SC Governor Mark Sanford: My Take - We Expect Too Much

Culture With Illusions About Its Leaders Exposes Flaws

I've read a couple of pieces -- Gail Collins, New York Times, Peter Bregman (another consultant) -- about the "Mark Sanford incident."  I didn't see his supposedly rambling speech/confession the other day.  But, I'm fairly clear about any outrage or disappointment that exists: we, as a society, cling to unrealistic illusions and suffer. 

My take on this is that we continue to adhere to these unrealistic -- inhuman? -- expectations despite the reality of "being burned" and disappointed.  That's the interesting piece of this for me: why are we, as a society, addicted to that mindset...overarching expectations of our leaders, whether elected or hired?  Why were we so appalled when Bubba (my buddy Clinton) was accused of an indiscretion in the oval office and, then, lied about it?  Seems pretty normal to me.

I watched M. Night Shyamalan's "Unbreakable" last night; a hero/villain kind of film.  A genre that my wife likes.    If you haven't seen it, I won't spoil any revelations about the plot that, of course, has its turns.  It reveals the villainy that's inside every hero. 

Sanford's disappearance, indiscretion, lies are merely indicators -- buoys in the channel --  of the shame that operates when immoral actions are chosen.  Sanford, like most humans, was evading his chosen reality as best he could; humans (I, in fact) do it all the time.  Should he have known better?  Well, in fact, he does; but he's human.  And, humans are flawed, fragile creatures not some comic-book Superhero who can rescue victims today and do nothing stupid tomorrow.  (I like Hancock's [Will Smith] Superhero better; he's a mess.)

In the past few months, I've been reading about Italy's 72 year old Berlusconi's ongoing battle, in the media, with his estranged wife who accuses him of negligence and infidelity: until recently, the culture wasn't really paying attention.  I think the Italians are just a little bit more grown up about this stuff and, of course, less Puritanical.  But, maybe, they've learned something about human behavior that we, as a society, don't want to admit: we all make mistakes. 

30 Rock's Donaghy as Model For New Servant Leader

All for One and All for Me

And, now, for something fun and light. Well, not too light: I've recently gotten hooked by Netflix's free "Instant" Queue viewing and, along with that, Tina Fey and NBC's "30 Rock" series. I like weird: what can I say?

This weekly (I watch as many as three episodes at a time!) and compelling satire takes sharp jabs at the stereotypical Corporate world. Plus, it gives us insight into the classic David and Goliath competition between alpha males that passes for vertical ambition: business as usual.

What can Jack Donaghy, played by Alec Baldwin, tell us about hierarchy and the "old way?" What does this archaic model tell us about the modern organization and its flaws?

There are a few messages I get from the show. One of them is this: the guy (or gal) up top (typical hierarchy) in an organization has an unfair job and s/he makes it worse through unreasonable expectations, isolation, disconnection from the people in the trenches. Jack's drive to innovate leads him to invent cockamamie new shows -- like a Seinfeld digital impostor week -- that get him into trouble, inevitably.

His "half-baked" ideas stem from a lack of information -- too high up in the tower? --  coupled with flawed judgement.  He could ask his subordinates for some advice, first, but he doesn't: he operates quite consistent with the "rugged individualist" stereotype.  But, from my mind, I'm wondering: is this all that far off the mark?

Yes, this is blatant satire but there's always a thread of truth hidden in the weave of this fabric: it's obviously not Kevlar that holds the organization together...it's more like burlap that will rot over time if it gets wet and exposed to the elements.  Competition for the top spot eats away at the fabric; Jack's heart attack and subsequent bypass surgery has to be kept secret: can't show weakness to his nemesis. 
Jack Insults Liz on YouTube
Subscribe to High Performance Organizations

Consultants Are Human, Too: Part Deux

Romance With the Factory Model Continues

Humans have a strange relationship with the big concept of factories: creating specializations; developing unique workstartions; compartmentalizing work.  (Our public schools have created a system that, many believe, is an imitation of the factory.) Even high tech service organizations like insurance companies: they "chunk" the tasks and "manage workflow."  This factory model might have the imprimatur of being efficient while, at the same time, being relatively inneffective.  Specialization has created some dangerous myopia and...we've all been hearing calls for more generalists for some time.

This post is sparked by another "Consultant Education" event: today's presentation was to assist Consultants to avoid procrastination. (I've got lots of time to go to these things and network [that's my real aim]; so do a lot of other consultants.)  Not a bad concept as concepts go but it ends up looking, feeling mecahnistic: Step 1: here's the problem; Step 2: here's what you do.  Kid stuff.  Linear.  Unholistic. 

Avoid procrastination is what we're told: as if we're supposed to be productive, doing something, all the time.  But, I'd like to take the devil's advocate role on that one: What about staring off into space and letting something brilliant come to me out of the ether?  For the benefit of my paying clients, my pro bono clients?  Don't I owe them that much?  They're the ones who are too busy to take on the Studies that I do for them, the thinking and imagination that's needed to come up with something breakthrough. Right?  If I'm productive all the time, how can that important work be done?  (Rhetorical.)

The factory model, I am sad to report -- having now arrived at the doorstep of the Consulting profession who, oddly enough, should know better -- is a recipe for a superficial approach to the work.  Factories produce goods of the same type, over and over: consultants are, ideally, supposed to produce a custom product every time.  Every time.  

I know I might be mixing too many ideas -- factory models, mechanistic approaches --  in one post but...I'm passionate about getting these ideas expressed in some form: consultants, like humans, are not machines.  We as a group, need to stop being coached to be just that: a machine.  Formulaic.  Structured.  Driven by a series of models or "systems."  What about intuition, revelation, wisdom? 

If we're not careful, all of the efficiency experts may end up convincing us consultants that we are mechanical "thinkers," not perhaps quite automatons, but still toiling in the "factory of the mind"™: bring in the raw materials and create a final product: some insight or knowledge. Not that easy.  Not even a thirty-something could do that.

It's time for a holistic, encouraging view not time for a series of "gap analyses."  To me "gap" is a dirty word suggesting a void that has to be filled.  Another mechanistic view: time for a bit or realism or holism -- either one will do.

Subscribe to High Performance Organizations

Credit Tightens: Hard Choice Leads to Catering Customer Defecting

Tough Choices on Both Sides of the Table: Policies Lead to Defections

He didn't want to leave.  But, he felt like he had no choice.  Greg, we'll call him, runs a small catering business with a retail outlet in the central part of Sonoma County, California.

Sysco, Greg's main food service supplier, has tightened up credit policies stemming from major losses on accounts with bankrupt restauranteurs.  The new policy: pay up in 30 days or we put you on C.O.D.  It would seem to make sense, until...customers, good customers, begin defecting because, like Greg, they need a little "wiggle" room with their suppliers. 

Neither provider nor customer has it easy in this situation. (And, fortunately, unlike the GM bankruptcy situation, more than the lawyers will be winning.)  But, there is a winner, I think: Sysco's competitors, usually smaller regional operators, who are likely to pick up some new accounts.  For a while anyway.  Until they get burned by some customers who file for Chapter 7 or 11. 

Tough times.  I'm not going to offer any unique or elegant solutions: there are no elegant solutions, only tough ones.

The Problem With Working in the Trenches

We Think the Mud Is the Problem

The big problem with "heads down" working is the view that prevails: it's myopic.  The times are calling for presbyopia or farsightedness.

The metaphor has some benefits in terms of grasping the challenges: if we focus on the trench then, mostly, I end up seeing the mud and the muck that I'm working in.  Since I'm human, I'm interested in improvements and I yearn for a milled product of the forest: a 2x board -- a 2x10 would be good -- that I can lay on the floor of my trench and, therefore, rise above the ooze or mire (in winter and spring) and the crust in summer.  This, I think, is progress.  This is good.

Nevermind that I haven't heard a shot in days nor felt the vibration of an artillery shell hitting the earth;  I'm still in the trench.  And, this is the problem: I'm heads down and I don't look up very often (have you ever noticed that about the people walking on the streets in New York City? They just don't look up); it's a self-preservation thing. 

So, I've got my boards; I'm traveling my trench a little more efficiently because my boots are not sinking into the goop but it's still a discouraging and depressing existence.  If I looked up, over the side of the trench -- somewhere close to where my bolt-action rifle is positioned -- I'd discover that the enemy, the threat is gone.  No soldiers, no guns, no artillery, no tents; their trenches have been filled in.  They must have done it one night while I was sleeping.

Right now, I think there's a call for "Heads Up" working, looking out over the trenches; a push away from the jitteriness and an embrace of the possible.  Maybe even some radical thinking, actions.  Get rid of the boots, forget the boards and climb out; the threat is gone.  In fact, it was never really there in the first place; it was just your imagination.  Presbyopia: march on!

Incrementalism Versus Radicalism: Invention is Terrifying Stuff

Non Profit Volunteer Centers in California: Forget Them?
Six Months of Dreaming Comes to a Halt: Time for a New Dream?

For more than six months, I've been dreaming about an Army of Consultants available to help non-profits throughout California.  My strategy was that I would take this to market through an existing network of Volunteer Centers  -- non-profits themselves partially funded by the State found in almost every County. 

Today, my dream was shattered, unfortunately: in discussions with three Volunteer Centers and a statewide umbrella organization, I've come to learn that these organizations -- all  of them I believe -- are anachronistic bureaucracies.  Dinosaurs waiting for a meteor to hit the earth.

First, why did I have to kill off the first dream or why was it killed off by others?

The answer to that question has to do with the battle that President Obama is also waging these days: it's the struggle between "incrementalism" and "radicalism."  My proposal, my pitch, was about making a leap, not taking a "baby step."

This kind of seizure of the radical moment is not for the faint of heart.  In his July essay entitled "Barack Hoover Obama -- The Best and Brightest Blow it Again" in Harper's, Kevin Baker gives us the overview:

"we are at one of those rare moments in history when the radical becomes pragmatic, when deliberation and compromise foster disaster."

Non-profits, faced with rising demand never seen in years and budget limitations, need help.  Consultants, with acute skills and deep experience, are more than happy to work pro bono to help these organizations figure out how to boost performance and build capacity.  But, who will bring this idea -- a freebie, a gimme -- to market? 

Setting these professionals loose on non-profits hungry for help would / might create a new order: something radically pragmatic.  The Volunteer Centers can't imagine that so...they plod.  Towards a new disaster.  A quiet disaster that won't really matter because...they're not doing that much anyway. 

We humans have created systems that are failing, showing their frailty and lack of foresight.  We're so afraid to abandon them that we'll be like the victims of some sliding landscape, hanging on to a stick that is moving along with the mud.   What else can we do?  Confront the unknown.  Jump.  Do something radical, brave that just might work?  I'm hopelessly optimistic.

The new dream my friend invented?  Get ten consultants around a table and ten non-profits and ask what the problems are and who wants to work on them.  Easy.  Maybe even radically easy: why didn't I think of that?

Silicon Valley Startup CEO Gets Existential

Does All This Stuff Really Matter, Contribute to a Greater Good?

Greed, capitalistic greed he calls it, the normal driver for technology startups and their investors, may be the hollow promise that it just might be. Waxing prophetic, in a rare moment, the CEO of a startup in Silicon Valley gets real with me and wonders aloud: what's the purpose of all of this? "This" being the drive towards bigger machines, more memory, more CPU power, more sophisticated graphics...

This CEO is not a client of mine nor a friend; just an acquaintance met under relaxed circumstances. (No, it's not Tesla; just a logo for a startup.)

So, this guy, Ted, we'll call him, he ponders, in a somewhat hopeful voice:
"...all of these pioneers and technology. Silicon Graphics, for example, we now have the techology for very lifelike conditions on the computer...who's benefiting? We can have 6 year olds, and up, playing video games that seem more realistic. Is that a great thing? Or, Pixar can do animation that we only dreamed of. Great stuff contributing to the social good?

The model is simple: Come up with a quasi-breakthrough idea (Einstein had a couple!), get some financing from "Angels" and VC's, assemble a talented and motivated team -- give them a significant equity position (so they'll be motivated by the payoff too), work your ass off, cash in when you go public, if you're lucky, and then what? Then, do philanthropic work?

At 8pm, there are at least a few folks people still working in his shop, quietly and seemingly alone at their workstations: heads tilted somewhere between their keyboards and their multiple computer screens, some 30" or larger, and I ask: "why are they still working." Jerry looked at me with a sense of incredulity: "We've got a lot to do...the other guys, the ones who have 3,000 employees or so, they can leave at 5:30...not us."

This imperative he has just laid out seems obviously logical but carries its own subterranean stress with it: the next steps are clear to him. At this point in the company's life, he talks about a, let's say, second round of financing like my wife and I would talk about what to make for dinner. This is a culture I would not buy in to; I'd run and I would try not to look back. Is there something fundamentally flawed with me? Or, am I getting old and just can't understand what's behind a job title like "serial entrepeneur?"

Comcast: Customer Service This Bad?

Question: Do Monopolies Tend Towards Mediocre Customer Service?

Forty five minutes in a Chat Session with Comcast's [stellar?] Customer Service to: add Internet service, and; 2) Move our cable to a new home. Seemed pretty simple to me.

Two dimensions of customer expectations: Dimension One: Outcome? Fine: got it done. Dimension Two: Process? Failing grades. (By the way, did I share my disappointment with the Comcast management? Yes. I'm guessing they already know, but...)

Comcast's monopoly status (is satellite an option? we're going to be too far from AT&T's Central Office for DSL) would have some of us asking how they can get away with service that is just so....poor. Do they have a captive market and, therefore, maintain little responsibility for excellence? Questions. I don't have answers. The quality, or lack thereof, was surprising and my disappointment was not a function of high expectations. But, the state of their incompetence made me wonder, aloud, about a number of factors: training; hiring. Mysteries. My Analyst Flora did her best to sell me on the "Triple Play" even though I had professed my disgust in many ways during the chat.

In contrast, I called the IRS just two days ago and...my adventure was stellar. Not a service provider from whom I'd expect some degree of distinction. Go figure.

With Comcast, I started the chat session by telling the "Analyst" that I wanted to begin Internet service at the new residence. Twenty minutes in, she writes: "I did not see internet in your account." I'd spent 45 minutes in a telephone queue the previous evening without getting anyone to answer nor the technology that informs me how long I'd be on hold. (We installed that at Day Timers in 1989!) And, now, 20 minutes in to a chat conversation about "adding Internet," I'm told I don't have it in my account. Goofy.

I worry that my blog posts, like this one, is merely a bully pulpit from which I can promote my little view, my slice of an experience and that it's not a fair thing to do. That is true, to some extent, but the hammer I swing might just make someone else's experience slightly improved. It's possible, n'est-ce pas?

The Discipline to Not Look at Email First Thing

Workshop Seeks to Give Me Motivation to Delay Gratification, In a Big Way --- But Is That Really Wise?

I got an email this morning informing me, to my ecstatic surprise, that the Dalai Lama is now following me on Twitter.  What a lucky dude I am!  I've said, for years now, that when I grow up, I want to be like the Dalai: compassionate; humorous; wise, and; accepting of tragically uncomfortable circumstances. 

I was reluctant to look at my emails because of the advice of a wise man who led a workshop on Tuesday morning  (I'm writing on Friday morning).  James Rodgers, the leader, exhorted all of us to put off the good feeling of reading emails first thing in the morning. Wait: "do the stuff that's difficult, uncomfortable..."  Delaying gratification is the discipline we lecture our kids about. 

So, now, I'm rethinking the advice I got from Mr. Rodgers.  Sure, I know I can't count on the Dalai or Al Gore signing up to follow me on Twitter every day, but what if? 

Maybe, just maybe, I'm thinking, it's good to have some rules.  Rules that help to delay gratification.  But, maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea to break the rules once in a while, especially when I can get a nice surprise like this one. 

The Dalai?  My fascination?  Well, simple: he embodies hope, tolerance and compassion in an increasingly complex world filled with scared people. 

The Dalai Lama Has A Website?

An Attempt to Reconcile Ideality

While we dinosaurs in business struggle to keep up with the new web technologies, the Dalai Lama is outpacing all of us: he's got a beautiful website -- with a spectacular picture I might add. (The background color of the web page is that of one of the sects of Tibetan monks: yellow carries the same healing qualities associated with the sun: warmth, optimism, light.)

I can't reconcile this reality: there's something inherently "disruptive" about this development: an icon of spirituality, peace, compassion has a web presence? You can even send the guy an email -- though I can't imagine him poking one finger at a time to respond to my earthly missive. (What could I say that would be worthy of his attention?) Is that racism to cast him as a one-finger poker? Is it possible that he knows how to type? Or, has he created a script/macro that makes it all so easy? Oy, these are unsettling questions.

Al Gore has a Twitter presence. (Yes, I follow him.) Once in a while, he weighs in on a matter of the day. On 19 May, he composed a piece about Obama's signing of a law making new and stringent requirements on fuel economy for car makers (poor guys).

I'm blogging for the past few months -- wondering what could come of it besides my own entertainment -- and, I have to confess, I feel like I'm breaking rules every time: meekly sending posts to friends and business acquaintances wondering who's going to yell back at me and write: "Don't send me any more of this crap!" I don't think it's crap but...I'm just slightly paranoid, you know.

This whole web thing has me off balance, giving me nightmares about how much copy I have on my website and whether I'm tweeting enough. (New people are showing up each day as "followers." Why?) I've yet to figure things out and I think it's going to stay that way for a while so I'll surf as long as the wave is rolling and my board is underfoot.

I long for the old days when Al Gore graciously acquiesced and the Dalai Lama went to Central Park in New York for a love-in. I feel like this blogging stuff is exposing too many of my flaws. By the way, here are some images of Tibetan monk hats that I found on the Web: what's next?

Consultants Are Humans, Too

What's Not Said Is Also Heard

I went to a workshop thing for Consultants yesterday.  Organized and sponsored by the Institute of Management Consultants, the speaker, James O Rodgers, did a fine job of: 1) reminding us why we chose this profession, and; 2) how we can reinvigorate our thinking and attitudes to take advantage of this "down" market right now.  You know, the old "don't give up hope" combined with "you can do it" anthem.

Mr. Rodgers had slides, PowerPoint, you know.  That was positive.  And, he didn't linger on any slide too long.  At one point, early on in his pitch, he offered a model of what comprises the Consultant's work life: not an elaborate visual or model.  I think I've captured in my rendition to the right:

The general concept of this visual appeals to me, however, the lack of holism is disturbing.  What's missing?  Well, do you see anything in there about living one's life, stretching, loving, relationships?  I don't. 

This visual, and its accompanying concepts, validate, for me, the single-minded focus on people as instruments of earning wages, accumulating money.  What wasn't said but was also heard is this: you, the consultant, are a worker who does, in all candor, have a great job: you get to be yourself and stick your nose in other people's business (literally). 

Anything wrong with that?  I've held, for a long time, that Consultants have the flexibility and freedom that's needed to be a bona fide role model for the new understandings of management science.  A holistic approach would add another layer on to this model that made a case for "balance."  A reverence for the personal life, the life well led.
Wouldn't that be a good thing to show clients?  Some new thinking?

So, what wasn't said was also heard: I can be a worker and...I can be a human being, too.  Consultants are humans, too.

Workers: "Jittery and Compliant?" What About Consumers?

Reports of Highest Number of Tax Extensions

A short meeting with our Financial Advisor, Jerry (not his real name), on Friday, yielded some fascinating information about the behaviors of consumers, taxpayers. A few months ago, I posted a piece about workers being "jittery and compliant" but consumers are showing signs of stress from financial woes --- in a slightly different way.

His report had to do with his own clients as well as those of his CPA peers. First, Jerry tells me, quite soberly, that his clients are cancelling appointments without decent reasons. And, when they do show up, many of them -- many more than usual -- are, sort of, dazed. The way he describes it to me makes me think of the deer or bunny, frozen in the car's headlights: paralyzed.

So, Jerry says they show up but they can't really talk about the situation, their situation. He's a sweet and gentle guy so I think he knows the limitations in this context. This is only one piece of the story.

The story's other source are the CPA's whom Jerry works with: their report is that they have never filed as many extensions as they have this year. Why? Their clients can't get their act together to bring in all of the paperwork; just can't pull the stuff together. Dazed, they say.

So, how has this state of affairs been so well shielded from the media? Is it possible that this is a story they're deliberately overlooking?