on Why I am an XXTX

I was asked if I didn't know the Xs or if I was keeping it a secret:

I switch. Usually INTP. But possibly ENTP repressed for civil reasons. Also I find it easiest to roleplay as ISTP when communicating with SJs. My own work recognises the futility of abstract targets so i have to ISTJ myself as backup. Getting paid to be an ESTJ is fun. Clearly all this switching is an ESTP thing. Oh wth

Approaching Corporate Governance: as Capitalists (Part 2)

 In (Part 1) I wrote that capitalists could consider the following. 

Model:

1. Shareholders would lead, by setting financial mandates.

2. Strategists would design and own product economics: from aesthetics, to microeconomics, to macroeconomic contexts. 

One may view "microeconomics" and "macroaesthetics" as the same thing, if we may borrow the turn of phrase from economics - in which case perhaps we should just flip and refer to aesthetics as "nanoeconomics" (again, to be clear, not Mr. Arrow's semantics).

3. Operators and strategists would collaborate daily on execution, as execution is a burden shared between both roles.

Likewise, one might imagine that strategists and shareholders would also collaborate daily (perhaps weekly) on design, as design is a burden shared between both roles. (I'm really fucking with the traditional binary roles here.)

Qualification:

I guess it might seem by identifying "shareholders" with "financiers", i.e. "the money contributors", that I meant that "this is a guide written for the financier's point of view", and to a certain degree that is indeed what I had in mind. 

But then I changed my mind a bit, and that's why (Part 2) is being written. I don't think (the view described in the previous paragraph) is the best way to approach (the title, the sum of both its Parts 1 and 2). A better way to think about capitalism is to consider that each of the following are independently capitalists:

1. contributors of money

2. contributors of design / architectural / strategic insight

3. contributors of time / meat / labour

... and that the agents who play each role are themselves capitalists regardless of which role they play in this model.

So here we're really just fucking with Marx's semantics. Marx says, you know "capital is the factor of production which is non-human, so owners of such are 'capitalists', and non-owners are 'labour', and so we have this dialectic between capital(ists) and labour(ers)," or something like that.

But of course, I beg to differ. Capital is best understood as the factors of production in general, and so good capitalism doesn't try to make capitalism all about money (1). Capitalism is equally about intellectual property (2) and meat (3). Capitalism therefore is well regulated when all factors of production are viewed as fungible, such that you can turn more of one thing into some of the other, etc. Neither tangible goods, nor cash, nor labour, nor intellectual property should get special protections denied to the other factors - after all, they all just result from the same thing.  

(And I guess personally, I only have that view because I think everything is an information system. At this point in writing, I'm a bit concerned that given my ignorance of the history of Marxist thought, I'm reinventing parts of some other tradition, but no matter.)

Mutation:

So now it's time for thought experiments. Given the hierarchy stated in (Part 1), what would it be like if besides ...

- "financier leads architect leads operator"

... also we fleshed out the consequences of ...

- "financier leads operator leads architect"

- "architect leads operator leads financier"

- "architect leads financier leads operator"

- "operator leads financier leads architect", and 

- "operator leads architect leads financier"

... phew, what a mouthful.

- "financier leads operator leads architect"

This probably happens most often, when (dumb?) money meets competent operators ... operators get things off the ground, but eventually evolve meta-operations for efficiency. 

- "architect leads operator leads financier"

This appears to happen when a founder with strategic insight dominates a co-founder with a greater inclination towards implementation. The former charges ahead while the latter scramble to locate traditional financing, and things kinda just move at a feasible pace.

- "architect leads financier leads operator"

This appears to happen when you have founders with no talent management capability (whether for lack of interest, or ability, that is irrelevant) ... who find financiers to work for them in setting up downstream operations.

- "operator leads financier leads architect"

This appears to happen when founders lack strategic capabilities, thereby outsourcing the work of hiring strategists to the money.

- "operator leads architect leads financier"

I'm not exactly sure what this looks like - I guess an operations-oriented founder would have hired managers who eventually grew the shop via professional money.

Hm. Droll. 

Approaching Corporate Governance: as Capitalists (Part 1)

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