Stan Litow, Director, IBM Corporate Service Corps

Warren Buffett surprised pundits when he revealed last month that Berkshire Hathaway had acquired a $10bn, 5.5% stake in IBM. “They have laid out a road map and I should have paid more attention to it five years ago… They’ve done an incredible job,” Buffett said during an appearance on CNBC’s Squawk Box.

Many of the dimensions of this incredible job – transition to service orientation and renewal of company culture, initiated by Lou Gerstner and advanced by just-retired CEO Sam Palmisano – have been well chewed over.

But one subtle and no less important part of Palmisano’s legacy has yet to play out. This is the renewal in leadership development itself at IBM, specifically via the IBM Corporate Service Corps (CSC).

Once upon a not very long time ago, IBM, like other classic Western multinationals, structured executives into the field for ex-pat experience in the form of long-term postings: a 1-3 year tour of duty in some far-flung office before recall to the mother ship.

The CSC format, since 2008, forms teams of 6-10 young executives from IBM offices around the world and sends them to emerging market locations where they work intensively for a single month on a high-profile local assignment.

“It’s not a business trip” says CSC Director Stan Litow. “They rent a house, live together, focus 24/7 on the problem. They make an impact. They learn to deliver value on the ground as a team in a global situation.”

CSC programs have run in more than 25 emerging market countries, from BRICS goliaths to African minnows such as Kenya and Tanzania. In Kenya, for example, CSC provided advice on implementing a “Digital Village”; modernized the postal service; and establish a framework for e-government and electronic voting.  In Tanzania, CSC helped develop an eco-tourism industry, and has put cutting edge technology into local universities.

About 200-500 IBM employees and executives are in the program at any one time. Teams are composed to represent all major skills in the company: information technology, marketing, consulting, finance. They spend about 2½ months in prep time, and the same afterwards in various forms of debriefing and handover to a new team.

Having this many people on a 6-month ‘sabbatical’ while delivering free consulting expertise and project implementation worth an average $250-400,000 per project, means IBM is footing a big upfront bill. But, aside from the venerable calling of doing good things with technology in the developing world, Litow maintains the costs are handsomely offset by benefits to IBM.

Cost-Benefit

First, the company builds relationships and goodwill on the ground, and so gains a foothold in growth markets, which becomes a platform for follow-on work. Around 30% of IBM revenue is international, a percentage expected to grow rapidly.

Second, program staffers – future IBM leaders – get skills enhanced and perspectives built, in globally sourced teams, via practical immersion, which all closely duplicates the demands of expected future paid assignments. Since inception, 1,400 executives and staff have been through the program; a reservoir of talent that has “been there.”

Third, the program attracts and rewards aspiring talent. IBM gets 8-10,000 internal applications for the few hundred spots on offer, evidence that CSC is popular and relevant in-company. According to Litow, CSC opportunities help retain executive staff and attract new talent to the company.

The positive cost-benefit of the program for IBM is perhaps most proved in requests from a half-dozen other companies – including FedEx, Deere, Dow Corning, Novartis, PepsiCo, and Best Buy – for help in putting together similar programs, or to piggy back on IBM’s program.

In mid-2011, IBM announced a partnership with USAID’s Center of Excellence for International Corporate Volunteerism to provide resources for companies that are interested in pursuing strategies based on IBM’s model.

Jeff Bezos

When I was at INSEAD for my MBA, I noticed it was fashionable for young men on the move in their careers to wear genuinely expensive watches. We’re talking $5,000 a pop and more (and no doubt they would upgrade in time.)

Me, I’d rather invest in my wine cellar: each to his own. The point is, it’s nothing new for rich men to spend handsomely on their timepiece. And nothing new for even richer men to lavish a fortune on signature and-or vanity projects.

So it’s all to type that Amazon founder and CEO billionare,Jeff Bezos, is spending $42m on his timepiece. The clock the size of a building, which will still take a number of years to complete, is being constructed deep in the Sierra Diablo Mountain Range, Texas. It is designed to run for 10,000 years.

On the clock’s web site Bezos says: “It’s a special clock, designed to be a symbol, an icon for long-term thinking… As I see it, humans are now technologically advanced enough that we can create not only extraordinary wonders but also civilization-scale problems. We’re likely to need more long-term thinking.”

This is partly the standard, “world-going-to-hell-in-a-handcart unless we wake up and change our lifestyle” plea for a long-term, sustainable, perspective.

But, in fact, the general thrust of communications around the 10K Clock is refreshingly low on planetary doom. Long Now Foundation founder member Steward Brand says of the clock: “Ideally it would do for thinking about time what the photographs of Earth from space have done for thinking about the environment.”

Builders in clock tunnel. Image: http://www.10000yearclock.net/

So the clock is in fact about exactly what it says on the tin: just a symbol of long-term thinking, a monument to the value of a long-term perspective.

And while 10,000 years is no business horizon, it’s possible to interpret the clock as symbol not just socially, but also in terms of dollars and cents. In a short-term world, where most businesses are rated by the quarterly numbers, it is a living monument to making scaled-up and lasting investments, and not pulling the plug too soon.

Who better than Bezos to put up this monument? In his first report to Amazon.com shareholders in 1997 he said: “because of our emphasis on the long term, we may make decisions and weigh trade-offs differently than some companies.”

The company was founded in 1994, listed in 1997, and but didn’t post profit until 2001. But by the time it did, it was far bigger and more influential than imagined. It was on the road to becoming what it is today: the world’s biggest online retailer, period. Reflecting a final coming of age after 15 years, the share price (AMZN) has doubled and doubled again in the last two years.

Arguably Bezos’ true leadership genius at Amazon in the early days was not just seeing the long-term and scalable possibility (beyond book retailing) but also being able tactically to hold the short-termers at bay for long enough to do the building required.

As a business culture, we’re locked into annual reports and rapid product life cycles. We’re quick to say “fail-fast” and pull the plug on a fledgling project that’s in the red. Or we make a return, so good, let’s cash it in and do something else.

But Bezos was able to see and to say that a critical component of business leadership success is looking beyond your own or your competitors’ time horizons and scale horizons.

The leadership message in the clock is “Don’t think small. Forget short-term wins. Look beyond your time horizon. Give weight to the long-term possibilities. Build for tomorrow and allow the full potential of a project to evolve.”

Fukushima plant, Japan. Picture: digitalglobe.com

At the time of writing, Japan is battling a nuclear meltdown and radiation emergency, and Fukushima could become a word suddenly the whole world knows, like Chernobyl.

Bloomberg News has called the whole tsunami crisis Naoto Kan’s “Katrina moment,” and one can only hope and pray for all concerned that the Japanese prime minister is a more competent leader than Bush was at this moment of human catastrophe.

As to the nuclear meltdown: If ever we have been warned about anything in the future, we have been warned about nuclear plant catastrophes. Not only have there been, as it were, verbal warnings going all the way back to the 1950s, but real-world events such as Three-Mile-Island and Chernobyl have fully fleshed out the scenario of nuclear reactor failure or near failure in populated areas.

If nuclear-generated electricity makes sense anywhere, it makes sense in Japan, which famously has no coal or gas reserves. But these are nuclear plants … built right on the Pacific Ring of Fire? Japan is a small island with 125 million people densely packed into urban areas. As we face the possibility of this many people put at risk, however the next few days play out it’s clear the risk and reward of nuclear energy here is out of alignment.

This is hardly news. The question is, why are the plants are there? And the answer is not a simple one of collusion or corruption of government, or shenanigans of power companies, although there may be some of that. It comes down to a misapprehension of probability and risk among leaders and decision-makers such that it appears that risk and reward are in balance, when in fact they are not.

Year 869AD

To think about this, consider yesterday’s BBC Story: Japan tsunami ‘could be 1,000-year event,” saying last week’s tidal wave was equivalent to a giant wave that hit the Sendai coast in 869AD. The report says: ”It is not unusual for undersea earthquakes to generate tsunamis in this part of Japan. Offshore quakes in the 19th and 20th centuries also caused large walls of water to hit this area of coastline. But previous research by a Japanese team shows that (only) in the 869 ‘Jogan’ disaster, tsunami waters moved some 4km inland, causing widespread flooding.”

The point is, tsunamis are common, but “the big one” is a one-in-thousand year event — an extremely low probability outcome.

Here I’m strongly reminded of the days following the depth of the Credit Crunch, Bear Stearns’ collapse, and general world financial system meltdown of 2008. If bankers said one thing sensible through the whole period it was: “this was a one-in-ten-(hundred, etc.)-thousand probability outcome, and extreme ‘outlier’ event!”

A low-probability event means we can relax, right? Wrong. The problem is probability says zilch about impact. “Wild Cards,” or now more famously in Nassim Taleb’s terms, “Black Swan” events are low probability but of game-changing impact.

Taleb’s point, made repeatedly across his various books and articles, is that standard probability theory and Gaussian statistics lull analysts into thinking that because an event is low probability – an outlier in a normal bell-curve distribution – it is of low or lower consequence.

Ignoring the tail of the Bell Curve is okay if events are genuinely assessed as low impact. If they are high-impact aka “fat-tailed” events, they are the most important events we face in the future, in building or maintaining any system or organization.

A probabilistic framework misleads decision-makers because it degrades their attention to crucial events (by tagging them low-probability,) which means next thing they are betting banks on mortgage-backed securities, or building nuclear plants on earthquake fault lines.

In the pivotal moment of the movie “Remains of the Day,” US Congressman Trent Lewis (Christopher Reeve) in England in 1936 declares to the “gentleman-amateurs” around him who are blunderingly cosy-ing up to the Nazis: “leave politics to the professionals.”

It’s an expression of the 20th century zeitgeist shift to professionalization of not only politics, but all significant decision-making and management. Business certainly led the way through the century with the rapid rise of managers as a distinct class of professional, expecting the commensurate erosion of family-run firms of any real size and clout.

The problem with family firms are legion: under-qualified if not downright incompetent heirs thrust into positions they can’t cope with or don’t want, family wrangles, inheritance disputes, relative non-accountability of management leading to quixotic decision-making, secrecy mitigating against access to capital and therefore growth, and so on.

So the wisdom became that the family-firm management was appropriate in start-up mode, and then as companies scaled up and moved to external funding and responsibility to multiple stakeholders, professional management should take over for the good of everyone.

Generations

Or so we thought. There is a long-running counter-argument that family firms do many things better, even at scale. Key decisions are made with the fearless straight-talk that is often required, and without bureaucracy up and down the chain. Families may have their politics, but they don’t have the chronic office politics nor resume-polishing that besets so much of corporate life, wasting countless person-hours.

Furthermore, industry and business wisdom that is built up over generations stays in the firm rather than getting washed down the river every time the executive door revolves. The bottom line: family firms remain a more-than-viable model very much alive and kicking all across the world.

These are background issues to Randel Carlock (INSEAD) and John Ward’s (Kellogg) new book “When Family Businesses are Best,” (Palgrave, 2010) which is broadly about navigating a family firm in the changing, globalizing world.

What got my attention particularly is the authors’ contention that family firms are better at developing, retaining, and working to a long-term management perspective. That is, the family is an inherently long-term institution, and well-run family enterprises are run in such a way as to endure for the future for the family – and this is an advantage in navigating and surviving a changing world.

The term the authors’ use is for this kind of management is “stewardship.”

The root problem of most professionally managed businesses is they are run without stewardship  – without concern for long-term well-being of the firm or its stakeholders. If we needed reminding, the banking crisis was the product of management that couldn’t be further from stewardship – taking absurd risks with other people’s money for short-term personal wins.

Banks have become the poster child for the follies of short-termism, but the reality is short-termism remains endemic across professional management, both in business and politics. Long after “après moi le déluge” CEOs have taken their packages and are on the golf course, others – employees, taxpayers, the environment, etc. – are paying the price.

What’s measured

At least, post-crunch, it is now incontrovertible that short-termism is an extremely poor strategy for managing a complex and uncertain future. “What gets measured gets managed,” and when what is measured is only the next quarter’s profit figures, bigger failure looms.

The family-run businesses offers a model of long-term management. It is a conservative non- “bet-the farm” model to be sure, but perhaps the path a real steward of value genuinely operating in the best interest of valued stakeholders would follow.

So how might one, without the real flesh-and-blood bond of family ties, get senior executives to think through the effect of their behavior on employees or stakeholders 10- or 20 years in the future, as the head of a family would? Surely only by creating incentive structures that mimic family stewardship – incentives that mean that leaders can’t walk away smiling until the organization (or the value it represents) has been safely passed on to the next generation.

Controversy has resulted from lack of transparency in the tests, leading to speculation that they are designed to have most banks “pass” in order to boost confidence — as clear an example of mixing up judgment and advocacy as one is likely to get.

The key measure for determining which of the 91 banks fail the test — and need to raise capital — is whether their Tier 1 capital ratio would fall below 6% under the “loss assumptions” imposed by the test. This is the same level that was required in the stress tests of U.S. banks in its similar May 2010 test.

Model worlds

Anyhow, what is particularly interesting to this author is that the concept “scenario planning” has not been used through the bank test process, but these tests are fundamentally future scenarios, this is what scenarios are all about: creating model future worlds that express the evolution of important uncertainties towards somewhere at the limits (but not beyond) of plausibility, with the specific intent to use these worlds to stress test current decisions as to what a company is and does — from its business model to its resource base to product line to marketing, and so on.

If the organization’s key decisions would hold up (produce profitability or however success is defined) in different, alternative tests, this tells managers theirs are probably good decisions for the future. If they would flop in any test, this points to what needs to be urgently addressed. In this way an organization explores and becomes robust to its unknowable and unpredictable future.

Notably, it is precisely the stress-test purpose of scenarios that stops this foresight technique becoming (as it does all-too-often in the wrong hands) a “wishing well” for better times. When scenarios cease to be direct stress tests of present decisions, they become floaty indeed.

Full scenarios

Having said all this, the difference between the US and European banking stress tests and full scenario work is the bank tests are considering only economic factors, only adverse (risk) conditions, and only “known unknowns.” Full scenarios would include the full range of important drivers of change — and potential surprises — outside of economics or finance in their construction. In operating as stress tests, they would look at threats to the status quo as the bank tests do, but also provide a testbed for exploring opportunities in change.

Imagine driving down a country road when a street dog starts chasing your car. The dog attacks the car, but by the time it gets close, the car has moved ahead, so the dog changes direction and attacks the new coordinates. This goes on as the dog adapts, but it never quite catches up, and once it is following behind it is obviously too slow to catch up. Had it thought ahead and run straight it would have had its day with the tires.

The resulting curve looks something like this:

.
In mathematics, this is known as the ‘curve of pursuit. The dog is attacking the problem as it sees it right now, but by the time it reaches it, the problem has moved on a few steps. A ‘problem-solving’ approach like this is going to prolong the time it takes to get to key decisions, and give the initiative to competitors. The better approach in managing moving situations — and all situations are moving — is to anticipate and tackle tomorrow’s position today.

Obviously the devil is in the quality of the anticipation, but for that there is Future Savvy and other key resources that exist for determining quality in foresight work. Industry foresight can never be done perfectly, but it can be done well enough to avoid the “dog chase” future-management style that characterizes much of industry leadership.

Front page 'Competing for the Future' Hamel & Prahalad, HBR 1994

.
As many have commented, Prahalad made great strides in getting business to see the potential in emerging markets and ‘poor’ consumers, in The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid and allied work.

In our rush for the new and latest, early work often gets buried. So I would like, as my take on the passing of Prahalad, to go back to his fundamental testimony to the role of and need for foresight in management, which is to be found in his co-authored piece (with Gary Hamel) ‘Competing for the Future,’ Harvard Business Review, 1994, which became a very famous book of the same name. Sixteen years on and now in the wake of the credit crunch, this piece remains as relevant as it ever was:

“Ask yourself: Do senior managers in my company have a clear and shared understanding of how the industry may be different ten years from now? Is my company’ point of view about the future unique among competitors?

“On average managers devote less than 3% of their time building a corporate perspective on the future.

“The painful upheavals in so many companies in recent years reflect the failure of one-time industry leaders to keep up with the accelerating pace of industry change… Those companies were run by managers, not leaders, by maintenance engineers, not architects.

“If the future is not occupying senior managers, what is? Restructuring and reegineering. While both are legitimate and important tasks, they have more to do with shoring up today’s business than with building tomorrow’s industries. Any company that is a bystander on the road to the future will watch its structure, values, and skills become progressively less attuned to industry realities.

(therefore) “Most layoffs at large US companies have been the fault of managers who fell asleep at the wheel and missed the turnoff for the future.

“If senior executives don’t have reasonably detailed answers to the ‘future’ questions, and if the answers they have are not significantly different of the ‘today’ answers, there is little chance that their companies will remain market leaders.

“The Quest for Foresight: Why do we talk of foresight rather than vision? Vision connotes a dream or an apparition, and there is more to industry foresight than a blinding flash of insight. Industry foresight is based on deep insights into trends in technology, demographics, regulations, and lifestyles, which can be harnessed to rewrite industry rules and create new competitive space.”

Footnote: this from the FT: The last time CK spoke to the FT he was buzzing with intellectual energy. “Really, in all my career I have been interested in ‘next practices’, and not merely ‘best practices’,” he said.

Reading analysis by John Tamny in Forbes, I lighted on the following paragraph — as perfect an encapsulation of why looking to the future in timely and in a high-quality way is essential, and how quality horizon scanning is integral to it:

“As often happens as companies grow, Blockbuster concentrated on perfecting its existing service while beating competitors offering the same instead of looking into ways that outsiders might destroy its business model altogether… For Blockbuster, the “disrupter” in question was Netflix. Indeed, popular as the Blockbuster brand was, getting to the video store in order to take advantage of its services was a hassle for customers–as was returning videos on time to avoid paying late fees. The rise of Netflix from well outside the traditional retail space meant these problems were solved in one fell swoop.” (my italics)

Change that matters, that is, relatively sudden and acutely disruptive to incumbent business-model success, always comes from outside an industry. Britannica wasn’t beaten by another encyclopedia. Eastman Kodak was beaten by digital photo startups, not by Fuji. And so on, and so on, through industry failure, whether it leads merely to value hemorrhage or all the way to Chapter 11.

Looking vs seeing

Sure there are companies that lose because they are simply outcompeted, that is, are less capable than the competition in doing the same thing. Hertz is currently in this category. But when a clear market leader, with brand and capital and customers galore comes totally unstuck, it is always new technology and/or new business model coming from the outside that has done it. In these cases, as with Blockbuster, companies fall to industry entrants that change ways of doing things, solving pain or trade-offs that buyers suffer, or otherwise provide consumers with more value.

These are always, theoretically, innovations incumbents could have done themselves if they were ready to think ahead (and brave enough, when required, to cannabalize existing products that stood in the way of important future steps) and therein lies a conundrum about looking at new, external competitors. It’s seldom that the incumbent can’t see the intruder, that is, is not looking. Often they are looking intensively. It is that they don’t see the absolute disruption in the new until it is too late. It is a problem of perception. This is why industry horizon scanning is a little about the easy task of looking, and a lot about the much harder job of seeing. And why putting one’s corporate head down and making an existing product or service ‘more perfect’ is part of not seeing.

* Interestingly, the Blockbuster demise was called exactly right in November 2007 by Don Reisinger on CNET.

Charles Munger

First, let me say, what I like about investors (and managers and entrepreneurs) with long-term track records of success, is it means — it must mean, by definition — they have a high quality view of the future. Not only a high-quality view, but a high quality view that renews itself. There is no doubt that Berkshire Hathaway has consistently over time had a better view of the future than most expert forecasters, policy pundits, and futurists. The record is clear.

Anyway, Munger this week offers a parable about Basicland, a C18 Pacific island colonized by Europeans where: “Property rights were greatly respected and strongly enforced. The banking system was simple… Almost no debt was used to purchase or carry securities or other investments, including real estate and tangible personal property…  Speculation in Basicland’s security and commodity markets was always rigorously discouraged and remained small…

“(But) as their affluence and leisure time grew, Basicland’s citizens more and more whiled away their time in the excitement of casino gambling… Many of the gamblers were highly talented engineers attracted partly by casino poker but mostly by bets available in the bucket shop systems, with the bets now called “financial derivatives.”

And so it goes on, telling the history of America and the route to the Credit Crunch, and potential for new misery going forward, via this parable. He uses the parable as parables have always been used, to say something in ‘make-believe-land’ that cannot be said (or will not be heard) in reality. The folly of Basicland’s citizens and government is much easier to acknowledge than our own. Scenarios of the future are similar in function, similarly allowing mental and institutional ‘permission’ to think the unthinkable and ‘say the unsayable.

The worst investor in America

Munger wouldn’t be the first to say: “Change yer ways or ye be doomed.” Isaiah and many before and since have said that. Nor would he be the first old white guy to espouse traditional ways of doing things. We factor that in. But he does look to basics and basics are important in having a high-quality view of the future. They signal the limits of the excess and reversion-to-the-mean imperatives.

I remember in the 1990s, when I was living in Washington DC, and Warren Buffet was “the worst investor in America” for missing out on the dot.com boom and Nasdaq bonanza. He just stuck to his guns saying, time after time, ‘there are no fundamentals behind these valuations (aka, this is just a casino) and fundamentals will prevail, which of course they did.

Now the brains at Berkshire Hathaway are saying that forums where risk, debt, currencies, etc., are up for speculation are ‘casinos,’ and their players therefore gamblers (rather than, as they would have it, ‘investors), and that they produce little fundamental value and fundamentals will prevail.

Toyota President Akio Toyoda, Feb 11, 2010. Pic: AP

Lean manufacturing creates efficiencies and shaves production costs by creating just-in-time — no inventory — systems, using common parts and designs across product lines, and generally squeezing materials, processes, and (inevitably) quality controls. This may or may not include pressing suppliers to lower prices, and therefore squeeze their own materials, processes, and quality controls. ‘Lean’ has been very much a core process and operations mantra for about two decades. To misquote a favorite saying, manufacturing companies have been adamant: ‘one can never be too rich or too lean.’

But now Toyota has had a slew of embarrassing recalls — the 2010 Highlander; 2008 – 2010 Sequoia SUVs; and 2009 – 2010 RAV4′s due to gas pedal problems. It has just recalled 437,000 Prius and other hybrid vehicles worldwide to fix brake problems. In 2009 it recalled Corolla, Camry, Vios and Yaris sedans due to faulty electric window-control systems.

The point of the WSJ piece is to implicate lean manufacturing in this. (It’s unclear whether it’s too much lean or too little quality control, but they are clearly connected.) Now, lean as an idea is not going to go away. Nobody is suddenly going to advocate ‘bloat manufacturing,’ but looking at the damage in reputation and bottom line that Toyota has soaked up, the company and others like it will obviously looking across their lines and saying to themselves ‘a bit of redundancy (fat, if you like) in the system will be cheaper than this.’ Thus the pendulum swings back from lean extreme to somewhere a bit more durable. A happy medium.

Maharaj Mac

In the other story, the Times reports how McDonalds is seeing benefits from localization of it’s menu, for example, offering the McItaly in Italy, the (non-beef) Maharaja Mac in India, the McLobster in Canada and the Ebi Filit-O (shrimp burger) in Japan. The pendulum effect here is that McDo became the mega-corporation it is based on global standardization and a ‘one-menu’ mantra from Cleveland to Taipei. It wasn’t just one menu, but each item had to be produced from the same stock, and in the same way. McDo fries were identical everywhere, that was the guarantee (and they were always called ‘fries’ no matter what locals called them.)

It is now become common cause among the global food companies (notably Starbucks and KFC) to work local options into their offering. One may think this is merely ‘think global, act local.’ The point is, it is an about-turn indeed from the ‘think American, act global’ that went before. What works best is in fact a happy medium.

What does this have to do with better future-thinking? Expect a recall sooner or later on forecasts that don’t see change resolving itself around a happy medium.

So this stimulates me to put down a few thoughts about risk assessment and its relationship with industry and strategic foresight as a whole. This is a big topic of course, but seeing as the categories are confused a lot, it’s worth tackling even if just in summary terms.

When I reach the topic of Risk Assessment in my ‘Industry Foresight and Business Future Strategy’ MBA elective, I use the ‘Adidas-Salomon: Incorporating Risk into Corporate Strategy’ mini-case [Ref: ICFAI 304-141-1; sourced via Cranfield’s Case Clearing house.]

The case is a useful baseline in risk assessment because it describes the various risks a multinational company typically faces: marketing risks (market change, brand image); operations risks (quality; reliability of processes and suppliers); social & environmental risks (workforce & natural resources compliance); legal (liability, regulation, patent); information technology (compromise or disruption); and financial risks (currency, interest rate, credit).

Business disruptors
In sum these are the things that could damage or disrupt the business. Isolating such factors, keeping vigilance over them, and having thought through or enacted counter-measures in advance, allows the organization to better control or reduce the impact should risk become reality.

All risks are future events, so a risk assessment is undoubtedly a future study, but assuming a company looks diligently across all these categories for potential and emerging hazards, how prepared is it for a changing world? What kind of industry foresight does this give managers? Is a risk assessment a futures assessment?

The obvious first answer is that a risk assessment is only half the equation. It’s oriented to the downside potential of changes not the upside; looking for threats not opportunities. Obviously that means that opportunities are less likely to be identified.

The second thing is that a standard risk assessment operates in the realm of known risks, in known categories, that may cause disruption and damage in a known way. It doesn’t have the mechanism to expand conceptions of what could go wrong, or how it could go wrong, or what the full knock-on effects will be. The types of mental-model-expanding techniques that fuller foresight offers are not built into a typical risk assessment.

Strategy questions
Third, risk assessments never really broach the question: is the business idea or business model good and will it keep on being good? That is, what products or services will be appropriate going forward, or how will models of supply or manufacture or marketing or fulfillment need to change, due to technology change or shifting consumer preferences.

In other words, risk assessment doesn’t ask strategic questions of managers. It is part of the day-to-day management vigilance necessary with reference to the future – the hygiene factors in running an organization. It is about keeping the business going as is, not about changing it for a changing word.

There’s nothing wrong with this. The point is, it’s just ‘first base’ in building a quality view of the future, and therein a robust point-of-view about what to do next. Although no doubt companies such as Google or Apple or Virgin, etc., assess and mitigate their risks, they didn’t become successful in their future by doing risk assessment and saying ‘That’s it, were done. We’re ready for the future.”

Peter Bernstein, the author of “Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk,” died recently at the age of 90. In memoriam McKinsey Quarterly reposted this recent Bernstein interview. I put it up here because it’s a timely and timeless lesson in thinking about uncertainty and threats, and avoiding simplistic (quantitative) approaches to managing them – one of core themes of “Future Savvy.” Bernstein offers and endorsement of real options and explains why sophisticated Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) mathematical models to control risk created “a math dependency” that was blind to, among other things, unexpected systemic feedback to its own emergence:

One of the first things Bernstein says is that risk implies that we don’t know what will happen, which could be good things happening too. Risk management, as it is currently understood, gets executives to look at what could go wrong in the uncertain future of the enterprise. (Somehow threats are easier than opportunties to get departmental budget for.) The standard approach is to break risks down into commonly understood threat categories: a typical analysis would illuminated risks posed by technology failure, communications failure, security failure, natural disasters, accidents, or market/reputation risk, liability risk, financial/credit risk, and so on. This negative-outcome identification is typically followed by strategies to monitor, minimize, or control the risk event or its impact.

Doing all this is great, BUT it is just a narrow part of enterprise and industry foresight. Why? First, industry foresight or futures studies for business is focused as much on the opportunities change offers as on threats. Second, foresight tools (when correctly applied) set themselves the task of enlarging perspectives or mental maps so that we can see more things, or more possibilities than the generally expected set (whether good or bad). Set against this, risk management is little more than the catalog of known threats. The unknown or poorly understood threat, or unseen opportunity missed (and grabbed by others) is likely to be more damaging to the enterprise.

They have a bit of the fashionable “SunTzu Art of War” feel to them, and some of the quotes may be apocryphal. But no matter. What’s really interesting in this very savvy list is how customer-focused the lessons are. As said in Future Savvy, and one can’t say it too many times, what customers (users, the public) want and the cost-benefit tradeoffs they will make is a MUCH more reliable guide to the future than any techno-fantasy.

The wisdoms also reflect a foresight industry insider truism and paradox: you seldom get to the future by asking the customer directly (e.g. in a focus group) what they would like to have. You have to leap for the customer (and use focus groups only to refine new offerings.)

The list:

“1. St Augustine said that it is a blessing from God that we can’t predict the future. If we predict prosperity, we will become complacent. If we predict evil, we will lose the ability to discriminate.

2 Sharp President Haruo Tsuji: ‘You cannot find out what the consumer wants only by doing market research. You need to pull the ideas out of your brain. Manufacturers of the future should not simply respond to market demands, they must create market demands.’

3. Konosuke Matsushita said: ‘Don’t try to fit your business to a forecast. Fit it to the needs of your customers.’

4. Toshiba President Sugiichio Watari: ‘Money doesn’t come falling into the headquarters of Toshiba. If you want money you need to go to the customers.’

5. President Yoshio Tateishi of Omron: ‘Learn from your customers. If you learn from internal resources you will become self-satisfied. If you learn from your competitors you will fall far behind.’

6. Professor Yoshiya Teramoto of Meiji Gakuin University: ‘When companies start a big market research project, it is one sign of the ‘big company’ disease.’

7. Tsuyoshi Kawanishi: ‘The way to predict the weather is to look at the sky. And, every once in a while, you can make your prediction by simply thinking.’

8. President Haruo Tsuji of Sharp says: ‘Don’t be a spider, be a honey bee.’

9. Takeshi Kaneda, a management critic, says: ‘After elaborate research to find out what the consumer wants, Ford produced the Edsel. It was a complete failure. Ford mistook what the customer wanted for what they would really buy. They ignored their insight and relied on consensus. Japanese tend to emphasize harmony and consensus. But insight and decisiveness can be more important.’

10. Someone says: ‘Figures do not lie. But liars often use figures.’”

Book reviews by SAMI fellows and associates
“Future Savvy” by Adam Gordon (American Management Association, 2009)

“Forecasts and predictions are ubiquitous. We are bombarded with views of the future on a plethora of subjects from myriad sources, with a diverse set of motivations and self-interests. Adam Gordon seeks to provide a practical users guide to the assessment and interpretation of all things about the future, with special emphasis on the cautions and ‘health warnings’ that need to be applied, so as not to be misled by forecasts. However, the author is careful not to veer towards over-cynical dismissal of all future projections; rather, he seeks to provide guidance to the reader on how to apply the necessary caveats, and in the author’s words “profit from change”.

The book covers a very broad field, from the basic issues of the misuse of data and statistics, covering the quality and validity of data as well as their misinterpretation, through technology forecasting, trend and horizon scanning to quantitative modelling and scenarios. The one theme common to all these activities is the need to be alert to bias, whether it be a deliberate motive to influence behaviour through a dire prediction; or a bias inherent in futurologists needing to see rapid and pervasive change in all areas of society – if it exists or not – and evangelising it.

The track record of much futurology is mixed. Well-known examples are quoted: television did not lead to the end of the cinema industry. Nor has space exploration led to people taking foreign holidays on other planets – yet! Bias may also lie in the beholder. The ‘Zeitgeist’ tendency, whereby we are all influenced by contemporary perceptions, affects not only how “experts” and professionals see the world, but also how the audience receives the views of the future – often with unprepared minds. The internal “official future” of an organisation can pose a real blind spot to its progress.

The weaknesses of much quantitative modelling are highlighted, with such forecasts only being as good as the assumptions on which they are based, but which are often not overtly stated. In contrast to the conceptual and practical errors inherent in much futures output, the role and advantages of scenario planning are emphasised as a tool for challenging assumptions and developing alternative futures: “It’s better to be vaguely right than precisely wrong”.

The penultimate chapter takes examples of relatively recent forecasts from a range of organisations, whose subjects range from US agricultural production to UK dementia sufferers. These are subjected to a form of ‘retro wind-tunnelling’ to illustrate the deficiencies in their construction and how they would have benefited from the application of methodologies described earlier in the book. The final chapter provides a summary checklist, or framework, to apply in evaluating forecasts and future predictions.

Adam Gordon has written a shrewd and perceptive book that deserves a wide readership, especially among managers in both the private and public sectors, as well as the familiar ‘general reader’. Those wishing a more detailed technical guide to the various forecasting and futurist methodologies will need to consult other standard works. Professionals in the fields of management and strategy consulting and scenario practitioners might well be familiar with many of the points made in the book. However, those with some savvy might do well to recommend the book to their clients.

Michael Owen, 20 April 2009

Says Hamel, “The experience of growing up online will profoundly shape the workplace expectations of “Generation F” – the Facebook Generation. At a minimum, they’ll expect the social environment of work to reflect the social context of the Web, rather than as is currently the case, a mid-20th-century Weberian bureaucracy.

“If your company hopes to attract the most creative and energetic members of Gen F, it will need to understand these Internet-derived expectations, and then reinvent its management practices accordingly.”

He cites 12 work-relevant “the post-bureaucratic realities” that tomorrow’s employees will use as yardsticks in determining whether your company is “with it” or “past it.” These are:

1. All ideas compete on an equal footing.
2. Contribution counts for more than credentials.
3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed.
4. Leaders serve rather than preside.
5. Tasks are chosen, not assigned.
6. Groups are self-defining and -organizing.
7. Resources get attracted, not allocated.
8. Power comes from sharing information, not hoarding it.
9. Opinions compound and decisions are peer-reviewed.
10. Users can veto most policy decisions.
11. Intrinsic rewards matter most.
12. Hackers are heroes.

One hesitates to question Hamel, whose edifice of work, bookended by Competing for the Future (1994) and The Future of Management (2007) is as eloquent and substantiated a guide for innovation and future-thinking in management as you will find.

But, what is startling, for those of us around long enough to remember the Web-excited 1990s, which includes Hamel of course, is that these 12 principles are really old stuff, the mantras of the Internet 1.0 … the needs of Gen F are apparently not different to the needs of Gen Y.

But, now it’s a dozen years later, and this future is still the future. Hmm.

New management, but not in old bottles

Actually, surely Hamel’s beef is with the Fortune 500 set particularly, because what has happened is that most small and niche companies have already embraced a big chunk of these new-management attributes. It’s specifically the Fortune 500 that lags: but then, running organizations with stakeholders and budgets resembling mid-sized countries seems to fly in the face of Gen F value set.

Looking abroad, it appears that a Chinese factory or an Indian call center are not about to convert to Gen-F values either. Command and control, and uncreative hyper-attention attention to margins — effected by the Weberian bureaucracy — is the route to profit for them. The old paradigm will rule, and rule well.

From the Future Savvy vantage point, the real future will have, broadly speaking, two types of firm, the Weberian and the Gen-F. Firms running 19th century-type businesses will run them in 19C ways. Funky firms exploiting new ideas have already changed management style significantly and will continue to do so.

Christian Blanckaert, Executive Vice President at Hermès International was quoted as saying: “We have absolutely no visibility into 2009!”

On the one hand, fair enough. This economic downturn is steeper than previous down cycles, and the basic viability of the financial sector has been tested. Access to credit is normally easier in a recession, but in this one it is not. All of which makes luxury spending harder to predict.

No doubt the most unlikely prediction of all would have been that Hermès, Burberry, LVMH, Moët Hennessy, Louis Vuitton, and PPR (Gucci , Yves Saint Laurent) have all recently reported better-than-expected results.

Nevertheless luxury industry leaders have declined to provide investors and analysts with any official outlook. What’s curious, from an industry foresight point of view, is how executives such as Blanckaert thought they really had more “visibility” into any previous year, or that they will somehow gain it again when the financial crisis is over. They will not. The world will continue to surprise them and us. What they will gain, certainly, is a greater likelihood that the standard business-as-usual future assumptions they make will not be upset by reality.

Meanwhile, judging by the conference, the luxury goods industry has a very decent grip on current social and moral trends, and clear insight into the bigger picture of change in its industry over the next five to ten years. As they know from before, what happens in a recession is that luxury goes out of fashion. Conspicuous consumption wanes, or retreats further behind secluded walls. This is a basic pendulum swing that tracks the economy (witness how the early 1990s recession stimulated a return to “values” era after the “me, me, me” 1980s.)

Sustainable luxury

So we are again in a swing to modesty. But we also know that each swing of the pendulum also carries with it the specific issues of its time. Current key issues for consumers in this segment are sustainability, global warming, business ethics, and globalization (or fear thereof).

Therefore the luxury brands will be looking for ways of making, transporting, and displaying goods in an energy-efficient and socially conscious way, including a renewed emphasis on local artisans and traditional craftsmanship that speaks sustainability in both natural and human resources. This will be the basis of the “sustainable luxury,” positioning that the famous houses will define and compete in. Fabulous and renewable  – now there’s something you can charge top dollar for.

My question, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), and the FTSE100, the DAX, the Hang Seng and so on have hit a decade lows is, what is this predicting, if anything? What is the long-term value of this prediction, and could it be used to make better decisions in the real world?
We know that the value of a common stock – a share in a company – is based ultimately on the returns (dividends) it will bring. Buyers and sellers therefore derive a daily market price based on their views of the share’s expected, that is, predicted future payback. The greater the expectation, the greater the price. A high price vis a vis earnings (P/E ratio) suggests confidence in future earnings, and vice versa.
Therefore the current steep fall in share prices is an expectation of (crowd prediction of) lower future payouts. Of course the complexity in human-prediction situations is that this basic level is also overlayed with a meta-level: people are not only trying to figure out what will happen, they are trying to figure out what others think will happen. So falling PE ratios are an expectation of what others will do (predicting they will continue to sell.)

Madness or not?
One of the perplexing things about the markets is they very often seem to react opposite to what is expected; to what would be common sense. They often fall on good news, rise on bad news, close unchanged on big news, and so on. Although there is – famously much irrational behavior and herd instinct in the market – you don’t get hundreds of thousands of decision-makers wagering significant money not using common sense.
What is going on, of course, is that the market has often already risen or fallen in prediction of the news. When a new condition – an interest rate move, for example – is imminent, the market will move to “price in” the expectation. If market participants as a whole have called the future correctly the market will not move much on announcement.

Pricing-in the future
Because of this predictive component to group decision-making in market situations, the stock market as a whole is a classic leading indicator of the real economy. When prices move they may be taken as the crowd “pricing-in” a future prediction. So markets will fall ahead of real economic problems (they may continue to fall, as now, during steep economic declines.) But they will also turn up well before any real, measurable upturn.

By the way, there is little doubt it will overshoot in this time, as it always does. This is because, as in prediction markets, the wisdom of crowds can predict the trend but not the turn. Trend extrapolation will never show you the key shifts, and this is why predicting the bottom or top of a market is so hard.

The point, for market speculators, is that long before the real gloom is over the markets will be zooming upwards. The point for the rest of us is that recession times will be with us even after the markets move up. In the long term the market will go up. Like death and taxes, it’s the surest thing there is.

The IFTF’s full map is available for download here.  Quick aside: these maps, putting complex forces into visuals, have defined IFTF’s public (and client, one presumes) communications for over five years, and have raised the bar of excellence in the foresight communications. The company has produced many such outstanding maps, some publicly available.

The new map and Sir Fred-gate are unrelated of course. But here was the connection for me: The IFTF map lists six “Key Driving Forces” (2007-2017) in the area of sustainability, and the first is:
“An Imperative for Looking Long: The 21st century will test our ability to grasp the future impacts of present choices, but even as we struggle to incorporate future knowledge into our day-to-day decisions, we’re tuning up our bodies and minds and even our cultural frameworks for a much longer view.”

My question is, “really?” Is the long view really a driver – something that will drive change and shape the future? Or do we hope it is. Are we trying to talk it into being?

No question that the long-term view is crucial. Solving just about any social, technological, or environmental problem requires sustained long-term action. And everyone who works in foresight keeps evangelizing long-termism. But, in fact, what we have in industry and government is rampant short-termism and there is no indication this will change, despite the crisis and many heartfelt calls.

Linking big to long

The problem with Sir Goodwin’s package (in career and in retirement) is that the reward numbers were based on short-term company returns. “Hey, we made lots of money this year, so you get a big bonus, and you get a big bonus,” etc. But a few years down the line  – in the long term – it turns out that no bonuses were valid (if a bonus is, truly, a reward for success).

Put it another way: in finance, as in other aspects of society, technology, and the environment, we don’t know if we’ve succeeded or failed until the long-term numbers are in. Few would have a problem with handsome rewards for a valuable job well done, but those rewards must surely be delayed, and delayed, until we are in command of the long view of the performance.

Easy in theory, hard in practice. Perhaps impossible in practice when most politicians and legislators are themselves on a short 3-7 year cycle, like CEOs. I have some inkling from the IFTF map that the thinking is that life-extending technologies will improve to the point where people will really see themselves in for the long haul, and so adopt a longer perspective on benefits and rewards.

Time on the clock

Perhaps. But, life-technologies aside, plenty of decision-makers – Goodwin included – still have a lot of time left on the clock and that doesn’t appear to stop them chasing and cashing in short-term incentives at the expense of the future. Or legislators (and the public who votes them in) structuring performance rating on our immediate perception of their performance.

What we have, and what we have increasingly had (the trend) over the past few decades, is systemic short-termism. Winning in the next annual report or the next election is what what leaders’ rewards are based on. Incentives for politicians or business leaders or even scientists or engineers to make a better world for 2025 or 2050 are negligable.

Until there is reason to anticipate that this fundamental underlying short-term incentive structure and mentality changes (that is – convince me – who will change it and how?) the future savvy perspective must say that the “long-term imperative” remains a nice sound-bite, but not a material driver of anything.

One of the conundrums of foresight work is that it demands a macro-perspective, but real change requires focus. In order to get the breadth of view across society and technology to think adequately about the future, the futures analyst is forced to forgo much of the detail, while implementers are thinking: “this 40,000 ft view is very illuminating, but how do I land the plane?” What changes do I make, in my organization, in my industry, on Monday morning, and how do I not get fired for making them?

Kleiner’s updated The Age of Heretics, (2nd edition, Jossey-Bass, 2008) is the modern history of people who find themselves – or put themselves – on the focus side of foresight: who work practically on the ground inside corporate institutions to achieve change, which means by definition challenging the methods and perspectives of their institution. It is not the story of foresight at the lofty level of ideas, but the altogether grittier and more interesting story of how macro-change consciousness meets real institutions, real organizational dynamics, real industry pressures, and real career considerations, in the history of US corporations since 1945.

Kleiner, the editor-in-chief of Booz Allen’s Strategy+Business, is no stranger to the foresight field. He is the ghost-writer behind an eye-popping portion of the futures canon, including The Art of the Long View; The Fifth Discipline, and its Fieldbook; and The Living Company, and so on, (source: http://www.well.com/~art/) so it’s no surprise that the fabric of his text is lush in its familiarity with the players and ideas in the field.

The common thread he follows – through figures like Herman Kahn, Willis Harman, Amory Lovins, Oliver Markley, and so on, is that of the heretic, the maverick against the machine. Intriguingly, along the way, Kleiner gives us a worm’s-eye view of the genesis of many new management ideas, from “lean production” to the “balanced scorecard” to “scenario planning’ – showing how they emerge from and have been engendered by the forces of institutions in productive conflict with their heretics.

The political history of truth, and its future

Philosopher Michel Foucault catapulted our understanding of institutions as a political field, using insights from the history of prisons, hospitals, and asylums to show the relationship between power and knowledge in the evolution of institutional forms. But he never dealt with the modern business corporation. It may be overstating it, but not by much, to say that Kleiner updates Foucault for corporate America. The themes he carries: the role of the deviant, transgression, the evolution of truth, and discursive struggles between insiders and outsiders, are highly resonant. In his previous book, Who Really Matters (Doubleday, 2003) Kleiner developed other parts of this same perspective: showing how every organization’s identity and choices can be understood as driven by the interests of its core group – its powerful insiders.

The Age of Heretics is an engrossing history of change-agents in companies in strategic and organizational transformation. But it’s not just a history. In the future – while the names of the players, and their issues, and the institutions themselves will change, the productive articulation between the heretic and the institution will remain the format of change in big groups. So the lessons of the book are well taken and very highly recommended.

[This review, authored by Adam Gordon, first appeared in The Association of Professional Futurist's Compass Magazine]