"You can start by finding a “truth teller” who will share honest feedback with you"

"Why are weaknesses and fatal flaws so hard for us to spot in ourselves? Here’s our theory. Strengths are seen as a direct outcome of some specific behavior exhibited by the leader. For example, they are extremely effective at solving problems and can point to specific instances where their quick thinking saved a project. Or they’re extremely good at marshaling their team to produce excellent work, and have seen the impact in the form of happy clients or industry awards. The leaders recognize something they do that produces a positive reaction, followed by a positive business outcome.
.
Weaknesses — especially fatal flaws — are the opposite. Fatal flaws are “sins of omission.” They’re a result of inaction, of the leader not doing something. In our assessments, some of the fatal flaws we see most often are a lack of strategic thinking; not taking responsibility for outcomes; and not building strong relationships. We occasionally do find leaders whose fatal flaws are “sins of commission” — like a boss with a terrible temper, or an executive who lies — but those people are (fortunately) very rare.
.
Because most fatal flaws are sins of omission, they are harder for to see in ourselves. The result, after all, is not visible. It’s a deal that never happens, or a project that doesn’t exist. These leaders are simply not making things happen.
...
Becoming More Self-Aware
There are several ways you can learn to identify your weaknesses, and start to figure out whether they are serious or mild.
.
You can start by finding a “truth teller” who will share honest feedback with you.
...
Think about it. If roughly one-third of leaders have a fatal flaw and you are sitting in a management meeting, look to your right and then to your left. As the old joke goes, if in your opinion, neither of these two colleagues has a really serious weakness, then the laws of statistics suggest that you do."

Trechos retirados de "Most Leaders Know Their Strengths — but Are Oblivious to Their Weaknesses"

Quem manda no calendário? (parte II)

Parte I.

Para gozo intelectual dos que seguem este blogue:

"It seems to be common sense that to increase profits, firms should prioritize customers (i.e., focus their efforts on the most important customers). However, such a strategy might have substantial negative effects on firms’ relationships with customers treated at a low priority level. Prior research does not indicate satisfactorily whether and how customer prioritization pays off. Moreover, although customer prioritization may be strongly present in firms’ marketing strategies, firms frequently fail to implement such a strategy. Therefore, it is also important to investigate empirically by which means firms can facilitate implementation. The authors address both issues and conduct a cross-industry study with 310 firms from business-to-consumer and business-to-business contexts together with two independent validation samples. The results show that customer prioritization ultimately leads to higher average customer profitability and a higher return on sales because it (1) affects relationships with top-tier customers positively but does not affect relationships with bottom-tier customers and (2) reduces marketing and sales costs. Furthermore, the ability to assess customer profitability, the quality of customer information, selective organizational alignment, selective senior-level involvement, and selective elaboration of planning and control all positively moderate the link between a firm’s prioritization strategy and actual customer prioritization.
...
The results indicate that 83% of the firms in our sample intend to prioritize their customers to a high extent (i.e., having a mean rating across the items for “prioritization strategy” ≥5 on a seven- point scale). In contrast, only 38% indicate that they actually prioritize customers to a high extent (i.e., having a mean rating across the items for “customer prioritization” ≥5 on a seven-point scale). Thus, the descriptive results indicate a substantial implementation gap between intended and actual customer prioritization.
...
Based on a cross-industry sample including B2B and B2C markets, our findings show that customer prioritization positively affects firm profits compared with treating all customers equally by two mechanisms. First, customer prioritization affects important customer relationship characteristics (customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and share of wallet) of top- versus bottom-tier customers differently. Whereas prioritizing customers affects average satisfaction of top-tier customers positively, the average satisfaction of bottom-tier customers is not negatively affected. Furthermore, average sales per customer are positively affected by top-tier customers’ average share of wallet. The latter is positively affected by customer prioritization through aver- age satisfaction and loyalty of this tier. However, for bottom-tier customers, this indirect effect of customer prioritization on average sales per customer through important relationship characteristics is not significant. Second, customer prioritization increases average customer profitability because the former reduces marketing and sales costs in relation to sales. This increased efficiency of marketing and sales efforts leads to higher average customer profitability."

Trechos retirados de "Customer Prioritization: Does It Pay Off, and How Should It Be Implemented?" de Christian Homburg, Mathias Droll, & Dirk Totzek, publicado por Journal of Marketing 110 Vol. 72 (September 2008).

O que falta é a faísca

Isto é tão bom:

"Every company is interested in why people buy their products, but rewind time a bit further and you’ll find even more fundamental insights.
.
Before someone goes buying, there’s a reason they go shopping.
.
There are usually a few events that lead to the desire — or demand — to shop. Something happens that trips the initial thought. There’s a spark. This is often when passive looking begins. You aren’t feeling the internal pressure to buy yet, but you’re starting to get curious. Then a second event happens. It could be soon after the first, or months later, but this one’s more serious. It lights a fire. You need to make progress. Now you’re actively shopping.
...
it turns out there were four common situations that triggered people
...
#1 “We can’t keep working like this.”
...
#2 “We can’t mess up like that again.”
...
#3 “This project isn’t getting off the ground.”
...
#4 “How am I going to pull this off?”"

As personas podem ser úteis para desenhar o produto para um tipo de cliente:

• Botas de caça para caçador de patos e narcejas;
• Botas de caça para caçador de espera.

O que falta é a faísca. Por que é que alguém há-de comprar umas botas novas? Por que é que alguém há-de pensar em mudar de marca? Por que é que alguém há-de sentir que precisa de progredir?

Trechos retirados de "The Why before the Why"

Cuidado ao tirar os humanos da equação

Há dias apanhei esta frase:

"relationships are not zero sum games"

Bem na linha do que aqui escrevemos há muitos anos acerca do poder da interacção e da co-criação. Por isso, há muito que defendo que o futuro de valor acrescentado passa mais pela interacção do que pela automatização.

Agora, em "The Parts of Customer Service That Should Never Be Automated" encontro:

"the economics of service automation aren’t universally rosy. When a nationwide retail bank introduced online banking, customers who adopted it increased their total transaction volume and began visiting and calling the bank more, increasing costs and decreasing overall profitability. Similar dynamics can be observed in health care. Patients who adopted e-visits, for example, actually began showing up at the doctor’s office twice as often. One explanation for this pattern is that current technology is functionally limited, requiring people to seek out in-person help in addition to using automated services. But as innovation progresses, functional limitations are bound to fall by the wayside.
.
Another explanation is that humans are inherently social creatures who get emotional value from seeing and interacting with one another. Research shows that taking away the opportunity for this kind of connection can undermine service performance. In one study, my colleagues and I found that when banking customers used the ATM more and the teller less, their overall level of satisfaction with the bank went down."

Recordo esta opinião:

E o comentário que fiz na altura:

"Quem não aposta no "cheaper" e no "cost", aposta na interacção, aposta na co-criação, aposta noutro mindset... eu diria, "Every visit customers have to make are an opportunity for interaction and co-creation""

E voltando ao texto do artigo:

"the deck is stacked against automation in several important ways:
.
1. Service can be emotional; technology cannot.
...
Automating sympathy is certainly cheaper than having a human employee comfort the bereaved, but the tradeoff can come across as disingenuous and is unlikely to be sustainable.
...
2. We still prefer having people help solve our problems. In many ways, the capacity and computational power of technology far outstrips our own. ... Nevertheless, when we’re looking for creative solutions to service problems, we still seek out other humans. If we get stuck, if there’s ambiguity in the information, or if we need help making a purchase decision, we still opt for a person.
.
3. Less work for employees often means more work for customers."

Quem manda no calendário?

Um excelente texto, "Where is Your Strategic, Finite Target Account List?", bem na linha do que pregamos aqui e nas empresas, nem sempre com o sucesso pretendido em termos de conversão, os clientes não são todos iguais:

"Selecting Targets is first for a reason. It’s one of the very few chances we (in sales) have to be strategic. If we’re really honest, most of what we in sales do is about execution, not strategy. Those who excel at picking up new business typically do so because they become masters at executing the sales attack, not because they’re great sales theoreticians! The time we really get to engage our brains and to put serious thought into our strategy is when we are deciding whose business we want – which target customers and prospects to pursue for new business.
...
our target list should be driving what goes into our calendars and where we are intentionally investing our precious selling time. It makes sense: Your list should dictate where you spend your time. Unfortunately, however, way too high a percentage of salespeople spend (waste) the majority of their time living in reactive mode, hoping (an awful sales word)  for a lead, or that a customer will raise its hand looking for help.  And you know that as long as you are content living in reactive mode and earning a living by chasing opportunities under your nose, you really don’t need a target account list. But, and this is a BIG BUT, the moment that you decide to become proactive, strategic, and intentional about whose business you want and are committed to pursuing, the very first thing you require is a list.
...
I want you to have a strategic, finite, written (or printed) list of the accounts you are committed to pursuing – those from which you are willing to be held accountable for securing discovery meetings and creating new sales opportunities. That’s your Target List!"

Quem são os clientes-alvo da sua empresa? Não acredita no tecto de vidro? Por mim acredito que a razão mais profunda para a nossa produtividade nacional agregada ser tão baixa está nesta incapacidade de decidir ser pobre e saudável ou rico e doentio. Temos pavor a fazer escolhas sérias, aquelas que cortam fontes de rendimento potenciais.

Devo salientar que esta Target List do autor tem uma conotação diferente da que eu costumo dar: aqui o autor fala de uma lista nominal com nomes concretos e não numa tipologia de clientes.

Comunicação

A ISO 9001:2015, assim como a ISO 14001:2015, chamam a atenção para a importância da comunicação interna e externa.

A figura, que adaptei de um original que encontrei na internet há algum tempo:

Sistematiza um conjunto de tópicos que devem ser tidos em consideração.

Acerca do perfil de exportações de 2017

Recordo que quando escrevo sobre exportações de bens valorizo sobretudo as exportações das PME, criam mais emprego e distribuem melhor o rendimento pelo resto da economia. Nada contra as exportações das multinacionais e das produtoras de commodities (a não ser as que resultam da praga dos eucaliptos).

Por isso, escrevi "Acerca das exportações YTD - mês 9 (2017)" ou "Acerca das exportações YTD" (pesquisar YTD no blogue para ver mais postais)

Quando olhamos para 2017 no seu todo:

Percebemos facilmente que grande parte do aumento das exportações resulta das multinacionais ou das commodities, o que é uma pena.

Ser do contra dá nisto

Ontem ouvi na rádio esta estória "“Catástrofe” na agricultura exige plano nacional":

"Eduardo Oliveira e Sousa, presidente da CAP reage às previsões do Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE) que apontam para a redução da área de cultivo dos cereais de Inverno para um mínimo histórico devido à seca."

No boletim do INE percebe-se que é o quinto ano consecutivo de redução da área de cultivo dos cereais.

Eu de agricultura não percebo nada, mas tenho memória e gosto de ser do contra. Então, pergunto-me:

- Qual é o contexto de preços dos cereais?

E encontro:

1. Preços em deflação. E a memória faz-me recuar a este artigo que tenho guardado "U.S. Farmers, Who Once Fed the World, Are Overtaken by New Powers". Nem os agricultores americanos têm pedalada para acompanhar os preços de novos players no mercado.

2. Qual a região do país que mais cereais produz? Alentejo. O que é que aconteceu nessa região na última década? O regadio do Alqueva!

3. Como está a agricultura via números e não via opinião de dependentes de fundos europeus, há anos que chamo à CAP de funcionários públicos encapotados, reparem acerca das exportações de 2017:

• animais vivos cresceram 13%
• carnes caíram 13%
• leite e lacticínios cresceram 16%
• produtos de origem animal cresceram 32%
• plantas vivas cresceram 4%
• hortícolas cresceram 10%
• frutas cresceram 27%
• cereais cresceram 11% (devem ser os biológicos tão apreciados pela indústria das Nestlés deste mundo)
• sementes de oleaginosas 19%
• preparações à base de cereais 6%

Acham mesmo que a agricultura vive uma catástrofe? 

Vive tempos bons!

Um agricultor minimamente racional olharia para os preços dos cereais e reconheceria que não faz sentido continuar a competir num mercado onde não se conseguirá ter vantagem competitiva. Um agricultor minimamente racional teria duas opções:

• apelar ao papá-Estado por mais apoios por causa de ... (é só inventar desculpas criativas)
• mudar de vida e aproveitar culturas alternativas com muito mais retorno e menos risco.

Mais uma vez recordo o ministro mais odiado de sempre, odiado pelo seu partido e pela oposição e, apreciado neste blogue.

A média engana muito

Esta imagem:

É um exemplo da aplicação da cláusula 4.2 da ISO 9001:2015 ao negócio do vinho. Imagem retirada deste postal, "Como reagir ao dono da prateleira", de Dezembro de 2011.

A propósito deste artigo, "A explosão dos DOC Douro", de onde sublinho um tema caro a este blogue:

"O problema maior do DOC Douro não está no volume, mas no preço. Na última década, o valor médio por litro cresceu pouco: de 3,72 euros para 3,94 em 2017. Mais: de 2013 para o ano passado, o litro depreciou-se até em dez cêntimos por litro. Sendo o Douro uma região pouco produtiva e montanhosa, o que é um entrave à mecanização, uma grande parte do vinho do Douro está a chegar ao mercado a preços abaixo do custo. Uma vez que uma mesma vinha duriense produz vinho fortificado e vinho tranquilo, e dado que os preços na produção do vinho do Porto são entre quatro e cinco vezes mais elevados, está a haver uma transferência (ou, como também se diz uma “subsidiação”) do vinho do Porto ao DOC Douro.
.
“A palavra de ordem é a valorização do DOC Douro”, diz Isabel Marrana. Para esse efeito, o IVDP afirma que está em curso uma discussão para actualizar as regras de produção e do comércio de um sector tradicionalmente conservador."

Fico com curiosidade. Como é a distribuição dos preços? A média engana muito. Aposto que um grupo de produtores está a aplicar o Evangelho de Valor enquanto que outros continuam agarrados à produção e não vêem o gorila da subida na escala de valor através da actividade comercial/marketing.

Até que ponto há um crescimento da venda a granel, até para outras regiões da Ibéria?

Mas houve uma grande evolução!

Em 2006 tínhamos "Vinho e mercado", lagos de vinho. Em 2008, produtores que só tinham uma forma de escoar a produção - o vinho do Porto.

Speed is not everything

"Grit, once again, was the key factor driving long-term success.
.
The reason is not difficult to see: if we drop out when we encounter problems, progress is prevented, no matter how talented we are. If we interpret difficulties as indictments of who we are, rather than as pathways to progress, we will run a mile from failure. Grit, then, is strongly related to the Growth Mindset; it is about the way we conceptualize success and failure. One of the problems in our culture is that success is positioned as something that happens quickly. Reality television, for example, suggests or leads us to believe that success can happen in the time it takes to impress a whimsical judge or audience. It is about overnight stardom and instant gratification. This is one of the reasons why such programs are so popular with audiences. But success in the real world rarely happens in this way."

Ainda há dias sublinhei no Twitter:

"Speed is everything in 2018" total bullshit:
Relationships take time.
Recruiting allies to your cause takes time.
Reading/studying take time.
Practice & prep take time.
MBWA takes time.
Thoughtfulness/small gestures take time.
"The last 10%" takes time.
EXCELLENCE takes time.

— Tom Peters (@tom_peters) February 12, 2018

"Now think about the Growth Mindset: it is about being able to see failure in a clear-eyed way; not as an indictment of one’s judgment, but as a learning opportunity."

Trechos retirados de  "Black Box" de Matthew Syed 

Por meditar

Estes três conselhos deveriam ser muito mais meditados:

"Focus: don’t try to be attractive to everyone.
Eliminate all things superfluous for your chosen customer base.
Replace them with new offerings found by analogy."

Conselhos retirados de "Three Steps to Find a New Way to Compete"

Mais um tijolo para o edifício de Mongo

Imaginem isto em Mongo, um mundo gigantes-unfriendly, um mundo de makers, um mundo de DIY, o mundo da democratização da produção.

"Are you more likely to buy a T-shirt or a box of cereal from a big company if you know it was designed by a fellow customer? You might be, according to new research. And marketers should take note. [Moi ici: Só os marketers? E os gigantes?]
...
Emerging research suggests that they’re right to do so — that crowdsourcing is a power to be harnessed. Martin Schreier, the head of the Institute for Marketing Management at Vienna University of Economics and Business, found that executives rated consumer-generated baby products as more novel and useful than those developed in-house. And consumers, Schreier found, regarded companies that rely on user designs as more innovative because they had a larger, more diverse pool of designers with fewer constraints.
.
Even better, crowing about a product’s crowdsourced origins could be a marketer’s best friend. It’s the entire business model for the T-shirt seller Threadless. Jake Nickell, the company’s founder and CEO, says, “I think it’s been an ongoing trend over the last decade for consumers to want to know more about the things they buy.”
...
Follow-up experiments revealed that people believe their peers understand their needs better and, therefore, come up with better solutions. In an online survey, subjects were asked to compare two identical products — one described as a user-generated idea, the other a company idea. Consumers generally preferred user-generated, they said, because they felt that it was higher in quality, adding, “I can trust the voice of the customer more.”

Trechos retirados de "I’ll have what you’re inventing"

Apontamentos sobre os riscos na ISO 9001:2015

Cada vez mais dou comigo a cimentar uma percepção sobre como trabalhar os riscos e oportunidades à luz da ISO 9001:2015 que pode fazer mais sentido, que pode ser mais eficaz.

Começamos pela realidade actual que gera os resultados actuais do sistema de gestão (SG).

Recordo a beleza e simplicidade da definição de SG que a ISO 9000:2000 incluía:

"Sistema para o estabelecimento da política e dos objectivos e para a concretização desses objectivos"

Assim, à luz de uma orientação estratégia há que desdobrar a política em objectivos para o SG. Esses objectivos não podem ser estabelecidos no vácuo, têm de ter em conta o contexto externo da organização, a sua realidade interna e o que as partes interessadas relevantes procuram e valorizam.

O SG de hoje, composto pelos processos de hoje (abordagem por processos), gera os resultados de hoje. O desempenho futuro desejado terá de ser obra de um outro SG diferente do de hoje, o SG do futuro desejado. Por isso, a organização tem de desenvolver um conjunto de iniciativas capazes de transformar a organização de hoje na organização do futuro desejado.

O contexto externo, a realidade interna da organização, e e o que as partes interessadas relevantes procuram e valorizam, permite determinar um conjunto de riscos que podem prejudicar a capacidade da empresa atingir os seus objectivos de desempenho e, permite determinar um conjunto de oportunidades que podem potencial/beneficiar a capacidade da empresa atingir os seus objectivos de desempenho. Há que avaliar esses riscos e oportunidades e, considerando os prioritários, prever o desenvolvimento de acções para minimizar os riscos e aproveitar as oportunidades. Essas acções farão parte das acções a desenvolver para atingir os objectivos do SG do futuro desejado.

Na verdade nunca seremos capazes de criar o SG do futuro desejado, apenas o SG do futuro real. O que a revisão do sistema faz é avaliar até que ponto a diferença entre o futuro real e o futuro desejado é aceitável ou não, para avaliar a eficácia e adequação do SG.

Assim, as cláusulas 4.1 e 4.2 da ISO 9001:2015 apontam para um momento anterior à definição dos objectivos alinhados com a política, influenciando-o. Enquanto que a cláusula 6.1 da ISO 9001:2015 aponta para um momento posterior à definição dos objectivos, o que pode contrariar/beneficiar o seu cumprimento:

Comentários? Sugestões? Críticas?

"Ecosystem Roles"

"Ecosystem Roles
1. Participants
Ecosystem participants are involved in the key activities: they provide value on one hand (producers) and consume value on the other (consumers). Sometimes, the same participant behaves as a producer or consumer in different moments of interaction: these are roles that one participant can play. Participants can be of different kinds: individuals, organizations, teams…
Most often, beyond the value traded, new value is created in the interaction: as simple as that.
...
2. (Platform) Shapers  [Moi ici: É preciso ter locus de controlo no interior]
Shapers normally provide value to the ecosystem in two different ways: design, execute and evolve contexts for interaction [Moi ici: "relationships are not zero sum games"] (infrastructures, channels), and actively provide services to generate liminal learning and continuous staged improvement.
...
4. (Platform) Stakeholders
External Stakeholders are normally those players that — even if not directly interacting in ecosystem relationships — are interested or impacted by the positive or negative externalities deriving from the ecosystem actualization through the platform.
...
Despite one cannot actually own ecosystems, some entity can certainly own/control a platform strategy, as the latter is made of technology, data and information, narrative, human activities and more."

Trechos retirados de "The Future of Ecosystemic Design"

"you will have to eternally sacrifice the present for the future"

"We eternally inhabit order, surrounded by chaos. We eternally occupy known territory, surrounded by the unknown.
...
Chaos and order are fundamental elements because every lived situation (even every conceivable lived situation) is made up of both. No matter where we are, there are some things we can identify, make use of, and predict, and some things we neither know nor understand.
...
Living things are always to be found in places they can master, surrounded by things and situations that make them vulnerable. Order is not enough. You can’t just be stable, and secure, and unchanging, because there are still vital and important new things to be learned. Nonetheless, chaos can be too much. You can’t long tolerate being swamped and overwhelmed beyond your capacity to cope while you are learning what you still need to know. Thus, you need to place one foot in what you have mastered and understood and the other in what you are currently exploring and mastering. Then you have positioned yourself where the terror of existence is under control and you are secure, but where you are also alert and engaged.
...
The outside, chaos, always sneaks into the inside, because nothing can be completely walled off from the rest of reality.
...
those who see into the future can also eternally see trouble coming, and must then prepare for all contingencies and possibilities. To do that, you will have to eternally sacrifice the present for the future. You must put aside pleasure for security. In short: you will have to work. And it’s going to be difficult. I hope you’re fond of thorns and thistles, because you’re going to grow a lot of them.”

Trechos retirados de "12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos" de Jordan Peterson.

Escrever uma estratégia

"let’s define strategy, because strategy means different things to different people. My preferred strategy definition is the one I learned personally from Roger Martin, as contained in his book, Playing To Win:
.
“Strategy is an integrated cascade of choices that uniquely positions a player in its market to create sustainable advantage and superior value relative to the competition.”
.
The “integrated cascade of choices” centers on five key questions, the answers to which provide the very focus Johan Ozo advised:
.
What is our winning aspiration?
Where will we play?
How will we win?
What capabilities do we need?
What management systems must we have?
Making and acting on these choices produces winners. Why? Because clear, tough choices force your hand, confine you to a path, but free you to focus on what matters most: winning.
.
To state your strategy in a sentence, though, you really just need the first three parts: winning aspiration, where to play, and how to win. This simple madlib-type plug-n-play is basically a tailored, more specific version of this construct:
.
We want to [what to win] in [where to play] by [how to win]....
Your winning aspiration needs to spell out a clear win. It needs to be future-oriented, ambitious, specific (thus measurable), contain a competitive element,
...
Your where-to-play needs some element of segmentation. The usual suspects include industry, market, geography, customer, channel, product/service, and stage of production. The key, though, is to focus only on the spaces you can dominate. (A better question might be: where will we win?)
.
Your how-to-win needs to capture your unique value proposition and defensible advantage, which briefly outlines why you’re a better choice over rivals. The only way to win is to consistently offer a better value equation than other alternatives, even if that value equation is a matter of perception."

Trechos retirados de "State Your Strategy in a Sentence"

Pontos de alavancagem

"Folks who do systems analysis have a great belief in “leverage points.” These are places within a complex system (a corporation, an economy, a living body, a city, an ecosystem) where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything.
...
The systems analysis community has a lot of lore about leverage points. Those of us who were trained by the great Jay Forrester at MIT have all absorbed one of his favorite stories. “People know intuitively where leverage points are,” he says. “Time after time I’ve done an analysis of a company, and I’ve figured out a leverage point — in inventory policy, maybe, or in the relationship between sales force and productive force, or in personnel policy. Then I’ve gone to the company and discovered that there’s already a lot of attention to that point. Everyone is trying very hard to push it IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!”
...
Leverage points are not intuitive. Or if they are, we intuitively use them backward, systematically worsening whatever problems we are trying to solve.
...
PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM
(in increasing order of effectiveness)
.
12. Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards).
11. The sizes of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows.
10. The structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport networks, population age structures).
9. The lengths of delays, relative to the rate of system change.
8. The strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the impacts they are trying to correct against.
7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops.
6. The structure of information flows (who does and does not have access to information).
5. The rules of the system (such as incentives, punishments, constraints).
4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure.
3. The goals of the system.
2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises.
1. The power to transcend paradigms."

Pensamento sistémico, algo que os amadores jogadores de bilhar ignoram.

Trechos retirados de "Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System"

Mongo em toda a sua extensão

Este texto, "DIY Powerwall Builders Are Using Recycled Laptop Batteries to Power Their Homes", é um festival acerca de Mongo, do poder, da flexibilidade, da criatividade, do engenho dos makers. Nem a Tesla escapa. 

Recordar este convite à reflexão.

Não morro de amores por Ferraz da Costa, mas ...

Quem segue este blogue há algum tempo sabe que não morro de amores por Ferraz da Costa. Por exemplo:

• Aprenda a duvidar dos media (parte VIII) (Fevereiro 2016)
• Pregar o Evangelho do Valor a pagãos...ou O jogo do gato e do rato (parte IX)  (Novembro 2011)
• Produtividade (parte IV - ainda nos preliminares) (Abril 2009)
• Combates laterais, combates secundários (Agosto 2008)

Ferraz da Costa tem uma experiência empresarial baseada numa estratégia, a do preço mais baixo, que não é viável para a PME-tipo que pretende exportar. Tem também um problema de falta de criatividade, pensa como a Sandy. Por isso, especulo, tem um problema com as empresas que vão ganhar Mongo, as criativas, flexíveis e pequenas, tipo célula da Al Qaeda.

Nesta entrevista "As pessoas não querem trabalhar, as empresas não conseguem contratar" comete um erro habitual nele (às vezes julgo que é deliberado), usa uma linguagem violenta e, por isso, parte do conteúdo com valor perde-se no ruído da polémica.

Considerando o muito que me separa de Ferraz da Costa sinto que ele aflora algo que vai ser cada vez menos sorrateiro:

• a falta de mão de obra (demografia oblige)
• a incapacidade das chefias intermédias motivarem os trabalhadores mais novos

Cada vez mais encontro empresários a dar conta do dilema de terem chefias intermédias que só sabem comandar pela força, pelo posto, pelo poder e isso não funciona com a geração mais nova. O que vão fazer com essas chefias?

Cada vez mais encontro empresários a dar conta do dinheiro não chegar para motivar as gerações mais novas.

Acrescento ainda, os políticos de todas as cores falam da formação de caneta e papel como o futuro, mas a economia está a precisar é de outro tipo de trabalhador. É a vida!

Acrescento mais ainda, a indústria tem de aprender a investir na atracção das pessoas mudando o discurso, falando das possibilidades e reconhecendo o lado negro do discurso de mendigar apoios e subsídios.

BTW, gostava de ver uma investigação sobre o Forum para a Competitividade. Quem o financia? Como é possível que uma economia dinâmica tenha um dinossauro à frente de uma organização como esta.

Drama e atenção

"The brilliant thing Pilpel has done here is to understand the power of a little drama: to take a banal and clichéd loyalty mechanism and turn it into something I not only find appealing, but am actually sitting here and writing about for several thousand complete strangers. We live in a world of continuous partial attention. What were we all doing in the line while we were waiting for our turn at the counter? Looking at our phones. How much collateral did we look at while we were waiting? Zero. If they wanted us to notice anything about them, they needed to be a little dramatic.
...
We think of drama as a creative act, and historically perhaps it has been. But in the attention economy, a world of three screens and continuous partial attention, using drama well has now become a key strategic discipline: an experiential moment that makes us engage, even if we’re not looking, and focus on a key attribute that the brand wants us to notice about them.
...
It pays to be dramatic, it seems.
.
Strategically dramatic, of course."

Para considerar...

Trechos retirados de "A splash of drama"