consequences.

If fear alone were that great a motivator, the judge could have just threatened Madoff with 150 years and said "But I'll give you one more chance." That's what we've been doing -- threatening -- with all the laws against financial improprieties. Fear of that wasn't enough to motivate Madoff to think and act differently. He most likely knew what COULD happen if he got caught.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 7:33 PM

"Of the three, LOVE was the greatest motivator I must say but not without discipline and expectations."

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 29, 2009 8:31 PM

Judith, by all means I do agree with you on that. Love is a great motivator. Most certainly the best of all.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 29, 2009 8:46 PM

I have fear of doing the right thing and being caught and punished.

My experience is that people will minimize wrongdoing until it blows up then they pile on.

The prime example is a person who did think negatively of behavior that "would have prevented Enron" and yet thought in 2003 that the directors and officers of the companies caught up in the telecom and dotcom crash should be thrown in jail for life. He strongly said he was not exaggerating.

Posted by Stephen Garner at June 30, 2009 9:18 AM