Event: Bangkok

It's the first of August already in Bangkok, where Global Leaders are presenting Tom and Carly Fiorina at a full day's event on the topic of leadership. Tom gave us the flavor of Thailand with his photos earlier today. Now he gives us his PPTs, which you can download here:
XAlways, Bangkok, Final
XAlways, Bangkok, Long Version
Leadership50, Bangkok

Back-to-Back Redeyes

Fly all night to Bangkok from D.C. Make that: fly two "all nights." West to East to get to Southeast Asia is tougher than East to West—some disagree. First redeye is D.C. to Frankfurt, then Frankfurt to Bangkok on Royal Thai—offering Royal Service. Arrive early and hit the streets ASAP. Above: Street food. No I shouldn't. Yes I did. Can't stick with hotel food—why else bring a trunkful of Immodium!

All Pro Jaywalking Required

The cars (Bangkok traffic is notoriously dense and outta control—some combination) and motorcycles, and even the TukTuks, cut pedestrians no slack. Jaywalking is stupid. But necessary for me—makin' my bones.

Who Is That Guy With The Gun?!

I take a picture of the dense barbed wire atop the super-high U.S. Embassy wall; point of picture is to illustrate how Americans must dig in everywhere. Half-block past the Embassy I'm accosted by a running cop. He reaches for my Sony camera, which I hold on to. I open it up, show him the picture, and proceed to erase it; he's not satisfied until I run through, slowly, every one of the approximately 150 pictures in my camera memory. (Later, I was prevented by another cop from taking a picture of a shrine in front of the Thai SEC.)

Their Majesties: Microsoft and the King

His Majesty the King is celebrating his 79th birthday soon—memorials to him are everywhere. Their Majesties at Microsoft evidence little that's kingly these days—once again they've discovered the Internet. And, frankly, CEO Ballmer and even new software guru Ray Ozzie look pretty shopworn in most pictures—no doubt Ozzie is a genius (Lotus Notes launched his trajectory of fame), but putting an old guy in charge of creative in 2006 seems a little off. (And at 63, you'd be hard-pressed to cite me for "ageism.")

NB: Speaking of arguably past-peak companies, Merck decided to make the Head Lawyer the next CEO; while I certainly acknowledge the continuing Vioxx problem, Merck's deeper hole is sluggish drug-discovery practices; perhaps it's just bias, but is a lawyer really the best guy for that?

Ancient Bangkok

Shrines everywhere—among other things, blessing the occupants of buildings, small and large. Ended up logging a 1.5 hour walk, including a 45-minute powerwalking stint in Lumphini Park. By the way I have a new measure of successful exercise to be used during the summer in the U.S. and anytime in the likes of hot and humid Bangkok—84 at 6AM when I landed this morning. When the sweat has soaked into my baseball cap enough to cause a steady drip off the brim, I'm doin' okay—what do you think? NB, I'll return to biz stuff tomorrow. Got to prepare now for a long Presentation tomorrow—Carly Fiorina and I will be trying to captivate a pretty senior exec crowd.

Modern Bangkok

Lots of traditional street food—and lots of sparkling new highrises as well.

Modern Thailand II

Cheery front page headline that greeted me upon arrival: "Bird Flu Outbreak Spreading."

Glad I've got my Tamiflu! (FYI, I told the prescribing doc that I thought I should not have it, given the scarcity. He said that I was exactly the sort of person who needs it because I travel to the likes of Thailand and thence precisely the type of guy who might inadvertently carry the bug home. And, hey, it's not clear it will be useful.)

Event: Mass Mutual

Yes, Tom's working on this beautiful summer weekend day, and so am I. But not for long. He's in Washington D.C. speaking to Mass Mutual Financial Group, and I'm going out in the sun as soon as I finish this post. There are three slides presentations for downloading:
Mass Mutual Final
Mass Mutual Long #1: 249 slides
Mass Mutual Long #2: 482 slides

Have a great weekend, everybody!

Everything That's Not Important

Bob Waterman and I did a ton of research for In Search of Excellence. The first presentation was a two-day affair for the entire exec group at Siemens. For "the Germans" (I am one!) we used a monster presentation book, about 400- or 500-slides long. The result was "Okay." A few weeks later I got invited to give a one-hour version at the annual "offsite" that PepsiCo held in those days. One morning, and I actually remember it well, I came into my office in McKinsey's San Francisco office, as usual around 6 A.M., closed the door and tilted way back in a near trance for several minutes (5? 10? 20?). Then I tilted forward and wrote down a list of eight Items—total word count probably 35 or 40. Three years later, unchanged except for a preposition or two, they became the "Eight Basics" that were the guts of In Search of Excellence. In effect (in reality?!) I "dumped the data" and "saw" what the thing was, almost in full flower.

A couple of weeks ago I got a book, The Nuts & Bolts Guide to Rigging, a more or less technical book by Washington College (Eastern Shore, Maryland) crew coach Mike Davenport. He said he'd heard I was a rower, and that my books had been of some use to him. Since this is summer, and this is my VT rowing season, I sat down at this computer and wrote "Tom's Rowing Career: 1946-2006." It ended up two pages long. It was fun to do. It was my return present to Mike. I went for a row a couple of days later and it dawned on me, like a shotgun blast, that the 2-pager was ... All Wrong!! It was an accurate description of my rowing "career," but captured about 0 percent of why the love affair goes on. When I got home, I again went to the keyboard and, this time, wrote a succinct paean to Rowing. (You'll find it attached—FYI.)

The latter exercise caused me to look up a paragraph in In Search of Excellence—a quote that I think Bob had discovered 23 years ago. It's from John Steinbeck:

The Mexican Sierra has 17 plus 15 plus 9 spines in the dorsal fin. These can easily be counted. But if the sierra strikes on the line so that our hands are burned, if the fish sounds and nearly escapes and finally comes in over the rail, his colors pulsing and his tail beating the air, a whole new relational externality has come into being—an entity which is more than the sum of the fish plus the fisherman. The only way to count the spines of the sierra unaffected by this second relational reality is to sit in a laboratory, open an evil-smelling jar, remove a stiff colorless fish from the formalin solution, count the spines and write the truth. There you have recorded a reality which cannot be assailed—probably the least important reality concerning the fish or yourself. ... It is good to know what you are doing. The man with this pickled fish has set down one truth and recorded in his experience many lies. The fish is not that color, that texture, that dead, nor does he smell that way.

The point of this rather lengthy recitation is obvious. We often "miss the forest for the trees." Nice saying, but it too misses the boat, damn it. My point here is damned profound. We count spines and create a rowing chronology and miss ... The Whole Damn Point.

And we do so ... MOST OF THE TIME. And we do so when we design Logistics systems and Customer Service procedures and write HR manuals as much as we do when we get the rowing bit or the fish bit all wrong.

All I ask is: Think about it ... Every Damn Day. "Forests" and "Trees," sure—but the essence of life, professional and personal, is more like it.

(A farm picture that has nothing to do with boats, but maybe a lot to do with "parts and wholes," is above.)

No Surprise (Alas)

Don't know whether I put this in a Post or not. Recently Alcatel and Lucent decided to marry to produce yet another Clumsy Giant in an effort to become more agile and responsive to revolutionary changes in their industry. I said that I wondered if either CEO had said, to him- or herself or their spouse, "How incredible this will be. My/our 16-year-old daughter Mary will have so many cool new tools she would not have had if we hadn't made this deal." I concluded—to my mind, beyond a shadow of doubt—that such a sentence had not even come close to escaping from either mouth—let alone the mouths of the two parties' Investment Advisors.

No, I cannot prove what's above, my "beyond a shadow of doubt" remark notwithstanding. But what's below, while not surprising, is dispiriting.

Peter Bart is a movie exec turned Editor in Chief of Hollywood's Bible, Variety. Assessing the troubled state of the movie industry and its apparent "competitive necessities," he concluded that the heart of the problem might well be captured by the following revolting sentence: "Not long ago, I heard one studio chief utter the unthinkable: 'What would happen if I made a movie I actually looked forward to seeing?'"

Ho hum.

100 Ways to Succeed #73:

"Ms/Mr Ambassador"

While walking in Manchester Center (VT) I saw a couple of folks, middle aged, pulled over on the side of the road—looking at a map. Went up and asked if I could help. Turns out they were hunting for an old family homestead, built in the early 1800s, that they weren't even sure was still around. I could have given them directions, as they roughly knew where it was, but I (running gear & sweat) told them that if they wanted to give me a short lift, we could see if a nearby pal of mine was in who is a local history buff (nut, actually). They were keen, and he was around. I went on my way, and last I saw of them he and they had headed for his prodigious in-home library.

I don't recount this tale in pursuit of your brownie points. But I did get thinking, and without dislocating my shoulder patting myself on the back, I realized I had been one hell of an Ambassador for my more or less home town—and indeed Vermont.

Which in turn got me thinking about the word AMBASSADOR per se. Among other things, my Rodale's Synonym Finder (Bonus tip: Rodale's is by far the pick of the litter as a thesaurus—and William Safire agrees with me) gives us "herald" and "proclaimer" among the synonymous picks.

What if we used the word "Ambassador" in lieu of "receptionist," "customer service rep," or even "salesperson"? I was doing my all+ to represent Manchester-VT as a wonderful place with wonderful people. Moreover, I am very, very conscious of my "ambassadorial" role (didn't use the word per se 'til day before yesterday) when I'm out of the U.S.A.—especially these days and especially when I'm in the likes of Botswana, Siberia, or Dubai or Oman. I am a full-scale representative of my country as much as if I had the Black Passport.

My point here, if we thought of ourselves as "ambassadors" when in contact with customers in particular, maybe it would make us think much harder about what we were doing and how we were doing it. While we'd still be in the "sales mode" (and I do understand that! I'm an "ideas-attitudes traveling salesman"!), we'd also be thinking more about our demeanor.

Just an idea.

100 Ways to Succeed #74:

C(I) > C(E)

This one waltzed into my life when I was speaking to GE Energy sales folks earlier this year. I've long said that "forming relations inside our own company is almost as important as the external ones." While it may not be a Universal, it struck me that in many cases "C(I)"—our Internal customers—are in fact ... MORE IMPORTANT ... than C(E)—our external customers. In the GE case, systems sales, often to "foreigners," the salesperson (my GE informant who's a very successful salesperson) wants "an ... UNFAIR SHARE" ... of a host of insiders' time—engineers, logistics folks, the risk-assessment staff, and even lawyers. Lots of GE dudes are selling lots of stuff—and need, yesterday, lots and lots and lots of Inside Help. I (salesperson) want to be at the front of the queue for the harried risk-assessment staffers' time & attention; I want to be head of the queue and getting an unfair share of the engineers', who must customize the product, time and imagination and attention.

Hence my full set of "internal [customer] relationships" could end up being more important, even far more important, than my "external [customer] relations." The applications of this idea range way beyond enormous GE systems sales. I, as a professional services person at the "client interface," want an unfair share—and posthaste—of the Graphics Department's attention when a hastily scheduled Presentation looms. As a junior purchasing staffer, I want an unfair share of the Legal Staff's time as I prepare even a medium-sized contract. As a White House staffer many moons ago, I wanted the various Gatekeepers to put my memo to the VP or P or Secretary of State at the front of an infinitely long cue of stuff from people who waaaaaay outranked me.

So, what have you done lately for your all-important "portfolio" of internal ... CUSTOMERS????? I(I) + C(I) > I(E) + C(E). My Investment in Internal Customers must frequently outstrip my Investment in External Customers. Think about it. Clearly. Precisely. E.g., when was the last time you took a C(I) to lunch or dinner? Or brought Flowers to the Legal Department after they'd done you even a wee favor?

(Yup, another farm picture—couldn't resist.)

Rethink Pink! Third Annual Conference

London, 9th November 2006, Thursday: The Cumberland Hotel will be the site of the third annual Rethink Pink conference.

The organizers sent us this promo:

The theme for this year is Boom Boom BOOM—covering key growth trends in personalisation; the screaming need for Hi-TOUCH - lo-tech customer service; the shift from me to we and inclusivity; the inexorable strength of word of mouth marketing; the future feminisation of society; and finally the BOOMING boomer-women market ... the ultimate power consumers.

An international line-up of speakers will feature Cool Friend Fara Warner, author of The Power of the Purse, and Mary Brown from Imago Creative, coauthor (with Carol Orsborn and Paco Underhill) of the new book BOOM: Marketing to the Ultimate Power Consumer—the Baby Boomer Woman (coming soon).

You can get more details at www.rethinkpink.com.

Happy Birthday Us!

Today completes our second full year of Blogging. What a ride!

Essays

I am well aware at the two-year mark that short, open-ended Posts often draw the most comments. And that looooong ones don't—e.g. three for yesterday's "Book of the Century." Nonetheless, I'll keep doing occasional long Posts. These mini-essays examine things I care deeply about. (Often they help me clarify my own thinking.) While they are long by Blog standards—say 500 words—they are short by Harvard Business Review standards. Doing a 500-word essay on a complex issue certainly helps me clarify my own thinking! (I appreciate your indulgence.)

Norman's World

Did you know that Leon Leonwood Bean (L.L.Bean) had turned over the reins to his nephew? That nephew: Norman Ignatius Stephen Bean (N.I.S. Bean). Two days after my latest catalog arrived two of the three items I wanted were N.I.S. This happens over and over and over with these guys...

Revision!

My special presentation ... "Grant" has been superseded. The new one: "Grant-Nelson-Boyd-Bossidy." Or: Lessons from the masters of "Bias for Action" as Waterman and I put it in '82.

Whoops!

I was rushing and got my dates confused in "Book of the Century." It's fixed now—and thanks for letting me know. (I am shamefaced!)

Oh My God!

Didn't expect to write another book. 70 hyper-tailored presentations and the Blog are more or less enough. But our Erik Hansen who, along with Cathy Mosca, is co-major domo of the Blog, visited with my UK publisher, Dorling-Kindersley. Special Projects publisher Stephanie Jackson wants a book. So she and chief designer Peter Luff (design-are-us at DK) cooked up some ideas. Erik presented them to me last week, and I was 90 percent hooked—Blog stuff will be front and center with keen illustrations.

You know Erik from his posts and as architect of the Cool Friends interviews. But do you really know him? The picture of the hand, at his presentation, is Erik's. In a future Post I will reveal the rest of him!

Irony, eh?

Do you find this 20 July Wall Street Journal headline as amusing as I do: "Gates Won't Fund AIDS Researchers Unless They Pool Data."

To be sure, hats way off to Bill & Melinda Gates for their extraordinary efforts to make the world a better place. But you also have to chuckle when you read that (1) sharing and (2) openness and (3) transparency are the unyielding conditions for funds dispersal—based on money derived from Microsoft's-Gates' (1) determination not to share, (2) secretiveness that would make the NSA jealous and (3) opacity taken to new lengths.

100 Ways to Succeed #72:

Beware the Sound of Laughter!

In his autobiography, General Norman Schwarzkopf takes us through his career. At one point he explains that he simply cannot tell a joke effectively. Forgets stuff. Timing off. Screws up the punchline. Etc. But then a funny thing happens. He becomes a general. And the minute he pins a star on his collar he apparently becomes hilarious—associates start laughing uproariously at his jokes.

The message is obvious, and has to do with all who manage, not just General Officers. And that message: Beware underlings who laugh at your jokes. Writ large, as is my habit: Once you become a boss you'll never hear the unadulterated truth again. And that's almost as true for a 20-year-old shift boss in a Dunkin' Donuts outlet as for a senior middle manager or business owner.

You are a power figure. Moreover, others' success at work is tied to your whims and fancies—as well as straightforward proof of performance.

The "remedy" is clear, too. For example, MBWA (Managing By Wandering Around) allows you to get far more direct "on the ground" information—Starbucks founder Howard Schultz is surrounded by very smart assistants and executives, yet he religiously visits at least 25 stores a week. A second strategy is making end runs around your own hierarchy. As President of PepsiCo, Andy Pearson would visit an operation such as Frito-Lay, and after an obligatory nod to the CEO, he would head directly to the bullpen where the junior sub-brand managers lived. He'd pick one at random, sit down with her for an hour and discuss what was going on in her neck of the woods. Not only would he be judging Frito's bench strength, but also zeroing in on un-masticated data. A third strategy, if you're well up the hierarchy, is to have a trusted "good cop" nearby. Call this spying if you must, but the idea is someone at hand who is friendly whom you ask to sniff around and give you some direct feedback on how things smell where the rubber meets the road.

So I remind all bosses, courtesy General Norm: Beware the sound of laughter!

(As always in the real world, there are a host of caveats. To cite one example, when "MBWA" becomes a State Visit, not only will nothing be gained, but quite a bit may be lost. Etc. Etc.)

M.I.A.

Welch is gone from GE. Now the only thing, more or less, we hear about American business leadership (save for miscreants) is the daily tales of Welch Junior, Jeff Immelt.

GE is of interest. They do a lot of things right—I talk about them with borderline reverence, I must admit.

But, for instance, what about: FRED SMITH. FedEx has grown to be a $30 billion company. Their service is still good. They innovate left and right. And contrary to my dearly held beliefs, they have masterfully integrated major acquisitions such as Flying Tigers, Roadway Express and, more recently, Kinko's. And, without doubt, they have re-invented logistics for the entire world, including the likes of the military—such a monumental "disruptive" innovation hasn't occurred at GE in decades.

But, for instance, what about: the late SHEIK MAKTUM and, today, his successor SHEIK MOHAMMED. They are the current and immediately past rulers of Dubai. Short on oil, with matchless vision and energy they have built, more or less overnight, one of the world's great cities-hubs of global commerce. (One trivial illustration: Dubai's Emirates Air has placed the largest order so far for the monster Airbus 380.) The Dubai tale, to my mind, far outshines the Singapore story—and, again, GE.

Though I think Big Companies dominate the news far more than they should, among the giants there are giant success stories. I simply can't remember the last time I saw Fred Smith on a major magazine cover; and I don't think I've ever seen Sheik Mohammed on a Big Mag cover. Surely they and a host of others are worthy of our acclaim and perhaps emulation.

GE? Who they?

"Management" Book of the Century, circa 2006

Not as extreme as it sounds, as the Century 21 is not yet 6 years of age. But my pick so far: Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, by John Ferling.

The story in brief. Washington held the office of President for the first eight post-Constitution years. He was elected unanimously (the electoral college, since there was no consistent popular vote) in 1788, and without much of a challenge in 1792. Adams won the 1796 election, and the "crazy" branch of the Federalists passed some potent, restricting laws—such as the alien & sedition act. Thus the young nation was thoroughly divided, for the first time, as the 1800 election approached.

There were two dramatically different views on trial—of nature, mankind and the nation itself. And the adherents of each thought for sure that the young U.S. would implode if the other "party" (parties were in their bumbling infancy, too) prevailed.

The contest was the one that continues to this day, in the corporate world as well as in the U.S.A. and Iraq. Namely: CENTRALIZATION vs. DECENTRALIZATION.

Leading the "Federalist" side were aggressive candidate Adams and the very controversial Hamilton. On the "Republican" side were reluctant candidate Jefferson and Congressional master Madison.

The Federalists were Centralists. They wanted a strong Federal government and were fearful of true democracy—which they saw as chaotic, especially as the bloody, anarchic French Revolution was in full flower at the time. The Federalists saw the Republicans as supporters of a chaos that would destroy our fragile nation—especially since the 13-year-old Constitution had been written expressly to counter the chaotic decentralization that had impeded the predecessor Continental Congress' efforts to run and fund the Revolutionary War.

The Republicans believed that the Federalists were bent on establishing a centralized, autocratic derived directly from the elitist British model that we had fought so hard to oust. This was anathema to the Republicans—no matter how precarious the new model's purchase was at the moment. After all, Adams had once favored addressing the President as "His Excellency"—and made no secret of his belief that only a narrowly chosen-appointed elite of "great men" were fit to govern. The Federalists also favored close ties with Great Britain—which also infuriated the Republicans. While Jefferson and the Republicans were not in favor of ending slavery, they strongly supported a largely classless, significantly more decentralized nation with greater say over affairs going to "the people" (as in White males).

(Interestingly, the Federalists were mostly New Englanders. The Republicans were mostly Southerners.)

The point here at tompeters.com: If you scratch beneath the surface, this is the continuing-continuous struggle that marks corporate governance and corporate strategy.

At the highest "strategic" level, it's the decentralized GE or Johnson & Johnson model vs. the centralized Microsoft or Wal*Mart model. (E.g., per me, Microsoft is strangling on bureaucratic, centralized, project teams—and fundamental innovation is a thing of the distant past.) At the "lower" level, it's the empowered Southwest or Whole Foods human resources model vs. the relatively unempowered Verizon or GM approach. (The debate is also, obviously, front & center in the Middle East where Mr. Bush is pushing democratization and the likes of Saudi Arabia are desperately trying to hold on to autocratic, hyper-centralized rule.) At another level in the corporate world, it's the "strategy"-fanatics (centralists, as I see it) vs. the "Let a thousand flowers bloom" decentralist fanatics.

(To explain via that trusty if somewhat flawed GE example: GE has tough, centralized fiscal controls, no doubt. But the head of the Energy group or the Medical group is God with de facto total responsibility for his Realm—"Fairfield/Welch/Immelt made me do it" is no excuse for poor performance. When you look at Immelt's approach today, you see, I'd contend, a "philosophy," not a "strategy." He wants large-scale innovation, and has defined some systems for directing more resources toward innovation; but it's the business heads who take it the "last 99 yards," figuring out what to do with wide latitude other than the generic "Innovate, big—and hurry." In terms of GE-derivatives, Bob Nardelli is centralizing the hell out of Home Depot—results remain to be seen. In a related saga, some of the reason for Carly Fiorina's precipitous departure from HP was perceived "centralist tendencies;" oddly, her successor Mark Hurd is successfully implementing most of Fiorina's strategy—courtesy a newly decentralized approach to execution.)

All in all, from the U.S. in 1800 and the Supreme Court in 2000 or 2006 to the Middle East to GE and CitiGroup and Wal*Mart, this most fundamental battle rages and will rage eternally. GM's legendary CEO Alfred Sloan, though most famous for his decentralization-divisionalization effort, once famously said, in effect, "It's always about decentralization vs. centralization"; that is, you decentralize for a while and eventually the lack of control bites you; then you tighten the centralist bonds, and eventually you strangle necessary innovation—but you never "win" "get it right" "for good." [Note 1—This titanic struggle between centralizing and decentralizing and organization effectiveness holds about as much for 25-person project teams as for enterprises and governments.] [Note 2—Fact is, it's not as simple as Sloan suggests; centralist or decentralist tendencies/"cultures" more or less emerge at birth—and are devilishly difficult to adjust.]

The point of the title of the Post and thus the anointment of the Adams-Jefferson book is that it is the clearest snapshot-recitation of this raging war over the distribution of power, the nature of man and the effectiveness of enterprises that I've ever read. The author also manages to keep the tension high, Clancy-like even. Though I know my history, at this point, two-thirds of the way through the book, I'm not sure whether Jefferson, following an apparent, paper-thin electoral victory, will be allowed to take office as the terrified "centralists" (Federalists, remember) struggle, somewhat akin to 2000, to retain their hold on, even then, the presidency and Principal Seat of Power. In a future Post, I'll tell you how it comes out ...

(Attached is a somewhat relevant Special Presentation on "The Origins of Sustainable Entrepreneurship.")

The Human Face of Global Conflict

A remarkable thing is happening in the blogging community (please don't make me say blogosphere ... yuck) in Beirut and Northern Israel. First-hand accounts of a humanitarian crisis, painfully real, are being posted to the web in real time.

While most blogs are written by "citizen journalists," I have become addicted to the Yahoo News Sponsored blog by Kevin Sites titled "Hot Zone." I have been reading it ever since he posted on a clinic my organization helps fund on the Thai-Myanmar border. Kevin has been on a mission to report from every war zone in the world in one year, and he's currently posting from Lebanon.

His mission is to put a human face on global conflict by telling the personal stories of citizens/families caught in the crossfire ... powerful stuff ... and well written with photographs and video.

He has been posting from Lebanon for two days, and while most of the blog comments (around 600 total so far for his first post from the region) take sides in the conflict and place blame, my thoughts are with the children ...

First Things First! Period!

Or: Don't Overlook the "Missing Ninety-eight Percent"!

Time to come out of the closet!
I care!
(I'm right.)
(I'm pretty sure.)
(Damn sure.)

I posted recently "Mike Vs Tom" about "Mike's" (Mike Porter's) preference for STRATEGY as business' primary explanatory variable. I said mine was EXECUTION (or, preferably, Execution + People) (or, preferably, Execution + People + Enthusiasm + Excellence) (or, preferably, Execution + People + Customers + Enthusiasm + Excellence).

Some who made Comments (Thank you!) said it was obviously not an "either-or" issue. You need both.

Of course you do.
Maybe.

I, in fact, do not denigrate the usefulness of a thoughtful strategy. It's just that it is ... Crystal Clear (to me!) that strategy is in fact unequivocally subordinate to Execution Excellence/Execution Mania/Bias for Action (the latter happens to be "Basic #1" from In Search of Excellence).

More broadly, my money rests on what I'll call the "Infrastructure of Excellence": Superstar People ... Customer Love ... Execution Mania ... Boundless Energy & Enthusiasm ... Relentless Pursuit of Excellence per se.

Consider U.S. Grant. (My favorite topic of late.) General Grant was an "action addict." He constitutionally had to be on the move. Grant won several battles when the Union victory tank was on Empty. Grant had many a detractor, and one principal supporter—Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had a "strategy," but it was in tatters because of timid-defensive-incompetent generals. Then, via "execution mania"/"bias for action"/"execution excellence" Grant quickly (What else?) chalked up several unexpected victories in the West: In essence, Lincoln's "strategy" became the exploitation of Grant's growing string of victories. Thence "execution excellence" opportunistically shaped & drove & took precedence over any grand conception of strategy.

Exhibit #2: Jack Welch, subject of a recent Post (& so much more). He is a presumed "strategic genius." I think unequivocally that his "genius" (& GE's in general) was/is ... Execution Mania & Inspired People Development. (And: Energy & Relentlessness.) Of course there's more to the story. Or is there? (Welch was famous for #1, #2, fix or sell—surely that ain't strategy, but a call to relentless action—or else.)

Let's introduce a (to me) closely related "debate."

First: "Strategy" vs "Execution." Next up another sacred elephant: "Leadership" VERSUS "Management." Stupid idea of the decade: "Managers do things right. Leaders do the right thing."

Why stupid? Because "great" leaders are greatest at "doin' stuff"—Grant & Welch redux. "Mere" and unloved "management" is ... as I see it ... the "dull" "do it" variable in the success equation. But in the popular formulation, "sexy" "leadership" is de facto equated with woo-woo Strategy (capital "S"). Management's the "anti-intellectual stuff you wouldn't wish on your hated Cousin Doris."

When we equate strategy with leadership we have entered the ... Dumb Zone. Churchill, it is said, was a lousy strategist—but a genius at "inspiring" a nation waaaaay down on its luck to determined and sustained action.

So? Frankly, with Churchill & Welch & Grant as models, I don't give a tinker's damn whether the leader is a "genius" strategist or not. I want my "genius" "leader" to embrace-embody*:

Energy!
Enthusiasm!
Execution Mania!
Inspired People Selection & Development!
Customer Love!
Passion for Excellence!

(*It's the so-called "soft stuff"—but that's another story. Conventional wisdom: Strategy & Numbers = HARD. People & Implementation = SOFT. Aye, the Smell of Idiots is again in the air!)

So leadership ... TO ME ... is pretty much "everything but strategy." That overstates ... but maybe not that much.

I'll go down with my ship on my priority-precedence order: "First" ... Energy-Enthusiasm-Relentlessness-Excellence-Execution-People-Customer Love. "Second" ... whatever (strategy, if you wish).

Bottom line:

Strategy ... last.
"Management" ... rocks.
XX (eXecution, eXcellence) ... rules.
Leaders embrace-embody-exude ... "soft" stuff.

There, I've said it.
Your turn ...

******

generic viagra free shipping Do you love this quote as much as I do? It's from former McKinsey Managing Director Al McDonald, addressing a consulting team: "Never forget implementation, boys. In our work it's what I call the 'missing 98 percent' of the client puzzle."

Love that! Execution-Action-Implementation: THE "MISSING NINETY-EIGHT PERCENT"!

******

(Attached is a PowerPoint titled "Management Versus Leadership?" I've included in it the latest & updated version of "Grant" and, on the topic of execution, a PP titled "Bossidy.")

(Oh yeah, at the top is a 7AM photo from my morning row on Lake St Catherine—about 6 miles from my VT farm.)

Go Mike ...

Mike (Neiss, not Porter) gave us a fabulous Comment on GM ... which I deemed worthy of a center-column Post-status.

Thanks, Mike!

"Oh boy ... now this is a topic! First, let me explain that I have seen GM from the inside and from the outside. As a baby boomer, many of the folks I worked with as we were making our way up the ladder in that old traditional corporate model, are now running the place. I have seen great talent at GM. Skip LeFauve comes to mind. Jerry Hirshberg is another. And Tom, we can't forget Pat Carrigan. And let us not be too quick to blame the union. Some pretty good leaders there over the years, Leonard Woodcock, Doug Fraser, Irv Bluestone. And in a much too oversimplified statement, even with all these smart people, they created their own problem. My goodness, while I was there Toyota handed over the entire Toyota Production System model as part of the NUUMI project. They can never say they didn't know. What they can say is that they never had the courage or the stomach to do the hard stuff. Sure they cherry picked shop floor management, JIT, SPC, standardized work ... etc. I remember Dr Deming telling us at a management meeting that the head of Toyota wasn't afraid to share their 'secrets' with us because we couldn't even see what we needed to see and besides 'GM management will never do it.'

"Rick Wagoner is another example of finance whiz kid elevated to CEO. I like his personality better, but I can't help but think this is Roger Smith repackaged with a bit more tact. I am a huge supporter of being a responsible steward for the business when it comes to managing costs, but it ain't the whole enchilada. As a matter of fact lean and operational excellence are part of their problem. Can you really reduce design to numbers? Well, sure you can, it is called market share. But you can't reduce it to numbers short term. Jerry Hirshberg left Buick and went and started a cool little organization called Nissan Design Institute ... and introduced the Infiniti line, the Altima, and his last car, the 350 Z. Read Jerry's account of design at GM in his book 'Creative Priority.' You'll understand GM much better. I have always wondered whether it was a coincidence that Jerry left Nissan (he was retirement age) about the same time Ghosn showed up. Once in awhile GM has deviated from the accountant running the car company story. Bob Stempel was a car guy. Bob didn't have a chance trying to clean up for Roger Smiths mess in a tough economy. What is Bob doing today?? Oh, just running his new company producing hydrogen fuel cells.

"Look, I feel bad for my friends and colleagues at GM. But I don't feel sorry for them. They forgot design, they forgot the customer, they forgot R&D, they forgot they are a car company. Their demise was clearly a choice. Not a symptom of our economy, but a choice made in the boardroom at GM. I for one, don't think Ghosn will matter at GM. He's a cost cutter. Wagoner does that pretty well. It's the last gasp of a drowning company.

"My one hope is that they will be a case study for all those organizations hoping to become as big as GM. The big just crash harder."

(Mike has long been associated with the Tom Peters Company and occasionally Posts here; for some reason he was overcome by shyness, restricted himself to a Comment, and therefore I guess I've got to do it for him!—TP)

More Grant

Another Comment worth lifting! Richard Cauley added this absolutely fabulous Grant quote to my "U.S. Grant" file:

"The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on."

Thanks, Richard!

(Incidentally, sounds eerily like Bill Gates in days gone by.)

What's the Business of Business?

Catching up on my newspaper reading, I came across this contentious nugget from the Business Section of the Boston Sunday Globe on July 9:

"Today's business schools have strayed from that original mission of stewardship, according to [Harvard Business School's] Rakesh Khurana ... While trumpeting their production of leaders, they have failed to define leadership in the context of the public good and enshrined as their highest ideal the maximizing of shareholder value, he contended ... Misdeeds at companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco can be traced in part to a 'de-professionalization' of managers who put the pursuit of profits over their commitment to the broader society."

And the expected response from U of Chicago's Steven Kaplan: "He's confused. It's hard to understand why he's saying there's a problem or a failure. By and large, the goal of maximizing shareholder value does the right thing for companies. And in the long run, it's good for the economies in which companies operate."

Is Khurana confused? Is there no problem? And is the commitment of business leadership to the public good less important than shareholder rights?

I'll Take the Tonic!

The Saturday (07.15) pre-dinner party shopping list for me had a few scribbles-at-60mph added to it as I wended my way the 22 miles between me and the closest grocery store. Hence it read:

Seltzer
Sparkling water
Tonic
Minute Maid frozen lemon juice
Citronella for torches
Brandenburg Gate [spy novel for TP]
GM
Ford
GE
Home Depot
Wal*Mart
Microsoft
Dell
Intel
Big Pharma

I'll take the Tonic. High fructose corn syrup notwithstanding, I'll get my money's worth. (And it gets better and better with the temperature climbing into the 90s, even in VT.) The TVP—Tonic Value Proposition—is more than you can get from the corporate section of the list, assuming Stock Price Appreciation is your measure of the Big Co. taste test.

I often rip Big Cos. And, of course, I think it's deserved. To be sure, market price isn't a surefire barometer—but it's about the best we free market junkies, starting with A. Smith, can do. Take the case of Home Depot and its CEO, "What Annual Meeting Bob" Nardelli. He has beyond a shadow of doubt masterminded (bulled through, in Nardellian fact) a turnaround, but his stock hasn't budged—while that of his principal competitor, Lowe's, has marched ever upward. CEOs want to be rewarded for stock price appreciation—at least they do in a bull market. Nardelli has made a king's ransom, which he says he deserves for the turnaround; I might agree as long as he in turn agrees: If the stock does head North he'll be content with flat or even depressed compensation since he will have previously been rewarded for building the framework for the appreciation. (Hey, his whole argument for his couple hundred mil is, de facto, that stock price is irrelevant.).

But the Nardelli riff is mostly an aside. The Big Point of the Post is that perhaps the time of dominance of the above listed companies has passed. And, say I, so be it. (Or, "Whatever.") These Masters of the Universe may indeed have been built to last, and contribute they have, but as usual—as always?—it's not panning out.

I'm afraid I think Built to Last is downright silly. Take GM. Dominant forever and ever, you say. Hold on! When the car market took off in the mid-teens of Century 20, Ford was the clear leader (Henry I's Model T). Upon the arrival of Alfred Sloan and implementation of his divisionalization-brand ideas (Technicolor beats "Black only"), GM became Big Dog. But almost simultaneously, GM et al. got whacked by the Great Depression. WWII bailed them out, and GM rebounded courtesy Tojo, Hitler, and tank sales. GM's true, earth-rattling Commercial Dominance emerged in the late 40s. It continued unimpeded until the First Oil Shock. Enter, Stage Pacific, the crafty Japanese. ("Built to run on not-much-gas" supplanted "Tail Fins R Us.") Thence it has been all downhill, despite micro-comebacks courtesy minivans and SUVs. Now the Big Woes are upon the Big Two. Thence a serious revisionist evaluation suggests that GM in fact was dominant for about ("just") 25 years all told—say, 1950 to 1975. Ain't a bad run on Broadway and what was good for GM was indeed good for America ... but a long way from Built for Eternal Greatness/Built to Laaaasssst. (Unless "last" includes the "hanging on by your fingernails" years—Goliaths are hard to kill off regardless of their irrelevance.)

So last week recently Invincible ("the Ultimate Business Model") Dell and Invincible ("Innovation Machine") Intel announced re-structurings (with more to come in both cases). Despite GE's new dude's increasingly high profile, the stock is becalmed for Mr Immelt and his shareholders. Despite Wal*Mart's blizzard of "We have soul" moves—the stock is becalmed. Ditto Microsoft. And, of course, Big Pharma, which was supposed to become the King of the Hill in a post-GM world, is tanking (Marianas Trench-style), despite a couple of Merck court victories.

In all cases the chief cause is Creeping Clumsiness that INEVITABLY (Big Word, that) accompanies SuperSize, even in the "virtual, outsource-every-damn-thing" age.

Size can surely help you muscle your way into many a market; but INEVITABLY it will choke you to death, or at least deliver growing IRRELEVANCE.

Let's All Whack Jack

Fortune's 24 July cover, "Sorry, Jack," is already famous. Fortune played a/the lead role, bar none, in the Beatification of Saint Jack. The way he unspooled exec bathroom toilet paper in Fairfield CT became a "best practice" worthy of Immediate Global Emulation. America being America, them that build must subsequently lead the Great Diminishment Parade.

So, on 24 July we got the "New Rules." And here they are, contrasted with St Jack's Tired Old Ways:

OLD RULE: Big Dogs Own the Street. NEW RULE: Agile Is Best; Being Big Can Bite You. OLD: Be No.1 or No.2 in Your Market. NEW: Find a Niche, Create Something New. OLD: Shareholders Rule. NEW: The Customer Is King. OLD: Be Lean and Mean. NEW: Look Out, Not In. OLD: Rank Your Players; Go With the A's. NEW: Hire Passionate People. OLD: Hire a Charismatic CEO. NEW: Hire a Courageous CEO. OLD: Admire My Might. NEW: Admire My Soul.

First let me say: Hooray! The "new" rules, down to the chosen punctuation marks, are damn close to what I have been championing since In Search of Excellence in 1982. New to Fortune, a quarter-century old to me. But "Welcome Aboard"! I and my soulmates need all the help we can get—as the stakes get higher and higher.

On the other hand, Welch's rejoinder has merit. It boils down to "Do both." And indeed many of the "old-new" pairings are not mutually exclusive. At least they aren't if you have a maniac in charge like Welch. (Most, alas, don't.) For example, if you go to the horse track of management principles, I'd urge you in 14 cases out of 15 to bet against the "agile giant" idea propagated by Welch and the likes of former IBM wizard Lou Gerstner.

Another semi-gripe. Fortune's conceit is high circulation, yet read exclusively by 500 Fortune500 CEOs. Which is a way of saying that the "new" rules may come as a rude shock to $20 billion corps.; but they amount to old-fashioned survival rules for me and CEOs of almost all companies with, say, less than $500 million in revenue. E.g.: agility, market-creation, passion, courage.

My biggest gripe, my joy at the "new" list matching my biases notwithstanding, is that both Fortune circa 2006 and Welch got it wrong. The real Welch magic, as I see it, can be summarized in just two words: EXECUTION MANIA. GE folks make promises—and keep them. This turns out to be Novel Idea No.1 in virtually all Big Cos, and most not-so-big-companies. Welch and GE live by: Execute. Execute. Execute. Despite my Nardelli barbs above, I was careful to say he did do an extraordinary turnaround in an extraordinarily short period of time. And his "secret" was ... A Culture of Maniacal Execution.

(You'll find a PPT with the New Rules vs Old Rules attached.)

Tip

Look at the PPT referenced above. Presenter's Sucker Play (= Guaranteed to Work) No.1 is simple, two-column "Is"—"Will Be" charts. Regardless of the result I do indeed GUARANTEE that they will spur discussion. The secret-within-the-secret is that they clearly and concisely represent one "story"/photograph vs another "story"/photograph. And, well, we all know: Stories Rule!

Mike and Tom, Mike vs Tom

viagra united kingdom

I spoke to a brilliant colleague who is writing a book about the impact of business ideas, strategy in particular. I will not try to summarize 5 intense hours in a paragraph, but ... well ... I'll try. "There are two kinds of people"—what nonsense! But, hey, let's go with it. The pure "strategy guys" (M. Porter, Exhibit #1) believe in the importance of ... no surprise ... strategy. The "other" crowd (of which I am perhaps the member with the highest name recognition) "believe in" ... PEOPLE & EXECUTION. (In Search of Excellence "Basic" No.1: Action! No.2: Customers! No.3: People! We—the good guys, of course—believe that the strategy, while important, is secondary (very secondary?) to the "infrastructure"—Execution Mania, Customer Love, Passion for People. (Which in turn requires "hands on" leadership vs "intellectual" leadership.") As one prominent soul apparently told my pal, and I paraphrase (thanks to a crappy memory), "Porter couldn't comprehend the people side of the equation if you gave him a century." That is, of course, unfair—I guess.

(Attached is a frivolous pair of slides I concocted a while back contrasting Porter, Peters, Drucker, and Bennis. FYI.)

My Summer Project

My summer project is Ulysses S. Grant. Just finished biography No.4. I still have the agreed-upon "best presidential memoirs" left. (Best for last.) I reveal my mini-obsession at this point because it fits the above observations like a glove. Grant was a believer in ... ACTION. A "bias for action" from Peters and Waterman/Search in 1982 is Grant in 1862. (Or Patton in '44.) Hence, I have appended a mini-presentation, which consists mainly of relevant quotes lifted from various biographies.

I have come to believe that Grant ought to have been the fifth head at Rushmore—I'm sorry he was left out. He was a genius tactician, matchless troop commander, visionary philosopher-politician, and extraordinary human being.

Enjoy! I've had a ball!

Did "He" (Me) Lose It?

My post "Gross Negligence" (about my lack of Posting, actually) drew any number of comments, including quite a few about my sad bemusement at the idea of a Nissan-Renault-GM combo of some sort. "Mike" rattled my cage this morning (all good comments!). And I rattled back; my reply borders on rude and crosses the apparent border of sensitivity. My only defense is that I believe what I said.

I'd love to get your Comments on our exchange. Did I indeed "lose it"?

The exchange:

Mike: 1. The entire GM/Renault/Nissan deal was put up by Kirk Kerkorian, whose company owns about 10% GM's stock—NOT by GM management. Stop skewering GM management for this idea because not only did Wagoner and Company not come up with it, they aren't very enthused about it either. Please pay closer attention before ranting in comments.

2. So big mergers and big companies never work? It's pretty easy for all the self-proclaimed experts herein to say so and back it up with some Wall Street numbers (which you use when they agree with your ideas, but ignore when they don't). That's all pretty useless to those of us on the front lines in these companies trying to make them work. You see, we are the ones who have to find the 'synergies' and try to mold two cultures into one—with a profit at the end of the day. So, either offer advice on how to make it happen or shut up. Just saying "you're wrong" is an easy cop out.

(Posted by Mike at July 13, 2006 06:37 AM)

Tom: Mike, the only reason Kerkorian is in a position to do what he is doing is because of 30+ years, going back to the first gas crisis, of Gross Incompetence by GM top management. Only last year, Rick Wagoner said in public that he had market research that us bozos-on-the-street didn't have access to that proved that consumers didn't care two hoots about gas prices—thence he continued to be "SUV man." Last night I had dinner with my local Chevy dealer—he can't give the damn things away (and that's almost the literal truth). (The person who runs my speaking business is trying to trade her SUV for a more gas-efficient car—and despite its youth and mint condition she is being offered less than half bluebook as trade value.)

Practical idea? If you are crunched by a mega-merger or outfit run by repeatedly demonstrated incompetents, quit and get a job at a modest size company where you can actually make a difference to yourself and to the consumers you serve.

Look Mike, I'm not the totally heartless insensitive jerk you may think I am, but the fact is that you've had 30 years' warning that GM couldn't bat its way out of a wet paper bag in a monsoon. I'm past the point of admiring your "gumption." To stay at GM is a fool's errand. Period. And that's more true if you have 4 children, ages 4,6,8,10, than if you're unencumbered.

(Posted by tom peters at July 13, 2006 09:18 AM)

Attached is a very short PowerPoint, more or less on this topic, that I put together a few days ago, prior to this exchange.

FYI

Working on "stuff." One result is a ton of new-newish slides. In the attached I've organized them by subject matter. All yours!

AARRGGHH!

"The beat goes on." So, these days, does ... "the glow." All homes-habitats these days are "aglow"—24/7. Every damn device known to mankind (mousekind?) including sonic mouse fender-offers has a glowing light of some sort. Yesterday I bought a $29.95 Cuisinart toaster. (I bought it solely for the color—cherry red!) Upon plugging it in I discovered ... MORE GLOW. The "degree of toasting" indicator—1 to 9—has a "60/60/24/7" lit up number.

For gawd's sake ...

(The next two Posts are oldies—about 10 days old—that just turned up on my Desktop ...)

Where Brains and Brawn Mix. Big Time.

It's an unassailable truth that brains and brawn do not mix. You hardly hear a peep about sports prowess coming from MIT, Cal Tech, or Chicago. Harvard et al. take their sports very seriously, but rarely at the Division I championship level. That's why I love it that Stanford won its ... 12th straight ... Division I Director's Cup. (Okay, I went there to B.School.) Hence the myth of brains or brawn suffers a fatal blow—as I see it. Some say the secret is Stanford's prowess in "minor" sports: swimming, baseball, tennis, etc. "Minor"? You must be kidding. I'll surely agree that our Rose Bowl trips have been few and far between of late. (Two in a row while I was getting my MBA, thanks in part to Heisman winner Jim Plunkett.) Basketball is a powerhouse—a string of Pac Ten championships, and a Final Four appearance a couple of years ago. There's more, my real turn-on: Stanford's women's programs. Wow! Great facilities! Great coaches! Great records!

Brains & brawn. A non-starter? Think again. (FYI: Hats off to Williams for its 8th straight Div III Director's Cup victory.)

Mayday! Here I Come!

I'd wondered ...

The Financial Times had an article on July 1 that scratched an itch. And scratched it in a way that made me more or less smile.

I grew up on the Severn River. (The Naval Academy anchors the Severn's wide end, at the junction with the Chesapeake Bay.) Though I didn't go to "the academy," I went on to spend 4 years as a regular officer (USN, not USNR ... Big Deal), in Vietnam and the Pentagon. In my own mind I ... Bleed Blue, as us watery types call it.

The FT article: "Lost or Hurt at Sea? Phew!" In short the author, Victor Mallett, who writes about sailing, contrasts the sometimes shabby record of mountain climbers (shabby = leave other climbers to die) with the extraordinary lengths, with major risk of life and limb, and at routine cost of a likely racing victory, that sailors go to to rescue those who are stranded and or wounded at sea. Mallett: "I cannot imagine any sailor knowingly leaving another to die if there was the slightest chance of effecting a rescue—regardless of hardship and difficulty, let alone one's personal ambitions or position in a race. Those climbers who passed [David] Sharp [who died], remember, were not on their way down from the summit, but on their way up with reserves of oxygen and personal energy."

Etc. Etc.

"Eternal Father, strong to save ..."

Cool Friend: Wolaner

Most recently an executive committee member at CNET, Robin Wolaner has had an eclectic career in publishing, with experience at Penthouse, Runner's World, and Mother Jones, and as the founder of Parenting magazine. She left CNET to write Naked In the Boardroom: A CEO Bares Her Secrets So You Can Transform Your Career, which recently came out in paperback. Tom blogged about it, and he said:

I unflinchingly anoint it a "Top 5" biz book for the last couple of years. Namely: Naked in the Boardroom, by entrepreneur and wildly successful BigCo exec Robin Wolaner. It is by far ... the best book on strategy and tactics for women aiming to make it big in business—big biz or entrepreneurial biz. Moreover, I think any male ... can learn an enormous amount from this book.

Read Robin's interview here. You may also like to visit her book website, nakedintheboardroom.com.

Gross Negligence!

Summer lasts about 6 weeks in Vermont. I'm off the road—and for once enjoying the full & matchless glory of a s-l-o-w Vermont summer.

Hence my less than vigorous Blogging. Sorry. (Actually, not sorry at all.) So I'll try—but not very hard.

It's not for lack of "stuff":

E.g., if one were to combine three enormous, oversize, clunky, uninspiring car companies (oh, say, GM, Nissan, Renault) why would one imagine that the result would be a "seriously cool, fast-moving enterprise" capable of beating Toyota or Honda?

Hyper-big = Non-innovative. Period. (Just give Microsoft's Steve Ballmer truth serum.) The global auto industry has spent gajillions on R&D (eg GM = #1 R&D spender in U.S.A. over the last 25 years—no bull) and not given us a fundamental breakthrough in 75 years—unless you count automatic windows. Verizon spends most of its "R&D" (does it actually have R&D?) fighting innovation and trying to preserve a semi-monopoly—with the result that Americans are falling further behind each day in connectivity & speed (see Andy Kessler's great piece—"Give Me Bandwidth"—in the 26 June Weekly Standard). Big Pharma is wasting the talent of tens of thousands of researchers to give us me-too drugs and fund tens of thousands of additional sales-"girls" to push them. Etc. Etc.

Whoops, I said I'd not go there ...

(BIG GRIPE 0710: I understand the realities of retail, but I am genuinely pissed at getting a "fall catalogue" from LLBean when I am psychologically embedded in my b-r-i-e-f VT summer.)

July 4th Redux (+ Busy Beavers)

Will get back to the serious business of business soon enough. Meanwhile: (1) found this pic of yours truly, south of Danang, surveying a bridge that needed strengthening for USMC tanks, in the summer of 1966, perhaps even the 4th of July—I'm the one in the middle. (2) On a 10-mile row in Lake St Catherine (VT) yesterday—came across this Beaver Mansion (hard-workin' buggers).

Speed Limit

Here's another of Tom's photos taken during his long row. Do you suppose he had a hard time staying within the speed limit?

Happy 230, America!

Hmmmm ... 230 years. Wow, it's extraordinary as I see it. At 63, I've been around for more than one-quarter of the USA's time-on-earth. I especially love the 4th; I think there is a pretty general spirit of celebration of what happened in July 1776 in Philadelphia. No presents (I hope). Don't pass it on, but I enjoy hot dogs on the 4th as much or more as the Thanksgiving feasts. (I'd add that while some of the "Thanksgiving Story" is a little different than the real thing ... the Philadelphia story definitely is the real thing. What a leap of faith! What a mess those guys got themselves into! (Read David McCullough's 1776—you really must; it's a page turner, and it illustrates what a close-run thing the independence endeavor was.

A lot of us are mad at a lot of others of us for what the U.S. is up to. I strongly urge a one-day truce. Life ain't easy, but we've done remarkably well. And, what a pain to govern one's fellow citizens—and what an amazing array of choices have faced almost all our Presidents.

Rushing off to a July 3 picnic as I write, so I'll have to hold the story about my July 4th, 1973, in Rangoon Burma; me and the CIA team there sharing hot dogs and drinks with the KGB guys ... in the U.S. Ambassador's back yard.

Happy 4th! Do overindulge with the hot dogs, the mustard, the ketchup, the chips, etc.

The photo at the top comes from a little town in Vermont, six miles from me—Pawlet. At the town square resides this small but important display, dressed up in a straightforward Vermont way for the 4th. (Among many other things, I believe VT had the highest per capita KIA rate in the Civil War.)

Mackinac Island, Michigan

Lots to report (later) on my Michigan Health & Hospitals Association Meeting at the grand Grand Hotel on Mackinac Island. For starters, the hotel claims the "longest porch in the world" (see picture above). Don't know how they could be sure, but I can say for sure that it is one hell of a porch! The extraordinary hotel is surrounded by extraordinary houses (see new stuff at Flickr); I assumed the houses were built by the auto barons—turns out that they were birthed about 20 years before the world of autos emerged; instead these villas were mostly constructed by the Meat Packer Barons of Chicago!