the stupidity quotient
To present to me an attempt of guessing what I want as value, is absurd. Yet google instant may become successful because in the B2M (business to mass) domain the stupidity quotient is high.
The stupidity quotient must always be considered, because it’s always present. In some industries (b2m) it’s so high you can safely base your strategy on it, in some industries it’s so low, that it’s a dangerous anomaly.
The future of consulting
The future of any consulting field according to the visionary thought leaders involved in them will unfold according to the following rough pattern:
- we’ll become more and more strategic
- we’ll become less and less specialized
- eventually we’ll advise boards and CEOs directly
This of course applies to consulting fields that attract a lot of visionaries: marketing, branding, PR, HR, while it seems to be less relevant in consulting areas like IT and finance (not accusing of course consultants in these fields with lack of vision).
The future of consulting according to visionary clients:
It should become more and more specialized: I need the right guy for the right job/problem; we have tons of vision around here.
If this is really a trend, it means that specialists will work with visionary clients and visionary consultants with specialist clients.
Implications:
a. since visionaries are in minority and they are integrators, this means that visionaries in industry ( non – consulting) will have greater chances to prosper
b. since most specialists are not visionaries and not integrators this means that specialist in industry (not consultants) will only prosper if they are able to trust visionary service providers
Scenarios “b.” is clearly more difficult; exponentially more difficult and crucial: in this scenarios visionary consultants help with differentiation and/or break-throughs!
wine nations vs beer nations: management issues
I have had the chance to witness a number of companies from Western Europe in different industries trying to build management teams in various countries within the CEE region.
The most typical scenario is that a local GM runs the country reporting to HQ in Western Europe. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t; obviously.
It becomes interesting when it doesn’t work for one company, but it works fine for competitors.
It is even more interesting when a company has absolutely no problem managing one country, while it’s having tons of problems managing another one right next to it.
This is a complex problem, here I just turn attention to one factor: cultural fit; itself a complex issue. To simplify it, let’s categorize European cultures based on national drinks.
Wine nations: France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.
Beer nations: UK, Ireland, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, etc.
Vodka/hard liquor nations: Scandinavian countries, Russia, Poland, etc.
There are lots of nuances, like some beer and wine nations also have a significant hard liquor component, or that some beer nations also have good white wine, but it’s not that important to elaborate on these here.
There is an obvious fit between nations under the same category: there are German companies (beer) for example with Czech and Hungarian operations having much less problems with the Czechs (beer) and much more with the Hungarians (wine).
Sometimes things look good, but unless the integration is managed right, there is a time bomb clicking under the surface. Many top managers from UK or German companies managing Spanish, French or Italian units (or people) could testify to this.
I noticed the following pattern of behavior of companies that managed to build successful management teams:
The wine guys learned to appreciate beer, the beer guys learned to appreciate wine (to keep it simple I leave the spirit nations out of this for now).
More specifically:
- they exhibited a strong drive to understand differences: what are the managers like in the target geographies, how and why are they different (wine vs. beer), how is business done here (what’s the wine / beer culture like), what are the success factors there, how can we go wrong, etc.
- they exhibited a strong appreciation for differences and adjusted their behavior when necessary
- as follows from the previous points: they communicated obsessively.
Pattern of behavior of companies that were unsuccessful building successful management teams:
They expected the wine guys to become beer guys or vice versa.
This fundamental mistake results in passivity and inertia as main style elements:
- crucial tasks are delegated to administrators
- there is no attempt to try to understand the target culture. A good example is a German manager who “interviewed” a Hungarian manager from Transylvania (those guys are so different that they are subjects of many jokes even among Hungarians) and practically walked out of the interview after 10 mins. This mistake is no different from going to China to hire a manager and refusing somebody after 10 mins based on obvious differences. What actually happened is that the German guy realized in the first 5 minutes: “Mein Gott, this is not beer!!!”
- they disregarded market intelligence and didn’t adjust expectations and behaviors.
The short takeaway:
- don’t go shopping for beer in the wine store or for wine in the beers store
- don’t try to turn wine into beer or vice versa: you will inevitably fail.
- you can mix wine with beer, but it doesn’t taste like a drink and you can’t shove it down the throat of people for too long.
The identity problem in leadership
When leadership is present it can not and may not measured because it precedes quantitative factors.
In a hierarchical context this means that leadership, being higher than quantitative factors, serves as a foundation for these, and of course the higher can never be measured by the lower.
If we look at environments that are set up purely for objectives defined by quantitative measures, leadership may not emerge at all; to understand this we must go back in time way before certain conditions gave birth to modern business, to the middle ages, before the time of Philip IV of France.
When looking at hierarchies before the 1300’s we must be very careful not to project current views (characterized by progressivism, evolutionalism, egalitarianism, pervasive materialism, etc.) into those times.
The principles that today are abstractly described as leadership were dominance and power both being supra individual, most adequately represented by the highest echelons of the organic hierarchy:
- king (active aspect of dominance; analogy to Ghibellins)
- clergy (passive aspect of dominance; analogy to Guelfs)
- nobility (power)
Initially there was a caste above the castes that incorporated both the active and passive qualities and which provided a vantage point of integration for both after they emerged as separate but complementary representatives of the principle of dominance (always intellectual, from another aspect spiritual).
The top two strata dominated power, power dominated matter (as it appeared in the form of goods and services). In addition to military affairs (not in the modern sense of the word of course) nobility also fulfilled juristic functions and in this sense controlled commerce and economics, as well.
Why this long overview of history? Because in today’s business environment we can’t find appropriate examples that may highlight the principles of leadership; having a look at the analogies of dominance and power in the original sense, it’s obvious that economics is positioned below power; from the point of view of profit driven initiatives, neither power nor dominance may be grasped. There are plenty of theories (trait theory is a good example) to provide a substitute, trying to fill the void left in the ABSENCE of actual leadership.
And now, in context of the above, the identity question.
The identity problem breaks down into two problems:
- awareness problem: the identity is not known
- limitation problem: identity is constrained.
The two problems are related. Here we’ll look only at the awareness problem.
With the dissolution of organic hierarchies awareness declined and the views on identity shifted towards individualism, while the principle of differentiation between individuals disappeared: the undifferentiated mass gained significance and today it usurps the positions of dominance and power with a one-sided view on both, confuses manipulation with influence, is vehemently democratic and since it can’t differentiate between organic and artificial hierarchies it demonizes both.
In such an environment the principle of differentiation is so weak that it no longer provides a foundation for the individual to experience his own identity; to actively, consciously and distinctly experience the self. In lack of an appropriate foundation it happily adjusts to directives whose purpose is to liquidate differentiation.
The sense of purpose, the sense of appropriate style, the awareness of potentials, the power to lift them to the level of actuality, in short: the awareness of the self and the resulting collected, focused energy has considerably deteriorated.
Next up: the interesting problem of identity as limitation as context for the leadership question.
On sustainability
I thought I’d just quote a sentence from Rutilio Sermonti’s work L’uomo, l’ambiente e sé stesso (Man, his environment and himself):
“…I would say that just as agriculture deteriorated when it adopted industrial mentality, the industry may become compatible with a sustainable society if it adopts the mentality of agriculture.”
Perfect differentiation
Is it plausible that only one concept exists for each industry? Only one perfect concept that must be actualized? One for automotive, one for aerospace, one for telecommunication, one for IT, etc.
Or perhaps one for each basic function: one for transport, one for communication, one for making (manufacturing), one for design, one for service, etc?
Let’s assume this is actually possible. What would that mean?
It would mean that whoever could “capture” this perfect concept, aligned the company to it and treated it as the company’s purpose, would be able to truly differentiate themselves; even in industries where differentiation is nearly impossible.
What would a near perfect differentiation mean?
It would mean being right: treating people right (customers, employees, other stakeholders), communicating right, growing right, thinking right.
It would mean acting very different (being right is different!), since the context for action is different.
How would it work?
1. the concept would be articulated; the HOW is so interesting, it deserves more space than this
2. based on the articulated concept, the RIGHT strategy would be developed
3. based on the concept and the strategy, the company would be transformed (if it’s not a new company)
Everything we know and do is an alternative to this.
Failed integration
The question of integration is a pressing one both in the business and political domains. Integration efforts predominantly fail. One of the core problems behind these efforts is confusing integration with unification. This is worth having a quick look at.
Unification means that everybody’s forced to become the same.
Attempts of unification inevitably result either in revolution or cynicism and sabotage, depending on the temperament of the people involved and the prevailing conditions. Why? Because the foundation of unification is a lie, which suggests that we are all the same.
Since A will never equal B, this effort can not succeed.
The style element of the unification process is manipulation. The agents of unification operate with lies, and much more dangerously: half-truths. Opposition to the process results in brutal suppression, eliminating those who question the validity of the system. Since tyranny is frowned upon, the unification process is always sugarcoated, which means that its agents are almost always schizophrenic, psychopathic (see http://bit.ly/9vhd6j ) or at the very least they suffer in an identity crisis.
Unification does not tolerate leadership while it generously rewards bureaucrats. People in systems of unification never become more than what they are; in fact leadership roles often serve as excuses to become even less (involution).
In polar opposition to unification stands the concept of integration.
The integration process starts with differentiation; differentiation is encouraged, respected and valued. A=A, B=B. A should be as much A as possible: pure, uncorrupted A. When A tries to be B, it is decline: weakness that is based on false views and ultimately on intellectual inferiority.
The result of integration is unity. Unity is an actualized concept; a true concept that is based on principles and not on an individual’s fantasy. Integration is inevitably hierarchical; the person higher in the hierarchy incorporates the principles that provide the foundation for the concept to a larger degree than the person lower on the hierarchy. The style of interaction between them is respectful. Respect is never geared towards another individual but towards the principles represented by them. Naturally there is nothing to respect in an individual that doesn’t represent / manifest any principles.
In an integrated system there is no individualism. The roles people fulfill are bigger than the individuals, thus they provide an “upward pull”, a chance to become more.
Mix-up
While some leaders recognize the need for differentiation, they continue building organizations whose purpose demand unification. Their messages about diversity are received with suspicion and cynicism; rightfully so. Visions, missions and strategies remain pure abstractions since they are merely individualistic concepts that lack any trace of principle.
While the need maybe there, leaders are not in a position to create the right conditions or influence existing conditions favorably for integration.
It should be obvious that integration is necessary and it calls for radical change.
“Fair is not a good deal”
At least it often isn’t perceived to be.
Maximizing benefits is a mindset that often perceives fair to be a threat.
This mindset always thinks short term, it is mechanical and it thinks in opposites: it operates on an either or basis. Either with me or against me. If I don’t get everything, I get nothing. I am happy or I am pissed.
The will and the ability to create fair typically comes from a mindset that thinks in analogies or unity.
Ironically the “gray area” was invented by binary minds (feeling lost), while black and white clarity is characteristic to an intelligence that’s able to differentiate: between truths and half truths, shades of gray, etc.
The unexpected
This is how we do things here.
This is how we buy things here.
This is how we think around here.
This is what we want.
Then somebody comes and questions all this. Brings an element of surprise. Knocks out the fuse. Leaves people speechless. The tension is high.
It happens that the guy who showed up is outrageously stupid, perhaps a psychopath. Stupidity may cause this reaction. The tension is toxic.
It happens that all this is in context of a higher vantage point, a higher perspective. The tension is creative.
The problem is when the two gets confused. Stupidity is accepted as a vantage point, and perspective is considered to be stupid.
The unexpected always creates a moment of truth. A beginning. A moment later it’s typically too late.
Social networks’ effect on executive search
The CEO of a top search firm commented on the potential impact of social networks on the search business. He said that search business will diminish because social networks significantly reduce the advantages offered by intermediaries.
Hearing this comment another CEO said that this guy doesn’t believe in the core business of his company. The job boards didn’t eliminate search, linkedin will not eliminate it either.
I think this is short sighted on both sides. It’s not a question of belief or doubt! If I am a leader in an industry, I must be acutely aware of all trends and tendencies, look at all risks (potential and actual) and constantly evaluate and even create options.
Discussions about social networks’ effect on search are based on flawed thinking: there is no point!
Like in any other industry the perfect concept must be (re)defined as the purpose and in the same time, potential of the business. Then current reality must be understood as a component in the various patterns of unfolding towards or away from the concept and actions must be adjusted to ensure that we get as close to the concept as possible, instead of drifting away from it.
Social networks are part of the concept behind executive search; potentially always have been, recently they are actually part of it. Awareness of the concept is key to developing appropriate strategies, to align successfully to customers and if needed to take on a leadership role to align everybody, all stakeholders to the concept, often changing radically the whole game if necessary.