Category: Management

Ayn Rand

“The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it is yours. But to win it requires total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence, which is man, for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the morality of life and yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth.”

~ Ayn Rand’s last public speech (New Orleans Nov 1981)

Knowledge

Avoid processing more information than you can digest: it is better to know less and understand more.

Data is not information until it has been collected, collated and organized.

Information is not knowledge until it is absorbed and comprehended.

Knowledge is not understanding nor wisdom, until it is associated with life experience and given perspective.

bquote

Don't settle

apple

“Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle.”

~ Steve Jobs

Dirigisme

Dirigisme is an economic term designating an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence.

While the term has occasionally been applied to centrally planned economies, where the government effectively controls production and allocation of resources (in particular, to certain socialist economies where the national government owns the means of production), it originally had neither of these meanings when applied to France, and generally designates a mainly capitalist economy with strong economic participation by government. Most modern economies can be characterized as dirigisme to some degree – for instance, governmental action may be exercised through subsidizing research and developing new technologies, or through government procurement, especially military (i.e. a form of mixed economy).

John Thain

Thain behaviour
FT
Published: January 23 2009 22:03 | Last updated: January 23 2009 22:03

What is it that bankers don’t get? Unable to own up to a collective failure, some still display a sense of entitlement that bears no relation to their current status as wards of the state supported by the taxpayer. Step forward John Thain.

Formerly of Goldman Sachs, he was feted just months ago for securing the sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America, just as Lehman Brothers crumbled into dust. BofA even paid a 70 per cent premium. Some deal. Some salvation.

It now emerges that Mr Thain brought forward about $4bn in discretionary bonuses, paying them out in the narrow window after the sale of Merrill was agreed but days before the deal was actually closed.

This wheeze went down just as Merrill headed into record $21.5bn operating losses in the fourth quarter and BofA started seeking additional taxpayers’ funds from the troubled asset relief programme to digest its acquisition.

These bonuses, moreover, came in a year when Merrill’s total operating loss was $41.2bn. Bonuses equivalent to 10 per cent of the profits would be excessive, but 10 per cent of the losses? Furthermore, reports that Mr Thain spent $1.22m doing up his office, including $1,400 on a parchment rubbish bin, after his arrival at Merrill last year will serve to feed popular perceptions that the greed and insensitivity of investment bankers knows few limits.

Whether or not the bonuses were legal – and it seems they were – outside the parallel universe of investment bankers they are seen as looting. Bankers played a very big part in setting fire to the world economy – and reaped large rewards for their recklessness. They are being supported with public money because the economy cannot work without banks, not because bankers should be a protected species.

There may be no tumbrils rolling down Wall Street or through the City of London but a backlash is building. It would be a pity if this translates into regulation more stifling than that required to restrain more foolish risk-taking. But if bankers behave like this, it certainly will.

Only an A-Team will do: MM Lee

IS THERE a need for a new type of leadership to steer Singapore into the future? Or will what has worked in the past continue to work in the future?

These questions flitted through 41-year-old Jonas Ang’s mind as he sat through a dialogue at the Human Capital Summit with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew yesterday.

The human resource director decided to pose them to the man most responsible for building modern Singapore.

Mr Lee’s immediate response: ‘That’s a very pertinent and deep question which I’ve asked myself.’

He said the Singaporeans of today have higher aspirations and are better educated than in the past, but that has also led some to believe that they know better than the Cabinet ministers.

‘You can see it in the letters to the press, which isn’t a bad thing provided they understand that they may not be right, because the ministers aren’t stupid,’ he said.

Changing times notwithstanding, Singapore must continue to have an A-Team of leaders in place, he added.

He said: ‘If we field a B-Team, we are in trouble. We’ve got to have an A-Team. I don’t care whether it’s the PAP (People’s Action Party) or any other party.

‘You need first-class people with good minds, a sense of obligation to do a good job for the people and the ability to execute. That’s an A-Team.’

How is an A-Team picked? MM Lee gave a peek into the process.

First, potential leaders undergo rigorous selection tests. They are then put through at least two five-year terms before they get to higher office, he said. ‘So we know that they got what it takes.’

A type of leader that Singaporeans must guard against is the glib speaker who cannot perform.

Said MM Lee: ‘That you can talk plausibly doesn’t mean you can perform effectively. They’re two different qualities. A good politician must be able to do both.’

One reason for the stringent criteria for future Singaporean leaders is the competition the country faces from up-and-coming economies like China and India, he said.

Still, there is something very much on the side of future Singapore leaders.

This is the Singapore system, characterised by traits like the rule of law, transparency, fair play and meritocracy, he said.

India and China will take at least 20 to 50 years to catch up with Singapore in this aspect, he believes.

Canadian and Singapore PR Edouard Merette, who has lived here for 12 years, agreed with MM Lee.

The peaceful, safe and efficient environment here is one reason why his company, Aon Consulting, decided to set up its regional headquarters and a research centre here.

Said Mr Merette, Aon Consulting’s CEO for Asia-Pacific: ‘Singapore is a modern society in a Third World area. You can give compliments only to Mr Lee’s leadership.’

Randy Pausch

Randolph Frederick Pausch (October 23, 1960 – July 25, 2008) was an American professor of computer science, human-computer interaction and design at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a best-selling author who achieved worldwide fame for his “The Last Lecture” speech on September 18, 2007 at Carnegie Mellon. The lecture was conceived after, in summer 2007, Pausch had learned that his previously known pancreatic cancer was terminal.

Pausch delivered his “Last Lecture,” titled “Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams,” at CMU on September 18, 2007. This talk was modeled after an ongoing series of lectures where top academics are asked to think deeply about what matters to them, and then give a hypothetical “final talk,” i.e., “what wisdom would you try to impart to the world if you knew it was your last chance?”

Neutrality

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

~ Desmond Mpilo Tutu, Winner of the 1984 Nobel Prize in Peace

Optimism bias

Optimism bias is the demonstrated systematic tendency for people to be over-optimistic about the outcome of planned actions. People tend to see the future through “rose-colored glasses,” as the saying goes. Optimism bias applies to professionals and laypeople alike. Optimism bias arises in relation to estimates of costs and benefits and duration of tasks. It must be accounted for explicitly in appraisals, if these are to be realistic. Optimism bias typically results in cost overruns, benefit shortfalls, and delays, when plans are implemented.

In a study in search of the brain regions responsible for optimism, researchers noted that “humans expect positive events in the future even when there is no evidence to support such expectations. For example, people expect to live longer and be healthier than average, they underestimate their likelihood of getting a divorce, and overestimate their prospects for success on the job market.”

In a debate in Harvard Business Review, between Daniel Kahneman, Dan Lovallo, and Bent Flyvbjerg, Flyvbjerg (2003) – while acknowledging the existence of optimism bias – pointed out that what appears to be optimism bias may on closer examination be strategic misrepresentation. Planners may deliberately underestimate costs and overestimate benefits in order to get their projects approved, especially when projects are large and when organizational and political pressures are high. Kahneman and Lovallo (2003) maintained that optimism bias is the main problem.