I had some funny questions from a capitalist who is opening a new business. I hoped my comments, providing **counsel for the capitalist's point of view** ... I hoped that my comments weren't too confusing.
Summary:
1. It is better to have shareholders lead, by setting financial mandates.
2. Following that, a strategy team designs brand and product unit economics.
3. Following that, operations and strategy teams have daily standups to figure out if unit economics are on track.
Elaboration:
For the record, and this is important, 3. is always the hardest to obtain (because a capitalist starts at the opposite end of the value-chain). :) So back to talent management strategy, with consideration for the pattern that the progression from 1 to 2 to 3 ... decreases in abstraction.
We may pause here to ask, "what is the meaning of 'real'?". To abstract thinkers, ideas are more real than facts - to concrete thinkers, the opposite is true; they differ in terms of what data structure they use to preferentially carry their thoughts. Abstract thinkers are probably great at 2, but concrete thinkers will probably do better at 3.
We should expect abstract thinkers to set conservative targets when playing role2, because they don't have the ability to control the execution of role3 in great detail.
Whereas concrete thinkers would have a better grasp of how to outperform at role3, so they may set riskier targets when they play role2.
(In my current company, I am the actor in 1, 2, and 3 ... this is a bad example. Haha. I set very risky targets, and I can never train people fast enough to achieve them.)
So just now in the call, there was a question about:
1.
And 2.
And 3.
But this is not answerable by one party effectively. The three parties should be separate, and they have to answer separately in order from 1, then 2, then 3.
And then you reiterate, and that is a more systematic approach to building companies.
... Part 2
No comments :
Post a Comment