"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. 

"Rush to a solution"

"one of the consultant's most important contributions to a client is a redefinition of the problem. The line manager begins by experiencing some pain: people are restless, equipment isn't working, output is down, the invoicing process is flawed, the line extension is running way late.

Most consulting projects get started because managers feel pain. Once in a while, they get started because of a desire for further success or preventive measures, but most often there is some pain in the picture. When the organization feels the pain, managers start to describe for themselves why the pain exists. When their explanation of what is causing the pain is accurate, their attempts to solve the problem are usually successful. When consultants are called in, the line manager's attempts at solving the problem have not been that successful, or maybe the manager has no idea at all how to solve the problem. When a manager's attempts to solve the problem have not succeeded, it is probably because the manager's attempts to describe the cause of the pain have been inaccurate.

The client's initial attempt to describe to us the cause of the difficulties is called the presenting problem. As a consultant, I never accept the presenting problem as the real problem without doing my own discovery and analysis. The presenting problem and the real (or underlying) problem are different. Because line managers start from an incomplete definition of the problem, their attempts at solution have not entirely worked out. Therefore, an important contribution for the consultant is to redefine that initial problem statement for the client."

Ao ler isto lembrei-me logo dos políticos que perante um sintoma doloroso, trabalham directamente para o resolver sem irem à causa. Aliás, não o resolvem, lançam fogo de artifício para fazer de conta que fazem alguma coisa (rush to a solution). Recordo:

• Set 2013 - "Obliquity"
• Abr 2020 - "to achieve success, we have to stop aiming for it"

"The last form of resistance is the client's desire for solutions, solutions, solutions: "Don't talk to me about problems; I want to hear solutions." Because the consultant is also eager to see the problems solved, some collusion can take place between consultant and client if the discussion of solutions is not held off a little.

The desire for solutions can prevent the client from learning anything important about the nature of the problem. It also keeps the client dependent on consultants to solve these problems. If the line manager hasn't the patience or stomach to stop and examine the problem, then the solutions are not going to be implemented effectively."

Trechos retirados de "Flawless consulting: a guide to getting your expertise used" de Peter Block.  

Quem é este morcão?

Um desafio para quem está satisfeito com o rumo que as coisas estão a ter no curto-médio prazo?

Supostamente, implementar um sistema de gestão passa por chegar a uma empresa tirar uma série de fotografias sobre como é que a empresa funciona, comparar com os requisitos da norma de referência e colmatar as lacunas.

Assim, arranja-se um consultor, um suposto especialista na norma de referência, e colmatam-se as lacunas.

Desta forma implementamos um sistema que responde aos requisitos da norma de referência, obtemos a certificação, mas não obtemos um verdadeiro sistema de gestão. Recordar Carl Sagan. O vídeo agora está aqui.

Um verdadeiro sistema de gestão é um sistema que estabelece uma orientação estratégica, uma resposta à pergunta: O que devemos fazer? Depois, traduz essa resposta num conjunto de objectivos claros e promove as mudanças necessárias para os conseguir atingir.

É claro que uma empresa quer aumentar as vendas e o lucro, mas isso é uma consequência do que se faz. Querer aumentar as vendas e o lucro nada nos diz sobre o que a empresa deve fazer para o conseguir. Recordar a obliquidade.

Numa empresa formula-se uma política da qualidade e ambiente e um conjunto de objectivos da qualidade e ambiente. Depois, têm de se definir que planos de trabalho devem ser seguidos para cumprir esses objectivos.

Obter a certificação é importante? Claro que sim, senão a empresa estaria a desperdiçar dinheiro, mas certificar a empresa sem ficar com um verdadeiro sistema de gestão é uma oportunidade perdida.

Em que mundo vive a empresa? 

Há dois tipos de pessoas no mundo e à frente das empresas, as que têm o locus de controlo no interior e as que têm o locus de controlo no exterior. As que têm o locus de controlo no exterior acreditam que o poder para mudar a realidade está no exterior. Por isso, estão sempre à espera que o governo, ou a associação X, ou a União Europeia, ou ... faça, dê.

Em conversa numa empresa, ao perceber a incomodidade com os objectivos comerciais, pensei ser um caso clássico de locus de controlo no exterior. No entanto, algum tempo de reflexão sobre o tema pôs-me a pensar que se calhar a falha teria sido minha por não ter sido mais exigente na formulação da política da qualidade e ambiente, supostamente a redacção da orientação estratégica.

Foi registada uma análise do contexto que não sei se circulou o suficiente e se foi objecto de reflexão e discussão interna. Estamos a falar de coisas demasiado importantes e pessoais de uma empresa para que um consultor consciente tenha a veleidade de impor o que quer que seja. Na análise do contexto, que pode estar incompleta, há duas grandes forças:

• o aumento dos custos - uma espécie de onda longa. Pode agora estar a ter um pico exagerado por causa da guerra, mas é uma tendência de longo prazo que as empresas dos sectores tradicionais não podem ignorar. A evolução demográfica, a pressão da emigração, a pressão dos impostos de um estado gordo e irreformável, a pressão dos salários 
• uma tendência de reindustrialização da Europa que no curto prazo aumenta a procura pela produção europeia de produtos tradicionais e de mais tudo o resto. Ou seja, no médio prazo os sectores tradicionais terão de competir por trabalhadores com outros sectores com melhores margens. Acredito que no médio prazo acontecerá aos sectores tradicionais em Portugal o mesmo que na Alemanha dos anos 70, só ficarão empresas mais pequenas a trabalhar para nichos de mercado capazes de suportar preços mais elevados. Acredito também que as pequenas séries, a variabilidade de modelos e a rapidez de resposta será cada vez mais importante.

Estas duas forças vão condicionar o futuro do sector da empresa, na minha opinião, mas eu não sou mágico e não conheço o futuro. Se tiverem outras ideias incluam-nas.

Admitindo que estas forças vão realmente condicionar o futuro do sector, o que deve a empresa fazer para continuar a ter futuro nesse futuro exigente?

Só depois de responder a esta pergunta é que faz sentido pensar em objectivos.

Que tipo de empresa, a trabalhar para que tipo de clientes pode fazer sentido para ter futuro no futuro?

Um grande desafio mesmo. Quem tem cabeça para pensar no depois de amanhã, quando hoje e amanhã o sol vai aparecer e o dia vai estar agradável? 

Quem é este morcão para me vir falar de problemas quando tudo corre bem?

"become that target audience’s “obvious choice” supplier"

Mais um desfile de temas habituais neste blogue: eficientismo, objectivos versus consequências, obliquidade, originação de valor, clientes-alvo, monopólios informais.

"There seems to be consensus that the purpose of a business is to make money. In other words, success is equated with money. Therefore, everything is given a price tag including people, humanity, health, safety, organizational culture, work climate, values, morality, ethics, pride of workmanship, and the environment.

Consequently, based on theories of operational efficiency, decisions are reduced to an analytic process of determining which solution is economic and which is uneconomic. The one that costs less wins.

...

No one denies the necessity for a commercial enterprise to pursue revenue and a healthy profit margin. The criticism against “making money” is that it should not be professed as the purpose of a business system.

Rather, earning a profit margin is not the purpose of a business but a “prerequisite” for operating a sustainable business. Please do not disregard this distinction between purpose and prerequisite as a matter of semantics, for it is nothing of the sort. Profits are the applause for a job well done, and receiving a standing ovation is the cry for an encore. It is a show of being in demand; it is the proof of a success!

...

The price people are willing to pay for a product or service is equal to the perceived use value they anticipate receiving from their purchase or investment. Because not everyone has the same perception of what constitutes use value, not everyone is a prospective buyer of your brand or your kind of product or service—hence the recognition of market segmentation and the identification of different target audiences.

Rather than creating use value similar to one’s competitors, different expressions of use value can be created by changing the business’s transformation process.

...

The profit margin is thus equal to the utility that a product or service delivers to its intended target audience. Therefore, the challenge of any business, with the exception of monopolies and oligopolies, is to add more utility to its value proposition targeting a specific audience than its immediate competitors. In other words, pursuing this strategy to become that target audience’s “obvious choice” supplier—and thus standing out as the only choice in the hearts and minds of your market segment."

Trecho retirado de "The Root Cause: Rethink Your Approach to Solving Stubborn Enterprise-Wide Problems" de Hans Norden

"to achieve success, we have to stop aiming for it"

Ontem, ao continuar a leitura de “Surviving Survival: The Art and Science of Resilience” de Laurence Gonzales apanhei uma referência que me fez recordar o tema da obliquidade.

Obliquity é um termo que descobri em 2013 para ilustrar algo sobre o qual escrevia no blogue há muito mais tempo.

"VIKTOR FRANKL, the author of Man’s Search for Meaning, said that to achieve success, we have to stop aiming for it. “The more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it.” We must be doing something else with passion and a true heart, and only then will the thing that we call success present itself."

Context, interested parties and risks

I have a commitment to publish a video about context, interested parties and risks, according to ISO 9001:2015, during this month. So, I'm starting to gather raw material to that video.

Let us start with ISO 9000:2015 risk definition.

risk = effect of uncertainty

It's important to higlight the word "uncertainty". Something that we cannot control, something that it is outside of our level of control.

And an effect is a deviation from the expected — positive or negative.

So, one can say that risk is a deviation from the expected (positive or negative) resulting from a trigger event that we cannot control. BTW, the ability to control the trigger event is what separates a positive risk from an improvement opportunity.

What are we talking about when we talk about "the expected"?
Let us keep the conversation here at a strategic level.

Expected results are the results we want the organization as a whole to achieve.

Who expects these results?

The capital owners. 

So, the capital owners are an interested party of this organization. 

We started with expected results and connected those expected results to an interested party. Normally, things go in the opposite direction. Because we have an interested party with should work for some expected results.

Let us consider another example. 

Making money in a sustainable way has a funny particularity, we cannot elect that objective as a first order objective, we should consider that kind of objectives as an indirect consequence of other objectives (something that I learned to call obliquity)

To get a profit an organization must be able to sell a service to a set of target customers at a price above the cost. Why would a set of target customers decide to buy the service to a particular supplier?

Let us consider those target customers as another interested party for this organization.

So, we have here another set of expected results.

A risk would be a consequence, an impact that could afect negatively the ability of an organization to meet an expected result.

An opportunity would be a consequence, an impact that could afect positively the ability of an organization to meet an expected result.

When we think about expected results we can immediately realize that although we work for expected results, because the outside world and the organization are complex entities we can get undesired results that affect our ability to serve interested parties.

We started this text with the risk definition and keep coming to interested parties. Why are interested parties so relevant for managing risks and opportunities?

Interest parties are relevant at two levels.

Level 1 - relevant needs and expectations of relevant interested parties determine expected and undesired results.

Events that we can't control can act together to make our organization get an undesired result (no-compliance with legal requirements)

Level 2 - relevant needs and expectations of relevant interested parties can be used as a basis for determining the importance of each risk and opportunity.

This figure has the three topics that I want to include in the video:

Clause 4.1 (context) gives us a potential trigger event (internal ou external) that reacts with another Clause 4.1 (context) issue, an internal strength or vulnerability. The consequence of that reaction (risk - Clause 6.1) is evaluated against the requirements of interested parties (Clause 4.2).

 If the consequences are significant an action plan should be developed in order to minimize the risk or take advantage of the opportunity.

What is becoming more and more clear to me is the relevance of the expectations and needs of the interested parties in determining the risks and opportunities and their relevance.

Next topic will be focused on the events (Clause 4.1)

Aguentar 15 minutos sem comer o marshmallow

Quanto menos vigorar o paradigma do século XX, que pressupunha que o poder estava nas mãos dos produtores.

Quanto mais crescer o interesse e vantagem em trabalhar a nível de ecossistema, em que os ecossistemas que ganham são os que maximizam o valor a ser criado pelo conjunto dos actores, e não por um em particular.

Mais sentido faz esta abordagem "The limits of the pursuit of profit":

"In February 2016, Emmanuel Faber, chief executive of Danone, put a radical proposal to the French food multinational’s senior US executives at a meeting in White Plains, New York.
.
Against the grain of agricultural production in the US, where the vast majority is genetically modified, Mr Faber proposed shifting about half Danone’s products — representing some $1bn of yoghurt sales — to non-GMO ingredients. He argued that this was an important change that would improve soil health and biodiversity.
...
The pledge triggered vocal protests from some US farm and dairy groups. It did not harm sales. Despite a price rise, the children’s yoghurt brand Danimals, now certified as containing only non-GMO ingredients, has increased its US market share from 30 to 40 per cent."

O artigo refere o clássico artigo de Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits” e a recente alteração de posição do grupo Business Toundtable:

"“While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders” — customers, employees, suppliers, communities and — last in the list — shareholders."

Acho que Friedman escrevia para um tempo que já passou. Recordo que a Economia não é como a Física newtoniana ou galilaica.

No ano em que Milton Friedman publicou o artigo, os produtores ainda detinham um poder tremendo. Os produtores podiam, então, comportar-se como o governo português, ainda hoje, a gerir o serviço nacional de saúde ou a educação, com utentes-reféns.

Hoje, com a concorrência, com o poder nas mãos de quem compra, e com a explosão de grupos "intolerantes" ou com paixões assimétricas, impõe-se o uso da obliquidade.

Hoje, é mais claro aquilo que sempre foi verdade. mas então não era tão relevante: o lucro é como o emprego, é uma consequência, não um objectivo. Pois: "they’ll create more and better jobs by not focusing on creating jobs"