Posted by Adam Gordon on Jan 16, 2012 in 2025, all, economy & finance, strategic foresight, technology change
Financial markets are delicately poised at the start of the year, to say the least. A steady low-bubbling stock rise – what the FT calls a “stealth” rally – has left the S&P 500 index at a five-month high and the Dow up 10% in 6 weeks, flying in the face of the 2012 analyst outlook which is on-the-whole bearish amid Eurozone debt and global growth concerns.
Bears are in a surprise squeeze. Not so long ago it was rebound-optimist Jon Corzine of MF Global publicly taking the hit that many others were privately taking too.
It’s certainly not news that markets don’t behave as expected, nor that emotion drives decisions, but Joan Foltz, author of Market Whipped: And Not By Choice (Alsek, 2012) suggests something further: that we are going through a basic shift in how markets work and therefore how to succeed in them.
She says the financial markets have become a MMORPG, that is, a “massive multiplayer online role-playing game.” In gamer world, a MMORPG is a vast virtual world where an effectively unlimited number of players assume characters and interact with each other in a persistent and ever-evolving “reality.”
The same computation and virtualization platform technologies that have produced game worlds also underpin financial markets, and are therefore unsurprisingly producing similar effects.
Buy a stock and you have entered a virtual arena of realms and battles, with characters taking roles in stories that play out over a known (to insiders) time period. There are masters and magicians and druids and emporers, and who knows what else, all gaming for your money. Play the game right, and you win theirs.
Says Foltz: “Keep the market in mind as you go through this list of features:
Who are the characters in the game? High-frequency traders, hedge funds, corporations, pension funds, celebrity investors, the media, the government, to name just the obvious ones.
Into this world walk investors who think the markets are what they used to be, and work how they used to work – that they are understandable through due-diligence in research, and winnable by well-considered valuations or by technical analysis. No surprise that they find themselves surprised. In gamer world, nothing is as it appears and nothing works out as expected.
Game on
Foltz’s argument is that traders of all stripes improve their results by acknowledging market MMORPG and thinking like a gamer. That is, seeking to understand where the battle is at any time; recognizing who battles whom, under what conditions, and for how long; knowing who the strongmen are in their realm and what story is playing out.
Investors should know their own token in the game, its attributes and ammunition, as well as its limitations. This will improve judgment of where to be, when to come and go (market timing), and encourage quick exits from realms that are best left to more powerful, and perhaps, darker forces.
The book itself has a chaotic, breathless, aspect, and is marred by a tendency to conspiracy theory. But it does provide a productive analogy that sheds light on unchartered territory. In other words, it does what “futurists” should do when they do their job right: identify and illuminate a change in the world, and describe why assumptions and practices that worked in the past may fail going forward.
Posted by Adam Gordon on Oct 5, 2011 in all, decision-making, history, leadership, management, sense-making, strategic foresight
“The most vital, obvious, and underestimated lesson in the 100-year history of IBM is you must keep moving to the future,” said IBM President and CEO Sam Palmisano, opening the company’s recent ‘THINK: A Forum on the Future of Leadership‘ conference at the Lincoln Center in New York.
Further gratifyingly embracing the fundamental identity between leadership and successfully navigating the future, Palmisano continued: “It is so easy to stick with things that have made you a successful company or institution – a winning product, a profitable business model … but one of the core responsibilities of leadership is to understand when it’s time to change.”
And then, applying the mantra of respectable industry foresight analysts and practitioners (there are some): “It’s also particularly important to know what not to change, what must endure. To get that balance right is really, really hard.”
The full address is on Youtube.
The THINK conference is a key plank in IBM’s ongoing centennial year observance. It brought together 700 global leaders and IBM partners and employees, shining a light on leadership as a function that demands active, high-quality forward thinking.
Among the many insight nuggets was Carmen Medina, former Director of the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence, commenting that “observing the present” is the only valid basis of future-exploration (correct); and that this sensemaking function is now being augmented by analytic and computational tools that make far better sense of all types of observed data and behavior, for example, social media behavior.
The old horizon scanning function really has become a much more complex, dynamic, and rewarding activity in the current era. Data visualization was also a key theme at the THINK exhibit.
Among the CEO delegates were Sir Howard Stringer (Sony); Jamie Dimon, (JP Morgan Chase & Co.); Jim McNerney (Boeing); Andrew Liveris (Dow Chemical); Peter Voser (Royal Dutch Shell); and Ellen Kullman, (DuPont.) Filling out Shell’s guest list were Abdullah II, King of Jordan; Felipe Calderón, President of Mexico; Laura Chinchilla-Miranda, President of Costa Rica; WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy; NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg; and media celebrities Charlie Rose and Tom Friedman. Selected video highlights are on the IMB100 site.
Posted by Adam Gordon on May 24, 2011 in 2025, all, leadership, strategic foresight
The World Bank on May 18 released a report “Multipolarity: The New Global Economy” with outlook for the geo-financial system to 2025.
“Multipolarity” catches the World Bank up with what has been clear for a long time: an actually, genuinely different global economic order is unfolding as growth moves to emerging economies, with countries such as China, India, South Korea, Russia, and Brazil accounting for the majority of economic growth in the next decade and beyond. And, on the back of this, the dollar will lose its pre-eminence as global reserve currency.
The report is nevertheless important at a meta-level. When the World Bank puts out a perspective, that means the perspective becomes more-or-less institutionalized wisdom. Global financial revolution, effectively, is no longer a theory out there. It is the “official future,” and financial and political institutions are more likely to act in line with it. Therein a reinforcing feedback loop.
Renminbi
A couple of things stand out. Report author Mansoor Dailami says the euro and renminbi will establish themselves on an equal footing to the dollar. This seems plausible, but one is left wondering – given the pace of innovation in finance, and in computing, and in communications and networking, and the 14 years to 2025 – will we still be looking at a system where national or regional currencies are “dominant?” Could the world financial system not evolve differently, for example away from a global reserve requirement altogether, or towards more multi-currency baskets? (The report does entertain the adoption of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights system.)
The foresight principle: In looking at the future it’s tempting to see new agents dominating current structures, but often the structures themselves change.
The other point that pops out is an expectation that cross-border M&A deals originating in emerging markets will be an increasing feature of the new corporate landscape.
This is as solid a prediction as one will find. But it surely will not be one way. While cash-flush emerging-market companies will look to diversify into European and American companies, or take them over entirely – particularly ones that have Asian brand recognition and prestige (remember the Japanese corporate shopping trips of 1980s) – developed-world companies will be returning the favor, buying their way into emerging market companies to get a piece of their growth.
And we’re not talking passive investment here. The action will be immersive developed-meets-emerging market M&A (and surely also corporate raiding, hostile takeovers, etc.)
M&A is “speed” for corporate leaders. A big high, often followed by acrash. But if history is any guide, the lure of buying someone else’s growth, not to mention instantly enhancing a company’s industry size-power footprint, is more intoxicating than the sirens of Odysseus, so one can confidently predict it going forward.
Which is to say the spreadsheet-anticipated wins in economies of scale, scope, market synergies, or vertical integration of M&A will be up against the problems of marrying company cultures, systems, products, brand values and business models — a vexing problem that routinely defeats even the best business leaders.
But add to this, here, very significant cross-cultural management and staff issues, problems of distance, and regulatory systems that are often purposed to different ends, and you have a leadership challenge indeed for firms that venture down this path. But venture they must, because companies in low-growth markets can only buy back their shares for so long (aka “we’ve got no ideas about what to do with investor money, so we’re giving it back to you”) — witness GE’s $12bn share buy-back announcement this week.
Posted by Adam Gordon on Mar 16, 2011 in all, decision-making, forecast filtering, leadership, management, managing uncertainty, risk management, strategic foresight
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.
read more
Posted by Adam Gordon on Mar 1, 2011 in all, decision-making, leadership, management, strategic foresight
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.
read more
Posted by Adam Gordon on Dec 1, 2010 in all, decision-making, leadership, strategic foresight
I was in Edinburgh recently to deliver a 2-day “Leading the Future” workshop as part of a leadership development program at The Edinburgh Institute of Leadership & Management Practice.
Leadership is most commonly associated with motivating staff and streamlining organizational effectiveness. While this is core, leadership implies far more. It implies foresight and vision. Leaders are not just those who are responsible for an organization’s “best manifestation today.” Whether they like it or not, they also carry the burden of responsibility for their organization’s best manifestation tomorrow.
And tomorrow, as we know, will be different in important and sometimes surprising ways.
So any leader of note is soon asked to go beyond “effective managing,” to look out at the uncertain road ahead and steer to the desired destination on behalf of followers and stakeholders. Leaders take their institutions to the future.
Therefore, as enterprises are forced to transform in response to rapid social, technological and market change, so anticipating and competitively interpreting new opportunities and setting appropriate direction under conditions of complexity and uncertainty has become a key competitive skill — perhaps the key skill — leaders bring to their position.
There are, these days, more high-quality non-predictive approaches to strategic foresight and future-management than most managers are aware of. So this is what I get to go over with an impressive array of real-world Scottish managers in workshop mode in Edinburgh over the weekend.
But will leadership itself change?
In leading the future, there is also a meta-question: will leadership itself change? Does this skill have “a future?” Will leading mean the same thing in the next generation as it has meant in the past? Or are there new skills leaders will need to acquire for the new era of business and society?
In a recent Forrester hub blog piece “Thoughts on Leadership in the Social Era,” authors Josh Bernoff and Ted Schadler bring insight from their book Empowered, and Charlene Li’s book Open Leadership in asserting what it means to lead “in a social world.” They offer this 5-point checklist:
1. Share strategy continuously, especially changes in strategy
2. Embrace half-baked ideas
3. Use councils to coordinate
4. Celebrate failure
5. Celebrate success (Full text here.)
Would he require a skills upgrade? Image via Wikipedia
To be honest, this looks a lot like the flattening and opening-up “leadership revolution” of the dot-com boom and the post-recession 90s, which leads me to think, is leadership (including the foresight injunction) perhaps a constant rather than a changing skillset? Would any leader in history, from Jefferson to Jesus, not be able to lead in today’s environment? Would George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Sir Earnest Shackleton, Mahatma Ghandi, Golda Meir, Nelson Mandela, et al would be able to lead in the 2nd decade of the 21st Century, or would they they require some kind of “skills upgrade” to be fit for the world of social media, empowered consumers, and so on?
I’m very tempted to say they would do fine. Hyper-information and social networking is just another set of challenges drawing on an age-hold leadership skill set, which includes knowing how to effectively communicate and persuade and inspire, no matter what the media conditions.
But I’m indebted to my friend and foresight-sounding-board-extraordinaire, Andrew Curry, for offering this perspective:
“I think there must be *some* changes in the demands on leadership as a result of:
- rapid feminization of the workforce
- secular shift in attitudes to authority/ trust
- emergence of ideas about complexity.”
