Catarina's World

Rushing to action can be fatal. It only takes 46 seconds for Harvard Business School professor Ranjay Gulati to tell you why:

The professor has seen firsthand what happens when professionals jump to conclusions and rush to action.

Successful leaders frequently are into diagnostic thinking i.e. when they look at a problem they don’t go straight from problem to solution.

Three steps

Astute leaders, and all human beings for that matter, ideally diagnose before deciding on a cure. That makes it three steps; problem, diagnose and then solution. Professor Gulati is right when he says that it sounds obvious. But unfortunately it’s so common to focus on swift action nowadays many people jump the gun and rapidly implement a solution, for better or for worse.

Don’t think there is anyone reading this that has never skipped the diagnostic step. It happens to all of us because we are in a hurry or pressure is put on us to come up with something asap. The current focus on short term profits makes it inevitable that we sometimes rush. Consequently solutions that that are not well thought through are implemented.

Find looking at diagnostic thinking a good complement to Do you find time for strategic thinking? It’s another way of looking at strategic thinking or a complement, if you wish. There are people out there who consider themselves strategic thinkers that always move swiftly from problem to solution, without bothering to make a diagnosis. Hopefully this will give them  food for thought?

Do you diagnose before implementing a solution? Has it happened that you swiftly implemented solution without diagnosing the problem? Would it be better if focus was on long term profits and there was time for diagnostic thinking? Or are you of the opinion that the diagnostic step only make the process take longer and should hence be avoided?

Video. HarvardBusiness – You Tube

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair was adviced by Bill Clinton to schedule time to think strategically on a regular basis. Watch this short video of him talking to Garth Saloner, Dean of Stanford Graduate School of Business, about Clinton’s advice:

What Tony Blair has to say applies to all of us, no matter what we are doing. Not least when we run our own businesses. It’s easy to devote all our time to dealing with day to day business and forget about how to reach our goals.

Have events taken over your life?

If so, you are not alone. Apparently most people in high positions spend less than 5% of their time dealing with their priorities. Above all we lose our grip on strategies when dealing with a crisis.

Did Bill Clinton give Tony Blair good advice? Do you schedule time for strategic thinking on how to succeed with your priorities? Is finding time to do so hard? Have you noticed what a difference it makes when you find time for strategic thinking? Have not done so yet, maybe it’s time you do?

Video: stanfordbusiness – You Tube

Well you can. And it’s not expensive. Watch this short video of Michael Kofsky talk to Keller Rinaudo,  CEO of Romotive about their smartphone robot:

Talk about innovation. Until now a robot would have cost you somewhere between $10-50k. But now all you need is a smartphone and $150.

Do you need a robot?

So the big question is do you need a robot? Do you need to increased automation on an assembly line, a drone, explore the site of a nuclear disaster, enter active volcanoes or perform completely sterile surgeries from a location far from the operating room? Maybe for your business but most likely not in your private life.

In your home a robot can actually do the housekeeping, clean the pool, iron your clothes, entertain your kids, massage you and bring coffee to your guests. Maybe the smartphone robot isn’t yet able to do that. But in the future we are bound to find cheap robots that can do all that an expensive robot can do today.

Do you believe the smartphone robot is a sign of the future of robotics? Would you like to have a robot? At home or at work? Do you like this kind of innovations? Could robots take over more of what human beings do today? Is this a good development? A bit of Catch 22, isn’t it?  Am all for it, but if robots, and other technologies, take over more and more tasks human beings currently do, what will be left for us to do? Imagine if robots take over what maids and cleaners do today on a world-wide scale. A huge section of humanity would be made redundant. And how would we create other jobs for them? Or maybe robots will create jobs?

Video: WSJDigitalNetworks – You Tube

No, it’s not a joke. The Economist were debating if the economy would be better off without MBAs. Have some fun and watch, or rather read, this short video on opinions voiced in their recent debate:

The video speaks for itself and looks at both sides of the coin.

Needless to say the debate took place because MBAs are blamed for calculating financial instruments that contributed to, or caused,  the financial crisis.

Bloomberg Businessweek made a survey to find out if MBAs make better CEOs. They found that roughly 40 percent of the S&P 500 chief executives have MBAs. Half of the top 10 CEOs had MBAs. In other words their findings are on par with what The Economist debate concluded about MBAs.

Do you agree with the The Economist and Bloomberg Businessweek that it’s 50-50 if an MBA makes a difference or not? Or are you of the opinion that MBAs are good for the economy? Or do they harm it? Would we have avoided the recent financial crash if MBAs had not made faulty calculations? Or would it have happened anyway? Maybe a bit later? Should companies keep a close eye on MBA students straight out of university to avoid faulty calculations? Or should they be allowed to be as innovative as possible? 

Video: EconomistMagazine – You Tube

Being a leader is different from being a manager and Jack Welch is right when he says that leaders are born and then develop by learning. IQ and energy we are born with. What we call charm and charisma is actually energy. And having that kind of energy is a crucial aspect of a natural leader that people follow without even realizing it.  So much so that natural leaders, unlike managers, don’t even need to ask people to do something, merely suggest and people follow.

Would Mandela have achieved what he did if he was just an educated, but not natural, leader?

Charming people actually make others feel satisfied with themselves. Most women fell in love with JFK and the majority of men did anything they could to make him happy. And that’s exactly what happens with natural leaders.

How do you change your energy?

Leadership also comes from education and training but the “cherry on the ice cream” that, for instance, JFK had can not be learnt. Another word for it is star quality, but you are either born with that kind of energy or you are not. And without it leadership is much more difficult.

A good example is the difference between Nelson Mandela and his successor Thabo Mbeki. The latter is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met, if not the most intelligent. But Nelson Mandela, like, for instance, Bill Clinton and JFK, fills up the room. Mbeki does not and hence failed to make the amazing connection with the South African people, and people around the world for that matter, that Mandela has.

Leaders make others feel good about themselves

Like all effective leaders, Mandela makes others feel good about themselves as well as the work they are doing. He has a vision of what he wants to achieve and can communicate it to others in ways that makes them want to be part of it.

Passion is crucial to leadership

Back in school we all had teachers that were natural leaders and passionate about what they were doing. Even without being told what to do, we loved what we were doing, learnt a lot from them and got high grades. Don’t need to mention all the terrible teachers we had that made us fall asleep and loose interest in the subject. And they were all educated and trained to teach.

Emotional intelligence makes a difference

In many companies today people who are not born leaders are in charge and it is definitely having a negative impact on their results. Managers who are also leaders use their influence to coach and mentor others to make the most of their potential. They are more likely to be strategic and integrated planners, thus spending less time putting out fires and more time streamlining and planning ahead. In general, employees are more attracted to managers with excellent leadership skills as they are more emotionally intelligent.

Why are natural leaders not better utilized?

Personally I can not understand why educated natural leaders are not better utilized in business since they would really have a tremendously positive impact on results. In some companies top management unfortunately feels threatened by natural leaders who are hence not allowed to lead. Can’t help wondering what shareholders would have to say about that if they knew? Another reason is that the first step in evaluating candidates usually is looking at their CV/resume. And there is no way of judging if a person is a natural leader or not just by looking at their CV. So by the time top management meets the candidates for a C-level position there often isn’t a natural leader amongst them.

Imagine the massive positive impact more educated leaders to whom leadership comes natural would have on companies world-wide. Results would increase significantly while at the same time making employees happier to work.

Let’s hope we will see more educated people with leadership qualities in key positions. Why this amazing resource is overlooked I can not comprehend. It is a fantastic asset that should be utilized to its full potential. Eisenhower put it very well when he said “you do not lead by hitting people over the head – that’s assault, not leadership”. And in today’s world we really should be civilized enough to move beyond that.

(Photo Flickr Pan African News Wire File Photos)

Can true democracy really be practiced in a business? Would one employee – one vote make it possible not only to run a company but also make sure it’s profitable? Definitely, if you are a small jointly owned company. But how about a huge multinational with say, 250,000 employees?

Is democratic leadership that makes everybody happy just an illusion?

Imagine if all employees had to vote before a decision was made. Everybody would be looking after number one and the company would not only be ungovernable but lose money as well.

Fair decisions based on dialogue

Different stake holders should have their say and to aim for fair and emphatic decisions based on dialogue is definitely not only possible, but already practised in a multitude of companies.

Democracy – next fad in leadership theories?

With all the current emphasis on empathy in leadership I can’t help wondering if democratic leadership will soon become fashionable? The timing is right because many employees feel they have been badly treated by management during the current economic crisis.

Leaders are solely responsible

As a leader you are responsible to the board, share holders and all employees. There are no excuses for chosing the wrong path. You, and only you, are accountable and pay the price if your decisions fail. Or as President Truman put it, the buck stops with you.

Show me a truly democratic government

In all democratic countries politicians are elected because they promise the electorate they will do X,Y and Z. However,  once in power they frequently proceed with doing something else. Sometimes because they discover that what they would like to do isn’t possible for, usually, financial or legal reasons. Isn’t democracy more of a concept than reality? How much say does the electorate really have? The fact that a lot of politicians say what the electorate wants to hear and then do something else, doesn’t help. To get votes by pretending you stand for something you don’t is not what democracy should be about. But that is what happens in most countries.

In fact I don’t believe you can find any democratically elected government in the world that hasn’t failed to deliver on quite a few of their promises. As we all know, private companies operating that way would eventually cease to exist.

Staff can’t have more influence than board and shareholders

It’s impossible to allow employees to have more impact on decision making than the owners and board of directors do.

Sometimes taking decisions can be severely difficult and you will have to defend them not only to shareholders but colleagues as well. It’s particularly hard if you don’t agree with some of the decisions implemented. But you still have to be able to handle criticism for them and make sure as many as possible understand, accept and are motivated by your decisions.

Do you believe perfect democracy exists in any company or government in the world? How much more democratic can the corporate world get without jeopardizing the businesses? Is it possible to ever satisfy all and sundry and still be profitable and grow? A bit of a Catch 22, isn’t it?

(Photo: yeowatzup – flickr)

How companies communicate with investors is changing. In this short video Elizabeth Blankespoor, assistant professor at Stanford, explains how smaller firms can benefit from using Twitter:

Got some news that the market should know about, tweet it. According to Elizabeth, it works and is actually  an effective way of reaching investors.

Twitter should be taken seriously

A  lot of new technology is being dismissed because it’s not the way it used to be done and definitely not the normal way of communicating with investors.

A study done at Stanford, however, shows that Twitter works very well indeed. The more invisible your company is to media outlets the more important Twitter is for you. So if you are a start-up or an SME that media hasn’t paid much attention to, you have a lot to gain from using Twitter.

Whether companies like it or not, new technologies are changing the way businesses communicate. And don’t forget that it’s also altering what investors expect from companies. Social media can hence not be ignored, but should be used in ways that benefit your company as much as possible.

Twitter is a great way of delivering company news directly to investors, improve market  liquidity  and enable you to compete with bigger companies with access to media outlets.

All this obviously depends on who your followers on Twitter are. You have to start by building up the right kind of followers. Then Twitter will be a great tool for reaching not only your investors but media outlets, customers and potential customers as well.

Do you use Twitter? If so, do you have followers that are of importance to your business? Are you tweeting news about your company? Have you had great response? What reaction have you had from investors? Do they like the fact that you are up to date and communicate in innovative ways?  Do you agree with Elizabeth Blankespoor that Twitter is a useful tool for reaching investors?

Video: stanfordbusiness – You Tube

In a world mired by economic problems supermodel Gisele Bündchen in cheap flip flops made a maker of low-priced sandals really take off. Devote 1 minute to watch Bloomberg TV discuss the success story:

Have actually wondered when something “cheap chic” would become a huge hit and make headlines. The timing is perfect and the concept spot on for today’s world. Let’s face it, consumer spending isn’t what it used to be. A lot of people who used to buy haute couture can no longer afford it. But they still want to look chic and wear the right things.

Price lowered and endorsed by celebrities 

So what’s better than a celebrity endorsement of an affordable product to appeal to people who can no longer have the means for say, Chanel? Add to that lowering the price even more and you have a winner.

And it worked, no other shoemaker in the world has had such a rally. Can’t help thinking of those flip flops as “equality shoes”. They make poor girls feel like supermodels and the ones that lost a lot of money feel they are still buying what’s trendy and chic. “Gisele wears them, darling”. They love being able to afford the same things  their friends who are still mega wealthy buy.

The shoemaker actually made 195 million pairs of sandals last year and the average price was $7. That really shows how concentrating on huge volumes, as opposed to high prices, can be a winner in times like these.

Grendene´shares have doubled the last year. Compare that to the average shoe company that has risen by approximately 23%.

The power of celebrities

Personally had never heard of Grendene before despite the fact that the Brazilian company was founded 1971 and today is a conglomerate with 20,000 employees.

Grendene has been using celebrities such as Claudia Schiffer and Sharon Stone to promote their products for a long time. But despite that, I have never come across the name or any of their adverts before. It’s probably not a coincidence though, since it’s in times like these that their strategy really pays off handsomely. A world mired in deep recession absolutely loves cheap chic. And having Gisele introduce her own line of Grendene plastic sandals in such times is absolutely perfect. A lot of Westerners frown on celebrity endorsements. But it has always worked and always will, especially during hard times.

Have you come across other cheap chic concepts that have become successful recently? Do you agree that looking good for less is a concept bound to become even more popular at the moment, above all in the West, where economic recovery hasn’t yet taken place? Do you think the flip flops, and Grendene, would have been such a hit if it had produced expensive shoes? Or would they have succeeded without Gisele and Shakira? Are we bound to see more cheap chic success stories coming up?

Video: Bloomberg – You Tube

Today your brand will be shared by customers making videos, starting Facebook groups and sending a multitude of tweets. Devote 3 minutes to watching Unilever SVP of Marketing Marc Mathieu talk about how the digital age has shifted marketing from creating myths to finding and sharing truth:

A marketer has to think fundamentally different in our digital world. Branding is not what it used to be, mainly because it’s not all being done by purchased advertising in traditional media. How you go about branding has to adapt to a world where consumers have a say and let the world know what they think.

What’s role does today’s marketer play in shaping a brand?

Marketing used to be about telling a myth and spreading it. Today it’s about telling the truth and sharing it, according to Marc Mathieu. Or rather finding the truth that appeals to people and make them share it. Consequently it’s crucial to build a brand that appeals to people’s values and favour the environment. They have to want to engage with it, participate in it and share it with their friends. Needless to say this fundamentally change the ways brands are built.

Marketing needs to tap into people’s imagination

Marketing needs to enable people instead of telling a finished story. We need more magic and less logic without forgetting that both aspects are important in order to appeal to both to the right and left sides of our brains. It’s also important to use marketing to help people tap into new behaviours that are good for the environment and society. By doing so marketing, like never before, has the ability to play a really positive role in society.

Bottom line – not only you are in charge of your brand

What you are now watching and reading is an example of how I am playing a part in branding Unilever, Marc Mathieu and CNN Money. If my contribution is positive or negative will make a small, but still, contribution to how those brands are perceived.

When searching for Catarina’s World and Catarina Alexon on Google, I have several times come across blog’s written by people I have never even heard about that mention my name and refer to an article I have written with a link to it. They then proceed with writing a post based on my article. So far, it’s only been positive and the same goes for the numerous tweets about me and my blog.

It’s also important to remember that everything you write on social media will brand you. So be nice, respectful and polite. Search engines record everything and forget nothing. Getting into an argument with a bully may come back to haunt you in the future.  The same applies to what your employees write on social media.

The way to try to control your brand is to stick to the truth, deliver what you promise, appeal positively to people’s imagination and treat others the way you want to be treated. If negative content about you and your product and services are being spread online it’s time to start creating positive content to push down the negative information on search engines. You can read more about that in my article What’s your online reputation worth? that outlines what you can do if someone has a go at you online.

Do you agree that branding today is fundamentally different due to all of us contributing to branding products and services? Is Marc Mathieu right when he says that it’s essential to tap into people’s values and inspire them to share brands with their friends? Can we through how we brand products and services enable people to adapt behaviours that are good for the environment and society? Have you had positive or negative experiences of how your brand has been shared online? Do you believe it’s possible to 100% control your brand in today’s world?

Video: CNNMoney – YouTube

Are there more efficient ways of getting your message across? Could you increase clarity and have more impact? Devote three minutes to watching Nancy Duarte, CEO of Silicon Valley’s largest design company Duarte, give you some suggestions:

Do you normally just put together some slides for a powerpoint presentation and are certain you will get your message across effectively? According to Nancy that usually doesn’t do the trick.

All audiences are different

What works for one group may not work for another. It’s essential to obsess about what kind of people will be listening to you and come up with stories and ways to make a heart to heart connection with them. Ask yourself what the main message you want to get across to them is. Once you know that, the content has to be built around getting that point across.

Simplify and use contrasts

What’s the order you would like your audience to process your information? How will their eyes move across it? Use contrasts, colours and shapes to come across clearly. If not, your ideas will be camouflaged and your audience will be confused.  One idea only should pop out from each slide. So make sure that idea not lost in the mire of too many messages.

Most common mistake

Using your slides as documents instead of a visual aid. If you do and turn your back to the audience they will read faster than you speak. They then start thinking they already know what you are saying.

So make sure you use the slides either as a visual aid or a document they can read from. If you use it as a document with a lot of information don’t stand up and present it. Let the audience read for themselves. Using your slides as visual aids and perform like an actor in front of your audience will however, have much more impact.

Everyone is nervous before a presentation

Even the masters of rhetoric, Cicero and Aristotle, were nervous. Cicero even wrote that if you are not, you most likely don’t master the art of rhetoric. When you speak before an audience it is, according to Cicero, important that you truly master the subject at hand and know how to perform to make the audience react. If not, how can you influence and motivate your audience?

It’s important to memorize as much as you can. Today with powerpoint giving us a helping hand that’s easier than it was for Cicero when he spoke to the senate. Despite that he was a master of getting the senators to see things his way.

Did you find Nancy Duarte’s suggestions useful? Are you nervous before giving a presentation? Do you master the art of performing like an actor and merely use slides as a visual aid? Or do you normally use slides as documents? Do you tailor-make your presentations for different audiences? Do you simplify as much as you can to make sure you get your message across? 

Video:StanfordBusinss – You Tube