Precisa de um pouco de fé

Formular uma estratégia é mais do que seguir a via analítica, precisa de um salto no escuro, precisa de um pouco de fé.

Neste postal de Outubro de 2015, "Do concreto para o abstracto e não o contrário", uso esta figura:

Esta figura na minha opinião, baseada na minha experiência, está errada ao começarmos pela Missão e Objectivos. No postal descrevo que começo pela outra extremidade.

Entretanto, ontem li:

"I encourage her to identify what makes her business different, or special, compared to its competitors. I ask her about the particular challenges and opportunities it faces. She replies haltingly at first, in generalities.

...

The key steps in dealing with a strategic challenge are a diagnosis of the situation— a comprehension of “what is going on here,” finding the crux, and then creating reasonable action responses.

...

strategy is portrayed as a set of actions directed at attaining certain “first element” long-term goals. But where do such goals come from?

Apparently, they somehow pop into existence. They magically appear before any analysis has taken place. If you haven’t analyzed your business, its competitors, the dynamics of competition, and more, claiming that you want to “be the technology leader” is just vague bloviation. It certainly does not help your organization understand how to move forward.

...

These kinds of intents and dreams are precursors to strategy, but they cannot all be accomplished, or at least not all at once. Effective strategy emerges out of an exploration of challenges, ambitions, resources, and competition. By confronting the situation actually being faced, a talented leader creates a strategy to further some elements out of the whole bundle of ambitions. Importantly, your ambitions are not a fixed and given starting point.

...

Diagnosis is the starting point in creating a strategy. 

...

In competition it is useful to look for asymmetries—ways in which competitors differ.

...

You don’t “pick” a strategy; you create it. Then you do your very best to choose among the alternatives you have created. Finally, you need to translate the idea into specific and coherent actions."

Trechos retirados de "The Crux - How Leaders Become Strategists" de Richard P. Rumelt.

A via imprudente (parte II)

Parte I.

O que é que a via imprudente me ensinou? Uma realidade bem diferente, algo mais nesta linha:

"The companies don't know what they're going to face. They don't know how the technology will work out. They don't know who the other players are going to be in this business.  They don't know what the reception is going to be for this new technology. They don't know what the regulations are going to be, the legalities, the shipping arrangements. And yet they are in a position where they have to ante up maybe hundreds of millions of dollars just to sit at this casino table and play. Now, and economist all say that's not a question of probabilities. It's a situation where the firms face what economist call fundamental uncertainty.

…

About these matters there is no scientific basis on which to form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know. Of course our firms know plenty, but if they want to define a real optimization problem or calculate probabilities, they simply do not know.

…

There's a syllogism here. If a situation is subject to some high degree of fundamental uncertainty, the problem it poses is not well defined - you can't express it in clear logical terms. If the problem is not well defined, rationality is not well defined - there can't be a logical solution to a problem that is not logically defined. There is then no optimal solution, no optimal set of strategies, for agents and players - optimality is not well defined. [Moi ici: O que é o óptimo? E o óptimo é universal? O que é que os que líderam uma empresa pretendem atingir? E querem todo atingir o mesmo? Acreditar que existe um óptimo universal é ingenuidade. Acreditar que a gestão é uma ciência como a física newtoniana é ingenuidade perigosa. Acreditar que a verdade de hoje continua a ser verdade amanhã é ingenuidade doentia] So if you simply don't know what you're facing, rationality isn't well defined and optimal behavior isn't well defined. So where an economic situation contain significant fundamental uncertainty, if we are rigorous it can't be credibly reduced to a rational, deductive economic model. And where rational, deductive behavior is not well defined, any outcome is likely to be temporary and not in equilibrium.

…

In the face of real fundamental and certainty the standard approach gets stalled.

…

in not-well defined situations, in various ways people try to make sense: they experiment, they explore, they adjust, they readjust, but not just in terms of having some wondrous mathematical model of the situation and updating a parameter. They form a hypothesis, maybe they have multiple hypotheses or ideas about the situation they are in, and they put more belief in the ones that work overtime and throw out hypotheses that don’t.

…

We could look at problems that were not well defined, whether there’s fundamental uncertainty, problems where there is no equilibrium, and we could unleash agents that could explore, take up hypotheses, throw them out, and generate new ones and get smart.

…

In general in a difficult or novel economic situation, there's no optimal solution. Agents are coping, exploring, adjusting, experimenting, whatever. But that very behavior changes the outcome and then they have to change again. It's a bit like surfing, where you don't know where the waves will go next and you're adjusting and readjusting to stay in the green water."

Como neste artigo, "This Japanese Shop Is 1,020 Years Old. It Knows a Bit About Surviving Crises.":

"Like many businesses in Japan, her family’s shop, Ichiwa, takes the long view — albeit longer than most. By putting tradition and stability over profit and growth, Ichiwa has weathered wars, plagues, natural disasters, and the rise and fall of empires.

...

Such enterprises may be less dynamic than those in other countries. But their resilience offers lessons for businesses

...

“If you look at the economics textbooks, enterprises are supposed to be maximizing profits, scaling up their size, market share and growth rate. But these companies’ operating principles are completely different,”"

A vida económica é como a vida das pessoas, uma amálgama de entidades económicas com "vontades" diferentes, capacidades diferentes, visões diferentes, sujeitas a contextos diferentes e em constante mutação. Não existe um padrão universal, não existe um cristal que se contemple, tudo é líquido.

Quando se pensa que os empresários devem ser obrigados a ter um curso para poderem abrir uma empresa julgo que se navega nas águas da abordagem standard, julga-se que existe uma resposta lógica e racional, julga-se que existe uma receita. Quando na verdade o que existe é "Agents are coping, exploring, adjusting, experimenting, whatever." Por isso, em 2015 escrevi "Do concreto para o abstracto e não o contrário".

Mas seria negativo terem tal curso? 

Primeiro, qual seria o objectivo de tal curso?

Segundo, qual seria o programa de tal curso?

Terceiro, quem teria a experiência para ministrar tal curso? 

A terceira pergunta gera-me tanto cinismo... imagino um recém licenciado em História, ou Direito, que depois de um curso de 90 horas dado por uma associação empresarial, está pronto para ministrar o curso. Ou preferem o curso dado por um académico, um doutorado sem skin-in-the game, alguém capaz de recitar fórmulas? Vi tantos durante o tempo da troika!

O melhor para mim ainda é o exemplo dos pares.

Há dias ao começar a ler "Seeing what others don’t : the remarkable ways we gain insights" de Gary Klein encontrei a estória de Alison Gopnik.

"Developmental psychologists had believed that children didn’t develop

the ability to take another perspective until they were about seven years

old. Gopnik thought decentering—taking another person’s perspective—

happened much earlier."

Pessoalmente lembro-me deste tipo de pensamento me perturbar quando tinha 5 anos ou menos. Sei que tinha essa idade porque lembro de os ter numa casa onde vivi até essa idade. Quem eram os outros? Existiam como eu? Tinham pensamentos como eu? 

O que a via imprudente me fez foi perceber que aquela pergunta feita aos 5 anos deve continuar a ser feita quando somos adultos: a escola que nos procurou uniformizar ao longo de tantos anos, esconde a realidade. Somos todos diferentes, mas a um nível que raramente percebemos.

SOMOS MESMO TODOS DIFERENTES!!!

Há dias escrevia aqui:

"O meu amarelo é diferente do vosso amarelo, o meu céu é diferente do vosso céu, o meu normal é diferente do vosso normal."

Interessante, o título que dei a este postal em 2007, "Ainda a propósito de quem crê na solução mágica única.". 

Tenho de acabar, era capaz de continuar eternamente nisto. Mas ainda tenho de agradecer ao meu professor de Filosofia do 11º ano, Guedes Miranda, por ter dado aulas de filosofia, por não ter dado aulas de história da filosofia, e sobretudo por não ter gozado com os filósofos antigos. Agora, gostaria de aprender mais sobre George Berkeley com ele.