101 years ago a miracle of thought-leadership …
By stealth and by darkness a hundred years ago and against all odds, a great Australian thought-leader devised a plan to save the lives of 80,000 men at Gallipoli. It was clever. It was unconventional. It was outside the box. It was meticulous. It was silent. It worked!
The highly skilled and brilliant Australian general, Brudenell White, completely tricked the Turks into thinking that his lessening of activities was due to preparing his ANZACs for winter. However, by the night of 19 December, 1915, they had all quietly evacuated Anzac and Sulva bay, which became the most successful operation of the campaign.
Brudenell White in his bunker in Gallipoli
Monash said of White, ‘He is far and away the ablest soldier Australia has ever turned out. He is also a charming good fellow.’
The Germans said, ‘So long as wars last, the evacuation of Suvla and Anzac will stand before the eyes of all strategists as a hitherto unattained masterpiece’.
Army Chief of of the General Staff, General Sir Cyril Brudenell Bingham White KCB KCMG KCVO DSO, known as Brudenell, is described as being simultaneously one of the most important, yet unknown, figures in Australian history. Brudenell was born in St Arnaud, Victoria, on 23 September 1876. He died in the Royal Australian Air Force plane that crashed in the Canberra air disaster on 13 August 1940, killing all aboard.
Brudenell – Lest we forget
It is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature.
To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely.
That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty.
Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth.
The professional reputation of great salesmen is to under-promise and over-deliver. Trump’s reputation to date is quite the opposite. He has over-promised and under-delivered.
A comparison can now be made on the substance and deliverables of Obama’s and Trump’s First 100 Days. Obama delivered a lot and Trump very little. From a leadership and government scorecard, Trump is far behind Obama’s record.
Obama moved swiftly from candidate to legislator. Trump has not yet made a successful transition from campaigning to governing. From promising to delivering. From tweeting to law-making. Trump’s record is still seen as a talker but not yet a doer.
Even as a self-proclaimed ‘Master Salesman’ he has not yet delivered even half of what he promised.
As evidence, senior national correspondent at Time magazine, Michael Grunwald lists the following (April 26, 2017):
· Trump seemed to think he could snap his fingers and reverse the Obama era, but so far, he has gotten very little done. · His travel ban was blocked in court, so he revised it, but the revised version was blocked as well. · The Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare crashed and burned. · Trump pledged to undo Obama’s Wall Street reforms, carbon regulations and tax hikes on the rich, but they’re all still in place. · He hasn’t pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, reversed Obama’s opening to Cuba, scuttled Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, or moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, either. · Not only has he failed to persuade Mexico to pay for his border wall, he’s failed to persuade Congress to pay for it. · His entire budget was declared dead on arrival on Capitol Hill, and there’s still no sign of his trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. · He’s signed a lot of executive orders, but most of them were glorified memos, signaling policy desires without forcing policy changes. · He did sign bills blocking 13 out of more than 20,000 Obama-era regulations from taking effect, but they merely preserved a small slice of the status quo, and he hasn’t signed any other substantive legislation. · Of course, getting a conservative on the high court was a victory that produced real change; Gorsuch could swing U.S. jurisprudence to the right for decades. · Trump also formally pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal—although Congress hadn’t ratified it, and wasn’t going to ratify it. · In general, the story of his first 100 days has been a words story, not a deeds story, an embarrassing contrast to Obama’s action-packed early presidency. · The president has promised to scrap Obama’s Clean Power Plan regulating carbon and other EPA restrictions on electric plants, ease fuel efficiency mandates for automakers, abandon the Paris climate deal and bring coal mining back to life. He hasn’t done any of those things yet. · He’s gotten a lot of press for signing executive orders proclaiming his desire to do many of them, but that’s not the same thing. · The domestic policy area where Trump is having the biggest impact is immigration enforcement, because it’s the area where he has the most discretion. · He hasn’t changed any laws or built any walls, but he has sent a powerful message that undocumented immigrants are no longer welcome here, and he has ended the Obama administration’s policy of leaving noncriminal aliens alone. · His tougher approach has produced instant results: The Border Patrol said its arrests at the southern border were down 67 percent in March, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrests of noncriminal aliens inside the U.S. have more than doubled. · America’s undocumented population—which remained steady around 11 million during the Obama years, despite Trump’s claims of an overwhelming surge—seems likely to shrink significantly under Trump, through voluntary and involuntary removals. This is obviously a promise kept. · At the same time, Trump’s Fortress America attitude is sending a stay-away message to the world. Tourism officials have reported a distinct “Trump Slump” as foreign bookings decline, with Travel Weekly estimating a drop of 6.8 percent. · The slow-rolling scandal over Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election is clearly a threat to the Trump agenda and the Trump presidency, but it’s pretty complicated to follow. · The Trump campaign’s connections to Russia have the makings of a Watergate-style nightmare, but Trump’s allegations about Obama, if true, would also be a Watergate-style nightmare. It’s just that there’s no evidence for Trump’s charges, while the Russia revelations continue to drip, drip, drip. · Trump’s connections to Russia are still shrouded in mystery, but he did publicly call for Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, he was bizarrely solicitous of Vladimir Putin on the trail, and wide-ranging investigations are never good news for a president. The fate of his White House could depend on the results, and this story will be a major headache for him until the results are in. · He has already broken his populist promises to fight cuts to Medicaid, stay out of the Syria conflict, and declare China a currency manipulator. · Trump is obviously a successful man with a flair for communication and self-promotion. He resurrected his business career after bankruptcies; he stunned the political world by winning the presidency. He’s often underestimated. · Still, it must be said: He seems totally clueless about Washington. He always said he would rely on his common sense and his instincts rather than briefing books and study. But he did claim he was a master negotiator, and so far the author of The Art of the Deal has shown no feel whatsoever for the art of the Washington deal. · He summoned the House Freedom Caucus to the Oval Office to try to muscle them into supporting his health care bill, to no avail; he also threatened them on Twitter with primary challenges, to no avail. · He’s been just as ham-handed with Democrats on health care, infrastructure and the budget; he noisily demanded that they fund his border wall, but when they refused, he backed down. · His assumption that he could easily bully Mexico into paying for the wall looks wrong, too. He hasn’t made an actual deal yet on anything. · He never seems to recognize how much leverage he has or doesn’t have, or what his negotiating partners might want or need. He just blurts out what he thinks should happen and then distributes the blame when it doesn’t happen. · The usual Washington solution to this kind of Washington problem is to bring in a “Washington hand,” a fixer who can help the president get things done. But Trump sees himself as his own fixer, working the phones, cutting the deals. It’s just not clear whether his particular set of fixing skills can work in D.C. Strange but true … · Yes, the Trump administration really did hire a massage therapist with no energy experience to run a major office at the Energy Department, and yes, the guy really was fired for calling Muslims “scum sucking maggots of the world” on Twitter. · Yes, the president attacked Nordstrom for dropping his daughter’s clothing line. · Yes, the Chinese government approved 35 of his trademarks almost immediately after he agreed to respect its One China policy. · Yes, he had Sarah Palin, Kid Rock and Ted Nugent to dinner at the White House, and yes, he quasi-endorsed a quasi-fascist in the French election. · The Trump presidency often feels like reality TV. But it’s reality. His current showdown with North Korea is a real showdown. · His painfully awkward meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel was a real meeting. · His news conference where he claimed his Electoral College victory was the largest since Reagan’s—it was actually the second-smallest was a real news conference. · He swiftly built his candidacy around a vision of America that simply wasn’t real. Unemployment was falling, not soaring; crime was near a 45-year low, not a 45-year high; illegal immigration was not surging at all. But Trump had tremendous success with his alternative facts, and made it clear that he’d continue to deploy them in the White House. He’ll decide what’s fake news, not the fact-checkers. · Reality has also intruded on his foreign policy promises about swiftly crushing ISIS and showing China who’s boss; actual war and diplomacy has turned out to be much harder than theoretical war and diplomacy. · This is why Trump has gotten so little done, and why he’s breaking unpopularity records for new presidents. · For now, though, only 2 percent of Trump’s voters say they regret their vote. They still trust Trump’s alternative facts more than reported facts. · It’s anyone’s bet how that will turn out in the end.
Click to original article Politico Magazine: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/26/trump-first-100-days-president-rating-accomplishments-215071
Because age ain’t nothin’ but a number
This content is appropriate for people of all ages. And that’s the point. The days of targeting media and products at people based on their age is over.
The Perennials. We are ever-blooming, relevant people of all ages who live in the present time, know what’s happening in the world, stay current with technology, and have friends of all ages.
We get involved, stay curious, mentor others, are passionate, compassionate, creative, confident, collaborative, global-minded, risk takers who continue to push up against our growing edge and know how to hustle.
We comprise an inclusive, enduring mindset, not a divisive demographic. Perennials are also vectors who have a wide appeal and spread ideas and commerce faster than any single generation.
Lady Gaga + Tony Bennett, Lena Dunham + Jenni Konner, Beyoncé + Jay-Z, Bob Dylan, Jimmy Fallon, Pharrell Williams, Justin Trudeau, Ellen DeGeneres, Malala, Sheryl Sandberg, Mick Jagger, Michelle Obama, Emma Watson, Elon Musk, Bernie Sanders, Diane Von Furstenberg, Lorne Michaels, Ai Weiwei, John Oliver, Aziz Ansari, the little girl on Stranger Things … #Perennials
The Millennial Cliché.
If you are older than 36, the upper limit of Millennial age, chances are you’ve done your fair share of trash talking about this generation. I’m a culprit. But, I stopped cold once I remembered I was far worse back in my day. My partner Amy and I began our careers in the dot com biz when the internet was as fledgling as our ability to run a startup on angel funding. Amy was 27. I was 32. My accountant-trained parents asked how my company was going to pay back the million dollars I raised from investors. I said, verbatim, into my Motorola StarTAC, “Earned revenue is very 20th Century thinking, Dad. It’s all about eyeballs right now. You wouldn’t understand.” At least, Millennials can’t stand their moniker and are even harsher critics when it comes to judging their contemporaries, so why rub it in? It’s time we rewire our collective Pavlovian response, Millennials = entitlement, and find the overlap between all ages.
The term generation used to refer to parents and their offspring every 25 years. It wasn’t until the 19th Century that it mutated to describe the social cohort we are born into. The Baby Boomers (1946–1964) are the first and only officially recognized generation by the Census Bureau because of its clearly defined characteristics. Leap forward to 1991 in Generations by Strauss & Howe and the moniker Millennial is coined. It took another decade for marketers and the media to up-spin Millennials, whose birth years fall within the range of 1982-2004 as “the next greatest generation” and begin focusing all their efforts to woo these limelit consumers, voters, and likers. As for the rest, born before 1982, well, the rest is history … irrelevant and in the past.
Tolerance feels unattainable when there are hard lines drawn between decades, and terms like Boomers, GenX, and GenY keep us separate and at odds. The media’s adoring gaze is focused solely on the Millennial timeline and it’s light’s out for everyone else. In a recent article in the ABA Banking Journal it’s suggested, in fact, that:
“attitudes and habits that are widely thought to be millennial-specific may actually be quite widespread among the general population.”
I spent the past year ruminating on an appropriate sobriquet to describe a set of people based on psychographics not demographics that would include Millennials, as well as people of all ages. I began floating the term Relevants to see if it stuck until a wise New York Times journalist pointed out that saying “I’m a Relevant,” could be misheard as “I’m Irrelevant.” So, I turned to my husband Dave, the dude who writes NextDraft and king of catchy headlines. He was dozing off next me on an airplane, “I got it,” he said, “You should call them Perennials.” I quickly searched all definitions of perennial: enduring, perpetual, ever-lasting, recurrent, ever-blooming. Thus, Perennials was born.
Netflix and chill.
It’s time we chose our own category based on shared values and passions and break out of the faux constructs behind an age-based system of classification. By identifying ourselves as Perennials, we supplant our constricting label with something that better reflects our reality online and off. Amazon and Netflix get it right with recommendation engines that target people based on behavioral data over outmoded generational stereotypes, so why shouldn’t we?
In the ancient academic tradition, on Tuesday (18 April 2017) the School of Thinking bestowed an Honorary Doctor of Lateral Thinking to recognise and thank Nigel Gaunt for his long and generous support over 30 years. Nigel, literally, put the School of Thinking on the Australian map!
He was the man behind the inauguration ceremony of the School in Australia, in Canberra in 1988, where Nigel thoughtfully arranged for both the Governor-General and the Prime Minister to attend. On that historic occasion the idea of Australia as “The Clever Country” was initiated.
The traditional degree is Honoris Causa, which is to say an Honorary Degree, and his citation read:
... in recognition of his foundational assistance during the establishment of the School in Australia in 1988 with the Clever Country initiative and his sustained support for thirty years.
Most sales and service organizations have invested more time and effort in the past five years in improving managers’ coaching of reps than they did in the previous 50. This makes perfect sense: research by the Sales Executive Council shows that no other productivity investment comes close to coaching in improving reps’ performance.
But not all reps who get coached, even by good coaches, do better. In fact, our research shows that coaching is almost worthless when it targets the wrong reps. And our work suggests that management targets the wrong reps all the time.
Left to their own devices, sales managers often skew their coaching efforts dramatically toward the “tails” — the very best and the very worst reps on their team.
They engage with poor reps because they feel they must in order to meet territory goals, and they work with their best reps because, well, it’s fun. Few managers can resist the lure of reliving their glory days by passing along their wisdom to the one or two reps who remind them most of their younger selves. To combat managers’ tendency to coach just laggards and leaders, companies implement elaborate systems to allocate coaching equally across the sales force. They imagine that “all boats will rise” as a result.
Unfortunately, our data show that both managers’ coaching tendencies, and companies’ response, are misguided. In research involving thousands of reps, we found that coaching — even world-class coaching — has a marginal impact on either the weakest or the strongest performers in the sales organization. You’d think that coaching the lowest performers would pay off because they have nowhere to go but up. Actually, that’s often not true, particularly for the bottom 10%. These reps, we’ve found, are less likely to be underperformers who can improve, and more likely to be a bad fit for the role altogether. That’s not a really something coaching can fix. It’s likely a different kind of conversation altogether (often involving HR).
Likewise, star-performing reps show virtually no performance improvement due to coaching either. While our research shows that there are some important retention benefits from coaching your high performers, it would be nice to think that great coaching (especially from former high-performers) makes your stars just a little more stellar. But that’s just not the case.
The real payoff from good coaching lies among the middle 60% — your core performers.
For this group, the best-quality coaching can improve performance up to 19%.* In fact, even moderate improvement in coaching quality — simply from below to above average — can mean a six to eight percent increase in performance across 50% of your sales force. Often as not, that makes the difference between hitting or missing goals.
At the end of the day, who your managers coach is just as important as how they coach. The data clearly suggest that organizations should do away with coaching democratically and instead shift the majority of their coaching focus away from low and star performers and towards the core.
This may be a hard pill to swallow. Despite the evidence, we find that this recommendation doesn’t sit well with all sales leaders or sales managers. Sales leaders argue that coaching should be delivered in an egalitarian fashion and balk at the notion of targeting coaching by performance level. Managers are quick to point to their own success turning around low performers through intensive one-on-one coaching. Several years after we first unveiled it, this finding continues to be a white-hot topic of debates among sales leaders.
How does coaching work in your sales organization? Is it democratic, targeted, or just non-existent?
*In our research, we defined “performance” as a rep’s gap to goal (i.e., percentage of quota attained).
Matthew Dixon is Managing Director of the Corporate Executive Board’s Sales and Service Practice, Brent Adamson is Senior Director of the Sales Executive Council, a division of the Sales and Service Practice.
A philosopher’s lifelong quest to understand the making of the mind.