Telling It Like It Is

THE ENTERPRISE--SPECIAL EDITION—A Contrarian Perspective

THE ENTERPRISE--SPECIAL EDITION—A Contrarian Perspective

Evening things up.   This is the first of what became a heated exchange of email between myself and a reader who is almost diametrically opposed to my political views.   But after some soul-searching, I concluded...this is America...where diversity of thought and opinion can be debated, and if done positively, can lead to better solutions than either side alone would arrive at.

My evidence is the past 6 years of Bush's where a single party was essentially in the controlling position...but not only didn't accomplish much, but managed to do some things so poorly that even many good incumbents were not re-elected.   I don't agree with what this writer contends in many cases, and since our later emails got a bit nasty, I won't share those with readers.  This one...is worth reading...whether you agree or disagree.

Perhaps I can practice some bi-partisanship to help set an example...and while I'm at it, set the record straight on Obama's religious affiliation.  Who are we to question exactly whose faith got it so right that no one can believe in something else.  Perhaps drawing the line at Islamic beliefs about killing the infidels (that's us)  is where I feel more comfortable. 

NOTE;  THIS IS AN EDITED EXCERPT FROM A LONGER EMAIL

----------------
John-

In your last enterprise blog you mentioned this (why do people fear this more than Obama's Muslim and Black Methodist religious roots??). Where did you pull this from? His father was a Black African who was a Muslim but left the family when Obama was 2 and didn't have contact with Obama after that except for one time when he was 10....His father had become an athiest before he met his Mother, before Obama was born. Obama was never Muslim nor did his father influence him. He attended both Catholic and Muslim schools while he lived in Indonesia but he never practiced either faith nor was he a member of the Catholic Church or the Muslim faith. He was 6 when he first went to a Muslim school and left that for a Catholic School at age 8. Why don't you say that he has Catholic roots? Interesting how you pick and choose......Obama's mother was a skeptic of organized religion and his Grandparents on his mother's side were a non-practicing Baptist and a non-practicing Methodist. Where do you get the Black Methodist roots? That's simply not true. There have been many inaccurate accounts about Obama and his faith on conservative Republican websites and blogs. Is that where you got your information?  When Barack had his calling to faith he joined a United Church of Christ congregation on the South Side of Chicago. I am a white UCC member and have attended services there. It's an Afro-centric Church and I was warmly welcomed as a "brother". The minister and congregation expressed beliefs and ideas that I've grown up with in the UCC. With the congregation being about 98% black, the ministry speaks to the people they are ministering to. But they aren't exclusionary in any way. They don't care what color you are when you walk through their doors. If you're purple and want to worship at Trinity United Church of Christ, they will welcome you. But it IS a predominately black church on the South Side of Chicago.....they ARE going to address the issues that most of the people in the congregation face. With the UCC's long time commitment to Social Justice, it's not surprising that they address the issues of being black in America and the African Diaspora. I've felt completely comfortable at TUCC when I've attended. I'm more inclined to go to Black churches as there is a passion and physical element to the worship that gives me a fuller experience of the spirit. I find most predominately white churches very "dry" and "stiff". But that's my only worship preference. Anyway, why did you misrepresent Barack Obama's faith? I know you're a Republican but why stoop to Bill O'Reilly's methods of misinformation? Or maybe you just didn't know?? Whatever the case, it's always good to get it right when you talk about a Presidential Candidate's faith. For Obama, that's the United Church of Christ. Say what you will about the UCC, it's very liberal....you won't find many Republicans there. As it is a Christian organization, it is against killing and against War and did not support George W. Bush in 2000 or 2004. I'm a UCC member and grew up with that sense of morality and Social Justice. I admire that a great deal in Barack Obama. In watching him grow in Illinois state politics, I very much saw a leader of men. I've had the opportunity to speak with Barack on several occasions and he is a wonderful human being who embraces the struggle of being human. He's a good man.

You might want to read this article....written by Obama....that describes his journey to faith in much more detail than my account.

<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546298,00.html>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546298,00.html

As a Junior Senator, I've seen him respectfully defer to more experienced Senators unless he feels it imperative to lead on an issue. He's not afraid to learn. He's not afraid to admit when he's wrong....but also not afraid to take credit for his accomplishments. It's very early in the race and he's becoming more comfortable on the stage with more experienced folks running for the Democratic nomination. When it really matters, he will find his way in the debates and come off as "Presidential". One of the best things about him is you won't find skeletons in his closet. Whatever "skeletons" he had, he's let them out in public disclosures. Obama is a very good man and should be represented accurately. That includes his faith.....

That said.....Obama isn't my candidate. I think he will be in 8 years. I did donate $25 bucks to his campaign earlier....and that has come back to haunt me! Despite writing a letter to the campaign offices telling them not to send me letters or e-mails asking for donations.....I keep getting them!! Annoying as hell! My issue with Obama concerns health care, Israel and a few issues with some of his courting of Corporate America on certain things. I will not support anyone who does not have Universal Health Care on their platform. I don't like Obama's solution. I am a Democratic Socialist so I'm pretty far to the left when it comes to American politics. It makes me laugh when I hear someone describe Barack as "extremely liberal" or "very liberal", etc.....I think he's just a little bit left of center as a politician. That's my issue with him. I think he is personally much more liberal but knows that won't float in American Politics as a "newcomer". Al Gore might be the only one to get away with it right now. His liberal beliefs are well known and I like that he embraces being a Liberal with a capital L. I don't think Al will run in 2008. I think he knows he might be able to do more as an outsider than he could do within the system. I don't know. That's my impression right now, though. Maybe he'll run. If he does, I think he'll get the Democratic nomination.

It may not seem like it....but I like reading your blog. It provokes thought. I don't agree with your politics but that doesn't really matter. The monologue is interesting to follow.

Just get it right when it comes to Obama's history of faith!

Peace,


"TN"  (Complete name Withheld (by me) in deference to the writer


---------------------

OK, there you go.  Like it or not, it is how at least one (and perhaps many) Americans feel and believe.  This land is a "melting pot," so let's hear all sides that are passionate, and when needed to set the record straight.    Oh, by the way, please don't attack me for what the writer said...I just copied and pasted it.  (As I said, I already got into a heated exchange with him.)

Best, John

THE ENTERPRISE-Innovatiion vs. Complexity

THE ENTERPRISE

BOOK UPDATE:  My latest book is midway in the publishing process. THE COMPLEXITY CRISIS—Why Too Many Products, Customers & Markets Are Crippling Companies & Destroying Profits-And What You Can Do About It.  I have seen the cover design in a near final form and the copy edit is done, too.  Next come the actual galleys of the typeset, in which I will have to read my own stuff for the umpteenth time (UGH).  The target is to have the book produced late this year for distribution early in 2008.  More updates as progress continues.

BUT...as time goes on, the "crisis" I describe in the book gets worse and worse.  Companies all over the world struggle to achieve top line revenue growth and in doing so (often with the best of intentions) proliferate almost everything, to little avail.  Worst of all, current accounting systems simply fail to track the hidden costs of complexity.  These costs pile up in places that are usually not product or customer specific, and thus never get attributed to the causes--at least until it's too late.  The result is that the top line may grow, but the bottom line doesn't—in fact, it often goes down.  OUCH!  That wasn't what was intended or desired.

In spite of this complexity crisis, companies must continue to innovate if they are to grow and prosper.  The question is how, and particularly, how to do it without worsening complexity.  To that end, I am reproducing the draft of an article I wrote recently dealing with that topic.  I hope it is useful and spurs some feedback, new ideas, other examples, etc.

DRAFT
INNOVATION IN AN AGE OF COMPLEXITY
©John L. Mariotti 2007

CHOICES ARE INCREASING FASTER THAN EVER
We live in increasingly complex times.  The choices available to most societies are overwhelming.  Do we really need two hundred varieties of cookies and crackers in the neighborhood supermarket?  How many ways can a few brands combine the same 5-6 over-the-counter medications for allergies, congestion, cough, cold symptoms and pain/fever control?  The answer is “a nearly infinite number.”  Then there are the “delivery systems.”  Do you want gel caps, or liquid filled gel-caps, tablets or liquids, chewable or timed-release, or how about a transdermal patch?

The number of models offered by cell phone makers is not even computable.  It changes too fast.  The number of autos, not even counting variations within a model is exploding.  Consumer Reports devotes an entire issue to autos.  The 2006 issue has listings of 6 “vehicle profiles” per page (e.g., Acura has 6 listed, Audi has 5, but this doesn't include variants due to trim, engines, features, etc.)  The list starts on page 40 and ends on page 78, thus using 39 pages, to “evaluate” 234 different vehicles.  The 2007 issue changed format to show 8 vehicles per page, starting on page 46 (which also contains “What the Info Means”) and ending on page 78.  The page count is down to 33, but the car count is up 10% to 258.  If the number of option, trim and engine variations were counted the explosion of choices grows even faster.

TOP LINE GROWTH IS ELUSIVE
Every company I talk to or read about is struggling to achieve “top line sales growth.”  Why?  Because I mostly encounter companies from within the US, where growth is low-population growth at 3%/year-about the same as growth in Gross Domestic Product.  However, as I study other markets, I find the same consistent pattern of low growth where there is high per capita income (and high growth where there is low per capita income). In many mature product categories, saturation is occurring.  Some folks have all the “stuff” they need or want, especially since quality improvements of the late 20th century made things work better and last longer.  In Less Developed Countries, market growth is greater.  China's economy is growing at around 10% per year, and India's growth rate is not far behind, but per capita income is significantly lower.  Thus, while there is growth, there is not commensurate spending until earnings and disposable income catches up.

So what do we do?” ask management everywhere.  “Innovate,” comes the answer.  “But how?”  Simply creating new versions of older products just adds to the complexity as the existing sales are spread across more and more varieties, creating an even more confusing array of choices.  This complexity costs money, adding all kinds of hidden costs:  inventory obsolescence, more overhead, increased administrative costs, higher transaction costs, overloaded information systems, added facility costs, increased logistical costs, and the costs to create, document and maintain new items, customers, etc. and on and on.  The most common form of costly, unproductive “innovation” is more suitably described as rampant proliferation of everything: products, customers, markets, models, services, locations, facilities, etc.  Thus the gauntlet is thrown down:  how to innovate in a time of great complexity, without creating even greater complexity.

INNOVATION IS ABOUT CHOICES
The first key to innovation, especially when the goal is to do it without creating more complexity is to get rid of the “losers.”  This means “losers” in any category you might describe:  products, models, customers, markets, facilities, locations and so forth.  This process is both useful and instructive because it identifies the types of products, customers, etc. that fail to contribute to profitability or actually undermine it.  It also “makes room” for the addition of new items, distribution, etc. without increasing the complexity of the business.

INNOVATION'S FIVE RULES
There are some rules about “Innovation” that should be carefully observed.  First: simple creativity is not innovation.  Brainstorming sessions may yield many interesting ideas, but until someone converts them to commercializable products, services, etc. they are simply that; “interesting ideas.”  Once these ideas have been evaluated, considered, converted to a commercially viable product or service, and marketed successfully, then and only then, has there been true innovation.

Second: innovating successfully means meeting some unmet need, or meeting some recognized need in a better, more effective or higher value way.  Since value is defined as function plus esteem per unit cost, an innovation must either be better, cheaper or more desirable.  When it is, it has what one of my former employers, Rubbermaid (in its good days) called a “Compelling Competitive Advantage” or a shortened way of saying it, a CCA.

Third: A CCA must create an edge in value.  Perhaps it is a narrow edge (like New, Improved Tide®-a detergent that has been truly improved many times over its long and successful life), and perhaps it is a wide edge one (like the Swiffer®, which filled the role of a rag, a dust cloth, a mops and an assortment of other cleaning devices in a better, more convenient way).  Sometimes the CCA is just enough of an advantage that it is the “tie-breaker” when many of the value elements of two products seem nearly equal, or are difficult to perceive at the point of purchase (like Tide).  At other times, the CCA is clearly understandable and can be readily perceived in the store (like the Swiffer).  In both cases another part of innovation was used to signal consumers about the value proposition-a brand.

Fourth: a brand is a promise made to the customer that the product or service will provide a predictable and reliable package of value.   It represents a relationship between the maker and the user, which is based on trust and experience.  Strong brands always stand up to the test.  Consider the legendary case of tainted Tylenol capsules.  The maker, Johnson & Johnson acted immediately to remove the product from the shelves.  In doing so, it protected a brand, which has grown to be the signal of trustworthiness to billions of purchasers.

Fifth: innovations are not limited to just products.  Services offer great innovation opportunities.  FedEx was never even imagined to be necessary until Fred Smith initiated the service, and over time, made it an indispensable part of our times.  FedEx's initial slogan was brilliant in communicating its promise:  “When it absolutely, positively has to be there on time.”  For another example, consider why anyone would pay 5-10 times as much for lettuce that had been chopped and bagged in ready to serve quantities?  Because they were busy, and this saved them time-and time is a perishable asset, which can never be replaced once it is gone.  But the price premium for convenience was a timesaving, innovative idea that spawned a multi-billion dollar market. Products and services can be bundled to yield another innovation advantage.   The cellular telephone field is one place where this commonly occurs.

INNOVATIONS CAN ADD COMPLEXITY--ACCEPTABLY
Sometimes innovations that add complexity are worthwhile because they serve market trends.  Subway sandwich shops expanded its assortment of “breads” and then added a “wrap” to serve flavor or health conscious consumers.  Salty snack maker Frito-Lay introduced miniature Doritos® in 100 calorie packs, to serve the incurable snackers who were low on will power but willing to pay extra for portion management.

Other innovations thrive on complexity by adding functionality, style, colors, cachet and a funky trendiness.  Consider Crocs®, the injection molded, surprisingly comfortable footwear that is not pretty, but comes in a rainbow of colors.  Crocs are not affected by water or body oils, fit comfortably and now have even spawned a an accessory market selling stylish little snap-on buttons for adornment.  This product is highly profitable because of its low manufacturing cost and simplicity, enabled by its proprietary resin material.  This permits selling a wide variety and still remaining profitable, after accounting for complexity.  Even then, there are some colors and styles that flop (pun intended) and must be quickly discontinued.

THE MARKETPLACE IS THE TRUTH TELLER
In each case, there is one over-arching rule that must be followed.  Even the most brilliant innovation must pass one crucial test to avoid adding crippling complexity.  It must sell!  And it must sell in enough volume to justify pushing some less productive items off the bottom of the list and into oblivion.

No one can fool the marketplace for long.  It is the relentless truth teller and the arbiter of value.  Get the innovation right, and it sells, profitably.  Control the complexity and there is more room for innovation. Finally, remember that above all, innovation means commercializing good ideas that can be converted to offer the best value of all.  In the end, the best value wins.

After several editions of THE ENTERPRISE dwelling on political or general interest topics, I thought it might be a welcome change to get back to the topic of managing better.  Somehow, the fundamentals of management get overlooked too often, and the further away from the fundamentals we venture, the murkier things become. 

Business is actually pretty simple.  It's the people and proliferation of situations that make it complicated.  Over the months between now and the time my book is released into distribution, I will deal with several more of the issues that arise as complexity is revealed, addressed and eliminated.

Best, John

THE ENTERPRISE--Surprising-NOT

THE ENTERPRISE

Parental Discretion is advised.  Be prepared.  Some people will be offended at the content.  (Others will  love it.)

SURPRISING?
The US Economy seems to be holding up--surprising in many respects:  employment is surprisingly strong in spite of the housing dip; manufacturing and services indices are surprisingly trending up;  so, surprisingly, is consumer confidence.  gas prices have (surprisingly) eased a little; international economies are strong (no surprise), and the dollar remains weak (vacation in the US this year!)  We are so lucky.  I wonder how long our luck will hold out.

NOT SURPRISING--no. 1
Our nation's leaders are still fumbling and stumbling.  Reid and Pelosi are being exposed daily as not up to the task.  Bush's miscues are many.  No clear winners in either party's candidate "gangs" have emerged.  America's global leadership is perceived as weak, conflicted and ineffectual--AND THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT GOOD.  Who suffers?  The majority of the people--the citizens.

ACTION PLAN:  Find new leaders.  Elect them.  Throw out the pretenders.  Quit hanging old laundry on new lines.  Choose good leaders who will lead, take action and stand accountable, regardless of party affiliation.  In the short time (6 mo.) the Democrats have controlled the government, they are showing the same problems, perhaps worse ones than their predecessors.  Nancy Pelosi cannot maintain any kind of party unity or party line.  Harry Reid is a joke--even among his colleagues.  Bush will be replaced at the end of 2008.  So should these two be replaced.  The likelihood of this is lower if the Democrats sweep again in 2008, but stranger things have happened in 16 months before the election.  Even if the Dems win, new Congressional leaders are imperative.  Younger, more moderate and more principled.

Go see this site:  http://realclearpolitics.com/polls/  The poll strength of Barack Obama and Fred Thompson--both relatively untested newcomers (Thompson not even a declared candidate) signals the desperation Americans feel as they look for new leaders.  We must look very hard at who we choose.  Harder than ever before.

NOT SURPRISING--no. 2
The Middle East is a mess--Iran's leaders are radically unpredictable while it's populace, heavily a new, younger generation (2/3 of its 70 million people are under 30 years of age) just wants to live like most of the rest of the civilized world.    Palestine and Israel keep fighting each other and now within Palestine, Fatah and Hamas are fighting for control of that tiny country.  Who suffers?  The majority of the people--the citizens.  This kind of stuff has been going on for centuries--and will keep going on.  We need to stay the hell out of it unless Israel's existence is in danger--then, maybe we get in.

The Iraq situation is,depending on what you read, making progress, or not, and certainly not fast enough for the "cut and run" bunch.  We fret over arms flowing into Iraq across its borders and we cannot even muster enough will, planning and direction to control the immigrants flowing illegally across our own borders.  We worry about the Mexico border, but the Canadian border is longer and easily more porous because of it length.  Bush is wrong!  The immigration bill in the Senate now is an abortion.  it needs massive rework or they need to start over.  (If Ted Kennedy likes it--I don't--and you won't, unless you are a labor leader, a government bureaucrat, or an illegal alien.)

ACTION PLAN:  "Tend to our own knitting."  Quit traipsing around the world, with our pocketbook open trying to solve or intervene in every problem.  Who named us the world's leading "fixer" and "financer" of injustice.  We can't even fix our own messes.  We don't need to "pull out" on a wholesale basis in Iraq, but we do need to pull back and regroup, rethink and re-task what is going on there.  WE NEED TO RE-FORM A MUCH LARGER PART OF OUR ARMED FORCES INTO SPECIAL FORCES AND USE COVERT ACTIONS AS THEIR PRIMARY MISSIONS.   

To do that, we need to quit "baby sitting" (and funding) the Iraqis sectarian fighting and tell them to grow up and take care of their own cities and countries.  We need to focus on al Qaeda's hand in it and viciously strike at that target.  Then we can re-deploy our forces to act more like the insurgents do.  Quit massing-up and being easy targets.   Example:  If we are worried about Iran's nuclear facilities, we should not take them out with massive air strikes.  too blatant and obvious.  We should do it with clandestine operations--quietly, secretly and soon.  That takes manpower and money and too much of it has gone to supporting corrupt and inept Iraqi efforts.  Because we took down Saddam Hussein and his brutal, murderous regime doesn't mean we have to rebuild and baby sit their country indefinitely.   

(Because we let Osama bin Laden get away once doesn't mean we shouldn't be combing the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan and there, if necessary, use whatever air power we can bring to bear on his camps.)

Colin Powell stated Iraq as the Pottery Barn problem:  "you break it, you bought it."  OK.  We broke it.  We have not bought it and paid for it.  But if you sweep up the breakage once or twice, and someone else comes in and makes a new mess, then it is Pottery Barn's problem.  Get it?  (We proved this in Anbar province of Iraq.)  And by the way, it is fine--no it is mandatory--to cut off any sort of money flowing into rogue nations like Iran, and North Korea regardless of the circuitous route of investment it takes in getting there.  Cut them off until they start acting responsibly (which will be never).

CLOBBER THE GAS GUZZLERS
Congress needs to tell the failing "Detroit dinosaurs" to send their lobbyists home.  Raise the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) regulations by at least 1--2 MPG starting with next year's models.  Make these apply to cars and light trucks.  Close the loopholes.  DEMAND COMPLIANCE TO REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON THE MIDDLE EASTERN AND HUGO CHAVEZ' VENEZUELAN OIL.  If models must be dropped from the line to meet the standards, so be it.

OUTLAW INCANDESCENT BULBS
We are wasting our time and money rushing to drive High Definition TV into our country--why--so we have to replace millions of TV sets or retrofit them, and the TV makers and their affiliates sell us new sets and boxes.  Nonsense.  Set a phase out for incandescent light bulbs on a phased basis such that in 3 years, no more will be sold except for special applications where compact fluorescent and LED lighting is not yet technologically ready.  (High intensity flood lights, dimmable specialty bulbs, etc.  That will save a huge amount of energy and the manufacturers will rush to fill the void with new products--but not so we can see the wrinkles in a 40-year old actor's face more clearly.

OK--I GOT THAT OFF MY CHEST.   

I WATCHED THE US OPEN PLAYED ON WHAT SOME CALLED AN UNREASONABLY DIFFICULT GOLF COURSE.  YOU KNOW WHAT?  LIFE IS UNREASONABLY DIFFICULT TOO.  WE HAVE TO LEARN TO DEAL WITH IT.  THE BEST GOLFERS IN THE WORLD DID--NOTE THAT TIGER WOODS AND JIM FURYK FINISHED 2ND AND 3RD TO ANGEL CABRERA'S OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE.

Enjoy the start of summer and give those elected officials hell.  We deserve better!

Best,  John.

P.S. A personal note on "difficulty."   If all goes as planned, I will take my 20 handicap (& two 18-hole outings in the past 2 years to Oakmont to play a round later this month.  "Play" may be the wrong word, but just standing on that historic ground and attempting to get the ball on the green--and have it stay there--will be a great achievement over difficulty.  And I AM taking my driver (it has the longest shaft which will be useful for measuring how far from a terrible place I can drop my ball--into a slightly less vexing place.)

THE ENTERPRISE--A Three Horse Race

THE ENTERPRISE

GOOD THINGS THAT HAPPENED THIS WEEK
--Patty Sheehan decided to go back to being a mother of her remaining children. 
--Paris Hilton got sent wailing back to jail by an outraged judge. 
--The Cleveland Cavaliers made the NBA Finals. 
--Ben Bernanke clarified that the Fed doesn't intend to meddle with interest rates near term. 
--Some positive retail results showed up--albeit Wal-Mart is not among them.   The behemoth is suffering from self-inflicted wounds.  For the past ten years, I have been asked repeatedly "who can stop Wal-Mart?"  My answer has been, consistently, "Only Wal-Mart can stop Wal-Mart--and someday, it will."

A THREE HORSE RACE--
We now have three good, viable Republican candidates emerging:
--Rudy Guiliani, who is arguably the toughest, most centrist of the three, with a track record of "fixing NYC" but with personal baggage and the specific NON-support of the Christian right.  He'd my choice if leading us against terrorism is the number one priority BUT...will the GOP nominate him, and will the Christian right support him--possibly not?  No matter how strong and effective a leader he is, he must first get nominated, and then be elected.   Neither one is a "gimme" right now.  If I had to choose a leader to fight terrorism--Rudy would be a good one.

--Mitt Romney, who is arguably the best qualified all around candidate--smart, successful, articulate, a proven leader in 3 different settings (Chairman of the 2002 SLC Olympics, Founder of Bain Capital and Massachusetts Gov.), and he is "Presidential" in bearing.  His problems:  he is a Mormon (why do people fear this more than Obama's Muslim and Black Methodist religious roots??), and he has been a nationally 3rd ranked candidate for a long time now (BUT he is the polls leader in the early primary states of Iowa  & NH).  If America could get over John Kennedy's Catholic faith, can it get over Mitt Romney's Mormon faith? And Mitt is a family man, still with his first wife!  If I had to choose a leader to lead the US to a brighter and better future, Mitt would be a good one.

--Fred Thompson, who is the "celebrity candidate" and an articulate, a former Senator and high level lawyer, and a very engaging speaker.  He is also Presidential in bearing, but has far less leadership experience than either of the other two.  Since America doesn't vote with its head, it votes with its heart and emotions, Fred may be a strong candidate, and is at least as qualified or more qualified than the three Democratic candidates.  The question with Fred is how passionate and  committed he is to getting (first) nominated and (second) elected.  His divorce seems to be less of an issue than Rudy's two!  If I had to choose a candidate that could clearly win a TV face-off with Hillary and Barack, Fred would be the guy.

--John McCain needs to gracefully pull back and become the "elder statesman" of the Senate whether it is a Republican or (more likely) a Democratic majority.  McCain is the antidote to mistakes like Harry Reid.  He is a fine man, a great American, but his age and position in the race are working strongly against him being the candidate that emerges victorious.

The Democrats have a 2, 3, or 4 way possibility.  Obama is catching Hillary.  This proves you don't need  content or leadership experience to run for President--you just need to be smart, smooth and quick on your mental feet.  Governing, I fear, requires a very different skill set.  Hillary is still Hillary--love her or hate her...  and then there is the "pretty Pony" John Edwards and the Democratic counterpoint to Newt Gingrich..."policy Wonk", quasi-intellectual and "almost the next President" Al Gore.

Anyone who doesn't see the strength and advantage of the GOP slate of prospects has not done enough homework.  Please do some homework and feel free to offer your feedback.

I have a whole pile of other, serious things to rant about, but sometimes, it's better to stop and smell the roses and smile (or laugh out loud).  So, check this out.

HOW ABOUT A LITTLE HUMOR?
Life is so serious, how about a list of words that might make you grin...or grimace.  The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational once again asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by changing one letter, and supply a new definition. Here are this year's winners.  Read them carefully. Each is an artificial word with only one letter altered to form a real word. Some are terrifically innovative.

Some are cute, others are downright hilarious.

1. Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
2. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
3. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people, that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The Bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
4. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
5. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high.
6. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
7. Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running  late.
8. Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
9. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
10. Karmageddon: It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.
11. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.
12. Glibido: All talk and no action.
13. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
14. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.
15. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
16. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.

And, the pick of the lot...
17. Ignoranus: A person who's both stupid and an asshole.

After that one, there is nothing left to say but,  "enjoy the start of summer :-))."

Best, John

THE ENTERPRISE--Get out there and learn, adapt, succeeed.

THE ENTERPRISE

WHEN A PRESIDENT GOES OFF TRACK
George W. Bush is arguably one of the most vilified and disliked Presidents in US history--at home and abroad both.  I am a firm believer in the fact that the President has to do "what is right" whether it is popular or not.  Unfortunately, on the way to attempting to "do what's right" Bush and his administration has either done it wrong, botched the execution or operated on flawed information which led to further miscues.  I have no idea what he is thinking about in supporting this ridiculous (Ted Kennedy inspired) immigration bill.  If he is not careful, he could be the first US President who is impeached at the initiative of his own party.   Note that none of the Republican candidates want any association with a man who should be a great political ally--a sitting incumbent president.   It is getting that bad. 

NATURE IS A GREAT METAPHOR--OF CHANGE, SURVIVAL AND EXTINCTION
The dinosaurs once ruled the earth.  Then something happened; an asteroid strike; massive climate change, and who knows what else (I'm old, but not that old--this was billions of years ago.)  In business, Sears was the dominant retailer in America in the 1970's.  Kmart was king in the 1980's.  Since then Wal*Mart was invincible, until it  got the disease of bigness and the "mid-life crisis" as Business Week called it.   Hom Depot could  do no wrong--it seemed--until it did; it's flaws have been well publicized and its growth arrested by mismanagement.   And now Lowe's has discovered that when you get very large, it's much harder to grow as rapidly or to make moves as nimbly; and being big doesn't make you smarter or better!

IBM computers were once indispensable; no more; now IBM is a systems/solution/service company.   Remember Pan Am and TWA?  Gone, to be replaced by Southwest and a gaggle of smaller upstarts, all of which served customers better, cheaper and more responsively.    Dell's "make to order" model was golden as it kicked Compaq at every opportunity.   But that was then, and this is now.  Now HP, the company that bought Compaq, is kicking Dell around.    It just took some time for HP to get a real operator in the CEO spot, and for Dell to rely too long on an old way of competing.  Remember when Apple was everybody's favorite quaint, quirky little computer company--until Steve Jobs came back and finished what he started.  Now it is fast becoming a design and consumer product innovation leader, and its market share (and profit) is growing nicely.  Intel wouldn't consider AMD as a real competitor--until it became a formidable one.    By the time the incumbents realize it, it's too late.

Enron had business magic trading in commodities and ...smoke and mirrors, it turns out. Global Crossing and Qwest would circle the globe with optical fiber and own the airwaves.  WorldCom could even buy the ailing MCI and turn it around (on paper that is).  The  list of dot-coms and tel-coms that went from the pinnacle to the bone-pile, would be even more astounding.  So many business writers have had to practice some revisionist writing to correct for the glowing praise heaped on these companies in their glory days.  You see, what looks good at one time, may not look very good at all when circumstances have changed, or all the facts are revealed.

SHIFTING SHAPE OF THE WORLD, POLITICS, MARKETS, ETC.
Where am I going with all this?  Here's where.  Everything goes in cycles. Life has cycles, as older generations die and are replaced by new ones.  Economics has cycles too.  Everybody starts eating beef, so cattle ranchers raise more cattle to make more money, which drives down the price and everyone makes less money while consumers of beef lower prices.  Democrats hold all the top government offices until they fall to the arrogance, hubris and power-mongering and get thrown out. (Remember New Gingrich's Contract with America and the 1994 mid-term elections in which the GOP swept into power.)  The GOP held both Houses of Congress and the White House, circa 2004.   What a great opportunity to get a lot of important work done.  Did they?  Hell, no.   Same problem.  Power hoarding, hubris, insular thinking, arrogance and mismanagement.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT THIS?
First recognize it.  This happens over and over, and some of it is inevitable, but part of it is preventable--caused by errors in behavior and human nature.  Compare GM and Procter & Gamble.   Both were behemoths and industry leaders over decades of the twentieth century.  One still is; the other is struggling mightily.  Why?  Management, leadership, culture, execution, brand management, and innovation.   I read once that the average life span of a US company was between 40-50 years.  I bet it is shorter than that now.  Everything accelerates.  Change keeps coming in waves and cycles.  The Internet, Globalization, fiber optics and Wi-Fi, and finally, the fall of Communism and the rise of radical Islam as vehement opponents of the democratic, federalist, capitalistic society that we think is best.

KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN AND YOUR MOUTH SHUT
The key to long term success over sustained periods of time is to observe how the shape of things is constantly shifting.  In business, it is what customers consider to be the best value--now--and NEXT.  In my short life span, I recall 78 RPM, 45 RPM, 33 1/3 RPM music records, video-discs, 8-track and audio/video cassette tapes, Beta vs. VHS, CDs, DVDs and now iTunes and WiFi.  Becoming too wedded for too long, to any of these technologies, was a fatal error.  Moving too soon to a new, as yet unresolved technology is also a problem.  (i.e., Blu-Ray vs. HD DVDs)   Which will evolve as the standard and winner?  Or will either really be a large enough improvement to avert being replaced by yet another media method (wireless transmission and flash memory storage?)

WHAT'S THE POINT?  WILL WE EVER GET IT RIGHT?
Sure.   Just follow the bouncing ball (as the old sing-g-longs used to say).  But keep your eye on the ball.  Get out of the office and into the field where the action is--and listen, and look.  I am amazed at how few consumer product CEOs actually take their staff shopping to see what's up out there where the action is.  People often said to me, "How can you find time with all the meetings to walk around the factory/offices talking to the people and to customers?"  My reply was "How do you find time for all those meetings when you know you should be out there among the people and where the action is?"  And yet, year after year, decade after decade, the same mistakes are repeated.  Stay in your offices, hold meeting with your close confidants and staff and you get--what the Bush administration got--insular thought, brilliant plans based on flawed information, and lousy results without a clue about how to do better.

SEEK FIRST TO UNDERSTAND, THEN BE UNDERSTOOD. (One of Covey's 7 Habits)
1)  Get in the minds of employees, customers, suppliers and constituents and understand how they think, what they think and what is happening in their world.  That is the mirror of your world.
2)  Build a culture of involvement, collaboration, curiosity, interaction, openness and of positive determination to keep shifting as circumstances, needs, competition,  technology keeps shifting and changing and morphing--and you, and your culture, and your teammates must be constantly shifting, adjusting, adapting and then capitalizing on the changes. In other words everything changes but human nature and what to do.
3)  Don't kill the messengers (whether they bring good news or bad news)--embrace them.  Find the truth.  Encourage dissent and debate, then, when all perspectives (that you have time to get) have been heard, arrive at a consensus, which is different than total agreement, and also not a "democratic conclusion." 
4)  Get outside the box; think outside the box; act outside the box, but think big and try small, then adjust and go like hell.  Make decisions and then take action.  Learn from mistakes and do it again.
5)  Be willing to understand that mistakes are inevitable--learn from them.   Failure is inevitable, but only temporary, IF you persist and refuse to accept failure**(see below).
6)  Just when you think you have it all figured out--YOU DON'T!  Something will have changed, and you must change too. AND, IN CHANGE LIES OPPORTUNITY, IF ONLY YOU CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO CAPITALIZE ON IT.

OK, that's enough for one rant.  Time to get out in the world and see what happened and what changed since I was there last.  Go on, cut that meeting short and get out there where the truth lies.  You'll be amazed.

Best, John

**PS:  Example of persistent refusal to give up: Last night, Lebron James of the Cleveland Cavaliers lived up to a promise he made to his teammates.  In a pivotal playoff game (3rd win in a best of 7 series to take a 3-2 advantage with the next game at home in Cleveland) against the Detroit Piston---in Detroit, James did something I've never seen in 50 years of being a basketball fan.  He promised his teammates that if they all played with him to put them in contention to win, he'd make sure they won.

All James did was score 29 of the Cav's last 30 points, and the last 25 points (and 11 baskets) of the double-OT game, including of course, the winning basket.  From midway through the 4th quarter when the game was almost even, James teammates supported him by rebounding, playing defense, setting screens, handling the ball, but when it came time to score with the shot clock running out, Lebron James and his Cavalier teammates would not be denied.  He made impossible shots, falling away from 25 feet away, running acrobatic stunts down the lane for either slam dunks or spinning lay-ups.  His teammates did their job too.  He couldn't do it alone, because scoring is just one part of basketball--albeit a very important one.

Bottom line.  He simply refused to lose. That's a good lesson to learn from a 22-year old.