Estratégia versus plano

"Strategy myopia occurs when we fail to identify who we seek to serve, and focus on what we seek to produce instead. Empathy gives us a strategic advantage.

...
Empathy begins with the humility to acknowledge that you don't know what others know, want what they want, or believe what they believe ... and that's okay. If we're not prepared to move to where our customers are hoping to go, it's unlikely that they'll care enough to adopt what we care about.
...
You cannot compromise your way to an elegant strategy. Effective strategies come from tiny teams and insightful individuals, not committees. While it's tempting to invite people with power on the org chart to sit with us as we develop our strategy, this myopic move will likely amplify the defense of sunk costs.
...
To avoid strategic myopia, begin by looking for problems.
Problems demand solutions, and solutions become projects, and then, eventually, projects become industries.
...
An ongoing study of strategy implementation has repeatedly found that leaders typically spend less than one day a month working on and discussing the organization's strategy. The likely reason: It's easier to focus on plans and performance instead. Strategy feels soft, while there's "real work" to be done right now. [Moi ici: Isto faz-me lembrar algo que li há mais de 20 anos: "Nobody takes them seriously. They do "sissy work"... compared to "real men" who toil in "steel mills." (Oops, the latter are about gone.)" retirado de "Re-Imagine" de Tom Peters]
But as many other strategy experts have warned over the years, if you're going in the wrong direction, it doesn't matter how fast you're going.
Work on strategy today. You can always make plans tomorrow."

Trechos retirados de "How to Avoid Strategy Myopia" de Seth Godin.

"a philosophy of becoming"

Um dos últimos sublinhados que fiz no livro "Lead from the Future" de Mark Johnson e Josh Suskewicz foi:

"in an era of relentless change, a company survives and thrives based not on its size or performance at any given time but on its ability to reposition itself to create a new future, and to leverage a purpose-driven mission to that end." 

Entretanto, na semana passada li "How to Avoid Strategy Myopia" de Seth Godin onde sublinhei:

"polishing yesterday’s work isn’t useful if the world is in flux. When we focus on improving the efficiency of our current plan, we inevitably miss the opportunity to develop a new strategy in response to new conditions.

...

"strategy myopia," which prioritizes the urgent, the proven, and the easily measured. It pushes us to execute reliable plans instead of embracing possibility.

...

In part this myopia comes from what we expect from a new strategy. Strategy is not a plan. A plan might come with a guarantee: "If we do this, we win." A strategy, on the other hand, comes with the motto: "This might not work." Strategy is a philosophy of becoming, a chance to create the conditions to enable the change we seek to make in the world.

When the boss demands a strategy that comes with certainty and proof, we're likely to settle for a collection of chores, tasks, and tactics, which is not the same as an elegant, resilient strategy. To do strategy right, we need to lean into possibility."

Interessante, na mesma manhã tinha sublinhado no livro "Lead from the Future": 

"The future will reward clarity,” he says, “but punish certainty" 

Enquanto leio estas coisas, encontro tantas e tantas notícias sobre empresas a fechar, despedimentos, crescimento raquítico... e tanta gente a contar com certezas, a exigir direitos adquiridos. 

Segunda-feira à noite, numa reunião por Zoom, recordei este trecho:

"So who was the winner? What was the best strategy in the end? What Lindgren found was that this is a nonsensical question. In an evolutionary system such as Lindgren's model, there is no single winner, no optimal, no best strategy. Rather, anyone who is alive at a particular point in time, is in effect a winner, because everyone else is dead. To be alive at all, an agent must have a strategy with something going for it, some way of making a living, defending against competitors, and dealing with the vagaries of its environment."

Em tempos de incerteza, leituras como estas deviam lembrar-nos de que a verdadeira força não reside em manter o status quo, terra de zombies, mas sim em buscar a clareza que nos permite visualizar novos horizontes e abraçar a mudança com determinação. Cada desafio é uma oportunidade para nos reinventarmos e respondermos ao novo com propósito e abertura. O futuro pertence a quem tem a audácia de imaginar e construir possibilidades.

Perceber o sistema onde se opera

"The first step in building a successful and elegant strategy is to see the systems that are part of our lives. [Moi ici: Viver uma experiência fora de corpo. "The secret is to do the opposite, which is where the metaphor of going to the balcony comes in. It means pausing and taking a step back from the situation. I counsel people to imagine themselves standing on a balcony overlooking a stage on which the conflict [Moi ici: system] in question is taking place. The balcony is a place of calm, control and perspective. It's a place where you can see the bigger picture."]

...

Like most systems, it’s largely invisible. The people in it don’t mean to do harm, they’re simply making choices that feel like their best option. [Mo ici: Interessante a relação com o livro de "The Unaccountability Machine" de Dan Davies] And most of all, the system works to defend itself, to create culture that defends the status quo.

...

It's easier, sometimes, to just go with the system.

We're not stuck in traffic, we are traffic. If we see a system, we can work to change it. Our strategy can use elements of the system to alter it."

Interessante o que Seth Godin conta acerca do sistema por trás do chocolate barato em "The cheap chocolate system".

O texto sobre o sistema do chocolate barato aplica-se às PME's. Frequentemente imersas em sistemas invisíveis e enraizados, onde as escolhas parecem limitadas, e seguir o caminho habitual pode parecer a única opção. Para criar uma estratégia diferenciadora, as PME's precisam de compreender o sistema em que estão envolvidas, identificar as armadilhas que perpetuam práticas ineficazes ou prejudiciais, e encontrar formas de fugir dessas limitações. Assim, podem criar valor de forma sustentável, diferenciando-se pela qualidade e ética, como no caso das marcas de chocolate citadas por Godin.

E isto faz-me recordar a artesã de Bragança ou o burel de Manteigas perceber que o mundo pode ter mudado de tal forma que manter o modelo de negócio já não resulta.

BTW, na última etapa de leitura de "The Unaccountability Machine" de Dan Davies sublinhei:

“Often, when you’re trying to diagnose why a system is failing, you need to consider both the larger system in which it’s embedded and the organisation within its operations.” 

Fake vs Real

Fui buscar o livro "Authenticity" de Gilmore e Pine à estante para procurar a figura 6.1 The Real/Fake Matrix:

Encontrei uns bons pontos sobre o tema aqui, "Authenticity".

Já agora para os que querem ser tudo para todos:

"TP: Doesn't that make it impossible for a business to figure out how to render itself authentic?

JP: No, but it is difficult. You just have to realize that you may be able to render authenticity for some of the people all the time, maybe all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time."

Recordei este tema ao ler "Feeding the algorithm" de Seth Godin:

"Feeding the algorithm works when you’re the only one doing it. It works when you seek to fit right into the middle of the lane. And it works if you’re willing to outfeed everyone else–at least until the algorithm changes.

...

The alternative is to be uncomfortable. To create remarkable work and leave scale to others. To figure out how to show up in a way that is generous and distinctive, and to refuse the bait that others take when they decide that feeding the algorithm is their best option."

O foco certo (parte III)

"In his book The Icarus Paradox, Danny Miller, ... details how the greatest trigger for organizational failure is success. The most successful organizations start to oversimply processes; become proud, insular, and immune to feedback; and lack the motivation or resources to change. Once highly effective processes, organizations, and leaders start to fail when faced with new technologies and shifting market trends. Miller named this challenge the Icarus paradox, after the Greek god. Icarus became so enamored with the flight enabled by his wax wings that he flew too close to the sun, melting the wings and falling to his death.? Miller offers eye-opening examples of market leaders rising in the markets, becoming so enamored by their own success that they fail to take precautions and then falling swiftly down their S curves.

...

How do we know when we are at point A-the tipping point between success and failure, the point where we need to shift between what we've been doing for our past success and what we need to do for the future? When all is going well, there is no reason for us to believe that our upward trajectory will ever change. The trick, therefore, is to always believe that you are at point A, to constantly scan the horizon for the next curve, even while enjoying your current success."

O consumo de vinho a nível mundial está a cair.

A importação de vinho está a estes níveis.

E a CNA, e os produtores de vinho, com o locus de controlo no exterior, colocam no governo de turno a criação de uma solução (recordar a parte II).

Ontem estava a ver um vídeo no Youtube sobre como desentupir canetas Isograph, e num dos comentários alguém escreveu que já não usava essas canetas há muito tempo porque, entretanto, o desenho por computador passou a ser a norma.

Um velho tema neste blogue: resistir ou abraçar a mudança (versão de 2010).

Nem de propósito, este postal recente de Seth Godin, "Redefining a profession".

A importância do locus de controlo no interior, a adpatação proactiva à mudança, a associação da mudança a oportunidades. A alternativa é a estagnação e o empobrecimento.

E para terminar com a ideia de foco, outro postal recente de Seth Godin, "Write for someone" mas adpatado por mim:

It's so tempting to make wine for everyone.

But everyone isn't going to drink your wine, someone is.

Can you tell me who? Precisely?

What did they believe before they tasted your wine? What do they want, what do they fear? What has moved them to choose a wine in the past?

Name the people you're making wine for. Ignore everyone else.

Parte I e parte II.

Trecho retirado de "Both/and thinking : embracing creative tensions to solve your toughest problems" de Wendy K. Smith, Marianne W. Lewis.

Conformar-se tem os seus custos

"When your brand has fingerprints, don’t do things that require you to wear gloves."

"Fingerprints" simbolizam a singularidade e a individualidade. Tal como as impressões digitais são únicas para cada pessoa, o estilo ou identidade única de uma marca é o que a diferencia das outras. 

“Wear gloves” representa esconder ou encobrir esta singularidade.

Se uma marca tem um estilo distinto e identificável, não deve escondê-lo, obedecendo às normas ou tentando misturar-se com a multidão.

"If your brand has a unique style, don't hide it by trying to be like everyone else."

A importância de abraçar e mostrar as qualidades únicas de uma marca, em vez de as suprimir na tentativa de se encaixar nas outras.

Se é como todos os outros...

Se uma marca se tornar indistinguível das outras (ou seja, se “usa luvas” para esconder as suas “impressões digitais”), perde aquilo que a torna especial e memorável. Perder a sua identidade distinta, deixar de se destacar ou ser esquecida num mercado sobrelotado.

Porquê?

• As marcas podem temer que o seu estilo ou abordagem única possa afastar determinados segmentos de clientes. Para atrair um público mais vasto, podem suavizar as suas características distintivas para corresponder às expectativas mais convencionais.
• Se uma tendência ou estilo específico se torna dominante na indústria, uma marca pode sentir-se pressionada a conformar-se para se manter relevante. Isto pode levá-la a minimizar as suas qualidades únicas em favor do que é popular actualmente.
• Uma marca pode acreditar que imitar os concorrentes de sucesso levará a um crescimento mais rápido ou à entrada no mercado. Podem deixar temporariamente de lado a sua identidade única na esperança de ganhar uma maior quota de mercado ou competir mais directamente.
• Se uma marca estiver com dificuldades financeiras, poderá recorrer à adopção de uma abordagem mais “segura” e convencional, acreditando ser menos arriscada. Isto pode envolver minimizar os elementos que a tornaram única em primeiro lugar.

Trecho inicial retirado de "Fingerprints"

Os NPCs

Olho para o mundo através dos meus olhos, da minha mente, das minhas experiências. Acredito que só vêmos o que a nossa mente nos deixa ver.

Por isso, posso fazer, faço, julgamentos injustos ou incompletos.

Há momentos encontrei esta citação no Twitter adaptada de uma frase de Carl Jung:

“Until you make your unconscious choices conscious, they will direct your life, and you will call it fate.”

Jung sugere que muitas das nossas decisões são feitas inconscientemente, influenciadas por experiências passadas, crenças e padrões de pensamento dos quais não estamos cientes. Essas escolhas inconscientes moldam a nossa vida de maneiras significativa, afectando as nossas relações, profissão e bem-estar geral. Quando não reconhecemos a origem dessas escolhas, tendemos a atribuir os resultados ao "destino" ou a forças externas, em vez de à nossa própria agência. 

Jung enfatiza a importância de tornar essas escolhas conscientes, o que envolve um auto-exame e uma reflexão profunda.

Há dias apanhei este tweet:

pic.twitter.com/uCFhGreViO

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2024

E fiquei a pensar na quantidade de pessoas que eu sinto, se calhar erradamente, que atravessam a vida como autênticos NPCs.

Depois, relacionei tudo isto com um texto publicado por Seth Godin há dias, The paradox of lessons . As lições, por sua vez, levaram-me a Ortega Y Gasset. Se vivo como se não tivesse agência, não penso no futuro. Por isso, não ajo para mudar o meu presente:

“O meu presente não existe senão graças ao meu futuro, sob a pressão do meu futuro. Pois bem, isto significa que neste agora do tempo que um relógio mede eu sou de cada vez o meu futuro e o meu presente”

“Digo, pois, que eu agora sou conjuntamente futuro e presente. Esse meu futuro exerce pressão sobre o agora e dessa pressão sobre a circunstância brota a minha vida presente”

Voltar aos Impressionistas

Ontem apanhei esta estória sobre os Impressionistas, "Refusing the salon of the refused", em mais um postal de Seth Godin. E voltei a 2014 e a "A coragem dos Impressionistas".

"But most of all, so much easier today than in Paris 150 years ago, these individual painters did two things: They picked themselves and they did it together.

Everyone wants to be picked, but no one wants to organize the collective 'we'.

It's the 'we' that creates a school of thought, a movement, a network, a culture.

Curate, connect, organize and lead. Who better than you?"

Voltar ao "optimismo não documentado"

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":

• Acerca do optimismo não documentado (2017)
• Falta um pouco de "optimismo não documentado" (2010)

Acerca do velho "Too big to care"

Quinta-feira passada ao principio da tarde, no final de uma reunião, recordava Tom Peters com o seu "Too big to care":

• De 2015 - Too Big To Care
• De 2017 - Too big to care

Sexta-feira ao final da tarde li "Regressing to the mean all by yourself" de Seth Godin:

""The mean" is the average. Another word for "mediocre."

When an organization gets big enough, by definition, it's the average.

When you have enough customers, they represent the population as a whole.

If you find yourself seeking to serve the largest possible number of people, you've signed up to be average. Without a doubt, you're raising the bar compared to the ones who came before, but scale has its costs.

If you ship enough products to enough people, average is inevitable."

"Niching up"

"And it gives us the foundation to kindly recommend alternatives to people who aren't in our group. Instead of hustling for more, we're focusing for better."

Este trecho final de "Niching up" de Seth Godin é muito interessante. Seria tão bom que mais empresas o percebessem e não procurassem ser tudo para todos, perdendo o poder da diferenciação.

Seth Godin desafia o conceito tradicional de “niching down”, que envolve estreitar o foco de um projecto para atrair um segmento de mercado específico. Em vez disso, propõe o conceito de “niching up”, que enfatiza o foco num público menor e mais específico para melhorar a qualidade e o impacte do projecto.

O autor sugere identificar o menor grupo de pessoas necessário para sustentar um projecto. Isso envolve entender o que esse grupo específico tem em comum, seus desejos e o que sentiriam falta se o projecto deixasse de existir. Ao atingir esse público específico, o projeto pode ser mais personalizado e significativo. Ao focar num público menor, há uma responsabilidade maior no projecto para atender às necessidades e expectativas específicas deste grupo. Esta abordagem focada provavelmente terá um impacte mais significativo, pois atende às necessidades específicas do público escolhido.

Recordar que isto se encaixa no que publicamos ontem em Outra coisa que me faz espécie, empresas mais pequenas, trabalhando para nichos conseguem libertar mais valor acrescentado.

Recordar o que temos escrito sobre o "anichar" nos últimos anos - Niching down. Seth Godin também escreveu para mim.

Maximizar é, muitas vezes, a via cancerosa

"The work of optimization is finding the best set of tradeoffs.

Maximization, on the other hand, seeks the solution that ranks the highest for just one goal.

...

Maximizing something is simple and may be satisfying. It doesn't involve difficult tradeoffs and it's easy to measure.

But that doesn't mean it's a good idea."

Trechos retirados de "Optimized or maximized?" 

"Bigger isn't the goal, better is"

"In the industrial age, the math of scale is pretty compelling. [Moi ici: Há anos que escrevo aqui no blogue sobre isto. Por exemplo, de há 10 anos Mas claro, eu só sou um anónimo engenheiro da província] More machines and more sales directly translate into more profits, which gives you the ability to buy more machines and generate more sales.

But if a significant organization is built on community and innovation, adding more employees doesn't make you more effective. In fact, it might do the opposite. When Facebook or Amazon lays off ten thousand people at a time, it's clear that a CFO somewhere is treating people like a resource, not like humans.

...

Bigger isn't the goal, better is."

Trechos retirados de "The Song of Significance: A New Manifesto for Teams" de Seth Godin.

"Show me your agenda"

"Then let's acknowledge that decisions are far more important than tasks.

Show me your agenda for today, and I'll show you what you value. If your team spends almost all of its time on chores with known solutions, then you're probably in the stopwatch business. Find the cheapest, fastest, most reliable people (or computers) available, then put them on your assembly line.

But if we're seeking to make change happen, then our job is to get from here to there. To find a path. To identify the next best thing to work on, describe an opportunity, and then make it real.

If you're a pathfinder, call it that, organize for it, and measure it."

E recuo a 2006:

"Qualquer subordinado, é o melhor estudioso do comportamento do seu chefe, não interessa o que o seu chefe diz, ou proclama; interessa o que o seu chefe faz, onde ocupa o tempo da sua agenda. Assim, o que a gestão de topo mede é uma poderosa mensagem para o resto da organização, o que se mede é o que interessa, é o que tem de ser atingido." 

Fugir da previsibilidade (parte II)

Há oito dias em Fugir da previsibilidade escrevi:

"Predictability é sinónimo de concorrência perfeita, ou seja lucros raquíticos e empobrecimento.

...

Fugir da previsibilidade é uma forma de criar heterogeneidade e fugir da comoditização, é uma forma de criar valor potencial que pode vir a ser capturado como margem superior."

Ontem, encontrei em "The Song of Significance: A New Manifesto for Teams" de Seth Godin:

"There's a huge difference between the backwardlooking work of quality improvement and the forward-looking dance of making decisions about what happens next.

If you're not willing to produce change, then you really have no options. Cost-reduction through industrial management is your only path forward. We've built world-class systems of gradual systems improvement. The measured quality of cars, computer chips, and even overnight package delivery is stunning."

As PMEs no campeonato do custo mais baixo não têm hipótese. 

"In the case of the industry leader, our research showed an entirely different impact of market overlap. Market overlap seems to counteract the benefits of strategic similarity to the industry leader. This is consistent with our reasoning that dependence on the same type of resources as the industry leader and obtaining them from the same resource pools counteract the legitimacy advantages that small firms obtain through similarity to this prominent firm. In addition to this effect on the supply side, it is reasonable to understand that market overlap with the industry leader could trigger negative effects on small-firm performance due to the need to compete with this rival for the same customers (i.e., demand-side effect). Since the industry leader has a stronger position in common markets, it could attract customers more easily than small firms, having a negative impact on their results. Thus, both demand- and supply-side considerations lead to the same negative effect of market overlap on the relationship between similarity to the industry leader and small-firm performance."

Trecho retirado de "To be different or to be the same when you are a small firm? Competitive interdependence as a boundary condition of the strategic balance perspective" 

"Safety is first"

O meu parceiro das conversas oxigenadoras há muitos anos que pratica esta filosofia:

"Safety is first. It's impossible to grow, to connect, or to lead if we are under threat or feel the ground shifting beneath us.

...

But the real desire is significance. To do something that matters. To be missed if we're gone. The universal desire to achieve dignity and be seen.

Becoming significant means making a change happen: impacting people or the world around us so they're different than if we had never been here. But to create change involves risk, the risk of living in possibility, and of the threat of failure (or success).

...

Tension is not something to avoid. You can't walk outside on a sunny day without casting a shadow, and you cannot create significance without encountering tension."

Recordo este postal de Março de 2020 Corona, pessoas e melhoria.

Trechos acima retirados do último livro de Seth Godin, "The Song of Significance: A New Manifesto for Teams".

A evolução da produtividade (parte IV)

Parte III, Parte II e Parte I.

Em Acerca do Evangelho do Valor uso esta equação:

A maioria das empresas trabalha para reduzir os custos, trabalha o denominador. Uma minoria valoriza acima de tudo o trabalhar o numerador. 

Quem mete todas as fichas no denominador acaba quase sempre na chamada race to the bottom (ver parte III):

No último livro de Seth Godin, "The Song of Significance: A New Manifesto for Teams" pode ler-se:

"The truth is simple: Widget production [Moi ici: Trabalhar o denominador] is fairly straightforward to measure and increase. But those metrics (and methods) don't work for human interactions, insight, or innovation. [Moi ici: Trabalhar o numerador]

...

When we consider the four kinds of work, we can lay them out in a two-by two grid with stakes and trust as the two axes.

High-stakes, low-trust work is the work assigned by the industrialist. [Moi ici: Trabalhar o denominador até mais não, solução para lidar com commodities] This is meeting spec. Test and measure. Surveillance. Traditional management lives in this quadrant. This is how you successfully run a fast-food franchise. Every customer is important, and every output needs to be identical.

Low-stakes, low-trust work is similar, except it's easily outsourced. This isn't work your organization needs to take seriously or personally.

...

The next quadrant is for work that is low stakes but high trust. This is the work of culture creation, of community, of people we care about showing up each day to contribute a bit to the whole. The work is consistent, but it's human, not industrial. The shifts caused by pandemic disruptions, outsourcing, work from home, and AI have disrupted this quadrant.

And the final quadrant, the most important one, is the work with high stakes and high trust. This is significant work, important work, work on the edge. This is the work that creates human value as we connect with and respect the individuals who create it.

It doesn't pay to industrialize this work or to create it under duress. Because then it becomes industrialized and once again joins the race to the bottom.

...

This is a race you don't want to run. Because you might win. Or worse, come in second.

This is the industrialist's race, the race of productivity. [Moi ici: Não esquecer esta frase "the race of productivity", voltaremos a ela numa próxima parte. Recordar Reinert e o Uganda. Por que não associamos produtividade a high trust? Talvez por causa da doença dos engenheiros] This is the challenge of more for less, of mass-market quality at scale.

The race to the bottom also offers low prices, average quality, and plenty of room for excuses about our lack of humanity and a focus on the short term. The race to the bottom is filled with shortcuts and with competitors who are willing to sacrifice integrity for a slight edge.

At first, heading to the bottom is thrilling, because a small head start feels like an extraordinary boon. The sales and profits quickly arrive.

But inevitably, when a competitor shows up, it becomes a race. And to win that race, all the elements that attracted you to the work quickly disappear."

Continua.

"What do humans need?"

"For a century, consistent industrial work was a straightforward path to create value. Productivity was simply the measure of how much better we did today than yesterday, always faster and cheaper.

Computers and outsourcing changed this metric.

...

Now industrial work often becomes a race to the bottom. The first thing any scaling company does is outsource its industrial activities (including assemblyline manufacturing and frontline customer service) to cheaper options, automating them as much as possible. If it's all created to spec, with a stopwatch, why bother paying extra?

...

Real value is no longer created by traditional measures of productivity. It's created by personal interactions, innovation, creative solutions, resilience, and the power of speed.

...

An organization of any size can effectively move forward by asking, "What do humans need?" What will create significance for those who interact with us?

This certainly isn't what industrialists have traditionally been asking. It isn't even what internet entrepreneurs have been asking. Going forward, the questions we have to ask aren't about feeding the stock market, the local retailer, or the cloud of internet servers. We're not here to fill self-storage units or simply gain market share. Instead, we're asking what our people need."

Trechos retirados de "The Song of Significance: A New Manifesto for Teams" de Seth Godin.

"Significance is inconvenient"

Volta e meia leio, ou presencio situações que me fazem recuar a 2015:

Cuidado com o eficientismo, essa doença anglo-saxónica.

Ontem, comecei a ler o último livro de Seth Godin, "The Song of Significance: A New Manifesto for Teams" onde sublinhei:

"to find the magic that happens when we are lucky enough to cocreate with people who care.

...

The choices have never been as clear as they are now:

Industrial capitalism (industrialism) seeks to use power to create profits.

Market capitalism seeks to solve problems to make a profit.

Industrial capitalism was built on the extraordinary productivity of the machine age. Feed the machine first, turn everything (including workers and customers) into machines, and scale up the enterprise. It evolved to incorporate the network effect and natural (or unnatural) monopolies to gain more power. It then used that power to capture the efforts of government to create even more power. [Moi ici: Cenas relacionadas com biombos e carpetes, aka cronyism - Cronyism e Two types of cronyism]

...

Market capitalism, meanwhile, continues to create most of the jobs and value worldwide. This is the never-ending work of finding problems and solving them. Market capitalists have no power over customers (or even, in most cases, their employees). Instead, they work to bring effort and insight to a rapidly changing marketplace in service of their customers.

The fork is right here, right now. Perhaps it's time to notice it and to choose a path.

...

the essence of productive consumer-focused industrialism. To create convenience.

To be fair, industrial capitalism works. It creates leverage and productivity then delivers expected results, all while lowering prices and increasing access to goods and services.

The modern world wouldn't exist without the progress that industry allowed, and for many, the safety these jobs offer is a lifeline and a useful way to live.

...

But late-stage industrial capitalism is different. It doesn't know where to stop. [Moi ici: Algo a que chamamos estratégias cancerosas] It not only captures those seeking safety, but also shackles those seeking significance.

...

But the stopwatch comes for all of us.

If we are going to compete with those who seek the perfection of industrial capitalism, we should know that they will out-measure, out standardize, and outmanage us. It's a race to the bottom.

The work of significance embraces the very things that industrialism seeks to stamp out.

Significance is inconvenient.

...

The answer begins simply with: we need to choose."

Esta manhã na capa do JdN leio, "Portugal é o quarto país na Europa com mais hotéis a caminho" ... um exemplo do que é uma estratégia cancerosa que não sabe quando parar, a isto chama-se a Tragédia dos Baldios!

Past performance is no guarantee of the future

"Survivor bias is the trap of only considering the successful entries when thinking about risk. For example, if you look at the performance of mutual funds after ten years, most of them seem to do pretty well. But that's partly because the ones that did really poorly didn't make it to ten years.

We are lucky enough to live on a planet that hasn't been destroyed by an asteroid. But that doesn't mean that other planets haven't had their life forms extinguished-we're simply unaware of them.

Past performance is no guarantee of the future. Sorry.

We should plan accordingly."

Trecho retirado de "Survivor bias and the mistake of stability."