“Guns & Ammo” and why I became an assassin

After reading mind blasting books such as “the Alchemist”, ” the Black Swan” and (long ago) “Dancing Wu-Li masters” I have increasingly been thinking of probability and how to leverage it.

Overall I believe in a higher order but where random kicks in on microlevel. Some Black Swans are doomed to appear as they are statistically more likely to happen. Hence why we believe a lot of weird stuff comes from India and China. It is statistically inevitable, with so many people!

I have outlined one mantra that I like but not always follow: “We must expose ourselves to the right probabilities.”

If we communicate to ourself and the universe what we really want, it will work for us in return. (Alchemist).

Being one of many doing something I have ONE statistical ticket to extraordinary success (surroundef by many, many loosers doing the same as I but not lucky). (the Black Swan)

I am part of a numbers’ game. Quantuum Physics. (Wu Li).

So bottom line, I may as well be aware of statistics and expose myself to (for me) the right probabilities.

If I am unemployed and only read “Guns & Ammo” I am more likely to end up as an assassin than if I did not. You can apply this mental approach to almost anything. You may fail, but you are more likely to succeed.

Lock at Rebecca Black. Her viral success was bound to happen given the pure numbers of othet movies.

Is she better than tbe others? No.
Did she expose herself to the rigjt probability? Yes

Said that: do you know what you want?
Does the math work for you? Do you want to be an assassin or not?

Posted in Brainstorming | Leave a comment

värdebaserad prissättning i riksdagen?

62 % av Aftonbladets röstare om riksdagsledamöternas lön tycker att de skall tjäna mellan 30000-40000 kronor.

Jag är förbluffad. Hur tänker man då? Varför röstar man så?

Denna blogg handlar om “future capabilities”. Röstningen ovan tvingar mig att dra två olika slutsatser.

– Missnöje. “Varför skall de tjäna så mycket, de gör ju inget”
– Okunskap: Hur skall dessa riksdagsledamöter orka leva upp till ubermenschkraven vi har med denna lön?

Personligen tycker jag följande:

1. Dra ner antalet ledamöter. Om vi inte kan få se vad de sysslar med, varför ha dem? De är ju ändå inte med i riksdagsdebatterna då den politiska karriären sker via utskotten … osv.

2. “you get what you pay for”. Lönen skall vara attraktiv och tillräckligt hög för att undvika mutor, fiffel och fokus på vissa vardagssysslor som åtminstone jag tycker att man skall kunna ha råd att köpa för att vara den folkvalda ubermensch riksdsgsledamoten förväntas vara. Ta bort obefogade fallskärmar. Betala nu för vad de gör nu och inte senare för vad de gjorde då.

Lön är inte en motivator, jag vet, det är en demotivator” Tjänar du för lite …osv.” så det måste vara attraktiv att jobba som politiker, oavsett åsikt.

Om man betraktar kvaliteten på resultatet av vad dessa riksdagskedamöter åstadkommer tillsammans tycker jag självklart att den totala kompensationen (“cost”) borde ner.

* öka transparansen i deras arbete
* tänk värdebaserad prissättning. “What is free is of no value.” Alla andra serviceinrättningar borde också tänka om
* Aftonbladet: tag ansvar som tidning och gör relevanta undersökningar
* höj lönen för att eliminera mutkraften samt öka attraktionen, oavsett åsikt, att ta denna opopulära roll som politiker
* alla röstare: tänk till, att aktivt rösta i en sån här fråga är bevisligen ett propagandatrick, ta ställning i EN sak fråga utan kontext. Nästa gång dyker denna salfråga upp i ett annat sammanhang och då har du redan tagit ställning. (ref. “Influence” av Robert B. Cialdini)

Vad har detta med min blogg att göra?

Vi saknar en förmåga att lita på de som representerar vår åsikt eftersom vi inte vet vad de sysslar med och/eller ser något resultat. Vi måste självklart ifrågasätta men varje riksdagsledamot måste bevisa sitt eget värde, på något sätt.

I min bransch kallar vi det “trust and transparancy”, “Cost” är bara en av flera parametrar i kvalitetsbedömningen bredvid “scope” och “time”.

Aftonbladet: ställ mer relevanta frågor i framtiden som är kopplade till hur vi stärker sveriges globala konkurrenskraft och individens stärkta nya kompetens. Om ingen utanför har råd eller ser något värde i att köpa våra tjänster har vi inget skatteunderlag att betala riksdagslöner för.

En annan fråga Aftonbladet skulle fråga våra framtida exportländer:

Hur mycket lön tycker du att följande tjänst/roll från Sverige skall få kosta?
Välj valfri tjänst som kan köpas globalt!

Skapa en debatt runt den frågan först, ty den debatten finns inte. Någonstans.

Posted in Brainstorming | Leave a comment

a human being being human

A lot of my daily life, communication, pitches and reading right now is about innovation.

It is easy to get carried away, riding the way of Steve Jobs heritage to …”Change the world!” In a sense it can be tiring. Everyone can’t be innovative. Some people simply must do. Or?

Another aspect of innovation (besides facing macrotrends along collapsing financial systems, drug war, climate .. etc.) is that we must innovate, constantly, simply because we can, on a microlevel. Like the mountaineer George Mallory that climbed the mountain “because it’s there” – it was in his nature, close to his passion or his capabilities.

Humans have a great advantage in sharing knowledge and making new conclusions across borders and generations – an ability and advantage that we have inherited from great grand parents Cro Magnon. (This knowledge sharing capability was likey one reason driving Neanderthals to extinction).

So, we should innovate, because we can, if nothing else, to avoid complacency and boredom or retreat to caveman mentality, to find ways matching our individual capability to a relevant challenge, remain in a flow state, be happy, in an increasingly crowded world, where the quest for identity is accelerating, to also avoid being crazy, but self confident and proud.

If we lack self insight and/or have the wrong self perception we will feel inclined to be successful in the wrong area, matching current capability with wrong challenge leading to either stress or depression. (Ref. “Flow” by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi).

Bottom line, my view: we should innovate, constantly, not only repeat the same old same old, but also “combat” daily microtrends, not only to sell next block buster or become the next Black Swan, because we can, it defines us as humans, for the same reason we play mind challenging games.

Key to succeed – feel good, is to fail and learn from failure, to be realistic short term about oneself, to challenge status quo … also on a microlevel. How do we teach and build skills to leverage that capability on a micro level (and not only to create shareholder value), problem solving techniques leading to innovation capabilities?

Ask yourself as a daily checklist:

1. What did I learn/share today?
2. What did I improve today?

To paraphase “Bröderna Mozart”, great Swedish movie: “I am just a Mensch Walter, a human being being human”

Are you? How?

Posted in Innovation | Tagged | Leave a comment

what will Ginny Rometty, new IBM CEO, try to maximize?

After 14 years in IBM, allow my strictly personal reflection upon Ginny as the new CEO and what future capabilities she will hold dearest.

I am extremely happy for her but also for the IBM staff that has endured Sam.

I always hoped that IBM would lead before the US appointing a credential non white/male at its helm and is thus happy it’s now 1:1. Anyway, this entry is about “the art of maximization”.

I have met Ginny in different roles, as the global insurance leader and as the global BCS leader after the merge with PWC. She is indeed a great person! As a military leader long time ago she most likely would have been one of those leaders the footsoldier could die for … bad metaphore, I know… but you get the point. With her at the helm, I might have stayed…

Whilst Lou Gerstner was the turnaround guy – maximizing business control and personal commitment – and great at it, Sam Palmisano has increasingly been the profit maximization guy, ironically also “at any cost”. IBM today is today a slim risk taking machine for complex projects, a software company, an innovator but it is not the largest player anymore. IBM still attracts a lot of talented people and deliver, quarter by quarter.

It was not until I encountered the concept of Hesketts’ Service Profit Value Chain, adopted in IBM as the strategic leadership model, that it became clear to me how wrong the profit maximization focus was, for me at least. Even though profit maximization is required in the current/historical “shareholder society” it is still the outcome / consequence of how you manage or leverage the “talent society” in the service industry we all operate in.

I had great fun in IBM. I continuously met outstanding people. IBM constantly delivered to the stockmarket but, and this is a major but, I was increasingly amazed “how little” actually was achieved (from undeployed talent) with so many great people. It stunned me. The results could have been even more if all staff were aligned to their passions. Or?

One of the major reasons for joining HCL was its honest focus on employee maximization and employee passion. If you are to run a service company today and grow in a virtual world of distributed collaboration you need to secure trust and respect the individual. This is a fundamental part of the HCL EFCS commitment and increasingly acknowledged around the world.

So back to Ginny, what will she do her first year? What can we learn from this passionate and great leader? What will be her agenda for one of the most influential companies the next decade? Will she put the employee first on the agenda and bring back “Respect for the individual” which WAS a core value in IBM for decades, before Sam took it away? Will IBM become a context for risktaking, platforms and methods were the rest of us will focus on the talents operating in that context?

It will be extremely interesting to see what Ginnys PRIMARY focus of maximization will be and what this will signal to the rest of the world:

People? Partner? Profit? Patents? Process? …

Posted in Human capital management, Virtual teams and collaborative environments | Tagged | Leave a comment

why not more COOs in Sweden?

We have a dilemma in Sweden, I have realised over years of practical work on corporate cultures, organisational change and how to leverage the benefits from global access to skill and competence.

We are very proud over our people culture, decentralised decision making, non escalation corporate philosophy etc.

Facing cost reduction challenges, inability to be competitive in a global service sector and with increasing local demands, we all know we need to …” do something”.

“I don’t operate globally so I can source my skills locally” is a common argument despite the fact that those skills are globally available, better, cheaper and faster.
In order to benefit from this, the decentralised decision maker needs to seek common ground in an endless consensus process using competence data HR does not measure; agreeing on core competence focus areas no one owns the mandate to prioritise; using a governance body for sourcing that does not exist; seeking  formal approval from a non existing role – a COO – that lacks the cultural support and tools to build the integrated service company. (This practical task is not a job for the CEO, or HR, or CFO, or …)

Let’s face it. The majority of every products’ value today is typically programming. Of that programming max 50% (?) is core or unique for each BU.The rest should as a minimum (!) be possible to share across the company and if it does not exist, be sourced globally.

Apply that last sentence to a Swedish hospital, a bank or a divisionalized classical Swedish divisionalized industrial.

To stay competitive I personally think we need to apppoint more COOs across all the service sectors to leverage and focus our decentralized decisionmaking on innovation, better and more delivery at less cost.

I am not only talking about IT specifically. This applies to all service sectors across – public , education systems, manufacturing …..

My recommendations along this:

1. Understand your business logic (both how you create value as well as how well you do)
2. Assess those areas across the company (what is your current and future capacity in those areas
3. Make a conclusion on what is core and how to leverage scarce common skills across

To be blunt, my view is that no-one owns these questions across the company or organisation in Sweden. Its the job for a COO-role.

I thinn the COO capability will be much needed else organisations may win some talent battles but loose the talent war, to paraphase Clausewitz.

Bottom line:
Many Swedish companies and organisations have COO roles but far from all. Assign more COO roles in Swedish service sector, less strategy – more enabling executive action – and Wow! how mandated our decentralised and empowered workforce could become.

Posted in Brainstorming | Leave a comment

the Joker & the practical use of game theory

When I saw ‘A beautiful mind’ with Russel Crowe I realized how much we can learn from game theory but also how little we “normal people” actually deploy it.

Teaching game theory with a practical twitch already in school should be compulsary, my view. It’s complicated math, I know, but I am sure we can create some simple apps or models for the most practical challenges we face in our daily life with the objective to create collective wisdom:

* Everybody cannot win the heart of the most beautiful girl (like in the Nash equilibrum metaphore in the movie above)

* Winning / prospering is not always a zero-sum game

* Some conflicts are impossible to solve emotionally without hard compromises (Mexican truels)

* The management appointment process in political MNC cannabalize on talent supply (good game)

* New regimes / governance structures must be developed as some of the global or regional challenges has no single client and will never have …(like controlling river basins and seas like the Baltic Sea, the Nile)

*Why always two similar shops side by side on a vast beach?

Game theory could provide us with a rational model to discuss, solve and avoid conflicts. Like rhetoric training in 1800s was limited to the aristocracy and theocracy, game theory today is limited to the highly educated or at worse, the economists, the mathematicians and the politicians. Make it public!

If nothing else, cross breed disciplines! Employ mathematicians with this skill in the HR department in order to create new models for the talent society. HR as practised today is like the education system – it us out of date … generally speaking. Or am I wrong?

Or use some game theorists in script writing for films, books and other drama plots. Let us create a drama that was not defined already in Ancient Greece?

Heath Ledgers Joker is my favorite crook. He is also a master evil game theorist using three-four different unsolvable games that creates good suspense making “the Dark Knight” an extraordinary dark thriller.

(On top of that, Heath made it realistic, to have a clown-painted despot around us. Brilliant! But he was scary as he was smart and evil – like Bart Simpson)

Said that, “Game theory for dummies” is currently not a book available. I would be happy to co-write it with an extremely diverse team…. or read it.

Anyone interested?

Posted in Brainstorming | Tagged | Leave a comment

drones lack of empathy

Sun Tzu in his Art of War talks about the necessity to control the highlands (today also including the skies). This was, as history shows us one major reason Hitler fell short (the fall of Luftwaffe) and how Schwarzkopf masterpieced, from a military perspective the second Gulf War.

The foundation up to date to master the skies depended on physical pilots flying those planes, pilots with families taking calculated risks.

War is awful when you encounter it and has so far been one major reason why many good leaders also has avoided it.

With drones – unmanned vehicles, spy sniper birds, attack robots, bombers and surveillance systems – reaching a commercially attractive level we face a major change in this art of war. We can fly those planes from home, like a PS3 game, making huge impact across the world.

Last weeks issue of The Economist has a great article everyone should read and discuss. The lack of empathy enabled by drone warfare is an indeed scary scenario.

This future capability of empathy will be increasingly important from this perspective, but also as a natural skill to prosper in any virtual team.

How do we teach that?

Posted in Brainstorming | Tagged | Leave a comment

monkey see, monkey do

The political scene in Sweden currently throws a one-man show produced by,and starring, social democrat leader Håkan Juholt.

What will the critics say and what genre is this? Drama? Comedy? Thriller?

I believe the latter. It is a scary thriller. Let me explain why.

Our sixteen year old interviewed me the other day about cons of democracy. Since representative democracy is what we practise in Sweden, one of my main arguments against the system was “trust”. You must trust the people representing you.

“How do you do that?” was his follow on question.

“You give them the benefit of doubt. There is no other way, else I have to become 100% active myself, which is another problem with the system”

Trust in each other is also among the top future capability we will need in the global society going forward, my view, to avoid future conflicts and to drive innovation in a borderless talent society run by MNCs, NGOs, armed individual idiots and whatever will be left of our political bodies.

The future needs we have CAN be solved and financed, but the governance of these solutions (which does not exist yet) will most likely be based on some representative solution based on trust.

On top of that we all need to pay the consequences of our own actions and step up to individual accountability, which is another future capability needed we don’t practise or teach so much.

The” Mona Sahlin show” some years ago was closed down after a tacky performance related to her sloppy personal finance control. also frankly think many critics cut her show as she was a woman. Her audience slaughtered her. In my view that was a drama-comedy.

Mr Juholt must look at the man in the mirror, to quote another performer, Michael – King of Pop:

“If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change”.

Trust is lost. Behavior was intentional. We can’t accept misuse of power nor any corruption. It’s time to get this monkey of our back. What we see no one must do.

If not, we have another good argument why representative democracy does not fly in one if the most geopolitically stable areas of the world.

If we let him stay on stage, and he has been wrong, we will witness a major crack in our system and that would be a thriller.

If it does not fly here, why would it fly anywhere?

Posted in Brainstorming | Tagged , | Leave a comment