Thursday, October 28, 2010

Women at Work

This week I helped facilitate an event for the Shell Professional Women’s Network. I did bits of pieces for this network while working, and collected plenty of insights and blog readers as a result. So I was happy to do this as a favour for a friend, especially since I knew it would be fun.

It also gave me a chance to develop and trial a workshop idea that I’ve been mulling over for a while, on the subject of Managing your Boss. I always noted that any blogs on this subject were very popular and brought out lots of passion and a cry for help from many people. Indeed, it seems almost the majority of employees have serious problems with their relationship with their boss. The workshop seemed to go very well for a first outing. Anyone want to be the customer for the next ones?

It is rare for me (and I imagine for most people) to be one man in the company of fifty of so women. There was a second guy, a senior manager who pitched up for part of the day and gave an excellent interview, but for some of the time I was in a gender minority of one. In former times, that used to be the lot of women themselves in business, always a tiny minority, though the balance has improved in many areas in the last ten years ore so.

I didn’t have any feelings of being intimidated or ignored or tokenised. My role on the day made that unlikely anyway, together with the fact that I volunteered and knew what was coming. One thing I was able to do was to observe how women operate when among just other women. That yielded some insights.

First was the focus on physical appearance. Even though it was a casual occasion, everyone had made some effort, and there was a sense that what was worn got noticed, and commented on as well. One presenter included the advice to get a style consultant among her ten top tips. Lo, and behold, when it came to question and answer, the first two questions from the floor were about style consultants. I even received some feedback myself about my appearance, something I hardly recall happening before.

(It is fair. I am a mess. Metrosexuality came in long after I joined the workforce. I couldn’t be bothered and am also too mean to buy many clothes. I’m sure this has held me back, yet it never meant enough to me to do anything about it, and of course I hardly ever received any feedback to spur me on)

This focus on appearance I had previously thought a bit of a cliché, but it was clearly there. I wonder why women don’t bring the subject up in mixed company? It seems valuable, but doesn’t happen. This could be one of the areas where women have hidden their true personalities in the desire to confirm (thereby robbing the company of diversity). In an all female gathering, this latent desire comes out in spades. I was told that if I had not been there it would have been even more prevalent, perhaps unhealthily so.

So it’s down the shops for me then.

The next thing I noticed was openness in the conversation. Fewer people seemed to be showing off than usual, and there seemed to be less political correctness and more readiness to be personal and a bit vulnerable. This was wholly positive. Again, do the women do this when in mixed company? If they do, do we drown them out? And if they don’t, are they once again subordinating their character? Probably it is a combination of both.

Finally, I picked up an obsession with networking as a required skill. The day had a networking theme, but I sensed that the women would have focused there anyway. I found it rather forced and even misguided. We all network all the time, it is just part of our everyday behaviour. Actually, I sense women do more natural networking than men. True, to succeed, sometimes you have to put in a bit more effort than usual, provide a bit of focus to your networking. But the consensus among the women seemed to be that networking was a major activity, and mainly took place outside working hours. Of course, this then ran into the work life debate. I don’t really accept this as regards networking is concerned. The great majority can happen within working hours without sacrificing very much. Sometimes nowadays I’m a bit jealous of the smokers – they network among themselves very effectively.

Overall, the day had a positive feel and left me with a positive impression. In the past, women were encouraged to behave like men, thereby throwing away their main advantage, both for them and their companies. Occasionally as a tactic it can make sense to comply a little with male expectations, but please, not as a strategy or guiding principle. I sense that women are finally numerous enough and confident enough to be themselves, at least in office based situations in big, Western, companies. Hooray for that.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Innovation by Fusion

Yesterday I went to see Cirque du Soleil in Amsterdam. It was the first time I had seen it, and I was blown away. Clearly, I am not alone, for the show was expensive yet fully booked and seemingly able to generate massive income for the organisers.

What Cirque du Soleil seems to have done is create a fusion of different established forms of entertainment, to create something stronger than its constituent elements. Apart from the skills of the human aspects of circuses – trapeze, acrobatics, strength acts as so on, Cirque borrows from elsewhere. Musical theatre is the main source of borrowing. From there comes top quality choreography, lighting, sound and music, continuity and storytelling.

The result is something that has all the breathtaking skill levels of a top circus, packaged into something with beauty and pace. A powerful and novel combination – as has been demonstrated by the massive success and lack of any strong emulators. This is supported also by a good business model, with strong brand and marketing and efficient operations. I was particularly impressed with how the different performers were ready to shift from leading their own act to supporting other acts, and had been trained to be complete performers, with grace and audience connection. Some performers may have resented this at first (“I am the world’s strongest man, not some cabaret dancer”) they have clearly all bought into the concept in its entirety, and why not as they see the rewards.

This brilliant fusion led me to wonder about success stories with similar traits, and also about so-far unfulfilled opportunities.

One example was IKEA, my favourite retailer. They managed to combine the efficiency of the mega-supermarket with the product appeal of the design innovator, also with a very coherent brand. It had not been done beforehand; they changed the game and reaped rewards, and have managed to keep ahead of imitators. What do Cirque du Soleil and IKEA have in common? More than you might see at first glance.

A slightly bigger stretch could be what Strictly Come Dancing has done to revive ballroom dancing. Here the elements fused were quality professional performance, a pastime with potential mass appeal, and reality TV.

In all these examples, the level of innovation was outstanding, yet it was achieved not with anything wholly new but with a fusion. That is a good general rule with innovation. Very few powerful ideas are completely new, yet much scope exists in putting existing things together.

So what about those opportunities? Building on Cirque du Soleil, I wonder what could be done with the animal side of a circus. Admittedly, that part of the circus traditional circus tends to be even more tawdry than the rest, and tainted somewhat by animal welfare concerns. But a quality outfit could break through that with the right business model. Combine the strengths of zoos, circuses, dolphin type shows they have at resorts, interactive museums and the education and wonder that comes from David Attenborough programmes and there might be something there. Some modern technology might help too.
Could other sports reinvent themselves in the way that cricket has with twenty-20? Any other pastimes ripe for the Strictly treatment? How about bridge for example?

In any case, I recommend Cirque du Soleil. See it if you can.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Demograhics Rule

Economists, social scientists and business people espouse all sorts of theories for why some countries grow faster than others or have different social characteristics. As is the nature of such theories, some are right and some are wrong, and every so often new theories come along to replace the former ones. The new ideas have a bit more credibility, fit some extra data points, and can build on past theories, but, lo and behold, some time later, are shown to suffer yet more flaws.

That is what I love about those disciplines. You can rarely be sure, you always have to use a combination of axiom, empirical evidence and outright guesswork, yet there is something valuable about the effort and a realisation that progress is possible.

Yet it is amazing how often such theories ignore the most obvious factors. The most obvious factor of all is demographics, and this alone typically explains a large proportion of variation. Perhaps it is not exciting enough. More likely, experts can’t really claim much based on demographics. It is far more gratifying (and even financially rewarding) to explain the success of a company based on some revolutionary management practice than the basic fact that more people of the right age are around to buy the product or staff the firm. Yet, more often than not, it is as simple as that.

Once again, The Economist bucks the trend and finds the simple yet compelling analysis. Most recently, it has argued that India will outpace China over the next thirty years, and demographics are a large part of the reason. Whereas over the last thirty years China has benefited from rapid growth in the working age population, this trend will reverse from now on, due to the one child policy. Combine this with the rapid increase in longevity in China, and the working age population as a share of the total will soon start to decrease quickly. This always presages slower growth.

India, on the other hand, has so far a lower life expectancy, yet looks forward to an expansion in working age population. Add in the factor that this group is increasingly better educated and English-speaking, and you can see how the growth engine is primed. If India can do something to further reduce illiteracy, as seems likely, the engine can move into turbo charge.

The Economist argues that many developing economies have this potential of a golden generation. Life expectancy has increased enough so that the working population can grow quickly, yet not so much that these workers have to support too many retirees. Technology and education advances simply multiply the benefits, as can the participation of women in the workforce. Many South-East Asian nations benefited in the 80’s and 90’s, with Japan and South Korea ahead of the curve and China behind (so benefiting now). Brazil has some of the same features, and there is at last cause for optimism over Africa, especially if Aids deaths can be kept in check. At the other end of the scale, Europe and Japan are stuck with ever-declining ratios of workers to non workers, and consequently limited in their growth potential.

So while we are arguing about big or small states, or democracy versus dictatorship, or even waffle like Latin or Chinese work ethics, something much more basic is driving the speed of development. That is not to say these other factors are irrelevant. Not all African countries will see a golden generation benefit to the same extent, with the political climate, notably corruption and education, being important in sorting the winners from the losers, as well as Aids prevalence and the extent (if exploited wisely) of natural resources.

Something similar applies in the USA, long lauded as the innovative engine of the world. While some of this is cultural and stems from policy, the biggest factor behind the US growth rate may well have been the stream of immigrants, most of them from Latin America.

This last example does call into question what are good and less good measures for development and growth. Total GDP I find a misleading metric for many things, though of course politicians like to use it as a relative indicator of their power. If USA GDP grows at 10% while the population also grows 10%, the average American is no richer. GDP per head may be more meaningful, and it is interesting how league tables change when you use that – even Europe is still doing OK by that metric. You could even use GDP per working age population, not as an indicator or prosperity but as one to assess good governance.

Such basics have a far wider application than league tables of prosperity or predictors of national growth rates. We should use them also when deciding where to work, or who to invest in. Companies targeting older consumers have a lot going for them in Europe or Japan. Companies able to tap into a growing educated Indian workforce will enjoy a following wind in the next decades. Of course, they still need good managers and good products. In the case of India, it would help even more if the government could fix the roads.

Even the second order demographic effects are probably more significant than any other factor. Regional differences in age profiles will drive rates of development. In India now, the explosion of educated, hungry entrepreneurs under thirty five has reputedly acted as a force to break down some cultural norms, for example respect for hierarchy in business. This has led to accelerated innovation, but also some breakdown in systems, for example management practices and pay structures. An exciting experiment indeed.

And one under-explored question relates to gender imbalances. For different reasons, the generations of people currently under thirty have an overabundance of males in both India and China. Historically, this has been a precursor for war, as young men need things to amuse themselves, and fighting is second only to young women in the popularity stakes. Even if war can be averted, there will be other results of the disparities, and some thought and research could help guess what they might be.

If you want to win, start with the basics. And things don’t come more basic than demographics.

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Fear of Immigration

Much of Europe has immigration near the centre of its politics. Whether it is in Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland or now Sweden, parties with a main policy of curbing immigration are in power or hold the balance of power. Everywhere else fear of immigration regularly scores high among key issues raised by voters in opinion polls. To be elected, almost all politicians strive to avoid being too liberal on the issue, finding choices of words not to feed newspapers portraying them as pro-immigrant.

For me, this is sad and worrying. It is sad because I appreciate myself the benefits of open borders in my own life and that of my offspring, and I feel frustrated that no-one seems to make a positive case for such liberalism. It is worrying, of course, because intolerance of difference has been the excuse for most persecution and even war over the course of human history.

I was twenty before I enjoyed an Indian meal, and I remember my first visit to a Thai restaurant aged 25. In those days travel between nations was complicated and frustrating, everyone having their own currency and various controls over movement of people and money. The idea that TV programmes would explore the prospect of retirement in the sun was fanciful. I was almost brainwashed at school to hate the people in the countries behind the iron curtain,.and gaining real experience to counter this was difficult. Supermarkets didn't have much in the spice department. Finding a plumber in London prepared to actually do any work was next to impossible and very expensive. Alternative medicine was hardly known, nor yoga or meditation. Making a phone call, even from Europe, involved queuing at some imposing municipal building. My daughter has just returned from a self-organised two month two to three countries and many more places in Asia, an impossible prospect for me at the same age. And her social circle maximises the benefits of diversity with no hint of prejudice.

I express this from a first world viewpoint. The benefits to people from other countries are much more positive and life changing, in general at least. Here we are not just looking at convenience but about life opportunity.

Some of this has been enabled by technology, but mainly it has come from liberal policies of governments, led by the EU. In Bulgaria last week I could marvel at the change since my previous visits 15 years before.

Yet most people see a mainly negative case for open borders (not least in Bulgaria, by the way). Many of my arguments in favour are benefits for all, so the counter arguments must be powerful. What are they?

The main one is about social disintegration, especially locally. Who wants their child to go to a school where standards are affected by many cultures and poor host language skills? Who wants to live in a street where the dominant culture seems alien? This is a valid argument, supported by history. Integration by newcomers is hard to achieve. Often there is a vicious circle of fear, distrust and alienation leading to attempts to integrate being shunned and counter-cultures emerging in response. It is true that a local society of great diversity carries its burdens.

Other arguments are less convincing. There is something about protection, whether of jobs or other perceived entitlements. This seems pretty invalid to me. Folk who make this case wouldn't want to be denied their chance to retire in Spain, and certainly enjoy the benefits of Indian-run corner shops and Polish builders. Competition is a good thing, almost always, though I agree it may not seem that way if someone's factory is replacing its workers with temps or if the queue for an upgraded council house never seems to shorten.

Then there is a general fear of change, often accompanied by cries for traditional values and concepts. Often this appears little better than bigotry. It is not the wave of immigrants that has led to the decline of the British pub (it is supermarkets and lifestyle choices), and street parties never amounted to much anyway. True, we used to know our neighbours better, but that again is a lifestyle thing, especially as more of us work further away from home and move houses more often.

So we have one real argument, bolstered by some emotive and lazy ones. Yet this motley collection of points wins out. Why? I believe the main reason is that somehow no-one makes the positive arguments. Maybe they are more long-term, less visible or tangible, and a bit selective, but they are so substantial that it ought to be possible to create a majority in their favour. That no one argues positively leaves the field clear for the fear merchants and populists. Politicians see it and retreat further into timidity. Newspapers, some with an agenda (perhaps the Daily Mail was over-vilified last week?) spread more fear with stories of jobs being stolen or communities violated.

The Economist made a point last week (in Bagehot I think) which surprised me. A link was made between the relative lack of power obtained by the far right in the UK and the existence of a virulent popular press. Elsewhere in Europe, the press is quite close to the establishment, and the establishment favours silence over immigration. According to Bagehot, this leaves fearful people in need of an outlet to vent, and they choose the far right.

Interesting, but I'm not convinced. The press is hardly the only factor involved – the electoral system is one other, not that I am a fan of the British one. Mind you, I haven't any better solutions, and a free press must be better than a timid, lazy one. So long as we can avoid too many explosions of unrest, the passage of time should help. As more of the next generation are able to live truly colour-blind lives like my daughter, fear can be beaten back to the margins. I just wish more of us had the courage to sing out the positive arguments, as surely that would accelerate the trend. Much depends on this, possibly even peace and certainly the pace of global development, and a watery silence is not really good enough from entities that see this. Apart from being brave and promoting the advantages, and continuing to support policies which work to minimise the real disadvantages (for example with investment in good schooling for all) what else we can do?