Saying "we suck" makes you happy?
Steve Rubel says: "I like companies that say 'we suck'" And while I agree with the notion that transparency and a self-critical nature are good, just like pie, I wonder if "liking companies that say 'we suck'" gives companies more permission to, well, suck ("it's OK if you suck as long as you know it, now give me a hug" kind of thing).
Frankly, saying "we suck" is all fine and good, but when it becomes your schtick, it's tiring and it can come off as a little contrived. I'm not talking about anyone or any company in particular. I've just been reading blogs long enough to have an opinion on who does it a lot and who needs to do it more.
Saying it is one thing; doing something about it is something else. Don't get me wrong....go ahead and say it if you have to, say it if your partners, customers or hopefully-someday-customers need to hear it. Heck, say it before someone else does. But you better have a plan to fix it. And you don't get a pat on the back from me just for saying it.
I'm all about less talking (about it) and more doing (more on that in future blog posts)...I think Steve agrees with this but I have to wonder if people will see Steve's declaration and miss the point, focusing their efforts on airing their "suckiness" as quickly as possible. Being able to say it out loud is not a virtue in and of itself.
I like companies that have conversations with their customers/stakeholders and make changes, thereby "sucking" less.
Comments
- Anonymous
May 25, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
May 26, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
May 26, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
May 26, 2006
I think the point is that there has to be a balance. You can't rave about your products and ignore the shortcomings. Yes, you need to use the best positioning and overcome sales objections (to a point), but also admiting that there is room for improvement is, in my humble opinion, is necessary for innovation within any company. - Anonymous
May 26, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
May 28, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
May 28, 2006
Mark-I think you are bringing up a topic that I don't necessarily agree with you on. You saying that you agree with me kind of makes me nervous because what you said is definitely not the point I was trying to make. My point was that there's nothing virtuous is self-critique if one isn't going to do anything about it. And I think that some people may be using it as a device to garner approval.
Culturally, I think some companies do tolerate a lot of internal self-anlaysis and do something with that information. I actually see that quite a bit at Microsoft.
Your view of corporate life seems pretty bleak. Not sure I'd have an easy time getting out of bed in the morning if I agreed with you. Havong said that, I appreciat eyou sharing your opinion (even though it's different than mine). - Anonymous
May 28, 2006
Woa! Im with Heather on this one. Mark, your sentiments are not what the original positing was about. Your indicating its better to just sit and follow the direction of senior management and let them dictate things. That type of model and thinking went out with the .com bust. Gone are the days when known names were were hired as CEO's to be the spokesperson of a company. Companies now want to hear the good and bad. Especially the bad so they can improve on what they are doing wrong. Case in point, ever check into a hotel and have an issue. Then the issue is resolved relatively fast? Its because they want things to be perfect, and they learn from the mistakes or issues. People on an individual level, especially in a corproate setting do the same thing. Theres always room for improvement, and with that comes taking the bad and working on ways to improve. /End rant - Anonymous
May 29, 2006
Ms. Leigh,
Thank you for posting my thoughts.
My agreement with you is quite sincere. I find self critique to be a fool's task in the workplace setting, especially if said self critique results in the employee doing anything counter to the wishes, desires, and intentions of the firm, its chief executive officer, and management as a whole.
Quite simply, and I'm sure you would agree with this, the firm, its chief executive officer, and management at all levels simply know better than the employee what the organization needs to achieve its goals. Whether those goals, or the means by which said goals are attained, are in concert with the interests and intentions of the employee is quite meaningless. The employee is a commodity. To view the employee as anything more than a commodity is to endanger the corporation, its chief executive officer, and management at all levels.
All employee actions must follow in strict adherance to the directions of the company, its chief executive officer, and management. Only in this way can the organization grow for the betterment of its shareholders, financing organizations, its chief executive officer, and management at all levels.
Remember that the employee is but a commodity, emphasize this fact to the employee at every level of the organization, and the company will improve its financial standing for the benefit of its shareholders, financing agencies, its chief executive officer, and management.
Thank you for your time and consideration. - Anonymous
May 30, 2006
Mark, I don't question your sincerity, but I still don't agree with you. "I'm sure you would agree with this"...don't be sure. Let me be clear...I don't agree with you. Strong leaders want to hear the good and the bad and they hire the great people they trust to tell them the good and the bad.
If people were a commodity, we wouldn't go to the trouble of interviewing them. Yes, we hire people to achieve corporate objectives. One of those objectives is to improve through change (and our shareholders are better for it). I'm sorry, but your bleak view of the workplace is not "the way it is". If it's that way for you, I am sorry to hear it. If my manager didn't tolerate me disagreeing or bringing to light things we could change for the better, I'd start questioning what it is about me that keeps me from being able to do that. See, that self-critiquing thing comes in handy.
Seriously, enough with the evil leadership thing. Sharing your personal experience is one thing, but preaching a totally erroneous and dis-empowering rant is something else. Again, I am sorry if you have it that bad, but I don't. And my last name is Hamilton ; ) - Anonymous
May 30, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
May 30, 2006
Mark, again, I'm sorry to hear about your troubles at work but that certainly does not mean that all companies work that way. And many people in your situation may have sought other employment when someone told them to "look busy". Just because it happens to one person does not mean it's the same for everyone everywhere and we all make choices as to where we want to work. I encourage everyone to take control of unfortunate work situtions by looking for new employment. If the company does not appreciate you, then moving along is in your best interest.
I don't see you as a trouble-maker. I simply see you applying a standard to all companies based on the unfortunate workplace circumstances you have experienced and assuming that I would agree. I've had negative and positive experiences at different companies and have pesonally made the changes I needed to make to get to where I wanted to be. I really am not judging you at all, just disagreeing with what you said, that's all. - Anonymous
June 01, 2006
Wow. That's all I have to say. Just wow.
Actually, it occurs to me that Steve works for Edelman who works for Microsoft, ergo -- I can't wait to see what Steve Ballmer writes in his blog. - Anonymous
June 01, 2006
Uh, which would make sense if Edelman were our agency of record, which they are not, or if Steve Ballmer had a blog, which he doesn't. Ergo...
Sorry conspiracy theorists, no scoop here ; ) - Anonymous
June 08, 2006
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
June 09, 2006
I guess I don't think about that kind of stuff that much since I really don't know either of them.