Sep 6, 2024 | Governance, Leadership, Strategy
Opportunity cost.
The mistakes you make of Commission are the ones by which performance is judged. They show up in a profit and loss and balance sheets of businesses. However, when you pass up a golden opportunity that turns out to be a winner, that ‘cost of potential profit’ does not show up anywhere.
It is a mistake of omission, not commission.
Those of us who failed to buy Apple shares when they were less than a dollar in 2003, and similarly, NVIDIA shares when they were $1.30, might see a missed opportunity. Both now trade at well over 100 times those prices.
However, such mistakes are acceptable when the opportunity is outside what Warren Buffett calls a ‘Circle of competence’. This is the area where you have the expertise to understand the opportunity being offered, but fail to accept it.
In the case of Apple and Nvidia, they are both outside my circle of competence. Therefore, I did not know enough to recognise the opportunity. Had I been immersed in the IT industry it might have been clearer.
Buffett’s seven rules for successful investing, summarised, are:
- Hire only intelligent people with integrity.
- Pay attention to facts, not emotions.
- Buy wonderful businesses, but not ‘cigar butts’
- Buy only stocks you understand.
- Seize the opportunity.
- Don’t sell because of price fluctuations.
- Buy stocks below what they are worth.
Passing up an opportunity that turns out to be something you should have grabbed, with the benefit of hindsight, means you have failed to give yourself an adequate answer to one, or more, of three simple questions.
- How much cash would the opportunity deliver to you?
- When are you going to get it?
- How sure are you?
Buffett and his late side-kick Charlie Munger are widely seen as geniuses. I suspect Mr Buffett would be embarrassed by that label. He might respond that all he did was follow the simple 7 rules, something most cannot do.
Sep 1, 2024 | Leadership, Strategy
Today, September 1, 2024, is the 85th anniversary of the German invasion of Poland in 1939.
There are very few people left alive who were old enough at the time to remember that critical date that drove the world into an orgy of destruction, death, and depravity.
Over time we tend to lose the instinctive understanding of the context, circumstances, and drivers of events. This increases the risk that we fail to learn, so we repeat our mistakes. In short, our institutional memory fades, becomes distorted, and is often rewritten.
There is evidence of this all around us.
- After the French conceded defeat and left Vietnam, the US went in, believing they could win.
- The US again, (who deliver us numerous examples), thought their invasion of Afghanistan would work better than the Russian one. Like the Russians and British before them, they failed to have any understanding of the tribal, ethnic and historical context of Afghanistan, so were destined to repeat their mistakes.
- Few saw the 2008 financial crisis coming, despite the intensively researched similarities to the lead-up to the 1929 crash.
- The litany of failure of appeasement as a strategy to harness the aggression of regimes in Europe going back to the Romans. ‘Peace in our time’ sounded good on Chamberlin’s return from Berlin, but was empty hope.
We see it in our personal lives every day.
That bully in the schoolyard is not going to stop being a bully by having the tactic proving to be continually successful.
30 years ago, I left corporate employment, suddenly, after 10 years of accumulating market knowledge, experience, and ‘gut-feel’ insight. I was replaced by a group that had no such knowledge and insight, and who for the next few years made utterly predictable mistakes. This is despite the records left in a great big storage box filled as my former office was cleaned out, and in the heads of my former colleagues, but disregarded.
When we lose institutional memory, we are almost destined to repeat the mistakes of the past. This applies equally to individuals as it does to businesses, families, institutions, and countries.
So, how do we best avoid repeating the mistakes of the past?
Rely on data. This requires intentional and effective documentation and archiving of material. It must articulate the varying views and perspectives and their logical base, the hypotheses generated, tested, reviewed, implemented, and the outcomes of implementation tied back to cause-and-effect chains. In effect deliver yourself a searchable OODA loop for reference.
Leverage technology. The above step used to be a monumental undertaking, but current and emerging technology makes it not just easily doable, but a competitive and strategic necessity.
Knowledge transfer and mentorship. Culturally, there must be a recognition of the value not just of having the information but building on it and sharing widely. This takes a particular skill in leadership that builds a culture of learning and trust.
The successful corporations of the future will avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, which leads to erosion of their values and culture. They will see individual and group productivity and innovation as the two necessary sides of the same coin. They will navigate the tensions created by the order and repeatability of optimisation, with the messy and uncertain terrain of innovation.
They will not be able to succeed in the absence of that critical component, institutional memory.
Today is also Fathers day, a triumph of marketing by the Hallmark card company.
Lest we forget.
Aug 20, 2024 | Leadership, Strategy
George Patton is reputed to have said ‘A good strategy today is far better than a perfect one tomorrow.’
This is absolutely correct. However, any strategy is only as good as its deployment. This is always best when it is clearly understood, consistently communication, and completely aligned towards the objective.
Business is all about making choices, from the c-suite to the factory floor, everyone is faced with choices. Those in the c-suite may be different to those on the floor, but they are nevertheless choices that together impact on the performance of the business.
‘I will do this, I will not do that’
While seeking rhythm and flow in a business, I also look for ‘strategic nesting’
How will the choices made at one level be understood and acted on at different levels in the business in a consistent manner, such that the outcomes do not create turbulence in the flow of activities that occurs.
The challenge of integrating ‘Flow’ into a smooth set of processes that merge at the points where they intersect is substantial. This is where the notion of ‘nesting’ comes into play.
Processes are ‘nested’ in sets of sub processes that are all ‘in synch’ and contribute to the end outcome.
Often this is called alignment, but just using the term without the further idea of ‘nesting’ misses the point. Alignment is one dimensional, nesting is multidimensional.
Effective processes contain sub processes that act in partnership creating synergy, and when done really well, compounding outcomes. Each part of the ‘nest’ is optimized, internally, and in relation to those external parts on which it depends. This enables the optimization of the whole to be compounded.
Effective processes, from the strategic development and implementation to the cleaning of the coffee machine, rely on the effective nesting of sub processes.
The implementation of strategy is always challenging. You are translating high level choices into sets of cascading targets in functional action plans with appropriate KPI’s and feedback loops for optimisation. There are multiple levels from a strategic plan to the execution of daily activities in the workplace for things to fall out of the nest.
The evolution of a ‘happy nest’ is an iterative process. It requires the input of those involved at all levels, and a leadership capable and prepared to adjust choices under new circumstances.
All the parts are moving at the same time, and they all influence each other. Iteration must be a multi-dimensional challenge, you can iterate up, down, and across functions, on the basis of feedback. The challenge is to get it all done without disturbing the flow of the processes.
Jul 30, 2024 | AI, Leadership
Increasingly, we must distinguish between ‘content’ created by some AI tool, masquerading as thought leadership and advice, and the genuine output of experts seeking to inform, encourage debate and deepen the pool of knowledge.
I’m constantly reminded as I read and hear the superficial nonsense spread around as serious advice, of the story Charlie Munger often told of Max Planck and his chauffeur.
Doctor Planck had been touring Europe giving the same lecture on quantum mechanics to scientific audiences. His constant chauffeur had heard the presentation many times, and had learnt it by heart. One night in Munich, he suggested that he give the lecture while Doctor Planck acting as the chauffeur sat in the audience, resting.
After a well received presentation a question from a professor was asked to which the chauffeur responded, ‘I am surprised that in an advanced city like Munich, I get such an elementary question. I am going to ask my chauffeur to respond’.
It is hard at a superficial level to tell the difference between a genuine expert, and someone who has just learned the lines.
To tell the difference between those two you must
- Dig deeper to determine the depth of knowledge, where it came from. Personal stories and anecdotes are always a good market of originality.
- Understand how the information adjusts to different circumstances, and contexts. An inability to articulate the ‘edge’ situations offers insight to the depth of thinking that has occurred.
- Look for the sources of the information being delivered. Peer reviewed papers and research is always better than some random Youtube channel curated for numbers to generate ad revenue.
- Consider the ‘tone of voice’ in which the commentary is delivered. AI generated material will be generic, bland, average. By contrast, genuine originality will always display the verbal, written and presentation characteristics of the originator.
- Challenge the ‘expert’ to break down the complexity of the idea into simple terms that a 10 year old would understand.
These will indicate to you the degree of understanding from first principles, the building blocks of knowledge, that the ‘Guru’ has.
The header is a photo of Max Planck in his study, without his chauffeur.
Jul 15, 2024 | AI, Governance, Leadership
In a world dominated by discussions around AI, electrification to ‘save the planet’ and its impact on white collar and service jobs, the public seems to miss something fundamental.
All this scaling of electrification to replace fossil fuel, power the new world of AI, and maintain our standard of living, requires massive infrastructure renewal.
Construction of that essential electricity infrastructure requires many skilled people in many functions. From design through fabrication to installation, to operational management and maintenance, people are required. It also requires ‘satellite infrastructure’, the roads, bridges, drivers, trucks, and so on.
None of the benefits of economy wide electrification and AI can be delivered in the absence of investment in the hard assets.
Luckily, investment in infrastructure, hard as it may be to fund in the face of competing and increasing demands on public funds, is a gift we give to our descendants.
I have been highly critical of choices made over the last 35 years which have gutted our investment in infrastructure, science, education, and practical training. Much of what is left has been outsourced to profit making enterprises which ultimately charge more for less.
That is the way monopoly pricing works.
When governments outsource natural monopolies, fat profits to a few emerge very quickly at the long-term expense of the community.
Our investment in the technology to mitigate the impact of climate change is inherently in the interests of our descendants. Not just because we leave them a planet in better shape than it is heading currently, but because we leave them with the infrastructure that has enabled that climate technology to be deployed.
Why are we dancing around short-term partisan fairy tales, procrastinating, and ultimately, delivering sub-standard outcomes to our grandchildren?
Header illustration via Gemini.ai
Jul 10, 2024 | Innovation, Leadership
Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player I have seen in a long life of watching and playing the game. He may have been overtaken by Djokovic as the winner of the most grand slams, which seems to be the public benchmark of the GOAT, but he will remain the greatest to me.
His greatness is not just on the court, where everything seemed effortless. It extends to his demeanour and humility off the court.
In a recent commencement speech at Dartmouth College, he gave the graduates a critical piece of wisdom that applies widely to life:
“Perfection is impossible. In the 1526 singles matches I played in my career, I won almost 80% of those matches.
Now, I have a question for you.
What percentage of points do you think I won in those matches?
Only 54%.
In other words, even top-ranked tennis players win barely more than half of the points they play. When you lose every second point on average, you learn not to dwell on every shot.
You teach yourself to think, okay, I double-faulted … it’s only a point. Okay, I came to the net, then I got passed again; it’s only a point. Even a great shot, an overhead backhand smash that ends up on ESPN’s top 10 playlist. That, too, is just a point.
And here’s why I’m telling you this. When you’re playing a point, it has to be the most important thing in the world, and it is. But when it’s behind you, It’s behind you. This mindset is really crucial because it frees you to fully commit to the next point and the next point after that, with intensity, clarity, and focus’.
Those words resonated with me.
They resonated, not just because I lose way more than 50% of the points I play these days, and must accommodate that in my competitive brain, but because it applies to the way we all should live our lives.
It certainly applies to those I work with, where an obsession with the past often clouds the next move, and the one after that.
We need to understand why what we did worked out differently to the plan, and learn to adjust both on the run, and over time as we alter the mechanics and drivers of activity. Beyond that, the past is irrelevant. It is the past, unchangeable, immutable.
By contrast, what we do with the lessons of the past is crucial.
