"Don't aim at success"

"What I "discovered" was that happiness is not something that happens. It is not the result of good fortune or random chance. It is not something that money can buy or power command. It does not depend on outside events, but, rather, on how we interpret them. Happiness, in fact, is a condition that must be prepared for, cultivated, and defended privately by each person. People who learn to control inner experience will be able to determine the quality of their lives, which is as close as any of us can come to being happy.

Yet we cannot reach happiness by consciously searching for it. "Ask vourself whether vou are happy." " said J. S. Mill, "and vou cease to be so." It is by being fully involved with every detail of our lives, whether good or bad, that we find happiness, not by trying to look for it directly. Viktor Frankl, the Austrian psychologist, summarized it beautifully in the preface to his book Man's Search for Meaning: "Don't aim at success - the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue... as the unintended side effect of one's personal dedication to a course greater than oneself." So how can we reach this elusive goal that cannot be attained by a direct route?"

O bom velho tema da obliquidade:

• "Obliquity"
• Obliquity

Trecho inicial retirado de "Flow - The Psychology of Optimal Experience" de Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 

"In the world as it is, we cope rather than optimise"

“the lesson of experience is that there is no single approach to financial markets which makes money or explains ‘what is going on here’, no single narrative of ‘the financial world as it really is’. There is a multiplicity of valid approaches, and the appropriate tools, model-based or narrative, are specific to context and to the skills and judgement of the investor. We can indeed benefit from the insights of both Thales of Miletus and Harry Markowitz, and learn from both of the contradictory narratives of the world of finance propagated by Gene Fama and Bob Shiller. But we must also recognise the limits to the insights we derive from their small-world models.

...

Radical uncertainty precludes optimising behaviour. In the world as it is, we cope rather than optimise.”

Trechos retirados de “Radical Uncertainty” de John Kay e Mervyn King

"Risk is failure of a projected narrative"

A ISO 9001 aborda a abordagem baseada no risco. 

“The Oxford Dictionary defines risk as ‘the possibility that something unpleasant or unwelcome will happen’,

…

Risk in its ordinary meaning concerns unfavourable events, not beneficial ones.

.

Risk is asymmetric. We do not hear people say ‘there is a risk that I might win the lottery’ because winning the lottery is not something they would describe as a risk. They do not even say ‘there is a risk I might not win the lottery’ because they do not realistically expect to win the lottery. The everyday meaning of risk refers to an adverse event which jeopardises the realistic expectations of the individual household or institution. And so the meaning of risk is a product of the plans and expectations of that household or institution. Risk is necessarily particular. It does not mean the same thing to J. P. Morgan as it does to a paraglider or mountain climber, or to a household saving for retirement or the children’s education.

…

Very often, the risks that concern us are not risks to the status quo, but risks to our plans to change that status quo.

…

We believe the best way to understand attitudes to risk is through the concept of a reference narrative, a story which is an expression of our realistic expectations. For J. P. Morgan, the overarching reference narrative is one in which the bank continues profitable growth. A large corporation will have many strategies for achieving that overarching objective in particular areas of its business and there will be a reference narrative relating to each business unit. Some of these business unit reference narratives may be very risky, but the corporation may tolerate such risks provided they do not endanger the reference narrative of the organisation as a whole.

…

And since different people start with different reference narratives, the same risk may be assessed by different people in different ways. Risk may not be the same for those who work in an organisation as it is for the shareholders of that organisation.

…

Risk is failure of a projected narrative, derived from realistic expectations, to unfold as envisaged. The happy father anticipating his daughter’s wedding has in mind a reference narrative in which events go ahead as planned. He recognises a variety of risks – the prospective bridegroom has cold feet, a torrential downpour drenches the guests. There is an implied measure of risk in such assessment – an outcome can fall short of expectations by a narrow margin or a wide one. The scale of that risk may or may not be quantifiable, before or after the event. But this interpretation is very different to the view that has come to dominate quantitative finance and much of economics and decision theory: that risk can be equated to the volatility of outcomes.”

Trechos retirados de “Radical Uncertainty” de John Kay e Mervyn King 

Acerca da doença anglo-saxónica

Há anos que escrevo aqui no blogue sobre Mongo.
Já usei esse marcador 1347 vezes, a primeira em Agosto de 2010.
A primeira vez que usei essa metáfora aqui no blogue foi em Novembro de 2007 com "A cauda longa e o planeta Mongo".

No mundo em que trabalho vejo cada vez mais exemplos de empresas que seguem o caminho de Mongo porque é uma boa alternativa para fugir do embate directo com os gigantes que competem pela eficiência. Como escrevo aqui há milhares de anos, competir pelo preço não é para quem quer, é para quem pode. E quase nenhuma PME pode. [Recordar Agosto de 2006]

Seguir o caminho de Mongo é também uma boa opção para subir na escala de valor, aproveitar o poder do numerador, praticar o Evangelho do Valor e aumentar a produtividade muito mais do que só com base no denominador.

O meu mundo profissional não costuma ser o mundo das empresas grandes, das empresas cotadas na bolsa e das empresas com accionistas de curto-prazo. Esse outro mundo onde raramente entro é um mundo que vejo como dominado por uma doença, a doença anglo-saxónica (Fevereiro de 2014 e Julho de 2019). Só conhecem a eficiência para aumentar a produtividade, não sabem que a criatividade é muito mais eficaz a consegui-lo. Pensam que a paisagem competitiva continua a ser a da figura da esquerda quando estamos cada vez mais na da direita:

Conhecem Kevin O'Leary? Ele é o paradigma da doença amplo-saxónica, produto do século XX. (Atenção ao post scrcriptum no final deste postal)

Este mês de Agosto tem sido fértil em leituras sobre esta temática, mas sobre o ponto de vista de quem trabalha sobretudo com empresas grandes. Por exemplo, esta manhã li "Reflections of a business guru":

"The experience led him to reflect on the “curse of efficiency”. Organisations focus so much on efficiency that they fail to be effective. [Moi ici: Isto até arrepia de tão em linha com a comparação que costumamos fazer aqui entre eficácia e eficiência Eficácia, eficiência, e produtividade e Apostar no numerador, no valor e não no lápis vermelho (parte II)] Instead of concentrating on their core goal, they pay attention to narrower measures like cutting costs, or reducing the inconvenience suffered by their staff. Examples of the problem can be found in many places."

Mas a lista é longa, por exemplo:

• Reli "Rethinking Efficiency" que já comentei aqui "Acerca do eficientismo" (Dezembro de 2018)
• How Serious Are You About "Shareholder Value Is Not Everything"?
• Shareholder Value Is No Longer Everything, Top C.E.O.s Say
• Reli "Managing for the Long Term"
• General Electric: US giant hits back over $38bn fraud claim

Já por várias vezes tive discordâncias no Twitter com gente da minha área política porque para eles o grande objectivo é que as empresas tenham lucro. Para mim, ter lucro é uma consequência não o objectivo. Para mim, ter lucro é uma condição de sobrevivência não a razão de ser de um negócio. Aquilo a que John Kay chama de obliquity.

Obliquity

Acabei de ler "Obliquity" de John Kay, gostei muito.



"Adaptation is smarter than you"

"Obliquity"

Quando escrevo sobre os objectivos que não podem, não devem, ser atingidos directamente, por exemplo aqui:

• "Só que os resultados financeiros não são algo para o qual se possa trabalhar directamente"
• "O emprego, tal como o lucro, é uma consequência, não um objectivo para o qual se trabalhe directamente"

Parece que é disto, "obliquity" que estou a falar:

"Obliquity describes the process of achieving complex objectives indirectly.
.
In general, oblique approaches recognise that complex objectives tend to be imprecisely defined and contain many elements that are not necessarily or obviously compatible with each other, and that we learn about the nature of the objectives and the means of achieving them during a process of experiment and discovery. Oblique approaches often step backwards to move forwards.
...
The most profitable businesses are not the most profit-oriented."

Trechos retirados de "Obliquity - Why Our Goals Are Best Achieved Indirectly" de John Kay.