Comments

Shalom Tom,

I read Sheehan's book after hearing him talk on NPR a couple of weeks ago. Schrieve very much reminds me of one of my personal heroes, Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, father of the nuclear Navy.

I served aboard one of Adm. Rickover's creations, the first nuclear powered frigate (later cruiser), the USS Bainbridge (CGN-25).

Adm Rickover was famous for once saying:

“Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be driven into practice with courageous impatience.”

Courageous impatience is one of my mantras.

I'm sure that Schrieve would agree.

B'shalom,

Jeff Hess

Posted by Jeff Hess at October 5, 2009 8:55 AM

Thanks for the story, Tom. I did not know of it. I'll order the book. I agree wholeheartedly with the message here. But I also wonder if political skill looks differently in various people. It would seem to me that the best political operator uses the force of her style (to borrow a word from Madeleine's post that clearly has significance here) to get things done. Today, it seems that we have models of what political power is and duplicate the model, although we are not the person that the model represents and also not in the same situation. It seems like those who politically accomplished something are not necessarily like the others who accomplished such feats before. The person matters.

Barack Obama is a perfect example. Who expected that he could ever win the election, outmaneuvering the most political of the political, The Clintons. He made very few missteps, handling them in his unique thoughtful way. Now, as president he has another set of political battles to confront in Washington. Frank Rich wrote an excellent sobering article in The New York Times yesterday, "The Rabbit Ragu Democrats" about the powerful political interest in Washington and President Obama campaign promise to change it. He ends with this:

"This is history that the president still has the power to write. It will be written in the bills he will or won’t sign into law. We can only hope that he learned an important lesson from his stunning failure to secure Olympic gold for his political home of Chicago last week. If the Olympic committee has the audacity to stand up to a lobbyist as powerful as the president of the United States, then surely the president of the United States can stand up to the powerful interests angling to defeat his promise of reform."

President Obama needs a Frances Perkins. Unfortunately, she couldn’t get health care reform with such powerful interests when these interests. So, I guess he's gonna have to do it. The same interests are controlling the self-interest of just about every Senator in Washington on the right and left, except, of course, Jay Rockefeller who doesn’t need their money and whose grandfather in his own right was a political maverick that got his way until he came up against the anti-trust laws of Theodore Roosevelt.

I agree with Rich that President Obama has the power to write history. Let's hope he does with the political skill needed, which usually includes that of others too. Valerie Jarrett, although clearly very smart and capable, obviously did not have the political might to broker the Olympics deal. It seems that the US were guaranteed significant votes if the president came as the other leaders. But I'm cool with that. Although disappointed with the outcome, we don't have to win everything.

Oh, and Tom, the most beautiful element in the post for me is that anybody can accomplish something significant wherever they are no matter the level if they are pragmatic and skillful. This is encouraging and hopeful for everyone. Even executives, dare I say presidents, feel incapable of moving sometimes in the midst of incredible pressure. But move they must! They're leaders!

Thanks again for the post.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 5, 2009 10:53 AM

Okay, I MUST apologize for the length of the post above. Even though I am typically on the side of the sonnet and not the haiku, with the removal of the previous "preview" tab where I used to edit what I had written, I couldn't tell exactly now how much I had written. I promise to read all other comments. Wow! I see that I have written a mini-book. Sorry!

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 5, 2009 10:58 AM

"Courageous impatience"

Wonderful!!

Posted by tom peters at October 5, 2009 11:11 AM

Hi Tom,

I'm right with you on this issue. In fact, I've been following your posts on "political brilliance" for quite some time now.

A few questions skewer in my mind (and I'm trying to craft an explanation like the one you gave around design):

What is politics?
What is brilliant politics?

and, most importantly,

How can we learn to be masters of it?

The answers might seem obvious, but they sure aren't...

Martin

Posted by Martin Messier at October 5, 2009 1:53 PM

Ditto to Martin above. I'm not sure what "good" politics looks like in today's age. I'd love to read some answers to the questions above as well.

Just a recommendation as well...be careful of the sound bites too as they loose their meaning in translation. Brilliant politics???? Really????

Courageous Impatience???? WTF is that????? Is that like "pulling out" late and worrying until the test comes back negative?

I don't get the double adjective stuff with no noun (or substance).

Posted by The Joker at October 5, 2009 2:20 PM

Thanks for the suggestion to return the Preview button, Judith. Another frequent commenter made the same request offline. We've been making changes on the back end of the site, and thankfully, our friends at HouseofPretty.com have executed them so smoothly that this is the only noticeable change. We agree that the Preview button was a great tool and will be working to put that back into place.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at October 5, 2009 3:27 PM

Tom,

I do recall you sharing in a program that someone once said to you "Well, politics ain't my shtick," to which you repied "Well, if politics ain't your shtick, then neither is getting things done, Ace."

As you so eloquently went on to share, any workplace or organization is thoroughly political -- period. Hell, if there's more than one human being involved in it (and that even includes marriages at times) there WILL be politics involved. It might be called something else, but it's politics, pure and simple.

Bravo on this post. Definitely up to par. Hope that's a politically correct assessment. ;-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 5, 2009 3:30 PM

Maybe Webster's Dictionary has it wrong? They say "impatience" IS a noun. LOL. Adjective accompanied by a noun. "Courageous impatience" makes perfect sense to me.

What about "unrefined witlessness?" Is that two adjectives? That pops into my mind at the moment, for some reason.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 5, 2009 4:07 PM

Shelley, I wish you guys had an "edit" feature. LOL. I hate it when I call myself reviewing a post before posting it, only to discover a typo later. Oh, well... life could be worse, couldn't it?

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 5, 2009 4:23 PM

Michael - Brilliant politics to me is the ability to achieve buy-in and change the current situation for the better. It’s victory amid seemingly defeat. The mastery of it is first knowing who we are (strengths and weaknesses) and understanding others, the current situation, our interests and those of others, whether constituents of customers. Brilliant politics is about getting others to see your vision, getting them to imagine with you—of course, some horse trading seems inclusive too.

The Joker (Scott Peters) gave us a recommendation and proceeded with a simplistic sexual analogy. The problem with simplistic thinking is that it stops at the water's edge; there is no addition to meaning and no expansion of thought for others. There is nothing new under the sun so what we have is essentially "rehashing" (Paul H asked about this in another post) of the same thing but varied so that meaning hits us in a different way, producing great innovation, brilliant politics and writing. The writing of the Forefathers is awe-inspiring. Writing is about images. It's about the imagination—innovation too.

Watching Ken Burn's special on the National Parks I was in awe of the beauty of John Muir's words and skillful politics to get things done. The beauty here is that he fought valiantly for Yellowstone against corporate interest by going directly to the people and getting them to write letters. Theodore Roosevelt eventually sided with Muir and the people. Over the weekend I did some research on Muir and his words are wonderful, loaded with beautiful rhetoric. His words are inspiring. They were similar to the awe-inspiring writing of the Forefathers. From this writing innovation occurred. Tom’s words do the same thing.

In the introduction to the new book, Tom writes of the simple phrases of the Constitution having first evolved out of a grand simplicity (many drafts) of the high English of the 18th century. Simple does not usually evolve out of simple. Simple usually evolves out of complexity. (I guess my "grand simplicity" is akin to "the double adjective stuff with no noun (or substance)" as if the simplistic sexual analogy above has any relevant meaning or evokes any real thought beyond itself. Yuck! By the way, impatience is a noun.) The Joker’s recommendation falls flat. There is also a difference between being simple and simplistic. The Joker’s sexual analogy above clearly falls in the category of simplistic.

Jeff – Thanks for the courageous impatience quote. Its meaning is clearly given in the quote itself. I like it. It’s one of balance that encourages us to keep heart while patiently fighting.

Shelley - Thanks! I'm probably over again, but perhaps not as bad--I hope. I need an editor. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 5, 2009 4:47 PM

Seeing as we're breaking down sentence structure, what does a person that is courageous with no patience look like?

Posted by The Joker at October 5, 2009 5:11 PM

My point is that the words are highly fluffy and very descriptive. Based on some people's posts, since the preview button disappeared, they are obviously masters of the english language...yeah right.

Impatience or impatient, noun or adjective, is very descriptive and falls under the category of thing or trait. Whether a noun or an adjective, it's mindless garble that has no real teeth.

Courageous Impatience...hmmm...that sounds so smart and has so many varied meanings (left up to the interpreter); therefore, as one other has mentioned, it is far from Simplistic. I'd like to know what a courageous person who acts without patience accomplishes?

Maybe some of these town hall meetings reflect courageous impatience, or the fireman is a courageous impatience kind of guy for running in a burning building? Or maybe Obama is courageous impatient for trying to railroad Olympics to Chicago?

By the way, I love Tom Peters and this blog. I also enjoy a more simplistic blog in the following:

http://simplicityitk.blogspot.com/
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/
http://www.acleareye.com/

These other blogs don't have judgmental tones and encourage participation from everyone without recourse. However, in this greek play, there happens to be an antagonist and it's not even the host (more like a jeering fan at a sports game).

By the way, the joke was from The Joker and meant to be as such. Some people see humor in others, while others have no sense of humor.

Where is that f*&king preview button so I can make sure my sentence structure is better.

Posted by The Joker at October 5, 2009 5:31 PM

BTW...

For those interested, there is a very good interview with an actual manager on the Simplicity Blogspot that describes Political Brilliance to a T. I think I understand now.

The most current post by our friend Trevor.

Posted by The Joker at October 5, 2009 5:39 PM

Unrefined witlessness...that's good Dan..maybe you were reading some of your prior posts.

The question is not whether this rhetoric makes sense, it's whether it's relevant. Regardless of how much money TP may have made over the years, regardless of how many very educated people ran businesses into the ground with their big words and strategy, the question is whether or not wordy people who seem to understand more than others are relevant. I believe the time has passed and the geniuses have handed our future over to the Chinese. And to think that the people mocking me didn't even know how to spell "meh", which is official in the Dictionary.

This site has become more and more about those who apparently know vs. those who don't. It's not open dialog or conversation, it's about who is smarter than the other blogger!

All your big words and mixing of descriptive adjectives and nouns...how is a grunt like me supposed to understand?

Posted by The Joker at October 5, 2009 5:53 PM

BTW,

What is the difference between simple and simplistic? One is a noun and one is an adjective. That's it! Unless that is, you have secret word decoders that allows you to make them whatever you want them to be while blogging to defile the people you despise...

Posted by The Joker at October 5, 2009 6:03 PM

When in china, never ask for chinese food.

Posted by zorro at October 5, 2009 6:20 PM

Thank you Zorro. I'm changing my major from Spanish to Chinese.

Posted by The Joker at October 5, 2009 6:29 PM

Joker,

Since "relevance" is now being entered as an issue: I don't see vulgar, tasteless similes such as you chose to use earlier as being at all relevant. I must admit that at times I have found some of your humor amusing; however, as someone who is a proponent of "dialog and conversation" AND keeping that river flowing within the banks of decency, I now understand some of the comments that have been shared with me outside the confines of this blog. Call me a "prude" or whatever, but I see nothing fun, enlightening, or professional at all about such crude remarks. I also feel it to be impolite to the host of the site. He might be willing to turn a blind eye to such at times, but some of my fellow guests don't (as some have shared with me.) I'm quite frankly sick of watching people commenting on Tom's site in ways that shout "Hey, everyone, I want some attention and I don't care how rude or stupid I have to act in order to get it."

I had all but quit visiting this site, hosted by a man I have a tremendous amount of respect for, because of things like this. Today, I visit for only the second time in quite a while and I didn't have to read more than about five or six comments to come across that disgusting remark of yours (and that's EXACTLY how I perceive it -- no mincing words, here.)

I was sadly disappointed, to put it mildly.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 5, 2009 7:17 PM

Joker,

I will ask a question of you, which I would love to hear an answer to...

If someone opened the doors to their home and worked to make you feel welcome there, would it be polite to enter that friend's home and make tasteless remarks that (at best) border on downright vulgarity?

I don't feel it would be. Perhaps I'm simply not as enlightened or liberal as some people in those areas, but I will stick by my opinion that some things and some comments are downright tasteless and uncalled for.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 5, 2009 7:22 PM

Out of respect for our host, I will say no more relative to the foregoing discussion. I will say a sincere "Thank you" to our host for so many interesting posts. I look forward to reading many, many more. I've learned quite a bit from you over the years, and from many of my fellow guests. I plan to continue to.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 5, 2009 7:34 PM

Dan,

Let's please remember that you blogged about witlessness and some other stuff; I don't remember pointing anything directly at you. In fact, I don't remember pointing anything at you or others directly until called upon through defense or otherwise. Don't think that your taking the high road doesn't mean that you don't have a part in much of this. The adjective bs and your reply "coming to mind"; gimme a break Dan. The difference between you and me is that you're passive-aggressive and I'm just aggressive.

The Being Brand on the other hand is constantly one upping everyone and smothering people's views that contradict with hers. Then, if you visit the site of a Being Brand (whatever that is), there's quotes of the Bible and talk of sonnets and Jesus, etc. What a total load of crap in my book.

Last time I checked, this isn't a house and I believe everyone is invited to blog. I'm really not concerned with what your inner or outer circle thinks; I believe many of the views are so off-base that they lack relevance. I ask pointed questions of others and they never get answered. All of these trite and silly sayings to make people feel more intellectual by utilizing a combination of words...like I haven't seen that for years in management. That doesn't work in the world I come from, maybe you just don't relate to that.

With regard to your question, I will answer without political brilliance or courageous impactience:

It really depends on your view of downright vulgarity. I don't believe that referring to courageous impatience as premature ejaculation (without protection) as vulgar. I don't understand what the phrase means, that's the first thing that popped to my mind. What's vulgar about that? I believe it's silly. I'm like this with everyone, including family and friends, and my book is filled with similar similes (as you say).

You're referring to my statements as vulgar probably because it gives you some sense of decency and being proper in the forum. How could the Joker say such things? How could he come to a blog and be indecent? You're saying many of these things to satisfy you're elitist attitude and passive aggressive style, or else you wouldn't call others out.

My statement merely pointed humor at two words, that when combined, don't make much sense to the "24 year old non-manager" TP blogged about earlier. You should get out more.

Prez Clinton had his cigar smoked in the Oval Office and people admire him as a great President.

Pastor Ted from New Life is making a comeback because he denounced gays, became gay, and now says it's ok to be gay (depending on circumstances of course).

Senator Edwards (courageous impatience) and several others from our own Congress have behaved in much more vulgar fashion than me.

Tell me Dan, why is it that Jesus wanted to associate with prostitutes, the dregs, and other downtrodden people of society? Because he obviously new "they" were the real deal. Jesus knew the two thieves by his side (crucifixion) were the real deal and one was granted forgiveness to join him on that day in God's kingdom.

I say thanks to TP as well for posting my point of view, because it is drastically varied from others.

Please answer my earlier questions and I will have respect for you; if not, keep talking amongst your inner circle.

What does a courageous person with no patience look like in the world of management? In my opinions, he looks very much unemployed in this economy.

Posted by The Joker at October 5, 2009 8:53 PM

I also happen to know that most managers in this climate (economy) are bullshitting others, fudging numbers to keep jobs, and doing whatever they can, including cutting countless of front liners, to keep their jobs.

How many times have we heard, "I'm just glad to have a job." Those people are total losers because they've accepted their destiny and will do anything it takes to keep their jobs...anything. A very recent management team I worked for was cheating their/my clients out of thousands upon thousands of dollars through returns to pad inventory (reverse embezzling). The past Joker would have been holier than thou and insisted upon honesty and integrity to turn the thieves in and expose the ring. The new Joker doesn't give a **** [Edited for profanity, please see the comment ground rules in the FAQ] and understands that people sell out for money and power and will do EVERYTHING to protect it. Therefore, I cannot be in a position of power...hence, my grunt stuff that I do today.

I wonder how many people, in the millions, have adopted the attitude of the new Joker.

A little word to the wise for the non-manager 24 year old that wants to be a manager, "You need to be as dirty or dirtier than the managers you're working for or else you don't have a chance."

Posted by The Joker at October 5, 2009 9:31 PM

Joker,

On the real thread, a courageous manager without patience is definitely headed for one of two places these days: the history books or the unemployment office. Maybe both. But I agree with the idea that the greatest change in today's screwed up business environments needs a catalyst (a.k.a. "martyr?") in most cases. The status quo doesn't seem to be the key to growth in a very connected and hyper-speed, rapidly shrinking world. But the status quo is the domain of those who seek to protect their jobs and positions by not rocking any boats. Perhaps the word "impatience" is a bit loosely applied here, as there does need to be at least some element of patience present. A good general in a time of war knows when to charge and knows when to let the enemy make the first aggressive move and perhaps expose himself. So, I'll wax and wane on the "impatience" matter a bit myself. I do, however, agree with what I think is the deeper underlying theme, which is that of extreme dissatisfaction with the status quo being the spark (in this case referred to as "impatience") without which change would never take place.

For the record, I have no desire to be deemed "elite" or anything else. But I honestly do prefer to engage in dialog and conversation without analogies, metaphors, similes, what have you, that seem a bit more considerate of the overall audience. Admittedly, I have engaged in some occasionally irrelevant discourses within Tom's blogs, and I will speak out when something really hits a nerve. But I do strongly prefer the use of less off-color comments. Perhaps that's your style, which I will just have to try and overlook. But it robs me of much of the ability to seek the deeper meaning in your comments, as perhaps my words might affect you. Touche'. But I just don't think some choices of words fit in some circles, that's all. I do -- respectfully, as a fellow guest on Tom's blogs -- ask that you give that fair consideration, as I will your words.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 5, 2009 10:22 PM

One of the problems with taking examples such as Bernard Schriever (above, although I haven’t read the book) or Charlie Wilson (see previous posts) is that we’re looking at big, geopolitical issues. Certainly with Wilson, we can see a maverick who rode rough-shod over entrenched interests, used cunning and duplicity and ended up achieving an important geopolitical win. And the moral seems to be: the outcome was so important that all the tactics can be seen in hindsight as brilliant and exemplary politics.

I’m not so sure that their “win at all costs” or “the ends justify the means” thinking is applicable in the real world of work. For another, you generally have to carry on working with the same colleagues you’ve hacked off, worked round and stitched up. For another, if you want to stick around a business medium to long term, you’ve got to be smart enough to work for and with as well as around the people who today are blocking your particular project.

Just as in the world of design, where form and function should be aligned, in business we should try to align political nous with diplomacy and grace.

Posted by Mark JF at October 6, 2009 2:45 AM

Scott -
We strongly support free speech here at tompeters.com, which is why we very rarely delete or edit comments. But we do have some ground rules, which can be found on the FAQ page (http://www.tompeters.com/faq.php). To be clear, your comment was in poor taste for the blog of a business author. We have in the past referred to the comments area of this blog as a living room where commenters are guests. Everyone is welcome, but there are some guidelines so that we can all enjoy ourselves. Keeping with the topic at hand, staying succinct, no personal attacks, and the less vulgar (profanity and other references included) the better is a quick summary.

We do appreciate all who participate in the debate.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at October 6, 2009 7:54 AM

Mark JF,

Well stated and excellent thoughts to ponder. Perhaps it all comes down to realizing that the politics of successful business maneuvering is not merely a gung-ho, "damn the torpedoes" attitude, but a thought-out mix of determination and tactical planning. "Choose your battles wisely," as they say. The steps between being dead, being a martyr, and being a living here can be very short and perilous. Land mines are plentiful. Whether it was by careful planning or sheer luck that some of the people we've discussed survived as they did within the context of their environments is debatable, I suppose. But they did have an impact and the simple fact remains that it was their dissatisfaction with the status quo that led to action, results, and change. I'm not sure that Tom is advocating careless charges against the enemy in all cases, but I do sense that the idea expressed as "courageous impatience" has its place. Maybe we can thrown in a word and aim for "Courageous, tactical, impatience."

Great day to all.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 6, 2009 8:15 AM

Doggone it...

The sentence in my above comment that reads "The steps between being dead, being a martyr, and being a living here can be very short and perilous. Land mines are plentiful" should read "hero," not "here."

Sorry if that seemed confusing. LOL. At myself, of course.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 6, 2009 8:17 AM

While the issues of Charlie Wison (I do not know yet of Schriever) are large in scope, there is always a strain of reality for all of us to glean from. This is the beauty of the qualities of such personalities. It is always a matter of shading and adapting, as who we are and our various experiences differ.

The political point I tried to make above included understanding who we are (our strengths and weaknesses), who others are (their stengths and weaknesses), what we are trying to accomplish (the project), and our overall environment (the current culture).

These are wise words:

"For another, if you want to stick around a business medium to long term, you’ve got to be smart enough to work for and with as well as around the people who today are blocking your particular project."

I also like that politics should include "diplomacy and grace," although sometimes their opposites are simply unavoidable, as we are as the great German philsopher, Nietzsche, says "human, all too human."

Thank you, Mark JF.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2009 8:23 AM

Thanks guys for the addition of the preview as we type. I like this even better. Thanks also for the speedy solution. One other thing, there is the "Remember Me" option here and it simply does not wish to do so for me. Each time I have to type all of my personal information over again. Are you guys trying to tell me something? I keep checking "yes." It keeps responding "no." :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2009 8:28 AM

i Just accidentally stumble to your blog, and i have to said, that I had really enjoy your some of your Posts.

Thank you

Posted by Bucket Truck at October 6, 2009 9:14 AM

Dan - Your words above are very much appreciated and I shall try to be mindful of them.

The Joker - As I read your comments it seems abundantly clear that you have been terribly spurned and your cynical attitude negatively colors your words. While there are an array of injustice, unethical, and repugnant practices going on, it is very important to maintain a sense of honor oneself if one is indeed going to make a significant impact wherever one is. (The forum also matters. My mom's cousin, Richard Pryor, was a brilliant standup comic, but his acts would probably not be suitable here no matter how funny or relevant the topic.) While we may be outraged and incensed by an array of bad behaviors, sometimes it would also be good for us to look at ourselves amid this, to look at our contributions to the problem no matter how big or small they may appear.

Let me also say that I hear you with regards to my definite opinions and my own sometimes immediate direct ironic no-holds-barred writing style. Others have commented here that I be less so. When such words are spoken I sincerely consider them. Sometimes I think that they are necessary and other times I have not. Shelley have deleted a few, two I think, that were deemed to be in the category of a personal attack. Okay, perhaps they were and I accepted this. What I will say, however, is that my intention is NEVER to drown out the voices of others or to rise above them. This is the FURTHEST thing from my head or heart. But what is important for me is honest immediate dialogue. If in my effort to achieve such there is the perception of this, I will consider it while not myself being unduly limited in expression.

One thing that is for certain about me is that I, while holding definite opinions, seek every day to better. This includes looking at my failures and successess of the day before and beginning the day anew with the hope and determination of not repeating or advancing them. Many times I am successful; other times I fail miserably. But I get up everyday with the exact same intention of being better than I was the day before. I have come to understand that for my efforts day by day that I am the better, even when I have failed miserably in word or deed at any particular time.

Effort matters--intentions too.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2009 9:22 AM

Judith - thanks for pointing out your issue with the Remember Me feature. We'll look into it.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at October 6, 2009 10:10 AM

I want to comment on the point about politics and getting things done. before I do I will mention my bias which does influence my thoughts on this - I am lousy at politics.

I agree with the argument that politics in terms of getting things done is an essential skill. That it's the only thing that does get things done.

All that is fine if you are happy to accept sub optimal ideas etc being implemented.

I realise this is a gross generalisation but most of the people I have encountered who were good at getting things done were (I am trying to be polite here) less than strong on the good ideas and thinking front. Most thinkers recognise their limitations - most doers believe they can think as well. They are often mistaken.

If you are restricting things based on ability to play the political game then you are seriously reducing the pipeline of ground breaking ideas.

I believe that companies can no longer afford to operate with relying on this approach. So many ideas are wasted and so much frustration is caused. If we have moved from the information age to the conceptual age then every idea counts.

Yes all leaders need to develop the political skill - but I would like to see all leaders moving heaven and earth to make sure their people don't have to - that is the job of a leader.

Posted by PaulH at October 6, 2009 10:11 AM

Dan G,

Well said...good dialog.

Shelley----long live free speech I say. Recently, managers have destroyed more with their words and actions than I ever could on this blog. I will be respectful, but when called upon, I will be The Joker. You may delete what you see as unfit and irrelevant.

From a good movie:

"If one of theirs pulls a knife, you pull a gun
If they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue...that's the Chicago way"

Contrary to what others may post about me directly, my pedigree is strong and I have a wealth of experiences in management. I happen to speak a different language...if somebody doesn't like it...please just tell me to tone it down and I will, but don't begin to attack the very essence of who I am and what I stand for.

Posted by The Joker at October 6, 2009 10:43 AM

Hey Bucket,

Keep coming back. We obviously need all the help we can get!!!!! Some of it professional of course.

Posted by The Joker at October 6, 2009 10:45 AM

Two things with PaulH's points:

"If you are restricting things based on ability to play the political game then you are seriously reducing the pipeline of ground breaking ideas."

1) If any leader does this, it disqualifies this person from being a leader. There are these among us.

"Yes all leaders need to develop the political skill - but I would like to see all leaders moving heaven and earth to make sure their people don't have to -that is the job of a leader."

2) This is a beautiful point.

Thank you.

The one thing that I would disagree with the post is that politics supercedes brilliance, while I understand that without it brilliance many times will not shine. But there has to be a start and hopefully a brilliant one, one of essence that will highlight the project or cause.

The sheer hallow political game, which is so evident in the health care debate, does no good for the cause itself. Skillful politics may win in the end but the cause loose. Breaking through such politics is the brilliance.

Sometimes, many times, politics does not include anything of real value outside of the necessity of having to deal with it. There is a distinction made in the post with regards to skillfull politics which to me implies there is another kind. But good politics does not necessarily determine the value of the project or cause itself.

Maybe this is the point exactly: Get busy knowing what needs to happen in order to do the necessary things that would enable value. This to me is good politics. But, of course, the term "good" is itself made to be so relative in political debates such as health care reform, even though we ALL know of the moral imperative, not to mention the economic one. We've been told that "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2009 11:08 AM

The Joker - Why don't you write in your given name, Scott Peters from Colorado Springs, Colorado by way of Dallas, Texas? Just wondering. It is also evident with your response to Shelley about the rules here that your failures have probably been largely due to your own making, your own lack of political skill and respect than to the others you have often mentioned here.

Your comments in response to the rules here and to the moderator are probably precisely why you find yourself reduced from your once senior position, as you have described here on more than one occassion. It is not good to keep barreling though, and if at first you don't succeed, do try again. It is obvious you need work in skillful politics, perhaps a bit of humility too.

Scott, it is also revealing that you have chosen the word "pedigree" to define your education and professional experience, as you have broadly denigrated executives repeatedly here. The word choice is also interesting as well as the need to even define yourself in such a way. Isn't it far better to simply be one with such a "pedigree" than merely use a label?

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2009 11:54 AM

I think the biggest problem with an EDIT button is authenticating the editor. Who can edit? Is the person attempting to edit "authorized"?

There are a couple of post I would love to edit for clarity (read that as they currently do not have any) but think the overhead complexity is too much to do so.

Posted by Stephen Garner at October 6, 2009 12:03 PM

Tom, your closing comment about political skills being important even for the 24-year-old non-manager is an important one. It’s crucial in the workplace and the political arena to “manage up.”

Far too many professionals and politicians are ignorant about the importance of managing their bosses or their political superiors. You do both yourself and your supervisor a favor by managing up because it makes both your lives easier and more productive. I was often annoyed during my managerial days when employees didn’t recognize certain stylistic traits about me and interact accordingly.

The people you bring along as you advance are the people who manage-up to you in ways that makes you more effective.

Posted by Mike Consol at October 6, 2009 1:07 PM

To err is human...

To respond is suicide...

I shall read and reflect...I very much like the post by PaulH. Paul is a very good name and has great pedigree too!

Posted by The Joker at October 6, 2009 1:15 PM

Stephen - Before considering editing the comments of others, I, for one, would sincerely welcome hearing your thoughts on the post itself.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2009 1:38 PM

Judith:

I agree. I have (briefly) considered people editing other people's post (mostly the TPC crew) but I am not for it beyond that, in any way, shape or form.

I was mostly focusing the lack of clarity in some of my own posts! I apologize for being selfish but I need to work on my own posts a lot more than the posts of others. Simply because mine need more work...

And do not worry... I will chip in at will!!

Posted by Stephen Garner at October 6, 2009 3:07 PM

On the issue of ability to edit, it would appear that the TPC folks like keeping things simple; however, I would be 100% supportive of requiring people to sign up with a USERID and create a personal password before posting on the blogs. Perhaps that would be a bit less "open," but it might facilitate a "member" being able to access his or her own posts and make corrections. I do see how it could end up being a bit confusing to later visitors reading the comments if something were significantly changed or deleted after a follow-up comment by another. Just tossing out my thoughts on the subject.

Hope everyone has had a terrific day.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 6, 2009 6:08 PM

Stephen - Sorry. Did I miss your comments above amid the many others? As I had not read them I assumed that you were talking about the comments of others. I shall now go through and look for them. If memory serves me right, your comments are generally thoughtful.

Regarding editing, my comments often have errors of all kind: spelling, grammar, puncation, etc. As I comment often here and elsewhere and write some 75-100 posts monthly on my blog and many for the Huffington Post, as I run a rather small, but successful business, I do not worry about editing here. What I would like most is for the basics of my thoughts to be conveyed and understood.

Presently, I am writing a novel loosely based on my family: I am the youngest of 12 children, raised by a single mother. We are all licensed in ministry first: pastors, counselors, missionaries and chaplains and are also all professionals and entrepreneurs from Wall Street senior executives to successful medical billing entrepreneurs and other types in between.

My agent is among the best literary agents in New York and he is a serious editor. Super! I also have a few diligent readers who have been immensely helpful in the process. Having served as a content editor for three international bestsellers in business, philosophy, and self-help, I understand the process. I am a licensed counselor and chaplain with various studies in different fields, including music and philosophy, with years in business. I am able to a large degree to be expansive.

My business is consulting (with another on the side with partners) and I've had success in this field for Fortune 500 companies and small and large governments for the past 12 years. I am doing less of that now. My desire here is mainly to express, contribute and learn. If I don't get everything right in my writing, I do not fret about it at all besides the initial "yikes!"

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2009 7:06 PM

viagra brand online

There have been a couple of posts of mine that I felt were more models of being muddled rather than being concise and clear. I just need to make sure I do better; the need for excellence starts NOW.

As an example, I am trying to get my thoughts on this better defined before commenting on the original post. This is better than having an EDIT button.

Posted by Stephen Garner at October 6, 2009 9:37 PM

Stephen, maybe you've got something there. Guess I could try reading Tom's blog entries on one screen and open a word processor on the other, write my comment, save it, go back and proof it (or hire an editor), then go back and cut-and-paste the text here. Or I could do what I just did between the previous sentence and this one... think twice and delete. Some things simply aren't worth commenting on. As you and I have discussed in other circles, however, I do enjoy reading and taking part in the useful parts of the dialog herein.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 6, 2009 10:31 PM

Stephen - What about the bias for action?

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2009 11:03 PM

A bias for action also starts NOW, especially in blogging. I find Dan's comment to be overly excessive with regards to commenting and editing on blogs in general. Perhaps the medium is evolving into something else but as Arianna Huffington says in her excellent book, The Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging, it's about action NOW. It's not about excessive editing while blogging.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 6, 2009 11:22 PM

Interesting that this discussion has become about what blogging should or should not be. If wishing made it so. As a largely producer-led process - "I blog/tweet, therefore I am" - it is surely whatever that producer (blogger or commenter) wants it to be; there is no right or wrong way. As consumers we take it or we walk away - the medium is not intrinsically market-dependent, so not ours to shape, however much we may identify with a specific blog person, product or place.

Posted by RobCH at October 7, 2009 2:32 AM

Paul, there's politics and there's politics. I would argue that the leader's job is to develop more leaders, not just to stand between their team and the organisational realities of life. So that leader's people need to understand and experience the politics both of Giving Great Tea and also How Things (Really) Get Done Around Here.

Posted by RobCH at October 7, 2009 2:45 AM

“As a largely producer-led process - "I blog/tweet, therefore I am" - it is surely whatever that producer (blogger or commenter) wants it to be; there is no right or wrong way. As consumers we take it or we walk away - the medium is not intrinsically market-dependent, so not ours to shape, however much we may identify with a specific blog person, product or place.”

That’s a terrific comment Rob – I love the ‘no right or wrong’ concept.

Speaking personally as a Blog owner I would die before seeking out any alleged Blogging ‘expert’ who promotes a boring clinical template about how my Blog should be written, designed or what is should look like, or what the content should be. That takes away all individuality as far as I’m concerned

My Blog has to have its own personality and style - it has to be an extension of me. The audience on my Blog has developed over time to become a lovely community with people coming and going as they please. That’s what I like.

Different people have different reasons for owning a Blog – my reason is to create a conversation and a learning environment for me and anyone else who wants to join in.

I hate the thought of rules, regulations and editing ……. That’s like being at work. If I wanted that I would get a job back in bland old “Corporate Boringtown”

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 7, 2009 8:06 AM

For those of you who have not read Arianna's "The Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging" let me assure you that it is NOT about telling bloggers what they should do, but about suggestions because she has done it so very well. It's about the practicalities and possibilities of blogging, the "nuts and bolts" of it. It's a great book!

Some people thought that they could never blog, that their opinions were insignificant. There is a mom in the book whose life has been transformed through blogging. For her, she was surprised to discover that many hits were coming from Google Finance of all places! This in and of itself could lead to possibilities. Acting on it is another thing. Perhaps for this blogger it's not important.

Arianna highlights other bloggers throughout the book. In fact, The Huffington Post is all about the opinions and styles of others. The book even features Larry David of the super funny and edgy HBO show, "Curb Your Enthusiasm." David was also the producer of "Seinfeld."

With regards to structure, it's divided in three parts:

viagra over counter PART I: THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF BLOGGING

Chapter 1 Welcome to the World of Blogs

Chapter 2 Getting Started

Chapter 3 Getting Noticed

Chapter 4 Finding Your Voice

Chapter 5 Community: Creating and Building

PART II: THE BLOG REVOLUTION IS HERE! BE A PART OF IT.

Chapter 6 A blog is born: A brief history of The Huffington Post and its impact

Chapter 7 How the blogosphere is remaking the media

PART III: The Huffington Post Resource Section

The Huffington Post Blogroll

Glossary of Blogging Term

Website Resource List

Best of the HuffPost Blogs

Acknowledgments

Contrary to the belief of some, everything that the establishment does is not wrong. (The blogosphere is itself both new to many and evolving as it changes the face of media.) Arianna herself points out that there are a great many ways to blog and that there are no right and wrong way. (With regards to the title, you really must consider marketing, please.) "The Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging" is a compilation of various ways to blog, along with just the basics of the process itself, even with regards to design.

What is for certain is that many of us wish we could do it the way Arianna does it or the way Chris Brogan, on of my favorite bloggers and tweeters, does it--not to mention Tom. I agree with Trevor that blogs are extensions of ourselves; it's just that perhaps some people's extensions are by far more interesting and inviting than others. By the way, I have occasionally read Trevor's blog and have enjoyed his posts. I have even left a few comments when I first began blogging here.

The Huffington Post gets millions of hits DAILY and Arianna is one of the most magnanimous open brilliant non-conforming people that I know. The Huffington Post not only gets millions of hits daily but hundreds of thousands of people leave comments. The site is a compilation of various bloggers. This in and of itself offers various styles. Arianna's posts are also great in breadth and style! She covers a range of topics from politics to business to family life.

Let's be honest. Whatever the content or style, it's not like we're oblivious as to who has a larger readership, gets more comment or does it better. (Yes, I know that Seth Godin talks about the importance of blogging for your own sake. I accept this too and think he's great!) Nor, is it like we ourselves do not want to be better.

We also seek to highlight our blogs and get people to read them and comment. (Godin does not even have a comment section. On my blog, I personally like the interaction. On other blogs I like it too but it does not curb my enthusiasm if I do not directly have it. Some here delight in not addressing me directly but whose comments carry the basis of my thoughts whether for or against. I'm cool with that, really.) Many people have tracking features to track who's tuning in. Many people broadcast on their blogs that they have gotten this or that award. Many people direct other people to other people's site. Many people direct us to their own sites.

Arianna DOES blogging!

One other thing, Trevor writes about "owning" a blog. That's interesting. I, for one, have never even thought of such. My attitude really is that blogging is for bloggers. Even though I write the post, those who comment are essentially co-writers of the post. So, in this regard we are all owners of the same blog in content and style. It really is a community in this sense.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 7, 2009 10:23 AM

Thanks Judith. For those starting a blog, advice from folks like those you mention is invaluable for some people I'm sure. I speak from my own experience only and prefer to develop my blog in a pragmatic way through glorious chaos and plenty of mistakes along the way. But one thing about my blog is that it definitely must be an extension of me.

Yes I very much believe I own the blog and I'm very proud of it, but the folks who visit, read and comment on my blog are equal owners of the conversations. They are fabulous people for taking the time to visit and I learn as much from my blog commenters as I do from any other aspect of my working life.

Blogging essentially has to be fun and not a rational science as far as I'm personally concerned.

Each to their own though - as in all things.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 7, 2009 2:58 PM

Did you just write "glorious chaos?" What does that mean? Oh my, Trevor, you're slipping. :-)

(No need to explain it. I think I got it--really!) viagra for sale online cheap

With regards to Arianna's book, it is for far more than those who are just beginning to blog.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 7, 2009 3:50 PM

My comments on extensive editing were meant primarily in a sarcastic way. I'd love to be able to edit a misspelled word, etc., but I (obviously) don't get overly-concerned with making major changes. Blogs -- especially follow-up comments -- seem (to me) by their nature intended to be "off the cuff," type flowing environments. While I don't advocate free-for-all flaming and such, I also don't see them as being the venue of highly polished, professionally edited pieces of journalism, what have you.

If I wanted to write a highly researched document, totally free of grammatical and spelling errors, I'd treat it as such and publish it in a vastly different way. It certainly wouldn't appear in the form of a comment on someone's blog (most especially not someone else's -- I prefer to let the host be the host and remember that I am a guest.)

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 7, 2009 3:52 PM

Glorious chaos indeed Judith:-)

That describes perfectly most progress I see. Put better as follows by someone far wiser than me:

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, thoroughly used, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming …....

"F*#@, what a trip!"

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 7, 2009 4:35 PM

Did Arianna mention that the first step to a successful blog is to start out famous and then have someone bankroll you? :-)

Posted by zorro at October 7, 2009 4:36 PM

"If I wanted to write a highly researched document, totally free of grammatical and spelling errors, I'd treat it as such and publish it in a vastly different way. It certainly wouldn't appear in the form of a comment on someone's blog (most especially not someone else's -- I prefer to let the host be the host and remember that I am a guest.)"

Translation please, Dan. If you are referring to my comments here I think Tom Peters himself has generally already done so. Thank you very much. Still licking wounds, are you? If so, get over it.

While I'm SURE Tom DOES NOT agree with everything that I write here or even with my style all the time, what he himself has said of me in a post and in a comment is worth repeating now. He called me a "Renaissance woman" and a "stellar regular." By the way, I have NEVER used these words publicly as others of you have the minute Tom says anything about you.

buying pfizer viagra online canada

Tom has also written in comments that he does not mind the longer posts. If my comments are taken as disrespectful in any way, I do not desire this at all. There are rules and then there are norms. Whenever either the norm changes or the rules are enforced or when I am personally told to do differently, I will gladly adhere. Sometimes I am more conscious of length then others.

Now, what do you have to say about that? Plus, if I’m remembering correctly you, Dan Gunter, have written more than a few dissertations on Tom Peters' blog yourself Dr. Gunter. You are not Dr. Tom Peters are you? It looks like according to your comment above that you should be addressing yourself. By the way, you should feel free not to read any of the comments written here.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 7, 2009 5:02 PM

Nice words there about life, Trevor. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 7, 2009 5:04 PM

Funny, Zorro! But there are many people with money and without the vision or leadership to do what Arianna has done. In fact, there are many business people, including Donald Trump, with blogs and they are not nearly as successful. So, success must go beyond merely money. Wouldn't you say? Investors, however, without a doubt help. But why is this a negative again?

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 7, 2009 5:08 PM

By the way, are those Tom's words, Trevor? Reading them again, they're wonderful!

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 7, 2009 5:31 PM

Judith - those words (I love them too) were first sent to me many years ago by my good friend Brian Galbraith from Perth, Western Australia. Brian is a terrific character and blessed with great communication skills. I have seen that Tom has used these words on his slides but I'm not sure where they originated from. I think they sum up a good life perfectly.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 7, 2009 6:27 PM

I love them, Trevor! I too "think they sum up a good life perfectly." Very nice indeed. It sounds like something Tom might say. Thanks again.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 7, 2009 7:15 PM

Judith, I'm not certain why you assumed my latest comments were directed at you. They assuredly were not. Rather, they were simply extensions on my thought thread regarding editing of comments after writing them and how I see "comments" as being just that -- relatively free flowing, thoughts as they occur, and not really intended to be technically perfect materials suitable for publication as a research paper or in a major journal or something. And I -- of all people -- can not complain over someone else writing a lengthy comment. Lord knows I've written plenty of long ones myself.

As I neither feel nor see any "wounds," why would you ask if I'm still "licking wounds?" That comment on your behalf, along with your seeming desire that all comments -- including negative ones -- gravitate toward you sounds rather egocentric. I've written multiple comments lately but they were not about Judith Ellis at all. Should you wish them to be, have fun and allow your imagination to run free. Otherwise, I'm sorry to disappoint you but you are not the star of either my thoughts or the majority of my comments.

Since this one IS an exception -- in reply to you -- I'm sure you'll probably want to print it out and put it on your dressing room mirror. Hopefully it's not too long to fit in the matted frame you're already envisioning using to place it in your hall of fame. LOL.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 8, 2009 8:01 AM

Oh, Dan, what is most assured is that I am not above being egocentric, nor am I above missing the mark. I have been egocentric in my life and have felt so utterly ashamed. But with regards to the present discussion, there is no shame in my game.

If the latter part of your response was indeed not directed to my comments here, I may have missed the mark. But I did so enjoy the marking. :-) By the way, I did ask for a translation. Were you talking about yourself when you wrote in the conditional sense?

"If I wanted to write a highly researched document, totally free of grammatical and spelling errors, I'd treat it as such and publish it in a vastly different way. It certainly wouldn't appear in the form of a comment on someone's blog (most especially not someone else's -- I prefer to let the host be the host and remember that I am a guest.)"

The confusion for me is that you have indeed written MANY such dissertation-like comments on this blog which according to your definitive statement above you did not let the "host be the host" as you were merely a "guest."

viagra for free trial

Maybe your last comment is an acknowledgment of your past presumed egocentrism or disrespect as a "guest" while acting as a "host." (This is your analogy not mine.) Or, perhaps you are merely stating your new commenting mission statement. I can understand both.

By the way, it wasn't the initial part of your comment that engendered my response. It seemed benign enough. It was the latter part, as I assumed it was directed at me and I do not wish, by any means, to be disrespectful to Tom Peters. This statement admittedly is indeed about me, what my intentions here are not.

Regarding your multiple comments lately, there was no sense in the very least that they were directed at me and I did not assume that they were. (Am I detecting a little egocentrism? Or, are you way above such? :-)) But as you might be able to tell I am not altogether convinced of your argument here unless, of course, you have had a change of heart and are turning a new leaf.

But I could be wrong in my analysis. This I will admit.

I wish you well.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 8, 2009 11:14 AM

By the way, speaking of generals and politics, whether right or wrong, but the conviction of a cause, Charlie Wilson made the recent statement about our presence in Afghanistan:

"It's probably best to make a calculated withdrawal. If I were the president, I'm not sure what I'd do. I'd probably shut it down, rather than lose a lot of soldiers and treasure."

When Tom recommended the book, "Charlie Wilson's War" I bought it and was immensely impressed with him and with the correlation he made about our convictions and the role of politics in past posts on Wilson.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 8, 2009 11:34 AM

Judith, to be more concise (since I can't edit the previous post ;-) no part of my comment(s) in question were in ANY way directed at you. They were -- plain and simple -- comments on how I feel about MY posting habits. Do I practice them with 100% consistency. Admittedly not. Nor do I have them perfected (quite obviously.) I really don't strive to. Quite the opposite.

Many (most?) of my posts would actually be much shorter and tightly constructed were I to spend a great deal of time editing them then cut-and-paste them here. I feel more compelled to participate (and enjoy seeing others do likewise) in a top-of-mind manner. Sometimes when we spend a lot of time editing our written words, we inadvertently modify or even lose some of the original meaning instead of clarifying or enhancing it. quick viagra

Not asking a wise-guy question, but instead a serious, friendly question: do you ever catch yourself doing that? In other words, do you ever feel after editing at length that much of your original meaning feels lost? I do sometimes. A time and place for everything, I suppose... editing included, huh?

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 8, 2009 1:34 PM

Laughing so hard at myself at the moment. I meant to say "(quite obviously NOT)" in the above comment. Sheesh. Mere irony? Or did I accidentally point out the potential value of an edit feature for comments?

Oh, well. Too late to fix that now. LOL.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 8, 2009 1:36 PM

Dan - I accept your words here. Thank you. Regarding editing, I am less inclined to change the basis of my thoughts, as they are the driving force, even in the editing process. Now, others have done so when they have served as readers and I have done so when I was a reader. Generally, I'm pretty directed on my thoughts and when I begin editing I tend to not to veer to far from them. However, in writing this novel I will say that because I am so engaged with my imagination a lot of really cool scenes evolve in the editing process that I had not thought of before. This way cool! Great fun! Such is also true of any other kind of writing albeit differently.

Even in writing training manuals or philosophy the imagination is still active in that words are pictures beforehand. Questions are rooted in the imagination. It seems to me that when training manuals are without interest it probably has to do with writers not actively seeing images for themselves, but are instead engaged with the images of others. Even as we learn one subject or another we still need to create or own images, our own words, in order for there to be real understanding. I hated it in school when the teacher or professor wanted me to merely regurgitate what they said or thought. This was very challenging.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 8, 2009 2:55 PM

Dan, re your point of meaning being lost, I contributed many decades ago to a discussion in a now-defunct publication called Information Design. The proposition being debated was that brevity equated to clarity. While broadly in agreement I argued against carrying things to extremes: newspaper headlines, while admirably concise, did have potential for worrying ambiguity, as in the then-recent example: "Judges To Act On Nude Shows".

Posted by RobCH at October 8, 2009 4:39 PM

RobCH, another priceless gem to make me grin. Love it.

Judith, it would seem we do share similar ideas on editing. A while back, Tom started a discussion on editing. The first thing that came to my mind was the fact that Tom's speaking style tends to translate (without getting perverted) in his writings. "Circle of Innovation" is one of my favorites because it seems fast flowing, hard hitting, and covers a lot of ground in less pages than 99.9% of authors would need to say even less. I like that style. And I can imagine that Tom might be a publisher's nightmare (no offense, Tom.) Not that I don't believe he can write. Just the opposite. He covers a lot of ground without wasting many steps. I can imagine an editor going bald in a hurry. And I appreciated the phrase "...imagination is still active in that words are pictures..." Dead on. Lots of truth in that. Enjoyed reading your comment.

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 8, 2009 7:31 PM

"He covers a lot of ground without wasting many steps."

Dan - This tends to be the process of engineers in general. They’re basically minimalist, although we may be hard pressed to describe Tom as such; he seems to be in his writings both concise and effusive. Conciseness seems to be something that engineers do best which probably have a lot to do with their particular training.

real generic viagra

What's interesting is that "Re-Imagine" is more artistic in design and style, while the phrases, as you mentioned above, are concise and imaginative. Outside of music, the others arts do no seem to be nearly as precise. "Re-Imagine ignites the imagination as an artist might; perhaps it is the same in his lectures. I have not yet heard him live. But there is this same brilliant sense in the slides. They too tell immediate stories.

I had the pleasure of serving as a reader for one of the foremost Sartrean scholars on his bestseller, "Camus and Sartre: The Story of a Friendship and the Quarrel that Ended It." The interesting thing is that here was a highly international respected rather cerebral scholar who was writing a book from a relationship standpoint. Yet, it was very dense. We poured over each page and it became less so.

When I first began reading the manuscript the first thing I pushed for was making this great philosophical work more story-like. After all, he was writing about a great philosopher who was a novelist and a great novelist whose work grappled with philosophical questions. But the essence became the story told from two different perspectives. It became an international bestseller.

I have enjoyed the discussion, Dan. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 8, 2009 10:51 PM

Judith, you are in for a wild ride if you get the opportunity to see and hear Tom at a live gig. As I said earlier, "Circle of Innovation" seemed to me to be the essence of the Tom Peters Brand as I know it. Hit a topic or idea... hit it hard... illustrate it colorfully... don't mince or waste words. Sort of like a painter using just two or three bright colors to show you what he wants you to see without wasting the pastels to include that tree off in the distance that has nothing to do with the story.

Among many things I appreciate about Tom's writing and speaking is the lack of "riding the fence" and leaving you wondering "What was he really trying to say?" So many authors and speakers do that. Far TOO many. That might have its place in the world, but not the world Tom seems to be trying to help shape. Maybe Fox news can fare well with the idea of just reporting the facts and letting the viewers "decide," but people seem to flock to Tom's gigs because they already have a pretty good idea of where he stands on things in general but they're looking for stories, ideas, and motivation to bring some of his kind of thinking into their lives, their work, and their businesses.

Perhaps that's also why Tom's books don't read like novels that you read once, say "That was well written," then list for resale on Amazon. You go back to them. And back again. And again and again. Same for hearing him speak. You know what to expect on one hand. But then again, you DON'T know what to expect. The stories are true stories of the best and the worst thinking in business and organizations. But the names are changed to expose the guilty on both sides.

When it comes to business branding, I'd think I'm really on track if Tom mentioned my business as an example of a good one. On the other hand, if Tom mentioned my business (or, God forbid, my name) as an example of lousy business practices, I'd think it worse that having Federal investigators show up at my door with a subpoena in hand and a CNN news crew in tow. Unlike all those folks, Tom isn't just "doing his job" -- he seems to be on a hellbent life mission. But there's great rewards and lots of fun in store for so many of us if we at least pay attention to what he's putting out there. We don't have to agree with 100% of it. I don't. It's the process of thinking about it and doing things that brings the results about.

That's why more than a few folks don't seem to "get" Tom. They miss the fact that he's not always there to hold their hands and say "Okay, do this, then this, and follow it up with this" as though he was working side-by-side with them as a manager. On the other hand, he's priceless -- and the best I know -- at helping you reframe the bigger picture.

To put it another way, I'm not so sure I could handle working side by side with Tom Peters. He'd probably drive me insane. But I'd give my right arm to have him on my board of directors to help keep things in perspective. Wait a minute... come to think of it, he is. He just doesn't know it. ;-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 10, 2009 9:31 AM

Very nice, Dan. Thanks a lot. Regarding truly great novels, I have indeed gone back to them again and again. For me, among these would be any novel by Marcel Proust, William Faulkner or James Baldwin. There is also the sense with great writing or branding of it becoming one with us, changing our thoughts and allowing enjoyment, like the continuous improvement of the IPod or BlackBerry. These mechanical things are very much a part of us. These extensions of ourselves are examples of our forever evolving, whether in our lives or businesses. In fact, whether we like it or not there is no standstill position. We are either progressing or digressing as we march forever forward in time. This is the essence of my blog, The Being Brand. The arena matters not, whether we are at home or work.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 10, 2009 12:19 PM

"We are either progressing or digressing as we march forever forward in time."

Well said. And oh, so true. There really is no "standing still" in this universe of ours, is there? Always in motion -- whether we like it or not, or even acknowledge it.

Perhaps that is why we see so many people now coming under fire for allowing the status quo to go unchecked in the big financial institutions, Wall Street, insurance companies, etc. It's like I share in my Native American teachings: you might think you're standing still, but if you try to remain in one place, the universe and all that is in it will hit in you in the face or in the back. As for which will occur, it's simply a matter of which way you're looking. As for me, I'd rather keep my eye on the prize, knowing that if for some reason I slow down for a moment, at least the odds are better I'll get knocked in the right direction! ;-)

Posted by Dan Gunter at October 12, 2009 5:52 PM

And the prize is....?

Posted by RobCH at October 13, 2009 2:53 AM

"Perhaps that is why we see so many people now coming under fire for allowing the status quo to go unchecked in the big financial institutions..."

There seems to be a difference between coming under fire and being forced to actually change. Even after a near global financial collapse where taxpayers are on the hook for $789 BILLION DOLLARS reform seems unlikely. Why should banks change when it is more benefical to them and Congress members to remain the same?

How much incentive would you have to change if it is assured that you will be bailed out gain and again? Next time it will be for many TRILLIONS as the banks that were too big too fail are now even bigger. Ugh! It would be great to have a Bernard Schriever or Charlie Wilson with regards to actual reform of the banking system.

Isn't it funny how we sit and wait for others and if no leader arises we just go on doing the same thing (feeling better that the stock market is rebounding) until the next major near global collapse? Of course, this can only be done if we know that somebody's got your back. Banks are assured of the backing of the government.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 13, 2009 3:48 AM

Judith, You mentioned a problem with the "Remember Me" feature. Is that still an issue for you? Is anyone else experiencing this? It may be as simple as a browser history issue, but I want to be sure that we take care of it if it's a more serious issue.
Thanks.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at October 13, 2009 11:51 AM

Here let's see, Shelley.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 13, 2009 1:06 PM

Yep! Thanks for following up, Shelley. It's not terribly inconvenient to type in the information over again. It takes a few seconds.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 13, 2009 1:08 PM

Oh, wait, did I forget to mark "yes?" Let's see.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 13, 2009 1:09 PM

Nope. It doesn't work for me. But it's cool. Thanks again.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 13, 2009 1:10 PM

it fails sometimes for me too

Posted by PaulH at October 13, 2009 2:09 PM

Not working for me.

Posted by RobCH at October 14, 2009 12:34 AM

Thanks Rob, Paul and Judith. We're working on it.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at October 14, 2009 1:01 PM

Here is a link from a FAcebook revolt against Air Force regulations to wear reflective belts.

The text is great.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=4302653&op=3&o=global&view=global&subj=121490196484&id=666140148#/photo.php?pid=4302649&op=3&o=global&view=global&subj=121490196484&id=666140148

"LGOP: a small group of 'pissed-off American paratroopers' who are well trained, armed to the teeth, and lack serious supervision. They collectively remember the commander's intent as, 'March to the sound of guns, and kill anyone who isnt dressed like you...'"

Posted by Stephen Garner at October 29, 2009 8:58 PM