Читать книгу Foxy Futurists and how to become one - Clem Sunter - Страница 7

The difference between conventional scenario planners and foxy futurists is that the former are content to end with the scenarios and congratulate themselves on a job well done. It’s very much an academic exercise. The latter realise that scenario formulation is only half the task. The other half is discovering the best course of action and then putting it into effect. Foxy futurists are doers – not just thinkers. A classic example was a large company that recently asked me to advise them on a political scenario exercise. I gave them the name of the person who I thought should facilitate the exercise, but I also emphasised that they should put as much effort into disseminating the scenarios as in writing them. Alas, that has not happened. Pierre Wack, the finest futurist in the second half of the last century, once said to me that the only value in a scenario lies in what you do with it. In the middle of 2007, Chantell Ilbury and I were encouraging our clients to look at their options to combat the Hard Times scenario after we had raised the probability to 50%. Some of them were foxy and implemented changes to their strategy before the meltdown in 2008 and 2009. This did not just apply to businesses that took measures to protect their cash flows and balance sheets; it also applied to individuals who recalibrated their investment portfolios by moving into more conservative asset classes.

At a strategic workshop that I facilitated for a property development company several years ago, I emphasised that you cannot just play scenarios on future possibilities. You have to consider your options in light of the scenarios and then decide what you are going to do about the situation.

The CEO, who was Jewish, nodded his head and related the following story: “My grandfather was a profitable tailor in Munich in the 1930s. He attended a speech by Adolf Hitler in the Munich square in 1934. He came away with a distinct impression that this man was going to do awful things to the Jewish population in Germany, much worse than what had already happened.

“He played the downside scenario. But it didn’t end there. He went home and discussed his anxieties with his family. Collectively, they decided to leave Germany immediately, eventually ending up in America. And that is why I am here today.”

That story has always stuck in mind in that it epitomises the difference between foxes and the rest. Just like the animal, which survives on its speed of response to the opportunities and threats that present themselves in the forest, the human version converts thoughts into action faster than any other sample making up humankind. So it is not just about having a sensitive radar system picking up signals from the external environment; you need to be fleet of foot as well. First movers never suffer as much as those that procrastinate.

Picking up from last week’s article on foxy futurists, I want to describe the extra arrow that Chantell Ilbury and I believe you should have in your quiver and which is an essential part of the matrix we introduced in The Mind of a Fox. Once you have established the scenarios that can play out in the external environment and applied subjective probabilities, you must move on to examining the practical implications of the scenarios for yourself, your family, your company – whatever.

We use a chart that has percentage probability on the vertical axis and potential impact on the horizontal axis. We then post each scenario on the chart, its position reflecting the relative probability that the client gives to the scenario and the estimated impact in terms of opportunities and threats. Low probability/low impact scenarios are put on one side. They are an interesting dot on the radar screen, but nothing more can be done about them at this stage.

As for the rest of the scenarios, we ask the clients to live through them like pilots in a simulation chamber. What are your strategic and tactical options, and which ones are best? We go through the drills one by one and then ask a critical question in the case of a threat: is there anything you want to do right now to moderate the impact of the scenario or take it out of play altogether?

Then, of course, comes the hardest part of all – acting on your decisions, like the Jewish tailor. Who is going to do what by when to get the show on the road? An interesting example is the set of South African scenarios we put on the table at the moment: staying in the Premier League, to which we attach a 70% probability; being relegated to the Second Division, to which we attach a 30% probability; and becoming a Failed State, to which we attach zero probability, treating it as a cautionary tale.

Some of our clients are more pessimistic than we are about the future of South Africa, so we invite them to come up with their own probabilities. We then ask them to specify exactly what actions they would take in the second and third scenario, and whether – to be consistent with their pessimism – they should be doing something immediately to contain or pre-empt the threat.

It’s a tough conversation because it is taking people way out of their comfort zone. But actions, as was the case in Munich in 1934, speak louder than words. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and that demands immediate evacuation.