Book Review: Change or Die

Change or Die: The Three Keys To Change At Work And In Life
Alan Deutschman
Harper Paperbacks (2007)

Deutschman asserts that both individuals and organizations are involved in a process of natural selection and will survive the competition only of they can adapt to their environment. According to Charles Darwin, “There is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, and it follows that any being, if it varies however slightly in any manner profitable to itself under the complex conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected.” Deutschman seems to believe (and I agree) that the process of evolution can serve as a case study of creative destruction. According to Joseph Schumpeter, it is a “process of industrial mutation that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one.” Creative destruction occurs when something new kills something older. For example, personal computers. The industry, led by Microsoft and Intel, destroyed many mainframe computer companies, but in doing so, entrepreneurs created one of the most important inventions of this century. Schumpeter asserts that the “process of creative destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.” Individuals as well as organizations must constantly adapt or they will fall behind and eventually perish.

Deutschman’s main topic in this book is “how to change when change isn’t coming naturally: when the difficulties persist. He identifies and then explains how to use three “keys” to release change from what James O’Toole has so aptly characterized (in Leading Change) as “the ideology of comfort and the tyranny of comfort.” Deutschman calls these keys the “Three Rs”: Relate (i.e. “Your form a new, emotional relationship with a person or community that inspires and sustains hope”), Repeat (i.e. “The new relationship helps you learn, practice, and master the new habits and skills that you need”), and Reframe (i.e. “The new relationship helps you learn new ways of thinking about your situation and your life”). Of special interest and value to me is Deutschman’s brilliant use of case study material that focuses on how people in three quite different categories – heart patients, criminals, and workers – eventually were able to achieve significant changes in how/what they thought, felt, and did. In each instance, there is a central figure who plays a prominent role, such as Dean Ornish who has been trying for three decades to change the health care system in the United States and Mimi Silbert who founded the Delancey Foundation project in 1971 to rehabilitate ex-felons, prostitutes, substance abusers, homeless, and others who have hit bottom. Leaders such as Ornish and Silbert are motivated by knowing that they can enjoy and improve lives right now. “That’s the idea that I’ve tried to convey. I’m not advocating change because it can make your life or your organization better at some distant time in the future. I believe that engaging with people and learning new skills and ideas are among the greatest pleasures of everyday life…So, kind reader, that’s my parting wish for you: Change and thrive!”

Book Review: Trade-Off

Trade-Off: The Ever-Present Tension Between Quality and Convenience
Kevin Maney
Broadway Books (2009)

Maney provides in this volume what Jim Collins suggests in the Foreword, a “strategic lens” that “does not in itself give an answer about what you should do, and not do. Rather – and much better – it forces you to engage in a powerful question, from which you derive your own insight and make your own decisions…The power of a strategic concept [such as the one Maney shares] lies first and foremost in giving us a lens and a stimulus for hard thinking and hard choices. The critical question is not its universal truth, but its usefulness. And in this, I think Kevin Maney has extracted a very useful framework.”

According to Maney, how decisions made by business leaders play out in the marketplace “is the key to countless business successes and failures.” That is what he characterizes as “the fidelity swap” and there are five key concepts behind it: fidelity (i.e. the total experience) versus convenience (how easy or difficult it is to get what you want), the tech effect (i.e. technology’s impact on improving both fidelity and convenience), the fidelity “belly” (i.e. “the no-man’s-land of consumer experience”), the fidelity mirage (i.e. that product or company can achieve both high fidelity and high convenience), and super-fidelity or super-convenience (i.e. this defines the “winners” such Apple’s iPhone and Wal-Mart, both of which got to top of one axis or the other…but never attempted to reach both). Maney also identifies two significant additional factors: social accelerants that increase the importance of personal relationships even more and “wrecking ball” moments that occur when a new product or service (e.g. digital cameras in 2000) “smashes” a market sector and creates an entirely new one.

Maney then recalls a conversation with Collins. “He said that there are two ways to get to the top. One is to climb an existing ladder, which can be a bit crowded. The other is to make your own ladder, and put yourself at the top. It’s a twist on the Hedgehog Concept – if you can’t be the best in the existing category, figure out what you can be best at, and create a category that fits.” Few companies achieve and then sustain either High Fidelity or High Convenience. (To the best of my knowledge, no company has ever achieved and then sustained both simultaneously.) Committing to one or the other requires all manner of trade-offs, based on hard thinking to make hard choices. To those now involved in that immensely difficult process, Kevin Maney offers a wealth of valuable information in combination with sound advice. In fact, I presume to suggest that his book is a “must read.”

Interview: Karl Krayer

Karl Krayer

Krayer received his Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma, specializing in organizational communication. He then served on the faculties of Auburn and Texas Christian Universities before beginning a ten-year stint with Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., as a training manager. His training and organizational development interventions at Dr Pepper/Seven Up yielded significant results for the corporation in productivity, profitability, and return on investment. His internal consulting efforts were instrumental in leading work reorganization and process improvement changes for the corporation’s Marketing and Marketing Services divisions. Since 1998, Krayer has consulted and facilitated for many other major organizations, including Nokia, Lehigh Hanson, Texas Instruments, TXU Energy, Lucent Technologies, Cadbury Schweppes, Hunt Oil, Citi, YUM! Brands, Shell, Texas Department of Transportation, and Child Health Care Association. Krayer now serves as an Adjunct Faculty member in the University of Dallas Graduate School of Management and is also is the president of Creative Communication Network, a full-service company offering speeches and presentations, training and custom consulting and meeting facilitation for individuals, groups and organizations. His co-authored book, Organizing Change, was published by Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer in 2003.

Here is a brief excerpt from my interview of Krayer. The complete interview is also available.

Morris: Of all the business books you have taught and discussed thus far, which one do you most enjoy re-reading because, each time, you continue to find something of value that you missed before?

Krayer: I believe that history will place Good to Great as the best business book ever written, perhaps as much for its rigorous methodology and its insightful discoveries. Readers need to remember that this book does not predict success, but rather, report what led certain businesses to success, based upon historical data. I really enjoy the enthusiasm that Jim Collins shared in writing the unexpected findings from his team’s research. I like to re-read those sections so that I can paraphrase them accurately to my audiences.

Morris: Given the recent proliferation of electronic reading devices such as Amazon’s Kindle and Sony’s PRS, has the bound volume become an endangered species?

Krayer: Not in my view. I believe books are also symbols, and people enjoy displaying them in their homes and offices as well as carrying them around to show people what they are reading, as much as they do actually reading them. You can’t do that with these devices. I think that customers who value autographed copies and who travel to book signings to meet the author and receive a signed copy will not tolerate digital signatures sent through e-mail. I think that retail outlets that sell books have more than met the challenge, and have created experiences for customers who will continue to frequent these stores. I have posted detailed explanations of these reasons on our blog at http://ffbsccn.wordpress.comKrayer. Go to Karl’s categories. I welcome your comments if you think I am wrong. Let’s talk about it!

If you wish to read the complete interview, please contact me at interllect@mindspring.com.

Women in Banking, and Other Careers – (Womenomics seems right on the mark)

Recently, Sue Moore of UBS Financial Services (and a regular at the First Friday Book Synopsis), sent me a link to this excellent article (click on title to read article):

THE 25 MOST POWERFUL WOMEN IN BANKING:  Taking Charge in Turbulent Times.

The article includes a paragraph referencing Womenomics, which I recently presented at the FFBS:  Here’s the paragraph:
In their recent book “Womenomics,” television journalists Katty Kay and Claire Shipman note that up to one-third of professional women take a breather from their careers at some point, and that MBAs are more likely than doctors or lawyers to choose to stay home with their children. The problem with this is crystallized in something Jack Welch said recently at a Society of Human Resources Management conference: that women who choose to get off the executive track are more likely to get passed over for top jobs when they are ready to return. “There are work-life choices, and you make them, and they have consequences,” Welch says.
This is damaging for the individual women, and could have a ripple effect on younger executives, Offereins (Diane Offereins, executive vice president of payment services at Discover Financial Services) fears. “I think it’s important to have women in the senior ranks because they think about hiring and promoting women,” she says.

(Our own Cheryl and Sara blogging team members gently suggested that Jack Welch should consider keeping his opinions to himself from now on.  Read their post, Past Time to Retire, Jack Welch, here).

The article ends with this paragraph about a women who made it (back up) to the top, even after a four year period away from the corporate world:

One interesting newcomer to the rankings is BBVA Compass retail chief Shelaghmichael Brown. Brown was honored for smoothly integrating a string of acquisitions in the Southeast and Southwest. What we didn’t know until we interviewed her was that, after years of moving up the executive ladder, Brown left banking for four years earlier this decade to help her then-teenage sons with their studies. CEOs, boards and Jack Welch take note: Brown is proof that even after an extended hiatus, women can maintain their drive and passion, and pick up where they left off.

What shall we think about all of this?  Last year was the year that women received the majority of degrees at every educational level (Associates, through all Graduate Degrees) in the U.S.  Their preparation, their talent, their skills are simply too important for companies and organizations to cast them aside if they take some time off – even a few years off.  The terrain is changing, and the business practices have to adjust to the new realities.  These women bring too much to the table, and business needs to find a way to let their talents back in when they are ready to return.

To fail to do so is just… what’s the word I’m looking for…  stupid.  It’s bad for people, and it’s bad for business.  It’s dehumanizing.

Q 264: What is a phantonym?

Jack Rosenthal

Jack Rosenthal is president of The New York Times Company Foundation and was an occasional pinch-hitter for William Safire who recently died. In an article published in The Times, he explains that a word “that means the opposite of another is an antonym; a word that looks as if it means one thing but means quite another is called a phantonym, and warrants wariness.”

Here are some examples:

Disinterested is occasionally used as if it means uninterested when in fact the favored definition is unbiased and impartial.

Enervated, a phantonym of energized, in fact means weakened.

Fortuitous looks like lucky but the word really means happening by chance. It does not mean fortunate.

Penultimate does not mean untraultimate. It derives from the Latin word for almost and means next to last.

Presently does not mean now but in a little while. Currently conveys the intended meaning clearly.

Restive is “a doubly dicey term.” It does not mean restful nor restless; rather, it means stubborn, balky.

Rosenthal notes that the origin of the term out of left field has been traced to when the Chicago Cubs moved to Wrigley Field, and a mental hospital was then built on what had been left field in their previous park. Rosenthal’s son John follows baseball closely, recalling that when a pitcher from Cuba was asked the Spanish word for “fastball,” he answered “el fastball.” On the other hand, the Spanish word for “outfielder” is guardabosque. John Rosenthal points out, “It also means park ranger. I like the notion of three park rangers guarding the outfield from pesky singles, doubles, and forest fires.” Or the occasional mental patient.

Q 263: What will be William Safire’s “legacy”?

William Safire

The recent death of William Safire has attracted a great deal of interest and I have heard and read many of the dozens of preliminary evaluations of his “legacy.” Some recall his central involvement as a speech writer and wordsmith in the Nixon-Agnew administration. He is credited with formulating Vice President Spiro Agnew’s reference to “nattering nabobs of negativism.” He also devised another alliterative reference to the “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.” Safire is generally credited with orchestrating President Nixon’s “kitchen debate” with Russia’s Premier, Nikita Kruschev, at a trade show in Moscow. Others cite his several published books and hundreds of articles he wrote for various newspapers and magazines.

With all due respect to his achievements in the political world and as a professional writer, however, I think his legacy is best defined in terms of his relentless advocacy for literacy; more specifically for respect and appreciation of the English language. I agree with Robert McFadden’s characterization of Safire as a “pickwickian quibbler who gleefully pounced on gaffes, inexactitudes, nelogisms, misnomers, solecisms and perversely peccant puns, like ‘the president’s populism’ and “the first lady’s momulism’ written during the Carter presidency.” Years later, he called Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar” in print. She expressed disappointment. However, a White House aide said that President Bill Clinton, “if he were not the president, would have delivered a more forceful response on the bridge of Mr. Safire’s nose.” Safire was delighted, praising the correct use of contrary to fact and the proper use of the conditional.

Safire was not a “purist” in terms of the English language. The ultimate goal, he repeatedly insisted, was to use it to communicate effectively one’s intended meaning. Rules are important but should serve as guidelines. In weeks and months to come, I will miss his weekly “On Language” column in the Sunday editions of The New York Times. Hopefully, an anthology of his best columns will be published. Meanwhile, those of us who aspire to literacy have several of his suggestions to guide and inform our efforts. For example:

1. Remember to never split an infinitive.
2. Take the bull by the hand and never mix metaphors.
3. Proofreed carefully to see if you words are spelled properly.
4. Avoid clichés like the plague.
5. And don’t use exclamation points!!!