All the God's Men put Humpty Dumpty back again

In the relative safety of the European Union, the high flying CEO of an investment (commercial) bank recently described, how his subordinates, if not himself, are doing God's work. It is unclear if he had a crisp definition of what God's men are supposed to do, but on the surface it appears to be a compelling statement. I am sure even God will be happy making $35 Mil/day, doing His work, whatever that turns out to be. In this case, it may be saving the world by lending money generously provided to them by the Federal Reserve or perhaps using the "bailout" that did not require a "payback." to pay themselves bonuses. In either case, one has to tip her hat to both the chief and his country club followers, to save the world from the perils of depression and the possibility of making a few Mil $ less per day. After all, such generosity is seldom seen.

As the God' Men strived to put the Humpty Dumpty together again, on the premise that a broken Humpty Dumpty will spell trouble for the county club, the country and the world, many have asked whether we need the Humpty Dumpty at all. Less superior Humpty Dumpties have gone bankrupt with no significant impact on the world, with the Sun rising on the East and and settling in the West, every day - even after their demise. Hence, it is difficult to believe that the failure of the Golden Humpty would have stopped the Sun from going around the Earth.

As a large part of the country's wealth is invested in HIN1 flu free God's men, one has to ask whether the country needs the Humpty Dumpty at all. What if the God's men stop doing the God's work tomorrow? Will the world come to a screeching halt or will we enter a less inflationary regime with less money printed?

Leadership

Recently, I received an education on leadership from somebody I do not yet know. It appears that the term “leadership” means different things to different people. For some, the iconic leader is Rambo – who takes matters into his own hands and has only scorn for facilitation and consensus building. A leader, apparently, is somebody who steamrolls over everybody else in an attempt to accomplish some set objectives, even at the face of new or conflicting information. It appears that any attempt to understand opposing views or to debate differing ideas will automatically disqualify somebody from being a leader. Rambo never attempted anything like that as such constructs only reveal weakness, a bad quality for a leader.

Such a notion of leadership that is circulating in the halls of corporate America and the chambers of lawmakers is idiocy at the highest level. A leader is somebody who makes things happen by combining different perspectives and ideas, who is able to build consensus by logical discourse, who adheres to a clear set of principles and who ultimately makes a different in the World, not for herself, but for the populace. We have many examples of good leaders - both historical and contemporary. It is important that the concept of leadership is part of the education of the next generation, confused by the caricatures of popular leaders. A true leader makes a difference to the World in silence and to her own satisfaction.

Artificial Intelligence

Lately, an old theme has been surfacing again – that insurmountable fear of grown men that computers ultimately are going to take over the world. Artificial intelligence was a high flying area in the 80s – many students and academics, yours truly included, had dreams of making machines think and act like humans. It seemed like such a natural course to take. The brain is like a computer and hence a computer can be designed to act like the brain. It is possible that we went wrong on both of these assumptions. Unfortunately, a worse outcome may be awaiting humanity – humans are now acting like computers and taking over work that computers can easily handle.

This momentary lapse of reason for the brain was due to the fact that computers are linear thinkers and the last 50 years, people have been training themselves to behave like computers. In manufacturing floors and the glass houses of financial services, humans have been slowly taking over the computers. They have trained to think logically and programmatically, they trained themselves to be most efficient and most importantly they have created specifications and rules for every thought and action.

Computers have underestimated the human’s ability to squeeze out any bit of creativity left in their brains and perpetuate efficient processes and supply chains across all industries, handled exclusively by them. Computers have underestimated the human’s ability to design organizations in prescriptive pyramidal structures led by human robots making decisions to hire, fire and retain. Computers have underestimated the rise of consultants, willing and able to cut and paste with incredible precision, as they help contemporary companies to the edge of precipice. Computers have underestimated the human’s ability to add risk linearly in spread sheets and crash when non-linear and unexpected events occur in the penthouses of high finance. Computers have underestimated the human's ability to create policies assuming that linear forecasts will hold for decades as precisely as a Pentium chip, devoid of any uncertainty

Computers are unlikely to take over the world as humans have already taken over the computers..

Water, water - Everywhere

Purveyors of extra-terrestrial life have been obsessed with water. Although such obsession may be understood in the narrow context of Carbon based life, it has created chaos in many other areas. For example, missions to Mars and the rekindled interest in the Moon have been squarely focused on this innocuous chemical that takes two atoms of the most abundant Hydrogen and one of the lesser known Oxygen. Some of these are based on the idea of finding life and others on the possibility of transporting the mighty human from Earth. Lately, this obsession has bled into an incredible panic of running out of water on our beloved Earth, which is made largely of water. This has led to such insane ideas of investing in water companies (as proposed by market fortune tellers) to certain countries making “strategic plans” to corner the remaining water sources on Earth.

This obsession with water at multiple levels is misplaced. For starters, looking for water as the starting point for finding extra-terrestrial life outside the Solar system is not any more arrogantly stupid than assuming that Earth is at the center of the universe. The fact that water is an important aspect of the only known life, that is Carbon based, is not sufficient reason to make it the driving factor. Second, the assumption that Mars, Moon and other such near Earth bodies have to be prepared for eventual human transport is an equally arrogant notion. Humans are still perpetuating barbaric acts with no sign of any advancement in fundamental knowledge here on Earth and the transportation of this species elsewhere will not be a good thing. And finally, those who stay awake at night, afraid of running out of water just need to remind themselves that water is the most abundant on Earth. It is not water we are likely run out of, it is energy. With sources of energy, one can always create any amount of water.

Water, thus, is the most uninteresting chemical – in extra-terrestrial life finding explorations, attempts at terra-forming and here on Earth.

Is ignorance a crime?

Ignorance is considered a valid defense in many white collar crimes. If the perpetuator can reasonably demonstrate that she did not know something and that led to the alleged crime, in many cases that is considered to be an acceptable defense. However, in situations where it is reasonable to assume that the perpetuator "should have known," the information she claims not to have known, ignorance does not qualify as a viable defense.

This question can also be asked of executives of firms or leaders of countries whose actions lead to the failure of their respective organizations. If such actions emanate from ignorance, can they be held accountable for the outcomes? Does the test, they "should have known," apply in such situations? For example, can the CEO of a firm whose actions bankrupt the company be prosecuted for the crime? The end outcome of her actions may have robed many of their dreams, careers and life. Since this is akin to "crimes against humanity," as it affects a large number of people, or in many cases, a large percentage of the population in an area with cascading negative effects in the region, should such a crime be punishable at a higher level? Can such executives  plead not guilty on the basis of ignorance?

In a famous case of a bankrupt energy company, the CEO claimed that he did not know "accounting" although he was a graduate of an illustrious business school and an equally famous strategy consulting firm. Since the "crime" was clear in this case, the "ignorance defense" failed because it was apparent that he "should have known." The bankruptcies and failures of many firms today affect as many people, if not more. Since there is no "apparent" crime, the society (and prosecutors) give these executives an easy pass. One could easily argue that the executives of failed companies should be held to the same standards if their actions explicitly resulted in the failure of their companies. Such crimes should be punishable at the highest level - as crimes against humanity.

In structuring such a system of effective disincentives to deter ignorance in the executive suites, it is important that the measurement is in the outcomes and not in the process. It has been said that nobody ever got fired by hiring a large and well known technology company for building their systems. It does not matter if the decision is a good one or even if the technology company delivers anything. If regulations are designed to measure nonperformance of executives against standard process metrics (as in the case of the widely admired but costly Sarbanes-Oxley legislation), this can easily backfire.  As doctors tend to overdo tests to avoid getting sued, executives will simply follow standard templates (perhaps provided to them by consultants) to demonstrate that they did everything they could to avoid failure. If the measurement is the outcome itself - then only those who are willing and able to take such jobs will be there. Standard hiring and promotion practices - that generally elevate incompetence to executive suites - will disappear.

Similarly, if the actions of the leaders of countries or regions have resulted in the failure or nonperformance of the area, it should be considered a crime as well. This will increase the ability of policy-makers in general as this will deter those who are not adept at the job from applying for it.   Since countries and regions do not have a market based price, it is more difficult to measure the net effect of the actions taken. However, it may be possible to construct a holistic set of metrics - such as per capita real GDP, growth rates, employment rates, inflation, health, education and other societal factors  - and these should be set prior to the election process.

Ignorance is a crime for those who willingly take positions of power and thus assume accountability for the outcomes that affect a large number of people. They diminish the dreams and lives of many, if they are incompetent and ignorant. This is no less a crime than anything else.

The executive option

Most of us know that the value of an option increases when the uncertainty of the underlying increases. This is because options provide asymmetric payoff to the holder, allowing her to exercise the option in favorable circumstances and simply walk away in other situations. In a similar fashion, executives in large companies seem to hold management options provided to them by the shareholders of the firm. As uncertainty increases, the value of these management options increase. They allow the managers to exercise them if the company does well and claim “no-fault” if it does not. This has led to the culture of “no-consequence” management in which the chiefs claim high bonuses if the company (and the economy in general) gets lucky and blame everything else if things do not work out.

This has been ably demonstrated recently by investment banking executives who have claimed high bonuses in good times and appealed for bailouts in bad times. More subtly, the same phenomena have been happening in every other company. Managers of most large companies typically claim that the success of the company is due to their hard work but often blame the economy, government and other factors if the company fails. This is an option held by the managers of the firm. They exercise these options to their own benefits in good times and simply walk away in bad times.

Executive options will increase in value when the uncertainty of outcomes increases. The value of the executive, thus, is higher under chaos than in a stable regime. This means that it is dominant for executives of firms to increase uncertainty that automatically enhances their own value. A chaotic economy, thus, provides the executives of firms (especially the large ones) an automatic increase in worth. To correct this situation, negative bonuses and other creative incentives have to be implemented to make the pay-offs symmetric. Otherwise, we will prolong the “no-consequence” management culture that will make the economy worse off, save the executives.

Time tracking to bankruptcy

Many companies and organizations continue to measure time taken to complete defined activities and continue to use that as a proxy for productivity. When the end output is well defined and has low uncertainty in quality and quantity, such measurements may provide reasonable estimate of productivity. However, if the end product is not a tangible good or it shows significant uncertainty in quality, the time taken to complete the activity that aids in its production is not necessarily related to productivity.

For example, consider a car manufacturer who produces a tangible good (cars) with clearly measurable quantity output. Intuition may tell us that employees’ time spent inside the factory is a good proxy for the company’s profits (and hence the productivity of the employee). But this is not necessarily so. If the quality of the automobile has a significant impact on the buying habits of existing and future customers, it is not the production quantity that is related to profitability - it is the quality of products. Hence, measuring raw time spent inside the factory (that is related to quantity of production) is not useful in measuring productivity.

Similarly, if the company is producing intangible goods such as information (pharmaceuticals, hi-technology), measuring time of employees is not useful to manage the company better. Status-quo managers, some of them growing up in the industrial era and some others educated in the process-centric institutions and consulting firms may not only waste valuable resources by implementing time tracking systems but also create wrong signals on how to manage the company better. It is the implementation of such antiquated ideas of productivity measurement and management that is driving many large companies to the brink of disaster. Unless shareholders understand this and promptly remove such managers from these companies, the end outcomes will likely become more predictable.