The New Year

Go have a look at Charlie Green's A Better New Year's Resolution. You'll be glad you did.

The Hardest Working Leader in Show Business?

I received the following email from Matthew Moore:

Richard:

I have been mulling the life & work of the late, great James Brown and given your love of pop music, I thought I'd share this with you.

JB's gift was as much collaborative as it was individual -- he took musicians such as Maceo Parker and Bootsy Collins and then created environments where they did their best work. He was tough -- he was legendary for fining musicians for insufficiently shiny shoes and bum notes. And most of his collaborators ended up leaving him eventually.

He was definitely a great leader. Was he a great manager? I dunno, but here are some things I learnt from JB:

• Give people the opportunity to shine. Everyone is his band gets an opportunity to showcase their particular talents. And results can be something like Funky Drummer or Superbad.

• Work with what you got. When JB remade his band (usually after the previous one had stormed out or been fired), he had to work with the talents of his musicians. Not every bass player is Bootsy Collins. But that doesn't mean that the bass can't be a compelling part of the track.

• High standards are not popular but very important.

• Less is more. Cold Sweat has virtually no chord changes but is mesmerising.

• How the parts fit together is key. Funk works not just because you have great individual musicians but because the basic elements (polyrhythmic drumming, synchopated bass lines, horn stabs) play off each other in a rhythmically compelling way.

I don't live up to these lessons but I think there will be a picture of JB next to my laptop for a few weeks.

There are also some negative lessons from the life of JB (beating up your wife, smoking PCP, alienating your most talented colleagues) but I don't want to dwell on those now.

Seasons greeting, Matt Moore

You're Lucky Fellow, Mr. Smith

I was just watching a 1940s movie with the Andrews Sisters and heard the following chorus:

"If some poor suckers could choose
They'd love to be in your shoes.
You're a lucky fellow Mr. Smith."

Appropriate to the season, no?

We Succeed When We All Succeed

In a previous blog post and article, I wrote about Jay Bertram, president of the TBWA office in Toronto, who asked his people to evaluate him and offered to resign if he did not improve how well he performed his role as their leader.

As a follow up, here's an end-of-year email that Jay received from one of his people:

Subject: We Succeed When We All Succeed

Dear Jay,

There are few leaders that have the many qualities that you have. You guide, support, listen, mentor, advise, educate and best of all lead by example (and these are only a few of your great qualities.) You find the good in everyone you come into contact with. You bring out the good in everyone.

It is because of you that I want to work harder, work better and not only achieve, but also exceed my personal and professional goals. You have allowed me to open new chapters in my career and to further my knowledge. Sure we are working hard, and although at times it can be stressful, you still make it a fun place to work. Nobody could ask for a better job; nobody could ask for a better President. I certainly can't. I am proud to work with you in a dynamic Advertising Agency.

Thank you for the many opportunities; the many, many chats; your continued support and teaching me to become a stronger person. Neither our colleagues nor I would be where we are at today, without you at the helm.

We have worked together for four great years now. I look forward to working with you for many more.

I hope that you get some R&R and enjoy the spirit of the season with your family during the Christmas break. I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and best wishes for 2007 and beyond.

Sincerely,

(name withheld)

PS -- We are closed Monday thru Friday next week. I am begging you to take this time to NOT WORK. But if you do work, you are always welcome to call me at anytime if you need anything. I'll be there!!

Isn't that fabulous?

Jay was kind enough to say that I had made a real difference in his life and now he is affecting others. As he says, it clearly demonstrates that if you practice what you preach you can make a difference in the lives of others.

I Can't Believe This Worked on Me!

We all love to believe that we are very rational in our own buying, especially when it comes to purchases of important things like professional services. Nevertheless, there are times when marketing and selling approaches that we would like to believe don't work on us, well, they actually do.

For example, this is a terrible confession, but you've almost always got me to complete those silly questionnaire's that come in the mail if you include a dollar bill with the questionnaire. It's an old direct marketing technique, but just as Robert Cialdini analyses in his justifiably famous book Influence, the "sense of obligation" that putting that dollar in my wallet creates is enough to make me complete and return the darn questionnaire. And there's no way I'm going to avoid the problem by throwing the dollar away, am I? And it will cost me more in time to send back than it's worth! I'm trapped with no way out!

Similarly, I hate it that I'm a sucker for the freebies that exhibitors give away at conferences. I know, if I had more courage, I could just go and help myself to the freebie (pens, computer flash memory, free software) without getting into a conversation with the people staffing the booth, but it just feels rude not to enquire politely about their product or service. I'm not saying I always end up buying, but a high percentage of the time they get my business card, and they follow up. The darned approach works on me and I wish it didn't.

I'll confess that I'm also a sucker for "extra features." If you show me a plain vanilla option and an "extra special option," I'm going to listen hard for what the latter can do for me. I hate that I fall for it -- but I do. I hate it that I buy the "extra insurance" when renting a car, even though my statistical training tells me it's a stupid purchase. They play on my insecurities, and they win.

Have any of you got confessions to make about marketing or selling tactics that worked on you that you really didn't think were going to? I don't just mean at the supermarket or the car showroom, but perhaps in hiring a professional provider to assist you.

Have you ever spent more than you planned to on a service provider? What did they do that "worked" on you? I don't mean the honourable, trust-earning things that truly make you want to work with an honourable provider. I mean the things that make you say (as the title of this blogpost says): I can't believe this worked on me!

Happiness at Work

I received this email earlier today:

Dear Richard

I've taken the liberty of sending you this email and attaching a copy of my brand new book Happy Hour is 9 to 5 -- How to Love You Job, Love Your Life and Kick Butt at Work as a pdf-file.

Now, if I was sitting there talking to you, the conversation might go something like this:

You: Thanks for your email Alex, but come clean here: It's obvious you're just trying to get me to mention your book on my blog.

Me: Weeeeelll ... OK. I am.

You: Give me just one good reason why I should do that ...

Me: I'll give you three good reasons:

1. Many workplaces are plagued by stress, burnout, bad management, conflicts, power games and disengagement. We must change this. We can change this. Happiness at work is enormously important for both employees and companies alike, and this is the first book specifically on this topic. It's also a great book -- or so all my preview readers assure me.
2. The whole book can be read free at this link
3. -- so this is not just about me making a buck. Well, that too -- people can also buy the book on paper or on pdf.
4. It will make me really, really happy :-) .

You: Are you spamming thousands of people in this way?

Me: No, this goes out only to a few, carefully picked people who blog about themes relevant to happiness at work. I specifically picked you because your take on HR is very much about creating good workplaces. I've also cited one of your statistics in the book.

You: What's the book about anyway?

Me: The book is for employees and managers who want to love their jobs and create organixations that are inspiring, meaningful, energising and fun. It's about taking work from crappy to happy. From drudgery to luxury. From "shove it" to "love it". From ... I'll stop here! I've been writing the book on my blog The Chief Happiness Officer over the past six months with the help of my readers. They've been giving me constant inspiration and feedback and even came up with the title for me!

You: Hmmm ... Interesting. What would you like me to do?

Me: Here are some things you could do:

1. Mention the book on your blog.
2. Read the book and review it. You can read the attached pdf or I'll be happy to send you a free copy of the book.
3. Do an interview for your blog. You can email me some questions about happiness at work and I'll send some answers back right away.
4. Something else that I didn't think of that you think would be fun.
5. Any combination of the above.

Stay amazingly happy,

Alexander

The Chief Happiness Officer

So, I read the book instead of doing what I was supposed to be doing today. (Darn!) And you know what? It's very, very good. I learned a lot. It's incredibly well written, full of insights, and there are exercises to improve your own happiness at work. You can't ask for more than that!

Thanks for sending it, Alex. (And my compliments on a brilliantly composed, irresistible email approach!)

I'm Terrified and Need Help!

A European newspaper has decided to drop the weekly business column written by Jack and Suzi Welch (for those who don't know, he was CEO of General Electric, she was editor of the Harvard Business Review) and they have asked whether I would write a weekly column in their place.

Help! I'm immensely flattered, of course, but terrified at the same time. This is where I have to try to live up to my own principles, and keep stretching myself.

But am I really ready to take on a weekly commitment of writing 1000 words? What an obligation! It's not the writing that worries me (I can pontificate at the drop of a hat.) It's having something fresh to say, week in and week out.

Actually, that's been the fear throughout my career, and is probably every authors fear. Do I have anything left to say? I'm already doing a blogpost per day, a podcast per week and an article per month. Can I realistically do a 1000-word newspaper column as well?

So, help me out here. If you've been a regular reader of this blog, then you know I like to build blogposts around the questions that readers submit. It makes it easier to focus my thoughts, and also to ensure that I'm writing about real issues that address what's happening in other people's lives, not just my own.

So, if you'll be willing to help me by sending me emails containing a description of real-world issues you face, I can accept the challenge and keep trying to contribute through the various media I use. (I ask for emails -- otherwise the questions and issues will pile up in this blogpost.)

Here's my guidelines for submitting your "advice requested." Imagine you are writing not just to me, but to your peers in the blogosphere.

You should not choose a trivial, minor matter of no significant importance to you. Similarly, you should not pose an unanswerable question about which no-one else is likely to be able to offer any truly helpful advice.

A good compromise is to describe, in some detail, a specific situation that you face, or have faced recently, which is likely to re-occur. Describe the alternatives open to you, or how you may have dealt with this type of situation in the past. Ask others how they would deal with the situation. Include sufficient background information for them to understand the important considerations surrounding your problem.

Choose any issue you wish, as long as it passes two key tests: (a) you would really like to hear the opinions of others, and (b) you think others might really be able to help.

Will you help me help you? If you send me questions in the next few weeks, I'll be able to assess whether I have enough to say for a weekly column (as well as this blog.) Thanks!

Rights and Obligations

I have long held a theory that organisations ought to have (enforced) "rights and obligations" that each of their members (ie employees at any level) must follow. Here's a first attempt to draft a sensible "rights and obligations" list for a professional business.

Members of the organisation have an obligation to:

• Act with integrity and high ethical standards at all times
• Serve client first, firm second, themselves last
• Continuous self-improvement (no cruising)
• Preserve reputation of the firm
• Reach out for additional responsibility
• Take the initiative
• Help others (that report to them) succeed
• Be a team player
• Work hard
• Treat all people as valuable members of the "team".
• Treat all professionals with trust and respect.
• Cooperate with everyone within and between departments.
• Delegate work to the appropriate level.

Members have rights to:

• Stretching assignments
• Be kept informed of what’s going on in the organisation
• Be treated with respect
• Know the criteria by which they will be assessed
• A good understanding of the overall goals and objectives of our firm.
• Freedom to make the necessary decisions to do their work properly.
• Be kept informed about the things THEY need to know to do their job properly.
• Input on issues that affect their work.
• The resources necessary to provide high quality client service.
• Understand how their compensation is determined.
• Work that makes good use of their knowledge and ability.
• Work that has variety, interest and challenge
• Encouragement and opportunity to learn new skills
• A clear understanding of their responsibilities.
• Useful performance feedback throughout the year.
• High quality of on-the-job training.

***

What would YOU add or delete for an ideal professional business?

I Need to Stop Changing My Mind!

Instigator Blog has come up with a neat idea: asking people what they have learned this year.

In the past year, I have been trying to get a great deal done. I have been working not only on continuous improvement for my own website (and my consulting work) but also helping with a thousand decisions needed for my wife's new business.

New ideas and new initiatives have been launched weekly, sometimes daily -- and that's been the problem. A great deal of effort has been put in to things that were started and never finished. It's not that they were bad ideas -- it's that the priorities always seemed to be changing. I lived with it because I thought it was evidence of innovation and creativity.

Now I'm not so sure. I (and the people who work for me) have wasted a lot of time stopping and starting.

When I heard Craig Weatherup (former CEO of The Pepsi Bottling Company) speak he was asked what he thought his strengths were as a CEO. He said that one of his strengths was that he was always good at having a "filter" for actions, decisions and topics. He would lay out a strategy, and from that develop a strong decision screen that clearly identified which issues should be passed through the screen and brought to his attention, and which should be refused.

If, for example, his Board wanted him to look at something that was "off the screen," he would say "I'm not going to change my priorities just for this topic. If you want me to go back to the beginning and redesign my entire screen, I will, but I'm not going to make constant readjustments."

Another way he said it was that he felt that one of his strengths was that we was slow to say "Yes" and quick to say "No."

Every two weeks, he would look ahead at the appointments on his calendar and eliminate non-essential, non-strategic activities.

There's a term for all this that some other people, especially those in software design: the point comes in every project when you must "freeze the design."

I now understand the power of that, and the wastefulness that results from constantly shifting priorities and work tasks. Weatherup's rules are invaluable: Be ready to make changes only if it's truly worth going back and redesigning the entire strategy of what you're up to. Have a slow yes and a fast no. Brutally eliminate off-strategy activities.

Now, if only I had the personality and discipline to do all that!

What do you think? Is it better to go for focus and constancy of purpose, or be open and flexible to new ideas as they emerge? Is it possible to have the best of both worlds?

The Size and Growth Impulse

In most companies and firms, it is taken as a matter of unexamined faith that the organisation must grow. A related article of faith is that size matters -- in marketing, in recruiting, in profitability.

The "growth and size" school of thought has some eminent supporters. Jack Welch of GE famously believed that to be a viable competitor an organisation had to be number one or number two (measured by market share) in its industry. Many contortions of analysis have subsequently taken place by companies (or divisions within companies) trying to redefine their market so that they could claim to be the first or second biggest in that market.

Wall Street analysts seem to care about little else but growth when valuing share prices, and CEOs respond to this strong signal. Even if they can't grow "organically" (or maybe especially if they cannot grow organically) CEOs eagerly seek out "deals" to expand their empire.

To this day, academic institutions teach the decades-old "Bermuda Triangle" theory of industry structure, which says that you can only survive by being either the biggest overall in your industry or be small and dominate a focused specialty. (The Bermuda triangle is the space between small and large where most firms disappear, apparently.)

I do understand the need for growth that derives from the fact that employees seek promotion opportunities, and that to hold on to good people the organisation must grow in aggregate size (unless it is prepared to get rid of its senior people with enough frequency to make way for the juniors!)

In spite of all this, I have my reservations.

I worry that all these good reasons for seeking growth get turned into a mania for *ANY* growth, where the measure of success becomes growth at all costs, not **wise** growth. I don't believe all growth is good.

For example, if two average quality firms of average size merge, is the bigger entity really more competitive? Do customers and clients REALLY re-allocate their business based on who's the biggest firm?

And if you think growth is needed to provide opportunities for employees to advance their careers, what good does it do to grow by bringing in large numbers of senior lateral hires who then occupy the very positions that the juniors were aiming for? Or, how does it help to create opportunities for junior people by launching totally businesses involving totally new disciplines in totally different geographic areas? The given reason for growth (provide opportunity) is often a façade for other reasons (empire building, the belief that being big helps attract customers.)

My biggest concern is that most strategic plans place a greater emphasis on growth and size than they do on quality.

I have seen as many (perhaps more) companies get in to trouble by trying to grow too fast than by growing too slow. "Too-fast growth" can lead to a lack of discrimination in chasing business, unwieldy and unmanageable structures and a poor, low-quality "if it moves, shoot it" culture.

There's a paradox that some really great firms understand: -- If you really operate day-to-day by having the primary goal of "being the best", then growth and size may indeed result since the marketplace will notice and reward your extra value. Quality LEADS to growth and size, but only if growth and size are secondary.

It's pretty clear that firms (and individuals) that put growth and size AHEAD of quality (that would be most businesses) will end up with weaker reputations and will, in the long run, be likely to get **less** volume and growth. Putting volume and growth first may be self-defeating. Yet it is how most firms are actually run.

Let's play fair here. It happens to us as individuals, too. It's easier to measure our success on volume (did I get more work) as opposed to how fast we are building new skills. How many of us can honestly say we put getting better ahead of getting more?

What do you think of these questions:

(a) Do most companies place size and growth ahead of quality and getting better?

(b) Is this, ultimately, bad for them?

(c) What, if anything, can be done about that (or is it inevitable and irresistible)?

What's A Professional Firm?

I just received an email from Atta-ur Rehman in Pakistan, who writes:

Many times in your podcasts you refer to "Professional Firms". I've not been able to understand what exactly you mean by the term. Aren't all businesses like professional firms? Could you please clarify it for me or refer to me some definition that you might already have on your website?

Great question, Atta. I had a stronger opinion twenty years ago what the term meant, but nowadays I'm not so sure.

Of course, many years ago, the term "profession" or "professional" had a sociological, cultural or class meaning -- there were only a certain number of "learned" professions (medicine, the law, the religious ministry). A lot of effort went into defending membership in this privileged group -- doctors, lawyers and priests were special (they claimed) but everyone else was in BUSINESS (Yuck!) or were a lesser breed (nurses, for example).

Part of their claim was that they had a superior commitment to service instead of commerce, but very few people believe that any more. Nevertheless, a great deal of time and money has been spent by other industries trying to get recognised as "real" professions.

When I began my work in the early eighties, I used the term "professional service firm" to mean businesses that (mostly) gave advice -- not only law, medicine and priests, but including consulting, accounting, advertising, public relations, engineering, executive search, financial advisors of all kinds.

The central thing that these industries have in common is that (in principle) they do CUSTOMISED work -- they do not sell the result of standardised processes. They hire "knowledge workers" (although not everybody thinks that's synonymous with professional workers) to apply education and training to create different outcomes for different clients.

However, even this definition gets "fuzzy." What happens when so-called professional firms start taking a process-intensive approach and create customised outputs with a standard process? At the commodity end of many professions, it doesn't take an advanced degree to produce really valuable outputs -- just some good systems, databases, training and a high-school degree. Is that still a professional service?

Then comes the challenge that you hint at, Atta. Many of us think that being a professional has nothing to do with what degrees you have, what industry you are in, or what position you hold. Maybe the REAL meaning of professionalism is close to what the priests, doctors and lawyers were SUPPOSED to have, except that it applies to ALL of us in all industries: a moral commitment to be of service and to run our organisations to high standards based on unwavering values.

Viewed this way, maybe Atta is right. Aren't ALL industries like professional firms? Does the term professional business mean anything anymore? Does it mean anything to say some people are to be categorised as professionals and some as something else?

What do the rest of you think? Have we outlived the usefulness of "professional service firm" or "professional business" as a helpful categorisation?

What If You're Not That Interested in People?

In yesterday's blogpost on leadership the central points, which all the subsequent commenters seemed to endorse vigorously, were that the key to being an effective manager was to be interested in people, and ... and ... and ... (drumroll, please) you can't fake that stuff! It's either genuine or you're not going to be an effective manager.

In my experience, there's too little reflection and examination on the consequences of those points, and too much glib advice (including by me) that you "should" get interested in people.

I think that misses the whole point about not being able to fake it. People array along a continuous spectrum of how genuinely interested they are in other people, and how comfortable they are in relating to other people on an intimate one-to-one ("drop the mask, be human") basis. Given different underlying characters and personality types, maybe we need to stop pretending that everyone CAN become "interested in other people." If you really can't fake it, then what use is the advice that you should "get interested?"

Very frequently when I am doing a seminar or consulting about effective management, people look at the list of what effective managers do and they say things like "That's not too hard -- why doesn't everyone do that?" And the answer is that it's not too hard if you are genuinely interested in other people. But it is my experience that, in real life, only a minority really are. That's not a moral failing, or a lack of skills -- it's about relatively fixed personality traits, in my view.

For example, some people have high social needs -- they revel in being part of a lively, active circle. Others, just aren't wired that way. They'd prefer to cuddle up with a good book rather than go to the bar or the pub with the "gang." Some people REALLY enjoy listening to the details of other people's lives. Others, meaning no disrespect, just don't want or need to know.

So, here's the point for discussion. If you can't fake a sincere interest in people, what's the point of advising people to do it? Should we shut down all the management training programs or restrict them only for people who first pass an attitude test?

Now, That's Leadership!

I just heard a fabulous presentation on leadership by Craig Weatherup, former Chairman and CEO of The Pepsi Bottling Group.

The group he was presenting to had just spent much of a day debating whether a leader needed to have "charisma" so it was almost a shock for many in the audience to meet this low-key, self-deprecating "down-home" man. He may now own and live in (just as a summer home, mind you) a 110-room mansion formerly owned by the Rockefeller family, but he still comes across primarily as the humble (and loyal) graduate from the regional college (Arizona State) that he also is.

Among his messages was the importance of actually, really, sincerely, "don't even try to fake it" caring about people. Again and again, he stressed the view that you can only be an effective leader if you view it as a privilege to serve in that role.

Describing various times when he had to lead Pepsi, his employees, his Board, the bottlers, and others through times of change, he said he was only able to bring everyone with him because they trusted him. When asked why he thought people trusted him, he said that he had worked very diligently for all his life to connect with people as individuals, not just people in a role. Just as one small (or not so small) example, he made it his business to talk with fork-lift truck drivers whenever he visited the company's bottling plants which he did regularly.

People trusted me, he said, because they knew me. They knew I cared about them. You can't fake that, he said. That's what gave me the power to lead.

WOW!

How to Layoff 2,000 People

There's been a lot of press about Pfizer's decision to cut about 20 percent of its US sales force as a cost cutting measure. (That's about 2,000 out of about 10,000 people.)

Leaving aside for the moment whether or not this is a good decision (though see Charles Green's interesting insight on this, entitled Pfizer, Doctors, Sales and Trust), there was a challenging aspect pointed out to me in an email by Nick Saban. He wrote:

A good friend of my family works as a sales rep for Pfizer. She told us that on or around December 18th, the company will notify its entire US sales force if they are or are not being terminated VIA EMAIL. I am not interested in condemning Pfizer, per se, and I realise my information may not totally be accurate. However, this begs two questions, really.

First, are we to a point in our society that face-to-face delivery of bad news is so uncomfortable that is it being replaced by email (and probably text messages soon)? I suppose this is akin to the old pink slip, but termination notices by email, phone, or anything less than face-to-face are just completely dehumanising to me.

Second, from a practical standpoint, how does a company notify a 10,000 person strong national sales force regarding who will stay and who will go? Email certainly makes this easy, cost-effective, and works out bugs in timing. But are there other methods that could possibly be as effective, yet be more respectful towards the people being cut?

Great questions, Nick, and eternal ones. By complete coincidence, I was killing time over the weekend watching some old English TV shows that I have on DVD (a 1991 episode of "Drop the Dead Donkey" to be exact) and the entire plot of this sitcom (!) was about a group of fellow-workers waiting to find out which of them were going to be fired as part of a cost-cutting program. (Great topic for a comedy, right?)

Different time, different country, different context -- same issue.

So, let's accept Nick's challenge. Let's not debate whether large-scale layoffs are a good idea, fair, or anything else. Let's address his question. If you know you're going to have to lay off a large number of people, what's the best way to do it? Short and sweet or slow and thoughtful? An email blast all at once or have everyone talk to their manager (which would take quite a bit of time)?

I actually think I can make a case for the virtues of the email approach. I once wrote that all business decisions contain a finite amount of pain, and you get to choose -- either a lot of pain for a few people in a short period of time, or a little bit of pain for a larger group of people over a longer period of time. Guess which (in general) I would recommend? You got it -- if you HAVE to choose, I think it's better to get things over and done with as soon as possible. And if that means it has to be relatively impersonal, then that's what it's got to be.

The choices aren't perfect. Of course we would all want to be more human and respectful. But leaving everyone in doubt as to whether they're in or out isn't very respectful, and it could take forever to arrange one-on-one's for 10,000 people (or even just the 2,000 who are going to get the chop.) It's the scale that causes the problem.

That's one view. Anyone else want to offer a perspective on this tough managerial topic? If you have no choice but to layoff 2,000 people, is there a better way to do it?

Thanks for the memories

We're already into December, which means November's gone (!), which means it's time to thank everyone who joined in here during the past month.

Again, it's been an interesting, interactive month, and I'm grateful to all of you.

Commentors

Lora Adrianse, Jason Alba, Scott Allen, Stephanie West Allen, Tyler Allison, Andreas, Ann Bares, John Beck, Jim Belshaw, Leo Bottary, Breakingranks, Ed Brenegar, Duncan Bucknell, Tim Burrows, Paul Buseyne, Martin Calle, Tom Chandler, Colin, Robert Crampton, Dan, David, Jennifer Davis, Mike DeWitt, Bill Dotson, Lance Dunkin, Heidi Ehlers, Eric, David Ferrabee, Dean Fuhrman, Ed Gabrielse, Mike Gilronan, Paul Gladen, Michelle Golden, Marcel Goldstein, Mark Graban, Charles H. Green, Peter Gwizdalla, Isabelle Hakala, Ted Harro, Marc Hoppers, Amanda Horne, Lee Iwan, Ron K Jeffries, Juliet, Danielle Keister, David Kirk, Greatest American Lawyer, Steven Ledgerwood, Dave Lee, Ed Lee, Bruce MacEwen, Peter Macmillan, Manny, Marco Antonio P. Gonçalves, Susan Marshall, Arnoud Martens, A F Massari, Patrick McEvoy, Sharon McGann, Mel, Carol Metzker, Mike, Milan, Warren Miller, MillionDollarCountDown, Maggie Milne, Dan Murray, Arvind Nadkarni, Mark Needham, Erek Ostrowski, Yiannis Pavlou, Bill Peper, Jerry Van Polen, Steve Portigal, Russell Rensburg, Ric, Rob, Roman Rytov, Jon Sacker, Spencer Schmerling, Frank Schophuizen, Bryan I. Schwartz, Stephen Seckler, Shuchetana, Carl A. Singer, Andrew Smith, Sonnie, Mark Stevens, Tojo Thatchenkery, Fiona Torrance, Peter Vajda, Coert Visser, Michael Webb, Michael Webster, Alan Weiss, Ian Welsh, Susan Wittenoom, David Zatz

Blog Trackbacks

Advertising Age
ALMResearchBlog
Asia Mind Dynamics -- Accelerate Your Performance
Be Excellent (TM)
Benjamin Bach and Associates
Better Communications Results
Blawg
Blueprint for Financial Prosperity
Bryan C. Fleming
Business & Technology Reinvention
BWPrice's Marketing U
Career Intensity Blog
Ceci N'est Pas
Cloudy Thinking
Combat Consultancy
Compensation Force
Corporate eLearning Development
Counsel to Counsel
Creating a Better Life
Creative Outlet Labs
Cultivate GREATNESS Personal Development
e e learning
Forward Blog
GEO 12.97�N 77.56�E
Golden Practices
idealawg
Integrated Marketing
Internet Marketing Resource Center
itjournalist.com
Larry Bodine's LawMarketing Blog
legal sanity
LexBlog Blog
Limbic Nutrition
MabelandHarry
Manage to Change
Managing the Professional Services Firm
MANGROVE ROOT GANG.com
Michael's Thoughts
More Than A Living
Nadim Habib
One Man Band
Oplossingsgerichtmanagement
purple motes
Re-model 4 Life
Re: The Auditors
Small Business Gurus
Sonnie's Porch
Spooky Action
Stark County Law Blog
Strive Notes
SuccessJolt
The Agonist
The Globe and Mail
The Greatest American Lawyer
The New View From Object Towers
Towards Better Life
TrackKnacks: Aptitude Wizard Watch
Transcending Gender
Unleash Your Potential
Verve Coaching
Votelaw
Wealth Building World
Working at Home on the Internet

Podcast Trackbacks

And a special thanks to the kind bloggers who have written about my Business Masterclass podcast series in November.

Corporate eLearning Development
Forward Blog
Mangrove Root Gang
Michael's Thoughts
Spooky Action

Since the holiday season is coming, get your participation in early during December. We wouldn’t want things to slacken off, would we?

November Top 5 Roundup

Thank you to everyone who contributed to make these posts the most linked and discussed ideas in the month of November.

Are we too negative?
We're criticising way too much, pointing out the flaws in other people ... is it getting worse?

Why are some people so motivated?
If the key to individual (and organisational) excellence is a greater determination to get somewhere (and that seems to be the emerging scientific conclusion) then can such attitudes be bred in others or must they be "found"?

I've stopped reading
A while ago, I was asked which books I was currently reading, and I realised it had been a long time since I really sat down to read a book that I wasn't absolutely required to read for work.

Who are the marketing experts in professional business?
Do marketers, particularly those in professional businesses, actually know anything?

We'll follow the old man wherever he wants to go
Do any of you have examples of managers who led by force of personal example and willingness to go first? Managers who have been prepared to be personally accountable for their role?

If you still have ideas or opinions to add in to these or any other discussions on the blog, please join in!