Читать книгу The Fox Trilogy - Chantell Ilbury - Страница 12

This brings us to the essential purpose of this book which is to analyse how a fox thinks and acts. If, after the brief bout of introspection we recommended you undertake earlier on, you decided you were a 24-carat hedgehog, the material that follows attempts to persuade you to become a fox. If, however, all things considered, the mirror responded that you were already a fox, don’t stop reading – chances are that we can improve your mental processes so that you become an even more effective fox.

You may well ask: can you ever turn a hedgehog into a fox? The answer is: retrench him and see! But, seriously, in this day and age of more and more people having to work for themselves, necessity is the mother of invention and even the most stolid hedgehogs have to change. And it’s never too late, as the large preponderance of silver foxes who would otherwise have been retired can testify. The more interesting question is whether any foxes become hedgehogs. The answer is plenty, for – as you will see – it’s much harder staying at the top than getting there in the first place. Entrepreneurs who are foxy whilst they are building up their businesses turn into the most reprehensible hedgehogs once they’ve accumulated the money, the power and the prestige. The trouble comes when a fox starts believing too much in his own judgement and in his own press. Hunger is replaced by laziness. Overconfidence ousts self-questioning and self-criticism. Success breeds complacency and complacency breeds hedgehogs. Thus, the humble fox who took nothing for granted in the beginning becomes an arrogant hedgehog in the end who has delusions of grandeur and knows he’s right. And we all know pride comes before the fall. That’s why so few businesses last fifty years. Those that start out as losers go bankrupt first; and the majority of those that start out as winners are subsequently killed by their success. Besides being sophisticated, God is also a Great Equaliser!

Long-term success in the commercial sphere is therefore a rarity. You can see the truth of this statement also in the field of sport and the arts, where you can count the truly great in any category on one hand. They are individuals who don’t just make it to the summit – they stay there for a long time because they never lose the edge. Examples are Pele in football; Gareth Edwards in rugby; Donald Bradman in cricket; Mohammed Ali in boxing; Carl Lewis in athletics; Pete Sampras and Martina Navratilova in tennis; Jack Nicklaus in golf; Margot Fonteyn and Rudolf Nureyev in ballet; Charles Dickens in literature; John Gielgud in films and Picasso in art. Then there were The Beatles: they not only dominated the 1960s but are still No. I, which happens to be the title of their latest album of original hits. Being a champion does not exclude going through a bad patch. But you bounce back – like André Agassi and comeback kid Jennifer Capriati who both won the 2001 Australian Open tennis championship. Will Tiger Woods join this star-studded cast of foxes? Only time will tell.

Before introducing our foxy matrix, a word of caution. We do not want this book to be lumped in the same category as all those heavy management treatises incorporating matrices which offer the ultimate solution for the readers’ happiness. Our matrix is neither the be-all and end-all of business, nor is it a shatteringly brilliant new concept to take your breath away. Rather, as we will demonstrate, it sets out in a simple fashion how human beings naturally think in their pristine, foxy state – before they’ve been conned into accepting some artificially rigid thinking device marketed as the new way to plan strategically ahead.

Our matrix has two axes: the horizontal one portrays certainty and uncertainty and the vertical one control and the absence of control. These two axes yield four quadrants: the bottom right-hand one represents things that are certain but outside our control. Then going clockwise, the bottom left-hand one encompasses things that are both uncertain and outside our control; the top left-hand one things which are uncertain but within our control; and the top right-hand one things which are certain and within our control.

Quite a large number of people never stray from a particular quadrant. Those who restrict themselves to the first quadrant tend to be fatalists who know what’s going to happen, but feel they cannot do anything about it. People keeping to the second quadrant are dice-rollers who believe that everything in life happens purely by chance. The third quadrant is inhabited by fence-sitters who feel a certain sense of control, but are eternally ambivalent. They meet themselves coming the other way in arguments. The fourth and last quadrant is occupied by the control freaks who know exactly what is going to happen because they believe that they are totally in control. This is where most of the hedgehogs sit.

Foxes are none of these species but borrow from all of them. You can’t box a fox! Hence, the matrix has to be modified to the one below.

The most important aspect of the newly constituted matrix follows Sherlock Holmes’s line of thinking: first eliminate the impossible before concentrating on the possible. To put it slightly differently, if you want to be truly in charge of your destiny, you first require to know your limitations and be humbler than you think. Hence, the lower layer of the matrix which many people ignore lays a solid foundation for effective thinking in the upper part.

The first quadrant now represents the rules of the game – things that are certain and over which we have no control. The second quadrant has two components: key uncertainties over which we also have no control; and plausible and relevant scenarios derived from these uncertainties, though the scenarios must be vivid and different enough to take us out of the comfort zone. The third quadrant is now identified with the options presented by the scenarios. The formulation of options is crucial and allows us to operate with more control in an uncertain environment. The fourth quadrant is the area where decisions are made based on the preferred scenario and linked to the preferred option. It is also the quadrant where strategic plans and programmes of action should be located, as these are really decision paths formulated in advance. The term “scenario planning” normally denotes the processes one goes through in the first two quadrants. “Rules of the game” are sometimes called “predetermined elements” and “key uncertainties” are “driving forces”. Otherwise, nothing is different in terms of the methodology.

Instead of the more restrictive, cognitive model used by hedgehogs that operates solely on the right-hand side of the matrix, this model goes beyond such linear thinking. Handling uncertainty in a systematic and realistic manner provides a real competitive advantage to companies that want to be imaginative; it paves the way for a strategic conversation about the future without reams of paperwork and computer runs being required in advance; it serves up strategic insights without getting mired down in too much detail and it is comprehensive without being pretentious.

Our matrix, in essence, represents the mind of the fox. The model also partially answers the question why scenario planning has failed to catch on in the corporate world in the same way that strategic planning has. CEOs abhor uncertainty. They can’t stand ambiguity and ambivalence. Their attitude is encapsulated in that famous phrase “give me a one-armed economist that doesn’t say ‘on the one hand and on the other’”. However, the fault also lies with the scenario planners themselves who sometimes come across as intellectuals in an ivory tower, using precious language which is out of touch with the shop floor.

The model may sound complicated with plenty of bells and whistles: but it’s not. In practice, we work through the matrix and draw scenarios every day of our lives. Imagine the following situation: you are driving down a main road and there is a crossroads ahead. You are on the main road, and logic and law dictate that you have the right of way. This can be referred to as the rule of the game. However, on the minor road travelling at right angles to you and towards the intersection is another vehicle that, theoretically, should stop. This action is out of your control, cannot be guaranteed and is, therefore, uncertain. This is a key uncertainty. In your mind you play out different scenarios:

1.The driver of the other car sees you and slows to a halt, allowing you to travel through safely.

2.The driver of the other car doesn’t see you, drives straight through the intersection, and you have a near miss.

3.The driver of the other car doesn’t see you, drives straight through the intersection and you crash.

Based on the scenarios, you have a number of options:

1.Maintain your speed on the assumption that the driver is eventually going to see you.

2.Slow down because you worry that the driver is not going to see you.

3.Speed up in the hope that you may get through the intersection before the other car arrives.

Options 1 and 3 may result in a crash, whereas option 2 won’t. These options will influence your decision. In a matter of seconds, you have just worked through the matrix. If you have a cautious temperament, you’ll choose option 2. If you don’t, you’ll go for 1 or 3.

Another situation we have all been in when we were young, and when the matrix is definitely used, is the telephone call asking someone out on a first date. The rules of the game are simple: you have no chance at all if you don’t talk to your intended date; if you come on too strong, you may put him/her off; but if you act too casual, you may not get the message across. The key uncertainty is simple: you don’t know how the person on the other end of the phone is going to react to anything you say. The scenarios are infinite because the conversation can go in any direction. The options are to take the leap and ask up front; or start cautiously, see how the land lies and possibly pop the question of a date later on. And then you decide, intellectually or impulsively, what to do. It brings to mind rose-petal scenarios of the type “she loves me, she loves me not” as a young lover pulls each petal off the flower!

Further down the line, the matrix is an excellent way of judging whether you want to enter into matrimony with the lady or gentleman in question. The rules of the game can be summed up in the wedding vow you make to your partner “to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part”. The key uncertainty is whether you do indeed continue to love each other or grow estranged. In the first case, you don’t have to consider options for you will stay together. In the second case, the options are clear: stick together and make the marriage work or part company with possible repercussions on the kids if any. Couples in the second category have to decide for themselves which course of action is right. And they often reverse their decisions.