August 2004 Archives

I've had had a letter from the Graduate Centre that says I:

have satisfactorily completed the goals approved when you were initially registered. Accordingly your registration is confirmed.

Yippee. I'm fully registered at last. Now to complete the damn thing.

However, as I've said elsewhere I need to ease back a little. As part of that process I've decided to suspend my PhD studies for a while (until March). That should give me time enough to get things back on track.

So, the same letter said they have accepted my suspension of my PhD studies for six months. So, 40-hour weeks, here I come (and that is a novelty).

Yes

Because of Rochelle's bereavement, I had the class mark themselves using a little table I'd prepared. I think the table did two things. Firstly, it helped to structure peoples comments a little, and secondly, because it explicit allowed only four attempts, it caused people to be less forthcoming with 'off the cuff' remarks. In other words, people's comments seemed to be more substantial.

And so the participation played out like this:

Note how few 1s there were... So the average marks for the class were amongst the highest thus far.

If you want to see the total list for the class, have a look at the extended entry.

A few Porterian quotes taken from:
Harfield, T. (1997). Strategic management and Michael Porter: A postmodern reading. Electronic Journal of Radical Oranizational Theory, 4(1).

Competitive advantage is hardly a new subject. ... marketing, production, control, finance, and many other activities in a firm have a role in competitive advantage. ... Competitive advantage cannot be truly understood without combining all these disciplines into a holistic view of the entire firm.

In practice, a firm must understand where each of its competitors falls on the spectrum from good to bad and behave accordingly. A good competitor understands and plays by the rules of competition in an industry, and can recognize and read market signals.
Some bad competitors will never become good competitors. A firm must be prepared to fight battles in order to convert bad competitors into good ones. For example, a foreign competitor entering what it perceives to be a strategic market is usually a bad competitor. Its stakes are too high, and it may also not understand the rules of the game.
These considerations suggest that a firm must continually work to manage its competitors' expectations and assumptions.

Competitive strategy is about being different.

... a firm can achieve and sustain overall cost leadership, then it will be an above-average performer in its industry provided it can command prices at or near the industry average. A firm that can achieve and sustain differentiation will be an above-average performer in its industry if its price premium exceeds the extra costs incurred in being unique.

A firm that is stuck in the middle will earn attractive profits only if the structure of its industry is highly favourable, or if the firm is fortunate enough to have competitors that are also stuck in the middle. Becoming stuck in the middle also affects successful firms, who compromise their generic strategy for the sake of growth or prestige.

If a firm can achieve cost leadership and differentiation simultaneously, the rewards are great because the benefits are additive--differentiation leads to premium prices at the same time that cost leadership implies lower costs.

So, I wonder, what is your firm doing. How would you describe its strategy?

I've just finished reading:

Thompson, A. A., Strickland III, A. J., & Gamble, J. E., (2004). Crafting and executing strategy: Text and readings (14th ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill.

The preface of this text books says it aimed at the senior-level or MBA student, and so I'm considering it as a replacement for MGMT 302 - Business policy & strategy, because our existing text book is no longer available.

As this is the 14th edition, you can tell it has been around for some time (looking at the frontpience, it looks like it first came out in 1978). The book is quite unitarist in its views. For example the question "What is strategy?" (let alone "Do strategies actually exist at all?") is answered in a straight forward manner, with none of the nuances or dilemmas that something like de Wit & Meyer (2003) or Mintzberg, ., Lampel, Quinn, & Ghoshal (2003) insist on presenting. The emphasis of the book is largely on the content of strategy with little regard for the process or context of strategy. Consequently, the book does go somewhat 'against the grain', in as much as the mandate of the course is to focus on the process side of strategy; whereas, International Business to be more focused on the content issues.

That's not to say the book is bad; far from it. It does the job it sets itself admirably - it's just not what is needed for MGMT 302

For me, a good theory is one that does one or more of the following:

1. It allows one to predict what will happen, or
2. It describes (explains) why something has happened, or finally
3. It prescribes what one should do (this is a variation on 1 above).

In general, as a practitioner, it is the predictive power of a theory that makes it most useful.

I'm wary of theories that seek to prescribe actions (also known as being normative, as they say what is 'normal' course of action). This is because they are often not sensitive to the context in which action will take place

I thought it would be interesting to see the progress that the class, as a whole, is making. The table below summarises the 1s, 2s, and 3s awarded each week.

Two things stand out for me. Firstly, there is the trend as people start to get more 2s and 3s (and in particular, more 3s).

I feel I need to concentrate on helping those people who haven't participated much to get more chances to talk. So, I was wondering, would those people who often get 3s try not to talk until the second half of the class today...

I think it was Celeste who asked to see all the grades, so that she can compare her performance with the class average. However, since grades are, by nature, categorical, I feel an average is mathematically unsound, so here are the (sorted)grades for the class so that you can compare your position with everyone else.

Note: I'm at home at the momement, so I'm working off an old list that is missing a few of Darl's grades -- nevertheless, I think it should do the job.

I've been exchanging a few emails with Richard Tisdall regarding the 'unreliable' stepmeter, that I replaced. He has been concerned by the problem and very helpful in dealing with it. People sometimes complain that Kiwi's don't know how to do customer service, but I think my experiences with Tisdalls shows that some Kiwis give outstanding customer service.

One think I recall from marketing (many years ago) is that people are more likely to tell others of a bad experience, than a good one. So, let be unequivocal when I say, I have received excellent service from Tisdalls, and I always recommend them when people ask me about pedometers (I think they have had a half-dozen people buying them as a result of my comments). I'll certainly be shopping there again.

Tisdalls are my shop of the year

Immediately after class, Chintaka and Howie started talking about the case together. I was impressed by the quality of their conversation, and said that it was a shame that it hadn't happened like that in class ? and Howie pointed out that he did have his hand up when Chintaka was speaking but wasn't 'picked'. I thought no more of this conversation until Chintaka came by my office 30 minutes later.

We talked about the quality of the discussion he had with Howie, and how engaged they had been that had spilled out of the classroom into a larger discussion with another student. They would like more of those vigorous free-flowing discussions, and so would I.

He suggested that some of the process, such as writing things on the board or waiting to take turns, was killing the discussion (my words not his). That may be the case, and I wonder what to do about.

Part of the problem, I suppose, is that I don't know what someone is going to say, so sometimes what gets said doesn't stimulate the discussion -- rather it flattens it, or loops it back to old points. The other part of the equation is that, some people are less 'forthcoming' than others and need to be given 'room' to speak.

I'm trying to respond to what the class says it needs. I wonder if I shouldn't do that, and hope that the class takes a more active roll in managing what is going on (as Chintaka, Howie, and others are wanting to do).

I feel that many people are uncertain about what to say, so they take every chance they can to say something "just in case", rather than wait for the time when they have something well considered to say. Perhaps, the idea that it isn't necessary to say something every week (to get full marks) isn't being well heard. I don't know ? but it feels like some people are getting squashed out of the conversation.

Maybe next week, we'll try the card technique -- once you have spoke you turn your name card over (and don't get called again/cards turned up, until everyone has spoken, which might take a week)... What do you think? It would be helpful to get some feedback from the class.

Anyway, Chintaka and I had a most engaging discussion that, despite me having to leave, continued all the way to the car park at Shortland Street.

It's the glorious twelfth, and that means it's Lisa's and mine wedding anniversary. So, we decided to have dinner at Vinnies

To whet our appetites, we had a glass of Bollinger (non vintage), and the savoury cones. I particular liked the ostrich carpaccio with Japanese pickles, and the truffled hummus was a close second.

For entee, I went for that old favourite of homemade paua sausage with kumara miso mash whilst Lisa opted for the crayfish ravioli with poached pacific rock oysters. Both were faultless.

The main course was a hard decision, but eventually Lisa settled on the roasted duck breast with fig tortellini (prompted by our cab driver on the way in), and I went for pan fried snapper. The fish was done to perfection, and Lisa commented on the high quality of the duck.

Because of our choice of food, I though that choosing the wine would be difficult. I was leaning towards the 1983 Marc Bredif Vouvray, but in the end we went with Stewart's, our waiter's, suggestion of the 2001 Leeuwin Art Series Chardonnay. I'm still wondering if the Vouvray (at pretty much the same price), would have been better.

To finish, Lisa went for a selection of Italian biscuits and coffee, and I relented and indulged myself with the chocolate truffles.

All in all, a superb dinner. Hats off to Vinnies (again).

I was talking with Amit yesterday, and he was saying that he keeps on journalling/blogging because it forces him to reflect on what he has done. I think, like me, he finds it hard to be reflective in "the moment". No doubt a psychodramatist would refer to this a an example of the cultural conserve inhibiting spontaneity.

Any way, Cao Xue-qin asked me why I blog. Well, there is a part of me that enjoys the "sound" of my own voice. However, the three main reasons I blog are:

1. To keep track of what I've read and where I've been
2. To force me to write more and to reflect
3. To remove some ambiguity from students lives, by saying what I am thinking (oh, that's a bit egocentric, isn't it).

Okay, so there are two main reasons.

So, I say I like feedback, and yet I have comments disabled. Hmm. I have a lot of good reasons not to enable comments, but what is really going on. Oh it sounds a bit like that I want to:

(a) be in unilateral control; (b) strive to win and not lose; (c) suppress negative feelings; and (d) act rationally (Argyris, 2002, p. 212}.

So, from now, comments are now on¹.

Footnotes

¹ To prevent comment spam, they'll be automatically disabled after some period.

References

Argyris, C. (2002). Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Journal, 1(2), 208-218.

The first (of many?) summits was held with the CEOs of the various companies that inhabit the Mike's Bikes world. A little over half the CEOs attended, and all the regions were represented.

Listening to them (I don't always do the talking), what struck me was how similar the problems they face, viz:

1. Not being clear on what their own role was; however, some people were very clear on this.
2. How to manage/support team members who are having problems; either because they don't understand their role, or because they aren't "putting in the work".
3. What to do about an uncertain future.

There are enough resources (smart people) making up the CEOs that they can probably deal with the first two types of problems themselves, and I was very impressed that some of the CEOs intend to keep on meeting. As I said at the summit, it is normal-in the outside world-for CEOs to meet and discuss the issues that they are facing; it's also normal for other professionals to meet and talk about their shared problems.

The third issue is somewhat more difficult, because I think the people's ability to tolerate (maybe even enjoy) ambiguity (aka an uncertain future) is a characteristic of ones personality and therefore its harder for people to manage it. The most frequent technique that people (in this class and outside) employed to deal with this issue is to seek more information. At the uncertainty of the moment is "How will the teams be rearranged after the last practice roll-over?"

Let's see, whilst not MECE some of the the ways that students have suggested might be used are:

• Let's see if you really did learn anything, or were you just lucky: No change; everything is reset to just the way it was at the start, same regions, same competitors.
• Equity and equality. Teams are grouped based on their rank after the last roll-over.
• The forces of chaos: Some process of random allocation.
• The brave new world: New/more competitors, new regions.
• You made your bed now lay in it: The simulation just continues the way it is, those who have an advantage still have an advantage.
• Just when you thought it was safe to go back inthe water: Something innocuous reset (maybe the forces of chaos) but there some kind of big change later on.

I wonder what the class would like to happen (and why)? What would be a rational approach, that also had some logical consistency with the real world?

Frankly, I've been a little caught out by the lengths some people are going to in order to "work out" what might happen. I know of one CFO who has tracked down four or five past 'winners' to see what they did and what DPE (or the equivalent) did. I suspect that whatever I say at this junction will make no difference at all to the rumour mill.

As the song goes, "Que sera sera. What ever will be, will be. The future's not ours to see. Que sera, sera."

I read a bit. One book I that had some interesting ideas was The McKinsey way by Ethan M. Rasiel. Many of the ideas are not new, the 80/20 rule, and elevator pitch, and so on, but it does talk about the need to be MECE (pronounced 'me-se') in writing and thinking.

That is to say, every plan, presentation, or even memo must be present their ideas in a mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive manner. The book puts it this way:

One of the most fundamental tenants of McKinsey problem solving is the concept of MECE, mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive. MECE can be used when developing and listing issues related to the problem at hand. First, the associate must ensure that the list is mutually exclusive, or that every item is separate and distinct. Then, she must check that it is collectively exhaustive, that it includes every issue relevant to the problem. This approach prevents overlap and confusion. A "major issues list" should contain no less than two, and no more than five issues, with three being the ideal number. The consultant must make a concerted effort to fit each business problem faced by the company or non-profit under one of the 2- 5 issues on the major issues list. If this fails, there is always the option of creating a category of "other issues", although this is most effective when utilized as a sub-heading for presentation purposes.

Everyone at McKinsey gets well drilled in the art of being MECE:

MECE structures your thinking with maximum clarity--when you think you have determined the issues, take a hard look at them. Is each one a separate and distinct issue? If so, then your issue list is mutually exclusive. Does every aspect of the problem come under one (and only one) of these issues? If so, then your issues are collectively exhaustive ... [so that] every document (including internal memos), every presentation, every e-mail and voice mail produced by McKinsey-ite is supposed to be MECE.

This is closely related to the pyramid method described by Barbara Minto in her book The Minto Pyramid Principle: Logic in Writing, Thinking, & Problem Solving.

The ideas behind the pyramid method and MECE are used a lot by the big consulting firms (McKinsey has already been mentioned, but BCG, Anderson/Accenture). They are also used by strategy case competition teams, and even by students writing thesies.

Here is a fragment (well 150k) of a presentation from the Harvard Business School that shows some of these ideas. It is also a good example of how to tackle cases in general.

This is a copy of an old article on sociodrama...

Mescon, Michael H. (1959). Sociodrama and sociometry: Tools for a modern approach to leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 2(1), 21-29.

Sociodrama and sociometry: Tools for a modern approach to leadership
Michael H. Mescon
Rich's, Incorporated, Atlanta, Georgia

Abstract: Professor Mescon's basic object in this article is to present a summarization and analysis of these techniques as tools of leadership rather than to introduce new and unique applications of sociodrama and sociometry. This he does in an unusual and interesting manner, describing how industry, the military, and other organizations may use these techniques in discovering potential leaders, in selecting individuals for certain key positions in leadership training, in determining the probable behaviour of employees in certain social situations, in the training of foremen and shop stewards, and in sales training programs.

I've another psychodrama workshop tomorrow. They seem to be coming thick and fast at the moment. Tomorrow we are focusing on the Canon of creativity. Just to warm myself up to the work, I thought I'd spend a few moments reading and thinking about it.

This is very briefly talked about in

Moreno, J. L. (1955). Canon of creativity: Analysis of the creativity chart. Sociometry, 18(4), 103-104.

and is shown diagramatically as:

I hope to fill in the detail of what this all means after the course. This diagram represents the interplay between the cultural conserve and sponteneity (that's awefully like the interplay between the forces of institutionalism / habitus / etc. and individual agency).

For Moreno, the cultural conserve are the routinised patterns of behaviours, especially in a group, that provide a sense of stability. Of course the problem with this is that the way in which we respond to new situations, aka sponteneity, is thus limited by our reliance on these ingrained patterns of response.

If I learnt anything over the weekend it is the way in which one becomes unsettled as tentatively attempts are made to break out of the cultural conserve (what was referred to as cracking, but I think that is a local term).

Today we discussed Branson's Virgin. What stands out for me is the two or three times that people actually began to talk to one another, rather than talking at me (or Rochelle). This is happening a little earlier in the course than normal, and that is great. I think next week I must ensure that people are linking to each others ideas -- hopefully that will foster more understanding and discussion, rather than people focusing on trying to score points.

I think it was Daneka who spotted when I wasn't engaging with one of the other students -- I think that was pretty astute of her, and it gave me a good chance to model the importance of asking for clarification.

So what did I take away from todays dicussion (and I've got to say it was different from any discussion I've been part of about Branson). Alas, my notes are back in the office, so this really is what I've taken away.

Well, Branson's personality and style is manifested in the type strategist he is. This has further played itself out in the structure and culture of the organisation. This has significant implications for anyone seeking to replace Brason. For example, the large number of firms that make up Virgin have, in many ways, been kept entrepreneurial -- quiet possibly beyond the usefulness of doing that. What is unresolved is the extent to which luck has been an essential ingredient in the success of the organisation.

I think it was Paula Jarzabkowski who talks about strategy isn't something an organisation has, rather it is something an organisation does, and thus we should talk about strategising rather strategy. In the same way (may be it is Weick), we should talk about becoming something, rather than being something. So for the class, Business Policy & Strategy, I tend to think of the students as people who are in the (endless) process of becoming strategists¹.

This is all prompted by a discussion I had with three students who came to talk about this week's case, Branson's Virgin (de Vries & Dick, 1998). The came looking to find out what I wanted them to say -- that old chestnut of "How should I approach this case?" I think they were surprised by the answer. I don't have an answer in mind; what I'm hoping for is that each student will bring what they know (about strategy, or marketing, etc) to bear on the case and to demonstrate that they understand what is going on in the case and what is going on in the class room. The second part came as a big surprise to them. If we treat the class as a strategy retreat or a strategy away day, many of the problems we face in the class, of getting stuck or going round in circles, are faced by strategists too. It isn't, after all, just about having good ideas; it is also about understanding other's ideas, getting ones own ideas accepted, integrating what other people have have said, keeping the 'conversation' going. Just think about what Mason & Mitroff (1981, 1998) said about the way to talk wicked problems. It requires input from many people, so part of what is desired is working with the rest of the class - not just defending ones own position or point of view.

So, pragmatically, marks can be earned, not only by making sense of the case (with a good dollop of theory), but also by synthesising understanding from everything that is being said in the class. Such synthesis can be started by something a simple as asking good questions of one another, or by seeking clarification on peoples' position.

Anyway, after the four of us finished talking, I was left really looking forward to Friday and what they might do in class.

Footnotes

¹ Many of the ideas here are drawn from my PhD research, so this really is research informed learning.

References

Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation and practices-in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529-560.

Kets de Vries, M., & Dick, R. (1998). Branson's Virgin: The coming of age of a counter-cultural enterprise. In B. de Wit & R. Meyer (Eds.), Strategy: Process, content, context. London: Thompson Learning.

Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. (1981). Complexity: The nature of real world problems. In Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases, and techniques. New York: John Wiley.

Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. (1998). Complexity: The nature of real world problems. In B. de Wit & R. Meyer (Eds.), Strategy process, content, context: An international perspective (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Thompson Learning.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

I try to be active in the strategy-as-practice community. One of the ways I do this is by maintaining a bibliography of readings that is available through the web-site. A few weeks ago, I asked people for any suggestions to add to the bibliography. Gerry Johnson sent me a list he has been working on with Leif Melin.

I've start to work through the list, getting copies of the articles and reading them, as I add them to the bibliography. The first article is:

Langley, A. (1990). Patterns in the use of formal analysis in strategic decisions. Organization Studies, 11(1), 17-45.

The abstract says:

An empirical study examined how formal analysis is used in strategic decision making in 3 organizations of different structural types. In-depth investigation was made of the role of formal analysis at top levels in 3 organizations - a machine bureaucracy, a professional bureaucracy, and an adhocracy. It was found that formal analysis is used for a variety of purposes in organizations, and the way in which it is used varies from organization to organization. Three patterns of use were identified: 1. Analysis is used for substantive input to decisions, to control implementation, and to ensure convergence toward action. 2. Analysis becomes a key tool of persuasion and verification in the negotiation process between levels of the hierarchy concerning actions to be taken. 3. Analysis appears unproductive as people use it to put forward contradictory positions and to gain time in an atmosphere of indecision and divergence. This suggests that organizational structure is a key factor affecting the decision process.

There are a number of things that stand out after reading this article. Firstly, it reminds me that formal analysis is more prevalent in the later stages on strategising, e.g. in the evaluation of strategies or in filling in the details - maybe through into implementation, rather than in the earlier, dare I say more intuitive, formulation stages. I expect this is due the greater reliance on creativity in the 'earlier' part of strategising.

Secondly, the nature or configuration (e.g. Mintzberg, 1983) of the firm--in a structural sense--impacts the ways in which formal (and informal) analysis is used. I think this can be linked to Ranson, Hinings, & Greenwood's (1980) idea that structure and the way the organisation things are intertwined (the archetype as they call it) - although that explicit link is not made in the article.

Finally, it reminds me that I have to get around to reading Linblom's classic 1959 article on muddling through.

References.

Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.

Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ranson, S., Hinings, C. R., & Greenwood, R. (1980). The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 1-17.

All firms start off in the same position. So, I'd thought I'd just record some benchmarking figures so I can compare them with what firms achieve in the future.

I subscribe to a number of journals, so every week or so, something new to read appears in my mail box. It's often hard to keep up with the volume of reading (and I'm not even reading some "standards", such as AMJ). Anyway, the latest edition of Strategic Organization has landed on my desk. I've recommended it to the library, but judging by Voyager it isn't generally available in the University.

Each issue contains an editorial essay, and I thought the following one would be very useful to my strategy students (albeit for later in the course). The article is called:

Delacroix, J. (2004). Another monkey on our backs: Falsehoods and truth about globalization. Strategic Organization, 2(3), 313-322.

Unlike the readings in the textbook, which argues about the tension between globalisation and localisation, this article focuses on the bad press that globalisation has been getting (as demonstrated at Seattle, Cancún, etc).

Having read the article, I can't help feeling that like the myth of globalisation as a source of evil (as it is portrayed on many websites) needs to be properly considered, rather than accepted (as politically driven rhetoric). It reminds me of the claims that the pace of change is faster than ever before ... I'm still waiting to see the hard evidence.

I had a fitness assessment at the university's Recreation Centre today. Here are the results.

Overall, I'm losing weight. Now I jsut need to build up some strength. So, I feel on track.

I've just finished reading the journals. And I'm prompted to ask the following questions.

• Should a firm try out its intended strategy during the practice rounds, or should it do some kind of bluff?
• Is ranking generally useful or generally not? What about in a team situation such as yours?
• Are the number of words in an assignment a good proxy for the amount of effort required? When might this not be true?
• Do CEOs really have it easy?
• Is any of the teams a 'real team' yet?
• Can a firm really afford to buy another in the first rollover, if they sell everything? (and will the have enough money to service the debt afterwards?)

One team asked Darl and me 'How long should a team agreement be?' Echoing the mantra of management, we replied 'It all depends'.

In some ways, a team agreement is there as an insurance policy in case things go wrong -- it may never be used (but it will be because of the marks). The team agreement may also be a tool to ensure teams and the lecturers understand each others positions. In other ways, the team agreement is a vehicle to build trust and commitment (think back to Katzenback & Smith).

Charles Handy tells the following story:

I remember my first exposure to the 'Chinese Contract'. I was a manager in South Malaysia for an oil company, responsible amongst other things for negotiating agency agreements with our Chinese dealers. I was young, enthusiastic and, I suppose näI've. After the conclusion of one such negotiation, the dealer and I shook hands, drank ritual cups of tea, and were, I felt, the best of friends. I took the official company agency agreement out of my case to fill in the figures, preparatory to signing it. 'Why are you doing that?' asked the dealer with some alarm. 'If you think I am going to sign that that you are much mistaken.' 'But I'm only writing in figures which we have agreed.' 'If we agreed them, why do you want a legal document? It makes me suspect that you have got more out of this agreement than I have, and are going to use the weight of the law to enforce your teams. In my culture,' he went on , 'a good agreement is self-enforcing because both parties go away smiling and are happy to see that each of us is smiling. In one smiles, and the other scowls, the agreement will not stick, lawyers or no lawyers' (Handy, 1994, p. 80).

So, one issue is how much you trust each other, and how much we (DPE) trust you. After all, you have been entrusted with something quite valuable -- that is to say, 20 per cent of your marks. My sense is that some teams have higher levels of genuine trust, rather than the rosy glasses of norming, and commitment than other teams. So, the length of each team's agreement will be different.

References

Handy, C. (1994). The empty raincoat: Making sense of the future. London: Arrow Books.
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1991). The discipline of teams. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Pub.

Monday's are such a full day. From 9-12, I with teams; From 12 -1 DPE to discuss the teams, I'm teaching 302 from 2-3 (so I have an hour to 'shift gears'), and finally I'm teach 101 from 5-6. Yes, pretty full.

The first team of the day found me not at my best. I'd spent the weekend doing psychodrama and I think I was still processing what went on over the weekend. I did recognise what was happening for me, and I apologised to the team -- but I'm not sure it helped them.

One team I sat in with made a very good suggestion about evaluating each other (as part of the team agreements). For each of the broad categories in their TA, they suggested that they simple tell each person (anonymously as it happens) the thing they are doing the best in that category, thing that would make the biggest improvement in their performance (again in that category) and there rank in that category. It has a certain simple elegance I like (and I'm sure I haven't reported back exactly as the team member presented it, so apologies to that team too).

Thinking of Mike's Bikes, I wonder how many people have found the "offline" mode in Net Mike, and are using it to roll-forward and to roll-back? It's a useful training aid for many types of decisions (however, it is useless for some types of decisions too).

Gossip A general theme that seems to be emerging is how to deal with the issues of takeovers. There are two major ways to avoid being taken over.
* Be too big and expensive to buy
* Have too much market share so the commerce rules inhibit takeovers
Alas, both of these defences take time to put in place.

The first of the summits has been announced. They are normally very helpful to people. Of course, being geared to a particular role, they aren't that helpful to other people.

I spent the weekend (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) on a Clinical Psychodrama course. Nothing much (clinical) happened.