Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.
Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Another nice, efficient speech
Efficient:
Another nice, efficient speech
Efficient:
Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.
Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night, Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night, the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
And this morning, the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Mark Templeton
Mark Templeton (Citrix) credits his trajectory from mid-level manager to CEO solely to his personal investment in communication. Once a manager focused on tactics, he evolved into a leader by becoming a student of communications and learning how to instill vision.
Nancy Duarte, Slide:ology
Thursday, November 18, 2010
All happy families
Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.
Does Leo Tolstoy's opening line to Anna Karenina also hold true for projects -- are all projects that just progress smoothly from the start alike, but each that fails or at least becomes a long slog to finish do so in unique ways?
Does this extend to organizations as well?
That question formed in my mind while in a meeting today. While I didn't come to any conclusion after pondering it for a while, I did decide it's an important question to ask.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Mikey Kaus and Multiple Audiences
Saw this bit in the Kaus Files today that shows the importance of understanding the different relationships you're in and how a message for one can impact the other:
Obama has been out every day reminding those of us in the middle how far to the left he is from where he ran in 2008. He's firming up the wrong base.
Its amazing that the Blues don't understand that all BHO's comments, particularly the punish your enemies meme, are on FOX, talk radio and the Internet. Your trash talk goes right into the other guy's locker room.
... the "locker room" analogy is slightly misleading. It's not just that rousing the Dem base also rouses the GOP base (which can hardly be roused more than it already is anyway). It's that rousing the Dem base alienates the middle.
Were Dems always faced with that base-vs.-middle tradeoff?
On issues like immigration reform, it seems like they are now. (Welfare was a base-vs.-middle issue, of course. The middle hated welfare. But Dems could always soft-pedal and hide their cash-dispensing programs in the fine print while pretending that they were requiring work—and then relying on other issues to mobilize the base. On immigration, it seems as if the only way to rouse the Dems' Latino base, Obama-style, is to shout your support for an immigration amnesty from the rooftops, where the middle can also hear it.)
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Start With Why
Simon Sinek's TED Presentation:
The image above shows Sinek pointing to his "Golden Circle."
Most people start from the outside -- we know what our companies make, some have an idea how we do it, few have a clear idea why. That lack of a clear "why" causes dissonance with people -- it causes them to have a bad gut reaction; the what and how may look logical but they can't put their finger on the source of their doubt.
Sinek advocates flipping that around. Start with a clear, simple "why." Tie this in to Duarte's work in Resonance -- establish a simple core contrast of what is and what could be. Then you can work on the mechanics of how it's achieved and what the final deliverables will be.
Sinek connects this to the Law of Diffusion of Innovation. The innovators and early adopters are those comfortable with an idea of why, and are willing to play with new ideas and technology even if it hasn't been refined well enough for general adoption. The challenge is, once the technology is ready the mass market, is getting acceptance with the early majority. The "what" will be foreign to them, and they don't instinctively gravitate to understanding the "why" -- you have to give them a compelling "why" so they get an ah-ha moment and become comfortable with the new product.
The image above shows Sinek pointing to his "Golden Circle."
Most people start from the outside -- we know what our companies make, some have an idea how we do it, few have a clear idea why. That lack of a clear "why" causes dissonance with people -- it causes them to have a bad gut reaction; the what and how may look logical but they can't put their finger on the source of their doubt.
Sinek advocates flipping that around. Start with a clear, simple "why." Tie this in to Duarte's work in Resonance -- establish a simple core contrast of what is and what could be. Then you can work on the mechanics of how it's achieved and what the final deliverables will be.
Sinek connects this to the Law of Diffusion of Innovation. The innovators and early adopters are those comfortable with an idea of why, and are willing to play with new ideas and technology even if it hasn't been refined well enough for general adoption. The challenge is, once the technology is ready the mass market, is getting acceptance with the early majority. The "what" will be foreign to them, and they don't instinctively gravitate to understanding the "why" -- you have to give them a compelling "why" so they get an ah-ha moment and become comfortable with the new product.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
A couple interesting TEDs
Daniel Pink on "The Science of Motivation"
The fundamental drive to do things is: Because they matter.
Autonomy: ability to direct our own lives.
Mastery: ability to get better
Purpose: yearning to do something bigger then ourselves.
He also mentions the "Results Only Work Environment" (ROWE) as providing 20% improvements in productivity. My immediate thought was what is the impact from the greater autonomy v. simply being a change in the environment, or even the Hawthorne Effect where people improve productivity simply because they're being studied.
Sir Ken Robinson on "Do Schools Kill Creativity?"
Interestingly while most people criticize schools for being organized to turnout out workers for the industrial economy, he criticizes them as trying to produce university professors.
The fundamental drive to do things is: Because they matter.
Autonomy: ability to direct our own lives.
Mastery: ability to get better
Purpose: yearning to do something bigger then ourselves.
He also mentions the "Results Only Work Environment" (ROWE) as providing 20% improvements in productivity. My immediate thought was what is the impact from the greater autonomy v. simply being a change in the environment, or even the Hawthorne Effect where people improve productivity simply because they're being studied.
Sir Ken Robinson on "Do Schools Kill Creativity?"
Interestingly while most people criticize schools for being organized to turnout out workers for the industrial economy, he criticizes them as trying to produce university professors.
There are three fundamental concepts to developing strategy: Understand the situation, anticipate the reaction of others, and act to advantage.
Understand the situation:
In June 1815 Wellington had his British Army and the Prussian Army in Belgium, but the allies had decided to wait until July 1st when the rest of the allied armies would assemble before attacking France. The British and Prussian forces were dispersed. Wellington knew the terrain of Belgium well.
Anticipate:
If Napoleon attacked it was reasonable to anticipate his strategy would be to attack the dispersed forces, to cut off the lines of communication between the Prussians and British armies by moving quickly north to the west of Brussels, then turn westward to cut off the British from the port of Antwerp.
Act to Advantage:
Wellington kept his forces dispersed. Napoleon struck, once he engaged the Prussian Army Wellington could anticipate the logical route he would continue on and began concentrating at Waterloo.
Waterloo had special terrain -- the main battlefield had gently rolling hills that allowed much of the British Army to concentrate their unseen behind those hills. Strong holds -- one a small village, one a woods could secure either flank by being fortified while still concealing the strength of forces. Here, Wellington could hope, Napoleon would not realize that the dispersed British Army had been concentrated until after he was committed to the attack.
Wellington understood the situation and terrain, he anticipated Napoleon's choices, and acted to take advantage decisively. So well thought out and executed, we still speak of a crushing defeat as to have "met one's Waterloo."
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Resonate
I'm currently reading Nancy Duarte's book Resonate.
While nominally about preparing presentations, it has a fundamental lesson about leadership:
Contrast what is with what could be.
While nominally about preparing presentations, it has a fundamental lesson about leadership:
Contrast what is with what could be.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Face Palm
I'm reminded of the phrase of a friend who, when we saw someone out wearing an amazingly bad outfit -- not a poor or lazy outfit but one the wearer spent time unintentionally creating something awful, would snark, "What kind of friends let you go out in public dressed like that?"
What kind of advisers let you say this:
Obama may not be able to express the sincerity to pull off a classic line like:
But he certainly can deliver more substantial and effective remarks like this:
Or:
It's an unfortunate refrain of the Obama Administration that no administration has faced such a difficult task as his, and perhaps even no man is capable of a great Presidency under today's circumstances. Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address seems to describe a time far worse:
An authentic voice is necessary, understanding pyschology is necessary, but condescending the people you're trying to win the support of is not, nor is using a speech to teach background material. Speeches are not lectures, organizers and websites can explain the pyschology as they teach party activists the skills of how to address the concerns of their neighbors. Obama should not be looking towards H. Ross Perot for lessons in giving speeches -- people want inspiration and a simple story, not expository material explaining facts. Multi-media presentations could have a role in politics -- but only with teams as brilliant as those who prepared Steve Job's recent keynotes. You'll note Jobs didn't explain how the iPhone's screen worked -- he just showed what it could do.
What kind of advisers let you say this:
"People out there are still hurting very badly, and they are still scared. And so part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama said at a Democratic fundraiser Saturday in Boston. "And the country is scared, and they have good reason to be."Barrack Obama, October 16, 2010 stump speech.
Obama may not be able to express the sincerity to pull off a classic line like:
I feel your pain.Bill Clinton, Response to AIDS activist Bob Rafsky at the Laura Belle nightclub in Manhattan (March 27, 1992)
But he certainly can deliver more substantial and effective remarks like this:
So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.Franklin Roosevelt's First Inaugural Address
In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.
More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
Or:
The path we have chosen for the present is full of hazards, as all paths are; but it is the one most consistent with our character and courage as a nation and our commitments around the world. The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.JFK's Cuban Missile Crisis Address
Our goal is not the victory of might, but the vindication of right; not peace at the expense of freedom, but both peace and freedom, here in this hemisphere, and, we hope, around the world. God willing, that goal will be achieved.
It's an unfortunate refrain of the Obama Administration that no administration has faced such a difficult task as his, and perhaps even no man is capable of a great Presidency under today's circumstances. Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address seems to describe a time far worse:
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
...
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
An authentic voice is necessary, understanding pyschology is necessary, but condescending the people you're trying to win the support of is not, nor is using a speech to teach background material. Speeches are not lectures, organizers and websites can explain the pyschology as they teach party activists the skills of how to address the concerns of their neighbors. Obama should not be looking towards H. Ross Perot for lessons in giving speeches -- people want inspiration and a simple story, not expository material explaining facts. Multi-media presentations could have a role in politics -- but only with teams as brilliant as those who prepared Steve Job's recent keynotes. You'll note Jobs didn't explain how the iPhone's screen worked -- he just showed what it could do.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Empathy
From this article on youth and empathy from the Boston Globe:
But at the most basic level, most concur that empathy is some sort of emotional response to another person’s plight, pain, state, or suffering. “It’s not just putting oneself in another’s shoes,” said Aaron L. Pincus, a professor of psychology at Penn State University. “It’s truly grasping what they’re experiencing....Your emotional state will move in a direction more similar to the person you’re empathizing with.”
Saturday, October 16, 2010
On Communication
Today I started reading two books -- Resonate by Nancy Duarte and On Writing Well by William Zinser. I developed a strong interest in communication skills when reading recently Just Listen by Mark Goulston.
We don't tell stories well anymore.
I was a fan of Star Trek: Next Generation for it's seven year run. But there is only one scene I've ever remembered well. It was Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra:
Stories are powerful. The tale of Gilgamesh originated in Babylon some 4500 years ago, and we still tell it today. In this age of twitter and power point we seem to be losing our old traditions of oral story telling. It is not just the internet, undoubtedly fifty years ago people watching songs being sung by the characters on Andy Griffith were already bemoaning television replacing the art of entertaining each other.
Times change. My youngest nephew isn't taught cursive in school anymore. Before World War II there was a much greater emphasis on mythology and poetry in our colleges and high school. I think we can live without cursive, I don't think we can live without story telling.
John Magee was an American of privilege who attended elite preparatory schools and in 1940 declined an acceptance to Yale and joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and fought as a pilot in England. He authored "High Flight":
Western Civilization has a strong tradition of challenge and achievement. Myths from Greece to Scandavia, even back to Babylon, have contributed to the basic hero narrative of one rising to the occasion when presented with a challenge. Trying to overcome the anxiety that make many people too risk averse is a very old activity. The Western tradition is what you where yesterday is not what you must be tomorrow.
The bible may be summarized in one short statement: Jesus died, God grew up. At it's core Christianity is about leaving the past behind and trying to become better then you were, a simple story too often lost among all the words.
Even in America, the zenith of the Western world's ethos of re-invention we fight risk adversity, memories too long, rules to constraining. Modern adults sit at their office desks, fearful of litigation -- tales of lawsuits bandied about as modern day Grendel that will come in the form of a subpoena. It is an unnatural state for people who are happiest when walking, when exploring their world, when figuring out the possible. It is the dissonance that causes stress.
The television show Mad Men speaks to failures and re-invention on many levels, the contrasts not only within the show but between their world and our society of today are fascinating. The show had a remarkable scene to watch for anyone who has ever suffered "Death by Power Point" meetings.
Too often we use Power Point for expository information best left in a detailed report for the few people who need to know the details. Presentations are the times we need to tell stories, to engage other people with our ideas and show them how they can move from were we are to a better place they didn't know existed. It plays directly to the hero narrative of Western Civilization of discovering and rising to meet situations in ways you previously had never imagined.
Here's in Don Draper's Carousel presentation . "It lets us travel...around and around and back home again to a place we know we are loved." That is something that works emotionally on people whether they're listening to Don Draper say it in a business presentation with the harsh light of a projector build, or they were sitting around a fire listening to Homer describe Odysseus' twenty year journey to return to Penelope.
We are not a society forged by looking at ledger sheets under banker's lamps; we are a society that grew up telling tales around campfires. If you want an emotional connection, to inspire people, to let people understand where they are today and where you can lead them to be and how it will make their lives better -- you need to be able to tell a good story.
We don't tell stories well anymore.
I was a fan of Star Trek: Next Generation for it's seven year run. But there is only one scene I've ever remembered well. It was Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra:
Stories are powerful. The tale of Gilgamesh originated in Babylon some 4500 years ago, and we still tell it today. In this age of twitter and power point we seem to be losing our old traditions of oral story telling. It is not just the internet, undoubtedly fifty years ago people watching songs being sung by the characters on Andy Griffith were already bemoaning television replacing the art of entertaining each other.
Times change. My youngest nephew isn't taught cursive in school anymore. Before World War II there was a much greater emphasis on mythology and poetry in our colleges and high school. I think we can live without cursive, I don't think we can live without story telling.
John Magee was an American of privilege who attended elite preparatory schools and in 1940 declined an acceptance to Yale and joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and fought as a pilot in England. He authored "High Flight":
He came out of a tradition far different from the academic world of many of our business (or political and military) leaders of today. High Flight is one of the great poems about flight, lines from it were used by Ronald Reagan in his address to the nation the night of the Challenger disaster. Good stories are powerful.
- Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
- And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
- Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
- of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
- You have not dreamed of—wheeled and soared and swung
- High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there,
- I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
- My eager craft through footless halls of air....
- Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue
- I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
- Where never lark nor even eagle flew—
- And, while with silent lifting mind I’ve trod
- The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
- Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.
Western Civilization has a strong tradition of challenge and achievement. Myths from Greece to Scandavia, even back to Babylon, have contributed to the basic hero narrative of one rising to the occasion when presented with a challenge. Trying to overcome the anxiety that make many people too risk averse is a very old activity. The Western tradition is what you where yesterday is not what you must be tomorrow.
The bible may be summarized in one short statement: Jesus died, God grew up. At it's core Christianity is about leaving the past behind and trying to become better then you were, a simple story too often lost among all the words.
Even in America, the zenith of the Western world's ethos of re-invention we fight risk adversity, memories too long, rules to constraining. Modern adults sit at their office desks, fearful of litigation -- tales of lawsuits bandied about as modern day Grendel that will come in the form of a subpoena. It is an unnatural state for people who are happiest when walking, when exploring their world, when figuring out the possible. It is the dissonance that causes stress.
The television show Mad Men speaks to failures and re-invention on many levels, the contrasts not only within the show but between their world and our society of today are fascinating. The show had a remarkable scene to watch for anyone who has ever suffered "Death by Power Point" meetings.
Too often we use Power Point for expository information best left in a detailed report for the few people who need to know the details. Presentations are the times we need to tell stories, to engage other people with our ideas and show them how they can move from were we are to a better place they didn't know existed. It plays directly to the hero narrative of Western Civilization of discovering and rising to meet situations in ways you previously had never imagined.
Here's in Don Draper's Carousel presentation . "It lets us travel...around and around and back home again to a place we know we are loved." That is something that works emotionally on people whether they're listening to Don Draper say it in a business presentation with the harsh light of a projector build, or they were sitting around a fire listening to Homer describe Odysseus' twenty year journey to return to Penelope.
We are not a society forged by looking at ledger sheets under banker's lamps; we are a society that grew up telling tales around campfires. If you want an emotional connection, to inspire people, to let people understand where they are today and where you can lead them to be and how it will make their lives better -- you need to be able to tell a good story.
Friday, October 15, 2010
The Spaghetti Slide
The question is how does one distill the complexities of the modern world to a few simple, and accurate, narratives to organize change around?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Bad Relationship, Bad Intelligence
Real nice, and very balanced, article from the Atlantic:
First, these were organizations that could never get past their animosity to accomplish anything meaningful to reduce the build up of toxins on the corporate balance sheet. The relationship needed to change, they both knew it, and they couldn't do it.
Second, Gettlefinger's attitude is the opposite of trust but verify -- don't verify your mistrust is rational.
You can achieve objectives, even objectives that take complex and heavy work to accomplish like good paying contract, but end up in the wrong place if those objectives were set wrong because the underlying strategy was wrong.
The first thing you need to recognize is that the militant unions of the thirties were to some extent made more militant by the abuses on the corporate side--the Battle of the Overpass, for example, where company representatives beat the crap out of organizers who were attempting to hand out leaflets in a public space. Over time, that dynamic evolved into something that was more stable, but also more toxic: a sort of awful marriage between two sides that hate each other, but hate everyone else even more.
One of the most remarkable things I learned in writing about GM was that Ron Gettlefinger was totally blindsided by GM's financial collapse. The UAW had so often convinced itself that the company's dire warnings were simply strategic bargaining claims that it didn't understand how parlous the underlying finances were--and in fairness, in the past, management had often made exaggerated claims when it was bargaining. One former auto analyst I talked to said that the company would routinely claim that anything it didn't want to do was being blocked by the union--but when the rare equity researcher actually talked to the UAW, they'd often find that the union had never heard of the issue where it was allegedly the sole obstacle to change.
First, these were organizations that could never get past their animosity to accomplish anything meaningful to reduce the build up of toxins on the corporate balance sheet. The relationship needed to change, they both knew it, and they couldn't do it.
Second, Gettlefinger's attitude is the opposite of trust but verify -- don't verify your mistrust is rational.
You can achieve objectives, even objectives that take complex and heavy work to accomplish like good paying contract, but end up in the wrong place if those objectives were set wrong because the underlying strategy was wrong.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Relationship Factors
It's time to start discussing the deciding side of this diagram:
When developing strategy, it is important to consider relationships.
Is the strategy involving parties who are cooperative, competitive, or antagonistic?
Antagonistic relationships are defined by active opposition.
Competitive relationships involve parties trying to be more successful then the others in acquiring resources and recognition.
Cooperative ones are mutual beneficial.
Parties may simultaneously fit different aspects of their relationship into more then one category.
Making decisions become a real challenge when your decisions impact different parties, some of whom may be cooperative, some competitors, some enemies, and some who blend all of those.
Problems arise when you don't recognize the proper relationship. Or worse, when you create the wrong relationship!
Mismatches
When parties see their relationships differently, and they don't realize it, it can cause bad decisions to be made. If one party believes the relationship is cooperative on both sides, but the other party views the situation as competitive, the first party will probably be at a disadvantage.
Another bad situation is when a third party fails to recognize the true dynamic. A common situation within a corporation for a boss to assume everyone under him is cooperating, when in reality two managers may be competitive (or sometimes antagonistic). If the boss doesn't realize this, much time and effort can be wasted to produce only frustrated employees.
Altering the Relationship
Some of the greatest successes come when one recognizes the opportunity to change the relationship for the better -- to be able to take an antagonistic relationship to a competitive or even cooperative one can often result in less stress and better allocation of resources.
Diplomacy is probably where the most complicated matrix of mixed relationships form.
The traits of being open, realistic, relaxed that Gorbachev saw in Reagan in Geneva during their meeting of November, 1985 are valuable traits to have.
Relationships can be complicated. A year and a half later, in June 1987 Reagan was riding in a limo on his way to a speech when he mused, "The boys at State are going to kill me."(2) The approach used to negotiate towards arms control (a cooperative win-win) is not the same to use when directly challenging the communist world's economic and political system -- at that point still (and possibly once again in the future) a fundamentally antagonistic clash of cultures.
Reagan, and Gorbachev, comprehended how their relationships on different issues, on different stages, playing to themselves and to other audiences foreign and domestic, would not always fit a neat category. It wasn't easy, and it wasn't overnight; nor did calling each other by first names suddenly end all the tensions and failed negotiations; but they still played an elaborate game that in the end we came out of the 1980s far safer and better then we entered them.
==========
Footnotes
(1) "Ronald Reagan" by John Patrick Diggins, p. 359; Diggins footnotes this as two sources: "President Reagan," Cannon p. 673; "Once Red, "Mr. Green" [Gorbachev] Is a hero anywhere but home," New York Times, 23 Oct 2004
(2) http://www.historynet.com/president-ronald-reagan-inside-story-of-reagans-berlin-challenge-to-tear-down-this-wall.htm
(3) Full text is available here.
When developing strategy, it is important to consider relationships.
Is the strategy involving parties who are cooperative, competitive, or antagonistic?
Antagonistic relationships are defined by active opposition.
Competitive relationships involve parties trying to be more successful then the others in acquiring resources and recognition.
Cooperative ones are mutual beneficial.
Parties may simultaneously fit different aspects of their relationship into more then one category.
Making decisions become a real challenge when your decisions impact different parties, some of whom may be cooperative, some competitors, some enemies, and some who blend all of those.
Problems arise when you don't recognize the proper relationship. Or worse, when you create the wrong relationship!
Mismatches
When parties see their relationships differently, and they don't realize it, it can cause bad decisions to be made. If one party believes the relationship is cooperative on both sides, but the other party views the situation as competitive, the first party will probably be at a disadvantage.
Another bad situation is when a third party fails to recognize the true dynamic. A common situation within a corporation for a boss to assume everyone under him is cooperating, when in reality two managers may be competitive (or sometimes antagonistic). If the boss doesn't realize this, much time and effort can be wasted to produce only frustrated employees.
Altering the Relationship
Some of the greatest successes come when one recognizes the opportunity to change the relationship for the better -- to be able to take an antagonistic relationship to a competitive or even cooperative one can often result in less stress and better allocation of resources.
Diplomacy is probably where the most complicated matrix of mixed relationships form.
To Gorbachev, Reagan seemed the embodiment of glasnost itself; open to ideas, willing to face reality, relaxed with himself. "I remembered the episode when we were sitting down together," Gorbachev recalled years later. "The President said I think the time has come for us to be on a first-name basis. Call me Ron." (1)
The traits of being open, realistic, relaxed that Gorbachev saw in Reagan in Geneva during their meeting of November, 1985 are valuable traits to have.
Relationships can be complicated. A year and a half later, in June 1987 Reagan was riding in a limo on his way to a speech when he mused, "The boys at State are going to kill me."(2) The approach used to negotiate towards arms control (a cooperative win-win) is not the same to use when directly challenging the communist world's economic and political system -- at that point still (and possibly once again in the future) a fundamentally antagonistic clash of cultures.
In the 1950's, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind- too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.
And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control. Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace.
There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! (3)
Reagan, and Gorbachev, comprehended how their relationships on different issues, on different stages, playing to themselves and to other audiences foreign and domestic, would not always fit a neat category. It wasn't easy, and it wasn't overnight; nor did calling each other by first names suddenly end all the tensions and failed negotiations; but they still played an elaborate game that in the end we came out of the 1980s far safer and better then we entered them.
==========
Footnotes
(1) "Ronald Reagan" by John Patrick Diggins, p. 359; Diggins footnotes this as two sources: "President Reagan," Cannon p. 673; "Once Red, "Mr. Green" [Gorbachev] Is a hero anywhere but home," New York Times, 23 Oct 2004
(2) http://www.historynet.com/president-ronald-reagan-inside-story-of-reagans-berlin-challenge-to-tear-down-this-wall.htm
(3) Full text is available here.
Still pondering Obama
In my last post I criticized Obama's final remark in his Rolling Stone interview. Since that may not have been prepared by speech writers and gone through a review and editing process I decided to look at his recent speech and compare it to one Ronald Reagan gave; both speeches were given at similar times in their Presidencies with high unemployment and economic uncertainty heading into mid-terms where considerable losses to their parties were expected.
I've chosen the last three paragraphs (and the ending salutation) from each, the place each man needed to close the sale.
Ronald Reagan, Irving, Texas 11 October 1982:
Barack Obama, Madison, WI 28 September 2010
My analysis:
First Paragraph
Reagan -- Asks for help, follows by three items that his audience will respond "yes" to, asks for a specific action, lays out the alternative (higher taxes and spending).
Obama -- Lectures on generalities, doesn't lay out any specifics, doesn't ask for agreement by the audience (no "if you believes"), doesn't ask for help.
Reagan has engaged the audience. Obama hasn't. When someone says "if you believe" it's pretty hard for the human mind to not answer automatically yes or no. Obama, if anything, encourages minds to wander thinking about what he means.
Second Paragraph:
Reagan -- implies a plan (new road), provides an action (stay the course), lays out the objectives (lower inflation, recovery).
Obama -- asks for people to have courage to "move forward...even in face of uncertainty."
Words matter -- course implies following a plotted path, forward doesn't. Reagan asks for courage, and asks people to continue following him and his plan to get to a specific objective. Obama asks for courage too, but describes a scenario that could as well be someone lost in the woods -- just moving forward to no certain destination.
Third Paragraph:
Reagan -- starts off with what he is going to do, then asks for others to follow. He mentions the Republican party. He finishes with a combination name-drop and call to action -- the best way to achieve the objectives I laid out earlier is to elect these people.
Obama -- starts off with you go do something. What? Well, your future. He doesn't lay out a specific objective like Reagan did (smaller government, lower taxes, lower inflation, economic recovery). Rather he made his speech about an uncertain future, one that apparently is different for each person. He does ask for help, then lays out a number of "we" needs. Who is we? He never mentions the Democratic party. Obama doesn't name drop so he doesn't reinforce the party. He doesn't finish with a call for action, but instead after two and a half paragraph without any specific objectives suddenly comes up with restore the economy, rebuild middle class, and reclaim the American Dream.
Obama's speech is not as effective on a technical basis. He doesn't work on getting buy-in, he doesn't layout a plan, he plays up uncertainty, he doesn't leave the audience walking away action on their minds but wondering how are "we going to..." the three broad goals he suddenly puts out there. Obama's speech also ignores his party and his party's candidates. Whatever else his speech may have included earlier, the end left people leaderless and with no clear direction.
I've chosen the last three paragraphs (and the ending salutation) from each, the place each man needed to close the sale.
Ronald Reagan, Irving, Texas 11 October 1982:
But I want to make a request. If you believe, as I do, that too many people in Washington are out of step, if you believe that we need reforms like the balanced budget amendment, then please send us a Congress that will pass these programs so we can make this great country of ours number one once again. If the liberals do have an alternative, it's the same one they've always had, and maybe that's why they're not mentioning it. They mean to raise your taxes and give government a blank check to spend more money, and we've been down that road now for more than 20 years.
We're on a new road now. Unless we have the courage to stay on course and lick inflation for good, we'll never have lasting recovery. Our problems will grow worse than before. And that's the sad, sorry history of past decades -- lost nerve and squandered opportunities.
Well, I intend to stay the course. I need your support. I want you to promise me that you will mobilize an army across this State to get out the vote for a great Republican victory on November 2d. And let us remember that we Republicans have a rendezvous in this city in 1984. Let us remember that we have a mission to renew all the dreams and opportunities that our nation was placed on this Earth to provide. And let us remember the best way to make those dreams come true is to elect Jim Collins to the Senate, your fine candidates to the House, George Strake as Lieutenant Governor, Allen Clarke as treasurer, and to send Bill Clements back to your capital as Governor of this great State.
Thank you very much, and God bless you.
Barack Obama, Madison, WI 28 September 2010
That involvement can’t end with the vote that you cast in 2008. That election was not just about putting me in the White House. It was about building a movement for change that went beyond any one campaign or any one candidate. It was about remembering that in the United States of America, our destiny is not written for us — it is written by us. That is the blessing of this country. (Applause.) The power to shape our future lies in our hands — but only if we’re willing to keep working for it and fighting for it and keep believing that change is possible. (Applause.)
So that’s what’s being tested right now. That’s what’s being tested. We are being tested here. The question is, are we going to have the courage to keep moving forward even in the face of difficulty, even in the face of uncertainty? This election is not about what we’ve done; it’s about the work we have left to do. It’s what - it’s about what you want this country to look like over the next two years. It’s about your future.
So, Madison, get out there and shape it. Get out there and fight for it. (Applause.) I need your help, Madison. We need you to commit to vote. We need you to pledge to vote. We need you to knock on doors. We need you to talk to neighbors. We need you to make phone calls. We need you to bring energy and passion and commitment. (Applause.) Because if we do, if you’re willing to step up to the plate and realize that change is not a spectator sport, we will not just win this election - we are going to restore our economy, we are going to rebuild the middle class. We will reclaim the American Dream for this generation.
Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America.
My analysis:
First Paragraph
Reagan -- Asks for help, follows by three items that his audience will respond "yes" to, asks for a specific action, lays out the alternative (higher taxes and spending).
Obama -- Lectures on generalities, doesn't lay out any specifics, doesn't ask for agreement by the audience (no "if you believes"), doesn't ask for help.
Reagan has engaged the audience. Obama hasn't. When someone says "if you believe" it's pretty hard for the human mind to not answer automatically yes or no. Obama, if anything, encourages minds to wander thinking about what he means.
Second Paragraph:
Reagan -- implies a plan (new road), provides an action (stay the course), lays out the objectives (lower inflation, recovery).
Obama -- asks for people to have courage to "move forward...even in face of uncertainty."
Words matter -- course implies following a plotted path, forward doesn't. Reagan asks for courage, and asks people to continue following him and his plan to get to a specific objective. Obama asks for courage too, but describes a scenario that could as well be someone lost in the woods -- just moving forward to no certain destination.
Third Paragraph:
Reagan -- starts off with what he is going to do, then asks for others to follow. He mentions the Republican party. He finishes with a combination name-drop and call to action -- the best way to achieve the objectives I laid out earlier is to elect these people.
Obama -- starts off with you go do something. What? Well, your future. He doesn't lay out a specific objective like Reagan did (smaller government, lower taxes, lower inflation, economic recovery). Rather he made his speech about an uncertain future, one that apparently is different for each person. He does ask for help, then lays out a number of "we" needs. Who is we? He never mentions the Democratic party. Obama doesn't name drop so he doesn't reinforce the party. He doesn't finish with a call for action, but instead after two and a half paragraph without any specific objectives suddenly comes up with restore the economy, rebuild middle class, and reclaim the American Dream.
Obama's speech is not as effective on a technical basis. He doesn't work on getting buy-in, he doesn't layout a plan, he plays up uncertainty, he doesn't leave the audience walking away action on their minds but wondering how are "we going to..." the three broad goals he suddenly puts out there. Obama's speech also ignores his party and his party's candidates. Whatever else his speech may have included earlier, the end left people leaderless and with no clear direction.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Don't Teach Don't
"Don't teach don't" was a bit of advise I learned as a young volunteer firefighter. Show people the right way to do something, instead of the wrong way followed by an admonishment to never do it that wrong way.
However analyzing the actions others have taken is useful to understand how what they did was wrong. The contrast between Barack Obama's interview in Rolling Stone for the October 15, 2010 issue and Patton's speech (covered in my last post) provides a remarkable opportunity to compare good from bad inspirational messages.
Why has the President so often hit a flat-note that doesn't resonate emotionally? Too often he makes statements like this:
Empathy is one of the key attributes of excellent leaders. Take a moment and consider how an action will be perceived by others.
The President starts off by telling his supporters -- his supporters -- that their actions are inexcusable. You can argue that if you diagram the sentence that's not what he said; it's not what most people perceive.
Then he says that while they may have complaints about compromises or schedules, those don't matter right now.
Next it's "we've" got a choice between himself and something right of his predecessor.
The perception becomes, "I don't like your behavior, I don't care why, and you can either eat your peas or go to bed hungry."
This isn't going to get buy-in from people. It's an opening paragraph that puts people on the defensive.
Patton's Third Army speech got buy-in; he acknowledged the fears of his troops and reminded them how they could overcome them.
The second paragraph Obama scolds his supporters that they are unenthusiastic and irresponsible. Patton told his men -- facing the much, much more serious fear from imminent combat -- that they would be afraid, but could get through this challenge based on their training, character, and having the best food, equipment, and spirit of any soldiers on earth.
In the third paragraph is a mess. "...10 years on key issues like climate change..." -- Whatever the sentence said before, people hear "10 years climate change" when for a decade already they've been told immediate action was necessary. "How we restore" reminds folks they already lost. You have a choice whether you want civil rights or not. We're getting our hats handed to us in political financing. Was this paragraph deliberately designed to depress people?
Here's my amateur attempt to re-write that paragraph:
Note the first four sentences are questions. Carefully constructed questions -- anyone inclined to support the President's policies is going to answer "yes." That's an old salesman's trick, one founded in pyschology. Get folks saying yes. It gets you buy-in, people are agreeing with you. Get them chanting "Yes we can!" Who was that politician a couple years ago so effective at that?
Then you give them something easy (vote) and something that is a challenge but they have the skills to do -- talk to their friends and neighbors. Acknowledge it's tough but express confidence.
While Patton didn't use the "yes" technique, he did acknowledge the desires and frustrations of his troops ("Sure, we want to go home...") and then gave them direction how to fix it ("The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it.").
The fourth paragraph just continued Obama's berating of his own supporters -- you're petulant children.
The final sentence continues to keep people on the defensive, "If you're serious" -- at best it's snide criticism, at worse it's accusatory. Patton didn't tell his men that "If you really want to go home" -- he acknowledged that his men, and himself, all wanted to go home and here's what they need to do to make it happen.
This was the finger wagging tone of a frustrated parent dealing poorly with their teenage child, not a leader. Worse, this wasn't some off-the-cuff remark of a tired candidate on the campaign trail caught on a cellphone and posted to YouTube -- this was the President of the United States, in the Oval Office, having a scheduled interview, stepping out then deliberately returning to make sure he got these comments published in a major magazine. This is a failure not of intelligence but temperament.
However analyzing the actions others have taken is useful to understand how what they did was wrong. The contrast between Barack Obama's interview in Rolling Stone for the October 15, 2010 issue and Patton's speech (covered in my last post) provides a remarkable opportunity to compare good from bad inspirational messages.
Why has the President so often hit a flat-note that doesn't resonate emotionally? Too often he makes statements like this:
[Signaled by his aides, the president brings the interview to a close and leaves the Oval Office. A moment later, however, he returns to the office and says that he has one more thing to add. He speaks with intensity and passion, repeatedly stabbing the air with his finger.]
One closing remark that I want to make: It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election. There may be complaints about us not having gotten certain things done, not fast enough, making certain legislative compromises. But right now, we've got a choice between a Republican Party that has moved to the right of George Bush and is looking to lock in the same policies that got us into these disasters in the first place, versus an administration that, with some admitted warts, has been the most successful administration in a generation in moving progressive agendas forward.
The idea that we've got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible.
Everybody out there has to be thinking about what's at stake in this election and if they want to move forward over the next two years or six years or 10 years on key issues like climate change, key issues like how we restore a sense of equity and optimism to middle-class families who have seen their incomes decline by five percent over the last decade. If we want the kind of country that respects civil rights and civil liberties, we'd better fight in this election. And right now, we are getting outspent eight to one by these 527s that the Roberts court says can spend with impunity without disclosing where their money's coming from. In every single one of these congressional districts, you are seeing these independent organizations outspend political parties and the candidates by, as I said, factors of four to one, five to one, eight to one, 10 to one.
We have to get folks off the sidelines. People need to shake off this lethargy, people need to buck up. Bringing about change is hard — that's what I said during the campaign. It has been hard, and we've got some lumps to show for it. But if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place.
If you're serious, now's exactly the time that people have to step up.
Empathy is one of the key attributes of excellent leaders. Take a moment and consider how an action will be perceived by others.
The President starts off by telling his supporters -- his supporters -- that their actions are inexcusable. You can argue that if you diagram the sentence that's not what he said; it's not what most people perceive.
Then he says that while they may have complaints about compromises or schedules, those don't matter right now.
Next it's "we've" got a choice between himself and something right of his predecessor.
The perception becomes, "I don't like your behavior, I don't care why, and you can either eat your peas or go to bed hungry."
This isn't going to get buy-in from people. It's an opening paragraph that puts people on the defensive.
Patton's Third Army speech got buy-in; he acknowledged the fears of his troops and reminded them how they could overcome them.
The second paragraph Obama scolds his supporters that they are unenthusiastic and irresponsible. Patton told his men -- facing the much, much more serious fear from imminent combat -- that they would be afraid, but could get through this challenge based on their training, character, and having the best food, equipment, and spirit of any soldiers on earth.
In the third paragraph is a mess. "...10 years on key issues like climate change..." -- Whatever the sentence said before, people hear "10 years climate change" when for a decade already they've been told immediate action was necessary. "How we restore" reminds folks they already lost. You have a choice whether you want civil rights or not. We're getting our hats handed to us in political financing. Was this paragraph deliberately designed to depress people?
Here's my amateur attempt to re-write that paragraph:
Do you want to move forward on climate change? Do you want middle class Americans to see their incomes grow and feel they are treated fairly by Wall Street? Do you want to expand our civil rights, to bring those once ostracized for being different into the mainstream of our society? Do you want to show the 527s that their money can't buy this election? Then I need Democrats to do two things for me. One is easy -- to turn out and vote. The second is harder but they're up to the task -- talk to your friends and neighbors, hear their frustration and anxiety, ask for their patience and support.
Note the first four sentences are questions. Carefully constructed questions -- anyone inclined to support the President's policies is going to answer "yes." That's an old salesman's trick, one founded in pyschology. Get folks saying yes. It gets you buy-in, people are agreeing with you. Get them chanting "Yes we can!" Who was that politician a couple years ago so effective at that?
Then you give them something easy (vote) and something that is a challenge but they have the skills to do -- talk to their friends and neighbors. Acknowledge it's tough but express confidence.
While Patton didn't use the "yes" technique, he did acknowledge the desires and frustrations of his troops ("Sure, we want to go home...") and then gave them direction how to fix it ("The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it.").
The fourth paragraph just continued Obama's berating of his own supporters -- you're petulant children.
The final sentence continues to keep people on the defensive, "If you're serious" -- at best it's snide criticism, at worse it's accusatory. Patton didn't tell his men that "If you really want to go home" -- he acknowledged that his men, and himself, all wanted to go home and here's what they need to do to make it happen.
This was the finger wagging tone of a frustrated parent dealing poorly with their teenage child, not a leader. Worse, this wasn't some off-the-cuff remark of a tired candidate on the campaign trail caught on a cellphone and posted to YouTube -- this was the President of the United States, in the Oval Office, having a scheduled interview, stepping out then deliberately returning to make sure he got these comments published in a major magazine. This is a failure not of intelligence but temperament.
Crossing the Boundary
This quote from Bury My Heart at Conference Room B by Stan Slap (1) provides a nice transition across the boundary from achieving to deciding:
Excerpting General Patton's speech to the Third Army seems appropriate at this point for contrasting the management of skills with the inspiration of leadership.
But not from the much sanitized version of the events from the movie, so the language is quite colorful (2).
The full speech, with annotations, may be found here.
You don't need to be a sissy to be empathetic -- Patton used it brilliantly to get the troops to buy-in and listen to the message. He took on their fears of death and letting their comrades down head on and acknowledged them; you're afraid and there is a way out of this, here's how.
Once they bought in he appealed to the higher reason of the human mind by laying out logically how each person is a link in a chain, how each thing they achieve -- always trying to overcome fear, always staying alert, that every man has an important job, to always move forward, to take Berlin, to take Tokyo -- all logically build, and finally logically build to the most important goals of getting back to our Country, your homes, your loved ones, your children's children, leaving a positive legacy for all time.
Modeled his vision? Absolutely.
Reinforcing? Positively -- he reminded the men they knew what they needed to know, and that success simply depended on them all giving it their very best effort.
Inspirational? Those troops, most facing combat for the first time, would have followed him through the gates of hell at the moment the speech ended.
Seven months later that Army accomplished, in poor winter weather, one of the most remarkable feats of military adventure ever -- disengaging from combat in one battle and moving one hundred miles in forty-eight hours to relieve besieged Bastogne.
That man knew how to lead -- leadership based on his ability to make good decisions based on understanding human behavior, mastery of military doctrine, and keen situational awareness; the listen, learn, and observe at the base of my diagram.
-----------
Footnotes:
(1) "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" is a book that, though written with far too much of the sense of White Man's Burden and the liberal guilt that pervades revisionist history, is named after the Massacre at Wounded Knee where 300 Indians, many women and children, and 25 soldiers were killed in the final major armed conflict of the Indian Wars.
It's hard for me to read Slap talking about connecting with your values and emotions when he makes a joke about such an event by the cute title of his book and program.
Slap's title makes even less sense if one argues it comes from the poem American Names by Stephen Benet that the phrase originally appeared -- it was about the poet's love of American place names; I know Slap's intention wasn't to express how much a manager loves his job that when he dies he would want to buried in a conference room.
I finally gave up on finishing reading it about 2/3rds through. Some content was good, but the format of the book just didn't hold my attention.
(2) When attention returns to the tactical side and developing skills, a good subject for a post will be Baron von Steuben who, when drilling the Continental Army at Valley Forge, would call over an assistant to translate his French and German swears into curses the Americans understood.
Leadership is different from management in the type of results it produces, and for this reason it's more important. Management controls performance in people because it impacts skill; it's a matter of monitoring, analyzing and directing. Leadership creates performance in people because it impacts willingness; it's a matter of modeling, inspiring and reinforcing. How can you control what you haven't yet created?
The relative quality of performance from your people has little to do with their skill. They already know how to do their jobs -- you hired them because they had that basic capability and, once they get an orientation to your products and procedures, they're competent. From that point on the quality and quantity of their performance depends on their willingness to use their skill to the utmost, regardless of whether you're hovering over them like some supervisory gargoyle.
Excerpting General Patton's speech to the Third Army seems appropriate at this point for contrasting the management of skills with the inspiration of leadership.But not from the much sanitized version of the events from the movie, so the language is quite colorful (2).
You are not all going to die. Only two percent of you right here today would die in a major battle. Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men.
Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he's not, he's a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are.
The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared. Some men get over their fright in a minute under fire. For some, it takes an hour. For some, it takes days. But a real man will never let his fear of death overpower his honor, his sense of duty to his country, and his innate manhood. Remember that the enemy is just as frightened as you are, and probably more so. They are not supermen.
We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world
All of the real heroes are not storybook combat fighters, either. Every single man in this Army plays a vital role. Don't ever let up. Don't ever think that your job is unimportant. Every man has a job to do and he must do it. Every man is a vital link in the great chain. What if every truck driver suddenly decided that he didn't like the whine of those shells overhead, turned yellow, and jumped headlong into a ditch? The cowardly bastard could say, "Hell, they won't miss me, just one man in thousands". But, what if every man thought that way? Where in the hell would we be now?
What would our country, our loved ones, our homes, even the world, be like? No, Goddamnit, Americans don't think like that. Every man does his job. Every man serves the whole. Every department, every unit, is important in the vast scheme of this war. The ordnance men are needed to supply the guns and machinery of war to keep us rolling. The Quartermaster is needed to bring up food and clothes because where we are going there isn't a hell of a lot to steal. Every last man on K.P. has a job to do, even the one who heats our water to keep us from getting the 'G.I. Shits'."
Each man must not think only of himself, but also of his buddy fighting beside him. We don't want yellow cowards in this Army. They should be killed off like rats. If not, they will go home after this war and breed more cowards. The brave men will breed more brave men. Kill off the Goddamned cowards and we will have a nation of brave men. One of the bravest men that I ever saw was a fellow on top of a telegraph pole in the midst of a furious fire fight in Tunisia. I stopped and asked what the hell he was doing up there at a time like that. He answered, "Fixing the wire, Sir". I asked, "Isn't that a little unhealthy right about now?" He answered, "Yes Sir, but the Goddamned wire has to be fixed". I asked, "Don't those planes strafing the road bother you?" And he answered, "No, Sir, but you sure as hell do!" Now, there was a real man. A real soldier.
There was a man who devoted all he had to his duty, no matter how seemingly insignificant his duty might appear at the time, no matter how great the odds. And you should have seen those trucks on the road to Tunisia. Those drivers were magnificent. All day and all night they rolled over those son-of-a-bitching roads, never stopping, never faltering from their course, with shells bursting all around them all of the time. We got through on good old American guts. Many of those men drove for over forty consecutive hours. These men weren't combat men, but they were soldiers with a job to do. They did it, and in one hell of a way they did it.
They were part of a team. Without team effort, without them, the fight would have been lost. All of the links in the chain pulled together and the chain became unbreakable.
The quicker we clean up this Goddamned mess, the quicker we can take a little jaunt against the purple pissing Japs and clean out their nest, too. Before the Goddamned Marines get all of the credit.
Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-bitch Hitler!
The full speech, with annotations, may be found here.
You don't need to be a sissy to be empathetic -- Patton used it brilliantly to get the troops to buy-in and listen to the message. He took on their fears of death and letting their comrades down head on and acknowledged them; you're afraid and there is a way out of this, here's how.
Once they bought in he appealed to the higher reason of the human mind by laying out logically how each person is a link in a chain, how each thing they achieve -- always trying to overcome fear, always staying alert, that every man has an important job, to always move forward, to take Berlin, to take Tokyo -- all logically build, and finally logically build to the most important goals of getting back to our Country, your homes, your loved ones, your children's children, leaving a positive legacy for all time.
Modeled his vision? Absolutely.
Reinforcing? Positively -- he reminded the men they knew what they needed to know, and that success simply depended on them all giving it their very best effort.
Inspirational? Those troops, most facing combat for the first time, would have followed him through the gates of hell at the moment the speech ended.
Seven months later that Army accomplished, in poor winter weather, one of the most remarkable feats of military adventure ever -- disengaging from combat in one battle and moving one hundred miles in forty-eight hours to relieve besieged Bastogne.
That man knew how to lead -- leadership based on his ability to make good decisions based on understanding human behavior, mastery of military doctrine, and keen situational awareness; the listen, learn, and observe at the base of my diagram.
-----------
Footnotes:
(1) "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" is a book that, though written with far too much of the sense of White Man's Burden and the liberal guilt that pervades revisionist history, is named after the Massacre at Wounded Knee where 300 Indians, many women and children, and 25 soldiers were killed in the final major armed conflict of the Indian Wars.
It's hard for me to read Slap talking about connecting with your values and emotions when he makes a joke about such an event by the cute title of his book and program.
Slap's title makes even less sense if one argues it comes from the poem American Names by Stephen Benet that the phrase originally appeared -- it was about the poet's love of American place names; I know Slap's intention wasn't to express how much a manager loves his job that when he dies he would want to buried in a conference room.
I finally gave up on finishing reading it about 2/3rds through. Some content was good, but the format of the book just didn't hold my attention.
(2) When attention returns to the tactical side and developing skills, a good subject for a post will be Baron von Steuben who, when drilling the Continental Army at Valley Forge, would call over an assistant to translate his French and German swears into curses the Americans understood.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Achieving
"Herbert Sobel made Easy Company."
Captain Sobel was a demanding, motivated company commander who was in the right place and time to forge one of the finest companies in the U.S. Army -- he was also truly hated by his men and officers for being petty, arbitrary, and (unforgivably) his lack of judgment. Then a subordinate and later the company commander, Dick Winters saw it as a result of Sobel's rash decision making -- acting without reflection or consultation. A near mutiny while the company was in England that finally resulted in Sobel losing his company. This conflict is at the core of the first part of Stephen Ambrose's book Band of Brothers.
Whether you teach, lead, or command make sure your followers know what they're supposed to do before they're supposed to do it.
But no amount of trust, or fear, will make people do what they don't know how to do.
Teaching people how to do things is relatively easy, and a personality like Sobel's can, by threat of punishment, force people to practice manual skills and simple yes/no decision making to achieve higher proficiency. The quality of Easy Company's initial training allowed them to do it better then most, and established a esprit de corps that kept passing down solid training and high expectations as replacements continually came into the unit once they entered combat.
True leadership requires developing the trust of the subordinates (as well as superiors) that replaces fear of failure with confidence to follow orders. Much of this blog will focus on this trust building side -- particularly how to determine and articulate the right goals -- but some housekeeping is first in order to provide some definitions for the "achieving" side of the diagram
Skills are discrete items, as is information. Being able to read is a skill, which is much handier when you have information that tells you the hours and location of the library.
Tasks are steps of a bigger plan accomplished by skills. Reading and highlighting a specific book is a task.
Tactics are a set of tasks that accomplish an objective. Studying is a tactic to pass a test -- it uses many tasks (read several books, review notes, attend study group, etc). Cheating would be a different tactic. Altering the test is another, albeit rare, tactic (see KOBAYASHI MARU...James T. Kirk solution).
An Objective is a measurable, significant accomplishment. Passing or failing a class is measurable and significant. Parts of an objective, such as passing individual tests in a course, are milestones -- they measure your progress towards the objective and give you the opportunity to adjust.
Make sure the skills, competency with tasks, and understanding of tactics is in place before you ask people to achieve the objectives you've set; and make sure you measure your progress towards those goals so you can take corrective action before you miss an objective.
Sobel was able to get his men to be capable of greatness, but it took someone else to lead them there.
Captain Sobel was a demanding, motivated company commander who was in the right place and time to forge one of the finest companies in the U.S. Army -- he was also truly hated by his men and officers for being petty, arbitrary, and (unforgivably) his lack of judgment. Then a subordinate and later the company commander, Dick Winters saw it as a result of Sobel's rash decision making -- acting without reflection or consultation. A near mutiny while the company was in England that finally resulted in Sobel losing his company. This conflict is at the core of the first part of Stephen Ambrose's book Band of Brothers.
Whether you teach, lead, or command make sure your followers know what they're supposed to do before they're supposed to do it.
But no amount of trust, or fear, will make people do what they don't know how to do.
Teaching people how to do things is relatively easy, and a personality like Sobel's can, by threat of punishment, force people to practice manual skills and simple yes/no decision making to achieve higher proficiency. The quality of Easy Company's initial training allowed them to do it better then most, and established a esprit de corps that kept passing down solid training and high expectations as replacements continually came into the unit once they entered combat.
True leadership requires developing the trust of the subordinates (as well as superiors) that replaces fear of failure with confidence to follow orders. Much of this blog will focus on this trust building side -- particularly how to determine and articulate the right goals -- but some housekeeping is first in order to provide some definitions for the "achieving" side of the diagram
Skills are discrete items, as is information. Being able to read is a skill, which is much handier when you have information that tells you the hours and location of the library.
Tasks are steps of a bigger plan accomplished by skills. Reading and highlighting a specific book is a task.
Tactics are a set of tasks that accomplish an objective. Studying is a tactic to pass a test -- it uses many tasks (read several books, review notes, attend study group, etc). Cheating would be a different tactic. Altering the test is another, albeit rare, tactic (see KOBAYASHI MARU...James T. Kirk solution).
An Objective is a measurable, significant accomplishment. Passing or failing a class is measurable and significant. Parts of an objective, such as passing individual tests in a course, are milestones -- they measure your progress towards the objective and give you the opportunity to adjust.
Make sure the skills, competency with tasks, and understanding of tactics is in place before you ask people to achieve the objectives you've set; and make sure you measure your progress towards those goals so you can take corrective action before you miss an objective.
Sobel was able to get his men to be capable of greatness, but it took someone else to lead them there.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Making Decisions
What is it, aside from luck, that separates the good from the very good, and the very good from the great?
Set the right goals and achieve them. This blog is the collection of ideas I've found while studying what influences deciding which goals to set and how to achieve them.
The chart below outlines the thought and execution process:
The name.
Every blog needs a good title.
"Drivethedogs" comes from story of General Israel Putnam.
Israel "Old Put" Putnam was a celebrity in his day. His service in the French and Indian Wars -- from being in Roger's Rangers to shipwrecking in the Caribbean -- had earned him much respect and many friendships. Weary of the steady stream of visitors to his homestead, his wife convinced him to move to their household to center of town and open a tavern, so they could at least profit from their hospitality.
The morning of April 20th, 1775 he was plowing a field behind that tavern when a messenger arrived with word of the previous day's Battle of Lexington and Concord. As the senior general of the Connecticut Militia, he left the plow in the field and rode on horseback first to Governor Trumbull's War Office in Lebanon, Connecticut for a war council, then back to Brooklyn, then to Cambridge, finally arriving in Concord in the wee hours of the morning. He rode one hundred and thirty miles in eighteen hours, including the time spent in meetings -- a remarkable feat for a man of fifty seven.(1)
Here's a man on the verge of greatness, with plenty of friends, lots of trust, in good health. Memorable enough for equestrian statutes in his home town, for a statute in the park adjoining the state capitol, Putnam State Park on the western side of the state is named after him, as well as the Town of Putnam near me.
We even have a really big equestrian statute of him in the center of my town:
Most school kids are taught the saying, "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!" but few can attribute it to General Putnam. While not a footnote of history, he never made it into the category of the best remembered generals -- the realm of Washington, Greene, Knox.
What is it that makes that difference?
By the time of the Battle of Bunker Hill, Putnam had a commission as Major General (third in seniority to Washington). Colonel Prescott with a regiment of Massachusetts militia had managed to occupy Bunker and Breed's Hill under cover of dark and fortify them. The British attack focused on Breed's Hill, and at great cost to the British managed to drive Prescott's men off the hill.
In retreat Prescott encountered Putnam, "Why did you not support me, General, as I had reason to expect from our agreement?"
"I could not drive the dogs up!" replied General Putnam.
The incensed Colonel Prescott retorted, "If you could not drive them up, you might have led them up!" (2)
What is it, aside from luck, that separates the good from the very good, and the very good from the great?
----------
Footnotes:
1) During the heyday of the U.S. Cavalry it was expected a healthy troop could, in an emergency, cover one hundred miles in twenty four hours.
2) Historical Magazine, June 1868
"Drivethedogs" comes from story of General Israel Putnam.
Israel "Old Put" Putnam was a celebrity in his day. His service in the French and Indian Wars -- from being in Roger's Rangers to shipwrecking in the Caribbean -- had earned him much respect and many friendships. Weary of the steady stream of visitors to his homestead, his wife convinced him to move to their household to center of town and open a tavern, so they could at least profit from their hospitality.
The morning of April 20th, 1775 he was plowing a field behind that tavern when a messenger arrived with word of the previous day's Battle of Lexington and Concord. As the senior general of the Connecticut Militia, he left the plow in the field and rode on horseback first to Governor Trumbull's War Office in Lebanon, Connecticut for a war council, then back to Brooklyn, then to Cambridge, finally arriving in Concord in the wee hours of the morning. He rode one hundred and thirty miles in eighteen hours, including the time spent in meetings -- a remarkable feat for a man of fifty seven.(1)
Here's a man on the verge of greatness, with plenty of friends, lots of trust, in good health. Memorable enough for equestrian statutes in his home town, for a statute in the park adjoining the state capitol, Putnam State Park on the western side of the state is named after him, as well as the Town of Putnam near me.
We even have a really big equestrian statute of him in the center of my town:
Most school kids are taught the saying, "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!" but few can attribute it to General Putnam. While not a footnote of history, he never made it into the category of the best remembered generals -- the realm of Washington, Greene, Knox.
What is it that makes that difference?
By the time of the Battle of Bunker Hill, Putnam had a commission as Major General (third in seniority to Washington). Colonel Prescott with a regiment of Massachusetts militia had managed to occupy Bunker and Breed's Hill under cover of dark and fortify them. The British attack focused on Breed's Hill, and at great cost to the British managed to drive Prescott's men off the hill.
In retreat Prescott encountered Putnam, "Why did you not support me, General, as I had reason to expect from our agreement?"
"I could not drive the dogs up!" replied General Putnam.
The incensed Colonel Prescott retorted, "If you could not drive them up, you might have led them up!" (2)
What is it, aside from luck, that separates the good from the very good, and the very good from the great?
----------
Footnotes:
1) During the heyday of the U.S. Cavalry it was expected a healthy troop could, in an emergency, cover one hundred miles in twenty four hours.
2) Historical Magazine, June 1868
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)