Category Archives: Careers

Symmetries in relationship

“The safest way to try to get what you want is to try to deserve what you want. It’s such a simple idea. It’s the golden rule. You want to deliver to the world what you would buy if you were on the other end.”

Charlie Munger

In Barry Nalebuff’s Split the Pie, he emphasized the concept of symmetry in negotiation, highlighting that in any two-party negotiation, the contribution of both are actually equal. Because the benefits are off the table when any one of the parties walk away. And therefore once the pie is identified, it should be split down the middle.

As seen in the quote above, the thinking about symmetry is the same when we consider how we ought to treat others, how we put things out into the world, and make decisions. There is always a thought experiment that allows you to be on the symmetrical opposite end of the deal – and you’ve to consider if you’d accept what you’re getting.

What this mean is you can introduce this thought experiment to someone who puts up a ridiculous deal and flip the tables on him/her. When the person highlights the asymmetry of the parties, you can mention that it is irrelevant to what you’re trying to create here. The question is whether the person is actually committed to securing this gain? If the person has a better deal elsewhere, put it on the table so it shrinks the pie and the split can be reallocated.

Talking to bosses

In my career-coaching, I often encounter cases of communication challenges from employees or staff especially in conveying messages or ideas to the bosses. Part of the problem is probably culture and the strange imbalance of power with bosses, particularly in larger organisations. There is a lot more filtering of information with complex intentions:

  • Staff might be trying to simplify things for bosses in order to get information across fast but end up obscuring some information
  • Staff may also be trying to manage their bosses’ perception of them and hence try to be focused on delivering more good news than bad
  • Information might be mixed with remarks incorporated for bootlicking purposes

All of these we learnt through a combination of poor workplace culture, bad upbringing with parents hiding lots of different things here and there. There are much better ways to be able to bring truth to the table without having to flinch at the expected responses.

  1. Highlight the context and the objectives of the company or project, and gain affirmation first
  2. Bring up how the objectives are not being met
  3. Define the problem clearly and how it connects to the objectives not being met
  4. Provide some options; each of which justified either by expert or external opinions, past experience from the team and other parties
  5. Request for a decision to be made

If the boss sits on the decision and don’t make it; you may need to be more persistent in highlighting the issue. Then you can start bringing the consequences and laying alongside the costs of the options so that doing nothing would clearly be more costly.

This approach is also useful for sales but perhaps that’s for another day.

Making the transition III

I have written about green ammonia and hydrogen before. And I might keep talking about them because they are important candidates as energy vectors in a decarbonised world. They are quite likely what is considered as the end points of the transition for the world towards zero carbon or low carbon. What does it mean to transit to green ammonia or green hydrogen? What needs to take place, and who will move first? What should the players be looking out for in order to make the switch?

We need to start defining intermediate steps for the switch. There is actually very little doubts about the inevitability of the switch. Yes there are concerns that it might be energy intensive, the costs are high, and the market is not formed yet. But realistically, most new things are like that. When the Apollo mission took up 60% of the computing power of United States in order to perform its calculations for the project, there wasn’t anyone saying the industry is not formed yet we should wait for better computers before we send man to the moon. We just viewed the mission as a series of problems to be solved, within the budget constraint.

The transition needs a budget; it can be a small one or it can be a large one. The issue is that the businesses needs to take a stance and say that climate change and the transition is a mission I want to be on, and to explore the series of problems to be solved in order to complete the mission. And we don’t wait for costs to come down before we make the transition, we take active steps towards it. That is also what leadership is about. That is really the only issue people should be considering.

So for example, if you’re providing equipment for natural gas systems – be it power generation, cogeneration, for steam methane reforming, etc. You need to start thinking about the smaller pieces of things: are your valves able to handle hydrogen? Do the membranes in your cryogenic tanks work if it was to be filled with hydrogen? What about your manpower, are they able to be trained in the safe handling of the gas? All these to prepare for the transition. You won’t be able to make the transition overnight or achieve it through a single project. It takes much smaller steps.

So start making them now.

Making the transition II

Transition means being in an in-between state, crossing over to something which is supposed to be perhaps a less temporary state. The challenge, however, is that one can get stuck in transit. Natural gas as a fuel risk being in that state because it wasn’t really adopted fast enough as a transition fuel. And now renewable electricity from solar and wind has more or less leapfrog it in terms of cost advantage. Once battery or other energy storage technology moves along the cost curve and decline sufficiently, natural gas might even be bypassed.

So the world is in a somewhat confused state. When is it right to use gas? What should be counted as alternatives for decarbonisation? In any case, gas prices are spiking now so what does it mean? Should that mean we move forward into more renewables which might even be more expensive? Or we move backward into coal?

These decisions are not meant to be made in categorically; because the entire system needs to be considered. And what is at the margin in terms of choice needs to be clearly identified. If the additional unit of power that satisfies both energy security and the quantity demanded can be obtained through renewables, it should be used. Of course if that is not available, one might have to step back into more carbon-intensive processes. Availability can also be based on budget.

Natural gas itself, needs to be displaced by greener fuels without threatening the underlying combustion technologies that underpin the gas turbines. But that is perhaps for another day.

Collecting data points II

To make life a little more complex, because data is often insufficiently precise the manner we conceptualise them; therefore, there is a need to try and estimate the actual underlying data. And so estimation means new data is being created – that which may describe our reality but to an imprecise state. The estimations are based on actual empirical observations overlaid with some theory or stories about what it means for similar sort of situations and so on.

The more actual empirical observations, the statistical theory goes, the more we are able to refine our story (or the model) in order to improve the estimations. But the difficulty is that we can make mistakes in empirical observations; and certain assumptions have to be made about these mistakes and how much margin they end up constituting when we are dealing with large numbers of observations.

Incorporating intelligence about reality through theories or stories in different ways can help to deal with these mistakes as well. Being able to do so skillfully requires a strong understanding of both the statistical theories and also creativity in terms of introducing parameters into modelling.

Collecting data points

In a world full of disorder, we try to order them. And to really get a better sense of the reality, we gather data. While the notion of data in the modern world seem to be about bits and bytes, 0s and 1s; data collection dates far further in history. And it is important how our observations and the rich data that we actually collect with our senses matter. Before bits and bytes, there was no easy way to store data in a common denominator; we relied on different mediums including rocks, cloth, paper, film, codification (eg. music notations).

And research or learning in the past proceeded that way. It works, even if the knowledge accumulation is not as fast. Curation and developing good quality data hence matters more than gathering these things at high frequency. Things don’t change that much. Which is why I always think Charles Booth’s survey of the poverty situation in London is such an amazing endeavour with brilliant insights. It reminded me that I don’t need thousands or millions to go out there and perform social research about the society, economy or culture. I could just do things on the field with friends, with people who cared. And to simply describe observations to be gathered together.

Such rich, and more ethnographic research can prove to be more valuable, perceptive, and lasting. Ultimately, data points we gather from this world does not give us any sort of order. We are the ones who order the data points and try to make sense of it. Through a story, with a theory. The data points themselves cannot tell us much even when put together unless we have the mind to be able to see patterns, and tell the story.

Corporate ladder II

I wrote about the corporate ladder previously; I asked the question of what we are actually climbing in our lives. But what if we are really climbing the corporate ladder? What exactly is that about? What if we aspire to have influence over the business, over something that we had thought was important in life. What difference does it make?

Does it matter whether you become a CEO before 40 years old? Or whether you reached there climbing the corporate ladder as opposed to having founded the business? What do others think of a professional CEO? Would it be better if he had worked the grounds and been in operations? Or if he was just a businessman? Or if he had been some office corporate slave who had been putting together powerpoint slides? What do you need to build that path towards that position?

You probably will need some kind of persistence and tenacity. But what do you lose in the process if you try to shortcut it? Who do you actually care about? Is it about yourself? The problem with any ladders including the corporate ladder is that they are designed only with the individual’s desire to rise to the next rung in mind. It appeals to the self, and reinforces it, making one feel more right, more just in serving just oneself. So how can a person who reached the top by climbing be really trying to serve the earth, or shareholders, or the employees, or the customers? If all his life, he’s just trying to lift up himself. Higher and higher.

Paying for work or process?

As a consultant, we work with businesses on different topics and we charge them based on how much work the project involves. Yet the only way to measure the amount of work was to estimate the time it would take us to complete the work. Of course, the price per unit time of someone more experienced (or higher up in position) is higher. But this inevitably seems as though we are charging people for the process rather than work.

Another way to really charge for the work is to find out how much the problem is costing the client, and charge an amount just below the cost of the problem. The client gains the difference. If it’s not a problem but more benefits flow to the client as a result of the work, it can also be valued based on the incremental value to the client. That’s just harder because the clients are unlikely to really reveal that.

As a result when we overvalue ourselves, the transaction never happens and it only seem to happen when we undervalue ourselves vis-a-vis the client’s own value of the work that we are doing. Along the way though, the client can sometimes try to give us more work. After all, the lump sum price have been decided on. Better to ask more questions and wring more value out of these guys. It’s a delicate balance to strike. But all I can say is that consulting is such a human business we can never escape having to manage these interactions and relationships.

They are all necessarily more valuable than the transactions; but it is after all the job, the work, and the payments that enable these relationship. So do you value the work more or the process to arrive at it?

Dancing with controversy

Some people want to start a conversation putting people on defence – often using controversy. Why did you name your child after an unsavoury character in history? Are you really making your guest wash their feet before entering your house? Why does your company logo look like it is plagiarized from this other firm?

First, why do they do that? It could be a power play; or just banter done poorly. Often you can’t really tell their intention. In fact, you are not responsible for their intention, only themselves. While you might want to read into their intentions and craft some kind of story to set your mind away from the mystery, you never really know. So better to choose a story that favours you and your intended response.

Second, how should you respond? Now this part is on you. Regardless of the other party’s intention, you now have to be concerned about your own intention and the message you are trying to project. Returning it with banter or trying to laugh it off may work – but does it reflect your identity? Maybe you want to be gracious and simply acknowledge your feelings towards it. “That was hurtful, let’s move on to more productive topics.” or “From the sound of your question you’ve an axe to grind; I’d appreciate if you help me get away from that axe”. Just putting it out in the open, gently calling out what the other party is doing can be very powerful.

Finally, don’t dwell on it. Move on and direct your energies and enthusiasm towards something else. Controversy is such because people are unable to look beyond disagreements or to boil it down more to the fundamentals. They are such also because of the distractions around the topics which makes people less willing to confront the issue at hand.

Corporate ladder

I always find Star Wars’ portrayal of corporatism and industrialism very interesting especially because despite the different forms they take, they very much mirror what happens in the world we reside in. The trading, bartering, and dominance of transactional behaviours across the galaxy is amazing. Yet there is also such a strong presence of politics, of fighting for beliefs.

One of the recurring theme for those within the ranks of the empire is the idea of climbing the corporate ladder. There are characters who climb because they actually believe in the cause of the corporate, and there are those who are there for their own egos and desire to rise. As we steep ourselves so deeply in work, have we reflected upon the ladder that we are really climbing?

It may not be the corporate ladder; it could be a personal one, or that of social expectations, familial expectation. And if we are not climbing, what then are we doing? Are we even conscious of our goals as we plow through each day?

The corporate system is best not at identifying talents and allowing them to rise (the market and community system tends to be better at that); but it is very good and wringing out standardized productivity from the masses of workers. With its means of doling out incentives and disincentives, from recognition to coercion of different forms, it bends people to its agenda and will.

Have you been bent? Do you know what you are climbing?