Comments

Agreed, Tom. Toronto's a mighty fine city. Montreal, too, which too often (and out of ignorance) gets the short end of the stick. Amen to seeing what we can learn (rather than dismiss) re universal health coverage in Canada.

Posted by Jeremy Nash at October 20, 2009 1:02 PM

Mindset is all we have - watching the world collapse around us and thinking we can do nothing about it is like giving up and ordering your own coffin. Lets face it we are all in sh** street together. Now is not the time to become even more negative. Now is the time to look out not in. Tony Benn rightly says when you look for a leader, don't look up to a platform - look around you. We all need to be dealers in hope.

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 20, 2009 5:22 PM

I think it is time everyone realised that manufacturing and so-called old-economy will still do bulk of working, country building etc. Therefore it IS SEXY.

I don't think people understand who superstar is in work life. I guess they go around looking for Tom look alike (hanks or Cruise). I mean the superficial assessment (in the best case) are made. Do you think we need superstars to identify superstars?

Lastly, I am with Taleb on one point - people listen as if interested and then go ahead and do what the exact opposite.

Posted by Rahul Deodhar at October 20, 2009 9:40 PM

As a training manager in the wireless industry I have a bit of a different perspective on "The Lost Generation". I see many "jobs" that are available as our turnover exceeds 70 percent each year. I work with many who are working single parents who somehow manage to find a way to find not one, but two jobs to take care of their families. Or those who work, parent, and go to school full time. While I can empathize with those who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars getting an education, I do know there are many "jobs" that are readily available and go unfilled. We do not however have an abundance of six figure management "positions" available. I also know that I would hire many of my current co-workers into any position in a company I ran. Their work ethic, attitude, strength, and ability to "hustle" are characteristics they have earned a PhD in. A person motivated by a strong sense of responsibility or a dream to make a better life for themselves and their families will survive the toughest of times. An interesting article long on speculation and short on solutions...

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 20, 2009 11:28 PM

"I do know there are many "jobs" that are readily available and go unfilled."

Alas, on this score overall we have six job supplicants per job available--the worst ratio since record keeping began over 60 years ago, in 1948. (The ratio was 1.7:1 two years ago.)

Posted by tom peters at October 21, 2009 1:45 AM

- "I do know there are many "jobs" that are readily available and go unfilled."

- "Alas, on this score overall we have six job supplicants per job available..."

The problem with a ratio like this 6 to 1 statistic is that it's 'one size fits all:' it's looking at every job, everywhere. If you break it down into sectors or job types, you'll probably see a different picture.

Where I work (UK, logistics sector) there are lots of people chasing high-end management jobs. It's an employer's market with lots of good people willing to take reasonable (i.e. good but not excessive) salaries, even if this means a pay cut. But truck drivers? Or guys who'll work the night shift in the warehouse? We still struggle to fill these positions.

I think a by-product of the focus on folks in big companies in sexy industries (allied to a general desire by many today to get rich quick and without actually having to work hard or develop a talent) is that fewer people coming into the workforce seem prepared to take what they perceive as low-end jobs and work their way up. Which also results in a management pool that doesn't really know how things get done on the factory floor.

Posted by Mark JF at October 21, 2009 2:47 AM

Factory floor? What factory floor? Where I live in Detroit there are far fewer factory floors. Because a lot of geniuses thought that a knowledge economy would bring in more job while factory jobs with benefits were done away with to be replaced by call centers and big box stores where the technology and manufacturing have gone abroad in lieu of multiple minimum wage jobs with no benefits, including health benefits. And whatever you do please don’t mention that dastardly government ran proposed socialized public option being debated. Yeah, let’s give these people no options, even for their health care. Detroit proper has an unemployment rate of 25% and the State of Michigan has an unemployment rate of 15%. Please tell me how even two minimum wage jobs will enable a father or mother to pay their mortgage, buy health insurance, purchase the obligatory car insurance, and feed their families? It's not about them being unwilling; it's that they are trying to meet the needs of their families. College for their kids is out of the question.

Small businesses are without because banks refuse to lend as they get even to big to fail and will need multiple TRILLIONS the next time and executive banks friends make the likes of 175K in 3 MINUTES on Wall Street. Hank Paulson, the former Treasury Secretary of the last administration and former CEO of Goldman Sachs beforehand, allowed Goldman Sachs' competitors Bears Stearns and Lehman Brothers to fail and allowed AIG with its connection to billions as a counter party be bailed out. Goldman Sachs got a total of $70 billion dollars from taxpayers. Read recently in the New York Times article that analysts estimate that Goldman Sachs bonuses will "swell to $23 BILLION dollars." What incentive do they have to change?

Many on Wall Street have become moral hazards. Wikipedia defines moral hazard as such: "Moral hazard is the fact that a party insulated from risk may behave differently from the way it would behave if it would be fully exposed to the risk. In insurance, moral hazard that occurs without conscious or malicious action is called morale hazard...Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its doings, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it alternately would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions." Taxpayers have insulated the likes of Goldman Sachs and AIG. We have allowed them to become moral hazards. Nassim Nicholas Taleb advocates clawbacks and I agree. That would assist in health care reform.

By the way, while many of us were reveling in the glories of globalization with phrases such as "service is the new economy," the economy itself was tanking and the middle class incredibly shrinking. It just seems utterly foolish that a county the size of America will become a service or knowledge based economy alone. While knowledge and service are essential, labor is crucial. Read recently that GM is beefing up its business in China. How do you think that we will get our GM cars should we want to purchase them from this once great company? Undoubtedly they will come from China if our trading laws do not change.

These companies seem to be for the shareholder and against Americans workers. Who's going to invest? Jeff Immelt of GE seems to be getting it right. He has been talking lately about the necessity of building here where the former legend of GE, Jack Welch, spoke largely about shareholder value for many years. Welch, I think, has since changed his mind too. But the disastrous deeds have already been done. Let's hope we can correct it. By the way, I generally like Welch and have read most of his books. But over the past six month or so I have appreciated him though less for his performances on television. I have seen him less so lately. My hero is Jack Bogle, founder of the Vanguard Group and author of Enough: True Measures of Money, Business and Life. He's a truly great man.

Have you been to your local farmers market lately? Pretty sad, eh? Local growers have all but disappeared and big business farmers who gulp of government funds, yet all you hear about in some sectors is get government out of my life, while you life is affected largely by government, only through big business. Wouldn't you rather trust the farmer you know more than the farmer you don't know? And guess whose working the fields at these farms for $1.75 an hour? You can believe that they're not Americans! There is absolutely no chance for advancement there. But there is the chance of a non-immigration policy that will bring more immigrants here over time that will itself change the government by their sheer numbers. I'm not against the change but will say that if large numbers of Arabs where crossing the border illegally or Haitians we would undoubtedly secure the borders. But open borders actually work better for big business and not small community ones where the community trade with each other more honestly.

Whatever big business wants, whether bankers or farmers, want they get. Read a Wall Street journal piece recently where bankers are balking at new regulations that would give the states more control. They want the haze of big government and not the responsibility of a smaller one. They don't want regulators looking over their shoulders. And this is from the likes of those who are generally for state rights. I'm not against big business and big government; it worked wonderfully at the beginning of the 20th century. I'm against business which focuses on shareholders profits to the exclusion of all others. Really, how many people in America actually own stock? How many really have an education? How many really work largely with their hands? What is the ratio to senior executives and others?

Yeah, ask the workers to accept low end jobs while executives rake in billions largely with taxpayer money and for doing nothing: outsourcing requires no creativity but picking up a phone and derivates are figments of imaginations that enable executives and the like to benefit from faulty projections that are figments of their imaginations. Yet, they benefit on the front end and back end while Americans lose their homes and Wall Street banks refuse to renegotiate the terms of their mortgage and credit card rates even though without the taxpayers they would not even be in business today. Goldman Sachs has benefited making $3.4 billion dollars in three month on the backs of taxpayers but they refuse to be beneficial to us.

Goldman Sachs and the rest on Wall Street actually abuse their customers who pay their bills on time by increasing their interest rate to 30%, revoking their credit cards, reducing their credit limit, and increasing their minimum monthly payments from 2% to 5%. Yet, we are gallant and say, as if there if there is no general malaise in the country that people want better paying jobs. Well, why wouldn't they when the number for bailouts for banks was in the hundreds of billions. The number is harrowing as opposed to the number of people asking for dignified salaries. If the system itself was fair then that would be another thing to address. But obviously isn’t not. Let’s bailout the banks and require those who provide for the bailouts to go bankrupt. All of it is borrowed money. Our system of debt, federally and personally, largely benefits debtors.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 21, 2009 8:17 AM

Oh, Tom, thanks for the post. It's very much appreciated. I shall now read the links. Just imagine had I read them beforehand. I would probably have even more to say. Oh, no!!! :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 21, 2009 8:27 AM

"Because a lot of geniuses thought that a knowledge economy would bring in more job while factory jobs with benefits were done away with to be replaced by call centers and big box stores where the technology and manufacturing have gone abroad in lieu of multiple minimum wage jobs with no benefits, including health benefits"

Check off TP as one of those geniuses.

Posted by zorro at October 21, 2009 8:29 AM

Nice Screed, Judith. When I finally got to the bottom (whew!) I was surprised it wasn't signed "Mao."

I used to live in the Big Mitten then I got smart and moved to a place with a pro-business climate and real local leadership. Now, why should I be held financially responsible for those who remain in a place with woeful leadership and no prospects? It's (for the moment, anyway) still a free country with many opportunities--but people have to get off their butts and go find them! AND make themselves qualified for those opportunities, AND maybe start at the bottom and WORK their way upwards...

Unbelievable.

Posted by Red Island Rhodes at October 21, 2009 8:34 AM

Rahul Deodhar - I appreciate the whole of your comment. Thank you. You wrote:

"Lastly, I am with Taleb on one point - people listen as if interested and then go ahead and do what the exact opposite.

I am in agreement with Nassim on just about all points.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 21, 2009 8:35 AM

Red Island Red - Why don't you exchange the "Red" in your moniker for green as in greed or grey for grotesque for advocating essentially for bailout of Wall Street banks while Americans go bankrupt. It’s largely about policy: deregulation and globalization. This is my point. And please drop the Mao Glen Beck BS, will ya? Actually, it can be argued that the banks bedding with government is indeed Maoist since the will of the people is subjugated to lobbyists and "leaders" in Congress against their interest. Tell me this. Why is that right wing wingnuts like to throw in Mao at every opportunity? BORING! Do you ever think for yourself? Reject the non-new machine and THINK! Will we see the likes of Beck tears next? It's obvious why you have long written under a moniker here. Get some edumacation and less ideology, will ya? :-) You and Beck could be brothers. How was it again that he spelled oligarchy? Did you even catch the misspelling? It was particularly embarrassing as the point had all to do with himself being the teacher with blackboard, chalk and all. You comment above is tantamount to Beck’s misspelling. Beck probably has no idea what oligarchy means. Can you even talk about Mao besides bantering the name about? I think it’s hilarious that right wingers never like to talk about what Nassim defines as "socializing of debt and privatizing gains."

Wall Street banks have become moral hazard. I'm all for local banks and credit unions, by the way. Where small businesses look at bankers in the eye and do business. Instead, right wingers want to talk about people pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps as if Wall Street banks, with the help of government policy, have not installed steel beams, FORGET BOOTSTRAPS, and become moral hazards with TAXPAYER MONEY. By the way, I remain in Detroit and am doing quite well. This does not, however, blind me to the realities of others, not only in Michigan, but throughout this beloved country of ours. The United States is not only the beauty of our national parks. (Oh my! Did I say national parks? Are there such? Yellowstone is owned by the people?) The country is the people and the people cannot pull themselves up by their own bootstraps when there are no boots. Policy matters here, Mr. Green Man! Why didn’t the banks start up from the bottom and worked themselves up to the top when it is OBVIOUS TO ALL that they have FAILED BIG TIME! You tax money and mine, not to mention the generations to come is SUBSIDIZING THEIR GOVERNMENT WELFARE while pocketing big bonuses and doing nothing for the people that would enable them to advance. I'm for local banks and credit unions and busting up big Wall Street banks.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 21, 2009 9:25 AM

I wonder if the jobs will ever come back without some dramatic shift. While it’s hard to see on a day by day basis, we are witnessing some extraordinary gains in productivity based on technology advancements. Bottom line, companies need fewer and fewer resources to produce the same level of products. Technology transformations are now happening in weeks not decades. This means that by the time job loss levels out, we will have moved to the next level and business may very well realize they no longer need those workers.

Posted by RTodd at October 21, 2009 9:58 AM

Shame on you Red Island Rhodes. Do you not realize the TP frequent commenter club will shout you down for even hinting that individuals should take responsibility for their own actions. Do you not see that the big banks and the individuals making millions for their company as well as themselves are evil and coontribute nothing to society. Do you not realize our entire domestic and international financial system could survive solely on local banks and credit unions because the people working there are nice and have read a book by Taleb. Quit while you are ahead RIR or they will seek you out and destroy you for hinting at an opposing point of view.

Posted by Zircon-212 at October 21, 2009 10:54 AM

"Do you not realize the TP frequent commenter club will shout you down for even hinting that individuals should take responsibility for their own actions."

Zircon-212 - This comment is shameful considering the irresponsibility and non accountability like the FAILURE OF WALL STREET BANKS and the distribution of wealth via TARP without holding bankers responsible for taxpayer-dollars.

You see, people like you, Zircon-212, enjoy living in the haze of big government and big business that actually haven’t added a whole lot of value to the economy, but more to themselves. They prefer to work in the alternative gamming universe, Wall Street: The other Las Vegas" with their bogus derivatives. Nicholas Darvas was right on.

My comments have nothing to do with participation in a fan club but an effort to destroy and debunk the perpetuation of the Wall Street myth of value creation. You guys are gambling with other people's money. This is less about the value of companies but more about VaR projections that fail endless which then require the "socializing of debt and the privatizing of gain." This is how Goldman Sachs was largely able to make $3.4 billion dollars in 3 months.

If you actually made some sense relative to average Americans besides the socialization of banks and big insurance companies that essentially use the American taxpayers to maintain their multi-billion dollar Wall Street game, maybe some would not try to destroy the foolishness you often posit.

Speaking of reading, maybe you need to pick up Nassim's book and read it. Of course, that would require that you would have to look at the failure of your industry including VaR and actually do things differently instead of the re-occurring socialization of banks and insurance companies that would NOT EXIST without taxpayer dollars. This is what's shameful.

Banks and big insurance companies have been irresponsible and unaccountable. This is the reality, instead of the alternative gamming universe that you live in and that government continues to perpetuate creating moral hazard.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 21, 2009 12:15 PM

"Technology transformations are now happening in weeks not decades. This means that by the time job loss levels out, we will have moved to the next level and business may very well realize they no longer need those workers."

R Todd - Okay. Do you have any suggestions? What should families do now? Maybe those hundreds of billions should have been spent on training and actual job creation instead of going to Wall Street banks. But clawbacks will help, nonetheless. That's something we can do right now to assist Americans who are hurting.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 21, 2009 12:50 PM

I propose every poster contribute 10 cents per word of their comments to the local charity of their choice. I will start my jar here for United Way - $3.10 in already.

Posted by Bruce at October 21, 2009 1:41 PM

Bruce - That's a great idea! I'm down with that if everybody will agree. I have served as a board member of the United Way for many years and so appreciate this organization. You wanna tally up my words and tell me how much I owe? I've been a huge giver for a variety of causes since elementary school. I continue to give daily.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 21, 2009 2:40 PM

Zircon 212: You are right. And my daddy taught me not to argue with fools or drunks...

Posted by Red Island Rhodes at October 21, 2009 3:22 PM

Bedding Beck! :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 21, 2009 3:55 PM

A summary from the book the Halo Effect.
Why is this important to state once again?
Taleb endorsed this book as one of the most important managment books. So, if 'Fooled By Randomness" is Toms "Bible" (as he has stated previously), he should apply its lessons to his own work and not just cherry pick stuff out of it
to use to critisize others. If he honestly read Taleb, Tom might come away wondering exactly what he actually has to offer. The only industries that have absolulely measurably benefited from Toms work are the publiching industry and the managment guru industry. Eveything else must be taken on faith, i.e. it can't be measured (convieniently, Tom doesn't think much of measurement)
Heres the summary.

"In Search of Excellence, the watershed best seller by Peter's and Waterman commits this error [falling for the Halo effect] and has other research flaws. The book, which examines 43
companies and lists eight factors that great performers share, was presented as the result
of rigorous research. But in 2001, Peters said the authors “faked” their data and chose
top companies before finishing their research. Thus, they picked their subjects under the
impact of the halo effect. By not reaching beyond star companies, they created bias in
their sample selection."
In other words, failing companies could also have the same traits the successful companies "In Search of" studied. We don't know the answer to this because failing companies were not studied in the book. The fact that the reasearch in "In Search of" is flawwed is not news. What is interesting is that Taleb endorsed the book "The Halo Effect".

Posted by zorro at October 21, 2009 4:36 PM

Zorro,
You've mentioned this book repeatedly. Again, Tom's response to these criticisms can be found here: http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/009985.php.

Posted by Shelley Dolley at October 21, 2009 4:50 PM

Just came across this video. Check it out! It's precisely what I was writing about above. Wall Street is "playing a parlor game funded by taxpayers."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#33414533

Brian Griffths, Goldman Sachs International Adviser, explains the outrageous BILLION DOLLAR compensation of Goldman Sachs in a conference on "morality and markets" in London:

"I'm not a person of despare but I'm a person of hope and I think that we have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all."

What is this guy smoking? He even quoted the Bible to justify Goldman Sachs' record bonuses:

"To whom much is given much is required."

This guy needs to be whipped with a wet noodle repeatedly for perverting this scripture. He seems deeply neurotic. Isn't it something that they use our money to make these bonuses and then talk about us as if WE ARE THE CHARITY CASES??? SICK!!! Maybe a few lashes will wake Mr. Griffiths ups. The disgusting thing is that Goldman Sachs thinks that we are fools! But I'll settle for the lashes in the form of what Dylan Ratigan suggests:

1. Take your money out of big banks and move it to small banks and credit unions
2. Use cash and not credit cards
3. Call and email your Congress person and demand a hearing. (Why was our money used with no strings attached?)

Plus, I'd add:

4. Demand clawbacks. (This is the giving that I'm expecting! This should be the requirement!)

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 21, 2009 5:04 PM

What follows are toms own words.
http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/011236.php?rss=1
Why should anyone believe anything this guy has to say

Posted by zorro at October 21, 2009 7:39 PM

"Why should anyone believe anything this guy has to say?".

Perhaps because research don't make a gnat's ass difference when it comes to execution. What matters when it comes to execution is leadership. It's like the saying "if you have to ask the price then you can't afford it". If one doesn't see the the LEADERSHIP value in Tom's books then one would be oblivious to the fact it can be measured and quantified in areas such as employee churn, profitability, internal/external customer satisfaction to name a few of the many. Faith is a good thing...great results is better!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at October 21, 2009 9:58 PM

Zorro, it would be as unproductive to disbelieve outright anything Tom says as it would be to believe outright anything he says. That's the great benefit of having - and using - the faculty of critical thinking.

Posted by RobCH at October 22, 2009 2:34 AM

"Why should anyone believe anything this guy has to say"

Zorro my man, are you dissing me or Churchill?

Posted by tom peters at October 22, 2009 9:47 AM

Don't know about anyone else around here but speaking personally I value immensely the fact I can read Tom Peters own views directly on this Blog. Tom's 'upfrontness' (ugly word sorry) compares favorably with the conspicuous absence on such media formats of numerous icons, celebrities and gurus. Most of them hide behind their fame - keeping their heads down to avoid controversy - and making themselves completely inaccessible to the many supporters who, it could be argued, put them there in the first place.

At least Tom Peters puts his head above the parapet and I'll take him just as he is thanks (and indeed always has been from where I've been sitting for the last 25 years)

Posted by Trevor Gay at October 22, 2009 12:07 PM

"Tom's 'upfrontness' (ugly word sorry) compares favorably with the conspicuous absence on such media formats of numerous icons, celebrities and gurus. Most of them hide behind their fame - keeping their heads down to avoid controversy.."

Hear, hear, Trevor! I agree wholeheartedly. What a waste of gurudom! Haven't heard anything from Jim Collins or Jack Welch. Has anybody? Who else was on the recently posted Forbes "Top 50 Most Influential Management Gurus?" Who needs a guru when times are good?

Thanks, Tom!!! You're super!

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 22, 2009 12:48 PM

Tom, I'm don't know how can you possbly compare anything you do to fighting WWII.
But then, when you are not camparing a sales pitch to winning WWII , you tell us you were inpired to write your latest book after reading a history of the creation of the US constitution.
No self-agrandisement there.
BTW in a recent war, good storytelling did a fine job in getting us involved in Iraq.

Tom is a good storyteller - So was the the guy who wrote "Chariots of the Gods" (the book that proposed the idea that the eqyptian pyramids were built by people from outer space)
Funny thing about "Chariots" It lead to a pilot TV show called "In Search Of Anchient Astonauts"
Which lead to the show "In Search of" (A 1970's TV show about the paranormal - which Toms book title is twist on.)

Leadership? Are you kidding me? Other than seminars. Exactly what has Tom lead?

When it comes to execution, other than powerpoint slides, what is defined as execution as far as Tom goes? (Something he actually did, not read in some magazine and then used as a story for a presntation)

We all live our lives vicaroisly through what Tom reads.

Posted by zorro at October 22, 2009 7:56 PM

Okay, Zorro, the comment above is well written and I laughed about the Egyptian pyramids and aliens bit. That was funny. This I will give you. But I think in a lot of your comments critical of Tom you conflate or to some extent distort issues. Tom does what he does and he does it better than most. This is why we buy his books, go to hear him speak (I have yet to hear him speak) and read his posts.

Why do you read the posts, by the way? Your consistent "dissing" (loved that word choice Tom :-)) over these few years that I have been here does not negate the man or his work, as you are often largely arguing against his profession and that's pointless when there is a market for it. People want to hear him. When you do critize his work, like in the post above about stories, you miss a crucial point of it and insinuate another. It is a post motivation and intent; it's not about deception.

Many things can be taken out of context depending on the angle that we take. You have taken one that is largely critical. Okay. I am not particularly opposed to criticism of anyone, especially leaders. In fact, I think it's necessary. But I think it is also very important to keep things in context. By story-telling I don't believe that Tom is talking about deception, but rather about motivating people to move forward beyond their current position to create a story that will turn things around. "As a man thinks in his heart so is he." Thinking often requires creating a new story often from the "whole cloth." To develop such a story is empowering.

The example of the Iraq war that you have given above is not comparable. This war seems clearly in hindsight to have been one of deception and perhaps even one of oil. T Boone Pickens speaking before the Congressional Natural Gas Caucus said: "They're opening them (oil fields) up to other companies all over the world...We're ENTITLED to it," he said of Iraq's oil. "Heck, we even lost 5,000 of our people, 65,000 injured and a trillion, five hundred billion dollars." The Iraq story seems like one beforehand that was based on deception, perhaps one of oil. It doesn't seem to have been about the war on terror. After all, we left Afghanistan. But I digress. Just let me say that your comparison is not comparable. Intent is crucial.

By the way, the comparison between Tom and Churchill is also off the mark. For me, every time Tom has written about Churchill he has done so deferentially. By this I mean, reverentially. In your comparison above you have made Tom's rather funny line, "Zorro, my man, are you dissing me or Winston Churchill" as one of arrogance or egotism when in fact it seems to be one of respect. We align ourselves or take our examples from those we admire or revere.

Tom has chosen a great WW II leader to make business analogies. This is not too far fetched for a veteran, I'd say. Wouldn't you? It's not merely about the man, Tom Peters, but also about the example of the other man, Winston Churchill, who makes Tom's work in the aforementioned post prevalent and relevant. This is what great leaders do: draw inspiration from other great leaders. Tom is in good company. Not only did Plato make Socrates known to us, but in doing so we understand who he is. Both were great men. Tom's post was about his perspective on Churchill relevant to his own work, whether you agree or not with the premise. This is his choice and for me it works.

One other thing, Tom seems rather honest about his approach to business, his imperfections, and from whom he draws inspiration. You couldn't possibly be against these things, are you? Also, I have appreciated many of your comments here and elsewhere, even when I have not agreed with them. But I also think that you critize Tom and others, including Taleb and Huffington and we haven't the slightest idea of who YOU are, not that we are incredibly interested, no disrespect intended at all. Just saying...

Oh, and you're totally off the mark about us all living our lives vicariously through what Tom reads, as if we do not read or think for ourselves. You insult our intelligence, Zorro, my man! :-) And, when has drawing inspiration from our Constitution been a negative?

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 22, 2009 10:32 PM

Well said Judith!

I come back to this site because of it's honesty (both Tom and commenters)and generosity (PPTs available for example) and the general lack of BS/spinning.

In terms of execution - one day, provoking/leading people's thinking will be recognised as legitimate execution!

To me Tom represents the way Gurudom should be i.e. not telling me what to think or do ("5 steps to successful selling in a week" - uurgh!) but putting forward perspectives, ideas, facts, stories etc that act as a catalyst to my own thinking or better still, trip up my own thinking on occasion!

Posted by PaulH at October 23, 2009 4:34 AM

You have done well young RIR to stay out of this. The shout down to an opposing view like Zorro's has been swift, direct and personal. Notice how most comments defend the person(Tom) rather than the process. As I enjoy the blog myself with limited rather than daily viewing I respect the fact TP has the stones to defend himself. Of course his best defense is taking a quick peek at the bank balance or looking across the fields of his beautiful farm(I do believe GS employees love the old farm purchase as well...the bigger the better to show you are a BSD) purchased with proceeds from his hard work. Thank goodness good old fashioned American capitalism is alive and well for Wall St, management gurus or any other chap trying to earn a living in the USA. If you can sell it(legally of course) then the riches it brings are yours to enjoy. GS employees and other uberevil Wall St. high earners do the same bank balance checking while giggling about the public getting their knickers in a twist. (Don't even get me started on how free markets will facilitate those getting their paychecks cut by the government to switch employers. Why don't we ask Taleb what he thinks about the market manipulation the government is pulling off. Too bad we can't ask tricky dicky how successful his price controls in the 70's were) The sycophantic frequent commentator club effectively defends Wall St. and Tom by proclaiming the end justifies the means. In both cases defining and measuring the metrics of usefulness are challenging if not impossible. Either way it makes for entertaining blogging.

Posted by Zircon-212 at October 23, 2009 8:22 AM

Wow, we finally get a comment out of Judith that exposes quite a bit. An attempt to resurrect the patently absurd and long discredited claim that the Iraq war had something to do with oil. I suppose references to the Trilateral Commission and UN helicopters are next. The Iraq war did absolutely nothing to help the US oil industry, and the volatility in oil prices it created in its wake made planning almost impossible - a situation no industry wants. If it benefited anybody, it benefited other OPEC nations. uk viagra sales online

I see the Fed is proposing regulating all compensation at banks, whether bailed out or not. Wonder if consultants will be covered too? Maybe a cap on hourly rates they can charge. Sounds fair to me.

Posted by Bruce at October 23, 2009 8:55 AM

1) "Thank goodness good old fashioned American capitalism is alive and well for Wall St"

What is happening on Wall Street is not capitalism. It is "socializing debt and privatizing gains."

2) "If you can sell it(legally of course) then the riches it brings are yours to enjoy."

This is precisely the reason why government policy is important. Regulate. Regulate. Regulate.

3) "GS employees and other uberevil Wall St. high earners do the same bank balance checking while giggling about the public getting their knickers in a twist."

This is the kind of arrogance that demands answers and policy change.

4) "Too bad we can't ask tricky dicky how successful his price controls in the 70's were."

President Nixon was quite the brilliant businessman but he got what was due him. But if money is the measuring stick he did very well indeed before and after his presidency from what I've read. I'll ask Nassim about the price fixing of the 70's. I was a kid and have not read about it. But I will. By the way, I have never looked at as government as pure. It has not always worked for whole groups of people in our history. But I do believe in the necessity of the people's participation. The people are the government. Well, that's at least how it should be. Sometimes it's difficult to tell.

5)"The sycophantic frequent commentator club effectively defends Wall St. and Tom by proclaiming the end justifies the means. In both cases defining and measuring the metrics of usefulness are challenging if not impossible."

I don't think Tom gambled with other people's money and then required some $789 BILLION DOLLARS to sure up the economy while banks got even bigger to fail and pocket double digit BILLIONS in compensation while the taxpayers who gave them the money is seen as charity cases, They have lost their jobs and homes. More homes will be lost this quarter I read.

6) What did Brian Griffiths, Goldman Sachs International Adviser, say again?

"We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all."

But the taxpayers are indeed blessed because those who will get the billions will be givers to us, not in fair loans, but in raising our credit card interest rates when we have been not missed a payment or have never been late to some 30%, in not re-negotiating our home loans, and in increasing our monthly minimum credit card rates from 2% to 5%. We must now bear the "inequality" Griffiths said. But executives will do their part and give to soup kitchen and shelters where many of the once middle class are now frequenting because...

7) "To whom much is given much is required."

We need policy changes in Washington NOW! Lobbyists out of Washington NOW! Term limits NOW!! How is it that the President of the United States can only serve 2 terms and have Congress members in Washington for 50 and 60 years? They need to serve for 4 years and live under the laws that they have created outside of lobbying.

By the way, I like Zorro and appreciate many of his comments and even many times his style. I both laugh and say "ouch." He can be biting, but thoughtful. He is also usually well-researched. Through his frequent comments here and on my blog I have been required to think differently about a number of issues. But this is not to say that we agree on everything. We most certainly do not. But I appreciate him, probably even more so, because of this.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 23, 2009 9:49 AM

"The Iraq war did absolutely nothing to help the US oil industry, and the volatility in oil prices it created in its wake made planning almost impossible - a situation no industry wants. If it benefited anybody, it benefited other OPEC nations."

Bruce is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about this. This is the reason I included the T Boone Pickens quote. He's pissed that he's not getting a piece of the action even though "they're opening them (oil fields) up to other companies all over the world...We're ENTITLED to it," he said of Iraq's oil. "Heck, we even lost 5,000 of our people, 65,000 injured and a trillion, five hundred billion dollars." This is what makes the last adminstration for some even more disgraceful. They couldn't even do something that would benefit the American people some would say.

Some would also argue that the Industrial War Complex only benefited the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater. Americans didn't even benefit from the Iraq war in that many aspects of the war itself was outsourced where foreign workers worked the war from various parts of the developing world and as contractors in Iraq. During WW I and WW II at least the American economy benefited, not that I am for war.

I agree with Bruce 100% about the other OPEC nations. What we seemed to care more about in Iraq was revenge of Saddam Hussein and government contracts for Halliburton, Blackwater and the like. This money went into individual pockets and not into the American economy en masse as during WW I and WW II.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 23, 2009 10:01 AM

We agree on this point, Judith, the only ones to "benefit" financially from the war are the contractors who supplied the logistical support the U.S. military did not have the capablity of providing. The war was not planned by them or for their benefit, but they could supply what was needed. Even when the military wants to get rid of certain equipment programs or close bases, neither party in Congress will let them. Bringing home the pork gets votes, paying for more active duty soldiers and trucks and cargo planes does not.

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a great thing (ask the Kurds or the other oppressed, tortured or murdered opponents of the Baath Party). The huge failure was the Bush administration's overthrow proponents to have any appreciation for what a quagmire we would create. For those who wondered why we didn't go to Bagdhad in Desert Storm, that's been answered. A few, such as Thomas Friedman, pointed the need for a plan out before the overthrow. While I don't agree with him on much else, he is spot on with Middle East politics. "From Beruit to Jerusalem" is timeless reading.

Posted by Bruce at October 23, 2009 12:24 PM

"An attempt to resurrect the patently absurd and long discredited claim that the Iraq war had something to do with oil"

Allen Greenspan is quite clear when it comes to the Iraq war and oil.

He said "Of course the war was about oil"

Posted by zorro at October 23, 2009 12:58 PM

Bruce - I agree with much of what you have said above. But I'm not sure if Americans should just overthrow foreign governments because of the oppression of their people. That is unconstitutional. It will also bankrupt America. Why haven't we attacked the repressive regime of China or the many repressive regimes of the countries in Africa?

There is most certainly a rhyme to our reason and it does not have all to do with repressive regimes.

Thank you for the reading recommendation. I will check it out. I have not read anything as of yet that Friedman has written, not even that flattening of the world book and have not even read many of his columns. Zorro, in fact, pointed me recently to an article he wrote that was right on. I have seen Friedman a few times on television but that's about it.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 23, 2009 1:04 PM

Zorro - I remember that Greenspan quote. But what I agree with Bruce is that we did not have the means to fight two wars with our soliders alone, even though it cost American hundreds of millions dollars more to do so. But the quesiton perhaps is why were we fighting two wars to begin with?

I fear that Shelley will soon come and close down comments again as the last time. We are probably way off topic. The last time it was a first in the history of this blog. I suspect it will be a second if we don't stick to the topic more closely. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 23, 2009 1:12 PM

"And, when has drawing inspiration from our Constitution been a negative?"

Was it just a good line to make his whole writing of his book seem much more important than it was?

Who knows? - since its perfectly OK to come up with stories made from whole cloth.

Posted by zorro at October 23, 2009 1:12 PM

"But I also think that you critize Tom and others, including Taleb and Huffington and we haven't the slightest idea of who YOU are, not that we are incredibly interested, no disrespect intended at all. Just saying..."

But then again, I never charge for my opinions.

Posted by zorro at October 23, 2009 1:24 PM

Zorro - I sometimes change from my opinions and sometimes those that I have held closely have indeed been wrong. I remain open.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 23, 2009 1:31 PM

One other thing, Zorro. Sometimes our opinions remain the same while things around us change. This is not good. Forever creating and developing, even from the whole cloth by starting all over again, is often necessary. I have done it repeatedly in my life and in my thinking processes by rejecting my usual way of when looking at a situation. I am the better for having done so and I continue to do so to this very hour. This is the necessity for me of forever becoming more of what I will yet be.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 23, 2009 1:42 PM

Zorro - what would Alan Greenspan know more than any other politico or economist? If Paul Volker believes the opposite, are we at a draw? The problem is, no one can make the logical argument of exactly how invading Iraq would benefit the U.S. in terms of oil. What's the theory? We were going to seize all the oilfields and give them to Exxon? Really? As it is, if the Iraqi parliament could ever agree how to split the markets, the Iraqi oil industry would supply more oil to the marker lowering prices. So exactly how was it supposed to be "about the oil".

My apologies to Judith, the UN helicopters appear to flying elseweher.

Posted by Bruce at October 23, 2009 1:43 PM

Funny, Bruce! Your point is well taken. However, as the Chairman of the Fed I would assume that policies in Iraq and Afghanistan would matter to whomever the chairman is. Who can fight a war without trillions these days and who can do so without it directly affecting economies, long-term and short-term, nationally and globally?

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 23, 2009 3:13 PM

Perhaps that has been the problem. The fact that we have felt over these past eight years that no one needs to sacrifice during times of war. The same can probably be said of the irresponsiblity and unaccountability of those on Wall Street and Americans by and large. I still posit that if Wall Street would not have allowed Americans to take out such loans they were not qualified for this global financial crises would not have happened. But, of course, Wall Street banks have reaped what they have largely not sown and seek to allow taxpayers to subsist by gleaning their fields after the harvest.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 23, 2009 3:29 PM viagra next day uk

Bruce, since the Bush administration's logic had us invade Iraq to get the terrorists reponsible for 911, it would have made more sence (using thier type of logic) to invade Bermuda in order to get some control over the worlds oil.

Posted by zorro at October 23, 2009 5:12 PM

"By the way, while many of us were reveling in the glories of globalization with phrases such as "service is the new economy," the economy itself was tanking and the middle class incredibly shrinking"

Chalk up TP as guilty of the above, Judith.

Posted by zorro at October 23, 2009 6:19 PM

Tom Peters is full of hot air!

Posted by falcon Henne at October 24, 2009 1:22 PM

We live in a word filled with BS.

Frank Rich gives his take on how B.S. in thing. I guess Tom is just riding the wave and is encoraging us to jump right in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/opinion/25rich.html?_r=1

Posted by zorro at October 24, 2009 9:47 PM

"service is the new economy,"

I have made many a bonehead mistake, but not on this one. Well, I'm a little off; service has been the mainstay of our economy for 40 or 50 years. FYI, when I go to China, Korea,Taiwan, etc,etc, the clamor is always the same: "Tell us how to become a service-based value-added economy."

GE manufacturing, for example, is a "service biz"--huge shares of its "mfg" revenue come from services added: power, aircraft engines, med devices, etc. (Also, about 90% of a mfg business's employees are doing service work--accounting, engineering, logistics, etc, etc. John Henry and his legendary ilk are no longer the mainstays of the economy!

(FYI: Anybody who calls globalization dead is an idiot. We ain't seen nothin' yet!!!)

(Hmmmmm. How can the middle class shrink? Wages may be stagnant, but the middle is the middle is the middle--wages, ages, etc. Percentile 20 to 80 or some such.)

Posted by tom peters at October 25, 2009 3:23 AM

Implicit in most comments and indeed most of my work is: me, me, me, me. With the exception of C.K. Prahalad, what "gurus" are working on "the other" 2 or 3 billion? We're always focused on us, "the lucky 2 billion," or some such.

(I guess I'm thinking about this because I'm on my way to Angola. How can I help? Not at all sure!)

Posted by tom peters at October 25, 2009 3:33 AM

Tom, I suspect the "lucky" to "other" ratio in Angola is nothing like 50:50. Probably more like 10:90. For "lucky" businesses in Angola the question is which is better: to be part of getting that ratio into a better state of sustainable equilibrium; or to make hay while the sun shines (ie before another civil war breaks out, as it most probably will if the ratio stays as it is)? One is business as part of nation-building and creating societal benefit; the other is business as beholden only to itself. One is about creating an Africa that can help itself; the other is about "me, me, me" (as someone said) and letting the consequences fall on someone else. Not a million miles away from banks, really.

Posted by RobCH at October 25, 2009 5:58 AM

1) "GE manufacturing, for example, is a "service biz"--huge shares of its "mfg" revenue come from services added: power, aircraft engines, med devices, etc."

Yes, an executive friend of mine at one of the car companies just told me at breakfast yesterday that as he was walking through the plant with a few of his young managing engineers that they new nearly nothing about the process of manufacturing. They could not even lead the other engineers. All they seem to have is book knowledge in that most of what they do is simply telling others how to hook this up to that without any conceivable difference in product from company to company. Their parts have all been shipped in. There is no real engineering occurring or no real car building there. I assume the same has happened at GE where financial engineering nearly brought that once great company down.

2) "(Also, about 90% of a mfg business's employees are doing service work--accounting, engineering, logistics, etc, etc. John Henry and his legendary ilk are no longer the mainstays of the economy!"

Why should young people today even learn science and math? My same engineer executive friend whose nephew is a freshman in college when asked why he wasn’t studying engineering said, "It's too hard." We have outsourced engineering, not only for profitable reasons but because it's become too hard. When has engineering become service work? This perhaps is a downside of globalization, the redefinition of work which requires less study and ingenuity and thereby less concentration of risk and harm. The John Henry analogy seems a bit extreme. These countries who are asking about a service economy seem to be also most certainly building.

We can most definitely have a robust diverse economy. The problem seems to be that we have largely had a service economy while the John Henrys of the world are building elsewhere. Proper engineering have became a drag on the books and "too hard" so we became financial engineers those who service the engineering of others.

Financial engineers seem to have run the likes of Chrysler and General Electric when it used to be about proper engineering, building. This has been the problem on Wall Street. Let's do away with actualities, the real business of the business, and instead deal with risky possibilities. For example, banks need to be utilities and allow hedge funds and other companies such as AIG assume their own risks unprotected by US taxpayers.

3) "Hmmmmm. How can the middle class shrink? Wages may be stagnant, but the middle is the middle is the middle--wages, ages, etc. Percentile 20 to 80 or some such.)"

The reference to the middle had all to do with wages. I assume from this standpoint there will always be the middle, but the middle most definitely changes. Wages and ages are determined in time i.e., what used to be the middle before penicillin has changed drastically. The greater point is that what used to be the middle is no longer the middle. What the middle class used to be able to afford they are unable to do so because of wage reductions and job losses. There will be a new middle, I guess, but it has most certainly has shrunk with regards to wages.

4) (FYI: Anybody who calls globalization dead is an idiot. We ain't seen nothin' yet!!!)

For me, the question is not whether globalization is dead but what has been its damage and what will be our motivation. (I also wonder about the number of small businesses that hail globalization as say a Walmart would.) I was listening to Stephen Roach, Chairman Morgan Stanley Asia, on Charlie Rose the other night and he made some good points. He spoke of the interrelation between China and the US which included the basics of one economy that saves and the other that spends.

There is a basic system here that now works between the two countries. But this system will undoubtedly not always work. As the middle is built up there will probably be more spending in China. Roach said that China's first 30 years was a struggle, but the next 30 has been good. When asked which economy he trusted more in he hedged but then said that the Chinese wished they had a Silicon Valley. I guess because he lives largely in China he failed to mention India.

Roach also made brilliant points about Congress' inaction and scapegoating. I am uncomfortable with the notion implicit in the "we ain't seen nothing yet" as if there cannot be a more equitable change in policy. There really is no separation between big business and the government, eh? And here we have people screaming about socialism. Give me a break! What about policies for small businesses? I'm personally getting pretty sick of big business and big banks where they become the focus and policy is driven by their lobbyists.

Besides innovation (it takes very little creativity to outsource, by the way) isn't it about the laws we pass, the policies we make? Of course, when we are trillions of dollars in debt, with others holding our treasury bonds, policy is impacted. The "50 -60 years" mentioned above is the advent of the Boomers, the ushering in of debt and "service," no? Do we have more touchy feely and less nitty gritty? But the former in and of itself never sustains anything long-term.

Tom – These are merely my thoughts. But I am more than willing to listen and change if need be.

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

Sorry, Tom, but "me me me me" sucks BIG! I'm trying to rationalize that statement with the many books that I have read of yours and the many slides I have seen. Presently, it's not computing. Help, please.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 25, 2009 9:52 AM

Just came across this BBC interview with economist Liaquat Ahmed, author Andrew Ross Sorkin, the historian Simon Schama and Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post which addresses Wall Street, the casino, reform, the jobless recovery, and the middle class:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8324522.stm

It's interesting that Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are being exempted from salary curbing, although they have not paid back all of their TARP funds. Here is George Soros on bonuses:

"Those earnings are not the achievement of risk-takers. These are gifts, hidden gifts, from the government, so I don't think that those monies should be used to pay bonuses," the paper quoted him as saying in its Saturday edition. "There's a resentment which I think is justified."

Soros acknowledges what many have known for some time: The government should not be insuring the likes of banks that act as a hedge funds and should not be guaranteed by the government, i.e., taxpayers. "Talented" bankers who took such risks would be on their own as they should be:

"That would push the risk-takers who are good at taking risks out of Goldman Sachs into hedge funds, where they actually belong, because hedge funds take risks with their own capital, not with deposits and not with government guarantees."

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 25, 2009 10:56 PM

I like the idea of donating to charity at .10 cents per word.
Whew! I had to keep going back to what Mr. Peters originally wrote to stay with the point...

Posted by nextgenradio at October 26, 2009 7:40 AM

The points made have largely to do with Tom's #1 (Joblessness: the middle class largely) and #2 (Wall Street superstars). Here is another relevant quote I found this morning by Mark Fischer of Bloomberg News: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=au2qEG04vpmc

"The government had an opportunity to structure the following innovative investment solution: Uncle Sam could have demanded 25 percent to 30 percent of the underlying equity in the banks before agreeing to negotiate a bailout package with the weakened institutions. Had the government brokered a deal that tied bank earnings to taxpayer payback over time, the animosity between Wall Street and Main Street that exists today would have been eliminated, or mitigated at the very least.

"I’m certainly not advocating government control of the banks; rather, just the opposite -- the government would have taken a passive stake and then stepped aside to let business take care of business.

"Unfortunately, our leaders in Washington lacked the shrewdness required to guarantee taxpayers a permanent ownership stake in the banks their money was being used to save. An innovative investment solution could have secured some of the necessary funds to fix our disaster of a health-care system or Social Security mishap.

"Negligible Profits

"Instead, the government went ahead and lent hundreds of billions in capital to Wall Street, insured all the money-market funds, bailed out companies such as American International Group Inc. and allowed financial institutions to issue government- backed debt while exacting negligible profits in return.

"And so I ask: What trader in his right mind decides to dump his money into a glorified black hole, taking on unlimited risk in the process, for minuscule returns? I’m no socialist, mind you. All I am saying is that the banks should have been made to drop off an envelope at the taxpayer’s doorstep every month. Obviously, no one in President Barack Obama's administration has ever watched 'The Godfather.'"

The government, the taxpayers, have treated these Wall Street guys like superstars so they continue to be. If policy would change, their superstar status would change. Arianna Huffington wrote a post yesterday that Jamie Dimon of Chase and John Mack of Morgan Stanley actually went to the book signing of Andrew Ross Sorkin's "Too Big Too Fail" as if they are not. President Obama was in town too for a fundraiser. They choose the book release. Obama's already in the bank bag, eh? Sigh!

Fischer also makes an excellent point about Bernanke: "Obviously, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and his cronies have learned from the experience of the Great Depression how to repair what has been broken, but they have failed to understand how to capitalize on it."

Our government needs to start working for the people!

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 26, 2009 9:17 AM

"I have made many a bonehead mistake, but not on this one. Well, I'm a little off; service has been the mainstay of our economy for 40 or 50 years. FYI, when I go to China, Korea,Taiwan, etc,etc, the clamor is always the same: "Tell us how to become a service-based value-added economy.""

Duh - thats why they went to see you - since you are known to push service so much.

canadian pharmacy generic viagra

In China and Korea and Taiwan - are these people interested in a service economy planning to drop thier manufaturing base or do they plan to sell thier products back to thier own people? I suspect the latter.

3) "Hmmmmm. How can the middle class shrink? Wages may be stagnant, but the middle is the middle is the middle--wages, ages, etc. Percentile 20 to 80 or some such.)"

Give me a break - I can fairly call B.S. here
- you know how rediculus this is - this means the Serfs from the middle ages were middle class! Or, since the Blacks far outnumbered the whites in Aparthied South Africa,
the blacks under Apparthied were middle class.

Posted by zorro at October 26, 2009 2:07 PM

"Leadership? Are you kidding me? Other than seminars. Exactly what has Tom lead?"

Well Zorro, to paraphrase from the 1997 movie "As Good As It Gets," consuming Tom's work over the years has made me want to be a better service-oriented, looking-for-global-opportunities, wary-of-randomness, action-biased man.

I'd call that leadership.

Posted by Terry Ransbury at October 26, 2009 9:00 PM

4) (FYI: Anybody who calls globalization dead is an idiot. We ain't seen nothin' yet!!!)

Tom, maybe you have a point. Maybe we haven't seen nothin yet. Check out this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/science/27trojan.html?hpw

Posted by zorro at October 26, 2009 9:22 PM

What is Tom? The coach of a winning football team or a great sports writer.
I vote for sports writer.
Lets go to the Video Tape!

(People from the NYC media market might get the
Warner Wolf reference)

Posted by zorro at October 26, 2009 9:25 PM

Terry - I agree with you wholeheartedly about Tom. He has been a great leader. I have read almost all of his books and they have had a great impact on my thinking and acting. I'm eternally grateful.

Zorro - That's an excellent article. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at October 26, 2009 10:20 PM

The Economist at its Oct 22, 2009 issue has come down heavily on Stephen Covey in an article titled "The three habits of highly irritating management gurus".

usa viagra no prescription buy cheap brand viagra

Essentially the article is a criticism of Mr Covey's management ideas. Needlessly, to show his unbiased nature, he has dragged other management gurus such as Peters and Collins in this criticism, so as to show a general rant against management gurus.

This is what he writes about Tom and I quote ".... Five years after “In Search of Excellence” appeared, a third of its ballyhooed companies were in trouble. Andrew Henderson of the University of Texas has recently subjected “excellence studies” to rigorous statistical analysis. He concludes that luck is just as plausible an explanation of their success as excellence."

On reading the article, I think that his criticism of Mr Covey is on good merits. But his inclusion of Tom in this article was not required and does not further the arguments he espouses.

Posted by Shantanu at October 28, 2009 4:53 AM

Forgot to give the link. Here it is:

http://www.economist.com/node/14698784/comments

Posted by Shantanu at October 28, 2009 4:55 AM

canadian pharmacy and real viagra

So, how did Angola go?

Posted by RobCH at October 29, 2009 5:57 AM viagra without a prescription