Written by Paul Smalera@smalera

Funny.

Update Succeeded–What’s New in This Update

At the request of the Hong Kong Transport Department, the milk frothing function of the glovebox espresso machine has been disabled. The Hong Kong Transport Department has determined that cappuccinos and lattes have no bearing on the drivability of the car and therefore should not be offered in Tesla vehicles in Hong Kong. Tesla Motors regrets that Hong Kong customers will now only be able to consume espressos and Americanos in their Teslas–unlike customers in the rest of the world, where this feature will remain available.

Also at the request of the Hong Kong Transport Department, Tesla cars will automatically skip any musical tracks performed by Huey Lewis and the News. The Hong Kong Transport Department has determined that Huey Lewis and the News’s clear, crisp sound and sheen of consummate professionalism has no bearing on the drivability of the car. The Hong Kong Transport Department has therefore determined that Huey Lewis and the News’s bitter, cynical sense of humor should not be offered in Tesla vehicles in Hong Kong. Tesla Motors customers in Hong Kong who attempt to play Huey Lewis and the News songs on their standard or premium sound system will have those tracks automatically substituted with Elvis Costello’s Alison–unlike customers in the rest of the world, where Huey Lewis and the News will remain available.

By separate request from the Hong Kong Transport Department, Tesla cars are now programmed to say the words “coconut ice cream” over and over through the external loudspeaker whenever the car is is stopped at a traffic light or autoparking itself. The Hong Kong Transport Department has determined that coconut ice cream is a tasty treat and the general public should be reminded of its existence when Tesla cars are within earshot of pedestrians. The Hong Kong Transport Department has determined that repeatedly announcing “coconut ice cream” has no bearing on the drivability of the car. Based on this request, Tesla is proudly unveiling a new feature for customers in the rest of the world, who are now able to program the announcement of any sweet dessert they choose while the car is in these modes. (Savory dessert functionality will be released in a future update.) Customers can program this feature via the calendar app.

MaxCo Advisors, June 2016

An approach that the US could benefit from, too.

These are trying times for voters in the US and the UK. Stateside, Americans must contend with the rise of Donald Trump. Across the pond, British citizens are preparing to vote on whether to leave the European Union, known as Brexit.

Trump’s unlikely rise to prominence and the Brexit vote are each driven by many of the same issues—nationalism, xenophobia, and a pervasive sense of economic impotence. But as a dual citizen of both the US and the UK, I’ve been struck by the vast differences in how each of the countries campaign. Nowhere is this difference more pronounced than in the UK’s convention of the purdah, which goes into effect today and limits what government officials can do and say for the four-week period before UK citizens head to the polls on June 23rd.

Purdah is a Persian word that means “curtain” or “veil.” Also sometimes referred to as the “period of sensitivity,” it describes “the period of time immediately before elections or referendums when specific restrictions on the activity of civil servants are in place.” So although prime minister David Cameron is on the record as being against the UK leaving the EU (despite, illogically, calling for the referendum himself), from this point forward he will not be able to use his office to enact any policy or publicity that might sway the public.

Meanwhile, during the general election in 2015, official guidance stated that ministers were expected to postpone “decisions on matters of policy on which a new Government might … take a different view from the present Government” and “not to undertake any activity which could call into question their political impartiality.”

Stephen Fisher is a sociology professor at Oxford University’s Trinity College who studies elections. He says the purdah convention is reflective of a larger approach to British elections that is starkly different from America’s. You can find a hint of that disparity, he says, in the language used in each nation.

“There is a calmer approach to the way that elections and political competitions are conducted in Britain compared to the US.”

“In the US you ‘run for office’ and in Britain you ‘stand for election,’” Fisher says. “There is a calmer, less dynamic, and less frantic approach to the way that elections and political competitions are conducted in Britain compared to the US. There is a longer cycle and different electoral law, and there was traditionally much more of a sense of [having] large periods of time when people weren’t focusing on trying to win the next election.”

The purdah was passed relatively recently in 2000 as part of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. However, according to Dr Andrew Blick, a lecturer in politics and contemporary history at Kings College London, “the idea that ministers should not abuse their position to serve clearly party political ends long predates 2000.” The purdah does not apply to designated campaigners—so candidates can still be on the stump right up until election day. Rather, it applies to government ministers and departments, local authorities, and bodies funded with taxpayer money, excluding the BBC.

The purdah is not the only restriction on UK elections. The Electoral Commission limits campaign expenditure within what is called the “regulated period.” In the case of the Brexit referendum, this period began on April 15th, 10 weeks before the vote. Any individual or group who spends more than £10,000 campaigning for one side must register and report their spending. During 2015’s general election, meanwhile, the regulated period was just under 12 months. Spending limits were capped within that time frame for both sides.

The idea that voters should have time to debate and contemplate issues without hype from politicians is novel to my American ears.

Fisher says that in practice, one of the most tangible outcomes of the purdah is that it inconveniences the government, which can’t push policy along as effectively when it’s in place. For this reason, David Cameron attempted to prevent a purdah from being applied to the upcoming referendum. But the idea that those in power should not be allowed to put the full machinery of the government behind their own election aims is a hugely refreshing departure from the near-constant election chatter in the US.

It’s important to note that the purdah doesn’t apply to the media. It’s hard to judge with any certainty the effect that silencing government and civil servants has on the ensuing media coverage in the run-up to an election. Fisher posits that the restriction tends to cause a “front-loading” of government reports, such as Monday’s Treasury report, which warned of “immediate and profound shock to [the] economy” if Britain votes to leave. Regardless, the idea that voters should have time to debate and contemplate issues without hype from politicians is novel to my American ears.

In recent weeks, the US media has indulged in self-flagellation over the idea that they “created Trump” by giving him endless free publicity ($2 billion worth, according to The New York Times). But a more compelling explanation for Trump’s rise may be that he is the inevitable product of a political system that is more focused on campaigning than governing.

Trump is the inevitable product of a political system that is more focused on campaigning than governing.

US election cycles have stretched to become a two-year bloodbath. If you consider what political scientists call the “rule of anticipated importance,” Trump benefited from a long period where he could convince the electorate of how much he mattered. In that time, there were also comparatively few restrictions on what he could spend.

But what if Trump had campaigned in a climate that had an aim of civic impartiality? What if running for office wasn’t a money-raising contest, and campaigning mid-way through a sitting president’s term was viewed as counter to the nation’s best interests? In that alternative scenario, I have a hunch Trump’s main assets—storytelling and deep pockets—might not have gotten him so far.

The debate around Brexit has certainly been fervent and, at times, ugly. But at least it hasn’t been long. The date of the referendum was only announced in February, giving the saga just four months to unfold.

Given the seemingly endless slog of the US election, it’s hard not to yearn for a similar spirit of electoral restraint in America. Until then, I’ll be counting down the 164 days until November 8th.

MaxCo Advisors, May 2016

We’re all tempted to use words that we’re not too familiar with. If this were the only problem, I wouldn’t have much to write about. That’s because we’re cautious with words we’re unsure of and, thus, they don’t create much of an issue for us. It’s the words that we think we’re using correctly that wreak the most havoc. We throw them around in meetings, e-mails and important documents (such as resumes and client reports), and they land, like fingernails across a chalkboard, on everyone who has to hear or read them. We’re all guilty of this from time to time, especially myself.

When I write, I usually ask an editor friend who is an expert in grammar to review my articles before I post them online. It’s bad enough to have a roomful of people witness your blunder—it’s something else entirely to stumble in front of many others. The point is, we can all benefit from opportunities to sharpen the saw and minimize our mistakes. Often, it’s the words we perceive as being more correct or sophisticated that don’t really mean what we think they do. There are 20 such words that have a tendency to make even really smart people stumble.

Have a look to see which of these commonly confused words throw you off.

Accept vs. Except

These two words sound similar but have very different meanings. Accept means to receive something willingly: “His mom accepted his explanation” or “She accepted the gift graciously.” Except signifies exclusion: “I can attend every meeting except the one next week.” To help you remember, note that both except and exclusion begin with ex.

Affect vs. Effect

To make these words even more confusing than they already are, both can be used as either a noun or a verb. Let’s start with the verbs. Affect means to influence something or someone; effect means to accomplish something. “Your job was affected by the organizational restructuring” but “These changes will be effected on Monday.” As a noun, an effect is the result of something: “The sunny weather had a huge effect on sales.” It’s almost always the right choice because the noun affect refers to an emotional state and is rarely used outside of psychological circles: “The patient’s affect was flat.”

Lie vs. Lay

We’re all pretty clear on the lie that means an untruth. It’s the other usage that trips us up. Lie also means to recline: “Why don’t you liedown and rest?” Lay requires an object: “Lay the book on the table.” Lieis something you can do by yourself, but you need an object to lay. It’s more confusing in the past tense. The past tense of lie is—you guessed it—lay: “I lay down for an hour last night.” And the past tense of lay is laid: “I laid the book on the table.”

Bring vs. Take

Bring and take both describe transporting something or someone from one place to another, but the correct usage depends on the speaker’s point of view. Somebody brings something to you, but you take it to somewhere else: “Bring me the mail, then take your shoes to your room.” Just remember, if the movement is toward you, use bring; if the movement is away from you, use take.

Ironic vs. Coincidental

A lot of people get this wrong. If you break your leg the day before a ski trip, that’s not ironic—it’s coincidental (and bad luck). Ironic has several meanings, all of which include some type of reversal of what was expected. Verbal irony is when a person says one thing but clearly means another. Situational irony is when a result is the opposite of what was expected. O. Henry was a master of situational irony. In his famous short story The Gift of the Magi, Jim sells his watch to buy combs for his wife’s hair, and she sells her hair to buy a chain for Jim’s watch. Each character sold something precious to buy a gift for the other, but those gifts were intended for what the other person sold. That is true irony. If you break your leg the day before a ski trip, that’s coincidental. If you drive up to the mountains to ski, and there was more snow back at your house, that’s ironic.

Imply vs. Infer

To imply means to suggest something without saying it outright. To infer means to draw a conclusion from what someone else implies. As a general rule, the speaker/writer implies, and the listener/reader infers.

Nauseous vs. Nauseated

Nauseous has been misused so often that the incorrect usage is accepted in some circles. Still, it’s important to note the difference. Nauseous means causing nausea; nauseated means experiencing nausea. So, if your circle includes ultra-particular grammar sticklers, never say “I’m nauseous” unless you want them to be snickering behind your back.

Comprise vs. Compose

These are two of the most commonly misused words in the English language. Comprise means to include; compose means to make up. It all comes down to parts versus the whole. When you use comprise, you put the whole first: “A soccer game comprises (includes) two halves.” When you use compose, you put the pieces first: “Fifty states compose (make up) the United States of America.”

Farther vs. Further

Farther refers to physical distance, while further describes the degree or extent of an action or situation. “I can’t run any farther,” but “I have nothing further to say.” If you can substitute “more” or “additional,” use further.

Fewer vs. Less

Use fewer when you’re referring to separate items that can be counted; use less when referring to a whole: “You have fewer dollars, but less money.”

Bringing it all together

English grammar can be tricky, and, a lot of times, the words that sound right are actually wrong. With words such as those listed above, you just have to memorize the rules so that when you are about to use them, you’ll catch yourself in the act and know for certain that you’ve written or said the right one.

MaxCo Advisors, May 2016

By Michael Puett and Christine Gross-Loh, Harvard University

What’s the sign of a life well lived? If you were to judge by LinkedIn resumes alone, you might be impressed by prestigious job titles and accolades. But in person, the importance of these formal achievements quickly fades away. Regardless of career success, there can be something very dispiriting, almost lifeless, about someone who moves without strife through the ranks of their organization. Nobody’s deepest yearning is to be a decently-salaried professional whose only goal is to get a table at a trendy restaurant.

Whether we’re striving for a new job, more meaningful relationships, or personal enlightenment, we need to actively want something more in order to live well. In fact, neuroscience shows that the act of seeking itself, rather than the goals we realize, is key to satisfaction.

Neuroscientist Jaak Panskepp argues that of seven core instincts in the human brain (anger, fear, panic-grief, maternal care, pleasure/lust, play, and seeking), seeking is the most important. All mammals have this seeking system, says Panskepp, wherein dopamine, a neurotransmitter linked to reward and pleasure, is also involved in coordinating planning activities. This means animals are rewarded for exploring their surroundings and seeking new information for survival. It can also explain why, if rats are given access to a lever that causes them to receive an electric shock, they will repeatedly electrocute themselves.

Panskepp notes in his book, Affective Neuroscience, that the rats do not seem to find electrocution pleasurable. “Self-stimulating animals look excessively excited, even crazed, when they worked for this kind of stimulation,” he writes. Instead of being driven by any reward, he argues, the rats were motivated by the need to seek itself.

The human desire to seek can help make sense of studies showing that achieving major goals, or even winning the lottery, doesn’t cause long-term changes in happiness. But our drive to look ahead needn’t cause a permanent state of dissatisfaction, as seeking is itself a fulfilling activity. Evan Thompson, a philosophy professor at the University of British Columbia, says that the entire field of philosophy can be seen as an expression of this seeking impulse. Rather than coming up with a philosophical answer and then resting, content with the solution, Thompson says many philosophers would say the quest is an end in itself.

The same is true, he points out, for the arts and sciences.

“If you’re an artist there are always new modes of expression, new things to create and communicate. The world isn’t fixed, it’s always changing, so that means you have to create anew in light of the changes,” he says. “I don’t think any good scientist thinks one day science will come to an end. Science is about questioning, new ways of looking at things, new devices. That’s entirely open-ended.”

The innate human desire to seek means that we can never truly feel that every desire and wish has been met. There will never be an end to the to-do list, future goals and plans, the things we want to achieve and see. But the fact that we don’t have everything we want is exactly what makes life so fulfilling.

MaxCo Advisors, May 2016

For those lucky enough to live in peaceful, plentiful societies, life should be great. But because we’re all human, and everything—every hardship, annoyance, and problem—is relative, we often go through days beset by feelings of sadness, worry, and stress.

We each have our own ways of bringing joy into life. The daily ritual that can’t be compromised; the tweak that makes a massive difference to how you feel. I read recently about a media website that crowd-sourced its readers and employees, and shared a guide to a day that’s much, much better than just OK. And here’s a promise: none of this advice will require you to move house, spend a lot of money, or wake up really early.

Morning

• Wake without an alarm

The dark of a January morning; a piercing wail that shocks you out of too-short sleep; the insistent, tyrannical “snooze” button function. Every morning for most of my life I used an alarm to wake, thinking there was no other option. But then I met my partner, and found he rejected that moment of morning pain, brief and forgettable though it is. Training yourself to wake without an alarm isn’t difficult. I’ve done it for years. It requires routine, and not being exhausted. The pay-off: waking every morning with no sense of panic or shock. Highly recommended.

• Start the day with something hot and truly delicious

From Australia’s flat white to India’s chai, there are coffee and tea drinking traditions in cultures across the world. Culturally and spiritually, these drinks are important. A well-made cup of coffee is so far removed from a watery, lukewarm, or otherwise bad one that it makes the difference between your spirit lifting, or staying right where it is. Don’t compromise.

And please, use the right cup. A mug should be big enough for a satisfying brew, and ideally made of china or porcelain, which keeps the drink hotter. An espresso is inexpressibly better in an espresso cup.

• Put on comfortable shoes

We’ve talked a lot recently about shoes. They’re political, especially if you’re a woman. And they’re the most important things we wear when it comes to the way we move and feel. Painful shoes are a misery, and comfortable ones a joy.

• Mitigate your commute

Commuting can make us very unhappy, and today, it’s really unnecessary, but for many, though, it’s unavoidable. So how can you tweak it? Walking or cycling can make the necessity a pleasure, and for some it’s worth factoring in extra time to make that possible. We’re also increasingly demanding flexibility from our workplaces, as we should, and that can mean shifting work hours so we start from home and then travel-in when the rush hour is over. If you have to take a train or bus, read something that also transports you: A great book can be an important happiness factor for us.

Afternoon

• Don’t be uncomfortable at your desk

Pain at work should not be a normal state of affairs, though for many of us it is. There’s a lot of advice out there about how to optimize your work station but at the minimum: screens, desktops and chairs need to be at the right height and distance for your body. Other tweaks (footrests, the ability to stand, ergonomic equipment) might be necessary. Experiment until you find what works.

• Move

This can be a challenge, but for lots of us it’s also the difference between feeling great and feeling terrible. It doesn’t have to be hours at the gym. A short walk is much, much better than no walk. One trip to the pool a week gives swimming addicts an important fix.

Evening

• Put your speakers in the right place. Arrange books so that you can find them easily. Keep floors clean, so that walking barefoot is a pleasure.

• Use good-quality cotton sheets

So, if you don’t have great sheets, buying them as an expense. Not a sky-high one, though, and an investment: good sheets last. Some also emphasized the importance of a good mattress. That’s expensive, for sure, but for somewhere you spend a third of your life, perhaps worth it. If you look you can find great deals too.

Any time of day

• Designate a time each day to not worry

Or, even, a time to worry.Designating time when you can process those thoughts—or escape them—can help manage feelings of being overwhelmed.

• Eat good bread

Bread goes in and out of fashion. But if you’re eating it, that experience can be one of simple glory. Hipster-beloved sourdough. A baguette with butter. Dark Polish rye. Eat what you love. Just don’t eat bad bread. Just don’t do it.

• Seek out quality food

We’re straying away from “tweaks” into the realm of farmers markets and locavores. This isn’t a shopping list, but good olive oil, truly fresh seasonal fruit, good Scotch (in the right glass), tomatoes that haven’t been refrigerated, full-fat dairy products, and “capers in your tuna salad” are things that some have said make life better. And an airtight lunchbox can give you the ability to take delicious home-cooked food to work.

Finally, and importantly…

Having a sense of agency in one’s own life is, unsurprisingly, a key to happiness. So is opportunity: the belief that you can achieve goals. Those are big things, but maybe that’s why small tweaks make a lot of difference to how we feel. They remind us we have choice: between a good cup of coffee and a poor one; between a synthetic sheet and one made of cotton.

Simple gratitude. Who could argue with that?

MaxCo Advisors, May 2016

My mother says it more eloquently. “He isn’t lying, he handles the truth recklessly.”  Statistically, we are exposed to over five thousand marketing messages a day. How do we know who to trust?

Marketers entice us with offers too hard to resist, results too good to be true and guarantees that are impossible to fulfill. Yet, somehow we believe them, the evidence of our belief is in the billions of dollars we spend every year on their products; we want to believe them. A pill to cure this, a product to cause that. What we do know is this, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

The obvious ones — Lose 16 pounds of belly fat in 14 days! The not so obvious ones — Save 10% on your insurance in 15 minutes. We’ve been coaxed and prodded, persuaded and cajoled, seduced and flattered into thinking we can be thinner, healthier, richer, stronger, faster, better, happier, safer and more wanted if we simply use their product. I don’t know about you, but it’s hard to tell who is shooting straight and who is pushing the needle on the lie-o-meter.

“Marketing is storytelling. The truth is elusive. No one knows the truth about anything.”

Seth Godin on marketing, “Marketing is storytelling.” Godin on truth in marketing, “The truth is elusive. No one knows the truth about anything.” I one time had a boss that used to say, “It’s tough to live a straight life in a crooked world.” The comment made me feel like I HAD to bend the truth in order to get ahead, close a deal and succeed at anything in life.

What it comes down to is this (and here is your one word); what’s your intention? Are you focused more on yourself or your customer? There is a fine line between attention getting and misleading. And if you are the one making the offer, what happens next is completely up to you. Professional marketers understand there is power in their words and they take the user experience and results into account. Their intention is to be truthful yet creative. They may be great storytellers but they care about their market, because they don’t see them as a market. They see their market as people, human beings, individuals using their products and services. They also care about their company and their reputation. Liars only see dollar signs, signed contracts and closed deals. If their products and services also benefit their market, that’s just a bonus.

“Don’t focus on the sale, focus on the person.”

If your intention is to help others by solving their problems, you’re a professional. Focus on what is important, helping your customer. While meeting goals, deadlines and quotas are all critical elements in business, make sure you have your priorities in line as well.  Align your intentions with exceeding customer expectations, adding value to your relationships, solving problems and being a better you.

So when you see products claiming to cure the common cold, reduce wrinkles overnight, boost your bottom line by 80%, or reduce your bottom by 20 pounds in 20 days, you may want to steer clear of the sales pitch that comes next, they may not have the best of intentions. Make it your goal to keep your focus on what it takes to earn the business while keeping the best of intentions in mind. Your customers will be happy, and so will you.

 

MaxCo Advisors, May 2016

I love this article published in the HBR, February 8th, 2016 by Cassandra Frangos, Cisco Systems

---

I ran into a former HR colleague at a conference last month. We got to talking and she mentioned she was finding it difficult to hire a cyber security expert. I wasn’t surprised. Security talent is scarce in the tech sector right now. “I found someone phenomenal, but she’s in Washington State, and she won’t move to our cyber security group in San Francisco,” my friend lamented.

I said the first words that popped into my head: “That’s great.”

Hiring a candidate who is going to work remotely has three levels of benefits.

1. The company benefits. Removing location as a limiting factor offers organizations access to (literally) all the talent in the world.
2. Hiring managers benefit, because they have an opportunity to create diverse teams. For instance, it’s widely accepted that people who come together from different backgrounds bring new information and diverse perspectives.
3. Individual employees benefit, because they can live where they want, close to family or perhaps in a place that has the type of climate they prefer.

Most organizations say they are more open-minded than ever about virtual teams, and yet they still have old-school systems in place for hiring people across the country or around the world. From where I sit, the overlapping barriers come down to structure, culture, and mindset.

Structurally, many organizations remain hierarchical. Decisions are still passed down from one to many as opposed to emanating from small, autonomous teams.

Culturally, the face-to-face meeting is still an important symbol of productivity. Want to finish something? Sit around a table together and get it done.

Mindset is the toughest impediment of all. Many traditional leaders fear a loss of control if they give people the latitude to work where they can’t be overseen.

This way of working is no longer sustainable. The talent gap in certain technical specialties, such as security and data science, is one reason. A more universal reason is that removing location as a limiting factor gives organizations a lot more freedom to find and hire the very best global talent — and keep them. How do you make virtual teams the rule rather than the exception? What kind of process do you need in place for hiring that superstar in Washington State? Four things are required:

Do deeper due diligence. No matter how sophisticated the process, companies usually design interview questions to rate a candidate’s experience and fit — in other words, to find out whether they have the skills to succeed and the mindset to thrive in their specific corporate culture. In hiring virtual candidates, however, you need to dig deeper.

This next level of direct questioning should assess whether the person is independent, passionate about their work, and collaborative. They need to be flexible and willing to travel and know that corporate headquarters is still where the action takes place. In addition, the most important experience this individual should have is past success working remotely. Find out how they made it work and double down on the due diligence.

I live in Boston — 3,000 miles away from Cisco’s San Jose headquarters. I work with executives around the globe; so being on Telepresence and Webex is a natural way we communicate. Still, there are many times when I need to be at corporate headquarters because important conversations need to occur in person and because informal hallway banter can surface new ideas and accelerate solutions.

Look at leadership capabilities. Consider the individual’s leadership style and how he or she projects himself or herself. In order to make an impression from afar, people need to stand out in a crowd and be an advocate for their ideas. In addition, the organization needs to scrutinize not only the candidate but also the manager to whom they will report. Remote employees need someone who will advocate for them regardless of where they live. Does the leader have the experience and dynamism to lead virtual teams? Does she value results over face time? Is her compensation tied to the success of her team?

Invest heavily in relationships. I recently ran across a team of three dynamic leaders who manage a business unit in tandem from three separate cities. Operating out of Germany, New Jersey, and San Jose, California, respectively, the trio is a high-functioning, collaborative team. How do they do it? They respect each other and communicate constantly. Initially, they invested significant, in-person time to forge the relationship. They understand each other extremely well and now they finish each other’s sentences. They tackle tough customer issues in unison and are on the phone or video together constantly. They’ve been together for several years and it works because they attend to their relationship.

Do a logistics and tech check. Setting people up to succeed off-site requires attention to IT support and infrastructure. Can people easily teleconference from their mobile device or PC? Are all team members comfortable using collaboration tools? Is any data flow to and from the virtual team secure, and do all team members understand the company security protocols? At Cisco, we use technology to make communication as dynamic as possible. When language and cultural differences come into play, for instance, seeing each other over a video feed that’s clear and reliable can make a big difference in deepening the interaction.

The last part of hiring people who are going to work remotely is knowing when it won’t work. There are some jobs where location is fixed. In some companies, for instance, the head of sales needs to work in close proximity to the CEO. For other mission-critical positions, it is necessary to be face to face with local accounts or available for the community.

Yet, I would argue that this is quickly becoming the exception, rather than the rule. Knocking down the cultural and psychological barriers that make hiring the best global talent impossible can open everyone’s eyes to the virtues of a more dynamic working environment.

 

Cassandra Frangos is vice president for global executive talent and organizational development at Cisco Systems. Connect with her on Twitter: @c_frangos.

 

MaxCo Advisors, April 2016

Most Companies Will Die Before Their Fiftieth Birthday

It’s a medical truth—chronic diseases are the most deadly and costly threat to human health. In the US, they’re responsible for 70% of deaths and 86% of healthcare expenses each year, according to the CDC. Diagnosing and managing these illnesses early can drastically reduce both numbers.

The same concept applies to countless companies, except the disease is complacency and the ideal treatment is innovation. As a new EY report explains, most companies today will not live beyond their fiftieth birthday. John Chambers, ex-CEO of Cisco, believes that 40% of today’s leading companies will not survive another decade.

“Today’s disruptive environment is ripe for new markets and opportunities,” writes EY Global Vice Chair, Markets Uschi Schreiber in conjunction with this month’s EY Innovation Retreat in San Francisco. “Every industry and government body must rethink how to connect to their clients and constituents.”

To take but one example from the ever-shifting tech landscape, in 2010 the US Federal Aviation Authority estimated that there would be 15,000 civilian drones in use by 2020. Right now, at least that many are sold every day.

As it becomes increasingly challenging to envision the future, conventional diagnoses and remedies that have led to past achievements just don’t apply any more. Previous success can lead to “a collective cognitive myopia,” explains London Business School’s Gary Dushnitsky. “It’s hard to see beyond something that you’ve excelled at for the last 15 or 20 years.” So what is a health-conscious executive to do? Recognizing the risks of present-day stagnation is only the beginning of successful self-preservation therapy.

 In 2010, the US Federal Aviation Authority estimated that there would be 15,000 civilian drones in use by 2020. Right now, at least that many are sold every day. 

“A lot of companies want to move to a new culture of innovation and entrepreneurship but there’s a reason that incumbent companies become incumbent,” argues author and “Innovation Activist” John Kao. “They’ve mastered a lot of skills: managing complexity; managing resources; attracting talent. These are necessary for the today business but leaders need to understand that they are really managing two agendas and their job is to adjudicate between them.”

The R&D team offers a natural place to foster this life-saving new culture, but internal obstacles may hinder the cure. Even on a team tasked with developing new products, it can be difficult for members to recognize external trends, pursue opportunities not directly related to the company’s standard market, and move quickly enough to benefit from new models.

Corporate venture capital (CVC)—which broadly refers to company investment in external startups and fields—is seen by many leaders as a potent dose of innovation. CVC addresses the critical importance of bringing the outside in, incorporating talent and ideas that are by their very nature foreign to the organization and crucial to its adaptive survival. Investing in exterior entities affords large companies an opportunity to experiment with more agile processes, daring projects, and cutting edge tech and to apply these lessons to the best practices of the organization as a whole.

“When done right, CVC can be a hugely powerful spur for innovation and growth,” explains Bryan Pearce, EY Global Venture Capital Leader. “These investments, when managed effectively, can help company leaders identify new opportunities for growth; new ways to find and excite their customers; and new ways to transform a legacy business so that it is future fit.”

Companies set up CVC funds that look like standalone incubators, strategy department sub-units, more traditional VC equity models, and many other structures. And while the type of CVC dosage will vary from company to company, it’s clear that the most robust organizations build up their defenses well before the most destructive afflictions come knocking. Jan Timmer, the former Philips CEO, printed up a mock newspaper declaring “Philips Goes Bankrupt!” as soon as he became president in 1990.

Exercises like these inspire companies to access the knowledge and capabilities that will help fend off infirmities and remain fit. “Create a story about a future that you want to avoid and then make it detailed and graphic,” John Kao says. “You have to find a story that tunnels under all the intellectual shields, denial and complacency and rattles the emotions.” And while imagining the story of a company’s demise might not be enjoyable, it’s the ideal first step towards ensuring its continued health.

***

EY’s Better Questions series asks some of the tough questions faced by today’s global businesses. Better questions. Better answers. Better working world. Discover more. #BetterQuestions

This article was produced on behalf of EY by the MaxCo Advisors marketing team and not by the MaxCo Advisors editorial staff.

MaxCo Advisors, April 2016

This is an article recently published by David L. Katz, MD, Founder, True Health Initiative. I have embellished it a bit. It’s powerful and very relevant. I would encourage you to read it completely. This is one in a series of articles where professionals provide advice for the next U.S. president.

It could be re-titled, “We will never cure Cancer, because we are too invested in NOT curing It.”

Dear Madam / Mr. President: For more than twenty years, across an expanse of both democratic and republican administrations, we have neglected one of the greatest potential advances in the history of public health.

I invite you, and I implore you, to lead us toward that reachable, luminous prize: the addition of years to countless lives, the addition of life to countless years. We can eliminate up to 80% of the total burden of chronic disease — heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, dementia, etc. — by applying knowledge of the root causes of such disease not only now in hand, but in hand already for decades. You could pledge your commitment to this campaign, and lead us. And because you can, you should. Lives — lives we know how to save — are at stake.

I respectfully urge you to make the combination of longevity and vitality, followed more often than not by a timely, swift, and gentle exit into that inevitable night, the new American standard. I ask this of you because it can be done.

Like so many others, I was moved when your predecessor, whom I admire, leveraged the imprimatur of his high office, and the State of the Union address, to propound his will against the menace of cancer. I was moved in particular because the enemy was not diffuse and pervasive, but seen through an intimate window. I felt the pain and loss in the resolute set of Joe Biden’s face. This was a nation’s mission, but born of a family’s loss.

We are moved by such things. We are, despite our proclivities for fractious discord, indelibly caught up in one another, in the common motivations of humanity. At a level deeper than our discords, we know we are family. When a menace invades such private spaces, when it roils the expression of a face we know, we are moved. We are motivated to act.

So it is that I admire the assertion of will, the pledge to find a way to end all cancer. But alas, it is misguided.

President Obama likened curing “cancer” to reaching the moon, and were the analogy robust, we might indeed see it done. But the analogy falls from the sky.

Even those decades ago when President Kennedy committed us to the moon, we had in hand the technologies to get there. We knew where there was; it was a single destination. There was one, clear, achievable mission.

The cure for all cancer is not a single mission, but many. Cancer is not one disease, but many. Ending cancer is not one destination like the moon, but more like the scattershot of stars in the cosmos. Getting there will depend on innovations yet to be conceived. When we know so little of the ultimate ways, we are ill advised to assert that presidential will reliably presupposes them all.

We should continue to foster and fund the already impressive advances against cancer. We have seen considerable success. We struggle, too, against great frustration born of ignorance we may hope to overcome.

But we already know the short list of lifestyle practices — avoiding tobacco, eating optimally, being active routinely, sleeping adequately, dissipating stress effectively, and nurturing our social connections — that can not only help prevent a large percentage of all cancers and an even greater majority of other leading disease killers including dementia, but can even modify the contributions of DNA to our defense. Studies show that lifestyle practices can throw the epigenetic switches that forestall the advent of cancer, and its progression once begun.

I humbly urge you, Madam/Mr. President, to promise us a mission we know can be fulfilled, and lead us in the keeping of it.

Admittedly, this flight plan of mine is rather pedestrian in contrast to far-flung stars, the shine of Nobel Prizes. Progress is gauged in simple, lifestyle choices every citizen arguably owns. But if so homely a route, so long not taken, leads to the most luminous of prizes, surely in this instance those ends fully justify such means.

By asking you to lead, I am not refuting the relevance of personal responsibility. But the choices we all make are ultimately subordinate to the choices we all have. You have something to say about the choices we all have.

In those places around the world where longevity, vitality, and peace at the end of life prevail, it is not courtesy of citizens battling against the currents of their culture. It is where the currents of culture lead toward, rather than away from, just such blessings.

Here, we wring our hands not just about cancer, but dementia, stroke, and heart disease; about rampant obesity and the rise of type 2 diabetes in our children. Yet, we continue to peddle multi-colored marshmallows to those very children, as ‘part of a complete breakfast.’ You might persuade us out of our insouciant stupor, prod us to ask: what part?

In our country, we encourage good and moderate food choices, even as we market food willfully engineered to be addictive. Where is the outrage against such hypocrisy? You might lead us in outrage, and by opposing its reasons, help us end them. But alas, its that’s money thing again.

Ending cancer is not a moonshot; it is, for now, a pipe dream, sprinkled with stardust. But we could banish tobacco to the ashtray of history’s bad ideas, and you could lead us there. We could end the subordination of what diet could do for the health of people and planet alike to predatory profiteering, and you could lead us there. We could be a culture that doesn’t feel compelled to count our every step, because we consider our native, animal vitality and the chance to exercise it a reason to count our blessings; and you could lead us there.

Good may, of course, issue from reaching for the stars; or, more parochially, for that proverbial bird in the bush. Good may issue from ardent aspiration. But there is the danger of promises that cannot be kept, and the disillusionment they engender.

Please beware the reach that exceeds our grasp. That may serve to rattle the bushes, but will never claim their contents. Those bushes are home to things with feathers, flighty ever.

We have known for two decades and more how to eliminate some 80% of all chronic disease; we have known how to enhance the length and vitality of life. Please, make us the generation that turns what we have long known into what we routinely do to advance the human condition. Lead us, and persuade us, to treasure what’s in hand.

And please, beware the conflation of will for way. That itch may tempt your hands to clench, those fists to pound the lectern as you proclaim the inclinations of your power, and glare past the horizon. In the hush that follows, you may open your hand to find the ruin of a beautiful, luminous bird that was in your hand all along. As it is, and has long been, in the hands of us all.

MaxCo Advisors

April, 2016