I am sure many of you know some of the ludicrous examples of when companies expanded into a foreign market and failed to adapt to the local circumstances.* It can be because they didn�t adapt their product, their way of doing business, or even their name.
For example, United Airlines famously handed out white flowers on flights from Hong Kong, where white flowers represent death and bad luck. India�s M.P. Been Products was used to printing a swastika on all their products (a symbol of good luck in many far eastern countries); it did not go down well when they launched �German Pilsner�, while also Japan�s �Kinki Nippon Tourist Company� noticed it attracted quite some unwelcome customers when they first expanded abroad.
And it�s a problem of all time. Coca Cola, when entering the Chinese market in the 1920s with less than moderate success, translated the sound of its name into Chinese characters, only to find out later that it, fairly unappealingly, translated into �bite the wax tadpole�. Even further back, England�s East India Company just might have lost control over India in 1857 when it continued to supply bullets encased in pigs wax to its Indian soldiers; the tops of which had to be bitten of before they could be fired. Since it was adamantly against their religion to eat pork, it seemed to have greatly whetted their appetite for pacifism.
The message that always comes with these examples is: �Adapt to local circumstances, stupid!� Don�t just implement what you�ve been doing somewhere else, but implement an altered form of it; adapted to the local context.
Well, in spite of these examples, I am not so sure�
Organisations and their business models are incredibly complex systems, consisting of many tangible and intangible elements. And often we don�t quite know what is causing their success � and, what�s more, often people from the company itself don�t quite know what is making it a success... Take the phenomenally successful Southwest Airlines. Is their success due to their swift logistics, the standardization of their procedures, materials and airplanes, their coherent corporate culture, leadership style, recruitment procedures, etc.? We don�t quite know; probably a combination of all of the above (and more).
Take Starbucks. Is it so successful because of the quality of their coffee, the training of their personnel, the lay-out of their bars, the logistics of the coffee-making processes, the ambiance, etc.? Well� probably all the elements interact, and create the competitive advantage in combination.
The problem of such a complex system is that when you change two or three elements of it, you don�t quite know what will happen� Because all the elements interact, you may be screwing the whole thing up in ways you hadn�t anticipated and won�t even be able to untangle and understand.
Therefore, Professors Gabriel Szulanski and Sid Winter � from INSEAD and the Wharton School � recommend: �replicate�. That is, before even thinking about making local adaptations, copy exactly what you have been doing before at some other locality. Only once you�ve got it working, adapt it, very slowly, one step at a time.
Consider again Starbucks. It was originally replicated by its founder, Howard Schultz, modelled perfectly on an Italian espresso bar. �But it doesn�t look at all like an Italian espresso bar!?� you might shout. Very true. But initially � the first one in Seattle � it did. There was standing room only, full fat milk, opera music, personnel with bow-ties, etc. Only when Howard got that to work, he slowly started to make some alterations, through trial-and-error, one step at a time. Had Howard tried to make all sorts of adaptations right from the outset, it may not have worked at all.
Thus, rather than trying to create local perfection from scratch, first be cautious and modest: replicate exactly, get it to work to an acceptable level, and only then think about very gradually introducing some alterations.
* See, for instance, the book �Blunders in International Business�
Scratch Beginnings: Is the American Dream Possible?
Our podcast guest today, Adam Shepard, author of Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream,
says the American dream is alive and well. Shepard wrote his book as a response to Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America
and Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream
in which Ehrenreich says that the pursuit of the American Dream is basically hopeless. Shepard set out with 25 bucks and a back-pack and went to a new town (Charleston, South Carolina) to see if he could make it. His book is a testament to personal responsibility, positive action and how education can play a part in keeping people employed. Shepard shares his inspirational story of living in a homeless shelter, working at a moving company and finally, getting his own place, and saving $2500.00.Listen to the podcast and find out what he learned from this experience. You can listen directly -- no downloads needed -- by going here and clicking on the gray Flash player. Or you can download the file and listen at your leisure by clicking right here.
Music is by Todd Steed and the Suns of Phere.
John Hawkins at Right Wing News has an interview up with David Freddoso, author of The The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate.
"I refused to settle for becoming a 'Disney Dad'"
So says Alec Baldwin in discussing his new book, A Promise to Ourselves: A Journey Through Fatherhood and Divorce.
The book tells of Baldwin's fight with the California family law system. In an interview with ABC news, he states:
I am glad Baldwin wrote this book, perhaps this topic will get some attention because he is a celebrity. But it makes me think that if Baldwin had such problems with the system with all his fame and money, what chance does the average joe have?
The book tells of Baldwin's fight with the California family law system. In an interview with ABC news, he states:Many readers, especially the attorneys and other professionals who play integral roles in the family law system, will automatically dismiss this book as nothing more than the grumblings of a bitter and angry man. Rather than falling prey to a corrupt system, they will say I am the victim of my own poor choices who brought all this on myself by marrying the wrong woman, hiring the wrong lawyer or through my own boorish behavior. ...
I agree that I did make things worse for myself. Foolishly, I walked into a courtroom with the expectation that I would be given some equitable rights regarding my daughter. I ignored the less than subtle message that tells non-custodial parents, especially fathers, to abandon such hopes and face the realities of this system. Walk away, we're told. Accept your fate as your penance for the poor choices you've made. Write off this failed family as the price of learning difficult lessons. The longer you hold out for what should be the right of every parent, the more expensive and painful the process becomes. ...
I had a contentious divorce because I wanted a meaningful custody of my daughter. I refused to settle for becoming a "Disney Dad," one whose role is nothing more than outings to theme parks once or twice a month. Instead I wanted to share the joys and responsibilities of raising my daughter. I wanted to be a real father, and the system punished me for that. Ultimately, I refused to give in..
I am glad Baldwin wrote this book, perhaps this topic will get some attention because he is a celebrity. But it makes me think that if Baldwin had such problems with the system with all his fame and money, what chance does the average joe have?
"A city's environment can play a big role in how its citizens are able to cope with stress."
I was reading this MSN article about America's most stressful cities. It seems that Chicago is the #1 most stressful city in the US:
After reading about all of the problems in Chicago, I have a few questions. If Obama was such a successful community organizer, state senator and US senator, why is his city listed as "the most stressful in the US?" And if his "hope and change" mantra can't improve much in his hometown, is this a harbinger of things to come for the entire country if Obama gets elected? In other words, will the entire US become more like Chicago then before? Is this what we have to look forward to should Obama be elected?
The crisis on Wall Street has New Yorkers alarmed. But it's nothing compared to the levels of anxiety those living in the Windy City feel each day.
Chicago's rising unemployment rate, expensive gas, high population density and relatively poor air quality create a perfect storm of stress, according to measures we used to calculate the country's anxiety hot spots.....
But consumers aren't fretting about these pressures in a vacuum. A city's environment can play a big role in how its citizens are able to cope with stress.
After reading about all of the problems in Chicago, I have a few questions. If Obama was such a successful community organizer, state senator and US senator, why is his city listed as "the most stressful in the US?" And if his "hope and change" mantra can't improve much in his hometown, is this a harbinger of things to come for the entire country if Obama gets elected? In other words, will the entire US become more like Chicago then before? Is this what we have to look forward to should Obama be elected?
Sarcasm: A new crime fighting tool?
How many times have you heard that the best thing to do when being robbed is to be passive and not do anything? "Just give them what they want," we are told. Sometimes, a different approach is called for (via Drudge):
Perhaps this worked because the would-be robber was female, maybe because she was surprised at the question as it didn't fit into her script of how a robbery should go, or perhaps the teller's display of a lack of fear made her flee. Whatever it was, when it comes to handling a crime situation, there is often no one size fits all solution.
Police said a bank teller in suburban New York had a simple question for a would-be robber: Are you serious?
Police said that was enough to spook the female suspect, who fled the Roslyn Savings Bank in Centereach late Thursday afternoon without a dime.
Police said she walked into the bank located inside a supermarket on Route 25 about 4:49 p.m. and handed the teller a note demanding cash and threatening to open fire with a gun if the teller didn't comply.
That's when the teller apparently expressed her crime-fighting skepticism. Police said the woman left without ever showing a gun.
Perhaps this worked because the would-be robber was female, maybe because she was surprised at the question as it didn't fit into her script of how a robbery should go, or perhaps the teller's display of a lack of fear made her flee. Whatever it was, when it comes to handling a crime situation, there is often no one size fits all solution.
"Selection bias"
During World War II, American military personnel noticed that some parts of planes seemed to be hit more often than other parts. They analysed the bullet holes in the returning planes, and set out a programme to have these areas reinforced, so that they would be able to withstand enemy fire better.
This may seem natural enough but it also contains a fundamental error. It�s called selection bias.
Assume, for the sake of the argument, that planes got hit in all sorts of places. If the areas which formed vital parts of the machine were hit (call it part A), the aeroplane was unlikely to make it back to base; it would crash. If the bullets hit the plane in parts which were not so vital (part B), the plane was much more likely to at least make it back home.
Then, military personnel would inspect the plane and conclude �darn, this plane also got hit in part B! We�d better strengthen those places��
Of course, the military personnel were wrong. Planes got hit in part A just as often as in part B; it�s just that the first ones never made it back home. What�s worse, strengthening part B was exactly the wrong thing to do: those parts weren�t so vital; it is part A which needed strengthening!
This is why we call it �selection bias�; we only see a selection of the outcomes, and therefore draw false conclusions. And the world of business is full of it.
Consider, for example, the popular notion that innovation projects require diverse, cross-functional teams. This notion exists because if we analyse some very path-breaking innovation projects, they were often staffed by such teams. However, it has been suggested* that diverse, cross-functional teams also often created the biggest failures of all! However, such failures never resulted in any products... Therefore, if we (only) examine the projects which actually resulted in successful innovations, it seems the diverse cross-functional teams did much better. Yet, on average, the homogeneous teams � although not responsible for the few really big inventions � might have done better; always producing a reliable, good set of results.
Similarly, we applaud CEOs who are bold and risk-taking, using their intuition rather than careful analysis, such as Jack Welch. However, risk, by definition, leads some to succeed but it also leads quite a few of them to fail, and slip into oblivion. Those CEOs we never consider; it is the risk-takers that happen to come out on top that we admire and aspire to. Yet, if we�d be able to see the full picture, of all CEOs, innovation teams, and fighter planes, we just might have reached a very different conclusion.
* See the work of Professor Jerker Denrell from Stanford Business School: Some of the examples used in this text are partly based on his work.
This may seem natural enough but it also contains a fundamental error. It�s called selection bias.
Assume, for the sake of the argument, that planes got hit in all sorts of places. If the areas which formed vital parts of the machine were hit (call it part A), the aeroplane was unlikely to make it back to base; it would crash. If the bullets hit the plane in parts which were not so vital (part B), the plane was much more likely to at least make it back home.
Then, military personnel would inspect the plane and conclude �darn, this plane also got hit in part B! We�d better strengthen those places��
Of course, the military personnel were wrong. Planes got hit in part A just as often as in part B; it�s just that the first ones never made it back home. What�s worse, strengthening part B was exactly the wrong thing to do: those parts weren�t so vital; it is part A which needed strengthening!
This is why we call it �selection bias�; we only see a selection of the outcomes, and therefore draw false conclusions. And the world of business is full of it.
Consider, for example, the popular notion that innovation projects require diverse, cross-functional teams. This notion exists because if we analyse some very path-breaking innovation projects, they were often staffed by such teams. However, it has been suggested* that diverse, cross-functional teams also often created the biggest failures of all! However, such failures never resulted in any products... Therefore, if we (only) examine the projects which actually resulted in successful innovations, it seems the diverse cross-functional teams did much better. Yet, on average, the homogeneous teams � although not responsible for the few really big inventions � might have done better; always producing a reliable, good set of results.
Similarly, we applaud CEOs who are bold and risk-taking, using their intuition rather than careful analysis, such as Jack Welch. However, risk, by definition, leads some to succeed but it also leads quite a few of them to fail, and slip into oblivion. Those CEOs we never consider; it is the risk-takers that happen to come out on top that we admire and aspire to. Yet, if we�d be able to see the full picture, of all CEOs, innovation teams, and fighter planes, we just might have reached a very different conclusion.
* See the work of Professor Jerker Denrell from Stanford Business School: Some of the examples used in this text are partly based on his work.
Living Well for Less?
With all the discussion about the economy and possibly higher taxes, I have been thinking lately about how to save money, so when Glenn ordered the books, Living Well on Practically Nothing: Revised and Updated Edition
and Art & Science of Dumpster Diving,
I dove right in to see if I could learn some money saving techniques.
What I learned was that the first book was worth the money just for the laughs and nonconventional wisdom alone. I knew I was in for a treat when I saw that the book was published by Paladin Press --the publishing company that put out such books as Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors
and Claire Wolfe's 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution: Ideas and Resources for Self-Liberation, Monkey Wrenching and Preparedness.
"Living Well," written by author Edward Romney, is a practical take on how to live on $12,000 a year (the updated version was published in 2001). In order to do this, he advises you to become a "country person." This way, you can live cheap, no longer have to dress to impress and can find a cheap house (even if it means building your own shelter such as a tree house or log cabin) for $300.00 a month in rent. Uh, okay, I already live in Tennessee, maybe this is possible, but I doubt it.
In Chapter 2, he describes a day of cheap living. For breakfast, he sticks to frozen orange juice and oatmeal cooked with cheap oats with dry skim milk, which is also used for his one cup of coffee. He then walks to the post office where he looks in the trash for a free magazine or newspaper that someone threw away, then goes home for lunch of a can of tuna from Sam's Wholesale Club with free tomatoes from his garden. He only drinks water and has a two-day-old banana for dessert with the soft parts cut away. Hmm, I have a tomato garden and overripe bananas are okay but not great. So far, so good. Until this....
In a chapter on how to save on health and medical care, I have to say that I realized that this plan was not going to work for me. In order to get free medical care, the author suggests that one volunteer for medical experiments. "The doctor tests a new drug and its placebo and also gives you physical exams and a variety of other medical services." He also suggests if you have ever served that you use the Veterans Administration hospitals: "Patients who are senile, brain-damaged, or chronically ill seem to run the greatest risk of mistreatment. Some VA surgeons have poor records. You take your chances...."
He tells readers to simply try and stay healthy but if you do get sick, one can find free prescription medicine in a dumpster (if you are brave). "It is surprising how much is thrown away. Antibiotics and certain volatile drugs such as insulin and nitroglycerin are perishable, but most drugs are highly stable for several years at least. You have to read drug manuals and know what you are doing. The risk is high and you are on your own if you try this."
Maybe you shouldn't. At this point, wouldn't it be safer and less trouble really just to get a job to pay for extra healthcare or other needs? You can't really live well for less if you are sick, disabled, or dead from giving your body over to medical experiments, questionable surgeons or digging through dumpsters for drugs that may or may not be safe. Call me crazy, but that's my take.
Anyway, the book is hilarious and I must admit to laughing so hard that I nearly fell over, but I doubt most of us could live this way for long. Could you?
and Art & Science of Dumpster Diving, I dove right in to see if I could learn some money saving techniques.What I learned was that the first book was worth the money just for the laughs and nonconventional wisdom alone. I knew I was in for a treat when I saw that the book was published by Paladin Press --the publishing company that put out such books as Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors
and Claire Wolfe's 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution: Ideas and Resources for Self-Liberation, Monkey Wrenching and Preparedness."Living Well," written by author Edward Romney, is a practical take on how to live on $12,000 a year (the updated version was published in 2001). In order to do this, he advises you to become a "country person." This way, you can live cheap, no longer have to dress to impress and can find a cheap house (even if it means building your own shelter such as a tree house or log cabin) for $300.00 a month in rent. Uh, okay, I already live in Tennessee, maybe this is possible, but I doubt it.
In Chapter 2, he describes a day of cheap living. For breakfast, he sticks to frozen orange juice and oatmeal cooked with cheap oats with dry skim milk, which is also used for his one cup of coffee. He then walks to the post office where he looks in the trash for a free magazine or newspaper that someone threw away, then goes home for lunch of a can of tuna from Sam's Wholesale Club with free tomatoes from his garden. He only drinks water and has a two-day-old banana for dessert with the soft parts cut away. Hmm, I have a tomato garden and overripe bananas are okay but not great. So far, so good. Until this....
In a chapter on how to save on health and medical care, I have to say that I realized that this plan was not going to work for me. In order to get free medical care, the author suggests that one volunteer for medical experiments. "The doctor tests a new drug and its placebo and also gives you physical exams and a variety of other medical services." He also suggests if you have ever served that you use the Veterans Administration hospitals: "Patients who are senile, brain-damaged, or chronically ill seem to run the greatest risk of mistreatment. Some VA surgeons have poor records. You take your chances...."
He tells readers to simply try and stay healthy but if you do get sick, one can find free prescription medicine in a dumpster (if you are brave). "It is surprising how much is thrown away. Antibiotics and certain volatile drugs such as insulin and nitroglycerin are perishable, but most drugs are highly stable for several years at least. You have to read drug manuals and know what you are doing. The risk is high and you are on your own if you try this."
Maybe you shouldn't. At this point, wouldn't it be safer and less trouble really just to get a job to pay for extra healthcare or other needs? You can't really live well for less if you are sick, disabled, or dead from giving your body over to medical experiments, questionable surgeons or digging through dumpsters for drugs that may or may not be safe. Call me crazy, but that's my take.
Anyway, the book is hilarious and I must admit to laughing so hard that I nearly fell over, but I doubt most of us could live this way for long. Could you?
Ask Dr. Helen: Is sleeping apart healthy for marriage?
My PJM column is up:
I had a post on this topic recently and expanded it a bit using some of the comments from my readers--thanks. Go read the column and see if you have any more words of wisdom.
Whether separate beds hurts a relationship depends on why the couple uses them.
I had a post on this topic recently and expanded it a bit using some of the comments from my readers--thanks. Go read the column and see if you have any more words of wisdom.
Banks� blurry categorisations � have your cake and eat it too
"Animals are divided into (a) those that belong to the Emperor, (b) embalmed ones, (c) those that are trained, (d) suckling pigs, (e) mermaids, (f) fabulous ones, (g) stray dogs, (h) those that are included in this classification, (i) those that tremble as if they were mad, (j) innumerable ones, (k) those drawn with a very fine camel's hair brush, (l) others, (m) those that have just broken a flower vase, and (n) those that from a long way off look like flies."
This categorisation was quoted by Jorge Borges in his book Other Inquisitions, from an ancient Chinese encyclopaedia. Glad that in the world of business, when it comes to analyst recommendations whether to buy, sell or hold the shares of certain companies, we use rather more unambiguous classifications, don�t we! Or do we�?
Analysts, as you likely know, often face a potential conflict of interest. In principle, they are expected to offer solid and impartial advice on whether they think it�s worth buying the shares of a particular company (because they forecast that the share price will go up) or whether they think it is time to offload any stock you bought in the past (because they forecast that its price will go down). However, their employer � the investment bank � quite often also serves this company as a client, for instance to advice them on their M&A, equity and debt deals. The tricky thing is, companies don�t quite like it (and this is a euphemism) when their own investment bank issues a negative (i.e. �sell�) recommendation for their shares�
How do investment banks deal with this? In the past, I guess, they often didn�t. As research indicates, they would shamelessly issue a �buy� recommendation for a company just to secure them as a client. However, this is a bit tricky � to say the least � because the truth can eventually come out (we�ve seen examples of informal e-mail exchanges between bank employees in which they mock clients who they formally recommended to �buy�), brokerage watchdogs have become quite focused on such behaviour and banks� long-term reputation may suffer if they make recommendations (e.g. �buy�) which later turn out to be quite wrong, loss-making and plain stupid.
So, how do banks resolve this tricky dilemma�? Anne Fleischer � an assistant professor at the University of Toronto � undertook an intriguing piece of analysis. She looked at ambiguity in banks� equity ratings systems and how it was related to such conflicts of interest.
You have to realise that banks use different classification schemes, in their advice regarding the attractiveness of certain stocks, and these vary in terms of how ambiguous they can be. For example, �buy; sell; hold� is simple enough isn�t it? But many firms use 5 categories, including a �strong buy� and �clear sell� or so. Still pretty unambiguous, right? But what about �buy/high risk� versus �buy/low risk�; a bit trickier, not? Or �buy; positive; hold; neutral; negative�? Or what about the difference between �buy� and �accumulate� (also found within one and the same classification scheme)?! Some banks have up to 16 different categories, advising us to buy or not. But why would they create such opaque, blurry schemes to advise us in the first place?!
Might it have anything to do with covering their back when they face a conflict of interest�? Could it perhaps enable them to get away with not offering an unambiguous �sell� advice on a client (risking to piss them off) while in reality their analysts are quite pessimistic about the company�s prospects�? After all, if they recommend an unambiguous �buy� but the share price plummets, they will look incompetent if not worse. However, what if they had recommended us a �speculative buy��? Guess that might divert the blame a bit and get them off the hook... Perhaps such ambiguous schemes help banks make blurry recommendations that keep both angry investors and overbearing clients at bay? Would banks really be that devious�?
Anne didn�t just think; she looked at the facts: She had some financial specialists rate how ambiguous the rating schemes were of 207 brokerage firms. Then she computed to what extent these firms faced a potential conflict of interest, because they were both providing purchase advice and securing the same companies as clients underwriting their debt and equity offerings or supporting their M&A activity. The results were clear: Those investment banks that faced a conflict of interest developed more ambiguous classification schemes to �advise� us on the purchase and sale of company shares.
Evidently, these equity rating systems are not just created with the aims of unequivocal advice and clarity in mind; quite the contrary, sometimes banks don�t want to create clarity at all. Blurring the boundaries helps them cover their tracks, make money on both sides of the table, and thus have their cake and eat it too.
This categorisation was quoted by Jorge Borges in his book Other Inquisitions, from an ancient Chinese encyclopaedia. Glad that in the world of business, when it comes to analyst recommendations whether to buy, sell or hold the shares of certain companies, we use rather more unambiguous classifications, don�t we! Or do we�?
Analysts, as you likely know, often face a potential conflict of interest. In principle, they are expected to offer solid and impartial advice on whether they think it�s worth buying the shares of a particular company (because they forecast that the share price will go up) or whether they think it is time to offload any stock you bought in the past (because they forecast that its price will go down). However, their employer � the investment bank � quite often also serves this company as a client, for instance to advice them on their M&A, equity and debt deals. The tricky thing is, companies don�t quite like it (and this is a euphemism) when their own investment bank issues a negative (i.e. �sell�) recommendation for their shares�
How do investment banks deal with this? In the past, I guess, they often didn�t. As research indicates, they would shamelessly issue a �buy� recommendation for a company just to secure them as a client. However, this is a bit tricky � to say the least � because the truth can eventually come out (we�ve seen examples of informal e-mail exchanges between bank employees in which they mock clients who they formally recommended to �buy�), brokerage watchdogs have become quite focused on such behaviour and banks� long-term reputation may suffer if they make recommendations (e.g. �buy�) which later turn out to be quite wrong, loss-making and plain stupid.
So, how do banks resolve this tricky dilemma�? Anne Fleischer � an assistant professor at the University of Toronto � undertook an intriguing piece of analysis. She looked at ambiguity in banks� equity ratings systems and how it was related to such conflicts of interest.
You have to realise that banks use different classification schemes, in their advice regarding the attractiveness of certain stocks, and these vary in terms of how ambiguous they can be. For example, �buy; sell; hold� is simple enough isn�t it? But many firms use 5 categories, including a �strong buy� and �clear sell� or so. Still pretty unambiguous, right? But what about �buy/high risk� versus �buy/low risk�; a bit trickier, not? Or �buy; positive; hold; neutral; negative�? Or what about the difference between �buy� and �accumulate� (also found within one and the same classification scheme)?! Some banks have up to 16 different categories, advising us to buy or not. But why would they create such opaque, blurry schemes to advise us in the first place?!
Might it have anything to do with covering their back when they face a conflict of interest�? Could it perhaps enable them to get away with not offering an unambiguous �sell� advice on a client (risking to piss them off) while in reality their analysts are quite pessimistic about the company�s prospects�? After all, if they recommend an unambiguous �buy� but the share price plummets, they will look incompetent if not worse. However, what if they had recommended us a �speculative buy��? Guess that might divert the blame a bit and get them off the hook... Perhaps such ambiguous schemes help banks make blurry recommendations that keep both angry investors and overbearing clients at bay? Would banks really be that devious�?
Anne didn�t just think; she looked at the facts: She had some financial specialists rate how ambiguous the rating schemes were of 207 brokerage firms. Then she computed to what extent these firms faced a potential conflict of interest, because they were both providing purchase advice and securing the same companies as clients underwriting their debt and equity offerings or supporting their M&A activity. The results were clear: Those investment banks that faced a conflict of interest developed more ambiguous classification schemes to �advise� us on the purchase and sale of company shares.
Evidently, these equity rating systems are not just created with the aims of unequivocal advice and clarity in mind; quite the contrary, sometimes banks don�t want to create clarity at all. Blurring the boundaries helps them cover their tracks, make money on both sides of the table, and thus have their cake and eat it too.
Are "choice mothers" really the best choice?
There appears to be a growing trend of "choice mothers" in the UK who are having children in their early thirties by artificial insemination as they have decided they would rather have a child than a relationship (via Instapundit):
It seems to me that kicking men out of the lives of kids and women is the goal of the media and radical feminists in the current milieu that we are living in. Last night, I watched a taped show of Suze Orman where she cheered a woman on for kicking a man out of her life for not being financially responsible enough (he had a lot of credit card debt). However, in the segment before, Ms. Orman had a woman on who owed $40,000 dollars in credit card debt but she sighed in sympathy with her as she explained her predicament. Why isn't Orman warning men about this financially irresponsible woman? Of course she wouldn't do that. Women are caught in bad circumstances, men are bad circumstances in her mind. It seems like many women feel this way.
The more our society pushes the radical feminist agenda that men are bad, irresponsible, or just not available, the more likely it is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In many ways, it already is, men are avoiding marriage and relationships and are finding other satisfying ways of living their lives. Women believe that there is no guy out there for them or they think of men as bad or irresponsible--which pushes them away further. Some guys will not even try to satisfy women who they feel they can never measure up to, or live up to their high expectations. In this rush to kick men out of family life and reward single motherhood (unless one has a Republican mother), I wonder what the repercussions will be on the next generation?
In many ways it is an extraordinary decision to use donor sperm in your early 30s because you are fed up waiting for a partner. Some campaigners argue that choice mothers are wrongfully depriving their children of a father. But many women in this position think long and hard about this aspect of their decision and often line up a host of male role models in advance. Gwyneth says of 10-year-old Helen: "I think there are some children who grow up perfectly well without male role models - and she has got my father, my brother and my nephew."
It seems to me that kicking men out of the lives of kids and women is the goal of the media and radical feminists in the current milieu that we are living in. Last night, I watched a taped show of Suze Orman where she cheered a woman on for kicking a man out of her life for not being financially responsible enough (he had a lot of credit card debt). However, in the segment before, Ms. Orman had a woman on who owed $40,000 dollars in credit card debt but she sighed in sympathy with her as she explained her predicament. Why isn't Orman warning men about this financially irresponsible woman? Of course she wouldn't do that. Women are caught in bad circumstances, men are bad circumstances in her mind. It seems like many women feel this way.
The more our society pushes the radical feminist agenda that men are bad, irresponsible, or just not available, the more likely it is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In many ways, it already is, men are avoiding marriage and relationships and are finding other satisfying ways of living their lives. Women believe that there is no guy out there for them or they think of men as bad or irresponsible--which pushes them away further. Some guys will not even try to satisfy women who they feel they can never measure up to, or live up to their high expectations. In this rush to kick men out of family life and reward single motherhood (unless one has a Republican mother), I wonder what the repercussions will be on the next generation?
Jews, Religion and the Democratic Party
Roger Simon at PJM has a message for Jews who have looked to the Democrats as a kind of religion:
Those days are long gone, I have trouble understanding why Jews don't change course when the political climate changes. Many are stuck in the 60's, thinking that the Democrats are on their side. They aren't. When will Jews wake up and realize that the party they thought was their friend is currently anything but?
From the days of FDR, the vast majority of American Jews have identified with the Democratic Party almost if it were their religion. This included most especially secular Jews like me whose blas� attitude toward their faith and toward religious observance in general made such a replacement all the more important emotionally. This same Jewish majority also identified with the cause of social justice and, as Barack Obama among many others has noted, were some of the most active participants in the civil rights movement of the Fifties and Sixties. That was all how it should have been and was a perfectly logical and praiseworthy epoch in the development of our country.
Hello � those days are over!
Those days are long gone, I have trouble understanding why Jews don't change course when the political climate changes. Many are stuck in the 60's, thinking that the Democrats are on their side. They aren't. When will Jews wake up and realize that the party they thought was their friend is currently anything but?
Buying Votes for Cigarettes
This weekend I picked up the new copy of John Fund's book, Stealing Elections, Revised and Updated: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.
Glenn and I had interviewed Fund for a podcast on voter fraud in October of 2006 and he had some pretty interesting things to say. You can read the transcript here (you will have to scroll down the page and click on "more" to get it). But here are some highlights from Fund in that interview that may be relevant to the upcoming election:
In the introduction of his recent book, Fund points out that voter fraud can be found all over the US:
Frankly, if I was homeless and someone did that to me, I would take the cigarettes and write in Philip Morris on the ballot.
Glenn and I had interviewed Fund for a podcast on voter fraud in October of 2006 and he had some pretty interesting things to say. You can read the transcript here (you will have to scroll down the page and click on "more" to get it). But here are some highlights from Fund in that interview that may be relevant to the upcoming election:Well, in my book, "Stealing Elections," I basically say we have two problems. We have what political scientist, Walter Dean Burnham, calls the sloppiest election system of any industrialized democracy and because of that sloppiness people with bad motives have often a very easy time finagling the system, adding votes or subtracting votes. Sometimes you can�t tell where the sloppiness ends and where the fraud begins.
I do know that there�s a lot more scrutiny and the general public believes that there�s more fraud, if you look at the Zogby poll or the Rasmussen poll. Something like about twelve percent of Americans don�t believe their ballots are counted properly or the votes are stolen so that their ballots are invalidated.
In the introduction of his recent book, Fund points out that voter fraud can be found all over the US:
Election fraud, whether it's phony voter registrations, illegal absentee ballots, shady recounts, or old-fashioned ballot box stuffing, can be found in every part of the United States, although it is probably spreading because of the ever-so-tight divisions that have polarized the country and created so many close elections lately. Although most fraud is found in urban areas, there are current scandals in rural Texas and Minnesota.... Wisconsin officials convicted a New York heiress who was working for Al Gore by giving homeless people cigarettes if they rode in a van to the polls and voted.
Frankly, if I was homeless and someone did that to me, I would take the cigarettes and write in Philip Morris on the ballot.
The Creative Personality
I recently saw a link to this Psychology Today article on the creative personality at Conservative Grapevine and thought I would share it with you (it is several years old but still worth a read). Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, author of such books as Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention,
summarizes the ten points of the creative personality. You can read the article to see all ten but here are a few of the highlights that caught my eye:
I have conducted thousands of IQ tests in my career and I must say that IQ is overrated. I have seen lawyers with 105 IQs who are performing well at their jobs and seem to be creative and others who scored over 140 who are unemployed and talking about what geniuses they are. It seems like the more a person talks about how smart and bright they are, the less creative and really productive they really are. Have you noticed that?
summarizes the ten points of the creative personality. You can read the article to see all ten but here are a few of the highlights that caught my eye:Creative people have a great deal of physical energy, but they're also often quiet and at rest. They work long hours, with great concentration, while projecting an aura of freshness and enthusiasm. This suggests a superior physical endowment, a genetic advantage. Yet it is surprising how often individuals who in their seventies and eighties exude energy and health remember childhoods plagued by illness. It seems that their energy is internally generated, due more to their focused minds than to the superiority of their genes....
The earliest longitudinal study of superior mental abilities, initiated at Stanford University by the psychologist Lewis Terman in 1921, shows rather conclusively that children with very high IQs do well in life, but after a certain point IQ does not seem to be correlated any longer with superior performance in real life. Later studies suggest that the cutoff point is around 120; it might be difficult to do creative work with a lower IQ, but an IQ beyond 120 does not necessarily imply higher creativity....
Creative people are humble and proud at the same time. It is remarkable to meet a famous person who you expect to be arrogant or supercilious, only to encounter self-deprecation and shyness instead....
Creative people are both rebellious and conservative. It is impossible to be creative without having first internalized an area of culture. So it's difficult to see how a person can be creative without being both traditional and conservative and at the same time rebellious and iconoclastic.
I have conducted thousands of IQ tests in my career and I must say that IQ is overrated. I have seen lawyers with 105 IQs who are performing well at their jobs and seem to be creative and others who scored over 140 who are unemployed and talking about what geniuses they are. It seems like the more a person talks about how smart and bright they are, the less creative and really productive they really are. Have you noticed that?
Binoculars in the mist
My good colleague at the London Business School, Professor Don Sull � master of the analogy � often shows his classroom a picture of a sailor looking through his binoculars, saying �this is our traditional view of how we regard making strategy�: someone who is able to look into the future, and make a detailed plan of how to proceed towards a chosen destination.
However, the reality of strategy-making is quite different; it is more � according to Don � like you�re driving a car in heavy fog, peering through the window, trying to navigate around unexpected things that suddenly appear in your way.
I like and agree with his analogy. In pretty much all businesses, although you may know where you�re headed, the route is fraught with uncertainties and unexpected events. Technological developments, market demand, competitor actions, entrants, changing consumer preferences, the macro economy, etc.; nobody can discern with any certainty what lies ahead of us.
I�d like to extend Don�s analogy, of driving in heavy fog. Because we�re likely not alone on this road. We have competitors. And what do most of us do, when we�re sharing the road with other users in heavy fog? We concentrate on the lights of the car ahead of us, because it gives us some guidance, and we can rely a bit on the faith of the fella in front of us.
However, the reality of strategy-making is quite different; it is more � according to Don � like you�re driving a car in heavy fog, peering through the window, trying to navigate around unexpected things that suddenly appear in your way. I like and agree with his analogy. In pretty much all businesses, although you may know where you�re headed, the route is fraught with uncertainties and unexpected events. Technological developments, market demand, competitor actions, entrants, changing consumer preferences, the macro economy, etc.; nobody can discern with any certainty what lies ahead of us.I�d like to extend Don�s analogy, of driving in heavy fog. Because we�re likely not alone on this road. We have competitors. And what do most of us do, when we�re sharing the road with other users in heavy fog? We concentrate on the lights of the car ahead of us, because it gives us some guidance, and we can rely a bit on the faith of the fella in front of us.
But, although it may make us feel more secure, is that really such a good idea? It�s only human I guess, but it sometimes also seduces us to drive faster than we otherwise would have done, just to keep up with the advancing lights. And, if the fog is heavy enough, it seduces us to drive closer to the guy than we may deem wise if we�d think about it. Of course, a multiple collision in the mist is quite common; we�re following the car in front of us, but that doesn�t mean that we can brake in time if he goes of a cliff, smashes into a tree or another car on the road.
That�s often how it goes in business as well. Competition is a race, but it�s also a race in the mist. Often, everybody ends up following the quickest competitor, bidding for 3G licenses, entering China, merging with IT companies, etc. But sometimes, everybody ends up with a big bump on the head.
However, of course, if you slow down, you might lose the race. So, what do you do, confronted with fast-moving competition? Well, do what you do when you�re driving in the mist. First of all, keep a healthy distance between you and the car in front of you. If he crashes, you still want to have time to stop. Secondly, if that car is driving faster than you�re comfortable with; slow down. He may get there faster than you, but he may also not get there at all. And sometimes that�s just not worth the risk.
Finally, don�t use binoculars. They will blind you. Rigidly executing a detailed long-term strategy won�t allow you to see anything unexpected in your way. You won�t be able to navigate around � let alone take advantage of � the opportunities and obstacles that suddenly appear on the road ahead.
That�s often how it goes in business as well. Competition is a race, but it�s also a race in the mist. Often, everybody ends up following the quickest competitor, bidding for 3G licenses, entering China, merging with IT companies, etc. But sometimes, everybody ends up with a big bump on the head.
However, of course, if you slow down, you might lose the race. So, what do you do, confronted with fast-moving competition? Well, do what you do when you�re driving in the mist. First of all, keep a healthy distance between you and the car in front of you. If he crashes, you still want to have time to stop. Secondly, if that car is driving faster than you�re comfortable with; slow down. He may get there faster than you, but he may also not get there at all. And sometimes that�s just not worth the risk.
Finally, don�t use binoculars. They will blind you. Rigidly executing a detailed long-term strategy won�t allow you to see anything unexpected in your way. You won�t be able to navigate around � let alone take advantage of � the opportunities and obstacles that suddenly appear on the road ahead.
Are Obama's positions those of most Americans?
I was flipping through a new book on Obama entitled The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on American Values,
and read an interesting chapter entitled, "The Barack Obama Test."
The author used questions gathered from The Associated Television News/Zogby America poll of 1005 voters to find out if people agreed or disagreed with the positions of Obama. Some questions were posed to all Americans and other questions were posed to the 70% of Americans who paid taxes and then to the 30% who do not pay taxes (isn't it amazing that almost 30% of Americans do not pay federal taxes! Personally, I think that if we have a federal tax, then all Americans should be required to pay taxes of some sort--but that's a whole other topic).
Here are a few examples of questions that were asked: "Should a doctor give medical care to a fetus that survives an abortion, or should medical care not be given?" Obama's position (according to the book) is that care should not be given; only 17.7%of Americans agreed. A full 67.8% believed that medical care should be given and 14.5 % are not sure.
On a Second Amendment question, "Would you favor or oppose a law that banned the sale of handguns?" 36% of Americans agree with Obama and would favor such a law but 59% of Americans opposed it and 5% aren't sure.
Let's turn to taxes. "How much should Americans who earn $1 million per year pay in federal income taxes?" 50.1 % of those who paid taxes said that Americans who earn that much should pay 35% or less and 52.3% of those who do not pay taxes thought that 35% or less was fair. Not bad--almost even--but Obama's position (again, according to the book, his positions seem to be changing) is that the taxpayer should pay 35% or more and only 33.2% of all Americans agree with him, 33.1% of taxpayers and 33.4% of those who do not pay.
Healthcare is another area where most Americans have a different take than Obama, unless they pay no federal taxes. The question posed was, "Do you agree or disagree with Barack Obama's $65 billion dollar plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage, which would provide health insurance for those currently uninsured, including illegal immigrants?" 31% of those who paid taxes agreed with the plan and 65.1% disagreed, with 3.9% unsure. Those who did not pay taxes were split with 46.5% agreeing with such a plan and 45.5% disagreeing; 8% were unsure.
The author correctly points out that many Americans who say they are for the change that Obama has in mind have different positions than those taken by Obama but don't seem to realize it. Maybe after reading this book, they will.
and read an interesting chapter entitled, "The Barack Obama Test." The author used questions gathered from The Associated Television News/Zogby America poll of 1005 voters to find out if people agreed or disagreed with the positions of Obama. Some questions were posed to all Americans and other questions were posed to the 70% of Americans who paid taxes and then to the 30% who do not pay taxes (isn't it amazing that almost 30% of Americans do not pay federal taxes! Personally, I think that if we have a federal tax, then all Americans should be required to pay taxes of some sort--but that's a whole other topic).
Here are a few examples of questions that were asked: "Should a doctor give medical care to a fetus that survives an abortion, or should medical care not be given?" Obama's position (according to the book) is that care should not be given; only 17.7%of Americans agreed. A full 67.8% believed that medical care should be given and 14.5 % are not sure.
On a Second Amendment question, "Would you favor or oppose a law that banned the sale of handguns?" 36% of Americans agree with Obama and would favor such a law but 59% of Americans opposed it and 5% aren't sure.
Let's turn to taxes. "How much should Americans who earn $1 million per year pay in federal income taxes?" 50.1 % of those who paid taxes said that Americans who earn that much should pay 35% or less and 52.3% of those who do not pay taxes thought that 35% or less was fair. Not bad--almost even--but Obama's position (again, according to the book, his positions seem to be changing) is that the taxpayer should pay 35% or more and only 33.2% of all Americans agree with him, 33.1% of taxpayers and 33.4% of those who do not pay.
Healthcare is another area where most Americans have a different take than Obama, unless they pay no federal taxes. The question posed was, "Do you agree or disagree with Barack Obama's $65 billion dollar plan to institute taxpayer-funded universal health coverage, which would provide health insurance for those currently uninsured, including illegal immigrants?" 31% of those who paid taxes agreed with the plan and 65.1% disagreed, with 3.9% unsure. Those who did not pay taxes were split with 46.5% agreeing with such a plan and 45.5% disagreeing; 8% were unsure.
The author correctly points out that many Americans who say they are for the change that Obama has in mind have different positions than those taken by Obama but don't seem to realize it. Maybe after reading this book, they will.
Ask Dr. Helen: Is this election causing more male bashing?
My PJM column is up:
Read the column and see if you agree or disagree.
Is it open season on men this election year? I have noticed an upswing in the amount of blatant male bashing going on in the media and blogs as of late. Let me give you a few examples.
Read the column and see if you agree or disagree.
If you're a Democrat, would you eat the family dog?
Apparently, liberal students at the University of Pennsylvania would according to an essay on moral behavior by Jonathan Haidt, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia:
Haidt's essay is very interesting and is more about the different ways that liberals and conservatives view the world in terms of morality (although I think some of what he says is incorrect) than just about the family dog but it is definitely worth a read.
For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, "even when nobody was harmed. Only one group�college students at Penn�consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog).
. ....The second conclusion was that the moral domain varies across cultures. Turiel's description of morality as being about justice, rights, and human welfare worked perfectly for the college students I interviewed at Penn, but it simply did not capture the moral concerns of the less elite groups�the working-class people in both countries who were more likely to justify their judgments with talk about respect, duty, and family roles. ("Your dog is family, and you just don't eat family.")
Haidt's essay is very interesting and is more about the different ways that liberals and conservatives view the world in terms of morality (although I think some of what he says is incorrect) than just about the family dog but it is definitely worth a read.
The un-Walter Cronkiting of American politics
I read an excellent article in Forbes this afternoon by Peter Huber, senior fellow of the Manhattan Institute and coauthor of The Bottomless Well.
The piece, entitled Cronkite vs. the Web takes a look at the role of the web in political elections:
That's the danger of echo chambers. Perhaps it's best for blog readers that they read a number of blogs and other sites that do not necessarily agree with their viewpoint. That way, one can get a better understanding of a variety of opinions, not just the ones that agree with one's own.
The piece, entitled Cronkite vs. the Web takes a look at the role of the web in political elections:....the more polarized and divided the national election, the worse the dot-com candidates will ultimately serve the parties that they crash and capture. The Web doesn't bridge divisions; it multiplies and sharpens them. It doesn't build consensus or national coalitions; it grows factions. Truth be told, the Web doesn't network people at all--it lets them network themselves, which is quite different. The Web is the place where people can roll their own, and given that freedom, people tend to coalesce in relatively small, insular groups.
The real genius of the Web, in short, is that it lets people disconnect. That's why it has obliterated the old media. During the Tet Offensive of the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson is reported to have said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." Nobody would ever say that about anything posted on a cronkite.com or a CronkiteTube. There are too many celebrity sites, scattered all over the digital landscape, and they're all saying different things.
The un-Walter Cronkiting of American politics of course dismays his would-be heirs, but their opinions hardly matter anymore, and they will have all but disappeared from view four years from now. Few of them will be missed, because America, it turns out, doesn't much trust them. Plummeting audiences for network news have made that clear. The challenge now is to get disconnected people to accept how little they can trust themselves and their closest friends. People who live overwired lives--which means the young, especially--may easily suppose that they have a very good picture of what all the rest of America is thinking. Quite a few of them are going to find out otherwise in a few weeks...
That's the danger of echo chambers. Perhaps it's best for blog readers that they read a number of blogs and other sites that do not necessarily agree with their viewpoint. That way, one can get a better understanding of a variety of opinions, not just the ones that agree with one's own.
Psychologist is one of the first on the scene of an L.A .train wreck
An L.A. commuter train crash killed at least 12 people last night:
Luckily, Ms. Burnstein saw it as her duty to help and not to walk away.
Emergency crews worked desperately through the night and into Saturday morning, ripping into a mangled train car to search for an unknown number of people trapped in a horrific train wreck in Los Angeles.
A Metrolink commuter train carrying 222 people collided head-on with a freight train Friday afternoon, killing at least 12 people and injuring about 135. The death toll was expected to increase as firefighters dug deeper into the wreckage....
The train wreck shocked those who first saw it.
Leslie Burnstein heard screams of agony as she ran through a smoky haze toward a wrecked train where dozens of bloodied passengers were still trapped inside. She pulled victims out one by one, some weeping as they looked about at the destruction.
"It was horrendous," said Burnstein, a psychologist who saw the train crash from her home. "Blood was everywhere. ... I heard people yelling, screaming in pain, begging for help."
Luckily, Ms. Burnstein saw it as her duty to help and not to walk away.
Is Sleeping Alone Good for Marriage?
According to this CNN article, more and more married couples are sleeping separately (Hat Tip: Newsalert):
What do you think, is sleeping alone good or bad for marriage?
How many couples sleep solo in a double bed?
A 2001 random telephone survey of 1,004 adults conducted by the National Sleep Foundation found that 12 percent of married Americans slept alone; a similar 2005 survey of 1,506 people found that number had jumped to 23 percent.
In addition, a March online survey of 1,408 couples conducted by the Sleep Council of England found that 1 in 4 people regularly retreats to a spare room or sofa to get a good night's sleep.
The preference for separate spaces has even begun to affect home design. According to the National Association of Home Builders, there's been a steady increase in the number of requests for "two-master bedroom" homes since 1990, prompting the organization to predict that by 2015, 60 percent of all custom upscale homes will be built with two "owner suites."
What do you think, is sleeping alone good or bad for marriage?
Neo-Neocon at PJM asks, "Is Obama Buckling Under Pressure?" What stood out to me after reading the piece is her observation about McCain and Obama's different ways of handling the enormous pressure of this election:
Which candidate sounds more ready to lead?
Much has been made of McCain�s propensity for anger, and it was the subject of constant early speculation. When would the famous McCain temper make its appearance, and how bad would the melt-down be? The race isn�t over yet and anything is still possible. But the fact that it has failed to materialize so far is an indication that McCain is holding up surprisingly well under the strain....
If Obama�s star seems to be fading, it may be due at least in part to his reactions to the situation of finding himself suddenly behind in the polls, threatened by opponents he previously underestimated. It is a question of character, stamina, and judgment. He doesn�t seem to be �keeping his head� now that he is being tested in this new way.
Which candidate sounds more ready to lead?
On the semantics of corporate blabla
One of the most annoying terminologies in Strategic Management blabla I find the words �core activities�. They�re the most easiest and flimsiest of excuses to do or not do something, without having to provide any logical rationale why.
�They are losing money because they are not focusing on their core activities�. Come on, cut the BS; why are you calling certain activities �non core� anyway? Yep, because they�re not making any money. That�s makes it a bit of tautology, doesn�t it? Had they been hugely profitable I am sure these activities would not be regarded so �non-core� after all.
�We decided to divest businesses X and Y because they weren�t our core activities�. Get real; you�re probably divesting them because they�re not making you any money (and therefore you call them �non-core�). And even if you did have some other reason for wanting to get rid of them � whether the reason is any good or not � the hollow �explanation� (�because they are not core�) tells us as much as doodly-squat.
If you give me a good logical explanation why certain activities or products do not mix, or at least do not give any advantage in terms of combining them in one organisation, I am with you, but the label �core� or �not core� itself doesn�t say a darn thing at all.
Often, fluffy terminologies seem to be used, making far-reaching strategic decisions, to provide some sense of semi-security by means of an apparent logic which in reality is nothing more than a semantic construction.
�Capabilities�; what are they anyway? Stuff you�re good at? �We have to build the capabilities necessary to execute our vision�. What do you mean: You have to become better at it in order to become good...?
But the most annoying discussion in management speak I find the long-standing debate on what are �capabilities� and what are �competencies�. Let me solve this debate for you: They are words!! And words mean what we say they mean. These things are not some objective reality, to be discovered through careful corporate archeology or so (�we have dug up some capabilities and some competencies, analysed them in a CT scanner and applied CO2 analysis and now have conclusive evidence that they are different things�). If you can tell me why it is necessary or at least useful to make a distinction between two different concepts � one which we can call �capabilities�; the other one we�ll name �competencies� (or �zoggers and zaggers�, �dinkies and donkies�; whatever), I am with you, but without such an explanation of why the distinction is useful, I cannot be interested in debating the semantics of some random words that happened to find their way into our business vocabulaire.
So leave me alone and go annoy someone else with your corporate word games.
�They are losing money because they are not focusing on their core activities�. Come on, cut the BS; why are you calling certain activities �non core� anyway? Yep, because they�re not making any money. That�s makes it a bit of tautology, doesn�t it? Had they been hugely profitable I am sure these activities would not be regarded so �non-core� after all.
�We decided to divest businesses X and Y because they weren�t our core activities�. Get real; you�re probably divesting them because they�re not making you any money (and therefore you call them �non-core�). And even if you did have some other reason for wanting to get rid of them � whether the reason is any good or not � the hollow �explanation� (�because they are not core�) tells us as much as doodly-squat.
If you give me a good logical explanation why certain activities or products do not mix, or at least do not give any advantage in terms of combining them in one organisation, I am with you, but the label �core� or �not core� itself doesn�t say a darn thing at all.
Often, fluffy terminologies seem to be used, making far-reaching strategic decisions, to provide some sense of semi-security by means of an apparent logic which in reality is nothing more than a semantic construction.
�Capabilities�; what are they anyway? Stuff you�re good at? �We have to build the capabilities necessary to execute our vision�. What do you mean: You have to become better at it in order to become good...?
But the most annoying discussion in management speak I find the long-standing debate on what are �capabilities� and what are �competencies�. Let me solve this debate for you: They are words!! And words mean what we say they mean. These things are not some objective reality, to be discovered through careful corporate archeology or so (�we have dug up some capabilities and some competencies, analysed them in a CT scanner and applied CO2 analysis and now have conclusive evidence that they are different things�). If you can tell me why it is necessary or at least useful to make a distinction between two different concepts � one which we can call �capabilities�; the other one we�ll name �competencies� (or �zoggers and zaggers�, �dinkies and donkies�; whatever), I am with you, but without such an explanation of why the distinction is useful, I cannot be interested in debating the semantics of some random words that happened to find their way into our business vocabulaire.
So leave me alone and go annoy someone else with your corporate word games.
Victor Davis Hanson has a good article in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled "Palin story teaches us what media thinks is feminism" (Hat tip: Joe Manthey).
Is Sarah Palin really a woman?
Apparently not to Professor Wendy Doniger who teaches at the University of Chicago�s Divinity School who states about Palin:
I have read a lot of whacky things in the media about Palin but to deny someone's biology based on political beliefs that disagree with your own is definitely out there. Fortunately, other women feel the same. Here is a good response to this diatribe from a commenter named Kelly:
What is amazing to me is how many liberal gender feminists think that they know what is best for all women, just because they have a womb. Maybe it's time they woke up and realized that the women of America are not buying the crap they're peddling.
Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.
I have read a lot of whacky things in the media about Palin but to deny someone's biology based on political beliefs that disagree with your own is definitely out there. Fortunately, other women feel the same. Here is a good response to this diatribe from a commenter named Kelly:
I hate to drop this bomb on this idiot, but if you have a vagina you are a real woman. That includes even this moron. Just because a person does not agree with your political views, especially abortion on demand, that does not excommunicate them from their biology. Being a woman is a biological fact. However, being an individual trapped in their own political dogma frothing at the mouth about any woman who does not agree with them is simply deranged. It is amazing how one attractive, intelligent woman with conservative views has set the feminist crones spinning. I sit back and enjoy the show. Although abortion is the holy grail of the feminist crones, the majority of American women don't vote on a singal issue, such as myself. I believe in abortion in certain instances but it is not my singular issue and does not decide my vot. The feminists are revealing their blood lust for the murder of unborn children anywhere anytime for any reason. Keep it up feminist, we women of the heartland are watching and we are not approving.
What is amazing to me is how many liberal gender feminists think that they know what is best for all women, just because they have a womb. Maybe it's time they woke up and realized that the women of America are not buying the crap they're peddling.
Conflicts of interest � do analysts rate their bank�s clients� stock more favourably?
Heck yes.
Have you ever heard that you can see the Great Wall of China from outer space? Well, it�s a myth.
Have you ever heard of �Chinese Walls� inside professional organisations, such as management consultants or solicitors, who face a potential conflict of interest for instance because some of their employees are working on different clients that compete in the same line of business? They claim they have �Chinese Walls� inside their firms because their consultant or solicitors are not allowed to even talk to each other, let alone share information. Well, believe me, those are usually a myth as well.
Take investment banks. Investment banks often have a research department which employs analysts who provide recommendations whether we should buy or sell the shares of a particular company. A �sell� recommendation by such an analyst is quite a pain (in all sorts of body parts) for a company because their influence can be substantial in the sense that the firm�s share price will likely fall as a result of this recommendation. A recommendation to �buy� is obviously a much more cheerful event.
Such investments banks, however, often also have a Corporate Finance department which is trying to secure deals to advice companies on things like debt, equity or M&A transactions. The potential conflict of interest is clear: If a bank�s analyst would provide a �sell� recommendation for a (potential) client company, this is going to be one valued client who is �not amused��!
Some companies are known to even explicitly select only those investments banks to represent them on their deals who have awarded them positive stock recommendations in the past. In any case, if a bank is chatting up a client on the left side but recommending �sell their shares; now!� on the right side, this client might just tell them to f-off.
So how do investment banks deal with such potential conflicts of interest? �Chinese Walls!� they�ll so firmly declare that you will almost believe it. �We have Chinese Walls in our firms, so that the Corporate Finance guys cannot pressure or even have lunch with the security analyst dudes�. Yeah right�
Professors Mathew Hayward and Warren Boeker � at the time based at the London Business School � investigated exactly this issue. They selected 70 companies from a variety of industries (e.g. biotech, oil and gas, restaurants, telecom), collected a total of 8,169 analyst ratings that had been issued for them, and analysed the investment banks that had been involved in their equity, debt and M&A deals. Then they statistically examined whether analysts made more positive recommendations for those firms who their banks were also serving as clients. The answer was a clear yes; in 80% of the cases, analysts would rate a company higher than their peers at other investment banks if this firm was also a client.
This was true when the rating was issued before the deal � at a time when the bank�s Corporate Finance department was likely bidding or at least eyeing up a potential client � but also after a deal had been awarded, when the company was now officially a customer, and apparently able to exercise power. However, the closer the issue date of the rating to the deal date, and the larger the client, the stronger this influence was.
While the Great Wall of China might have been helpful keeping the Hun tribes out of China, the mythical Chinese Walls inside our professional corporations are apparently much less apt at curtailing the influence of powerful stakeholders. Their presence can be measured and felt � at the end of the day all the way into their shareholders� pockets.
Have you ever heard that you can see the Great Wall of China from outer space? Well, it�s a myth.
Have you ever heard of �Chinese Walls� inside professional organisations, such as management consultants or solicitors, who face a potential conflict of interest for instance because some of their employees are working on different clients that compete in the same line of business? They claim they have �Chinese Walls� inside their firms because their consultant or solicitors are not allowed to even talk to each other, let alone share information. Well, believe me, those are usually a myth as well.
Take investment banks. Investment banks often have a research department which employs analysts who provide recommendations whether we should buy or sell the shares of a particular company. A �sell� recommendation by such an analyst is quite a pain (in all sorts of body parts) for a company because their influence can be substantial in the sense that the firm�s share price will likely fall as a result of this recommendation. A recommendation to �buy� is obviously a much more cheerful event.
Such investments banks, however, often also have a Corporate Finance department which is trying to secure deals to advice companies on things like debt, equity or M&A transactions. The potential conflict of interest is clear: If a bank�s analyst would provide a �sell� recommendation for a (potential) client company, this is going to be one valued client who is �not amused��!
Some companies are known to even explicitly select only those investments banks to represent them on their deals who have awarded them positive stock recommendations in the past. In any case, if a bank is chatting up a client on the left side but recommending �sell their shares; now!� on the right side, this client might just tell them to f-off.
So how do investment banks deal with such potential conflicts of interest? �Chinese Walls!� they�ll so firmly declare that you will almost believe it. �We have Chinese Walls in our firms, so that the Corporate Finance guys cannot pressure or even have lunch with the security analyst dudes�. Yeah right�
Professors Mathew Hayward and Warren Boeker � at the time based at the London Business School � investigated exactly this issue. They selected 70 companies from a variety of industries (e.g. biotech, oil and gas, restaurants, telecom), collected a total of 8,169 analyst ratings that had been issued for them, and analysed the investment banks that had been involved in their equity, debt and M&A deals. Then they statistically examined whether analysts made more positive recommendations for those firms who their banks were also serving as clients. The answer was a clear yes; in 80% of the cases, analysts would rate a company higher than their peers at other investment banks if this firm was also a client.
This was true when the rating was issued before the deal � at a time when the bank�s Corporate Finance department was likely bidding or at least eyeing up a potential client � but also after a deal had been awarded, when the company was now officially a customer, and apparently able to exercise power. However, the closer the issue date of the rating to the deal date, and the larger the client, the stronger this influence was.
While the Great Wall of China might have been helpful keeping the Hun tribes out of China, the mythical Chinese Walls inside our professional corporations are apparently much less apt at curtailing the influence of powerful stakeholders. Their presence can be measured and felt � at the end of the day all the way into their shareholders� pockets.
What would you do?
I read this article today in the Philadelphia Daily News about a hammer-wielding "psycho" who almost killed a man on the subway:
I remember riding the subway in Manhattan when I lived there and how many obnoxious people there were on the train. Sometimes people would come up and scream in my face as well as others and no one would do a thing. I once looked around for help during one of the episodes and everyone kept reading their newspaper making clear that no help would be forthcoming.
However, one day I saw a brave act of courage that changed my perception of how cowardly I thought people in NYC were at that time. A man was trying to steal some possessions from what looked like a homeless man and a small woman, maybe 5 feet tall and 90 pounds grabbed her umbrella and hit the predator and knocked him off the train at the next stop. A large well-dressed man went to help her but only after she had already successfully defended the homeless man. My jaw dropped in awe. Once the incident was over, the woman put her umbrella down by her side and seemed nonchalant, as if it were no big deal. If only we had more people like her.
On a positive note, it seems that they caught the predator responsible for the hammer attack, naturally he had a long criminal history. The police say that it might have been best not to intervene and just to call for help or be a good witness to an event like this. What do you think?
Update: Commenter randian points out that there is video of the incident. One thing that struck me is just how methodical the perpetrator was, just sort of like he was at another day at work. He puts his bag down, takes out the hammer and starts wailing away.
As the SEPTA subway train rocked forward, a thirty-something guy leaned over near the doorway and gently planted a kiss on the little boy at his side.
When the train neared the Fairmount Avenue stop shortly after midnight on Thursday, the man reached out like an adoring parent and directed the 3- or 4-year-old tyke to an open seat.
Then he flew into a monstrous rage.
Without uttering a word, police said, the unidentified man whipped out a double-claw hammer and began bludgeoning a 20-year-old man who was dozing off in his seat.
For five long minutes, SEPTA surveillance cameras captured the deranged attacker - who was still on the loose late last night- digging his hammer into the man's head and neck.
Through it all, disgusted investigators said, at least 10 passengers stood by and did nothing as the random attack moved from the train to the platform, when the hammer-wielding maniac tried to push his victim down onto the train tracks.
I remember riding the subway in Manhattan when I lived there and how many obnoxious people there were on the train. Sometimes people would come up and scream in my face as well as others and no one would do a thing. I once looked around for help during one of the episodes and everyone kept reading their newspaper making clear that no help would be forthcoming.
However, one day I saw a brave act of courage that changed my perception of how cowardly I thought people in NYC were at that time. A man was trying to steal some possessions from what looked like a homeless man and a small woman, maybe 5 feet tall and 90 pounds grabbed her umbrella and hit the predator and knocked him off the train at the next stop. A large well-dressed man went to help her but only after she had already successfully defended the homeless man. My jaw dropped in awe. Once the incident was over, the woman put her umbrella down by her side and seemed nonchalant, as if it were no big deal. If only we had more people like her.
On a positive note, it seems that they caught the predator responsible for the hammer attack, naturally he had a long criminal history. The police say that it might have been best not to intervene and just to call for help or be a good witness to an event like this. What do you think?
Update: Commenter randian points out that there is video of the incident. One thing that struck me is just how methodical the perpetrator was, just sort of like he was at another day at work. He puts his bag down, takes out the hammer and starts wailing away.
Barbara Oakley, author of Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend
has an interesting interview at EducationNews.Org. Some highlights:
You can read the whole thing here.
has an interesting interview at EducationNews.Org. Some highlights:Academicians are as bad as fundamentalists in some ways�they believe that acknowledging the effects of genes somehow kills our free will.It doesn't, of course.Having a better understanding of what we are won't change what we are.But like religious believers who thought it might disrupt society to know that the earth revolves around the sun, some academics today don't want society disrupted by what they believe to be harmful knowledge about the effects of genes on personality.Obviously, I find this attitude repugnant.I thought that people should know what researchers have been discovering, because this knowledge can be extraordinarily empowering.That's why I wrote the book.
You can read the whole thing here.
Hang the hero
Remember the disaster with Union Carbide�s chemical plant in Bhopal, India, on the 3d of December 1984? One of the most dreadful industrial accidents in the history of mankind; thousands of people died terrible deaths on the horrid day itself; tens of thousands of people perished in the aftermath.
Strangely enough, the faith of Union Carbide�s CEO at the time, Warren Anderson, always reminds me of Tolstoy�s War & Peace.
In our world, CEOs often become celebrities, heroes and superstars. We place them on the cover of magazines such as Fortune and Business Week, we give them awards, honorary doctorates and multi-million salary packages, while they command dazzling fees for after-dinner speeches, at which they are drenched in the adoration of star-struck hopefuls, who quench their thirst for personal business success on the (expensive) words of the great leader.
The manager starts to personify his company and its success: Steve Jobs and Apple, Carlos Ghosn and Nissan and, of course, Jack Welch and GE. But do we really believe that organisations that consist of a 100,000 employees, located on various continents in all corners of the world, producing dozens of products in a multitude of industries and markets are controlled by the lunch-time decisions of one man? Can one man be that omni-potent?
Similarly, CEOs can become villains. They start to personify the misery that their organisation has brought us. We mock them, vilify them and, if we get the chance, put them in jail. Cees van der Hoeven � who got off with a suspended jail sentence � exemplified Ahold�s fall from glory; Enron�s Jeff Skilling is spending 24 years in a prison in Minnesota (of all places), while former media mogul Conrad Black is at least catching some rays of sunshine through the bars on his window of his cell in Florida.
I guess these attributions are not restricted to business leaders only. Tolstoy, reflecting on the eventual defeat of the Napoleon�s forces in Russia after the battle of Borodino, was explicitly sceptical of any attributions of omnipotence. He wrote: �Many historians contend that the French failed at Borodino because Napoleon had a cold in the head, and that if it had not been for this cold ... Russia would have been annihilated and the face of the world would have been changed�.
�If it had depended on Napoleon�s will whether to fight or not to fight the battle of Borodino, or had it depended on his will whether he gave this order or that, it is evident that a cold affecting the functioning of his will might have saved Russia, and consequently the valet who forgot to bring Napoleon his waterproof boots on the 24th would be the saviour of Russia�.
�But for minds which cannot admit that Russia was fashioned by the will of one man� such reasoning will seem not merely unsound and preposterous but contrary to the whole nature of human reality. The question, �what causes historic events?� will suggest another answer, namely, that the course of earthly happenings � depends on the combined volition of all who participate in those events, and that the influence of a Napoleon on the course of those events is purely superficial and imaginary�.
Perhaps we also overdo it a bit when we bestow our adoration or vilification on the CEOs of multinational companies. The people from Bhopal viewed � and still view � Warren Anderson as the prime instigator of the evil that befell them. They still paint �Hang Anderson� on the city�s walls and burn puppets in his imagery. Was Warren Anderson responsible? I am sure he was; he played his part being in charge of the company that owned 51% of the dreadful factory. The personified anger of the people of Bhopal is understandable, just like the adoration of Jack Welch con suis seems due to some deep human inclination. But, in reality, both the success and the downfall of our organisations are, as Tolstoy put it, the result of �the combined volition of all who participate in those events�.
Strangely enough, the faith of Union Carbide�s CEO at the time, Warren Anderson, always reminds me of Tolstoy�s War & Peace.
In our world, CEOs often become celebrities, heroes and superstars. We place them on the cover of magazines such as Fortune and Business Week, we give them awards, honorary doctorates and multi-million salary packages, while they command dazzling fees for after-dinner speeches, at which they are drenched in the adoration of star-struck hopefuls, who quench their thirst for personal business success on the (expensive) words of the great leader.
The manager starts to personify his company and its success: Steve Jobs and Apple, Carlos Ghosn and Nissan and, of course, Jack Welch and GE. But do we really believe that organisations that consist of a 100,000 employees, located on various continents in all corners of the world, producing dozens of products in a multitude of industries and markets are controlled by the lunch-time decisions of one man? Can one man be that omni-potent?
Similarly, CEOs can become villains. They start to personify the misery that their organisation has brought us. We mock them, vilify them and, if we get the chance, put them in jail. Cees van der Hoeven � who got off with a suspended jail sentence � exemplified Ahold�s fall from glory; Enron�s Jeff Skilling is spending 24 years in a prison in Minnesota (of all places), while former media mogul Conrad Black is at least catching some rays of sunshine through the bars on his window of his cell in Florida.
I guess these attributions are not restricted to business leaders only. Tolstoy, reflecting on the eventual defeat of the Napoleon�s forces in Russia after the battle of Borodino, was explicitly sceptical of any attributions of omnipotence. He wrote: �Many historians contend that the French failed at Borodino because Napoleon had a cold in the head, and that if it had not been for this cold ... Russia would have been annihilated and the face of the world would have been changed�.
�If it had depended on Napoleon�s will whether to fight or not to fight the battle of Borodino, or had it depended on his will whether he gave this order or that, it is evident that a cold affecting the functioning of his will might have saved Russia, and consequently the valet who forgot to bring Napoleon his waterproof boots on the 24th would be the saviour of Russia�.
�But for minds which cannot admit that Russia was fashioned by the will of one man� such reasoning will seem not merely unsound and preposterous but contrary to the whole nature of human reality. The question, �what causes historic events?� will suggest another answer, namely, that the course of earthly happenings � depends on the combined volition of all who participate in those events, and that the influence of a Napoleon on the course of those events is purely superficial and imaginary�.
Perhaps we also overdo it a bit when we bestow our adoration or vilification on the CEOs of multinational companies. The people from Bhopal viewed � and still view � Warren Anderson as the prime instigator of the evil that befell them. They still paint �Hang Anderson� on the city�s walls and burn puppets in his imagery. Was Warren Anderson responsible? I am sure he was; he played his part being in charge of the company that owned 51% of the dreadful factory. The personified anger of the people of Bhopal is understandable, just like the adoration of Jack Welch con suis seems due to some deep human inclination. But, in reality, both the success and the downfall of our organisations are, as Tolstoy put it, the result of �the combined volition of all who participate in those events�.
Another reason to be wary of "experts"
The Anchoress at PJM: Psychologists Want to Purge Your Brain of Un-Green Thoughts.
"She�s a redneck at heart, don�t you see.."
Neo-neocon on why the liberals hate Palin:
If being a redneck at heart means freedom-loving, supportive of gun rights, low taxes, less pork, personal responsibility and smaller government, then count me in too.
Cries that the Democrats have engaged in sexism towards Palin are not misplaced. Palin is also hated for her social conservatism�even by feminists, who acknowledge she�s a woman, but a woman from the wrong side of the issues.
But perhaps even more important to many liberals is that she�s a woman from the wrong side of the tracks. Or at least, that�s the way she�s been perceived.
Forget that she�s a college graduate, with a father who was a teacher. She went to the wrong college�or colleges. She�s a redneck, even if she�s from the far North where the sun hardly shines for half the year. She�s a redneck at heart, don�t you see, with the �mess� of a pregnant daughter and five children herself. How very gross.
If being a redneck at heart means freedom-loving, supportive of gun rights, low taxes, less pork, personal responsibility and smaller government, then count me in too.
Who Says Men won't Support a Strong Woman?
In the latest Rasmussen poll, it is actually the men who prefer VP candidate Sarah Palin over women:
I can't say that I'm surprised. I heard over and over during the Hillary and Obama race from people that "men just won't vote for a strong woman." Well, that's a myth. They just won't vote for the wrong woman.
Update: Palin must be doing something right, the Rasmussen tracking poll now shows a tie.
She earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that Obama continues to lead McCain among women voters while McCain leads among men. The Friday morning update�the first to include interviews conducted after Palin�s speech--showed the beginning of a Republican convention bounce that may match Obama�s bounce from last week.
I can't say that I'm surprised. I heard over and over during the Hillary and Obama race from people that "men just won't vote for a strong woman." Well, that's a myth. They just won't vote for the wrong woman.
Update: Palin must be doing something right, the Rasmussen tracking poll now shows a tie.
Down-town Calcutta firms
I'll admit it: I have a love-hate relationship with organisations. On the one hand, they�re fantastic, and they produce things that no individual could have produced by himself, such as airplanes, open-heart surgery and sky-scrapers. However, on the other hand, they can be incredibly stupid. British Gas who sends 28 letters and 3 bailiffs for a �100 bill despite having received evidence on multiple occasions that the meter is your neighbour�s (as you may gather, this is not a hypothetical example�), Firestone which continues to invest in bias tyres while the whole world (including their own employees) understands radial technology is the future, and Ahold which continues to make acquisitions although even the most junior HQ employee is starting to suspect things are getting out of hand.
Yet, the thing that I probably dislike most about large firms, is that so many of my (very well-educated and intrinsically motivated) friends seriously dislike going to work on a Monday morning � because, despite the fa�ade, corporate life is rather dull, repetitive and unexciting. I also think this is probably the clearest symptom that organisations are not making sufficient use of the potential of what is likely to be their most valuable resource: people.
But many large organisations would like to be more entrepreneurial and vibrant. And therefore, they send their employees on training programmes and culture courses, in which they build sandcastles together, climb poles, play drums or go line-dancing, to develop some positive team-spirit, and provide them with entrepreneurial energy and creativity.
My favourite anecdote regarding this issue comes from my late and great colleague Sumantra Ghoshal, who used to say the following: He would tell executives that every year in August, during his children�s summer holiday, he would take them to his native Calcutta for a month. However, down-town Calcutta would be so humid and hot in August that he could not do anything else than lie on his bed and be sleepy all day. However, when he�d spend spring in Fontainebleau � where he lived for many years when he was on the faculty at INSEAD business school � which is located right in the middle of a protected forest in France, he could not help become cheerful seeing the flowers blossom, start to whistle a song, run through the forest and leap up to grab a branch!
"The problem with large organisations", he�d say, "is that most of them create down-town Calcutta in summer within them".
And then they send you on a training course to improve your creativity and entrepreneurial energy. "But the problem is not me!" he�d shout; "place me in the Fontainebleau forest in spring and you�ll see that I have all the energy and creativity you'll ever need". I don�t need a course; you need to change your organisation.
Yet, the thing that I probably dislike most about large firms, is that so many of my (very well-educated and intrinsically motivated) friends seriously dislike going to work on a Monday morning � because, despite the fa�ade, corporate life is rather dull, repetitive and unexciting. I also think this is probably the clearest symptom that organisations are not making sufficient use of the potential of what is likely to be their most valuable resource: people.
But many large organisations would like to be more entrepreneurial and vibrant. And therefore, they send their employees on training programmes and culture courses, in which they build sandcastles together, climb poles, play drums or go line-dancing, to develop some positive team-spirit, and provide them with entrepreneurial energy and creativity.
My favourite anecdote regarding this issue comes from my late and great colleague Sumantra Ghoshal, who used to say the following: He would tell executives that every year in August, during his children�s summer holiday, he would take them to his native Calcutta for a month. However, down-town Calcutta would be so humid and hot in August that he could not do anything else than lie on his bed and be sleepy all day. However, when he�d spend spring in Fontainebleau � where he lived for many years when he was on the faculty at INSEAD business school � which is located right in the middle of a protected forest in France, he could not help become cheerful seeing the flowers blossom, start to whistle a song, run through the forest and leap up to grab a branch!
"The problem with large organisations", he�d say, "is that most of them create down-town Calcutta in summer within them".
And then they send you on a training course to improve your creativity and entrepreneurial energy. "But the problem is not me!" he�d shout; "place me in the Fontainebleau forest in spring and you�ll see that I have all the energy and creativity you'll ever need". I don�t need a course; you need to change your organisation.
Another one bites the dust....
or sees the light, depending on your view. Iron Shrink explains why he is leaving the American Psychological Association:
I am right there with you Iron Shrink, having left the APA this year after being a member for 14 years. But unlike you (yes, I realize you are being tongue-in-cheek), I do not find the APA's behavior smart in any way. They have spent their time alienating many clinicians who do not toe their party line and seem frankly, stuck in a 60's time warp. Hardly sounds like intelligence to me.
In what seems to be the ongoing Young Curmudgeon series, I explain why I can no longer maintain my American Psychological Association membership without losing self-respect: the APA seems more interested in shaping national politics than offering practical resources to a lowly clinician like myself.
Their recent stance on global warming is the last straw for this little shrink. The APA is out to change your behavior whether you like it or not. They are, like, more smarter than you and stuff.
I am right there with you Iron Shrink, having left the APA this year after being a member for 14 years. But unlike you (yes, I realize you are being tongue-in-cheek), I do not find the APA's behavior smart in any way. They have spent their time alienating many clinicians who do not toe their party line and seem frankly, stuck in a 60's time warp. Hardly sounds like intelligence to me.
"Who are the feminists again?"
In the case of Sarah Palin, it seems to be the Republicans. Jennifer Rubin at PJM states:
If Palin were a Democrat, we would not be having this national conversation about her children, her ability to mother and the other dirt that the MSM is flinging against her. Instead, the media would hail her as a hero, a role model for young girls and beyond reproach. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Update: Katie Granju points out that not all liberals and feminists are using double standards in the Palin case: "So Dr. Helen (and all you other conservative bloggers and pundits), please don't make such sweeping generalizations about how "liberals" and "feminists" are using a double standard when it comes to Sarah Palin as mother and candidate. I challenge you to recognize that there are a lot of us - myself included - who may not plan to vote for Sarah Palin, but who will certainly cheer her trailblazing political path as a great step forward for ALL women - and especially for working mothers."
And Ms. Granju, I challenge you to think before you make sweeping generalizations that "teenage boys are stupid."
Sarah Palin has set off a new round of political fisticuffs in the �Mommy Wars� and in the Culture Wars. How could a newcomer and her pregnant teenage daughter do all that in a mere six days on the national scene?
Perhaps it was inevitable that any woman selected, that is � any woman selected on a Republican ticket � would be subjected to inquiries about how she is going to manage domestic responsibilities.
Five kids of her own and a grandchild on the way simply provided the pretext for the media�s new found attention for a candidate�s familial responsibilities. How is Barack Obama attending to his young daughters? No one would dream to ask. But the McCain-Palin team is getting grilled on just this topic.
Columnists in the mainstream media, who ordinarily would not dare to question the premise that mothers should be able to work and aspire to successful careers, are now the parental police,...
If Palin were a Democrat, we would not be having this national conversation about her children, her ability to mother and the other dirt that the MSM is flinging against her. Instead, the media would hail her as a hero, a role model for young girls and beyond reproach. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Update: Katie Granju points out that not all liberals and feminists are using double standards in the Palin case: "So Dr. Helen (and all you other conservative bloggers and pundits), please don't make such sweeping generalizations about how "liberals" and "feminists" are using a double standard when it comes to Sarah Palin as mother and candidate. I challenge you to recognize that there are a lot of us - myself included - who may not plan to vote for Sarah Palin, but who will certainly cheer her trailblazing political path as a great step forward for ALL women - and especially for working mothers."
And Ms. Granju, I challenge you to think before you make sweeping generalizations that "teenage boys are stupid."
When to fire your M&A management consultant
Some time ago, I gave a presentation to a group of executives from a variety of companies on the topic of acquisitions. Much of the talk was about how vastly different acquisitions can be, in terms of the purpose they are intended to serve.
As often, I ended my talk urging the executives that, if they would ever come across a consultant who would tell them �this is how you should integrate acquisitions� (promoting one particular method), they should fire him. Because acquisitions can be so enormously different in purpose and nature that they really require quite fundamentally different approaches to integration, and if someone recommends a �one mould fits all� method, it is best to show that person the door.
Little did I know that the speaker coming after me was a consultant, armed with an impressive array of powerpoints on �this is how you should integrate acquisitions�� He looked a bit apologetic. They were also the main sponsor of the event.
Anyway, I sort of mean it. Because sometimes acquisitions are intended to lead to consolidation in an industry, and the reduction of overcapacity (think for instance of Daimler & Chrysler). Sometimes acquisitions enable a number of companies to join forces, and benefit from some shared operations while remaining relatively autonomous (think for instance of Johnston Press, buying scores of local newspapers). Other acquisitions are intended as some form of substitute R&D (e.g. Cisco buying scores of entrepreneurial companies in Silicon Valley). Some acquisitions enable a firm to gain access to a new product or geographical market (e.g. Heineken buying local breweries), while yet others have to do with blurring industry boundaries (e.g. the various industry conglomerates, such as Viacom).* Thinking that you could just all treat them the same way seems a tit na�ve.
Now, it is of course true that, in all cases, you should �have a good communication plan�, �integrate carefully�, �make sure to not over-pay�, and so on. But this type of advice is also a bit of a motherhood; after all, the professional life of a consultant (or Strategy Professor) recommending to �integrate poorly�, �make sure you over-pay� and �have an appalling communication plan� would likely be swiftly truncated.
So what can you recommend? Well, first make sure that you understand what type of acquisition you�re engaged in or, put differently, exactly why you are considering buying the company. What is it that is supposed to create all this surplus value? Once you have figured that one out, you might be able to deduce what can or needs to be preserved in the company, what needs to be integrated and what can be left to its own devices. Dependent on the outcome of that exercise, you can start to device a further acquisition plan including, yes, �a good communication plan�, �a careful integration approach� and �a proportionate acquisition premium�. And perhaps even a consultant.
* Based on a well-known typology from Harvard Business School Professor Joe Bower.
As often, I ended my talk urging the executives that, if they would ever come across a consultant who would tell them �this is how you should integrate acquisitions� (promoting one particular method), they should fire him. Because acquisitions can be so enormously different in purpose and nature that they really require quite fundamentally different approaches to integration, and if someone recommends a �one mould fits all� method, it is best to show that person the door.
Little did I know that the speaker coming after me was a consultant, armed with an impressive array of powerpoints on �this is how you should integrate acquisitions�� He looked a bit apologetic. They were also the main sponsor of the event.
Anyway, I sort of mean it. Because sometimes acquisitions are intended to lead to consolidation in an industry, and the reduction of overcapacity (think for instance of Daimler & Chrysler). Sometimes acquisitions enable a number of companies to join forces, and benefit from some shared operations while remaining relatively autonomous (think for instance of Johnston Press, buying scores of local newspapers). Other acquisitions are intended as some form of substitute R&D (e.g. Cisco buying scores of entrepreneurial companies in Silicon Valley). Some acquisitions enable a firm to gain access to a new product or geographical market (e.g. Heineken buying local breweries), while yet others have to do with blurring industry boundaries (e.g. the various industry conglomerates, such as Viacom).* Thinking that you could just all treat them the same way seems a tit na�ve.
Now, it is of course true that, in all cases, you should �have a good communication plan�, �integrate carefully�, �make sure to not over-pay�, and so on. But this type of advice is also a bit of a motherhood; after all, the professional life of a consultant (or Strategy Professor) recommending to �integrate poorly�, �make sure you over-pay� and �have an appalling communication plan� would likely be swiftly truncated.
So what can you recommend? Well, first make sure that you understand what type of acquisition you�re engaged in or, put differently, exactly why you are considering buying the company. What is it that is supposed to create all this surplus value? Once you have figured that one out, you might be able to deduce what can or needs to be preserved in the company, what needs to be integrated and what can be left to its own devices. Dependent on the outcome of that exercise, you can start to device a further acquisition plan including, yes, �a good communication plan�, �a careful integration approach� and �a proportionate acquisition premium�. And perhaps even a consultant.
* Based on a well-known typology from Harvard Business School Professor Joe Bower.
Is College Worth It?
That is the question asked by Walter Williams, author of More Liberty Means Less Government, 
in an article at TownHall (thanks to the reader to emailed this in):
I was listening to the Suze Orman show the other day and one of the listeners called in to tell her that she and her husband both had graduate degrees but weren't making it as well as their friends who went into the trades. Apparently, this couple had $100,000 dollars in student loans and wanted to have children but felt unable to afford them. In their case, maybe advanced schooling wasn't worth it. I think it depends on what one's degree is in and what skills are learned there that translate into a real world job. It is getting more and more important to research thoroughly the degree one is going to get and if it is worth it in very practical terms.
I wish I had known more prior to choosing my field, for if I did, I would definitely not have gone into the field I chose. What about you?
in an article at TownHall (thanks to the reader to emailed this in): What about students who are prepared for college? First, only 40 percent of each year's 2 million freshmen graduate in four years; 45 percent never graduate at all. Often, having a college degree does not mean much. According to a 2006 Pew Charitable Trusts study, 50 percent of college seniors failed a test that required them to interpret a table about exercise and blood pressure, understand the arguments of newspaper editorials, and compare credit card offers. About 20 percent of college seniors did not have the quantitative skills to estimate if their car had enough gas to get to the gas station. According to a recent National Assessment of Adult Literacy, the percentage of college graduates proficient in prose literacy has declined from 40 percent to 31 percent within the past decade. Employers report that many college graduates lack the basic skills of critical thinking, writing and problem-solving.
I was listening to the Suze Orman show the other day and one of the listeners called in to tell her that she and her husband both had graduate degrees but weren't making it as well as their friends who went into the trades. Apparently, this couple had $100,000 dollars in student loans and wanted to have children but felt unable to afford them. In their case, maybe advanced schooling wasn't worth it. I think it depends on what one's degree is in and what skills are learned there that translate into a real world job. It is getting more and more important to research thoroughly the degree one is going to get and if it is worth it in very practical terms.
I wish I had known more prior to choosing my field, for if I did, I would definitely not have gone into the field I chose. What about you?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)