Emotional responses

I've not posted anything for months - not because I've not had things to post, but because of work pressures, and perhaps also not having anything I thought worth posting.

That's not to say that things haven't happened - but others will have posted on the London Online conference, the SCIP annual and European conferences in San Diego and Bad Nauheim, Germany, and the AIIP annual conference in Pittsburgh. I attended all - and each was worthwhile in its own way. (My favorite was AIIP - but then this is such a great organisation anyway!).

In the last few months I've also been to China where I led a workshop on CI, and on a personal level, celebrated my oldest nephew's wedding in Jerusalem and saw the loss of my father a month later.

So what has prompted this post?

Well I try and link ideas to marketing and competitive intelligence. Those who know me will know that one of the areas I specialise in is competitive intelligence analysis and game theory. My talk at SCIP Europe (and also at the SCIP 2007 conference) was on Game Theory.

One of the areas I emphasise is that when looking at a competitor you should try and look at things from their perspective. Just because something looks stupid or illogical to you doesn't neccssarily mean that it is stupid and illogical. It could also be that the competitor is viewing something from a different angle to you - and that if you switched viewpoints it would make perfect sense. Developing an ability to switch perspectives could save you $, £, €, or ¥ as it should lead to greater anticipation of how competitors are likely to respond and thus better and more effective strategies. The assumption is that competitors behave logically, and choose strategies based on the information and knowledge they currently have.

There is, however, an exception to this. Sometimes a competitor can be blinded by hatred, greed, fear, or another strong emotion. In such cases their decisions are likely to be stupid and illogical as they can't see reality and instead, they base what they do on their emotionally biased view of the world.

As a result, when looking at a competitor it is also important to look for any emotional aspect in their decision making. Is this leading to how they behave or react? If it is, then you can use it against them to win out. Of course the same applies to you - and it's important that you make decisions that are not based on emotional reasons. Decisions need to be made based on facts, evidence and logic - anything else will lead to vulnerabilities that can be attacked by a competitor.

There are many examples of companies that have made poor decisions based on emotion: a classic is the failure of the 2000 Time Warner - AOL merger, which was partly driven by Time Warner management's fear of being left behind in a digital world. In fact many mergers fail as they are not really motivated by logic but more by fear of being left behind or greed - seeing acquisition as the best way to grow.

So when looking at a competitor, you need to

1. assume that they are behaving logically - try to see things from their perspective
2. consider that they may be acting emotionally, and not basing decisions on fact and logic.

Which of these two applies will depend on the pattern of decision making, the decisions made, and the competitor's management. Part of the job of the CI analyst is to step back from their own emotional perspectives and, dispassionately, look at the competitor and decide what has led to their decisions and strategies: logic or emotion.

I still haven't answered what prompted these thoughts.

Generally I try to understand the opinions and views of people with whom I disagree - and accept that often there is a valid rationale to these views. I fervently disagree with Islamic terrorist groups, and I totally support Israel. At the same time, I understand the view of the Palestinians and believe that they have a case. I understand the Islamic religious view of Hamas that Israel is occupied Islamic land and that only Islamic rule is valid. I don't personally agree with this - but I accept that from some Islamic perspectives (not all) this is logical as it follows some Koranic precepts. So I'm applying my rule above of trying to understand the other side, and looking at things from their perspective.

I can even apply this (with difficulty) to some terrorist actions in Europe and the USA. The attacks on 911 were reprehensible, evil and criminal. However using the above principles I can understand these actions - as they fall into a logical pattern.

1. Western Values represent an attack on Islamic values.
2. Western Values are winning out - even in Islamic society.
3. For Islamic values to triumph, Western values must be destroyed, so that the world realises that it's only true Islamic values that will lead to human peace and happiness.
4. What the West calls terrorism is actually a misnomer - and is, in fact, an attempt by true Muslim believers to alert their own governments to how they've been led astray, while at the same time to destroy the forces that are doing this - leading to a growth in Islamic values and beliefs.
   

What I fail to understand however, is how a follower of any religion can take advantage of people with mental problems and use them for terrorist activity. One of the basic principles behind all religions: Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist... is the protection of less-well-off and weaker members of society. They teach that it is a major sin to take advantage of such people.

The recent bomb attempt in Exeter, England, when an Islamic convert who was reportedly mentally ill, with low IQ and suffering from Aspergers, was so radicalised that he was preparing bombs to use to maim and kill people, suggests that the people behind him were not acting under any religious framework at all - but were driven by emotions only: hatred and fear. Worse, they bring shame on true Islamic believers, and through their actions will lead even more people to see Islam as an evil creed that only destroys and has no respect for the poor, sick and down-trodden. This is false! So called "Imams" who believe that they can recruit victims like poor Nicky Reilly have desecrated Islam and the teachings in the Koran and Hadith, and should be denounced by all true Muslims as false.

New Beginnings

September is an interesting time of the year. It is a time when the Summer is coming to an end, and the leaves are reddening and starting to fall (at least in the Northern Hemisphere - in the Southern it is a time when shoots start to appear, heralding the onset of Summer).

It is also the time when schools restart in the UK. Essentially it is the New Year for education. The astrological sign for the month is the scales or balance - Libra.

So September is a month when things change - and we need to find a balance. A balance between the seasons. A time when the old knowledge gets replaced by the new in the new school term.

In Jewish culture and religion September is also the month of the New Year - when traditionally all mankind is judged and their fortunes for the following year are put on the balance and weighed, based on their good and bad deeds from the preceding year. It is a time when religious Jews pray for forgiveness and apologize for any misdeeds they have done to their fellow human beings as well as to God. As an atonement they give charity - as prayer, repentance and charity can avert adverse Divine decrees and judgements.

Coincidentally, September this year is also the start of Ramadan - the Moslem holy month - where religious Moslems also pray, fast, and give charity.

I'd like to wish all school / college starters success in their studies, Moslems a Ramadan Kareem waMubarak, and Jews a Chatima Tova uMetukah.

May we all be inscribed in the book of
life, health, happiness and prosperity.

Communication

Most CI professionals are familiar with the standard competitive intelligence cycle (although you will often see variations). Typically the steps are given as:

1. planning & direction i.e. the boss - also known as the end-user :-) tells you what is needed and you or they work out how to get it;
2. collection - you follow your plan;
3. processing & analysis - you integrate the gathered information with other information to convert the information into something usable i.e. intelligence;
4. dissemination - you pass back the intelligence to the end-user and hope that they act on it.

Those who know me will know that I disagree with this cycle. There are a number of things wrong with the model - for example:

• the model lacks feedback steps;
• it doesn't integrate with other business processes adequately, such as the strategic/business planning cycles;
• it doesn't allow for serendipitous intelligence gathering crucial for effective early warning systems.

There are others, and when I teach CI I always highlight the problems, and also present alternatives. (For example the 4Cs model described in AWARE's brief guide to competitive intelligence)

My focus in this item however is the use of the word dissemination. The Encarta® World English Dictionary defines disseminate as "to distribute or spread something, especially information...". Most other dictionaries give similar definitions. The problem with this word is that it implies that information flows one way - from the collector to the end-user. There is no mention of information - feedback - flowing the other way or laterally throughout the organisation. Effective competitive intelligence needs an information sharing culture where information flows between those who have the intelligence and those who need it - each informing the other. The English word to describe this process is not dissemination, but communication.

The Encarta dictionary has a number of definitions for communication and the verb communicate. Communication is defined as "the exchange of information between individuals, for example, by means of speaking, writing, or using a common system of signs or behavior" while the second definition for communicate is "to transmit or reveal a feeling or thought by speech, writing, or gesture so that it is clearly understood".

Isn't this what we aim to do in competitive intelligence: not to disseminate intelligence without any feedback or even knowing if the intelligence is usable, useful or understood but to communicate it so that both parties clearly understand its impact and importance?

The problem is how to communicate intelligence so that it is understood, and used. That, however, will have to be a topic for a future blog entry.

Management Partrnerships

Last year I wrote a blog entry on leadership. That entry was based on an idea expressed by Rabbi Mendel Lew, and given in one of his weekly synagogue sermons. Today Rabbi Lew gave another sermon which I think has implications for management.

The topic was a strange verse in the Book of Genesis just prior to the creation of Adam's wife, Eve. Genesis chapter 2 verse 18 is generally translated from the original Hebrew as follows: God said, 'It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a compatible helper for him'. Two verses later (verse 20) the same idea comes up. The man named every livestock animal and bird of the sky, as well as all the wild beasts. But the man did not find a helper who was compatible for him. The Hebrew words "ezer kenegdo" are translated as compatible helper or similar variations (e.g. a suitable helper) but a more literal translation would actually be a helper against him or a helper who contradicts him / argues with him. (For linguists - ezer means "helper", while kenegdo means "against him")

So what does this have to do with management. The second verse quoted gives the clue - in that Adam was not actually on his own, as implied in the first verse. Adam had companions - dogs, cats, livestock, etc. However none could advise him or work with him. They were all subordinate to, and dominated by, him.

There are two types of managers

1. those who seek to dominate those around them
2. those who listen to, work with, and respect the opinions of those around them.

The first sort generates "yes men" and "yes women" who dare not question the wisdom and leadership of the manager. The problem with this sort of manager is that if they are wrong they will have nobody to tell them so. They will have helpers - but nobody to tell them when they are wrong, or even to discuss issues objectively. Nobody will risk contradicting such managers - and if such a manager did ask for the opinions of those around them, the answers received would be crafted to correspond to what people thought he/she wanted to hear. Essentially the helpers are a bit like a sheepdog rounding up sheep for the shepherd - very useful, but only so long as everything is straightforward and there are no problems. The moment problems occur, the manager - like the shepherd - will be alone. Essentially this type of manager has nobody to share ideas with: he/she has no peers to listen to, to respect and to view as equals.

For true management and leadership success this is not enough. You also need to hear contradictory opinions and take into account the views of those who disagree with you - who are against you. From the differing opinions you can then develop a balanced viewpoint - and end up making better, more profitable decisions.

In a recent blog entry (Thinking Hats) I suggested that prior to making a decision you look at the problem from six different perspectives, with the sixth being a synthesis of the other five. The same applies to management: to manage successfully you need to consider the opinions and attitudes of those around you. You need an ezer kenegdo whose opinions are seen as equal to your own, so that you can balance your and your peers' views when making decisions.

However this only goes as far as the planning stage. When it comes to action, you need to think as one - and act as one. There should be no scope for different people to pull in contradictory directions. Successful managers should take on board diverse viewpoints, and then come up with rational strategic or tactical decisions that bring people together; that unify the various perspectives; and that lead to coherent actions that fulfill agreed business aims and objectives.

Competitive Intelligence and the small business

I wasn't planning to do another entry so soon after the last one, but felt I had to highlight an excellent article on competitive intelligence in the latest issue of FreePint. The article, entitled DIY Detection: Competitive Intelligence for SMEs is by the Australian based consultant, Vernon Prior, and gives a very comprehensive description of how to do CI on a low budget. (I wrote an article several years ago for the sadly defunct Competia newsletter on a similar topic - you can still read the article Competitive Intelligence on a Small Budget but unfortunately many of the suggested links for Internet research are now dead or no longer offer the same material).

Vernon's article covers all aspects of CI - from what to look for, how to look for it, and what to do with the intelligence when you've found it. He discusses both secondary and primary sources and concludes with brief guidelines on actually setting up a CI operation. A well written article, that beats mine in its depth and comprehensiveness - taking account of the limited word count available for such articles.

Another site of interest to Competitive Intelligence specialists is Jens Thieme's Competitive Intelligence & Marketing Intelligence Resources & Tools web-site at www.markintell.com. This - still growing - resource for all aspects of CI, includes some excellent articles on CI and related disciplines and Vernon is a contibutor/member of the site.