Disconnects
What’s Luck Got To Do With It?
“Plans are nothing; planning is everything.” Dwight D. Eisenhower
How much depends on the yearly business plan? For many, it triggers budgets, funding, capital approvals, sanctioned projects, operating targets, salaries, product launches, support activities, hiring, office renovations, perks, …, lots of movement and a myriad of decisions, hopes, dreams, and nightmares. It is often the summary of what we expect, maybe wish or hope, to happen, commit to do, and the outcomes that the world of business should see, translated into the language of finance. How we get to a business plan is often very complex and incorporates science, judgments, guessing, posturing, analysis, modeling, gaming, negotiating, positioning, negotiating, horse trading, quid pro quos, and most importantly, the uneasiness of uncertainty. For some, it starts with a number that becomes the hard operational constraint, or a number that becomes the aspiration goals, or a combination or permutation of both. After years of roles building, executing, and navigating through business plans, many of us have concluded that they are often great for initial direction and alignment, but getting much more challenging for decision making as the fiscal year ensues. Reality looks more like Von Clausewitz’s “fog of war” than the futures we describe in our plan.
One aspect of business planning that continues to surface is the frosting of optimism that flavors them. After all, the business plan underpins our budget request, and we have a lot of interest in its approval. Nobody would ever accuse a turkey of voting for Thanksgiving. Recently we’ve witnessed the BP catastrophic events in the Gulf of Mexico, Apple’s embarrassing iphone reception flaws, and other unanticipated and unplanned failures, perhaps first hand. How outside of the known laws of physics or economics were they? What could we have considered to make a better choice? Would we change our decision with the benefit of retrospect?
As we begin to refine and polish our business plans for the fall submittals, are we confident, hopeful, or fearful? Did we subject our thinking to a skeptic’s review? Do our tools for evaluation ask the right questions? Do our planning, review, and approval process incorporate more science or art? How much is sales and how much is substance in the presentation?
What’s luck got to do with it?
Who’s Not on Board?
Not that long ago, a major mobile phone carrier had an effective advertising campaign with a catchy slogan. Yet, I found their slogan troubling. It was troubling in that their banner, “We have fewer lost calls” left with me an impression that “we’re not as bad as the other guys” was written with the intent to establish a positive differentiator of quality and reliability. My reaction then was that the goal was to be the best of the bad, or cream of the crap. Upon reflection, I realized that the problem was with me, and in fact, the carrier’s message was the right one. This carrier was actually speaking the language of quality, not of spin (as I confess was my reaction). Quality is measured by the likelihood of failure against a specification. In their case, our case, it was a message that what mattered to the customer was continuity of service and there is a probability that that service will be interrupted, and the best do it fewer times. The carrier must have studied Dr. Noriaki Kano and realized that in some cases, the best can mean fewer defects, and failures against a basic requirement can only bring dissatisfaction. For the basic requirement of service availability, a service unavailability measure is the right metric and satisfaction is not achievable, that is, zero defects can bring only zero dissatisfaction.
This last week, we witnessed what appeared as truly bizarre behavior from Apple. The new flagship, the iPhone 4, has a troublesome performance problem with the reception. The very beautiful phone integrated the antenna into a smooth metal casing, creating a problem when the phone was held in a particular, albeit very normal, way. Some would argue that the decision process for the product launch suffered from an unhealthy bias wherein form trumped substance and engineering warnings. It’s saddening, coming from an exciting and innovative producer of form and substance. What was befuddling was the chairman’s response to the defects. It began with hubris with what appeared a dismissive tone that trivialized the problem …. Customers don’t know how to hold our phone properly, what’s all the fuss about; it’s the bad media at play. As the evidence mounted of the reception calamity and the web took over, sharing the data, the next stage of responsiveness focused on an attack on the competition, asserting that other smart phones shared the same problem. From here it sounds like it’s about “my” product and brand, not the customer pain. That strategy was a big boo-boo. Motorola, HTC, and RIM did not remain silent, each stating that their designs did obey the laws of physics and sound engineering, after all, customers wanted continuity of service.
Today’s connected world is a dangerous place to forget that respect for the customer and respect for the competition are essential for sustainability of brand value and economic goodwill, just ask Toyota. I’ve always loved Apple’s creativity in form and substance. I also believed that Toyota put the customer first. Funny how often bigger does not beget better. It’s called entropy, another engineering insight often forgotten.
On reflection, I wonder how much of the problem had to do with poor engineering and how much with a culture of “enforced optimism” or some variant of the “emperor’s new clothes?” The evidence to date on the catastrophic BP oil rig explosion and the subsequent environmental opening of Pandora’s Box seem to support the dangers of “enforced optimism” leadership behaviors.
How often does the “enforced optimism” show up in planning (pick any type), budget sessions, objectives, progress reviews and reports, investor sessions, group decision making, scheduling and commitment setting, …., other stuff?
Thoughts?
It’s All Greek to Me
One of my postings last year, <“The Summer of 69″>, reflected on the incredible capacity we have to accomplish, particularly when we face tough challenges rather than each other. There is incalculable capability available when people endeavor to put the objective in front of them and view it from the same side of the table. By now, most of us have benefited from the negotiating strategy of focusing on issues versus positions and to be tough on issues, but softer on people. I’ve never been more disappointed or sadder than today, as I observe the reprehensible behavior of elected officials in facing the monumental challenges of our economy, health and welfare, the common good. We may not have complete control over the forces, dark ones at times, at play at the political playground, but we have almost infinite control over how we can face our own organizational challenges, challenges that may require fundamental changes in practices, behaviors, entitlements, and expectations. Today and yesterday are already gone, irretrievable forever, and a very poor place to try to live in, for they cannot create value.
There are few histories that can better illustrate the potential that we, as a society or organization, have to turn opportunity into destructive conflict, than looking to the Hellenic (Greek) city-states 2500 years ago. By now there have been countless stories, tales, legends, books, movies and plays that retell:
- The Greco-Persian Wars (the Persian Wars), two sets of conflicts between the Persian Empire and the Hellenic city-states from 499 BC until 449 BC. Athenians and Spartans facing the Persians with a bias to what they had in common.
- The Peloponnesian War, a series of conflicts between the Athenian Empire and the Peloponnesian League (led by Sparta) from 431 to 404 B.C. Athenians and Spartans facing each other with a bias to what made them different.
In the first series of wars, the Greek city-states, fierce competitors face a challenge that threatened to reshape life as they knew it, if conquered and integrated into the Persian Empire. In fact, much of what we consider western society, shaped by Greco-Roman thought, may have never existed at all. The wars are a rich area for study, insight and sheer dramatic entertainment. They demonstrate just how much competitors can find common ground, focus on interests, and come together to solve what appeared to be unsolvable challenges. Sadly, once success was reached, the darker side of their self interests, rather than the greater good, returned with a vengeance in less than 20 years, the Peloponnesian Wars.
During the Peloponnesian War, the competing parties nearly destroyed each other. Athens was so devastated that it never recovered. The levels of horror and barbarism each party perpetuated upon each other redefined how the city states would resolve differences in the future. Poverty and societal changes led to a poorer, more devastating and dark future. What had been competing parties unleashed levels of unproductive incivility, a harbinger of civil wars then and, subsequently, in the modern world.
The challenges we face will not perpetuate civil wars. Yet, big challenges can perpetuate incivility. When there is a lot a stake and change is on the table, win-lose can create polarization perpetuating sinister and unprincipled misrepresentation that demonizes opponents. It is that demonization that unraveled parts of ancient Greek society into a shredded tapestry, still threadbare today.
Among my favorite quotes (author unknown) is “When faced with two choices, always take the third one.” Walking away with our marbles, as a once noble patrician is urging others to do, can create Peloponnesian Polarity.
There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, and we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures. William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar Act 4
Thoughts?
I Can’t Hear What You’re Seeing
For many years, the term Voice of the Customer has been a source of incalculable confusion and a hazardous source of misdirection. The reality of dealing with a cacophony of voices that can often come from the many interfaces and service points is daunting for some. Discerning the signal from the noise fosters subjective simplification and can and too often yield risky and sometimes shallow insights carried forward into our delivery of services. We make decisions about requirements without clearly understanding what creates value for our customer. The simplification can put much more focus on the past at the expense of consequences that await the future.
Some reasons may be:
- Understanding the processes, players and decision-making in the initial contracting process. The customer we see and hear often is not the customers we will serve. Tom procures and Mary operates. The functionality (and different points of view) is currently unavoidable in the public sector and lives well in the private.
- Asking the customer for requirements and then setting quality specifications for our outputs. The customer is limited by what they believe you do, could do, or can’t do. Lost opportunity results from the filtered data.
- Poor differentiation between transactional satisfaction and customer loyalty. There are often very different reasons for staying, renewing, or leaving.
- Equating meeting delivery requirements with delivering value. One comes from walking in our own shoes, not in the customer’s. Walking and hearing are very different.
- Limiting knowledge of service costs to the price the customer pays. The cost dealing with us can be too high as the relationship ensues past the start up.
There are many, far too many others. Over the years, I’ve concluded that the analysis yielding the better insights has come from seeing the world and what is truly required through the customer’s lens, looking forward, always forward. Many years ago in a conversation with Dr. Noriaki Kano, he shared the importance of “Customer In” versus “Product Out.” He’s been right all along. The levels of insight (le mot juste) delivered through lenses versus voices is paradigm shaking. In the movie Beyond the Sea, Sandra Dee says to Bobby Darin, “Bobby, people hear what they see!” She was right.
So,
- How do we decide what our customer wants or needs?
- Do we know if we’re right?
- Do we rely on surveys to look forward with our customer?
- Did we lose a customer by surprise?
- Did we add value?
- Do we rely on surveys and complaints for our lenses?
Thoughts?
Toyota’s Headache and Tylenol
Toyota’s woes continue. This week they’ve announced production idles at two US plants, their recalls have grown to 8.5 million vehicles globally, allegations of cover-ups are blazing across the news wires, and dealers across the nation are experiencing further drops in demand. Toyota’s chairman has apologized to their customers and the US government has posted a statistic of 34 alleged deaths attributed to the acceleration defects in their cars. The picture has the uncomfortable sensation that some of the Toyota leadership responsiveness to the issue has been provoked by data becoming visible to many where it was being hidden beforehand. It is disturbing, and if true, it challenges the credibility much of what we and the world has celebrated as “The Toyota Way.” Their projected business forecasts are frightening and no one forecasts a speedy recovery. With regulators and hearings dragging the giant into more limelight, apologies may sound hollow to many.
Contrast the current Toyota calamities to the response we observed from Johnson & Johnson in September 29, 1982. Seven people died in the Chicago area from Tylenol capsules containing cyanide. The cause was clearly caused by sabotage and malice and the incident could have killed their flagship brand. The response was immediate, uncompromising, and massive. The products, 31 million were pulled off the shelves, all shelves, at all locations. No wait and see, no “we’re working on it”, no “special task force” or recommitment to quality. Customer comes first, integrity must be common cause not special cause, and leadership leads from the front as chairman James Burke did. Today they are a pharmaceutical giant. Today recalls are so commonplace that they often fall under the radar.
Johnson & Johnson did not have an established recall process as none existed anywhere. Johnson & Johnson demonstrated agility. Tamper proof bottles did not exist, but Johnson & Johnson innovated. This took place in 1982, before the rest of the world learned to manage quality and flow, some of it from Toyota.
So, is this a surprise? Is the hubris unexpected? Do we see similar patterns as great performance brings a great image and the great image brings wealth or power? Does the importance of the image ever become more important than the foundations that earned it?
As the allegations and discoveries mount, regulators join the party, hearings ramp up, and the press has a global media event, what behavior should we expect? Currently, regulators at the FDA are critical or Tylenol’s poor responsiveness to a 2010 recall requirement. Hmmmm ……
Enterprises lose capability from disruption or decay ….. leadership can lead into or out of either.
Last year I wrote about how we earn more regulation and the impacts leaders have on this process. I suggest that it may be relevant again.
He is heavy, … , he ain’t my brother …
Also: A Tale of Two Tigers
A Tale of Two Tigers
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times; it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness; it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity; it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness; it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair; we had everything before us, we had nothing before us; we were all going directly to Heaven, we were all going the other way.” So begins “A Tale of Two Cities” by Charles Dickens. Although a story replete with social commentary, it brings into focus the impacts of adversity, particularly on the elite and unprepared. Aristocracy meant respect and a special place in the eyes of many, perhaps leading to hubris, and hubris often led to disaster.
Our current tale is akin, perhaps “A Tale of Two Tigers”. The recent months have put the light on two icons of the modern world, a commercial aristocracy, Tiger Woods and Toyota. Both have demonstrated a level of performance superiority that has not only secured dominance as the standards for performance and quality, but have become idolized and revered as role models for industry. The Toyota brand has bred an image and reputation that placed their management system as near perfection in creating strategy, culture, and execution excellence, devoid of constraints, and in perfect harmony with customers and suppliers. Tiger Woods may well be the greatest golfer of all time whose incomparable agility on the golf course has led to corporate sponsorship inclusive of Rolex Watches and Accenture, the consulting giant, both seeking affinity with the image of high performance.
What got the two Tigers to the pinnacle may have left them unprepared for the calamities they are confronting today. Success and recognition are powerful narcotics for anyone or any enterprise. Success reinforces confidence and creates energy for increased initiative, spurs growth and breeds many followers. Success can sometimes make us believe that it comes from our special place in the order of things, earned through focus, discipline and follow-through. Success can make us believe that we are better. But does it prepare us for adversity? When all is well, how often do we think of the world otherwise? How often do we prepare for failure and how to deal with it?
This “Tale of Two Tigers” can be about any or all of us. The financial meltdown and experiences with the global economy of the last 18 months are not unlike the two tigers. Success led to confidence and some of it diverted into hubris, we followed in adulation with investments, and perhaps did not think about a need to prepare for the adversity that followed.
So let’s consider:
- What makes us successful?
- Does our success create a belief that we are good or perhaps that we’re lucky?
- What are our assumptions of what lies ahead? Will these new trees continue to grow to the sky?
- What book are we reading or writing about the “Way” to succeed?
- Are we investing in becoming better at what is making us winners today? Does that mean that tomorrow will be like today?
- In 1970 there were 35,000 tigers in the world. Today, fewer than 7,000 tigers are left. Why is that?
Why did the French build the Maginot Line? What is the difference between confidence and complacency? Defending Against Risks with Structures and Controls? Think Again!
Also: Toyota’s Headache and Tylenol and
In the Dark?
There’s a pretty interesting debate going on between some really bright folks about whether information, or history, can be destroyed. It’s not among real historians, archaeologists, biographers, or anyone else most of us would imagine. It’s among very renowned physicists, luminaries including Stephen Hawking. Dr. Hawking was among the very early to write for the enlightenment of us outside the genius gene pool with “A Brief History of Time.” He is also credited with the conceptualizing and predicting of black holes.
Black holes are entities in the cosmos whose density is so large that they pull in, “suck up” everything around them including light. Nothing gets out, like some in-boxes we all know about. Black holes and their effects on information are what the big debates are about and where reputations are at stake. We know that the regular types of information and histories are destroyed all the time. Information or history is destroyed by cataclysms, wars, book burnings, oral accounts, my faulty memory, and a very long list of other means, including our scary hard disk crashes. It’s sad, but creates lots of opportunities for sleuths of all disciplines.
Here’s the fascinating part. The real physicists out there will rankle at my oversimplification, but I’m just not that smart. A big part of we actually “know” about what’s out there in the cosmos comes from bigger and better telescopes and other measurement technology. The stars, planets, galaxies and other cool stuff are visible because light has travelled big amounts of space-time. For now, let’s just say that it has covered very large distances across space in very long periods of time, light years in fact. We know by now that what we see all happened in the past, including everything near to us since light had to bounce off of or emanate from what we “see.” Light moves very fast, so we believe it’s happening in the “now” and that’s comforting to many.
Here we go. If nothing can escape the black hole’s pull, including light, then the information about a star or galaxy is lost on the way to us if it comes near a black hole. As far as our instruments can tell, the star never happened, the information is lost. This argument has been going for a long while and even Dr. Hawking has moved from his position on the subject. His new position involves perspectives that include more dimensions than we can understand and multiple universes, some without black holes. This stuff is not for everybody.
So it is all about light. We’ve known about it for a long time. We use terms like enlighten, bright, luminary, obscure, in the dark, and other descriptions that have to do with information, knowledge, and other types of history. If we don’t put light on something, or if does not give off light that reaches us, information is lost. It is as if it never happened. Worse, if our management and information systems take data in and it never gets out, information is lost. We have black holes of our own making.
Maybe it’s time to take the debate from the realm of physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists and bring it into the realm of operating an enterprise. Information is being lost, history of what happened no longer exists, and we will make some decisions in the dark. These black holes can be found everywhere. In fact, the post 9-11 investigation revealed that critical information was lost because of interagency black holes and individual biases.
Dr. Hawking has concluded that if we are in one of the parallel universes that does not have black holes, information is not lost. So you can’t have it both ways in any given universe.
But there is hope for our businesses. We can change what and how we execute and create a black-hole-free workplace. It’s good for our health.
“Have You Recovered?”
It has been one year since the economic tsunami swept across our world. There were lots of financial volcanoes bubbling with excitement, building pressure and spilling over. It became very evident that we did not have lots of volcanoes, but rather outlets under a sea of molten financial foundations with unstoppable pressures. In panic, some of the eruptions were temporarily plugged with financial corks, borrowed from our future, but a big one went and blew up. In the Straits of Wall Street, our own Krakatau, aka Lehman Brothers blew its top, exploded and sent a blanket of financial darkness around the world. The effects were a big contributor to meltdowns that nearly destroyed our capacity to transact business.
Economists have packaged the last year into a classification that fits the lexicon, and called it a Recession, something that happened before, but a bigger one. Yesterday, Chairman Bernanke indicated that as he reads the chicken bones on the dirt, the Recession is ending, but unemployment is not likely to improve for a long time. Some stay still that recovery will not be at all like those we have experienced and that fragility still underpins our economic systems… Some add that the behaviors we found offensive on Wall Street have not changed, and with fewer big players owning the game (my recollection of economics would use the term oligarchs), transparency into behavior is still at serious risk. I’m not feeling better about this Recovery just yet.
President Obama is raising the flag of urgency with the oligarchs, “Unfortunately, there are some in the financial industry who are misreading this moment. Instead of learning the lessons of Lehman and the crisis from which we are still recovering, they are choosing to ignore them. They do so not just at their own peril, but at our nation’s. So I want them to hear my words: We will not go back to the days of reckless behavior and unchecked excess at the heart of this crisis, where too many were motivated only by the appetite for quick kills and bloated bonuses. Those on Wall Street cannot resume taking risks without regard for consequences, and expect that next time, American taxpayers will be there to break their fall.”
It’s troubling that while we fight a potential pandemic of swine flu on one front, we may have left the dangerous spread of the “hubris flu” still unchecked. What I read so far indicates that we’ll be fighting the symptoms of “hubris flu” by withholding any more “cash shots” in the arms and increasing the use of thermometers (regulation) to find those with fever symptoms to isolate or confine. History is replete with evidence that oligarchies are very susceptible to the hubris flu and these flu strains are typically antidote resistant. They have become resistant by adapting to prior treatments, a bit of Darwinism. Also, the “hubris flu” is deadly, even for those that don’t have it, but are near.
Within the hubris stricken are good people who are capable of getting well, but only from their own will and effort. Compliance suppresses infections, drives them further into the dark and delays transparency. Many of the health improvements must come from a wellspring of personal purpose, ethics, values, and a commitment to a greater purpose, be it national, social, or societal. We have all been changed, for the better or worse, by the Lehman Krakatau eruption. Public trust has been lost for many of the systems and leaders that had our faith, blinded for many. This trust cannot be legislated, mandated, or regulated back. It must and should be earned. All of us must challenge our decisions and actions against the higher standard and expect more from leaders to end illusionary wealth creation and real wealth destruction.
President Obama is clear that more principled initiative and leadership is essential from within, “One of the most important ways to rebuild the system stronger than before is to rebuild trust stronger than before – and you do not have to wait for a new law to do that. You don’t have to wait to use plain language in your dealings with consumers. You don’t have to wait to put the 2009 bonuses of your senior executives up for a shareholder vote. You don’t have to wait for a law to overhaul your pay system so that folks are rewarded for long-term performance instead of short-term gains. . . . It is neither right nor responsible after you’ve recovered with the help of your government to shirk your obligation to the goal of wider recovery, a more stable system, and a more broadly shared prosperity.”
So, back to where we started, is the Recession over and are we in Recovery? If Recovery means getting back what we had and how we were, I hope not. I would welcome a transformation led by a team different than Recovering Hubrisholics.
Recovered yet?
“Ouch! Labor Hurts!”
Yesterday was Labor Day in the US. When I was growing up, it was usually a milestone close to the end of summer and a signal that back to school was here. The contributions and needs of labor did not weigh into my view or feelings about the day back then. They are a big deal today and weigh heavy. The US Department of Labor describes it as “Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.” I have to say that yesterday did not evoke the celebratory intent described by the Labor Department.
Today is really different in lots of ways for the labor force (force is gone as an appropriate noun). There is adequate coverage of the calamities, sea changes, and outlooks to send appropriate shivers across our economic spines. But today’s outlook is very asymmetric and unstable. That means that its impacts are not so bad for some and terrible for others. It also says that the future is more dynamic and unpredictable, such that those who are inflexible will suffer much more. Today is multi-polar in a flat world. Today precipitates sufficient anger and emotions to feed the political dreams of some, elevate fear for others, and generate too much fodder for spectators in newsrooms to provide confusion disguised as news. I won’t comment on the plethora of macroeconomic efforts in play because they provide little in the way of addressing some of the fundamental issues concerning me about the future.
The issues that frighten me are about the extent of inbred rigidity we may have created thorough specialization, division of labor, business controls and the underinvestment in thinking, flexibility, and agility. Somewhere in the evolutionary mess of the relationships and rules between enterprises and workers (of any collar color) we may have become very good at what we “don’t do this or won’t do that” because of function, classification, grade, pay scale, university degree, time in grade, rank, floor, size of office, legacy, traditions, preferences, and an endless list of restrictors disguised as value adding rules. We have compounded the rigidity with a significant yoke of added controls and compliance requirements that address fears much more than the real risks requiring attention. I suspect that the temptation to resist hubris has been too great for some and has led otherwise good leaders into instruments of harm to enterprises, investors, human resources, and society. Maybe it’s time to rebalance and redefine how to play in the sandboxes?
This coming year is chock full of opportunity. It is likely to belong to the ones that replace the better mousetraps with alternatives to mice needing to be trapped. I believe that we are in a great time to get better at replacing “me” with “we” across historical boundaries, perhaps redefine competition, controls and truly leverage the boundless power of our connected and networked world. For one, the images conjured up by using the term “labor” to describe human contributors compartmentalizes a continuum into categories. It breaks up continuous systems into attribute systems, creating unavoidable disconnects.
There is opportunity in every storm.
- How should we harvest the ones ahead?
- How do we move from rigidity to agility? What about the ones that can’t? Won’t?
- How much of the burden belongs to me and how much to we?
- Can we overcome nostalgia or the desire for justice and face the challenges of reality?
“I’m Going to Pump You Up!”
Last year I lost a friend to heart disease. He had a stroke that eventually proved fatal. It was a friend I had lost touch with, probably from mutual neglect, not active neglect, but the passive type that the everyday events overtake. I don’t believe that either one of us noticed the drift. I didn’t until I heard the news that he was down and doing poorly. Luckily, I was working in a city very near to the hospital and I managed to go see him one evening. I am glad that I did. That night remains with me as a vivid reminder of the choices we make, actively and passively. It reminds me that choices have consequences.
When my good friend passed, he carried around excess weight, a likely contributor to his demise. This week, another dear friend had a stroke, a mild one. He may have escaped the grim reaper, but his calamity is very disturbing to all of us who treasure his friendship. My friend carries some spare weight and does not exercise much. Years ago he shared a funny story about one of his business trips. He was entering the elevator at his hotel, when a lady got in and asked him if he knew where the hotel work-out room was. His response was, smiling at the time, “Do I look like a guy who would know where the gym is?” I laughed and have shared his joke with many of our mutual friends and colleagues. But none of us are laughing today and we pray for his speedy recovery.
Getting and staying fit is hard, personally or as a business. It takes a whole bunch of stuff to make it work, and each person or business needs the program that has a chance to work for them. At a minimum, all take the three hard rules of accomplishment, focus, discipline, and follow-through. But, I believe it takes much more than those mechanics, it takes motivation, choices, and consequences. Whether it is our own health or that of our enterprise, we need transparency into the reality of where we are and what is ahead or at stake if we don’t decide to act, and then to act. To do so, we need help and we need friends and leaders.
- As friends, we must love enough to confront another and provoke someone to make choices to enrich their life and face the difficulties of change. As leaders, we must do the same for our enterprises. Love is the operating word here.
- As friends we must prod, nag, hound and put our relationships at risk, if necessary, to help our friends off denial and the path of least resistance. We must help them overcome the likelihood that they will give up and fail. As leaders, we must bring constancy of purpose to the enterprise and participate actively in the effort toward enterprise with unshakable resolve.
- As friends, we must reward every victory, small or large, with celebration, recognition, praise and a comforting reminder of what is possible and good about pushing ahead. As leaders, we must do the same, with generosity and genuine zeal.
All that said, I recognize that the journey to fitness, personal or organizational, is tough, sometimes miserable, and frequently frustrating. Those parts have to be dealt with strength from the inside. I hope that we, as individuals, care enough about our friends and loved ones to make the effort to get fit and spare them the pain of our untimely loss. As leaders, we hope that we have the right stuff and can lead from the front and carry our wounded as we move forward.
Today is a great day to start, for friends and enterprises alike.
As Hans and Franz would say,” I’m going to pump you up!”
