Comments

Great 4 questions and sadly, I've made the mistake of not asking them of myself in my own business often enough.

Posted by John Rosa at June 3, 2010 2:15 PM

to serve man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5×0BSgLKnSk

Posted by zorro at June 3, 2010 2:21 PM

The toughest one is:
8. A leader's unique task is to imagine and advance a vision.
Without a constant and overarching vision, even the greatest leader flounders.

Posted by Mike L. at June 3, 2010 7:03 PM

"For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves."

--The Christ

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 3, 2010 7:42 PM

Great list of 10 with one exception. The emptiest word in leadership...to me... is empower. To give one the authority to do something without the tools and resources to do it is to set them up to fail and position them to take the blame. Perhaps that's the point. My role as a leader is to ENABLE folks to excel, to increase their capacity to improe and produce. Focus on enabling, giving folks the time, tools, training, input,information and feedback they need and deserve. It gets results!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at June 3, 2010 7:58 PM

Excellent post, I totally agree as well. I know that in my Project management I need to help people alot more and get back to the core of why I do this.

Posted by John Jackson at June 3, 2010 8:58 PM

Enabling without self-actualization, an empowerment of sorts, is crippling, sappy. Leaders are leaders because of their ability to lead through the knowledge they impart, soft or hard. (Or, is it soft is hard? :-) Knowledge empowers. There is absolutely noting wrong with the notion of leaders empowering people. It is a matter of how. Everything is a matter of how. There seems to be a distinction in Dave's comment with regards to style--hence, his chosen word, enable. But without an empowerment this is no ability, no enabling. Leaders are leaders for a reason. Power to the people through the knowledge imparted and the actualization of that knowledge to serve.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 3, 2010 10:31 PM

Judith,

I see and appreciate your point. My issue with the word is in the way I've seen it applied by many managers in many organizations. Empowerment is a proclamation...and nothing else. A proclamation of empowerment might very well be a part of your strategy. But the failure to enable folks to meet the performance expectations you set is a huge barrier when it comes to execution. Time, tools, training, information, and input are the things management controls...not the face behind the counter or voice on the phone. Knowledge and the ability to impart it is but one function of leadership. But what makes one a true leader is those who chose to follow you. You can have allies or enemies. They decide...not me! If I give the the authority to do something without the tools to do it...I know which category I'll be in. But I do agree, there is nothing wrong with the notion of empowerment. You have to have both to make it work for sure...

Posted by Dave Wheeler at June 3, 2010 11:48 PM

Dave - Empowerment and enabling can both be proclamations. This is why I stated that the how matters. What you seem to have been addressing is style, the distinction of the word empowerment as an exertion of power versus and enabling a softer sense the same. Call it what we want. Without a method of leadership that works from a standpoint of service, personality aside, there is no empowerment or enabling. Addressing strategy, let alone mine, was not the point. I sought to assert that knowledge is the enabling component and it is this very thing, be it soft or hard, that empowers. Leaders are positioned expressly in order to empower through their knowledge.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 4, 2010 12:09 AM

The best leaders know - and act like they know - they are in service to their followers.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 4, 2010 12:45 AM

"If you are looking for a leader - don't look UP to a platform - just look around you" - Tony Benn

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 4, 2010 12:50 AM

The Benn quote has value in that we are all made of the same stuff and this is a starting point of servant leadership. But we still need leaders so positioned to raise consciousness and to present a vision. Yes, there are checks and balances. But to discredit positional leadership is just foolish. Everybody can't lead and most certainly not simultaneously. This is simply chaos. Positional leadership is important and humility in leading is equally as so. It is the humility component that I see most in the Benn quote. In fact, acknowledging those around us doesn't negate the necessity of positional leaders. The fact that there are "followers" acknowledges that there are positional leaders.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 4, 2010 1:10 AM

"The Pursuit of WOW!"...PG 18. Baldrige winner Ritz Carlton and Virginia Azuela...Housekeeper. Topic "Empowerment"..."The Ritz Carlton, 1992 winner of the Malcom Bladrige Quality Award, has given her enormous autonomy to serve her quests as she sees fit (e.g., the ability to spend up to 2000.00 on her own to solve a customer problem)".

Deciding to give her the "autonomy" to serve her guests as she sees fit is the "empowerment" piece. The authority to do it. The policy that allows her to spend up to 2k as "on her own", on the spot, without having to get approval is the one of the tools they give her to do it. That is the enabling piece. To often the words are all folks get. It really is or gets no simpler than that. If the leadership knowledge you reference is being smart enough to see the need to give people the autonomy and tools to take care of their customers needs then I agree 1000 percent! Tom also makes the point when asked to explain why he included her picture in the book he observed "because all this highfaulutin tuff about running companies boils down to-surprise!- to the folks who actually do the work." He got that right!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at June 4, 2010 1:11 AM

Hi Judith - 'Positional leadership' is a good term - providing that �position� is not self appointed. The most effective leaders I�ve ever met or known is where the leadership role is ordained by followers not assumed by the leader.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 4, 2010 1:29 AM

I'd offer an amendment to point 8, based on the notion that things are always changing:

A leader's unique task is to imagine, re-imagine and advance a vision.

Posted by Mark JF at June 4, 2010 2:27 AM

Over the years I've stopped talking so much about management, focus some about leadership, and more and more about stewardship.

My experience is that everyone thinks they know what management is. Everyone disagrees what leadership is. But everyone in an organization can engage in stewardship, and help it emerge as culture.

Posted by Shava Nerad at June 4, 2010 2:29 AM

Totally bored with this conversation, guys.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 4, 2010 1:51 PM

I'm also a wee bit annoyed. Trevor's "followers" are such because at any given point they are not leaders. It's really okay to be a follower--really. I enjoy following as much as I do leading. But, of course, there is always the question of who we're following. Even when the leader has been less than stellar my humbling to the mere position of leadership caused me to grow in ways I had not expected. This remains something that I practice: humbling myself. You can learn in any situation if YOU adjust accordingly. "The first shall be last and the last shall be first." But the mere lack of acknowledging that followers exist and that this position is indeed not a negative perhaps points to an arrogance in itself. We have to acknowledge that not everyone has the skill or ability to lead and those with such are servants to the those who they lead. Dave's language seems to undercut the essence of his thought. Who is "deciding to give her the autonomy she needs" that enables her to serve? Obviously, it is the leader who is empowered to do so.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 4, 2010 2:09 PM

Many thanks Tom for kind mention of my book Serve to Lead.

I'm enjoying and learning a lot from this string of posts.

Mark: I think your amendment is spot on. If you have no objection I'll make the change along with other touch-ups in a subsequent print run, adding you to the acknowledgments accordingly. No time like the present to strive to improve every day! :-)

Trevor: I share your high regard for Tony Benn. Though I'm entirely unpersuaded by his worldview (and I've even read his 'Arguments for Socialism'), I recognize and respect that he is a powerful communicator, and fascinating to observe as an orator. His defiant, heedless authenticity is memorably compelling in this time when plastic, confected "leaders" all too often occcupy high positions.

And thanks again to Tom, for bringing so many creative people and interesting ideas together all the time, and bringing my new book into the discussion today. In a spirit of service, that sentiment includes the intelligent if incorrigible "Zorro."
:-)

Posted by Jim Strock at June 4, 2010 2:32 PM

Thanks Jim � I�m delighted with your response about that youngster of 85 years Tony Benn.

I�ve had the immense pleasure of meeting Tony a few times in the last 5 years � it was a lifelong ambition fulfilled when I met him. I was not disappointed! He is one of the most inspiringly humble men I�ve met.

I�m currently reading Tony�s book �More time for Politics� which is his diaries, covering the years 2001 � 2007 � have you read it? � Within it we read much about the man and his values.

As regards his worldview � you are not alone. There are many opposed to his worldview to and I totally respect that. That opposition comes partly because Tony has never been one to �sit on the fence� like so many of our current �plastic, confected leaders.� I love that expression by the way because it sums up perfectly so many politicians � at least over here :-)

With Tony Benn � like him or loathe him - at least you know what he stands for.

Have a great weekend Jim!

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 4, 2010 3:30 PM

Hi Judith

�It's really okay to be a follower--really.� Absolutely with you on that! �It describes me perfectly and - I venture to suggest - 99% of us for most of the time. In my experience many followers also lead. Leadership can be situational and I personally do not believe leadership is about �special� people at all. It�s about common sense. The way to ensure practical leadership is done poorly is to send potential leaders on classroom based leadership studies.

Leadership is an absolute honour and privilege for those fortunate enough to assume positions of leadership. I don�t think we should pretend that leadership is some complex science. It�s about (in my opinion) whether others prepared to follow. If they are it�s because they judge the leader to be credible.

I strongly support Tom�s comment elsewhere on this Blog today �Leaders exist to serve. Period.�

Fascinating discussion thank you.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 4, 2010 3:50 PM

Trevor - Are there no distinct roles of followers and leaders? Are there no distinct genders? Are there no distinct anything anymore? What really pisses me off, please excuse my language, is this whole relative society that we are not in that is largely a crock of $%$#! You will excuse me, please. The reality is there are distinctions by nature and nurture and the moment we begin to truly acknowledge the gifts, talents, abilities, and striving of each other, our society and workplaces will be by far better and the seemingly innate desire to actually become the other through relativity will be clearly recognized as merely a desire to usurp the other.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 4, 2010 3:58 PM

Hi Judith � Yep � I think there are very DEFINITELY distinct leadership roles and follower roles but I also believe they are interchangeable and interdependent.

�the moment we begin to truly acknowledge the gifts, talents, abilities, and striving of each other, our society and workplaces will be by far better�

I love your words here Judith � these things should happen, whether or not we call people leaders or followers � these are good �rules for life� as far as I can tell.

One thing I�m pretty sure we agree about is that we are all �equal� anyway in the eyes of the one who REALLY matters :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 4, 2010 5:37 PM

"I also believe they are interchangeable and interdependent."

Of this there is no doubt. I have been a student in various fields up to the PhD level, from my early years at the age of 12 as an opera singer to my philosophical studies to my entrepreneurial ventures. I have been taught by the best. Great teachers will always acknowledge that they learn from their students. This is what you have described above. But the very minute you turn the dynamic upside down and require that the student assume the role of the teacher much is lost, for the student has not the breadth of knowledge or experience typically for the role of a teacher.

My niece who is a sophomore in architecture at my alma mater University of Michigan--Go Blue!-- posted on her Facebook page something like her teacher gave her a B on a paper because he wasn't bright enough to understand her thesis. For two days I read the comments and thought about if and how I would interject. I try not to interject too often on my nieces and nephews' pages. I have 26 of them and I wouldn't want to turn into the pestering aunt. :-)

Finally, I did interject for my nieces' sake and those youthful others who may have been reading, imploring her (and them) to be patient and simply listen as teachers are in their role for a reason and she (they) are students for another reason. If she was not able to make her thesis clear to him this time, she should try again differently the next time and perhaps go in to see him during his office hour. This way she could get a better understanding. She thanked me.

My niece did go in and see the professor and was pleased with her visit. She had learned something about herself, her lack of knowledge, and her drive to express herself. She was also taught a lesson in humility. I understood this well. Between you and me, the professor seemed like a bit of a prick after she called me and explained how her visit had gone. But she had adjusted and I did not lead on at all, wanting to keep the sense of healthy respect needed for her to receive what she needs. I asked her to keep me posted.

Yes, there are leaders and followers, teachers and students and the role can indeed be interchangeable in the sense that we all learn from each other, no matter the role. This is the necessary humility of which I spoke. But without a sense of respect for the knowledge and ability of those in leadership positions, hard or soft, and without the clear distinction of roles, things can quickly dissolve into chaos. There is a reason why coaches and CEOs are fired and teams and players remain in position. With leadership, comes responsibility.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 4, 2010 7:42 PM

Judith,

"But without a sense of respect for the knowledge and ability of those in leadership positions, hard or soft, and without the clear distinction of roles, things can quickly dissolve into chaos."

There is not a person who better understands these most basic and obvious principles that you mention than a good level one, two, or three leader. In our world, these are givens. But you have to make a choice. Is respect earned or is it an entitlement. The choice you make drives what you say, what you do, and how you interact with your team. It is what determines whether I have allies or enemies. If I have to remind them who's in charge or what our roles are...I've lost. We could quibble or debate words and concepts like empower and enable which I could do for days because I know I'm never going to tell someone to go do anything, without giving them the tools to do it. Why? Well you said it best...I need them to respect my knowledge and ability. Which ain't gonna happen if I'm doing ignorant stuff like that. One of the things that makes leadership easy is they really aren't paying attention to what I'm saying at first as they are much more interested and focused what my ass does. Do the words and actions match. Once they see they do...it's all good and the job gets much easier. I'm thinking you would be a terrific leader because if the "you I know you to be" would be judged on the consistency of words and actions, you would have many, many more allies than enemies and get a bunch of stuff done!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at June 5, 2010 12:26 AM

This weekend is certainly a time for reflection on service and leadership with the loss of the incomparable John Wooden.

Trevor-Congratulations on meeting Mr. Benn--I'm envious! And thanks for the tip on the new book.

Judith & Dave & Trevor-to add yet another voice to your interesting exchange of ideas... one might suggest that "everyone can lead, because everyone can serve"--and, among other things, that can mean that each of us will serve in different ways in different times and places. One might be a "leader" in one situation, a "follower" in another, to use your terms--sometimes simultaneously.

Posted by Jim Strock at June 5, 2010 2:04 PM

Hi Jim � Tony will always be a hero to me! Humility wins every time. I agree totally with your interpretation that we can all lead at different times. As I�ve said many times that has always been my experience throughout my healthcare management career. I�ve been in situations where cleaners or porters have been the leader and doctors the followers; I�ve been in situations where doctors have been the leader and we are all followers! For me this largely boils down to the situation not the person.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 5, 2010 2:20 PM

"Everyone can lead because everyone can serve"

OK then everyones kids are above average.

"Character is a competitive advantage."

Do you mean bad or good character. Because a whole lot
of bad characters make a boatload of money.

"The most valuable resource of any enterprise is its people."

If this is true, why do they fire people first?

Posted by zorro at June 5, 2010 4:06 PM

Hi Jim � apologies I didn�t acknowledge the late Mr Wooden � sorry to say I had not heard of him. I�ve just researched him on Wiki � sounds a real character and great coach.

Also another thought on our excellent leadership debate � and this comes after a lovely glass of Chilean Red �. So I hope this makes sense :-)

Why do some try and turn leadership into a science? Leadership is simple - do people want to follow you or not? Nothing more, nothing less.

Is that too simple? - it sounds ok to me.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 5, 2010 4:42 PM

Thanks for the question, Trevor--Why do people try to make leadership a science? Perhaps because science is based on quantification and replication. I understand well the urge some may have to comprehend and repeat exceptional leadership with scientific certainty.

While management--essentially about resource allocation--can be made "scientific" to a significant extent, I'm persuaded that leadership is ultimately more related to art. At a high level it draws upon capacities such as re-associating concepts in new ways, intuition, instinct, etc. Effective leadership might well encompass management within it, but it is ultimately a thing apart.

Nonetheless, if leadership is about service, I do believe leadership competencies can be systematized. That is how the book Serve to Lead is intended to add value.

Does that comport with your thinking, or do you think of science and leadership differently?

Posted by Jim Strock at June 5, 2010 5:56 PM

Hi Jim � My take? � I agree we can teach leadership competencies in the classroom but that in itself does not produce leaders.

My dissertation �Leadership in Practice� was a study of leadership from the perspective of Family Doctors here in the UK. I used as an assessment tool the seven competencies of leadership described by my friend Alan Hooper and his co-author John Potter in their book �The Business of Leadership.�

I see management as something VERY different to leadership. That's not to say managers cannot lead but managers are not automatically leaders in my opinion.

Can we teach leadership?? �.. err .. .can I pass on that one?

Anecdotally and subjectively I would say leadership is an art and management is measurable. I wrote something called �Management and Leadership � Chalk and Cheese.�
I�d be happy to send you (electronically) both the dissertation and the article if you wish.

Best

Trevor

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 5, 2010 6:22 PM

Thanks, Trevor, of course, I'd be delighted to receive those works via email, or anything else you'd recommend. I look forward to learning from them! Best, Jim

Posted by Jim Strock at June 5, 2010 6:36 PM

Jim,

I agree completely with your "One might be a "leader" in one situation, a "follower" in another, to use your terms--sometimes simultaneously." To me, the best source of information, the best eyes and ears to spot opportunities to improve performance and productivity are usually attached to the heads of the folks on the front line and level one leaders. That was a lesson I was taught years ago during my time in the Air Force where the paradigm was rank = knowledge. Rank equals experience but it is no guarantee of knowledge. I worked for someone who often followed his team in many situations and it worked! He spent most of his time developing us and getting the barriers out of the way. Worked for him and has always worked for me...

Posted by Dave Wheeler at June 5, 2010 7:24 PM

Does anyone know how to follow?

Maybe someone needs to start talking about 'followship'.

I'm not kidding. We live in a world where every thinks they
have a great idea and will pay big money for someone to tell
them 'you have great ideas - you are all geniuses!'

"You're bosses are all idiots! You know more about what ever it is the F%$K you do than anyone else! You have the power! Everyone gets an award! We are actually all communists trapped in the
body of a capitalist! Its time to come out, comrade!"

Posted by zorro at June 5, 2010 9:45 PM

Hi Jim - I've sent the two documents to this address - is that ok? info@jamesstrock.com
Have a great Sunday!

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 6, 2010 3:12 AM

Unsurprisingly Dave - I'm with you 100% :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 6, 2010 3:14 AM

Without Zorro, many of the threads here would dissolve into a gush of sappy goo with nearly all white-middle-aged men essentially saying the same thing in the same way over and over again, finding agreement wherever possible even in the face of something greater. C'est la vie.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2010 8:32 AM

Sorry to hear you feel that way Judith � can I put my slant on this?

To me it�s a great way of linking with like minded people. Why is it such a problem that we seek agreement?
And frankly I don�t care if the company I keep in real life or in my considerable virtual communication networks is any of the following:

� Green
� Blue
� Black
� Red
� White
� Either gender
� Any age
� Any sexual orientation
� Any religion
� Wealthy or poor
� Any social status
� There may be more

The fabulous news about diversity is �. I learn from it ��� even from Zorro � occasionally :-)

I don�t enjoy disagreement nor do I seek it. I learn less through disagreement than agreement.

�Even in the face of something greater� � pray tell what is the 'something greater' we white-middle-aged men are missing?

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 6, 2010 9:45 AM best deal for viagra

Yawn...

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 6, 2010 10:21 AM

"Why is it such a problem that we seek agreement?"

Now for the most part, I think Matt Ridleys recent book,
recommended by Tom is junk. I say this because Ridley appears to be a Global Warning denier, who I believe are
the modern day version of appeasers (think Neville Chamberlin)

But, what Ridley has right is the obvious observation that
different ideas mix to create new ones - and Tom says he is all for this!

I'm just following Toms lead, Trevor. See, I'm a follower. You're the one (by seeking agreement) who's not playing the game the way Tom
suggests. I guess that makes you a leader. Ironically, Tom seems to be ignoring his own advice.

BTW, how in the heck can you have diversity and agreement at the same time?

Posted by zorro at June 6, 2010 4:20 PM

Zorro � thanks for a constructive argument back at me � appreciated.

We can ALWAYS seek agreement amongst diversity � that�s the great challenge. We simply MUST aspire to agreement otherwise what�s the point in anything?

In my experience of diverse populations there is far much more commonality than opposition. I�ve worked my entire career in healthcare alongside people of different ages, different nationalities, different cultures and different religions and in my experience I say very clearly we have far more in common than that which separates us.

Even if we cannot achieve agreement in diversity that must always be our aim surely � and that maybe means giving more than we take - don�t you agree?

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 6, 2010 4:50 PM

"In my experience of diverse populations there is far much more commonality than opposition. "

What does diversity mean? Skin color, height, sexual orientation or actual different points of view regardless of these things? These populations you talk about are simply not diverse. It is a good chance the 'diversity' has been weeded out of them by virtue of the fact you meet them though work. They have already been screened.

The idea that you need to hire women for example, in order to add diversity to a company is flat out sexist. It is possible that women have different experiences that may help a business, but the difference between race, sexual orientation,
or gender is much more of a continuum than Tom or you or most people seem to think. What happens on this blog typically is Tom offers up an idea and everyone jumps in almost frothing at the mouth to tell him he is correct and a genius. HE IS NOT YOUR BOSS! It is a bit sick, if you ask me. And it is incredibly ironic when you consider who Tom sells himself to be. I see no evidence that he has changed his philosophy one iota over the past 30 years. In fact, he has gone back to getting all excited about e-commerce web sites! Talk about deja-vu all over again!

Posted by zorro at June 6, 2010 5:23 PM

So what is diversity in your opinion?

buy cheap viagra online australia I�ve not only worked with but also lived surrounded by many people of differing cultures that I feel able to at least express my opinion. Diversity has enriched my life, of that I have no doubt.

My opinion is not Tom�s opinion � its mine. I happen to agree with most of Tom�s opinions on management, leadership and business but I am also capable of making up my own mind on things based on my own experience of life and work.

Some of my best friends are from minority cultures here in the UK � I�m proud we are a richly diverse country. I learn as much � probably more - from people in minority cultures as anyone else in my life. Recently I had the immense pleasure for instance in taking part in a Zimbabwean Fellowship worship service. I learned more in that hour about how to worship God than I may do in many traditional Christian services.

My point is that we all gain if we are all prepared to admit we can learn from each other.

BTW I agree with you - I don�t like quotas such as the politically correct number of women in companies. That makes no sense and actually Tom has never professed that view either � he is not into quotas � he simply asks for fairness which is all I ask for too.

Thanks for ongoing discussion � civilised disagreement is ok.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 6, 2010 5:55 PM

What is it with people born after WWII. People my age who
went to Woodstock actually have the gaul to say that three days of getting stoned and listening to music (great music I might add) somehow changed the world - and by just being there and lying in the mud, you too are responsible for this massive important change. These kids parents invaded islands in the pacific and in france (which actually changed the world in a big, very positive way) so their kids could change the world just by going to a gigantic campout.
This is lowering the bar for greatness quite a bit. But that's not enough. Now, what each of us does on a daily basis is an act of service to all mankind. We have all become heros. For example, to be a hero, all we have to do is run a Starbucks well. That's it! Its that simple! So, in 2001, all we had to do was buy a house and its value would double every year. Now that we've run out of money, we have come up with something that is equally ridiculous - now, in order to get a shot at Sainthood, all we need to do is get a job in a Hilton Hotel and make sure we remember to put a mint on the pillow after we make up a bed. Its great to be postmodern!

Posted by zorro at June 6, 2010 6:37 PM

Zorro--I certainly agree with your characterization of some in the Woodstock generational cohort (and it must be said I'm a bit under that age so perhaps that observation comes rather easily)... but then you take the analogy far too far...

We can be thankful that we haven't--yet--faced challenges faced by millions on this very day, June 6, D-Day, in 1944...

At the same time, to use your own examples, those individuals who serve magnificently at a Starbucks, or at Hilton Hotel, or in so many other ways, can and do make an extraordinary contribution.

Since you apparently are choosing not to take Tom Peters' word for it--consider Ronald Reagan or Martin Luther King, Jr., or those in religious traditions who've made the point that we all have it in our power to make a unique contribution by service. That we can create, each in our own way, a masterpiece from striving mightily to live values of service.

That doesn't mean we all make those choices. That doesn't mean that someone who makes an inspiring decision to serve in one part or time of life necessarily does so in all.
And, as you say, that doesn't mean all service is equally consequential to the world as a whole.

And yet....it's also hard to avoid noticing, in the way suggested by Emerson's Law of Compensation, that that person who slips the mint on the pillow may also be leading a life of extraordinary service beyond the workplace--caring for loved ones, taking great risks, making herculean efforts.

And his or her example may be affecing more lives, in more ways than you appear to acknowledge or imagine.

Posted by Jim Strock at June 6, 2010 10:35 PM

"Without Zorro, many of the threads here would dissolve into a gush of sappy goo with nearly all white-middle-aged men essentially saying the same thing in the same way over and over again, finding agreement wherever possible even in the face of something greater. C'est la vie."

Perhaps if the "face of something greater" were not packaged in the same lame sarcastic, substance-less, closed minded and absolutely pointless criticism the majority of the time it would be easier to see. It seems on another blog I follow however Zorro's comments seem more focused and substantiative. I may not agree with them or comment on them, but at least I always consider them and read the links and other information presented. Maybe if that same approach were taken here...I'm just saying.

But hey, what do I know? Maybe it's just a middle aged white guy thing! Such is life "fo shizzle!"

Posted by Dave Wheeler at June 7, 2010 12:32 AM

"If you are called to be a street sweeper, sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. Sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, 'Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.'"

--Martin Luther King, Jr.

This is service that is infused with self-respect and great love.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 7, 2010 12:42 AM

"Perhaps if the "face of something greater" were not packaged in the same lame sarcastic, substance-less, closed minded and absolutely pointless criticism the majority of the time it would be easier to see."

Dave - Yeah, this simply ain't true.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 7, 2010 12:49 AM

"Fo Shizzle?" Now, that will surely do it! LOL!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 7, 2010 12:53 AM

And yet....it's also hard to avoid noticing, in the way suggested by Emerson's Law of Compensation, that that person who slips the mint on the pillow may also be leading a life of extraordinary service beyond the workplace--caring for loved ones, taking great risks, making herculean efforts.

OK - What I'm saying is putting a mint on a pillow or doing a great job running a Starbucks are not acts of heroism.

They don't make extraordinary contributions - unless you redefine the word ordinary. No matter how much things change, most of us will be ordinary. Saying we can all be extraordinary is the same as saying the children in Garrison Keiller's Wobegone are all above average. Its impossible.

What I'm saying is ordinary is fine. I don't have a problem with it. Most stuff is. Color TV at one time was extraordinary. Air Travel was once extraordinary. Today this isn't true.
Learn to enjoy what is ordinary.

Why can't people just be satisfied with a job well done. Then go home to the kids.

There is a lot of substance lacking in this blog. For example, who has actually tested any of the proposals (They themselves - with actual well documented results) discussed here? How does one implement them in a hospital or high school or automobile factory? I think it was Edison who said genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. To this day, I haven't seen a drop of sweat.
Does it actually work? I'm not looking for a bunch of anecdotal stuff - I'd like to see something real. Something that is well thought out. For example, Zappos has been presented as a great example - OK - but who makes the merchandise that Zappos sells? Do they get to live by Zappos credo? Are the companies that provide all this 'service' actually strengthening our country? We need to think about that before we get all excited about something a company does. All this talk of 'service' and 'love' and 'kindness' seems to me to be nothing more than a new schtick to use if one wants to be a management guru. For example, we are no longer in a 'transaction based economy', we are in a 'Relationship economy?" WTF? How would you classify a company that uses algae to make biofuel? Or battery technology that would allow use to replace combustion engines? Or a company that creates a cancer vaccine? The focus of this blog is mainly on retail and marketing and service industries. Why the singular focus on what only what we do well? What is excellent about that? We actually have problems that a mint on a pillow just wont solve.
Crowing about love and kindness and service falls flat when there seems to be little concern for the effects of stuff like offshoring or underpaid workers at Walmart - Love and kindness and service are deep subjects and if you are really sincere, you need to go deep or just stay out of the water.

Posted by zorro at June 7, 2010 2:20 PM

Paul Krugman pointed out that boring (or ordinary) would be a godsend when it comes to an industry like banking. Once it became glamourous (i.e. make 1 billion in a year) the economy was doomed. I think striving to be ordinary (buy a house you can afford, fight a war you can win using money you have etc) could be quite a service.

Posted by zorro at June 7, 2010 2:54 PM

Cool - and extraordinary

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/technology/08homefront.html?hpw

Posted by zorro at June 7, 2010 9:24 PM