Recomendo a leitura deste postal de Seth Godin, "Demanding certainty"
"The defenders of the status quo often demand certainty when facing decisions about the future.
...
But certainty? Certainty is another word for stalling."
Faz-me recordar o "optimismo não documentado":
Ao ler:
"The crew of UA 232, and many other teams that attempt a recovery, are not dealing with probable next steps built from logic, principles, and macro designs. Instead, they are dealing with possibilities. “In a contingent world, real-time improvising in the face of what people cannot fully anticipate [is necessary because] having designs that work as planned is only one of the many contingencies we prepare for.”"
Lembrei-me logo do fuçar, de Daniel Bessa, da Viarco e do optimismo não documentado:
"No doubt bias and error are important concerns in strategic decision-making. Yet it seems quite a stretch to suggest that the original strategies developed by people like Apple’s Steve Jobs, Starbucks’ Howard Schultz, or even Walmart’s Sam Walton had much to do with error-free calculations based on big data. Their strategies, like most breakthrough strategies, emerged in settings with remarkably little data to process and little basis for calculation — situations in which the paths to value creation were highly uncertain and evidence was sparse. We are highly skeptical that debiasing decision making, eradicating errors, or ceding strategy to AI will improve strategizing, let alone lead to breakthrough strategies. [Moi ici: Pensamento bacteriologicamente puro, sem erros, totalmente justificável e matematizável é o da triade, dos encalhados. E perder o pé? E o optimismo não documentado? Valor não se calcula numa folha de cálculo, é um sentimento]
...
Composing valuable strategies requires seeing the world in new and unique ways. It requires asking novel questions that prompt fresh insight. Even the most sophisticated, deep-learning-enhanced computers or algorithms simply cannot generate such an outlook. But where does the uniqueness and novelty so essential to innovative strategic thinking come from? It comes from contrarian, perhaps even “distorted,” perceptions and beliefs about reality and the “facts” that surround us.
...
If everyone believes the same thing — or if everyone uses the same variables, information, and computational tools — the logical result is computational consistency, shared conclusions, and me-too strategies.
...
In setting strategy, deviation in judgment is a feature, not a bug.
...
It is tempting to believe that the right evidence and the right analysis will yield the right strategy. But just as customer surveys seldom lead to breakthrough products that capture the imagination of customers and markets, substantive strategy-making requires that we see well beyond the available data.
...
We view the strategist’s task as akin to an inkblot test, where participants are presented with highly ambiguous evidence and signals that afford many possible realities, but offer no single correct answer. With such tests, the very same evidence — an ambiguous picture or set of marks — can be interpreted correctly in many different ways.
...
Valuable strategizing demands this novel perception — an ability to see in ambiguous cues and data what others can’t see. Strategic thinking is fueled by the novelty of our observation, not its consistency. [Moi ici: Lembram-se do Serginho Centeno ou do André e as suas previsões do calçado, assentes em big data?] The object of strategic thinking is not to ensure that we all observe the same information and derive the same conclusion. It is precisely the opposite: If your desire is to be a value creator, you must aspire to see what others cannot."
"When Bert and John Jacobs were growing up in a large family with little money, their family didn't dwell on their problems or what they didn't have. Each time they sat down at the dinner table, Bert and Jacob's mother would cut through the noise and say, "Tell me something good that happened today." By focusing on the good things that happened each day, their mother changed the energy in the room--and their family.E reforçou-se quando li recentemente em "Reinventing Organizations: An Illustrated Invitation to Join the Conversation on Next-Stage Organizations" de Frederic Laloux:
.
I apply a similar philosophy at my meetings. We start each meeting with asking, "What's up, what's down, and what's stuck?" I've found that by starting with the phrase "What's up?" as in what's going well, my team immediately focuses on the positive work that is being accomplished in our department. What could have easily become a bitch fest, complaining about problems and coworkers, instead becomes mutual praise and celebrations of accomplishments. The positive energy carries over into problem solving and we get more done.
.
Focus on the positive in your team to build the energy in the group. Focusing on the positive give people the confidence to tackle anything that comes their way."
"At Sounds True, every meeting starts with a minute of silence. FAVI, for many years, had the practice of starting every meeting with all participants sharing a brief story of someone they had recently thanked or congratulated. The practice creates a mood of possibility, gratitude, celebration, and trust in other people’s goodness and talents. It helps to shift the focus away from self-centered goals and toward reconnecting with the broader needs of the organization."E materializou-se neste postal quando ontem à noite vi um episódio do Masterchef Austrália e dei comigo a reflectir sobre a dose, sobre a cultura de saudável optimismo, de agradecimento, de relação que existe no programa, faz salientar e desenvolver o que as pessoas têm de melhor e dá-lhes energia para explorar os seus limites
This is such an important point! You Can’t Pick The Winners Without Investing in The Losers by @AlexOsterwalder https://t.co/bfkjKAcG6R pic.twitter.com/PLg7753J7I— Tim Kastelle (@timkastelle) February 14, 2018
"Except I didn't buy 1,000 dollars worth of Bitcoin in 2008. If I had, I'd have more than $40,000,000 today.Tão bom!!!
.
It's not that I didn't know.
.
It's that I didn't act.
.
Two different things.
.
I knew, but I didn't know for sure. Not enough to act.
.
All the good stuff happens when we act even if we don't know for sure."
"O optimismo não documentado é um assunto que separa a ténue fronteira entre o arriscar com fundamento e o arriscar com base na fé."BTW, este optimismo não documentado pode ser relacionado com aquela fase de neblina em que o mundo muda e as receitas anteriores deixam de funcionar. Então, alguns optimistas (ou desesperados) arriscam, fuçando. A maioria falha, um acerta e depois começa a aprendizagem dos empríricos por spillover.
"Underlying the practice and study of business is the belief that management is a science and that business decisions must be driven by rigorous analysis of data. The explosion of big data has reinforced this idea.E sublinho em particular:
...
But is it true that management is a science? And is it right to equate intellectual rigor with data analysis? If the answers to those questions are no and no...
Most situations involve some elements you can change and some you cannot. The critical skill is spotting the difference. You need to ask, Is the situation dominated by possibility (that is, things we can alter for the better) or by necessity (elements we cannot change)?
...
Executives need to deconstruct every decision-making situation into cannot and can parts and then test their logic. If the initial hypothesis is that an element can’t be changed, the executive needs to ask what laws of nature suggest this. If the rationale for cannot is compelling, then the best approach is to apply a methodology that will optimize the status quo. In that case let science be the master and use its tool kits of data and analytics to drive choices.
.
Data is not logic. Many lucrative business moves come from bucking the evidence.
.
In a similar way, executives need to test the logic behind classifying elements as cans. What suggests that behaviors or outcomes can be different from what they have been? If the supporting rationale is strong enough, let design and imagination be the master and use analytics in their service.
...
the division between can and cannot is more fluid than most people think. Innovators will push that boundary more than most, challenging the cannot."
"We think this is particularly true when it comes to decisions about business strategy and innovation. You can’t chart a course for the future or bring about change merely by analyzing history. We would suggest, for instance, that the behavior of customers will never be transformed by a product whose design is based on an analysis of their past behavior.E volto aqueles a quem chamo de tríade, prisioneiros de barreiras mentais e incapazes de perguntar:
.
Yet transforming customer habits and experiences is what great business innovations do"
- Quando falas do que fazes falas com uma paixão!Conheci este empresário português em 2012 e logo lhe disse a frase que tinha aprendido dois anos antes num tweet de Osterwalder:
"a paixão numa empresa é inversamente proporcional à sua dimensão"Olha! Consegui recuperá-lo:
:-D RT @vpsingh: The level of passion is inversely related to the size of an organization— Alex Osterwalder (@AlexOsterwalder) November 19, 2010
"We usually think of strategy as a rational, analytic activity, with teams of MBA’s poring over spreadsheets. We often forget that strategy has to have a purpose and that purpose is almost always personal and emotive.O empresário que serve a indústria automóvel lida com uma estratégia de preço, pensa em eficiência, em regras, em planeamento.
...
And that matters. It determines what you can and can’t do.
...
Great businesses, in the final analysis, are built by passion."
"What separates a winner from a loser at the grandmaster level is the willingness to do the unthinkable. A brilliant strategy is, certainly, a matter of intelligence, but intelligence without audaciousness is not enough. I must have the guts to explode the game, to upend my opponent’s thinking and, in so doing, unnerve him.”A coragem para apostar numa certa dose de optimismo não documentado, a coragem de, por algum tempo, perder o pé.
"Here's a hint: Sometimes, Ulukaya said, common sense is no help. "You have to find a way to elevate yourself to be above common sense," he said, speaking to an audience of entrepreneurs at the Inc. 5000 conference in Phoenix on Friday. "We cannot do what we have done through the mirrors and lenses of common sense. We have to think something different."Uma outra forma de dizer, é preciso "sair do carreiro"
.
Ulukaya said that ability to generally ignore common sense, comes from passion. "When you're elevated then you're not looking at an opportunity or problem or dream from a common perspective," he said. And from his telling of the Chobani story, it was clear that a little bit of "elevation"--what some might call craziness--certainly played a role."
"We’re prepared for a world much like #2 — the world of risk, with known outcomes and probability that can be estimated, yet we live in a world with a closer resemblance to #3."[Moi ici: O mundo da incerteza]Depois, daqui:
"When making decisions, the two sets of mental tools are required:Estão a ver o problema de quem está escravo de folhas de cálculo?
1. RISK: If risks are known, good decisions require logic and statistical thinking.
2. UNCERTAINTY: If some risks are unknown, good decisions also require intuition and smart rules of thumb"
"The people who gravitate to strategic planning functions and strategy consulting firms tend to be highly analytical. That, I believe, is a problem. To be sure, analysis is important but in the end, strategy is and will always be a creative process.Trecho retirado de "Strategize First, Analyze Later"
.
Strategy is not the inevitable outcome of a process of analysis: it is a choice of where a firm wants to play and how it will win there going forward. Yes, a working knowledge of the industry and its likely evolution, the customers and their likely preferences, the firm itself and its potential capabilities and cost structure, and its competitors and their likely responses and actions should inform that choice. But it is simply not possible to predict that many things about the future through analysis unless you simplify the features of the solution space to an extent that makes it analyzable — and at the same time irrelevant. It guarantees strategic failure.
.
To develop a compelling strategy, you have to begin by staking out the territory you want. That is an act of choice and imagination. After you’ve made the choice, then it is the time for analysis: figuring out exactly what you have to do to get to where you want to be and to be able to play the way you need to in order to win."
"having reviewed and worked with hundreds of strategy plans for some of the world's largest corporations and public and third-sector institutions, we have learned that something is missing. It's striking how similar to one another the strategies look these days. The structure, language, key analysis, evidence, arguments, recommendations - even the typeface of the graphs - are almost identical, whether it is a beverage company, a producer of building materials, a sportswear manufacturer, or a retail chain. It almost seems as if what the company produces doesn't matter as long as it is in markets where the compound annual growth rate is above average, the capital expenditure is decent, the cost structure is on par with the competitors, the capabilities of the organization are leveraged the right way, and the value proposition is clearly defined.
...
Most of these strategies, created with a linear mode of problem solving, aim at getting the maximum growth and profit out of the business through rational and logical analysis. [Moi ici: Recordo aquela expressão sobre o optimismo não documentado] The ideal is to turn strategy work into a rigorous discipline with the use of deductive logic, a well-structured hypothesis, and a thorough collection of evidence and data. Such problem solving has dominated most research and teaching in business schools over the last decades and has formed the guiding principles of many global management consultancies. Slowly but steadily, this mind-set has gained dominance in business culture over the last thirty years. Today it is the unspoken default tool for solving all problems. This linear mind-set borrows its ideals from the hard sciences like physics and math: learn from past examples to create a hypothesis you can test with numbers. As it uses inductive reasoning for its foundation, it is enormously successful at analyzing information extrapolated from a known set of data from the past. Default thinking helps us create efficiencies, optimize resources, balance product portfolios, increase productivity, invest in markets with the shortest and biggest payback, cut operational complexity, and generally get more bang for the buck. In short, it works extraordinarily well when the business challenge demands an increase in the productivity of a system. But what happens when the challenge involves people's behavior? When it comes to cultural shifts, the use of a hypothesis based on past examples will give us a false sense of confidence, sending us astray into unknown waters with the wrong map."
