"The Guy Is A Tool"

Convention is like stewed chicken...
Several years ago a person joined the corporate gig.  He was bright, creative, really outspoken, interested in all aspects on the organization, not just his own discipline.  His New York bravado was right there.

After a bit of time I suggested that he might want to tone down just a bit.  I appreciated all his comments.  Perpetually testing the limits of convention is good for us personally and especially for companies which often become an overdone stewed chicken of intellect.  In polite terms he responded that he would not compromise.  While respecting his opinion and style I thought "he won't last," and he did not.  

Over time I learned more.  He was a great father and husband and a talented jazz musician.  Shortly before his tenure burned out he was recognized by his college as an outstanding contributor to his field.  When he left he stopped by to shake hands and say goodbye.  My typically conservative Norwegian gene keep me in my own personal space often but I stood up and said "a handshake is just not enough" and gave him a big frigging hug.

Prior to that he started to call many of the executives "tools."  It's embarrassing but I just did not know exactly what that meant.  His description was that it implied a placeholder, someone who simply lies dormant in an organization, making no contribution unless man-handled by someone else.  He was correct.  Many of the executives were tools.  I've written about the management activity of dividing employees into two groups, 'eagles' and 'ducks.'  Labeling your dormant employees as tools might also be an effective first step in stimulating productivity, innovation and process improvement.

Too Many Tools?
Following the last remodeling project everything ended up in toolboxes and boxes as the work finished up.  When I was a kid there was a shortage of tools.  I'm not exaggerating when I talk about going to a neighbor to borrow a pliers and another to borrow a hammer.  Over time I've filtered through all the inherited tools an acquired as needed.  At a point I attempted to keep things together in ever-larger toolboxes, chest toolboxes on rollers, five gallon buckets, etc.  My work in corporate process improvement clarified this a big and I started to populate and locate toolboxes at the locations where I did work with the items most needed for that work.

Some of these repositories became somewhat legacy repositories with special inherited tools that evoked memories when I pulled them out.  Others were simply a tool.  This distribution approach worked well.  More than once in the middle of the woods I'd need some wire and a clamping tool and a big hammer and the pickup toolbox would reward me.

The remodeling project was intensive and I kept grabbing more containers.  My distribution of tools turned into an aggregation of tools and I'm re-positioning items now.  Yes, I have too many Visegrip devices because I have even more that pictured.  Of course the trivia question in that is that something like 75% of all Visegrip devices are in static applications.  I have a couple holding low volume copper pipes closed and four substitute as a lock on a remote overhead garage door.    If my better half sees this image she'll simply state "when he can't find something, which is often, he just buys another."   Most of the time I can find what I need; they're simply strategically positioned/located. I don't have too many tools; they are innovation supplies.