Sunday, March 29, 2009

Luck - an irresistable mainstream nature

Why soccer is more popular than basketball?
The reason could be that they evolved in different parts of the world. Or soccer was the first sport to gain attention, even soccer promoters had more marketing power initially. But then again, why soccer is still gaining more favor in developing countries, where both soccer and basketball had no presence and yet they now how equal marketing prowess?
Similarly to China, Mongolia was no soccer field. It was a basketball country until recently. People played basketball for the past half century but rarely a soccer. The suddenly soccer started to gain attention just at the turn of the millennium and now I bet soccer is more famous.
When we closely look at the two games, we don't see any difference. They both use a ball to make it to the net. Team sports, both, they have forwards, point guards and captain. One uses a hand and the other uses a leg to make the ball to the net in team effort. I don't think it is necessary we prefer our one organ over another. Which is more artistic or more pleasure to see? A 720'er spin dunk, cross over and spin; or a super kick? I bet soccer is as artistic as basketball and vice versa.

A main difference though is the times they kick in ball to the net in a single play, or number of goals. An NBA averages 30 - 40 times a ball/net, whereas soccer averages only 1-2.
Why people want to see an hour struggle and only one goal? Why do they prefer such a rare event over a constant successful goals?

A striking conclusion is that people are more prone to chances of goals than the sports-art delivering that goal. That means if chances are low, then it is more interesting. Devastatingly we can conclude delivering roughly the same artistic pleasure, soccer overwhelms basketball because its goals have more lucky features in it compared to basketball. To be general soccer is a lucky sport and that's one of the main reasons why people are attracted into it.

A man is such a weak animal that it so often believes in luck and relies on luck. Man prefers luck over efforts that increases the probabilities. You can hear them say "wow that guy is a lucky guy", if a guy has got some wealth, or achieved a career without paying an effort, then people tend to praise and amaze each other. If a person achieved a wealth and career by his hardwork and efforts, people tend to ignore and refuse to even talk. People are afraid of hardworker and prefers a lucky person besides them.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Management is ART!

1. What is an art?
A musician once said "Many musicians play music for a wrong purpose. Though I can afford many things thanks to playing music for people, it never has been my purpose of playing a music".

The mainstream definitions are:
Art is defined in many ways, regretfully mainly in its traditional sense that is visual
Art is a creation of a man.
An artist gets satisfaction out of his art.
Art delivers a message through an artistic expression.
Among many things made by human, things that can be classified as art could be the only ones that

2. Satisfaction, the meaning of the life
Constantly having a satisfaction from everyday life can make human’s life meaningful.
A satisfaction may come in 2 different forms: Real value and Philosophical value. Real value can be measured by monetary terms, whereas Philosophical value can’t be measured in monetary terms as it is hard to measure. Philosophical value prevails Real value as it is longer term and it often better defines the meaning of the personal life. By the time of the death human can’t bring his accumulated real values with him as these become obsolete on the last spot, but human life is instantly judged by his accumulated Philosophical values by himself at least. Moral philosopher Adam Smith asserted “How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.” This nature of human can be unique only in human and plays a role to determine his meaning of life. Thereby, it could be referred as that Philosophical value is more important over Real value.
In Business real value is expressed in P&L accounts, ROE and other profitability ratios and EPS.
Real value is destroyed as time goes by as in the case of house, cars or other things. It loses its importance in the minds of its owners as time passes by.
It is in the minds of the customers, as any institution were supposed to create a product, that determine the extent of the organization and the sense of achievement. No monetary value can determine the organization to be the best.

3. Institution - people - product
An institution is a team of 2 or more people with similar goal to deliver certain products to consumers as it is described in management textbooks.
People - Product - People is the simplest yet the most comprehensive description of an institution. Where a lifespan of a single person is limited, the lifespan of an institution is conventionally deemed to be unlimited.

Though not confirmed by empiric study, it is clear that majority of institutions started to having longer term visions and better social responsibility. The institution strives to create a value for 3 types of people: Shareholder, Staff and Customer. The point of mutual satisfaction of all these 3 is to create more philosophical value than the real value. /I am thinking marketing is just a play in balance, if this is true there will be an revolution/ So can we speculate "a product which could be considered or classified as an art could bring the institution to such a mutual satisfaction point???"

4. Management is what managers do!
The mission for the contemporary management is defined as “The management is to make 3 types of people satisfied”. This result oriented definition makes it easier to define the management itself. The 3 types of people are: 1. Shareholder, 2. Stakeholder or staff and 3. Customers; and order doesn’t imply importance.
Why make shareholders satisfied?
Basically, shareholders are the owners of the business. Owners generally have long term motivation to get involved in a business. Long term motivation is based on long term value generation. Long term value consists of long term real value and long term philosophical value.

Why make staff satisfied?
It is the staff, who is satisfied with his job, creates the most and turns his job place an innovative place. Also it is the manager’s pleasure to see his staff satisfied with the task. If life is all about constant satisfaction and positive feelings why staff should not be satisfied with his job, where 1/5 of his lifetime is devoted???

Why make customers satisfied?
As exactly as Adam Smith drew 200 years earlier, it must be great pleasure to see customers satisfied for owners, managers and staff alike, thus more philosophical value. More philosophically satisfied customers are more prone to products and services produced, thus increased profit and long term relations.

5. Why the best management can't be a technology?

Best management principles /cited from my management lecture first in 2004/
Although it can’t be defined precisely, success is the measure of business, henceforth management performance.
If management was to be regarded as a science, then the best technology should be sought. It is thereby supposed that a manager who obsessed the best technology outperforms the most. It is natural to seek the best management.
Principle 1: It is impossible to define the best technology, which can lead to the best management. The purpose of the management is to create value for stakeholders of the institute. The term value is vague that the definition changes as society changes. The reason for changing society is because of its individual member, a human. Human actions and reactions are controlled by his brain and it is impossible to model brain chemistry. If a human succeed to model his own brain actions and reactions, everything will be obsolete and it is impossible. Life will become meaningless. The motif is hope and unknown future.
Principle 2: The best technology and best management can only be seen afterwards. This is called result based definition. Which means that one can judge and select the best from past management practices by comparing different technologies. And this technology is already a history and does not mean it can prevail in the future. This is according to Principle 1.
Principle 3: Best management can be defined in a relative sense. A management that is maximizing its chances to get successful is the best management. The manager therefore be able to minimize bad odds and maximize her chances to be successful.

6. So...

There is no management theory could exist. Because management is the process of Human - Product - Human. Twice involvement of human in this process explains why management cant be based on a theory.

So, there could exist only outdated management technology.

A management art is seen during a process of creation of a new management technology.

The best management model could be:

Artist - Artwork - Art consumer.

A manager is the chief artist. Just like orchestra...

Life is a feeling

Life is about getting a feeling. Everyday we get different feelings. We strive to get a positive feeling every time.

We pay more for V8 engine car just for a better feeling, we also pay extra for wooden interior trim to get a better feeling, whereas these options doesn't make any difference for car to perform its duties, to move.

We get the feeling from many things, every step we make, every move we make, we generate a feeling. If we get more negative feelings than positive ones, life gets difficult and we become stressed, even can go into depression. People gets angrier and harsh.

An option to overcome negative feelings is to practice meditation. While meditating people can forget bad things or bad experiences, or they can see them from different angle so those negative feelings bother them not anymore.

Though a meditation can be beneficial for a single person, I criticize meditation on one aspect. Practicing a meditation is actually non socially responsible act. A man is a social animal and the community is the biggest place we get and spread the feelings. A meditation could have been beneficial for a man if he was not a pack hunter and living in a cave alone. The time everyone practices meditation so deeply will again be a cave time.

The biggest problem with man is she is designed to develop in pack. She always fights with the sources of the negative feelings in the community, environment and interactions. It is not about fighting the negative feelings themselves, but it is about to fight with the sources of the negative feelings and creates the factors for positive feelings. Who needed a car? Why we debate for democracy? Why a man should be socially responsible?

There are different types of positive and negative feelings. They can usually be classified by the time it remains in the memory or a "stick factor" for a man. Materially evolved feelings usually stay short term, whereas emotionally evolved feelings can stay very long term. Emotional feeling is very difficult to describe because these feelings are usually generated from social interactions of a man. Lets say the man has done a charity and he made lots of kids happy. Or a man has hurt someone physically or emotionally. Compared to driving a sports car, or even a good sex these non material feelings are very deep and long.

Again I am getting into a point that man gets the best positive feeling by doing good deeds towards others in his community, even though these good deeds does not benefit him materially.

The principal design for a man is he is destined to have a principal to bear a social responsibility, in which he will be fighting with negative feelings and
create positive feelings himself.

In that regard, this explains very easily why we are here at this point and where we are headed. It is just about a balance between long and short feelings or whether today's community is more inclined to prefer material feelings because of a wrong conventional wisdom or we are going into a right direction.

We might be committing a great mistake by destroying the environment for the sake of materially positive feelings like cars, expensive living style and war. But if we can argue that the fundamental motives behind all these developments are based on our central design and to generate more positive feelings, why should it be wrong?

Seems like this is very good paradox...