recentpopularlog in

jerryking : skin_in_the_game   12

Be a Potentiator - Mike Lipkin
April 25, 2019 | @ #CAIF2019 | Presentation and speech By Mike Lipkin.

1. Be Self-Savvy: Define your principles. Discern your impact. Play your role. Know what drives you. Know how you’re occurring to others. Know their expectations of you. Know thyself and thy relationship with others.
2. Develop Situational Sensibility: Get out there. Know the trends. Connect the dots. Context is decisive. Whoever understands their environment best wins. So expand your footprint. Study the data until it tells the truth. Anticipate the future by getting there first. Become your peers’ scout. Discover the new world for yourself and other will want to join you.
3. Make a Powerful Promise: Declare your purpose. Express your value proposition. Focus your execution. Know your personal mission. Know the unique benefit you give to others. Act accordingly. So my mission is to turn people into potentiators. My unique benefit is to excite people into remarkable action. I’m executing my promise through motivational messages like this one in any way I can. What are you doing?
4. Become Sublimely Skilled: Practice for real. Become the authority. Make it a pleasure. Whatever your level, be the best at that level. Learn from every experience. Communicate your knowledge with conviction. Light others up with your joie de vivre.
5. Build Robust Resilience: Interpret to win. Be prolific. Train like an athlete. We’re only as good as the stories that we tell ourselves. Make whatever happens meaningful. Do more things. Put the odds on your side. And train, train, train. Stamina is the rocket fuel of champions.
6. Grow Courageous Creativity: Unleash your imagination. Experiment like Edison. Talk, listen, learn. Dare to dream then declare your dream. Turn it into reality by trying something new. Fail fast until you fly high. Get in front of people and give them great conversation. Enrich their perspective while you expand yours.
7. Be Fanatically Faithworthy: Commit to your commitments. Come through in the crunch. Be the best you can be, every day. If you say it, do it. Make your word the one thing that others can always depend on. Become the go-to-person in a crisis. And, whatever happens, bring your A-Game every time. You can’t always be the best, but you can always be the best you can be that day.
8. Create Close Connections: Give First. Open yourself up. Become an insider. Generosity pays big dividends. Show what you can give them and others will show you the money. Get up, close and personal. Become integral to others’ wellbeing. If you build their trust, they will pay it forward all the way back to you.
9. Communicate Like a Champion: Say it like you mean it. Talk their language. Connect them to their purpose. How you say what you say is as important as what you say. Let your authenticity shine through but inject it with your passion. Be the reason why other people rediscover why they make a difference.
10. Cause Bold Breakthroughs: Own it. Celebrate the struggle. Finish like a professional. It’s not about the title. It’s about your skin in the game. It’s about taking on the responsibility for everyone else’s success, no matter what. You can’t always win, but you can always play to win. It’s meant to be hard. The pain is the price you pay to be a potentiator. Close strong and the force will be with you.
breakthroughs  CAIF  code_switching  commitments  Communicating_&_Connecting  connecting_the_dots  execution  inspiration  It's_up_to_me  Mike_Lipkin  motivations  purpose  self-awareness  self-knowledge  self-made  serving_others  situational_awareness  skin_in_the_game  torchbearers  value_propositions 
april 2019 by jerryking
Flood. Rinse. Repeat: The costly cycle that must end
May 07, 2017 | The Globe and Mail |GLENN MCGILLIVRAY, managing director, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction

Once again, homes located alongside a Canadian river have flooded, affected homeowners are shocked, the local government is wringing its hands, the respective provincial government is ramping up to provide taxpayer-funded disaster assistance and the feds are deploying the Armed Forces.

In Canada, it is the plot of the movie Groundhog Day, or the definition of insanity attributed to Albert Einstein: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.....First, a homeowner locates next to the river, oftentimes because of the view (meaning a personal choice is being made). Many of these homes are of high value.

Then the snow melts, the ice jams or the rain falls and the flood comes. Often, as is the case now, the rain is characterized by the media as being incredible, far outside the norm. Then a scientific or engineering analysis later shows that what happened was not very exceptional.

These events are not caused by the rain, they are caused by poor land-use decisions, among other public-policy foibles. This is what is meant when some say there are no such things as natural catastrophes, only man-made disasters.

Finally, the province steps in with disaster assistance then seeks reimbursement from the federal government through the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements. In any case, whether provincial or federal, taxpayers are left holding the bag.....So what is the root of the problem? Though complex problems have complex causes and complex solutions, one of the causes is that the party making the initial decision to allow construction (usually the local government) is not the party left holding the bag when the flood comes.

Just as homeowners have skin in the game through insurance deductibles and other measures, local governments need a financial disincentive to act in a risky manner. At present, municipalities face far more upside risk than downside risk when it comes to approving building in high-risk hazard zones. When the bailout comes from elsewhere, there is no incentive to make the right decision – the lure of an increased tax base and the desire not to anger local voters is all too great.

Reducing natural disaster losses in Canada means breaking the cycle – taking a link out of the chain of events that leads to losses.

Local governments eager for growth and the tax revenue that goes with it need to hold some significant portion of the downside risk in order to give them pause for thought.
floods  catastrophes  natural_calamities  design  insurance  public_policy  disasters  relief_recovery_reconstruction  sustainability  municipalities  skin_in_the_game  disincentives  Albert_Einstein  complex_problems  land_uses  moral_hazards  man-made  hazards  downside_risks 
may 2017 by jerryking
From Michael Lewis, a Portrait of the Men Who Shaped ‘Moneyball’ - The New York Times
By ALEXANDRA ALTERDEC. 3, 2016
Lewis decided to explore how it started.

The inquiry led him to the work of two Israeli psychologists, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, whose discoveries challenged long-held beliefs about human nature and the way the mind works.

Mr. Lewis chronicles their unusual partnership in his new book, “The Undoing Project,” a story about two unconventional thinkers who saw the world differently from everyone around them. Their peculiar area of research — how humans make decisions, often irrationally — has had profound implications for an array of fields, like professional sports, the military, medicine, politics, finance and public health.....Tversky and Kahneman's research demonstrating how people behave in fundamentally irrational ways when making decisions, relying on their gut rather than available data, gave rise to the field of behavioral economics. That discipline attracted Paul DePodesta, a Harvard student, who later went into sports management and helped upend professional baseball when he went to work for Mr. Beane.....Unlike many nonfiction writers, Mr. Lewis declines to take advances, which he calls “corrupting,” even though he could easily earn seven figures. Instead, he splits the profits from the books, as well as the advertising and production costs, with Norton. The setup spurs him to work harder and to make more money if the books are successful, he says.

“You should have the risk and you should enjoy the reward,” he said. “It’s not healthy for an author not to have the risk.”
Amos_Tversky  Michael_Lewis  Moneyball  books  book_reviews  unconventional_thinking  biases  cognitive_skills  unknowns  information_gaps  humility  pretense_of_knowledge  overconfidence  conventional_wisdom  overestimation  metacognition  behavioural_economics  irrationality  decision_making  nonfiction  writers  self-awareness  self-analysis  self-reflective  proclivities  Daniel_Kahneman  psychologists  delusions  self-delusions  skin_in_the_game  gut_feelings  risk-taking  partnerships 
december 2016 by jerryking
Four ways to harvest value from ‘failure’ - The Globe and Mail
JOE NATALE
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Feb. 04 2015

Here are four ways to bring tuition value to life in your organization:

1. Reward the blunt and the honest.

2. Make sure everybody has some skin in the game...Reflect upon our successes and our failures and, most importantly, to share and study them and create a constructive dialogue within their teams. Creating tuition value only works if it becomes everyone’s responsibility.

3. Know when to fold them. We have heard many times that it’s important to fail fast, and yet too many organizations take far too long to put a bullet in projects that are going nowhere.

4. Pump up the volume of your customer’s voice.
attrtion_rates  failure  lessons_learned  value_creation  customer_feedback  feedback  reflections  kill_rates  skin_in_the_game 
february 2015 by jerryking
Five questions to hone your business strategy - The Globe and Mail
HARVEY SCHACHTER
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Sunday, Sep. 28 2014

1. Why does our business deserve to succeed?
2. What would a new CEO do?
3. Imagine it is three to six years in the future and the proposed strategy has been unsuccessful. Why did it fail?
4. What would have to be true for our strategy to succeed?
5. Would I put my own money into this?
strategy  business_planning  Harvey_Schachter  execution  effectiveness  assumptions  anticipating  questions  biases  overconfidence  self-delusions  skin_in_the_game 
september 2014 by jerryking
Josef Joffe: Dear Vladimir: Congratulations. You Read My Book - WSJ.com
By
Josef Joffe
March 6, 2014 | WSJ |

Be both ruthless and prudent—just what I prescribed in "The Prince." You Russians have distilled my wisdom into a pithy phrase: Kto kovo—who dominates whom? And you have beautifully executed my central idea. I never preached violence to the max, but the "economy of force"—how to get more with less. The Crimean caper was a masterpiece of smart power politics.

Grab opportunities when you saw them. First, you calculated the "correlation of forces," to use a Soviet term....Then, you assessed political geography correctly. The rule is never to take on a superior enemy like the West on his own turf. You test his mettle on his periphery...Next, factor in geography proper. Globally, the West is far superior to Russia, but regionally, you were the Man. You had the "interior lines," as the great Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz put it; the West was a thousand miles away. And your troops were already in place in Crimea—tanks, planes and all....Now to the balance of interests, a more subtle concept. The EU has been contesting you over Ukraine, but more as a confused afterthought. Your country had more compelling fish to fry: Ukraine as former Russian heartland plus an ethnic majority in Crimea, a strategic gem that Khrushchev had absentmindedly given away to Ukraine 60 years ago.

So you also held the psychological advantage that comes with having more skin in the game. Khrushchev blithely ignored the balance of interests in the Caribbean. Otherwise he would not have moved his missiles into Cuba in 1962, 90 miles off the U.S. coast.....Best of all, you are a true Machiavellian when it comes to the economy of violence. Just enough, never too much, and with minimal risks. So you didn't grab eastern Ukraine, which might have really riled the West and triggered a costly insurgency. You merely harvested the low-hanging fruit of Crimea, and with a fabulous profit. ....Here, my pupil, beckons the biggest payoff. You need not fear the democratic contagion of the Maidan spilling over into your own country. Not for a long time.

What a boost to your "street cred" in the rivalry of nations! With a small investment, you have amassed what Mr. Obama no longer has and what the Europeans lost long ago: a reputation for ruthlessness and the readiness to use force.

Power is when you don't have to wield it—when you don't have to threaten, let alone execute, to get your way.....We live in a split world. In Asia and Africa, mayhem is as present or possible as ever. Call this the "Damascus-Pyongyang Belt." Yet in the "Berlin-Berkeley Belt," force as a tool of statecraft has virtually disappeared....the U.S.—is now loath to resort to the ultima ratio. And that offers you wondrous opportunities. When the supply of force contracts, even a little bit goes a long way, as you have proved in Crimea.
Niccolò_Machiavelli  Vladimir_Putin  Crimea  Russia  power  power_plays  influence  statecraft  geopolitics  Ukraine  improvisation  rogue_actors  skin_in_the_game  political_geography  ruthlessness  large_payoffs  Carl_von_Clausewitz  stratagems  strategic_geography  hard_power 
march 2014 by jerryking
Whatever the weather
Nov. 24, 2012 | The Financial Times News: p10.|Gillian Tett who interviews Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Until now, Taleb says, modern society has generally assumed that people, systems or institutions fell into two camps: either they were fragile (and likely to break when shocks occur) or robust (and thus able to resist shocks without being impacted at all). Taleb insists there is a third category of people, institutions and systems that are resilient in a way we have been unable to articulate: they survive shocks not because they are immovable but precisely because they do change, bending in the face of stress; adapting and learning. This is the quality that he describes as "antifragile". (In the US the book is being published with the rather more explicit subtitle "Things that Gain from Disorder".)

Taleb goes on to explain how this works: while nation-states tend to be fragile (because they are highly dependent on one vision of the nation), city-states tend to be antifragile (because they can adapt and learn from history). Careers that are based on one large employer can be fragile but careers that are flexible and entrepreneurial are antifragile, because they can move with changing times. Similarly, the banking system is fragile, while Silicon Valley is antifragile; governments that are highly indebted are fragile, while those (such as Sweden) which have learnt from past mistakes and refuse to assume too much debt are antifragile. And Switzerland is presented as one of the most antifragile places of all, partly because its decentralised structure allows for plenty of experimentation...Taleb has plenty of advice to offer us on how to become more antifragile. We should embrace unpredictable change, rather than chase after an illusion of stability; refuse to believe anyone who offers advice without taking personal risk; keep institutions and systems small and self-contained to ensure that they can fail without bringing the entire system down; build slack into our lives and systems to accommodate surprises; and, above all, recognise the impossibility of predicting anything with too much precision. Instead of building systems that are excessively "safe", Taleb argues, we should roll with the punches, learn to love the random chances of life and, above all, embrace small pieces of adversity as opportunities for improvement. "Wind extinguishes a candle and energises a fire," he writes. "Likewise with randomness, uncertainty, chaos, you want to use them, not hide from them."
adaptability  adversity  antifragility  books  chaos  city-states  Gillian_Tett  illusions  Nassim_Taleb  overcompensation  personal_risk  randomness  resilience  scheduling  self-contained  skin_in_the_game  slack_time  surprises  trauma  uncertainty  unpredictability 
november 2012 by jerryking
Learning to Love Volatility: Nassim Nicholas Taleb on the Antifragile
November 16, 2012 | WSJ | Nassim Nicholas Taleb

In a world that constantly throws big, unexpected events our way, we must learn to benefit from disorder, writes Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Some made the mistake of thinking that I hoped to see us develop better methods for predicting black swans. Others asked if we should just give up and throw our hands in the air: If we could not measure the risks of potential blowups, what were we to do? The answer is simple: We should try to create institutions that won't fall apart when we encounter black swans—or that might even gain from these unexpected events....To deal with black swans, we instead need things that gain from volatility, variability, stress and disorder. My (admittedly inelegant) term for this crucial quality is "antifragile." The only existing expression remotely close to the concept of antifragility is what we derivatives traders call "long gamma," to describe financial packages that benefit from market volatility. Crucially, both fragility and antifragility are measurable.

As a practical matter, emphasizing antifragility means that our private and public sectors should be able to thrive and improve in the face of disorder. By grasping the mechanisms of antifragility, we can make better decisions without the illusion of being able to predict the next big thing. We can navigate situations in which the unknown predominates and our understanding is limited.

Herewith are five policy rules that can help us to establish antifragility as a principle of our socioeconomic life.

Rule 1:Think of the economy as being more like a cat than a washing machine.

We are victims of the post-Enlightenment view that the world functions like a sophisticated machine, to be understood like a textbook engineering problem and run by wonks. In other words, like a home appliance, not like the human body. If this were so, our institutions would have no self-healing properties and would need someone to run and micromanage them, to protect their safety, because they cannot survive on their own.

By contrast, natural or organic systems are antifragile: They need some dose of disorder in order to develop. Deprive your bones of stress and they become brittle. This denial of the antifragility of living or complex systems is the costliest mistake that we have made in modern times.

Rule 2:Favor businesses that benefit from their own mistakes,not those whose mistakes percolate into the system.

Some businesses and political systems respond to stress better than others. The airline industry is set up in such a way as to make travel safer after every plane crash.

Rule 3:Small is beautiful, but it is also efficient.

Experts in business and government are always talking about economies of scale. They say that increasing the size of projects and institutions brings costs savings. But the "efficient," when too large, isn't so efficient. Size produces visible benefits but also hidden risks; it increases exposure to the probability of large losses.
Rule 4:Trial and error beats academic knowledge.
Rule 5:Decision makers must have skin in the game.

In the business world, the solution is simple: Bonuses that go to managers whose firms subsequently fail should be clawed back, and there should be additional financial penalties for those who hide risks under the rug. This has an excellent precedent in the practices of the ancients. The Romans forced engineers to sleep under a bridge once it was completed (jk: personal risk and skin in the game).
Nassim_Taleb  resilience  black_swan  volatility  turmoil  brittle  antifragility  personal_risk  trial_&_error  unknowns  size  unexpected  economies_of_scale  risks  hidden  compounded  disorder  latent  financial_penalties  Romans  skin_in_the_game  deprivations  penalties  stressful  variability 
november 2012 by jerryking
Self-discipline sets the road to success
Jul. 29 2012 | The Globe and Mail | HARVEY SCHACHTER.

See this (http://changethis.com/manifesto/96.01.SelfDiscipline/pdf/96.01.SelfDiscipline.pdf)

The paradox principle: Do the difficult things now, and things will be easier in the long term.

The buy-in principle: The more you have invested in something, the less likely you are to let it fail.

The magnification principle: If your focus is diluted, so too are your results.

The creation principle: There is a four-step process to getting things done: You think it, you speak it, you act it, and it happens.

The harvest principle: Focused effort is amplified by appropriate timing and regimented routine.
Harvey_Schachter  self-discipline  focus  self-control  affirmations  routines  skin_in_the_game 
july 2012 by jerryking
In search of up-and-comers: some principles to follow
02 Dec 1995 | The Globe and Mail pg. B.18.| Gary Lamphier.

IMAGINE investing in technology stars such as California's 3Com or Ottawa's Istar Internet - last week's market darling on the Toronto Stock Exchange - long before they've gone public and other investors have jumped aboard.

That's the game venture capitalists play as they scour obscure industry publications and trade shows, attend endless conferences and swap gossip with entrepreneurs in search of tomorrow's success stories.
(1) Most want to see company principals put their money where their mouth is by investing in their own companies. Otherwise, no deal.
(2) The market that the startup company plans to sell its product into must be big and getting bigger.
(3) Any start-up company that hopes to prosper must have exceptionally strong management, the pros agree.
(4) Successful companies breed successful companies.
Sequoia  Michael_Moritz  venture_capital  vc  Kleiner_Perkins  start_ups  rules_of_the_game  large_markets  teams  skin_in_the_game  unglamorous 
july 2012 by jerryking
Legal Rebels - 5 Business Model Innovations Solos Need to Truly Compete with BigLaw
With the financial crisis of 2008-2009, every part of this old model has come under scrutiny, even in a traditionally high-end field like IP litigation. Specifically:

Leverage. Leverage, or the associate-to-partner ratio within a firm or practice, is good for reportable profits per partner. But it is not necessarily good for clients. As clients push to cut litigation costs, leverage declines. This trend favors solos and less-leveraged practices.

Within One Firm. Historically, the transaction costs associated with assembling a team of lawyers not located under the same roof made it prohibitive to build a competitive litigation team from a network of solos. But the rise of Web 2.0 is changing that. With my LinkedIn/Facebook/Outlook network of colleagues, I can identify, customize and assemble a team in less time than it used to take to walk the halls of my old BigLaw firm. But we need innovation in the areas of contractual arrangements and the laws governing lawyers to fully deliver on the promise of the ad hoc, Web 2.0, virtual law firm.

Customized. In most areas of law practice, as the field matures, more and more aspects of the discipline become standardized.

Off the shelf. The opposite of build-it-by-hand-from-scratch-every-time [JCK: *bespoke*] . Compared with some other fields of law, IP litigation has been fairly slow to progress in this manner. It has therefore remained—relatively speaking—profitable custom work. But we are starting to see some indications that aspects of IP litigation are being made more routine, even standardized. This is a good development for the solo IP litigator. As formerly labor-intensive-but-routine pieces of IP litigation evolve into off-the-shelf modules, we are freed up to apply our creativity and good judgment to the more strategic aspects of the case, with a diminished need to spend time supervising large teams as they custom-polish a third set of interrogatories or research for the nth time how to apply the Brown Bag Software case to a two-tiered stipulated protective order. Innovation in off-the-shelf litigation modules is starting to arrive, and more is needed.

Billable hours. It has been proclaimed and repeated that the billable hour is dead. Well, maybe not quite. But it is certainly open to competition from alternative fee arrangements. We have enough data and experience now that we can start to accurately predict IP litigation costs. And we can bill a la carte, charging fixed fees for different pieces of litigation. A menu might include one fixed fee for pleading-through-pretrial conference, a per-deposition fee, a per-custodian document discovery fee and so on. Models continue to evolve. Clients want their lawyers to share the risk—to have some “skin in the game”—and to have incentives for efficiency. Innovative billing models are coming.
ad_hoc  bespoke  Big_Law  billable_hours  business_models  competitive_landscape  dissolutions  Facebook  gig_economy  JCK  law_firms  leverage  LinkedIn  Michael_McDerment  networks  patent_litigation  project_management  off_the_shelf  on-demand  risk_sharing  short-lived  short-term  skin_in_the_game  solo  standardization  teams  transaction_costs  
october 2010 by jerryking
Bankers Need More Skin in the Game: Glassman and Nolan Say Private Partnerships Would Increase Risk Aversion Among Executives - WSJ.com
FEBRUARY 25, 2009 | Wall Street Journal | byJAMES K. GLASSMAN
and WILLIAM T. NOLAN. Op-ed piece.

(1) Partnerships may be a more trustworthy business model than
corporations.
(2) Alfred Chandler, the great business historian, said that "strategy
determines structure." Similarly, structure determines behavior.
Wall_Street  financial  crisis  risk-taking  risk-management  partnerships  financial_institutions  strategy  strategic_thinking  organizational_structure  behaviours  trustworthiness  risk-aversion  risk-preferences  skin_in_the_game  risks  Alfred_Chandler  human_behavior  business_history 
february 2009 by jerryking

Copy this bookmark:





to read