Comments

Tom - I could not agree more. This is a false dichotomy for sure. But doing things right, by the rules--that is, is not always the right thing. Would execution tweek this difference? If so, then your idea of failing fast is really important.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 17, 2009 7:09 PM

Doing the right things (planning) the right way (execution). Minimizes costs, reduces variance, and if that ain't excellence it's damn close!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at December 17, 2009 8:22 PM

For the most part managers use current methods and processes to get the job done. Leaders focus on change. They have a vision of doing things in new and better ways. Of course leaders need to sell their vision and take steps to implement their change. The manager and the leader need to do both--the right thing and in the right way for the role he/she is performing.

Posted by Paul B. Thornton at December 17, 2009 8:42 PM

Notice the quotes on the word "versus". Somebody of Tom's experience knows too well that these versus-debates are much ado about nothing. Probably he should write a book titled "Killing the versus idea" (and Seth Godin can write the foreword :)

Speakers and editors love to play with words and pit one phrase against the other, because it helps them hold their audience in rapt attention. That's why we have raging debates on innovation vs processes, left brain vs right brain, etc.

Each situation/business is unique and calls for a combination of skills. I'd wager that consistent success comes to those who apply this combination to find a solution that is uniquely theirs.

Paraphrasing Dave's comment, it's "Doing the right things right" is what everybody should focus on, irrespective of what their label is: Manager, Leader, Follower, Mentor or Chief Gardener.

Posted by Subir Ghosh at December 18, 2009 1:40 AM

What with the good old definitions which hold that leadership is what people need, and management what processes need?
(and trying to manage people is as far off as trying to lead processes)

Any organization needs both. If not equally present in one person, then at least within the Management Team.

And isn't "versus" a term mostly used by people who are trying to justify their lack of either? (as if this needs to be justified, see above)

Posted by Guido Thys at December 18, 2009 3:18 AM

Or: management as about delivering what is, and leadership about seeing what could be? Each applying equally to people and processes.

Posted by RobCH at December 18, 2009 4:13 AM

"Paraphrasing Dave's comment, it's "Doing the right things right" is what everybody should focus on.”

Ultimately, it's still about getting the idea from the white space to the working place. This is about execution which makes the quote above "execution is strategy" paramount. So, in other words as I read the quote, without execution, strategy never materializes. Many great strategies die in thought processes. Execution does away with these endless non-active brain machinations. An executive engineer friend of mine said to me just today, "These people don't understand the difference between PowerPoint engineering and engineering proper." (He is an engineer with many patents.) This is sad but very true. Where is the product? Where was the product with Daimler, for example? Where was the product with Cerberus? Where will the product be with Fiat? Execution embraces the necessity of another one of Tom's idea, failing fast forward. What we have had is financial and PowerPoint engineering. Execution IS the point here.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 18, 2009 4:21 AM

Judith, there's no doubting that without Execution, there'd no "getting the idea from the white space to the working place" but that's just part of the journey. Isn't thinking up ideas and choosing the right idea also an integral part of the journey?

I agree that businesses/people are often lax about Execution because it is perceived as unsexy. As a race we have always placed "thinkers" above "doers" and that's why the importance of Execution cannot be overemphasized. That said, just like "many great strategies die in thought processes," many splendid executions also come to nought because the idea itself was a non-starter.

To me, it's not an either/or option, Ideas and Execution go hand in hand. Execution, as may be misconstrued, is not about switching off the grey cells and getting the hands dirty. It's about clearly knowing what one's got to do, chalking out the path intelligently and then walking that path. It's also about the ability to couse-correct if one's going off on a wrong path. So, even when we're on the Execution part of the journey, the idea-beings should be wide awake.

Pleasure, as always, in being part of the conversation here.

Posted by Subir Ghosh at December 18, 2009 5:03 AM

"Isn't thinking up ideas and choosing the right idea also an integral part of the journey?"

Yes, Subir, this is important. The question then becomes where are we at various points in the process? Often times, the actual innovation does not even begin. The model is never actualized. What would often much rather do is think about a thing ad nausea. Acting logically requires thinking in an environment that isn't frivolous. Most aren't, although many are stagnant. Strategy is the obvious. Execution is by far less so in all of the examples given above. People prefer strategy over action generally. Our consulting and service economies have even brought this problem more to the fore where in reality the basis of these should be to bring change, to bring meaningful activity. Most times it is simply more of the same endless non-activity. Regarding your either or comment, "execution is strategy" covers both. This is the brilliance of the phrase.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 18, 2009 5:29 AM

Judith, it's a brilliant phrase if those who use it give it the depth of attention that you do. For many, I suspect it will conveniently cover their inability or unwillingness to address one or the other well enough, or at all.

On what may be a semantic note, such a phrase ought logically to work as well backwards. However, for me at least a stand-alone "strategy is execution" just doesn't convince. The two nouns do signify different things; it's the verb in the middle which is being asked to express more inter-dependency than it's capable of, and so for me leaves something lacking.

Interesting.

Posted by RobCH at December 18, 2009 6:06 AM

Subir

I have found the exact opposite of what you are saying in business (does that mean there is a happy average!)

My experience is that most businesses have way below par thinking and certainly do not value real thinkers.

People tinkering around with so called strategy does not constitute thinking in my book (that's just none productive doing!)

Take this test - look at any employee's objectives and how many times you see pure thinking rewarded in the bonus scheme.

Posted by PaulH at December 18, 2009 7:33 AM

"It is sometimes said that the difference between 'management' and 'leadership' is 'doing things right' versus 'doing the right thing.'

Management might be simple execution once a decision is made. Leadership might be more about making the right decision.
Someone has to carry out the orders - and someone has to originate the orders.
They are two different processes.
Its the difference between deciding to send more troops to Afghanistan (Obama) and then succeeding once they get there (Mcchrystal).

Posted by zorro at December 18, 2009 9:25 AM

Rob - Thank you for your very detailed analysis. But I must say that when I first read the post I thought, "Okay, the two phrases themselves ('doing things right' versus 'doing the right thing') could produce some serious mind f%^king." Being trained in various branches of philosophy, I understand this all too well. But being raised in a house of in your face action coupled always with reason, I understand productivity too. Where I fail in either case, I always hope to be better and actively seek to be.

I thought the two phrases could themselves BE the very example of inaction, rendering the aforementioned mind masturbation. I must say that your comment makes my thought more of a reality. It is not that it isn't thoughtful. It is. But it more likely falls into the trap of what could produce meaningless inaction. As a result of what humans do more readily, which is simply inaction, the phrase "strategy is execution" should move us to action.

At the very least, "strategy is execution" should produce for us examples of inaction that could lead to action. Remember, we are more readily on the inactive spectrum. This is the brilliance of the phrase "strategy is execution." With regards to "depth of attention," where this is lacking, leadership should lead. If leaders themselves are lacking, they should actively seek to learn. This is precisely why I come to this blog often. It helps me in the real world of Excellence now!

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 18, 2009 9:28 AM

Zorro - I really appreciate your words and example. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 18, 2009 9:30 AM

I'm pretty sure I agree with you, thus our long standing motto -

"Do the right thing, and do it right."

Posted by E.J. at December 18, 2009 9:31 AM

But on the other hand I can see how "strategy is execution" could get everyone involved in the planing and production, even with distinct roles.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 18, 2009 9:44 AM

Very nice, EJ! Thanks!

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 18, 2009 9:45 AM

Tom, I'm the writer that contacted you. Thank you very much for your time in responding to my request.

The reader comments here are terrific. If I had it to do all over again, I would have posed the issue differently. My use of the word "versus" was incidental at the time, but as some have said here, this set up an inherent conflict.

It's great to see the different points of view. Thanks to all that took the time to comment!

Posted by Michael Sanibel at December 18, 2009 9:49 AM

Judith, one thing is certain: if we spend all day worrying about the distinction between strategy and execution we will never get on with either! :)

Posted by RobCH at December 18, 2009 10:00 AM

Well, most times we think of the right side of the brain as the creative one.
But the left side must be usefull for something.
It´s quite obvious, but maybe generally we get more excited about developing creativity than execution.

Posted by gerson barbosa at December 18, 2009 1:08 PM

Bravo, Rob! That's for sure. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 18, 2009 1:43 PM

Once when we were kids my brothers were complaining to my uncle about not being able to do what the other boys were doing. Instead, all seven of them were "herded" to his very large farm of thousands of acres on the outskirt of Detroit to work. (The girls worked too but not nearly as hard or as often.) My brothers wanted to hang out with the other boys. This was my uncle's response: "They may be moving, but in the wrong direction." All movement is not progress. My uncle was a strategy guy, but was thoroughly an executor above all else. His motto was: "Get it done!" Sometimes this wasn't so good, because he was a bit of a driver. But today we are all appreciative of the many lessons he taught us.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 18, 2009 2:58 PM

So after all that chat, IS there a difference between management and leadership? Given that Tom regarded the "things right/right thing" distinction as nuts (and we have then spent time debating it and the consequent strategy/execution distinction/conflation), what of the original "versus" question? When we talk of a "great" manager or leader, do we have different criteria - skillset, approach or whatever - in our minds for each, and if so, what?

Posted by RobCH at December 19, 2009 4:14 AM

Execution is strategy.

Strategy is exeuction.

Everybody...

Get it done.

But everything begins with a thought...

"In the beginning was the word."

Without which there can be no action

But...

"Faith without works is dead."

Get it done...

Everybody.

Excellence Now!

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 19, 2009 9:27 AM

Hi Judith, not sure if that's an answer to my question, which was predicated on the assumption that while we may have burned out the execution/strategy debate, the original question was about two quite different words, and probably two quite different meanings.

I'm thinking for example that we don't call senior politicians our political managers, we call them (heaven help us) our political leaders. And I suspect a large part of our disillusionment with politicians as a class is that they fail time and again to demonstrate qualities that we intuitively look/hope for in leaders. So my question is, are there such qualities, that distinguish a great leader from a great manager? I would expect, as with execution/strategy, that there is overlap to some extent, but what is specuific to each Venn circle, if indeed they both exist?

Posted by RobCH at December 19, 2009 10:12 AM

Oh, I'm sorry, Rob. My last comment wasn't addressed to you or in direct response to your question. I'm winding down at the gym here. Heart rate slowing down. Maybe I shall address your comment directly once I'm home. It's a beautiful snowy day where I am . I hope your day is going well.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 19, 2009 11:00 AM

Just read your comment again, Rob. Briefly what distinguishes great leaders/managers is the vision, heart and humility they have in getting things done. We often think of leaders as visionaries. But once the vision is given creativity happens all around in the process. My best friend, the executive engineer at a car company here, tells me all the time that once he makes a design mechanics fool with it all the way until the final product. While he holds the patent, who then has really designed it? Okay, I'm done here. Maybe when I get home I'll even have more to say. You never know. :-) Thanks, Rob.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 19, 2009 11:16 AM

Judith, my day has been spent trying to encapsulate in writing the philosophy of the project I have set up here in Syria and run for five years, and which I will soon be handing over to others to take forward. The project, which is at the centre of the development of civil society and concerns building active citizenship among the country's young people, is enormously counter-culture in many respects, is full of the "soft" stuff which rarely gets written down, and so is a challenge to capture objectively. But it's an enjoyable challenge.

Posted by RobCH at December 19, 2009 11:50 AM

Here is what Garrison Keillor thinks. He is obviously a leader. But is he a manager? My reading of what he is saying here is that he does not think so.

"I'm not sure how familiar you are with Tom Peters. He's the father of this notion of Brand You. You really are a quintessential Brand You. You are sort of a one-man multinational corporation, right? Your show is broadcast around the world. I'm wondering if you think about the world at work. Is the future a million different Garrison Keillors? Or do you still see people plodding off to GM and making cars?

GK: I hope that people will still go off and make cars. I think that the decline within manufacturing in this country is a terrible loss, and a cultural loss. I don't want us to become a nation of authors, humorists, and writers of sonnets. For one thing, I don't encourage the competition. But I just think that it's a terrible cultural loss for the country, as well as an economic loss, to lose the ethics of physical work.

My father was a carpenter. He worked with his hands. He was gifted with his hands. This was a life for him that had great dignity and meaning. This should be fostered. I hope that people don't follow my lead. I am a man who, in many ways, leads the life of a ten-year-old child. It's a very immature life. You have adults around you who are steering the ship."

Posted by zorro at December 19, 2009 12:22 PM

Rob - No snow there, eh? :-) The project sounds wonderful. All the very best with it! Does the philosophy of the soft stuff vary in different cultures? The basics of human relations undoubtedly remain. Best!

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 19, 2009 12:38 PM

Judith, soft stuff seems to vary between individuals, let alone between cultures. Here we are trying to give young people "permission" to explore their potential and develop as individuals, while recognising that there are cultural boundaries which can differ wildly (girls/boys; urban/rural; muslim/christian; traditional/modern). So we have to build high levels of trust not just with the young people but with their parents and communities too. At the same time we have to reassure "the establishment" that we are not corrupting the young, while reassuring young people that we are not the establishment ourselves. Always interesting.

BTW it's cold and wet here, and there will be snow on the western hills by now.

ATB

Posted by RobCH at December 19, 2009 1:38 PM

"...soft stuff seems to vary between individuals, let alone between cultures."

This is so very true, Rob. I also think that there are things specific to various cultures and regions too. I, for example, love the fact that Arabs and Jews are generally not supposed to get along in the Middle East. But I find it quite interesting that they seem to often live in close proximity elsewhere in the world. The cultural distinctions that you've presented above are astute and the necessity of building trust seems essential indeed. It seems like a delicate balance but one that will probably pay off big. Are the leaders Syrians? Does this matter?

Regarding the weather, sometimes we tend to think that the Middle East remains desert-like all year long. When I lived in San Francisco I was shocked to find out that I needed a coat in the summer. The Mark Twain quote is so true: "The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco." Women wore fur coats and they were needed. Being from Michigan, I couldn't believe it. I was totally unprepared. It was "cold and wet," bone-chilling, in fact. Perhaps the weather too plays a role in behaviors and distinctions.

The soft stuff seems adaptable. Respect is viewed differently in various cultures.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 20, 2009 10:43 AM

Judith, you may find this link, about "getting along" in the region, uplifting. I have met the Mufti on several occasions and he is completely inspiring.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/03/a_mufti_a_christian_and_a_rabb.html

Posted by RobCH at December 20, 2009 11:41 AM

Uplifting indeed, Rob! Thanks for the link. Much appreciated. Awww..I'd like to meet Mufti too. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 20, 2009 12:39 PM

Thank you Tom for bringing this long frustrating mantra to light. It takes competence to lead and manage not trite phrases or even an adversarial relationship between leadership and management. I have simplified leadership to a simple formula based on my observations over many years. L=WD. Leadership= Enhancing the (W)orth of others so they can make sound (D)ecisions. I created this to keep people focused on what the essence of leadership is all about. It is not strategic planning, or the "vision" or a matter of 12 steps or 9-steps or 8 laws etc. It is the matter of helping other excel. The essence of leadership is the relationship with people. In my seminars, I mention that the real "moment of choice" for a leader is how you treat the person walking in the door. Do I enhance their worth and help them grow, or do I tell them what to do or focus on what they are doing wrong? Which person would you prefer to work with?

Posted by Phil Clark at December 21, 2009 11:00 AM

"L=WD. Leadership= Enhancing the (W)orth of others so they can make sound (D)ecisions."

Beautiful, Phil. Thank you for that.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 21, 2009 1:56 PM

I feel like I'm being redundant after reading these other comments, but I just can't resist agreeing that the whole thing really is a false dichotomy. You did a great job of explaining why.

Posted by jason wilton at December 21, 2009 2:06 PM

"Hence my 'take no prisoners' 'bottom line' is that 'doing things right' is as much a part of effective leadership as 'doing the right thing.'"—Tom Peters/1217.09"

So? this doesn't mean they can't be separate things.
My lungs are as important as my heart -
that does not make then the same thing.

Posted by zorro at December 21, 2009 10:54 PM

Paul,

Thank you for pointing out the seeming incongruity, but I would call it a paradox.

When praise is assigned, it's generally the "idea" that gets almost all the applause. I'm not sure whether a book titled "100 Executions that changed the world" would fly off bookshelves.

This is obviously wrong and skewed, but it solidifies the belief that limelight will be on those who think up rather than those who carry it forward. I completely agree with you when you say that "pure thinking" is seldom rewarded in the bonus scheme. That's because setting up an idea-focussed culture is difficult and seems like a dangerous thing to do ("Now they're going to start dreaming a thousand worthless ideas and waste valuable time!"). The concern is not always misplaced and it takes much more than writing boilerplate KRAs to strike a balance between thinking and doing.

Almost always, ideas get rewarded only in hindsight, once the idea has hit the jackpot. Very few businesses really have the vision, courage, intelligence and determination to set up an idea-focussed culture and the follow-through discipline of Execution.

However, once they hit success (by design or by serendipity), the idea-person is bathed in limelight while the execution team gets at best a standing ovation for "great teamwork".

As I said, this is wrong. IMHO, if businesses can make every employee responsible & accountable for fruition of great ideas and assign the praise in a fair manner, it could lead to much more wows than we're seeing right now.

Cheers.

Posted by Subir Ghosh at December 22, 2009 6:19 AM

Subir, one sub-texts of this discussion is the danger of conflating distinctly different concepts. In my view "thinking" and "ideas" do not mean the same thing, and thought-through execution, rather just "getting it done" is the conflict. I've worked in many organisations with an "out (ie completed) is beautiful" mentality, where those who got stuff done on time, irrespective of whether it could have been done much better, were treated as heroes, and those who said "shouldn't we think about...?" were treated as inconvenient nuisances. The missed opportunities and the costs of later re-working or improvement weren't held against the heroes; after all, they "delivered". I'm with Paul, in general, thinking things through is too easily treated as a negative, and those who try to contribute thought are too easily dismissed. The UK's current enquiry into Iraq reveals just such a culture.

But then, I'm also with you; your last point is spot on!

Regards

Posted by RobCH at December 22, 2009 7:31 AM

I totally agree. It is nuts. You see that sentence everywhere. It is time we stop using it. I also think it is wrong (http://tinyurl.com/yacktt5).
Thanks for this Tom!
Elad

Posted by Elad Sherf at December 27, 2009 5:28 AM

When the Chinese dump cheap products in mass numbers across the Globe, what is the right thing to do and how to do that thing right?

How did the leaders and managers at Chrysler, GM and Ford get beaten by TOYOTA's innovations?

The right thing to do and the right way to do it - that got missed out and messed up - was perhaps that they were beaten in America by America, not by Toyota. The latter reference is to the American consumer. Ultimately, it is the consumer who beats the company, not the competitor.

The ultimate challenge for leaders and managers both is - can you make your product and service more lovable for the ultimate consumer, than your competitor can? I don't know whether there can be a different challenge at all.

When we go deeper into the example above, we find that, figuring out the right thing to do and how to do it, are not sequential jobs coming one after another. They are actually simultaneous and homogeneous jobs, all the way, from beginning to end. In other words,they - are a single job!

This single job is neither a pure, right brain job nor a pure, left brain job. It is a whole brain job all the way.The synapses across the right and left have to be working all the way.

Posted by VIJAYA MOHAN at December 30, 2009 3:06 PM