Selfie time: A review of WGP in 2023

A look at what we’re building at WGP, with 2023 under the microscope.

Geoff Wilson

WGP hasn’t done a thing in 2023.  And that’s totally what our model is built on.

Allow me to explain later in this note.

As you’ve probably seen, this blog tends to be more about this blog than it is about me or our WGP team taking a long, listless, duck-lipped selfie.  I’ve tried over nearly 10 years to put it all out there philosophically and practically without reference to our practice (much).

But it’s the end of the year and I’m catching it suddenly from all angles.

Angle 1: I have our team members wondering why we don’t make more noise about our practice, given how much ground we’ve covered.

Angle 2:  I’m running into promotional selfies from consulting organizations big and small that are, in my parlance, “cute” because I know from the inside that things simply aren’t that good for them.  Yes, I’m a curmudgeon when it comes to only promoting the facts.

Angle 3:  I’m realizing that–after a really long run–my own ego has gotten in the way of sharing the good news (see my curmudgeon comment above).  I get my nose in a twist when it comes to promotional pieces because, well, our work speaks for itself.  And I’m realizing as I mature that I need to break out of that a little bit.

So, I’m gonna let ‘er rip on this one. I’m sure some of what follows is a rant, a philosophy statement, and perhaps a call to arms for the dedicated executives I know we work best with.  But, that’s ok because this is on some level an explanation of why you haven’t seen us marketing ourselves much. And, it’s a good one, if I do say so myself.

What’s the big picture selfie? 

Over the past 2 years, we have completed roughly 36 engagements for 10 different organizations. Yeah, we’ve got our “loved ones” that we work with steadily; and yes, we do occasionally take on a new client (in fact, 2 new clients signed up in 2022, and 1 in 2023).

But, and this is a big but:  More than 90 percent of our professional fee revenue came from existing clients in 2022 and 2023.  Our clients know and we don’t talk about this, but we’ve been on a tear for years, with no consulting capacity unassigned since at least 2019. Yes, we have had no “beach time” here at WGP, and we think that makes for great value for our clients and our team members.

Is that healthy?  I don’t know.  What I do know is that the people who work here and the people we work with tend to be happy.

I make no bones about it: Our employment value proposition is variety and professional development. If you are engaged with WGP, everybody you work with  is a-growin’ or a-goin’.

Our client value propositions (the ones they can see) revolve around our Team (talent and structure), our client Experience, and the Depth we bring regardless of topic.  The values they can’t see revolve around Honor, Agility, and Leadership in any circumstance.

As we’ve articulated these values, it has become clear that they are why our clients keep coming back.  And they do come back.  In almost 10 years we’ve done roughly 150 engagements with only 5 being “one and done” where we engaged with an organization and moved on.

So, we have to be doing something right.

Right?

What if we zoom in…what are the topics we have covered in 2023?  

The only way we can have such a solid client partnership profile is to be truly great at running to fire.  Okay, so not merely great, but absolutely the best, most trusted option in the market.  And what does that mean?

It means we have a multi-faceted practice that has produced referenceable results in every, single engagement instance.  To demonstrate the multiplicity of our facets, here are examples of topics we engaged on in 2023:

  • Tackling a change management challenge with a large distribution company working to insert a middle distribution tier. This work, led by Paul Currey as a deeply embedded team member, has showcased our ability to work on day-to-day change challenges as a “member of the team” while remaining independent.
  • Rebuilding workforce strategy with a distributed and technically skilled trucking and delivery operation in the building materials space.  This work, led by Brittany Timmons and John Adducci, re-set expectations across the employee lifecycle for a key and very challenging employee type in the 2021 – 2023 timeframe. The work has not only been a “let me tell you a story” strategy but also day-to-day, in-the-dirt work to get recruiting pipelines right-sized and training and retention approaches designed and deployed.
  • Leading integration strategy for a contracting organization in the government services space. Carrie Elliott led this work that involved establishing post-merger integration principles and processes in an environment of mild culture clash.
  • Building a go-to-market strategy for a manufacturer in the foam fabrication space, where we focused on ensuring a fact- and action-based strategic plan that brought many different points of view together, including external ones. Alex Cauble led this effort.
  • Standing up and executing a transformation management structure that re-set and re-aligned plans, expectations, resourcing, and pace in a large organization. This has been a Team effort with Dani Zielenski (emeritus…at the moment), Carrie Elliott, and several others in the management seat.
  • Executing on a product management strategy for a large industrial services organization that has had just a few too many SKUs enter its portfolio over time.  This piece of work has seen WGP go from the “strategy recommender” (read that:  We wrote a deck of slides a couple of years ago) to the “strategy execution partner” (read that: We do real work to help clean up the portfolio as a first step).  John Adducci has led this work with Ejona Korcari as the key analyst.
  • Supporting, cajoling, and running to fire on a complex global sourcing effort that involved substantial risk management, operational, research, analytical, and product management components for a business in the automotive aftermarket. Alex Cauble was the leader here.

Those are some examples, and not even absolutely the best ones since, like fine wines, some engagements have to stay on the shelf a bit before we can bring a glass of them into the selfie. I can’t write too much about all the stuff that we’ve been involved with in the immediate past.  Other places we have been in the past year?  How about:

  • Hazardous materials compliance
  • Top-team effectiveness
  • Talent management
  • Market research
  • Fleet maintenance strategy
  • Financial model building
  • Growth project due diligence
  • Management best practices playbook and training
  • and, yes, corporate strategy and risk management…our old standby.

We’ve had moments of creativity to break up the drudgery.  Despite what most would say is my, ahem, intensity, I’m a big fan of cheering success and sometimes have to be the cheerleader, hooting and hollering. We even played Jeopardy with the management team of a billion-dollar company, just to liven things up.

A meta-analysis of our engagement mix.

What do you see when you peer into our mix of engagements?  Well, you see diverse topics that stem from being a trusted problem-solving partner.  That’s our calling card.

You see engagements that are led by people who care about our clients and who bring a team spirit to any problem at hand.  You also see continuity of people and topic–in some examples above the engagement has run 2+ years and we’ve kept the same people on it from start to end. This is enabled not only by our talent model but also by our approach to professional fees that allow for us to engage as a partner and “for the duration.”

If you press me in my most sour of sour grapes moments, I will also say that you also see a few times we’ve picked up the pieces from bigger, branded, expert, and “safe” consultancies that couldn’t crack the code of people, problem, and pace in the way we have.

We’ve “destroyed value” for some of these “esteemed competitors” because we’ve gone faster to results, better in terms of experience, with more skill transfer…and all for a fraction of their fees. I suspect at this point we could point to avoided [insert fashion-name-brand consultant] fees as a massive value driver for at least a couple of our clients…before even getting to results.

Still, what you don’t see in our repertoire is a bunch of transactional stuff. You don’t see 2-week due diligence sprints or “build me a strategy in 3 weeks” engagements where the result is a deck and some derrière coverage for a weak executive team. We aren’t built for that, and I don’t believe in it.

Why? Well, if you believe an outside consultant can come in and write the strategy for your business in 2 to 3 weeks, then you aren’t an executive we are likely to work with because frankly, you don’t respect the business you lead. Strategy requires understanding texture, context, facts, opinions, and ultimately choices. That takes some time.

We are built for partnership at pace–staying politely ahead of but never outrunning our clients and always leaving their people better than they were before.

I’m extremely proud of that.

Who “we” are.

I keep using the word “we” as if I have a mouse in my pocket.  Everyone knows that I founded this thing years ago just by stepping out on my own.  It has to revolve around me, right?  Well, no.  Not exactly.  Our strategy has been to grow a consulting system (and people indoctrinated in it) that provides outstanding problem-solving and client experience.

So, how are “we” doing that?

This is where it gets interesting.  I’ve already mentioned our talent value proposition, but what I haven’t mentioned is our dedication to “How We Work.”  This is our focus on the delivery of the same client experience no matter the leader and no matter the topic.  This is part of our special sauce and something I grew to appreciate while enduring far too many consulting partner inconsistencies early in my career.

This means we focus on a common problem-solving approach, a common approach to planning and executing engagements, and a common approach to getting the best of our own and our clients’ perspectives into the arena. I believe this is truly special in the market space we occupy between high-power independent consultants and large consulting houses. 

A WGP engagement is a WGP engagement, not a contract given to a smart person with a pedigree. Unfortunately in the post-pandemic world, even the biggest and blue-est chip firms are producing work that looks more like the latter because they broke their talent and team interaction models during the lockdowns.

To wit, when you are McKinsey or Bain or BCG or pretty much any large consultancy built on an up or out pyramid, with average consultant tenure in the 2-plus year range, a massive uptick in hiring and a massive downtick in face-to-face coaching and culture building because of gee-whiz technology and oh noes risk management leads to culture change and loss in a matter of months. Culture at those firms (and ours) is an all-the-time thing, and when a culture of deep in-the-room coaching and “osmosis” for young consultants becomes one of scheduled interactions via videoconference, things get lost.  

But I digress.

The people side of “who we are” hasn’t been said yet:  Sure, we are Ivy League and Michigan and Vanderbilt and U of Chicago and Georgetown and Stanford and MBA and Master of Accounting and Master of Finance and even a CFA candidate.  But I’ll say this:  We get a lot more at many moments of our engagement with clients by being Appalachian State and Clemson and Robertsdale, Alabama and Aiken, South Carolina and Tar Heel and Roll Tide and Eagle Scouts (3 and counting) and Wofford Terriers.  We get a lot more out of backgrounds that go from railroads to the Peace Corps, from big automotive to startups, and from sales to operations.

Why? Because having people who have had to flex their career and educational backgrounds comes with something that few Ivy-elite backgrounds come with: The knowledge of the possibility that we might be wrong.

The glue that binds together a fantastic client experience and result is in us.  It’s in How We Work, and it’s in our values, and it’s in the forthright diligence we espouse.  It’s probably also in some sort of productive paranoia that I, personally, bring to the table in sometimes fanatical, sometimes tyrannical, and sometimes undefinable Ted Lasso or maybe Mr. Miyagi sorts of ways (paint the fence because I said so, Daniel!).

One of the big reasons you don’t see much marketing and promotion from us is we can’t really grow fast and stay “us.” The rate-limiting factor isn’t how many clients we can cultivate or engagements we can ink, it’s the (no kidding) indoctrinated capacity that we have. We are growing, but only at the pace of our Associate’s willingness and ability to “get it” and “deliver it.”

In short, “we” are presently 10 consulting professionals equipped with a system and looking to make a difference.

What “they” say…

And, what is that difference? I could quantify, but won’t out of abiding fear of “spilling” something I shouldn’t.  I can tell you that we have beaten our clients’ “next best alternative” by a multiple of fees in any event we’ve scrutinized. And scrutinize we do.

But more than that, our clients’ results are the most basic measure of our success.  I say it nearly every day.  If our clients are not doing well against the objectives we work on, then we aren’t even close.

There are no moral victories here.

A dirty little secret at WGP is that I survey our clients every single year (for at least the last 7 years).  The survey respondents are the folks that we work with directly and heavily from the Board and C-office level to the manager, director and VP-level.  Here’s a smattering of what they said in 2023…written by them (if it isn’t clear yet, there’s no marketing agency here, folks):

  • “WGP has brought an external, objective guidance to our company during a massive transitional time in our business. They have helped us navigate through ambiguity and the natural stages of internal change management. I truthfully don’t think we would’ve been able to get this far without their help
  • “Whether it is a recommendation for an easier tool, a dashboard, or a 10-year vision, WGP has been a true partner. They have also helped our leaders become better problem solvers…”
  • “Always one step ahead of us and a blast [to work with]”
  • The consultants that aren’t consultants. They own results and act like they are part of the team.”
  • “It’s a strength to be able to attract that talent as a small firm. Didn’t feel like a cookie-cutter approach. Instead, project approach felt customized to our needs.”
  • “Clarity and focus on meaningful solution design without the presentation/show “fluff” that ends up slowing progress. WGP associates are highly engaged and pleasant to work with.
  • “[WGP is] Very professional yet relatable. Produces high-quality work, not afraid to challenge perspectives…”

So why haven’t we done a thing?

Behind any successful consulting engagement is a hidden consultant.  In front of it should be a client team that is having fantastic success.  Meaning that when it comes to impact, our clients have done it… all of it.  We actually wouldn’t have it any other way.

We at WGP haven’t done a thing because we accomplish nothing without great clients.

Not a thing.

But what kind of clients are we great with? 

We fit best with clients who care. The profile is coming into good focus after nearly 10 years. It includes managers that:

  • Lead large, complex organizations or organizations that aspire to be larger,
  • Have organizational or executional ambiguity like a culture or communications gap between home office and field ops,
  • Have business complexity like when customers are hard to segment and understand, or when operations are diverse and divergent, and
  • Have demanding markets or stakeholders that reward, desire, or thrive on clarity.

It includes:

  • New teams with a commitment to excel, like when a new CEO comes on board, or
  • Big change efforts, like when you have to coordinate all limbs at once. Sometimes it’s a transformation even if you don’t call it that, or
  • Small pieces with high leverage in growth or turnaround, like business units that are problem children or that should be contributing more, or
  • Large initiative teams in need of “glue” to hold together, or
  • Areas where there are immediate talent gaps but a commitment to move forward while addressing them.

The profile would include executives who:

  • Face strategic ambiguity but with a dedication to execute. They want a plan, but not just a deck (and boy can we can make some fancy decks), and / or
  • Hope to build a legacy, like when the team is in transition and wants to leave a mark or a firm platform for the next generation, and that
  • Have a willingness to engage in a contact sport where managementthe team, and the consultant might be challenged and even (gulp!) wrong on the way to getting it right.

And, it includes companies and organizations that:

  • Are mission-oriented toward doing great things, better,
  • Are in service to others, and
  • Depend on extending and improving the good things in the world, not extracting rents from poverty, despair, servitude or struggle.

Here’s the call to action that I hope resonates:

If you as an executive, board member or manager might see your, your organization’s, or your team’s reflection in the profile above. If you have challenging problems that need specific pressure. If you have organizational challenges that stem from ambiguity, transient talent gaps, or merely huge jobs that need more pressure, then I hope you’ll drop us a line.  Yes, it can be “strategy” in the traditional vein, but it can also just be…in the words of one of our consultants…”helping get shit done.”

In large organizations, some problems can seem intractable and permanent.  I will tell you that while they sometimes are, we bring a focus on chemistry and pace that can help break out of the doldrums.

I hope you’ll consider reaching out.

Closing reflections… 2023 in perspective

2023 has been a good year, and one that is probably best outlined as “on trend” for our practice.  Looking into 2024 it’s hard to say where we go because, well, we’ve gone a lot of places.  We owe everything to the trust our clients place in us to earnestly attack almost any problem.  And, we expect to continue that as long as we are in the mix.

So there it is. That’s the selfie.

If I were more promotional I would tell you that our growth profile probably rivals any “Inc. 5000” debutante, and if I were really promotional I would tell you that I’d put our team up against almost any other consulting team in the country based on our values and commitment to client experience alone.

At the end of writing this, I think I’m realizing that this isn’t a promotional blog post, it’s a weigh station on a journey of loving service and people development–our own and our clients’.

If we can help your team nail its priorities in the coming year, please do reach out.

And with that:  May 2024 be great for all of us!

So how about it?  What can WGP do for you?  Call or email Geoff or any other team member and let’s continue this journey. 

Framing our AI approach: Establishing professional policies

What does a comprehensive yet digestible AI policy look like for a professional services firm?

Geoff Wilson

I’m going to continue this article with the same starting statement I will use with all AI articles:  I’m still learning. We all are.

The question I and our team at WGP have been wrestling with is this:  Now that Generative AI (GAI) is in the popular lexicon and is beginning to permeate academia and some workplaces, what is an effective and flexible policy statement that informs our own practices around it?

My current answer is basically four points.  And, I would appreciate any reactions or feedback on how these policies might satisfy you as an executive or your customers if you are in similar professional services.  I’m also genuinely curious to understand what this leaves out.

Our emerging AI policy for WGP is encompassed in the following four policy points:

  • Be Human-Centered – Because no generative artificial intelligence will replace understanding and judgment required when navigating organizations, cultures, and individual relationships; we will always have a human-in-the-loop when it comes to content, recommendations, and basic communications (yes, even automated emails, which we will never use). This means our people must be expert at understanding what AI can and cannot do.

 

  • Be Secure – Generative AI will have the potential to “see” very complex data associations through even basic user provided data.  No proprietary data will be shared with generative AI platforms unless those platforms are trusted and certified as proprietary, walled, or otherwise data-safe. Otherwise, if we are feeding a GAI platform data or querying a GAI platform, we should treat those actions as if they were posted to social media.

 

  • Be Transparent – Use of AI as a force multiplier is quite possibly a general good. However, because it is not yet clear that generative AI platforms are reliable as to background facts, we will disclose when we use such tools to generate any content in a given document.  This communicates the risks associated with acceptance of such output, and it prevents our professionals from misrepresenting their own capabilities and work behind an AI shield.

 

  • Be Ethical – Every deployment of complex technology has ethical use questions.  We must remain independent in our recommendations on our and our clients’ use of AI in general as to its benefits, its risks, and its overall impact on society.  We will not recommend uses that, in our judgment, create net-negative impact when private and public benefits and costs are considered.

I will expand on these topics and why they are important in a later post.

I will reiterate that I am a learner in this space…it’s just too critical not to comment on.  I would be curious your reaction here.  What does this policy set leave out?

Framing our AI approach: The ethical conundrum

In a dog-eat-dog world, it’s important to know when you are the dog.

Geoff Wilson

I’m going to write this one with the starting statement that I think all articles on Artificial Intelligence should begin with:  I’m still learning.

Much is written about the disruption that is happening right at this moment due to AI and the quickening pace of AI development in everyday life.  A recent Forbes poll shows that 97% of CEOs and key decision-makers see AI playing a large role in their future operations.  And, if I’m really blunt: I don’t think 97% of CEOs and key decision-makers even know the scope of what AI is today or could do in the near future.

The implications are large and broad and the ignorance is real.  So, with that said, I have a distinct thought that we are going to be starved for ethical frameworks to manage through the emergence of AI.

This will be true a the macro level, where nation-states and overall political ideologies are going to wrestle with how to assimilate and regulate what’s coming (which for all intents and purposes looks to be an AGI–Artificial General Intelligence–that is far and beyond anything currently contemplated); and it will be true at the micro level where companies, households, and even individuals will have to re-orient to a world that can be engineered in the blink of and eye toward some exceedingly negative outcomes.

I liken the world we are entering to the late 1800’s and the emergence of industrial monopolists and trusts. Some of the builders of our modern world were in many ways economic predators who captured power and wealth by pillaging livelihoods and social structures–even if unknowingly.  Regulatory frameworks had to catch up.  Ethical frameworks had to catch up.  And the benefit the world had “back then” was that the world generally moved at the pace of the telegraph and the locomotive.

We are emerging into a world that not only has a similar lack of readiness in our regulatory and ethical frameworks, but that also moves at light speed. 

In the annals of competition, one of the more glaringly instructive contests was the race to the South Pole undertaken between dueling expeditions led by Robert Falcon Scott (the “Terra Nova” Expedition) and Roald Amundsen (the “South Pole” expedition) in the early 1910’s.  Rather than recount the full story here, I’ll merely offer an anecdote.

Among the competing choices made by Scott and Amundsen were different choices of transportation. Scott famously attempted to deploy “motor sledges” (essentially early snow tractors) and horses.  Amundsen went with dogs.  The choice seems mundane at first, but the implications are astounding.

First of all, after the motor sledges failed Scott as internal combustion engines were prone to do in the early 1900’s, he became dependent on horses, which were not well adapted to the cold (horses sweat when working…sweat freezes).  Not only that, but the Scott expedition had to carry food for the horses, which was heavy.  Add to that the human attraction for noble horses, and its accompanying emotional burden felt by the men not willing to let their horses suffer, and you end up with a real logistical and emotional (dare I say ethical) conundrum.  Scott’s expedition ended up “man-hauling” their sleds and supplies hundreds of miles to the pole, and even farther back–and yes, this is as terrible as it sounds.  In the end, all of the members of the team who reached the South Pole starved and died.

Charming story, right?

Amundsen’s expedition did something entirely different.  They chose skis for the men, and dogs to tow their sleds. And, they used the fact that dogs are one type of animal not revulsed by cannibalism. In other words, when the going got tough, Amundsen fed his dogs to his dogs.  He sacrificed the weaker animals for the survival of the stronger ones and their masters. For most of us, this strategy sounds gruesome.  It was also an ingenious solution to a massive logistical challenge. Amundsen’s expedition skied and sledded to the Pole–arriving weeks ahead of Scott– then returned without loss of life or even relative difficulty.

Amundsen won because this and many other of his choices–no matter what you think of the stomach they took–ultimately were better that Scott’s.

Now, why do I bring up this anecdote in framing up the ethical conundrum we face in our march toward AGI?

It’s because of this:  At this moment, we view choices that require strong stomachs with some admiration, and even when we do not, we admire those who make such choices as “impressive” humans.  John D. Rockefeller made many, many predatory decisions in building Standard Oil into possibly the largest store of wealth in the world during the 1800’s.  He was vilified by some, and admired by others.

Without doubt, though, he was the “Amundsen” of the story.  He was the winning master who pitted dog against dog. We lionize JDR for his wealth and philanthropy, even today.

In the future, though, we have real reason to fear that the “master”–the Amundsens of future competitive arenas–will be non-human.  And that, my friends, means we stand a good chance of being merely the dogs.

In a dog-eat-dog world, it’s important to know when you are the dog and not the master.

I was recommended Lex Fridman’s podcast from April (#371) with Max Tegmark.  Tegmark is a physicist and AI researcher at MIT who is decidedly negative on the likely outcomes of the AI revolution. And, he has many compelling views. One that stuck with me is that, in his view the first mass deployment of AI into the human world has been within the social media space…and we humans have lost that battle in spades.

In other words, when it came to deploying AI into social media, AI models keyed in on our human habits of tribalism, sectionalism, and hatred; and they had us eat each other alive.  All of this was ostensibly because the AI was “only” looking for a way to increase “engagement” on silly social media sites.

So what happens when an AI is not only making marketing and entertainment decisions (some of which have already led to massive social dislocation, strife, suicide and death), but also decisions on transportation, health, governance, corporate strategy, and social policy?  What happens when humans are no longer the Amundsen?

I’ll continue this line of thinking.  I firmly believe we will need not only fantastically facile management of how and when to deploy AI–which will change our world further than it has already–but also exceptional judgment and guidance on why we deploy it and how we can test and refine it to avoid unintended consequences.

This will be true for executives, and it will be true in spades for political and social leaders whose power is, by definition, even less regulated than business executive power.

Watch this space for more, and please…share your comments.

I will reiterate that I am a learner in this space…it’s just too critical not to comment on.  Now it’s your turn…what do you think about the ethical implications of AI deployment?

Writer’s blecch: The season of blogging discontent

Here’s a little post just to get the juices flowing again.

It has been quite possibly the longest time between blog posts I’ve taken since launching this thing three years ago, and I’m not proud of that.  Between the demand of a nicely-diversified consulting practice, a good helping of friends and family, and a bit of angst with current events, I’ve just been un-mused.

It’s not that I haven’t seen strategic topics worth writing about.  I mean, here are the topics in my list.  Maybe you’d like them. The possibilities are endless:

  1. Maybe I could I pile onto the debacle that is unfolding at GE as CEO succession leads to a cost-cutting “renewal?” The title for that one might be “Ground the jets, it’s time to make a statement.”
  2. Or, perhaps it would be fun to wade into politics with a screed on how our demand for speed and 140 letter concise-ness in all things is leading us to be binary thinkers on pretty much any topic.  Maybe I could call it “You are either with me or against me so shut up.”  Or, better yet, “Antifa thinks you are un-cool so I hate you too.”
  3. Then, there’s the possibility to write on listening because, I mean, what better way to teach people to listen than to use a one-sided medium like a blog.  I might call that one “Listen to me while I talk at you.” Or, I could go with a Trumpier title like “I’m right-er than you.”
  4. Of course, there’s always fodder in the press about the economy, like how we are heading toward labor force Armageddon and how maybe a looser immigration policy might actually be good for economic growth.  We could call that one “maybe we should put a few more gates in that wall, after all.”
  5. Then, of course, there are other great business leadership topics that come to mind from time to time, like how too many people think strategy is–for some reason–sexy, but sales is greasy and grimy.  I could call that one “No business ever went anywhere without sales, but plenty of businesses have no strategy.”
  6. Or, maybe there is a chance to write on how men don’t have the monopoly on harassment in the workplace.  Maybe I can call that one “#Metoo and it’s no joke.” It’s unlikely that one gets written, folks. Too much water under that bridge.

There are plenty of options. But it’s just that I’ve been a bit overcome by the things I mentioned above, and perhaps a bit emotionally nagged by the onslaught of storms, mass murder, fires, a death in the family, and revelations of political and corporate malfeasance.  Indeed, I’ve been nagged enough to wonder whether commentary is really just another way of escaping responsibility.

Perhaps it’s not, but I needed to take a break.  I guess you could say that I had a case of writer’s blecch.

Hope your October is going swimmingly (well, at least not in a flood).

Links that made me think: Golf, traumatic stress, first impressions, and other things

This week’s reads and resources to provoke thoughts on strategy, leadership, life, and other things.

Geoff Wilson

Every week, I get to devour a hefty heap of digital content in service to our clients and partners. As I sift through the internet on this mission, I discover things that are relevant to business, strategy, leadership, and life in general. As I do so, I’ll share some pieces that I think are thought-provoking treasures. Here are a few articles and resources I found particularly interesting and valuable this week. Enjoy the feast—or at least whet your appetite.

  • A perspective on moving people to jobs vs. jobs to people.  Bloomberg
  • A blood test may be able to diagnose Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in veterans.  But, what’s the implication for your disability policy?   Telegraph
  • A while back, a U.S. Amateur golfer disqualified himself for his caddie’s error.  Would you?  Golfworld

Dig in, let me know what you think, and have a great week!

GW

Links that made me think: University Degrees, Cross-Cultural Leadership, Construction Inefficiency, and more

This week’s reads and resources to provoke thoughts on strategy, leadership, life, and other things.

Geoff Wilson

Every week, I get to devour a hefty heap of digital content in service to our clients and partners. As I sift through the internet on this mission, I discover things that are relevant to business, strategy, leadership, and life in general. As I do so, I’ll share some pieces that I think are thought-provoking treasures. Here are a few articles and resources I found particularly interesting and valuable this week. Enjoy the feast—or at least whet your appetite.

  • More evidence that where you stand depends on where you sit. Value of a university degree differs by geography. – The Economist
  • The customer you’re serving today may not be the customer you should be serving. That means the customer may not always right. – Alec Saric on LinkedIn
  • When trying to work across cultures, focus on authority first. – Harvard Business Review
  • When big, bold, audacious exclamations conflict with your trusted engineers: Tesla’s engineers disagree with Elon Musk. – Wall Street Journal
  • Where has productivity decreased the most in America? Try the construction industry. Why? Regulation, customization, and some toxic effects of good old profit maximization. – The Economist

Dig in, let me know what you think, and have a great week!

GW

Links that made me think: Leadership ROI, Resilience, Chinese Innovation, and more

This week’s reads and resources to provoke thoughts on strategy, leadership, life, and other things.

Geoff Wilson

Every week, I get to devour a hefty heap of digital content in service to our clients and partners. As I sift through the internet on this mission, I discover things that are relevant to business, strategy, leadership, and life in general. As I do so, I’ll share some pieces that I think are thought-provoking treasures. Here are a few articles and resources I found particularly interesting and valuable this week. Enjoy the feast—or at least whet your appetite.

  • If you say it, you probably ought to mean it. How a corporate mission can drive young workers away. – BBC
  • Why venture capitalists might stop trying to be friendly, and how it could be Uber’s fault. The end of founder-friendly. – Fortune
  • Turns out overly resilient people either stay with bad bets too long, or have tendencies to lead as authoritarians. The dark side of resilience. – Harvard Business Review
  • How a new model of innovation being deployed in China shows the value of short decision loops in the product development process. – Boston Consulting Group
  • Invest your time and energy in the right things. What your leadership return on investment is. – ThoughtLEADERS

Dig in, let me know what you think, and have a great week!

GW

Links that made me think: Automated Sewing, Emojis, Passwords, Fat Cattle, and more

This week’s reads and resources to provoke thoughts on strategy, leadership, life, and other things.

Geoff Wilson

Every week, I get to devour a hefty heap of digital content in service to our clients and partners. As I sift through the internet on this mission, I discover things that are relevant to business, strategy, leadership, and life in general. As I do so, I’ll share some pieces that I think are thought-provoking treasures. Here are a few articles and resources I found particularly interesting and valuable this week. Enjoy the feast—or at least whet your appetite.

  • Yeah, but can you automate this? An Atlanta-based company automates complex sewing. – Innovation in Textiles
  • Using emojis in work emails might make you look less competent. – International Business Times
  • Turns out PuppyMonkeyBaby (creepiest advert ever?) is probably a better password than 5223@@#. Old password rules were … wrong. – WSJ
  • If you help people learn how to care, they tend to engage more. Kids who are taught to be more empathetic grow up to be voters. – NY Mag
  • It’s probably not because of smartphones and Netflix. How did U.S. cattle and hogs gain so much weight? – Sara Menker

Dig in, let me know what you think, and have a great week!

GW

Links that made me think: 3D Printing, Autonomous Deere, Obamacare, College Football, and more

This week’s reads and resources to provoke thoughts on strategy, leadership, life, and other things.

Geoff Wilson

Every week, I get to devour a hefty heap of digital content in service to our clients and partners. As I sift through the internet on this mission, I discover things that are relevant to business, strategy, leadership, and life in general. As I do so, I’ll share some pieces that I think are thought-provoking treasures. Here are a few articles and resources I found particularly interesting and valuable this week. Enjoy the feast—or at least whet your appetite.

  • Turns out, this stuff is hard. John Deere has learned that autonomous tractors aren’t easy to make. – Quartz
  • This can’t hurt the resale value. Daimler starting to 3D print parts for old trucks. – Digital Trends
  • When it comes to Obamacare, the things that drive up premiums are the things nobody wants to get rid of. In other words, politicians are grandstanding … again. – The Weekly Standard
  • A 75-year study shows that there is one thing that keeps us happy, and it isn’t money. – Ideapod
  • The next big technology trend could be made of really tiny things. – Strategy+Business
  • Hey, it’s almost football season, so why not have a look at the seedy underbelly of big-time college football? Did you know that your favorite team probably voted against schools having the option to provide four-year scholarships to athletes? – Slate

Dig in, let me know what you think, and have a great week!

GW

Links that made me think: Bond Market Bubble, Pot Epcot, Automated Heart Diagnosis, and more

This week’s reads and resources to provoke thoughts on strategy, leadership, life, and other things.

Geoff Wilson

Every week, I get to devour a hefty heap of digital content in service to our clients and partners. As I sift through the internet on this mission, I discover things that are relevant to business, strategy, leadership, and life in general. As I do so, I’ll share some pieces that I think are thought-provoking treasures. Here are a few articles and resources I found particularly interesting and valuable this week. Enjoy the feast—or at least whet your appetite.

  • You don’t have to like him or even believe him, but Alan Greenspan sees no stock excess, warns of bond market bubble. – Bloomberg
  • What do the smartest companies look like? Have a look at this list. – MIT Technology Review
  • Everybody is talking about the “Internet of Things,” and only a few can define it well. Some thoughts here on what it takes for an organization to go IoT. – Network World
  • It’s because we’re all jealous: The brutal truth about why everybody else resents millennials. – Inc. 
  • I’ll bet the local Frito-Lay distributor is ecstatic: Marijuana company buys a town envisioning cannabis Epcot Center. – Marijuana Business Daily
  • One more step toward a higher quality, automated medical profession: Stanford computer scientists develop an algorithm that diagnoses heart problems with cardiologist-level accuracy. – Stanford.edu

Dig in, let me know what you think, and have a great week!

GW