My PJM column is up: "Can a Man be Raped by a Woman? Of course he can, and believe it or not, it happens more often than we think."
Go read the column and tell me what you think.
Fleeced by Dick Morris
I noticed today that Dick Morris & Eileen McGann's new book Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, the Do-Nothing Congress, Companies ... Are Scamming Us ... and What to Do About It
is up to #1 on Amazon. Glenn got the book in the mail last week and I have been reading it over the last few days when I get a chance (so many books, so little time). It is a quick and worthwile read if you want to get Morris's perspective on how the government, Presidential candidates and various companies are out to screw you out of your money, rights, and safety. Most of the book is common knowledge for those of you keeping up with politics but you can certainly learn a thing or two from Morris even if you are politically savy.
Morris focuses a good part of the book on Obama and the problems should he be elected come November. Morris states that Obama would take the country on a sharp dangerous left turn starting with increased taxes with the top rate near 40%, lifting the tax on Social Security taxes, doubling the capital gains tax and taxes on dividends, and rolling back the increases in the threshold for the inheritance tax passed under Bush. He states Obama would open the door wide to illegal immigration making it easier for them to become citizens and voters, socialize medicine through a federal insurance program that would include illegal immigrants, weaken the Patriot Act, and lower penalties for some of our most dangerous drug criminals and give many a free pass to leave prison. In addition, Morris states that he would pull out of Iraq unilaterally and leave it to its (likely bloody) fate while blaming President Bush should it become a base for terrorists.
Morris points out that during the primary season, Obama has been clear about what he would do as president:
I have noticed this when talking with people around my area who are Obama supporters. They often support gun rights, are against illegal immigration, don't want higher taxes, and are concerned about terrorism. Yet, they seem to have no idea that on these issues, Obama stands in stark contrast to what they themselves say they want. I hope as the election nears that those on the line or who favor Obama because they want something different will stop and think about the agenda they are actually supporting.
is up to #1 on Amazon. Glenn got the book in the mail last week and I have been reading it over the last few days when I get a chance (so many books, so little time). It is a quick and worthwile read if you want to get Morris's perspective on how the government, Presidential candidates and various companies are out to screw you out of your money, rights, and safety. Most of the book is common knowledge for those of you keeping up with politics but you can certainly learn a thing or two from Morris even if you are politically savy.Morris focuses a good part of the book on Obama and the problems should he be elected come November. Morris states that Obama would take the country on a sharp dangerous left turn starting with increased taxes with the top rate near 40%, lifting the tax on Social Security taxes, doubling the capital gains tax and taxes on dividends, and rolling back the increases in the threshold for the inheritance tax passed under Bush. He states Obama would open the door wide to illegal immigration making it easier for them to become citizens and voters, socialize medicine through a federal insurance program that would include illegal immigrants, weaken the Patriot Act, and lower penalties for some of our most dangerous drug criminals and give many a free pass to leave prison. In addition, Morris states that he would pull out of Iraq unilaterally and leave it to its (likely bloody) fate while blaming President Bush should it become a base for terrorists.
Morris points out that during the primary season, Obama has been clear about what he would do as president:
The trouble is that most voters haven't been listening to what he's been saying. Enthralled by his charisma, enraptured by the ideas of electing a first black president, thrilled to have an alternative to the deadly oscillation of Clintons and Bushes in the White House, the voters have allowed the specifics of Obama's agenda to get lost along the way. They have missed the dangerously radical substance that lies behind his attractive rhetoric.
I have noticed this when talking with people around my area who are Obama supporters. They often support gun rights, are against illegal immigration, don't want higher taxes, and are concerned about terrorism. Yet, they seem to have no idea that on these issues, Obama stands in stark contrast to what they themselves say they want. I hope as the election nears that those on the line or who favor Obama because they want something different will stop and think about the agenda they are actually supporting.
Katherine Berry at Pajamas Media discusses social networking: "Having just spent another morning of my life reading the most boring details of other people�s mornings, I�ve realized how very little things like Twitter, FaceBook, or FriendFeed actually contribute to one�s life: it�s more like sitting in a room full of over-caffeinated narcissistic Tourette�s patients with ADHD who are all trying to be the most entertaining. And, really, what�s so social about a monologue?"
Tidbits from USA Today
I am traveling today and while hanging out in the hotel picked up a USA Today to see what was going on in the world (like I can't find out more easily on the internet). Anyway, I like USA Today for their little sidebars and snapshots of interesting stats on American life.
On the frontpage sidebar, I learned that more and more women are attending law school then ever before. In 2007-2008, there were 53% men in US laws compared to 47% women. By contrast, there were 72% men in law and 28% women in 1977-1978, 59% men, 41% women in 1987-1988 and 55% men, 45% women in 1997-1998.
The next study I read was entitled, "Sweeping study finds blacks in U.S. diverse, optimistic." Interestingly, I found out that although liberals and others keep insisting that we call blacks "African Americans" (wouldn't this be like calling me an Israeli American because I am Jewish? Nevermind that I was born in California and have not yet visited Israel but that is beside the point), many blacks do not prefer this title. Blacks are evenly divided about what they prefer to be called--42% favor "black" and 44% favor "African American."
Finally, in the "Nation" section of the paper, I found an article that stated fewer Americans are expected to drive or fly for the 4th of July:
The article goes on to talk about how the travel industry is responding to high gas prices by offering discounts, promotions, and other incentives to get people traveling this holiday. Really? I haven't noticed any. The bill for the hotel we are staying in seems higher than ever, including a charge (although very small) for the USA Today that I did not order but received anyway because in order not to be charged, one has to remember to call the front desk and tell them to take the charge off and not deliver the paper. Fat chance of that.
But anyway, the paper gave me some fodder for a blog post to keep a few readers amused or at least hopefully, not too terribly bored and entertained me for a few minutes so it's not too bad.
On the frontpage sidebar, I learned that more and more women are attending law school then ever before. In 2007-2008, there were 53% men in US laws compared to 47% women. By contrast, there were 72% men in law and 28% women in 1977-1978, 59% men, 41% women in 1987-1988 and 55% men, 45% women in 1997-1998.
The next study I read was entitled, "Sweeping study finds blacks in U.S. diverse, optimistic." Interestingly, I found out that although liberals and others keep insisting that we call blacks "African Americans" (wouldn't this be like calling me an Israeli American because I am Jewish? Nevermind that I was born in California and have not yet visited Israel but that is beside the point), many blacks do not prefer this title. Blacks are evenly divided about what they prefer to be called--42% favor "black" and 44% favor "African American."
Finally, in the "Nation" section of the paper, I found an article that stated fewer Americans are expected to drive or fly for the 4th of July:
Fewer Americans than last year will be driving and flying during next week's Fourth of July holiday, travel experts say.
The number of people driving 50 or more miles from home will drop 1.2% to about 34.2 million, reflecting the continued impact of high gasoline prices, auto club AAA says.
The drop follows a similar decline over the Memorial Day holiday and is the first time this decade that AAA has forecast smaller numbers of people taking driving vacations on consecutive holidays.
The article goes on to talk about how the travel industry is responding to high gas prices by offering discounts, promotions, and other incentives to get people traveling this holiday. Really? I haven't noticed any. The bill for the hotel we are staying in seems higher than ever, including a charge (although very small) for the USA Today that I did not order but received anyway because in order not to be charged, one has to remember to call the front desk and tell them to take the charge off and not deliver the paper. Fat chance of that.
But anyway, the paper gave me some fodder for a blog post to keep a few readers amused or at least hopefully, not too terribly bored and entertained me for a few minutes so it's not too bad.
ISO9000 makes you reliable, myopic, efficient and dull � and unable to invent post-it notes
Sometimes, management practices, intended to improve the functioning of the organisation, have unanticipated consequences. Sometimes these consequences are negative, but also only apparent in the long-run, making firms adopt techniques which are really not very healthy for them (at least in the long-run).
Take ISO9000. ISO9000 certification constitutes a process management technique through which firms are expected to follow (and document) a number of procedures, aimed at creating consistent, efficient processes, in which best practices are standardised and deviations from the best practice are avoided. It leads to efficient, high-quality products with minimal digression from the standard.
This all sounds very logical, justified and desirable, right?! So what am I whining about?
Well, professors Mary Benner from the University of Pennsylvania and Mike Tushman from the Harvard Business School examined what happened to the innovation output of firms adopting ISO9000 techniques. They collected information on 98 firms in the photography industry and 17 firms in the paint industry, which they all followed from 1980 till 1999. They measured, among others, all their patents and documented whether these innovations were really �close to home� for the firm (representing minor variations on what they were already doing) or more exploratory discoveries (representing truly new potential avenues for growth). And they found a very clear pattern.
Firms that adopted ISO9000 norms started doing significantly more �close to home� inventions at the expense of truly new, exploratory innovation. The �more of the same� patents, induced by the ISO9000 processes, crowded out the discovery of truly new techniques and products.
How come? Well, by definition, ISO9000 minimises deviations from �the best way of doing things� in the firm. Yet, often, the best innovations are discovered by accident. Just like random genetic mutations can produce whole new species in nature, random deviations from the norm in organisations sometimes turn out to be �mistakes� which become the firm�s next big blockbuster product. Think of how the post-it note came into existence: A bloke named Spencer Silver was working in the 3M research laboratories in 1970 trying to find a super-strong adhesive. Spencer developed a new adhesive, but it was ridiculously weak. It was so weak that although it stuck to objects, it could easily be lifted off. It was a clear error. Yet, ultimately, this super-weak adhesive became 3M�s famous, money-spinning post-it note.
Although usually deviations from the norm merely produce plain, sheer mistakes, which should get corrected quickly, if you rule out all mistakes, you will never be fortunate enough to develop a �mistake� that turns out to be your post-it note. ISO9000 annuls all deviations from the norm. But, as a (unintended) result, you become a lousy inventor.
Take ISO9000. ISO9000 certification constitutes a process management technique through which firms are expected to follow (and document) a number of procedures, aimed at creating consistent, efficient processes, in which best practices are standardised and deviations from the best practice are avoided. It leads to efficient, high-quality products with minimal digression from the standard.
This all sounds very logical, justified and desirable, right?! So what am I whining about?
Well, professors Mary Benner from the University of Pennsylvania and Mike Tushman from the Harvard Business School examined what happened to the innovation output of firms adopting ISO9000 techniques. They collected information on 98 firms in the photography industry and 17 firms in the paint industry, which they all followed from 1980 till 1999. They measured, among others, all their patents and documented whether these innovations were really �close to home� for the firm (representing minor variations on what they were already doing) or more exploratory discoveries (representing truly new potential avenues for growth). And they found a very clear pattern.
Firms that adopted ISO9000 norms started doing significantly more �close to home� inventions at the expense of truly new, exploratory innovation. The �more of the same� patents, induced by the ISO9000 processes, crowded out the discovery of truly new techniques and products.
How come? Well, by definition, ISO9000 minimises deviations from �the best way of doing things� in the firm. Yet, often, the best innovations are discovered by accident. Just like random genetic mutations can produce whole new species in nature, random deviations from the norm in organisations sometimes turn out to be �mistakes� which become the firm�s next big blockbuster product. Think of how the post-it note came into existence: A bloke named Spencer Silver was working in the 3M research laboratories in 1970 trying to find a super-strong adhesive. Spencer developed a new adhesive, but it was ridiculously weak. It was so weak that although it stuck to objects, it could easily be lifted off. It was a clear error. Yet, ultimately, this super-weak adhesive became 3M�s famous, money-spinning post-it note.
Although usually deviations from the norm merely produce plain, sheer mistakes, which should get corrected quickly, if you rule out all mistakes, you will never be fortunate enough to develop a �mistake� that turns out to be your post-it note. ISO9000 annuls all deviations from the norm. But, as a (unintended) result, you become a lousy inventor.
If you have been following the Heller case, here is the opinion: "D.C.�s laws are invalidated. The handgun ban is unconstitutional" (via Instapundit).
�I love being a doctor but I hate practicing medicine�
This New York Times article on doctors' frustrations with their profession couldn't have come out at a more appropriate time. Although I am a psychologist, I do know how these doctors feel. Since I am in private practice, I handle all of my own paperwork for Medicare, TennCare and other various insurance companies and have nearly lost my mind with the mind-boggling paperwork. I spent the morning on the phone trying to track down lost checks, trying to figure out why I wasn't paid the right amount for certain services (too little, of course) and finally, how I could get off insurance panels altogether because I have come to the point of not caring anymore.
What struck me about the article is how most of the doctors mentioned are in their late thirties to early forties. I became frustrated around 37 when I realized that I did not really have the time or energy to chase down payments, beg for authorization and take pay reductions everytime managed care or Medicare decided to cut payments. Now it looks like there will be a 10.6% cut in Medicare on July 1st which has caused many providers to decide not to take it, but I digress. My real point is that by the time you have been in the field for some time, have family responsibilities and understand the realities of the "helping profession" you are now stuck in, you finally realize you may need help yourself.
And it is not just about money, it is the frustration of paperwork and the feeling that you can never get everything done. Many of us who are in healthcare are perfectionists or a bit compulsive. One has to be to a certain degree because people's lives and health are at stake. One doctor in the Times article sums up the problem:
And while for me, it is evaluations and therapy rather than colonoscopies and mammograms, the frustration is the same. Every year I work a little less in my field and turn to other areas to earn a living. But it makes me sad that the field I spent 11 years training for is not the same one I thought I signed up for, and I don't see it getting better. It is disheartening and makes me sad but other than quit, I don't know what else to do.
Update: Shrinkwrapped, it seems, is also having problems with Medicare: "As of the end of December, 2008, there will be one less Doctor participating in Medicare. I doubt I am alone in my disgust and annoyance." No, Shrinkwrapped, I doubt you are alone.
What struck me about the article is how most of the doctors mentioned are in their late thirties to early forties. I became frustrated around 37 when I realized that I did not really have the time or energy to chase down payments, beg for authorization and take pay reductions everytime managed care or Medicare decided to cut payments. Now it looks like there will be a 10.6% cut in Medicare on July 1st which has caused many providers to decide not to take it, but I digress. My real point is that by the time you have been in the field for some time, have family responsibilities and understand the realities of the "helping profession" you are now stuck in, you finally realize you may need help yourself.
And it is not just about money, it is the frustration of paperwork and the feeling that you can never get everything done. Many of us who are in healthcare are perfectionists or a bit compulsive. One has to be to a certain degree because people's lives and health are at stake. One doctor in the Times article sums up the problem:
For me it�s an endless amount of work that I can never get through to do it properly,� said Dr. Jeffrey Freilich, 38, a primary-care physician on Long Island. �I�m a bit compulsive. As an internist, I have to worry about working up so many conditions � anemia, thyroid problems and so forth. There is no time to do it all in a day.
�On top of all that, there are all the colonoscopies and mammograms you have to arrange, and all the time on the phone getting preauthorizations. Then you have to track the patient down. And none of it is reimbursed.�
And while for me, it is evaluations and therapy rather than colonoscopies and mammograms, the frustration is the same. Every year I work a little less in my field and turn to other areas to earn a living. But it makes me sad that the field I spent 11 years training for is not the same one I thought I signed up for, and I don't see it getting better. It is disheartening and makes me sad but other than quit, I don't know what else to do.
Update: Shrinkwrapped, it seems, is also having problems with Medicare: "As of the end of December, 2008, there will be one less Doctor participating in Medicare. I doubt I am alone in my disgust and annoyance." No, Shrinkwrapped, I doubt you are alone.
eBay as Therapy?
It seems that a heartbroken man is selling his former life on eBay:
The blurb under his picture reads:
At first I thought this story was very sad and wondered if auctioning off one's life was much of a solution but in a way, I suppose it is much better than wallowing in self-pity and sinking into a depression. Some money and a fresh start might be a way to leave his former pain behind and it might provide a sense of control over the situation but auctioning off your friends? I wonder what they think of that?
It seemed unbelievable when bids to buy a heartbroken man's life in Australia reached $2.1 million � and it was, with the bemused seller aware his life was only worth a quarter of that amount.
Ian Usher, 44, announced in March he was auctioning his life on eBay with the package including his three-bedroom house in Perth, Western Australia, a trial for his job at a rug store, his car, motorbike, clothes and even friends.
His decision to sell his life followed the break-up of his five-year marriage and 12-year relationship with Laura with whom he had built the house.
The blurb under his picture reads:
Ian Usher, a 44-year-old from Yorkshire in England living in Australia, launched the unusual auction after announcing on his blog: "I have had enough of my life! I don't want it any more! You can have it if you like!"
At first I thought this story was very sad and wondered if auctioning off one's life was much of a solution but in a way, I suppose it is much better than wallowing in self-pity and sinking into a depression. Some money and a fresh start might be a way to leave his former pain behind and it might provide a sense of control over the situation but auctioning off your friends? I wonder what they think of that?
Numbers and strategy � do they mix?
In your firm, when you come up with an idea for a new product line or service, or some other project that you think has great potential and want your company to invest in, what do they want to see? My guess is it�s �payback time�, a �net present value� calculation, or some other number in a business plan, right? And if you can�t produce the numbers, you won�t get the dosh.
But that�s also a bit of a problem; sometimes the most promising projects with long-term strategic implications are exactly those that are impossible to quantify.
Take Intel�s invention of the microprocessor. In the early days, when they were working on and (quite heavily) investing in it, did they have a business plan, a net present value calculation and a payback time? Heck no. They didn�t even know what they were going to use them for � they had no sense of a potential explanation (dreaming of sticking them into handheld calculators and lamp-posts) till IBM showed up and worked hard to convince them that putting the darn things in their PCs really had a future.
Would microprocessors ever have seen the light of day in that firm if Intel�s management had insisted on a �payback time� calculation? Nope, we�d still be using an abacus if they had (ok, now I may be exaggerating) and Intel would never have been the mega-success as we know it now (not exaggerating).
So why do we so incessantly insist on producing numbers if we�re talking strategy? Genuine strategy, by definition, deals with long-term issues, uncertainty and ambiguity. Hence, numbers don�t work very well; they are unreliable, potentially misleading and sometimes sheer impossible to produce in such a situation.
And I guess that is exactly why we/companies are so eager to see them. The long-term, uncertain aspects of strategic investment decisions make us rather insecure whether we�d be doing the right thing; therefore, we really really would like to see some numbers to lull ourselves into the belief that we�ve been thorough and have uncovered the facts and have a solid basis on which we�re accepting or rejecting the proposed course of action. Of course that�s just make-belief (you can make numbers say whatever you want them to say) and may make you quite myopic; missing the things that are difficult to quantify but much more important.
Am I propagating that we should get rid of numbers in strategy altogether? Heck no; forcing yourself to go through some sort of quantifying exercise can sometimes make you uncover and realise things that you hadn�t thought of before. But subsequently you should do what Tony Cohen, CEO of Fremantle Media, told me he always does when they�ve made financial calculations regarding new television production proposals: �Once we�ve carefully and painstakingly produced all the numbers we toss them aside and sort of make a decision based on our gut feel and experience�.
Numbers in strategy may form one (minor) input into your decision-making, but don�t mistake them for the real thing: make them, but then toss them aside and use your judgement and common sense.
But that�s also a bit of a problem; sometimes the most promising projects with long-term strategic implications are exactly those that are impossible to quantify.
Take Intel�s invention of the microprocessor. In the early days, when they were working on and (quite heavily) investing in it, did they have a business plan, a net present value calculation and a payback time? Heck no. They didn�t even know what they were going to use them for � they had no sense of a potential explanation (dreaming of sticking them into handheld calculators and lamp-posts) till IBM showed up and worked hard to convince them that putting the darn things in their PCs really had a future.
Would microprocessors ever have seen the light of day in that firm if Intel�s management had insisted on a �payback time� calculation? Nope, we�d still be using an abacus if they had (ok, now I may be exaggerating) and Intel would never have been the mega-success as we know it now (not exaggerating).
So why do we so incessantly insist on producing numbers if we�re talking strategy? Genuine strategy, by definition, deals with long-term issues, uncertainty and ambiguity. Hence, numbers don�t work very well; they are unreliable, potentially misleading and sometimes sheer impossible to produce in such a situation.
And I guess that is exactly why we/companies are so eager to see them. The long-term, uncertain aspects of strategic investment decisions make us rather insecure whether we�d be doing the right thing; therefore, we really really would like to see some numbers to lull ourselves into the belief that we�ve been thorough and have uncovered the facts and have a solid basis on which we�re accepting or rejecting the proposed course of action. Of course that�s just make-belief (you can make numbers say whatever you want them to say) and may make you quite myopic; missing the things that are difficult to quantify but much more important.
Am I propagating that we should get rid of numbers in strategy altogether? Heck no; forcing yourself to go through some sort of quantifying exercise can sometimes make you uncover and realise things that you hadn�t thought of before. But subsequently you should do what Tony Cohen, CEO of Fremantle Media, told me he always does when they�ve made financial calculations regarding new television production proposals: �Once we�ve carefully and painstakingly produced all the numbers we toss them aside and sort of make a decision based on our gut feel and experience�.
Numbers in strategy may form one (minor) input into your decision-making, but don�t mistake them for the real thing: make them, but then toss them aside and use your judgement and common sense.
Sex and Housework
Reader Mark emails this article about women saying they are turned on by men doing housework:
Reader Mark points out that the article is quite one-sided--only what women need for intimacy is made known. Mark states:
I bet there are a number of male readers out there who feel the same way. Where is an article about that?
Jen Simmons loves to watch her husband Danny tend to their two little boys, mop the floor or hang a picture. She also finds it sexy.
I am very turned on when he's doing housework," says the 36-year-old Camden, Delaware resident, a middle school teacher.
"If there's a sink full of dirty dishes, he knows I'm going to take care of that before I want to get intimate. If he wasn't helping with the housework, I would not find that very attractive....
And, says one expert, a more equitable division of household duties may lead to more intimacy in the bedroom.
"When a man does housework, it feels to the woman like an expression of caring and concern, which then physically reduces her stress," says Joshua Coleman, a San Francisco-area psychologist and author of The Lazy Husband: How to Get Men to Do More Parenting and Housework.
Reader Mark points out that the article is quite one-sided--only what women need for intimacy is made known. Mark states:
You know, I would be very turned on by a sweaty woman pushing a lawn mower, digging up that tree stump in the back yard, or fixing that leak in the roof. And, Oh... what a turn on to see your sexy legs extending out from underneath the car while you do the oil change!
I bet there are a number of male readers out there who feel the same way. Where is an article about that?
Tough Love Needed
Rachel Lucas: "If you�re a 16-year-old girl and you have sex with a homeless man with the express PURPOSE of becoming pregnant, I am judging your ass off. Judge, judge, judging. I think you should be ashamed of yourself and that you should be embarrassed. Maybe feeling that way will help you learn a lesson that you so obviously need to learn."
It seems that girls at a Massachusetts high school made a pact to get pregnant together. Actually, it isn't just getting pregnant that teenage girls make destructive pacts about, it's other things--like cutting or becoming anorexic together. Too few adults in the world of these girls are sending them the message that what they are doing and thinking is stupid. The media and much of our culture is blaring the message non-stop that they are cool. Who do you think they are listening to? I would love to see Ms. Lucas in the role of school counselor to these girls--can't you just imagine the group therapy she would provide?
It seems that girls at a Massachusetts high school made a pact to get pregnant together. Actually, it isn't just getting pregnant that teenage girls make destructive pacts about, it's other things--like cutting or becoming anorexic together. Too few adults in the world of these girls are sending them the message that what they are doing and thinking is stupid. The media and much of our culture is blaring the message non-stop that they are cool. Who do you think they are listening to? I would love to see Ms. Lucas in the role of school counselor to these girls--can't you just imagine the group therapy she would provide?
A Creosote bush: How "exploitation" drives out "exploration"
Established, very profitable companies often find it difficult to remain innovative (which may get them into trouble in the long run). In contrast, entrepreneurial, innovative companies often find it difficult to start producing efficiently and make a healthy profit out of their inventions. That is because the organisation required to be creative and innovative is usually quite different from the organisation that is suited for efficient, mass-scale production.
Professor Jim March from the Stanford Business School eloquently put it like this: he said there is a fundamental tension between �exploitation and exploration�. Exploration involves innovation and creativity, which often requires a high level of autonomy for people in the organisation and a flat organisational structure. Exploitation is associated with words such as productivity, efficiency and control, which requires hierarchy and clear rules and procedures.
If a company is financially successful, exploitation often starts to crowd out exploration. This relates to the idea of �the success trap�: organisations start to focus more-and-more on what they do well; the thing that brings them success and prosperity. Yet, this comes at the expense of other things, which may not be so profitable now but which could (have) become important for the firm in the long run.
Professor Jim March from the Stanford Business School eloquently put it like this: he said there is a fundamental tension between �exploitation and exploration�. Exploration involves innovation and creativity, which often requires a high level of autonomy for people in the organisation and a flat organisational structure. Exploitation is associated with words such as productivity, efficiency and control, which requires hierarchy and clear rules and procedures.
If a company is financially successful, exploitation often starts to crowd out exploration. This relates to the idea of �the success trap�: organisations start to focus more-and-more on what they do well; the thing that brings them success and prosperity. Yet, this comes at the expense of other things, which may not be so profitable now but which could (have) become important for the firm in the long run.
Even the famous Intel fell into this trap. In the 1980s and 1990s, Intel had become hugely successful in the microprocessor business by being extremely innovative and running many experiments in semi-conductors. Yet, once they had developed an enormous advantage in microprocessors, they gradually stopped doing anything else. In 1996, CEO Andy Grove recognised the long-term dangers of this and remarked �There is a hidden danger of Intel becoming very good at this. It is that we become good at one thing�. Yet, he also found himself unable to revive Intel�s entrepreneurial creativity.
In 1993 microprocessors had made up 75% of Intel�s revenues and 85% of its profits. By 1998, this had increased to 80% of its revenues but 100% of its profits! This mega-company basically had only one product on which they relied to bring in all the dosh. That sounds a bit risky... The company�s COO, Craig Barrett remarked about this that Intel�s core microprocessor business �had begun to resemble a creosote bush�. In case you're not a botanist (and, like me, only appreciate plants when they come on plate), a creosote bush is a desert plant that survives by poisoning the ground around it, so that nothing else can grow in its vicinity� Quite a peculiar way to qualify your top-selling product I'd say, but not a bad analogy. Microprocessors were so successful that no other product could grow within Intel, because it would always look bad in comparison to these damn processor things.
Of all organisations that I have been studying over the past few years, the one that has probably impressed me most in this respect is the famous Sadler�s Wells theatre in London. On the one hand, they are phenomenally innovative, putting on the most novel and creative modern dance shows on the planet. But, on the other hand, they also stage a substantial number of shows that are tried and tested, and from which they know that they will reap a healthy profit without much of a doubt.
How do they maintain this balance so well? There are several complementary explanations, but one of them is that they work on it continuously; literally every day. They aim for about 15-30% of totally new innovative shows in the programme (often the result of a collaboration between artists who usually wouldn�t work together, because they have very different styles, background and training) and discuss this issue all the time. They do that in regular formal meetings, which invariably involve people from various departments, but also on an ongoing informal basis (that is, in the corridor, in the restaurant and in the toilet).
They are always discussing which show should go where on the theatre�s calendar, for how long it should be scheduled, what other show needs to be scheduled around the same time, etc. Because they continuously discuss and work on it, they manage to get the balance right. And, as their numbers show, the cool thing is that often, those shows which at the time were exploratory and considered risky and innovative, are now the ones that contribute most to their bank account.
Interview with Kathleen Parker
Kathleen Parker is a columnist and author of Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care.
While I am not crazy about the title (it implies that men are victims in need of saving and only because women are involved), the content in this book is worth a read by anyone who thinks that men are still in charge of society and by those who already know differently. Far from focusing on men being victims, Parker brings to light the need to fight unfair laws and societal trends that lead to a loss of freedom and autonomy for men and harms families and children. Parker discusses the lower rates of men in college, domestic violence, what the Presidential candidates need to know about fatherhood, and whether the Democrats have become the party of girly-men.
You can listen directly -- no downloads needed -- by going here and selecting the gray Flash player. You can download the file and listen at your leisure by clicking right here. And you can always get a free subscription via iTunes -- and why not, really?
Music is by The Mr. T. Experience. Show archives are at GlennandHelenShow.com.
More Double Standards
RightGirl emails a story from the Daily Mail entitled, "How DARE anyone make excuses for fathers who murder their own children." Funny, "feminists" make this excuse for women who kill their kids all the time as does the writer of this article:
So men kill out of spite only and women kill because they are mentally ill. Has this writer ever heard of Susan Smith who allegedly disposed of her children so that she might have a relationship with a wealthy local man who had no interest in a "ready-made" family? The author of the Daily Mail article, Carol Sarler, may call Smith's actions "loving her children differently," I call them selfish, cruel and yes, spiteful.
And if mental problems should excuse these crimes, turnabout is fair play. Men who rape, it seems, have often been abused by females:
My guess is that some of these rapists who have been abused by women are mentally ill and this illness plays a part in their decision to rape. Maybe there should be some excuse for male rapists like "Abused by Female Rapist Syndrome" just as there is the "Battered Women's Syndrome" as an excuse for women who kill their husbands. We all know that it would be a cold day in hell before that happens. And perhaps it shouldn't.
But neither should we make blanket statements about women who kill or commit atrocious acts. To say that they always act out of mental illness is to imply that women cannot be held accountable for their actions, that they are children or too mentally disturbed to know what they are doing or to be held accountable. This view has its downside. If this is the case, then women are too crazy to vote, make serious decisions or engage fully in life as autonomous human beings. Women have a full range of human emotions and actions, just as men do. We should not automatically excuse behavior because the perpetrator is female nor should we always find men guilty because they are male.
In fact, of all children killed by a parent, half are killed by their mothers. But the difference is that men, as shown by the examples above, are known to be able to kill out of spite.
When women kill their children, they almost always do it because they are mentally ill.
In most cases, they are suffering from post-natal depression; in others, they have undiagnosed diseases such as schizophrenia.
Indeed, so much is this the rule of thumb that even in Texas, where they love to hang 'em high and psychology is regarded with suspicion, the last four women who killed their children were spared death row by reason of insanity. Women, in short, love their children differently.
So men kill out of spite only and women kill because they are mentally ill. Has this writer ever heard of Susan Smith who allegedly disposed of her children so that she might have a relationship with a wealthy local man who had no interest in a "ready-made" family? The author of the Daily Mail article, Carol Sarler, may call Smith's actions "loving her children differently," I call them selfish, cruel and yes, spiteful.
And if mental problems should excuse these crimes, turnabout is fair play. Men who rape, it seems, have often been abused by females:
.....there is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men - 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O'Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by "females only" chose female victims almost exclusively.
My guess is that some of these rapists who have been abused by women are mentally ill and this illness plays a part in their decision to rape. Maybe there should be some excuse for male rapists like "Abused by Female Rapist Syndrome" just as there is the "Battered Women's Syndrome" as an excuse for women who kill their husbands. We all know that it would be a cold day in hell before that happens. And perhaps it shouldn't.
But neither should we make blanket statements about women who kill or commit atrocious acts. To say that they always act out of mental illness is to imply that women cannot be held accountable for their actions, that they are children or too mentally disturbed to know what they are doing or to be held accountable. This view has its downside. If this is the case, then women are too crazy to vote, make serious decisions or engage fully in life as autonomous human beings. Women have a full range of human emotions and actions, just as men do. We should not automatically excuse behavior because the perpetrator is female nor should we always find men guilty because they are male.
Afternoon Snack
Well, I finally have some results from my Earth Box garden kit.
As I mentioned here, I grew strawberries and tomatoes, without much hope of success due to my black thumb. Although the produce is small and a bit funny looking, I think I did pretty well. At least I have an afternoon snack that I grew myself and am pretty sure won't give me salmonella (even if it is a bit unattractive). Maybe if the outbreak gets worse, I could sell my fresh tomatoes on ebay to the highest bidder. I don't think the tiny strawberry will make the cut on the open market but it is really cute--don't you think?
Do stats really reveal how many husbands are killed by wives?
Do you ever wonder if more women kill their husbands than the stats reflect? If this story is any indication, the answer would be a mind-boggling "yes" (thanks Graham):
I wonder if this woman was hooking up with these military men to get their VA benefits? And five dead husbands before anyone figures something is going on? And Neumar is only charged with one count of solicitation for murder. If she killed the other four, do the stats reflect this? I doubt it.
Police may have ignored a warning years ago that a woman with five dead spouses was trying to hire a hit man to kill one of the men, investigators in North Carolina said Monday.
Authorities charged 76-year-old Betty Neumar last month with one count of solicitation of murder in the July 1986 death of Harold Gentry. Gentry's brother had begged investigators for two decades to take another look at the case.
Stanly County sheriff's investigators believe Neumar tried to hire several people to kill Gentry. Lead detective Scott Williams said Monday his office is looking into the possibility that one of those would-be hit men went to authorities before Gentry's death, but no one took him seriously....
Neumar has been married five times since the 1950s, but each union ended with the death of her husband. Investigators want authorities elsewhere to look into the deaths. Williams said investigators have uncovered a common link among the victims: They all had military experience.
I wonder if this woman was hooking up with these military men to get their VA benefits? And five dead husbands before anyone figures something is going on? And Neumar is only charged with one count of solicitation for murder. If she killed the other four, do the stats reflect this? I doubt it.
"Carnival" of Misandry
I often receive many interesting tips and links from readers on male bashing and abuse but I can't post on all of them since I would be here 24/7 to do so and would need a huge staff! I have been reading Kathleen Parker's Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care for an upcoming podcast and thought this carnival seemed fitting in light of her research. Here are a few highlights that readers have found that I wanted to share with you:
Reader Jay emails in this news story from Denver on a woman who has been accused of stabbing people over the course of 21 years:
Yep, pointing that finger in her face justified her husband getting stabbed and of course, a two year probation and then six whole years of probation really taught her a lesson, so much so that she went on to kill a subsequent husband. Kudos to our legal system and their "egalitarian" approach to domestic violence.
Another reader sends in this story from The Wall Street Journal. It seems that men's computer coding is inferior to women's coding and must be replaced:
Women good, men bad...even their coding is proof of that!
Reader Eric writes in to point out that Glamour magazine patronizes men in their posts about Mother's Day and Father's Day. "These posts," Eric states "have become opportunities to fix what's wrong with men." The writer, Rebecca Roberts, states in a post entitled "Father's Day Wishes":
In addition to being patronizing, it seems to me that the Glamour writer has no clue that on Father's Day, men actually have sons as well as daughters but everything is about what is "best" for girls and women-- boys and men are simply objects whose sole purpose is to help girls become the President of the US or learn to respect themselves.
And finally, guys, beware, you might be punished severely for being thoughtless enough not to call your date back (Hat tip: Chris):
At least the Supreme Court Justice had some sense and gave her jail time.
When women and the media go on about how sexist and abusive men are, I wonder if they overlooked these stories? Of course, they will say that these "tales" are an aberration but if my inbox is any indication, this could not be further from the truth.
for an upcoming podcast and thought this carnival seemed fitting in light of her research. Here are a few highlights that readers have found that I wanted to share with you:Reader Jay emails in this news story from Denver on a woman who has been accused of stabbing people over the course of 21 years:
A woman suspected of stabbing a man to death this week has a 21-year history of threatening people with knives and was twice charged with attempted murder for stabbing her husband.
Audrey Eve Cahow, 51, was arrested Thursday for investigation of the first-degree in the death of Anthony Martinez, 62, Denver police spokesman John White said.
Investigators believe Cahow and Martinez were arguing when Cahow stabbed him. Martinez died of a single stab wound to the chest and heart.
In 1987, Cahow was charged with attempted murder for stabbing her husband, Paul Vaughn, who was then 62. She pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and sentenced to two years' probation.
Three years later, police said she admitted stabbing Vaughn five times after he pointed his finger in her face. She again pleaded guilty to assault and was sentenced to six years of intensive probation.
Yep, pointing that finger in her face justified her husband getting stabbed and of course, a two year probation and then six whole years of probation really taught her a lesson, so much so that she went on to kill a subsequent husband. Kudos to our legal system and their "egalitarian" approach to domestic violence.
Another reader sends in this story from The Wall Street Journal. It seems that men's computer coding is inferior to women's coding and must be replaced:
We all know men hate to ask for directions. Apparently they loathe putting directions in computer code, too.
Emma McGrattan, the senior vice-president of engineering for computer-database company Ingres�and one of Silicon Valley�s highest-ranking female programmers�insists that men and women write code differently. Women are more touchy-feely and considerate of those who will use the code later, she says. They�ll intersperse their code�those strings of instructions that result in nifty applications and programs�with helpful comments and directions, explaining why they wrote the lines the way they did and exactly how they did it.....
There�s a big need to fix testosterone-fueled code at Ingres because only about 20% of the engineers are women, McGrattan says. (Most of them are in jobs involving quality assurance or adapting the product to a new locale, she says, and not the �heavy lifting� of writing code.) She�s on a mission to get more women interested in computer-programming careers. But �it�s proving very challenging,� she says.
Women good, men bad...even their coding is proof of that!
Reader Eric writes in to point out that Glamour magazine patronizes men in their posts about Mother's Day and Father's Day. "These posts," Eric states "have become opportunities to fix what's wrong with men." The writer, Rebecca Roberts, states in a post entitled "Father's Day Wishes":
On Mothers' Day, I wrote that I believe the responsibility of raising boys to respect women is as important as raising girls to respect themselves. This Fathers' Day, I've been thinking about fathers and daughters, and the responsibility fathers have to raise unapologetically ambitious, fearless girls.
In addition to being patronizing, it seems to me that the Glamour writer has no clue that on Father's Day, men actually have sons as well as daughters but everything is about what is "best" for girls and women-- boys and men are simply objects whose sole purpose is to help girls become the President of the US or learn to respect themselves.
And finally, guys, beware, you might be punished severely for being thoughtless enough not to call your date back (Hat tip: Chris):
A college student who branded a date's body with a scalding piece of metal as payback for never calling her after they had sex was sentenced to five years in prison Friday.
Kristina Caban, 23, had no comment as state Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus sentenced her for what he called a crime that was "not remotely justifiable."
Assistant District Attorney Nicole Blumberg told Obus that Caban was the "mastermind behind the plan" to sear the torso of Samir "Sammy" Sara, then 23, for having sex with her once in 2004 and never calling her again.
At least the Supreme Court Justice had some sense and gave her jail time.
When women and the media go on about how sexist and abusive men are, I wonder if they overlooked these stories? Of course, they will say that these "tales" are an aberration but if my inbox is any indication, this could not be further from the truth.
How bad practice prevails
Quite often, when I interview or just talk to a manager about his company and try to figure out why they are organised or managed in a particular way, I hit upon something which I don�t understand. Some practice, management technique, service specification or incentive system from which I simply fail to grasp why they do it like that (just to name a few candidates: detailing in pharmaceuticals, buy-back guarantees in book publishing, insane working hours in investment banking). And when then I ask (�I am not sure I understand; can you explain a bit more?�), I often get a long and winding answer (which suggests to me that they don�t quite know it either�).
And when I then, stubbornly, poke a bit harder (�sorry, but I still don�t get it��), the interviewee might get a bit annoyed, after which very often I will receive the momentous reply �look Freek, everybody in our business does it this way, and everybody has always been doing it like this; if this wasn�t the best way to do things, I am sure it would have disappeared by now�.
I never quite bought this answer but, frankly, also did not quite know how to refute it�
Because our well-established theories of economic organisation would propagate exactly that: The market is Darwinian. Firms with bad habits and practices have a lower chance of making it in the market in comparison to smart firms who do everything right. Therefore, those firms will go out of business quicker and, although it may take a while, the ineffective practices will die out with them.
But I still thought they were wrong. I now think I have figured it out. Bad practices can spread and can continue to persist in industries, �till kingdom comes�. Let me attempt to explain to you how and why.
The trick is bad management practices can survive, despite making firms worse off, just like viruses can persist amongst humans. Because they are contagious, and �spread quicker than they kill�, the virus (or management practice) can continue to persist and not die out. It�s the same for certain industry practices.
Moreover, what�s unique about industries is that if everybody is employing the practice, everybody is equally bad. Yet, because competition is based on relative competitive strength, firms might not even notice that they are worse off for continuing the silly habit. Customers might complain about them (e.g. �all those stupid highstreet banks are equally terrible!�) but don�t have a choice; they have to pick one anyway (just like they would when the banks would all be excellent). Hence, the banks don�t suffer.
You can put these things into simulation � which I did � and quite easily model the diffusion and persistence of harmful management practices. So, next time a manager tells you they do it because everybody has always been doing it (whether it�s detailing in pharmaceuticals, buy-back guarantees in book publishing, or insane working hours in investment banking) and they�re sure that therefore it must be the best way of doing things, just smile at him and say �ah! that�s not necessarily true; just because everybody is doing it and has been doing it like this forever, does not mean that it is the best way of doing things�. And I will happily show him my simulation if you have the patience.
And when I then, stubbornly, poke a bit harder (�sorry, but I still don�t get it��), the interviewee might get a bit annoyed, after which very often I will receive the momentous reply �look Freek, everybody in our business does it this way, and everybody has always been doing it like this; if this wasn�t the best way to do things, I am sure it would have disappeared by now�.
I never quite bought this answer but, frankly, also did not quite know how to refute it�
Because our well-established theories of economic organisation would propagate exactly that: The market is Darwinian. Firms with bad habits and practices have a lower chance of making it in the market in comparison to smart firms who do everything right. Therefore, those firms will go out of business quicker and, although it may take a while, the ineffective practices will die out with them.
But I still thought they were wrong. I now think I have figured it out. Bad practices can spread and can continue to persist in industries, �till kingdom comes�. Let me attempt to explain to you how and why.
The trick is bad management practices can survive, despite making firms worse off, just like viruses can persist amongst humans. Because they are contagious, and �spread quicker than they kill�, the virus (or management practice) can continue to persist and not die out. It�s the same for certain industry practices.
Moreover, what�s unique about industries is that if everybody is employing the practice, everybody is equally bad. Yet, because competition is based on relative competitive strength, firms might not even notice that they are worse off for continuing the silly habit. Customers might complain about them (e.g. �all those stupid highstreet banks are equally terrible!�) but don�t have a choice; they have to pick one anyway (just like they would when the banks would all be excellent). Hence, the banks don�t suffer.
You can put these things into simulation � which I did � and quite easily model the diffusion and persistence of harmful management practices. So, next time a manager tells you they do it because everybody has always been doing it (whether it�s detailing in pharmaceuticals, buy-back guarantees in book publishing, or insane working hours in investment banking) and they�re sure that therefore it must be the best way of doing things, just smile at him and say �ah! that�s not necessarily true; just because everybody is doing it and has been doing it like this forever, does not mean that it is the best way of doing things�. And I will happily show him my simulation if you have the patience.
Happy Father's Day
To all my readers who are Dads out there, hope you have a great day. Always remember how important you are in your kid's lives. If you have something fun planned for the day, let us hear about it.
I just read that Tim Russert died of an apparent heart attack --it reminds me that while politics is important, life is moreso. My heart goes out to his family and friends.
Massachusetts is an Expensive Place to Live
Reader Jim writes in with a link to this Boston Globe article entitled, "The chilling effect of state's divorce laws." The article describes the antiquated Massachusetts laws that have men paying alimony indefinitely to women who are often educated and/or working. Naturally, no one gives a damn that men are often being screwed, having to pay up to 30 to 40% of their income to these women. The big issue is that (gasp!) women who marry men having this obligation might also get screwed!
A man is really in a catch 22 in Massachusetts if he cannot pay alimony. It's not fair if his current wife has to pay the ex alimony but on the other hand, only when more and more women start suffering from these laws will anyone decide to do anything about them.
FORGET KAFKA. Welcome to Massachusetts. In the 1980s, it was known as Taxachusetts. These days, it's known as the state whose divorce laws are so out of date that many people decide against marrying here - or marrying anyone anywhere whose alimony obligations originate here. I'm one of them. Two divorce lawyers tell me that the state's laws are so extreme they have "a chilling effect on marriage." Prenups offer no guarantees. Judges routinely ignore them.
Cathy Ortiz, a secretary in Fairhaven whose husband is out of work, was ordered in 2007 to make alimony payments from her own paycheck to his ex-wife - who has a full-time job with benefits.
Alimony law is largely case law, not statute. Many legislators are shocked to hear the feudal details, unique to Massachusetts. But not shocked enough to reform the law.
The laws are gender neutral, but the facts are not: 96 percent of alimony payers are men, who often must give 30 to 40 percent of gross earnings to educated and sometimes employed women. [my emphasis]Alimony does not automatically end or decline at retirement, even after an ex-wife has gotten an equitable share of marital assets. This applies in no-fault divorces, to the middle-class, and to millionaires.
A man is really in a catch 22 in Massachusetts if he cannot pay alimony. It's not fair if his current wife has to pay the ex alimony but on the other hand, only when more and more women start suffering from these laws will anyone decide to do anything about them.
Analysts rule the waves (whether we like it or not)
In the 1960s we saw a wave of �diversification� among corporations, resulting in the emergence of many so-called conglomerates. They operated in all sorts of businesses that often didn�t have much to do with each other. For example, a famous conglomerate in the UK was Hanson Plc, whose divisions operated in activities ranging from chemical factories to electrical suppliers, gold mines, cigarettes, batteries, airport duty free stores, clothing shops and department stores. Diversification was popular and conglomerates flourished.
In the 1990s though, the trend reversed, and we witnessed a wave of de-diversification. Firms started to focus on their �core activities�, companies were split up, conglomerates were dismantled, and diversification was generally regarded as unfashionable, evil and simply not-done.
What led the trend to reverse? Economists have argued that it was shareholders fighting back. Shareholders can diversify their stock portfolios; they don�t need companies to do that for them. Managers only do so to serve their own needs, and feed their desire for empire building, size and security. In the 1990s, shareholders said �basta� and forced self-serving managers to de-diversify � or so they claim.
A slightly kinder view is offered by sociologists, who argue that in the 1960s it was considered good practice to spread risk and diversify and hence a �legitimate thing to do�. Managers weren�t selfish and evil; they simply did what was expected of them. When shareholders said, �we don�t want you to do this anymore� (perhaps because the market became more transparent and efficient), they diligently responded and applied more focus to their companies.
Yet, more recently, researchers have started to focus on the role that analysts played and still play in discouraging companies to spread their activities across different industries. After all, sometimes diversification might make sense! For example, a company like Monsanto sort of had to operate in pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals and agricultural biotechnology because their expertise bridged these different areas and therefore it was advantageous to operate in all of them. But that something makes sense from a strategy perspective doesn�t mean it makes sense in light of an analyst�s lunch break.
What�?! What do analysts� lunch breaks have to do with any of this?!
Well� it is very important for listed firms to be covered by analysts. We know from ample research that firms who receive less coverage usually trade at a significantly lower share price. Consider this quote, from an analyst report by PaineWebber in 1999:
�The life sciences experiment is not working with respect to our analysis or in reality. Proper analysis of Monsanto requires expertise in three industries: pharmaceutical, agricultural chemicals and agricultural biotechnology. Unfortunately, on Wall Street, these separate industries are analyzed individually because of the complexity of each. At PaineWebber, collaboration among analysts brings together expertise in each area. We can attest to the challenges of making this effort pay off: just coordinating a simple thing like work schedules requires lots of effort. While we are wiling to pay the price that will make the process work, it is a process not likely to be adopted by Wall Street on a widespread basis. Therefore, Monsanto will probably have to change its structure to be more properly analyzed and valued�.*
Wait a second, did they just suggest that Monsanto should split up because it requires three (industry-specific) analysts to cover them and these three buggers can�t find a mutually convenient time to meet?! Yes, I am afraid they did.
Along similar lines, in a large research project, Ezra Zuckerman, professor at MIT, found that firms divested businesses, split up or demerged in order to make themselves easier to understand for analysts. Those firms who, for one reason or another, comprised an unusual combination of businesses in their corporation and therefore were �more difficult to understand� for the poor analysts traded at a significantly lower price. They could try to explain their strategy at length but after a while the only thing left for them to do was to split it. Arthur Stromberg, then CEO of URS Corporation, who initiated its spin-off, declared:
�I realized that analysts are like the rest of us. Give them something easy to understand, and they will go with it. [Before the spin-off,] we had made it tough for them to figure us out�.
Security analysts usually specialise in one or a specific combination of industries. If a firm does not conform to that division of analyst labour, they are more difficult to understand and analyse, which is why they will trade at a lower price. It then makes sense to give in to the analysts� whims, and focus and simplify, even if that would make you weaker in a strictly business sense. Hence, analysts rule the (diversification) waves. And their lunch break will determine your stock price.
* Adopted from Tod Zenger, Professor of Strategy at Washington University.
In the 1990s though, the trend reversed, and we witnessed a wave of de-diversification. Firms started to focus on their �core activities�, companies were split up, conglomerates were dismantled, and diversification was generally regarded as unfashionable, evil and simply not-done.
What led the trend to reverse? Economists have argued that it was shareholders fighting back. Shareholders can diversify their stock portfolios; they don�t need companies to do that for them. Managers only do so to serve their own needs, and feed their desire for empire building, size and security. In the 1990s, shareholders said �basta� and forced self-serving managers to de-diversify � or so they claim.
A slightly kinder view is offered by sociologists, who argue that in the 1960s it was considered good practice to spread risk and diversify and hence a �legitimate thing to do�. Managers weren�t selfish and evil; they simply did what was expected of them. When shareholders said, �we don�t want you to do this anymore� (perhaps because the market became more transparent and efficient), they diligently responded and applied more focus to their companies.
Yet, more recently, researchers have started to focus on the role that analysts played and still play in discouraging companies to spread their activities across different industries. After all, sometimes diversification might make sense! For example, a company like Monsanto sort of had to operate in pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals and agricultural biotechnology because their expertise bridged these different areas and therefore it was advantageous to operate in all of them. But that something makes sense from a strategy perspective doesn�t mean it makes sense in light of an analyst�s lunch break.
What�?! What do analysts� lunch breaks have to do with any of this?!
Well� it is very important for listed firms to be covered by analysts. We know from ample research that firms who receive less coverage usually trade at a significantly lower share price. Consider this quote, from an analyst report by PaineWebber in 1999:
�The life sciences experiment is not working with respect to our analysis or in reality. Proper analysis of Monsanto requires expertise in three industries: pharmaceutical, agricultural chemicals and agricultural biotechnology. Unfortunately, on Wall Street, these separate industries are analyzed individually because of the complexity of each. At PaineWebber, collaboration among analysts brings together expertise in each area. We can attest to the challenges of making this effort pay off: just coordinating a simple thing like work schedules requires lots of effort. While we are wiling to pay the price that will make the process work, it is a process not likely to be adopted by Wall Street on a widespread basis. Therefore, Monsanto will probably have to change its structure to be more properly analyzed and valued�.*
Wait a second, did they just suggest that Monsanto should split up because it requires three (industry-specific) analysts to cover them and these three buggers can�t find a mutually convenient time to meet?! Yes, I am afraid they did.
Along similar lines, in a large research project, Ezra Zuckerman, professor at MIT, found that firms divested businesses, split up or demerged in order to make themselves easier to understand for analysts. Those firms who, for one reason or another, comprised an unusual combination of businesses in their corporation and therefore were �more difficult to understand� for the poor analysts traded at a significantly lower price. They could try to explain their strategy at length but after a while the only thing left for them to do was to split it. Arthur Stromberg, then CEO of URS Corporation, who initiated its spin-off, declared:�I realized that analysts are like the rest of us. Give them something easy to understand, and they will go with it. [Before the spin-off,] we had made it tough for them to figure us out�.
Security analysts usually specialise in one or a specific combination of industries. If a firm does not conform to that division of analyst labour, they are more difficult to understand and analyse, which is why they will trade at a lower price. It then makes sense to give in to the analysts� whims, and focus and simplify, even if that would make you weaker in a strictly business sense. Hence, analysts rule the (diversification) waves. And their lunch break will determine your stock price.
* Adopted from Tod Zenger, Professor of Strategy at Washington University.
Interview with Doug Feith on "War and Decision"
Doug Feith, the undersecretary from 2001-2005 has a new book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism.
With the 2008 campaign underway, we're hearing more and more about 2002 and 2003 and the decision to go to war in Iraq. But most of the public discussion misses the true story. We talk with Feith about what really happened, and what he sees as the biggest issues for the next president. The book is detailed, yet easy enough for a layperson to read and understand. It is written in plain English and without abbreviations or the expectation that one knows much about history or politics. I found it an intriguing look at how and why the current administration made its decisions with documents and facts that support the conclusions.
You can listen directly -- no downloads needed -- by going right here and clicking on the gray Flash player. You can also download the file and listen at your leisure by clicking right here. Plus, you can get a free subscription from iTunes and never miss an episode. Why not?
Show archives are at GlennandHelenShow.com. Music is by Mobius Dick.
Top 10 Male-Bashing Ads
Ask Men ranks the Top 10 Worst Male-Bashing Ads (thanks to the reader who emailed this):
Check out the commercials and see what you think, frankly I think the one from Dairy Queen (#1) makes women look just as bad as men. It portrays a self-involved princess--a young girl-- getting a gift of an ice cream from a boy while sounding smug and self-entitled about using a male for free treats. Her mother actually looks shocked and surprised that her daughter is pimping for free ice cream. I would like to hear the discussion between the two after this interlude but the commercial ends.
You�ve seen him plenty of times on sitcoms; he�s the dumb, bumbling, idiot dad, husband and boyfriend who appears useless at everything but bringing home a paycheck. The message: Guys are dumb and women have to lead them around. This, of course, cues the laugh track. Yet a survey from an organization called Children Now found that two-thirds of kid respondents described men on TV as angry, while respondents from another group�s survey said men were portrayed as corrupt on TV by a 17 to 1 margin. Clearly, this is no laughing matter.
Check out the commercials and see what you think, frankly I think the one from Dairy Queen (#1) makes women look just as bad as men. It portrays a self-involved princess--a young girl-- getting a gift of an ice cream from a boy while sounding smug and self-entitled about using a male for free treats. Her mother actually looks shocked and surprised that her daughter is pimping for free ice cream. I would like to hear the discussion between the two after this interlude but the commercial ends.
False Allegations Against Teachers to be Punished in Dallas
Dallas public schools will allow punishment for students who falsely accuse teachers of wrongdoing (Hat tip: Jeff):
Okay, none of these punishments sound like much, but it's a start. When kids know they can get away with false allegations with no repercussions, they will do it more often. Hopefully, this ruling will lessen the likelihood of students making false allegations for they can be quite serious. I guess time will tell.
Dallas public school trustees approved changes to the district's Student Code of Conduct on Thursday that will allow schools to punish students who make false allegations of wrongdoing against teachers.
Teacher representatives had lobbied for the change because the district must investigate all student allegations, which often results in placing the accused faculty member on paid administrative leave.
Teachers said the removal of faculty members during the investigations leaves colleagues suspicious and the reputations of the accused tarnished.
Under the old rules, if the accusations proved false, the teachers were returned to campus but students faced no consequences. Now, making a false allegation is on par with fighting and drug use. These acts can result in detention, removal from extracurricular activities or in-school suspension.
Okay, none of these punishments sound like much, but it's a start. When kids know they can get away with false allegations with no repercussions, they will do it more often. Hopefully, this ruling will lessen the likelihood of students making false allegations for they can be quite serious. I guess time will tell.
Munis for Dummies
I have to say that the "Books for Dummies"
are really useful for understanding various topics that one doesn't know much about. I use them often, such as this one on how to garden. I am now reading Bond Investing For Dummies 
to learn how to buy municipal bonds. I figure that if taxes increase, I'll need to find some way to shelter savings that makes sense. Since muni interest is often tax free, it seems that they might be a better investment than simply putting money in CDs. Anyone have experience with municipal bonds--good or bad--that they can share? If so, let me know in the comments because I would love to hear from people who actually have experience with them as opposed to only reading about them in a book or listening to Suze Orman discuss them on her show.
are really useful for understanding various topics that one doesn't know much about. I use them often, such as this one on how to garden. I am now reading Bond Investing For Dummies to learn how to buy municipal bonds. I figure that if taxes increase, I'll need to find some way to shelter savings that makes sense. Since muni interest is often tax free, it seems that they might be a better investment than simply putting money in CDs. Anyone have experience with municipal bonds--good or bad--that they can share? If so, let me know in the comments because I would love to hear from people who actually have experience with them as opposed to only reading about them in a book or listening to Suze Orman discuss them on her show.
Women on top
In general, CEOs seem just like normal people. Some of them are nice, some of them unpleasant; some of them are modest, others are nauseatingly self-obsessed; some of them are bright, others more mentally challenged; some of them are helpful, others are cynically egotistic (and I could give you examples of each of these). Most of them are quite rich though� And most of them are men.
Yet, over the years, I have also interviewed quite a few female CEOs. Barbara Cassani when she, way back when, was the CEO of Go Airlines (later acquired by Easyjet), Sly Bailey, when she was still CEO of IPC Media (now she is the CEO of the newspaper group Trinity Mirror), Gail Rebuck, CEO of the book publisher Random House (who confirmed the famous story that she signed a big contract when she was in a hospital bed giving birth) and, very recently, Stevie Spring, CEO of magazine publisher Future, and Ruby McGregor-Smith, CEO of the large property services company MITIE. And they are all so nice�!
I mean really. Not nice as in bringing me cookies and pinching my cheek but nice as in helpful, realistic, sympathetic and down-to-earth. And bright. I have never met a dumb female CEO.
And I wonder why that is. I mean, it�s just not normal.
My guess is the following: Ascending to the position of CEO is a bit of a Darwinian process; many people start at the bottom of the corporate ladder; very few reach the highest step. Climbing the ladder, as a woman, you still need something extra � especially when heading a public company, having to deal with �The City�* � at every step. And I guess that something extra is brains and tact (a fairly rare combination, also among professors by the way). Without brains or tact (or both), men can apparently still navigate and survive the corporate jungle. But women without brains or tact get �selected out� quite quickly. Therefore, when you see a woman step up, she is bound to be quite good!
Don�t get me wrong, I have also met male CEOs who are �nice�, as in helpful, realistic, sympathetic and down-to-earth. And pretty much all female CEOs whom I interviewed displayed the attitude �stop whining about it being so difficult for women; just get on with it�, but they also confirmed that they did feel that they needed something extra at every step of the way. It is also not that I am advocating that we should make it easier for women to reach the top and become CEOs, because that would mean that we�d get more CEOs who are unpleasant, nauseatingly self-obsessed, mentally challenged and cynically egotistic. It is just that, in corporate life, we should treat men more like we treat women. That would be quite �nice�.
Yet, over the years, I have also interviewed quite a few female CEOs. Barbara Cassani when she, way back when, was the CEO of Go Airlines (later acquired by Easyjet), Sly Bailey, when she was still CEO of IPC Media (now she is the CEO of the newspaper group Trinity Mirror), Gail Rebuck, CEO of the book publisher Random House (who confirmed the famous story that she signed a big contract when she was in a hospital bed giving birth) and, very recently, Stevie Spring, CEO of magazine publisher Future, and Ruby McGregor-Smith, CEO of the large property services company MITIE. And they are all so nice�!
I mean really. Not nice as in bringing me cookies and pinching my cheek but nice as in helpful, realistic, sympathetic and down-to-earth. And bright. I have never met a dumb female CEO.
And I wonder why that is. I mean, it�s just not normal.
My guess is the following: Ascending to the position of CEO is a bit of a Darwinian process; many people start at the bottom of the corporate ladder; very few reach the highest step. Climbing the ladder, as a woman, you still need something extra � especially when heading a public company, having to deal with �The City�* � at every step. And I guess that something extra is brains and tact (a fairly rare combination, also among professors by the way). Without brains or tact (or both), men can apparently still navigate and survive the corporate jungle. But women without brains or tact get �selected out� quite quickly. Therefore, when you see a woman step up, she is bound to be quite good!
Don�t get me wrong, I have also met male CEOs who are �nice�, as in helpful, realistic, sympathetic and down-to-earth. And pretty much all female CEOs whom I interviewed displayed the attitude �stop whining about it being so difficult for women; just get on with it�, but they also confirmed that they did feel that they needed something extra at every step of the way. It is also not that I am advocating that we should make it easier for women to reach the top and become CEOs, because that would mean that we�d get more CEOs who are unpleasant, nauseatingly self-obsessed, mentally challenged and cynically egotistic. It is just that, in corporate life, we should treat men more like we treat women. That would be quite �nice�.
* "The City" is London's financial district
When False Rape Allegations Ruin a Reputation
A police officer loses his job due to false rape allegations (thanks to the reader who emailed this story):
His lawyer (Greer) makes a good point but how do you restore a man's reputation who has been charged (although what turns out to be falsely) for rape--even though he was cleared, hasn't damage been done? Why shouldn't the liar who gave the false report have to pay in some way? Why is it okay to ruin a man's reputation with false rape allegations without repercussions? Why is this acceptable?
This case reminded me of something that columnist Kathleen Parker wrote in her new book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care:
The rest of society is finding it acceptable too. It is not. If a woman was raped and lost her job because of what happened, people would be outraged. If a man loses his job by having a false rape charge against him, there is often nary a whimper.
A special prosecutor has dropped the rape case against a Parachute police officer who lost his job as a result of the allegations.
Tammy Eret, the chief Mesa County deputy district attorney who was brought in to handle the case, said she questions the credibility of the alleged victim. In a motion to dismiss the case, she outlined 22 concerns about the alleged victim�s credibility, and suggested the woman might have had consensual sex with the man, then regretted it.
Prosecutors decided to dismiss all charges against him. Magistrate Lain Leoniak said Wednesday that she signed an order and the case will be dismissed. The 21st Judicial District Attorney�s Office had been specially appointed to review the rape case against Duncan, 25.....
The defendant, Kristopher Duncan, a former Marine and Iraq war veteran, said he hopes to return to law enforcement, but he hadn�t decided where. His lawyer, Greg Greer, of Glenwood Springs, said it remains �unanswered� whether or not his client can sue Parachute for being fired in the wake of the incident.
�I think the biggest thing was the embarrassment that I would even be accused of something like that,� Duncan said, �but I knew I didn�t do anything wrong....�
Greer praised Eret�s decision to drop the case. �Our challenge now is just to restore his good reputation,� Greer said.
His lawyer (Greer) makes a good point but how do you restore a man's reputation who has been charged (although what turns out to be falsely) for rape--even though he was cleared, hasn't damage been done? Why shouldn't the liar who gave the false report have to pay in some way? Why is it okay to ruin a man's reputation with false rape allegations without repercussions? Why is this acceptable?
This case reminded me of something that columnist Kathleen Parker wrote in her new book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care:
The assumption of guilt when it comes to males and rape is so entrenched in the American psyche that we ignore our better sense and embrace the righteousness of the mob. The same feminist spirit that successfully fought to eradicate the "she deserved it" attitude toward rape victims inexplicably found acceptable an equally unjust "of course he did it" attitude toward men.
The rest of society is finding it acceptable too. It is not. If a woman was raped and lost her job because of what happened, people would be outraged. If a man loses his job by having a false rape charge against him, there is often nary a whimper.
Retaining your ability to make money? Causal ambiguity�s the answer
Whenever people hear that I am a professor at a business school, the reply I most often receive is �oh, so you teach people how to make money�?� And I usually nod while I display a weak smile and abide in silence.
Some time ago though, I was teaching in New York, at Columbia University�s business school, and took a taxi from JFK airport. The driver, starting a polite chat, said �what do you do?� �I am a professor at a business school� �so you teach people how to make money�, �yeah (sigh), I teach people how to make money��
But then, the guy continued, �so, what�s the answer?��. That was a minor credibility crisis, right there on the spot�
I don�t remember what I said, but I remember thinking later what I should have said. It is about �creating value� (and selling it for more than it cost you to create) but also about �retaining value� (namely, why wouldn�t anyone else be able to come in and do exactly the same thing � driving the price down till you can only sell it for what it cost you in the first place)?
And, of all business plans and proposals I get to see, people usually think a lot about the first bit; �how to create value�. They talk about their unique value proposition, and why customers will love it, buy it, scream for it, and so on.
But they often forget about the second bit; why would YOU be able to do it, or at least do it better or cheaper than anyone else? What do you have or own that enables you to retain the value-adding ability, which protects you from immediate imitation by competitors?
For a start-up, that�s often tricky. You don�t have anything yet, so what could you possibly have or do that others couldn�t do too? The trick is that you don�t have to have it now, but you do need it a year or two from now, when you�re starting to have a real business.
Thus, the thing that makes you �difficult to imitate� does not necessarily have to be a patent, brandname, unique location, etc. It could also be found in other sources; something that you build up over time. Over the years, I have found that one of the most powerful sources � of being difficult to imitate � is a rather mundane thing� The firm�s competitive advantage is difficult to imitate because the firm itself doesn�t quite know what they do to make them so good at it�
We call this �causal ambiguity�. It may sound silly but is surprisingly common. Firms for example see that they have a much lower cost base than their competitors, or they see that their sales force is much more effective than theirs, or they manage to have a much lower error rate in their production process, but they don�t quite know why�
Causal ambiguity makes it difficult to exactly put your finger on what it is you do that makes you so much better than your competitors. Yet, don�t worry about it: it�s nice! When you yourself don�t even know what it is you do, it will be rather difficult for your rivals to copy it and do the same�!
Some time ago though, I was teaching in New York, at Columbia University�s business school, and took a taxi from JFK airport. The driver, starting a polite chat, said �what do you do?� �I am a professor at a business school� �so you teach people how to make money�, �yeah (sigh), I teach people how to make money��
But then, the guy continued, �so, what�s the answer?��. That was a minor credibility crisis, right there on the spot�
I don�t remember what I said, but I remember thinking later what I should have said. It is about �creating value� (and selling it for more than it cost you to create) but also about �retaining value� (namely, why wouldn�t anyone else be able to come in and do exactly the same thing � driving the price down till you can only sell it for what it cost you in the first place)?
And, of all business plans and proposals I get to see, people usually think a lot about the first bit; �how to create value�. They talk about their unique value proposition, and why customers will love it, buy it, scream for it, and so on.
But they often forget about the second bit; why would YOU be able to do it, or at least do it better or cheaper than anyone else? What do you have or own that enables you to retain the value-adding ability, which protects you from immediate imitation by competitors?
For a start-up, that�s often tricky. You don�t have anything yet, so what could you possibly have or do that others couldn�t do too? The trick is that you don�t have to have it now, but you do need it a year or two from now, when you�re starting to have a real business.
Thus, the thing that makes you �difficult to imitate� does not necessarily have to be a patent, brandname, unique location, etc. It could also be found in other sources; something that you build up over time. Over the years, I have found that one of the most powerful sources � of being difficult to imitate � is a rather mundane thing� The firm�s competitive advantage is difficult to imitate because the firm itself doesn�t quite know what they do to make them so good at it�
We call this �causal ambiguity�. It may sound silly but is surprisingly common. Firms for example see that they have a much lower cost base than their competitors, or they see that their sales force is much more effective than theirs, or they manage to have a much lower error rate in their production process, but they don�t quite know why�
Causal ambiguity makes it difficult to exactly put your finger on what it is you do that makes you so much better than your competitors. Yet, don�t worry about it: it�s nice! When you yourself don�t even know what it is you do, it will be rather difficult for your rivals to copy it and do the same�!
Ask Dr. Helen: When Being Professional Means Being PC
My column is up at PJM:
Go read the column and tell me what you think.
Should doctors, lawyers, and other professionals feel obligated to send money to organizations that fund activities they don't believe in?
Go read the column and tell me what you think.
Time to Hit the Beach?
I was reading my recent copy of Forbes and came across some thoughts by Rich Karlgaard should Obama win the presidency:
The Wall Street Journal points out that Obama is out of touch with his false notion that capital gains are mostly the province of the wealthy. "In 2005, according to IRS data, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000."
Hardly wealthy, especially if these households live in New York or California or other expensive areas. With less money due to high taxes, my fear is that many people will move down to the South where it is cheaper (I like it less crowded here) but maybe many of us should flee to the beach and only work part of the year to avoid the high income taxes. Afterall, if you can't beat em, you might as well be happy. The problem with this plan, however, is that if everyone takes this attitude, where will the US be in terms of a superpower or in terms of production? Or maybe this is the plan afterall? For those in this country with anti-American sentiment, what could be better?
What will happen to the U.S. economy if Barack Obama wins the presidency and he's backed by a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?
Taxes will go up. Capital gains and dividends will bypass 20% on their way to 25% or 30%. Income taxes will go to 40% for higher earners and possibly more for the "super-rich." The ceiling on payroll taxes will rise to $150,000 or so.
Government tax receipts won't grow at all. The highest taxpayers, feeling assaulted, will flee. To where?
Some will take longer vacations. If your last earned dollar is pinched in the 60%-plus range by the feds, the state and your city, you'll envy the beach bum's life.
Some will move to smaller cities. If a $150,000 income in Des Moines, Iowa, or Spokane, Wash., buys you the same house and lifestyle as a $500,000 income in Greenwich, Conn., or Palo Alto, Calif., why not move? The tax monster will eat most of that $350,000 difference.
Some will move to entrepreneurship. If you can live with a lower income, you might as well build equity behind the tax curtain and harvest it in better times. That's what entrepreneurs did in the 1970s.
Some will switch careers, become tax lawyers and make the most money of all.
The Wall Street Journal points out that Obama is out of touch with his false notion that capital gains are mostly the province of the wealthy. "In 2005, according to IRS data, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000."
Hardly wealthy, especially if these households live in New York or California or other expensive areas. With less money due to high taxes, my fear is that many people will move down to the South where it is cheaper (I like it less crowded here) but maybe many of us should flee to the beach and only work part of the year to avoid the high income taxes. Afterall, if you can't beat em, you might as well be happy. The problem with this plan, however, is that if everyone takes this attitude, where will the US be in terms of a superpower or in terms of production? Or maybe this is the plan afterall? For those in this country with anti-American sentiment, what could be better?
Bloody useless lab rats � or are they?
Can you have a useful R&D department that is perfectly useless? Perhaps I should explain the question... Most R&D departments are supposed to generate new technologies, products, processes, etc. But not all do. Some R&D department seem to never come up with anything that makes it to market. Clearly a waste of money, these lab-rats, right?
Well, maybe not.
For a long time, economists and other folks studying organisations assumed that R&D departments are supposed to come up with stuff. And only if they come up with good stuff � which eventually makes it into a sellable product and reaps a profit � is an R&D department worth the investment. Clearly, if they never come up with anything at all, that�s money down the drain � or at least, that�s what everybody assumed.
Then, two professors of strategy (note, not economists!), Wesley Cohen and Daniel Levinthal, discovered an interesting insight. To put it in a simplified nutshell: sometimes, firms with R&D departments that never come up with anything at all still seemed to benefit from them?! How can such a seemingly useless bunch of Gyro Gearlooses still be worth their while?
The trick is that, in many industries (and in most industries to some extent), whatever firms invent comes into the public domain, much like radio signals or air pollution. Hence, other firms can easily access and imitate it. Economists always assumed that this process is costless; you just pick it up and do it too. Therefore, unless you�re in one of those rare industries in which patents really work, it�s actually kind of nice if your competitor invents something new; you can do it too without having had to spend all this R&D money!
However, this turned out to be a bit of an oversimplistic view of the world. Imitating your competitor is not that easy. It turns out that firms that never invest anything in R&D actually have quite a lot of trouble nicking ideas from others. They just don�t quite understand them well enough. In contrast, firms that do have an R&D department � even if the geeks never invent anything themselves � appear to be much better at copying others. That�s the unexpected benefit of having your own R&D: R&D equips you, as a firm, to be better at �stealing� things from others. Because of your investments in R&D, you are better able to really understand the technology and apply it in your own products and processes.
Wes and Daniel examined this phenomenon at length and wrote a series of articles about it in a bunch of heavy-weight academic journals, with telling titles such as �Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D�, �Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation� and, my favourite, �Fortune favors the prepared firm�. It shows that there are two benefits from investing in R&D: the first one is to invent stuff; the second one is to build up the capacity to understand, assimilate and apply the things that others come up with in your own products and technologies.
Well, maybe not.
For a long time, economists and other folks studying organisations assumed that R&D departments are supposed to come up with stuff. And only if they come up with good stuff � which eventually makes it into a sellable product and reaps a profit � is an R&D department worth the investment. Clearly, if they never come up with anything at all, that�s money down the drain � or at least, that�s what everybody assumed.
Then, two professors of strategy (note, not economists!), Wesley Cohen and Daniel Levinthal, discovered an interesting insight. To put it in a simplified nutshell: sometimes, firms with R&D departments that never come up with anything at all still seemed to benefit from them?! How can such a seemingly useless bunch of Gyro Gearlooses still be worth their while?
The trick is that, in many industries (and in most industries to some extent), whatever firms invent comes into the public domain, much like radio signals or air pollution. Hence, other firms can easily access and imitate it. Economists always assumed that this process is costless; you just pick it up and do it too. Therefore, unless you�re in one of those rare industries in which patents really work, it�s actually kind of nice if your competitor invents something new; you can do it too without having had to spend all this R&D money!
However, this turned out to be a bit of an oversimplistic view of the world. Imitating your competitor is not that easy. It turns out that firms that never invest anything in R&D actually have quite a lot of trouble nicking ideas from others. They just don�t quite understand them well enough. In contrast, firms that do have an R&D department � even if the geeks never invent anything themselves � appear to be much better at copying others. That�s the unexpected benefit of having your own R&D: R&D equips you, as a firm, to be better at �stealing� things from others. Because of your investments in R&D, you are better able to really understand the technology and apply it in your own products and processes.
Wes and Daniel examined this phenomenon at length and wrote a series of articles about it in a bunch of heavy-weight academic journals, with telling titles such as �Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D�, �Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation� and, my favourite, �Fortune favors the prepared firm�. It shows that there are two benefits from investing in R&D: the first one is to invent stuff; the second one is to build up the capacity to understand, assimilate and apply the things that others come up with in your own products and technologies.
This is News?
Men prefer being solo over a bad marriage (hat tip: Eric):
So I wonder what a "Sex and Men in the City" movie would be like? But really, what's the news here? It should be obvious to anyone that most people--men and women-- would rather go solo than be involved in a bad marriage.
Weisman, 49, conducted a survey of 1,533 heterosexual men to research a book aiming to give women an insight into why some smart, successful men opted to stay single -- and help lifelong bachelors understand why they are still the solo man at parties.
He concluded that most men were not afraid of marriage -- but they were afraid of a bad marriage.
"Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all," Weisman told Reuters in a telephone interview.....
This is the first generation of people who have grown up with bad divorces. People assume there is something wrong if you don't marry but these are men who have made a different choice and not given in to social pressures."
The release of his book "So Why Have You Never Been Married?: 10 Insights Into Why He Hasn't Wed"comes amid a growing trend for more people to stay single, with less social or religious pressures on men -- and women -- to tie the knot.
Weisman said U.S. figures showed that in 1980 about 6 percent of men aged in their early 40s had never married but this number had now risen to 17 percent.
So I wonder what a "Sex and Men in the City" movie would be like? But really, what's the news here? It should be obvious to anyone that most people--men and women-- would rather go solo than be involved in a bad marriage.
Sex and the City
Well, today I received a copy of the book Sex and the City
from Harper Collins. They asked bloggers a while ago if we wanted one and I said "sure." The book is a companion to the movie and has lots of glossy pictures of the cast which are kind of pretty along with some behind-the-scenes stories from each of the actresses and crew.
I might make some enemies here, but I actually like "Sex and the City." I never watched it when it was out in the 1990's but saw it sporadically in re-runs on TBS. Then, last year while at the beach, my sister-in-law brought all six seasons
on DVD and I watched every one of them. I must admit that I loved them. Why? They were totally whimsical and silly and required not one iota of thought or analysis from me. I watch movies or TV mostly for entertainment and "Sex and the City" is entertaining.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but other bloggers have. For example, Ann Althouse didn't seem to like it much (here are some highlights as to why):
So, Sarah Jessica Parker is too stringy looking and Chris Noth is too fat. You know what? I don't care. I love Chris Noth. I don't care that he's fat, he looks fine to me. I have a few questions (and coming from a psychologist, this might sound weird) but why does everyone have to analyze everything to death? What's wrong with a little escapism now and then--can't I just watch the show or movie and just have fun doing so? Is that so awful?
And I see in this article that no real man would be caught dead going to the "Sex and the City" movie. Yes, I want to see the movie. But if I take my husband with me, this is proof that he is a wuss? Why?
from Harper Collins. They asked bloggers a while ago if we wanted one and I said "sure." The book is a companion to the movie and has lots of glossy pictures of the cast which are kind of pretty along with some behind-the-scenes stories from each of the actresses and crew. I might make some enemies here, but I actually like "Sex and the City." I never watched it when it was out in the 1990's but saw it sporadically in re-runs on TBS. Then, last year while at the beach, my sister-in-law brought all six seasons
on DVD and I watched every one of them. I must admit that I loved them. Why? They were totally whimsical and silly and required not one iota of thought or analysis from me. I watch movies or TV mostly for entertainment and "Sex and the City" is entertaining. I haven't seen the movie yet, but other bloggers have. For example, Ann Althouse didn't seem to like it much (here are some highlights as to why):
So if I have nothing to say then I wasted 148 minutes. To try to salvage my lost time, I'll go with a numbered list:
1. Why is a comedy 148 minutes long? Especially a comedy based on a half-hour sitcom. It was like 5 TV episodes stuck together. Except 5 TV episodes would have been more fun because there would have been a lot more random, go-nowhere plots and not a true-romance story arc for each of 4 characters. They'd have thrown in some extra bad boyfriends. Instead, each aging diva has the love of her life to come to terms with....
6. I say "our Carrie," because it seems we're supposed to identify with her, but why on earth do we? Is she our fantasy? We might like to maintain our skinniness as we age, but we don't visualize it turning out that stringy. ...
9. And if Carrie is so horrified by fat, why is she so hung up on Mr. Big, who is fat? Hey, I'm just seeing that Chris Noth (who plays Big) was born in Madison, Wisconsin. That's nice! But still, the man is substantially overweight, and in profile, at least once, it was very obvious that he was wearing a powerful girdle.
So, Sarah Jessica Parker is too stringy looking and Chris Noth is too fat. You know what? I don't care. I love Chris Noth. I don't care that he's fat, he looks fine to me. I have a few questions (and coming from a psychologist, this might sound weird) but why does everyone have to analyze everything to death? What's wrong with a little escapism now and then--can't I just watch the show or movie and just have fun doing so? Is that so awful?
And I see in this article that no real man would be caught dead going to the "Sex and the City" movie. Yes, I want to see the movie. But if I take my husband with me, this is proof that he is a wuss? Why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)